Today is: Shabbat, Shvat 18, 5775 · February 7, 2015
Torah Reading
Yitro (Exodus/Shemot 18:1 When Yitro, the kohen of Midyan, Moshe’s khoten (father-in-law), heard of all that Elohim had done for Moshe, and for Yisroel His people, and that Hashem had brought Yisroel out of Mitzrayim;
Today in Jewish History
2 Then Yitro, Moshe’s khoten, received Tzipporah, Moshe’ wife, after Moshe had sent her away,
3 And her two banim; of which the shem of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been a ger in a foreign land;
4 And the shem of the other was Eliezer; for the Elohei Avi, said he, was ezri (my help), and delivered me from the cherev of Pharaoh;
5 And Yitro, Moshe’s khoten, came with his banim and his isha unto Moshe into the midbar, where he encamped at the Har HaElohim;
6 And he said unto Moshe, I thy khoten (father-in-law) Yitro am come unto thee, and thy isha, and her two banim with her.
7 And Moshe went out to meet his khoten, bowed low, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their shalom (welfare); and they came into the ohel.
8 And Moshe told his khoten all that Hashem had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for the sake of Yisroel, and all the travail that had befallen them along the derech, and how Hashem saved and delivered them.
9 And Yitro rejoiced for all the tovah which Hashem had done for Yisroel, whom He had delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians.
10 And Yitro said, Baruch Hashem, Who hath rescued you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, and Who hath delivered HaAm from under the hand of the Egyptians.
11 Now I have da’as that Hashem is gadol than kol haelohim; for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly He was above them.
12 And Yitro, Moshe’s khoten, brought an olah and zevakhim for Elohim; and Aharon came, and kol Ziknei Yisroel, to eat lechem with Moshe’s khoten before HaElohim.
13 And it came to pass on next day, that Moshe sat to judge HaAm; and HaAm stood around Moshe from the boker unto erev.
14 And when Moshe’s khoten saw all that he was doing for HaAm, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and kol HaAm stand around thee from boker unto erev?
15 And Moshe said unto his khoten, Because HaAm come unto me to inquire of Elohim;
16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the chukkei HaElohim, and His torot.
17 And Moshe’s khoten said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not tov.
18 Thou wilt surely wear out, both thou, and HaAm hazeh that is with thee; for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
19 Shema (pay heed) now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and may Elohim be with thee; be thou for HaAm before HaElohim, that thou mayest bring the disputes unto HaElohim;
20 And thou shalt teach them chukkim and torot, and shalt show them the derech wherein they must walk, and the ma’aseh that they must do.
21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of kol HaAm anshei chayil (able men), yirei Elohim, anshei emes, hating bribes; and place such over them, to be over thousands, and over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens;
22 And let them judge HaAm at all times; and it shall be, that every davar hagadol they shall bring unto thee, but every davar hakaton they shall judge; so shall it be eased for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
23 If thou shalt do this thing, and Elohim command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and kol HaAm hazeh shall also go to their place in shalom.
24 So Moshe paid heed to the voice of his khoten, and did all that he had said.
25 And Moshe chose anshei chayil out of kol Yisroel, and made them rashim over HaAm, over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.
26 And they judged HaAm at all times; the davar hakasheh (difficult case) they brought unto Moshe, but every devar hakaton they judged themselves.
27 And Moshe let his khoten depart; and he went his way into his own land.
19:1 In the chodesh hashelishi (third new moon), after the Bnei Yisroel had their exodus from Eretz Mitzrayim, on that very day they came into the Midbar Sinai.
2 For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to Midbar Sinai, and had encamped in the midbar; and there Yisroel camped before HaHar.
3 And Moshe went up to HaElohim, and Hashem called out unto him from HaHar, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the Bais Ya’akov, and declare unto the Bnei Yisroel;
4 You yourselves have seen what I did unto the Mitzrayim, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto Myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice very carefully, and be shomer over My brit, then ye shall be a segullah (treasured possession) unto Me above all people; for kol ha’aretz is Mine;
6 And ye shall be unto Me a mamlechet kohanim, and a goy kadosh. These are the words which thou shalt recount unto the Bnei Yisroel.
7 And Moshe came and summoned the Ziknei HaAm, and set authoritatively before their faces all these words just as Hashem commanded him.
8 And kol HaAm answered together, and said, All that Hashem hath spoken we will do. And Moshe brought back the words of HaAm unto Hashem.
9 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Hinei, I am coming unto thee in a thick cloud, that HaAm may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee l’olam. Then Moshe told the words of HaAm unto Hashem.
10 So Hashem said unto Moshe, Go unto HaAm, and set them apart as kodesh today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothing,
11 And be ready by Yom HaShelishi; for Yom HaShelishi Hashem will come down in the sight of kol HaAm upon Mt. Sinai.
12 And thou shalt set boundaries unto HaAm all around, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into HaHar, or touch the edge of it; whosoever toucheth HaHar shall be surely put to death;
13 There shall no yad touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or surely mortally shot; whether it be behemah or ish, it shall not live; when the yovel soundeth long, they shall come up to HaHar.
14 So Moshe came down from HaHar unto HaAm, and set apart as kodesh HaAm; and they washed their clothes.
15 Then he said to HaAm, Be ready by Sheloshet Yamim; come not into your isha.
16 And it came to pass on the Yom HaShelishi when the boker was breaking, that there were thunderings and lightnings, and a heavy cloud upon HaHar, and the blast of the shofar exceeding loud; so that kol HaAm that was in the machaneh trembled with terror.
17 And Moshe led HaAm forth out of the machaneh to encounter HaElohim; and they stood at the foot of HaHar.
18 And Mt. Sinai was altogether smoking, because Hashem descended upon it in eish; and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of the furnace, and kol HaHar shook violently.
19 And when the sound of the shofar was moving [closer], and grew louder and louder, Moshe spoke, and HaElohim answered him in thunder.
20 And Hashem came down upon Mt. Sinai, onto the top of HaHar; and Hashem summoned Moshe up to the top of HaHar; and Moshe went up.
21 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Go down, warn HaAm, lest they push through toward Hashem to gaze, and many of them fall perishing.
22 And let the kohanim also, which come near to Hashem, set themselves apart as kodesh, lest Hashem break forth upon them.
23 And Moshe said unto Hashem, HaAm cannot come up to Mt. Sinai; for You Yourself charged us, saying, Establish boundaries for HaHar, and set it apart as kodesh.
24 And Hashem said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aharon with thee; but let not the kohanim and HaAm push through to come up unto Hashem, lest He break forth upon them.
25 So Moshe went down unto HaAm and told them.
20:1 Then Elohim spoke all these words, saying,
2 I am Hashem Eloheicha, Who brought thee out of Eretz Mitzrayim, out of the bais avadim (house of slaves).
3 Thou shalt have no elohim acherim in My presence.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any pesel, or any temunah of any thing that is in Shomayim above, or that is in ha’aretz beneath, or that is in the mayim under ha’aretz.
5 Thou shalt not tishtacheveh to them, nor serve them; for I Hashem Eloheicha am an El kanna, visiting the avon Avot upon the Banim unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
6 But showing chesed unto thousands of them that love Me, and are shomer over My mitzvot.
7 Thou shalt not take the Shem Hashem Eloheicha in vain; for Hashem will not hold him guiltless that taketh Shmo in vain.
8 Remember Yom HaShabbos, to keep it kodesh.
9 Sheshet yamim shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
10 But the Yom HaShevi’i is the Shabbos of Hashem Eloheicha; in it thou shalt not do any melachah, thou, nor thy ben, nor thy bat, thy eved, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy ger that is within thy gates;
11 For in sheshet yamim Hashem made Shomayim and Ha’Aretz, the yam, and all that in them is, and rested Yom HaShevi’i; for this reason Hashem blessed Yom HaShabbos, and set it apart as kodesh.
12 Honor thy av and thy em; that thy yamim may be long upon ha’adamah which Hashem Eloheicha giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not murder.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear ed sheker against thy neighbor.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s bais, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s isha, nor his eved, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
18 And kol HaAm saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the sound of the shofar, and HaHar smoking; and when HaAm saw it, they drew back, and stood afar off.
19 And they said unto Moshe, Thou speak with us, and we will hear; but let not Elohim speak with us, lest we die (see Bereshis 42:23).
20 And Moshe said unto HaAm, Fear not: for HaElohim is come to test you, and that His fear may be upon your faces, that ye sin not.
21 And HaAm stood afar off, while Moshe drew near unto the thick cloud where HaElohim was.
22 And Hashem said unto Moshe, Thus thou shalt say unto the Bnei Yisroel, You yourselves have seen that from Shomayim I have spoken with you.
23 Ye shall not make beside Me elohei kesef, neither shall ye make for yourselves elohei zahav.)• Twelve Jews Burnt at Auto De Fe in Peru (1639)
With the inquisition having arrived on American shores, twelve Jews were burnt in an auto de fe in Lima, Peru, on the 18th of Shevat 5399 (1639). Of the sixty-three Jews who were condemned at the time to various punishments, eleven were burnt alive at the stake, along with the body of a twelfth, who had committed suicide during the trial.
Amongst those burnt was Manuel Bautista Perez, reported to have been the richest man in Peru at the time, as well as Francisco Maldonado de Silva, a surgeon, poet, and philosopher who was seized in Chile in 1627, and remained in the dungeons of the Inquisition for nearly twelve years. His devotion to his faith never wavered; while in prison he even converted two Catholics to Judaism!
Daily Study
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Yitro, 7th Portion Exodus 20:15-20:23 with Rashi
• Chapter 20
15. And all the people saw the voices and the torches, the sound of the shofar, and the smoking mountain, and the people saw and trembled; so they stood from afar. טו. וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת הַלַּפִּידִם וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר וְאֶת הָהָר עָשֵׁן וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק:
And all the people saw: [This] teaches [us] that there was not one blind person among them. From where do we know that [there was] no mute person among them? The Torah states: “And all the people replied” (Exod. 19:8). From where do we know that there was no deaf person among them? The Torah states: “We will do and hear” (Exod. 24:7). [from Mechilta] וכל העם ראים: מלמד שלא היה בהם אחד סומא. ומנין שלא היה בהם אלם, תלמוד לומר (שמות יט ח) ויענו כל העם. ומנין שלא היה בהם חרש, תלמוד לומר נעשה ונשמע (שמות כד ז):
the voices: They saw what was audible, which is impossible to see elsewhere. — [from Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai] ראים את הקולות: רואין את הנשמע, שאי אפשר לראות במקום אחר:
the voices: Emanating from the mouth of the Almighty. Many voices, voices coming from every direction, and from the heavens, and from the earth. — [Rashi above, verse 2] את הקולת: היוצאין מפי הגבורה:
and trembled: Heb. וַיָנֻעוּ נוֹעַ means only trembling. — [from Mechilta] וינעו: (שם) אין נוע אלא זיע:
so they stood from afar: They were drawing backwards twelve mil, as far as the length of their camp. The ministering angels came and assisted them [in order] to bring them back, as it is said: “Kings of hosts wander; yea they wander” (Ps. 68:13). [from Shab. 88b] ויעמדו מרחק: היו נרתעין לאחוריהם שנים עשר מיל כאורך מחניהם ומלאכי השרת באין ומסייעין אותן להחזירם, שנאמר (תהלים סח יג) מלכי צבאות ידודון ידודון:
16. They said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear, but let God not speak with us lest we die." טז. וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל משֶׁה דַּבֶּר אַתָּה עִמָּנוּ וְנִשְׁמָעָה וְאַל יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ אֱלֹהִים פֶּן נָמוּת:
17. But Moses said to the people, "Fear not, for God has come in order to exalt you, and in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin." יז. וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם אַל תִּירָאוּ כִּי לְבַעֲבוּר נַסּוֹת אֶתְכֶם בָּא הָאֱלֹהִים וּבַעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם לְבִלְתִּי תֶחֱטָאוּ:
in order to exalt you: To magnify you in the world, so that your name should circulate among the nations, that He in His glory revealed Himself to you. — [from Mechilta] לבעבור נסות אתכם: לגדל אתכם בעולם שיצא לכם שם באומות שהוא בכבודו נגלה עליכם:
to exalt: נַסוֹת, an expression of exaltation and greatness, similar to “lift up a banner (נֵס)” (Isa. 62:10); “will I raise My standard (נִסִי)” (Isa. 49:22); “and like a flagpole (וְכַנֵּס) on a hill” (Isa. 30:17), which is upright. [Thus all these words signify “raising up.”] נסות: לשון הרמה וגדולה, כמו (ישעיה סב י) הרימו נס, ארים נסי (ישעיהו מט כב), וכנס על הגבעה (ישעיהו ל, יז), שהוא זקוף:
and in order that His awe: By way of the fact that you saw that He is feared and dreaded, you will know that there is none beside Him and you will fear him. ובעבור תהיה יראתו: על ידי שראיתם אותו יראוי ומאוים, תדעו כי אין זולתו ותיראו מפניו:
18. The people remained far off, but Moses drew near to the opaque darkness, where God was. יח. וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם מֵרָחֹק וּמשֶׁה נִגַּשׁ אֶל הָעֲרָפֶל אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים:
drew near to the opaque darkness: Within three partitions: darkness, cloud, and opaque darkness, as it is said: “And the mountain was burning with fire unto the heart of the heavens, darkness, cloud, and opaque darkness” (Deut. 4:11). Opaque darkness is [synonymous with] “the thickness of the cloud,” [concerning] which He [God] had said to him [Moses], “Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud” (Exod. 19:9). [from Mechilta] נגש אל הערפל: לפנים משלש מחיצות, חשך ענן וערפל שנאמר (דברים ד יא) וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים חשך ענן וערפל, ערפל הוא עב הענן, שנאמר לו (שמות יט ט) הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן:
19. The Lord said to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, You have seen that from the heavens I have spoken with you. יט. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה כֹּה תֹאמַר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם כִּי מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם דִּבַּרְתִּי עִמָּכֶם:
So shall you say: with this language. — [from Mechilta] I.e., with this exact wording and in Hebrew. — [Mechilta] כה תאמר: בלשון הזה:
You have seen: There is a difference between what a person sees and what others tell him. [Concerning] what others tell him, sometimes his heart is divided whether to believe [it or not]. — [from Mechilta] אתם ראיתם: יש הפרש בין מה שאדם רואה למה שאחרים משיחין לו, שמה שאחרים משיחין לו פעמים שלבו חלוק מלהאמין:
from the heavens I have spoken: But another verse states: “The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai” (Exod. 19:20). The third verse comes and harmonizes them: “From the heavens He let you hear His voice in order to discipline you, and on earth He showed you His great fire” (Deut. 4:36). His glory was in heaven, His fire and His power were on the earth. Alternatively, He bent down the [lower] heavens and the highest heavens and spread them out upon the mountain. So [Scripture] says: “And He bent the heavens, and He came down” (Ps. 18:10). [from Mechilta] כי מן השמים דברתי: וכתוב אחד אומר וירד ה' על הר סיני, בא הכתוב השלישי והכריע ביניהם (דברים ד לו) מן השמים השמיעך את קולו ליסרך ועל הארץ הראך את אשו הגדולה, כבודו בשמים ואשו וגבורתו על הארץ. דבר אחר הרכין שמים ושמי השמים והציען על ההר, וכן הוא אומר (תהלים יח י) ויט שמים וירד:
20. You shall not make [images of anything that is] with Me. Gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves. כ. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם:
You shall not make [images of anything that is] with Me: You shall not make a likeness of my servants who serve Me on high. — [from Mechilta, R.H. 24] לא תעשון אתי: לא תעשון דמות שמשי המשמשים לפני במרום:
Gods of silver: This [statement] comes to warn about the cherubim, which you make to stand with Me [in the Temple], that they may not be [made] of silver, for if you deviate to make them of silver, they are to Me as gods. — [from Mechilta] אלהי כסף: בא להזהיר על הכרובים, שאתה עושה לעמוד אתי, שלא יהיו של כסף, שאם שניתם לעשותם של כסף הרי הן לפני כאלהות:
or gods of gold: This [statement] comes to warn [us] that one shall not add [more cherubim] to [the two, which is the number God required]. For if you make four [cherubim], they are to Me as gods of gold. — [from Mechilta] ואלהי זהב: בא להזהיר שלא יוסיף על שנים, שאם עשית ארבעה, הרי הן לפני כאלהי זהב:
you shall not make for yourselves: You shall not say, “I will make cherubim in the synagogues and in the study halls, in the manner that I make [them] in the Temple.” Therefore, it says: “you shall not make for yourselves.” -[from Mechilta] לא תעשו לכם: לא תאמר הריני עושה כרובים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות כדרך שאני עושה בבית עולמים, לכך נאמר לא תעשו לכם:
21. An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter beside it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle. Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you. כא. מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ אֶת צֹאנְךָ וְאֶת בְּקָרֶךָ בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:
An altar of earth: Attached to the ground, [meaning] that it should not be built on pillars or on a block of wood (another version: [on] a base). [According to the Mechilta and Rashi on Zev. 58a, the reading is “archways.”] Alternatively, [מִזְבַָּח אִדָמָה means] that he [Moses] would fill the hollow of the altar with earth when they [the Israelites] encamped. [from Mechilta] מזבח אדמה: מחובר באדמה, שלא יבננו על גבי עמודים או על גבי כיפים. דבר אחר שהיה ממלא את חלל מזבח הנחשת אדמה בשעת חנייתן:
you shall make for Me: That from the beginning, it shall be made in My name. [I.e., it should not be made for another purpose and then later used as an altar.]-[from Mechilta] תעשה לי: שתהא תחילת עשייתו לשמי:
and you shall slaughter beside it: Heb. עָלָיו, like “And beside it (וְעָלָיו) was the tribe of Manasseh” (Num. 2:20). Or perhaps עָלָיו means literally “upon it.” Therefore, Scripture says: “the flesh and the blood on the altar of the Lord, your God” (Deut. 12:27), [meaning that only the flesh and blood are to be put on the altar] but the slaughtering is not [to be performed] on top of the altar. — [from Mechilta] וזבחת עליו: אצלו, כמו (במדבר ב כ) ועליו מטה מנשה. או אינו אלא עליו ממש, תלמוד לומר (דברים יב כז) הבשר והדם על מזבח ה' אלהיך, ואין שחיטה בראש המזבח:
your burnt offerings and your peace offerings: which are from your sheep and your cattle. “Your sheep and your cattle” is the explanation of “your burnt offerings and your peace offerings.” את עלתיך ואת שלמיך: אשר מצאנך ומבקרך. את צאנך ואת בקרך, פירוש לאת עולתיך ואת שלמיך:
Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you: Heb. אַזְכִּיר, lit., I will mention. [This should apparently read ךְתַּזְכִּיר, you will mention. Therefore, Rashi explains that it means: whenever] I will permit you to mention My Explicit Name, there I will come to you and bless you. I will cause My Shechinah to rest upon you. From here you learn that permission was given to mention the Explicit Name only in the place to which the Shechinah comes, and that is in the Temple in Jerusalem. There permission was given to the priests to mention the Explicit Name when they raise their hands to bless the people. — [from Mechilta, Sifrei, Num. 6:23, Sotah 38a] בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי: אשר אתן לך רשות להזכיר שם המפורש שלי, שם אבוא אליך וברכתיך אשרה שכינתי עליך מכאן אתה למד שלא ניתן רשות להזכיר שם המפורש אלא במקום שהשכינה באה שם, וזהו בית הבחירה. שם נתן רשות לכהנים להזכיר שם המפורש בנשיאת כפים לברך את העם:
22. And when you make for Me an altar of stones, you shall not build them of hewn stones, lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it. כב. וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי לֹא תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלֲלֶהָ:
And when you make for Me an altar of stones: Heb. אִם. Rabbi Ishmael says: Every [mention of] אִם in the Torah is optional except [for] three. [One of them is in this verse:] “And when (אִם) you make Me an altar of stones.” Behold, this אִם serves as an expression of כַּאִשֶׁר, when, [meaning] and “when you make Me an altar of stones, you shall not build them of hewn stones.” [This אִם cannot mean “if,”] for it is incumbent upon you to build an altar of stones, for it is said: “[Of] whole stones shall you build” (Deut. 27:6). Similarly, “When (אִם) you lend money” (Exod. 22:24) is obligatory, for it is said: “and you shall lend him” (Deut. 15:8). This one, too, serves as an expression of כַּאִשֶׁר, when. Similarly, “And when (אִם) you offer up a first fruits offering” (Lev. 2:14). This is the omer offering, which is [also] obligatory. Thus [all] these instances of אִם are not conditional but are definite and serve as an expression of כַּאִשֶׁר, when. — [from Mechilta] ואם מזבח אבנים: רבי ישמעאל אומר כל אם ואם שבתורה רשות, חוץ משלשה ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי, הרי אם זה משמש בלשון כאשר, כאשר תעשה לי מזבח אבנים לא תבנה אתהן גזית שהרי חובה עליך לבנות מזבח אבנים, שנאמר (דברים כז ו) אבנים שלמות תבנה, וכן (שמות כב כד) אם כסף תלוה, חובה הוא, שנאמר (דברים טו ח) והעבט תעביטנו. ואף זה משמש בלשון כאשר וכן (ויקרא ב יד) ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים זו מנחת העומר, שהיא חובה, ועל כרחך אין אם הללו תלוין, אלא ודאין, ובלשון כאשר הם משמשים:
hewn stones: Heb. גָזִית, an expression of shearing (גְּזִיזָה), [meaning] that [the stone-cutter] hews them and cuts them (וַּמְסַךְתְּתָן) with iron [tools]. גזית: לשון גזיזה שפוסלן ומסתתן בברזל:
lest you wield your sword upon it: Heb. כִּי. This [instance of] כִּי serves as an expression of פֶּן, lest, which is the same as “perhaps.” Perhaps you will wield your sword upon it. כי חרבך הנפת עליה: הרי כי זה משמש בלשון פן, שהוא דילמא, פן תניף חרבך עליה:
and desecrate it: Thus you have learned that if you wield iron upon it, you have desecrated it, for the altar was created to lengthen man’s days, and iron was created to shorten man’s days [because it is used to make swords]. It is improper that the “shortener” be wielded over the “lengthener” (Middoth 3:4). Moreover, the altar makes peace between Israel and their Father in heaven. Therefore, the cutter and destroyer shall not come upon it. The matter is a kal vachomer [a fortiori] conclusion-if [concerning the] stones, which neither see, hear, nor speak, because [of the fact that] they make peace, the Torah said, “You shall not wield iron upon them” (Deut. 27:5), how much more [are we certain that] one who makes peace between husband and wife, between family and family, between man and his fellow, will have no troubles befall him!-[from Mechilta] ותחללה: הא למדת, שאם הנפת עליה ברזל חללת, שהמזבח נברא להאריך ימיו של אדם, והברזל נברא לקצר ימיו של אדם, אין זה בדין, שיונף המקצר על המאריך. ועוד, שהמזבח מטיל שלום בין ישראל לאביהם שבשמים, לפיכך לא יבא עליו כורת ומחבל. והרי דברים קל וחומר ומה אבנים שאינם רואות ולא שומעות ולא מדברות על ידי שמטילות שלום אמרה תורה לא תניף עליהם ברזל, המטיל שלום בין איש לאשתו, בין משפחה למשפחה, בין אדם לחבירו, על אחת כמה וכמה שלא תבואהו פורענות:
23. And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it.' " כג. וְלֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתְךָ עָלָיו:
And you shall not ascend with steps: When you build a ramp for the altar, do not make it with steps, eschalons in Old French, but it must be smooth and slanting. — [from Mechilta]. ולא תעלה במעלות: כשאתה בונה כבש למזבח, לא תעשהו מעלות מעלות אישיקלונ"ש בלעז [מדרגות] אלא חלק יהא ומשופע:
so that your nakedness shall not be exposed: Because due to the steps, you must widen your stride, although it would not be an actual exposure of nakedness, for it is written: “And make them linen pants” (Exod. 28:42). Nevertheless, widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness [of the one ascending the steps], and you behave toward them [the stones] in a humiliating manner. Now these matters are a kal vachomer [a fortiori] conclusion, that if [concerning] these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation-the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. [In contrast,] your friend, who is [created] in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more [must you be careful not to embarrass him]!-[from Mechilta] אשר לא תגלה ערותך: שעל ידי המעלות אתה צריך להרחיב פסיעותיך, ואף על פי שאינו גלוי ערוה ממש, שהרי כתיב (שמות כח מב) ועשה להם מכנסי בד, מכל מקום הרחבת הפסיעות קרוב לגלוי ערוה הוא, ואתה נוהג בהם מנהג בזיון. והרי דברים קל וחומר ומה אבנים הללו שאין בהם דעת להקפיד על בזיונן אמרה תורה הואיל ויש בהם צורך, לא תנהג בהם מנהג בזיון, חבירך שהוא בדמות יוצרך, ומקפיד על בזיונו, על אחת כמה וכמה:
Tehillim: Chapters 88 - 89
• Chapter 88
The psalmist weeps and laments bitterly over the maladies and suffering Israel endures in exile, which he describes in detail.
1. A song, a psalm by the sons of Korach, for the Conductor, upon the machalat le'anot; 1 a maskil2 for Heiman the Ezrachite.
2. O Lord, God of my deliverance, by day I cried out [to You], by night I [offer my prayer] before You.
3. Let my prayer come before You; turn Your ear to my supplication.
4. For my soul is sated with affliction, and my life has reached the grave.
5. I was reckoned with those who go down to the pit, I was like a man without strength.
6. [I am regarded] among the dead who are free, like corpses lying in the grave, of whom You are not yet mindful, who are yet cut off by Your hand.
7. You have put me into the lowest pit, into the darkest places, into the depths.
8. Your wrath has weighed heavily upon me, and all the waves [of Your fury] have constantly afflicted me.
9. You have estranged my friends from me, You have made me abhorrent to them; I am imprisoned and unable to leave.
10. My eye is afflicted because of distress; I call to You, O Lord, every day; I have stretched out my hands [in prayer] to You.
11. Do You perform wonders for the deceased? Do the dead stand to offer You praise? Selah.
12. Is Your kindness recounted in the grave, your faithfulness in the place of perdition?
13. Are Your wondrous deeds known in the darkness [of the grave], or Your righteousness in the land of oblivion?
14. But, I, to You, O Lord, I cry; each morning my prayer comes before You.
15. Why, O Lord, do You forsake my soul? Why do You conceal Your countenance from Me?
16. From my youth I have been afflicted and approaching death, yet I have borne the fear of You which is firmly established within me.
17. Your furies have passed over me; Your terrors have cut me down.
18. They have engulfed me like water all day long, they all together surrounded me.
19. You have estranged from me beloved and friend; I have been rejected by my intimates.
Chapter 89
This psalm speaks of the kingship of the House of David, the psalmist lamenting its fall from power for many years, and God's abandonment and spurning of us.
1. A maskil1 by Eitan the Ezrachite.
2. I will sing of the Lord's kindness forever; to all generations I will make known Your faithfulness with my mouth.
3. For I have said, "The world is built with kindness; there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness.”
4. I have made a covenant with My chosen one; I have sworn to David, My servant:
5. "I will establish Your descendants forever; I will build your throne for all generations," Selah.
6. Then the heavens will extol Your wonders, O Lord; Your faithfulness, too, in the congregation of the holy ones.
7. Indeed, who in heaven can be compared to the Lord, who among the supernal beings can be likened to the Lord!
8. The Almighty is revered in the great assembly of the holy ones, awe-inspiring to all who surround Him.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, who is mighty like You, O God! Your faithfulness surrounds You.
10. You rule the vastness of the sea; when its waves surge, You still them.
11. You crushed Rahav (Egypt) like a corpse; with Your powerful arm You scattered Your enemies.
12. Yours are the heavens, the earth is also Yours; the world and all therein-You established them.
13. The north and the south-You created them; Tabor and Hermon sing of [the greatness] of Your Name.
14. Yours is the arm which has the might; strengthen Your hand, raise high Your right hand.
15. Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; kindness and truth go before Your countenance.
16. Fortunate is the people who know the sound of the shofar; Lord, they walk in the light of Your countenance.
17. They rejoice in Your Name all day, and they are exalted through Your righteousness.
18. Indeed, You are the splendor of their might, and in Your goodwill our glory is exalted.
19. For our protectors turn to the Lord, and our king to the Holy One of Israel.
20. Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones and said: "I have granted aid to [David] the mighty one; I have exalted the one chosen from among the people.
21. I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil.
22. It is he whom My hand shall be prepared [to assist]; My arm, too, shall strengthen him.
23. The enemy shall not prevail over him, nor shall the iniquitous person afflict him.
24. And I will crush his adversaries before him, and will strike down those who hate him.
25. Indeed, My faithfulness and My kindness shall be with him, and through My Name his glory shall be exalted.
26. I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers.
27. He will call out to Me, 'You are my Father, my God, the strength of my deliverance.’
28. I will also make him [My] firstborn, supreme over the kings of the earth.
29. I will maintain My kindness for him forever; My covenant shall remain true to him.
30. And I will bestow [kingship] upon his seed forever, and his throne will endure as long as the heavens last.
31. If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My ordinances;
32. if they profane My statutes and do not observe My commandments,
33. then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their misdeeds with plagues.
34. Yet I shall not take away My kindness from him, nor betray My faithfulness.
35. I will not abrogate My covenant, nor change that which has issued from My lips.
36. One thing I have sworn by My holiness-I will not cause disappointment to David.
37. His seed will endure forever and his throne will be [resplendent] as the sun before Me.
38. Like the moon, it shall be established forever; [the moon] is a faithful witness in the sky for all time.”
39. Yet You have forsaken and abhorred; You became enraged at Your anointed.
40. You annulled the covenant with Your servant; You have profaned his crown [by casting it] to the ground.
41. You shattered all his fences; You turned all his strongholds into ruin.
42. All wayfarers despoiled him; he has become a disgrace to his neighbors.
43. You have uplifted the right hand of his adversaries; You have made all his enemies rejoice.
44. You also turned back the blade of his sword, and did not sustain him in battle.
45. You put an end to his splendor, and toppled his throne to the ground.
46. You have cut short the days of his youth; You have enclothed him with long-lasting shame.
47. How long, O Lord, will You conceal Yourself-forever? [How long] will Your fury blaze like fire?
48. O remember how short is my life span! Why have You created all children of man for naught?
49. What man can live and not see death, can save his soul forever from the grave?
50. Where are Your former deeds of kindness, my Lord, which You swore to David in Your faithfulness?
51. Remember, my Lord, the disgrace of Your servants, that I bear in my bosom from all the many nations;
52. that Your enemies have disgraced, O Lord, that they have disgraced the footsteps of Your anointed.
53. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 25• Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 25
והן בבחינת ועשה טוב, להתגבר כארי בגבורה ואומ’ הלב
Likewise in the category of “doing good” one can employ the power of his “hidden love,” to strengthen himself like a lion with might and determination of heart,
נגד היצר המכביד את גופו ומפיל עליו עצלה, מבחינת יסוד העפר שבנפש הבהמית
against the evil nature which weighs down his body and casts over him a sloth, which stems from the element of Earth that is in his animal soul. 1
מלהטריח גופו בזריזות בכל מיני טורח ועבודת משא בעבודת ה‘ שיש בה טורח ועמל
This laziness prevents him from exerting his body energetically with every type of effort and strain, in the service of G‑d that entails effort and toil.
כגון לעמול בתורה בעיון, ובפה: לא פסיק פומיה מגירסא
For example, to labor in the Torah with deep concentration, and also orally, so that “his mouth will never cease from Torah study”;
וכמאמר רז״ל: לעולם ישים אדם עצמו על דברי תורה כשור לעול וכחמור למשאוי
as our Sages have said: 2 “A man should always submit to the words of Torah like the ox to the yoke, and the ass to the load.”
וכן לתפלה בכונה, בכל כחו ממש
Similarly with regard to devout prayer, he should exert himself with all the strength he can muster.
וכן בעבודת ה’ שהיא בדבר שבממון, כמו עבודת הצדקה
So too with regard to serving G‑d in monetary matters, such as the duty of charity, 3
וכיוצא באלו ממלחמות היצר ותחבולותיו, לקרר נפש האדם, שלא להפקיר ממונו ובריאות גופו
and in similar matters that entail great effort where one must struggle with the evil inclination and its wiles which seek to cool the ardor of a man’s soul, claiming that he ought not dissipate his money in the case of charity or his health in matters requiring physical exertion.
שלעמוד נגדו ולכבשו קרוב מאד אל האדם, כשישים אל לבו שלנצח היצר בכל זה ויותר מזה, ולעשות הפכו ממש, קל מאד מיסורי מיתה, ה‘ ישמרנו
It is very easy for a person to resist and subjugate his nature when he considers deeply that to conquer his nature in all the above and more, and in fact to do the very opposite, i.e., to exert himself strenuously, both bodily and financially, is much lighter suffering than death (May G‑d preserve us!).
ויסורי מיתה, ה’ ישמרנו, היה מקבל באהבה וברצון, שלא ליפרד מיחודו ואחדותו יתברך אפילו לפי שעה, להשתחוות לעבודה זרה, חס ושלום
Yet he would lovingly and willingly have accepted the pain of death (G‑d preserve us!) so as not to be separated from G‑d’s unity and oneness even for a moment by an act of idolatry, G‑d forbid.
For, as mentioned earlier, every Jew would sacrifice his life rather than practice idolatry, since he knows that it represents separation from G‑d.
וכל שכן שיש לו לקבל באהבה וברצון כדי לדבקה בו לעולם ועד
Certainly, then, he ought to accept lovingly and willingly the comparatively minor pain of exerting himself in the performance of the mitzvot in order to bind himself to G‑d with an eternal bond.
There is a twofold a fortiori argument here. Firstly, performing a mitzvah actively bindsman to G‑d, as opposed to refraining from idolatry, which merely prevents separation from Him. Secondly, the bond effected by the mitzvah is an eternal one, as opposed to the temporary separation from G‑d caused by idolatry. Now if one would sacrifice his life to refrain from idolatry, how much more so ought he accept whatever hardships are entailed by fulfilling themitzvot, since their performance has both these gains that are not found in the rejection of idolatry.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain how mitzvot effect an eternal bond with G‑d.
דהיינו כשיעשה רצונו יתברך בעבודה זו, יתגלה בה פנימית רצון העליון בבחינת פנים וגילוי רב, ולא בהסתר כלל
For by fulfilling G‑d’s Will through this service despite the exertion involved, the innermost Divine Will will be revealed in it — internally as opposed to “surrounding” it or “hovering” over it from above, and very manifestly, without any obscurity whatever.
As explained in ch. 23, the mitzvot represent G‑d’s innermost Will, and when one performs them, this Will stands completely revealed.
וכשאין שום הסתר פנים ברצון העליון, אזי אין דבר נפרד כלל וכלל, להיות יש ודבר בפני עצמו
Now, when there is no “concealment of the Countenance” of the Divine Will, nothing is at all separate from G‑dliness, having an independent and separate identity of its own.
For, as explained in chs. 22 and 24, no created being can possibly consider itself separate from G‑d unless the Divine Will is concealed from it. Since the inner aspect of this Will stands revealed in one’s performance of a mitzvah, it does not permit any sense of separation.
ולזאת תהיינה נפשו האלקית והחיונית ולבושיהן כולן מיוחדות בתכלית היחוד ברצון העליון ואור אין סוף ברוך הוא כנ״ל
Thus his soul i.e., the soul of the person performing the mitzvah, both the divine and the animating souls, and their “garments” of thought, speech, and action, will be united in perfect unity with the Divine Will and with the infinite light of G‑d, blessed be He, as explained above.
This details how the mitzvot effect a bond between man and G‑d. The Alter Rebbe will now go on to explain why this bond is eternal.
ויחוד זה למעלה הוא נצחי לעולם ועד, כי הוא יתברך ורצונו למעלה מהזמן
In the upper spheres, this union between the soul and G‑d is eternal. For G‑d, blessed be He, and His Will transcend time, and thus the union with G‑d and His Will also transcends time and is eternal.
וכן גילוי רצונו שבדבורו שהיא התורה הוא נצחי
So too even in this world His revealed Will, as expressed in His Word — the Torah, is also eternal,
וכמו שכתוב: ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם, ודבריו חיים וקיימים כו‘, ולא יחליף ולא ימיר דתו לעולמים כו’
as it is written: 4 “But the Word of our G‑d shall stand forever”; and5 “His words live and endure (eternally)”; and6 “He will never alter or exchange His law.”
Since the revelation of G‑d’s Will as expressed in the Torah is beyond time, the union of the soul with G‑d that Torah and mitzvot effect is likewise eternal.
| FOOTNOTES | |
| 1. | See ch. 1. |
| 2. | Avodah Zarah 5b. |
| 3. | The three examples given here correspond to the three "pillars" of Torah, avodah, and gemilut chassadim. |
| 4. | Yeshayahu 40:8. |
| 5. | From the prayer following the morning Shema. |
| 6. | From the medieval hymn Yigdal, based on the Thirteen Principles of Faith formulated by Rambam. |
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Shevat 18, 5775 · February 7, 2015
Today's MitzvahA daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Negative Commandment 200
Allowing Chametz to be Seen
"And there shall be no leavened bread seen in your possession, neither shall leaven be seen within all your property"—Exodus 13:7.
No chametz (leavened foods) may be seen in our possession for the duration of the holiday of Passover.
Allowing Chametz to be Seen
Negative Commandment 200
Translated by Berel Bell
The 200th prohibition is that we are forbidden to have chometz seen in our dwellings all seven1 days [of Pesach].
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "None of your chometz may be seen, and none of your s'or3 may be seen in all your territories."
These [chometz and s'or] are not two separate prohibitions with separate content, but rather one and the same idea. The Sages said this explicitly:4 "The verse begins with chometz and ends with s'or. This teaches you that chometz and s'or are the same." The intention of this statement: there is no difference between the s'or itself and that which it made into chometz. [I.e. both are included in this one prohibition].
One who transgressed and left chometz in his possession is not punished by lashes,5 unless he bought chometz on Pesach and officially took possession of it. Then, he would have performed an action [and therefore receives lashes]. In the words of the Tosefta,6 "One who retains chometz on Pesach or who leaves kilayim7 [growing in] his vineyard does not receive lashes."
FOOTNOTES
1.Outside of Israel, this mitzvah is for eight days.
2.Ex. 13:7.
3.S'or is used for its leavening action, to turn other foods into chometz.
4.Beitzah 7b.
5.One receives lashes only when an action was performed, not in a case where the prohibition came about automatically. Here, the prohibition came about because the person neglected to do an action, i.e. dispose of the chometz.
6.
Makkos 4:5.
7.
A mixture of species, in this case grapevines together with vegetables or grain. See N216.
Negative Commandment 201Owning Chametz
"Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses"—Exodus 12:19.
No chametz (leavened foods) may be in our possession on Passover, even if it is not visible, even if it belongs to another [Jew].
Owning Chametz
Negative Commandment 201
Translated by Berel Bell
The 201st prohibition is that we are forbidden to have chometz found in our dwellings, even if it is not visible, or if it is left as a deposit.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "For seven days, no chometz may be found in your homes."
As mentioned above2, one receives lashes for violating this prohibition only when an action was performed, in accordance with the principles explained in tractate Shavuos.3
Our Sages stated explicitly in a number of places, "One transgresses, 'It may not be seen,' and 'It may not be found.' "4
The laws of these two mitzvos are explained in the beginning of tractate Pesachim.5 There it is also explained which things are prohibited by the verse, "It may not be seen...in all your territories" [N200] and which are prohibited by the verse, "It may not be found in your homes" [N201].
There [in the beginning of Pesachim] it is explained that each of these two prohibitions derives something additional from the other6, and that one who keeps chometz on Pesach transgresses both, "It may not be seen" and "It may not be found."
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 12:19.
2.N200.
3.21a.
4.Therefore we see that N200 and N201 count as two separate mitzvos.
5.5b.
6.See Kessef Mishneh, Hilchos Chometz U'matzah, 1:3. Yad Halevi, N201.
Positive Commandment 158
Eating Matzah"In the evening [of the fifteenth of Nissan] you shall eat unleavened bread"—Exodus 12:18.
We are commanded to eat matzah, unleavened bread, on the eve of the fifteenth of Nissan, the first night of Passover.
Eating Matzah
Positive Commandment 158
Translated by Berel Bell
The 158th mitzvah is that we are commanded to eat matzah on the night of the 15th1 of Nissan. This mitzvah applies regardless of whether or not we have the Pesach sacrifice.2
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "In the evening [of the 15th of Nissan] you must eat matzos."
Our Sages explicitly stated,4 " 'In the evening you must eat matzos' — the Torah establishes it as a requirement." It is explained in Pesachim that eating matzah on the first night of Pesach is a requirement, while afterwards it is optional.5
The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Pesachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Outside of Israel, this obligation applies on the 16th as well.
2.Since the verse, "Eat it (the Pesach sacrifice) with matzah and maror," (Ex. 12:8) connects the mitzvah of eating matzah with the consumption of the Pesach sacrifice, one might think that it is not a separate mitzvah. Therefore, the Rambam points out that they are independent mitzvos, and that there is another verse for the mitzvah of matzah. See P56.
3.Ex. 12:18.
4.Mechilta. Pesachim 28b. 120a.
5.Although one may not eat chometz, one may eat foods other than matzah, such as fruit, etc. See Hilchos Chometz U'matzah 6:1.
1 Chapter: Teshuvah Teshuvah - Chapter Seven
• 3 Chapters: Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Five, Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Six, Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Seven
Hayom Yom:
• Shevat 18, 5775 · 02/07/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Yitro, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 88-89.
Tanya: Ch. 23. In the light (p. 93)...clothed in the worlds. (p. 93).
The Tzemach Tzedek told his son, my grandfather, that the maamar Umareihem uma'asseihem in Torah Or, Yitro, is the first discourse the Maggid delivered when he assumed leadership of the chassidim, on Shavuot 5521 (1761). The Alter Rebbe heard the maamar from R. Mendel Horodoker,1 author of Pri Haaretz, who had been present that Shavuot in 5521. However, the Alter Rebbe expounded the maamar in his own style.
FOOTNOTES
1. See "Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi," index on "Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk."
Daily Thought
Chabad - Today in Judaism Today is: Friday, Shvat 17, 5775 · February 6, 2015
Today in Jewish History
• Purim Saragossa (1421)
A noxious plot was brewing against the Jewish community of Saragossa, but they were completely unaware of the looming danger. They were spared, however, thanks to a handful of synagogues beadles who acted on a dream they all had. The resulting salvation on the 17th of Shevat was celebrated by Saragossan Jews, and dubbed "Purim Saragossa."
A Hebrew Megillah (scroll) was penned, describing the details of the miraculous story. To this day, this scroll is read in certain communities on Purim Saragossa.
Link: Purim Saragossa
Daily Quote:
"For man is a tree of the field" (Deuteronomy 20:19) -- our roots are our faith and commitment, our trunk and branches are our learning and character, and our deeds are our fruits[The Lubavitcher Rebbe]
Daily Study
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Yitro, 6th Portion Exodus 19:20-20:14 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
20. The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai, to the peak of the mountain, and the Lord summoned Moses to the peak of the mountain, and Moses ascended. כ. וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָֹה עַל הַר סִינַי אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָֹה לְמשֶׁה אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר וַיַּעַל משֶׁה:
The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai: I may think that He actually descended upon it. Therefore, Scripture says: “You have seen that from the heavens I have spoken with you” (Exod. 20:19). This teaches that [He did descend although still in the heavens,] He bent down the upper heavens and the lower heavens and spread them upon the mountain like a spread on a bed, and the Throne of Glory descended upon them [the upper heavens and the lower heavens]. — [from Mechilta] וירד ה' על הר סיני: יכול ירד עליו ממש, תלמוד לומר (שמות כ יט) כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם. מלמד שהרכין שמים העליונים והתחתונים והציען על גבי ההר, כמצע על המטה, וירד כסא הכבוד עליהם:
21. The Lord said to Moses, "Go down, warn the people lest they break [their formation to go nearer] to the Lord, and many of them will fall. כא. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה רֵד הָעֵד בָּעָם פֶּן יֶהֶרְסוּ אֶל יְהוָֹה לִרְאוֹת וְנָפַל מִמֶּנּוּ רָב:
warn the people: Heb. הָעֵד. Warn them not to go up the mountain. העד בעם: התרה בהם שלא לעלות בהר:
lest they break: their position [i.e., their ranks] because of their longing for God, to see [Him], and they move too close to the side of the mountain. פן יהרסו וגו': שלא יהרסו את מצבם על ידי שתאותם אל ה' לראות ויקרבו לצד ההר:
and many of them will fall: Heb. וְנָפַל. Whatever [number] falls from them, let it be even a single person, to Me it is considered [as if] many [have fallen]. — [from Mechilta] ונפל ממנו רב: כל מה שיפול מהם ואפילו הוא יחידי חשוב לפני רב:
lest they break: Heb. יֶהֶרְסוּ. Every [expression of] הִרִיסָה [denotes] the separation of the collection of [the parts of] the building. Likewise, those who separate from the position of people break up that position. יהרסו: כל הריסה מפרדת אסיפת הבנין, אף הנפרדין ממצב אנשים הורסים את המצב:
22. And also, the priests who go near to the Lord shall prepare themselves, lest the Lord wreak destruction upon them." כב. וְגַם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנִּגָּשִׁים אֶל יְהוָֹה יִתְקַדָּשׁוּ פֶּן יִפְרֹץ בָּהֶם יְהוָֹה:
And also, the priests: [I.e.,] also the firstborn, who perform the [divine] service. — [from Zev. 115b] וגם הכהנים: אף הבכורות שהעבודה בהם:
who go near to the Lord: to offer up sacrifices (targumim), they too shall not rely on their importance to ascend the mountain. הנגשים אל ה': להקריב קרבנות, אף הם אל יסמכו על חשיבותם לעלות:
shall prepare themselves: They shall be ready to stand on their position. יתקדשו: יהיו מזומנים להתיצב על עמדם:
lest the Lord wreak destruction: Heb. יִפְרֹץ, an expression of a breach. [This means] He will kill some of them and [thus] make a breach in them [their completeness]. פן יפרץ: לשון פרצה, יהרוג בהם ויעשה בהם פרצה:
23. And Moses said to the Lord, "The people cannot ascend to Mount Sinai, for You warned us saying, Set boundaries for the mountain and sanctify it.' " כג. וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה לֹא יוּכַל הָעָם לַעֲלֹת אֶל הַר סִינָי כִּי אַתָּה הַעֵדֹתָה בָּנוּ לֵאמֹר הַגְבֵּל אֶת הָהָר וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ:
The people cannot: I do not have to warn them because today they have already been warned for three days, and they cannot ascend [the mountain] since they have no permission. לא יוכל העם: איני צריך להעיד בהם שהרי מותרין ועומדין הם היום שלושת ימים, ולא יוכלו לעלות שאין להם רשות:
24. But the Lord said to him, "Go, descend, and [then] you shall ascend, and Aaron with you, but the priests and the populace shall not break [their formation] to ascend to the Lord, lest He wreak destruction upon them." כד. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יְהוָֹה לֶךְ רֵד וְעָלִיתָ אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן עִמָּךְ וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם אַל יֶהֶרְסוּ לַעֲלֹת אֶל יְהוָֹה פֶּן יִפְרָץ בָּם:
Go, descend: And warn them a second time. We admonish a person before the act [he is to perform], and we admonish him again at the time of the act [when it is to be performed]. [from Mechilta] לך רד: והעד בהם שנית, שמזרזין את האדם קודם מעשה, וחוזרין ומזרזין אותו בשעת מעשה:
and [then] you shall ascend, and Aaron with you, but the priests: I might think that they too shall be with you, [that the verse should be rendered: and you shall ascend, and Aaron with you, and the priests, but the people…]. Therefore, the Torah states: “and you shall ascend” [the pronoun is meant for emphasis, in order to exclude the priests]. Consequently, you must say that you [shall have] a partition for yourself, Aaron [shall have] a partition for himself, and the priests [shall have] a partition for themselves. Moses went closer than Aaron, and Aaron closer than the priests, but the people shall altogether not break their position to ascend to the Lord. — [from Mechilta] \b lest He wreak destruction upon them-Heb. \b0יִפְרָץ Although יִפְרָץ is vowelized with a short “kamatz,” it has not changed from its grammatical construction. So is the way of every word vowelized with a “melupum” ("cholam"); when it comes next to a “makkaf,” its vowelization changes to a short “kamatz.” [Hence, the word יִפְרֹץ -which in this case appears with a “makkaf,” a hyphen, is changed to יִפְרָץ] ועלית אתה ואהרן עמך והכהנים: יכול אף הם עמך, תלמוד לומר ועלית אתה. אמור מעתה, אתה מחיצה לעצמך ואהרן מחיצה לעצמו והם מחיצה לעצמם. משה נגש יותר מאהרן, ואהרן יותר מן הכהנים, והעם כל עיקר אל יהרסו את מצבם לעלות אל ה':
25. So Moses went down to the people and said [this] to them. כה. וַיֵּרֶד משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם:
and said [this] to them: this warning. [Apparently, Rashi understands “and said to them” to mean that Moses said something to them. Since the object is obscure, Rashi inserts “this warning,” to clarify that the verse means that Moses relayed to the Israelites God’s warning to keep their distance from the mountain.] ויאמר אליהם: התראה זו:
Chapter 20
1. God spoke all these words, to respond: א. וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר:
God spoke: Heb. אֱלֹהִים. [The word] אֱֱלֹהִים always means “a judge.” [This Divine Name is used here] because there are some sections in the Torah [that contain commandments] that if a person performs them, he receives a reward, but if not, he does not receive any punishment for them. I might think that so it is with the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Scripture says: “God (אֱלֹהִים) spoke,” [signifying God’s role as] a Judge, [Whose function is] to mete out punishment [when the Ten Commandments are not obeyed]. [from Mechilta] וידבר א-להים: אין א-להים אלא דיין. לפי שיש פרשיות בתורה שאם עשאן אדם מקבל שכר, ואם לאו אינו מקבל עליהם פורענות, יכול אף עשרת הדברות כן, תלמוד לומר וידבר א-להים, דיין ליפרע:
all these words: [This] teaches [us] that the Holy One, blessed be He, said the Ten Commandments in one utterance, something that is impossible for a human being to say [in a similar way]. If so, why does the Torah say again, “I am [the Lord, your God (verse 2)]” and “You shall have no…” (verse 3)? Because He later explained each statement [of the Ten Commandments] individually. — [from Mechilta] את כל הדברים האלה: מלמד שאמר הקב"ה עשרת הדברות בדבור אחד, מה שאי אפשר לאדם לומר כן. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר עוד אנכי ולא יהיה לך, שחזר ופירש על כל דבור ודבור בפני עצמו:
to respond: Heb. לֵאמֹר, lit., to say. [This] teaches [us] that they responded to the positive [commandments], “Yes,” and to the negative [commandments], “No.” -[from Mechilta] לאמר: מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן ועל לאו לאו:
2. "I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. ב. אָנֹכִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:
Who took you out of the land of Egypt: The taking [you] out [of Egypt] is sufficient reason for you to be subservient to Me. Alternatively, [God mentions the Exodus] since He revealed Himself on the sea as a valiant warrior, and here He revealed Himself as an old man full of mercy, as it is said: “and beneath His feet was like the form of a brick of sapphire” (Exod. 24:10). That [brick] was before Him at the time of the enslavement [to remember the Israelites’ suffering when they made bricks as slaves], “and like the appearance of the heavens” (Exod. 24:10), [i.e., there was joy before Him] when they were redeemed. Since I change in [My] appearances, do not say that they are two [Divine] domains, [but] I am He Who took you out of Egypt and [I am He Who performed the miracles] by the sea (Mechilta). Alternatively, [God mentions the Exodus] since they [the Israelites] heard many voices [during the revelation], as it is said: “And all the people saw the voices” (verse 15), [meaning that] voices came from four directions and from the heavens and from the earth, [so] do not say that there are many domains (Exod. Rabbah 5:9). And why did He say [this] in the singular [possessive], אֱלֹהֶי ? In order to give Moses an opening to offer a defense in the incident of the calf. This is [the meaning of] “Why, O Lord, should Your anger be kindled against Your people?” (Exod. 32:11). You did not command them, “You shall not have the gods of others before Me,” but [You commanded] me alone (Exod. Rabbah 43:5). אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים: כדאי היא ההוצאה שתהיו משועבדים לי. דבר אחר לפי שנגלה בים כגבור מלחמה, ונגלה כאן כזקן מלא רחמים, שנאמר (שמות כד י) ויראו את אלוהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר, זו היתה לפניו בשעת השעבוד, (שם) וכעצם השמים, משנגאלו, הואיל ואני משתנה במראות אל תאמרו שתי רשויות הן, אנכי הוא אשר הוצאתיך ממצרים ועל הים. דבר אחר לפי שהיו שומעין קולות הרבה, שנאמר, (להלן פסוק טו) את הקולות, קולות באין מארבע רוחות ומן השמים ומן הארץ, אל תאמרו רשויות הרבה הן. ולמה אמר לשון יחיד, אלהיך, ליתן פתחון פה למשה ללמד סניגוריא במעשה העגל, וזהו שאמר (שמות לב יא) למה ה' יחרה אפך בעמך, לא להם צוית, לא יהיה לכם א-להים אחרים, אלא לי לבדי:
out of the house of bondage: Literally, out of the house of slaves. [I.e.,] from Pharaoh’s house, where you were slaves to him. Or perhaps [Scripture] means only: from the house of slaves, that they were slaves to [other] slaves? Therefore, Scripture says: “and He redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (Deut. 7:8). Consequently, you must say that they were slaves to Pharaoh, but not slaves to [other] slaves. — [from Exod. Rabbah 43:5] מבית עבדים: מבית פרעה שהייתם עבדים לו. או אינו אומר אלא מבית עבדים, שהיו עבדים לעבדים, תלמוד לומר (דברים ז ח) ויפדך מבית עבדים מיד פרעה מלך מצרים, אמור מעתה עבדים למלך היו, ולא עבדים לעבדים:
3. You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. ג. לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל פָּנַי:
You shall not have: Why was this said? Since it says, “You shall not make for yourself, etc.” I know only that one may not make [graven idols, etc.] How do I know that one may not keep what was already made? Therefore, Scripture states: “You shall not have.” -[Mechilta] לא יהיה לך: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר (פסוק ד) לא תעשה לך, אין לי אלא שלא יעשה, העשוי כבר מנין שלא יקיים, תלמוד לומר לא יהיה לך:
the gods of others: Heb. אֱלֹהִים אִחֵרִים, which are not gods, but that others have made them for gods over themselves. It is impossible to interpret this passage to mean: gods other than I, since it is a disgrace for Heaven to call them gods along with Him. Alternatively: strange gods, for they are strange to their worshippers. They cry out to them, but they do not answer them, and it appears as if it [the god] were a stranger, who never knew him [the worshipper]. — [from Mechilta] א-להים אחרים: שאינן אלהות אלא אחרים עשאום א-להים עליהם, ולא יתכן לפרש א-להים אחרים זולתי, שגנאי הוא כלפי מעלה לקרותם אלהות אצלו. דבר אחר א-להים אחרים, שהם אחרים לעובדיהם, צועקים אליהם ואינן עונין אותם, ודומה כאלו הוא אחר שאינו מכירו מעולם:
in My presence: Heb. עַל-פָּנָּי [This means] as long as I exist [signifying forever. God states this so] that you should not say that only that generation was commanded [prohibited] concerning idolatry. — [from Mechilta] על פני: כל זמן שאני קיים, שלא תאמר לא נצטוו על עבודה זרה אלא אותו הדור:
4. You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. ד. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְּךָ פֶסֶל | וְכָל תְּמוּנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם | מִמַּעַל וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתַּחַת וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם | מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ:
a graven image: Heb. פֶּסֶל [It is called by this name] because it is sculpted (נִפְסָל). פסל: על שם שנפסל:
or any likeness: The likeness of anything that is in the heavens. וכל תמונה: תמונת כל דבר אשר בשמים:
5. You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, ה. לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם כִּי אָנֹכִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵל קַנָּא פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים לְשׂנְאָי:
a zealous God: Heb. קַנָּא, zealous to mete out punishment. He does not forgo retaliating by forgiving the sin of idolatry. Every [expression of] קַנָּא means enprenemant in Old French, zealous anger. He directs His attention to mete out punishment. אל קנא: מקנא ליפרע ואינו עובר על מדתו למחול על עון עבודה זרה, כל לשון קנא אינפרינמינ"ט בלעז [חרון אף] נותן לב ליפרע:
of those who hate Me: As the Targum [Onkelos paraphrases: when the sons continue to sin following their fathers, i.e.], when they cling to their fathers’ deeds. — [from Sanh. 27b] לשנאי: כתרגומו, כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם:
6. and [I] perform loving kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments. ו. וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד לַאֲלָפִים לְאֹהֲבַי וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָי:
perform loving-kindness: that a person does, to pay the reward until the two-thousandth generation. It is thus found that the measure of reward [from God] exceeds the measure of [His] retribution by [the ratio of] one to five hundred, for this one is for four generations, and that one is for two thousand [generations]. -[from Tosefta Sotah 4:1] ועושה חסד: נוצר חסד שאדם עושה, לשלם שכר עד לאלפים דור, נמצאת מדה טובה יתירה על מדת פורענות אחת על חמש מאות, שזו לארבעה דורות וזו לאלפים:
7. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. ז. לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְהֹוָה אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא אֶת שְׁמוֹ לַשָּׁוְא:
You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain: You shall not swear in vain by the name of the Lord, your God. — [Onkelos] לַֹשָוְא -[This word appears twice in this verse.] (The second [mention of לַֹשָוְא is an expression of falsehood, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְֹשִיקְרָא, as it says [in Shavuos 21a]: "What constitutes a vain oath? If one swears contrary to what is known, [for example, saying] about a stone pillar that it is [made of] gold. (The first [mention of לַֹשָוְא is an expression of vanity, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: [לְמַגָּנָא].) This [refers to] one who swears for no reason and in vain, [for example making an oath] concerning [a pillar] of wood, [saying] that it is wood, and concerning [a pillar] of stone, [saying] that it is stone. — [from Shevuoth 29a, Mechilta] לשוא: (השני לשון שקר כתרגומו) כמא דתימר (שבועות כט א) אי זהו שבועת שוא, נשבע לשנות את הידוע, על עמוד של אבן שהוא של זהב. (הראשון לשון מגן, כתרגומו) זה הנשבע לחנם ולהבל, על של עץ עץ ועל אבן אבן:
8. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. ח. זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ:
Remember: Heb. זָכוֹר [The words] “remember (זָכוֹר)” and “keep (שָׁמוֹר)” (Deut. 5:12) were pronounced with one utterance. Similarly [the statements], “Those who profane it shall be put to death” (Exod. 31:14) and “And on the Sabbath day, two lambs” (Num. 28:9) [were said in one utterance], and similarly, “You shall not wear shaatnez,” and “You shall make tzitzith for yourself” (Deut. 22:11, 12). Similarly, [the phrases] “The nakedness of your brother’s wife [you shall not uncover]” (Lev. 18:16), [and] “Her brother-in-law shall come in to her” (Deut. 25:5) [were said in one utterance]. This [occurrence of God saying two phrases simultaneously in one utterance] is the meaning of what is said: “God spoke one thing, I heard two” (Ps. 62:12) (Mechilta). [The word] זָכוֹר is in the פָּעוֹל form, an expression of ongoing action, like “[Let us engage in] eating and drinking אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ) )” (Isa. 22:13), [and] “walking and weeping הָלוֹ וָּבָכֹה) )” (II Sam. 3:16), and this is its interpretation: Pay attention to always remember the Sabbath day, so that if you chance upon a beautiful thing, you shall prepare it for the Sabbath (Mechilta). זכור: זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו. וכן (שמות לא יד) מחלליה מות יומת, (במדבר כח ט) וביום השבת שני כבשים, וכן (דברים כב יא) לא תלבש שעטנז, (שם יב) גדילים תעשה לך, וכן (ויקרא יח טז) ערות אשת אחיך, (דברים כה ה) יבמה יבא עליה, הוא שנאמר (תהלים סב יב) אחת דבר א-להים שתים זו שמעתי. זכור לשון פעול הוא, כמו (ישעיה כב יג) אכול ושתו, (שמואל ב ג טז) הלוך ובכה, וכן פתרונו תנו לב לזכור תמיד את יום השבת, שאם נזדמן לך חפץ יפה תהא מזמינו לשבת:
9. Six days may you work and perform all your labor, ט. שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד וְעָשִׂיתָ כָל מְלַאכְתֶּךָ:
and perform all your labor: When the Sabbath arrives, it shall seem to you as if all your work is done, that you shall not think about work. ועשית כל מלאכתך: כשתבא שבת, יהא בעיניך כאלו מלאכתך עשויה, שלא תהרהר אחר מלאכה:
10. but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord, your God; you shall perform no labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your beast, nor your stranger who is in your cities. י. וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת | לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה אַתָּה | וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:
neither you, your son, your daughter: These are young children. Or perhaps it refers to adult children? You must admit that they have already been warned [to observe the Sabbath]. Rather, [this word] comes only to warn adults concerning young children resting [from work] (Mechilta). This is the meaning of what we learned [in the Mishnah]: If a young child comes to extinguish [a fire on the Sabbath], you may not allow him [to do so] since you are responsible for his resting [from work] (Shab. 121a). אתה ובנך ובתך: אלו קטנים. או אינו אלא גדולים, אמרת הרי כבר מוזהרים הם, אלא לא בא אלא להזהיר גדולים על שביתת הקטנים, וזו ששנינו (שבת קכא א) קטן שבא לכבות אין שומעין לו, מפני ששביתתו עליך:
11. For [in] six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it. יא. כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ אֶת הַיָּם וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּם וַיָּנַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עַל כֵּן בֵּרַךְ יְהֹוָה אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ:
and He rested on the seventh day: As if [it were] possible, He ascribed rest [even] to Himself to teach (as an example) from Him of kal vachomer [a fortiori] reasoning for man, whose work is with toil and fatigue, that he must rest on the Sabbath. [I.e., although God does not and did not actually rest, He had His cessation of creating recorded as rest, so that humans would learn that if God, Whose work is accomplished without any toil or fatigue, rested on the Sabbath, surely people, whose work is accomplished only with hard work and fatigue, must rest on the Sabbath.]-[from Mechilta] וינח ביום השביעי: כביכול הכתיב בעצמו מנוחה ללמד הימנו קל וחומר לאדם, שמלאכתו בעמל וביגיעה, שיהא נח בשבת:
blessed…and sanctified it: He blessed it with manna to double it on the sixth day-"double bread"-and He sanctified it with manna, that it did not fall then [on the Sabbath]. — [from Mechilta] ברך, ויקדשהו: ברכו במן לכופלו בששי לחם משנה, וקדשו במן שלא היה יורד בו:
12. Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you. יב. כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:
in order that your days be lengthened: If you honor [your parents], your days will be lengthened, and if not, they will be shortened. The words of the Torah are written briefly; they are explained by deriving the negative from the affirmative and the affirmative from the negative. — [from Mechilta] למען יאריכון ימיך: אם תכבד יאריכון, ואם לאו יקצרון, שדברי תורה נוטריקון הם נדרשין מכלל הן לאו ומכלל לאו הן:
13. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. יג. לֹא תִּרְצָח: ס לֹא תִּנְאָף: ס לֹא תִּגְנֹב: ס לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר:
You shall not commit adultery: Adultery applies only [to relations] with a married woman, as it is said: "[And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a[nother] man, who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor,] [both] the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev. 20:10); [and it says,] “[You are] the adulterous wife, who, instead of her husband, takes strangers” (Ezek. 16:32). [In both these verses, the term “adultery” is used in reference to the extramarital relations of a married woman.] לא תנאף: אין ניאוף אלא באשת איש, שנאמר (ויקרא כ י) מות יומת הנואף והנואפת, ואומר (יחזקאל טז לב) האשה המנאפת תחת אישה תקח את זרים:
You shall not steal: The text refers to kidnapping. [The verse] “You shall not steal” (Lev. 19:11) refers to stealing money. Or perhaps this one [verse] refers only to stealing money and the one written further (in Lev.) refers to kidnapping? You must admit that [the meaning of] a statement is derived from its context. Just as [the former two commandments] “You shall not murder” [and] “You shall not commit adultery” refer to capital sins, “You shall not steal” also refers to a capital sin [i.e., a sin punishable by death]. — [from Sanh. 86a] לא תגנב: בגונב נפשות הכתוב מדבר. לא תגנובו (ויקרא יט יא) בגונב ממון. או אינו אלא זה בגונב ממון, ולהלן בגונב נפשות, אמרת דבר הלמד מענינו, מה לא תרצח, לא תנאף, מדבר בדבר שחייבין עליהם מיתת בית דין, אף לא תגנוב דבר שחייב עליו מיתת בית דין:
14. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor." יד. לֹא תַחְמֹד בֵּית רֵעֶך ס לֹא תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ:
Tehillim: Chapters 83 - 87• Chapter 83
• Shevat 17, 5775 · February 6, 2015
• Sefer Hamitzvos:
• 1 Chapter: Teshuvah Teshuvah - Chapter Six
• 3 Chapters: Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Two, Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Three, Chometz U'Matzah Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Four
Hayom Yom:
• Shevat 17, 5775 · 02/06/2015
"Today's Day"
During the reading of the Song of the Red Sea, we stand. Haftora: U'Devora isha nevee'a.
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'shalach, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: Ch. 22. Yet since (p. 89)...out of nothing. (p. 93).
There is a custom of eating black buckwheat on this Shabbat.
On Shabbat B'shalach 5621 (1861) the Tzemach Tzedek said the maamar R'u ki Hashem printed in Likutei Torah. Shortly afterward he said to his son, my grandfather:On Shabbat B'shalach 5565 (1805) my grandfather said this maamar. Afterwards he sent for me and told me that in 5529 (1769) when he was in Mezritch the Maggid had summoned him to his room and had said:
On Shabbat B'shalach 5516 (1756) the Baal Shem Tov said a Maamar on Vayashav hayam...l'eitano,1 "The Red Sea returned to its strength," quoting the Rabbinic play on the last word, l'eitano - litnao, meaning to its condition or agreement.2 In 5521 (1761), a year after the Baal Shem Tov's passing, my Rebbe (the Baal Shem Tov) came to me, said the maamar, and added an explanation of the subject "doing His will" in contrast to "doing His word." And today my Rebbe again came to me to repeat the maamar.
Then the Maggid repeated the maamar to the Alter Rebbe, adding an interpretation of "River Ginai, part for me,"3 which is similar to k'riat yam suf, the splitting of the Red Sea.
The Tzemach Tzedek concluded: Today the Baal Shem Tov, the Maggid and the Alter Rebbe came to me, each repeating the maamar in his own style.
Several hours later the Tzemach Tzedek called my grandfather again and told him an interpretation of the maamar.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sh'mot 14:27.
2. At creation G-d made an agreement, or condition, with the Red Sea that it would part for Israel.
3. Chulin 7a, where R. Pinchas ben Yair asked the river to part and let him pass to perform a mitzva.
Teshuvah - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
Since free choice is granted to all men as explained, a person should always strive to do Teshuvah and to confess verbally for his sins, striving to cleanse his hands from sin in order that he may die as a Baal-Teshuvah and merit the life of the world to come.
Halacha 2
A person should always view himself as leaning towards death, with the possibility that he might die at any time. Thus, he may be found as a sinner.
Therefore, one should always repent from his sins immediately and should not say: "When I grow older, I will repent," for perhaps he will die before he grows older. This was implied by the wise counsel given by Solomon [Ecclesiastes 9:8]: "At all times, your clothes should be white."
Halacha 3
A person should not think that repentance is only necessary for those sins that involve deed such as promiscuity, robbery, or theft. Rather, just as a person is obligated to repent from these, similarly, he must search after the evil character traits he has. He must repent from anger, hatred, envy, frivolity, the pursuit of money and honor, the pursuit of gluttony, and the like. He must repent for all [of the above].
These sins are more difficult than those that involve deed. If a person is attached to these, it is more difficult for him to separate himself. In this context, [Isaiah 55:7] exhorts: "May the wicked abandon his path and the crooked man, his designs."
Halacha 4
A Baal-Teshuvah should not consider himself distant from the level of the righteous because of the sins and transgressions that he committed. This is not true. He is beloved and desirable before the Creator as if he never sinned.
Furthermore, he has a great reward for he has tasted sin and yet, separated himself from it, conquering his [evil] inclination. Our Sages declared: "In the place where Baalei Teshuvah stand, even the completely righteous are not able to stand." The level of Baalei Teshuvah transcends the level of those who never sinned at all, for they overcome their [evil] inclination more.
Halacha 5
All the prophets commanded [the people] to repent. Israel will only be redeemed through Teshuvah.
The Torah has already promised that, ultimately, Israel will repent towards the end of her exile and, immediately, she will be redeemed as [Deuteronomy 30:1-3] states: ”There shall come a time when [you will experience] all these things... and you will return to God, your Lord.... God, your Lord, will bring back your [captivity].”
Halacha 6
Teshuvah is great for it draws a man close to the Shechinah as [Hoshea 14:2] states: "Return, 0 Israel, to God, your Lord;" [Amos 4:6] states: "`You have not returned to Me,' declares God;" and [Jeremiah 4:1] states: "`If, you will return, 0 Israel,' declares God, `You will return to Me.'" Implied is that if you will return in Teshuvah, you will cling to Me.
Teshuvah brings near those who were far removed. Previously, this person was hated by God, disgusting, far removed, and abominable. Now, he is beloved and desirable, close, and dear.
Similarly, we find God employs the same expression with which He separates [Himself] from the sinners to draw close those who repent. [Hoshea 2:1] states: "Instead of saying to you: `You are not My nation,' He will tell you: `You are the children of the living God.'”
[Also, Jeremiah] speaks of Yecheniah while he was wicked [with the expression (22:30)]: "Write down this man as childless, a man who shall never prosper in his days," and [22:24]: "Would Cheniah, the son of Yehoyakim, king of Judah, be the signet ring on My right hand, I would tear him off." However, after he repented when in exile, [Chaggai 2:23] said concerning Zerubavel, his son: "'On that day,' declares the God of Hosts, `I will take you, Zerubavel, the son of Shaltiel, My servant,' declares God, `and I will place you as a signet ring.'"
Halacha 7
How exalted is the level of Teshuvah! Previously, the [transgressor] was separate from God, the Lord of Israel, as [Isaiah 59:2] states: "Your sins separate between you and your God." He would call out [to God] without being answered as [Isaiah 1:15] states: "Even if you pray many times, I will not hear."
He would fulfill mitzvot, only to have them crushed before him as [Isaiah 1:12] states: "Who asked this from you, to trample in My courts," and [Malachi 1:10] states: "`O were there one among you who would shut the doors that you might not kindle fire on My altar for no reason! I have no pleasure in you,' says the God of Hosts, `nor will I accept an offering from your hand.'”
Now, he is clinging to the Shechinah as [Deuteronomy 4:4] states: "And you who cling to God, your Lord." He calls out [to God] and is answered immediately as [Isaiah 65:24] states: "Before, you will call out, I will answer." He fulfills mitzvot and they are accepted with pleasure and joy as [Ecclesiastes 9:7] states, "God has already accepted your works," and [Malachi 3:4] states: "Then, shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasing to God as in days of old and as in the former years."
Halacha 8
The manner of Baalei Teshuvah is to be very humble and modest.
If fools shame them because of their previous deeds, saying to them: "Yesterday, you would commit such and such [sins]. Yesterday, you would commit these and these [transgressions]," they will pay no attention to them. On the contrary, they will hear [this abuse] and rejoice, knowing that it is a merit for them.
Whenever they are embarrassed for the deeds they committed and shamed because of them, their merit increases and their level is raised.
It is a utter sin to tell a Baal Teshuvah, "Remember your previous deeds," or to recall them in his presence to embarrass him or to mention the surrounding circumstances or other similar matters so that he will recall what he did. This is all forbidden. We are warned against it within the general category of verbal abuse which Torah has warned us against as [Leviticus 25:17] states: "A man should not mistreat his colleague."
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Five
Halacha 1
The prohibition against chametz applies only to the five species of grain. They include two species of wheat: wheat and rye; and three species of barley: barley, oats, and spelt.
However, kitniyot - e.g., rice, millet, beans, lentils and the like - do not become leavened. Even if one kneads rice flour or the like with boiling water and covers it with fabric until it rises like dough that has become leavened, it is permitted to be eaten. This is not leavening, but rather the decay [of the flour].
Commentary Halacha
in water on Pesach [to remove its husks] -- Rabbenu Manoach explains that the kernels of grain were placed in hot water, stirred vigorously, and then crushed to remove the husks.
because [the kernels] are soft and become leavened rapidly. If one did stir [barley] in water and [the kernels] softened to the point -- 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
that if they were placed at the opening to a roasting pan -- 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.
upon which loaves were usually baked, they would burst open - behold, they are forbidden -- 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.
If they have not reached this degree of softness, they are permitted.
Halacha 2
With regard to these five species of grain: If [flour from these species] is kneaded with fruit juice alone without any water, it will never become leavened. Even if [flour] is placed in [these juices] the entire day until the dough rises, it is permitted to be eaten [on Pesach], for fruit juice does not cause [dough] to become leavened. It merely causes [the flour] to decay.
The following are [included in the category] of fruit juice: wine, milk, honey, olive oil, apple juice, pomegranate juice and all other similar wines, oils, and beverages.
This applies so long as no water whatsoever is mixed with them. If any water is mixed with them, they cause [the flour] to become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
With regard to these five species of grain: If [flour from these species] is kneaded with fruit juice alone -- מי פירות literally means "the water of fruit." However, as the halachah explains, the practical application of the term is much broader.
without any water, it will never become leavened. Even if [flour] is placed in [these juices] the entire day until the dough rises, it is permitted to be eaten [on Pesach] -- 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 כרת." 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.
for fruit juice does not cause [dough] to become leavened -- and thus become chametz. Rather,
it merely causes [the flour] to decay. -- Nevertheless, dried out wine dregs which have fermented do cause the dough to become leavened (Tosefot, Pesachim 28b).
The following are [included in the category] of fruit juice: wine, milk, honey -- The Hagahot Maimoni explains that this applies to both bee and date honey.
olive oil, apple juice -- The dough is permitted even if the apple juice has begun to ferment.
pomegranate juice and all other similar wines, oils, and beverages --Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 462:2) defines
מי פירות as: "any liquid that is not derived from water... even if it does not come from produce."
This applies so long as no water whatsoever is mixed with them. If any water is mixed with them, they cause [the flour] to become leavened --Indeed, 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.
Halacha 3
[On Pesach,] we should not cook wheat in water - for example, cracked wheat - or flour [in water] - for example, dough balls. If one cooks [either of the above] - behold, it is absolutely chametz. This applies if [the kernels] crack open within the dish.
We may not fry dough in oil in a frying pan. However, we may cook a loaf [of matzah] or roasted flour. If one boiled a lot of water and, afterwards, placed flour into it - behold, it is permitted, because it is cooked immediately, before it could become leaven. [Nevertheless,] it is accepted custom in Babylonia, Spain, and the entire western [diaspora] to forbid this practice. This has been decreed lest one not boil the water well enough.
Commentary Halacha
[On Pesach,] we should not cook wheat in water -- 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.
for example, cracked wheat -- wheat served as a grain.
or flour [in water], for example, dough balls -- A dish resembling kneidlach, but made with regular flour rather than matzah meal.
If one cooks [either of the above] - behold, it is absolutely chametz - for the wheat or flour has become leavened.
This applies -- This clause obviously refers only to cooking wheat.
if [the kernels] crack open within the dish -- the cracking open of the kernels is a sign that the wheat has expanded because of leavening.
We may not fry dough -- made with water
in oil in a frying pan -- The Maggid Mishneh explains that oil is considered מי פירות and, hence, will cause the dough to become leavened. (See also Nodah BiYhudah, Vol. II, Responsum 57.)
However, we may cook a loaf [of matzah] -- 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. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 463:3.)
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 שרויה, 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.
or roasted flour -- Once flour has become roasted, it will not become leavened. However, we must differentiate between roasted flour and flour made from roasted wheat; the latter flour may not be used on Pesach. (See Halachah 5.) The Pri Chadash even questions the leniency of using roasted flour.
If one boiled a lot of water and, afterwards, placed flour into it - behold, it is permitted because it -- the flour
is cooked immediately, before it could become leaven -- This practice was permitted only when the water was absolutely boiling at the time the flour was placed in it.
[Nevertheless,] it is accepted custom in Babylonia, Spain, and the entire western [diaspora] to forbid this practice. This was decreed lest one not boil the water well enough. -- 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."
Halacha 4
It is permissible to cook grain or flour in fruit juice. Thus, dough which was kneaded with fruit juice, cooked with fruit juice, or fried with oil in a frying pan is permitted, for fruit juice does not cause leavening.
Commentary Halacha
It is permissible to cook grain or flour in fruit juice -- Baking dough kneaded with מי פירות was discussed in Halachah 2. The present halachah explains that flour mixed with those liquids will not become leavened even when cooked or fried.
Thus, dough which was kneaded with fruit juice, cooked with fruit juice or fried with oil in a frying pan is permitted, for fruit juice does not cause leavening -- As explained above, it is Ashkenazic custom not to use dough or flour cooked with these liquids.
Halacha 5
Roasted grain which is singed in fire and then ground [into flour]: That flour should not be cooked with water, lest it has not been roasted well in the fire, and thus will become leavened when cooked.
Similarly, when preparing new pots, we should not cook in them anything other than matzah that was baked and then ground into flour. It is forbidden to do so with roasted flour, for perhaps it will not be roasted well, and thus may become leaven.
Commentary Halacha
Roasted grain -- Once wheat is roasted, flour that is made from it will never become leavened.
which is singed in fire -- lightly roasted in order to dry out any moisture.
and then ground [into flour]: That flour should not be cooked with water lest it has not been roasted well in the fire and thus will become leavened when cooked -- 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 Chayim463:3.)
Similarly, when preparing new pots --
מלל, 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.
we should not cook in them anything other than matzah that was baked and then ground into flour -- matzah meal. As explained in Halachah 4, once matzah has been baked, it will never become leavened.
It is forbidden to do so with roasted flour, for perhaps it will not be roasted well and thus may become leaven -- This statement is slightly problematic, for Halachah 4 mentioned that we may cook with roasted flour.
Halacha 6
We do not stir barley in water on Pesach [to remove its husks], because [the kernels] are soft and become leavened rapidly. If one did stir [barley] in water and [the kernels] softened to the point that if they were placed at the opening to a roasting pan upon which loaves were usually baked, they would burst open - behold, they are forbidden. If they have not reached this degree of softness, they are permitted.
Commentary Halacha
Halacha 7
It is permissible to stir wheat [kernels] in water to remove the bran, and then immediately grind them, as is done when grinding fine flour. [Nevertheless,] all Jews in Babylonia, Eretz Yisrael, Spain, and the cities of the western [diaspora] have accepted the custom of not stirring wheat in water. This decree [was instituted] lest [the kernels] be left aside and become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
It is permissible to stir wheat [kernels] in water to remove the bran --Wheat kernels are firmer than barley kernels.
and then immediately -- 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.)
grind them, as is done when grinding fine flour. -- 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 offered to this difficulty is that chametz is a severe prohibition, and greater care would be taken.
[Nevertheless,] all Jews in Babylonia, Eretz Yisrael -- Gittin 57a explains why the term ארץ צבי is used as a reference for Eretz Yisrael.
Spain, and the cities of the western [diaspora] have accepted the custom of not stirring wheat in water -- 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 בעל נפש (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."
This decree [was instituted] lest [the kernels] be left aside and become leavened -- 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.
Halacha 8
A dish that was cooked, and barley or wheat was discovered inside it: If the grains have cracked open, the entire dish is forbidden, for chametz has become mixed together with it. If they have not cracked open, they must be removed and burned, but the remainder of the dish may be eaten. [This ruling was given] because grain that has been stirred in water without cracking open is not actual leaven as forbidden by the Torah. It is only a Rabbinic [ordinance].
Commentary Halacha
A dish that was cooked and barley or wheat -- Some authorities recommend more severe laws for wheat than for barley, but the Rambam equates the two.
was discovered inside of it -- 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).
If the grains have cracked open -- they have surely become chametz. Hence,
the entire dish is forbidden, for chametz has become mixed together with it -- Furthermore, the pot and utensils with which it was cooked are also forbidden during Pesach.
If they have not cracked open -- 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).
they -- the barley or wheat itself
must be removed and burned -- as if they were chametz
but the remainder of the dish may be eaten. -- 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.
Halacha 9
[Exodus 12:17] states: "Keep watch over the matzot" - i.e., be careful of the matzot and protect them from any possibility of becoming chametz. Therefore, our Sages declared: A person must be careful regarding the grain which he eats on Pesach and [make sure] that no water has come in contact with it after it has been harvested, so that it will not have become chametz at all.
Grain which sunk in a river or came in contact with water, just as it is forbidden to eat from it [on Pesach], it is forbidden to keep [possession of] it. Rather, he should sell it to a Jew [before it becomes prohibited] and inform him [about its nature], so that he can eat it before Pesach. If he sells it to a gentile before Pesach, he should sell a small amount to a number of individuals, so that it will be finished before Pesach, lest the gentile go and sell it to [another] Jew.
Commentary Halacha
[Exodus 12:17] states: "Keep watch over the matzot" -- Some ancient manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah include these two lines in the previous halachah, but all published texts follow this division.
i.e., be careful of the matzot and protect them from any possibility of becoming chametz. -- 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.
Therefore, our Sages declared: A person must be careful regarding the grain which he eats on Pesach -- Pesachim 40a relates that Ravvah would tell the harvesters cutting wheat for Pesach: "Have the intent that this grain be used for the mitzvah of matzah."
and [make sure] that no water has come in contact with it -- 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.
after it has been harvested -- 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.
so that it will not have become chametz at all -- However, before the grain is cut, no precautions are ordinarily necessary. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 467:5) mentions that if the wheat kernels have dried out and no longer need nurture from the land, they can become chametz.
Grain which sunk in a river or -- 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
came in contact with water -- 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.
just as it is forbidden to eat from it [on Pesach], it is forbidden to keep [possession of] it -- 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).
Rather, he should -- preferably
sell it to a Jew -- and not a gentile
[before it becomes prohibited] -- after the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan
and inform him [about its nature] so that he can eat it before Pesach -- 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.
If he sells it to a gentile before Pesach, he should sell a small amount to a number of individuals -- 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.
so that it will be finished before Pesach, lest the gentile go and sell it to [another] Jew -- 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.
Halacha 10
Grain upon which [water] leaking [from the roof] has fallen: As long as [the leak] continues, drop after drop, it will not become chametz even if [the leak continues] the entire day. However, if [the leak] stops, if it remains [untouched] for the standard measure [of time] - behold, it becomes chametz.
Commentary Halacha
Grain -- 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."
upon which [water] leaking [from the roof] has fallen: As long as [the leak] continues, drop after drop, it will not become chametz. -- The dripping of the water agitates the grain and prevents it from becoming chametz.
even if [the leak continues] the entire day -- 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).
However, if [the leak] stops -- or the grain is moved
if it remains [untouched] for the standard measure [of time] -- the time it takes a person to walk a mil, as explained in Halachah 13
behold, it becomes chametz.
Halacha 11
We do not knead a large dough on Pesach, lest it become chametz. Rather, [the size of the dough] is confined to the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah.
We do not knead with hot water, with water heated in the sun, or with water that was drawn on the present day, only with water that has rested for a day. A person who violates [this requirement] and kneads using one of the above - behold, the [baked] loaf becomes forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
We do not knead a large dough on Pesach, lest it become chametz --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.
Rather, [the size of the dough] is confined to the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah -- 43 and a fifth eggs, as stated in the following halachah; approximately 73 fluid ounces, 9.125 cups, or 131.8 cubic inches in contemporary measure.
We do not knead with hot water, with water heated in the sun, or with water that was drawn on the present day -- 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
only with water that has -- 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
rested for a day. A person who violates [this requirement] and kneads using one of the above -- types of water whose use the Sages forbade;
behold, the [baked] loaf becomes forbidden -- 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.
Halacha 12
A woman should not sit in the sun and knead, nor [should she knead] under the open sky on a cloudy day, even in a place where the sun is not shining. [She should not] leave the dough and become involved in another matter. If she both kneads and bakes, she must have two containers of water, one to smooth [the matzot] and one to cool off her hands.
If she violated [these instructions] and kneaded dough in the sun, or did not cool off her hands, or made a dough larger than the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah, the loaf is permitted. What is the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah? Forty-three and a fifth eggs of average size - by volume and not by weight.
Commentary Halacha
A woman should not sit in the sun and knead -- lest the sun's heat speed up the leavening process.
nor [should she knead] under the open sky on a cloudy day, even in a place where the sun is not shining -- 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.
[She should not] leave the dough -- The Shulchan Aruch adds "even for a moment."
and become involved in another matter -- 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.
If she both kneads and bakes -- The Sages feared 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
she must have two containers of water -- the same water should not be used for both activities.
one to smooth [the matzot] -- 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.
and one to cool off her hands -- 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. TheShulchan Aruch (459:3) follows Rashi's interpretation.
If she violated [these instructions] and kneaded dough in the sun --unless one can actually feel that the temperature of the dough has risen (Magen Avraham 559:15).
or did not cool off her hands, or made a dough larger than the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah, the loaf is permitted -- In these instances, the Sages did not feel that the leavening process would necessarily be speeded up if their instructions were not followed. Hence, בדיעבד (after the fact), they did not prohibit the use of matzot baked in this manner.
What is the measure for which one is obligated to separate Challah? Forty-three and a fifth eggs of average size -- Rabbenu Manoach notes that the numerical equivalent of Challah (חלה) is also 43.
by volume and not by weight. -- A given volume of dough is much heavier than the same volume of eggs.
In 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.).
Halacha 13
As long as a person is busy with the dough, even for the entire day, it will not become chametz. If he lifts up his hand and allows the dough to rest so that [it rises to the extent that] a noise will resound when a person claps it with his hand, it has already become chametz and must be burned immediately. If a noise does not resound and the dough has lain at rest for the time it takes a man to walk a mil, it has become chametz and must be burned immediately.
Similarly, if its surface has become wrinkled [to the extent that it resembles] a person whose hair stands [on end in fright] - behold, it is forbidden to eat from it, but one is not liable for כרת [for eating it].
Commentary Halacha
As long as a person is busy with the dough, even for the entire day, it will not become chametz. -- As mentioned previously, as long as the dough is constantly being agitated it will not become leavened.
If he lifts up his hand -- from kneading
and allows the dough to rest so that [it rises to the extent that] a noise will resound when a person claps it with his hand -- The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 459:2) mentions another sign; the appearance of cracks or folds in the dough.
it has already become chametz -- even if the time period explained below has not elapsed
and must be burned immediately -- 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.
If a noise does not resound -- 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
and -- if
the dough has lain at rest for the time it takes a man to walk a
mil -- two thousand cubits; according to most authorities approximately a kilometer in modern measure. Most authorities (including the Shulchan Aruchand many later Rabbis with regard to halachah l'ma'aseh) define eighteen minutes as the accepted period of time in which an average man would walk this distance. However, the Rambam (Commentary on the Mishnah 3:2) quotes a more lenient figure, 24 minutes.
it has become chametz and must be burned immediately -- 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. (This point is not accepted by all authorities.)
c) once dough is left unattended after having been kneaded thoroughly, it will become leavened very quickly.
Similarly, if its surface has become wrinkled -- Rabbenu Manoach interprets the Hebrew הכסיפו as "whitened."
[to the extent that it resembles] a person whose hair stands [on end in fright] - behold -- this is a sign that the dough has begun to become leavened. Hence,
it is forbidden to eat from it, but one is not liable for
כרת [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 כרת, but receives a lesser punishment, lashes.
Halacha 14
There were two doughs which people stopped kneading at the same time and left unattended. From one, a sound [resounded when clapped]. From the other, no sound [resounded]. Both of them should be burned - behold, they are absolutely chametz.
Commentary Halacha
There were two doughs which people stopped kneading at the same time and left unattended -- for less than the time it takes a person to walk a mil.
From one, a sound [resounded when clapped] -- a clear sign the dough has become leavened, as stated in the previous halachah.
From the other, no sound [resounded] -- Nevertheless, since they both waited the same amount of time, we assume that a similar leavening process took place in both doughs. Hence,
both of them should be burned - behold, they are -- considered
Halacha 15
We should not make thick loaves with designs on Pesach, because a woman takes time making them. Thus, [the dough] will become leavened during that time. Hence, professional bakers are allowed to make [such designs], because they are skilled in their craft and quick in its execution.
[In contrast,] a private person is forbidden to make such a design, even if he does so using a [pre-cut] form. [This stringency was instituted] lest others attempt to make [the designs] without using the forms, delay in their work, and cause [the dough] to become chametz.
Commentary Halacha
We should not make thick loaves -- 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 for Pesach.
with designs -- Rav Yitzchak ibn Giat writes that it was customary to make designs of fish, doves, and other animals.
on Pesach, because a woman takes time making them -- 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).
Thus, [the dough] will become leavened during that time. Hence, professional bakers are allowed to make [such designs] -- Pesachim (ibid.) records that Rabban Gamliel's household used such matzot, and hence was forced to make this differentiation.
because they are skilled in their craft and quick in its execution. -- 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.
[In contrast,] a private person is forbidden to make such a design, even if he does so using a [pre-cut] form -- which will not require time.
[This stringency was instituted] lest others attempt to make [the designs] without using the forms, delay in their work, and cause [the dough] to become chametz. -- 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.
Halacha 16
The water used to wash one's hands and the kneading trough after the kneading [is completed] and, similarly, the water used when kneading - behold, it should be poured out in a place which slopes downward, so it will not collect in one place and become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
The water used to wash one's hands and the kneading trough after the kneading [is completed] -- 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.
and, similarly, the water used when kneading -- when shaping the dough or cooling off one's hands, as mentioned in Halachah 12.
behold, it should be poured out in a place which slopes downward, so it will not collect in one place -- 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.
and become leavened -- 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.
Halacha 17
We should not soak bran in water and leave it in front of chickens, lest it become chametz. However, we can boil bran for them, and then place it before them. Nevertheless, the majority of people have already adopted the custom of not boiling [grain products], lest the water not be boiled thoroughly.
Commentary Halacha
We should not soak bran -- The Mishnah Berurah 454:2 notes that there is a difference of opinion among halachic authorities if מורסן 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.
in water and leave it in front of chickens -- without supervision, in contrast to the following halachah.
lest it become chametz. However, we can boil bran for them -- As mentioned in Halachah 3, if grain products are placed directly in boiling water, they will never become chametz.
and then, place it before them. Nevertheless, the majority of people have already adopted the custom of not boiling [grain products], lest the water not be boiled thoroughly. -- as explained in the above halachah and in theShulchan Aruch and commentaries (Orach Chayim 454:3).
Halacha 18
It is permitted to prepare bran or flour for chickens in water if they are fed immediately, or if one places [the feed] before them and stands over them to ensure that the food will not stand more than the time it takes a person to walk a mil.
As long as they peck at it or one turns it over by hand, it will not become leavened. Once they finish eating, one should wash out the utensil in water and pour it out in a place which slopes downward.
Commentary Halacha
It is permitted to prepare bran or flour for chickens in water -- Rabbenu Manoach and the Meiri state that the Rambam's statements are based on theTosefta. 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 Chayim465:1) 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.
if they are fed -- and consume the food
immediately, or if one places [the feed] before them and stands over them, to ensure that the food will not stand -- without any activity, as the Rambam continues
more than the time it takes a person to walk a mil -- 18 or 24 minutes, as explained in Halachah 13.
As long as they peck at it or one turns it over by hand -- for, like dough (see Halachah 13), as long as it is agitated
it will not become leavened. Once they finish eating, one should wash out the utensil in water and pour it out in a place which slopes downward -- 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.
Halacha 19
A woman should not soak bran which she intends to take to the bathhouse in water [beforehand]. However, she may rub dry bran on her skin. A person should not chew wheat and then place it on his wound, for it will become chametz.
We should not place flour into charoset. If one did so, he should burn it immediately, because it will cause [the flour] to become leavened very fast. We should not place flour in mustard. If one did so, he should eat it immediately.
Commentary Halacha
A woman should not soak bran which she intends to take to the bathhouse in water [beforehand] -- The application of moist bran to skin renews the skin's natural moisture. Bran contains high quantities of Vitamin E and other natural cosmetics.
However, she may rub dry bran on her skin -- even though her skin is moist with sweat, without fear of it becoming chametz (Rashi, Pesachim 39b). TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 465:2) forbids the practice entirely.
A person should not chew wheat -- for the spittle can cause the wheat to become leavened.
and then place it on his wound -- as a poultice
for it will become chametz. -- 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 forbidden 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 person does not benefit from the forbidden 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 for 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) effort 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).
We should not place flour into charoset -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim 10:3), the Rambam describes charoset as a mixture of dates, figs, spices, and vinegar.
if one did so, he should burn it - The popular texts of the Mishneh Torah use the word ישפך - "pour it out." However, most of the original manuscripts state ישרף as in our text. This version implies that it is feared that the flour has already leavened and, hence, must be burnt.
immediately -- as chametz
because it will cause [the flour] to become leavened very fast. -- 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.
We should not place flour in mustard -- 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.
If one did so, he should eat it immediately. -- In contrast to other dips, the sharpness of mustard prevents the flour from leavening (Pri Chadash).
Halacha 20
It is permissible to place spices, sesame seeds, poppy seeds, and the like into dough. Similarly, it is permissible to knead the dough with water and oil, honey or milk, or to baste with them.
On the first day, it is forbidden to knead or baste [the matzot] with any other substance besides water; not because of the prohibition against chametz, but rather so [the matzah] will be "poor man's bread." It is only on the first day that the "poor man's bread" must be commemorated.
Commentary Halacha
It is permissible to place spices -- Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 455:6) advises against placing spices in dough. The Ramah forbids matzah that was kneaded with pepper, maintaining that its sharpness causes the dough to become leavened.
sesame seeds, poppy seeds -- 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.
and the like -- 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.
into dough -- 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.
Similarly, it is permissible to knead the dough with water and oil, honey or milk, or to baste with them -- This statement has raised controversy. In Halachah 2, when the Rambam described the use of מי פירות, 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 Torahsubstitutes the word יין (wine) for מים (water). According to such a rendition, there is no difficulty.
On the first day -- more particularly, for the matzah used to fulfill the commandment of eating matzah on Pesach night;
it is forbidden to knead or baste -- even though basting the dough with other substances will not change its taste appreciably, the Rambam forbids this. SeeOr Sameach.
[the matzot] with any other substance besides water -- Note the commentary on Halachah 6:5.
not because of the prohibition against chametz -- for, as above, the dough will not necessarily become chametz,
but rather so [the matzah] will be "poor man's bread" -- Deuteronomy 16:3states "For seven days eat matzah, poor man's bread." In contrast, dough mixed with these liquids is considered matzah ashirah, "rich matzah."
It is only on the first day that the "poor man's bread" must be commemorated -- to recall the "poor man's bread" eaten by our ancestors when they were slaves in Egypt.
Halacha 21
All earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while cold may be used for matzah while cold, except for the utensils in which yeast and charoset were placed, for their leavening effect is powerful. Similarly, a kneading trough in which chametz is kneaded and left to become leavened is considered as a place where yeast is soaked, and we do not use it on Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
All earthenware vessels -- 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.
that were used for chametz while cold -- Utensils absorb substances only when used together with both heat and liquid. Thus, in this instance, there is no fear that chametz is absorbed. Nevertheless, the utensil
may -- only
be used for matzah while cold -- 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 הגעלה.
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.
except for the utensils -- 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.)
in which yeast and charoset -- 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.
were placed, for their leavening effect is powerful -- 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.
Similarly, a kneading trough in which chametz is kneaded and left to become leavened is considered as a place where yeast is soaked, and we do not use it on Pesach -- lest the leavening agents that are absorbed cause the Matzah to become chametz.
Halacha 22
An earthenware roasting pan on which loaves of chametz are baked during the entire year should not be used to bake matzah on Pesach. If it was filled with coals and kindled on the place where chametz was cooked, matzah it is permitted to be cooked on it.
Commentary Halacha
An earthenware roasting pan on which loaves of chametz are baked during the entire year should not be used to bake matzah on Pesach --The prohibition is obvious. It appears that this statement was included only as an introduction to the following halachah, which describes how such a utensil may be prepared for Pesach use.
If it was filled with coals and kindled on the place -- This practice, referred to as ליבון, burns up any chametz that may have been absorbed in the pan.
Halacha 23
Metal and stone utensils in which chametz was boiled in water as a כלי ראשון - e.g., pots and stew pots - should be placed inside a large utensil. They should be covered with water, and the water should be boiled with them inside until they release [what they absorbed]. Afterwards, they should be washed off with cold water, and [then] one may use them for matzah.
Similarly, [with regard to] knives, the blade and the handle should be boiled in a כלי ראשון. Afterwards, one may use them for matzah.
Commentary Halacha
Metal and stone utensils -- 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.
in which chametz was boiled in water as a כלי ראשון -- The term כלי ראשון is a fundamental concept in the laws of kashrut and the laws of Shabbat. 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 כלי ראשון even after it has been removed from the cooking surface.
e.g., pots and stew pots -- 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.
should be placed inside a large utensil -- 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.
They should be covered with water, and the water should be boiled -- The commentaries stress how the water must be bubbling because of the heat.
with them inside -- This process is referred to as הגעלה (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 כבולעו כך פולטו - "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.
until they release [what they absorbed] -- This phrase is taken from thehalachot 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.)
Afterwards, they should be washed off with cold water -- 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.
and [then] one may use them for matzah.
Similarly, [with regard to] knives, the blade -- Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:7 states: "A person who acquires a knife from 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 ליבון (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.
and the handle should be boiled in a כלי ראשון -- as described above.
Afterwards, one may use them for matzah.
Halacha 24
Utensils of metal, stone, and wood which were used for chametz as a כלי שני - e.g., bowls or cups - should be placed in a large utensil, and boiling water poured over them. They should be left in [the large utensil] until they release [the chametz they absorbed]. Afterwards, they should be washed off. [Then,] they may be used for matzah.
Commentary Halacha
Utensils of metal, stone, and wood which were used for chametz as a כלי שני -- a utensil into which one pours water that had been cooked over a fire.
e.g., bowls or cups -- can also be purged of chametz following the principle כבולעו כך פולטו - "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 שני כלי, in order for them to release the chametz they absorbed, they
should be placed in a large utensil and boiling water poured over them --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 כלי ראשון), even though they were generally used as a כלי שני.
They should be left in [the large utensil] until they release [the chametz they absorbed] -- See the explanation of the similar phrase in the previous halachah.
Afterwards, they should be washed off -- as explained in the previous halachah.
[Then,] they may be used for matzah.
Halacha 25
All earthenware utensils that were used for chametz in hot water, whether as a כלי ראשון - for example, pots - or as a
כלי שני - for example, bowls - whether they were glazed and coated with lead so that they became like glass, or they were of simple earthenware: we do not use them for matzah. Rather, we put them aside until after Pesach, and then we may cook with them.
Commentary Halacha
All earthenware utensils that were used for chametz in hot -- See Halachah 21 with regard to earthenware vessels that were used for chametz while cold.
water -- In contrast to utensils made of other substances, the process of הגעלה 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.
Pesachim 30b explains that this concept is derived from the Torah itself.Leviticus 6:21 states that any pot in which meat from a sin offering has been cooked must be broken. A sin offering can only be eaten for one day. Once that time has passed, the taste of the meat absorbed in the pot is considered as נותר (sacrificial meat which has been kept past its required time), and thus forbidden. Hence, the pot itself must be destroyed.
whether as a כלי ראשון - for example, pots - or as a כלי שני - for example, bowls - whether they were glazed and coated with lead so that they became like glass -- 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.
or they were of simple earthenware -- 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 fear that they would break. Thus, there is no way to prepare these utensils for Pesach use. Therefore,
we do not use them for matzah -- 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.
Rather, we put them aside until after Pesach -- Though the taste of chametz is absorbed in the walls of these utensils, keeping 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.
and then we may cook with them -- 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.
Halacha 26
[A person possesses a utensil which is] a כלי ראשון and desires to boil it [in order to prepare it for Passover use], however, he cannot find a larger utensil into which [to place it] to boil it: Behold, he may place a border of clay around its [top] edge from the outside and fill it with water until the water overflows its edge. [Then,] he may boil the water in it, and this is sufficient. Afterwards, he washes it off and may use it for matzah.
Commentary Halacha
[A person possesses a utensil which is] a כלי ראשון and desires to boil it [in order to prepare it for Passover use] -- and hence must be kashered by boiling water inside of it, as explained in Halachah 23.
however, he cannot find a larger utensil into which [to place it] to boil it --Thus, were he to boil water in the utensil itself, its entire top edge would not be exposed to the boiling water.
Behold, he may place a border of clay around its [top] edge from the outside and fill it -- the utensil
with water until the water overflows its edge -- but is delayed in pouring out by the clay border.
[Then,] he may boil the water in it, and this is sufficient -- 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.
Afterwards, he washes it off -- with cold water, as explained in Halachah 23.
and may use it for matzah.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment of the Torah to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan], as [Exodus 12:18] states: "In the evening, you shall eat matzot." This applies in every place and at every time. Eating [matzah] is not dependent on the Paschal sacrifice. Rather, it is a mitzvah in its own right. The mitzvah may be fulfilled throughout the entire night.
Throughout the other days of the festival, eating matzah is left to one's choice: If one desires, one may eat matzah. If one desires, one may eat rice, millet, roasted seeds, or fruit. Nevertheless, on the night of the fifteenth alone, [eating matzah] is an obligation. Once one eats the size of an olive, he has fulfilled his obligation.
Commentary Halacha
in order that one will approach eating matzah with appetite. However, one may eat some fruit or vegetables -- or other similar foods that do not satiate one's appetite
but should not fill up on them -- for then, one will not eat the matzah with relish.
The Sages of the former generations would starve themselves on Pesach eve -- Pesachim 108a relates that Rav Sheshet would fast the entire day even though he was not a firstborn.
so that they would eat matzah with appetite, and thus hold the mitzvot as dear. In contrast -- greater leniency applies on the eve of Sabbaths or other festivals -- The Rambam's statements require some explanation: InHilchot Yom Tov 6:16, the Rambam states:
It is proper for a person not to dine on the day before a festival from the time of Minchah onward, as on the day before 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.
one may continue eating until darkness. -- 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.
Halacha 2
A person who swallows matzah [without chewing it] fulfills his obligation. A person who swallows maror [without chewing it] does not fulfill his obligation. A person who swallows matzah and maror together fulfills the obligation of matzah, but not that of maror, for the maror is secondary to the matzah. If he wrapped them in fibers or the like and swallowed them, he does not even fulfill the obligation of matzah.
Commentary Halacha
A person who swallows matzah -- gulping it down, without chewing or tasting it
fulfills his obligation -- 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).
A person who swallows maror -- in the same manner
does not fulfill his obligation -- 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.
Alternatively, certain texts of the Mishneh Torah (and Pesachim, ibid.) read "A person who swallows maror fulfills his obligation." The proponents of this text maintain that it is impossible to swallow a piece of maror the size of an olive without feeling some bitterness. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (475:3) quotes the former text.
A person who swallows matzah and maror together fulfills the obligation of matzah -- 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. (Indeed, were he to chew both the matzah and the maror, 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).
but not that of maror, for the maror is secondary to the matzah. -- 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 fulfills 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.
If he wrapped them in fibers or the like and swallowed them -- the matzah, maror, and fibers
he does not even fulfill the obligation of matzah -- 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).
Halacha 3
A person who eats matzah without the intention [to fulfill the mitzvah] - e.g., gentiles or thieves force him to eat - fulfills his obligation.
A person who ate a כזית matzah in delirium, while possessed by an epileptic fit, and afterwards recovered, is obligated to eat another [כזית]. The consumption of [the first כזית] took place while he was free from the obligation to perform any mitzvot.
Commentary Halacha
A person who eats matzah without the intention [to fulfill the mitzvah] --This halachah touches on a question left unresolved by the Talmud (seePesachim 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?
e.g., gentiles or thieves force him to eat -- 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."
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 onHilchot 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. In 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 מתעסק (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'sopinion as regards halachah l'ma'aseh, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav adds the explanation mentioned in the name of the Kessef Mishneh. (It 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 מתעסק does not fulfill the mitzvah. Similar decisions are rendered concerning kriat shema (Orach Chayim60) and lulav and etrog (Orach Chayim 651).
A person who ate a
כזית matzah in delirium, while possessed by an epileptic fit, and afterwards recovered -- 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.
is obligated to eat another [ כזית] -- to fulfill the mitzvah because
the consumption of [the first כזית] took place while he was free from the obligation to perform any mitzvot -- 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.
Halacha 4
A person does not fulfill the obligation of eating matzah unless he partakes [of matzah made] from one of the five species [of grain], as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: "Do not eat chametz upon it... eat matzot for seven days."
[From the verse's association of chametz and matzah, we may derive:] substances which can become leavened may be eaten as matzah to fulfill one's obligation. In contrast, other substances - e.g., rice, millet, and kitniyot - cannot be used to fulfill the obligation of matzah, for they can never become leavened.
Commentary Halacha
A person does not fulfill the obligation of eating matzah unless he partakes [of matzah made] from one of the five species -- wheat, rye, barley, oats, and spelt, as stated in Halachah 5:1.
[of grain] -- The Ramah (Orach Chayim 453:1) states that it is customary to use matzot made from wheat.
as [Deuteronomy 16:3] -- 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.
states: "Do not eat chametz upon it... eat matzot for seven days." From the verse's association of chametz and matzah, [we may derive:] substances which can become leavened -- that would become leavened if left unattended for the required period.
may be eaten as matzah to fulfill one's obligation -- 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.)
In contrast, other substances - e.g. rice, millet, and kitniyot - cannot be used to fulfill the obligation of matzah, for they can never become leavened -- rather they spoil, as stated in Halachah 5:1.
Halacha 5
A person who makes dough from wheat and rice: if it has the taste of grain, one may fulfill his obligation with it. Dough made as food for dogs: if the shepherds also eat from it, one may fulfill his obligation with it. If the shepherds do not eat from it, one cannot fulfill his obligation by eating it, for it is not watched for the sake of eating matzah.
Matzah that was kneaded with fruit juice, one may fulfill one's obligation with it on Pesach. However, [the dough] should not be kneaded with wine, oil, honey, or milk, because of the requirement for poor man's bread, as explained above. A person who kneaded [dough with one of these liquids] does not fulfill his obligation.
One cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah made from thin bran or coarse bran. However, one may knead flour together with its bran and make it into a loaf and fulfill one's obligation with it. Similarly, a loaf made with very fine flour is permitted, and a person may fulfill his obligation with it. We do not say: this is not poor man's bread.
Commentary Halacha
A person who makes dough from wheat and rice -- combining the two species in one matzah
if it has the taste of grain -- 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 כזית (size of an olive) of wheat flour in כדי אכילת פרס (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 כזית within פרס כדי אכילת) for one to fulfill his obligation.
The Ra'avad and the Rashbah do not accept the principle explained by the Ramban, and require a כזית in פרס כדי אכילת 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.
one may fulfill his obligation with it -- as if it were made of wheat alone.
Dough made as food for dogs -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Challah1:8), the Rambam describes this as coarse bread mixed together with bran.
if the shepherds also eat from it -- and thus, it is also considered human food
one may fulfill his obligation with it. If the shepherds do not eat from it --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,
one cannot fulfill his obligation -- to eat matzah the first night of Pesach
by eating it, for it is not watched for the sake of eating matzah -- 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.
Matzah that was kneaded with fruit juice -- Fruit juice itself will not cause flour to become leavened, as stated in Halachah 5:2; nevertheless,
one may fulfill one's obligation with it on Pesach -- 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.
However, [the dough] should not be kneaded with wine, oil, honey, or milk, because of the requirement for poor man's bread, as explained above -- 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. III, 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 Chayim462:1) forbid the use of matzah made with any liquid other than water for use at the seder.
A person who kneaded [dough with one of these liquids] does not fulfill his obligation -- Pesachim 36a relates that Rabbi Yehoshua told his sons to make him matzah kneaded with milk throughout Pesach, except on the first night.
One cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah made from thin bran or coarse -- as mentioned above, there is a debate among the Rabbis which Hebrew term is appropriate to which type of bran.
bran -- It 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.
However, one may knead flour together with its bran and make it into a loaf and fulfill one's obligation with it -- for then, the flour is considered of primary importance.
Similarly, a loaf made with very fine flour -- Pesachim 36b states "even if it is like King Solomon's matzah."
Halacha 6
[One may fulfill his obligation] with matzah baked in either an oven or a roasting pot. This applies whether the dough was stuck to the roasting pot and then the [pot] was heated, or whether the [pot] was heated and then the [dough] stuck to it. Even if the dough was baked in the ground, one may fulfill his obligation with it.
Similarly, even if the matzah was not thoroughly baked, one may fulfill his obligation with it, provided strands of dough will not extend from it when broken. A person may fulfill his obligation with a cake [of matzah] soaked [in other substances], so long as it has not dissolved. However, a person cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah that has been cooked, for it does not have the taste of bread.
Commentary Halacha
[One may fulfill his obligation] with matzah baked in either an oven -- as is usually done
or a roasting pot -- 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.
This applies whether the dough was stuck to the roasting pot and then the [pot] was heated -- The Rambam uses the word הרתיח, which is generally translated as "boiled." However, in this instance, all commentators agree that no water can be used.
or whether the [pot] was heated, and then the [dough] stuck to it. -- 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 of fear that perhaps the dough will become chametz. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 461:2) suggests adhering to his opinion.
Even if the dough was baked in the ground, one may fulfill his obligation with it -- 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.
Similarly, even if the matzah was not thoroughly baked -- 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.
one may fulfill his obligation with it, provided strands of dough will not extend from it when broken. --
פורסה usually means sliced. Our translation follows Rabbenu Manoach's commentary and Rashi, Pesachim 37a.
A person -- This law is relevant to a person who is old or sick and cannot eat the required amount (כזית) 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.)
may fulfill his obligation with a cake [of matzah] -- which after being baked, has been
soaked -- As mentioned in Halachah 5:5, once matzah has been baked thoroughly, it will not become chametz even when exposed to water.
[in other substances] -- 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.
so long as it has not dissolved -- at which point it would no longer be considered as bread, and the HaMotzi blessing would no longer be recited over it.
However, a person cannot fulfill his obligation with matzah that has been cooked -- even if cooked in water alone,
for it does not have the taste - or the form
of bread.
Halacha 7
A person cannot fulfill his obligation by eating matzah which is forbidden to him; for example, a person who ate [matzah made from] tevel, [matzah made from] the first tithe from which terumat [ma'aser] had not been separated, or [matzah] that was stolen.
This is the governing principle: All [matzah] upon which the grace after meals is recited may be used to fulfill one's obligation. If the grace after meals may not be recited upon it, it may not be used to fulfill one's obligation.
Commentary Halacha
A person cannot fulfill his obligation by eating matzah which is forbidden to him; for example, a person who ate [matzah made from] tevel -- produce from Eretz Yisrael from which the agricultural requirements -- separation of theterumah (a portion given to priests), ma'aser rishon (the first tithe), and ma'aser sheni (the second tithe) -- have not been fulfilled.
[matzah made from] the first tithe from which terumat [ma'aser] had not been separated -- After receiving the tithe from the Israelites, the Levites were obligated to separate a second tithe, as commanded in Numbers 18:26.
or [matzah] that was stolen -- 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 fulfill his obligation with matzah made from it.
Rabbenu Manoach maintains that this instance is not dependent on the general rulings governing mitzvot performed with forbidden objects. Rather, Pesachim38a 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 for Challah, it thus follows that the matzah he uses must also be his undisputed property.
This is the governing principle: All [matzah] upon which the grace after meals is recited -- even though there are certain halachic difficulties regarding eating it, as explained in Hilchot Berachot 1:20.
may be used to fulfill one's obligation -- to eat matzah on Pesach.
If the grace after meals may not be recited upon it, it may not be used to fulfill one's obligation -- 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.
Halacha 8
The priests may fulfill their obligation with [matzot made from] Challah orterumah even though it is matzah which is not suited to be eaten by all people. Similarly, a person may fulfill his obligation with matzah [made] from ma'aser sheni [if he is] in Jerusalem. However, one may not fulfill his obligation with matzah made from bikkurim even [if he is] in Jerusalem.
[The difference is] because there is no permissible way of eating bikkurim in all [Jewish] settlements. [In contrast,] ma'aser sheni can be redeemed and eaten in all [Jewish] settlements. [Our Sages interpreted Exodus 12:20,] which states: "Eat matzot in all of your settlements," [to imply that] only matzah that is fit to be eaten in all settlements may be used to fulfill one's obligation.
Commentary Halacha
The priests -- and their households
may fulfill their obligation with [matzot made from] Challah -- Numbers 15:20 commands that a portion of every dough be separated and given to the priests. This portion of dough is called Challah and is governed by all the rules pertaining to Terumah.
or 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.
even though it is matzah which is not suited to be eaten by all people --Thus, Israelites cannot fulfill their obligation by eating such matzah. Pesachim35b states that matzot whose consumption involves any prohibition may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah. (See the previous halachah.)
Similarly, a person may fulfill his obligation with matzah
[made] from ma'aser sheni -- 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)."
[if he is] in Jerusalem -- but not outside the holy city. It 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.
However, one -- a priest, for only the priests are allowed to partake of thebikkurim,
may not fulfill his obligation with matzah made from 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.
even [if he is] in Jerusalem - and the wheat from which he made matzah had been properly given to him as bikkurim.
[The difference is] because there is no permissible way of
eating bikkurim in all [Jewish] settlements -- rather, they may be eaten only by the priests within the limits of Jerusalem.
[In contrast,] ma'aser sheni can be redeemed and eaten in all [Jewish] settlements -- 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.
[Our Sages -- Pesachim 36a
interpreted Exodus 12:20,] which states: "Eat matzot in all of your settlements," [to imply that] only matzah that is fit to be eaten in all settlements may be used to fulfill one's obligation. -- Thus, bikkurim are excluded, but not ma'aser sheni.
Halacha 9
Loaves from the thanksgiving offering and cakes from the Nazirite offering, which an individual made for his personal use, may not be used to fulfill one's obligation, [as can be implied] from the statement [Exodus 12:17]: "And you shall watch the matzot." Matzah which is watched with the sole intention [that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah] of matzah may be used to fulfill one's obligation. However, this matzah is also watched with the intention of [being used for a] sacrifice. Those that were made to be sold in the marketplace, [the baker] has the intention that if they are not sold, he will eat them. Therefore, while he was making them he [also] watched for the sake of matzah.
Commentary Halacha
Loaves from the thanksgiving offering -- 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.
and cakes from the Nazirite offering -- 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.
which an individual made for his personal use -- i.e., to offer as a sacrifice.
may not be used to fulfill one's obligation -- to eat matzah on Pesach night.
[as can be implied] from the statement [Exodus 12:17]: "And you shall watch the matzot." -- 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:
Matzah which is watched with the sole intention [that it be used to fulfill the mitzvah] of matzah may be used to fulfill one's obligation. However, this matzah -- from the thanksgiving or Nazirite offerings
is also watched with the intention of [being used for a] sacrifice -- Hence, it may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.
Those -- matzot made for the thanksgiving or Nazirite offerings
that were made to be sold in the marketplace -- for others to use
[the baker] has the intention that if they are not sold, he will eat them. Therefore, while he was making them -- implicit in his intention was that
he [also] watched for the sake of matzah. -- Therefore, they may be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.
Rabbenu Manoach and other commentators note that the matzot for these sacrifices would have to be prepared before the thirteenth of Nisan. (A thanksgiving sacrifice could not be brought on the fourteenth, because of the ten breads that were chametz.) From this, he draws support for the practice of preparing matzot before Pesach, even though the common custom in his day was to bake them on the afternoon of the fourteenth. The need to find support for this practice may seem strange for members of many communities today whose matzot may be prepared in the heart of winter.
Halacha 10
All are obligated to [fulfill the mitzvah to] eat matzah, even women and slaves. A minor [old enough to eat bread] should be trained in [the fulfillment of] mitzvot and be given an olive's size of matzah to eat. [For] a sick or elderly person who cannot eat, we can soak a cake [of matzah] in water and feed it to him, provided it does not dissolve.
Commentary Halacha
All are obligated to [fulfill the mitzvah to] eat 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.
even women and slaves -- 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 Torah's prohibitions), they must also fulfill the positive commandment of eating matzah.
A minor old enough to eat bread] should be trained in [the fulfillment of] mitzvot -- From the Rambam's phraseology, we learn that the mitzvah of training 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).
and be given an olive's size of matzah -- the same measure given an adult.
to eat. [For] a sick or elderly person who cannot eat -- a full כזית of matzah in any other fashion,
we can soak a cake [of matzah] in water and feed it to him, provided it does not dissolve. -- See Halachah 6 and commentary.
Halacha 11
It is a Rabbinic ordinance that nothing at all is eaten after the matzah, not even roasted seeds, nuts, or the like. Rather, even though one ate matzah and afterwards, ate other foods, fruit, and the like, one returns and eats a second olive's size of matzah at the end [of the meal] and ceases [eating].
Commentary Halacha
It is a Rabbinic ordinance that nothing at all is eaten after the matzah --As explained in Halachah 8:9, the Rambam is referring to the afikoman, which was instituted in place of the Paschal sacrifice.
not even roasted seeds, nuts, or the like -- 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."
Rather, even though one ate matzah -- to begin one's meal and to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah
and afterwards ate other foods, fruit, and the like -- in the course of the meal
one returns and eats a second olive's size of matzah at the end [of the meal] -- as the afikoman
and ceases [eating]. -- so that the taste of the matzah will remain in one's mouth. See Halachah 8:9.
Halacha 12
The Sages forbade a person from eating matzah on Pesach eve, in order for there to be a distinction between [partaking of it as food] and eating it on the evening [of the fifteen as a mitzvah.] Whoever eats matzah on Pesach eve is given "stripes for rebellion" until his soul expires.
Similarly, it is forbidden to eat on Pesach evening from slightly before the time of Minchah, in order that one will approach eating matzah with appetite. However, one may eat some fruit or vegetables, but should not fill up on them.
The Sages of the former generations would starve themselves on Pesach eve so that they would eat matzah with appetite, and thus hold the mitzvot as dear. In contrast, on the eve of Sabbaths or other festivals, one may continue eating until darkness.
Commentary Halacha
The Sages forbade a person from eating matzah -- 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.)
on Pesach eve -- 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).
in order for there to be a distinction between [partaking of it as food] and eating it on the evening [of the fifteen as a mitzvah.] -- 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.
Whoever eats matzah on Pesach eve is given "stripes of rebellion" --
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.
until his soul expires -- This phrase has provoked much controversy among the commentators. 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 Torah prohibition... for such a penalty is not found with regard to a Torah 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 Manoach 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.
Similarly, it is forbidden to eat -- a meal with matzah (even matzah kneaded with wine, which is not included in the prohibition mentioned above)
on Pesach evening from slightly before the time of Minchah -- 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.)
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment of the Torah to relate the miracles and wonders wrought for our ancestors in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Remember this day, on which you left Egypt," just as [Exodus 20:8] states: "Remember the Sabbath day."
From where [is it derived that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled on] the night of the fifteenth? The Torah teaches [Exodus 13:8]: "And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: 'It is because of this...'"FS" [implying that the mitzvah is to be fulfilled] when matzah and maror are placed before you.
[The mitzvah applies] even though one does not have a son. Even great Sages are obligated to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. Whoever elaborates concerning the events which occurred and took place is worthy of praise.
Commentary Halacha
It is a positive commandment of the Torah -- Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 157), Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 21)
to relate -- 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.
the miracles and wonders wrought for our ancestors in Egypt on the night -- In 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.
of the fifteenth of Nisan -- the night of the plague of the firstborn, when Pharaoh gave the Jews permission to leave Egypt.
as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Remember this day -- the fifteenth of Nisan
on which you left Egypt" -- implying that we are commanded to commemorate the day of the Exodus.
just as [Exodus 20:8] states: "Remember the Sabbath day." -- This addition is a quote from the Mechiltah and Shemot Rabbah. Nevertheless, the commentators have questioned its necessity. Some explain that the word זכור does not follow the grammatical form usually used for 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 זכר למעשה בראשית, "a commemoration of the work of creation." The remembrance of the exodus, it continues, must also emphasize the wonders and miracles that God performed.
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."
From where [is it derived that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled on] the night of the fifteenth? The Torah teaches [Exodus 13:8]: "And you shall tell your son on that day -- relating the story of the Exodus
saying: 'It is because of this...'"FS" -- The Mechiltah interprets this as a reference to matzah and maror. Thus, the verse is
[implying that the mitzvah] -- of relating the story of the exile
[is to be fulfilled] when matzah and maror are placed before you -- i.e., on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, when it is a mitzvah to eat matzah, as explained in Halachah 6:1.
[The mitzvah applies] even though one does not have a son -- This clause is necessary because from the expression "and you shall tell your son," one might imply that the mitzvah only applies to a person with children.
Even great Sages are obligated to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. -- 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.
Whoever elaborates concerning the events which occurred and took place is worthy of praise -- Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) praises: "Whoever adds further statements and elaborates more on the greatness of what God did for us and the wickedness and violence with which the Egyptians treated us, and how God took His revenge upon them..."
Halacha 2
It is a mitzvah to inform one's sons even though they do not ask, as [Exodus 13:8] states: "You shall tell your son."
A father should teach his son according to the son's knowledge: How is this applied? If the son is young or foolish, he should tell him: "My son, in Egypt, we were all slaves like this maidservant or this slave. On this night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, redeemed us and took us out to freedom."
If the son is older and wise, he should inform him what happened to us in Egypt and the miracles wrought for us by Moses, our teacher; everything according to the son's knowledge.
Commentary Halacha
It is a mitzvah to inform one's sons even though they do not ask, as [Exodus 13:8] states: "You shall tell your son." -- Though Exodus 13:14states: "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).
A father should teach his son according to the son's knowledge --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.
How is this applied? If the son is young or foolish, he should tell him: "My son, in Egypt, we were all slaves like this maidservant or this slave. On this night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, redeemed us and took us out to freedom." -- 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.
If the son is older and wise, he should inform him what happened to us in Egypt and the miracles wrought for us by Moses, our teacher -- The Haggadah (based on the Mechiltah) also explains that a wise son should be taught the halachot of Pesach.
everything according to the son's knowledge -- 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.
Halacha 3
He should make changes on this night so that the children will see and will [be motivated to] ask: "Why is this night different from all other nights?" until he replies to them: "This and this occurred; this and this took place."
What changes should be made? He should give them roasted seeds and nuts; the table should be taken away before they eat; matzot should be snatched from each other and the like.
When a person does not have a son, his wife should ask him. If he does not have a wife, [he and a colleague] should ask each other: "Why is this night different?" This applies even if they are all wise. A person who is alone should ask himself: "Why is this night different?"
Commentary Halacha
He -- the father or person conducting the seder
should make changes on this night so that the children will see -- have their curiosity piqued
and will -- thus, remain awake and
[be motivated to] ask: "Why is this night different from all other nights?" -- The question מה נשתנה and, similarly, three of the four questions asked by the children are mentioned in the Mishnah, Pesachim 116a.
until he replies to them: "This and this occurred; this and this took place." -- relating the story of the Exodus by reciting the Haggadah.
What changes should be made? He should give them roasted seeds and nuts -- Pesachim 109a notes that Rabbi Akiva would follow this practice.
the table should be taken away before they eat -- Pesachim 115b relates that one Pesach, Abaye was sitting before Rabbah, 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.)
matzot should be snatched from each other -- The Rambam's statements are quoted from Pesachim 109a. However, Rashi, the Ra'avad, and others interpret חוטפים מצות to mean that the matzot are eaten hurriedly. The Rambam's interpretation is the source for the custom of stealing matzah at the Seder.
and the like -- The custom of pouring the second cup of wine directly after reciting הא לחמה עניא is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:7) as another practice instituted to arouse curiosity.
When a person does not have a son, his wife should ask him. -- 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.
If he does not have a wife, [he and a colleague] should ask each other "Why is this night different?" This applies even if they are all wise -- as mentioned in the previous halachah.
A person who is alone should ask himself: "Why is this night different?" -- Since the question and answer approach is the most desirable way to recite the Haggadah, everyone must follow this pattern, even if he must ask himself the questions.
Halacha 4
One must begin [the narrative describing our ancestors'] base [roots] and conclude with [their] praise. What does this imply? One begins relating how originally, in the age of Terach, our ancestors denied [God's existence] and strayed after vanity, pursuing idol worship. One concludes with the true faith: how the Omnipresent has drawn us close to Him, separated us from the gentiles, and drawn us near to His Oneness.
Similarly, one begins by stating that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and [describing] all the evil done to us, and concludes with the miracles and wonders that were wrought upon us, and our freedom.
This [implies] that one should extrapolate [the passage beginning] from [Deuteronomy 26:5]: "An Aramean sought to destroy my ancestor..." until one concludes the entire passage. Whoever adds and extends his extrapolation of this passage is praiseworthy.
Commentary Halacha
One must begin [the narrative describing our ancestors'] base [roots] and conclude with [their] praise. -- This principle is taken from the Mishnah,Pesachim 116a. The commentaries offer 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).
What does this imply? One begins relating how originally, in the age of Terach -- Abraham's father
our ancestors denied [God's existence] -- The Rambam is alluding to the passage "Originally, our ancestors were idol-worshipers."
and strayed after vanity, pursuing idol worship -- See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1-3.
One concludes with the true faith -- The redemption from Egypt representing the birth of the Jews as a nation and the beginning of their service of God as a people.
how the Omnipresent has drawn us close to Him, separated us from the gentiles, and drawn us near to His Oneness -- by giving us the Torah.
Similarly, one begins by stating that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt and [describing] all the evil done to us -- 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 follow 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.
and concludes with the miracles and wonders that were wrought upon us, and our freedom -- relating the story of the Exodus.
This [implies] that one should extrapolate -- bringing other verses to explain and clarify the statements of this passage as found in the Haggadah.
[the passage beginning] from [Deuteronomy 26:5]: "An Aramean sought to destroy my ancestor..." -- 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.
until one concludes the entire passage. -- i.e., until Deuteronomy 26:8.
Whoever adds and extends his extrapolation -- beyond the accepted text
of this passage is praiseworthy.
Halacha 5
Whoever does not mention these three matters on the night of the fifteenth has not fulfilled his obligation. They are: the Paschal sacrifice, matzah, and maror.
The Paschal sacrifice: [It is eaten] because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt as [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say: 'It is the Paschal sacrifice to God.'"FS"
The bitter herbs: [They are eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt.
The matzah: [It is eaten] because of the redemption. These statements are all referred to as the Haggadah.
Commentary Halacha
Whoever does not mention these three matters on the night of the fifteenth has not fulfilled his obligation -- 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?
They are: the Paschal sacrifice, matzah, and maror. -- From the verse quoted below: "And you shall say: 'It is the Paschal sacrifice to God,'"FS"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.
the Paschal sacrifice: [It is eaten] because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt -- saving them from the plague of the slaying of the firstborn
as [Exodus 12:27] states: "And you shall say: 'It is the Paschal sacrifice to God.'"FS"
The bitter herbs -- Here and in Halachah 8:4, the Rambam changes the order found in our text of the Mishnah and in the Haggadah (including even his own text of the Haggadah). Rabbenu Manoach maintains that this was the order found in the Rambam's text of the Mishnah.
[They are eaten] because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt. The matzah: [It is eaten] because of the redemption. These statements -- the questions asked in Halachah 3 and the explanations referred to in this and the previous halachah.
are all referred to as the Haggadah.
Halacha 6
In each and every generation, a person must present himself as if he, himself, has now left the slavery of Egypt, as [Deuteronomy 6:23] states: "He took us out from there." Regarding this manner, God commanded in the Torah: "Remember that you were a slave [Deuteronomy 5:15]" - i.e., as if you, yourself, were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed.
Commentary Halacha
In each and every generation, a person must present himself -- Pesachim116b explains that the mitzvah of relating the story of the Exodus cannot remain on the intellectual level alone. Rather, it must affect 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 performed 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 performs all the other Passover practices must also demonstrate to others his personal experience of the Exodus.
as if he, himself, has now -- the words, "himself" and "now" are also additions to the Mishnah.
left the slavery of Egypt -- Here, also, the Rambam alters the text, adding the words "the slavery." Since the Rambam is addressing people who may never have seen the physical land of Egypt, it is not possible to demand that they feel as if they left that country, but rather, that they left backbreaking slavery as experienced by our people in Egypt.
as [Deuteronomy 6:23] states: "He took -- 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 slavery.
us out from there." -- This verse is quoted by Ravvah, Pesachim 116b. However, the Mishnah (and our text of the Haggadah) derive this concept fromExodus 13:8: "And you shall tell your son...: 'It is because of this, that God acted for me...'"FS" Nevertheless, the Rambam's text of the Mishnah and the Haggadah do not include that verse.
Regarding this manner, God commanded in the Torah: "Remember that you were a slave [Deuteronomy 5:15]" -- 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.
i.e., as if you, yourself, -- even though physically, you did not experience this slavery.
were a slave and went out to freedom and were redeemed.
Halacha 7
Therefore, when a person feasts on this night, he must eat and drink while he is reclining in the manner of free men. Each and every one, both men and women, must drink four cups of wine on this night. [This number] should not be reduced. Even a poor person who is sustained by charity should not have fewer than four cups. The size of each of these cups should be a quarter [of a log].
Commentary Halacha
Therefore, when a person feasts on this night -- 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 afford.
he must eat and drink -- The Talmud mentions two practices as characteristic of freedom: reclining and drinking four 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 following halachot.
while he is reclining -- on couches
in the manner of free men -- In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim10:1), 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 (הסיבה) is not merely a particular law, describing the manner in which the matzah and the four cups of wine must be eaten and drunk, but rather a unique requirement on its own. Therefore, as explained in the following halachah, it is praiseworthy for a person to eat the entire Seder meal while reclining.
each and every one -- 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.
both men and women -- Generally, woman 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 - indeed, Sotah 11b states that the redemption came about because of their merit - they must participate fully in the commemoration of the Exodus (Pesachim 108b).
It is curious that the Rambam does not mention whether wine should be given to children below Bar-Mitzvah age. Many authorities maintain that it is unnecessary for the Rambam to mention this fact, for we can assume that the all-encompassing obligation to educate one's children in Torah practice applies in this regard as well. (See Shulchan Aruch 472:15 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav472:25)
Other commentaries, however, maintain that the omission is significant. They note that in Hilchot De'ot 4:12, the Rambam writes that wine is harmful to young children. Hence, they maintain, the Rabbis would not require a father to train his children in Torah practice at the expense of their health.
must drink four -- The Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 10:1 explains that these four cups of wine are associated with the four promises of redemption given to the Jews in Egypt (Exodus 6:6-7). Alternatively, it is suggested that they refer to:
the four cups mentioned in the narrative of Pharaoh's butler;the four exiles in which the Jews will suffer;the four cups of retribution God will force the gentiles to drink in the Messianic age; and,the four cups of consolation He will offer to the Jews after their redemption.
In Halachah 8:10, the Rambam also mentions a fifth cup of wine. See the commentary on that halachah.
cups of wine -- Most halachic authorities require that this wine have some alcoholic content. Hence, grape juice alone should not be used.
on this night. [This number] should not be reduced -- However, during certain portions of the Seder, it is possible to drink additional cups of wine.
even a poor person who is sustained by charity should not have fewer than four cups. -- Just as the Jewish community must supply him with his physical needs, they must also provide him with the necessities required to fulfill his halachic obligations.
The size of each of these cups -- i.e., the amount of liquid they must contain
should be a quarter [of a log] -- There is some controversy about the conversion of that figure into modern measure. The most commonly accepted figure is 3.35 fluid ounces. Some authorities require even larger cups.
Halacha 8
Even one of Israel's poor should not eat until he [can] recline. A woman need not recline. If she is an important woman, she must recline. [Even] a son in the presence of his father or an attendant in the presence of his master must recline. However, a student before his teacher should not recline unless his teacher grants him permission.
Reclining on one's right side is not considered reclining. Neither is reclining on one's back or forwards.
When must one recline? when eating the כזית of matzah and when drinking these four cups of wine. While eating and drinking at other times: if one reclines, it is praiseworthy; if not, there is no requirement.
Commentary Halacha
Even one of Israel's poor should not eat until he [can] recline. -- The word "even" is used to include people who one would presume would not be obligated. Tosefot, Pesachim 99b, explains that it obligates even a poor person who cannot afford a couch or pillows to lean on. He also must try to recline to the best of his ability - e.g., leaning on a colleague's side. See Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 472:3.
A woman need not recline. -- Rabbenu Manoach and other commentators explain that this refers only to a woman in the presence of her husband. TheSh'eltot d'Rav Achai (Tzav 77) states that it applies to all women, since women do not generally recline.
If she is an important woman, she must recline. -- 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."
[Even] a son in the presence of his father or an attendant in the presence of his master must recline. -- A son is obligated to honor his father, and thus it would not be respectful to recline in his presence. However, we may assume that the father foregoes his honor in this regard. This applies even if the father is also his tutor in Torah studies.
Though an attendant is bound to fulfill the duties required of him by his master, the obligations required of him by God take precedence.
However, a student before his teacher -- i.e., one who teaches him Torah
should not recline -- for a person's fear of his teacher must parallel his fear of God (Pesachim 22b).
unless his teacher grants him permission. -- Should he desire to do so, a teacher may forego the honor due him. In such an instance, a student must recline.
Reclining on one's right side is not considered reclining. -- This refers to a right-handed person. Since he must eat with his right hand, it would be uncomfortable for him to recline on that side (Rashbam, Pesachim 108a). Alternatively, this refers to all people for reclining in this manner is dangerous, lest the food go down the windpipe rather than the esophagus (Ramah 472:3).
Neither is reclining on one's back or forwards. -- Pesachim 108a explains that פרקדן is not considered as a desirable manner of reclining. Most commentaries explain that refers only to leaning on one's back. However, even leaning forward is not acceptable, since this is not a comfortable manner of eating and cannot be regarded as a symbol of freedom and liberation.
When must one recline? when eating the כזית of matzah -- At present, this obligation applies also to eating the korech (sandwich of matzah and maror) and the afikoman.
and when drinking these four cups of wine. -- for these were ordained particularly to celebrate the redemption from Egypt.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 472:7, writes that a person who ate matzah or drank from the four cups of wine without reclining is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation and must repeat the act.
The Ramah qualifies this law, explaining that since, in the Ashkenazic community, certain opinions do not require reclining at present, one need not drink another cup of wine if the third and fourth cups of wine were drunk without reclining. However, he suggests that a person repeat the eating of matzah and the drinking of the first two cups of wine if they were consumed without reclining. The Magen Avraham (and the subsequent authorities) declare that the drinking of the first cup should also not be repeated.
While eating and drinking at other times -- during the Seder meal
if one reclines, it is praiseworthy -- for, as mentioned in the previous halachah, reclining is one of the signs of freedom and liberation, and thus, has an importance of its own, independent of its connection to the eating of matzah and the drinking of the four cups of wine.
if not, there is no requirement. -- for, in particular, reclining was obligated only for those acts that were specifically instituted as symbols of our liberation. One should not recline while eating the maror, for it was ordained as a remembrance of our people's oppression and not of their liberation (Pesachim108a).
Halacha 9
These four cups [of wine] should be mixed with water so that drinking them will be pleasant. [The degree to which they are mixed] all depends on the wine and the preference of the person drinking. [Together,] these four [cups] should contain at least a quarter [of a log] of pure wine.
A person who drank these four cups from wine which was not mixed [with water] has fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups of wine, but has not fulfilled the obligation to do so in a manner expressive of freedom.
A person who drank these four cups of wine mixed [with water] at one time has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine in a manner expressive of freedom, but has not fulfilled the obligation of four cups of wine.
A person who drank the majority [of the cup] from each of these [four] cups has fulfilled his obligation.
Commentary Halacha
These four cups [of wine] should be mixed with water so that drinking them will be pleasant. -- In Talmudic times, the wines were very strong and had to be mixed with water before being drunk. At present, most commercially produced wines have already been diluted with water. Nevertheless, in many communities, it is customary to mix a small amount of water with the wine when pouring the cup, to fulfill the obligation of mixing the wine with water oneself.
[The degree to which they are mixed] all depends on -- the strength of
the wine and the preference of the person drinking. -- Nevertheless, the Sages placed some limits on the extent to which wine may be diluted.
[Together,] these four [cups] should contain at least a quarter
[of a log] of pure wine. -- i.e., the sum total of pure wine contained in all four cups must be at least a quarter of a log at least 3.35 fluid ounces, as explained above. A person may thus add three times this quantity of water to the wine to produce four cups, each containing a quarter of a log of mixed wine.
We may not dilute the wine any further. Shabbat 77a states: "Any wine that is less than a third of the quantity of the water [mixed in] is not considered wine."
This factor is significant at present, when the wines commercially produced are substantially diluted with water in the factories. Hence, when adding water to them at the table, one must take care not to exceed the above limits.
A person who drank these four cups from wine which was not mixed [with water] -- In Hilchot Mamrim 7:4, the Rambam writes that drinking wine in this manner is considered as an accidental occurrence, and no one, not even a glutton, will continue doing this.
has fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups of wine, but has not fulfilled the obligation to do so in a manner expressive of freedom. -- i.e., he has not fulfilled the mitzvah in its proper manner. However, as stated above, at present many commentaries do not require further dilution with water.
A person who drank these four cups of wine mixed [with water] at one time -- without waiting to drink them as prescribed in the Haggadah
has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine in a manner expressive of freedom, but has not fulfilled the obligation of four cups of wine. -- The Rabbis ordained that the cups be drunk in the prescribed order. (Note the following halachah.) A person who does not drink them in this order does not fulfill his obligation.
A person who drank the majority [of the cup] from each of these [four] cups has fulfilled his obligation. -- The Taz (472:7) explains that it is desirable for a person to drink the entire cup of wine if possible. Accordingly, the Magen Avraham suggests using smaller cups, so that it is easy to drink the entire contents. Some opinions maintain that even if a person is using a very large cup, he is obligated to drink the majority of the cup. However, the prevailing opinion (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 472:19) is that for the first three cups, it is sufficient to drink the majority of a quarter of a log (i.e., at least 1.68 fluid ounces of wine). For the final cup, one should drink an entire quarter of alog.
The source of the latter law is Pesachim 108a, which mentions a person who drinks wine from his cup and then gives to his children and the members of his household. The Talmud concludes that he fulfills his obligation if he drinks the majority of the cup. The Rambam quotes only the conclusion of this statement, for he maintains that all adult members of the household, both men and women, should be given their own cups of wine and he does not mention the obligation of giving wine to children. (See Halachah 7.)
Halacha 10
On each of these four cups, one recites a blessing of its own. In addition:
On the first cup, one recites the kiddush pertaining to the day;
On the second cup, one reads the Haggadah;
On the third cup, one recites the grace after meals;
On the fourth cup, one concludes the Hallel and recites the blessing for songs [of praise].
Between these cups, should one desire to drink, one may. Between the third and the fourth cup, one should not drink.
Commentary Halacha
On each of these four cups, one recites a blessing of its own -- i.e., one recites the blessing בורא פרי הגפן, blessing God for creating wine, before partaking of each cup of wine. Generally, when one continues drinking wine in one sitting, only one blessing is recited in the beginning. However, in this instance, since each of the four cups was ordained as a specific mitzvah, it requires a blessing of its own.
The Ma'aseh Rokeach quotes Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, as stating that after each of the four cups, his father also required the recitation of the blessing על הגפן (the blessing recited after drinking wine). Nevertheless, both Sephardic and Ashkenazic custom today is to recite על הגפן only once, at the end of the Seder (Ramah 474:1).
Also, -- each of the four cups is associated with another blessing(s).
on the first cup, one recites the kiddush pertaining to the day -- as on every Sabbath and festival, as stated in Halachah 8:1.
On the second cup, one reads the Haggadah -- and concludes with the blessing אשר גאלנו, which praises God for redeeming us, as stated in Halachah 8:5.
On the third cup, one recites the grace after meals -- which, throughout the year, should be recited over a cup of wine, as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Berachot 7:14 and as stated in Halachah 8:10 below.
On the fourth cup, one concludes the Hallel -- which is begun before partaking of the meal, as stated in Halachah 8:5.
and recites the blessing for songs [of praise]. -- i.e., the blessing יהללוך, generally recited after the Hallel, as stated in Halachah 8:10.
Between these cups, should one desire to drink, one may. -- However, theShulchan 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.
Halacha 11
The charoset is a mitzvah ordained by the words of the Sages, to commemorate the clay with which [our forefathers] worked in Egypt. How is it made?
We take dates, dried figs, or raisins and the like, and crush them, add vinegar to them, and mix them with spices, as clay is mixed into straw. This is placed on the table on [the first two] nights of Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
The charoset is a mitzvah ordained by the words of the Sages -- This statement represents a change of opinion by the Rambam. Pesachim 10:3 states: "The charoset is not a mitzvah. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok declares: 'It is a mitzvah.'"FS" In his commentary on that Mishnah, the Rambam writes:
According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok, who maintains thatcharoset is a mitzvah, one is obligated to recite a blessing "...who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us regarding the eating of charoset." This is not the halachah.
A change of opinion of this nature is not extremely uncommon. However, the question can be raised: why does the Rambam not require a blessing to be recited over the charoset? Among the answers given is that the charoset is considered secondary (טפל) to the substances which are dipped in it. Hence, we follow the principle of reciting a blessing upon the essential item (the maror or the matzah) and not on the charoset (Lechem Mishneh).
to commemorate the clay -- i.e., mortar. Pesachim 116a offers a second opinion: "to commemorate the apple trees" - i.e., the manner in which the Jewish women made themselves attractive to their husbands and convinced them to continue rearing children. They would then hide in the apple orchards and give birth to their children without difficulty (Rashbam).
with which [our forefathers] worked in Egypt -- making bricks.
How is it made? We take dates, dried figs, or raisins and the like and crush them -- The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (473:32) suggests using apples, nuts, or pomegranates and fruits used as metaphors for the Jewish people in the Bible.
add vinegar to them -- The Ramah (473:5) suggests using red wine to recall the Jewish blood spilled by the Egyptians.
and mix them with spices -- ginger or cinnamon (However, in certain communities, it is customary not to use these spices on Pesach). Pesachim(ibid.) quotes Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok as saying "the spice-merchants of Jerusalem would call out: 'Come and get spices for the mitzvah.'"FS"
as clay is mixed into straw -- to commemorate the making of bricks.
This is placed on the table -- according to our custom, on the Seder plate
on Pesach nights.
Halacha 12
According to the Torah, the eating of bitter herbs is not a mitzvah in its own right, but rather is dependent on the consumption of the Paschal sacrifice. It is one positive commandment to eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice together with matzah and bitter herbs. According to the words of the Sages, [it is a mitzvah] to eat the bitter herbs alone on this night even if there is no Paschal sacrifice.
Commentary Halacha
According to the Torah, the eating of bitter herbs is not a mitzvah in its own right -- In contrast to matzah, concerning which there is a separate commandment (Exodus 12:18): "On that evening, eat matzot," there is no specific Biblical commandment to eat bitter herbs alone.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik explains that, accordingly, when eating the maror together with the Paschal sacrifice, there is no obligation to eat a
כזית. That measure is required only according to the Sages, who established a separate mitzvah to eat maror. Therefore, as in all other cases where eating is required, one must consume a כזית. However, since there is no Torah mitzvah to eat maror, merely that one should use it to embellish the Paschal sacrifice, that measure is not required by the Torah.
[Perhaps, this thesis may be questioned on the basis of Halachah 8:6, which requires a separate blessing for maror when it is eaten alone. As in Halachah 8:2, a blessing would not be required on a measure less than a כזית.]
but rather is dependent on the consumption of the Paschal sacrifice -- asExodus 12:8 commands: "eat it together with matzot and bitter herbs." (See Halachah 8:6.)
It is one positive commandment to eat the meat of the Paschal sacrifice together with matzah and bitter herbs. -- Just as the four species taken on Sukkot are one mitzvah, similarly, although the Paschal sacrifice should be eaten with these three elements, it is considered only one mitzvah.
Furthermore, in Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 56), the Rambam explains that if it is impossible to obtain bitter herbs, it is still a mitzvah to partake of the Paschal sacrifice. However, there is no mitzvah to partake of bitter herbs alone. (See also Hilchot Korban Pesach 8:2.)
According to the words of the Sages, [it is a mitzvah] -- and thus, as mentioned in Halachah 8:8, we recite a blessing praising God for commanding us "concerning the eating of maror."
to eat the bitter herbs alone -- in contrast to our practice of eating them together with matzah (see Halachah 8:8), which is only a custom
on this night even if there is no Paschal sacrifice.
Halacha 13
The bitter herbs referred to by the Torah are Romaine lettuce, endives, horseradish, date ivy, wormwood. All of these five species of vegetable are called maror. If a person ate a כזית of any one of these [species] or of all five [species] combined, he has fulfilled his obligation.
This applies while they are still moist. One may fulfill one's obligation with their stem even if it is dry. One cannot fulfill one's obligation if they are boiled, pickled, or cooked.
Commentary Halacha
The bitter herbs referred to by the Torah are Romaine lettuce -- Pesachim39a 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, חסא, 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.
endives, horseradish, date ivy -- the precise English term for the latter species is a matter of question. In his commentary on the Mishnah (Pesachim2:6), the Rambam identifies it with the Arabic "Kretzanah."
wormwood -- an extremely bitter tasting herb.
All of these five species of vegetable are called maror. If a person ate aכזית -- As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1:1, there is a debate between the commentators if a כזית is considered as one third the size of a ביצה, or one half. Hence, in regard to questions of Torah law, the more stringent opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon.
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.
of any one of these [species] or of all five [species] combined, he has fulfilled his obligation.
This applies while they -- their leaves
are still moist. One may fulfill one's obligation with their stem -- TheShulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 473:5, excludes the use of roots. However, theMagen Avraham (473:11) maintains that the main root extending from them 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.
even if it is dry. One cannot fulfill one's obligation if they are boiled, --these three activities detract from the vegetable's bitter taste
pickled -- in vinegar; alternatively, left in water for more than a day. Many have the custom of using horseradish as maror, but soak it before the Seder to minimize its sharpness. Based on this halachah, it is preferable for them to use one of the less bitter species of bitter herbs than to follow this practice.
or cooked.
• Shevat 18, 5775 · 02/07/2015
"Today's Day"
Torah lessons: Chumash: Yitro, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 88-89.
Tanya: Ch. 23. In the light (p. 93)...clothed in the worlds. (p. 93).
The Tzemach Tzedek told his son, my grandfather, that the maamar Umareihem uma'asseihem in Torah Or, Yitro, is the first discourse the Maggid delivered when he assumed leadership of the chassidim, on Shavuot 5521 (1761). The Alter Rebbe heard the maamar from R. Mendel Horodoker,1 author of Pri Haaretz, who had been present that Shavuot in 5521. However, the Alter Rebbe expounded the maamar in his own style.
FOOTNOTES
1. See "Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi," index on "Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk."
Daily Thought
Not About Anything
People think that Torah is about something; that it comes to explain our world, what has happened and what will happen, where each thing belongs and what to do with it.
In a way, this is true. But ultimately, Torah isn’t about anything—everything is about Torah.
G‑d emanated light, created a world and filled it with events, people and things, all so we would have means and metaphor to discuss His thoughts.[Chayei Sarah 5726:19; Torat Menachem 5741 13 Tishrei, sicha 1—based on Zohar, B’haalotecha.]
____________________________Chabad - Today in Judaism
Today is: Friday, Shvat 17, 5775 · February 6, 2015Today in Jewish History
• Purim Saragossa (1421)
A noxious plot was brewing against the Jewish community of Saragossa, but they were completely unaware of the looming danger. They were spared, however, thanks to a handful of synagogues beadles who acted on a dream they all had. The resulting salvation on the 17th of Shevat was celebrated by Saragossan Jews, and dubbed "Purim Saragossa."
A Hebrew Megillah (scroll) was penned, describing the details of the miraculous story. To this day, this scroll is read in certain communities on Purim Saragossa.
Link: Purim Saragossa
Daily Quote:
"For man is a tree of the field" (Deuteronomy 20:19) -- our roots are our faith and commitment, our trunk and branches are our learning and character, and our deeds are our fruits[The Lubavitcher Rebbe]
Daily Study
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Yitro, 6th Portion Exodus 19:20-20:14 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
20. The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai, to the peak of the mountain, and the Lord summoned Moses to the peak of the mountain, and Moses ascended. כ. וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָֹה עַל הַר סִינַי אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָֹה לְמשֶׁה אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר וַיַּעַל משֶׁה:
The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai: I may think that He actually descended upon it. Therefore, Scripture says: “You have seen that from the heavens I have spoken with you” (Exod. 20:19). This teaches that [He did descend although still in the heavens,] He bent down the upper heavens and the lower heavens and spread them upon the mountain like a spread on a bed, and the Throne of Glory descended upon them [the upper heavens and the lower heavens]. — [from Mechilta] וירד ה' על הר סיני: יכול ירד עליו ממש, תלמוד לומר (שמות כ יט) כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם. מלמד שהרכין שמים העליונים והתחתונים והציען על גבי ההר, כמצע על המטה, וירד כסא הכבוד עליהם:
21. The Lord said to Moses, "Go down, warn the people lest they break [their formation to go nearer] to the Lord, and many of them will fall. כא. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָֹה אֶל משֶׁה רֵד הָעֵד בָּעָם פֶּן יֶהֶרְסוּ אֶל יְהוָֹה לִרְאוֹת וְנָפַל מִמֶּנּוּ רָב:
warn the people: Heb. הָעֵד. Warn them not to go up the mountain. העד בעם: התרה בהם שלא לעלות בהר:
lest they break: their position [i.e., their ranks] because of their longing for God, to see [Him], and they move too close to the side of the mountain. פן יהרסו וגו': שלא יהרסו את מצבם על ידי שתאותם אל ה' לראות ויקרבו לצד ההר:
and many of them will fall: Heb. וְנָפַל. Whatever [number] falls from them, let it be even a single person, to Me it is considered [as if] many [have fallen]. — [from Mechilta] ונפל ממנו רב: כל מה שיפול מהם ואפילו הוא יחידי חשוב לפני רב:
lest they break: Heb. יֶהֶרְסוּ. Every [expression of] הִרִיסָה [denotes] the separation of the collection of [the parts of] the building. Likewise, those who separate from the position of people break up that position. יהרסו: כל הריסה מפרדת אסיפת הבנין, אף הנפרדין ממצב אנשים הורסים את המצב:
22. And also, the priests who go near to the Lord shall prepare themselves, lest the Lord wreak destruction upon them." כב. וְגַם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנִּגָּשִׁים אֶל יְהוָֹה יִתְקַדָּשׁוּ פֶּן יִפְרֹץ בָּהֶם יְהוָֹה:
And also, the priests: [I.e.,] also the firstborn, who perform the [divine] service. — [from Zev. 115b] וגם הכהנים: אף הבכורות שהעבודה בהם:
who go near to the Lord: to offer up sacrifices (targumim), they too shall not rely on their importance to ascend the mountain. הנגשים אל ה': להקריב קרבנות, אף הם אל יסמכו על חשיבותם לעלות:
shall prepare themselves: They shall be ready to stand on their position. יתקדשו: יהיו מזומנים להתיצב על עמדם:
lest the Lord wreak destruction: Heb. יִפְרֹץ, an expression of a breach. [This means] He will kill some of them and [thus] make a breach in them [their completeness]. פן יפרץ: לשון פרצה, יהרוג בהם ויעשה בהם פרצה:
23. And Moses said to the Lord, "The people cannot ascend to Mount Sinai, for You warned us saying, Set boundaries for the mountain and sanctify it.' " כג. וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל יְהֹוָה לֹא יוּכַל הָעָם לַעֲלֹת אֶל הַר סִינָי כִּי אַתָּה הַעֵדֹתָה בָּנוּ לֵאמֹר הַגְבֵּל אֶת הָהָר וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ:
The people cannot: I do not have to warn them because today they have already been warned for three days, and they cannot ascend [the mountain] since they have no permission. לא יוכל העם: איני צריך להעיד בהם שהרי מותרין ועומדין הם היום שלושת ימים, ולא יוכלו לעלות שאין להם רשות:
24. But the Lord said to him, "Go, descend, and [then] you shall ascend, and Aaron with you, but the priests and the populace shall not break [their formation] to ascend to the Lord, lest He wreak destruction upon them." כד. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יְהוָֹה לֶךְ רֵד וְעָלִיתָ אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן עִמָּךְ וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם אַל יֶהֶרְסוּ לַעֲלֹת אֶל יְהוָֹה פֶּן יִפְרָץ בָּם:
Go, descend: And warn them a second time. We admonish a person before the act [he is to perform], and we admonish him again at the time of the act [when it is to be performed]. [from Mechilta] לך רד: והעד בהם שנית, שמזרזין את האדם קודם מעשה, וחוזרין ומזרזין אותו בשעת מעשה:
and [then] you shall ascend, and Aaron with you, but the priests: I might think that they too shall be with you, [that the verse should be rendered: and you shall ascend, and Aaron with you, and the priests, but the people…]. Therefore, the Torah states: “and you shall ascend” [the pronoun is meant for emphasis, in order to exclude the priests]. Consequently, you must say that you [shall have] a partition for yourself, Aaron [shall have] a partition for himself, and the priests [shall have] a partition for themselves. Moses went closer than Aaron, and Aaron closer than the priests, but the people shall altogether not break their position to ascend to the Lord. — [from Mechilta] \b lest He wreak destruction upon them-Heb. \b0יִפְרָץ Although יִפְרָץ is vowelized with a short “kamatz,” it has not changed from its grammatical construction. So is the way of every word vowelized with a “melupum” ("cholam"); when it comes next to a “makkaf,” its vowelization changes to a short “kamatz.” [Hence, the word יִפְרֹץ -which in this case appears with a “makkaf,” a hyphen, is changed to יִפְרָץ] ועלית אתה ואהרן עמך והכהנים: יכול אף הם עמך, תלמוד לומר ועלית אתה. אמור מעתה, אתה מחיצה לעצמך ואהרן מחיצה לעצמו והם מחיצה לעצמם. משה נגש יותר מאהרן, ואהרן יותר מן הכהנים, והעם כל עיקר אל יהרסו את מצבם לעלות אל ה':
25. So Moses went down to the people and said [this] to them. כה. וַיֵּרֶד משֶׁה אֶל הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם:
and said [this] to them: this warning. [Apparently, Rashi understands “and said to them” to mean that Moses said something to them. Since the object is obscure, Rashi inserts “this warning,” to clarify that the verse means that Moses relayed to the Israelites God’s warning to keep their distance from the mountain.] ויאמר אליהם: התראה זו:
Chapter 20
1. God spoke all these words, to respond: א. וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר:
God spoke: Heb. אֱלֹהִים. [The word] אֱֱלֹהִים always means “a judge.” [This Divine Name is used here] because there are some sections in the Torah [that contain commandments] that if a person performs them, he receives a reward, but if not, he does not receive any punishment for them. I might think that so it is with the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Scripture says: “God (אֱלֹהִים) spoke,” [signifying God’s role as] a Judge, [Whose function is] to mete out punishment [when the Ten Commandments are not obeyed]. [from Mechilta] וידבר א-להים: אין א-להים אלא דיין. לפי שיש פרשיות בתורה שאם עשאן אדם מקבל שכר, ואם לאו אינו מקבל עליהם פורענות, יכול אף עשרת הדברות כן, תלמוד לומר וידבר א-להים, דיין ליפרע:
all these words: [This] teaches [us] that the Holy One, blessed be He, said the Ten Commandments in one utterance, something that is impossible for a human being to say [in a similar way]. If so, why does the Torah say again, “I am [the Lord, your God (verse 2)]” and “You shall have no…” (verse 3)? Because He later explained each statement [of the Ten Commandments] individually. — [from Mechilta] את כל הדברים האלה: מלמד שאמר הקב"ה עשרת הדברות בדבור אחד, מה שאי אפשר לאדם לומר כן. אם כן מה תלמוד לומר עוד אנכי ולא יהיה לך, שחזר ופירש על כל דבור ודבור בפני עצמו:
to respond: Heb. לֵאמֹר, lit., to say. [This] teaches [us] that they responded to the positive [commandments], “Yes,” and to the negative [commandments], “No.” -[from Mechilta] לאמר: מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן ועל לאו לאו:
2. "I am the Lord, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. ב. אָנֹכִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:
Who took you out of the land of Egypt: The taking [you] out [of Egypt] is sufficient reason for you to be subservient to Me. Alternatively, [God mentions the Exodus] since He revealed Himself on the sea as a valiant warrior, and here He revealed Himself as an old man full of mercy, as it is said: “and beneath His feet was like the form of a brick of sapphire” (Exod. 24:10). That [brick] was before Him at the time of the enslavement [to remember the Israelites’ suffering when they made bricks as slaves], “and like the appearance of the heavens” (Exod. 24:10), [i.e., there was joy before Him] when they were redeemed. Since I change in [My] appearances, do not say that they are two [Divine] domains, [but] I am He Who took you out of Egypt and [I am He Who performed the miracles] by the sea (Mechilta). Alternatively, [God mentions the Exodus] since they [the Israelites] heard many voices [during the revelation], as it is said: “And all the people saw the voices” (verse 15), [meaning that] voices came from four directions and from the heavens and from the earth, [so] do not say that there are many domains (Exod. Rabbah 5:9). And why did He say [this] in the singular [possessive], אֱלֹהֶי ? In order to give Moses an opening to offer a defense in the incident of the calf. This is [the meaning of] “Why, O Lord, should Your anger be kindled against Your people?” (Exod. 32:11). You did not command them, “You shall not have the gods of others before Me,” but [You commanded] me alone (Exod. Rabbah 43:5). אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים: כדאי היא ההוצאה שתהיו משועבדים לי. דבר אחר לפי שנגלה בים כגבור מלחמה, ונגלה כאן כזקן מלא רחמים, שנאמר (שמות כד י) ויראו את אלוהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר, זו היתה לפניו בשעת השעבוד, (שם) וכעצם השמים, משנגאלו, הואיל ואני משתנה במראות אל תאמרו שתי רשויות הן, אנכי הוא אשר הוצאתיך ממצרים ועל הים. דבר אחר לפי שהיו שומעין קולות הרבה, שנאמר, (להלן פסוק טו) את הקולות, קולות באין מארבע רוחות ומן השמים ומן הארץ, אל תאמרו רשויות הרבה הן. ולמה אמר לשון יחיד, אלהיך, ליתן פתחון פה למשה ללמד סניגוריא במעשה העגל, וזהו שאמר (שמות לב יא) למה ה' יחרה אפך בעמך, לא להם צוית, לא יהיה לכם א-להים אחרים, אלא לי לבדי:
out of the house of bondage: Literally, out of the house of slaves. [I.e.,] from Pharaoh’s house, where you were slaves to him. Or perhaps [Scripture] means only: from the house of slaves, that they were slaves to [other] slaves? Therefore, Scripture says: “and He redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (Deut. 7:8). Consequently, you must say that they were slaves to Pharaoh, but not slaves to [other] slaves. — [from Exod. Rabbah 43:5] מבית עבדים: מבית פרעה שהייתם עבדים לו. או אינו אומר אלא מבית עבדים, שהיו עבדים לעבדים, תלמוד לומר (דברים ז ח) ויפדך מבית עבדים מיד פרעה מלך מצרים, אמור מעתה עבדים למלך היו, ולא עבדים לעבדים:
3. You shall not have the gods of others in My presence. ג. לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל פָּנַי:
You shall not have: Why was this said? Since it says, “You shall not make for yourself, etc.” I know only that one may not make [graven idols, etc.] How do I know that one may not keep what was already made? Therefore, Scripture states: “You shall not have.” -[Mechilta] לא יהיה לך: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר (פסוק ד) לא תעשה לך, אין לי אלא שלא יעשה, העשוי כבר מנין שלא יקיים, תלמוד לומר לא יהיה לך:
the gods of others: Heb. אֱלֹהִים אִחֵרִים, which are not gods, but that others have made them for gods over themselves. It is impossible to interpret this passage to mean: gods other than I, since it is a disgrace for Heaven to call them gods along with Him. Alternatively: strange gods, for they are strange to their worshippers. They cry out to them, but they do not answer them, and it appears as if it [the god] were a stranger, who never knew him [the worshipper]. — [from Mechilta] א-להים אחרים: שאינן אלהות אלא אחרים עשאום א-להים עליהם, ולא יתכן לפרש א-להים אחרים זולתי, שגנאי הוא כלפי מעלה לקרותם אלהות אצלו. דבר אחר א-להים אחרים, שהם אחרים לעובדיהם, צועקים אליהם ואינן עונין אותם, ודומה כאלו הוא אחר שאינו מכירו מעולם:
in My presence: Heb. עַל-פָּנָּי [This means] as long as I exist [signifying forever. God states this so] that you should not say that only that generation was commanded [prohibited] concerning idolatry. — [from Mechilta] על פני: כל זמן שאני קיים, שלא תאמר לא נצטוו על עבודה זרה אלא אותו הדור:
4. You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. ד. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְּךָ פֶסֶל | וְכָל תְּמוּנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם | מִמַּעַל וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתַּחַת וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם | מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ:
a graven image: Heb. פֶּסֶל [It is called by this name] because it is sculpted (נִפְסָל). פסל: על שם שנפסל:
or any likeness: The likeness of anything that is in the heavens. וכל תמונה: תמונת כל דבר אשר בשמים:
5. You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, ה. לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם כִּי אָנֹכִי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵל קַנָּא פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים עַל שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל רִבֵּעִים לְשׂנְאָי:
a zealous God: Heb. קַנָּא, zealous to mete out punishment. He does not forgo retaliating by forgiving the sin of idolatry. Every [expression of] קַנָּא means enprenemant in Old French, zealous anger. He directs His attention to mete out punishment. אל קנא: מקנא ליפרע ואינו עובר על מדתו למחול על עון עבודה זרה, כל לשון קנא אינפרינמינ"ט בלעז [חרון אף] נותן לב ליפרע:
of those who hate Me: As the Targum [Onkelos paraphrases: when the sons continue to sin following their fathers, i.e.], when they cling to their fathers’ deeds. — [from Sanh. 27b] לשנאי: כתרגומו, כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם:
6. and [I] perform loving kindness to thousands [of generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments. ו. וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד לַאֲלָפִים לְאֹהֲבַי וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָי:
perform loving-kindness: that a person does, to pay the reward until the two-thousandth generation. It is thus found that the measure of reward [from God] exceeds the measure of [His] retribution by [the ratio of] one to five hundred, for this one is for four generations, and that one is for two thousand [generations]. -[from Tosefta Sotah 4:1] ועושה חסד: נוצר חסד שאדם עושה, לשלם שכר עד לאלפים דור, נמצאת מדה טובה יתירה על מדת פורענות אחת על חמש מאות, שזו לארבעה דורות וזו לאלפים:
7. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. ז. לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא כִּי לֹא יְנַקֶּה יְהֹוָה אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא אֶת שְׁמוֹ לַשָּׁוְא:
You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain: You shall not swear in vain by the name of the Lord, your God. — [Onkelos] לַֹשָוְא -[This word appears twice in this verse.] (The second [mention of לַֹשָוְא is an expression of falsehood, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: לְֹשִיקְרָא, as it says [in Shavuos 21a]: "What constitutes a vain oath? If one swears contrary to what is known, [for example, saying] about a stone pillar that it is [made of] gold. (The first [mention of לַֹשָוְא is an expression of vanity, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: [לְמַגָּנָא].) This [refers to] one who swears for no reason and in vain, [for example making an oath] concerning [a pillar] of wood, [saying] that it is wood, and concerning [a pillar] of stone, [saying] that it is stone. — [from Shevuoth 29a, Mechilta] לשוא: (השני לשון שקר כתרגומו) כמא דתימר (שבועות כט א) אי זהו שבועת שוא, נשבע לשנות את הידוע, על עמוד של אבן שהוא של זהב. (הראשון לשון מגן, כתרגומו) זה הנשבע לחנם ולהבל, על של עץ עץ ועל אבן אבן:
8. Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. ח. זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ:
Remember: Heb. זָכוֹר [The words] “remember (זָכוֹר)” and “keep (שָׁמוֹר)” (Deut. 5:12) were pronounced with one utterance. Similarly [the statements], “Those who profane it shall be put to death” (Exod. 31:14) and “And on the Sabbath day, two lambs” (Num. 28:9) [were said in one utterance], and similarly, “You shall not wear shaatnez,” and “You shall make tzitzith for yourself” (Deut. 22:11, 12). Similarly, [the phrases] “The nakedness of your brother’s wife [you shall not uncover]” (Lev. 18:16), [and] “Her brother-in-law shall come in to her” (Deut. 25:5) [were said in one utterance]. This [occurrence of God saying two phrases simultaneously in one utterance] is the meaning of what is said: “God spoke one thing, I heard two” (Ps. 62:12) (Mechilta). [The word] זָכוֹר is in the פָּעוֹל form, an expression of ongoing action, like “[Let us engage in] eating and drinking אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ) )” (Isa. 22:13), [and] “walking and weeping הָלוֹ וָּבָכֹה) )” (II Sam. 3:16), and this is its interpretation: Pay attention to always remember the Sabbath day, so that if you chance upon a beautiful thing, you shall prepare it for the Sabbath (Mechilta). זכור: זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו. וכן (שמות לא יד) מחלליה מות יומת, (במדבר כח ט) וביום השבת שני כבשים, וכן (דברים כב יא) לא תלבש שעטנז, (שם יב) גדילים תעשה לך, וכן (ויקרא יח טז) ערות אשת אחיך, (דברים כה ה) יבמה יבא עליה, הוא שנאמר (תהלים סב יב) אחת דבר א-להים שתים זו שמעתי. זכור לשון פעול הוא, כמו (ישעיה כב יג) אכול ושתו, (שמואל ב ג טז) הלוך ובכה, וכן פתרונו תנו לב לזכור תמיד את יום השבת, שאם נזדמן לך חפץ יפה תהא מזמינו לשבת:
9. Six days may you work and perform all your labor, ט. שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד וְעָשִׂיתָ כָל מְלַאכְתֶּךָ:
and perform all your labor: When the Sabbath arrives, it shall seem to you as if all your work is done, that you shall not think about work. ועשית כל מלאכתך: כשתבא שבת, יהא בעיניך כאלו מלאכתך עשויה, שלא תהרהר אחר מלאכה:
10. but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord, your God; you shall perform no labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your beast, nor your stranger who is in your cities. י. וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת | לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה אַתָּה | וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:
neither you, your son, your daughter: These are young children. Or perhaps it refers to adult children? You must admit that they have already been warned [to observe the Sabbath]. Rather, [this word] comes only to warn adults concerning young children resting [from work] (Mechilta). This is the meaning of what we learned [in the Mishnah]: If a young child comes to extinguish [a fire on the Sabbath], you may not allow him [to do so] since you are responsible for his resting [from work] (Shab. 121a). אתה ובנך ובתך: אלו קטנים. או אינו אלא גדולים, אמרת הרי כבר מוזהרים הם, אלא לא בא אלא להזהיר גדולים על שביתת הקטנים, וזו ששנינו (שבת קכא א) קטן שבא לכבות אין שומעין לו, מפני ששביתתו עליך:
11. For [in] six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it. יא. כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ אֶת הַיָּם וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּם וַיָּנַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עַל כֵּן בֵּרַךְ יְהֹוָה אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ:
and He rested on the seventh day: As if [it were] possible, He ascribed rest [even] to Himself to teach (as an example) from Him of kal vachomer [a fortiori] reasoning for man, whose work is with toil and fatigue, that he must rest on the Sabbath. [I.e., although God does not and did not actually rest, He had His cessation of creating recorded as rest, so that humans would learn that if God, Whose work is accomplished without any toil or fatigue, rested on the Sabbath, surely people, whose work is accomplished only with hard work and fatigue, must rest on the Sabbath.]-[from Mechilta] וינח ביום השביעי: כביכול הכתיב בעצמו מנוחה ללמד הימנו קל וחומר לאדם, שמלאכתו בעמל וביגיעה, שיהא נח בשבת:
blessed…and sanctified it: He blessed it with manna to double it on the sixth day-"double bread"-and He sanctified it with manna, that it did not fall then [on the Sabbath]. — [from Mechilta] ברך, ויקדשהו: ברכו במן לכופלו בששי לחם משנה, וקדשו במן שלא היה יורד בו:
12. Honor your father and your mother, in order that your days be lengthened on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you. יב. כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:
in order that your days be lengthened: If you honor [your parents], your days will be lengthened, and if not, they will be shortened. The words of the Torah are written briefly; they are explained by deriving the negative from the affirmative and the affirmative from the negative. — [from Mechilta] למען יאריכון ימיך: אם תכבד יאריכון, ואם לאו יקצרון, שדברי תורה נוטריקון הם נדרשין מכלל הן לאו ומכלל לאו הן:
13. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. יג. לֹא תִּרְצָח: ס לֹא תִּנְאָף: ס לֹא תִּגְנֹב: ס לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר:
You shall not commit adultery: Adultery applies only [to relations] with a married woman, as it is said: "[And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a[nother] man, who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor,] [both] the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev. 20:10); [and it says,] “[You are] the adulterous wife, who, instead of her husband, takes strangers” (Ezek. 16:32). [In both these verses, the term “adultery” is used in reference to the extramarital relations of a married woman.] לא תנאף: אין ניאוף אלא באשת איש, שנאמר (ויקרא כ י) מות יומת הנואף והנואפת, ואומר (יחזקאל טז לב) האשה המנאפת תחת אישה תקח את זרים:
You shall not steal: The text refers to kidnapping. [The verse] “You shall not steal” (Lev. 19:11) refers to stealing money. Or perhaps this one [verse] refers only to stealing money and the one written further (in Lev.) refers to kidnapping? You must admit that [the meaning of] a statement is derived from its context. Just as [the former two commandments] “You shall not murder” [and] “You shall not commit adultery” refer to capital sins, “You shall not steal” also refers to a capital sin [i.e., a sin punishable by death]. — [from Sanh. 86a] לא תגנב: בגונב נפשות הכתוב מדבר. לא תגנובו (ויקרא יט יא) בגונב ממון. או אינו אלא זה בגונב ממון, ולהלן בגונב נפשות, אמרת דבר הלמד מענינו, מה לא תרצח, לא תנאף, מדבר בדבר שחייבין עליהם מיתת בית דין, אף לא תגנוב דבר שחייב עליו מיתת בית דין:
14. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor." יד. לֹא תַחְמֹד בֵּית רֵעֶך ס לֹא תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ:
Tehillim: Chapters 83 - 87• Chapter 83
A prayer regarding the wars against Israel in the days of Jehoshaphat, when the nations plotted against Israel.
1. A song, a psalm by Asaph.
2. O God, do not be silent; do not be quiet and do not be still, O God.
3. For behold, Your enemies are in uproar, and those who hate You have raised their head.
4. They plot deviously against Your nation, and conspire against those sheltered by You.
5. They say, "Come, let us sever them from nationhood, and the name of Israel will be remembered no more.”
6. For they conspire with a unanimous heart, they made a covenant against You-
7. the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagrites,
8. Geval and Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre.
9. Assyria, too, joined with them, and became the strength of the sons of Lot, Selah.
10. Do to them as to Midian; as to Sisera and Yavin at the brook of Kishon,
11. who were destroyed at Ein Dor, and were as dung for the earth.
12. Make their nobles like Orev and Ze'ev, all their princes like Zevach and Tzalmuna,1
13. who said, "Let us inherit the dwellings of God for ourselves.”
14. My God, make them like whirling chaff, like straw before the wind.
15. As a fire consumes the forest, and a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
16. so pursue them with Your tempest and terrify them with Your storm.
17. Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek Your Name, O Lord.
18. Let them be shamed and terrified forever; let them be disgraced and perish.
19. And they will know that You, Whose Name is the Lord, are alone, Most High over all the earth.
Chapter 84
In this psalm of prayers and entreaties, the psalmist mourns bitterly over the destruction of Temple from the depths of his heart, and speaks of the many blessings that will be realized upon its restoration. Fortunate is the one who trusts it will be rebuilt, and does not despair in the face of this long exile.
1. For the Conductor, on the gittit,1 a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. How beloved are Your dwellings, O Lord of Hosts!
3. My soul yearns, indeed it pines, for the courtyards of the Lord; my heart and my flesh [long to] sing to the living God.
4. Even the bird has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she lays her young on the [ruins of] Your altars, O Lord of Hosts, my King and my God.
5. Fortunate are those who dwell in Your House; they will yet praise You forever.
6. Fortunate is the man whose strength is in You; the paths [to the Temple] are in his heart.
7. For those who pass through the Valley of Thorns, He places wellsprings; their guide will be cloaked in blessings.2
8. They go from strength to strength; they will appear before God in Zion.
9. O Lord, God of Hosts, hear my prayer; listen, O God of Jacob, forever.
10. See our shield,3 O God, and look upon the face of Your anointed one.
11. For better one day in Your courtyards than a thousand [elsewhere]. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell [in comfort] in the tents of wickedness.
12. For the Lord, God, is a sun and a shield; the Lord bestows favor and glory; He does not withhold goodness from those who walk in innocence.
13. O Lord of Hosts! Fortunate is the man who trusts in You.
Chapter 85
In this prayer, lamenting the long and bitter exile, the psalmist asks why this exile is longer than the previous ones, and implores God to quickly fulfill His promise to redeem us. Every individual should offer this psalm when in distress.
1. For the Conductor, a psalm by the sons of Korach.
2. O Lord, You favored Your land; You returned the captives of Jacob.
3. You forgave the iniquity of Your people, and covered all their sin forever.
4. You withdrew all Your fury, and retreated from Your fierce anger.
5. Return us, O God of our salvation, and annul Your anger toward us.
6. Will You forever be angry with us? Will You draw out Your anger over all generations?
7. Is it not true that You will revive us again, and Your people will rejoice in You?
8. Show us Your kindness, O Lord, and grant us Your deliverance.
9. I hear what the Almighty Lord will say; for He speaks peace to His nation and to His pious ones, and they will not return to folly.
10. Indeed, His deliverance is near those who fear Him, that [His] glory may dwell in the land.
11. Kindness and truth have met; righteousness and peace have kissed.
12. Truth will sprout from the earth, and righteousness will peer from heaven.
13. The Lord, too, will bestow goodness, and our land will yield its produce.
14. Righteousness shall walk before him, and he shall set his footsteps in [its] path.
Chapter 86
This psalm contains many prayers regarding David's troubles, and his enemies Doeg and Achitophel. It also includes many descriptions of God's praise. Every individual can offer this psalm when in distress.
1. A prayer by David. Lord, turn Your ear, answer me, for I am poor and needy.
2. Guard my soul, for I am pious; You, my God, deliver Your servant who trusts in You.
3. Be gracious to me, my Lord, for to You I call all day.
4. Bring joy to the soul of Your servant, for to You, my Lord, I lift my soul.
5. For You, my Lord, are good and forgiving, and exceedingly kind to all who call upon You.
6. Lord, hear my prayer and listen to the voice of my supplications.
7. On the day of my distress I call upon You, for You will answer me.
8. There is none like You among the supernal beings, my Lord, and there are no deeds like Yours.
9. All the nations that You have made will come and bow down before You, my Lord, and give honor to Your Name,
10. for You are great and perform wonders, You alone, O God.
11. Lord, teach me Your way that I may walk in Your truth; unify my heart to fear Your Name.
12. I will praise You, my Lord, my God, with all my heart, and give honor to Your Name forever.
13. For Your kindness to me has been great; You have saved my soul from the depth of the grave.
14. O God, malicious men have risen against me; a band of ruthless men has sought my soul; they are not mindful of You.
15. But You, my Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in kindness and truth.
16. Turn to me and be gracious to me; grant Your strength to Your servant, and deliver the son of Your maidservant.
17. Show me a sign of favor, that my foes may see and be shamed, because You, Lord, have given me aid and consoled me.
Chapter 87
Composed to be sung in the Holy Temple, this psalm praises the glory of Jerusalem, a city that produces many great scholars, eminent personalities, and persons of good deeds. It also speaks of the good that will occur in the Messianic era.
1. By the sons of Korach, a psalm, a song devoted to the holy mountains [of Zion and Jerusalem].
2. The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.
3. Glorious things are spoken of you, eternal city of God.
4. I will remind Rahav Egypt and Babylon concerning My beloved; Philistia and Tyre as well as Ethiopia, "This one was born there.”
5. And to Zion will be said, "This person and that was born there"; and He, the Most High, will establish it.
6. The Lord will count in the register of people, "This one was born there," Selah.
7. Singers as well as dancers [will sing your praise and say], "All my inner thoughts are of you."
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 25• Shevat 17, 5775 · February 6, 2015
Today's Tanya Lesson
Likutei Amarim, beginning of Chapter 25
In this chapter the Alter Rebbe concludes the discussion begun in ch. 18. There, he began to explain the verse, “For this thing is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it,” meaning that to serve G‑d out of a feeling of love and awe for Him, is a very easy matter for everyone. This assertion seems contrary to our experience, for it is no easy matter (as the Alter Rebbe pointed out in ch. 17) to turn one’s heart from worldly matters to a love and fear of G‑d. In answer he stated that it is indeed an easy matter, for we need not create these feelings: we already have them. All that is required of us is to arouse our innate love and fear of G‑d from their latent state, and to employ them in the service of G‑d.
He then went on to explain (in chs. 18 and 19) the nature and essence of this love and fear. The soul, with its power of faith in G‑d by which it is attached to Him, intrinsically desires to cleave to its Divine source. This desire also contains an element of fear — the fear of anything that constitutes separation from G‑d. So powerful are these feelings that, by his very nature, a Jew will sacrifice his life rather than practice idolatry, which is a repudiation of G‑d’s unity.
In the following chapters, the Alter Rebbe explained that all the mitzvot are an affirmation of G‑d’s unity, which means that everything exists within G‑d and is one with Him. For in the mitzvot G‑d’s Will is revealed, and he who performs them becomes perfectly united with Him. Conversely all sins constitute idolatry, for idolatry implies that there is something — anything — that exists outside of G‑d, and separate from Him. Through any transgression, one separates himself from G‑d’s Will as expressed in the commandments, and thus from G‑d Himself, placing himself in the domain of the kelipot who deny G‑d’s unity.
By his very nature, then, a Jew would always observe the mitzvot and would never sin — were it not for a “spirit of folly” that obscures his innate hidden love for G‑d, and does not permit him to feel the diverse effects of mitzvot and sins on his connection with G‑d.
In this chapter the Alter Rebbe concludes the discussion, stating that every Jew, at any time, is able to dispel the “spirit of folly” and to arouse his hidden love for G‑d. Thus when he is tempted to sin, he will actually feel how the sin would tear him away from G‑d, and he will therefore resist the impulse. Similarly, when he is required to perform a mitzvah, he will feel his love for G‑d dictating that he do so, so as to be united with Him.
וזהו שכתוב: כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד וגו‘
This, then, is the meaning of the verse, 1 “For this thing is very near to you...” — to observe the Torah and its commandments out of love and fear of G‑d.
שבכל עת ובכל שעה בידו של אדם וברשותו הוא להעביר רוח שטות והשכחה מקרבו
For at any time and moment a person is capable and free to rid himself of the spirit of folly which renders him insensitive to the separation between himself and G‑d caused by sin, and the forgetfulness that he has a love of G‑d by virtue of which he desires to unite with Him, through the fulfillment of the mitzvot.
ולזכור ולעורר אהבתו לה’ אחד המסותרת בודאי בלבבו בלי שום ספק
He is always able to remember and arouse his love of the One G‑d, that is certainly, undoubtedly, latent in his heart — since everyone, even the most hardened sinner, is endowed with this inborn love.
וזהו שכתוב: ובלבבך
This is the meaning of “in your heart” i.e., that everyone can serve G‑d out of love, which is an emotion of the heart.
Yet love of G‑d, by itself, is insufficient. One needs also a fear of G‑d, to guard against violating the prohibitive commandments. Therefore the Alter Rebbe continues:
ונכלל בה גם דחילו, דהיינו שלא ליפרד בשום אופן מיחודו ואחדותו יתברך, אפילו במסירת נפש ממש
This love carries with it also fear; that is, the dread of being separated on any account from G‑d’s unity and oneness. Even if it means sacrificing his life so as not to be separated from Him, he will do so,
בלי שום טעם ושכל מושג, אלא בטבע אלקי
without any reason or logic, but purely out of one’s divine nature.
As illustrated in ch. 19 by the analogy of the flame of a candle, which intrinsically seeks to unite with its source, the soul instinctively seeks to unite with its Divine source. Because of this nature, it recoils in fear from anything that may sever its connection with G‑d, even at the cost of life itself.
וכל שכן בשבירת התאוות, הקלה מיסורי מיתה, שקרוב אליו הדבר יותר לכבוש היצר
Surely, then, it is far easier to subdue one’s appetites, since this entails much lighter suffering than death which he would willingly endure so as not to be torn away from G‑d. Mastering his evil inclination is easier,
הן בבחינת סור מרע
both in the category of2 “turning away from evil” and the category of3 “doing good” — i.e., refraining from sin, and observing the positive commandments, respectively.
אפילו מעבירה קלה של דברי סופרים שלא לעבור על רצונו יתברך, מאחר שנפרד בה מיחודו ואחדותו כמו בעבודה זרה ממש בשעת מעשה
To be specific: Even when it concerns a minor Rabbinic prohibition one can easily master his evil inclination so as not to transgress G‑d’s Will, since at the time that he does the forbidden act, he thereby becomes separated from G‑d’s unity just as much as through actual idolatry, as explained in the previous chapter.
It follows therefore, that he ought to display the same strength in resisting the temptation for such a sin as he would display (even to the point of sacrificing his life) in rejecting idolatry, since this sin too separates him from G‑d.
There would appear to be a difference, however, between idolatry and the minor sin with which we are dealing. With idolatry, the sinner remains separated from G‑d even after the idolatrous act (as explained in the previous chapter), whereas with a minor sin the separation lasts only as long as the sinful act itself.
The Alter Rebbe refutes this argument in the next paragraph by stating that in the case of idolatry, too, there is a means of ensuring that the separation from G‑d brought on thereby end immediately after the act. That method is teshuvah — repentance. Yet, despite the fact that this resource is available to him, a Jew would rather be killed than practice idolatry, for he cannot accept even a momentary separation from G‑d. He may now apply the same consideration to refraining from even a minor sin, since it too imposes upon him a separation from G‑d, albeit a momentary one.
והרי גם בעבודה זרה יכול לעשות תשובה אחר כך
Now, even with regard to idolatry, he can repent afterwards and thus assure himself of unity with G‑d after the idol-worship. Nevertheless, a Jew would give up his life rather than exercise this option.
Yet one may argue that in reality this is no option at all. The Talmud states that when one sins because he relies on subsequent teshuvah, G‑d does not allow him to practice teshuvah. Since he cannot rely on this, he must sacrifice his life so as not to remain permanently separated from G‑d through idolatry. With a minor sin, however, the separation from G‑d that it causes is in any case temporary, even without recourse to teshuvah.
We are thus once again left with our original question: How can it be said that the same fear of separation from G‑d that motivates a Jew to sacrifice his life with regard to idolatry, can also motivate him to refrain from even a minor sin? The two cases are altogether different: the former causes a lasting separation, and the latter, a momentary one.
The Alter Rebbe answers this objection by clarifying the Talmudic statement on which it is based. The Talmud does not imply, he explains, that the sinner who relies on teshuvah utterly loses his ability to repent, but rather that the Divine assistance usually granted to a penitent sinner is withheld from him.
Thus one could, after all, submit to coercion and practice idolatry, and rely on teshuvah to save him from a lasting separation from G‑d. Yet no Jew would take advantage of this resource; the love of G‑d innate in every Jew dictates that he sacrifice his life rather than bear the temporary separation caused by idolatry.
This discussion is contained in the following paragraphs.
ואף שהאומר אחטא ואשוב, אין מספיקין כו‘
(4Although the Talmud states that5 “He who says, ’I will sin and repent, sin and repent,‘ is not given an opportunity to do so,”
היינו שאין מחזיקים ידו להיות לו שעת הכושר לעשות תשובה
yet this means merely that G‑d does not aid such a sinner, granting him the auspicious occasion to repent.
Generally, G‑d grants one who wishes to repent the necessary power and the opportune moment to realize his good intentions. However, where one’s reliance on teshuvah formed the basis for his sin, he is lent neither the strength nor the opportunity.
אבל אם דחק השעה ועשה תשובה, אין לך דבר שעומד בפני התשובה
If, however, he seizes the opportunity himself and he repents, 6 “Nothing can stand in the way of repentance.”
Thus, even in the case of idolatry one could conceivably rely on teshuvah to prevent a lasting separation from G‑d.
ואף על פי כן, כל איש ישראל מוכן ומזומן למסור נפשו על קדושת ה’
Nevertheless, every Jew is prepared and ready to suffer martyrdom for the sanctification of G‑d’s Name,
שלא להשתחוות לעבודה זרה אפילו לפי שעה ולעשות תשובה אחר כך
and will not perform an idolatrous act lit., “to bow down before an idol” even temporarily, with the intention of repenting afterwards — indicating that the fear of even a temporary separation from G‑d is sufficient motivation for self-sacrifice.
והיינו מפני אור ה‘ המלובש בנפשם כנ״ל, שאינו בבחינת זמן ושעה כלל אלא למעלה מהזמן, ושליט ומושל עליו כנודע
This is because of the Divine light which is clothed in his soul, as explained above, which does not come within the realm of time at all, but transcends time, and therefore in relation to this light every action is eternal; furthermore, as is known this Divine light rules and dominates time — not only is it not governed by the laws of time, but on the contrary it governs them.
Thus, an action which took but a moment (and, judged by temporal standards, has no value) can become more momentous than one which takes much longer. 7
Since the Divine light clothed in the soul transcends and dominates time, it does not permit any separation from G‑d, no matter how short its duration.
The discussion until now centered on the category of “turning away from evil.” The Alter Rebbe showed how one could utilize his hidden love of G‑d in refraining from sin. He now goes on to the category of “doing good,” discussing the use of the hidden love in leading one to perform all the positive commandments.
FOOTNOTES
1. Devarim 30:14.
2. Cf. Tehillim 34:15.
3. Cf. Tehillim 34:15.
4. Parentheses are in the original text.
5. Yoma 85b.
6. Cf. Talmud Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1.
7. Based on a comment by the Rebbe.
Rambam:• Sefer Hamitzvos:
Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
Positive Commandment 156
Eliminating Chametz
"On the first day, you shall remove leaven from your houses"—Exodus 12:15.
We are commanded to eliminate all chametz (leavened foods) from our possession on the fourteenth of Nissan, the eve of Passover.
Eliminating Chametz
Positive Commandment 156
Translated by Berel Bell
The 156th mitzvah is that we are commanded to remove chometz [leaven] from our possession on the 14th of Nissan. This is the mitzvah of "removing the leaven."
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He),1 "On the day before [Pesach] you must remove the leaven from your homes."
Our Sages called this mitzvah, "biyur" ["clearing out"]; i.e. clearing out the chometz [from his possession.]
The Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin2 says, "For possessing chometz one violates both a positive and a negative commandment. The positive commandment is biyur, as the verse says, 'you must remove the leaven from your homes'; the negative commandment is, 'no leaven may be found in your homes.' "3
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the beginning of tractate Pesachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 12:15. Here in Sefer Hamitzvos, as in early editions of Mishneh Torah, the Rambam rules that the Biblical commandment is the actual removal of the chometz. However, his conclusion in Hilchos Chometz U'matzah, 2:2, is that the Biblical commandment is fulfilled by verbal renunciation of ownership (bittul), and the actual removal is a Rabbinic command. See Kapach, 5731, note 75.
2.5:3.
3.Ex. 12:19.
Negative Commandment 197
Consuming Chametz on Passover
"No leavened bread shall be eaten"—Exodus 13:3.
It is forbidden to consume chametz (leavened foods) for the duration of Passover.
Consuming Chametz on Passover
Consuming Chametz on Passover
Negative Commandment 197
Translated by Berel Bell
The 197th prohibition is that we are forbidden to eat chometz on Pesach.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "No chometz may be eaten."
If chometz was eaten intentionally, the punishment is kores,2 as the verse3 states clearly, "Whoever eats chometz shall receive kores." If it was eaten unintentionally, the person must bring a sin-offering.4
The details of this commandment are explained in tractate Pesachim.
FOOTNOTES
1.Ex. 13:3.
2.See Principle 14, where the Rambam defines kores as losing one's portion in the World to Come (unless the person does teshuvah before he dies).
3.Ex. 12:15.
4.See P69.
Negative Commandment 198
Eating a Mixture Containing Chametz
"You shall eat nothing leavened"—Exodus 12:20.
We are forbidden to consume on Passover foods or beverages that contain any chametz (leavened) ingredients, such as beer.
Eating a Mixture Containing Chametz
Negative Commandment 198
Translated by Berel Bell
The 198th prohibition is that we are forbidden from eating anything with chometz [leaven] mixed into it, even if it is not bread; e.g. muryas,1 kutach,2 etc.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "Do not eat anything leavened."
The Mechilta says, "The verse, 'Do not eat anything leavened,' comes to prohibit kutach from Babylon, beer from Medea, and vinegar from Edom. One might think that the punishment for eating them is kores; therefore the Torah says [in the verse6 which speaks of kores], 'chometz' — [one receives kores] only for that which is completely chometz, not for that which only has chometz mixed in. Why, then, are they mentioned at all? To teach us that one transgresses a negative commandment [by eating them]."4
It is explained in Pesachim5 that although one is forbidden from eating [anything with chometz mixed in], one does not receive lashes unless the mixture contained at least a k'zayis of chometz bich'dei achilas pras.6 If there was less chometz than this mixed in, one does not receive lashes for eating the mixture.
FOOTNOTES
1.A type of dip.
2.A dip containing whey, salt, and pieces of bread. See Pesachim 42a.
3.Ex. 12:20.
4.This passage proves that this commandment is distinct from N197, which has a different punishment.
5.43a.
6.I.e. if the mixture contained at least 1/6 chometz. Literally, "if one ate a pras" of the mixture, one would eat at least a k'zayis of chometz. Since there are approximately 6 zeisim in a pras (see Hilchos Chometz U'matzah, Ch.1, Hal.6), lashes are given only if the mixture was at least 1/6 chometz.
Teshuvah - Chapter Six
Halacha 1
There are many verses in the Torah and the words of the prophets which appear to contradict this fundamental principle. [Thus,] the majorities of the people err because of them and think that the Holy One, blessed be He, does decree that a person commit evil or good and that a person's heart is not given over to him to direct it towards any path he desires.
Behold, I will explain a great and fundamental principle [of faith] on the basis of which the interpretation of those verses can be understood. [As a preface,] when an individual or the people of a country sin, the sinner consciously and willfully committing that sin, it is proper to exact retribution from him as explained. The Holy One, blessed be He, knows how to exact punishment: There are certain sins for which justice determines that retribution be exacted in this world; on the sinner's person, on his possessions, or on his small children.
[Retribution is exacted upon a person's] small children who do not possess intellectual maturity and have not reached the age where they are obligated to perform mitzvot [because these children] are considered as his property. [This concept is alluded to] by the verse [Deuteronomy 24:16]: "A man will die because of his own sins." [We may infer: This rule only applies] after one has become "a man."
There are other sins for which justice determines that retribution be exacted in the world to come with no damages coming to the transgressor in this world. There are [other] sins for which retribution is taken in this world and in the world to come.
Halacha 2
When does the above apply? When [the transgressor] does not repent. However, if he repents, his Teshuvah is a shield against retribution. Just as a person may sin consciously and willfully, he may repent consciously and willfully.
Halacha 3
A person may commit a great sin or many sins causing the judgment rendered before the True Judge to be that the retribution [administered to] this transgressor for these sins which he willfully and consciously committed is that his Teshuvah will be held back. He will not be allowed the chance to repent from his wickedness so that he will die and be wiped out because of the sin he committed.
This is implied by the Holy One, blessed be He's statement [related] by Isaiah [6:10]: “Make the heart of this people fat [and make their ears heavy. Smear over their eyes, lest they see with their eyes... understand with their hearts, repent and be healed].”
Similarly, [II Chronicles 36:16] states “ They mocked the messengers of God, scorned His words, scoffed at His prophets until the anger of God mounted up against His people until there was no remedy.”
Implied [by these verses] is that they willingly sinned, multiplying their iniquity until it was obliged to hold back their Teshuvah, [which is referred to as] the "remedy."
For these reasons, it is written in the Torah [Exodus 14:4], "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." Since, he began to sin on his own initiative and caused hardships to the Israelites who dwelled in his land as [Exodus 1:10] states: "Come, let us deal wisely with them," judgment obligated that he be prevented from repenting so that he would suffer retribution. Therefore, The Holy One, blessed be He, hardened his heart.
Why did [God] send Moses to [Pharaoh], telling him: “Send [forth the people], repent”? The Holy One, blessed be He, had already told that he would not release [the people], as [Exodus 9:30] states: “I realize that you and your subjects [still do not fear God].”
[The reason is stated in Exodus 9:16:] “For this alone, I have preserved you… so that My name will be spoken about throughout the earth],” i.e., to make known to all the inhabitants of the world that when the Holy One, blessed be He, withholds repentance from a sinner, he cannot repent, but he will die in the wickedness that he initially committed willfully.
Similarly, Sichon was held liable for repentance to be withheld from him, because of the sins he committed, as [Deuteronomy 2:30] states: “God, your Lord, hardened his spirit and strengthened his heart.”
Also, the Canaanites held back from repenting, because of their abominable acts, so that they would wage war against Israel as [Joshua 11:20] states: "This was inspired by God, to harden their hearts so that they should come against Israel in battle in order to utterly destroy them."
Similarly, the Israelites during the era of Elijah committed many iniquities. Repentance was held back from those who committed these many sins, as [I Kings 18:37] states: "You have turned their heart backwards," i.e., held repentance back from them.
In conclusion, the Almighty did not decree that Pharaoh should harm the Israelites that Sichon should sin in his land, that the Canaanites should perform abominable acts, or that the Israelites should worship idols. They all sinned on their own initiative and they were obligated to have Teshuvah held back from them.
Halacha 4
This is what is implied in the requests of the righteous and the prophets in their prayers, [asking] God to help them on the path of truth, as David pleaded [Psalms 86:11]: "God, show me Your way that I may walk in Your truth;" i.e., do not let my sins prevent me from [reaching] the path of truth which will lead me to appreciate Your way and the oneness of Your name.
A similar intent [is conveyed] by the request [Psalms 51:14]: "Support me with a spirit of magnanimity;" i.e., let my spirit [be willing] to do Your will and do not cause my sins to prevent me from repenting. Rather, let the choice remain in my hand until I repent and comprehend and appreciate the path of truth. In a similar way, [one must interpret] all the [verses] which resemble these.
Halacha 5
What was implied by David's statement [Psalms 25:8-9]: "God is good and upright, therefore, he instructs sinners in the path. He guides the humble [in the path of justice and] teaches the humble His way]"? That He sends them prophets to inform them of the path of God and to encourage them to repent.
Furthermore, it implies that He granted them the power to learn and to understand. This attribute is present in all men: As long as a person follows the ways of wisdom and righteousness, he will desire them and pursue them. This [may be inferred from] the statement of our Sages of blessed memory: "One who comes to purify [himself] is helped;" i.e., he finds himself assisted in this matter.
[A question may still arise, for] behold, it is written in the Torah [Genesis 15:13]: "They shall enslave them and oppress them," [seemingly implying that] He decreed that the Egyptians would commit evil.
Similarly, it is written [Deuteronomy 31:16]: "And this nation will arise and stray after the alien gods of the land," [seemingly implying that] He decreed that Israel would serve idols. If so, why did He punish them?
Because He did not decree that a particular person would be the one who strayed. Rather, each and every one of those who strayed to idol-worship [could have chosen] not to serve idols if he did not desire to serve them. The Creator merely informed [Moses] of the pattern of the world.
To what can this be compared? To someone who says, there will be righteous and wicked people in this nation. [Thus,] a wicked person cannot say that because God told Moses that there will be wicked people in Israel, it is decreed that he will be wicked. A similar concept applies regarding the statement [Deuteronomy 15:11]: "The poor will never cease to exist in the land."
Similarly, in regard to the Egyptians, each and every one of the Egyptians who caused hardship and difficulty for Israel had the choice to refrain from harming them, if he so desired, for there was no decree on a particular person. Rather, [God merely] informed [Abraham] that, in the future, his descendants would be enslaved in a land which did not belong to them.
We have already explained that it is beyond the potential of man to know how God knows what will be in the future.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Two
Halacha 1
It is a positive commandment from the Torah to destroy chametz before the time it becomes forbidden to be eaten, as [Exodus 12:15] states: "On the first day, destroy leaven from your homes." On the basis of the oral tradition, it is derived that "the first day" refers to the day of the fourteenth.
Proof of this matter is the verse from the Torah [Exodus 34:25]: "Do not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with chametz," i.e., Do not slaughter the Pesach sacrifice while chametz exists [in your possession]. The slaughter of the Pesach sacrifice was on the fourteenth after midday.
Commentary Halacha
and to consider it as dust -- The Rambam describes the more practical aspects of the nullification of chametz in Chapter 3, Halachot 7-10. There, he requires a person to make a formal statement nullifying his chametz. That declaration is a Rabbinic requirement. According to the Torah itself, a firm resolve is sufficient, and no statement is necessary (Binyan Shlomo).
and to resolve within his heart that he possesses no chametz at all: --doing so removes his legal ownership over the chametz.
all the chametz in his possession being as dust and as a thing of no value whatsoever -- If a person nullifies chametz within his heart and genuinely does not consider it as belonging to him, Torah law does not obligate him for the possession of chametz even if large quantities of it are found within his home.
Halacha 2
What is the destruction to which the Torah refers? to nullify chametz within his heart and to consider it as dust, and to resolve within his heart that he possesses no chametz at all: all the chametz in his possession being as dust and as a thing of no value whatsoever.
Commentary Halacha
What is the destruction to which the Torah refers? to nullify chametz within his heart -- The Kessef Mishneh quotes a different version of the text:
What is the destruction to which the Torah refers? to remove all chametz known to one from his property. [The chametz] which is unknown should be nullified...
This version implies that, according to Torah as well as Rabbinic law (See Halachah 2), we must rid our homes of all chametz of whose existence we are conscious; its nullification is not sufficient.
Nevertheless, the Kessef Mishneh brings a number of proofs from the Talmud and also quotes other commentaries of the Rambam, which maintain that the published text is correct and that the nullification of chametz is sufficient according to Torah law. He also quotes Hilchot Berachot 11:15, which emphasizes that "from the moment a person resolves in his heart to nullify it, the mitzvah of destroying [chametz] is fulfilled."
Halacha 3
According to the Sages' decree, [the mitzvah involves] searching for chametz in hidden places and in any holes [within one's house], seeking it and removing it from all of one's domain.
Similarly, according to the Sages' decree, we must search [with the intent to] destroy chametz by candlelight, at night, at the beginning of the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan]. [They instituted the search at that time] because all people are at home at night, and the light of the candle is good for searching.
A study session should not be fixed for the end of the thirteenth of Nisan. Similarly, a wise man should not begin to study at this time, lest he become involved, and thus be prevented from searching for chametz at the beginning of the time.
Commentary Halacha
According to the Sages' decree -- As explained in the previous halachah, according to the Torah, chametz may be within a person's property as long as he declared it ownerless. Nevertheless, the Sages forbade such practices and required all chametz to be removed from one's property.
Two reasons are given for this decree:
a) The nullification of chametz is dependent on the feelings of a person's heart. A person may possibly have difficulty totally removing all thoughts of ownership over the chametz from his heart (Rabbenu Nissim, Pesachim 2a).
b) In contrast to other prohibited substances, chametz is used throughout the year. Thus, were he allowed to leave chametz within his property, he might accidentally forget about the prohibition and eat it on Pesach (Tosefot, Pesachim 2a).
In addition to the restriction against possessing chametz, the Sages further expanded the scope of
[the mitzvah -- to destroy chametz so that it
involves] searching for chametz -- It must be emphasized that the obligation to search for chametz is Rabbinic in nature only when a person nullifies his chametz when required. Otherwise, the obligation stems from the Torah, for the prohibitions against possessing chametz and the commandment to destroy it require such a search. The Tzafnat Paneach quotes a number of examples that demonstrate how the existence of a Torah commandment obligates a person to check and search to see that it is being fulfilled correctly.
in hidden places and in any holes [within one's house] -- as clarified in Halachah 6, the obligation to search applies only to those holes and crevices in which chametz is usually placed.
seeking it -- Bedikat chametz
and removing it from all of one's domain -- Biyur chametz.
Similarly, according to the Sages' decree, we must search, [with the intent to] destroy, chametz by candlelight, at night -- The destruction of chametz at night refers to the statement חמירא כל, in which we nullify all the chametz of whose possession we are unaware. The chametz that we know about is either eaten or destroyed the next morning.
at the beginning of the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan] -- i.e., the night between the thirteenth and fourteenth of Nisan.
[They instituted the search at that time] -- in contrast to the day of the fourteenth, when the prohibition against possessing chametz begins (Pesachim4a).
because all people are at home at night -- while during the day people are occupied outside their homes.
and the light of the candle is good for searching. -- during the day, its light would not be as effective.
A study session should not be fixed for the end of the thirteenth of Nisan -- Rabbenu Yonah allows a person to continue a study session on the night of the fourteenth if the session began while it was still day. Rav Yosef Karo accepts his opinion, but the Ramah does not. However, the Taz explains that leniencies may be made for public study sessions. Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah go further and allow public study sessions even after nightfall, provided the subject matter is not overly involving.
Similarly, a wise man should not begin to study [at this time] -- half an hour before nightfall (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 431:3).
lest he become involved -- The Maggid Mishneh mentions that it is also improper to begin a meal at this time. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim431:2) also prohibits beginning work. Communal prayer is allowed.
and thus be prevented from searching for chametz at the beginning of the time -- There are two reasons for the preference in carrying out the search in the beginning of the night:
a) it is appropriate to carry out a mitzvah as soon as possible;
b) at the beginning of the night, there is still some daylight left, which will facilitate the search (Ra'avad, Commentary on the Rif).
Halacha 4
We do not search [for chametz] by the light of the moon, the light of the sun, or the light of a torch; only by the light of a candle. To what does this apply? to the holes and hidden places. However, for a porch which has much light, searching it by the light of the sun is sufficient.
The middle of a courtyard does not need to be searched, because birds are found there, and they eat all the chametz which falls there.
Commentary Halacha
We do not search [for chametz] by the light of the moon, the light of the sun -- if one searches by day; i.e., either one forgot to search on the night of the thirteenth and had to carry out the search the following day. Alternatively, one decided to search for chametz before the fourteenth of Nisan with the intention of keeping the room chametz-free afterwards (Jerusalem Talmud,Pesachim 1:1). The light of the sun is insufficient to check indoor areas carefully.
or the light of a torch -- Pesachim 8a explains that a person will be scared to placed a torch close enough to check small holes and crevices carefully lest he start a fire.
only by the light of a candle -- It is customary to use a candle made from beeswax.
When does this apply? to the holes and hidden places. However, for a porch -- a room with three walls and the fourth side open.
which has much light -- Pesachim 8a states that the same principle applies to the area directly under an aperture in the roof. The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 433:4) also applies this principle to the area directly opposite an open window.
searching it by the light of the sun is sufficient -- The Rambam's choice of phraseology clearly implies that it is not desirable to do so. Rather, even a porch should be checked at night by candlelight. Other authorities question this perspective, but it is accepted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 433:1).
The middle of a courtyard -- Pesachim 8a states "a courtyard need not be searched." The Rambam adds the words "the middle" out of fear that the birds will not eat the chametz in the cracks and holes close to the wall. In this case as well, though other authorities are more lenient, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 433:6) quotes the Rambam's opinion.
does not need to be searched because birds are found there, and they eat all the chametz which falls there.
Halacha 5
A hole in the middle of [the wall of] the house between a person and his colleague [should be searched by both individuals], each searching to the extent his hand reaches. [Afterwards,] each must nullify in his heart [any chametz in] the remaining portion.
[This applies to a hole in a wall separating two Jewish homes.] However, a hole between [the home of] a Jew and a gentile should not be searched at all, lest the gentile fear that the Jew is casting spells against him. All that is necessary for him to do is to nullify it within his heart.
Any place where chametz is not brought in does not need to be searched.
Commentary Halacha
A hole -- The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 433:4) applies the same principle to protrusions extending from a wall.
in the middle -- neither very high or low, see the following halachah.
of [the wall of] the house -- In previous generations, the walls of the homes were very thick and large holes would frequently be used for storage.
between a person and his colleague [should be searched by both individuals] -- for both may use it.
each searching to the extent his hand reaches. [Afterwards,] each must nullify in his heart [any chametz in] the remaining portion -- As mentioned in Halachah 2, according to Torah law, the nullification of chametz is sufficient.
[This applies to a hole in a wall separating two Jewish homes.] However, a hole between [the home of] a Jew and a gentile should not be searched at all, lest the gentile -- see the Jew looking intently through the hole by candlelight and
fear that the Jew is casting spells against him -- This might motivate him to harm the Jew. The Sages did not require a Jew to endanger himself to fulfill their decrees.
All that is necessary for him to do is to nullify it within his heart -- TheKessef Mishneh (and similarly, the Taz) require the Jew to check the hole for chametz by day.
Any place where chametz is not brought in does not need to be searched. -- This is a major principle governing the search for chametz. The Sages only obligated a search where it was likely that chametz might be found. Therefore, they did not require a person to search places into which he did not bring chametz. Nevertheless, places where babies might have brought chametz must be searched, even though adults might not necessarily bring chametz there.
Halacha 6
The upper and lower holes [in the wall] of a house, the roof of a balcony, a cow stall, chicken coop, hayloft, wine cellars or storage rooms for oil when supplies are not taken from them [in the midst of a meal], and storage rooms for large fish, need not be searched unless one brought chametz into them.
In contrast, storage rooms for beer, storage rooms for wine from which supplies are taken [in the midst of a meal], storage rooms for salt, candles, small fish, wood, and brine, the middle holes in a wall, and all similar places must be searched, for chametz is usually brought into them. However, if a person knows that he did not bring chametz into these places, they do not have to be searched.
When searching a wine cellar, [all that is necessary to] search are the two outer rows--i.e., the highest row and the one below it.
Commentary Halacha
The upper -- those above a person's reach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim433:4)
and lower holes -- below three handbreadths high (ibid.). The Magen Avraham (433:8) emphasizes that if children are found at home, these lower holes must also be searched.
[in the wall] of a house -- This halachah continues the final clause of the previous one, listing a number of places into which chametz is generally not brought.
the roof of a balcony -- The commentaries explain that this refers to slanted roofs.
a cow stall, chicken coop -- Rashi, Pesachim 8a, explains that most likely, the animals and the chickens will eat any chametz brought there. Nevertheless, theShulchan Aruch (ibid. 433:6) qualifies this leniency explaining that it does not apply when a person definitely knows that chametz was brought into these premises one month before Pesach. (See Magen Avraham; the Makor Chayimbrings a more lenient opinion.) In such an instance, he must search the premises on the night of the thirteenth by candlelight.
hayloft, wine cellars or storage rooms for oil when supplies are not taken from them [in the midst of a meal] -- Hence, there is little possibility that chametz was brought there.
and storage rooms for large fish -- Small fish may be taken out during the course of a meal. However, generally, a person will take large fish to prepare only before a meal and not in the midst of eating.
need not be searched unless one brought chametz into them.
In contrast, storage rooms for beer, storage rooms for wine from which supplies are taken [in the midst of a meal], storage rooms for salt, candles, small fish, wood, and brine -- In all these cases, the Sages regarded it likely that a person would get up in the middle of a meal while holding chametz in his hand to bring supplies from these storage rooms. Hence, they required such premises to be searched.
the middle holes in a wall -- On the surface, these holes were mentioned in the previous halachah, and their mention here is redundant.
and all similar places must be searched, for chametz is usually brought into them -- Thus, unless a person knows otherwise, he must act under the presumption that he brought chametz into these premises.
However, if a person knows that he did not bring chametz into these places, they do not have to be searched.
When searching a wine cellar -- where barrels of wine are stacked one on top of the other so that a person cannot enter the area where they have been placed
Halacha 7
We do not suspect that a weasel dragged chametz into a place where it is not usually brought. Were we to suspect [that chametz would be taken] from house to house, we would also have to suspect [that chametz might be taken] from city to city. There is no end to the matter.
A person who checked on the night of the fourteenth and placed ten loaves of chametz [on the side] and [later] found [only] nine must suspect [that chametz is present in his home,] and [hence], must search a second time, for definitely it was taken by a weasel or mouse.
Commentary Halacha
We do not suspect that a weasel dragged chametz into a place where it is not usually brought. -- Pesachim 9a states: "We do not suspect that a weasel dragged chametz from one house to another or from place to place." Rashi explains that this statement applies after the search for chametz was carried out. Once we have searched our homes, we need not worry that rodents brought new chametz there.
In contrast, the Rambam interprets the statement as applying before the search. There is no need to suspect that perhaps a rodent took chametz from a place where chametz is usually kept to a place where it is not usually brought. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the two interpretations are not contradictory and both are halachically applicable.
Were we to suspect [that chametz would be taken] from house to house, we would also have to suspect [that chametz might be taken] from city to city. There is no end to the matter. -- There is always the possibility that chametz will be taken from one house to another. Hence, the Sages decided to ignore this possibility entirely.
A person who checked on the night of the fourteenth -- as required
placed ten loaves of chametz [on the side] -- to be used the following morning
and [later] found [only] nine must suspect [that chametz is present in his home,] and [hence,] must search a second time -- The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 439:7) relates that he may stop the second search as soon as one loaf is found. He may presume that this was the loaf that he originally put aside.
for definitely it was taken by a weasel or mouse -- The rodent may have eaten the chametz or removed it from the premises entirely. Nevertheless, a new search is required, for it is also possible that some chametz was left within the house (Pesachim 9a).
As mentioned in Halachot 2 and 3, according to Torah law we need not do anything more than negate our ownership over our chametz. Nevertheless, the Sages also required that we search for chametz and destroy it completely. However, when a person does not nullify his chametz, the obligation to search takes on the severity of a Torah commandment.
This and the following halachot (8 through 13) deal with circumstances which raise questions whether a second search is required. Throughout these halachot, the Rambam makes no mention of whether the owner of the house previously nullified his chametz or not. This fact is extremely important, for different principles apply to an obligation required by Torah law from those that apply to one instituted by the Rabbis. Indeed, other Rabbinic authorities (some of whom are quoted in the commentaries to the various halachot) devote much attention to this issue, clarifying at length whether the laws apply:
a) only when a person had already nullified (or can still nullify) his chametz, or;b) even when the search for chametz is required by Torah law.
Since the Rambam does not explicitly state his opinion on this matter, it is impossible to be sure which perspective he adopts. However, when the chapter is considered in its entirety, it appears that these halachot describe a situation where chametz has already been nullified. Unless specified to the contrary, this should be assumed to be the case. Nevertheless, certain of the leniencies are also applicable even when the search takes on the severity of a Torah obligation.
Halacha 8
Similarly, a person who saw a mouse enter the house with chametz in its mouth after he searched [for chametz] must search a second time. [This applies] even if he found crumbs in the middle of the house; we do not necessarily presume that it already ate the bread in this place and that these are its crumbs. Rather, we suspect that it left the bread in a hole or window, and that these crumbs were [originally] located there. Hence, he must search again.
If he does not find anything, he must search through the entire house. If he found the bread that the mouse took when he entered, he need not search [further].
Commentary Halacha
Similarly, a person who saw a mouse enter the house with chametz in its mouth after he searched [for chametz] must search a second time -- In this instance as well, there is an obvious reason for the suspicion that chametz has been brought into the home.
[This applies] even if he found crumbs in the middle of the house; we do not necessarily presume that it already ate the bread in this place and that these are its crumbs -- for mice do not generally crumble food. (See the following halachah.)
Rather, we suspect that it left the bread in a hole or window, and that these crumbs were [originally] located there -- and accidentally ignored, and the mouse deposited the bread it was carrying elsewhere.
Hence, he must search again -- Though some authorities do not require a second search when the bread was small and most probably eaten by the mouse, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim438) do not accept this leniency.
If he does not find anything, he must search through the entire house --The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 438:1) quotes this opinion as halachah. The Magen Avraham (based on the Tur) is more lenient. Rather than require that the entire house be searched, he maintains that searching the room that the mouse entered is sufficient.
If he found the bread -- even if it was no longer whole
that the mouse took when he entered -- He must be able to recognize this as the bread seen in the mouse's mouth
he need not search [further] -- and may presume that the mouse ate the rest of the bread.
Halacha 9
[A person who] saw an infant enter an already checked house with bread in his hand, followed him inside and discovered crumbs, need not search [again]. We may confidently assume that he ate the bread and that these crumbs fell from him while eating. Infants generally crumble food while eating, though mice do not.
If he does not find any crumbs, he must check [again].
Commentary Halacha
[A person who] saw an infant enter an already checked house -- checked for chametz
with bread in his hand, followed him inside and discovered crumbs, need not search [again]. -- The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 438:3) explains that if the child is intelligent enough to reply to questions, we should ask him what he did with the chametz and we may depend upon his reply.
We may confidently assume that he ate the bread and that these crumbs fell from him while eating -- Tosefot (Pesachim 10b) require a second search if the amount of crumbs does not equal the quantity of the original bread. TheShulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah favor the Rambam's opinion only when the person has nullified his ownership over his chametz. If not, the search takes on the seriousness of a Torah commandment. Hence, it must be repeated.
Children generally crumble food while eating, though mice do not --Hence, the difference between this and the previous halachah.
If he does not find any crumbs, he must check [again] -- and the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply.
Halacha 10
Nine piles of matzah and one of chametz were placed [aside]. A mouse came and took [something from one of the piles] and entered a house that had been checked. If we do not know whether it took either chametz or matzah, the house must be checked [again], for every instance where [a doubt arises and the presence of both the permitted and forbidden substances] is fixed, [is judged] as if they were present in equal amounts.
Commentary Halacha
Nine piles of matzah and one of chametz were placed [aside] -- For example, after the search for chametz, a person will still have some chametz in his property for use the following morning. However, he may already bring out his Passover matzot.
A mouse came and took [something from one of the piles] -- The Mishnah Berurah emphasizes that this decision applies only when we actually saw the mouse take from the piles. If no one saw the mouse, the ruling mentioned in the last clause of the following halachah applies.
and entered a house that had been checked -- for chametz
If we do not know whether it took either chametz or matzah, the house must be checked [again] -- as if it were definitely chametz, as prescribed in Halachah 8.
for every instance where [a doubt arises and the presence of both the permitted and forbidden substances] is fixed, [is judged] as if they -- the permitted and forbidden substances
were present in equal amounts -- The probability that the mouse took from the matzot is considered no greater than the probability that he took from the chametz.
This is a classic Talmudic case. Pesachim 9b draws a parallel to the following passage:
Nine butcher shops which all sell ritually slaughtered meat and one which sells meat which has not been slaughtered properly: should a person take meat from one of them without knowing from which he took (i.e., without knowing whether he purchased kosher or non-kosher meat), he must consider [the meat] forbidden because of the doubt involved.
In both cases, the permitted and forbidden substances remain in one place, and their existence is therefore considered as fixed (קבוע). In such instances, the fact that there is a much higher probability that the article in question was taken from the permitted substances is not considered significant, and the more stringent perspective is taken. See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 8:11.
Nevertheless, the Ra'avad and other authorities take issue with this halachah, explaining that the Talmud only made such a statement when a person has not nullified his chametz, and the responsibility to search the house stems from the Torah itself. However, if the person already nullified his chametz, the search is only a Rabbinic obligation. Hence, it should be judged more leniently.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that even though leniencies may generally be taken when doubts arise concerning Rabbinic obligations, the search for chametz is an exception. The entire obligation was instituted even when there was no definite knowledge that chametz existed. Hence, even in this case, a search must be made.
Though the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 439:1) accepts the Rambam's opinion, the Ramah and the other Ashkenazic authorities make the following qualification: If the person had already nullified his chametz and if the bread was small enough for the mouse to have eaten it entirely, a second search is not required.
Halacha 11
There were two piles: one of chametz and one of matzah, and two houses: one that had been searched and one that had not been searched. Two mice came; one took chametz and one took matzah [and they entered the houses] without our knowing which house the mouse holding the chametz entered...
Similarly, there were two houses which had been checked, with one pile of chametz before them. A mouse took [from the pile and entered a house]. However, we do not know which house he entered...
or we saw which one he entered, a person followed him, checked [for chametz], and did not find anything...
or he checked and found bread...
Similarly, when there were nine piles of matzah and one of chametz, and a loaf became separated from the piles, and we do not know whether it was chametz or matzah: If a mouse took the loaf that became separated and entered the house that had been checked:
In all of these cases, there is no need to check a second time, because the presence of the forbidden substance is not fixed.
Commentary Halacha
In contrast to the previous halachah, leniency can be taken in the following cases:
There were two piles: one of chametz and one of matzah, and two houses: one that had been searched and one that had not been searched. Two mice came; one took chametz and one took matzah [and they entered the houses] without our knowing which house the mouse holding the chametz entered... -- In such an instance, we presume that the mouse holding the chametz entered the unchecked house, and the mouse holding the matzah entered the checked house. Comparable decisions are found in Hilchot Terumah 13:14, Hilchot Issurei Biyah 9:29 and Hilchot Mikvaot10:3.
Pesachim 10a emphasizes that this leniency is only rendered because once a person has nullified ownership over his chametz, the search is only a question of Rabbinic law. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 439:4) agrees to this principle, but offers an addition leniency: Even if the owner did not nullify his chametz, a second search is not required when the bread the mouse was holding is small enough to be eaten at once.
Similarly, there were two houses which had been checked, with one pile of chametz before them. A mouse took [from the pile and entered a house]. However, we do not know which house he entered... -- Each of the homes is judged individually. Since we do not definitely know that chametz was not brought into either of the homes, we need not change our original presumption and consider each one as free of chametz.
Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 19:2 mentions a similar case, but reaches a more stringent conclusion. Leniency is only offered when the two people in question approach the Rabbis separately. If they come together, the case is judged more severely.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh both note this matter and explain that since the search for chametz is a question of Rabbinic law, greater leniency can be taken. Nevertheless, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 439:2) and other Ashkenazic authorities do not accept this decision and require a second search, should the owners of both homes approach the court together.
or we saw which one he entered, a person followed him, checked [for chametz], and did not find anything... -- Pesachim 10a compares this to a case in which a corpse was presumed to be found in a field. Though Rabbi Meir maintains that the field is considered ritually impure until the corpse is found, the halachah follows the Sages, who maintain that all that is necessary is to carry out a thorough search. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 439:6) states that this law applies even when the owner of the house had not nullified his chametz, and the search is required by Torah law.
or he checked and found bread... -- we presume that this was the bread the mouse had taken. Pesachim 10a compares this to a case where a field was suspected to contain a grave; the field was searched, and a grave discovered. Though Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel requires the entire field to be searched, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi maintains that no further search must be made.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (ibid.) emphasizes that this leniency should only be followed when the owner of the house has nullified or can still nullify the ownership over his chametz. Otherwise, he must thoroughly search the entire house.
Similarly, when there were nine piles of matzah and one of chametz, and a loaf became separated from the piles, and we do not know whether it was chametz or matzah: If a mouse took the loaf that became separated and entered the house that had been checked -- The passage from Pesachim9b concerning the ten butcher shops quoted in the commentary on the previous halachah, continues:
[If meat from these shops] is found, follow the majority.
The principle of קבוע - judging the permitted and forbidden substances as if they were equal - applies only when the doubt concerning the identity of the substance arises in the place where the presence of the forbidden substance has become fixed. Thus, since the meat has become separated (פירש) from its original place, this principle no longer applies and, as in most cases of mixtures, the decision depends on whether there is a greater number of kosher or non-kosher stores.
Similarly, in the case at hand: Since the loaf became separated from the piles before being taken by the mouse, there is no question of a prohibited substance having a fixed identity (קבוע). Hence, we follow the majority, and thus do not require a further search. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah emphasize that this leniency applies even if the owner of the house had not nullified the ownership over his chametz.
In all of these cases, there is no need to check a second time -- TheKessef Mishneh emphasizes that this is a complete thought in its own right.
because the presence of the forbidden substance is not fixed -- According to the Kessef Mishneh, this statement applies only to the final instance mentioned in the halachah as explained.
Halacha 12
A person who placed chametz in one corner and discovered it in another...
or who put aside nine loaves and found ten...
or a mouse came and took the chametz, and there is a doubt whether he entered this house or not...
In all these cases, he must search [the house again].
Commentary Halacha
In the following cases, a second search is required.
A person who placed chametz in one corner and discovered it in another -- Pesachim 10b explains that the Sages felt that it was likely that the chametz discovered was not the chametz lost. Rather, different chametz was placed in the other corner, and the first chametz, deposited elsewhere throughout the house. Hence, a new search is required (See also Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav U'Moshav 12:16.)
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 439:9) states that if the same amount of chametz that was lost is found there is no need to search further if the owner had already nullified the ownership over his chametz. The Mishnah Berurah grants an even greater leniency and frees the owner of the necessity to search, without placing any qualifications on the chametz discovered, as long as he has nullified his chametz.
or who put aside nine loaves and found ten -- Pesachim 10a compares this to the following case: "A person put aside 100 dinars of money designated asma'aser sheni (the second tithe, to be used only to purchase food in Jerusalem) and discovered two hundred."
In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 6:3, the Rambam declares that none of the money is considered as ma'aser sheni. In both instances, we suppose that the substance put aside was taken away and a new substance substituted for it. Accordingly, the Magen Avraham emphasizes that the owner cannot cease his search until he finds nine piles of chametz. This law applies even if the owner has nullified his ownership over the original nine piles of chametz.
or a mouse came and took the chametz, and there is a doubt whether he entered this house or not -- Pesachim 10a likens this to a case when a person traveled through a valley in which one of the fields was known to possess a grave. Though he is unsure of whether he entered the field containing the grave or not, he must consider himself ritually impure (SeeHilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTum'ah 20:9.)
The Ra'avad's text of the Mishneh Torah contained an additional clause:
or there were nine piles of chametz and one pile of matzah: A loaf became separated from them and it is not known whether it was chametz or matzah. A mouse came and took it into a checked house.
The Kessef Mishneh rejects the inclusion of this clause because in the previous halachah, the Rambam had already stated that once a substance is separated from its original place, its identity is determined on the basis of the majority.
In all these cases, he must search [the house again].
Halacha 13
A mouse entered a house with a loaf in its mouth. Afterwards, a mouse left there with a loaf in its mouth; we presume that the same mouse who entered originally was the one which ultimately left, and [the owner] need not search [again]. If the first mouse which entered was black and the one which left was white, he must search [again].
If a mouse entered with a loaf in its mouth and a weasel left there with a loaf in its mouth, he must search [again]. If a weasel left there with a mouse and a loaf in its mouth, he does not have to search [again]. [We may presume] that this is the loaf which was in the mouse's mouth.
If a snake enters a hole with a loaf in its mouth, there is no obligation to bring a snakecharmer to remove it.
Commentary Halacha
A mouse entered a house with a loaf -- of chametz
in its mouth. Afterwards, a mouse left there with a loaf in its mouth; we presume that the same mouse who entered originally was the one which ultimately left, and the [owner] need not search [again]. -- The Pri Chadash(Orach Chayim 438:1) follows this decision even when the owner did not nullify his chametz. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows his opinion, though the Turrequires the owner to nullify his chametz or search.
If the first mouse which entered was black and the one which left white --Obviously, the mouse which left is not the same as the mouse that entered, and it is not likely that one mouse took the chametz from the other (Pesachim 10b). Hence,
he must search [again] -- even if he has already nullified his chametz (Pri Chadash, Shulchan Aruch HaRav).
If a mouse entered with a loaf in its mouth and a weasel left there with a loaf in its mouth, he must search [again]. -- Even though it is possible that the weasel took the chametz from the mouse, that probability is not strong enough to free the owner from the obligation to search (Pesachim, ibid.). This applies even if he nullifies his chametz (Pri Chadash, Shulchan Aruch HaRav).
If a weasel left there with a mouse and a loaf in its -- the weasel's
mouth, he does not have to search [again] -- Even though one might say that unless the chametz is found in the mouse's mouth, we cannot be sure that it is the same. Nevertheless, since it is possible that the mouse dropped the chametz out of fear (Pesachim ibid.)
[We may presume] that this is the loaf which was in the mouse's mouth --The Talmud left this questioned unanswered (תיקו). The Pri Chadash and theShulchan Aruch HaRav explain that this decision applies only when the owner nullifies the ownership over his chametz. In such an instance, the question is only one of Rabbinic law (for according to Torah law, the nullification is sufficient). Hence, the Rambam chooses the more lenient opinion.
If a snake enters a hole with a loaf in its mouth, there is no obligation to bring a snakecharmer to remove it. -- This question is also left unanswered by the Talmud (Pesachim, ibid.). Therefore, the Rambam again chooses the more lenient view.
Halacha 14
When chametz is [discovered] on a very high beam, [the owner] is obligated to bring a ladder and remove it, for it might fall from the beam. If chametz is in a pit, [the owner] is not obligated to bring it up. All that is necessary is for him to nullify [ownership over it] in his heart.
Commentary Halacha
When chametz is [discovered] on a very high beam, [the owner] is obligated to bring a ladder -- even if he must rent the ladder
and remove it, for it might fall from the beam -- and the owner might come to eat it.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 438:11) and the Mishnah Berurahexplain that this obligation applies even if:
a) generally, the owner would not have access to this beam;
b) he already nullified his ownership over the chametz.
If chametz is in a pit -- to which a person does not have easy access
[the owner] is not obligated to bring it up. -- The Maggid Mishnehemphasizes that a person is not allowed to store chametz in a pit. However, should chametz accidentally fall into the pit before it becomes forbidden...
All that is necessary is for him to nullify [ownership over it] in his heart --However, if he had not nullified ownership over his chametz and did not discover the chametz until after it becomes forbidden, he is obligated to remove the chametz from the pit (Mishnah Berurah).
The Tosefta (Pesachim 3:3) states: "Chametz which fell into a pit is considered as if it has been destroyed;" implying that even nullification is unnecessary. However, the Tzafnat Paneach differentiates between the two cases, explaining that our halachah refers to a pit to which a person could descend if required. In contrast, the Tosefta refers to a pit which is totally inaccessible, or accessible only with extreme difficulty. Since the owner cannot make use of his chametz, there is no necessity for him to nullify his ownership of it.
Halacha 15
A block of yeast which was designated to be used as a seat: If its surface was coated with mortar, it is [considered as] destroyed and we are permitted to keep it [on Pesach].
The dough in the cracks of a kneading trough: If a size of an olive [of dough] exists in one place, one is obligated to destroy [the dough under all circumstances]. Should there be less than that amount: If it serves to reinforce the broken pieces of the kneading trough or to plug a hole, it is [considered] negligible because of its minimal size. If not, one is obligated to destroy it.
Two [quantities of dough, each] half the size of an olive were found in separate places, and a string of dough connects them: We check whether the [pieces of] dough themselves are lifted up when the string of dough is picked up. If they are, one is obligated to destroy [them]. If not, one is not obligated to destroy [them].
Commentary Halacha
A block of yeast which was designated to be used as a seat -- Generally, all prohibitions against eating forbidden foods do not apply after the food is no longer fit for human consumption. Nevertheless, additional stringencies are placed on chametz, because it may be useful as a leavening agent even if it is no longer fit to be eaten by a human being. Hence, it is not nullified until it is no longer fit even for animal consumption. (See Ra'avad, Maggid Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh Halachah 1:2.)
If its surface was coated with mortar -- The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim442:42) explains that if the surface of the block is covered with mortar, it does not become forbidden even though it is still fit to be eaten. This act clearly implies that the owner no longer considered the chametz as food.
it is [considered as] destroyed and we are permitted to keep it [on Pesach] -- Its possession does not violate the prohibition against owning chametz.
The Taz emphasizes that only the prohibition against owning chametz is lifted. Even if the chametz is unfit for animal consumption, a person is forbidden to eat it on Pesach should he desire to do so.
The dough in the cracks of a kneading trough: If a size of an olive [of dough] exists in one place -- As mentioned in Halachah 1:1, the size of an olive is considered the minimum amount for which one is liable for the transgression of most of the Torah's prohibitions.
one is obligated to destroy [the dough under all circumstances] -- TheShulchan Aruch HaRav emphasizes that this applies even when one has nullified his ownership over this chametz or covered it with mortar. The size of an olive is considered as a significant amount and must be destroyed at all times.
Should there be less than that amount -- of dough in one place, though there are many smaller pieces of dough throughout the kneading trough
If it -- the dough
serves to reinforce the broken pieces of the kneading trough or to plug a hole, it is [considered] negligible -- and thus, part of the kneading trough
because of its minimal size -- and, therefore, need not be destroyed.
If not -- If the dough does not serve a useful purpose
one is obligated to destroy it -- for the obligation to search after and destroy chametz applies to all quantities of that substance, even if they are smaller than the size of an olive (Maggid Mishneh).
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 442:28) explains that dough which has not become stuck to the cracks of the kneading trough must be removed. However, leniency may be taken regarding dough stuck in the cracks of the kneading trough, even though it does not serve a purpose. Should the owner nullify his ownership over his chametz, that dough need not be destroyed if:
a) the entire kneading trough contains less than an olive size of chametz stuck to its sides;b) the dough has become dirty and unfit for consumption.
Two [quantities of dough, -- used to fill cracks in the kneading trough
each] half the size of an olive were found in separate places, and a string of dough connects them -- Thus, the question is raised:
Are the two considered as a single quantity, and hence obligated to be destroyed; orCan they be considered as separate entities, and thus allowed to be kept?
We check whether the [pieces of] dough themselves are lifted up when the string of dough is picked up. If they are, one is obligated to destroy [them]. If not, one is not obligated to destroy [them]. -- This leniency applies only to dough that strengthens the kneading trough. Otherwise, they must be destroyed (Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chayim 442:35).
Halacha 16
To what does the above apply? to [pieces of dough stuck to] a kneading trough. However, [if a similar situation is discovered] within a house, one is obligated to destroy [the dough] even if, when the [connecting] thread [of dough] is lifted up, the pieces of dough are not raised up with it. [This stringency was instituted] because the [smaller portions] may sometimes be brought together.
If half of an olive size [of dough] was found in a house and another half in the second storey;
or if half of the size of an olive was found in a house and another half in [the adjoining] porch;
or if half of the size of an olive was found in a room and another half in an inner room;
Since these portions of dough which are less than the size of an olive are found stuck to the walls, beams, or floors [of the house], one is not obligated to destroy them. All that is necessary is to nullify them in one's heart.
Commentary Halacha
To what does the above -- leniency
apply? to [pieces of dough stuck to] a kneading trough. However, [if a similar situation is discovered] within a house -- whether the dough is used to fill cracks in the house or not
one is obligated to destroy [the dough] even if, when the [connecting] thread [of dough] is lifted up, the pieces of dough are not raised up with it -- Based on this decision, whenever there is more than the size of an olive of dough in the same room, we are obligated to destroy any and all pieces of dough in the room, even if they are not connected by strings of dough.
[This stringency was instituted] because the [smaller portions] may sometimes be brought together -- when the house is swept, and thus produce a quantity the size of an olive (Rashi, Pesachim 45b).
If half of an olive size [of dough] was found in a house and another half in the second storey -- where it would be unlikely for the two halves to come together (ibid.);
or if half of the size of an olive was found in a house and another half in [the adjoining] porch -- where there is a greater probability of the two small portions of chametz coming together
or if half of the size of an olive was found in a room -- Generally, the word בית means "house." However, it is often used to mean "room."
and another half in an inner room -- where the probability is even greater.
Since these portions of dough which are less than the size of an olive are found stuck to the walls, beams, or floors [of the house] -- This is a major point of debate among the halachic authorities. Rabbenu Asher (Pesakim, Pesachim 3:2) writes that the dough need not be stuck to the walls of the house. However, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh oppose that thesis. They argue that the only reason for leniency is that when the dough is stuck to the walls of the house, it is considered as part of the house and not as an entity in its own right.
one is not obligated to destroy them. All that is necessary is to nullify them in one's heart. -- After describing the above laws in detail, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 442:30) concludes:
The above represents the law itself. However, the Jews are holy and have customarily accepted greater stringencies upon themselves. They scrape away even the slightest amount of chametz, even if it is stuck to the walls of a home or utensil. They have accepted the stringency of scraping down all benches, chairs, and walls that have come into contact with chametz.
Halacha 17
A person who rents out a house on the fourteenth [of Nisan]: Behold, [the tenant may operate] under the presumption that it has been searched and he need not search.
[Furthermore,] even if we must assume that the person who rented out the house did not search [it], should a woman or a minor say: "We have searched it," they are believed, for everyone's statements are accepted with regard to the destruction of chametz.
Everyone is acceptable to search [for chametz], even women, slaves, and minors. The latter applies only when the minor has sufficient understanding to search.
Commentary Halacha
A person who rents out a house on the fourteenth [of Nisan] -- One might suppose that the sequence of this halachah and the following halachah should be reversed. First, the Rambam should state who is obligated to search for chametz, and only then the fact that we can rely that this search was properly carried out. Indeed, Pesachim 4 and the Shulchan Aruch follows that sequence when discussing these laws.
Possibly, the Rambam's choice of sequence can be explained as follows: The motivating principle of many of the previous halachot is that once a person has nullified the ownership over his chametz, the search is merely a Rabbinic obligation. Hence, many leniencies can be taken.
Because of that same principle...
Behold, [the tenant may operate] under the presumption that it has been searched. -- Pesachim 4b questions whether we can rely on this presumption or not and does not arrive at a conclusion. Nevertheless, the Rambam's statements can be understood in light of the Pesakim of Rabbenu Asher. He explains that if ownership over the chametz is negated the obligation to search is only Rabbinic. When doubt arises regarding matters of Rabbinic law, the more lenient position may be accepted.
and he need not search. -- The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 437:2) qualifies this statement, requiring the prospective tenant to ask the owner of the house if it has been searched. However, if he cannot possibly ask the owner, he need not search the house. However, this applies only when the tenant has the opportunity to nullify his ownership over any chametz that may be found within the home.
[Furthermore,] even if we must assume that the person who rented out the house did not search [it] -- and we know that before Pesach, chametz had definitely been kept within the home (Mishnah Berurah)
should a woman or a minor say: "We have searched it," they are believed -- The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah emphasize that this law applies only if the chametz has been nullified. Otherwise, the statement of a woman or child may not be relied upon.
Generally, a woman's statements are accepted even as regards Torah prohibitions. However, an exception is made in this case because the search for chametz involves much effort. Hence, our Sages worried that perhaps a woman might state that she had made a thorough search even though she had merely made a superficial inspection (Tosefot, Pesachim 4b)
for everyone's statements are accepted with regard to the destruction of chametz.
Everyone is acceptable to search [for chametz], even women, slaves-Tosefot (ibid.) states that slaves are believed in matters where a woman's word is accepted.
and minors -- Eruvin 58b and Ketubot 28a quote instances where a child's statements are not accepted even with regard to Rabbinic prohibitions. However, we may rely on their word regarding the search for chametz, because they are capable of performing the search.
The latter applies only when the minor has sufficient understanding to search -- i.e., he has reached the age where his parents have begun to educate him about the prohibition against possessing chametz.
Halacha 18
A person who rents a house to a colleague: If the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls before [the landlord] gave the keys to [the tenant], the landlord is responsible for searching. If the fourteenth falls after the keys have been transferred, the tenant is responsible for checking.
When a person rents out a house under the presumption that it has been searched and [later, the tenant] discovers that it has not been searched, [the tenant] is responsible for searching it and [cannot nullify the transaction by claiming that it was carried out] under false premises. This applies even when it is customary to hire people to search, since, behold, he is performing a mitzvah.
Commentary Halacha
A person who rents -- Different rules apply to a sale (Rabbenu Nissim).
a house to a colleague: If -- the beginning of the
the fourteenth [of Nisan] -- i.e., the night between the thirteenth and the fourteenth
falls before [the landlord] gave the keys to [the tenant] -- Rashi (Pesachim4a) explains that giving the keys to the tenant represents the transfer of ownership of the house to the tenant. Whoever is the rightful owner of the property at the time the obligation to search begins must carry out this mitzvah.
However, Tosefot and most other halachic authorities explain that giving the keys does not formalize the act of transfer. Thus, the Maggid Mishneh explains that in this instance, the rental agreement has been concluded beforehand. Nevertheless, since the landlord is still in possession of the keys, the tenant is not able to conduct the search. Hence, the responsibility becomes that of the landlord.
the landlord is responsible for searching. -- He is required to undertake this search, even though he has abandoned ownership over any chametz that might be left in the house and does not violate the prohibitions against possessing chametz because of it (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 437:1).
If the fourteenth falls after the keys have been transferred -- Based on the statements of Rabbenu Nissim and the Maggid Mishneh, the Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 437:1) states that this applies only once the rental agreement has been formalized through an acceptable kinyan (act of contract). However, the Mishnah Berurah mentions other opinions that require a search even if the tenant has not formalized the rental agreement.
the tenant is responsible for checking -- Even though the chametz was left by the landlord, when the tenant takes over the landlordship of the house, he becomes the owner of all its contents, including the chametz.
When a person rents out a house under the presumption that it has been searched, and [later, the tenant] discovers that it has not been searched -- If the landlord is available, the tenant must ask him whether the house has been searched or not.
[the tenant] is responsible for searching it -- He must carry out the mitzvah even though he made an explicit condition requiring the landlord to do so.
and [cannot nullify the transaction by claiming that it was carried out] under false premises. -- Under certain conditions, a person can nullify a business agreement on the grounds that it was carried out under false premises.
This applies even when it is customary -- in that locale
to hire people to search since, behold, he is performing a mitzvah --Pesachim 4b explains that the need for searching the house is not the real factor motivating him to retract his agreement, because every Jew desires to perform mitzvot, even if doing so requires financial expense.
Based on the Maggid Mishneh, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 437:3) requires the landlord to reimburse the tenant if it is customary to hire people to search. After all, the house was rented with the explicit condition that it had been searched.
Halacha 19
A person who sets out to sea or one who leaves in a caravan within thirty days [of Pesach] is obligated to search [for chametz]. [If he leaves] before thirty days [prior to Pesach], he is not obligated to search. However, if he intends to return before Pesach, he must search before departing, lest he [be delayed and] return Pesach eve at nightfall, when he will have no opportunity to destroy [the chametz]. However, if he does not intend to return, he does not have to search.
Similarly, a person who makes his house a storage room: If he does so within thirty days [of Pesach], he is required to search and then bring in the goods he wants to store. Over thirty days before Pesach: If he intends to remove the goods before Pesach, he is required to search and then bring in the goods he wants to store; if he does not intend to remove the goods before Pesach, he does not have to search.
Commentary Halacha
A person who sets out to sea or one who leaves in a caravan within thirty days [of Pesach] is obligated to search -- Furthermore, any chametz which he knows about must be removed from his possession (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 436:1.
[for chametz]. -- at night by candlelight before he departs (Magen Avraham). However, no blessing is recited (Shulchan Aruch).
The Shulchan Aruch emphasizes that this law applies only when a person does not leave anyone else at home (e.g., a wife or older child) who could conduct the search at the customary time.
[If he leaves] before thirty days [prior to Pesach] -- Thirty days before Pesach, we begin "asking and explaining the laws of the holiday." Hence, from that time onward, concern is shown for all the Pesach laws (Pesachim 6a).
he is not obligated to search. However, if he intends to return before Pesach -- Even if his intention is to return far before Pesach, if there is a likelihood that his return may be delayed until the holiday, he must search before departing (Chatam Sofer).
he must search before departing -- even if he departs at the beginning of the year (Pesachim 6a).
lest he [be delayed and] return Pesach eve at nightfall -- The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah maintain that this law applies only when the person is going on a sea voyage or caravan where delay is a frequent phenomenon. A person who sets out on a sure land journey is not obligated to search before he departs.
when he will have no opportunity to destroy [the chametz]. -- As stated in Halachah 1:9, the prohibitions against possessing chametz begin after the conclusion of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan. From that time onward, it is forbidden to nullify any chametz that we possess.
However, if he does not intend to return -- until after Pesach
he does not have to search -- Nevertheless, he is obligated to nullify any chametz that might be in his possession on Pesach eve. This nullification takes effect even though he is very far from the chametz in his home (Ramah, Magen Avraham).
Similarly, a person who makes his house a storage room -- chametz which is buried under more than three handbreadths of other substances is considered as having been removed from a person's property and need not be uncovered and destroyed before Pesach. (See Halachah 3:11.) Thus, making the house a storeroom and covering any chametz with more than that amount of other material would free him from the obligation of searching (Rashi,Pesachim 6a).
However, the Sages explain that this leniency applies only to chametz which accidentally becomes covered by other substances.
If he does so -- intentionally covering the chametz with other goods
within thirty days [of Pesach], he is required to search and then bring in the goods he wants to store -- Once the thirty-day period when the Pesach laws begin to be studied arrives, one is obligated to search.
Over thirty days before Pesach: If he intends to remove the goods before Pesach, he is required to search -- The Kessef Mishneh (and the Shulchan Aruch) quote certain opinions that do not obligate a search, explaining that it is far less likely that the person will be delayed in removing his goods and bring about a situation where he will uncover the chametz on Passover eve.
and then bring in the goods he wants to store; if he does not intend to remove the goods before Pesach, he does not have to search. -- TheMishnah Berurah (437:15) explains that most authorities allow this leniency only when the owner has only a suspicion, but no definite knowledge of chametz. However, if he definitely knows that chametz is found under the goods, the chametz must be removed. Nevertheless, there are some opinions that do not require the removal of chametz whose existence is known.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Three
Halacha 1
When a person checks and searches on the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan], he should remove [all] chametz from holes, hidden places, and corners, and gather the entire amount together, putting it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour and [then,] destroy it. If he desires to destroy it on the night of the fourteenth, he may.
Commentary Halacha
When a person checks and searches on the night of the fourteenth [of Nisan], he should remove [all] chametz from holes, hidden places, and corners -- In the second chapter (Halachot 2:3-2:6), the Rambam discusses the theoretical aspects of the search for chametz. In this chapter, he concentrates on their practical application.
and gather the entire amount together, putting it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour -- when the obligation to destroy chametz begins (Halachah 1:9)
and [then,] destroy it -- as explained in Halachah 11, below.
If he desires to destroy it on the night -- The Ramah (Orach Chayim 445) explains that though chametz can be destroyed through any means, some choose to burn it, utilizing the means required to dispose of notar (leftover sacrificial meat). Just as notar cannot be burned until the morning, similarly, those who follow this custom should not burn their chametz at night.
of the fourteenth, he may -- There is an advantage to waiting to destroy the chametz. As explained in the following halachah, we are allowed to save a certain amount of chametz to eat on the morning before Pesach. By saving the chametz found in the search, we will remember to destroy all the chametz that we possess.
Halacha 2
The chametz which was put aside on the night of the fourteenth, so that it can be eaten on the next day until [the end of] the fourth hour, should not be spread out and scattered in every place. Rather, it should be put away in a utensil or in a known corner, and care should be taken concerning it. Otherwise, should some be found lacking, he would have to search for it and check [the house] a second time, for mice might have dragged it away.
Commentary Halacha
The chametz which was put aside on the night of the fourteenth -- TheMagen Avraham (Orach Chayim 434:1) explains that the same law applies to the chametz found in the search. Nevertheless, only the chametz set aside for eating is mentioned, for it is possible that no chametz will actually be found in the search.
so that it can be eaten on the next day until [the end of] the fourth hour --as stated in Halachah 1:10
should not be spread out and scattered in every place. Rather, it should be put away in a utensil or in a known corner, and care should be taken concerning it -- Accordingly, Shulchan Aruch cautions that the chametz should be covered by a bowl, placed in a cabinet, or hung from the ceiling.
Otherwise, should some be found lacking, he would have to search for it and check [the house] a second time, for mice -- Pesachim 9b also mentions the possibility of children taking this chametz.
might have dragged it away -- Halachah 2:7 explains that a person who finds less chametz than he set aside must search the entire house again. Similarly, if we see a mouse taking the chametz, a second search is required.
Halacha 3
When the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, we search for chametz on the night before Sabbath eve, the night of the thirteenth. We set aside [enough] chametz to eat until [the end of] the fourth hour on the Sabbath day. The remainder should be destroyed before the Sabbath.
If some of the chametz remains on the Sabbath day after the fourth hour, he should nullify it and cover it with a utensil until the conclusion of the first day of the festival, and then destroy it.
Commentary Halacha
When the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath -- the Pesach holiday being celebrated Saturday night. According to the fixed calendar we follow, this is an infrequent, but not totally uncommon, phenomenon.
we search for chametz on the night before Sabbath eve -- Thursday night
the night of the thirteenth -- between the twelfth and the thirteenth. Searching with a candle is forbidden on the Sabbath itself. Hence, the search for leaven is carried out on Thursday night. The chametz that is collected is burned on Friday morning.
We set aside [enough] chametz to eat -- on Friday and on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, we are obligated to eat bread at both the evening and morning Sabbath meals.
until [the end of] the fourth hour on the Sabbath day -- when the Rabbinic prohibition against eating chametz (Halachah 1:9) takes effect. Before that time, the chametz saved for the Sabbath meals should have been completed and disposed of in a way other than burning - e.g., throwing it in the toilet.
The remainder should be destroyed before -- The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 444:2) suggests burning the chametz on Friday morning, to prevent confusion arising in future years. However, if one is prevented from doing so, the chametz may be destroyed later on with no compunctions.
the Sabbath -- The Ra'avad notes that in Pesachim 49a, the majority opinion accepts this decision only as regards Terumah. In contrast, other chametz need not be destroyed until the appropriate time on the Sabbath.
The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 444) explains that the Rambam's decision is based on Pesachim 13b, which differs from the opinion in Pesachim 49a. However, even according to the Rambam, the obligation to destroy the chametz before the Sabbath is not a hard and fast rule. On the contrary, our halachah itself states that one is allowed to keep all the chametz he needs for the Sabbath meals. Rather, this can be seen as good advice, facilitating the destruction of chametz, which is much easier before the Sabbath than on that sacred day.
If some of the chametz remains on the Sabbath day after the fourth hour, he should nullify it -- so he is no longer the owner and thus does not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz.
The halachic authorities note that even when the person does not have any chametz which he knows about, he should nullify his chametz before the beginning of the sixth hour, as is done on Pesach eve every year.
and cover it with a utensil -- so it is not seen. This obligation is derived fromPesachim 6a, which states such a law as regards chametz discovered on the first day of the festival.
until the conclusion of the first day of the festival, and then destroy it --The Rambam forbids destroying the chametz after the fourth hour on the Sabbath itself for the following reason: Since it can no longer be eaten, it is considered muktzeh and cannot be moved any longer.
A basic question is asked concerning the Rambam's statements: Until the beginning of the sixth hour on Pesach eve, a person may benefit from chametz by giving it to a gentile or feeding it to an animal. Therefore, it should not be considered muktzeh until that time.
The Rivosh explains that since eating is the most important use of chametz, it is considered muktzeh once it can no longer be eaten. However, the Bachconsiders "the fourth hour" a printing error and amends the Rambam's text to read "the fifth hour." All Ashkenazic halachic authorities decide accordingly. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham justifies the Rambam's statements, explaining that they apply in a situation where there is no gentile or animal to give the chametz to.
In practice, the following procedure is suggested when Pesach falls on Saturday night. The transfer of chametz and Pesach pots, dishes, and cutlery is carried out on Thursday night or Friday, and no chametz is cooked afterwards. The Sabbath meals should be totally kosher for Pesach and prepared in the Pesach pots. Four small challot are kept in a special place for the evening and morning meals (two for each meal).
They are eaten away from the table, and afterwards, the crumbs are collected and flushed down the toilet. Otherwise, the meals are eaten as all the other meals of the Pesach holiday itself.
As mentioned, it is forbidden to eat chametz on the fourteenth of Nisan after the fourth hour of the day (usually around 9:20 AM). To complete the eating of the above-mentioned challot before this hour, certain synagogues may have to conduct their morning services at an earlier time than usual.
Halacha 4
A person who has many loaves of bread that were Terumah and must burn them on the Sabbath eve; he should not mix the pure loaves together with the impure loaves and burn them. Rather, he should burn the pure loaves alone, the impure ones alone, and the ones [whose status is] left pending alone.
He should leave a sufficient quantity, but no more than necessary, of the pure loaves to eat until [the conclusion of] the fourth hour on the Sabbath day.
Commentary Halacha
A person who has many loaves of bread that were Terumah and must burn them on the Sabbath eve -- i.e., when Passover comes out Saturday night and the chametz must be destroyed on Friday as explained in the previous halachah.
should not mix the pure loaves together with the impure loaves and burn them -- for we are forbidden to cause Terumah to become ritually impure (Rashi, Pesachim 14a). Even though we are destroying the Terumah, we must be careful it does not become impure.
Rather, he should burn the pure loaves alone, the impure ones alone, --Based on Pesachim 15b and 20b, the Kessef Mishneh and Rabbenu Manoach explain that the same principles apply when burning Terumah every Pesach eve until the end of the sixth hour. However, afterwards, when chametz is forbidden according to Torah law, no differentiation is made, and both pure and impure Terumah are burned together.
and the ones [whose status -- as Terumah
is] left pending -- because of a question which arose whether they became impure or not. Generally, they would not be used as food for perhaps they are impure, nor are they burned immediately as impure Terumah, because perhaps they are pure, and the destruction of pure Terumah for no purpose is forbidden. Rather, they are left until they are no longer fit for use, and then burned.
alone -- Pesachim 15a asks rhetorically: How can we burn the Terumah of questionable status with that which is definitely impure? Perhaps Elijah will come and determine that the former was, in fact, pure.
He should leave a sufficient quantity, but no more than necessary --These words of qualification are added as regards Terumah in contrast to other chametz. (See the previous halachah.) Other chametz is fit to be eaten by all people or beasts. In contrast, Terumah can be eaten only by a priest's household. Hence, greater precautions should be taken not to leave over extra amounts (Rabbenu Manoach).
of the pure loaves to eat until [the conclusion of] the fourth hour on the Sabbath day -- when the prohibition against eating begins and they must be destroyed.
Halacha 5
A person who either inadvertently or intentionally did not search on the night of the fourteenth should search on the fourteenth in the morning. If he did not search on the fourteenth in the morning, he should search at the time for destroying [the chametz]. If he did not search at the time for destroying the chametz, he should search in the midst of the festival. If the festival passed without his having searched, he should search after the festival to destroy whatever chametz he might find which [he possessed] during Pesach, since we are prohibited against benefiting [from such chametz].
Commentary Halacha
A person who either inadvertently or intentionally did not search on the night of the fourteenth should search on the fourteenth in the morning --Even though searching with a candle at night is preferable, as explained in Halachot 2:3-4, if that is impossible the search should be carried out as soon as possible the following morning.
If he did not search on the fourteenth in the morning, -- There is an advantage to carrying out the search in the early morning. In this manner, there will be no last minute pressure or tension to complete the search and the destruction of chametz before the prohibition against possessing chametz takes effect.
he should search at the time for destroying [the chametz] -- before the completion of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
If he did not search at the time for destroying the chametz, he should search in the midst of the festival -- Pesachim 10b explains that even though by searching for chametz a person exposes himself to the possibility of eating the chametz that he finds, nevertheless, a person searching to destroy chametz is highly unlikely to lose sight of the prohibition against eating it.
The obligation to search for chametz in the midst of the festival emphasizes that the Rambam conceives that the mitzvah to destroy chametz applies, not only before Pesach begins, but throughout the holiday. Indeed, this concept can be seen in the Rambam's words describing the mitzvah in the preface to this text. There, he explains that the mitzvah is to destroy chametz "from" and not "on" the fourteenth of Nisan.
[It must be noted that the adoption of such a position represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 156) and in the earlier handwritten texts of the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam writes that the mitzvah is to destroy chametz "on the fourteenth."]
The definition of the term "in the midst of the festival" is the subject of debate among the commentaries. Some define it as "in the midst of Chol HaMoed," explaining that since chametz is muktzeh and cannot be moved or destroyed on the first day of the festival, there is no need to search for it at that time (Rabbenu Manoach).
Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 435:1) and the other Ashkenazic halachic authorities require a search on the first day of Pesach itself even though it is Yom Tov. Should chametz be found, it should be covered with a utensil.
If the festival passed without his having searched, he should search after the festival, to destroy whatever chametz he might find which [he possessed] during Pesach -- This applies even if the person nullified his chametz, and thus did not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz on the holiday. Were he not to destroy this chametz, it would be obvious that he had not totally negated his ownership over the chametz, and thus his nullification would be proven as invalid retroactively.
since we are prohibited against benefiting [from such chametz] -- as mentioned in Halachah 1:4.
Halacha 6
When a person checks for chametz on the night of the fourteenth, on the day of the fourteenth, and during the festival, he should recite the [following] blessing before he begins to search:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the destruction of chametz.
He must check and search in all the places where chametz is brought in, as was explained. If he searches after the holiday, he does not recite a blessing.
Commentary Halacha
When a person checks for chametz on the night of the fourteenth, on the day of the fourteenth -- Though, as explained in Halachah 2:3, the search for chametz is only a Rabbinic obligation if one nullifies his chametz, blessings are also recited when fulfilling Rabbinic commandments. (See Hilchot Berachot11:3.)
and during the festival -- This emphasizes that, as explained in the previous halachah, even when searching during the festival, one fulfills a positive commandment.
he should recite the [following] blessing before he begins to search: --Pesachim 7b emphasizes that all blessings should be recited before the performance of the mitzvah.
"Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the destruction of chametz." -- Pesachim (ibid.) debates whether the blessing should state על ביעור חמץ (concerning the destruction of chametz) or לבער חמץ (to destroy chametz), and reaches the conclusion stated by the Rambam.
Hilchot Berachot 11:15 explains that it is not proper to state "to destroy chametz," since from the moment the person decides to nullify the chametz, the mitzvah to obliterate chametz has been completed according to Torah law. Hence, the expression "concerning the destruction" is more appropriate.
The blessing mentions "the destruction of chametz," for that is the ultimate aim of the search.
He must check and search in all the places where chametz is brought in, as was explained -- in Halachah 2:3.
If he searches after the holiday, he does not recite a blessing -- Though the Sages also required the search after Pesach, carrying out such a search is not considered the fulfillment of a Rabbinic commandment. The prohibitions against possessing, and hence the mitzvah to destroy, chametz are completed by the end of Pesach. This search is not considered as an end in its own right, but rather was instituted merely to prevent a person from eating the chametz, which is forbidden according to Rabbinic decree.
A parallel can be drawn to the following instance (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah57): Fowl were attacked by beasts of prey and wounded to the extent that they would not recover. Even though they did not die immediately, the Sages required that they be slain, lest another Jew not be aware of their wounds and slaughter them to eat as kosher birds. Needless to say, no blessing is required when killing them for these reasons (Shulchan Aruch HaRav).
Halacha 7
When he concludes searching, if he searched on the fourteenth at night, or on the fourteenth during the day before the sixth hour, he should nullify all the chametz that remains in his possession that he does not see.
He should say: "All chametz which is in my possession that I have not seen, behold, it is nullified and must be considered as dust."
However, if he searched after the beginning of the sixth hour and onward, he can no longer nullify it, for it is not in his possession, since benefiting from it is forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
When he concludes searching, if he searched on the fourteenth at night, or on the fourteenth during the day before the sixth hour, he should nullify all the chametz -- as stated in Halachah 2:2.
that remains in his possession -- Pesachim 6b states that the Sages feared that even after a thorough search has been conducted, the possibility exists that perhaps, some chametz will have been overlooked.
that he does not see -- for the chametz that is seen must be destroyed, as stated in Halachah 2:3.
He should say -- The text in most Haggadot is in Aramaic, because that was the language of the common people in Talmudic times. A person who does not understand that text must make the declaration in a language that he comprehends.
"All chametz which is in my possession that I have not seen -- Since this statement is being made while it is still possible to benefit from chametz, we do not nullify all the chametz we possess. It is customary to make a second statement nullifying the chametz after burning the chametz in the morning, and in that statement we nullify all chametz "that I have seen or not seen, that I have destroyed or I have not destroyed."
behold, it is nullified and must be considered as dust." -- The text in most Haggadot states "dust of the earth." Job 28:6 uses the expression עפרות זהב "gold dust," a substance with obvious worth. By stating "the dust of the earth" we imply that we attach no value to the chametz at all.
However, if he searched after the beginning of the sixth hour and onward -- Though the prohibition against possessing chametz during the sixth hour is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages enforced their decree and gave it the same strength as Torah law.
Halacha 8
Thus, a person who does not nullify [his chametz] before the sixth hour and discovers chametz which he:
considered important and [valued] in his heart,then forgot at the time of the destruction of chametz,and hence did not destroy,
transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
Behold, he has neither destroyed nor nullified [his chametz], and nullification at this time would not be effective, for [the chametz] is no longer in his possession. Even so, the Torah considers it as if it were in his possession, to obligate him for [transgression of the commandments:] "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
[Therefore,] he is obligated to destroy it whenever he finds it. If he finds it on the day of a festival, he should cover it with a utensil until the evening, and then destroy it. [If the chametz] was consecrated property, there is no need to cover it with a utensil, for regardless, everyone shies away from its use.
Commentary Halacha
Thus, a person who does not nullify [his chametz] before the sixth hour -- The Ra'avad questions the phraseology used by the Rambam, noting that the prohibitions against owning chametz do not begin until the evening. On the day of the fourteenth of Nisan, there is only a positive commandment to destroy chametz.
Most commentaries explain that the Rambam himself intended this interpretation. However, some note that Rashi (Pesachim 4b) does maintain that the prohibitions against owning chametz begin on the fourteenth, and they maintain that the Rambam shares this view (See Responsa, Nodah BiYhudah, Orach Chayim 20).
and discovers chametz -- Tosefot (Pesachim 21a) states that a person does not violate the prohibition against possessing chametz unless he becomes conscious of the chametz in his possession. As long as he is unaware of its existence, he does not violate the prohibition.
which he considered important and [valued] in his heart -- Tosefot(Pesachim 6b) states that the prohibitions only apply when the chametz has an intrinsic value, in contrast to crumbs.
then forgot at the time of the destruction of chametz, and hence did not destroy, transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
Behold, he has neither destroyed nor nullified [his chametz], and nullification at this time would not be effective, for [the chametz] is no longer in his possession -- as stated in the previous Halachah.
Even so, the Torah considers it as if it were in his possession, to obligate him for transgression of the commandments: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found." -- Pesachim (6b) compares the possession of chametz at this time to digging a pit in the public thoroughfare. The pit does not belong to the person who dug it; nevertheless, he must pay for any damages it causes.
Similarly, with regard to chametz, since one is forbidden to benefit from it, it is no longer considered in one's possession and cannot be sold, bartered, or given away. Nevertheless, the person retaining it is still liable for transgression of the prohibitions involved.
