Parshas Vaera
1. It is stated in the Yerushalmi1: "מניין לד' כוסות" ("From where do we derive the four cups?" — (that they have an allusion in the Torah)2). "Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Benayah: they correspond to the four expressions of redemption" (the expressions of redemption mentioned in the parsha when the Jews were given the tidings of the redemption from Egypt3): "לכן אמור גו' והוצאתי גו' והצלתי גו' וגאלתי גו' ולקחתי גו'" ("Therefore say… 'I will bring you out'… 'I will rescue you'… 'I will redeem you'… 'I will take you'…")4.
Further reasons are given there as well: "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: they correspond to the four cups of Pharaoh, etc. Rabbi Levi said: they correspond to the four kingdoms. And the Rabbis say: they correspond to the four cups of retribution that the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future give the nations of the world to drink… and corresponding to them the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future give Israel to drink four cups of consolation, etc."
Simply put, the difference between the latter reasons and the first reason, "corresponding to the four redemptions," is this: according to the latter reasons, the four cups contain no remembrance of, and no evident connection to, the redemption of the Jewish people (from Egypt); whereas according to the reason "corresponding to the four redemptions," the four cups are a remembrance of the (expressions of) redemption.
Based on this, it can be said that the above dispute regarding what the four cups allude to also has a practical ramification in halachah. To explain this, we must first preface:
The Alter Rebbe writes in his Shulchan Aruch5, in the laws of reclining: "אימתי צריך להסב" ("When must one recline? While eating the kezayis… of matzah… and while eating the korech (the 'sandwich')… eating the afikoman… and drinking the four cups — because all these things are a remembrance of the redemption and of freedom, for the Sages instituted the four cups corresponding to the four expressions of redemption stated in Parshas Vaera: 'I will bring out,' 'I will redeem,' 'I will take,' and 'I will rescue,' etc. Therefore they require reclining, in the manner of free people. But for the rest of the meal, if one wishes to eat and drink without reclining, he may do so, etc. Nevertheless, one who reclines throughout the entire meal is praiseworthy and performs the mitzvah in the most choice manner").
From the style of his wording it is evident that his intent is to explain the reason that reclining is required for these four things, namely, because "they are a remembrance of the redemption and of freedom" — "therefore they require reclining, in the manner of free people."
This needs to be understood:
a) In this very siman (in a preceding se'if6) he already explained the reason for reclining: "…that he should sit reclining in the manner of free people, etc., because in every generation a person is obligated to regard himself as if he were now going out of the bondage of Egypt, etc. Therefore he must perform every act of this night in the manner of free people."
Accordingly, we have no need for a reason as to why one must recline while eating the kezayis, etc., since this is already clear from what he wrote previously. On the contrary, it would have been more fitting for him to explain primarily why one need not recline (but rather "may do so" as he wishes) for "the rest of the meal" (and it does not appear from the style of his wording that this is his intent in this explanation)7?
b) Why does the Alter Rebbe write that the four expressions of redemption are "stated in Parshas Vaera" — it is not his custom, in the body of the Shulchan Aruch, to cite the location of the verses he quotes.
c) In Parshas Vaera these four expressions are stated in a different order: "I will bring out," "I will rescue," "I will redeem," "I will take" [and this is also the order cited in the above-quoted saying of our Sages (in the Yerushalmi)]. So why did the Alter Rebbe change their order?8
2. All the above will be understood by first prefacing a general clarification of the nature of the law of reclining, which can be understood in two ways:
a) Reclining is not an obligation in its own right; rather, it is a detail and condition in the mitzvah of eating matzah and drinking the four cups, etc. That is, just as there are details and conditions regarding the quantity and quality of the matzah eaten and of the four cups drunk, so too there is a condition regarding the manner of the eating and drinking — it must be done while reclining.
b) Reclining is a general mitzvah in its own right — on the night of Pesach a person must display conduct in the manner of free people, and he displays this through reclining, by eating while reclining and drinking while reclining. One does not discharge the obligation of reclining except through eating the kezayis of matzah and drinking the four cups, etc.; that is, this eating and drinking are details in the mitzvah of reclining9.
The difference between them: if one ate the kezayis of matzah (to fulfill the mitzvah of eating) without reclining, has he discharged the mitzvah of eating matzah or not? If we say that reclining is an indispensable condition in the mitzvah of eating matzah, then if he did not recline he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of eating matzah either (Rabbinically10), since reclining is indispensable to it. But if eating the kezayis of matzah is a detail of reclining, then if he did not recline while eating it, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of reclining, but there is no deficiency in his fulfillment of the mitzvah of eating matzah.
