Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As explained in Halachah 6:4, matzah can only be prepared from these species of grain.

Rabbenu Manoach notes that the definition of wheat and rye as related species (and similarly of barley, oats and spelt) is relevant with regard to the prohibitions against kilayim (mixed species) (See Kilayim, Mishnah 1:1) and the mitzvah of Challah ( Challah, Mishnah 4:2) .
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1517) does not accept this explanation, and maintains that the Rambam made this division because of halachot 6 and 7, which state that it is permitted to stir wheat in water to remove its shell, but one may not do the same for barley. The same principles apply to the species related to each.

Nevertheless, the Ashkenazic halachic authorities (Ramah, Orach Chayim 453:1) have forbidden the use of these substances on Pesach. Even today, this point marks one of the fundamental differences in practice between the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities.

The Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 113) explains that the Ashkenazim did not forbid kitniyot out of fear that they would leaven, but because they resemble grain. Were the common people allowed to cook with kitniyot, they might also mistakenly cook with grain.

תוריפ ימ literally means “the water of fruit.” However, as the halachah explains, the practical application of the term is much broader.

This halachah is a matter of controversy among the commentators. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 3: 1 ), the Rambam makes similar statements. However, in the Oxford manuscript of that text, the words “permitted to be eaten” are crossed out and replaced with the words “one is not obligated for “.תרכ However, it appears that this emendation was made by Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, and not the Rambam himself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 462:1) permits the use of fruit juice. However, the Ramah (462:4) states that it is Ashkenazic custom not to use fruit juice for matzah on Pesach out of the fear that some water might perhaps be mixed together with it (see below). Nevertheless, he does allow leniency for people who are ill or sick and have difficulty eating normal matzah.
Among the present day applications of this concept is commercially produced “egg matzah.” According to the above guidelines, in the Ashkenazic community, such matzah:
a) cannot be used in the Seder, as explained in the commentary to Halachah 6:2;
b) must contain only eggs and fruit juice, with no water whatsoever;
c) even so, should be eaten only by those with medical problems that prevent them from eating normal matzah.

and thus become chametz. Rather,

Nevertheless, dried out wine dregs which have fermented do cause the dough to become leavened (Tosefot, Pesachim 28b ).

The Hagahot Maimoni explains that this applies to both bee· and date honey

The dough is permitted even if the apple juice has begun to ferment.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( Orach Chayim 462:2) defines תזריפ ימ as: “any liquid that is not derived from water ... even if it does not come from produce.”

lndeed, when water is mixed with these juices, the dough becomes leavened much faster than if it had been mixed with water alone. Generally, dough can be left eighteen minutes before it becomes leavened, but the limit for dough made from a mixture of these liquids and water is much less (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 462:2). See commentary to Halachah 20.

Though raw wheat itself is not chametz, once wheat or flour is mixed with water, it becomes leavened within eighteen to twenty-four minutes. (See Halachah 12.) Less time is required when heat is applied to it. Hence, cooking or baking with wheat or flour on Pesach must be carried out under careful guidelines.

wheat served as a grain.

A dish resembling kneidlach, but made with regular flour rather than matzah meal.

for the wheat or flour has become leavened.

This clause obviously refers only to cooking wheat.

the cracking open of the ker:nels is a sign that the wheat has expanded because of leavening.

made with water

The Maggid Mishneh explains that oil is considered ימתזריפ and, hence, will cause the dough to become leavened. (See also Nodah BiYhudah, Vol. 11, Responsum 57.)

Pesachim 39b states that once matzah has been baked, it can be cooked again without the fear of leavening. Similarly, it can be ground into meal, and then used as flour without the fear of becoming chametz. This law is the basis of the widely practiced leniency of cooking and baking with matzah meal. Nevertheless, certain Ashkenazic communities refrain from using matzah meal because of the custom of not eating שְׁרוּיָה, gebruks. Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Responsum VI; see also Sha’arei Teshuvah, Orach Chayim 460:10) writes that it is possible that some of the dough was not baked thoroughly and some flour remaining in it could become chametz when cooked again.

Once flour has become roasted it will not become leavened. However, we must differentiate between roasted flour and flour made from roasted wlieat; the latter flour may not be used on Pesach. (See Halachah 5.) The Pri Chadash even questions the leniency of using roasted flour.

the flour

This practice was permitted only when the water was absolutely boiling at the time the flour was placed in it.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 454:3) states: “At present, there are none who know how to boil foods in this manner. Hence, all boiling is forbidden.”

Baking dough kneaded with תזריפ ימ was discussed in Halachah 2. The present halachah explains that flour mixed with those liquids will not become leavened even when cooked or fried.

As explained above, it is Ashkenazic custom not to use dough or flour cooked with these liquids.

Once wheat is roasted, flour that is made from it will never become leavened.

lightly roasted in order to dry out any moisture.

Rabbenu Manoach explains that this law applies only to light roasting. If grain is roasted thoroughly, its flour may be used. However, in instances of this nature, the Rabbis would rather forbid such practices entirely than allow a loosely defined leniency. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 463:3.)

,ללמ the word used by the Rambam, means “husk.” In his dictionary, Rabbenu Tanchum of Jerusalem explains the derivation of this term:
They take fresh barley, singe it, dry it, and grind it into flour. Afterwards, it is cooked until it is soft ...
and then, it is poured into new pots to reduce their porosity.
In his commentary on the Mishneh Torah, Rav Kapach notes that such practices are still followed in Yemen today.

matzah meal. As explained in Halachah 4, once matzah has been baked, it will never become leavened.

This statement is slightly problematic, for Halachah 4 mentioned that we may cook with roasted flour.

or other related species (See Commentary, Halachah 1.)

Rabbenu Manoach explains that the kernels of grain were placed in hot water, stirred vigorously, and then crushed to remove the husks.

The cracking open of the kernels would be the clearest sign that the grain had become leavened. However, even if the leavening process has reached the point

Our translation of ביב follows Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Chanan’el. See also Halachah 22. However, Rashi (Pesachim 40a) provides a different and more lenient interpretation.

This is a very stringent measure. Once barley kernels are exposed to water, they will burst open shortly after being exposed to heat of this nature.

Wheat kernels are firmer than barley kernels.

Once the grain has come in contact with water and it is left untended for the time it takes a person to walk a mil, it will become leavened. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 467 :2.)

The commentaries note that in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:20, the Rambam states that the grain used for the meal offerings was not stirred in water, lest it become leavened. Among the resolutions off ered to this difficulty is that chametz is a severe prohibition, and greater care would be taken.

Gittin 57a explains why the term יבצ ץרא is used as a reference f or Eretz Yisrael.

Rabbenu Manoach mentions that this custom was several hundred years old in his time (approx. 1200 CE). Pesachim 40a mentions that even in Talmudic times, a שפנ לעב (a person precise in the observance of the commandments) would not use wheat that had been stirred. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 453:5) states that stirring wheat is “prohibited.”

i.e., the fear is not that the wheat will become leavened while the bran is being removed, but rather, that after it has been removed, it will be left to become leavened.

Some authorities recommend more severe laws for wheat than for barley, but the Rambam equates the two.

One kernel of grain can create difficulties, for even the slightest amount of chametz that is mixed together with other foods causes them to be forbidden (Halachah 5 above ).

they have surely become chametz. Hence,

Furthermore, the pot and utensils with which it was cooked are also forbidden during Pesach.

Halachah 6 above mentions a more severe measure. However, that ruling concerns the kernels of grain themselves, while our law deals with their effect on another dish, which is merely a Rabbinic ordinance. Hence, greater leniency is shown (Maggid Mishneh ).

the barley or wheat itself

as if they were chametz

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 467:9) accepts this ruling. However, the Ramah and the other major Ashkenazic authorities forbid use of this dish. However, the Taz allows the dish to be sold to a gentile.

The Rambam’s use of the expression םירפוס ,ירבדמ literally “from the words of the Sages,” in. the Mishneh Torah has raised much discussion and debate. (See Hilchot Ishut 1:2 and commentaries.) However, in this context, the meaning of the phrase is clear.., a Rabbinic ordinance instituted as a safeguard for a Torah commandment.

