Haggadah Lomdus - Pesach's Haggadah Part 4 - Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (Jewish Philosophy)

Okay. In the art school family, we're on page 31. Now, this is a piece of tamudic reasoning. It's a section which could have been written in the Talmud. I'll read it to you. It's very short and then I'll explain how it goes and what we have to do to to understand it. uh literally means it could be from the beginning of the month and the intention is could it really be from the beginning of the month? No, can't be Tom Lomar because the verse says on that day. Oh, so it says if you tell me it's got to be on that day maybe it could be during the daytime period not waiting for nightfall. No, the verse says for the sake of this the because of this and the verse was said only at a time when the matzah and morra are placed before you. Well, this is very mysterious. First of all, it's making reference to the verse that we had on the previous page right at the bottom. Had it twice on the previous page. It is because of this that Hashem did so for me when I went out of Egypt. So now you might have thought from the beginning of the month. What might you have thought from the beginning of the month? What is it that you might have thought could happen from the beginning of the month? And the verses tell you know the answer is telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt. After all, that verse is what you say to your son when he asks you, "Why are you doing all of these things?" So, you're telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt. The Gabor thinks maybe you could start that process of retelling the Exodus from the beginning of the month. Now notice it says you might think it could be from beginning of the month. From the beginning of the month means that it would start at the beginning of the month but then carry on. You know it would be a multi-day activity. Why would you have thought that you could start at the beginning of the month? So here if you look into the book of Exodus which is a daring suggestion but might might try it out here it says when God initiated uh uh starting the process of the exodus when he started talking to Moses about what's going to happen he started on the first day of the month. So since the actual process of leaving Egypt started on the first day of the month maybe and it continued on for two weeks until they actually left maybe our telling the story could also start from the beginning of the month and go on for two weeks. So that's the what we call in Hebrew the hav the thought that you might have thought. No because the the the the verse says on that day we say on that day that day is singular. It's only one day. So it can't be a twoe process. Okay. So much for that. Now that day which day? So um of course you have the night of the seder which is certainly a qualified qualified day to do it on but maybe what about the afternoon? What happens in the afternoon of the day before pes starts? Well that's when you offer the pascal sacrifice. That's a pretty big deal. We're offering a sacrifice just like they offered a sacrifice. Maybe that's when you should start telling the story or tell the story then because what you're doing you're doing only because of the fact that there was a pascal sacrifice in Egypt. That's how that's how they left. So that's the second thought. Maybe you could start in the in in the daytime. But it says no because it says babu means for the sake of this. Now in Hebrew just as in English the word this is demonstrative. If you say this book, it has to be where you can see it. If I say take this book to the library, you'll quite quite rightly ask me which one. Rabbi, there are lots of books on the table. I'm not going to tell you the book in the door room. This won't do won't take that. This has to be in front of you visible to point to it. But you have to point to it. Well, now for the sake of this, Hashem took me out of Egypt. What does the child see? Well, what the child sees the pascal sacrifice. He sees you eating matzah. He sees you eating mo and asking why are you doing these things? You say, "For the sake of this, Hashem took me out." That's only possible when you have the matzah or the pascal sacrifice matra. Some say it the other way in front of you so you can point to them because the word this is something you could point to. So, it's got to be there. Therefore, it has to be at night. To which the uh critically minded reader thinks, "Wait a minute. Why can't I put them on the table in the afternoon? You don't have to be there to point to okay. I mean, so some something forbidden about putting them on there in the afternoon and pointing to them saying for the sake of this." That's a good question. And the answer, I think, is like this. Um, I don't know if you're aware of this, but for many places after Hanukkah and some places after Sukus, the matzah factories open. There are matzah factories all over the world. They could be working 18 hours a day. Turning out matzas for the world. Special the handmade matzas and the hand rolled matzahas specially tended by rabbitic supervision and specially packed and they're shipped all over the world. Now, I imagine someone seeing that and thinking, "Well, what are you guys doing with all those crackers?" I tell you, listen, God took us out of Egypt for the sake of these crackers. He's going to say, "That's nuts. What are you talking about? He took you out of Egypt so that we crackers?" What? That's a reason to take you out of Egypt? >> It's not for the crackers, >> Ella. What is it for? >> It's the crackers are resembling like you need to feel like you're in that moment of leading. >> Okay, that's a good that's a good start. Yes, you could say that it's for the symbolism of the experience of the crackers. The the is working in a narrower context, but that's the right that's right. That's the right move. The is working in the context where he took us out for the mitzvah of eating the mat. Not that there should be crackers in the world and the mitzvah only at night because the verse says So that's the the words there. It doesn't mean that they're sitting on the table. It means they're prepared to do the mitzvah with them and that's only at night. It's not in the daytime. That's how you get to it being at night. So this is an example of toic reasoning where um you get like the whole background. there's a certain conclusion you want to get to and you try out other possibilities and you explain why the other possibilities aren't appropriate till you finally get to this one which passes all the tests. That gives a much richer background to what you're what you're hearing than just simply to get the get the the conclusion itself. have had people ask why the tomb was written in such an argumentative style, such an associative style. The Rambub cified all those laws and and wrote them in in in in organized categories and divisions. Um why couldn't the have been dominated like that? Why couldn't have edited the laws like that? And one of the big reasons is that you want to understand how the reasoning went to arrive at the law, not just what the conclusion is. And I'll tell you other places in life where you can learn a lot from this. If you want to learn about music, let's say classical music, you can go to a concert. much better would be go to a per a rehearsal for a concert because in a rehearsal the conductor says the horns should play loud and and the violin should play soft etc etc and then they play and he stops says no that's too loud and this is not soft enough and and then he changes it so you hear what was and you hear why it was deficient and you hear why same thing with with literature if you had the first draft of a Shakespeare play and then saw what he changed the final draft. You'll learn a great deal out of that. You know that he preferred this over that. And I will connect that to our context. The misharim path of the jud was really composed authored in two two editions. The first edition had it as a dialogue and it was discovered I think it was discovered in Russia maybe in Moscow and Thomas went and and recovered it and published it and they published it together with the normal later edition. So you have the two together and in the introduction it was said you know you can play one off against the other and you can learn by looking at one see how to compare it with the other perhaps gives you insight into what they mean. And it occurred to me that that introduction is too balanced. It's too neutral because the dialogue edition Ram Khal did not publish and the later edition he did publish. So they're not equal. We know what he chose and we know what he rejected. So when there are differences between them, I wouldn't neutrally use one to to illuminate the other. I certainly wouldn't use the dialogue edition to illuminate the later edition because he rejected the dialogue edition. So what you could learn is he felt that the dialogue edition was not as appropriate as the later edition and that's something you could learn something from. So here when the gives you the what we call the habina, you might have thought this. So first of all you think why might I have thought that and then it says it's wrong you have to figure out why it's wrong and the in this little piece here it gives it all of that that reasoning I think is an interesting illustration. Now, originally our ancestors were idol worshippers, but now Hashem brought us near to his service. As it is written, Joshua said to all the people, "So is Hashem, God of Israel, your fathers always live beyond the Euphrates River, Terra, the father Abraham and the served other gods." And I took your father Abraham beyond the river and led him through all the land of Cananan and multiply his offspring and gave him Isaac. To Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. Esau I gave out ear to inherent. But Jacob and his children went down to Egypt. Well, um so what why is this here? This is ancient ancient history hundreds of years before the Nexus from Egypt. As a matter of fact, there's a difference of opinion between Rabes and the Gomorrah whether this should be in the Hagada or not. One says the Haga is the is the story of the transition from slavery to freedom like we said a few a few days ago. So start with Egypt and end with getting out of Egypt. The other says, "No, the story has to include the transition from idol worship to receiving the Torah at Sinai and serving Hashem." What exactly is the difference of opinion between them? At first glance, you might think, well, look, when you talk about a historical event, you know very well that historical event fits, you understand it much better when you put it into its context. If you know what led up to the event, you know what consequences it had. So then you'll understand the event better. Okay, I hear that. I hear that. How far back should you go? How far forward should you go? Once you start putting in extra context, I don't know maybe um the flood with Noah where everyone only his family was saved and that's where Abraham came from and the whole Jewish people came from and then going forward not just to receiving the Torah at Sinai but going to the land of Israel conquering the land of Israel doing all the mitzvah that are part of the land of Israel. Maybe you should have that context. Or why not start with a creation and go to the Messiah? How do you know where to cut the line off in adding extra historical context? The answer has to be that this historical context from slave from idol worship to serving Hashem is necessary in order to understand the Exodus. Without that, you don't really understand it at all. The extra is just further context which could give you further depth of understanding. But the one who says you got to go back to idol worship and forward to the receipt of the Torah says if you don't see the the exodus from Egypt as part of that much larger trans transition you don't understand it at all. And I think we can understand that pretty clearly. We spoke about this a few weeks ago about the idea of freedom. Many places this story is sold as Jewish liberation from slavery and it is considered to be just our liberation story and laavd you have the black liberation story in in America and you have rebellions of slaves in other places and slavery was practiced all over the world and even today is still practiced quite heavily in Muslim areas of the world. They don't tell you that in the press, but that's the fact, >> of course, and they and they had black slaves. >> Yeah, look it up. You can look it up. And in fact, as one historian pointed out, the distinction of the Caucasian race, the white population of the world, is that they and only they were the first ones to outlaw slavery. They outlawed slavery. By 1900, there were like eight European and associated countries that had outlawed slavery. Only white ones. Don't talk about fact that the whites are, you know, guilty of of slavery. Everybody had slaves in the ancient world. This was universal. Okay. Anyway, why is that? Because this isn't a freedom story. From our point of view, freedom is only a means to an end. And the end is serving. So if you don't see the story of the Exodus as the means to receiving the Torah, you don't understand what it's about and you'll misinterpret it as God likes people to be free so they can eat ham sandwiches and play soccer on chabas and that's just simply not true. So I think that's the that's the argument. Uh, and the other one I don't know what how he how how he answers so I'm not going to make up but that that I think is quite clear. Now let's look at this paragraph again because it has a few details that are really quite challenging. >> Could it also be seen more as like um Jews becoming people as well that way? >> Well, okay. Um, That's a very interesting point. It's a very interesting point because describing us as an am already describes us in Egypt as an AM. But I think you're right. The whole essence of a people is its own conception of its purpose, of its highest value, of its worldview. And that of course is the Torah. No question about that. So, but then why would you go back to Abraham's father Terak who was an idol worshipper and and and and cite this verse of Joshua that he brought us close to his service. That's what you're saying is true, but it's not what this the is referring to here. But here is referring specifically to idol worship. >> But I think you're right in general. So now let's see first of all they were idol worshippers and Hashem brought us he took us near to his service. Um so you have Abraham and the were were brothers and and Abraham also served other gods. Then I took Abraham from there led him to multip offering he gave him Isaac to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau to Esau I gave mount se now this there's an implication here which is really important you know they talk about the Jewish god what does that mean Jewish god that mean is it does the person who says the Jewish god mean to be a polytheist well the Jews have their god And after the Christians have their god, the Muslim are their god and Indonesians have their god and so on. I don't think so. God is the god of the whole of creation. He's the creator of the universe. So you talk about the Jewish god, you think of the one who Jews worship. Okay, that's fine. But it has to be remembered that he isn't just a god who acts in the context of the Jews. So here we're being told we were taken from idol worshiping and brought to his service. But in the mean in the middle it says I gave mount I gave mount se to Esau to inherit. It means that God is investing in guiding the history of the non-Jewish world also. That's an extremely important >> about I don't know the geography. I was talking about geography know 3,800 years ago. So I I I really don't know. Um, and then um there's a little bit of a hint here which we're going to talk about later, but I gave I I gave Mount S to inherit and of course they put in a butt which isn't in the Hebrew. Jacob is children went down to Egypt which means they didn't inherit anything. They went down to be strangers in the land of Egypt. on page 31 strangers the land of Egypt and became slaves there. That's quite an interesting contrast. Here's the God who has chosen the Jews chose Abraham and gave Joshua gave Esau place to inherit but not the Jews. We'll talk about that later in the session. Okay. Blessed is he who keeps his pledge to Israel. Blessed is he the holy one and blessed be he calculated the end of the bondage in order to do as he said to our father Abraham the covenant between the parts as it is stated in Genesis. He said to Abra know with certainty that your offspring will be aliens in a land not their own. They will serve them and they will oppress them. 400 years. Now take a look at that. Uh know with certainty that your offspring will be aliens of a land not their own. They will serve them. They will oppress them 400 years. Do you see that those words can be read in three different ways? Let's see. Let's schematize it. It says A B C 400 years. What does the 400 years describe? What alternatives are there? If you take it as a b c 400 years, what different ways could you understand what what was being said? >> Okay, so um let's see. It said let's let me put it in in in the Hebrew. There'll be aliens. They will serve them. They will oppress them. 400 years. So let me schematize this for you. Here's one way to do it. A, B, and C are three historical processes, one after the other. And the whole package of A, B, and C will be 400 years. That's one way to read it. Here's another way to read it. A is going to happen in Timbuktu on Mars. B and C will be 400 years. Or another way to read it, A will take place on Mars and B will take place on Venus and C will be 400 years. Is 400 years the last one only or the last two or all three? >> Well, the verse doesn't tell you. The verse gives you no hint how to read the 400 years. Now, let me ask you a question. Which way would make the entire period the shortest? >> Make what? >> Would make the entire period the shortest if the 400 years goes on what? >> Well, okay. We didn't have the first alone as a possibility. >> I'm saying with all three. >> All three. Exactly right. Because if it goes on all three, it means the sum total of the entire period is 400 years. If you say that A is separate on Mars, that could be a thousand years for all I know. We're not talking about that. We're just talking about 400 years for B and C. Then the period gets longer. Right now, we just read that Hashem calculated the end of the bondage. The commentaries explain this verse is written three-way ambiguous. It leaves room. It could be done in three in three three different ways. And in fact, he he explain he applied the verse as the point is going on all three to make it as short as possible. That's what calculated means. That's the calculation. And the >> question You said that the whole world went to Egypt for for food. Does that mean As to Egypt as well? >> Actually, although that's the phrasiology in the the text, many of the commentators say it means the local world >> doesn't mean people came from Asia, >> right? Taking a boat and stuff. I'm assuming do that saying was in that in that land. >> So, it could be very that that they came also. I don't know. It could very well be because people in the in the local area definitely were coming to to Egypt. So here you you may have heard the idea that the Jews were in the 49 gates of the defilement. It means that they had almost completely lost their identity. Had been gone on any longer um then they would have been swamped entirely. So then applied the the verse in the shortest possible way but had things worked out differently. He he had this flexibility to apply it in a different way. That's the idea of calculating. And then there's a s a symbol of this. It says he calculated the end. Now in Hebrew the word end is kari in numerical value is 100 and sa is 90. So it's 190. If you subtract 190 from 400 you're left with 210. That's how many years they were in Egypt. Just 210 not 400. But that was calculated that way so as to save them by taking the verse in the smallest possible way. There are swarm that say that because it was taken in the shortest possible way there's a leftover leftover liability that we have >> we could be >> or something something has to be fixed because it it wasn't done in in the in the best possible way. At any rate that's the idea of uh of calculating Um and afterwards they will leave great possessions. Uh oh so I'm sorry then it comes to the end of the verse also the nation upon whom whom they will serve I will execute judgment and afterwards they will leave great possession. Now judgment in this context the word done usually means to uh condemn and punish. Yes, strictly speaking, it could on occasion mean to judge someone in favor favorably and reward a could. That's much more like mishbat than than done. And certainly in the cabalistic literature, D always constricts always constricts and holds back. Um, and the question is raised by the commentators. Koshu is saying that this is going to happen. He's so to speak decreeing that this will happen. Why should the people who carry out God's decree be judged and punished? Why shouldn't they say at the very least you set it up? Maybe they'll say we should create claim credit for for accomplishing what you wanted accomplished. But why should