Did you ever notice how parents react to the exploits of their toddlers? Let us say, for example, that on the way to the babysitter, the young child – of his own accord – picks up his coat and even puts it on. Most likely, his parents will be beside themselves with joy. “Hooray!” they might exclaim, and clap enthusiastically over the little one’s display of prowess and acumen.
But if an adult was to do the exa
(The following halachic analysis regarding the practice of reclining during the Pesach Seder is based largely on an exposition from the sefer Yerach L’mo’adim, Pesach, vol. I, § 44.)
The tenth chapter of maseches Pesachim outlines the procedure followed at the Pesach Seder, and one of the first items it mentions is the practice of reclining. As the Mishnah states (10:1):
וַאֲפִלּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיָּסֵב.
“Every member of Yisrael – even a pauper – does not partake in the Seder without reclining.”
As unequivocal as this statement might appear, we shall see that the matter may not be so simple in actual practice.
Exemptions
First of all, there arises the issue regarding contemporary reclining – are we obligated to do so, even in our times? Conventional wisdom and universal observance seem to indicate that, in fact, we do. The halachic codes (e.g., Tur), however, cite the opinion of the Medieval commentator the Ra’avyah, who contends that the obligation to recline does not apply to our times. This is because through the act of reclining we display a sense of freedom and relaxation, demonstrating thereby that we have been freed from bondage. In earlier times, it was customary for diners to recline while they ate, something that has fallen out of practice. Thus, it is no longer considered “the usual manner” for us to eat while reclining; rather than a demonstration of freedom, it would constitute something unusual and inconvenient.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim § 472) rules contrary to the Ra’avyah, thus mandating heseibah (reclining) even in our times. And such is our actual practice. But even here, the matter is not so simple. The Rama (ibid.) proceeds to state that women in our times do not recline; and the reason he supplies is because they rely on the ruling of the Ra’avyah.
But this, notes the Aruch Ha’Shulchan (Orach Chaim 472:6), is something of a puzzle; why, he wonders, would women be exempt any more than men? It is true that the Gemara states explicitly that women are exempt (Pesachim 108a). However, the Rama himself, in earlier remarks, clarifies that the Gemara was referring only to the women in the Gemara’s times; the women of later generations, who were considered more “dignified,” were obligated in the mitzvah of heseibah in the same manner as their husbands. Now, the Ra’avyah, who declared that the practice of heseibah is no longer applicable (as people are no longer accustomed to recline while they eat), stated his position in a universal manner – that is, he exempted both men and women. The bottom line is that, for all intents and purposes, men and women today seem to share the same level of obligation when it comes to heseibah. The Shulchan Aruch ruled contrary to the Ra’avyah; why, then, is his opinion relied upon only as it relates to women?
Dual Obligation
Resolving this issue requires a closer look into the reasons and source for the practice of leaning. As stated above, the conventional understanding relates to the directive to demonstrate, on this night, our status as newly liberated individuals who have just experienced the Exodus. As we recite in the Haggadah: בְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר חַיָּב אָדָם לִרְאוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם – “In every generation, a person is obligated to view himself as if he
himself has left Egypt.”
R’ Binyamin Paler points out, however, that there is yet another imperative to engage in reclining, this one stemming from the beginning of this week’s parshah. The passuk reports on the route Yisrael took upon leaving Mitzrayim: וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹקִים אֶת־הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר – “And G-d led the nation around, by way of the desert” (Shemos 13:17). While the word “va’yaseiv” translates literally as “led around,” the medrash (Shemos Rabbah 20:18) relates it to a word stemming from a similar root – none other than heseibah (וַיַּסֵּב / הֶסֵיבָּה) . According to Chazal, then, the passuk alludes to the fact that when Hashem took Yisrael out of Mitzrayim, He had them relax and recline; and the medrash even concludes that the mitzvah of heseibah is derived from here. What emerges, then, is that one who reclines actually fulfills two separate directives: as we have seen above, he thereby demonstrates that he is a free man, and as we see now, he also commemorates the event of Yisrael’s own heseibah upon leaving Mitzrayim.
The issues outlined above are thus resolved in light of this critical information. Yes, the Ra’avyah’s contention that heseibah is no longer applicable in our times relates, inherently, to men and women equally. However, his exemption applies principally to the first aspect of heseibah – namely, the demonstration of freedom. Since leaning is for us an unusual activity, it would not appropriately display a sense of relaxation on our part. But this notion is relevant only for the directive of “displaying cheirus (freedom).” We have just learned that there is a second imperative to recline – and that is to commemorate the actual heseibah that took place at the time of the Exodus. In this instance, the intent is not so much to demonstrate freedom as it is to re-enact the activity of heseibah in commemoration of Yisrael’s experience at that time. This obligation, then, would apply even in our times – regardless of whether or not it constitutes “usual” or “unusual” activity.
