Shutting Up Until Korech

My high school son received a present from his rebbe, namely a Haggadah which the rebbe really liked: Living the Haggadah, by Rabbi Yeshaya Perlow, based on the teachers of Rav Mattisyahu Salomon zatz”al. Overall, a very nice haggadah, that tries to bring in lots of the halachot, with good footnotes sourcing the material and discussing it. This was a thoughtful and considerate gift. Even so, I have my hang-ups about this sort of Haggadah, and I found plenty to disagree with, in particular as it came to the focus on the purported halachic optimum, which often comes at the expense of the experience. So, this is a post where I’m going to complain a little bit.

Here is an example.

By the beginning of Motzi Matzah, we are told that

“While saying the bracha on matzah, one should have in mind that it should also include the matzah that will be eaten for Koreeh and the afikoman.

One should not speak from the time that the bracha is said on the matzah until after eating Korech, unless the interruption is necessary in order to perform these mitzvos properly.”

This second statement about not speaking is impeccably sourced to the Shulchan Aruch, which it quoted exactly and in full.

I disagree with this. How can I disagree with the Shulchan Aruch? If it appears there, it must be core halacha, no? Well, more on this later, as well as whether this sourcing is sufficient. This interacts with other halachot (or perhaps “halachot”). Let us understand the repercussions of not speaking until after eating Korech.

How much must one eat for the mitzvah of matzah, and how long must that take, give or take? He writes that it ideally should take less than three minutes, but at the very least, within nine minutes. Further, the countdown clock only starts at the first swallow, so (silently) chew as much matzah as possible before your first swallow.

This eating can be an arduous task because we are NOT operating on the core halacha than kezayit, that is, an olive sized measure (or perhaps two olive sized measures, one for motzi + one for matzah) is actually olive sized, but rather is a specific larger fraction of a whole shmurah matzah. In a footnote, he says the fractions are based on a specific sefer, IIRC Halachos of Kizayis by Rabbi Pinchos Bodner, and would fulfill the requirements of kezayit according to the most stringent position — I think this would mean the Chazon Ish shitta.

This is either rushed (two minutes or three minutes) or not as rushed, but still somewhat rushed (nine minutes with a countdown clock). That one would be advised to pre-chew in order to be able to hit this deadline should be a red flag that you got something very wrong. After all, it is supposed to be completed in kedei achilat peras, the amount of time it takes to finish a portion. Shouldn’t this definitionally not be something difficult to accomplish? Also, this pre-chewing followed by swallowing is not something I would call derech achila. The whole endeavor might be achilah gasa, and wouldn’t be valid.

Anyway, time for pre-chewing in silence, then the nine minutes.

Then we have maror. He also gives a nine minute span. Then, we have Korech. Interesting that he writes that one should not speak until after Korech, rather than after commencing Korech, but he writes that that is another three nine minutes. (Again, faster times wolfing it down is better, but for effect, I am running with nine.)

So, that is the pre-chewing time, plus the beracha time, plus the zecher limikdash keHillel time, plus 27 minutes of chewing and swallowing, all in silence, while anxiously watching the clock.

Is that דְּרָכֶ֥יהָ דַרְכֵי־נֹ֑עַם, the ways of pleasantness? Is this the way of cherut or is it the way of chipazon? We are luxuriously reclining while wolfing down matzah, maror and charoset in hurried silence. On all other nights we talk during the meal (though see Aruch HaShulchan) and take our time, but on this night, we pre-chew and wolf down our food while watching the clock. A fifth question! The Torah was given to human beings, not to automatons or malachei hasharet. The Seder is supposed to be, in part, a meal, and this is supposed to be natural eating, achilah, and in that way fulfill the mitzvah.

This doesn’t make sense. Except of course, it is actually possible to accomplish in a normal way. How? if we had soft matzah and we ate a real olive size (or, as Rav Chaim Kanievsky had it, the size of three almonds; or else a third of an egg), not the exaggerated sizes on matzah charts (as Rav Herschel Schachter described as the exaggerated size), then it is trivial to accomplish. And the chumra / din (stay tuned) — mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch on not speaking unnecessarily until Korech is trivial to accomplish.

---

Let us explore the background to this rule of not speaking. He writes:

The English is:

“While saying the bracha on matzah, one should have in mind that it should also include the matzah that will be eaten for Koreeh and the afikoman.

One should not speak from the time that the bracha is said on the matzah until after eating Korech, unless the interruption is necessary in order to perform these mitzvos properly.”

These are actually related. Because one should have in mind the Korech in the bracha, since we certainly won’t make another bracha, and we want to associate the Korech with the al achilat matzah, it would be good to make an interruption. Shouldn’t the same be true for the afikoman, not to talk until that point? Sure, and see the Shela who endorses this, but this is so much of a burden that hardly anyone would practice this.

The English “unless the interruption is necessary in order to perform these mitzvos properly” is not exactly what Rav Yosef Karo wrote in Shulchan Aruch. The expressions might mean the same thing, but maybe not. In Orach Chaim 475:1:

ואומר זכר למקדש כהלל ואוכלם ביחד בהסיב' ומשבירך על אכילת מצה לא יסיח בדבר שאינו מענין הסעודה עד שיאכל כריכה זו כדי שתעלה ברכת אכילת מצה וברכת אכילת מרור גם לכריכה זו:

and says "Zecher lemikdash keHillel" and eats them together while leaning. And from when one blesses "Al achilat matza" one must not interrupt with anything unrelated to the meal until one eats this sandwich, in order to have the blessing of "Achilat matza" and the blessing of "Achilat marror" count for this sandwich too.

Well, that is the Sefaria Community translation. I don’t like “must not” in that translation. I would say that לא יסיח means “one should not”. There is a slight difference in tone and meaning. Are we saying that this is an absolute requirement? (We will see it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar.) Are we saying that if one did, one must bless again? (No; the Taz entertains the idea, but since as the Tur says, it is just a mitzvah min hamuvchar, one needn’t do it.)

The English in the Haggadah said “unless the interruption is necessary in order to perform these mitzvos properly.” That kind of makes sense, if the idea is not to make a hefsek. As the Taz says, ולא הוי הפסק אלא במה דלא צריך ליה אבל במה שצריך כגון טול כרוך לא הוי הפסק ולכאורה. On the other hand, perhaps there is a difference between “unless the interruption is necessary in order to perform these mitzvos properly” and Rav Yosef Karo’s בדבר שאינו מענין הסעודה. That could potentially be more of a hesech hadaat issue, so saying “wow, this matzah is stale!” would not divert one’s focus. Still, we need to consider Rav Yosef Karo’s sources and what the Tur says and quotes.

Halachic sources are not flat, so you cannot just look at a single text and make assumptions. To understand Shulchan Aruch from Rav Yosef Karo, you need to check Beit Yosef, which is his commentary on the Tur. You also have to check sources of sources, going to other Rishonim like Rambam, Rif, and Rosh. You then need to go back to the gemara to understand it. So, going all the way back, what is the status of the Korech? Is it a rabbinic mitzvah (see Tosafot)? Is it the primary way of fulfilling eating matzah and maror? Do we rule like Hillel, or like the plural Rabbanan who were his disputants? Maybe we ruled like Hillel in Temple times, but now, when it is a zecher and we aren’t eating it with the korban Pesach, even Hillel would not say it is required, and this is a zecher / nice way of recalling what he did and his position (see Ramban), and its cool connection to a read of a Biblical verse.

