Some thoughts on the Chacham

The first of the four sons is the Chacham, the Wise Son. The question and response are:

This is based on the exchange in Devarim 6:

יז  שָׁמוֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן, אֶת-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, וְעֵדֹתָיו וְחֻקָּיו, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּךְ.	17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies, and His statutes, which He hath commanded thee.
יח  וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה--לְמַעַן, יִיטַב לָךְ, וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה, אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ.	18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers,
יט  לַהֲדֹף אֶת-כָּל-אֹיְבֶיךָ, מִפָּנֶיךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה.  {ס}	19 to thrust out all thine enemies from before thee, as the LORD hath spoken. {S}
כ  כִּי-יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר, לֵאמֹר:  מָה הָעֵדֹת, וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, אֶתְכֶם.	20 When thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying: 'What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?
כא  וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּצִיאֵנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה.	21 then thou shalt say unto thy son: 'We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
כב  וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים גְּדֹלִים וְרָעִים בְּמִצְרַיִם, בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל-בֵּיתוֹ--לְעֵינֵינוּ.	22 And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his house, before our eyes.
כג  וְאוֹתָנוּ, הוֹצִיא מִשָּׁם--לְמַעַן, הָבִיא אֹתָנוּ, לָתֶת לָנוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ.	23 And He brought us out from thence, that He might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers.
כד  וַיְצַוֵּנוּ יְהוָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, לְיִרְאָה, אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--לְטוֹב לָנוּ כָּל-הַיָּמִים, לְחַיֹּתֵנוּ כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.	24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.
כה  וּצְדָקָה, תִּהְיֶה-לָּנוּ:  כִּי-נִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּנוּ.  {ס}	25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.' {S}

The pashut peshat of this is that this is not asked specifically regarding the korban Pesach, while the Pesach, matzah umamor are munachim lefanav. Rather, the father is keeping all the mitzvot, edot and chukim. The son asks what they are, not wishing to know the details, but rather to know the import. And the father's response, in context, is precisely to explain the import -- that it is righteousness unto us, and so that Hashem may preserve us alive.

But this is a derasha, and so the pasuk is taken from its simple context and used to speak about another son, at another time. He is transported in time and space to the night of the korban Pesach. And he is not asking about the import, but rather wishes to know about the details of the mitzvot. And the father's response is indeed to inform him of all the details pertaining to Pesach, (including) that one should not eat a dessert after the korban Pesach.

What happened to sippur yetzias Mitzrayim?! These are laws, not story!

One answer is, perhaps, that the response would not only include the halachot, but also some minimal element of retelling the story of the Exodus. After all, in the pesukim above, in context in Devarim, the father responds by telling him Avadim Hayinu, which is Shmuel's beginning, and which in fact starts off all of maggid. But I do not get the sense that this is truly so. For this is a derasha, which is hyperliteral, and takes the words not only out of context but out of meaning. And this son is not asking for import, but details, and the response is the details. The son who asks about the import is more correctly the Tam.


The answer might be somewhat elitist. I cannot help but think of Rav Sheshet, who would turn his back to the leining of Kriat HaTorah. From Berachot 8a:

R. Shesheth used to turn his face to another side and study. He said: We [are busy] with ours, and they [are busy] with theirs.

Perhaps only the Tam, whom the Yerushalmi labels the Tipesh, should get the Sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim. But people who are Chachamim, Nevonim, Yodeim et HaTorah should not bother with this, but should instead focus on the Hilchot HaPesach!

To counter this, we have the incident with Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon who were feasting in Bnei Brak. They fulfilled the instruction immediately preceding that even for such people, it is a mitzvah lesapper biytzias mitzrayim, and that whoever increases in this, it is meritorious. And these great Rabbis engaged in sippur yetzias mitzrayim all that night, until the students came and told them that the time for Shema of Shacharit had arrived. Clearly, they held that one should indeed engage in sippur yetzias Mitzrayim.

However, I think I can raise a counterexample. While those chachamim, navonim, etc. were feasting in Bnei Brak, something else was happening in Lod. Citing the last Tosefta in Pesachim:

חייב אדם [לעסוק בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה אפילו בינו לבין בנו אפילו בינו לבין עצמו אפילו בינו לבין תלמידו מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו מסובין בבית ביתוס בן זונין בלוד והיו [עסוקין בהלכות הפסח] כל הלילה עד קרות הגבר הגביהו מלפניהם ונועדו והלכו [להן] לבית המדרש

The obligation described here is not sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, but rather to engage in the hilchot haPesach. This might be like Rav Sheshet, that Talmidei Chachamim engage in their own, and the common folk, Tam, engage in their own. And this might be the import of this maamar of the four sons. (Unless somehow the hilchot haPesach are considered sippur.) And whether this is indeed so is a machlokes, and thus it was necessary to state that even kulanu chachamim we have an obligation, and that we should go on at length in this sippur.

