The Swallow…the Taste
Years ago the community Rabbi eagerly awaited the Shabbat preceding Pesach, since it was one of two weekends the spiritual leader was expected to sermonize, the other being Shabbat Shuvah (the Shabbat between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur). Synagogues have changed, with contemporary Rabbis pontificating every seven days. But way back when, the semi-annual drasha (sermon) was a huge event. The talk, to be considered successful, had to combine three ingredients; halacha (a point of law), pilpul (analysis) and drush / (an ethical lesson). Thus in honor of my Rabbinic forbears, I offer you the following:
In the section of Talmud dealing with Passover (Pesachim 115B) Rava proclaimed, “If one swallows his piece of matzoh the first night of the holiday without chewing it, he has fulfilled his obligation of eating matzoh.” However in a later statement by the same author we find, “If the piece of matzoh is entirely surrounded by a leaf and then swallowed, the commandment has not been accomplished.” (Having taken care of the halacha, we can now move on to the pilpul.)
The Rashbam (12th century French scholar and grandson of the famous Biblical commentator, Rashi), raises the obvious question. Since in both cases, the individual did not in fact taste the matzoh, what is the actual difference between these two scenarios? A possible answer might be found in the controversy recorded elsewhere (Chullin 103B) that talks of someone swallowing that which is forbidden. One of the Sages, Rabbi Yochanan considers it a transgression, from the moment the food touches the throat, while Reish Lakish only holds the person liable from when the food enters the body.
Perhaps, we can explain our first two laws in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling. Since the crucial point for food intake is contact with the throat; in the case of the uncovered matzoh, such contact was indeed established and therefore the person is considered to have performed the mitzvah. This however did not occur in the case of the covered matzoh, and thus no mitzvah was done. (That would usually be enough pilpul for me, but still an unfair tribute to even the basic level of a true Shabbat Hagodol sermon.)
All of the above however does not take into account the other Talmud. By that I mean the Palestinian Talmud, redacted approximately 150 years earlier than its authoritative counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud, from whom we already quoted twice. In this earlier work, we find the rule, “If someone takes an oath not to eat a piece of bread, covers it with leaves and swallows that which is forbidden to him (on account of his oath), he has committed a transgression.”
What we now encounter is a standoff. In the latter Talmud it states that swallowing a covered piece of matzoh is not an act of eating; while in the former it opines that a covered piece of forbidden bread cannot be swallowed, presumably because that would constitute an act of eating.
The Mishneh L’melech, a commentary on Maimonides, resolves this contradiction by simply offering another version of the Palestinian Talmud that would be consistent with the Babylonian. (I cannot compete with the Mishneh L’melech and so ends my puny attempt at pilpul. However, my drush is just beginning.)
T
he forbidden bread is forbidden. Off limits! Prohibited! In the language of the Talmud, it’s Assur! An Aveira (a sin)! And that which is wrong, no matter how much it is covered, no matter how much it is camouflaged, remains assur - forbidden! It is this rule that makes the prohibited bread, (albeit covered) an act that makes one liable.
On the other hand, when it comes to a mitzvah, a good deed, a commandment…the opposite holds true. Trying to sugar coat the law, by allowing intervening substances, rules and fashions to modify the halacha, just won’t cut it. Therefore when one swallows the wrapped up matzoh, one hasn’t tasted the holiness of G-d’s word, but the shame of lost pride.