12

Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
Davar Acher:
On Dual Narratives
in the Haggadah
1

Rabbi Shmuel Hain
Rabbi, Young Israel Ohab Zedek of North Riverdale/Yonkers
Rosh Beit Midrash, SAR High School and Rosh Kollel, YU/SAR High School Kollel

On the significance of expounding Arami Oved Avi
The Pesach Haggadah centers on the exposition of the biblical passage of Arami Oved Avi
My father was a wandering Aramean (Devarim 26:5-8).
2
This sons-less and song-less section of
Maggid is often sped through, unexamined, due to its textual density. Rambam (Laws of
Chametz and Matzah 7:4), however, formulates this exegetical exercise in a manner that
challenges us to pay careful attention to these verses and their midrashic elucidation:
One must begin (telling the story of the Exodus) with disgrace and
conclude with praisethis requires one to expound from Arami
Oved Avi until one completes the entire portion. And anyone who
adds to and expounds excessively on the exegesis of this
portion, this is to be praised.
,
... "
" ,
;
, .

1
This article is adapted from a Shabbat HaGadol drasha delivered at Young Israel Ohab Zedek on Shabbat HaGadol
5773. It was dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Herschel Schacter zl, who passed away on erev Shabbat HaGadol. I
would like to acknowledge the many helpful comments and suggestions of YIOZ congregants and the YU/SAR HS
Kollel Fellows on an earlier draft, which have been incorporated into this article.
2
See Mishnah, Pesachim 10:4: He begins with disgrace and ends with praise, and he expounds from My father was a
wandering Aramean until he finishes the entire section. Numerous scholarly works and articles have examined this
mishnah and its subsequent interpretation, including the question of verse 9 and its original inclusion at the seder. See,
among others, the sources cited recently in: Mitchell First, Arami Oved Avi: Uncovering the Interpretation Hidden in
the Mishnah, Hakirah 13 (Spring 2012), p. 127 note 1: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol13First.pdf. Even more recently,
Professor David Henshke has comprehensively examined the relationship between this mishnah and the other
mishnayyot in Pesachim which detail Maggid, as well as the development of both the Haggadah and the seder ritual as a
whole. See David Henshke, On the Strata in the Passover Haggadah in the Mishnah, (Hebrew) Tarbiz 81 (2013) p.
25-45- http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/upload/_FILE_1378043981.pdf; David Henshke, Seudat Leil HaSeder: Bein Hallel
LHaggadah (Hebrew), Shoshannat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, eds. Shai Secunda
and Steven Fine (2012) pp. 1-27 (Hebrew section). This article draws from much of this previous scholarship,
especially that of Henshke.
13
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
For Rambam, reciting these verses and their exegesis should not be viewed as a pro-forma act to
be discharged; rather, it represents an opportunity to analyze and expound upon the central text
of the seder, a particularly praiseworthy undertaking not to be overlooked.
Following Rambams charge, this article will examine the final verse (Devarim 26:8) from the
biblical passage cited in the Haggadah:
The Lord brought us forth from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an
outstretched arm, and with awesome power, and by signs, and by
portents.
'
.

Through an analysis of the Haggadahs unique exegesis of this verse we will:
1. Expand, expound, and explicate a fixed and opaque portion of the Haggadahs text.
2. Understand and appreciate the formula of begin with disgrace and conclude with praise, as
well as how the exegesis of Arami Oved Avi advances this narrative device.
3. Uncover and reveal an alternative narrative embedded in Maggid, a narrative that yields a
different way of reading, understanding, and experiencing the Exodus from Egypt.
Two Midrashic traditions
The text of our Haggadah reads as follows:
3

1. "With a mighty hand," this refers to the dever
(pestilence) as it is said: "Behold, the hand of the Lord will
be upon your livestock in the field, upon the horses, the
donkeys, the camels, the herds and the flocks, a very severe
pestilence."
2. "And with an outstretched arm," this refers to the
sword, as it is said: "His sword was drawn, in his hand,
stretched out over Jerusalem."
3. "And with awesome power," this refers to the revelation
of the Divine Presence, as it is said: "Has any God ever
tried to take for himself a nation from the midst of another
nation, with trials, signs and wonders, with war and with a
strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with great
manifestations, like all that the Lord your God, did for you
in Egypt before your eyes!"
4. "And with signs," this refers to the staff, as it is said:
"Take into your hand this staff with which you shall
1 . - ,
:
, , ,
, ,
) . : (
2 . - ,
: ,
) . ,
: (
3 . - ,
:

,
,
,
) .
: (
4 . - , :
,

3
The exegesis immediately preceding this, on the first words of verse 8: The Lord brought us forth from Egypt,
has occupied much scholarly interest, partially due to it not appearing in all early versions of the Haggadah, and
primarily because it emphasizes Gods role in the Exodus to the exclusion of all agents, including Moshe. See, for
example, David Arnow, The Passover Haggadah: Moses and the Human Role in Redemption Judaism Vol. 55
(2006), pp. 4-27, http://www.ajcongress.org/site/DocServer/Thepassoverhaggadah.pdf?docID=2122 and David
Henshke, 'The Lord Brought Us forth From Egypt On the Absence of Moses in the Passover Haggadah, AJS
Review 31:1 (April 2007), pp. 61-73.
14
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
perform the signs."
5. "And with wonders," this refers to the blood, as it is said:
And I shall show wonders in heaven and on earth: blood,
and fire, and pillars of smoke.
Another explanation: "Strong hand" indicates two
[plagues]; "Outstretched arm," another two; "Great
manifestation," another two; "Signs," another two; and
"Wonders," another two. These are the Ten Plagues which
the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the
Egyptians
) . : (
5 . - , :
,
) . : (
: - ,
- , -
, - ,
- .

, ...

Note that this passage is distinguished by being the only section for which the Haggadah offers
two different exegeses, as indicated by the phrase davar acher. This sui generis phenomenon is
perplexing. Why did the compiler of the Haggadah not choose one drasha in this case? Indeed,
some early versions of the Haggadah contain only the second drasha.
4

Moreover, the second exposition, at first glance, should be the preferred drasha as it is
straightforward, while the first is highly problematic. According to the davar acher, the verse
describing the manner in which the Israelites were brought out of Egypt is alluding to the ten
plagues. While the count of ten is midrashic (5 x 2, leading to a host of other multiples of plagues
in the Haggadah), understanding the verse as referring to the plagues corresponds with the
simple meaning of the text and is attested to by other biblical verses.
5

The first exegesis, by contrast, is puzzling from start to finish for several reasons. First, what
makes the plagues of dever/pestilence and dam/blood (numbers 1 and 5 above) worthy of being
singled out from the other plagues and specifically mentioned at the beginning and end of the
exposition? Second, why is the sword (#2) relevant when it is not mentioned anywhere in the
biblical description of the plagues? Third, what is the significance of the term giluy
Shekhina/Divine Revelation (#3) and how does it contribute to the exegesis of the verse?
6

Fourth, the connection between the matteh/staff and the signs (#4) is tenuous, at best, since
the staff was only involved in a few of the plagues. Furthermore, understanding the signs as

4
See Shmuel and Zev Safrai, Haggadat Hazal (Hebrew) (1998) p. 143; Jay Rovner, A New Version of the Eres
Israel Haggadah Liturgy and the Evolution of the Eres Israel Miqra Bikkurim Midrash, Jewish Quarterly Review
92:3,4 (2002) p. 427.
5
See, for example, Devarim 6:21-22: We were slaves to Pharoah in Egypt and the Lord freed us from Egypt with a
mighty hand. The Lord wrought marvelous and destructive signs and portents in Egypt, against Pharoah and his
entire household before our eyes.
6
An additional problem with the exegesis of uvemora gadoland with awesome power is that the derivation of
mora from mareh (understood to be the revelation of the Shekhinah) instead of from yirah (awe), is unsupported
by the verse cited as a proof text from Devarim 4:34 which merely repeats the wording of mora. This problem is
beyond the scope of this article as it touches upon the two different midrashic genres present and intermingled
throughout the exegesis of this passage in the Haggadah: explanatory exegesis and mere citation of parallel verses.
See E. E. Urbachs review of Goldschmidt, The Passover Haggadah: Its Sources and History (Hebrew), Kiryat
Sefer 36 (1961) pp. 145-146; David Henshke, The Midrash of Arami Oved Avi (Hebrew), Sidra 4 (1988) pp. 33-
52; and, most relevant to this particular exegesis, see David Henshke, By a Mighty Hand: an explication of the
exegesis of the Passover Haggadah, Kenishta 4 (2010), pp. 11-27, and especially pages 22-27.
15
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
referring to the staff is strange since the staff was merely the instrument which brought about
several plagues and not the signs themselves!
7

Proposed solutions in the Rishonim
8

These questions on the first midrash are based on an important assumption, shared by nearly all
of the Rishonim in their commentaries on the Haggadah. These commentators viewed the first
and second midrashim as fundamentally similar:
Until now (the first midrash, prior to davar acher) the
verse was interpreted and it proved a few of the plagues
that the Egyptians suffered; and now, it (the davar acher
in the midrash) wishes to prove all ten plagues that
afflicted the Egyptians
Commentary of Shibolei HaLeket on the Haggadah
(R. Tzidkiyah b. Avraham HaRofei, 13
th
c. Italy)
' . '


.
. .
. .
) '
( ,

Given the central premise that the first midrash, like the davar acher, refers to the ten plagues
visited upon the Egyptians, Rishonim brought to bear all of their creative ingenuity and
extensive knowledge of midrashic literature to tackle each of the difficulties raised above. The
Shibolei HaLeket, for example, quotes his brother who employed gematria to explain why the
plagues of blood and pestilence ( and equal 250, the total number of plagues at the
Splitting of the Sea, according to one opinion cited later in the Haggadah) are singled out in the
midrash. Additionally, he cites an Amoraic midrash (Tehillim Rabbah 78:16, see parallels cited in
Torah Shleimah Shemot 7:105), which states that each plague was accompanied by dever, thus
justifying its special mentioning (but not the singling out of blood).
As to the relevance of the sword, Shibolei HaLeket offers two explanations. The first posits that
cherev refers not to an actual sword, but rather to the Shem haMeforash (the Tetragrammaton),
which Moshe invoked as his verbal weapon to perform the plagues. A second explanation, citing
another late midrashic tradition, advances the eye-opening view that an actual plague of swords
was visited upon Egypt by their own firstborn children. According to this legend, the first-born

7
Scholars have focused on two midrashic texts to try to resolve some of the difficulties in the Haggadahs exegesis. 1.
Several scholars have proposed that that the compiler of the Haggadah transferred some of this exegesis (specifically
dever and cherev) from the Sifre in Bamidbar (paragraph 115). See, for example, E. D. Goldschmidt, The Passover
Haggadah: its sources and history (Hebrew), (1960) p. 46 and Safrai and Safrai, Haggadat Hazal, p. 141, and, most
recently, Joshua Kulp, The Schechter Haggadah: Art, History, and Commentary (2009). However, in addition to not
solving all of the difficulties in our midrash, it is more likely, as David Henshke explains (By a Mighty Hand, pp.
15-18), that the Sifre transferred these citations from the Haggadah! 2. Two of the difficulties raised in the
Haggadahs midrash are resolved by Midrash Tannaim (Devraim 26:5) via two changes to the text. First, a different
verse for mora, which references seeing Gods hand at the Splitting of the Sea (Shemot 14:31), is substituted for
Devarim 4:34. Second, the exegesis for and with wonders, does not refer just to the plague of Blood but to all ten
plagues. However, as noted by Henshke (ibid. notes 8-10), these emendations implicitly attest to the difficulties of
our original version of the midrash and do not appear in any versions of the Haggadah.
8
All of the commentaries of the Rishonim to the Haggadah cited herein can be found in Mordekhai Leib
Katzenelenbogen, Haggadah shel Pesach: Torat Chayyim (1998), pp. 110-125.
16
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
used swords to kill their own family members on the night of the Exodus for refusing to let the
Israelites out. The Raavan (R Eliezer ben Natan, 12
th
c. Mainz) suggests a third possibility, that the
sword is a reference to the actual plague of the firstborn who were struck down by swords.
In discussing the exegesis of and with signs as referring to the staff, several commentators (see
Torat Chayyim pp. 116-117) explain the association as based on the fact that through the staff,
the plagues were performed. This explanation just reinforces the question of why the instrument
is singled out as opposed to the actual signs themselves. A number of other commentators
(ibid.) explain, based on an Amoraic midrash, that the staff had the mnemonic of all ten plagues
written on it thus explaining the exegesis.
Each of the suggestions raised by the Rishonim is intriguing and requires further research.
9
Yet
each explanation remains problematic for a variety of reasons, including the fact that many are
rooted in midrashim which post-date the composition of the Tannaitic midrash found in the
Haggadah. Moreover, each suggestion on its own fails to account for all of the difficulties we have
raised. Most significant, even were we to combine all of the answers together to resolve each
difficulty with the five elements of the first midrash, they would offer no coherent explanation for
the first midrash as a whole. Set opposite the more comprehensive and straightforward davar
acher, the first midrash appears to be an unnecessary exegetical hodgepodge. Why, then, did the
compiler of the Haggadah include this midrash in the first place?
A new approach to the first midrash
In order to explicate each of the parts of the first midrash, as well as to appreciate its underlying
message and its reason for inclusion in the Haggadah, we need to reassess its relationship with
the second midrash. Is the davar acher merely an alternative take on the same general idea as the
first midrash, as assumed thus far, or does it perhaps signal a fundamentally different reading of
the verse? If so, what is this other focus of the first midrash?
A clue to a whole new understanding of the first midrashs exegesis can be found in a comment
of R Aharon haKohen (14
th
c. Provence) in his Orchot Chayyim, on the very last piece of the
midrash (p. 117 in Haggadat Torat Chayyim):
"And with wonders," this refers to the blood, to explain: this
does not refer to the plague of blood visited upon the river;
rather it refers to the blood on the land when he (Moshe)
performed the signs before (lit. in the eyes of) the people. For
through that very sign, all of Israel believed in him.
" - :"



.

According to Orchot Chayyim, the midrash regarding dam is not referring to the plague visited
upon the Egyptians, but to one of the signs that Moshe was commanded to perform for Bnei
Yisrael so that they would believe in him and in the mission to fulfill their covenantal destiny by

9
See Torat Chayyim p. 115-116 for an explanation suggested by several Rishonim to the giluy Shekhina exegesis.
The commentaries point to the end of the verse (Devarim 4:34) not cited in the Haggadah, which includes the
word leeinekhabefore your eyes to find a connection to sight, or moraim. See David Henshke (ibid. note 10)
for the problematic nature of this suggestion.
17
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
leaving Egypt. Indeed, a verse in Shemot (4:9), well before the account of the plague of blood,
describes this gambit:
And if they will not believe even these two signs, neither
hearken unto thy voice, thou shalt take of the water of the
river, and pour it upon the dry land; and the water which thou
take out of the river shall become blood upon dry land.


,
.

Later on in the chapter (4:30-31), the Torah attests to the fact that Moshe carried out these
instructions and that the Israelites, for the moment, were galvanized to believe in him and in
their imminent redemption.
Following through with this insight of Orchot Chayyim is the key to unlocking the seemingly
puzzling and disjointed elements of the entire midrash. We will examine each piece in reverse
order from the blood exegesis. The preceding line associates the signs with the staff of
Moshe. Once we have suggested, as per Orchot Chayyim, that the midrash is not referring to the
plagues visited upon the Egyptians, but to the ingredients needed to convince the Israelites of
the veracity of Moshes prophecy, the staff is not a peripheral instrument but constitutes the
signs themselves! Recall, the staff was used by Moshe to perform the signs for the Israelites,
long before any plague brought on Egypt was commanded.
10
As the proof text (Shemot 4:17)
cited in the midrash states:
And take with you this staff, with which you shall
perform the signs.
11

.


The puzzling third piece of the midrash: and awesome powerthis refers to the revelation of
the Shekhina, can now be understood given the different focus of the exegesis. The midrash is not
stating that God revealed his Shekhina to the Egyptians via the plagues; the subject of the midrash,
rather, is the Jewish people themselvesor at the very least their leadersto whom the Divine
Presence was revealed in Egypt.
12
As the verse in Shmuel (I Shmuel 2:27) explicitly states:
And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him: 'Thus
saith the LORD: Did I reveal Myself unto the house of thy father,
when they were in Egypt in bondage to Pharaoh's house?
13


'
.

10
This, in fact, is the explanation of the Peirush Kadmon in the Torat Chayyim Haggadah, pp. 116-117. On the
identity of the author of this commentary, see the editors introduction pp. 8-9.
11
Interestingly, the midrash does not mention the other sign given to Moshe to convince the people, namely the
tsaraat on his hand. This fits with both the specific formulation of the proof text (the staff was not involved in the
sign of tsaraat) and with the Haggadahs aim to totally exclude mention of Moshe (see note 3 above).
12
This is consistent with the assumption of Mekhilta (Shemot 12:1), which questions whether the Shekhina can be
revealed outside of Israel, to prophets like Moshe and Aharon. The midrash does not contemplate the Shekhina being
revealed to the Egyptians! See also Sifre Zuta on Bamidbar 10:35 and Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai on Shemot 3:8.
13
One could also suggest that the revelation referred to by the midrash is not limited to the house of Eli (namely
Moshe and Aharon), but to the fact that God makes Himself known, albeit through Moshe, to all of Bnei Yisrael in
Egypt by a new name, as per Shemot 6:3-4.
18
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
The crux of the first midrash, that the Jewish people required proofs and other coercive
measures to be redeemed from Egypt, is most dramatically attested to by the first two pieces of
the midrash. Dever and cherev in this reading are not plagues brought on the Egyptians, but
threats needed to induce the Jewish people to leave to serve God. Remarkably, before any of the
ten plagues, there is an explicit verse in the Torah which states this (Shemot 5:3):
And they said: 'The God of the Hebrews hath met with us. Let us
go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, and
sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest He strike us with
pestilence, or with the sword.
14



'
.

