The wicked child, what does he say? “What does this service mean to you?” Like many commentators before him, Rabbi Epstein points out that the questions attributed to the wise and wicked children in the Torah appear to be the same. In Deuteronomy 6:20 we say, “What mean these testimonies, statutes, ordinances that the lord our God commanded you - Etchem?” (This is the wise child’s question.) and in Exodus 12:26 we read, “What does this service mean to you - Lachem?” (This is the wicked child’s question.) In both questions the child appears to be excluding himself from the community by using the word “you” in his question. So why does the Haggadah criticize only the so-called wicked child for speaking this way? Rabbi Epstein distinguishes the wise child’s question in Deuteronomy which uses the word “Etchem, you” from the wicked child’s question in Exodus which uses the word “Lachem, to you.” The wise child’s question is inclusive because he says “the Lord our God.” He also acknowledges that it was his elders who were commanded directly to observe the Passover and not he. That is why he says “which the Lord our God commanded you.” Not only does the wicked child not mention the name of God in his question as his wise brother does, but he is not talking about the command but the actual service of God which applies as much to him as it does to his elders. Therefore, when he says “What does this service mean to you,” he is truly excluding himself from the service of God. The Jerusalem Talmud emends the wise son’s question in the Torah in order to make it more fitting to this context. It has him say, “What do these testimonies, ordinances... which the Lord our God commanded us (Otanu),” even though this is not what the verse in Deuteronomy actually says. It makes the Wise child’s question more fitting for his temperament. Certainly he would include himself in the commandment. This emendation also makes the contrast between wise and wicked more obvious.

Set his teeth on edge... The Hebrew expression “Hakey” has the connotation of destroy or break elsewhere in the Bible as the proverb in Ezekiel 18:2, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” This is not meant to be taken literally but is to be understood as a proverb which states that sometimes children suffer for their parents’ sins. But what does this expression mean in this context? Rabbi Epsteins portrays the wicked child as an intellectual who is annoyed by the ritualistic aspect of the Jewish tradition. The implications of his question are that it should be enough to simply read the story of the Exodus to commemorate this event without bothering with all the rituals and ceremonies. The commandment of telling the story should be a purely intellectual exercise. The retort to the wicked child is that he should break his teeth since it’s enough to think about food without actually eating and chewing it! That’s not quite the same, is it? Similarly the story of the Exodus must be concretized to make it more powerful and meaningful. It’s not enough just to tell the story. We must become part of the story and feel its meaning in our lives. What’s more, we answer him caustically using expressions similar to his. There is a sarcastic tone to the wicked child so we should offer him a sarcastic answer in return.

If he had been there, he would not have been redeemed: How is it possible that the wicked child would not have been redeemed? Even the “Eruv Rav, the mixed multitude” who followed the Israelites out of Egypt (see Exodus 12:38) were allowed to leave Egypt. This group of people, however, was not wicked; they were simply a mixed group of people from other nations who embraced the Israelites’ faith when the Israelites left Egypt. Those Israelites who were wicked, according to the Midrash, were stricken dead during the plague of darkness. (See Exodus 12:21.) Looking back at the passage in the Torah (Exodus 12:26), which is the basis for the wicked child’s question, there are several issues that are raised. First, why is the opening part of the verse is plural (“When your children ask you...”) unlike the passages for other three sons? This suggests that there are more wicked children than there are wise, simple or silent children. Second, why did the Maggid choose to reformulate the answer to the wicked child in the singular when the question was addressed by a group? (“‘What does this service mean to you’ - To you and not to him.”) And third, why did the Maggid choose to ignore the answer offered by the Torah (Exodus 12:27 - “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord because He passed over the house of the Israelites in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians but He saved our houses”) to the wicked child’s question. Rabbi Epstein comes to the defense of the so-called wicked child in Exodus 12:26 by suggesting that there may not be a wicked and rebellious child in this verse. The fact that the statement is introduced in the plural suggests that this may simply be a case of rash language and not an attempt by the speakers to reject the community through their question. The Torah appears to give this child a legitimate and respectful answer quite different from the caustic response of the Maggid in the Haggadah. The Maggid, on the other hand, chose to part from the literal meaning of the verse in order to paint a portrait of a rebellious child who chooses to separate himself from the community. This is implied in his mind in the last word of the questions, “What does this service mean to you? (The word “you” here is plural - this allows the Maggid to say that he is implying you “the Jewish community” and not him “the individual.”) He then took one more step in painting this portrait by choosing Exodus 13:28 as the answer to the wicked child even though this verse is interpreted as referring to the one who does know how to ask, “Because of that which the Lord did for me when I went forth from Egypt.” The “me” here is seen as contrasting to the questioner, “God did this for me - not for you!” This verse is an appropriate answer to the original question.