Passover Haggadah

I asked there but was not answered regarding question A. I think I clarified the question, and regarding question B, I gave examples there that prove that sermons are not pompous matters, as you call them. I would be very happy if the rabbi would refer there or here to examples, as well as an example from the Passover Haggadah. I did not ask for an explanation. It only proves that it was not pompous, but that they had a form of sermon that we do not know about.

I answered there. The "proof" of the plague sermons in the Haggadah is truly miraculous. The words were taken from my mouth.

https://www.mifgash-haparasha.co.il/image/users/210124/ftp/my_files/vaera%20full%2012.pdf?id=10094557

Nahum, an article on the number of plagues. Maybe it will settle your mind.

Your Honor, why are you using sarcasm? I meant that you answered there, but I kept asking there and you didn't continue to answer.

I really didn't use sarcasm. I answered there and that's it. If something doesn't seem right to you in the answer, please be respectful and formulate it in a reasonable and understandable way (not with riddles and references to examples you didn't give), and certainly not strange evidence from the Midrash on the number of plagues that I assume you yourself don't understand what the evidence is from there.
I expect anyone asking here to spend a minimum of time formulating for themselves what is difficult for them, and then to formulate it for me in a way that I can understand. If and when you do that, I will try to see what was not understood and whether I can add an explanation.

Okay, I'll try to put it more clearly. I understand that your approach regarding sermons in the Haggadah, as opposed to sermons in Halacha, is that the Chazal took things they knew before and only relied on the scriptures for the purpose of strengthening the people, and they don't really have any evidence for their words. I ask that there are many Chazal sermons that don't seem to have come for the purpose of strengthening at all, such as expounding on many sins committed by great men of the world, or adding details, and the example of the sermons that narrated the Passover Haggadah regarding the plagues seems to have expounded on something real and not just invented. I don't have an explanation for that, but your approach to the matter is very strange in terms of what you expect from the readers of the site. I understand, but I'm a little biased, and for that, please forgive me.

I understand that Nahum and Hazi are the same person, just with a different nickname.
First, let me explain. I did not claim that the midrash of the Agada are related, but rather that they are sermons and not midrash. A sermon, unlike a midrash (creator or author), presents a conclusion that does not really follow from Scripture. So how do we know that it is correct? Because it is a message that we want to convey. A sermon is not measured in terms of validity (to what extent it follows from Scripture) but in terms of effectiveness (how useful the conclusion is).
Now to your question. I do not see any evidence against my words in any of this. When the sages preach about the sins of great men, they can certainly use a sermon to reinforce the fear of sin, if the great men sinned, we can.
Also regarding the plagues in the Passover Haggadah. The name of the hand I wrote to you is absolutely absurd. After all, you do not offer any other explanation for these sermons, but for some reason it assumes that these are sermons and not sermons. How do you know? What evidence do you see there? After you offer them an explanation, you can discuss whether it emerges from the verses or a translation of them, or whether it is a message they wanted to convey.
You generally tend to disagree with my argument, and that is of course legitimate in itself. But your evidence is lacking in it. It is nothing more than the assumption of the desired outcome. You claim that if we do not have a commentary on the Midrash of the Plagues in the Haggadah, then this is evidence against me. Why? Because it is unlikely that the Sages said something without it actually emerging from the verses. So you assume the conclusion you want to reach. What shred of evidence do you see here?

I want to understand from what you say that Chazal invents great sins against all kinds of righteous people just to strengthen the people? That seems fine to you now. I'm not a great scholar, but I remember that they preached all kinds of different and strange sermons, many additional details about all kinds of people, not necessarily righteous. Did they simply invent things for different purposes? On the contrary, you probably know many more examples than I do. Come up with examples now regarding the Passover Haggadah. It's very strange to me that we say a text of invention with an incorrect sermon and there simply weren't a few blows in each stroke, but to raise morale, they wrote inventions. Notice that you say about Chazal something that you wouldn't do.

We are back to discussing the basic assumption. Let alone any example. The question is whether it is likely that people invent sermons in order to educate. According to me, yes, and according to you, no. Incidentally, it does not have to be that every Midrash Agga is like this, but that there are quite a few that are like this. I see no point in continuing this discussion.