Summary: Chida points out a number of things based on the text regarding the wicked child. First, he is filled with rage - and he is answered with anger. Second, his question reflects a deep understanding of Jewish law. The Passover offering is one of only two positive commandments for which the punishment is karet, incision, or being cut off from the Jewish people. Why should the punishment be so serious in these cases, he wonders since God already promised to redeem us from Egypt? The rejection of the Passover offering (and circumcision) however reflect an unwillingness to give up idolatry. Interestingly, Chida compares the Torah’s answer to teh wicked child to that of the Haggadah. The Torah’s answer is offered without the anger we see in the Haggadah. The wicked one, what does he say? “What is this service to you?” He says ‘to you’ not ‘to me…’ Since he excluded himself from the community he has denied the cardinal principle of Judaism. Therefore set his teeth on edge by telling him: “It is because of that which Adonai did for me when I went forth from Egypt.” ‘For me’ and not ‘for him;’ had he been there he would not have been redeemed. The wicked one watches and grinds his teeth in anger. In his wickedness, “he scatters deadly firebrands, arrows, like a madman.” (Prov. 26:18). (He asks,) “There is no penalty of karet¹⁶⁴ (‘excision’) is the biblical penalty, for certain offenses, of being ‘cut off from the people’; for example, for failing to be circumcised for any other positive commandment; why is there one for failing to offer the Passover offering? Isn’t it a positive commandment? We find this penalty only in the case of the Passover offering and circumcision! The impure one expresses surprise and says, “What is this rite to you, since according to your opinion there is only karet for those who transgress negative commandment? The Passover offering is a positive commandment and one who neglects it does so by sitting and doing nothing.¹⁶⁵ (not by performing a forbidden act) Why is the Pesach offering different from other positive commandments? His fury is expressed when he says “To you” instead of saying “to him” since he separates himself from the community and thereby denies a principle of faith. Thus we answer him: Is not the purpose of the Passover offering the rejection of idolatry? As the sages said, “Go set aside the lamb for yourself...” (Ex. 12:21) Separate yourself from idolatry and offer a lamb for God’s commandment. Since he sets himself apart from the community by denying this commandment it is as if he worshipped idols; this is what is meant by a denial of the basic principle. He also casts doubt on the mitzvah of circumcision which is also a denial of God. This too is a positive commandment for which the penalty is karet. His error is thinking that there shouldn’t be a penalty of karet for the Passover offering, and then saying the same for circumcision. Actually, the reason we went out from the land of Egypt was for the merit accrued through the blood of the Passover offering and of circumcision. The wicked one questioned the legitimacy of the two types of blood, Passover and Circumcision. If he had been in Egypt he would not have been redeemed!

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ Karet ¹⁶⁵ It is worse when one transgresses by taking a forbidden action - all this person is doing is ignoring Passover, as with most positive commandments.

It is possible that in his wickedness, he sought to uproot all the commandments related to Passover, using the verse, “they shall be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years... in the end they shall go free with great wealth,” (Gen. 15:13-14) He asks, “From the beginning God told Abraham that they would leave Egypt after 400 years so what is the point of all these commandments as a means of leaving Egypt and all the praise for the Exodus? God had already promised to bring them out.” That is the point of his question, “What is this service to you?” The one who answers him becomes angry and says, “‘To you’ and not ‘to him’ since he separates himself from the people of Israel and denies the fundamental principle. The heretic asks, “What is this service to you,” because he doesn't believe in the Torah. Therefore you should set his teeth on edge by saying, “It is because of this which God did for me...if he had been there he would not have been redeemed,” since he would have died during the plague of darkness.

