Ha lachma anya- This is the bread of affliction First Gate: Why did the sages compose Ha lachma anya,the first passage in the Haggadah, in Aramaic while the rest of theHaggadahis in Hebrew? It would have been more fitting for all the passages to be in the same language, whether it was Hebrew or Aramaic. In the commentary I will offer various explanations for this passage according to the commentators as well as one that makes the most sense.

Second Gate: Why is matzah called lechem oni, the bread of affliction? Yet according to Jewish custom it is white and beautiful. If it is because of the affliction of the people in Egypt, hasn’t Rabban Gamliel explained that matzah is a reminder of redemption? Scripture also explains it testifies to Israel’s redemption.¹ How can lechem oni be reconciled with Rabban Gamliel’s statement² as the food they ate during their flight to freedom, the opening words of the Haggadah, “bread of affliction,” suggests that matzah was the food they ate while they were still living as slaves in Egypt. or they disagree with one another?

footnotes: ¹ “They baked unleavened cakes of dough which they brought out of Egypt for it was not leavened; for they were thrust out of Egypt ad could not remain, neither had they prepared for themselves provisions.” (Ex. 12:39) ² While Rabban Gamliel seems to explain matzah

Third Gate: Why does the Haggadahbegin with a statement regarding matza, stating, “This is the bread of affliction,” when it is obligatory on the feast of Passover to mention three Passover symbols: the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs as we learn from the statement of Rabban Gamliel? It would have been more fitting to begin by mentioning the Passover offering, or to mention all three symbols, and not explain matzah alone. It also would have been appropriate to place Rabban Gamliel’s statement at the beginning of the Haggadah since it is the foundation of the Seder.

Fourth Gate: The Haggadah states, “This year³ that Don Isaac Abarbanel used is slightly different from the version of the Haggadah familiar to most Ashkenazic Jews. His version is, “This year,”*ha shata,*while our Haggadahsay “Now,”*hashata.*While the difference between these two phrases may seem insignificant, the standard version seems more optimistic. Abarbanel’s version suggests that the promise of redemption will not come until next year. By saying “now,” the language suggests that there is a possibility that redemption may be even sooner – now we are slaves – but it might even be tomorrow. Abarbanel follows the version found in the version of the Haggadahused by Maimonides and the Shibolei HaLeket. we are here, next year in the land of Israel; this year we are slaves here; next year may we be in the land of Israel.” The language is repetitive; one of these two statements would have been sufficient. Also, the Haggadah ends, “So may the Lord our God bring us to other seasons and festivals… rejoicing in Your city Zion.” That is a more appropriate place for such a statement rather than at the beginning of the Haggadah.

footnotes: ³ The version of the Haggadah

Mah Nishtana– How different! Fifth Gate: The Mah Nishtana speaks of the things that are different about Seder night: eating unleavened bread, bitter herbs, dipping twice, and leaning. Yet this passage doesn’t mention other differences: the Passover offering, the four cups of wine, nor the multiple hand washings. Why don’t we ask about these differences instead of just asking about matzah, maror, leaning and dipping?

Sixth Gate: If the question “How is this night different,” is posed for young children, why don’t we mention removing the Passover plate⁴ plate from the table once the Seder has begun and to bring it back just before the motzi. from the table and other customs that we perform at the beginning of the meal and the end of the Seder?⁵ plate (or the table) at the beginning of the meal following Kiddush as a way of inspiring children to ask questions. Yet here children ask questions about things we have not yet witnessed at the Sedermeal. The mah nishtana, then, is not appropriate for young children who might not know what to expect at the Seder meal.

footnotes: ⁴ It is customary to remove the Seder ⁵ The Talmud speaks of removing the Seder

Avadim Hayyinu– We were slaves Seventh Gate: The statement “We were slaves to Pharaoh,” is a response to the questions regarding matzah, maror, leaning and dipping. Yet this answer is only appropriate for explaining why we eat matzah on this night and not on other nights. We do so because when Israel went out of Egypt, they did so hastily so that there was not enough time for the dough to rise, as Rabban Gamliel explained. Yet regarding dipping and leaning and eating bitter herbs nothing is said. The Maggid should have said, “The Egyptians embittered the lives of Israelites with hard labor, and therefore we eat bitter herbs, as is mentioned later. Why did they only offer this answer?

Eighth Gate: The passage goes on to say, “If the Holy One had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we, and our children…would still be subjugated.” This statement is not pertinent to the rest of the answer, and the one who asks the question did not ask about this. He asks, “How is this night different from all other nights,” and not, “Why do we observe the festival of Passover since we are not among those who left Egypt. We lived long afterwards!” The answer should have only been about the things that are different on this night and nothing else.

Ninth Gate: Toward the end of the Haggadah we find a similar statement: “In every generation a person is obligated to make himself appear⁶to make oneself appear.” In many Haggadot, the word is lirot,“To see oneself.” as if he personally went forth from Egypt.” It is the more appropriate place to make this statement here at the beginning of the Haggadah.⁷, “We were slaves to Pharaoh,” serves the same purpose at the statement which appears at the end of the Maggid, “A Person should make himself appear as if he went forth from Egypt.” Note that the statement appears not at the end of the Haggadahbut the end of Maggid. Why does the Maggid see fit to place this statement toward the end of the Maggidand why repeat it at the beginning since it was going to mention it afterwards?

footnotes: ⁶ Abarbanel’s statement follows the language used by Maimonides in his version of the Haggadah: liharot, “ ⁷ The statement at the beginning of Maggid

Tenth Gate: What have we gained, living in exile, from the fact that our ancestors went forth from Egypt that we should say, “If God had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we, our children, and the children of our children would still be subjugated to Pharaoh in Egypt?” It might have been better for us to live peacefully in Egypt than to live in exile of Edom and Ishmael.⁸ After all, our ancestors said, “It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than die in the wilderness.” (Ex.14:12) Living among the nations had made us victims to pogroms and expulsions; some were subject to the sword and others to famine and still others to captivity. Worst of all, we have been forced to abandon our faith because of the severity of our misfortunes.

footnotes: ⁸ Edom is the biblical nation associated in rabbinic literature with Christendom while Ishmael is associated with Islamic nations.

Eleventh Gate: The statement, “If the Holy One had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, we, our children and our children’s children would still be subjugated to Pharaoh in Egypt,” is not correct! Even if God had not taken our ancestors out of Egypt, it is possible that God might have freed us or our children. Then we would not have been slaves to Pharaoh forever.

