Lessons from the Four Sons

            One of the central parts of Maggid is the section of the “four sons,” the arbah banim. I want to develop some ideas in avodas Hashem based on an analysis of the questions and answers of the four sons. In particular, we will be focusing on the differences between the chacham and the rasha.

The rasha asks the question, “mah ha’avodah hazos lachem,” [i] “what is all this work for you?” In the Haggadah, the response that is given to the rasha is mussar; we strongly rebuke the rasha. It is interesting that the chacham, at first glance, does something similar. The chacham also seems to exclude himself. The chacham asks the question, “mah ha’eidos v’hachukim v’hamishpatim asher tzivah Hashem Elokeinu eschem.”[ii] He says, “what are all these mitzvos that Hashem commanded you?” He also excludes himself, and yet the chacham is given a very pleasant, positive answer. The Haggadah says that we teach him the laws of Pesach. One question that the meforshim raise is what exactly is the difference between the chacham and rasha? They both seem to exclude themselves, and yet the rasha receives a response of mussar and rebuke, while to the chacham we respond pleasantly. What is the difference?

There are several answers to this question. The most basic answer is offered by the Chida[iii] and others.[iv] The Chida points to two differences between the chacham and the rasha. Number one, the chacham mentions Hashem’s name. That already is one step that shows he believes in Hashem, that he is talking about Hashem. He feels that basic connection to Am Yisrael. Furthermore, the chacham says “Hashem Elokeinu,” “our G-d.” The word “Elokeinu” is clearly an inclusive word. The chacham is including himself with the rest of Am Yisrael. Therefore, it is clear that the chacham is in a different category from the rasha and deserves to be treated differently.[v]

The Kli Yakar[vi] presents a second approach to explain the difference between the chacham and rasha. The Kli Yakar focuses on the pesukim in the Torah that introduce the questions of the chacham, tam, and rasha. (Obviously, there is no posuk in the Torah to introduce the question of the she’aneh yodea lishol because he does not ask any questions.) The Kli Yakar noticed that in connection with the chacham and the tam the Torah adds in the word “machar.” The question of the chacham is introduced with “ki yishalcha bincha machar laimor,”[vii] and the question of the tam is introduced, “vahaya ki yishalcha bincha machar laimor.”[viii] In contrast, the rasha’s question is introduced, “v’haya ki yomru aleichem beneichem;”[ix] “machar” is not mentioned. Why? What is the significance of the word “machar” with the chacham and tam as opposed to the rasha? The Kli Yakar explains as follows: The word “machar” means tomorrow. The chacham and the tam ask tomorrow. What is being hinted to here? The hint is that today they do the mitzvah, and tomorrow they ask. The chacham and the tam are following the crucial yesod of na’aseh v’nishma; first they do, and then they ask. And that is hinted to with the word “machar.” The chacham and the tam ask tomorrow—today they do, tomorrow they ask. Therefore, since they are asking the right way, they receive a good answer. The rasha, on the other hand, asks today. The implication is that if he does not get a good answer now, he will not do the mitzvah. So the rasha has the wrong approach to how to ask questions, and that is why the rasha receives mussar and rebuke, while the chacham receives a pleasant answer. This is a beautiful approach of the Kli Yakar.

We find a similar idea in the writings of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.[x] Rav Moshe points out the following idea: The question of the chacham is mentioned in Chumash Devarim (perek 6), while the question of the tam is mentioned in Chumash Shemos (perek 13). This is striking. I would have thought to mention the question of the chacham first. The Haggadah mentions the question of the chacham first. He deserves prominence; he deserves to go first.[xi] Why does the Torah put the question of the tam before the question of the chacham? Rav Moshe writes that the Torah is teaching us the approach a Jew should have in learning and asking questions. First be a tam, and then be a chacham. First accept things on a simple level; I do what Hashem commands. And then on top of that, we develop into a chacham. We ask questions, we delve into things more deeply, and we try to understand things better and better. This is the correct Torah approach. First be a tam, and then become a chacham. This is similar to the Kli Yakar that we saw above. This is na’aseh v’nishma; first we do because Hashem said so, and then we investigate and analyze and try to search for the deeper meanings and the deeper ideas.[xii]

I once heard a beautiful vort along these lines from Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt”l. Rav Ahron pointed out that the word in Hebrew, ta’am, has two meanings. It means reason, and it means taste or flavor. What is the message and significance of this point? Rav Ahron explained as follows: The reason for the mitzvah is not the essence of the mitzvah. Rather, the reason adds flavor to the mitzvah. It makes us appreciate the mitzvah more, and it helps us get more into the mitzvah. But it is not the essence of the mitzvah itself. Mitzvos are like vitamins; they are good for you. When Hashem tells you to do a mitzvah, you do it. When a doctor prescribes vitamins, most people don’t understand exactly why this particular vitamin is good for you, and most people don’t investigate what exactly is in every vitamin. The doctor says take the vitamin, so we take the vitamin; we trust the doctor. Just like we trust the doctor, then a thousand times over we have to trust Hashem. Mitzvos are good for you. They are healthy religiously, spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically. So, we do the mitzvah. But when a person understands the reason for the mitzvah, it adds flavor to the mitzvah. When a person understands the mitzvah more, he is more excited about the mitzvah. He will perform the mitzvah with more enthusiasm. Mitzvos are like vitamins, and mitzvos with reasons are like Flinstones vitamins—they taste good, you enjoy them, and you get more into them. This is the vort I heard from Rav Ahron Soloveichik.[xiii]

            This is a major yesod in Torah hashkafah that we can take from the seder, and in particular from the four sons. We believe in na’aseh v’nishma; we believe that we should be a tam first and a chacham later. It is good to ask questions; it is good to delve into things, and it is good to look for the deeper meanings behind the mitzvos. But all of those questions are supposed to come on top of emunah pshuta—a simple acceptance of the Ol Malchus Shamayim. I do what Hashem commands because Hashem said so.

The meforshim[xiv] noticed other differences between the way the Torah presents the questions of the chacham and the tam versus the rasha. With the chacham and the tam the Torah writes, “ki yishalcha bincha machar laimor,” “when your son will ask you tomorrow ‘laimor.’” With the rasha the Torah writes, “vihaya ki yomru  aleichem b’neichem,” “when your children will say to you.”

There are two striking differences. First, the chacham and the tam are presented as asking questions. The rasha, on the other hand, seems to be making a statement. The Beis HaLevi[xv] develops the following idea. The chacham and the tam want an answer, so we answer their question. The rasha is not asking a question; he is not searching for an answer. Rather, the rasha is making an attacking statement in the form of a rhetorical question: “What is all this work you’re doing? Why are you doing this?” This is why the chacham and the tam receive the good answer they deserve, while the rasha, on the other hand, receives mussar.

This approach of the Beis HaLevi fits well with the Meshech Chochmah. The Meshech Chochmah [xvi] focuses on the second difference between the chacham and tam as opposed to the rasha. We find the word “laimor” by the chacham and tam, but not by the rasha. Why? The Meshech Chochmah quotes the Sifri[xvii] that the word “laimor” means, “hashiveni teshuva,” “respond with an answer to my question.” It fits very well that by the chacham and the tam, who were asking questions and want an answer, the Torah writes the word “laimor.” But by the rasha, who, as we explained, is not asking a question, we do not find the word “laimor.” The rasha is not looking for an answer. These two mekoros fit together very, very well.

            We can learn important lessons from each of the approaches of the meforshim to our original question. What is the difference between the chacham on the one hand and the rasha on the other? First, we have to remember, that if we have questions about things in avodas Hashem, we must always remember that we are part of Am Yisrael. We have our belief in Hashem; we have our commitment to serving Hashem. We have to remind ourselves always, “Hashem Elokeinu.” We are included among Am Yisrael as servants of Hashem. This is the lesson from the first difference we discussed above. Second, when a person asks questions he should be sincere; he should be searching for answers. He should not be complaining and attacking the Mesorah, chas v’shalom. But rather, he should be asking and delving to figure out and understand the Mesorah more deeply. This is the lesson we can learn from the second difference developed above. And finally, a Jew has to remember that when we ask questions, we should always make sure that the basic emunah is there. We have to be a tam first, and then be a chacham.  We have to say na’aseh first, and then nishmah. We have to do “today,” and ask “tomorrow.” This is a crucial lesson in the appropriate way to ask questions regarding avodas Hashem and regarding the Mesorah.

These are some important lessons we can take with us from the “four sons” at the seder.

Chag Kasher v’Sameach,

B. Ginsburg

[i] Shemos, 12:26.

[ii] Devarim, 6:20.

[iii] Haggadah Simchas Haregel (p. 40).

[iv] See the Haggadah of the Malbim and the Haggadah Shleimah of Rav Kasher (p. 21, note 99, with footnote 217).

[v] Based on this idea, one can raise a new question. Now that we have established that the chacham is not excluding himself, in contrast with the rasha, then we have to ask the question, why does the chacham say “eschem”? Why doesn’t he say “osanu”? So here one has to add in the comment of the Da’as Zekeinim miBa’alei HaTosfos (Devarim, 6:20). The Da’as Zekeinim (with further elaboration from the Hegyonei Haggadah, p.41) explains that when the chacham uses the word “eschem,” he is not excluding himself; rather, he is just being precise. The chacham is asking about the original command: “What are all of these mitzvos that Hashem commanded you?” Since he is asking about the command, to be precise, the command was given to the earlier generation. The Torah is describing that the child is asking his parents, “what are all these mitzvos that Hashem commanded you?” The command was given to the first generation, and the child from the second generation is asking the father about the command. So since the chacham does say Hashem’s name and he does include himself- “Hashem Elokeinu”- then when he says “eschem” we interpret it in the positive way: he is being precise.

The rasha, on the other hand, is not asking about the original tzivuy, the command; rather, he is asking about the avodah, the actual action, the doing, the performing of the mitzvah. Now, as far as the performing of the mitzvah is concerned, that applies directly to the son as well. So if the son says, “what is all this work that you are doing,” he is excluding himself from the performance of the mitzvah. He also has to perform the mitzvah. This is a very subtle distinction between the question of the chacham and the question of the rasha. And furthermore, as we mentioned above, the rasha does not say Hashem’s name, he does not say “Elokeinu,” so the rasha in no way shows that he is trying to include himself. Therefore, as opposed to the chacham, who is given a pleasant answer, the rasha is given rebuke and mussar. This is one approach in the meforshim.

[vi] Shemos, 13:14. The Beis HaLevi (Parshas Bo) has a similar explanation.

[vii] Devarim, 6:20.

[viii] Shemos, 13:14.

[ix] Shemos, 12:26.

[x] Darash Moshe, Parshas Bo.

[xi] See the Haggadah Shleimah (p. 20, notes  94-95).

[xii] Rav Ovadiah Yosef shli”ta quotes another beautiful remez to na’aseh v’nishma. When we put on Tefillin, first we don the Tefillin shel Yad and then the Tefillin shel Rosh. What is the significance of the order? This order symbolizes that first we “do,” and then we try to analyze more deeply. 

[xiii] Rav Ahron gave a slightly different mashal, but the thrust is the same.

[xiv] The Beis HaLevi, Malbim, Meshech Chochmah, and others.

[xv] Parshas Bo.

[xvi] The very end of Parshas Bo.

[xvii] Devarim (perek 6).