‫הגדה של הר”י מג’ש‬

The Haggadah of the Ri m’Josh

 1

Table of Contents
Author’s Note................................................................................................................................................ 2
Ha Lachma Anya............................................................................................................................................ 3
Mah Nishtanah.............................................................................................................................................. 5
Avadim Hayinu .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Harei Ani Keven Shivim Shana .................................................................................................................... 10
Keneged Arba Banim................................................................................................................................... 12
Chacham ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Rasha ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Tam ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
She’aino Yodeo Lish’ol ................................................................................................................................ 23
Yachol mei-Rosh Chodesh ........................................................................................................................... 24
mi-Techila.................................................................................................................................................... 27
Baruch Shomer Havtachato ........................................................................................................................ 30
Tzei Ulmad .................................................................................................................................................. 31
Vayered Mitzrayma ..................................................................................................................................... 34
Bimsei Me'at ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Vayarei'u Otanu .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Vanitz'ak ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
ve'et amaleinu............................................................................................................................................. 43
ve'et lachatzeinu ......................................................................................................................................... 46
vayotzi'einu ................................................................................................................................................. 48
beyad chazaka uvezroa netuya ................................................................................................................... 50
uvemora gadol ............................................................................................................................................ 52
‫ובאותות ובמופתים‬: ....................................................................................................................................... 53
davar achier ................................................................................................................................................ 55
On calculating plagues ................................................................................................................................ 56
Dayeinu ....................................................................................................................................................... 58
Rabban Gamliel ........................................................................................................................................... 63
Bechol dor ................................................................................................................................................... 67
 2

Author’s Note

I present here the first edition of my running commentary on the Haggadah shel Pesach. It can certainly
use extensive editing. I composed it over the course of about three years as a series of blogposts1. But as
a result, I may be repetitious or inconsistent. And there may be many typographical and formatting
errors. Likewise, I cannot guarantee that the ideas presented in here are correct, but at the least, I hope
that they are thought-provoking.

My focus here is on issues of girsa and its implications; close reading of pesukim and the Haggadah text
to try to better understand the details of the derasha; the composition of the Haggadah; and differing
approaches of Chazal to the obligations on the seder night.

‫חֲ סַ ל סִ ּדּור פֶּ סַ ח כְּהִ ְּלכָתֹו ְּככָל מִ שְּ פָ טֹו ו ְּחֻ קָ תֹו כַאֲ שֶּ ר ָזכִינּו לְּסַ ּדֵּ ר אֹותֹו כֵּן נִ ְּזכֶּה לַעֲ ׂשֹותֹו‬

1
At parshablog, located at http://parsha.blogspot.com
 3

Ha Lachma Anya
The text of Ha Lachma Anya (right):

Some variant texts begin with ke-Ha Lachma

Anya instead:

What is the difference between them?

Perhaps nothing, and we should not make any
big deal about it. It is either This is the bread
of affliction, or like this was the bread of
affliction. Either way, the idea is that this
is matza; it is the bread of affliction; it is
what our ancestors ate in Egypt.

But perhaps we should make a big deal of it.

The Mishna in Pesachim reads:

;‫ לא יצא ידי חובתו‬,‫ כל שלא אמר שלושה דברים אלו בפסח‬,‫ה רבן גמליאל אומר‬,‫י‬
;‫ על שם שפסח המקום על בתי אבותינו במצריים‬,‫ פסח‬.‫ ומרורים‬,‫ מצה‬,‫פסח‬--‫ואלו הן‬
‫ על שם‬,‫ על שם שמיררו המצריים את חיי אבותינו במצריים; מצה‬,‫מרורים‬
‫ חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצריים ;לפיכך‬,‫בכל דור ודור‬. ‫שנגאלו‬
‫אנחנו חייבין להודות להלל לשבח לפאר להדר לרומם לגדל לנצח למי שעשה לנו את כל‬
.‫ הללו יה‬,‫ ונאמר לפניו‬.‫ והוציאנו מעבדות לחירות‬,‫הניסים האלו‬
But Rambam writes this as leharot et atzmo:
‫ חייב אדם להראות את עצמו כאילו הוא בעצמו יצא עתה משיעבוד‬,‫ח[ ו] בכל דור ודור‬
, ‫מצריים‬
And so, apparently in all Kitvei Yad of Rambam on the seder ha-hahagadah. But, we see in perush
haMishnayot that it just ‫( לראות‬credit to Rav Kapach). See e.g. this perush ha-Mishnayot:
 4

The answer, says R' Kapach, is that the vocalization is to be larot, with a patach under
thelamed rather than a heh. Which then means le-harot.

The difference is: lir`ot is that he should internalize the lesson, and see himself as if he left
Egypt. Lar`ot is that he should externalize the lesson, and reenact it overtly for others as though
he himself left Egypt. The pasuk cited it asah Hashem li betzeiti Mimitzrayim. This might be self-
perception. But the pasuk does begin vehigadta levincha bayom hahu, such that this is a response
for others.

Either way, this might entail referring to oneself as a Red-Sea pedestrian.

Back to the topic of the variant texts of ha vs. ke-ha -- Without the kaf, we are saying that this
itself is the bread of affliction our forefathers ate. With the kaf, we are simply saying that it islike
it, but that it is not precisely it. The former is a stronger reenactment. The latter seems more like
a zecher. We might then draw a connection here. If the purpose is lar'ot, then ha is more
appropriate than ke-ha.

What about the rest of it? We could cast it as (at least) one of three
things:
(1) A quote of what our ancestors said back in Egypt.
(2) A quote of what our ancestors said during the days of the
Mikdash.
(3) Something we are saying today.

If (1), then our saying it might well be part of the reenactment. We say that now we are here in
Egypt, but next year we will be in Israel. (If not from problems in the midbar, they would be back
in the land of Canaan.) And that now in Egypt we are slaves, but next year we will be free men.

If (3), then this could be application of the lesson of Pesach to our own lives. You think that our
ancestors were the only ones in need of redemption? Just like them, we are in Exile. And we are
(or were) under oppression in various countries, such that we are not free.
 5

Or it could be a combination of the above, with different sentences referring to different people
or stages.

Mah Nishtanah
Here, the son asks. Why should the son ask? Because in Shemot 12:
ְ ‫י‬-‫ כִּ י‬,‫ כו וְ הָ יָה‬26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall
‫ֹאמרּו אֲ לֵיכֶ ם‬
.‫ לָכֶ ם‬,‫ מָ ה הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬:‫ בְ נֵיכֶם‬say unto you: What mean ye by this service?
,'‫פֶ סַ ח הּוא לַה‬-‫כז וַ אֲ מַ ְר ֶתם זֶ בַ ח‬ 27 that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S
‫יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫בָ ֵתי בְ נֵי‬-‫אֲ ֶשר פָ סַ ח עַ ל‬ passover, for that He passed over the houses of the
-‫ וְ אֶ ת‬,‫ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬-‫ בְ נָגְ פ ֹו אֶ ת‬,‫בְ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the
.‫ וַ יִּ ְש ַתחֲ וּו‬,‫בָ ֵתינּו ִּה ִּציל; וַ יִּ קֹד הָ עָ ם‬ Egyptians, and delivered our houses.' And the people
bowed the head and worshipped.

The answer about the Zevach Pesach, which is a fulfillment

of vehigadta levincha, all about the story of the redemption
from Egypt, is in response to a question of the son. (In this
instance, the question usually associated with the rasha, but
never mind that.) And so, this should be asippur yetzias
Mitzrayim in response to a question.

The question appears to the right:

But where did he see all these things? I suppose, at the

least, that the son has experienced some of these things.
This was just after Ha Lachma Anya, so he just saw
the matza. And that was just after kiddush, where everyone
leaned, and after karpas, where there was dipping. In terms
of marror, this could be because it is sitting on the seder
plate before him. Though the second dipping has not yet
occurred!

Yet, it is rather formulaic. And we all know that the kid

prepares the question(s) beforehand. Yet the seder of the
Haggadah is just one possible way of fulfilling it. We see in
the gemara,Pesachim 115b:
'‫למה עוקרין את השולחן אמרי דבי ר‬
‫ינאי כדי שיכירו תינוקות וישאלו אביי‬
‫הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזא דקא מדלי‬
‫תכא מקמיה אמר להו עדיין לא קא‬
‫אכלינן אתו קא מעקרי תכא מיקמן אמר‬
:‫ליה רבה פטרתן מלומר מה נשתנה‬
They moved the (portable) table away so that the children should ask. And (young) Abaye was
sitting before Rabba. They moved the table away. He objected, wondering why they were moving
 6

away the table when they had not yet eaten. Rabba said to him that he had thus exempted them
from saying Ma Nishtana. And on 116a:
‫מאי בגנות רב אמר מתחלה עובדי {עבודה זרה} היו אבותינו‬
‫[ושמואל] אמר עבדים היינו אמר ליה רב נחמן לדרו עבדיה עבדא‬
‫דמפיק ליה מריה לחירות ויהיב ליה כספא ודהבא מאי בעי למימר‬
‫ליה אמר ליה בעי לאודויי ולשבוחי א"ל פטרתן מלומר מה נשתנה‬
:‫פתח ואמר עבדים היינו‬
Rav Nachman said to Daru his servant: A slave who goes out from his master to freedom, and he
gave him silver and gold, what does he need to say? He {=Daru} said to him: He needs to thank and
praise. He {=Rav Nachman} said to him {Daru}, "you have exempted us from saying Ma Nishtana."

This is not even a question!

But they "mixed it up." It was not always this formula, which they recited by rote. And the text in
the Haggada is just one way to fulfill the obligation. (The implication, to me, is that having
fulfilled, they did not bother to actually say Ma Nishtana separately.)

But it is OK, I think, if the child does prepare it and it is this formula. It is also indicative of how,
nowadays, the kids come with all sorts of divrei Torah prepared by their rebbe, and they end up
saying a lot of maggid, rather than it being a vehigadta levincha -- although the father does get to
say a lot of the actual haggadah. Perhaps this is excess.

Another answer is that if we look at the actual Mishna, the Mishna of kan haben shoel, together
with Ma Nishtana, is placed after a Mishna detailing all the things they do first. One is that the
bring the gufo shel Pesach. This is appropriate, since the in the pasuk, the question the son asks is
sparked by the Pesach, such that he asks ‫ ָלכֶם‬,‫מָה ָהעֲב ֹּדָה הַז ֹּאת‬. And the response is ‫ ֶפסַח הּוא לַהשם‬-‫זֶבַח‬.

Dr. Richard Steiner, in JSIJ, 7 (2007), wrote an article addressing just how many questions there are
in Ma Nishtana, as understood throughout the ages. It is well worth a read, not that he needs
any haskama from me.

I would suggest that there are zero questions here! The relevant Mishna reads:
‫מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אביו ואם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו‬
‫מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין חמץ‬
‫ומצה הלילה הזה כולו מצה שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין שאר ירקות‬
‫הלילה הזה מרור שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין בשר צלי שלוק ומבושל‬
‫הלילה הזה כולו צלי שבכל הלילות <אין >אנו <חייבים לטבל‬
‫אפילו[ >מטבילין] פעם אחת הלילה הזה שתי פעמים ולפי דעתו של‬
)‫בן אביו מלמדו מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח ודורש (דברים כו‬
:‫מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה‬
Here, the son asks whatever he asks. But, if the son does not have daas -- his father instructs him.
That is, the she'aino yodeia lish'ol, at petach lo. And there should not be a comma, or pause,
between the word melamdo and the word ma. Rather, ‫אביו מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות‬, the
 7

father instructs him just how this night is different from all other nights. And this might then
prompt the child to ask why. Each ‫ שבכל הלילות‬is then not another question, but the father
continuing to instruct just how the night is different. And the phrase ‫ולפי דעתו של בן אביו‬
‫ מלמדו‬brackets it at the end. Perhaps even for this last phrase, the idea is that in the father
instructs him how the night is different according to the daas of the son, needing to do more or
less.

If so, perhaps the son should not be saying this language, but rather the father! Of course, if the
son does ask it, it is a way of asking, which is good. But perhaps this was not the intent of the
Mishna, at all.

There are all sorts of girsological variations on the four questions. And of course, we took out the
roasted meat question from the Mishna, which was perhaps only appropriatebizman hamikdash,
and instead have a question about leaning.

Here is from the Rambam's perush hamishnayot:

Foremost, note the spacing, and the red mark above the word matchil. Ulefi daato thus belongs to
the previous section. Of course, this can be so without saying like I am suggesting. Rather, in
accordance with the daas of the son -- whether he is a Chacham, Rasha, Tam (/Tipesh), SheAino
Yodea Lishol, the father responds to the son's question(s).

Note also how the question about Maror is crossed out. It this a girsological issue? Yes. While the
Mishna in the gemara has this (see above), the Mishna by itself appears to lack it. Thus, from
snunit:
‫ מה נשתנה הלילה‬,‫אביו מלמדו‬--‫ אם אין דעת בבן‬.‫ וכאן הבן שואל‬,‫ד מזגו לו כוס שני‬,‫י‬
‫ שתי‬,‫ אין אנו מטבלין אפילו פעם אחת; והלילה הזה‬,‫ שבכל הלילות‬:‫הזה מכל הלילות‬
,‫ שבכל הלילות‬.‫ כולו מצה‬,‫ אנו אוכלין חמץ ומצה; והלילה הזה‬,‫ שבכל הלילות‬.‫פעמים‬
‫ אביו‬,‫ לפי דעתו של בן‬.‫ כולו צלי‬,‫אנו אוכלין בשר צלי שלוק ומבושל; והלילה הזה‬
‫)עד‬, ‫ה‬,‫ ומסיים בשבח; ודורש מ"ארמי אובד אבי( "דברים כו‬,‫ מתחיל בגנות‬.‫מלמדו‬
.‫שהוא גומר את כל הפרשה‬
and so too the Mishna in Yerushalmi, without the question of Maror:
‫ א פרק י הלכה ד משנה מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אם אין דעת בבן‬,‫דף ע‬
‫ אביו מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו מטבילין‬.‫לשאול‬
‫פעם אחת והלילה הזה שתי פעמים שבכל הלילות אנו אוכלין חמץ ומצה והלילה הזה‬
 8

‫כולו מצה שבכל הלילות אוכלין בשר צלי שלוק ומבושל והלילה הזה כולו צלי ולפי‬
‫דעתיה של בן אביו מלמדו מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח ודורש מארמי אובד אבי עד‬
‫שהוא גומר כל הפרשה‬
The idea that there are particularly four questions, in a night of fours (four sons, four cups, four
questions), does not hold true.

But it may make some sense. As we said above, if they did not yet eat maror, how could they ask
this question. But I'll turn around and note that the previous Mishna did say metabel bechazeret
(=maror) ad shehu magia lefarperet hapat {or lefat, or ulefat}.

Avadim Hayinu
Next up, Avadim Hayinu:

Placed right after Ma Nishtana, it constitutes an answer to

the question of the reason for these strange practices.
This is what the gemara in Pesachim 116a states:
‫ מאי‬:‫מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח‬
‫בגנות רב אמר מתחלה עובדי עבודה‬
‫זרה היו אבותינו [ושמואל] אמר עבדים‬
‫היינו אמר ליה רב נחמן לדרו עבדיה‬
‫עבדא דמפיק ליה מריה לחירות ויהיב‬
‫ליה כספא ודהבא מאי בעי למימר ליה‬
‫אמר ליה בעי לאודויי ולשבוחי א"ל‬
‫פטרתן מלומר מה נשתנה פתח ואמר‬
:‫עבדים היינו‬
Thus, according to Shmuel, the way one begins
with genus is by saying Avadim Hayinu. And when Rav
Nachman (a student of Shmuel) and Daru his servant
fulfilled the obligation of asking (or informing so as to
ask), he immediately went on went on to Avadim Hayinu.

And it seems that the shevach is also there, in the same statement, that Hashem took us out of
there with a strong hand and outstretched arm. The bit of us still being there if not for this
redemption is a good way of appreciating the importance of this, and why we should be thankful,
and perhaps also a bit of ‫חייב אדם לראות את עצמו‬...

Just as we saw before (when discussing Mah Nishtanah) that there were many ways of fulfilling the
asking of the question, and being exempt from Mah Nishtanah, so too there may be several ways
of fulfilling the genus to shevach. And so this might be a machlokes in which everyone wins. Or in
which we could theoretically fulfill this retelling using a number of different texts.
 9

But while this short answer might be enough (except perhaps for an obligation to mention and
explain Pesach Matzah Marror), this text tells us that we should go on at length about the exodus
from Egypt. Even those who already know it all, there is this Mitzvah of going on at length.

But then, we don't go on at length about Yetzias Mitzrayim, at least not immediately! Rather, we
go on at length about our obligation to say over, and to go on at length! Thus, the Haggadah
continues (right):

Some say that the roles of these particular

individuals, as descendants of converts, Leviim
who were not subjugated, etc., we might think
they were not obligated, or not so obligated.
And so we see to what extend they did it.

I would simply say that these were a group

of chachamim, navonim, yod'im et haTorah, etc.
And so it directly illustrates the preceding, and
the extent to which one should relate the story
of the exodus, because Harei Zeh Meshubach.
(That it goes until Krias Shema shel Shacharis, I
recall a suggestion that this despite the fact that
Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim is part of Krias Shema,
and so we see this is a separate obligation. This
is cute, but this is just a mark of the time, that
they spent the entire night discussing Yetzias
Mitzrayim. There are other Biblical aspects of
the obligation of Krias Shema shel Shacharis. But
see what I write below about Lod.)

Now, obviously, all these Chachomim couldn't

have said the text of the Haggadah as we have
before us. After all, how could they relate a story about themselves? It hadn't happened yet! That
night, it seems, they were mesaprim about the actual Exodus, not the halachos about their
obligation to relate.

On the other hand, we have this incident in Lod, in the last Tosefta in Pesachim:
‫חייב אדם [לעסוק בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה אפילו בינו לבין בנו אפילו בינו לבין עצמו‬
‫אפילו בינו לבין תלמידו מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו מסובין בבית ביתוס בן זונין‬
‫בלוד והיו [עסוקין בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה עד קרות הגבר הגביהו מלפניהם ונועדו‬
‫והלכו [להן] לבית המדרש‬
Here, the obligation is to engage in the hilchos hapesach. In a nice parallel to the above -- just as
those Chachamim were engaged in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim and then transitioned to zechiras
Yetzias Mitzrayim, Rabban Gamliel and the Zekeinim were engaged in discussing hilchos
haPesach all that night (and viewed this as the obligation), and transitioned to go to the Beis
Hamidrash where they continued learning, perhaps other things. (Perhaps one can argue that
these are the same...)

What is meant by "Pesach" in Hilchos HaPesach? This Pesach night occurred in Lod, post-Churban
Habayis. Two possibilities strike me. The first is the halachos of the Korban Pesach, as we see in
 10

the same Tosefta Pesachim, but in perek 4, with what they asked Hillel Hazaken (as I would
understand it). And learning something is like doing it, just as we learn/recite korbanos every
morning. Perhaps we could then view this as reenactment of the Korban Pesach by learning it.
Alternatively, the gemara discusses learning Hilchot Hapesach, HaAtzeret, and HaChag 30 days
before, so perhaps these are general rules of the holiday.

This discussion about the obligation to discuss might be a response to the Chacham (or, in other
variants, the Tipesh), to tell him ke-hilchot haPesach ... ain maftirin achar hapesach afikoman.
Perhaps different parts of the Haggadah address different sons, and this is chanoch lanaar al pi
darko.

One final thought -- despite staying up all night learning the halachos of Pesach (as in the
Tosefta), or staying up all night discussing the exodus from Egypt (as in the Haggadah), they did
not neglect eating the Matzah, Maror, or meal. They did not neglect drinking the four cups of
wine! If students would interrupt them for a tangential mitzvah, like Shema of the morning, they
would certainly interrupt them to let them know that they were not going to fill the mitzvos of
the night. Unfortunately, people often neglect the other mitzvos of the night in favor of Maggid.
Forget about the obligation of finishing by chatzos halayla. At least, this is a machlokes. But
insome houses, they extend Maggid such that the children, or young adults, fall asleep and do not
drink the four cups! (Meanwhile ‫בלילי פסחים בשביל תינוקות שלא ישנו חוטפין מצות תניא רבי אליעזר אומר‬.) Divrei
Torah for the child's Rebbe, or that you yourself want to say over is nice, but when you optimize
one thing, it is often at the expense of another. Save this for Shulchan Orech, for the meal. Or
save it for after Nirtzah; or for the Yom Tov meal the next day.

