Amidst the very concrete narrative of the unfolding events of yetziat Mitzrayim, the Torah (Shemot 12:25, 26) reflects upon the historic legacy of the korban Pesach: "Vehayah ki tavou el haaretz asher yiten Hashem lachem kaasher diber ushemartem et ha-avodah hazot". It is noteworthy that the Torah twice employs the term "ha-avodah" (also "ve-hayah ki yomru aleichem beneicham mah ha-avodah hazot lachem"), which we ubiquitously use to refer broadly to religious and halachic devotion- avodat Hashem, which Tanach utilizes as a verb to emphasize the wide range and diverse character of halachic activity- "ivdu et Hashem be-simchah", "ivdu et Hashem beyirah" etc., that is particularly applied to numerous mitzvot, and broad halachic institutions - korbonot and tefillah (see also Avot 1:2- "al sheloshah devarim haolam omed, al ha-Torah, al ha-avodah, ve-al gemilut chasadim") but which the Torah only invokes quintessentially and as a noun in connection to this very inimitable korban. [This insight is also noted by Rav Hirsch in his commentary. See, also, his stirring remarks about the continuing impact of the korban Pesach as the uber-avodah. I believe it is no coincidence that this "ha-avodah" depiction, especially in the query of "mah haavodah hazot lachem", provoked an articulation and analysis of many of the singular features that underscore and support the distinctive status and halachic implications of korban Pesach See, for example, Rashbam, Hizkuni, Seforno and others on 12:26.] While korban Pesach's preeminent stature and distinctive character as a korban emunah (see Korban Pesach: A Symbol of Faith and Commitment) that engenders its own quasi yom tov, and as the embodiment of Klal Yisrael's spiritual and national progression from political servitude, a debilitating, even corrosive slave mentality (see Ibn Ezra's penetrating analysis of Klal Yisrael's panic at yam suf, and the need for the midbar experience as a prerequisite to entering Eretz Yisrael), and the abyss of spiritual extinction certainly justifies this singular depiction, an examination of the Torah's presentation of the entire process and trajectory of yetziat Mitzrayim, particularly with respect to the emphasis on the "avodah" aspiration, further reflects and reinforces the telos and trajectory of this spiritual journey that cultivated Am Yisrael's special destiny. We may perhaps track this odyssey by scrutinizing the selective uses of the verbs "zevichah" and "avodah" in the progression of yetziat Mitzrayim.
In the formative sneh encounter between Moshe and Hashem, the ultimate aspiration and telos of "avodah", implying an immersive and comprehensive religious experience that attests to Hashem's exclusive sovereignty ("avadai heim, velo avadim le-avadai") and that reflects a unique destiny for Klal Yisrael, is already formulated (Shemot 3:12). Moshe is reassured that Hashem will support and guide him in this transformative quest: "vayomer ki eheyeh imach, ve-zeh lecha ha-ot ki anochi shelahticha; be-hotziacha et ha-am mi-Mitzrayim taavdun et ha-Elokim al ha-har ha-zeh." Initially Hashem proposes a more ambiguous, palatable, face-saving language to convey to Pharoh the political and spiritual liberation of am Yisrael, as well as their embrace of a singular destiny as "am Hashem", one that minimally emphasizes the specific act of worship and that doesn't explicate the termination of Paroah's rule. Presumably, this effort to soften the blow and enable, even invite cooperation, reflects extraordinary Divine patience and generosity. Thus, the first communication omits the more pervasive and charged "avodah" theme. Instead, Moshe is told: (Shemot 3:18) - "va-amartem eilav Hashem elokei ha-ivriyim nikrah aleinu' ve-atah neilcha na derech sheloshet yamim ba-midbar ve-nizbechah la-Hashem Elokeinu". The Divine foreknowledge that Pharoh will squander this opportunity (3:19) does not preclude or diminish the significance of providing him a dignified exit strategy! In any case, upon the reiteration of Pharoh's anticipated rejection (4:21), Hashem (4:23) again accentuates the unvarnished and explicit avodah goal: "va-omar eilecha shalach et beni ve-yaavduni, va-temaein leshalcho".
These guidelines and the oscillation between depicting a more limited "chag" or moderate "zevichah" encounter and the full-blown "avodah" experience - with its implicit negation of shibud Mitzrayim and its promise of a transformative irrevocable bond with Hashem- are reflected in the actual unfolding of the negotiations between Moshe and Pharoh. Moshe first proposes (5:1), as per instruction "...koh amar Hashem Elokei Yisrael shalach et ami ve-yachogu li bamidbar". Even after a particularly abusive rejection (5:2) - "...mi Hashem asher eshma be-kolo...lo yadati et Hashem, ve-gam et Yisrael lo ashaleiah" - the euphemism of a targeted "zevichah" is still offered (5:3): "va-yomru Elokei ha-ivrim nikra aleinu; neilcha na derech sheloshet yamim ba-midbar ve-nizbechah la-Hashem Elokeinu..."
Undoubtedly, Pharoh intuited that the proposed experience, irrespective of its articulation, challenged the core of his sovereignty, even as he continued to cling, perhaps in a state of denial, to the more limited terminology. His response underscores this posture, as he intensified their labors, and extended the grip of their servitude to him (depicted here as "ha-avodah" - "Tichbad ha-avodah al haanashim"!), ever while attributing the impulse to serve Hashem in a narrow frame and as a manifestation of mere laziness (5:8,9) - "...ki nirpim heim; al kein heim zoakim leimor neilchah nizbechah leilokeinu". The initial reaction of the further-beleaguered slave-nation also accentuates the implicit stakes of this conflict. The term "eved" is thrice repeated within two pesukim in an effort to mollify Pharoh's harsh response and assuage his ruffled sensitivity (5:15, 16- "...lamah taaseh koh la-avadecha. Teven ein nitan la-avadecha...ve-hineh avadecha mukim ve-hatat amecha". His repeated accusation regarding the frivolity of their impulse and his dismissal of them as simple slackers, is again invokes the formulation that they have requested only "neilcha nizbechah la-Hashem". The stark assertive demand that immediately (6:18) follows - "veatah lechu ivdu..." (referring to the slave labor) unambiguously attests to the genuine conflict- who is the true master of this nation, notwithstanding the avoidance of explicit terminology establishing the absolute incompatibility of Hashem's demand and Klal Yisrael continued subordination. Pharoh's gambit temporarily succeeds, as the nation is at first unresponsive to Hashem's new "avodah" vision precisely as a consequence of Pharoh's intensified competing "avodah" tactics. Thus (6:9): "...ve-lo shamu el Moshe mi-kotzer ruah u-mei-avodah kashah". The sharp contrast between lofty and aspirational "avodat Hashem" and the meaningless, brute "avodah kashah" that distracted from it is striking.
Having forgone the opportunity to cooperate, Pharoh in the makkot phase of the conflict is now to be confronted unequivocally with the full implications of a proposed Divine "avodah". This is first conveyed to Moshe broadly (7:16): "ve-amarta eilav Hashem Elokei ha-ivrim shelachani eilecha leimor shalach et ami ve-yaavduni bamidbar, ve-hineh lo Shamata ad koh." It is subsequently formulated as an explicit transmission (after makkat dam- 7:26): "...koh amar Hashem: shalach et ami ve-yaavduni." It is fascinating to note that even when Pharoh apparently succumbs to Hashem's will, he cannot genuinely acquiesce. Thus, he (8:4 - post makkat ztefardea) stubbornly maintains his preferred narrative of "...va-ashalach et ha-am ve-yizbechu la-Hashem"! The same pattern repeats itself in the context of makkat arov, as Moshe (8:16) is told to quote "...shalach ami ve-yaavduni" and Pharoh (8:21), even as he is momentarily humbled, assiduously avoids this charged "avodah" nomenclature in favor of the more innocuous "lechu zivchu le-Elokeichem baaretz."
