When exactly, does the Mitzvah of "v'Higad'ta l'Vincha" take effect?
Why may one not tell one's son earlier?
Oznayim la'Torah: In case the father relies on that, and fails to tell him when Matzah and Maror are lying in front of him.
The Torah is not issuing a prohibition to tell his son earlier, but that there is no Mitzvah to do so.
What does someone do who has no son (or daughter) to whom to tell?
Mechilta: We learn from "va'Yomer Moshe El ha'Am, Zachor Es ha'Yom ha'Zeh" (13:3), that one must recite the Hagadah, 1 even to oneself, or to anybody else (if need be).
What does "Ba'Avur Zeh" mean?
Rashi: It means that 'Hashem redeemed me in order to keep His Mitzvos - Pesach, Matzah and Maror.' 1
Ramban, Rashbam and Hadar Zekenim: Because of the miracles that Hashem performed with me in Egypt, 2 I perform this Avodah. 3
To which the word "Zeh" hints, as we see in the Hagadah.
Rashbam: As if it had inserted "Asher" after the word "Zeh;" as we say in Hallel, "Zeh ha'Yom (Asher) Asah Hashem..." (Tehilim 118:24).
Ramban: 'This Avodah' means offering one's Bechoros Behemah, and redeeming Bechor Adam, like the Torah specifically writes later (13:15). The Mechilta says that it is Matzah and Maror.
Why does the Torah write "Asah Hashem Li," and not 'la'Avoseinu'?
Rashi: To hint to the Rasha 1 - as if to say that Hashem performed the miracles on my behalf, but He would not have done so for him. Had he been there, he would not have merited redemption! 2
Pesachim 116b: It implies that in every generation, whoever is saying it should consider himself as if he had gone out of Egypt. 3
Oznayim la'Torah (citing Midrash ha'Gadol): With reference to each person who circumcised and brought the Korban Pesach, Ha'Kadosh-Baruch-Hu took him and kissed and blessed him. Presumably the beautiful aroma of the Korban Pesach in Egypt was the result of those kisses. 4
See Sifsei Chachamim and Malbim on the Hagadah.
Because he would have died during the plague of darkness, together with the Resha'im (four-fifths of Klal Yisrael) who died then.
Oznayim la'Torah: Because had our fathers not gone out when they did, they would have sunk to the deepest depths of Tum'ah, and become irredeemable - and we would still be there today steeped in idolatry, immorality and witchcraft.
And it is in that connection that episode that the Pasuk writes in Shir ha'Shirim, "Yishakeni mi'Neshikos Pihu... l'Rei'ach Shemanecha Tovim" (Shir Hashirim 1:2-3).
Why is this section ("Kadesh" - 13:1-10) the source for the Mitzvah of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim; more so than the next section ("v'Hayah Ki Yevi'acha")?
Maharal: Refer to 13:2:151:1 and its note.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "Hashem performed [these miracles] for me - This hints at the response to the Rasha (wicked) son, '... For me' -- and not for you; for had you been there, you would not have been worthy of being redeemed." But why is this harsh response to the Rasha, included here -- in our words to the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol? And why does the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol have to get the rebuke intended for the Rasha?
Maharal #1 (Gur Aryeh; Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 234): As Rashi explains, Hashem took us out of Egypt, in order for us to perform His Mitzvos. 1 In order to merit redemption, each individual child must connect himself personally with the Mitzvos. The Chacham, and even the Tam, successfully do so. 2 The She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol has yet to express any interest in the Mitzvos; he too is excluded at the beginning. His father must now open up and initiate the conversation; he must create that connection by telling his son the story of the Exodus, and showing him the Mitzvos. But once that connection exists, why does our verse still say, "for me," rather than 'for us' -- implying that the son is excluded? 3 It can only allude to the Rasha 4 -- who wants no connection to the Mitzvos, despite having learned about them.
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol is not a baby; nor is he an adult who never had the opportunity to learn -- as if so, the Torah would not even imply excluding him! Rather, he is an adult - who should be capable of expressing interest in the Mitzvos. There is a possibility that the reason he is not asking -- is because he doesn't care; perhaps he simply considers the Mitzvos to be unimportant. Were that to be the case, he would be no better than the Rasha! The father must convey this to the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol, so that he will come to fear Hashem, take notice of the Mitzvos, and begin to ask about them. Nevertheless, we must judge the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol favorably -- and so, as Rashi tells us, the primary inference from our verse is to exclude the Rasha. 5
Such as the Pesach, Matzah, and Maror [which are placed before them at the Seder table].
Hagadah Shel Pesach (and see Rashi to 13:14): What does the Chacham say? "What are the testimonies, statutes and laws, that Hashem our G-d commanded you?" (Devarim 6:20) ... What does the Tam say? "What is this?" (Shemos 13:14, below) - The word 'this' refers to the Mitzvah that the Tam sees his father performing; he wants to know more about it.
Maharal: In other words, why does the verse express the (She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol) son's disconnect, which existed before his father engaged him; rather than expressing his connection to the Mitzvos that exists now?
Hagadah Shel Pesach: What does the Rasha say? "What [use] is this service for you?" (12:26). For more regarding the Four Sons, see our comments on Rashi to Pasuk 13:14 below.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 234): The Torah did not give this implication of excluding the Rasha, in the context of his own question (12:26, above). Excluding him from the Ge'ulah is not a direct answer to his question - rather, it is the outcome that will come as a result of his question. It is given here, along with our words to the She'eino Yode'a Lish'ol - which is also the words of the father alone, not in response to any question.
Rashi writes: "This hints at the response to the Rasha ... 'For me' -- and not for you; for had you been there, you would not have been worthy of being redeemed." The Hagadah attributes this to the Rasha having disassociated himself from the community that is performing the Mitzvah, by saying. "What [use] is this service for you?" (12:26) - i.e., for you, but not for himself. But don't we see the same negative implication in the question of the Chacham, "What are the testimonies... that Hashem our G-d commanded you" (Devarim 6:20) -- you, but not himself?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 234): Unlike the Rasha, who wants no part of the Divine Service, the Chacham first acknowledges that these Mitzvos were commanded by Hashem 1 (Devarim 6:20) - with the obvious implications that everyone is included in a Divine command -- even himself. Why then does he express them as, "Mitzvos commanded.. to you"? a. To show that he is not complaining about the Mitzvos; he does not consider them to be a burden upon himself; b. The Chacham has just observed other people performing Mitzvos, and he is asking them about it. The Rasha, on the other hand, does not acknowledge that it is Hashem who commanded the Mitzvos; whereupon he adds that he wants no part in them.
Also refer to 12:16:151.
