The Mitzvah of Eating Maror
[a] (Halacha 515)
The Torah states in Parshas Bo1: 'וְאָכְלוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה צְלִי אֵשׁ וּמַצּוֹת עַל מְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ' ("And they shall eat the meat on this night, roasted over fire, with matzos and bitter herbs they shall eat it"). And in Parshas Beha'aloscha2, regarding Pesach Sheni: 'בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ' ("In the second month, on the fourteenth day, in the afternoon, they shall make it; with matzos and bitter herbs they shall eat it").
From these two verses we see the mitzvah of eating that was practiced at the time the Beis HaMikdash existed, which included eating the korban Pesach, matzah, and maror.
However, the Rishonim disagreed regarding the nature of eating maror in the Beis HaMikdash. Some say that eating maror is part of the mitzvah of eating the korban Pesach, as the Ramban3 wrote there: 'And it is more correct to say that "and matzos" connects to what precedes — "and they shall eat the meat and matzos" — and Scripture then repeats and commands "with bitter herbs they shall eat it" regarding the aforementioned meat. Behold, He commanded regarding the eating of the meat and the eating of the matzos, and did not command regarding the eating of the bitter herbs; He only said that they shall eat the meat with bitter herbs, indicating that there is no mitzvah in the bitter herbs except to eat the meat with them, and at a time when there is no meat there is no mitzvah in the bitter herbs. And they also do not invalidate the meat: if one ate the Pesach and did not eat bitter herbs, he has fulfilled his obligation of Pesach, for the mitzvah of Pesach is like the mitzvah of matzah — each one is a command in its own right.'
But some wrote that even at the time of the Beis HaMikdash this was a mitzvah in its own right, as appears also from the words of the Semak4: 'To eat maror on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan at the time the Pesach existed is a mitzvah from the Torah, as it is written "with matzos and bitter herbs they shall eat it," and that is at the time the Beis HaMikdash exists; but nowadays it is rabbinic5.'
[Regarding the view of the Rambam, the poskim noted that there is seemingly a contradiction in his words6, and some explained7 that there are two categories — the mitzvah of maror, and the obligation of maror. According to the Rambam, the mitzvah of eating maror is part of the mitzvah of eating the Pesach, but in addition to this there is [at the time of the Beis HaMikdash] an obligation to eat maror even without the Pesach, and that is why he wrote that an areil is obligated in the eating of maror.]
However, now, in the time of exile, when we are unable to offer the korban Pesach, it is explained in the words of the Gemara and the poskim that the mitzvah of eating maror is now not from the Torah but rabbinic, whereas the mitzvah of eating matzah is even now from the Torah, as the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim8 states: 'Rava said: matzah nowadays is from the Torah, and maror is rabbinic. — And in what way is maror different? Because it is written "with matzos and bitter herbs": at a time when there is a Pesach there is maror, and at a time when there is no Pesach there is no maror. But matzah too — is it not written "with matzos and bitter herbs"! — Matzah, Scripture repeats it: "in the evening you shall eat matzos" .. It was taught in a braisa in accordance with Rava .. I have this only at the time the Beis HaMikdash exists; at a time when the Beis HaMikdash does not exist, from where [do we know]? The Torah teaches "in the evening you shall eat matzos" — Scripture established it as an obligation.'
Thus we have seen from the words of the Gemara that the obligation of eating matzah differs from the obligation of eating maror: when there is no korban Pesach, the obligation of matzah remains from the Torah, but the obligation of eating maror is rabbinic9.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe10: 'The mitzvah of maror from the Torah is only at a time when the Pesach is eaten, as it is stated "with matzos and bitter herbs they shall eat it"; but nowadays it is only from the words of the Sofrim, who instituted it as a remembrance of the Mikdash11. But the obligation of eating matzah on the first night, even nowadays, is from the Torah, as it is stated "in the evening you shall eat matzos," and no Pesach is mentioned there.'
★ ★ ★
Does the mitzvah of relating the Exodus from Egypt depend on the Torah obligation of matzah and maror?
Answer: It is stated in the Mechilta12, and is also fixed in the text of the Haggadah: 'וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ ("And you shall tell your son"). I might understand [that this applies] from Rosh Chodesh; the Torah teaches "on that day." If "on that day," I might think while it is still daytime; the Torah teaches "for the sake of this" — at the time when matzah and maror are set before you [on your table].'
And some have noted that from this language it appears that the obligation is at the time when there is matzah and maror; and if so, seemingly when there is no maror from the Torah there is no obligation of relating [the Exodus] from the Torah, as Rabbi Y. Perla13 wrote: 'And apart from this, according to that sugya it is difficult for me: that which is taught in the Mechilta there, "for the sake of this — at the time when matzah and maror are set before you," implies that it made the mitzvah of relating the Exodus dependent also on maror; and now, since we hold that maror nowadays is rabbinic, and all agree on this and there is none who disputes to say that maror nowadays is from the Torah, then we should say that the mitzvah of relating the Exodus nowadays is not from the Torah. Yet it is possible to say that maror was not stated precisely, but was mentioned incidentally along with matzah, for in that passage no maror is mentioned at all, only matzah alone; and if so, the matter does not depend on maror but on matzah alone. Therefore, according to us, who hold that matzah nowadays is from the Torah, also the relating of the Exodus is from the Torah, even though maror is rabbinic — and this is not the place to elaborate further on this.'
But the Rebbe in the Haggadah14 wrote to explain: 'Matzah and maror set [before you]. At the time of the Pesach they would say: that Pesach, matzah, and maror are set before you .. but it must be that even one of them suffices to obligate one in the relating of the Exodus, for the Haggadah nowadays is from the Torah even though it is not for the Pesach, and maror is only rabbinic ..'.
Thus we have seen that although at a time when there is no korban Pesach the obligation of eating maror is only rabbinic, nevertheless the obligation of matzah and the Haggadah is from the Torah.
--------------
Notes:
1 Ch. 12, v. 8 ↩
2 Ch. 9, v. 11 ↩
3 Parshas Bo ↩
4 Mitzvah 220 ↩
5 And see Shu"t Avnei Nezer OC §534, who wrote: 'Consequently, according to the view of Rashi and Tosafos mentioned above, and the Mechilta and Yalkut before us .. maror is counted as a mitzvah in its own right.' ↩
6 Because in Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7:12 he wrote: 'The eating of maror is not a mitzvah from the Torah in its own right, but is dependent on the eating of the Pesach,' and see also the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 56. On the other hand, in Hilchos Korban Pesach 9:8 he ruled that an areil, who does not eat the korban Pesach, must nonetheless eat maror. And see what his son Rabbi Avraham wrote on this in Maaseh Nissim §6 ↩
7 See Tzofnas Paneach, Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7:12, and Kuntres HaShlamah, omission 1. And see also what the Rebbe wrote in the Haggadah with Likkutei Ta'amim U'Minhagim, s.v. 'Tzafun,' and Igros Kodesh vol. 15 p. 41 ↩
8 120a ↩
9 And see the words of the Ramban there, that one may explain by this also the verse in Parshas Bo, that "with bitter herbs" was stated only regarding the meat; and see also the Rebbe's Haggadah, Korech, s.v. 'al matzos' ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch OC 475:15 ↩
11 See Hilchos Leil HaSeder on the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Ashkenazi) vol. 2 p. 152, 15, note 3, who cited a chain of Rishonim as a source for the Alter Rebbe's words that the Sages' enactment to eat maror is a remembrance of the Mikdash ↩
12 D'Rabbi Yishmael, Bo, ch. 17 ↩
13 Commentary on the Sefer HaMitzvos of Rasag, positive commandment 33 ↩
14 Maggid, s.v. 'matzah u'maror munachim' ↩
[b] (Halacha 516)
Question: Which vegetable must one take for the eating of maror?
Answer: It is stated in the Mishnah in Maseches Pesachim1: 'These are the vegetables with which a person fulfills his obligation on Pesach: with chazeres, with tamcha, with charchavina, with ulshin, and with maror.'
And the Gemara there explains what these vegetables are: 'Chazeres — chasa. Ulshin — hindvi. Tamcha — Rabbah bar bar Chana said: its name is tamchesa. Charchavina — Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: atzvasa d'dikla (palm-fibre). And maror — merirta.'
And further on, the Gemara brought Amoraim who added other names of ground-grown plants with which a person fulfills his obligation of maror. And in a braisa there we find a dispute among the Tannaim on the matter: 'Rabbi Yehudah says: any [vegetable] that has sap. Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: any whose surface turns pale. Others say: [any] bitter vegetable has sap and its surface turns pale. — Rabbi Yochanan said: from the words of all of them we learn: a bitter vegetable has sap and its surface turns pale. Rav Huna said: the halacha is like Others.'