Here is the Tur:

כתב אחי ה"ר יחיאל ז"ל מספקא לי בכריכה אי בעי היסיבה כיון דמרור לא בעי היסיבה ובעל המנהיג כתב דבעי היסיבה בעבור המצה שבאה זכר לחירות וכתב עוד הרוצה לקיים מצוה מן המובחר לא יסיח עד שיעשה כריכה כהלל כדי שתעלה לו ברכת מצה ומרור לכריכה כהלל דהא משום דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר עבדינן לחומרא כתרוייהו ה"נ לענין ברכה צריכין למיעבד שיעלה לשניהם ובשיחת חולין צריך ליזהר אבל טול ברוך לא הוי הפסק:

In English:

And he (meaning not his brother Rabbeinu Yechiel but rather Baal Hamanhig) writes: One who wishes to fulfill mitzvah min hamuvchar should not speak until he makes this wrapping like Hillel, so that the bracha on matza and maror will devolve upon this wrap like Hillel. For behold, since (here is a rewording of the Stamma’s conclusion in Pesachim 115a) the halacha was not explicitly decided via a vehilcheta either like this Master (Hillel) or this Master (the Sages), we do both. And (now, extending the gemara’s idea) the same is true in terms of the blessing, that we need to act so that it applied to both of them, and with idle chatter one needs to be avoid, but “take and bless” is not considered a hefsek.

In the Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Karo traces the history of this practice further, namely to the Agur (siman 811) who is citing the Baal HaMaor [sic]:

וכתב עוד הרוצה לקיים מצוה מן המובחר לא ישיח עד שיעשה כריכה כהלל וכו' כ"כ האגור בשם בעל המאור:

The Bach on the Tur writes:

מ"ש וכתב עוד הרוצה לקיים מצוה מן המובחר לא יסיח וכו' כלומר דעיכובא ודאי ליכא דאינה רק למקדש ואף להלל גופיה א"צ לאכול מצה ומרור ביחד בזמן הזה דליכא פסח דשפיר יוצא י"ח במה שמברך אמצה לחודיה ואכיל ומברך אמרור לחודיה ואכיל
אלא דמ"מ כיון דאמרי' דמשום דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר בזמן שב"ה היה קיים עבדינן לחומרא כתרוייהו אף בזמן הזה כאילו היה ב"ה קיים ובעי ליה למיהדר ולמכרך מצה ומרור ואכיל
וא"כ ממילא בעינן למיעבד נמי לענין ברכה כאילו היה ב"ה קיים שלא יסיח עד שיעשה כריכה כהלל כדי שתעלה לו ברכת מצה ומרור לכריכה דאע"ג דאין לו לחזור ולברך כדאמר להדיא ואכיל בלא ברכה מ"מ כי היכי דליעבד זכר למקדש ממש נכון להזהר בכך ומקיים מצוה מן המובחר:

And that which he wrote, “one who wants to fulfill mitzvah min hamuvchar (the optimal way) should not speak…” That is to say, that it is certainly not an ikkuva (an absolute requirement without which one has not fulfilled), for this was only during Temple times, and even according to Hillel himself, one needn’t eat matzah and marror together nowadays, when there is no korban Pesach. For he has certainly fulfilled his obligation well in that which he blessed on matzah by itself and ate, and blessed on maror by itself and ate.

However, it still is the case that since we said in (the gemara) that the halacha was not explicitly decided like either this Master or that Master, when the Temple still stood, and we would act stringently like both of them, even nowadays it will be as if the Temple still stood, and we need to return and wrap matzah and marror and eat it.

And if so, automatically, we need to act as well in terms of the blessing as if the Temple was still standing, and not speak until we made the wrapping like Hillel, so that the blessing on matzah and marror will apply to this wrap. For even though he would not go back and bless, as we said explicitly (in the gemara) “and he eats it without a blessing”, still when he makes this zecher for the Temple it is certainly proper to be careful in this and perform the mitzvah min hamuvchar [regarding the blessings].

While other Acharonim might understand the gemara or this practice differently, and I certainly would, but this is sufficient for now.

I would note that the reference to “Baal HaMaor” in Beit Yosef must be a typographical error, which appears as well in the Agur. The original source of the practice is really the Baal HaManhig, Rav Avraham ben Nosson HaYarchi, a Provencal sage who lived from 1155-1215, who wrote both of these rules, first about heseiba and then about speaking. This is in Hilchot Pesach, page 136, siman 84.

After exploring the gemara’s conclusion (which you should read inside in Sefer HaManhig, but this article is long enough already, and the Bach’s explanation above is close enough), he writes:

And it seems to me that one who comes to fulfill the choice mitzvah [the mitzvah muvcheret. that is, the mitzvah min hamuvchar] to fulfill the obligation according to the Sages and like Hillel should not speak between them, after the blessings he blessed on the matzah and the maror, until he acts like both of there, to apply the brachot on the seder / order. And still, if he spoke idle speech which didn’t pertain to that matter, he does not need to repeat the blessing on the Korech; just as we say in the halachot of Rosh Hashanah regarding the blessing on the blowing of the Shofar; and how would he be able to bless? Given then he already filled his belly from them [the matzah and maror], would he go back and bless?

Here, is seems that the mitzvah muvcheret that one might do is not the blessing, but the very act of eating a Korech sandwich. And, within that optimal practice, he feels one should ideally not speak. That is different from the Bach’s understanding, that the mitzvah min hamuvchar was particularly about the blessings, and would thus be more of a chumra. Here, the chumra is Korech, and then within that, the avoiding interruption is cast as the proper conduct. Still, even without the blessing applying / having the interruption, one still is fulfilling the zecher to Hillel’s practice when one eats Korech and fulfilling the mitzvah min hamuvchar.

---

Enough of the halachic background. I’ve written occasionally in the past about the “transformative chumra”, where insisting on a stringency, especially as it interacts with other stringencies, fundamentally changes the experience of a mitzvah. For example, in Sotah 40a, different Amoraim had different brief statements said while the Chazan recited Modim, of up to about ten words. Rav Pappa said that we should therefore say all of them. This changed the very nature of the recitation. Instead of mostly listening to the Chazan but also voicing agreement, one ends up focused on one’s own recitation. (The parallel Yerushalmi in Berachot 1:5 has longer statements, and also an idea to say all of them.)

Here, insisting on silence until (or even until after) Korech is transformative of the seder experience, turning it from something organic into something mechanical. Paired with other chumrot involving matzah size and rushed time limits, it totally changes the tone of the meal.

This transformation is, lefi aniyut daati, not a positive one. This is a chumra that brings us to kula. I would rather think through the various stringencies beforehand, weigh each to see how convincing they are from a halachic perspective, and what their impact is both individually and especially in combination.

Bigger portions are fine, so long as we don’t force people to eat until they are ready to vomit or cannot eat anything for Shulchan Orech, and as long as we don’t say that the time limit of kedei achilat peras applies to that larger portion, rather than the basic size of a kezayit. If we find ourselves pre-chewing, or choking on matzah, or worried about time when we were not dawdling, then we made a wrong turn.

But, if and once we insist upon / opt for large portions, we should not insist on Baal HaManhig’s “stringency” of utter silence. The whole mitzvah min hamuvchar was also to have this zecher for Hillel’s practice. And, we would fulfill this zecher even if the original bracha does not devolve upon Korech. Now, I am not convinced that these berachot couldn’t arguably apply to Korech even with a diversion of non-mitzvah / seudah talk¹. But even if the blessings don’t apply, we still absolutely fulfill Korech. We need to apply sechel to see how it impacts the experience.

1. See the Rif on Rosh haShana 34a who cited a question to a Gaon about speaking after the first set of tekiot, with speaking or (Bach’s emendation) hesech hadaat, and whether the blessing applies to the later shofar blasts; see Ran there who fundamentally dismisses the concern, and compares it to a blessing on searching for chametz — surely no one would argue that he’s not permitted to speak until he finishes the removal.