Why We Were Redeemed From Egypt

The medrash says (Vayikra Rabba 32) that we were redeemed from Egypt in the merit of not having changed our names and our language; because we did not say lashon hara, and because we did not engage in licentious behavior.

רב הונא אמר בשם בר קפרא בשביל ד' דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם ולא אמרו לשון הרע ולא נמצא ביניהן אחד מהן פרוץ בערוה לא שנו את שמן ראובן ושמעון נחתין ראובן ושמעון סלקין לא היו קורין ליהודה רופא ולא לראובן לוליאני ולא ליוסף לסטיס ולא לבנימין אלכסנדרי לא שנו את לשונם להלן כתיב (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט ויגד לאברם העברי וכאן (שמות ג) ויאמרו אלהי העברים נקרא עלינו וכתיב (בראשית מה) כי פי המדבר אליכם בלשון הקודש ולא אמרו לשון הרע שנאמר (שמות יא) דבר נא באזני העם אתה מוצא שהיה הדבר מופקד אצלן כל י"ב חדש ולא הלשין אחד על חבירו ולא נמצא אחד מהם פרוץ בערוה תדע לך שהיה כן אחת היתה ופרסמה הכתוב שנא' (ויקרא כד) ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, שלומית, דאמר ר' לוי דהות פטטא בשלמא שלם לך שלם לכון בת דברי אמר ר' יצחק שהביאה דבר על בנה למטה דן גנאי לאמו גנאי לו גנאי למשפחתו גנאי לשבטו שיצא ממנו.

On the other hand, Chazal say that we had fallen to the forty ninth level of tumah, of spiritual decay.  I wonder, what is the value of having Jewish names and talking in Hebrew if you worship idols?  I understand the value of kind speech, and family purity.  But how important, and of what spiritual or ethical weight, is ethnic purity?  Does acting like a "Hebrew" have any value at all?  Was the value simply that we had retained a bond to Avraham Avinu?  Is there some greater value in Jewish Identity that is entirely unrelated to spiritual standards?

1.  The famous statement of Chazal that "Klal Yisrael was redeemed in the merit of not having adopted non-Jewish clothing" does not exist.  The only similar statement is the one quoted above, which appears in several places.  The one similar source is likely a copyist's error.

(מדרש רבה שיר השירים (מדרש חזית

 גן נעול אחותי כלה: רבי הונא בשם בר קפרא אמר בזכות ארבעה דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים:
שלא שינו את שמם,
ולא שינו את לשונם,
ולא אמרו לשון הרע,
ולא נמצא בהן אחד פרוץ בערוה.

מכילתא בא פ"ה, 

שלא נחשדו על העריות, ולא ספרו לשון הרע, ולא שנו את שמם, ולא שנו את לשונם

 פסיקתא דרב כהנא פרשת בשלח :

בזכות ארבעה דברים, נגאלו ישראל ממצרים, 
שלא שינו את שמם,
ושלא שינו לשונם, 
ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, 
ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בעריות,
שלא שינו את שמם, ראובן ושמעון סלקין, ראובן ושמעון נחתין, שלא שלא שינו לשונם, כי פי המדבר אליכם(בראשית מ״ה י״ב), ובלשון הקודש היה מדבר, ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו וגו׳ (שמות י״א בי) את מוצא זה הדבר היה מופקד אצלן כל שנים עשר חודש, ולא נמצא אחד מהם שהלשין על חברו, ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בערוה, תדע לך שהוא כן אחת היתה ופירסמה הכתוב ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן.

On the other hand, it does appear here, but it 's probably a copyist's mistake.

(Medrash Lekach Tov)  פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) שמות פרק ו' אות ו' :

לכן אמור לבני ישראל. זו שבועה, שנא' ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי (ש"א ג יד): אמור לבני ישראל אני ה'. שאמרתי לאברהם אביכם אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים (בראשית טו ז): והוצאתי אתכם, והצלתי אתכם, וגאלתי אתכם, ולקחתי אתכם,כנגד ד' זכיות שבידם, 
שלא שינו את לשונם,
ולא חילפו את שמלותם,
ולא גילו את סודם, דכתי' ושאלה אשה משכנתה ,
ולא בטלו ברית מילה.

It also appears there in Shemos 12:6, but there it is consistent with all the other Medrashim and says nothing about clothing.  

ארבע מצות היו להם לישראל
, לא נחשדו על העריות
,לא שינו את שמותם, 
לא שינו אה לשונם
 לא גילו אה סודם

So the Lekach Tov quoted above is most likely not reliable.  Anyway, if they didn't wear Egyptian clothing, what was the point of  ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת?  They couldn't wear the stuff anyway!  Unless you want to answer that they didn't borrow the clothing to wear; they gave it to their kids to wear, which explains ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that this does not prove there is no validity or significance to the alleged Chazal.  It has become a part of our oral tradition, like הלכה בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב, which also is not exactly what it says there, or כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה.  For example, the Chasam Sofer is quoted as saying on the passuk ויבא יעקב שלם that it is the the Roshei Teivos of  שמם לשונם מלבושם, שלא שינו את שמם ואת לשונם  ואת מלבושם.  Also, the Chasam Sofer brings that language in his drashos here (Drashos II page 516.)

2.  Reb Moshe in his Igros, OC 4:66 says the following, in which it is clear that he is thinking about our question.

זה ששיבחו חז"ל ויק"ר ל"ב בגלות מצרים שלא שינו את שמותן הוא לקודם מתן תורה שלא היה היכר גדול בשביל קיום המצות דבני נח ובפרט שחלק גדול מישראל עבדו ג"כ ע"ז ורובן לא מלו את בניהם עד סמוך להגאולה כשהיו צריכין לאכול הפסח שמל אותן יהושע ומשמע שהיה רוב גדול לבד שבט לוי שהם מלו את בניהם כדכתיב ובריתך ינצורו בברכת משה ואף שפרש"י על אלו שנולדו במדבר היה זה גם במצרים כמפורש במדרשות, 

שלכן בשביל האמונה שיגאלו ורצו שיהיו ניכרין שהם ישראל הנהיגו להקפיד שלא ישנו את שמם ולא ישנו את לשונם ומטעם זה שייך זה להגאולה משום שבשביל אמונת הגאולה הקפידו על זה

 אבל אחר מתן תורה אין לנו חיוב מדינא וגם לא מעניני זהירות ומוסר אלא מה שנצטוינו התרי"ג מצות לדורות והמצות שנצטוו לשעה וכפי שנאמרו בתורה שבעל פה ולכן לא הקפידו ע"ז רבותינו דהא אף עניני זהירות ומוסר ומעלה נמי נאמרו מסיני עיין בריש פרקי אבות ברע"ב ולא היה זה בקבלה שכן איכא מעלה גם אלאחר מתן תורה אלא שבזכות זה נגאלו אבותינו שאפשר לפרש שהיה מעלה ודבר טוב רק אצלם כדלעיל ולא אחר מתן תורה. ואף שמסתבר כן מסתפינא לומר זה בלא ראיות גדולות

He says that the merit of keeping our language and clothing was not the mere fact of retaining those things.  It is because their doing so demonstrated that they remembered Hashem's promise that He would redeem them, and they wanted to remain Jews, so that Hashem should take them out and bring them near to Him as His nation.  They kept their way of dress and speech in order to remain a separate nation, the nation that Hashem promised to redeem.

3.  And from the Sefer Ma'or Va'Shemesh (Rimzei Pesach, bottom of first column):

I apologize for the terrible OCR that resulted from the old print.  If you have a clean copy, please send it to me.  I fixed what was necessary to get a rudimentary understanding.  

