Hagaddah 2025 Hatam Sofer

I abstracted comments from Hatam Sofer on the Torah with special attention to comments that dealt with passages that begged for interpretation and ideas that would add to the discussion of the Exodus on Seder night

קַדֵּשׁ

This is the first of the four cups, corresponding to the four expressions of redemption HS points out that the passage actually has 6 expressions of the redemption. Hevesi is fifth and Nosati is the sixth. He explains that giving of the land of Israel did not eventually happen to this generation and the giving was not full throated because of the spies poor behavior. So, the four cups correspond to those parts of the Redemption that actually happened when they left Egypt

HS raises the question that at the end of Sefer Bereshis the text lists all of Yakov's descendants as travelling to Egypt whereas in the beginning of Shemos only the twelve sons are listed. His answer is that as long as Yakov was alive, he was the dominant educational source "curriculum" for all the generations of descendants. Thus they all the descendants were equal before the Great Father. Everyone studied at his feet. With the passage of Yakov each one of the twelve sons became dominant in his tribe and the transmission of the Tradition would start to deviate between the different tribes. Thus the tribes would start to have different identities. The beginning of Shemos that lists only the twelve brothers is hinting at this evolution of the Jewish nation.

It is arguable that this is not a terribly important factoid except that for me it answers one of the great riddles of the Redemption from Egypt. -- The dominance of the tribe of Levi. Now this introductory passage in Sefer Shemos becomes a vital clue that the RBSO left for us to explain how this happened. The tribe of Levi hewed out an educational path that led to this phenomenon and it was different from the other tribes. Tradition teaches that there were other differences between Levi and all the other Tribes in that they did not participate in the slavery. It was also a much smaller tribe than the others. So the first passage in the Sefer moves from becoming a literary introduction to a vital detail explaining the evolution of the narrative

HS raises difficulties with the narrative of the two midwives

1. There are two "and he said" in Pharoah's instructions but only one instruction

2. Tradition tells us the names of these two women, so where did the two Egyptian names Shifrah and Puah come from, especially since tradition attaches great importance to the Jews maintaining original Jewish names in Egypt.

3.In their response to Pharoah's interrogation, the midwives respond that the Jewish births are very fast. Why do they bother mentioning that the Egyptian ones are different.

4. Why the duplication "they defied Pharoah" and then "they kept the infants alive

HS responds that the names were not personal but signified setting up a two-person team of midwives, one person involved with the birth and the other the post-natal care of the infant as signified by the two names. This situation would help obscure who the murderer was. The use of Egyptian names signified that these two women were being made the chief midwives of the whole kingdom. Although HS leaves this to the reader, presumably if all the Jewish midwives' boys died, they would have no legitimacy. The success of the non- Jewish births would

legitimize their professional status. In that context the two responded that were not skilled at delivering Egyptian women because they needed more help than the Jewish ones so the plan could not work to hide their crime behind successful Egyptian births because they were not trained to help Egyptian women. Lastly with a two women team one individual could never be certain that her companion was not a collaborator, so the text makes the point that in each team each individual strove to guarantee that the birth was successful despite her companions efforts Thus the duplicate line they-all - strove to keep the infants alive.

וַנִּצְעַק אֶל־יהוה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ, וַיִּשְׁמַע יהוה אֶת־קֹלֵנוּ, וַיַּרְא אֶת־עָנְיֵנוּ וְאֶת־עֲמָלֵנוּ וְאֶת־לַחֲצֵנוּ.

HS points out that the passages Ex 6. 6-9 need to be understood After Moses missions shows signs of failure he is sent back with the same message as the original and the Jews as one would expect are unmoved by it. So what was the point.

HS points out from the laws of Oaths that an obligation to give something to another based on an oath has two different sets of rules. If the obligation is to an individual who is not needy, an oath to send a present is not unconditional and as long as there is an opportunity to complete the gift, conditions can be attached after the oath is made even so far as to make it a temporary present that must be returned . That oath will be fulfilled if the item is given and the recipient is forced to return by a subsequent condition Not so if the oath is to give a present to a needy individual. Obligations and presents to the poor have the same stature as an obligation to transfer valuables to the holy precincts and it is as if the holy precincts or the needy have taken possession immediately and no conditions can be attached because in legal terms the item has already left the possession of the original owner. So, in this message is contained the idea that the despair of the Jews' situation was recognized and they now assumed the role of the needy individual and there was no intention of the L-rd to backtrack, delay or set new conditions for their redemption. So, this was now a very appropriate response to the Jews who were doubting the validity of Moses' mission because of its initial failure.

HS attaches meaning to the change of the Holy Names shadai to the tetragramaton here and I am not certain that I see the link. HS uses this idea to explain why the passage ends I am the Tetragamaton. (It occurs to me that HS introduces a new possibility to understanding an ancient problem that the original slavery was to last 400 years and in fact it lasted just about half the time The traditional answer is shifting when the 400 years start. Here HS raises the possibility that 400 years represented the maximum term of the slavery and the Name Shadai by its nature representing a natural evolutionary exodus that could be modulated. This implies that the exact duration could be shaped by events. Here during Moses mission the end of the slavery was now being scripted to end both miraculously and immediately. This was therefore a contemplated possibility in the large set of outcomes to the period of slavery that was part of the original bris ben habisorim prophecy.)

HS points out that there are two versions at the Sneh of the L-rd's response to the Jews' prayers. The first is I saw the oppression, heard their prayer, and descended to Egypt to save them and bring them to the Promised Land . Right away though it repeated but there is a difference. I heard the prayer, saw the oppression and will send you to Pharoah to extricate my nation. HS notices that the order of the observation of the oppression and the reception of the prayer changes order and in the second rendition travelling to the Promised Land is omitted. HS feels that something changed between the two versions and the Redemption suddenly became less complete. He proposes that somehow the Jews became less worthy but is short on the explanation since there is no report in the Text of anything the Jews did wrong

If we go forward to Moses near fatal encounter on his trip back to Egypt on the episode where Moses almost died before circumcising his son HS makes an interesting observation. Every generation must contain individuals who are suitable Leaders if the Jews earn the Geulah. And if the generation passes without the Jews earning the Geulah, these individuals pass on as is the way of all flesh. He proposes that in the absence of a response to their prayers the Jew started to lose hope and with that loss of Emunah the opportunity for a Geulah was slipping away and so was the need for Moses' leadership.

Now there are two obvious ways of going forward. Because the earlier redemption was based on the Jews' prayer and demonstration of Faith in their ancestor's assurances, disappearance of that Faith would justifiably lead to a cancelation of the imminent Redemption. On the other hand it could be argued that if this opportunity was lost the Jews may never pray again and there might never be an opportunity to redeem them and create the Holy nation. These two options have a certain intellectual equality

Somehow Tziporrah's enthusiastic circumcision of her son chose the second path and restored a momentum for the Geulah. Possibly because all the Jews had to circumcise to prepare for the Pesah as the passage says Misbossess b'domayich the blood of the lamb and the blood of the preparatory circumcisions, her bold action could be seen as setting in motion the Redemption.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָיָה נוֹתֵן בָּהֶם סִמָּנִים: דְּצַ"ךְ עֲדַ"שׁ בְּאַחַ"ב.

HS offers some observations Only the plagues of Wild Beasts and Hail were limited geographically to exclude Goshen. He suggests that these were very terrifying events even to individuals like the Jews who would be spared and the L-rd wanted to spare the Jews the suffering of even observing the terror. Note that these two plagues drove the lengthiest responses from Pharoah which indicates that they were uniquely terrifying.

Additionally, when Pharoah offers to let the Jews celebrate after the plague of the wild beasts he initially says celebrate in this land. HS suggests that he interpreted Moses' request to celebrate in the desert as a need for a natural uncivilized wild place and now that the wild beasts had rendered Egypt such an uncivilized place Egypt should satisfy Moses request for a place to celebrate.