Harei Ani Keven Shivim Shana

The Haggadah continues with a statement by Rabbi Eleazar ben
Azaria about the midrashic basis for the obligation to
mention Yetzias Mitzrayim at night.

If the previous segment, discussing the obligation

of sippur instead of engaging in the actualsippur, was slightly
tangential, this goes even further along the same tangent.
Here, the discussion is not about an obligation of sippur Yetzias
Mitzrayim at all. Rather, it is about a debate as to whether one
is obligated to mention the exodus from Egypt only during the
daytime, or during day and night. This obligation is fulfilled
during Krias Shema, and if we rule that it is only during the
daytime, there is no reason for the third perek of Shema in
Krias Shema at night.

Ben Zoma gives a derasha based on Devarim 16:3:

 11

,‫ ב וְ זָ בַ ְח ָת פֶ סַ ח לַיהוָ ה אֱ ֹלהֶ יָך‬2 And thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering unto
‫יִּ בְ חַ ר‬-‫ בַ מָ קוֹם אֲ ֶשר‬,‫ צֹאן ּובָ ָקר‬the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the
.‫ לְ ַשכֵן ְשמ ֹו ָשם‬,‫ יְ הוָ ה‬place which the LORD shall choose to cause His name
to dwell there.
‫ ִּשבְ עַ ת‬,‫תֹאכַל עָ לָיו חָ מֵ ץ‬-‫ג ֹלא‬ 3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven
‫עָ לָיו מַ צוֹת לֶחֶ ם‬-‫י ִָּמים תֹאכַל‬ days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith,
‫ יָצָ אתָ מֵ אֶ ֶרץ‬,‫ כִּ י בְ ִּחפָ זוֹן‬:‫עֹנִּ י‬ even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou
‫יוֹם‬-‫לְ מַ עַ ן ִּתזְ כֹר אֶ ת‬--‫ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou
‫ כֹל יְ מֵ י‬,‫אתָך מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬
ְ ֵ‫צ‬
.‫חַ יֶיָך‬ mayest remember the day when thou camest forth
out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

This might indeed be entirely tangential, at least insofar as the mitzvah under consideration is
concerned, as I wrote above. Yet, there are two elements which connect it. One is that
regardless, Yetzias Mitzrayim is still what is being recalled, and this is the night of the seder,
where we discuss it in great detail. The other is the prooftext, which is a pasuk about the reason
for eating matzah. On a peshat rather than derash level, this has nothing to do
withmentioning (tizkor) the exodus from Egypt every single day. Rather, on a peshat level, it is
how lack of chametz and eating matzah causes one to remember (tizkor) the Exodus.

And on a peshat level, what is meant by kol yemei chayecha? See Ibn Ezra, who writes:
‫ כל ימי חייך‬-‫בכל שנה‬.

That is, every year; thus, throughout the span (yemei) of your life. Or alternatively,
seeyamim meaning years in connection with the sale of houses in walled cities. And see Nazir 4b,
where Avshalom used to poll his hair every 12 months, based on a similar understanding of a pasuk
that uses the term yamim.

In terms of the derasha, the word tizkor now means to mention the Exodus. And the word kol is
a ribbuy. What does it add to? From ‫ימי חייך‬, the word ‫ימי‬. Add to ‫ימי‬, to add night. (Or else
interpret it as the more complete day of 24 hours rather than mere daylight days.)

How, and why, do the Chachamim differ? They maintain that kol modifies chayecha {or yemei
chayecha}, not just yemei. How do we add to the life under discussion? Another life. And this
would be techiyat hameitim, in messianic days.

There is a "famous" interpretation about harei ani keven shivim shana -- that Rabbi Eleazar ben
Azaryah was only 17 at this time, and thus he is only like he is 70. And this relates to the incident
with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, with Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah's beard turning white
overnight. This is nice derash, but takes us away from the peshat of the segment.

I've heard an interesting interpretation of the previous segment (mesubin be-venei Berak) and this
one. In the previous segment, it only says that they were mesaper biytzias mitzrayim all that
night, but does not specify which night it was. On that night, Rabbi Akiva et al. were talking about
a revolt against Rome. And the students said at the end that the time has come for action. In
which case, this is code. So too here: He is like one who is 70 years old. What does this mean? A
reference to the 70 year galus after the destruction of the first Temple. And as such a person,
with a destroyed second Temple, he wasn't zocheh to understand the point of mentioning yetzias
Mitrayim at "night." But the derasha tells us that even at such times, remember that prior
redemption. And the Chachamim say that the derasha is to include the times of mashiach. It can
 12

work out nicely, but I am not entirely persuaded that this ispeshat either.

That he is like one who is 70... I would interpret the ‫ כ‬not as the ‫כף הדמיון‬, of comparison, but
rather of approximation. Compare to kachatzi halayla. And to Rambam's ‫כשש שעות‬. He is already
about that old and does not yet know the derivation of this halacha.

In terms of this sort of expression, compare to Rav Kahana with ain mikra yotzei miydei peshuto.
From Shabbat 63a:
‫מ"ט דר"א דאמר תכשיטין הן לו דכתיב( תהילים מה )חגור חרבך על ירך גבור הודך‬
‫והדרך א"ל רב כהנא למר בריה דרב הונא האי בדברי תורה כתיב א"ל אין מקרא יוצא‬
‫מידי פשוטו א"ר כהנא כד הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין והוה גמירנא ליה לכוליה תלמודא‬
‫ולא הוה ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו עד השתא מאי קמ"ל דליגמר איניש והדר‬
:‫ליסבר‬
He was eighteen and had already learned all the Talmud and did not know this principle. So too
here, and so we should make no big deal of it.

It seems also that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya already knew the halacha via tradition, but had no
Scriptural basis -- lo zachiti. And that is what he learned from Ben Zoma.

Keneged Arba Banim

The next section of the Haggadah is about the
Four Sons.

After a short blessing to Hashem, we are

introduced to the four characters to whom the
father might respond. This, in part, reflects the
idea of chanoch lanaar al pi darko. There is
noone ideal response, and no one ideal seder.
What is the optimal response to the Chacham
may be the worst possible response to the Tam.
And so on. This is something to keep in mind,
even though we purportedly have a fixed text
of maggid. Don't do maggid at the expense of
neglect of sippur yetzias mitzrayim.
The mitzvah is {Shemot 13}:

‫ בַ יוֹם הַ הּוא‬,‫ ח וְ ִּהג ְַד ָת לְ בִ נְ ָך‬8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying:
,‫ עָ ָשה יְ הוָ ה לִּ י‬,‫ בַ עֲבּור זֶ ה‬:‫ לֵאמֹר‬It is because of that which the LORD did for me
.‫ ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬,‫אתי‬
ִּ ֵ‫ בְ צ‬when I came forth out of Egypt.
 13

Let us make a derasha by stressing the word ‫ ְל ִבנְָך‬. You are to relate to your son, and not to
someone else's theoretical son. And blessed be Hashem who gave the Torah to His nation Israel, in
a way that they could receive it. And different responses to different sons are encoded in that
Torah.

Moving away from slight homily and back to peshat, this maamar is likely based on explaining the
existence of several different responses in different contexts to sons across Chumash.

The four sons are the Chacham, Rasha, Tam, and SheAino Yodea Lishol. We will, be'ezrat Hashem,
focus on each in turn. But in short, the Chacham is not the tzaddik. He is not necessarily even the
hero, over anyone else. He is a specific type of son, who appears interested in halacha. The rasha
seems to be a min, who might not deserve a response. Or else the response is geared towards
shocking him and moving him away from his evil ways. The Tam is, according to Yerushalmi, the
tipesh, but this need not be so in our Haggadah. I would guess that the haggadah is actually more
geared towards the tam, for that is the closest to the mitzvah ofsippur yetzias mitzrayim.

This is still about the chiyuv, rather than the actual fulfillment of the chiyuv. And perhaps
allthis should be from Rosh Chodesh, with the
actual sippur occuring the night of the seder. But
maybe this is not only about the chiyuv. After all,
this maamar includes what the typical appropriate
response is for each son. And since the son is there,
by reading this maamar you actually are saying the
appropriate response to whichever son happens to
be before you.

Chacham
The first of the four sons is the Chacham, the Wise
Son. The question and response are:

This is based on the exchange in Devarim 6:

‫ ִּמ ְצוֹת‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ יז ָשמוֹר ִּת ְש ְמרּון‬17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of
,‫ וְ עֵ דֹתָ יו וְ חֻ ָקיו‬,‫ יְ הוָ ה אֱ ֹלהֵ יכֶם‬the LORD your God, and His testimonies, and His
.‫ אֲ ֶשר ִּצּוָ ְך‬statutes, which He hath commanded thee.
‫ בְ עֵ ינֵי‬,‫יח וְ עָ ִּשיתָ הַ י ָָשר וְ הַ ּטוֹב‬ 18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in
ָ‫ ּובָ את‬,‫ יִּ יטַ ב לְָך‬,‫לְ מַ עַ ן‬--‫יְ הוָ ה‬ the sight of the LORD; that it may be well with thee,
-‫ אֲ ֶשר‬,‫ָארץ הַ ּטֹבָ ה‬ ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫וְ י ַָר ְש ָת אֶ ת‬ and that thou mayest go in and possess the good
.‫נִּ ְשבַ ע יְ הוָ ה לַאֲ בֹתֶ יָך‬ land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers,
,‫ ִּמפָ נֶיָך‬,‫אֹיְ בֶ יָך‬-‫ ָכל‬-‫ יט לַהֲ דֹף אֶ ת‬19 to thrust out all thine enemies from before thee,
}‫ {ס‬.‫ ִּדבֶ ר ה‬,‫כַאֲ ֶשר‬
 14

as the LORD hath spoken. {S}

,‫יִּ ְשָאלְ ָך בִּ נְ ָך מָ חָ ר‬-‫כ כִּ י‬ 20 When thy son asketh thee in time to come,
‫ וְ הַ חֻ ִּקים‬,‫ מָ ה הָ עֵ דֹת‬:‫לֵאמֹר‬ saying: 'What mean the testimonies, and the
‫ אֲ ֶשר ִּצּוָ ה יְ הוָה‬,‫וְ הַ ִּמ ְשפָ ִּטים‬ statutes, and the ordinances, which the LORD our
.‫ אֶ ְתכֶם‬,‫אֱ ֹלהֵ ינּו‬ God hath commanded you?
‫ עֲבָ ִּדים הָ יִּ ינּו‬,‫ כא וְ ָאמַ ְר ָת לְ בִּ נְ ָך‬21 then thou shalt say unto thy son: 'We were
‫ לְ פַ ְרעֹה בְ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם; וַ י ִֹּציאֵ נּו יְ הוָ ה‬Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought
.‫ בְ יָד חֲ זָ ָקה‬,‫ ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

‫ כב וַ יִּ ֵתן ה א ֹותֹת ּומֹפְ ִּתים‬22 And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great
‫ בְ פַ ְרעֹה‬,‫ גְ דֹלִּ ים וְ ָרעִּ ים בְ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his
.‫לְ עֵ ינֵינּו‬--‫בֵ ית ֹו‬-‫ ּובְ כָל‬house, before our eyes.

,‫לְ מַ עַ ן‬--‫ הו ִֹּציא ִּמ ָשם‬,‫ כג וְ אוֹתָ נּו‬23 And He brought us out from thence, that He
,‫ָארץ‬ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫ לָתֶ ת לָנּו אֶ ת‬,‫ הָ בִּ יא אֹתָ נּו‬might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore
.‫ אֲ ֶשר נִּ ְשבַ ע לַאֲ בֹתֵ ינּו‬unto our fathers.

-‫כָל‬-‫ ַלעֲשוֹת אֶ ת‬,‫כד וַ יְ צַ ּוֵ נּו ה‬ 24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these
-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ לְ יִּ ְרָאה‬,‫הַ חֻ ִּקים הָ אֵ לֶה‬ statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good
-‫לְ טוֹב לָנּו כָל‬--‫יְ הוָ ה אֱ ֹלהֵ ינּו‬ always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at
.‫ לְ חַ יֹתֵ נּו כְ הַ יוֹם הַ זֶ ה‬,‫הַ י ִָּמים‬ this day.
-‫ כִּ י‬:‫לָנּו‬-‫ ִּת ְהיֶה‬,‫ּוצ ָד ָקה‬ְ ‫ כה‬25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we
‫הַ ִּמ ְצוָ ה‬-‫כָל‬-‫ נִּ ְשמֹר ַלעֲשוֹת אֶ ת‬observe to do all this commandment before the
‫כַאֲ ֶשר‬--‫ לִּ פְ נֵי ה אֱ ֹלהֵ ינּו‬,‫ הַ זֹאת‬LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.' {S}
}‫ {ס‬.‫ִּצּוָ נּו‬

The pashut peshat of this is that this is not asked specifically regarding the korban Pesach, while
the Pesach, matzah umamor are munachim lefanav. Rather, the father is keeping all themitzvot,
edot and chukim. The son asks what they are, not wishing to know the details, but rather to know
the import. And the father's response, in context, is precisely to explain the import -- that it
is righteousness unto us, and so that Hashem may preserve us alive.

But this is a derasha, and so the pasuk is taken from its simple context and used to speak about
another son, at another time. He is transported in time and space to the night of the korban
Pesach. And he is not asking about the import, but rather wishes to know about the details of
the mitzvot. And the father's response is indeed to inform him of all the details pertaining to
Pesach, (including) that one should not eat a dessert after the korban Pesach.

What happened to sippur yetzias Mitzrayim?! These are laws, not story!

One answer is, perhaps, that the response would not only include the halachot, but also some
minimal element of retelling the story of the Exodus. After all, in the pesukim above, in context in
Devarim, the father responds by telling him Avadim Hayinu, which is Shmuel's beginning, and
which in fact starts off all of maggid. But I do not get the sense that this is truly so. For this is
aderasha, which is hyperliteral, and takes the words not only out of context but out of meaning.
And this son is not asking for import, but details, and the response is the details. The son who asks
 15

about the import is more correctly the Tam.

The answer might be somewhat elitist. I cannot help but think of Rav Sheshet, who would turn his
back to the leining of Kriat HaTorah. From Berachot 8a:

R. Shesheth used to turn his face to another side and study. He said: We [are busy] with ours, and
they [are busy] with theirs.
Perhaps only the Tam, whom the Yerushalmi labels the Tipesh, should get the Sippur Yetziat
Mitzrayim. But people who are Chachamim, Nevonim, Yodeim et HaTorah should not bother with
this, but should instead focus on the Hilchot HaPesach!

To counter this, we have the incident with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben
Azariah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon who were feasting in Bnei Brak. They fulfilled the
instruction immediately preceding that even for such people, it is a mitzvah lesapper biytzias
mitzrayim, and that whoever increases in this, it is meritorious. And these great Rabbis engaged
in sippur yetzias mitzrayim all that night, until the students came and told them that the time for
Shema of Shacharit had arrived. Clearly, they held that one should indeed engage in sippur
yetzias Mitzrayim.

However, I think I can raise a counterexample. While those chachamim, navonim, etc. were
feasting in Bnei Brak, something else was happening in Lod. Citing the last Tosefta in Pesachim:

‫חייב אדם [לעסוק בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה אפילו בינו לבין בנו אפילו בינו לבין עצמו‬
‫אפילו בינו לבין תלמידו מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו מסובין בבית ביתוס בן זונין‬
‫בלוד והיו [עסוקין בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה עד קרות הגבר הגביהו מלפניהם ונועדו‬
‫והלכו [להן] לבית המדרש‬
The obligation described here is not sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, but rather to engage in the hilchot
haPesach. This might be like Rav Sheshet, that Talmidei Chachamim engage in their own, and the
common folk, Tam, engage in their own. And this might be the import of this maamar of the four
sons. (Unless somehow the hilchot haPesach are considered sippur.) And whether this is indeed so
is a machlokes, and thus it was necessary to state that even kulanu chachamim we have an
obligation, and that we should go on at length in this sippur.

I would note that this incident in Lod involved Rabban Gamliel and the Zekeinim. But we know
that the same Rabban Gamliel did not eliminate the obligation of sippur entirely. As we cite him
at the end of maggid, whoever does not say and explain the import of these three things --Pesach,
Matzah, and Maror has not fulfilled his obligation of sippur. These points would likely have been
covered in the course of the seder. Though not necessarily the association of the physical symbols
to the messages. But perhaps he has this short list not as a checklist, but because otherwise
someone might not cover these points. After all, one might be engaged in discussion of
the mitzvos of the night rather than on the story.

Looking now at the Mechilta, it is actually explicit. We have Rabbi Eliezer (one of the Bnei Brak
participants, though) stating:

:‫דבר אחר‬
:‫ ר' אליעזר אומר‬- ‫מה העדות‬
?‫מנין אתה אומר שאם היתה חבורה של חכמים או של תלמידים שצריכים לעסוק בהלכות פסח עד חצות‬
': ‫מה העדות וגו‬: ‫לכך נאמר‬
 16

Specifically if they are a chabura of Chachamim or Talmidei Chachamim, this is what they should
focus upon. Although this is ad chatzos. (Presumably, since they also have an obligation to
eatmatzah and drink the four cups, this "maggid" was happening simultaneous to all the
othermitzvos halayla.) Though this might be after a regular maggid.

____

‫ וְ הַ חֻ ִּקים‬,‫מָ ה הָ עֵ דֹת‬The pasuk in Devarim is

. A "famous" ‫ אֶתְ כֶם‬,‫צּוָ ה ה אֱ ֹלהֵינּו‬
ִּ ‫ אֲ ֶשר‬,‫וְ הַ ִּמ ְשפָ ִּטים‬
question that people grapple with is just how the
Chacham differs from the Rasha. After all, the Rasha
says lachem with the connotation ofvelo lo. But the
Chacham says etchem with a plausible connotation
of velo lo. How do they differ? How can the Haggadah
darshen one without the other.

Some famous, and good answers: The Chacham

says Elokeinu. (This is then cast as the important turning
towards masorah.) This is actually a great answer, since
the idea that the Chacham took himself out of the Klal
and was Kafar BeIkkar means that he denies Hashem's
divinity. So here, he accepts God as his God, such that
the derasha is blocked out.

Another answer is that it is a matter of stress and where the emphasis is placed. And this is
another great answer, since this is, after all, a derasha from these pesukim. Within thepeshat of
these pesukim themselves, these sons are not reshaim norchachamim specifically. And so,
this derasha is a diyuk, not to discover the hidden one true meaning of the pasuk but to bring out
. Not because such ‫שאינו יודע לשאול‬a point. We see this as well, in that baavur zeh is also said to the
a son will soon become a rasha, if we are not careful. (That is good derush based on the Haggadic
text.) Rather, different aspects of the same response can be darshened in different ways. And just
because aderasha put emphasis on a word in one instance does not mean that another derasha,
trying to develop a different point, must be consistent and interpret a different word in another
pasuk in a similar manner.

Another great answer is from the girsa in the Yerushalmi, where the derasha is not (only) focused
on the word lachem, but (also) on the word avodah, which it renders as tircha.Thus, other
contextual, textual cues might make up the entirety of the derasha, or at least inform us of the
direction the derasha is to take.

Another great answer is that this question never arises because the pasuk by the Chacham does
. Indeed, let us see the image for this post once again, and pay ‫אותנו‬. Rather, it says ‫אתכם‬not say
careful attention to the pasuk as cited:

This is from a
Haggadah from Prague in 1590. Are they basing themselves on a variant
sefer Torah, or a variant tradition?
 17

As I heard from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, The Mechilta appears to have just such a
variant version of the pasuk:
:‫ ארבעה בנים הם‬:‫ נמצאת אומר‬- ‫מה העדות החוקים והמשפטים‬
.‫אחד חכם‬
.‫ואחד רשע‬
.‫ואחד תם‬
.‫ואחד שאינו יודע לשאול‬
?‫חכם מה הוא אומר‬
‫ אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אותנו אף אתה פתח לו בהלכות‬,‫מה העדות החקים והמשפטים‬
. ‫הפסח אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומין‬
?‫רשע מה הוא אומר‬
‫ אף‬,‫ לכם ולא לו ולפי שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל וכפר בעיקר‬.‫מה העבודה הזאת לכם‬
‫ בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים לי ולא‬:‫אתה אמור לו והקהה את שיניו ואמור לו‬
. ‫ אלו היית שם לא היית נגאל‬,‫לך‬
?‫תם מה הוא אומר‬
.‫ בחוזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים מבית עבדים‬:‫מה זאת? ואמרת אליו‬
‫ושאינו יודע לשאול‬
' ‫והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא וגו‬: ‫ שנאמר‬,‫את פתח לו‬

Note the version of the pasuk cited. It has otanu instead of etchem. Perhaps this is
itself a mere typographical error. But then I think I recall Dr. Leiman telling us that
the Dead Sea Scrolls also have ‫אותנו‬. More than this, the Septuagint's translation has
the equivalent of ‫אותנו‬:
20 And it shall come to pass when thy son shall ask thee at a future time,
saying, What are the testimonies, and the ordinances, and the
judgments, which the Lord our God has commanded us?
20 Καὶ ἔσται ὅταν ἐρωτήσῃ σε ὁ υἱός σου αὔριον λέγων· τί ἐστι τὰ
μαρτύρια καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα καὶ τὰ κρίματα, ὅσα ἐνετείλατο Κύριος ὁ
Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἡμῖν;

That is, "us", not you. This is not to claim that our Masoretic text is necessarily wrong. Rather, the
claim is that for the original Midrashic author, the derasha was on a non-Masoretic text
(something we have already seen once or twice elsewhere on parshablog). And so, the question
everybody asked would not have even been a question in the first place for the midrashic author.

Of course, I am not convinced that even with our text, the question arises to the level of
question. Because we are engaged in derash here, and the midrashic author is entitled to place
 18

stress on any portion of any verse he chooses, to bring out his point, without needing to worry
about consistency.

Rasha
Having concluded with the Chacham, we turn to the
Rasha.

The citation is from Shemot 12, regarding the korban

Pesach once they enter the land of Israel:

ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫תָ בֹאּו אֶ ל‬-‫ כה וְ הָ יָה כִּ י‬25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to
‫ אֲ ֶשר‬,‫ָארץ‬
;‫כַאֲ ֶשר ִּדבֵ ר‬--‫ יִּ ֵתן יְ הוָ ה ָלכֶם‬the land which the LORD will give you, according
.‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ּושמַ ְר ֶתם‬
ְ as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this
service.
ְ ‫י‬-‫ כִּ י‬,‫ כו וְ הָ יָה‬26 And it shall come to pass, when your children
‫ֹאמרּו אֲ לֵיכֶם‬
.‫ לָכֶ ם‬,‫ מָ ה הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬:‫ בְ נֵיכֶם‬shall say unto you: What mean ye by this service?
,‫פֶ סַ ח הּוא לַיהוָ ה‬-‫כז וַ אֲ מַ ְר ֶתם זֶ בַ ח‬ 27 that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the
‫יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫בָ ֵתי בְ נֵי‬-‫אֲ ֶשר פָ סַ ח עַ ל‬ LORD'S passover, for that He passed over the
-‫ וְ אֶ ת‬,‫ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬-‫ בְ נָגְ פ ֹו אֶ ת‬,‫בְ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He
.‫ וַיִּ ְש ַתחֲ וּו‬,‫בָ ֵתינּו ִּה ִּציל; וַ יִּ קֹד הָ עָ ם‬ smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.'
And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
‫ בְ נֵי‬,‫ כח וַ יֵלְ כּו וַ ַיעֲשּו‬28 And the children of Israel went and did so; as
‫מ ֶֹשה‬-‫ כַאֲ ֶשר ִּצּוָ ה יְ הוָ ה אֶ ת‬:‫ יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did
}‫ {ס‬.‫ כֵן עָ שּו‬,‫ וְ ַאהֲ רֹן‬they. {S}
The people's reaction of bowing their head and worshiping demonstrates that, on a peshat level,
they did not view this question as rejection on the part of their descendants. And it is a question
as to the import. And the response in the pasuk is not the one given to the Rasha, namelybaavur
zeh. Rather, one gives a real answer, that it is a zevach Pesach to Hashem, because He passed
over, etc.

The answer to the Rasha is taken from the next perek, perek 13, where the focus is more on the
Matzah than on the Zevach Pesach:
 19

;‫ תֹאכַל מַ צֹת‬,‫ ו ִּשבְ עַ ת י ִָּמים‬6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and
.‫ לַיהוָ ה‬,‫ חַ ג‬,‫ הַ ְשבִּ יעִּ י‬,‫ ּובַ יוֹם‬in the seventh day shall be a feast to the LORD.
‫ ִּשבְ עַ ת‬,‫ אֵ ת‬,‫ יֵָאכֵל‬,‫ ז מַ צוֹת‬7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the
-‫ וְ ֹלא‬,‫י ֵָראֶ ה לְ ָך חָ מֵ ץ‬-‫ הַ י ִָּמים; וְ ֹלא‬seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be
.‫גְ ֻבלֶָך‬-‫בְ כָל‬--‫ י ֵָראֶ ה לְ ָך ְשאֹר‬seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen
with thee, in all thy borders.
‫ בַ יוֹם הַ הּוא‬,‫ ח וְ ִּהג ְַד ָת לְ בִּ נְ ָך‬8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It
,‫ עָ ָשה יְ הוָה לִ י‬,‫ בַ עֲבּור זֶה‬:‫ לֵאמֹר‬is because of that which the LORD did for me when
.‫ ִמ ִמצְ ָריִ ם‬,‫אתי‬ ִ ֵ‫ בְ צ‬I came forth out of Egypt.

‫ ּולְ זִּ כָרוֹן‬,‫י ְָדָך‬-‫ט וְ הָ יָה לְ ָך לְ אוֹת עַ ל‬ 9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy
,‫ לְ מַ עַ ן ִּת ְהיֶה תו ַֹרת יְ הוָ ה‬,‫בֵ ין עֵ ינֶיָך‬ hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that
‫ הו ִֹּצאֲ ָך יְ הוָ ה‬,‫ כִּ י בְ יָד חֲ זָ ָקה‬:‫בְ פִּ יָך‬ the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with
.‫ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬ a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of
Egypt.
,‫הַ חֻ ָקה הַ זֹאת‬-‫ י וְ ָשמַ ְר ָת אֶ ת‬10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its
}‫ {פ‬.‫ י ִָּמימָ ה‬,‫ ִּמי ִָּמים‬,‫ לְ מ ֹוע ֲָדּה‬season from year to year. {P}

This is not problematic, because we are dealing here with derash, rather than peshat. And as
discussed in the context of the Chacham, the same goes for how the answer to the Rasha can be
the same as to the ‫שאינו יודע לשאול‬, and how ‫ לכם‬can be darshened while ‫ אתכם‬remains undarshened.
This is a matter of emphasis, and of selective highlighting and hyper-literal interpretation of
phrases a bit out of context.

What is the derasha being made here upon ‫ ?מָה ָהעֲב ֹּדָה הַז ֹּאת ָלכֶם‬The Haggadah makes it explicit, that
it is on the word lachem. This is an avodah to you, but not to me. Thus, he takes himself out of
the community. I've heard a nice dvar Torah that taking himself out of the communityitself is ‫כפר‬
‫בעיקר‬. But peshat is that by taking himself out of the group, he does not consider this as
an avodah for him. Why not? Because he does not believe in Hashem. He is thus a min, and the
response to him is a polemic response.

The Yerushalmi has a variant version of the diyuk -- indeed, a variant of the questions and
responses of all four sons, which is worthwhile to focus on. The Yerushalmi, Pesachim 70b, states:

‫תני ר' חייה כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה בן חכם בן רשע בן טיפש בן שאינו יודע‬
‫ בן חכם מהו אומר‬.‫מה העדות והחקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' )דברים ו( לשאול‬
‫בחזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים מבית )שמות יג( אלהינו אותנו אף אתה אמור לו‬
‫עבדים‬. ‫מה העבודה הזאת לכם מה הטורח הזה שאתם )שמות יב( בן רשע מהו אומר‬
‫מטריחין עלינו בכל שנה ושנה מכיון שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל אף אתה אמור לו‬
(‫ אילו היה אותו האיש )שמות יב‬.‫בעבור זה עשה ה' לי לי עשה לאותו האיש לא עשה‬
‫במצרים לא היה ראוי להגאל משם לעולם‬. ‫מה זאת אף את )שמות יב( טיפש מה אומר‬
‫למדו הלכות הפסח שאין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן שלא יהא עומד מחבורה זו‬
 20

‫ בן שאינו יודע לשאול את פתח לו תחילה א"ר יוסה מתניתא‬.‫ונכנס לחבורה אחרת‬
‫אמרה כן אם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו‬:
Thus, the diyuk is on the avodah, interpreted as torach, a burden. It seems like the
particular derashot are alternatives (and this may well indeed be the intent), but they can readily
supplement one another. The torach aspect informs us how we should interpret lachem.

The father's response is a diyuk similar to the first one of ‫לכם‬. That is, the pasuk has a response
of ‫ מִמִ צ ְָרי ִם‬,‫ ְבצֵאתִי‬,‫ עָשָה ה לִי‬,‫ ַבעֲבּור ז ֶה‬. The focus is on the word li, meaning me but not you. The
phraseology of ‫ אף אתה‬does not need to indicate that it is a response in kind, to the extent that it
uses the same methodology. It might indicate that it is an appropriate response to the particular
question. See how ‫ אף אתה‬is used consistently.

Hakheh et Shinav, to blunt his teeth, is certainly not meant literally. (See my discussion of this
phrase, starting here.) Rather, this is a forceful answer, and perhaps a forceful answer along the
same lines as the Rasha's attack. The Rasha gets the polemical answer.

While we, living in the 21st century, may not like the approach to the wicked son, that does not
mean that it is not the approach given in the midrash. I do not like the approach of Rav Amnon
Bazak that the son is a min in the sense of a believer in Jesus. This would be based on the
Yerushalmi's use of oto haIsh. I think I provide a good debunking of this theory here. Basically, I
am not convinced that oto haIsh refers in Talmudic times to Jesus; further, in many cases it
clearly does not refer to Jesus, but rather to some person who is not named, and about
whomnegative things are said. It seems a Talmudic style, similar to soneihem shel yisrael, to
redirect the negative remark. Here, there is an unnamed wicked son about whom it is being said
that he would never be redeemed. The euphemism is thus entirely appropriate and expected
here.

Tam
At last, we arrive at the "hero" of the Seder, the Tam:
 21

Yes, Tam is often translated as the simple son, and so we might think of a simpleton. But his question is
the question hoped for by the Mishna, and the response is the one discussed in great detail by various
Sages. The Tam actually asks a question about what is going on at the Seder, because he notices that
things are askew. We saw in the gemara Pesachim that Abaye asked why they moved the (small) table, if
the meal was not yet over, and the response of Rabba was that he had thus exempted them from saying
Mah Nishtana. Surely Abaye, whom Rabba praised elsewhere (regarding a response to the question of
where God was) as someone who would grow up to be a great Sage, was no Simpleton. The popular
understanding of Mah Nishtana, that the son asks it, is the same question as the Tam -- "what is this?"

And the answer to the Tam is the answer everyone grapples with. The Chacham gets a lecture about the
dry halachot of Pesach. The Rasha gets a polemic. The Aino Yodea Lishol is instructed without a
question, and is perhaps prompted just how the night is different, before the Sippur. But he is on an even
lower level than the Tam. It is the Tam who asks a question, and to whom the response is Sippur Yetzias
Mitzrayim! When Rav and Shmuel argue about the genus and shevach are, this is geared towards the
Sippur, told to the Tam.

Yet I do think that is the case that in this rendition, and this version of the Four Sons, the Tam is not
regarded as the optimal case. He is a tam compared to the Chacham. And the Chacham asks a question
about the laws -- mah ha'edot vehachukim, and the response is the hilchos haPesach. The Tam asks a
simple question -- just mah zot -- and its simplicity is perhaps meant to reflect upon his simplicity; and the
response to the Tam is a sippur yetziat Mitzrayim.

As I discussed in my post about the Chacham, there are two opinions about the optimal discussion
material for the Seder night. The Tosefta Pesachim puts it as the hilchot haPesach. Thus, in the last
Tosefta of Pesachim:
‫חייב אדם [לעסוק בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה אפילו בינו לבין בנו אפילו בינו לבין עצמו‬
‫אפילו בינו לבין תלמידו מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו מסובין בבית ביתוס בן זונין‬
‫בלוד והיו [עסוקין בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה עד קרות הגבר הגביהו מלפניהם ונועדו‬
‫והלכו [להן] לבית המדרש‬

There is such an obligation, and we see that this is how Rabban Gamliel and the Zekeinim conducted
themselves.

Meanwhile, as we cite in our haggadah, even if everyone present is a chacham, navon, zaken, yodea et
haTorah, he is obligated lesaper biytziat mitzrayim, and whoever increases, all the better. And then we
get a list of Sages who did just that and engaged in sippur all that night until their students told them that
the time for Shema had arrived. Thus, sippur is the optimal topic.

In the Mechilta, Rabbi Eliezer makes a distinction between a chacham and one who is not a chacham:

‫דבר אחר‬:
‫ מה העדות‬- ‫ר' אליעזר אומר‬:
‫?מנין אתה אומר שאם היתה חבורה של חכמים או של תלמידים שצריכים לעסוק בהלכות פסח עד חצות‬
‫לכך נאמר‬: ‫'מה העדות וגו‬:

Only if it is a chabura of Chachamim should they engage in hilchot haPesach. Presumably, those who are
 22

not Chachamim would engage in sippur. This certainly runs counter to the statement in
thehaggada that afilu kulanu chachamim...

But our haggadah's version of the Four Sons, which distinguishes between Tam and Chacham in topic for
discussion, seems to be like Rabbi Eliezer's statement in the Mechilta. If they are capable of engaging
in hilchot haPesach, then they should.

(In terms of why engage in hilchot haPesach, I would suggest that this is the halachot of
the KorbanPesach, and that this was enacted post-Churban as a substitute for the actual Paschal
offering.)

The Yerushalmi has a version of the Four Sons which is much more insulting to the Tam. It calls
himTipesh, a fool, rather than Tam, Simple. Thus:

‫תני ר' חייה כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה בן חכם בן רשע בן טיפש בן שאינו יודע‬
‫לשאול‬. ‫מה העדות והחקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' )דברים ו( בן חכם מהו אומר‬
‫בחזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים מבית )שמות יג( אלהינו אותנו אף אתה אמור לו‬
‫עבדים‬. ‫מה העבודה הזאת לכם מה הטורח הזה שאתם )שמות יב( בן רשע מהו אומר‬
‫מטריחין עלינו בכל שנה ושנה מכיון שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל אף אתה אמור לו‬
(‫ אילו היה אותו האיש )שמות יב‬.‫בעבור זה עשה ה' לי לי עשה לאותו האיש לא עשה‬
‫במצרים לא היה ראוי להגאל משם לעולם‬. ‫מה זאת אף את )שמות יב( טיפש מה אומר‬
‫שלא יהא עומד מחבורה זו למדו הלכות הפסח שאין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן‬
‫ונכנס לחבורה אחרת‬. ‫בן שאינו יודע לשאול את פתח לו תחילה א"ר יוסה מתניתא‬
‫אמרה כן אם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו‬

But I do not believe that it is really targeting at the Tam / Tipesh. Rather, it is targeted at the practice of
discussing hilchos haPesach. After all, it is not just the Tam whose answer is changed. The Tam gets the
answer for the Chacham, and the Chacham gets the answer from the Tam. Thus, to the Chacham, we
respond with a sippur. To the Tipesh, we respond with hilchos haPesach. And the added reason for
telling the Tipesh the halachos is that otherwise he will mess up. That is the only conceivable reason for
discussing hilchos haPesach, rather than sippur, on this night.

There are several reasons I believe the Yerushalmi's version to be a polemical adaptation of the Four
Sons, while the text in the haggadah is more or less original. First, the Chacham asks about the eidos
vehachukim. Even though, given the response in context in the pesukim, on a peshat level this is not a
query about the details of the laws, but rather their import, if we consider that there is a response about
the details of the Pesach, then the hilchos haPesach is the better response to mah ha'eidos. Furthermore,
Tipesh is a loaded term, more so than Tam. Further, Tipesh in Yerushalmi breaks the pattern. It is ben
Chacham, ben Rasha, ben she'einu yodea lish'ol. Yet it is Tipesh, not ben Tipesh. This might indicate
editing from an original, which read ben Tam. So too mah omer rather than mahu omer.
 23

She’aino Yodeo Lish’ol

Finally, we reach the last of the Four Sons, the one who does not know how to ask:

It seems to me that there are two ways of reading this. This is being derived from Shemot 13:8:
‫ ִּשבְ עַ ת‬,‫ אֵ ת‬,‫ יֵָאכֵל‬,‫ ז מַ צוֹת‬7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the
-‫ וְ ֹלא‬,‫י ֵָראֶ ה לְ ָך חָ מֵ ץ‬-‫ הַ י ִָּמים; וְ ֹלא‬seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be
.‫גְ ֻבלֶָך‬-‫בְ כָל‬--‫ י ֵָראֶ ה לְ ָך ְשאֹר‬seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen
with thee, in all thy borders.
‫ בַ יוֹם הַ הּוא‬,‫ ח וְ ִּהג ְַד ָת לְ בִּ נְ ָך‬8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It
,‫ עָ ָשה יְ הוָ ה לִּ י‬,‫ בַ עֲבּור זֶ ה‬:‫ לֵאמֹר‬is because of that which the LORD did for me when
.‫ ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬,‫אתי‬ִּ ֵ‫ בְ צ‬I came forth out of Egypt.

‫ ּולְ זִּ כָרוֹן‬,‫י ְָדָך‬-‫ט וְ הָ יָה לְ ָך לְ אוֹת עַ ל‬ 9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy
,‫ לְ מַ עַ ן ִּת ְהיֶה תו ַֹרת יְ הוָ ה‬,‫בֵ ין עֵ ינֶיָך‬ hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that
‫ הו ִֹּצאֲ ָך יְ הוָ ה‬,‫ כִּ י בְ יָד חֲ זָ ָקה‬:‫בְ פִּ יָך‬ the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with
.‫ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬ a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of
Egypt.

One way of reading this is that there are scattered pesukim in which the son asks, and then the
father responds. Yet here the son does not ask. And so, ‫את פתח לו‬, that you start by telling him
about the meaning of the day, and the offering, or the matza. The derasha is thus on the ‫והגדת‬
without any preceding question.

