The Bitterness of the Marror – and the Bitterness of Tisha B’Av (Adapted from the Hakdomo to Sefer Shev Shmaitso, Os Shin)
By Eliakim Willner
Eliakim Willner is author
of a newly released volume of select Pachad Yitzchok Maamorim, in English with
commentary, and of “Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaTorah: An Appreciation of Torah
Study”, a translation with commentary of a work by the Maharal of Prague, both
published by Artscroll/Mesorah. A continuation of the Nesivos Olam series,
“Nesivos Olam – Nesiv HaAvodah: The Philosophy and Practice of Prayer” awaits
publication, as does “To Be A Jew”, an adaptation with commentary of the
Hakdomo to Sefer Shev Shmaitso, from which this article is drawn.
A
Strange Connection
Chazal make a
curious connection between the Seder night and the night of Tisha
B’Av. The Shev Shmaitso, in his introduction, explains the
relationship between these two apparently disparate occasions.
We
begin with the source for this connection in the Medrash Rabbah (Eichah
Rabbah 3:5):
“‘He
has filled me with bitterness; He has sated me with wormwood’ (Eichah
3:15). With what he filled me with bitterness on the nights of Pesach,
per the posuk, ‘they shall eat it
with matzo and marror’ (Bamidbar 9:11), he sated me with wormwood
on the nights of Tisha B’Av, the
ninth of Av.”
The
Medrash is drawing a parallel between the bitter marror of the
nights of Pesach and the much more bitter “wormwood-like” experience of the
night of Tisha B’Av, when the two Batei Mikdash were destroyed. Tisha
B’Av always falls out on the same day of the week as the first day of Pesach,
but the connection between the first night of Pesach and Tisha B’Av
runs deeper, as the Shev Shmaitso will explain, based on another Medrash
in Eichah Rabbah 1:20.
Avrohom’s
Argument to Hashem
“On
the night of Tisha B’Av our forefather Avrohom entered into the kodesh
kodoshim. Hashem “took him by the hand” and strolled with him through its
length and breadth, and asked him, ‘What brings you, my cherished one, to My
home?’ (Yirmiyahu 11:15) He responded, ‘My Master, where are my
children?’ Hashem responded, ‘They sinned and I exiled them among the nations’.
Avrohom responded, ‘Were there no righteous among them?’ Hashem responded, ‘…the
many perform evil design’ (Yirmiyahu 11:15). Avrohom said, ‘You should
have focused on the righteous among them’. Hashem responded, ‘Their many were
bad, as the posuk testifies: “…the
many perform evil design”’.
Upon
close analysis there seems to be something amiss with this dialog. Avrohom
asks, “Were there no righteous…”, seeking mercy on the basis of more merit than
sin. Hashem responds in a manner implying that in fact that this was not so.
Why, then, does Avrohom persist by suggesting, “You should have focused on the
righteous”? He was just told that there was no majority of righteous!
Transgression
Cancellation
It
seems to me that we must understand Avrohom’s argument in light of a concept
presented in the Drashos of Rabbi Yehuda Moscato (Nefutzos Yehudah),
who has a novel understanding of the principle of judgement being based on the
conduct of the majority. He writes that this judgement works through the
mechanism of “transgression cancellation”, such that if person A is a murderer,
person B, a thief, person C, a bribe-taker, person D, a usurer, etc., the
transgression categories “cancel each other out” – meaning that since most
people do not fall into each individual category the net result is that no
transgression category will have a majority of the population.
Thus,
the population can be judged favorably, in this lenient understanding of the
concept of judgement being based on the conduct of the majority, even if the
net sum of overall transgressions in the population exceeds the net sum of
overall mitzva actions.
Another
way of viewing this “mitzva-centric” approach is to consider each mitzva
individually, asking of each, “are the majority of the population observant of
this mitzva?” If the answer is “yes” that counts in the “favorable”
column. If the answer is “no”, that counts in the unfavorable column. After all
the mitzvos have been processed in this way, the two columns are summed,
and positive or, G-d forbid, negative judgement is applied based on the column
with the highest value.
Bitul of an Issur
with an Issur
This
is analogous to the principle expounded in Zevachim 78a that if one
combines and eats a mixture of pigul, nosar and tamei
he is exempt from penalty. There are various disqualifiers that prohibit
the consumption of meat from a korban. The three mentioned here are pigul,
which is meat from a korban offered with improper intent, nosar,
which is meat from a korban whose time limit for consumption has
expired, and tamei, which is meat from a korban that was rendered
ritually impure by contact with a person or object that was itself impure.
Penalties are imposed on those who violate these prohibitions by eating a
minimum olive-sized piece of any of those meats.
The
reason for the exemption of penalty is the principle of bitul,
annulment. If a prohibited substance is mixed with a larger amount of a
different substance, the prohibited substance is nullified. Here, all three
substances are prohibited, but the prohibitions are different, and with respect
to each of the substances, the others, although prohibited in their own right,
are capable of nullifying that substance. (This is a complex topic; see the Gemara
and commentaries for additional detail and explanation.)
