The Matza of Haste and Faith - based Activism
Avoiding Hachmatza (Leavening)
At the end of Maggid, before we say the first half of Hallel, we recite the words of Rabban Gamliel, concerning the paschal offering, matza, and bitter herbs, as cited in the mishna in Pesachim:[1]
Rabban Gamliel used to say: “Whoever does not mention these three things on Pesach does not fulfill his obligation, and these are they: pesach, matza and maror. The pesach is because God passed over (pasach) the houses of our fathers in Egypt, as it is said (Shemot 12:27), ‘Then you shall say: “It is the offering of Lord’s passover, for that He passed over the house of the Israelites in Egypt when he plagued Egypt and saved our houses,” and the people prostrated and bowed.’ The matza is because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is said (ibid. v. 39), ‘And they baked the dough which they took out of Egypt as cakes of matzot, rather than leaven, for they were banished from Egypt, and they could not tarry, and they also had made no provisions for themselves.’ The maror is because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt, as it says: ‘And they made their lives bitter (va-yemareru) with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves’ (ibid. 1:14).”
Immediately afterwards, we mention what is written at the end of the mishna:
In each and every generation a person must regard himself as though he personally had gone out of Egypt, as it is said…
This indicates that every year we must clarify what the significance of the Exodus from Egypt is for us. We will try to illustrate this in the light of the words of the Rishonim as they explain the passage there and in their commentaries on the Haggada.
The Rishonim argue about the words of Rabban Gamliel, asking: exactly what obligation is not fulfilled by one who fails to mention these three things?
The implication of the words of Tosafot, [2] the Ritva and Ran,[3] and the Kol Bo, [4] et al. is that one does not fulfill his obligation of a biblical positive commandment of eating the paschal offering, matza and bitter herbs if one does not explain why he is eating each of these.
Concerning this view, the question is asked: what is the aim of this statement? If this is in order to inspire greater intentionality in the performance of the mitzva, where have we found that a lack of intent means that one does not fulfill his obligation? (Mitzvot do not require special intent solely in order to fulfill the obligation of the commandment) Moreover, concerning what other mitzvot must one say what they are for, that the blessing on the mitzva is insufficient?
Tzitz Eliezer[5] infers that for pesach, matza and maror, we are talking about a special mitzva unlike others, and therefore there is a special command of verbalization: “Then you shall say: ‘It is the offering of the Lord’s pesach.’”[6]
However, Ritva and Ran explain that the intent is not that one does not fulfill his obligation at all, but that one does not fulfill his obligation as he should.[7] Preferably, one should mention these things, but if one fails to, he still fulfills his obligation!
On the other hand, Rambam[8] and Me’iri[9] et al. imply that Rabban Gamliel maintains that if one does not say these three things, he does not fulfill the obligation of the positive biblical commandment of telling the story of the Exodus.
One may derive this from the order of the mishna there, because in the previous mishna, it is explained that the son asks, “Why is this night different?” This mishna seems to have the answer to the son’s question. According to this view, we may conclude two things: on the one hand, if one has mentioned these three things alone, he has already fulfilled his obligation; on the other hand even if he has recited the entire Haggada, but he has not mentioned these things, he has not fulfilled his obligation.[10] However, this leads to another question: why does one not fulfill his obligation by relating the other things (as is cited there in the Talmud)?
Perhaps we may say that there is a third, integrative view here, which speaks of one unique mitzva: the eating is not just eating, for we eat things which illustrate the Exodus narrative. The mitzva of the story is not just to tell it verbally, but to eat things which express the meaning of the narrative.[11] This argument among the Rishonim has halakhic ramifications, because according to those Rishonim who support the first view, if one does not say these things, he would apparently be required to go back and eat his pesach, matza, and maror a second time, and it would not be enough to go back and mention these things. However, according to the second view, it is enough if he mentions pesach, matza, and maror later.
- R. Jacob Ettlinger (the teacher of R. Samson R. Hirsch and R. Azriel Hildesheimer), writes[12] that there is an additional distinction between the two views, for if mentioning pesach, matza, and maror is part of the mitzva of eating, one would be obligated in it on Pesach Sheini as well. However, if the recitation is part of the mitzva of relating the Exodus, there is no need to say it on Pesach Sheini, for indeed there is no obligation to fulfill “And you shall tell your son on that day” (Shemot 13:8). There is good reason also to consider the theological and spiritual ramifications of each view. The view that the obligation of reciting pesach, matza, and maror at the time of performing this mitzva is an integral part of fulfilling the mitzva of eating may be explained by the words of Rabbeinu Manoach[13]:
This teaches us that one must state and explain the reason [of each mitzva], for all of the mitzvot have reasons, and knowing the reason of the mitzva is of great significance upon accomplishing it. However, knowing the reason without doing it does not help; rather, it hurts. This has been amply proven by Shlomo. [If knowing the reason of other mitzvot is good, all the more so one should expound the reason for the matzot of Pesach, because recalling it inspires a person] to believe in God with a perfect, complete faith — for through this redemption, He was revealed to all Israel; all the nations of the world came to know that His alone is the dominion over heaven and earth. This is why they instituted to say afterwards, “In each and every generation a person must regard himself as though he personally had gone out of Egypt.” By recalling this, the fear of God will always be upon him. When one sees the providence of God, which He displayed on Israel’s behalf, one’s heart will remain irrevocably attached to Him forever. If one finds himself in a time of great distress, he must trust in God, the Hope of Israel, its Savior in a time of distress. The distress of the Egyptian exile had a purpose, to benefit them in the end; so too all of the troubles of Israel in exile have a purpose, to save and deliver them eternally.”
On the other hand, according to the view that mentioning pesach, matza, and maror is part of the mitzva of relating the story of the Exodus, we should ask why this is the essence of the story, so that if one does not mention these three things, he does not fulfill his obligation at all. Abarbanel (loc. cit.) explains that these three things are the fundamentals of the telling the story of the Exodus. The maror parallels the exile, the matza parallels the redemption, and the pesach parallels the Plague of the Firstborn and the salvation of Israel. However, according to his commentary, a problem remains: are not both the pesach and the matza expressing the fundamental idea of the redemption and salvation of Israel?
We should understand this according to the analysis of the verses which Rabban Gamliel mentions in his words. The maror is the expression of the distress of enslavement, from which the Israelites were redeemed. The pesach is an expression of the act of the redemption, which comes from the side of the Holy One, who redeemed us, “that he passed over the house of the Israelites in Egypt when he plagued Egypt and saved our houses.” However, there is an additional significant element of redemption, namely the part of the Jewish people in the action of redemption which is expressed by the matza: “And they baked the dough which they took out of Egypt as cakes of matzot, rather than leaven, for they were banished from Egypt, and they could not tarry, and they also had made no provisions for themselves.” Baking matza expressed the act required of the Jewish people at the time of the Exodus. At this point, the Israelites must become a partner with God, acting with determination and alacrity and without hesitation. The matza is a unique food, made of dough which is baked with purposefulness and alacrity. Whoever is present at the time of baking matzot will undoubtedly note that the most prominent element is the enthusiastic activity of those who are involved in the labor. Procrastination causes the matza to become chametz. Indeed, the term for dough becoming leaven, hachmatza, has become the universal term for losing one’s chance, for squandering an opportunity.
There is something important to learn from this for our days. From the Vilna Gaon’s studies to the redemptive Torah of Rav Kook, we have learnt the need to integrate the itaruta di-le'eila with the itaruta di-letata. We must integrate the force of the pesach with that of the matza, our theological obligation to recognize the divine processes and to act with God. In order to understand, it is incumbent upon us to learn from Israel’s action at the moment of redemption and the recipe of the matza. When we take action, we must be zealous and determined, not lazy and idle. Indeed, before taking the initiative, it is imperative for us to examine soberly what we have to do, and how we can serve the redemptive, divine aim in the best way. At this stage, it is forbidden to be hasty, so that we will not stumble and impede the process. However, once the aim is understood, and it is clear what we must do, we must act with alacrity and determination so that we not miss the opportunity- so that we do not become guilty of hachmatza.
[1] 10:5, Talmud 116a; this is mentioned in the Haggada with some minor variations.
[2] Pesachim loc. cit.
[3] Sukka 28a; this is how Tosafot Yom Tov explains the mishna, Pesachim 10:5.
[4] In his commentary on the Haggada.
[5] Vol. V, ch. 11.
[6] See Maharsha, Chiddushei Aggadot, Pesachim ad loc., who answers according to internal reasons.
[7] This is how Arukh La-ner on Pesachim understands this point; the same is found in Responsa Binyan Tziyon, ch. 30, and the abovementioned comment of Tosafot Yom Tov.
[8] Hilkhot Chametz U-matza 7:5.
[9] Pesachim ad loc.
[10] This is also the approach found in Responsa Binyan Tziyon, ch. 30.
[11] One may use this to understand what Abarbanel writes in his Zevach Pesach commentary on the Haggada.
[12] Responsa Binyan Tziyon loc. cit.
[13] This is brought on Hilkhot Chametz U-mazta 7:5, despite the fact that Rambam does not state this.