The Original Reason for Spilling Wine: Protection from the Plagues

In the Torah, Deuteronomy 26:5–11 is meant to be recited on Shavuot, when the Israelites bring their first produce to the Temple. See discussion in Pamela Barmash, “The Omission of the Sinai Theophany in the Bikkurim Declaration,” TheTorah (2014); Dalia Marx, “A Torah-Prescribed Liturgy: The Declaration of the First Fruits,” TheTorah (2016). The haggadah takes the first four lines of this passage (vv. 5^aβ–8) and offers a sustained midrashic treatment of each part, word by word, connecting it to different aspects of the exodus story.

Thus, God’s mighty hand refers to the fifth plague, pestilence, since there, God says that יַד יְ־הוָה הוֹיָה “YHWH’s hand will be against” Egypt’s livestock (Exod 9:3). For this reason, the interpretation feels like a mixed bag, since it follows the verse parallels and doesn’t really offer an overall reading of the verse.

The first midrash interprets the five expressions in Deuteronomy as follows:

1) Mighty hand (יָד חֲזָקָה) = Pestilence (זוֹ הַדֶּבֶר)
2) Outstretched arm (זְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה) = Sword (זוֹ הַחֶרֶב)
3) Awesome power (מֹרָא גָּדֹל) = Revelation of the divine presence (זוֹ גִּלּוּי שְׁכִינָה)
4) Signs (אֹתוֹת) = The staff of Moses (זֶה הַמַּטֶּה)
5) Portents (מֹפְתִים) = The blood (זֶה הַדָּם)

The second midrash interprets the five expressions as each representing two of the ten plagues.

וְאֵלוּ הֵן: דָּם, צְפַרְדֵּעַ, כִּנִּים, עָרוֹב, דֶּבֶר, שְׁחִין, בָּרָד, אַרְבֶּה, חשֶׁךְ, מַכַּת בְּכוֹרוֹת.

These are they: Blood, frogs, lice, swarms, pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, darkness, death of the firstborn.

Eleazar of Worms, auth., Simcha Emanuel, ed., דרשה לפסח [Oratio ad Pascam] (Jerusalem: Mekitzei Nirdamim, 2006), 101.

This word is added here based on the Oxford 1103 MS and the version quoted in Sefer Amarkol. Its absence in the main MS used by Emanuel must be an error, as the sentence lacks any verb otherwise.

This is likely a reference to the pointer finger. Later sages debate which finger should be used, and some even suggest using a spoon or just pouring a bit out to avoid making the wine pagum (unfit for use).

All translations, other than the biblical verses, are my own.

NJPS with adjustments.

Editor’s note: For more on “the day of YHWH” in the prophets, see, Ehud Ben-Zvi, “Memories Evoked by Yom Shoah uMeshoah,” TheTorah (2017).

This addition is based on the Oxford 1103 MS, as well as the London and Manchester MSS.

For another example of a custom that became widespread in Judaism and which seems to originate with this figure, see Zev Farber, “The Development of the Three-Day Limit for Salting Meat,” Milin Havivin 1 (2005): 38–72. For a detailed discussion of R. Eleazer the Great, see Avraham Grossman, חכמי אשכנז הראשונים [The Early Sages of Ashkenaz] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 211–233.

For more about R. Yehudah HeChasid, focusing on his biblical interpretations, see Baruch J. Schwartz, “When Moses Placed Ephraim Before Manasseh,” TheTorah (2017); Zev Farber, “The Song of the Well, Psalm 136, Was Removed from the Torah,” TheTorah (2016); idem, “Edomite King's List: Is It Post-Mosaic?” TheTorah (2019).

For more on this movement, see: Haym Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism and German Pietism: Sefer Ḥasidim and the Influence of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 92.3/4 (2002): 455-93; Elisheva Baumgarten, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance, Jewish Cultures and Contexts (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014); Ivan G. Marcus, ed., דת וחברה במשנתם של חסידי אשכנז [The Religious and Social Ideas of the Jewish Pietists in Medieval Germany], סוגיות בתולדות עם ישראל [Issues in Jewish History] (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1999).

