I
"You must tell your son on that day saying 'It is because of this that Hashem did for me when I left Egypt'" (Shmos 13:8). Rashi adds, "Here [the Torah] hints at the answer to the wicked son by saying 'Hashem did for me', i.e. for me but not for you, for had you been there you would not have been worthy of being redeemed". Rashi thus highlights that this passuk is the response to the wicked son, whose question (12:26) "What is this service to you?", he cites earlier (13:5).
A different version is found in the Haggadah: "Because he has removed himself from the klal, he has denied the essential (kafar b'ikar), therefore you should blunt his teeth and tell him 'Because of this Hashem did for me when I left Egypt' i.e. for me and not for him; had he been there he would not have been redeemed."
The differences between these two versions are significant. Rashi's version mentions neither the wicked son removing himself from the klal nor blunting his teeth. In addition, Rashi's answer is in the second person - "For me but not for you" - while the Haggadah instructs us to speak in third person - "For me and not for him". Finally, Rashi concludes "you would not be worthy of being redeemed", implying that perhaps he would be redeemed even if unworthy. By contrast, the Haggadah concludes starkly and definitively, "he would not have been redeemed".
Perhaps the two versions refer to two different types of sons, even though the word rasha - wicked is found in both. The question, "What is this service to you?" is disrespectful to be sure, but still ambiguous. Rashi understands that a dialogue is still possible, and thus the father responds "for me and not for you." One who disrespects the Torah's laws is not worthy of being redeemed. However, if the son accepts his father's rebuke he may become worthy. In addition, since he is still part of Klal Yisrael he may possibly be redeemed even if he personally is unworthy.
The rasha discussed in the Haggadah has already removed himself from Klal Yisrael and has denied the ikar, Hashem Himself and His Torah. No dialogue is possible, and he would not have been redeemed. The father therefore only speaks to his other children so that they will not be influenced by their brother's heresy. The rasha is, therefore, referred to in third person, "for me and not for him" (Haggadah of the Gra, and Bais Halevi 13:8-10). "Emor lo" must be rendered "say about him" (See Rashi 14:3).
II
The Bais Halevi (ibid) questions the use of the word chuka (13:10) in the context of the korban Pesach which has an obvious reason (12:27), i.e. that Hashem saved us by passing over our homes when He killed the Egyptian firstborn. If the son is unaware of this reason, as implied by the response that Hashem took me out of Egypt, he is not wicked but ignorant and it is the father's fault.
The Bais Halevi answers that the son is aware of the mitzvos and the historical reason, but he feels that the mitzvos do not apply to him. This son argues that they applied when needed as a necessary antidote to idolatry (see Rashi 12:6, Ramban Vayikra 1:9), but today the civilized world is monotheistic and therefore the korban has no purpose and the mitzva no longer applies. He argues "What is the use of this service to you, in our modern era?-"
The Torah, following this question, states, "You shall say it is a korban Pesach to Hashem for He passed over the houses of B'nei Yisrael in Egypt when He killed the Egyptians and saved our houses" (Shemos 12:27.) This is not a response to the rasha, rather it's an affirmation of faith so that the words of the rasha should not affect us at all.
The Bais Halevi explains "Because of this Hashem did for me when I left Egypt" as follows: It is not because I left Egypt that I perform the mitzvah, rather it is because of the mitzva that I left Egypt. The Torah predates Creation, and its mitzvos were performed by our forefathers before we left Egypt (see Rashi Breishis 19:3, 27:9).
In this sense, even the korban Pesach is a chok. As it says (12:43), "This is the chok of the Pesach." It must be offered even if the perceived reason no longer applies. For this reason, as the Bais Halevi (12:43) explains, the Midrash Rabbah compares the korban Pesach to the Para Aduma, the paradigmatic chok. In both essays the Bais Halevi refers to reformers and deniers of Torah in his time (the late nineteenth century) as the pasuk continues to state that a ben-neichar (one whose actions are foreign to Hashem, i.e. a denier, see Rashi and Pesachim 96a) may not eat the korban Pesach.
This yields an additional dimension to the rasha's question. Why is this service for you, all those who eat the korban, but not for me? Why am I excluded? The answer is that you took yourself out of the klal, denied Hashem, and therefore you would not have been redeemed. Therefore, you may not partake.
III
Unfortunately, denial of the truth of the Torah, the mitzvos, and even Hashem Himself, have increased exponentially since the time of the Bais Halevi. However, as the Bais Halevi himself notes, one who is not taught is not wicked but ignorant. Today, in most cases, it is the fault of the previous generation. Most Jews are not observant and, recently, even intermarried, having never been taught otherwise.
Even amongst more observant Jews, there are cases which parallel the Bais Halevi's description. In his words, "some claim that a particular mitzva has an outdated rationale, and conclude that it no longer is binding" (translation of R.Y.I. Herczeg, 1991, p. 57). We must reaffirm our faith in the immutability of Torah and mitzvos, and convey this idea, clearly and unapologetically, to the next generation.
The pervasive ignorance of today places nearly all of the questioners in Rashi's version, rather them the Haggadah's version. As such, dialogue is possible and, in fact, has created many ba'alei teshuvah in recent decades.
The aforementioned passuk (12:27) concludes, "the people bowed their heads." Rashi comments that the Jews bowed upon the tidings of the redemption, coming into Eretz Yisrael, and the tidings of the sons that they would have. The Artscroll commentary (Stone edition p. 357) notes: "Commentators have noted that the Jews bowed in gratitude for the news that they would have children, even though the child just described to them is wicked. To parents, every child is a blessing and it is up to them to cope with his rebellion and turn him to the good."
The Chasan Sofer notes that the passuk (12:26) begins, "when your sons say to you", indicating that he can't be judged as a rasha since he turns only to his father. Even though he harbors a heretical sprit, he does not entice his siblings to abandon faith and observance. Therefore, there is a still hope that his father can return him to the proper path, and the people were correct in thanking Hashem for the tidings of this son.
Only the incorrigible son, the rasha of the Haggadah who threatens the spiritual wellbeing of his siblings, despite being taught properly, has removed himself from the klal and denied the essential. In that case dialogue is not possible, and the father must reaffirm his faith and protect his other children. In most cases, however, as Rashi teaches, dialogue is possible. Parents facing these challenges are encouraged to exercise patience and wisdom in the fundamental responsibility of passing faith and observance to the next generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment