If you were to write the story of the Jewish people, what would it be? What major plot elements would you include? How would you frame the arc of the story?
In many ways, this is the goal of the Haggadah – to tell the story of the Jewish people. In this essay, we will examine a few ways in which the Haggadah tries to do that, and uncover some debates about how to frame this core story.
We start with the major instruction for the story, from the Mishnah, below:
1) According to the knowledge/ability of the child should his father instruct him. One begins with shame/disgrace, and one finishes with praise; and expounds from “My father was a wandering Aramean/An Aramean tried to destroy my father (Deut 26:5)” until he finishes the entire section. - Mishnah Pesahim 10:4 | משנה מסכת פסחים פרק י:ד ולפי דעתו של בן אביו מלמדו מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח ודורש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה כולה: |
As you can see from the translation, there are many ambiguities in this text. But the one I want to focus on is this: Is there a connection between: “One begins with shame/disgrace and one finishes with praise” and what follows: “and expounds from “My father was a wandering Aramean/An Aramean tried to destroy my father (Deut 26:5)”? In other words: Is the expounding of this selection from Deuteronomy the fulfillment of the requirement to begin with shame and end with praise? Let’s look at that passage in full, and see if it indeed has such an arc:
1a) You shall then recite as follows before YHVH your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean/ (or: An Aramean tried to destroy my father). He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation. The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us. We cried to YHVH, the God of our fathers, and YHVH heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery and our oppression. YHVH freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. Now I bring the first fruits of the soil which You, O YHVH, have given me.”… - Deuteronomy 26:5-10 | דברים פרק כו (ה) וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגָר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט וַיְהִי שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב: (ו) וַיָּרֵעוּ אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים וַיְעַנּוּנוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה: (ז) וַנִּצְעַק אֶל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ וַיִּשְׁמַע יְקֹוָק אֶת קֹלֵנוּ וַיַּרְא אֶת עָנְיֵנוּ וְאֶת עֲמָלֵנוּ וְאֶת לַחֲצֵנוּ: (ח) וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ יְקֹוָק מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמֹרָא גָּדֹל וּבְאֹתוֹת וּבְמֹפְתִים: (ט) וַיְבִאֵנוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וַיִּתֶּן לָנוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ: (י) וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה הֵבֵאתִי אֶת רֵאשִׁית פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לִּי יְקֹוָק וְהִנַּחְתּוֹ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתָ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ: (יא) וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְכָל הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּלְבֵיתֶךָ אַתָּה וְהַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבֶּךָ: ס |
First, let’s note the context. This text is central to the Haggadah, as we will see below. But the Haggadah cuts off the selection after verse 8 (corresponding to the break in the translation, above). This full text is recited when the pilgrim brings his first fruits to Jerusalem, which actually happens on Shavuot, not Pesah (this also perhaps explains why the phrase “until he finishes the entire section” is in our Mishnah above – it was probably taken from Mishnah Bikkurim, which describes the bringing of the first fruits, and not meant to be taken literally here, because it would end with the description of the first fruits, which doesn’t happen on Pesah!).
But let’s see if we can identify the arc from shame to praise in this selection. It seems there are at least a few:
1) Land: from “wandering” to “a land of milk and honey”
2) Theology/nationality: from “Aramean” to a people who “cries out to YHVH”
3) Population growth: from “meager numbers” to “populous nation”
4) Redemption: From “heavy labor” to “freed us from Egypt”
This text would then seem to be a logical application of the mitzvah of telling from shame to praise. Indeed, some scholars believe that was the original intention of the Mishnah. But already by the time of the first generation after the Mishnah, there was a different approach. Other biblical texts were cited instead, in search of the story of moving from shame to praise. Let’s first look at the Babylonian Talmud’s understanding:
2) “One begins with shame/disgrace, and one finishes with praise.” What is “shame/disgrace”? Rav said: In the beginning, our ancestors were idol worshippers. Shmuel [Rava] said: “We were slaves…” (Deuteronomy 6:21) - Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 116a | תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף קטז עמוד א - ב מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח מאי בגנות? רב אמר: מתחלה עובדי עבודת גלולים היו אבותינו. [ושמואל] אמר: עבדים היינו. |
Now the text from Deuteronomy 26 is no longer part of the discussion. Instead, we have a debate about how to describe the move from shame to praise. Focusing on the element of shame, Rav, not quoting any biblical text directly, identifies shame with idolatry. Shmuel (or Rava, as we will see in a minute) counters with a different identification of shame: slavery. To illustrate this position, he quotes Deuteronomy 6:21.
Now we have 2 opinions about what shame is: idolatry or slavery. But why one vs. the other? What are the implications of framing the story as moving from a starting point of idolatry vs. framing it from a starting point of slavery? This might be worth discussing at the seder! A few possibilities:
1) The level of responsibility is different in each. In slavery, the Egyptians are the active outside force that leads to shame. In idolatry, this responsibility (perhaps) rests more internally.
2) God is more actively present in the move from slavery (outstretched arm, signs and wonders) than in the move from idolatry, which was fundamentally a personal relationship with Avraham.
3) The move out of slavery was a 1-time event. We never went back to being slaves. The move from idolatry is more complicated. After all, the sin of the golden calf occurred after the Exodus. So is the move meant to be linear or more iterative?
Let’s investigate Rav’s position a bit further. In the text from the Babylonian Talmud, Rav doesn’t quote a biblical text. But in the parallel text in the Palestinian Talmud, he does. We look at that below:
3) Rav said: As in the beginning. “Our ancestors dwelt beyond the river (Euphrates)”… “But I took your father, Avraham, from beyond the river (Euphrates)” [Joshua 24:2-3] - Jerusalem Talmud Pesahim 10:5; 37d | תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת פסחים פרק י דף לז טור ד /ה"ג רב אמר (מ)[כ]תחילה (צריך להתחיל) בעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם וגו' ואקח את אביכם את אברהם מעבר הנהר |
Two things to notice about the difference in this text vs. the Babylonian Talmud version. First, here there is no debate. Shmuel is not present. But also: Rav’s position is less clear. In the Babylonian Talmud, he definitely associated shame with idolatry. But here Rav quotes a verse (our third biblical selection so far). Let’s look at that in context:
3a) 1 Then Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. He summoned the elders, leaders, judges and officials of Israel, and they presented themselves before God. 2 Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods.3 But I took your father Abraham from the land beyond the Euphrates and led him throughout Canaan and gave him many descendants. I gave him Isaac, 4 and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. I assigned the hill country of Seir to Esau, but Jacob and his family went down to Egypt. [this is where Haggadah ends the quote] - Joshua 24:1-4 | יהושע פרק כד (א) וַיֶּאֱסֹף יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁכֶמָה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְרָאשָׁיו וּלְשֹׁפְטָיו וּלְשֹׁטְרָיו וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים: (ב) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל כָּל הָעָם כֹּה אָמַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר יָשְׁבוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם מֵעוֹלָם תֶּרַח אֲבִי אַבְרָהָם וַאֲבִי נָחוֹר וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים: (ג) וָאֶקַּח אֶת אֲבִיכֶם אֶת אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וארב וָאַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעוֹ וָאֶתֶּן לוֹ אֶת יִצְחָק: (ד) וָאֶתֵּן לְיִצְחָק אֶת יַעֲקֹב וְאֶת עֵשָׂו וָאֶתֵּן לְעֵשָׂו אֶת הַר שֵׂעִיר לָרֶשֶׁת אוֹתוֹ וְיַעֲקֹב וּבָנָיו יָרְדוּ מִצְרָיִם: |
These verses have a number of additional candidates for the move from shame to praise. It could be idolatry (“your ancestors…worshiped other gods”) Or it could be other transitions: Land: From Euphrates to Canaan. Or numbers: “many descendants.” In fact, if we read just a few more verses, it could even be from slavery to freedom (although if that were the focus, then Rav would have likely started later in the chapter). The point is: If Rav’s position were associated only with these verses, it becomes much more ambiguous or multivocal.
Now, let’s return to the Babylonian Talmud for a minute, and take a closer look at Shmuel’s position. The first thing to note, as Josh Kulp has pointed out in the Schechter Haggadah, is that in almost all the manuscripts of the Talmud, this position is not associated with Shmuel at all. It is associated with a later rabbi: most often Rava. This may help us understand the debate better. Rav and Shmuel are contemporaries. There is nothing surprising in a debate between them, and hundreds of their debates are recorded in the Talmud. But Rava lives 3 generations after Rav. He is not in debate with Rav; he draws from Rav’s teachings. I understand why a copyist might have changed Rava to Shmuel: It makes much more sense for Shmuel to be debating Rav. But since most manuscripts point to Rava as stating the position, let’s figure out why he might have disagreed with Rav, so many generations later.
