This, writes Chaim Saiman, is the fifth question on everyone’s mind on Passover. Ancient rabbinic sources—cited in the haggadah itself—state that it is praiseworthy to elaborate at length on the story of the exodus, and Moses Maimonides in the 12th century mandated the practice as preceding the Passover meal. But the Shulḥan Arukh, a major 16th-century law code, cites another ancient tradition: that the seder should move quickly so that the children can fulfill the ritual commandment of eating matzah before their bedtime, with further discussion reserved for afterward. Saiman detects an underlying philosophical difference between the two approaches:

The view of . . . Maimonides and the haggadah itself is that what the seder is about is the retelling and discussion of the story of the exodus from Egypt to the point where one sees oneself as having been personally redeemed. Here, the entire family uses story, study, and song to relive the birth of Jewish nationhood. When successful, this is surely close to the seder’s ideal. There is, however, also a cost to setting ambitions so high: the kids might fall asleep and the adults may tune out.

The conception of the seder in . . . the Shulḥan Arukh is more modest. The seder starts promptly and is (relatively) short so that no one misses out on the essential, legally mandated, ritual elements. Then, once the seder is over, those with the ability to [do so] can stay awake all night discussing the laws of Passover. . . .

The difference between these two views of the seder also relates to what is being taught. According to the haggadah and Maimonides, the centerpiece of the seder is the retelling of the Passover story, a form of narrative. . . . By contrast, the Shulḥan Arukh emphasizes studying the laws of the Passover sacrifice. . . . The disagreement is really a debate over how to preserve and convey the essence of the Jewish experience. Through law or narrative, legal reasoning or theology? This tension is present in the earliest rabbinic texts, carried forward in the positions of the later great halakhic authorities, and is still present at our own seder tables.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.