This verse serves as the basis for the entire midrash: without a mighty handnamely
pestilence that would have stricken the Jewish people, and an outstretched armthe threat of
the swordwe may never have left Egypt. These threats, coupled with the awesome power,
signs, and wonders(the revelation of the Shekhina, the staff, and the sign of blood, respectively)
ensured their redemption. According to this midrash, the Jewish people, left to its own devices,
may never have gone out from Egypt.
We now can appreciate the fundamentally different (though not necessarily mutually exclusive)
points of view projected by the two sets of exegesis. The first midrash is no longer a partial list of
calamities that befell the Egyptians, but a more sobering catalog of what we needed imposed on
us in order to get out. While both midrashim engender thanks for salvation, the first midrash
zeroes in on the shortcomings of the Israelites and the forces marshaled against them, while the
davar acher focuses on what was done to the Egyptians in the course of redemption.
15

Narratives at the Seder
Now that two essentially dissimilar midrashic traditions have been uncovered within the
Haggadahs dual (and, perhaps, dueling) exegesis of the final verse of Arami Oved Avi, we may
contemplate the significance of this phenomenon and its inclusion in the canonical ritual of the
seder. Our understanding of the first midrash highlights an unpleasant truth about the Exodus.
Basically, the first midrash maligns the Jewish people. This harsh reality may seem incongruous
with the festive atmosphere of the seder. Indeed, this may be one reason why the commentators

14
One commentator (R Shimon ben Tzemach Duran (Algiers 14
th
c.) cites this verse in his commentary (Torat
Chayyim p. 112), but in line with Amoraic midrashim (see Torah Shleimah on Shemot 5:3, paragraph 30) he
explains that this verse refers to Pharoah: We do not find amongst the plagues in Egypt any mention of sword. And
it appears that it is mentioned in what they said to Pharaoh, lest He fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.
What they meant to say, lest He fall upon you, but because of respect for royalty they said fall upon us. Therefore,
we see in the plagues of Egypt that they were scared with the sword.
15
There are two textual reasons why this compelling explication of the first midrash was overlooked. 1. The very
first drasha regarding the mighty hand of dever cites the verse of the plague dever as its proof text. Though the text
is merely cited to link the phrase yad chazaka with dever, and not to posit that dever refers to the plague, the proof
text misdirects the reader. 2. This explication of the midrash is further obscured by the midrashic material preceding
it (which refers to Gods exclusive role in the plague of the firstborn) and succeeding it (about the ten plagues as a
whole). Both of these pieces of exegesis focus on what God did to the Egyptians through the plagues, leading to the
midrash in between being misunderstood. The body of the article will suggest a third, more conceptual, reason for
overlooking this compelling interpretation of the midrash.
19
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
assumed the midrash to be referring to the plagues of the Egyptians.
16
However, much biblical
and rabbinic evidence supports the alternative narrative of our midrash. The verse in Shemot
(6:9) expresses that the Israelites did not listen to Moshe, following the initial setback when he
first appeared before Pharoah. While commentators debate the root cause and precise definition
of the kotzer ruachweakness of spirit which plagued the Jewish people at the time, the
prophet Yechezkel (20:8) explicitly states that God sought to wipe out all of Israel in Egypt due
to their refusal to serve God and sever their connection with Egypts idols:
But they rebelled against Me, and would not hearken unto Me;
they did not every man cast away the detestable things of their
eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt; then I said I
would pour out My fury upon them, to spend My anger upon
them in the midst of the land of Egypt.
- , --
- , -
;
, ,
, .

