Three Matzot Symbolism

Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu

2012.02.13, 1545, updated 2012.02.19 – Christians claiming Jewish ethnicity rely principally upon two pillars of Judaic support for their Trinitarianism:

1. Three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër

2. ZoꞋhar: "Three modes form One Unity" (see Zohar-b 43b: Shema)

Since the latter is covered in Zohar-b 43b: Shema, this article will focus on the former.

First of all, it must be noted that there are serious differences between the Christian heresies and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ interpretations of the three matz•otꞋ. Nevertheless, we will first examine the logical credibility of the anti-Christian arguments of the "anti-missionaries" to see which parts up and which do not.

The "Anti-Missionary" Argument

(jewsforjudaism.org; accessed 2012.02.12)

"The missionaries' premise, which rests on an analogy between the use of the three matzot and the Trinity doctrine, is based on historical and theological ignorance. There are intrinsic flaws in their analogy, which dispel the illusion they wish to portray. Jesus is alleged to be the ultimate paschal lamb. The missionaries maintain that the afikoman (one part of the broken middle matza) was instituted by early Jewish Christians to commemorate that claim through a unique set of symbolisms which include the three matzot of the rabbinic seder. However, a careful scrutiny of the missionaries' claim shows that there is no analogy between the afikoman and Jesus. It is the whole middle matzah that the missionaries claim symbolizes Jesus. They then allege that the afikoman, half of the matzah, is hidden to signify his burial and that in essence we "resurrect" the afikoman, just as, according to their claim, Jesus rose from the grave.

The missionary claim is unequivocally false. The afikoman refers, not to the whole middle matzah, but to one portion of it, after it has been divided in two. Without the two pieces of the middle matzah being visibly reunited and then once more becoming part of the "unity," there can be no analogy with Christian trinitarian and messianic claims concerning Jesus. Yet, once removed from the stack of three matzot, the piece set aside for the afikoman never returns neither to the "unity" nor to the other part of the middle matzah. Thus, the middle part of the "unity" that the missionaries emphasize as symbolically significant is never restored to its full complement. Only part of it is retrieved at the conclusion of the seder. This retrieved piece cannot represent the allegedly wholly risen Jesus. The claim that the afikoman, a portion of the middle matzah, symbolizes Jesus as the paschal lamb contradicts the Gospel of John. John declares that the body of Jesus, corresponding to the missionaries' middle matzah, remained unbroken. John places great emphasis on the allegation that Jesus' bones were not broken so that he could fulfill the commandment that not one bone of the paschal lamb should be broken (John 19:36, cf. Exodus 12:46).19 In addition, the New Testament claims that Jesus rose bodily from the tomb (Luke 24:39, John 20:27). Thus, this broken middle matzah could not symbolize Jesus as the paschal lamb. For such an analogy to occur, the complete matzah would have to remain unbroken.

According to the missionary explanation, the matzah that is broken in half, wrapped, and put aside until the end of the seder represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Hence, it is alleged, the broken matzah reintroduced into the seder service is called aphikomen, "the coming one." This notion, in actuality, symbolically negates the claim that Jesus underwent a complete bodily resurrection. The afikoman is only a portion of the broken matzah; it is the whole middle matzah that would have to symbolize the risen Jesus. Furthermore, the connection of the word afikoman with the reintroduced piece of matzah is first used in the medieval period. In addition, the use of three matzot instead of two also dates to a late period many hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. There is no way the Christian missionary explanation can have any truth to it."

The Holes in the Argument

1. "…no analogy between the afikoman and Jesus" – the "anti-missionary" is not only logically incompetent, he fails entirely to understand the Christian claim, which is to two "comings" of the messiah. The imbecilic notion he superimposes on Christians of two "Jesuses" is his own misinformed distortion of the (correct) rabbinic and Talmudic concept of the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ and the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. The "anti-missionary" superimposes his own misconception of two messiahs over the Christian claim, misunderstanding Christianity and Judaism.

