The Laws of Pesach - Rabbi Michael Shlomo Avishid shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast of Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 In the laws of searching for chametz, there’s a halacha that seems very well known, but in practice people aren’t always careful about it. Section 431 discusses the time for searching for chametz. There are many things we should do as early as possible, because of the principle that “the zealous are early in performing mitzvos.” It’s not that the Sages necessarily established that they must begin at that exact time, but it’s a general principle. The Gemara in Pesachim, page 4, discusses this principle, and the Rebbe discusses it extensively in Likkutei Sichos as well. Take a bris, for example. The Gemara in Shabbos, in the chapter Rabbi Eliezer deMilah, around page 130, says that the mitzvah of bris was accepted with joy. So the Rebbe discusses in Likkutei Sichos, and also in letters, that if the choice is between being early to perform the mitzvah and “in a multitude of people is the King’s glory”—having a good atmosphere—then the laws of bris are an exception. Because there’s an emphasis on doing it with joy, the bris is sometimes delayed so that more people can attend. But generally, we have the principle of being early to perform mitzvos. In other words, if the same question arose with a pidyon haben—whether to have a larger crowd or to do it earlier—then being early is an important rule. One should always act promptly. Now, with searching for chametz, “On the eve of the fourteenth, we search for chametz.” Everyone knows the first Mishnah in Pesachim. And everyone remembers the first discussion, from page 2 to page 3, about that expression: What does “on the eve of the fourteenth” mean? Why doesn’t it say “on the night of the fourteenth”? There’s a simple answer: “The opening of Your words gives light.” Could you start a tractate with darkness? That wouldn’t do. The Ran cites the Raavad as saying that the tractate should begin with light. But the Magen

02:32 Speaker 2 Avraham gives a halachic explanation. “On the eve of the fourteenth” means at the beginning of the night. By Torah law, night begins when three medium-sized stars are visible, even if they aren’t close together. Regarding the recitation of Shema, since it’s a Torah obligation and not everyone could judge the stars accurately, the Shulchan Aruch, in section 235, says to wait for three small stars. Similarly, after Shabbos, when there’s a mitzvah to add from the weekday to the holy day, we wait for three small stars close together. But with three medium-sized stars, it’s already night, and that’s when we search for chametz: on the eve of the fourteenth. At the beginning of nightfall, when those medium-sized stars appear, if you look at the sky on a clear night without heavy clouds, it should be dark blue, not black, because there’s still a little light. That’s what “on the eve of the fourteenth, we search for chametz” means. The Sages specifically wanted the search to take place at the beginning of the night, while there was still a little light. Why was that so important? There are practical explanations: at that point there’s still a little light outside, and especially before electricity, that could help with the search for chametz, even though one had to be careful with the candle flame. But that isn’t the main reason. Look at the “Maharib”[?] in Kuntres Acharon: there’s a major concern here. Usually, when you have a mitzvah, you have a limited time to do it, so a person won’t put it off. He knows he doesn’t have all night or all the time in the world. Here, there’s the mitzvah of searching for chametz. When does it begin? On the eve of the fourteenth. There is, in fact, a connection to an earlier time too: if someone leaves home beforehand, within thirty days of Pesach he must search for chametz without a blessing. But the actual time for the mitzvah is the eve of the fourteenth. And how long does the obligation continue?

04:41 Speaker 2 Throughout Pesach, and even afterward. Chametz that remained in a Jew’s possession over Pesach, discussed in section 448, is a serious matter; it’s prohibited by rabbinic law. One must search for the chametz and remove it. If someone remembers during Chol Hamoed, or even in the middle of Yom Tov, he needs to search for chametz. On Yom Tov, he covers any chametz he finds, but he still needs to search, with a blessing. In other words, if someone didn’t search for chametz and remembers on Friday—this year, the search is on Thursday night—he searches on Friday with a blessing. If he didn’t search and remembers on Chol Hamoed, he searches with a blessing. So there’s a lot of time to search for chametz, and the Sages were very concerned that people would become lax. A person might say, “I have plenty of time.” That’s why they established that it must be done specifically at the beginning of the night. Both the Alter Rebbe and other halachic authorities use strong language here: someone who doesn’t search immediately at the beginning of the night is called a transgressor who has violated the words of the Sages. And that’s exactly the point explained in Kuntres Acharon: how important the beginning of the allotted time is, because they were concerned that a person would think he had all those days to do it. So you really have to make arrangements. It won’t happen by itself. Section 433 says that when you search for chametz, the house needs to be clean. The halachic authorities say it needs to be swept. You can’t search for chametz in a jungle; you need to search in a clear space. So if you come home and the place is a mess, you can’t begin the search. To avoid being a transgressor, you need to get everything ready beforehand, during the day, so that when you get home you can begin the search for chametz immediately. Not

