Lessons in Hashgachah for the Four Sons

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Originally published in April 2012.

Artwork: Monastery Mentor, by Magali Villeneuve 

Lessons in Hashgachah for the Four Sons

One of the "classic" questions on the Arbaah Banim (Four Sons) section of the Hagadah is: Why do we use the same pasuk to the rasha (evil son) and the eino yodea li'shol (the son who doesn't know to ask)? The Orchos Chaim [1] offers a bold answer with some interesting implications for chinuch (child education). He writes:

Apparently, the reason [we use the same pasuk] is because it is proper to give the same answer to the rasha and the eino yodea li'shol. The redemption in Egypt was done through miracles that involved changes in nature. Hashem will only changes nature for the sake of the chasidim (eminent individuals) in the generation - either in the merit of their Torah, if they are chachamim (wise individuals), or in the merit of their proper actions and their uprightness, if they walk with Him b'tom levav (wholeheartedly) and are careful in their fulfillment of mitzvos aseh (positive commandments) and in keeping mitzvos lo taaseh (negative commandments). These are the merits of the chacham (wise son) and the tam (wholehearted son).

However, it is well known that the rasha is not worthy [of Divine intervention], nor is the individual who is lax in the actions which he does for the sake of God and who behaves like an animal - namely, the eino yodea li'shol. Without a doubt, such an individual is not on the level where Hashem will change nature on his behalf in order to save him. For this reason, even this individual (i.e. the eino yodea li'shol) falls under the answer of "for the sake of this, Hashem acted on my behalf etc." which means to say, "in my merit, but not in your merit, since you do not contemplate the ways of Hashem and His Torah and His mitzvos."

All of this comes to teach us that a person should tell his son to strengthen his involvement in Torah by day and by night, and to be scrupulous and wholehearted in his observance of mitzvos. Then, and only then, will he be among those for whom Hashem changes nature in order to save them and redeem them. 

According to the Orchos Chaim, the overarching lesson of the Arbaah Banim is to teach children the criteria for meriting hashgachah pratis (individual divine providence). According to the Orchos Chaim, there are two categories of merit: (1) involvement in Torah and chochmah, and (2) scrupulous and wholehearted observance of mitzvos. The chacham and the tam possess this merit, and if they had been in Egypt at the time of the redemption, they would have been saved on account of this merit.

The rasha and the eino yodea li'shol lack these types of merit. The eino yodea li'shol is not careful in his observance of mitzvos and lives "like an animal," and the rasha casts off the yoke of mitzvos altogether (see the Orchos Chaim's commentary). Consequently, if they had been in Egypt at the time of the redemption, their merit would be insufficient to warrant hashgachah pratis, and they would not have been redeemed. This is the intent of the response of "for me - but not for him" in the Hagadah. This response is not a snide retort, but is intended as a lesson in how the hashgachah operates.

According to the Orchos Chaim, the Hagadah is urging us to instill these ideas about the hashgachah at an early age, in order to motivate our children in the pursuit of chochmah and the observance of mitzvos. This might be a lo lishmah (extrinsic motive) for being involved in Torah and mitzvos, but lo lishmah is a necessary precursor to lishmah, as Chazal say: "a person should always involve himself in Torah and mitzvos even she'lo lishmah, for from lo lishmah he will come to lishmah." And what better exemplification of hashgachas Hashem in action than Yetzias Mitzrayim!

[1] Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yaakov ha'Kohen, Orchos Chaim: Seder Leil ha'Pesach

The Eleventh Plague

Originally published in April 2012. Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Necrotic Plague, by Jaime Jones

The Eleventh Plague

Towards the end of the Arami Oved Avi section of the Hagadah, we encounter a somewhat puzzling drashah:

With a strong hand – this refers to the dever (pestilence), as it is stated: “Behold! – the hand of Hashem shall strike your cattle which are in the field, the horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks – a very severe pestilence” (Shemos 9:3).

According to the plain pshat, as seemingly indicated by the pasuk cited in the Hagadah, this is a reference to makkas dever: the plague of pestilence that killed the Egyptian livestock, which was the fifth of the ten makkos.

In this post we would like to take up two questions: 

1. Why does the Hagadah single out dever from among the other makkos? There are only two other drashos which mention specific makkos: the first drashah in this set, which references makkas bechoros (the death of the firstborns), and the last drashah in this set, which references makkas dahm (blood). We but why does the Hagadah then backtrack to dever, which was a "lesser" makkah and chronologically preceded makkas bechoros?
2. What essential idea of Yetzias Mitzrayim does this drashah express? I am working with the premise that since we are telling our sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim (the account of the Exodus from Egypt) through these drashos, then each of these drashahos must convey an essential idea about Yetzias Mitzrayim. What fundamental idea is expressed here? 

The most intriguing explanation I've encountered from the Rishonim is that of the Orchos Chayim, in his commentary on the Hagadah:

The explanation of this is as follows: this refers not only to the livestock disease, but to the human epidemic as well, for there wasn't a single one of the makkos that was not accompanied by an epidemic, as it is stated, "Behold, I will smite all of your borders" (Shemos 7:27); "Only this death" (ibid. 10:17); "all of My plagues" (ibid. 9:14). This was expressed through the term "hand," as it is written: "Behold, the hand of Hashem is upon etc."

According to the Orchos Chayim, the drashah in the Haggadah does not refer exclusively to livestock disease, which was but one of the ten makkos. Rather, it refers to the human epidemic which accompanied all of the other makkos. This makkah is only alluded to in the pesukim, never discussed openly (which is one of the reasons why you may never have heard of it). Other midrashim make reference to this dever as well. For instance, Shemos Rabbah 10:2 says:

R' Yehoshua ben Levi said: [in] every makkah that was visited upon the Egyptians, a contagion crept along with it, as it is said, "Behold, I will smite" - and the word "behold" refers to the epidemic, as it says: "Behold, the hand of Hashem is upon your cattle."

This answers our first question: Why does the Hagadah single out dever from among the other makkos? The answer is: It doesn't! The Hagadah is not referring to the makkah of dever per se, but to the "background makkah" of human disease. 

This raises a new question: What was the purpose of this human epidemic? Weren't the ten makkos enough? Furthermore, the Torah itself seems to support the idea that the other makkos were primary, since the narrative explicitly recounts the ten makkos but only alludes to the "background dever." Also, we still haven't answered our second original question: What essential idea of Yetzias Mitzrayim does this drashah teach us?

I believe the clue which will allow us to answer these questions is contained in the first chapters of Sefer Iyov. The story of Iyov begins with a description of Iyov as "wholesome and upright, he feared God and shunned evil." He had a large and happy family and was "the wealthiest man of all the people in the east." One day, the satan posed a challenge to Hashem, saying:

"Is it for nothing that Iyov fears God? Have You not set a protective wall about him, about his household, and about everything he owns from all around? You have blessed his handiwork, and his livestock have spread throughout the land. But send forth Your hand and touch everything that is his, [and see] if he does not blaspheme You to Your face" (Iyov 1:9-11).

Hashem accepts the challenge (so to speak) and grants the satan dominion over all of Iyov's property on the one condition: "do not send forth your hand against his [person]!" (ibid. 12). The satan goes forth and, in a single day, destroys Iyov's wealth, servants, and children. In spite of all the loss, Iyov remains steadfast in his acceptance of Hashem's decree. Hashem points this out to the satan, but the satan replies:

"Skin for the sake of skin! Whatever a man has he would give up for his life! But send forth Your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and surely he will blaspheme You to Your face!" (ibid. 2:4-5).

Hashem grants the satan permission to afflict Iyov's body:

The Satan departed from the presence of Hashem and afflicted Iyov with severe boils, from the soles of his feat to the top of his head. He took a potsherd to scratch himself with, and he sat amid the ashes (ibid. 2:7-8).

At first, Iyov didn't give in - at least, not in his outward speech or actions. "Despite everything, Iyov did not sin with his lips" (ibid. 10) - though, as Chazal teach, he did sin in his heart, even though he didn't express it. Finally, when his friends come to visit him, after sitting in silence for seven days and seven nights, "Iyov opened his mouth and cursed his day" (ibid. 14).

Without going into the whole psychology of Iyov, one thing is clear: his bodily afflictions pushed him over the edge, to the point where questioned his metaphysical premises. He was able to maintain a certain view of hashgachas Hashem (Divine providence) in spite of the destruction of his property and the loss of his children, but once Hashem afflicted his body, Iyov could not longer uphold his original beliefs. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he was able to admit to himself what he truly thought and felt about Hashem and His Divine justice. Only then was Iyov able to commence his inquiry into Hashem's justice.

The ten makkos were not merely a means of liberating Bnei Yisrael from Egypt. Rather, the makkos were designed to teach the Egyptians a set of core ideas about Hashem. The pesukim emphasize the educational character of the makkos again and again: 

• "and Egypt will know that I am Hashem" (Shemos 7:5) 
• "with this shall you know that I am Hashem" (ibid. 7:17) 
• "in order that you shall know that there is none like Hashem, our God" (ibid. 8:6) 
• "in order that you shall know that I am Hashem, in the midst of the land" (ibid. 8:18) 
• "so that you shall know that there is none like Me in all the land" (ibid. 9:14)
• "in order to show you My power, and in order that My Name will be proclaimed throughout the entire land" (ibid. 9:16) 
• "in order that you shall know that the earth is Hashem's" (ibid. 9:29) 
• "so that you shall tell in the ears of your son and your grandson . . . and they shall know that I am Hashem" (ibid. 10:2) 

The purpose of the makkos was to uproot the entire belief system of Egypt and to establish the revolutionary new worldview of Malchus Hashem. But no matter how miraculous, terrifying, and life-disrupting the makkos were, it would still be possible for an Egyptian to uphold his inner resistances and to deflect the lessons that the makkos were designed to instill. Just as Iyov remained staunch in his beliefs in spite of the Divinely ordained destruction of everything he held dear, so too, it would have been possible for the Egyptians to cling to their beliefs, even as Egypt was destroyed all around them.

Herein lies the purpose of the "other dever," perhaps. Each one of the ten makkos was accompanied by a human epidemic. This dever dealt a blow to the physical well-being of the Egyptians, thereby rendering them receptive to the curriculum of the makkos. Iyov was able to persist in his stubbornness, but as soon as his very flesh was attacked, his mind became free to question and contemplate the implications of his suffering. Ultimately, this investigation brought him to a true understanding of Hashem's relationship with mankind. Likewise, the presence of this human epidemic with each and every makkah effectively broke down the Egyptians' resistances to pondering the makkos and enabled the ideas to penetrate their minds.

Perhaps this idea is essential to sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim because it shows a fundamental idea about Hashem's punishments, namely, that they are not vindictive, but are for the good of humanity. "Do I desire at all the death of the wicked - the word of Hashem/Elokim? Is it not rather his return from his ways, that he may live?" (Yechezkel 18:23). In the case of Yetzias Mitzrayim, it is true that Hashem orchestrated the makkos in order to redeem Bnei Yisrael, as He promised to Avraham Avinu. Nevertheless, the makkos were also designed to enlighten the dark society of Egypt and to help them do teshuvah from their moral waywardness and metaphysical errors. The fact that Hashem provided a human epidemic to accompany the makkos in order to facilitate this teshuvah. Thus, by focusing on the human epidemic, we are recognizing yet another dimension of chesed Hashem - His kindness towards all of His creations.

The Plague of the Sword

Originally published in April 2012. Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Platinum Angel, by Gerard Brom

The Plague of the Sword

One of the most mystifying drashos (homiletic interpretations) in the Arami Oved Avi section of the Haggadah pertains to the phrase "and with an outstretched arm":

And with an outstretched arm – this refers to the sword, as it is stated: “And his drawn sword in his hand, outstretched over Jerusalem” (Divrei Ha'Yamim I 21:16).

The questions here are quite straightforward: 

1. What sword? There isn't any mention of a sword among the makkos, and none of the makkos seem to fit the description of "sword" - at least, not on the surface. The actual term "sword" does appear twice in the Torah's account, but only as references to threats, rather than an actual events (see Shemos 5:3 and 5:21). Either way, the Haggadah doesn't cite either of these pesukim in the drashah, so it's a moot point. This brings us to our second question:
2. What does the pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim have to do with Yetzias Mitzrayim? The pasuk cited by the Haggadah refers not to Egypt, but to Yerushalayim, hundreds of years later. The context of that pasuk is Hashem's punishment of David ha'Melech for taking a census of Bnei Yisrael. Hashem responded by giving David a choice of punishments, and David chose "three days of the sword of Hashem, a pestilence in the land, with an angel of God bringing destruction throughout all the borders of Israel" (Divrei ha'Yamim I 21:12). The pasuk cited by the Haggadah refers to the moment when David confronted this angel, whose hand was stayed by Hashem's command: "David raised his eyes and saw the angel of Hashem standing between the earth and heaven, with his sword drawn in his hand, stretched out over Yerushalayim, and David and the elders, who were covered in sackcloth, fell on their faces" (ibid. 21:16).
3. What essential idea of Yetzias Mitzrayim does this drashah express? The Rambam maintains that these drashos are our vehicle of sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim (telling the account of the Exodus from Egypt). [1] As such, they presumably teach ideas which are integral to the account of Yetzias Mitzrayim. What fundamental concept does this drashah convey? 

The Orchos Chaim [2] answers our first question by citing a famous midrash:

This refers to the sword used by the firstborns to kill their fathers, as we find in a drash: All of the firstborns went to their fathers when they heard that Paroh was warned about makkas bechoros. They said to them: "Since Moshe said that every firstborn will die, and everything he has said about this nation has come true, let us go and release these slaves from our midst, for unless we do this, our nation will die." Their fathers responded: "We shall allow [even] ten sons to die for every Egyptian, but we will not allow even one of [the Jews] to stand up and protect himself." 

The firstborns said [to themselves], "The cure for this plague is to go to Paroh, who is a firstborn. Perhaps he will have mercy on his own soul and let these slaves go." They went to Paroh and said, "Since Moshe said that every firstborn will die, and everything he has said about this nation has come true, let us go and release these slaves from our midst, for unless we do this, our nation will die." 

Paroh said to his servants, "Remove them (i.e. these firstborns) and break their knees, for I declared that it is either my life or the lives of these Hebrews, and you say thus?" Immediately, the firstborns went out and killed their fathers. Six hundred thousand [were killed]." 

This is what was written: "To He Who smites Egypt with their firstborns" (Tehilim 136:10). It does not say, "To He Who smites the firstborns of Egypt" but "To He Who smites Egypt with its firstborns" - since the firstborns are the ones who killed them. This is the "makkas cherev" (Plague of the Sword) that happened in Egypt. [3]

The Orchos Chaim answers our first question. What sword is the Haggadah referring to? The answer is: the sword used by the firstborns to kill their fathers prior to makkas bechoros, in retaliation for not letting Bnei Yisrael free.

The answer to the second question is very simple. What does the pasuk have to do with Yetzias Mitzrayim? The answer is: nothing. The only purpose of the pasuk is to demonstrate that the expression "outstretched" alludes to a makkah involving a sword, but the sword actually mentioned in the pasuk from Divrei ha'Yamim has nothing to do with the sword that played a role in the events of Yetzias Mitzrayim.

The only remaining question is: What does this teach us about Yetzias Mitzrayim? Levi (my chavrusa) proposed an answer based on the Orchos Chaim's commentary. Before I present his idea, let us conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine yourself as an Egyptian firstborn. You've just been informed of the impending makkas bechoros. Where do you turn for help? To the bedrock of security: your father. Imagine the psychological trauma that would ensue when your father says, "I will not save you. I'd rather let you die than let the Jewish slaves go free." 

After recovering from the shock, where do you turn next? To Paroh, who is not only the head of the government - another place where people turn for security - but who is, himself, a firstborn, and is therefore someone with whom you identify. And what does Paroh do? He orders his servants to break your knees for insubordination. 

So you and your fellow firstborns decide to take matters into your own hands by staging an uprising. You kill thousands of Egyptians, including your own fathers, thereby adding to the mass panic that had already plagued Egypt since the first makkah.

Now for Levi's idea. Makkas cherev brought about a total breakdown of psychological security in Egypt. This breach of security occurred at all levels of society: family (sons vs. fathers), government (citizens vs. Paroh), fellow citizens (i.e. firstborns vs. Egyptians), religion (i.e. Hashem's makkos targeting the Egyptian gods, culminating in korban Pesach) - not to mention the multiple blows dealt to the Egyptian psyche with each of the preceding makkos.

Perhaps this is the reason why our sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim must include makkas cherev. Our understanding and appreciation of the makkos would be incomplete if we did not recognize the psychological dimension of Hashem's strategic siege on Egypt.

[1] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer Zmanim, Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 7:4

[2] Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yaakov ha'Kohen, Orchos Chaim: Seder Leil ha'Pesach

[3] Tosafos (Shabbos 87b) brings down a slightly different version of the same midrash in his explanation of Shabbos ha'Gadol:

When the Jews took [the animals designated for] their Pesachim on that Shabbos [on the 10th of Nisan in Egypt], the non-Jewish firstborns went to the Jews and asked them why they were doing this, they said, "This is a Pesach-sacrifice to Hashem, Who will kill the Egyptian firstborns." The firstborns went to Paroh to ask him to send the Jews out, but he didn't want to. The firstborns waged war and killed many of the Egyptians. This is what was written: "To He Who smites Egypt with their firstborns."