{
"title": "Zevach Pesach on Pesach Haggadah",
"language": "en",
"versionTitle": "merged",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Zevach_Pesach_on_Pesach_Haggadah",
"text": {
"Introduction": [],
"One Hundred Gates": [
"Ha lachma anya - This is the bread of affliction
First Gate: Why did the sages compose Ha lachma anya, the first passage in the Haggadah, in Aramaic while the rest of the Haggadah is in Hebrew? It would have been more fitting for all the passages to be in the same language, whether it was Hebrew or Aramaic. In the commentary I will offer various explanations for this passage according to the commentators as well as one that makes the most sense.",
"Second Gate: Why is matzah called lechem oni, the bread of affliction? Yet according to Jewish custom it is white and beautiful. If it is because of the affliction of the people in Egypt, hasn’t Rabban Gamliel explained that matzah is a reminder of redemption? Scripture also explains it testifies to Israel’s redemption. How can lechem oni be reconciled with Rabban Gamliel’s statement or they disagree with one another?",
"Third Gate: Why does the Haggadah begin with a statement regarding matza, stating, “This is the bread of affliction,” when it is obligatory on the feast of Passover to mention three Passover symbols: the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs as we learn from the statement of Rabban Gamliel? It would have been more fitting to begin by mentioning the Passover offering, or to mention all three symbols, and not explain matzah alone. It also would have been appropriate to place Rabban Gamliel’s statement at the beginning of the Haggadah since it is the foundation of the Seder. ",
"Fourth Gate: The Haggadah states, “This year we are here, next year in the land of Israel; this year we are slaves here; next year may we be in the land of Israel.” The language is repetitive; one of these two statements would have been sufficient. Also, the Haggadah ends, “So may the Lord our God bring us to other seasons and festivals… rejoicing in Your city Zion.” That is a more appropriate place for such a statement rather than at the beginning of the Haggadah.",
"Mah Nishtana – How different!
Fifth Gate: The Mah Nishtana speaks of the things that are different about Seder night: eating unleavened bread, bitter herbs, dipping twice, and leaning. Yet this passage doesn’t mention other differences: the Passover offering, the four cups of wine, nor the multiple hand washings. Why don’t we ask about these differences instead of just asking about matzah, maror, leaning and dipping?",
"Sixth Gate: If the question “How is this night different,” is posed for young children, why don’t we mention removing the Passover plate from the table and other customs that we perform at the beginning of the meal and the end of the Seder?",
"Avadim Hayyinu – We were slaves
Seventh Gate: The statement “We were slaves to Pharaoh,” is a response to the questions regarding matzah, maror, leaning and dipping. Yet this answer is only appropriate for explaining why we eat matzah on this night and not on other nights. We do so because when Israel went out of Egypt, they did so hastily so that there was not enough time for the dough to rise, as Rabban Gamliel explained. Yet regarding dipping and leaning and eating bitter herbs nothing is said. The Maggid should have said, “The Egyptians embittered the lives of Israelites with hard labor, and therefore we eat bitter herbs, as is mentioned later. Why did they only offer this answer?",
"Eighth Gate: The passage goes on to say, “If the Holy One had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we, and our children…would still be subjugated.” This statement is not pertinent to the rest of the answer, and the one who asks the question did not ask about this. He asks, “How is this night different from all other nights,” and not, “Why do we observe the festival of Passover since we are not among those who left Egypt. We lived long afterwards!” The answer should have only been about the things that are different on this night and nothing else.",
"Ninth Gate: Toward the end of the Haggadah we find a similar statement: “In every generation a person is obligated to make himself appear as if he personally went forth from Egypt.” It is the more appropriate place to make this statement here at the beginning of the Haggadah. Why does the Maggid see fit to place this statement toward the end of the Maggid and why repeat it at the beginning since it was going to mention it afterwards?",
"Tenth Gate: What have we gained, living in exile, from the fact that our ancestors went forth from Egypt that we should say, “If God had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we, our children, and the children of our children would still be subjugated to Pharaoh in Egypt?” It might have been better for us to live peacefully in Egypt than to live in exile of Edom and Ishmael. After all, our ancestors said, “It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than die in the wilderness.” (Ex.14:12) Living among the nations had made us victims to pogroms and expulsions; some were subject to the sword and others to famine and still others to captivity. Worst of all, we have been forced to abandon our faith because of the severity of our misfortunes.",
"Eleventh Gate: The statement, “If the Holy One had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we, our children and our children’s children would still be subjugated to Pharaoh in Egypt,” is not correct! Even if God had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, it is possible that God might have freed us or our children. Then we would not have been slaves to Pharaoh forever. ",
"Twelfth Gate: Why do we say, “Even if we were all wise, discerning, and knowledgeable in the Torah?” What is the significance of these three descriptions? Why doesn’t it also mention maskilim, enlightened, or, anshei chayil or yirei Elohim, people of valor who fear God, or any of the other qualities which Jethro mentioned?",
"Sages in B’nai Brak
Thirteenth Gate: Why does the Haggadah mention that the sages, “Spent the whole night recalling the story of the Exodus from Egypt? What motivated them to go without sleep when the Torah commands, “You shall rejoice on your festival?” (Deuteronomy 16:14) Isn’t going without sleep a type of affliction of the body! They must have had something else in mind in doing this.",
"Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria
Fourteenth Gate: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states, \"Behold, I am like a seventy-year-old man, yet I could not prove that the exodus from Egypt should be recited at night…” How is this statement taken from the first chapter in the Mishnah Berachot proof that one must tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on Passover eve. This Mishnah is not referring to the Seder; rather, it is referring to the practice of reciting the Sh’ma which includes a reference to remembering the Exodus from Egypt. We read this passage at night even though it states, “You shall see them.” We are obligated to read the passage regarding fringes in the Sh’ma every day and every night. What does this passage have to do with the Seder, when we are obligated to mention the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs, and the reasons for these commandments. ",
"Fifteenth Gate: According to the sages, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was eighteen years old when he was appointed as the Nasi, head of the Sanhedrin in place of Rabban Gamliel. On that day, his hair miraculously turned white out of respect for his position so that he would appear like an elder. Rashi explains that the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in the Mishnah was made on the day of his appointment as head of the Sanhedrin. He said, “I am like a seventy year old man,” because he had wisdom even though he was a youth. But if that is so, why could he not find a proof that the Exodus should be said at night, as Ben Zoma explained. This statement is more appropriate for an elder who, though he had acquired great knowledge in his life, was not been able to prove that the passage regarding fringes should be recited at night. But Rabbi Elazar was still in his youth.",
"Sixteenth Gate: How could Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say that he could not find a proof text for saying the Sh’ma at night until he learned one from ben Zoma? Regarding the Passover Seder we have an explicit statement in Scripture, “It was for Adonai a night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that same night is one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages.” The Ramban explains that this night shall be for all generations, “a night of vigil,” on which they shall observe this rite and remember the Exodus from Egypt. If we learn it from this verse to teach, then the Mishnah serves no purpose.",
"Seventeenth Gate: Ben Zoma interpreted, “In order that you may remember the day of your going out of Egypt,” in the following way: “The days of your life” refers to the daytime; “All the days of your life,” includes the evenings. The Sages interpreted “All the days of your life” as a reference to the Messianic era. This is problematic since the verse, “Observe the month of Abib,” (Deut. 16:1) speaks about the commandment of the Passover offering, as it goes on to state, “You shall slaughter the Passover sacrifice for Adonai…you shall not eat anything leavened…seven days you shall eat matzot, the bread of distress for you went out of the land of Egypt in haste in order that you may remember the day of your going forth from Egypt all the days of your life.” (Deut 16:2-3) According to the context of the verse it is impossible to understand it as referring to anything other than the Passover offering. This is how Rashi interpreted this verse: “That you may remember through the eating of the Passover sacrifice and the unleavened bread, the day that you went forth out of the land of Egypt.”",
"Eighteenth Gate: Without a doubt, the word kol (all) is meant to include all the details. When a statement begins without the word kol then it is only partial. So the expression “the days of your life,” would include only part of the days and not all of them while the expression “All the days of your life” would be a reference to remember the Exodus from Egypt every day. According to this interpretation the word kol might not mean the nights. Therefore there is no place for this interpretation of Ben Zoma.",
"Baruch HaMakom - Praised is the Omnipresent
Nineteenth Gate: “Praised is the Omnipresent who gave Torah to Israel.” Why did the Maggid place this berachah before the discourse of the four children? If one begins the interpretation of biblical verses with a blessing, why not do so at the beginning of the Haggadah before other biblical passages? What is the connection between this berachah and the four children?",
"Twentieth Gate Why is God called HaMakom, (the place or the Omnipresent): “Blessed is HaMakom who gave the Torah to Israel?” Some interpreted this expression as a reference to Mount Sinai, ‘the place’ where the Torah was given and at which it was received, as in the statement, “Moses received Torah at Sinai.” (Mishnah Avot 1:1) This is wrong! So what does HaMakom mean? ",
"Twenty-first Gate: Why does the Maggid place the discourse of the four children before, “At first our fathers were idolaters.” The Haggadah speaks of Terach, Nachor, Abraham, the Covenant of the Pieces, Jacob, Laban and the descent to Egypt! Afterwards, we return again to the story of the sojourn, the oppression, and the Exodus from Egypt. It would have been more appropriate to begin with, “At first our fathers were idolaters,” “Praised is the one who keeps His promise,” and “That promise has stood our ancestors and us in good stead,” followed by the discourse on “And they oppressed us,” (Deut. 26:6) followed by the discourse on the four children. In this way everything would have been in proper order.",
"Twenty-second Gate: Why does the Maggid arrange the four children: wise, wicked, simple and one who doesn’t know to ask? This division of the children is not divided into opposites nor parallels. It would have been more appropriate to say, “One is wise and one is foolish.” Or it could have been, “One is wicked and one is righteous,” since these are opposites or parallel to one another. Why does the text compare wise with wicked, and simple with one who does not know to ask?",
"Twenty-third Gate: Why doesn’t the Maggid mention the four children in the order in which they appear in the Torah? In the Torah the wicked appears first, “Go and set aside a lamb for your family.” (Ex. 12:21) Afterwards, the Torah mentions the child who doesn’t know to ask, “Sanctify for me every first born.” (Ex. 13:6); the simple child appears at the end of the previous passage, “When the Lord has brought you into the land…” (Ex. 13:11) Finally, the wise child, appears in Deuteronomy: “When in time to come your child asks you…” (Deut. 6:20.)",
"Chacham - The Wise Child
Twenty-fourth Gate: Why are the passages dealing with the wise, simple, and the one who doesn’t know to ask, written in the singular while the passage dealing with the wicked child appears in the plural: “When your children ask…?”",
"Twenty-fifth Gate: Why interpret the verse, “When, in time to come, your child asks, ‘What means the testimonies, the statutes, and the rules which the Lord our God gave you,’” to be about Passover when this passage is actually about all the commandments in general? The answer to this question in the Torah proves this. If the reason to interpret the passage in this manner is that it mentions the Exodus, this may be because the Exodus is the root of all the commandments. The Exodus is also mentioned in connection with the Sabbath, tzitzit, showing kindness to the stranger, and other commandments. It is still not necessary to assume that the question in this verse is about the Passover offering.",
"Twenty-sixth Gate: Why doesn’t the Maggid answer the wise child’s question with the answer found in the Torah, “You shall say to your child, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt…” (Deut. 6:21) This is the answer that is related to the question so why doesn’t the Maggid quote it? Instead the Maggid answers the question with extraneous matters: “And so you should tell him all the laws of Passover, until, ‘one may not partake of the Afikomen after the Passover meal.’” This answer does not appear to be related to the question.",
"Rasha - Wicked Child
Twenty-seventh Gate: Why does the Maggid interpret, “Go and set aside a lamb for your families…” (Ex. 12:21) as a reference to the wicked child? What is the wickedness and the transgression in this question? If it is because the wicked child says “To you,” (la’chem), doesn’t the wise child also say “commanded you” (etchem)? Why suggest that the wicked child removes himself from the community? If the reason this question is taken as the question of the wicked child is because he called the Passover service avodah, (work) as if it were oppressive work (avodah farech), isn’t this just another a biblical expression? The Bible calls the commandments avodah in many passages: “You shall observe this service (avodah)” (Ex. 12:25), and “You shall observe in this month the following service (avodah)” (Ex 13:5). In that case, how do we find wickedness in the statement, “What does this service (avodah) mean to you?”",
"Twenty-eighth Gate: Why doesn’t the Maggid answer the wicked child’s question with the Torah’s answer: “You shall say, ‘it is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord.’?” (Ex. 12:27) This is the true answer that is related to the question and yet it is not mentioned here. Instead, he answers the wicked child with angry words that are meant to enrage him; “So you must set his teeth on edge…” His question remains unanswered.",
"Twenty-ninth Gate: Why does the Maggid answer the wicked child, “Because of this which the Lord did for me…?” (Ex 13:7) This verse is later interpreted as referring to the child who does not know to ask. How can we interpret one passage in two different ways – for the wicked child and for the one who doesn’t know to ask? The Maggid does not answer the wicked child with the verses found in the Torah that are relevant to this passage. Instead, the Haggadah gives an answer that is not related to this child but to the one who doesn’t know to ask.",
"Tam, Sheino yodea sheol - Simple Child and the One Who Doesn’t Ask
Thirtieth Gate: Why does the Maggid interpret the question, “What is this?” as a reference to the Passover offering, This question is not asked regarding Passover but the redemption of the first born, as is stated, “When the Lord has brought you into the land of Canaan…you shall set apart for the Lord the first issue of the womb?” (Ex. 13:11) It is with regard to this statement that the Torah asks, “And in time to come, your child asks you, ‘What is this?’”",
"Thirty-first Gate: Why does the Maggid assume that the simple child has good intentions when he asks, “What is this?” Maybe the intention of the question is the same as that of the wicked child who says, “What is the meaning of this service to you?” After having explained that the intention of the wicked child in saying “to you” is not really essence of the question, then the two questions are the same. Why relate one statement to the wicked child and the other to the simple child?",
"Thirty-second Gate: How does the Maggid interpret the statement, “It is because of this…” as referring to the child who doesn’t know to ask, after we have interpreted it as referring to the wicked child earlier? How can we have two different interpretations of the same verse?",
"Thirty-third Gate: Why does the Maggid preface the answers to the wise and wicked children, with the words Af attah (“So you”) while the answers to the simple and the one who doesn’t know to ask is not prefaced by this expression and the answer does not include matters external to the Torah? Instead the answer (to the simple child and the one who doesn’t know to ask) is directly taken from Torah.",
"Thirty-fourth Gate: Why do the Sages mention telling of the Exodus on Passover eve for the child who doesn’t know to ask by saying “One might have thought on the eve of the month…on the eve of Passover…” It did not offer this interpretation to the wise, wicked or the simple child. It does not say that their answer must specifically be on the eve of Passover? Why do answer the fourth child in this manner?",
"Mitechilah ovdei Avodah Zarah - Our Ancestors worshipped idols
Thirty-fifth Gate: The statement, “Originally, our ancestors worshipped idols…” does not appear to have any purpose here. If the purpose is to begin with shame and conclude (the telling) with praise, the Haggadah already began in this fashion in the passage, “Our ancestors were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,” continuing with matters relating to redemption, the explanation of the four children regarding the Passover offering, matzah and maror so why go back again? And if it did want to begin again with shame, why begin with Terah? It would have been more fitting to begin with the exile to Egypt, or the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen. 15). Even if the Maggid wanted to mention Abraham’s father, why bother mentioning his brother, Nachor?",
"Thirty-sixth Gate: If we assume that there are two parts to the introduction in this passage: first, “Originally, our ancestors were idolaters,” and then, “Now the Ever-present has brought us closer to His service,” why does it bring a proof text for the first statement from the book of Joshua, “Long ago our forefathers lived beyond the river,” but no proof text is brought for the second statement, that, “the Ever-present brought us closer to his service?”",
"Thirty-seventh Gate: Why did Joshua see fit to mention in his statement Esau and his inheritance even though this is not relevant to the matter. If he wanted to make known all the offspring of Isaac, why not also make known the offspring of Ishmael, Abraham’s son and his inheritance? ",
"Thirty-eighth Gate: The Maggid states, “Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.” Since he made known that Isaac gave birth to two sons, Esau and Jacob, and that Esau inherited Mount Seir, the Maggid should have said, “And Jacob and his sons inherited the Land of Canaan.” This would have been the exchange for Esau inheritance instead of saying Esau inherited Mount Seir while Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt in exile. The inheritance was a sign of love for Esau and hatred for Jacob, the opposite of what the prophet stated, “Esau was Jacob’s brother; yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau.” (Malachi 1:2)",
"Thirty-ninth Gate: The statement, “Jacob and his children went down to Egypt,” is difficult because it implies they went down freely and of their own will. This is not so! They went as a result of the Covenant of the Pieces, as we explained, “He went down to Egypt: compelled by divine decree.” It would have been helpful to know whether Jacob’s family’s descent to Egypt was of their own volition or coerced, and if the reason was because of a sin which they committed. If so, what the sin was or if it wasn’t caused by a sin at all, and how did this occur?",
"Baruch Shomer - Praised is the One who ‘keeps’ His promise
Fortieth Gate: The statement is “Blessed is the one who kept a promise to Israel.” Yet how can God who keeps His promises be described as “blessed”? God’s essence is truth, as in, “the Lord guards the truth,” (Ps. 31:24), and, “God is not a man to be capricious, or mortal to change His mind. Would He speak and not act, promise and not fulfill?” (Nu. 23:19) How can we bless God for being what God naturally is? Doesn’t the Torah say< “Can the Judge of the earth not act justly, and not keep His word”?",
"Forty-first Gate: The Maggid states: “The Holy One calculated the end (of the exile)…” This statement suggests that God counted the days and nights of the exile in Egypt, all four hundred years which were decreed in the Covenant of the Pieces, so that the exile would come to an end in its proper time. Yet the Torah contradicts this pronouncement, for it states, “At the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the LORD departed from the land of Egypt.” (Ex. 12:40), suggesting that God added another thirty years. How, then, did God calculate the end? Also (this statement is problematic) because they only spent 210 years in Egypt so how can scripture say they spent 430 years?",
"Tzei U’lemad - Go and Learn
Forty-second Gate: The Maggid states, “Pharaoh only made decrees against the male children…” This is the opposite of what the Torah testifies: “The foe said, “I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; My desire shall have its fill of them. I will bare my sword— My hand shall subdue them,” (Ex. 15:9) which suggests that it was his intention to destroy all of them.",
"Forty-third Gate: The Maggid states, “While Laban sought to destroy all of them.” I do not know where the Maggid derived this! Laban only said, “It is within my power to do evil to you.” (Gen. 31:29) The evil (he wished to do) was not to utterly destroy and kill (Jacob’s family) but to take his flocks. He felt this way as a response to the incident of the speckled and spotted flocks. His intention was not to destroy Jacob but to say that he had enough manpower with him to do so. That is why he says, “It is within my power to do evil to you.” If the explanation of destruction is based on the passage, Arami oved avi, oved is an adjective for avi then it means when Jacob was in Aram, he was about to perish for lack of clothing. How can he prove from this verse in Deuteronomy that Laban sought to kill all of Jacob’s family?",
"Forty-fourth Gate: How can the Maggid state, “It is a promise which he maintained for our ancestors and for us,” and that Jacob was saved from Laban because of the Covenant of the Pieces? Jacob fled from him through his own merit, and the merit of his ancestors since he was righteous and was innocent of harming Laban. As the angel said to him: “The angel of God spoke to me in a dream saying, I have seen all that Laban has done to you…” (Gen. 31:12) And Jacob said, “God has seen my affliction and the labor of my hands and rebuked you last night…” (Gen. 31:42) Jacob was not saved because of a decree by God.",
"Forty-fifth Gate: Why does he not mention how Jacob was saved from Esau when he left Laban’s house? Esau intentions were wicked, as scripture states, “I will kill Jacob, my brother.” (Gen. 27:41) Why did he not explain the promise of the Covenant of the Pieces regarding Jacob to save him from Esau at the time of the blessings, as is stated, “(Esau said, ‘When the days of mourning for my father at hand; then I will kill my brother”? (Gen. 27:41) The Maggid should have mentioned this just as he mentioned Laban in a farfetched exposition of the verses.",
"Forty-sixth Gate: The Maggid states, “It is this that stood for our ancestors and for us…” The Maggid acknowledges that our ancestors were saved in the future from trouble because of the promise of the Covenant of the Pieces when they went down and when they left Egypt, and would be saved from troubles until they reached the land of Canaan. Yet it is difficult to say that we are also protected in our exile because of that promise, as is stated, “In every generation they rose up against us to destroy us.” How can we claim that because of the Promise of the Pieces which happened in the exodus we will be saved today?",
"Vayered Mitzraima – He went down to Egypt
Forty-seventh Gate: The Maggid interprets, “And he went down to Egypt,” to mean, “Compelled by the Divine Word.” This interpretation is difficult since Jacob was not compelled to go down to Egypt but went joyfully to see his son Joseph, as scripture states, “Joseph, my son, is still alive; I will go down and see him before I die,” (Gen. 45:28) and it does not say that God told him to go. Rather God gave him permission, “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt,” (Gen.46:3) and did not command him to go. Maimonides also stated this. Also even before God spoke to Jacob (and gave him permission to go) he had already left his home to go to Egypt, and was on his way, “And Israel took his journey with all that he had and traveled to Beersheba and offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac, and God spoke to Israel in the vision of the night and said to Jacob…“Fear not to go down to Egypt” (Gen. 46:1-3) ",
"Forty-eighth Gate: Why, in all the other verses that are brought here, he brings another verse as a proof text, but for this explanation, “compelled by the Divine Word,” he does not bring a verse? It would have been more fitting to bring the verse, Fear not to go down to Egypt,” (Gen. 46:3) If this proof was not compelling why did it bring this opinion?",
"Vayagar Sham - He Sojourned there
Forty-ninth Gate: The Maggid interprets “He sojourned there,” as “This teaches that Jacob, our father, didn't go down to settle in Egypt permanently, but rather to reside there.” Why does it explain the expression “He sojourned there,” to be about Jacob’s intention about settling in Egypt? It would have been more fitting to explain it as being about the whole people’s actions in Egypt, as the psalmist stated, “Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.” (Ps. 105:23) This is a statement about the period of their settlement in Egypt.",
"Fiftieth Gate: How could the Maggid bring the verse, \"And they said to Pharaoh, to reside in the land have we come,” (Gen. 47:7) as a proof text that they were only sojourning in Egypt. For they did not say this for this reason but rather as a ruse to settle in the land of Goshen. For Joseph had said to them, “Then Joseph said to his brothers and to his father’s household…so when Pharaoh summons you and asks, ‘What is your occupation?’ you shall answer, ‘Your servants have been breeders of livestock from the start until now, both we and our fathers, so that you may settle in the region of Goshen. For all shepherds are abhorrent to Egyptians.” (Gen 46:31-34) ",
"B’matei Miat – Few in number
Fifty-first Gate: The Maggid does not add anything to the interpretation of the verses from Deuteronomy 26. Rather he brings verses from the passage in Deuteronomy 26 (Parshat Ki Tavo) dealing with the bringing of the first fruits and proof texts from Parshat Vayigash (Gen. 44-47) and Parshat Shemot (Ex. 1-6), Va-era (Ex. 6-9), and Bo (Ex. 6-13) such as “He sojourned there” (Deut. 26) which is taken from Parshat Ki Tavo and is explained with, “They said to Pharaoh, ‘to sojourn in the land we have come,” which is taken from Parshat Vayigash. Also, “They afflicted us” which is taken from Parshat Ki Tavo, and a proof text, “They built store cities, Pitom and Ramses.” (Ex. 1:11) in Parshat Shemot. Also, “They placed hard labor upon us,” in Parshat Ki Tavo, and so on. One could ask: why bring one verse as a proof text for another verse since all the verse are the words of the living God? ",
"Fifty-second Gate: If the Maggid wanted to show that the verses were in agreement, both those that came from the biblical narrative and the ones that came from Deuteronomy 26 (the declaration for the first fruits), why did he bring the verses from Deuteronomy first and prove them with the verses from the narrative in Exodus? It would have been more fitting to bring the narrative verses first and then bring the verses from Deuteronomy 26.",
"Fifty-third Gate: The Maggid states, “This teaches that Israel became distinguishable (mitzuyanim) in Egypt.” He does not prove what this word means since he does not bring a proof text as he does in all the other explanations of the verses. If he had no proof text for this, then why offer this interpretation?",
"Fifty-fourth Gate: Only two statements begin with the word milamed, “This teaches:” “And he sojourned there\" - This teaches that Ya'akov, our father, didn't go down to settle in Egypt, but rather [only] to reside there,” and, \"And there he became a nation\" - This teaches that Israel became distinguishable there.” This expression is not found in another discourse. Certainly it was not used by accident but for a reason. What is the reason it was not used in any of the other discourses?",
"Gadol Vatzum – Great and Mighty
Fifty-five Gate: Why explain the words ‘great’ and ‘mighty’ (“And became a nation there, great and mighty” Deut 26:5) with the verse, “And the children of Israel multiplied and swarmed and grew numerous and strong, most exceedingly and the land became full of them.\" (Ex. 1:7) Great and mighty are two descriptive words but the proof text contains four descriptive words: they multiplied, they swarmed, they became many and they became mighty. How can we correlate the Exodus verse which has four descriptions with the Deuteronomy verse which only has two? And if the verse, “multiplied and swarmed is all about the increase in population as the sages explained, that the Israelites gave birth to sextuplets at a time, then it is difficult to explain why they explained, ‘great’ by itself as being about the population increase, and ‘mighty’ by itself about other matters, as was done with other parts of the verses?",
