Was the Mishkan Weighted or Staked? Installment One.

 What kept the roof of the Mishkan, the יריעות, from sagging in middle, or flapping in the desert wind? Fabric or leather of that great an unsupported span would not remain horizontal.  True, the material of the Yerios was quite heavy, but it was as heavy in middle as it was on the sides. Specifically, the middle was ten amos wide, and over the Kerashim and hanging down the sides were a total of eight or nine.  If you've ever had a sukkah cover that doesn't rest on the schach, you know that it's going to sag in middle, even without rain. The answer is, the Yerios had copper bars, or pegs, or stakes - יתדות - to keep them in place.

We are not talking about the קלעי החצר. Everyone knows that the curtains around the Chatzer had מיסרים ויסדות, ropes and stakes. We are talking about the יריעות המשכן.

 

Teruma, Shemos 27:19

לכל כלי המשכן בכל עבודתו וכל יתדותיו וכל יתדות החצר נחושת

Rashi in Teruma says he is not certain whether the copper pegs, or stakes, were attached directly to the ends of the material to weigh the Yerios down, or  were attached with rope to the יריעות and hammered into the ground, but he leans towards the latter.

. כְּמִין נִגְרֵי נְחֹשֶׁת עֲשׂוּיִין לִירִיעוֹת הָאֹהֶל וּלְקַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר, קְשׁוּרִים בְּמֵיתָרִים סָבִיב סָבִיב בְּשִׁפּוּלֵיהֶן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הָרוּחַ מַגְבִּיהָתָן, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם תְּחוּבִין בָּאָרֶץ אוֹ קְשׁוּרִין וּתְלוּיִין וְכָבְדָּן מַכְבִּיד שִׁפּוּלֵי הַיְרִיעוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יָנוּעוּ בָרוּחַ, וְאוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁשְּׁמָן מוֹכִיחַ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵם תְּקוּעִים בָּאָרֶץ, לְכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ יְתֵדוֹת, וּמִקְרָא זֶה מְסַיְּעֵנִי אֹהֶל בַּל יִצְעָן בַּל יִסַּע יְתֵדֹתָיו לָנֶצַח (ישעיהו ל"ג):

Indeed, in Vayakhel Rashi says only that pshat.

Vayakhel, Shemos 35:18

את יתדת המשכן ואת יתדת החצר ואת מיתריהם

Rashi there

יתדת. לִתְקֹעַ וְלִקְשׁוֹר בָּהֶם סוֹפֵי הַיְרִיעוֹת בָּאָרֶץ, שֶׁלֹּא יָנוּעוּ בָּרוּחַ:

(Rashi in Naso, Bamidbar 4:32 possibly could be read either way, but he equates the Yerios and the Kla'im, which again implies that he assumes the latter pshat.

וִיתֵדוֹת וּמֵיתָרִים הָיוּ לַיְרִיעוֹת וְלַקְּלָעִים מִלְּמַטָּה, שֶׁלֹּא תַגְבִּיהֵם הָרוּחַ)

I do not know know if these putative ropes and stakes pulled the Yerios directly downward and held the sides vertical, or tented outward, and I don't think it matters much. It seems to me that the Gemara in Shabbos 98b implies they were vertical  (לרבי יהודה מיגליא אמה דאדנים, לרבי נחמיה מיגליא אמה דקרשים.), while the Chizkuni implies they were pulled to form an angle (ומושכין בכח המיתרים ונועצין היתדות בארץ והיריעות נמתחות יפה כדי שלא תהיינה שחות ונופלות בתוך המשכן מתוך כבדן וממעטת חללו).

What I do know is that that the character of these stakes explains a whole bunch of interesting machloksim of  Rishonim on several different topics, and I seem to be the first to point this out.  (לעניות דעתי)  (not really.)

When Nadav and Avihu died, why didn't their bodies cause the entire Mishkan and its contents to become Tamei? The Gemara in Shabbos learns from והזה על האהל in Chukas that a meis causes tumah to the ohel itself, if it is made of the materials used in the Mishkan. But we do not find anywhere that they had to take the whole Mishkan apart, and do טבילה והזאת מי חטאת on it.

This question was asked by the Rishonim, who, for some reason, primarily focus on the ohel itself and not on the keilim in the Mishkan. 

Rebbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in Toras Kohanim argue whether they died outside the Mishkan, or in the Heichal mamash.

The Daas Zkeinim Shemini 10:2 asks, 

וימותו לפני ה'. פלוגתא איכא בתורת כהני' רא"א שמתו בחוץ במקום שהלוים מותרים ליכנס שנא' ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות' וא"כ מאי לפני ה' שנגפן המלאך והוציאן לחוץ רע"א לא מתו אלא בפנים שנא' לפני ה' ומאי ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות' מלמד שנתנו חכה של ברזל לתוך פיהם וגררום והוציאום לחוץ. ותימה לדברי ר' עקיבא א"כ נטמא המשכן דאיקרי אוהל מטומאת מת וצריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי ולא מצינו שפסקו מעבודתם כלל וכן כתוב בפירוש ומפתח אהל מועד לא תצאו דבשלמא לר"א א"ל שדחפן המלאך לחוץ קודם יציאת נשמה אלא לר' עקיבא קשיא וצ"ע:

The Baal HaTurim 10:4 there answers

קרבו. בתורת כהנים פליגי איכא מאן דאמר בחוץ מתו כיון שהלוים נכנסו לשם ומה דכתיב וימותו לפני ד' נגפם המלאך והוציאן לחוץ ואיכא מאן דאמר בפנים מדכתיב לפני ד' ומה דכתיב ויקרבו וישאום שהטילו בהם חנית וגררום והוציאם לחוץ ואע"פ שאין חלוק בין כהן ללוי בשלא צורך עבודה אפי' כהנים אינם נכנסים ולצורך כגון לפנות טומאה אפי' לוים נכנסים אם אין כהן והכא לא הי' כהן שלא היו רשאים לטמאות מ"מ כיון דאפשר לגוררם בחנית לא חשיב לצורך ואסור ליכנס. והשתא למ"ד בפנים מתו א"כ נטמא המשכן טומאת מת והיה צריך טבילה והזאת שלישי ושביעי שהרי אהל של פשתן מקבל טומאה ולא מצינו שנתפרק המשכן אחר כך שהרי לא פסקו מעבודתן. וי"ל כיון דכתיב בי' על פי ה' יחנו ועל פיו יסעו חשיב קבוע ולא מקבל טומאה:

The Minchas Chinuch in Kometz HaMincha 264 asks, what do you mean it was not mekabel tuma because it was mechubar? But the Gemara in Shabbos learns from the Mishkan that an ohel itself is mekabel Tumah even if it is mechubar!

