Page 315 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ ׳א רדסה ליל תוכלה · 313

As mentioned, according to the Ran’s second cup only recommended and not obligatory like
answer, it is actually a mitzva min hamuvchar to the other four?
20
drink the fifth cup over Hallel Hagadol. The Ran The Netziv explains the distinction of the
states that the words of the Rambam lean toward Rambam and Ran between the obligatory four
this understanding as well. However, the actual cups of wine and the fifth cup, which is only a
words of the Rambam are somewhat ambigu- mitzva min hamuvchar, in the following way. The
ous, as he states as follows: 18 first four cups parallel the four expressions of
redemption. The fifth cup parallels the expres-
“And afterwards, he recites the birkat hama- sion “veyadatem et Hashem – And you will know
zon over a third cup and drinks it. And after- Hashem,” which expresses a certain level of
21
wards, he pours a fourth cup and finishes the knowing Hashem through Ruach Hakodesh and
Hallel over it. And he recites the Birkat HaShir prophecy which was not accessible to all. Hence,
and that is: May all of your creatures praise you, it was never instituted as an obligation. He states
etc. And he recites the blessing Borei Pri Hage- further that since today we no longer have proph-
fen and does not taste anything afterwards the ecy until Eliyahu HaNavi will return, the minhag
entire night, except for water. And he should arose that no one drinks the fifth cup. This is the
pour a fifth cup and say upon it the Hallel reason that we now refer to the fifth cup as the
Hagadol (Tehillim 136)… And this cup is not cup of Eliyahu.
obligatory like the other four cups.”
The Ran understands that the word limzog (to A Second Explanation of the Rambam
pour) means to drink. The fact that the Rambam and Ran
used this language regarding the other cups as Rav Elyashiv explained that in relation to the
22
well might support this as well. Furthermore, he Afikoman and the drinking of the four cups of
states that this fifth cup isn’t an obligation similar wine, according to Rabbi Elazar Ben Azarya the
to the four cups, implying that it may be drunk, four cups of wine are also only until midnight,
just that the level of obligation is different. 19 for the telling of yetziat mitzrayim must be “at the
What is the logic behind the opinion of the time when matza and maror are placed in front
Ran (and possibly Rambam)? The opinions of you.” If so, the chiyuv of telling the story of
which forbid a fifth cup seem logical because the yetziat mitzrayim extends specifically until mid-
nature or timeframe (or both) of the mitzva of night. However, if one started beforehand, one
sippur yetziat mitzrayim do not allow for exces- can continue as an extension of the original ob-
sive drunkenness. However, the opinions of the ligation. Accordingly, this could be another ex-
Rambam and Ran seem puzzling: If the mitzva planation for the distinction of the Rambam and
of sippur can co-exist with (and perhaps even be Ran. According to the Rambam and Ran there
enhanced by) drunkenness, why, then, is the fifth is no independent obligation to tell the story

18. Rambam, Hilchot Chametz Umatza 8:10
19. On the other hand, one could argue that the Rambam only mentioned pouring and did not state that one drinks or says a beracha, something that
he stated regarding the other cups. This implies that here he only pours but does not actually drink it. In addition, the Rambam’s formulation “and
does not taste anything afterwards the entire night, except for water,” which clearly refers to liquids, also implies that the fifth cup is not drunk. If
it were drunk, the Rambam probably would have mentioned it before giving this general principle that nothing may be consumed after the cups.
20. Meromei Hasadeh, Pesachim 118a
21. Shemot 6:7
22. He’arot Rav Elyashiv, Masechet Pesachim 120b

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.