Laws of Chametz and Matzah Introduction – The Commandments in the Laws of Chametz and Matzah (Auto Translated)

Laws of Chametz and Matzah – Introduction and List of Mitzvot

Structure of Sefer Zemanim and the Place of Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah

Speaker 1: Very good. We’re going to learn Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah, do you need to record? We’re going to learn Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah from the holy Rambam, and as is the Rambam’s way to begin with the list of mitzvot, so let’s look at the list of mitzvot. There are many of them, eight. Very interesting, Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah, he speaks about this in his sefer.

In practice, initially, we already spoke about this once I think, Pesach is actually here initially, what are the mitzvot here of Pesach? This is Sefer Zemanim, right? Sefer Zemanim goes, how? Sefer Zemanim goes on the yamim tovim, right? On the matters of zemanim, Shabbat, Yom Tov. I read the preface of Sefer Zemanim, and there it says, what does it say there in Sefer Zemanim? That these are mitzvot that are practiced from time to time, so I remember, right? And in Sefer Zemanim there is, yes, so naturally first comes Shabbat, Shabbat is the most practiced, even the existence of the world is for Shabbat, one feels that it is chamur regarding the laws of Shabbat, one feels Yom Tov is the general principle of all yamim tovim, and now, the second volume from Shabbat Eruvin, is the specific laws that exist on yamim tovim. True?

So what is the “bechol ta’aseh lecha le’ot” that you brought me to think about?

Speaker 2: Ah, the pasuk makes sense, the pasuk is about simchah. Vesamachta bechagecha, all yamim tovim have a mitzvah of simchah.

Speaker 1: I saw the word “edah” and “moed”, because my connection is “kol edotecha”. Moed and edah, both mean a matter of gathering, of va’ad, of coming together.

Speaker 2: No, edot, edotecha means your mitzvot.

Speaker 1: Right, okay.

Why Is It Called “Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah” and Not “Hilchot Pesach”?

Speaker 1: In any case, Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah is the first, and there the Rambam included all the matters of korban Pesach. Now he placed it in korbanot. If you think about it, we spoke about this last time I think, if one would bring korban Pesach, perhaps there wouldn’t even be chametz and matzah as the majority of Pesach. It would have been more interesting to read Hilchot Pesach, yes? Because the Yom Tov is called Pesach, the Yom Tov is not called chametz and matzah. There are Hilchot Pesach. But this means, the Rambam also doesn’t call it Hilchot Rosh Hashanah, Hilchot Yom Kippur, also not Sukkot, but rather Sukkah and Lulav. He calls it by the mitzvot. Shevitat Yom Tov.

Speaker 2: Ah, because Shevitat Yom Tov counts out the yamim tovim.

Speaker 1: It’s not Hilchot Pesach, because Hilchot Pesach already appears in Hilchot Shevitat Yom Tov. There it is counted out that there is a Yom Tov called Pesach.

Speaker 2: I understand, perhaps it should be called Korban Pesach?

Speaker 1: Korban Pesach I understand. From being another Yom Tov, it appears in Hilchot Shevitat Yom Tov. Shevitat Yom Tov, Shevitat Yom Tov lists all the days in the year when one must rest.

Just as with Beit HaMikdash he also did this, there are Hilchot Yom Tov. When a person wants to know what he may do on Rosh Hashanah or on Sukkot, he needs to have his question in Hilchot Yom Tov. But when he wants to know about shofar and about the not-sleeping mazal, whatever, he needs to go to Hilchot Rosh Hashanah. But the Rambam doesn’t even call it Hilchot Rosh Hashanah, he calls it Hilchot Shofar. He calls it, for example by Sukkot he doesn’t call it Hilchot Sukkot, he calls it Sukkah and Lulav, all the mitzvot. And here he could have said Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah of Pesach, but we don’t have korban Pesach, because korban Pesach he placed among the korbanot.

Speaker 2: All korbanot, right.

Speaker 1: He also didn’t write the musafim of Shabbat, it’s not counted out.

Speaker 2: Tell me, by the way, it’s interesting, because for example, this is together, in this the Rambam is different from the Mishnah, right?

The Rambam’s Order Versus the Mishnah’s Order

Speaker 1: The Rambam, one must always see how he goes with the seder haMishnah, and what is the change from the seder haMishnah. In the Mishnah for example, the musaf of Shabbat appears in Menachot, and Zevachim, and Kodashim. But korban Pesach appears in Masechet Pesachim, and avodat Yom Kippur appears in Yoma, and so on. Most korbanot of an individual appear in Seder Moed. Chagigah in Masechet Chagigah. And because the Rambam very strongly divided, it’s more logical based on the Rambam’s seder haMishnah, because it’s Pesach, and the musaf makes sense.

Speaker 2: Okay, I believe korbanot, yes, but Pesach korbanot is moed.

Speaker 1: No, because the Rambam is there I believe.

Digression: Hilchot Shekalim

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, one can consider why the Rambam did include Hilchot Shekalim, one needs an accounting, one could easily place Hilchot Shekalim under korbanot, because the shekalim go for korbanot. It’s interesting because because it began with be’echad be’Adar mashmiin al hashekalim, as if what is strongly linked to time, to date, he didn’t want to go away from the Gemara too much, because the Gemara placed it in moed. And so, perhaps one only goes away from the Gemara when he has a giant, when he has a chiddush. It could be that the Rambam will hold bizman hazeh shekalim, what should the Rambam about shekalim bizman hazeh. Simply there is a mitzvah of “zecher litzi’at Mitzrayim”. So there is a question, if it’s only a matter of korbanot, one doesn’t understand. I once heard something said about this, something from Rav Chaim Kanievsky who speaks about this, what is the zecher litzi’at Mitzrayim on shekalim? What is there to remember here? But it could be. On shekalim is, it says in that… ah, no, not the one I have here, the other one that has the Kri’at HaMelech, he wants to remember the zecher of shekalim itself.

Speaker 2: Okay, not important now.

The Eight Mitzvot of Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah

Speaker 1: What do we have? By us there is korban Pesach, and there is… and not eating chametz, and eating matzah. Yes. And there is the telling of the seder, which is sippur yetzi’at Mitzrayim. The Rambam made in the fourteen mitzvot, it doesn’t say clearly that there is specifically a mitzvah. The Rambam didn’t count that there is a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: It still says, but there is a perek on this, the last perek in Pesachim, there it says about yetzi’at Mitzrayim, it says about the Haggadah, what one tells. Kol shelo amar, with mitzvah lesaper bitzi’at Mitzrayim, there appears a language of “mitzvah”.

Speaker 1: Not every thing that says “mitzvah” is a mitzvah from taryag. The Rambam actually wanted on this. I remember, we spoke about this, I remember that… the Rambam… okay, let’s move on. How does he find it in Sefer HaMitzvot? Let’s see. It was our shiur a year or two ago, to say that the Rambam was mechadesh himself the mitzvah of sippur yetzi’at Mitzrayim. There is no such mitzvah. “You could call us, you could come. I’m sorry, I put all the things here. Rabbi, if you need my help, I’m running now, I have to go home. Um, yes.”

The List of Eight Mitzvot

Speaker 1: It’s like this, says the Rambam, let’s learn first with the… with the… in any case, this is the point. Come now, there are eight mitzvot according to the Rambam in chametz and matzah, uvichlelan shemoneh mitzvot. Shalosh mitzvot aseh vachamesh mitzvot lo ta’aseh. These are the details. There are eight mitzvot, three of them are mitzvot that one must do, and five of them are things that one must not do. And the order is like this, they struggled with the order the first time, they didn’t remember.

a) Not to eat chametz on the fourteenth day from midday and onward. b) Lehashbit se’or from the fourteenth. The mitzvah of tashbitu se’or, shelo yera’eh chametz all seven days. And again, this speaks of an additional lav. Besides the lav of shelo yera’eh chametz on the fourteenth day from midday and onward, it doesn’t say until when it ends. The Rambam is concerned that it ends on Pesach, yes.

Speaker 2: Ah, it’s an additional mitzvah for only that day?

Speaker 1: It says the word “lema’alah”, perhaps this means lema’alah and lemata…

Speaker 2: No, no, no, until the end of the day.

Speaker 1: There is an additional mitzvah.

Discussion: Which Are the Mitzvot Aseh?

Speaker 2: Oy. And lehashbit se’or from the fourteenth, is this a mitzvat aseh? What are the sources for this?

Speaker 1: The Rambam brings he brings the pesukim, he brings the pesukim. The pesukim. Well, one doesn’t need to come to the pesukim, and you will bring it, you’ll see the pesukim.

Speaker 2: Right. It’s already brought.

