The Pesach Seder of the “First Mishna”

thegemara.com/the-pesach-seder-of-the-first-mishna/

Editors April 21,

2016

Prof. Michael Chernick

Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman’s

Approach to m. Pesahim 10

Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman (1843-1921), a pioneer of critical rabbinics scholarship, argued
that the Mishnah as we now have it preserves an ancient core of pre-70 C.E. traditions –
the “First Mishnah” – which can be uncovered through careful textual analysis. In an
earlier piece, I detailed Hoffman’s method for determining what in our Mishnah’s strata
was the ancient “First Mishnah” nucleus, and what is a later addition. Here I will explore
some of Hoffman’s critical work on m. Pesaḥim 10, concerning the Passover Seder.

A Two-Pronged Method
Since Hoffman believed that the basic characteristics of the “First Mishnah” were
anonymity and a lack of disputation, he would first strip mishnayot of material
containing the name of a sage or a debate. What was left was the “First Mishnah” core –
in Hoffman’s view, a product of Second Temple times collected by the Houses of
Shammai and Hillel. Subsequently, he buttressed his claim with sources from formative
rabbinic literature like the Tosefta or the Talmudim, and from textual evidence in early
Mishnah printings and medieval commentators.

Although Hoffman’s method is out-of-date by today’s standards, we can appreciate the

once groundbreaking nature of his analysis, which developed critical tools still employed
in the academic study of rabbinic literature. In addition, some of Hoffman’s readings
remain thought-provoking to this day.
1/9
The Passover Meal:
m. Pesaḥim 10:3

Hoffman’s central claim was that the original text, or “First Mishnah,” of m. Pesaḥim 10
describes the Passover practices as they were observed when the Jerusalem Temple still
stood. The goal of his analysis was to reconstruct this early stratum of the Mishnah, and
to demonstrate how later Sages living after the Destruction interpolated their views into
this “First Mishnah.”

Below is m. Pesaḥim 10:3 as it appears today. The text highlighted in bold print is what
Hoffman held to be the “First Mishnah.” The italicized material is what he considered to
be additions into that stratum:

‫ה בי או ל פ ניו מ ט ב ל ב ח ז ר ת ע ד‬ They brought [vegetables] 2 before [the leader of the

‫ש מ גי ע ל פ ר פ ר ת ה פ ת‬ Seder]. He would eat lettuce until he reached the
breaking of the bread (for performing the mitzvah of
‫ה בי או ל פ ניו מ צ ה ו ח ז ר ת‬ eating the matzah).3
‫ו ח ר ו ס ת ו ש ני ת ב שי לי ן א ף ע ל פי‬ [Then] they brought before him matzah, [bitter] lettuce,
‫ש אי ן ח ר ו ס ת מ צ ו ה ר בי א לי ע ז ר ב ר‬ and ḥaroset and two cooked dishes, even though ḥaroset is
‫צ דו ק או מ ר מ צו ה‬ not required. R. Eliezer ben Zadok said: It is required.

‫ו ב מ ק ד ש הי ו מ בי אי ם ל פ ני ו ג ו פ ו‬ And in the Temple they would bring before him the body
:‫ש ל פ ס ח‬ of the Passover offering.

“Two Cooked Dishes” – An Addition to m. Pesaḥim 10:3

Hoffman claimed that m. Pesaḥim 10:3’s reference to two cooked dishes is an addition to
the “First Mishnah.” He substantiated this by noting that

1. The words “two cooked foods” are missing from the Yerushalmi’s version of the
Mishnah;
2. This phrase also does not appear in a host of medieval Talmud commentators’
Mishnah text;
3. These words do not even show up in early printed editions of the Mishnah.

This indicates that the “First Mishnah” as it was formulated in Temple times dealt only
with matzah, bitter herbs, ḥaroset, and the paschal offering, and did not include any
reference to two cooked dishes.

The Source of “Two Cooked Dishes”

Hoffman pointed out that the phrase “two cooked dishes” does, however, appear in a
baraita preserved in the Yerushalmi:

2/9
 ‫ג )לז‬:‫ירושלמי פסחים י‬ y. Pesaḥim 10:3 (37d)
(‫ע”ד‬
It was taught: And outside of Jerusalem people need two cooked
‫ ו ב ג ב ו לי ן צ רי כי ן ש ני‬: ‫ת ני‬ dishes, one as a remembrance of the Passover, and one as a
‫ת ב שי לי ן א ח ד ז כ ר ל פ ס ח‬ remembrance of the festival offering.
. ‫ו א ח ד ז כ ר ל ח גי ג ה‬

This baraita explains that those who could not bring their Passovers sacrifices to
Jerusalem were required to eat two cooked dishes at their Sedarim in order to recollect
the Jerusalem practices being observed that night. What started out as a means of
remembering Temple practices for those forced to spend the holiday outside of
Jerusalem, later became the norm for everyone once the Temple was destroyed.

Question of Historicity
While Hoffman’s dissection of m. Pesaḥim 10:3 into the “First Mishnah” and later
additions to it is plausible, a broader, more fundamental question needs to be asked: Is
m. Pesaḥim 10:3 a true description of a Second Temple observance and therefore a
contributor to a reconstruction of the history of the pre-Destruction era; or is the
Mishnah’s reference to the Passover meal in Temple times, a later rabbinic invention that
gives their Passover practices authority but produces no historical information about
actual Second Temple times. Currently, most scholars view the Seder as a post-
Destruction rabbinic reworking of the Greco-Roman symposium rather than a Second
Temple observance.

Three Questions of the Mah Nishtanah:

m. Pesaḥim 10:4

A common name for the ‫ – מה נתשנה‬the questions that spark the discussion at the Seder
(like the questions posed at the Greek symposium) – is “The Four Questions.” Hoffman’s
analysis of m. Pesaḥim 10:4 demonstrates that in fact, there are only three questions:

3/9
 ‫ד‬:‫משנה פסחים י‬ m. Pesaḥim 10:4

‫מ ז ג ו ל ו כ ו ס ש ני ו כ א ן ה ב ן‬ They mix a second cup (of wine) for him ( i.e., the leader of the
‫ש ו א ל א בי ו ו א ם אי ן ד ע ת‬ Seder). Here the son asks his father (questions). If the son lacks
‫ב ב ן א בי ו מ ל מ ד ו מ ה‬ sufficient astuteness (to ask) his father instructs him (regarding
‫נ ש ת נ ה ה לי ל ה ה ז ה מ כ ל‬ questions as follows): Why is this night different from all other
‫ה לי ל ו ת‬ nights?

‫ש ב כ ל ה לי ל ו ת א נ ו א ו כ לי ן‬ On all other nights we eat leavened and unleavened (bread), but on

‫ח מ ץ ו מ צ ה ה לי ל ה ה ז ה‬ this night we eat only unleavened (bread).
‫כו לו מ צ ה‬
On all other nights we eat all sorts of vegetables, but on this night
‫ש ב כ ל ה לי ל ו ת א נ ו א ו כ לי ן‬ we eat bitter (vegetables).
‫ש א ר י ר ק ו ת ה לי ל ה ה ז ה‬
‫מ רו ר‬ On all other nights we eat roasted, preserved, or boiled meat, on
this night (we eat) only roasted (meat).
‫ש ב כ ל ה לי ל ו ת א נ ו א ו כ לי ן‬
‫ב ש ר צ לי ש ל ו ק ו מ ב ו ש ל‬ On all other nights we dip (vegetables) only once, on this night
‫ה לי ל ה ה ז ה כ ו ל ו צ לי‬ twice….

‫ש ב כ ל ה לי ל ו ת א נ ו‬
‫מ ט בי לי ן פ ע ם א ח ת‬
‫ה לי ל ה ה ז ה ש תי‬
. … ‫פ ע מי ם‬

Hoffman argues that the fourth question, “On all nights we dip once; this night we dip
twice,” was not originally part of the “First Mishnah.” He supports this view by citing a
passage in the Yerushalmi in which R. Shimon b. Lakish claims that the last question
originally appeared only in Bar Kappara’s collection of tannaitic traditions – and not in
the Mishnah.

Rabban Gamliel’s Required Statements

— Answers?

Hoffman also noted that Rabban Gamliel’s required explanations of the three essential
foods used in the Passover meal in m. Pesaḥim 10:5, were parallel to the three questions
about those items in m. Pesaḥim 10:4.

4/9
 ‫ר ב ן ג מ לי א ל הי ה א ו מ ר‬ Rabban Gamliel was wont to say:
Anyone who does not explain these three matters on Passover
‫כ ל ש ל א א מ ר ש ל ש ה ד ב רי ם‬ fails to fulfill his obligation,
‫א ל ו ב פ ס ח ל א י צ א י די ח ו ב ת ו‬
and these are they: the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter
‫ו א לו הן פ ס ח מ צ ה ו מ רו ר‬ herbs.

‫פ ס ח ע ל שו ם ש פ ס ח ה מ קו ם‬ The Passover offering, what does it symbolize? It symbolizes

‫ע ל ב תי א ב ו תי נ ו ב מ צ רי ם‬ how God passed over our houses of our ancestors in Egypt.

‫מ צ ה ע ל ש ו ם ש נ ג א ל ו א ב ו תי נ ו‬ What does matzah symbolize? It symbolizes how our ancestors

‫ב מ צ רי ם‬ were redeemed in Egypt.

‫מ רו ר ע ל שו ם ש מ ר רו‬ What do the bitter herbs symbolize? They symbolize how the
‫ה מ צ ריי ם א ת חיי א ב ו תי נ ו‬ Egyptians embittered the lives of our forebears in Egypt.
‫ב מ צ רי ם‬

In other words:

1. The question about why we only eat roasted meat is answered with an explanation
about the pascal lamb symbolizing God’s “passing over” the Israelite homes during
the climactic plague of the first born;

2. the question about why we only eat unleavened foods is answered with reference
to the redemptive significance of the matzah;

3. the question of why we eat bitter herbs is addressed by referring to the

embittering of our lives under the Egyptian taskmasters.

The Temple Seder

According to Hoffman

Whether or not it is entirely historically accurate, Hoffman’s understanding of the

mishnayot in m. Pesaḥim 10:3-5 presents a picture, likely imaginary, of the Seder in
Second Temple Times. His reconstruction looks like this:

1. The Seder’s leader would recite Kiddush over a mixed cup of wine.

2. A vegetable, perhaps a bitter one, would have been brought to him. He would eat
this until breaking bread, i.e., starting the meal by eating matzah, the bitter herbs,
ḥaroset, and a portion of the Passover sacrifice.This order of events at the Seder
would be the reverse of our practice, which is to eat the Passover meal after
retelling the Passover story.

3. A second cup of wine would be mixed. If a bright child observing all the odd
behaviors at this meal would ask about the strange activities taking place this
would provide an opening for recounting the events of the first Passover and
Exodus. If no questions from a child were forthcoming, the pater familias would

5/9
 instruct his child to recite three formulary questions related to the essential foods
of the Passover meal. The leader’s answer was structured in such a way that he
would begin by relating something embarrassing or disgraceful in our history, but
he would end with praise. According to Hoffman, he also used a fixed midrash of
Deut 26:5-8 to expound on the Passover narrative.

4. as discussed below(see excursus), if the “response to the three questions” was the
work of Rabban Gamliel I it is likely that it too was part of the late Temple period
Seder.

“The Order of the Passover is Concluded”: A Summary

By separating the strata of the Mishnah, Hoffman believed he could reclaim a picture of
how the Temple operated when it stood in those mishnayot that dealt with Temple
observances. For him, this was true of Yom Kippur, other Temple rituals, and the
Passover Seder.

Today the scholarly consensus has shifted. Overwhelmingly, academics who deal with
the Seder and Haggadah now regard m. Pesahim as fully tannaitic and descriptive not of
Temple ritual, but as an imitation of what the only truly free people in late
antique Palestine, the Romans, did –they ran celebratory symposia. Still, Hoffman’s
careful textual analysis – especially regarding the correspondence between the questions
and Rabban Gamliel’s required statements – remains intriguing.

___________________

Historical Excurses

1. Which Rabban Gamliel?

If the author of the “responses to the three questions” was Rabban Gamliel I who died
twenty years before the Temple’s destruction, then this formula may have been used
even in Temple times. If, however, the author of this “response to the three questions”
was Rabban Gamliel II (c. 90 CE-120 CE), the grandson of Gamliel I, then the formula
became part of the Seder only at the beginning of the post-Temple tannaitic period, and
essentially imagined what should have been said during a Temple era Passover meal.

2. Hoffman’s “Additional” Question

Hoffman’s position is that the question about dipping vegetables twice was a later
addition to the three questions. What prompted the addition of this question? The
answer is that, contra Hoffman, this question was likely not an addition at all. According
to our best Mishnah manuscript witnesses – which were not available to Hoffman13 – this
question appears to be older than the question about bitter herbs.14

___________________

6/9
Prof. Rabbi Michael Chernick holds the Deutsch Family Chair in
Jewish Jurisprudence and Social Justice at the Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion in New York. His area of expertise is the
Talmud, and he focuses on early rabbinic legal interpretation of the
Bible. Chernick received his doctorate in Rabbinics from the Bernard
Revel Graduate School and his semicha from R. Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary, both affiliates of Yeshiva University. He has
written extensively about Jewish law and lore and has lectured on
these topics in the United States, Europe, and Israel. He is the author
of two Hebrew volumes on rabbinic interpretation, an English language edited
volume, Essential Papers on the Talmud, and a book titled A Great Voice That Did Not
Cease. He also founded the Summer Jewish Studies Program at Kibbutzim Yahel and
Lotan.

1. Hoffman published his seminal work on the “First Mishnah,” in a book bearing that
name (in German): Die erste Mischna und die Controversen der Tannaïm (Berlin,
1882). The book was later translated into Hebrew under the title ‫המשנה הראשונה‬
‫( ופלוגתא דתנאי‬Berlin, 1913), and half a century later in English, entitled The First
Mishna and the Controversies of the Tannaim (New York, 1977).
2. Some hold that what is brought before the officiant is a table with the necessaries
of the Seder on it. See Tosafot, Pesahim, 114a, s.v. ‫ הביאו‬and Rabbenu Hananel,
Pesahim 114 a, s.v. ‫הביאו‬.
3. ‫ פרפרת הפת‬is so defined in `Arukh Hashalem, edit. Kohut, vol. 6, p. 442 a-b. Since
the typical meaning of ‫ פרפרת הפת‬is a relish or other kind of food that goes along
with bread, there are some who say this is a reference to the eating of the bitter
herbs. This is the first opinion in Tosafot, Pesahim 114a, s.v. ‫ הביאו‬and Albeck’s
view.
4. This is Hoffman’s reconstruction of the “First Mishnah”:

‫ה בי א ו ל פ ני ו מ ט ב ל‬ They brought (vegetables) before [the leader of the Seder). He

‫ב ח ז ר ת ע ד ש מ גי ע‬ would eat lettuce until he reached the breaking of the bread.
‫לפרפרת הפת‬ (Then) they brought before him matzah, (bitter) lettuce,
haroset, and the body of the Passover offering.
‫ה בי א ו ל פ ני ו מ צ ה ו ח ז ר ת‬
:‫ו ח ר ו ס ת ו ג ו פ ו ש ל פ ס ח‬

5. y. Pesaḥim 10:3 (37b).

6. See Raphael Nathan Nata Rabbinovicz, Dikdukei Soferim (New York, 1976), b.
Pesaḥim 114a, n. 6. Dikdukei Soferim is an early attempt (it was first published
between the years 1867-1886) to create a critical text of the Talmud by comparing
the printed text to manuscripts – especially the only complete surviving manuscript,
MS Munich 95 – early printed editions, and medieval Talmud commentators’
versions of the text.
7/9
 In this case, as I will note in the excursus, because Hoffman did not have access to
the valuable Mishnah manuscripts we have today, he had to rely on early printings
of the Mishnah.
7. y. Pesahim 10:3 (37d).
8. See Siegfried Stein, “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of
the Pesah Haggadah,” Journal of Jewish Studies Studies, volume 4 (1957) and Baruch
Bokser, The Origins of the Seder (Berkely: University of California, 1984), chapters 2,
3, 5, and 6. Bokser notes that the Seder is a purely post-Temple creation and that
the Mishnah’s description of “Temple practices” does not conform to any
description of those practices by writers living in the late Second Temple era. For
example, Josephus in Jewish Wars, 6:423 and Philo of Alexander in his De Specialibus
Legibus, chapter 2 only speak of the sacrificial aspects of Passover without
reference to the retelling of the Passover narrative.

The Greco-Roman symposium was a meal at which philosophical discussions took

place. At these events it was customary to recline on couches, eat appetite-
whetting hors d’oeuvres like vegetables dipped in a pungent sauce or a tangy
mixture made of local fruits, nuts, wine, or vinegar. The symposium began with
questions, usually beginning with easy ones often related to dietary matters or
foods in order to encourage all the guests to participate (=questions before
Maggid). Also, the names of the attendees were announced (shades of the Seder at
Bene Berak) so the participants would get to know each other. The discussion then
turned to a more intricate discussion of philosophical or political issues (=Maggid).
Either during the discussion or after it a major meal was served to the guests (=the
Passover meal). At its conclusion the participants would sing songs of praise to the
gods or the king (=Hallel). After the symposium the participants would go
carousing. This may have led to the tannaitic rule that “after the Passover feast we
do not go from house to house seeking out desserts and singing wildly.” See y.
Pesahim 1:8 (37d) for two definitions of Afikomen, one being “songs” and the other
being “desserts.” See also Ch. Albeck’s Mishnah commentary, m. Pesahim 1:8
where he refers to Greek post-feast revels as the matter to which the tannaim
reacted. Stein, who first saw the connection between the Greco-Roman symposium
and the Seder, bases his description of the symposium on classical Greek and
Roman philosophical and historical sources.

9. Bar Kappara was a member of R. Yehudah Hanasi’s circle and a well- known
collector of tannatic traditions that did not enter our Mishnah. His collection was
known as “the Mishnah of Bar Kappara.” The work is not extant today. R. Shimon b.
Lakish’s view appears in y. Pesahim 10:3 (37d).
10. In antiquity wine came in the form of a concentrate. Water was added to this to
create wine that satisfied the particular taste of the one who drank it; this is why
the Mishnah speaks of mixing wine rather than pouring it.
11. Hoffman bases this idea on the phrase at the end of m. Pesahim 10:4, ‫ודורש מארמי‬
‫אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה‬:, “and he ‫( דורש‬expounds, interprets) from ‘my
father was a wandering Aramean ‘ (Deut. 26:5) until the end of the biblical passage
8/9
 (according to Hoffman Deut 26:8).” Hoffman believes that ‫ דורש‬implies using a
formulated midrashic interpretation and claims that in Temple times a proto-Sifre
—and perhaps a proto-Meklita and Sifra as well—were extant. There is nothing in
the word ‫ דורש‬that actually supports this theory. If a person expounded on a
scriptural passage in his own words that would be defined as ‫ דורש‬even though no
fixed midrash was involved.
12. Hoffman does not deal with m. Pesaḥim 10:6-9, hence, we do not know whether he
considered the observances described in those mishnayot as having taken place in
the time of Temple. Thus, we are left to conjecture whether the Blessing of
Redemption (‫) גאולה‬, Hallel, Grace after Meals, Great Hallel (Psalm 136), or Blessing
of Song (‫ )ברכת השיר‬were recited in Temple times according to Hoffman’s opinion.
13. The explanation of this is as follows: The two most complete early manuscripts of
the Mishnah are ms. (manuscript) Kaufmann and ms. Parma. Their version of m.
Pesahim 1:4 contains these three questions: 1) why do we dip vegetables? 2) why
do we eat only matzah? 3) why do we eat only roasted meat? The formulation of
the three questions is the same in two Cairo Genizah fragments of m. Pesahim
10:4(T-S E 1.57 and T-S E2.53, the Yerushalmi’s version of m. Pesahim 1:4 (37b), and
in R. Isaac Alfasi’s and R. Asher’s formulation of the three questions in their codes.

These manuscripts were published only after Hoffman’s death, though the
Yerushalmi, Alfasi, and R. Asher were of course at his disposal. His reconstruction
of the “First Mishnah’s” three questions is therefore completely of his own making.
Consequently, even though he occasionally supported his views by using Dikdukei
Soferim, which was an early attempt to create a critical edition of the Mishnah and
Talmud, he could only access what that work contained, and it did not have the
Mishnah manuscripts I mentioned above. Had those manuscripts been available to
Hoffman, his views regarding m. Pesahim 10:4’s questions and their date might
have been completely different.

14. Despite the problems, Hoffman’s reconstruction of the “First Mishnah” questions
may be in the right direction despite the lack of manuscript support. Indeed, he
may have stumbled onto a true “First Mishnah” that was edited to fit later tannaitic
concerns. His connection of what he claims are the pre-Destruction three questions
to what he calls Rabban Gamliel’s answers is at least possible and even rather
convincing.
Further, we know from the Bavli’s discussion of the question about dipping
vegetables that the text of the Passover questions was fluid and subject to revision
even in the late amoraic period. This might have been equally true in the time of
the tannaim as they updated Jewish practices in order to continue observing the
Torah in a world without the Temple. If so, the pre-Destruction or perhaps early
proto-tannaitic questions about matzah, bitter herbs, and roasted meat may have
been the original ones that underwent revision at a later time.

9/9