Matzah – Al Shum Mah?
The Torah includes
two adjacent yet radically different descriptions of the original Matzah which the Israelites
ate at the time of the exodus.
The first is
in connection with the command regarding the Pesach service:
וְאָכְלוּ אֶת־הַבָּשָׂר בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה
צְלִי־אֵשׁ וּמַצּוֹת עַל־מְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ׃ אַל־תֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ
נָא וּבָשֵׁל מְבֻשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם כִּי אִם־צְלִי־אֵשׁ רֹאשׁוֹ עַל־כְּרָעָיו
וְעַל־קִרְבּוֹ׃ וְלֹא־תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ
עַד־בֹּקֶר בָּאֵשׁ תִּשְׂרֹפוּ׃ וְכָכָה תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים
נַעֲלֵיכֶם בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם וּמַקֶּלְכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ
בְּחִפָּזוֹן פֶּסַח הוּא לַה’׃ (שמות יא:ח-יא)
The Matzah is
presented here as a proactive command and not as an improvised response to
being chased out. The Israelites are instructed to prepare a hasty meal (roasted
on open fire; Matzah instead of bread etc.) in anticipation of the
imminent redemption.[1]
The meal, including the Matzah, must be eaten hurriedly - be-chipazon - ‘loins
girded, sandals on feet, and staff in hand', ready and
prepared to leave at a moment’s notice. The purpose of the haste, as Seforno
notes, is to demonstrate belief in God’s deliverance (and personal commitment we might add) before the actual trigger event:
מתניכם חגורים. מזומנים לדרך, כענין וישנס מתניו
להורות על בטחון בלתי מסופק באל יתברך, בהיותם מכינים עצמם לדרך בעודם בבית הכלא
Since this aspect
of Matzah relates specifically to the anticipation of the Israelites prior
to the clock striking twelve, the interpretation of R. Eleazar ben Azariah that
the Pesach and Matzah must be consumed before midnight is readily
understandable.[2] As the
eating of the Matzah represents an act of faith, it must take place before the wheels of redemption are set in motion. This state is then commemorated in the annual ritual.[3]
According to this version of events, the crux is that the Israelites are
rushing out themselves rather than being rushed out by the Egyptians.
An
alternative perspective
In the later
passage containing the narrative of the events which took place (which we will
refer to as the second passage), the impression is very different. Here the
Egyptians are actively driving the Israelites out the land whilst the
Israelites appear entirely unprepared:
וַתֶּחֱזַק מִצְרַיִם עַל־הָעָם לְמַהֵר
לְשַׁלְּחָם מִן־הָאָרֶץ כִּי אָמְרוּ כֻּלָּנוּ מֵתִים׃ וַיִּשָּׂא הָעָם
אֶת־בְּצֵקוֹ טֶרֶם יֶחְמָץ מִשְׁאֲרֹתָם צְרֻרֹת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָם עַל־שִׁכְמָם... וַיֹּאפוּ אֶת־הַבָּצֵק אֲשֶׁר הוֹצִיאוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם עֻגֹת מַצּוֹת כִּי
לֹא חָמֵץ כִּי־גֹרְשׁוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהִתְמַהְמֵהַּ וְגַם־צֵדָה
לֹא־עָשׂוּ לָהֶם׃ (שמות
יב:לג-לט)
The Matzot enter
the scene as a response to the Egyptians forcing the Israelites out. So keen are the Egyptians for the Israelites to leave that there is not even sufficient
time for the dough to rise. In fact, according to this passage, they were not even able to make provisions for the journey. Had the people been anticipating the events, surely they could have found time to bake bread and prepare provisions in advance. Instead,
the Israelites are caught by surprise. There is, therefore, a vast gulf between the two
passages which is symbolised by the contrasting purpose of the Matzah in each passage.