Speaker 1: So, the first pasuk is… so first are the pesukim in Parshat Bo, which speaks about… there are three mitzvot aseh. So let’s find it. No, no, let’s not count it out, let’s see what the Rambam says. Which are the positive mitzvot? Interesting, first goes… which three mitzvot aseh are there?

Speaker 2: Ah, lehashbit se’or is a mitzvat aseh.

Speaker 1: And the pasuk is the first mitzvah achilat matzah. The pesukim in Parshat Bo, “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”. But the Rambam counts first… so, I’ll bring you the pasuk which is “shelo yera’eh chametz on the fourteenth day”, “ach bayom harishon tashbitu se’or mibateichem”. Where does this say? This is the first that he counts out, because this is in Chazal “ach chalak”. So, come here. True, I just want to find here, and I want to find you already what the pesukim that he brings.

The Order of the Torah, Mishnah, and Rambam

Speaker 1: It’s interesting that the Torah operates generally not the same way at all. It doesn’t have any chapters, as it were. You know how the order goes how the Torah tells the story of yetzi’at Mitzrayim? According to the seder hazemanim. What you’re going to do at dawn, what you’re going to do in the afternoon. It’s very beautiful, it’s a calendar, yes, if you look at the pesukim in Parshat Bo, the seder hapesukim. It’s not like “zot chukat haPesach”. It’s not something that the Torah begins with “zot chukat haPesach”, with such a heading, as it is. It’s more like a seder hazemanim. It tells the Jews like this, they should remember, this is what came to the law the next few days. And it begins the first mitzvah, “veyikchu lahem ish seh leveit avot”. But this is one of the mitzvot in nedarim unedavot, you need to look how the Rambam learns, and it goes like this further, exactly how the korban is, and afterwards comes the mitzvah of how to roast the korban Pesach, and afterwards comes “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”, and afterwards that one will need to destroy the chametz after before the slaughtering, is later, one lives later in the pesukim.

It’s interesting how the Torah does it, and how the Mishnah does it, and how the Rambam does it. The Mishnah begins “or le’arba’ah asar bodkin et hachametz”, one can say like this, the Mishnah doesn’t go so focused on the essence of the korban, because the Mishnah would have gone according to the korban it would have begun with…

Speaker 2: No, the Mishnah goes according to seder hazeman.

Speaker 1: Yes, seder hazeman, but the Mishnah could have done begin with… the Mishnah could have begun with ah… how many days is there bedikah?

Speaker 2: Whatever.

Speaker 1: “Veyikchu lahem ish seh”, the Mishnah could have said, a few days before Pesach one goes and takes a korban.

Speaker 2: So the Mishnah doesn’t operate with things that are not noheg ledorot, only a bit, because it does say hilchot korban Pesach.

Speaker 1: The things that were only once, the Mishnah speaks things that were bizman Beit HaMikdash every year, but a thing that…

Speaker 2: Ah, “veyikchu lahem ish seh” was only a mitzvah in Mitzrayim?

Speaker 1: Ah, ah, ah, okay, okay, so actually the Mishnah begins with the order of… erev yom arba’ah asar begins the first thing, before that there is a mitzvah of bedikah that Chazal made, one begins with an order. It’s good, at midday goes with the burning, and in the middle there is Pesach.

One needs to understand the exact order of the mitzvot. It’s important which numbers the mitzvot are. Here there are eight mitzvot, yes? At the end of the introduction one can probably find the mitzvot faster. The end of the introduction of the Mishneh Torah. There he brings the pesukim also. There he brings the pesukim of each introduction, which I don’t find. For example, the first mitzvah here…

Speaker 2: Do you have the introduction, do you have Sefer HaMada, and their version is very easy to find.

Speaker 1: Yes, but the Cheder Hasefarim is mine. Where is the Sefer HaMada or introduction?

Speaker 2: Yes, here it’s easy to find definitely. One needs first the lo ta’aseh.

Speaker 1: Ah, mitzvah… in the Sefer HaMitzvot is mitzvah lo ta’aseh 197, 198, 199, 200, 201.

Speaker 2: That’s not 201.

Speaker 1: 201 also?

Speaker 2: Ah, so 197, 197 and further. 197 to 201 is…

Speaker 1: Ah, again, ah, 197 is “shelo yera’eh chametz bePesach”. Which mitzvah is this here?

Speaker 2: “Shelo yochal chametz bePesach”. Which is this?

Speaker 1: Gimmel.

Speaker 2: What is gimmel?

Speaker 1: Gimmel you mean from the order that is here, from Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah?

Speaker 2: Ah, “shelo yochal chametz bePesach”. Yes.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Difference in Order Between Sefer HaMitzvot and Mishneh Torah

Speaker 2: In Sefer HaMitzvot the order is a bit different. Because in Sefer HaMitzvot he doesn’t go according to the order of time, he goes according to the order of importance. Because he made first. He began with Yesodei HaTorah, afterwards he went to avodah zarah, afterwards he went to chukot hagoyim, and here he entered into yamim tovim. He lists them more in sets in Sefer HaMitzvot.

So it makes more sense to say the essential prohibition of chametz, afterwards the detail that one also doesn’t eat chametz from a day earlier from midday. Because one doesn’t go so according to the… he doesn’t think like the calendar.

Here he goes to the calendar, he goes Sefer Zeman, a Yom Tov. So what is the first thing of the Yom Tov? Erev Yom Tov begins the first of the mitzvot of Yom Tov. This is the explanation.

Speaker 1: I thought that the Rambam never goes… it’s according to the times.

Speaker 2: Here he goes yes according to the calendar. So this has a place in Sefer Zemanim. Let’s see. But why shouldn’t he have valued by other yamim tovim?

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s certain that the order of the mitzvot here goes according to the calendar. I don’t know if the Rambam goes according to the calendar. Let’s see where else it’s relevant. Let’s see, by Shofar and Sukkah and Lulav, where each one of them has only one mitzvah, there’s nothing to go with the seder haluach. Let’s see where yes it’s relevant.

Three Categories of Mitzvot According to Time

Speaker 2: It goes something like this. Look, there are three categories here. You need to remember, there are two differences from Sefer HaMitzvot ours. I mean, more than differences. The first difference is, Sefer HaMitzvot is divided on a sefer al azot, that here it goes together on a… packages. The second, the second that here there is, is organized according to the logic of halachah, and this is organized according to the seder haTorah or according to his own calculations that he has there.

And here it goes like this, there is the fourteenth, all seven, and leil Pesach. Look, the first two is not eating chametz, not eating chametz from the fourteenth from midday and onward, yes, that’s the fourteenth. Also there is the mitzvah of lehashbit se’or from the fourteenth, yes, that’s the first. Afterwards there is gimmel, not eating chametz all seven, not eating ta’arovet chametz all seven, and lo yera’eh velo yimatzei all seven, that’s heh and vav. Afterwards there is the mitzvah of eating matzah zecher litzi’at Mitzrayim.

Difference in Order of Mitzvot Aseh

Discussion: The Order in the Rambam

Speaker 1: It’s also interesting, I noticed that in mitzvos aseh (positive commandments) 156, 157, the mitzvas aseh 156 is to destroy chametz, that’s actually mitzvah 3 here, ah sorry, mitzvah 2 here. 157 is to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt, and 158 is to eat matzah. And by us it goes in reverse, first to eat matzah and then to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Interesting. In practice, in the Torah it says first to eat matzah and then to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt, according to the verses that they bring here. He says that the mitzvah of matzah goes as it’s written in chapter 13.

Speaker 2: Ah, you’re talking about the mitzvos aseh?

Speaker 1: Yes. 156, 157, 158.

Speaker 2: Ah. You want to learn the Sefer HaMitzvos?

Speaker 1: I don’t have the Sefer HaMitzvos here.

Speaker 2: Okay. Let’s try, how is it?

Discussion: The Order in the Rambam

Speaker 1: So, let’s go with the order in the Rambam. First are the negative commandments. The Rambam goes with the order in the Rambam. First is either.

Speaker 2: No, the Rambam counts first what one may not eat.

Speaker 1: No, but the Sefer HaMitzvos goes according to the order.

Speaker 2: But one must know, they have an introduction, and they say that this is secondary to our main study of Mishneh Torah. Should one go with that order?

Speaker 1: Okay.

Mitzvah 1 — To Remove Leaven (Mitzvas Aseh 156)

Speaker 2: He commanded us to destroy the chametz from our homes, 156. That’s the first one, okay, 156. Let’s see. 156. The Torah told us, “But on the first day you shall remove leaven from your homes”. And this is the mitzvah of tashbisu se’or.

Discussion: Chametz and Se’or — What’s the Difference?