Another way of reading it is that the derivation is on baavur zeh, where zeh is something present
at the table. For example, the matza. The father is calling attention to some detail of the order
of the night. These two are not mutually exclusive.
 24

This might all tie in to different ways we could interpret Mah Nishtana. As the Yerushalmi
Pesachim writes:
‫בן שאינו יודע לשאול את פתח לו תחילה‬
‫א"ר יוסה מתניתא אמרה כן אם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו‬
Thus, ‫ את פתח לו תחילה‬is equivalent to the Mishna's instruction that if there is no daat in the son, the
father teaches him. The Mishna in Yerushalmi has it as:
‫אביו‬. ‫מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אם אין דעת בבן לשאול‬
‫מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות שבכל הלילות אנו‬
‫מטבילין פעם אחת והלילה הזה שתי פעמים שבכל הלילות אנו‬
‫אוכלין חמץ ומצה והלילה הזה כולו מצה שבכל הלילות אוכלין בשר‬
‫צלי שלוק ומבושל והלילה הזה כולו צלי ולפי דעתיה של בן אביו‬
‫מלמדו‬
though Rabbi Yasa does not have the word lishol. And in Bavli we don't have lishol either. How
does Mah Nishtana bind? Is it to the earlier vekhan haben shoel? Or to the later aviv melamdo. If
the former, this is a formulaic question or series of questions for the son to ask. If the former,
then this is no question at all, but rather the content of what the father instructs him --
justhow this night is different. This fits in to the two interpretations of the instruction to the ‫שאינו‬
‫יודע לשאול‬.
___________________________________________

That we cite the same pasuk which is a response to the Rasha is irrelevant. This does not mean
that the son who does not know how to ask is going to become a Rasha. Rather, this is the nature
of derash, as I discussed earlier. In one derasha, we can highlight one part of the text --
namely, lachem -- while in another, we can focus on the baavur zeh or the vehigadta, or the lack
of preceding question. We do not require consistency here.
___________________________________________

Also, ‫ את פתח לו‬does not mean that the father is becoming the mother, answering in a gentle,
feminine way. Otherwise, why use the word ‫?פתח‬
Rather, ‫ את‬is standard Aramaic, as well as standard
Middle Hebrew II for saying "you", that is, the masculine
second person singular pronoun -- what we usually
pronounce as ata.

Yachol mei-Rosh Chodesh

Now that we have moved on from the Four Sons, and
particularly the ‫שאינו יודע לשאול‬, we encounter
the derasha of ‫יכול מראש חדש‬:

This is yet more of the discussion about the obligation

of sippur, rather than engaging in the actual sippur.
 25

Why the transition to this derasha now? Well, the prooftext is the same as the pasuk used to
derive what to say to the last of the Four Sons, the ‫שאינו יודע לשאול‬.

The derasha (based on Shemot 13:8} appears with fairly similar wording in the Mechilta:

‫שומע אני מראש חדש ת"ל ביום ההוא אי ביום ההוא יכול‬. ‫והגדת לבנך‬
:‫מבעוד יום ת"ל בעבור זה בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך על שולחנך‬
Read the Mechilta inside, both before and after, and see how this is consistent with its general
style. This shows how each part of the pasuk conveys important halachic meaning, and
clarification of what I might have otherwise thought.

Why would we think particularly from Rosh Chodesh? It could be random, something related to the
Moed but not actually on that day. It could be because that would be peros hapesach, 15 days
before Pesach. As we learn in Yerushalmi Shekalim 11b:
‫א"ר אבהו כל הן דתנינן פרס פלגא פלגא דל' יום קודם למועד שדורשים בהלכותיו‬
Thus, instead of being doresh the hilchos haPesach 30 days before, like we see elsewhere, we do
this 15 days before. And so we might think that this instruction of ‫ והגדת‬applies at that set time as
it does elsewhere.

I like this second answer, but for the sake of completeness, I will also mention that Rosh
Chodeshdoes feature in close proximity to the pasuk of vehigadta levincha. Namely, in Shemot 13,
there is repeated reference to the chodesh:
,‫ בְ ח ֶֹדש‬,‫ אַ ֶתם י ְֹצ ִּאים‬,‫ ד הַ יוֹם‬4 This day ye go forth in the month Abib.
.‫הָ ָאבִּ יב‬
‫אֶ ֶרץ‬-‫יְ בִּ יאֲ ָך יְ הוָ ה אֶ ל‬-‫ה וְ הָ יָה כִּ י‬ 5 And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee
‫הַ כְ ַנעֲנִּ י וְ הַ ִּח ִּתי וְ הָ אֱ מ ִֹּרי וְ הַ ִּחּוִּ י‬ into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and
‫ אֲ ֶשר נִּ ְשבַ ע לַאֲ בֹתֶ יָך‬,‫בּוסי‬ ִּ ְ‫וְ הַ י‬ the Amorite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite,
;‫ ְּודבָ ש‬,‫ אֶ ֶרץ זָ בַ ת חָ לָב‬,‫לָתֶ ת לְָך‬ which He swore unto thy fathers to give thee, a
‫ בַ ח ֶֹדש‬,‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬-‫וְ עָ בַ ְד ָת אֶ ת‬
.‫הַ זֶ ה‬ land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt
keep this service in this month.

Despite this, the actual day they went forth was mid-month.

Whatever the reason for thinking it would be 15 days before, we might have thought
that. Therefore we learn that it is ‫ביום ההוא‬. This is taken as the day of Pesach. And we might think
it is ‫ביום‬, during daylight. Therefore the pasuk specifies ‫בעבור זה‬. Not just here, but elsewhere
in midrash, the word zeh is taken to refer to something which is before you, which you can point
to.

The context of the pasuk is either the service, or the matzos. The relevant pesukim:

‫אֶ ֶרץ‬-‫יְ בִּ יאֲ ָך יְ הוָ ה אֶ ל‬-‫ ה וְ הָ יָה כִּ י‬5 And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee
‫הַ כְ ַנעֲנִּ י וְ הַ ִּח ִּתי וְ הָ אֱ מ ִֹּרי וְ הַ ִּחּוִּ י‬
 26

ִּ ְ‫ וְ הַ י‬into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite,

‫ אֲ ֶשר נִּ ְשבַ ע לַאֲ בֹתֶ יָך לָתֶ ת‬,‫בּוסי‬
‫ ְּודבָ ש; וְ עָ בַ ְד ָת‬,‫ אֶ ֶרץ זָ בַ ת חָ לָב‬,‫ לְָך‬and the Amorite, and the Hivite, and the
.‫ בַ ח ֶֹדש הַ זֶ ה‬,‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬-‫ אֶ ת‬Jebusite, which He swore unto thy fathers to give
thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that
thou shalt keep this service in this month.
,‫ תֹאכַל מַ צֹת; ּובַ יוֹם‬,‫ ו ִּשבְ עַ ת י ִָּמים‬6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread,
.‫ לַיהוָ ה‬,‫ חַ ג‬,‫ הַ ְשבִּ יעִּ י‬and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the
LORD.
;‫ ִּשבְ עַ ת הַ י ִָּמים‬,‫ אֵ ת‬,‫ יֵָאכֵל‬,‫ ז מַ צוֹת‬7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the
‫י ֵָראֶ ה לְ ָך‬-‫ וְ ֹלא‬,‫י ֵָראֶ ה לְ ָך חָ מֵ ץ‬-‫ וְ ֹלא‬seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be
.‫גְ ֻבלֶָך‬-‫בְ כָל‬--‫ ְשאֹר‬seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen
with thee, in all thy borders.
‫ בַ יוֹם הַ הּוא‬,‫ ח וְ ִּהג ְַד ָת לְ בִּ נְ ָך‬8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It
,‫ עָ ָשה יְ הוָ ה לִּ י‬,‫ בַ עֲבּור זֶ ה‬:‫ לֵאמֹר‬is because of that which the LORD did for me
.‫ ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬,‫אתי‬ִּ ֵ‫ בְ צ‬when I came forth out of Egypt.

What is the zeh? It could be the matzos, which would be a closer binding. Thus, one should eat
unleavened bread, for seven days. And tell your son regarding those. Or else, more likely, it could

be a distant binding, to ‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬-‫ וְ עָ בַ ְד ָת אֶ ת‬in pasuk 5. (There is the
possible consideration that the yom is the seventh day, during which there is
a chagiga. But we combine with what we know from pesukim in other places, to
understand the meaning.) If so, it would seem that the zeh in pasuk 8 refers to
the korban Pesach. Ibn Ezraunderstands the zeh to refer to the eating of the matzos:
]‫ ח‬,‫[יג‬
: ‫ אמר רבי מרינוס‬-‫בעבור זה‬
. ‫ היה ראוי להיותו הפך זה בעבור שעשה ה' לי‬.‫פירוש בעבור זה‬
.‫והביא רבים כמוהו לדעתו‬

:‫ולפי דעתי‬
‫ רק פירוש בעבור‬.‫ כי אין אנו אוכלים מצוות בעבור זה‬.‫ וטעם הפסוק הפך מחשבתו‬.‫ כי איך נהפוך דברי אלוהים חיים‬.‫אין אחד מהם נכון‬
‫ עשה לנו השם אותות עד שהוציאנו‬.‫ שהוא תחלת המצוות שצוה לנו השם‬,‫ בעבור זאת העבודה שהוא אכילת המצה ולא יאכל חמץ‬,‫זה‬
.‫ממצרים‬
.‫בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלהים על ההר הזה‬: ‫והטעם לא הוציאנו ממצרים רק לעבדו ככתוב‬
.‫אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלהים‬: ‫וכתוב‬

understands zeh as referring to Hashem's actions, as the cause for the Rashbam
avodah:
.‫ אני עובד עבודה הזאת‬.‫ שעשה לי נסים במצרים‬- ‫בעבור זה‬
.‫זה היום אשר עשה ה' לי שהייתי לראש פינה‬: ‫וכן‬
. ‫נגילה ונשמחה בו‬
 27

Thus, "because of that which Hashem did..." This, at odds with the derasha, but that is
acceptable, because it is a derasha and does not need to be peshat. So too Ramban.
Rashi gives the derasha in the Haggadah as the peshat:

Because of this: In order that I fulfill His commandments, such ‫ כגון‬,‫ בעבור שאקיים מצותיו‬:‫בעבור זה‬
as these [commandments of] the Passover sacrifice, matzah, :‫פסח מצה ומרור הללו‬
and bitter herbs. — [from Jonathan, Passover Haggadah]

Targum Yonatan just refers to the mitzvos, but does not specify just which ones; and in the
Haggadah, the korban Pesach is not mentioned. Neither in the Mechilta is the korban
Pesach mentioned.

It may well be that this omission in Mechilta is meaningful. It was written post-Churban, when the
korban Pesach was not before him. Furthermore, perhaps we can fit this into my theory that
the sippur, or better, the discussion of hilchos haPesach, was a sort of replacement for the
missing korban Pesach. If so, we can understand the reference to peros haPesach, from Rosh
Chodesh. Because that is when you would normally begin darshening the hilchos haPesach. But it
is rather on that day. And not just on that day, but when the matza and maror, the only
remnants, post-Churban, are standing before him. And so he has those two, and the sippur, or
the hilchos haPesach, is the third of the trio.

mi-Techila
At this point, we begin the genus, according to Rav's
definition. This is an actual sippur:

This reflects the Mishna and gemara in Pesachim. The

Mishna stated:
:‫מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח‬
And the gemara upon that gave a dispute between Rav
and Shmuel. Thus,
‫מאי בגנות רב אמר מתחלה עובדי‬
]‫עבודה זרה היו אבותינו [ושמואל‬
‫אמר עבדים היינו‬
This explanation of Rav is a topic, rather than
a pasuk. The Talmud Yerushalmi, masechet Pesachim,
gives us the actual Pesukim which Rav intended:
‫ ב פרק י הלכה ה גמרא רב אמר מתחילה‬,‫דף ע‬
‫צריך להתחיל( יהושוע כד )בעבר הנהר ישבו‬
‫ ואקח את אביכם את אברהם‬.'‫אותיכם וגו‬
‫'ש‬.‫מעבר הנהר וגו‬
 28

I think someone (credit upon request) suggested to me that Rav never meant to say the
wordsmitchila. Rather, he says in Yerushalmi that in the beginning, he should start as follows,
namely with the following pasuk. And this was (mis-)interpreted as that he needs to begin
with mitchila. And this is then taken from the Bavli, leading off with what Rav defines as
the genus. This seems plausible.

We know the genus, but what is the shevach? I don't see the gemara explicitly mention it, in Rav's
name. The Haggadah does give an answer -- that now, we are brought close before Hashem. This
is the opposite of the genus, and so it makes sense. But it could also be going into the land, or
being redeemed from Egypt. This is, after all, supposed to be a sippur yetzias Mitzrayim. Is Rav's
recommendation supposed to be a self-contained beginning and end?

If we start with idolatry and end with service of Hashem, this is indeed the topic of the entirelast
perek of sefer Yehoshua. We can start with:
‫ָאמַ ר יְ הוָ ה‬-‫ כֹה‬,‫הָ עָ ם‬-‫כָל‬-‫ב וַ יֹאמֶ ר יְ הוֹשֻ עַ אֶ ל‬ 2 And Joshua said unto all the people: 'Thus
‫ בְ עֵ בֶ ר הַ נָהָ ר י ְָשבּו אֲ בוֹתֵ יכֶם‬,‫אֱ ֹלהֵ י יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬ saith the LORD, the God of Israel: Your
;‫ ֶת ַרח אֲ בִּ י ַאבְ ָרהָ ם וַ אֲ בִּ י נָחוֹר‬,‫מֵ ע ֹולָם‬ fathers dwelt of old time beyond the River,
.‫ֹלהים אֲ חֵ ִּרים‬ ִּ ֱ‫ א‬,‫וַ יַעַ בְ דּו‬ even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the
father of Nahor; and they served other
gods.

where the focus is, admittedly, that they dwelt be'ever hanahar, but more importantly, that they
served other gods. Yehoshua asks whether now the Israelites will commit themselves solely to
Hashem, saying:

--‫ וְ עִּ בְ דּו אֹת ֹו‬,‫ה‬-‫יד וְ עַ ָתה יְ ראּו אֶ ת‬ 14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve Him
,‫ֹלהים‬
ִּ ֱ‫א‬-‫בְ תָ ִּמים ּובֶ אֱ מֶ ת; וְ הָ ִּסירּו אֶ ת‬ in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods
‫אֲ ֶשר עָ בְ דּו אֲ בוֹתֵ יכֶם בְ עֵ בֶ ר הַ נָהָ ר‬ which your fathers served beyond the River,
.‫ה‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ וְ עִּ בְ דּו‬,‫ּובְ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
‫ בַ חֲ רּו‬,‫ה‬-‫טו וְ ִּאם ַרע בְ עֵ ינֵיכֶם ַל ֲעבֹד אֶ ת‬ 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the
-‫ ִּאם אֶ ת‬--‫ ִּמי תַ ֲעבֹדּון‬-‫ָלכֶם הַ יוֹם אֶ ת‬ LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve;
‫עָ בְ דּו אֲ בוֹתֵ יכֶם אֲ ֶשר‬-‫ֹלהים אֲ ֶשר‬ ִּ ֱ‫א‬ whether the gods which your fathers served
‫אֱ ֹלהֵ י‬-‫ וְ ִּאם אֶ ת‬,‫בעבר (מֵ עֵ בֶ ר) הַ נָהָ ר‬ that were beyond the River, or the gods of the
;‫ַארצָ ם‬ ְ ְ‫הָ אֱ מ ִֹּרי אֲ ֶשר אַ ֶתם י ְֹשבִּ ים ב‬
}‫ {פ‬.‫ה‬-‫ ַנ ֲעבֹד אֶ ת‬,‫יתי‬ ִּ ֵ‫וְ ָאנֹכִּ י ּוב‬ Amorites, in whose land ye dwell; but as for me
and my house, we will serve the LORD.' {P}

And their response is:

,‫ חָ לִּ ילָה לָנּו‬,‫ וַ יֹאמֶ ר‬,‫ טז וַ יַעַ ן הָ עָ ם‬16 And the people answered and said: 'Far be it
.‫ֹלהים אֲ חֵ ִּרים‬
ִּ ֱ‫ א‬,‫ ַל ֲעבֹד‬--‫ה‬-‫ מֵ ֲעזֹב אֶ ת‬from us that we should forsake the LORD, to
serve other gods;
 29

‫ הּוא הַ מַ ֲעלֶה אֹתָ נּו‬,‫יז כִּ י ה אֱ ֹלהֵ ינּו‬ 17 for the LORD our God, He it is that brought us
‫אֲ בוֹתֵ ינּו מֵ אֶ ֶרץ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם ִּמבֵ ית‬-‫וְ אֶ ת‬ and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from
-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫עֲבָ ִּדים; וַ אֲ ֶשר עָ ָשה לְ עֵ ינֵינּו‬ the house of bondage, and that did those great
-‫ וַיִּ ְש ְמ ֵרנּו בְ כָל‬,‫הָ אֹתוֹת הַ גְ דֹלוֹת הָ אֵ לֶה‬ signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the
‫ ּובְ כֹל הָ עַ ִּמים‬,‫הַ ֶד ֶרְך אֲ ֶשר הָ לַכְ נּו בָ ּה‬
.‫אֲ ֶשר עָ בַ ְרנּו בְ ִּק ְרבָ ם‬ way wherein we went, and among all the
peoples through the midst of whom we passed;
-‫ וְ אֶ ת‬,‫הָ עַ ִּמים‬-‫כָל‬-‫ יח וַ יְ ג ֶָרש ה אֶ ת‬18 and the LORD drove out from before us all
-‫ ִּמפָ נֵינּו; גַם‬--‫ָארץ‬
ֶ ָ‫ הָ אֱ מ ִֹּרי י ֵֹשב ה‬the peoples, even the Amorites that dwelt in the
.‫הּוא אֱ ֹלהֵ ינּו‬-‫ כִּ י‬,‫ה‬-‫ אֲ נ ְַחנּו ַנ ֲעבֹד אֶ ת‬land; therefore we also will serve the LORD; for
He is our God.'

And thus, because of the redemption from Egypt (pasuk 17), we have been brought before
Hashem, and accept him as our God, as so we serve him, for He is our God. Perhaps, then, the
intent of Rav was to read the entire perek.

The pesukim cited in Yerushalmi are only two -- the first two, be'ever hanahar and va'ekach. But
in our Haggadah, the citation of the first pasuk begins a bit earlier, from vayomer Yehoshua, and
it cites three pesukim:

Thus, there is also the va'eten. What gives? Perhaps there was another tradition, either that we
have and I don't know about, or which did not come down to us.
 30

When the Yerushalmi cited those two pesukim, was it a self-contained beginning and end? (Just as
Shmuel's avadim hayinu has immediately after it Hashem taking us out.) If so, vaekach would be
Hashem taking Avraham before him. Thus, ‫קרבנו לפני המקום‬.

When the Haggadah cites the third and fourth pasuk, how exactly is this ending in shevach?
Presumably -- and this would answer many of the difficulties -- this is all part of the mitchila. We
needed to transition to the avdus in Mitzrayim. The Mishna in Pesachim says to start
withgenus and end with shevach, and that he is doresh from Arami Oved Avi. If this is a running
narrative, we get up to Egypt, and at that point begin the derasha of Arami Oved Avi. Shmuel gets
there, to Egypt, immediately. Rav does not, at least not with his two pesukim. And so, rather than
reading almost all the pesukim in the last perek of
Yehoshua; and rather than reading only the first two, the
Haggadah has us read a third and fourth pasuk, which takes
us down into Egypt. And from there, we can follow the
instructions of the Mishna about beingdoresh Arami Oved
Avi.

Alternatively, the Shevach is somehow coming down to

Egypt, because there we will develop into a nation, in
accordance with Hashem's promise to Avraham at the Bris
Bein Habesarim. And the Baruch Shomer Havtachaso might
develop this idea.

Baruch Shomer Havtachato

We just finished Rav's introduction, based on Sefer
Yehoshua, of the early history of klal Yisrael. And it
ended with the arrival in Egypt. I suggested that
Rav's shevach has not yet arrived, according to the
order in the Haggadah. It is yet to come, with
the darshening of Arami Oved Avi. Still, we should not
think that this development of the sons of Yaakov going
down to Egypt, while Esav's descendants inheriting Har
Seir, is entirely bad. It is all part of the Divine Plan, set
in motion many years before. And this is a continuing
relationship with Hashem, even in years that things look
bleak, such as nowadays, when we are in galus. Thus
(right):

We bless Hashem who kept his promise. This going down

to Egypt was only for a set time, established at the Bris
Bein Habesarim, that they would go down to a land not
 31

their own, and be oppressed for 400 years. And Hashem calculated this time, and waited for it.

And Hashem would of course punish that other nation for oppressing His people, but the end result
is that they would leave, and with a great treasure. And this same promise which stood for them,
stands for us as well. Because this oppression and yet Hashem's maintenance of a relationship, and
a salvation, has stood for us throughout the generations. (Perhaps this is an expression of ‫קרבנו לפני‬
‫)?המקום‬

Alternatively, if the shevach was ‫ קרבנו לפני המקום‬of Avraham Avinu, then the bris bein
habesarim with its long-standing havtacha is the shevach.

____________________

This also relates to the distinction we make, on Pesach, between chametz and matzah. In every
generation they arise upon us le-challo-seinu. But Hashem is mazti-leinu miyadam. :)

____________________

This transitions into Tzei Ulemad, as an example of how Hashem saved us in every generation.

Tzei Ulmad
Next up is Tzei Ulemad:

As at presently stands in the haggadah, ‫ צא ולמד‬functions as a sort of bridge. The previous section
was vehi she'amda, where we stated that in every generation, they stand against us to destroy us.
This ‫ צא ולמד‬serves to illustrate this, that even before Israel descended to Egypt, Lavan tried to
destroy us. And the prooftext of Lavan's evil intention is Arami Oved Avi, "an Aramean tried to
destroy my father". And the Mishna in Pesachim, after saying that one begins with genus and ends
in shevach, continues to state that we are doresh from Arami Oved Avi. Yet, I would the primary
function here is prooftext for bechol dor vador. And it thus appears before the full citation of the
 32

pasuk.

Yet if the source is the Sifrei, then it may indeed be part of the intended derasha of the parasha
of Arami Oved Avi. The text we have of the Sifrei is:

‫ואמרת לפני ה׳ אלהיך ארמי אובד אבי • מלמד שלא ירד יעקב לארם אלא‬
‫לאובד) • ומעלה על לבן הארמי כאלו איבדו(ט‬:

The Gra emends it to ‫להאבד‬. This is then similar to how later, he only went down to Egypt to dwell
there temporarily, rather than to settle there. Here, he went to lose himself, I would guess so
that his brother would not find him. Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman claims that this bit about Lavan is a
late insertion, but Shamma Freidman rejects this claim. (This from a footnote in Dr. Steiner's
article.) But it would seem to mean that yet, Scripture reckined it as if Lavan ‫איבדו‬. This latter bit
would then closely match the derasha in the Haggada.

As I discuss at length in another post, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam and Radak reject this derasha on the
level of peshat. This upsets Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, who go on the attack, and give rather shoddy
arguments for why the derasha is peshat. This is quite unnecessary. Chazal's derash can be derash,
which stands independently of the peshat, no matter how "famous" the derasha is.

The peshat, though, that my father was a wandering Aramean, may work quite well within the
theme we are trying to develop, which is the development of the Israelite nation. We started out
as wandering rameans, and through the trials we faced, we emerged a nation and finally inherited
the land. The father, in this instance, can be Terach, Avraham, Yaakov (as pre the first derasha in
Sifrei), or the avos in general.

_______________

Where did Lavan try to destroy everyone, both sons and daughters? One "famous" answer, I think
from the Rav, was that it was an attempted spiritual destruction. As Lavan says to Yaakov, in
Bereishit 31:43, ‫הַ בָ נוֹת בְ נֹתַ י וְ הַ בָ נִּים בָ נַי וְ הַ צֹאן‬.
However nice the message of this is, and how well it fits into the theme of the developing Israelite
nation, I do not agree that this is the most likely meaning. Rather, it is most likely based upon:

‫ וַיִּ ְרדֹף‬,ֹ‫ עִּ מו‬,‫אֶ חָ יו‬-‫ כג וַ יִּ ַקח אֶ ת‬23 And he took his brethren with him, and
‫ ֶד ֶרְך ִּשבְ עַ ת י ִָּמים; ַוי ְַדבֵ ק‬,‫ ַאחֲ ָריו‬pursued after him seven days' journey; and he
.‫ בְ הַ ר הַ גִּ לְ עָ ד‬,ֹ‫ אֹתו‬overtook him in the mountain of Gilead.

ִּ ֱ‫ כד וַ ָיבֹא א‬24 And God came to Laban the Aramean in a

,‫לָבָ ן הָ אֲ ַר ִּמי‬-‫ֹלהים אֶ ל‬
‫ ִּה ָשמֶ ר לְ ָך‬,ֹ‫ בַ חֲ ֹלם הַ לָיְ לָה; וַ יֹאמֶ ר לו‬dream of the night, and said unto him: 'Take heed
.‫ ָרע‬-‫ ִּמּטוֹב עַ ד‬--‫ ַי ֲעקֹב‬-‫ ְת ַדבֵ ר עִּ ם‬-‫ פֶ ן‬to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either
good or bad.'

Where "speaking either good or bad" is taken to mean a warning acting violently against Yaakov.
And so he shouldn't even speak good or bad. Either that, or this pasuk of Arami Oved Avi is the
sole prooftext for this idea.
 33

_______________

Finally, since we are talking about the evil Lavan did, associated with a derasha on Arami Oved
Avi, I will note that Targum Yonasan on parashas Matos multiplies his sins. To cite myself
(fromhere), Targum Pseudo-Yonatan reads:

‫וית מלכי מדינאי קטלו על משרייתהון ית אוי וית רקם וית צור הוא בלק וית חור וית רבע חמשת מלכי מדין וית בלעם בן בעור קטלו‬
‫ מן יד אידכר פינחס שמא‬.‫בסייפא והוה כוין דחמא בלעם חייבא ית פינחס כהנה רדיף מן בתרוי עבד מלתא דקוסמין ופרח באויר שמיא‬
‫ פתח פומיה במילי תחנונין ואמר לפינחס אין תקיים ית‬.‫ שלף סייפא ובעא למקטליה‬.‫רבא וקדישא ופרח בתרוי ואדחיה ברישיה ואחתיה‬
‫ עני ואמר ליה הלא אנת הוא לבן ארמאה דבעית למישיציא ית יעקב‬.‫נפשי משתבענא לך דכל יומין דאנא קיים לית אנא מלטיט ית עמך‬
.‫ וכדון איתגרתא איתגרא למילוט יתהון‬.‫ ומן בתר דנפקו ממצרים גריתא בהון עמלק רשיעא‬.‫אבונן ונחתת למצרים בגין למובדא זרעא‬
‫ אמליכת מלכא בישא ית בלק למקומא ית בנתיה בפרשת אורחתא למטעיא‬,‫וכיון דחמיתא דלא אהנין עובדך ולא קביל מימרא דיי מינך‬
‫ ומן יד שלף סייפיה מן תיקא וקטליה‬.‫ בגין כן לית אפשר תוב למקיימא ית נפשך‬.‫יתהון ונפלו בגין כן מנהון עשרין וארבעא אלפין‬

A rough translation:

And the kings of the Midianites they killed on their camps - Evi, Rekem, Tzur - he is Balak, Chur,
and Reva, the five kings of Midian. And Bilaam son of Beor they slew with a sword.

And it was, when Bilaam the guilty saw Pinchas the priest running after him, he performed a
magical feat and flew in the air in the sky.

Immediately, Pinchas pronounced the Great and Holy Name and flew after him, and grabbed him
by the head and brought him down(1) and was about to slay him.

He {=Bilaam} opened his mouth with words of supplication and said to Pinchas: If you let me live, I
swear to you that as long as I live I will not curse your nation.

He {Pinchas} responded and said to him: Are you not Lavan the Aramean who wished to destroy
our forefathe Yaakov? And you descended to Egypt to destroy the descendants. And after they left
Egypt you incited(2) {to war} against them the wicked Amalek. And then you hired(3) yourself out
so curse them. And when yuo saw that your actions did not help and Hashem did not accept your
words, you counseled an evil counsel(4) to Balak to place his daughter at the crossroads to lead
them astray, and because of this 24,000 of them died. Because of this, it is not possible anymore
to spare your life.

And immediately, he drew his sword from its sheath and slew him.

My analsysis continues after these notes.

Translation Notes:
(1) I take ‫ ואחתיה‬as the aphel causative of ‫ חתי‬- thus, caused him to descend. This even though the
preceding word ‫( ואדחיה‬grabbed) seems to have the same form and the ‫ א‬there is a root letter.
(2) ‫ גריתא‬means to stir up, to incite, to attack
 34

(3) ‫ אגרא‬is reward/hire. thus the reflexive ‫ איתגרתא איתגרא‬means to hire yourself out.
(4) I take ‫ מלכא בישא‬to mean evil advice rather than evil king Balak. After all we have the verb
‫אמליכת‬.

Now on to a bit of analysis. Where are all these details of Bilaam's misdeeds coming from. To my
mind, the key phrase which tips us off is ‫הלא אנת הוא לבן ארמאה דבעית למישיציא ית יעקב אבונן‬. This
immediately calls to mind Arami Oved Avi, "a wandering Aramean was my father," from
the parshat Bikurim in parshat Ki Tavo...

Most of the derasha comes from ‫ לְגֹוי גָדֹול עָצּום ו ָָרב‬,‫שָ ם‬-‫ ַויָגָר שָם ִבמְתֵי מְ עָט; ַויְהִי‬,‫ ַוי ֵֶרד מִ צ ְַרי ְמָה‬,‫אֲרמִי אֹּבֵד ָאבִי‬,
ַ I
think.

Classically, ‫אֲרמִי אֹּבֵד ָאבִי‬

ַ is interpreted to mean that Lavan the Aramean attempted to destroy my
father... So far we are in familar territory. But then, the derasha takes an unexpected turn:

‫ ַוי ֵֶרד מִ צ ְַרי ְמָה‬no longer means that Yaakov descended to Egypt, but rather
that Lavan/Bilaamdescended to Egypt. To flesh this out, see midrashim that list Bilaam as one of
Pharaoh's three advisors, and the one who advised him to kill Israelite boys (see Sotah 11a).

‫ ַויָגָר שָ ם בִמְ תֵי מְ עָט‬- the word ‫ ַויָגָר‬is actually taken by this midrash twice. First, that when they left
Egypt, he incited the evil Amalekites to attack them. Thus, ‫גריתא בהון עמלק רשיעא‬.

In parshat Balak, Balak and Moav are sore afraid of Israel because they are so many. Bemidbar 22:
‫ ב‬-‫אֲשֶ ר‬-‫ אֵת כָל‬,‫צִפֹור‬-‫ בֶן‬,‫ ַוי ְַרא ָבלָק‬2 And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the
‫ ָל ֱאמ ִֹּרי‬,‫ ָעשָה יִש ְָראֵל‬. Amorites.
‫כִי ג‬--‫ מְא ֹּד‬,‫ ַויָגָר מֹוָאב ִמ ְפנֵי ָהעָם‬3 And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were
‫ מִ ְפנֵי ְבנֵי‬,‫הּוא; ַויָקָץ מֹוָאב‬-‫ ַרב‬many; and Moab was overcome with dread because of the children
‫יִש ְָראֵל‬. of Israel.
Note the word ‫ ַויָגָר‬, "sore afraid," which probably influenced this midrashic link even more. But
they were sore afraid -‫הּוא‬-‫כִי ַרב‬, because they were so many.

Therefore, Bilaam was there when they were mighty and numerous - ‫ לְגֹוי גָדֹול עָצּום ו ָָרב‬,‫שָם‬-‫ ַויְהִי‬. And
what did he do? He hired himself out to curse them. Thus ‫ ַויָגָר שָם‬. Thus ‫וכדון איתגרתא איתגרא למילוט‬
‫יתהון‬. This is the second drash on ‫ ַויָגָר‬.

The idea that he counseled Balak to send out his daughter, Cozbi bat Tzur (Balak), is based on
several other texts which I am not going to digress to in this post (but which I have partially
covered in previous posts - feel free to browse). But it takes us away from the Arami Oved
Avi verse.

Vayered Mitzrayma
Having finished a discussion of the first derasha in the parasha of Arami Oved Avi, we may turn to
the next derasha. First, though, what is the big idea of darshening from Arami Oved Avi? I would
suggest that the Mikra Bikkurim was chosen because it is short, and something that one can
 35

memorize. It is a sort of index to the greater story, which would take forever to tell over.
(Consider how long maggid is today.) It is an index because each word or phrase in this compact
retelling refers to a much larger point. Further, it allows for sippur yetzias mitzrayim as well as
intellectual discussions for chachamim, nevonim, etc. One is engaging in midrash aggadah. And
once we start darshening, we might continue darshening the pesukim in other ways as well.

I don't know that the Mishna, in demanding a derasha based on Arami Oved Avi, had in mind
theprecise derasha as found in the Sifrei. Certainly this was a valid form of derasha, and since it
was extant, it makes sense that this was what it had in mind. But perhaps dorshin from this text
meant that any good midrashic expansion / exposition was valid. This would allow for a fixed base
text, namely the pesukim, as well as giving ample room for creativity and personal expression.

On to the derasha of vayeired mitzrayma. The text:

‫ וירד מצרימה‬-- What is the mechanism of this derasha? It is an interpretation of ‫ ירד‬not as descent
but as imposition, rodeh. Compare with Bereishit 1:26:
‫ָאדם‬
ָ ‫ ַנע ֲֶשה‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִּ ֱ‫כו וַ יֹאמֶ ר א‬ 26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image,
‫בְ צַ לְ מֵ נּו כִּ ְדמּותֵ נּו; וְ יִ ְרּדּו בִּ ְדגַת הַ יָם‬ after our likeness; and let themhave
,‫ָארץ‬
ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫ ּובַ בְ הֵ מָ ה ּובְ כָל‬,‫ּובְ עוֹף הַ ָשמַ יִּ ם‬ dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
.‫ָארץ‬
ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫ הָ רֹמֵ ש עַ ל‬,‫הָ ֶרמֶ ש‬-‫ּובְ כָל‬ fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth.'
Thus, he was compelled to go there, against his will.
 36

What is the purpose of making such a derasha? Perhaps to emphasize how this was all part of the
Divine plan, rather than human plan. And in turn, this was part of the Divine plan laid out at the
Bris Bein Habesarim.

We could also connect the phraseology of this to the derasha found a bit earlier in Sifrei, on Arami
Oved Avi, that ‫ש)לאובד(מלמד שלא ירד יעקב לארם אלאט‬.

‫ ויגר שם‬as well. Perhaps one could say that the choice of verb is unimportant, and that the focus,
on a peshat level, was the increase in population, such that their initial settlement was with
relatively few people. But we consider it important, and a reference to Yaakov's statement that
they were coming merely ‫לגור‬, which represents a fairly temporary state of dwelling.

Besides the inter-Biblical reference to the story of the entrance to Egypt, what is the purpose of
making such a derasha? Perhaps to further show that this descent into Egypt was not a conscious
choice by Yaakov, but was rather the result of the Divine Plan, established at the Bris Bein
Habesarim. They were forced because of the famine, and did not intend to stay long. But Hashem
had other plans.

Bimsei Me'at
We continue darshening from Arami Oved Avi,
continuing the first pasuk:

‫ במתי מעט‬-- This, as well, falls into the pattern

of one element in the short narrative
functioning as an arrow pointing at the longer
arrow. This is a description of how Yaakov
went down with 70 souls, at the beginning of
the Galus in Egypt. Sometimes, 70 is a lot,
and is the number signifying many. Indeed,
before confronting Esav, he related how he
started out alone, with only his staff, and yet
now, he is comprised of two camps. But
perhaps this is relative. It is a lot for a family,
perhaps. But it is quite small for a nation! The
text pointed at goes from a countable
number, 70, to the multitude of the stars.
This is, then, perhaps another transition
from genai toshevach, and is part of the more
general theme of developing into a nation.

‫ ויהי שם‬-- the derasha is being made not on the

word gadol which was cited in this version of
the text, but on the word ‫גוי‬. They became a
people. And perhaps on the word ‫ גוי‬combined
with the word ‫שם‬. While there, they became their own nation. They were identifiable, and thus
began to develop a national identity. (The citation of the word ‫ גדול‬likely reflects an uncertainty
of whether that word should be part of the citation for the next derasha, or not.)
 37

‫ גדול ועצום‬-- this haggadah, from 1590, appears to cite the pasuk wrong in this derasha! Yet when
they cite the whole verse, they get it right. In fact, the Haggadah is not citing
thepasuk incorrectly. Rather, it is being true to the Sifrei. For if you look in the Sifrei, you will see
that it, too, cites it as gadol ve'atzum.

So perhaps the Sifrei cited the pasuk incorrectly? This is plausible. However, we should realize
that in the Samaritan Torah, the text is indeed ‫גדול ועצום ורב‬. Because of lectio difficilior, I believe
that our Masoretic text is accurate here. However, this is an indication that the Sifrei
was darshening a non-masoretic text, something we have already seen on parshablog a number of
times.

The small printing of ‫ ועצום‬may be an attempt to fit the word on the line; or to give more emphasis
to ‫ גדול‬in the derasha which follows. But I have a suspicion that, in part, it reflect uncertainty that
this word should be cited as it was cited.

The indication that they increased to such a great degree may come from multiple sources. I favor
a simple linkage between ‫ עצום‬and ‫ויעצמו‬. But perhaps ‫ גדול‬can come into the picture, asgadol
atzum, a mighty increase, proved by all these languages. This latter does not work out so well if
the source pasuk was believed to be ‫גדול ועצום‬, as discussed, for then ‫ עצום‬could not modify ‫גדול‬.
Rather, it stands alone, modifying ‫גוי‬. Perhaps the multiple languages of increase, ‫ עצום‬,‫גדול‬, and ‫רב‬
is reminiscent of the multiple languages of increase.

I wonder if ‫ עוצם‬as a show of strength is intended, so as to lead into the Egyptians' fearful reaction.

‫ ורב‬-- the derasha is based on the word ‫ותרבי‬. Why cite this pasuk over any other that has the word
‫ ?רב‬Because the point, here, is not the increase. Rather, it means mature. For a girl, it is as
described. For a people, it is becoming a nation.
 38

Note that in this same Haggadah, they only cite this one pasuk. They do not cite the bedamayich
chayi pasuk. This is because it was initially only intended to be a prooftext about maturity. Only
later did it become a reference to the dual blood of korban Pesach and bris Milah.

Vayarei'u Otanu
The darshening of Arami Oved Avi continues, based on the pasuk of:
;‫ וַ יְ עַ נּונּו‬,‫ ו וַ י ֵָרעּו אֹתָ נּו הַ ִּמ ְצ ִּרים‬6 And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted
.‫ ֲעב ָֹדה ָק ָשה‬,‫ וַ יִּ ְתנּו עָ לֵינּו‬us, and laid upon us hard bondage.

‫ וַ י ֵָרעּו אֹתָ נּו הַ ִּמ ְצ ִּרים‬-- this is taken as a reference to Pharaoh's plan, hava nitchakma lo.
There is no matchup of wording, so why is this
taken to be parallel? Well, simply, because it
means to do bad things to us, and if we look at the
run of pesukim in the first perek of Shemos, we
see:

-‫ אֶ ל‬,‫ט וַ יֹאמֶ ר‬ 9 And he said unto his

‫ עַ ם‬,‫ ִּהנֵה‬:ֹ‫עַ מו‬ people: 'Behold, the
‫ ַרב‬--‫בְ נֵי יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬ people of the children of
.‫ ִּממֶ נּו‬,‫וְ עָ צּום‬ Israel are too many and
too mighty for us;
,‫י הָ בָ ה נִּ ְתחַ כְ מָ ה‬ 10 come, let us deal
,‫יִּ ְרבֶ ה‬-‫ פֶ ן‬:ֹ‫לו‬ wisely with them, lest
-‫וְ הָ יָה כִּ י‬ they multiply, and it
‫ִּת ְק ֶראנָה ִּמלְ חָ מָ ה‬ come to pass, that, when
‫הּוא‬-‫וְ נוֹסַ ף גַם‬
,‫שֹנְ אֵ ינּו‬-‫עַ ל‬ there befalleth us any
‫ וְ עָ לָה‬,‫בָ נּו‬-‫וְ נִּ לְ חַ ם‬ war, they also join
.‫ָארץ‬
ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫ִּמן‬ themselves unto our
enemies, and fight
against us, and get them
up out of the land.'
‫יא וַ י ִָּשימּו עָ לָיו‬ 11 Therefore they did set
‫ לְ מַ עַ ן‬,‫ָש ֵרי ִּמ ִּסים‬ over them taskmasters to
;‫עַ נֹת ֹו בְ ִּסבְ ֹלתָ ם‬ afflict them with their
‫וַ יִּ בֶ ן עָ ֵרי‬ burdens. And they built
-‫ לְ פַ ְרעֹה‬,‫ִּמ ְסכְ נוֹת‬
-‫ וְ אֶ ת‬,‫פִּ תֹם‬-‫אֶ ת‬- for Pharaoh store-cities,
.‫ַרעַ ְמסֵ ס‬ Pithom and Raamses.