מצוה רס"ד מבואר שם דלדברי המדרש מתו נדב ואביהו בהיכל. וראיתי בטור על התורה פ' שמיני הק' שהרי המשכן היה של פשתן ונטמא בטומאת מת וצריך הזאה וטבילה ולא מצינו שנתפרק המשכן. ותירץ כיון דכתיב על פי ה' יחנו וגו' חשוב קבוע ולא מקבל טומאה. וצ"ע היטב במס' שבת דף כ"ח ובתוס' ובהר"מ בפ"ה מה' טומאת מת במנ"ל שם ובהראב"ד דעיקר הלמוד שפשתן מטמא באוהל הוא רק בקבוע וצריך עיון גדול. ולא ראיתי לדעתי מקום לקושיא של הטור ולא תי' כלום וצ"ע רחב בדינים אלו:

It is my opinion that if the stakes were actually hammered into the ground, then it was mechubar mamash. If it was mechubar mamash, then the Gemara in Shabbos is saying that Mechubar Mamash is mekabel Tumah, and it doesn't make sense to say that כיון דכתיב בי' על פי ה' יחנו ועל פיו יסעו חשיב קבוע. Sure, al pi Hashem makes it super mechubar. But it's not more mechubar that mechubar mamash.

The Baal HaTurim must hold that the Yerios were not really mechubar. That's why they would be susceptible to Tumah if not for the unique status of מחובר מחמת דין "על פי השם"  The Gemara in Shabbos is assuming they were just weighted at the edges, and such an ohel is mekabel Tumah. It so happens, according to the Baal HaTurim, that this particular ohel was not mekabel tumah, but any such type of ohel would be mekabel tumah, so the drasha in Shabbos is valid. If the Baal HaTurim held that the Yerios were hammered into the ground, his teretz would not make sense.  Mechubar is mechubar.

The Minchas Chinuch assumed that they were hammered into the ground, and if the Gemara in Shabbos says that an ohel like the Mishkan is mekabel Tumah, then the Mishkan itself must have been mekabel Tumah despite being mechubar.  Apparently, the idea that they became Tamei does not bother the Minchas Chinuch.

As I said, this seemingly trivial issue actually is pivotal in several other machloksim among the Rishonim. I'm planning on at least three more installments, but each should be independently understandable.

The Importance of Mesibas Preida, Tzeischem L'Shalom, Goodbye Party.

 Three parts.

Part One: Sources in Chazal for the idea of marking a person's departure from his home city with a סעודת או מסיבת פרידה, וצאתכם לשלום

Part Two: The story of the Beilis Trial, and how it relates to the idea of a Seudas Preida.

Part Three: An insight into the interconnectedness of all men, and even more so the people in the Jewish community, and the beauty that is hidden in so many people כפלח הרימון, and how important it is to try to understand, and appreciate, and admire our fellow Jews. 

 Part I

To some extent, you don't need a makor in Chazal for things that are obviously good and true. On the other hand, we do like to cite sources for everything, such as in Gittin 6a, 

והא בבל לצפונה דא"י קיימא דכתיב (ירמיהו א, יד) ויאמר ה' אלי מצפון תפתח הרעה

So, is there a source for gathering to wish a friend off when he leaves the community?  I have three. 

Two are from the stories of Eliahu and Elisha.

The first is in Malachim I 19:19-21.

וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ מִ֠שָּׁם וַיִּמְצָ֞א אֶת־אֱלִישָׁ֤ע בֶּן־שָׁפָט֙ וְה֣וּא חֹרֵ֔שׁ שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר צְמָדִים֙ לְפָנָ֔יו וְה֖וּא בִּשְׁנֵ֣ים הֶעָשָׂ֑ר וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר אֵלִיָּ֙הוּ֙ אֵלָ֔יו וַיַּשְׁלֵ֥ךְ אַדַּרְתּ֖וֹ אֵלָֽיו׃

וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־הַבָּקָ֗ר וַיָּ֙רָץ֙ אַחֲרֵ֣י אֵֽלִיָּ֔הוּ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֶשְּׁקָה־נָּא֙ לְאָבִ֣י וּלְאִמִּ֔י וְאֵלְכָ֖ה אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ לֵ֣ךְ שׁ֔וּב כִּ֥י מֶה־עָשִׂ֖יתִי לָֽךְ׃

וַיָּ֨שָׁב מֵאַחֲרָ֜יו וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־צֶ֧מֶד הַבָּקָ֣ר וַיִּזְבָּחֵ֗הוּ וּבִכְלִ֤י הַבָּקָר֙ בִּשְּׁלָ֣ם הַבָּשָׂ֔ר וַיִּתֵּ֥ן לָעָ֖ם וַיֹּאכֵ֑לוּ וַיָּ֗קָם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ אַחֲרֵ֥י אֵלִיָּ֖הוּ וַיְשָׁרְתֵֽהוּ׃

The Radak in 21 says

וישב מאחריו. לנשק לאביו ולאמו אף על פי שלא ספר הכתוב ואחר כך שחט הבקר ועשה סעודה באותו השדה לחורשים ולעם אשר באו אחריו ללוותו וזהו שאמר ויתן לעם כי מהעם לא היו אתו בשדה כי אם אחד עשר החורשים אלא זהו פירושו כי הלך לקחת רשות מאביו ומאמו ובאו אחריו מאנשי עירו ללוותו כי הוא נפרד מהם:

The second is in Melachim II 2:9.

וַיְהִ֣י כְעָבְרָ֗ם וְאֵ֨לִיָּ֜הוּ אָמַ֤ר אֶל־אֱלִישָׁע֙ שְׁאַל֙ מָ֣ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־לָּ֔ךְ בְּטֶ֖רֶם אֶלָּקַ֣ח מֵעִמָּ֑ךְ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלִישָׁ֔ע וִֽיהִי־נָ֛א פִּֽי־שְׁנַ֥יִם בְּרוּחֲךָ֖ אֵלָֽי׃

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִקְשִׁ֣יתָ לִשְׁא֑וֹל אִם־תִּרְאֶ֨ה אֹתִ֜י לֻקָּ֤ח מֵֽאִתָּךְ֙ יְהִֽי־לְךָ֣ כֵ֔ן וְאִם־אַ֖יִן לֹ֥א יִהְיֶֽה׃

It certainly was a hard request to fulfill!  What did Eliahu mean, that the only chance it will come true would be if Elisha saw him taken away? 

I believe the idea was that we don't truly understand and certainly do not fully appreciate what we have until the moment before it is taken away from us. 

Eliahu told Elisha that to be truly inspired by him, by Eliahu, to the degree that his heart and mind would open up to siyata dishmaya of such great ruach hakodesh and nevuah, he would need to witness Eliahu being taken away from him. 

We see that to understand and appreciate our fellows, we need to face the imminent reality of their going away, and that will give each side the opportunity to be inspired by the other's middos tovos.

The third is ... that you don't need a makor for a seudas preida because it is a kal vachomer from halvoyas orchim. As one small example of the importance of levoyas orchim, see Rambam Aveil 14:2

שכר הלויה מרובה מן הכל. (!)  והוא החק שחקקו אברהם אבינו ודרך החסד שנהג בה. מאכיל עוברי דרכים ומשקה אותן ומלוה אותן. וגדולה הכנסת אורחים מהקבלת פני שכינה. שנאמר וירא והנה שלשה אנשים. ולוויים יותר מהכנסתן. אמרו חכמים כל שאינו מלוה כאילו שופך דמים:

If being melaveh orchim is so vitally important, that its schar is "Merubah min hakol," that one who does it is keeping him alive, and one who fails to do so is like a rotzei'ach, then kal vachomer that applies to an individual that lived in your community and who is now leaving. If you do it for some tumbleweed orei'ach, how much more so must you do it for a member of the community that is moving away!

Part II

I just had the honor and privilege to make a Kiddush to mark a member of our community leaving Chicago. He was born and raised here, his parents came as infants, and his great grandparents came here in 1912. The Kiddush was on Parshas Tazri'a Metzora. We found a perfect connection of being melaveh our friend with the parsha of Tzaraas, as odd as that may sound.

The Alshich in Vayikra 12:1 asks, the appellation "Adam" for the Metzora seems inappropriate. Adam is the term used for an elevated human being, and here it is used for a hateful despicable person. 

ועל פי דרכנו נשית לב אל מלת אדם. כי הוא לפי האמת התואר המשובח שבתוארי המין האנושי כנודע מספר הזוהר ולמה נתייחד באשר שנא ה'.

Rav Galinski answered the question with the story of the Beilis trial in 1911. Harav Galinski says the story his way, but I will tell it as my father did, which is much better.

The prosecutor enlisted an alleged religious expert in Judaic rituals, a notoriously anti Semitic Catholic priest, Justinas Pranaitis. While the defense had emphasized that Judaism famously abhorred the taking of human life, Pranaitis said that this was a lie, and he could prove it from the Talmud. The Talmud says that the Jews consider the Gentiles as not human. True, a Jew would never kill a fellow human being, but the Jews consider Gentiles as animals, and no more care about their lives than they would about a cat, or a chicken. They would kill a Gentile for even the most trivial reason, or for no reason at all. After all, the Talmud says in Yevamos 60b

ניא, וכן היה רשב"י אומר: קברי גוים אינן מטמאין באהל שנאמר: 'ואתן צאני מרעיתי אדם אתם', אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם

Clear. The Jews view the Gentiles as subhuman, and would kill them with absolutely no mercy or pang of conscience.

This accusation struck fear in the Jewish community. Pogroms were being prepared, priests were preaching against the deicide Jew, and a repeat of the Khmelnytsky massacres was imminent.

The defense desperately sent a message to Rav Meir Shapiro. What should we do? How can we answer this accusation??

Rav Shapiro told him exactly what to say, and this was the defense.

The Talmud means something entirely different.  The Jews have forever been pacifists who never shed blood.. Only the blindly antisemitic would misunderstand the Gemara, because its meaning is very clear.

When a Gentile looks at the newspaper, and he sees that thousands of people are starving in China, and if he reacts at all he will sigh, and shake his head, and then turn the page. But if a Jew finds out that there is a Jew in China that doesn't have Matza for Pesach, he will be at the Chinese embassy the next morning with a box of Matza. The Gentile may pity the distant stranger, but the Jew feels the pain of a fellow Jew as if it were his own, even though he never met him, and will never meet him. 

This is what the Gemara means. We, the Jewish People, are Adam, in the singular. We are not separate individuals with a common religion. We are all like one, all parts of one organism. That is what אתם קרויין אדם ואין הגוים קרויין אדם means. We are all like one.

And if you deny this, I will prove that not only is it true, but that you yourselves know that it to be true. 

If you open the newspaper, and there is a story about Ivan, who murdered his neighbor, you will say, "Terrible! Ivan is a murderer." But if you open the paper, and you see a story about Yankel Kohen who murdered his neighbor, you won't say "Yankel Kohen is a murderer." You will say "Terrible! The Jews are murderers!" Why? What's the difference between Ivan the murderer and Yankel the murderer? The answer is that you yourselves know, you yourselves believe in your hearts, that all the Jews are Adam, one person, but the Gentiles, each one is separate from the other.

This response struck like a bolt of lightning. It hit at both the priest's misinterpretation of the Gemara, and also spoke directly to the tens of thousands of Russians that were sharpening their knives, waiting to kill the Jews because of one Menachem Mendel Beilis.

This answers the Alshich's question. A Jewish neshama is not separate from other Jews. We are all one, and we mourn each other's pain and celebrate each other's happiness. If a Jew does not act like that, if he is a ganov and a holeich rachil and az ponim, that means that he is like a limb that is cut off of a body. This spiritual disease manifests itself in Tzaraas, where the person loses his own limbs. Davka because we are Adam, because our neshamos are all interconnected, a man who behaves in the opposite manner has a deadly and mortal spiritual affliction.

When a person is a member of the community, he is not just one person by himself. He is an integral part of everyone else that lives there. When he has the opportunity to do good for others, he takes advantage of the moment. If he has a snow plow, all the neighbors have clear sidewalks. If he has left over from Shabbos, he makes sure it is delivered to someone that might not have enough to eat. When some people came to Chicago from South Africa, he made sure that they would become part of the community, and he shepherded them along until they found their land legs. These are only small chasadim that I happen to know about, but the point is that this person is a vital part of the entire community, or each and every one of us. The connection is mutual and indivisible. On the one hand, that means that with his leaving, we all are losing an important part of our lives, but on the other hand, wherever he goes, he remains part of what and who we are.

Part III

Robert Fulghum

The Barber

Hair grows at the rate of about half an inch a month.  I don't know where he got his facts, but Mr. Washington came up with that one when we were comparing barbers.  That means that about eight feet of hair had been cut off my head and face in the last sixteen years by my barber.

 I hadn't thought much about it until I called to make my usual appointment and found that my barber had left to go into building maintenance.  What?  How could he do this?  My barber.  It felt like a death in the family.  There was so much more to our relationship than sartorial statistics.

 We started out as categories to each other:  "barber" and "customer."  Then we became "redneck ignorant barber" and "pinko egghead minister."  Once a month we reviewed the world and our lives and explored our positions.  We sparred over civil rights and Vietnam and lots of elections.  We became mirrors, confidants, confessors, therapists, and companions in an odd sort of way.  We went through being thirty years old and then forty.  We discussed and argued and joked, but always with a certain thoughtful deference. 

After all, I was his customer.  And he was standing there with his razor in his hand.

 I found out that his dad was a country policeman, that he grew up poor in a tiny town and had prejudices about Indians.  He found out that I had the same small-town roots and grew up with prejudices about Blacks.  Our kids were the same ages, and we suffered through the same stages of parenthood together.  We shared wife stories and children stories and car troubles and lawn problems.  I found out he gave his day off to giving free haircuts to old men in nursing homes.  He found out a few good things about me, too, I suppose.

 I never saw him outside the barber shop, never met his wife or children, never sat in his home or ate a meal with him.  Yet he became a terribly important fixture in my life.  Perhaps a lot more important than if we had been next-door neighbors.  The quality of our relationship was partly created by a peculiar distance.  There's a real sense of loss in his leaving.  I feel like not having my hair cut anymore, though eight feet of hair may seem strange.

 Without realizing it, we fill important places in each other's lives.  It's that way with a minister and congregation.  Or with the guy at the corner grocery, the mechanic at the local garage, the family doctor, teachers, neighbors, co-workers.  Good people, who are always "there," who can be relied upon in small, important ways.  People who teach us, bless us, encourage us, support us, uplift us in the dailiness of life.  We never tell them.  I don't know why, but we don't.

 And, of course, we fill that role ourselves.  There are those who depend on us, watch us, learn from us, take from us.  And we never know.  Don't sell yourself short.  You may never have proof of your importance, but you are more important than you think.

 It reminds me of an old Sufi story of a good man who was granted one wish by God.  The man said he would like to go about doing good without knowing about it.  God granted his wish.  And then God decided that it was such a good idea, he would grant that wish to all human beings.  And so it has been to this day.

 Mr. Fulghum's story strikes me as a very good reminder of the real and true interconnectedness of every member of the Jewish community, of the preciousness of every Jewish soul and its drive to do tzedaka and chesed, and how important it is to remember that it is not the great and feted philanthropists and tzadikim that make us who we are, it is those quiet heroes with shining souls that live next door to us.

Pesach Pizza Pan Parchment Paper Petur.

 This past Pesach, we had a bright new star in the kitchen - 

The Betty Crocker Pizza Maker.

It is the perfect size for hand shmura or machine matza, you dip the matza into water, put it on the hot pan, cover with tomato sauce and cheese and vegetables, close it for a few minutes, and voila!  It really produces very good pizza, even without factoring in a Pesach handicap.  We made dozens of them, and not a bit was left. 

The problem is, how to be tovel this thing.  As with all electronics, there are those that are mattir without tevilla for various reasons. There are those that avoid the issue either by being mafkir or by being makneh to a Gentile.

But if you are worried about the issue of tevilas keilim, and you don't want to rely on the mattirim, nor do you want to be mevatel a mitzva deoraysa with a ha'arama, and you're afraid that immersion will cause risk of danger, can you use it with parchment paper interposed between the metal and the food, top and bottom? None of the food will touch the kli.  I am told that it works perfectly with parchment paper.

No. Sorry.  First of all, I have a mesora from Reb Moshe that what matters is the sheim kli, and using it with paper doesn't change the reality that it is a kli matteches.  Besides my mesora, there is the teshuva from Reb Shlomo Zalman.

Minchas Shlomo II Yoreh Deiah 66.

נראה דבלי שדרך תשמישו הוא ע"י שקית שיש בו כמו כד שמחזיקים בו חלב בשקית של ניילון, או אפי' שקיות של נייר אם רגילים להוציא ולהכניס ע"י השקית, נראה דחשיב הפסק אם כך הוא עיקר תשמישו, אבל אם הדרך להשתמש רק ע"י פריסת   מפה וכ"ש נייר וניילון, אף שיש דוגמא לספק זה במגילה כ"ו ע"ב דכורסיא תשיב תשמיש דתשמיש בגלל המפה שפרוסה עליה, ולענין מוקצה של בסיס לדבר האסור בנר דולק על השלחן חשיבי תרווייהו כבסיס כמבואר בסי' ש"ט, אפי"ה נראה דנד"ד שאני דחציצת הנייר לאו כלום הוא. ונלענ"ד דטעון טבילה עם ברכה ותמיתני בעניי על הבן איש חי (ש"ב פר' מטות) שכת"ר כתב שמסתפק בכך.

(I personally was tovel them in snow, not because I was chalila going against rov haposkim, but relying in part on the meikilim by such appliances in general, and doing it where the snow originally fell and in a fashion that the chshashos of tevilla in snow did not pertain.  Although Rabbi Abadi of Lakewood also holds like this, please do not rely on me. See https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=54963&st=&pgnum=204

A Tevilla alternative, without the guilt of haarama or snow kulos, is to take the appliance apart and put it back together such that you have a פנים חדשות, a keli that was made by a Jew. Rabbi Moish Pollack told me that such a service is available in Lakewood.  I am not an expert in hilchos tumas keilim to know what comprises broken and re-created, so I have never taken that option. Obviously, it would called useless, but I don't know if the ease of fixing the cut wire means it's still the old keli, and whether an external problem makes it "broken." It could still hold food, it's just not useful for its original purpose.  But just this morning, Rabbi Dr. Nachum Stone, of Maaleh Adumim, told me that Harav Nachum Rabinowitz said that cutting off the plug and putting it back together definitely is called panim chadashos and there would be no chiyuv tevilla!  Wonderful.  Bli neder, I'm taking out my wire cutter.)

I find Reb Shlomo Zalman's teshuva a little difficult to understand, but I think that he would say that a candy dish in which you put wrapped candy is not chayav tevilla; it is more like a pitcher for bags of milk than paper on top of a dish.

The Ancient and Tragic History of Racial Profiling

 Breishis 39:1

ויוסף הורד מצרימה ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה שר הטבחים איש מצרי מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורדהו שמה

Medrash Rabba Vayeishev Breishis 86:3

וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר אִישׁ מִצְרִי, גְּבַר עָרוּם, וּמָה הֲוַת עֲרִימוּתֵיהּ, אֲמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם גֶּרְמָנִי מוֹכֵר כּוּשִׁי, וְכָאן כּוּשִׁי מוֹכֵר גֶּרְמָנִי, אֵין זֶה עָבֶד

Clever man, that Potiphar. He knew that something was amiss.  

I found this somewhat puzzling, because even given the norms of this peculiar institution, it seems to me that you could kidnap or vanquish anyone and sell him in another country, no matter what color he might be. Evidently, people were categorized by color and commodified, and a person that did not fit into that schema was not thought of as a natural slave.

But let us assume that Potiphar, and the Medrash, were describing the reality of the slave trade. What do the words גרמני and כושי mean?

Vayikra 13:4

ואם בהרת לבנה היא בעור בשרו

Mishna Negaim 1:1

מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה.

בהרת עזה כשלג ...

How do we know that Baheres is bright white?

Abayei in Shavuos 6b

ומנלן דבהרת עזה היא אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא יג, ד) ואם בהרת לבנה היא היא לבנה ואין אחרת לבנה

So in Negaim 2:1, the Mishna says 

בהרת עזה נראית בגרמוני כהה, והכהה בכושי עזה.

and the Rambam there explains that Garmani is related to the Aramaic for "bone."  They are as white as bone.

גרמני שם הלבן ביותר מיוחס אל העצם אשר שמו גרמא

Rabbi Yishmael in the Mishna points out that we Jews are of an intermediate, woody color.

רבי ישמעאל אומר, בני ישראל, אני כפרתן, הרי הן כאשכרוע, לא שחורים ולא לבנים, אלא בינוניים.

From the Medrash, though, it is clear that the Jew's hues are much closer to that of the Germanim than that of the Kushim.  Apparently the Yishmeailim that were selling Yosef were of a swarthier hue than Yosef, even before we were supplanted by the Khazars.

The Gaon in Eliahu Rabba (and Reb Elyah Bachur in his Tishbi) says that the word Garmani refers to the descendents of Gomer, who lived up North, while the Kushim lived in the South.

בגרמוני – זה איש מבני גומר כדאמרינן ביומא גומר זה גרממיא, וגרסינן גרמניא וכ"ה בילקוט. והוא שבני נח דרים בג' רוחות העולם, שם במזרח, יפת בצפון, חם בדרום, ומפני שהחמה בדרום נמוך הוא מאוד בני אדם הדרים שם שחורים וכוש הוא מבני חם ודר בסוף דרום, הלכך הם שחורים ביותר מחמת השמש, ובני יפת הם דרים בצפון ורחוקים הם מהשמש, הלכך הם לבנים. וגומר דר בסוף צפון הלכך הם לבנים ביותר וכו'.

The Tiferes Yisrael brings the Gaon but he says that their color has nothing to do with their environment. They just are like that naturally. Germani and Kushi are just place names.

ולם לפע"ד הרי לפי"ז לא תלי כלל באיזה אקלימא הוא דר, שיש שנולד כך משונה בעורו, ונקרא בל"א אלבינוס, והוא מום באדם ונקרא בלשון המשנה לבקן [בכורות פ"ז מ"ו], ולמה לא קראו תנא גם הכא כן, ותו מסתבר דכמו כושי שהזכיר תנא, נקרא על שם ארצו, כך גרמני על שם ארצו נקרא].

The Tosfos Anshei Sheim there adds the sefer Beis Dovid who says that the Germans are not the whitest. They are not nearly as white as Hollanders.

מכאן תשובה למ"ש הרמ"ז, וז"ל, בגרמוני אנשי גרמניא הם לבנים ביותר, וכ"מ במוסף ערוך (ערך גרמן ב), ע"כ, וליתא דגרמוני אין פירושו איש מגרמניא דתנא בא"י קאי, ואילו היה המוסף הערוך בגרמניא היה רואה בעיניו שאינם לבנים כ"כ כמו אנשי הולנדיא שהיא ארץ מולדתו.

His complaint is not really valid, though, because in Megilla 6b it says 

גרממיא של אדום שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו.

which says that Germamia is from Edom, the son of Shem, while in Yoma 10a it says they are from Yefes - 4

בני יפת גומר ומגוג ומדי, גומר זה גרמניא

and the Gaon says that the correct girsa in both places is Germanya, not Germamya. So are they from Sheim or Yefes? Evidently, they are both white, but there was some movement of populations such that the original Germamians ended up in Holland, while the current residents, who are slightly less white, are really of Italian origin.

Ayy, you're going to say that Sancherev mixed up all the nations?

בשנת תרנ"ח כשביקר וילהלם קיסר גרמניה בירושלים וכל בני העיר בראשות גדולי התורה יצאו לבקר את פניו, השתמט רבינו באומרו כי מה שאמרו חז"ל (ברכות ט ב) א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי' לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים, לא נאמר לגבי מלך מזרעו של עמלק.

עי' בס' אורחות רבינו מהגרי"י קנייבסקי זצ"ל שקיבל את דברי רבינו, ולא היה תמוה בעיניו על שהורה שלא לברך אף שהיה בידו סמכות של מלך, אלא דהקשה שהרי במסכת ידים (פ"ד מ"ד) מובא שכבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות א"כ מנין לנו שהגרמנים המה מזרע עמלק. ואמר הגריי"ק זצ"ל דאפשר שדעת הגרי"ח מקורה במגילה, דאמר יעקב לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע אל תתן לעשיו הרשע תאות לבו, זממו אל תפק זו גרממיא של אדום, שאלמלי הן יוצאין מחריבין כל העולם כולו. וכתב הגאון ר' יעקב עמדין בהגהותיו על מסכת מגילה שכוונת הגמ' על ארץ גרמניה, וכ"ה גירסת הגר"א, ולפי"ז מבוארת דעת הגמ' כאן דאומה זו לא בלבל סנחריב, וחולקת על המשנה דמס' ידים.

So the Germanic people, or at least the Nordic people, are not included in the bilbul of Sancherev.

As for Kush/כוש, that name appears in Breishis 2:13, וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ. Later, Cham named his son Kush. Perhaps the names used in Breishis are al shem ha'asid. I think it is self evident that the Kush in Megillas Esther has nothing to do with the African Kush associated with the usual Kushim and the son of Cham. That Kush refers to the mountain range that runs from Afghanistan through Pakistan, north of today's India.

(Much of the above is derived from here.)

Achrei Mos. The Se'ir Azazel

The term "Scapegoat" expresses an error on the part of non-Jewish readers of the Torah. They believed that the Azazel goat was allowed to escape. Our tradition teaches that it was not allowed to escape, it was thrown off a cliff to its death.

Here is the etymology of Scapegoat.

scapegoat (n.)

1530, "goat sent into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement as a symbolic bearer of the sins of the people," coined by Tyndale from scape, a shortening of escape (see scape (v.)) + goat; the whole word translating Latin caper emissarius, itself a translation in Vulgate of Hebrew 'azazel (Leviticus xvi.8, 10, 26), which was read as 'ez ozel "goat that departs," but which others hold to be the proper name of a devil or demon in Jewish mythology

 Indeed, the words of the Torah do not state explicitly that the goat is killed.  But in all honesty, the idea that all the sacrifices are slaughtered, including the Parah Adumah and the Egla Arufa, and davka the goat that symbolically carries the nation's sins would just be set free to wander in the desert, is untenable, even without Torah she'baal peh.  One suspects that they chose to disregard the most likely explanation only because doing so would lend credence to our mesorah. 

Rabbi Dr. Scheiber argues that from taharas metzora (Vayikra 14 4-7) you see that sometimes, an animal used for kapara/exoneration is set free.  Additionally, he points out that just a few perakim separate the paired animals in last week's Parshas Metzora and the paired animals in this week's Parshas Achrei Mos. In the case of Metzora, it is clear that the un-slaughtered bird is set free. On what basis can we be so confident that by Yom Kippur the unslaughtered goat is killed? At least it remains ambiguous, and it would be reasonable to resolve the ambiguity of the shiluach of the sa'ir from the explicit din of the shiluach of the tzipor.

I responded that one must note the differing terminology of the two parshiyos:

וצוה הכהן ולקח למטהר שתי־צפרים חיות טהרות ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזב

וצוה הכהן ושחט את־הצפור האחת אל־כלי־חרש על־מים חיים

את־הצפר החיה יקח אתה ואת־עץ הארז ואת־שני התולעת ואת־האזב וטבל אותם ואת הצפר החיה בדם הצפר השחטה על המים החיים

והזה על המטהר מן־הצרעת שבע פעמים וטהרו ושלח את־הצפר החיה על־פני השדה

Five times in four pesukim is the term chaya used. In the last passuk, it says that  ושלח את הצפר החיה על־פני השדה, once again calling it Chaya when he sets it free. But by the seir Azazel, in the last reference, it does not call it the Chay. It says  ושלח את השעיר במדבר.

So yes, we do find a case of shiluach to freedom of the second of paired animals where the first was killed. But both from the sair's job of "carrying sin," and from the fact that Chaya is dropped in the last passuk, I think it is clear that it is not meant to remain alive. This change in the description of the tzipor removes the ambiguity from the Sa'ir.

Rabbi Schreiber responded

All you have proven is that the bird is alive.

The question at hand is :

Is the Torah contrasting the treatment of the bird to that of the goat or is it a saying the goat is to be treated LIKE the other paired animal

However 

I could make this distinction:

The birds are brought after the tzaraas has resolved -presumably the person has done teshuva and learned their lesson.

In contrast the saier works לשבין בין לשאינם שבין.

So the Torah is saying the metzora has redeemed themselves while Klal Yisroel has not yet demonstrated their worthiness for כפרה.

Rashi mentions this as well. 

On passuk 16:10,

והשעיר אשר עלה עליו הגורל לעזאזל יעמד חי לפני יהוה לכפר עליו לשלח אתו לעזאזל המדברה:

Oneklos says

וּצְפִירָא דִּי סְלִיק עֲלוֹהִי עַדְבָא לַעֲזָאזֵל יִתָּקַם כַּד חַי קֳדָם יְיָ לְכַפָּרָא עֲלוֹהִי לְשַׁלַּח יָתֵיהּ לַעֲזָאזֵל לְמַדְבְּרָא:

Rashi explains,

יעמד חי. כְּמוֹ יֻעֲמַד חַי — עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וְתַרְגּוּמוֹ יִתָּקַם כַּד חַי; מַה תַּ"ל? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֹתוֹ לַעֲזָאזֵל וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שִׁלּוּחוֹ אִם לְמִיתָה אִם לְחַיִּים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר יָעֳמַד חַי, עֲמִידָתוֹ חַי עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, מִכָּאן שֶׁשִּׁלּוּחוֹ לְמִיתָה (ספרא):

Why does he translate יעמד חי  as  יִתָּקַם כַּד חַי?   The words כַּד חַי mean "while it is alive," and the "while it is" is not in the words of the passuk. Elsewhere, Onkelos translates חי simply as חי. He explains that this is because the verses below do not state explicitly that the goat is sent to its death, but only that it is "sent off in the wilderness."   Psukim 21-22 - 

וסמך אהרן את־שתי ידו [ידיו] על ראש השעיר החי והתודה עליו את כל עונת בני ישראל ואת כל פשעיהם לכל חטאתם ונתן אתם על־ראש השעיר ושלח ביד איש עתי המדברה

ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונתם אל־ארץ גזרה ושלח את השעיר במדבר

This is why the Targum needs to explain that חי only means that while the other goat of the pair was just slaughtered as a chatas, this one remains alive for the moment. But it, too, will later be killed.  Psukim 9-10 - 

והקריב אהרן את־השעיר אשר עלה עליו הגורל ליהוה ועשהו חטאת

והשעיר אשר עלה עליו הגורל לעזאזל יעמד חי לפני יהוה לכפר עליו לשלח אתו לעזאזל המדברה

Bananas for Karpas

 This is just a bagatelle, but interesting nonetheless.

 A friend told me that his father always used celery for Karpas, and he strongly dislikes celery. There are two reasons for this strong dislike. One, because celery is not a barbecued rib. Two, it is celery.  He is already dreading the Seder because of the inexorable approach of the celery. So he asked, can he use a different vegetable?

I answered him that yes, he can use anything upon which you make a borei peri ha'adama. If he likes to dip Terra Chips into saltwater, he can use Terra Chips. He can use a banana, he can use pineapple. (Some poskim say that you make ha'adama on Papaya too because the stem is relatively soft and hollow. I strongly disagree. It can grow twenty feet tall and lives for years, and there are no early sources that consider the quality of the stem/trunk to be a factor. But if you follow Harav Ovadiah and not me, you can use a papaya, too. For an excellent discussion of the bracha on Papaya and the issue of Orla, this article from the OU.)

But his question reminded me of a story with the Chasam Sofer. 

After stealing the Afikoman, the Chasam Sofer's son, later known as the Ksav Sofer, asked his father, why do we do this? Why do we steal the Afikoman? His father said nothing. He asked again; again no response. He realized that his father was not going to answer the question, and he did not ask again.

The following night, the Chasam Sofer told him, now I will answer your question.

The reason we steal the Afikoman is because it says by yetzias Mitzrayim "ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו "  Not a dog will bark at any of the Israelites, at man or beast ....

The Gemara (Psachim 113a) says 

 לא תדור במתא דלא צניף בה סוסיא ולא נבח בה כלבא 

Do not dwell in a city where no horses neigh nor dogs bark.

and Rashi explains

סוסיא - משום דהוא נטירותא בקרתא מאויבים ומגנבים:

Horses: because (by reacting audibly to strangers)  they provide safety from enemies and thieves.

