“I am the Lord, your God, who took you out of Egypt…”
These famous words are recited by Jews worldwide every single day. The remembrance of the Exodus is a core tenet of Jewish theology, and we enunciate the reality of God’s “personal” involvement in the entire event. In fact, there is one section of the haggadah that focuses on the precise understanding of Divine Providence on the night of the exodus. Rather than following the conventional understanding of God’s relationship to the Jewish people during this period of time, Rashbatz, in his commentary on the haggadah, offers a completely different and very enlightening perspective that reorients the entire focus of the seder night.
The central section of magid involves the Midrashic exposition of a Torah verse that summarizes the journey of the Jewish people from slaves to redemption. In the midst of the analysis, we read the following:
“The Lord took us out of Egypt," not through an angel, not through a seraph and not through a messenger. The Holy One, blessed be He, did it in His glory by Himself!”
The verse associated with this interpretation can be found within the section on the Pesach sacrifice (Shemot 12:12):
“I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night, and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, and upon all the gods of Egypt will I wreak judgments I, the Lord.”
The Torah here points to God as being the exclusive deliverer of the punishment of the final plague. The clear emphasis is on the concept of direct involvement by God with the final plague, in contrast to the idea of God “relying” on messengers and intermediaries to accomplish said tasks. The differentiation is an extremely challenging one to comprehend (and not the subject of this piece), but it is the common understanding of the verse.
Rashbatz (Rav Shimon ben Tzemach, 1361-1444, also known as Tashbatz) offers a remarkably different, if not radical, interpretation of the above in his commentary on the haggadah. He first cites the same passage as is found in the haggadah. He then poses three questions that challenge the normative way of comprehending God’s involvement. He first notes that in another description of the upcoming plague, the Torah describes “Hashem” as being the One to bring about the plague (ibid 29):
“It came to pass at midnight, and Hashem smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who is in the dungeon, and every firstborn animal.”
The Talmud Yerushalmi indicates that the use of the term “Hashem” in the above verse refers to God and His court. In other words, it was not God alone who was punishing the Egyptians; various intermediaries would be involved as well. There is another verse that presents a challenge to the normative interpretation (ibid 23):
“The Lord will pass to smite the Egyptians, and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and the Lord will pass over the entrance, and He will not permit the destroyer (hamashchit) to enter your houses to smite [you]”
If God alone was involved in the plague, how do we understand the description of this “mashchit”, a clear indication of an intermediary?
The above two questions are more of a technical nature, as they challenge an assumption based on other verses. The final question offered by Rashbatz is a more fundamental one. How could it be that the Egyptians would be directly destroyed by God? How could it be that a nation as evil and deserving of denigration as the Egyptians be worthy of being destroyed via the “honor” of God? Sending a messenger, one assigned the task of killing the first born, would be a more appropriate directive.
Rashbatz proceeds to offer an answer, but as a prelude, we must turn to a passage in the Talmud (Berachot 6a). In the midst of a series of statements regarding prayer, the Talmud relates the following:
“It has been taught: Abba Benjamin says, If the eye had the power to see them, no creature could endure the demons (mazikin)”
These “mazikin” are explained to be sheidim (translated by many as demons), some type of “evil” supernatural force. It is important to emphasize that the main issue here is not whether such forces exist. The debate concerning the existence of sheidim is an important one; however, the objective here is to attempt to understand whatever idea the Talmud is trying to present. This author will treat these sheidim in a more natural sense (as will be demonstrated), rather than a supernatural one; however, the interpretation offered transcends this differentiation.
What idea is this cryptic warning telling us? There is a concept known as “anthropic coincidences” that has been the subject of discussion among physicists. Loosely put, this relates to the idea of how the universe is “fine-tuned” for the existence of life. It is a perfect balance, and the slightest shift in any realm of the physical universe would mean life could not emerge. When we look at the universe, taking into account its vastness and complexity, we see how man’s existence is quite the anomaly. The slightest deviation in any facet, such as the position of Earth relative to the sun, would never allow for the species to appear.
