Haggadah:Arami Oved Avi – Devarim vs. Shemot/2

Arami Oved Avi – Devarim vs. Shemot

Exegetical Approaches

First Person Narrative

As opposed to the narrative of Sefer Shemot which is written in third person, the retelling in Devarim is written in first person.

Sources:Gri"d

Re-experiencing Egypt – On Pesach there is an obligation for each person to see themselves as if they personally left Egypt: "בכל דוד ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים". Thus, a retelling which is told from the perspective of the speaker, in which he totally identifies with those who were actually enslaved and redeemed, is optimal.¹

Lesson in empathy – R. Riskin² further suggests that personal identification with the plight of slavery is more likely to imbue the speaker with empathy for the unfortunate. One of the goals of remembering the oppression in Egypt is to learn to care for the down trodden and treat them with sympathy.³

Familiar Text

The text from Devarim was chosen since it was familiar to people from the ceremony of first fruits.

Sources: D. GoldschmidtD. Goldschmidt Haggadah Shel Pesach p. 30

Commandment for all – According to this approach, the sages wanted the retelling and learning to be accessible to all; the remembering of the Exodus was not meant to be limited to the elite. Thus, they purposefully chose a text that even a layperson would know and be able to study.

When was the Haggadah established? This position assumes that this part of the Haggadah was already established in the times of the Temple when people would still be bringing first fruits. Shemuel and Zev Safrai⁴ reject this assumption, claiming that it was first several decades after the destruction of the Temple that the Haggadah began to be put together, by which point the text of Devarim 26 would no longer have been said on a regular basis.

Was מקרא ביכורים really familiar? The Mishnah in Bikkurim 3:7Bikkurim 3:7About the Mishna states that if one did not know how to read the passage from Devarim in Hebrew, another would dictate it to him, suggesting that even in Temple times the text was not well known to many.⁵ Moreover, even if the verses themselves were known, it is highly unlikely that laymen were acquainted with the derashot expounding upon them.⁶

Brief Summary

Devarim 26 is a concise retelling that still manages to incorporate the essential points of the story.

Sources:Commentary attributed to Malbim

Practical issues – According to this position, the choice was a practical one. It would be very difficult and time consuming to expound upon several chapters of Shemot⁷ so a shorter version of the story was chosen.⁸

What about Bemidbar 20:15-16? If brevity alone were to explain the choice of text, it would seem that Bemidbar 20:15-16 would be an even better option as it manages to include the main points of the story in but 2 verses! Why, then, was it not chosen?

• Hashem's direct role – It is possible that Bemidbar was rejected since Bemidbar reads, "וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָךְ וַיֹּצִאֵנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם", while Devarim emphasizes Hashem's direct role, "וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ ה' מִמִּצְרַיִם".
• Arrival in Israel – In addition, many suggest that originally Devarim 26:9 which speaks of arrival in Israel ("וַיְבִאֵנוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה") was included in the learning⁹ and it was this added aspect of the story that made Devarim the preferred option. Coming to Hashem's promised land would have been seen as the ultimate step in the redemptive process.
• Cycles of anti-Semitism – R. Riskin¹⁰ highlights how only Devarim gives the background for the oppression, and as such captures the essence of the cycles of anti-Semitism throughout Jewish history.¹¹ Again and again Jews move into exile thinking that the move is just temporary, but instead become comfortable and settle, often assimilating, and eventually rising to greatness in their new home. This arouses jealousy and oppression, leading the nation to return and cry out to Hashem who then answers their prayers. The Devarim text thus aptly explains why the story of Egyptian bondage can recur in every generation, "בכל דוד ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותנו...".
• Allusion to the Covenant between the Pieces – Another advantage of the retelling of Devarim is that, unlike Bemidbar, it alludes to the fulfillment of the Covenant Between the Pieces.¹² Each of its verses uses language that recalls the original decree of descent and salvation.¹³ This is particularly appropriate, considering that the lines right before the midrash in the Haggadah speak of the covenant.
• Context of thanksgiving – Finally, Bemidbar's context is one of asking for a favor while the context of Devarim 26 is one of expressing gratitude, a theme more in line with the holiday.¹⁴

Fulfillment of story-telling requirements

The passage from Devarim fits many of the instructions given in the Torah and Mishnah regarding how one should tell the story.

