I have always been intrigued by the phenomenon of Chol Hamoed. For here, in both the name for and substance of the intermediate days between Yom Tov Rishon and Yom Tov Acharon of Pesach and Sukkot, we find a reflection of our own lives and Weltanschauung. Consider the very term: Chol = profane, secular; and Moed = festival, sacred. And the halakhot of these days continue the same theme – part Yom Tov, part weekday. Most forms of melakhah are prohibited, yet those involved in the preparation of food are permitted. Also, those which are forbidden are sometimes tolerated in certain cases of dire need. And even then we must dress in a manner befitting a holy day. Indeed, it seems that what the Talmud (Pes. 68b and Beitzah 15b) says about Yom Tov itself applies even more aptly to Chol Hamoed: "Half for you, half for God," i.e., the study of Torah – it is a mixture of both the human and the divine, a hybrid of the holy and the profane. I remember reading, in the name of the great Gerer Rebbe, the Chiddushei HaRim, that the ability to embrace both, to comprehend the Chol and the Moed simultaneously, is an avodah kashah – a most difficult task – and that is why Onkelos, in translating the verse "And Moses spoke (va-yedabber) the festivals of the Lord to the Children of Israel," used the word ve’alifnun, "and he taught them." Why was it necessary for Moses to teach the festivals instead of enumerating them? Because of the inherent challenge of combining both the sacred and the secular. It is not unusual to aspire to complete devotion to either one of the two – all sacred or all profane – but the Almighty asks more of us. There are indeed times when we must concentrate all our energies and talents and interests in one direction, but the major part of life must be an application of Chol Hamoed – of the two in consonance and synergistic cooperation with each other. Moses, who was Ish haElokim, one who combined both the manly and the Godly, was ideally suited to teach the less…

The whole month of ניסן is dominated by Pesach. The preparations for Pesach, as the ארבע פרשיות are accelerated, and the ״cooling off״ period in its aftermath – reflected in the prohibition of eulogizing and fasting and the absence of תחנון during this period – color the whole month with its theme of miraculous redemption. No wonder that one of the great Hasidic masters, insightfully if unscientifically, saw in the very name ניסן an allusion to נסים (miracles).Most blatant, of course, are the supernatural miracles: the Exodus and the splitting of the Red Sea. All this was, as it were, G-d’s show: ה׳ ילח□ לכם ואת□ תחרישון שמות יד :יד)), the Creator works His miracles for us and we are invited to be silent, passive beneficiaries of divine providence and special intervention.But there is another kind of miracle that ought not be overlooked: the miracle performed by our ancestors themselves, one commemorated by שבת הגדול. That occurred on the tenth of ניסן when, at the behest of the □רבונו של עול, they tied to their bed-posts the lamb, preparing to sacrifice an animal the Egyptians considered a deity. That yesterday's slaves -- frightened, disheartened, and apprehensive — dared to defy their taskmasters by humiliating their deities and risk an open confrontation with these powerful pagans, required a measure of courage and brio that is nothing less than a miracle. Wherefrom this newly found fearlessness, this incredible collective pnde, this demonstration of בטחון? Nothing less than a miracle!This נס, however, is an altogether human one. No suspension of mute nature occurs here, but there is the miracle of human beings transforming their own natures. And that is no less a miracle than the divine show of supernatural power. Indeed, it is in honorof this miracle that the day is referred to as שבת הגדול. Why גדול? Many interpretations are offered, but the one I prefer is that the greatest miracle was that of Jewish courage and faith. Which means, of course, that if there …

The festivals of Pesach and Sukkot are located almost exactly at opposite ends of the calendar, one in the Spring, the other in the Fall. Both have the identical cause – the exodus from Egypt, זכר ליציאת מצרים. Yet they are significantly different from each other. In a most interesting commentary on a major verse concerning Pesach, the Sages (ספרא אמור פרשה ט ד״ה פרק יא) say the following: "ובחמשה עשר יום לחודש הזה חג המצות" – יום זה טעון מצה ואין חג הסוכות טעון מצה. והלא דין הוא, ומה אם זה שאין טעון סוכה טעון מצה, זה שטעון סוכה אינו דין שטעון מצה? ת״ל זה, חג המצות זה טעון מצה, ואין חג הסוכות טעון מצה. A special word is inserted by the Torah to indicate that, contrary to what one might expect, the proper observance of Passover does not require that we observe as well all the mitzvot peculiar to Sukkot, such as the dwelling in a sukkah and the ארבע מינים. Undoubtedly, the same assumption and opposite conclusion can be worked the other way around, namely, that Sukkot does not really require eating matzah and refraining from chametz. The underlying idea behind the assumption is quite reasonable: since both holidays are motivated by the theme of זכר ליציאת מצרים, all observances of the festivals should be identical. However, the conclusion, based upon the דרשה, restricts matzah to Pesach and the sukkah and ארבע מינים to Sukkot, because while both memorialize the Exodus from Egypt, each emphasizes a completely different dimension of the fundamental experience of such remembering. The Zohar (23a), on the verse אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב בא־ל ש־די ושמי ה׳ לא נודעתי להם, focuses on the word וארא, "and I appeared," and teaches that there are two ways of viewing the world. Before the Patriarchs, the world was there but people were spiritually blind: they could not see what they were looking at. The Patriarchs arrived at the high level of גוונין דאתחזיין, a way of penetrating the visible world – by which is meant that they could contemplate the natural scene and find in it the…