Speaker 1: Interesting, what’s the meaning? Chametz and se’or is the mitzvah to burn. By the way, it’s very interesting what the meaning is. They struggled last time that there’s only one difference regarding tzaraas or something.

Speaker 2: Between chametz and se’or?

Speaker 1: Yes, something like that. What’s the meaning? Let’s see. Seven days, “But on the first day you shall remove leaven from your homes”. They struggled that if one learns the plain meaning of Scripture to the end, one could learn completely differently in the verses, as if here… let’s see what it says in the verses. They had some kind of way how one could learn.

Speaker 2: Ah, one could mistakenly learn this way.

Explaining Scripture According to the Reality of That Time

Speaker 1: One could make such an explanation, one could say like this: “Seven days you shall eat matzos” — seven days one should make matzos. “But on the first day you shall remove leaven” — on the first day one should remove the leaven that was made, from which one baked all the matzos or what?

Speaker 2: Not the matzos, the chametz. Se’or is certainly what one makes chametz with.

Speaker 1: Ah, but one should remove se’or. Why? Because “for whoever eats chametz” — whoever eats chametz the seven days, “shall be cut off”.

Speaker 2: Shall be cut off.

Speaker 1: In practice, one says that one removed the se’or from which one makes all… as if you’re saying nothing more than, okay, I’ll put away the se’or, one could learn. One can learn that there’s an extra warning that the se’or which is important, from which one makes all bread, one should also throw away.

Speaker 2: How does it say again? How again does it say it’s a positive commandment? “Seven days leaven shall not be found”.

Speaker 1: No, it’s interesting, but one can learn two explanations. One can learn that se’or has an extra prohibition, or one could say that the main prohibition is the chametz, but as if you should remove it so that you won’t have any se’or to make chametz. Or one says, even the se’or isn’t the prohibition, it doesn’t bother me that you eat se’or, you won’t eat it anyway. I’m not saying there’s nothing that you eat, but if you have se’or, it’s to go make chametz or something like that.

The Simple Explanation: Why Tashbisu Se’or and Not Tashbisu Chametz?

Speaker 2: Think about it, that’s what I mean apparently, the simple explanation. Because se’or is the thing that makes chametz. You need to have the se’or. But why should one throw away the se’or? Because it’s the main ingredient. One doesn’t eat the se’or. So it’s understood that therefore the mitzvah of tashbisu doesn’t say tashbisu chametz, it says tashbisu se’or.

Speaker 1: Ah, because if you’re not going to have any chametz, you’ll automatically become removed.

Speaker 2: Chametz used to be baked every day. So it’s understood by itself that one won’t bake from a day before. It comes to yom tov, and the seven days one will only eat the matzos. So automatically there won’t be any fresh chametz. What will you have? You’ll have se’or, from which one makes chametz. I tell you, you should also throw away the se’or, so you won’t have chametz. Not only should you bake fresh matzos every day, and automatically it’s understood that this isn’t chametz.

Deepening: The Logic of Changing the Diet

Speaker 2: Again. It’s like this, the Torah comes in and says, the seven days I have for you that you should eat matzos. What does that mean? That you should change your diet, yes? The seven days I want you to change your diet. What does that mean, instead of baking fresh bread every day, you should bake fresh matzos every day, seven days. And if you’re going to bake matzos, you automatically won’t have any chametz, because these are the days when the diet was changed to matzos, because they want to remember the Exodus from Egypt etc. So automatically you won’t bake any chametz. I understand just like no one makes cheesecake on Sukkos when one is in the middle of eating meat. Now meat is the menu, and now one only eats matzos, and chametz one doesn’t eat now.

But what then will you put away the se’or, and what did they see, or is it a slippery slope that you have the se’or, yes to make chametz? Or is it perhaps an extra mitzvah that you should throw away, so far that you should even separate from the chametz, that you should even throw away the se’or. So either it’s an extra prohibition on the se’or, or conversely, the se’or itself isn’t forbidden because it’s not something that is food. From where do we know that one destroys chametz? It only says tashbisu se’or. How does one know that one removes chametz? One needs only se’or.

Further Analysis of the Verses

Speaker 2: So let’s see further in the verses. You understand, yes, “Whoever eats chametz shall be cut off”. Ah, from here it’s implied that “whoever eats chametz”. Ah, so I would say later again, so it comes up and is indeed a mitzvah. But I think this is more the plain meaning of simple Scripture, that one must look very carefully at the reality.

Every person loves to bake as often as possible. So we had all kinds of food that we have, but when one had flour and dough, one baked fresh bread. Yes, especially on yom tov one bakes fresh bread. It comes here, on yom tov one baked fresh bread. The verse says, these days are the days of matzah, not of bread. So there’s no reason that a person should have bread, because bread is something one loves to eat fresh. And the seven days one doesn’t eat fresh shulchan aruch, and the seven days one only bakes fresh matzos. There’s no reason that a person should eat not fresh chametz. And not see not there. So there’s no chametz. But what yes, what is there se’or? But what then, he’s afraid that his children, or he himself, he’ll catch himself with temptations, and he’ll go make chametz now instead of matzos, or he’ll forget. One says, also throw out the se’or. Right? And chametz is simpler, you don’t have it, because one now bakes fresh matzos, why should you eat fresh chametz now? Now is the time to eat matzos.

Kal Vachomer from Se’or to Chametz

Speaker 1: If it says in the Ten Commandments “se’or”, he can think that automatically chametz that’s left over, but the verse says yes, chametz is a negative commandment, it’s a great terrible thing, “whoever eats chametz shall be cut off”. So automatically you won’t bake chametz. And not only that, there’s kares.

Speaker 2: One can yes understand, one can yes understand, with the same logic one can understand that chametz is the same prohibition. Why must one throw away se’or? So that you won’t bake chametz. Why shouldn’t you bake chametz? It’s kares, “shall be cut off”. So for the same money one can also understand that one must throw away chametz. Or you can say that old chametz one shouldn’t eat anyway. Well okay, one shouldn’t eat anyway, is it ownerless, is it whatever, it’s not so wild why we understand.

There’s one place, okay, there are two things. But you can even say the Gemara wants, you can say two kal vachomers that chametz one should certainly not have. Because se’or one doesn’t eat, no one bakes into se’or. But what is the concern? That you’ll make chametz from it. In short, se’or one may not have from which one can make chametz, so chametz itself one certainly may not have.

The Innovation of Chazal

Speaker 2: One can see about what one should say that from “hashbasas se’or” one should also learn “hashbasas chametz”. But what was made that se’or and chametz have all the same laws, and the Torah says it only for an extra inclusion so that one should learn out some laws of nullification and such sorts of things, is an innovation.

Formulation in the Language of Pilpul

Speaker 1: Okay, so let’s go with a sharper pilpul. In the Torah it’s written “removal only on se’or”, and even though according to the plain meaning since it’s forbidden to eat chametz, automatically there is also to remove se’or so that one won’t come to make chametz. But one who has chametz from erev Pesach, it wasn’t explained that he needs to destroy it, but it’s possible to say that he won’t eat it that’s all, and in such a case in many things. To say that this is simple like the laws of chametz, and the main reason that there’s no se’or is so that one won’t make chametz, kal tzakin that chametz itself is a stumbling block for others.

Speaker 2: You can add that the one who stumbles doesn’t know the severity, what’s written right after that, the one who stumbles doesn’t know the severity of chametz. My good kal tzakin, and still it wasn’t clarified explicitly that there’s a prohibition on chametz that perhaps there’s no mixture of old chametz in it.

Speaker 1: That’s not correct.

Laws of Chametz and Matzah — Removal of Leaven, Destruction of Chametz, and Telling the Story of the Exodus

Removal of Leaven — Questions Regarding Sourdough Starter

Speaker 1:

You can add that the “shall be cut off”, what is the severity that’s written right after the “shall be cut off”? What is the severity of chametz? Certainly, we didn’t find explicitly that there’s removal on chametz that perhaps the se’or isn’t fit for eating. Old chametz isn’t correct, but you must this. Yes, I know it.

But one also uses here, there’s also here the language “you shall remove leaven from your homes”. It could be that from this there’s no chametz, automatically no chametz can be proper.

Speaker 2:

Okay, we’ll soon talk about that mitzvah, there’s an extra mitzvah here. Okay.

Speaker 1:

This is in chapter 12. The Rambam is further interesting, but the language of the Rambam is “and He commanded us regarding chametz, and it is the mitzvah of removal of leaven”. I mean, in the Torah it says removal of se’or, it seems that se’or and chametz Chazal learned out as if it’s one great category. It’s not two extra laws, there’s no difference between them at all regarding law, except regarding the measure. There are small differences.

Perhaps the reality is different. I look at se’or like the sourdough starter for example. It was said very clearly this, that perhaps in Chazal’s times something was indeed different with se’or.

If you look at the se’or here, the starter, the yeast, I don’t mean the modern one. And even with the se’or, it says about it that se’or that isn’t fit for eating, one can’t have chametz.

Speaker 2:

Very good, we’ll talk about that, soon we’ll arrive at that. But we’re talking about the removal, there’s a mitzvah, there’s a positive commandment and a negative commandment. The removal of se’or, the explanation, his innovation is that he says there’s chametz, and this one must remove.

Practical Question: Sourdough Starters in the House

Speaker 2:

I’ve already had questions from several women who asked questions about the starters that they keep in the house. I know there are those who give themselves advice and sell chametz, but to me it seems so simple, close to what it says in the verses, “leaven shall not be found in your homes”. Throw it away, there’s enough yom tov to worry about fresh starter. You can make new starter. You can buy from a non-Jew a small piece of starter. One can buy starter, there’s such a thing as getting starter. But to keep it and sell it in chametz, that’s the most se’or that the verse speaks of.

Speaker 1:

Nine, yes, something that has sour dough and was scraped off, yes, you’re right. One is certain that we’re talking about this, but it’s a good reasoning that you say. That’s the Torah.

Speaker 2:

What is basic? Yes, that a boy comes to cheder and says, “the sour dough must be thrown out from your house.”

Digression: Story of R’ Zalman Leib Philip

Speaker 1:

Ah, okay. Yes. I know how much I bring this. You remember R’ Zalman Leib Philip’s story, yes? There was a great gathering about the wigs from Imrei Zalman. I don’t like the story. I come must by this upset. Why? Because it hasn’t yet passed two hundred years from his passing? If that story is the proof, he still lives, no? If that story is the proof, it’s not pleasing to you, because on this there’s a Torah, a Shulchan Aruch. Service. And another disgrace, if it’s… okay, back to the matter. It’s a matter of conduct, it’s not a real halachic question, but one is certain that it’s clarified. Yes, it’s Pesach. That’s what Pesach is, and in the holy city. Okay.

Discussion: Is Destruction of Chametz an Active Deed?

Speaker 1:

Now, 187 is interesting. About this I once learned at length about the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt. What is the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt? It says there’s a mitzvas biur, which is the destruction of chametz. He makes a whole composition, I won’t write this now. Um, telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt, how is that? Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay. But one learns “and you shall not turn from the matter which they instruct you”. It’s not only tashbisu, because so that he won’t have chametz. Right? You hold with? There’s “and you shall not turn from the matter which they instruct you”.

Speaker 2:

One minute, you’re answering two other things. One knows that it’s more than just the Torah lays destruction of Zion, how there shouldn’t be chametz, there’s the “lo tasuru”. Again, one needs the Torah on this. The Torah, that this should be… until you’ll learn in the Chumash. The Chumash says “on the first day”. “On the first day” needs another innovation to say that “on the first day” means the 14th. “On the first day” can mean what? The first day of Nisan, or what? The first day of Pesach when one eats the matzah, then tashbisu from among you.

Speaker 1:

Could be. I once had perhaps an innovation on “but on the first day”, part of the various calculations how Chazal learned this. Right, and there it’s not yet clear that he means the first day of Pesach. Not yet clear that it means…no, not yet clear that it means that one must do an action. You think like… it’s resting Shabbos, it’s a positive commandment, it means that one shouldn’t do any work. It’s not, it doesn’t mean… but you can’t say that one should rest from baking? There’s no concept of baking, there’s a negative commandment… that there shouldn’t be, that there shouldn’t be any chametz, one shouldn’t buy. Ah, the mitzvah of destruction means more to come with an action to remove. But you can say don’t buy any new chametz ever, because now are days of matzah. Ever, the prohibition was on buying new chametz, because now are days of matzah, now one doesn’t buy any chametz. But he has.

Again.

Speaker 2:

No, I’m not sure what you mean. Again, the question once wanted to learn the laws, but you can… like resting Shabbos, doesn’t mean any action! Resting from chametz doesn’t mean an action! Can’t you practically must you remove it? If you don’t have aren’t you… but, but I’m certain that if you don’t have you’re exempt, you’ll say the mitzvah of tashbisu! About destruction of chametz, yes! Destruction of chametz doesn’t mean that someone should go buy chametz in Brooklyn, so that he should have a matter! The Torah speaks…

Speaker 1:

A normal person has! Normal means! Yes!

Speaker 2:

It’s to change the diet, as if… not the diet, the house! Remove the… the main thing is searching for chametz from the Torah according to this! Yes! Ah, but! You could say, remove if… if ever, remove the boxes of chametz! There’s an obligation to go search! Okay, agreed. But the author… yes, the author says, I’ll go such a Torah law. Yes. Yes. On this one makes a blessing. On the contrary. I can say that it’s yes something positive. He doesn’t make a blessing on resting on Shabbos.

Question: Blessing on Destruction of Chametz When One Doesn’t Have Any Chametz

Speaker 1:

That’s a good question. It’s a question. What happens when a person doesn’t have any chametz? Can he not make a blessing on destroying chametz (biur chametz)? Or is there no action? I don’t know. Seemingly he should be able to. What is he… On the contrary, he has even more no chametz than you. But he already hasn’t had chametz for a month. Okay, let’s go through this piece. I don’t know. Yes. Now let’s review because it’s… After that we bought the new things, when the counting draws in until Pesach. Yes. Yes.

Law 187 — The Commandment of Recounting the Exodus from Egypt

Speaker 1:

On the night of the fifteenth of Nissan. Yes. At the beginning of the night, does that mean before midnight? Yes. The wise one’s mouth, the one who recounts, in all that he adds in the telling and lengthens the matters, whoever adds. When he makes the thing longer. And in greatness what Hashem did for us. He makes greater what the Almighty did. And he makes greater how bad the Egyptians were. And we spoke about the blessings once. And he makes and he praises “as He took vengeance for us from them”, how the Almighty took vengeance for us from them, and he thanks “to thank God for all the good He bestowed upon us”. Moreover, that the four questions one must elaborate on, as it says in the Mishnah, yes? “Whoever elaborates in recounting the Exodus from Egypt, behold this is praiseworthy”.

Now, which verse speaks of this? A verse in “and you shall tell your son”.

It appears in the Rambam that it’s a matter of recounting, it’s a matter of thanking, it’s a matter of both. He doesn’t say that you must say it to the children. “To recount”, he doesn’t say anything about children. He says one must speak about the Exodus from Egypt.

Speaker 2:

“From them and lengthening all the matters”, just as in every generation, as it were, in every language. He says, in the introduction, as it were, speak to the people sitting around you. Right, we’ll see, but speak, say.

Speaker 1:

“Whoever increases, behold this is praiseworthy”. There’s no law like in every language, there’s no law in the holy tongue like there is by… Aha, it’s not a certain… Right. It says, you must say what you can say, according to understanding. Aha. Like prayer perhaps, there is prayer in every language.

Right. And it’s implied that the Rambam means to say that one must say all of this, both “what happened to us and what happened to them”. One of the three, if someone elaborates on one of the three he would also seemingly fulfill the obligation. It comes out like three matters that are in it. Okay, one must look more at how it’s explained in the laws in Mishneh Torah, whether it’s either-or. Okay.

And this must be at the beginning of the night, “at the time when there is matzah and maror placed before you”, meaning at the beginning of the night.

The Verse “And You Shall Tell Your Son” — The Time of the Commandment

Speaker 1:

I want to ask, the introduction that he brings, it says “and you shall tell your son on that day”. What is the explanation of “and you shall tell your son”? He says, when is this “and you shall tell your son”? “One might think from the beginning of the month, therefore it says on that day, on that day one might think while it is still day, therefore it says because of this, because of this I only said at the time when there is matzah and maror placed before you”. Meaning, very interesting, the Rambam asks, “why from the beginning of the night is one obligated to recount at the time when there is matzah and maror placed before you?” This is the time when… Yes, it’s not something that the matzah actually causes, but the time appears.

Speaker 2:

Okay, in the language of the Mechilta. It’s very interesting why the Rambam brings the entire “one might think from the beginning of the month”. No, he wants to ask that there is such an obligation. Right, actually the thought of “one might think from the beginning of the month” is very interesting. What would make you think of such a thing as from the beginning of the month? But the Rambam positions himself at “on that day”. That’s how the midrash goes. Why does the Rambam insert the entire thing? All the foundations of the midrash, of the interpretation of the interpreter, of the books, are things that are explicit. He says further, even when I would have been able to think even even he is wicked, but the next word stands “on the day”, he doesn’t mean only when he is a fool, but even when he was broken that the son should learn the commandment.

