This Matza That We Eat - For What Reason?
TOPICS IN HALAKHA
*********************************************************
Donated
in memory of
Mrs. Miriam Rosensweig by Ronni, Nuchi, Adira, Vigi and Eitan Katlowitz
*********************************************************
Rav Yair Kahn
I. When during the meal
is the matza eaten
You might think that one can
fulfill his obligation [of eating matza] with the loaves of the
thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of a nazirite. Therefore it is stated: "And
you shall guard the unleavened bread" (Shemot 12:17). teaching [that it
must be] matza which is guarded for the sake of [fulfilling the
obligation of eating] matza, thus excluding this which is guarded not for
the sake of matza but for the sake of a sacrifice. (Pesachim 38b)
The Rishonim learned from this halakhic midrash that in order to
fulfill the obligation of eating matza on Pesach, one must eat an
olive-sized piece of matza that had been guarded for the sake of matza.
They disagree about the law governing a person who has only one olive-sized
piece of matza shemura (guarded matza). According to the Rif (Pesachim
27a in his pagination), at the beginning of the meal he should recite only the "ha-motzi"
blessing, and eat matza that is not shemura. Only at the end
of the meal, when we ordinarily eat the afikoman, should he recite the "Al
akhilat matza" blessing, and eat the olive-sized piece of shemura matza.
The Rif adduces proof for his position from the Tosefta (Pesachim 2:13)
which states: "One cannot fulfill his obligation with chalut (a paste
made of boiling water poured over flour), or with me'isa (a paste made of
flour poured over boiling water), or with sponge cakes, or with honey cakes, or
with paste balls, but he may fill his stomach with them, provided that he eats
an olive-sized [piece of] matza at the end."
The Rosh (Pesachim 10:35) rejects this proof:
It seems
that the beraita [that speaks] of honey cakes is dealing with the time of
the Temple [when the Pesach offering is eaten]. Therefore one must eat an
olive-sized piece of matza shemura at the end [of the meal, in the course
of consuming the Pesach offering] in order to fulfill: “With unleavened bread
and bitter herbs he shall eat it” (Shemot 12:8). But in our time when the
obligation of matza is only from: “In the evening you shall eat
unleavened bread…” (Shemot 12:18), it is better that one should eat it at
the beginning with an appetite."
We see then that the
Rif and the Rosh disagree about the time of the primary fulfillment of the
mitzva to eat matza in our time. According to the Rif, the primary
fulfillment of the mitzva occurs even today with the final piece of matza
eaten, whereas according to the Rosh, it takes place with the matza eaten
at the beginning of the meal.
In truth, this question was already the subject of a disagreement between
Rashi and Tosafot. According to Rashi, the primary fulfillment of the
mitzva of matza is with the olive-sized piece of matza eaten at
the end of the meal (like the Rif). He writes as follows (119b, s.v. ein
maftirin): "Matza must be eaten at the end of the meal as a
remembrance of the matza eaten together with the Pesach sacrifice. This
is the broken matza that we eat at the end for the sake of the obligation
of matza, that which is [eaten] after the meal." But Tosafot
(120a, s.v. ba-acharona) say: "The primary [fulfillment of the mitzva of]
matza is the first one which is eaten with an appetite."
II. WHen is the "Al
Akhilat Matza" Blessing recited
The question arises: If, according to Rashi and the Rif, the primary
fulfillment of the mitzva of matza is at the end of the meal, why
is the blessing over the mitzva ("al akhilat matza") recited at the
beginning of the meal?
It stands to reason that the source for reciting this blessing at an
early stage is the passage dealing with the issue whether or not "mitzvot
require intention" (114b). There Rav Chisda establishes that if someone eats
maror as karpas for the first dipping, because he has no other
vegetable, he should recite the "Al akhilat maror" blessing at the time
of the first dipping. He explains: "After filling his stomach with it, should
he go back and recite a blessing over it!?" (115a). That is to say, even though
with the first dipping he discharges his obligation of karpas, and not
that of maror, if he eats maror for karpas, he must recite
the "Al akhilat maror" blessing over it, since it would be impossible to
recite the blessing later after having already eaten maror as karpas.
The same applies to the "Al akhilat matza" blessing, according to Rashi
and the Rif: Even if the mitzva will only be fulfilled at the end of the
meal, the blessing should be recited over the first matza that is eaten.
However, this is only true about a person who eats matza shemura
both at the beginning and at the end of the meal. But if someone only has one
olive-sized piece of shemura matza, and he is saving it for the
afikoman, he should recite the blessing over the matza at the end of
the meal, as argued by the Rif.