The practical halachic ramification between these two understandings of the obligation of reclining: if one ate the kezayis without reclining, in which case he must go back and eat it again while reclining11, is he obligated to repeat the blessing "על אכילת מצה" ("concerning the eating of matzah")12? If the obligation to go back and eat is only in order to fulfill the mitzvah of reclining (but he already fulfilled the mitzvah of eating matzah completely), he should not recite "concerning the eating of matzah" a second time. But if the obligation of the second eating is to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah (which he did not fulfill when he ate without reclining), he must repeat the blessing "concerning the eating of matzah."
One can suggest a further practical ramification: if one ate the kezayis of matzah without reclining, and afterwards the situation changed so that he is no longer obligated to recline — for example, he is now sitting before his teacher — must he go back and eat it again without reclining? If he did not fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah when he ate without reclining (so that his status is as if he did not eat matzah), then he is now obligated in the mitzvah of eating matzah (even though it will be without reclining, since he is not now obligated to recline), for he has not yet discharged that obligation13. But if the first time he already fulfilled the mitzvah of eating matzah, only that he did not discharge the obligation of reclining — and from that mitzvah he is exempt at this time, since he is sitting before his teacher — there is no reason for him to go back and eat a kezayis of matzah, etc.14
3. One can prove that the obligation of reclining is a condition in eating matzah from what is stated in the Gemara15: "השמש שאכל כזית מצה כשהוא מיסב יצא" ("An attendant who ate a kezayis of matzah while reclining has discharged his obligation; reclining — yes, not reclining — no"). From this it is understood that if one ate matzah without reclining he has not discharged the obligation of matzah. It is very forced to say that the Gemara means the mitzvah of reclining, for if so, what does it teach us with the words "reclining — yes, not reclining — no"? It is obvious that if one did not recline, he has not discharged the obligation of reclining.
This is stated explicitly in the Rosh there16, who was uncertain about one who drank the third or fourth cup without reclining, whether he should be required to go back and drink it while reclining, since "it appears as if he is adding to the cups. However, one could say that since he drank not in its proper manner, it has become clear retroactively that it was not of the count of the cups, and what he drinks now is the cup of obligation." He thus writes explicitly that this cup which he drinks without reclining is not of the count of the cups17, and the same applies to the kezayis of matzah, etc.18
For the sake of pilpul, one could suggest that this is also implied in the Yerushalmi19: "יוצאין במצה בין שכיון בין שלא כיון" ("One discharges one's obligation with matzah whether he had intent or did not have intent… since he reclined, there is a presumption that he had intent"). That is, one discharges the mitzvah of eating matzah even if at the time of eating he actually did not have intent for the sake of the mitzvah. The reason is that since he reclined, there is a presumption that he had intent at the outset — only that afterwards, at the time of eating, his mind was diverted and he forgot this intent20 — and he follows his original thought21. Now, if we say that one discharges the mitzvah of eating matzah even without reclining, what certainty is there that he reclined, such that "since he reclined, etc."? Just as he did not have intent, it is possible (and on the contrary — it is reasonable) that he also did not recline, and it should have said "…even if he did not have intent, if he reclined," or the like. We must therefore conclude that there is no need to specify in the Baraisa that it speaks of where he reclined, since without reclining it is obvious that he does not discharge his obligation, and "since (it must necessarily be speaking22 of where) he reclined, there is a presumption that he had intent"23.
However, it can be said that there is no need to specify "if he reclined," since this is understood from his saying "since he reclined," especially as the Yerushalmi customarily writes concisely.
4. However, at first glance one can also prove the opposite — that reclining is a mitzvah in its own right, and eating matzah, etc., is a condition in reclining — from the law that "one who reclines throughout the entire meal is praiseworthy and performs the mitzvah in the most choice manner"24. For if we say that the entire concept of reclining is only a condition in the manner of eating the mitzvah matzah, etc., what is the praise and the "most choice manner of the mitzvah" in reclining throughout the entire meal — since reclining in itself is not commanded and is only a condition in eating the matzah, etc.? We must therefore conclude that there is a mitzvah in reclining itself — its principal obligation is while eating the matzah, etc., and for the entire meal it is only "the mitzvah in the most choice manner"25.
However, this proof can be refuted. For on Yom Tov "the entire meal" is a mitzvah, since "just as it is a mitzvah to honor Shabbos and delight in it, so too on all the festivals… and one should increase in meat, wine and delicacies according to his means"26. If so, one can say that just as there is a reclining which is an indispensable condition in the mitzvah of eating matzah, so too there is a reclining which is a condition for the "most choice manner" in the mitzvah of the delight and joy of Yom Tov on this night27.
Nevertheless, the reason for the obligation of reclining proves that reclining is a matter in its own right. For the Rambam writes28 (and similarly the wording of the Alter Rebbe, as above): "בכל דור ודור חייב אדם להראות את עצמו" ("In every generation a person is obligated to show himself as if he himself has now gone out of the bondage of Egypt… therefore29 when a person dines on this night, he must eat and drink while reclining in the manner of free people"). Since this matter, that "he is obligated to show himself, etc.," is certainly an obligation in its own right, and from it branches out the obligation to eat and drink while reclining, we must conclude that reclining too is an obligation in its own right30.
Now, in order to reconcile these matters which appear to contradict each other, it can be said that there are two obligations in reclining: a) a mitzvah in its own right; b) a condition in the mitzvah of eating matzah, etc. When one eats the kezayis of matzah, etc., while reclining, he fulfills both the mitzvah of eating matzah in its proper manner and the special mitzvah of reclining in its own right. And in the mitzvah of reclining as it is in its own right, there is the essential mitzvah, which is while eating the kezayis of matzah and drinking the four cups, and the "most choice manner of the mitzvah" — during the rest of the meal, i.e., an enhancement of the mitzvah of reclining.
5. Accordingly, the words of the Alter Rebbe (in the preceding se'if) are well explained: "that he should sit reclining in the manner of free people, etc., because in every generation, etc. (in the wording of the Rambam cited above), therefore he must perform every act of this night in the manner of free people" — meaning that this is a general obligation to conduct oneself in the manner of free people on this night. From this it is understood that the mitzvah of reclining which derives from it is not a detail in the mitzvah of eating matzah, etc., but a matter in its own right.
Afterwards (several se'ifim later) he continues and explains the things that require reclining. For through the reason and concept of reclining which he explained earlier, the mitzvah of reclining is explained as an obligation in its own right. Here, his intent is to explain the second aspect of reclining — as it is a detail and condition in the mitzvah of eating matzah, etc. — as he concludes: "therefore they require reclining in the manner of free people" (and not "therefore one must recline while doing them," or the like). That is, because of the reason explained here, "they" — these mitzvos — require reclining.
And the reason: "because all these things are a remembrance of the redemption and of freedom" — meaning that this content of theirs, "a remembrance of the redemption and of freedom," is what makes reclining (in the manner of free people) necessary in them as a condition, so that their "remembrance of the redemption and of freedom" should be complete in all its details31.
And he continues to prove this by emphasizing the reason (in connection with the four cups): "for the Sages instituted the four cups corresponding to the four expressions of redemption stated in Parshas Vaera." From this it follows that this mitzvah is about redemption and freedom, and therefore it requires reclining as a condition. This is not so according to the other reasons for the institution of the four cups: "corresponding to the four cups of Pharaoh… corresponding to the four kingdoms… corresponding to the four cups of retribution that the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future give the nations of the world to drink… and corresponding to them the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future give Israel to drink four cups of consolation" — for according to all these reasons the four cups are not a remembrance of the redemption and freedom of the Jewish people32, and according to them the reason why reclining should be a condition in the mitzvah of the four cups is not understood.
This is why he emphasizes and says "stated in Parshas Vaera." His intent is not to cite the source of these expressions, but to be precise and to explain his words above [that only according to the view that "the Sages instituted the four cups corresponding to the four expressions of redemption" is it possible to say that the obligation of reclining is a condition in the four cups (which is not so according to the reasons "corresponding to the four cups of Pharaoh, etc.")]: because these expressions are "stated in Parshas Vaera," and the subject of this parsha is the redemption and exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt, and corresponding to them the four cups were instituted on the night of the redemption (which is not so regarding the four cups of Pharaoh, etc., for the content of the parshiyos in which these cups are mentioned has no connection to the exodus from Egypt33).
6. However, the matter is still not fully explained. For "one must drink the four cups in order… that is, between the first and second cup, and between the third and fourth, one should interrupt with the recitation of the Haggadah and the Hallel, and between the second and third one should interrupt with the eating of matzah and Birkas HaMazon"34, because "each cup was instituted for a specific matter"35. From this it is understood that there is another aspect in the mitzvah of the four cups besides their being a remembrance of the redemption and freedom; we must therefore say that each cup is also connected to the specific matter for which this particular cup was instituted. Thus the institution of the four cups is not solely because of the matter of freedom36.
This is the reason why the Alter Rebbe changes the order of the four expressions ("I will bring out," "I will redeem," "I will take," "I will rescue") from the order in which they are stated in the verse ("I will bring out," "I will rescue," "I will redeem," "I will take") — rather following the order of the four cups, which is what he is speaking about here — for the four expressions themselves are what give the reason for each of the four cups and for the matters recited over them:
Over the first cup one recites the Kiddush of the day37, and in Kiddush one says "זכר ליציאת מצרים" ("a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt"), which corresponds to "והוצאתי" ("I will bring out"). "Over the second cup one reads the Haggadah"37, and the novelty of the mitzvah of recounting the exodus on the night of Pesach, beyond the mitzvah of remembering the exodus every day, is that on the night of Pesach there must be a recounting at length and with explanation38. This corresponds to "וגאלתי" ("I will redeem"), in the continuation of which the verse describes the greatness of the miracles and wonders of the exodus, as it is written, "וגאלתי אתכם בזרוע נטויה ובשפטים גדולים" ("I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments"); and one concludes with the blessing "אשר גאלנו וגאל את אבותינו" ("Who has redeemed us and redeemed our fathers… Blessed are You, L‑rd, Who redeemed Israel"). "Over the third cup one recites Birkas HaMazon"37, in which thanks are mentioned for "תורתך שלמדתנו" ("Your Torah which You have taught us"), and if one did not mention Torah in Birkas HaMazon he has not discharged his obligation39. This corresponds to "ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלקים" ("I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be to you as G‑d"), which refers to the Giving of the Torah, as it is written40, "היום הזה נהיית לעם לה' אלקיך" ("This day you have become a people to the L‑rd your G‑d")41. "Over the fourth cup one completes the Hallel and recites over it the Blessing of Song"42, which pertains mainly to the future redemption (which is why one first says "שפוך חמתך על הגוים" ("Pour out Your wrath upon the nations…")43). This is alluded to in "והצלתי" ("I will rescue") — for in this expression the rescue is not described in detail, but only (in general terms) "I will rescue you from their servitude." So too regarding the future redemption, as the Rambam writes44: "וכל אלו הדברים" ("All these matters… no one will know how they will be until they come to pass, for these matters are concealed from the prophets").
It follows, accordingly, that the matters recited over the cups also correspond to the four expressions of redemption (in the order here — in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe) and to the content of redemption and freedom. Thus the entire institution of the four cups, both as a whole and in its details, is "a remembrance of the redemption and freedom."
7. The explanation of the differences in the order of the four expressions in… [OCR unclear: the rest of this section's opening is missing from the source; the text resumes in the middle of a discussion of the levels of teshuvah]
…but rather that there should be a revelation of G‑dliness on the level of Memale Kol Almin (the light that "fills all worlds"). "ועשה טוב" ("And do good") — this is the teshuvah for "being lax in the positive commandments and in 'doing good' — exerting oneself in Torah and prayer," and "in order that he do teshuvah so that the light which was lacking through neglect of a positive commandment should also be filled, for this he must do a great teshuvah… to bind and cleave to the Name Havayah, which is Sovev Kol Almin (the light that 'encompasses all worlds') and on the level of makif (encompassing)." These two levels of teshuvah are the level of teshuvah tata'ah (lower teshuvah). "בקש שלום" ("Seek peace") is the level of teshuvah ila'ah (higher teshuvah), which is through the Torah, which "משים שלום בפמליא של מעלה ובפמליא של מטה" ("makes peace in the heavenly household and in the earthly household")46, and "Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace"; through this one reaches "the Essence of the Infinite Light, which is higher than Sovev Kol Almin and Memale Kol Almin." And in this there are two levels, corresponding to the revealed dimension of the Torah and the inner dimension of the Torah47.
Now, it is explained in Ohr HaTorah48 that the four cups correspond to the above four levels of teshuvah. Accordingly, the four expressions correspond to these four levels: "והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים" ("I will bring you out from under the burdens of Egypt") (the exodus from the impurity of Egypt) is the concept of "turn away from evil." "והצלתי" ("I will rescue") is from the term "צל" ("shade")49, which is the level of the makif — the light of Sovev Kol Almin drawn down through the mitzvos, as above, regarding which it is said50, "ובצל ידי כסיתיך" ("And in the shade of My hand I have covered you…")*. "וגאלתי" ("I will redeem") corresponds to the Torah, as our Sages said51, "אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה" ("No one is truly free except one who occupies himself with Torah study"), and specifically, according to the plain meaning of the saying of our Sages, to the revealed dimension of the Torah. "ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם" ("I will take you to Me as a people") means the true union with the Infinite Light, blessed be He, and this is the concept of the inner dimension of the Torah52 (for wherever "לי" ("to Me") is said, it never moves, neither in this world nor in the World to Come53 — meaning that this is on a level higher than division and change; and this is the inner dimension of the Torah, "in which there is no question… and no dispute, etc."54). Since these are four levels in teshuvah, whose manner of service is from below to above, the four expressions too are in an order from below to above.