Avrohom’s
Lomdishe Argument
Now,
let us apply this principle to our question on the Medrash. Originally
Avrohom asked if there were actual righteous people among the nation, meaning “righteous”
in the classic sense of overall merits outnumbering overall transgressions.
Told that there were not – “the many perform evil design” – Avrohom responded,
“You should have focused on the righteous among them”, meaning that Hashem
should have applied the mechanism of “transgression cancellation”. Although
each of them were guilty of several categories of transgression, they were
“righteous” with respect to the categories of transgression that they were did not
violate, in comparison to the “un-righteous” others who did violate those
transgressions. The transgressions of person A are not the transgressions of
person B, etc.
This
answers our question on the Medrash. Avrohom was not asking the same
question twice. Having been told that considering all the mitzvos in
aggregate the nation had more transgressions than merits, Avrohom contended
that a favorable judgement should nevertheless have emerged, using Rabbi
Moscato’s “mitzva-centric” understanding of judgement based on the
conduct of the majority.
To
this Hashem responded, “Their many were bad…”, meaning that prohibitions do not
“cancel each other out”. Only the sum total of transgressions versus merits is
significant. There is no “transgression cancellation”. And on that basis the
destruction of the Bais HaMikdash and the exile were deserved.
Pesach: The
Refutation of the Argument
Now
let us return to the original Medrash’s equation of the “bitterness” of
the marror on Pesach with the “bitterness” suffered on Tisha
B’Av. We do so via the continuation of the previously cited Gemara
in Zevachim, which states that the previously cited rule that eating a
mixture of prohibited foods is exempt from penalty, where each prohibited food
is a minority of the total mixture, is counter to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar,
who holds that just as mitzvos cannot nullify one another, so too can
forbidden items not nullify one another.
How
does Rabbi Elazar know that mitzvos cannot nullify one another? The Gemara
states that the origin of the counter-view that mitzvos cannot nullify
one another is a practice of Hillel, who would sandwich matzo and marror
together and eat them together with the korban Pesach, in keeping
with the posuk (Bamidbar 9:11), “they shall eat it with matzo
and marror”.
Hillel’s
actions presume that mitzvos cannot nullify one another. The Torah
commands that we eat both matzo and marror on the night of
Pesach. They are separate mitzvos. The suggestion that they be eaten
together implies that one cannot nullify the other. We do not say that if there
is more matzo, for example, the marror is nullified (and
therefore the marror mitzva has not been fulfilled). Hillel’s advice
does not take nullification into account and therefore he must hold that it is
not a factor. By eating matzo and marror together both mitzvos
are fulfilled, Hillel holds, and therefore it must be that he holds that mitzvos
cannot nullify one another.
It
stands to reason that Hillel holds that the same logic applies to
transgressions, and that one transgression cannot nullify others, since there
is no reason to distinguish between positive mitzvos and transgressions
in this regard. Just as the mitzvos of matzo and marror
each remain intact when they are eaten together, and we discount nullification,
so also if a person eats multiple forbidden foods together, each food remains
intact and nullification must be discounted as a factor. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar
states, Hillel must hold, contrary to the original statement of the Gemara
in Zevachim 78a, that if a person eats a mixture of pigul, nosar
and tamei together, he is not “off the hook” but must suffer the
penalties of all three.
(The
Shev Shmaitso apparently holds that the view of Rabbi Yehuda Moscato
does not align with the view of Hillel, which is normative halacha, and
thus would not have a practical application.)
Hillel’s
Korech is the Answer
The
connection between the bitter marror of Pesach and the bitterness
of Tisha B’Av now becomes clear. As Hashem told Avrohom, “Their many
were bad” and transgressions do not “cancel each other out”.
The
fact that we fulfill the mitzva of marror even when it is eaten
with matzo is a signal that mitzvos do not nullify one another,
and therefore by extension, and contrary to Rabbi Moscato’s approach to
judgement based on majority, transgressions do not nullify one another. And
therefore, since without that leniency, judgement based on majority means the
more stringent approach of tallying the sum of mitzvos versus the sum of
transgressions and applying reward or penalty to the nation based on whichever
is greater. And since, unfortunately, the sum of the transgressions was
greater, at the time of the Bais HaMikdash’s destruction, the harsh
penalties of destruction and exile were imposed.
This
is the full and profound meaning of the Medrash which draws a parallel
between the bitterness of the marror on the first night of Pesach
and the bitterness the destruction and exile of Tisha B’Av. “With what
he filled me with bitterness on the nights of Pesach, per the posuk,
‘They shall eat it with matzo and marror’, he sated me with
wormwood on the nights of Tisha B’Av”.
May
we merit the final redemption and an end to the bitterness of our galus,
quickly and in our days!
