Comments on: More Than Just a Line in Our Prayers: Remembering the Exodus by Gidon Rothstein

By: tzvee

tzvee — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:30:47 +0000

Reuven, it may be more straightforward. You could say that we are humble and admit that we need templates for praising G-d. First we turn to the ophanim and hayot haqodesh to learn how they pray, for they are near to G-d and would know what to say; later we turn to the Israelites at the sea to learn how they pray, for they experienced a great redemption and would know what to say. after all we are just plain folk looking for the best models to emulate so we may utter proper and effective prayers.

By: Reuven Tradburks

Reuven Tradburks — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:52:52 +0000

Rabbi Rothstein,
Enjoyed your article.
I would add – the “mi chamocha” strikes me as somewhat out of place in the tefilla. the bracha of geula following the shema is an elaboration of the mitzvah of mere mention of the exodus – elaborating on the nature of the G-d of history, including the plagues and the details.
and it includes the splitting of the sea. but that is all what He does. we finish with what we do in response – shira al hayam.
why do we include in tefilla what we do (or did) in the midst of what He does?
maybe there is a pattern of He and response by We. in the second bracha of shema, we talk of He as Giver of the Torah – to which We respond by shema and acceptance of Him and His Torah. Who He is and What He Does must not sit in the air, we must respond ourselves to His imperatives.
Then we speak of Him as G-d of History – to which again We respond with appreciation. the G-d of history also cannot just hang in the air, but must be responded to by us with song.
Hence the Tefilla is description of Him along with appropriate responses of us.
Thanks for this thoughtful article and in particular the interesting mekorot.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:05:45 +0000

Professor Kaplan: I certainly understand your view, but I don’t know why mine runs the risk you see. While the commandment on Pesach night is separate (as witness that women are obligated in that one and not the daily one), that doesn’t have to mean that it is not considered supportive of the daily one, much as there is a separate mitsvah to separate terumah, even though it has to be given as well (the example R. Menashe Klein offers). Here, too, I was suggesting that one of the purposes of the separate mitsvah on Seder night was to improve the recall during the year. As for the worry about Keriyat Shema, I don’t see why more detail about the God of history should get in the way of the others. We don’t, e.g., seem to care that the 2nd paragraph is longer than the other two, and, besides, we would only be mentioning the details that Hazal inserted in the bracha after the Shema. Or, if we would say stuff on our own (not during Shema itself, as that would be a hefsek), that would at least have the support of Tashbetz, who said the more we say all throughout the year, is meshubach.

By: lawrence kaplan

lawrence kaplan — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:24:39 +0000

Rabbi Rothstein: I am not sure if I agree with your, to be sure tentative, suggestions that 1) “we would be bettet off in going into greater daily detail than just the bare fact of the exodus; and 2) that “the mitzvah of sippur … on Pesach night is just preparatory to the mitzvah of zechirah … daily.” The mitvah of sippur on Pesach night is an independent mitzvah. On that night we focus on the Exodus and God’s redemption of us in history. But the mitzvah of zechirah daily is, for the Rambam, a part of Keriat Shema. The first paragraph, for the Rambam, speaks of the rational commandments of the Love of God. His Oneness, and His study, i.e. the God of reason. The second paragraph speaks of the other mitzvot, that is, the God of revelation, of Law. The third paragraph speaks of the exodus, that,is, the God of history. To focus and expand on the Exodus daily might destroy, in my view, the delicate balance between these three paragraphs, that is, these three different aspects of God and our relationship to Him.

By: lawrence kaplan

lawrence kaplan — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:36:27 +0000

Rabbi Rothstein: I was careful not to take issue with Rav Yosef, but just cited the Rambam’s view and what I understand to be its implication. In my reading of the Rambam, I am, of course, following Rav Soloveithik. The main proof for the Rav’s reading of the Ramam is his formulation in Hilkhot Hamtz u-Matzah 7:1. The Rav’s intuition, needless to say, is also pretty well founded.

I want to comment on another point, and, God willing, will do so tomorrow.

Rabbi Brody; Maybe YOU are satisfied when posts have no or hardly any comments, as you stated a while ago, but Rabbi Rothsteins’ remarks should indicate that authors actually like some feedback!

By: Gidon Rothstein

Gidon Rothstein — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:19:28 +0000

About the splitting of the sea, you might be right, although it’s also possible Rambam just hadn’t thought of including that in the Haggadah (meaning: do we know he knew of haggadot that had that part in it, and he took it out, or had it not developed yet)? If Rambam consciously chose to leave it out, you’d obviously be right. But I was citing R. Ovadya Yosef, so I guess I was relying on his well-founded intuition about the thrust of the assumptions in our times. Again, so nice to have someone interested in what I have to say.

By: lawrence kaplan

lawrence kaplan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:35:44 +0000

Rabbi Rothstein: Thank you for your dignified response for my twitting you for your slip.

Re the substance of you remarks: It seems to me that according to the Rambam, for whom the mitzvah of sippur yetziat mitzrayyim on Pesach night does NOT include mentioning the splitting of the sea, but only the events that occured on the night of the 15th– which is why his haggdah does not include Rabbi Yose Ha-Galile and Dayyenu –, then a fortiori the mitzvah of zekher yetziat mitzrayyim all year long would not include mentioning the splitting of the sea.

I have more comments, but Shabbat is closing in.

By: Gidon Rothstein

Gidon Rothstein — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:15:36 +0000

Completely my mistake. In couching the Mission of Orthodoxy project at the Webyeshiva blog, I have refrained, mostly, from making claims about Judaism, since other denominations reject too many of my assumptions to even be able to make any assertions. The goal of that project is to show that there are things that all Orthodox Jews should have to focus on, even though we often forget that that is so (I’d love to hear reflections and comments on my ideas there). In any case, since I was making reference to that project, I let the word Orthodox slip in where it shouldn’t. Of course I believe that all Jewish men are required to remember the Exodus twice daily, although I suspect that non-Orthodox Jewish men often disagree. Thanks for reading so carefully and for catching the slip; it’s a pleasure to know someone’s paying close attention.

By: lawrence kaplan

lawrence kaplan — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:31:53 +0000

Rabbi Rothstein: As usual a thoughtful article. But I was not aware of the fact that it is Orthodox Jewish men who are required to recall twice daily the Exodus from Egypt. I thought that ALL Jewish men had that obligation. What next? Only Orthodox Jewish men are required to sit in a sukkah, to hear shofar? Only Orthodox Jews are required to keep the Sabbath, to keep kosher, not to speak lashon ha-ra?!