Egypt and Israel - a dual
mission
Throughout
the story of the plagues and starting already at the burning bush, God sets out
a dual mission. One is geared at the Israelites whilst the other targets the
Egyptians. This emerges clearly in the context of Moshe’s initiation at the burning bush, where Pharaoh and the Israelites are cast as two separate but
parallel audiences:
לָכֵן אֱמֹר לִבְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי
ה’ וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מִתַּחַת סִבְלֹת מִצְרַיִם וְהִצַּלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם
מֵעֲבֹדָתָם וְגָאַלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בִּזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבִשְׁפָטִים גְּדֹלִים... וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה כֵּן אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה
מִקֹּצֶר רוּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה׃ (שמות ו:ו-ט)
בֹּא דַבֵּר אֶל־פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ
מִצְרָיִם וִישַׁלַּח אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ׃ וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי
ה’ לֵאמֹר הֵן בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא־שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי
פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם׃ (שמות ו:י-יא)
Similarly, at the start of the
plagues, God states the purpose of the plagues is that ‘the Egyptians shall know
that I am God’ (Ex.
7:5), yet later on the Israelites are targeted with the same message: ‘you
will know that I am God’ (Ex. 10:2).
In light of the above, we may suggest that the Matzah of the first passage – eaten in anticipation of the redemption – represents the successful turnaround of the Israelites who initially ‘did not listen to Moshe…’. The second passage – where the Egyptians chase them out - represents a fulfilment of ‘the Egyptians shall know’.
It is worth noting that the instruction
for future generations to eat Matzah for seven days appears first after the first
passage (12:18-20) and is then repeated following the second passage (13:6-8). This suggests the eternal command is indeed intended to capture both aspects.[4]
Asking
for gold and silver
A prominent
feature of the second passage is the Israelite ‘request’ (וישאלו) for gold and silver. This
should also be understood as further highlighting the aspect of the Egyptian acknowledgement.
The point is that the Israelites were not taking, rather the Egyptians were
willingly providing.[5]
This recalls the requirement of a master when setting his slave free:
וְכִי־תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ
חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ רֵיקָם׃ הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק לוֹ מִצֹּאנְךָ וּמִגָּרְנְךָ
וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַכְךָ ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּתֶּן־לוֹ׃ (דברים טו:יג-יד)
The
language used here echoes God’s words at the burning bush:
וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־חֵן הָעָם־הַזֶּה בְּעֵינֵי
מִצְרָיִם וְהָיָה כִּי תֵלֵכוּן לֹא תֵלְכוּ רֵיקָם׃ וְשָׁאֲלָה אִשָּׁה
מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ כְּלֵי־כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב וּשְׂמָלֹת
וְשַׂמְתֶּם עַל־בְּנֵיכֶם וְעַל־בְּנֹתֵיכֶם וְנִצַּלְתֶּם אֶת־מִצְרָיִם׃ (שמות ג:כא-כב)
Provision
of gifts from the master breaks the bond of slavery and helps to
crystallise the independence and freedom of former the slave. Parenthetically, it is worthwhile noting that the property (rechush)
taken out of Egypt was first promised at the Berit Bein Ha-betarim. There are many
correspondences between the passage of the Berit Bein Ha-betarim and the prior
passage relating the battle of the four kings and five kings and prominent in
both is the issue of the rechush.[6]
Whilst Avraham emphatically rejects the property gained in the battle with the
kings, God promises him that they will depart from Egypt with great wealth. The same
contrast can of course be noted (and various explanations have been suggested) with
respect to Avraham himself in relation to his willingness to accept the gifts of Pharaoh when he himself returned from Egypt.
The apparent difference is that the king of Sedom was offering Avraham the booty
on the basis that Avraham had won it in battle and therefore he had a legal right to it:
‘to the victor belong the spoils’. This was a principle Avraham utterly
rejected and he simply sought to return everything to its rightful owner. The
verse makes it very clear that for Avraham this was a rescue mission only. He was
‘returning’ the property originally taken from Sedom and not seeking spoils of
war:
וַיָּשֶׁב אֵת כׇּל־הָרְכֻשׁ וְגַם אֶת־לוֹט
אָחִיו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ הֵשִׁיב וְגַם אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת־הָעָם: (בראשית
יד:טז)
The same may not be said of leaving Egypt (for both Avraham and the Israelites) where the gifts were in acknowledgement of a past wrong which gave rise to a bonafide claim. In any event, the willingness of the Egyptians to provide gold and silver sits well with the second passage in which the Egyptians are the active party sending the Israelites out.
