Several days ago, religious Jews around the world read the Haggadah, an anthology of traditions related to the biblical commandment to recount the story of the exodus every Passover.
Love the idea - that choosing to be part of the narrative is that wise son, and the wicked one comes to challenge that, and comes to battle that ability to choise.
Perhaps this is why the "fifth son" - the one who doesn't show at all - is not mentioned in the haggadah; it is not of interest if he does not show up to the seder, and chooses not to be in the narrative. Only the wicked one, who comes to challenge those who choose to be part, is mentioned in the haggadah.
Thanks!!! And nice point about the fifth son... The one who gets as much attention as the fifth chelek of shulchan aruch :)
My agenda here is to sell my version of commitment to narrative, and to polemicize against those who drive up a wall with "it's so beautiful but it isn't true to it's really bad" that I've seen too much of lately... Happy you agree!
I agree with your premise that both “sides” don’t need to be antagonistic to each other. OTDers don’t see it but many can be quite aggressive in their rhetoric. Same as the kiruv guys or those who keep mocking otd ppl. I once started writing something related but haven’t published.
Every year we hear about how questions are encouraged. *Really?* As long as the questions are within the box, like the goody-two-shoes 'question' of the first son. The second son asks a real, out-of-the-box question & promptly gets jumped on for allegedly separating himself from the community, which is complete bullshit. Maybe this kid didn't go to a yeshiva or religious schools and, therefore, doesn't speak our cant. Maybe he has never been to a Seder before. He sees everything going on & he asks, "Ploni, what is this service to you?" Unlike the first son (who needs no convincing at all; he was at a Seder last year, he's at a Seder this year & he'll definitely be at a Seder next year), this kid needs to be persuaded why it is worth his while to be at a Seder. Instead of assuming that we know what he means, maybe we should ask him what he means. He is asking a personal, pointed & rather intimate question, that many people, it seems, are ill-equipped to answer. What he does not want you to do is whip out some book and explain to him what some Rabbi who has been dead for centuries says. Said rabbi is not at the table, *you* are. So instead of jumping down his throat, make the case as to why *you* are at a Seder. But if we insult the second son and get in his face and tell him that if he was in Egypt he would not have been saved (which is sheerest rabbinical chutzpa; only G-d gets to make a call like that), don't be surprised when he slips out after the meal. And as far as him being at a Seder next year? Good luck with that. So when someone tells you questions and questioning are encouraged in odoxy, don't believe them.
The Wicked Son is such a revealing figure because the argument is not only about belief. It is about belonging, posture, memory, and what kind of questioning a community can absorb without treating it as betrayal.
That is where Haggadah material becomes especially interesting: it is not just preserving a story about Exodus, but staging the acceptable and unacceptable ways to inherit that story.
excellent text, but I have to disagree when you say that the wicked's disinterest is as valid as the wise's interest, there is a reason to why we call them by these titles
In this interpretation he's called the Rasha not because he's doesnt show an interest, but because he disdains those who do. Case in point, the chacham is not called a tzadik, he's not doing anything meritorious by showing an interest. It's the Rasha who is because he attacks the others. The response? Ok, fair, don't be included, but lay down your arms.
On a more general note, the haggadah here isnt exactly being used as a source. This philosophy is self supported, it's being read into the text as a liturgical item. If you're so inclined to disagree due to more traditional sensibilities or something, your welcome to share an separate approach why interest is objectively justified.
The idea that the rasha son is expressing contempt is a later interpretation. The question itself that he asks does not inherently reflect this: "מָה הָעֲבוֹדָה הַזּאֹת לָכֶם". It is not significantly different, for example, from the question of the simple son. To claim that he is doing something wrong merely by not including himself already presupposes a judgment that being on the outside is inherently incorrect.
It's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Baal Haggadah himself. The biblical writer didn't intend the Rasha, it's the exegesis of the haggadah which reads it as such, and this includes the negative connotation of excluding himself. My interpretation of this exegesis is that it isnt the exclusion itself, but the direction of the question towards his father.
But either way this is getting lost in the weeds. It's a drush and nothing more in the text, but a philosophical reimagining and retcon.
One can argue far more simply that the Rasha despite his rejectionist tone belongs at the Seder and must be there because Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh BaZeh and because perhaps the educational structure of the Seder which is rooted in various forms of Limud HaTorsh will cause him to rethink and review his position
I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking harms Judaism may inflict, and I'd be the first to advocate those things being changed within Judaism. However, when one has a disdainful perspective on Judaism simply because they don't believe in it or for them it's irrelevant, my response is "What are you fighting for? Lay down your arms, and respect our right to choose." This is my interpretation of הקהה את שיניו. Remove the fangs.
Not sharing an appreciation is no excuse for antagonizing, and one who does so is engaging in what can properly be called anti-Semitism. I stand for the right to be Jewish no less than I stand for the right to reject that identity.
Would you say the same about Islam or other groups/cults that harm and control its adherents.
Frum Judaism isn't just a culture its an all consuming lifestyle that can seriously harm/suffocate/stifle those born into it. There needs to be some fangs to counteract the incessant indoctrination.
If you want to speak out against what you see as harmful in Judaism, go for it!! I'll back you 100%! But if your complaints are simply disdain for an identity or culture you don't care for, i demand the same respect I would accord to any other culture on the planet. But if they are concrete complaints there's nothing wrong with that, and I think even religious Jews should engage in such discussions.
Love the idea - that choosing to be part of the narrative is that wise son, and the wicked one comes to challenge that, and comes to battle that ability to choise.
Perhaps this is why the "fifth son" - the one who doesn't show at all - is not mentioned in the haggadah; it is not of interest if he does not show up to the seder, and chooses not to be in the narrative. Only the wicked one, who comes to challenge those who choose to be part, is mentioned in the haggadah.
Once again, amazing idea, and it is a great read.
Thanks!!! And nice point about the fifth son... The one who gets as much attention as the fifth chelek of shulchan aruch :)
My agenda here is to sell my version of commitment to narrative, and to polemicize against those who drive up a wall with "it's so beautiful but it isn't true to it's really bad" that I've seen too much of lately... Happy you agree!
Very interesting take
I agree with your premise that both “sides” don’t need to be antagonistic to each other. OTDers don’t see it but many can be quite aggressive in their rhetoric. Same as the kiruv guys or those who keep mocking otd ppl. I once started writing something related but haven’t published.
Interesting drush. One that is likely to displease many people, on both sides ;)
I'm not one to be a people pleaser...
I'd posit that, with the idea of the article, anybody, on either side, who is upset at this article, should have their teeth knocked out lol.
Every year we hear about how questions are encouraged. *Really?* As long as the questions are within the box, like the goody-two-shoes 'question' of the first son. The second son asks a real, out-of-the-box question & promptly gets jumped on for allegedly separating himself from the community, which is complete bullshit. Maybe this kid didn't go to a yeshiva or religious schools and, therefore, doesn't speak our cant. Maybe he has never been to a Seder before. He sees everything going on & he asks, "Ploni, what is this service to you?" Unlike the first son (who needs no convincing at all; he was at a Seder last year, he's at a Seder this year & he'll definitely be at a Seder next year), this kid needs to be persuaded why it is worth his while to be at a Seder. Instead of assuming that we know what he means, maybe we should ask him what he means. He is asking a personal, pointed & rather intimate question, that many people, it seems, are ill-equipped to answer. What he does not want you to do is whip out some book and explain to him what some Rabbi who has been dead for centuries says. Said rabbi is not at the table, *you* are. So instead of jumping down his throat, make the case as to why *you* are at a Seder. But if we insult the second son and get in his face and tell him that if he was in Egypt he would not have been saved (which is sheerest rabbinical chutzpa; only G-d gets to make a call like that), don't be surprised when he slips out after the meal. And as far as him being at a Seder next year? Good luck with that. So when someone tells you questions and questioning are encouraged in odoxy, don't believe them.
חג כשר ושמח
חג כשר ושמח גם לך!
The Wicked Son is such a revealing figure because the argument is not only about belief. It is about belonging, posture, memory, and what kind of questioning a community can absorb without treating it as betrayal.
That is where Haggadah material becomes especially interesting: it is not just preserving a story about Exodus, but staging the acceptable and unacceptable ways to inherit that story.
excellent text, but I have to disagree when you say that the wicked's disinterest is as valid as the wise's interest, there is a reason to why we call them by these titles
In this interpretation he's called the Rasha not because he's doesnt show an interest, but because he disdains those who do. Case in point, the chacham is not called a tzadik, he's not doing anything meritorious by showing an interest. It's the Rasha who is because he attacks the others. The response? Ok, fair, don't be included, but lay down your arms.
On a more general note, the haggadah here isnt exactly being used as a source. This philosophy is self supported, it's being read into the text as a liturgical item. If you're so inclined to disagree due to more traditional sensibilities or something, your welcome to share an separate approach why interest is objectively justified.
The idea that the rasha son is expressing contempt is a later interpretation. The question itself that he asks does not inherently reflect this: "מָה הָעֲבוֹדָה הַזּאֹת לָכֶם". It is not significantly different, for example, from the question of the simple son. To claim that he is doing something wrong merely by not including himself already presupposes a judgment that being on the outside is inherently incorrect.
It's not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of the Baal Haggadah himself. The biblical writer didn't intend the Rasha, it's the exegesis of the haggadah which reads it as such, and this includes the negative connotation of excluding himself. My interpretation of this exegesis is that it isnt the exclusion itself, but the direction of the question towards his father.
But either way this is getting lost in the weeds. It's a drush and nothing more in the text, but a philosophical reimagining and retcon.
One can argue far more simply that the Rasha despite his rejectionist tone belongs at the Seder and must be there because Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh BaZeh and because perhaps the educational structure of the Seder which is rooted in various forms of Limud HaTorsh will cause him to rethink and review his position
Why fangs?
He's simply demonstrating that which is logical.
And this is a great service for those harmed or trapped by frumkeit.
I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking harms Judaism may inflict, and I'd be the first to advocate those things being changed within Judaism. However, when one has a disdainful perspective on Judaism simply because they don't believe in it or for them it's irrelevant, my response is "What are you fighting for? Lay down your arms, and respect our right to choose." This is my interpretation of הקהה את שיניו. Remove the fangs.
Not sharing an appreciation is no excuse for antagonizing, and one who does so is engaging in what can properly be called anti-Semitism. I stand for the right to be Jewish no less than I stand for the right to reject that identity.
Hard disagree.
Would you say the same about Islam or other groups/cults that harm and control its adherents.
Frum Judaism isn't just a culture its an all consuming lifestyle that can seriously harm/suffocate/stifle those born into it. There needs to be some fangs to counteract the incessant indoctrination.
If you want to speak out against what you see as harmful in Judaism, go for it!! I'll back you 100%! But if your complaints are simply disdain for an identity or culture you don't care for, i demand the same respect I would accord to any other culture on the planet. But if they are concrete complaints there's nothing wrong with that, and I think even religious Jews should engage in such discussions.