A Haggadah for the Entire Family: Grappling with Divine Corporeality, or Not

I posted recently about something in a gifted Haggadah, taking issue with the instructions about not speaking between hamotzi on matzah until one finished consuming Korech.

As I read through that same Haggadah, I had some other thoughts, as they pertain to knowing your audience, and balancing it with an accurate rendition of the text and ideas. I’ll explore them in two posts.

The title is Living the Haggadah: The Ultimate Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim Guide for the Entire Family. That means that while the content can be scholarly and grounded in gemara, rishonim and acharonim, it should also be accessible to kids. There are more educated and less educated adults. There are at least two audiences, and you don’t want to lose on at the expense of the other. There is also content that may be acceptable to a sophisticated Torah scholar, but could leave the less learned confused.

That brings us to the story of Sancheiriv. That isn’t really part of the Haggadah. However, in Nirtza, one piyut describes the destruction of Sancheriv’s army on the night of Pesach, so this Haggadah first delves into that at length.

An entertaining Sancheriv story, which also shows Hashem’s punishment of the wicked, is the shaving of Sancheriv. And, it is a continuation of the preceding story. However, there is a huge problem with sharing it, which I will explain in a bit. For now, read the story in the images. I noticed that it begins with a square bracket [ and ends with a square bracket ]. Maybe this is because they were wondering whether it should be included. Read the story in English, and I’ll see you down below.

I actually recently wrote an article in the Jewish Link about this Talmudic story, Shaving Sennacherib and Midrashic Figurativism.

If you read the story in the gemara, it is seemingly about how Hashem took human form and (literally) shaved Sancheriv. It begins (Sanhedrin 95b):

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אִלְמָלֵא מִקְרָא כָּתוּב, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאׇמְרוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יְגַלַּח ה׳ בְּתַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה בְּעֶבְרֵי נָהָר בְּמֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְשַׂעַר הָרַגְלָיִם וְגַם אֶת הַזָּקָן תִּסְפֶּה״.

§ Rabbi Abbahu says: Were the following verse not written, it would have been impossible to say it, since it appears to be a desecration of the name of God, as it is written: “On that day shall the Lord shave with a hired razor in the parts beyond the river the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the legs, and it shall also sweep away the beard” (Isaiah 7:20). The blasphemous indication is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will Himself shave Sennacherib.

and continues with all the details in the story above.

Meanwhile, if you read the account in this family-friendly Haggadah, who did the shaving?

1. “On the way, he met an old man.”

2. (Some say that this man was really Eliyahu Hanavi.)

So the standard reading, the peshat reading of the gemara, that it is Hashem taking human form, or directing an avatar, is entirely omitted, in favor of it actually being a regular human. Please explain, if it were a regular human old man as per (1), why Rabbi Avahu would say “were this verse not written, it would have been impossible to say it?” It makes no sense, and I don’t know of any commentator who explains the gemara in this way.

Even option (2) is misleading. There is a footnote pointing to the Rama in Torah HaOlah, saying (my translation from the Hebrew):

Perhaps he was Eliyahu, may his memory be for a blessing, for he is the plain “elder man” mentioned in their [Chazal’s] words z”al. And it is possible that he performed all this actions related in this Talmudic segment. And in truth, “had the verse not been written” even this would be impossible so say, for Eliyahu za”l only reveals himself to the pure of spirit, and pious one, and not an evildoer like Sancheriv.

Even the Rama’s explanation is a kvetch. He is bothered by the seeming corporeality of Hashem in this story. This is the same reason that Rambam said that only fools take the stories in perek Chelek of Sanhedrin, where this story appears, literally instead of allegorically. And so Rama tried valiantly to make it not Hashem but instead Eliyahu Hanavi. It is still a kvetch, because the verse that is written clearly is meant to indicate Hashem, בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֡וּא יְגַלַּ֣ח אֲדֹנָי֩. That is what Rabbi Avahu is referencing in his defense, and that has nothing to do with Eliyahu Hanavi.

Regardless, option 2 is misleading, because it purports to promote the plain old man into Eliyahu, instead of demoting Hashem into Eliyahu HaNavi.

I am uncertain whether the Haggadah’s author may not even trust his educated Hebrew readers. He puts the entire gemara, with interpolated commentary from Rashi in [square brackets], in footnote 76. See second image above for that footnote.

He points us to Sanhedrin 95b - 96a, and says vezeh leshono, then quotes it. And, the opening words in Aramaic are: אֲתָא קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא, וְאִדְּמִי לֵיהּ כְּגַבְרָא סָבָא.

Someone who doesn’t understand Aramaic so well could read it, especially in light of the English, that “Hashem went and made appear to him an elder gentleman.” And that matches where the English story begins as well. However, the actual sugya begins a little bit earlier, with the text I cited above. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אִלְמָלֵא מִקְרָא כָּתוּב, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאׇמְרוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יְגַלַּח ה׳ בְּתַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה בְּעֶבְרֵי נָהָר בְּמֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְשַׂעַר הָרַגְלָיִם וְגַם אֶת הַזָּקָן תִּסְפֶּה״. A sophisticated Hebrew / Aramaic reader would see this and know that the straightforward peshat had to do with Hashem performing the action.

Especially on Pesach night when we focus on the actions of Hashem Himself, with no intermediary, as we say in the Haggadah:

"וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ יְיָ מִמִצְרַיִם" - לֹא עַל יְדֵי מַלְאָךְ, וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי שָׂרָף, וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ, אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּכְבוֹדוֹ וּבְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה, וּבְכָל אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים, אֲנִי יְיָ":

"וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה" - אֲנִי וְלֹא מַלְאָךְ

"וְהִכֵּיתִי כָּל בְכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם" - אֲנִי וְלֹא שָׂרָף

"וּבְכָל אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים" - אֲנִי ולֹא הַשָּׁלִיחַ

"אֲנִי יְיָ" - אֲנִי הוּא ולֹא אַחֵר.

it seems strange to take a source that describes Hashem’s amazing seemingly direct actions and turning into the actions of a common man, or even Eliyahu HaNavi.

Now, this is admittedly an editorial choice to grapple with. Do you want young children, or even adults, to chas veshalom take this midrash literally, and think that Hashem can assume human form? And, if you state that it is allegorical, like the Rambam explains, can you elaborate upon what the cryptic allegory actually refers to in an accessible manner? And, once you say it is allegorical, you open up the question whether this and other midrashic accounts, including what preceded it, are not historical but are also allegories. The whole point of including the story in the haggadah, meanwhile, was to give an midrashic-historical account of what happened to Sancheriv. This sophisticated discussion would undercut that point.

Still, I am unhappy with the compromise they landed on. I would have preferred entire omission of the story — take out the [bracketed] text; relegating it all to a lengthy Hebrew footnote; or including it together with the hard work of discussing its meaning in a nuanced way. What they did — changing Hashem into a regular old man, seems to me like ziyuf haTorah.