The hand
of providence
More
important perhaps than the role of the Egyptians, the passivity of the Israelites
in the second passage tells the wider story which stretches far beyond the final
hour. The people left Egypt not because of the merit of the Israelites, but
because of God’s commitment to Avraham 430 years earlier (see verse 11:42, referenced below). Whilst the Israelites
leave in a scene of chaos, for God it is part of the historical order.
Interestingly, the two passages conclude on a similar note with corresponding wording, enhancing the dialogue between the passages:
וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־הַמַּצּוֹת כִּי בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הוֹצֵאתִי אֶת־צִבְאוֹתֵיכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם׃ (שמות יב:יז)
וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיְהִי בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יָצְאוּ כָּל־צִבְאוֹת ה’ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃ לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַה’ לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם הוּא־הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַה’ שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם׃ (שמות יא:מב)
Despite the similarity, each involves a different play on the word שמר which underscores the different perspectives of the two passages. The first passage ties the ongoing obligation to observe the day of the redemption (ושמרתם את היום הזה) in the command to guard the Matzot (ושמרתם את המצות). Most commentators understand the ‘guarding’ of the Matzot as referring to (or at least alluding to) the prevention of the leavening process. In other words, this passage links the festival to the actions of the people who admirably anticipated God’s deliverance.
The second
passage ties the obligation to ‘observe’ the night of the fourteenth to God’s own observance of this night (ליל שמורים הוא לה׳). Though the commentators
differ as to the meaning of leil shimurim, the context supports the interpretation of the Bechor Shor who understands it as referring to God’s longstanding commitment
to take the people out of Egypt and return them to the land of Israel:[7]
ליל שמורים הוא לה. שהקב"ה היה שומר וממתין לילה זה להוציא את בני ישראל:
הוא הלילה הזה לה' שמורים לכל בני ישראל. שיהיו בני ישראל שומרים וממתינים לילה זה בכל שנה לקיים מצות הללו לשם
הקב"ה שגאלם
Since the
prior verse discusses the 430 years which the people sojourned in Egypt, the mention
of leil shimurim seems to refer to God’s promise at the Brit Bein Ha-betarim
to redeem them at the end of this period (Gen. 15:13-14). Bechor Shor’s words eloquently
capture the mutual commitment inherent in the verse. The Israelites are to
commemorate God’s fulfilment of His commitment on his night, by committing themselves to
observe the night for future years. Yet on the fateful night itself, the contrast between God
and the people on the night of the exodus is striking. Whilst the people are
taken by surprise with no time to prepare provisions or even allow
their dough to rise, God has been anticipating this night for over 400 years.
In summary, whilst the first passage focuses on the actions of the people anticipating the
redemption at the ‘last supper’, the second passage speaks of the unfolding of God’s historical plan
and His unilateral commitment to redeem them. Highlighting and linking these two aspects is the Matzah which reflects the people’s last minute preparations whilst, paradoxically, accentuating how unprepared (spiritually and
physically) and reliant on God they in fact were.[8]
Addendum
This double
meaning of Matzah may be alluded to in two later references to the Matzah. The
first appears later in the same parashah:
מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים
וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל־גְּבֻלֶךָ׃
וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה ה’ לִי
בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם׃ (שמות יג:ז-ח)
This verse is difficult as it seems to mix cause and effect. The literal reading suggests that God took the people out of Egypt so that they would eat Matzah (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra!). On the other hand, if it refers to the proactive Matzah eaten in Egypt before midnight (the first passage) then its meaning can be that the anticipation which demonstrated their faith in God, provided the merit for the Israelites to be redeemed.
Alternatively, as the Ramban and Rashbam both suggest, it can
be read as though a prefix is inserted before the word asah:
בעבור זה שעשה
ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים
Read in
this way, it refers to the Matzah baked as they were chased out of Egypt (the reactive
Matzot) and the command is to eat Matzah ‘because of what God did when he took
us out of Egypt’. Both interpretations seem plausible and it
could be that the ambiguity is deliberate to allude to both aspects.
The other reference
appears much later in sefer Devarim:
לֹא־תֹאכַל
עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל־עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי כִּי
בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת־יוֹם צֵאתְךָ
מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ (דברים טז:ג)
The term chipazon is taken from the first passage where the Israelites are instructed to eat the Matzah (with the Pesach) in a state of chipazon whilst still in Egypt. It does not appear at all in the second passage. However, the verse in Devarim does not speak of eating in a state of chipazon but leaving in a state of chipazon, which is the theme of the second passage.[9] Thus, like so many other occasions in Devarim, earlier references are subtly woven together to form a new composite verse to unveil a holistic perspective.[10]
[1] According
to Ibn Ezra this is the reason the Pesach must be finished before midnight. According
to Chizkuni it is also the reason there could be no leftovers as someone who is
fleeing does not leave leftovers.
[2] See TB.
Pesachim 120b. Indeed, R. Eleazar ben Azariah derives his law from a Gezerah Shavah
(לילה-לילה) between the plague of the firstborn and the
instruction regarding the Pesach. This is one example of many where Gezerah
Shavah is indicative of a more fundamental connection between the
passages.
[3] See post here regarding symbolism of the Pesach 'sacrifice'.
[4] Notwithstanding
that the Haggadah seems to focus exclusively on the second passage when
providing the reason for the Matzah.
וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד
אָבִיא עַל־פַּרְעֹה וְעַל־מִצְרַיִם אַחֲרֵי־כֵן יְשַׁלַּח אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה
כְּשַׁלְּחוֹ כָּלָה גָּרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה׃ דַּבֶּר־נָא
בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִשָּׁה מֵאֵת רְעוּתָהּ
כְּלֵי־כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב׃ (שמות:יא:א-ב)
During the earlier negotiations, Pharaoh demanded that they leave their personal
belongings as security to ensure their return. Moshe point blank refused
leading Pharaoh to accuse him of planning an escape. Subsequent events would
have done nothing to allay this concern and would only have reinforced the
perception that they had no plan to return. Providing gold and silver to
fleeing prisoners provides a strong incentive for them not to return and
is proof certain that the Egyptian neighbours harboured no belief (or wish)
that they would in fact return. Thus, even if the language is ambiguous the
intent seems clear and understood by all.
[6] Other textual
commonalities include:
מגן, דן, שלם, צדק/צדקה, וישב, ברית . The heading אחר הדברים האלה is also a recognised way of alluding to a thematic connection between passages. Furthermore, both passages involve someone
being exiled/captured and then being ‘returned’ at the hands of someone else
(God/Avraham), in addition to the theme of enrichment already mentioned.
[7] See also
Rashbam and Ramban
[8] This is
very different to the approach of Rashi who saw the verse as highlighting the
act of faith on the part of the Israelites:
וגם
צדה לא עשו להם. לַדֶּרֶךְ.
מַגִּיד שִׁבְחָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ הֵיאַךְ נֵצֵא לַמִּדְבָּר
בְּלֹא צֵידָה? אֶלָּא הֶאֱמִינוּ וְהָלְכוּ; הוּא שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בַּקַּבָּלָה,
"זָכַרְתִּי לָךְ חֶסֶד נְעוּרַיִךְ אַהֲבַת כְּלוּלֹתָיִךְ לֶכְתֵּךְ
אַחֲרַי בַּמִּדְבָּר בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא זְרוּעָה" מַה שָּׂכָר מְפֹרָשׁ אַחֲרָיו? "קֹדֶשׁ
יִשְׂרָאֵל לַה' וְגוֹ'":
[9] Rashi seemed to have been alert to the possible confusion and therefore felt the need to clarify that the chipazon has been appropriated from its original context to now describe the Egyptian activity rather than that of the Israelites:
כי
בחפזון יצאת. לֹא
הִסְפִּיק בָּצֵק לְהַחֲמִיץ וְזֶה יִהְיֶה לְךָ לְזִכָּרוֹן; וְחִפָּזוֹן לֹא
שֶׁלְּךָ הָיָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, שֶׁכֵּן הוּא אוֹמֵר "וַתֶּחֱזַק
מִצְרַיִם עַל הָעָם וְגוֹ'"
[10] Another example in this post.