06:44 Speaker 2 say, “No, I’m not a transgressor. After all, the Shulchan Aruch says the house has to be swept and put in order, so it’ll take me until eleven at night. Night begins at eight, but I’ll search at eleven because I have so much cleaning to do.” No. That’s called being a transgressor. The Sages didn’t want you to begin preparing for the search then; they wanted you to begin the search for chametz at the start of the night. That’s one point people aren’t always careful about. You can also see people in shul. At the very end of section 431, it discusses Maariv as well. So people daven Maariv at the proper time, going to daven with a minyan. There’s also a letter from the Rebbe about the Frierdiker Rebbe being particular to daven Maariv even on his own, but without getting into that, let’s take a case where there’s a communal Maariv. It is possible to daven Maariv before searching for chametz. So you might think, “I’m already not searching at the start of the night. Maariv takes time, and by the time I get home it’s fifteen or twenty minutes later. I’ve already missed the point, so perhaps I’m no longer considered a transgressor if I delay further.” But that isn’t correct. If you look closely at the Alter Rebbe’s wording near the end of section 431, where he addresses Maariv in this situation, he says to daven Maariv immediately. Why does he say “immediately”? Precisely to tell us that, to avoid being a transgressor and to search for chametz on time, you have to daven Maariv as soon as you can. Now, if after Maariv you suddenly get into a discussion of some topic with a friend, or start chatting about this and that, about Putin—I don’t know what you’re talking about—or

08:33 Speaker 2 you go shopping because you’re already near Kol Tuv or somewhere like that, then there’s a problem. Even if a person says, “But I didn’t begin at the start of the night; I was in the middle of Maariv”—why does it say “immediately”? The Alter Rebbe wants you to daven right away so that you get home as soon as possible.

08:51 Speaker 3 He’s already missed the...

08:53 Speaker 2 Huh?

08:54 Speaker 3 He’s already missed part of the time.

08:56 Speaker 2 Yes. That’s why I said at the outset that this isn’t the main explanation. It’s in the Magen Avraham, but the Alter Rebbe doesn’t emphasize it as a halachic condition. What the Alter Rebbe emphasizes more is that, because there’s so much time, a person may become lax, and that’s why the Sages wanted the search to be at the beginning of the allotted time. So according to the main reason—the concern that a person might become lax—you should search as soon as possible. The point is that even when a person davens Maariv, the Alter Rebbe still uses the word “immediately”: daven immediately so you can get home as soon as possible.

09:34 Speaker 3 What about a regular study session that isn’t nearby? [unclear]

09:37 Speaker 2 Yes. So there are also times when certain allowances apply, such as when someone has a fixed study session. That gives some leeway, but even there it’s interesting: the idea isn’t that once you’ve finished your study session—the thing for which you had the special allowance—you can take your time. Clearly, you should get home as quickly as possible. But many people don’t have a fixed study session at all right after nightfall. And especially on the night of Pesach, there are a lot of fixed commitments that can become a matter of life and death with one’s wife, if a person... So you really need to plan ahead and get home as quickly as possible. There is a halacha in siman 469: when shopping for Pesach, we often say, “I bought the meat for Pesach,” or “I bought this for Pesach.” That wording is serious, because it could be understood as setting something aside for the Korban Pesach, and that can take effect. The Alter Rebbe is very particular about this. So it’s worth getting used to saying, “for Yom Tov,” when shopping; then there’s no concern. There’s also a problematic expression we sometimes use: “What a bother this Pesach is,” “How expensive this Pesach is,” “What a headache this Pesach is.” Those things can come out when you’re cleaning, or under pressure, or facing expenses. So if someone really wants to complain, let him say, “What a headache,” “What a bother,” or “How much money I’ve spent”—but not “this Pesach.” To connect the complaint to Hakadosh Boruch Hu’s festival is not... Siman 469 says not to say that.

11:29 Speaker 3 What about in English?

11:30 Speaker 2 Huh?

11:30 Speaker 3 In English?

11:32 Speaker 2 Yes, yes. Hakadosh Boruch Hu understands English.

11:35 Speaker 3 The Alter Rebbe says that using Hashem’s name in English counts too.

11:38 Speaker 2 Yes. Right. So...

11:41 Speaker 3 What if you just say “Pesach” like that?

11:44 Speaker 2 Huh?

11:45 Speaker 3 What if you only say “Pesach”?

11:47 Speaker 2 Oh, you mean as a hint.

11:49 Speaker 3 Yes.