 ויראה בזה על מאמר חז״ל בזכות ג׳ דברים נגאלו

  ממצרים שלא שינו את שמם ילא שינו את לשונם ונו׳ ויש

  להתבונן מה שלא שינו את שמם ומה מעלתו גם אמרו שלא

 שינו את לשונם איך היה באפשר לדבר לשון הקודש תמיד הלא

 בין עם לשון אסרת התגוררו אשר לא הבינו לשון הקודש והיו

 מוכרחים לדבר עמהס בלשונם גם מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון גם

 אמרי חז״ל שהרשעים אינם יודעים את שמם טןכר וזה עעמא

 בעי מדוע אינם יודעים שמם ולבאר כל זה נראה ע״פ מימר

 מזיל עד  שאתה מתפלל שיכנסו בן ׳דנד תודה התפלל שלא

 יכנסו בן מאכלות אסורות והענין הוא כי הנס כל מיני ד נוד׳

 « ל עיני לשונות כילם הם על ידי צירופי הכיב אוסיוס

 המורה הקשודם נס׳ מוצאות הסה שאי אפשר לדבר פוס דיבור

 מולא דק על יד• אוסן הכ«« אוסיום וכקודוסיהן שהם הם

 אושיוס סורסינו הקדושס ולכן כשהאדם שוער פיו ילשינו

 מיינו •mid• מלמו שלא •כגנס גר׳ס הלשון נמאכלוס אשמיו׳

 יגס שלא ׳דגר שקרים ולה״ר ולצנום ודומיהן אז פיו ולשונו

 סם בקדושה ואינם .סחסהסיא שאין אייזס החילונים כהי

 «ולאוס פיו ואז אן אם ידבר מ אד לשונוס תודו סם ככלל

Basically: he says it is difficult to understand why retaining their ancestral language was a reason for their redemption.  מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון?  What's so bad about changing your language?  He answers, I think, that by "lashon" Chazal didn't mean lexicon.  They meant the kedusha of the way they expressed themselves.  When someone says that a person dresses like a sheigitz, or talks like a sheigitz, I think it doesn't necessarily mean that he wears jeans and talks in English.  It means that he wears clothing, and uses language, that we associate with a cultural milieu that is inconsistent with Yiddishkeit.  When the Kohen Gadol is told not to be meisi'ach da'as, when we are told not to be mei'si'ach da'as from Tefillin, it means to not do something that is inconsistent with the Kedusha of Tefillin.

4.  We can't not quote the Maharam Shick.  A vociferous enemy of the Haskala and the Reform, he took every opportunity to attack what he saw as breaches in our Mesora.  This is from his Teshuvos, YD 169.  The idea is that he holds that having a non-Jewish name is an issur De'Oraysa that might fall into the category of Yeihareig ve'al ya'avor.

אם אמנם שאין אני יודע לכנות אותו מ״מ ראיתי שראו• להשיב על הדבר אשר שאל שיש בני אדם שמכנים עצמם בשם הגוים וממלחו די הוכיח אוחם דהרי אמרו במדרש שבזכוה זה שלא שינו אמ שמם זכינו לצאמ ממצרים והם משיבים שלזה די כמה שיש להם שם יהודי לקרותם בו לעלות לחורה וזה רבר הבל וטפשות כי בוודאי יש בזה איסור דאוריימ׳ כמ״ש הרמב״ם כפ׳ י״א מהלכו׳ מ״ז דמקרא מלא נאמר בסוף פ׳ קדושים ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיוה לי ומשם ילפינן בספרי דאין רשאין לדמות להם בשום אופן וכל שהוא מושה לדמות להם מובר מל מה שנאמר בתור׳ דאסור לנו לדמות להם וכשם שאסור לנו להדמות להם במלטשם ובהילוכם ובשאר מנהגיהם ה״ה וכ״ש דאסור לדמום להם בשמם ומלינו למשוה כמו

 שמשו אכומינו שנאמר כהם ויהי שם לגו• גדול ודרשו חכז״ל מלמד שהיו ישראל מצויינים שם : וביותר ביאור אמרחי הכוונה דהנ׳ כהיוחי רכ דק״ק ימרגין סמוך לפרפשכורג ופמם נזדמן לי כשמסרמי המאפריקמל להשר המיופד לזה החרפם לפני ואמר כי לא נאה מה שיהודים קורץ מצמם כשם הגרם ושאר כל האומומ מחשיטן השמוה הכאים להם מראש

 האומה דהיינו אונגאד׳ פראנצמזיא וכדומה כולם מחשיכין הלשון והשמוה שלהם ואינם משנים כשום אופן כי מחזיקי׳ זאה להם לככת׳ ולמפארמ והיהודים אשר הם מקדמור האומומ קיומי הסולם המה כושים מצמם להקרא כשם המצם ומשנים שמם לשם האומו׳ וזה להם גנאי גדול ולא הי׳ כפי ממנה להשיכ לו אכל דחימי אומו כדכדם שהגלומ גורם זאמ •

אבל כאמה גם כזה נהקיים כנו הקרא כי דור מהפוכומ המם כדם לא אמון כס שאכומינו וכל הדורוה אשר לפניהם הי׳

 סליהם מול הגלומ כמקפו ומ״מ לא שינו אח שמם ולא הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לכיוש ולכזיון ואדרכה הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לככוד ולתפארת וכמו שאמרו חכז״ל פל הקרא איש יהוד הי׳ כשושן שהי׳ מוכמר כנימוסין שפשה לסצמו כתר שהוא יהודי ורףמו כחקוהיהם לא מלט ואכויל אמכם מן הסמים ומכשו שהוקל כוכד הגלומ ואין הישראלי׳ מכוזים טן האומו׳ הם משנים שמם ולשונם כדי לומוח מצמם לאוה״ע ויש להמליץ זה כקרא כי דור מהפוכוה המה וז״ש כנים לא אימק כס היינו שאיני רוצי׳ כשם המגדלי׳ אותם ומהמימ׳ שהרי אמרו כיומי  ל״ח ס״כ דאסור לקרוי כשם איש שהוא רשפ דרשעי׳ לא מסקיק כשמייהו שנאמ׳ שם רשפי׳ ירקכ פיי״ש ואומן אנשי׳ קודאין פצמם כשם הגוים והרי כזה הם מראים שהם מחשיכים יאה הגרם יומר מהישראלית והד מפולס הי׳ הדרך לקרוא שם כניהם וכנוהיהם סל שם אכוחיסם או סל שם צדיקים קדושים וגאונים גדולים שהם היו החשוס והחדשים מכזים אכוחיהם וגמליהם וקדושיהם ומחשיבץ ומשכחץ ומסאדן שם הגרם לקרוא שם צאצאיהם סל שמם והרי זה כזיון גדול לאכוחיהם כל אחד מישראל שהטא טטרים הי׳ קורא בקול גדול וירד מצרים שם ויהי שם לגוי גדול וגדול הוא לשון חשיכומ והיינו דדרשו בסשרי שטו מצויילם שם דהיינו מלשון שם והיינו שטעו מצויינים ג״כ כשם אפפ״י שפכדו פמנו פטדה פרך אסי״ם לא נתנו לקרות לסצמם כשם הגוים ושם היהודי לא הי׳ לסם לכת ולקלק תהו שפמוה לאבותינו ולנו כצאמינו ממצדם

5.  To balance out the Maharam Shick, here is what the Maharashdam says in YD 199.  He says it's no big deal.

אלו האנוסים שבאו  מפרטוגל והיו להם שמית כשמות

הגוים ואחר שבאו לבקש את ה׳ ואת תורתו משנים שמם

 לשמות בני ישראל ויש להם צורך לנתונ ממקוס אשר הס ׳ושניס ניהחחס אצ

 ממקום אשר סיה להם שמות נשמות הגו״ אס לקרוניהס וחס למי שנושא ועת!

 ממונם אס יסלים לנתונ ולשנות שמס נשמות אשר סיו להם נגיותס או אס

 יש חשש איסור נדנר מפני שנראה מקיים היותו עדןגוי ונלת׳ מורה נתורת ה׳

 תשובה אמת נ׳ מדת חסידות לא קאמינ׳ דודא׳ מדת חסידות הוא

 להרסיק סאוס עצמו ננל מינ׳ הרחקת שאיפשר ונפרט למי שענרו

 על רא8ו סמיס הזדוני׳ אנן מן הדין נד נעינ׳ דנד נרו׳ שאין נזה סשש איסור

ל ואע״נ דלנאורה היה גר׳ להניא קלת ראיה לאסור ממה שנתנ הטור

 ׳״ר סי׳ קצ״ז וז״ל אסור לארס לומר שהוא צוי נרי שלא יהרנוהו רניון שאומר

 שהוא נוי הרי מורה לרתס ונופר נעיקר ע״נ ויאמר האומר רסכא נמי כיון

 שקור׳ עצמו נשם צוי הוה ליה נאומי שהוא גוי ואסור ואפי׳ את״ל ישאג־

 החס מ״מ נס יש נגוון ההוא יתר שאת שהוא להציל עצמו מן המות ואפיה

 אסור הנא ולא הוי אלא לצורך ממון או ר׳א היה ראוי לאסור אלא שנר׳ נלי

 ספק שאסר עיון נל דהו ימצא סארס שהרק הוא שהוא מותר

6.  To Eli and gu- I think you're both right, and I'm not done yet.  And Eli- thanks for the MM to the Igros.  I hadn't looked at the comments before starting out this afternoon.  

7.  I can't enunciate it well, but to me, there's something here that illustrates the importance of things that define us as Jews, even outside Torah and Mitzvos.  Maybe it's the "organic whole" idea.

Captions

I'd like to share an idle thought.  I think it would be interesting if there were eyeglasses that would caption everyone we saw in the street with numbers: the dollar amount and the time this individual expends on Mosros (luxuries) and the corresponding numbers for tzdaka and chesed.  Of course, the reality of exposure would change the numbers immediately.  But at least initially, it would be interesting, both to the observer and to the individual himself, because what falls under the heading "mosros" is truly subjective.

Adar 25: New Year's Greetings, and the Father of Zionism

I  What is the Anniversary of the Creation of the World?

Today, the 25th of Adar, is the anniversary of the creation of the world.  Happy Birthday, world.

Rosh Hashanna 11a:

ר' יהושע אומר בניסן נברא העולם בניסן נולדו אבות בניסן מתו אבות בפסח נולד יצחק בר"ה נפקדה שרה רחל וחנה בר"ה יצא יוסף מבית האסורין בר"ה בטלה עבודה מאבותינו במצרים בניסן נגאלו בניסן עתידין ליגאל

Rebbi Yehoshua says: in Nissan the world was created; in Nissan the Forefathers were born: in Nissan they died..... in Nissan they were redeemed from Egypt; in Nissan they will be redeemed.

Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion is countered by that of Rebbi Eliezer, who says that the world was created in Tishrei.  The Rishonim explain that Rebbi Eliezer didn't mean that the world itself was created in Tishrei;  rather, Adam was created on the first day of Tishrei.  Since Adam was created on the sixth day, i.e., the world was created six days before, then according to Rebbi Eliezer, the real day of the world's creation was the twenty fifth of Ellul.  Correspondingly, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who says "the world" was created in Nissan, we can assume that he means that Adam was created on the first of Nissan, and so the world was created on the sixth day previous, the twenty fifth of Adar, today.

II  Who Was the Father of Zionism in the Modern Era?

Another interesting fact about today, found at an OU site:
(On Thursday, the 25th of Adar I, 5651, Torah reading Parshas VaYakhel, corresponding to March 5, 1891) U.S. President Harrison was petitioned...  to aid in the reestablishment of Palestine as a sovereign Jewish state. The petition was signed by Cyrus McCormick, J. P. Morgan, William McKinley, John D. Rockefeller, Russel Sage, and Cardinal James Gibbons, among others. It was a spontaneous expression of American sympathy for Zionism, totally independent of Jewish Zionist activities. The petition was motivated by Biblical influences and by intense indignation aroused by Russian pogroms.

The motive force that brought about this petition was one William Eugene Blackstone.  For more information, the bio by Wikipedia is here, and an interesting paper about the man and his beliefs here.  The paper cited ends with these paragraphs:

Most Jews recoiled from Blackstone once they realized his underlying agenda was evangelical, their response immediately crystallized by the age-old revulsion of Christian proselytizers. However, Blackstone's eschatological objectification also entails other obvious, dangerous elements that most Jewish writers of the time did not address publicly: in his vision, Blackstone sees the wholesale death of Jews, speculates that Satanic leadership may rise from the Jews, and insists that the restored Israel would follow the devil. Despite his vision of the ultimate salvation of the Jews, Blackstone's insistence on restoration is one fraught with the manipulation of Jews into "othered" objects of anti-Semitism. Underlying the eschatology is not only the cry that "the Jews must go," but also that "the Jews must die." 

The fact that Jews were reified into "God's sun-dial" casts them into the role of unalterable, metaphysical machines in someone else's design rather than distinct, human subjects capable of telling their own time. Jews are placed in their divinely ordained place by the Christian; any Jewish self-assertion, any tinkering with their own time piece, as the Reform movement did, is rejected by Blackstone with scorn, his sense of superiority allowing him even to intervene within Jewish communal debate.

Addressing a Zionist mass meeting in Los Angeles in 1918, Blackstone told his audience that he had been a Zionist for over thirty years because "true Zionism is founded on the plan, purpose, and fiat of the everlasting and omnipotent God, as prophetically recorded in His Holy Word, the Bible." He then explained that there were only three options open to every Jew. The first was to become a true Christian, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and thereby "escap[ing] from the unequaled time of tribulation which is coming upon all the earth," an option he realistically felt few would accept. The second choice was to become a "true" Zionist "and thus hold fast to the hopes of the fathers, and the assured deliverance of Israel, through the coming of their Messiah, and complete national restoration and permanent settlement in the land which God has given them." The third option was to become an "assimilant," those "Jews who will not be either Christians or Zionists. They wish to remain in various nations enjoying their social, political and commercial advantages." Blackstone ignored the option taken by those orthodox Jews who rejected secularized, political Zionism in favor of traditional observance, while he viciously attacked Reform and non-Zionist, secular Jews for seeking to "enjoy...advantages" in the United States. The anti-Semitic overtones to Blackstone's three-option taxonomy are palpable. Again, the alliance between Zionism and fundamentalism was able to accommodate the anti-Semitic characterization: his audience accepted him, and Rabbi Wise, to whom Blackstone sent a copy of his address, thanked him as "one of our warm friends," despite the fact that Wise rejected the theological basis of his support

Louis Brandeis recognized Blackstone as the first in our modern era to make a serious attempt to resettle the Jews in Eretz Yisrael.  From an article by Jerry Klinger (President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation) about Blackstone:

May 8, 1916, Brandeis had Nathan Straus contact Reverend Blackstone.“Mr. Brandeis is perfectly infatuated with the work that you have done along the lines of Zionism. It would have done your heart good to have heard him assert what a valuable contribution to the cause your document is. In fact he agrees with me that you are the Father of Zionism, as your work antedates Herzl”.

Brandeis was a not a sycophant.  He recognized what was truthful and accurate and had that information conveyed to Blackstone in the initial contact by Nathan Straus.  What was incredible was that Brandeis, the head of the American Zionist movement acknowledged that Reverend William E. Blackstone, a dispensationalist Christian, was the father of Zionism. He said as his (Blackstone’s) work and ideas predated Theodor Herzl by nearly six years. 
Blackstone responded enthusiastically, immediately.  It was the opportunity he was waiting for. He had deliberately returned from China where for years (1909-1914) he had been engaged in missionary work.  Blackstone sensed that with the outbreak of World War I, Ottoman rule over the Holy Land was nearing an end, prophecy was unfolding.  He wanted to be back in America, to be present to support in any way possible the Biblical future he envisioned – the Restoration of the Jews. 

** 

The Rambam and the Four Tibulim

Mishna Pesachim 116a:

מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו מטבילין פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים

Every other night we dip once.  On this night, we dip twice.

Gemara there:

מתקיף לה רבא אטו כל יומא לא סגיא דלא מטבלא חדא זימנא אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני שבכל הלילות אין אנו חייבין לטבל אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים מתקיף לה רב ספרא חיובא לדרדקי אלא אמר רב ספרא הכי קתני אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים

Rava asks, is it so certain that we do dip once at other meals?  Rather, this is what it should say: on all nights, we are not obligated to dip even once, and on this night, twice.  Rav Safra asks, "Obligated?  This is not really an obligation, it is just so that the children should wonder what is going on and ask questions!"  Rather, says Rav Safra, this is what it should say: we don't even dip once; this night, twice.  (According to Rav Safra, the proper wording is, as we say it, "On all nights we don't dip even once....")

Rashi: 

חיובא לדרדקי. בתמיה הא משום הכירא דתינוקות כדי שישאלו קעבדינן: אלא אמר רב ספרא כו'. מהכא שמעינן דהכי אית לן למימר שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין [אפילו] פעם אחת 

What are the two dippings?  Rashi on the Mishna says

שתי פעמים. טיבול ראשון דשאר ירקות וטיבול שני דמרור

The problem is that the Rambam prescribes not two dippings, but four.

In 8 Ch'uM 2 he says

מתחיל ומברך בורא פרי האדמה ולוקח ירק ומטבל אותו בחרוסת (1) ואוכל 

and there in 8:8 he says 

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת (2) ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת (3) ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת (4) ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש

That's a total of four.  So how is it that the Rambam brings the Mishna in its original form and says that the question is worded "two times"?

8:2

. ואומר הקורא מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת והלילה הזה שתי פעמים.

This is not my own question.  It was asked by numerous Rishonim and Achronim, as brought in the Tur in OC 475.  This is why many disagree with the Rambam's idea of dipping Matza into Charoses, or anything at all.

But even if you drop the dipping of Matza on its own, there remains another issue:  The Rambam says that the Korech has to be dipped into Charoses as well.  This makes perfect sense, because the Korech contains Maror.  Hillel, when he made his Korech, had to have dipped it into Charoses, so if we're making a Korech in memory of what he did, it makes sense that we do so as well.

But, as the Tur brings from the Avi Ha'Ezri, that leaves us wondering why we do three tibulim, when the Mishna says two.

The Pri Chadash (OC 475, DH ומ"ש עוד) says he's not bothered by the additional tibbul of the Korech, because the dipping of the Korech is only as an alternative to the dipping of the Matza and the Maror individually.  We do both, to honor the two opinions, but in theory, they are mutually exclusive.  But he is still bothered by the Rambam's idea that the Matza should be dipped into Charoses, so that's three tibullim- Karpas, Maror, and Matza.

Dr. Nachum Stone, of Maale Adumim, suggested two answers, and I think they're both kedai to hear.

1.  That the tibbul of the Matza is not counted.  They would always dip the bread into something at a meal, so it wouldn't arouse any remark.  It is only the dipping of Karpas and Maror that is unusual, as Rashi said.  I later found that my rebbi and chavrusa, Rabbi Moshe Brown of Far Rockaway, says this in his most recent sefer, Ma'adanei Moshe.

2.  The although the Gemara does not make any determination of whether the halacha is like Hillel or the Rabanan as far as Korech is concerned, the Rambam pretty clearly is favoring Hillel, most likely because he learned that even the Rabanan agree that one would be yotzei the mitzvos of the Korban and the Matza, and certainly the Maror, with a korech.  Hillel only differs in holding that they must be eaten like that.  (This is how the Rashbam and the Ramban learn the Gemara Pesachim 115a)  This is evident in the Rambam in 8:6, where he says 

 ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו:

The fact that the Rambam then turns around and says that nowadays we eat them separately at first and only later combine them into a korech is hard to understand, (and may have to do with the Reb Chaim on Pesachim 120a, page 33 of Reb Chaim Al Hashas and the mitzvos mevatlos issue) but in any case, it is pretty clear he paskens that we used to do like Hillel's korech only.  I later found that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky says this in his Emes L'Yaakov.

If so, then Bizman Habayis there were only two tibullim, the Karpas and the Korech.  The language of the question, that originated in the time of the Beis Hamikdash and reflected what they did then, remains on the books, despite the fact that we do things differently now.  But that's not a problem.  At worst, it will just be another reason to ask a question.  And at best, it's a preparation for Biyas Hamashi'ach.

Today, (Vayakhel-Pekudei 5673), the Chaver Mike Nussbaum proposed another answer.  The phrase "Matbilin shtei p'amim" might refer to the thing we're dipping in.  There are two dips, saltwater and charoses. I have to think about the word "p'amim" though.  If it said יש לנו שתי טיבולים. or מטבילין שתים, I would agree, but to read this into פעמים is difficult.  Furthermore, while the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos says that the first tibbul is in saltwater, in the Yad he says that there is no tibbul in saltwater: that all the tibullim are in Charoses.  So our Chaver's answer will not stand in the Rambam.

I recently heard a very nice answer to this question.  The Leket Yosher (page 85), a talmid of the Trumas Hadeshen, says that he saw his rebbi dip two zeisim of maror at once, in the beginning of the meal.  He would then eat one, and save the second one to put into the Korech.

וראיתי שנוטל שני דתים מרור בטיבול ראשון, ויטבול בחרוסת, ונתן לכל בגי הסעודה עוד שני זיתים, ואח־כ עשה הכרכה [על אכילת מרור], ואוכלים זית אחד, והזית שני מניחים עד לכריכה, וכרכו למצה השלישית והוא אכל בהסבה, כן כתב בסדרו

He does not suggest any explanation for what he saw the Trumas Hadeshen do, he just reports what he saw.

But the Mateh Moshe (648), in discussing the problem with the number of tibullim, says that he has a solution: that you should do both zeisim of Maror at once, and use them separately, and so there would be only two tibullim; one of Karpas in saltwater, and one of the two zeisim of maror.  It's interesting that he suggests it as a solution to the tibbul issue, without knowing that by doing so he explained the behavior of the Trumas Hadeshen.

 ואח״כ יבצע מצה שלישית לכריכה וכתב אבי העזרי שאין למובלו בתרומתלשני שיבולים מצינו בזמן הזה דרניצין למיעבר כהלל ג׳ לא מצינו . ור׳ שמעיה כשם רש״י כתב לצריך לסובלו במרושת וכן כתב הרא״ש ז״ל וטובלו בתרופת שכך היה הלל עושה אוכל השמ מצה ומרור וטבל במרושת וז״ל כמ״ג רבעו ימיאצ היה טוכל הכריכה במרושת למאמר דהיה זכר להלל עבדינן כהלל לכרך פשח מצה במרומז ראם לא כן היכן אכל מרושת ליליה . וכן היה נוהג מהר׳׳ש ומהר״י מול״ן-וכן כתב אבן הירמי ומצאתי כתוב לכלי שלא להוסיף על השיכולים יטבול בדיישונה שני זמים וינימ אמת לכריכה: 

Please see the comments:
I don't have time to write any more today, but it's very kedai to see the ideas brought there, such as that the word Tibbul does not necessarily mean dip; many rishonim say it means 'beginning a meal.'  As such, the question is not why do we dip once, or twice, or three times.  The question is why do we dip the karpas before we're ready to really begin the meal:  why do we act as if we're beginning a meal when we don't actually eat anything at that point.

UPDATES 2019  

Gary Schreiber suggested that according to the Rambam, "pe'amim" means "occasions," namely, before the seuda and during the seuda.


Halacha l'maaseh regarding whether we dip the Korech in Charoses

The consensus of modern poskim is that the Korech should be dipped into Charoses. Some families, however, have a minhag to not dip the Korech in Charoses. This is one of the rare cases where the Mishna Berura says that despite the consensus of poskim, if your minhag is to not do tibbul on Korech, you should follow that minhag, while the Aruch HaShulchan says it's just wrong, and everyone should do tibbul of Korech.

Mechaber:

ואח"כ נוטל מצה שלישית ובוצע ממנה וכורכה עם המרור וטובלה בחרוסת

Rema:

: הגה ויש אומרים דאין לטובלו וכן הוא במנהגים וכן ראיתי נוהגין:

Mishna Berura:

(יח) דאין לטובלו - טעמם שכבר קיים מצות חרוסת בטיבול ראשון וגם אין לחוש לארס שבמרור זה כיון שאוכלו עם מצה בכריכה: 

(יט) וכן ראיתי נוהגין - עיין באחרונים שהסכימו דהעיקר כדעה הראשונה ומ"מ היכי דנהוג נהוג: 

Aruch HaShulchan:

ודע דעל מה שנתבאר שצריך לאכלן בכריכה ובהסיבה, כתב רבינו הבית יוסף שטובלה בחרוסת. ורבינו הרמ"א כתב: ויש אומרים דאין לטובלו. וכן הוא במנהגים, וכן ראיתי נוהגין. עד כאן לשונו.ואינו מובן: דהא החרוסת הוי מפני הארס, ואיך אפשר שלא להטבילו בחרוסת? ובאמת כל האחרונים חולקים עליו, וסבירא להו דצריך להטביל בחרוסת. וכן אנו נוהגים.

שתי פעמים: Dipping Twice at the Seder; the Two טיבולים

Among the many minhogim at the seder are the two tibbulim. One is karpas in saltwater, the other is maror in charoses. These dippings are sufficiently unusual that they elicit one of the four questions in the Mah Nishtanah. Why indeed do we do these two tibbulim? See Psochim 114b and Rashi there that we do this “k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos.” This is one of the times the Gemora uses this unusual answer, which basically means that there is no intrinsic reason at all to do it, other than arousing the curiosity of children by engaging in unusual behavior. 

Now that we have grown up, it is time to realize that the gemora’s answer cannot possibly be meant literally. The gemara's reason may explain some aspect of the tibbulim, but certainly is not the fundamental reason for the tibbulim.

(Based on something I heard in the name of the Chiddah.) Two events of tibbul are central to the story of our golus and pidyon from Mitzrayim– the tibbul of Yosef’s Kesones Hapasim in blood, and the tibbul of the Agudas Eizov in blood as part of the first Korbon Pesach ceremony in Mitzrayim. We see, then, that the Golus Mitzrayim was bracketed by two tibbulim. The tevilla of Yosef’s kesones culminated the episode of the brother’s hatred of Yosef, which ultimately brought all the Bnei Yisroel to Mitzrayim. That tevilla marked the onset of the avdus. The second tevilla, whose purpose was to mark the houses of the Jews by applying the blood of the korbon to the frame of the door, was the event that gave the holiday its name– Pesach, ki posach Hashem- for Hashem passed over our houses- and this set into motion the actual redemption from Mitzrayim. One was a tevilla that brought avdus, one that brought cheirus. 

As always, one might say that this is a clever observation that may or may not be significant. Coincidences do happen, and they don’t necessarily prove anything. But there is another step.

The first tibbul is karpas. Rashi in Vayeisheiv, Breishis 37:3 says that Kesones Pasim means a coat made of wool, and he brings a similar use of the word Pasim from the Megillah, “Karpas ut’cheiles.” So, what do you know. The word pasim is a form of pas, or karpas. It now becomes absolutely clear that when Chazal instituted the two tibbulim, they had these two events in mind, the tibbul at the onset of the golus, and the tibbul at the onset of the geulah.


Two questions still remain. 

I. !אין להכחיש את המוחש  Why are Chazal always saying that the tibul of the karpas is k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos, when it is obvious that there is a better reason.  What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it? 
It is true that the Gemara says a similar thing in Chagiga as to why we bring children to the Hakhel event, Litein Schar L'meivi'eihen. It doesn't mean it what it says there either.

II. Is there any special connection between the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach and the tibbul of moror in charoses.

After posting this, several people brought up worthy additions.
1. Joshe M., of http://haprozdor.blogspot.com/, wrote in a comment that the second tibbul does reflect the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach, since it is a green vegetable dipped into a red substance.
2. Josh M. also suggested that the Hagadah is not a time to focus on negative traits of the Bnei Yisroel, so any allusion to the sinas achim against Yosef was cloaked in symbols. (The only taineh I had on this was that according to Rav In Psachim 116b that Poschim bi'gnai refers to Terach's avoda Zara, then we're not hiding chesronos in our background.  But perhaps sinas chinam among the Shivtei Kah is a lot worse than Terach's avoda zara.)
3. Another reader pointed out, very cleverly, I think, that both tibbulim represent change: negation, or, at least, mitigation. The first, Karpas in saltwater, is a sweet, flavorful food dipped into a salty substance, which can be said to counter or mitigate the sweetness of the karpas. 
So, too, the episode of the kesones marked the change from an undisturbed, pastoral life, by the hatred that led to the sale of Yosef and the galus Mitzrayim.
The second tibbul, the Moror in Charoses, mitigates the bitterness of the moror, and marks the end of Shibud Mitzrayim by way of the Korbon Pesach.

Yasher Koachachem for your he'oros.

Update 2011:
As for the question of why Chazal didn't tell us the real reason for the tibulim:
See Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz's Sichos Mussar #66, on Parshas Achrei Mos.  Aharon was warned not to enter the Kodesh Kadashim "b'chol eis."  Reb Chaim brings from the Chosid Yaaveitz that habit is the enemy of enthusiasm.  Aharon was warned to avoid going into the Kodesh Kadashim so that he shouldn't lose his sensitivity and awe for the kedusha that was present there.  He later connects this with the din of Sippur, that it has to be by question and answer.  He says that it is only through question and answer that one is stimulated to come up with novel and creative perspectives, and this new apprehension will help us to re-experience Yetzias Mitzrayim.  When one is asked a question, he naturally seeks to find his own novel answer.

See the Shaar HaTziyun 472 end of #2.  What he says is that the Mah Nishtana, and all the seder, are not nearly as important as the sense of awe and surprise our seder meal inspires in children, so that they are filled with wonder and ask questions.  Mah Nishtana is a pale and attenuated version of what really should be happening at the seder. 

That being the case, Chazal are telling us that while there are good reasons for the various minhagim of the seder, particularly the two dippings, the questions they elicit are more important than the reasons.  A seder where people are shaken out of their old assumptions, a seder that wakes people up to learn new things, is far more important than a seder where everyone merely repeats what everyone already knows.

Make the seder your own!  Every family needs to have its own hagadah!  Every person needs to remember "This is what we said here, this is what we sang, this is where he did this or that, this is how we made the Ke'arah."  Don't somnambulate through the Maxwell House.  Write your own hagadah.  Just don't put an orange on the Ke'arah.

Update 2013:
Rav Shimon Kalman G. told me several things.
1. The Pri Chadash in 473 (here, twelve lines from the top,) says that the first tibbul is without any reason other than to stimulate discussion, kdei she'yish'alu.  He says that we really do not have an answer for the child's question about shtei p'amim!  Isn't that strange?  The nusach is that the child should ask, and the Gemara says that we do the tibbulim so the child should ask, and the Pri Chadash says that we have no answer to his question!
2.  The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, middle of first paragraph) says the same thing. 

לשאלה זו לא מצינו בדברי חז״ל רק לעשות היכר לתינוקות, [כפסחים קט״ז.] והכוונה לאותן שלמדו כל השנה בתורה וידעו ענין פסח ומצה ולא ישאלו כלום עושי׳ להם שינוי וזה [זה] שלא מצאו בתורה כדי שישאלו ועי״ז נבוא לסבב לספר להם י״מ

 אע״פ שכבר ידעו׳

As far as answering this question, we do not find in the words of Chazal anything other than "in order to do something unusual for the little children."  The reason we are tovel twice is davka because there are kids who know a lot about the whole story, because they learn Chumash, so if we only did things that reflected the story they know, they wouldn't have anything to ask.  So we davka do something that has no shaychus to the story of yetzias mitzrayim, so they'll have what to ask- and we have no answer, but it will stimulate talk and questions and dialogue.
3.  The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, DH Yachol) says

דהתורה הקפידה שלא לומר לתינוק דבר עד  שישאל. לכן כתי׳ כי ישאלך בנך למעוטי שלא יאמר לו עד שישאל דע״י דמתמיה לי׳ מילתא מדכיר דכיר

That the Torah insists that you not tell the child anything until he asks "What's going on?" because only when he is surprised and curious will your answer make a strong and memorable impression.  If, however, after all that you've done he still doesn't ask, then, as a last resort, at the seder, you should tell him what he needs to know.
Rav Shimon Kalman uses this Chasam Sofer to remind us that the minhag of our schools to arm children with volumes of questions and answers and visual aids and three dimensional pop ups is contrary to the Chasam Sofer's vision of the purpose of the mitzva of Sippur.  The kids should come and be surprised, not like a maggid with prepared speeches.

HAVING SAID THIS, from the Pri Chadash and the Chasam Sofer, we are left, once again, to wonder why the true explanation for the tibbulim was hidden.  Again, we must say that Chazal davka did not want us to have a cut and dry explanation for everything.  They davka wanted to leave some things unanswered, so that every person, every family, would have their own approach to the question, and would be forced to engage in conversation and dialogue and give and take.

A very smart individual, having read this post, made the following very well constructed comment:

As Rav Hutner points out, even the perek which deals with the יציאת מצרים is based on questions: מה לך הים, etc.

And yes, the schools which send kids home with volumes of answers are probably being מבטל the מצות עשה of והגדת actively. Isn't frumkeit great...

