The
Seder Plate
of the
Maharal
from
The Maharal Haggadah
by
Shlomo Mallin
The seder ritual is thousands of years old. It has survived many different civilizations, and has been practiced in many different circumstances. Its antiquity, combined with the comparative transience of the civilizations it has outlived, have led to a certain degree of obscurity and confusion concerning some of the practices at our seder, and this especially applies to the seder plate. Many different versions of the contemporary seder plate have evolved. Changing cultural situations have led to changes in table manners, and these in turn have led to unavoidable superficial changes in the seder plate. These changes have led to confusion, and indeed, some spurious movements have even taken advantage of this confusion to spread fraudulent and misrepresented versions of the seder plate (which are not based upon halacha, and even contradict the halacha) throughout the Jewish world.
We learn, concerning the seder plate, in the Mishnah in the tenth chapter of Tractate Pesahim (114a) as follows:
They brought before him, he dipped with the hazeret (that is, with the maror — the bitter herb), even before he arrives at the relish (the maror). They brought before him mazah, hazeret (maror), haroset sauce, and two cooked dishes.... When the Temple stood they would bring him the [broiled] meat of the Pesah sacrifice.
This ancient and cryptic Mishnah is very obscure, and almost all of the commentaries disagree, at least slightly, as to its exact meaning.
First let us remember that the Torah commands us to perform four mizvot on the seder night:
And as we shall see the seder plate is a tool to help us fulfill these mizvot.
However, social, cultural etc. changes, necessitated changes in the seder plate so that it could continue to serve its purpose. The first change occurred after the destruction of the first Temple. The Pesah sacrifice could then no longer be offered (the Torah prohibits offering any sacrifice whatsoever outside of the Temple), and this resulted in a significant change in the seder ritual. As the above Mishnah states:
When the Temple stood they would bring him the meat of the Pesah sacrifice.
However, today when the Temple is not standing, the meat of the Pesah is not brought. To commemorate the Pesah sacrifice, though, the Rabbis decreed that a cooked dish be placed on the table. The Talmudic sages (ibid. 114b) debate as to what this dish should be. According to Rav Huna it can be anything, even beets or rice, while according to Rav Yoseph it must be meat.
The Mishnah, however, requires two cooked dishes, as is stated:
They brought before him... two cooked dishes.
The second dish commemorated the Hagigah offering which was often brought together with the Pesah offering. Since, the Torah restricted each family (or group) to one lamb only, this often did not suffice for the larger families, so the additional Hagigah offering was also brought. (The broiled meat of the Pesah lamb was eaten last, so that the flavor of the Pesah would linger, and to commemorate this we eat the afikoman at the very end of the seder meal).
These two cooked dishes are the first two elements of our seder plate. In addition to the two cooked dishes, the Mishnah mentions that hazeret (maror relish) and haroset sauce were also placed on the table. The maror relish is of course brought in order to fulfill the mizvah of maror that is required by the Torah (though almost all opinions hold, that today we perform a Rabbinic replica of this mizvah, since we cannot eat the maror together with the Pesah, as the Torah requires). Today Roman lettuce or horse radish is generally used for the maror.
The Mishnah also mentions haroset sauce. According to the majority opinion in the Talmud (ibid 115b), the haroset is not an obligation, but rather an option. It was a sweet and fragrant sauce within which to dip the bitter herb. Its purpose was to neutralize the pungent sting of the bitter herb, (although, Rav Papa relates that the maror should not be retained for too long in the haroset, since the spices of the haroset might completely neutralize the flavor of the maror).
The Talmud relates (116a) that the haroset sauce contained apples, wine, and spices. The ungrounded spices, such as cinnamon, were cut so as to resemble straw. According to the Talmud, the haroset commemorated the mortar, with which the Egyptians subjugated Israel, and also commemorated the fact that the Jewish women had to give birth in the field under the apple tree, so that they would not be discovered by the Egyptians, who would snatch away their babies and kill them. We, today, generally prepare the haroset from wine, apples, nuts, spices and other fruits such as dates, bananas to improve consistency and flavor.