Sources:AbarbanelCommentary on Haggadah Shel PesachAbout R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,R. D"Z HoffmannDevarim 26:3About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

"וְהִגַּדְתָּ" – R. D"Z Hoffmann points out that when bringing first fruits, the Israelite begins his recitation by saying, "הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם" much like the command, "וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא".

"מתחיל בגנות..." – Abarbanel points out that the Bikkurim text is an apt choice for thanksgiving since it begins with denigration and ends with praise, just as suggested by the Mishnah.

"וְעָנִיתָ" – On Pesach, one is meant to tell the story not just to one's self but to others as well. As such, it is not surprising that the question–answer format is characteristic of much of the Seder. The Bikkurim ceremony which involved a telling in the presence of another (the priest) and which opens, "וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ" seemed an appropriate choice of text.

¹ R. Silber, in The Passover Haggadah: Go Forth and Learn (Philadelphia, 2011): 1-16, adds that if the obligation is to re-experience, rather than simply remember, this connotes a retelling that is combined with actions and visuals such as the eating of matzah or maror. As such, the retelling drawn from the Bikkurim ceremony is an apt one, since it too combines speech with food and actions. Cf. Abarbanel who compares the Seder plate to the basket of first fruit, suggesting that on Pesach one praises Hashem as he holds the plate much like the bringer of first fruits held his basket and thanked God.

² See his commentary to The Passover Haggadah, (New York, 1983): 71-72.

³ See the many verses which reference the Exodus when speaking of caring for the sojourner, orphan or widow such as Shemot 22:20, Shemot 23:9, Devarim 5:14-15, Devarim 15:14-15, and Devarim 16:11-12.]

⁴ Shemuel and Zev Safrai, Haggadat Chazal, (Jerusalem, 1998): 128-129.

⁵ The Mishnah even claims that since so many people stopped bringing first fruits so as not to admit that they could not read, at some point it was instituted that the text should be dictated to all. Shemuel and Zev Safrai (see above note) also point out that even one who knew how to read would not necessarily have been more familiar with this text than any other since it is likely that most people did not bring first fruits more than once a year. The Tosefta Pesachim 10:8 speaks of people who did not even know how to recite hallel which is sung 18 times a year!

⁶ One might suggest, though, that originally each head of household was meant to explain the verses as he liked without a set text.

⁷ R. Soloveichik, שיעורים לזכר אבא מורי, vol. 2, (Jerusalem, 2002): 156-157, elaborates that in choosing a short text, the sages emphasized that the goal is not the text itself but the meaning one is supposed to draw out of it. The seder participants are meant to delve into and study the verses, not just recite them.

⁸ Though one could have culled just a few verses from the various chapters of Shemot, Devarim 26 already had the entire story in one continuous passage.

⁹ See R. D"Z Hoffmann (שו"ת מלמד להועיל ג':ס"ה) who asserts that it was only after the Temple's destruction that the verse was omitted because it was understood by the homily in the Sifrei to refer not just to the Land of Israel but to the Temple specifically. Cf. David Henshke Sidra 4, who suggests that though those who remained in Israel continued to say the verse even after the destruction, it was omitted by the Jews of Bavel who felt uncomfortable speaking of arriving in Israel while they were in exile.

¹⁰ See his commentary to The Passover Haggadah, (New York, 1983): 76-77.

¹¹ His discussion is not in the context of the differences between Bemidbar and Devarim but it nonetheless suggests a reason for the choice of the Devarim text.

¹² Cf. R. Silber who notes the connection between the texts and elaborates on its significance for the larger Exodus narrative.

¹³ A list of the parallels follows:

• גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם – וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגׇר שָׁם
• עֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה – וַיְעַנּוּנוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה... וַיַּרְא אֶת עׇנְיֵנוּ
• וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל – וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ ה' מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה
• וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה  – וַיְבִאֵנוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה

¹⁴ See AbarbanelCommentary on Haggadah Shel PesachAbout R. Yitzchak Abarbanel who emphasizes this shared aspect of gratitude.