Highlighting: “In Every Generation: Studies in the Evolution and Formation of the Passover Haggadah” by Jay Rovner. Gorgias Press. 2024. 354 pages. ISBN-10: 1463243766.
The Mishna in the 10th chapter of Pesachim includes some of the main elements of the Haggadah: e.g., “Ma Nishtana” (with only three questions, despite what you see in the printed editions), an instruction that the father should teach his child and begin with “genut” and end with “shevach,” and “doresh”— the “arami ovedi avi’ section. (But “doresh” probably meant only “explain” here.) The famous statement by R. Gamliel about explaining Pesach, Matzah and Maror is also there (in a shorter form), as is the recitation of Hallel. There is a bit more in the Babylonian Talmud, see for example, Pesachim 116a, and also a bit in the Jerusalem Talmud. But the bulk of today’s Haggadah text seems to have been formed in the sixth through the ninth centuries. (I am not referring to the songs at the end. Most of those were composed later.)
We have a text of much of the Haggadah in the siddur of R. Saadiah, composed in 10th century Babylonia. We also have a responsum from R. Natronai Gaon in ninth century Babylonia which describes the outlines of a Haggadah which he severely objected to as too short. (See Haggadah Shelemah, pp. 27-28. It turns out that he was describing a version from Eretz Yisrael.) We also have a fragment of a Haggadah in an anonymous Geonic responsum in a copy that has been dated to the 10th century. (See Ginzei Schechter, 2:259-260, discussed below.)
What happened in the sixth through the ninth centuries? How did all this material come together?
Fortunately, many Haggadah fragments came to light from the Cairo Genizah. To explain further, in 1897 Solomon Schechter, an instructor at Cambridge University, succeeded in his negotiations with those in charge of the synagogue in Old Cairo and was able to have several hundred thousand medieval fragments shipped to Cambridge Library. Although those fragments generally date from the 10th to 13th centuries, they help shed light on earlier periods. Jay Rover was the manuscript bibliographer at the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York for many years and he has published on the formation of classical rabbinic texts. He is one of the few who is uniquely qualified to write about these fragments and the insights they provide on the formation of the Haggadah.
Rovner sometimes characterizes the discovery of the Genizah Haggadah fragments as “The Big Bang” with respect to the origin of the Haggadah. As he realizes, this is not a perfect analogy. These fragments get us closer to the origin of much of the Haggadah, but one still has to make assumptions as to what occurred in the few earlier centuries.
Of course, if you are one who is satisfied with giving “divrei Torah” that begin: “According to the Baal Haggadah,” then this book is not for you. But if you want to be able to estimate what century and locale (Eretz Yisrael or Babylonia) a passage is from, this book is for you. The author summarizes: “[The Haggadah] actually comprises many texts created and compiled over centuries. While mostly composed between the second and the ninth century at the latest, the formative period of creation and integration did not really begin until the sixth or seventh century. The Talmud left some indications of development beyond a mishnaic framework, but most of the invention took place in the early Middle Ages in the Land of Israel, Iraq, and other parts of the Near East.”
In chapter 1 of the book Rovner explains what “Maggid” probably looked like in the time of the Mishna and in the time of the Talmud.
In chapters 2 and 3, he discusses the formation of the Mikra Bikkurim section, which comprises the bulk of the Haggadah.
Then the book focuses on two other matters. Rovner writes 94 pages on the all-night Seder in Bnei Brak. (The entire book is only 314 pages of text!) The final piece is a 44-page study of the origin of “Dayenu.”
Let me first discuss the Bnei Brak story. This story is not found elsewhere in rabbinic literature. (In contrast, many sections of the Haggadah are borrowed from elsewhere.) But there is a story in Tosefta Pesachim 10:12 that resembles the Bnei Brak story: “A story about Rabban Gamliel and elders, who were mesubin at the home of Baitos ben Zonin in Lod, and were engaged in hilchot ha-Pesach the whole night until cockcrow; [servants] removed the tables, and they (=R. Gamliel and the elders) aroused themselves and betook themselves to the beit ha-midrash.”
(“Hilchot ha-Pesach” in the above story means the laws of the Pesach sacrifice.)
The five sages we are familiar with from the Bnei Brak story are not mentioned. The above story took place in Lod and not Bnei Brak. The topic of discussion is the laws of the Pesach sacrifice and not yetziatat Mitzrayim. What is going on here? Did this story somehow evolve into the one we recite at the Seder?
This story is not found in the Haggadah text of R. Saadiah (10th century Babylonia). But it is found in a four sage version in the Haggadah text in Ginzei Schechter that has been dated on a paleographic basis to the 10th century. (But this may be a copy of a responsum written earlier.) The story is also not found in the Haggadot that followed the tradition of Eretz Yisrael.
In his 94 pages, Rovner mentions points that have been made about this story throughout the ages. Many have questioned its historicity. For example, this story is characterized as a “maaseh” but a “maaseh” rarely involves more than three sages. Also, when R. Akiva and R. Tarfon are both mentioned in traditional early rabbinic sources, it is almost always R. Tarfon who is mentioned first, whereas in the Bnei Brak story R. Akiva is mentioned before him. Also, since Bnei Brak was the hometown of R. Akiva, the story perhaps should have begun “hayu mesubin etzel R. Akiva bi-Bnei Brak.”
What Rovner finds most problematic is the naming of five sages at the beginning. Only one has a speaking part in the next section. The story thus violates the literary rule known as “Chekhov’s gun,” which Rovner believes was followed in general in early rabbinic sources. Under this rule, unnecessary figures with no role are not to be named. The violation would be an indication that this story was created when that convention was no longer recognized or observed.
(Of course, perhaps there was no violation and each figure named had a unique symbolism, without a speaking part.)
Rovner concludes that our story is a post-Talmudic creation from Babylonia. For example, an early manuscript has R. Gamliel as the leading figure in the story and other details seem to have evolved over time. (For example, two early manuscripts have only four sages and some early manuscripts record the verb as מסיחין and not מספרים.)
Haggadah expert David Henshke of Bar-Ilan University has concluded that this story was invented to emphasize that leading Sages believed it was important to discuss “yetziat Mitzrayim” at the Seder, notwithstanding what was discussed at the R. Gamliel story (See Henshke, “Ma Nishtana,” 2016, p 394). Rovner agrees.
Regarding Dayenu, this section first appears in the siddur of R. Saadiah, where it is mentioned as an optional addition. But its origin has been much debated. For example, some believe it was composed during Second Temple times, since it does not mention the destruction of the Temple. Others suggest it was a response to a work by a leading Christian from the second century CE which characterized the Jews as ungrateful. Rovner conducts his own analysis, and concludes that it was written during the Geonic period in Babylonia.
—–
As to his extensive discussion of the Mikra Bikkurim section during the sixth through ninth centuries, here are some of his conclusions:
“Comparison of the Babylonian version of the Haggadah with its Eretz Yisrael counterpart shows that the former developed out of the latter. In almost every respect, the Babylonian version contains everything in the Eretz Yisrael one, and more.”
“We have seen that the Eretz Israel Haggadah midrash occurs in two divergent and distinct forms. The second version of that midrash appears to have evolved out of the first.”
“Later liturgists, both in Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia, began to consider the Mishnah’s doresh as a prescription for some form of midrash.”
“Considering the evidence of both Eretz Israel versions as well as the proto-Babylonian ones, it would be hard to claim that the full Babylonian midrash—the one replete with maqbilot [=e.g., ke-mah she-ne’emar] — is anything but a late, geonic era production.”
——-
The regular price of the book is $115 but there is a 40% discount from May 1-19 at www.gorgiaspress.com.
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected].