I saw that Rabbi Isaiah of Trani the Elder,¹⁶⁶ a commentary on the Pentateuch, consisting mainly of glosses on Rashi. The work has been printed as an appendix to Azulai's Penei Dawid (Leghorn, 1792) (Wikipedia) in Nimukei Chumash on the Torah, (Parshat Bo), writes, “What is this service to you? To you and not to him. We have explained that this is the question of the wicked child who asks a question by saying, ‘to you,’ and not ‘to us.’ It has been asked, isn’t it written in Parshat Vaetchanan, `When your child asks you…that Adonai our God has enjoined upon you…” (Deut. 6:20-21) One might explain that there the child includes himself in his question by saying, ‘Adonai, our God,’ while the wicked person doesn’t include himself by saying ‘us.’ Rather he says ‘to you.’' Further, I was surprised that the wicked child asked, “What is this service to you,” and he answers ‘We do not eat an Afikomen after the Passover offering.’¹⁶⁷ Why does he need to say this and why does he repeat it? One might say that even though this child is wicked, in his cleverness he asks this question because he notes that we eat two sacrifices: the Passover offering and the Chagigah offering. Yet the Passover offering is eaten after the Festive offering which satiates our hunger. As a result he asks, “Isn’t the Passover offering the essential offering of the day; so why do we eat the Chagigah offering first to satiate our hunger and not the Passover offering which is more important. Because of this we say to him, “We do not eat an Afikomen after the Passover offering.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ Isaiah di Trani ben Mali (the Elder) (c. 1180 – c. 1250) was a prominent Italian Talmudist. He is often confused with his grandson who bears the same name. Isaiah originated in Trani,an ancient settlement of Jewish scholarship, and lived probably in Venice. He was a prolific writer. He wrote: Nimmukei Homesh, ¹⁶⁷ Apparently this comment appears in Rabbi Isaiah’s commentary on the Torah but not in comments on the Haggadah.

Behold this version of the text of Rabbi Isaiah, ‘One does not eat the Afikomen after the Passover offering,’ is new. And I do not know where the Rabbi found it. The questions of the four children and the answers appear in the Mechilta, at the end of Parshat Bo but it is like our version of the text except for a few variations in the text, Still, Rabbi Isaiah’s explanation of this passage applies to the wise child and it is offered there by Rabbi Kolonymous, when he writes, “This is what Rabbi Isaiah has written.” It would appear that Rabbi Isaiah in his commentary to the Haggadah changed it from his explanatory notes in the Torah commentary and wrote this explanation regarding the question of the wise child.

A problem was raised by Rabbi Isaiah regarding the wise child’s question, “Which Adonai our God commanded you,” that the wise one did not say, “commanded us,” He answers this question by saying that the wise child included himself in the community by saying “The Lord our God.” I heard similar answers from other commentators who said that the wise child mentions God while the wicked one doesn’t. The sages quoted a clear statement, “I found that wisdom is superior to folly as light is superior to darkness.” (Ecc. 2:13) That is, there is an addition in the words of the wise child that the wicked fails to mention: the wise child mentions God, as in “Light is superior to darkness.” In Genesis “God calls the light day but the night darkness.” In the case of light God is mentioned but not with darkness.

As this has been explained, one must also explain the answer of the wicked child in Parshat Bo. It states, “You shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to Adonai,” (Ex. 12:27) There is no hint of complaint on the part of question (in the Torah) while the Maggid portrays the questioner as pouring out hot wrath when he says, “What is this service to you?” Also the Maggid connects the question to the wicked child but he does not bring the answer t in the Torah. It might be that the answer is also related in the Torah, Parshat Bo, “And when your children say, ‘What do you mean by this rite?’ you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to Adonai’...The people then bowed low in homage.” (Ex. 12:26-27) One might compare this with the passage in Parshat Vaetchanan (Deut. 6:20) containing the question of the wise child where it is written, “When your child asks you…” or Parshat Bo (Ex. 13:8), “You shall tell your child…” the one who does not know how to ask, and at the end of the same portion, “And when, in time to come, your son asks you, saying, ‘What does this mean?’” (Ex 13:14) which is the question of the simple child. Why in the case of the wise, simple and the one who cannot ask, are the questions formulated in the singular, “Your son,” while in the case of the question posed by the wicked child, is it written in the plural, “And when your children ask you?” Just the opposite - it should have been written in the plural for the wise child and in the singular for the wicked child! Furthermore, for the wicked child it states, “And when (v’hayah) your children say,” and the sages have said in general that whenever a verse begins with the word v’hayah, it suggests something happy.¹⁶⁸ ad locum, among other places Yet what joy does the wicked child bring? Can one find a place where the language v’hayah with happiness since it is associated with broken sighs? And what father rejoices at the burial of his wicked child? Would the child’s mother and father rejoice if they found a place to bury their wicked child? Furthermore, it is written, “The people then bowed low in homage.” Rashi explains, “They bowed in thanksgiving for the tidings of the approaching deliverance, the promise of coming into the land, and regarding the children whom they would have.”¹⁶⁹ This seems strange since the tidings regarding children are evil tidings since the children turn out to be wicked and there is no place where bowing low is associated with sorrow and sighs. It would appear that the expression, “What is this service to you,” is not definitely associated with evil. If a righteous person who is associated with sanctification says, “What is this service to you,” we would not necessarily judge him negatively and say that hit is heresy and that he denies the fundamental teachings of Judaism. Rather we would say that we are obligated to judge him favorably so that he was not drawn to evil. We presume that he is righteous. But if he is wicked, we would presume that he was acting wickedly and assume that this statement “What is this service to you,” is an incriminating statement, and that he removed himself from the community of Israel. It is because of this that the Torah changes the language here and says, “And when your children say…” using the plural language and using the word v’hayah which is associated with joy. Also the answer states, “You shall say, It is a Passover offering,” using the Hebrew word Amar which is conciliatory, so that they will think that their children can be righteous, even as they say, “What is this service to you. One should not judge such children harshly and one should presume (the best about them). The parents should answer them in a conciliatory fashion, “It is the Passover offering…” We conclude that it is the wicked person who asks, “What is this service to you,” an unpleasant question, and that he is removing himself from the community by denying the basic principles of faith. In the language of the answer, however, we use the plural, the language of joy, as well as conciliatory language in order to ‘sweeten’ the question. In this way we presume that it is a wicked person who says this. Certainly he asks this question with wicked intentions and therefore we answer him hashly, but we also say, “And the people bowed in homage.” This implies that it is good tidings that the children may turn out to be righteous... From this, the sages conclude that this is the wicked person’s question (in the Haggadah). For if it is the wicked person asking, “What is this service to you,” then we must cast guilt upon him by, “breaking the jaw of the wrongdoer,”¹⁷⁰ blunting his teeth by speaking harshly to him. Therefore, the Magid of the Haggadah does not quote the answer in the Torah. Scripture speaks of the children of Israel as all coming from good stock. From there we learn that if the question belongs to the wicked one then the answer should be direct and bitter, turning away from him. Thus we have explained everything!

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ See Deuteronomy 26:1, See Ohr HaChaim ¹⁶⁹ See Exodus, Rashi 12:27 ¹⁷⁰ See Job 29:17

Rabbi Haim Abulafia,¹⁷¹ wonder of the generation, of blessed memory, author of Sefer Mikra’ei Kodesh (Page 6) explains, “What is this rite to you - the intercalation of the year,.” to mean ‘You may intercalate’ the calendar at any time you want. (The statement goes on to say) “...It is because of this right of intercalation which God gave me,” as is stated, “This month shall be the beginning of months to you.” (Ex. 12:1) God says, “Until now intercalation was in My hands; now I am placing it in your hands, as it is written, “When is Rosh Hashanah? God says, “You and I will ask the earthly court.””¹⁷² The wicked person assumes that in order to set the calendar God took us out of Egypt. This is heresy! (See what Rabbi Abulafia wrote there at length.) One can explain this matter: “The commandment of “This month shall be to you,” was a foundation stone and the first commandment. Yet it is written that in our poverty we worshipped idols in Egypt. We could make the claim - if the Holy One wanted to rid us of idolatry, why didn’t he simply abolish it since they believed that acts of god were greater (than acts of human beings.) Now when all the Israelites saw that God brought judgment upon the gods of Egypt they might have come to the false conclusion that acts of heaven are greater (than acts of human beings) and if God didn't want idolatry why didn’t He just abolish it? God brought about judgements against the gods of Egypt. Rather God brought vengeance upon Egypt because they tried to destroy us and so he judged their gods.But the worship of idols itself didn’t matter to him. This (conclusion) caused the destruction of the cornerstone of our Torah. Therefore, the first commandment which we received, “This month shall be to you” was given to the court to teach that human actions are better and so they should not conclude that we can worship idols. Now, the wicked person doubts the commandment of intercalation of the calendar since he concludes that the acts of God are better and because of this he errs regarding the intercalation and denies the principles of faith particularly regarding idolatry by claiming if God didn’t want idolatry why didn’t God just abolish it? Because of this you should say, “To You and not to him,” because he removes himself from the community by denying the basic principles of faith. He says, It is because of intercalation that I am of the opinion that human actions are preferable. I separated myself from idolatry, I circumcised myself twice in order to uproot the assumption that acts of heaven are preferable, as I will explain later. If the wicked person had been there, he would not have been redeemed since he held that acts of heaven are better and he would not have performed the Passover offering or circumcised himself. Without the blood of Passover and the blood of circumcision his blood would have been on his own head. He would have been polluted in the very place he should have been redeemed.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Hayyim ben Jacob Abulafia (born 1660 in Hebron, died 1744 in Tiberias, Ottoman Syria) was a rabbinical authority. He was the grandfather of Hayyim ben David Abulafia and grandson of Isaac Nissim aben Gamil. Abulafia was a rabbi in Smyrna, where he instituted many wholesome regulations. In his old age he restored the Jewish community in Tiberias ¹⁷² Pesikta D”Rav Kahana 5:13

Our teacher, Rabbi Yosef David,¹⁷³ and, in 1728, as President of Salonica's rabbinic court and community. He issued responsa to hundreds of halakhic questions that reached him from the entire region – Salonica, Turkey, Egypt, Italy and more. He headed the senior yeshiva, where one of his greatest students was Hacham Yosef Molcho, author of the Shulchan Gavohah. told the following story regarding the students of the Ari: in the time of Rabbi Chaim Vital, of blessed memory, an individual injured himself on the first night of Passover. They asked Rabbi Chaim Vital, how this could be - doesn’t the Torah promise that the night of Passover will be “A night of watching” (leil shemurim). How could it be that a person should break his leg on the joyous and holy festival? Rabbi Vital revealed the mystery that the man had committed a transgression on that night and therefore suffering came upon him. It would appear that it is written “a night of watching” specifically for those who have not transgressed. If one continued to sin on the night of Passover, this night is not a “Night of watching for him….. The truth is it is watching “For you,” but not “for him” because he has transgressed on this night. If he had been in Egypt he would not have been redeemed because he transgressed and was no longer protected. These are the words of Rabbi Yosef David.

footnotes: ¹⁷³ I am not certain if this is the correct person Chida identifies here: Hacham Yosef David, son of Hacham David Shabtai, was born in Salonica, in approximately 1660. In 1702, Hacham Yosef David was appointed as a dayan

From this we can correctly explain the language of the Torah, “That was for Adonai, a night of watching.” (Ex. 12:42) When is the night of watching? It is a night “For Adonai;” that is, it is a night that is sanctified and set apart for God through the fulfillment of commandments. Only then is it a night of watching. But if it is not “for Adonai” if they commit transgressions on this night. It isn’t a night of vigil/watching for those people who devote themselves to their animal appetites and do not act like those among the people of Israel who busy themselves with the laws of Passover, matzah and maror to fulfill the commandments so that the night of vigil is upon them.