So far, we have mentioned four of the elements of our seder plate. Two cooked dishes (we are accustomed to use a chicken drumstick, to commemorate the Pesah sacrifice; and an egg to commemorates the Hagigah sacrifice — the origin of this custom is not completely certain, in some manuscripts of the Book of customs of the Maharil the words ‘meat and egg’ are mentioned); the maror relish, which is needed to fulfill the mizvah of maror; and the haroset sauce which served as a dip for the maror.
“They bring before him mazah” is also mentioned in this Mishnah. We may infer from the Tosephot (opening words ‘Why is the table removed?’ ibid 115b), that it was their custom to include the mazah on the seder plate. This custom is endorsed by the Maharil (Rabbi Yaqov Mollin, about 1359-1427). In “The Book of Customs of the Maharil” we find:
The three mazot, the two cooked dishes, the vegetables (the word ‘vegetables’ in the plural refers to the maror and the vegetable for the first dip, this will be explained shortly), and the haroset sauce, must all be situated upon the seder plate (some manuscripts of the Maharil also make mention of vinegar here).
We oppose the custom to place some of these things directly on the table (outside of the plate). For how then can the removal of the seder plate — which is in place of the removal of the table — arouse the curiosity of the children, if things still remain on the table?
For this same reason it is not proper for additional mazah to be on the table (in addition to the three mazot on the seder plate) until he has completely finished reciting the Haggadah and begins the meal...
During the Kidush the mazot on the seder plate should be covered. The Kidush is made over wine and not mazah, and it is disgraceful to allow the mazot to remain uncovered on the table, and not use them to perform the mizvah of Kidush.
However, once the paragraph of the Haggadah “We were slaves” is begun (this paragraph represents the beginning of the Haggadah proper), the mazot should be left slightly uncovered to fulfill the dictum, ‘lehem oni’ — the bread of recital.
This Maharil, which is based on the Tosephot (ibid 115b), also informs us as to the origin of the seder plate. It resulted from a change (in addition to the first change, the destruction of the Temple) in social customs and table manners. In the ancient world the custom was to eat reclining on a couch, with the food placed on a small table (which we would call a ‘tray’). Each participant had his own tray in front of him. (They were not accustomed to eat sitting on chairs at one large table, as we are.) During this era the Rabbis established the custom of removing the trays, to arouse the curiosity of the children. After people began to eat sitting upright on chairs at one large table, it became impossible to remove the table. So to continue this custom of removal of the table, the seder plate was originated, as a substitute for the tables (trays) of the ancient world. Today, instead of removing the table we thus remove the seder plate, to achieve the same effect.
If so, according to the Maharil the mazot are the fifth element of the seder plate. Once again let us review: the seder plate included two cooked dishes to commemorate the sacrifices (Pesah and Hagigah). It included mazah and maror, to fulfill the mizvot of mazah and maror (the majority opinion in the Talmud holds that mazah nowadays is required by the Torah, and that maror is a Rabbinic edict). It included haroset within which to dip the maror. And the seder plate itself, which could be removed, was designed to arouse the curiosity of the children so they ask questions, to fulfill the mizvah “You will relate to your son on that day...”.
However, the removal of the seder plate was not the only ceremony designed to arouse the curiosity of the children. The above Mishnah also mentions an additional thing, as follows:
They brought before him, he dipped with the hazeret (that is, with the maror — the bitter herb), even before he arrives at the relish (the main maror which is eaten after the mazah).
The explanation of these words is, They brought the tray (table) before him. However, instead of beginning the meal, as he normally would, he took a small piece of maror dipped it into the haroset and ate it. Even before he had arrived at that place in the Haggadah where he will fulfill the mizvah of maror by eating a full portion of maror dipped into haroset sauce.
The Talmud explains, however, that this was not the normal or preferable procedure. Preferably this first dip should be made with any vegetable except the maror, since the maror should be reserved exclusively for its mizvah. This Mishnah is dealing with the very rare case of a very poor man who can afford only one vegetable.
The Mishnah uses this unusual case to teach two things. It teaches that the maror has priority over the vegetable for the first dip (if only one vegetable can be afforded), since the (original) maror is required by the Torah, while the other vegetable is a Rabbinic ordinance. It also teaches — and this is the important lesson of the Mishnah — that this Rabbinic ordinance is so important that it is appropriate to slightly impinge upon the mizvah of maror (which in fact is also a Rabbinic ordinance, directly based on a mizvah of the Torah), and taste a bit of it before this is appropriate, in order to fulfill the Rabbinic mizvah of the first dip (which in fact is intended to fulfill the mizvah of the Torah to ‘relate to the son’).
We thus see that the first dip, like the removal of the seder plate, is aimed at arousing the curiosity of the children. Our custom (which differs slightly from the custom mentioned in the Tosephot (opening words, “They brought before him mazah’ (ibid 114a), and the difference hinges on how to explain this Mishnah we are here studying) is as follows:
The hands are washed (Urhaz) as though the meal is about to begin. But instead of beginning the meal the participants take a small bit of vegetable (Karpas — celery, scallion etc., but preferably not a vegetable that can be used for the maror) from the seder plate, dip it into salt water or vinegar, and nibble on it. The mazah is then divided (Yahaz), lifted up and displayed and ‘Ha lahmah anyah — This is the poor bread’ is recited (the beginning of Maggid). Then the plate with the food (including the two dishes and the mazah) is removed. (According to Tosephot the seder plate is brought and removed twice, and this complies better with the literal reading of the Mishnah, but our custom can also be halachically justified). Following this a cup of wine is poured and the youngest present asks the Ma Nishtanah.
These interrelated acts (Urhaz, Karpas, Yahaz and removing the seder plate), as we have said, were all designed to arouse the curiosity of the children and motivate them to ask questions, to fulfill the mizvah, “You shall relate to your sons etc.”.
There is considerable debate among the commentaries (and this reflects two different customs that were in circulation) as to what one should dip the Karpas vegetable into. Many held that like the maror, it should be dipped in the haroset since the Mishnah mentions no other sauce for dipping except the haroset. However, Rabbi Tam, the Tosafist, embraces another custom which must have been in circulation in his time, that is, to dip the Karpas into its own special dip, such as salt water or vinegar. The karpas was not a sharp vegetable, reasons Rabbi Tam, and there was no reason to dip it into haroset specifically. It would thus be more appropriate to reserve the haroset for its special mizvah. Today this is the prevalent custom.
These then are the seven elements of our seder plate:
An obvious question remains — In what order should these elements be arranged? Let us again refer to the Maharil:
It is appropriate to place the vegetable for the first dip [and the accompanying salt water] nearest to him since this is the first mizvah performed at the seder. The halachic principle, ‘One is not allowed to pass over a mizvah’ dictates the above. First the karpas and then the mazot, for mazah is the next mizvah (Yahaz), which follows karpas.
We may infer, based on this, that beyond the mazah, we should place the maror and haroset. And at the very end, the two cooked dishes, since no mizvah is actively performed with these dishes, which serve as a memorial only. The seder plate of the Maharil is depicted here:
This indeed appears to have been the most popular seder plate among Ashkenazic Jewry, prior to the rather recent spread of the Lurianic seder plate (past two or three hundred years). However, in addition to this seder plate, it can be shown that one other seder plate was in circulation. This seder plate, as can be inferred from the words of the Maharil, did not place the mazot on the plate together with the six other items. Instead, they were placed on the table along side the seder plate, and covered with a cloth. This plate is depicted here:
This may have been because of the awkwardness of placing the comparatively large mazot on the seder plate. Regular table manners demands that cooked food be placed in dishes, but bread (in this case mazot) are usually placed directly on the table. Furthermore, according to the majority opinion the mazah is required by the Torah, while all the other mizvot are Rabbinic (with the exception of the mizvah to relate to the son). Hence, they may have intentionally separated the mazot from the other mizvot. This also made it easier to lift the mazah independently of the other items when “ha lama anya — this is the poor bread” and “mazah zou — this mazah” were recited, for the Rabbis required that the Haggadah be recited over the mazah specifically (lehem oni) and not the other items.
In regard to the Maharil’s question, (that if the mazot were left on the table, the removal of the plate would not effectively make the children curious), the advocates of this opinion may have held that the Maharil’s objection could be avoided by covering the mazot so that they would not be noticed. Indeed, the Maharil himself admits that covering the mazot is enough to avoid disgracing them when we make the Kidush over wine, and it is not necessary to completely remove them from the table. This same consideration can thus apply here.
As we shall see, it is this latter seder plate that may have been the one advocated by the Maharal.
On page 42 of the currently popular Hebrew edition of the Maharal’s Haggadah, we find a large diagram of a seder plate. Superficially, it might appear that this was the seder plate of the Maharal (some of my colleagues did not take careful notice and were indeed misled by this). However, closer examination will show that this assumption is not correct. Above this diagram we find the words — “The seder plate according to the custom of the holy Ari z”l ” — and beneath the diagram we find, “Examine the commentary of the Maharal z”l, where you will find a different order for the seder plate. Study this carefully”.
At first glance it might be surprising to find a diagram of the Lurianic seder plate in the Maharal’s Haggadah. However, a paragraph in the publishers’ preface sheds light on this matter. The publishers write:
The commentaries which appear in this volume were first published by Rabbi Y. Y. Rosenberg, and according to his testimony they were copied from a manuscript written in the hand of Rabbi Yizhak Katz, one of the Maharal’s sons in law, “who eye to eye saw the holy magnificence of the Maharal hover over all his statements”.
Although the majority of these teachings, are they not already included in his master work (The Book of Power chapters 48-65)? Nevertheless, they have been repeated because of the multitude of novelties which appear in them. The Rabbi publisher (Rosenberg) indeed testified, that in the lengthy introduction, written by the Maharal’s son in law — it is a shame that the Rabbi publisher did not consider it necessary to publish this introduction — he mentions that his father in law, the great Maharal, instructed him to write this work. In several places his father in law instructed him to abbreviate what he wrote in The Book of Power, and in several places to add new things which did not at all appear in the original work. One will supplement the other.
In short, the Hebrew Maharal Haggadah is not exactly the Maharal’s Haggadah (the Maharal’s authentic commentary to the Haggadah appears in chapters 48-65 of the Book of Power — our English translation of the Haggadah is based on these chapters). Rather it is based on a manuscript by the Maharal’s son in law. Even more, it is based on Rosenberg’s version of this manuscript.
It is well known to scholars and historians, that The Haggadah of the Maharal, together with a book titled The Miracles of the Maharal were originally published by a certain Y. Y. Rosenberg in the Year 1909. Rosenberg, who was reportedly the Rabbi of a small Polish town called Tarlah, claimed discovery of an ancient manuscript (300 years old) in the Metz library which was written in the hand of the Maharal’s son in law, Yizhak Katz. According to Rosenberg’s testimony, he based the books he published on that manuscript. However, he refused to reveal the manuscript to anyone, and until this day it has never been seen by the general public. Hence, serious scholars treat Rosenberg’s publications with a certain degree of skepticism.
It is quite obvious that Rosenberg attempted to do something in his The Haggadah of the Maharal which may not have been entirely scrupulous. During the time of Rosenberg the so called customs and writings of the Ari z”l (known by contemporary scholars, as the ‘Lurianic writings’) were enjoying great popularity. Rosenberg for ideological, and possibly commercial, reasons apparently felt the need to deceptively merge the Lurianic customs with those of the Maharal. Now, had he published his own Rosenberg Haggadah based on this novel merge and openly disclosed what he was doing, this would have been quite acceptable. But what right did he have in publishing (in a secretive and deceptive manner) a Haggadah full of Lurianic customs under the name of the Maharal?
In line with his scheme to merge the Lurianic customs with those of the Maharal, Rosenberg also introduced (preceding the performance of mizvot) the Lurianic formula:
Behold I am prepared and ready to fulfill the mizvah of ______, in order to unite the blessed holy one and his shechinah, through he who is concealed and hidden, in the name of all Israel. (Known as the traditional Lurianic ‘Hinani Muchan’)
Now, the Maharal, could not possibly have recited this formula, for it only reached Prague in the following generation, the generation of his grandson, Rabbi Yair Bacharach. And indeed, Rabbi Bacharach denounces this custom in response 210 of his Havat Yair. Concerning this Lurianic formula the (current) publishers of the Hebrew Maharal Haggadah write in their preface (page 6):
We copied this formula word for word (from the Rosenberg Haggadah), without knowing whether it was copied (by Rosenberg) from the above mentioned manuscript (of the son in law of the Maharal), or whether the Rabbi publisher (Rosenberg) himself decided to insert it.
It is this latter alternative which is obviously correct.
The publishers also included a section on page 155, “The meaning of the opening of the door”. This section is an obvious forgery, and blatantly contradicts the words of the Maharal himself in “The fifth cup” see page 272. Apparently, Rosenberg introduced these deceptive additions without even bothering to see what the Maharal himself wrote on these subjects.
Anyway, to return to the subject of the seder plate, here Rosenberg did something unusual. Instead of simply inserting Lurianic customs into the Maharal’s Haggadah without even mentioning wherein they originate (as he did in all the other cases), he presented a large diagram of the Lurianic seder plate (this undoubtedly attracted many customers to his publication), then, beneath, the diagram, in small words, mentioned that the Maharal disagreed with this seder plate, and in the Maharal’s commentary, (as it was transmitted to us by Rosenberg) an alternative seder plate, designated ‘The seder plate of the Maharal’ is presented. Rosenberg testifies that the Maharal’s son in law said that the Maharal says as follows:
One should take a plate... and place three mazot upon it, first the Cohen, then the Levite and then the Yisrael. He should cover the mazot with a decorative cloth. On this he should place another plate and arrange six things upon it. Namely, a roast arm on the upper right and a boiled egg on the upper left. Directly beneath them, the maror to the right, and the haroset to the left. Directly beneath them the karpas to the right and the salt water to the left.
Now this seder plate does not conflict with the halachic principle ‘not to pass over the mizvot’. And it is indeed always appropriate to be careful that the mystical considerations (the sod) do not conflict with the halacha... God demands the good intention of our hearts, and even one who does not understand the mystical considerations involved here, should nevertheless follow this order with a full heart. The Holy One will accept his service, as though he had the proper considerations in mind.
Nevertheless I will not refrain from explaining a small bit about the mystical intentions that are included in this service.
It is well know that the festival of Pesah is intended to strengthen our faith, and this is why the sages provided us with this service which hints at (blind?) faith. The large plate hints at the level (the sphereh) Keter. The three mazot hint at the three levels (spherot) of the upper world, Hahmah, Binah and Dat...The cloth which covers the mazot corresponds to the partition which separates this perceived world, from the hidden world. The six items on the [seder] plate correspond to the six sides of the three dimensions.
The arm corresponds to the level (sphereh) of Greatness. The egg corresponds to the level (sphereh) of Power. The maror corresponds to the level (sphereh) of Beauty. The haroset corresponds to the level (sphereh) of Eternity. The karpas corresponds to the level (sphereh) of Foundation. The plate corresponds to Kingdom, which is subject to the influence of Ho”k. To those with understanding, who have entered into the secret of God, this is all fully understood. Since in this order the mystical considerations and the halacha do not conflict whatsoever, this is the proper order for all Israel to follow.
In effect, the seder plate that Rosenberg is suggesting here is exactly the same as the second seder plate depicted above. With the exception that instead of placing the mazot (covered with a cloth) toward one side, they are placed beneath the plate. However, Rosenberg (in the name of the Maharal) attaches mystical meaning to the items of the plate, which associates them with the Lurianic spherot. This association is completely foreign to the writings of the Maharal, who associates these terms (Greatness, Power, etc.) with the four dimensions in his third introduction to The Book of Power. However, it does correspond to the Lurianic interpretation of these terms, and to the Lurianic interpretation of the seder plate which is described in Sefer Etz Hayim (by Hayim Vital), and which also appears in the commentary to the Shulhan Aruch, Ber Hetiv, law 472. We read there:
This is the order of the seder plate of Ari: All the shemurah mazot will be in this order... first the Cohen, then the Levy, and then the Yisrael, corresponding to the three brains of the upper father. After them one will place the maror, karpas, and haroset, and two cooked dishes, the arm of cooked lamb, and a boiled egg on top of the mazot. The arm to your right corresponding to the sphereh of power, and the egg to your left corresponding to the sepherah of kindness... [in this way Vital arranges the seder plate to correspond to the ten kabbalistic sepherot, and concludes]. One should not change the order of this seder plate, and praised is he whose intentions are to those (the sepherot) that have been mentioned.
Hence, it is quite clear that Rosenberg’s mystical interpretation of the seder plate is not based upon the Maharal, but upon the Lurianic writings of Hayim Vital. It is also from these writings that he draws the idea of placing the seder items upon the mazot (rather than to the side of the covered mazot). Indeed, Rosenberg drew all the Lurianic customs which he introduced into his Haggadah from these writings.
The question is, Can anything authentic be extracted from Rosenberg’s publication, concerning the seder plate of the Maharal? In my opinion the answer is, yes. Let us take note of several things:
Although Rosenberg does not explain this in full, he repeatedly alludes to the fact that conflict existed between a certain mystical seder plate (which he does not mention by name), and the halacha. We assume that Rosenberg is referring to the Lurianic seder plate which is depicted in his Haggadah, for this plate obviously infringes upon the halacha, as shall be explained.
There are two faces to Rosenberg’s interpretation, one of which is superfluous. On the one hand he interprets the seder plate on the basis of the Lurianic Sepherot. However, on the other hand he supplies an additional (coexistent and superfluous) interpretation as follows:
The three mazot hint at the three levels of the upper (nivdal) world...The cloth which covers the mazot corresponds to the partition which separates this perceived world, from the hidden (nivdal) world. The six items on the [seder] plate correspond to the six sides of the three dimensions.
These words are entirely unnecessary according to the Lurianic interpretation. Furthermore, they are foreign to Lurianic doctrine. They are not foreign, however, to the doctrine of the Maharal.
In light of this I assume that the truth underlying this issue may be as follows: Rosenberg did indeed find a manuscript written in the hand of the Maharal’s son in law. However, he greatly inflated and altered the content of the manuscript in his publications that he supposedly based on it. For this reason, he refused to show the manuscript to anyone.
The section of the manuscript dealing with the seder plate was probably composed by Rabbi Yizhak Katz, and not by the Maharal, and it dealt with the conflict between the Lurianic seder plate and the halacha. (The Maharal was probably never exposed to the Lurianic seder plate since it probably did not yet reach Prague in his lifetime.) Rabbi Katz probably rejected the Lurianic seder plate, (much as Rabbi Bacharach rejected the hinani muchan (see above)), since it conflicted with the halacha.
The seder items are placed on the Lurianic seder plate in a manner so that one must pass over the mizvot. For example, in reaching for the karpas, one must pass over the maror which is located at the very bottom of the plate. He may also have opposed the halachically unfounded custom of placing two dishes of maror on the plate, (which is required according to the Lurianic plate). Furthermore, Rabbi Katz, like many other authorities, may have opposed the Lurianic spherot. Concerning the kabbalistic spherot, the Rivash (Rabbi Yizhak bar Sheshet (14th century) quotes an authority as saying:
The Kabbalists are worse than the Christians, for the Christians pray to three gods (the trinity), while the kabbalists pray to ten gods (the ten spherot).
response 157
Rabbi Katz, in this manuscript, may have also disclosed the seder plate of the Maharal, (which is depicted above), and offered an explanation of this plate based upon the teaching of the Maharal, which Rosenberg merged together with the Lurianic interpretation (according to his tendency). I myself was introduced to this seder plate in my childhood, by my grandfather from my mother’s side. For the reasons mentioned above, I maintain that it complies fully with the halacha, and is more aesthetically pleasing and practical than the seder plate of the Maharil. However, those who are extremely strict in their practice of the halacha, who do not want to take even the slightest chance, might prefer practicing the seder plate of the Maharil.