   The Christian claim is that the messiah has two roles, separated by a great time lapse (hence, their "Second Coming"). A fortiori, the "anti-missionary's" assertion that "the whole middle matz•âhꞋ that would have to symbolize the risen Jesus" is false and his argument the logical fallacy of ex falso quodlibet.

2. That the "anti-missionary" preaches the "Gospel" (quoting "John," etc.) is simply self-defeating and imbecilic! According to the Church's own earliest extant historian, Eusebius, neither the original Jewish followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ) nor the Pᵊrush•imꞋ ever accepted the Christian's Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Such citations are irrelevant and have no place in any Jewish discussion. By citing the Gospel – as authority – he constructively confirms its (non-existent) authority. The Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) should never be cited without a proviso that it is "their Gospel," "their NT," "they (Christians) recognize as authority," or the like.

3. Three matz•otꞋ versus a claimed only two in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër – it is no more clear in Tal•mudꞋ that there were only two matz•otꞋ than three. Indeed, Tal•mudꞋ far more strongly insinuates that there were always three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër; and that two was a fringe anomaly. Neither has the "anti-missionary" provided any documentation whatsoever of an origin "many hundreds of years after the death" of any change event from two to three matz•otꞋ. Worse, from the rabbinic perspective, such a change after the death of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa confirms a Rabbinic affirmation of the Messianic role of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa!!!

4. "Connection of the word afikoman with the reintroduced piece of matz•âhꞋ is first used in the medieval period" – Like the three matz•otꞋ versus a claimed only two in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër, this, to the "anti-missionary's" consternation, would demonstrate a rabbinic confirmation, in the medieval period, of the Trinitarian concept – paralleling the confirmation recorded in the Zohar-b 43b: Shema! Somebody should take the keyboard away from these ignorant, self-destructive and hate-mongering "anti-missionaries"!

The Afterthought "Traditional" Symbolism

Now, let's be fair. Subject the Rabbinic interpretation—that the three matz•otꞋ represent the Ko•han•imꞋ, Lᵊwi•yimꞋ and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, respectively—to the same scrutiny that they apply to the Christian interpretation.

The traditional rabbinic interpretation is that the top matz•âhꞋ, כֶּתֶר, represents the Ko•han•imꞋ (which of the rabbis is willing to argue that the כֶּתֶר doesn't represent י--ה?!?).

Following the rabbinic tradition, the middle matz•âhꞋ, חָכְמָה, represents the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ. (How were the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ ever the "wisdom" of the "crown"?!?).

The bottom matz•âhꞋ, בִּינָה, represents Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (a rather humanist and egoist interpretation – yet, when non-Orthodox or goy•imꞋ echo this humanist and egoist interpretation, these same Jews call it antisemitism!!!). This interpretation contains clear references to the ancient Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ and its concentric courtyards of increasingly limited, exclusive, access. Thus, in the absence of the Paschal sacrifice, these three matz•otꞋ remind Jews of the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ and the ancient sacrifices performed there. In this symbolism, we find one of the ways in which matz•âhꞋ has replaced the Paschal sacrifice in meaning and significance. But in this, the rabbis' own arguments contradict their denial of allusions to the "Paschal lamb"!!!

Unlike the middle matz•âhꞋ, the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ are not broken in two, neither half of the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ have been consumed and neither half of the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ have been hidden to be returned later. Unlike the middle matz•âhꞋ, the Lᵊwi•yimꞋ are neither distinct nor separate from the grouping that includes the Ko•han•imꞋ and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. This non-original (medieval-era), awkward and feeble attempt to construct a "traditional" interpretation that counters Christian arguments is riddled with non-parallels that do not fit! Thus, you must omit.

Furthermore, all of the yu•khas•inꞋ were destroyed by the Romans (EH III.xii.19-20, 32; xxxii.1-6; also Baron) and Tor•âhꞋ declares that, without those public genealogical registries, none of the three castes have legitimate genealogical claims. Worse, from the rabbinic perspective, Tal•mudꞋ dictates that genealogies "once messed up, are forever messed up" (Ma•sëkꞋët Qidush•inꞋ 70b). Therefore, there is no possibility of restoring Ko•han•imꞋ or Lᵊwi•yimꞋ (or, from the genealogical perspective, even Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ) – even by the Mâ•shiꞋakh (a non-divine man roughly equating to a "chief nâ•viꞋ," who cannot contradict Tor•âhꞋ… or the Christians are right!!!). The only (racist) analogy possible from the three (racial) castes to the three matz•otꞋ would be if the three matz•otꞋ were, all three together, smashed with a hammer to powder and mixed-up thoroughly. That is not what happens to the matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër! The analogy is impossibly contradictory.

Contrary to the anti-missionaries feeble and feckless nonsense, the "traditional" interpretation attempting to parallel the three castes to the three matz•otꞋ is elementary school-level foolishness. The anti-missionaries' premise, which rests on an analogy between the use of the three matz•otꞋ and the three castes of Ko•han•imꞋ, Lᵊwi•yimꞋ and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, is based on historical and theological ignorance. There are intrinsic flaws in their analogy, which dispel the illusion they wish to portray! The anti-missionary claim is unequivocally false.

Kha•badꞋ Symbolism

The matzot are symbolic of the three castes of Jews: Priests, Levites and Israelites; all of whom were liberated from Egyptian bondage.

They also commemorate the three measures of fine flour that Abraham told Sarah to bake into matzah when they were visited by the three angels. [Bereishit 18.6] According to tradition, the angels' visit was on Passover.

They also represent our Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in whose merit we were redeemed from Egypt.

On a practical level, three matzot are needed so that when we break the middle matzah, we are still left with two whole ones to pronounce the Hamotzie blessing (as required on Shabbat and Holidays. …).

The reason for three Matzot vis-a-vis four cups of wine now becomes clear:

There is a difference between the first three expressions of liberation and the fourth, in that the first three - "I will release you... I will save you... I will liberate you" - are aspects of redemption that took place immediately upon the departure from Egypt; they came from Above.

The fourth expression - "I will take you unto Me as a Nation" - however, depended on the Jewish people; they had to become worthy of being called G-d's nation. This was accomplished when they received the Torah.

Thus, Matzah is equated with the number three, corresponding to the first three expressions of liberation, inasmuch as Matzah commemorates the redemption as it came from Above.

The cups of wine, however, allude to the liberation accomplished by and within the Jewish people." (chabad.org, accessed 2012.02.12).

The requirement for the bᵊrâkh•âhꞋ is a valid and commendable point. However, I suspect that any intelligent and educated reader can discern that the distinction between the first three and the fourth expression is entirely illusory and invented in an attempt to satisfy the pre-existing agenda. The same can be said about the "tradition" that the "angel's" visit was on Passover. The author of these parallels should have been taught the difference between an irrelevant similarity and a parallel or analogy. None of the four expressions could have occurred without the consent of the "Jewish" (??) people. ("Jews" were only one of the tribes.)

The Alternative "Traditional" "LëkhꞋëm Oni" Explanation

All of the matz•âhꞋ eaten during the week of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, cumulatively — not exclusively the three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër — comprises the לֶחֶם עֹנִי, elucidated in the Tar•gumꞋ: פַּטִּירָא לְחֵים עַנְיֵי. Therefore, the middle matz•âhꞋ, which is broken, cannot be singled out as "the" (or even representing) "LëkhꞋëm Oni."

The Alternative Traditional "Matz•âhꞋ means "found" Explanation

Contrary to some misinformed "Jewish" sites, the word matz•âhꞋ (מַצָּה – means: drain out, press out, squeeze out; A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers of English, p. 374) – not "to find" (which is מָצָא).

A Logical Approach

So, apart from Christian heresies, the Zohar / "anti-missionary" heresy and the "traditional" Rabbinic attempts that are self-contradicting and don't work, let's examine the symbolism of the three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër logically.

Though there are fatal problems with Christian Trinitarianism (e.g., anthropomorphism of a man-god and Displacement Theology of their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and YeshꞋ"u), three matz•otꞋ representing three facets of י--ה isn't one of them. Rather, the fatal flaw in the Christian interpretation is that the three, supposedly all three Divine (Father, "Son" and "Holy Ghost"), matz•otꞋ are not unified into one matz•âhꞋ: i.e., the three matz•otꞋ never represent the Singularity; they simply represent three principal גַּוָּונִין (as per ZoꞋhar) of י--ה – with no implication that all three are Divine.

Thus, while י--ה is certainly a Divine Facet, the amalgamation of the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ Facet within the heart of every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋi circumscribes the Divine Spark Facet of י--ה within the human being – which describes both of the two remaining facets symbolized by the three matz•otꞋ: Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and the nâ•viꞋ / Mâ•shiꞋakh.

It should be noted here that an interlocutor (communicator or spokesman) is different than an intermediary (praying on behalf of). Tor•âhꞋ consistently endorses interlocutors between Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and י--ה while excluding intermediaries between י--ה and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (vid. Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 30.11-20). This contrasts with intermediaries from Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ who intermediate between י--ה and goy•imꞋ (vid., e.g., bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 18.23; 20.7, 17). Rabbis who deny that Tor•âhꞋ embraces the concept of an interlocutor (not intermediary) between י--ה and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ deny, first, Mosh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ, as well as every nâ•viꞋ and every shoph•eitꞋ as well as the Mâ•shiꞋakh. The alternative to an interlocutor is everyone following their own eyes and their own heart – clearly a contradiction of Tor•âhꞋ.

According to the most pristine extant paradigm, the Tei•mân•iꞋ Ha•jâd•âhꞋ, we recite every PësꞋakh that the reason we eat three matz•âhꞋ, break the middle matz•âhꞋ and hide half of it to bring back later is not because it's "bread of affliction" or "found" but because "our fathers hadn't enough time to ferment their dough before the King of Kings, ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, bâ•rukhꞋ hu, revealed Himself to them, and redeemed them." Aside from possible modern margin notes, the Ha•jâd•âhꞋ proper makes no mention of why we brake the middle matz•âhꞋ and hide half to be returned at the close of the meal.

One should ask: How and why did this universal practice, certainly indicating a dual-role interlocutor for which the Mâ•shiꞋakh is the only viable candidate, become unknown? As with tᵊphil•inꞋ, the A•sërꞋët ha-Di•bᵊr•otꞋ and other similar Mosaic practices that were banned by post-135 C.E. rabbis, the most reasonable answer is that it was originally instituted for this conspicuous symbolism and this symbolism was suppressed by post-135 C.E. rabbis in reaction to Christians who arrogated the meaning, falsely claiming (as they continue to do today) that it pointed to their YeshꞋ"u.

The primary theme of PësꞋakh is י--ה's revelation of Himself to Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. However, revelation of י--ה necessarily requires:

1. a Revealor (at the top), י--ה,

2. a revealee (at the bottom), the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ within the nëphꞋësh of the every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil•iꞋ, plus

3. an interlocutor (nâ•viꞋ or Mâ•shiꞋakh) in-between able to facilitate the connection between the top and bottom levels.

– three facets.

The reason, then, must imply this revelation of י--ה and redemption of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ! None of the rabbinic explanations satisfy that requirement!

A secondary theme of PësꞋakh is י--ה's redemption of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. However, redemption requires:

1. a Redeemer (at the top), י--ה,

2. a redeemee (at the bottom), the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ within the nëphꞋësh of the every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil•iꞋ, plus

3. an interlocutor (nâ•viꞋ or Mâ•shiꞋakh) in-between

– again, three facets.

Moreover, Tor•âhꞋ teaches that there will be a nâ•viꞋ even greater than Mosh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 18.18-19): the Mâ•shiꞋakh. Thus, we have the third facet – and the third (middle) matz•âhꞋ!

Tor•âhꞋ teaches, i.e., the Bât•eiꞋ-Din of Tal•mudꞋ have interpreted Ta•na"khꞋ, that either there will be two messiahs (Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ and Bën-Dâ•widꞋ) or one Mâ•shiꞋakh accomplishing two roles. In either case, a matz•âhꞋ representing this greater nâ•viꞋ, the Mâ•shiꞋakh, is "broken" into either two entities or two roles – in any case, two aspects, precisely as suggested by the breaking of the middle matz•âhꞋ.

Furthermore, the "greater nâ•viꞋ" spokesman would be between י--ה (the top matz•âhꞋ) and the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ within the heart of every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋi (the bottom matz•âhꞋ)!!!

The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ symbolism [a] fits perfectly and [b] all other interpretations are riddled with contradictions—however, note that it has no connection to the Christian YeshꞋ"u! Since this can only refer to a Tor•âhꞋ-teacher (not an idol champion of Displacement Theology), there can be no legitimate halakhic objection.

Take a closer look at the three-caste formula: aside from being racist (based on genealogy and genetics), Ko•han•imꞋ, Lᵊwi•yimꞋ and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ are all three human! י--ה isn't in the rabbinic "traditional" equation at all!!! This is a formulation by atheists or "human secularists" (embraced thereafter only by dupes) of Jews without, and comprehending no need for, י--ה! To be authentic, all four of the expressions mentioned by Chabad depend upon returning to an equation that includes [1] at the top, י--ה, ‭ ‬ [2] at the bottom, the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ in the nëphꞋësh of every Jew and [3] in the middle, a nâ•viꞋ as interlocutor to communicate the revelation and redemption.

Now, references to the correlation between the three matz•otꞋ can be linked directly to the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ – without the indirect linking, piped through the racist, secularist and unworkable three castes. Then we – additionally – have the parallel with the three repetitions of the word "qâ•doshꞋ" in the Qᵊdush•âhꞋ (for background and further details on this topic, see my book, The Mirrored-Sphinxes). Moreover, this track leads right back to, corroborating and reconfirming, the three levels (the theme of three facets again) of kash•rutꞋ / Qᵊdush•âhꞋ in approaching י--ה by the following mnemonic:

1. Qâ•doshꞋ: the kash•rutꞋ / Qᵊdush•âhꞋ at the physical level – the physical body (the lowest level),
2. Qâ•doshꞋ: the kash•rutꞋ / Qᵊdush•âhꞋ at the intellectual level – the nëphꞋësh (viz., kawân•âhꞋ, the second, or intermediate, level) and
3. Qâ•doshꞋ: the kash•rutꞋ / Qᵊdush•âhꞋ at the RuꞋakh ha-QoꞋdësh / Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ level – attainable only through the khein of י--ה after accomplishing the first two in accordance with the instructions in the Shᵊm•aꞋ

which corroborates and reconfirms the original theme of:

1. י--ה, the כֶּתֶר, at the top – spiritual – level,
2. the interlocutor (i.e., nâ•viꞋ or Mâ•shiꞋakh) of the generation, the חָכְמָה, at the intermediate level – able to relate the physical (the level below) to the spiritual (the level above) – and
3. physical Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ (includes whatever humanity comes to follow Tor•âhꞋ), the בִּינָה, at the lowest – physical – level.

The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ symbolism stands, exclusive, and alone, correct.

In addition to reviewing the source text (link in previous paragraph), see also the chart (in Tor•âhꞋ 5765) Pâ•râsh•âhꞋ wa-Ya•qᵊheil′

© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher