IS THE BREAD OF OPPRESSION
our fathers ate
in the land of Egypt.
Let all who are hungry
come in and eat;
let all who are in need
come and join us for the Pesaḥ.
Now we are here;
next year in the land of Israel.
Now – slaves;
next year we shall be free.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Pesach Haggadah, pp. 22-25
This is a strange invitation: "This is the bread of oppression our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Let all who are hungry come in and eat." What hospitality is it to offer the hungry the taste of suffering? In fact, though, this is a profound insight into the nature of slavery and freedom. As noted, matza represents two things: it is the food of slaves, and also the bread eaten by the Israelites as they left Egypt in liberty. What transforms the bread of oppression into the bread of freedom is the willingness to share it with others....
Sharing food is the first act through which slaves become free human beings. One who fears tomorrow does not offer his bread to others. But one who is willing to divide his food with a stranger has already shown himself to be capable of fellowship and faith, the two things from which hope is born. That is why we begin the seder by inviting others to join us. Bread shared is no longer the bread of oppression. Reaching out to others, giving help to the needy and companionship to those who are along, we bring freedom into the world, and with freedom, God.
מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה WHAT MAKES
THIS NIGHT UNLIKE ALL OTHER NIGHTS,
so that every other night we eat either bread or matza,
but tonight there is only matza?
And that every other night we eat many different greens,
but tonight we will eat bitter herbs?
And that every other night we do not dip [our food] at all,
but tonight we will dip it twice?
And that every other night some sit to eat and some recline,
but tonight we are all reclining?
בפסח שואל הבן מה נשתנה, ולמה דוקא שואל הבן בפסח ואינו שואל בסוכות מה נשתנה. ...כי בניסן הוא הנהגה שהקדוש ברוך הוא מנהיג העולם על ידי תפארת ישראל לכך היו להם לישראל ניסים ונפלאות גדולים בזה החודש...כי באמת זה שהקדוש ברוך הוא מנהיג עולמו על ידי תפארת ישראל הוא זה שהקדוש ברוך הוא מצמצם את עצמו בעבודת עמו ישראל ויש לו תענוג גדול מזה ובזה ממלא רצונם וחפצם. ולדוגמא זה הוא שאלת הבן לאביו, כי שכל האב גדול משכל הבן רק לאהבת האב להבן מצמצם עצמו האב להשיב תשובה על קושיות הבן הוא לדוגמא הנ"ל שהקדוש ברוך הוא מצמצם עצמו במדות ישראל להתפאר עמהם לעשות רצונם.
One might have thought
this meant from the beginning of the month.
And so it says, “on that day.”
Had it said only “on that day,”
one might have thought [the obligation] applied during the day.
And so it also says, “Because of this” –
“because of this” can only be said
when matza and bitter herbs are there before you.
the land of Egypt on that night” – I and no angel.
“I shall kill every firstborn son in
the land of Egypt” – I and no seraph.
“And I shall pass judgment on all
the gods of Egypt” – I and no emissary.
“I am the LORD” – It is I and no other.
Rav Lichtenstein, Sabra and Shatila
During those days, I stood before the Creator of the world and I beat my breast, as an individual and as part of a collective: “For the Sin we committed before You of Aggressiveness [בחוזק-יד].” I asked myself to what I must be intending in this phrase? ...Even a merciful and humane person, who would never dream of attacking another individual, might think and feel otherwise when he acts as the representative of the establishment of law and justice. … When he gets into the momentum of flogging the criminal, it would be only too easy for the agent of the Court to add another blow or two, whether a result of the authoritative spirit that went to his head or possibly to sharpen the lesson and to perform his job thoroughly, or maybe just to round up the 39 lashes to 40.
And so, particularly here, where the danger of making allowances, and the feelings of contempt that may arise in an encounter with a person who “deserves it”, when these dangers are so great, the Torah warns that a person who oversteps the rules (of punitive lashing) will himself be liable for those lashes.
Moreover, from a certain perspective the person who adds to the requisite number of lashes is ethically liable not merely for the additional blows but for all those which preceded it. Because by the addition, he declares that he was not striking the offender as an agent of the court, but as a mere assailant; he was not a sensitive individual who administered lashes regrettably but dutifully, out of a need to do what was needed for the good of society and the cause of justice, but rather an oppressive, tyrannical individual who delights in the opportunity to dominate another person, and who has found in his official role, an outlet and a legitimacy for those inclinations.
In a similar vein, to my mind, King Saul was not punished because he allowed [the Amalekite king] Agag to live, but rather because this discrimination, [saving only the king,] aroused and unleashed divine guilt upon Saul for the murder of the rest of the Amalekites. The command to kill Amalek – and now is not the place to fully examine this – is inexplicable and unjustifiable by any measure of natural ethics or moral law. It warrants legitimacy exclusively due to being anchored in a divine command and absolute obedience to it. However, the moment Saul took pity on his royal colleague, he made clear that what guided him was not the halakhic dictate but rather other motivations. And if that is true, he was rejected from the kingship not due to showing mercy, but exactly the opposite – due to his aggression which was expressed in the action [of killing everyone else] as a whole.