The Rambam (Hilchot Chametz u-Matzah 7:1) begins his discussion of the mitzvah of sippur yetziat mitzrayim on the night of Pesach by invoking a parallel obligation to remember and recognize the sanctity of Shabbat ( "kemo she-neemar zachor et yom hashabbat "), that is the basis for reciting kiddush on Shabbat. Why does the Rambam feel the need to link sippur yetziat mitzrayim with kiddush on shabbat, and how does this intriguing link enhance our appreciation and understanding of the mitzvah of sippur yetziat mitzrayim?
The gemara in Pesachim (117b) does connect the "zakhor"'s of shabbat and Pesach, albeit in the opposite direction. It establishes the need to refer to the exodus in shabbat kiddush on this basis. It is possible that the Rambam viewed the very fact that yetziat mitzrayim is incorporated into the kiddush of shabbat as indicative of its wide scope and great prominence, which in turn adds greater urgency and accentuates its centrality on Pesach itself. Perhaps, absent its defining role on Pesach, this theme would not have impacted on Shabbat either. Moreover, it is conceivable that the Rambam perceived the bond between Shabbat and Pesach, reflected in the concept of "zakhor" that ties them together, as necessarily reciprocal. Thus, the gemara in Pesachim, establishing the incorporation of yetziat mitzrayim on Shabbat, dictates the relevance of kedushat Shabbat as a theme that enhances sippur yetziat mitzrayim, as well. In order to better comprehend these ideas, it is necessary to further explore the bond between Shabbat and Pesach.
The Torah itself links Shabbat and avdut mitzrayim in the second rendition of the asseret ha-dibrot (Devarim 5:14)-" ve-zakharta ki eved hayitah be-eretz mitzrayim va-yotziachah Hashem Elokeinu mi-sham be-yad hazakah u-be-zeroa netuyah, al kein tzivchah Hashem Elokechah la-asot et yom ha-shabbat". Indeed, the Maharsha (Pesachim 117b) questions why the insertion of the exodus into shabbat kiddush isn't simply rooted in this pasuk. While Ibn Ezra limits the role of yetziat mitzrayim to the inclusion of shevitat eved and Rashi explains that it serves only to underscore why we are obligated to adhere to any Divine obligation, the Rambam and Ramban do assign greater prominence to this link, which further exacerbates the Maharsha's question. The Ramban (ad.loc.) argues that yetziat mitzrayim strongly reinforces the primary theme of zekher le-maaseh bereishit that conveys our recognition of Hashem's unique role and status as the Omnipotent Creator who also intervenes and exercises hashgachah (Divine Providence) in the real world. [See, also, his comments on Shemot 20:2, and the end of parshat Bo etc.] The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:31) attaches even greater significance to yetziat mitzrayim's contribution to Shabbat. He argues that while the significance and stature of the day is due to the theological and philosophical affirmation of Hashem's role as Creator, the reason that we observe it is an expression of our recognition and appreciation of His overwhelming kindness reflected in the redemption from Egypt.
An analysis of the gemara in Pesachim, reveals other difficulties. The Rashbam asserts that the reference to "zekher le-yetziat mitzrayim" in the kiddush and tefillah of other holidays is derived directly (binyan av) from Pesach. The Maharsaha wonders why a similar mechanism could not have sufficed for Shabbat. Is their some greater resistance to this theme on Shabbat, which would also help explain why the pasuk in the asseret ha-dibrot was not a sufficient reason to accent this theme on Pesach. It is also, noteworthy, that, notwithstanding Rashbam's comment to the contrary, we do not refer to yetziat mitzrayim in tefilat Shabbat (See Rashash, Pesachim 117b). Other rishonim (Behag, Ran) assume that other holidays refer to the exodus because of their link with Shabbat! It seems that Shabbat, rather than Pesach, is the gateway for this theme in the broader scheme of the moadim, as only its role in Shabbat demonstrates its broader significance beyond Pesach. Tosafot Rid (Pesachim, ad. loc., mahdurah telitah) is disturbed by the irony that Shabbat, which is the foundation for zechirat yetziat mitzrayim of other festivals in tefilah as well as kiddush, limits its own reference to the exodus to the kiddush. Apparently, while the impact of the exodus on Shabbat is a model for other moadim, its own singular focus on zecher le-maaseh bereishit limits a fuller expression. Apparently, the themes of Shabbat and Pesach, reflected by their motifs- the exodus and the creation- are both competing and complimentary.
It is unsurprising that these two pivotal episodes compete for prominence in several contexts. Chazal and the mefarshim question why the Torah didn't begin with a discussion of Jewish history and Pesach - "ha-hodesh ha-zeh lahem rosh hadashim", instead of the account of creation. While Rashi (Bereishit 1:1) needs to justify this reality, the Ramban asserts that creation is the most appropriate foundation for the Torah. When Hashem introduces Himself in Revelation of mattan Torah by referring to His role in the exodus, meforshim debate whether ideally it would have been more appropriate to make reference to the apparently more impressive and universally significant act of creation. Again, different perspectives emerge in the assessment of the Torah's choice (see Ibn Ezra, Ramban Shemot 20:2 etc.). When the Torah delineates the festivals, it formulates two different beginnings, one associated with Shabbat (Vayikra 23:2- "moadei Hashem asher tikrau otam mikraei kodesh eileh hem moadai"), the other with Pesach (Vayikra 23:4- "eileh moadei Hashem mikraei kodesh asher tikrau otam be-moadam." ). [For a different perspective on this point, see the Torahweb.org parshat Emor, 5760.] Shabbat provides the model of issur melachah for all of the moadim, though that theme is primary and intrinsic to Shabbat. At the same time, the characteristic heter ochel nefesh that applies to all moadim (excluding Yom Kippur), has its origin in the model of Pesach, which is first formulated in the image of Shabbat - "kol melachah lo yeaseh ba-hem" (as opposed to the "melechet avodah" formulations of Emor- see Ramban, Shemot 23:7), and only then qualified- "ach asher yeachel le-chol nefesh hu levado yeaseh la-chem." The rishonim (see Ramach, Hil. Yom Tov 1:1) question why Pesach should serve as the model for this halachah. The parallel influence of yetziat mitzrayim and Creation, of Pesach and Shabbat, are striking. Chazal indicate that the entire week revolves around Shabbat (Bezah 16a) and the cycle of festivals and months takes its cue from Pesach -Nissan, the time of past and future redemption. Ramban develops the idea that numbers, rather than names are used to designate days and months because Shabbat and Pesach are the double foci of Jewish life. The use of numbers is a mechanism to maintain constant awareness of the centrality and inspirational quality of these episodes.
While the integrity of each event and theme requires a predominant focus in its own context, perhaps reflected in the omission of "zecher le-yitziat mitzrayim" in the tefilah of Shabbat, the relationship of these values is mutually enhancing and complimentary. An expansion of the Rambam's perspective, cited previously, which accentuates the differences between the two themes within the context of Shabbat, can be used to illustrate how each theme can enhance the other. Creation can be perceived predominantly as conveying a theological axiom that reflects Hashem's Existence and Omnipotence, even as it underscores that seemingly insuperable gap between Infinite Creator and impotent creation. Man did not even exist until the final stages of the creation process. On the surface, the truth of Creation is relevant not only to the covenantal community of Kelal Yisrael, but to universal mankind, as well. At first glance, it is puzzling that Halachah views Shabbat as the special ot of Kelal Yisrael, like milah etc., and even prohibits non-Jews from partaking in this day- "goy she-shavat chayav mitah". On the other hand, yetziat mitzrayim constitutes an acknowledgement of the close, personal bond between Hashem and Kelal Yisrael, attesting to a special hashgahah. It was a concrete experience, affecting and transforming a desperate people. Hashem's protection and intimate involvement seems almost inconsistent with His transcendence.
The fusion of Shabbat and Pesach, of Creation and the exodus projects a more ambitious and nuanced perspective. In light of the exodus, Hashem's personal involvement- "ani ve-lo malach..." and Kelal Yisrael's special status and destiny as "am segulah", one needs to reassess the nature and purpose of "Bereishit"-Creation. The apparent objective is, indeed, to create an environment conducive to the ideals of Torah and mitzvot- "bishvil Torah (ve-yisrael) shenikra reishit" (Rashi, Midrash Bereishit 1:1). Man surfaces only at the end of the process, not as an afterthought, but as the telos. The implication of insuperable distance is to be replaced by the quite different emphasis of imatatio deii- "lehidamot la-Hashem"-, which demands that man, bezelem Hashem, refrain from melachah. Observing Shabbat by means of issur melachah conveys both man's greatness and approximation to Hashem, as well as his recognition of absolute distance and obvious inadequacy in His presence. Shabbat, when viewed properly, is a singular and exclusive ot between Kelal Yisrael and Hashem because it is crucial to the multifaceted, ambitious agenda of the am segulah. At the same time, our assessment of yetziat mitzrayim undergoes serious revision when we contemplate Hashem's transcendence. The intimate participation and the mutuality-reciprocity of the relationship to Kelal Yisrael built on Hashem's chesed, but also Kelal Yisrael's emunah (faith)and mesirut nefesh (dedication-commitment) [ reflected in "mishchu u-kechu lahem"(Shemot )- sheyischatu eloheichem le-einechim"] is more surprising and therefore more impressive, certainly more fully appreciated, and also assumes greater religious significance in light of the awesome omnipotence implicit in Creation. If yetziat mitzrayim projects greater sensitivity to the personal, experiential aspects of religion and to the role of human destiny and potential, maaseh bereishit insures that man more fully appreciate and be humbled by that greater religious scope and opportunity inherent in serving Hashem both in his immanence and in his transcendence.
The integration of the two themes is expressed through the insertion of zecher le-yetziat mitzrayim in the kiddush of Shabbat, although primarily as a way of enhancing zecher le-maaseh bereishit. Its impact on Shabbat, notwithstanding a different primary emphasis, demonstrates its centrality to all of the moadim, where it is conveyed even in the tefillah. Perhaps the gemara in its presentation of the source of this conclusion seeks to underscore that the insertion of zecher le-yetziat mitzrayim into Shabbat kiddush draws not upon the second rendition of the dibrot where the link is internal to Shabbat, disentangled from Pesach, and in a context that de-emphasizes zecher le-maasei bereishit, but upon the full concrete experience of the actual exodus in the Pesachcontext designed to be most memorable (Devarim 16:3)- "leman tizkor et yom tzeitchah mi-mitzrayim kol yemei hayecha". Thus, it is intentionally derived specifically from the first rendition of aseret ha-dibrot, in which the commemoration of Creation is the exclusive focus (20:7-11) in order to demonstrate that its contribution is not a dilution, but an enhancement of that theme.
The Rambam (Hilchot Chametz 7:1) stresses this reciprocal link in the other direction, as well. In addressing the central theme of sippur yetziat mitzrayim, he finds it meaningful to invoke the kiddush of Shabbat. By doing so, he reminds us of the overwhelming impact of this experience, and perhaps also hints at the reciprocal impact of zecher le-maaseh bereishit on our precise evaluation of sippur yetziat mitzrayim. The reciprocal link intentionally focuses not on the more abstract and generally didactic mitzvah of zechirat yetziat mitzrayim (which according to the Rambam is a dimension of the kabalat ol malchut shamayim of keriat shema, as the Rav zt"l noted), but the more concrete, vivid, detailed and even visceral experience of the sippur.
The tie between Shabbat and Pesach may be reflected in other issues, as well. In one pasuk, Pesach itself is designated as "Shabbat" (Vayikra 23:11- regarding the korban omer). [Conceivably, only Pesach (and Yom Kippur, by virtue of its special bond with Shabbat) might qualify for this designation.] The poskim are perplexed about the origins and status of Shabbat ha-Gadol. Many argue that this special Shabbat commemorates the extraordinary standard of emunah exhibited by Kelal Yisrael in responding on Shabbat, the 10th of Nissan, to the challenge to ready "seh le-beit avot seh la-bayit" (Shemot 12:3), publicizing their intent to sacrifice the Egyptian deity. The poskim note that rarely, do we commemorate events by the day of the week, rather than the calendar day of the month. Why, then, do we always observe this important step in the process of yetziat mitzrayim on the Shabbat before Pesach? R. Levi ibn Haviv (Chidushei Hagahot, Tur, 430) suggests that the process began on Shabbat because yetziat mitzrayim was destined to play a crucial role in Shabbat! One might add that the reciprocal relationship of Shabbat and Pesach, and the mutually enhancing themes that are so strongly identified with them, made this truely a Shabbat ha-Gadol.