[Therefore,] he is obligated to destroy it whenever he finds it. If he finds it on the day of a festival -- when the chametz is considered muktzeh, and hence cannot be moved.
he should cover it with a utensil until the evening, and then destroy it. --This statement raises questions among many of the commentators. In Halachah 3, the Rambam also mentions covering chametz with a utensil. However, in that instance, the person had already nullified his possession of the chametz, and thus his possession of chametz violated only a Rabbinic prohibition.
In contrast, this instance describes chametz that has not been nullified, and thus the violation of a Torah prohibition is involved. Nevertheless, the Rambam considers the Rabbinic prohibition against mukzteh as important enough to override the fulfillment of a Torah commandment. Furthermore, the Kessef Mishneh explains that since the person himself desires to destroy the chametz, and the only reason he fails to do so is the Rabbinic commandment, he is not considered to have violated the Torah's prohibitions against possessing chametz.
This view is not accepted by all authorities. Many explain that since three Torah mitzvot (the two prohibitions against possessing chametz and the positive commandment to destroy chametz) are involved, their observance overrides the prohibitions of muktzeh. Others maintain that even if the prohibition againstmuktzeh must be observed, the chametz can be destroyed by burning it in the place where it is located.
Nevertheless, in practice, the Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 446:2), theShulchan Aruch HaRav, and the Mishnah Berurah do not accept the latter view, and advise waiting to destroy the chametz until after the holiday. They explain that a person is allowed to light a fire on a festival only if doing so increases his festive joy. Hence, they prohibit burning the chametz in that manner. However, they mention that, if it is possible, a gentile may be asked to destroy the chametz. Furthermore, in the diaspora, a Jew is also allowed to destroy chametz he finds on the second day of a festival.
[If the chametz] was consecrated property -- consecrated for use in the Temple;
there is no need to cover it with a utensil, for regardless, everyone shies away from its use. -- Property consecrated for use in the Temple may never be used for mundane purposes. (See Halachah 4:2.)
Halacha 9
A person who left his house before the time for destroying chametz in order to fulfill a mitzvah or in order to partake of a feast associated with a mitzvah - e.g., a feast associated with betrothal or marriage - and recalls that he possesses chametz at home. If it is possible for him to go back, destroy it, and then return to the fulfillment of the mitzvah, he should return. If not, he should nullify [ownership over the chametz] in his heart.
Should he go out to save from a troop of attackers, from a [flooding] river, from a fire, from [being buried] under fallen objects, all that is necessary is for him to nullify it in his heart. Should he go out for his own purposes and remember that he possesses chametz at home, he must return immediately.
How much [chametz] must be present [to require] him to return? the size of an egg. If there is less than the size of an egg, it is sufficient for him to nullify it in his heart.
Commentary Halacha
A person who left his house before the time for destroying chametz in order to fulfill a mitzvah -- The Mishnah (Pesachim 49a) mentions a person who goes out to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice or circumcise his son. The Rambam postulates that the same applies to anyone who leaves his home to perform any mitzvah.
or in order to partake of a feast associated with a mitzvah -- Partaking of such a feast is also considered as equivalent to the fulfillment of a mitzvah. As an example of such a feast, the above Mishnah mentions a feast associated with a betrothal.
e.g., a feast associated with betrothal or marriage -- In Judaism, marriage is a two stage process. Betrothal (אירוסין) involves the consecration of a woman as a wife. However, the new couple do not live together as man and wife until marriage (נישואין) (See Hilchot Ishut 10:1-2.)
who recalls that he possesses chametz at home. If it is possible for him to go back, destroy it, and then return to the fulfillment of the mitzvah, he should return -- home, and thus, fulfill the mitzvah of destroying chametz as required by the Sages.
If not -- If returning home to destroy the chametz will cause him to neglect the fulfillment of the mitzvah with which he is involved,
he should nullify [ownership over the chametz] in his heart -- for by doing so, he fulfills the mitzvah of destroying chametz according to Torah law.
The above applies when the person can still nullify his ownership over the chametz. However, if the person recalls the possession of chametz after the beginning of the sixth hour, he must return to destroy his chametz even if he is involved in the performance of a mitzvah. The only exception is the burial of a corpse who has no one else to tend to him (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim444:11).
Should he go out to save -- people's lives
from a troop of attackers, from a [flooding] river, from a fire, from [being buried] under fallen objects, all that is necessary is for him to nullify it in his heart. -- The Maggid Mishneh explains that since human lives are at stake, one should not think of returning, but should nullify the chametz, since according to Torah law, that is all that is required. The Kessef Mishneh goes further and explains that saving the people's lives supersedes all matters. Hence, even if a person has time to return home to destroy the chametz, he should first deal with saving the lives, for that is the primary concern.
Though the primacy of saving lives is accepted by all authorities, the Magen Avraham qualifies the matter. If the person knows for sure that he will be able to return home, destroy his chametz, and still have time to save the people's lives, he must destroy his chametz first.
Should he go out for his own purposes -- to deal with his own business affairs
and remember that he possesses chametz at home, he must return immediately -- to destroy it. Even if he has already nullified it, the Sages required him to fulfill the mitzvah as they ordained.
How much [chametz] must be present [to require] him to return? the size of an egg -- The prohibition against eating chametz applies regarding a size of an olive (one third the size of an egg, according to the Rambam). However, the Sages showed leniency, since the nullification of chametz is sufficient according to Torah law. They did not require a person to return to destroy chametz unless a quantity the size of an egg, the measure associated with ritual purity and impurity, was found.
If there is less than the size of an egg, it is sufficient for him to nullify it in his heart -- as required by Torah law. The above applies when the person can still nullify his ownership over the chametz. However, beyond the beginning of the sixth hour, if the person has not nullified his chametz he must return to destroy even an amount the size of an olive. However, should he possess less than an olive's size of chametz, there is no need especially to destroy the chametz.
Halacha 10
A person who put aside a rolled dough at home, [forgot about it,] went out and remembered after he had left [home]: Should he be sitting before his teacher and fear that the dough will become leavened before he can come [home], behold, he may nullify [ownership over the dough] in his heart before it becomes leaven.
However, if [the dough] has already become leavened, his nullification is not at all effective, for he has already violated [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found." He must destroy it immediately when he returns home.
Commentary Halacha
A person who put aside a rolled dough -- a dough that was kneaded, but which had not yet risen.
at home -- This halachah, a quote from Pesachim 7a, describes a situation which occurs after the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan or later, when chametz has become forbidden.
[forgot about it,] went out and remembered after he had left [home]: Should he be sitting before his teacher -- and thus leaving would be a sign of disrespect to his teacher.
This example is given by the Talmud. Nevertheless, when quoting this halachah, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 444:8) states: "Were he busy with other matters," implying that the law applies even when one's intent is not necessarily associated with a mitzvah.
and fear that the dough will become leavened before he can come [home,] -- and bake it as matzah
behold, he may nullify [ownership over the dough] in his heart before it becomes leaven -- Since the dough has not become leaven, its possession is still permitted. Hence, a person is still entitled to nullify his ownership of it.
Once he has nullified his ownership of the dough, its presence in his house does not constitute a violation of the prohibitions against the possession of chametz, because it no longer belongs to him.
At present, people very infrequently bake matzah on Pesach itself in Ashkenazic communities. However, it is customary to do so in certain Sephardic communities. When preparing the dough, the women always nullify their ownership of any small pieces of dough that become stuck to the kneading pin or bowl before they become leavened, so that they will not possess even the slightest amount of chametz. (See Hagahot Maimoni.)
However, if [the dough] has already become leavened, his nullification is not at all effective -- just as one cannot nullify one's ownership of other chametz after the end of the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan (Halachah 8).
for he has already violated [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found." He must destroy it immediately -- or cover it with a utensil if this occurs on the day of the festival itself.
when he returns home -- Furthermore, he must return home to do so as fast as possible.
Halacha 11
How must chametz be destroyed? It may be burned; crumbled and tossed to the wind; or thrown into the sea. If the chametz is hard and the sea will not cause it to dissolve speedily, one should crumble it and then throw it into the sea.
If other substances fell upon chametz and it was covered by three handbreadths or more of earth, it is considered as having been destroyed. [Nevertheless,] one must nullify [ownership over] it in one's heart if the sixth hour has not arrived.
A person who gave it to a gentile before the sixth hour need not destroy it.
If one burns it before the sixth hour, he is permitted to benefit from the charcoal that remains during Pesach. However, if he burns it from [the beginning of] the sixth hour and onward, since benefit may not be derived from it, it should not be used as fuel for an oven or range. One may not bake or cook with it.
If one did bake or cook [using the chametz as fuel], it is forbidden to derive benefit from that loaf or that dish. Similarly, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the charcoal that remains from it, because it was burned after benefit from it became forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
How must chametz be destroyed? -- Halachah 2:2 explains that the mitzvah "to destroy chametz" is fulfilled by nullifying one's ownership of it. This halachah refers to the Rabbinic prohibition to destroy all known chametz; alternatively, to the destruction of chametz discovered after the beginning of the sixth hour.
It may be burned; crumbled and tossed to the wind; or thrown into the sea -- Other authorities (Tosefot, Pesachim 27b) explain that this applies only when destroying chametz before it becomes forbidden. Once it is forbidden, it can be destroyed only by burning.
If the chametz is hard and the sea will not cause it to dissolve speedily, one should crumble it and then throw it into the sea. -- In his commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:1), the Rambam writes that dried bread should be crumbled "a lot" before being thrown to the sea. Pesachim 28a records a debate among the Sages whether it is necessary to crumble all chametz before throwing it to the sea. There is extensive debate among the commentators regarding the Rambam's interpretation of this passage. Most halachic authorities (Taz, Orach Chayim 445:1) require chametz to be crumbled even before it is tossed into the sea.
If other substances fell upon chametz and it was covered by three handbreadths or more of earth -- The Mishnah (Pesachim 31b) states this law applies when "a dog will no longer search for it." The Gemara explains that a dog will not search more than three handbreadths deep.
it is considered as having been destroyed. [Nevertheless,] one must nullify [ownership over] it in one's heart if the sixth hour has not arrived -- Thus, even if the chametz is uncovered during Pesach, it will no longer be within one's possession (Rashi, Pesachim ibid.).
A person who gave -- or sold
it to a gentile before the sixth hour need not destroy it -- Pesachim 5b notes that Exodus 13:7, the verse prohibiting the possession of chametz, states: "No chametz will be seen for you." The addition of the latter phrase implies that there is no prohibition against chametz that belongs to a gentile being found in one's domain during Pesach. The following chapter discusses this subject in depth.
If one burns it before the sixth hour, he is permitted to benefit from the charcoal that remains during Pesach -- Tosefot, Pesachim 21a explains that once chametz has been burned to the extent that it is not fit for a dog to eat, there is no prohibition involved in its use.
However, if he burns it from [the beginning of] the sixth hour and onward, since benefit may not be derived from it, it should not be used as fuel -- while it is being burned.
for an oven or range -- Shabbat 38b defines a range as an earthenware vessel in which coals can be placed, with two holes upon which to place two pots, and an oven as a larger structure.
One may not bake or cook with it -- even after it becomes charcoal.
If one did bake or cook [using the chametz as fuel], it is forbidden to derive benefit from that loaf or that dish. -- Nevertheless, this prohibition applies only if there is enough charcoal from the chametz to sustain a fire sufficient to cook or bake by itself (Shulchan Aruch HaRav).
Similarly, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the charcoal that remains from it, because it was burned after benefit from it became forbidden. --Temurah 34a states that we may benefit from the ashes of any substance that must be destroyed by burning. In contrast, if a substance may be destroyed by other means, we are prohibited from benefiting from its ashes.
Chometz U'Matzah - Chapter Four
Halacha 1
The Torah (Exodus 13:7) states: "No chametz shall be seen for you." Perhaps, if it were buried or entrusted to a gentile, he would not transgress the commandment? The Torah (Exodus 12:19) states: "leaven should not be found in your homes," [implying] even if it is buried or entrusted.
Perhaps he would only transgress [the commandment] when chametz is [found] in his house, but if it were outside his house, in a field or in another city, he would not violate [the commandment]? The Torah states (Exodus 13:7): "[No leaven shall be seen for you] in all your territory" - i.e., in all your possessions.
Perhaps a person will be obligated to remove from his property chametz that belongs to a gentile or that was consecrated? The Torah states (ibid.): "No [leaven] shall be seen for you." [We may infer]: You may not see your own [leaven]. However, you may see [leaven] belonging to others or which was consecrated.
Commentary Halacha
The Torah (Exodus 13:7) states: "No chametz shall be seen for you." Perhaps if it were buried -- because the chametz is not "seen."
or entrusted to a gentile -- because ostensibly, the leaven is not "for you."
he will not transgress the commandment? The Torah (Exodus 12:19) states: "leaven should not be found in your homes," [implying] even if it is buried or entrusted -- it is still "found in your homes." The place in which a watchman keeps an entrusted article is also considered "your homes."
The prohibition against entrusting chametz to a gentile is not explicitly stated in the Talmud. It can be derived from the leniency allowing one to maintain possession of chametz belonging to a gentile mentioned at the conclusion of the Halachah. Some authorities explain that the Rambam derived the concept from the Mechiltah of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.
In his commentary on the Torah (Exodus 12:19), the Ramban differs with the concept in its entirety and states that a person does not transgress the prohibition against possessing chametz when it is entrusted to a gentile. TheShulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:4) accepts the Rambam's opinion. No later halachic authorities question the matter.
Perhaps -- if the latter verse were taken as the source of the prohibition
he would only transgress [the commandment] when chametz is [found] in his house -- as that verse states
but if it were outside his house, in a field or in another city, he would not violate [the commandment]? -- Therefore,
The Torah -- includes the verse originally mentioned which
states (Exodus 13:7): "[No leaven shall be seen for you] in all your territory" - i.e., in all your possessions -- in the totality of a person's domain.
Perhaps a person will be obligated to remove from his property chametz that belongs to a gentile or that was consecrated? -- for that is also "seen." Therefore,
The Torah states (ibid.): "No [leaven] shall be seen for you." -- From the addition of the latter phrase
[we may infer]: You may not see your own [leaven]. However, you may see [leaven] belonging to others -- for that is not "for you." The rules governing this concept are the major subject of this chapter.
or which was consecrated -- for use in the Temple, or to be sold for the purposes of the Temple. Once an article has been consecrated, it no longer belongs to its original owner and becomes the property and responsibility of the Temple treasury. Property consecrated to be given to charity is not governed by these rules.
Halacha 2
[From the above,] you can learn that chametz belonging to a Jew which was left in his possession, even though it is buried, is located in another city, or is entrusted to a gentile, causes him to violate [the commandments]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
Chametz that either was consecrated or belongs to a gentile, and is located within a Jew's property, even if it was with him at home--behold, this is permitted, for [the chametz] is not his. Even if it belonged to a resident alien under the authority of the Jewish people, we need not force him to remove the chametz from his property on Pesach.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to construct a partition at least ten handbreadths high in front of chametz belonging to a gentile, lest one come to use it. [With regard to chametz] that has been consecrated, this is unnecessary; everyone shies away from consecrated property, lest they infringe on [the prohibition of] מעילה.
Commentary Halacha
[From the above,] you can learn that chametz belonging to a Jew which was left in his possession, even though it is buried, is located in another city, or is entrusted to a gentile, causes him to violate [the commandments]: "[chametz] shall not be seen" and "[chametz] shall not be found" -- for in each of these instances, chametz was present within a Jew's possession on Pesach.
Chametz that either was consecrated or belongs to a gentile and was in a Jew's possession, even if it was with him at home -- As evident from the following halachah, this law applies only when the Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz.
behold, this is permitted, for [the chametz] is not his -- the Jew's,
Even if it belonged to a resident alien -- Hilchot Melachim 8:10 and Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:6 define this term as referring to a gentile who keeps the seven universal laws given to Noah's descendants. A gentile who accepts these rules of behavior may be granted the privilege of living in Eretz Yisrael.
under the authority of the Jewish people -- Pesachim 5b emphasizes that even a gentile who lives in a Jew's home may keep chametz during Pesach.
we need not force him -- the Jew
to remove the chametz from his property on Pesach -- Some manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state: "We need not force him (i.e., the gentile) to remove his chametz from our property."
Nevertheless, it is necessary to construct a partition at least ten handbreadths high in front of chametz belonging to a gentile -- A similar partition is not required when a gentile entrusts other forbidden objects to a Jew. As mentioned above, greater stringencies are taken regarding chametz than other forbidden substances, since the use of chametz is permitted during the entire year.
lest one come to use it. -- The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Halachah 3:8, the Rambam considers covering the chametz with a utensil as a sufficient measure to prevent the use of the chametz. Two explanations are offered why, in the present instance, a more stringent measure is required:
a) the amount of chametz the gentile entrusted for safekeeping is probably too large to be covered by utensils;
b) covering the chametz with a utensil is only a temporary measure, intended to be effective only until the end of the day of the festival. Once that day is concluded, the chametz must be destroyed. In contrast, in this instance the chametz will remain in the Jew's possession throughout the entire holiday. Hence, more severe measures must be taken.
The Ramban and the Ba'al HaItur do not accept this requirement and maintain that if a Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz, he is not obligated to construct a partition. All that is necessary is that the chametz be placed out of the way. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:2) and the later halachic authorities all follow the Rambam's opinion.
[With regard to chametz] that has been consecrated, this is unnecessary; everyone shies away from consecrated property, lest they infringe on [the prohibition of]
מעילה. -- Leviticus 5:15-16 describes the prohibition of מעילה, the misappropriation of consecrated property for personal use.
Halacha 3
A gentile who entrusted his chametz to a Jew: Should the Jew accept the responsibility of paying for the worth of the chametz if it is lost or stolen--behold, he is obligated to destroy it. Since he accepted responsibility for it, it is considered as though it were his.
If he did not accept responsibility for it, he may keep it in his domain and may eat from it after Pesach, for it was in the gentile's possession.
Commentary Halacha
A gentile who entrusted his chametz to a Jew: Should the Jew accept the responsibility of -- caring for the chametz as a watchman would, and
paying for the worth of the chametz if it is lost or stolen -- due to factors other than his personal negligence. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher obligate a Jew to destroy any chametz belonging to a gentile for which he has accepted responsibility, even if his responsibility is less than that specified above. TheShulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 440:13,16) and the Mishnah Berurahadvise following the latter opinion.
behold, he is obligated to destroy it -- before the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
Since he accepted responsibility for it -- and would have to pay for it if it is lost.
Pesachim 5b offer two possible explanations why the chametz is considered as if it belongs to the Jew. One opinion maintains that throughout the Torah, an article that causes financial liability is considered as one's responsibility.
Another opinion maintains that in this instance, since the Torah adds a special commandment "leaven should not be found," extra stringency must be taken. From this discussion, we see that the responsibility to destroy this chametz stems from the Torah itself, and is not merely a matter of Rabbinic decree.
it is considered as though it were his -- and, hence, must be destroyed.Tosefot, Pesachim 6a maintains that if a Jew designates a specific place within his home for the gentile and tells him to place his chametz there, he is not obligated to destroy it even though he accepted responsibility for it. Rashi does not accept this position. From the Rambam's omission of the matter, we may assume he also follows Rashi's view (Lechem Mishnah).
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:1) quotes the Rambam and hence, requires the acceptance of the more stringent position. However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (440:16) and the Mishnah Berurah (440:3) mention certain leniencies based on Tosefot's position.
If he did not accept responsibility for it -- the gentile's chametz
he may keep it in his domain -- without transgressing the prohibitions against possessing chametz
and may eat from it after Pesach -- in contrast to chametz possessed by a Jew during Pesach which is forbidden to be used (Halachah 1:4)
for it was in the gentile's possession -- Pesachim 6a mentions a situation where a gentile brings chametz that he wishes to entrust to a Jew, and the latter designates a particular portion of the house for him to put the chametz. Under such circumstances, there is no need to destroy the chametz.
There are some authorities who explain that the Talmud is speaking about a situation in which the Jew accepted responsibility for the chametz. Nevertheless, since he told the gentile to put it in one specific place, it is considered as if that place belongs to the gentile, and thus the chametz is not found in the Jew's possession.
The Rambam does not accept this interpretation and requires the gentile's chametz to be destroyed whenever a Jew accepts responsibility for it. Though the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah mention the more lenient opinion, they require that the more stringent approach be followed.
Halacha 4
Should a gentile who forces his way upon people entrust his chametz to a Jew: If the Jew knows that if it is lost or stolen, [the gentile] will obligate him to pay for it--forcing and compelling him to pay even though he did not accept responsibility--he is obligated qo destroy it. It is considered as though it were his, for the gentile holds him responsible for it.
Commentary Halacha
Should a gentile who forces his way upon people -- a literal translation of the word אנס. Some editions of the Mishneh Torah use the expression אלם instead. However, the intention remains the same, regardless of which term is used.
entrust his chametz to a Jew: If the Jew knows that if it is lost or stolen, [the gentile] will obligate him to pay for it -- This law is derived from the following passage (Pesachim 5b): Ravvah told the inhabitants of Mechuzah: "Destroy the chametz belonging to the king's soldiers." Since the army would hold the Jews responsible if it were stolen, it was considered their property.
forcing and compelling him to pay even though he did not accept responsibility -- In the previous halachah, the Rambam requires a Jew to destroy chametz only if he willingly accepts responsibility for it. Nevertheless, in this instance,
he is obligated to destroy it. It is considered as though it were his, for the gentile holds him responsible for it -- whether the Jew willingly accepts that responsibility or not. Certain opinions maintain that this law applies only when the secular law of the land would uphold the gentile's view, as in the instance cited from Pesachim, and not when a private individual takes the law into his own hands (Maggid Mishneh). Nevertheless, this differentiation is not accepted by most halachic authorities.
Halacha 5
A Jew who gives his chametz to a gentile as security for a loan and tells him: "If I do not bring the money between today and such and such a date, you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," the chametz is considered as in the gentile's possession and is permitted to be used after Pesach. This applies if the date specified was before Pesach.
However, if he did not tell him: "you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," that chametz is considered as an article entrusted to the gentile, and it is forbidden to benefit from it after Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
A Jew who gives his chametz to a gentile -- before Pesach, transferring it into the latter's domain
as security -- The Aruch relates that the word רהן means security in Arabic.
for a loan and tells him: "If I do not bring the money between today and such and such a date, you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment" -- This specific statement is required, because although a Jewish lender is considered to have acquired a certain degree of ownership over an article given him as security, this principle does not apply with regard to a gentile (Pesachim 31b, Maggid Mishneh).
the chametz is considered as -- payment for the loan. Hence, it is
in the gentile's possession -- In a responsa (no. 252), the Rambam writes that it is as if the Jew sold the chametz to the gentile outright.
and is permitted to be used after Pesach -- as is all chametz that belonged to gentiles during the holiday.
This applies if the date specified was before Pesach -- more specifically, before the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
The Ra'avad disagrees with this law and maintains that if this stipulation was included, the chametz is considered as belonging to the gentile even if the date mentioned is after Pesach. The Rambam maintains that since the Jew has the right to redeem his chametz during Pesach, it is still considered his (Rabbenu Ephraim). In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 441:1) accepts the Ra'avad's view.
Nevertheless, this leniency applies only when the Jew willingly foregoes any right to the chametz and considers to have repaid his loan with it. Should the Jew decide to redeem his chametz after Pesach, he is retroactively considered the owner and is liable for possessing chametz throughout the holiday.
However, if he did not tell him: "you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," -- even if the day of payment is fixed before Pesach
that chametz is -- not considered as repayment for the loan. Rather, it is
considered as an article entrusted to the gentile -- to ensure payment. Hence, it is still considered as the Jew's property
and it is forbidden to benefit from it after Pesach -- as stated in Halachah 1:4.
The Ra'avad disagrees with this point as well, maintaining that if the date mentioned is before Pesach, the chametz becomes the gentile's property, and the Jew does not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz.
The difference between the Rambam and the Ra'avad revolves around the principle of Asmachtah, an agreement which was never intended to be fulfilled. The Ra'avad maintains that, generally, the fact that a borrower does not specify that the security would retroactively become the lender's property implies that he never really intended to sell it to him and always considers it as his own. Thus, were such a transaction to be carried out between Jews, the Ra'avad maintains that the security would never become the lender's property. However, he explains that this law applies only regarding business dealings carried out between Jews, and not to those involving gentiles. Therefore, in this instance, the chametz given as security becomes the gentile's property.
In contrast, the Rambam does not consider such an agreement an Asmachtah. However, he does not accept a gentile's right to an article given as security. Hence, though the date for repayment passes before Pesach, he still considers the article as belonging to its original Jewish owner.
In this matter, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows the more stringent view if the chametz is worth more than the loan, and forbids its use after Pesach. However, if it is not worth more than the loan, that text and, similarly, theMishnah Berurah, require the Jewish borrower to redeem his chametz before Pesach. However, if he fails to so, they allow people to rely on the Ra'avad's opinion and benefit from the chametz.
Different laws apply to chametz given to a Jew as security by a gentile or by another Jew. In the former instance, a Jew is considered the owner of the chametz if the agreement included the clause specifying retroactive ownership, even though the time for payment is not fixed until after Pesach. If the agreement lacked that clause, and the Jew is not held responsible for the chametz (see Halachah 3 above), the Jew is not liable for that chametz (Shulchan Aruch). Nevertheless, other authorities do not accept this decision.
Halacha 6
A Jew and a gentile are traveling together in a ship, and the Jew possesses chametz. When the fifth hour [on the fourteenth of Nisan] arrives--behold, he should sell it to the gentile or give it to him as a present. He may return and buy it back from him after Pesach, as long as he gives it to him as an outright present.
Commentary Halacha
A Jew and a gentile are traveling together in a ship -- This halachah is a quote from the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6. Nevertheless, it is worthy of question why the Rambam quotes that source verbatim. Often, when mentioning such a law, the Rambam will eliminate particulars that are extraneous to the principle he wishes to communicate.
and the Jew possesses chametz -- in the ship or in other places.
When the fifth hour [on the fourteenth of Nisan] arrives - behold, he should sell it to the gentile -- Today, in many Jewish communities, the sale of chametz to gentiles is an almost indispensable element in the observance of Pesach. Nevertheless, the details of the sale and the legal provisions which,
a) on one hand, ensure that the gentile is the sole legal owner of the chametz on Pesach, andb) assure the Jewish owner of receiving the goods in return, or their monetary equivalent
are a technical matter which has been discussed by the Rabbis in their responsa over the generations. For this reason, it is not advisable for a person to sell his chametz himself. Rather, he should entrust the local Rabbi with the responsibility of carrying out the sale.
or give it to him as a present -- Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:4 states that we should not give presents to gentiles. However, in this instance, giving such a gift will prevent a Jew from violating a Torah prohibition. Hence, there is no objection.
The halachic authorities emphasize that the sale or gift of chametz to the gentile must be formalized by a kinyan (legal transaction) recognized by both Torah and secular law. Thus, the gentile becomes its legal owner.
He may return and buy it back from him after Pesach -- The Shulchan Aruch(Orach Chayim 448:3) states: "Even though the Jew who sells it to the gentile knows that he will not touch it at all, but will watch it for him until after Pesach and then return it to him, it is permitted."
as long as he gives it to him as an outright present -- This expression excludes conditional gifts or sales, as explained in the following halachah.
Halacha 7
The Jew may tell the gentile: "Rather than buy a manah's worth [of chametz], come and buy two hundred [dinars'] worth [of chametz]... Rather than buy from a gentile, come and buy from a Jew. Perhaps I will need [chametz] and will buy from you after Pesach."
However, he cannot sell or give [chametz] to him on condition. If he does so--behold, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."
Commentary Halacha
The Jew may tell the gentile -- This is a continuation of the above Tosefta, ibid. 2:7.
"Rather than buy a Manah's worth [of chametz], come and buy two hundred [dinars'] worth [of chametz] -- i.e., don't buy a small amount from me; buy a larger quantity. Alternatively, some interpret this quote within the context of the circumstances mentioned in the Tosefta, and explain that the gentile was buying provisions for the journey for himself. The Jew tells him: "Don't buy enough only for yourself; buy for me as well."
Rather than buy from a gentile, come and buy from a Jew -- i.e., from me
Perhaps I will need [chametz] and will buy from you after Pesach." -- The halachic authorities even allow the Jew to promise the gentile a profit. These statement are permitted as long as the Jew does not make a binding commitment. The intimation that he will repurchase the chametz after Pesach is not considered significant.
However, he cannot sell or give [chametz] to him on condition. -- This includes all conditional agreements, not only those requiring the gentile to return the chametz after Pesach.
If he does so - behold, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found." -- For until that condition is fulfilled, the Jew remains the owner of the chametz.
The above restrictions apply even if the condition is phrased in a manner in which, once the gentile fulfills the condition, he retroactively becomes the owner of the chametz from the time the agreement was originally made. We fear that, perhaps, the gentile will not fulfill his commitment, and thus the Jew will remain the owner of the chametz. Hence, even though the chametz was in the physical possession of the gentile during Pesach, the Jew might be its legal owner. See also Radbaz, Vol. 5, Responsum 1416.
Halacha 8
[A person] who possesses a mixture of chametz transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found" because of it; for example: pickle-brine, Babylonian kotach, and Median beer, which are made from flour.
[The same applies] to other similar substances which are eaten. However, a substance which contains a mixture of chametz, but is not fit to be eaten, may be kept on Pesach.
Commentary Halacha
[A person] who possesses a mixture of chametz transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found" because of it -- As explained in Halachah 1:6, according to the Rambam a person who eats a mixture of chametz does not transgress the same Torah prohibition as one who eats chametz itself. Hence, he is not liable for the punishment of כרת. The Maggid Mishneh explains that the possession of these mixtures only violates the prohibitions against possessing chametz when they contain a substantial amount of chametz (at least the size of an olive in a quantity to be eaten בכדי אכילת פרס).
Rav Moshe HaCohen maintains that even the possession of a smaller amount violates these prohibitions. Rav Yosef Caro supports this view in the Kessef Mishneh. Although he does not explicitly state so in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 442:1) when discussing this law, the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Mishnah Berurah) accept this opinion as binding.
for example: pickle-brine -- a mixture containing brine, fish-hash, flour, and sometimes wine.
Babylonian kotach, and Median beer -- See Halachah 1:6 for a description of these substances.
which are made from flour.
[The same applies] to other similar substances which are eaten -- or drunk.
However, a substance which contains a mixture of chametz, but is not fit to be eaten -- by human beings.
may be kept on Pesach -- This is called חמץ נוקשה, "hardened chametz," and is permitted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 447:12). See the following halachot. However, if the substance is originally intended for human consumption and then becomes spoiled, one is considered to have violated the prohibitions against possessing chametz until it becomes spoiled to the extent that it will not be eaten by a dog. (See Halachah 11.)
Halacha 9
How is [the latter principle] applied? A tanner's trough into which one placed flour and animal hides: Even if this was done one hour before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it. If one placed flour [in the trough] without animal hides three days before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it, for the [chametz] has surely become spoiled and rotten. Within three days, one is obligated to destroy it.
Commentary Halacha
How is [the latter principle] -- allowing one to keep chametz unfit for consumption
applied? A tanner's trough into which one placed flour and animal hides -- The flour is useful in drying out the hides and absorbing their natural moisture. See also Shabbat 79a ("There are three hides").
Even if this was done one hour before [the time chametz must be] destroyed -- the end of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan
one may keep it -- for as soon as the flour comes in contact with the hides, it is no longer fit for consumption.
If one placed flour [in the trough] without animal hides three days before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it, for the [chametz] has [surely] become spoiled and rotten -- from the residual moisture and odor left in the trough. If the chametz was placed in the trough
within three days -- of the end of the fifth hour on the fourteenth
one is obligated to destroy it -- for it may not have spoiled.
Halacha 10
Similarly, an eye salve, a compress, a plaster, or Tiriac into which chametz was placed may be kept on Pesach, for the nature of the chametz is spoiled.
Commentary Halacha
and the like, though one may keep it [during Pesach] -- as stated in Halachah 10.
eating it is prohibited -- Though the mixture is generally not used for human consumption, the fact that an individual eats from it shows that he considers it as food. Hence, it is prohibited.
until after Pesach -- Nevertheless, a person may benefit from it on Pesach (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 442:24, Mishnah Berurah).
Even though it contains only the smallest amount of chametz -- less than the size of an olive בכדי אכילת פרס, as in Halachah 1:6.
eating it is forbidden -- Nevertheless, in the case of danger to life or limb, one may use a remedy which is chametz in the midst of Pesach (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 466:5, Mishnah Berurah).
Halacha 11
Bread itself which has become moldy and is no longer fit for consumption by a dog, or a compress that has become spoiled, need not be destroyed.
Clothes which were washed with starch and, similarly, papers which were stuck together with chametz, and other like cases, may be kept on Pesach. Their [possession] does not constitute a [violation of the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found," for they no longer have the form of chametz.
Commentary Halacha
Bread itself which has become moldy and is no longer fit for consumption by a dog -- in contrast to chametz which is not human food, as mentioned in the previous halachot, and is permitted once it is no longer fit for human consumption.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:1) differentiates between the two cases as follows. Chametz itself is a forbidden substance. Hence, it must be spoiled to the point that a dog cannot benefit from it. In contrast, the other substances are merely mixtures of chametz. They are only forbidden because they contain the taste of chametz. Hence, once that taste is no longer suitable for human consumption, there is no reason why they should remain forbidden.
He continues relating that, as stated in Halachot 11 and 12, chametz that is obviously designated for purposes other than food can be used even though it has not become spoiled. Thus, one could explain that once the chametz in the above mixtures becomes unfit for human consumption, it is clearly not food. In contrast, bread which is originally made for that intent must spoil more.
or a compress -- This compress differs from the one mentioned in the previous halachah. It is made from wheat and figs that have been chewed, and is then applied to an infected area. (See Bava Kama 102a.) It is not mixed with bitter medications, and hence is generally fit to be eaten before it becomes spoiled.
that has become spoiled -- beyond being fit for consumption by a dog. Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes that it must become spoiled before the prohibition against chametz takes effect. Otherwise, it must be destroyed.
need not be destroyed -- for in its present form it is no longer considered useful.
Clothes which were washed with starch -- made from wheat
and, similarly, papers which were stuck together with chametz, and other like cases, may be kept on Pesach -- This law is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 442:3) states that if the chametz is visible as a separate entity, it must be destroyed.
their [possession] does not constitute a [violation of the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found," for they no longer have the form of chametz -- i.e., they are not in the form of food. Halachah 2:15 provides a similar example: a mound of yeast that has been set aside as a seat.
Halacha 12
A substance which is not eaten by people, or one which is generally not eaten by people, with which chametz has become mixed-- e.g., Tiriac and the like, though one may keep it [during Pesach], eating it is prohibited until after Pesach. Even though it contains only the smallest amount of chametz, eating it is forbidden.
Commentary Halacha
A substance which is not eaten by people, -- even if it has not been spoiled to the point that it is unfit for human consumption (Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, ibid.)
• Shevat 17, 5775 · 02/06/2015
"Today's Day"
During the reading of the Song of the Red Sea, we stand. Haftora: U'Devora isha nevee'a.
Torah lessons: Chumash: B'shalach, Shevi'i with Rashi.
Tehillim: 83-87.
Tanya: Ch. 22. Yet since (p. 89)...out of nothing. (p. 93).
There is a custom of eating black buckwheat on this Shabbat.
On Shabbat B'shalach 5621 (1861) the Tzemach Tzedek said the maamar R'u ki Hashem printed in Likutei Torah. Shortly afterward he said to his son, my grandfather:On Shabbat B'shalach 5565 (1805) my grandfather said this maamar. Afterwards he sent for me and told me that in 5529 (1769) when he was in Mezritch the Maggid had summoned him to his room and had said:
On Shabbat B'shalach 5516 (1756) the Baal Shem Tov said a Maamar on Vayashav hayam...l'eitano,1 "The Red Sea returned to its strength," quoting the Rabbinic play on the last word, l'eitano - litnao, meaning to its condition or agreement.2 In 5521 (1761), a year after the Baal Shem Tov's passing, my Rebbe (the Baal Shem Tov) came to me, said the maamar, and added an explanation of the subject "doing His will" in contrast to "doing His word." And today my Rebbe again came to me to repeat the maamar.
Then the Maggid repeated the maamar to the Alter Rebbe, adding an interpretation of "River Ginai, part for me,"3 which is similar to k'riat yam suf, the splitting of the Red Sea.
The Tzemach Tzedek concluded: Today the Baal Shem Tov, the Maggid and the Alter Rebbe came to me, each repeating the maamar in his own style.
Several hours later the Tzemach Tzedek called my grandfather again and told him an interpretation of the maamar.
FOOTNOTES
1. Sh'mot 14:27.
2. At creation G-d made an agreement, or condition, with the Red Sea that it would part for Israel.
3. Chulin 7a, where R. Pinchas ben Yair asked the river to part and let him pass to perform a mitzva.
Daily Thought
Not About Anything
People think that Torah is about something; that it comes to explain our world, what has happened and what will happen, where each thing belongs and what to do with it.
In a way, this is true. But ultimately, Torah isn’t about anything—everything is about Torah.
G‑d emanated light, created a world and filled it with events, people and things, all so we would have means and metaphor to discuss His thoughts.[Chayei Sarah 5726:19; Torat Menachem 5741 13 Tishrei, sicha 1—based on Zohar, B’haalotecha.]
_____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment