Sunday, April 17, 2011

Yachatz and ha lachma anya

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.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Shemurah Matzah

A common practice on Pesach is for people to use shemurah matzah at the Seder, while for the rest of the Pesach to eat regular matzah. What is shemurah matzah? And, why do people differentiate between the two types of matzah on Pesach?

The term shemurah matzah derives from the phrase u-shmartem ha-matzot, Shemot 12:17. In modern Hebrew, the term shamor is understood to mean to watch, but, as we discussed in our commentary on Devarim (The Decalogue in Shemot 20 and Devarim 5) in the Torah, the phrase often means to remember, and hence the simple sense of the phrase in 12:17 is that the people are to remember to eat matzot, see Hizkuni on 12:17. However, Chazal (Pesachim 38b) understood the phrase in the sense to watch, that there is an obligation to watch the matzot.

(Thus, I understand that this obligation is a rabbinic enactment, which accords with the Rambam, Laws of Hametz and Matzah 5:9. However, see discussion in Biur Halachah, Orah Chayyim, beginning of 460, ein, where the Mishneh Brurah argues that for some stages of the production of matzah the obligation to watch is biblical based on the Rambam, Laws of hametz and matzah 6:9. Yet, this is probably a separate law just relevant to sacrifices, see Menachem Kasher quoted below.)

Once there is an obligation to watch the matzot, the question is what does it mean to watch matzot? The Talmud (Pesachim 40a) discusses whether one has to watch from the time of kneading the flour and water or sometime before. Rashi (1040-1105, on the page, also on Gittin 10a and Hullin 4b) explains that this watching is that one must perform the acts of preparing the matzah while having the intention to fulfill the law of eating matzah. On the other hand, the Rambam (1135-1204, Laws of hametz and matzah 5:9, also Rav Hai Gaon and the Rif) explains that the watching is to ensure that no water falls on the wheat or flour in order that that the matzah does not become hametz. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, on 12:17, 368) explains that the difference between Rashi and the Rambam is due to a difference in the text of the Talmud with regard to the statement by Rava that one must flip the stalks, either for the mitzvah (Rashi) or for the matzah (Rambam). (Also, see discussion in Arukh Hashulchan 453:12-23.)

A second and independent question is from what stage in the production of matzot does one have to watch the matzot? One possibility is from the time of kneading which the Tur (453) quotes in the name of an anonymous Gaon. The Torah Temimah (on Shemot 12:17, 154) points out that a Yerushalmi (Betzah 1:3) seems to follow this opinion and Daniel Sperber (1990, vol.1, p.92) writes that this possibility was the most prevalent opinion in the times of the Talmud and the Geonim.

A second possibility is from the Rif (1013-1103, pages of the Rif, 12a, also Ibn Ezra on 12:17) who writes that the watching is from the time of reaping, and this definition is accepted by the Rambam, Laws of hametz and matzah, 5:9. However, Daniel Sperber (p.97) has pointed out that based on Roman agricultural practices it seems that the statement in the Talmud that is the basis for the Rif's opinion is only referring to a special case where the wheat stalks got drenched from the rain and is after the time of reaping. Yet, maybe the Rif and Rambam understood that the conclusion of the Talmud (Pesachim 40a) is that the watching needs to be prior to kneading, and reaping is before the kneading.

A third possibility for watching the matzot is from the time of milling when the wheat is turned into flour. This possibility is quoted by the Rosh (on Pesachim 40a, 1250-1327, Germany) who writes that the practice in Germany and France was to watch the matzot from the time of milling since the mills were powered by water. The Arukh Hashulchan (253:13-15) suggests two ways of understanding this position. One that the conclusion of the Talmud is that watching from kneading is enough but that there was a change in the way the wheat was grounded from the time of the Talmud to the Middle Ages. The Arukh Hashulchan writes that in the time of the Talmud the grinding of wheat was done by hand or animals and hence there was no water around so the watching could begin by the kneading. However, in the Middle Ages, the grinding was done through water power so then the watching had to begin at this point. The second way of understanding this approach is that this approach agrees that the conclusion of the Talmud is that the watching must before kneading and milling is considered a satisfactory stage before the kneading.

Why were the Ashkenazim in France and Germany not more stringent and watched the wheat from the reaping instead of just from the milling? One possibility is from the Bach (towards end of 453) who quotes from the Semak (France, 13th century) that the Jews then did not have access to the fields. (I was told by Yitzhak Filler, whose father has a matzah factory in Mexico, that to this day the Jews in Mexico do not have access to wheat fields, and hence their shemurah matzah is from the time of milling just like the Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle Ages.)

The Shulchan Arukh (1488-1575) combines all the different positions. He writes (253:4) with regard to watching that it is best to watch from the time of reaping that no water falls on the wheat, but if that is not possible, then one uses matzah that was watched from the time of milling and if one is stuck then one can buy flour in the street and watch it from the time of kneading. The Shulchan Arukh also requires (260:1) that the kneading and baking of the matzot to be done with the intention to fulfill the law of matzah following Rashi's position.

The Mishnah Brurah (453:24, end of 19th century) writes that today one is not allowed to buy flour that had not been watched at least from the time of milling even for regular matzot since the processing of flour has changed. Thus, today all matzah is shemurah matzah. What we call shemurah matzah today is matzah that is watched from the time of reaping, while regular matzah is watched from the time of milling. Furthermore, today's regular matzah was the shemurah matzah that was eaten by Ashkenazim (as reported by the Rosh) at the Seder in the Middle Ages.

We can now return to our initial question, why do people eat shemurah matzah at the Seder, while during the week they eat regular matzah? The matzah at the Seder is unique since this is the only eating of matzah that one fulfills the commandment to eat matzot. (With regard to other meals on Pesach, Chazal learned that there was no obligation to eat matzah only that it is permissible, see Rambam, Laws of hametz and matzah, 6:1 and our discussion below, Eating matzah and sitting in the sukkah for seven days.) Thus, it is possible that at the Seder we are stringent and follow the Rif and Ramban's approach that matzah must (should?) be watched from the time of reaping instead of just from milling. This is probably the correct interpretation of current practice since as explained above all of our matzah is shemurah matzah.

In addition this is also the explanation of the Sefardi practice in the Middle Ages. The Maggid Mishneh (Spain, 14th century, on Rambam, Laws of hametz and matzah 5:9) writes that in his time the practice was to eat matzah that was watched from the time of reaping at the Seder, and for the other meals on Pesach to eat matzah that was watched from the time of kneading. Thus, the Sefardim were being stringent on the Seder not to use matzah that was only watched from the time of kneading.

However, this idea of being stringent is not the correct explanation for the Ashkenazi custom in the Middle Ages who at the Seder ate matzah that was watched from the time of milling, and for the other meals would eat matzah that was not watched at all. It seems that in the Middle Ages there was a conflation between the Rambam and Rashi's positions with regard to the definition of what it means to watch the matzah. Again, according to Rashi, the watching is that one when makes the matzot one must have in mind that he is doing so to fulfill the law of matzot. This requirement is only relevant to matzah that is eaten by the Seder since by the other meals there is no obligation to eat matzot. From this position, it also developed that the obligation to watch the matzot even with regard to water was only relevant to the matzah that is eaten on the Seder night, see Bet Yosef (453) quoting Rabenu Yerucham (1280, France – 1350, Spain), the Ran (Spain, 1290-1375, pages of Rif, 12a, me-hu), and Arukh Hashulchan 453:19. Thus, Ashkenazim in the Middle Ages, would even take dough from non-Jews, which was obviously not watched even from the time of kneading, if they were sure that it had not become hametz, see Rashi on Pesachim 40a, and Haghot Maimonides on Rambam, Laws of hametz and matzah 5:9. Thus law is codified by the Tur (end of 454) but not by the Shulchan Arukh, who follows the Sefardi approach that all matzah needs watching at least from kneading, see Biur Halacha (560, matzot mitzvah).

In conclusion, all matzot today are watched at least from the time of milling so they are all shemurah matzah. However, because there developed the idea that the obligation to have shemurah matzah only exists by the night of the Seder, we call the matzah we eat at the Seder shemurah matzah, and the other matzah regular matzah.