I think that when educating a small child about myths, it isn’t right to expose him immediately to the fact that they are myths. There is an order to things. That is נכון in any educational context, and not only in religion or Judaism.

Why do you think that’s not a plausible interpretation?

There are too many details for it to be a fictional myth. There are also names of figures and the like.

On the other hand, the alternative also doesn’t sound all that plausible. I mean the overturning of the natural order in such an extreme way that it’s not clear why the Holy One, blessed be He, didn’t just personally fly all the Israelites to the Land of Israel (if such an extreme overturning really happened). Or it’s not clear why it was necessary to mark the Israelites’ homes with the blood of a lamb so that the destroying angel would pass over their houses in the plague of the firstborn—can anything be too wondrous for God?

I don’t see these as significant difficulties. He wanted to show His mighty hand and subdue Egypt. And the blood was for the people’s consciousness, not necessarily for the angel. Though I’m not well-versed in the abilities of angels, and perhaps they do not have the ability to distinguish between a Jew and a gentile from the outside.

And to punish.

With God’s help, 5 Nisan 5782

Oren—hello,

You can take slaves out of Egypt in a moment, as indeed happened. But it is not at all simple to “take Egypt out of the Jews.” That requires a long-term emotional process, and after all, at every point where a difficulty arises, those who left cry out, “Why did you bring us up out of Egypt?” It turned out that forty years in the wilderness were needed in order for a new generation to arise, one for whom Egypt was no longer the natural “default,” a generation that could and would want to fight for the conquest of the land.

And in the meantime they practice, through small actions, freeing themselves from the mental bondage to Egyptian culture. They take the symbol of Egyptian idolatry, the lamb, and slaughter it before the eyes of the Egyptians, and mark the houses with the lamb’s blood as a sign of making a covenant with God. When a person moves a little toward his God—his God goes toward him and saves him.

And so too later on the way: when they enter into the sea—then God splits it; and when they go after God into an unsown land—then God sends manna and clouds of glory. And when they charge at Jericho—then God brings down its walls. A person needs to “open an opening like the eye of a needle,” and his God opens for him a wide opening “through which wagons and carriages can enter.”

And therefore you say in your prayer that God “causes death and gives life,” but salvation He “makes sprout” little by little, so that the recipients may ripen and acquire the “vessels” to receive the “lights.”

Best regards,
Yiftah Lehad Argamon-Bakshi

To tell the truth, I just now thought of another argument against Maor Ovadia’s approach above, from what is written in the verses:

“For ask now of the former days, which were before you, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven, whether there has been anything as great as this thing, or has been heard like it. Has any people ever heard the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and lived? Or has God ever attempted to come and take for Himself one nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?”

It seems that the Torah presents the matter of the signs and wonders surrounding the Exodus from Egypt as evidence for the reliability of the Torah, and also compares it to the revelation at Mount Sinai. If this were only a polemical matter, they probably would not present it as evidence for the reliability of the Torah.

And regarding the historicity of the Exodus from Egypt, see the articles on the “To Know How to Believe” site (of the Yedaya Institute): “Why Believe the Tradition?” and “Was There an Exodus from Egypt?”

Best regards,
Y.L.A.B.

And see Guide for the Perplexed 2:35.

What? I absolutely did not say that.

Maor, look at the video from minute 11:55 to 12:12:

Besides that, I’d be happy to hear your view regarding the plagues and the splitting of the Red Sea. Do you think it actually happened, or is it some sort of literary technique for conveying certain messages?

Historical events too can be theological polemic, like the Israeli Air Force flyover above Auschwitz.

Believe me, I know very well what my opinion is lol.
In any case, I listened, and I didn’t say that.
I said that according to the text, the people were taken in order to perform a miracle for them in place x, and the act itself was done in order to convey a religious message. There is no connection whatsoever between the event’s having occurred and the fact that the purpose of the event is theological polemic. By the same logic, the people were commanded to offer the Passover sacrifice as a polemic against Amun-Ra. What’s the problem with that?

Usually when people identify a theological polemic, it turns the event into a parable. For example, let’s take the matter of the great sea creatures. In the creation story it says that God created the great sea creatures and the rest of the sea animals. Some identify this as a theological polemic meant to disabuse those who thought that the great sea creatures were beings on the level of the Holy One, blessed be He, capable of fighting Him. According to those who identify it that way, they are not claiming that God really created the great sea creatures on the fifth day in order to convey a theological message, but rather that the story is presented that way in order to convey a theological message, whereas in practice God did not create great sea creatures on the fifth day. It’s only a literary technique.

I’m commenting here two years after the original discussion, because I happened to come across it only now, and I want to let everyone know that Maor Ovadia did not say the things Oren put in his mouth. In the video, from minute 11:55 to 12:12, Maor only said that these actual deeds were done specifically in order to serve as a polemic against the Egyptians.
And the matter is simple and clear, and it is impossible to make a mistake about it at all. Therefore I do not understand whether Oren said what he said deliberately or inadvertently, and I do not know which is worse. And if it was inadvertent—I do not understand why he did not apologize, and instead tried to defend his words, as he did in his last comment.
The conclusion from all this: do not believe everything said in someone’s name until you hear that person himself.
Good luck.
{By the way, the above lecture is very highly recommended, and on YouTube there is also a lecture of his with a presentation, “The Exodus from Egypt in History and Archaeology – Matmonei Eretz Conference 2019”}