However, the order of the four levels in the above service depends on the relative importance of study and action. If study is greater than action, then "I will redeem" and "I will take" are last in the order of the four levels counted from below to above; but if action is greater than study, then "I will rescue" comes last55, being higher than all of them.
This explains the reason for the order of the four expressions in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe and its change from the order in which they are written in the Torah: in the Written Torah (and in the Shulchan Aruch in a place that is not part of its halachah), the level of "I will redeem" and "I will take," which is the concept of the Torah, as above, comes last, because from the perspective of the Torah itself, the superiority of the Torah is felt and emphasized. However, in the Shulchan Aruch (of the Alter Rebbe), which pertains to the aspect of halachah, ruling and action in the Torah, the decision is that action is the main thing — the advantage and superiority of action — and therefore "I will rescue," which is the concept of action, as above, comes last.
8. This can be explained further in another manner:
It is stated in Pri Etz Chaim56 that the four cups are… [OCR unclear: the continuation of this passage is missing from the source; footnotes 5757, 5858 and 5959 were referenced in the missing text] …(I will bring) out, I will rescue, I will redeem, I will take. However, in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe he lists them according to their level of importance from the perspective of the Shulchan Aruch, and accordingly the order (of the four sons) is: the wise son, the simple son, the one who does not know how to ask, and the wicked son; and in the order of the cups: "I will bring out," "I will redeem," "I will take," "I will rescue."
It is written60, "כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות" ("As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders"). Through our service in "והגדת לבנך" ("And you shall tell your son") with all four sons — that they should all be on the level of "בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם" ("You are children of the L‑rd your G‑d")61 — we will merit all four expressions of redemption62, in our true and complete Redemption, speedily, in the very near future.
(From the sichos of Chag HaPesach and Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5729)
Notes
1) Pesachim 10:1. See also Bereishis Rabbah 88:5; Ohr HaTorah, Vaera (p. 185; p. 2596).
2) Pnei Moshe there.
3) Our parsha, 6:6–7.
4) In the Meiri, Pesachim 99b: their content (that of the four cups of Pharaoh) was a cause of the redemption from Egypt. See also the Korban HaEdah and Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi there, and the commentators on the Midrash in Bereishis Rabbah there. But it is understood that this is only a cause of a cause of a cause, etc., and a remote connection to the redemption, whereas according to the reason "corresponding to the four redemptions," this is the matter of the "redemption" itself.
5) Orach Chaim 472:4.
6) Se'if 7.
7) Similarly, this requires further study in the Rambam, Laws of Chametz and Matzah ch. 7, who writes in halachos 6–7: "In every generation a person is obligated to show, etc. Therefore when a person dines (unqualified) on this night, he must eat and drink (unqualified) while reclining in the manner of free people." And afterwards, at the end of halachah 8: "When must one recline? While eating the kezayis of matzah and drinking these four cups, etc." Seemingly, he should have been concise and written at the outset (in halachah 7): "Therefore a person must recline while, etc.," or the like.
8) The same difficulty applies to the Rashbam (Pesachim 99b), who also writes them in the order of the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe (and see the Rashbam's commentary on Bava Basra 58b). And although it appears that this was his version in Bereishis Rabbah (from which he copied his words, as he writes: "And we find in Bereishis Rabbah, etc."), it is not understood why he chose the version in Bereishis Rabbah and not the version in the Yerushalmi. And even if we say (at least in a forced manner) that this was also his version in the Yerushalmi, or that he did not have the Yerushalmi before him (as is known, this is discussed at length) — in any case, the above difficulty remains — according to his version — in Bereishis Rabbah and in the Yerushalmi.
9) Only that even according to this explanation, the obligation of reclining was instituted only while eating the kezayis of matzah and drinking the four cups, etc. The reason may be that the purpose of reclining is "to show oneself as if he is now going out of the bondage of Egypt… and has gone out to freedom" (Rambam there, halachah 6; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there, se'if 7). Therefore its obligation is specifically in these things "which are a remembrance of the redemption and of freedom" (whereas for the rest of the meal it is only "the mitzvah in the most choice manner"). See below, note 11. But despite all this, it requires much further study according to the view that reclining is a mitzvah in its own right: if it is impossible for one to eat and drink (he is in prison, or the like), is there an obligation of reclining alone? For from the law that one does not recline in the presence of his teacher, it is implied that reclining by itself is also a manner of freedom. And the reason it is not cited by the poskim may be that it is not at all common. Compare the law of sukkah in this regard (see Taz 639, end of sub-par. 20), although one can distinguish between them. This is not the place to elaborate.