11:50 Speaker 2 Well, that may be all right, because you’re not explicitly saying, “What a bother this Pesach is.” That’s already a matter of thought. And Hakadosh Boruch Hu does not count a thought as a deed. Now, there’s a halacha in siman 436 saying that you have to be careful about this. I think it’s in the very last halacha of the Alter Rebbe there: from thirty days before the festival, you should no longer put things, or do things, that will make it hard to clean out the chametz afterward. For example—I heard where this is written, but there are plenty of simple examples. If someone is eating chametz on a couch right now, and the couch has little gaps, getting in there with a vacuum cleaner isn’t easy. I’ll give another example. You get the children into the car—or you yourselves are still out on the street; there are young people out there—and you get into the car and eat a boureka, or something else that crumbles. Cleaning a car isn’t easy. You can’t rely on... Outside—in Israel, and I believe they have it here too—you bring in the car and they clean it. That’s not... It’s a cleaning, which is good, but that’s stage one; afterward there’s stage two. If you want to use the car on Pesach, you can find chametz in there, especially if you have children—quite a lot of chametz. So, in short, sometimes people eat when they get into the car. Everyone agrees that cleaning a car isn’t easy. You have to find a vacuum cleaner, or an extension cord long enough to reach the car. You also have to bend down and move the seats a little. That is exactly what this halacha addresses: starting thirty days before the festival, you need to be careful. Some people are careful all year not to bring chametz into awkward places, but at least thirty

13:59 Speaker 2 days before the festival, it says you have to be careful about it. So it’s a very straightforward halacha. According to this halacha, when a person brings chametz into the car and eats it—bringing groceries in is one thing; they’re inside a bag. But when you take out a sandwich or eat a boureka or something that crumbles, cleaning the car afterward isn’t easy. So that’s one of the things you shouldn’t do during the thirty days before the festival.

14:23 Speaker 4 No, it’s already too late.

14:25 Speaker 2 What do you mean?

14:25 Speaker 4 It’s already too late.

14:27 Speaker 2 Yes, but nevertheless, there’s a halacha that establishes this. After all, everything follows what the Torah sets out. We’ll have to clean in any case. But obviously, if someone adds more chametz, that makes it even harder. Anything you add makes the job harder. The halacha doesn’t say this applies only if the place is already clean. It says not to eat or bring chametz into places that will be difficult to deal with afterward. So it’s worth... Sometimes these are simple halachos that we can emphasize and take care to observe. There’s a saying you hear a lot—it’s even become a joke today, and they often talk about it on the radio. Women like to hear it: “The children aren’t the Korban Pesach, and dust isn’t chametz.” Yes, you know all the... There are so many jokes. There’s also the one about a man who came to his father-in-law and said, “The real chametz is your daughter”—because she was driving him crazy before the festival. “What do you mean, the real chametz is my daughter?” So he said, “Don’t worry, I sold her to a non-Jew years ago.” But anyway, there’s this idea that it’s not such a big deal to clean and scrub. Fine, after all, we’re looking for chametz. You know the opening Mishnayos? A place where chametz is brought in requires searching, but a place where it isn’t brought in doesn’t require searching. So that’s true. If someone suddenly says, “I need to clean on top of the bookcase,” fine, maybe there’s only dust up there. There’s no reason to clean it. If you’ve never brought chametz there, a place where food isn’t brought in doesn’t need to be searched. But there are still places where there is chametz, where you have brought chametz. So perhaps cleaning and scrubbing sounds excessive, but that isn’t true. It isn’t excessive. Even though people like to say this

16:23 Speaker 2 on the radio, reassuring everyone each time, saying, “Relax, you can do the cleaning very, very quickly.” In siman 442, after an extended discussion of chametz crumbs—whether there is a kezayis, whether something is lacking, and many other questions—the Alter Rebbe also discusses [unclear], and in the end says, “But Yidden are holy.” After all the halachic discussion, in practice, Yidden are holy. It’s right there in the text of siman 442, in se’if 30. There the Alter Rebbe writes explicitly that this is the strict law, “but Yidden are holy.” And women are accustomed to scrubbing and cleaning every place that chametz has touched. That is the Alter Rebbe’s wording. A place chametz has touched—you scrub it and clean it properly. Women scour it. So this isn’t some made-up practice; it’s an established concept, particularly in the kitchen. At home in the kitchen, we often use a mixer or a grinder to make cakes, so there’s flour. If you brought in the... what do you call them, the people who do foren—there are police forensic investigators, right? When there’s been a murder, they can examine the walls for all kinds of things. I don’t know, New York police, Miami police, whichever you like. They come and examine the walls, and they really could find a lot of things there from the year. We could have a long class on the definition of flour today. Nowadays, they do put it through hot water, so it’s less serious. Is it possibly chametz, or isn’t it chametz? It’s certainly chametz. But clearly we’re careful about flour, and there’s flour on the kitchen walls. There really is, because of all the cakes we make. If they came in and started using adhesive strips to collect samples, they’d find a great many things. That’s why it says they would scrub and clean every place that chametz had touched, the...

