There's only one problem with this statement: It's not really true.
At least not if you go by the traditional definition of story.
Pay attention to every word when you go through the haggadah this year, and ask yourself: Where exactly is the story? Especially all you folks in Hollywood -- agents, screenwriters, producers, actors -- who live and breathe stories every day. Is this an actual story you are reading? Where's the buildup? The character development? The narrative flow? The climax?
The haggadah, as handed down by our rabbinic sages, breaks all the rules of good storytelling.
Sure, there are snippets of story here and there: "We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but Hashem our God took us out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm"; "The Egyptians did evil to us and afflicted us and imposed hard labors upon us," and so on.
But the bulk of the haggadah is a mercurial mash-up of commentaries and biblical exhortations. A minute into the "story," for example, we are mired in a Talmudic discussion between Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and four other rabbis in Bnei Brak on the subtleties of a particular phrase in Deuteronomy -- as they debate not the Exodus itself, but simply when and how often they should study it.
What comes next? Well, had the writers concerned themselves with the basics of storytelling, they might have continued like this:
"The year was 1445 B.C.E. The Israelites are now captives in Egypt, and the time of Joseph, the Jew who became prime minister in Egypt, is long forgotten. The ruling Pharaoh fears their numbers. The Israelites are an estimated 2 million in number. Moses, who had been raised in Pharaoh's court, is now living as a shepherd in the desert.
"As he is tending to his flock, Moses sees a burning bush that is not consumed by the flames. He goes to the bush, and, to his astonishment, God speaks to him from it: 'Come now, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, so that you may bring forth my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.'
"It took some convincing to get Moses to agree to the task. Moses was not a good speaker and he feared that he would fail. But still, he listened to God and set out with his family on the long trek to Egypt."
The story goes on, and it's an epic one, full of high drama and human conflict. Unfortunately, most of it is not in your haggadah.
Instead, after the Talmudic debate in Bnei Brak, the haggadah continues with one of the great non sequiturs of Jewish liturgy: The Four Sons. Think about it. What do these four characters have to do with the story of the Exodus? In Hollywood parlance, they don't even establish a subtext, or plant the seeds for a future plot twist. They just show up.
So what gives here? Why is our annual night of storytelling so devoid of actual storytelling? How can we ask Jews to relive the story of their people if we don't explain it to them -- and make it part of the official liturgy? How can we expect them to embrace and discuss a story that looks so disjointed and full of holes?
Sometimes I think we should contact the Creative Artists Agency and ask them to produce the world's most compelling retelling of the Passover story. Can you imagine the haggadah that an elite team of Jewish screenwriters and producers could create? Families and seder participants would be riveted to the page. The tension would build as each person would take turns reading from this extraordinary story -- and no one would think of asking, "When do we eat?"
This all sounds so logical and wonderful that I feel like calling CAA right away. But before we rush off and rewrite our 2,000-year-old liturgy, it's worth asking one key question: Why would our brilliant sages tell the story of the liberation of the Jewish people in such a mercurial and fragmented way?
The usual answer is that we are encouraged to fill in the holes with our own questions and discussion. This response has never satisfied me. I don't know about you, but I'm more likely to discuss a story and ask questions if the story is told clearly and completely.
No, I think it's possible that our sages had something deeper and more subtle in mind. Maybe, just maybe, our sages were elusive in their writing because they didn't want us to get overly attached -- to our own story.
This thought occurred to me during a recent Friday night meal at my place with two great thinkers from Israel (Avraham Infeld and Gidi Grinstein). We were talking about the need for Zionism to renew itself, and in doing so, to make sure it doesn't stay too stuck to its old narratives. Yes, it is critical to remember the stories and lessons of our past, but not in a way that deadens our thinking in the present or stops us from considering new ideas for the future.
In that spirit, it could be that our sages gave us a more grainy and less explicit version of the Passover story so that we could review it from a healthy distance -- and not get so enmeshed in the drama that we fall prey to triumphalism or victimhood. In other words, they wanted us to own the story, rather than have the story own us.
Maybe that's the great hidden lesson of Passover: We can become slaves to anything, even to our own amazing story.
David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine and Meals4Israel.com. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.