Some thoughts on the Rasha

Having concluded with the Chacham, we turn to the Rasha.

The citation is from Shemot 12, regarding the korban Pesach once they enter the land of Israel:

כה  וְהָיָה כִּי-תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן יְהוָה לָכֶם--כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר; וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, אֶת-הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת.	25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
כו  וְהָיָה, כִּי-יֹאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם:  מָה הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת, לָכֶם.	26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you: What mean ye by this service?
כז  וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח-פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה, אֲשֶׁר פָּסַח עַל-בָּתֵּי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם, בְּנָגְפּוֹ אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, וְאֶת-בָּתֵּינוּ הִצִּיל; וַיִּקֹּד הָעָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.	27 that ye shall say: It is the sacrifice of the LORD'S passover, for that He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses.' And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
כח  וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, כֵּן עָשׂוּ.  {ס}	28 And the children of Israel went and did so; as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. {S}

The people's reaction of bowing their head and worshiping demonstrates that, on a peshat level, they did not view this question as rejection on the part of their descendants. And it is a question as to the import. And the response in the pasuk is not the one given to the Rasha, namely baavur zeh. Rather, one gives a real answer, that it is a zevach Pesach to Hashem, because He passed over, etc.

The answer to the Rasha is taken from the next perek, perek 13, where the focus is more on the Matzah than on the Zevach Pesach:

ו  שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, תֹּאכַל מַצֹּת; וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁבִיעִי, חַג, לַיהוָה.	6 Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to the LORD.
ז  מַצּוֹת, יֵאָכֵל, אֵת, שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים; וְלֹא-יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ, וְלֹא-יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר--בְּכָל-גְּבֻלֶךָ.	7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.
ח  וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר:  בַּעֲבוּר זֶה, עָשָׂה יְהוָה לִי, בְּצֵאתִי, מִמִּצְרָיִם.	8 And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the LORD did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.
ט  וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְךָ, וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ, לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה, בְּפִיךָ:  כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה, הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.	9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.
י  וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת-הַחֻקָּה הַזֹּאת, לְמוֹעֲדָהּ, מִיָּמִים, יָמִימָה.  {פ}	10 Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year. {P}

This is not problematic, because we are dealing here with derash, rather than peshat. And as discussed in the context of the Chacham, the same goes for how the answer to the Rasha can be the same as to the שאינו יודע לשאול, and how לכם can be darshened while אתכם remains undarshened. This is a matter of emphasis, and of selective highlighting and hyper-literal interpretation of phrases a bit out of context.

What is the derasha being made here upon מָה הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת לָכֶם? The Haggadah makes it explicit, that it is on the word lachem. This is an avodah to you, but not to me. Thus, he takes himself out of the community. I've heard a nice dvar Torah that taking himself out of the community itself is כפר בעיקר. But peshat is that by taking himself out of the group, he does not consider this as an avodah for him. Why not? Because he does not believe in Hashem. He is thus a min, and the response to him is a polemic response.

The Yerushalmi has a variant version of the diyuk -- indeed, a variant of the questions and responses of all four sons, which is worthwhile to focus on. The Yerushalmi, Pesachim 70b, states:

תני ר' חייה כנגד ארבעה בנים דיברה תורה בן חכם בן רשע בן טיפש בן שאינו יודע לשאול.  בן חכם מהו אומר (דברים ו) מה העדות והחקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אותנו אף אתה אמור לו (שמות יג) בחזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים מבית עבדים.  בן רשע מהו אומר (שמות יב) מה העבודה הזאת לכם מה הטורח הזה שאתם מטריחין עלינו בכל שנה ושנה מכיון שהוציא את עצמו מן הכלל אף אתה אמור לו (שמות יב) בעבור זה עשה ה' לי לי עשה לאותו האיש לא עשה.  אילו היה אותו האיש במצרים לא היה ראוי להגאל משם לעולם.  טיפש מה אומר (שמות יב) מה זאת אף את למדו הלכות הפסח שאין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן שלא יהא עומד מחבורה זו ונכנס לחבורה אחרת.  בן שאינו יודע לשאול את פתח לו תחילה א"ר יוסה מתניתא אמרה כן אם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו:

Thus, the diyuk is on the avodah, interpreted as torach, a burden. It seems like the particular derashot are alternatives (and this may well indeed be the intent), but they can readily supplement one another. The torach aspect informs us how we should interpret lachem.

The father's response is a diyuk similar to the first one of לכם. That is, the pasuk has a response of בַּעֲבוּר זֶה, עָשָׂה ה לִי, בְּצֵאתִי, מִמִּצְרָיִם. The focus is on the word li, meaning me but not you. The phraseology of אף אתה does not need to indicate that it is a response in kind, to the extent that it uses the same methodology. It might indicate that it is an appropriate response to the particular question. See how אף אתה is used consistently.

Hakheh et Shinav, to blunt his teeth, is certainly not meant literally. (See my discussion of this phrase, starting here.) Rather, this is a forceful answer, and perhaps a forceful answer along the same lines as the Rasha's attack. The Rasha gets the polemical answer.

While we, living in the 21st century, may not like the approach to the wicked son, that does not mean that it is not the approach given in the midrash. I do not like the approach of Rav Amnon Bazak that the son is a min in the sense of a believer in Jesus. This would be based on the Yerushalmi's use of oto haIsh. I think I provide a good debunking of this theory here. Basically, I am not convinced that oto haIsh refers in Talmudic times to Jesus; further, in many cases it clearly does not refer to Jesus, but rather to some person who is not named, and about whom negative things are said. It seems a Talmudic style, similar to soneihem shel yisrael, to redirect the negative remark. Here, there is an unnamed wicked son about whom it is being said that he would never be redeemed. The euphemism is thus entirely appropriate and expected here.