Chametz U'Matzah - Chapter Six

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.