The use of י"ו (ten plus six) for 16 is eventually replaced with the use of ט"ז (nine plus seven), as a way of avoiding anything that looks like it is part of the Tetragrammaton.

Salomon Buber, ed., מדרש תהלים המכונה שוחר טוב [Midrash on Psalms Called Midrash Shokhar Tov] (Israel: Wagschal, 5737; repr. of, Vilna: Brothers Re’em, 5651), 239. The title means “an earnest seeker of good” and is a reference to Prov 11:27, which is the verse used to gloss the opening verse of Psalms in the opening midrash of the text.

In his glosses on the text, Salomon Buber (1827–1906) argues that Teradyon is likely an error for מריון, the name which appears in the later version of this derasha (§78.19). See Buber, Midrash Shochar Tov, 356 n 144. The reason is that whereas the name Isaac ben Teradyon appears nowhere else in rabbinic literature, Isaac ben Maryon is a known figure, a third generation amora referenced in the Jerusalem Talmud and aggadic literature. For more on this figure, see the entry in Chanokh Albeck, מבוא לתלמודים [Introduction to the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1987 [repr. of 1969]), 254.

Buber notes that the final line of the derashah doesn’t appear in the other MS versions, the printed edition, or the collections that include this midrash. This may be evidence that the explanation of the derashah is a late addition, but it may simply be because later copyists, noting the lack of correspondence between the quote and the biblical text, cut the problematic explanation. The homily appears again in Midrash Shochar Tov, but this time with a different midrashic derivation (§78.19):

ויך צריו אחור. ר' יצחק בר מריון אמר חרבו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שש עשרה פנים, שנאמר התאחדי [הימיני השימי השמילי (יחזקאל כא כא), התאחדי] ד', הימיני ד', השימי ד', השמילי ד', הרי שש עשרה פנים

“He beat back his foes” (Ps 78:66)—R. Isaac bar Maryon said: “The sword of the Holy One, blessed by he, has 16 edges, as it says (Ezek 21:21): ‘Be united, go to the right, turn left:’ Be united=4, go the right=4, turn=4, left=4.”

This midrash uses an entirely different strategy, but one that seems inexplicable. Perhaps this is an attempt to fix a broken midrash, i.e., make it not dependent on a non-canonical version of the text.

In his glosses on the text (p. 239 n21), Salomon Buber suggests that this means that the darshan had a different text than what we have in MT. This is possible, though it may also be a memory error, with the darshan remembering a similar sounding synonym. The Hebrew University Bible Project edition calls it a “hermeneutic variant.” See, Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein and Shemaryahu Talmon, ed., ספר יחזקאל [The Book of Ezekiel], The Hebrew University Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes,2004), 88 [in the Hebrew numbering].

To soften this harsh picture, the midrash continues:

ומה אם מדת פורעניות שהיא מועטת יש לה שש עשרה פנים, מדה טובה שהיא מרובה, על אחת כמה וכמה.

And if [God’s] trait of punishment, which is limited, has 16 facets, his trait of beneficence, which is boundless, how much more must it have!”

R. Moses Isserles, in his Darkhei Moshe HaQatzar on the Tur (OH 473), gives a kabbalistic interpretation of the sword:

ונראה שרומזים כאן שחרבו של הקדוש ברוך הוא נקרא יוה"ך והוא מלאך הממונה על הנקמה כידוע למקובלים

It would seem that this is hinting at the sword of the Holy One, blessed be he, which is called Yohakh, and this is the angel appointed over vengeance, as it known to Kabbalists.

This is his general approach, i.e., R. Eleazar makes numerical readings work by strongly circumscribing what counts and what does not in a way that feels artificial. As a colleague once observed to me in connection with a different midrash of R. Eleazer’s, “his list of what counts and what does not is like a dog’s breakfast.” For a discussion of another example of R. Eleazer's numerological approach, see Martin Lockshin, “Why Do We Read the Incest Prohibitions on Yom Kippur?” TheTorah (2017).

