A striking anomaly in the Haggadah, noticed by many of its commentators, is its complete lack of attentiveness to Moshe Rabbeinu. The central figure in the account of Yetzi’at Mitzrayim in Sefer Shemot, and in the rest of the Torah as well, is mentioned but once in the entire Haggadah, and at that, in a mere proof text:
When R. Yosi ha-Gelili is darshening out the number of makkot that occurred on the Yam Suf as compared to those that occurred in Mitzrayim, he bases his argument on the fact that while the plagues in Mitzrayim were described as “etzba E-lokim,” the finger of God (Shemot 8:15), the miracles at the sea were described as “yad ha-gedolah,” the hand of God, which led Bnei Yisrael to believe both in HaShem and in Moshe His servant (Shemot 14:31). Therefore, R. Yosi ha-Gelili continues, just as there are five fingers on a hand, so too there were five times more miracles wrought upon the Egyptians at the Yam Suf than occurred in Mitzrayim proper.
This argument of R. Yosi ha-Gelili serves as the general context for the only mention of Moshe’s name in the entire Haggadah. For some reason, although Moshe figured prominently in the actual events of Yetzi’at Mitzrayim, it seems that a single mention of his name suffices to fulfill our annual obligation of sippur Yetzi’at Mitzrayim. How can that be?
This question becomes even more astonishing when we compare our telling of the Pesach story in the Haggadah to the reading aloud of the Purim story in the Megillah, which comes just prior in the course of the yearly holiday cycle.
The Haggadah focuses solely on HaShem’s role in Yetzi’at Mitzrayim, omitting, as we have discussed, any substantial reference to His appointed leader. In stark contrast, the Megillah focuses solely on the roles of the Jewish leaders who brought about salvation, and does not mention HaShem even once. Why does HaShem appear to be overshadowed by Esther and Mordechai in the story of the ge’ulah from Haman, while He seems to completely overshadow Moshe in our recounting of the ge’ulah from Pharaoh?
I believe that an answer to the above questions may be found in Rav Soloveitchik’s Festival of Freedom. In an essay entitled “Moses and the Redemption,” the Rav distinguishes between two types of shelichut.
The first type of shelichut (henceforth referred to as Shelichut I) is utilized when the sender “cannot attend to business personally,” and he therefore appoints a shaliach to go in his stead. In this case, the messenger is appointed to act through proxy in the absence of the sender. A clear transfer of authority has taken place. A paradigmatic example of this kind of shelichut is when Avraham sent Eliezer as his shaliach to find a wife for Yitzchak. Due to Avraham’s absence, he was not mentioned as a participant in the story, and Eliezer was given complete authority to act in his stead.
The second form of shelichut (henceforth referred to as Shelichut II) involves the presence of both sender and shaliach, and unites the two individuals in a bond of friendship and common ideals. They are both present together at the transaction, and yet each one of them can act on behalf of the other. This does not involve a transfer of authority, as in Shelichut I, but rather a “merger of identity.”
This less comprehensible Shelichut II becomes clearer through the examples that the Rav cites. For instance, although a kohen acts as the agent of a member of Klal Yisrael who brings his or her korban, each individual Jew must still travel all the way from his home to Yerushalayim in order to be present as the kohen brings the korban. This kind of shelichut involves the merging of one’s identity with the other, so that both kohen and Jew are uniting in order to bring the korban. Similarly, even though the kohen gadol was the representative of Am Yisrael to obtain kapparah for their sins on Yom Kippur, the nation still stayed in the Beit HaMikdash the entire day with him and even stayed awake with him the entire night before. The last example the Rav brings is the most pertinent to us today: whereas the shaliach tzibbur is considered to be the representative of the tzibbur and the agent of their prayers, the congregation must still be present and actively participate in the tefillah in order for the shelichut to work. The people pray through their shaliach, but only while they and the shaliach are together and united in their purpose.
Yet in all cases of Shelichut II it must be noted that the sender, and not the shaliach, is ultimately given the credit for the transaction: the Jew is considered to have brought his own korban, the nation of Am Yisrael is considered to have attained kapparah, and the tzibbur is considered to have prayed. For in these cases the shaliach is not acting in the place of the sender, but together with the sender, acting as the sender’s companion to help him carry out his original purpose.
I would like to suggest that Shelichut I is a paradigm through which we can understand the roles of Esther and Mordechai in the Purim story. As we explained, Shelichut I reflects a transfer of authority to the shaliach in the absence of the sender. In the Megillah, HaShem’s absence is quite clear. Its time was one of hester panim, and the path leading up to its ultimate salvation was paved only with nisim nistarim. Because of this, HaShem appointed Esther and Mordechai as His shelichim to initiate a strategy for ge’ulah in His perceived absence. Just as Avraham is not mentioned once as an actor in the meeting of Eliezer and Rivkah, so too HaShem is not mentioned once in the telling of the events of Esther and Mordechai—because He had kivyachol transferred His authority to them and they were acting in His stead in the public sphere. In this way, Esther and Mordechai deserved the credit for the ge’ulah, and therefore to be mentioned in the Megillah, because they achieved the redemption through their own actions.
To the contrary, the Rav explains that Shelichut II is exemplified by shelichut Moshe. When at first Moshe refused the shelichut on the grounds that he was not worthy of it, HaShem reassured him that “I will be with you” (Shemot 3:12). This shelichut was not to be a transference of authority, but a merging of identity. HaShem followed through on this promise when He didn’t command Moshe to go to Pharaoh with the more typical directive of “lech el Pharaoh,” “go to Pharaoh,” implying that he should go, away from HaShem, to Pharaoh. Rather, HaShem commanded him with the directive of “bo el Pharaoh,” “come to Pharaoh,” implying that Moshe is to come along with HaShem in his shelichut to Pharaoh.
In this way, the Rav explains, HaShem’s thoughts would be crystallized in Moshe’s mind and His words would be spoken through Moshe’s mouth. HaShem and Moshe would be united both in their goal of bringing the ge’ulah and in the achievement thereof. But in this kind of shelichut, the shaliach cannot take credit for what transpires, even though he is necessary to take action in the human realm. In such a merging of identity, Moshe did not act in HaShem’s place, but served only as His companion. In reality, “every miracle executed by Moses was performed by the Almighty.” In that era of nes nigleh, every miracle was so obviously from HaShem that Moshe was not considered anything more than a human conduit for divine power. For this reason, Moshe claimed no credit for the ge’ulah, as proven in his first words in Az Yashir: “I will sing to HaShem for He is highly exalted!” And for this reason, he is given no credit in the Haggadah either.
However, we might still be bothered: Is Moshe ever allowed to take credit for the all-important role he served in leading Bnei Yisrael? Can he ever receive the prominence he deserves? Shir HaShirim Rabbah says that although we cannot find Moshe “ba-lailah shel Mitzrayim,” we will be able to find him at Har Sinai on Shavu’ot and in the Ohel Mo’ed during the rest of the year, when he is involved in the teaching of Torah. The Rav explains this midrash to mean that whereas Moshe (or any other shaliach for that matter) cannot claim any credit in terms of military prowess, economic success, or political victory, there is one way in which he may always be immortalized: as a teacher par excellence. For teaching does not entail a claim of divine power, but a mirroring of divine attributes, which man was specifically commanded to do when he was created be-tzelem E-lokim. This is why we don’t refer to Moshe for posterity as Go’aleinu (our redeemer) or Moshi’einu (our savior), but as Moshe Rabbeinu, our teacher.
May we all be zocheh this Pesach to merit the ultimate ge’ulah, when we will be able to experience nisim geluyim yet again and our mashiach will once more gladly give up the credit for the nisim he helps to bring to this world for the sake of being mikadesh shem HaShem, Who is the true executor of all nisim.