It stands that in order to answer one must give a bit of the definition of the commandment, but not a contradiction. Because he says that the system of recounting, one sees there is a weak proof. How did you say that it says commandment? A commandment to recount, it says the language of the Haggadah, does it say in the Mishnah the language? It’s a wonder, I don’t know.

Recounting the Exodus from Egypt as a Commandment of Remembrance — Not Dependent on Children

Speaker 1:

Because he says that the matter is a matter of remembrance, like Kiddush. “These and those are from the words of Moses, whether for his own son, whether for a wise son or for a wicked son”. Ah, it says whether for his own son or for a wise son. Same level. Even if there is no child, there’s no difference. The Rambam learns “remember the day of the Exodus from Egypt”, as if to say that he commanded to remember as he said to remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. Just as in Kiddush there is a matter of speaking about Shabbat, not just remembering Shabbat, one must mention Shabbat. Remember means mention, not remember, yes? Speak about it. So there is a matter to speak about the Exodus from Egypt. The entire, yes, it’s not implied that there is a matter… Again, one sees seemingly in the Haggadah that yes, there is a matter, the son asks, and so on. But this is very interesting, because according to how the Rambam learns the commandment this way, so it goes many times, here the Maggid conducts himself, he lays down a story, a son came, the son asks, the wise one says, speaks with him highly. But if he won’t want to speak, he’ll teach him about the destruction of the Temple. He says that your son should learn perhaps a story, and this is not the point at all. Your son sees that you do the commandment of saying to your son, and so your son will know to do the commandment of saying to his son when the day comes.

Speaker 2:

What does one say? One says! One says what it says in the prayer book. One says. The truth is, he says what it says. It doesn’t say here that the boy should know. It’s not knowledge, it’s a commandment of remembrance. And he says so,

Recounting the Exodus from Egypt and Eating Matzah — Continuation of Discussion

Recounting the Exodus from Egypt — The Nature of the Commandment

Speaker 1:

No, it doesn’t say that the son… that the point is that the son should hear even a story. That’s not the point at all. It’s that the son sees that one does the commandment of saying to the son. And so the son must know to do the commandment of saying to his son when the day comes.

What does one say? One says, one says what it says in the prayer book. One says… I told myself, you say what it says here. It doesn’t say here that the matter is that you should know. I did it, it’s a commandment of remembrance. And he says just as… How should one remember Shabbat? Shabbat there’s no commandment to tell the child there was an Exodus from Egypt, there was the act of creation. You can be sure that this is the purpose, the reason for the commandment. Right, but there’s no commandment of recounting the story of Shabbat. But what then here? Remembering the act of Shabbat is through Kiddush. Does the child pay attention and hear that at Kiddush one says remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt and remembrance of the act of creation? He doesn’t pay attention. There’s no commandment that one should recount it to the child. One doesn’t drill the children that they’ll get a good grade if they know what Shabbat is, remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt and remembrance of the creation of the world. One makes Kiddush, and that is the manner of remembrance.

The manner of remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt is that one should teach the child the verses, whether it’s in Yiddish, whether it’s in the holy tongue, these are all the details of the matters, that the child should understand. And so the child will remember that he must also do it. What will he do? When he grows up he’ll make Kiddush for his children. But Kiddush doesn’t say that it’s for the children. But this is the form of the commandment, as the Mishnah also understood, one sits together with the children, one makes Kiddush, and one eats.

So this is interesting, it’s very different from how people present it, that here there is a commandment of taking the children and explaining to them what happened. If someone does that, he’s not necessarily fulfilling recounting the Exodus from Egypt. Recounting the Exodus from Egypt means the Seder, the manner of the Seder how one does it. No, I want to do it a bit differently. I took out my children for a walk at the beginning of Pesach, and I told them the entire story, and therefore we’ll come today to prepare to make the Seder. That’s not what the verses speak of, that’s not recounting the Exodus from Egypt. Recounting the Exodus from Egypt is that there is a text for Kiddush, it’s very similar to Kiddush, there is a text that one says, and the children see this, and the children know that they continue. It’s not that there is a certain story that must be passed on.

And not only that, I bought for my children a very beautiful new book for recounting the Exodus from Egypt, he’ll read it, and it has no connection. What he reads and he becomes aware of the story is a nice thing. There is a commandment that at night one should say certain verses and say certain things, just as one does with the commandment of Kiddush, which is also a remembrance of the act of creation and remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt. Eh, why by Shabbat didn’t we make something a matter that the child… Because when it says “remember”, does it automatically mean that the child should… One can say that when it says “remember” for something, it automatically means that one should pass it on to the coming generations, “so that your generations will know”.

Discussion: Why Is There No Commandment of “And You Shall Tell Your Son” by Sukkot?

Speaker 1:

Why for example by Sukkot is there no commandment of “and you shall tell your son”, that one should teach “so that your generations will know”? What, the “so that they will know” that it says by the Exodus from Egypt is in the recounting. Why doesn’t it occur to anyone to say that there is a certain commandment to tell the children, “we sit here, what was then”? Nothing more, just said like “so that your generations will know”. There is “so that your generations will know”, there is “remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt” that it says in the Torah, but the command of recounting the Exodus from Egypt is something very different. It’s “and it shall be when your son asks you”. Ah, we’ll see this. The Rambam mentions in Pesachim that it’s “in it they ask and expound”.

The Mishnah in the Haggadah — Proof from the Rambam

Speaker 1:

But he brings me a very good proof, the Mishnah in the Haggadah. Ah, very good. And what does it say in the Haggadah? “Even if we are all wise, all understanding, all knowing the Torah, it is a commandment upon us to recount the Exodus from Egypt”. I mean, this is his proof, like Kiddush. This is the proof. No, no, this is the proof that there is a commandment. By the Rambam, every time it says in the Sages or a source that it’s a commandment, then it’s a commandment.

Speaker 2:

No, I think it also brings him the thought that it’s not only a matter that the children should know, but it’s a matter of a command to remember. He also puts this in. He already knows the story.

Speaker 1:

He mentions the Haggadah. It’s a conclusion.

Speaker 2:

But he says, “it is a commandment upon us to recount the Exodus from Egypt”. This is the novelty. At first I would have thought that the commandment is that the children should know. No, the commandment is that “it is a commandment upon us to recount”, just as one mentions Pesachim. To recount, according to the Rambam, doesn’t mean to tell a story, it means to speak. Yes. Upon oneself the commandment. Okay, already, very good. Let’s go to the next commandment.

Discussion: Why Is Pesach Different from Shabbat?

Speaker 1:

Actually interesting, why wouldn’t it occur to someone that why should everyone remember actively like Pesach? Why will the world understand differently? Or Shabbat even, as it says “remember the Sabbath day”, “remember the Exodus from Egypt”, one must teach the children, as it says “remember”, as it says “and you shall tell your son”. Pesach one must yes. Which way will you go with the children?

Speaker 2:

I hear. One must know, one can go both ways.

Eating Matzah — Obligation the First Night Versus the Other Days

The Verse “In the Evening You Shall Eat Matzot”

Speaker 1:

Okay, I see in Cohen’s, there is a verse that says, which is no longer an obligation, it’s a permission to eat matzah on Pesach. Good evening, we already learned it once, but I don’t remember the verse in any case. But what can one derive more good for matzot? It’s such a kind, I took away from you the eating, one doesn’t need to fast. By the way, the inference of “in the evening you shall eat matzot” is one of the funniest midrashim in the Sages. Why? Look into the verse. Okay, where is it? We read it, right?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

Not in this verse. Look, read, read, read the verse. I have the verse in the… Okay, the first… I perhaps positioned myself a bit wrong. Wait, the end of the words of the page. Look at the verse. Okay.

Study Inside — The Verse in Exodus

Speaker 1:

Okay, the Torah says that the seven days one should eat only matzot, and leaven one should remove from the homes. It’s a holiday, and one shouldn’t do any work, and so on. And also the matzot one should make with guarding, yes, simply so. Okay, so? I mean to say, the Torah says “and you shall guard the matzot”, and it says “and you shall guard this statute”. Simply it means that one should remember. The interpretation of guarded matzot is an interpretation. Simply it means remember. Ah, remember the festival of matzot. “And you shall guard the festival of matzot”. “In the first on the fourteenth day of the month you shall eat matzot”. Which days are the days that are fitting to eat matzot? In the evening, yes. So which day is the month? In the evening is the date only matzot. And the seven days, “leaven shall not be found in your houses”. In other words, here the Torah doesn’t just say a… will eat matzot, but it gives the times, from the 14th in the evening until the 21st in the evening, and in all these seven days that one eats matzot one shouldn’t have any leaven.

Discussion: Where Is the Source for the Difference Between the First Night and the Other Days?

Speaker 1:

So, okay, I ask you a question. Why would one need a verse that one may eat matzot in the seven days? And only after that comes here “any leavened thing you shall not eat, in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot”. Okay, I ask you a question, can you find in this verse “in the first on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening” can you find a hint that the first night of Pesach is an obligation and the others not.

Speaker 2:

No, I would have said all days or none. And the word “in the evening”, to take from this “in the evening you shall eat matzot” and make from this is really funny, because the verse says “from evening until evening”, it doesn’t say “in the evening”. There’s no verse “in the evening you shall eat matzot”.

Speaker 1:

Even if it occurred to someone that not from evening… Yes, very good. He says there’s no verse “in the evening you shall eat matzot”. There’s no such verse. It’s true, true. But I can also see the argument of the Sages. It’s obvious that from evening. Because one says “in the first on the fourteenth day of the month”, when does the fourteenth begin? In the evening, yes? Just as everything from the Torah begins at night. We have that all holidays begin at night. Okay, this one must follow up with the rabbinic… Perhaps there isn’t? Okay, this is a discussion in itself. One must know to check.

The Sages took from a certain place that Shabbat begins at night, holidays begin at night, that “and it was evening and it was morning, one day”.

Speaker 2:

There’s a difference though, here there is a date. Here he speaks, he makes it clearer, he says the date, from the 14th in the evening until the 21st in the evening. So why should one say that all these days one must eat matzot? I don’t see why you say that the verse is a source to say that it’s an obligation. I would have said that there’s no obligation.

Speaker 1:

You want to say that all people shouldn’t change from the order of the festival?

Speaker 2:

I would have said yes. You want to say that you can take from here that there’s a difference between the first night and the others? And this with the Pesach offering, it really doesn’t make sense.

The Verse “On Matzot and Bitter Herbs They Shall Eat It”

Speaker 1:

Okay, one must look at the other verses that perhaps the Sages got from there the thought, because the “on matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it” is an obligation, and it doesn’t mean all days. The Sages understood that one won’t eat a Pesach offering for seven days. So the “on matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it”, one should eat it, the matzah. The Sages knew that the first night of Pesach one eats matzah, and one makes a Pesach. “On matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it”, together with matzot and bitter herbs one should eat. So one sees that it’s an obligation to eat matzah. Not just because there’s no chametz one eats anything. There’s no chametz, one should eat either meat or bread. No! “On matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it”.

Speaker 2:

I positioned myself instead with this. And next to it stands…

Speaker 1:

We’re talking now if one must eat matzah when one doesn’t have the Pesach offering.

Speaker 2:

Translation

I agree. That you have to eat matzah together with the korban Pesach, that’s what the verse explains. “There’s no need for proof,” a verse that you say, that now when you don’t have sacrifices you need to eat matzah, and this night here, you learn it from a verse, definitely matzah, it makes no difference what it says with this in the verse.

Speaker 1:

But it does say in the verse that all the days you should eat matzah. Very good, it always says that you must eat matzah. But what can you say that the verse doesn’t mean to say plain matzah, it means to say not chametz, and that is the Torah of chametz.

Speaker 2:

But the Torah could have said matzah and maror, it would have fit with “al matzot umarorim yochluhu”. I will help myself with this explanation. If the eating would have been, one would have said that the matzah bread is not a mitzvah and only the verse says, no, the bread that one normally eats with some taste, that it’s not right with the chametz, that’s not right.

Speaker 1:

So I think that Chazal saw from the connection, here you eat with the matzah not a thing, a mitzvah to eat matzah with Pesachim, and here stands the matzah bread specially, okay, very good, I said this, I said this, I have some explanation, which is correct, apparently it’s the reason why they made the first night a remembrance of the korban Pesach, and it doesn’t fit with “uvchol moshvoteichem tochlu matzot” which you end with?

Discussion: “Uvchol Moshvoteichem Tochlu Matzot”

Speaker 2:

Number on the same day, however, the same ending, it’s simply an ending for the same mitzvah. Number “uvchol moshvoteichem tochlu matzot”, it’s not only in the Beit HaMikdash, not only here, not only there, not only “uvchol moshvoteichem” is a piece of information that you should know now then, but “uvchol moshvoteichem” there is a mitzvah to eat “uvchol moshvoteichem”, but only certain places, yes? Only the place of the Mikdash, only in certain things.

Speaker 1:

“Matzot yochel et shivat hayamim”, it’s interesting because everywhere it says matzot, yes, “matzot yochel et shivat hayamim” is written in the holy. What then again? Okay, let’s learn further. It says the same language, yes? “Shivat yamim tochel matzot”.

Okay, let’s learn.

Transition to Negative Commandments

Speaker 1:

In the next section I brought the other mitzvot of matzah. Now we’re going to learn, these are all the positive commandments. Now we’re going to the negative commandments. Which negative commandments did we say then we’re going to? Negative commandments. Nu?

Speaker 2:

Twenty-nine they are, yes? Twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four. Yes.

Speaker 1:

Let’s take a look at something, just to understand. The negative commandments for example, in the whole group of the Ten Commandments, did you notice? The negative commandments, where are they? You have in the introductions to the Sefer HaMitzvot, Sefer HaMada, here, look here, page negative. And where are the positive commandments? And we want to look at the order, right? Positive commandments that you just learned, right? Is twenty-eight. Ah, that’s in…

Mixture of Chametz on Pesach — Negative Commandments 197 and 198 in Sefer HaMitzvot

Location of the Prohibitions in Sefer HaMitzvot

Speaker 1: Which negative commandment did we say we’re going to?

Speaker 2: Negative commandment… nu? One hundred ninety-seven, yes?

Speaker 1: One hundred ninety-seven should be three questions. Yes. Let’s take a look at something, to understand. The negative commandments for example are in the middle of the group of forbidden foods. Did you notice? The negative commandments, how are they? You have in the introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot, Sefer HaMidot, here, look here. Just curious. And how are the positive commandments? Let’s look at the order, right? Positive commandments that we just learned, right? Is one hundred forty-eight. Ah, that’s in… Here it is in the group of one hundred ninety-seven, right? Yes, but the negative commandment is one hundred ninety-seven, yes, one hundred ninety-seven, be and go. Right, and which group is that? Let’s see, one hundred ninety-seven. Yes, in the middle of the group of forbidden foods, right?

Because you can find the sign, I checked the signs, yes. When he starts with non-kosher animals and all those things, and then notar, forbidden fat, chadash, and then he comes to chadash, orlah, kilei hakerem, yes, and eating. Yes, not to eat on the day of the fast. Ah, not eating on Yom Kippur also comes into forbidden foods. It’s good that he comes into forbidden foods of times, like not to eat on the day of the fast. Not to eat and drink in the manner of a glutton and drunkard is second, not to eat on the day of the fast, not to eat chametz on Pesach, not to eat a mixture of chametz, not to eat chametz after midday, that chametz should not be seen, that chametz should not be found. And then comes nazir and so on. In short, it’s in forbidden foods, a close group presumably. Yes.

Negative Commandment 197 — Actual Chametz

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue. One hundred ninety-seven says thus: The prohibition against eating chametz on Pesach, and this is what it says “no chametz shall be eaten,” and one who eats any chametz is cut off if intentional, if unintentional he brings a sin offering.

Negative Commandment 198 — Mixture of Chametz

One hundred ninety-eight is not just actual chametz, but, but plain chametz, also here is already a mixture of chametz. But even one bread. Here he says something about what should be the difference, that it’s a…

Why Do You Need a Special Prohibition on Mixture of Chametz?

Okay, we mean that chametz means bread? Chametz means bread, a loaf. What kind of food eats bread? That’s the matzah! Chametz is the opposite of matzah, bread. It’s leavened and unleavened. He says no. There are other types of foods that have in them a mixture of chametz. What is also an addition, as he says “kol chametz one is lashed for it”. It’s already not… Meanwhile there’s already crumbled chametz in it. It’s yes… Ah, it’s about that.

Nu, why would someone think it’s not? It has the taste of chametz. It’s already chametz. It’s already chametz that one may not eat. But with a mixture you need a special teaching, by the way. Because it is… Do you remember? Because it’s chametz with three loaves and the like. No, because it was forbidden to eat this food. Eating this… a food that has this inside is another thing. It’s another new thing. Okay.

Here is a special teaching already from one food. “Yechol yechol banav kara’u”. It’s a prohibition. But maybe there is a prohibition, but one is not liable to karet. But… But… There’s no karet on any mixture of chametz. Nu, what is the Torah prohibition then? Because it says “kol ochel chametz venichrta”. A special chametz food whose name is complete. But meanwhile it’s “not its complete type”. It’s “not its complete type”. Ah, not pure chametz. It’s bread, a loaf. As it says in the chapter “Elu Ovrin” in Pesachim: “an eighth, an eighth, a fifth, a fifth”. Not necessarily obligated, a fifth. We derive it. We derive it… One who eats a kezayit of chametz within the time of eating a half-loaf… That’s a prohibition. So if there’s a kezayit of chametz within eating a half-loaf, you’ve eaten exactly the chametz.

Analogy of Vegetarian — Is Mixture a Thing in Itself?

Eating with the mixture, is the mixture a thing in itself? Always it’s a thing in itself. It’s a great wonder. It’s a great novelty. Why? Why? If you say for example you’re a vegetarian, yes?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Do you eat from a non-vegetarian mixture also? Or only bread, only chicken he doesn’t eat, but you eat yes, if you have a sauce from chicken once you eat it yes, true?

Speaker 2: No, it would be hypocrisy.

Speaker 1: Because… I ask you, is that so? The chicken sauce isn’t better, it just has something else also. You can divide it, you can say one choice, I’ll eat only half a plate, it will be considered yes that I only ate. But it’s not different, because you ate it. It doesn’t look like you only ate a kezayit of chametz.

This is what we’re talking about here, the question is literally very technical. Because in practice, many vegetarian people, eat yes mixture, vegetarian mixture, yes. Non-vegetarian mixture, but originally it’s vegetarian mixture, it will be such… As if the mixture of chametz itself would be, that one is obligated for a kezayit of chametz mixture. That is from the kezayit of chametz mixture one is still obligated for a kezayit of chametz in the mixture. It’s chametz in mixture. Full chametz is simple, one is obligated, not because it combines to the measure of a kezayit. Chametz mixture means that it’s chametz, not just that one may not eat it. It means that it has properly become chametz that… everything is forbidden.

By the way, it’s eating if one eats matzah alone, eating another thing. Yes, I mean that generally what it says eating in the Torah means simply. Not exactly, because what can one taste both things at once? He must have had “al chametz matzah umaror yochluhu”. You see? Yes. You see? Aha. I don’t remember one hundred percent, but you see clearly that eating means eating.

As said, it makes a lot of sense. The way of Chassidut always says, when one learns Torah one shouldn’t speak this way. A father tells his child, he can’t use such language of Chazal not English. “Yachol eved mitzvah livno”? He has such language, that one should be troubled, the halacha makes this.

Like a true vegetarian, I’m stringent not to eat meat. You understand very well that there are many vegetarians who eat yes the potato from the cholent. True? The potato from the cholent. But not meat together with the potato. Because if yes, with what does the meat become better because it has life in it, a potato? Understand? But absorptions, you can say, absorptions I’m not particular about. Okay, because absorptions is… The potato from the cholent has in it absorptions. It doesn’t have in it meat. It doesn’t have in it meat. It doesn’t have in it meat. Taste like the essence. It’s already halachic things. A person can say, I have such a type of stringency that once a little taste went in, nu, nu, understand? Can hear. I can make this nu. But to suffer a piece of food…

Therefore one can make a bit of a boundary between a piece of chicken, nu, one can still make this nu. The nu is a great permission that you can say, your mouth shouldn’t be chametz. Your mouth, the type of eating that you’re eating now shouldn’t be chametz. It makes no difference to me that it’s mixed. A person could have thought this way. But, why say that the mixture makes it better? The eating is the same. Okay. Because a person would have said the opposite, chametz mixture means that everything, the whole thing, becomes as if it were chametz. But he says sharply, not only would he be obligated even for a kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf of that itself. This is according to the Rabbis.

“All chametz mixtures in the world are forbidden, one is lashed for them on the intermediate days of the festival?” Yes. “However if there was in it a mixture of chametz less than the measure of eating on the intermediate days of the festival”, okay, okay, one must… That even chametz mixture, different from other mixtures, one must understand. Can I also say that because of the dearness of the… What does chametz mixture mean? You have pieces of bread in it? I don’t know. Okay.

Dispute Between Ramban and Rambam Regarding Chametz Mixture

It comes to karet. The Ramban actually argues here. Is it the real Ramban? It’s not now to learn this side. Yes. Look at the Ramban, what does the Ramban say? Yes, as you say, “within the time of eating a half-loaf”, he should have received karet, “completely ingested” so he tears.

At least, what do you say? Open here the Sefer HaMitzvot. Ah, I have a Sefer HaMitzvot, the green one with the Ramban, how is that? Ah, what do you say? “Negative commandment one hundred nineteen”? One hundred nineteen? No, one hundred eighteen. Where can it be?

So the Ramban holds like you, it is… Like the Rashbatz, “when the measure of eating a half-loaf one is lashed, lashed and less lashed”? Yes. The Rav writes, let’s learn this Ramban already. You want to learn this Ramban? The Rav writes, “and if he ate it within the time of eating a half-loaf”, here it says Ramban? “And if he ate it in two kingdoms”. The Rashbatz, the Rashbatz is “in two kingdoms”, the words of the writer “his measure is like two kingdoms”. So interesting. “For less than that”? How… Our beloved Rambam writes, “days of Israel”, is your felt… Ay, good.

Opinion of the Ramban — Kezayit Within the Time of Eating a Half-Loaf is a Complete Prohibition, But Not Karet

In Sefer HaMitzvot, in short, until here are the words of the Rav. My opinion is to say, that chametz a kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf which is from the Torah, meaning he transgressed a complete prohibition for which he is lashed. But a kezayit in two kingdoms, which is the measure of eating a half-loaf of royal eating which is abundant, this is prohibited by Torah law. So he says in Mishneh Torah, in chapter one of the laws of forbidden foods.

And in truth in the matter as if the words are not good. That chametz when there is in it a kezayit, he is liable to karet and lashes, even though there is no amplification here. But the essence of chametz from the Torah, that it should be complete chametz by itself, and when we say a kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf is from the Torah, meaning that it is not nullified on its own, we need that in any case a kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf that even though it doesn’t need this, for he is lashed but not for karet.

And if you still have the words of Rabbi Elazar with you here, who says about complete grain chametz that one is not lashed except for amplification in a prohibition. In the prohibition of “kol machametzet lo tocheilu”, that complete grain chametz that one is not lashed, behold it is in the prohibition of “kol machametzet”. And he disagrees with the words of Rabbi Yochanan about machametzet, and Rashi in the words of our Rabbi expounds “kol machametzet” refers to mixed chametz…

The Ramban’s Approach — The Amplification is on Mixture, Not on Complete Chametz

Quite different, the Ramban argues that the Ramban doesn’t hold… Exactly the opposite the Ramban says… What does he say exactly the opposite? That when one eats a thing as it is within the time of eating a half-loaf… When one is not liable to karet only lashes, that is a special Torah amplification. When a thing from lashes is there from rabbinic law. Right. And the truth says the Ramban… If he eats a whole kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf, if there is a whole kezayit of chametz, that goes into “kol ochel machametzet” which was even optional words. And the amplification means that when one eats a chametz mixture within the time of eating a half-loaf, even if the chametz itself wasn’t a kezayit, even if the chametz itself wasn’t a kezayit, on that there are lashes, that’s the novelty.

Dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages

Again, no, the rule is a dispute. Rabbi Eliezer actually holds that one receives lashes for “kol machametzet” when one eats less than the time of eating a half-loaf, when it combines, as you say, the chametz is only a kezayit from both together, and the Sages hold generally that one is not obligated. And we rule like Rabbi Eliezer, the Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer, that there is an extra prohibition, and the punishment is only on the mixtures, which one can elaborate more.

Again, the Ramban says that according to the Rabbis it’s completely permitted. “If one is cut off for the bread”, there’s no such thing as a prohibition on mixture. Permitted. When one eats less than the time of eating a half-loaf it’s permitted. And according to Rabbi Eliezer one is liable to karet, liable to a prohibition, and according to the Sages one is completely exempt. And what does “kol machametzet” mean according to them? The Ramban said that they have another explanation in “kol machametzet”. That one language is actual chametz, and chametz through another thing is “kol machametzet”. What that means I don’t know, one must look immediately.

Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai — Kezayit Within the Time of Eating a Half-Loaf

Yes. “Eating a kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf is the obligation in all food prohibitions in the Torah, whether in lashes or in karet, as the Sages said in general, ‘All that has taste like the essence’, and ‘it is a halacha to Moshe from Sinai that a person is not obligated until he eats a kezayit within the time of eating a half-loaf’.”

