Haggadah:Ha Lachma Anya/2

Ha Lachma Anya

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Commentators disagree about both the nature of Ha Lachma Anya's relationship with its surrounding sections and the internal connection between its sentences.  They also present a full spectrum of possible historical backdrops for the origins of the passage, and several different explanations for its Aramaic language.

The first two approaches view the passage as a commemoration of ancient times.  The commentary attributed to Rashbam posits that the invitation to the needy and aspirations for redemption, like the act of Yachatz which they accompany, were originally proclaimed and performed in Egypt itself.  In contrast, the Tashbetz views the Matzah as leading into the story of Maggid, and the invitation as a reenactment of what families said when joining for sacrifices in the time of the Mikdash.

The final two approaches opt for a historically later development of the passage and see the section as disconnected from the adjoining liturgy.  The Ma'asei Hashem proposes that it was first recited immediately after the destruction as a sorrowful remembering of the lost Korban Pesach, while Reifman and Goldschmidt view it as an evolving collection of unrelated themes and customs dating from Geonic times.

Explanation of Yachatz

Ha Lachma Anya comes to explain that the matzah is broken at Yachatz to commemorate how the Children of Israel hastily broke and shared their matzah with each other on the night of the Exodus.

Sources:Commentary attributed to RashbamHaggadah Shel Pesach¹

Purpose of Yachatz – This approach views Yachatz and Ha Lachma Anya as the two parts of a "show and tell", with Yachatz being the physical demonstration and Ha Lachma Anya being the verbal accompaniment.  For elaboration, see Yachatz.

Internal relationship between the lines – According to this commentary, the first two sentences explain that we split the matzah exactly as the Israelites did on the eve of their departure from Egypt when, in their haste,² they divided and shared it with whomever had not yet prepared any.  The second and third lines thus reenact the nation's words in Egypt, as they offered to share their Matzah and Paschal sacrifice with all and expressed their hopes to be free people in Israel by the next year.³

"לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" – This approach understands "לֶחֶם עֹנִי" in the verse in Devarim 16 and "לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" in the Haggadah to refer to the broken bread which a poor person eats.  While a similar interpretation is recorded already in Bavli PesachimPesachim 115b-116aAbout the Bavli, the Commentary attributed to Rashbam differs in explaining that the Israelites ate this broken bread due to their haste, rather than because they were poor.  Accordingly, the commandment to eat "לֶחֶם עֹנִי" is elucidated by the continuation of the verse "כִּי בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם".

"דִי אֲכָלוּ אַבְהָתָנָא בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם" – when? This refers to the matzah that our forefathers ate on their way out of Egypt, rather than to the food they ate during their slavery.⁴

"כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח" – The word "וְיִפְסַח" describes the partaking in the Paschal sacrifice offered in Egypt.⁵

Why in Aramaic? The "Rashbam" Commentary does not address this issue.  If much of the passage is supposed to represent the words of the Israelites themselves in Egypt, it is strange that specifically this section would be written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew or Egyptian.  It is possible, though, that the language simply reflects that the passage was first added to the Haggadah only in Babylonia, where Aramaic was the vernacular.⁶

When do we pour the second cup? This approach might maintain that we pour the second cup after this passage, since it is only then that the Maggid section begins.⁷

Prelude to Maggid

Ha Lachma Anya introduces the retelling of the story of the Exodus and is intended to stimulate the children to ask why we eat Matzah, thereby leading to further discussion.

Sources:RaavanPesachim 116aCommentary on Haggadah Shel Pesach attributed to Raavan, R. Shimon b. Tzemach DuranMaamar AfikomanAbout R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran

Internal relationship between the lines – The Tashbetz explains that first sentence explains that we eat matzah to commemorate the conditions of our ancestors when they were enslaved. The first half of the second line then contrasts the impoverished state in Egypt with our current ability to invite others who are lacking to share in our meal,⁸ while its second half recalls how during the time of the Mikdash the Paschal Sacrifice would be shared by many families.⁹  Finally, the last line expresses our hope for a full future redemption,¹⁰ so that we will be able to then invite others to share in our Paschal Sacrifice as well.

"לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" – According to the Tashbetz, "לֶחֶם עֹנִי" describes the physical properties of the Matzah.¹¹

"דִי אֲכָלוּ אַבְהָתָנָא בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם" – when? According to this opinion, the phrase refers to the Matzah eaten during the Egyptian bondage,¹² rather than to the matzah which accompanied the Pesach sacrifice on the eve of the redemption.

"כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח" – The Tashbetz interprets this as a wish referring to the future Paschal Sacrifice which will hopefully be brought in the coming year.  Raavan, though, understands "וְיִפְסַח" to refer to the eating of the Afikoman which commemorates the Paschal Sacrifice.¹³

Why in Aramaic? Raavan and the Tashbetz explain that the short preface was aimed at the less knowledgeable participants who were likely to understand only the vernacular.¹⁴

When do we pour the second cup? According to the Tashbetz, as Ha Lachma Anya is an introduction to and part of Maggid, the cup is poured before reciting it.¹⁵  However, according to Raavan, the second cup is poured only afterwards, at the beginning of the main corpus of Maggid.¹⁶

Independent Unit

Ha Lachma Anya stands on its own and is not integrally related to either Yachatz or Maggid.

Lament Over Loss of Paschal Sacrifice

The passage was composed soon after the destruction of the Second Temple as a dirge over its destruction and the ensuing inability to bring the Korban Pesach.

Sources:Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Mizrayim Haggadah CommentaryAbout Ma'asei Hashem

Internal relationship between the lines – The opening line compares the melancholic, post-Destruction, Seder meal¹⁷ without the Korban Pesach to the sorrowful meals eaten by our ancestors in Egypt. As part of this lament, others are invited to partake in eating the Afikoman which commemorates the lost Pesach sacrifice, highlighting how in Temple times when eating the real Pesach this would have been impossible (for only those counted beforehand could join).¹⁸  The passage then concludes with words of comfort and prayer for imminent redemption.¹⁹

"לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" – R"E Ashkenazi understands "לַחְמָא"  to refer to the meal as a whole.²⁰  The exilic Seder meal, with the gaping void left by the loss of the central Pesach sacrifice, was not the joyous one it had been in Yerushalayim, but had been transformed into one of affliction.

"דִי אֲכָלוּ אַבְהָתָנָא בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם" – when? This refers to the meals²¹ of affliction eaten by the Israelites while enslaved in Egypt.

"כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח" – The Ma'asei Hashem understands "וְיִפְסַח" to refer to the eating of the olive's worth of matzah for Afikoman to commemorate the Paschal Sacrifice.

Why in Aramaic? The paragraph is said in Aramaic so that all will understand it and join in the sorrow over the destruction of the Temple.  In addition, since this passage was not part of the original obligatory liturgy, it was intentionally distinguished by not being recited in Hebrew.

Assorted Announcements

The passage constitutes a collection of pronouncements which were originally made at separate points during the Seder.

Sources:Y. ReifmanIggeret Bikkoret on Seder HaHaggadah Shel Pesach,²² E. D. GoldschmidtSeder Haggadah Shel Pesach p.28²³

Internal relationship between the lines – Reifman and Goldschmidt each contend that there is no fundamental connection between the various parts of Ha Lachma Anya, as initially they were completely disparate units.  While the first sentence of "הָא לַחְמָא" always accompanied Yachatz and was stated when breaking the matzah,²⁴ the second line of "כָּל דִּכְפִין" was originally proclaimed at the start of the meal, when the Seder leader invited the poor to join.²⁵  Regarding the concluding formulations of "הָשַׁתָּא... לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה", Reifman suggests that they originated at the very end of the Seder, where they played a similar role to the currently recited "לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם"‎.‎²⁶  Goldschmidt, in contrast, proposes that these originally opened the Seder, and thus prayers for a return to Israel framed the Seder, both introducing and closing it.²⁷

Why moved to the beginning of Maggid? Reifman suggests that these sentences were recited in Geonic times in Babylonia, but not elsewhere. After the closing of the Yeshivot there, the statements were no longer said, and they were collated in the beginning of Maggid to recall the old customs.  Initially, there were explanatory notes as to when to say them, but these notes were lost, and as a result they were reincorporated into the liturgy. However, there is scant textual evidence to back up this hypothesis.  Goldschmidt alternatively suggests that the invitation to the poor was moved to the beginning of Maggid in Haggadot which omitted the Kiddush.²⁸

"לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" – According to Goldschmidt, this refers to the minimalist ingredients from which matzah is made.