Twelfth Gate: Why do we say, “Even if we were all wise, discerning, and knowledgeable in the Torah?” What is the significance of these three descriptions? Why doesn’t it also mention maskilim, enlightened, or, anshei chayiloryirei Elohim, people of valor who fear God, or any of the other qualities which Jethro mentioned?⁹

footnotes: ⁹ See Exodus 18:21

Sages in B’nai Brak Thirteenth Gate: Why does the Haggadah mention that the sages, “Spent the whole night recalling the story of the Exodus from Egypt? What motivated them to go without sleep when the Torah commands, “You shall rejoice on your festival?” (Deuteronomy 16:14) Isn’t going without sleep a type of affliction of the body! They must have had something else in mind in doing this.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaria Fourteenth Gate: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah states, "Behold, I am like a seventy-year-old man, yet I could not prove that the exodus from Egypt should be recited at night…” How is this statement taken from the first chapter in the Mishnah Berachot proof that one must tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on Passover eve. This Mishnah is not referring to the Seder; rather, it is referring to the practice of reciting the Sh’ma which includes a reference to remembering the Exodus from Egypt. We read this passage at night even though it states, “You shall see them.”¹⁰, fringes)” implies that we must fulfill this commandment in the daytime. However the passage also mentions the importance of remembering the Exodus from Egypt which we assume should be fulfilled both day and night. We are obligated to read the passage regarding fringes in the Sh’ma¹¹ is a reference not only to the first line (Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is One) but to the three paragraphs that accompany it: Deuteronomy 6 – V’ahavta; Deuteronomy 11:13-21 - Vahaya im shamoa ; and Numbers 15:37-41 - Vayomer. every day and every night. What does this passage have to do with the Seder, when we are obligated to mention the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs, and the reasons for these commandments.

footnotes: ¹⁰ “You shall see them (tszitzit ¹¹ The Sh’ma

Fifteenth Gate: According to the sages*,* Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was eighteen years old when he was appointed as the Nasi, head of the Sanhedrin in place of Rabban Gamliel. On that day, his hair miraculously turned white out of respect for his position so that he would appear like an elder.¹² 17b Rashi explains that the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in the Mishnahwas made on the day of his appointment as head of the Sanhedrin. He said, “I am like a seventy year old man,” because he had wisdom even though he was a youth. But if that is so, why could he not find a proof that the Exodus should be said at night, as Ben Zoma explained. This statement is more appropriate for an elder who, though he had acquired great knowledge in his life, was not been able to prove that the passage regarding fringes should be recited at night. But Rabbi Elazar was still in his youth.

footnotes: ¹² Berachot

Sixteenth Gate: How could Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say that he could not find a proof text for saying the Sh’maat night until he learned one from ben Zoma? Regarding the Passover Seder we have an explicit statement in Scripture, “It was for Adonaia night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that same night is one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages.” The Ramban explains that this night shall be for all generations, “a night of vigil,” on which they shall observe this rite and remember the Exodus from Egypt. If we learn it from this verse to teach, then the Mishnah serves no purpose.

Seventeenth Gate: Ben Zoma interpreted, “In order that you may remember the day of your going out of Egypt,” in the following way: “The days of your life” refers to the daytime; “All the days of your life,” includes the evenings. The Sages interpreted “All the days of your life” as a reference to the Messianic era. This is problematic since the verse, “Observe the month of Abib,” (Deut. 16:1) speaks about the commandment of the Passover offering, as it goes on to state, “You shall slaughter the Passover sacrifice for Adonai…you shall not eat anything leavened…seven days you shall eat matzot, the bread of distress for you went out of the land of Egypt in haste in order that you may remember the day of your going forth from Egypt all the days of your life.” (Deut 16:2-3) According to the context of the verse it is impossible to understand it as referring to anything other than the Passover offering. This is how Rashi interpreted this verse: “That you may remember through the eating of the Passover sacrifice and the unleavened bread, the day that you went forth out of the land of Egypt.”

**Eighteenth Gate:**Without a doubt, the word kol (all) is meant to include all the details. When a statement begins without the word kol then it is only partial. So the expression “the days of your life,” would include only part of the days and not all of them while the expression “All the days of your life” would be a reference to remember the Exodus from Egypt every day. According to this interpretation the word kolmight not mean the nights. Therefore there is no place for this interpretation of Ben Zoma.

Baruch HaMakom- Praised is the Omnipresent Nineteenth Gate: “Praised is the Omnipresent who gave Torah to Israel.”¹³ or possibly two, *Baruch Hu.*Many of the commentaries begin by asking why the there are four statements which begin Baruch… The fourfold use of the word Baruch is seen as connected with the four children in these other commentaries. Why did the Maggid¹⁴ as the Maggid. It is also used in the introductory poem, Kaddesh, U’Rechatz… as a reference to the telling of the story of the Exodus. The term comes from the same root word Haggadah. Higid is to tell as vahigita, “You shall tell.” I have chosen to use this term regularly throughout this work for consistency in speaking about the editor of the Haggadah. place this berachah before the discourse of the four children? If one begins the interpretation of biblical verses with a blessing, why not do so at the beginning of the Haggadah before other biblical passages? What is the connection between this berachah and the four children?

footnotes: ¹³ It would appear that Abarbanel’s text of the Haggadah is different from ours. It has only one statement beginning Baruch… ¹⁴ Many of the commentators refer to the author or editor of the Haggadah

Twentieth Gate Why is God called HaMakom, (the place or the Omnipresent): “Blessed is HaMakom who gave the Torah to Israel?” Some interpreted this expression as a reference to Mount Sinai, ‘the place’ where the Torah was given and at which it was received, as in the statement, “Moses received Torah at Sinai.” (Mishnah Avot 1:1) This is wrong! So what does HaMakom mean?

Twenty-first Gate: Why does the Maggid place the discourse of the four children before, “At first our fathers were idolaters.” The Haggadah speaks of Terach, Nachor, Abraham, the Covenant of the Pieces,¹⁵, the Covenant of the Pieces, in which God tells Abraham, “Know for a certainty that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs and shall serve them…four hundred years…” Jacob, Laban and the descent to Egypt!¹⁶ Afterwards, we return again to the story of the sojourn, the oppression, and the Exodus from Egypt. It would have been more appropriate to begin with, “At first our fathers were idolaters,” “Praised is the one who keeps His promise,” and “That promise has stood our ancestors and us in good stead,” followed by the discourse on “And they oppressed us,” (Deut. 26:6) followed by the discourse on the four children. In this way everything would have been in proper order.¹⁷ appears to go back to the early history of the children of Abraham before returning to the story of Israel’s subjugation in Egypt and their liberation from slavery. Abarbanel wonders why the Haggadah doesn’t follow chronological order.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Genesis Chapter 15 contains the Brit Bein HaBetarim ¹⁶ All of the things mentioned in the passage which begins, “At first our ancestors worshipped idols,” happened before the Exodus. Logically, it should have been placed before the four children which deals with the Exodus so that the events would appear chronologically. ¹⁷ The Haggadah

Twenty-second Gate: Why does the Maggid arrange the four children: wise, wicked, simple and one who doesn’t know to ask?¹⁸. I take this to mean not that he doesn’t know how to ask, but that this child doesn’t know enough to ask questions in the first place. He “doesn’t know to ask.” Not knowing to ask suggests that this child has some type of cognitive learning disability. I think what the Haggadah is suggesting is that he simply isn’t educated enough to know that one can ask questions. Asking questions is the beginning of wisdom. It also suggests that he is so distant from Torah that he fails to engage in Jewish learning and life. The question, then, suggests a lack of commitment and not necessary a lack of knowledge. This division of the children is not divided into opposites nor parallels. It would have been more appropriate to say, “One is wise and one is foolish.” Or it could have been, “One is wicked and one is righteous,” since these are opposites or parallel to one another. Why does the text compare wise with wicked, and simple with one who does not know to ask?

footnotes: ¹⁸ The fourth child is called shei’no yodeah lishol

Twenty-third Gate: Why doesn’t the Maggid mention the four children in the order in which they appear in the Torah? In the Torah the wicked appears first, “Go and set aside a lamb for your family.” (Ex. 12:21) Afterwards, the Torahmentions the child who doesn’t know to ask, “Sanctify for me every first born.” (Ex. 13:6); the simple child appears at the end of the previous passage, “When the Lord has brought you into the land…” (Ex. 13:11) Finally, the wise child, appears in Deuteronomy: “When in time to come your child asks you…” (Deut. 6:20.)