Some ancient manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah include these two lines in the previous halachah, but all published texts follow this division.

Furthermore, as evident from Halachah 6:5, this verse also implies that the flour and the matzot made from it must be watched with the specific intent that they be used for the mitzvah of eating matzah on Pesach. The above is the source for the practice of eating shemurah matzah, matzah made from grain which has been watched to ensure that it did not become chametz and prepared with the intent that it be used for the mitzvah of eating matzah. The use of such matzah during the Seder is an absolute requirement (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 460), and it is advisable to use it throughout the holiday.

Pesachim 40a relates that Ravvah would tel1 the harvesters cutting wheat for Pesach: “Have the intent that this grain be used for the mitzvah of matzah.”

The chronicles of Jewish community life in both Eastern Europe and North Africa relate how the harvest of the wheat used for matzah was always begun at noontime, long after the morning dew had risen.

Based on the above passage from Pesachim, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and the Rambam require that the grain be watched from the time of harvesting onward. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Asher follows a more lenient policy and does not require the wheat to be watched until it is ground. [Rabbenu Nissim explains that even Rav Yitzchak Alfasi only recommended watching the matzah from harvesting as a pious measure, and not as an absolute rule.] The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 453:4) explains that it is preferable to use grain that has been watched from harvesting; as a minimum requirement, one must use grain that has been watched from the time it has been ground into flour. If there is no other alternative, one may buy flour in the marketplace and begin watching from the time the dough is kneaded.
The Mishnah Berurah clarifies the latter point explaining that where grain is washed or submerged in water before grinding it into flour, such grain may not be used for matzah. (This practice is still common in many communities.) In practice, most shemurah matzah made at present is watched from the time the grain was harvested.

However, before the grain is cut, no precautions are ordinarily necessary. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach 467:5) mentions that if the wheat kernels have dried out and no longer need nurture from the land, they can become chametz.

Pesachim 40b mentions a ship which sank carrying a cargo of wheat. After the ship was recovered, Ravvah allowed the wheat to be sold. From that example, we can derive concepts governing all instances where grain

Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes that this halachah applies to wheat kernels that have not split open. Had they split open, a Jewish purchaser would immediately notice the fact and there would be no need to inform him.

Halachah 7 mentioned that one could stir wheat in water to remove the husks without it becoming chametz. Since the wheat was constantly being agitated, it would not become leavened. In contrast, this halachah contains a more stringent ruling, for the grain was left at rest (Tzafnat Paneach )

preferably

and not a gentile

after the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan

If he does not inform him, it would be forbidden to sell the chametz to him, lest he keep possession of it on Pesach, and thus violate the commandment against owning chametz.

Most texts of Pesachim (ibid.) read: “He should sell small amounts to Jews.” Apparently, the Rambam’s text of the Talmud did not contain that phrase. If a Jew knows that the grain has become leavened, he will surely take the necessary precautions so that it will not remain in his possession on Pesach.

The later authorities (see Mishnah Berurah 467:3) question what to do if large amounts of grain come into contact with water on Erev Pesach, when it is not possible for the gentile to consume the entire amount before Pesach. They advise that it be sold to a gentile who will surely sell it back to the Jew after the holiday.

Most texts of Pesachim 39b, the source for this law, read “flour” instead of “grain.” Similarly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 466:6) also states “flour.”

The dripping of the water agitates the grain and prevents it from becoming chametz.

However, the grain must be made into flour and baked immediately after being taken from under the leak. Otherwise, it will become leavened (Shulchan Aruch).

or the grain is moved

the time it takes a person to walk a mil, as explained in Halachah 13

Pesachim 48b relates that dough will not become chametz as long as it is being kneaded. However, a large dough is hard to manage. Hence, our Sages restricted a dough’s size to insure that women kneading it will be able to continually agitate the entire dough.
The Rokeach mentioned that in his age, baking conditions had changed from Talmudic times. More people were involved in the process and the ovens were larger and baked matzot more quickly. Therefore, leniency was taken as regards the restriction of the size of the dough. However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah both recommend adhering to the former practice.

43 and a fifth eggs, as stated in the f ollowing halachah; approximately 73 fluid ounces, 9.125 cups, or 131.8 cubic inches in contemporary measure.

Rashi (Pesachim 42a) relates that the position of the sun in the spring causes the temperature of well and spring water to rise. Hence, matzah may be kneaded

been drawn [preferably, either slightly before or directly after sunset on the day before the matzot are to be baked (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 455:1)], and

types of water whose use the Sages forbade;

There is no debate about the prohibition against using hot water. However, with regard to the prohibition against using water drawn that day, the Shulchan Aruch (455:3) quotes the Rambam’s opinion, but states that in a difficult situation, one may use matzah that was inadvertently kneaded with water that was not drawn on the previous day. The Ramah and the Ashkenazic authorities are more lenient and allow the use of such matzah in all situations.

Lest the sun’s heat speed up the leavening process.

Yoma 28b states: “a cloudy day is all sun; the heat of a cloudy day is more severe than that of a sunny day.”
The Ramah ( Orach Chayim 459: 1) mentions that it is customary not to knead near a window. The Shulchan Aruch states that the kneading area of a bakery should be distant from the baking area, so that the heat of the oven should not affect the dough.

The Shulchan Aruch adds “even for a moment.”

the dough should not be left unattended. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:4), the Rambam explains that preferably the preparation and baking of the matzah should be a speedy and uninterrupted process. See also the following halachah.

The Sages f eared that her hands would become hot from the oven, and thus speed up the leavening process when she kneads the dough. Hence, they required that

the same water should not be used for both activities.

Before the matzot are placed in the oven, the woman baking them would dip her hands in cold water and smooth and shape the loaves.

from the heat of the oven. It must be noted that Rashi (Pesachim 42a) maintains that the activity of kneading the dough itself heats up the hands. Thus, he requires that a woman dip her hands in water between doughs to cool off her hands, even when she is not baking. The Shulchan Aruch (459:3) follows Rashi’s interpretation.

unless one can actually feel that the temperature of the dough has risen (Magen Avraham 559:15).

In these instances, the Sages did not feel that the leavening process would necessarily be speeded up if their instructions were not followed. Hence, דבעידב (after the fact), they did not prohibit the use of matzot baked in this manner.

Approximately 73 fluid ounces, 9.125 cups, or 131.8 cubic inches in contemporary measure. Rabbenu Mano’ach notes that the numerical equivalent of challah (חַלָּה) is also 43.

A given volume of dough is much heavier than the same volume of eggs.
ln Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15, the Rambam elaborates further on this subject, by giving a measure according to weight as well. In modern measure, the figure he gives equals approximately 1. 7 kilograms ( close to 4 lbs. ).

As mentioned previously, as long as the dough is constantly being agitated it will not become leavened.

from kneading

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 459:2) mentions another sign; the appearance of cracks or folds in the dough.

even if the time period explained below has not elapsed

The Rambam is describing an instance when matzah is being baked on Pesach eve or during the holiday, when the possession of chametz is forbidden.

when the dough is clapped, the possibility still exists that the dough has become chametz. The time the dough has been left unattended is then calculated

Two thousand cubits; according to most authorities approximately a kilometer in modern measure. Most authorities define eighteen minutes as the accepted period of time in which an average man would walk this distance. However, the Rambam (Commentary to the Mishnah, Pesachim 3:2) quotes a more lenient figure, 24 minutes.

The Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah suggest hurrying the process of kneading and baking matzah, because: a) The heat generated by working the dough may cause it to become leavened faster. b) Though each particular hesitation may be less than eighteen minutes, the total of all hesitations may exceed that figure. c) Once dough is left unattended after having been kneaded thoroughly, it will become leavened very quickly.

Rabbenu Manoach interprets the Hebrew ופיסכה as “whitened.”

this is a sign that the dough has begun to become leavened. Hence,

תרכ [for eating it]. — The commentaries question whether the Rambam’s intent is to free the person from punishment entirely or whether he means that he is not liable for ,תרכ but receives a lesser punishment, lashes.

For less than the time it takes a person to walk a mil.

a clear sign the dough has become leavened, as stated in the previous halachah.