המנהג הנפוץ בכל התפוצות הוא שבודקים את החמץ באור לי״ד ניסן, ואומרים "כל חמירא" שמבטל את כל מה שברשותו אך אינו ידוע לו, ולמחרת בשעת ביעור החמץ אומרים עוד הפעם "כל חמירא" לשם ביטול כל החמץ שברשותו, בין שידוע לו בין שאינו ידוע לו. ואם לא בדק וביטל, הרי זה עובר בבל יראה ובל ימצא. והנה התנא של המשנה הראשונה במסכת פסחים מזכיר רק בדיקה ואין שום זכר לביטול, וחריין לריש פסחים כתב שלפי תנא זה אמנם הכל תלוי בבדיקה וביעור ולא בביטול. אולי בימי האמוראים, כפי שמובא בפסחים ו ע״ב, חידשו רב יהודה בשם רב, ורבא, שבנוסף לבדיקה צריך שיבטל שמא ימצא גלוסקא יפה ויאכלנה. והר"ן שם כותב שמדאורייתא סגי בבדיקה או ביטול, ומה שהצריכו חכמים גם שניהם – בדיקה וביטול – הוא מחשש שמא ימצא גלוסקא יפה. ובתפארת ישראל למשנה זו כתב שמדאורייתא ביטול בלבד מספיק, וחכמים הוסיפו בדיקה מחשש גלוסקא יפה, אבל בדיקה בלבד לא מהני. ובדברים הבאים נתמקד על היחס שבין בדיקה לביטול, ובמיוחד על מהות ביטול חמץ. משנה ריש פסחים: אור לי״ד בודקין את החמץ וכו׳, וברש״י ד״ה בודקין כתב: "שלא יעבור עליו בבל יראה ובל ימצא." וברע"ב שם הוסיף: "אית דמפרשי טעמא דבדיקה כדי שלא יעבור על בל יראה ובל ימצא אם יהיה חמץ – ואף על גב שביטול בעלמא סגי, חיישינן שמא ימצא גלוסקא יפיפיה וימלך על ביטולו ויחשוב עליה לאכלה ויעבור עליה על בל יראה ובל ימצא, הלכך בודקין את החמץ כדי לבערו מן העולם." כלומר, שצריך לבדוק משום שאי אפשר לסמוך על ביטול מאחר שיבוא לידי מחשבה חדשה שתבטל את מחשבתו הראשונה אם ימצא גלוסקא יפה. וכך כתב גם בתוספות יום טוב שם: "דכמו שבביטול בעלמא דהיינו בלב שיחשוב בלבו כאילו הוא עפר סגי בכך, אף על פי שלא הוציא בשפתיו כלום, ה״נ במחשבה בעלמא חוזר מביטולו וזוכה בה – דמחשבה מבטלת מחשבה." משמע מדבריהם שביטול לא סגי שמא ימלוך על הביטול. ובגליון התורני "מבקשי תורה אור אפרים" סימן ט׳ הביא קושיה על דברי הברטנורא מאחרון אחד – שהלא בפסחים ו ע״ב אמר רב: "הבודק צריך שיבטל", ושם מבואר שצריך את שניהם – לא רק בדיקה אלא גם ביטול – שמא ימצא גלוסקא וכו׳, ורש״י שם כותב: "דנראית בעיניו וחס עליה לשורפה, ומשהה אפילו רגע אחד ונמצא עובר עליה בבל יראה ובל ימצא, אבל משבטלה אינו עובר דלא כתיב אלא תשביתו." מזה משמע ברור שלא כהרע"ב והתויו״ט, אלא שהביטול הראשון נשאר בעי…

One of the most popular passages of the Haggadah is that of "The Four Sons." I have often wondered why I never met any of these four "in the flesh," as it were. Is there anyone so "wicked," so evil, that he has no redeeming feature whatsoever – even that of making the trains come on time? Is there a Wise Son who never committed a faux pas – who never uttered a foolish statement? Have we ever met a Pious Son who never sinned – in defiance of the verse in Kohelet (7:20) that "there is no man upon earth who [always] does good and never sins"? And the Son who does not know enough to ask – has he no modicum of intelligence at all?After a few youthful years of having my curiosity seasonally piqued by this question, it occurred to me that these are archetypes, not four real, living, distinct individuals; indeed, it is extremely rare, indeed impossible, to find pure examples of these types in real life. Almost all people are composites of two or three or four - in fact, hundreds - of types of "sons," and in different proportions. Were they meant to represent real people, the Tradition would most likely have identified a representation for each of the Four Sons. Yet this is not the case, except for Haggadah artists throughout the ages whose fertile imaginations led them to identify and illuminate individual "real" people, as Wise or Wicked, Simple or Who does not know enough to ask, in their illustrations for the Haggadah.In that case, the passage on The Four Sons reflects Judaism's acceptance of the human propensity for internal contradictions, inconsistency, ambivalence and paradox. This acknowledgment is more than a reluctant reconciliation with painful fact; it is, as well, a desideratum, a welcome aspect of human character. Furthermore, the selection of the Four Sons is not the only part of the Seder that reveals an understanding of ambivalence and paradox; another significant example is the prevalence of the matzah, which is considered both a sign of freedom and a si…

One of the most popular passages of the Haggadah is that of "The Four Sons." I have often wondered why I never met any of these four "in the flesh," as it were. Is there anyone so "wicked," so evil, that he has no redeeming feature whatsoever – even that of making the trains run on time? Is there a "Wise Son" who never committed a faux pas, who never uttered a foolish statement? Have we ever met a Pious Son who never sinned – in defiance of the verse in Kohelet (7:20) that "there is no man upon earth who [always] does good and never sins?" And the Son who does not know enough to ask – has he no modicum of intelligence at all?