The Four Types of Rabbis Translator's Introduction: This may be the most interesting passage in Rabbi Bondi's commentary. It certainly says a lot about the world in which he lived and the world in which we live as well. The four children are not children at all, according to Rabbi Bondi. They are four types of preachers or rabbis addressing their congregations. Each begins his sermon with a prayer (Baruch haMakom) and each delivers as message. According to Rabbi Bondi, each one belongs to a different kat, a sect or a denomination. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that Rabbi Bondi is speaking about Orthodoxy, Reform and the nascent Conservative movements. The fourth speaker is not a rabbi but a well (but secularly) educated person who assumes the leadership of his congregation based on his general knowledge rather than his Jewish knowledge. There are a number of questions which arise in this passage dealing with the 'four children' in the Haggadah:

1. How is the beginning of this passage "Praised is the omnipresent" connected with the continuation of the passage, the four children?
2. In the introduction to each of the four children the word hu, is used: chacham mah hu omer, "The wise child, what does he (hu) say, rasha mah hu omer, the wicked child, what does he (hu) say, etc. The word hu is superfluous in Hebrew grammar. It could have said: chacham, mah omer, rasha, mah omer, and so on. Why does this word appear in the text?
3. Why does the Haggadah answer the wise child with the commandment, "Don’t eat after the Afikomen?" Isn't this the easiest of all the mitzvot to fulfill of the laws of Passover?
4. From where does the Haggadah deduce the response to the wicked child: "To me, and not to you; had he been in Egypt, he wouldn’t have been redeemed ." We were also in Egypt and we were also idolaters, but we were redeemed from Egypt through repentance. If the wicked child had been present for the suffering of slavery he might have also been redeemed through repentance.
5. The simple child's asks, "What is this?" Why is his question generic so that we cannot know what his intentions are in asking about the Seder, as we can know with the other children?
6. Why do we answer the child who does not know how to ask by interpreting the verse, "You shall tell your child on that day?"
7. Furthermore, there are other questions about the verse with which we answer the child who doesn’t know how to ask, "And you shall tell your child on that day saying (leimor), 'It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt." (Ex. 13:8) The word leimor is superfluous. Also it is not necessary to add "on that day" since it already says, "because of this" which the sages take to mean, at the time when the matzah and the maror are placed before you. Why is it necessary to say, "On that day?"

When the Torah repeats the four Baruch expressions, it is telling us that the Torah is speaking about four educated people who are preachers and teachers of Torah and ethics. Each begins his homily with a prayer of praise to God. They know that before one interprets Torah, one begins with a prayer. However. one cannot necessarily rely on each of these preachers or assume that they are righteous leaders. They are righteous, intermediate, wicked and ignorant. If you want to distinguish who is wise and righteous and who is wicked, you only have to know how each uses the word mah, "what," in his question about Passover. By understand what is implied by this word, one can know what is in the heart of the preacher. There are many verses in the Torah that use the word mah, such as, "And now, O Israel, what (mah) does the Lord you God demand of you? Only this: to fear the Lord your God…" (Deut. 10:12) The one who chooses this mah, interprets both the commandments that define our relationship to God, and those commandments that define our relationship to our fellow man. Such a person is both wise and righteous. This is what the author of the Haggadah means when he says, Chacham "mah" hu omer. This can be translated as a statement: "The wise child is the one who says mah." He not only explains commandments that define interpersonal relations, but seeks to understand matters relating to a person's relationship to God as well. That is why he asks, "Mah - what are the testimonies, statutes and judgments." Sabbath, the holidays, fringes and Tefillin are "testimonies." These commandments are thus called because they testify that God constantly renews His will to create. Other commandments are called judgments because they are based on reason, including all the commandments between a person and his fellow: not stealing or killing, loving ones neighbor and similar mitzvot. Finally there are statutes such as not mixing milk and meat, shatnez (not mixing linen and wool), the prohibition against shaving with a single edge blade, the law of the red heifer, and the prohibition against eating pork. One can tell from his homilies that he is righteous. Regarding such a person, the Mishnah says, "sit in the dust at their feet and with thirst drink in their words" (Pirkei Avot 1:4). Ask them about all the laws. The Haggadah alludes to this when it says, "You must tell him all the detailed regulations of Passover." That is, engage him in a discussion and ask him about all the laws of Passover, from the most difficult to the easiest laws, such as "don’t eat anything after the Afikomen." Because he is a righteous person you can engage in a discussion with him and he will guide you in an honest way because he reveres God. He has not exempted himself from explaining even the simplest of the simple commandments.

Which "mah" does the wicked preacher use? He quotes the verse from scripture, "What does this service mean to you?" (Exodus 12:26) In other words, he poses the question to others and not to himself. He hasn’t fulfilled the commandments in many years, so he asks, "You are still performing commandments like matzah, maror, and the telling of the story of the Exodus in our (modern) times? What does it mean to you?" Since he explicitly removes himself from the community through his homily, he is considered as one who denies the principles of faith. To such a person such one should pay no heed nor should one associate oneself. One should not even respond to his arguments and try to persuade him to change his point of view. His primary purpose is to seduce you into becoming a heretic. Rather, "One should blunt his teeth," that is, one should distance oneself from him. Insult him so he won't want to converse with you. Say to him: "It is because of that which God did for me when I went forth from Egypt: He would have done this for me and not for the preacher, since his desire is to cause others to sin through his sermons. Unlike us, he no longer has the means to repent of his evil ways. Had we been in Egypt, we too might have sinned by worshiping idols, but it would never have been our intention to inflame others and cause them to transgress. Had we been in Egypt and repented, God would have had compassion on us and would have taken us out of Egypt. He would not have done this for you. Since your intention was to cause others to sin, there would have been no way for you to repent. Therefore, had you been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed."

Which "Mah" does the simple preacher use in his sermons? He says, Mah zot, "What is this." Because he is confused and doubtful as to which opinion he should follow, right or left, when he says "What is "this" (zot)," we do not know what his intention is. Does the word zot, "this," refer to the wicked preacher's question "Mah haavodah hazot lachem, "What is zot, "this" service to you" or is it a reference to the wise preacher's question. For the wise preacher, Torah is called zot, as in the expression: zot hatorah, "This is the Torah…" It is your responsibility to bring this teacher closer to the Torah, since he is doubtful as a result of his exploration of our faith. It is his intention to follow whichever group is stronger and more convincing. Therefore, speak to his heart and say to him, "You and I are from the right group, the stronger group!" Quote the verse to him, "'With a mighty hand God took us out of Egypt.' And tell him "Had you been in Egypt, you would have been redeemed." Through these words, he will be convinced and it will be more difficult for him turn away from you. He will repent in his heart of his doubts and follow you with his whole heart and find his way to the essence of faith which is the written and the oral Torah.

The ones who doesn’t know how to ask is a member of a fourth group. They do not know the difference between groups on the left and the right. This one's education comes from the university and he has not learned a single letter of truth from our holy Torah. He doesn’t even know how to pray. Yet it is his desire to use the Torah 'as a spade' (that is for self-aggrandizement) and to assume the leadership of the community through the rabbinate. When he comes to preach to the masses, you must bring him closer to you for his own good. Teach him a bit of Torah related to the most immediate matters. In this way you will help him teach commandments regulating our relationship to God, as it is written: "You shall tell your son on that day." You should do this as soon as he comes from the university to serve as a preacher. Tell him what to say to the people "on that day," when the matzah and the maror are before him. In that way he will teach the people matters relating to our relationship with God. Other matters relating to interpersonal relations are already well-known to him from his university education. Therefore you only need to teach him about the commandments between a person and God.

