Safeguarding the Matzos
By Rabbi Yochanan Zweig
“And you shall safeguard the matzos.” (12:17)
The literal interpretation of the verse is that one should approach the preparation of the matzos with extreme caution, for the slightest delay could cause the dough to become chametz, leavened, thereby invalidating the matzos for use on Pesach. Rashi cites a Midrashic interpretation which states that by changing the vowels, the word “matzos” can be read as “mitzvos,” making the verse an injunction requiring us to perform all mitzvos with zrizus, alacrity. When a person has the opportunity to perform a mitzva, he should not allow it to become “leavened;” rather, he should perform it immediately.
The comparison that the Midrash draws between the preparation of matzos and the performance of mitzvos raises the following difficulty: If a person prepares the matzos without the necessary alacrity, he invalidates them. However, while not the preferred manner, procrastination in the performance of mitzvos does not invalidate them.
Additionally, the following Talmudic dictum requires explanation: “A person should always involve himself in Torah and mitzvos, even with improper motivation, for through their performance, he will come to do them with the proper motivation.” Why does the performance of a mitzva with improper motivations have merit, while the performance of mitzvos with proper motivations but without alacrity is compared to valueless chametz?
If a woman sends her child to buy some groceries, he goes out of a sense of obligation to his mother. If, when he returns, his mother informs him that she forgot a certain item, the child will make another trip to the store, albeit reluctantly. If this scenario persists, each time the mother asks him to make another trip, the child’s reluctance will build until he gets to the point where he resents his mother having asked him to go in the first place. He may, in fact, even voice his resentment by speaking disrespectfully to his mother.
It would have been preferable for his mother not to have asked him to go altogether, for what began as an act of respect spiraled into a flagrant display of disrespect. However, if the mother offered her child a monetary incentive, the child would perform the task happily. The explanation for this is as follows: The longer a person performs a task with resistance, the greater his reluctance will be. He will reach a point of such great resentment that he will loathe performing this task. However, incentives would alleviate his reluctance, and he may even come to enjoy performing the task.
A person may have the correct intentions in the performance of a mitzva, but if he performs it in a lax manner, he indicates that he is doing it with resistance. This resistance can grow to the point where he loathes the performance of the mitzva. Therefore, Chazal refer to a mitzva performed without alacrity as chametz. On the other hand, if a person performs a mitzva enthusiastically, he may come to love the performance of that mitzva even if that enthusiasm is generated by rewards or incentives. Therefore, Chazal encourage such behavior.
