ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף מלאכי 3:18

Lest you forget the things, etc. The Sages of blessed memory (Avot 3:10) learned from here that one who forgets even a single item of his learning is liable with his life, because he causes himself that God will also forget him, as it is written (Hosea 4:6), And you forget the Torah of your God, I will also forget your children. Furthermore, the Sages of blessed memory (Chagigah 9b) expounded from the verse Then shall you return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serves God and him that serves Him not (Malachi 3:18), that one who reviews his learning one hundred times is not comparable to one who reviews his learning one hundred and one times. And I have heard a hint to this matter: “lo avado” [does not serve Him] — its acronym equals one hundred, meaning that one who studies one hundred times is still called one who does not serve Him; “oved Elohim la’asher” [one who serves God to whom] — its acronym equals one hundred and one, because one who reviews his lesson one hundred and one times is called “one who serves God.”

And regarding what the author of the Haggadah did not mention, the response stated beside it And you shall say: It is a Passover sacrifice, it could be that he hinted to it when he said “and you shall also blunt his teeth.” What is the meaning of the word “also” [af]? Rather, it means that “I don’t need to tell you to respond with the answer written beside it, since it’s obvious that you will certainly give him that answer. But ‘also’ means a second response dealing with the blunting of the wicked son’s teeth — that response too you should give him if he is not corrected by the first response.” Thus, with the word “af” [also], it hinted at the response written beside it in the manner of “not only this, but also that.” For this reason, the Torah wrote two responses for the wicked son, one gentle and one harsh. And the author of the Haggadah said, “Do not be intimidated by the wicked one” — beyond the first gentle response, give him also this second response to blunt his teeth. And don’t be surprised that one verse can be interpreted in two contradictory ways, because we have already said that the careful inference does not come from the word li [for me], and the main distinction depends on that “between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him.” Therefore, for the wicked one who is evil and does not serve Him, the precise understanding is “for me and not for him,” but for the son who does not know how to ask, had he been there, he would have served God, so the inference of for me and not for him“ does not apply to him, and had he been there, he too would have been redeemed.