For a discussion of how this modern notion developed, see Zvi Ron, “Spilling Wine While Reciting the Plagues “to Diminish Our Joy”?,” TheTorah (2020). For a survey of many different explanations and other halakhic details, see David Golinkin, “Why Do We Spill 16 Drops of Wine While Reciting the Ten Plagues During the Seder?” Responsa in a Moment 10.6 (2016). See also the discussion in, Joshua Kulp and David Golinkin, The Schechter Haggadah: Art, History and Commentary (Jerusalem: Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, 2009), 233.

This is the standard term the Chasidei Ashkenaz use for Psalm 119, which is an alphabetic acrostic with each letter used 8 times. As Emanuel points out (ad loc.), he must also be counting the form תחי, to make it to 16.

Seven on Shabbat morning, three Shabbat afternoon, and three each on Monday and Thursday. He is not counting the maftir reading.

See the glosses (ad loc.) in Jacob Stahl, ספר גמטריאות לרבינו יהודה החסיד [The Book of Gematriot of R. Judah the Pious] (Jerusalem: LeOr, 2005), 1.19–22 [in the Hebrew numbering].

Emanuel, Oratio ad Pascam, 51. The same point is made in Grossman, The Early Sages of Ashkenaz, 230 [n105].

The custom is referred to authoritatively in the Amarkol, a 14^th century Ashkenazi halakhic work, who simply quotes R. Eleazar of Worms verbatim. It also appears in a slightly shortened version in a later collection made as an abridgement of the Amarkol called Liqqutei Amarkol. He quotes him as Rokeach, which is the name of R. Eleazer of Worm’s major halakhic work, even though the custom does not appear there but in his Oratio ad Pascam.

Assuming the custom goes back at least to R. Eleazer the Great, if not further back, this means that the custom predates the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement and their numerology. Moreover, the fact that the custom existed in two forms, 16 drops and 10 drops (see appendix), pushes against the idea that the number of drops is the main feature of the custom.

I thank David Steinberg for suggesting this imagery to me.

A similar explanation was suggested by Julius D. Eisenstein (1854–1956), known as “the master of anthologies,” in his commentary on the haggadah:

הטעם הפשוט של הזריקה הוא כי היו רוקקין על המכה משום רפואה, וכן נהגו לרקק כשהיו שומעים שמות המכות, והזריקה היא כמו רקיקי, כלומר שלא יגיעו חלילה המכות עלינו.

The simple reason for the sprinkling [of wine] is that they used to spit on wounds to heal them, and they would similarly spit when they heard the names of the plagues—the sprinkling is in lieu of the spitting—meaning to say that the plagues should not fall upon us, God forbid.

Julius D. Eisenstein, הגדה של פסח: אוצר פירושים וציורים [A Compendium (in Hebrew) of Authoritative Commentaries and Original Illustrations on the Hagada], (New York, 1920), 15.

See David Arnow “The World of Midrash” in My People’s Passover Haggadah, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman and David Arnow (Woodstock, VM: Jewish Lights, 2008), 45, 250 n12.

The reference appears in his Minhagim, in the Seder HaHaggadah section:

אמר מהר"י סג"ל כשאומר בהגדה דם ואש ותמרות עשן, יטיף באצבעו מכוסו לחוץ באומרו כל תיבה פעם אחת. וכן כשאמר דצ"ך עד"ש באח"ב בין בפרט בין בכלל ס"ה י"ו פעמים נגד י"ו פנים, רוקח. ועוד טעמים יש שם. וכן מהר"ש כשאמר דם צפרדע כו' שוטף בכל תיבה ותיבה פעם אחת מן הכוס לחוץ. ואמר שכן נהג ראבי"ה, ונראה לו הטעם דר"ל מכל אלו יצילנו ויבאו על שונאינו, דהא הכוסות להצלחה לישראל.

The gloss continues:

ומצאתי שזורקין באצבע קטנה שנקראת זרת.

And I have found that the sprinkling should be done with the pinky, called zeret [in Hebrew].

R. Moses Isserles objected to this comment, arguing that it should be the pointer finger, since it is reminiscent of the verse “it is the finger of God” (Exod 8:15).

Glosses on the side of important works—especially Ashkenazi works—were extremely common. These would sometimes get collected and published as compilatory commentaries.

The gloss was written in the margins of MS 7, see discussion in the printed edition (p. 104, n. 15).