Very good, but the reasons for the commandments are another amplification, the only thing you need to see is that taste like essence is from the Torah. Halacha to Moshe from Sinai, just like halacha to Moshe from Sinai, “because one is not lashed for the measure of prohibitions except for eating of karet, and there is no measure of prohibitions in the exposition except in a place of karet, like the words of Rabbi Eliezer regarding chametz”.

The Ramban’s Distinction — “Kol Machametzet” is Actual Chametz and Chametz Through Another Thing

In short, the Ramban says that the prohibition must be derived from “lo tochal alav chametz”. There is such a prohibition, according to the Sages there is no such prohibition. Nu ay, what is the amplification? There’s no prohibition? The actual chametz and the chametz through another thing, both are forbidden. That means, it’s included in the previous things, one may not eat chametz. Where are the previous things? Here, the previous. Where did we already learn it? We didn’t learn it. But the next things…

Ah, the previous, the previous things. Aha. I want to catch the point of the matter. The Rambam says “What is machametzet? This is leaven and dough that has leavened”. In short, the commentators are perplexed about the Rambam before the Ramban. Is there a prohibition at all. And what is actually true? That all other prohibitions actually hold differently than the Ramban, that what one eats through a halacha to Moshe from Sinai one transgresses from the Torah from the essence of the law. Very interesting.

Already, you see? Good to know that the Ramban holds like you. Just, the Tosafot in Chullin there’s a wonder that the Ramban held like Rabbi Eliezer, that’s the point. He clearly looked into Megillat Esther how he defends the previous.

Mitzvot Laws of Chametz and Matzah — Dispute Between Rambam and Ramban in the Order of Prohibitions

Dispute Between Rambam and Ramban Regarding Prohibition of Benefit from Idolatry (Conclusion)

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, he explains to the person. In short, the commentators are divided whether the Rambam is correct or the Ramban. Whether there is a prohibition at all, and what is actually true, because all other books actually hold like the Ramban, that what something one shouldn’t have benefit from something? It’s from idolatry from the Torah from the essence of the law.

Speaker 2: Interesting, very interesting.

Speaker 1: Good, you see, good to know that the Ramban holds like you.

Speaker 2: Simply, with others there are disputes, assume that the Rambam held like Rabbi Elazar, that’s the point. I’ll try to look into Megillas Esther, he will defend it. He defends simply, he will say that this is a sin.

Speaker 1: Ah, I see, okay.

—

Mitzvah 199: Prohibition of Eating Chametz After Midday on the 14th of Nissan — “Lo Sochal Alav Chametz”

The Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos

Speaker 1: But the next thing I wanted to ask the Ramban, he says this. The next thing, it says in the Ramban, I know there’s a dispute. Simply in [mitzvah] 199 is the prohibition of eating chametz after midday on the fourteenth of Nissan, there it says “lo sochal alav chametz”. What is “alav”? “Alav” means the korban Pesach.

I go back to what we established earlier regarding the holiness of Pesach Sheni, chametz at the time of bringing the korban Pesach Sheni, whether one is now not transgressing “lo sochal alav chametz”. He doesn’t learn from this about eating chametz on the first day, he learns like the Gemara the other way, and he rules like the opinion that it’s derived from “alav”.

The Dispute Between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon — Chametz from Six Hours

But Rabbi Yitzchak ben Aharon holds chametz at six hours is a Biblical prohibition, “lo sochal alav chametz”. He says that the principle is, chametz from six hours onward is Biblical (d’Oraisa).

He brings a proof from the Tosafos in Zevachim 21a, that the Tosafos say there, “they didn’t say in the Talmud that eating chametz from six hours is only Rabbinical, except when one eats it without the korban Pesach, but when one eats it with the korban Pesach, he is transgressing a Biblical prohibition”. What does this mean? That even after [midday] the prohibition is indeed Biblical. And even one who eats chametz after midday receives lashes.

The Ramban Disagrees

On this the Ramban also disagrees. He says it’s not a law at all, because this appears in other laws, we come to follow like Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with him. Why does he hold it’s like Rabbi Shimon? Why not like Rabbi Yehuda?

Speaker 2: Aha, I understand the question.

Speaker 1: But he brings on this the proof, that the Tosafos in Zevachim said chametz from six hours onward is Biblical, that they ruled not like Rabbi Shimon.

And the Ramban says, what it says that the six hours is Biblical, doesn’t mean six hours. He says, everyone agrees that one must indeed destroy [it].

Question: The Mitzvah of Tashbisu Without a Prohibition of Eating?

But can there be a mitzvah of destroying which shouldn’t have a prohibition of eating?

Speaker 2: Yes, they’re two different things.

Speaker 1: Okay.

I wanted to ask simply, I’ll tell you. One great contradiction is here, there’s an explanation. Everything is the great… so that now it shouldn’t be. That means one should eliminate it, one shouldn’t eat it. I don’t know if you bite into something that isn’t yours. You add another prohibition, already another prohibition.

Speaker 2: Okay, if you have a banker, it already matters.

—

The Count of Prohibitions of Chametz on Pesach — The Order of the Rambam and Ramban

Chametz and Se’or — One Matter

Speaker 1: Further, another one, two, another thing. Correctly. Another two. Three things. “Seven days you shall not eat chametz in all your borders, and se’or shall not be seen in all your borders”. These aren’t two separate prohibitions, that means one prohibition. So it says in the verse, “lo sochal alav chametz, seven days you shall eat upon it matzos”. This is one prohibition, “lo sochal alav chametz”. This is one prohibition.

Regarding lo yera’eh, regarding other things. I just don’t understand because I remember that the Ramban has an old approach where he divides the prohibitions, not that, I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about the matter, the subject. He divides the chametz. But chametz and se’or is one thing, because the essence is that it’s chametz. So let’s say in one evening we read chametz itself and the leavening agent. Who says this language? The Ramban. Here it says chametz and se’or.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Prohibitions of Eating and Possession

Speaker 1: “Any person who eats chametz, that soul shall be cut off from Israel”, he’s still about chametz on Pesach, “in all that he eats”. Are there separate prohibitions, that kingship is already in the act of the day.

Rabbi Elazar, “seven days se’or shall not be found in your houses”, even if it’s not ours, but simply the existence there. From lo yera’eh and lo yimatzei.

A Prohibition Included in a Positive Commandment

However, so it stands already, as you said, that there’s a dispute. Regarding the prohibitions, it says as we mentioned earlier, according to the principles that there must be an act, there must be a transgression.

In Tractate Pesachim it says, “mitzvos of the lips are these mitzvos, lo yochal chametz in all your borders”, which is taken out from the separate ones. “Seven days he shall eat, any prohibition included in a positive commandment, one doesn’t receive lashes for it”. This is simply a positive commandment, which is for lo yera’eh and bal yimatzei.

Speaker 2: Very good, correct. Correct like that.

Bal Yera’eh and Bal Yimatzei — The Distinction Between Chametz and Se’or

Speaker 1: Yes, there are other distinctions, yes, there are. In any case, the month of Pesach which is his, there is indeed bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, right? Bal yera’eh is… The Rambam says, I remember that he indeed doesn’t count it in Sefer HaMitzvos as a separate mitzvah. But it is a separate mitzvah. Lo yera’eh and lo yimatzei he counts separately, correct.

Speaker 2: Ah, correct, correct, correct.

Speaker 1: Ah, here it says chametz lo yimatzei, se’or lo yera’eh, so it says. Chametz is indeed a lo yimatzei, right?

Speaker 2: Ah, okay. Very interesting.

The Rambam’s Order — According to Time

Speaker 1: And here the Rambam began a slightly different approach and he said, lo sochal chametz from the 14th, and lo sochal chametz all seven [days], eating a mixture of chametz, lo yera’eh and lo yimatzei, which is all seven [days].

On this he added here the word “all seven” an entire time, because this is the order that goes here, and from the 14th there is not eating chametz, and the removal of it.

The Ramban learns that only here is the removal of it, there is no “lo sochal chametz”.

Speaker 2: Very interesting. Correct. Yes. Yes. Even in the… yes, in the count of holiness it also doesn’t say “seven”. Very interesting.

Innovation: The Ramban Changes the Order

Speaker 1: Literally, it’s clear that this is the reason why he made this order. Here suddenly the Ramban became one who changes and goes with the chronological order. Go understand. Interesting.

—

Conclusion of the Positive Commandments and Beginning of the Prohibitions

Speaker 1: Okay, until here are the mitzvos. Yes. Okay, the prohibitions.