Yet, this ruling of Rav Chisda requires explanation. Why should one
recite the blessing over the mitzva at the time of the first eating, if
he fulfills the mitzva only at the time of the second eating?
Tosafot compare this law to the mitzva of shofar on Rosh
Hashana, where we recite the blessing over the first set of blasts (teki'ot
di-meyushav), even though the primary fulfillment of the mitzva of shofar
is with the second set of blasts (teki'ot di-me'umad), together with
the blessings of the Amida prayer. An examination of this model might
elucidate the law of Rav Chisda.
It is clear that someone who heard only teki'ot di-meyushav has
fulfilled his obligation of shofar blowing, even though Tosafot
maintain that the optimal fulfillment of the mitzva of shofar is achieved
when the shofar is sounded together with the blessings of the
Amida prayer. For we learned in tractate Rosh ha-Shana
(34b):
It is a greater mitzva to hear
the shofar than to say the blessings. Hence,
if there are two towns in one of
which the shofar is being blown and in the other of which the blessings
are being said, one should go rather to the place where they are blowing than to
the place where they are saying the blessings.
It is clear then that one fulfills the mitzva of shofar even
without the blessings. In light of this it stands to reason that the blessing
recited before the teki'ot di-meyushav stems from the fact that he who
hears them fulfills the mitzva of shofar, at least in partial manner.
According to this explanation, it would seem that the same should apply to one
who fulfills a mitzva without intention, e.g., one who eats matza or
maror without intending to fulfill the mitzva. This seems to be the case
despite the fact that according to those who maintain that mitzvot require
intention, a person does not discharge his obligation at all without intention,
and Tosafot (ibid.) understand that this is the position of Rav Chisda.
This can
be inferred from the wording of Tosafot (Pesachim 120a, s.v.
acharona):
Even if
the primary fulfillment of the mitzva is in the final eating, it
is not astonishing that we recite the blessing over the first eating, in order
to exempt the matza in the end. For the blessing cannot be recited over
the last eating because it is after he has filled his stomach [with matza].
But he can recite the blessing over the first eating, and thereby exempt the
final eating, which is the primary [fulfillment of the] mitzva, as was explained
above according to Rav Chisda.
The implication is that the primary fulfillment of the mitzva is with the
final piece of matza eaten, but that there is a certain fulfillment of
the mitzva with the first piece as well.
Indeed, the author of the Ittur (Hilkhot Matza u-Maror)
rules that a person who has only one olive-sized piece of matza shemura,
should eat it at the end of the meal, but the "al akhilat matza" blessing
he should recite already with the first piece of matza eaten, even though
it is not shemura. He cites as the source of this rule the statement of
Rav Chisda cited above.
The Bach (OC 482) raised an objection against the Ittur:
how is it possible to recite the blessing over matza that is not
shemura, which cannot be used to discharge one's obligation.
Let us try to explain the Ittur's viewpoint through a
clarification of the aforementioned opinion of Rashi regarding the view of Rav
Chisda. What is the partial fulfillment of the mitzva with the piece of
matza eaten at the beginning of the meal, which allows the blessing to be
recited at that time, and what is the optimal fulfillment of the mitzva with the
piece of matza eaten at the end of the meal, which Rashi refers to as the
eating done "for the sake of eating matza."
III. THe taste of
Matza
Rava said: One who swallows
matza fulfills his obligation; one who swallows maror does not
fulfill his obligation. One who swallows matza and maror
[together] fulfills the obligation of matza, [but] not the obligation of
maror. (Pesachim 115b)
Rashi explains this as follows:
If he swallows matza and maror – together,
and he hadn't yet eaten of either, he fulfills his obligation of matza,
which does not need to be tasted; but he does not fulfill his obligation of
maror - since he does not chew it, and he eats matza with it, it has
no taste.
That is to say, as opposed to maror, regarding which there is a
mitzva to experience its bitter taste, with respect to matza there is a
mitzva to eat it, but there is no need to taste it. The Rashbam (ad loc. s.v.
bala matza) explains why it is necessary to taste the maror:
For this reason the Torah insists on embittering the
mouth of the eater, in commemoration of "And they made their lives bitter" (Shemot
1:14).
However, this straightforward explanation is apparently contradicted by a
Gemara in Berakhot (38b). The Gemara there states that boiled matza
is disqualified "because we require the taste of matza and this is
absent." It seems clear from here that there is a requirement to taste the
matza. The Magen Avraham (475:11) explains that the problem with
boiled matza is not the absence of the taste of matza, but rather
that the boiling removes it from the category of matza. That is to say,
according to the Magen Avraham, there is in fact no requirement to taste
the matza. But boiled matza is unacceptable because the boiling
process removes it from the category of matza.
In fact, the Rashbam himself suggests a resolution of the contradiction
between the two passages. Regarding the Gemara in Pesachim 115b, which
states that one who swallows matza fulfills his obligation, the Rashbam
writes (s.v. bala matza):
Nevertheless, lekhattechila, preferably,
the taste of matza is required [in order to fulfill the mitzva].
The Rashbam seems to learn that the taste of matza is necessary
lekhatchila from the Gemara in Berakhot which states that boiled
matza is unfit, "because we require the taste of matza and this is
absent." In other words, by Torah law, lekhattechila one must taste the
matza, and therefore the matza that the Torah says is fit for the
fulfillment of the mitzva is matza that could be used to fulfill the
mitzva in the optimal manner. Hence, boiled matza, which does not have
the taste of matza, is disqualified, following the rule that "regarding
anything that is unfit for mixing, mixing is indispensable" (kol she-eino
ra'ui le-bila, bila me'akevet bo) (see also Rabbeinu Mano'ach's
commentary to the Rambam's Hilkhot Chametz u-Matza 6:2).
It turns out that according to the Rashbam, in order to fulfill the
mitzva of matza in the optimal manner, mere eating does not suffice.
Lekhattechila, by Torah law, the mitzva requires tasting the matza.
Accordingly, boiled matza that lacks the taste of matza is unfit
by Torah law for the fulfillment of the mitzva, because it is unfit for the
fulfillment of the mitzva in the optimal manner. But a certain difficultly still
remains: What is the source in the Torah for an obligation to taste the matza?
Iv. The showbread (Lechem
ha-Panim) – bread THat which has a face (Panim) this way and that
Before addressing the source of the requirement to taste matza,
let us turn to the question of the source for a Torah obligation to eat matza
nowadays (absent the Pesach sacrifice). At the end of Arvei Pesachim (Pesachim 120a), the Gemara cites a beraita that supports the
position of Rava, who maintains that eating matza nowadays is required by
Torah law:
It was taught in accordance with
Rava’s view: "'Six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day
shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God' (Devarim 16:8) –
just as [on] the
seventh day [the eating of matza] is voluntary, so [on] the six days it
is voluntary. What is the reason? Because it is ‘something which was included in
the general law and then singled out from the general law, in order to teach
[regarding other cases], [which means that] it was singled out not in order to
teach regarding itself [the law in its own case], but in order to teach
regarding the general law.’ You might think that on the first night too it
[consuming matza] is [merely] voluntary; therefore it is stated:
'They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.' I know this only
when the Temple is in existence; from where do we know it when the Temple is not
in existence? From the verse: 'At evening you shall eat matza' – thus the
Torah established it as an [independent] obligation."
There are two ways to understand the derivation from the verse: "At evening you shall eat matza." One
possibility is that the verse teaches us that the same mitzva that is
derived from "They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,"
continues today, even when there is no Pesach offering. (There is a precedent
for this understanding in the case of a person who was ritually impure or at a
distance from the Temple, who was obligated to eat matza and maror
by Torah law, based on the verse: "They shall eat it with unleavened bread and
bitter herbs," even though he could not eat the Pesach offering).
A second possibility is that the obligation to eat matza because
of
"They shall eat it with
unleavened bread and bitter herbs" does not apply nowadays, for there is no
Pesach offering. Rather, the verse, "in the evening you
shall eat matza" comes to teach a different obligation regarding eating
matza.
There is a well-known question raised by the commentators, why did the
Torah command in Egypt to eat the Pesach sacrifice "roast with fire, and
matza; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it" (Shemot 12:8).
Surely we eat matza because their dough did not have a chance to rise,
something that happened the next morning, and not at the time of the eating of
the Pesach offering, prior to the exodus. Why then was it necessary to eat
matza already in Egypt?
It seems that that matza eaten together with the Pesach sacrifice
is not eaten in commemoration of the fact that the dough of those who left Egypt
did not have a chance to rise.
Rather, the reason for eating matza together with the Pesach
sacrifice is alluded to in a different verse (Devarim 16:2-3):
You shall therefore sacrifice the Passover to the Lord
your God… seven days shall you eat unleavened bread with it, the bread of
affliction.
Rashi explains as follows (ad loc.):
Bread of affliction – bread that is reminiscent of the
affliction that they experienced in Egypt.
We see then that the matza eaten with the Pesach offering is not
the bread of redemption that did not have a chance to rise when our forefathers
left Egypt, but rather the bread of affliction that brings to mind the
affliction of the servitude.
Thus the obligation to eat the Pesach offering together with matza
and maror stems from an obligation to consume the Pesach offering
together with the signs of servitude (bread of affliction, bitter herbs). The
obligation to eat the bread of redemption which did not have a chance to rise is
then a separate obligation, derived from the verse, "In the evening you shall eat matza."
It stands to reason that the two obligations will apply differently with
respect to the need to experience the taste of the matza. The requirement
that "In the evening you shall eat unleavened bread" necessitates an act of
eating, but does not require one to experience the taste of the matza.
The requirement of "With matza and bitter herbs he shall eat it," on the
other hand, which serves as a reminder of the affliction of the servitude,
necessitates tasting the matza, like the maror, which serves as a
reminder of the bitterness of slavery.
Based on
this understanding, we understand why tasting the matza is proper
lekhattechila by Torah law, but one fulfills one's obligation even without
tasting the matza. One who eats the matza without tasting it
fulfills the mitzva of eating the bread of redemption, but as long as he has not
experienced the taste of the bread of slavery, he is missing a component and
thus has not fulfilled the mitzva in the optimal manner. As such, we can
understand the Rashbam, who said that lekhattechila one must taste the
matza, and that matza that cannot be tasted is invalid based on the
rule that "regarding anything that is not fit for
mixing, mixing is indispensable."
Having established this principle, let us now reexamine the words of
Rashi cited above (Pesachim
119b, s.v. ein maftirin):
Matza must be
eaten at the end of the meal as a remembrance of the matza eaten together
with the Pesach sacrifice. This is the broken matza that we eat at the
end for the sake of the obligation of matza, that which is [eaten] after
the meal.
According to what we have said, we can explain the view that the primary
fulfillment of the mitzva is performed with the matza eaten at the
end of the meal. The optimal fulfillment of the mitzva of matza is
accomplished through a consumption which serves as a fulfillment of both
aspects, namely, of eating the bread of servitude as well as the bread of
redemption. The first time one consumes matza, at the beginning of the
meal, one fulfills only the aspect of the bread of redemption, for the matza
is not eaten together with maror. It is only when one arrives at the
final consumption, when the matza is meant to be eaten together with the
Pesach offering and maror, that there a fulfillment of both the aspect of
the bread of redemption and that of the bread of servitude.
It seems that according to Rashi, in our time as well,
even though we do not bring the Pesach sacrifice, and the final piece of
matza is not eaten together with the Pesach offering and maror,
nevertheless, since this consumption was instituted as a reminder of that act,
it consititutes the optimal fulfillment, of combining the bread of redemption
with the bread of servitude.
Yet, since in the initial consumption fulfills the
aspect of the bread of redemption, based on the law of "in the evening you shall
eat unleavened bread," the blessing can be recited over the first piece of
matza eaten.
Based on this explanation, we can also understand the
viewpoint of the author of the Ittur, that if someone has only one
olive-sized piece of matza shemura, he should eat it at the end of the
meal, but nevertheless the blessing of "al akhilat matza" should be
recited over the first piece of matza eaten. It is possible that the
obligation that the matza be guarded (shemura) for the sake
of the matza of mitzva, which is derived from the verse, "And you shall
guard (u-shemartem) the matzot" (Shemot 12:17), only
applies to the bread of redemption that is derived from the very next verse, "In
the evening you shall eat unleavened bread" (ibid. v. 18). This bread - like the
Pesach offering, regarding which there is a requirement that it be offered with
the proper intent, namely, that it be brought for the sake of the Pesach
offering (Zevachim 2a) - must also be made for the sake of the matza
of mitzva. In contrast stands the bread of affliction, which is bread of
servitude, which, like maror, need not
be prepared for the sake of the mitzva.
The
author of the Ittur, it would seem, disagrees with Rashi, and according
to him, the matza that is eaten at the beginning of the meal is the bread
of servitude, whereas the matza that is eaten at the end of the meal,
together with the Pesach offering, constitutes a fulfillment both of the bread
of affliction and the bread of redemption. This being the case, the matza
that is eaten at the beginning of the meal, as the bread of affliction, need not
be made for the sake of the matza of mitzva, whereas the matza
that is eaten at the end of the meal, which serves also as bread of redemption,
must be prepared specifically for the sake of the mitzva. The blessing, however,
is recited at the beginning, for a certain fulfillment, that of eating the bread
of servitude, is fulfilled already in the consumption at the beginning of the
meal.
V. "I have surely seen
the affliction of my people"
We have seen, then, that the mitzva of eating matza involves the
eating of both the bread of servitude and the bread of redemption. This halakhic
analysis gives rise to a more philosophic question: Why are there two foods to
symbolize the redemption – matza and the Pesach offering; and why are
there two foods to symbolize the servitude – matza and maror.
Furthermore, we must explain how it is possible that matza can symbolize
these two opposites – servitude and redemption.
The Gemara in Berakhot 4b explains that Rabbi Yochanan requires
the juxtaposition of redemption [the final blessing of Keri'at Shema]
to prayer [the Shemoneh Esreh] even at night, because he
maintains that the redemption from Egypt started at night. This is despite the
fact that he agrees that "full redemption" came only in the morning. That is to
say, even though at midnight God smote the firstborns of Egypt and passed over
the houses of our forefathers, Israel's redemption from slavery to freedom took
place only in the morning. All night the people of Israel were barred from
leaving their houses, for Moshe had commanded them saying: "And none of you
shall go out at the door of his house until the morning" (Shemot 12:22).
We see then that there were two stages to the redemption, a beginning of
the redemption that took place at night and the completion of the redemption
that took place in the morning. In this context it shuould be noted that it is
matza, and not the Pesach sacrifice, that symbolizes the redemption of
the morning, the culminating phase of the exodus from Egypt:
[We eat] matza – because our
forefathers were redeemed from Egypt (Mishna Pesachim 10:5)
The Pesach sacrifice does not mark the redemption, but rather the
revelation of the Shekhina, Divine Presence, when God Himself passed over
and protected the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, and did not grant the
Destroyer permission to harm them. Thus, there is no redundancy in the Pesach
sacrifice and the matza as symbols for redemption, for each relates to a
different element of "the night of watching," clearly differentitated – both
substantively and chronologically.
Taking a step back, the affliction and the bitterness of the enslavement
in Egypt are described at the beginning of the book of Shemot (1:11-14):
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to
afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities,
namely Pitom and Ra'amses. But the more they afflicted them, the more
they multiplied and grew. And they were mortified on account of the children of
Israel. And the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor; and they
made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and
in all nammer of bondange in the field: all their bondage, wherein they made
them serve, was with rigor.
At the Covenant between the Parts (Berit bein ha-betarim), God
distinguished between two aspects of exile, servitude and affliction: "And
they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them" (Bereishit
15:33). The servitude led to bitterness, as it is written: "And they made their
lives bitter with hard bondage in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of
bondage in the field" (Shemot 1:14). But unlike bitterness, affliction is
an expression of a deep experience of mental hurt, where one person injures his
fellow. Hard bondage in the field can lead to a feeling of bitterness, but only
the Egyptians themselves could afflict the people of Israel, as it is written:
"Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their
burdens… But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew" (Shemot
1:11-12).
The affliction that reaches the innermost parts of the individual and the
nation, as opposed to bitterness, is ultimately what would lead to a cry that
would rise up from the soul and which would bring about the redemption. This can
be seen in the following statement made by God at the burning bush: "And the
Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in
Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I
know their sorrows; and I shall come down to deliver them out of the hand
of Egypt" (Shemot 3:7-8). A similar progression can be found with Hagar:
"And when Saray afflicted her, she fled from her face. And the angel of
the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the
way to Shur… And the angel of the Lord said to her, Behold you are with child,
and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Yishmael; because the Lord has
heard your affliction" (Bereishit 16:6-11). The Torah establishes a
similar link between these factors with respect to the orphan and the widow:
"You shall not afflict any widow, or orphan. If you shall afflict them,
and they cry to me, I will surely hear their cry" (Shemot 22:21-22)
It may be argued then that maror symbolizes the bitterness as
opposed to matza which symbolizes the affliction, and that there is no
redundancy between these two symbols either.
All the years of their servitude, the people of Israel ate bread that
reminded them of the experience of affliction in their servitude. On that very
day, when Israel left Egypt, when they carried their dough that did not have a
chance to rise and they baked cakes of unleavened bread because they were
expelled from Egypt and could not tarry (Shemot 12:34, 39), they suddenly
realized that the bread that symbolizes the redemption that suddenly came upon
them, is none other than the bread that they identified all those years with
affliction. Only then did they understand the mystery of "the more they
afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew." Only then did they
understand that it was the affliction that led to the cry that brought about the
redemption.
We see then that that the matza that is eaten together with the
Pesach sacrifice constitutes a joining of the bread of affliction with the bread
of redemption.
(Translated by David Strauss)