Maror

In the Seder, we state that we eat maror to remind ourselves of the bitterness of the slavery. This is a quote from Rabban Gamliel, in the Mishnah Pesachim 10:5, and is based on the similar word, va-yimareru, in Shemot 1:14, which records/ describes how the Egyptians treated the Jews ruthlessly. Yet, the eating of maror today is a Rabbinic law since there is no longer the korban pesach, Passover offering (Pesachim 120a). If the maror is to remember the slavery, then it is independent of the pesach sacrifice, and then why should it be that the Torah law of maror was annulled just because one cannot offer the korban pesach?

The answer is that the requirement to eat maror is from Shemot 12:8 not Shemot 1:14, and Shemot 12:8 records the obligation to eat maror in conjunction with the eating of matzah and the korban pesach. Thus, maror is related to the korban pesach, and hence once there is no longer the korban pesach, then maror is no longer a biblical requirement. Yet, if the maror is not to remember the slavery, what is its rationale? How does it relate to the korban pesach?

Ibn Ezra (lengthy comments on 12:8) quotes an anonymous person that the bitter herbs were condiments that were normally eaten at meals in Egypt. Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility but the Or Hachayyim (on 12:8, see also Breuer, 1993, p. 163) accepts this idea. With this idea, the eating of the maror is to enhance the eating of the pesach sacrifice, and this suggests that the eating of the matzot and the bitter herbs was to make the eating of the korban pesach into a complete meal, meat, a type of bread, and vegetables.

This idea that maror was a type of condiment accords with the list of vegetables in the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:6) that can be used for maror, as all are either lettuce or endives, see Schaffer, 1981, pp. 218-222. The Talmud (Pesachim 39a) in its discussion of the Mishnah notes that first item on the Mishnah's list, chazeret is lettuce.

The Mishnah, Pesachim 10:3, states twice that chazeret is brought to the Seder, once for karpas and once for maror. Thus, according to the Mishnah, at the Seder, the people ate lettuce twice in the meal, once after kiddush, as an appetizer, and once after the matzah, as maror. We see that karpas and maror are equivalent and this equivalency is also evident in the question in the Talmud (Pesachim 114b) that when a person just has lettuce for both karpas and maror, should one make the blessing on maror by karpas or wait? We see again that lettuce is maror and the use of maror for karpas shows that maror is a regular vegetable and not something bitter to remember the slavery.

The Talmud Yerushalmi 2:5, 18a, (also see Talmud Bavli, Pesachim 39a) questions the use of lettuce since it is not bitter, and answers that while initially it is sweet, it eventually turns bitter. This is a difficult answer since if the use of lettuce is because of its status when it is old, then one should only be allowed to use “old” lettuce for maror. More likely, the use of lettuce follows the understanding that maror was a condiment to enhance the eating of the korban pesach, and hence lettuce did not have to be bitter. However, the Yerushalmi was following Rabban Gamliel's understanding of maror.

A similar question arises from a statement of Rava (Pesachim 115b). Rava states that if a person swallows maror at the Seder without tasting it, then he/ she has not fulfilled the requirement to eat maror. The Rashbam in his comments on the Talmud explains that by maror one has to taste the bitterness since the maror is to remember the bitterness of the slavery. With this explanation, Rava was following Rabban Gamliel's understanding of maror, but Rava did not state his reason for why a person has to taste maror just that one has to taste the maror. This same obligation accords with the idea that maror was a type of condiment as then too the taste of the maror was crucial.

It seems that lettuce was used for maror by everybody until the Late Middle Ages. Schaffer (1981) writes that only in the 14th century was horseradish clearly mentioned as being used for maror, and he explains that this was because the Jews had moved to eastern Germany, and in that climate it was difficult to find lettuce by Pesach. This is not a new idea as the Be'er Hetev, Orah Chayyim 473:11, quotes the Chacham Tzvi, 1660-1718, who wrote that since in the lands of Ashkenaz lettuce is not found by Pesach, people use horseradish instead. (Schaffer notes that the custom could have started in even colder climates like Poland and Russia and then moved to Germany. Also, he notes that horseradish is first mentioned in the 12th century but then it was mentioned as an ingredient to charoset!)

With this change from lettuce to horseradish by the Ashkenazim there has developed the idea that horseradish, is the true maror, and lettuce is only for "wimps." However, really lettuce is the true maror, and horseradish is very problematic since one is eating the root of the vegetable, which is not allowed, see Shulchan Arukh 473:5. The Mishnah Berurah (473:36) defends the use of horseradish but he also acknowledges that its use was because it was the only vegetable available by Pesach.

We see that there are two explanations for the maror, one that it was a condiment and two, Rabban Gamliel's explanation, that it was to remember the slavery. Yet, was Rabban Gamaliel's statement that the maror was to remember slavery an explanation for the Biblical requirement to eat maror? Shmuel Safrai and Zev Safrai (1998, pp. 28, 35, 36, 227) write that the Rabban Gamaliel here is the one who lived after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. Similarly, Encyclopedia Judaica (1971, 7:298), states that Rabban Gamaliel of the Mishnah is the second Rabban Gamaliel who lived after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, and he made many takkanot "with the aim being to face up to the new reality created by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash."

Goldschmidt (1960, p. 52) notes that it has been suggested that Rabban Gamaliel's statement was to repudiate Christians who claimed that the eating of the pesach, matzah and maror was to remember Jesus's last supper. Goldschmidt thinks this idea is reasonable, but Safrai and Safrai (1998, p. 156) doubt that the Christians had such a custom.

A different possibility is that Rabban Gamaliel's statement concerning maror was to offer a rationale for the rabbinic ruling to continue eating maror after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. While one could argue that the people should continue to eat maror even without the korban pesach to remember the Biblical requirement, still it is preferable to have a rationale that is independent of the korban pesach. Maybe then Rabban Gamaliel suggested that the maror was to remember the slavery, and this rationale would be particularly appropriate for the people who were suffering under the Roman rule after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. His message was that on Pesach night we should remember that in Egypt the Jewish people went from slavery to freedom, and this would give hope to the people that their suffering from the Romans would soon end. With this idea (or that his statement was to counter Christian beliefs) Rabban Gamaliel would not necessarily disagree that the rationale for the Biblical requirement to eat maror was to enhance the eating of the korban pesach. Instead, he was providing a rationale for the rabbinic law and not the Biblical law. (I believe this approach accords with the argument of Rabbi Soloveitchik, Haggadah, by korach, that today the eating of bitter herbs is not a rabbinic law based on 12:8, but is a separate rabbinic law.)