So we see that dogs are a shmira from ganovim. That means that when the dogs are not barking, ganovim can do whatever they want. That being the case, by Yetzias Mitzrayim, ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, nothing would be safe from Jewish Ganovim. To commemorate that miracle, we steal the afikoman.

Why didn't I tell you this answer yesterday? Because you need to know that the first rule is to respect minhagim, even if you have no idea why the minhag makes sense. You do it with full faith. After you learn to defer to and properly respect minhagim, then I can tell you the reason for the minhag.

(I suspect that the question had been asked dismissively, implying that it was a foolish minhag, and the Chasam Sofer needed to correct this attitude.)

Back to Karpas. If you really dislike celery, you're welcome to use whatever you want. There is some benefit to doing precisely what your father did at the Seder.  But the truth is, there are minhagim and there are minhagim. I think the choice of vegetable for Karpas is really not important, and you can choose whatever you enjoy. And if you choose to dip a banana into saltwater, instead of the mundane celery or potato, you can be sure that you are going to get questions from the younger members of the family - and that is exactly what you are trying to do!

UPDATE:

I mentioned 'bananas' because I thought the image of using bananas for karpas was comical. It was that or strawberries in pink Himalayan saltwater. If you do want to go with bananas, I recommend banana chips. 

But, in a cosmic coincidence, Reb Sass tells me that he heard that Harav Pinchas Teitz of Elizabeth davka used bananas for Karpas.  He did so to publicize the fact that the proper bracha on bananas is indeed ha'adama, and by using them for Karpas, the word would get out. How do you like that?

I just got an email from eidim ne'emanim that Rav Teitz did indeed use a banana. It was not his innovation, though. It was the idea of his father in law, Rav Elazar Mayer Preil z’l, and Harav Teitz decided it was a good idea, and adopted it. I even got advice on how to do it like the Teitzes: Bring the banana to the table whole, and peel and slice it right before dipping, so it does not oxidize.

UPDATE II

Reb Tzvi was kind enough to direct our attention to the shitta of my uncle, Reb Dovid Feinstein zatzal.  I saw it in the Artscroll "Laws of the Seder" that he authored.  Notable points there on page 35:

1. That the optimal mitzva is to use a vegetable that grows above ground, in that a root is not called a yerek. This excludes potatoes and carrots.

2. A fruit, even if you make ha'adama on it, would not be called a yerek, and, as such, is not lechatchila for Karpas.  This excludes cucumbers and tomatoes.

3. That Karpas should be raw, not cooked, because according to some the Karpas should stimulate the appetite, and according to the first teretz in Tos Eiruvin 55b, only raw vegetables do that, while cooked vegetables satiate. This would exclude cooked potatoes. 

4. That since onions are rarely eaten raw in the US, the bracha on onions is here and now shehakol. 

HOWEVER, my father in law, as did his father, uses cooked potatoes and Reb Aharon used raw onions. Since I grew up using potatoes, and I married into the Reb Reuven side of the family, I feel comfortable recommending banana chips and strawberries.

NOTE: My wife reminded me that my father in law, out of respect for his brother, has been using both celery and potatoes ever since Reb Dovid publicized his opinion. Guess what we're having alongside potatoes this year.

IF you want to be really serious about your karpas - more serious than, for example, the Chofetz Chaim, then maybe you should do what many yekkes do, and use Parsley. As Reb Dovid points out, the Gemara never uses the word Karpas in the context of the seder, only Yerek. But since we call it karpas, the fact is that the Rishonim in other places generally say that Karpas is parsley. See Rav and Yachin on Mishna Sheviis 9:1, Rashi Sukka 39b.  Some say that it is cress or celery.  Parsley, if you can get it without insects, is perfect almost lechol hadei'os. I personally do not understand why you make a haadama on it - for men, it's a garnish, not a food, but I am alone in that opinion.

Mitzva of Simchas Yomtov

It is well known that the Gaon said that the hardest mitzva of Yomtov for him is to be besimcha the entire duration of Yomtov.

It has been pointed out that this is apparently contrary to the Rambam in Avos 2:1 that indicates that it Simchas Yomtov is a mitzvah kallah, not a difficult mitzvah.

Mishna

רבי אומר, איזוהי דרך ישרה שיבר לו האדם, כל שהיא תפארת לעושיה ותפארת לו מן האדם. והוי זהיר במצוה קלה כבחמורה, שאין אתה יודע מתן שכרן של מצות.

Rambam:

שצריך ליזהר במצוה שיחשב בה שהיא קלה כשמחת הרגל ולמידת לשון הקדש כמצוה שהתבאר לך חומרתה שהיא גדולה כמילה וציצית ושחיטת הפסח

Additionally:

The Gaon is certainly not like the Netziv in the Haamek Sheilah Vayakhel, where he deals with the differences of opinion regarding aveilus on Purim. (There are two prints. In the older one, it's on page 107. In the newer one, it's on page 429.) He says that the mitzva of simcha on Yom Tov is one moment, like Lulav and Shofar and Matzah.

ולא תקשה הא פורים דרבנן ואבלות יום ראשון מה"ת לדעת הגאונים ז"ל. שהרי כ' הרא"ש כתובות פ"א בשם הרמ"ה ליישב הא דחתן דוחה אבילות יום א' משום דהוי דברי קבלה ביום חתונתו וביום שמחת לבו. מכש"כ פורים דמפורש בד"ק מצות שמחה וגם הוי עשה דרבים. זה שיטת רבינו. והרא"ש בשם רבינו מאיר מרוטנבורג ז"ל הקשה דא"כ ה"נ פורים מבטל גזירת שלשים שהרי מדמה לרגל. וא"כ אמאי לא חשיב במשנה כמו רה"ש ויוה"כ. ולענ"ד ודאי דוקא שבעה מבטל משום שמחויב בשמחה ולעקור מצות שבעה מש"ה הוי כרגל לשבעה. אבל גזירת שלשים דעיקר הוא אחוי קרע וגהוץ ותספורת כמבואר בירו' פ"ג דמ"ק ה"ה גזרת שלשים אחוי גהוץ ותספורת ואע"ג שבכלל גזרת שלשים הוא שמחת מריעות דאסור כל שלשים. מכ"מ עיקר גזרת שלשים הוא גו"ת וע' מש"כ לעיל שם דאיכא דמפרשי הא דאי' בד' י"ט ב' דנוהג מצות שלשים ברגל כפרש"י דאסור בגהוץ ותספורת ואע"ג דס"ל דשמחת מריעות מותר בקובר מתו ברגל ולא כהרמב"ן וסיעתו ז"ל. ובהא דאסור בהני תרתי מש"ה קרי שנוהג כל מצות שלשים ומש"ה עולה למנין שלשים ע"ש היטיב והטעם דקרי לגו"ת מצות שלשים נראה פשוט משום שהקילו במקום מצוה שאין לו בנים לישא בתוך שלשים. עכ"פ כיון שעיקר גזרת שלשים הני תרתי ולא מצינו מצוה לכבס ולספר בפורים כמו במועד שקנסו שלא לכבס ולספר בחוה"מ כדי שלא יכנסו לרגל כשהן מנוולין כדאי' ריש פ"ג דמ"ק. משא"כ בפורים. וא"כ דנוהג בפורים איסור גהוץ ותספורת מש"ה אינו מפסיק מצות שלשים. עוד הקשה הר"מ ז"ל דחזינן בפורים נשים מענות ומטפחות ולא כמו במועד. ולי העני לק"מ. דהא שאין מטפחות במועד לאו משום שמחה. דפשיטא שאין הולכים לפני המטה בשמחת המועד ח"ו ובאמת אין זה בטול המצוה כלל. שאין מצות שמחת החג תמידית בלי הפסק. אלא הוי כמו כל מצוה זמנית אכילת מצה ותק"ש שאינו אלא פעם א'. ה"נ מצוה לשמוח שעה א' ברגל. עכ"פ הא דאין מטפחים לאו משום שמחה אלא משום כבוד המועד שלא ינהגו בו מנהג חול. ובפורים לא חשו משום כבוד. 

After all, bigdei tzivonim is not going to have her walking on clouds all day long, nor is eating the Chagiga going to make you smile for 24 hours. 

Of course, the Netziv only means the ikkar mitzvah chiyuvis is fulfilled with one peula. He certainly holds that there is a kiyumis of simcha the whole day, because he famously says that every mitzva that has a shiur is still a kiyumis beyond that shiur.

He says this in the Sheiltos in Yisro regarding kolos of Shofar, in the Meromei Sadeh in Chagiga, and here it is in in the Meromei Sadeh on 39, where he warns his son to not overdo it with the horseradish, to use a minimal kezayis, or even better, to use lettuce.

ל"ט א במשנה ומצטרפין לכזית אשר כתב לבנו הגר"ח זצ"ל מיום ג' ח' ניסן תרמ"ב  

הקשבתי ואשמע מבנינו שליט"א כמה מעכ"ה נ"י מחמיר בכזית מרור והוא חריין ונפלאתי על זה מה ראה מעכ"ה בני נ"י לזה הן אמת לדעתי כל חיובי זית אינו אלא לצאת ידי חובה אבל מצוה יש כל זמן שמרבה וכמוש"כ הרבה בחיבורי (העמק שאלה י סימן נ"נ אות ד') ובפי' איתא בירושלמי והובא בתוס' חגיגה דף ח' לעולם הוא מוסיף והולך ודוחה יום טוב עד שיאמר אין בדעתי להוסיף, בכ"ז אין מצות מרור בכלל, חדא, אחר שאינו אלא מדרבנן. שנית, לשיטת הרא"ש אין מצוה אלא כל שהוא לטעום טעם מרור, ועי' מש"כ בהשמטות הנדפסות בח"ג על סי' ע"ג ישוב שיטת הרא"ש מקושית הגאון שאגת אריה. זה ברור דשיעור כזית המבואר בשו"ע הוא שיעור קטן מאד ולמה לנו להחמיר 

וגם מה שמדקדק לאכול חריין איני מבין מדוע לא ינהיג עצמו בסאלאטא כדעת רוב אחרונים זצ"ל שהוא חזרת והכי נראה ממס' עוקצין פרק ב' משנה ז' ולמאי נחמיר לאכול דבר שהוא כחרבות לגוף והלא דרכיה דרכי נועם כתיב ומכל שכן בליל פסח אחרי תענית ושתית יין לפי דעתי הדלה על בני נ"י לשנות  מנהגו בזה 

Differences in his words in various places create some doubt about whether he means you can be mosif by doing more in the same peula, like אל תשתה, or that you can be mosif all day long even after a hefsek, like the Yerushalmi. I think that he holds that it's a mitzva to be b'simcha even after a hefsek.

It is well known that the Shaagas Aryeh, and Reb Chaim in the stencil, and RYBS, all say that there is a din simcha besides the simchas chagiga which does not apply the first night. But all I am pointing out is that there is no denying the vast difference between the approach of the Netziv and the Rambam, and that of the Gaon.

I have to add one thing. If you read the Netziv kipshuto, it is extremely difficult to understand, and I believe he means something very different from the pashut pshat in his words. According to him, why אין נושאין נשים במועד? Have a piece of your Chagiga, or a piece of kishka, and then get married. I think he means that the day is mechayeiv simcha; the kiyum hamtizva is done with one peula. But the nature of the day is that is makes a chalos chiyuv simcha, which permeates the whole 24 hours, such that besides the constant kiyumis of simcha, anything inconsistent with simcha is a bitul asei. But then his pshat in Shloshim on Purim becomes difficult.

But the bottom line is that the Netziv will somehow have to agree with the achronim brought above, nicely expressed by R Nissim Karelitz

חוט השני חלק יום טוב וחול המועד דף קנ"ח:

ודע דמצות שמחת יום טוב יש בה ב ענינים, והם א', להיות שמח וטוב לב כמ"ש הרמב"ם, ב', לעשות פעולות מסוימות שמביאים את האדם לשמחה כמו אכילה ושתיה 

גדר הענין להיות שמח וטוב לב הוא מה שנקרא בל"א "צופרידען" [מרוצה] ופריילך [שמח] כאדם שיש לו קורת רוח, וזוהי מצוה שבלב וחיוב המצוה הוא להשתדל להגיע למצב של שמח וטוב לב, וכל שכן שצריך להרחיק מעצמו כל דבר אשר יכול לעשות היפך מן השמחה, כמו צער ודאגה, שצריך להסירו ולהיות בשמחה.

ולהיות "שמח וטוב לב" לא סגי שפעם אחת ביום טוב הוא שמח, אלא הוא צריך להיות במשך כל היום טוב במצב של שמת וטוב לב. וכבר אמרו על הגר"א שאמר שמצות שמתת יום טוב היא מצוה שיותר קשה לקיימה משאר המצוות, והיינו מפני שצריך להסיר מעל עצמו כל צער ודאגה ולהיות שרוי כל היום טוב בשמחה וטוב לב וכבר דנו האחרונים (חכם צבי) אם מותר ללמוד הלכות אבילות ביום טוב 

Whoever you hold like, I wish you a 

חג כשר ושמח במלא מובן המלה!