We can also view this from a different perspective. The existence of the species of man, in truth, hangs by a thread. We are separated from a universe that has no support for life by a thin atmosphere. There are constant threats that lay over the horizon. Even on a purely human experiential level, our bodies are constantly in a state of immunological war, at the mercy of a dangerous natural world. The examples of the tenuous nature of our existence are endless. The balance can tip at any moment, leading to the annihilation of our species. On an intellectual level, this idea is quite powerful. It reinforces the idea of our dependence on God and our need for Him. In fact, it fits right into the overall theme of prayer stated in the previous passage in the Talmud; one of the essential facets of prayer is the internalization of man’s dependent state. However, if we were to internalize this idea on a psychological level, we would not be able to live. The intense state of paranoia, where every second could mean our doom, would overpower us. We need to understand the idea that we exist on the precipice; but at the same time, we take security from the perceived expectation that all is secure.
Rashbatz builds off this idea in an important manner. He adds to the reading of the Talmud with a simple assertion: God constantly protects us from these threats to our existence. To be clear, Rashbatz is not presenting an idea of occasionalism, the supposition that God is directly involved with every minute detail of the universe (commonly expressed as “He caused the leaf to fall”). While this idea garners a high degree of emotional appeal, there are some difficult theological consequences in believing in such an approach. Rather, Rashbatz is suggesting a more passive idea, a “protective barrier” that is supplied by God. Once this barrier is removed, mankind would cease to exist. This is a much different idea of Divine Providence, as God functions as the ultimate “safety net” for mankind.
This theory helps answer the questions raised above. God did not send a messenger or an intermediary; rather, God withdrew His protection from the people in Egypt. Those no longer afforded this protection would then die at the hands of the “mashchit”, another term for those elements responsible for bringing about man’s destruction. We see then a synchronicity between the verses, rather than an opposing description. God was involved directly through His removal of the protection. What of the Jewish people? The adherence to the commands from God regarding the Pesach sacrifice and the placement of the blood on the doorposts would merit a return of the Divine Providence.
This entire line of thinking is unique and requires a further elaboration. In one sense, Rashbatz does not appear to answer the very question he posed regarding God’s involvement in the plague and exodus. True, phrasing it as more of a withdrawal of His presence implies a distance in His involvement. However, it still means He was the one to remove the protection. Was this not an exclusive involvement? On a deeper level, what exactly are we to learn from this idea of God’s protective barrier? Finally, what lesson should we take from this on the night of the Seder? What new idea can we gain from this alternative explanation?
We should seek to understand the benefit of this approach and what it brings to the table, so to speak. It would appear there is a manner in which God involves Himself with the world through intermediaries. In these instances, in the framework of a punishment, God presents an external threat to man through the intercessor. Looking at the plagues, each of them was in fact some type of outward danger, where the natural world turned on mankind. This is exemplified in such phenomenon as hordes of wild animals, water turning to blood, or any of the other nine plagues. The paradigm shift can be found with the final plague.
Rather than introduce an external threat, God deprived man (or at least the first born Egyptians) of that protective barrier. In essence, this means God presented an intrinsic threat to man’s existence, a punishment where the very core of what defined man and allowed him to be man was threatened. Deprivation of existence is a concept that strikes at the very inner reality of man. Imagine if in the next second there was no longer any oxygen to breathe, or if the sun ceased to radiate heat. The nature of the threat took upon itself a greater quality, and could be part of the reason at that moment the entire population begged for the Jewish people to leave Egypt. The external threats were manageable. On the other hand, this level of threat, where man cannot function as man anymore, was too much for them to handle.
The idea being proposed here fits right into the themes of the seder night. One of the main concepts discussed throughout the section of magid is God’s complete control over the universe. When viewed through the various plagues, this control can be described as a manipulation of the laws of nature He created. Per Rashbatz, there is a deeper idea of control that should be discussed. The continued existence of the species of man is the direct result of God’s will, and through His choosing, the frailty of our existence may be exposed and we would be doomed to annihilation. Indeed, at the height of our celebration of the exodus, where as a nation we stood apart from all others, to understand we can never alter the reality of the fragility of who we are as people is an important antidote to any sense of superiority.
This reality should be part of our very mindset on this celebratory night and throughout the holiday..