Post by Akiva on Apr 6, 2009 18:05:55 GMT -5
Expanding on the idea I posited in the Matza thread, if Matza can be understood as representing the mental aspect of slavery, and marror understood as representing the physical aspect of slavery, that can help explain a linguistic/grammatical difficulty about the Korban Pesach that's bothered me for a while.
Specifically, why are we commanded to eat the Korban Pesach Al Matzos U'M'rorim - literally, "on matza and maror." Grammatically, it would seem that the commandment should have been to eat the Korban Pesach Im - with - Matza and Maror.
There's an additional language difficulty, one I just noticed while hunting for the pasuk of Al Matzos U'M'rorim Yochluhu (I'll admit it - the thing that sparked the question in the first place was the quote from Hillel we read in the Haggada, not the pasuk itself). Turns out the "Al Matzos U'M'rorim Yochluhu" language quoted by Hillel is from Bamidbar 9:11 (in parshat B'ha'aloscha), where the Torah discusses the requirements of Pesach Sheini. When it came to the first Pesach in Egypt (Sh'mot 12:8, Parshat Bo), on the other hand, the instructions were slightly different: Tzli Aish U'Matzot, Al M'rorim Yochluhu - literally "fire roasted and matza, on maror they shall eat it."
Notice, the pasuk in Sh'mot also uses the troublesome "Al" ("on") language, but applies it to a different set; where the Korban Pesach was to be eaten "al" both matza and marror, the first Pesach was to be eaten with matza and "al" only marror. How can we explain this?
As I suggested at the start, our understanding of Matza as representing the mental aspect of slavery may provide an answer. The language of "al" ("on") - as opposed to "im" ("with") - suggests triumph, authority, power. Understanding Matza as the representation of the mental aspect of slavery, marror as the representation of the physical aspect of slavery, and the Pesach itself as representative of freedom, the use of "al" in Bamidbar makes sense. In eating the Korban Pesach, we are to eat it "al" matza and marror - that is, we are to recognize that freedom is the triumph over both physical and mental slavery.
Similarly, viewed in that light, the different language in Sh'mot makes sense. At the time of the first Pesach, the Jews were enjoying their newfound physical freedom, and would not suffer another day of laboring under their Egyptian taskmasters. Thus, they could eat the Pesach (the symbol of their freedom), "al" m'rorim - demonstrating their triumph over their erstwhile physical slavery.
But at the time of the first Pesach in Egypt, the Jews had not yet achieved freedom from the mental aspects of slavery, its impact on their personalities (as demonstrated by their failure to plan ahead and make bread for their trip). As such, the first Pesach could not be eaten "al" matzos u'm'rorim - only "with" matzos, and "al" m'rorim.
Specifically, why are we commanded to eat the Korban Pesach Al Matzos U'M'rorim - literally, "on matza and maror." Grammatically, it would seem that the commandment should have been to eat the Korban Pesach Im - with - Matza and Maror.
There's an additional language difficulty, one I just noticed while hunting for the pasuk of Al Matzos U'M'rorim Yochluhu (I'll admit it - the thing that sparked the question in the first place was the quote from Hillel we read in the Haggada, not the pasuk itself). Turns out the "Al Matzos U'M'rorim Yochluhu" language quoted by Hillel is from Bamidbar 9:11 (in parshat B'ha'aloscha), where the Torah discusses the requirements of Pesach Sheini. When it came to the first Pesach in Egypt (Sh'mot 12:8, Parshat Bo), on the other hand, the instructions were slightly different: Tzli Aish U'Matzot, Al M'rorim Yochluhu - literally "fire roasted and matza, on maror they shall eat it."
Notice, the pasuk in Sh'mot also uses the troublesome "Al" ("on") language, but applies it to a different set; where the Korban Pesach was to be eaten "al" both matza and marror, the first Pesach was to be eaten with matza and "al" only marror. How can we explain this?
As I suggested at the start, our understanding of Matza as representing the mental aspect of slavery may provide an answer. The language of "al" ("on") - as opposed to "im" ("with") - suggests triumph, authority, power. Understanding Matza as the representation of the mental aspect of slavery, marror as the representation of the physical aspect of slavery, and the Pesach itself as representative of freedom, the use of "al" in Bamidbar makes sense. In eating the Korban Pesach, we are to eat it "al" matza and marror - that is, we are to recognize that freedom is the triumph over both physical and mental slavery.
Similarly, viewed in that light, the different language in Sh'mot makes sense. At the time of the first Pesach, the Jews were enjoying their newfound physical freedom, and would not suffer another day of laboring under their Egyptian taskmasters. Thus, they could eat the Pesach (the symbol of their freedom), "al" m'rorim - demonstrating their triumph over their erstwhile physical slavery.
But at the time of the first Pesach in Egypt, the Jews had not yet achieved freedom from the mental aspects of slavery, its impact on their personalities (as demonstrated by their failure to plan ahead and make bread for their trip). As such, the first Pesach could not be eaten "al" matzos u'm'rorim - only "with" matzos, and "al" m'rorim.
