God Keeps His Promise to Jacob...

Baruch Shomer Haftachato:

God's Promise to Jacob

Translator's Introduction

Rabbi Bondi offers a different line of interpretation regarding God's promise. He suggests that the promise was not the 'Covenant of the Pieces' (Genesis 15) made to Abraham but the promise God made to Jacob just before he went down to Egypt to see Joseph. For Rabbi Bondi Abraham's promise doesn’t seem like much of a promise: God tells him that his ancestors will be enslaved and oppressed in a land not their own, but eventually will leave with great wealth. God, on the other hand, reassures Jacob at Beersheba: God tells him not to worry and that He will go down with the people to Egypt. Our commentator interpret these words, "Praised is the One who keeps His promise," in this context.

Finally, there is one other significance difference in Bondi's interpretation. The 'great wealth' that Israel takes from Egypt is not the goods they plunder but the commandments they receive from God. Unlike most commentators, Rabbi Bondi sees Israel as worthy of redemption rather than lost on the brink of oblivion, about to descend into the fiftieth level of impurity. This was Jacob's fear but, according to Rabbi Bondi, the years of slavery actually made Israel stronger.

Translation

Why do we say that God kept his promise with 'Israel'? Didn’t God make this promise to Abraham? Israel refers to the promise that God made to Grandfather Israel (Yisrael Saba), that is, our forefather, Jacob. Jacob was aware of the decree which God had made to Abraham: "Your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and afflicted for four hundred years…" (Genesis 15:13) Egypt is not explicitly mentioned in this passage because God turns freedom of choice over to human being. (That is, the land that Israel would land up in was not determined only that it would happen.) Still, the verse alludes to Egypt for Joseph transferred the Egyptians from place to place throughout the land so that they would not consider the land their inheritance. He was trying to avoid Egypt becoming the land of Israel's subjugation. This what the commentators suggest the expression, "A land not their own," means. The land did not belong to the Egyptians.

Because of this decree, our forefather Jacob was fearful of going down to Egypt. Egypt was the most despicable lands. Jacob felt that if his family had to spend four hundred years they would sink into the impurity of the Egyptians and would no longer be worthy of being redeemed. It was for this reason that God said: "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt. I will go down with you." (Gen 46:3) Wherever Israel is exiled, the Divine Presence is with them. " I will also go up with up with you…" (Gen. 46:4) God  also reassured Jacob, "I will not allow your children to sink into the fiftieth level of impurity.

Jacob also hinted to his children that they would not be in Egypt more than two hundred and ten years when he said to them, "Go down (r'du)[1] to Egypt (see Rashi on Gen. 42:10)  God agreed to this, and along with God's promise Jacob was reassured. It was through the furnace of oppression in Egypt that Israel was refined and prepared to receive the Torah. It did not turn out as Jacob thought; he believed the people would deteriorate there and that is why he was afraid. The thoughts of the Holy One are mysterious. For instead of sinning, Israel was refined like silver until they finally sanctified the name of God in Egypt, at the sea, and in the wilderness.

But the decree was four hundred years enslaved! What did the Holy One do? He made the yoke of servitude more severe so that they would complete the four hundred years sooner rather than later. They were refined more quickly in this way, so that Israel was enslaved only half the time. This is the meaning of, "Praised is the one who keeps his promise to Israel." God told Jacob not to be afraid - and "He recalculated the end," of servitude - the amount of time in Egypt, shortening their exile by 190 years. This is the meaning of the expression, "God calculated the end (ketz)[2]."  Even though they were only slaves 210 years it was as if they were there a full 400 years.

"They went forth with great wealth." The word great appears to be superfluous in this verse. It could have said, "They went forth with wealth." They were so refined by the suffering of Egypt that they not only left with material wealth from the Egyptians (silver, gold and clothing), but they were worthy of receiving an even greater possession: the commandments of Passover and Circumcision. They were also worthy of receiving the Torah at Sinai which is our greatest possession.

---

[1] The word r'du has the numerical value of 210; it is commonly used in Egypt as the proof text for the 210 years of slavery.