While Moshe, himself, negotiating the details of Pharoh's offer, briefly revisits the "zevichah" euphemism (8:22-26), Hashem's instructions to Moshe constitute a relentlessly consistent refrain (9:1, 9:13 ): "koh amar Hashem: shalach et ami va-yaavduni". In advance of makkat arbeh, the Torah (10:3) records for the first time Moshe and Aharon's actual citation of Hashem's preferred formulation: "va-yavo Moshe ve-Aharon el Pharoh vayomru eilav: koh amar Hashem Elokei ha-ivrim -ad matai meianta leianot mipanai shalach ami ve-yaavduni." It is noteworthy that precisely at this juncture, exhorted by his advisors-avadim (10:7- "vayomru avdei Pharoh ad matai zeh lanu lemokesh. Shalach et ha-anashim ve-yaavdu et Elokeihem; haterem teida ki avdah Mitzrayim"), Pharoh, himself, tires of the futile pretense of a limited Divine encounter, although he is still not yet ready to embrace the full implications of the "avodah" concept. For the first time, he acknowledges and acquiesces to the request of "lechu ivdu et Hashem Elokeihem". His efforts to pare back comprehensive participation- "mi va-mi haholchim" (10:8-11) even as he repeats the "avodah" nomenclature is a final expression of denial that this aspiration could coexist with the status quo. While Moshe's explanation that comprehensive involvement - "be-naareinu u-be-zekeinenu neilech etc.- is a sine qua non for a "chag Hashem lanu", never mind an "avodah", shattering the illusion that there can ultimately be any accommodation with subordination to any sovereign other than Hashem, Paroah is incapable of full acquiescence. The breakdown of negotiation and communication is embodied by (10:11) "...vayegaresh otam mei-eit penei Pharoh."
In the aftermath of makkat Choshech, Pharoh (10:24) revisits, even initiates for the first time the contingency of "lechu ivdu et Hashem." Again, his inability to absorb the full and variegated implications of a comprehensive and immersive avodat Hashem ("...rak tzonchem u-bekarchem yutzag...") seals his fate. Moshe makes one last noble effort to articulate the breadth and scope of "avodah" commitment (10:26) - "ve-gam mikneinu yeileich imanu, lo tishaer parsah, ki mimenu nikach laavod et Hashem Elokeinu; va-anachnu lo neida mah naavod et Hashem ad boeinu shamah", to no avail.
In the final analysis, the korban Pesach embodied the principle and aspiration of "avodah". It tested the deep faith conviction and spiritual resolve of the fledgling nation, as it challenged a persecuted and subordinated people to utterly reject the culture and religion of its captors. The capacity of "ad sheyishatu eloheihem le-eineihem" established korban Pesach as the korban Emunah, and determined that it would emerge as "avodah ha-zot", the symbol of spiritual and halachic aspiration. It is unsurprising that this korban, as the quintessential "avodah" is unique and rule-defying, the subject of query, as the mefarshim note. The indelible impact of korban Pesach on the status of the fourteenth of Nissan (regarding hametz, issur melachah and other issues I hope to elaborate elsewhere), and its imprimatur on various facets of the seder even in eras in which it cannot practically be implemented (see Neziv's Haggadah Imrei Shefer and his commentary Haamek Davar on Bo, Reeh, Bahalotechah for some examples) is evident and attests to the primacy of this korban and the principle of "avodah" that it encapsulates. [See also Ramban, Shemot 39:42 regarding the comprehensive mishkan as an "avodah", contrasted with "melachah".]
It is surely significant that the Hallel that we also recite at the seder begins with "halelu avdei Hashem", and is interpreted as specifically rejecting "velo avdei Pharoh". According to Beit Shamai (Mishnah, Pesachim 116b) this is the exclusive chapter of that evening hal Hallel el! It accentuates not only the perspective that liberation transcends physical and political bondage, but it is a sine qua non for spiritual attainment (See Rambam Hilchos Chametz 7:4 who equates or at least parallels "avadim hayinu" and "mitchilah ovdei avodah zarah hayu avoteinu"). It particularly underscores the principle of "ein ben chorin ela mi she-osek be-torah u-miozvot" - that authentic freedom is achieved by seeking a purposeful life, by subordinating oneself to Hashem's Will, by following halachic directives that direct our avodat Hashem. Moreover, the mizmor rejects not only Pharoh's enslavement of the Jewish people, but also his inability even under extreme conditions to recognize the concept of "avodah", mostly relegating it to a more trivial, discrete and inconsequential ritual. Pharoh's spiritual blindness is sharply contrasted with his antagonist's, Moshe Rabbeinu's towering persona. Small wonder, his ultimate legacy perennially defines him simply as "Moshe eved Hashem".