Chag HaPesach
1. On every Yom Tov there are, of course, special matters by which that Yom Tov stands out from all other Yomim Tovim. This applies, understandably, to the Yom Tov of Pesach as well — on whatever day of the week it falls. And especially in a year such as this one, when Pesach falls on Shabbos, it is even more evident how Pesach is distinguished from all other Yomim Tovim, as will be explained below.
The Gemara1 says that the reason the shofar is not blown on "יו״ט של ר״ה שחל להיות בשבת" ("the Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos") is because "הכל חייבין בתקיעת שופר ואין הכל בקיאין . . גזירה שמא יטלנו בידו וילכנו אצל הבקי ללמוד ויעבירנו ד׳ אמות ברה״ר" ("All are obligated in blowing the shofar, but not all are expert in it . . . it is a decree lest one take it in his hand and go to an expert to learn, and carry it four cubits in the public domain"). And the Gemara concludes there2: "והיינו טעמא דלולב והיינו טעמא דמגילה" ("And this is the reason for the lulav, and this is the reason for the Megillah") — that when Sukkos falls on Shabbos the lulav is not taken that day, and when Purim falls on Shabbos the Megillah is not read that day, for the very same reason — lest one carry it.
The Acharonim3 ask about this: According to this, it would seemingly follow that also when Pesach falls on Shabbos a decree should have been made not to eat matzah and maror, not to drink the four cups, and not to say the Haggadah (especially since regarding matzah, maror and the drinking of the four cups there are a great many detailed laws — more than with shofar and Megillah; and all the more so compared with the lulav, where the lack of expertise concerns only "נענועים או ברכתו" ("its waving or its blessing")4)?
2. Among the answers given to the above question, it is answered5:
On Pesach, experts would go around to the homes of those who were not expert in order to conduct the Seder for them and say the Haggadah6. Consequently, on Pesach the concern "שמא ילך אצל הבקי ללמוד" ("lest he go to the expert to learn")7 does not exist: he does not need to go to the expert, because the expert will come to him at home2.
This answer, however, is not understood:
a) There are surely people who are ashamed to admit that they are ignorant (that they do not know the laws — especially those who do know how to say the Haggadah, etc.), and experts will not come to such people; so the concern remains with them that they will go secretly to an expert to learn?
b) According to this it emerges that, in plain terms, the concern exists here too and a decree ought to be made, only that because the Beis Din used to send emissaries etc., the decree was not needed in practice. But such a thing is a novelty — and such a novelty should have been stated in the Gemara or, at least, in the Rishonim. In actual fact, however, neither the question nor the above reason is mentioned anywhere, except in the Acharonim!
3. Another answer is found in the Acharonim8:
The Sages' decree that on Rosh Hashanah and Sukkos that fall on Shabbos the shofar is not blown and the lulav is not taken is not a total uprooting of the mitzvos of blowing the shofar and taking the lulav — since on Shabbos, too, one can study the laws of these mitzvos, and "כל העוסק בתורת עולה כאילו הקריב עולה" ("whoever engages in the Torah of the burnt-offering is considered as if he offered a burnt-offering")9.
Therefore the decree was not made on Pesach, for women too are obligated in the mitzvos of Pesach10, and since women are exempt from Torah study11, it follows that if the decree were made, the mitzvah would be totally uprooted for women.
[Accordingly, one can say that the reason the "novelty" — that when Pesach falls on Shabbos Rabbah's decree does not apply — is not stated in the Gemara and the Rishonim, is because from the outset the decree (even where it does apply) is made only in a way that does not uproot the mitzvah entirely; and where the mitzvah would be uprooted, it is self-understood that the decree does not apply.]
But this answer, too, is not understood: for according to this it should have been stated — in the Shulchan Aruch, or at least in other Poskim — that on Rosh Hashanah and Sukkos that fall on Shabbos there is an obligation to study the laws of shofar12 and lulav?
4. Seemingly, one could ask a further question on the above answer: Women are also obligated in the reading of the Megillah13, and nevertheless Rabbah's decree was indeed made regarding the reading of the Megillah!
In truth, however, this is no question at all. For [in addition to the fact that one can say14 that the institution of reading the Megillah came after Rabbah's decree had already been enacted15, so that the enactment of reading the Megillah was from the outset16 made in such a way that when Purim falls on Shabbos the Megillah is to be read on a weekday17;
besides this: even according to Rashi18, that originally "י״ד הוקבע לפרזים" ("the fourteenth was fixed for unwalled towns") (even when it falls on Shabbos), and "חכמי ישראל שאחר כנסת הגדולה" ("the Sages of Israel after the Men of the Great Assembly") enacted that when Purim falls on Shabbos it is to be read on a weekday]
since the reading of the Megillah is only Rabbinic, the Sages can therefore uproot the mitzvah entirely19 — for "הם אמרו והם אמרו" ("they said it, and they said it")20. Shofar and lulav, by contrast, being Biblical — had it not been possible to fulfill these mitzvos at least through engaging in the Torah of shofar and lulav, the Sages would indeed not have uprooted them. And therefore no decree was made regarding the eating of matzah (a Biblical positive commandment)21, since eating matzah is an obligation for women too, as mentioned above, and if the decree were made here as well, a Biblical positive commandment would thereby be totally uprooted for them.
There still remains a difficulty, however (as mentioned in section 3): from the fact that it is nowhere stated that on Rosh Hashanah and Sukkos that fall on Shabbos there is an obligation to study the laws of shofar and lulav, it is seemingly proven that because of the concern "שמא יעבירנו כו׳" ("lest he carry it etc.") a Biblical positive commandment was uprooted. Why, then, was the same decree not made regarding the eating of matzah etc. when Pesach falls on Shabbos?
5. This will be understood (according to Chassidus) by first introducing the question raised in several Chassidic discourses regarding the fact that when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos the shofar is not blown: How could the Sages push aside a Biblical positive commandment because of the concern "lest he carry it etc."?
And from this Chassidus proves that when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos there is no need for the shofar, because the matters that are drawn down through the blowing of the shofar (after the destruction of the First Temple) are drawn down on Shabbos by Shabbos itself.
Seemingly, this is not understood: There is a rule22 that "יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה" ("the Sages have the power to uproot a matter of Torah law"); so what is the question "איך דחו" ("how could they push it aside")23 or "איך הי׳ כח ביד חכמים לעקור" ("how did the Sages have the power to uproot")24?25
The explanation of this is: G‑d constantly brings creation into being from nothing26, and the purpose of creation is for the sake of the Jewish people and for the sake of the Torah27. Consequently, there cannot be anything in creation (including in the way the days of the calendar fall) that would hinder Torah and mitzvos (so that a person would be unable to fulfill a mitzvah that he is required to fulfill — even when he wants to fulfill it).
And since on Shabbos, too, there is (according to section 4) the obligation of the mitzvah of blowing the shofar, it cannot be that one would need to be concerned about "שמא יעבירנו" ("lest he carry it") — for then it would emerge that G‑d set up creation in such a way that the mitzvah of blowing the shofar must be missing on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos (and since that cannot be, one is compelled to say that there is nothing to be concerned about regarding "lest he carry it").
And from the fact that the Sages did take this concern into account, and because of it decreed that on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos the shofar should not be blown28, Chassidus proves that on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos there is no need for the blowing of the shofar29, as mentioned above.
6. From this it is understood regarding our subject — that the reason the Sages did not enact Rabbah's decree when Pesach falls on Shabbos is because the matters that are drawn down through the eating of matzah etc. are not drawn down on Shabbos by Shabbos itself. And since on Shabbos, too, one needs the eating of matzah etc. — this itself is proof that here there is nothing to be concerned about regarding "lest he carry it etc."30.
Here one also sees the superiority of Pesach (and the mitzvos connected with it) over the other Yomim Tovim (with their mitzvos): on this Yom Tov there is nothing to be concerned about even regarding matters of inadvertent transgression31.
The reason for this:
An inadvertent sin comes about through the overpowering of the animal soul32, and since on Pesach "לא הספיק להחמיץ" ("it did not have time to become leavened") — there is no room at all33 for chametz (this is the evil inclination34) — consequently all Jews, even the "הדיוטים וקלי הדעת" ("simple people and the light-minded")35, are on a level of "לא יאונה לצדיק כל און" ("No iniquity shall befall the righteous")36, even in matters that do not involve eating37.
(From the sichos of the night of the second day of Pesach and of Acharon shel Pesach, 5725)
Notes
1) Rosh Hashanah 29b.
2) And so too in Sukkah 42b; Megillah 4b.
3) Shoel U'Meishiv, Mahadura 4, Part 1, sec. 5. Ha'amek She'elah on the She'iltos, She'ilta 67, par. 21.
4) Rashi, Sukkah ibid., end of side b.
5) Ha'amek She'elah, ibid.
6) See Rif, end of Tractate Pesachim; Tur, Orach Chaim, sec. 464.
7) Another answer is given in Ha'amek She'elah ibid.: that at night it is not customary to go out so much, and therefore they did not decree regarding matzah etc., which are at night. (Based on this reasoning he wishes to innovate that also the Megillah could in principle have been read on Friday night, and that the main decree is on account of the daytime reading; see there.) But it is difficult to say so, for — in order to fulfill the obligation of matzah etc. he will certainly go to an expert even at night, especially since it is "ליל שימורים" ("the night of watching").
8) Chemdas Yisroel (by Rabbi Meir Dan Plotzki), in the introduction.
9) Menachos 110a. And especially according to the view of Rava in Menachos ibid. (that it is not only as if he offered it, but that "אינו צריך לא עולה כו׳" ("he needs neither a burnt-offering etc.")).
10) Pesachim 43b — regarding matzah. And see the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Laws of Pesach, sec. 472, par. 25, that "כל המצות הנוהגות בלילה זה אין חילוק בין אנשים לנשים" ("in all the mitzvos practiced on this night there is no distinction between men and women").
11) Kiddushin 29b. The Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, end of ch. 1. And although women are obligated to study the laws they need (Hilchos Talmud Torah, ibid.) — if they were exempted from these mitzvos on Pesach, they would no longer need these laws until the following year. Moreover, one can say (even if they did study these laws) that since their study is only in order to know the practice, i.e., it is secondary, akin to a preparation for a mitzvah — it does not exempt them from the mitzvah itself (unlike men). But this requires further investigation. For from the fact that women recite the blessings over the Torah — because they are obligated to study the mitzvos they need (the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, end of sec. 47) — it is implied that this study, although it is only in order to know how to fulfill the mitzvos, is a matter of Torah*. Note also what is stated at the end of sec. 47 ibid.: "ובקריאת פ׳ התמיד הן שוות לאנשים" ("and in reading the section of the Tamid they are equal to men"), and juxtaposed there: "as if they had offered it etc." See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 14, p. 37 ff.
*) This is also evident from the saying of our Sages (Sanhedrin 59a) that a non-Jew who engages in Torah is like a Kohen Gadol — which is due to the superiority of Torah — even though his study is only of their seven mitzvos, in order to know how to fulfill them.
12) Regarding shofar, one can say (with great difficulty, at least) that this is accomplished through reciting the verses of Shofaros. And although the wording in Menachos ibid. is "כל העוסק כו׳" ("whoever engages etc."), one can say that "engages" is not meant precisely — see Taanis 27b: "בזמן שקוראין כו׳" ("when they read etc."). (Especially since the Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim, end of sec. 1) cites these two sayings of our Sages together.) This is also evident from the fact that the section of the burnt-offering etc. is recited before prayer because "whoever engages etc. is as if he offered" (Orach Chaim ibid.) — even though the Torah study before prayer is not in the manner of in-depth engagement*. Based on this, one can appreciate why the Alter Rebbe (in the second edition, sec. 1) adds that the exposition "whoever engages etc." is based on "זאת התורה לעולה גו׳" ("This is the Torah of the burnt-offering etc.") (for seemingly, what practical difference does it make?) — namely, to resolve and prove that "engages" is not meant precisely, but rather that there be "the Torah of the burnt-offering." — Note also the Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 2, par. 11.
*) Note that the main time for Torah study (see the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning of sec. 156), and the superiority of Torah study, is after prayer, as is known regarding "שתהא תפלתי סמוכה למטתי" ("that my prayer be close to my bed") (Likkutei Torah, Berachah 96b).
13) Megillah 4a. Orach Chaim, beginning of sec. 689.
14) See Turei Even (on Megillah 5a), that according to the view of Rav Yosef (4b) that the reason the Megillah is not read on Shabbos is "מפני שעיניהם של עניים כו׳" ("because the eyes of the poor etc."), one must say that this was the enactment from the outset. For on account of "the eyes etc." the later Sages could not have annulled the time for reading the Megillah that was ordained by the Sages before them; see there. Accordingly, one can say that this is so according to Rabbah as well (unlike what is stated in Turei Even ibid.), for it is forced to say* that Rabbah and Rav Yosef disagree about when the enactment to read the Megillah earlier was made.
*) Note also what Tosafos write (s.v. ורב יוסף): "דאיכא נפקותא מיהא במקדש כו׳" ("for there is at least a practical difference in the Temple etc."), whereas according to Turei Even there is a practical difference during the entire period until Rabbah's decree was made. — Although one can say that Tosafos chose a practical difference that applies at all times, and the like.
15) According to Rashi (cited below in the text; see also Tashbetz vol. 3, sec. [OCR unclear]), the enactment to read earlier was made by the Sages of Israel after the Men of the Great Assembly. But in Midrash Sechel Tov, Vayeira (22:18): "גזרו אנשי כנסת הגדולה על השופר ועל הלולב ועל המגילה" ("The Men of the Great Assembly decreed regarding the shofar, the lulav and the Megillah"). Note Likkutei Torah, Rosh Hashanah 57c. And note the Smag, positive commandment 224, that the Rabbinic prohibition of sprinkling [the purifying waters] on account of Rabbah's decree (Pesachim 69a) dates from the days of Moshe.
16) In keeping with the plain meaning of the Talmud's wording (Megillah 5a), "דערב שבת זמנם הוא" ("for Erev Shabbos is their time")*. And as for Rebbi's view, "הואיל ונדחו כו׳" ("since they were pushed off etc.") (although there is no reason to say that they disagree about when it was enacted not to read on Shabbos), one can say that the dispute between Rebbi and the Rabbis is this: Rebbi holds that the enactment of reading the Megillah (in itself) is that every year the unwalled towns read on the 14th and the walled cities on the 15th, only that on account of Rabbah's decree this enactment was pushed off (at that same time). The Rabbis hold that the enactment of reading the Megillah was itself made in light of Rabbah's decree — that when it falls on Shabbos its reading is moved earlier. See the following note.
*) As for the question there, "ערב שבת זמנם? והא שבת זמנם הוא!" ("Erev Shabbos is their time? But Shabbos is their time!") — one can say: a) The questioner thought that the term "their time" follows the wording of the verse (Megillas Esther 9:27). And in the verse there, "their time" (as opposed to "בזמניהם" ("in their times"), ibid., 30 — see Megillah 2a) refers only to "שני הימים האלה" ("these two days"). b) The questioner thought that even according to the Rabbis, reading the Megillah earlier (when Purim falls on Shabbos) is a form of postponement, as it is according to Rebbi (only that they do not hold of the reason "since they were pushed off etc., they are pushed to the day of gathering," and therefore they push it only one day); and therefore he asks, "But Shabbos is their time!" To this the answerer innovates: "לאפוקי מדרבי.. הא קמ״ל דערב שבת זמנם הוא" ("to exclude Rebbi's view . . . this teaches us that Erev Shabbos is their time"), i.e., according to the Rabbis it is not in the category of postponement, as explained in the body of the note.
17) Based on this, the Talmud's question (Megillah 4b) will be understood: "וסבר רבי עיירות לא דחינן ליום הכניסה והתניא חל להיות בשבת . . הואיל ונדחו עיירות ממקומן ידחו ליום הכניסה" ("Does Rebbi hold that the towns are not pushed to the day of gathering? But it was taught: If it falls on Shabbos . . . since the towns were pushed from their place, they are pushed to the day of gathering") — for seemingly, in this very Baraisa he says "since they were pushed etc.," so from where would one assume that also when Purim falls on Erev Shabbos the towns are pushed from their place? — The answer is: since the enactment of reading the Megillah was from the outset that when it falls on Shabbos it is read at another time, the questioner held that Rebbi's intent in "since they were pushed etc. from their place" is that they were pushed from their regular yearly time; and since Rebbi holds that wherever they are pushed from their yearly time they are pushed to the day of gathering, he therefore asks that also when Purim falls on Erev Shabbos they should be pushed to the day of gathering, so that the towns precede the walled cities — for if both read on the same day, that is a change from their yearly time (similar to "pushed from their place"). And thereby the answerer innovates, "התם זמנם שבת הוא כו׳" ("there, their time is Shabbos etc."), that the meaning of "since they were pushed etc." is (not from their yearly time, but) from the essential enactment. For according to Rebbi, the enactment in itself is to read on the 14th every year, as in the previous note.
18) Megillah 5a.
19) Especially since they did not uproot the mitzvah entirely, but only pushed it off to another time.
20) As Chemdas Yisroel answers — in the indexes and additions at their beginning.
21) Consequently, they also did not decree regarding the drinking of the four cups, for nothing would be remedied by not drinking the four cups — since even then he would go to the expert to learn regarding matzah etc. And to be concerned about someone who is expert in matzah but not in the four cups — that is uncommon; on the contrary, regarding the eating of matzah there are a great many laws, up to the dispute between the Sages and Hillel.
22) Tosafos s.v. וחותם — Berachos 16a. And in many places.
23) Discourse beginning "יו״ט של ר״ה" of the years 5659, 5665 and 5703. And elsewhere.
24) Siddur 240c.
25) In Likkutei Torah, Rosh Hashanah 56a, and at the beginning of the Hemshech Rosh Hashanah 5666, the wording is: "מה ראו כו׳ והלא החשש הוא להדיוטים וקלי הדעת כו׳" ("What did they see etc.; is not the concern only regarding simple people and the light-minded etc."). (Accordingly, one could have said that the question is why they uprooted the mitzvah from those about whom there is no concern that they will carry four cubits — for the sake of the simple people etc. (similar to the rule "אין אומרים לאדם חטוא בשביל שיזכה חבירך" ("one does not tell a person to sin so that his fellow may gain merit")).) But in the Siddur ibid. and elsewhere it does not conclude "is not the concern regarding simple people etc.," which implies that the question is also why they annulled the mitzvah from those about whom this concern does exist. And what is stated in Likkutei Torah and in 5666, "is not the concern etc.," is only to strengthen the question. And at the beginning of the Hemshech Rosh Hashanah 5703 it is stated explicitly: "ועוד זאת כו׳" ("And furthermore etc.").
26) Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, beginning.
27) Sources cited in Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 159, note 62.
28) Note also that Rosh Hashanah is postponed from falling on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday, yet it was not postponed from falling on Shabbos (at least — so as not sometimes to postpone by four days (see the Responsa of Rashi cited below) — in place of Sunday or Friday) on account of shofar and lulav [see Yerushalmi Sukkah ch. 4, end of halachah 1 (and especially according to Tosafos Rid (first edition) on Megillah (4b) and the Maharsha on Pesachim (71a, s.v. ליל), that the postponement from Sunday on account of the aravah was a later enactment)]; but see Tosafos s.v. לא (Sukkah 43b); Rashi's Sefer HaPardes, responsum 153 (and in the Ehrenreich edition — end of the Laws of Chol HaMoed); Responsa of Rashi, sec. 118. And further, and most importantly: as the conclusion we have only the words of the Rambam (Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon, ch. 7, halachah 7), that the postponements are in order to coincide with the day of the true conjunction; and therefore there must also be three postponed days with a gap (of a day) between them, and (as the Levush states, Orach Chaim sec. 427) they chose Sunday, Wednesday and Friday — on account of the aravah, the dead, and vegetables. Based on this, both objections of the Raavad to the Rambam there are resolved, one by the other. For the views on the above, and discussion etc. — see Torah Sheleimah vol. 13 (Bo); this is not the place to elaborate.
29) See similarly Torah Or 98c.
30) Accordingly, Tosafos' question (Megillah 4b, s.v. ויעבירנה) regarding circumcision is also resolved. Note that circumcision and Pesach are connected with each other (see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 867 ff.; the general letter for Pesach 5730, printed in the Haggadah (Kehot 5746 and later), p. 626; and elsewhere).
31) Perhaps one can say that this too is connected to the concept of "ליל שימורים" ("the night of watching").
32) Iggeres HaKodesh, end of sec. 28.
33) See Likkutei Torah, Tzav 17a: "דאין ביכולתו להחמיץ כלל מפני עוצם הגילוי דבחי׳ ממה״מ שנגלה עליהם" ("that it is not able to leaven at all, because of the intensity of the revelation of the level of the Supreme King of kings that was revealed to them"). And although this revelation is after midnight — it is explained in Likkutei Torah there that "after the Jewish people received Torah and mitzvos . . . also through this matzah that we eat before midnight we are able to receive . . . from the level that was revealed . . . after midnight." See there.
34) See Likkutei Torah ibid., 13c, and the sources cited there.
35) The wording of the Alter Rebbe in Likkutei Torah (quoted above, note 25).
36) Mishlei 12:21.
37) See Tosafos s.v. השתא — Gittin 7a, and the sources cited there. But see Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 187, note 23.
Key Lesson
Because G‑d created the world for the sake of Torah and mitzvos, nothing in creation can truly prevent a Jew from fulfilling a mitzvah he is required to do. On Pesach, when there is no room for "chametz" — the evil inclination — every Jew, even the simplest, stands on the level of "No iniquity shall befall the righteous," protected even from inadvertent wrongdoing.