***Chacham -***The Wise Child Twenty-fourth Gate: Why are the passages dealing with the wise, simple, and the one who doesn’t know to ask, written in the singular while the passage dealing with the wicked child appears in the plural: “When your children ask…?”

Twenty-fifth Gate: Why interpret the verse, “When, in time to come, your child asks, ‘What means the testimonies, the statutes, and the rules which the Lord our God gave you,’” to be about Passover when this passage is actually about all the commandments in general*?* The answer to this question in the Torah proves this. If the reason to interpret the passage in this manner is that it mentions the Exodus, this may be because the Exodus is the root of all the commandments. The Exodus is also mentioned in connection with the Sabbath, tzitzit, showing kindness to the stranger, and other commandments. It is still not necessary to assume that the question in this verse is about the Passover offering.

**Twenty-sixth Gate:**Why doesn’t the Maggid answer the wise child’s question with the answer found in the Torah, “You shall say to your child, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt…” (Deut. 6:21) This is the answer that is related to the question so why doesn’t the Maggid quote it? Instead the Maggid answers the question with extraneous matters: “And so you should tell him all the laws of Passover, until, ‘one may not partake of the Afikomen after the Passover meal.’” This answer does not appear to be related to the question.

Rasha- Wicked Child Twenty-seventh Gate: Why does the Maggid interpret, “Go and set aside a lamb for your families…” (Ex. 12:21) as a reference to the wicked child? What is the wickedness and the transgression in this question? If it is because the wicked child says “To you,” (la’chem), doesn’t the wise child also say “commanded you” (etchem)? Why suggest that the wicked child removes himself from the community? If the reason this question is taken as the question of the wicked child is because he called the Passover service avodah, (work) as if it were oppressive work (avodah farech), isn’t this just another a biblical expression? The Bible calls the commandments avodahin many passages: “You shall observe this service (avodah)” (Ex. 12:25), and “You shall observe in this month the following service (avodah)” (Ex 13:5). In that case, how do we find wickedness in the statement, “What does this service (avodah) mean to you?”

Twenty-eighth Gate: Why doesn’t the Maggidanswer the wicked child’s question with the *Torah’*s answer: “You shall say, ‘it is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord.’?” (Ex. 12:27) This is the true answer that is related to the question and yet it is not mentioned here. Instead, he answers the wicked child with angry words that are meant to enrage him; “So you must set his teeth on edge…” His question remains unanswered.

Twenty-ninth Gate: Why does the Maggid answer the wicked child, “Because of this which the Lord did for me…?” (Ex 13:7) This verse is later interpreted as referring to the child who does not know to ask. How can we interpret one passage in two different ways – for the wicked child and for the one who doesn’t know to ask? The Maggid does not answer the wicked child with the verses found in the Torah that are relevant to this passage. Instead, the Haggadah gives an answer that is not related to this child but to the one who doesn’t know to ask.

Tam,Sheino yodea sheol- Simple Child and the One Who Doesn’t Ask Thirtieth Gate: Why does the Maggidinterpret the question, “What is this?” as a reference to the Passover offering, This question is not asked regarding Passover but the redemption of the first born, as is stated, “When the Lord has brought you into the land of Canaan…you shall set apart for the Lord the first issue of the womb?” (Ex. 13:11) It is with regard to this statement that the Torah asks, “And in time to come, your child asks you, ‘What is this?’”

Thirty-first Gate: Why does the Maggid assume that the simple child has good intentions when he asks, “What is this?” Maybe the intention of the question is the same as that of the wicked child who says, “What is the meaning of this service to you?” After having explained that the intention of the wicked child in saying “to you” is not really essence of the question, then the two questions are the same. Why relate one statement to the wicked child and the other to the simple child?

Thirty-second Gate: How does the Maggid interpret the statement, “It is because of this…” as referring to the child who doesn’t know to ask, after we have interpreted it as referring to the wicked child earlier? How can we have two different interpretations of the same verse?

Thirty-third Gate: Why does the Maggidpreface the answers to the wise and wicked children, with the words Af attah (“So you”) while the answers to the simple and the one who doesn’t know to ask is not prefaced by this expression and the answer does not include matters external to the Torah? Instead the answer (to the simple child and the one who doesn’t know to ask) is directly taken from Torah.

Thirty-fourth Gate: Why do the Sages mention telling of the Exodus on Passover eve for the child who doesn’t know to ask by saying “One might have thought on the eve of the month…on the eve of Passover…” It did not offer this interpretation to the wise, wicked or the simple child. It does not say that their answer must specifically be on the eve of Passover? Why do answer the fourth child in this manner?

Mitechilah ovdei Avodah Zarah- Our Ancestors worshipped idols Thirty-fifth Gate: The statement, “Originally, our ancestors worshipped idols…” does not appear to have any purpose here. If the purpose is to begin with shame and conclude (the telling) with praise, the Haggadah already began in this fashion in the passage, “Our ancestors were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt,” continuing with matters relating to redemption, the explanation of the four children regarding the Passover offering, matzahand maror so why go back again? And if it did want to begin again with shame, why begin with Terah? It would have been more fitting to begin with the exile to Egypt, or the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen. 15).¹⁹ Even if the Maggid wanted to mention Abraham’s father, why bother mentioning his brother, Nachor?

footnotes: ¹⁹ In this vision/covenant God informs Abraham that his ancestors will be slaves in a land not theirs for four hundred years but they will leave with great wealth. It is the first mention of Egyptian slavery.

Thirty-sixth Gate: If we assume that there are two parts to the introduction in this passage: first, “Originally, our ancestors were idolaters,” and then, “Now the Ever-present has brought us closer to His service,” why does it bring a proof text for the first statement from the book of Joshua, “Long ago our forefathers lived beyond the river,” but no proof text is brought for the second statement, that, “the Ever-present brought us closer to his service?”

Thirty-seventh Gate: Why did Joshua see fit to mention in his statement Esau and his inheritance even though this is not relevant to the matter. If he wanted to make known all the offspring of Isaac, why not also make known the offspring of Ishmael, Abraham’s son and his inheritance?

Thirty-eighth Gate: The Maggid states, “Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.” Since he made known that Isaac gave birth to two sons, Esau and Jacob, and that Esau inherited Mount Seir, the Maggid should have said, “And Jacob and his sons inherited the Land of Canaan.” This would have been the exchange for Esau inheritance instead of saying Esau inherited Mount Seir while Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt in exile. The inheritance was a sign of love for Esau and hatred for Jacob, the opposite of what the prophet stated, “Esau was Jacob’s brother; yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau.” (Malachi 1:2)

Thirty-ninth Gate: The statement, “Jacob and his children went down to Egypt,” is difficult because it implies they went down freely and of their own will. This is not so! They went as a result of the Covenant of the Pieces, as we explained, “He went down to Egypt: compelled by divine decree.” It would have been helpful to know whether Jacob’s family’s descent to Egypt was of their own volition or coerced, and if the reason was because of a sin which they committed. If so, what the sin was or if it wasn’t caused by a sin at all, and how did this occur?

Baruch Shomer- Praised is the One who ‘keeps’ His promise Fortieth Gate: The statement is “Blessed is the one who kept a promise to Israel.” Yet how can God who keeps His promises be described as “blessed”? God’s essence is truth, as in, “the Lord guards the truth,” (Ps. 31:24), and, “God is not a man to be capricious, or mortal to change His mind. Would He speak and not act, promise and not fulfill?” (Nu. 23:19) How can we bless God for being what God naturally is? Doesn’t the Torah say “Can the Judge of the earth not act justly, and not keep His word”?

Forty-first Gate: The Maggidstates: “The Holy One calculated the end (of the exile)…” This statement suggests that God counted the days and nights of the exile in Egypt, all four hundred years which were decreed in the Covenant of the Pieces, so that the exile would come to an end in its proper time. Yet the Torah contradicts this pronouncement, for it states, “At the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the LORD departed from the land of Egypt.” (Ex. 12:40), suggesting that God added another thirty years. How, then, did God calculate the end? Also (this statement is problematic) because they only spent 210 years in Egypt so how can scripture say they spent 430 years?

Tzei U’lemad- Go and Learn Forty-second Gate: The Maggid states, “Pharaoh only made decrees against the male children…” This is the opposite of what the Torah testifies: “The foe said, “I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; My desire shall have its fill of them. I will bare my sword— My hand shall subdue them,” (Ex. 15:9) which suggests that it was his intention to destroy all of them.

Forty-third Gate: The Maggid states, “While Laban sought to destroy all of them.” I do not know where the Maggid derived this! Laban only said, “It is within my power to do evil to you.” (Gen. 31:29) The evil (he wished to do) was not to utterly destroy and kill (Jacob’s family) but to take his flocks. He felt this way as a response to the incident of the speckled and spotted flocks. His intention was not to destroy Jacob but to say that he had enough manpower with him to do so. That is why he says, “It is within my power to do evil to you.” If the explanation of destruction is based on the passage, Arami oved avi, oved is an adjective for avi then it means when Jacob was in Aram, he was about to perish for lack of clothing.²⁰) for lack of clothing” How can he prove from this verse in Deuteronomy that Laban sought to kill all of Jacob’s family?

footnotes: ²⁰ See Job 31:19 - “If I have seen any perish (oved

Forty-fourth Gate: How can the Maggid state, “It is a promise which he maintained for our ancestors and for us,” and that Jacob was saved from Laban because of the Covenant of the Pieces? Jacob fled from him through his own merit, and the merit of his ancestors since he was righteous and was innocent of harming Laban. As the angel said to him: “The angel of God spoke to me in a dream saying, I have seen all that Laban has done to you…” (Gen. 31:12) And Jacob said, “God has seen my affliction and the labor of my hands and rebuked you last night…” (Gen. 31:42) Jacob was not saved because of a decree by God.

Forty-fifth Gate: Why does he not mention how Jacob was saved from Esau when he left Laban’s house? Esau intentions were wicked, as scripture states, “I will kill Jacob, my brother.” (Gen. 27:41) Why did he not explain the promise of the Covenant of the Pieces regarding Jacob to save him from Esau at the time of the blessings, as is stated, “(Esau said, ‘When the days of mourning for my father at hand; then I will kill my brother”? (Gen. 27:41) The Maggid should have mentioned this just as he mentioned Laban in a farfetched exposition of the verses.

Forty-sixth Gate: The Maggid states, “It is this that stood for our ancestors and for us…” The Maggid acknowledges that our ancestors were saved in the future from trouble because of the promise of the Covenant of the Pieces when they went down and when they left Egypt, and would be saved from troubles until they reached the land of Canaan. Yet it is difficult to say that we are also protected in our exile because of that promise, as is stated, “In every generation they rose up against us to destroy us.” How can we claim that because of the Promise of the Pieces which happened in the exodus we will be saved today?

Vayered Mitzraima– He went down to Egypt Forty-seventh Gate: The Maggid interprets, “And he went down to Egypt,” to mean, “Compelled by the Divine Word.” This interpretation is difficult since Jacob was not compelled to go down to Egypt but went joyfully to see his son Joseph, as scripture states, “Joseph, my son, is still alive; I will go down and see him before I die,” (Gen. 45:28) and it does not say that God told him to go. Rather God gave him permission, “Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt,” (Gen.46:3) and did not command him to go. Maimonides also stated this.²¹ in Sefer HaMoadim suggesting that he did not think that Jacob was compelled to go down to Egypt. Also even before God spoke to Jacob (and gave him permission to go) he had already left his home to go to Egypt, and was on his way, “And Israel took his journey with all that he had and traveled to Beersheba and offered sacrifices to the God of his father, Isaac, and God spoke to Israel in the vision of the night and said to Jacob…“Fear not to go down to Egypt” (Gen. 46:1-3)

footnotes: ²¹ This statement does not appear in Maimonides’ version of the Haggadah

Forty-eighth Gate: Why, in all the other verses that are brought here, he brings another verse as a proof text, but for this explanation, “compelled by the Divine Word,” he does not bring a verse? It would have been more fitting to bring the verse, Fear not to go down to Egypt,” (Gen. 46:3) If this proof was not compelling why did it bring this opinion?

Vayagar Sham- He Sojourned there Forty-ninth Gate: The Maggid interprets “He sojourned there,” as “This teaches that Jacob, our father, didn't go down to settle in Egypt permanently, but rather to reside there.” Why does it explain the expression “He sojourned there,” to be about Jacob’s intention about settling in Egypt? It would have been more fitting to explain it as being about the whole people’s actions in Egypt, as the psalmist stated, “Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.” (Ps. 105:23) This is a statement about the period of their settlement in Egypt.