10) For it is very forced to say that if one ate without reclining, the Rabbis (who commanded to recline) uprooted it from the category of a mitzvah eating, so that he did not fulfill the Torah mitzvah of eating matzah. See Orchos Chaim, Order of the Pesach Night, se'if 2, that there is "a support for reclining from the Torah." — And regarding my answer, note the views on whether a Rabbinic annulment of ownership is effective regarding a Torah law (Piskei Dinim of the Tzemach Tzedek, Orach Chaim 448:3).
11) Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 7; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there, se'if 15. See Tosafos, s.v. "Kulhu," Pesachim 108a, who were uncertain regarding the four cups. See Pri Chadash 472, sub-par. 7, regarding the reason for the uncertainty. See Responsa Beis HaLevi, vol. 3, sec. 1, par. 9, regarding the view of the Ran; and in Dibros Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Kesavim, p. 176. Seemingly, one could prove from this law itself (that one must go back and eat while reclining) that reclining is a condition in eating matzah. For if reclining were an obligation in its own right, then when he ate the kezayis of matzah without reclining he already fulfilled the mitzvah of matzah; what room is there to obligate him to eat the kezayis of matzah again while reclining, since he already fulfilled the mitzvah of matzah? But this is not so — for according to the view that reclining is an obligation in its own right, the meaning is not that its obligation takes effect when one fulfills the mitzvah of eating matzah, but that they instituted it with the eating of matzah, etc., because these are a remembrance of the redemption and freedom (as in note 9 above). If so, one can say that even though he already fulfilled the mitzvah of matzah, the Sages obligated him to eat matzah again, as a remembrance of the redemption and freedom, while reclining. Accordingly, we must say that what is stated in the Yerushalmi (Pesachim there), "That kezayis with which a person discharges his obligation on Pesach must be eaten reclining" (and similarly what is stated in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there, at the beginning of se'if 14), speaks of the usual case. But if he transgressed and ate without reclining, he must go back and eat while reclining. See below, note 23.
12) According to what the Rema writes (472:7; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there, se'if 15), that for the third and fourth cups, if one did not drink while reclining he should not go back and drink, since the Ra'avyah is worthy of being relied upon, that nowadays reclining is not required, in a case where there is concern that it appears that he is adding to the cups — one can say that, similarly, he would not need to go back and repeat the blessing, etc., here, where there is concern of a blessing in vain. Accordingly, what is explained in the text is "by the strict letter of the law."
13) One could say that since he did not discharge his Rabbinic obligation of matzah because he ate it without reclining, the Sages did not obligate him to go back and eat, since now too he will eat without reclining, "and he will gain nothing." Compare the views regarding Ya'aleh VeYavo: if one did not mention Ya'aleh VeYavo in Minchah of Rosh Chodesh, and at night it is no longer Rosh Chodesh, must he go back and pray Maariv twice, even though he will not say Ya'aleh VeYavo in it, since he did not discharge his obligation at Minchah and it is as if he did not pray at all (see Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 108:17, and sources cited there).
14) And even if we say that since the obligation of reclining already took effect upon him before he came to his teacher, he is obligated to seek an opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of reclining — there is a ramification in a case where it is no longer possible for him to fulfill the mitzvah of reclining by leaving his teacher's presence (for example, if his teacher needs him, or the like).
15) Pesachim 108a.
16) Siman 20.
17) It is very forced to say that this itself is the uncertainty of the Rosh, as is evident from the Taz (472, sub-par. 5) and the Chok Yaakov (there, sub-par. 14).
18) One cannot distinguish between the four cups and matzah — that for the four cups, which are Rabbinic, reclining is indispensable, since "the same ones who said this said that," whereas matzah is a Torah commandment — for the source of the words of the Rosh is what is explained in the Gemara, "reclining — yes, not reclining — no," regarding matzah, as is evident in the Rosh there. And if regarding matzah reclining is not indispensable, from where would we know that it is indispensable for the four cups? And so the Ra'avan writes explicitly here: "And he does not discharge his obligation of matzah except by eating it while reclining."
19) Pesachim 10:3. See Tzafnas Paneach on the Rambam, Laws of Chametz and Matzah 6:3.
20) Korban HaEdah there.
21) See Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 589:9.
22) See Tzafnas Paneach there: "Here the Yerushalmi says that it must be speaking of where he reclined."
23) Accordingly, it is well understood what is explained in the Yerushalmi (cited in note 11), that the obligation of reclining is for "that kezayis with which a person discharges his obligation on Pesach," since according to the implication of the Yerushalmi here, one does not discharge the obligation of matzah if he did not recline. See the above note.
24) And in the Darchei Moshe here: "And initially one should recline throughout the entire meal." See the Taz, sub-par. 6. But the Pri Chadash, sub-par. 6, writes: "This is not so — there is only the mitzvah in the most choice manner." And in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe there he adds: "And we are not able to require him to recline; nevertheless, one who reclines, etc." The wording of the Rambam on this requires further study (ch. 7, halachah 8): "When must one recline? While eating the kezayis of matzah, etc. And for the rest of his eating and drinking, if he reclined it is praiseworthy, and if not, he need not." Seemingly, "and if not, etc., he need not" is superfluous. And it is forced to say that his intent is to teach that only for "the rest of his eating" need one not go back and eat, which is not so regarding the kezayis of matzah, etc. See below, the end of note 31.
25) Especially according to what the Pnei Moshe writes on the Yerushalmi (there, halachah 1), that the Amoraim there disagree whether reclining is required throughout the entire meal or only for the kezayis of matzah, etc. And it is implied that according to the one who says throughout the entire meal, one is obligated to recline throughout the entire meal just as for the kezayis of matzah.
26) Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 529:1 and 4.
27) Similarly regarding what the Meiri writes (Pesachim 108a): "The four cups all require reclining, both their drinking and the things arranged over them," meaning Kiddush, the reading of the Haggadah, the reading of the Hallel and Birkas HaMazon — one can refute this by saying that reclining is a condition in these things, and one cannot prove from this that he holds that reclining is a matter in its own right.
28) Laws of Chametz and Matzah 7:6–7. See also the Yerushalmi there: "They eat reclining to make known that they went out from slavery to freedom."
29) Generally it is not the Rambam's way to give reasons for his rulings. It is therefore implied that here this is not only a reason for the obligation of reclining, but that it is also a halachah and obligation that "a person is obligated, etc.," and from this branches out that "(therefore) when a person dines, etc."
30) This is the reason of the Pnei Moshe cited in note 25, who writes that according to Rav Levi reclining is required throughout the entire meal, because he explains the reason: to make known that they went out from slavery to freedom.
31) In a similar manner one can also resolve the difficulty in the words of the Rambam cited in note 7: at first he writes "he must eat and drink (unqualified) while reclining in the manner of free people," etc. — in continuation of what he wrote previously, "In every generation a person is obligated to show himself, etc., therefore, etc." — to emphasize that reclining is a mitzvah in its own right and is not dependent on the mitzvah of matzah, etc. Afterwards, after explaining the detailed laws of reclining, he continues: "When must one recline, etc.," by which he comes to explain (not only when one must recline from the standpoint of the mitzvah of reclining, but also) that reclining is a condition in the mitzvah of matzah, etc. He therefore waited with this until after detailing the other laws of reclining, and only when he came to explain the details of the mitzvos (in the continuation of the chapter) did he preface: "When must one recline, etc.," which includes both aspects, etc. As for why the Rambam does not write that if one did not eat the kezayis of matzah while reclining he must go back and eat it — even though he holds that reclining is (also) a condition in the mitzvah of matzah — one can say: 1) not all conditions in mitzvos are indispensable; 2) among the principles of the Rambam is that he does not cite laws that are not mentioned in the Talmud, etc. (Yad Malachi, Principles of the Rambam, par. 2; Sdei Chemed, vol. 9, Principles of the Poskim, sec. 3, par. 5; sec. 5, par. 23); 3) in a forced manner — he alluded to it at the end of 7:8 (as above, end of note 24).
32) See Pesachim 117b: "The Rabbis instituted four cups in the manner of freedom; with each one let us perform a mitzvah." And in the Ran there: "For the main institution is because of freedom." And in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 474:2: "These four cups the Sages instituted to be drunk in the manner of freedom, and each one is a freedom and a mitzvah in its own right." But the Rashbam there reads: "The Rabbis instituted four cups (unqualified), and each one, etc." If so, one can say that according to these reasons we read as the Rashbam does. (Note the wording of the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe at the beginning of sec. 479.) See there, 108b: "If he drank it undiluted… he has discharged the obligation of wine, but not the obligation of freedom." And in Rashi and the Rashbam: "That is to say, this is not a complete mitzvah." And in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 472:17: "He has not discharged the obligation of freedom, that is to say, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah in the most choice manner." According to what is explained in the text, that in the view of the Alter Rebbe the main mitzvah of the four cups is because of freedom, it is understood why they needed to be precise: "that is to say" (that the meaning is not the plain sense, that he has not discharged the obligation of freedom, for if so he would not have discharged the obligation of wine either; rather) that it is not a complete mitzvah, i.e., not in the most choice manner. But if the four cups are not because of freedom, it is understood simply that not discharging the obligation of freedom has no bearing on the obligation of the four cups, and therefore "he has discharged the obligation of wine." See also the Ran (Pesachim there) regarding the reason of Rabbi Yehudah, who holds that one need not train children in the four cups: "For in such a case it is not applicable to train them in the mitzvos, since they do not derive enjoyment and joy from it, it is not for them a manner of freedom." One can say that he follows his own approach, that the main institution is because of freedom, as above. See the Rashbam there, who explains it differently.
33) Even if we say that according to the above reasons too the cups have a connection to the matter of "redemption" — see above, note 4.
34) Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 472:16.
35) The wording of the Beis Yosef, sec. 484 [OCR reading] — only that he holds that this order is not indispensable; but see the Pri Chadash there; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 479:1, in parentheses, and in the marginal reference. See above, note 32.
36) Although this is not a difficulty, for in any case, since their main concept is freedom, it is fitting that reclining be a condition in them — nevertheless it is even more appealing if we say that the concept of each cup in its own right is also connected to the redemption and freedom, as explained below in the text.
37) The wording of the Rambam there, halachah 10.
38) See the sources cited in the Haggadah shel Pesach with Likkutei Taamim, Minhagim U'Biurim, p. 15.
39) Berachos 48b; 49a. Rambam, Laws of Berachos 2:3. Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe 187:4.
40) Ki Savo 27:9 [OCR reads 26:9].
41) [OCR unclear: the text of this note is missing from the source.]
42) [OCR unclear: the text of this note is missing from the source.]
43) [OCR unclear: the text of this note is missing from the source.]
44) [OCR unclear: the text of this note is missing from the source.]
46) Sanhedrin 99b.
47) Ohr HaTorah, Vaera, p. 185; p. 2596. These are the two levels of the earthly household and the heavenly household.
48) Ohr HaTorah, Vaera, p. 237.
49) Yeshayahu 51:16.
50) Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 2d.
*) [OCR unclear: the text of this starred note is missing from the source.]
51) Avos 6:2.
52) See Kuntres Etz HaChaim, ch. 13 ff.
53) Vayikra Rabbah 2:2. See also Tanchuma (Buber), Tetzaveh 9; Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 9c.
54) Zohar III, 124b; cited in Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 26.
55) Nevertheless, the level of "I will bring out," which is the concept of "turn away from evil," comes first, for in whatever order they may be, "turn away from evil" must come first (in the order from below to above) — "to separate from the forbidden" — and after that the order of the matters depends on whether action is greater or study is greater.
56) Shaar 21, ch. 5 and ch. 7.
57) Pri Etz Chaim there, ch. 7.
58) See Pri Etz Chaim there, on the passage of the wicked son, "What is this service, etc.": "Explanation: 'avodah' (service) is numerically equal to Elokim, and I have no need to ask for mercy — and he denied the essence of the Name and the root, which is Havayah, etc." Accordingly, the connection to what is said, "I will rescue you from their servitude," is understood (see the Siddur of the Shelah (cited in Ohr HaTorah, Vaera, p. 188): "The explanation of 'I will rescue you from their servitude' is: from the minister (angel) of Egypt, which is the object of worship of the Egyptians, whom they worship, etc.").
59) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 1, p. 249 ff.
60) Michah 7:15.
61) Re'eh 14:1.
62) See the beginning of section 1 (in the text): "And corresponding to them the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future give Israel to drink four cups, etc." And in Rabbeinu Bachaye (Shemos 6:8): "We find their counterpart — four expressions of redemption for the Future to Come — and this is what the prophet said (Yechezkel 34:13): 'I will bring them out from the peoples, and gather them from the lands, and bring them to their land, and I will shepherd them upon the mountains of Israel.'"
Key Lesson
The four cups of the Seder night are not only a general remembrance of our freedom; each cup, together with what is recited over it, reflects one of the four expressions of redemption, and in the Alter Rebbe's halachic ordering the expression tied to action comes last, teaching that action is the main thing. By educating all four sons in "you shall tell your son," we merit all four expressions of redemption in the true and complete Redemption.