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. Riskin 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.²

Familiar Text

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

Sources:Goldschmidt

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 Safrai 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.³

Was מקרא ביכורים really familiar? The Mishnah in Bikkurim 3:7 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.⁴ Moreover, even if the verses themselves were known, it is highly unlikely that laymen were acquainted with the derashot expounding upon them.⁵

Brief Summary

Devarim 26 was a concise retelling that still managed to incorporate the essential points of the story.

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 Shemot⁶ so a shorter version of the story was chosen.⁷

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 choice 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 learning⁸ 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. Riskin 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.⁹ 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...".
• 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.¹⁰

Fulfillment of story-telling requirements

"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 mikra bikkurim 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. Thus, too, the mikra bikkurim 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 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 with 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 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.]

³ See p. 128 there.

⁴ 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!

⁵ One might suggest, though, that originally each head of household was meant to explain the verses as he liked.

⁶ R. Soloveichik, שיעורים לזכר אבא מורי, vol. 2, (Jerusalem, 2002): 156-157, elaborates that choosing a short text 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.

⁷ Though one could have culled just a few verses from the various chapters, Devarim 26 already had the entire story in one continuous passage.

⁸ See R. D"Z Hoffmann (בשו"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.

⁹ His discussion is not in the context of the differences between Bemidbar and Devarim but nonetheless suggests a reason for the choice of the Devarim text.

¹⁰ See Abarbanel who emphasizes this shared aspect of gratitude.