they be punished? The commentators talk about this and the Ramban has two explanations which are I think both um require some careful thought. One is yesu decreed that it should happen but they didn't do it because of that they did it because they wanted to profit from it or they wanted to present prevent the Jews from growing because they were afraid of them. They didn't do it because bro wanted. And when someone's accused of a crime and he wants to justify himself or give an excuse by citing a kosher motivation for what he was doing, that excuse only works if that's why he did it. And had that part of it not been approp. But if it's if it's not true, then it's only an excuse and it doesn't excuse him. So in this case, the kosher excuse is supposed to be but you wanted it anyway. >> That had nothing to do with their motivation for for enslaving the Jews. >> So the extra pain of them slaving the Jews was >> Oh, I'm coming to that. I didn't mention that. That's a separate that's a separate issue. That's separate issue. This issue of kabana, they didn't have the right intention in doing it. They can't claim that excuse that being immune to to punishment on the grounds that they were serving a causeless. They weren't. >> Right. So they still chose that. They still chose slavery being >> wait a second. They for sure chose. The question is why did they choose? They say we did it. We did it and you wanted it and therefore we should be uh we shouldn't be punished for it. And the answer to that is you didn't do it because he wanted it. You did it because you wanted it. And in fact, even if he hadn't wanted it, you'd still done it. So then the fact that he wanted it isn't an excuse for you. That's just a matter of intention. But then the Ramban says something else. What does it say here? They'll be they'll be put in bondage and they'll be and they'll be um they'll be ser they'll serve as slaves and they'll be um oppressed. But it doesn't say that their babies will be drowned in the river. that it doesn't say and that the Egyptians did. And that means the Egyptians added to what was decreed and for that they have no excuse. Now that's a very very important remark. How could the Egyptians possibly have added to what God decreed? How could they do that? God didn't decree that the children should be killed and they did it anyway. So you see that with free will a person can do something even though God didn't decree that it should happen. Keep that in mind. When a person does something you don't sit back and say that's what God wanted it to happen or that's what God wanted him to do. No, people can will evil. Evil that otherwise wouldn't have happened because God has committed to people operating under free will. A very great commitment, not infinite, not completely unopen-ended. There is such a commitment. And therefore, it's sometimes the case that a person makes a choice. It's a bad choice. He does something, it has consequences. And had he not made the choice, it wouldn't have happened. That's one thing that the rabbis define which I think is very important to know. This is part of another shar where I have a dozen a dozen sources that say this but that definitely follows from the rabbi. Okay. So that's what it said here about the brie and the cover between the the parts. Now a little paragraph bottom of the page 31 which also has its subtleties. It has it is this that is stood by our fathers and us not only one has aris risen against us to annihilate us but in every generation they rise against us to annihilate us. And but the holy one blessed be he rescues us from their hand. And there are two different ways to read this. One of the things that I have noticed was in universities even 40 years ago no one was taught how to read. Read carefully to read with implication to read with with precision. Yeah. Two different ways to read this. Here's the way that I think almost everybody reads it naturally. It is this that has stood by our fathers and us. What stood for us? Well, what stood for us is this over the generations. Over and over again, we get into trouble. And what has stood for us is God saves us from our trouble. You can read it that way, but you don't have to read it that way. But you can read it, you can read it this way. You know what has stood for us over the generations? What has stood for us is that time and time again people stand up against us. That's part of what has stood for us. That's part of the way that God takes care of us that over and over again people have arisen against us and want to annihilate us and he saves us from the it means the desire to annihilate us is also part of the um individual providence with which God preserves us. Well, that puts an entirely different slant on what's going on. It means first of all we don't look at the world as a good part of the time God's on vacation and maybe sort of recording what's happening but just leaving it run on its own steam and then from time to time he intervenes and changes things or prevents things or corrects things because the things left to their own are are running off the tracks here the very events that look like that it's running off its tracks is also an expression of God's providence that when they arise against our letters there's a reason for that and there are historians our historians have pointed out that in periods of which we get too