For the plague of the dying cattle Moses sets a time on the following day. Why was this necessary and why is there no use of the approximation of time that Moses usually expresses. HS states that because the Egyptian astrologers were less than perfect time keepers Moses always used an expression of approximate so that their errors would not be construed as an error on Moses' part. With the plague of the cattle there was a problem Moses promised that no Jewish owned cattle would die. Now cattle death is a natural event and after the plague was over some Jewish cow was bound to die. This would lead to an Egyptian denial of Moses' prophecy. So Moses had to define that exact time of this Plague so that the next natural death of a Jewish owned cow would not be attributed to the Plague.

After the fifth plague the Text describes that Pharoah's courage was strengthened divinely. At the same time he is warned that his survival is simply for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the world to witness Divine retribution. In order to answer the ancient question of how could Pharoah be punished when he was being divinely provided with courage to be stubborn HS answers this by saying that after the Plague of dever when he could have died. Pharoah was a walking corpse and received no opportunity to repent and could be made to suffer as a demonstration because he was effectively dead ( I am curious that after juxtaposing his observations HS did not connect the dots differently. At the same time as Pharoah received divine support for his stubbornness he was told that he was being kept alive as a puppet in a puppet show so that divine retribution could be witnessed. Pharoah was therefore in a position to understand that he was being given supernatural amounts of courage so that he could be punished This was enough information for Pharoah to realize that he should not use this artificial courage to defy the L-rd. So, he was making a decision to proceed and was therefore responsible and justly punished. )

The Text after the fifth Plague states that this time I will send all my plagues against you .. and this will penetrate your heart.. There are two versions of Rashi. One says that the reference is to the destruction of the firstborns. The second says that it is a reference to the destruction of the early fruit, barley and flax by the hail. HS explains that Pharoah was warned at the beginning about the destruction of the firstborns. So what was new here? HS explains that Pharoah did not believe that the plagues could effect life until the cattle were killed and then he was convinced that the L-rd could take life when dever occurred. But he could still believe that the holy firstborns were untouchable. So here comes the hail which destroyed the early fruit, the barley and the flax. This was sign that the first human fruits in spite of their holiness in the Egyptian mythology could suffer. This was meant to penetrate Pharoah's heart with apprehension. (This connects the dots that just like redeeming first born male men and donkeys, and sacrificing firstborn livestock commemorates the tenth Plague, bringing bikurim with the associated tefillah (which is the backbone of the Hagada) also commemorates striking human and agricultural firstborns and the Exodus. )

HS goes on to propose that this explains the contest between Kayin and Hevel. Hevel brought a sacrifice from the earliest fruit which is flax while Hevel sought a firstborn and a precious sacrifice -- the Helev of his first born sheep. Kayin could have matched his brother's piety by bringing a barley sacrifice which combines "firstness" with the best since as we see from the plague both barley and flax ripen early. HS goes on to say that this dichotomy between firstness and firstness combined with quality is reflected in the Temple service where the regular Kohanim wear flax/linned uniforms but when the firstborn livestock are sacrificed the best parts are brought to the Altar. ( Possibly this explains the dichotomy that new grain becomes permissible to the general population with a Barley offering on Pesach but the Temple can only use new grain after the Wheat offering on Shavuos. An offering that has significance for the Temple Service on the Altar must be more precious not simply the first of the first. If so we find a very early source for the famous dictum would you bring [this inferior offering] to a mortal dignitary.)

The text on borod ends with an agricultural description of which and why certain crops were spared. HS explains that this detail is added because it was the basis of Pharoah denying the significance of the hail damaging the early crops. Instead of accepting this as a divine warning that his firstborns were at risk, Pharoah explained the destruction of the early crops and sparing of the later ones as a result of the time in the season that the hail struck. An accident not a divine sign.

The description of the Locust Plague begins with an uncharacteristic go to pharoah not followed by the day's message but with the explanation that the L-rd provided him with courageous stubborness to deny the Divine request. HS provides some interesting observations. Really the hail and the locusts were the same plague, the destruction of the agricultural products, dividing this destruction into two plagues is superfluous So, the explanation is given that this end result was divided into two plaques to increase the awe of the Deliverance.

Additionally Moses could have objected- Why am I warning Pharoah when he will continue to resist based on the divine courage he has. So, the L-rd explains that the purpose of the warning is not to change Pharoah's mind but to impress the Jews. A plague that is predicted by the Prophet is more impressive than one that appears spontaneously. HS's thought can be taken a step deeper. The continuing denial of the Divine authority was really a chilul hashem. Expressed differently it fills the world with one more instance of evil like an episode of idol worship. so, Moses could rightly complain that because the continuing warnings and resistance by Pharoah added nothing to the world's holiness, why persist with the warnings. The answer to this is that filling the world with awe and gaining the Jews' confidence in the True Worship was a goal that justified this extra instance of chilul hashem.

HS adds a further observation that after Moses is instructed to go to Pharoah before the locusts the text does not record what Moses message was. HS points out that Moses had a unique prophecy that the Divine voice projected from his throat. We find such an occurrence in Num 23:5 with Bilam's message. Now until the hail plagues Pharoah operated at an inferior level of denial and he could not be addressed directly with the Divine Voice so Moses' required instruction what the message would be so that he could repeat it to Pharoah. Once inEx 9:27 Pharoah rose to the level of saying I sinned the L-rd is righteous he rose enough that the Divine Voice could address him and thus Moses did not have to be advised of the message ahead of time it could spill out of his mouth for the first time in Pharoah's presence.

HS raises the possibility that Pharoah's admission did not amount to a renunciation of paganism He may have believed that in his pantheon of divinities his own Authority punished him by delivering him to Moses' G-d, meaning that he not only believed in a Pantheon but the he denied the superiority of Moses' G-d. So the passage ends that all this is happening to demonstrate that I am Y.. there is only one Divinity.

HS explains what the interpretation that Rashi and Ramban apply to the word Hisalalty They seem to apply the English meaning "I played with them: or "I teased them". The plagues were devastatingly seriously. How can they apply the word "play" or tease to the event.

HS explains that the reversal of the fortune of the Jews who came to Egypt as almost potentates with great wealth to a nation of laborers in bricks and mud could be interpreted as a result of the superiority of the Egyptian Deity. Now this presumption was turned on its head as the Jews left to freedom with all the Egyptian wealth, as if the L-rd simply stored all the money the Jews brought and Yosef gathered during the Famine with the Egyptians so that the Jews could leave wealth with it. This demonstrated that the whole Exile into Egypt from start to finish was the L-rd's plan with no intervening deity. So, Hiallalty is correctly interpreted as an irony or tease.

When Pharoah offers freedom without livestock Moses responds you will give as your livestock ... and we don't know how great a scrifice of our own livestock will be required of us for sacrifice.

Now there are several problems here. 1. It is never recorded that Pharoah sent sacrifices 2. Why would Moses want an unrepentant wicked person's sacrifice. 3. Shouldn't the order be we may need a great number of our sacrifices and then add yours Not Pharoah first and then our livestock.

HS points to a similar passage Where the Jews complain you have given Pharoah a sword with which to slay us. Now no such progrom ever happened The real meaning is you have given Pharoah an excuse to use a sword and slay us. Here too the word give implies your terrible actions will give ,

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלָּקוּ הַמִּצְרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם עֶשֶׂר מַכּוֹת וְעַל הַיָּם לָקוּ חֲמִשִּׁים מַכּוֹת?

HS dwells on the beginning Ex. 6 where Moshe is told that the L-rd only revealed himself to the Great Fathers with the name shadai. Because the Tetrgrammaton appears throughout Genesis the Possuk demands a deeper interpretation than the literal one. HS points out that Great Fathers were clearly aware of the Unity and Eternity of the L-rd. Thus the deliverance that was promised to them was one that would appear more natural because there was no need for the L-rd to announce his unique Existence to men and presumably their offspring of great faith. However when the hour of deliverance finally arrived and it was clear that the generation of Jews that were to experience Redemption were poorly schooled about the Divine Presence, they required a miraculous deliverance to educate them This is part of the common teaching that men of great faith see the Divinity in the continuous unrelenting Nature of the world whereas men of lesser stature requires exceptional events and miracles to support their faith. Possibly this is the purpose of these passages to demonstrate the enormity of the demonstration that the L-rd put on to educate that generation of Jews.