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.

Hallel at the Seder

Yerushalmi Megilla 2:1 (18b)

משנה:

הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא קראה על פה קראה תרגום בכל לשון לא יצא אבל קורין אותה ללעוזות בלעז והלועז ששמע אשורית יצא:

גמרא:

דכתיב (אסתר ט) ככתבם 

קראה על פה לא יצא דכתיב ככתבם קראה תרגום לא יצא דכתיב ככתבם: בכל לשון לא יצא: דכתיב ככתבם וכלשונם 

ר' יונה אמר תנה נחמן בר אדא ר' יוסה אמר תנה נחמן סבא (דברים ו) והיו כדרך הוייתן יהיו ותני אף בהלל ובקרית שמע המגילה כן ניחה בקריאת המגילה דכתיב ככתבם ברם בהלילא בגין דכתיב (תהילים קי״ג:ג׳) ממזרח שמש עד מבואו מהולל שם ה' מהולל שם ה' ממזרח שמש עד מבואו מה את שמע מינה א"ר אבין עוד היא אמורה על סדר (תהילים קי״ד:א׳) בצאת ישראל ממצרים לשעבר (תהילים קט״ו:א׳) לא לנו ה' לא לנו לדורות הללו (תהילים קט״ז:א׳) אהבתי כי ישמע ה' לימות המשיח (תהילים קי״ח:כ״ז) אסרו חג בעבותים לימות גוג ומגוג (תהילים קי״ח:כ״ח) אלי אתה ואודך לעתיד לבא

Interpretation:
Mishna:
One who reads the Megilla out of order does not fulfil his obligation....
Gemara:
(An interpolation from the Talmud Bavli:  In the case of Krias Shema, we know the source for the requirement to read it in order, and that is the words) V'hayu, which we understand to mean "exactly as written in the Torah."
The rule of our Mishna, stated regarding Megilla, applies as well to Hallel and Krias Shema.
(Returning to Yerushalmi:)
In the case of Megilla, because it states Kiksavam, meaning "as written."
What is the source for requiring Hallel to be read in order?
Because it says "From place to sun rises to where it sets, God's name is praised."  This implies that order is essential, to begin from the beginning and proceed to the end.
Another proof: Because the concepts expressed in the Hallel are written chronologically:
B'tzeis refers to the redemption from Egypt.
Lo Lanu speaks of our time in the current exile.
Ahavti speaks of the time after Mashiach comes.
Isru Chag is the days of Gog u'Magog.
Eili Attah is the ultimate and final goal of the future.

With this Yerushalmi, we understand why Hallel is split at the seder, with the first half before the meal and the second half after.

The first half sings of the redemption from Egypt, and then prayerfully speaks of our condition as free men who await the return of the Shechina and all of Klal Yisrael to the land, and asks Hashem's protection during our exile.  After we finish "Pesach, Matza, and Maror," the Hallel after the meal deals with the future God promised us, and although the wait seems endless, we sing about the wonders and joy that we will all experience when God fulfils His promise.

This year, at our lonely sedarim, as we celebrate the Geulas Mitzrayim, let us hopefully and confidently and joyously sing of the Geula Ha'asida.

Kedoshim, and a Plan for a New Restaurant: FLAG Kosher

In consideration of the limits of internet attention spans, I have to make this clear from the beginning:

The Divrei Torah are valid, and the beginning and the end are serious, but the middle is written satirically, ironically.  The purpose of the post is to raise an important question, to highlight issues, and to stimulate intelligent and informed conversation.

On Pesach, our family discussed the marvelous products of food science available now- items that have no grain or kitnios but look and taste exactly like bread.  With a palette of various root starches and quinoa, and the use of chemicals and appliances that can make smoke into a brittle foam, making kosher for Pesach ersatz white bread and bagels and pizza is becoming practically quotidian.  The illusion improves every year; a friend told me that at one of the programs where kosher for Pesach beigels were offered, he saw a guest wash and say hamotzi on his shehakol bagel.

I was told that before Pesach, Rabbi Elefant was interviewed on a Jewish radio station in New York, and he said that one factor in the OU allowing quinoa was that quinoa is the only reasonable alternative to rice for making sushi, and if they couldn't make sushi, the caterers that run Pesach programs would lose a lot of money- ergo, hefsed meruba and the decision of the OU to be mattir.  It's easy to self-righteously say that such chametz replacements are inappropriate, and not in keeping with the spirit of the issur chametz.  But who among us doesn't have Shick's seven layer cake, or rainbow cookies?  They look like chametz too.  Our Mexican cleaning lady, who has gone through eighteen Pesachs with us, was shocked when she saw them.  But by now, we're all pretty used to them, and to other pseudo-foods, such as Bacos.

Instead of merely reacting instinctively, let's think about what issues may be relevant, and then decide whether the issues are problematic.

1.  Mar'is Ayin- it is assur to behave in a way where a reasonable observer might think you are doing a sin.
2.  Foods that the Torah prohibited are disgusting, and foods that mimic them ought to be equally disgusting to the Jewish sensibility.  Eating them diminishes our refinement, it makes us callous.
3.  If one eats what looks and tastes like a prohibited food, it weakens the psychological barrier and increases the likelihood he will eat real issurim.
4.  Issurei achila serve to create a vital psychological and social barrier between us and the gentiles, and without that barrier, our sense of separateness, our unique identity, will be attenuated.


Issue 1.  Mar'is Ayin.
Analysis:
The Gemara (Kerisus 21b) says that if you serve a container of fish blood, you must make it evident that it is not from an animal by floating some scales in it.  The Maharshal in Kol Habasar says that similarly, when you serve chicken in almond milk, as was the local minhag on Purim, you must have some blanched almonds in or near the milk so that nobody mistakes it for real milk.  The Rama in 87 argues with the Maharshal and says that this is only necessary by meat, not chicken, which is at worst an issur derabannan.  This is why some caterers put placards next to coffee whitener at a fleishikeh meal.

Even more lekulah, the Pri Chadash (there in YD 87 on the Rama) holds that we don't prohibit based on Maris Ayin beyond what we find explicitly prohibited in Chazal. True, many poskim disagree (such as Reb Moshe in the Igros OC 3:25 and the Maharik 115 and poskim brought in the Shaarei Teshuva OC 460:10,) but in any case, everyone agrees that all that matters is that people not make the mistake of thinking that what you're eating is treif.  The fact that it looks and tastes treif doesn't matter.  If everyone realizes that it is not really what it looks like, there is no problem of Mar'is Ayin.  This is why Pesach beigels and white bread, and soy bacon, and pepperoni and cheese pizzas, are all muttar.

