Arami Oved Avi

By Rabbi Joshua Flug

For technical information regarding use of

.this document, press ctrl and click here
I. Introduction- One of the sections of the Haggadah that receives less attention than it
deserves is the section where we expound on the verses that are said when one brings
bikkurim. {}
a. The Mishna records that this section is an important part of the mitzvah of Maggid.
{}
b. Rambam (1138-1204) writes that the praise for someone who delves into the story of
the Exodus applies specifically to someone who expounds on these verses. {}
c. There are a number of reasons given why this specific parsha was chosen to convey
the story of the Exodus:
i. R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) suggests that it is because the Torah
refers to the parshas bikkurim as "Aniyah." It is a specific type of response
required for Pesach because Chazal (Pesachim 36a) derived from the verse
"lechem oni" that the matzah is something that is present when "onim alav
devarim harbeh." Aniyah is a type of response that has many dimensions. {}
ii. R. Yitzchak Abarbanel (1437-1508) suggests that there is an exact parallel
between the parsha of bikkurim and the requirements of sippur yetzias
mitzrayim. Sippur yetzias mitzrayim requires one to begin with the
denigratory and conclude with the praiseworthy and to have the visual aids of
matzah, maror (and korban Pesach) while one tells the story. The parsha of
bikkurim has the denigratory and the praiseworthy events and it also requires
the visual aid of the bikkurim. {}
iii. R. Yosef D. Soloveitchik (1903-1993) suggests that this parsha was chosen
because the nature of sippur yetzias mitrayim is "hoda'ah." Since the parsha
of bikkurim is rooted in hoda'ah, this is the most appropriate section. {}
iv. R. Chaim Ya'akov Goldvicht (1925-1995) puts these ideas together. Hoda'ah
is a concept where one not only praises G-d, but fells indebted to him (similar
to the hoda'ah of admission when one concedes that he is wrong). Aniyah is a
response, sometimes to a question and sometimes a spontaneous response to
an event. When someone brings bikkurim, he responds with hoda'ah in a
spontaneous manner. This is the type of response that is required for sippur
yetzias mitzrayim. {}
d. What Happened to the last pasuk?
i. There are five pesukim that relate to the story and then the redemption. The
last verse that discusses how G-d brought us to the Land of Israel is noticeably
absent from the Haggadah. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that
the Mishna states that one should read the entire parsha.
ii. R. Shimon ben Tzemach (1361-1444) explains that we do incorporate the last
pasuk by reciting "Dayeinu" which includes the mention of entering the Land
 of Israel and building the Beis HaMikdash. This is the way we conclude with
the praiseworthy. {}
iii. R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffman (1843-1921) suggests that the last pasuk was only
appropriate when the Beis HaMikdash was built and the Jews were all settled
in the Land of Israel. However, now that we are in galus, there is a different
focus. This is why there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding what
is considered the denigratory and the praiseworthy. Before the exile, the
whole story was encapsulated by the parsha of Arami Oved Avi which speaks
of the stages leading up to redemption. Nowadays, there is a dispute as to
what to focus on. {}
e. The rest of this shiur outline will be a collection of ideas relating to the specific
derashos. The discussions are collected from the following seforim (many
commentaries of the Rishonim were collected in the Toras Chaim Haggadah):
i. The Haggadah of Rashi (1040-1105), Rashbam (c. 1085-1158), and Ritva
(1250-1330) (click here to access)
ii. The Haggadah of Tashbetz (click here to access)
iii. The Haggadah of R. Aharon HaKohen of Lunil (Orchos Chaim-click here to
access)
iv. The Haggadah of Abarbanel, R. Tzidkiyah HaRofei (Shibolei HaLeket c.
1210-1275), The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) and R. Ya'akov Emden (1697-
1776) (click here to accesss)
v. The Haggadah of R. Ya'akov of Lisa (1760-1832) (click here to access)
vi. The insights of Rav Soloveitchik as recorded in Harerei Kedem (click here to
access).
II. The First Pasuk
a. ‫אנוס על פי הדיבור‬-‫וירד מצרימה‬
i. Ritva connects this to ‫ארמי אובד אבי‬. Ever since the Bris bein HaBesarim, the
lives of the avos were replete with tza'ar and nisayon. Immediately after
Ya'akov completed the chapter of Lavan, he had to deal with the chapter of
Yosef, which inevitably forced him to take his family to Egypt.
ii. Rav Soloveitchik notes that Rambam omitted this derasha from his Haggadah.
He explains that the derashos are in the form of ‫ מלמד‬which introduces a direct
proof from the verse or ‫ שנאמר‬which introduces a further understanding of this
idea from another verse. The derasha of ‫ אנוס על פי הדיבור‬doesn't contain either
of those derashos and therefore, Rambam omitted it.
iii. The concept ‫ אנוס על פי הדיבור‬requires further explanation. How can one be
told by G-d to do something and consider it forced? Perhaps it is possible to
 suggest that the concept of ‫ אונס‬is normally only applicable if the person who
is forced doesn't want the result. If the person wants the result it is not
considered ‫אונס‬. When Ya'akov went down to Mitzrayim, he benefitted in two
ways: he was now able to support his family and he was able to see Yosef.
The Haggadah is teaching us that nevertheless, it is considered ‫ אונס‬and not a
function of the will of Ya'akov to go down to Mitzrayim. Ya'akov would have
preferred to have a different means of supporting his family and seeing Yosef,
but G-d's plan was to have him go down and thus begin the process laid out in
the Bris Bein HaBesarim.
b. ‫ מלמד שלא ירד יעקב וכו‬-‫'ויגר שם‬
i. Rashi writes that ‫ ויגר‬means to live somewhere temporarily.
ii. Ritva writes that ‫ ויגר‬connotes living like a ‫גר‬, someone who is only a visitor.
iii. Rav Soloveitchik notes that the end of the pasuk referring to the cattle is also
part of the proof. If they came to be farmers, they would be attached to the
land and would not be able to leave so easily. However, since they brought
their cattle with them, they can easily pick up and go somewhere else when
the famine ends.
c. ‫במתי מעט‬- Tashbetz explains that part of the chesed from G-d was that they didn't
expect to become the nation that is as numerous as the stars while they were in
Mitzrayim. They only went there as visitors and yet, they became a nation of great
numbers.
d. ‫מלמד שהיו ישראל מצוינים שם‬-‫ויהי שם לגוי‬
i. Rashi writes that they remained a distinct unit in one city and didn't spread
throughout the land. Ritva adds that this is derived from the word ‫לגוי‬. They
remained their own nation and didn't assimilate.
ii. Ritva quotes another girsa ‫שהיו מסויימין שם‬. They were distinct in Mitzrayim
because they had distinct clothing at it was recognizable that they were the
Jews. Ritva adds that the word ‫ שם‬connotes that it was in Egypt that they
went beyond what they did in Eretz K'na'an where they were not as
recognizable as Jews.
iii. Shibolei HaLeket writes that it should be read ‫'לגוי גדול מלמד שהיו וכו‬. The word
‫ גדול‬doesn't speak of quantity but of quality. They were qualitatively different
in Mitzrayim.
e. ‫כמה שנאמר ובני ישראל וגו‬-‫'גדול עצום‬
i. The derasha seems to be focused on the word ‫ עצום‬which is why it quotes the
verse that mentions ‫ויעצמו‬. The Rishonim quote the Targum which translates
it as a nation that was fruitful and strong. Perhaps the message being
 conveyed by this derasha is that they didn't weaken despite their population
growth.
f. ‫ כמה שנאמר רבבה כצמח וגו‬-‫'ורב‬
i. Ritva explains that there are two messages in this derasha:
1. They grew like weeds- The more the Egyptians tried to stop their
growth, the more they multiplied.
2. Despite their growth, they remained united in their dedication to G-d.
ii. Rav Soloveitchik explains that ‫ ורב‬doesn't refer to population growth but to
maturity. That is why the derasha references a verse about the maturity of a
girl. The message is that the Jewish People reached a stage of maturity in
growth as nation and they were ready for redemption.
III. The Second Pasuk
a. ‫ כמה שנאמר הבה נתחכמה וגו‬-‫'וירעו אותנו המצרים‬
i. Rashi explains that ‫ וירעו‬connotes an additional level of evil. They wanted to
be more evil than Esav who waited until Yitzchak died. In the meantime,
Ya'akov was able to have children. The Mitzrim wanted to raise the level of
evil by preventing them from having children.
ii. Shibolei HaLeket writes that ‫ וירעו‬connotes seeking out the smartest way to be
evil.
b. ‫כמה שנאמר וישימו עליו וגו‬-‫'ויענונו‬
i. Rashi notes that the key words in the prooftext are "‫ "למען ענותו בסבלותם‬which
is the support for the word ‫ויענונו‬.
ii. R. Ya'akov of Lisa writes that the message of the derasha is that they ordered
the building of these cities strictly for the purpose of torturing the Jews. That
is the meaning of ‫ויענונו‬.
c. ‫ כמה שנאמר ויעבידו מצרים וגו‬-‫'ויתנו עלינו עבודה קשה‬
i. Tashbetz notes that the Targum of ‫ בפרך‬is ‫בקשיו‬. The prooftext to ‫ עבודה קשה‬is
that they worked them ‫בפרך‬.
ii. Rashi explains that the work ‫ פרך‬comes from the same word as ‫פרכת‬. The
purpose of ‫ עבודת פרך‬is to separate a man from his wife. [The ultimate goal of
the slavery was to prevent population growth.]
iii. The Vilna Gaon notes that there was a progression that is highlighted by the
derashos:
 1. Their initial intention was ‫ וירעו‬for the specific intent of preventing
population growth.
2. Then they decided to torture them by making them think that their
work was to advance the wealth of the king, when in reality their intent
was to torture them.
3. The means of doing so was through ‫ פרך‬which is a conjugation of ‫פה‬
‫רך‬. They tricked them into thinking it was good work for them, but in
reality, the purpose was to build up the work to the point that they
were tortured.
IV. The Third Pasuk
a. ‫ כמה שנאמר ויהי בימים וגו‬-‫'ונצעק אל ה' אלקי אבותינו‬
i. The Rishonim address why it was only after the death of the first king did they
start to call out to G-d.
ii. Rashi writes that after the death of the first king, the second king forced them
to worships idols and at that is what the verse means when it states ‫ויאנחו בני‬
‫ישראל מן העבודה‬. It was then when they started to call out to G-d.
iii. Tashbetz suggests that during the reign of the first king, they were living on
the hope that he will die soon and that his predecessor will be better to them.
When the second king turned out to be worse, they realized that they had no
choice but to call out to G-d.
b. ‫ כמה שנאמר וישמע אלקים וגו‬-‫'וישמע ה' את קלנו‬
i. Rashi notes that the ‫ קול‬that was heard was not that of the Jewish people but
rather of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov. That is why the verse mentions
them.
ii. R. Ya'akov of Lisa notes that in the previous derasha, the prooftexts never
shows that they called out to G-d. It only states that they screamed because of
the heavy labor. He concludes that it was a chesed of G-d that he considered
it a form of prayer to G-d. Similarly, when the verse states that G-d heard
their voices, he really only heard their screams which did not merit any
redemption. However, since the screams triggered a memory (k'viyachol) of
the Bris Bein HaBesarim, their screams were treated as prayers.
c. ‫זו פרישות דרך ארץ‬-‫וירא את ענינו‬
i. Rashbam writes that the prooftext that there was a separation from marital
relations is the words ‫וידע אלקים‬. We often find the term ‫ וידע‬in the context of
marital relations.
 ii. Ritva writes that ‫ וידע אלקים‬connotes that it is something that only G-d can
know because it is kept private. G-d knew the suffering, but it wasn't
something that was discussed openly.
iii. Rav Soloveitchik explains that there are times when one suffers and screams
out to G-d and there are times that one suffers quietly. ‫ וידע אלקים‬refers to the
fact that G-d hears the silent prayers of those who are suffering.
d. ‫אלו הבנים‬-‫ואת עמלנו‬
i. Rashi explains that children are our ‫עמל‬.
ii. Orchos Chaim explains that when one toils and receives no results, it's
considered ‫עמל‬. This is the message of the derasha. The people produced
children and were forced to throw their sons into the river. This is one of the
greatest forms of ‫עמל‬.
e. ‫ זה הדחק‬-‫ואת לחצינו‬
i. The prooftext seems to be the idea of ‫ לחץ‬and not necessarily the fact that ‫לחץ‬
is ‫דחק‬.
ii. Ritva explains that ‫ דחק‬is a form of persecution and forced conversion and
when G-d saw the forced conversion, He expedited the redemption process.
V. The Fourth Pasuk
a. ‫לא על ידי מלאך וכו‬-‫'ויוציאנו ה' ממצרים‬
i. The commentators ask an obvious question on this derasha: The Torah states
explicitly that makas bechoros was carried out by a ‫משחית‬. How then, can the
Haggadah state that it was carried out by G-d himself?
ii. Shibolei HaLeket explains that in most of the other makos, Moshe and Aharon
were used to initiate the makkah. Regarding makkas bechoros, G-d himself
initiated the makkah. The ‫ משחית‬was not a messenger, but rather the makkah
itself was called a ‫( משחית‬i.e., the ‫ משחית‬was the disease, virus etc., the caused
the first born to die), but it was created and controlled by G-d himself.
iii. R. Ya'akov Emden writes that the ‫ משחית‬was used to destroy the first born in
the Egyptian homes. However, the real miracle was that the Egyptians that
were hiding in Jewish homes were also killed. This was not done by the
‫ משחית‬but by G-d himself because the ‫ משחית‬can't distinguish between Jewish
first born and Egyptian first born.
iv. R. Akiva Eger (1761-1837) notes that the mitzvah of pidyon haben
commemorates the fact that the Jewish first born were saved from the
makkah. Yet, the Midrash teaches that the Egyptians not only lost their first
born from the mother, but even from the father. If so, why is pidyon haben
limited to the first born of the mother? Furthermore, if the miracle was
 performed by G-d himself, why did they need to place blood on the door and
why were they prohibited from leaving their houses? R. Akiva Eger answers
that the first born from the mother are known (we see the baby come out of
the mother), but the first born from the father are not as obvious. The ‫משחית‬
was used to kill the first born from the mother because it didn't require great
scrutiny. However, the first born from the father required the scrutiny of G-d
and therefore, he killed the first born from the father himself. The mitzvah of
pidyon haben commemorates the fact that the ‫ משחית‬who doesn't normally
distinguish between Jews and Egyptians, did so on that night by passing over
the doors that had blood on the mezuzah. Since the ‫ משחית‬only had the license
to kill first born from the mother, the mitzvah of pidyon haben is limited to the
mother. {}
b. ‫זו הדבר וכו‬-‫'ביד חזקה‬
i. Ritva explains that the intention of the derasha is to teach that ‫ יד חזקה‬really
means ‫ 'יד ה‬which is mentioned in the context of ‫דבר‬. This makkah wasn't
performed with a display of full strength which is why it says ‫ יד ה' הויה‬and not
something stronger like it says by makas bechoros ‫וביד חזקה יגרשם‬.
ii. Rav Soloveitchik notes that it is possible that it actually refers to G-d's heavy
hand. He quotes the Netziv that we are not talking about the ‫ דבר‬of the ten
makkos, but rather the ‫ דבר‬than inflicted the Jews during makkas chosech
(according to Netziv, the derasha only establishes that ‫ דבר‬is referred to as ‫יד‬
‫)'ה‬. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the geulah was a function of G-d's mercy
because they were not worthy of redemption. However, even for the Jews,
there was a necessary ‫ חוזק יד‬to allow for the redemption and that was the
death of the Jews at makkas chosech.
c. ‫זו החרב‬-‫ובזרע נטויה‬
i. Where do we find the use of the sword in the makkos?
ii. Rashbam and Shibolei HaLeket explain that it refers to the Midrash that the
Bechoros killed their fathers with swords prior to makkas bechoros.
iii. Ritva explains that ‫ חרב‬is used whenever we refer to revenge. G-d was taking
revenge against those who rebelled against the Bris bein habesarim.
iv. Tashbetz suggests that it refers to the threat of ‫ חרב‬that we find in the verse
(Shemos 5:3) ‫פן יפגענו בדבר או בחרב‬. Although Moshe seems to be referring to
himself, he was really referring to Pharoh and only said ‫ יפגענו‬out of respect
for the king.
d. ‫זו גלוי שכינה‬-‫ובמרא גדול‬
i. Rashi explains that the prooftext is from the end of the verse ... ‫ובמוראים גדולים‬
‫לעיניך‬, that when G-d performs ‫ מוראים גדולים‬it is visible, which is a form of
‫גילוי שכינה‬. The term ‫ מורא‬is not from the same root as ‫ יראה‬but rather ‫מראה‬.
 ii. Ritva explains that the term ‫ יראה‬is derived from ‫ רואה‬because one who sees
the ‫ גילוי שכינה‬displays ‫יראה‬. That is what is means by the verse ‫'ויראו העם את ה‬,
that ‫ קריעת ים סוף‬was a form of ‫ גילוי שכינה‬and therefore, it was accompanied
by ‫יראה‬.
e. ‫זה המטה‬-‫ובאותות‬
i. Shiboleit HaLeket explains that this refers to Moshe turning the staff into a
snake. R. Soloveitchik adds that Moshe needed a proof that he was a
messenger of G-d and the staff served that purpose.
ii. Rashbam explains that this refers to the fact that the names of the ten makkos
were engraved on the staff before they happened.
iii. R. Ya'akov of Lisa asks: the staff was not an ‫אות‬, it was a tool used to produce
‫אותות‬. If so, why does the Haggadah refer to the staff as an ‫אות‬. He explains
that Ramban (beginning of Lech Lecha) notes that prophecies are often
accompanied by symbolic actions to concretize the prophecy. The symbolism
of the staff was that the staff, which was intended to be used for good (such as
drawing water from a rock) was now going to turn into a snake to symbolize
that the makkos are coming.
f. ‫זה הדם‬-‫ובמפתים‬
i. Most Rishonim explain that the makkah of ‫ דם‬was called a ‫מופת‬. Ritva adds
that is says ‫ מופתים‬in the plural because many wonders were done through this
makkah including the fact that a Jew and Egyptian could be drinking from the
same cup and the Jew got water and the Egyptian blood.
ii. Orchos Chaim explains that we are not referring to the makkah of ‫ דם‬but the
sign that Moshe displayed to the people that he was sent by G-d (Shemos 4:9).
iii. R. Ya'akov of Lisa follows the approach of Orchos Chaim and adds that the
changing of water to blood represented a change from ‫ חסד‬to ‫דין‬. This is why
the prooftext is a verse that includes ‫דם ואש ותמרות עשן‬. All three represent ‫דין‬.
 ‫‪ .5‬הגדת ר"י אברבנאל‬ ‫‪ .1‬דברים כו‪:‬ה‪-‬ט‬

‫‪ .2‬פסחים קטז‪.‬‬

‫‪ .6‬הררי קדם חלק ב' עמ' ריט‬

‫‪ .3‬רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ז‪:‬ד‬
‫וצריך להתחיל בגנות ולסיים בשבח‪ .‬כיצד מתחיל‬
‫ומספר שבתחלה היו אבותינו בימי תרח ומלפניו‬
‫כופרים וטועין אחר ההבל ורודפין אחר עבודת‬
‫אלילים‪ .‬ומסיים בדת האמת שקרבנו המקום לו‬
‫והבדילנו מהאומות וקרבנו ליחודו‪ .‬וכן מתחיל ומודיע‬
‫שעבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים וכל הרעה שגמלנו‬
‫ומסיים בנסים ובנפלאות שנעשו לנו ובחירותנו‪ .‬והוא‬
‫שידרוש מארמי אובד אבי עד שיגמור כל הפרשה‪.‬‬
‫וכל המוסיף ומאריך בדרש פרשה זו הרי זה‬
‫משובח‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬אור שמח הל' חמץ ומצה ז‪:‬ד‬
 ‫‪ .9‬מלמד להועיל ח"ג ס' סה‬ ‫‪ .7‬אסופת מערכות הגדה של פסח עמ' פח‬

‫‪ .10‬חוט המשולש החדש עמ' קפב‬

‫‪ .8‬פירוש ההגדה להתשב"ץ‬