inehkd ivfv vhgah rzug cr ,ujha
Why is there no vfrc for ohrmn ,thmh ruphx?
A talk delivered in 5765 in Teaneck, N.J.
Just moments ago, we each recited a vfrc
on a vuumn vagn, the act of ohshv ,khyb. It seemed
as natural as any of the many vuumnv ,ufrc we
recite regularly during the course of our day.
When we perform a vuumn, we first
acknowledge our obligation with the
recitation of a vfrc, whether that vuumn is
t,hhrutsn or ibcrsn. We perform a vuumn, we recite
a vrfc. It is part of the fabric of ,uumnv ouhe.
And yet we are immediately reminded of
many exceptions to this rule. The one I would
like to discuss this morning is the vuumn on
which our attention will be focused in the
weeks ahead: the requirement to retell the
events of the Exodus from Egypt while vmn
and rurn sit before us on our Seder table.
There is conspicuously no vuumnv ,frc
before shdn even though it is vuumn. Why? Let us
be clear on what we are asking. This is not a
historical question but rather a question of
halachic coherence. What systemic factors
explain the continued absence of a vfrc for a
Torah vuumn whose binding nature is
unquestioned? We pose such questions as
insiders from within the system; not historians
from without. The hypotheses presented a few
moments ago by my learned friend are
interesting and were articulately framed. We
are seated now in the arsnv ,hc, though.
Historians of the law are not judges of the
law. Legal dialectic is outside of history; the
t car. the j rd, the ovrsuct rsx all sit at the same
table and hopefully we as committed vru, hbc
sit there, too. It is a table constituted outside
of history.
We can arrange many of the answers to
this question proposed by the ohbuatr and
ohburjt into three general approaches.
wt lrs: A prior recitation precludes n vrc
since performance has already begun
ohbuatr have suggested that prior recitations
or actions may preclude reciting n vrc since it
Comments, corrections, and questions may be directed to us at ravglickmanshiur@earthlink.net
must perforce be prior to performance of the
vuumn itself (v,hhagk rcug). One candidate is the
aushe. It itself mentions the Exodus from Egypt:
ohrmn ,thmhk rfz. This lrs is cited in the name of
.rp ubhcr and others. It assumes that absent the
recitation of the aushe, we would indeed recite
a vfrc on the vsdv.
One obvious difficulty is the distinction
we draw between vrfzv (mention) and vsdv
(prolonged narrative). Making mention of the
Exodus is obligatory every night of the year. It
is the reason we recite ,hmhm ,arp at night even
though tuv ,hmhm inz utk vkhk; the reference to
the Exodus is enough to render the varp
obligatory even if the particular vuumn to which
it refers does not pertain. The words n mhk rfz
in the aushe are vrfzv rather than vsdv.
wc lrs: The nature of the vuumn of vsdv does not
allow for n vrc.
Not every vuumn is preceded by a vfrc. We do
not recite n vrc on sleeping in the vcux, for
example, or before giving vesm. The ohbuatr
explain this absence for each vuumn, each
according to its own halachic character.
Among the features of ohrmn ,thmh ruphx
mentioned in this regard is the fact that it is a
cognitive act rather than a physical one. The
k arvn is particularly associated with this
approach. n vrc is, according to this lrs,
reserved for physical actions associated with
vuumnv ouhe.
wd lrs: The nature of the vuumn makes another
recitation effectively n vrc.
We often find intermediate positions which
are an amalgam of two more disparate
approaches. The t car gives such an answer.
Because this vuumn has no minimum (vcmhe),
even saying a minimal phrase constitutes
fulfillment of the vuumn. This is very close to the
first lrs but has a distinct advantage. Other
,uumn have multiple parts, e.g., ohsh ,khyb. As
long as the vfrc precedes one component, i.e.,
cudhb, it is still considered v,hhagk rcug. By
adding vcmhe, the t car avoids this difficulty.