מצה embodies two ideas: poor man’s bread (slavery) and free man’s bread (the bread that made in haste when they left Egypt). These ideas seem to contradict one another; how can they both exist in one חפצא של מצוה, object of the commandment?

Furthermore, if you look at Rabbi Gamliel’s statement that one has to speak of three things to be יצא (fulfill ones obligation), he only lists the one explanation of “free man’s bread”. Why is the other idea of Lechem Oni (poor man's bread) not included?

מצה embodies two ideas: poor man’s bread (slavery) and free man’s bread (the bread that was made in haste when they left Egypt). These ideas seem to contradict one another; how can they both exist in one חפצא של מצוה, object of the commandment?

Furthermore, if you look at Rabban Gamliel’s statement that one has to speak of three things to be יצא (fulfill one's obligation), he only lists the one explanation of “free man’s bread”. Why is the other idea of Lechem Oni (poor man's bread) not included?

מצה embodies two ideas. Poor man’s bread (slavery) and free man’s bread (the bread that made in haste when they left Egypt). These ideas seem to contradict one another, how can they both exist in one חפצה של מצוה, object of the commandment?

Furthermore, if you look at Rabbi Gamliel’s statement that one has to speak of three things to be יצא (fulfill ones obligation), he only lists the one explanation of “free man’s bread”. Why is the other idea of Lechem Oni (poor man's bread) not included?

מצה embodies two ideas: poor man’s bread (slavery) and free man’s bread (the bread that made in haste when they left Egypt). These ideas seem to contradict one another; how can they both exist in one חפצא של מצוה, object of the commandment?

Furthermore, if you look at Rabbi Gamliel’s statement that one has to speak of three things to be יצא (fulfill ones obligation), he only lists the one explanation of “free man’s bread”. Why is the other idea of Lechem Oni (poor man's bread) not included?