OK: We all know the famous vort that when r' elazar ben azariah said "harei ani k'ben shivim shana", he was really only 18 and looked like he was 70. But then, why did he say that at all. In other words, if he really was around 70, it makes sense; he's saying, "I'm already old, and never had I realized to say yetzias mitzraim at night...", but if he's only 18, what's the big chiddush?
@jake it says that he had the spiritual power of his previous Gilgul (Shmuel hanavi, who passed away when he was 52) which is also why he says that "I am like 70" and not stam "I am like an old man".
With that power, he should have figured it out, I guess.
@ShmuelBrill That works with two assumptions: (1) you believe in gilgul nefashos, and (2) you believe shmuel died at 52. Neither of those assumptions are so simple.
Here's what I'm thinking: The text is actually " harei ani k'ben shivim shana, v'lo zachisi she'teomer yetzias mitzrayim...". This means that really R' Elazar knew already that it should be done, but he was not successful that it should be said, IOW he was not able to have the populace accept this fact. That is, until Ben Zoma came around and derived it straight from a pasuk.
Then people accepted it. But they did not accept it from R' Elazar just because he said it, even though he looked like he was an old, wise man.
though, here it says "Some say his neshoma was a reincarnation of the neshoma of Shmuel HaNovi. Being that Shmuel lived only 52 years, and Rabbi Elazar Ben Azaria was now 18 years old, therefore, he said, "I am like a man of 70 years old.""
@HodofHod @HachamGabriel It's Mashma from the sicha that he didn't have any official extra powers (as the Rebbe says that the same way he was able to use his previous Gilgul, so can we).
@HodofHod I think whenever the matzas are uncovered, we're talking about our freedom, which the matza represents. Whenever they are covered, we are talking about past slavery.
Another topic I wanted to mention (Not to disregard @HodofHod's) is a grammatical one: I have always understood "וַיָּרֵעוּ אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים" to mean that the Egyptians did bad thing to us, or as Chabad renders "And the Egyptians treated us cruelly". But I was at a shiur last night where the speaker claimed that that would have to be "vayareu lanu hamitzrim".
And that really what it means is that the Egyptians "made us into the bad guys", which is supported by the pasuk brought by the haggada as a prooftext "הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה לוֹ פֶּן יִרְבֶּה וְהָיָה כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ"
@HodofHod That is the prelude to hallel, which in turn is the prelude to the second kos. Maybe we want the focus to be on the wine and not the matza?
@HodofHod Another possibility, we uncover the matzos whenever we are doing sippur yetzias mitzraim in the form of "v'higad'ta l'vincha", like we say "b'sha'ah she'matza u'marror munachim l'fanecha". When we not doing sippur, like by mah nishtana, or v'hi sheamda, or hallel, we cover the matzos to distinguish this fact.
@HodofHod, Seems like the chat died out. You want to officially end?
@jake I agree with that reason. Also, possibly why we raise our cups at some points is the gemara berachot 35a דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מנין שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין שנאמר ותאמר להם הגפן החדלתי את תירושי המשמח אלהים ואנשים אם אנשים משמח אלהים במה משמח מכאן שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין
When someone flags a post, can the author of that post handle the flag himself?
(I'm hoping the answer is no!)