This, then, could account for the distinction between men and women of today. The well-known general rule states that women are exempt from any time-related mitzvos (Kiddushin 29a). There are certain exceptions to this principle for various reasons, but one of them relates to the mitzvos of the Seder. Women are in fact obligated in the bulk of the Seder-related mitzvos, such as eating the matzah, drinking the wine, and relating the story of the Exodus. As such, they are also subsumed in the first aspect of heseibah, which, as we have seen, is essentially a corollary of the mitzvah to relate the Exodus and feel as if we are freshly liberated from the bondage of Egypt. And as stated, it is this aspect which, in the view of the Ra’avyah, is no longer applicable today for anyone – for we do not thereby feel or demonstrate liberation and relief. When the Shulchan Aruch rules, however, that heseibah is obligatory in our times (for men), the reference is to the second aspect of heseibah, that of commemorating the heseibah of parshas Beshalach. This aspect remains unaffected by the Ra’avyah’s exemption. Nonetheless, as it is considered a “separate” mitzvah, it reverts to the general rule governing time-related mitzvos. As such, men are obligated, while women are exempt.
ct same thing – put on his coat before going outside – no one would even bat an eyelash. And for good reason. After all, such is expected of a grown-up; he receives no special commendations for performing basic tasks.
Congratulations for Compliance
And yet, there seems to exist an example in this week’s parshah of an individual who is given accolades for what appears to be fairly standard behavior. The parshah opens with some details regarding the lighting of the Menorah in the Sanctuary: וַיְדַבֵּר ד’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר, דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹת אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ שִׁבְעַת הַנֵּרוֹת – “And Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Speak to Aharon and say to him: When you light the lamps, the seven lamps should illuminate toward the face of the Menorah” (Bamidbar 8:3). The directive refers to the arrangement of the lighting. The Menorah of the Temple is comprised of seven branches: three on either side of the central stem (the term “p’nei hamenorah” in this passuk refers to this central lamp). Aharon was thus instructed to direct the lights of the branches such that they should face toward the central lamp.
The Torah proceeds to report that Aharon adhered to the command: “Vaya’as kein Aharon – Aharon acted accordingly” (ibid. v. 3). Commenting on the need for the Torah to provide this information, Rashi states: לְהַגִיד שְׁבָחוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן שֶׁלֹא שִׁנָה – “This relates the praise of Aharon, (informing us) that he did not deviate (from the instructions).”
Aharon, of course, was a righteous individual of towering spiritual stature. There is no lack of his attributes to hold up and applaud. For example, we find that Chazal exhort us to follow the example of his sterling character. As the Mishnah states (Avos 1:12):
הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה.
“Be from the disciples of Aharon: Loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them close to Torah.”
So it certainly seems surprising that, of all potential qualities, the passuk here chose to emphasize this particular item. Is it really so extraordinary that Aharon lit the Menorah in accordance with Hashem’s directive? Would we have thought otherwise? Why, then, is such praise extended to Aharon for merely doing as he was told?
The truth is that many commentators grapple with this issue, providing any number of explanations. (In fact, this was the subject of a Mishnas Chayim article of a previous year [5768], where the innovative approach of the Maharil Diskin was advanced.) Due to space constraints, we will suffice here by presenting the novel approach cited by R’ Zalman Sorotzkin in his Torah commentary Oznayim LaTorah.
Pinpoint Location
What, exactly, did the instructions entail? As stated above, the matter seems to involve the directional placement of the wicks within the lamps; on either side of the central stem were three lamps, the flames of which should each face toward the center. R’ Sorotzkin points out, however, that the wording of the passuk would seem to imply that there is more to it than that. According to this arrangement, there are really only six lamps that are affected (three on each side of the central one); why, then, does the passuk include all seven lamps in the directive: אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ שִׁבְעַת הַנֵּרוֹת ? This would seem to imply that the entirety of the Menorah is involved in the directional arrangement of the lamps.
It must be, then, that these instructions issued to Aharon entail much more than the placement of the wicks towards the central lamp. R’ Sorotzkin explains that the additional requirement relates to a classic Kabbalistic concept that speaks of a “Mikdash Shel Ma’alah – Upper Sanctuary.” Even while the Beis Hamikdash (Holy Temple) stood in Yerushalayim, there was another, corresponding Mikdash in the Heavens Above. Thus, the directive regarding the lighting of the Menorah requires that the flames of its lamps – all seven of them – should face toward the exact celestial “location” of the Menorah in the Heavenly Spheres.
Now, truth be told, this did not present such a challenge for the officiators in the Beis Hamikdash of Yerushalayim. That was a permanent structure, which was situated here on earth directly below the “location” of the Mikdash Shel Ma’alah in Heaven. As such, the Menorah’s lights were basically fixed in position right where they should be, facing the proper Celestial point.
It was in the times of the portable Mishkan (Tabernacle) that an issue arose. Here, the terrestrial Sanctuary was constantly on the move, being dismantled and transported from one place and erected in another. As such, the kohein (priest) who would light the Menorah in the Mishkan could not simply rely on the fact that the flames would automatically face the proper Celestial location. Rather, he had to be able to discern – from wherever he stood on earth – exactly where the Menorah in Heaven was situated. Obviously, this could not be achieved by any ordinary person, as it required an intimate knowledge and familiarity with the Celestial spheres. As such, only an individual whose soul was extremely refined and pristine, whose essence was lofty and elevated, could possess such spiritual sensitivities to pinpoint this location.
This, explains R’ Sorotzkin, was the essence of the praise accorded to Aharon. He was not commended simply for following instructions, but for the fact that he was capable of carrying them out. In other words, his ability to successfully execute this service indicates his lofty spiritual stature; for it was only because of his exalted level that he could so precisely fulfill his task.