Issue 2.  Foods that the Torah prohibited are disgusting, and foods that mimic them ought to be equally disgusting to the Jewish sensibility.  Eating them diminishes our refinement, it makes us callous.
Analysis:
Rashi in our Parsha brings from the Torah Kohanim the following:

 ואבדל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי

אם אתם מובדלים מהם הרי אתם שלי, ואם לאו הרי אתם של נבוכדנצר וחבריו 

רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר: מנין שלא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר חזיר, אי אפשי ללבוש כלאים, אבל יאמר אפשי, ומה      אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי  תלמוד לומר: ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, שתהא הבדלתכם מהם לשמי. פורש מן העבירה ומקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים

And I have distinguished you from the peoples, to be Mine:
If you are separated from them [through your observance of Torah], you will be Mine, but if not, you will belong to Nebuchadnezzar and his kind.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: How do we know that a person should not say, “I find pork disgusting,” or “It is impossible for me to wear kilayim,” but rather, one should say, “I indeed wish to, but what can I do-my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me?” Because Scripture says here, “And I have distinguished you from the peoples, to be Mine”-your very distinction from the other peoples must be for My Name, separating yourself from transgression and accepting upon yourself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. — [Toras Kohanim 20:128]

The Toras Kohanim says that one should not say he is disgusted by pork, or kilayim.  Instead, he should say that they might be very enjoyable, but he refrains only because Hashem so commanded us.
If so, there is nothing wrong with saying you'd like to eat all these things that are assur, and if you can find a way that you can eat them without an issur, it is fine.
True, the Rambam says this only applies to chukim- מצוות שמעיות- and maybe bugs are different.  After all, we have Reb Yishmael (BM 62a) that says

דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר הקב"ה אילמלא העליתי את ישראל ממצרים אלא בשביל דבר זה שאין מטמאין בשרצים דיי א"ל ומי נפיש אגרייהו טפי מרבית ומציצית וממשקלות א"ל אע"ג דלא נפיש אגרייהו טפי מאיסי למכלינהו

so maybe שרצים are inherently disgusting.  But at least Chazir is clearly in the "assur but desirable" column.
What about blood?  The Seforno puts blood in the desirable column, too.  From Devarim 12:25-

רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם - - לא תאכלנו למען ייטב לך ולבניך אחריך כי תעשה הישר בעיני ה׳. - - וכאשר תמנע מלאכול לא יהיה זה כמואס בו, אבל כדי שתעשה הישר בעיני ה׳, כאמרם ז״ל אל יאמר אדם קצה נפשי בבשר אסור אבל יאמר איפשי ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי

Issue 3.  If one gets used to eating what looks and tastes like it's assur, it weakens the psychological barrier and increases the likelihood he will eat real issurim.
Analysis:
We have what I call the Shibuta rule.  The Gemara in Chulin 109 brings a conversation between Yalta and her husband, Rav Nachman, which teaches that everything that for everything that is assur there is an equivalent that is muttar..

אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא, שרא לן כוותיה. אסר לן דמא- שרא לן כבדא. נדה- דם טוהר. חלב בהמה- חלב חיה. חזיר- מוחא דשיבוטא. גירותא- לישנא דכוורא. אשת איש- גרושה בחיי בעלה. אשת אח- יבמה. כותית יפת תאר. בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא! אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי

It appears that Rav Nachman wasn't worried about getting used to eating things that taste assur.  She was curious what bassar b'chalav tasted like, and he didn't reprimand her.  He simply got some K'chal for her to eat.  (Or it just wasn't smart to get into an argument with her; see Brachos 51b, and Tosfos Beitza 25b DH שאני ילתא.  Also, she was the daughter of the Reish Gelusa.)
Anyway, that is everyone's complaint about making an Eiruv.  Kids will grow up carrying on Shabbos, and they'll never learn to be careful, and they'll end up carrying without an eiruv.  This concern never stopped anyone from building an eiruv.  It's just געבורטשעט.
Also, let's remember that the Gemara in Kerisus we brought above in Issue 1 says it's muttar to consume a container of fish blood, so long as the mar'is ayin problem is removed, and nowhere does anyone say that one should avoid it for reasons of mussar.

Issue 4.  Issurei achila serve to create a vital psychological and social barrier between us and the gentiles, and without that barrier, our sense of separateness, our unique identity, will be attenuated.
Analysis:
I want to point out that precisely in the Rashi that says how important it is to be culturally separated from the Gentiles, Rashi brings the Toras Kohanim about liking Chazir and only not eating it because of Hashem's commandment.

ואבדל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי  אם אתם מובדלים מהם הרי אתם שלי, ואם לאו הרי אתם של נבוכדנצר וחבריו. 

It appears that the הבדלה is that we keep Hashem's mitzvos.  There is no spirit of the law other than being faithful to Hashem's commandments.  Kosher is kosher, and the only barrier that matters is keeping the Mitzvos.

Conclusion:
There does not seem to be any problem at all eating things that look and taste like they are assur, so long as what's going on is clear and there is no mar'is ayin issue.  The Gemara in Kerisus says there's no problem serving a container of fish blood; Rav Nachman gave Yalta udder meat to satisfy her desire to taste basar b'chalav.

Application:
What we need now is a practical and profitable application of this concept.  We need a restaurant that is dedicated to providing the Treif experience to Orthodox Jews.  Imagine a menu that offers pepperoni pizza, pork chops, cheeseburgers, shrimp or lobster salad, clam soup, bouillabaisse with all different kinds of mieseh shrotzim, bagels and white bread on Pesach... the list of chazerai is endless.

• We could add the half-raw Tartimar Tartare Burger, served with Italian wine- a nice citrusy Trebbiano Toscano.  This would be large enough to satisfy the weight requirement of the half-raw meat (a tartimar) that makes a person a Ben Sorer U'Moreh.  The din of Ben Soreir u"Moreh, of course, only applies if the person who eats it is thirteen years old, and he bought the meat with money he stole from his father.  For everyone else, being a zolel v'sovei is not a problem.  And the truth is that a Tarteimar of meat is really not that much- not more than nine or ten ounces of meat as served.

• If members of the wait staff are married women, we would have them wear Sheitlach that are indistinguishable from natural hair.

• During sefira, glatt kosher a cappella sefirah music will be played.

A good business plan needs a name.  What shall we call this restaurant?  (Dr. Nachum calls it a bistro.  Maybe he's right- It's more of a tapas thing than a formal sit down.)

Here are some thoughts.

1.  Naval, subtitled Birshus HaTorah.  If we go with Naval, the accent should be on the Val, to make it sound French.  Nah-Val'.  Maybe NaValle, in cursive script.
2.  HaKol Be'Ha'arama Nishma.
3.  Kosher Triple Treif.
4.  Mar'is Ayin.
5.  Abizraihu (אביזרייהו).
6.  Reshock.  (That's Kosher, backwards.)
7.  My favorite-  FLAG Kosher.  FLAG stands for Fress Like A Goy.

Based on his introduction to our parsha, I guess the Ramban would not eat at our restaurant.  You have to be realistic about your demographic.  But even the Ramban would agree that it's kosher.  He might even give the hashgacha.