Nevertheless, since they both waited the same amount of time, we assun1e that a similar leavening process took place in both doughs. Hence,

considered

This law is derived from the Mishnah, Pesachim 3:2, “A mute dough (i.e., one from which a sound does not resound), if a comparable one has become chametz—behold, it is forbidden.” Other commentaries interpret the expression “a mute dough” differently.

Pesachim 37a allows thin loaves to be made with designs. Commenting on this statement, the Ramah ( Orach Chayim 460:4) suggests never making thick matzot f or Pesach.

Rav Yitzchak ibn Giat writes that it was customary to make designs of fish, doves, and other animals.

However, there is no prohibition against making holes in their dough as is the common practice. On the contrary, this helps the matzah bake faster (Shulchan Aruch).

Pesachim (ibid.) records that Rabban Gamliel’s household used such matzot, and hence was forced to make this differentiation.

Rashi (Pesachim, ibid.) adds that bakers usually have pre-cut forms.
The Mishnah Berurah ( Orach Chayim 460: 14) forbids all designs, whether made by private people or professional bakers, whether on thick or thin loaves.

which will not require time.

Our Sages often instituted decrees uniformly, even though the reason for the decree did not apply in certain instances, lest people misinterpret the leniency and take total license.

The Mishnah (Pesachim 40b) uses the expression “water used by a baker.” In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines that term as above.

when shaping the dough or cooling off one’s hands, as mentioned in Halachah 12.

See Pesachim 42a. The Ramah ( Orach Chayim 459:4) also gives instructions about cleaning the utensils used in preparing the matzah to ensure that no dough is allowed to remain stuck to them, and thus become chametz.

This halachah applies when matzah is prepared and baked after the prohibition against chametz has gone into effect (Shulchan Aruch). However, some later authorities (Bach, Taz) forbid such water to collect even beforehand.

The Mishnah Berurah 454:2 notes that there is a difference of opinion among halachic authorities if ןםרום refers to the hard shell of the wheat kernels that falls off when the wheat is ground, or the soft shell, which is separated by sifting.

without supervision, in contrast to the f ollowing halachah.

As mentioned in Halachah 3, if grain products are placed directly in boiling water, they will never become chametz.

as explained in the above halachah and in the Shulchan Aruch and commentaries ( Orach Chayim 454:3).

Rabbenu Manoach and the Meiri state that the Rambam’s statements are based on the Tosefta. However, no law of this nature is found in our text of the Tosefta.
Perhaps this lack of a clear source is the reason the Rambam’s opinion is not accepted by other halachic authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 465:1) forbids placing bran in water under any circumstances. The Ramah cautions against placing any grain products in a place where there is a residue of moisture.

and consume the f ood

without any activity, as the Rambam continues

18 or 24 minutes, as explained in Halachah 13.

for, like dough (see Halachah 13), as long as it is agitated

as in Halachah 16. This halachah also applies only after chametz has become forbidden. Even the authorities who follow a more stringent view than the Rambam allow leniency before the prohibitions against possessing chametz take effect.

The application of moist bran to skin renews the skin’s natural moisture. Bran contains high quantities of Vitamin E and other natural cosmetics.

even though her skin is moist with sweat, without fear of it becoming chametz (Rashi, Pesachim 39b ). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 465:2) forbids the practice entirely.

For the spittle can cause the wheat to become leavened.

as a poultice

Rabbenu Manoach notes that the Rambam writes (Hilchot Yesodai HaTorah 5:8) that, when there is danger to life or limb, it is permissible to use all substances as remedies, even if it is f orbidden to benefit from them. That halachah specifically .states that a sick person may be given chametz to eat as a remedy.
Furthermore, that halachah explains that if the sick persen does not benefit from the f orbidden substance in the normal manner, it may be used as a remedy even if there is no danger to life or limb. The Rambam gives the example of including chametz in a compress.
On that basis, Rabbenu Manoach questions why wheat cannot be used as a poultice as stated in our halachah. However, he resolves the issue by explaining that, in our case, the wheat would become chametz before it was applied to the wound.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 466:5 (and the Mishnah Berurah) emphasize that it is permitted to use grain as a remedy f or a wound only if there is a question of danger to life or limb. Furthermore, this leniency is qualified as follows:
a) it must be an established medical fact that the remedy works;
b) eff ort must be made to reduce the chance of the grain becoming leavened to the greatest extent possible (e.g., preparing grain by boiling it in fruit juice which does not become leavened).

In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 10:3), the Rambam describes charoset as a mixture of dates, figs, spices, and vinegar.

The popular texts of the Mishneh Torah use the word ןפשי—“pour it out.” However, most of the original manuscripts state ףרשי as in our text. This version implies that it is feared that the flour has already leavened and, hence, must be burnt.

as chametz

In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:8), the Rambam explains that the vinegar in the charoset causes the flour to become leavened fast.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 464:1) states that Ashkenazic custom forbids the use of mustard on Pesach entirely, placing it in the category of kitniyot.

In contrast to other dips, the sharpness of mustard prevents the. flour from leavening (Pri Chadash ).

Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 455:6) advises against placing spices in dough.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav explains that even the opinions which advise against using spices in matzah permit these substances to be used. They are not sharp and will not speed up the leavening process.

Salt is not included in this category. The Shulchan Aruch (455:5) explicitly advises against placing salt into dough, and the Ramah considers matzah baked with salt as chametz.

for this mixture will not cause the dough to become chametz. In describing the meal offerings which cannot become leavened (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12: 17), the Rambam also states that they may be seasoned in a similar manner.
The Tosefta (Pesachim 2:13) and the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 2:4) go further and state that such matzah may even be used at the Seder. Though some halachic authorities accept this opinion, the later authorities counsel against using such matzah on that occasion.

This statement has raised controversy. In Halachah 2, when the Rambam described the use of תרריפ ,ימ he explained that they will not cause grain products to become leavened when used alone. However, if they are mixed with water, they can cause the grain products’ to become leavened. Indeed, the commentaries relate that the mixture of these liquids with water speeds up the leavening process.
Therefore, the Ra’avad and other authorities question the leniency granted by the Rambam. In practice, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 462:2) advises against, but does not forbid, mixing these liquids with water. The Ramah (and accordingly, Ashkenazic custom) prohibits such a mixture entirely.
It must be noted that the Maggid Mishneh’ s text of the Mishneh Torah substitutes the word ןיי (wine) for םימ (water). According to such a rendition, there is no difficulty.

More particularly, for the matzah used to fulfill the commandment of eating matzah on Pesach night.

even though basting the dough with other substances will not change its taste appreciably, the Rambam forbids this. See Or Sameach.

Note the commentary on Halachah 6:5.

for, as above, the dough will not necessarily become chametz,

Deuteronomy 16:3 states “For seven days eat matzah, poor man’s bread.” In contrast, dough mixed with these liquids is considered matzah ashirah, “rich matzah.”

to recall the “poor man’s bread” eaten by our ancestors when they were slaves in Egypt.

In this and the following five halachot, the Rambam discusses how dishes and cooking utensils that were used for chametz during the entire year may be prepared for Passover use. It must be emphasized that in many communities, it is customary not to consider these options and to use separate sets of pots, dishes, and cutlery for the holiday.

Utensils absorb substances only when used together with both heat and liquid. Thus, in this instance, there is no fear that chametz is absorbed.

only

lest its use cause people to err and permit use of earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while hot (Maggid Mishneh ). This safeguard was only instituted for earthenware vessels, since the chametz absorbed in substances of metal or wood may be purged through .הלעגה
The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 451 :22) does not recognize this prohibition at all and allows such utensils to be used for matzah even when hot. However, this is merely from an abstract halachic perspective. In practice, that text continues to explain, Jews are accustomed not to use any earthenware utensils or dishes that had been previously used for chametz on Pesach. This custom was already accepted in the days of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher.

Leavening agents were placed directly in these utensils. Accordingly, even if they were made of other substances besides clay, more severe laws than usual apply regarding purging them from the chametz they absorbed. (See Magen Avraham 451:42.)

This does not refer to the charoset used at the Seder, but to a similar mixture which was used throughout the entire year. The latter would frequently contain flour.

Yeast is a powerful leavening agent. Similarly, the vinegar in the charoset will cause leavening. Even though the utensil was cleaned thoroughly of these substances, we regard that some was absorbed in the utensil’s walls and will have an effect on food placed within it on Pesach.

lest the leavening agents that are absorbed cause the Matzah to become chametz.

The prohibition is obvious. lt appears that this statement was included only as an intiroduction to the following halachah, which descnbes how such a utensil may be prepared for Pesach use.

This practice, referred to as לִבּוּן, burns up any chametz that may have been absorbed in the pan.

It must be noted that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 451:1) states that it is forbidden to kasher earthenware vessels by filling them up with coals, lest a person fear that the intense heat will cause the vessel to crack, and hence not heat them to the temperature necessary to burn up the absorbed chametz.

In Hilchot Ma’acholot Asurot 17:3 and in his commentary on the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 7:12), the Rambam equates glass utensils with those made of these substances.

The term k’li rishon is a fundamental concept in the laws of kashrut and the laws of the Sabbath. It refers to a pot or cooking vessel that was directly exposed to the heat of an oven or range.
Such a pot is still considered as a k’li rishon even after it has been removed from the cooking surface.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 451:5) requires that the surface of the pot be smooth and free of nicks or cracks for this manner of purging to be effective.

The process described below can be carried out only before chametz becomes forbidden. Once that prohibition takes effect, even the slightest amount of chametz can cause a larger mixture to be prohibited. (See Halachah 1:5.) Hence, were the process carried out at that time, the residue of chametz absorbed in the walls of the utensils would cause all the water to be considered as mixed with chametz.

The commentaries stress how the water must be bubbling because of the heat.

This process is referred to as הַגְעָלָה (purging) and is also used to prepare utensils that had been used for non-kosher food for kosher use. Thus, a similar description of this process is found in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 17:4.
The basic principle governing the kashering of utensils is כְּבָלְעוֹ כָּךְ פּוֹלְטוֹ—“In the same manner as a [forbidden substance] is absorbed [by a utensil], so, too, is it released.” Thus, since these utensils were used in hot water, the process of boiling is employed to cause them to release any chametz they might have absorbed.

Th.is phrase is taken from the halachot of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi. However, it is omitted in some of the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. In practice, there is also debate about this issue. In his responsum, the Rashbah explains Rav Yitzchak Alfasi’s view, stating that a person should leave the utensil submerged until he feels that all the absorbed chametz has been released. However, the Tur (Yoreh De’ah 121) and the Pri Chadash do not require waiting any substantial amount of time. Their view is accepted by the later authorities. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim 452:4.)

in order to cleanse them of any forbidden matter that might remain on their surface (Rabbenu Manoach). The source for this requirement is the description (Zevachim 97a) of the way the priests would purge the Temple pots used to cook the sin offerings after the previous day’s service. Though some authorities do not require this stage, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( 452:5) states that it is customary to follow this practice.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 17:7 states: “A person who acquires a knif e fro,m a gentile must burn it out in fire.” A similar decision is rendered by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 121:7). Nevertheless, the authorities suggest that chametz may be purged from knives by boiling. However, they do not permit this leniency in the following instances:
a) when the knives are rusty;
b) when they have serrated edges;
c) when the handle is separate from the blade and enclosed around it, allowing for the possibility for residue to collect between them.
In the latter instance, even ןוביל ( exposing the knife to open fire) is insufficient. Since most knives today are made in this manner, they should not be kashered for Pesach or for ordinary use after having been used with prohibited foods. Both the Mishnah Berurah and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav state that purchasing new knives for Pesach is the most desirable manner of fulfilling the mitzvah.

as described above.

Most knives today are made in a manner that does not enable koshering by either boiling or burning. Therefore, they should not be kashered for Pesach or for ordinary use after having been used with prohibited foods.
Both the Mishnah Berurah and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav state that purchasing new knives for Pesach is the most desirable course of action.

A utensil into which one pours water that had been cooked over a fire.

can also be purged of chametz following the principle ןכ רעלובכוטלופ—“In the. same manner as a [forbidden substance] is absorbed [by a utensil], so, too, is it released.” Thus, since these utensils absorbed chametz in a ינש ,ילכ in order for them to release the chametz they absorbed, they

from a utensil that was heated on the fire. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 451:6) states that, at present, it is customary to boil all utensils on the fire itself (i.e., in a ןושאר ,)לכ even though they were generally used as a ינש .ילכ

See the explanation of the similar phrase in the previous halachah.

as explained in the previous halachah.

See Halachah 21 with regard to earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while cold.

In contrast to utensils made of other substances, the process of cannot remove the forbidden matter absorbed in the walls of an earthenware vessel. Instead of all the absorbed matter being purged at once, it is released a small amount at a time, and there will always be a certain quantity of the previous substance contained in its walls.

I.e., china. Based on these principles, the authorities have stated that china can never be kashered. However, they have suggested certain leniencies when the china is very expensive.

As mentioned in Halachah 22, the Sages also forbade the use of ןוביל ( exposing the utensil to fire ), to remove chametz absorbed in most earthenware vessels, lest a person hesitate to expose them to the required heat out of f ear that they would break. Thus, there is no way to prepare these utensils for Pesach use. Therefore,

There would be no halachic difficulty against using these dishes on Pesach for cold foods. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade their use entirely, lest a person err and use them for hot substances as well.

Though the taste of chametz is absorbed in the walls of these utensils, keep’ing them does not cause a person to violate the prohibition against possessing chametz on Pesach. Nevertheless, at present, when it is customary to sell chametz to gentiles, the Rabbis in charge of the sale usually sell this chametz as well.

This line was added to negate the opinion of Rav (Pesachim 30a ), who maintains that each Pesach, a person was required to destroy any earthenware vessels he possessed which were used for chametz while hot.

and hence must be kashered by boiling water inside of it, as explained in Halachah 23.

Thus, were he to boil water in the utensil itself, its entire top edge would not be exposed to the boiling water.

the utensil

but is delayed in pouring out by the clay border.

For the entire utensil will have been exposed to the boiling water. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 452:6) offers an alternative suggestion. After boiling the water thoroughly, placing a very hot stone into the water will cause the water to flow over the edges of the utensil on all sides. Thus, the entire utensil will be exposed to the boiling water.

with cold water, as explained in Halachah 23.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 158), Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 10).

The verse speaks of the evening after the fourteenth—i.e., the evening of the fifteenth.

Kiddushin 37b explains that every mitzvah that is ףרגה תברח (an obligation on our very persons) applies both in Eretz Yisrael and in the diaspora.

i.e., even when the Temple is destroyed. Though Exodus 12:8 states that the Paschal sacrifice must be eaten “with matzah and bitter herbs,” that is an obligation associated with the Paschal sacrifice. The mitzvah of

The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 17) cites a number of examples of individuals who are required to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah though they may not partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

with a separate verse in the Torah commanding us to fulfill it.

The Sages restricted the fulfillment of many mitzvot which the Torah allows one to fulfill the entire night to the period before midnight. For example, Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:15 explains that though the Paschal sacrifice may be eaten the entire night, the Sages required that it be eaten before midnight (See also Hilchot Kriat Shema 1:9, Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:8.) If so, the question arises, why wasn’t a similar restriction placed on the mitzvah of eating matzah?
lndeed, Rabbenu Nissim (Megillah, Chapter 2) requires that the mitzvah of matzah be fulfilled before midnight, and all authorities (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 477:1) require the afikoman to be eaten before midnight at the first Seder.
Rabben1,1 Manoach explains that this restriction is not placed on the mitzvah of matzah because, in contrast to the sacrifices, there is no prohibition involved in eating matzah on the mornin

This phraseology has generated a question among the commentaries. Does one fulfill a mitzvah by eating matzah during the remainder of the holiday? For example, on Sukkot, one is not obligated to eat in a Sukkah ( one merely may not eat a substantial meal outside the Sukkah). Nevertheless, by eating in a Sukkah throughout the holiday, one fulfills a mitzvah, and therefore must recite a blessing to that effect.
In contrast, there is no mitzvah to eat kosher meat. One may eat vegetables, grains, or fruits. Though the Torah commands us to eat only certain species and defines the way we must prepare them, it is by no means a mitzvah to eat steak or chicken. Thus, no special blessing is recited when eating such a meal.
Into which category should eating matzah after the first night be placed? Rabbenu Manoach notes that no blessing is recited for the mitzvah of eating matzah during that time, and hence does not consider it a mitzvah at all. (lt surely appears that the Rambam subscribes to this view: Both in Sefer HaMitzvot and in the introduction to these halachot, he defines the mitzvah as eating matzah on the night of the fifteenth.)
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (475:33) emphasizes this point, stating that a person who was unable to eat matzah on the first night of Pesach does not recite a blessing if, during Chol HaMoed, he is able to obtain matzah. However, the Vilna Gaon maintains that even though there is no obligation to do so, eating matzah throughout the holiday fulfills a mitzvah.

in accordance with the Sephardic custom of eating kitniyot. See Halachah 5:1.

