Haggadah:Yachatz/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Yachatz
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
The custom of Yachatz has been understood in varying ways. According to the Ittur and others, the practice is directly linked to the recitation of "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא". Immediately before speaking of "poor man's bread" we break our matzah into pieces, transforming it into a symbol of poverty. Others view Yachatz as 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 of matzah. The Or Zarua, in contrast, focuses on the concealment rather than splitting of the matzah, and asserts that the custom developed to ensure that sufficient matzah is saved for the Afikoman. A final approach suggests that the custom of Yachatz was implemented merely to arouse the curiosity of the children, and that there is nothing particularly symbolic or necessary about the specific action of breaking the matzah.
Reenactment of the Exodus
The matzah is broken and transformed into symbols of the Exodus as an introduction to Maggid. 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.
Ha Lachma Anya vs. all of Maggid – This position divides regarding whether the broken matzah is needed for the recitation of all of Maggid or just for the opening lines of "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא".
- "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא" – Most of these sources state that it is required specifically for "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא", since the passage explicitly refers to "poor man's bread". Thus, while reciting "this is the bread of the poor," there is an example placed in front of the Seder participants.
- "מַגִּיד" – In contrast, Shulchan Arukh HaRav explains that all of Maggid must be recited in the presence of a broken matzah. He points to the two etymologies o fthe pharse "לחם עוני" given in Bavli Pesachim 115b-116a, that it is both "bread over which one answers matters" (i.e. over which one recites the Haggadah) and that it is "poor man's bread" (i.e. a broken piece). As such, he derives that a broken loaf must be present throughout the recitation of the Haggadah.
Breaking the matzah: action or result oriented? According to this position, the act of breaking the matzah is a means to an end, serving to provide the Seder participants with needed symbols of the story. By breaking the matzah into two, the whole loaf is transformed into "poor man's bread".
Displaying vs. Concealing – Yachatz incorporates two elements:
- Displaying –The smaller piece of the broken matzah, representative of "לחם עוני",2 is displayed while reciting "הָא לַחְמָא עַנְיָא," acting as a visual representation of the words being recited.
- Concealing – The piece of matzah to be used as the Afikoman is placed beneath the tablecloth in imitation of the Exodus, when the Israelites left Egypt with their dough wrapped in cloth ("מִשְׁאֲרֹתָם צְרֻרֹת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָם עַל שִׁכְמָם"). Shulkhan Arukh HaRav points out that some have the further custom of wrapping it in a handkerchief and putting it on their shoulders.
Which piece of matzah is the focus? This approach views the matzah that is returned to the pile (later to be used for Motzi-Matza), and not the one which is saved for the Afikoman, as the focus of the custom. It is the former which must be present as one begins to recite Maggid, and fundamentally, the other piece need not have had any role to play later in the Seder at all.3
Ha Lachma Anya as part of Yachatz – This position might view ha Lachma Anya as part of Yachatz rather than the opening of Maggid.
Concealing the matzah: why? The Ittur and Avudraham maintain that the piece of matzah to be used as the Afikoman is placed beneath the tablecloth in imitation of the Exodus, when the Israelites left Egypt with their dough wrapped in cloth ("מִשְׁאֲרֹתָם צְרֻרֹת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָם עַל שִׁכְמָם"). Shulkhan Arukh HaRav points out that some have the further custom of wrapping it in a handkerchief and putting it on their shoulders.
Enslavement vs. redemption – According to this approach, the two parts of Yachatz (breaking and concealing the matzah) might each represent a different aspect of the Israelite experience. Though Yachatz mainly highlights the poverty of the bondage through the broken matzah, the hiding of the second piece recalls the redemption.4
"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.5
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.
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.6
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.7 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,8 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.
Which piece of matzah is the focus? This approach focuses on the piece of matzah to be used later for Motzi-Matzah, viewing the piece saved for the Afikoman as secondary. [As above, once the matzah was broken, a ritual use was found for the second piece.]
Breaking the matzah: action or result oriented? According to this position, the breaking of the matzah is utilitarian in nature, done to ensure that later in the Seder there will be a broken piece to serve as a symbol of poverty.
Concealing the slice: why? The Ritva explains that the placement under the tablecloth is meant to re-enact the Exodus: "מִשְׁאֲרֹתָם צְרֻרֹת בְּשִׂמְלֹתָם".
Enslavement vs. redemption – As above, 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.
Which matzah is broken and why? None of these sources mention which of the matzot is split, or where it is placed afterwards.
"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.
- The Ran, following Rashbam, also suggests that the practice refers to taking away matzah from the children, but posits that this is meant to keep them from falling asleep on a full stomach.
Afikoman
The matzah is broken in order to save part for the end of the meal and ensure that there will be sufficient matzah for the Afikoman.
Which piece of matzah is the focus? As opposed to the above, this approach understands Yachatz to focus only on the hidden piece of matzah, viewing the one which is returned to the pile as irrelevant to the custom.
Breaking the matzah: action or result oriented? According to this understanding, 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 slice – why? 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.10 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 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 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".11
Which matzah is broken and why? The Orchot Chayyim implies that any of the matzot may be broken, but that it should be replaced between the two unbroken matzot, while the Or Zarua states that the middle matzah should be broken, but does not specify to where it is returned. It is possible that the two do not really disagree and both stipulate that the middle matzah be the broken one so that, later, the full matzah will be on top when it is needed for HaMotzi.12
Ploy to Involve the Children
Yachatz is intended to provoke questions from the children participating at the Seder.
Sources:Orchot Chayyim #2
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.