Well, if Rav’s position was represented by the Palestinian Talmud, then perhaps it was in fact about a move from outside the land of Israel (shame) to inside the land of Israel (praise). Rav, who grew up in the land of Israel before moving to Babylonia, could have reasonably told that story. But Rava, who spent his whole life in the diaspora of Babylonia might have had a harder time telling a story about shame being associated with living outside of Israel. So perhaps that was his motivation in coming up with a different arc: from slavery to freedom. Ultimately, Rav’s opinion as expressed in the Babylonian Talmud is also not about moving from outside Israel to inside Israel. And that might also have been a focus of the Babylonian academies which preferred to see a debate between two positions (idolatry vs. slavery) that they could see themselves identifying with.
This is all more or less speculation in trying to answer the question of why Rav and Shmuel (=Rava) debated the identification of shame. Now let’s see how our Haggadah dealt with this debate, and prepare to compare that to a different Haggadah tradition, discovered in the Cairo Genizah.
In most debates in Jewish tradition, the job of the decisor is to choose which side carries the day. But an unusual thing happened in the debate about shame. BOTH positions were preserved. Here is one example of that:
4) Rav said: In the beginning, our ancestors were idol worshippers. Shmuel said: “We were slaves…” But now we do both of them. - R Yitzhak Alfasi (10th c.), Pesahim 25b | רי"ף מסכת פסחים דף כה עמוד ב מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח: מאי גנות אמר רב מתחלה עובדי ע"ז ושמואל אמר עבדים והאידנא עבדינא כתרוייהו: |
The Rif (R Yitzhak Alfasi) took the surprising move of siding with both Rav and (in his version) Shmuel. And indeed, this is the way our Haggadah is organized: BOTH Rav’s opinion (from idolatry to service) and Shmuel’s opinion (from slavery to freedom) are mentioned. Below is the order of the Maggid (telling) section from a traditional Haggadah:
- Ha Lahma Anya
- Mah Nishtanah (4 questions)
- Avadim Hayinu = Shmuel/Rava’s position
- 5 Sages
- 4 Sons
- Mithila Ovdei Avodah Zarah = Rav’s position
- Barukh Shomer Havtahato
- Midrash Arami Oved Avi
You can see that in section C, the story from shame to praise expresses Shmuel/Rava’s position of slavery to freedom, and in section F, the story from shame to praise expresses Rav’s position of idolatry to service. Section H is the text we first looked at from Deut 26, which might be a third approach to identifying shame and praise.
We will return to some of the other sections, specifically Section A and Section D, to see if they also have a connection with shame and praise. Section G, which we will not touch on in depth, is worth noting includes the final group of biblical verses: the section from Genesis 15 in which God tells Abraham that his descendents will be slaves but they will come out of Egypt:
5) Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. - Genesis 15:13-14 | בראשית פרק טו (יג) וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה: (יד) וְגַם אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ דָּן אָנֹכִי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל: |
We will look more into sections A and D further on. But I will argue that sections A, C, D, F, G, and H are ALL versions of moving from shame to praise. That leaves sections B and E as identifying the questions that lead to this telling (although even section E – the 4 questions – includes some answers that also move from shame to praise). The Maggid section of the Haggadah can be seen as many different attempts to tell the story of shame to praise.
Now the Haggadah that we are familiar with is not the only Haggadah in Jewish tradition. Like most liturgical works, there is another tradition, represented by the Palestinian Jewish community, and preserved in the Cairo Genizah. The Palestinian Haggadah is much shorter than the Babylonian one (which is the one we use), and represents the approach of the Palestinian Talmud. (Daniel Goldschmidt published a version of this Haggadah in his critical edition from 1960, and that is the text we will look at below.) Let’s look at a comparison:
6) Palestinian Haggadah Maggid Section:
| Babylonian Haggadah Maggid Section:
|
The Palestinian text is much shorter. And it also does not include the opinion of Shmuel/Rava. In this Haggadah, Rav’s position is the only one expressed. And the formulation of this position is in the words of the Palestinian Talmud, not the Babylonian expression of Rav:
5) How different is this night from all other nights!... According to the knowledge/ability of the child should his father instruct him. One begins with shame/disgrace, and one finishes with praise And one says: Long ago your ancestors lived beyond the Euphrates River… - Palestinian Haggadah (ed. Goldschmidt, p. 78) | מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות... לפי דעתו שלבן אביו מלמדו מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח ואומר בעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם... |
Here the Haggadah quotes the Mishnah (the first text we saw above) and moves right to the quote from Joshua, without identifying the shame or praise, as in the formulation in our Haggadah. It is a much simpler attempt at answering the question: what is the story of the Jewish people. It may not even be more narrow in its identification of shame and praise, because, as we saw, the verses themselves are more ambiguous about that story.
In any case, this Haggadah with only Rav’s opinion was not accepted in the Babylonian Jewish community. In fact, we have a fascinating responsum that directly attacks this Haggadah:
12) Thus said Rav Natronai Gaon (mid 9th c.), head of the yeshiva: Whoever says in Kiddush on Pesah “who has sanctified Israel”, and when they finish “Mah Nishtana” they don’t say “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,” and doesn’t say “From the beginning” – Rather they just say: “Joshua spoke to the whole nation” until “And Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt” (Josh 24:2-4); and they say from “Baruch Shomer” until “God out and learn” and they read “My father was a wandering Aramean” until the end of the section, with the verses as they are and does not say any Midrash at all, and says “Rabban Gamliel says” and “Who has redeemed us” and Hallel – there is a big surprise in this. Whoever behaves in this way, it is not even necessary to say that he has not fulfilled his obligation. But also – whoever does this is a heretic, and of divided heart, and rejects the words of the sages, and scorns the words of the Mishnah and Talmud. The communities must excommunicate this person and separate him from the congregation of Israel… Didn’t the “We were slaves” that the sages said come from the Torah? “You should say to your child: We were slaves to Pharaoh” (Deut 6:21). And “Joshua said to the whole people (Josh 24:2) – isn’t this the same as: In the beginning (our ancestors) were idol worshippers? For we learn “Begin with degradation and end in praise” And we said – What is degradation? Rav said [from the beginning and Shmuel said] “we were slaves”. And unless they had ill will in their heart and didn’t want to say words of Mishnah and Talmud, why would they care if they say “From the beginning?” Rather they are heretics who mock and scorn the words of Hazal, and are students of Anan, his name be cursed…who said to all of those who mistakenly follow him: Leave the words of Mishnah and Talmud, and I will make my own Talmud for you…and we must excommunicate them to not pray with Israel in synagogue, and separate from them until they return to the right way, and accept upon them the custom of the 2 yeshivot… - Seder Rav Amram Gaon, p. 111-12; Teshuvot of R Natronai Gaon, ed. Brody, p. 257-8. | סדר רב עמרם גאון סדר פסח וכך אמר רב נטרונאי גאון ריש מתיבתא, מי שאומר בקידוש של פסח אשר קדש את ישראל, וכשגומרין מה נשתנה אין אומר עבדים היינו לפרעה, ואינו אומר מתחלה, אלא אומר ויאמר יהושע אל כל העם עד ויעקב ובניו ירדו מצרים, ואומר מברוך שומר עד צא ולמד, וקורא ארמי אובד אבי עד שגומר את הפרשה כלה, פסוקין כמות שהן ואינו אומר מדרש כלל, ואומר רבן גמליאל אומר, ואשר גאלנו והלל, תימה גדול בדבר זה. מי שנוהג מנהג זה אין צריך לומר שלא יצא, אלא כל מי שעושה כן, מין הוא, וחלוק לב הוא, וכופר בדברי חכמים ז"ל, ובוזה דברי משנה ותלמוד. וחייבין כל הקהלות לנדותו ולהבדילו מקהל ישראל, ככתוב והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה +עזרא י', ח'+. וכי עבדים היינו שאמרו חכמים ז"ל לא מן התורה הוא, ואמרת לבנך עבדים היינו לפרעה +דברים ו', כ"א+. ויאמר יהושע אל כל העם +יהושע כ"ד, ב'+ לא מתחלה עובדי ע"ז הוא. שכך שנינו מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח, ואמרנו מאי גנות רב אמר עבדים היינו. ואילולי טינא שיש בלבבם וחלוק לבם ואין רוצין לומר דברי משנה ותלמוד, מאי איכפת להם לומר מתחלה. אלא הללו מינין ומלעיגין ובוזין דברי חז"ל, ותלמידי ענן ירקב שמו, אבי אביו של דניאל, חוט המשולש ברשע ובמינות, שאמר לכל התועים והזונים אחריו, עזבו דברי משנה ותלמוד ואני אעשה לכם תלמוד משלי. ועדיין הם בטעותם ונעשו אומה לעצמן, ותקן תלמוד של רשע ושל עול לעצמו, וראה מרנא ורבנא אלעזר אלוף ז"ל דמן אספמיא ספר תועבות שלו שקורין אותו "ספר מצות", כמה תחבולות יש בו. ועכשיו צריכין לנדותם שלא להתפלל עם ישראל בבית הכנסת ולהבדילם עד שחוזרין למוטב, ומקבלין עליהן שנוהגין כמנהג של שתי ישיבות, שכל מי שאינו נוהג מנהג שלנו לא יצא ידי חובתו. |
As you can see, Rav Natronai Gaon, the rabbinic leader of the Babylonian Jewish community, knew of this shorter Haggadah, and was very opposed to it, going so far as to recommend excommunication for anyone who used it! Why the strong language? Well it seems Rav Natronai Gaon saw this as a Karaite Haggadah. Karaites, who were in war with the rabbinic Jews in the middle ages to become the true heir to the mantle of Judaism, rejected many of the rabbinic commentaries and innovations. They were more comfortable only quoting the Bible in their liturgy, including the Haggadah. In fact, the Haggadah that R. Natronai was referring to was NOT a Karaite Haggadah, but a Palestinian Haggadah. It is not clear if R. Natronai knew that and was using the label Karaite to really push against the Palestinian tradition, or if he honestly thought it was indeed Karaite. In any case, we can see why the Palestinian Haggadah did not survive this broadside and is not used in modern Jewish communities today.
Before closing, I want to look at three other brief passages in the Haggadah that also seem to expound on the question of: What is the story of the Jewish people?
Our Haggadah opens with a selection known as Ha Lachma Anya (Section A), which is not found in Palestinian Haggadot and not mentioned in the Talmud.
13) This is the bread of poverty/affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Let all who are hungry come and eat. Let all who are needy come and celebrate Pesah. Now we are here; next year in the land of Israel. Now we are slaves, next year – free. - Haggadah of Pesah | הגדה של פסח הא לחמא עניא דאכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים. כל דכפין ייתי ויכל כל דצריך ייתי ויפסח. השתא הכא, לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל. השתא עבדי, לשנה הבאה בני חורין. |
After the invitation for all to come and eat, we then see another expression of the arc of shame to praise (although not explicitly identified as such). It is expressed first as Land: here (diaspora) to Israel. Then it is expressed as slavery to freedom. This seems very much like the debate between Rav (representing the arc of land, at least in the Palestinian Talmud) and Shmuel/Rava. But the difference is this: While the debate between Rav and Shmuel/Rava was expressed as how to tell the story of the past, this is a multivocal presentation of the story in which we are still living out. This isn’t recalling a journey, it is living a journey in the present, and looking to a time of “praise” which is only to be found next year – in the future.
There is another selection that plays out the theme of praise in a different way. The opinion of Shmuel/Rava is expressed in our Haggadah in fuller language than it is in the Babylonian Talmud:
14) We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt. But YHVH our God took us out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. And if the Holy One, Blessed be He, had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, then we, our children, and our grandchildren would still be enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt. And even if we were all wise, we were all perceptive, we were all elders, and we were all learned in Torah, it would still be our duty to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. And the more one talks about the Exodus from Egypt, behold, this is praiseworthy. - Haggadah of Pesah | הגדה של פסח עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים. ויוציאנו ה' אלהינו משם ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה. ואלו לא הוציא הקדוש ברוך הוא את אבותינו ממצרים הרי אנו ובנינו ובני בנינו משועבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים. ואפילו כולנו חכמים כולנו נבונים כולנו זקנים כולנו יודעים את התורה. מצוה עלינו לספר ביציאת מצרים. וכל המרבה לספר ביציאת מצרים הרי זה משובח. |
Here, the arc from shame to praise seems straightforward in the first line: We were slaves (shame) and God took us out (praise). But the paragraph goes on to identify another form of praise: telling the story. The more one talks about the Exodus, the more praiseworthy ( meshubah ) one is. This linguistic connection between the shevah of the Mishnah and the meshubah of this act of telling brings the story into a different focus: The arrival at the end of the journey is not one of leaving Egypt or even entering the land or committing to God (Rav’s opinion). It is the act of telling. As David Silber points out, this is the only night during the year that a Jew has to fulfill a command of telling (whereas the mitzvah of remembering is fulfilled every day). This also brings us to the present. If Rav and Shmuel/Rava were debating the arc of a story from the past, and Ha Lahma Anya focuses on the future to locate the moment of praise, this section identifies the praise with the present. We reach praise when we tell the story.
