Hag’alas Keilim for Pesach — Earthenware Vessels and Metal Vessels

Overview: Where We Are Holding in Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah

Speaker 1: We’re going to learn halachos in honor of Pesach, Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah. I see I prepared here, I didn’t show it, I believe we learned last year until approximately perek yud (chapter 10), and we’re holding in the middle of perek yud. We’re going to be from perek yud, from daf kuf yud (page 110), from daf kuf yud.

So, let’s go. We’re going to learn about chametz, the halachos of tashbisu se’or. Kuf pei, yud alef (chapter 10, halacha 11). I see that I made it until there, so at least I need to start from here it becomes more nogei’a l’ma’aseh (practically relevant) also. L’ma’aseh one goes and takes much more wild topics.

Okay, good. Kuf pei, yud alef. What does this relate to? This is a new piece. This hasn’t connected with the previous ones.

So, let’s see in which category of mitzvah this is. The Rambam has here Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah. What? No, not exactly. Let’s see. There are included in them eight mitzvos: to destroy se’or, and that chametz should not be seen at all, yes?

So, we haven’t spoken about this. So, the beginning of the siman was, he said which types of things are chametz, which types of grain. How does it become chametz? In what manner? If it’s cooked, if it’s roasted beforehand it doesn’t become chametz, such types of discussions.

And afterwards he spoke about how one makes matzos, how one ensures that the matzos… there was a matter of “u’shemartem es ha’matzos,” that one has a mitzvah to guard that it shouldn’t become chametz. There are chumros in the halacha how one must guard the grain, the shemirah from the time of harvesting, and so on, what does become chametz and what doesn’t. And afterwards a bit the halachos when one bakes matzos, what one needs to pay more attention to that it shouldn’t be chametz, warm water becomes chametz faster, such things, halachos. And afterwards there were halachos of when one gives food to animals, how to ensure that it doesn’t become chametz. Because one may not… what may not remain with chametz? Is it a matter of being a Jew? Yes, yes. There are such chumros and precautions in not creating chametz on Pesach.

Um, so, and here we’re holding by… we can go by kuf. We can start from matzah ashirah perhaps? No, kuf alef. Kuf alef, very good. Okay. Kuf is a halacha of matzah ashirah, that one may indeed, because we discussed here that when it has mei peiros… I don’t know any continuation of an answer, it says what is a halacha of mei peiros, but that Pesach itself should be lechem oni. Very good.

The Question: Why Do Halachos of Keilim Appear in This Chapter?

Speaker 1: Now a halacha is going to begin about which keilim one may use on Pesach if they were used for chametz. Wait, the essential din of hechsher, of hag’alas keilim, is in another place in the Rambam? There is a din that the Gemara learns from there in kelei Midian, that when one buys keilim from a non-Jew, and so on, kelei nochrim, how one is machshir. You’re asking if the Rambam has in another place halachos of hag’alah? Hilchos Keilim? Yes. Do we need to go prepared to see? I would be interested to see, to compare the two places how he covered which Friday.

Let’s just understand, what we’re now going to learn is which types of keilim one may use on Pesach. Does this have to do with the fact that one may not eat chametz on Pesach? Yes, it has very much to do with the chapters of “u’shemartem,” that there should be extreme shemirah. Is this a new… let’s see if the mefarshim explain why it’s here in the middle. It needs to have a bit of an explanation why it’s here. Yes, yes, yes.

Um, one may not make any… wait, he says that the perek still has to do with… I mean he says here in the introduction to the perek that this is a continuation of Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah, because it begins with the fact that chametz is only those things from which one can make matzah, and matzah one can only make from things that can become chametz. And from this he goes into exactly how to make the matzah so it shouldn’t become chametz. But the second part of halacha hei is very interesting things, these are halachos of kelei chametz.

What one eats makes the shemirah more than the essence of “lo yeira’eh lecha chametz.”

Speaker 2: No, this is part of…

Speaker 1: And in Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros, at the end of Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros, the Rambam speaks about the halachos of hag’alas keilim, gi’ulei kelei Midian, “kol asher yavo ba’eish,” and there the Rambam explains the matters of k’vol’o kach polto, and tevilas keilim he speaks there.

I mean these are the matters of k’vol’o kach polto.

Speaker 2: Hag’alah, yes, hag’alah and tevilas keilim he speaks there.

Speaker 1: Good, I don’t want to go into the sugya now.

Speaker 2: But, yes, perek yud zayin (chapter 17), Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros.

Speaker 1: So, so here, now I think it comes a bit after what one learns from ta’arovos, as if when there is in the pot it’s clear that a question of ta’arovos begins, that it gets mixed in. No, but just so that one buys keilim from a non-Jew, there’s always the concern that there are ta’arovos of a forbidden thing. So on this there are the pesukim of “v’zeh ha’davar asher ta’asu lahem,” and there’s a hint “lo kol asher yavo ba’eish.” Okay, not important.

And here let’s see, if we’re going to see a bit about bli’os, this is the foundation of the halacha, this is essentially not by chametz there are things that are different from all ma’achalos asuros, this is what he speaks about here. Let’s see, let’s go in a bit, let’s see what we’re talking about.

Halacha Chof Alef: Earthenware Vessels Used with Chametz Cold

Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam says: “Kol kli cheres she’nishtamesh bo be’chamin”, yes, “kol kli cheres she’nishtamesh bo be’chamin”, that one used in the earthenware vessel chametz, but it was only cold, and nothing was absorbed from it, it’s permitted to use them for matzah cold. Except, what’s the exception? Except for a vessel in which one places se’or, or vessels in which one places charoses, for they are sharp, and draw chametz strongly.

Understanding “Chamitzan Kashah”

The language “chamitzan kashah,” seemingly means to say that they are sharp things, therefore the chametz absorbs better. “Chamitzan kashah” means it’s a harder case of chametz, it’s a more severe situation of chametz. Because I don’t think he means “chamitzan kashah” that it absorbed very strongly, therefore it will be better absorbed. Rather it’s a sour thing, therefore it catches in stronger, therefore chamitzan kashah, it makes very chametz-like, it makes very severely chametz-like, it’s a severe chametz-maker, it’s a severe chametz maker.

But seemingly this is the word, yes, because we know from other places that a sharp thing or a thing that absorbs more strongly. What is the side of the halacha of the vessel? Okay, let’s see. Okay, I don’t know, okay. I don’t know, I don’t know.

Question: Why Only Cold?

Speaker 1: Okay, the Gemara taught us that one may not eat chametz on Pesach. Now the Gemara teaches us a new thing, one may not eat even chametz. Keilim that one used with chametz one also may not use with things on Pesach. And this is about ta’arovos chametz, this is about what? It doesn’t matter why, right? Because it doesn’t. Also we saw that one may use it for matzah cold, on Pesach cold. But why only cold? If one says that the vessel that one used cold chametz there was no bli’ah, should one now indeed be able to put on Pesach vessels hot things, that which one can only put hot, and even more so. And seemingly one should be able to put cold matzos, plain matzos one should be able to put even if one used it for hot chametz, because how will the dry hard matzah be absorbed from a clean plate? Okay. This needs to be understood. It appears that we’ve encountered a great chumra here. Okay.

Discussion: Kelei Se’or and Charoses — Why Not at All?

Speaker 1: Um… what is if chamitzo kashah is what? I don’t know what that has to do with it. What is the similarity?

Okay, it’s chamitzo kashah, therefore what should one do? It should be… ah, “therefore it’s proper not to place a bit of chametz that’s placed there lest it become chametz, and it’s proper to be stringent like the beis ha’or.” Is this the same as the vessel in which one places the or? Yes. The same halacha as the beis ha’or that we just said. Therefore, one uses it on Pesach. This is the vessel that is chamitzo kashah, and this is not at all for Pesach.

The things that one doesn’t do, one doesn’t do at all for Pesach. We don’t know why. Does this have to do with bli’os or anything? We don’t know why. Perhaps it’s a very chametz-like thing, it’s a symbol of chametz, it’s the place where one makes the chametz, the avi avos of chametz. I don’t know! We don’t know why! Why shouldn’t one say bli’os? Why shouldn’t one say that a cold matzah, if the vessel was dried, it can smell until tomorrow of sour, but if it was washed, it became good. Right? Okay, one can’t fix it. It’s exactly like a mother sees a vessel has a baked pot, I don’t know, a crazy thing. One needs to understand why.

A dry matzah, we’re certainly not talking about a manner when everyone sees that… when crumbs and chametz are lying no one needs to say that he’ll put any matzah on that. I want to tell you something a new chumra, that a whole if you don’t see that there should be exactly a concern, there needs to be yes still a concern.

The Words of the Rambam and the Gemara

Do you want to learn? So, for Hagahos Maimoniyos rules on this then when the beis, it says Rava bar Abba said in the name of Rav Ashi and Shmuel, all vessels that are used with chametz cold, one uses them for matzah, except for beis ha’se’or, since its fermentation is strong. Rav Ashi said, and beis charoses is like beis ha’se’or, since because of the salt which is sharp it’s like beis ha’se’or.

That means it’s not a beis ha’se’or. You’re looking in Maggid Mishneh? And the obvious brings more at the end of the Gemara. Okay, well well.

Explanation of Maggid Mishneh — What is Beis Ha’Se’or

Beis ha’se’or, the Maggid Mishneh brings, the rule is a rebbe and shalshom, when we’re not a beis ha’se’or. It’s only a… he holds it’s similar to beis ha’se’or. It’s only a… it has the kneading, one puts the dough, but in the end one puts it into the se’or. It lies there a long time, until it grows, until it grows, whatever.

Did he say, and the vessel in which one kneads the dough also lies in the se’or long? So he says. So he says. But the regular for one who isn’t expert in them, this one doesn’t keep regularly, perhaps not a long time regularly, it also lies in the se’or the whole time, every time one makes another challah. One makes, he puts more into the zer! And… every vessel then that made challah, also has a small drop of zer! And one doesn’t see it, then we’re talking here! A relevant language!

The Question — Why Is It Forbidden

One can needs to understand, but why is it forbidden? Is it because the bli’os are stronger! And this will give a bit more to understand!

Let’s say the fact, what does the Gemara say! The two halachos that the Rambam brings, right? Kli cheres that wasn’t used except with beis ha’or, and beis charoses, which should give much more to understand, one of the third halacha is the end of the first halacha is from Shmuel, and the Rambam here has three halachos.

Three Halachos from Three Amora’im

Halacha number 1 beis ha’or, this is the halacha of Shmuel, and halacha number 2 beis charoses, this is the halacha of Rav Ashi, and halacha number 3 the Rivash’s language of vinegar, this is the halacha of Rava. They’re all built on the same idea, there’s to lead with this.

And also this has the first halacha only been kol kli cheres she’nishtamesh bahen chametz. He already means any other vessel. A rebbe in the vessel isn’t any distinction of which material. It’s even from something that one can generally make kosher. One doesn’t use on Pesach. On something that one cannot make kosher.

Two Versions in the Gemara

The Maggid Mishneh says that there are two versions in the Gemara. In our Gemara it says keilim she’nishtamesh bahen chametz be’tzonen, mishtamshin bahen matzah, not cold, just used them for matzah he said as it said. Ah, this seemingly one would have meant matzah even hot, because the chametz was never hot. Because there was no chametz in the vessel, there wasn’t if one thinks that only when it’s hot is it absorbed or something exactly what that means. So hot is also a problem, but the Rambam and the Rif had the version mishtamshin be’matzah be’tzonen. Only cold.

Explanation of Maggid Mishneh — Why One Must Wash in Hot Water

The Maggid Mishneh says the explanation is seemingly, he wants to understand here why, the Maggid Mishneh says that even when one used it only cold, one must wash it in hot water. The Maggid Mishneh says so, one needs to understand why. Even when one used it only cold, one must wash it in hot water. A hag’alah, just washing in hot water in an earthenware vessel one can understand, because that’s how it stood in the Gemara or something.

When an earthenware vessel the Rambam holds that it’s a great chumra. If one can’t fix it. Right? Yes. Another vessel one may use, certainly. Even in hot water one may use it, one just needs to make it kosher. But kli cheres, if it was used with chametz in hot water, one doesn’t use it for matzah even cold.

Two Chumros in Kli Cheres

From this halacha one can learn two things, two chumros. One, that if there was chametz cold, one shouldn’t use it for matzah cold. I mean, sorry, if there was chametz cold, one shouldn’t use it for matzah warm, and if there was chametz warm, one shouldn’t use it for matzah even cold.

What needs to be both chametz cold and also matzah cold? He says, specifically in kli cheres. If it weren’t kli cheres, one would have had to do it in hot water. A whole long time there were cold foods. No, one didn’t have to do there. Because the Rambam says explicitly, even when it’s not kli cheres, even when it’s in hot water one can make kosher and one may use it in hot water. Because kli cheres has no remedy, they forbade it even when one didn’t use it in hot water, that’s the word. Aha.

Explanation of the Chumra — Because Kli Cheres Has No Remedy

And the Rambam says so, it’s a chumra for you to stand far from kli cheres on Pesach, this is being stringent with kli cheres that was used for chametz, because if it’s with hot water, then it has no remedy, you shouldn’t use any kli cheres that was used even cold.

Okay, it’s not a bad reasoning of the Maggid Mishneh. It’s a chumra in kli cheres, because kli cheres has no remedy through hot water, one doesn’t use it on Pesach even cold. One can hear, perhaps it once became hot, you don’t remember. One can hear, it’s not such an extreme chumra. What has no remedy through hag’alah or hechsher, one completely forbade it that it’s not a vessel that one uses on Pesach. One can hear why even when it’s used cold. I know, a gezeirah, that sometimes it became hot etc., and there’s no remedy through making it kosher. Through hag’alah one completely forbade it from using on Pesach. A chumra. A chumra in kli cheres.

Discussion — The Other Version

But one needs the next halacha from over there. According to this he brings a Gemara that it can be that in general the Rama doesn’t mean this. The others who argue that no, the explanation is, the others all have the version that it doesn’t say so, therefore regarding this one relied on chametz in hot water. But even according to the version it wouldn’t be so simple. And even according to the version, what they say that it doesn’t mean matzah cold, even matzah in hot water, it doesn’t mean that, it only means chametz in hot water. That then is even matzah cold, this is indeed matzah, the other chumra is indeed the second opinion. Right, chametz in hot water one may not use in any manner, that’s the word.

And although it’s also not any absorbed thing that is cold, the absorbed one could have, but since the vessel has no remedy, one forbade the vessel. This is the other explanation. This is the other interpretation. Okay, anyway, this is the explanation.

The Question — What Is the Great Chumra

It’s a bit unclear what the explanation of the great chumra is here. He brings in the Be’er, that chametz is something terribly absorbed that is absorbed. Even kli cheres they decreed on it other vessels, which is not so with other forbidden foods. Chametz in hot water they have hechsher. One needs to know why isn’t kli cheres? Do you understand the question?

The question is if one makes both. You can say that it needs to be that one may not both cold, chametz cold and matzah cold, or only chametz cold is always forbidden but matzah cold… one needs to know what is the agenda with kli cheres, why did one forbid so strongly kli cheres.

Explanation of the Chumra — A Decree Because Kli Cheres Has No Remedy

Continuation of Discussion on Chametz Vessels

It’s interesting, when he says that it was in a keres (earthenware vessel), a kli cheres is a ye’ush (despair) that you can’t make it kosher, the Chachamim said that one should not use any earthenware vessel that was used with chametz, one should not use it with Pesach. He says according to the stringent halacha, according to the stringent Magihei Mishnayos, where it says in the Mishnah “matzah b’chamin” (matzah in hot water), right? Again, cold, yes, right, right, right.

