The Passover seder has its origins in the ritual meal described in the Pentateuch, in which families consume the meat of the paschal sacrifice together with matzah and bitter herbs. In the text of the Haggadah itself, there are a few reminders that the entire seder is, in the absence of the Temple, nothing more than an imitation of that sacrifice. And that leads Yosef Lindell to ask a question: why did the authors of the Haggadah choose to focus on the retelling of the story of the Exodus rather than on the details of the paschal offering? An alternative view, Lindell observes, is actually discussed in Tosefta, a talmudic-era work of Jewish law containing numerous rejected and non-authoritative teachings. (Lindell’s essay was first published in 2023.)

“A person must engage in the laws of the paschal offering all night, even if it is just him with his son, even if it is just him by himself, and even if it is just him and his student.” [The Tosefta] then cites a story supporting this position: “Once, Rabban Gamliel and the elders were reclining in the house of Boethius ben Zonin in Lod, and they were occupied in studying the laws of Pesah all that night, until the cock crowed. They lifted the table, made themselves ready and went to the house of study.”

If this story sounds familiar, it’s because it is quite similar to the one in the Haggadah about the five rabbis in Bnei Brak who “were telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt that whole night, until their students came and said to them, ‘The time for [reciting] the morning sh’ma has arrived.’” But in the Haggadah, it is those who discuss the story at great length who are praised, not those who study the paschal offering’s laws. The Haggadah thus makes its rejection of the Tosefta’s position rather explicit.

But I also think that the reason we do not talk more about the paschal offering is because telling the story of the Exodus is actually a meaningful way of putting the Temple front and center. In other words, . . . we focus on the story at the seder precisely because we are now in exile and telling about the miracles of the Exodus gives us hope for the future. Surely, if God redeemed us once, He can do it again. Focusing on the story instead of the sacrifice does not diminish the Temple’s centrality.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.