18:29 Speaker 2 That. So even though we always like to say not to go crazy preparing for Pesach, not to overdo it, we should know that the Shulchan Aruch says, “The Jewish people are holy.” Places where chametz came into contact were always scrubbed, like children’s toys. If people wanted to let their children use them over the holiday, they took them to the bathtub, cleaned them, and used cleaning products. Some even run them through the washing machine. These aren’t stringencies someone made up. After all, on Pesach we look for stringencies. These aren’t made-up stringencies; they’re things stated explicitly. There are also a few halachos about the Seder night. There are. Well, there are a few other things too. We could go in the direction of kashering utensils, or perhaps take one particular point. There’s so much material, so many subjects. There’s a halachah everyone remembers from the laws of meat and milk, in section 92, paragraph 8: the Rema says at the end that if a dairy utensil and a meat utensil touch each other, it’s not a problem, because one utensil does not transfer absorbed taste to another without liquid between them. The Shach repeats this in the laws of mixtures, in section 100. It’s a well-known halachah. The question is whether that’s an absolute rule, or whether it applies only after the fact, while perhaps, from the outset, we are concerned that they should not touch. Perhaps taste does transfer. So the Pri Megadim, there in section 92, paragraph 8, cites an opinion that taste might indeed transfer from one utensil to another, but after the fact we don’t rule that way, while from the outset we take it into account. Or the transfer of taste is minimal—there’s also an opinion like that, so it’s no longer of practical consequence. But perhaps on Pesach it is, since chametz prohibits a mixture even in the smallest amount. There are also—there are many novel rulings in section 447

20:35 Speaker 2 of the laws of Pesach. It prohibits even in the smallest amount. The Eliyah Rabbah, in Orach Chaim, also discusses an imparted taste that is detrimental. You remember the dispute between the Taz and the Nekudos Hakesef in section 92, paragraph 4, about whether we apply the rule of an imparted taste that is detrimental on Pesach. The Eliyah Rabbah is stringent even when the taste imparted on Pesach is detrimental. There’s also a utensil that hasn’t been used in the past day. True, the Rema presents this in section 447 as a custom, and the Eliyah Rabbah also calls it a custom—but it’s a firmly established custom. We don’t play around with it. The Magen Avraham there says that where there is no established custom, one may be lenient, and whoever is stringent will be blessed—that’s what he writes. But today, at least among Ashkenazim, and certainly among us, the custom is that even an imparted taste that is detrimental prohibits a mixture on Pesach, even in the smallest amount. If someone cooked in a chametz utensil that hadn’t been used in the past day, even if it was chametz that had been absorbed into the utensil, the food is prohibited. So the rule—huh?

21:25 Speaker 5 It wasn’t on Pesach.

21:26 Speaker 2 No, on Pesach, of course. From midday on Erev Pesach until nightfall, chametz prohibits a mixture only if it constitutes at least one-sixtieth of it. Only from nightfall, during the seven days when the penalty of kareis applies—the penalty of kareis begins only with the seven days of Pesach—does chametz prohibit even in the smallest amount. Now, let’s return to this rule that one utensil does not transfer absorbed taste to another without liquid between them. Is it an absolute rule or not? The Alter Rebbe regards it as an absolute rule. In section 451 of the laws of Pesach, paragraph 65, he writes—let’s take an example: an oven from the old days. Unlike today, when everyone has their own oven, there was a large oven that many neighbors would come to use. One would put meat in it; another would put dairy in it. Right? That’s why there’s an entire section on this in the Shulchan Aruch, section 108 of Yoreh De’ah. If it was a large oven, there were sometimes ways to permit its use even from the outset—a large oven with an opening and so on. That’s what they did, making use of every possibility. So you could use the inside of the oven, and also the roof of the oven. With all the wood and fire inside, even the top of the oven would get hot—say it was an earthenware oven. There were also ceramic ovens, and people would put flatbreads on top. Even today, if you go to India or Afghanistan or wherever, take a look: sometimes you’ll see children heating flatbreads, spreading them out and placing them on the roof of the oven too. So the roof of the oven heats up from the fire. The food is placed there without water, so it requires thorough kashering with fire. Now, if that roof is made of earthenware, you can’t even kasher it. So how can you use it on Pesach? You want to warm a matzah on top of it—an already-baked matzah—and you want to warm it during Pesach. The Alter Rebbe gives a very simple answer: take, for example, an iron sheet and put it on the oven without kashering the oven. He’s speaking about doing it without kashering. Why? He says that

23:36 Speaker 2 one utensil does not transfer absorbed taste to another without liquid between them. Even if you put the matzah directly on the sheet to warm it, there’s no problem. In other words, the Alter Rebbe would not have been lenient from the outset on Pesach if he thought taste might pass from one utensil to another. Rather, he holds that this is an absolute rule: it does not pass. If so, why does the Rema, in section 108, make it sound as though this applies only after the fact? There are two explanations. One is that there’s an opinion that taste does pass, but the Alter Rebbe holds that it does not. So what, then? In section 97—which is indeed in the laws of meat and milk—the Pri Megadim, in Mishbetzos Zahav, subsection 3, discusses a case where a prohibited substance was absorbed into the floor of an oven, and then you put a pot there. He discusses this rule that one utensil does not transfer absorbed taste to another without liquid between them: after the fact, if it’s clean, the taste does not pass. There, the Pri Megadim explains why we don’t do this from the outset: because one day you’ll make a mistake, another day you’ll forget, and it won’t be clean. When something is used frequently, we’re very concerned that one time it will be clean and another time it won’t. We can learn many, many halachos relevant today from that Mishbetzos Zahav. For example, someone might say, “I have a microwave, and I use it for both meat and dairy. What’s the problem? I always cover the food.” Some people do that, but according to that Mishbetzos Zahav, it’s a problem. Anyone who receives questions from outside Chabad can attest to it. Any rabbi can tell you how often these questions come up. “Rabbi, but—” Because in those people’s minds, in the mind of a child living in that home, what does he think about the microwave? He says, “It’s both meat and dairy. My mother sometimes makes pizzas in it, and sometimes heats up meat soup.”