Conjecture: while שואלים ודורשים בהלכות החג thirty days earlier, that's only the halachos. The גר"א ברוח קדשו forbids reading even the פרשת קרבן פסח because of the ביטול עשה of ביום הזה. Could that be so that even the adults go into פסח with questions rather than answers? 

I don't have the answer to that. Only the question. 

Shtei Pe'amim. Dipping Twice at the Seder; the Two Tibbulim.

I printed this in 2007, and I am posting it again, with some updates.

Among the many minhagim at the seder are the two tibbulim. One is karpas in saltwater, the other is maror in charoses. These dippings are sufficiently unusual that they elicit one of the four questions in the Mah Nishtanah. Why indeed do we do these two tibbulim? See Psochim 114b and Rashi there that we do this “k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos.” This is one of the times the Gemora uses this unusual answer, which basically means that there is no intrinsic reason at all to do it, other than arousing the curiosity of children by engaging in unusual behavior. 

Now that we have grown up, it is time to realize that the gemora’s answer cannot possibly be meant literally. The gemara's reason may explain some aspect of the tibbulim, but certainly is not the fundamental reason for the tibbulim.

(Based on >something I heard in the name of< the Chiddah.) Two events of tibbul are central to the story of our golus and pidyon from Mitzrayim– the tibbul of Yosef’s Kesones Hapasim in blood, and the tibbul of the Agudas Eizov in blood as part of the first Korbon Pesach ceremony in Mitzrayim. We see, then, that the Golus Mitzrayim was bracketed by two tibbulim. The tevilla of Yosef’s kesones culminated the episode of the brother’s hatred of Yosef, which ultimately brought all the Bnei Yisroel to Mitzrayim. That tevilla marked the onset of the avdus. The second tevilla, whose purpose was to mark the houses of the Jews by applying the blood of the korbon to the frame of the door, was the event that gave the holiday its name– Pesach, ki posach Hashem- for Hashem passed over our houses- and this set into motion the actual redemption from Mitzrayim. One was a tevilla that brought avdus, one that brought cheirus. 

As always, one might say that this is a clever observation that may or may not be significant. Coincidences do happen, and they don’t necessarily prove anything. But there is another step.

The first tibbul is karpas. Rashi in Vayeisheiv, Breishis 37:3 says that Kesones Pasim means a coat made of wool, and he brings a similar use of the word Pasim from the Megillah, “Karpas ut’cheiles.” So, what do you know. The word pasim is a form of pas, or karpas. It now becomes absolutely clear that when Chazal instituted the two tibbulim, they had these two events in mind, the tibbul at the onset of the golus, and the tibbul at the onset of the geulah.


Two questions still remain. 

I. !אין להכחיש את המוחש  Why are Chazal always saying that the tibul of the karpas is k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos, when it is obvious that there is a better reason.  What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it? 
It is true that the Gemara says a similar thing in Chagiga as to why we bring children to the Hakhel event, Litein Schar L'meivi'eihen. It doesn't mean it what it says there either.

II. Is there any special connection between the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach and the tibbul of moror in charoses.

After posting this, several people brought up worthy additions.
1. Joshe M., of http://haprozdor.blogspot.com/, wrote in a comment that the second tibbul does reflect the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach, since it is a green vegetable dipped into a red substance.
2. Josh M. also suggested that the Hagadah is not a time to focus on negative traits of the Bnei Yisroel, so any allusion to the sinas achim against Yosef was cloaked in symbols. (The only taineh I had on this was that according to Rav In Psachim 116b that Poschim bi'gnai refers to Terach's avoda Zara, then we're not hiding chesronos in our background.  But perhaps sinas chinam among the Shivtei Kah is a lot worse than Terach's avoda zara.)
3. Another reader pointed out, very cleverly, I think, that both tibbulim represent change: negation, or, at least, mitigation. The first, Karpas in saltwater, is a sweet, flavorful food dipped into a salty substance, which can be said to counter or mitigate the sweetness of the karpas. 
So, too, the episode of the kesones marked the change from an undisturbed, pastoral life, by the hatred that led to the sale of Yosef and the galus Mitzrayim.
The second tibbul, the Moror in Charoses, mitigates the bitterness of the moror, and marks the end of Shibud Mitzrayim by way of the Korbon Pesach.

Yasher Koachachem for your he'oros.

Update 2011:
As for the question of why Chazal didn't tell us the real reason for the tibulim:
See Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz's Sichos Mussar #66, on Parshas Achrei Mos.  Aharon was warned not to enter the Kodesh Kadashim "b'chol eis."  Reb Chaim brings from the Chosid Yaaveitz that habit is the enemy of enthusiasm.  Aharon was warned to avoid going into the Kodesh Kadashim so that he shouldn't lose his sensitivity and awe for the kedusha that was present there.  He later connects this with the din of Sippur, that it has to be by question and answer.  He says that it is only through question and answer that one is stimulated to come up with novel and creative perspectives, and this new apprehension will help us to re-experience Yetzias Mitzrayim.  When one is asked a question, he naturally seeks to find his own novel answer.

See the Shaar HaTziyun 472 end of #2.  What he says is that the Mah Nishtana, and all the seder, are not nearly as important as the sense of awe and surprise our seder meal inspires in children, so that they are filled with wonder and ask questions.  Mah Nishtana is a pale and attenuated version of what really should be happening at the seder. 

That being the case, Chazal are telling us that while there are good reasons for the various minhagim of the seder, particularly the two dippings, the questions they elicit are more important than the reasons.  A seder where people are shaken out of their old assumptions, a seder that wakes people up to learn new things, is far more important than a seder where everyone merely repeats what everyone already knows.

Make the seder your own!  Every family needs to have its own hagadah!  Every person needs to remember "This is what we said here, this is what we sang, this is where he did this or that, this is how we made the Ke'arah."  Don't somnambulate through the Maxwell House.  Write your own hagadah.  Just don't put an orange on the Ke'arah.

Update 2013:
Rav Shimon Kalman G. told me several things.
1. The third question in the Mah Nishtanah is "why do we dip two times."  The Pri Chadash in 473 (here, twelve lines from the top,) says that the first tibbul is without any reason other than to stimulate discussion, kdei she'yish'alu, and since that's the case, we never actually answer the child's question about shtei p'amim!  Isn't that strange?  The nusach is that the child should ask, and the Gemara says that we do the tibbulim so the child should ask, and the Pri Chadash says that we have no answer to his question!
2.  The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, middle of first paragraph) says the same thing. 

לשאלה זו לא מצינו בדברי חז״ל רק לעשות היכר לתינוקות, [כפסחים קט״ז.] והכוונה לאותן שלמדו כל השנה בתורה וידעו ענין פסח ומצה ולא ישאלו כלום עושי׳ להם שינוי וזה [זה] שלא מצאו בתורה כדי שישאלו ועי״ז נבוא לסבב לספר להם י״מ

 אע״פ שכבר ידעו׳

As far as answering this question, we do not find in the words of Chazal anything other than "in order to do something unusual for the little children."  The reason we are tovel twice is davka because there are kids who know a lot about the whole story, because they learn Chumash, so if we only did things that reflected the story they know, they wouldn't have anything to ask.  So we davka do something that has no shaychus to the story of yetzias mitzrayim, so they'll have what to ask- and we have no answer, but it will stimulate talk and questions and dialogue.
3.  The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, DH Yachol) says

דהתורה הקפידה שלא לומר לתינוק דבר עד  שישאל. לכן כתי׳ כי ישאלך בנך למעוטי שלא יאמר לו עד שישאל דע״י דמתמיה לי׳ מילתא מדכיר דכיר

That the Torah insists that you not tell the child anything until he asks "What's going on?" because only when he is surprised and curious will your answer make a strong and memorable impression.  If, however, after all that you've done he still doesn't ask, then, as a last resort, at the seder, you should tell him what he needs to know.
Rav Shimon Kalman uses this Chasam Sofer to remind us that the minhag of our schools to arm children with volumes of questions and answers and visual aids and three dimensional pop ups is contrary to the Chasam Sofer's vision of the purpose of the mitzva of Sippur.  The kids should come and be surprised, not like a maggid with prepared speeches.
4.  The Shulchan Aruch Harav (472:15) says that even if a person is making the seder by himself, and there are no children there, he still has to do the tibbulim, because לא חילקו חכמים.  He doesn't say "because there are many hidden reasons, and those reasons still apply."  He just says that although the takana was to do a milsa di'tmi'ah to surprise children, the takana was universal and applies to all cases.  Again, you see the presumption that what you see is all there is, particularly surprising coming from the Baal HaTanya.
HAVING SAID THIS, from the Pri Chadash and the Chasam Sofer, we are left, once again, to wonder why the true explanation for the tibbulim was hidden.  Again, we must say that Chazal davka did not want us to have a cut and dry explanation for everything.  They davka wanted to leave some things unanswered, so that every person, every family, would have their own approach to the question, and would be forced to engage in conversation and dialogue and give and take.

great unknown, wrote the following in his comment, which is both informative and well constructed:

As Rav Hutner points out, even the perek which deals with the יציאת מצרים is based on questions: מה לך הים, etc.