Fiftieth Gate: How could the Maggid bring the verse, "And they said to Pharaoh, to reside in the land have we come,” (Gen. 47:7) as a proof text that they were only sojourning in Egypt. For they did not say this for this reason but rather as a ruse to settle in the land of Goshen. For Joseph had said to them, “Then Joseph said to his brothers and to his father’s household…so when Pharaoh summons you and asks, ‘What is your occupation?’ you shall answer, ‘Your servants have been breeders of livestock from the start until now, both we and our fathers, so that you may settle²², sojourn, implies temporary presence, while the word yeshvu, settle, and implies a permanent dwelling. Joseph tells his brothers to claim they are herders so that they can settle in Goshen and not simply dwell their permanently. in the region of Goshen. For all shepherds are abhorrent to Egyptians.” (Gen 46:31-34)

footnotes: ²² The word gur

B’matei Miat– Few in number Fifty-first Gate: The Maggid does not add anything to the interpretation of the verses from Deuteronomy 26. Rather he brings verses from the passage in Deuteronomy 26 (Parshat Ki Tavo) dealing with the bringing of the first fruits and proof texts from Parshat Vayigash (Gen. 44-47) and Parshat Shemot (Ex. 1-6), Va-era(Ex. 6-9), and Bo (Ex. 6-13) such as “He sojourned there” (Deut. 26) which is taken from Parshat Ki Tavo and is explained with, “They said to Pharaoh, ‘to sojourn in the land we have come,” which is taken from Parshat Vayigash. Also, “They afflicted us” which is taken from Parshat Ki Tavo, and a proof text, “They built store cities, Pitom and Ramses.” (Ex. 1:11) in Parshat Shemot. Also, “They placed hard labor upon us,” in *Parshat Ki Tavo,*and so on. One could ask: why bring one verse as a proof text for another verse since all the verse are the words of the living God?

Fifty-second Gate: If the Maggid wanted to show that the verses were in agreement, both those that came from the biblical narrative and the ones that came from Deuteronomy 26 (the declaration for the first fruits), why did he bring the verses from Deuteronomy first and prove them with the verses from the narrative in Exodus? It would have been more fitting to bring the narrative verses first and then bring the verses from Deuteronomy 26.

Fifty-third Gate: The Maggidstates, “This teaches that Israel became distinguishable (mitzuyanim) in Egypt.” He does not prove what this word²³ appears in Second Kings 23:17, “What monument is this that I see.” means since he does not bring a proof text as he does in all the other explanations of the verses. If he had no proof text for this, then why offer this interpretation?

footnotes: ²³ The word tiyzun

Fifty-fourth Gate: Only two statements begin with the word milamed, “This teaches:” “And he sojourned there" - This teaches that Ya'akov, our father, didn't go down to settle in Egypt, but rather [only] to reside there,” and, "And there he became a nation" - This teaches that Israel became distinguishable there.” This expression is not found in another discourse. Certainly it was not used by accident but for a reason. What is the reason it was not used in any of the other discourses?

Gadol Vatzum– Great and Mighty Fifty-five Gate: Why explain the words ‘great’ and ‘mighty’ (“And became a nation there, great and mighty” Deut 26:5) with the verse, “And the children of Israel multiplied and swarmed and grew numerous and strong, most exceedingly and the land became full of them." (Ex. 1:7) Great and mighty are two descriptive words but the proof text contains four descriptive words: they multiplied, they swarmed, they became many and they became mighty. How can we correlate the Exodus verse which has four descriptions with the Deuteronomy verse which only has two? And if the verse, “multiplied and swarmed is all about the increase in population as the sages explained, that the Israelites gave birth to sextuplets at a time, then it is difficult to explain why they explained, ‘great’ by itself as being about the population increase, and ‘mighty’ by itself about other matters, as was done with other parts of the verses?

Fifty-sixth Gate: The verse interprets “and numerous” with the passage, “I have made you to be numerous as the vegetation of the field,” (Ezekiel 6:7) as explaining the growth. This is difficult; why not interpret the word about the matter at hand: the increase of the nation? Further, the proof text uses different words for increase: rivava, numerous, gidul, growth as in “You increased and grew and became highly ornamented.” What led the maggid to relate this verse to the word rav, many, and not to the other words such as gadoland *atzum?*How does it connect, “You increase and grew and you became highly ornamented,” only with the word v’rav, and many?

Vayrei’u otanu– They imputed evil to us Fifty-seventh Gate: Why does the maggid uses “Come, let us deal wisely with them,” (Ex. 1:10) as a proof text for, “And the Egyptians dealt ill with us,” (Deut. 26:6) The verse does not mention any evil matter that they sought to do to us. It was not what they said but what Pharaoh commanded his servants to do that was evil, “Every male who is born to them you shall cast into the Nile.” So why did the maggid mention the advice and not the deeds?

Fifty-eighth Gate: They explained, “They afflicted us” as a reference to the building of the garrison cities, and they interpreted, “They placed hard toil upon us,” with the verse, “they enslaved the children of Israel with hard work.” (Ex. 1:11) It would seem the two matters are really the same, that the hard work was the affliction of building the garrison cities.

**Fifty-ninth Gate:**In any case, if we used the expression, “The placed upon us hard labor” without “They afflicted us,” we would still have to wonder what the Torahmeans by hard labor. What difficulty is being described beside bricks, mortar and the building of the cities?

V’nitzak el Adonai– We cried out to Adonai Sixtieth Gate: The Torah states, God heard their moaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Ex. 2:24) This is problematic since we find that God only made the Covenant (of the Pieces) with Abraham, as is stated, “On that day God made a covenant with Abram…” (Gen.15:18) With Isaac and Jacob we do not find any mention of a covenant. So how can the verse say, “His covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob?”

Sixty-first Gate: “God saw our affliction – this is forced separation of couples” is problematic since above we have explained the phrase, “They afflicted us – as is stated, He placed task masters upon them. If the affliction was the building of the garrison cities, how can the maggid now explain God saw our affliction (from the same word) as a reference to the forced separation of couples? Further this is never explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

Sixty-second Gate: How does the maggid prove the forced separation of couples from the verse, "And God saw the Children of Israel and God knew"? (Ex.2:25) The verse does not mention the separation of couples and the interpretation is based on the linking of common language.

Sixty-third Gate: We do we not explain, “The Egyptians dealt harshly with us,” as relating to the statement, “Every male child you shall cast into the river.” This was the greatest evil that they decreed against us as we shall see later in the common on the passage, “Our toil.”

Sixty-forth Gate: Why did the sages interpret “Our toil,” as a reference to male children? The verse that is brought as a proof text does not use the word amal, toil. Also amal is a synonym for inui, oppression. There ‘our toil’ and ‘our oppression’ are one and the same, so why offer different interpretations for the two of them?

Sixty-fifth Gate: The sages explained that v’et lachazeinu, our distress, as *d’chak,*oppression. Since these two words have the same meaning, what purpose is there in explaining lachaz as d’chak? It is like saying, “Our oppression – this is toil; our toil – this is oppression.”

Vayotzi’einu Adonai- Adonai took us out Sixty-sixth Gate: The sages interpreted the verse, “Adonai took us out of Egypt – not by an angel.” This is extremely difficult since there is an explicit verse which states, “He sent an angel to take us out of Egypt.” (Nu. 20:16) This verse suggests that God did take us out with an angel, the opposite of the interpretation in the Haggadah.

Sixty-seventh Gate: Regarding the tenth plague, the Maggid said, “I and not a fiery being.” This is problematic since the Bible explicitly says, “Adonai will pass over the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home.” (Ex.12:23) Regarding this the sages state, “You shall not leave your homes until morning – from this we learn that since permission was given to the Destroyer to destroy it does not differentiate between the righteous and the wicked.”²⁴ Thus, we learn that it was through a fiery being or an angel that the plague of the first born was carried out.

footnotes: ²⁴ Mechilta Parshat Bo, Chapter 11

Sixty-eighth Gate: The Maggid explicates: Adonai took us out of Egypt – not by an angel, nor by a fiery being, nor through a messenger.” The verse that is brought as a proof is, “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from men to animals; and with all the gods of Egypt, I will make judgements, I am the Lord." (Ex. 12:12) Yet this verse is not about the Exodus but about the tenth plague. How can we use a verse about the tenth plague to prove the Exodus?

Sixty-ninth Gate: The Haggadah states, “I passed through the land of Egypt – I and not an angel; I smote all the first born – I and not a fiery being; I passed judgment upon all the gods of Egypt – I and not a messenger.” This is difficult since passing through the land is not a matter unto itself nor is smiting a matter unto itself. The passing through is actually part of the smiting. Also there are two aspects: smiting the first born and the judgment of the gods. So did they interpret them as three, and make passing through the land as an aspect unto itself?

Seventieth Gate: The Maggidnegates the role of the angel, the fiery being and the messenger in the story of the Exodus from Egypt. He proves this by arguing that we don’t expound all three from one text. Rather we negate the angel from the matter of the passing through the land, the fiery being from the matter of smiting the first born, and the messenger from the matter of judging the gods of Egypt. How does the Maggid prove these three questions regarding the Exodus?

Seventy-first Gate: Why did the Holy One see fit to perform the plague of the first born completely on his own and not through an angel, as he smote the camp of the Assyrians, as is it stated, “That night an angel of the Lord went out and struck … the Assyrian camp”? (11Kings 19:35) Yet here what do the sages say? “I am the One Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn.”²⁵****Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai offered a way of expounding this in the Zohar.²⁶

footnotes: ²⁵ Baba Metzia 61b ²⁶ Zohar Bereshit Vayera 117a

B’yad chazakah– With a mighty hand Seventy-second Gate: The Maggid interprets, “With a mighty hand” to be a reference to the plague of pestilence. This is problematic. Why not interpret, “With a mighty hand” as a reference to the death of the first born since it is referred to this way in Scripture, “Yet I Know that the king of Egypt will let you go only because of a greater might, so I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt with various wonders…” (Ex. 3:19-20) The plague of the first born was the cause for the Exodus from Egypt. Scripture says about it, And God brought us out with a mighty arm,” and not because of something that happened to their cattle.

U’vizroa nituyah– And an outstretched arm Seventy-third Gate: Regarding the exposition, “With an outstretched arm – this refers to the sword, as it is stated in Scripture, ‘and His sword was drawn in His hand outstretched over Jerusalem’” This is difficult since the Egyptians were not smitten by a sword, so how can one say that the reason for the Exodus was the sword? Also the verse that the Maggid brings to prove this is “His hand outstretched over Jerusalem.” How does this verse prove that there was a sword in the plagues of Egypt?

U’vimora gadol– And with great terror Seventy-fourth Gate: The Maggid explains, “And with awesome power (mora gadol),” (Deut. 26:8) to mean, This is the revelation of the Divine Presence.” Yet the Divine Presence did not descend upon the people of Israel until the events of Sinai, so how can this be counted among the miracles that took place in Egypt? The Torah states, “And for all the great might and awesome power (mora gadol) that Moses displayed before all Israel.” (Deut. 34:12) Rashi explains “the awesome power” to mean the miracles and mighty acts which God performed in the wilderness. Ramban explains that it refers to the revelation at Mount Sinai. So what does this expression have to do with the plagues in Egypt?

Seventy-fifth Gate: How could he bring a proof that awesome power means the revelation of the Divine Presence from the verse, “With signs and with wonders and with war and with a strong hand and with an outstretched forearm and with great and awesome acts (moraim gedolim)”? (Deut. 4:34) These are all adjectives for the frightful plagues that took place in Egypt. Moraim gedolim is plural. Does this mean that many plagues were revealed through the Divine Presence?

U’vi’otot zeh hamateh– With signs – this is the staff Seventy-sixth Gate: The Maggidexplains that the word, “signs” (otot) refers to Moses’ staff. This is difficult because the staff was the tool through which the different signs were performed. The staff was not the ‘signs’ itself. It is not fitting to say that the utensil or the tool through which something is performed is the act itself. Scripture brings a verse which contradicts this interpretation, "And this staff you shall take in your hand, that with it you will perform signs." (Ex. 4:17) It implies that the staff is not the signs. And if you suggest that this is a reference to turning the staff into a serpent, it is still a single sign and not many signs, as the word implies.

U’vmoftim zeh hadam– And with wonders – this is the blood Seventy-seventh Gate: The Maggidexplains that, “Wonders” (moftim) is a reference to the plague of blood. It seems obvious that the plague of blood was a single wonder while the word moftim is inclusive of many wonders. Even if it is included among the many wonders, it cannot be described as “wonders” by itself.

Seventy-eighth Gate: The proof text that is brought for the plague of blood is, "And I will place my wonders in the skies and in the earth: blood and fire and pillars of smoke.” (Joel 3:3) This is most difficult since this verse does not speak about the wonders that took place in Egypt; rather it refers to the future redemption. And in that context it calls wonders, “The blood, the fire, and the pillar of smoke” that are mention? So why not call all three of them the wonders together, referring to the plurality. Why call blood by itself “wonders?”

Seventy-ninth Gate: Why in the explanation of these verses do we only mention two of the plagues: pestilence and blood, and not the other plagues as well? Wouldn’t it have been better to explain the expression “Signs and wonders,” as including all of the plagues, since these words are plural rather than saying that they each refer to a single plague?

B’yad Chazakah shtayim– With a mighty hand – this is two plagues Eightieth Gate: The Maggid explains that each of the expressions in this verse refer to two plagues: “A mighty hand” – two; “An outstretched arm” – two; “With an awesome act” – two; “With signs” – two; and “With wonders” – two. This is difficult. Signs and wonders are both plural and the smallest plural number would be two. The other three expressions are all singular, so how can we explain them as each referring to two plagues? What is the connection between the expressions, “a mighty hand” and “signs and wonders” that we can explain it as referring to two plagues like these other expressions? The same question can be asked regarding to “outstretched arm” and “an awesome act”?

Eighty-first Gate: How is it that among the wonders that took place in Egypt, we count only ten and do not include among them turning the staff into a serpent and the miracle of making the prophet’s hand leprous? Turning the staff into a serpent was the first miracle which Moses performed in the presence of Pharaoh, which he was commanded to perform at the time of his calling, “You will do all these wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand.” (Ex. 4:21)²⁷, the word moftim, “wonders” (Deut. 26) is used to refer to the plagues and transforming the staff into a serpent is also referred to as a “wonder” in Exodus 4:21. It stands to reason that this act should have been included with the other wonders/plagues. It makes sense to include the three miracles which Moses performed when he was called by God as miracles like (the plagues). Just as “blood” was included among the ten plagues, so to should the other two, especially the miracle of changing the staff into a serpent.

footnotes: ²⁷ Note that in the Haggadah

D’tzach Adash Beachav Eighty-second Gate: The mnemonics which Rabbi Judah uses for the plagues are D’tzach Adash Ba’achav. Why did he see fit to use these mnemonics since they are not based on a Hebrew verse and have no particular meaning?²⁸ What is the purpose of the mnemonic which he gives here? In Shemot Rabba (5:6 and 8:3) the sages say that these letters were written on Moses’ staff. But this cannot be the literal meaning of the text, since if it was, they would not have said, “Rabbi Judah gave them mnemonics.

footnotes: ²⁸ Mnemonics are often based on taking the first letters of a particular verse which are then put together to make an abbreviation. In this case, they are simply the first letters of the ten plagues and have no particular meaning.

Eighty-third Gate: Regarding the number and the nature of the plagues: why were there ten plagues and why the ones mentioned in Scripture and not others? Did the ones that occur take place by chance and happenstance? Weren’t they naturally occurring events that happened for a specific and known purpose, how much more for some divine purpose that was related to a higher wisdom?

Rabbi Yossi HaGallili Eighty-fourth Gate: Regarding the Midrash of Rabbi Yossi HaGalili who said, “From where do you say that there were ten plagues in Egypt that smote the Egyptians and fifty plagues by the sea? Since Rabbi Yossi was not asking someone when he said, “From where do you know…” rather he should have said, “Since there were ten plagues that smote the Egyptians in Egypt and fifty at the sea, know that the plagues in Egypt were described as a “finger” while regarding the plagues at that sea the Torah states And God saw the great hand…” (Ex. 14:31) rather than phrasing the statement, “From where do you say…”

Eighty-fifth Gate: It would appear that Rabbi Yossi makes two statements: first, that the Egyptians were struck by ten plagues in Egypt and second, by fifty plagues at the sea. In Rabbi Yossi’s question and proof he proves the second statement: that they were struck by fifty plagues at the sea but he does not offer a proof for the first statement that there were ten plagues in Egypt. This is not in order.

Eighty-sixth Gate: Rabbi Yossi stated, “How many were struck with a finger? Ten Plagues! You can say from here, in Egypt they were struck by ten plagues and by the sea they were struck by fifty plagues.” This is difficult since the word “finger” is only used to describe one plague, the plague of lice, as stated in Scripture, “The magicians did the like with their spells to produce lice, but they could not. The vermin remained upon man and beast; and the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God!” (Ex. 8:14-15) If a single plague is called a “Finger” then one must say that at the sea they were smitten by ten plagues, not fifty. Also, we find that the word hand used to describe the plague of pestilence, “Then the hand of the LORD will strike your livestock in the fields.” (Ex. 9:3) If so, then the other plagues in Egypt were not a result of a “finger.”

Eighty-seventh Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer, he states that, “Every plague was composed of four plagues.” This is difficult to imagine. Can one say that in the plague of blood there were actually four plagues? And so with the others. How do you separate one from the other so that they are not all the same? And if the plagues were many as the Kabbalists suggested, then there would not be only four but four thousand and more. More than that, Scripture brings a proof, “'He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath…” (Ps. 78:49) This verse is speaking about Egypt and the plagues themselves and not parts of the different plagues.

Eighty-eighth Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer why don’t we say, “From where do you derive that every plague in Egypt that struck the Egyptians was four plagues,” in the style of the statement which Rabbi Yossi HaGalili stated, so that they would all be similar?

Eighth-ninth Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer, he explains, “He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, and fury, and trouble, a sending of messengers of evil,” as the reason for the four plagues that were part of each plague. 'his fierceness of anger [corresponds to] one; 'and wrath' [brings it to] two; fury' [brings it to] three; 'a sending of messengers of evil' [brings it to] four.” Yet he does not explain the word v’tzarah, ‘and trouble.’ This is surprising – what to do with it?

Ninetieth Gate: Rabbi Eliezer states, “You can say from here that in Egypt, they were struck with forty plagues and at the Sea, they were struck with two hundred plagues." This is difficult since he has not proven that every plague that struck the Egyptians in Egypt was four plagues which obligate us to say that the Egyptians were struck by forty plagues. But regarding the plagues at the sea he has not proved anything.

Rabbi Akiva Ninety-first Gate: In the Midrash of Rabbi Akiva states, “Every plague was composed of five plagues.” Yet this is even more difficult than the first Midrash! How can one imagine that every plague was made up of five plagues, different from one another? And what makes it necessary to interpret it in this way?

Ninety-second Gate: Rabbi Akiva states,²⁹ was composed by Rabbi Akiva. “If He had made judgments on them and had not made judgement on their gods; it would have been enough for us. If He had made judgement on their gods and had not killed their firstborn it would have been enough for us.” Yet the judgements were the ten plagues which included the death of the first born. This is difficult since “judgements,” would have included killing the first born. If he chose to describe the death of the first born why not also describe darkness, pestilence and the other plagues?

footnotes: ²⁹ Apparently Abarbanel believes that Dayyenu

Ninety-third Gate: If it was necessary to mention the death of the first born by itself, it would have been more fitting to mention it after judgments, thus saying, “If he had made judgements but not killed their first born; If he had killed their first born but not made a judgment upon their gods.” That way the death of the first born would have followed “Judgements,” which refers to the rest of the plagues and the judgement of their gods would have been last, as we find in Scripture, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt and strike all the first born in the land of Egypt, both man and beasts, and against the gods of Egypt I will execute judgement.” (Ex. 12:12) Yet he did not do so, mentioning the gods between judgments and the death of the first born.

Ninety-fourth Gate: Rabbi Akiva says Dayyenu, “It was enough for us” for all the ‘degrees of good’ and for each one individually (which God performed.) And while Israel’s redemption might have been possible without the others, there are some that were not ‘enough’ by themselves without being combined with the others. For instance, “God had given us their wealth but not split the sea for us,” this would not have been enough for us because the Egyptians followed the Israelites to kill and destroy them. Also, if God had split the sea for us but not brought us through on dry land,” this would not have been enough for us, for what would have been the purpose of splitting drowned the sea if they had in it? Similarly, the statement, “If God had brought us to Mount Sinai and not given us the Torah,” would not have been enough for us. They were only complete when they received that Torah, not just coming to the Mount.

