Looking at the ma nishtana, there doesn’t seem to be any significant distinction between the styles of the question of the chochom and the rasha. Both of their questions seem to be excluding themselves from the avodah. The chochom says, “Ma ho’ados etc. asher tziva Hashem eschem”. The rasha says, “Ma ho’avoda hazos lochem”. Both ‘eschem’ and lochem are excluding themselves!

The Chasam Sofer presents a brilliant explanation to pinpoint the distinction between the questioners. In truth, the question of ‘ma haavodah hazos lochem’ is valid. Indeed, it is totally acceptable and welcome to seek to understand the root and reason for each mitzvah. Many Rishonim devote entire seforim to explore the ta’amei hamitzvos!

The search for deeper understanding of mitzvos is acceptable while meeting particular conditions. The search for reason has to be purely intellectual. The performance of the mitzvah may not be contingent on understanding its underlying reason. The mitzvah must be carried out regardless of comprehension or understanding its rhyme and reason. A loyal servant fulfills the will of his master. After serving the master, the reasons and deeper meaning can be utilized to enhance the performance of the mitzvah and to sweeten the mitzvah. This is the way of the chochom.

The rasha makes the performance of the mitzvah dependent on understanding it. If it does not make sense to him, he is not willing to get involved.

The Chasam Sofer points out that this is indicative from the wording of their questions. The chochom asks, “Vihoya ki yisholcha bincha machar etc.” The chochom only asks machar- the next day; only after having performed the mitzvah, he searches for meaning.

The rasha presents,”Ma ho’avoda hazos”. He wants to know about this avoda- the avoda at hand, before getting involved. He is not a faithful eved. He does whatever he feels like doing. He is not subservient to a higher power.

Similarly, in the hagaddah we ask, “Matzah zu sheanu ochlim al shum ma”- “This matzah that we are now eating, why are we eating it?”. The Maharam Shif asks: Why was this question phrased so strangely? The question should have stated, “Lama anu ochlim matzah?”- “Why do we eat matzah”?

He explains that if the question would have been straightforward, then one could be mistaken that without an understandable, sensible reason, we would not eat the matzah. The phraseology is word-perfect. “The matzah that we are eating now”, meaning, that we are eating whether we understand its underpinnings or not. 

Mitzvos are to be performed as a decree of the king. Ta’amei hamitzvos- its reasons are to enhance the performance

Rav Mordechai Gifter once said that the word ‘ta’am’ has two meanings: ‘taste’ and ‘reason’. A ta’am of a mitzvah is not to rationalize the mitzvah but rather to give a pleasant taste.

Can the tzitzis strings be severed and still be kosher?

In each of the four corners there are four tzitzis strings, each folded in half for a total of eight strings. After the completion of the knots and krichos, the eight strings are divided into two sections, four on each side. According to the opinion of the Rosh, if tzitzis are severed to the extent that there is not even the measure of kdei anivah (see below) left, they are pasul. If there is at least kdei anivah, they are kosher. Since the four strings on each side are only half-strings, all four of them on one side could be totally severed and the tzitzis could remain kosher. However, if one string on both sides is completely severed, the tzitzis are pasul since it is possible that these two missing “half strings”—one on each side—are the two halves of one string which is missing completely.

[שו"ע יב, א, ומשנ"ב ג, ה, ו ו־ז]

How much of the tzitzis must remain for them to be kosher?

The term kdei anivah means that enough string must remain to wrap around another string. The poskim disagree about the particulars of this measure. Some say it must be long enough to encircle one other string. Others say that it must be long enough to encircle all of the ripped strings. A third opinion says that it must be able to encircle all of the other tzitzis strings. The halacha follows the middle view. Under pressing circumstances, the first view may be relied upon. If there are severed strings on both sides and there is only kdei anivah remaining if both remaining strings are combined, the poskim disagree about whether the tzitzis are kosher. If there is at least kdei anivah according to the most lenient opinion on one of the sides, the tzitzis are kosher.

[שו"ע א, משנ"ב ג, וביה"ל ד"ה אם, וד"ה שנפסק; ביאורים ומוספים דרשו, 3]

Can a severed string be kashered?

The poskim disagree about the status of tzitzis in the following case: A string on one side severed to the extent that it became pasul (with less than kdei anivah left), and it was fixed by knotting another string to it. Afterwards, a string on the other side ripped off as well. Had the first string not been fixed, the tzitzis would have been pasul altogether (see first section above). Some Achronim hold that the tzitzis would still be pasul--on the grounds of ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asui, since the torn string was fixed while it was still connected to the garment. The strings must be affixed to the garment when they are already in a kosher state.

[משנ"ב יב, ז; ביאורים ומוספים דרשו, 6]

- Yesterday's Limud -