[2] The word ketz has a numerical value of 198. God calculated the ketz so that the time in Egypt would be 190 years shorter, but what was removed in quantity, they made up for in severity.

The Israelites Emulating Abraham

Israel Emulates the Actions of Abraham

Translator's Introduction

Earlier we saw that there are two ways of telling the story of the Exodus: as a political story of liberation (we were slaves; now we are free); and as a spiritual story of enlightenment (We were idolaters; but God brought us closer to His service). Rabbi Bondi now integrates the two versions of the Exodus story into one. Israel is enslaved because they worshipped idols. But they do not deserve condemnation - so did Abraham. And like Abraham when they discovered the true faith they were willing to martyr themselves to maintain their beliefs. This is why they were worthy of redemption.

Translation

The author of the Haggadah now returns to the four questions. We began answering  these questions with, "We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt." This is a day of contrasts representing slavery and freedom.

The author then left the main topic of the Haggadah in order to present the Midrash of the four children, since it relates to the commandment of telling the story of the Exodus. Having completed this explanation, we now return to matters that relate to the symbols of slavery and freedom. We begin with matzah, a symbol of slavery, to remember that we were subjugated by the Egyptian. Why were we enslaved? Because we worshipped idols.  The Haggadah continues, "Long ago our ancestors worshipped idols…" Yet didn’t our ancestors also worship idols in Egypt? Why do we speak of Abraham as a worshipper of idols here?

The Haggadah continues, "And the Omnipresent brought them close to His service." You might feel that the fact that our ancestors worshipped idols in Egypt is an accusation against them, so the Haggadah quotes the book of Joshua: "And I brought forth your father Abraham…" Even though Abraham was worshipped idols with his father Terah he was worthy of redemption. When Abraham recognized the unity of God, he was willing to risk martyrdom in the fiery furnace.

What happened to patriarchs was repeated in future generations. When the Israelites in Egypt saw God's signs and wonders, even though they were blemished by idolatry, they cast off their impure garments and became believers who maintained their faith at risk to their lives. They rejected the attributes and deeds of Egypt, tied the Passover lamb to their bed posts so that the Egyptians could see. They circumcised themselves so that the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover offering mixed together. Is there any martyrdom greater than this? (They risked their lives in the face of the Egyptians and even shed their own blood.)  The Israelites were enslaved to the Egyptians and yet they were willing to cast off the yoke of slavery and risk their lives. Only then did they slaughter the Passover lamb and roast it. In this way the Israelites emulated the actions of Abraham. Because of their acts of faith, they were worthy of being redeemed from Egypt. That is why, "God brought them near."

The Child Who Does Not Know How to Ask

"You shall tell your Child on that day:"

Answering the Child who Doesn’t Know How to Ask

Translator's Introduction

A continuing theme in Rabbi Bondi's Haggadah is how to addresses the people of his generation: those who are assimilated and who have become associated with divergent liberal groups in the Jewish community.  Even though the answer to the child who does not know how to ask is similar to the answer that is given to the wicked child, Rabbi Bondi makes a point of saying that the silent child is not guilty like his wicked counterpart. How do we explain the common use of Exodus 13:8? The Haggadah only uses the second half of this verse in chastising the wicked child. By beginning with the first half of the verse for the child who doesn’t know how to ask, the Haggadah changes the tone and implications of this verse.

What does Rabbi Bondi tell us about this child? He says that the child who does not know how to ask is unfamiliar with his ancestors and he doesn’t identify with Jewish history personally. As a result, he might take the story of the Exodus as 'mere parable' and not historical fact. That is why his father answers by telling the story as if he personally experienced it: "The Lord took me out of Egypt;" that way, when the child hears the story, he will feel an emotional attachment to what happened to his own parent. Rabbi Bondi implies that the child who doesn’t know how to ask is an assimilated Jew who has no connection to his past - the story must be told in a way that will created such an attachment.

Finally, Rabbi Bondi shares another interpretation of Exodus 13:8 from Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, author of the Sh'nai Luchot HaBerit. Rabbi Horowitz lived from 1565-1630 and was a renowned Kabbalist - though there is no Kabbalah in this particular interpretation. The verse, he suggests, applies to the moment when the Passover offering is made. Concentrating on sacrifice, the father still has an obligation to answer his son's questions, though he can reassure him that a fuller explanation will be offered later during the meal. Participation in the  sacrificial cult demands concentration. He cannot afford to be distracted while bringing the Pesah offering.

Translation

Regarding the child who doesn’t know how to ask, there are matters that need explanation. The language used to describe this child is different from the other three. Instead of saying "You shall say to him," the Haggadah says, "You shall open for him (aht p'tach lo)."

Further, why do we answer the child who doesn’t know how to ask with Exodus 12:8, the same verse that is used to answer the wicked child? We should equate the wicked child with the child who doesn’t know how to ask, who is not wicked!

However, we answer the wicked child with the second part of Exodus 12:8 and not the first part of this verse: "'It is because of that which the Lord did for me" which is interpreted to imply, "for me and not for him."  The author of the Haggadah uses the second half of the verse exclusively because it doesn’t refer to the wicked child as, "son." As we have seen, in Exodus 12:26 (where the wicked child's question appears) the Torah does not use the word 'children' either: "You shall say, 'It is the Passover offering…'"  Since the Torah omits the word "child" from the answer to the wicked child, so the author of the Haggadah omits it as well.

The first half of the verse refers to the child who doesn’t know how to ask: "You shall tell your child on that day…" The Haggadah suggests that one should answer him directly, "You shall open for him…." One should tell this child about the suffering in Egypt and how God saved the Jewish people so that he will give thanks for the kindness which God performed.

You can't answer the child who doesn’t know how to ask with a question (as you would the other children) since such a question would not arouse the heart of a child to give thanks. Similarly, you cannot answer by speaking of his ancestors who were in Egypt since he does not recognize them nor can you say, "God did for us," because he knows that he was not in Egypt (and doesn’t count himself  as part of the community, in that sense).  He might conclude that the story is merely a parable, and never actually happened. Instead his father should answer him by saying "What the Lord did for me…" as if he was among  those who experienced the suffering of slavery and that God saved him from the hands of the Egyptians. In this way, the child who doesn’t know how to ask will be inspired with compassion about what happened to his own parents.

However, concerned that this child might interpret the expression, "What the Lord did for ME," as applying to his father but not to him (as it does for the wicked child), the verse begins by referring to him as "Your child," "You shall tell your child on that day." That is why we answer this child with the beginning of the verse. By saying "You shall tell your child…" we show him that he has not been removed for the community and  is still considered part of the family. The word v'heegadita, "You shall tell," implies that one should tell the story in a way that draws his heart closer. This means one should answer him with soft words and tell him all that the Torah teaches. The Torah doubles the force of the language by saying v'heegadita…laimor, "You shall tell…saying: the first word implies drawing the child's heart closer to the Torah and the second implies in a soft manner.

Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, author of Shnei Luchot HaBerit, offers another explanation for Exodus, 13:8. Why is it necessary for the verse to say, "On that day" since the verse also says, "It is because of this.." (Both expressions imply that this ritual takes place on the day when the matzah and maror are placed before the celebrant). Furthermore, isn’t the word, laimor, "saying…" superfluous?

Rabbi Horowitz explains that on the eve of the holiday, when the father is busy preparing the Passover offering, the child might ask his father, "What is this?" It is a commandment for the father to answer his son but when he is involved in making the offering he cannot inform him of all the explanations and commandments as well as miracles which happened to us in Egypt. If he tries, he is liable to err and disqualify the offering.  So he says: "It is impossible to explain everything to you now because I'm busy performing the commandment of the Passover offering. If I try to answer you I'm liable to make a mistake and make the offering improperly. Therefore, my son, please wait until later tonight with the matzah and the maror are before us. Then I will give you a complete explanation of the commandments and the story of the Exodus." In this way he answers his son without interrupting the sacrifice. This is the implication of the verse. "You shall tell your child on that day" - on the eve of Passover when you are making the offering.  "Saying to him" - give him a brief explanation. "Because of this," reassuring him that you'll give a fuller explanation when the matzah and maror are placed before you.