***Pesach ***Ninety-fifth Gate: The reason that the Torah gives for the Passover offering is, “You shall say, it is the sacrifice of Adonai’s Passover, who passed over the house of the people if Israel when God struck the Egyptians, and saved our houses.” (Ex.12:27) (In other words,) the Passover offering came as a remembrance from generation to generation of God’s great kindness in saving the first born of the Israelites. Similarly, we find the commandment, “Sanctify the first born of every person and every animal,” and in their place we set apart the Levites, (Ex.13:2) the commandment of fringes, and also the commandment of placing a mezuzah. But this is quite surprising! If the Egyptians were deserving of the death of the first born because they enslaved the Israelites, as God said, “Israel is my first born,” (Ex. 4:22) then Israel was not deserving of the same death according to the standards of justice. Why would they die; what did they do? If a king commands the execution of a murderer on behalf of those who cried out, then is it fitting that those who are wretched and have cried out at the injustice to feel that he did a kindness in not being killed by the king as well? The murders were deserving of death, the wretched who cried out, and how should the righteous be destroyed like the wicked? The same is true about the Israelites. They cried out to God because they were in distress from the Egyptians. God heard their sigh from those who wanted to rob them of life. (Prov. 22:23) Is it appropriate to say to them that God performed a great act of compassion in not killing them along with the wicked Egyptians? Should the judge of all the earth not act justly? (Gen. 18:25) We also see (in the case of plagues) that God made such a distinction (that God distinguished between the Israelites and the Egyptians). In the case of mixtures (of wild animals) that God differentiated between those in the land of Goshen so that there were no wild animals there. Also in the case of Pestilence, the Torah states, “But Adonai will make a distinction between the livestock of the Israelites and the livestock of the Egyptians.” (Ex. 9:4) In the plague of Darkness, the Torah states, “But all the Israelites enjoyed light in their dwellings.” (Ex. 10:23) According to the sages there were distinctions made (between Israelites and Egyptians) in all the plagues. They did not have to place a sign on their doorposts, or to place blood there so that they would not be smitten along with the Egyptians nor were they given commandments in conjunction with the other plagues. Also regarding the splitting of the Red Sea, the Israelites entered the dry land and the Egyptians followed them in. Why were they not given a practical commandment for that salvation or some sign so that they would merit being distinguished from the Egyptians? There was no commandment for the generation as we were commanded regarding the Passover offering or the sanctification of the first born, which was given to them so that they would not be smitten along with the Egyptians. This is a big problem for me and I was very surprised that the commentators did not address this issue!

Matzah Ninety-sixth Gate: The reason that Rabban Gamliel gave for the commandment of matzah is, “For our ancestors did not have time for their dough to rise.” This is surprising, since before the Exodus from Egypt, in the chapter that begins, “This shall be the beginning of months for you” (Ex.12:1) God already mentioned the commandment of matzah along with the commandment of the Passover offering, as is stated, “They shall eat roasted meat on this night with matzotand bitter herbs,” (Ex. 12:8) and also, “This day shall be to you one of remembrance; you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord….seven days you shall eat matzot.” (Ex. 12:14-15) If they were commanded to eat matzah before they the Exodus from Egypt as well as the prohibition of leavened bread, how can Rabban Gamliel say the reason for the commandment is that the dough of our ancestors did not have time to become leavened before “God revealed Himself to them”? And what exactly is this revelation?

Maror Ninety-seventh Gate: From where do we learn that the commandment of eating bitter herbs applies to future generations? We only find mention of it in connection with the Passover offering in Egypt, as is stated, “They shall eat the meat on this night, roasted with matzah and bitter herbs they shall eat it.” (Ex. 12:8) It has already been said that this practice was unique to the Passover offering in Egypt, along with, “You shall place the blood on the two lintels” (Ex. 12:7) and the commandment, “Thus shall you eat it; your loins girded…” (Ex. 12:11) which were also not commanded to future generations.

B’chol Dor Vador– In every generation Ninety-eighth Gate: The Maggid teaches the obligation, “In every generation a person should see himself as if he personally went forth from Egypt,” based on the verse, “God took us out from there that God might take us and give us the land that He promised on oath to our ancestors.” (Deut. 6:23) According to this verse, this obligation falls upon the generations that inherited the land and dwelled there; it was fitting for them to see themselves as if they went forth from Egypt. If they had not left Egypt, they would not have become masters of the land. We who live in exile, have not inherited the land, and were born in the lands of our enemies, what obligation can we have to see ourselves as if we went forth from Egypt based on the strength of that proof, “God took us out from there that God might take us and give us the land”? And how can we conclude (as the Haggadah does), “therefore we are obligated to give thanks…” Why bring seven words for thanksgiving: “To thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, lavish, and bless” and to mention five statements expressing God’s beneficent kindness: first “God took us from slavery to freedom;” second, “From subjugation to redemption;” third, “From sorrow to joy;” fourth, “From mourning to celebration;” fifth, “From darkness to great light?” What is the difference between these five statements?

Hallel Ninety-ninth Gate: Why did the sages decree the recitation of Hallel with a division on this night, half of it (to “the flint into a spring of water,”) followed by the blessing of redemption,³⁰, Lord our God, King of the universe, who redeemed us and redeemed our ancestors from Egypt.” This is found just before the second cup of wine. The blessing of song occurs just before the fourth cup of wine and concludes, “Baruch atta Adonai, Power, King exalted through lauding, Power of thanksgivings, Master of Wonders, who chooses the songs of hymn - King, Power of the life of the worlds.” before the meal and the rest of it after the meal, followed by the blessing of song and not the blessing of redemption? It would have been more fitting to recite Hallel all at once without any breaks, the way it is read on the festivals. And then, after it is completed to recite the blessing of redemption. If one argues that we divide up Hallel because we are concerned about the attention of the youngsters, then move Hallel until after the meal instead of before the meal and then conclude it with the blessing of redemption! After all, when we read the Megillah on Purim before the whole community we do not worry about the children (not paying attention) and we do not divide it in half, and we recite the blessing, “Who pleads our cause and judges our suit,” at the end (and not in the middle). Whoever says we divide up Hallel in order to glorify the second cup of wine is speaking emptiness! The second cup of wine come to mark the conclusion of the telling of the story of the Exodus from Egypt and to recite a blessing on it. A blessing is never recited without being sanctified over a cup of wine.

footnotes: ³⁰ The blessing of redemption refers to the passage which begins, “Baruch atta Adonai

One Hundredth Gate: Why place the verses beginning, “Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not know You,” and, “They have consumed Jacob and laid waste his habitation.” (Ps 79:6-7) in the middle of Hallel? They are not part of Hallel and are taken from a different Psalm. All the other times that we recite Hallel, we do not read these verses. We now have one hundred gates containing queries and questions which I have formulated on the passages of theHaggadah and the biblical passages based on my limited knowledge and understanding. In the commentary on the Haggadah I will attempt to answer all of them. You will find a sign of their number, “Isaac sowed that land and reaped a hundredfold the same year. Adonaiblessed him.”³¹ (Gen. 26:12)

footnotes: ³¹ Don Isaac Abarbanel plays on the connection between his given name and our forefather, Isaac. By delving into the text he finds one hundred questions just as Isaac was blessed one hundredfold when he planted in the land.