comfortable too relaxed too much at home outside the land of Israel about which we have spoken numerous times your Judaism in Flatbush. Wonderful. Fine, terrific, perfect. No, it isn't. Too comfortable if you're acting and being affected by the ways of the non-Jewish world. And that means even if you're putting on fill in every day and you're keeping kosher, but still still your conception of yourself and your conception of where where you stand and how you react to things takes on a non-Jewish flavor. Then there are those who arise against us to to persecute us and even sometimes to annihilate us to push us back into the mold push us away from the um away from the corrupting influences of the exile environment. Thinking now that Maral says something about this general idea. I heard this from my re I said I saw it again later that one of the purposes of being in exile is to know what to reject to come face to face with things that are really anti-Jewish to identify them as such and to reject them. Well, if that's one of maybe according to the Maral at central purpose of exile and you don't reject them, then the exercise is not serving its purpose. The purpose is to stimulate your critical view and to reject them be able to say no. I'll give you one example that I that I've had from my own experience. I have a few shuring where it talks about following da Torah, what the Torah sages tell you to do and so forth and so on. And I get push back from very communities and very from people. I make my own decisions. I study the sources and decide what to do. Even more than that, I put it this way to to someone who was learning here in the mirror. I said to him, suppose there's a difference of opinion between um Yoshif and Ravosnner. They publish opposing views. What do you do? Now listen to how he answered me. He said, I study both of them and decide who's right. I said, what you decide who's right? I mean, these were two of the greatest scholars of the 20 and 21st centuries. You're going to decide who's right. And he looks me straight in the eye and says, "Yeah, I'll decide who's right." So I said, "You're nuts. Who are you to decide who's right between them?" >> Who will decide? Who could make a decision like that right now? Now >> first there are people who know the materials, let's say, as well as they did only talking about a couple of decades since their their passing of the world. And then there were there were contemporaries of them who disagreed with them. But you have to be on someone's level before you can decide whether he's right or wrong. >> What what's considered me being on that level? Like do we not all have a I'm just asking like in general. >> Yeah. But I don't I don't think this is a this is a such a difficult question. If I would ask you who are the top pass receivers in the National Football League, would you have difficulty in figuring out? Would you have 50 different candidates? You wouldn't be able to evaluate them and decide who's you'd probably have a short list of 10 and say probably three out of these 10 are the top as as opposed to 500 right who's the greatest violin violinist >> who the greatest violinist who's the greatest chemist right I mean these these efforts are have objective measures of of success and you know some people are more successful than others and some people learn from others so they're on a higher level so It's not not a great mystery who would who would count as as a great leader in in any field and I don't think it's a it's a mystery in our our case either. >> What if he felt he learned from like such a big learn from such a big problem and he feels like he's on that level? >> Well then I would pity him because he's very very out of touch with who he is until people beat a a path to his door and say you should decide for our community. you should decide for our region because you are as great as your as your as your teachers. But until that happens, I would say wait for the public recognition. >> Has to be something like that to know that you're on a certain level. >> I think so because people are very prejudiced in their own case and they're they're not objective about themselves. Why should he accept that as a as as you know his own his own his own judgment? So um so just just one second then I want to get to the point that I want that I wanted to make. Um right so I I say to them where you know if you want to decide what to do that's something else you can choose who to follow but that's not deciding who's right. And I said to them, you say that what you're doing is correct. Show me. Show me a verse in a Tanakh, a thousand pages of Tanakh. Show me a Mishna. Show me a tofta. Show me a Gorra. Are you shami a babi? Show me where it says that there are greater people than you. They know better than you. But you study the thing and then you decide what's right and you do it on your own. Show me. Show me a source. I've had this I've issued this challenge of four continents. There isn't any such source. This is definitely an external the individualism of the ex of the western culture which has has unconsciously affected them and they just take it for granted. So this is the idea that you have to be very very aware of this of this kind of influence and not uh not take it for granted that you're going to escape it. That's absolutely crucial. Okay, we have to you have a question ask. Okay.