UPDATE:
Someone told me that I'm thinking too small.  An idea like this shouldn't be limited to a restaurant- it should be a line of food that specializes in imitation maachalos assuros, festooned with hechsheirim.  (To add to the kashrus standard, it will not have a sell-by date, and it will have a little trans-fat, because what do the doctors know.)  FLAG Kosher- Coming soon to your local grocery store!

 But we can still have a restaurant.  We will call the restaurant The FLAGship.

This is a real opportunity.  As H. L. Mencken (not related to Rabbi Yaakov) is quoted as having said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."


Because there might be someone out there there are definitely people out there that doesn't don't do well with sarcasm, I need to point out that this is not a serious suggestion.  It is a mixture of sophistry and irony, a culinary innovation in the spirit of Swift's Modest Proposal.  Despite the manner of presentation, the question of where to draw the line is truly serious and complicated, and there is no definitive right or wrong, just as קדושים תהיו has no bright line definition.  It is a question that every individual has to answer for himself and his family.

There are a few more points that ought to be added.

Nobody wants to eat imitation poisonous or rotten or malodorous food.   The fear and revulsion caused by the real thing results in a similar revulsion at an imitation.  Many people feel that treif food is repugnant.  After all, Chazal say that מאכלות אסורות cause טמטום הלב, and if they cause טמטום הלב, if eating them is so injurious to the soul, then one ought to be repelled by even looking at them or anything that looks like them.   However, as we have discussed long ago, טמטום הלב is not at all simple.  Although many say that it comes from the nature of the treif food, many others (Reb Moshe and the Briskers) say that it is a result of the issur, not the nature of the food.  If it's muttar, it's not מטמטם את הלב.  If it's just the issur and not the nature of the food, food that looks like treifus should not be repulsive.

Furthermore, one might say that the Toras Kohanim brought in Rashi above teaches a tremendous lesson: when the Torah prohibits a food, it is not that the food is horrible.  The food is fine, but we won't eat it because we listen to the Ribono shel Olam, we are disciplined, not superstitious.  So now, here's an experiment.  Two people are faced with some tremendous yeitzer hara, and the yeitzer hara is very attractive and seductive, refined, intelligent, and perfumed- think about what Yosef HaTzadik faced.  Both people are kadosh and tahor.  One person's life-long scrupulous avoidance of issurei achila reflects a visceral disgust of issurim.  The other person was equally scrupulous, but he always felt that issurim are attractive and enjoyable, but he avoided them because the Ribono shel Olam told him to stay away from them.  Now they are both faced with a dvar issur that is a supreme physical and mental pleasure.  Which one of them is more likely to overcome his yeitzer hara?

But you have to wonder.  I think that the only attraction of these ersatz issurim is the thrill of the illicit.  If a person is happy and proud to be a member of the Mamleches Kohanim, why would he have even be interested in tasting things that are assur?  If you're happy in your marriage, why are you even thinking about other women?  What is the thrill in experiencing what Gentiles experience?  Are there not enough kosher foods that we can eat that we need to duplicate things that are assur because of the thrill?  Is this another case of והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה?  Wanting to eat these things may not be a problem, but it may be a symptom of a problem.

There is something to be said for לא שינו את שמם/לשונם/מלבושם, even regarding things that are muttar, simply because of the cultural barrier.   Rabbi Yissochor Frand came across a most remarkable validation of this concept, as follows:

The following is excerpted from a column by the rabbi of a Reform congregation in Miami, Florida:
"We think that intermarriage leads to assimilation, but it is the other way around. We marry people like ourselves. The average middle-class Jew is as different from the average middle class Gentile as your average Hutu is different from your average Tutsi. I know Rabbis aren't supposed to say things like this. We are supposed to fight assimilation tooth and nail. But to be honest I am about as assimilated as you can get. Put me in a lineup of the average middle class goy [sic] and the only way you could tell us apart is to play a Jackie Mason tape and see who laughs. The truth is our kids don't intermarry. They marry people just like themselves. People who eat stone crabs marry people who eat stone crabs."
The rabbi has it exactly right. People are not intermarrying. They are marrying people exactly like themselves. The reason why a strictly religious person would not contemplate marrying a non-Jew (or vice-versa) is because they are so different. Those who follow the Rabbis' safeguards live in an environment nearly as different from that of the average middle class American non-Jew, as either of those environments are different from that of the average Tutsi. The cross-cultural divide is too great. The groups are too different from each other, so they do not intermarry. It would be like marrying someone from a different planet. But if someone eats like them and talks like them and dresses like them, then it is not intermarriage at all. It is marrying within one's own kind.

As the Ramban says, there is a spectrum from Halacha to Mussar, but it is a mistake to think that Mussar is less important than halacha.  Sometimes, an act can have a  small onesh but can cause terrible spiritual damage.  And finally, even if you have a great deal of knowledge of Torah, there's no substitute for seichel hayashar.

Pesach 5773. A Compendium of Exclusive Divrei Torah

What Merits Brought About Our Redemption from Mitzrayim
They worshiped idols; they didn't do mitzvos.  Who cares that they kept their Hebrew language and names?

The Reason We Dip Twice At the Seder (2013)

The answer to the un-answered question.


The Rambam's Four Tibulim
The Rambam says you dip four times at the Seder. How does he read the Mah Nishtana?

Shipping Chametz before pesach
Potential liability and benefit from Chametz on Pesach.

Juvenal Behavior and Circuses
Two unknown holidays- Defrosting the Chametz and Sour Grapes.

Focusing on the Children at the Seder
Remembering who is supposed to be the star of the seder.

Maror and Redemption
The Beis Halevi and the Malbim on the Maror in the Geula.

Learning Torah instead of bringing a korban pesach
The Chasam Sofer's pshat in the dialogue between Moshe Rabbeinu and the people that asked for a Pesach Sheini and the problems with his pshat.

Loving the Jews you can’t stand
Preparing for the Geula Ha'asida on the second days of Pesach

Bris Milah and Yetzias Mitzrayim
Areilus interferes with bringing a Korban Pesach, and it also interferes with initiating the chain of events that led to the first Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim.

The Right Way to Sing Chad Gadya
Jews from the four corners of the world sing about the little goat.

The Kittel  and the Seder 
A kittle is a symbolic garment.  What it symbolizes is harder to pin down.

The idea of pesach sheini

Why We Were Redeemed From Egypt

The medrash says (Vayikra Rabba 32) that we were redeemed from Egypt in the merit of not having changed our names and our language; because we did not say lashon hara, and because we did not engage in licentious behavior.

רב הונא אמר בשם בר קפרא בשביל ד' דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים שלא שנו את שמם ואת לשונם ולא אמרו לשון הרע ולא נמצא ביניהן אחד מהן פרוץ בערוה לא שנו את שמן ראובן ושמעון נחתין ראובן ושמעון סלקין לא היו קורין ליהודה רופא ולא לראובן לוליאני ולא ליוסף לסטיס ולא לבנימין אלכסנדרי לא שנו את לשונם להלן כתיב (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט ויגד לאברם העברי וכאן (שמות ג) ויאמרו אלהי העברים נקרא עלינו וכתיב (בראשית מה) כי פי המדבר אליכם בלשון הקודש ולא אמרו לשון הרע שנאמר (שמות יא) דבר נא באזני העם אתה מוצא שהיה הדבר מופקד אצלן כל י"ב חדש ולא הלשין אחד על חבירו ולא נמצא אחד מהם פרוץ בערוה תדע לך שהיה כן אחת היתה ופרסמה הכתוב שנא' (ויקרא כד) ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן, שלומית, דאמר ר' לוי דהות פטטא בשלמא שלם לך שלם לכון בת דברי אמר ר' יצחק שהביאה דבר על בנה למטה דן גנאי לאמו גנאי לו גנאי למשפחתו גנאי לשבטו שיצא ממנו.

On the other hand, Chazal say that we had fallen to the forty ninth level of tumah, of spiritual decay.  I wonder, what is the value of having Jewish names and talking in Hebrew if you worship idols?  I understand the value of kind speech, and family purity.  But how important, and of what spiritual or ethical weight, is ethnic purity?  Does acting like a "Hebrew" have any value at all?  Was the value simply that we had retained a bond to Avraham Avinu?  Is there some greater value in Jewish Identity that is entirely unrelated to spiritual standards?

1.  The famous statement of Chazal that "Klal Yisrael was redeemed in the merit of not having adopted non-Jewish clothing" does not exist.  The only similar statement is the one quoted above, which appears in several places.  The one similar source is likely a copyist's error.

(מדרש רבה שיר השירים (מדרש חזית

 גן נעול אחותי כלה: רבי הונא בשם בר קפרא אמר בזכות ארבעה דברים נגאלו ישראל ממצרים:
שלא שינו את שמם,
ולא שינו את לשונם,
ולא אמרו לשון הרע,
ולא נמצא בהן אחד פרוץ בערוה.

מכילתא בא פ"ה, 

שלא נחשדו על העריות, ולא ספרו לשון הרע, ולא שנו את שמם, ולא שנו את לשונם

 פסיקתא דרב כהנא פרשת בשלח :

בזכות ארבעה דברים, נגאלו ישראל ממצרים, 
שלא שינו את שמם,
ושלא שינו לשונם, 
ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, 
ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בעריות,
שלא שינו את שמם, ראובן ושמעון סלקין, ראובן ושמעון נחתין, שלא שלא שינו לשונם, כי פי המדבר אליכם(בראשית מ״ה י״ב), ובלשון הקודש היה מדבר, ושלא היה בהן לשון הרע, דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו וגו׳ (שמות י״א בי) את מוצא זה הדבר היה מופקד אצלן כל שנים עשר חודש, ולא נמצא אחד מהם שהלשין על חברו, ושלא היה בהן פרוץ בערוה, תדע לך שהוא כן אחת היתה ופירסמה הכתוב ושם אמו שלומית בת דברי למטה דן.

On the other hand, it does appear here, but it 's probably a copyist's mistake.

(Medrash Lekach Tov)  פסיקתא זוטרתא (לקח טוב) שמות פרק ו' אות ו' :

לכן אמור לבני ישראל. זו שבועה, שנא' ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי (ש"א ג יד): אמור לבני ישראל אני ה'. שאמרתי לאברהם אביכם אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים (בראשית טו ז): והוצאתי אתכם, והצלתי אתכם, וגאלתי אתכם, ולקחתי אתכם,כנגד ד' זכיות שבידם, 
שלא שינו את לשונם,
ולא חילפו את שמלותם,
ולא גילו את סודם, דכתי' ושאלה אשה משכנתה ,
ולא בטלו ברית מילה.

It also appears there in Shemos 12:6, but there it is consistent with all the other Medrashim and says nothing about clothing.  

ארבע מצות היו להם לישראל
, לא נחשדו על העריות
,לא שינו את שמותם, 
לא שינו אה לשונם
 לא גילו אה סודם

So the Lekach Tov quoted above is most likely not reliable.  Anyway, if they didn't wear Egyptian clothing, what was the point of  ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת?  They couldn't wear the stuff anyway!  Unless you want to answer that they didn't borrow the clothing to wear; they gave it to their kids to wear, which explains ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם.

Having said that, I want to emphasize that this does not prove there is no validity or significance to the alleged Chazal.  It has become a part of our oral tradition, like הלכה בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב, which also is not exactly what it says there, or כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה.  For example, the Chasam Sofer is quoted as saying on the passuk ויבא יעקב שלם that it is the the Roshei Teivos of  שמם לשונם מלבושם, שלא שינו את שמם ואת לשונם  ואת מלבושם.  Also, the Chasam Sofer brings that language in his drashos here (Drashos II page 516.)

2.  Reb Moshe in his Igros, OC 4:66 says the following, in which it is clear that he is thinking about our question.

זה ששיבחו חז"ל ויק"ר ל"ב בגלות מצרים שלא שינו את שמותן הוא לקודם מתן תורה שלא היה היכר גדול בשביל קיום המצות דבני נח ובפרט שחלק גדול מישראל עבדו ג"כ ע"ז ורובן לא מלו את בניהם עד סמוך להגאולה כשהיו צריכין לאכול הפסח שמל אותן יהושע ומשמע שהיה רוב גדול לבד שבט לוי שהם מלו את בניהם כדכתיב ובריתך ינצורו בברכת משה ואף שפרש"י על אלו שנולדו במדבר היה זה גם במצרים כמפורש במדרשות, 

שלכן בשביל האמונה שיגאלו ורצו שיהיו ניכרין שהם ישראל הנהיגו להקפיד שלא ישנו את שמם ולא ישנו את לשונם ומטעם זה שייך זה להגאולה משום שבשביל אמונת הגאולה הקפידו על זה

 אבל אחר מתן תורה אין לנו חיוב מדינא וגם לא מעניני זהירות ומוסר אלא מה שנצטוינו התרי"ג מצות לדורות והמצות שנצטוו לשעה וכפי שנאמרו בתורה שבעל פה ולכן לא הקפידו ע"ז רבותינו דהא אף עניני זהירות ומוסר ומעלה נמי נאמרו מסיני עיין בריש פרקי אבות ברע"ב ולא היה זה בקבלה שכן איכא מעלה גם אלאחר מתן תורה אלא שבזכות זה נגאלו אבותינו שאפשר לפרש שהיה מעלה ודבר טוב רק אצלם כדלעיל ולא אחר מתן תורה. ואף שמסתבר כן מסתפינא לומר זה בלא ראיות גדולות

He says that the merit of keeping our language and clothing was not the mere fact of retaining those things.  It is because their doing so demonstrated that they remembered Hashem's promise that He would redeem them, and they wanted to remain Jews, so that Hashem should take them out and bring them near to Him as His nation.  They kept their way of dress and speech in order to remain a separate nation, the nation that Hashem promised to redeem.

3.  And from the Sefer Ma'or Va'Shemesh (Rimzei Pesach, bottom of first column):

I apologize for the terrible OCR that resulted from the old print.  If you have a clean copy, please send it to me.  I fixed what was necessary to get a rudimentary understanding.  

 ויראה בזה על מאמר חז״ל בזכות ג׳ דברים נגאלו

  ממצרים שלא שינו את שמם ילא שינו את לשונם ונו׳ ויש

  להתבונן מה שלא שינו את שמם ומה מעלתו גם אמרו שלא

 שינו את לשונם איך היה באפשר לדבר לשון הקודש תמיד הלא

 בין עם לשון אסרת התגוררו אשר לא הבינו לשון הקודש והיו

 מוכרחים לדבר עמהס בלשונם גם מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון גם

 אמרי חז״ל שהרשעים אינם יודעים את שמם טןכר וזה עעמא

 בעי מדוע אינם יודעים שמם ולבאר כל זה נראה ע״פ מימר

 מזיל עד  שאתה מתפלל שיכנסו בן ׳דנד תודה התפלל שלא

 יכנסו בן מאכלות אסורות והענין הוא כי הנס כל מיני ד נוד׳

 « ל עיני לשונות כילם הם על ידי צירופי הכיב אוסיוס

 המורה הקשודם נס׳ מוצאות הסה שאי אפשר לדבר פוס דיבור

 מולא דק על יד• אוסן הכ«« אוסיום וכקודוסיהן שהם הם

 אושיוס סורסינו הקדושס ולכן כשהאדם שוער פיו ילשינו

 מיינו •mid• מלמו שלא •כגנס גר׳ס הלשון נמאכלוס אשמיו׳

 יגס שלא ׳דגר שקרים ולה״ר ולצנום ודומיהן אז פיו ולשונו

 סם בקדושה ואינם .סחסהסיא שאין אייזס החילונים כהי

 «ולאוס פיו ואז אן אם ידבר מ אד לשונוס תודו סם ככלל

Basically: he says it is difficult to understand why retaining their ancestral language was a reason for their redemption.  מהו גריעות שינוי הלשון?  What's so bad about changing your language?  He answers, I think, that by "lashon" Chazal didn't mean lexicon.  They meant the kedusha of the way they expressed themselves.  When someone says that a person dresses like a sheigitz, or talks like a sheigitz, I think it doesn't necessarily mean that he wears jeans and talks in English.  It means that he wears clothing, and uses language, that we associate with a cultural milieu that is inconsistent with Yiddishkeit.  When the Kohen Gadol is told not to be meisi'ach da'as, when we are told not to be mei'si'ach da'as from Tefillin, it means to not do something that is inconsistent with the Kedusha of Tefillin.

4.  We can't not quote the Maharam Shick.  A vociferous enemy of the Haskala and the Reform, he took every opportunity to attack what he saw as breaches in our Mesora.  This is from his Teshuvos, YD 169.  The idea is that he holds that having a non-Jewish name is an issur De'Oraysa that might fall into the category of Yeihareig ve'al ya'avor.

אם אמנם שאין אני יודע לכנות אותו מ״מ ראיתי שראו• להשיב על הדבר אשר שאל שיש בני אדם שמכנים עצמם בשם הגוים וממלחו די הוכיח אוחם דהרי אמרו במדרש שבזכוה זה שלא שינו אמ שמם זכינו לצאמ ממצרים והם משיבים שלזה די כמה שיש להם שם יהודי לקרותם בו לעלות לחורה וזה רבר הבל וטפשות כי בוודאי יש בזה איסור דאוריימ׳ כמ״ש הרמב״ם כפ׳ י״א מהלכו׳ מ״ז דמקרא מלא נאמר בסוף פ׳ קדושים ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיוה לי ומשם ילפינן בספרי דאין רשאין לדמות להם בשום אופן וכל שהוא מושה לדמות להם מובר מל מה שנאמר בתור׳ דאסור לנו לדמות להם וכשם שאסור לנו להדמות להם במלטשם ובהילוכם ובשאר מנהגיהם ה״ה וכ״ש דאסור לדמום להם בשמם ומלינו למשוה כמו

 שמשו אכומינו שנאמר כהם ויהי שם לגו• גדול ודרשו חכז״ל מלמד שהיו ישראל מצויינים שם : וביותר ביאור אמרחי הכוונה דהנ׳ כהיוחי רכ דק״ק ימרגין סמוך לפרפשכורג ופמם נזדמן לי כשמסרמי המאפריקמל להשר המיופד לזה החרפם לפני ואמר כי לא נאה מה שיהודים קורץ מצמם כשם הגרם ושאר כל האומומ מחשיטן השמוה הכאים להם מראש

 האומה דהיינו אונגאד׳ פראנצמזיא וכדומה כולם מחשיכין הלשון והשמוה שלהם ואינם משנים כשום אופן כי מחזיקי׳ זאה להם לככת׳ ולמפארמ והיהודים אשר הם מקדמור האומומ קיומי הסולם המה כושים מצמם להקרא כשם המצם ומשנים שמם לשם האומו׳ וזה להם גנאי גדול ולא הי׳ כפי ממנה להשיכ לו אכל דחימי אומו כדכדם שהגלומ גורם זאמ •

אבל כאמה גם כזה נהקיים כנו הקרא כי דור מהפוכומ המם כדם לא אמון כס שאכומינו וכל הדורוה אשר לפניהם הי׳

 סליהם מול הגלומ כמקפו ומ״מ לא שינו אח שמם ולא הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לכיוש ולכזיון ואדרכה הי׳ להם שם הישראלי לככוד ולתפארת וכמו שאמרו חכז״ל פל הקרא איש יהוד הי׳ כשושן שהי׳ מוכמר כנימוסין שפשה לסצמו כתר שהוא יהודי ורףמו כחקוהיהם לא מלט ואכויל אמכם מן הסמים ומכשו שהוקל כוכד הגלומ ואין הישראלי׳ מכוזים טן האומו׳ הם משנים שמם ולשונם כדי לומוח מצמם לאוה״ע ויש להמליץ זה כקרא כי דור מהפוכוה המה וז״ש כנים לא אימק כס היינו שאיני רוצי׳ כשם המגדלי׳ אותם ומהמימ׳ שהרי אמרו כיומי  ל״ח ס״כ דאסור לקרוי כשם איש שהוא רשפ דרשעי׳ לא מסקיק כשמייהו שנאמ׳ שם רשפי׳ ירקכ פיי״ש ואומן אנשי׳ קודאין פצמם כשם הגוים והרי כזה הם מראים שהם מחשיכים יאה הגרם יומר מהישראלית והד מפולס הי׳ הדרך לקרוא שם כניהם וכנוהיהם סל שם אכוחיסם או סל שם צדיקים קדושים וגאונים גדולים שהם היו החשוס והחדשים מכזים אכוחיהם וגמליהם וקדושיהם ומחשיבץ ומשכחץ ומסאדן שם הגרם לקרוא שם צאצאיהם סל שמם והרי זה כזיון גדול לאכוחיהם כל אחד מישראל שהטא טטרים הי׳ קורא בקול גדול וירד מצרים שם ויהי שם לגוי גדול וגדול הוא לשון חשיכומ והיינו דדרשו בסשרי שטו מצויילם שם דהיינו מלשון שם והיינו שטעו מצויינים ג״כ כשם אפפ״י שפכדו פמנו פטדה פרך אסי״ם לא נתנו לקרות לסצמם כשם הגוים ושם היהודי לא הי׳ לסם לכת ולקלק תהו שפמוה לאבותינו ולנו כצאמינו ממצדם

5.  To balance out the Maharam Shick, here is what the Maharashdam says in YD 199.  He says it's no big deal.

אלו האנוסים שבאו  מפרטוגל והיו להם שמית כשמות

הגוים ואחר שבאו לבקש את ה׳ ואת תורתו משנים שמם

 לשמות בני ישראל ויש להם צורך לנתונ ממקוס אשר הס ׳ושניס ניהחחס אצ

 ממקום אשר סיה להם שמות נשמות הגו״ אס לקרוניהס וחס למי שנושא ועת!

 ממונם אס יסלים לנתונ ולשנות שמס נשמות אשר סיו להם נגיותס או אס

 יש חשש איסור נדנר מפני שנראה מקיים היותו עדןגוי ונלת׳ מורה נתורת ה׳

 תשובה אמת נ׳ מדת חסידות לא קאמינ׳ דודא׳ מדת חסידות הוא

 להרסיק סאוס עצמו ננל מינ׳ הרחקת שאיפשר ונפרט למי שענרו

 על רא8ו סמיס הזדוני׳ אנן מן הדין נד נעינ׳ דנד נרו׳ שאין נזה סשש איסור

ל ואע״נ דלנאורה היה גר׳ להניא קלת ראיה לאסור ממה שנתנ הטור

 ׳״ר סי׳ קצ״ז וז״ל אסור לארס לומר שהוא צוי נרי שלא יהרנוהו רניון שאומר

 שהוא נוי הרי מורה לרתס ונופר נעיקר ע״נ ויאמר האומר רסכא נמי כיון

 שקור׳ עצמו נשם צוי הוה ליה נאומי שהוא גוי ואסור ואפי׳ את״ל ישאג־

 החס מ״מ נס יש נגוון ההוא יתר שאת שהוא להציל עצמו מן המות ואפיה

 אסור הנא ולא הוי אלא לצורך ממון או ר׳א היה ראוי לאסור אלא שנר׳ נלי

 ספק שאסר עיון נל דהו ימצא סארס שהרק הוא שהוא מותר

6.  To Eli and gu- I think you're both right, and I'm not done yet.  And Eli- thanks for the MM to the Igros.  I hadn't looked at the comments before starting out this afternoon.  

7.  I can't enunciate it well, but to me, there's something here that illustrates the importance of things that define us as Jews, even outside Torah and Mitzvos.  Maybe it's the "organic whole" idea.

The Rambam and the Four Tibulim

Mishna Pesachim 116a:

מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו מטבילין פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים

Every other night we dip once.  On this night, we dip twice.

Gemara there:

מתקיף לה רבא אטו כל יומא לא סגיא דלא מטבלא חדא זימנא אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני שבכל הלילות אין אנו חייבין לטבל אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים מתקיף לה רב ספרא חיובא לדרדקי אלא אמר רב ספרא הכי קתני אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים

Rava asks, is it so certain that we do dip once at other meals?  Rather, this is what it should say: on all nights, we are not obligated to dip even once, and on this night, twice.  Rav Safra asks, "Obligated?  This is not really an obligation, it is just so that the children should wonder what is going on and ask questions!"  Rather, says Rav Safra, this is what it should say: we don't even dip once; this night, twice.  (According to Rav Safra, the proper wording is, as we say it, "On all nights we don't dip even once....")

Rashi: 

חיובא לדרדקי. בתמיה הא משום הכירא דתינוקות כדי שישאלו קעבדינן: אלא אמר רב ספרא כו'. מהכא שמעינן דהכי אית לן למימר שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין [אפילו] פעם אחת 

What are the two dippings?  Rashi on the Mishna says

שתי פעמים. טיבול ראשון דשאר ירקות וטיבול שני דמרור

The problem is that the Rambam prescribes not two dippings, but four.

In 8 Ch'uM 2 he says

מתחיל ומברך בורא פרי האדמה ולוקח ירק ומטבל אותו בחרוסת (1) ואוכל 

and there in 8:8 he says 

בזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן אחר שמברך המוציא לחם חוזר ומברך על אכילת מצה. ומטבל מצה בחרוסת (2) ואוכל. וחוזר ומברך על אכילת מרור ומטבל מרור בחרוסת (3) ואוכל. ולא ישהה אותו בחרוסת שמא יבטל טעמו. וזו מצוה מדברי סופרים. וחוזר וכורך מצה ומרור ומטבל בחרוסת (4) ואוכלן בלא ברכה זכר למקדש

That's a total of four.  So how is it that the Rambam brings the Mishna in its original form and says that the question is worded "two times"?

8:2

. ואומר הקורא מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אין אנו מטבילין אפילו פעם אחת והלילה הזה שתי פעמים.

This is not my question.  It was asked by numerous Rishonim and Achronim, as brought in the Tur in OC 475.  This is why many disagree with the Rambam's idea of dipping Matza into Charoses, or anything at all.

But even if you drop the dipping of Matza on its own, there remains another issue:  The Rambam says that the Korech has to be dipped into Charoses as well.  This makes perfect sense, because the Korech contains Maror.  Hillel, when he made his Korech, had to have dipped it into Charoses, so if we're making a Korech in memory of what he did, it makes sense that we do so as well.

But, as the Tur brings from the Avi Ha'Ezri, that leaves us wondering why we do three tibulim, when the Mishna says two.

The Pri Chadash (OC 475, DH ומ"ש עוד) says he's not bothered by the additional tibbul of the Korech, because the dipping of the Korech is only as an alternative to the dipping of the Matza and the Maror individually.  We do both, to honor the two opinions, but in theory, they are mutually exclusive.  But he is still bothered by the Rambam's idea that the Matza should be dipped into Charoses, so that's three tibullim- Karpas, Maror, and Matza.

Dr. Nachum Stone, of Maale Adumim, suggested two answers, and I think they're both kedai to hear.

1.  That the tibbul of the Matza is not counted.  They would always dip the bread into something at a meal, so it wouldn't arouse any remark.  It is only the dipping of Karpas and Maror that is unusual, as Rashi said.  I later found that my rebbi and chavrusa, Rabbi Moshe Brown of Far Rockaway, says this in his most recent sefer, Ma'adanei Moshe.

2.  The although the Gemara does not make any determination of whether the halacha is like Hillel or the Rabanan as far as Korech is concerned, the Rambam pretty clearly is favoring Hillel, most likely because he learned that even the Rabanan agree that one would be yotzei the mitzvos of the Korban and the Matza, and certainly the Maror, with a korech.  Hillel only differs in holding that they must be eaten like that.  (This is how the Rashbam and the Ramban learn the Gemara Pesachim 115a)  This is evident in the Rambam in 8:6, where he says 

 ואחר כך כורך מצה ומרור כאחת ומטבל בחרוסת ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על אכילת מצות ומרורים ואוכלן. ואם אכל מצה בפני עצמה ומרור בפני עצמו מברך על זה בפני עצמו ועל זה בפני עצמו:

The fact that the Rambam then turns around and says that nowadays we eat them separately at first and only later combine them into a korech is hard to understand, (and may have to do with the Reb Chaim on Pesachim 120a, page 33 of Reb Chaim Al Hashas and the mitzvos mevatlos issue) but in any case, it is pretty clear he paskens that we used to do like Hillel's korech only.  I later found that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky says this in his Emes L'Yaakov.

If so, then Bizman Habayis there were only two tibullim, the Karpas and the Korech.  The language of the question, that originated in the time of the Beis Hamikdash and reflected what they did then, remains on the books, despite the fact that we do things differently now.  But that's not a problem.  At worst, it will just be another reason to ask a question.  And at best, it's a preparation for Biyas Hamashi'ach.

Today, (Vayakhel-Pekudei 5673), the Chaver Mike Nussbaum proposed another answer.  The phrase "Matbilin shtei p'amim" might refer to the thing we're dipping in.  There are two dips, saltwater and charoses. I have to think about the word "p'amim" though.  If it said יש לנו שתי טיבולים. or מטבילין שתים, I would agree, but to read this into פעמים is difficult.  Furthermore, while the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos says that the first tibbul is in saltwater, in the Yad he says that there is no tibbul in saltwater: that all the tibullim are in Charoses.  So CMN's teretz will not stand.

I recently heard a very nice answer to this question.  The Leket Yosher (page 85), a talmid of the Trumas Hadeshen, says that he saw his rebbi dip two zeisim of maror at once, in the beginning of the meal.  He would then eat one, and save the second one to put into the Korech.

וראיתי שנוטל שני דתים מרור בטיבול ראשון, ויטבול בחרוסת, ונתן לכל בגי הסעודה עוד שני זיתים, ואח־כ עשה הכרכה [על אכילת מרור], ואוכלים זית אחד, והזית שני מניחים עד לכריכה, וכרכו למצה השלישית והוא אכל בהסבה, כן כתב בסדרו

He does not suggest any explanation for what he saw the Trumas Hadeshen do, he just reports what he saw.

But the Mateh Moshe (648), in discussing the problem with the number of tibullim, says that he has a solution: that you should do both zeisim of Maror at once, and use them separately, and so there would be only two tibullim; one of Karpas in saltwater, and one of the two zeisim of maror.  It's interesting that he suggests it as a solution to the tibbul issue, without knowing that by doing so he explained the behavior of the Trumas Hadeshen.

 ואח״כ יבצע מצה שלישית לכריכה וכתב אבי העזרי שאין למובלו בתרומתלשני שיבולים מצינו בזמן הזה דרניצין למיעבר כהלל ג׳ לא מצינו . ור׳ שמעיה כשם רש״י כתב לצריך לסובלו במרושת וכן כתב הרא״ש ז״ל וטובלו בתרופת שכך היה הלל עושה אוכל השמ מצה ומרור וטבל במרושת וז״ל כמ״ג רבעו ימיאצ היה טוכל הכריכה במרושת למאמר דהיה זכר להלל עבדינן כהלל לכרך פשח מצה במרומז ראם לא כן היכן אכל מרושת ליליה . וכן היה נוהג מהר׳׳ש ומהר״י מול״ן-וכן כתב אבן הירמי ומצאתי כתוב לכלי שלא להוסיף על השיכולים יטבול בדיישונה שני זמים וינימ אמת לכריכה: 

Please see the comments:
I don't have time to write any more today, but it's very kedai to see the ideas brought there, such as that the word Tibbul does not necessarily mean dip; many rishonim say it means 'beginning a meal.'  As such, the question is not why do we dip once, or twice, or three times.  The question is why do we dip the karpas before we're ready to really begin the meal:  why do we act as if we're beginning a meal when we don't actually eat anything at that point.

Shtei Pe'amim. Dipping Twice at the Seder; the Two Tibbulim.

I printed this in 2007, and I am posting it again, with some updates.

Among the many minhagim at the seder are the two tibbulim. One is karpas in saltwater, the other is maror in charoses. These dippings are sufficiently unusual that they elicit one of the four questions in the Mah Nishtanah. Why indeed do we do these two tibbulim? See Psochim 114b and Rashi there that we do this “k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos.” This is one of the times the Gemora uses this unusual answer, which basically means that there is no intrinsic reason at all to do it, other than arousing the curiosity of children by engaging in unusual behavior. 

Now that we have grown up, it is time to realize that the gemora’s answer cannot possibly be meant literally. The gemara's reason may explain some aspect of the tibbulim, but certainly is not the fundamental reason for the tibbulim.

(Based on >something I heard in the name of< the Chiddah.) Two events of tibbul are central to the story of our golus and pidyon from Mitzrayim– the tibbul of Yosef’s Kesones Hapasim in blood, and the tibbul of the Agudas Eizov in blood as part of the first Korbon Pesach ceremony in Mitzrayim. We see, then, that the Golus Mitzrayim was bracketed by two tibbulim. The tevilla of Yosef’s kesones culminated the episode of the brother’s hatred of Yosef, which ultimately brought all the Bnei Yisroel to Mitzrayim. That tevilla marked the onset of the avdus. The second tevilla, whose purpose was to mark the houses of the Jews by applying the blood of the korbon to the frame of the door, was the event that gave the holiday its name– Pesach, ki posach Hashem- for Hashem passed over our houses- and this set into motion the actual redemption from Mitzrayim. One was a tevilla that brought avdus, one that brought cheirus. 

As always, one might say that this is a clever observation that may or may not be significant. Coincidences do happen, and they don’t necessarily prove anything. But there is another step.

The first tibbul is karpas. Rashi in Vayeisheiv, Breishis 37:3 says that Kesones Pasim means a coat made of wool, and he brings a similar use of the word Pasim from the Megillah, “Karpas ut’cheiles.” So, what do you know. The word pasim is a form of pas, or karpas. It now becomes absolutely clear that when Chazal instituted the two tibbulim, they had these two events in mind, the tibbul at the onset of the golus, and the tibbul at the onset of the geulah.


Two questions still remain. 

I. !אין להכחיש את המוחש  Why are Chazal always saying that the tibul of the karpas is k’dei she’yishalu hatinokos, when it is obvious that there is a better reason.  What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it? 
It is true that the Gemara says a similar thing in Chagiga as to why we bring children to the Hakhel event, Litein Schar L'meivi'eihen. It doesn't mean it what it says there either.

II. Is there any special connection between the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach and the tibbul of moror in charoses.

After posting this, several people brought up worthy additions.
1. Joshe M., of http://haprozdor.blogspot.com/, wrote in a comment that the second tibbul does reflect the tibbul of the agudas eizov in the dahm pesach, since it is a green vegetable dipped into a red substance.
2. Josh M. also suggested that the Hagadah is not a time to focus on negative traits of the Bnei Yisroel, so any allusion to the sinas achim against Yosef was cloaked in symbols. (The only taineh I had on this was that according to Rav In Psachim 116b that Poschim bi'gnai refers to Terach's avoda Zara, then we're not hiding chesronos in our background.  But perhaps sinas chinam among the Shivtei Kah is a lot worse than Terach's avoda zara.)
3. Another reader pointed out, very cleverly, I think, that both tibbulim represent change: negation, or, at least, mitigation. The first, Karpas in saltwater, is a sweet, flavorful food dipped into a salty substance, which can be said to counter or mitigate the sweetness of the karpas. 
So, too, the episode of the kesones marked the change from an undisturbed, pastoral life, by the hatred that led to the sale of Yosef and the galus Mitzrayim.
The second tibbul, the Moror in Charoses, mitigates the bitterness of the moror, and marks the end of Shibud Mitzrayim by way of the Korbon Pesach.

Yasher Koachachem for your he'oros.

Update 2011:
As for the question of why Chazal didn't tell us the real reason for the tibulim:
See Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz's Sichos Mussar #66, on Parshas Achrei Mos.  Aharon was warned not to enter the Kodesh Kadashim "b'chol eis."  Reb Chaim brings from the Chosid Yaaveitz that habit is the enemy of enthusiasm.  Aharon was warned to avoid going into the Kodesh Kadashim so that he shouldn't lose his sensitivity and awe for the kedusha that was present there.  He later connects this with the din of Sippur, that it has to be by question and answer.  He says that it is only through question and answer that one is stimulated to come up with novel and creative perspectives, and this new apprehension will help us to re-experience Yetzias Mitzrayim.  When one is asked a question, he naturally seeks to find his own novel answer.

See the Shaar HaTziyun 472 end of #2.  What he says is that the Mah Nishtana, and all the seder, are not nearly as important as the sense of awe and surprise our seder meal inspires in children, so that they are filled with wonder and ask questions.  Mah Nishtana is a pale and attenuated version of what really should be happening at the seder. 

That being the case, Chazal are telling us that while there are good reasons for the various minhagim of the seder, particularly the two dippings, the questions they elicit are more important than the reasons.  A seder where people are shaken out of their old assumptions, a seder that wakes people up to learn new things, is far more important than a seder where everyone merely repeats what everyone already knows.

Make the seder your own!  Every family needs to have its own hagadah!  Every person needs to remember "This is what we said here, this is what we sang, this is where he did this or that, this is how we made the Ke'arah."  Don't somnambulate through the Maxwell House.  Write your own hagadah.  Just don't put an orange on the Ke'arah.

Update 2013:
Rav Shimon Kalman G. told me several things.
1. The third question in the Mah Nishtanah is "why do we dip two times."  The Pri Chadash in 473 (here, twelve lines from the top,) says that the first tibbul is without any reason other than to stimulate discussion, kdei she'yish'alu, and since that's the case, we never actually answer the child's question about shtei p'amim!  Isn't that strange?  The nusach is that the child should ask, and the Gemara says that we do the tibbulim so the child should ask, and the Pri Chadash says that we have no answer to his question!
2.  The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, middle of first paragraph) says the same thing. 

לשאלה זו לא מצינו בדברי חז״ל רק לעשות היכר לתינוקות, [כפסחים קט״ז.] והכוונה לאותן שלמדו כל השנה בתורה וידעו ענין פסח ומצה ולא ישאלו כלום עושי׳ להם שינוי וזה [זה] שלא מצאו בתורה כדי שישאלו ועי״ז נבוא לסבב לספר להם י״מ

 אע״פ שכבר ידעו׳

As far as answering this question, we do not find in the words of Chazal anything other than "in order to do something unusual for the little children."  The reason we are tovel twice is davka because there are kids who know a lot about the whole story, because they learn Chumash, so if we only did things that reflected the story they know, they wouldn't have anything to ask.  So we davka do something that has no shaychus to the story of yetzias mitzrayim, so they'll have what to ask- and we have no answer, but it will stimulate talk and questions and dialogue.
3.  The Chasam Sofer in his Drashos (here, DH Yachol) says

דהתורה הקפידה שלא לומר לתינוק דבר עד  שישאל. לכן כתי׳ כי ישאלך בנך למעוטי שלא יאמר לו עד שישאל דע״י דמתמיה לי׳ מילתא מדכיר דכיר

That the Torah insists that you not tell the child anything until he asks "What's going on?" because only when he is surprised and curious will your answer make a strong and memorable impression.  If, however, after all that you've done he still doesn't ask, then, as a last resort, at the seder, you should tell him what he needs to know.
Rav Shimon Kalman uses this Chasam Sofer to remind us that the minhag of our schools to arm children with volumes of questions and answers and visual aids and three dimensional pop ups is contrary to the Chasam Sofer's vision of the purpose of the mitzva of Sippur.  The kids should come and be surprised, not like a maggid with prepared speeches.
4.  The Shulchan Aruch Harav (472:15) says that even if a person is making the seder by himself, and there are no children there, he still has to do the tibbulim, because לא חילקו חכמים.  He doesn't say "because there are many hidden reasons, and those reasons still apply."  He just says that although the takana was to do a milsa di'tmi'ah to surprise children, the takana was universal and applies to all cases.  Again, you see the presumption that what you see is all there is, particularly surprising coming from the Baal HaTanya.
HAVING SAID THIS, from the Pri Chadash and the Chasam Sofer, we are left, once again, to wonder why the true explanation for the tibbulim was hidden.  Again, we must say that Chazal davka did not want us to have a cut and dry explanation for everything.  They davka wanted to leave some things unanswered, so that every person, every family, would have their own approach to the question, and would be forced to engage in conversation and dialogue and give and take.

great unknown, wrote the following in his comment, which is both informative and well constructed:

As Rav Hutner points out, even the perek which deals with the יציאת מצרים is based on questions: מה לך הים, etc.

And yes, the schools which send kids home with volumes of answers are probably being מבטל the מצות עשה of והגדת actively. Isn't frumkeit great...

Conjecture: while שואלים ודורשים בהלכות החג thirty days earlier, that's only the halachos. The גר"א ברוח קדשו forbids reading even the פרשת קרבן פסח because of the ביטול עשה of ביום הזה. Could that be so that even the adults go into פסח with questions rather than answers? 

I don't have the answer to that. Only the question.