In the diaspora, ·matzah must be eaten on the night of the second day of Pesach as well.

a .תיזכ The precise size of that measure is defined in Halachah 1: 1.

according to Torah law. However, as will be explained in Chapter 8, in practice, during the seder, we are obligated to eat at least three times this amount.

gulping it down, without chewing or tasting it

For as long as the matzah touches his throat and is ingested, it has been eaten. Nevertheless, it is not desirable to fulfill one’s obligation in this manner (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 475).

in the same manner

The Rashbam, Pesachim 115b explains that the maror was instituted to recall the bitterness with which the Egyptians afflicted our ancestors. Therefore, a person who does not taste that bitterness does not fulfill his obligation.

as above. There is an added undesirable factor in eating matzah in this manner. Preferably, no other substances should be eaten with the matzah, so that only its taste will be sensed. (lndeed, were he to chew both the matzah and the marror, he would not fulfill his obligation (See Pesachim 115a). To insure that nothing negate the taste of the matzah, in many communities it is customary not to dip the matzah in salt when eating it at the seder).

The Ra’avad raises a question, noting that the latter phrase is not an explanation why one does not fulfill the mitzvah of maror.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s intention is to explain why the person fulfנlls the mitzvah of matzah. One might argue that the maror, like the fibers mentioned in the following clause, would prevent one from fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah. Therefore, the Rambam explains that “the maror is secondary ... “
It must be noted that according to the second version of the text mentioned above, the passage reads with no difficulty whatsoever.

the matzah, maror, and fibers

for unlike the maror, the fibers are considered as an interruption between the person’s digestive system and the matzah. The fibers are placed in this category because they are not food in their own right. (A similar concept is stated in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 3:5.) In contrast, all other foods are considered secondary to the matzah and, hence not an interruption (Pri Chadash ).

This halachah touches on a question left unresolved by the Talmud (see Pesachim 114b ), and which has become a source of debate and discussion among the Rabbis in subsequent generations. Does a person who performs the deed of a mitzvah, without the intention to carry out God’s command, fulfill his obligation, or not?

The source for the Rambam’s statements is Rosh HaShanah 28a, which states that when “Persians force a person to eat matzah, he fulfills his obligation.”

It appears that the Rambam does not require a person to have the intention to fulfill a mitzvah, for in this instance the only reason the person ate the matzah was the coercion of the gentiles. Nevertheless, the commentaries qualify the Rambam’s statements, based on Hilchot Shofar 2:4:
A person who occupies himself with blowing shofar to learn does not fulfill his obligation ... one does not fulfill his obligation until both the person hearing [the shofar] and the one sounding it intend to fulfill the obligation.
In resolution, the Maggid Mishneh states that to fulfill his obligation, the person being forced to eat the matzah must know that today is Pesach, that he is obligated to eat matzah, and that it is matzah which he is eating. Rabbenu Nissim, the Kessef Mishneh, and Rabbenu Manoach follow a different line of reasoning. They differentiate between eating matzah and hearing a shofar. ln the former case, a person’s body benefits from the activity regardless of his intention. To support this thesis, they draw a parallel to the following passage from Keritot 19b.
Generally, the Torah frees a person from liability if he commits a transgression while being only קםעתמ (performing a deed without any thought). However, a person who eats forbidden foods or engages in forbidden sexual relations in this manner is liable, because he derived pleasure from his activities.
Similarly, in the present context, since the person derived physical satisfaction from eating the matzah, even though he was forced to do so, the action is attributed to him. In contrast, since his body did not benefit from hearing the shofar, he does not fulfill his obligation until he hears the shofar blown in the proper manner.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 475:4) quotes the Maggid Mishneh’s opinion as regards halachah l’ma’aseh, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the Kessef Mishneh. (lt must be noted that the Pri Chadash and other commentaries do not accept this decision). In Orach Chayim 589:8, the Shulchan Aruch quotes the Rambam’s decision concerning blowing the shofar, stating that a קםעתמ does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerning kriat shema ( Orach Chayim 60) and lulav and etrog ( Orach Chayim 651 ).

This does not imply that he was necessarily healed of epilepsy entirely, but rather that the seizure was concluded and he was able to return to normal functioning

to fulfill the mitzvah because

because he was not in control of himself. Thus, his actions in that state do not obligate him for any transgressions he violates, nor does he receive full credit for any mitzvot he performs.

Wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 453:1) states that it is customary to use matzot made from wheat.

In his commentary on the Mishnah (Challah 1:2), the Rambam cites two verses while explaining this principle: Exodus 12:18, “in the evening, you shall eat matzot” and the verse cited here. Similarly, certain manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah contain both verses. The fact that the mitzvah to eat matzah is derived from the verse in Exodus and not the verse in Deuteronomy tends to support the text which quotes both verses. However, Pesachim 35a, the source for the exegesis of this verse, only mentions one verse.

that would become leavened if left unattended for the required period.

as evident from the following halachah, the actual dough used to make the matzah need not have the potential to become leavened. However, the species of grain used as flour must be fit to become leavened. (See Lechem Mishneh, Halachah 5.)

rather they spoil, as stated in Halachah 5·: 1.

combining the two species in one matzah

Based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Challah 3:5), the Ramban and Rabbenu Asher maintain that as long as the matzah tastes of grain, one may fulfill one’s requirement even though the amount of wheat flour is not sufficient to produce a תיזכ (size of an olive) of wheat flour in סרפ תליכא ידכ (a quantity equivalent in volume to three eggs according to the Rambam, two eggs according to other authorities; see the commentary on Halachah 1:6)
They explain that when mixed with wheat, rice takes on the taste of the wheat to the point that its own flavor is not noticeable at all. Hence, there is no limit to the quantity of wheat required. In contrast, other kitniyot do not “accept” the flavor of wheat so easily (nor does rice “accept” the flavor of the other four species of grain). Hence, if they are mixed with wheat, there has to be a sufficient quantity of wheat (a תיזכ within םרפ תליכא )ידכ for one to fulfill his obligation.
The Ra’avad and the Rashbah do not accept the principle explained by the Ramban, and require a תיזכ in םרפ תליכא ידכ even when a dough is made of rice and wheat. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 453:2) quotes the Rambam’s words exactly. The commentaries infer that this implies acceptance of the Ramban’s view. The later authorities quote the Ra’avad’s opinion and suggest adhering to it, though theoretically, they find the Ramban’s view more acceptable.

as if it were made of wheat alone.

ln his commentary on the Mishnah (Challah 1:8), the Rambam describes this as coarse bread mixed together with bran.

And thus, it is also considered human food.

and use it merely to feed the animals, it is not forbidden. Were it to be chametz, it would not be permitted to be used for that purpose since no benefit may be derived from chametz during Pesach. Nevertheless,

to eat matzah the first night of Pesach

as explained in Halachah 5:9, the matzah used to fulfill the mitzvah must be “watched” so that it does not become chametz. Furthermore, every stage of its preparation should be carried out with the intent that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah. Since this dough was made to be used only as food for dogs, surely this intent was lacking.

Fruit juice itself will not cause flour to become leavened, as stated in Halachah 5:2; nevertheless,

Because the species of grain can become leavened. As mentioned above, it is Ashkenazic custom not to use such matzah on Pesach unless the person is incapable of eating ordinary matzah.

in Halachah 5:20. There is a slight difficulty with this statement. The halachah cited states that only water should be used for the matzah. The Radbaz (Vol. 111, Responsum 1074) states that only the four liquids mentioned here may not be used, for only they change the taste of the matzah appreciably. However, the Ra’avad and the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 462: 1) forbid the use of matzah made with any liquid other than water for use at the seder.

Pesachim 36a relates that Rabbi Yehoshua told his sons to make him matzah kneaded with milk throughout Pesach, except on the first night.

as mentioned above, there is a debate among the Rabbis which Hebrew term is appropriate to which type of bran.

lt is abnormal to make bread from bran alone. Therefore, Challah need not be separated from such a loaf, nor may it be used for the mitzvah of matzah. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 454: 1.

for then, the flour is considered of primary importance.

Pesachim 36b states “even if it is like King Solomon’s matzah.”

The Ramban explains that fine flour is not a human creation. In contrast, all the types of “rich man’s matzah” which the Sages forbade for use at the seder required special acts on man’s part.

as is usually done

as is occasionally the case. The dough is prepared as if for baking in an oven, and then placed in a roasting pot or frying pan. In his commentary on the Mishnah ( Challah 1 :6), the Rambam explains that even when bread is baked in this fashion, one is obligated to separate Challah. Hence, such a loaf is also considered as bread with regard to matzah.

The Rambam uses the word ,חיתרה which is generally translated as “boiled.” However, in this instance, all commentators agree that no water can be used.

In the latter instance, the Ra’avad agrees with the principle that such matzah is considered as bread and is able to be used for the mitzvah of matzah. However, he objects to this manner of preparation out offear that perhaps the dough will become chametz. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 461:2) suggests adhering to his opinion.

Berachot 38a describes the process of baking bread in a pit in the ground and states that one may use it as matzah for the seder.

Within the context of this law, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 461:3) counsels against removing dough prematurely from the oven and then returning it. During the time it is outside the oven, it can become chametz.

הסדרפ usually means sliced. Our translation follows Rabbenu Manoach’s commentary and Rashi, Pesachim 37a.

This law is relevant to a person who is old or sick and cannot eat the required amount )תיזכ( of matzah in the normal manner, as mentioned in Halachah 10. Nevertheless, its application is not solely restricted to these persons. None of the commentaries has placed any restrictions against healthy people fulfilling their obligation in this manner. (As mentioned in Halachah 5:5, some Ashkenazi authorities forbid soaking matzah in water after it has been baked.)

which after being baked, has been

As mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, once matzah has been baked thoroughly, it will not become chametz even when exposed to water.

In his commentary on Pesachim 41a, the source for this law, Rashi allows one to soak matzah in cooked foods with a taste of their own. Similarly, Rabbenu Manoach mentions matzah dipped in wine. Nevertheless, the Ra’avad and others maintain that other foods would nullify the taste of matzah, and they permit soaking the matzah only in water. They draw support from the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 10 and maintain that he also accepts this restriction.
The Magen Avraham and the other Ashkenazic authorities favor the latter opinion. However, they do maintain that a sick person who could not eat a sufficient quantity of matzah soaked in water may soak his matzah in wine.

at which point it would no longer be considered as bread, and the HaMotzi blessing would no longer be recited over it.

even if cooked in water alone,

or the form

Produce from Eretz Yisrael from which the agricultural requirements—separation of the terumah (a portion given to priests), ma’aser rishon (the first tithe), and ma’aser sheni (the second tithe)—have not been fulfilled.

After receiving the tithe from the Israelites, the Levites were obligated to separate a second tithe.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Challah 1:9, states: Matzah that was stolen: one may not recite a blessing upon it. Rav Oshiah states: This is derived from Psalms 10:3: “The greedy’s blessing revolts God.” However, one might think this is true only in the beginning; ultimately (i.e., after eating the matzah), he is obligated to pay him money (and thus the matzah itself is no longer the property of.the original owner.) Rabbi Yochanan states: “A mitzvah is not a sin Rabbi Yossi states: “A sin is not a mitzvah.” Rabbi Illa said: “Only when the mitzvot are performed as prescribed are they mitzvot.”
The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 454:4) quotes the Rambam’s statements exactly. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva Eiger maintains that since the stolen object no longer belongs to the original owners once it has been eaten, one may fulfill the mitzvah of matzah in this manner. All authorities agree that a person who stole grain or flour can fulfi.11 his obligation with matzah made from it.
Rabbenu Manoach maintains that this instance is not dependent on the general rulings governing mitzvot perf ormed with f orbidden objects. Rather, Pesachim 38a draws an analogy between the mitzvot of matzah and Challah. Since there is an explicit teaching requiring a person to own the dough he uses f or Challah, it thus follows that the matzah he uses must also be his undisputed property.

even though there are certain halachic difficulties regarding eating it, as explained in Hilchot Berachot 1 :20.

to eat matzah on Pesach.

In Hilchot Berachot 1:19, the Rambam states: “Anyone who eats a forbidden food, whether intentionally or unintentionally, does not recite a blessing over it.” This includes even foods prohibited by Rabbinic law alone.

and their households

Numbers 15:20 commands that a portion of every dough be separated and given to the priests. The separated portion of dough is called challah and is governed by all the rules pertaining to Terumah.

Numbers 15:19, 18:12 commands that before tithes are given to the Levites, a certain portion of the grain should be separated and given to the priests. This portion, referred to as terumah, may be eaten only by the priests and their households.

Thus, Israelites cannot fulfill their obligation by eating such matzah. Pesachim 35b states that matzot whose consumption involves any prohibition may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah. (See the previous halachah.)

Deuteronomy 14:22-23 commands: “Take a [second] tithe of all the crops... You must eat this before God, your Lord, in the place that He will choose (Jerusalem).”

but not outside the holy city. lt must be noted that certain Talmudic Sages do not accept this principle. The Rambam’s statements follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whose statements are generally accepted as halachah.

a priest, for only the priests are allowed to partake of the bikkurim,

Numbers 18:13 requires that the first fruits be given to the priests. Deuteronomy 26:2-10 explains more details of that obligation, among them that the first fruits must be taken to Jerusalem and given to the priests in the Temple.

and the wheat from which he made matzah had been properly given to him as bikkurim.

rather, they may be eaten only by the priests within the limits of Jerusalem.

Deuteronomy 14:24-26 states: “If the journey is too great for you... you may redeem this tithe in silver... which you can bring to the place God, your Lord, will choose. You may spend the money on anything you desire [to eat]....” Thus the actual produce separated as ma’aser sheni need not be taken to Jerusalem, but may be eaten elsewhere.

Pesachim 36a

Thus, bikkurim are excluded, but not ma’aser sheni.

As explained in Leviticus 7:12 and commentaries, the thanksgiving offering was accompanied by forty loaves of bread. Thirty were matzah, and thus were kosher for use on Pesach.

Numbers 6:15 specifies that a Nazirite must bring a basket of matzot as part of the sacrifices associated with the completion of his vow.

i.e., to offer as a sacrifice.

to eat matzah on Pesach night.

Halachah 5:9 states that this verse teaches that matzah must be prepared with the intention that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah. Pesachim 38b extends the scope of that requirement, stating:

from the thanksgiving or Nazirite offerings

Hence, it may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.

matzot made for the thanksgiving or Nazirite offerings

for others to use

implicit in his intention was that

Therefore, they may be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.

As mentioned above, the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 10) notes that even though the Torah restricted an uncircumcised person or someone who is impure from bringing a Paschal sacrifice, they must partake of matzah on Pesach night.

Though these individuals are usually relieved of the observance of mitzvot limited to a specific time, Pesachim 43b makes an exception in this case. Deuteronomy 16:3 states: “Do not eat chametz upon it ... eat matzot for seven days,” establishing an analogy between the two mitzvot. Since women are obligated to fulfill the prohibition against eating chametz (for they are liable for the observance of all the ךorah’s prohibitions), they must also fulfill the positive commandment of eating matzah.

From the Rambam’s phraseology, we learn that the mitzvah oftraining one’s children to fulfill mitzvot is incumbent upon the parents. Neither the Torah nor the Sages placed any responsibilities on the children themselves. Rather, the parents are charged with teaching their children to follow the Torah’s guidelines (Kessef Mishneh).

the same measure given an adult.

a full כזית of matzah in any other fashion,

See Halachah 6 and commentary.

As explained in Chapter 8, Halachah 9, the Rambam is referring to the afikoman, which was instituted at the end of the Seder in place of the Paschal sacrifice.

The Mishnah (Pesachim 119b) states: “No afikoman is served after the Paschal sacrifice.” In his commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines afikoman as “fruits served as dessert after the meal, such as roasted seeds, figs, raisins, almonds, and the like.”

to begin one’s meal and to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah

in the course of the meal

as the afikoman

so that the taste of the matzah will remain in one’s mouth. See Halachah 8:9.

This applies only to matzah that is fit to be used at the Seder. However, matzah that is made with wine, oil, or honey may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah, and hence may be eaten at this time. (As mentioned above, such matzah is generally not eaten in the Ashkenazic community.)

the fourteenth of Nisan. Some authorities explain that this prohibition only applies from midday, the time when chametz becomes forbidden. However, the Rambam appears to consider the prohibition as applying during the entire day (Maggid Mishneh ).

The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 10:1) states that a person who eats matzah on the day before Pesach can be compared to a man who has relations with his betrothed in her father’s house before the wedding.

מכת מרדות the punishment given those who break a Rabbinic commandment. The Jerusalem Talmud (ibid.) explains that such a punishment is given to a man who acts immodestly with his betrothed. Hence, it is appropriate that a person who eats matzah on Pesach eve be given a similar penalty.

The Tashbaytz (Vol. II, Responsum 51) states: “This is a wondrous statement... If the intention is that after he eats, he should be beaten... a Rabbinic prohibition will be punished more severely than a Scriptural prohibition... for such a penalty is not found with regard to a Scriptural prohibition.” Indeed, some commentaries advise striking this phrase from the text, maintaining that it was a later addition which was not made by the Rambam himself. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Mano’ach justifies this phrase, explaining that it refers to a situation where a person obstinately refuses to accept the prohibition. As long as he does not promise to obey the Sages’ decree, the authorities must continue administering punishment. Our Hebrew text has omitted these words.

a meal with matzah (even matzah kneaded with wine, which is not included in the prohibition mentioned above)

The Sages defined this time as nine hours after the beginning of the day. (The time of Minchah is nine and a half hours after the beginning of the day.)
This time is also calculated according to “seasonal hours.” (See Commentary, Halachah 1:8.) Thus, if dawn was at 5:09 AM and three stars appear at 6:45 PM, nine hours would be 3:21 PM.

or other similar foods that do not satiate one’s appetite

for then, one will not eat the matzah with relish.

Pesachim 108a relates that Rav Sheshet would fast the entire day even though he was not a firstborn.

greater leniency applies

The Rambam’s statements require some explanation: In Hilchot Yom Tov 6:16, the Rambam states:
It is proper f or a person not to dine on the day bef ore a festival from the time of Minchah onward, as onthe day bef ore the Sabbath.
The latter phrase is a reference to Hilchot Shabbat 30:4, which states:
A person may eat and drink [on Friday] until nightfall. Nevertheless, as part of
the honor given to the Shabbat, a person should refrain from scheduling a meal
from the time of Minchah onward.
Thus, on the day before the Sabbath and other festivals, a person should not schedule an important meal. However, he may partake of a casual meal and continue eating. On Pesach, even the latter is forbidden.

at which time one is required to cease eating. However, a person who desires to continue eating may cover his food with a cloth, recite Kiddush, and return to his; meal, as explained in Hilchot Shabbat 29: 12.

Hilchot Kri’ at Shema 1 :3 mentions that it is a mitzvah to recall the Exodus from Egypt twice daily. The Rambam makes no further mention of that mitzvah in the Mishneh Torah, nor does he mention it in Sefer HaMitzvot. There is a basic difference between these two obligations. Throughout the year, a brief recollection is all that is required. On Pesach night, we must elaborate, relating the entire story of the Exodus.

ln Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam states “the beginning of the night,” implying that we should begin telling the story of the Exodus in the first portion of the night.

the night of the plague of the firstborn, when Pharaoh gave the Jews permission to leave Egypt.

the ftfteenth of Nisan

implying that we are commanded to commemorate the day of the Exodus.

This addition is a quote from the Mechiltah and Shemot Rabbah. Nevertheless, the commentators have questioned its necessity. Some explain that the word רוכז does not follow the grammatical f orm usually used f or commandments, and hence the comparison with the Sabbath is valuable.
Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 21, explains that Shemot Rabbah states that the remembrance of the Sabbath is תישארב השעמל ,רכז “a commemoration of the work of creation.” The remembrance of the exodus, it continues, must also emphasize the wonders and miracles that God perf ormed.
What is the common point between the Sabbath and the exodus? Both emphasize how God is above nature and, hence, can change nature according to His will.
This quality is also reflected in our service. At the very beginning of Hilchot Shabbat, the Rambam emphasizes how the observance of the Sabbath is connected with a positive mitzvah: rest. A Jew steps beyond his weekday activities and devotes his energies to spiritual activites bond with God.
Similarly, the recollection of the exodus from Egypt must take us beyond our everyday activities to the extent that as stated in Halachah 7:6 “He presents himself as if he, himself, is leaving the slavery of Egypt.”

relating the story of the Exodus

The Mechiltah interprets this as a reference to matzah and maror. Thus, the verse is

of relating the story of the exile

i.e., on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, when it is a mitzvah to eat matzah, as explained in Halachah 6:1.

This clause is necessary because from the expression “and you shall tel1 your son,” one might imply that the mitzvah only applies to a person with children.

to quote the Haggadah: “Even if we are all wise, all men of understanding, all Sages, all knowledgeable about the Torah, it is a mitzvah incumbent upon us to relate the Exodus from Egypt.” Many commentaries explain that the story the Haggadah quotes concerning Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and the other Sages is brought to demonstrate and prove this point.

Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) praises: “Whoever adds further statements and elaborates more on the greatness of what God did f or us and the wickedness and violence with which the Egyptians treated us, and how God took His revenge upon them ... “

Though Exodus 13:14 states: “And it shall come to pass that your son will ask you: ... ,” the verse quoted demonstrates that the father’s explanations need not necessarily come in response to his son’s questions (Mechiltah d’Rashbi).

Commenting on this statement, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 473:6) relates that if a person’s family is unable to understand the Haggadah in Hebrew, he should translate it into a language they do understand.

To this author’s knowledge, this phraseology is the Rambam’s original choice of words. He attempts to provide us with an easily applicable example of how to fulfill this mitzvah.

The Haggadah (based on the Mechiltah) also explains .that a wise son should be taught the halachot of Pesach.

The latter phrase, a quote from Pesachim 116a, is interpreted differently by some other commentators. They maintain that the father teaches the son how to ask relevant questions, whose nature depends on the son’s ability to understand. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (473:40,42) combines both these interpretations.

the f ather or person conducting the seder

have their curiosity piqued

have their curiosity piqued

The question הנתשנ המ and, similarly, three of the four questions asked by the children are mentioned in the Mishnah, Pesachim 116a.

relating the story of the Exodus by reciting the Haggadah.

Pesachim 109a notes that Rabbi Akiva would follow this practice.

Pesachim 115b relates that one Pesach, Abaye was sitting bef ore Rab.bah, and the latter suddenly picked up the table as if he had finished eating. Abaye exclaimed: “We have not begun to eat and you have already picked up the table!” (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:6. See Halachah 8 :2.)

The Rambam’s statements are quoted from Pesachim 109a. However, Rashi, the Ra’avad, and others interpret תוצמ םיפטוח to mean that the matzot are eaten hurriedly. The Rambam’s interpretation is the source for the custom of stealing matzah at the Seder.

The custom of pouring the second cup of wine directly after reciting אינע המחל אה is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:7) as another practice instituted to arouse curiosity.

The Sages stressed that the Haggadah should be recited as a response to questions. We show greater interest in learning about a subject when questions have first been raised in our minds.

as mentioned in the previous halachah.

Since the question and answer approach is the most desirable way to recite the Haggadah, everyone must f ollow this pattern, even if he must ask himself the questions.

This principle is taken from the Mishnah, Pesachim 116a. The commentaries off er several rationales in its explanation. Among them:
a) The contrast between our nation’s humble roots and the majestic level they reached through the Exodus make us more conscious of God’s great kindness (Tosefot Rid).
b) Mention of our roots prevents us from becoming overly haughty (Maharshah ).

Abraham’s father

The Rambam is alluding to the passage “Originally, our ancestors were idol-worshipers.”

See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1-3.

The redemption from Egypt representing the birth of the J ews as a nation and the beginning of their service of God as a people.

by giving us the Torah.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Pesachim 116a, which mentions a debate between Rav and Shmuel concerning the interpretation of “One must begin [the narrative describing our ancestors’] base [roots] and conclude with [their] praise.”
Rav maintains that it is proper to begin from “Originally, our ancestors were worshipers of idols,” placing the emphasis on our degrading spiritual roots. Shmuel (according to the Maggid Mishneh, Ravvah) maintains that we should begin from “We were slaves to Pharaoh, stressing the humble material origins from which our people stem. Customarily, we f ollow both opinions in our recitation of the Haggadah (Rav Yitzchak Alfasi), and hence the Rambam includes both opinions in this halachah.
There is, nonetheless, a certain difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. All texts of the Haggadah begin with “We were slaves,” and then relate the passage “Originally, our ancestors were idol worshipers.” Here, the Rambam reverses that order. Perhaps he made this choice because the Talmud uses this order when mentioning these two opinions. Alternatively, chronologically, our ancestors’ worship of idols preceded the Egyptian exile.

relating the story of the Exodus.

bringing other verses to explain and clarify the statements of this passage as f ound in the Haggadah.

This passage served as the statement of thanksgiving recited by the farmers bringing bikkurim (the first fruits) to the Temple. The Mishnah (Pesachim 116a) mentions that it was instituted as the basis of the Haggadah.

i.e., until Deuteronomy 26:8.

beyond the accepted text

to relate the story of the Exodus. The commentators question if a person who does not mention these three concepts is not considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah at all, or rather, is the intent that he has not fulfilled the mitzvah in a desirable manner?

From the verse quoted below: “And you shall say: ‘lt is the Paschal sacrifice to God,”’ Tosefot, Pesachim 116b, derives that the Paschal sacrifice must be among the things spoken about on Pesach. Since the Paschal sacrifice must be eaten “with matzot and bitter herbs,” there is also an obligation to mention them.

Saving them from the plague of the slaying of the firstborn.

Here and in Halachah 8:4, the Rambam changes the order f ound in our text of the Mishnah and in the Haggadah (including even his own text of the Haggadah). Rabbenu Mar .. רach maintains that this was the order found in the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah.

The questions asked in Halachah 3 and the explanations referred to in this and the previous halachah.

Pesachim 116b explains that the mitzvah of relating the story of the Exodus cannot remain on the intellectual level alone. Rather, it must aff ect a person to the extent that he personally feels that he is leaving Egypt.
There is a slight difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. Pesachim (ibid.), the commonly accepted text of the Haggadah, and even the Rambam’s own text of the Haggadah, read לראות (see himself), and not להראות (present himself)—i.e., show others that he feels this way. Why does the Rambam alter the text here?
Likkutei Sichot, Vol. XII, notes that the following halachot emphasize how the obligation of recalling the Exodus applies, not only to the recitation of the Haggadah, but to all the practices perf ormed on Pesach. Since we must recite the Haggadah to others, as implied by the question-and-answer approach required by Halachah 3, the manner in which a person perf orms all the other Passover practices must also demonstrate to others his personal experience of the Exodus.

the ·words, “himself’ and “now” are also additions to the Mishnah.

Here, also, the Rambam alters the text, adding the words “the slavery. יי Since the Rambam is addressing people who may never have seen the physical land of Egypt, it is not possible to demand that they f eel as if they left that country, but rather, that they left backbreaking slavery as experienced by our people in Egypt.

This and the verse quoted below were stated forty years after the redemption from Egypt, to the Jews who were prepared to enter Eretz Yisrael. They had not tasted Egyptian sla’very.

This verse is quoted by Ravvah, Pesachim 116b. However, the Mishnah (and our text of the Haggadah) derive this concept from Exodus 13:8: “And you shall tel1 your son ... : ‘It is because of this, that God acted for me ... “’ Nevertheless, the Rambam’s text of the Mishnah and the Haggadah do not include that verse.

It is necessary to quote this verse in addition to the one mentioned previously. The previous verse teaches us that the redemption from Egypt is a continuous ·activity, affecting us at present as well. This verse emphasizes that we are obligated to recognize and recall that fact.

even though physically, you did not experience this slavery.

The meal served at the Seder should be festive. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 472:2, states that a person should set the table with the most attractive utensils he can aff ord.

The Talmud mentions two practices as characteristic of freedom: reclining and drinking f our cups of wine. The Rambam mentions the general principles applying to these obligations in this halachah, and explains each of the practices in particular in the f ollowing halachot.

on couches

In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 10: 1 ),the Rambam relates that this was the practice of “kings and great people.”
The commentaries quote the Rambam’s expression as a proof that reclining )הביסה(
is not merely a particular law, describing the manner in which the matzah and the fourcups of wine must be eaten and drunk, but rather a unique requirement on its own.Theref ore, as explained in the f ollowing halachah, it is praiseworthy for a person toeat the entire Seder meal while reclining.

Even a person who has difficulty drinking wine must observe this practice. Nedarim 49b relates that Rabbi Yehudah bar Illai would have to bind his sides from Pesach to Shavuot because of the aftereffects of the four cups of wine he drank at the seder. Nevertheless, each year he fulfilled the mitzvah.

Generally, women are not bound to fulfill any mitzvot that have a specific time limitation. However, an exception to this principle is made regarding the mitzvot associated with the seder night. Since the women had a full share in the miracles of the Exodus, they must participate fully in the commemoration of the Exodus (Pesachim 108b).

Most halachic authorities require that this wine have some alcoholic content. Hence, grape juice alone should not be used.

There is some controversy about the conversion of that figure into modern measure. According to Shiurei Torah, a revi’it is 86 cc, while according to Chazon Ish, it is 150 cc.

The Ramah, Orach Chayim 472:4, and other Ashkenazic authorities write: “All our women are considered important. Nevertheless, it is not customary for them to recline.”

At present, this obligation applies also to eating the korech (sandwich of matzah and maror) and the afikoman.

However, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:3, recommends not drinking between the first and second cups. The Darchei Mosheh states that this is the accepted Ashkenazic custom. See also Mishnah Berurah 473:13-15.
No restrictions are placed on drinking between the second and third cups, since this is the time of the seder meal.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (473:32) suggests using apples, nuts, or pomegranates and fruits used as metaphors for the Jewish people in the Bible.

The Ramah (473:5) suggests using red wine to recall the Jewish blood spilled by the Egyptians.

Ginger or cinnamon (However, in certain communities, it is customary not to use these spices on Pesach).

Pesachim 39a explains that even though the leaves of this species are sweet, it is preferable to fulfill the mitzvah of bitter herbs with this species than with any other. Just as the Egyptian exile began in a favorable way and ended in bitter oppression, similarly the leaves of this plant are sweet, but its root bitter. Furthermore, its Aramaic name, חַסָּא, also means compassion and alludes to God’s mercy for our people. From a halachic perspective, it is easiest to consume the required measure of maror when using this species.

Since the consumption of maror is a Rabbinic commandment, the more lenient view—in terms of modern measurements, between 16.6 and 24 grams, depending on different halachic opinions—may be relied upon.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:5, excludes the use of roots. However, the Magen Avraham (473:11) maintains that the main root extending from the stem may also be used. Indeed, the most common custom in European communities where Romaine lettuce was difficult to obtain, was to use a horseradish root.