The "fourth step" in the Seder is yachatz where we break the middle matzah in half (approximately), and then afterwards we recite three sentences in Aramaic, the first one beginning with the words ha lachma anya, this is the bread of our affliction. The breaking of the matzah and the reciting of ha lachma anya are not mentioned in the Mishnah, and they seem to have begun in the time of the Gemara. Why do we break a matzah and why do we recite the statement that begins ha lachma anya?
Rambam (Laws of hametz and matzah, 8:6) explains that we break the matzah to fulfill the drasha in Pesachim 115b, that the words lechem oni in Devarim 16:3 means that the bread (matzah) is to be broken since a poor person (ani) eats only pieces of bread and not whole loaves. The Rambam also writes that a person breaks the matzah when he is about to make the blessing on the bread, ha-motsei. This ruling accords with the statement of Rav Pappa (Berakhot 39b) that even though all year round there is a question whether a person should recite the blessing ha-motsei on a complete loaf of bread or on a piece of bread, on Pesach everybody agrees that the blessing is on a piece of bread, matzah, due to the phrase lechem oni. This statement implies that the drasha of lechem oni is related to the blessing of ha-motsei and hence the Rambam writes to break the matzah before reciting ha-motsei.
To the best of my knowledge nobody follows the Rambam to break the matzah by ha-motsei, and instead our custom is to break the matzah after karpas. Our custom is at least from Rav Amram Gaon (9th century, 2004, p. 113) who writes that one breaks the matzah after eating the karpas. Why is it done at this point, and not like the Rambam, whose ruling accords with the Talmud?
The Bet Yosef (16th century, 473, katav ha-kalbo) records that the Kal Bo (14th century?) suggested three reasons why we break the matzah after the karpas. One, to connect the breaking with the reciting of ha lachma anya, two, for the children to ask questions, and three to store some matzah for the afikoman because otherwise we might finish all the matzah. The Bach (473) likes this last reason, but this reason would be applicable if we broke the matzah before saying ha-motsei since we do not eat any matzah during the Maggid. The second reason is also insufficient since the children do not ask a question in the mah nishtanah about the breaking of the matzah. Also, my belief is that this idea that we do something to have the children ask a question generally appears when the real reason has been lost, for example see our discussion above on karpas. This leaves the first reason that the breaking of the matzah relates to the reciting of the ha lachma anya, but what is the connection?
The sentence that begins with ha lachma anya is followed by two other sentences in Aramaic, which are “All who are hungry come and eat; all who are in dire straits come share the meal with us. This year we are here, next year in the land of Israel; This year we are slaves, next year we will be free.”
Goldschmidt (1960, pp. 8,9) notes that the three sentences have no connection to each other, and probably were not written together. Most likely each sentence was recited at a different part of the Seder. The second sentence invites people to come to eat and only makes sense if it was said before people began the meal prior to the kiddush, as occurs by a similar statement by Rav Huna (Ta'anit 20b). The last sentence, which refers to the future redemption, is most appropriate at the end of the Seder when we recite the phrase next year in Yerushalayim. It is likely that initially each sentence was said separately but at some point, they were joined together since all were in Aramaic. With this idea, the only sentence of the three in its rightful place is the first sentence, ha lachma anya, but why is it said?
The recitation of ha lachma anya is the fulfillment of another drasha on the words lechem oni, this time by Shmuel. Talmud (Pesachim 115b) quotes that Shmuel derived from this phrase, lechem oni, that one must recite many words "on" the matzah. These many words are the Maggid, and hence we recite the sentence ha lachma anya prior to beginning the Maggid.
According to the Rambam, the phrase ha lachma anya is unrelated to the broken matzah since for the Rambam the matzah is not broken in the beginning of the meal, and the phrase ha lachma anya only means that we are declaring that this is the bread, the matzah, upon which we will say many words about, the drasha from Shmuel. Note that according to the Rambam, it seems that the matzah is removed from the table before saying the ha lachma anya, but still it is likely that he understands that the reciting of ha lachma anya is a way of declaring that the Maggid is being said "on" the matzah even though the matzah is not physically present, see Elias, 1977, p. 67.
