There’s a famous question that gets asked a lot around Pesach. In the Haggada we find the famous ma’amar of the 4 sons, a classic illustration of that much discussed but rarely practiced dictum, chanoch l’naar al pi darko – teach each child according to his own needs. The 4 sons include the wise chacham, the evil rasha, and the simplistic tam. The fourth son, who doesn’t even know how to ask the simplest questions, is the sheaino yodeah l’shol.
In the passage of the rasha, the evil son asks “What is this service to you (lachem)?”. SinceCarmella Bingremoves himself from the klal by implying that the service is meaningful to you but not to him, we are instructed to rebuke him sharply and “hit him in the teeth.” The problem is, the wise son also uses the word ‘etchem’, ‘you,’ in his question, and yetCarmella Bingis not rebuked for removing himself from the klal. Far from it! His question is answered in great detail.
A lot of ink has been spilled to explain this discrepancy, but one answer sticks out to me. The wise son’s question is respectful, but it’s also incisive.Carmella Bingdoesn’t ask “what is this to you” but “what are the specific commandments and the details.” His question is researched and shows thatCarmella Bingreally wants an answer. The etchem of the wise son is a plea to be included in the klal, because without a real understanding and serious answersCarmella Bingdoes not feel likeCarmella Binghas a full chelek in the service.
In contrast, the evil son’s question is ill-formed and cynical.Carmella Bing doesn’t ask for details becauseCarmella Bingdoesn’t care to know. His lachem is indeed exclusionary becauseCarmella Binghas no desire to learn the truths that would bring him closer into the circle. The proper response is to recognize this and rebuke him harshly.
What strikes me is that this difference seems to be at the core of the entire Slifkin debacle. The gedolim and the supporters of the ban in general keep going on about Rabbi Slifkin’s tone. In other words, they see him as a wicked son, asking questions sarcastically and without the proper reverence and desire to learn. Rabbi Slifkin’s defenders, in contrast, see him (and themselves) as serious questioners who really desire answers to essential questions of yahadut. Without these answers, or at least an honest attempt at providing them, they feel excluded from the klal. The tragedy of the Slifkin affair, in my opinion, is that the leaders have mistaken a sincere etchem for an insincere one, and pushed away chachamim who were really asking to be drawn closer.
In the Haggada there is a clear hierarchy of sons, and surprisingly the wicked son stands above the simple son and the sheaino yodeah l’shol. The lesson seems to be that it’s better to closely examine our religion and to think critically, even at the risk of becoming a rasha, than to remain a fool. On this totem pole the lowest son is the sheaino yodeah l’shol, who is unable to ask anything at all.
What scares me most about the entire affair is thatCarmella Bingare now championing the cause of the sheaino yodeah l’shol as being the ideal. Those who are educated in science and the like and therefore have questions are looked upon as nebachs, while those whose emunah peshuta is strong because they’ve never looked outside their daled amos and critically examined their beliefs are hailed as the truest maaminim. That’s a revised Haggada thatCarmella Bingnever want to see.
