According to this explanation, we can understand the commandment of marror rationalistically as well. As everybody knows, bitter is the opposite of sweet. And-
"The Egyptians cherished honey so much, jars of the liquid gold were buried with deceased royalty to give them a sweet transition into the afterlife. Among wine, jewelry and weapons, honey was also valuable enough to be stashed in King Tut's golden tomb—still edible after 3,000 long years."
This is because the Egyptians were not nomadic, so they could keep bees. But the nomadic Israelites were commanded to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and eat bitter herbs, befitting the grizzled steppe lifestyle they were to aspire to.
My goodness. Happy, perhaps you can explain what exactly you find theologically objectionable about this post. Or is it just a matter of your reflexively opposing everything that I write?
This is also the reason for the reading of the Hagadah itself - the Egyptians were very cultured and used complicated hieroglyphics, so we read mere words to express that nomadic simplicity...
Indeed. And the hieroglyphics would have been inscribed upon massive stone blocks used in construction of pyramids, something no self-respecting nomad would schlep.
We also cannot forget the practice of heseibah, leaning.
"Chairs are known from Ancient Egypt and have been widespread in the Western world from the Greeks and Romans onwards."-Wikipedia
"Only the chair I shall withhold from you"-Pharaoh to Joseph, not trusting this young Israelite, inexperienced as he is in the art of chairs.
In contrast to the sedentary Egyptians, the Israelites would have been discouraged from using chairs, which would be impractical to transport given their nomadic lifestyle.
[Insert picture of Bedouin lying on cushions in his tent, smoking a hookah]
During Covid, when people started making sourdough from starters and learned what it takes to make a new starter, it becamae easier to understand what a sacrifice it is to get rid of your sourdough starter, as they were commanded to do. These starters, properly cared for, can last for years, and some say, even generations. A new starter may or may not succeed - and at minimum it takes 3 days.
So when we were asked to leave Egypt, we were asked to get rid of the starter that we had there, and to make a new one - that might or might not succeed, a risk we were forced to take. But we couldn't take Egypt's starter with us
Nomads do keep sourdough starters. And while we get rid of them now it's not clear what our ancestors did historically. A lot has changed over the millennia
I remember this from when you first posted it. Why is the Torah's reason not good enough, again? And why is it "rationalist"? A little reframing and a yiddish word or two, and it's what passes for Chassidishe Torah. "The Egyptians ate Chametz, we must remove the Egypt within ourselves," or something like that. I think it's been done.
Again, the Torah says a reason: כי בחפזון יצאתם מארץ מצרים ולא יאכל חמץ
Why can't we apply that to the night of the fifteenth, when so many laws of the Korban Pesach were in fact related to the anticipated haste? And not having any leaven all week makes a similar point, after all, the Exodus took seven days.
Regarding the Ramban, yes he is explaining the passuk in an unfamiliar way, but the point about haste remains.
I said it over as a torah linking Pesach with Purim and I included the maror and hasobah explanations. First people took it seriously, but then everyone had a good laugh.
I am glad u pointed out that Biblical matza was not flat, but rather soft, like a deflated pita. To my mind, the transition to flat matza made the concept of gebrukts entirely obsoletely. Smashing down the dough with heavy perforated rollers made potential pockets of raw dough nearly impossible.
This rationalist explanation does not rationally account for the severe punishment of eating chametz. Ironically, “mystical” interpretations are perhaps much more rational, because the severity of punishments are proportionate to the transgressions’ deep and vast implications.
The eschewing of chametz is about shedding Egyptian identity and embracing the new identity of a new people. If you eat or even possess chametz you have not truly shed your old Egyptian identity, and therefore cannot forge your new identity. That is the rationalist explanation for why it is so severely punished.
Except bread was a lifestyle for Egyptians. According to this explanation, it makes no sense why we should only do this on Passover. There isn’t a single indication that it is wrong to eat bread throughout the year - in fact, it is often a mitzvah to do so. It should be banned the whole year, just like the prohibition of settling in Egypt applies the whole year.
Furthermore, is there really an issue now of not shedding our Egyptian identity in 2023? And yet, the severe punishment still exists.
except in the Zohar lolol there is reference about not eating chametz all year, which the zohar feels the need to explain why it's okay. super rationalistic...
A nice pshat, and a good article, except for referring to yourself in the third person. Even if disguised as a self-deprecating poke (by your current thinking) at your younger self, it still comes across as classless. The way to say it is simply by saying "I".
Love this explanation!
According to this explanation, we can understand the commandment of marror rationalistically as well. As everybody knows, bitter is the opposite of sweet. And-
"The Egyptians cherished honey so much, jars of the liquid gold were buried with deceased royalty to give them a sweet transition into the afterlife. Among wine, jewelry and weapons, honey was also valuable enough to be stashed in King Tut's golden tomb—still edible after 3,000 long years."
This is because the Egyptians were not nomadic, so they could keep bees. But the nomadic Israelites were commanded to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and eat bitter herbs, befitting the grizzled steppe lifestyle they were to aspire to.
My goodness. Happy, perhaps you can explain what exactly you find theologically objectionable about this post. Or is it just a matter of your reflexively opposing everything that I write?
This is also the reason for the reading of the Hagadah itself - the Egyptians were very cultured and used complicated hieroglyphics, so we read mere words to express that nomadic simplicity...
Indeed. And the hieroglyphics would have been inscribed upon massive stone blocks used in construction of pyramids, something no self-respecting nomad would schlep.
We also cannot forget the practice of heseibah, leaning.
"Chairs are known from Ancient Egypt and have been widespread in the Western world from the Greeks and Romans onwards."-Wikipedia
"Only the chair I shall withhold from you"-Pharaoh to Joseph, not trusting this young Israelite, inexperienced as he is in the art of chairs.
In contrast to the sedentary Egyptians, the Israelites would have been discouraged from using chairs, which would be impractical to transport given their nomadic lifestyle.
[Insert picture of Bedouin lying on cushions in his tent, smoking a hookah]
Hieroglyphics were only used in specific religious contexts; there were cursive scripts used in business contexts and the like.
Ibn Ezra actually makes that chair point about Yaakov sitting up in bed.
They also had papyrus, but heiroglyphics are terribly complicated compared to phonetic writing like Hebrew or Greek; literacy was much more difficult.
I point this out every year
During Covid, when people started making sourdough from starters and learned what it takes to make a new starter, it becamae easier to understand what a sacrifice it is to get rid of your sourdough starter, as they were commanded to do. These starters, properly cared for, can last for years, and some say, even generations. A new starter may or may not succeed - and at minimum it takes 3 days.
So when we were asked to leave Egypt, we were asked to get rid of the starter that we had there, and to make a new one - that might or might not succeed, a risk we were forced to take. But we couldn't take Egypt's starter with us
Nomads do keep sourdough starters. And while we get rid of them now it's not clear what our ancestors did historically. A lot has changed over the millennia
"'Which may be why Potiphar entrusted everything to Yosef except baking bread - see Bereishis 43:32"
LOL. Now THAT is a novel way of explaining כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל!
I remember this from when you first posted it. Why is the Torah's reason not good enough, again? And why is it "rationalist"? A little reframing and a yiddish word or two, and it's what passes for Chassidishe Torah. "The Egyptians ate Chametz, we must remove the Egypt within ourselves," or something like that. I think it's been done.
Again, the Torah says a reason: כי בחפזון יצאתם מארץ מצרים ולא יאכל חמץ
Why can't we apply that to the night of the fifteenth, when so many laws of the Korban Pesach were in fact related to the anticipated haste? And not having any leaven all week makes a similar point, after all, the Exodus took seven days.
Regarding the Ramban, yes he is explaining the passuk in an unfamiliar way, but the point about haste remains.
In Scripture we find four places where guests unexpectedly arrived and they were served matzoh. One place is the story of Lot and the angels.
Matzoh was served because it takes much time to prepare than bread does.
THAT is the rationalist explanation!
I said it over as a torah linking Pesach with Purim and I included the maror and hasobah explanations. First people took it seriously, but then everyone had a good laugh.
I am glad u pointed out that Biblical matza was not flat, but rather soft, like a deflated pita. To my mind, the transition to flat matza made the concept of gebrukts entirely obsoletely. Smashing down the dough with heavy perforated rollers made potential pockets of raw dough nearly impossible.
This rationalist explanation does not rationally account for the severe punishment of eating chametz. Ironically, “mystical” interpretations are perhaps much more rational, because the severity of punishments are proportionate to the transgressions’ deep and vast implications.
The eschewing of chametz is about shedding Egyptian identity and embracing the new identity of a new people. If you eat or even possess chametz you have not truly shed your old Egyptian identity, and therefore cannot forge your new identity. That is the rationalist explanation for why it is so severely punished.
Except bread was a lifestyle for Egyptians. According to this explanation, it makes no sense why we should only do this on Passover. There isn’t a single indication that it is wrong to eat bread throughout the year - in fact, it is often a mitzvah to do so. It should be banned the whole year, just like the prohibition of settling in Egypt applies the whole year.
Furthermore, is there really an issue now of not shedding our Egyptian identity in 2023? And yet, the severe punishment still exists.
except in the Zohar lolol there is reference about not eating chametz all year, which the zohar feels the need to explain why it's okay. super rationalistic...
A nice pshat, and a good article, except for referring to yourself in the third person. Even if disguised as a self-deprecating poke (by your current thinking) at your younger self, it still comes across as classless. The way to say it is simply by saying "I".