However, according to our custom that we break the matzah before saying ha lachma anya, the ha lachma anya can also refer to the broken matzah, the first suggestion of the Kal Bo. The breaking of the matzah is because of one drasha of the phrase "lechem oni" and the reciting of ha lachma anya is because of a second drasha from Shmuel on the same phrase. These drashot are recorded together in the Talmud (Pesachim 115b), and we fulfill them together by breaking the matzah and saying ha lachma anya together.
These two approaches, the Rambam and our custom, offer different perspectives on the relationship of the sentence ha lachma anya to the structure of the Haggadah. According to the Rambam, the sentence is an introduction to the Maggid to fulfill Shmuel's drasha. However, according to our custom, the sentence ha lachma anya also refers to the breaking of the matzah and is then both an introduction to the Maggid and an explanation of the yachatz. (In the Haggadot that I have seen the ha lachma anya is considered the beginning of the Maggid and separate from the yachatz, which follows the Rambam's approach.)
Another difference between the Rambam and our custom is with regard to the end of the sentence of ha lachma anya, when we say, “this is the bread that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt.” When did our forefathers eat this bread? One possibility is that the sentence is referring to the matzah that the Jewish people ate when they left Egypt, Shemot 12:39. This is the understanding of the Rambam who adds the phrase "in haste we went out of Egypt," before saying the ha lachma anya, which shows that the lechem referred to in the sentence of ha lachma anya was the bread that was baked hastily, namely the matzah. This understanding accords with the Rambam's approach that the matzah is broken by the ha-motsei since then the ha lachma anya only relates to the drasha of Shmuel and not to the broken matzah.
However, according to our custom of breaking the matzah in conjunction with the reciting of ha lachma anya, and then ha lachma anya is also connected with the drasha of lechem oni that relates to the way that poor people eat, can the phrase “this is the bread (the broken matzah) that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt” refer to the matzah at the time of the Exodus? Is there any reason to think that the people ate broken pieces of bread when they left Egypt? The commentary, which is attributed to the Rashbam and the Orchot Chayyim (R. Aharon Cohen of Lunel, 14th century, Katzenelnbogen, 1998, p. 12) suggests that the people distributed pieces of bread to each other when they left Egypt, but why should they have done so? My guess is that this idea is to just to make the connection between our breaking of the matzah and the phrase “this is the bread that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt.” Instead, the breaking of the matzah is connected to poverty, and the idea of being poor associates better with the people's status when they were slaves in Egypt, and not when they were leaving Egypt, see Rav Soloveitchik, 2006, p.45. Consequently, if the ha lachma anya also refers to the broken matzah, then the end of the sentence, “this is the bread that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt,” should refer to the bread that the people ate in Egypt when they were slaves.
The Rambam’s idea that the phrase ha lachma anya refers to the matzah that was baked when the people left Egypt might also relate to the custom to put one half of the matzah in a bag or pillow or napkin or under the tablecloth. The Rokeach (1160-1238, Germany, quoted by Bach on the Tur 473, also mentioned by the Tur) explains that this is because when the people left Egypt they put their dough in their clothes, Shemot 12:34. However, if the ha lachma anya refers to the matzah that the people ate as slaves and not during the Exodus, then it could be that there is no significance to putting the matzah in a bag, but as the broken matzah had to be put somewhere the bag, pillow or napkins, were convenient.
Another possible difference between the two approaches for understanding the phrase ha lachma anya is when to pour the second cup of wine. The wine is poured by the beginning of the Maggid since the Maggid is recited on the cup of wine, but should it be poured before or after the reciting of ha lachma anya? The Shulchan Arukh (475:7, and this what I saw in the Haggadot that I examined) writes that we break the matzah, recite ha lachma anya, and then pour the wine for the second cup. This ruling accords with our custom of connecting the breaking of the matzah with the reciting of ha lachma anya since with this order the pouring the wine is not an interruption between breaking the matzah and saying ha lachma anya. However, according to the Rambam (in his Haggadah) and also Rav Amram Gaon (surprisingly), first one pours the wine for the second cup and then one says the ha lachma anya, and this accords with the idea that the ha lachma anya is an introduction to the Maggid unrelated to the breaking of the matzah, as again for the Rambam one breaks the matzah much later by the ha-motsei.