There is certainly a case that is permitted. Both cold is certainly permitted. There is certainly a case that is permitted. Or earthenware vessels because it’s difficult, it’s too much, they added a level of stringency. A level of stringency is even if it wasn’t used for chametz, if it’s not used for hot on matzah. Specifically.

The Position of Rabbeinu Menuach

Ah, here we have Rabbeinu Menuach, from which we can learn what this means. Yonah matzah boer menuach v’noach u’lecher meshater. Yes. How do I see? That Yonah already already benu menuach? Yes, here we have the thing. Ah, ah, ah. Yes. A lot, Imrei Shach. Imrei Shach. He says a lot. Yes, we’ll see. Well, I’m a bit. Yes, but he is only. Vessels first should we see old.

He speaks about something else regarding the matzah becoming forbidden. Because he says here a… because they have a proof from a language from the lech techilah (go first). Yes, can one say to you that what what what does it mean that it’s not a problem? Yes. But it’s not with the word. Lo nesst raim matzah. But it doesn’t want to be tamish ben chama. Lo nesst raim matzah. It should be a chiddush (novelty), no. No.

But if one learns that it’s some kind of decree, Rabbeinu Menuach understood that it’s something yes, valu du iz shtamsh ben chama. No. It’s not that actually it’s not cost. Because it can’t do anything to you. No. Because the matzos, perhaps when the war should turn the matzah into chametz, and perhaps it’s still further both, perhaps not. This we can already hear, but… But this is the foundation of the position of the Rav. But already specifically ulach. No, sorry, I understand you the whole time. Enter again. This we can already hear. Okay.

And one makes a Rabbeinu Menuach. A distinction that although the Rabbis speak about what he said about an animal.

Beis HaSe’or and Charoses – Continuation of Discussion

Speaker 1:

Can one hear that the beis hase’or (leavening house) is always stronger than a place where one simply puts in a piece of bread, where there is no connection, the bread doesn’t soak in. I say that the beis hase’or is yes simple, one can hear, but regarding difficulties, I didn’t say anything about the matter, I said nothing, I don’t understand any bread.

Okay, let’s go further. Two, charoses. But Rabbeinu Yonah says like the things placed in the beis hase’or, ah, the length of the beis hase’or, that it lies there many times with the dough, with the se’or, is this a good reason for chametz vessels, I don’t know.

The language of the Gemara is “ho’il v’ish bah kiuha”, kiuha is some sharpness, bole’as, b’tzonen nami chamtzan. This is the language, I don’t know what the language is, Rabbeinu Yonah brings, a sharp thing, even if it’s cold, is considered like a hot thing.

What is Charoses?

Okay, he says what is charoses, he means only charoses that has vinegar, because it’s sharp. The charoses doesn’t mean the charoses of Pesach, apparently because it’s Pesach’dik, but rather a year-round charoses. Apparently yes. Ah, right. This is the whole thing of charoses all year. I mean that charoses is a special thing for Pesach. Meanwhile charoses is something. Why should there be a chametz’dik charoses? If charoses is something that is very sharp, is chametz itself chametz? This is the vinegar.

No, he says when one puts in something bread with vinegar, that the vinegar is the sharp thing that soaks in, not the bread. It drags along bread, well, but… But charoses, what is charoses? Charoses, let’s say one makes it with… First there are in it a few bread crumbs, croutons, and it doesn’t make the absorption doesn’t become any absorption of chametz apparently, because the absorption is only from the sharpness of the vinegar. He says yes, that the bread catches a ride. So he says. The vinegar is “kol davar she’yesh bo kiuha”, the revelation is to vinegar, and when one dips it there into dough all year, the flour that the chametz makes is a kiuha. Something, it’s some kind of sharp dip azans. A chametz’dik dip, that’s the word. A sharp chametz’dik dip. Right?

The Law of Erev Pesach Specifically

Now, ah, specifically the erev Pesach specifically is a language of Rava, agan chamar agna d’Mechuza, haveh tedira l’mila shvei chamira, u’mashra bah chamira, that it lies there to soak there, this is k’veis ha’otzer shel machmitzei kutach. Because it lies there a lot with the vinegar. With the se’or?

Question on the Rambam’s Position

I don’t understand how this works. One finds a statement of Shmuel who simply says a leniency, and from this one builds that there is a decree from the Chachamim. Why should they make a decree? This is anyway, I don’t understand how this works. Do you understand what I’m asking you? The position of the Rambam is, it doesn’t make sense. I need to stand thus, I need to stand great in heat, I need to stand specifically in earthenware vessels, because anyway he says this happens. It simply happens. Why should they go say that it’s… It’s a bit funny, right? It’s a bit funny.

Halacha 21 – Cold in Earthenware Vessels

Okay, let’s go further, next halacha. Okay, already. We know at least that cold is certainly permitted according to all opinions even an earthenware vessel that one cannot make hagalah. If it was only cold chametz, one may use it with cold matzah. Right?

Practical Leniency – Challah Cover

For example, I want to bring out here the leniency, I love leniencies. For example the cover that you put in your bread all year, according to all opinions you can put in your matzah for Pesach. Better said, it’s foolishness that a person should have an extra challah cover and a matzah bag. You can take the challah cover. If you want specifically to spread the custom, you can say so.

Discussion: Does One Need to Clean the Crumbs?

Further, you know the crumbs, does one need to clean it? One needs to clean it. One needs to clean it just like everything in the house one needs to clean. It doesn’t say that you need to turn it over. It doesn’t say that you need to turn it over. It says that you need to check for crumbs. A challah cover is a place where there are many crumbs. There is a halacha, there is a halacha about a women’s sieve, they check specific sieves, because there are many crumbs there. There is a Gemara in Pesachim, it seems to me, that checking for chametz is with absorption, not with the eye. Right? One needs to do hagalah. But I don’t want from the challah cover, I want to ask a kingdom mara d’ara.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but here it appears that one may have. What do you say, that one needs to shake it out?

Speaker 1:

Okay, I need to shake it out. I don’t know. Could be. It doesn’t say here.

Speaker 2:

No, I mean, earthenware vessels don’t have this thing. Are there crumbs?

Speaker 1:

Okay, so l’chatchilah there are no crumbs. It’s not something that crumbs stick to. It’s a bit of stringency. Again, I want specifically to be stringent, and I want to be stringent, one should give a look at the challah cover for a minute or two, cover with matzos, and go further.

Speaker 2:

Why are you doing? You’re not being stringent in every thing that is permitted. We have a very long list if one may do every thing that is permitted.

Speaker 1:

No, I said that if there comes some time of need, I know, you have tremendous faith, and you need to say it for the trusting public, and then one comes up with a whole collection of leniencies. But leniencies that don’t fall out, you know, go further.

The Distinction Between Vessels One Prepares In and Vessels One Places In After Baking

In other words, let’s stand the words to understand what’s written here. Usually, if there are any vessels that one bakes the chametz in, they are too… The vessels that one places in after the baked chametz, it’s already cold, that is permitted. The only ones that one may not, are the vessels that one prepares in, there where one puts in the flour, and there where one leaves the mixer, that one should not use.

It can also be, nowadays there is probably, there where one… According to what’s written here.

Halacha 22 – Biv Shel Cheres

Already, I don’t know. “Biv shel cheres”. Biv shel cheres, I don’t know what he says. Something in earthenware, on which one makes… Already, chalos chametz kol hashanah. Someone who uses this for Pesach. What is a biv? Is this an oven piece? A tray that one puts into the oven? It appears, Rabbeinu Menuach, “kli she’osin bo ofin atikim”, one takes a piece that fell from the roof. To what? Refim is the roof? Shingles, whatever, the parts of the roof. In Hebrew, I mean that refim is roof.

In short, one finds some large piece of metal that fell down, one can easily put into the oven to what? Already, afilu chalos chametz kol hashanah, and even in practice, I know, because it has absorptions from… from now. Yes, already, from a lav, yes. But…

Discussion: What is a Biv?

Speaker 2:

A biv, you said the thing that one cooks in, some kind of oven piece, I thought it’s different from a normal oven in our house. What? What do you mean?

Speaker 1:

Yes. The nria… kli res… a biv is an oven piece. A biv appears something that one puts in. You translate like?

The Law of Hagalah for Biv

Halacha, hai b’chaya, says the Gemara, hai b’chaya, saikan b’chutz, saikan b’chutz, forbidden. When one doesn’t live there the… ah, v’ima, let’s explain, v’ima mila gachalim v’hisek makom she’eino mevashel chametz, permitted to cook in it in practice. It’s not exactly what the reality of what we’re speaking about here. It’s a whole long Gemara of… such a kli re… the Gemara said that there is a distinction of tanur shel… a shakri shel chatvel distinction. Kasakim bifnim, kasakim bachutz. Kasakim bifnim is… white? Kasakim bachutz is occupied. Yes.

Speaker 2:

A minute, again. What should we see with the ber… because we can enough kosher it.

Speaker 1:

Yes. Milui gachalim. Where is sakim makom shlomo vashel through chametz?

Speaker 2:

Yes. We is green. Don’t know take mitl chura then. We need to make it something special side.

Speaker 1:

Okay. With coals. Milui gachalim means…

Bor Shel Cheres – Continuation of Discussion

The Gemara and Rambam: Sealed Oven and Groove

Speaker 1: Sealed oven, if it has a groove and its groove is from inside and its groove is from outside. Its groove from inside is permitted, and its groove from outside is forbidden. Its groove, right? Its groove, yes, I guess.

A minute, a minute, before that. What should we see with the bor? Because one can enough kosher it, yes? Milui gachalim v’yetzikah mayim rotchin al makom shenatan bo hachametz. Yes, not only with libun (heating), but one needs to make it something special. Okay, with coals. Milui gachalim means what? The oven? Yes. And he put in the makom shenatan bo hachametz.

What he says is, there is its groove from outside or its groove from inside. A normal oven, yes, where one puts in the fire, yes, what an oven should go for example, that one has an oven, not like the fancy ovens of the house, the ovens of the bread, it’s literally everything is there. A normal oven, where the oven one puts in, on the walls one puts in the bread. One needs to cook it off. Once one makes hagalah, whatever it’s called, and one may use it.

What is not so the thing, one doesn’t make the way that one bakes in this is not like a pot, not its groove from inside. Not an oven, therefore this time our normal oven is cooked out. It’s its groove from inside of the bor. So he has it, such a top style thing. Right, the top that you put into the oven, so regarding the challah it’s like an external oven. You don’t need to put in the challah in this. I mean that he explains here that it’s some piece of an oven. It’s actually from a rough piece of wood or a rough piece of metal. A rough piece of metal on the stone, yes. This means such a tray, like a metal tray that he puts into the oven, so the challah stays on the metal, it shouldn’t touch. Okay, okay, yes, okay.

Speaker 2: Ah, he doesn’t say that it’s earthenware, he says that it’s a metal vessel.

Speaker 1: Metal he didn’t say. No, metal comes extra halacha. Okay, we’ll finish metal. One needs makom shenatan bo hachametz, and how is it a pot? No, it’s a pot she’charko mibachutz. Charko mibachutz means simply that it becomes less baked the bottom side. But the fact is that one needs to fill it from inside. Standing one needs to fill it from inside with the coals, one needs to see what is enough.

The Rambam’s Language Change: “Ofin” and “Mevashel”

Speaker 1: But another thing, simply weird, the Rambam changes the language from “ofin” (baking) to “mevashel” (cooking). “Makom she’ofin bo lo ya’afeh bo, makom shemevashlin bo muter levashel bo”. What is simply funny, simply mad this language. He starts with “ofin” and “ofin”, and he goes to “mevashel” and “mevashel”.

I don’t know what this language is, I hold it’s a halacha. In any case, “bor shel cheres shehayah manihin bo chamin kol hashanah, ein ofin bo es hamatzah b’Pesach. But one fills it with coals, and since it was whitened every place that one cooks the chametz in, there is no chametz in it”. The language is simply mad.

Yes, he says the same halacha, and it also makes sense. “Ofin” – we’re speaking about a type of oven. It’s something between an oven and a pot, about this he speaks that the tray is how it goes into the oven or into a tefach. “Ofin bo chametz, ein ofin bo”. And then he goes to “makom shemevashlin bo chametz, muter levashel bo”. I don’t know why he changed the language.

Speaker 2: Ah, in the versions it’s actually, he crosses out the two “levashel’s”. “Ofin” and “la’afos”.

Speaker 1: The word is only… ah, and the Gemara actually says “likdeirah l’mashal”. One doesn’t do this in it, because for a pot one is concerned that it will break. One needs to be… One won’t fill it with stones in it. And with coals, all the more so the thing, the next piece will fall from the roof, and that one is too less important to what. The hibub is less important. But this is the point, a thing that one bakes in, you ask a question why is it worse.

Question: Why Isn’t the Regular Heat Enough?

Speaker 1: I understand what the honors are going to fall the work. On which things didn’t happen from the permission of erd. Already a thousand it doesn’t get cleaned in there in there in hilt chasmachalos hasoros. We meanwhile haven’t yet seen in hilt chaim tzomeach. So I want to understand something. Let’s say the biuv is a tray, so every time one bakes it’s possible that the chametz gets absorbed in, it bakes in, it’s a mevli’ah. So you can’t do the thing with the matzah, because when he puts the matzah on it the matzah will connect to a place where there are through bli’os and chametz. So the biuv. Granted, isn’t it enough that the stem says that both times it gets burned out, and not enough, both times it gets burned out, there remains in it some moisture or some absorption, he says he puts the matzah on it that it’s then itself there on fire, but then is the time when one is the ah, here one added a new level, that besides there where its inside.

I want to understand… ah, he was standing, that why isn’t the regular kashering l’chafos? One needs to understand, okay. I have is a stringency here. Okay, this is old which kliya now, okay.

Answer: Heat from Outside Doesn’t Clean from Inside

Speaker 1: One can hear a simple answer, that ovens have a temperature always. So, one can always come say that it’s hotter than it was, when the bli’ah was. But I want to say something, but listen, so, when one should say only, that one needs to put it into the same oven, at the same place, at the same fire, at the same testimony, and they should make it a hagalah, it needs to still stand, perhaps it’s not as hot as other times. But if he puts it into the oven, is it clearly a higher level of heat that makes a good hagalah?

I just want I just want to understand that it should make sense, it should make clear that it’s common sense.

Speaker 2: Which principle? The principle of k’shem shebole’o kach polto (as it absorbs so it releases)? Why isn’t it enough that one puts in this piece of meat at the same level of heat? Not only a higher level of heat, but the same level of heat.

Speaker 1: Why? Because for the same reasons why there was absorption before. Why was there absorption? Because when something becomes very hot, it absorbs. Something is there, it’s not human, it’s science, it’s physics. Something is there absorption, especially if you say that the vessels once weren’t so hard and so sharpened.

Continuation: The Process of Hag’alah — “Placing Them Inside Until They Expel”

Speaker 2: I’m just telling you a fact, that when it cooks from the outside, it doesn’t clean out from the inside. That’s what I’m saying. Making something hot doesn’t clean it out.

Speaker 1: We’re not talking here about actual cleaning, we’re talking about whether something is sticky the taste.

Speaker 2: I’ve never heard that you clean out something by making it hot. I’ve never seen such a thing in the world.

Speaker 1: No, it’s not cleaning, it’s burning out. If there’s any dirt or anything inside…

Speaker 2: Ah, you’re saying it doesn’t get burned out.

Speaker 1: I’m telling you, when you put it in boiling water, it literally burns out, not just that it gets hot. If something stuck there remained, there’s nothing left. That’s the way one does hag’alah on something used for matzah.

Review: The Main Point

Speaker 1: In short, we shouldn’t have learned, we shouldn’t see certain things that we should in our heads, we need to look at how it’s written there, clarify it, where it comes from, what is the source of it. Until now, seichel hayashar makes sense, in my head it goes in very well what’s written there.