"Fifty-sixth Gate: The verse interprets “and numerous” with the passage, “I have made you to be numerous as the vegetation of the field,” (Ezekiel 6:7) as explaining the growth. This is difficult; why not interpret the word about the matter at hand: the increase of the nation? Further, the proof text uses different words for increase: rivava, numerous, gidul, growth as in “You increased and grew and became highly ornamented.” What led the maggid to relate this verse to the word rav, many, and not to the other words such as gadol and atzum? How does it connect, “You increase and grew and you became highly ornamented,” only with the word v’rav, and many?",
"Vayrei’u otanu – They imputed evil to us
Fifty-seventh Gate: Why does the maggid uses “Come, let us deal wisely with them,” (Ex. 1:10) as a proof text for, “And the Egyptians dealt ill with us,” (Deut. 26:6) The verse does not mention any evil matter that they sought to do to us. It was not what they said but what Pharaoh commanded his servants to do that was evil, “Every male who is born to them you shall cast into the Nile.” So why did the maggid mention the advice and not the deeds?",
"Fifty-eighth Gate: They explained, “They afflicted us” as a reference to the building of the garrison cities, and they interpreted, “They placed hard toil upon us,” with the verse, “they enslaved the children of Israel with hard work.” (Ex. 1:11) It would seem the two matters are really the same, that the hard work was the affliction of building the garrison cities.",
"Fifty-ninth Gate: In any case, if we used the expression, “The placed upon us hard labor” without “They afflicted us,” we would still have to wonder what the Torah means by hard labor. What difficulty is being described beside bricks, mortar and the building of the cities?",
"V’nitzak el Adonai – We cried out to Adonai
Sixtieth Gate: The Torah states, God heard their moaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Ex. 2:24) This is problematic since we find that God only made the Covenant (of the Pieces) with Abraham, as is stated, “On that day God made a covenant with Abram…” (Gen.15:18) With Isaac and Jacob we do not find any mention of a covenant. So how can the verse say, “His covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob?”",
"Sixty-first Gate: “God saw our affliction – this is forced separation of couples” is problematic since above we have explained the phrase, “They afflicted us – as is stated, He placed task masters upon them. If the affliction was the building of the garrison cities, how can the maggid now explain God saw our affliction (from the same word) as a reference to the forced separation of couples? Further this is never explicitly mentioned in Scripture.",
"Sixty-second Gate: How does the maggid prove the forced separation of couples from the verse, \"And God saw the Children of Israel and God knew\"? (Ex.2:25) The verse does not mention the separation of couples and the interpretation is based on the linking of common language.",
"Sixty-third Gate: We do we not explain, “The Egyptians dealt harshly with us,” as relating to the statement, “Every male child you shall cast into the river.” This was the greatest evil that they decreed against us as we shall see later in the common on the passage, “Our toil.”",
"Sixty-forth Gate: Why did the sages interpret “Our toil,” as a reference to male children? The verse that is brought as a proof text does not use the word amal, toil. Also amal is a synonym for inui, oppression. There ‘our toil’ and ‘our oppression’ are one and the same, so why offer different interpretations for the two of them?",
"Sixty-fifth Gate: The sages explained that v’et lachazeinu, our distress, as d’chak, oppression. Since these two words have the same meaning, what purpose is there in explaining lachaz as d’chak? It is like saying, “Our oppression – this is toil; our toil – this is oppression.” ",
"Vayotzi’einu Adonai - Adonai took us out
Sixty-sixth Gate: The sages interpreted the verse, “Adonai took us out of Egypt – not by an angel.” This is extremely difficult since there is an explicit verse which states, “He sent an angel to take us out of Egypt.” (Nu. 20:16) This verse suggests that God did take us out with an angel, the opposite of the interpretation in the Haggadah.",
"Sixty-seventh Gate: Regarding the tenth plague, the Maggid said, “I and not a fiery being.” This is problematic since the Bible explicitly says, “Adonai will pass over the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home.” (Ex.12:23) Regarding this the sages state, “You shall not leave your homes until morning – from this we learn that since permission was given to the Destroyer to destroy it does not differentiate between the righteous and the wicked.” Thus, we learn that it was through a fiery being or an angel that the plague of the first born was carried out.",
"Sixty-eighth Gate: The Maggid explicates: Adonai took us out of Egypt – not by an angel, nor by a fiery being, nor through a messenger.” The verse that is brought as a proof is, “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from men to animals; and with all the gods of Egypt, I will make judgements, I am the Lord.\" (Ex. 12:12) Yet this verse is not about the Exodus but about the tenth plague. How can we use a verse about the tenth plague to prove the Exodus?",
"Sixty-ninth Gate: The Haggadah states, “I passed through the land of Egypt – I and not an angel; I smote all the first born – I and not a fiery being; I passed judgment upon all the gods of Egypt – I and not a messenger.” This is difficult since passing through the land is not a matter unto itself nor is smiting a matter unto itself. The passing through is actually part of the smiting. Also there are two aspects: smiting the first born and the judgment of the gods. So did they interpret them as three, and make passing through the land as an aspect unto itself?",
"Seventieth Gate: The Maggid negates the role of the angel, the fiery being and the messenger in the story of the Exodus from Egypt. He proves this by arguing that we don’t expound all three from one text. Rather we negate the angel from the matter of the passing through the land, the fiery being from the matter of smiting the first born, and the messenger from the matter of judging the gods of Egypt. How does the Maggid prove these three questions regarding the Exodus?",
"Seventy-first Gate: Why did the Holy One see fit to perform the plague of the first born completely on his own and not through an angel, as he smote the camp of the Assyrians, as is it stated, “That night an angel of the Lord went out and struck … the Assyrian camp”? (11Kings 19:35) Yet here what do the sages say? “I am the One Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn.” Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai offered a way of expounding this in the Zohar.",
"B’yad chazakah – With a mighty hand
Seventy-second Gate: The Maggid interprets, “With a mighty hand” to be a reference to the plague of pestilence. This is problematic. Why not interpret, “With a mighty hand” as a reference to the death of the first born since it is referred to this way in Scripture, “Yet I Know that the king of Egypt will let you go only because of a greater might, so I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with various wonders…” (Ex. 3:19-20) The plague of the first born was the cause for the Exodus from Egypt. Scripture says about it, And God brought us out with a mighty arm,” and not because of something that happened to their cattle.",
"U’vizroa nituyah – And an outstretched arm
Seventy-third Gate: Regarding the exposition, “With an outstretched arm – this refers to the sword, as it is stated in Scripture, ‘and His sword was drawn in His hand outstretched over Jerusalem’” This is difficult since the Egyptians were not smitten by a sword, so how can one say that the reason for the Exodus was the sword? Also the verse that the Maggid brings to prove this is “His hand outstretched over Jerusalem.” How does this verse prove that there was a sword in the plagues of Egypt?",
"U’vimora gadol – And with great terror
Seventy-fourth Gate: The Maggid explains, “And with awesome power (mora gadol),” (Deut. 26:8) to mean, This is the revelation of the Divine Presence.” Yet the Divine Presence did not descend upon the people of Israel until the events of Sinai, so how can this be counted among the miracles that took place in Egypt? The Torah states, “And for all the great might and awesome power (mora gadol) that Moses displayed before all Israel.” (Deut. 34:12) Rashi explains “the awesome power” to mean the miracles and mighty acts which God performed in the wilderness. Ramban explains that it refers to the revelation at Mount Sinai. So what does this expression have to do with the plagues in Egypt?",
"Seventy-fifth Gate: How could he bring a proof that awesome power means the revelation of the Divine Presence from the verse, “With signs and with wonders and with war and with a strong hand and with an outstretched forearm and with great and awesome acts (moraim gedolim)”? (Deut. 4:34) These are all adjectives for the frightful plagues that took place in Egypt. Moraim gedolim is plural. Does this mean that many plagues were revealed through the Divine Presence?",
"U’vi’otot zeh hamateh – With signs – this is the staff
Seventy-sixth Gate: The Maggid explains that the word, “signs” (otot) refers to Moses’ staff. This is difficult because the staff was the tool through which the different signs were performed. The staff was not the ‘signs’ itself. It is not fitting to say that the utensil or the tool through which something is performed is the act itself. Scripture brings a verse which contradicts this interpretation, \"And this staff you shall take in your hand, that with it you will perform signs.\" (Ex. 4:17) It implies that the staff is not the signs. And if you suggest that this is a reference to turning the staff into a serpent, it is still a single sign and not many signs, as the word implies.",
"U’vmoftim zeh hadam – And with wonders – this is the blood
Seventy-seventh Gate: The Maggid explains that, “Wonders” (moftim) is a reference to the plague of blood. It seems obvious that the plague of blood was a single wonder while the word moftim is inclusive of many wonders. Even if it is included among the many wonders, it cannot be described as “wonders” by itself.",
"Seventy-eighth Gate: The proof text that is brought for the plague of blood is, \"And I will place my wonders in the skies and in the earth: blood and fire and pillars of smoke.” (Joel 3:3) This is most difficult since this verse does not speak about the wonders that took place in Egypt; rather it refers to the future redemption. And in that context it calls wonders, “The blood, the fire, and the pillar of smoke” that are mention? So why not call all three of them the wonders together, referring to the plurality. Why call blood by itself “wonders?” ",
"Seventy-ninth Gate: Why in the explanation of these verses do we only mention two of the plagues: pestilence and blood, and not the other plagues as well? Wouldn’t it have been better to explain the expression “Signs and wonders,” as including all of the plagues, since these words are plural rather than saying that they each refer to a single plague?",
"B’yad Chazakah shtayim – With a mighty hand – this is two plagues
Eightieth Gate: The Maggid explains that each of the expressions in this verse refer to two plagues: “A mighty hand” – two; “An outstretched arm” – two; “With an awesome act” – two; “With signs” – two; and “With wonders” – two. This is difficult. Signs and wonders are both plural and the smallest plural number would be two. The other three expressions are all singular, so how can we explain them as each referring to two plagues? What is the connection between the expressions, “a mighty hand” and “signs and wonders” that we can explain it as referring to two plagues like these other expressions? The same question can be asked regarding to “outstretched arm” and “an awesome act”? ",
"Eighty-first Gate: How is it that among the wonders that took place in Egypt, we count only ten and do not include among them turning the staff into a serpent and the miracle of making the prophet’s hand leprous? Turning the staff into a serpent was the first miracle which Moses performed in the presence of Pharaoh, which he was commanded to perform at the time of his calling, “You will do all these wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand.” (Ex. 4:21) It makes sense to include the three miracles which Moses performed when he was called by God as miracles like (the plagues). Just as “blood” was included among the ten plagues, so to should the other two, especially the miracle of changing the staff into a serpent.",
"D’tzach Adash Beachav
Eighty-second Gate: The mnemonics which Rabbi Judah uses for the plagues are D’tzach Adash Ba’achav. Why did he see fit to use these mnemonics since they are not based on a Hebrew verse and have no particular meaning? What is the purpose of the mnemonic which he gives here? In Shemot Rabba (5:6 and 8:3) the sages say that these letters were written on Moses’ staff. But this cannot be the literal meaning of the text, since if it was, they would not have said, “Rabbi Judah gave them mnemonics. ",
"Eighty-third Gate: Regarding the number and the nature of the plagues: why were there ten plagues and why the ones mentioned in Scripture and not others? Did the ones that occur take place by chance and happenstance? Weren’t they naturally occurring events that happened for a specific and known purpose, how much more for some divine purpose that was related to a higher wisdom?",
"Rabbi Yossi HaGallili
Eighty-fourth Gate: Regarding the Midrash of Rabbi Yossi HaGalili who said, “From where do you say that there were ten plagues in Egypt that smote the Egyptians and fifty plagues by the sea? Since Rabbi Yossi was not asking someone when he said, “From where do you know…” rather he should have said, “Since there were ten plagues that smote the Egyptians in Egypt and fifty at the sea, know that the plagues in Egypt were described as a “finger” while regarding the plagues at that sea the Torah states And God saw the great hand…” (Ex. 14:31) rather than phrasing the statement, “From where do you say…”",
"Eighty-fifth Gate: It would appear that Rabbi Yossi makes two statements: first, that the Egyptians were struck by ten plagues in Egypt and second, by fifty plagues at the sea. In Rabbi Yossi’s question and proof he proves the second statement: that they were struck by fifty plagues at the sea but he does not offer a proof for the first statement that there were ten plagues in Egypt. This is not in order.",
"Eighty-sixth Gate: Rabbi Yossi stated, “How many were struck with a finger? Ten Plagues! You can say from here, in Egypt they were struck by ten plagues and by the sea they were struck by fifty plagues.” This is difficult since the word “finger” is only used to describe one plague, the plague of lice, as stated in Scripture, “The magicians did the like with their spells to produce lice, but they could not. The vermin remained upon man and beast; and the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God!” (Ex. 8:14-15) If a single plague is called a “Finger” then one must say that at the sea they were smitten by ten plagues, not fifty. Also, we find that the word hand used to describe the plague of pestilence, “Then the hand of the LORD will strike your livestock in the fields.” (Ex. 9:3) If so, then the other plagues in Egypt were not a result of a “finger.” ",
"Eighty-seventh Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer, he states that, “Every plague was composed of four plagues.” This is difficult to imagine. Can one say that in the plague of blood there were actually four plagues? And so with the others. How do you separate one from the other so that they are not all the same? And if the plagues were many as the Kabbalists suggested, then there would not be only four but four thousand and more. More than that, Scripture brings a proof, “'He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath…” (Ps. 78:49) This verse is speaking about Egypt and the plagues themselves and not parts of the different plagues.",
"Eighty-eighth Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer why don’t we say, “From where do you derive that every plague in Egypt that struck the Egyptians was four plagues,” in the style of the statement which Rabbi Yossi HaGalili stated, so that they would all be similar?",
"Eighth-ninth Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer, he explains, “He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and fury, and trouble, a sending of messengers of evil,” as the reason for the four plagues that were part of each plague. 'his fierceness of anger [corresponds to] one; 'and wrath' [brings it to] two; fury' [brings it to] three; 'a sending of messengers of evil' [brings it to] four.” Yet he does not explain the word v’tzarah, ‘and trouble.’ This is surprising – what to do with it? ",
"Ninetieth Gate: Rabbi Eliezer states, “You can say from here that in Egypt, they were struck with forty plagues and at the Sea, they were struck with two hundred plagues.\" This is difficult since he has not proven that every plague that struck the Egyptians in Egypt was four plagues which obligate us to say that the Egyptians were struck by forty plagues. But regarding the plagues at the sea he has not proved anything.",
"Rabbi Akiva
Ninety-first Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Akiva states, “Every plague was composed of five plagues.” Yet this is even more difficult than the first Midrash! How can one imagine that every plague was made up of five plagues, different from one another? And what makes it necessary to interpret it in this way?",
"Ninety-second Gate: Rabbi Akiva states, “If He had made judgments on them and had not made judgement on their gods; it would have been enough for us. If He had made judgement on their gods and had not killed their firstborn it would have been enough for us.” Yet the judgements were the ten plagues which included the death of the first born. This is difficult since “judgements,” would have included killing the first born. If he chose to describe the death of the first born why not also describe darkness, pestilence and the other plagues? ",
"Ninety-third Gate: If it was necessary to mention the death of the first born by itself, it would have been more fitting to mention it after judgments, thus saying, “If he had made judgements but not killed their first born; If he had killed their first born but not made a judgment upon their gods.” That way the death of the first born would have followed “Judgements,” which refers to the rest of the plagues and the judgement of their gods would have been last, as we find in Scripture, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt and strike all the first born in the land of Egypt, both man and beasts, and against the gods of Egypt I will execute judgement.” (Ex. 12:12) Yet he did not do so, mentioning the gods between judgments and the death of the first born.",
"Ninety-fourth Gate: Rabbi Akiva says Dayyenu, “It was enough for us” for all the ‘degrees of good’ and for each one individually (which God performed.) And while Israel’s redemption might have been possible without the others, there are some that were not ‘enough’ by themselves without being combined with the others. For instance, “God had given us their wealth but not split the sea for us,” this would not have been enough for us because the Egyptians followed the Israelites to kill and destroy them. Also, if God had split the sea for us but not brought us through on dry land,” this would not have been enough for us, for what would have been the purpose of splitting drowned the sea if they had in it? Similarly, the statement, “If God had brought us to Mount Sinai and not given us the Torah,” would not have been enough for us. They were only complete when they received that Torah, not just coming to the Mount.",
"Pesach
Ninety-fifth Gate: The reason that the Torah gives for the Passover offering is, “You shall say, it is the sacrifice of Adonai’s Passover, who passed over the house of the people if Israel when God struck the Egyptians, and saved our houses.” (Ex.12:27) (In other words,) the Passover offering came as a remembrance from generation to generation of God’s great kindness in saving the first born of the Israelites. Similarly, we find the commandment, “Sanctify the first born of every person and every animal,” and in their place we set apart the Levites, (Ex.13:2) the commandment of fringes, and also the commandment of placing a mezuzah. But this is quite surprising! If the Egyptians were deserving of the death of the first born because they enslaved the Israelites, as God said, “Israel is my first born,” (Ex. 4:22) then Israel was not deserving of the same death according to the standards of justice. Why would they die; what did they do? If a king commands the execution of a murderer on behalf of those who cried out, then is it fitting that those who are wretched and have cried out at the injustice to feel that he did a kindness in not being killed by the king as well? The murders were deserving of death, the wretched who cried out, and how should the righteous be destroyed like the wicked?
The same is true about the Israelites. They cried out to God because they were in distress from the Egyptians. God heard their sigh from those who wanted to rob them of life. (Prov. 22:23) Is it appropriate to say to them that God performed a great act of compassion in not killing them along with the wicked Egyptians? Should the judge of all the earth not act justly? (Gen. 18:25)
We also see (in the case of plagues) that God made such a distinction (that God distinguished between the Israelites and the Egyptians). In the case of mixtures (of wild animals) that God differentiated between those in the land of Goshen so that there were no wild animals there. Also in the case of Pestilence, the Torah states, “But Adonai will make a distinction between the livestock of the Israelites and the livestock of the Egyptians.” (Ex. 9:4) In the plague of Darkness, the Torah states, “But all the Israelites enjoyed light in their dwellings.” (Ex. 10:23) According to the sages there were distinctions made (between Israelites and Egyptians) in all the plagues. They did not have to place a sign on their doorposts, or to place blood there so that they would not be smitten along with the Egyptians nor were they given commandments in conjunction with the other plagues.
Also regarding the splitting of the Red Sea, the Israelites entered the dry land and the Egyptians followed them in. Why were they not given a practical commandment for that salvation or some sign so that they would merit being distinguished from the Egyptians? There was no commandment for the generation as we were commanded regarding the Passover offering or the sanctification of the first born, which was given to them so that they would not be smitten along with the Egyptians. This is a big problem for me and I was very surprised that the commentators did not address this issue!",
"Matzah
Ninety-sixth Gate: The reason that Rabban Gamliel gave for the commandment of matzah is, “For our ancestors did not have time for their dough to rise.” This is surprising, since before the Exodus from Egypt, in the chapter that begins, “This shall be the beginning of months for you” (Ex.12:1) God already mentioned the commandment of matzah along with the commandment of the Passover offering, as is stated, “They shall eat roasted meat on this night with matzot and bitter herbs,” (Ex. 12:8) and also, “This day shall be to you one of remembrance; you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord….seven days you shall eat matzot.” (Ex. 12:14-15) If they were commanded to eat matzah before they the Exodus from Egypt as well as the prohibition of leavened bread, how can Rabban Gamliel say the reason for the commandment is that the dough of our ancestors did not have time to become leavened before “God revealed Himself to them”? And what exactly is this revelation? ",
"Maror
Ninety-seventh Gate: From where do we learn that the commandment of eating bitter herbs applies to future generations? We only find mention of it in connection with the Passover offering in Egypt, as is stated, “They shall eat the meat on this night, roasted with matzah and bitter herbs they shall eat it.” (Ex. 12:8) It has already been said that this practice was unique to the Passover offering in Egypt, along with, “You shall place the blood on the two lintels” (Ex. 12:7) and the commandment, “Thus shall you eat it; your loins girded…” (Ex. 12:11) which were also not commanded to future generations. ",
"B’chol Dor Vador – In every generation
Ninety-eighth Gate: The Maggid teaches the obligation, “In every generation a person should see himself as if he personally went forth from Egypt,” based on the verse, “God took us out from there that God might take us and give us the land that He promised on oath to our ancestors.” (Deut. 6:23) According to this verse, this obligation falls upon the generations that inherited the land and dwelled there; it was fitting for them to see themselves as if they went forth from Egypt. If they had not left Egypt, they would not have become masters of the land. We who live in exile, have not inherited the land, and were born in the lands of our enemies, what obligation can we have to see ourselves as if we went forth from Egypt based on the strength of that proof, “God took us out from there that God might take us and give us the land”? And how can we conclude (as the Haggadah does), “therefore we are obligated to give thanks…”
Why bring seven words for thanksgiving: “To thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, lavish, and bless” and to mention five statements expressing God’s beneficent kindness: first “God took us from slavery to freedom;” second, “From subjugation to redemption;” third, “From sorrow to joy;” fourth, “From mourning to celebration;” fifth, “From darkness to great light?” What is the difference between these five statements?",
"Hallel
Ninety-ninth Gate: Why did the sages decree the recitation of Hallel with a division on this night, half of it (to “the flint into a spring of water,”) followed by the blessing of redemption, before the meal and the rest of it after the meal, followed by the blessing of song and not the blessing of redemption? It would have been more fitting to recite Hallel all at once without any breaks, the way it is read on the festivals. And then, after it is completed to recite the blessing of redemption.
If one argues that we divide up Hallel because we are concerned about the attention of the youngsters, then move Hallel until after the meal instead of before the meal and then conclude it with the blessing of redemption! After all, when we read the Megillah on Purim before the whole community we do not worry about the children (not paying attention) and we do not divide it in half, and we recite the blessing, “Who pleads our cause and judges our suit,” at the end (and not in the middle). Whoever says we divide up Hallel in order to glorify the second cup of wine is speaking emptiness! The second cup of wine come to mark the conclusion of the telling of the story of the Exodus from Egypt and to recite a blessing on it. A blessing is never recited without being sanctified over a cup of wine.",
"One Hundredth Gate: Why place the verses beginning, “Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not know You,” and, “They have consumed Jacob and laid waste his habitation.” (Ps 79:6-7) in the middle of Hallel? They are not part of Hallel and are taken from a different Psalm. All the other times that we recite Hallel, we do not read these verses.
We now have one hundred gates containing queries and questions which I have formulated on the passages of the Haggadah and the biblical passages based on my limited knowledge and understanding. In the commentary on the Haggadah I will attempt to answer all of them.
You will find a sign of their number, “Isaac sowed that land and reaped a hundredfold the same year. Adonai blessed him.” (Gen. 26:12)\n"
],
"Kadesh": [],
"Urchatz": [],
"Karpas": [],
"Yachatz": [],
"Magid": {
"Ha Lachma Anya": [
[],
[],
[
"Ha Lachma Anya: This is the bread of poverty that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Anyone who is hungry should come and eat, anyone who is in need should come and partake of the Pesach. Now we are here, next year we will be in the land of Israel; this year we are slaves, next year we will be free people.
The source of the Haggadah is the Mekhilta. I have already mentioned in the introductory questions how the opening passage is different from the rest of the text. Why did the Sages compose this passage in Aramaic while the other passages in the Haggadah are in Hebrew? The Sages offered a number of homiletical reasons for this. Among the explanations are the following:
The opening passage was composed in Aramaic so the evil spirits who understand Hebrew would not upset the meal after they were invited (“All who are hungry, come and eat”) to join the meal. ",
"There are several reasons to doubt this explanation on a number of different levels. The first is the questionable belief in evil spirits. The second is suggesting that the evil spirits understand Hebrew but not Aramaic. The third is to suggest that anyone can upset the table without the permission of the head of the household, as Scripture states, “A son honors his father and a slave his master.” (Malachi 1:1) Even if one acknowledges the existence of evil spirits, the Sages have already stated that “one who is an emissary in the performance of a commandment is protected from harm,” and, “Passover eve is a night of vigilance” (Ex. 12:42) so one is protected from evil spirits.”
",
"Others suggest that we begin with Aramaic so that the angels cannot join us in praise to the Holy One on the night of the Exodus from Egypt, as Scripture states, “So that one came not near the other all the night.”(Ex 14:20). There are problems with this opinion. It would have been more appropriate to say this regarding Hallel, since they are the songs that are connected to this night. Also, if one prevented them one year after another from singing the angels would become even more jealous. Furthermore, the Sages tell us that angesl understand all the languages. The Sages tell us that Gabriel taught our forefather, Joseph, seventy languages and that the angels received them from the seventy angelic princes who surround the Throne of Glory. The angels would certainly have understood Aramaic.
",
"Others say that because our ancestors were in Babylonia when they composed the Haggadah, they agreed to recite the Haggadah in Aramaic so that the women and children would understand it and also to publicize the commandment. Yet this is problematic because why, then, the rest of the Haggadah in Hebrew? All of it was composed in Babylonia. The passage, Mah Nishtana, in particular, should have been in Aramaic.
",
"It seems more reasonable that the reason for Aramaic is because of the declaration, “All who are hungry come and eat; all who are needy come celebrate the Passover.” The Sages decreed that this passage should be recited in Aramaic. Because they were in Babylonia and not in Jerusalem, they could bring the poor and needy to their table (to join in the Seder). They decreed that every householder should increase his gifts to the needy, as stated, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you, your sons, your daughters, and the Levite…” Therefore, when he sat down at the table, the head of the household would raise his voice to the needy who were outside and say in the name of God, “All who are hungry come and eat; all who are needy come celebrate the Passover.” He would invite them to come to his table. Since the needy might not understand him if he spoke Hebrew, they decreed that the declaration should be made in the lingua franca, Aramaic so that everyone would understand and come inside. Thus, the prophet said regarding charity, “It is to share your bread with the hungry, and to take the wretched poor into your home…then your light shall burst forth like dawn and your healing spring up quickly; your protector shall march before you, The Presence of Adonai shall be your rear guard.” (Isaiah 58:7-8)
",
"Why is matzah called lechem oni? There are six explanations, new and ancient, which the Sages have offered to this question. In the tenth chapter of Pesachim we learn, “Samuel said: It is called Leḥem oni because it is bread (lechem) over which one answers (oneh) many questions.” But this is not a sufficient explanation, for many things are said regarding the bitter herbs and the Passover offering, as in Rabban Gamliel’s statement, “One who has not explained these three things at the Passover Seder has not fulfilled his obligation. They are: the Passover offering, matzah and bitter herbs. Further, Scripture calls matzah, lechem oni even though the Haggadah had not yet been composed.
",
"A second explanation is, “Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread, for lack of a whole loaf, so too, here he should use a piece of matzah.” This means that on this night the head of the household must break the matzah in half as a reminder that our ancestors in Egypt were poor. Yet the Torah explains that matzah is a reminder of redemption and not our poverty, as Scripture states, “You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, the bread of distress—for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly—so that you may remember the day of your departure from…Egypt...” (Deut. 15:3) There is reason to think, then, that matzah is a symbol of redemption and not slavery or oppression.
",
"The third explanation is related to the second one. Matzah was called lechem oni because of their hard labor in Egypt. The Egyptians did not allow them time to knead their dough and to eat it properly prepared. Actually, the matzah was not a reminder of exile but a reminder of redemption as we have already explained.
",
"Others have say that they made this declaration because they ate matzah with the Passover offering in Egypt, as Scripture states, “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.” (Num. 9:11) Matzah was called lechem oni for the Egyptians; when the Israelites partook of unleavened bread, suffering and the plague of the first born came to the Egyptians. That is why we say, “Which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt.” This also does not make sense to me; it would have been more appropriate to call it the bread of redemption. It also would have been more appropriate to say, “Which our ancestors ate when leaving Egypt,” and not “in the land of Egypt,” which suggests something that happened more regularly.
",
"Others suggest that it was called it “lechem oni,” because of the dough which they decreed should be a tenth of an ephah, like the poor person’s offering (in the temple), “If his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering …a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering; he shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering.” (Lev. 5:12) This was the same measure as the mana which everyone collected in the wilderness. But it is farfetched to think that this is what the Maggid had in mind. If that was so, then it would have been called, “The dough of the offering,” or “The dough of the needy,” if the amount of dough is why it received this name. It would not have called it, “The bread of affliction” which suggests that it is commenting on the poverty in the character of the bread and its quality.
",
"Finally, the Ramban offers a another explanation in his commentary to Parshat Re’eh (Deut. 16). This is what he writes, “the verse mentioned that matzah should be called lechem oni. This is to inform us that God commanded us to eat matzah so that we would remember that the Israelites left Egypt in haste. Also, it is called oni (affliction) as a reminder that our ancestors in Egypt lived on ‘meager bread and scant water.’ (Isaiah 30:20) Thus, lechem oni alludes to two ideas (simultaneously). And so the Sages said, ‘This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Furthermore, the Torah is saying that matzah should be made like ‘poor bread’ and not like ‘rich bread’ as the Sages said…” You see here that the Ramban moved one subject to the next because he had doubts about all the other opinions.
",
"This is what I think: Matzah is called lechem oni for two reasons. First because of its character. Dough, before it becomes leavened, is small in volume, and after it becomes leavened it rises and becomes larger. Without the leavening, matzah does not rise so that it remains lowly and flat. From this perspective it is “the bread of poverty,” – referring to its lowliness and its poorness. And the second reason is: because matzah is hard to digest and remains in the stomach. Therefore, a small amount of matzah is enough for one to eat. This is what Isaac the Israelite wrote in his book, Sefer Misa’adim, “A piece of matzah is hard for the stomach to digest, and it takes a long time to go through the digestive system. As a result it causes gas and constipation. It is more fitting to serve it to laborers than leavened bread. Because of their hatred of the Israelites, the Egyptians served it to Israel so that a small amount of bread would sustain them for a long time when they were working for the king and making bricks.
Thus, “The bread of poverty” is an allusion to the first explanation (because of its physical nature), and “Which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt,” is an allusion to the second reason for eating matzah. While matzah is called lechem oni, we are not told that we must eat matzah or not eat leavened for other reasons. Rather, we eat it to remember the haste with which the redemption took place, as Scripture states, “for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly.” (Deut. 16:3) The opening statement, then, does not contradict the explanation of Rabban Gamliel regarding matzah since the Maggid does not offer a reason why we eat matzah (when he says “this is the bread of affliction,”) but rather he is describing the nature of the food that they ate in Egypt. Later Rabban Gamliel explains the reason we eat matzah on this night….that they left with such haste that there was no time for the dough to rise. This would be the explanation of the verse: “Seven days you shall eat matzah” – which is lowly and flat and not very large – “because you went out in haste from the land of Egypt” so that there was no time for the dough to rise and it remained lowly and poor. I have explained this in my Torah commentary there.
But why did we begin the Haggadah by mentioning matzah and not the Passover offering which precedes it in importance and stature, or by mentioning all three symbols: Pesach, matzah, and maror? What is the meaning regard the expressions “This year…” and why is it repeated? These are questions three and four.
",
"The Sages have already commented that the expression, “All who are hungry…” is meant to be a lamentation over our exile. It is a way of saying that because of our sins we were exiled from our land and we can no longer offer a Passover sacrifice while living outside the land of Israel. Therefore we no longer need to be in a state of purity when we celebrate Passover. Anyone can come and eat our matzah whether they are pure or impure. That is why we pray, next year we should be able to go up to Jerusalem and our children should return to their land. Then the person who is not pure will have to purify himself in order to observe Passover according to the laws of the Pesach offering.
Others explain that we begin the Seder by mentioning matzah because we are obligated to give each person sufficient for his needs at this time. (Deut.15:8) Therefore one says, “All who are hungry…” The statement, “Next year…” is meant to be a way of recalling Jerusalem, as is stated, “That I may place Jerusalem above my greatest joy.” Through the merit of making giving charity to feed the needy, God will redeem us.
Some explain that this statement is meant to be a way of telling the story of what our ancestors did in Egypt on that night of the vigil. On that night they were in such a rush in dividing up the matzah that they said to one another, “’All who are hungry come and eat’ all who are needy participate in the Pesach offering,’ for now we are slaves in Egypt. ‘Next year we will sit together in the land of Israel, free.’” Now as we give out matzah, we make a similar announcement to women and children that this is what our ancestors did in Egypt and that we are following their example. It is the custom to say “Next year may we be free,” in Hebrew and not in Aramaic like the rest of this statement so that the Arameans do not understand us and think that we are rebelling against the government in an effort to become free. This explanation is also not free of problems.
",
"I think that the correct explanation of ha lachma anya has to do with the custom before the reading of the Haggadah, of breaking a matzah and covering half of it with a cloth, and then removing the Passover plate… so that there is reason to ask, “why are we doing this,” It was decreed that one should invite the poor so they will come to his table and share the food. When they mentioned the matzah, it was not to explain the reason for the commandment or its purpose. This was not the place for this explanation; that would come later on. Rather, it was way of saying, “To those who are in need of matzah and don’t have, come share my matzah for it is the bread of the needy and it is good for you. On this night we are all equal. Do not be embarrassed because you are needy; so were our ancestors in Egypt.” He says this out of humility speaking to the heart of the needy. That is why he calls matzah, bread of poverty. Matzah is a reference to the entire meal since bread can be called meat, just it refers to a pat (a loaf of bread), as stated in Scripture, “Behold I will rain bread from heaven,” (Ex. 16:4). When Moses says to them, “When the Lord shall give you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning.” (Ex. 16:8) Regarding both meat and bread, he says, “I will rain bread from heaven.”
By making this declaration, one intends to inspire the women and children to ask questions, “After you have placed the bread before you and you have broken it, and sanctified those who were invited by saying, ‘All who are hungry come and eat,’ why bother to remove the Seder plate from the table?” All of this was meant to inspire a question whose purpose was to lead to the telling of the story of the Exodus from Egypt. From this, one can explain why we begin by first mentioning the matzah; should we begin explaining the meal or by explaining the matzah? We do not mention the Passover offering because there is no offering today outside Israel or maror because we do eat a sufficient amount. Matzah is meant to be a satisfying meal for someone. Similarly, Ezra said, “Go, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord.” (Nehemiah 8:10)
Since we eat the Afikomen on this night as a reminder of the Passover offering which was consumed at the end of the meal, therefore we say, “All who are hungry come and eat,” for the matzah and the maror, and “All who are in needy come celebrate the Passover” for the Afikomen which symbolizes the Passover offering. We mention it last, as if to say, since one has eaten the meal, now we can have a remembrance of the Passover offering. Also it is possible that the double language is a reference of the different aspects of the meal: “Come and eat” and “Come and celebrate the Passover,” as if to say, “Come celebrate with us.”
Further the saying, “This year, here,” comes to answer a question. If the obligation to celebrate Passover was only observed in Jerusalem, as it is stated, “You are not permitted to slaughter the Passover sacrifice in any of the settlements that the LORD your God is giving you but at the place where the LORD your God will “To establish His name” (Deut. 16:5-6), then how can we say, “Let him come and celebrate the Passover,” as if one was going to make a Passover offering here in the diaspora? To answer this question, we go on to say, “This year we are here; next year in the land of Israel.” One says, “We are now observing Passover in exile, but next year may it be God’s will that we are able to do so in the land of Israel. And then we go on to say, “This year we are slaves here,” meaning, we are observing Passover here because we are enslaved and cannot celebrate in Jerusalem, but next year may we do so in the land of Israel since we will be free and we will be able to observe the laws properly.
The first statement is, “This year we are here, next year in the land of Israel.” This statement is a statement. What is added to it, “This year we are slaves here,” is an explanation for the statement. These statements are not meant to be a prayer as the statement is at the conclusion of the Maggid, “Adonai our God, and God of our ancestors, bring us to other appointed times and holidays.” There, the statement is made as a prayer while here (at the beginning of the Maggid) it is an attempt to answer the question as I have explained. ",
"With this I have now answered the questions contained in the first four gates of my commentary."
]
],
"Four Questions": [
[],
[
"Why is this night different from all other nights? On all other nights we are not obligated to dip even once; tonight we do so twice. On all other nights we eat leavened or unleavened bread; tonight only unleavened bread. On all other night we eat all types of vegetables; tonight, bitter herbs. On all other nights we eat either sitting or reclining; tonight all of us recline.
This follows version of the statement in Chapter 10 in Pesachim 116a: “Rava said that this is what the Mishnah teaches: On all other nights we are not obligated to dip even once; however, tonight we are obligated to dip twice. Rav Safra objects to this explanation: Is it obligatory for children (to dip)? Rather, Rav Safra says that this is what the Mishnah is teaching: “We do not normally dip even once…” thus, the version in our books is not correct. Rather it should be, “We do not dip…”
Mah Nishtanah is not a question. What the Sages stated in Pesachim 115b is that they would remove the table (akirat hashulchan) in order that children might ask questions, but the question was not stated in writing by the Sages. Rather it would be enough for the children to say, “What is this?” Then the parent would begin telling the story of the Exodus.
The statement, Mah Nishtanah, was addressed to everyone at the table, and not just the children. The young and old would then enter into a conversation on this matter. If this is a question at all, it is addressed to the youngster and the elder regarding matters pertaining to the Seder. As the Talmud states: “If the child is wise and knows how to inquire let him ask. And if the child is not wise, let his wife asks. If his wife is not capable of asking… he asks himself.”
",
"Regarding the statements in Mah Nishtanah: The questioner sees that on this night we do certain things that make us look like free people, royalty, worldly counselors and wealthy nobles, and other things are the opposite, that make us look like humble and contemptable slaves. On the one hand we say, “On all other nights we are not obligated to dip even once but tonight we are obligated to do so two times” This makes us look like free people and noblemen since, like nobles, we eat our foods with all types of dips, like the fine foods of the wealthy. On the other hand, we do something the opposite, “On all other nights we eat leavened or unleavened bread; tonight we are obligated to eat unleavened bread.” This certainly looks like slavery. Matzah is the bread of affliction as well as the food of slaves and laborers as I have said. Similarly, on the one hand, “On all other nights we eat all types of vegetables (stewed along with meat); on this night we only eat bitter herbs.” We eat the bitter herbs, another sign of slavery and suffering. On the other hand, “On all other nights we sitting or leaning but on this night we all lean. This makes us appear as free people since all of us, young and old, eat while leaning with great honor. On this night, then, we have two things that symbolize freedom: dipping and leaning. We also do two things that are the opposite of them. There are two of each because of the principle of Jewish law; testimony must be based “on the testimony of two or more witnesses....” (Deut. 17:6) The Mah Nishtana brings two witness for slavery and two more witnesses for freedom. It does not mention eating of the Passover offering since it does not signify either freedom or subjugation, nor does it mention the four cups of wine since slaves often drink wine, as Solomon said, “Give strong drink to the hapless and wine to the embittered.” (Proverbs 31:6)
In explaining Mah Nishtana, we have now solved the questions in the fifth and sixth gates!"
]
],
"We Were Slaves in Egypt": [
[],
[
"We were slaves to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt. And the Lord, our God, took us out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched forearm. And if the Holy One, blessed be He, had not taken our ancestors from Egypt, behold we, our children, and our children's children would be enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt. And even if we were all Sages, discerning, elders, and all knowledgeable about the Torah, it would be a commandment upon us to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Anyone who tells the story of the Exodus from Egypt is praiseworthy.
This is the answer to Mah Nishtana. Since the questioner asks why we do certain things related to slavery and others related to freedom, we answer, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,” we do things that instruct us about slavery; on this night we also say, “the Lord our God took us out from there,” so, too, we do things that instruct us regarding freedom. At the beginning of the night we were slaves and at the end we were free; therefore we perform contradictory acts on this night, different from all other nights. We do so as a reminder of our condition of slavery and freedom which happened on this night. ",
"From this we find a comprehensive answer to all the parts of the Mah Nishtana.
We have now answered the question in the seventh gate.
It was unnecessary to explain why we eat bitter herbs (“because they embittered our lives”) since the Haggadah does not later on. Rather this passage only mentions the contradictory activities that we perform on this night.
The passage, “We were slaves to Pharaoh…” alludes to two factors that hindered the Israelites from leaving Egypt. One was a harsh and evil king of Egypt – Pharaoh. He was named for his actions, as in the verse, “the people were out of control (ki para hu) because Aaron let them get out of control (paroh).” (Ex. 32:25) Pharaoh can also be interpreted as a compound word, paal ra, “he performed evil,” or peh ra, “he had an evil tongue.” Do we not see how obstinate Pharaoh was, making himself deserving of all the punishments he received? We allude to his wickedness and his sinfulness when we say, “We were slaves to Pharaoh.”
The second obstacle to the Exodus was the land. The reason for the suffering is contained in the word, Mitzrayim, taken from the word metzarim (narrowness). The Sages have said that the borders of the land of Egypt were such that no one ever escaped from the land. It is said that slaves were imprisoned by twenty-four keys so that it was impossible to get out. The Torah mentions Eretz Mitzrayim, the land of Egypt, fifty times; they represent the fifty keys of Binah, understanding, that were given to Moses to free the Israelites. Through them, Moses opened the fifty gates of impurity and took the Israelites out of Egypt. Regarding this, it is said, “The Lord our God took us out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.” This means that God’s “mighty hand” vanquished the forces of nature, and His “outstretched arm” destroyed the celestial powers that prevented them from leaving, as it is stated, “I brought judgment against all the gods of Egypt.” (Ex. 12:12) This is what Ibn Ezra writes: “It was because of the supernal powers that prevented Israel from leaving Egypt.” ",
"If the Holy One had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt… This statement serves two purposes. First, one might say, “This celebration is fitting for those who were redeemed from slavery to freedom; they certainly should celebrate by eating and drinking while leaning. But what does it mean for us since we are still in exile?” One could now answer them by saying, “If our ancestors had not left Egypt, we would still be slaves. Therefore, it is as if we personally left Egypt; because of them we do the same things they did to celebrate our redemption.
The second purpose of this statement is to make known the significance of the Exodus. If this deed had not been for the Holy One, we would never have left Egypt. There are only three ways through which Israel could escape: (1) through Israel’s own strength they might have overcome the Egyptians, as the Egyptians feared, “In the event of war they may join our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground.” (Ex.1:10) (2) They might have left as a result of Pharaoh’s own decision to free them; he might have given them permission to leave just as Cyrus did for the Jews in Persia. (3) It would take an act of the Holy One who has power over all the earth.
The Maggid states that if the Holy One had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, it could not have happened as a result of the first two causes: the strength of the Israelites or Pharaoh’s own will. Even though the nation was great in number beyond counting, they did not have the courage to escape because they were all born into slavery and oppression. Regarding this fact, the Haggadah states, “We, our children, and our children’s children would still be subjugated.” That is, six hundred thousand men would not have been enough to free them and they would still have been permanent slaves. Can thousands of sheep in a flock stop a lion that is coming to attack them? And if it was through the determination of Pharaoh, there is no doubt that he never would have freed them, and so we would say, “We, our children, and our children’s children would still be subjugated to Pharaoh.” There remains, then, only one means through which they could have left Egypt, the will and power of God.
This passage does not come to teach us to say that we “Should see ourselves as if we went forth from Egypt;” this occurs later in the Haggadah. The purpose of this statement is to make known God’s power and compassion in choosing to take us out of Egypt. In this way we find an answer to the question of why we must say, “We, our children and children’s children would still be…”
We have now answered the questions in the eighth, ninth and eleventh gates.
The Maggid derived this statement from what God said to Moses at the beginning of his calling, “I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go because of a greater might. So I will stretch out My hand and smite Egypt with various wonders which I will work upon them; after that he shall let you go.” (Ex. 3:19 -20) This verse has troubled commentators because Israel left Egypt as a result of the plague of the first born which is called yad hachazakah, “A mighty hand.” How can the verse say, “Not let you go because of a mighty hand?” ",
"Rashi explains, “So long as I do not let him feel My strong hand, he will not let you go.”
It seems to me that true explanation of the verse is as follows: God says, “I know that Pharaoh will not free Israel freely and that the Exodus will not take place as a result of the people’s might so that they will overcome the Egyptians and go up from the land. It will take place as a result of My Mighty Hand that I will send to strike Egypt,” that is, when I strike the land and its gods in a supernatural fashion. Rather, “When I smite Egypt with various wonders; only then will he send you forth.” (Ex.3:20)
",
"But what did we gain from the Exodus from Egypt and the redemption (since we are still in Exile? There are three gifts that we gained because of the Exodus even though we are still in Exile.
",
"First: We learned that God loves us: Through the Exodus, we have come to recognize the standing of Jewish people before God. God was willing to overturn the natural order, the heavenly powers, and the angelic princes to bring about the redemption. This was not done for any other people.
",
"Second: Israel’s dignity: Great honor and dignity was conferred upon our people by God when they went forth from Egypt with “a high hand” (Exodus 14:8) and they inherited the land of Canaan for those who followed them.
",
"Third: Sinai: If we had not left Egypt, we would not have reached Mount Sinai or received Torah and commandments. The Divine Presence would not have dwelt in our midst and we would not have become the chosen people. Also the divine providence would not have cleaved to us along with the spiritual wholeness associated with it. ",
"These are all benefits we gained even though we still live in exile.
We must contemplate these great gifts. The Maggid says, “Even if we were all wise, all discerning, all knowledgeable in the Torah…” “Wise” alludes to those who understand the nature of the lower and the upper worlds. “Discerning” alludes to matters related to the divine glory and Israel’s dignity. Regarding matters of the wholeness of Torah and spirituality, we say, “all who are knowledgeable in the Torah.” It is still a commandment for those who have knowledge in all of these areas to tell the story of the Exodus, for it is the source of all our virtues and wholeness. Telling this story is a great commandment of which the Torah reminds us many times, as we shall see in the passage about the four children, “You shall tell them.”
The proper version of this passage should be, “All who increase the telling of the story of the Exodus from Egypt at length are praiseworthy.” To tell the story (misaper) is a commandment, while telling it at length (marbeh) is praiseworthy. ",
"The questions stated in the tenth and twelfth gates have now been answered!"
]
],
"Story of the Five Rabbis": [
[
"It happened that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon were reclining in B’nei Brak and were telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt that whole night, until their students came and said to them, \"The time of reciting the morning Sh’ma has arrived.\"
The Maggid brings an example of how it is praiseworthy to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt at length, even if one is wise, discerning, and knowledge in Torah. This incident took place when five great Torah scholars of the generation gathered on Passover eve in B’nai Brak to tell the story of the Exodus. This must have been after the meal, because if it took place before the meal, we say, “One grabs the matzot on the nights of Passover on account of the children, so they will not sleep after the meal.” They continued to discuss the story until sunrise and their students came to tell them it was time to recite the Sh’ma. The Sages isolated themselves while telling the story and discussing its meaning. They weren’t even aware that the morning light had arrived. Their students had to remind them to recite the Sh’ma, whose recital time begins with the first rays of sunlight (hainetz hachama).
",
"What is the meaning of misubin b’B’nei Brak? Some explain that banim (sons) means students. The sages were sitting and eating together with their students in a city known as Brak. But this does not make sense. The passage uses the word misubin instead of nismachim for sitting together at the table. It should have said that they were nismachim, sitting, in the houses of their students. If the five Sages were staying over with their students in that city in order to eat together during the days of the festival, they would have all been in one house discussing the Exodus on that night and their students would not have said, “the time for reciting the Sh’ma has arrived.” Furthermore, if they were dining in the homes of their students, how is it that the text says, “Until their students came…?” If the Sages were in the students’ homes, where were the students? And how is that Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah, who was wealthy and a great scholar of his generation, was eating at his student’s table on Passover? All of these questions suggest that B’nai Brak cannot be ‘the students of the city of Brak.’
Some say that B’nai Brak is a term for a fancy couch on which people would lean (misubin) during the Seder according to the religious custom. Accordingly, we say above, “On this night all of us lean (misubin). The five Sages were sitting together eating on the evening when the Haggadah is read, on lovely couches covered with colorful fabrics. (Esther 1:6) Maybe they were in Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah’s home to eat with the Patriarch, and he provided them with couches called b’nai brak. B’nai is used to describe anything that is built or handmade, as in the verse, “You cared about a plant, which you did not work for…which the stem (Bin) appeared overnight and the stem (Bin) perished overnight” (bin laila hayah uvin lailah ovad). (Jonah 4:10) Radak explains that bin is a name for part of a plant, as in, “the stem (Bin) that you made strong for yourself,” (Psalm 80:16) and, “Ben porat Yosef,” (Gen. 49:22). Radak explains this verse to mean a fertile branch. The word barak, “sparkling” is meant to be a description of the silk coverings which sparkles to the eyes. On such couches they would be leaning. Whatever it may be, we learn from this that they were telling the story of the Exodus that night which proves that they were praiseworthy because they went on in telling the story of the Exodus at length.
",
"Yet why would the sages stay up all night telling the story of the Exodus and avoiding sleeping? It is because Passover eve is described as “A vigil night to the Lord (leil shemurim),” (Exodus 12:42) and the people of Israel did not rest at all the night that they left Egypt. During the first part of the night they busied themselves preparing and eating the Passover offering with matzah and bitter herbs as they were commanded by God. And during the latter part of the night they prepared for the Exodus. Similarly there was no time to snooze (at the sages’ Passover) since they saw themselves as if they personally went forth from Egypt. These holy men performed their acts immediately at the beginning of the night with matzah and bitter herbs, and recalling the Passover offering just as our ancestors did in Egypt. The rest of the night they spoke of the Exodus, and in this way they saw themselves as if they themselves went out of Egypt.
",
"The question of the thirteenth gate has been solved."
],
[
"Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah said, \"Behold I am like a seventy year old man yet I have not merited to understand why the Exodus from Egypt should be said at night until Ben Zoma explicated it, as it is stated (Deut. 16:3), 'In order that you remember the day of your going out from the land of Egypt all the days of your life;' 'the days of your life' [indicates that the remembrance be invoked during] the days, 'all the days of your life' [indicates that the remembrance be invoked also during] the nights.\" But the Sages say, \"'the days of your life' [indicates that the remembrance be invoked in] this world, 'all the days of your life' [indicates that the remembrance be invoked also in] the next world.