25:19 Speaker 2 So one time he puts a plate in and the food is uncovered; other times it’s covered, but the cover opens a little from the steam. No, not everything is covered properly. That’s one reason we don’t do it. When food is sealed inside a microwave, even if you attach a thermometer to the ceiling up there, it won’t reach a temperature at which the hand recoils. When the food is sealed, the heat comes from the food, and because it’s closed up, the heat outside it doesn’t reach high temperatures. They tested this at the Bahai Institute[?]; they tested these things. But why don’t we do it? Because of that Pri Megadim. One time it will be uncovered, another time it won’t, and questions about this come up all the time. But the Alter Rebbe says that when I cover the surface—when I put a sheet on it—I cover it for the entire Pesach. It’s not that I sometimes remove it and rely on the surface being clean. Here it remains completely covered throughout, so there’s no concern that I’ll use what’s underneath. Why am I giving this example? In our kitchens, we have a sink and the countertop around it. Many people cite the ruling that you need to pour boiling water over it, right? And use a heated stone where possible. Yes, some materials might crack, but let’s say you have a stainless-steel surface: you pour boiling water over it and use a heated stone. Even so, today we are stringent. The general practice, and what Chabad rabbis say, is to cover the countertop. So, in principle, the case discussed by the author of Tanya in section 451, paragraph 60, is more severe. Here, most of its use is cold, and it isn’t always [unclear]. There, we’re talking about an oven on which you heat bread all year, and you just put a piece of iron on it.

27:21 Speaker 2 Or thick aluminum—the Alter Rebbe says you can heat whatever you want on it during Pesach without kashering it, even if it is earthenware. Why? Because one utensil cannot transfer absorbed taste into another without liquid between them. That is why nowadays we also pour boiling water over it. After all, you could just cover it. All right, perhaps when you turn on the water, some of it might seep underneath. We are concerned that something like that could happen, so we pour boiling water over it. This is what the Chok Yaakov writes. The Alter Rebbe cites the Chok Yaakov a lot in the laws of Pesach. Have you noticed? The Chok Yaakov says that when you pour boiling water over it, you need a heated stone as well. But why, seemingly? What is the concern? What is the worst that could have happened? Suppose noodle soup sometimes spilled on the countertop. The soup was poured from a first vessel, because it was taken off the hotplate. You are also pouring from a first vessel, so that is fine. Are you concerned about a solid piece of hot food? Yes? The noodles themselves, a hot pita, hot bread, hot pizza placed directly on the countertop. But seemingly, even if you say it is like a first vessel, when a first vessel is placed on a surface, there is a dispute in siman 105, se’if 3, between the Rema and the Rashal about whether we say tata’ah gavar—the lower item prevails—with utensils or not. Why do some say that tata’ah gavar applies there too? In other words, the heat of the... In fact, there is a dispute about whether the rule of a solid piece of hot food applies at all, allowing taste to transfer. The Mechaber and the Rema are lenient on this. Then there are the Taz and the Shach; the Issur Veheter Ha’aruch takes a stringent position. The Alter Rebbe brings this in the Kuntres Acharon, at the beginning of se’if 3 in the laws of leaving food on the fire and returning it, subsection 11. He cites the Rashal and the Issur Veheter Ha’aruch, who are stringent about it. There are then several interpretations concerning Shabbos, but that is a subject of its own. Still, even if it is a solid piece of hot food,

29:15 Speaker 2 so what? The surface is cold and the solid piece is hot. The Pri Megadim says this should have been fine. Why require hagalah? The absorption is only to the depth of a peel. Pouring boiling water should have kashered it. So the Pri Megadim explains that this is really a stringency for Pesach. In other words, strictly speaking, we do not treat this as a concern, and it should have been enough just to pour boiling water over it. It is a Pesach stringency. Now, when we cover the surface, the Alter Rebbe himself brought the Pesach stringency of pouring boiling water over it, citing the Chok Yaakov. But that is when he is discussing a surface you do not cover. When you cover it, he says you do not even need to kasher it. So nowadays, if we pour boiling water over it and cover it, we can certainly be at ease. And incidentally, the water generally will not seep into every spot underneath. Even if a tiny bit does seep through and leaves some moisture, it is not clear that this counts as liquid. When it says that one utensil cannot make another forbidden without liquid between them, it means actual liquid. There is a well-known Chavas Daas in siman 92. Do you remember the case of meat that absorbed milk and is touching another piece of meat? Take the example of meat outside the liquid. Remember Rashi and Rabbeinu Yitzchak in siman 92, se’if 2? Suppose one piece of meat sticks out of the liquid, with another piece of meat on top of it, completely outside the liquid. The halacha says that if a drop of milk falls on the upper piece, only that piece of meat becomes forbidden. People ask: Why does the meat beneath it not become forbidden? This is really the discussion in siman 105, se’if 7, a well-known dispute involving the Taz, subsection 13, and the Shach, subsection 17: Does taste pass from one piece to another without liquid in the case of meat and milk? Is that considered an inherently forbidden item, as with other prohibitions, or not? The Shach is lenient on this. But, they say, the reason it does not pass between them is that there is no liquid. If there were liquid, it certainly could pass.

31:15 Speaker 2 So the Chavas Daas asks: I have a piece of meat outside the liquid, with another piece on top. Surely, with all the steam, there is plenty of moisture between the two pieces. Why does the taste not pass between them? He answers that a little moisture certainly does not count. So there have been some people—less so nowadays—who would say: On Pesach, pour boiling water over it, use a heated stone too if you can, and also cover it. That is already a very far-reaching stringency. According to the Alter Rebbe in siman 451, se’if 68, as the discussion there indicates, you would not need to kasher it at all, even if it were an earthenware utensil on which you baked. No, this is not hot on cold; it is hot on hot. The case there concerns the roof of an oven, where bread is placed all the time. Fine, but people can always seek out more stringencies. On Pesach, we do not make light of stringencies. Whoever wants to go all the way can find more of them. Now, perhaps a little about the Seder night. We have a Torah mitzvah to eat matzah. We also have a Torah mitzvah of telling the story in the Haggadah. You know the Rebbe’s sichos, including his commentary on the Haggadah. There he explains the distinction between the year-round mitzvah, “So that you remember the day you left the land of Egypt all the days of your life,” and—here, we recount the miracles and wonders verbally, and all the other answers. But we have a Torah mitzvah. For a woman, it is a rabbinic mitzvah. In siman 472, se’if 1, the Alter Rebbe says women are obligated in all the mitzvos of this night. They are obligated to eat matzah by Torah law, because the prohibition against eating chametz is linked to the mitzvah of eating matzah. Therefore, a woman’s obligation to eat

33:11 Speaker 2 matzah is from the Torah. But as for the other mitzvos, her obligation is because women, too, were part of that miracle. Yes, that is a well-known discussion in Pesachim 108: women, too, were part of that miracle, and therefore they are obligated in all the mitzvos of the night. In any case, they are all obligated, as are children, including girls, through the obligation of education. So there is a halacha about this in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, siman 472. The Rema cites earlier authorities who say that the Haggadah should be explained. It says that if women and children are capable of understanding all of it, you should explain all of it to them. Now, with all the discourses we give, thank G-d—especially the young married men among us—we are a little busy, but at your age all the Rebbe’s sichos still spring to mind. So for every passage of the Haggadah, there is something to say: here the Rebbe says this, “one wise, one wicked”—all of Likkutei Sichos comes to mind, thank G-d. Sometimes that makes things a bit difficult. What we sometimes need to say is this: Since there is a Torah mitzvah, and for women at least a rabbinic mitzvah, there is not always time to explain everything. Sometimes a person himself, however learned he may be, does not even understand what a particular passage is there to convey. All right, “Arami oved avi”—fine, but what is the point? So sometimes, at least explain the substance. Today there are many Haggadahs, [unclear], various Haggadahs that have been published with straightforward explanations from the early authorities—the Ran, the Ritva—simply explaining the plain meaning. It is very worthwhile, for women and men alike. Or at least, if there are people here who can understand it all, then sometimes even half a minute is enough: you have read a passage; you do not need to explain it word for word, but you can say, “In this passage, the plain meaning we should emphasize is this,” and give at least its substance. This is a halacha in the Shulchan

35:09 Speaker 2 Aruch; it is a Torah mitzvah of this night. And it says that if they can understand all of it, you should explain all of it to them. That is a very important halacha. For example, sometimes we are stringent. Everyone knows that in Chabad we drink nothing after the four cups, after the Seder—not even water. We really take pride in how careful we are. Why do you drink nothing? Is it because it would remove the taste? Most of the early authorities discuss that view, but as a matter of basic law, eating can remove the taste of the afikoman, while drinking cannot. That is in siman 481. Yes, when people start learning the laws of Pesach, they do not always get there. Many start at siman 472 but do not reach the end. But siman 481 says that, as a matter of basic law, drinking does not remove the taste. So why, in fact, do we drink nothing? The main reason is to avoid drinking something intoxicating, such as an alcoholic drink or wine. That is really the whole reason. And after the Seder, there is a mitzvah to recount the Exodus until sleep overtakes us. That is a halacha in the Shulchan Aruch. So what should we talk about after the Seder? About the Haggadah, the stories, the miracles. That is the main reason. Sometimes we are very careful about not drinking, and someone is very thirsty. He takes out a glass of water, and no—he will not drink until he falls asleep and then wakes up. He is not going to drink. But why was this whole practice established? So that you would not be drunk and could recount the Exodus until sleep overtakes you. So I just wanted to... Listen, one moment. I only want to emphasize that sometimes, if you see people chatting about this and that, with no connection to the Exodus—not a sicha of the Rebbe about the Exodus, nothing, just idle chatter—then this is a halacha in the Shulchan