Pasuk 9 has a rav veatzum, which parallels the growth of the Israelites mentioned in gadol
ve'atzum varav. As we shall see, pasuk 11 is the idea pointed at by ‫וַ יְ עַ נּונּו‬. If so, pasuk 10 is
 39

right in the middle, and thus we have the correspondence of vayareiu and hava
nitchakma lo.

What is the precise connection? Four possibilities occur to me:

a) It could be that in ‫וַ י ֵָרעּו אֹתָ נּו הַ ִּמ ְצ ִּרים‬, the focus is on hamitzrim. What is the
evidence that this was a national campaign of the Egyptians doing us wrong, rather
than merely Pharaoh? The answer is that Pharaoh turned to the Egyptians and brought
them in on the plan to do us harm. Thus, hava nitchakma lo.

b) It could be that it is merely that ‫ וַ י ֵָרעּו‬connotes evil intentions. And therefore the
text from Shemot is for the evil plan, rather than the actual steps taken to carry it out.

c) It could be that ‫ ַוי ֵָרעּו‬means that they made us into bad people (in their minds), by
projecting upon to us evil intent. Thus ‫וַ י ֵָרעּו אֹתָ נּו‬, they made us evil.

d) Least likely, but perhaps ‫ וַ י ֵָרעּו‬is from the root meaning befriend. Compare
with ‫שֹנְאֵ ינּו‬, and with the idea that nitchakma lo; and the famous midrash of how
we were gradually tricked into servitude.

‫ וַ יְ עַ נּונּו‬-- This is a reference to actual affliction, and to pasuk 11, based on the word ‫עַ נֹת ֹו‬.
This is then a retelling of the story, in shorthand. One might have otherwise thought
(as elsewhere) that this is perishut derech eretz.

‫ ֲעב ָֹדה ָק ָשה‬,‫ וַיִּ ְתנּו עָ לֵינּו‬--

saying that it was making the Israelites
workbefarech -- isn't that just more of the same? What does this add? Yet, there is the
semantic linkage between avodah kasha and befarech, but why make these into
separate derivations and pointers?

The answer is that this was actually a separate stage in the affliction, according to one
reading of that first perek of Shemos. That is, above we read up to pasuk 11, which
was the actual affliction. The response to that was pasuk 12:
 40

‫ כֵן‬,ֹ‫ יב וְ כַאֲ ֶשר יְ עַ נּו אֹתו‬12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they
‫ ִּמפְ נֵי‬,‫ יִּ ְרבֶ ה וְ כֵן יִּ פְ רֹץ; וַ יָקֻ צּו‬multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And they
.‫ בְ נֵי יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬were adread because of the children of Israel.

Now, in response to this further multiplication and subsequent dread, the Egyptians
seem to have increased the level of servitude. Pasuk 13 is what is being pointed to:
,‫בְ נֵי יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫ יג וַ ַיעֲבִּ דּו ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם אֶ ת‬13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel
.‫ בְ פָ ֶרְך‬to serve with rigour.
‫חַ יֵיהֶ ם בַ ֲעב ָֹדה‬-‫יד וַ יְ מָ ְררּו אֶ ת‬ 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard
,‫ ֲעב ָֹדה‬-‫ ּובְ כָל‬,‫ בְ חֹמֶ ר ּובִּ לְ בֵ נִּ ים‬,‫ָק ָשה‬ service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner
-‫ אֲ ֶשר‬,‫ ֲעב ָֹדתָ ם‬-‫ כָל‬,‫אֵ ת‬--‫בַ ָש ֶדה‬ of service in the field; in all their service, wherein
.‫ בְ פָ ֶרְך‬,‫עָ בְ דּו בָ הֶ ם‬ they made them serve with rigour.

Thus, this represents an intensification of the servitude, and an advancement of the

narrative. I should note that according to the Sifrei (in accordance with the girsa of the
Gra), the prooftext is not just pasuk 13, as we have in the haggadah, but the entirety
of pasuk 14 as well.

Vanitz'ak
The Haggadah continues, darshening the next pasuk in Arami Oved Avi:
;‫ה אֱ ֹלהֵ י אֲ בֹתֵ ינּו‬-‫ אֶ ל‬,‫ ז וַ נִּ ְצעַ ק‬7 And we cried unto the LORD, the God of our
-‫ וַ י ְַרא אֶ ת‬,‫קלֵנּו‬
ֹ -‫ וַ יִּ ְשמַ ע יְ הוָ ה אֶ ת‬fathers, and the LORD heard our voice, and saw
.‫לַחֲ צֵ נּו‬-‫עֲמָ לֵנּו וְ אֶ ת‬-‫ עָ נְ יֵנּו וְ אֶ ת‬our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression.
 41

This text is actually a bit askew, in this particular Haggadah. It should have led off with the full
text citation of vanitz'ak. Instead, it leads with the derasha on vanitz'ak, and only remembers and
cites the full pasuk at the end.

‫ה' אֱ ֹלהֵ י אֲ בֹתֵ ינּו‬-‫ אֶ ל‬,‫ וַ נ ְִּצעַ ק‬-- the linkage is based on the end of the pasuk in
Shemos perek 2. That pasuk:

,‫כג וַ יְ ִּהי בַ י ִָּמים הָ ַרבִּ ים הָ הֵ ם‬ 23 And it came to pass in the course of those many
-‫ וַ יֵָאנְ חּו בְ נֵי‬,‫וַ יָמָ ת מֶ לְֶך ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ days that the king of Egypt died; and the children of
‫ וַ יִּ זְ עָ קּו; וַ ַתעַ ל‬,‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה‬-‫יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל ִּמן‬ Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they
.‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה‬-‫ ִּמן‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִּ ֱ‫הָ א‬-‫ַשוְ עָ תָ ם אֶ ל‬ cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of
the bondage.

And ‫ ַונ ְִּצעַ ק‬is close to the ‫וַיִּ זְ עָ קּו‬, both in meaning, and because zayin and tzadi are
both sibilants. And that the cry was ‫ה' אֱ ֹלהֵ י אֲ בֹתֵ ינּו‬-‫ אֶ ל‬we may see
because ‫ֹלהים‬ ִּ ֱ‫הָ א‬-‫וַ ַתעַ ל ַשוְ עָ תָ ם אֶ ל‬.
 42

This actually skips ahead by a perek in Shemos. And intervening was the plot involving the
midwives, and the drowning of the firstborn. Yet this is the flow of the pesukim in Arami Oved
Avi, and continues along the same topic.

Then, we continue darshening the pasuk:

ֹ -‫ וַ יִּ ְשמַ ע ה' אֶ ת‬--

‫קלֵנּו‬ This is then a link to the next pasuk in Shemot 2:

ִּ ֱ‫ כד וַ יִּ ְשמַ ע א‬24 And God heard their groaning, and God
‫נַאֲ ָקתָ ם; וַ יִּ זְ כֹר‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ֹלהים‬
-‫ַאבְ ָרהָ ם אֶ ת‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,ֹ‫בְ ִּריתו‬-‫ֹלהים אֶ ת‬ ִּ ֱ‫ א‬remembered His covenant with Abraham, with
.‫ ַי ֲעקֹב‬-‫ יִּ ְצחָ ק וְ אֶ ת‬Isaac, and with Jacob.

based on the beginning of the pasuk. By having runs of phrases and contiguous pesukim, it further
demonstrates that the short text points to the long text. At this point, this is an indication of how
bad the avadim hayinu was, as well as the start of the redemption, the suffering caused us to
groan out, and perhaps to turn to Hashem.

‫עָ ְניֵנּו‬-‫ וַ י ְַרא אֶ ת‬--Why should we assume that onyeinu here means perishut derech eretz?
Earlier, vayaanunu meant affliction. But that is indeed one factor. We already had a pointer to
the affliction of hard labor. Also, inuy often means holding back from marital relations. Thus, we
see an interpretation in the gemara about the actions of Shechem, ‫וישכב אתה ויענה‬, that the latter
 43

means that he refused to have further relations with her. And in Lavan's warning / deal with
Yaakov at Gal-Ed, ‫בְ נֹתַ י‬-‫ ְתעַ נֶה אֶ ת‬-‫ ִּאם‬is taken to mean refraining from marital
relations.

I have a suspicion that the text pointed at is not meant to "prove" the perishut derech
eretz. Rather, we see that there are runs of pesukim, first from Shemot 1, and now
from Shemot 2. In terms of Shemot 2, we had pesukim 23 and 24 already. And we
round out thepesukim cited with pasuk 25:

ִּ ֱ‫ כה וַ י ְַרא א‬25 And God saw the children of Israel, and God
;‫בְ נֵי יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ֹלהים‬
}‫ {ס‬.‫ֹלהים‬ִּ ֱ‫ א‬,‫ וַ י ֵַדע‬took cognizance of them. {S}

Perishut derech eretz just comes from a knowledge of the word inuy in Tanach in general.

If we are compelled to say that a prooftext for perishut derech eretz is in play, then perhaps
from vayeda as in the Biblical sense of knowledge, in the carnal sense. Or perhaps
thatHashem saw the benei Yisrael, and so He appreciated the limitations on producing
furtherchildren. However, as noted, I strongly suspect that this is not a prooftext.

Perishut derech eretz is somewhat necessarily as connected to that which follows, which is the
drowning of any male children who were born. They had difficulty conceiving, and that which was
born was lost. In the Sifrei, there is a variant derasha, in which we instead of continuing with
perek 2 and pasuk 25, we return to perek 1, right after the failed attempt to curb Israelite
population growth via hard labor. The pasuk is:

,‫הָ עִּ בְ ִּריוֹת‬-‫ בְ ַיל ְֶדכֶן אֶ ת‬,‫ טז וַ יֹאמֶ ר‬16 and he said: 'When ye do the office of a midwife to
‫בֵ ן הּוא‬-‫ ִּאם‬:‫הָ ָאבְ נָיִּ ם‬-‫ עַ ל‬,‫ ְּור ִּאיתֶ ן‬the Hebrew women, ye shall look upon the birthstool: if
.‫בַ ת ִּהוא וָ חָ יָה‬-‫ וְ ִּאם‬,ֹ‫ וַ הֲ ִּמ ֶתן אֹתו‬it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter,
then she shall live.'

and in particular, the phrase ‫הָ ָאבְ נָיִּ ם‬-‫ ְּור ִּאיתֶ ן עַ ל‬. The affliction is then a physical
sort of suffering, and to Pharaoh's second failed plan. (Perhaps the hagadah did not
choose this derasha since the midwives never put it into action, and the women would
be giving birth anyway.) This segues nicely into the drowning of the male children.

Another point is that while our pasuk does not seem to prove the idea that
was darshened, this variant does. But ultimately, this is not of any concern.

ve'et amaleinu
Continuing the analysis of Arami Oved Avi, and in particular the pasuk:
 44

‫ה אֱ ֹלהֵ י‬-‫ אֶ ל‬,‫ז וַ נ ְִּצעַ ק‬ 7 And we cried unto the LORD, the God
-‫אֲ בֹתֵ ינּו; וַיִּ ְשמַ ע ה אֶ ת‬ of our fathers, and the LORD heard our
-‫עָ ְניֵנּו וְ אֶ ת‬-‫ וַ י ְַרא אֶ ת‬,‫קלֵנּו‬ֹ voice, and saw our affliction, and our
toil, and our oppression.
.‫לַחֲ צֵ נּו‬-‫עֲמָ לֵנּו וְ אֶ ת‬

We had analyzed up to and including the word anyeinu. But then took a break of a year.
Thehaggadah continues:

Anyeinu had been interpreted as perishut derech eretz.

Now, ‫עֲמָ לֵנּו‬-‫ וְאֶ ת‬is understood as referring to the sons, and the (seeming) prooftext is {Shemot 1}:

‫עַ מ ֹו‬-‫ לְ כָל‬,‫כב וַ יְ צַ ו פַ ְרעֹה‬ 22 And Pharaoh charged all his people,
,‫הַ בֵ ן הַ יִּ לוֹד‬-‫ כָל‬:‫לֵאמֹר‬ saying: 'Every son that is born ye shall
cast into the river, and every daughter
,‫הַ בַ ת‬-‫ וְ כָל‬,‫הַ יְ א ָֹרה ַת ְשלִּ יכֻהּו‬ ye shall save alive.' {P}
}‫ {פ‬.‫ְתחַ יּון‬
This is not a classic proof-text though, in the sense of this pasuk showing that ‫ עמל‬means sons.
Rather, it is an elaboration of what ‫ אלו הבנים‬means, so that the short declaration in Arami Oved
 45

Avi retells the story of the Exodus.

How should ‫ עמלני‬mean the sons (for ‫ בנים‬here means sons rather than children)? It is unclear.

A: Semantic Extension
I would suggest that this was selected to mean the birth of something as an extension ofperishut
derech eretz of anyeinu. Since these are near synonyms juxtaposed in a pasuk, we should look for
a shade of meaning along similar lines. Thus, it was difficult for them to conceive due to the
excessive work, as was the plan of the Egyptians (see earlier in the perek), and then when they
did manage to conceive, something along the same lines was targeted.

B: Proximal Extension
Indeed, even without idea of near synonyms selecting similar targets, it makes narrative sense.
The previous anyeinu selected the earlier plan of the Egyptians, as was the prooftext:

-‫ פֶ ן‬:ֹ‫ לו‬,‫י הָ בָ ה נ ְִּתחַ כְ מָ ה‬ 10 come, let us deal wisely with them, lest
‫ ִּת ְק ֶראנָה‬-‫ וְ הָ יָה כִּ י‬,‫יִּ ְרבֶ ה‬ they multiply, and it come to pass, that,
when there befalleth us any war, they also
-‫הּוא עַ ל‬-‫ִּמלְ חָ מָ ה וְ נוֹסַ ף גַם‬ join themselves unto our enemies, and fight
‫ וְ עָ לָה‬,‫בָ נּו‬-‫ וְ נִּלְ חַ ם‬,‫שֹנְאֵ ינּו‬ against us, and get them up out of the land.'
.‫ָארץ‬
ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫ִּמן‬
‫יא וַ י ִָּשימּו עָ לָיו ָש ֵרי‬ 11 Therefore they did set over them
‫ לְ מַ עַ ן עַ נֹת ֹו‬,‫ִּמ ִּסים‬ taskmasters to afflict them with their
burdens. And they built for Pharaoh store-
‫בְ ִּסבְ ֹלתָ ם; וַ יִּ בֶ ן עָ ֵרי‬ cities, Pithom and Raamses.
-‫אֶ ת‬--‫ לְ פַ ְרעֹה‬,‫ִּמ ְסכְ נוֹת‬
.‫ ַרעַ ְמסֵ ס‬-‫ וְ אֶ ת‬,‫פִּ תֹם‬

and when that didn't work, sensibly, the next word in Arami Oved Avi should target the nextplan.
That would possibly be Pharaoh's plot involving the midwives, but they managed to avoid killing
any babies, and so the next logical plan would be the one at the very end of perek aleph, which
actually succeeding in paining the Hebrews.

Indeed, the next work, and link, it ‫לחצינו‬, with a skip to Shemot 3:9, with the intervening story of
Moshe's birth, arrival at Pharaoh's palace, and fleeing to Midyan. And so it might simply be
following the structure of the narrative in sefer Shemot.

C: The meaning of ‫עמל‬

Perhaps ‫ עמל‬can be taken to mean specifically work that fails. Certainly ‫ עמל‬means labor. But it
also has the occasional sense of misfortune. So maybe labor in vain.

I don't really trust this, based on context, but see the following verses. Kohelet 2:
 46

‫ ֶשעֲמָ ל ֹו‬,‫ָאדם‬ ָ ‫יֵש‬-‫כא כִּ י‬ 21 For there is a man whose labour is with
;‫ּובְ כִּ ְשרוֹן‬--‫בְ חָ כְ מָ ה ּובְ ַדעַ ת‬ wisdom, and with knowledge, and with
skill; yet to a man that hath not laboured
‫ יִּ ְתנֶנּו‬,ֹ‫בו‬-‫ָאדם ֶשֹּלא עָ מַ ל‬ָ ְ‫ּול‬ therein shall he leave it for his portion. This
‫ וְ ָרעָ ה‬,‫זֶ ה הֶ בֶ ל‬-‫גַם‬--‫חֶ לְ ק ֹו‬ also is vanity and a great evil.
.‫ַרבָ ה‬
See in Iyov 7:3:

-‫ י ְַרחֵ י‬,‫ג כֵן הָ נְחַ לְ ִּתי לִּ י‬ 3 So am I made to possess--months of

.‫לִּ י‬-‫ ִּמנּו‬,‫ָשוְ א; וְ לֵילוֹת עָ מָ ל‬ vanity, and wearisome nights are
appointed to me.
How amal is positioned in poetic parallelism with shav, vanity. Maybe ‫ עמל‬actually has this
secondary meaning of vanity. And occasionally, it is placed against these in the context of birth
{Tehillim 7}:

-‫טו ִּה ֵנה ְיחַ בֶ ל‬ 15 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity; yea, he

‫ וְ ָילַד‬,‫ָאוֶ ן; וְ הָ ָרה עָ מָ ל‬ conceiveth mischief, and bringeth forth
falsehood.
.‫ָש ֶקר‬
Not aven as iniquity, but as vanity. And it then parallels both sheker and amal. But see the full
context of this pasuk.

If one is looking for labor (in the full sense of the word) coming to vanity, then indeed, boys born
to be cast in the Nile is a perfect
fulfillment.

ve'et lachatzeinu
We move on to the final words of the
pasuk, ‫ ַל ֲחצֵנּו‬-‫וְאֶת‬.

This is the dechak, the oppression. And

the prooftext is a citation of Shemot 3:9,

,‫ט וְ עַ ָתה‬ 9 And now,

‫ִּהנֵה צַ ע ֲַקת‬ behold, the cry
of the children
‫יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫בְ נֵי‬ of Israel is
;‫בָ ָאה אֵ לָי‬ come unto Me;
,‫יתי‬ִּ ‫ ָר ִּא‬-‫וְ גַם‬ moreover I
 47

,‫הַ לַחַ ץ‬-‫אֶ ת‬ have seen the

‫אֲ ֶשר‬ oppression
wherewith the
,‫ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ Egyptians
‫ֹלחֲ ִּצים‬ oppress them.
.‫אֹתָ ם‬

What is the role of this prooftext? It clearly does not demonstrate that lachatz means dechak.
After all, the prooftext does not use the word ‫דחק‬, but just ‫לחץ‬. Rather, the function of this
prooftext is to show that ‫ לחץ‬appears in the full narrative as it appears in sefer Shemot. And it
follows, in the text, after the demonstration of anyeinu and amaleinu.

How do Chazal know that it means ‫דחק‬, oppression? Familiarity with Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as
with Biblical Hebrew. Thus, for example, the following pasuk in parashat Balak:

‫מַ לְ אַ ְך‬-‫כה וַ ֵת ֶרא הָ ָאתוֹן אֶ ת‬ 25 And the ass saw the angel of the
‫ וַ ִּתלְ חַ ץ‬,‫הַ ִּקיר‬-‫ וַ ִּתלָחֵ ץ אֶ ל‬,‫ה‬ LORD, and she thrust herself unto the
wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against
;‫הַ ִּקיר‬-‫ אֶ ל‬,‫ ֶרגֶל בִּ לְ עָ ם‬-‫אֶ ת‬ the wall; and he smote her again.
.‫ לְ הַ כֹתָ ּה‬,‫וַ יֹסֶ ף‬
It clearly means pressing. So too the words are juxtaposed in a pasuk in sefer Shofetim (2:18):

,‫הֵ ִּקים ה לָהֶ ם‬-‫יח וְ כִּ י‬ 18 And when the LORD raised them up
,‫הַ שֹפֵ ט‬-‫ וְ הָ יָה ה עִּ ם‬,‫שֹפְ ִּטים‬ judges, then the LORD was with the
judge, and saved them out of the hand of
‫וְ הו ִֹּשיעָ ם ִּמיַד אֹיְ בֵ יהֶ ם כֹל‬ their enemies all the days of the judge;
‫יִּ נָחֵ ם ה‬-‫ כִּ י‬:‫יְ מֵ י הַ שוֹפֵ ט‬ for it repented the LORD because of their
‫ ִּמפְ נֵיֹלחֲ צֵ יהֶ ם‬,‫ִּמנַאֲ ָקתָ ם‬ groaning by reason of them that
.‫וְ דֹחֲ ֵקיהֶ ם‬ oppressed them and crushed them.

I am unsure whether this was affliction from taskmasters or whether it was a subjugated position
in society. (Looking to Akkadian, we have the word chalatz, which is semantically related to ‫לחץ‬,
via metathesis. It means pressing, as in pressing grapes, and appears in proximity to the cognate
for sechita, squeezing.)

Earlier, in Shemot 3:7, prior to pasuk 9, there is mention of other forms of affliction:

‫יתי‬
ִּ ‫ ָראֹה ָר ִּא‬,‫ז וַ יֹאמֶ ר ה‬ 7 And the LORD said: 'I have surely seen
 48

;‫ ֳענִּי עַ ִּמי אֲ ֶשר בְ ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬-‫אֶ ת‬ the affliction of My people that are in
‫צַ ע ֲָקתָ ם ָשמַ עְ ִּתי ִּמפְ נֵי‬-‫וְ אֶ ת‬ Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason
of their taskmasters; for I know their
-‫ כִּ י י ַָדעְ ִּתי אֶ ת‬,‫נֹגְ ָשיו‬ pains;
.‫מַ כְ אֹבָ יו‬
So the different shades of suffering may be highlighted even local to sefer Shemot.

We might notice a shift here in topic, in terms of the nature of the suffering. If we do say that
there is a semantic link between the previous two terms, anyeinu and amaleinu as prevention of
conjugal relations and destruction of male children who would result, then lachatzeinu as simple
oppression is unlike the others.

Looking to the Sifrei, we immediately notice that the derasha on ‫ לחצינו‬is absent. The Gra's
emendation of the text places a derasha on lachatzeinu into here. But perhaps there was
somederasha that was more on topic, or no derasha was
made, but a derasha was brought in to fill the gap, so as
to form a continuous running commentary on
the pesukim. (But then, the wholederasha on vayar et
anyeinu seems brought in from "agada" and placed in
parentheses, and thederasha on vanitzak, and the prior
verse, is wholly absent.)

vayotzi'einu
Continuing the analysis of Arami Oved Avi, and in
particular the pasuk:

,‫ח וַ יו ִֹּצאֵ נּו ה‬ 8 And the LORD

‫ בְ יָד‬,‫ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ brought us forth out of
Egypt with a mighty
ַ‫חֲ זָ ָקה ּובִּ זְ רֹע‬ hand, and with an
‫ ּובְ מ ָֹרא‬,‫נְטּויָה‬ outstretched arm, and
,‫ּובְ אֹתוֹת‬--‫ָגדֹל‬ with great terribleness,
.‫ּובְ מֹפְ ִּתים‬ and with signs, and
with wonders.

And in particular on ‫ מִ מִ צ ְַרי ִם‬,‫וַיֹוצִאֵ נּו ה‬.

Why the stress on "not by angel nor by saraf," etc.? I

don't think this is a polemic against shituf polemic.
Rather, this derasha is prompted by the insertion of the
 49

actor "Hashem" in the second word. Look to the previous pasuk and next pasuk. Previous: -‫ אֶל‬,‫ַונִ ְצעַק‬
‫ ַל ֲחצֵנּו‬-‫עֲמָ לֵנּו וְאֶת‬-‫ ָענְי ֵנּו וְאֶת‬-‫ ַוי ְַרא אֶ ת‬,‫קֹּלֵנּו‬-‫ה אֱ ֹלהֵי אֲ ב ֹּתֵינּו; ַויִשְמַ ע ה אֶת‬.

Yes, there is repetition of Hashem here. But the verb vayar does not make use of it. And so too
the next pasuk (vayotzi'einu) could have omitted explicit mention of Hashem. And so too, in the
next pasuk:

‫אֶרץ זָבַת ָחלָב ּודְ בָש‬ ֶ ‫ה‬-‫לָנּו אֶ ת‬-‫הַמָקֹום ַהז ֶה; ַוי ִתֶ ן‬-‫ אֶל‬,‫ ַויְבִאֵ נּו‬.
ֶ ,‫ָָארץ הַז ֹּאת‬

No explicit mention of Hashem is made. So this might be what prompts the derasha.

In terms of simple peshat in this pasuk, when read in full, indeed, the basic idea is that Hashem
brings forth His full might to take the Jews out of Egypt. So that might be what prompts
the derasha. Alternatively, theani Hashem and other features of the prooftext prompt
the derasha local to Arami Oved Avi.

The prooftext / manifestation of this idea is frommakkat bechorot, the last of the makkos:

,‫ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬-‫יב וְ עָ בַ ְר ִּתי בְ אֶ ֶרץ‬ 12 For I will go through the land of
‫בְ כוֹר‬-‫ֵיתי כָל‬ ִּ ‫ וְ ִּהכ‬,‫בַ לַיְ לָה הַ זֶ ה‬ Egypt in that night, and will smite all the
first-born in the land of Egypt, both man
-‫ָאדם וְ עַ ד‬ ָ ֵ‫ מ‬,‫בְ אֶ ֶרץ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ and beast; and against all the gods of
‫אֱ ֹלהֵ י ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬-‫בְ הֵ מָ ה; ּובְ כָל‬ Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the
.‫ אֲ נִּי ה‬,‫אֶ ע ֱֶשה ְשפָ ִּטים‬ LORD.
They darshen every single phrase, but not every phase seems to call out for such a derasha. But
the idea is that Hashem is speaking of His actions in first person. ‫ ְו ָעב ְַרתִי‬-- And I will pass. And so on
and so forth, but stressed by otherwise unnecessary close of ‫אֲ נִי ה‬. Perhaps the action of ‫אֱ ֹלהֵי‬-‫ּו ְבכָל‬
‫ מִ צ ְַרי ִם אֶ עֱשֶה שְ ָפטִים‬calls for direct action on Hashem's part, as opposed to via
somemalach or shaliach.

Wasn't Moshe a shaliach? Well, perhaps in the other makkos, when he is commanded to take some
practical or symbolic action to bring about the plague. But at the very end, with makkat bechorot,
there is no such action. Hashem acts directly. And so is the sense, and the flavor, of the entire
perek in sefer Shemot.

We might have been tempted to say otherwise, in light of the very last few pesukim of the Torah:

,‫ ָקם נָבִּ יא עוֹד בְ יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫י וְ ֹלא‬ 10 And there hath not arisen a prophet
-‫ פָ נִּים אֶ ל‬,‫ אֲ ֶשר יְ ָדע ֹו ה‬,‫כְ מ ֶֹשה‬ since in Israel like unto Moses, whom
the LORD knew face to face;
.‫פָ נִּים‬
,‫אתֹת וְ הַ מוֹפְ ִּתים‬ ֹ ָ‫ה‬-‫יא לְ כָל‬ 11 in all the signs and the wonders,
‫ בְ אֶ ֶרץ‬,‫ ַלעֲשוֹת‬,‫אֲ ֶשר ְשלָח ֹו ה‬ which the LORD sent him to do in the
land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all
,‫עֲבָ ָדיו‬-‫לְ פַ ְרעֹה ּולְ כָל‬--‫ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬ his servants, and to all his land;
.ֹ‫ַארצו‬
ְ -‫ּולְ ָכל‬
 50

‫ ּולְ כֹל‬,‫יב ּולְ כֹל הַ יָד הַ חֲ זָ ָקה‬ 12 and in all the mighty hand, and in
,‫ אֲ ֶשר עָ ָשה מ ֶֹשה‬,‫הַ מו ָֹרא הַ גָדוֹל‬ all the great terror, which Moses
wrought in the sight of all Israel. {P}
}‫ {ש‬.‫יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫לְ עֵ ינֵי כָל‬

All the otot, mofetim, yad hachazaka, and mora hagadol, all mentioned in Arami Oved Avi in this
pasuk, are wrought by Moshe, as messenger of Hashem. Still, makat bechorot is not of this nature.
And this could be the intent of the stress in this derasha.

beyad chazaka uvezroa netuya

The Haggadah continues, darshening the pasuk. yad chazakah is a reference to thedever because
of the pasuk of:
‫ בְ ִּמ ְקנְָך‬,‫ה ה ֹויָה‬-‫ ג ִּהנֵהיַד‬3 behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle
‫סּוסים‬ ִּ ַ‫ ב‬,‫ אֲ ֶשר בַ ָש ֶדה‬which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the
‫ בַ בָ ָקר‬,‫ בַ חֲ מ ִֹּרים בַ גְ מַ לִּ ים‬asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon
.‫ כָבֵ ד ְמאֹד‬,‫ ֶדבֶ ר‬--‫ּובַ צֹאן‬
the flocks; there shall be a very grievous murrain.

Thus, there is a yad involved. I am tempted to say that this is a continuation of the idea from
before, of Hashem without an agent, for there are two types of makkah. In some, Moshe takes an
action which brings about the plague. For instance, Aharon smites the water, or Moshe throws
soot heavenwards. In others, Moshe takes no action, but merely announces, with Hashem being
the actor. In this instance, Moshe takes no action. He just establishes the set time for the plague
to appear, and then:

,‫הַ ָדבָ ר הַ זֶ ה‬-‫ו וַ יַעַ ש ה אֶ ת‬ 6 And the LORD did that thing on the
morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt
 51

‫ כֹל ִּמ ְקנֵה‬,‫ וַ יָמָ ת‬,‫ִּממָ חֳ ָרת‬ died; but of the cattle of the children of
,‫יִּ ְש ָראֵ ל‬-‫ּומ ִּמ ְקנֵה בְ נֵי‬
ִּ ;‫ִּמ ְצ ָריִּ ם‬ Israel died not one.
.‫מֵ ת אֶ חָ ד‬-‫ֹלא‬
This idea holds true for the analysis of the next two phrases in the pasuk (but appears to fail for
the last two, which is OK).

Thus, the next phrase, bizroa netuya is a reference to "the sword". Which sword? Not a
literal sword, but to a plague which wipes out human beings.

This is a pasuk in I Divrei Hayamim perek 21:

,‫עֵ ינָיו‬-‫טז וַ יִּ ָשא ָדוִּ יד אֶ ת‬ 16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw
‫מַ לְ אַ ְך ה עֹמֵ ד בֵ ין‬-‫וַ י ְַרא אֶ ת‬ the angel of the LORD standing between
the earth and the heaven, having a drawn
‫ וְ חַ ְרב ֹו‬,‫ָארץ ּובֵ ין הַ ָשמַ יִּם‬ ֶ ָ‫ה‬ sword in his hand stretched out over
-‫ נְטּויָה עַ ל‬,ֹ‫ְשלּופָ ה בְ יָדו‬ Jerusalem. Then David and the elders,
‫רּוש ִּלָם; וַ יִּ פֹל ָדוִּ יד וְ הַ זְ ֵקנִּים‬
ָ ְ‫י‬ clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their
.‫פְ נֵיהֶ ם‬-‫ עַ ל‬,‫ְמכ ִֻּסים בַ ַש ִּקים‬ faces.
And this is David's vision. But it represents the plague which will kill many human beings. Thus,
this is not intended as a description of what happened in Egypt, but a demonstration that thatzroa
netuya means this. And so, this is a reference to makkas bechoros, again something which was via
Hashem's direct action with no action on Moshe's part.

The key word in Divrei Hayamim is ‫נְטּוי ָה‬, stretched out. So too the zeroa netuya in Egypt.
 52

uvemora gadol
We now consider ‫ובמורא גדול‬.

This is giluy Shechina, the revelation of the Divine

Presence. And the prooftext is Devarim 4:34:

‫לד א ֹו הֲ נִּסָ ה‬ 34 Or hath God

‫ לָבוֹא‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִּ ֱ‫א‬ assayed to go and
take Him a nation
‫ל ַָקחַ ת ל ֹו גוֹי‬ from the midst of
‫ בְ מַ סֹת‬,‫ִּמ ֶק ֶרב גוֹי‬ another nation, by
‫אתֹת ּובְ מוֹפְ ִּתים‬ ֹ ְ‫ב‬ trials, by signs, and
‫ּובְ ִּמלְ חָ מָ ה ּובְ יָד‬ by wonders, and by
ַ‫חֲ זָ ָקה ּובִּ זְ רוֹע‬ war, and by a
,‫נְטּויָה‬ mighty hand, and
by an outstretched
‫ּובְ מו ָֹר ִּאים‬ arm, and by great
‫ כְ כֹל‬:‫גְ דֹלִּ ים‬ terrors, according
‫עָ ָשה ָלכֶם ה‬-‫אֲ ֶשר‬ to all that the
,‫אֱ ֹלהֵ יכֶם‬ LORD your God
.‫לְ עֵ ינֶיָך‬--‫בְ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ did for you in
Egypt before thine
eyes?

There are two possible aspects of this pasuk which might serve as prooftext. It might be ‫ְמֹוראִים‬ ָ ‫ּוב‬
‫גְדֹּלִים‬, 'with great terrors'. In which case, it is the shorter Arami Oved Avi text pointing the the
more expansive text elsewhere in Chumash. But that would not show that this was giluy
Shechina any more than the pasuk local to Arami Oved Avi, which has all the features of otot,
mofetim, and zeroa netuya.

Rather, I think it is the very last word of the pasuk, ‫ ְלעֵינֶיָך‬, "to your eyes". Thus, it was something
you could see, and so it was a revelation of the Divine Presence. And this ‫ ְלעֵינ ֶיָך‬is modifying the
last of the list, the ‫מֹוראִים גְדֹּלִים‬.
ָ

I've pointed out many times in the past that Chazal have darshened what appears in the Samaritan
text, rather than out Masoretic text. Indeed, earlier in the Haggadah (and Sifrei), we saw the
Biblical text cited as ‫גדול ועצום ורב‬, though that was more innocuous. I believe that this is another
such instance. Come and see what appears in the Samaritan text, in Vetus Testamentum:
 53

The Samaritan text appears to the left, where it differs from the Masoretic text on the right. They
have ‫ובמראה גדול‬. It then seems that they take the root as ‫ראה‬, seeing, rather than ‫ירא‬, fearing. And
thus, the derasha.

With the focus on gilui Shechina, I think that we have not yet lost focus on Ani velo malach.

‫ובאותות ובמופתים‬:

Continuing my analysis of the hagadah:

The word ‫ ובאתות‬local to Arami Oved Avi refers to Moshe's staff, and the prooftext is Shemot 4:17:

,‫ ִּת ַקח בְ י ֶָדָך‬,‫הַ מַ ּטֶ ה הַ זֶ ה‬-‫יז וְ אֶ ת‬ 17 And thou shalt take in thy hand
-‫ אֶ ת‬,ֹ‫בו‬-‫אֲ ֶשר ַתע ֲֶשה‬ this rod, wherewith thou shalt do the
signs.' {P}
}‫ {פ‬.‫אתֹת‬ ֹ ָ‫ה‬
The otot referred to are not the 10 plagues, even though many of the plagues were indeed
effected via Moshe's staff. Rather, in context, Hashem gave Moshe three signs to show to the
Hebrews and to Pharaoh: the staff becoming a snake and turning back into a staff; Moshe's hand
becoming leprous and then becoming healed; and water turning to blood.

This is the sign that Moshe gives that Hashem will redeem the Hebrews.
 54

And then:

The mofetim in the pasuk is a reference to the blood, as is stated in Yoel 2:30:
‫וְנָ ָֽתַ תִ ֙י מָֹּֽופְתִִ֔ ים ַבש ַ ַָ֖מי ִם ּוב ָ ָָ֑א ֶרץ ָ ָּ֣דם וָאִֵ֔ ש וְתִ ָֽימ ֲַ֖ר ֹּות ע ָָשָֽן׃‬
"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth blood and fire and pillars of smoke."

Of course, the point is not that the blood described in sefer Yoel is what is referenced in Arami
Oved Avi. Rather, the pasuk in Yoel demonstrates that dam can be alluded to be the
wordmofetim.

But which blood? Some might be misled to think that this is (only) the first makkah, and thus is a
stand-in for all the makkos. In context of the staff as otot, it is the blood which stands as amofeit.
This first as a wonder to show the Hebrews, and subsequently as a wonder to show Pharaoh at the
Nile. But it is as a wonder, rather than as a makkah.

Incidentally, the common practice (described in many Haggadahs) is to take droplets of wine out
of the cup for each of the three final units of this prooftext pasuk:
‫ָ ָּ֣דם‬
‫ָו ִֵ֔אש‬
‫וְתִ ָֽימ ֲַ֖ר ֹּות ע ָָשָֽן‬
This is almost certainly an error, and most probably originated as joke. These three elements have
a meaning in the context of sefer Yoel, but are not descriptive of the Exodus from Egypt. My guess
is that there was already an existing practice of removing drops of wine from the cup at
the makkos: dam, tzfardei, kinim, arov, etcetera, and someone jokingly took it out at this earlier
stage, pretending each phrase was a makkah. And then the joke became a tradition, and became
an established minhag.
 55

davar achier

This is an alternate explanation of the pasuk of ‫ביד‬

‫חזקה‬. Now, rather than
twomakos (of dever and bechorot) being targeted,
along with the signs and wonders, the pasuk is to refer
to the entire ten plagues.

The phrases which take up two words each match up

to two plagues, and the individual words written in
plural form refer to the minimum number of plagues,
namely two. This is simply mechanical and
mathematical.

I am tempted to try match up each pair of plagues to

the specific source word or phrase. The idea would be
something like: zeroa netuya should match up to
where Moshe / Aharon is commanded to stretch out
his hand with the staff. But there are more than just
two.

The enumeration of themakos in full is just good sipur

yetzias mitzrayim. If we are going to mention the
10 makos, then we should list each individually.
Alternatively, it is a good transition to what follows
from Rabbi Yehuda – the simanim.

Which brings us to:

What is the reason for bringing these simanim?

It might be as a mnemonic. Just as Arami Oved Avi is a shorthand to be expanded, so is detzach

adam ba'achav. Or, it can function as a mnemonic not related specifically to the mitzvah ofsippur
yetzias mizrayim. Rabbi Yehuda actually created simanim for other things as well. Thus,
in maseches Menachos we see: ‫ זד"ד יה"ז‬,‫ שלא תטעה‬:‫רבי יהודה אומר‬. And I recall from R' Reuven
Margolias a nice explanation in which a cryptic statement by Rabbi Yehuda about ‫יין נסך‬, which
confounded everyone until that point, was wonderfully set right once we realize that ‫ יין נסך‬was an
acronym for six items to which the particular law applied.

In the Sifrei, there was a skip of analysis of several pesukim, all the way from ‫ויהי שם לגיו‬, and no
explicit analysis of the present pasuk of ‫ביד חזקה‬. But right before analyzing ‫ויביאנו‬, it cites the
solitary statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But it says ‫ בהם‬in ‫בהם סימנים‬, which strongly implies a context.
 56

One final suggestion. We can say that ‫ ובאותות‬refers to the ten plagues, because each of them is
designated by an ‫אות‬, a letter, in Rabbi Yehuda's mnemonic. And a midrash indeed casts Rabbi
Yehuda's mnemonic into the Biblical narrative. These letters were engraved on Moshe's staff,
which he pulled from the ground from Yisro's backyard. And thus we can still say that ‫ ובאותות‬refers
to the mateh, even as it refers to the letters of the plagues.

We should not look for a deeper meaning in the mnemonic.

On calculating plagues
What follows are a bunch of calculations. Since the magicians called a single plague the finger of
God, and at the Reed Sea there is reference to the great hand, we multiply by 5.

To what end? To praise Hashem for providing so many miracles, and so to demonstrate that there
were so many miracles. Also, because ‫כל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח‬, and this is a form of
being marbeh.

Thus, a calculation of 10 and 10 x 5.

 57

Don't spend too much time on thesederashot. Say it in English, in summary, of how
one derasha differs from the next and what the conclusion is.

Rabbi Eliezer brings a prooftext in which each plague in Egypt has four plagues, or four aspects:

Therefore, multiply by 4, for 40 in Egypt, and 200 at the Reed Sea.

 58

Rabbi Akiva reanalyzes and reparses that same prooftext and yields a fifth aspect or fifth plague,
such that we multiply by 5.

We should not look for deep meanings of these derashot, and figure why each said what he said.
These derashot were said in chronological
order, in the order given here. Had R' Akiva
spoken second, then he would have given R'
Eliezer's derasha.

Why? The point was Rabbinic creativity and

one-upmanship in creating derashot to
praise Hashem. And this was their avodah,
perhaps even on the seder night.

Dayeinu
We've darshened from Arami Oved Avi. Now
we turn to Dayeinu, which functions as a
song, a praise for all Hashem did for us in
the Exodus and after, and is indeed a
micro sippur yetzias mitzrayim, in more or
less chronological order. Also,
the tova kefulah umechupeles fits in with
the prior idea of multiplying the miracles.

It would have been enough to no longer be

in servitude in Egypt, and that would
be sufficient reason to praise Hashem. But
that there is justice served, such that
evildoers who hurt us do not simply get
 59

away with it, is an additional boon, and worthy of thanks and praise.

One famous and somewhat obvious question: how we can say that it would have been sufficient
for us had He not split the sea for us? Wouldn't the Egyptians have annihilated us?

To answer this:

1) Who says the showdown at the Yam Suf had to happen? According to the Biblical narrative, the
situation was orchestrated by Hashem, by directing the Hebrews to travel and encamp at a certain
spot, in order to convince Pharaoh that they were confounded and that the wilderness had closed
them in. All this so that Hashem could glorify himself with the Egyptian defeat. But had He just
given us their money (presumably when each person asked this of his Egyptian neighbor, rather
than the spoils of the Yam Suf, which is later), without having split the sea, it would have been
sufficient.

2) It would have been sufficient does not mean that we would be happy with that state of affairs.
Rather, this is an enumeration of all the good things Hashem had does. And at each point,
Hashem's actions on our behalf is sufficient reason to give praise. This is explicit at the end of the
song.
 60

In terms of sustaining us in the wilderness for 40 years, even though we would have preferred to
have entered Eretz Yisrael immediately, it was a miraculous and group thing to sustain a people in
the wilderness for so long. (And the stay in the wilderness was arguably a formative experience for
the Israelite people.)

Another famous question is: what point would there be in bringing them before Har Sinai and not
giving them the Torah?

1) I would answer that this was a fulfillment of the sign that Hashem has sent Moshe, as
mentioned in Shemot 3:
 61

‫לְ ָך‬-‫ וְ זֶ ה‬,‫אֶ ְהיֶה עִּ מָ ְך‬-‫ כִּ י‬,‫יב וַ יֹאמֶ ר‬ 12 And He said: 'Certainly I will be
‫ כִּ י ָאנֹכִּ י‬,‫הָ אוֹת‬ with thee; and this shall be the
token unto thee, that I have sent
,‫הָ עָ ם‬-‫ בְ הו ִֹּציאֲ ָך אֶ ת‬:‫ְשל ְַח ִּתיָך‬ thee: when thou hast brought forth
,‫ֹלהים‬ִּ ֱ‫הָ א‬-‫ ַתעַ בְ דּון אֶ ת‬,‫ִּמ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּ ם‬ the people out of Egypt, ye shall
.‫עַ ל הָ הָ ר הַ זֶ ה‬ serve God upon this mountain.'

Further, what Moshe had asked Pharaoh for repeatedly was to take the Israelites out to serve
Hashem. And this could be what happened at this mountain, Chorev / Har Sinai.

2) Alternatively, the revelation at Har Sinai was sufficiently a positive experience, even had the
Torah (/10 commandments) not been the end result.

3) Alternatively, there were the luchos, and there was separately the entirety of the Torah.

Dayeinu extends until the entering Eretz Yisrael -- Neturei Karta can say that Dayeinu with
goodkavvanah -- and finally, the building of the bet hamikdash.

The recitation of Arami Oved Avi in the mikdash extended until the entering the land and bringing
the presents before Hashem -- ‫הַמָ קֹום ַהז ֶה‬-‫ ַויְבִאֵ נּו אֶל‬. And so too the optional fifth language
of geulah, ‫והבאתי‬, associated with the optional 5th cup. Could this be an artefact of ahaggadah in
which they darshened, with the Sifrei, the following pasuk?

The song continues.

 62

The conclusion is that we should be extremely grateful.

What does this lengthy repetition accomplish? Well, stylistically, it makes for a nice conclusion of
the song.

But there is also a difference in tone between the first part and the second. The first part worked
it way slowly and deliberately forward. The focus was on each reason to be thankful, and so we
come full stop at the end of each statement (that could have been) and exclaim Dayeinu! And
then, before moving forward, we restate the new boon Hashem granted. Thus, we appreciate
each great thing Hashem did individually.
 63

In this second half, the progression is entirely forward. There is no pause for breath at a Dayeinu,
and the contrast with the first part makes that clear to the singer. And there is no backwards
movement, since their is no repetition of a favor Hashem granted. By juxtaposing all of thetovahs
that Hashem did in this manner, we emphasize how much it is a tovah kefulah umchulpeles and
how Hashem has been overwhelmingly good to us.

Rabban Gamliel

What is the reason for Rabban Gamliel's statement that anyone who does not say Pesach, Matzah
and Maror on Pesach does not fulfill his obligation of (sipur)?

1) One can become engaged in the derashos ofmaggid and forget to say these three basic
elements of the Passover story. This is a way of grounding people.

2) Earlier, when discussing the Chacham, I noted the different approaches as to what to do on
the sedernight. Rabban Gamliel and the Zekeinim in Lod spent the whole night talking
about hilchos haPesach; this as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben
Azariah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, who spend the whole night engaged in the story of Pesach.

Given the differing overarching focus in the opposite direction, it makes sense that Rabban
Gamliel would establish a minimum level of sippur.

3) Besides all this, I believe that Rabban Gamliel in not establishing a minimum that others would
actually necessarily agree to. Rather, he is imposing an additional requirement, based
onderashot of pesukim. (Which pesukim, I'll present in a bit.) But conceivably, one could have
beendoreish all of Arami Oved Avi and started with gnay and ended with shvach without
mentioning in particular the korban Pesach and its prompt, the matzah and its prompt, and
the maror and its prompt.
 64

Thus, we mention Pesach, meaning

the korban Pesach. Because Hashem
skipped over our ancestor's homes in
Egypt. And a prooftext establishing
that Hashem indeed skipped over the
houses, and that this is thecause of it
being called aZevach Pesach.

But the prooftext, in this instance,

does more that. I think it also
establishes thechiyuv. The key word is
the first one: ‫ואמרתם‬. And you shall
say that it is a zevach pesach...

Thus, in the very establishment of

thechiyuv of sippur, in a response to a
son's query, there is the requirement
to say zevach pesach hu.

Ideally, this would be while standing in

front of akorban you are bringing /
eating. Thus, zevach pesach hu, as
something you can point to. Maybe
the chiyuv of sippur would fail when
the korban Pesach fails. But it didn't,
and Rabban Gamliel, who had his seder in Lod after the churban, still not only requires sippur but
even mention of the Pesach.

On a peshat level, by the way, one might be able to argue that this is not a requirement ofsippur.
Rather, it was a promise, that things will be so good that the son will not even know the meaning
of the sacrifice, because the Egyptian exile will pass so far from their minds in their living a life
of cheirus.

,‫ָארץ‬
ֶ ָ‫ה‬-‫תָ בֹאּו אֶ ל‬-‫ כה וְ הָ יָה כִּ י‬25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to
;‫כַ אֲ ֶשר ִּדבֵ ר‬--‫יִּתן ה לָכֶם‬
ֵ ‫ אֲ ֶשר‬the land which the LORD will give you, according
.‫הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬-‫ אֶ ת‬,‫ּושמַ ְר ֶתם‬ְ as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.

‫ֹאמרּו אֲ לֵיכֶם‬
ְ ‫י‬-‫ כִּ י‬,‫ כו וְ הָ יָה‬26 And it shall come to pass, when your children
.‫ לָכֶם‬,‫ מָ ה הָ ֲעב ָֹדה הַ זֹאת‬:‫ בְ נֵיכֶם‬shall say unto you: What mean ye by this service?
,'‫פֶ סַ ח הּוא לַה‬-‫כז וַ אֲ מַ ְר ֶתם זֶ בַ ח‬ 27 that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the
‫י ְִּש ָראֵ ל‬-‫בָ ֵתי בְ נֵי‬-‫אֲ ֶשר פָ סַ ח עַ ל‬ LORD'S passover, for that He passed over the
-‫ וְ אֶ ת‬,‫ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּם‬-‫ בְ נָגְ פ ֹו אֶ ת‬,‫בְ ִּמ ְצ ַריִּם‬ houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He
,‫בָ ֵתינּו ִּה ִּציל; וַ יִּ קֹד הָ עָ ם‬
.‫יִּש ַתחֲ וּו‬
ְ ַ‫ו‬ smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.' And
the people bowed the head and worshipped.
 65

That is why the people's reaction was so positive, that they bowed their head and worshipped. But
that does not necessarily establish a chiyuv to engage in such sippur.

As opposed to matza zo and maror zeh, we don't say pesach zeh because it is not in front of us.

matza zo and maror zeh

Just as the zevah pesach should be mentioned, so
should the matza. And what significance attaches
to matza, that one can see it and point to it and
describe something concrete that has to do with the
Exodus from Egypt? That is that they were driven
out, such that their matzah did not have time to rise,
but baked on their backs. Or rather, since they had
to leave swiftly, they didn't bake it at home, but
baked it on the road, where they did not have access
to ovens. (See the Absolut Haggadah for
elaboration.)

This is not necessarily the reason we eat matzah --

indeed, matzah was eaten in their homes in Pesach
Mitzrayim, but it is the aspect of the redemption
that looking at the matzah calls to mind, and so it is
that aspect of sippur yitzias mitzrayim that should
be discussed.

What prooftext could Rabban Gamliel bring that

indeed one must mention matzah (and its
significance), or else one did not fulfill his obligation?

It would seem to be the pasuk of Baavur Zeh.

In Shemot 13:8:

6. For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, ‫ שִ בְּעַ ת י ָמִ ים ת ֹּאכַל מַ צ ֹּת ּובַּיֹום‬.‫ו‬
and on the seventh day, there is a festival for the :'‫הַ שְּ בִיעִ י חַ ג לַה‬
Lord.

7. Unleavened cakes shall be eaten during the seven ‫ מַ צֹות י ֵָּאכֵּל אֵּ ת שִ בְּעַ ת הַ ּיָמִ ים ו ְֹּלא‬.‫ז‬
days, and no leaven shall be seen of yours [in your ‫י ֵָּראֶּ ה לְָּך חָ מֵּ ץ ו ְֹּלא י ֵָּראֶּ ה לְָּך ׂשְּ א ֹּר ְּבכָל‬
possession], and no leavening shall be seen of yours :‫ְּג ֻבלֶָּך‬
throughout all of your borders.

8. And you shall tell your son on that day, saying, ‫ ו ְּהִ גַדְּ תָ ְּל ִבנְָּך בַּיֹום הַ הּוא לֵּאמ ֹּר‬.‫ח‬
"Because of this, the Lord did [this] for me when I :‫בַעֲ בּור זֶּה עָ ׂשָ ה ה לִי ְּבצֵּאתִ י מִ מִ צ ְָּרי ִם‬
went out of Egypt."
Thus, there is a juxtaposition of matza (in pasuk 6 and 7) with sippur yetzias mitzrayim (in 8).
And pasuk 8 states Baavur Zeh, "because of this". Because of what? On a peshat level, I might say
that the zeh is the implicit [this] above, or that ‫ זה‬functions as conjunctive asher, that is it is
 66

because asher Hashem did this for me.

Rashi says:

Because of this: In order that I fulfill His commandments, such ‫ כגון‬,‫ בעבור שאקיים מצותיו‬:‫בעבור זה‬
as these [commandments of] the Passover sacrifice, matzah, and :‫פסח מצה ומרור הללו‬
bitter herbs. — [from Jonathan, Passover Haggadah]

Thus, "this" refers to the commandments, such as Pesach, Matzah, Maror.

Here is what Ibn Ezra has to say:

‫ בעבור זה‬-‫אמר רבי מרינוס‬:

‫ היה ראוי להיותו הפך זה בעבור שעשה ה' לי‬.‫פירוש בעבור זה‬.
‫והביא רבים כמוהו לדעתו‬.

‫ולפי דעתי‬:
.‫ כי אין אנו אוכלים מצוות בעבור זה‬.‫ וטעם הפסוק הפך מחשבתו‬.‫ כי איך נהפוך דברי אלוהים חיים‬.‫אין אחד מהם נכון‬
.‫ שהוא תחלת המצוות שצוה לנו השם‬,‫ בעבור זאת העבודה שהוא אכילת המצה ולא יאכל חמץ‬,‫רק פירוש בעבור זה‬
‫עשה לנו השם אותות עד שהוציאנו ממצרים‬.
‫והטעם לא הוציאנו ממצרים רק לעבדו ככתוב‬: ‫בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלהים על ההר הזה‬.
‫וכתוב‬: ‫אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלהים‬.

He cites Rabbenu Yona Ibn Janach that it is reversed. Zeh, this, meaning the sacrifice, or perhaps
the matzah and the maror separately of inclusive, is baavur of what Hashem did.

If so, we have the sippur which is prompted by the zeh, that "this [X, Y, Z] is because of the
redemption."

Ibn Ezra does not like this explanation and instead says that "the redemption was because of our
eventual [X, Y, Z]", just like Rashi.

Regardless, zeh is something you can point to. And there is the derasha we saw earlier in the
Haggadah: If bayom hahu, maybe while it was yet day? No, since it says baavur zeh, it is only
when the Pesach, Matza, and Maror are sitting before him.

So we need to mention the matzah and a Biblical

significance to the matzah, as it relates to the
Exodus.

Maror and its pasuk is curious. Of course maror is

part of the baavur zeh, since the Pesach was
eaten al matzos umerorim.

But there is no explicit pasuk telling why one

eatsmaror. Indeed, some rationalist Rishonim, such
asIbn Caspi, view it as a health injunction, to have
vegetables with one's meal. But there is a linguistic
link between "they embittered their lives"
and maror, and this is good enough. And so the pasuk
 67

cited is ‫וימררו את חייהם‬.

Unless we take ‫ ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו‬as meaning that one ate the matza, etc., upon, that is
because of, the bitternesses.

Bechol dor

The same pasuk which stands as Rabban

Gamliel's prooftext, baavur zeh, also
establishes a chiyuv for a person,
in eachgeneration to view himself as if he
himself went out of Egypt. Or alternatively,
to conduct himself, showing others, as if he
personally went out of Egypt.

It is a question of vocalization. ‫ לראות‬could

have a chirik under the lamed, as pictured,
in which case it means "to view himself", or it
could have a patach under the lamed, in
which case it is shorthand for the Rambam's
alternate nusach oflehar'ot, to show himself.

Why personally? Because it states asa Hashem li, "to me", and betzeiti, "when I went out."

The pasuk, meanwhile, is cast as saying this in the future, when they have arrived and settled in
the land of Israel. It was stated before the entirety of that generation was condemned to die in
the wilderness, so perhaps one could argue that the was actually only targeting the generation
that left Egypt, who could personally say this. Especially if we view it not as a chiyuv but as a
promise to an enslaved people.

However, viewing it as an everlasting statute and chiyuv, it stands as a basis for talking about
leaving Egypt in first person. How can a person do this? As stated earlier, had they not been
redeemed, behold we, our children and our grandchildren would still be enslaved to Pharaoh.
 68

"Hashem also brought us out of there." Isn't this just another prooftext saying the exact same thing
as before? I don't think so. Rather, consider the context:

From Devarim 6:

20. If your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‫ כִי י ִשְּ ָאלְָּך ִבנְָּך מָ חָ ר לֵּאמ ֹּר מָ ה‬.‫כ‬
"What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ‫הָ עֵּ ד ֹּת ו ְּהַ חֻ קִ ים ו ְּהַ מִ שְּ פָ טִ ים אֲ שֶּ ר ִצּוָה‬
ordinances, which the Lord our God has commanded :‫ה אֱ ֹלהֵּ ינּו אֶּ תְּ כֶּם‬
you?"

21. You shall say to your son, "We were slaves to ‫ ו ְָּאמַ ְּרתָ ְּל ִבנְָּך עֲ בָדִ ים הָ י ִינּו לְּפַ ְּרע ֹּה‬.‫כא‬
Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord took us out of Egypt ‫בְּמִ צ ְָּרי ִם וַּיֹוצִיאֵּ נּו ה מִ מִ צ ְַּרי ִם ְּבי ָד‬
with a strong hand. :‫חֲ זָקָ ה‬
22. And the Lord gave signs and wonders, great and ‫ וַּיִתֵּ ן ה אֹות ֹּת ּומ ֹּפְּתִ ים גְּדֹּלִים‬.‫כב‬
terrible, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his ‫ו ְָּרעִ ים בְּמִ צ ְַּרי ִם בְּפַ ְּרע ֹּה ּו ְּבכָל בֵּיתֹו‬
household, before our eyes. :‫לְּעֵּ ינֵּינּו‬
23. And he brought us out of there, in order that He ‫ ו ְּאֹותָ נּו הֹוצִיא מִ שָ ם לְּמַ עַ ן הָ בִיא‬.‫כג‬
might bring us and give us the land which He swore to ‫ָארץ אֲ שֶּ ר נִשְּ בַע‬
ֶּ ָ‫א ֹּתָ נּו לָתֶּ ת לָנּו אֶּ ת ה‬
our fathers. :‫לַאֲ ב ֹּתֵּ ינּו‬

It could have been someone who was actually present for the Exodus who spoke this to his son. So
what does this teach us? Well, realize that there are two parties to this conversation, the father
and the son. The father was present. We can grant that. But the son was not present, or else he
would have had no cause to ask. Yet, the pasuk says ‫וְאֹותָ נּו הֹוצִיא מִשָם‬, "and He broughtus out of
there," rather than veOti hotzi misham, "and he brought me out of there." Thus, the son who was
not present at the Exodus is included in ‫וְאֹותָנּו‬.
 69

(Of course, there is ambiguity here. In some languages such as Hebrew and English, the first
person plural can be inclusive. If inclusive, it includes the addressee (that is, the second person).
If exclusive, then it is speaking about plural people, where the speaker is a member of that group,
but the second person addressee is not a member of that group. In the derasha, as opposed to in
the peshat, the word ‫ וְאֹותָנּו‬is taken as inclusive.)

Thus, going back to the words of the Haggadist: Not only our fathers (such as the speaker in
Devarim 6) did Hashem redeem, but also ‫אֹותָ נּו‬, us, the sons, did He redeem together with
them. This was a very deliberate phrasing by the Haggadist which reveals the structure of
hisderasha.

And so, the first prooftext was from the perspective of the father who was not actually physically
present, and the second prooftext was from the perspective of the son.

One we have internalized, or externalized, that we indeed have been redeemed, the logical
conclusion is that we have an obligation to praise Hashem. This is what bridges between Maggid
and Hallel.

And perhaps this is an aspect of

the chiyuv of sippur, to relate the transition
from gnus toshvach, as it states: from servitude to
freedom, from sadness to joy, from mourning to
holiday, and from subjugation to redemption, and
we say before Him, Hallelukah.

This closes Maggid and, for now, this commentary

on the Haggadah.