And yes, the schools which send kids home with volumes of answers are probably being מבטל the מצות עשה of והגדת actively. Isn't frumkeit great...

Conjecture: while שואלים ודורשים בהלכות החג thirty days earlier, that's only the halachos. The גר"א ברוח קדשו forbids reading even the פרשת קרבן פסח because of the ביטול עשה of ביום הזה. Could that be so that even the adults go into פסח with questions rather than answers? 

I don't have the answer to that. Only the question. 

Purim 5773/2013. Matanos L'Evyonim, -wiches, Selling Olam Haba, and Ipecac

It's Shushan Purim, and my mind is clearer.  I'm not going to go back and fix the original post (other than one update), despite some flaws in tone and content.  Instead, here is a condensed version.  

Section I: Does Matanos Le'Evyonim have the dinim of Tzedaka or is it a mitzvah of the day that is fulfilled by an action that is similar to Tzedaka.

Answer: Although the Magen Avraham brings from the Shlah and the Maharil that you can't use Maaser money to pay for Matanos L'evyonim, which indicates that it's not tzedaka, it appears that this is a machlokes rishonim.  Reb Chaim Brisker is quoted as saying, in the Rambam at least, that ML'E is tzedaka with distinct halachos regarding time and manner; according to this Reb Chaim, I think, the Shlah/Maharil's rule would not be true.

Section II:  There are some towns in England that end in -wich, and in Slavic countries that end in -wich or -vich.  Like Bloxwich, Droitwich, Dunwich, Fordwich, Harwich, Horwich, Ipswich, Middlewich, Nantwich, Northwich, Norwich, Prestwich, Sandwich, and West Bromwich in England, and Rugewicz, Baranovich, Ponevezh, Skiernewicz, and Lechowitz in Europe.  Are they etymologically related?

Answer: No.  The -wich in England and the -wich in Poland, used in the names of towns, are totally unrelated.  The English -wich means fortified market town, often associated with the production of salt, while the Polish -wich is just the suffix of the name of the town's owner or founder, and -wich means "son of."

Section III:Can you buy or sell your reward for doing Mitzvos.

Answer: No, you can't.   Putting aside the Davar shelo ba le'olam thing, Hashem doesn't owe you anything.  Schar Mitzvos is a gift by the grace of G-d, and when someone who loves you says he's going to give you a gift, you can't sell the anticipated gift.  Also, it's not schar in the sense of payment.  It is the consequence of doing Hashem's will.  A thrown ball can't sell its trajectory to an inert object.

          Section IV:  Reading the Gemara (Shabbos 123b) that says that on Shabbos one who desires to eat more but is unable to because he is full is not allowed to take an emetic; which seems, to our sensibilities, to be repugnant and wasteful, I made a comment that I think deserves preservation.  What was that comment?

Answer:  Ipecac: the Glutton's Viagra.


What follows was written on Purim, other than one update in middle.

First, let me make it clear that I am not responsible for the tone and content of what I'm writing now.  I can guarantee that it will be clever, but beyond that, no guarantees.

1.  The annoying Maharil in 694.  

The Magen AVraham in  OC (no kidding) 694 brings the Maharil that you can't pay for Matonos l'evyonim from Maaser ksafim.  This is because of hte rule that a dovor she'bichova has to come from chulin, and since matonos l'evyonim is obligatory, you can't pay for it from maaser ksofim. Nobody argues, everybody's happy, its a halacha psuka.  Finishned
Wrong.  I think that we don't hold like th maaharil.

The Rambam in 2 chagiga 8 says that you can't pay for your olas riya or shelmei chagiga from maser sheini money, because of the rule that chova can't come from here's hte Rambam, let him speak for hismlef.

עולת ראייה אינה באה אלא מן החולין כשאר הקרבנות שאדם חייב בהן. אבל שלמי חגיגה באות ממעות מעשר שני המעורבות עם מעות חולין לוקח מן התערובת בהמה ומקריבה שלמי חגיגה. והוא שיהיה שיעור אכילה ראשונה מן החולין. מפני ששלמי חגיגה חובה וכל שהוא חובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין:

Very simple.  riyah and chagiga, pay out of discretionary funds.  Shelmei simcha, you can use maser sheini money.  The rambam explains the differencetwo halachos later:

יוצאין ישראל ידי חובת שלמי שמחה בנדרים ונדבות ובמעשר בהמה. והכהנים בחטאת ובאשם ובבכור ובחזה ושוק. שמצוה זו היא לשמוח באכילת בשר לפני ה' והרי אכלו. אבל אין יוצאין ידי חובתן לא בעופות ולא במנחות שאינן בשר המשמח. כבר ביארנו בפסחים שחגיגת ארבעה עשר רשות. לפיכך אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובת חגיגה אלא יוצא בה חובת שמחה:

so it's very simple.  For chiyuvim, you have to use pocket money.  but even though you're chayav to bring shelmei simcha, since hte tachlis is to have a good time, and the point of maser sheini money is to have a good time, so what's the problem.

It should be obvious to any straight thinking person that on the basis of the this Rambam, you can use maser sheini money for matanos le'evyoinim.  The purpose is to make sure that the evyonim have a good time, that that have what to eat and rejoice, so who the uheck cares what you used to pay for it with.  The tachlis is fulfilled.

tThe Roish koilel, harav yoisef Rajchenbach, whanted to be mechaleik.  Whent tachlis is your simcha, no problem. When the tachlis is yenems' simcah, not the same.

We are not impressed.

anyway, The maharil knew the Rambam very well, and he wasn't nispoeil.  so what's the pshat?

Very simple The maharil holds that matonos le'evyonim is a mitzva of a maaseh nesina,.  that you need to fulfill the mitzva by the act of giving.  so the tachlis of the mitzva is not the simcha of the poor guy, who cares about tehpoor guy, my mitzva is to do the maiseh nesinah, and the heck with the poor guy, he's just a cheftza shel mitzva, like kthe beis halevi says in the end of parshas truma. Fine.  Let the Maharil hold like that.  It's not weirder than the Tosfos Rid inKiddushin that says thatt milah is not zman grama because the father's mitzva is the hishtadlus that the bris shouild be done, and that's not zman gromo.  It's a free country, you can say what you want.

But my problem is that if the Maharil holds that the ikker mitzva of Matonos le'evyonim is the maaseh nesina, not the hano'oh of the oni, then you can't be mekayeim the mitzva if you give the money before purim.  You can't fulfil the arba kosos if you have a headache on Pesachy, can you?  NO.  Retorical quesiton.  But the fact is that we all give matonos le'evyonim before purim "to be distributed on purim."  if it's a din of maaseh nesina, what good is that?  Your nesina needs to be on purim.  Ahh, but you answer, we insist that the nesina should be done on Purim.  But there are many poskim that say that you can fulfill the mitzva by giving it to  the oni before purim IF YOU'RE SURE HE WON'T EAT IT UP BEFORE PURIM.  Like by kiddushin.  If the mitzva was the nesina, that WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE ATALL.  It must be that we hold that hte ikker is the hana'ah of the oni, not the neshina.

If so, we obviously don't hold like th emaharil.

So don't drei a kop and tell me that oh, the maharil is a halacha psuka, you can't pay for ml'e from maiser money.  OUr minhag, in my cnsidered opinion, is not to fir zach like th emaharil.

UPDATE:

I'm writing on Shushan Purim, and so it should be more legible.  I just saw a tshuva in the Chasam Sofer on another teshuva from the Maharil, in which he clarifies the svara.   The Teshuva is in the Chasam Sofer YD 231, here.

More importantly:  Eli pointed out that this is most likely a machlokes Rishonim, to wit:  (Language credit to R Tzvi Reizman from Los Angeles, from an article in Kovetz He'oros U'Biurim.  Although I'm not taking achrayus for the words attributed to Harav Soloveichik in the Harerei Kedem, it makes sense to me.)

ובספר הררי קדם (סימן רו) הביא הגרי"ד סולובייצ'יק בשם זקנו הגר"ח מבריסק שאמר כי "מתנות לאביונים הוא חיוב מסויים ליתן צדקה ביום הפורים". והוסיף והסתפק: "וצ"ע דאם יש בזה קיום מצות צדקה, בודאי כל המוסיף מקיים בכל פרוטה ממצות צדקה נוספת. ומדברי הרמב"ם (הלכות מגילה פ"ב הי"ז) "מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו", נראה שאין בזה קיום מצוה בפני עצמה, אלא שהוא רק משובח". 

On the other hand, you have Rishonim that indicate that it is not exactly a din of Tzedaka:

הב"ח דייק מלשון הטור (שם) "חייב כל אדם ליתן מתנות לעניים, כלומר, כל אדם, אפילו עני המקבל צדקה חייב לתת ממה שנתנו לו לשאר אביונים בפורים". וכתב הב"ח בטעם הדבר: "דאין דין מתנות לאביונים בפורים כדין שאר צדקה, דהכשר מצות פורים הוא לתת מתנות לאביונים, וכדין ארבע כוסות בפסח [שגם עני המחזר על הפתחים חייב], ואפילו משלוח מנות חייבים בו העניים, אע"פ שלא יספיק להם בסעודתם לאכול עצמם ולשלוח גם לאחרים, וכדמשמע מרב חנינא ואביי. אם כן הוא הדין למתנות לאביונים בפורים, אבל שאר צדקה דכל השנה אין עני המקבל צדקה חייב בה, אלא פעם אחת בשנה יתן דבר מועט לצדקה, כדי לקיים מצות צדקה". וכן נקט להלכה הט"ז (סי' תרצד ס"ק א) כדבריו: "כתב מו"ח ז"ל, אפילו אני המתפרנס מהצדקה, כמו בד' כוסות של פסח. מה שאין כן בשאר צדקה שאינו חייב רק פעם אחת בשנה כדי לקיים מצות צדקה". ביאור דבריהם, דהנה יש לדון בגדר מצות מתנות לאביונים, האם החיוב הוא מהלכות צדקה, שתיקנו לקיים ביום הפורים את מצות הצדקה, כדי שיהיו כל צרכי הפורים מצויים לעניים. או שהחיוב אינו קשור כלל להלכות צדקה, אלא הוא נובע מכלל החיוב להרבות בשמחה בפורים, לתת מתנות לאביונים, כדי לשמחם ביום הפורים. ונראה כי נחלקו בזה רבותינו הראשונים. הרמב"ם (הלכות מגילה פ"ב הי"ז) כתב: "מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו, שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארה אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים, שהמשמח לב האומללים האלו דומה לשכינה". ומשמע מדבריו, שטעם הענין להרבות במתנות לאביונים נובע מחיוב השמחה בפורים, המפורש בדברי המגילה (אסתר ט, כב) "לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים". וכדי שגם האביונים יהיו בשמחה בימי הפורים, חייבו לתת להם מתנות. והדברים מפורשים בביאורו של הריטב"א (מגילה ז, ב) לדברי הירושלמי (מגילה פ"א ה"ד) "כל הפושט יד נותנים לו", שהסיבה לכך היא לפי "שאין נתינה זו מדין צדקה גרידתא, אלא מדין שמחה, שהרי אף לעשירים יש לשלוח מנות, ולפיכך נהגו ליתן מעות פורים לגויים ואפילו עשירים". ומפורש בדבריהם, כי גדר מצות מתנות לאביונים אינו מדין צדקה, אלא מדין השמחה בפורים. 

The important mussar haskeil today is that it's not wise to just state an opinion based on a seat of the pants sense of what makes sense or doesn't make sense to you at the moment.  I was annoyed by the idea that matanos l'evyonim is like shaking a lulav; it seemed to me that it's obviously a din of tzedaka, albeit tzdaka with extra dinim both in manner and time.  But whether I like it or not, the fact is that it's clear, and not just from the Maharil and the Shlah, that this is debatable, and both sides have standing.

  II.  This is copied from a post I didn't know where to put.  Here it is.  The difference between Northwich and Baranovich.  

In Anglo-Saxon England the "-wich towns" designated by the suffix -wic identified coastal trading settlements, equivalents of emporia, provisioned from outside the protected community and characterised by extensive artisanal activity and imports, which have left material traces in excavations.[1] The Anglo-Saxon wic signifies a dwelling place[2] or fortified place.[3] The wic form appears to give two endings, wichand wick[4] (for example Papplewick in Nottinghamshire). Four are known through archaeological excavation, two on waterfront sites outside London (see Lundenwic) and York (see Jorvik) the others at Hamwic(Southampton), occupied from the end of the seventh century to the mid-ninth century, and Ipswich.[5] By the mid-ninth century there is a hiatus in seaport occupation at many sites, in consequence of Vikingdepredations.
Wich and wych are names also used to denote brine springs or wells. By the eleventh century use of the 'wich' suffix was extended to town placenames associated with salt production; at least nine English towns/cities carry the suffix, although only five are commonly connected to salt, Droitwich in Worcestershire and the four Cheshire 'wiches' of Middlewich, Nantwich, Northwich and Leftwich.

BUT

Patronymic & Matronymic Surnames - Based on an ancestor's first name, this category of surnames is usually derived from a father's first name, although occasionally from the first name of a wealthy or well-respected female ancestor. Such surnames can often be identified through the use certain endings including -icz, -wicz, -owicz, -ewicz, and -ycz which usually mean "son of." As a rule, Polish surnames which include a suffix with -k- (-czak, -czyk, -iak, -ak, -ik, and -yk) also mean something like "little" or "son of." More commonly found in eastern Poland, the suffixes -yc and -ic also mean "son of." There are also cases of patronymic surnames where the ending has been dropped and only the original root word remains. (Pawel Adamicz - Paul son of Adam).

Geographical Surnames (Place Names) - The most common type of Polish surname, these Polish last names are derived from the location of the homestead from which the first bearer and his family lived. In the case of nobility, the surnames were often taken from the names of their estates. Other place names which were adapted into surnames include towns, countries, and even geographical features. While you might think that such surnames could lead you to your ancestral village, that isn't often the case with Polish surnames because so many places in Poland had the same name, changed names or disappeared in the centuries since the surnames developed, or were subdivisions of a local village or estate too small to be found on a gazetteer or map. Surnames ending in -owski usually derive from place names ending in -y, -ow, -owo, -owa, and so on. (Cyrek Gryzbowski - Cyrek from the town of Gryzbow).

AND THEREFORE, TOWNS THAT WERE NAMED AFTER THE HOMESTEAD OF A FOUNDING FAMILY WERE OFTEN CALLED -ICH, BECAUSE THE FOUNDER'S NAME WAS SOMETHING-ICH, LIKE BARANOVICH AND PONEVITCH.

SO THE WICH IN ENGLAND AND THE OVITZ IN POLAND HAVE ZERO SHAYCHUS.  JUST A MEANINGLESS COINCIDENCE.

III  Another post I didn't finish, but that's worht knowing, about selling your schar mitzvos, selling your oilom habo.

Basically, the mekoros I have say that it's delusional to think you can buy or sell schar or olom habo.   

Netziv in teshuvos, Cheilkek 3 14, here
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1096&st=&pgnum=189

Eikev, matanah, Rav Hai, Reb Yehuda Hachasid, Margoliyos, but what about Tzedakah, maybe even tzedaka is only a kinyan peiros. But at least you can sell the kinyan peiros. What about schar going with yerusha; obviously, it doesn't, because abba lo mezakeh bra, but that it not true in olam hazeh, abba is mezakeh bra in olam hazeh; so maybe you can indeed sell whatever schar you're entitled to in olam hazeh.