Blunting His Teeth: Denying the Wicked Child

There are almost as many translations of the expression הקהה את שניו as there are translations of the Haggadah. We are told that when the wicked child asks, "What does this service mean to you," we should הקהה את שניו. What does this mean: blunt his teeth, smack him in the face, give him a caustic answer, make him feel uncomfortable? Rabbi Bondi offers another interpretation: deny him the delicious Passover offering! He bases this interpretation, which he learned from his great grandfather, on a Midrash in Song of Songs Rabbah Rabbi Bondi quotes in the Midrash in its entirety in his commentary. Regarding the expression, "Blunt his teeth" I heard the following explanation from my grandfather and teacher, Rabbi Avraham Naftali Sheier, of blessed memory, who heard it from his father, the master, Rabbi Tebele Sheier, of blessed memory: When the wicked child says, "What is this service to you" he shows his insolent rejection of and contempt for the commandments. For he calls the eating of matzah and maror avodah, "work," in the sense of a burden when he says, "What is this avodah to you." But he doesn’t do the same regarding the Pesah offering, since it consumed in such a stately manor (grilled food was the preferred manner of cuisine for royalty), and its aroma is tempting. As a result he desires to partake of the Pesah offering. When one denies a person such good food and he sees others eating it while they refuse to share it, one "blunts his teeth" as a way of aggravating him. The author of the Haggadah hints at this when he says that the wicked child, "removed himself from the community." The rasha did this by showing contempt for the commandments. However, he still desires to partake of the Passover offering for it certainly looks and smells is delicious. He wants to taste it like the rest of the gathering who are doing so in fulfillment of the commandments of the Holy One. Therefore, "blunt his teeth" (deny him the a portion). Instead, when the matzah and the maror are before you, say to him, "It because of this (the matzah and the maror) that God did this for me. I am fulfilling the commandment of eating bitter herbs for the sake of what God did for me when I went out of Egypt. If you had been in Egypt, you would not have been redeemed and would have disappeared during the three days of darkness like all of your fellows who were killed at that time. I found a textual proof for the interpretation of my grandfather and teacher, Rabbi Tebele Sheier in Shir HaShirim Rabbah, 1:12: Rabbi Abahu said, "While Moses and the people of Israel were still eating the Passover offering in Egypt, the Holy One had already struck the Egyptians, as is written, "And it was about the middle of the night…" (Exodus 12). This is the meaning of the following verse according to Rabbi Abahu: "While the king was inclining on his couch, my nard (see below) gave forth its fragrance." (Song of Songs 1:12) The fragrance is a reference to aroma of the Passover offering that came to mask the smell of Egyptian blood. The sages explain that, "the smiting of the Egyptians by their first born," (Psalms 136) refers to the killing of the elders by the first born of Egypt. When the elders refused to let the Israelites go free in order to save their first born children, the first born attacked them. So the smell of blood came from the death of the elders as well as the first born who died in any case during the tenth plague. The smell of death was so great in Egypt that God made the smell of the Passover offering as good as the aroma of the Garden of Eden. As a result, the Israelites were dying to eat the Passover offering. They said to Moses, "Give us a bit of what you are eating!" Moses answered: God has said to me, 'the foreigner may not eat it!' They then removed the non-Israelites from their midst. They were still dying to try the Passover offering, so they said to Moses, "Give us a bit of what you are eating!" Moses answered: God has said to me, Your slaves must be circumcised and then you may eat of the Passover offering. They immediately circumcised their servants. They were still ravenous for the Passover offering. They said to Moses, "Give us a bit of what you are eating!" Moses answered: God has said to me quite succinctly, "The uncircumcised may not eat of it." Immediately the Israelites all took their knives and were ready to circumcise themselves. Who actually performed the circumcision? Rabbi Berechiah said, Moses, Aaron and Joshua. One performed the circumcision, one drew out the drop of blood, and one poured the cup of wine. Thus, the blood of the Passover offering and the blood of circumcision mixed together. The Holy One took each of them and kissed each one as it is written. Now I passed by you and saw you wallowing in blood, and I said to you, 'you shall live by your blood,' yea, I said to you, You shall live by your blood. This is a reference to the blood of the Passover and the blood of circumcision. In the end even though they were all dying to eat the Passover offering, they could not have any until they fulfilled all the other commandments. The Passover was only given to those whose teeth were blunted by having to wait… Let Me Explain: Before we get started you are probably wondering: what is a nard? Here is a definition: 1. spikenard another name for spikenard: 2. any of several plants, such as certain valerians, whose aromatic roots were formerly used in medicine. Doesn’t help? Simply put it is an aromatic plant or root. The interpretation above contains a reference to one of those stranger Midrashim that they never taught you in religious school - for good reason. According to some of the sages, when the first born of Egypt realized that Moses threatened them for the final plague, they went to the elders and then to Pharaoh himself and begged them to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. Apparently they elders of Egypt and Pharaoh considered this a good trade off - the death of all their first born in return to keep their slaves. The first born saw things differently. They immediately attacked the elders of the land. According to the Midrash, even before the tenth plague six hundred thousand Egyptians died in an act of civil disobedience. And in the end, the first born of Egypt died anyway. The land of Egypt was flowing with blood before and during the tenth plague. The blood of the elders, the first born of Egypt and the blood of circumcision of the Israelites who were coerced into circumcising themselves by the delicious aroma of the Passover offering. Moses denied them the offering until they all were finally circumcised. He understands "blunting their teeth" as, denying them the most delicious course of the meal.

Blunt His Teeth, Part II How Not to Answer the Jewish Heretic…

The Torah contains three verses that mention a child who asks a question, and the answer to that child. There is a fourth verse in which we are simply told to tell our child the story of the Exodus. What troubles the rabbis is that the answers that are given to the four children in the Haggadah are not the same as the ones found in the Torah. In the case of the wicked child, the Torah quotes the verse associated with the child 'who doesn’t know how to ask.' Rabbi Bondi explores the Torah's answer to the wicked child as well as the reason why the Haggadah chooses to quote the fourth child's verse. Here is another explanation of the expression, “blunt his teeth.” People wonder, why does the author of the Haggadah offer an answer to the wicked child different from the Torah? The Torah responds to the wicked child’s question by saying, “You shall say: it is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord because he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt…” (Ex.12:26) while the author of the Haggadah answers by saying, “Because that which God did for me when I went out of Egypt.” (Ex. 13:8) The Torah's answer needs further analysis. The Torah’s answer also needs to be explained. Further, the Torah answers the other three children directly while it offers an indirect answer to the wicked child. Why is this? Concerning the other three children, the Torah answers the child directly. Regarding the wise child, it says, "You shall say to your child…" for the simple child the Torah says, "You shall say to him," and for the one who does not know how to ask, the Torah begins, "You shall tell your child…." But for the wicked child the Torah simply says "YOU shall say…" If you were to answer that the Torah does not want to use the word “child” regarding the wicked child, then why does the first part of the verse do so? “When your child says to you…” The first part of the verse refers to the wicked child as a ben: This is most surprising! The answer to these questions can be found in connection with a statement in Sanhedrin 38a: “A person should be diligent in learning to Torah so that he can answer the heretic.” Commenting on this, Rabban Johanan says that this teaching only applies to a gentile heretic; one should not attempt to answer a Jewish heretic since he might entice you into heresy when you engage in a discussion with him. Therefore it is forbidden to try and bring about his repentance. We can now understand Exodus 12:26. The reason that the verse doesn’t say “You shall say to your children…” is because it is forbidden to answer him directly. Instead one simply quotes the relevant verse without directing ones answer to the wicked child. Instead it says simply, “You shall say…” that is, “You shall say it - to yourself” but not to the wicked child. When the Torah begins by saying “When your children…” it makes it clear that it is referring to a Jewish heretic and not a gentile heretic. Why is it forbidden to answer a Jewish heretic? One should not answer him lest he seduce you through his destructive opinions and his smooth talk, and ensnare you in his web of heresy. One can answer him as long as one does not enter into a debate with him. Instead, one should answer in a brief and harsh fashion so that he feels that he is being ignored. By doing this he will feel that he has been humiliated and won’t want to speak with you anymore. That is why the Torah suggests that one should answer him by simply offering an explanation for the commandment (“You shall say…) Still, it is difficult for the father not to answer his child at all. This causes him pain. Why should a father lose out on the mitzvah (of teaching his child Torah) just because he is wicked? Yet the sages say not to answer a Jewish heretic. If the father does not answer him at all, it is painful for the father. That is why the author of the Haggadah suggests answering him with the same verse with which the Torah describes the child who doesn’t know how to ask. (In this way the father chastises his wicked child.) He tells the child had he been in Egypt God would have redeemed the father but not the child. The verse, then, includes both of them. We now see that the language “You shall blunt his teeth” is appropriate. It means to give him a curt answer and to anger him. By doing this one blunts his teeth since he will not be able to present his thoughts. He will be embarrassed and humiliated. Thus, he will not be able to accomplish his goal of seducing his father to heresy.