"דִי אֲכָלוּ אַבְהָתָנָא בְּאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם" – when? Goldschmidt asserts that this refers to the matzot eaten as the Israelites exited Egypt, as described in the verses in Shemot 12:34,39 and Devarim 16:3.

"כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח" – Since this approach maintains that the passage was written in Geonic times, when the Paschal sacrifice was no longer brought, it would likely explain that "וְיִפְסַח" refers to joining in the Passover meal, rather than the sacrifice itself.

Why in Aramaic? As the passage was composed in Babylonia, it was written in Aramaic.  In addition, since these lines were conversational rather than part of the retelling of the story of the Exodus, it was natural for them to be said in the vernacular.

¹ The interpretation is also found almost verbatim in the Orchot ChayyimSeder HaHaggadah, and Abarbanel cites it in the name of "וראיתי מי שפירש".

² This emphasis on what was done due to the haste in which they left Egypt would work well with the version of the passage found in the Rambam and several Genizah fragments which begins, "בבהילו יצאנו ממצרים".

³ A similar interpretation is found also in the commentary on the Haggadah attributed to Rashi.  According to this understanding, it is as if "‏כָּל דִּכְפִין...‏" is preceded by "‏ואמרו:‏".

⁴ Rashbam could have suggested more simply that breaking the matzah imitates how poor people split their food and save some for later, and that it thereby commemorates the period of enslavement when the Israelites had meager sustenance and did not know where their next meal would come from.  However, there are three disadvantages of this reading which may account for why Rashbam preferred his own novel interpretation:

• It does not explain why the verse in Devarim links the "לֶחֶם עֹנִי" with the "חִפָּזוֹן" of the Exodus.
• It does not resolve the connection between the various lines of Ha Lachma Anya.
• There is no evidence that the Israelites had a limited food supply in Egypt.  In fact, when they recall the period in Bemidbar 11, they speak of the abundant fish, squash, onions etc.

⁵ R. Katzenelenbogen, in his notes (in Haggadat Torat Chayyim) to the Commentary, suggests that the "Rashbam" Commentary may understand "וְיִפְסַח" as to hasten.  As support, he points to Rashi Shemot 12:11 who appears to connect the root "פסח" with "חפזון":‎ "לפיכך תאכלו אותו בחפזון משום ששמו מורה על חפזון".

⁶ In contrast, much of the rest of the Haggadah derives from the texts of the Mishna and other works written in the land of Israel, and thus it is in Hebrew.  Cf. the פירוש קדמון cited in the note below that the Aramaic language also serves to set apart "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" from Maggid.

⁷ Cf. the פירוש קדמון (published in הגדה של פסח: תורת חיים) who explains that the cups of wine come to celebrate our redemption ("כוס ישועות"), and since "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" speaks only of our affliction, it is proper to pour the cup only after the recitation of this passage.  According to him, it is in Aramaic to underscore that it is a separate unit.

⁸ This contrast is found in the earlier commentary of the Ritva.  The Tashbetz also brings the option that "כָּל דִּכְפִין" refers to all of the Seder participants who had not yet eaten a big meal so as not to diminish their appetite for eating Matzah ("כדי שיאכל מצה לתיאבון").  This interpretation is found also in the commentary attributed to Rashi and in the פירוש קדמון (published in הגדה של פסח: תורת חיים).

⁹ This interpretation follows the approach which the Shibbolei HaLeket218 cites in the name of his brother, R. Binyamin.  It is as if the passage opened with: "כך היו אבותינו אומרים בזמן שבית המקדש היה קיים...‏".  [Compare to the position of the commentary attributed to Rashbam cited above that the words are a reenactment of the first Pesach in Egypt.]  The Shibbolei HaLeket notes that there are other passages on the night of the Seder (such as R. Gamliel and Koreich) which also commemorate the times of the Mikdash.  R. Binyamin's approach struggles a bit in explaining why this line would be written in Aramaic (see his suggestion cited later in the Shibbolei HaLeket).
The Shibbolei HaLeket also offers that the passage refer to all three components of the sacrificial meal:  Pesach ("כָּל דִּצְרִיךְ יֵיתֵי וְיִפְסַח"), Matzah ("הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא") and Maror ("כָּל דִּכְפִין יֵיתֵי וְיֵיכֹל").  As support, he points to Mishlei 27:7 which suggests that one who is hungry is bitter of soul. This, though, is not a simple reading.