In practice, the Rishonim disagreed regarding the words of the Gemara: (a) whether one fulfills the obligation with any pungent vegetable; (b) whether one fulfills the obligation only with these five species2:
(a) Rashi in his commentary on the Torah3 wrote: 'On bitter herbs — every bitter herb is called maror4.' And so wrote the Chinuch5: 'And likewise that which they explained regarding the bitter herbs, that every bitter herb is included in the "bitter herbs" that Scripture mentioned, and that a person fulfills his obligation with all of them, because the command to us regarding maror is a remembrance of "and they embittered their lives," and with every bitter herb the matter is recalled.' And so wrote the Meiri6: 'And maror means to say the entire category of bitter herbs.' And in Maseches Sukkah7 he wrote: 'The chazeres found in a marsh is included in chazeres for fulfilling one's obligation on Pesach, and not only to fulfill [it], for indeed with every bitter herb one fulfills the obligation of maror, but from what they said "the mitzvah is with chazeres," this too is included in chazeres to fulfill with it the mitzvah of chazeres.' And see also the view of the Ra'ah cited in the Ritva8.
(b) The Rambam wrote9: 'The bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah are the chazeres, the ulshin, the tamcha, the charchavina, and the maror; each one of these five species of vegetable is called maror.' It emerges according to his words that one fulfills the obligation only with one of these five species10. And so wrote other Rishonim as well11.
Now the Agur12 wrote: 'Maharil ruled: one who has no chazeres should take maror, which is la'anah (wormwood)13. And the author of Sefer Agudah wrote that one should take tamcha, which is called in la'az rafano — the stalk and the leaves, but not the root.'
And in Sefer HaMinhagim (Klausner)14 he wrote: 'And Maharam says: in a place where there is no lettuce on Pesach, one takes la'anah, which is called in the vernacular "wermut," for the purpose of maror, or any other thing that is bitter — so ends the language of the Tashbetz.'
And in practice the Mechaber15 ruled like the view of the Rambam and wrote: 'These are the vegetables with which one fulfills his obligation: chazeres, ulshin, tamcha, charchavina, maror ..'.
But the Rema in his gloss wrote: 'And if one does not have one of these vegetables, he should take la'anah or another bitter herb (Agur).'
However, the Magen Avraham16 wrote in the name of the Shach: 'These are his words — from the Gemara it is proven that one fulfills only with those enumerated in the Mishnah .. and accordingly, with another bitter herb he should eat without a bracha, and the words of the Rav [Rema] require examination — so ends the language.'
And the Alter Rebbe17 wrote: 'These are the vegetables with which a person fulfills his obligation of maror: with chazeres .. with ulshin .. with tamcha .. with charchavina .. and with maror .. because the Torah states "maror" without qualification, and the Sages received a tradition that no bitter vegetable is called by the unqualified name "maror" except these five species of vegetable.'
And further in his words he wrote18: 'And if one does not have even maror, he should take whatever bitter herb he wishes, because some say19 that every bitter herb fit to be eaten is called maror in the language of the Torah, provided it has sap (meaning: when one cuts it and squeezes it at the place of the cut, a white liquid like milk comes out of it) and its surface turns pale — that is, its leaf is not very green like the leaves of leeks and onions and other vegetables, but tends somewhat toward a whiteness that tends toward blackness .. Nevertheless, one should not recite a bracha over them, for the main [ruling] is like the first opinion. (And if one does not have a vegetable that has sap and whose surface turns pale, it is good that he eat some other vegetable that has a bit of bitterness, merely for a remembrance, and it need not be a kezayis; and likewise) one who is ill or delicate and cannot eat maror — it is good that he chew a little until he feels the taste of bitterness in his mouth, merely for a remembrance, without a bracha; and this is when it is completely impossible for him. But a person is obligated to press himself to fulfill the mitzvah of the Sages to eat a full kezayis, even if it causes him pain.'
Thus in practice the main [ruling] is that one fulfills the obligation specifically with the five species enumerated in the Mishnah; but if one does not have [them], he should take another type of bitter herb, though he should not recite a bracha over it.
--------------
Notes:
1 39a ↩
2 And the words of "Others" in the braisa mean only that they explained what is included in the vegetable called maror ↩
3 Bo 12, 8 ↩
4 However, in the Magen Avraham OC §473, note 15, he wrote: 'And also regarding Rashi's intent it appears to me that everything is called maror, but nevertheless one fulfills only with those that were called maror at the time of the giving of the Torah; therefore one should not recite a bracha over other vegetables.' ↩
5 Mitzvah 381 ↩
6 In his commentary on the Mishnah there ↩
7 13a ↩
8 Pesachim 39a ↩
9 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7:13, and so he wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah 2:6 ↩
10 And see also the Yerushalmi, Pesachim 2:5. And in the Yerushalmi, Megillah 4:1: 'Rabbi Yonah and Rabbi Yirmiyah — one would seek [i.e., cite] "matzos" and the other would seek "unleavened bread with vegetables," and he would say "unleavened bread with bitter herbs."' And the Korban HaEidah explained: 'And the other of them .. sent back to the translator who translated "and matzos with bitter herbs they shall eat it" as "unleavened bread with vegetables," from which one would infer that every bitter vegetable is fit for maror, and sent it back, that he must translate "unleavened bread with bitter herbs," from which one infers that one fulfills only with a vegetable whose name is maror and which has no accompanying qualifier.' And see Shu"t Afarkasta DeAnya vol. 1 §5, who elaborated on the words of the Yerushalmi ↩
11 See Ritva there. And see also the Rif, Pesachim 11b; Rosh ch. 2 §19; Tur OC §473 ↩
12 Hilchos Leil Pesach §803 ↩
13 And it seems that the Rema, in the Darkei Moshe note 6 and in the gloss to the Shulchan Aruch, held that his intent is that la'anah is not among the five species, and nonetheless one should take it when he has none [of the five]. However, see the Magen Avraham note 15 ↩
14 §114, gloss 2 ↩
15 §473:5 ↩
16 There, note 15 ↩
17 Shulchan Aruch OC 473:27 ↩
18 Se'if 31 ↩
19 In the source references, [the reference] is noted to Rav Huna in the Gemara, who ruled like "Others" ↩
[c] (Halacha 517)
Question: Is there a particular type of vegetable that is preferable for maror?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 states: 'Ravina found Rav Acha the son of Rava seeking after merirta. He said to him: What is your reasoning — that it is more bitter? But we learned "chazeres" in the Mishnah, and the school of Shmuel taught "chazeres," and Rabbi Oshaya said: the mitzvah is with chazeres [= the mitzvah is with chazeres, as the reason is explained according to Rava and Rabbi Yonasan. Rashi], and Rava said: what is chazeres? Chasa. What is chasa? That the Merciful One had compassion (chas) upon us. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan: why were the Egyptians compared to maror? To tell you: just as this maror, whose beginning is soft and whose end is hard, so too the Egyptians — their beginning was soft and their end was hard. He said to him: I retract.'
Now from the plain meaning of the Gemara, "the mitzvah is with chazeres"2, it appears that there is an advantage and merit in taking chazeres for the maror [both because of Rava's words that chasa is from the expression that the Holy One had compassion upon us, and because of Rabbi Yonasan's words that chasa symbolizes the enslavement, whose beginning was soft and whose end was hard]; and so it appears from the words of Rashi. And so wrote the Ra'avyah3: 'And just as chazeres, which was taught first in the Mishnah, one seeks after first among all of them.' And so wrote the Semak4: 'And people are accustomed [to use] chasa, for the Merciful One had compassion (chas) upon us and redeemed us.' And in the Hagahos Rabbeinu Peretz he wrote: 'And where there is no chasa, they are accustomed to take tzirofolio in la'az, which is the merirta explained in the Talmud as [Rashi] explained in his commentary; but nevertheless it is good to seek after chasa, for the reason we stated, even to purchase [it] at a high price.' And so wrote the Tur5: 'And the essence of this mitzvah is with chazeres.'
However, the Beis Yosef6 wondered about the Rambam, who omitted the law of the preference of chazeres over maror, and explained that according to the Rambam perhaps there is no advantage of chazeres over maror, but rather chazeres and maror are equal. These are his words: 'Perhaps he explains "the mitzvah is also with chazeres," even though it is sweet and has no bitterness.' And he wrote that so it appears from the words of Rabbeinu Yerucham7, who wrote: 'The mitzvah is with chazeres, and one need not seek after the maror more, and this is clear as I have written.'
Now the aforementioned Rishonim, who held that "the mitzvah is with chazeres" means that chazeres is the choicest of all the pungent vegetables, wrote that such is the law8 also regarding the other vegetables enumerated in the Mishnah, whose importance was recorded according to the order in the Mishnah in descending order — that is, chazeres is preferable, and if one does not have it he should take ulshin9, and if he does not have it he should take tamcha, and if he does not have it he should take charchavina, and if he does not have it he should take maror.
As the Ra'avyah wrote there: 'And just as chazeres, which was taught first in the Mishnah, one seeks after it first among all of them, so too where chazeres is not available, one seeks first after ulshin, for whatever comes earlier in the Mishnah comes earlier for maror.' And so wrote the Hagahos Maimoniyos10: 'And if there is no chazeres, one seeks after ulshin, and whatever comes earlier in the Mishnah comes earlier for eating.' And so wrote the Tur there: 'And these are the vegetables with which one fulfills the obligation of maror: chazeres, ulshin, tamcha, charchavina, and maror; and one fulfills [the obligation] with their leaves and with their stalks — except that with the leaves one fulfills only if they are moist, while with the stalks one fulfills whether moist or dry, but not pickled, nor boiled, nor cooked; and all of them combine to a kezayis, which is their measure; and the essence of this mitzvah is with chazeres; and if one does not have chazeres, he seeks after each one in turn according to the order in which they are taught in the Mishnah.'
And the Maharil11 wrote that this is not an agreed-upon matter, for some ruled to give precedence according to the order in the Mishnah, but some wrote that after chazeres the maror is preferable. These are his words: 'And one who does not have chazeres — some of my teachers [ruled] that whatever comes earlier in our Mishnah comes earlier for the mitzvah, as above; and there the four are mentioned in the gloss in Maimoni in the Ashkenazi vernacular. And the Tashbetz wrote to take "wermut," which is the maror of our Mishnah. And it appears to me that his reasoning is because the one who said in the Gemara that he was seeking after merirta, that it is more bitter, was refuted there in the Gemara with the reasoning that chazeres is preferable — implying that if there is no chazeres, merirta comes first.'
And in practice the Mechaber12 wrote: 'These are the vegetables with which one fulfills his obligation: chazeres, ulshin, tamcha, charchavina, maror .. and the essence of the mitzvah is with chazeres. And if one does not have chazeres, he seeks after each one in turn, according to the order in which they are taught.'
However, the Pri Chadash there wrote: 'And it is not clear to me, for we bring in the Talmud [Pesachim there] the braisos of Bar Kappara and the school of Shmuel, which did not teach the vegetables in the order taught in the Mishnah — implying that they have no [fixed] order.'
But in practice the Alter Rebbe13 ruled like the Mechaber: 'Even though all these five species are called maror in the language of the Torah, nevertheless from the words of the Sofrim it is a mitzvah to seek after chazeres even to purchase it at a high price, in the manner that will be explained in §656 regarding a beautiful esrog, see there14. And even though chazeres has no bitterness, nevertheless when it remains in the ground its stalk hardens and becomes very bitter, and for this reason it is called maror; and it is a mitzvah to seek after it even when it is sweet, because the mitzvah of maror is a remembrance of how the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers with backbreaking labor — they first enslaved them gently, through persuasion, and gave them wages, and in the end they embittered their lives with hard labor; therefore one should eat chazeres, whose beginning is sweet and soft and whose end is hard and bitter — that is, when its stalk hardens like wood and becomes bitter as la'anah. And if one does not have chazeres, he seeks after ulshin; and if he does not have ulshin, he seeks after tamcha; and if he does not have tamcha, he seeks after charchavina; and if he does not have charchavina, then he takes the maror, which is la'anah.'
Thus we have seen that there is a preference in taking chazeres15, and if one does not have chazeres he takes the other species according to the order given in the Mishnah, even if it is more expensive; and in the next halacha we will learn what the vegetable called chazeres is.
--------------
Notes:
1 39a ↩
2 See the Pri Chadash §473:5, s.v. 'and that which is written: he seeks after each one in turn' ↩
3 Pesachim §473 ↩
4 Mitzvah 220 ↩
5 OC §473 ↩
6 On the Tur there ↩
7 Nesiv 5, part 4, p. 4 ↩
8 But the Pri Chadash wrote: 'And it is not clear to me .. implying that they have no [fixed] order. However, I concede that the essence of the mitzvah is with chazeres.' ↩
9 This order is not according to the text of the Mishnah in the common printed editions, but it is so in several manuscripts, and so wrote the poskim and the Shulchan Aruch below ↩
10 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah ch. 7, note 20 ↩
11 Shu"t §58 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch OC §473:5 ↩
13 Shulchan Aruch OC §473, se'ifim 30-31 ↩
14 This siman in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe has not reached us. And so wrote the Mechaber, Shulchan Aruch OC §656:1: 'If one bought an esrog that is fit to fulfill [the obligation] with it barely, such as one that is exactly the size of an egg, and afterward found one larger than it, it is a mitzvah to add up to a third of the value of the first, in order to exchange it for a more beautiful one. And there is one who says that if one finds two esrogim to purchase, and one is more beautiful than its fellow, he should take the more beautiful one if they do not raise its price more than a third above the value of its fellow.' ↩
15 In the Shaar HaKolel ch. 48, note 11 (cited by the Rebbe in the Rebbe's Haggadah, Seder HaHaggadah, s.v. 'and beneath the maror the chazeres used for Korech'), he wrote: 'In truth it is a mitzvah to seek after chazeres, which is called "salate," just as after a beautiful esrog, and there is no difference between maror and Korech.' ↩
[d] (Halacha 519)
Question: What is the chazeres mentioned in the Mishnah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 states: 'Rava said: what is chazeres? Chasa. What is chasa? That the Merciful One had compassion (chas) upon us.'
And in identifying this vegetable, the Chacham Tzvi2 wrote [the substance of his words was cited in the words of the Alter Rebbe3]: 'To bring merit to the public in the matter of the mitzvah of eating maror, I have seen that it is good to make known that the chazeres taught in our Mishnah, and in the language of the Sages "chasa," which it is a mitzvah to seek after, since it is the first and foremost taught in our Mishnah, is the vegetable called in the Ashkenazi language "salat", and in the Spanish language "salata," and its proper name is "latuga" in all the languages I have heard in Togarmah, Italy, Ashkenaz, Spain, and Portugal, and in the books of medicine and nature; and they call it "latuga salat," and there is no doubt or hesitation whatsoever about it. And it has the signs stated in the Gemara — sap, and its surface turns pale, and its beginning is soft and its end is hard, and its beginning is sweet and its end is bitter as la'anah. And because in the lands of Ashkenaz and Poland, which are cold, it is not available at the time of Pesach, they were not accustomed to take it for the obligation of the mitzvah of maror; or because they were not expert in the correct interpretation of the names of the vegetables like the people of the lands close to Eretz Yisrael and Bavel, they did not know what it is, and they took the "krein," which is tamcha according to the view of some of the Sages, and a ruin came forth from this, for there are now many ignorant people who do not eat even half a kezayis because of its pungency and because it is harmful when eaten raw, and they nullify the mitzvah of maror; and even those who tremble at the word of Hashem and eat a kezayis of the "krein" endanger themselves with it. For in truth, in a place where chazeres, which is the "altiga salat," is available — such as in the cities of Amsterdam and Hamburg and the other cities of Ashkenaz — even though it is still very small, I call "danger" upon the "krein," and there is no mitzvah in it; and everyone whose heart Hashem has touched should fulfill the mitzvah properly and purchase the "altuga salat" for the purpose of the mitzvah of maror, even if it is expensive. And the vegetable called in Hamburg "indivien" and in Amsterdam "andievi" is the ulshin taught in our Mishnah, and with it too one fulfills the obligation of the mitzvah of maror if "latuga salat" is not available.'
And regarding maror, it is brought in Chazal that at first it is soft and sweet and in the end it hardens and turns bitter. These are the words of the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim there: 'And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan: why were the Egyptians compared to maror? To tell you: just as this maror, whose beginning is soft and whose end is hard, so too the Egyptians — their beginning was soft and their end was hard.' And in the Talmud Yerushalmi4 it is stated: 'Rabbi Chiya in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: essentially the whole matter depends only on chazeres — just as chazeres, whose beginning is sweet and whose end is bitter, so did the Egyptians do to our forefathers in Egypt: at first "in the best of the land he settled your father and your brothers," and afterward "and they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and with bricks."'