Innovation: Bli’ah is Local

Speaker 1: But we saw here apparently something else, that the bli’ah doesn’t work on… One says on the entire meat there are bli’os, but one can say that it’s local on that piece of meat. This means that if he had used the other side from what he used for chametz for matzah, he turns around the table and he talks into it, because he says “makom sherub tashmeesho b’chametz, mutar l’vashel alav matzah”. “Mutar l’vashel alav” means alav on that place?

Speaker 2: Makom means he’s saying inside, because usually one heats the outside.

Speaker 1: Ah, that means “makom sherub tashmeesho b’chametz” – the inside of the oven where one cooks the chametz. The inside of the pot. Ah, interesting. Ah, the oven, yes. Ah, interesting. Because I thought makom means on the pot.

Speaker 2: Yes, you have a large pot, you always used to put the chametz there. I remember that if you want to put there on that piece, on that spot on the pot, that it’s not a pot…

Speaker 1: No, no, but here he’s talking about makom sherub tashmeesho. I mean that this isn’t the pot.

Speaker 2: That’s a different question. I’m with you. I don’t know if the other people will understand that it goes over the pot and the thing. One needs to discuss it.

Summary: The Structure of the Rambam’s Laws

Review of the Laws Until Now

Speaker 1: Okay, now, okay, until now we learned about kli cheres cold. Now we’re going to learn about chamin. First we’re going to talk about… no, until now we learned, one can say, two matters of cheres. Both were kli cheres, yes?

Speaker 2: Ah, still cold.

Speaker 1: Yes, but it’s like weird, because the order…

Kli cheres have stringencies. What were the stringencies? That if it was used with chamin, one cannot use it at all for matzah.

Speaker 2: It didn’t actually say that. We’re just imagining that it said that. It isn’t really saying that.

Speaker 1: If yes, I want to see the stringencies. And the same thing was a stringency that one doesn’t use at all any vessels that have hard chametz. The shiur before, there are three types of vessels that have hard chametz. I mean that this was the main point.

And also the second stringent law about cheres was that it needs a stringency if one makes it hot from the inside. And everyone will see what’s written in the Gemara, not cheres, but foods and other vessels, that with other vessels one can kasher them more easily.

The Rambam’s Order: Exceptions First

Speaker 1: Really what’s going on is that first the Rambam wrote the laws of the two exceptions. The first is cold, and the first stringency he means. I don’t believe that he means to make the stringency. Once the Rambam would have had to write that there’s a stringency that the cold… I know, I’m not happy with the whole piece of Torah one was satisfied with their things, that one is medayek in the chiddush. I’m not sure. I don’t know, the Rambam when he wants to say something a stringency he says it clearly, he can’t… Who can mean that he says it simply clearly? He says mutar just like that.

Speaker 2: Well well, he says it clearly, I can make you the two diyukim that I made you afterwards later, that only chamin one may not.

Halachah 3 – Hag’alas Keilim That Were Used With Chametz in Boiling Water (Kli Rishon)

The Rambam’s Words and Explanation of the Simple Meaning

Speaker 1: The first woman he means, I don’t believe that he means to make the stringency. I don’t know, or the Rambam had to write that there’s a stringency that the cold… I don’t know. I’m not an expert in the… The whole piece of Torah one didn’t encounter all these things, that one is medayek in the chiddush. I’m not sure. I’ll look in my Rambam. The Rambam, when he wants to say something a stringency, he says it clearly. He says it explicitly clearly, he says with the plain language of cold.

But afterwards he says clearly, I can still make the two diyukim that you made. Afterwards he says later that only chamin one may not. I don’t know, I’m not an expert in the…

Let’s learn halachah 3, let’s see. I want to try to look at the halachah. The four halachos he says the whole Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rambam. I don’t know, it’s very clear.

Afterwards he says like this, yes. “Kli matacos u’kli avanim shenishamshu bahen chametz b’roshin, b’kli rishon, k’gon kedeiros v’alfasin” – kedeiros means a pot, alfasin is also a thing for cooking. Yes, a flatter pot, ma’aseh alfas. A pan, is that called? A pan is called alfas, yes? I’ll ask the Rav.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s called alfas.

Digression: What is an “Alfas”

Speaker 1: Someone once told me, he made a chazakah that the Ashkenazim think that alfas is a pot. Yes, because the others call it alfas because the man ate a pot. No, he made a joke with the language. He made a joke, he said that the Rambam didn’t know such a type of thing.

It’s invalid, also in invalid he made a joke. It’s called alfas.

There’s a language in the Gemara, a decree lest he make alfas, a language in Scripture, ma’aseh alfas by the sacrifices, no? Ma’aseh machavat, ma’aseh marcheshes, ma’aseh… It doesn’t say alfas? I don’t know, I’ll look it up. You don’t remember? I don’t remember. I’ll ask. No, it doesn’t say.

Anyway, it means that one cooked in it. They come from a city called Fez. Al fasi, right? And the Tosafos Yom Tov is one who… Al fasi means the one from Fez, the one from Fez. Alef, that’s French. Al the, Algeria, whatever. That’s advanced knowledge. And al fasi means one who comes from Fez. And he lived in Fez, that’s all.

Okay, back straight to our matter of the al fasi. Actually, yes, that’s a… There’s such a pot that comes from Fez, one needs to know, that’s something that is china dishes. Pot from the city of Fez. I once heard a shiur from Rav David, he said that the Ashkenazim didn’t know that the city of Fez, so they thought that he was called something after the alfas, but they didn’t know. No, but it could be that the pots here are named after that city, the name Fez. Like in the whites in china who… I heard such a joke. Okay, not a joke, back to our sugya of Torah. Okay.

The Practical Advice of the Rambam – Large Pot

Speaker 1: “Poseach v’nosein l’soch kedeirah gedolah”. But he used it with chametz b’roshin. Okay, he used it with chametz b’roshin, and he says kli rishon. One cooked chametz in it. What does one do? “Nosein l’soch kedeirah gedolah u’memalei aleha mayim”. He says, the Rambam says a practical way how one can, not even does one need each pot extra to go and boil, but one takes a large pot. What does one do? One puts it into a large pot. Is there a lot about how one does? It seems to me like he’s giving advice.

Speaker 2: No, no, that’s the way, there isn’t another way.

Speaker 1: One can take the one vessel and kasher it.

Speaker 2: No, one can’t.

Speaker 1: But can one not.

Speaker 2: Can yes.

Speaker 1: Already, try again, one can’t.

Speaker 2: There’s a way out, but the normal way is, one needs to take it in a large pot…

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s the normal finishing touch that he says.

Speaker 2: Exactly.

Discussion: K’vol’o Kach Polto – The Large Pot on the Fire

Speaker 1: One needs to take a large pot, fill it with water, and “marsichan b’sochah, v’achar kach shotfan v’nohagim l’hishtamesh bahen b’matzah”. Then one may use it on Pesach. Here he doesn’t say with matzah. B’matzah. Not that’s Pesach. That came from that, that’s Pesach.

Speaker 2: “Mishtamesh bahem b’mai”? B’Pesach.

Speaker 1: He means to say when one may use it, not which types of foods, matzah foods.

Speaker 2: Exactly, one uses it for matzah. That’s actually how the Rambam calls Pesach chametz u’matzah.

Speaker 1: No, I don’t know. I mean it was. Okay.

The Law of Knives

Speaker 1: One had knives that one used to cut chametz with great sharpness. It’s interesting that he brings here on the side, this comes, he says, this is written in the laws of arayos, he establishes a stringency that one puts a kli rishon one does hag’alah in kli rishon, kli sheini a hag’alah in kli sheini. So it’s not brought in the Gemara in Pesachim. It’s built on the laws of Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh De’ah, he says, he brings. Interesting.

“Marsichan b’sakin”, means apparently that one puts the large vessel on the fire, yes? Okay. So it comes out that the pot is cooked with the same level of heat as it was touched. Aha, a chiddush. Um, knives one doesn’t need to do the whole knife, only the part that touches the sharpness of the… only the sharp part. Like the sharp part needs that because of the sharpness of the knife.

Discussion: Nitzav and Lahav – What Needs to be Kashered

Speaker 1: He says, “asla”, ah, when it’s nitzav on both sides one needs to use with heat. I mean to say if it was b’roshin, he says, it’s not roshin. If it was roshin, that’s the Gemara. One takes it both parts one needs to use opposite method. Both parts?

Speaker 2: Yes, there’s another method, I don’t know.

Speaker 1: What means both parts?

Speaker 2: That’s how it was used with heat, only the sharpness is what touches.

Speaker 1: One needs to learn what’s written, afterwards one will ask questions.

Speaker 2: The halachah that’s written here is… It says further, I haven’t yet had what to ask questions.

Speaker 1: I didn’t say bad things, I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Forget about saying what’s written.

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s learn each piece we’ll begin.

The Gemara in Pesachim About Knives

Speaker 1: First time, in Pesachim, that’s written yes in the Gemara in Pesachim about the knives. The Pri Chadash says that it’s not written in Pesachim at all, but in knives it says, “b’din hapreitah v’hashchazah”. What is this act of preitah? Do you know?

Speaker 2: First time. No.

Speaker 1: The Rav says that it’s permitted. I don’t know. I mean that it’s a scraping. I don’t know what that is. Okay. He says, “Ah, I also don’t make it really new, I make it fresh.” What does he do? “The nitzutz he puts in clay”. What means in clay I don’t know. Clay. “And afterwards I put the handle in boiling water”. I don’t know what means in clay, I don’t know the translation. Um, afterwards the Gemara says that the halachah is that both one does in boiling water. Cleaning one does with something very, he cleans it out something, afterwards he puts it into a fire, in short, he cleans it well until it becomes like new. That’s the word. In practice it comes out that the Gemara brings out that no, one can do both, like washing and like kli rishon.

Discussion: Libun vs. Hag’alah

Speaker 1: Why exactly does one need to put the fire in all these things? I don’t know. Why does washing help more? I don’t know. Ah, one explains that washing is more than kli rishon, it’s a real fire itself. The libun is a real fire itself. Aha. Afterwards there’s the cleaning, which is a whole procedure. The Gemara brings out that no, one just needs to do the whole thing.

Why are you telling me from Rashbam? The Hagahos Maimoniyos brings from Pesachim the Rashbam… hag’alah and libun. I still can’t understand the Rambam.

Rinsing in Cold Water After Hag’alah

Speaker 1: And this is also with uses. By chametz it says, the thing is mag’ilin u’matbilin. That’s the language of the Gemara, mag’ilin u’matbilin v’hen tehorin. No, not necessarily, he meant mag’ilin, that one puts it into a fire.

What is the… apparently this is the same halachah as nosar and chametz. That’s nothing different, right? Why does one need the rinsing afterwards? I don’t know clearly. That you do afterwards also washing in cold. So brings out the Shem HaGedolim. It’s not written in the Gemara explicitly, understood? He doesn’t rinse them.

Discussion: Merikah B’chamin U’shtifah B’tzonen

Speaker 1: Ah, he says in the Mishnah, yes, that’s according to the simple meaning, that one needs to wash it. What’s written in Zevachim “merikah b’chamin u’shtifah b’tzonen”. You said that one doesn’t need to.

Speaker 2: The second cold.

Speaker 1: The second cold, yes. What does the second cold do exactly?

Speaker 2: In any case, he says that the Geonim and Acharonim hold so, like the words of the building, that one needs indeed yes also cold.

Kli Eitz – Why Not Mentioned By Kli Rishon

Speaker 1: Okay, that’s a halachah of kli rishon. Let’s understand what is kli rishon. What is kli matacos, avanim, and kli eitz? Let’s look into kli eitz for a minute. Why isn’t there any kli eitz?

Speaker 2: I understand that one doesn’t use it so nicely.

Speaker 1: Like bowls and cups.

Speaker 2: Yes, bowls and cups is an example that one eats in it, one serves in it, but one doesn’t cook in it.

Speaker 1: Kli matacos, avanim, kli eitz. Why isn’t there any kli eitz?

Speaker 2: One doesn’t cook on wood.

Speaker 1: Ah, it starts to burn. Have you ever tried?

Speaker 2: I haven’t tried, but I mean that it will burn, that’s the simple thing. Cook with a pot of wood? I don’t have plates of wood, I don’t have a pot of wood.

Speaker 1: But kli eitz can mean plates.

Speaker 2: Kli sheini.

Speaker 1: About kli sheini, earlier you said kli rishon. Okay, that means that there isn’t any kli rishon apparently. That’s a kli sheini that one uses sometimes, and exactly there’s a dispute of the poskim, one goes after rov tashmeesho. But it makes very much sense that kli rishon is always metal and stone, like pots that one cooks in, and kli sheini can be wood. Yes?

Speaker 2: Makes sense.

Speaker 1: The Birchas HaBayis you say?

Speaker 2: Not the Birchas HaBayis, but try it out. Take wood and try to cook in it, it will burn.

Speaker 1: I’ve already enjoyed the whole world, I’m many years old, and I’ve never yet seen any pot made of wood.

Speaker 2: I’ve seen of stone.

Speaker 1: Stone there is yes, because porcelain is basically metal. Stone, yes, like for example stone… ovens are made of stone. Stone holds very strongly in heat. A “brick oven” is made of stones. Stone holds very strongly in heat, there is yes. Exactly all the “sourdough” challahs one puts on such a plate of stones. One puts such small thin stones, plain hard stone, that makes it crispy, it makes it better. Quality of the challahs. Okay, but on wood not, and don’t challenge me with wars of our ancestors, like pots and vessels, he gave he gave he gave a large vessel, he gave upon them water, yes he doesn’t say here boiling them inside.

Continuation: The Process of Hag’alah — “Placing Them Inside Until They Expel”

Speaker 1: Okay, but on wood not, and don’t challenge me with wars of our ancestors like pots and vessels, he gives he gives he gave a large vessel, and he gave upon them water. Yes, he doesn’t say here “boiling them inside”, he makes it for a kli rishon, in the whole thing, but he says he places upon them water, so it becomes a wave of a level of kli rishon, because it enters into the hot water in the… not that’s not itself heating or fire. And placing them inside… from where placing them inside… he puts in the small… and placing them inside is interesting language yes, do you see it perhaps written here? Ah, a placing them, not one puts it in! Placing them inside! One leaves it long enough, until it expels…

Translation

Ah, the Chafetz Chaim didn’t surprise me that Menachem… he puts the vessels in the water, he already said earlier in Menachem. If he says Menachem… one leaves them over… he already put them in earlier… one leaves them over in the meantime… a teshuvah pelutei. He wants to say here basically that a momentary time is not enough. It doesn’t say how much the measure is, some measure of time must be…

Look… to go out here… I’m looking. When I look here, it was in the halacha. Because when the halacha, make sure to look and make sure that there’s no more blood to drink. Eh, I’m not saying that the blood is something that one can actually see with the eyes how it’s coming out, some blood, but miyucham et socher, and one must let it be for a bit of time so that it gives a chance for the blood, because I’m looking at washing off the blood, because it can be freshly boiled, yes?

Speaker 2: Yes? Because the water has absorbed not good things?

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s the same thing it says earlier, the verse says it. We learn it from a halacha of… so it says a verse regarding… we learn it from a verse regarding kodashim something. So he says, so it only goes regarding kodashim, and here there is no such law.

Speaker 2: Yes, he says there is no such law, it’s a practical thing something.

Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Okay. I’m looking at… I can’t be certain with matzah. But I say, in certain ways one understands very well why it’s necessary to put in cold water afterwards, because here you’re talking in ways that one put in a few chametz vessels in a pot and it cooked. And afterwards he says “ad sheyiflot”, yes, how is there now chametz in the water? I would have thought it’s certainly a question.