¹⁰ As such, the passage refers to enslavement, salvation, and future redemption, three main themes of the evening.  Nonetheless, the formulation is somewhat awkward for a synopsis, and the various sentences do not flow smoothly into one another.

¹¹ He cites Ramban Devarim 16:2.  Alternatively, it could refer to the poverty of the Israelites in Egypt. Either way, the term is employed to highlight the hardships of the slavery.

¹² See also the Orchot ChayyimSeder HaHaggadah who writes in the name of Ibn Ezra that captives in India were fed Matzah even in his day.

¹³ Raavan also raises the possibility that "וְיִפְסַח" refers to partaking in the Paschal sacrifice itself, and that therefore the word is omitted when there is no sacrifice (see also the Rid).  [This option seems to assume that "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" was originally authored during the Babylonian Exile (and was thus written in Aramaic), and that the word "וְיִפְסַח" was added during the era of the Second Temple, when there was still a Pascal Sacrifice.]  Alternatively, one could explain that "וְיִפְסַח" speaks of general Passover supplies.

¹⁴ Cf. R. Natronai Gaon (cited by the Ritz Giat) and the Orchot Chayyim who state that one should also recite Ma Nishtanah and Avadim Hayyinu in the vernacular (and see also the Shibbolei HaLeket218's citation of his cousin, R. Yehuda's interpretation).  The Raavan similarly explains that Kol Nidrei was recited in Aramaic to ensure that all would understand it and make the necessary arrangements to annul their vows.

¹⁵ Cf. Seder Rav Amram Gaon, Siddur Rashi, Rambam's Nusach HaHaggadah, Shibbolei HaLeket218, Ritva Hilkhot HaHaggadah, and others.

¹⁶ This is also the opinion of R. Saadia in his Siddur, the Geonim cited by Ritva in his Hilkhot Seder HaHaggadah, the Haggadah commentary attributed to Rashi, and many others (see note above regarding the פירוש קדמון).

¹⁷ See below that the Ma'asei Hashem understands "הָא לַחְמָא" to refer, not merely to the matzah, but to the meal as a whole.

¹⁸ Cf. the Tashbetz above and the opinion that the Shibbolei HaLeket cites in the name of his brother, R. Binyamin which also see in this line a commemoration of Mikdash times.  They, though, suggest that the sentence recalls how the people used to invite others to partake before offering the sacrifice.  They differ, also, in their understanding of the passage as whole.

¹⁹ The Ma'asei Hashem proposes that this lament was similar to many other customs instituted to remember the destruction even at times of joy.  Thus, before partaking in the holiday's festivities, the Seder participants express their sorrow over the loss of the Mikdash.

²⁰ As support, he points to Shemuel I 20:27, "מַדּוּעַ לֹא בָא בֶן יִשַׁי גַּם תְּמוֹל גַּם הַיּוֹם אֶל הַלָּחֶם".

²¹ See above that the Ma'asei Hashem understands "לַחְמָא" to refer, not to merely bread or matzah, but to the meal as a whole.

²² See יעקב רייפמאן,‎ איגרת ביקורת על סדר ההגדה של פסח, (Jerusalem, 5729): 7-8, 32.  This small work collects three previously published articles; the main one cited here was originally published in 5602.

²³ See his first Haggadah, סדר הגדה של פסח (Tel Aviv, 5708): 28.

²⁴ R"Y Reifman suggests that the before the matzah was broken it was raised for all to see, and at that point the leader proclaimed, "This is the bread…".  Cf. the commentary attributed to Rashbam discussed above.

²⁵ Both reference R. Huna in Bavli Taanit 20b who would proclaim at the beginning of every meal: "כל מאן דצריך ליתי וליכול".

²⁶ See the TSH 145 Genizah fragment which preserves the wording "לשנה הבאה בירושלים" at the end of Ha Lachma Anya.

²⁷ As support, Goldschmidt points to the order in the Siddur of R. Saadia Gaon which begins with "הָשַׁתָּא הָכָא...‏", proceeds to "כָּל דִּכְפִין...‏", and is missing entirely the opening line of "הָא לַחְמָא...‏".

²⁸ For Goldschmidt (in contrast to Reifman), the lines of "הָשַׁתָּא... לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה" were originally at the beginning of the Seder, and thus did not migrate all the way from the end.