פסח

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.

[5] The use of the term שאל has been the subject of much debate amongst modern and ancient commentators alike. Some have understood it to mean ‘borrowing’ - which is indeed the usual connotation – suggesting the Israelites deceived their Egyptian neighbours (see for example, Ibn Ezra and Shadal, Ex. 3:22). Some have gone further to link the deception of the borrowing to the wider deception that Moshe had informed Pharaoh from the outset that they only intend to leave for three days and then return. This, as one line of argument goes, would explain why the Egyptians were willing to lend their gold and silver as they expected it to be returned shortly (for detailed discussion favouring the ‘non-apologetic’ interpretation see R’ Elchanan Samet here and here). Now is not the place to extensively discuss the relative merits of these approaches. I will simply note that the wider context of this second passage, as discussed above, strongly suggests that the Egyptians (with perhaps the exception of Pharaoh) are driving the people out with no expectation that they return. This is also the implication when God informs Pharaoh about the tenth plague:

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.