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe there: 'And even though chazeres has no bitterness, nevertheless when it remains in the ground its stalk hardens and becomes very bitter, and for this reason it is called maror, and it is a mitzvah to seek after it even when it is sweet, because the mitzvah of maror is a remembrance of how the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers with backbreaking labor, and they enslaved them first gently, through persuasion, and gave them wages, and in the end they embittered their lives with hard labor; therefore one should eat chazeres, whose beginning is sweet and soft and whose end is hard and bitter — that is, when its stalk hardens like wood and becomes bitter as la'anah.'
And indeed some wrote that even in chasa there is a bit of bitterness, as the Levush5 wrote: 'And the essence of the mitzvah is with chazeres, even though it is sweet and does not have as much bitterness as in the other species; nevertheless it was established for the Sages, who knew how to speak in the Holy Tongue better than we, that the essence of the name maror written in the Torah was first placed upon it, and moreover its beginning is sweet and its end is bitter .. and afterward it was borrowed for the others that resemble it in bitterness.'
And see also the Chok Yaakov6: 'And see in the Beis Yosef, who wrote "the mitzvah is with chazeres even though it is sweet and has no bitterness," so end his words. And see there, chapter HaRo'eh, regarding Bar Hedya, who said to Rava "your affair is bitter as chasa," one must say that nevertheless there is a bit of bitterness in it. And in the Aruch [there] he wrote that "chazeres galin" is bitter chasa.'
And the Ridvaz7 wrote: 'It requires examination regarding the responsum of the Chacham Tzvi z"l §119, who validates the vegetable called "salata" for the mitzvah of maror because it has the sign given in the Gemara, "its beginning is soft and its end is hard" — but the "salata" has no taste of bitterness at all, and even maror, when the taste of bitterness has been nullified, one does not fulfill his obligation with it. And perhaps in Hamburg and the cities of Ashkenaz that the Chacham Tzvi z"l mentioned it has a taste of maror, and this requires examination.'
And some wrote that one indeed fulfills the obligation with chasa only after it has become bitter, as the Mishmeres Shalom8 wrote: 'And it appears clearly to me that when it is sweet one does not fulfill the obligation with it at all .. one can say his intent [i.e., the Chacham Tzvi's above] is that one need not wait until the stalk is hard as wood and also bitter as la'anah, but since it has a bit of bitter taste one fulfills with it; but to say that one fulfills with it when it is entirely sweet, since it will afterward be bitter — from where do they [derive] this? It is against the Gemara and the poskim, as I have written.'
But in practice, many of the poskim wrote that there is no deficiency in taking the chasa when it is sweet, even before the stalk has become bitter. As the Beis Yosef wrote: 'The mitzvah is with chazeres even though it is sweet and has no bitterness.' And so wrote the Pri Chadash9: 'And that which he wrote "and the essence of the mitzvah is with chazeres" — meaning, even though it is very sweet and has no bitterness at all, for chazeres is included in maror, and it is named after its end, that its stalk hardens like wood; therefore even when it is sweet one fulfills with it.'
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe there: 'And it is a mitzvah to seek after it even when it is sweet.'
Thus it is a mitzvah to take for the mitzvah of maror the chasa, which is the chazeres, even though it is sweet. In the next halacha we will learn what the tamcha mentioned in the Mishnah is, and that some preferred it, and what the minhag is in practice.
-
Notes:
1 39a ↩
2 Shu"t §119 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch OC §473:27 ↩
4 Pesachim 2:5 ↩
5 OC §473:5 ↩
6 §473, note 18 ↩
7 In his commentary on the Yerushalmi, Berachos 6, 1 ↩
8 §35, note 2 ↩
9 §473:5 ↩
[e] (Halacha 520)
Question: What is the tamcha mentioned in the Mishnah?
Answer: Among the species with which one fulfills the eating of maror, the Mishnah brings tamcha. And the Gemara in Pesachim1 explains: 'Tamcha — Rabbah bar bar Chana said: its name is tamchesa.' [The Leket Yosher2 wrote: 'And there is an allusion to take tamcha, after3 "bi samcha yeminecha" (Your right hand upholds me).' And the Chasam Sofer4 wrote that it is an allusion as an acronym: "Tamid Mesaprim Kevod Kel" (they always relate the glory of G-d).]
And Rashi explained: tamchesa — marubia [in Rashi's la'az he explained that this is the plant called marubion, but see in the words of the Hagahos Maimoniyos below and the words of the Alter Rebbe5, who wrote: 'krein or merettich, and in la'az marubia'].
But in the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah6 it is written: 'A species of the ulshin family, except that it grows in gardens.' And according to this, it is not the garden chazeres7 customary among us today8.
However, several of the Rishonim wrote in explaining the tamcha that it is the chrein (called in the Ashkenazi language "merrettich"), and it is what is today called garden chazeres9.
As the Hagahos Maimoniyos10 wrote: 'Tamcha — meritich in la'az, marbuya.' And the Leket Yosher there added that this is the chrein. These are his words: 'Tamcha — explained in the Hagahos Maimoni that it is meretich, which we call in our lands "krein."'
Also in the Agudah11 he wrote: 'And I saw my teachers seeking after "latuga," and if they did not find it, they take "mirtin"12.'
And so wrote the Maharil13: 'And one who does not have chazeres — some of my teachers [ruled] that whatever comes earlier in our Mishnah comes earlier for the mitzvah, as above; and there the four are mentioned in the gloss in Maimoni in the Ashkenazi language. And the Tashbetz wrote to take "wermut," which is the maror of the Mishnah. And it appears to me that his reasoning is because the one who said in the Gemara that he was seeking after merirta, that it is more bitter, was refuted there in the Gemara with the reasoning that chazeres is preferable — implying that if there is no chazeres, merirta comes first. And the Agudah wrote that "meretich" is the tamcha of the Mishnah14.'
[And indeed we find in the words of other Rishonim (who did not mention that it is the tamcha, but) who noted the minhag to take garden chazeres, as written in the Shu"t Mahari Weil15 in the name of the Agudah: 'And if he takes meretich.' And so wrote Sefer HaMinhagim (Tirna)16: 'And he takes "latuch" or "krein," its stalks or its leaves.']
And so wrote the great Acharonim, as the Tosfos Yom Tov17 wrote: 'Tamcha .. and we are accustomed to interpret tamcha as what is called in the Ashkenazi language "krein." And so it is well-known in the words of the Acharonim, may their memory be for a blessing'18.
And so wrote the Magen Avraham there: 'Tamcha — krein, and in the Ashkenazi language "merttich."' And the Chacham Tzvi19 wrote: 'The krein, which is tamcha according to the view of some of the Sages.'
And the Chok Yaakov there wrote: 'And tamcha — Rashi explained "marubia," and in the Aruch [entry "tamcha"] "kardo," and some say "maruyu." And the Acharonim wrote that it is what is called in the Ashkenazi language "krein" or "merttich," and so wrote the Tosfos Yom Tov, and see there what he objected regarding Rav Ovadiah Bartenura there; and so the minhag has spread in these countries, to take the krein for maror, and one recites the bracha over the leaves, and takes the stalk for Korech.'
And in practice the Alter Rebbe there also wrote that the chrein is the tamcha. These are his words: 'With tamcha (which is called krein or merettich, and in la'az marubia).'
Thus we have seen that there are among the Rishonim who explained that the tamcha mentioned in the Mishnah is garden chazeres, called chrein. And many Rishonim wrote that they were accustomed to use this for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of maror.
Tomorrow we will learn which part of the chrein is fit for use for maror, and whether it is fit to grind it.
Notes:
1 39a ↩
2 OC p. 92 ↩
3 Tehillim 63, 9 ↩
4 In his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch ↩
5 §473:27. And see also the Magen Avraham there, note 11; Chok Yaakov note 18; and in the words of the Pri Megadim in Rosh Yosef, Pesachim 39a: 'Gemara: its name is tamchesa [etc.]. Rashi explained: krein or merettich, which is what we call chrein.' ↩
6 See Rosh Yosef there: 'And see in the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah, [where] he wrote: tamcha, a species of the ulshin family, and it grows in gardens, see there — and we have no clear explanation on this.' But it should be noted that some wrote that this passage is not from the Rambam but a later addition. And see what is referenced in the following note ↩
7 See what Dr. Zohar Amar wrote in his article "The Five Species of Maror" (HaMa'ayan, Nissan 5768), and in his book Merorim (Neveh-Tzuf, 5768). And see Hilchos Chag BeChag, Pesach, p. 358, note 8, and see also Tevuos HaAretz (Schwartz) p. 394 ↩
8 Some noted from the words of the Nimukei Yosef, Pesachim 39a, who wrote: 'And these vegetables — those that have a bit of bitterness. But a very bitter herb, no, for the term "eating" is written regarding matzah and maror' ↩
9 And it should also be noted from the words of Rashi on the Rif, who explains regarding "merirta — miritich." However, he does not explain this regarding the tamcha, but regarding the type "maror," which is likewise one of the five species ↩
10 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7:13 ↩
11 Pesachim ch. 2, §35 ↩
12 "Meretich" in the language of the Rishonim below ↩
13 Shu"t §58 ↩
14 And it should be noted from the words of the Agur, Hilchos Leil Pesach §803: 'And the author of Sefer Agudah wrote that one should take tamcha, which is called in la'az "rafano."' ↩
15 §193 ↩
16 Leil HaSeder, s.v. 'he washes his hands' ↩
17 Pesachim ch. 2, Mishnah 6 ↩
18 And see also in the printer's glosses on the Issur V'Heter HaAruch, gate 38: 'With tamcha, which is called krein in the Ashkenazi language, and in other lands they call it "merrettich."' (Although it is not regarding Pesach, but it explains what tamcha is) ↩
19 Shu"t §119 ↩
[f] (Halacha 521)
In the previous halacha we learned the view of the Rishonim who wrote that the tamcha of the Mishnah is chrein, and that some were accustomed to use it for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of maror.
Question: May one use the root of the garden chazeres, or must one use only the leaves and stalks of the chazeres?
Answer: It is stated in the Mishnah regarding the types of vegetables for maror: 'And one fulfills [the obligation] with their stalk.'
And the Ra'avyah1 wrote: 'And one fulfills with their stalk, but not with the root.' And so [it is written] in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, as the Semag2 wrote: 'And one fulfills with their stalk .. and Rabbeinu Yaakov infers that specifically with the stalk, but one does not fulfill with the root of the maror.'
And so wrote the Agudah3: 'And I saw my teachers seeking after "latuga," and if they did not find it, they take "mirtin." One fulfills with them whether moist or dry — they taught only [that one fulfills with] the stalk, meaning "shtark" — but the leaves, moist yes, dry no; and with their roots one does not fulfill at all'4.
But the Mahari Weil5 wrote: 'In the first chapter of Sukkah it was taught: eizov [is] three stalks with three stems on them; Rashi explained "stalks" [as] roots. For this reason it appears that that which Rabbeinu Tam wrote "and not the roots" means the small roots that branch off this way and that; but the large root in which the vegetable stands is included in "stalk."'
And likewise, on the words of Sefer HaMinhagim (Tirna)6, who wrote 'and not with the roots at all,' the gloss in the Minhagim there, note 107, noted: 'It requires examination regarding the krein, and I have heard that "stalk" is called [everything] down to below its tail, and small shoots come out of them.'
And some indeed took the root, but were careful to take from the part protruding above the surface of the ground, as the Mahari Weil there wrote in the name of the Agudah: 'And if he takes meretich, he should take what is above the ground, such as the leaves and what is close to it, but he should not take what is below the ground, which is the root; and Rabbeinu Tam wrote specifically the stalk, and not the roots.'
And so wrote the Mas'as Binyamin7: 'And I heard in the name of my teacher Maharash the Second, who received from his teachers, that everything that stands in the ground is called "root," and what is above is called "stalk," and so I am accustomed to take from the leaves and a bit of the krein itself, about the thickness of a finger, for this measure is certainly above the ground.'
And so wrote the Shlah8: 'And so it is fitting to conduct oneself in this, for I heard people say in the name of the Gaon Maharar Shachna, who ruled thus, that whatever is under the ground is called "root," and only what comes out above the ground close to the leaves is called "stalk"; therefore, when one takes a kezayis of "krein," he should take the leaves with the top of the "krein" into which the leaves are inserted, thus far (from Likkutei Emek Bracha)'9.
And in practice the Magen Avraham10 wrote: 'Not with the root. These are the words of the Mahariv: if one takes merttich, he should take what is above the ground, such as the leaves and what is close to it, but not what is below the ground, which is the root — so end his words; and so ruled the Mas'as Binyamin and the Shlah. However, before this the Mahariv wrote as follows: in the first chapter of Sukkah we say eizov [is] three stalks with three stems on them, and Rashi explained "stalks" [as] roots; and for this reason it appears that that which Rabbeinu Tam wrote "and not the roots" means small roots that branch off this way and that, but the large root in which the vegetable stands is included in "stalk" — so end his words. And so wrote the Hagahos Minhagim: I have heard that "stalk" is called [everything] down to below its tail, and small shoots come out of them — so end [their words]; and this is the main [ruling].'
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe11: 'These five species combine to a kezayis, and one fulfills with them whether with the leaves or with the stalks, but not with the roots — that is, the small roots that branch off this way and that; but the large root on which the leaves grow, even though it is buried in the ground, is included in "stalk." Nevertheless it is better to take the leaves and the stalk that comes out beyond the ground, because some say that what is buried in the ground is called "root"; but the main [ruling] is like the first opinion.'
Thus one may also use for the mitzvah of maror even the root of the chrein, and not only its leaves. And the Alter Rebbe wrote that it is better to take the leaves and the part of the stalk that comes out12.
Tomorrow we will see the words of the poskim regarding grinding the root of the chrein.
Notes:
1 Pesachim §473 ↩
2 Positive commandments §41 ↩
3 Pesachim ch. 2, §35 ↩
4 And see also the Hagahos Maimoniyos, Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah ch. 7, note 30. And in the Shu"t Maharil §58 ↩
5 Shu"t §193 ↩
6 Leil HaSeder, s.v. 'he washes his hands' ↩
7 Chiddushei Dinim §3 ↩
8 Maseches Pesachim, chapter Ner Mitzvah, §54 ↩
9 And see Kovetz Al Yad, Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7:13: 'And so my master, my father and teacher, the chassid Mahari G"b conducted himself, except that he was accustomed to take also the top, which is called "kepel," and eat it with the krein.' ↩
10 §473, note 12 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch OC §473:28 ↩
12 It is known that, in addition to the chrein presented to the Rebbe, the Rebbe cut another piece from the root portion; but we have not succeeded in ascertaining whether there was a particular insistence that it be specifically the top of the root. However, it is possible that this relates mainly to the topic of the next halacha, in the discussion regarding grinding the chrein ↩
[g] (Halacha 522)
In the previous halacha we learned the words of the poskim who permitted using also the root of the chrein for maror.
Question: In order to fulfill the obligation of eating maror, must one eat the root of the chrein as it is, or is it permitted to grind it?
Answer: The Gaon Rabbi Yaakov of Lissa, author of the Chavas Da'as, wrote in his commentary on the Haggadah, "Maaseh Nissim"1: 'It appears to me that it is forbidden to grate the krein, and one who grates krein and eats it does not fulfill with it the obligation of maror .. for whatever is considered a change with respect to a bracha, that one recites "shehakol," certainly one does not fulfill the obligation of maror; only that the Talmud said that even in a case where it is not considered a change with respect to a bracha, one nonetheless does not fulfill the obligation of maror, for with maror we require the taste of maror, that the taste of maror not change from its natural state at all. And on 39a we say thus: turnip-heads, [if] one chopped them a large chopping, [the bracha is] "borei pri ha'adamah"; a small chopping, "shehakol"; and the Rashba wrote the reason is because he holds that its taste is somewhat impaired. And according to his words, that it is considered a change of taste with respect to a bracha, that one recites "shehakol," certainly he does not fulfill the obligation of maror. And even according to the one who disputes there — that is because he said there that the reason he chopped it is so that it would become sweeter, and that is because of the reason the Rashba wrote there, that it changed for the better, and this reasoning applies with respect to a bracha, that a change for the better does not lose the bracha; but with respect to maror, whenever it changed from its bitterness — if it changed for the better, that it is not as bitter as it was at first, all the more so that he does not fulfill [the obligation] .. And on the contrary, our eyes see that the grating nullifies the taste of bitterness, for it is precisely for this that they grate it. And moreover, regarding boiled and pickled maror, with which one does not fulfill, the Rashba wrote the reason is because the taste of its bitterness is impaired, and our eyes see that through grating the taste of bitterness is impaired more and more than it is impaired through pickling in water for a full day. And the essence of the change of taste about which the Talmud is particular is that its taste changed from what it was originally, even though it still has a bitter taste — know this, for the pickled krein is more bitter than the other bitter herbs mentioned in the Mishnah, such as "salatin"; rather, the essence [of the matter] is that whenever the taste of its bitterness changed, one does not fulfill [the obligation]. Therefore, one whose heart the fear of Hashem has touched should not do this, for since the Talmud is particular about that which is not the taste of maror, who would put his head [in] to be lenient in a matter of a mitzvah.'
And the holy Gaon Rabbi Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov, author of the Bnei Yissoschor, agreed with him in his sefer Derech Pikudecha2, and concluded: 'In my opinion his proofs are correct; therefore one should not be lenient, and especially since there is cause for concern of a bracha in vain.'
However, many Acharonim disputed the Gaon of Lissa and testified that such is the minhag of the great ones of Israel, to grate the chrein — and, on the contrary, they saw an advantage in this, since only in this way can one eat the measure of a kezayis. As Rabbi Eliezer Fleckeles wrote in Teshuvah MeAhavah3 regarding his teacher the Gaon, author of the Noda BiYehudah: 'And behold, here in Prague, where neither "latuga salat" nor "indivi" is available at the springtime festival, they used to eat krein as it is; and from the time the sun of that tzaddik, our great teacher Mahari Segal Landau, may his soul rest, shone upon us, he instituted for the people of his city to eat ground krein, and so all the eminent Torah scholars, sages, and scribes conduct themselves to this day. And recently the great, famous Gaon, Rabbi Yaakov, may his light shine, av beis din and rosh mesivta of the holy community of Lissa, honored me [with] his precious sefarim, the Sefer Chavas Da'as on Yoreh De'ah and the Sefer Maaseh Nissim on the Haggadah of Pesach, and I saw in the Sefer Maaseh Nissim there .. and although the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious, nevertheless I said to confirm and uphold the words of the great one of the world, my teacher and master the Gaon, may his soul rest .. and on this I rest and on this I conclude .. and if both [chazeres and ulshin] are unavailable, one should take ground krein.'
And so wrote the Maharal Tzuntz in Magen HaElef4: 'And it is proper to grate the tamcha, so that one can then fulfill [the obligation] comfortably with the kezayis; and so they were accustomed in the house of the late Gaon, author of the Noda BiYehudah.'
The Chasam Sofer5 too disputed him and testified that so his teacher Rabbi Nosson Adler conducted himself: 'And this is the reason they are accustomed to grate the tamcha — in order to dissipate its bitterness a little so that they can eat a kezayis of it. And likewise, when we were seated at the table with our master, the pious one among the priesthood, the honorable Maharar Nosson Adler, in the year 5545 in Vienna, no lettuce "latich" free of worms was available, and he commanded to grate tamcha, and we ate them; and I have elaborated on this contrary to the words of the Gaon in the Haggadah Maaseh Nissim, who at first forbids .. and according to what I have written, his kal vachomer does not hold.'
And so they conducted themselves in practice — the Rebbe Rayatz6, and the Rebbe's father, the Gaon and Kabbalist Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Schneerson7.
However, we find several of the great ones of Israel who made a sort of compromise and took, in addition to the ground chrein, also a bit of chrein that is not ground, as written in the Kovetz Al Yad8: 'And the minhag of the great ones of the world is that they eat tamcha, which is called krein, and crumble it and eat it crumbled — and not like the one who cast doubt on this, the Rav Gaon author of the Chavas Da'as in his novellae on the Haggadah; and so my master, my father and teacher, the chassid Mahari G"b [= Rabbi Yaakov Ginzburg, rav of the city of Prague] conducted himself, except that he was accustomed to take also the top, which is called "kepel," and eat it with the krein.'
And so the author of the Minchas Elazar, the holy Gaon Rabbi Chaim Elazar of Munkatch, conducted himself, as brought in Darkei Chaim VeShalom9: 'For maror he would take for himself a bit from the hard root of the tamcha, which is not grated ..'. And in the note it is explained that it appears his reason was to be stringent in order to fulfill [the obligation] according to the view of the Chavas Da'as and the Derech Pikudecha mentioned above.
And so it is likewise brought regarding the conduct of the Rebbe, who cut from the root of the chrein a piece and added it to the ground chrein, and explained10 that he conducts himself thus because so the Minchas Elazar conducted himself — 'I hold, after all, like the Munkatcher.'
Notes:
1 s.v. 'nireh li' ↩
2 Positive commandment 10, section on speech, note 5 ↩
3 Vol. 2 §262 ↩
4 §473, note 2; and see also the Chayei Adam, klal 130 §3; and in the Shu"t Beis Efraim OC §43; Shu"t Yehudah Ya'aleh (Assad) OC vol. 1 §139; and in the Aruch HaShulchan OC §473:14 ↩
5 OC §473:5, and he explains: 'It is different there, for the taste of bitterness comes out through another force that is mixed in — namely the force of vinegar, or even only water; this is not so as long as the vegetable itself is without another force, [in which case] it does not lose [its status] as long as some of its own bitterness is tasted in it .. And moreover it appears to me that it is impossible to eat Pesach and matzah with la'anah, or even with tamcha, for that would be not in the manner of eating, as the Rambam wrote [Yesodei HaTorah 5:8] that mixing in a bitter thing is not in the manner of eating; rather, they must have dissipated its taste through a small chopping.' ↩
6 The Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka related (Yemei Melech vol. 1 p. 370 note 8) that once, out of habit (of the Rebbe's conduct brought below), she placed a piece of chrein in the bowl of her father the Rebbe Rayatz, and he told her with a smile that he does not need it ↩
7 As the Rebbe related on the first night of Pesach during the Seder (Toras Menachem vol. 60 p. 66) ↩
8 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 7:13 ↩
9 Note 590 ↩
10 HaMelech BeMesibo vol. 2 p. 99 ↩
[h] (Halacha 523)
In the previous halachos we learned that the essence of the mitzvah of maror is with chasa, which is the chazeres of the Mishnah, but many poskim wrote that they were accustomed to use chrein.
Question: Why were they accustomed to use chrein even though the essence of the mitzvah is to take chasa?
Answer: Some wrote that the minhag to take chrein and not chasa arose because chasa was not available in the cold lands, or because it was not clear to them what the chazeres1 mentioned in the Mishnah was, as the Chacham Tzvi2 wrote: 'And because in the lands of Ashkenaz and Poland, which are cold, it is not available at the time of Pesach, they were not accustomed to take it for the obligation of the mitzvah of maror; or because they were not expert in the correct interpretation of the names of the vegetables like the people of the lands close to Eretz Yisrael and Bavel, they did not know what it is, and they took the krein, which is tamcha according to the view of some of the Sages.'
And so wrote the Teshuvah MeAhavah3: 'And behold, here in Prague, where neither "latuga salat" nor "indivi" is available at the springtime festival, they used to eat krein as it is.'
And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan4: 'And in our country they take tamcha, because chazeres is not yet available before Pesach except in the courtyards of the nobles.'
On the other hand, some wrote that sometimes one should prefer the chrein over the chasa because of the insects found in the chasa, as the Chasam Sofer5 wrote: 'And regarding the mitzvah of maror on Pesach — the matter is true and correct, as the Chacham Tzvi wrote, and so all my teachers z"l were accustomed, and we conduct ourselves after them; but I am accustomed to expound on Shabbos HaGadol: one who does not have specific, designated G-d-fearing people who check and clean them from the swarm of tiny worms found very, very much in the days of Pesach and are not discernible to the weak of sight — therefore, one who does not have in his house someone who will check it properly, it is good to take the tamcha, which is called krein. And even though it is counted third in the Mishnah, and the chasa is first and the choicest mitzvah, nevertheless, heaven forbid to cause stumbling in a prohibition or in many prohibitions, even in a case of doubt, for the sake of fulfilling a rabbinic positive commandment — for maror nowadays is rabbinic — and especially since one can fulfill both by means of tamcha, which is called krein; and if there is an allusion in "chasa" that the Merciful One had compassion upon us, we will say that "tamcha" is an acronym for "Tamid Mesaprim Kevod Kel."'
And so too wrote the Yehudah Ya'aleh (Assad)6: 'Therefore, one who does not have "salat" well-checked for the concern of worms — which is the choicest mitzvah for the eating of maror — I publicize in my derashah every Shabbos HaGadol, to inform the people that they should do so also for maror; and also for Korech he should eat grated krein.'
But the Mishmeres Shalom7 wrote: 'This is a threefold doubt: the first — perhaps "salat" is not a species of chazeres at all, but "zerich," like the view of the Levush; the second — even if we say that "salata" is chazeres, [like] the view of the Chacham Tzvi and those who follow him, behold there are several types of "salata," and there is a type of "salata" with which one does not fulfill .. and if so, we do not know which "salata" one fulfills with; the third — even if we say that this is the "salata" that the Chacham Tzvi and those who follow him intended, perhaps like my reasoning, that even the Chacham Tzvi would concede that one does not fulfill with it until it has become a bit bitter .. And likewise I saw by the eminent Torah scholars that they had "salata" and would recite the bracha over tamcha; only one who is unable to take tamcha because it is harmful to him should take a small amount of tamcha.'
That is, he held that there are doubts regarding the chasa: (a) some hold that one must in fact take a thing called "zerzich" and not chasa; (b) there are various types of chasa8, and how do we know that the type in our possession is the fitting type that will indeed also become bitter as it grows; (c) and as we learned in halacha 519, that some wrote that only when it is bitter is it fit for the mitzvah of maror, and the ordinary marketed chasa is not bitter at all.
Thus we have seen the reasons of those who are accustomed to take chrein for the mitzvah of maror, even though the essence of the mitzvah is with chazeres, which is chasa.
But as we saw in halacha 519, most of the poskim wrote that the chasa called "salat"9 is certainly the chazeres of the Mishnah, and one fulfills with it the obligation even when it is sweet, and with it is the essence of the mitzvah; but one must certainly ensure that there is no, G-d forbid, eating of insects, for if so, the stringency of the chasa comes at the loss of the prohibition of eating insects, as above in the words of the Chasam Sofer.
And regarding the concern of insects, some wrote (in general, and not specifically regarding Pesach) that one should use only the stalk, in which fewer worms are found, as the Knesses HaGedolah10 wrote: 'And in these places the swarm is found much in chazeres, and it requires careful checking, because the worms are thin and small and the color of the chazeres itself; and formerly my minhag was not to eat them except with checking, but now, recently, I have withdrawn my hand from them entirely, not to eat them.' And further in his words he wrote: 'And I have already written above that because this is so, I have refrained from eating [them], and I eat only the stalk11.'
However, today there are special cultivations for the prevention of worms, and consequently the concern of worms has diminished.
With Hashem's help, in the next halacha we will learn what our minhag is in practice.
Notes:
1 See also what Rav Chaim Naeh wrote in Shiurei Torah p. 197. (And there [he writes] that the Alter Rebbe omitted the additional reason in the words of the Gemara for chasa (that the Merciful One had compassion upon us), because this reason applies only in those places where it is called "chasa") ↩
2 Shu"t §119 ↩
3 Vol. 2 §262 ↩
4 OC §473:13 ↩
5 Shu"t OC §132 ↩
6 Vol. 1, OC §139 ↩
7 §35 ↩
8 And see also Derech Pikudecha, positive commandment 10, note 12: 'The vegetable called "shlatin" — one fulfills with it .. but specifically the one called "heivt shlatin," and likewise the vegetable called "zerzich" ..'. However, see what is written on this in Chazon Ovadiah, Pesach — Maror, law 4 and note 3 ↩
9 And the poskim brought various names for identifying the type of chasa in question. See Derech Pikudecha, Mishmeres Shalom, Shiurei Torah there ↩
10 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD §84, note 52 ↩
11 There, note 62. [And it should be noted from what is related (Otzar Minhagei Chabad, Nissan p. 135; Maaseh Melech p. 198, note 21) regarding the conduct of the Rebbe (at least at times) that he used only the leaf of the chasa and not the stalk] ↩
[i] (Halacha 524)
In the previous halachos we learned the various opinions regarding what is fitting to take for the mitzvah of maror — that some were accustomed to take chasa, and some took chrein.
Question: Is there a difference between the type of maror over which one recites the bracha of maror and the type of maror that one takes for Korech?
Answer: Some were accustomed to take chrein for both, except that for the bracha of maror they took the leaves of the chrein, and for Korech they used the stalk, as the Taz1 wrote: 'And I have seen many people who, at the time of eating maror, take its greens, and at the time of Korech take the stalk — and this has neither taste nor reason, for one should take the greens also at the time of Korech, for one can well eat a kezayis of it, since it is not as distressing as the stalk, which has more force.'
And along these same lines the Magen Avraham wrote2: 'The common custom is to recite the bracha over the leaves, and for korech they take the stalk, and it appears to me that the reason is from what it says "and they fulfill their obligation with their stalk," which implies that the leaves are preferable; therefore they take the leaves for the bracha. Nevertheless one must take a kezayis, as is written in siman 486, and because there are not so many leaves, therefore they take the stalk for korech; however, if one wishes to take the leaves for korech, the choice is his.'
Thus we have seen that there were those who had the custom to use the horseradish leaves for the bracha of maror, and for korech they took the stalk, and the commentators wrote that there is no reason for this distinction.
And there are those who had the custom to take different species, one species for the bracha and another species for korech, and their reasoning is because of the change of wording in the writings of the Arizal, that at first it is called maror and afterward chazeres, as is written in Shaar HaKollel3, brought by the Rebbe in the Haggadah4: 'Because of the change of wording, that at first he calls it maror and afterward chazeres (and so too in Pri Etz Chaim, Mishnas Chassidim, Siddur Kol Yaakov, Siddur of the Rashar), there are those who have the custom not to take one species for maror and for korech, and even in places where salad is available they do not make everything from salad, and their reason is perhaps that they are not expert in the five species of the Mishnah (Pesachim 39a), therefore they fulfill the eating of maror with a bitter vegetable. But they were not precise, for if so it should be eaten without a bracha, as is written in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, siman 473, se'if 31. But in truth it is a mitzvah to seek out chazeres (Pesachim there), that is, salad, for the essence of the mitzvah is with it (Shulchan Aruch siman 473 se'if 30), and there is no distinction between maror and korech5.
Thus we have seen that the poskim wrote that one should not distinguish between the maror that is taken for the bracha and the maror that is taken for korech.
Question: What is our custom in practice?
Answer: The Aruch HaShulchan wrote6: 'These five species combine to a kezayis, and therefore among us there are those who take a little chazeres with a little tamcha, for it is good to eat them together'.
Thus we have seen that there were those who had the custom to take from both species, (except that from his words it appears that they did not take a measure of each type, and see further below).
This practice of taking from both species we find by the Rebbe the Rayatz7, who had the custom to take from both species, and so too the Rebbe wrote in the Haggadah in the order of the Haggadah, in the passage beginning "and beneath the maror the chazeres that is used for korech": 'And we have the custom to take chazeres (salad [lettuce]) and tamcha (horseradish), both of them—both for maror and for korech'.
[And ostensibly8 the reason for our minhag is that since, from the essential law—from the law of the Gemara—lettuce takes precedence over the other species, therefore they take the lettuce, but they also take the horseradish, since this is how the minhag was received already from the time of the Rishonim. And there is one who wrote to explain9 that perhaps the reason for our minhag is also to take into account the opinions10 that there must be a taste of bitterness, (and therefore according to their view one does not fulfill the obligation with sweet lettuce)].
Question: Is there a need for there to be a kezayis of each of the species of maror—that is, that there be lettuce in the measure of a kezayis and also horseradish in the measure of a kezayis?
Answer: It is stated in the Mishnah in tractate Pesachim11: 'and they combine to a kezayis'.
And so too the Mechaber wrote12: 'And all of them combine to a kezayis, which is their measure'. And so too the Alter Rebbe wrote13: 'These five species combine to a kezayis'.
And thus, since our custom is that we hold that both the lettuce and the horseradish are among the species of maror with which one fulfills the obligation, therefore one fulfills the obligation even when there is not a full measure in one of them, and only in the combination of the two together is there a measure, as was mentioned in the words of the Aruch HaShulchan above.
But nonetheless, as we have seen, since there is a mitzvah to seek out the chazeres, and as the Alter Rebbe wrote14: 'It is a mitzvah to seek out chazeres, even to purchase it at a high price', therefore it is worthwhile to ensure that there is a measure of a kezayis in the lettuce, and so too in practice the Rebbe took a large quantity, 2 or 3 lettuce leaves (without the stalk), and also horseradish the size of an egg15.
--------------
Notes:
1 או"ח סי' תעג סק"ה ↩
2 שם סקי"ב ↩
3 פמ"ח אות יא ↩
4 ד"ה ותחת המרור ↩
5 הביאור בשינוי הלשונות, ראה מש"כ בשער הכולל שם, ומש"כ על זה הרבי בהגדה שם. וראה ג"כ לקוטי לוי יצחק על זהר פ' אחרי ע' רפו ↩
6 או"ח סי' תעג סי"ד ↩
7 ראה תו"מ רשימות היומן ע' קעח, וע' שעא ↩
8 ראה שו"ע אדה"ז עם דובר שלום סי' תעג הערה רנא ↩
9 ראה בארוכה דברי הר"ח ראפופורט בהערות וביאורים גליון א' קו, וראה שם שאין לומר שחוששים שאחד מהם אינו ממיני המרור הכשר שא"כ אין לאכלם יחד כי א"כ אחד מבטל טעם השני ולא יוצא י"ח, והיו צריכים לאכלם אחד אחרי השני, ולא יחד. וראה גם קובץ אור ישראל מאנסי גליון פ עמוד קלד ↩
10 נתבארו בהלכה מס' 519 ↩
11 לט, א ↩
12 שו"ע סי' תעג ס"ה ↩
13 שם סכ"ח ↩
14 סי' תעג ס"ל ↩
15 ראה אוצר מנהגי חב"ד ניסן ע' קלה. ומעשה מלך ע' 198. ויש שרצו לומר (ראה גם הלכות ליל הסדר (אשכנזי) סי' תעג ס"ל ע' תיז הערה 445) שמלשון רש"י משמע שהצירוף אינו לכתחילה, וז"ל רש"י שם: 'ומצטרפין לכזית - אם אין לו מאחד מהן כזית, אבל יש לו מזה חצי זית ומזה חצי זית - מצטרפין זה עם זה כדי לצאת ידי חובתו'. אלא שמפשטות דברי הפוסקים לא משמע כך אלא זה דין לכתחילה. או י"ל ע"פ דברי השפת אמת שכתב: 'יש לדייק מלשון רש"י ז"ל דדוקא שני חצאי זיתים מב' מינים כיון שהם שוים ואין מין האחד יותר מהמין האחר מצטרפין אבל אם הרוב ממין אחד אין מצטרף מיעוט ממין אחר להשלים השיעור משום דנתבטל טעם מרירות מין המועט בהרוב וחסר לי' משיעוריה'. ומכיון שקשה לשער בדיוק חצי לקחו שיעור שלם. [אך לדבריו יוצא שאין מעלה בלקיחת שני מיני מרור כי הקטן בטל בגדול, ועצ"ע]. ועוד יש שכתבו (הגדת ויחי יוסף דינים ואזהרות הכנת הסדר אות י) שאכן זה לחוש לדעות שאחד מהם אינו המרור הכשר, ובכדי שלא יבטל הרשות את טעם המצווה יש לקחת שיעור גדול. וראה גליון אור ישראל שם ↩
[10] (Halacha 525)
In the preceding halachos we learned that already from the time of the Rishonim there were those who had the custom to take horseradish for the mitzvah of maror, and that the poskim wrote that one may also take the horseradish root and grind it. And so too our minhag is to take, in addition to the lettuce, also horseradish for maror.
Question: What is the proper manner and time for preparing the maror?
Answer: On the one hand it is proper that the maror not be exceedingly bitter. [In the manner of the words of the Nimukei Yosef1 who wrote: 'And these vegetables—which have some bitterness. But an exceedingly bitter herb, no, for the expression "eating" is written regarding matzah and maror'2].
And especially since then one may arrive at a situation where one does not take the proper measure, as the Chacham Tzvi wrote3: 'And they took the "krein," which is tamcha according to the view of some of the sages, and calamity came from it, for there are now many ignorant people who do not eat even half a kezayis because of its sharpness and because it is harmful to eat it raw, and they nullify the mitzvah of maror; and even those who are anxious about the word of Hashem and eat a kezayis of the "krein" endanger themselves with it. For in truth, in a place where chazeres, which is the "alte salad", is available, as in the cities of Amsterdam and Hamburg and the other cities of Germany, even though it is still very small, I declare the "krein" a danger, and there is no mitzvah in it; and everyone whom G-d has touched in his heart should fulfill the mitzvah properly and purchase the "alte salad" for the sake of the mitzvah of maror, even if it is expensive'.
And therefore the poskim wrote and recommended to grind it, as the Chasam Sofer wrote4 that one should therefore grind the horseradish, and so too the Chayei Adam wrote5: 'And indeed one who eats it whole, it is almost a danger and there is no mitzvah in it, for because of its sharpness it is a great harm, and also it is impossible to eat a kezayis of it at one time, and therefore one must grate it on a "ribeisen" [grater] and let it stand exposed like this, for then its sharpness dissipates'. And so too the Aruch HaShulchan wrote6.
And so too it is written in Shaar HaKollel7: 'And if it is impossible to obtain chazeres, then one should take tamcha, which is called horseradish, both for the mitzvah of maror and for the mitzvah of korech, provided that it is grated and its bitterness dissipates so that it is fit for human consumption'.
And so the Rebbe said on the first night of the festival of Pesach 57308: 'I heard from my revered father-in-law the Rebbe that one who eats maror in an exceedingly large measure, until he cannot bear it from the great sharpness—does not fulfill the obligation of the mitzvah of eating maror, but rather one must eat a measure that he can bear'.
And to note from what the attendant Rabbi Gansburg related9: 'In the Rebbe's home they did not place the maror, after grinding it, in a closed vessel, so that it should not be too sharp'. And so too it is written in Otzar Minhagei Chabad10 that he heard from one of those who served in the holy [household] that they did not keep the horseradish in a closed vessel after grinding11.
However, one must take care that if the grinding is done too early and the horseradish is also left open for a long time, this dissipates its taste entirely, and it is necessary that the taste of bitterness not be nullified12, and therefore there are those who wrote that it should be ground close to the seudah, and left covered.
And as is written in Shu"t Yehuda Yaaleh13: 'I publicize in the sermon every Shabbos HaGadol, to inform the people that so they should do both for maror and for kereichah: one should eat grated "krein," on condition that it be well covered with a tight covering from the time that it is ground on the "ribeisen" on erev Yom Tov, so that its aroma and bitterness should not become faded; in this manner every person will feel in it sharpness and bitterness..'. And he further wrote14: 'I warn not to keep them for a long span of time, only for two or three hours alone, and then its taste does not become faded'15.
And the Gaon Rabbi Daniel Prostitz16 wrote: 'And I saw the minhag of my teacher the great rabbi, the chassid Rabbi Meir the son of Rabbi, of blessed memory, av beis din of Pressburg, that he would command the maidservant to grate the chazeres, which is the choicest fulfillment of the mitzvah, after midday and to cover it, and then one can eat it with ease; and I guarantee to all that if his heart is directed toward Heaven, it will not harm him at all, for those on the way to perform a mitzvah are not harmed'.
Thus we have seen that one must grind the horseradish and not eat it in a manner in which it is too sharp, but on the other hand one must ensure that the sharpness does not dissipate entirely.
Notes:
1 פסחים לט, א. (וראה שם בהערות באר משה הערה 90 שלדברי הנמו"י לא מקיימים בחריין מצות מרור) ↩
2 וראה גם דברי הנצי"ב לבנו במרומי שדה פסחים לט, א: 'וגם מה שמדקדק מע"כ בני נ"י לאכול חריין, איני מבין מדוע לא ינהוג עצמו בסאלאטא כדעת רוב אחרונים זצ"ל שהוא חזרת. והכי נראה ממס' עוקצין פ"ב מ"ז. *ולמאי נחמיר לאכול דבר שהוא כחרבות לגוף, והלא דרכיה דרכי נעם כתיב*. ומכ"ש בליל פסח אחרי תענית ושתית יין'. וראה גם דברי החת"ס שו"ע או"ח סי' תעג ס"ה. ושו"ת המהרש"ם ח"ג סי' ט, שנחלקו אם יש בחריין בעיה של אכילה שלא כדרך אכילתו. וראה דברי אדמו"ר הזקן סי' תעה סכ"ג, ובהל' ליל הסדר (אשכנזי) ח"ב ע' רנז ואילך ↩
3 שו"ת סי' קיט ↩
4 נסמן בהערה 2 ↩
5 כלל קל ס"ג ↩
6 או"ח סי' תעג סי"ד ↩
7 פמ"ח אות יא ↩
8 המלך במסיבו ח"ב ע' צט. תו"מ ח"ס ע' 65 ↩
9 בקדש פנימה ע' 27 אות י ↩
10 ניסן ע' קלה ↩
11 להעיר מהמסופר במעשה מלך ע' 198 - 199 ואכמ"ל ↩
12 ראה דברי אדמו"ר הזקן סי' תעה סי"ב: 'וכשהוא מטבלו בחרוסת יזהר להוציאו מיד ולא ישהנו בתוכו שמא יתבטל טעם מרירתו'. וכן בסכ"ה: 'אם בלע מרור ולא לעסו עד שירגיש טעם מרירתו בפיו לא יצא שהתורה הקפידה למרר פיו של אוכל זכר לוימררו את חייהם' ↩
13 או"ח סי' קלט ↩
14 אה"ע סי' רנח ↩
15 וראה גם משנ"ב סי' תעג ס"ק לו. וראה גם קיצור שו"ע סי' קיח ס"ג: 'שצריכין לפררו קודם הלילה *ויכסהו עד הלילה*' ↩
16 הובא בהגדת ויגד משה ע' שב ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Customs'
Join the WhatsApp group