Early midrashic literature goes even further. According to Mekhilta (petichata to Vayehi), much
of the Israelite population (with estimates ranging from four-fifths to 499/500) was wiped out
while still in Egypt! Mekhilta (Mesikta dPischa, paragraph 5) also dramatically records that it was
only at the final, fateful moment that the remaining fraction summoned the spiritual fortitude to
finally reject Egyptian paganism and merit the redemption via the korban Pesach.
17

With the two distinct narratives of midrash Arami Oved Avi explicated and clearly necessary, we
can now more fully appreciate the richness of the seders storytelling device encapsulated in the
Mishnahs phrase matchil bgenut umsayyem bshevach. Upon closer examination, the
disgrace/shame and praise/glory at the seder are not presented in a linear or fairy-tale fashion.
Instead, the story is imparted in a manner matching reality. It is told in a complex, nuanced, and
oscillating fashion, moving between moments of ignominy and triumph. Within Maggid we
detail how we were slaves and then redeemed. We then shift gears to describe our lowly lineage
of paganism followed by the spiritual apex of receiving the Torah and worshiping God at Sinai.
And finally, embedded at the very end of the Arami Oved Avi exegesis are two midrashim which
are themselves a microcosm of the first shame (the first midrash) and then praise (the davar
acher midrash) movement and dialectic. Together, the two sets of exegesis on the last verse
underscore the warts and all, multi-dimensional, and non-monochromatic narrative of the
birth of the Jewish people.
18

16
A similar phenomenon may be traced in the interpretation of arami oved avi as referring to Lavan, rather than the
more straightforward reading that it refers to our forefathers. See sources in note 2 at length.
17
It is even possible to suggest that the purpose of the first nine plagues was not merely to punish Pharoah and the
Egyptians while making God known to them, but also to restore and fortify Bnei Yisraels faith. Note the verses in
Shemot 4:21-24, which reference the final plague of the firstborn prior to any of the other plagues. While some
commentators interpreted this as mere foreshadowing, the simple reading of the verses suggests that had Bnei
Yisrael been up to the challenge, the commandment of korban Pesach and the events of the night of the Exodus
could have taken place much earlier. According to this view, the narrative of davar acher detailing the ten plagues
also constitutes a critique, albeit an almost imperceptible one, of Bnei Yisrael.
18
There are additional hints to other sources of genut in the haggadah which further enrich the story. See Gilad J.
Gevaryahu & Michael Wise, Why Does the Seder Begin with Karpas? Jewish Bible Quarterly vol. 27, no. 2 (1999),
pp. 104-110. The article proposes the interesting theory that the dipping of the karpas originally alluded to the
20
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series Nissan 5774
Ultimately, the seder and its accompanying textthe Haggadahis the finest rabbinic example
of an orchestrated, oscillating narrative. It is a story that through its telling and retelling by
families for over two millennia, has perpetuated the Jewish story. In the words of Rambam, all
who expand and expound upon the passage of Arami Oved Avi and its exegesis are indeed
praiseworthy.
19

dipping of Yosefs ketonet passim in blood, the event that led to the slavery in Egypt. For other allusions to the rift
between the brothers and Yosef at the seder see that article and the commentary of the Rashbatz on the Haggadah
(Torat Chayyim p. 44): And now, the answer to the question Mah Nishtanah is we were slaves to Pharoah in
Egypt. And our Rabbis taught that one should begin with disgrace and the disgrace is based on what the midrash
states: You sold your brother Joseph as a slave, by your lives you will have to recite each year we were slaves to
Pharoah in Egypt. And the glory is that just like Joseph became King, so too we are freed Many other narratives
in Breishit enhance the story of the seder. See, for example, the commentaries of Ramban (Breishit 12:10) and
Radak (Breishit 16:6). For further study along these lines, see Yair Zakovich, And You Shall Tell Your Son The
Concept of the Exodus in the Bible (Jerusalem: 1991) and David Silber, A Passover Haggadah: Go Forth and Learn
(Philadelphia: 2011).
19
When delivering this drasha, I developed two additional themes. 1. Oscillating movement is not only
characteristic of the Haggadahs recounting of the Jewish national story, recent research of social scientists has
demonstrated the critical importance of a strong family narrative, and especially an oscillating (non fairy-tale) one,
for the development of strong, resilient children. For a summary of this research, see Bruce Feiler, The Stories that
Bind Us, The New York Times, March 15, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/fashion/the-family-
stories-that-bind-us-this-life.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 2. The value of transmitting even the unpleasant truths
regarding our national history at the seder is relevant to the larger question of truth, memory and history. See, R Dr.
J. J. Schachter, Facing the Truths of History, The Torah U-Madda Journal, vol. 8, pp. 200-276, for an important
overview of this topic.