|
Updated: Update: 2024.04.28 
Electricity is not fire, nor is turning on (or off) electricity kindling a fire. That notion is Dark Ages assimilation. The tablet (or phone, if your eyes are that good) is your Ha•gãd•ãhꞋ—and every participant can use their own. In addition to the typical book-form, the tablet will provide tunes for singing & chanting. However, a low battery can cause delay and, unless you initiate "Do not disturb", alarms & notifications, these may interrupt your SæꞋdër. So schedule a tablet charge a couple of hours before the SæꞋdër. You should also manually initiate updates for all of your apps, allowing a couple of hours to finish, to avoid update notices. Turn on the system sound (so the music & chanting can work, if desired) before the SæꞋdër.
The most ancient and pristine tradition, Nō•sakhꞋ Tei•mãnꞋ, holds that the SeiꞋdër Plate is a late rabbinic reform displacing the SeiꞋdër Table. In other words, the SeiꞋdër Plate is an inauthentic, Christian (Dark Ages) era, European Orthodox rabbinic miniaturization reform of the original, authentic, SeiꞋdër Table.
As shown in the photo of our family SeiꞋdër Table, following the Tei•mãn•iꞋ tradition (initial page), the SeiꞋdër table is covered with a festive white tablecloth. Atop this family-heirloom tablecloth is a clear plastic cover to protect it from spills, especially wine or grape juice. The table is then garnished with a colorful wide array of garden or wild green herbage—specifically including plentiful Mã•rōrꞋ, and raw salad veggies.
At least one bottle of kã•sheirꞋ wine (preferably red, rosé andor kã•sheirꞋ grape juice for children and non-drinkers), uncorked to breathe— enough for each participant to have 4 goblets each.
As many bottles as needed may remain, unopened, in the wine frig, to be uncorked and allowed to breathe when needed.
Note: it isn't required to drink the entire goblet 4 times. One must drink a minimal portion, and more only as desired. Then replenish the goblet.
A 2nd, smaller, white coverlet should cover (not the entire table, out of concern for later knocking over glasses, etc. when removing it) ony the Table Setting Items Below until after the Qi•dūshꞋ.
"The custom of using three matzot is not mentioned by any of the early rabbinic authorities in North Africa or Spain. Maimonides's code simply states that one should recite the blessing over one and a half pieces of matzah, following the ruling of the Talmud."
However, beginning no earlier than Medieval Europe, "all Ashkenazi rabbis mention the custom of the three matzot - even though none of them know the reason why! … In other words, they know that there is a third matzah on the plate and strive to find something to do with it."
The harsh fact is that much of the "Ha•gãd•ãhꞋ" was composed more than 3¼ millennia after the Yᵊtzi•ãhꞋ, in the 19ᵗʰ century CE—after American President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated!!! And originated in Europe, not the Middle East! For all who aren't grinding a religious axe these reasons are undeniable: the custom of 3 matz•ōtꞋ originated among modern European rabbis, not from the Middle East—much less the ancient Middle-East of Mōsh•ëhꞋ.
Modern SæꞋdër plates differ on the number and what items they emphasize. Most of these items derive from Roman-era Hellenization; not from the historical Yᵊtzi•ãhꞋ nor Har Sin•aiꞋ:
Καρπός. Come on! It's a greek word and you can't discern that it's origin is Hellenism—like ἐπὶ-κῶμον, Συνέδριον & Συναγωγή???
בֵּיצָה, the Ishtar-to-Paschal-Khag-sacrifice egg assimilation; the Ishtar egg itself deriving from an earlier avian or reptilian god-tradition! This is also the paradigm for the more recent Xmas-to-Kha•nūkh•ãh-"Bush" assimilation)
Saltwater: The Ishtar-"Paschal" Egg was originally dipped in red dye symbolizing the blood of the PësꞋakh Sëh & (bodily) resurrection. Only later, trying to avoid false blood libel, red wine vinegar was assimilated to מֵי-מֶלַח and the doors were opened, inviting the goy•imꞋ in during the SæꞋdër, so they could see for themselves that no children of any kind were being sacrificed.
חֲזֶרֶת is Romaine lettuce in BH, not European horseradish, which was unknown in the Biblical Mediterranean Eastern Basin! As depicted on a number of ancient Egyptian walls, Mediterranean Romaine lettuce has a rich history in ancient Egypt and the Mediterranean Basin symbolizing male sexuality—just as it does today.
Horseradish, by contrast, was assimilated by Christian-era Orthodox European (Ash•kᵊnazꞋim) rabbis! Only then, without any legitimate justification and contrary to Tōr•ãhꞋ, horseradish was assimilated into the modern Christian-era definition of חֲזֶרֶת!
חֲרׂסֶת doesn't have any legitimate Hebrew etymology beyond a long-after-the-fact unreasonable stretching of a Christian-era traditions, itself dependent on a misspelling of a BH: term (חרש) to make it match a HH term, חרס, first documented in the earliest extant ms. (1382 CE, 3 decades after the 7-year Black Death plague in Europe) in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ.
Assimilated, along with reclining at the meal and these other Hellenist Roman customs, dipping food in mixtures of pounded nuts and spices was assimilated from the Hellenist Roman συμπόσιον, in which they drand 3 cups of wine while discussing philosophical issues and “dipping” food in mixtures of pounded nuts and spices. Earliest attestation in Kaufmann mss of Mi•shᵊn•ãhꞋ (10ᵗʰ-11ᵗʰ century CE). 
in the 1ˢᵗ century CE!','#dfefff', 260)"; onMouseout="hideddrivetip()"> On the other hand, the more authentic Jewish tradition, the Nō•sakhꞋ Ba•lad•iꞋ בֲּלַאדִי recognizes דוכה , not חֲרׂסֶת.
More than a millennium after the fact, this simplistic baseless inferred tradition conflicts with several realities of Ta•na״khꞋ (and even Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ):
While Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ notes that Hi•lælꞋ ha-Za•qænꞋ, ha-Nã•siꞋ made a sandwich of his מַצָּה, there is no suggestion of any מַצָּה beyond the basic 3-tiered מַצּ֖וֹת Stack. Yet, several nagging realities demonstrate that we haven't correctly perceived the Biblical-era practice.
For instance, there is no suggestion that his fellow dinner guests didn't follow his example; which would surely have been remarkable.
Nor is there any suggestion that anyone made a sandwich out of a morsel the size of an olive from the 3ʳᵈ מַצָּה!
Nor is there any suggestion of tearing the 3ʳᵈ מַצָּה into tiny morsels for everyone present.
There is no pre-Hellenist suggestion that guests should receive at least an "olive sized" portion of a 3ʳᵈ מַצָּה.
All evidence points to blessing a single stack of מַצּ֖וֹת from which all of the needed מַצּ֖וֹת derive. The challenge then narrows to how, which makes the answer obvious. What post- Hellenists view as a single 3ʳᵈ מַצָּה of 3 מַצּ֖וֹת was, a priori, a tier of מַצּ֖וֹת (at least one for each participant) beneath the top 2 מַצּ֖וֹת! Thus, the number of מַצּ֖וֹת must be the number of participants (the "bottom" tier) plus 2 מַצּ֖וֹת on top.
To the contrary, certainly, Hi•lælꞋ ha-Za•qænꞋ, ha-Nã•siꞋ didn't make hisכּוֹרֵךְ הִלֵּל meal out of an "olive sized" morsel! (Nor did they eat an Easter egg! Nor a "3ʳᵈ Dip", nor in "salt water"!)
All 3 of the מַצּ֖וֹת, including a whole מַצָּה for everyone, (not a post-Hellenization "olive-sized" symbolic morsel meal leaving guests famished, nor necessitating a secondary Roman-style Hellenization leaning feast) should be directly blessed. There is no historical basis for the brunt of the מַצּ֖וֹת to be separated from the top 2 מַצּ֖וֹת, before, or after, the blessings. Yet, there is a simple way that all of these ancient pieces fit together correctly.
The proper 3 מַצּ֖וֹת consist of a Top מַצָּה, a 2nd מַצָּה under the top מַצָּה, then a tier of sufficient מַצּ֖וֹת for each guest to eat a whole 3ʳᵈ מַצָּה of their own. This resulting stack of מַצּ֖וֹת is then draped under a white cloth, prominently displayed on the SæꞋdër Table. (It's not advisable to place a coverlet over the entire set table since removing the coverlet for the SæꞋdër might knock-over glasses, wine bottles or other items on the table.)
Of A Male Yearling שֶׂה
The זְרוֹעַ bone must be cleaned (scrubbed clean with water and a brush)—but not boiled or otherwise cooked or damaged in any way. There is no substitute! It should be displayed, alone, on a clean white plate.
If this special—kã•sheirꞋ—bone cannot be reasonably obtained, an empty plate (preferably white) labeled זְרוֹעַ (in Hebrew), marking its absence, should substitute.
A זְרוֹעַ bone is sometimes obtainable by special order, if arranged well in advance, from a kã•sheirꞋ shō•kheitꞋ. Decades ago, we ordered a shank of a male yearling שֶׂה (from a kã•sheirꞋ shō•kheitꞋ, of course), explicitly specifying that we wanted the undamaged shank bone left in place. After we flame-grilled the shank of male yearling שֶׂה (no BBQ or other sauce durin cooking, of course) for פֶּסַח, we subsequently keep the cleaned זְרוֹעַ bone in the freezer from year to year, wrapped in foil, to display (without the foil, of course) each year.
Modern interpreters, intransigently committed to defend "Tradition" at all costs (including creative rewriting of history) hypothesize a second festival offering—only for פֶּסַח; which is nowhere defensible.
Prior to the Hellenization of the "2nd Temple", there is neither mention, nor allusion, nor any other hint nor basis for any egg in the SæꞋdër!
Nor is there any basis for a 2nd Khag-ShëlꞋëm (pl. Shᵊlãm•imꞋ; Khag-completion) sacrifice. (This sacrifice was for cases of doubt, whether a mi•tzᵊwãhꞋ had actually been transgressed. This sacrifice was for resolution and peace of mind.)
The proponents of this argument bissfully deny that the original basis of their argument is in order to defend the Hellenist assimilation of the Christian Easter Egg on the SæꞋdër Table!!! Their argument hinges solely on 2 vital, malsupported errors:
Such a claim requires that they demonstrate their claim for every instance of the word in Ta•na״khꞋ. And they cannot demonstrate this. Indeed, theirs is an untrue misrepresentation. As Klein acknowledges, BH: בָּשַׁל primarily meant (and still primarily means) "to cook". When no other description applies, only then can "boil" be assumed. Such assumption is not justified in every instance in Ta•na״khꞋ without proving every instance cannot be other than boil!
The supposed contradiction attempts to contrast the paired constraints that הַפֶּ֖סַח: (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 12.8) צְלִי־אֵ֣שׁ (be fire-roasted) and (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 12.9) אַל־ … וּבָשֵׁ֥ל מְבֻשָּׁ֖ל בַּמָּ֑יִם (Don't [eat it raw,] nor shall you have water-cooking cooked [it]; i.e. nor cook [it] by stewing). However, there is no contradiction whatsoever! By their argument, however, this would read a foolishly awkward "Don't [eat it raw,] nor shall you have water-boiling boiled [it]"!
Was there some other method of boiling food without water that made the distinction necessary? By rabbinic thinking, this would mean that only boiling in water is forbidden, meaning that it is, therefore, ok to deep-boil it in hot oil (which is not permitted)! Yet, this Scripture in no way conflicts with וּבִשַּׁלְתָּ֙ in Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 16.7! Taking them together (which is the only correct way to understand Biblical verses: as being logically consistent).
Proponents of this supposed conundrum then cite Di•vᵊr•eiꞋ-ha-Yãm•imꞋ Beit 35.13: "וַֽיְבַשְּׁל֥וּ הַפֶּ֛סַח בָּאֵ֖שׁ כַּמִּשְׁפָּ֑ט" as further evidence of a hypothesized contradiction between the command to roast the פֶּסַח versus "boil" (i.e. cook) it. However, Biblical linguists overwhelmingly have no difficulty with these passages simply because בָּשַׁל doesn't stipulate "boil"! Any science-friendly 5th-grader recognizes the physical impossibility of "water-boiling" (their definition) meat in "fire"! This passage, in fact, explicitly corroborates and confirms the earlier, original edict: "in fire" and "according to case law stare decisis"!
The further description in Mᵊlãkh•imꞋ Beit 23 yet again reconfirms the original edict.
These divinity-degreed 
outliers from practically all Biblical lingists advertise their ignorance of basic logic as well as Biblical Hebrew. They don't know the Biblical meaning of either, צֹ֣אן or שֶׂה! Based on this piece of ignorance they argue that in contradiction of Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 12.5, Dᵊvãr•imꞋ 16.2 "offers a choice" to sacrifice a cow instead of the lamb" (as distinguished from the elsewhere stipulated male yearling שֶׂה). Thus shall you sacrifice to יְהוָׂה your ël•ōh•imꞋ [of the] "צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֑ר".
Thus, these outliers further express their ignorance of basic "country boy" ranching! צֹ֣אן is not equivalent to English "flock" (i.e. conventionally sheep, among mammals; to the exclusion of cattle). In Hebrew, a צֹ֣אן routinely referred to a mixed group of sheep, goats and cattle. Any rancher and most "country boys (and girls)" know (in their own language) that the שֶׂה and צֹ֣אן) are separated out for birthing in the spring. 
So, depending on when פֶּסַח falls, the צֹ֣אן may, or may not, include goats, sheep and cattle! Thus, the rancher-knowledgeable Ta•na״khꞋ commands selecting a male yearling שֶׂה from whichever it happens to be: even if it's mixed in among the בָקָ֑ר. Their hypothesized contradiction is nonsense sprouting from ignorance.
Wine goblet
אֵזוֹב — preferably fresh sprigs; enough for each participant to have, and dip, a sprig.
מִטְבָּל—a medium bowl; at least enough in which each participant may dip a portion of מַצָּה and male yearling שֶׂה for the פֶּסַח ("Hi•lælꞋ") sandwiches.
(But it's great! Why not make enough for the family for the entire week of Khag ha-Matz•ōtꞋ? Or the entire ŌꞋmër?) For פֶּסַח, the DūkꞋã is best apportioned into individual bowls (which may need refills!).
מָרוֹר (not Καρπός (& כַּרְפַּס / "Karpas") nor kha•zërꞋët)—each participant will require at least two leaves (preferably several; extras can be put in salad): one for מָרוֹר plus another to place on מַצָּה spread with dū•keihꞋ for the מַצָּה sandwich.
Saucer of red wine vinegar in which to dip אֵזוֹב. (If you've never tasted this acrid aromatic combo, ≈1 tsp in a small bowl per guest is probably plenty. Warn children it doesn't taste good; not take a big bite!)
The main course, like the rest of the SæꞋdër, must be kã•sheirꞋ. (As always, pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh takes precedence.) Not even other kã•sheirꞋ meat may be served other than the roasted (e.g., flame-grilled, rotisseried, oven-broiled or roasted) male yearling שֶׂה from a shō•kheitꞋ kã•sheirꞋ—which must be served if available. If prepared and eaten with kã•sheirꞋ utensils, all (strictly-vegan) vegetables make kã•sheirꞋ side dishes; including Romaine lettuce, celery, onions and horseradish—as long as these aren't used as the אֵזוֹב or מָרוֹר.
There is no dessert.
Pay it forward (Quote & Cite):
| Yirmeyahu Ben-David. Seider Table (2024.04.28). Netzarim Jews Worldwide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/ (Accessed: MM DD, YYYY). |
 |
|
 |