What sort of son is the Torah discussing here?
Rashi #1: It is referring to the Tam (the stupid son), who is incapable of articulating his question. 1
Rashi #2 (on the Siddur): He is neither a Rasha nor a Chacham (who is able to articulate his questions), but a Talmid, who can only bunch his questions (in contrast to the Chacham's "Mah ha'Eidos, v'ha'Chukim v'ha'Mishpatim") - into simply, "Mah Zos?"
Rashi: The Torah discusses the Chacham in Devarim 6:20.
What is bothering this son?
Seforno: He is bothered by the Mitzvah of Pidyon Peter Chamor, bearing in mind that a donkey is not subject to Kedushas ha'Guf; and why, if one fails to give a lamb to the Kohen, must one break its neck? 1
Targum Yonasan: He wonders why the firstborn were chosen.
Compare Maharal (13:14:1.2:1).
What are the implications of "Machar"?
Rashi: Although generally "Machar" means 'tomorrow,' sometimes it means 'in the future.' 1
Rashi: Such as here, and in Yehoshua 22:24. See Torah Temimah, note 63.
What if the Tam does not ask?
Mechilta: The Torah writes above, "v'Higadta l'Vincha" (13:8) - to teach the father to tell him about Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, even if he doesn't ask. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 22.
Whose strong hand is the Pasuk referring to?
Seforno: It refers to the Egyptians, who expelled Yisrael from Egypt with a strong hand. 1
Mechilta: It is referring to Hashem's strong hand. 2
Seforno: As a result of which they were not able to prepare wagons to transport their belongings, and they were forced to transport them on donkeys (refer to 13:13:1:2*) - which, miraculously, did the job in a short time (refer to 12:37:1:1). This answers the Tam's question - refer to 13:14:2:1; it also explains why donkeys merited to obtain a partial sanctity. Also refer to 13:15:2:1. (Is this how we answer a simple son?! How does he understand that the strong hand is of the Egyptians? The Pasuk did not mention them! The Torah does not say that Yisrael wanted to make wagons (and why didn't they prepare in advance?!), and used donkeys instead! Surely the simple meaning is Hashem's hand; the son asked simply why there is a special Din concerning the firstborn - not specifically about donkeys, and so we answer him - PF.)
There is a similar dispute among the Meforshim, about the term "Yad Chazakah," which appears twice in the concluding verse of Parshas Shemos (6:1). Refer to 6:1:2, 6:1:2.1:1, and 6:1:3. For Maharal's explanation of "b'Chozek Yad," refer to 13:3:3.1:1, and to Shemos 6:1:3.2:1 and 6:1:3.3.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'What is this?' - This [verse refers to] an unintelligent child, who does not know how to ask deep questions... The Torah speaks of four sons...." Why can't we derive the proper answer to the Tam, from what was already told to the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol (13:8)?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 233): We must answer each child in the way appropriate to him. 1 For the Tam, we need to expand a bit more than we did for the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol, by adding, "With a mighty hand, Hashem brought us out from Egypt, from the house of slavery."
Each child is different, and deserves his own response; see further 13:14:1.6:1 and 13:14:1.8:1. For more about the Four Sons, see 13:8:2.1 and 13:8:2.2; as well as our comments to Shemos 12:26 and Devarim 6:20.
Rashi writes: "This [verse refers to] an unintelligent child ... who asks simply, 'What is this?' Elsewhere, it says, 'What are the testimonies, statutes and laws, etc.' (Devarim 6:20); that is the wise son's question." Looking carefully at the context of the verses, we see that the Chacham asks about all the Mitzvos; the Rasha challenges the Korban Pesach (Shemos 12:26); and the Tam is asking about the beheading of the firstborn donkey (13:13). To the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol, we demonstrate the Matzah (13:8). Why this dichotomy?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 232): The main Mitzvah of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim is fulfilled on the night of Pesach, the anniversary of the Exodus. The Torah connects the Mitzvah of 'v'Higadta l'Vincha' - i.e., telling the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol - with the Mitzvah of Matzah that is placed on the table before them. The Tam asks when he sees something unusual (in the context of the Pasuk, the seemingly wasteful Arifas Peter Chamor). This teaches us that at the Seder table, we must change the usual order of the meal, to cause such a child to ask questions. The Chacham will ask in any case, even if nothing is unusual - and so the Torah relates his question outside of the context of the Mitzvos of the Seder. The Rasha is set off by the Korban Pesach, which is called an "Avodah" 1 - something the Rasha categorically rejects.
Refer to 12:6:2.02:1 and 12:3:6.3:1**. Also see 12:26:2:3.
Rashi writes: "... Elsewhere, it says, 'What are the testimonies, statutes and laws, etc.' (Devarim 6:20); that is the wise son's question." What is the distinction between these three categories - Edos, Chukim and Mishpatim?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 2, p. 24): "Edos" are Mitzvos that testify about something, e.g., the Korban Pesach, which tells how Hashem passed over (Pasach) the homes of the Bnei Yisrael. "Chukim" are Mitzvos with no logical reason; e.g., [that the Korban Pesach must be] a sheep or goat in its first year, as opposed to a second-year animal, or cattle. 1 "Mishpat" means the laws dictated by logic, e.g., the prohibition for an Arel to eat Korban Pesach, which is relevant to Yisrael alone.
Maharal later does suggest a rationale behind these laws; refer to 12:3:6.3:1.
Rashi writes: "This [verse refers to] an unintelligent child ... who asks simply, 'What is this?' ... Elsewhere, it says, 'What are the testimonies, statutes and laws, etc.' (Devarim 6:20); that is the wise son's question... The Torah speaks of four sons...." If we look at the context of the verses, the questions of the Tam and the Chacham do not refer to the Mitzvos of Pesach specifically. How does the author of the Hagadah know that we need to address these sons on the night of Pesach as well?
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 232): The Torah's response to the Chacham is "Avadim Hayinu" - "We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, etc." (Devarim 6:21). The appropriate time to respond this way, is on the anniversary of the Exodus, on Pesach.
Maharal #2 (ibid.): We teach the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol about the Exodus, over the eating of Matzah (13:8). We may derive that we must do the same for the other sons as well. 1
Maharal (ibid., p. 233): Each son asks whenever he sees fit; whereas to the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol the father must initiate - and the Torah designates the time that he must do so, as the night of Pesach. If so, the Mitzvah to respond to [the other sons'] questions is always on that night as well.
Rashi writes: "The Torah speaks of four sons." Why does the Torah elaborate on this topic?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 231): The fact that the Torah teaches four different methods to tell the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim, shows how significant it is. 1
Maharal (loc. cit.) also explains our exclamation in the Hagadah to introduces this topic -- "Baruch Ha'Makom!"
Rashi writes: "The Torah speaks of four sons." Why the number four?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 231): The Chacham uses extra Chochmah and Da'as, to understand even matters that are not at hand. The Tam is neither extra nor lacking 1 [Da'as]; he will ask only if he sees something unusual. The She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol lacks Da'as; he will not ask even then. The Rasha has Chochmah like the Chacham, yet he is his opposite 2 - because he uses that wisdom badly. These four categories encompass all sorts of children.
Tam means Shaleim - whole, complete.
Maharal seems to be addressing a question; we would expect the opposite of the Rasha to be called "Tzadik," not "Chacham"? Maharal tells us that just as the Chacham displays extra wisdom by addressing all the Mitzvos, not only those at hand; so too is the Rasha a wise-guy, leaning towards heresy. Also see the next question (13:14:1.7:1).
Rashi writes: " The Torah speaks of four sons - the Rasha (12:26), the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol (13:8), the one who asks briefly (this verse), and the one who asks with wisdom (Devarim 6:20)." Rashi lists the four sons in the order they appear in the Torah; but why does the Torah present them in this order?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, end Ch. 53, p. 235): Firstly, we must eliminate the heresy of the Rasha. Afterwards, we can teach each child in accordance with his understanding - first the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol, then the Tam, and finally the Chacham. 1
The Hagadah, however, presents the Four Sons in a different order. The Chacham and Rasha are diametric opposites, as explained in the preceding question (see 13:4:1.6:1 and its note); they are presented first.
Rashi writes: "... Elsewhere, it says, 'What are the testimonies, statutes and laws, etc.' (Devarim 6:20); that is the wise son's question." Why doesn't the Hagadah give the Chacham the Torah's answer to his question - that "Avadim Hayinu..." (Devarim 6:21) - instead teaching him the laws of Pesach? The Hagadah changes the Torah's response to the Rasha as well.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 233): Why does the Torah specify the Chacham and Rasha at all; can't we answer them the same way as we answered the Tam? Rather, the Torah is telling us that we must answer the wise son commensurate with his wisdom -- and the evil son to his evil. 1
Maharal: We should answer them as is written in the Torah. The Hagadah emphasizes how we must do so; we must respond in kind. The Chacham showed extra wisdom; and we respond accordingly. The Rasha showed extra evil - for it is unacceptable for any creature to deny his Creator - and so we blunt his teeth.