Finally, we will look at one last text in the Haggadah (Section D). This is the debate between the rabbis and Ben Zoma about when one must mention the Exodus from Egypt:
15) We mention (mazkirin) the exodus from Egypt at night. R’ Elazar b. Azariah said: Here I am as a 70 year-old and I have not yet merited to hear the exodus from Egypt spoken at night. Until Ben Zoma derived [from this verse] as it says “So that you remember (tizkor) the day that you left from the land of Egypt all of the days of your life (Deut 16:3)” [Why does the verse say] all of the days of your life? [Had the verse been written] the days of your life [it would mean just] the days, [since the verse is written] all of the days [this includes] the nights. The Rabbis say: The days of your life [means] the days, all of the days of your life comes to include the days of the Messiah. - Tosefta Berakhot 1:10 (brought in the Haggadah) | תוספתא מסכת ברכות (ליברמן) פרק אהלכה ימזכירין יציאת מצרים בלילות אמ' ר' לעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא זכיתי שאשמע שתאמר יציאת מצרים בלילות עד שדרשה בן זומא שנ' למען תזכור את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך ימי חייך הימים כל ימי חייך הלילות וחכמים או' ימי חייך העולם הזה כל ימי חייך להביא לימות המשיח |
This debate is about the extra word in the verse Deut 16:3. The Torah could have cut the word “all” from the verse: “…that you left from the land of Egypt all the days of your life.” So what is the significance of the word “all”? Ben Zoma says it is to mention it at night, and the majority opinion of the sages is that night is included in the phrase “days of your life,” so the word “all” must come to include something else: the world to come.
What is not always clear when we read this in the Haggadah is that in fact Ben Zoma does not believe that the story of the Exodus will be mentioned in the redeemed world at the end of time. The debate, which the Haggadah cuts off, continues below:
16) Ben Zoma said to them: Must we mention the exodus from Egypt during the days of the Messiah? But doesn’t it already say (Jeremiah 16:14-15) “Therefore, behold, the days come, says God, that it shall no more be said, As God lives, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, As God lives, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the North.” They said to him: This is not to say that the exodus from Egypt would be excised from its place, but that the exodus from Egypt will be added to the [oppression of the foreign] Kingdoms. The Kingdoms will be central, and the exodus from Egypt will be peripheral. - Tosefta Berakhot 1:10 | תוספתא מסכת ברכות (ליברמן) פרק א הלכה יאמ' להם בן זומא וכי מזכירין יציאת מצרים לימות המשיח והלא כבר נאמ' לכן הנה ימים [באים] נאם ה' ולא יאמר עוד חי ה' אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה' אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפון אמרו לו לא שתעקר יציאת מצרים ממקומה אלא שתהא יציאת מצרים מוסף על מלכיות מלכיות עיקר ויציאת מצרים טפילה |
Ben Zoma makes it clear: In the days to come, God will no longer be referred to as the God who took the children of Israel out of Egypt. In the redeemed world, the story of the Exodus from Egypt is no longer relevant. It was a temporary narrative. The seder won’t exist in the future. But the majority opinion counters Ben Zoma’s vision, saying, effectively, the story of the Exodus from Egypt can never go away. It might be decreased in importance, but it is always there. It is a core part of the Jewish story, and even in the redeemed world, it will be told. This, I think, is the ultimate question about the story of moving from shame to praise. Is the recounting of that journey temporary or eternal? How much of the trauma of shame and the exhilaration of praise lasts forever? According to the majority, those narratives always stay with you, even in the perfect future of the Messiah.
Ultimately, the Maggid section of the Haggadah is a collection attempts to tell, and retell, the story of the Jewish people moving from shame to praise. When viewed in this lens, seder night becomes an opportunity to debate these framings and enter into the age-old conversation around what is the story of the Jewish people.