I would note that this incident in Lod involved Rabban Gamliel and the Zekeinim. But we know that the same Rabban Gamliel did not eliminate the obligation of sippur entirely. As we cite him at the end of maggid, whoever does not say and explain the import of these three things -- Pesach, Matzah, and Maror has not fulfilled his obligation of sippur. These points would likely have been covered in the course of the seder. Though not necessarily the association of the physical symbols to the messages. But perhaps he has this short list not as a checklist, but because otherwise someone might not cover these points. After all, one might be engaged in discussion of the mitzvos of the night rather than on the story.

Looking now at the Mechilta, it is actually explicit. We have Rabbi Eliezer (one of the Bnei Brak participants, though) stating:

דבר אחר:
מה העדות - ר' אליעזר אומר:
מנין אתה אומר שאם היתה חבורה של חכמים או של תלמידים שצריכים לעסוק בהלכות פסח עד חצות?
לכך נאמר: מה העדות וגו': 

Specifically if they are a chabura of Chachamim or Talmidei Chachamim, this is what they should focus upon. Although this is ad chatzos. (Presumably, since they also have an obligation to eat matzah and drink the four cups, this "maggid" was happening simultaneous to all the other mitzvos halayla.) Though this might be after a regular maggid.

____

The pasuk in Devarim is  מָה הָעֵדֹת, וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, אֶתְכֶם. A "famous" question that people grapple with is just how the Chacham differs from the Rasha. After all, the Rasha says lachem with the connotation of velo lo. But the Chacham says etchem with a plausible connotation of velo lo. How do they differ? How can the Haggadah darshen one without the other.


Some famous, and good answers: The Chacham says Elokeinu. (This is then cast as the important turning towards masorah.) This is actually a great answer, since the idea that the Chacham took himself out of the Klal and was Kafar BeIkkar means that he denies Hashem's divinity. So here, he accepts God as his God, such that the derasha is blocked out.


Another answer is that it is a matter of stress and where the emphasis is placed. And this is another great answer, since this is, after all, a derasha from these pesukim. Within the peshat of these pesukim themselves, these sons are not reshaim nor chachamim specifically. And so, this derasha is a diyuk, not to discover the hidden one true meaning of the pasuk but to bring out a point. We see this as well, in that baavur zeh is also said to the שאינו יודע לשאול. Not because such a son will soon become a rasha, if we are not careful. (That is good derush based on the Haggadic text.) Rather, different aspects of the same response can be darshened in different ways. And just because a derasha put emphasis on a word in one instance does not mean that another derasha, trying to develop a different point, must be consistent and interpret a different word in another pasuk in a similar manner.


Another great answer is from the girsa in the Yerushalmi, where the derasha is not (only) focused on the word lachem, but (also) on the word avodah, which it renders as tircha. Thus, other contextual, textual cues might make up the entirety of the derasha, or at least inform us of the direction the derasha is to take.


Another great answer is that this question never arises because the pasuk by the Chacham does not say אתכם. Rather, it says אותנו. Indeed, let us see the image for this post once again, and pay careful attention to the pasuk as cited:

This is from a Haggadah from Prague in 1590. Are they basing themselves on a variant sefer Torah, or a variant tradition.


As I heard from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, The Mechilta appears to have just such a variant version of the pasuk:

מה העדות החוקים והמשפטים - נמצאת אומר: ארבעה בנים הם:
אחד חכם.
ואחד רשע.
ואחד תם.
ואחד שאינו יודע לשאול.
חכם מה הוא אומר?
מה העדות החקים והמשפטים, אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אותנו אף אתה פתח לו בהלכות הפסח אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומין. 
רשע מה הוא אומר?
מה העבודה הזאת לכם. לכם ולא לו ולפי שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל וכפר בעיקר, אף אתה אמור לו והקהה את שיניו ואמור לו: בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים לי ולא לך, אלו היית שם לא היית נגאל. 
תם מה הוא אומר?
מה זאת? ואמרת אליו: בחוזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים מבית עבדים.
ושאינו יודע לשאול
את פתח לו, שנאמר: והגדת לבנך ביום ההוא וגו' 

Note the version of the pasuk cited. It has otanu instead of etchem. Perhaps this is itself a mere typographical error. But then I think I recall Dr. Leiman telling us that the Dead Sea Scrolls also have אותנו. More than this, the Septuagint's translation has the equivalent of אותנו:
20 And it shall come to pass when thy son shall ask thee at a future time, saying, What are the testimonies, and the ordinances, and the judgments, which the Lord our God has commanded us?
20 Καὶ ἔσται ὅταν ἐρωτήσῃ σε ὁ υἱός σου αὔριον λέγων· τί ἐστι τὰ μαρτύρια καὶ τὰ δικαιώματα καὶ τὰ κρίματα, ὅσα ἐνετείλατο Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἡμῖν;


That is, "us", not you. This is not to claim that our Masoretic text is necessarily wrong. Rather, the claim is that  for the original Midrashic author, the derasha was on a non-Masoretic text (something we have already seen once or twice elsewhere on parshablog). And so, the question everybody asked would not have even been a question in the first place for the midrashic author.

Of course, I am not convinced that even with our text, the question arises to the level of question. Because we are engaged in derash here, and the midrashic author is entitled to place stress on any portion of any verse  he chooses, to bring out his point, without needing to worry about consistency.