37:09 Speaker 2 Aruch, that telling the story is a Torah mitzvah. And... yes, of course, when you read the Haggadah, it says that you should always... You know, sometimes on mivtzoim people ask which are the shortest passages they can say to fulfill their obligation. So they look there in Taryag; it has precisely the most important passages. But there is still a rabbinic requirement, at least, to tell the story until sleep overtakes you, and the whole halachah about drinking stems from this telling. So if you’re just going to sit afterward and chat for half an hour about something else, it’s better either to go to sleep or to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Why did you want to go to sleep?

37:45 Speaker 6 No, just regarding drinking.

37:48 Speaker 2 Yes.

37:48 Speaker 6 If, if a mother needs something, can she drink?

37:52 Speaker 2 Yes, yes, yes. Yes.

37:54 Speaker 6 And also...

37:55 Speaker 2 And water too—water is actually the best option. So... In any case, she won’t want wine.

38:00 Speaker 6 And also, also, also matzah and wine. She’s a woman, a woman, of course, who...

38:10 Speaker 2 Yes. Generally, just so you know, after the Seder night, after everything they’ve eaten, it’s unlikely there will be some pressing situation where she’s hungry and so on. What can genuinely come up is drinking. Drinking is a practical question, a practical question. As for eating something, obviously... Look, this isn’t a life-threatening situation. Obviously, someone who is considered ill—the Mishnah Berurah writes in 453, subsection 7, that if someone is ill and has intestinal problems, he must eat kitniyos. So even that prohibition, which is a stringent custom dating back to the Geonim, gives way. So... obviously there are allowances, but in practice it often won’t come up that frequently, and by the end of the Seder you can barely begin to eat anything more. But with drinking, you really can be lenient quite readily. Food is more stringent. You have to check whether she is actually considered ill; if she is, then certainly yes.

39:05 Speaker 6 I don’t think everyone eats matzah after the Seder.

39:11 Speaker 2 Yes, but ideally our custom is not to eat, so we still don’t give permission to eat that easily. But you’re right.

39:19 Speaker 7 There was something about an allowance regarding the required amounts of matzah and wine, and wine and grape juice and so on. That seems to be what he was asking.

39:26 Speaker 8 He was asking the opposite—not about eating more, but eating less.

39:30 Speaker 6 What can one be lenient about—for example, wine for a woman? Grape juice?

39:34 Speaker 2 Ah, okay, okay, okay. You mean the Seder night as a whole. Okay, because I was focused on eating at the end of the meal. Okay, fine. So, first let’s take the point about wine. I have just two or three minutes, because I have to be at a meeting. So: Many people have misunderstood the plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch. Not Torah scholars like you; I mean people in general. Some people misunderstood and wrote that it says Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai—you know the passage in Pesachim 108—would drink wine, apparently strong wine, and it hurt him until... until Shavuos, right? So they say, “See, you really shouldn’t readily dispense with the wine. Even if it’s hard, you have to drink it.” That’s not correct. What does it mean there? After all, it says in Bava Basra, and this is the halachah both in siman 272 and in the laws of Pesach—it’s the same thing. Everything written in siman 272, everything permitted in siman 272, can also be done regarding... in siman 272 it’s the same thing: A person can squeeze a cluster of grapes and make Kiddush. There is no issue, as a matter of basic halachah, with using grape juice. Now, it’s true—I’m not... You’re also familiar with... Where does the preference for drinking wine on Shabbos and Yom Tov come from? It’s the Magen Avraham, in siman 272 on subsection 2. The Alter Rebbe cites that the ideal way to perform the mitzvah is to make Kiddush on aged wine. What does that mean? Not grape juice—that’s what it means. Why? Because any grape juice, once it has been in a barrel for thirty or forty days, automatically becomes wine. It can’t go past forty days without becoming wine. So why do we have grape juice that’s been in the refrigerator for two months? Because they put in very strong chemicals that neutralize the alcohol, and then even a dog couldn’t drink the grape juice. Afterward they clean it, and it takes on an entirely new form,

41:36 Speaker 2 And seventy years ago, the responsa discussed what blessing to say over grape juice. That was the big question in the responsa. But, but in short, on Shavuos—sorry, on the Seder night—when was grape season? Today, because travel by plane and ship has become so easy, they bring produce here from Brazil, from Australia; they’re constantly bringing fruits and other things. We no longer know when grape season is. You always have grapes: if they aren’t from Brazil, they’re from here, or from the Holy Land. But in the Holy Land and these regions, usually by around Cheshvan, that’s it—the grapes are finished. So how could you get grapes around Pesach? What would you do—squeeze them? But once you squeezed them at that time... So it wasn’t possible to obtain grape juice on the Seder night. That’s why there was wine, and he drank only wine, because that was simply the reality. This is stated in the Rishonim; I’m not making it up: in practice, on Shavuos—on Pesach—grape juice wasn’t available. Now, there is nevertheless the ideal way to perform the mitzvah, which is to use wine. You know that when the Rebbe had his heart attack in 5738, they very much wanted him to drink even water, and he said he would not drink without Kiddush. Then they brought it, and they said they would make Kiddush for him; he would make Kiddush himself. They suggested grape juice, and he said no: “Kiddush macht men oif vayn”—you make Kiddush on wine. So yes, we’re very particular about using wine. But as a matter of basic halachah, that is the ideal way to perform the mitzvah; according to halachah, a person can squeeze a cluster of grapes and make Kiddush. Now, regarding the Seder night, this isn’t written in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, but later authorities write that there’s another consideration as to why one should prefer wine. So, essentially, what is

43:29 Speaker 2 the first reason? Because wine is more significant than grape juice. That is the straightforward meaning of the Magen Avraham: the ideal way to perform the mitzvah is to make Kiddush on aged wine. But here there is an additional reason. The cups correspond to the four expressions of redemption and so on; they express freedom, and he says that the alcohol is what gives that sense of release. So that’s why there is... But this isn’t written in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch or in the Magen Avraham, though he writes plainly that such a consideration exists. Now, clearly, men can follow this preference. For women, you can even find this in the Rebbe’s letters: there is a statement that from the outset, one may be lenient and give children and women grape juice. So there’s no need to make things difficult for them over this. Regarding the amount to drink as well: in subsection 19 there, in siman 472, you have the Ramban’s view that one should drink the entire cup, and there is also a disagreement between the Rambam and the Raavad about the amount and drinking it within the time it takes to drink a revi’is. Fine, so ideally we adopt all the stringencies: we drink the entire cup and do so within that time. Even in the Rebbe’s wording in the Haggadah, he cites the Bach there: “Drink it all in one go.” Yes. Those are certainly stringencies. But the basic halachah—see how he repeats it twice, at least in the wording there in subsection 19: “And this is the primary ruling.” The primary requirement is a cheekful. After all, for Kiddush it’s always a cheekful. What led the Ramban to think otherwise here is that the Gemara in Pesachim says “four cups,” as though it means four full cups. So he says that usually the requirement is a cheekful, which is most of a revi’is, and suddenly here it says four cups. That’s why he understood that one needs to drink them. But that isn’t the primary ruling. The basic requirement is a cheekful. So with children, there’s absolutely no need

45:14 Speaker 2 to make things difficult for them: a child’s cheekful is what’s needed. And a woman—women are obligated in the four cups just like men, because they too were part of that miracle. In any case, the four cups are a rabbinic obligation. They are as obligated as we are. Now, one can certainly be lenient and give them grape juice. And obviously, if it’s hard for them, first of all, don’t use large cups. Sometimes it’s preferable to take account of the Rema’s view and drink the whole cup. But even if they take a cup that holds exactly a revi’is, once they drink most of the cup, they have drunk most of a revi’is. There’s no need to make things difficult for women over this. Swallowing that much is very hard for them. Even for us, grape juice has an advantage—it’s easier to drink—but drinking a lot of grape juice is a bit unpleasant. It’s a lot of sugar.

46:04 Speaker 9 What if she can’t drink grape juice?

46:06 Speaker 2 So at the end of siman 472 there’s a concept of... And here it would have to be an extreme case, because if she just doesn’t like it that much, that’s not a big deal, right? This isn’t about being pampered; it’s a halachah that one has to drink. But it’s only most of a revi’is—that’s the basic requirement. If someone genuinely has difficulty for health reasons and so on, then there is the concept of chamar medinah.

46:30 Speaker 9 You add water, and the taste of the wine remains.

46:33 Speaker 2 Yes. Now, something to be careful about in siman 204: there is a dispute about the halachah. The Rema writes that it must contain one-sixth wine, but he is talking about the strong wine of earlier times. The Pri Megadim says that this refers to wine that had to be diluted in order to drink it because it was so strong. Today’s wines, especially some of the lower-quality ones, already have water in them. But even if you take a high-quality wine with almost no water, or no water at all, you should know that he says that if it is half water, it loses the blessing of Borei Pri Hagafen. Why? Because, he says, it is not that strong wine. That is what the Pri Megadim writes in siman 204. Many later authorities cite him without qualification, and the Kaf Hachaim lists several authorities who agree with him, so one has to be careful about this. Yes, you can add a little water, especially with grape juice, which is even more of an issue because it is weaker. What is strong about it is the sugar, not the grape juice itself. So you can add a little water, but don’t overdo it, because often there is already water mixed in, and you don’t want to lose the blessing. Now, there is also the concept of chamar medinah, which sometimes comes up for people for health reasons. All right, chamar medinah on Pesach is another matter.