Speaker 2: Yes, that’s… that’s just a stringency. We’re talking about a stringency of a stringency. He’s not saying something… he’s not saying that one must go from the basic law to do so.

Speaker 1: No, it’s not so. It’s clear. I don’t understand what is the… the scholarly trick. It became chametz, it’s no longer chametz. Look, that’s one way. Sometimes one doesn’t need to search for such things. How does one clean something? That’s how one cleans. That’s one thing. The Rambam asks his wife, “How does one clean something?” The wife says, “One cleans with soap.” The Rambam asks, “One prepares for the Rambam already”. So that’s the basic thing, not some great wisdom for all these things. That’s how one cleans, that’s how one cleans. That’s not hard to understand.

Hagahot Maimoniyot: The Problem of Keli Sheni

Speaker 1: Yes, the Hagahot Maimoniyot in one place says that the halacha is only good when one knows for certain that it was only in a keli sheni. What is there so many pots? What, perhaps you don’t remember? Perhaps sometimes one used the pot to stir? He’s actually right. I know that you’re busy in the kitchen, and you sit then in the beit midrash in the world of thought. One brings, but one stirs sometimes with a spoon in the pot, it happens sometimes. One takes one’s spoon and doesn’t give a stir. It’s still a keli sheni, how one uses sometimes.

Speaker 2: Ah, ah, the Rema doesn’t talk about that. The Rema says that it seems that one doesn’t go according to rov tashmisho, and he brings from the Rabbeinu Yonah and others, but one must make sure that it was never a keli rishon.

Discussion: Why Not Rov Tashmisho?

Speaker 1: It’s interesting. Why would one say that one should go according to rov tashmisho? If there is a thing that with more heat there is a stronger absorption, on the contrary, it’s more likely that one should say as you say, that one goes according to the majority. But if you say that with a higher level of heat there is a greater absorption, if you say that the Sages don’t know, I said, I’m not a physicist. There is a thing like absorptions, there is a thing that it can absorb to different heat, to different sharpness. I mean that one should make from that a strong enactment that one must wash out very well the best one can. If one would have only said if and only if one wouldn’t have known exactly how the absorptions work, you’re right. But seemingly one cannot say that yes, they had some certain one, the sage of the town who understood physics, he said.

The answer is however, look in your… No, the answer is, you’re right that just so next time can… if one says that heat takes out, it’s simple when each time you stir into a pot in the soup, the spoon spits out the previous soup and it absorbs the new soup. It doesn’t work exactly so. Because one doesn’t think about simple things. It’s not each time, it’s not from one time it doesn’t become dirty, and from two times it doesn’t become dirty.

Discussion: What is Bli’ot — Physical Reality or Law?

Possibility A: Bli’ot is an Actual Physical Thing

Speaker 1: I can say three things. I can say that we’re talking here about something nothing that we have a hard time understanding, because our things are more solid and better quality. Because if metal vessels, stone vessels were weaker quality than ours, and ours were more porous, there was actually a lot of room for absorption. And even, by the way, you can see that it absorbs. Take a stone and you pour water on it, you’ll see that it absorbs water, because it has small cracks… Take a cement brick, there are there microscopic small cracks, places to absorb things.

Speaker 2: Cement is not stone, you know. Keli avanim, avanim doesn’t mean cement. As he says, it became a stone. There are stones that happened through creation, because stones took long to happen, pieces stick together. What? A stone is not a brick, a stone is a stone, it’s a concept. A brick that people make, I’m saying a stone that also made itself over many years, and it lies under the pressure. Approximately like people make bricks, approximately the same way the stones were made. Why? Pressure with heat with years. It’s not just theories. That’s how I understand. What you read up above, I know, that’s another thing. It’s the opposite, it’s today, for example quartz, one makes from many small stones pressed together and epoxied. But it’s approximately imitating the original creation of a few years.

Speaker 1: Yes, one hundred percent. Because minerals and all things develop over many years. Okay, okay, okay, let’s go back to the sugya here.

Possibility B: Bli’ot is a Law, and the Halachot are Leniencies

Speaker 1: No, but I tried to say something. One can say that bli’ot is really really an actual physical thing, and today it’s hard for us to understand because we are a bit less, but it can be certain vessels where there is really clearly an absorption. Or one can say that it’s all a law, perhaps there is bli’ot and we don’t know exactly. It’s all simple things, we are very accustomed that things should be relatively very appropriate.

By the way, incidentally, when you go to a place where you cook authentically, when you cook on fire, it doesn’t become so easily clean. Your oven is always spotlessly clean, for example. But an oven is dirty. And when you do hag’alah of your pot, cooking vessels and pots, it’s… because that’s not what the Torah talks about. The Torah talks, all these halachot talk about things that are really dirty. When one says “minhig hu adom shachor”, it’s dirty, you see that it’s dirty. It’s simple things. It doesn’t talk about clean things where one imagines that there is bli’ot, it talks about dirty things.

Speaker 2: And if so, the halacha should have said more simply: make sure it’s clean. That’s the point, that’s what you want to say.

Speaker 1: No, because the halacha is a leniency. The halacha is a leniency, the halacha says that even if one still sees a bit dirty, that’s the point. It’s not cleaned enough. The halacha doesn’t only talk about what is clean, the halacha talks about why it’s not so clean. Clean is only when you see that it’s like new. You made it like new, that’s what the Rabbis write. By the way, I have a patent, you make it look new. That’s a whole patent. Normally it doesn’t look new. If a person says that my vessel is new, one doesn’t need to ask him how it became new. It’s new. But if it’s not new, the friend says.

By the way, can’t you see a difference between an old spoon and a new spoon? You can see. But one cannot see through bli’ot, one can see through scratches. I didn’t talk about scratches. Dirt? From bli’ot one cannot see. A person who can pray well, he has a good taste in the morning. If you have a good taste in the morning, and so on.

Discussion: The Reality of Dirt and the Laws of Hag’alah

Speaker 1: Now dirt, what goes into this matter. Now, why does it become dirty? It’s automatically, what is not an actual going in, but it’s in a normal way it becomes dirty. I in yeshiva, every day the plate was dirty, the cook couldn’t finish cleaning well. It’s really there in reality, one heats up every Shabbat. And all these halachot that this is enough, I mean it’s being said that it’s in a way that it remains a bit dirty always. Not as a stringency, but always as a leniency. I have a generally good Torah, I only came to say leniencies, not stringencies.

Okay, anyways, what is the thing? One doesn’t go into all these things. Here one takes simple things. What here are two takes, I spoke in before that the rov tashmisho has no decree by itself, and goes according to rov tashmisho. It’s sometimes one stirred the cholent with the spoon, and afterwards it became for cholent. That’s the reality, right? Sometimes yes. If one uses it a lot, sometimes yes. The vessels that one uses by the grill, yes? I wouldn’t use it for something else. Not for dairy, because it becomes dirty sometimes. But the thing is, but it becomes dirty, because the dirt becomes immediately burned from there. Very good, no problem. That’s not written actual things.

Let’s say that this is the leniency which is dear to our end. You see the rule. Look at him, it’s not possible to do at home. Perhaps it’s possible what absorbs chemicals and in many ovens that one uses a lot, that it uses for a restaurant in the old cooking, is something more involved. Even a pot, because how, even a pot, the previous one used. I was in Europe, but I read about a pot that one cooks the soup for a thousand years. Truly. It stands on an ember, I keep adding, over and over, because it always eats something, a food doesn’t stop at night. Yes, aesthetically. It’s aesthetic, but that’s presumably the simple meaning of writing.

Speaker 2: No, no, it makes a lot of sense. It can be that an old pot one managed so. Exactly.

Speaker 1: One sees in certain restaurants, certain… I tell you, the frying pans, there are good frying pans that one can clean, it’s special non-stick. A normal frying pan, it remains dirty always. You can’t wash it off. You actually soak it one from last night, one can read it. But essentially,

Keli Cheres — Used with Chametz in Hot

Halacha 25 — Keli Cheres That Were Used with Chametz in Hot

Speaker 1:

I know how much non-kosher lies in the houses.

Speaker 2:

Yes. You can clean it. I tell you, that’s what the poskim write.

Speaker 1:

No, no, it makes a lot of sense, because it can be that once one managed so.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. Once one managed with these things.

Digression: Frying Pans and Hag’alah

Speaker 1:

I tell you, the frying pan, there are good frying pans that one can clean, there is special non-stick. A normal frying pan to remain with stuck foods, that can’t be, it’s a prohibition of absorption from last night, one can think. I don’t know. But essentially, we can say very well, the laws of hag’alah say how one makes it yes clean. How does one make it yes clean? One burns it out well beforehand. It’s dear prohibition, it’s not prohibitions within prohibitions, it’s dear prohibition. There are prohibitions here, one saw nothing.

Keli Cheres Today — Porcelain and Plastic

Speaker 1:

Keli cheres is the Rambam, but keli cheres, by the way, in the calculation is exactly the old keli cheres. You see that keli cheres is really a thing that holds a taste long. One can feel it. We don’t have any keli cheres from that. We only have a material of keli cheres, like porcelain, which people argue what this is a keli cheres, what this is a piece. The old, the real keli cheres, you see that this is a plastic. By the same thing a plastic, is also possible to become clean. It says, it depends which, there is which plastic. The smooth containers is not possible. It’s a plastic that is not clean, it doesn’t have the gloss, it’s not fully gone in. Perhaps there is a patent, I’ll give a plan how to make.

Innovation: Making New

Speaker 1:

Ah, this has one innovation yesterday, my brother told me this innovation. He says that one can make it new, it’s new vessels, and if new vessels it’s not a question. If you have a way how to make new, it’s new. It looks new, every one who will buy in the store will think that it’s new. It’s like two levels in repentance (teshuva), repentance from love and repentance from fear. It’s like new, it becomes a new creation. There is a breaking and there is an awakening.

Rabbeinu Menuach — Cheres with Samech or Shin

Speaker 2:

Okay, keli cheres, he thinks that one must finish that it also goes. Okay, keli cheres.

Speaker 1:

No, cheres. I’m talking about keli cheres with a shin, he wrote earlier with a samech.

Speaker 2:

Yes, and he says, a rabbi a righteous one, Rabbi Mordechai of blessed memory, the claim. He says that the Rambam writes always what it says in the Torah. For example, the Rabbeinu Menuach says that keli cheres is with a samech, he didn’t see in this Rambam any shin. There are certain written.

Language of the Rambam — Keli Cheres That Were Used with Chametz in Hot

Speaker 2:

Okay. Cheres that were used with chametz in hot. Whether a keli rishon, like pots, whether a keli sheni, like bowls, whether cups that one drinks in them beer, and the beer is in hot, means living. There are those who say that keli cheres is so more, even in this there is in the Shulchan Aruch a leniency, regarding intoxication because of the beer, there is no difference. One who thinks about the matzah, he will use from the Rambam. This is a stringency.

Comparison Between the Two Halachot — Chametz Cold vs. Chametz Hot

Speaker 2:

Even now we understand the halacha of keli cheres versus the previous halacha of keli cheres. The previous is chametz cold, and now he talks, ah, one already has chametz in hot. Earlier we mentioned chametz cold, one may use the matzah cold, except a type of cold that is however like hot, which is a strong vinegar. And here he said another thing, until what one bakes on what is already yes in hot, there is a way how to kosher this. But used with chametz in hot, one may not use even cold. This is very clear, this is very clear, the part is very clear, one must put it away after Pesach. That’s seemingly what one understands.

Biv Shel Cheres — Why is There a Way to Kosher It

Speaker 2:

But it’s interesting that the biv shel cheres one did yes find a way how to do this. One didn’t say about this, like all other keli cheres put them away, have another. But biv shel cheres one sees that perhaps because it’s more a… it’s hard for a person to find, it’s a larger vessel, there is yes on this a trick. There is on this a trick that one can do for this.

Speaker 1:

Much of this is actually practical that keli cheres it says that either because one cannot take it out well, there is no full work doesn’t work well, or there are certain things that the halacha on this says that because one is afraid that the person is concerned that it will be broken by him, and it was previous years worthwhile. But yes, here he talks about hot. He puts them away after Pesach and rinses them and uses them. So if it was used with chametz in hot, certainly one may not even use cold.

Speaker 2:

Right, the whole question is only, so therefore it’s certain. The question is when the Rambam says earlier that used with chametz cold, with using matzah with chametz. So, seemingly the second opinion of Magen Avraham is right, that it doesn’t say any language that one should think that… what does this say?

Speaker 1:

Yes. That’s the question.

Discussion: Challah Cover — Dispute in the Gemara

Speaker 2:

So, here there is a dispute in the Gemara. The challah cover one may also, the challah cover that one can use it on chametz, one must keep it, right?

Speaker 1:

No, that’s what the Gemara says.

English Translation

Speaker 2:

Seemingly, no, seemingly the opposite, not the opposite. Seemingly, one uses it when there is chametz (leavened bread), one certainly may not have it. One doesn’t have any chametz over Pesach (Passover), why? But I see here that there is a dispute about this in the Gemara (Talmud). Rava said one must break it completely. Why? Because it’s bal yera’eh u’val yimatzei (the prohibition of seeing or possessing chametz). And Shmuel said one can put it away. Shmuel said, one uses it, ah, again. Rava said “yishbor” (he should break it). Right, I forgot it, yes. Amar Rav, kli she’darko l’hishtamesh bo b’Pesach, yishbor. Says the Gemara, this is a decree, gezeirah shema yilmod bo b’yameinu. Shmuel amar, mah shimush yesh bo? V’od, b’yameinu mah shelomeinu?

The Story with Shmuel and the Pot Sellers

Speaker 2:

This is Shmuel’s argument. Listen to the story of Shmuel, yes? Shmuel told the sellers of pots or something, that he should sell cheaply, and if not he will expound like Rabbi Shimon that what? That one can use after Pesach. What is the point? I’m thinking what the point of the Gemara is.

So this is the Gemara. Ah, he’s already not asking everyone, the Magen Avraham, why doesn’t it help like bitul chametz (nullification of chametz)? It’s somewhat similar, he says why isn’t it similar? What is bitul chametz? Why isn’t it different from bitul chametz? Why doesn’t the same heter (leniency) work? Why doesn’t that heter work here?

Rabbeinu Yonah — New Earthenware Vessels from the Kilns

Speaker 2:

Ah, and machzirin l’kivshunan (returning them to their kiln) one can yes. But he says that there it works yes. Perhaps he doesn’t give enough. Ah, but seemingly, this indeed stands here, so he said. Seemingly he essentially held yes, and essentially therefore the normal earthenware vessels, the large earthenware vessels which he seemingly held, he is concerned that you won’t do it properly, you won’t break it at all. You won’t, you won’t allow yourself to do it. You won’t break it at all.

Ah, one can say that this is the point. One can say that with earthenware vessels, where you always put them in the oven, you don’t have such a strong fear.

Speaker 1:

No.

Speaker 2:

Therefore, one can say that with other things one fears that you won’t do it properly, and therefore you won’t do it. He says that even, Rabbeinu Yonah says that even though it says kli cheres chadashim min ha’kivshanot iz muter (new earthenware vessels from the kilns are permitted), because then one indeed makes them like new. But what doesn’t one do, because it’s not worthwhile. The tircha (effort) is too weak, in short. Here there is no tircha. You don’t need to be concerned that you won’t do it properly. Fine.

Speaker 1:

Oh, they should make more. They used to make. Anyway.

Discussion: Min B’she’eino Mino

Speaker 2:

And what is the point of min b’she’eino mino (one type mixed with another type), I don’t understand. The dispute that was among the Amoraim?

Discussion: Why Did Rav Say Yishbor?

Speaker 2:

And this is the question on Rav. Why didn’t Rav say that one must break it? Because Rav held that since there is chametz in it, it doesn’t become nullified. Therefore, it’s chametz on Pesach, one must break it. And after Pesach, if one found it, must one break it? No, must one break it before Pesach. Why is bitul and all these things that exist?

Ah, he asks exactly the opposite. Other tricks, selling to a non-Jew.

Speaker 1:

No, selling to a non-Jew didn’t occur to them. That’s later tricks. He’s just playing around. No, it indeed says that one learns, it’s brought, but not such a trick. Ah, it indeed says, yes. In Sephardic books it says that one learns. Just playing around. In short, the question is whether chametz she’avar alav ha’Pesach (chametz that passed over Pesach) is forbidden from the Torah. This was indeed the dispute of Rav and Shmuel, which the Rambam explains this. And the Shulchan Aruch. In short, this is what.

The Story with Shmuel — Was He Right?

Speaker 1:

And this is a beautiful story that the Gemara, that Shmuel said that he’s going to expound that it’s permitted, and the pot sellers won’t make their… cheap enough, yes, and the Gemara asks, was he right? Why… Do you hear? The house, there was a dispute of Rav and Shmuel. Rav held, I think I remember.

Earthenware Vessels as the Old-Fashioned Disposables

Speaker 1:

Earthenware vessels are the old-fashioned version of disposables. Yes, bnei levanim (sons of bricks), one takes today a bit of clay, and one makes from it. It shouldn’t be that it’s free, but it’s very cheap here. One finds before this, and one finds so much of this. Ah, right. Old pottery, but what is… what was such a thing for… what what does he seek otherwise? It’s not a known thing. It’s the idea that wives because it’s not, what it’s a parable. Because one needs to use it for a parable. Sometimes, one needs to use a cornerstone. The one who carries stones, okay. Anyway, so the point is, one can afford. You don’t lose in a hipshet. Or was the custom like Rav. Because one broke vessels every Pesach. One buys new, one buys new, one buys new vessels before Pesach.

Shmuel’s Argument to the Sellers

Speaker 1:

Shmuel said, for the… Listen, Shmuel was very bold. He said to the vessel sellers. They should know that, if they don’t make the prices cheap, he’ll tell everyone that one doesn’t need to buy new ones. The Gemara asks, was he indeed right? The Gemara asks, was he right? Therefore, and the rabbis need to change the halacha, so that Jews want cheaper vessels not to change. They say when they hold that it’s only a stringency regarding the rabbinical prohibition.

Conclusion

Speaker 1:

It was an interesting thing, because I’m doing something like… It was interesting, because seemingly the picture of erev Pesach (Passover eve) and the rabbinical prohibition looked different.

Continuation: Shmuel’s Position Regarding the Measure of Matzah

The Gemara asks, he is indeed right, Shmuel indeed holds that it’s kosher, why should the rabbis forbid it? One will conduct oneself like Rav. But he threatened, he said he’s going to say his opinion.

What do we learn here that the rabbis need to change the halacha so that Jews can buy cheaper? Not change, they say when they hold that it’s only a stringency regarding the rabbinical prohibition.

Erev Pesach: Destroying Chametz and Breaking Earthenware Vessels

It’s an interesting thing, because seemingly the picture of erev Pesach in Rav’s time looked different, everyone came to the middle of the city to the place where one burns the chametz, and there was a huge fire where one broke earthenware vessels, yes? Just as perhaps it was like in Yovel (Jubilee) where one breaks vessels, but breaking vessels.

It seems it was a good business for the vessel sellers. Yes yes, they made money. But not in the right way he said, he’ll make it so they won’t make money. Earthenware vessels one can indeed re-boil, one can remake them, one can take the pieces and remake them. It’s not something that is ziluta d’kifsuna (degradation of the kiln).

The Maharsha says it was zecher l’churban (remembrance of the destruction). This was indeed the question, that this was indeed the question that the rabbis, if you’ll be lenient and hold that essentially the measure of matzah is kosher, can you tell the sellers to hold back, they shouldn’t lie and make, they shouldn’t charge people, they should hold the k’zayit (olive-sized) measures. Why should you forbid? I asked, he threatened the rabbis.

Law 26: Kashering a Large First Vessel

Okay. Twenty-six, short, this is a Gemara, a broad Gemara, and this is a practical thing. I don’t mean practical, but it’s perhaps a certain leniency, right? Earthenware vessels, a first vessel is boiling l’chatchilah (from the outset), and one uses a first vessel l’chatchilah, but here there is a great fear.

So the Gemara says: Makif lah sefel shel tahor al sfatah mi’bachutz, v’shomet yado mitoch sefel shel tahor, u’memalei mayim ad she’yagi’u ha’mayim al sfatah, u’martei’ach ha’mayim b’tochah, v’dayo. (He surrounds it with a vessel of pure [water] on its rim from outside, and places his hand inside the vessel of pure [water], and fills water until the water reaches its rim, and boils the water inside it, and that’s sufficient.)

Discussion: The Wisdom of Rabbi Akiva

I thought to myself, this is a Gemara in Avodah Zarah, what stands such a great thing? The Gemara has stories like this by Rabbi Akiva such a thing, they did this, they did this, they did this, did they think of such a reasoning? And he says, but min chacham la’avad kol milta (from a wise man to do everything), Rabbi Akiva is the greatest rabbi. Do you understand what I told you?

That the great part you need an external community? Yes, that the rabbi is more, but this is double and double. Essentially, the part around the thousand is like this is perhaps also only when it boils over the top. And the same way one can make another such wisdom. When you grasp that this is seemingly not so, it doesn’t stand so.

Explanation Regarding Charoset

Ah, he says very nicely now, Rav Rabbi Natan says very nicely, that here he makes a special section in the laws of matzah, to say that one must make a special dough. Because certainly Pesach one cannot make in dough that is chametz. Ah, ah, ah. But what one does is mishum zecher l’charoset (in remembrance of charoset).

Anyway, this is the whole matter. And he says that the same charoset, certainly has a strong vinegar, certainly has sharpness. The only thing is that charoset is something sweet l’hamtik (to sweeten), to remove the sharpness of the maror (bitter herbs). Certainly it doesn’t remove the sharpness, it removes the… I don’t know. And the charoset that we make, we indeed make it sweet, because that’s the custom. He has an explanation from Rabbi David which he removes. I don’t know, perhaps this isn’t the correct charoset of the Gemara.

Conclusion: What Will We Learn Further?

What are we going to learn now? A bit of Shemonah Perakim (Eight Chapters), or are we going to learn the next laws? Or are we going to learn on the Haggadah? Or can one learn on the Haggadah not only practically? Yes, yes, yes. What is nothing in the middle. One minute.

Study of Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 6 — Thirty Days Before the Holiday

Introduction: Learning Laws of Chametz and Matzah Chapter 6

Speaker 1: Yes, we’re going to learn chapter [of] Laws of Chametz and Matzah chapter 6. Perhaps later we’ll review the whole thing, why I need to learn the laws every year, but I think that for now we should learn here.

The Concept of “Mezuman” — Knowing the Entire Torah

I heard last night Rabbi… who? I looked at it, I think it was Shabbos Purim party. I see that he wishes the entire world, and it occurred to him that he should wish the entire world that they should know the entire Shas clearly without any doubts, and also the four parts of Shulchan Aruch.

I don’t know, it occurred to him that this is a good blessing for a Jew. So, I’m impressed. Because, when he says such blessings, it’s not Chassidic Jews, because… knowing Shas is just a Lithuanian thing. Lithuanians know Shas like crazy, beyond my fifth strength. So, but such Breslovers who have the knowledge, know the entire Shas, have it completely clear, not stories, know the four parts of Shulchan Aruch with all the Tosafos and with all the Shach’s. He has good clear aspirations, I have great pleasure.

Like the Breslover from Ecuador, that Meir you mean, he published a small book “You Know the Entire Torah.”

Speaker 2: He has a small book? That Meir?

Speaker 1: Yes. He knows, how? He makes a system, review, whatever, he figured out how. The battle will direct your ways, and not too precise, but overall that’s how it should be.

The Gerrer Rebbe: “Mezuman” Not “Credit”

Overall that’s how it should be, one must know the entire Torah. When is there such a thing? Now we’re learning Laws of Pesach, it’s Pesach. One must know the entire Laws of Pesach clearly. Like the Gemara says “chidudei mevichi,” or like the Gerrer Rebbe says “mezumana.” He has a point, one must know it mezuman, not credit. Everyone has credit, you see today that everyone has credit. Credit means I know where to look. Mezuman means I know.

So, to know Gemara like that is perhaps not reality, but the Rambam made himself for that, no?

Speaker 2: Yes.

The Source: Moshe Rabbeinu — “Moshe Taught Them to Israel the Laws of Pesach on Pesach”

Speaker 1: And Lubavitch… until the ideas. Learning Torah is from the Torah, but that one should learn Torah, one should go away from the other laws of precedence and go to thirty days before the holiday… I already told you the Gemara in Megillah I think, “Moshe taught them to Israel the laws of Pesach on Pesach.” This we see from Moshe Rabbeinu, it’s implied that it’s literally the original way of learning Torah.

This Is Not Just an Addition — This Is the Order of Study Itself

Yes, so anyway, it’s certain that this must be done, and therefore that’s how one does it. I need to answer the sub… It’s implied from the law literally that one should make this the order of study, not that one should start learning Laws of Pesach for fifteen minutes after davening. This will take here and there, and the poskim started Pesach, and this will be made first.

I’m already learning for Shavuos, there’s the law that there’s no stringency of thirty days in Torah study, so if one wants to really learn which sacrifices, omer, Shavuos, omer. But simply it’s Pesach, Shavuos, I mean it’s Pesach, perhaps Rosh Hashanah, Sukkos.

Question: To Which Holidays Does “Thirty Days Before the Holiday” Apply?

To which laws does the thirty days apply? Pesach. Which holidays does the thirty days before the holiday apply to? It applies to Pesach.

Speaker 2: It only applies to Pesach?

Speaker 1: There are among the poskim who started Pesach, the first siman is only on Pesach. So this must be thought about.

The Mishnah Berurah: Dispute Whether It Also Applies to Shavuos and Sukkos

Ah, the Mishnah Berurah says that there’s a dispute whether it’s relevant by Shavuos and by Sukkos, because the main thing comes to know, one spoke about the sacrifices, the matter of sacrifices.

Speaker 2: That’s what he says?

Speaker 1: Yes. From Moshe Rabbeinu, from me he takes sacrifices?

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: By Moshe Rabbeinu it’s explicit about Pesach Sheni, one speaks of sacrifices.

Speaker 2: Yes, but that’s the proof that besides…

Speaker 1: I remembered that the other books, because Pesach has many laws, perhaps Shavuos, Sukkos have fewer laws.

Speaker 2: What does such a thing mean?

Speaker 1: But actually what the… yesh omrim?

Speaker 2: Yes. Yesh omrim.

Speaker 1: The Mishnah Berurah brings both sides. Either it has to do with sacrifices, or it has to do with every holiday.

Question: If It’s Sacrifices, Why Learn Laws of Chametz and Matzah?

Speaker 2: It’s strange to say, because you say it starts with sacrifices, but then you say one should learn, I don’t know what, Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Laws of Shofar. If the matter is sacrifices, one should learn sacrifices.

Speaker 1: One can perhaps say that you don’t know any sacrifices, but the essence of the enactment remained.

Speaker 2: Okay, one must look into it.

Why Pesach Requires More Preparation Than Sukkos

Speaker 1: Perhaps one can say that because Pesach has many laws, kashering utensils, purging vessels, removal of chametz, which other holidays don’t have.

Speaker 2: But Sukkos does have many laws, both the four species and sukkah.

Speaker 1: But the Mishnah Berurah says that essentially all these laws in Sukkos are not really relevant, because all sukkahs and all lulavs are kosher. What you have walls and a third even a tefach, and most lulavs are mostly kosher, meaning it doesn’t fail.

Proof from the Gemara: “Perusa Atzeres” and “Perusa Chag”

Speaker 2: But you see that in the Gemara there is indeed perusa atzeres and perusa chag, and one speaks, yes?

Speaker 1: Apparently regarding what? That one already makes preparations.

Speaker 2: Yes, regarding laws of sacrifices, from when the perusa chag means half of the thirty days, half of the fifteen days. One sees that the thirty days is a thing also in other holidays, not only Pesach.

Speaker 1: There isn’t very clearly an actual decision, but one sees that there’s a matter of the thirty days.

Tosafos: By Purim There Isn’t

Tosafos says that by Purim there isn’t, except what’s needed in the Megillah. Let’s see Tosafos.

Speaker 2: Okay, that’s not the same as what we’re learning now.

Speaker 1: Right, right, we’re not going into that. Tosafos says yes.

Speaker 2: Come on, it’s not relevant.

Speaker 1: Okay, back to the matters, okay? That’s your good. Let’s go back.

The Meaning of “Mezuman” — Cash in Hand

I don’t hold. I hold that one must know clearly the entire Torah bemezumanim, as the Gerrer Rebbe says. Nu, what does mezuman mean? Cash is needed when it’s lacking to give out, then the most important thing is to have the cash. Understand? I mean that there comes a time when one needs to do it, one needs the most important thing to have the cash in hand. That’s the simple meaning here.

Discussion: Should This Be the Order of the Yeshiva?

For this, when you ask whether one should make the order of the yeshiva this way, I wouldn’t think so. That is, in general, I don’t know, perhaps the order of the yeshiva shouldn’t be such a thing at all, I don’t know. But if there is an order of the yeshiva, it’s presumably not that it goes this way. There’s an order, and that’s the outlook.

Yes, you can make an order this way, and say that a whole year is enough when it touches on a law in Choshen Mishpat, you don’t know, something that has to do with the cycle of the year, it will certainly happen. That must be mezumanim umukanim, because I need to know what’s happening. That’s the chapter because you bring your bundle, that’s clearly stated explicitly, make a nice chapter.

But if one expands the obligation of question and thirty days to all holidays, when he still wants his spark my Purim, this is a Torah from the longest.

The Meiri: Learning Tractates of Moed by Each Moed

I already said that the Meiri, who says about the world learns moed, each moed, or when does he learn. I already said that the Meiri says that the same the custom, Shabbos HaGadol by the piyutim one says everything Pesach, that someone not to say that you see yourself in the reason bothered, the same thing as you say the Meiri, and not so did he see all in merit, because it’s not in practice the custom of the students of the wise. Each one, there are students of the wise who from each one.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Baal HaTanya)

The Baal HaTanya writes, yes that the law asks that the scholar must learn beforehand, and nothing more, because everything goes into the public. The asking when the scholar must learn to teach the world, today there isn’t the obligation that once was, because each person can take a Mishnah Berurah. But this is a mitzvah on each and every one to learn the laws of the festival until he is expert in them, so rules the Shulchan Aruch HaRav in Laws of Worms.

Yes, okay, fine. Let’s see, let’s see.

Speaker 2: You look into more places, you’re told that this means, mezuman means that one knows clearly.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Digression: The Word “Va’ad” — Beis HaVa’ad

Who is the Menakeh Yagrib?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Speaker 1: It’s a book in the back of the Gemaras, no?

Speaker 2: Yes, Yanki.

Speaker 1: No, because he says an interesting thing. That Rashi says that they don’t learn the laws of Pesach in the Beis HaVa’ad lest an am ha’aretz hear. Okay, there’s the Beis HaVa’ad, and the Beis HaMidrash. That Beis HaVa’ad means like the Sanhedrin, more or less, where they would decide if there are laws of… I understand it that way. If there are general laws that need to be decided.

Speaker 2: Public.