The Simple Child and the Law of the First Born

The Simple Child and the Law of the First Born:

Two Explanations

Students of the Haggadah have long been curious about the simple child's question. His question, taken from Exodus 13, is not related to the celebration of the Passover Seder at all but to the law of the first born. When he learns that the firstborn of the herd must be sacrificed while the first born of the Israelites may be redeemed and asks, "What does this mean,"  he  is not wondering about the Seder or Passover eve at all.

Exodus 13:11-15  And when the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and has given it to you,  you shall set apart for the Lord every  first issue of the womb: every male firstling that your cattle drop shall be the Lord's. But every firstling ass you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck.  And you must redeem every first-born male among your children. And when, in time to come,  your son asks you, saying, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'It was with a mighty hand that the Lord brought us out from Egypt, the house of bondage. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every first male issue of the womb, but redeem every first-born among my sons.'

On the surface of it, it seems obvious that the firstborn belonged to God because God saved the Israelite firstborn during the tenth plague. It may also seem obvious to him why God would allow the firstborn Israelites to be redeemed while the firstborn of their herds remained sacred property. Rabbi Moshe Yonah Bondi, father of the commentary's author, adds a twist to this explanation: for him the essence of the plague was not the plague itself but the sacrifice which was offered before the plague began. It represented the death of Egypt's god; the gods of Egypt were powerless to stop the God of Israel. Rabbi Bondi now goes on to show why this explanation is not as simple as it first appears.

My apologies: Passover is quickly approaching so I am not going to continue including the Hebrew text of this commentary along with the translation in this blog. If you are interested in seeing the Hebrew text, please contact me and I will email you a PDF of the text.

Translation

The following teaching was offered by my father and teacher, Rabbi Moshe Yonah Bondi, on the Haggadah's answer brings to the simple child : "It was with a mighty hand that the Lord brought us out from Egypt, the house of bondage." (Exodus 13:14)

The passage from Exodus continues: "When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every first male issue of the womb, but redeem every first-born among my sons."  What is the connection between the simple child's question and the answer which Scripture offers to his question?

Furthermore, these verses deserve further analysis. After saying that 'God brought us out of Egypt,' the Torah goes back and mentions that Pharaoh 'stubbornly refused to let us go.' These verses appear to be out of order!

The reason for the law of the firstborn is the same for Israelites and their animals: we offer the firstborn to God because they were saved from the tenth plague which struck Egypt. Yet the law is different for the person and for the animal. It is it permissible to redeem the firstborn Israelite with money paid to the kohen while the firstborn of the animals cannot be redeemed. The firstborn animal is sanctified. Portions must be sacrificed and the remainder was eaten by the kohanim, the priests. Why were humans and animals treated differently?  Weren't both initially sanctified because they were not put to death in Egypt?  This law does not need an explanation; the reason for this would be obvious even to the simple child. So why the different treatment of a person and the animal?

Which was more significant: the redemption of the firstborn Israelites or the  redemption of firstborn animals of the Israelites? Whichever is more significant deserves to have the praise of God as well as the statements of thanksgiving offered over it. Also, in the case of the object of the greater miracle, one should offer an explanation for why we were given a sign and a reminder of redemption. Such an explanation is unique in the Torah; we do not find this type of explanation for other commandments.

The primary act was the saving of the firstborn animals. This commandment to sanctify the firstborn was given to the Israelites to inform them that it was specifically as a result of the tenth plague that Israel was freed from Egypt. It was necessary for God to harden the heart of Pharaoh prior to this plague more than any other. The Egyptians were already exhausted from the other plagues and said to Pharaoh, "How long shall this one be a snare to us…are you not aware that Egypt is lost?" (Exodus 10:7)

This tenth plague was an attack on the gods of Egypt. That is why this plague occurred after the other plagues. The slaughtering of the lambs in Egypt was a meant to cause the Egyptians to err. When the Israelites brought the sacrifice, they began slaughtering the god of Egypt, as is written: "For what we sacrifice is untouchable to the Egyptians before their very eyes." (Exodus 8:22) The purpose of the sacrifice, then, was for the Israelites to slaughter the god of the Egyptians before their eyes.

The Israelites should have been punished by the Egyptians for doing this. Yet, when the Egyptians saw the Israelites slaughtering the lambs they stood by; their hearts had melted in them. Up until now they thought that only they were affected by the plagues; they knew that even their gods were being punished. They now understood that their punishment could only have come from the Holy One for the sake of Israel, to redeem them from Egypt. The Egyptians no longer needed to check and see if the firstborn animals of the Israelites were affected by this plague.

As a result, the death of the livestock was more significant and more deserving of praise and thanksgiving. That is why the firstborn herds of the Israelites had to be sacrificed and given to the priests while the firstborn of the Israelites could be redeemed. The verse in Scripture alludes to this: "Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt." God caused this plague to harden Pharaoh's heart even more than Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart.   Pharaoh was depending on his gods to punish the Israelites but when the firstborn of the herd died it was proof that Israel's God was more powerful than the Egyptian gods. The Holy One brought judgment on the gods of the Egyptians and that was truly God's intention to redeem the Israelites from Egypt.  That is "why I bring the first born of the males as a sanctified portion for God and the priests while the first born of their children could be redeem. " This is a fine explanation; my father's words speak from the grave.

With God's help, I will now offer my own answer to these questions: Why does the simple child means when he asks, "What is this," regarding the commandment of the firstborn? Furthermore, since the essence of the answer to the simple child's question is, "When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast," why are these words left out of the Haggadah? Why isn’t this written first in the answer, followed by, 'It was with a mighty hand that the Lord brought us out from Egypt, the house of bondage?" Why does the Haggadah only bring the first part of the Torah's answer, especially since the essence of the answer is missing from the text.

The Torah offers this answer in order to put more emphasis on this plague rather than on the other plagues in which the death of livestock occurred, such as pestilence. Regarding  pestilence, the Torah explicitly says, "Not one of the livestock of the Israelites died." (Ex 9:5-6) How is the saving of livestock during the tenth plague any different from the saving of the livestock during the fifth plague, pestilence? In fact, regarding the fifth plague the Torah says, "All of the livestock of the Egyptians died." One might argue that the fifth plague was even more miraculous than the tenth plague. The tenth plague only involved the death of firstborn of the herds while the rest of the livestock was unharmed. The miracle would not have seemed so miraculous since some of the Egyptian livestock survived during the tenth plague, just like the Israelite livestock. 

This is why the simple child now asks, "What is this?" He wonders, why does the Torah differentiate the tenth plague from the other plagues in which the livestock died such as wild animals (arov), pestilence (dever), and hail (barad). In all of these plagues God protected the livestock of the Israelites and killed the livestock of the Egyptians. Why does the Torah provide a special remembrance for the tenth plague and not the other plagues. Why do we have a special ritual (the sanctification of the firstborn) to commemorate the tenth plague and to single it out?   

The commandment to sanctify the firstborn is not just a commemoration for the saving of the firstborn livestock. It is also a reminder that the tenth plague represented the beginning of the Exodus. This was not the case with the other plagues. It was the tenth plague that brought about the final Exodus. It was with the punishing of the first born that God brought about judgment, measure for measure, as we saw above. It wasn’t until they saw that God exacted judgment that all of Israel gave thanks. Because of this, Pharaoh said to Moses and Aaron, "Go forth from my people," and the Egyptians pressed them to leave. This did not happen during the other plagues.

When the Torah says: 'It was with a mighty hand that the Lord brought us out from Egypt, the house of bondage," it is not clear which of plagues led to the Exodus.  It is only in the second part of the passage, "When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every firstborn in Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast," that we know that it is the tenth plague that caused the Exodus. The second passage makes it clear that the commandment of the firstborn commemorates the tenth plague. Each of the plagues represented a deliverance of sorts, but only the tenth plague was the final deliverance from Egypt. Only then did it become clear that it was the hand of God that caused all these plagues.