This is a second example that the Maggid brings to show that it is a commandment to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt at length. It is taken from the Mishnah Berachot in which Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah states what he learned on the day when he was appointed chief of the Sanhedrin. According to the Jerusalem Talmud in Berachot, at the time, he was only thirteen years old. It is with surprise that he says, “I am like a person of seventy years old!” He implies that though his expertise and background in matters of Torah increased so that he was equal in knowledge to a seventy year old, he still could not prove that one should mention the Exodus at night, until Ben Zoma taught him how to do so. Ben Zoma is Shimon Ben Zoma. Of Ben Zoma it is said that, “When he saw the throngs of Israel he said, ‘Blessed is the One who created all these beings to serve me,’” implying that he was the perfection of humanity. This statement was not meant to be “prideful, and arrogant,” God forbid! (Prov.8:13) Rather his statement was meant to arouse the hearts of the students and to inspire them. Ben Zoma was extremely young, and was not yet ordained so he was referred to by his father’s name, “Ben Zoma.”…Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah comments that even though he was young, it was through God’s grace that he became like a seventy year old, complete in his knowledge of Torah and in his position as head of the Sanhedrin. He now complains that if this is so, why couldn’t he figure out the answer as Ben Zoma did. After all, Ben Zoma was younger than him and did not experience the miracle that Elazar ben Azariah did.
Ben Zoma’s Midrash is to prove that mentioning the Exodus at night means mentioning it every evening in the evening liturgy (and not just on Passover). The Talmud already proved that we mention the Exodus by reciting the passage dealing with fringes in the Sh’ma since it contains a statement regarding the Exodus. Even though the commandment of fringes is not observed at night, since the Torah states, “you shall see it…” (Num. 15:39) Ben Zoma argues that it is fitting to recite the whole last passage of the Sh’ma in the evening including this passage because it also contains a reference to the Exodus. In this way, we mention the Exodus at night. Even though Deut. 16:3 is taken from the passage dealing with the Passover offering , Ben Zoma realized that it was impossible that this verse is a reference only to the Passover offering since it concludes, “All the days of your life.” How could it be a reference only to the Passover offering which is offered yearly and not something we do every day? How is it possible that we should explicate the laws of Passover all year long? We have learned that, “We study the laws of the festival before the festival. Ben Zoma concludes that the verse in Deuteronomy regarding the Exodus is recited “all the days of your life,” something we do each day.
The first half of the statement, “For you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly,” (Deut. 16:3) is an explanation for the Passover offering and matzot. The second half of the verse, “That you may remember the day of your Exodus from the land of Egypt all the days of your life” is a way of saying, “Have I not commanded and warned you to remember the Exodus from Egypt so that you must do so not only on Passover but every day?” ",
"We conclude that, “The days of your life,” means to mention it during the day... By adding “All,” the verse includes the obligation to mention it at night as well.
The Sages did not agree with this interpretation since they thought of the night as a continuation of the day, as in the verse, “There was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Gen. 1:5) If so, then ‘night’ is included in the word ‘day,’ and all twenty four hours are called “day.” Therefore, we learn something different from the verse that states that we are obligated to recite the passage dealing with fringes. The Sages interpret this verse as follows: “The days of your life” means in this world, the world of exile, and the word “All” comes to include Messianic times, for even in that time mentioning the Exodus will not be removed from our lips.
",
"The Talmud continues this discussion with Ben Zoma saying, ‘And is the Exodus from Egypt mentioned in the days of the Messiah? Didn’t Jeremiah prophesy regarding Messianic times: ‘Behold, days are coming, says the Lord when they will no longer say: The Lord lives who brought up the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt. Rather: (they will say,) As the Lord lives, that brought up and led the seed of the house of Israel up out of the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them’ (Jer. 23:7–8). To this, the Sages said, ‘This does not mean that the Exodus from Egypt will be uprooted from its place. Rather, redemption from the subjugation of the kingdoms will be primary and the Exodus from Egypt will be secondary.’” The Sages were saying that Scripture did not suggest that the festivals of God would be abolished and that there would be new festivals, for the Torah of God and the commandments are eternal without additions or subtractions. The Sages stated, “These are the Commandments:” (Lev. 27:34) The word, ‘these,’ teaches us that a prophet is not permitted to introduce new elements related to the Torah.” (Reading of the Megillah was not considered to be an additional holiday.) It was Jeremiah’s intention that in the Messianic days the Exodus would not be viewed as the most essential redemption as it is today. Instead the gathering of the Exiles would be greater and it would be viewed as the most essential redemption by most people and therefore the Exodus would be secondary and lesser.
",
"Even though the Sages are correct, there is another way of answering the question. When the prophet said, “The Lord lives who brought up…” meant that when the people of Israel spoke with one another or made a promise, they would begin by speaking of the Exodus since this was our greatest oath. But in Messianic times, they would begin their oath by saying, “As the Lord lives, that brought up and led the seed of the house of Israel up out of the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them,” since the gathering of the exiles would be a greater wonder than the Exodus from Egypt. This does not contradict the statement that one must mention the Exodus from Egypt in the passage dealing with fringes day or night. It is a set commandment that can never be changed. The Torah commands us regarding our actions and commandments while the prophet Jeremiah was speaking about how people were to make oaths.
",
"Since Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was talking about the passage dealing with the fringes which also mentions the Exodus, the Maggid brings this statement as a proof that one should mention the Exodus on Passover night in order to emphasize its importance. That is to say, to prove that one must tell the story on Passover eve, Rabbi Elazar first says that one mentions the Exodus every night according to the interpretation of Ben Zoma. Even according to the Sages, one must continue to do so in Messianic times. Since we conclude that if we mention the miracle every night, how much more so tell the story on the eve of Passover, when this event took place. Therefore, one who tells the story at length on this night is truly praiseworthy. Rabbi Elazar did not prove this from the verse, “It is a night of vigil to the Lord,” (Ex.12:42) since this only refers to the eve of Passover. Rabbi Elazar wanted to show that this commandment is applied to all nights, as I have said. ",
"With this I have answered the questions brought in the fourteenth through the eighteenth gates."
]
],
"The Four Sons": [
[
"Praised is HaMakom who gave the Torah to Israel, praised is God. The Torah speaks of four children: one is wise, one is wicked, one is simple and one doesn’t know to ask.
There are many things to explain in this brief passage. The first is the connection between the two statements, “Praised is HaMakom,” and, “The Torah speaks of four children.”
There are a number of ways of explaining the order of the passages at the beginning of the Haggadah. First, the Maggid wants to prove the premise that it is an obligation to tell the story of the Exodus at length. After bringing examples from the sages as well as the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, the Maggid tells us that the Torah speaks of the Exodus in many different ways. It tells us that the Torah speak of four types of children: wise, wicked, simple and one who doesn’t know how to ask. Each asks a different question and the Torah answers in a different way. For each one, a person must formulate an appropriate answer. As the Haggadah says (regarding the fourth child), “You must open it for him.” Therefore, the statements about four children prove that one must tell the story of the Exodus at length. After proving this, the Maggid begins the telling, with ‘disgrace,’ (“At first our fathers worshipped idols,”) and then concludes with, ‘praise,’ (“My father was a wandering Aramean.”) In this manner everything fits into its proper order.",
"The second way of explaining the order of the statements at the beginning of the Haggadah is based on a passage in Pesachim, Chapter 10:
“One should begin with disgrace and end with praise. What is meant by disgrace? Rav said: ‘We begin with at first, our fathers worshipped idols.’ (Joshua 24:2) Samuel said: ‘We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt.’ (Deut. 6:21)” (Pesachim, 116a)
According to Samuel the main topic of Passover is political liberation, and so we focus on the disgrace of slavery. Rav was of the opinion that the disgrace is that idol worship and the praise is that God brought them close to divine service by giving them the Torah at Sinai. For Rav the focus of the story is the birth of our faith.
We tell the story of the Exodus in the Haggadah according to the opinions of Samuel and Rav. The Maggid first speaks of Samuel’s opinion by beginning “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt.” Subjugation was disgrace and redemption was “praise.” We then continue with the story of the sages (in B’nai Brak), who spent the night recalling the Exodus. Afterwards comes the statement of ‘praise:’ “Praised is the Omnipresent who gave Torah to Israel,” and the interpretation of the four children. All of these passages deal with political liberation. This is the Haggadah according to Samuel.
We then tell the story according to Rav, beginning with shame, “At first our ancestors worshipped idols.” The praise begins with the declaration of the first fruits.
In this fashion, the statements in the Haggadah are brought according to Samuel and Rav, so that we follow both of them.",
"There is a third way of explaining the order of the Haggadah: The Maggid begins by stating that it is a mitzvah to tell the story of the Exodus at length. He then explains how one should present the story: one should not simply present the literal text of Scripture or an explanation of the commandments, such as matzah, avoiding hametz and eating the Passover offerings. The Maggid says that it is not the intention to present the scriptural narrative or the laws and commandments; rather to present a ‘telling,” (Haggadah) according to ability and temperament of each child. If the child is wise, then, “Give instruction to the wise person and he will be yet wiser;” (Prov. 9:9) if he is wicked, then, “answer the fool according to his folly;” (Prov. 26:5) if he is simple, then, “The simple person walks in his integrity;” (Prov. 20:7) and for the one who doesn’t know to how to ask you have to open the discussion. The passage concludes that we offer each one an appropriate ‘telling.’
The telling should be fitting for each one. According to the Haggadah, when addressing the one who doesn’t know to ask, one, “Opens it for him, as it is states, ‘You shall tell (higadita) your child.’” The intention of this expression, “Open it for him,” is that you should make known everything about the story from beginning to end. That is why the next passage begins, “At first our ancestors worshipped idols.
",
"",
"We must explain why the Maggid introduced the four children with, “Praised is the Omnipresent who gave the Torah to Israel; Praised is God.” Such a statement does not preface the other passages in the Haggadah. There are a number of explanations:
",
"Having stated that the Torah is divinely given, the Maggid suggests that it teaches people of all backgrounds and abilities: whether the person is a “wise person with eyes in his head,” (Eccl.2:14), a wicked person, “the net that he hid shall catch him,” (Ps. 35:8), or simple, “One who dwells in tents,” (Gen. 25:27), or one who doesn’t know how to ask (like the vast majority of people.) We praise God who watches over all human beings and gives knowledge to all beings. That is why the Maggid begins, “Praised is the one who gave the Torah to Israel, praised is God.” God’s teachings are geared to all types of people, answering them “according to each person’s needs.” (Esther 1:8) In this way, God is praiseworthy to all people. This is similar to the statement of King David, Israel’s great poet, “Praised are You Adonai, who teaches me Your statutes.” (Ps. 119:12) David praised God for teaching him His laws.
",
"A second explanation: The Maggid found four places in Scripture which use the word ben/child: “Draw out and take a lamb:” – “And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you,” (Ex.12:26); then, “Sanctify to me all the first born:” – “You shall tell your child on that day,” (Ex.13:8); then, “When Adonai shall bring you:” – “And it shall be when your child asks you in time to come,” (Ex. 13:14) and finally, in Parshat Vaetchanan, “When your child asks you in time to come.” (Deut. 6:20) It is not a coincidence that these passages all use ben. They offer four different explanations for the same subject. This proves the divinity of Torah. The Torah organizes its ideas to include all the possible ways of speaking about the Exodus. Divine matters, in contrast to human matters, are similar to the contrast between natural vs artificial matters. There are multiple meanings for natural matters. Something artificial, on the other hand, has a single purpose while something natural many have many purposes or meanings, some related to their material purpose, others to their structure and some to a combination of the two. Some of its meaning might even be hidden so that we do not know their purpose except through experience. On the other hand, human creations have only one meaning or purpose while the divine includes many levels of meaning. This is the meaning of the saying: “The Torah has seventy faces,” (Zohar, V1, 47b) All of these meanings are the words of the living God, since they all are implied by divine wisdom. The Maggid prefaces this passage by saying, “Praised is the Omnipresent who gave Torah,” meaning that it was given to them in this fashion to include many meanings in these passages. While the Torah and the commandments are one, the Torah speaks of four types of children with regard to this commandment. This introduction is meant to be a statement of praise and acclaim.
",
"Why is God called, HaMakom, “The Place” (the Omnipresent in translation). Does HaMakom refer to God and if so, why use the name “Place,” for God. Or, is HaMakom a reference to a special place. There are those who explain that HaMakom refers to Mount Sinai, the choicest of all places, at which Israel received the Torah, “Moses received Torah at Sinai.” Thus, it also says in the Midrash: “The moment when the Holy One came to give the Torah on Sinai, all the mountains came running and arguing with each other… Mount Tabor came from Bet Elim and Mount Carmel from Espania… This one said ‘I was called!’ and this one said ‘I was called!’ The Holy One said ‘Why do you lurk, you lofty mountains?’ You are all high mountains, but what does lofty (gavnunim) mean… Idolatry was done on all of you, but idolatry was never performed on Mount Sinai, the mountain that God desired for His dwelling,” (Ps. 68:17) “The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai…”
",
"This explanation is far from the true intention of the text, for HaMakom is a true name of God, as the sages said, “God is the place (HaMakom) of the world and the world is not God’s place….”
God is sometimes referred to as HaMakom because of certain qualities God shares with the concept of place or location. First, all things have their natural place. They are at ease when they are in their proper place and in a state of tension when they are removed from it. Similarly, God is the natural home of the soul which longs for attachment to God.
Second, all objects are totally encompassed by their location. Similarly no aspect of man’s existence is hidden from God who knows our innermost thoughts.
Third, an object is on the same level as its place. Similarly God has put Himself on our level by directing, through divine providence, every facet of our lives. Fourth, a location is an entity distinct from the object within it. Similarly God is an entity utterly transcending all else.
Fifth, the idea of an object’s station, whether it is above or below, falls within the concept of location. Similarly, God encompasses all stations…This, ultimately, is the reason we refer to God as HaMakom at this point in the Haggadah…
",
"Why does the Maggid order the four children, wise and wicked, simple and one who doesn’t know to ask? What is the nature of their character that it is necessary to contrast them in this way? After all, wise is not opposite of wicked, nor is simple the opposite of one who doesn’t know how to ask, as is pointed out in the questions.
Some people have tried to explain the four children (allegorically) as representing the four elements, while others have compared them to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. The wise child has the quality of loving-kindness like Abraham. The wicked is associated with judgment and Isaac since Esau came from the loins of Isaac. The simple one is like Jacob who is called an eesh tam, “simple,” and the one who does not know to ask, is associated with David, of whom it is said: “Hear me, Lord, and answer me, for I am poor and needy.” (Ps. 86:1) This interpretation is farfetched, in my opinion. There are three other explanations that are more reasonable for the order of the four children.
",
"First, the four children are divided into those who ask questions and those who don’t ask questions. There is no intermediate category between these categories. Among the children who ask, there are three reasons why they ask: to show off their knowledge, to cast doubt upon the matter in a spirit of heresy, or to ask out of a desire to gain knowledge. These are the reasons for the wise, the wicked and the simple children.
● The wise child knows the truth of the matter and asks questions in order to show the people the richness of his Torah and wisdom.
● The wicked child does not believe in the commandments and casts doubt on them.
● The simple asks so that we might answer him. These three ask questions with his own purpose in mind.
● For the fourth child there are no divisions or categories since his response is an absolute negation. Of him, it is said “he does not know to ask.” If he asked out of evil intent then he would be in the same category as the wicked child.
",
"A second explanation: complete knowledge of a matter includes four types of explanation: material, creative, purposeful and structural/ideal. One or more of these explanations can be used to answer each type of questioner according to his or her intellectual aptitude or deficiency.
This might be explained in the following way. If an ignorant person were to see a building he might ask, ‘How was this built?’ One might answer, “It is made of wood and stones.” This material answer would appease his uncultivated mind…
If this did not appease him, he might say: “I’ve seen wood and stones but never a building like this.” One might say: “It is constructed by a carpenter.” Because of the limits of his intellect these two answers would satisfy him as to the nature of the building.
But others, more perceptive, might still not be satisfied and want an explanation of what purpose the building serves – it was built for shelter or storage.
One whose intellect is still not satisfied might ask why this particular kind of building and not another. (Why this form?) One would then have to explain its idealized form, thereby combining all four types of knowledge for a complete explanation.
There are four groups of people who seek to understand the divine wisdom regarding the Exodus, so we organize the four types of explanations with the four types of people. The wise child seeks to integrate all four types of explanations, comes first. (“It is a commandment, given by God, to remind us of the exercise and to convey God’s wisdom.”)
The passage dealing with the wicked child attempts to address three categories: the purposeful, the creative and the material. The passage adds creative. (It is a commandment, given by God to remind us of the exercise.)
To the simple child we would give a material and creative explanation. (It is a commandment given by God.)
And the one who doesn’t know to ask, is satisfied in learning the material aspect alone. (It is a commandment.) I have now explained the reason for the division of the four children, and the order in which they appear in the Haggadah, which is according to the reasons that have been given.
",
"The third explanation for the order of the four sons: the children are divided, each one with its opposite. The wise and the wicked are mentioned together. The simple who is pure of evil desires is the opposite of the wicked….so, too, the wise and the one who doesn’t know to ask are opposites. The wise one wishes to display his understanding... while the one who doesn’t know to ask is lacking in knowledge and understanding so that doesn’t even know how to how to ask a single question. Philosophers have already stated “Asking is half of wisdom.”
If this is so, then the four children can be divided into two opposite pairs: the wise and the one who doesn’t even know how to ask, and the wicked and the simple child. They are organized according to the level of their wisdom. First, the wise child who shows great respect for the Torah, then the wicked one who uses his wisdom to denigrate the Torah; then the simple child who has only limited knowledge of the Torah, and finally the one who doesn’t know to ask who is completely lacking in any knowledge at all."
],
[
"What does the wise child say: ‘What means these testimonies, statutes, and rules which Adonai our God commanded you?’ and so you shall tell him all the laws of Passover: Do not eat any sweets after the Passover offering?
I have already explained the reason that the wise child is mentioned first even though he appears last, in the Torah. It is because of the superiority of his wisdom, for, “the wise inherit honor.” (Pro. 3:35) He is also mentioned first because his answer which includes all four types of questions, as has been said.
There is no doubt that the question, “What means these testimonies, statutes, and rules which Adonai, our God, commanded you,” refers to all the commandments. In my Torah commentary I have explained this passage according to its literal meaning. The Maggid, however, saw fit to interpret both the question and answer as a reference to the commandment of Passover. The answer, “You shall say to your child, ‘We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,’” suggests that it is speaking about the commandment of the Passover offering. There is further proof at the end of the answer which states, “It will be to our merit before Adonai, our God, to observe faithfully this mitzvah, as God has commanded us.” (Deut. 6:25) The expression, ‘This mitzvah,’ in singular, suggests that it is speaking about one commandment, in particular.
The wise child wished to show off his wisdom, so he suggested that the Passover commandment is made up of different types of mitzvot.
Some are eduyot, testimonies, such as matzah, a symbol of the haste with which Israel left Egypt; the Passover offering, a reminder of the lamb which was slaughtered and the judgments with which God saved the Israelites; and maror, a reminder of how the Egyptians embittered the Israelites with hard labor. All of these commandments are testimonies.
There are also chukkim, statutes, such as, “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.” (Ex. 12:46) The reason for this commandment is not known to us.
And there are mishpatim, rules, such as, “The whole community of Israel must celebrate it. A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the God’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.” (Ex. 12:47-48) These are rules only performed by the members of the covenant. By pointing out to the categories of commandments and Torah, the wise child shows off his great knowledge.
The Maggid also notes that the wise child, “fears God and shuns evil,” (Pro.14:16). At the beginning of the verse, the Torah says, “Which Adonai our God has commanded.” (Ex. 12:26) This implies that in his question the wise child acknowledges that the commandments were divinely given to our ancestors.
The answer also addresses the different types of commandments in his question. When the wise child asks about testimonies, one answers, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and God took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand, performing great and terrible signs and wonders,” he speaks of the testimonies (1). The bitter herbs are a reminder of slavery; the matzah, a reminder that God took us out of Egypt; and the Passover offering a sign of the signs and wonders which God performed. These are all the testimonies related to the commemoration of the Exodus.
Concerning the mishpatim, the Torah answers, “God brought us out from there.” This means that it is appropriate and lawful that gentiles should not eat the Passover offering, since it is exclusively the commandment of Israel, the members of the covenanted community.
Regarding the statutes the Torah responds, “Adonai commanded us to perform all these statutes,” whose rationale is not known. Their effect, however, is well known to us. The passage continues, “So that we might prosper,” (Deut. 6:24) these commandments are eternally beneficial for the soul. “And be kept alive as is the case today,” for a long physical life.
In order that we not think that this last phrase only applies to the statutes and not the testimonies and rules, the Torah then adds, “And if we are careful to obey all this law before Adonai our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.” In other words, the reward will be paid for all of the commandments, since the combined laws are more whole than the individual details. The Torah explains this commandment according to all of its reasons: the material, the structural, the creative, and the purposeful.
1. The material: “All these commandments.”
2. The structural: Detailing “Testimonies, statutes and rules.”
3. The creative: “Which God commanded us.”
4. The purposeful: “So that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.”
",
"Finally, the Maggid’s statement, “And so shall you tell him…” appears to be unrelated to the answer in the Torah. This is not the answer which is given to this child in the Torah. However, since the wise child becomes arrogant about his wisdom, categorizing all commandments. Besides the answer the Torah gives, you should also teach him all the laws of Passover so he does not become overconfident. In addition to the laws in the Torah, teach him all the rabbinic laws of Passover to the very last one, “One may not maftirin after the Passover offering.” This is taken the last Mishnah in the Pesachim. It means that after eating the Passover offering one should not request any more food nor should one serve dessert. In that way the taste of the Passover offering will remain in one’s mouth. In this way one will not forget the Exodus, and it will be ingrained in one’s heart forever.
From this we may conclude that even with all his wisdom, “there are still things to explain,” and that to every commandment there is great wisdom, more than even the questioner realizes, as Scripture teaches, “Give wisdom to the wise person and he will be yet wiser.” (Prov. 9:9)"
],
[
"The wicked child, what does he say? “What is this service to you?” He asks, (what does it mean) “to you” and not “to him.” Since he removed himself from the community, he denies the central principle (of faith). So, shall you set his teeth on edge by saying, “It is because of this which God did for me.” God did it for me and not for him. Had he been there he would not have been redeemed.
Having offered the interpretation regarding the wise child, the Maggid now turns to the wicked child. This child is wise but he uses his wisdom for profane purposes. The wicked child is related to the scriptural passage which begins, “Go, draw out lambs for yourself…” (Ex. 12:21) In order to understand the Maggid, it is necessary to clarify this passage, according to its literal meaning.
There are several problems in this passage,
",
"First, in the passage, “This month shall be for you…” (Ex. 12) God commands Moses all the practices regarding the Passover offering: setting it aside, slaughtering it, consuming its head, leg and entrails along with matzah and bitter herbs, eating it with one’s loins girded, placing blood on the door posts and lintel, the prohibition against hametz for seven days, and the observance of Passover for seven days.
When Moses came to teach the people about Passover, he did not repeat all the commandments as he originally heard them. Instead, he told them to take the lamb, slaughter it and to place the blood on the doorpost (and nothing else such as matzah, bitter herbs, the prohibition against eating hametz for the seven days. This is very surprising! Why didn’t he mention all the other customs and laws? Moses seems to have mentioned some and ignored others! Ramban writes that Scripture abbreviated it, but it was well known that Moses taught all the details. Yet Ramban does not give a reason why the Torah did this.
",
"Second, for what reason did Moses choose to teach the mitzvot to the elders in this passage and not the entire community? Since God commanded the people of Israel, it would have been fitting for Moses to teach everyone the laws. So why did God instruct him to say, “Go draw and take lambs for yourself” to the elders? Some taught that Moses called to the elders, and the elders gathered the whole nation, and then Moses taught all the community of Israel. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yosaiah in the Mechilta (Chapter11). Rabbi Yochanan, however, thought that Moses’ commandment was specifically for the elders, and they in turn spoke to the community. We see that the essence of this explanation is missing from the text according to both points of view.
",
"Third, why does the verse say, “the Israelites went and did so; just as Adonai commanded Moses, so they did?” (Ex. 12:28) Since Moses spoke to the elders, it would have been fitting to say, “The elders went and did as Adonai commanded Moses” instead of “As Adonai commanded Moses and Aaron.” Yet the elders heard the commandments from Moses and not from Aaron!
",
"This is the way I would explain it: On the first of Nisan, God commanded Moses and Aaron regarding the Passover offering. This was the first commandment Israel was given. God instructed Israel to observe it in Egypt and that it would be an eternal statute for all generations. There is no doubt that Moses instructed the people to observe all the commandments of Passover, not leaving anything out. It is not surprising that Scripture does not say that Moses told it to the people as he heard it. For Moses would not transgress God’s word. As with many commandments, the Torah states: “God spoke to Moses…speak to the children of Israel,” but Scripture does not state that he related the commandments to the nation as he heard them, for it is assumed that he would not disobey God. When he spoke to the people, Moses told them exactly what God had commanded him!
Therefore, the commandment, “Go, draw out lambs for yourself,” (Ex. 12: 21) was not meant to be a repetition of the earlier presentation of the commandments. The community already had heard them from Moses. Rather Moses told the elders to be hasty in performing the commandments, to begin by setting aside the offering, to slaughter it, and, finally, to put its blood on the entrance of their homes. These were the most dangerous aspects of the commandments for the Israelites. Moses feared that these might be the most difficult acts of all because of the danger (from the Egyptians), as is stated, “If we sacrifice that which is untouchable to the Egyptians before their very eyes, might they not stone us?” (Ex.8:22) ",
"It was known that the ram was the heavenly symbol of Egypt bringing honor to them. They treated the flock which they were named after and in whose image they were created with great reverence. They thought that if one even touched even a bit of the flock, it was like poking the eye, making one guilty of death.
In a split second the world saw the pitiful nation of Israel set forth its hand against the respected symbol from which the Egyptians received a supernal blessing. Each person took a lamb for his household, tied it to his bed post, and kept it tied up there for three days. Yet the Egyptians had no power to stop them. When the time came, the Israelites slaughtered the lamb before the Egyptians while it was still day time. The blood of the lamb cried out from their doorposts but the Egyptians could do nothing. All who saw this knew what was happening because the Israelites roasted the lambs whole. In this way, it would be obvious by its form (head, leg and entrails) that they were eating the lamb. They then ate it in a casual and disrespectful manner so it would be seen as a humiliation to the Egyptians. It was consumed in the fashion of merchants, (Job 40:30) its bones being picked clean until nothing remained in the morning. Whatever remained was then burned; all of this could cause great danger from the Egyptians.
Since the Israelites were afraid of the Egyptians, Moses spoke to the elders: “Draw out lambs for yourself.” In other words, Moses said, “You, the leaders of Israel must act first.” He told them, “You, the elders and princes, must perform the act and not an emissary so it is performed with your own hands, “A lamb for each household,” in the light of day for your families. On the 14th day of the month you shall slaughter the Passover offering and then take hyssop, dip it in blood and wipe it on the door posts. ",
"That is why Moses didn’t mention consuming the offering, or the matzah, or the prohibition of hametz or anything else. He had already taught them these commandments, and it was necessary to command the elders who governed the nation, to do those things that would be perceived as dangerous. He mentioned the acts in order of increased danger: first take a lamb; then, slaughter it, and finally place the blood on the doorposts which was perceived as most dangerous. The elders were to do this in order to encourage the masses, so that the people would see what they did and follow their example. For a nation always follows the example of its leaders.
Moses warned the Israelites, that even if they trusted God and were not afraid of the Egyptians, they should still not leave their homes or go about the city, as the Torah states, “One shall not go out from the door of one’s house until morning.” The Torah gives a reason for this, “For Adonai will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when God sees blood on the lintels... God will not let the destroyer come into your houses to strike you.” (Ex.12:23) This means that at the very time that the Israelites were eating the Passover, God would smite the first born of Egypt, and through the merit of that commandment, Israel would be saved and the plague would affect their homes.
It is possible that the warning not to leave their homes was so that they would be busy themselves performing the commandment of Passover and not turn their attention elsewhere. ",
"The sages taught from this, “If you give permission to the destroyer to destroy, it will not differentiate between the wicked and the righteous.” (Rashi Ex. 12:22, and the Melkhilta) This means that once the plague began, it was better to avoid mixing with others lest they be wiped out because of their sins.
It is also possible that he warned them not to go out of their houses lest the Israelites see the Egyptians in the hour of humiliation and the Egyptians might pick a fight with the Israelites, as stated, “You killed our people.” In order to distance the Israelites from such ugliness God commanded them, “And a person shall not go out from his house until the morning,” so that the Israelites would not see the Egyptians as their firstborn died.
If you were to ask, what would prevent the Egyptians, from entering the Israelite homes to kill them, even if the Israelites were not supposed to go out of the Egyptian houses? The answer is in Scripture, “God will not let the ‘destroyer’ come into your houses to strike you.” (Ex. 12:23) The destroyer refers to the Egyptians. God reassured them that the Egyptians could not enter the houses to harm the Israelites because of the Passover offering, or because of the plague of the first born. On this night, the Israelites were protected from all destroyers for God had compassion on the Israelites, and protect them from plagues and afflictions. God did not allow the Egyptian to enter their houses to be an affliction.
In dangerous matters, those who act first are accorded honor and glory. We see this in the case of David who, when he came up to Jerusalem to conquer it, said, “Whoever is the first to strike the Jebusites shall be chief and captain,” (1 Chron. 11:6). So, too, Moses said to the elders, “And you shall observe this thing for an ordinance to you and to your children forever.” (Ex. 12:24) Since this would be the law for generations to come, it was fitting that it begins with the leaders of the nation.
",
"At the end of the passage, we learn that even though Moses only commanded the elders, the entire nation “bowed their heads and worshipped before God,” (Ex. 12:28) The people said, “Our master, we will pass before Adonai; all of us will obey the commandments for it is not fitting to begin with the elders, but rather the nation as a whole (shall obey them).” This is the intention of the phrase, “They bowed their heads and worshipped before Adonai…and they did as Adonai commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.” (Ex. 12:26-27) When he spoke to the elders, all of the Israelites heard his words and bowed before them like one taking leave of his master, and they went and performed every aspect of the commandment, as Moses and Aaron had instructed them. They did not wait for the elders to act, for the entire nation responded with fear or anxiety to observe the commandment.
I will now explain this passage in the Haggadah in the according to its literal meaning and answer the questions I have raised.
",
"The Maggid interpreted, “And when your children say to you, ‘What is this service to you?’” (Ex. 12:26) as a reference to, “the wicked child, who is “arrogant as he is, in all his scheming, thinks, he does not call to account; God does not care.” (Ps.10:4). There are three things in this question that reflect his wickedness.
",
"First, the passage is not a question as it is for the wise child (“When, in time to come, your child asks you”) and the simple child (“When your child asks you”). Rather, the passage uses the verb, amira (says) instead of sha’al (asks): “When your child says (y’omru) to you,” as if to say, ‘when your children could have asked and learned from their parents in order to fear Adonai, they became rebellious and did not pose their statements as questions but as statements of doubt, saying, ‘What is this service…’
One finds this shameful use of this word (amar) in other places in Scripture. Regarding the building of an altar by the tribes of Reuben and Gad, “We did this thing only out of our concern that, in time to come, your children might say (y’omru) to our children, ‘What have you to do with Adonai, the God of Israel? (Josh. 22:24)
Similarly, Isaiah stated, “Those who call (ha’omrim) evil good and good evil,” and “Who say (ha’omrim), let him speed, let him hasten His purpose.” (Isa. 5:20, 19) “He who says to the guilty, “You are innocent,” shall be cursed by the people.” (Prov. 24:24) This language is used as a means of provoking the wicked and as shameful language, and not as a question with good intentions. As a result, when the Maggid noted that the Torah states, “And when your children say to you,” and not ‘questioned,’ as for the other children, he concluded that he must be a rebellious child.
",
"Second, this child does not say, “What does this service mean which Adonai our God commanded you,” as the wise child does. At the beginning of his statement, the wise child acknowledges that the commandments came from God. If these children had also said, “What is the meaning of this service which Adonai our God,” like the wise child, we would not have suspected him. The wicked child, however denies that the commandments were divinely given, by not saying, “Which Adonai our God commanded...”
Third, he did not call the mitzvot, ‘testimonies,’ ‘statutes,’ or ‘rules’ as the wise child did, since he does not believe that they testify to the Exodus from Egypt. Also, he denies that they are righteous rules nor does he believe that the statutes were decreed by God. Instead he says, “What is this service to you?” He implies two things and denies two things in his statement: first, the commandments were not divinely revealed nor were they commanded by God. Rather, he believes that the elders composed them, so he says, “What is this service to you?” The second denial is regarding their purpose. His statement implies that there is no service of the divine nor is there divine mercy. It is not a religious rite like prayer or Torah study. It is service for its own purpose, so that they could eat a year-old lamb that is fat and tender when it is roasted, and drink four cups of wine with it. This service is for yourself and not for God.
Since there are two heresies, one regarding the source of the commandments and the second regarding the purpose of the commandments, it was stated in the plural, “And it shall come to pass when your children say to you,” as if there were many rebellious children here who committed different acts of heresy… That is why this passage is stated in the plural while the other statements (regarding the children) are singular. In addition, passages containing the other children are stated in the singular: “Consecrate to Me every first born,” “When Adonai has brought you to the land,” “You shall observe in this month the following practice,” and “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread,” so that the entire passage is in the singular. (Ex. 13:2-5) This is the case for the simple child as well: “When Adonai brought you into the land of the Canaanites,” “You shall set apart for Adonai the first issue of the womb,” all of which is in the singular. Therefore, it also states, “when your child shall ask” in the singular. (Ex.13:11-4) The passage regarding the wise child is also posed in the singular: “You shall say to your child” (Deut. 6:21) “Go, draw out lambs for yourself,” (Ex. 12: 21) is stated to the elders in the plural, and because of this the question of the wicked child is also plural, “When your children say to you…” (Ex. 12:26)
",
"",
"Since there were two acts of heresy, the question, “What is this service to you,” addresses both of them. If the wicked child’s questions casts doubt on the authorship of the Torah, the answer given to him is, “You shall say, ‘It is a Passover offering of Adonai.’” That is, you cast doubt on the commandments by implying that we made them up by saying “What is this service to you.” One answers him by saying, this is not so, “It is a Passover offering of Adonai;” God commanded it and we did not make it up. Further, regarding the purpose of the commandments, you implied it was simply a matter of eating to our satisfaction and dressing up in fine clothes. (Isaiah 23:18) This is not so for God commanded us to eat the Passover offering when you were full so that you would not think that we were eating it simply for physical enjoyment. The fulfillment of the commandment was for its own purpose and a reminder that, “God passed over the houses of the Israelites when he struck Egypt and saved our homes. Here, then, the Torah explains to the wicked child that beside the material content of the commandments, they were also divinely revealed and they have a holy purpose. Thus, the Torah has answered the wicked child’s doubts and heretical statements.
The Maggid, seeing that the wicked child implied these two heretical statements by using the word lachem, “to you,” says, “I will even offer a third explanation for the word lachem! It is, “A fool’s mouth is his destruction” (Prov.18:7) Therefore, he said, “What is this service to you,” in order to exclude himself from the community. The commandments were given for the good and the upright of heart and not for the wicked. If that is so, then, “it was given to you but not to him.” These are the words of the Maggid. To this the Maggid says, “since he has excluded himself from the community,” he would not have been part of the community during the Exodus not only because he did not fulfill the commandments but also because of his lack of faith, as it states, “He denied the principles of faith.” The principle is that the commandments were given by God and not by human beings.
Therefore, says the Maggid, “you shall set his teeth on edge.” That is, besides the true answers which the Torah gave to his statements of denial, you have heard a denial in his own words, thus fulfilling the statement, “Answer the fool according to his folly.” (Pro.26:5) You can answer him in a third way. Say to him, “It is because of this which Adonai did for me.” The wicked child will see that it was because of keeping faith that God did this for me. Also it is because of the fulfillment of this commandment which I did in Egypt on this night that God showed me great kindness and saved me from the plague of the first born.
But you were “an enemy who insults God” (Ps. 74:18) If you had been there you would not have been worthy of being redeemed, and you would have died during the days of darkness when all the sinners of Israel died. You would never have seen the salvation of Israel. For we would have learned from this experience of God’s providence. God differentiates not only between nations (“When he smote the Egyptians and saved our houses”) but also between one person and the next, rewarding or punishing each as is his due. If you had been there you would not have been redeemed with us but would have died with the Egyptians.
Even though the verse, “Because of this which Adonai did for me when I went forth from Egypt,” is the one dealing with the child who doesn’t know to ask, the Maggid uses it to insult and disparage the wicked child, using his own wickedness. This is possible because only the words, “because of this,” are interpreted there as referring to the child who does not know to ask. The rest of the verse, “Which Adonai did for me when I went out,” is used for the wicked child. It is as if it says, “since the part of the verse is not concerning the child who does not know to ask, interpret it regarding the wicked child.
How then is this verse brought to comment on the wicked child from the passage dealing with the child who doesn’t know to ask? The Maggid, however, who wishes to set the wicked child’s teeth on edge and treat him like a fool, thus interprets this passage in this way. Another interpretation of the verse “You shall tell your child on that day saying, ‘It is because of that which Adonai did for me when I went out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). One might think that [one should begin the telling] on the first of Nisan. Therefore, the verse says, “on that day” (the 14th of Nisan). One might think that one should begin while it is still daytime; therefore, it says “because of that.” “Because of that:” That implies the time when the matzah and maror are before you.
"
],
[
"Tam mah hu omer? What does the simple one say? “What is this?” (Exodus 13:14).You say to him, “With a strong hand Adonai brought us out of Egypt, the house of bondage” (Exodus 13:14)"
],
[
"She’eino yodeah l’shol, As for the one who does not know to ask, open the discussion yourself, as it is said, “You shall tell your child on that day saying, ‘It is because of that which Adonai did for me when I went out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). "
]
],
"Yechol Me'rosh Chodesh": [
[
"The passages dealing simple child and the one who doesn’t know how to ask appear at the end of Parshat Bo (Ex. 13:2-10): “Consecrate to me every first born among the children of Israel; man and beast…for they are mine;” (13:2) “Moses said to the people: Remember the day you went free from Egypt;” “No leaven shall be eaten;” (13:3) “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread;” (13:6) “Throughout the seven days matzot shall be eaten;” (13:7) “You shall explain to your child on that day: it is because of what Adonai did for me on that day;” (13:8) and “And it shall be a sign on your arm.” (13:9) This passage is interpreted as referring to the child who doesn’t know to ask.
After this comes another passage (Ex. 13:11-16): “When Adonai has brought you to the land of the Canaanites;” (13:11) “You shall set apart for you every first issue of the womb;” (13:12) “And when, in time to come, when your child asks you;” (13:14) “And so it shall be a sign on your arm.” (13:16) This passage is refers to the simple child. One must analyze these two passages.
",
"First, if God commanded Moses to “Sanctify the first born,” in the first passage, why was it combined with the commandment of matzah and hametz, as we see in Scripture “Consecrate to me every first born….Moses said to the people, ‘remember this day when you went free from Egypt…you shall not eat hametz…seven days you shall eat matzah?’”
",
"Second, why didn’t Moses mention the commandment of the Passover offering with rules such as the commandment to eat maror with it? Why did Moses see fit to command the Passover offering sometimes but not the other commandments, and sometimes other commandments but not the Passover?
",
"Third, why combine the law of tefillin with these other commandments, as Scripture states, “And it shall be a sign upon your arm,” while other times when the commandment of the first born is mentioned, it does not mention tefillin with the law of the Passover offering?
",
"I will now explain these passages in such a way so that they reveal the interpretation of the Maggid for the child who doesn’t know to ask and the simple child, beginning with the simple child, since he has some knowledge, either more or less.
The Torah tells us that though God commanded Moses regarding the sanctification of the first born, this law did not go into effect in the wilderness but only after they entered the land of Canaan as Ramban wrote. Similarly, the obligation to observe the Passover offering did not become an obligation for the generations until after they were settled in the land. The Passover offering (of which we were instructed in this chapter) was also not an obligation yet to the generations. Since the sanctification of the first born was connected to the plague of the first born, Moses warned Israel regarding this commandment and all its details including the Passover offering, matzah and maror and the sanctification of the first born. All of these commandments served one purpose and were a reminder as Moses said to the people, “Remember this day when you went forth from Egypt.”
Moses began teaching the reason for these commandments by telling the Israelites to remember the day on which, “Adonai brought them forth from Egypt.” They would have included the commandment of matzah and the prohibition of hametz. They were connected to the land. In the wilderness there was neither wheat nor hametz. All of these things were dependent on the earth. ",
"Therefore, the Torah states, “When Adonai brings you in the land of the Canaanites...you shall observe in this month the following service (avodah).” (Ex. 13:5) Avodah is not a reference to matzah but to the Passover offering. The Torah abbreviates this since it discussed the details in Chapter 12. After the discussion of the Passover offering, it mentions the matzah, “Seven days you shall eat matzah.” Concerning the matzah, the passage states, “Throughout the seven days, leavened bread shall not be eaten… You shall tell your child on that day saying….” Since there is no question or statement in this passage, and only “You shall tell your child,” the Maggid concluded that this must be a child who doesn’t know to ask and it instructs the parent to open the mouth of the mute child and explain things to him as they came to pass.
",
"It is possible that this child did not believe in such things and that he rejected the teachings of God, saying, “I will not mention them or speak in God’s name. Therefore, the Torah immediately states. \"It shall be a sign on your arm and a remembrance between your eyes that the Torah of God may be in your mouth and you shall observe these institutions at its set time from year to year.” (Ex. 13:9-10) Such a thing would not have been written about someone unless he was God fearing and desired to fulfill the commandments, and for whom nothing was lacking but knowledge. That is why it says, “In order that the teachings of God may be in your mouth.” That is, learned people would teach him those things that he lacked. In that way, they would be in his mouth even if he doesn’t understand them completely. It was only necessary to teach him the content of the commandments, as it says, “Because of this that God did for me.” That is, because of this – matzah and maror – so that I may perform this commandment; God did this for me in order to take me out of Egypt. This is what the Maggid states, “The one who doesn’t know to ask – you open up the subject for him.”
",
"Some of the commentators suggest that the following passage in the Haggadah, “You shall tell it to your child; one might think that one should begin the telling on Rosh Chodesh,” is not part of the previous statement regarding the child who doesn’t know how to ask. Rather when the Maggid completes his explanation of the four children with the verse, “You shall tell it to your child,” it continues with, “One might think that one should begin the telling on Rosh Chodesh (on the first of Nisan?)” It then continues as a general discussion: “On that day – One might think that one should begin while it is still daytime. Therefore, it says “because of this” – only at night when matzah and maror are before him.”
What I originally said was correct. This passage is a continuation of the interpretation of the child who doesn’t know to ask. This discussion was not necessary for the other three children since there learning was not dependent on a set period of time. It continues to interpret the expression “because of this,” regarding the child who doesn’t know how to ask, while the rest of the verse is interpreted as relating to the wicked child. While the verse is associated with the child who doesn’t know to ask, it is borrowed from here for him.
",
"The simple child is associated with the passage, “And when Adonai has brought you to the land of Canaan.” (Ex. 13:11) After speaking about the day on which we perform the rite of the Passover, matzah and maror, Moses goes on to speak about the sanctification of the first born in the same passage. These commandments serve one purpose, namely, reminding us of the day of the Passover. They all go back to the original statement, “When you enter the land of the Canaanites…” Therefore, it goes on to say, “When in time to come when your child asks, “What is this.” When he sees the content of the commandments, one would answer him, “With a mighty hand Adonai took us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” This implies that the child will remember more generally the connection between all the commandments, for he notes that they are all connected when he asks, “What is this?”
He understands that all these commandments are decrees of God.
To the question of the Passover offering, one answers, “With a mighty hand Adonai gook us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
To the question of the sanctification of the first born, one answers, “Therefore I sacrificed to Adonai every male issue of the womb but I will redeem the first born among my sons.”
",
"It appears that the answer given to the simple child reflects the general purpose of the commandments including the Passover offering, matzah, and the sanctification of the first born. Since in his simplicity he could not differentiate between them, he said, “What is this?” Thus we see that he is answered out of his simplicity and not as a matter of enmity or heresy. That is what the Torah goes on to say. And it shall be a sign upon your arm and a reminder between your eyes that with a mighty hand God took you out of Egypt.
For the child who doesn’t know to ask, we answer by explaining the verse, “It is because of this,” according to its plain meaning. For him we need only offer the material explanation. The simple child and the one who doesn’t know to ask are not guilty of evil intent but simply lacking knowledge, unlike the wise child and the wicked child. It is sufficient to answer them with the words of the Torah. Therefore we do not use the expression Af attah as an introduction to an answer not given by the Torah as we do in the case of the wise and the wicked children. ",
"We have now answered all the questions! "
]
],
"In the Beginning Our Fathers Were Idol Worshipers": [
[
"Originally, our ancestors worshipped idols, but now the Ever-Present has brought us to God's service, as it is said, “Then Joshua said to all the people, ‘Thus said Adonai, the God of Israel: In olden times your ancestors dwelt on the other side of the river – Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor – and they served other gods. But I took your ancestor – Abraham – from the other side of the river and led him through the entire land of Canaan and multiplied his offspring and I gave him Isaac. And I gave Isaac Jacob and Esau and I gave Esau the hill country of Seir as a possession – and Jacob and his children went down to Egypt’” (Joshua 24:2-4).
After explaining the Midrash of the four children, the Maggid continues with the Passover narrative. It begins with shame, “Originally our ancestors worshipped idols,” in order to conclude with praise, “And the Ever-Present brought us to God’s service,” thus concluding with this act of grace in which we were brought close to God. Since this is the basis upon which everything depends and the reason for all of God’s acts benevolence, the Maggid brings a proof text from the book of Joshua which mentions three benevolent acts which the Holy One performed for our ancestors. They are: (1) Abraham did not have an inheritance or a land of his own; (2) his family did not believe in God; (3) he had no offspring. He was lacking in these three things until God fulfilled all of them.
This is what the verse from Joshua states: “In olden times your ancestors dwelt on the other side of the river,” that is, the land of Canaan which God gave Abraham was not his ancestral inheritance because his forefathers came from the other side of the river. The descendants of Shem, son of Noah, dwelled on the other side of the Jordan River. It is for this reason that the verse mentions Terah, Abraham’s father. It was from Abraham that a great multitude came. This passage makes us aware that our forefather, Abraham, did not have an inheritance.
The passage then mentions the second thing which Abraham’s family lacked: faith in God. Scripture states, “They served other gods.” This is a reference to Terah and Nachor. Those who preceded them were righteous but Terah and Nachor were idolaters.
The reason that the passage mentions Abraham but not his sons, as it does for Jacob is because at first, Abraham was childless. ",
"God showed Abraham compassion by promising him a land, a faith, and offspring. First it states that it brought him to faith, stating, “the Ever-Present has brought us to God's service,” since this was the greatest gift which God gave Abraham. Regarding Abraham, it states: “I took your father, Abraham.” (Josh. 24:2-4) Even though he had other brothers, God chose Abraham and abandoned Nachor. Bringing Abraham close meant that God chose Abraham and brought him to His service. Without a doubt true, this is true! A person cannot come close to God except if God brings him close to His service, as the psalmist stated: “Happy is the man whom You chose and bring near that he may dwell in Your courts.” (Psalm 65:5) And as the prophet stated, “I will cause him to draw near and he shall approach me.” (Jer. 30:21)
",
"The passage in Joshua mentions a second gift: the land of Canaan. “I led him through the entire land of Canaan.” God brought him to the land and gave it to him as an un-revocable trust, as is stated: “Arise and walk through the land in its length and in its breadth; for I will give it to you.” (Gen. 13:17)
",
"The passage mentions a third act of hesed, benevolence by God: even though Abraham and Sarah were barren, God gave offspring to them. He gave to Abraham offspring and increased Abraham’s children miraculously in a short period of time, as is explained in the Haggadah. The passage states “I increased his seed,” and the verse also states, “And I gave him Isaac. “I increased his seed,” refers to Ishmael, and the children of Keturah. From them came Ishmaelites, as well as the children of Dedan, Asshur, Letush and Lium and the other peoples who settled in the area. But they were spiritually impaired, therefore the passage mentions separately what was most essential, “I gave him Isaac.” God chose him from among all the brothers as is stated, “For in Isaac shall our seed be called.” (Gen. 21:12)
Further the passage states that just as Terach had two sons (Abraham and Nachor) and yet God chose one and rejected the other, so too Abraham had many children and yet God chose Isaac and rejected others. This was the case with Isaac as well. Isaac and Rebecca were both barren and yet God miraculously gave them Jacob and Esau. Even though they were brothers, God chose Jacob and rejected Esau, as the prophet stated, “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother, says the Lord; yet I loved Jacob and I rejected Esau.” (Mal.1:2-3) ",
"Thus even though both were the offspring of Abraham and Isaac, both did not merit to be called to fulfill the promise to their father. Instead God gave Esau Mount Seir as an inheritance in order to distance him from Jacob and so that Jacob and his sons could inherit the spiritual and material promise made to Abraham and Isaac, giving them the chosen land, more beautiful than all lands."
],
[],
[
"Blessed is the One who keeps his promise to Israel, blessed be He; since the Holy One, blessed be He, calculated the end of the exile, to do as He said to Avraham, our father, in the Covenant between the Pieces, as it is stated (Gen. 15:13-14), \"And He said to Avram, 'you should surely know that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and afflict them four hundred years. And also that nation for which they shall toil will I judge, and afterwards they will go out with much property.'
My explanation of this statement is as follows: Even though God made promises to Abraham, including offspring, land, and becoming God’s people, these promises were fulfilled through Jacob and not Ishmael or the children of Keturah. This was so even though they too were Abraham’s offspring. That is why we offer praise and thanksgiving to God by saying, “Blessed is the one who keeps his promise to Israel.” That is, ‘blessed and praised is the One who kept the promises he made to Abraham; fulfilling them through our forefather, Israel, but not Esau or the other offspring of Abraham.
Moses made a similar statement, “If you obey these rules and carefully observe them, the Adonai your God will faithfully maintain the covenant that He made as a promise with your fathers…” (Deut. 7:12) “God keeps His promise” does not imply that sometimes, God breaks His promises. After all, all of God’s words are righteous and true. It means that God kept the covenantal promise with our ancestors, and not with Ishmael or with Esau and his offspring. Rather God kept these promises, giving our ancestors that which they merited to receive.
It goes on to say, “It is this that has stood for our ancestors and for us.” The word, “This” refers to the promise that was made for our ancestors, and for us. Through that promise we were saved, in every generation, “from destruction.” Therefore, “Blessed is the one who keeps His promise to Israel,” is a statement of thanksgiving to God for keeping his promise with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In his desire to keep His promise, God counted the time until the end of the exile in order to fulfill the promise He made with our forefather at the Covenant of the Pieces. In that prophetic vision God told Abraham to cut a three year old heifer and three year old ram in half. God said to him, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years…” (Gen. 15:13ff)"
],
[],
[
"It is this that has stood for our ancestors and for us, since it is not one who rose against us, but rather in each generation, they rose against us to destroy us, but the Holy One rescues us from their hand.",
"Note what the text says, “Not one rose against us.” The Maggid does not say, “Rose against us to destroy us.” This refers to Pharaoh, King of Egypt. It was not Pharaoh’s intention to destroy Israel but to subjugate them. That is why he held them fast so that they could not leave. Thus, the Maggid is saying, “Not one rose against us – Pharaoh – to oppress us, but in every generation, enemies rose against us not just in the fashion of Pharaoh to subjugate us but also to wipe us off the face of the earth.”
Further, the Maggid says, “Go out and learn what Laban the Aramean sought to do…” To paraphrase, “Leave aside the matter of Egypt which you have come to hear and let us learn from the story of Jacob and Laban. What did Laban seek to do to our forefather, Jacob? Even though Laban never actually carried out the evil he sought to do, we can learn from his words what he was planning to do Jacob, our forefather. We learn this from his words and not his deeds, in his admission, “It is within my power to do evil to you but the God of your ancestors said to me last night, saying, ‘Take heed that you speak to Jacob neither good nor bad.’” (Gen. 31:21). "
]
],
"First Fruits Declaration": [
[],
[
"Go out and learn what Laban the Aramean sought to do to Jacob, our father; since Pharaoh only decreed [the death sentence] on the males but Laban sought to uproot the whole [people]. As it is stated (Deut. 26:5), \"An Aramean was destroying my father and he went down to Egypt, and he resided there with a small number and he became there a nation, great, powerful and numerous.\"
After the Maggid offered thanksgivings to God for keeping the promise with Jacob regarding the Exodus from Egypt, he further said that keeping that promise was beneficial not only in escaping the Exile but also the other troubles which our ancestors faced and we continue to face today. Because of that promise we were assured that we would become survivors, as we see in the story of Laban.
",
"This proves that his thoughts were evil.
The statement that Pharaoh “Only made a decree against the male children,” should be understood as applying only when the Israelites were in Egypt, as Scripture states, “Every son who is born you shall throw into the river…” (Ex. 1:22) After they left Egypt, when the Egyptians pursued them, it says, “The enemy said, I will pursue; I will overtake; I will divide their plunder; My lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.” (Ex. 15:9) This means that when Pharaoh pursued the Israelites and brought them back to Egypt, he had different goals. First, he would capture them and divide up their plunder, returning to its owners that which they ‘borrowed’ from them (before leaving Egypt). He would then give the rest to his soldiers. Regarding this he said, “I will divide their plunder.” Then, he would take the young women captive to serve as slaves at his pleasure. Regarding this, he said, “My lust shall be satisfied upon them.” That is, I have always desired that they serve me and now my desire shall be fulfilled by subjugating them. ",
"Further Pharaoh said, “The rest of the nation including the elders, Moses, and Aaron shall be killed and vengeance shall be brought against them. Regarding this, Scripture says, “I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.”
Therefore, it was not in Pharaoh’s mind to destroy them entirely but Laban’s question makes clear that he sought to uproot them completely and to smite mother and child, as we learn from what he said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters and the sons are my sons and he cattle is my cattle and all that you see is mine.” (Gen 31:43) In other words, he was saying “It was fitting for me to do with them as I wished,” if God had not prevented me. From this the Maggid derives the idea that Laban sought to destroy Jacob’s wives, sons and cattle completely. This is the implication of the verse, Arami oved avi. The word oved is a kal (transitive) form of the verb. Thus, the verb oved means to destroy and the passage means “An Aramean sought to destroy my father.”
",
"I have now answered the questions in the forty second and forty third gates above!
",
"The Maggid says that the promise which was given to Abraham, is that God would save his offspring from their enemies. It mentions among his enemies, Pharaoh and Laban, but not Esau. Esau was among the offspring of Abraham and he did not truly seek to wipe out his offspring. He mentions the other enemies who were not from the offspring of Abraham. They rose up against Abraham’s offspring with genocidal intention, had not God saved them in order to fulfill the promise made to our forefather. Since Jacob was innocent in his dealings with Laban, (though he was not completely righteous in the matter of the rods and in what he said to Laban and his wives afterwards) what stood for him was the promise made to Abraham.
The Maggid had to mention Laban because he appears at the beginning of the passage dealing with the first fruit declaration in Parshat Ki Tavo (Deut. 26:1-8), “You shall speak and say before the Lord your God, ‘An Aramean tried to kill my father.’ He went down to Egypt and resided there…” (Deut. 26:5-6) Since we are obligated on Passover eve to give thanks to God for all of the good done for us and to tell the story of the Exodus by beginning with shame and ending with praise, the Maggid saw that the first fruit pronouncement is the best way to do so. It begins with shame (Laban) and ends with praise (God brought us to this place). It mentions the Exodus, the plagues, and the signs and wonders. The person before whom the Seder plate is placed is like the person who brings the basket containing the first fruits. We don’t speak of Laban for his own sake but because the pronouncement of the first fruits alludes to him.
",
"How can it be correct to assert as the Maggid does that God’s promise was maintained until our day, for over two thousand years? It was already fulfilled with the Exodus from Egypt! The answer to this question can be found both in the literal words of Scripture and in the interpretation offered by the sages and commentators, of blessed memory. In the vision of the Covenant of the Pieces, we read, “On that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, ‘To your seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates; the Kenites, the Kenazites, and the Kadmonites; the Hittites, the Perizzites and the Rephaim; the Amorites, and the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.’” (Gen. 15:18-21) Ten nations are mentioned in these verse, yet it is known that the Israelites only inherited the land of seven nations. They did not inherit the land of the Kenites, the Kenazites and the Kadmonites which are Edom, Amon and Moab. These three nations were not yet conquered but they would be conquered in the future redemption, as it is stated, “They shall lay their hands upon Edom and Moab and the Ammonites shall obey them.” (Is. 11:14) The promise made to Abraham includes a part that will be fulfilled in the final future redemption. Therefore, it is correct to say, “That promise which was kept for our ancestors and for us, that in every generation there were those who rose up against us to destroy us…”
Also from the verses of the Covenant of the Pieces, we learn that Abraham saw not only Israel’s exile in Egypt, but future exiles as well, as the sages explained, ““Behold, a fear of great darkness fell upon him” (Gen.15:12) “Fear” – this refers to Babylonia. “Darkness” – this refers to Media which will darken the eyes of Israel through fasts. “Great” – this refers to Greece. “Fell upon him” – this refers to Edom.” (Gen. Rabbah 44:17)
The Ramban has also explained, “The sages learned that this statement is an allusion to the subjugation of the four kingdoms…the prophet (Abraham) felt as if the darkness fell upon him like a heavy load that was too heavy to carry. The Holy One made known to Abraham that four nations would rule over and subjugate their land if they sinned. They also interpreted, “But the nations that they serve I shall also judge” as a reference to the four nations that God would judge in the future. From this perspective, the Maggid explained that the promise would be continue to be in effect until this day.
With this explanation we have now answered the questions in the forty-fourth, forty-fifth and forty-sixth gates."
],
[
"He went down to Egypt – Compelled by the Divine Word.
There are different versions of this statement in the Haggadah. There are texts that appear similar to the version I have included and others that (omit it and) continue with, “And he resided there…” Rambam in the Mishnah Torah (Sefer Zemanim) offers such a version. It states “And he resided there – He only went down to dwell there temporarily;” It does not include, “Compelled by the Divine Word.” There is no question that the various versions are based on the different opinions which I mentioned above as the reason for the exile to Egypt. According to the first approach (it was punishment for the sale of Joseph) and according to the third approach (because of the bad choices they made) it doesn’t make sense to say that they went down to Egypt “compelled by the Divine Word.” Jacob and his sons had free will in the matter and were not forced to go down to Egypt. According to the second reason (So they would be purified and improved by their experience) that they went down to Egypt because of a divine decree, one should include the statement in the text, “He went down to Egypt – Compelled by the Divine Word.” After all, Jacob was afraid to go down to Egypt but God forced him to go. This is similar to what was expounded, “So he sent him from the valley (emek) Hebron and he came to Sh’chem. (Gen. 37:14) From the deep (amukka) counsel of that righteous individual who is interred in Hebron, i.e., Abraham, as it is written: “And He said unto Abram: “Know that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.” (Gen. 15:13) It was as if the Cause of all Causes, who made Jacob to go down to Egypt. This is what the Haggadah means when it says, “Compelled by the Divine Word.”
",
"It would be helpful to explain several verses in Scripture according to this point of view:
“Enough!” said Israel. “My son Joseph is still alive! I must go and see him before I die.” So Israel set out with all that was his, and he came to Bersheba, where he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. God called to Israel in a vision by night: “Jacob! Jacob!” He answered, “Here I am.” And He said, “I am Adonai, the God of your father. Fear not to go down to Egypt, for I will make you there into a great nation. I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you back; and Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes.” (Gen. 45:28 – 46:4)
",
"There are a number of questions about these verses. First, why does Jacob appear to travel to Egypt even before God tells him, “Fear not to go down to Egypt?” If he was not compelled by the Divine Word since he was already traveling there, why did God need to reassure him, “Fear not go down…” since he was not afraid and he was already on his way?
",
"Also, why does the text say that he offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac, and not the God of his father, Abraham? Rashi’s interpretation doesn’t solve this problem. He writes that this teaches us that a person has a greater responsibility to honor his father than his grandfather. Yet the Ramban has already written that it would have been better write, “The God of his fathers,” as we find elsewhere, “He blessed Joseph and said, God before whom my fathers’ Abraham and Isaac did walk…” (Gen 48:15) He could have mentioned his father first and then the grandfather since Abraham was his primary relation and the father of his family. It was not right to ignore him! Yet Ramban seeks to answer this question according to rabbinic tradition and not the p’shat, as I do. You should also note that God answered Jacob, “I am the God of your father,” not “The God of your fathers.”
",
"There is a third question. If Jacob was afraid that he would have to leave the land of Canaan where God watched over him, what comfort could God offer by saying, “For there I will make you a great nation.” If they were in exile what would they gain by becoming a great populous nation? Just the opposite – there would be greater and greater fear that if they became a great nation in Egypt, they would never let them leave.
",
"And a fourth question: If God wanted to make a promise to Jacob, why not promise him redemption? By saying, “I will make you a great nation there” implies that they would remain there in Exile but they would continue to grow in number.
",
"A fifth question: why does Scripture mean by, “I will go down with you to Egypt and I will go up with you?” If this was to promise Jacob that they would be buried in the land of Canaan, as Rashi states, then it should have stated, “You will go to your fathers in peace and be buried with them,” as he said to Abraham. Why did God have to say that he would go down with him and go up with him?
",
"It seems that Jacob did not travel to Egypt intending to remain there. He planned to see Joseph and immediately return to Canaan for he had no desire to settle there. His only desire was to be in the Promised Land with his offspring with the hope of eventually inheriting it, as God promised. When the brothers came and told him that Joseph was alive and ruling over the Egypt and described Joseph’s great honor and glory as they were instructed to do, “You shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt and of all that you have seen,” (Gen. 45:13) Jacob then answered, “Enough! My son, Joseph, is still alive.” (Gen. 45:28) Jacob was saying, “I don’t care about Joseph’s position or the greatness of which you speak. Since he is alive, I must go and see him before I die. I will go by myself and return immediately.” But Isaac was in doubt whether God approved of him leaving Canaan and entering the iron cauldron of Egypt, especially since God had refused to allow Isaac to leave Canaan in a time of famine, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in this land and I will be with you and bless you and to your offspring I will give this land.” (Gen. 26:2-3) He was also afraid that he might die while he was in Egypt. These fears and doubts were in his heart when he arrived at Beersheba. He was not on his way to Egypt when he came there; rather he came to Beersheba because it was a place of prayer and supplication to God. He came to find out what he should do. He offered sacrifices to the God of his father since this place was special to Isaac and God had prevented Isaac from going to Egypt.
God answered him in a dream. God calls to him, “Jacob, Jacob.” It is my thought that with this double language, God comes to tell him that the promise that God made was to Jacob the individual and to Jacob, the nation who are also called by this name. God offers two teachings, one to the person and one to the people.
Speaking to Jacob, our forefather, he says, “Fear not to go down to Egypt.” That is, “Even though I prevented Isaac, from going to Egypt, I am permitting you to go. Do not think you are any different to me. I was the God of your father and I am the One who says to you, ‘Fear not to go down to Egypt;’” “I am the Lord, I am no different.” The only difference according to the Kabbalists is that Isaac was never allowed to go to Egypt; this was not the case for Jacob. ",
"Jacob was afraid of four things, so God reassured him regarding them.
",
"First, he was fearful lest his offspring would decrease because the Egyptians would kill his sons and afflict his daughters. Egypt was known to be a place of violence. Because of this God promised him, “I will make you a great nation there,” – I will not decrease your offspring but will increase them greatly.
",
"Second, Jacob was afraid that by leaving the holy land, he would lose the protection of divine providence which was attached to him there. Therefore God promised him, “I will go down with you to Egypt.” In other there words, God’s providence will continue to be with him there.
",
"Third, Jacob was afraid lest he die while he was in Egypt and be buried there. Then he would not be buried in the Cave of the Patriarchs with his forefathers. God said to him, “I will certainly go up with you,” God promised him that he would cause it so that he would be buried in the land of Canaan with his fathers with honor.
",
"Fourth, Jacob was afraid lest Joseph would die during his life time and he would mourn for him. In response to this, God said, “Joseph’s hand will cover your eyes,” (Gen 46:4) he will be with you in the hour of your death.
All of this is what he said to Jacob, the individual. But to the nation that would arise from Jacob he also offered reassurance, “Fear not to go down to Egypt, for I will make you there into a great nation.” (Gen. 46:3) That is, don’t be afraid or fearful of entering Egypt since this was a decree before me; it is inevitable that you must go there so I can make you a great nation. The expression, “A great nation” implies that they would become distinctive and recognizable as “Jews” and they would not mix with the descendants of Ham. This was so as long as Jacob’s descendants not change their language, maintained circumcision, and expressed fear of God. It was as if God said to them, “What do you have to fear since you cannot escape this fate in any way?” He also said regarding the nation, “I will go down with you to Egypt,” in order to tell them that even though Egypt was filled with idolatry and it would be hard to cling to their faith, even so the holy offspring would always have God’s providence, as was said, “Though they were exiled to Egypt, the divine presence was with them.” (Bemidbar Rabbah 7:10)
He also said to the people, “And I will certainly go up with you.” This is a reference to the redemption from Egypt and the Exodus from there with signs and wonders…and he further said, “Joseph’s hand will cover your eyes.” This is also said about the nation, regarding our teacher Moses. He will continue to add to them honor and uprightness. With his teachings he will place his hands over their eyes and enlighten them. Thus we have explained from this vision what God said to Jacob, our forefather, and also to the house of Jacob, the people of Israel. I have now explained these verses completely and answered all the questions I have raised.
We have learned from this that Jacob went down to Egypt, “compelled by the Divine Word,” because he didn’t completely agree to go down even after arriving in Beersheba until God made known to him what he had decreed. According to this, the expression, “compelled by the Divine Word,” follows the second approach which I mentioned above as the reasons for the Egyptian exile.
There are some who interpret this expression as two separate parts: “Compelled” and “by the Divine Word.” First, they were compelled because of the sale of Joseph and the famine. Second, by the Divine Word, which gave them permission to go down to Egypt. But what I wrote first is the better interpretation and the intention of the Maggid, without a doubt. With this I have answered the questions in the forty-seventh and forty-eighth gates!",
"\"And he resided there\" – this teaches that he didn't go down to settle there, but rather to reside there, as it is stated, \"And they said to Pharaoh, to reside in the land have we come, since there is not enough pasture for your servant's flocks, since the famine is heavy in the land of Canaan, and now please grant that your servants should dwell in the land of Goshen.\" (Gen. 47:4)
The Maggid did not interpret, “And he resided there” as a reference to settling permanently in Egypt as we see elsewhere, “And Jacob resided in the land of Ham,” (Ps. 105:23) for two reasons. First, because if this is what the text meant, it would have been more fitting for it to say, “And he dwelled there.” (Vayeshev sham) The descendants of Jacob actually dwelled there a long time and were already residents of the land. So why does Scripture use “residing” (geirut) if it doesn’t reflect their intention when they came there… The second reason is that Scripture states, “They resided there few in number.” This implies that the residing must have taken place at the beginning of their stay in Egypt when they were still few in number, only seventy. The verse is referring to the time soon after they arrived in Egypt. The most direct explanation of the verse, ‘They resided there few in number” reflects their thinking when they first arrived and not when they had been dwelling for a while in Egypt. About this (later period of their residence in Egypt) it states, “and there they became a great and mighty nation.”
A proof is brought for this from the verse, “to reside in the land have we come.” (Gen. 47:7) The Maggid understood from the true meaning of the story of Joseph; Joseph only told the brothers to bring their father to Egypt to live there during the years of the famine, as he said, “And here I will nourish you; for yet there are five years of famine, lest you, and your household and all you have come to poverty.” (Gen. 45:11) He thought that after the famine ended, they would return to Canaan. When they arrived in Egypt Joseph planned to dupe Pharaoh into allowing them to settle the land of Goshen. He ordered his brothers, when he presented them to Pharaoh and he asked them what type of work they did, to say, “Your servants trade has been keeping cattle from our youth until now, and also our ancestors,” (Gen 46:34) He then told them the reason why they should say this, “That you may live in the land of Goshen for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.” (Gen. 46:34) Because of this the Egyptians would not want them to dwell in Egypt. Even though this advice was for their benefit and there can be no doubt that it was true that both they and their ancestors were shepherds, still Joseph had them say this so Pharaoh would not suspect that they came to Egypt to eat his food, and that Joseph was going to give it to them from the king’s treasury.
The brothers came before Pharaoh and when he asked them, “What is your trade,” they answered as Joseph instructed them, “Your servants are shepherds, both we and our ancestors;” this would have been enough for them to say. So why did they add, “And they said, ‘Moreover, we have come to reside in the land.’” (Gen. 47:4) Also why did they explicitly ask Pharaoh, “Let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen.” (Gen. 47:4) It was not Joseph’s intention that they should ask for the land of Goshen but rather they should answer him in this way so that Pharaoh himself would offer it to them.
Yet the truth of the matter became apparent when they said, “Your servants trade has been keeping cattle from our youth until now, and also our ancestors,” (Gen 46:34). They became silent thinking that Pharaoh would answer, “Then go dwell in the land of Goshen…” But upon hearing this Pharaoh didn’t say anything so the brothers felt it was necessary to add the second part of the statement, “They said, to reside in the land we have come.” This was an unexpected statement and it made known the truth of their intentions, that it was not their plan to continue to dwell in the land but to reside there temporarily because of the pressing needs of their herds and because the famine was severe in Canaan. Then they asked him clearly to give them permission to dwell in Goshen for the sake of their herds for a limited time. To this second request Pharaoh did not answer directly; rather he turned to Joseph and said, “Your father and your brothers have come to you.” (Gen. 47:5) He said to Joseph, ‘’All of this was to fool me, for your father and brothers came because of their herds and you can see that other shepherds have not come from Canaan. The truth is they came “To you” – because you are a leader in my land and so you can support them. They want to dwell in the land of Goshen and I want things to go well for them. Since that is the case, “Behold the land is before you; let your father and your brothers live in the best of the land.” (Gen. 47:6)
From this it has been explained that when the brothers said, “We have come to reside in the land,” they were not being duplicitous. They were being completely honest – this is what they meant. It is why the Maggid explains, “and he resided there” to mean, they did not come to Egypt to settle there.
We have now answered the questions in the forty-ninth and the fiftieth gates."
],
[
"\"As a small number\" – as it is stated, \"With seventy souls did your ancestors come down to Egypt, and now the Lord your God has made you as numerous as the stars of the sky.\" (Deut. 10:22)
As has already been explained, since the commandment on Passover eve is to tell the story of the Exodus, the Maggid chose the version of the story contained in the First Fruit declaration, in Parshat Ki Tavo (Deut. 26) in order that all may call themselves, “Israel,” on this night. The Passover plate that is before him is like the First Fruits which the one making the declaration would bring to the temple. The essence of the telling is based on this declaration because it begins with shame and ends with praise, and contains matters dealing with their decent into Egypt, exile, and redemption.
The Maggid interprets this passage word by word, bringing other verses from Exodus to explain it. He does not do this to authenticate the version in Deuteronomy 26 since every Scriptural verse is the word of the living God. Rather, the Maggid brings these verses as a way of explaining the First Fruit declaration, and filling in the details since the First Fruit declaration is written in a brief form. Therefore, these other verses are not brought as a proof for Deuteronomy 26, but to elucidate it.
For example, when the First Fruit declaration states, “He went down to Egypt,” we do not know if they went freely or not; therefore, the Maggid adds, “Compelled by the Divine Word.” Similarly, the First Fruit declaration states, “And he dwelled there,” the other verses clarify that it is not referring to the time when they had just arrived in Egypt since it adds, “Few in number,” and it uses the word ger, to reside, implying that this is referring to the period when they first arrived there. Also, when it says, “He resided there few in number,” it explains that the word “few” means there were only seventy people who went down to Egypt with Jacob. That is why it quotes the verse, “With seventy souls our ancestors went down to Egypt.” (Deut. 10:22)
The verse just after this states, “He is your praise and your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen…your ancestors went down into Egypt with seventy souls; and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars in the heavens for multitude.” (Deut.10:21-22) These verses imply that when they went down to Egypt they were not only quantitatively few (“Few in number”) but also qualitatively diminished (“they went down…”). When they went down to Egypt they were so humbled that they could easily be subjugated to the Egyptians. During the course of the next two hundred years they would increase greatly against the natural order and therefore they also grew qualitatively and spiritually, as the verse suggests, “God has made you as the stars in the heavens for multitude.” This is a reference to their honor and their higher status. The word for multitude (larov) implies that their growth was extreme.
In the verse, “He is your praise and your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen…” the word “great” refers to their extreme numerical increase from seventy souls to six hundred thousand men, not even counting the women and children, while the word “awesome” is a reference to their physical and spiritual growth. That is what Scripture meant when it said, “And now the Lord your God has made you as the stars in the heavens for multitude.” This is also what Scripture meant when it said, “They resided there few in number.” The word mitei, “number,” refers to their qualitative state. Mitei, number, is the same word as met, the dead, since they were like the dead without strength or ability. Miat, “few,” is a reference to their numerical state. It has been explained that these verses were brought to explain the passage from the First Fruit declaration, and how the First Fruit declaration was the essential ‘telling’ since it fitting way to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt.
The questions of the fifty-first and fifty-second gates have now been opened!
",
"As I have mentioned, it has been explained that these numbers represent the beginning of the Jewish people. The beginning is one: Abraham, as it is stated, “Abraham was one person and he inherited the land.” (Ez. 34:24) The people began with three: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Twelve: the twelve tribes. Some suggested that Israel began with seven shepherds: three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; two prophets, Moses and Aaron; and two kings, David and Solomon. The nation also began with seventy; the seventy souls who went down to Egypt.
Open your eyes and you will see that the different numbers represent great matters regarding the nature of our existence. One represents the unity of Israel since Abraham was the first father and also the unity of God, the First Cause, the Being who is one and unified.
Three forefathers represent the three worlds; the spiritual, the heavenly and the material.
The twelve tribes represent the twelve constellations of the firmament to teach us that the material world is parallel to the heavenly world.
Seven shepherds are similar to the seven planets; just as the sun is the central heavenly body with Shabbatai (Saturn), Tzedek and Maadim (Mars) above it and below it Nogah, (sun) kochav (stars) and levanah (the moon), so Moses is in the middle of the shepherds with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on one side and Aaron, David and Solomon on the other.
Seventy alludes to the seventy heavenly princes who are appointed over the seventy proverbial nations of the world in order to suggest that each of the seventy people represented one nation, as Scripture states, “When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel’s numbers.” (Deut. 32:8) This was to suggest that the nations and the boundaries of each country were similar to the number of Israelites, who were among the seventy who went down to Egypt."
],
[
"“And he became there a nation (goy)” – This teaches that Israel was distinguishable there. "
],
[
"“And numerous” - as it is stated, “I have made you to be numerous as the vegetation of the field, and you increased and grew and became highly ornamented, your breasts were set and your hair grew, but you were naked and barren.” (Ez. 16:7)
“And he became there a nation” - This teaches that Israel was distinguishable there: The interpretation of Israel being distinguishable is based solely on the word goy, nation. The Maggid interprets gadol atzum, “great, powerful” as a reference to, “And the children of Israel multiplied and swarmed.” (Ex. 1:7) Rav, numerous, is interpreted as, “I have given you to be numerous as the vegetation of the field…” (Ez. 16:7) The Maggid suggests that this verse in the First Fruit declaration contains four descriptive adjectives: nation, great, powerful, and numerous that describe four wondrous qualities of the Israelites when they were in the Egypt.
First, they remained a goy, “a nation;” that is, they always remained a distinctive nation unto themselves, separate from the Egyptians. During the two hundred and ten years that they were enslaved they never mixed with the Egyptians while living among them. Most other peoples that live among another nation, become one people with them. They stop practicing their own customs and they become like the other people. This is what Shechem and Chamor said to the people at the city gate (Gen. 34:21) and what Jacob’s sons said to the people of Shechem, “Then we will give our daughters to you and we will take your daughters for us and we will live with you and we will become nation.” (Gen. 34:16) But this did not happen to the Israelites living in Egypt. They did not change their Jewish names, nor their language, nor their faith, nor their unique manner of dress the many years that they dwelled among the Egyptians. Moses, our teacher said, “Has God ventured to take a nation from the midst of another nation.” (Deut. 4:34) Israel and Egypt remained separate nations, one from the other. This is how the Maggid interprets the word goy. “This teaches that Israel was distinguishable there.” A distinguishable sign refers to the customs that made them recognizable and set them apart. They were distinguishable and recognizable from the Egyptians in all their customs and thoughts.
Further, he interpreted the word gadol, “great,” as a reference to the increase of Israel’s population. According to the ways of the world, nations increase by adopting people from other nations, as in the verse, “And many people of the land became Jews…” (Esther 8:17) But this was not the case in Egypt. Though they remained distinguishable and separate, yet they miraculously increased in number. Balaam took note of this in his prophecy, “As I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights, there is a people that dwells apart, not reckoned among the nations, who can count the dust of Jacob…” (Num. 23:9-10) I understand this to mean: other nations increase by other groups joining them, but this nation is not like them. I have seen that they branched off from, “Their mountain tops,” the Patriarchs and “from the heights,” the Matriarchs. They have had a direct set of roots one from the other so that they were a “people that dwells apart,” and no outsider ever infiltrated them. This is what Balaam meant when he said, “They are not reckoned among the nations. Nations that do not mix with others, do not increase, but this people increases without limits. Balaam said, “Who can count the dust of Jacob?” All of this is an interpretation of the word “gadol.”
The Maggid now offers a separate interpretation of the word, atzum, “mighty.” It means that they were strong and robust. The sages already offered this interpretation regarding the verse, “They grew numerous and strong, most exceedingly,” (Ex. 1:7) to mean that they increased in number. That is, the women did not miscarry and each woman gave birth to sextuplets, as it Scripture states, “multiplied and swarmed and grew numerous.” Each of these verbs is plural and therefore represents (at least) two. Thus, they add up to six. However, since twins are generally weakly because by nature they divide into two, therefore twins tend to be smaller and feebler; it is only though God’s compassion that many twins are born from the same womb. Yet, despite this, these children were hardy and strong limbed.
Three explanations were brought based on the adjectives in this verse: first, that the Israelites were distinguishable (goy)… second that they grew populous (gadol), and third that they were strong (atzum)… But there is one more descriptive word used for the Israelites, rav, numerous, for the Israelites fourth characteristic. All children in their infancy face many dangers and die of illnesses because they are tender, as Jacob said to Esau, “My lord knows that the children are frail…if they are driven hard a single day, all the flocks will die.” (Gen. 33:13) Even so, while they were in Egypt this was not so for the Israelite children. They did not suffer from the trauma of exile…and they continue to grow like weeds. That is why, the Maggid brings the verse, “I have made you to be numerous as the vegetation of the field…” Ezekiel was saying that these children grow on their own like plants that come forth from the earth, bursting forth in various colors without any labor or effort. No artist can create something as beautiful as they are. So too, the Israelites grew in all their beauty without training or education as they were born naturally complete.
The verse states, “You increased and grew and became highly ornamented, your breasts were set and your hair grew.” This verse speaks of the fate of the body and it beauty, and its characteristics which are described as “highly ornamented.” This is the case even though they “were naked and barren,” that is, lacking in Torah learning and ethical characteristics which govern a person’s actions. The sages have already taught us that when it came time to give birth in Egypt the daughters of Israel were fearful lest the Egyptians try to take their children and cast them into the Nile River. They would go out into the field and give birth to them under a tree so that no one would hear their cries. About this it is said, “I have aroused you under the apple tree; there your mother was in labor with you; there she who bore you was in labor.” (Song 8:5) They would leave their babies there and return to nurse them, and the babies would grow up on their own among the bushes, as it is said, “I have made you to be numerous as the vegetation of the field.” The verse continues, “Your breasts were set;” this is a reference to Moses and Aaron who were like two breasts which God prepared for Israel. “Your hair grew” is a reference to the twelve tribes, who were already worthy of being redeemed. “But you were naked and barren.” They were barren of commandments. They were like a bride and the Holy One was the groom.
We have now answered the questions in the fifty-third, fourth, fifth and sixth gates.
However one should note that the Maggid uses the expression milamed, “This is to teach…” twice, in response to the passage, “He resided there,” and “They became a nation” since these two explanations were based on logical inference from the verse In Deuteronomy 26 in the style of the Torah portion and the meaning of the verses. There was nothing specific explaining them as in the other verses which are expounded."
],
[
"“And the Egyptians dealt ill with us\" (Deut. 26:6) – as it is stated, “Let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply and it will be that when war is called, they too will join with our enemies and fight against us and go up from the land.” (Exodus 1:10)
“And afflicted us” (Deut. 26:6) – as is stated; “And they placed taskmasters upon them in order to afflict them with their burdens, and they built storage cities, Pitom and Ra'amses.” (Ex. 1:11)
“And laid hard work upon us\" (Deut. 26:6) – as it is stated, “And they enslaved the children of Israel with breaking work.” (Exodus 1:11)
",
"These passages are also taken from the First Fruit declaration. The Maggid divided Deuteronomy 26:6 into three parts; the first is, “And the Egyptians dealt ill with us;” the second is, “And afflicted us; and the third part is, “And laid hard work upon us.” The Maggid now explains the three parts as related to one another.
First, he explains, vayarei’u otanu; to mean that they suspected the Israelites of being evil people and sinners even though they were the blessed offspring of God, the truthful progeny, among whom wrongdoing was never found. They accused them of spying on the land, like conspirators, and lawless people who conspire against their masters. The proof for this interpretation is that the verse states vayarei’u otanu and not vayarei’u lanu. In other words, the expression is not that the Egyptians did evil to the Israelites but that they accused the Israelites of being evil. It proves this interpretation with the verse, \"Let us deal wisely with them…” The Egyptians sought to find ways of bringing accusations against Israel and plotted against them in order to stop them from increasing so they could control them, as the verse states, “Lest they multiply and it will be that when war is called, they too will join with our enemies and fight against us and go up from the land.” They considered what the Israelites might do to them if they increased in number. Because they suspected them of being evil, they plotted against them and took council against the Israelites.
The prejudice of the Egyptians caused them to perform yet another evil deed against the Israelites, as the verse states, “and they afflicted us.” The Egyptians took council with one another and they tortured the Israelites with all types of afflictions in order to weaken them so that they became weak like women, unable to do the things they imagined the Israelites would do. What was this “affliction?” The Torah tells us, “They placed taskmasters upon them in order to afflict them with burdens, and they built garrison cities....” (Ex. 1:11) They afflicted them by making them work with brick and mortar, and by forcing them to build cities for the king. You can now understand why the Maggid interpreted the verse, “The Egyptians sought to make us look bad,” the way he did. It led to “Let us deal wisely with them,” and the afflictions... One affliction led to another and they all began with, “They made us out to be evil.” The Egyptians said, “Let us deal wisely with them” which led them to impose afflictions upon the Israelites.
Further, the Maggid mentions that from Egypt’s council, was drawn even more destructive tactics beside the affliction of the people. Not only Pharaoh afflicted the Israelites but the average Egyptians also placed “hard labor” upon them. The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites, making them their maids and servants. Therefore, “They afflicted us” applies to being subjugated to the king of Egypt. It was called affliction because of the quantity of the work and the great amount of labor. “And they laid hard labor upon us” refers to the subjugation of Israel to the people of Egypt. We learn the meaning of avodah, labor, from the use of avodah elsewhere. This subjugation was backbreaking, malicious, and cruel; it was “hard labor.” While service to the king was organized as a corps, and according to equal judgments, for “a king by justice establishes the land,” (Prov. 29:4) since “every person in the nation ruled over his own house,” (Esther 1:29) and the Jew served him, the work that the Israelites did for the people of Egypt was truly hard and crushing work as the author of Psalms stated, “Save me from all my transgressions; do not make me the scorn of the villain.” (Ps. 39:9)
The sages said: The verse states, “Come, let us deal wisely with him [lo],” not “With them [lahem].” Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says, Pharaoh said: Let us deal wisely with HIM, with the Savior of Israel, referring to God. (Sotah 11a) The use of the word lo is similar to the expression, “The nation and its God” (l Sam. 7:23). This expression suggests that the ones below rebel against the ones above, as is stated, “The Lord shall punish the hosts of the high and the kings of the earth upon the earth.” (Is. 24:2)
",
"With this we have solved the questions raised in the fifty-seventh, fifty-eighth, and fifty-ninth gates."
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"\"And we cried out to the Lord, the God of our ancestors\" (Deut. 26:7). – as it is stated, \"And it was in those great days that the king of Egypt died and the Children of Israel sighed from the work and cried out, and their supplication went up to God from the work.\" (Ex. 2:23)
\"And the Lord heard our voice\" (Deut. 26:7) – as it is stated; \"And God heard their groans and God remembered his covenant with Abraham and with Isaac and with Jacob.\" (Ex. 2:24)
Deuteronomy 26:7 is part of the First Fruit Declaration. Even though this verse is self-explanatory, the Maggid learns a unique insights from it. First, the Torah says, “A long time after that, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites were groaning under the bondage and cried out...” (Ex. 2:23) so that a person should not think that their outcry was because of violence or anger or because of some disagreement. Rather it was a cry of sincere remorse. The Israelites cried out, Because God is the king who rules over the whole world. ",
"When the king of Egypt died, Israelites and Egyptians alike went out to offer a eulogy, laments, and tears in the city streets, as was the custom when a king dies. This is what the verse states, “The king of Egypt died… and then the children of Israel sighed and cried out.”
Even though the sighing and crying came about at the time when the king died, in their hearts and inner most thoughts their cries resulted from their suffering and hard labor and not because the king’s death, as the verse states, “They cried because of the labor…and their sighs rose up to the God of their ancestors.” For God, knows what is hidden in the hearts of human beings, and God understood the true intentions of their tears. Since the passage in Deuteronomy only says that they cried out to God, “The children of Israel sighed from the labor and cried out,” the Maggid brings this verse, “And they sighed to God because of the labor,” so that one might not think that the sighing and crying was because Pharaoh’s death.
The second insight that the Maggid finds in this verse, “God heard our cry,” is that the reason for Israel’s redemption was not simply because God heard their cry, but also because of the repentance of the nation and their cry to God, and their covenant with God. That is why the Maggid brings the verse, God heard their cry and God remembered His covenant with Abraham and with Isaac and with Jacob. But the covenant was made only with Abraham, as is stated, “On that day Adonai made a covenant with Abram…” (Gen. 15:18) Since the verse mentions Isaac and was fulfilled through him, and was also fulfilled through Jacob, therefore Scripture makes the covenant dependent on all three of them.
There is a hint of this in the three-year old calf that was sacrificed in the Covenant of the Pieces, that the threefold calf was a reference to the three forefathers as I have explained elsewhere. Therefore it states “His Covenant with Abraham and with Isaac and with Jacob” since the covenant was made for all of them. We have now answered the question in the sixtieth gate."
],
[],
[
"And He saw our affliction\" (Deut. 26:7) – this refers to the separation from the way of the world, as it is stated, \"And God saw the Children of Israel and God knew.\" (Ex. 2:25)
\"And our toil\" (Deut. 26:7) – this refers to the killing of the sons, as it is stated, \"Every boy that is born, throw him into the Nile and every girl you shall keep alive.\" (Ex. 1:24)
\"And our duress\" (Deut. 26:7) – this refers to the pressure, as it is stated, \"And I also saw the duress that the Egyptians are applying on them.\" (Ex. 3:9)
At first, it would appear that the sentence should have been interpreted so that these three expressions, “our affliction,” “our toil,” and, “our duress” are all synonyms, different words expressing the same idea. “He saw our affliction,” should have been interpreted the same as, “And they afflicted us; and “Our duress” should have been interpreted as referring to hard labor. However, the Maggid realized that if “And He saw our affliction, and our toil and our duress,” was similar to the interpretation of, “And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us and imposed hard labor upon us,” then one of these verses would be unnecessary and it would have been fitting to say, “The Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and placed hard labor upon us and we cried out to God… and God heard… and God saw what they did to us in Egypt and God took us out.”
Why was it necessary to repeat the language itself with, “God saw our affliction, our toil and our duress?”
The Maggid comes to interpret each expression differently. The first verse (“The Egyptians dealt ill with us…”) refers to what the Egyptians did to the Israelites publically: they afflicted them with bricks and mortar, building cities for the king, and crushing work which the Egyptians imposed on them. The passage then continues, “God saw our affliction, our toil and our duress.” Besides the well-known things which the Egyptians openly did to the Israelites, God saw the secret plans and hidden strategies that the Egyptians carried out and which were not known publically. Thus, the expression, “He saw our affliction” refers to the forced separation of the sexes. Many Israelite men separated from their wives so that they would not give birth in vain nor give birth to a child idly. The sages said that forcing couples to refrain from having intimate relations was an “affliction.” The sages explain, “If you ill-treat (afflict) my daughters,” (Gen. 31:50) to mean refraining from sexual relations.
The Maggid quotes the verse, “And God saw the Israelites and God knew.” (Ex. 2:25) God saw that the men were separating from their wives so He caused them to feel sexual desire so they would have relations and thereby would have more children. The sages interpreted the verse, “Under the apple tree I aroused you…” (Song 8:5) to mean that the women would come to the field to serve their husbands, tend to them and then they would have relations with them.
The verb ‘know’ refers to intimate relations, as in, “Adam knew Eve, his wife.” (Gen.4:8) Similarly we find, “The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin whom no man had known.” (Gen 24:16) The word yeda, then, hints at this meaning in Exodus 2:25. The Maggid also came up with this interpretation by verbal analogy (gezera shava). The word vayar, “And He saw” appears in both verses: here, “And God saw our affliction” (Deut. 26:7) and there, “And God saw the Children of Israel and God knew.” (Ex. 2:25) Just as there it means that he gave them the desire to know their wives, so too here, it has this meaning. When it says, “And God knew” regarding intimate relations it says so because no being can know what happens between a man and his wife except God.
",
"They interpreted the expression, “And our toil” to be a reference to hidden suffering, in this case the matter of the baby boys that Pharaoh mentioned, “Every boy who is born you shall cast into the river.” There can be little doubt that Pharaoh made this decree against the babys secretly so that his followers would do this in stealth. It would have been a scandal to make such a decree publically. The One who searches the heart and tests the inwards saw this evil thing that Pharaoh did to them even though it was not publicized. God saw what he did to our children for whom we toiled in birth and in raising them. They would cast them into the Nile.
It is also possible to interpret, “Our toil – this refers to the children,” to mean that they raised them in great toil and in secret places which no person knew. Since they raised them secretly, the passage says, “God saw.” The Maggid brings the verse, “every boy that is born…” was meant to explain the great trouble the Israelites went to guard and hide their children from the Egyptians. This happened because of the king’s decree, “every boy that is born…” I, however, think the first interpretation is the better one.
",
"The expression “And our duress” (lachatzeinu) is sometimes interpreted as, “Using physical force,” as in the verse, “The ass crushed (tilachatz) Balaam’s foot against the wall,” (Num. 22:25). Sometimes it refers to coercion and compulsion as when the task masters forced the slaves to do whatever they wanted. This second interpretation is how the word lachatz is understood. The Maggid says that it is not correct to interpret the expression in Scripture, “And our duress,” as referring to giving physical blows since this meaning was also included in the expression, “And they placed upon us hard labor.” Rather Lachatzainu means “With pressure.” It wasn’t enough that they had to serve them; they did not give them any rest from this hard work for they were constantly being pressured to work harder, as in the statement, “The task masters hurried them…” (Ex. 5:13) This was not publically known, and so it was included in the list of statements.
It is also possible that reason for the pressure they inflicted on the Israelites was to force them to serve the gods of Egypt. That is the reason the verse is brought, “And I have seen the pressure which the Egyptians imposed on them and I remembered my Covenant.” God saw that the divine covenant was still in their hearts and had not left them despite pressure from the Egyptians. Some interpret the word, “Pressure” to be a reference to the quota of bricks that they had to bring each day.
It seems correct to me that the three things that are mentioned in this verse, “And he saw our affliction, our toil, and our duress,” are all spiritual afflictions. After explaining the first verse, “And they inflicted upon us hard labor,” as referring to physical affliction and labor, Scripture says that God heard their sigh and their outcry from this physical labor as well as their sorrow due to the separation of families, and having to hide their children and the pressure placed on the people. It was all due to the rage of the oppressors. Actually rage and spiritual suffering is even worse than physical pain. That is why God heard their outcry from physical suffering and further he knew the pain in their hearts and souls. That is why the verse seems to double the language in this statement. Everything appears here for a reason.
The questions expressed in the sixty-first through the sixty-fifth gates have now been solved."
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"\"And the Lord took us out of Egypt\" – not through an angel and not through a seraph and not through a messenger, but by the Holy One, God alone in His glory, as it is stated; \"And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from men to animals; and with all the gods of Egypt, I will make judgements, I am the Lord.\" (Ex. 12:12) \"And I will pass through the land of Egypt\" – I and not an angel. \"And I will smite every firstborn\" – I and not a seraph. \"And with all the gods of Egypt, I will make judgements\" – I and not a messenger. \"I am the Lord\" – I am He and there is no other.
",
"I have already mentioned six questions which arise from this passage in the “Gates.” ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"I will begin with a brief introduction regarding “intermediaries.”
Acts of God in the sensory universe take place through some type of “intermediary.” There are two types of “intermediaries.” The first type is endowed with reason, choice, and will. These intermediaries act according to the natural laws but they do so with knowledge, choice and self-will.
The second category are intermediaries that act without reason or choice. They are called keilim, instruments, of God’s will, which act in nature but without will or choice. They are of the category of keilim, instruments, which perform their acts in nature without self-will or choice in which they do. This category includes the elements, forces of nature, and natural phenomena. Regarding this category, Scripture states, “Who makes winds His messengers; flames of fire are his ministers.” (Ps. 104:4) It is appropriate to call them, “instrumental intermediaries.”
When the sages state that the Holy One, “alone in His glory,” acted not through an angel, nor a fiery being, nor a messenger, they mean that God acts did not come about through some heavenly order, such as angels or messengers sent by God. Rather it means that through Divine providence and will, God performs acts beyond the natural order of things. This is what the Haggadah means when it says that “God alone in His glory (acted).” But one should not assume that God’s act were performed without some type of “instrument,” for the spiritual cannot act in the sensory world without the medium of instruments.
When the sages say that the Holy One acted through “God’s own glory, not by an angel, nor by a fiery being or by a messenger,” they mean that acts of God were not carried out through the heavenly array or causes which are angels and divine messengers that act on the lower world, but were carried out through God’s will above nature and the actions of the celestials. This is what the expression, “By God’s own glory,” means. But one should not think that God does performs these acts without “instruments,” for the spiritual can only act on the sensory realm through “instruments.”
The sages, of blessed memory, believed that divine wisdom sustains the world through two types of actions. One is natural; it comes about through the heavenly system and celestial spheres. Through them the heavenly princes act according to the natural order, but they do so with knowledge and choice.
The other is providential: Sometimes it is through the Divine will and wisdom that God decrees (and acts). It does not happen as a result of some heavenly order nor is it caused by the heavenly order or the supernal princes. Rather it happens through God alone without any some heavenly medium. It comes about through God’s knowledge and choice. Still, one should assume that providential actions do not come about without some type of medium or instrument. It is like the king who condemns criminals to death; sometimes he does so through judges or officers of the court he has appointed, sometimes through princes sent by the king to destroy and to annihilate, and sometimes by the king himself who carries out the decree without assistance of an emissary. Yet one should assume that the king has an instrument to carry out the deed, such as a sword or a weapon.
",
"This Personal Providence and Divine Will are praiseworthy far beyond the celestial order or angelic deeds; concerning such acts, the poet of Psalms wrote, “For Your loving kindness is great above the heavens; and Your truth reaches to the clouds.” (Ps. 108:5) The sages said that the Exodus from Egypt could not take place due natural order law, nor by celestial beings for three reasons:
● First, because the heavenly array prevented and inhibited the slaves from escaping from Egypt, as Ibn Ezra explains.
● Second, because it was Pharaoh’s as well as his courtiers’ will that Israel would in no way be freed. They would not be convinced to allow the Israelites to go from slavery to freedom. This shows that it was against their nature and against the celestial powers (of Egypt) that influenced the Egyptians.
● The third reason is most important: the Egyptians worshipped the ram which brought honor and glory upon Egypt; how much more so on Pharaoh’s house and his might.
",
"For these reasons, the Holy One saw that God would have to personally carry out the redemption. Who can overcome the heavenly array or change the heavenly order, or the laws of nature or who will overrule the celestial princes except for the One who fashioned them? The Creator of all has the power to change nature. The Exodus from Egypt was similar to changing nature above and below. It was a new creation. Therefore, it was necessary that it be carried out by God, the creator of everything. This testified that the Exodus was a new creation, and it taught that this act should be a remembrance to all the commandments.
The Maggid alludes to these three perspectives when he says, “I passed through the Land of Egypt…” When the Maggid says “I passed through the land of Egypt” he teaches that the celestial array made it impossible for Israel to escape from Egypt without going the laws of the heavens. ",
"Therefore, regarding passing through the land, the Maggid states, “I and not an angel.” This implies that only God had the power to do overturn the heavenly array. This was possible only through God’s will and unlimited ability.
The second reason God had to take part in the Exodus was the wickedness of Pharaoh and his servants. Regarding this the passage states, “I will smite every first born in the Land of Egypt;” if they harm my first born, I will smite their first born so that Pharaoh and his servants will come to dread them, and say, “Rise up and get out from among my people.” (Ex. 12:31) Who else can change a person’s will other than God, as the prophet said, “Most devious is the heart; It is perverse; who can fathom it? I the Lord probe the heart, search the mind, to repay every man according to his ways, with the proper fruit of his deeds.” (Jer. 17:9-10) ",
"Since the plague of the first born was outside the rules of nature, burning fevers and epidemic which were new in the world, we interpret the expression to mean “I and not a fiery being.” Fiery being is another term for a strange fever that kills people…Even though the first born were completely healthy, God struck them down (with a strange new disease.)
",
"The third reason, they could not escape were that the celestial beings of Egypt that protected the Egyptians and caused them to receive good, the Maggid states, “And with all the gods of Egypt, I will make judgements.” One would not make such a statement regarding the celestial powers but about the celestial princes who cause them. Even though the celestial princes brought honor, life and respect upon Egypt, God destroyed their influence and remove their might in a way that would leave Egypt without a protector. It was as if the gods and the firstborn of Egypt were destroyed in a single moment in the middle of the night. That is, the all-powerful God removed their ability as it is stated, “I and not a messenger”
In the end scripture states, “I am the Lord.” He interprets this to mean, “I am the one and no one else.” That is, this action could not have happened except by the One of blessing alone! ",
"In the essay, Ateret Zikeinim, which I wrote in my youth, I explained the passage, “I passed through the Land – I and not an angel…” differently. God performed three wonders on this night, the first of which preceded the others. It is that the God caused Personal Divine Providence to cling to Israel without another means even though they were in Egypt. The nature of the land of Egypt was a major factor in preventing Divine Providence, as the sages have explained that Egypt was so filled with idolatry and therefore Moses could not pray to God in the midst of the land, as is stated, “When I go out of the city I will spread my hands to God…” (Exodus 9:29) Regarding this wonder, the sages interpreted “I passed through the Land of Egypt,” to mean, “I and not an angel.” That is, God’s Providential Presence clung to Israel in Egypt even without a means. The second wonder was smiting the first born, and the third wonder was the judgment of the gods of Egypt as I have explained.
",
"From this it has been explained that this that the Exodus took place by annulling the powers that prevented Israel from leaving and that is why the Maggid interpreted this verse as referring to three things. The Exodus took place through God alone and not through an angel since he overturned the celestial order that prevented the Exodus. The plague of the firstborn which was the cause of Exodus was carried out by God’s will and not some natural cause. Also the Exodus was not carried out by an emissary since it was God who stopped the gods of Egypt that protected the land, removed their ability and overturned all their judgments and influences.
Everything that the sages said regarding the verse, “I will pass through the land of Egypt,” (Ex. 12:12) is contained in the passage, “The Lord took us out of Egypt…” (Deut. 26:8) It contains the three means of the exodus. The sages concluded that it was unnecessary to mention God’s name in Deuteronomy because the previous verse mentions God’s name, “God heard our voice…” (Deut. 26:7) But it was appropriate to give the causes mention that God personally carried out the Exodus. ",
"The angel (malakh), fiery being and emissary which are mentioned in this interpretation are names of mediums that act of their own will. However, when Moses sends a message to the Edomites, he states, “He sent a messenger who freed us from Egypt…” (Num. 20:16) there is no question that the term here is referring to an instrumental means. It is a reference to Moses, our teacher, who was sent as a means for God to accomplish the exodus from Egypt. I have already explained that this interpretation negates the self-willed means from the Exodus but not the instrumental means as a means of Divine Providence. It is also possible that when Moses said, “And He sent a messenger and took us out of Egypt…” because he did not want to mention who the messenger was because God had sent him as the /angel/messenger to warn Pharaoh and after warning him, “God took us out of Egypt,” it was God alone who act and not an angel/messenger!
The Midrash states, “When permission is given to the destroyer to destroy, the destroyer does not differentiate between the righteous and the wicked;” (Mechilta Parshat Bo, 11) yet the Holy One also states in the Torah, “God will not let the destroyer come into your houses to strike you.” (Ex. 12:23) This does not contradict what the Maggid says regarding the statement, “I passed through the land of Egypt…” That statement negates the mediums that act of their own will. The tenth plague was not carried out by these mediums that were called angels, fiery beings and messengers. These are the names that are given to the intermediaries that act of their own will while the mashchit, destroyer, is an “instrumental medium,” which has no free choice or personal will except to accomplish divine providence. It is like the sword in the hand of the individual that can only do what the person wills. The individual is the actor, not the sword. ",
"This is “destroyer” that is mentioned in Scripture; the sages place it on the level of the utensil without perspective or choice…
The destroyer was a type of moldy air that suddenly, and without any natural cause, entered the nostrils of the first born…immediately causing death; therefore, they said, “It did not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked.” It was a mere “utensil” without choice or perspective. Since God caused the utensil to act, it was like a stone that is thrown by a person; one cannot stop it (from striking someone) simply because the one who is about to be struck by it is a good person.
I have already explained above, “The Lord will pass over the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home” (Ex. 12:23) refers to the Egyptians. When the Egyptians saw the Israelites taking their god, roasting it, and eating it, even vicious Egyptian dogs could not bark nor could the Egyptians enter the homes of the Israelites to take vengeance upon them. God did not allow them to enter the households to smite their Israelites because of their divine service. Rabbi David Abudraham wrote that “Destroyer” (mashchit) is a nickname for God that it is a term for destruction: “He did not let destruction come into their homes.”
",
"But why didn’t God perform this miracle (the tenth plague) through an angel just as He did when He smote the Assyrian camp. The reason can be explained in the following way: since the tenth plague was an attack on the heavenly array and was meant to remove the influence of the supernal princes above, it was only possible for it to be performed by God who is higher than these other powers and is the only one who can attack the heavenly host. But the attack on Assyrian camp was not an attack on the higher powers but only on the earthly powers; it could be performed by an angel.
It is also possible to say that that angel who smote the Assyrian camp was merely a weapon or a utensil of the Holy One. It is referred to as an angel since “utensils” are sometimes called by this name. In this case God was the one who smote the Assyrians, and Scripture simply mentions the medium (the “utensil”) through which God performed this act.
In Sanhedrin 94a-b, the sages offer another explanation. It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: With regard to Pharaoh, who blasphemed the Holy One, God Himself exacted retribution from him. With regard to Sennacherib, who blasphemed God by means of an agent, the Holy One exacted retribution from him by means of an agent. “Pharaoh blasphemed God, as it is written, “Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice?” (Ex. 5:2) The Holy One, Himself exacted retribution from him, as it is written: ‘And the Lord overthrew Egypt in the midst of the sea’ (Ex. 14:27) and it is written: ‘You have trodden through the sea with Your horses’ (Hab. 3:15). Sennacherib blasphemed God by means of an agent, as it is written: ‘By your messengers you have taunted the Lord’ (II Kings 19:23). The Holy One, exacted retribution from him by means of an agent, as it is written: ‘Then the angel of the Lord went forth and smote in the camp of the Assyrians…’” Pharaoh denied the very existence of God; therefore God had to prove His existence to Pharaoh, as well His power and providence, as we shall explain later. Sanncherib, on the other hand, did not deny God but he thought of himself as one of the supernal princes above; therefore God commanded that one of his attendants attack him.
The Kabbalists offer a different explanation for the verse in the Haggadah. They explain, “Not by an angel” to be a reference to the angel of mercy among the heavenly angels. It is related to the reign of water and the attribute of mercy. They are ruled over by Michael. “Not by a fiery being” is related to the attribute of judgment and is related to the reign of fire. Their head is Gabriel. And emissary includes air and water which are in between fire and water. The head emissary is Metatron, the Angel of the Presence….it includes all the higher levels which are appointed over the lower levels and He shares the name with His master – “the Holy One, alone in His glory…” Metatron is called the glory of God and is also named after the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable name of God, as it is stated, “Adonai – God and his court.” I heard this explanation but I do not understand these things. What I wrote first is correct according to the literal meaning of the text. I have now answered six more questions that are mentioned in the sixty-sixth through the seventy-first gates."
],
[],
[
"\"With a strong hand\" – this refers to the pestilence, as it is stated; \"Behold the hand of the Lord is upon your herds that are in the field, upon the horses, upon the donkeys, upon the camels, upon the cattle and upon the flocks, [there will be] a very heavy pestilence.\" (Ex. 9:3)
\"And with an outstretched arm\" – this refers to the sword, as it is stated; \"And his sword was drawn in his hand, leaning over Jerusalem.” (I Chr. 21:16)
\"And with great awe\" – this refers to the revelation of the Divine Presence, as it is stated; “Or did God try to take for Himself a nation from within a nation with enigmas, with signs and with wonders and with war and with a strong hand and with an outstretched forearm and with great and awesome acts, like all that the Lord, your God, did for you in Egypt in front of your eyes?\" (Deut 4:34)
\"And with signs\" – this refers to the staff, as it is stated; \"And this staff you shall take in your hand, that with it you will perform signs.\" (Ex. 4:17)
\"And with wonders\" – this refers to the blood, as it is stated \"And I will place my wonders in the heavens and in the earth; blood and fire and pillars of smoke.” (Joel 3:3)
There are eight questions which I have formulated on these passages in gates seventy-two through seventy-nine.
",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"The Maggid found in this verse, “And He took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand, an out-stretched arm, with awesome power and with signs and wonders,” things that are both singular (a mighty hand, an out-stretched arm, with awesome power) and plural (signs and wonders). He interpreted each word appropriately by finding a comparison from other places in Scripture. He explains “a mighty hand,” as a reference to pestilence since this plague is called “The hand of God,” in the verse, \"Behold the hand of the Lord is upon your herds that are in the field,” He did not explain this as a reference to the plague of the first born because the verse also contains, “An outstretched arm.” He assumes that etzba elohim, “The finger of God,” is a reference to a smaller plague, while yad adonai, “The hand of God,” is a reference to a plague that is greater than a “Finger.” An outstretched arm” must be a reference to a plague that is even greater than “The hand of God.” An arm is greater and stronger than a hand just as a hand is greater than a finger! Since “hand of God” is interpreted as a reference to pestilence, “Outstretched arm” must be an allusion to the death of the first born which is much greater.
The expression, “This is the sword,” is a reference to the plague of the first born which is carried out by the sword of the angel of death who struck them. The Maggid derives this by an analogy of words: “Outstretched arm” and “outstretched arm.” Here it says, “And with an outstretched arm,” and in regard to the plague which came in the time of King David, Scripture states, “And his sword was drawn in his hand, leaning over Jerusalem.”(1 Chronicles 21:16) Just as one was carried out by the sword of the Angel of Death (which is just another name for the Outstretched – netuyah – plague) so too in this verse, when it speaks of God’s outstretched arm it is speaking about the plague of the first born.
Some sages explain that the word sword refers to the sword of the first born who rose up to slay their fathers. But this is a homiletical interpretation.
Since the gods of Egypt were smitten together with the first born during the tenth plague, as Scripture states, “I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt” (Ex. 12:12); he interprets \"And with great awe\" – as allusion to the revelation of the Divine Presence.” This means that the Divine Providence will be present in Egypt, striking down both the first born and the gods of Egypt. He then brings this verse as a proof text, “Or did God try to take for Himself a nation from within a nation…” He suggests that this verse is speaking about the Exodus from Egypt, as the final part of the verse suggests, “With a strong hand and with an outstretched forearm and with great and awesome acts, like all that Adonai, your God, did for you in Egypt in front of your eyes?\" From this verse he proves that all these things were performed in Egypt: the “Strong hand – pestilence; the “Outstretched arm – the death of the first born; and “With great awe” – the judgement of the gods of Egypt. The spiritual things are referred to as “Great Awe” because they happened in Egypt and not at Sinai, as the verse states, “In Egypt in front of your eyes.” Moraim gedolim, is plural (literally, Great Awes”) since each plague leading up to the tenth plague that was performed without an intermediary would be a mora gadol, and together they would be moraim gedolim.
Onkelus, the Aramaic translator of the Bible explains that mora – awe – comes from the word mareh –vision, referring to the vision of God which they saw in Egypt.
",
"“And signs – this refers to the staff.” Some commentators have already explained this refers to turning the staff into a serpent. But that is not so, for this miracle was not counted among the ten plagues in Egypt, as I have already explained. There are other scholars who have said that the seventy-two letter name of God was inscribed on the staff and with which Moses performed signs, among them the ten plagues. But it is difficult to explain why the passage singles out the plagues of pestilence and blood.
It seems to me there are two ways to explain this Midrash. ",
"The first is that the Maggid explains that “signs” refers to those signs which were performed using the staff as the medium for the performance of the miracle. There are five such plagues: changing the water into blood, raising frogs up from the river, creating lice, the plague of hail, and locust. All of these plagues came about by waving the staff and regarding them the Maggid says, ““Signs” – this is the staff.” In other words, the signs are the acts that were done with the staff. Regarding these signs, Scripture states, “And you shall take this rod in your hand with which you shall do the signs,” (Ex. 4:17) That is, those plagues that are called signs and that were performed with the staff.
If this is correct we have explained seven of the plagues in this explanation: pestilence, the death of the first born, and the five plagues that were performed with the use of the staff. Three plagues remain: arov (wild animals), sh’chin (boils), and choshekh, (darkness). The Maggid refers to these three plagues as dam, blood. Arov refers to ferocious wild animals that would come into people’s homes and kill their children and tear apart anyone they wanted. Sh’chin, boils is also referred to as dam, blood, since it resulted from the sudden corruption of the blood. And choshekh, darkness, also fits into the category of “blood” since the light of the sun became ruddy and darkened. All of this is taken from the writings of the prophet Joel who said, “And I will place my wonders in the heavens and in the earth; the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.” (Joel 3:3-4) The Maggid does not say that the word dam, blood, here refers to turning the rivers into blood as happened in Egypt because the “wonders” that are mentioned here occurred in the “heavens and the earth,” and not in the water. That is why he says, “Blood, and fire and of smoke.” Blood refers to the plague of wild animals, as in the verse, “I will send the teeth of wild beasts upon them.” Fire alludes to the plague of boils which is like a burning fire in the blood. And pillars of smoke refers to darkness since darkness is also described as blood, “The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon into blood.” Regarding all this, the Maggid begins by saying, “And with wonders” – this is blood.” The wonders are the three plagues that are described as blood and about which the prophet said, “And I will place My wonders.”
Even though this verse is addressing the future redemption, the Maggid applied it to the Exodus by making a verbal comparison using the word moftim, wonders. The word appears both here with regard to the Exodus and with regard to Israel’s future redemption. Just as these three wonders will take place in the future, so too in the story of the Exodus did the three wonders appear. With this we have now included all ten plagues and answered all the questions. This is the first explanation.
",
"The second interpretation of this passage has to do with how one understands the word ot, sign, and the word mofet, wonder. People generally understand these words as referring to acts that happen outside the normal order of nature. But this is not necessarily so. These terms can be used to speak about human matters or about divine miraculous matters. An ot can refer to a sign of something which a person want to remember, such as in the verse, “And it shall be a sign for you upon your hand…” (Ex. 13:9); the symbols on flags are called ottot, signs/insignia, as in, “Every man of the people of Israel shall camp by his own standard with an ensign (ottot) of their father’s house.” (Num. 2:2) The symbols in writing are also called by this name: otiyot, letters. A mofet can also be said to be a human sign but it makes a stronger impression than an ot. That is why the absolute proofs of philosophers are called moftim. The prophet, Isaiah, wrote, “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts,” (Is. 8:18). They are called wonders even though they weren’t born in some miraculous way. Rather the names they were called were signs and remembrances, as in, “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” (Isaiah 8:3) Similarly, regarding Ezekiel it is written, “Thus shall Ezekiel be a sign to you.” (Ez. 24:24) He said about himself, “Say I am your wonder (moftechem);” (Ez. 12:11) because his statements were a stronger sign of what would happen in the future. So we use the words ot or mofet as a sign about what that people would do. But ot is not as forceful as mofet.
We find this is true in divine matters as well. That is, when speaking of miraculous acts, when Scripture says ot it is for a small miracle that is not so unordinary. It is used as a sign and a proof that verifies the words of the prophet. Mofet is used for a mightier miracle since it is better at verifying the prophecy of the prophet. Thus, at the beginning of his tenure as a prophet, it was said to Moses, “And it shall come to pass, if they do not believe you nor listen to the first sign (ot) that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.” (Ex. 4:8) They are called otot, signs: turning the staff into a serpent and making his hand become leprous. The more convincing miracle/wonder – a mofet – is performed when Pharaoh says, ‘Show a wonder (mofet)!’” (Ex. 7:9) God only wanted to verify the prophecy with a stronger miracle/wonder; before this He only wanted a sign to convince the Israelites of the mission, the sign of the staff.
The prophet, Joel, uses the word mofet to prove the strength of the miracles that occurred in the plagues, “I have placed wonders in heaven and on earth.”…. It is possible to say, then, that the Maggid put the plagues in two categories: those that were signs like making the staff into a serpent, and those that were more powerful and convincing such as making the river into blood, as I shall explain later. The sections with an introduction to the categories: “Signs – this is the staff,” and “Wonders – this is the blood,” using the staff as a sign of the weaker miracles and the blood as a symbol of the more powerful miracles. This is true for all the other plagues which fall into one category or the other.",
" We have now answered the questions in the seventy-second through the seventy-ninth gates."
]
],
"The Ten Plagues": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Rabbi Yehuda gave the plagues mnemonics: Detsakh, Adash, Beachav.
This explanation only considers the number of plagues; since there are ten plagues and Scripture uses five terms, (strong hand, outstretched forearm, great awe, signs, wonders) the Maggid assumes that these expressions were said about the ten plagues. That means it is necessary that each of these terms refers to two of the plagues. In this way he includes the ten plagues in these five expressions. He finds support for this interpretation in the expressions: yad chazakah (strong hand) is made up of two words for the two plagues. The word yad (hand) is a reference to the plague of pestilence and chazakah (strong) refers to the death of the first born. Similarly, zeroa netuyah (outstretched arm) is also composed of two words and refers to two plagues, possibly hail and locust) since they were proceeded by great and momentous warnings that came with an outstretched hand and a raised hand. Great awe is also two words: mora (awe) gadol (great) to refer to two other plagues; possibly the mixture of wild animals and darkness since these plagues caused great terror among the Egyptians. The word otot (signs) is plural and the smallest possible quantity of plurality is two. It might refer to blood and frogs, according to this explanation. And moftim, (wonders), is also plural so it refers to two plagues, and they would be lice and boils.
Others explain this verse differently: “A strong hand” refers to blood and frogs; “An outstretched forearm,” refers to lice and a mixture of wild animals; “Great awe” refers to pestilence and boils; “Signs” refers hail and locust; and “Wonders” refers to darkness and the plague of the first born. Whichever they are these five terms includes all ten of the plagues. And since the Maggid does not wish to include all the plagues that struck Egypt, so he did not include among them turning the staff into a serpent, since it was more of a miracle than a plague, and Moses, master of the prophets, making his hand become leprous before the Egyptians since this only occurred in the presence of the Israelites and not among the Egyptians. He did not count it because it was not a plague to the Egyptians. Also the Maggid did not count the miracles that happened at the sea since they were not part of the telling of the story of the Passover night in Egypt. We see then, that the Maggid only counted the plagues that occurred before the Israelites left Egypt.
",
"However, why did Rabbi Yehudah see fit to create these mnemonics? Some explain that it was because King David, the author of Psalms mentions the plagues and orders them in a different way than they are found in the Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Judah created an abbreviation that would be a reminder of the order in which they are written in the Torah and not as they are written in Psalms.
Others say that the reason for the mnemonic is because the first two plagues (blood and frogs) were preceded with a warning while the third plague, lice, occurred without a warning. Similarly, there was a warning before the plagues of wild animals and pestilence and no warning before the plague of boils; hail and locust occurred with a warning and the plague of darkness happened without a warning. Since the plagues occurred according to this pattern: two plagues a warning followed by one without a warning, Rabbi Yehudah created the mnemonic to reflect this pattern. The tenth plague, death of the first born occurred with a warning but it is a singular plague and it doesn’t have a pattern so it is attached to the final group of plagues.
Some say that the first three plagues, detzach, were performed by Aaron, the second three plagues, adash, were performed by God with Moses or Aaron, and the last three plagues, beachav, were performed by Moses, but I am not comfortable with this explanation. Even if Aaron performed the first three plagues, it was done with God’s wisdom. God knew that the magicians in Egypt would challenge him by performing the first two plagues, blood and frogs, and would then try to perform the third plague, lice, but would not be able to do it. God did not want the magicians to be able to perform the miracles that Moses did; that is why God had Aaron perform the first miracles. We also know that for the plague of boils, Moses threw furnace ashes into the air and that the ashes caused the boils (so it was not done by God). The tenth plague was performed by God alone and not by Moses (so there is no clear separation of plagues between Moses, Aaron, and God.
",
"The correct explanation of the plagues as I have explained has to do with the fact that Egypt was filled with idolatry and a denial of the true beliefs in God. There were some people who did not believe in the existence of God, the cause of all causes and the reason of all reasons. Some people believed in God’s existence but did not believe in God’s providence in this lower world. Others believe that God’s power is limited like all other celestial beings in the upper world. Therefore, Moses our teacher confronted these challenges when he said, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Let My people go that they may celebrate a festival for Me in the wilderness.” (Ex. 5:1) By saying, “Thus says the Lord,” he affirmed the existence of God, the cause of all causes. When he said, “The God of Israel,” he affirmed that God watches over and guards the upper and lower worlds so that God is called the God of Israel (that is, He watches over them). And when Moses said, “Let My people go,” Moses affirmed that God is all-powerful not only for one nation but for all the nations.
Pharaoh’s response to Moses, then, was not foolishness but a denial of God when he said, “Who is God that I should heed Him and let Israel go? I do not know God, nor will I let Israel go.” (Ex. 5:2) “When he says, “Who is God” he denies God’s existence. When he says, “That I should heed Him,” he denies God’s providence. That is God has ‘no voice’ nor does he command matters in this world. And when he says, “I do not know God nor will I let Israel go,” he denies God’s power…. It is as if he says, “Even if God exists, it is not fitting that we should believe that He controls things in this world, and even if we believe in God’s providence, He is no more than a celestial prince who has control over one particular nation but has no power over other nations. Even if He is the god of Israelites, He has no power over me!”
Since there are three denials in Pharaoh’s statement, the plagues come to authenticate the three aspects of God’s nature: that God exists, has providence over the world, and is all-powerful. First, Scripture states, “With this you shall know that I am God,” that is, “I am the first cause of all existence. This is proved by the first three witnesses: blood, frogs, and lice. Scripture states “a case can be valid based on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deut. 19:15) That is why Rabbi Yehudah groups the three plagues together, detzach, to authenticate the foundation of faith.
At the beginning of the fourth plague, a mixture of wild animals, the Torah states, “That you may know that I the Lord, am in the midst of the land.” (Ex. 8:18) This verse states that God is all knowing and watches over the ways of human beings. To authenticate the second cornerstone of faith, three more plagues took place, a mixture of wild animals, pestilence and boils. To show that they served a special purpose Rabbi Yehudah grouped them together and created the mnemonic, adash.
Afterwards, at the beginning of the seventh plague, hail, the Torah states, “In order that you may know that there is none like Me in all the world.” (Ex. 9:14) This is the foundation of faith – that God is all-powerful. The final four plagues, hail, locust, darkness and the death of the first born, come to testify to this attribute, and Rabbi Yehudah grouped them together, beachav.
",
"Rabbi Yehudah, in his wisdom, formulated mnemonics to testify to the way the plagues proved the three cornerstones of faith. Since this was a popular saying, the sages said, “Rabbi Yehudah gave the plagues mnemonics.”
",
"The questions formulated in the eightieth, eighty-first, and eighty-second gates have now been solved."
]
],
"Dayenu": [],
"Rabban Gamliel's Three Things": [],
"First Half of Hallel": [],
"Second Cup of Wine": []
},
"Rachtzah": [],
"Motzi Matzah": [],
"Maror": [],
"Korech": [],
"Shulchan Orech": [],
"Tzafun": [],
"Barech": {
"Birkat Hamazon": [],
"Third Cup of Wine": [],
"Pour Out Thy Wrath": []
},
"Hallel": {
"Second Half of Hallel": [],
"Songs of Praise and Thanks": [],
"Fourth Cup of Wine": []
},
"Nirtzah": {
"Chasal Siddur Pesach": [],
"L'Shana HaBaa": [],
"And It Happened at Midnight": [],
"Zevach Pesach": [],
"Ki Lo Na'e": [],
"Adir Hu": [],
"Sefirat HaOmer": [],
"Echad Mi Yodea": [],
"Chad Gadya": []
}
},
"versions": [
[
"Zevach Pesach, translated by Rabbi Mark B. Greenspan, Oceanside, N.Y. 2019",
"http://sefaria.org"
]
],
"heTitle": "זבח פסח על הגדה של פסח",
"categories": [
"Liturgy",
"Haggadah",
"Commentary"
],
"schema": {
"heTitle": "זבח פסח על הגדה של פסח",
"enTitle": "Zevach Pesach on Pesach Haggadah",
"key": "Zevach Pesach on Pesach Haggadah",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "הקדמה",
"enTitle": "Introduction"
},
{
"heTitle": "מאה שערים",
"enTitle": "One Hundred Gates"
},
{
"heTitle": "קדש",
"enTitle": "Kadesh"
},
{
"heTitle": "ורחץ",
"enTitle": "Urchatz"
},
{
"heTitle": "כרפס",
"enTitle": "Karpas"
},
{
"heTitle": "יחץ",
"enTitle": "Yachatz"
},
{
"heTitle": "מגיד",
"enTitle": "Magid",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "הא לחמא עניא",
"enTitle": "Ha Lachma Anya"
},
{
"heTitle": "מה נשתנה",
"enTitle": "Four Questions"
},
{
"heTitle": "עבדים היינו",
"enTitle": "We Were Slaves in Egypt"
},
{
"heTitle": "מעשה שהיה בבני ברק",
"enTitle": "Story of the Five Rabbis"
},
{
"heTitle": "כנגד ארבעה בנים",
"enTitle": "The Four Sons"
},
{
"heTitle": "יכול מראש חודש",
"enTitle": "Yechol Me'rosh Chodesh"
},
{
"heTitle": "מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו",
"enTitle": "In the Beginning Our Fathers Were Idol Worshipers"
},
{
"heTitle": "ארמי אבד אבי",
"enTitle": "First Fruits Declaration"
},
{
"heTitle": "עשר המכות",
"enTitle": "The Ten Plagues"
},
{
"heTitle": "דיינו",
"enTitle": "Dayenu"
},
{
"heTitle": "פסח מצה ומרור",
"enTitle": "Rabban Gamliel's Three Things"
},
{
"heTitle": "חצי הלל",
"enTitle": "First Half of Hallel"
},
{
"heTitle": "כוס שניה",
"enTitle": "Second Cup of Wine"
}
]
},
{
"heTitle": "רחצה",
"enTitle": "Rachtzah"
},
{
"heTitle": "מוציא מצה",
"enTitle": "Motzi Matzah"
},
{
"heTitle": "מרור",
"enTitle": "Maror"
},
{
"heTitle": "כורך",
"enTitle": "Korech"
},
{
"heTitle": "שולחן עורך",
"enTitle": "Shulchan Orech"
},
{
"heTitle": "צפון",
"enTitle": "Tzafun"
},
{
"heTitle": "ברך",
"enTitle": "Barech",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "ברכת המזון",
"enTitle": "Birkat Hamazon"
},
{
"heTitle": "כוס שלישית",
"enTitle": "Third Cup of Wine"
},
{
"heTitle": "שפוך חמתך",
"enTitle": "Pour Out Thy Wrath"
}
]
},
{
"heTitle": "הלל",
"enTitle": "Hallel",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "מסיימים את ההלל",
"enTitle": "Second Half of Hallel"
},
{
"heTitle": "מזמורי הודיה",
"enTitle": "Songs of Praise and Thanks"
},
{
"heTitle": "כוס רביעית",
"enTitle": "Fourth Cup of Wine"
}
]
},
{
"heTitle": "נרצה",
"enTitle": "Nirtzah",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "חסל סידור פסח",
"enTitle": "Chasal Siddur Pesach"
},
{
"heTitle": "לשנה הבאה",
"enTitle": "L'Shana HaBaa"
},
{
"heTitle": "ויהי בחצי הלילה",
"enTitle": "And It Happened at Midnight"
},
{
"heTitle": "זבח פסח",
"enTitle": "Zevach Pesach"
},
{
"heTitle": "אדיר במלוכה",
"enTitle": "Ki Lo Na'e"
},
{
"heTitle": "אדיר הוא",
"enTitle": "Adir Hu"
},
{
"heTitle": "ספירת העומר",
"enTitle": "Sefirat HaOmer"
},
{
"heTitle": "אחד מי יודע",
"enTitle": "Echad Mi Yodea"
},
{
"heTitle": "חד גדיא",
"enTitle": "Chad Gadya"
}
]
}
]
}
}