Speaker 1: Do you know that va’ad means Sanhedrin? Because he says that on this word there’s no word at all from the Torah. It’s a word that the Sages enacted, they made it on the first symbol of their Beis HaVa’ad.

Speaker 2: But what does it mean a matter of gathering, yes?

Speaker 1: What he means by va’ad is gathering, I know, but why… from where the word comes I don’t know.

Okay, hello, we’re still bothered by time.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: Okay, very good. We’re not bothered by time, it’s a sixth of the night exempt from Torah. Okay, let’s go up to sixth. Say the holy holiday.

Root of “Va’ad”

Speaker 2: Perhaps the word comes from the language “and I will meet and be appointed.” It’s not the root vav-ayin-dalet, it’s the root yud-ayin-dalet.

Speaker 1: Nu, yud-ayin-dalet. But there’s a vav and an ayin there in the middle.

Speaker 2: Afterwards, perhaps it’s such a… it works perhaps with the word “le’olam va’ed.” One spoke about the word “va’ed.” There’s le’olam va’ed. There’s such a word in the Torah, le’olam va’ed.

Speaker 1: No, not the translation. But the word exists. But the translation isn’t such a… what does le’olam va’ed mean?

Speaker 2: I don’t know. I don’t understand what you’re saying. Le’olam va’ed, Hashem yimloch le’olam va’ed.

Speaker 1: See Tosafos, that va’ed is a language of… the root isn’t va’ed, that’s certain. Le’olam va’ed, everything, le’olam va’ed. How one explains the word I don’t know. And he says that the root of no’ad is yud-dalet-ayin, it’s never, it never says any awakening.

Speaker 2: No’ad is from the language of ya’ad, from the language of wealth?

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s from the language, the root is yud-dalet-ayin, that’s the root.

Speaker 2: Why, yes, no’ad is a language

Chapter 6: The Mitzvah of Eating Matzah — Law 6

Linguistic Discussion: Root “No’ad” and “Va’ed”

Speaker 1:

Why…yes, “no’ad” is a nifal from yud-ayin-dalet. Why isn’t there even once “ya’ad” in the Torah? I don’t know. But that’s what he argues. I looked in the dictionary.

To what do these words apply, it could be that there’s another form how one says the same root, and sometimes it comes out with a vav. Rabbi Menachem ben Saruk says…

Speaker 2:

I know, Rabbi Menachem ben Saruk says that there’s no vav at all. There’s no word that begins with a vav that is an essential letter.

Speaker 1:

That’s what I actually meant before.

Speaker 2:

Why doesn’t he answer that? That “ad” and “va’ed” mean the same thing. What is the vav?

Speaker 1:

A good question. But that’s the translation. All commentators say that it’s like the language of “ad.” There’s no root vav-ayin-dalet. It’s ayin-dalet. Or ayin-yud-dalet could be the root, whatever. But there’s no root vav-ayin-dalet. So say all the righteous. You can’t build any words from this.

Speaker 2:

Testimony or something like that?

Speaker 1:

Everyone will say that this is a mistake, there’s no such word. What is ad? Le’olam va’ed. What we wanted to spell it isn’t exactly why it spells that way. It’s like hands and add, le’olam va’od, there’s no such thing.

Yes, so no’ad is yo’ad, this comes essentially from perhaps appoint, he says appointing, or an appointed, or an agreed upon. Fulfillment of the appointment, like fulfillment of prophecy, ye’ud means something that’s destined for the future. Ye’ud means mezuman, mo’ed, or no’ad, everything has. So a designated place can be like a development from this word.

Ad olam and le’olam va’ed is the same thing. Sometimes it says in the verse ad olam, sometimes it says le’olam va’ed. Ad and va’ed is in this account the same thing. Ad olam, to your seed I will give ad olam, and his name will endure le’olam va’ed.

Perhaps we say language of appointment, language cut off at a specific time. Understand? But you can say that far far also that initially. But this isn’t language of holiness, not language of Scripture, I don’t know, language of the Sages.

Speaker 2:

Okay, but why do we actually for all my side things? After all ad, after all ad means the mountains that will stand forever, yes? Perhaps it’s from the language of testimony from this, a testimony that gives strength and stability.

Speaker 1:

One must check R’ Tzadok, he surely has a discussion on this matter.

Law 6: The Positive Commandment to Eat Matzah on the Night of the 15th of Nissan

Speaker 1:

Okay, now we’ll continue. Okay, come, come, we need to go further to the…

Fine, says the holy… It is counted on it sixth, says the holy Rambam, a positive commandment from the Torah. Okay, to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth.

Order of the Mitzvos — Prohibitions of Chametz and Mitzvah of Matzah

Fine, okay, so more or less the first five chapters spoke about the prohibitions of chametz, here about how many prohibitions there are regarding chametz, a bunch of them. After all, the prohibition of chametz is… the Rambam started with not to eat chametz even on the first day, tashbisu, not to eat chametz all seven, mixture of chametz, bal yera’eh bal yimatzei. These are the six mitzvos that all speak about the prohibition of chametz. Now we’re holding by the one mitzvah of eating matzah on the night of Pesach. The seventh mitzvah that the Rambam brings.

Explanation of the Rambam

It is a positive commandment to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth, as it says “in the evening you shall eat matzos.” This mitzvah applies in every place and at every time, that is not only when one makes the Pesach sacrifice, and not dependent on the Pesach sacrifice that you eat it, and its eating is not dependent at all on the Pesach sacrifice, rather it is a mitzvah by itself.

Speaker 2:

Yes, although it says “on matzos and bitter herbs they shall eat it,” one could have thought that it’s only with the bitter herbs, but Chazal accepted the opinions that there’s an extra mitzvah by itself no matter, but that’s how they understood.

Speaker 1:

The verse “in the evening you shall eat matzos” is a very weak source, and what’s the simple meaning in the verse? Why should this be together with the sacrifice? Read the verse, what does the verse say next?

Discussion: Three Separate Questions in the Mitzvah

Question A: Is There Even a Positive Commandment to Eat Matzah?

Speaker 1:

There are two things, there’s what there’s only a mitzvah on the night of the fifteenth, and there’s that there’s even a mitzvah at all. These are two different things, right?

Number one, what our matter is, I said, “Seven days you shall eat matzos, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses,” I then told you the verse “in the evening you shall eat matzos.”

Speaker 2:

Okay, that doesn’t say together with the Pesach sacrifice. A verse before is “and this day shall be for you a memorial,” and afterwards he says the verse “in the evening you shall eat matzos.”

Speaker 1:

Ah, okay. But what’s the wonder why one should say that the first night is a mitzvah? Because the verse looks like that night they should start eating the matzos. Okay, this lets us know how Chazal divided it.

There are two different things. One, that there’s even a mitzvah of eating matzah at all. Because it could have been that the verse speaks, it doesn’t say that there’s even a mitzvah, but it says one shouldn’t eat any chametz, and what should one eat with the bread. I mean that’s how Chazal understand, that the other days there’s no obligation.

Question B: Is the Mitzvah Only with the Pesach Sacrifice?

Speaker 1:

There are three different things. One, that there’s even a mitzvah to eat matzah at all. Perhaps it means only one shouldn’t eat chametz? Certainly, perhaps it’s simple, one will eat provisions, they won’t eat any chametz provisions, there wouldn’t have been any mitzvah to eat matzah. Not such a mitzvah at all. That’s one interpretation one could have said. As you say, such boundaries of Chazal, and they actually learn this way regarding other things that there’s no such mitzvah.

The Second Question

The second question is, perhaps there is indeed such a mitzvah, but only “with the Pesach.” As it states in the verses of “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu” (on matzos and bitter herbs they shall eat it). If you look in my booklet of all the sources on Pesach, which is called Pesach K’Hilchaso, we will be able to see very clearly what it says. True? Do you agree? Chametz and matzah. Do you agree? Do you have my booklet? You, you, I have one. You can see.

Analysis of the Verses in Parshas Bo

Speaker 1:

If we look here, we’ll see… Look, we’re talking here in the verses in Bo, yes? It says like this, in the beginning it states, “v’achlu es habasar balailah hazeh tzli eish u’matzos al merorim yochluhu” (and they shall eat the meat on this night, roasted over fire, and matzos with bitter herbs they shall eat it). This is the first time we see matzos. A few verses later it states, “v’haya hayom hazeh lachem l’zikaron v’chagosem oso chag l’Hashem l’doroseichem chukas olam techaguhu” (and this day shall be for you a remembrance, and you shall celebrate it as a festival to Hashem for your generations, an eternal statute you shall celebrate it). Ostensibly, one can understand that here we have finished speaking about how to make the korban Pesach. And now we’re saying a new mitzvah of “shivas yamim matzos tocheilu ach bayom harishon tashbisu se’or mibateichem ki kol ochel chametz” (seven days you shall eat matzos, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for anyone who eats chametz), and so on. One can indeed learn the plain meaning of Scripture like the Chazal, it fits nicely.

In what respect? That the verse counts out the first time matzos, it counts it out specifically as a part of eating the Pesach, “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu”. But the verse finishes the discussion of the korban Pesach with the words, “v’haya hayom hazeh lachem l’zikaron v’chagosem oso chag l’Hashem l’doroseichem chukas olam techaguhu”. And here begins a new mitzvah, “shivas yamim matzos tocheilu ach bayom harishon tashbisu se’or mibateichem”, “u’vayom harishon mikra kodesh” (and on the first day a holy convocation), and further “u’shemartem es hamatzos” (and you shall guard the matzos), “barishon b’arba’ah asar yom lachodesh ba’erev tochlu matzos” (on the first, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening you shall eat matzos). These four verses as an extra mitzvah of chametz and matzah. Which is not connected with the korban Pesach.

Question C: Is the Mitzvah Only on the Night of the 15th or All Seven Days?

Speaker 2:

And now which of the three things are you talking about, tzadik? There are three different things, right? The first question is, is there even a mitzvah to eat matzah? Or when it says eat matzah does it only mean not to eat chametz? We didn’t learn that from this source at all, right?

Speaker 1:

No, we didn’t learn it.

Speaker 2:

What? We learned it now, now in other hours?

Speaker 1:

That one must eat matzah, right? It’s an obligation to eat matzah. That’s not stated anywhere.

Speaker 2:

It is stated, it is stated.

Speaker 1:

Where is it stated?

Speaker 2:

It’s stated in the verse, “shivas yamim matzos tocheilu” (seven days you shall eat matzos).

Speaker 1:

Yes.

Speaker 2:

“Ach bayom harishon tashbisu se’or mibateichem” (but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses). It says that one should be busy so there shouldn’t be any chametz. And then the verse says, on the first day it is especially a mikra kodesh. And then the verse says again, “u’va’erev tochlu matzos” (and in the evening you shall eat matzos).

Speaker 1:

Okay, I didn’t find a place. I can see how the Chazal saw here from the verses that the first day is not, because the first day is also mikra kodesh, because the verse counts here the first day four times.

Discussion: “Matzos Tocheilu” — Mitzvah or Just Advice?

Speaker 1:

They all clearly understood that every time it says “matzos tocheilu,” except perhaps once, but every time it doesn’t mean to eat matzah literally, and they are completely right, because almost every time this comes together with a prohibition to eat chametz. “Matzos yochel” (matzos shall be eaten), “lo yera’eh lecha chametz” (no chametz shall be seen to you). Now, certainly a normal Jew can understand, certainly one will eat something, one won’t fast for seven days, right? And eating means one will eat bread, there weren’t potato chips to eat in those times. So naturally one will eat bread. The verse says, you should eat matzah and not chametz. But it doesn’t become a mitzvas aseh, that if someone wants specifically to eat potato chips, which is the whole question. On this it doesn’t say, not only the first day. In general, I’m not talking… You’re talking the whole time about the third thing, about the first day and the seventh day.

Okay, the first step is, that one should eat matzah, and not just that one shouldn’t eat chametz which naturally one will eat matzah perhaps, but not as a mitzvas aseh, that if someone wants specifically to eat potato chips, this is not stated explicitly in the Torah. One can learn that it’s an obligation, one can learn what one wants, but it’s not stated.

Speaker 2:

You say so categorically it’s not stated. It’s stated in the language of a command.

Speaker 1:

Because one can twist the language of command, that’s how we see it’s always like this. But what does the verse say? “Shivas yamim tochlu alav matzos” (seven days you shall eat upon it matzos). Should we say that the Torah is a short verse for your diet, because I want to take away your chametz, therefore I give you advice, is it ready that the advice of the word matzah is the part of the word, the lack of not chametz, you’re forgetting something. No, you shouldn’t eat chametz-like, but you should eat matzah-like. Well, well, but

Mitzvas Achilas Matzah – Is Eating Matzah All Seven Days a Mitzvah?

Dispute: Is “Matzos Tocheilu” a Mitzvas Aseh in Its Own Right?

The Claim: “Matzah” Only Means “Not Chametz”

Speaker 1:

He says categorically, it’s not stated. It’s stated in the language of a command, and one can twist the language of command and say that this is good advice. But it’s stated in the verse “shivas yamim tocheilu matzos” (seven days you shall eat matzos). To say that the Torah is simply concerned about your diet, because I’ve taken away your chametz, therefore I give you advice, is precisely not so clear. The meaning of the word matzah is after all even not chametz, you’re forgetting something. You shouldn’t eat chametz-like, but you should eat matzah-like.

Speaker 2:

Well, well, but to say that the Torah tells you this just because the Torah is concerned that you won’t have what to eat, is not necessarily so. It is indeed a mitzvah.

Speaker 1:

Simple Jews believe that it is indeed a mitzvah. The question is, you say that it’s only good advice the first day from the Mishnah. You’re not right. You’re not right. Why not? Because simple…

Speaker 2:

I didn’t say that it’s only good advice. That’s not yet the question, right? Not eating matzah and yes eating chametz according to the plain meaning is two ways of saying the same exact thing.

Speaker 1:

Not exactly.

Speaker 2:

Yes, exactly. In short, you have a prohibition that one burns, throws out all chametz. We’re not talking about yes eating, we’re talking about not eating. You should eat from an animal. We’re not talking about what one can eat, we’re talking about what one cannot eat.

The Claim: Normal People Eat Bread Every Day

Speaker 2:

Normal people eat bread every day. That’s how we see in all of Torah always. That’s not a point, right? Certainly. That’s the normal meal. It’s not stated even once in the Torah “eat bread.” Eat bread because one eats bread.

Speaker 1:

But what then does one eat? Should one eat potato chips?

Speaker 2:

We’re talking. If you want specifically… Well, well, God forbid, it’s not a joke. It’s not an invention. Always in those days, normal people eat bread every day.

The Nafka Minah: Blessing, L’Shem Yichud, and the “Crazy Person” Case

Speaker 2:

Okay, so the whole question, the whole nafka minah what we’re asking whether it’s a mitzvah, right? Has like two levels, the whole nafka minah what we’re talking about now. The first question is, one, whether one makes a blessing, whether one makes over this “l’shem yichud,” whether it’s a holy mitzvah or not, right?

Because practically, practically in current times, even according to those who hold that it’s not a mitzvah to eat matzah, practically all Jews eat matzah the seven days, except for a few, as they say, the Lisker Chassidim. Exactly, except for the Lisker Chassidim everyone eats matzah all seven days.

Speaker 1:

Why should they need to represent?

Speaker 2:

One minute, you ask a good question, whether one can eat potato chips. Well, well, one can. But, right? So that’s the first question. That’s not a blessing, that’s not a great joy. So that’s one question. I already know, Chazal in general have a concept that there is a blessing. I’m not saying a blessing, it’s a mitzvah. It’s a question whether it’s a mitzvah. I’m not saying that it’s a mitzvah.

What’s the nafka minah? What’s the nafka minah? Other days, God forbid, if you want to eat only… Again, again, you’ve laid down a strong nail that every day people eat bread. Normal people.

