The custom of Yachatz has been understood in varying ways. While some assert that it is replete with symbolism, others understand it to be utilitarian in nature. Though many assume that it revolves around the piece of matzah later used for Motzi-Matza, others focus on the piece saved for the Afikoman. Finally, while most understand the breaking of the matzah as a means to an end, some view it as end in itself.
Thus, the Ittur views the two broken pieces of matzah as symbols, representative of both the enslavement and redemption. As such, Yachatz, together with Ha Lachma Anya, begins the evening's recounting of the Exodus. Others view Yachatz as more practical preparation for later parts of the Seder. Ramban, thus, maintains that splitting the matzah is necessary for Motzi-Matzah, which requires both a whole and broken piece. The Or Zarua, in contrast, claims that concealing of the second piece is necessary for Tzafun, as one must ensure that sufficient matzah is saved for the Afikoman. A final approach focuses not on the broken pieces but the act of breaking, suggesting that the practice was instituted only so as to arouse the curiosity of the children.
Reenactment of the Exodus
The matzah is broken and transformed into symbols of the Exodus as an introduction to Ha Lachma Anya. The smaller piece represents "poor man's bread", reminiscent of the bondage, while the concealed piece recalls the wrapped dough of the Israelites during the redemption.
Yachatz and Ha Lachma Anya – This position views Yachatz and Ha Lachma Anya as two parts of a whole,2 a type of "show and tell," where the enslavement is depicted through both visuals and verbal accompaniments. Breaking the matzah transforms a whole loaf into "poor man's bread," so that as we recite, "this is the bread of the poor", a concrete symbol of those words is present on the table.
Development of the custom – It is possible that Yachatz and Ha Lachma Anya even developed together. Neither is mentioned in the Mishnah, and as Ha Lachma Anya is actually composed of three discrete units, it has been suggested that the first line was written specifically to be said with Yachatz3 and not as the first part of Maggid. The custom of those who pour the second cup of wine for Maggid only after Ha Lachma Anya4 might support this understanding.
Breaking the matzah: action or result oriented? According to this position, the act of breaking the matzah is a means to an end; it is the resulting pieces which provide the Seder participants with the symbols necessary to tell the story.
Displaying vs. Concealing – According to this position, two opposing actions are performed with the broken pieces:
Displaying – The smaller piece, symbolic of the poverty of the oppression, is displayed as we begin to tell the story.
Concealing – The second piece (later to be used as the Afikoman) is hidden beneath the tablecloth. The Ittur and Avudraham point out that this action recalls how the Israelites left Egypt with their dough wrapped in cloth ("מִשְׁאֲרֹתָם צְרֻרֹת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָם עַל שִׁכְמָם"). Shulkhan Arukh HaRav adds that some have the custom of wrapping the matzah in a handkerchief and putting it on their shoulders, further reenacting the Exodus.
From slavery to redemption – Though the displaying of the first piece is the main focus of Yachatz,5 (as it is the one which accompanies Ha Lachma Anya),6 by combining the act with another that represents the Exodus, Yachatz manages to recount both the enslavement and the redemption.
"Stealing" and hiding the Afikoman – These sources do not mention the custom at all; the only "hiding" of the matzah is its placement under the tablecloth.
"חוטפין מצות" – According to this approach, the practice of "grabbing matzot" to keep the children awake is unrelated to the institution of Yachatz.7
Preparation for Eating
Splitting the matzah is done in preparation for eating one of its parts later in the Seder. This position divides regarding whether the piece is being saved for Motzi-Matzah or for the Afikoman.
Motzi–Matzah
Since Motzi-Matzah requires at least one whole matzah and a broken piece, the Seder leader breaks a matzah at Yachatz in preparation.
Motzi-Matza: whole vs. broken loaves – On Shabbat or Yom Tov one normally makes the blessing of HaMotzi only on whole loaves. However, since "it is the way of the poor" (Bavli Pesachim 115b-116a) to eat only part of a loaf, an exception is made at the Seder where it is customary to use a broken piece of matzah alongside the whole one/s.8
Why not break the matzah before Motzi-Matzah? According to the above reasoning, one would have assumed that Yachatz should take place right before Motzi-Matzah, as this is the best way to demonstrate that the broken piece is symbolic of poverty.9 The Ritva and Ran, however, point to R. Hai Gaon who maintains that the lenient ruling regarding blessing over broken pieces applies only if the matzah is already broken. It would therefore be disrespectful to take a whole loaf and break it in two right before blessing,10 and thus, the matzah is broken earlier.
Why before Maggid specifically? Since it would not be logical to stop Maggid in the middle so as to break the matzah, it is done beforehand. Moreover, as Maggid opens with "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" which speaks of "poor man's bread", it is an appropriate place to do so.
Breaking the matzah: action or result oriented? According to this position, the breaking of the matzah is utilitarian in nature, meant to ensure that later in the Seder there will be a broken piece to serve as a symbol of poverty. It is this piece which is the focus of the custom, while the piece saved for the Afikoman is secondary.11
Concealing the second piece – According to the Ritva, the piece used for the Afikoman is placed under the tablecloth so as to re-enact the Exodus: "מִשְׁאֲרֹתָם צְרֻרֹת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָם". This position could have alternatively suggested that the action is not significant and is merely a means of differentiating the two pieces.
Enslavement vs. redemption – According to the Ritva, the two actions done at Yachatz symbolize opposing concepts. The breaking of the matzah to turn it into "poor man's bread" highlights the enslavement, while the concealing of the Afikoman is reminiscent of the Exodus. This matches the role played by each piece of matzah later in the Seder. Motzi-Matzah requires "לחם עוני", symbolic of the bondage, while the Afikoman represents the Pesach, reminder of the redemption.
"חוטפין מצות" – According to this approach, "חוטפין מצות" is not connected to Yachatz.
Ramban suggests that being "חוטף מצה", instead, refers to the fact that after removing the Seder plate, the leader would act as if the meal was over, and if any child attempted to take more matzah, he would snatch his hand away. Such unexpected behavior would lead the child to question.
Which piece of matzah is the focus? This approach uniquely understands that Yachatz focuses only on the hidden piece of matzah, while the one which is returned to the pile as irrelevant.
Breaking the matzah: action or result oriented? The breaking of the matzah contains no symbolic meaning or import of its own. It is simply a practical measure to ensure that there is enough matzah for the Afikoman.
Hiding the matzah: action or result oriented? This action, too, is result oriented. One hides the piece of matzah reserved for the Afikoman so that it will not be eaten by mistake.13 As people did not necessarily have large amounts of matzah, there was a real concern that there would not be sufficient matzah left over to fulfill the mitzvah of Afikoman.
Breaking vs. concealing – According to this approach, both actions are equally important, together providing the means to preserve the Afikoman.
Why is Yachatz before Maggid? Since the whole point of the practice is to ensure that the matzah is not eaten before its proper time, it must be put away before the meal begins, towards the beginning of the Seder.
Enslavement vs. redemption – Yachatz recalls neither the oppression nor the salvation, as it is a totally utilitarian custom.
Hiding and stealing the Afikoman – It is possible that the custom evolved out of this understanding of Yachatz. If the purpose of Yachatz is merely to preserve the matzah, then having a child grab the matzah, to return it only at Tzafun when the Afikoman is eaten, would seem to accomplish the same goal. The Rosh's wording that one "gives it to another to guard" already introduces the practice of involving others in the "hiding".14
Ploy to Involve the Children
Yachatz is intended to provoke questions from the children participating at the Seder.
Action or result oriented? This approach uniquely understands Yachatz to focus on the dual actions of splitting and concealing, rather than the resulting pieces of matzah. Though a use is found for the broken pieces, they are not in and of themselves relevant to the custom.
Breaking vs. concealing – It is the combination of these two factors that elicts curiosity from the children. Upon seeing the matzah broken, the children assume that it will be eaten, only to find it being put away! With the matzah's concealment, they begin to question.
"חוטפין מצות" – This approach could suggest that this is what R. Eliezer in the Tosefta meant by "חוטפין מצות בלילי פסחים בשביל תינוקות שלא ישנו". Rather than distributing matzah among the Seder participants, it is "snatched away" and hidden. The surprising actions keep the children awake and wondering.
Stealing the Afikoman – The custom of "stealing the Afikoman" at this point in the Seder might have evolved from a different understanding of R. Eliezer's comment, that it is the children rather than adults who "snatch" the Afikoman. The point is the same, to keep the youngsters involved and questioning.
Why before Maggid? This position might suggest that there is no real significance to the placement of the custom before Maggid. It is but one of many actions done throughout the Seder to raise the curiosity of its participants, and could really have taken place at any point. Alternatively, the custom precedes Maggid since telling the story is supposed to be accomplished via questions and answers and the breaking of the matzah provokes questioning.
Enslavement vs. redemption – According to this understanding, Yachatz has no inherent symbolism, and any other surprising action might have served the same goal. This, though, is one of the weaknesses of this approach, as it would seem to be preferable to involve the children through actions which have some significance for the evening and invite questions which will relate to the experiences in Egypt.