The Simple Child and the Law of the First Born: Two Explanations Translator's Introduction: Students of the Haggadah have long been curious about the simple child's question. His question, taken from Exodus 13, is not related to the celebration of the Passover Seder at all but to the law of the first born. When he learns that the firstborn of the herd must be sacrificed while the first born of the Israelites may be redeemed and asks, "What does this mean," he is not wondering about the Seder or Passover eve at all. Exodus 13:11-15 And when the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and has given it to you, you shall set apart for the Lord every first issue of the womb: every male firstling that your cattle drop shall be the Lord's. But every firstling ass you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. And you must redeem every first-born male among your children. And when, in time to come, your son asks you, saying, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'It was with a mighty hand that the Lord brought us out from Egypt, the house of bondage. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every first male issue of the womb, but redeem every firstborn among my sons.' On the surface of it, it seems obvious that the firstborn belonged to God because God saved the Israelite firstborn during the tenth plague. It may also seem obvious to him why God would allow the firstborn Israelites to be redeemed while the firstborn of their herds remained sacred property. Rabbi Moshe Yonah Bondi, father of the commentary's author, adds a twist to this explanation: for him the essence of the plague was not the plague itself but the sacrifice which was offered before the plague began. It represented the death of Egypt's god; the gods of Egypt were powerless to stop the God of Israel. Rabbi Bondi now goes on to show why this explanation is not as simple as it first appears. The following teaching was offered by my father and teacher, Rabbi Moshe Yonah Bondi, on the Haggadah's answer brings to the simple child : "It was with a mighty hand that the Lord brought us out from Egypt, the house of bondage." (Exodus 13:14) The passage from Exodus continues: "When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, the first-born of both man and beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every first male issue of the womb, but redeem every first-born among my sons." What is the connection between the simple child's question and the answer which Scripture offers to his question? Furthermore, these verses deserve further analysis. After saying that 'God brought us out of Egypt,' the Torah goes back and mentions that Pharaoh 'stubbornly refused to let us go.' These verses appear to be out of order! The reason for the law of the firstborn is the same for Israelites and their animals: we offer the firstborn to God because they were saved from the tenth plague which struck Egypt. Yet the law is different for the person and for the animal. It is it permissible to redeem the firstborn Israelite with money paid to the kohen while the firstborn of the animals cannot be redeemed. The firstborn animal is sanctified. Portions must be sacrificed and the remainder was eaten by the kohanim, the priests. Why were humans and animals treated differently? Weren't both initially sanctified because they were not put to death in Egypt? This law does not need an explanation; the reason for this would be obvious even to the simple child. So why the different treatment of a person and the animal? Which was more significant: the redemption of the firstborn Israelites or the redemption of firstborn animals of the Israelites? Whichever is more significant deserves to have the praise of God as well as the statements of thanksgiving offered over it. Also, in the case of the object of the greater miracle, one should offer an explanation for why we were given a sign and a reminder of redemption. Such an explanation is unique in the Torah; we do not find this type of explanation for other commandments. The primary act was the saving of the firstborn animals. This commandment to sanctify the firstborn was given to the Israelites to inform them that it was specifically as a result of the tenth plague that Israel was freed from Egypt. It was necessary for God to harden the heart of Pharaoh prior to this plague more than any other. The Egyptians were already exhausted from the other plagues and said to Pharaoh, "How long shall this one be a snare to us…are you not aware that Egypt is lost?" (Exodus 10:7) This tenth plague was an attack on the gods of Egypt. That is why this plague occurred after the other plagues. The slaughtering of the lambs in Egypt was a meant to cause the Egyptians to err. When the Israelites brought the sacrifice, they began slaughtering the god of Egypt, as is written: "For what we sacrifice is untouchable to the Egyptians before their very eyes." (Exodus 8:22) The purpose of the sacrifice, then, was for the Israelites to slaughter the god of the Egyptians before their eyes. The Israelites should have been punished by the Egyptians for doing this. Yet, when the Egyptians saw the Israelites slaughtering the lambs they stood by; their hearts had melted in them. Up until now they thought that only they were affected by the plagues; they knew that even their gods were being punished. They now understood that their punishment could only have come from the Holy One for the sake of Israel, to redeem them from Egypt. The Egyptians no longer needed to check and see if the firstborn animals of the Israelites were affected by this plague. As a result, the death of the livestock was more significant and more deserving of praise and thanksgiving. That is why the firstborn herds of the Israelites had to be sacrificed and given to the priests while the firstborn of the Israelites could be redeemed. The verse in Scripture alludes to this: "Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt." God caused this plague to harden Pharaoh's heart even more than Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart. Pharaoh was depending on his gods to punish the Israelites but when the firstborn of the herd died it was proof that Israel's God was more powerful than the Egyptian gods. The Holy One brought judgment on the gods of the Egyptians and that was truly God's intention to redeem the Israelites from Egypt. That is "why I bring the first born of the males as a sanctified portion for God and the priests while the first born of their children could be redeem. " This is a fine explanation; my father's words speak from the grave.