Speaker 1:

You’re talking about the people in Europe that you know, who eat bread. What about the other millions of people who eat only rice, and the other millions of people who eat only potatoes or or or…

Speaker 2:

No, no, no, no, don’t say that, don’t say that. That’s not true, that’s not true. Please, I don’t like this post-modern nonsense. The Torah speaks of people. If the Torah had been given in Asia, it would have said about rice. Now we’re talking about the Torah that was given in Mesopotamia, where there the normal thing that every person eats every day is bread. Not nehama Avraham, more is bread. The normal order is like this. You can see proofs for this. You don’t stand… I’m not arguing with you.

The Question: Is “Eating Matzah” a Mitzvah in Its Own Right?

Speaker 2:

So, that’s not the point. The question is only something else, right? So naturally, if a verse states “eat a certain type of bread” – let’s say it differently more clearly: eating matzah and not chametz means “eat a certain type of bread,” right? The Torah didn’t invent a new thing called matzah. There have always been the two types of breads. So seven days you eat a certain type of bread. Very good. We all agree that this is stated.

Speaker 1:

One minute, today there are other things.

Speaker 2:

We all agree that this is stated, right? We all agree that this is stated. The question is only, this is a mitzvah, right? It’s forbidden to eat another type of bread, that’s stated explicitly. You’ll see that you get kares for eating another type of bread.

But what if someone wants to fast? But he wants, right? Again, but what is the whole nafka minah of this? In the normal case – the Torah always speaks of the normal case, right? We’re not looking now for an exception, a crazy person, right? In the normal case, certainly seven days we eat matzah, that’s not a doubt, and that’s stated explicitly in the verse, right?

The Two Questions: Blessing and Obligation

Speaker 2:

But how does the question begin? Two things begin: either whether we make a blessing seven days on such a matter, or the way the Gemara learns and says it usually is, what if I’m a crazy person and I want to eat peppers all seven days? A strange creature. So is the plain meaning that it’s an obligation? What does an obligation mean? That you get a punishment? Does he shout, “You shouldn’t eat matzah, but also not eat chametz, but eat I don’t know what”? Are you crazy? Or no, that’s not a sin. The Torah only says that if you eat bread, you should eat such a type of bread. You don’t eat any bread at all, you’re an idle creature, I don’t know, but you haven’t done any sin.

The Proof: There’s No Kares for Not Eating Matzah

Speaker 2:

Now, for the second law, that it should be an obligatory mitzvah to eat matzah at any point, is not stated anywhere in the Torah. At least, as long as we understand, the simple plain meaning means simply “eat a certain type of bread and not another type of bread.” That which it’s stated in the language of obligation “matzos tocheilu”, the same thing is stated in the language of negation “v’lo sochal chametz” (and you shall not eat chametz), both mean the same thing. True?

Speaker 1:

Yes, I would have laid down the same discussion with the other languages.

Speaker 2:

One can say that the Torah says it’s a mitzvah, one can say that the Torah says it’s optional. In practice we see in the Talmud that Chazal took a different approach, they said that all days it’s optional.

Discussion: What Does “Reshus” Mean?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know what you mean “reshus.” I’m not saying it’s reshus. I’m not saying it’s reshus. I’m telling you now… Reshus is already a concept of halachah. I’m telling you what it says in the Chumash. It doesn’t say “reshus.”

Speaker 2:

What does “matzah is reshus” mean? What does this “reshus” mean?

Speaker 1:

What does this “reshus” mean? I don’t want to get into the discussion of reshus. Reshus is when we’re talking about a mitzvah. That’s the plain meaning. You say one should eat matzah, because one can’t eat chametz, one should eat bread as matzah.

Speaker 2:

No, no, that’s what you’re saying. You keep on going back to this. This is like good advice.

Speaker 1:

What does good advice mean? You want to eat bread, don’t eat chametz. That’s all.

The Question: Is There Stated in the Torah an Obligation to Eat?

Speaker 2:

From where should come the crazy thing of an obligation to eat? In general, is it stated at all anywhere in the Torah that there’s an obligation of eating at all? In your Chumash is it stated anywhere that one must ever eat anything?

Speaker 1:

A thousand times!

Speaker 2:

Ah, sacrifices, ma’aser sheni, by all sacrifices and…

Speaker 1:

One minute, one minute, clearly, let’s be clear. Where is it stated in the Torah an obligation that one must eat something? Bring me the verse.

Speaker 2:

“U’vayom hashvi’i yochlu mimacharas ha…” What? What? What? I’ll tell you more than a verse, I’ll bring you a Vayikra.

Speaker 1:

Okay, bring a Vayikra. Show me once where it states a mitzvah to eat something. Let’s hear, let’s hear already.

Speaker 2:

I don’t know if the Torah has a mitzvah to eat things. Not, I mean, I’m not saying I don’t know, but I mean that it’s not such a simple thing. In general, the concept of a mitzvas aseh that one must do in this way, I don’t know if it’s stated in the Torah. I would want to know perhaps that’s a question.

The Proof from Bris Milah

Speaker 2:

And also, you would expect… Ah, I do know where there’s a mitzvah to do something. For example, there’s a mitzvah for bris milah. It states, whoever doesn’t have bris milah God forbid will get kares. You know clearly that one must do this, it’s not an optional thing. And here for example it states very clearly that kares one gets only for eating chametz, it doesn’t state that one gets kares for not eating matzah.

Speaker 1:

What isn’t a mitzvah is kares? There’s a difference a mitzvah.

The Torah Says Clearly What One Should Do

Speaker 2:

Again, I want to see you a proof for the essence of the matter, not that one can say, one can also say that there’s someone who holds that it’s a mitzvah. I mean, let’s be real, it’s not. When the Torah wants it clear that one should do something, it says precisely what one should do. And usually it even says what will happen if one doesn’t do it. Because that’s a way how we can know for sure clearly that one should indeed do it. You see that even in this matter when the Torah wants it clear, it gives kares for not. As opposed to yes eating matzah, nothing is stated.

The Verse: “Eat Matzah Because Whoever Eats Chametz Gets Kares”

Speaker 2:

And it states literally a thing and its opposite. It states, eat matzah, because whoever eats chametz gets kares. Look at this verse, yes?

Speaker 1:

What does it mean eat matzah because whoever eats chametz gets kares? It’s not a thing and its opposite, according to what simple plain meaning is this?

Speaker 2:

Yes, eating matzah means simply to say not chametz, right? This thing haven’t we already discussed years ago?

The Gemara in Pesachim 108

Speaker 1:

In 108 the Gemara about this not according to the simple Scripture approach, but with the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded. But the whole dispute of the Amoraim why matzah is yes or not a d’oraisa, and plays around with the verses with the “ach bayom harishon tashbisu” (but on the first day you shall remove), “mah shvi’i reshus” (just as the seventh is optional), “davar shehaya bichlal v’yatza min haklal l’lamed” (something that was in the general rule and left the general rule to teach), only on it.

Speaker 2:

Can you understand what I’m saying? I have a much bigger problem with the very idea that there is such a mitzvah at all.

The Rambam: Matzah is Not Dependent on Pesach

Speaker 2:

That which the Rambam says that this is not dependent on Pesach, in this I’m one hundred percent right, it’s stated explicitly in the verse. Because not only that, but the verse even counts that the Pesach is the 14th, and matzah one eats from the 15th until the 21st. It’s clear that it’s not dependent on Pesach, it’s the opposite thing. But if it were dependent on Pesach, it’s not both, it’s more the language of a mitzvah of anything else.

Speaker 1:

But the… But you’re starting from the backwards.

Speaker 2:

But the Pesach is only the Pesach, and it tells you practical advice how to make the sandwich.

Speaker 1:

That’s not practical advice! Where is there such a thing? You shouldn’t need to worry that the Torah doesn’t want to help you, go talk to me the days.

English Translation

Speaker 2:

No, I have no idea… The Torah says over ten times “tochel matzos” (you shall eat matzah). I have no idea… You should know that only because the world is hungry and sells for chametz. I have no idea where you come from with this idea of “practical advice.” I don’t know where you got it from, the idea is literally worth nothing.

The Claim: “Matzah” = “Not Chametz”

Speaker 2:

Again, what it says that one should eat matzah means that one should not eat chametz. If someone wants specifically to eat nothing, he is also permitted. The Torah doesn’t say…

Speaker 1:

Where does it say that?

Speaker 2:

Should I bring you the pesukim (verses)?

Speaker 1:

Bring me the pesukim. “Vayikra,” “Vayikra.”

Speaker 2:

Should I bring you all the pesukim that say one should eat?

Speaker 1:

No, the pesukim in “Vayikra.” “Bayom harishon tashbisu se’or mibateichem” (on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses), “Pesach hu laHashem” (it is a Pesach offering to Hashem). It says nothing about that. “Matzos yochel es shivas hayamim” (matzah shall be eaten for seven days). “Shivas yamim matzos tochelu” (seven days you shall eat matzah). This is the chag hamatzos (festival of matzah).

Speaker 2:

Matzah means not chametz. It’s not relevant to have the yom tov (holiday) called “chag hamatzos” and not eat matzah.

Speaker 1:

No, no, matzah means not chametz. Again, not becoming exempt. Becoming exempt is a different mitzvah of the yom tov. Matzah means not chametz. Not chametz, yes. Matzah is a thing that one doesn’t eat chametz. One should not eat chametz. Yes, you eat matzah. One should not eat chametz, that’s the yom tov chag hamatzos.

Speaker 2:

Exactly. Obviously normal people eat matzah. That’s why I’m telling you, this is the chiddush (novel interpretation) that you’re being mechadesh (innovating). Obviously, every Pesach what does one do? One doesn’t eat Pesachdik. “Chag hamatzos,” technically, right? What does one eat? Matzah. Obviously it’s called “chag hamatzos,” what should one eat? Should one not eat matzah?

Speaker 1:

Again, you’re taking the command.

Speaker 2:

Oh, now it’s called “chag hamatzos,” what’s the chiddush that you’re being mechadesh?

Speaker 1:

Not about that. You have a crazy idea.

The Claim: You’re Backwards

Speaker 1:

But you’re saying that the Torah tells you not to eat chametz, therefore eating matzah is already your own decision, because you don’t have enough grass, or because you’re crazy and you want to eat every day what you want to eat.

Speaker 2:

No, you’re backwards. You’re backwards. You’re backwards. You’re backwards. You’re again backwards. You’re assuming that eating matzah is a chiddush. A normal person eats every day. Modern people who fast, I’m not talking about them.

It’s Not an “Eitzah Tovah” (Good Advice)

Speaker 2:

It’s not an eitzah tovah that one should eat matzah. That’s number one. Number two, the meaning of the word “matzah” is not the expensive thing that’s sold for fifty dollars a pound. The meaning of the word “matzah” is a thing that is not chametz. But you can even argue more about bread that is not chametz. Someone who doesn’t want to eat any bread at all, he wants to eat broccoli. It says nothing about that in the Torah. Not about whether it’s an eitzah tovah. That’s my claim. My claim is that it doesn’t say one should eat a billion. Like, I don’t know exactly… what’s the example for that? This is something that doesn’t say. And what I’m saying that I have a proof from the Chachamim (Sages), the Chachamim also understood it this way, because the Chachamim also said that in changing times.

Discussion on the Obligation of Eating Matzah from the Torah

Did the Torah Obligate Eating Matzah on the First Night?

Speaker 1:

He doesn’t want to eat bread at all, he just wants the birchas hanehenin (blessing of enjoyment). It says nothing about him in the Torah. Not about whether it’s an eitzah tovah. That’s not my claim. My claim is that it doesn’t say what one wants to eat. Like… I don’t know exactly… what’s the… what’s the… what’s the example for that. But this is something that doesn’t say.

What I’m saying is just a proof from the Chachamim, the Chachamim also understood this, because the Chachamim also said that essentially there’s no such mitzvah that one must specifically eat matzah or eat matzah every day. They understood that this is what it means.

And not regarding the other, it’s the same din (law). No, the words are always the same words, tzaddik (righteous one). Tzaddik, the words are not different. It always says the same sort of words. It’s not different.

Speaker 2:

Okay, you’re answering a different question. Rebbi (Rabbi), you’re answering two different questions. And again, why are you confusing? Again, these are two different questions. Another question, which nobody ever asked, and there’s no actual reason to think that it should be like this, perhaps there is a reason, but that’s not the big problem, is, who says there’s an obligation to eat matzah separately from the korban Pesach (Passover offering)? Because you want to be able to say, even though it says “al matzos umarorim” (on matzah and bitter herbs), but it says in Devarim (Deuteronomy) for example “shivas yamim tochal alav matzos” (seven days you shall eat matzah with it). That means, you can say that somehow the matzah… you want to be able to say, okay, it doesn’t say so many times, perhaps indeed, it doesn’t say in other places, it only says there. That it’s not as prominent as it’s mentioned with the Ivrim (Hebrews) by korban Pesach. But for matzah it doesn’t make so much sense, in short, one learned from this to other places.

The Claim: There’s No Distinction in the Torah

Speaker 1:

It says so many times in the Torah. First of all, it’s obviously simple, seven days one eats matzah and only one day the korban Pesach. I mean, it’s literally explicit that the matzah is not dependent on the korban Pesach, right?

I understood that the real problem of the Chachamim only begins, as you say, after they have an idea that there is a matzah of reshus (optional) and that matzah is chovas Torah (Torah obligation). But simple peshat (plain meaning), if you don’t know that there’s a matzah of reshus and chovah (obligation), there isn’t this that the matzah is not dependent on the korban Pesach. This is not something that apparently needs a proof. It’s pashut uvarur (simple and clear) that matzah is not dependent on korban Pesach. One could have said a claim, okay, ein lecha ela chidusho (you only have its innovation), but here, at the time if one was offering on erev Pesach (Passover eve) the korban Pesach, then one should eat matzah the other seven days, and if not, not. Okay, it would have been a chiddush for me, because I don’t see why one should really say so.

But the entire essence of the matter that there’s an obligation to eat matzah, which the Rambam calls a mitzvas asei (positive commandment), and you don’t receive a punishment, kares (excision), whatever punishment you get for not doing a mitzvas asei, this is a davar ketzas peleh (somewhat wondrous thing). I don’t know why I would have such a thing. Do you understand? I’m going backwards. Most people don’t understand why the Chachamim were me’atik (copied) and said that all other days it’s only reshus. I say that I don’t know from where they took that the first day there’s an obligation at all.

Speaker 2:

Nu, nu. What are you doing with nu, nu?

Speaker 1:

They did understand, they have dozens of proofs, and also from the pesukim.

Speaker 2:

They don’t have a single proof that there’s an obligation to eat matzah. They don’t have a single proof. They don’t have a single proof. It’s not a chiddush what I’m saying. I’m telling you the simple meaning in the Chumash (Pentateuch). It always says so.

Speaker 1:

But the Chachamim say there’s an obligation. They didn’t just say a tasty thought.

Speaker 2:

They don’t have a single proof. It’s not a chiddush what I’m saying. I’m telling you the simple meaning in the Chumash. It always says so.

Discussion on the Pesukim

Speaker 1:

But not “ach bayom harishon” (but on the first day).

Speaker 2:

“Ushmartem es hamatzos” (and you shall guard the matzos), nu, at first they apparently said “ba’erev tochelu matzos” (in the evening you shall eat matzah). And then there’s a pasuk again, “bachamishah asar yom lachodesh hazeh chag hamatzos laHashem” (on the fifteenth day of this month is the festival of matzah to Hashem).

Speaker 1:

And what did they interpret?

Speaker 2:

I mean to say, this is the Ivri (Hebrew) meaning. Exactly, this is the Ivri meaning. This is the Ivri meaning. Not only do I say this is the Ivri meaning, the Chachamim say this is the Ivri meaning, right? The Chachamim say this is the Ivri meaning. Not only me, but the Chachamim also say like me that this is the Ivri meaning.

Speaker 1:

But there regarding “shivas yamim tochelu matzos” (seven days you shall eat matzah), but there it says “ach bayom harishon tashbisu se’or” (but on the first day you shall remove leaven).

Speaker 2:

But the Ivri meaning, the essential Ivri meaning, they all agree that it doesn’t mean that one must. They asked a question, why here, when it says here, does it mean reshus? They took toras ma’aseh (practical law).

Speaker 1:

Not toras ma’aseh, it’s obviously the Torah would distinguish between the first day and the other days.

Speaker 2:

Now, absolutely not. Because the Torah mentions it extra two times.

Discussion on “Ba’erev Tochelu Matzos”

Speaker 1:

It’s not… you falsely twisted that pasuk. Just to be clear, there it says a pasuk “ba’erev tochelu matzos” (in the evening you shall eat matzah). It’s not a… it’s an absolutely false.

Speaker 2:

“Me’arba’ah asar yom lachodesh ba’erev tochelu matzos ad yom ha’echad ve’esrim lachodesh ba’erev” (from the fourteenth day of the month in the evening you shall eat matzah until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening). What are you making Purim of me? It never says in the pasuk extra in the evening like other nights. Never.

Speaker 1:

“Ba’erev tochelu matzos.”

Speaker 2:

That the obligation begins that night. Even according to the Chachamim they had to have a source to interpret that this says in the pasuk. It’s not a melitzah (figure of speech).

Speaker 1:

“Ba’erev tochelu matzos” also says “shivas yamim matzos tochelu.” The night is not called chag hamatzos, but all seven days are called chag hamatzos. It’s how the pasuk is divided. It doesn’t say anywhere a distinction. It doesn’t say any place a distinction from the first night to the second night regarding eating matzah. No place at all. Obviously the first night one eats korban Pesach. This is included, not only that you eat matzah. But regarding eating matzah it says nowhere no distinction. No place at all.

This is absolutely a chiddush of the Chachamim. Obviously they have their ways how to squeeze this into the pasuk, but this doesn’t say any place. Obviously not. And certainly not from the pasuk “ba’erev tochelu matzos” is this literally a kefirah baTorah (heresy against the Torah). When the pasuk says “ba’erev ad” (in the evening until), it means the total that the obligation begins in the evening, shelo tomar (lest you say) it begins in the morning like other things perhaps, it begins in the evening. This is the Ivri meaning of the pasuk. It doesn’t say any more than that. This is literally a peleh (wonder).

An Alternative Explanation

Speaker 1:

I think that simply the peshat is that obviously the Chachamim understand that one must eat matzah all seven days. This is like a minimum measure. What’s the minimum measure? Perhaps eating matzah every day. Like how it doesn’t say that one must eat only a kezayis (olive-sized portion) of matzah? It doesn’t say, one must eat matzah. How much? I don’t know. The minimum is a kezayis. Perhaps the minimum is the first night. I don’t know, I once thought, why do I think so? Because it makes sense. I don’t know, it makes sense for the Chachamim and somewhere.

In any case, the Rambam took very seriously the Chachamim as it says, as always.

The Dispute of Tannaim and Amoraim

Speaker 2:

It says in the Gemara in Pesachim, it says in the Gemara in Pesachim, there are different shitos (opinions) of Tannaim and Amoraim how they learn which day is an obligation and which day is reshus, and libi nosein (my heart tells me) that they are right. I don’t understand your problem. Why is there a distinction from the first night leil Pesach (Passover night) the next night? That the Torah counts fifteen times that there’s a mitzvah to eat matzos, and they all say that it’s lav davka (not necessarily) already just an explanation, because the Torah wants to give them more explanation. It’s not lav davka, it’s not understood. I have a second answer, my older brother said it, it occurs to me. I didn’t look in the Orchos Chaim, it doesn’t say in this thing.

Speaker 1:

Okay, let’s learn a bit of Rambam. Says the Rambam, in practice the Rambam says yes that one must eat matzah min haTorah (from the Torah). And also the Gemara that he brings, which comes up, everything begins with such a funny havah aminah (initial assumption) that perhaps there’s a mitzvah Pesach one must eat matzah, which I don’t know why, I can hear such a tzad (side), but that’s not the main nusach (version) here. The main nusach is here at all, how is there the mitzvah of eating matzah.

So in practice there’s a dispute between Amoraim and Tannaim whether there’s a mitzvah to eat matzah min haTorah. And the poskim (halachic decisors) say like those who say that one must eat matzah min haTorah. There’s a dispute in the Gemara, Rabbi Yoshiyah and Rabbi Yonasan. There’s a dispute, I see the Rabbanim, by Rabbi Yonasan there’s an obligation of eating matzah in a separate manner doesn’t exist according to other shitos. That’s not the… I told you, I don’t have the question, because I think it’s obviously simple. Again, I can perhaps hear the peshat, but that’s not my chiddush. I don’t see why this should be the main thing that one must show. The main thing that one must show is what is there at all a mitzvah to eat matzah.

Halachah 6: Mitzvas Asei to Eat Matzah on the Night of the Fifteenth

Speaker 1:

In any case, this is a mitzvah according to how the Rambam said. Mitzvah le’echol matzah v’lechem mishneh b’leil chamishah asar (it’s a mitzvah to eat matzah and double bread on the night of the fifteenth). Already, when is the mitzvah? Mitzvah zo bechol makom uvechol zman, v’einah teluyah ba’achilas haPesach, ela hi mitzvah bifnei atzma, umitzvasa kol halaylah (this mitzvah in every place and at every time, and it’s not dependent on eating the Pesach, rather it’s a mitzvah by itself, and its mitzvah is all night). Stop, stop. When is the mitzvah? Ah, I didn’t see. And… that means mitzvasa kol halaylah, the whole night one can be yotzei (fulfill the obligation).

Discussion: When is the Mitzvah? Kol Halaylah or Until Chatzos?

Speaker 2:

Yes, when is the mitzvah? This is a dispute, right? Like the Gemara says that every mitzvah whose mitzvah is at night, at night means that a… kol halaylah (all night). Very good. But what about the Chachamim who say until chatzos (midnight)? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah? In several places, “v’ein ne’echal ela ad chatzos” (and it’s not eaten except until midnight), says in so many places, right? It’s indeed a dispute. The Rambam paskened (ruled) like you say, brings in the Mishnah in Megillah and in other places… aha, it’s kosher kol halaylah. And in the Gemara he says, halachah k’Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah (the law is like Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah). But in several other places one sees that one does go with the shitah of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, that Pesach can only be eaten until chatzos, at least miderabanan (rabbinically). Right?

Speaker 1:

But it says “v’ein ne’echal ela ad chatzos” says in so many places on korban Pesach. I think that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah holds that the mitzvas matzah is the same time as the mitzvas… Not only Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, I think everyone agrees that this goes together at the same time, at least.

Speaker 2:

And every… I don’t know, let’s see. “Kiyum diska shel Pesach” (fulfillment of the Pesach plate), yes, amar Rava (Rava said), amar Rava, the Gemara in Pesachim 120, “af al pi shemitzvasa bazman hazeh ad chatzos, mitzvasa latzeis yedei chovasa” (even though its mitzvah nowadays is until midnight, its mitzvah is to fulfill one’s obligation). And so other tzaddikim (righteous ones) indeed paskened.

The Rambam’s Shitah: Kol Halaylah, But with a Rabbinic Decree by Korban Pesach

Speaker 1:

And… yes. The Rambam went generally with the shitah like Rabbi Akiva who argues with Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and says that the mitzvah is kol halaylah. There is indeed a gezerah (decree)… ah, he says explicitly, this he brings in Maseches Berachos it comes out that one must eat it before chatzos, that the Rabanan (Rabbis) prohibited lest one stumble, one should eat after… yes, this is only by korban Pesach, not by matzah, not by the other mitzvos which… kol halaylah, and in order to distance from the sin they added to it. But he says that even this doesn’t exist by matzah, even the Rabanan didn’t decree the decree by matzah, and I don’t know why the Rambam doesn’t say it, I don’t know. But regarding the Chefetz he says so.

What’s the halachah? Let’s see. Again, the Rambam doesn’t bring that lechatchilah (ideally)

Halachah 6: Time of Eating Matzah, Amount of Eating, and Swallowing Matzah and Maror

Time of Eating Matzah — Lechatchilah and Bedieved

Speaker 1: Now he hasn’t yet come to himself not by matzah, like by other mitzvos whose mitzvasan is kol halaylah, and in order to distance from the sin they stopped. But he says that even this doesn’t exist by matzah, because matzah even the Rabanan didn’t decree the decree of matzah. Why not? Because the Rabanan say it’s not so important. He comes to himself, he says that it’s yes a halachah l’Moshe miSinai (law to Moses from Sinai).

Again, the Rambam doesn’t bring that lechatchilah is before chatzos. It comes out that even bedieved (after the fact), even lechatchilah is after chatzos, because the Pesach is like Rabbi Akiva.

Speaker 2: Eh, the Imrei Chachamim…

Speaker 1: Ah, he says that the Beis Meir in Hilchos Matzah explains that the entire reason why the stringency of Pesach is — perhaps he’ll go eat after alos hashachar (dawn), and it will be kodesh (holy) to eat nosar (leftover sacrifice). But matzah is not relevant to this concern. In total he wasn’t yotzei the mitzvas matzah, not the issur (prohibition).

Speaker 2: Eh, by krias Shema (reciting the Shema) there is indeed this thing, perhaps he’ll in total miss krias Shema.

Speaker 1: And he says kol daas harbeh, ah, there he changes the language of the Rambam slightly, he changes the language of Kampan slightly. He says that yes, it must be after midnight. You see clearly that the Rambam makes the distinction that even the Rabbinic requirement of until midnight doesn’t apply to matzah.

And other tzaddikim conducted themselves that… other tzaddikim conducted themselves… were also careful about matzah before midnight, but that’s a separate discussion. They ate specifically matzah specifically before midnight. For example, who?

Speaker 2: I don’t know, other Rishonim, yes. From this comes all the Jews who rush to eat the meal before midnight and the like. And the matzah is even… yes, but the Rambam doesn’t hold of the whole thing. The Rambam doesn’t rule at all like the Zohar HaKadosh, yes. Good.

Digression: Matzah in the Sukkah

Speaker 2: Yes. Tosafos, you can see other tzaddikim who say differently. The main thing is whether one must eat specifically in the sukkah or not in the sukkah. And on this there is the long Mishnah Berurah.

Speaker 1: In the sukkah? Yes. Why in the sukkah?

Speaker 2: Because the Toras Kohanim discussed it, “miki mashma yom lachutz zeh chag hamatzos”, says the Gemara, “yom zeh taun matzah v’ein chag hamatzos Sukkos taun matzah”. The Gemara brings, “mah im zeh she’eino taun sukkah taun matzah, zeh she’taun sukkah eino din she’taun matzah?” One only needs “hazeh chag hamatzos”, “zeh taun matzah v’ein Sukkos taun matzah”. The Gemara says, no, it has an answer apparently. But anyway, you say it’s strange, the same thing.

Let’s say there’s no such thing, one doesn’t have to. But if you see a Jew eating in the sukkah and it says there “matzah”, he’s concerned about some opinion in the stars. That one must eat matzah in the sukkah, and not that one must eat in the sukkah with matzah.

By the way, you understand, if the Torah would have been like this, God forbid, you would have yelled at me that I’m saying differently than the simple understanding of this day, it’s a kal vachomer, he says here.

Imagine the Torah would have come and said, the sukkah means to say that the matzah must be eaten in the sukkah, or the sukkah must be sat in with the matzah. Would you have said it’s madness? No, we would have been accustomed to it, we would have said that something else is madness. Madness is only what we’re not accustomed to. It’s obvious.

Speaker 1: I wouldn’t have told you it’s madness by definition. No, it’s not, I don’t understand what he’s asking, so I need to delve deeper.

Halacha 6 (continued): The Rest of the Festival Days — Matzah is Optional

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue. Something is derived from Pesach to Sukkos, I would like to know what is derived. All the mitzvos of Pesach that apply. Okay, but, this is the important thing. “aval bish’ar haregel, achilas matzah reshus. Ratzah ochel matzah, ratzah ochel orez v’dochan.” Let’s rule that rice and millet don’t become chametz.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s a discussion in the Gemara, I think. You already learned it earlier apparently. They learned it earlier apparently. If one eats that portion. But what was written here? “ein yotzin b’chametz ela”. What could be written? “ela ein yotzin b’chametz ela bachameshes haminim”? And what’s the question?

Speaker 1: Ah, “ela bachameshes minei dagan”. But one should never say that one fulfills with chametz. One fulfills with chametz? It’s food that’s forbidden to eat.

Speaker 2: So one will eat those things, one won’t eat. There’s a contradiction to the prohibition of kitniyos, yes. On kitniyos and fruits, “ela b’lechem chametz levad”. Obligation, obligation. And how long is the obligation? How much must one eat?

Speaker 1: “b’shiur k’zayis, like they fulfill the obligation”. The whole text, it’s something that’s confusing… a sentence that seeing this sentence, one couldn’t write simply a clear statement, that only remains. Chametz she’atar, and the rest is optional, that it goes back and forth. Does it say that the language is somewhat mixed in.

Speaker 2: Yes yes, it’s true. Yeah, ah, no no, sounds a bit complicated.

The Measure of Eating Matzah — A Kezayis

Speaker 1: And how much is the measure? The measure is a kezayis. He also gives, it’s also interesting language. Also is also kezayis yetzah. It means to say, you shouldn’t think like what it says on the eve you’ll eat the whole night. What does he mean?

Speaker 2: Ah, yetzah means what it says he doesn’t need to eat more. It’s like tzalah afikoman. Erev doesn’t mean the whole night. No, perhaps it means to say that the matzah eaten afterwards is no longer matzah of mitzvah. It’s already just eating matzah. I don’t catch in more mitzvos to the matzos. But what does it mean, it was, the erev no meaning. You know, the example, eating in the sukkah, let’s say the whole sukkah, means one fulfills. One also says the first kezayis, that’s the mitzvah. I go, what does that mean? But what does it mean that one doesn’t need to eat more, but not that there’s no choice, but what does it mean?

Speaker 1: I don’t know what it means. What does it mean to fulfill a mitzvah? What’s the whole point? A question arises.

One needs to know, what does it say in the Gemara, yotzei yedei chovaso regarding what? What happened afterwards? One could have done better mitzvos, more beautiful mitzvos. One wants to know whether one should again… What are we talking about? Yotzei yedei chovaso? Because he doesn’t say there, yes, simply the measure is a kezayis. When it says the language “shiur kezayis”, one understands, shiur kezayis. Yes, it doesn’t say more. He brings a language, “achal mishhu kezayis k’shiuro, harei zeh yotzei”. He brings a language.

Yes, what… all eating apparently is a measure of kezayis. What is the… what is the…

It sounds from the Baraisa regarding the first halacha itself, from the Baraisa that they bring, that the Gemara itself brings from Rava, that essentially the problem is more, do you have an obligation at all to make a seder nowadays? Apparently it only comes on Pesach, something like that.

Um… “amar Rav Huna, kol halaylah”, I already remembered. Um… very good. “mevi lefanav matzah”, yes, it’s simple, but what… the language is somewhat strange. Okay, I’ll continue. It’s simple, and the language is strange.

Yes, “achal mishhu matzah, yatza”.

The Measure of Maror

Then regarding haseibah, it also says in passing. What does it say in passing? Ah, I say it’s interesting, the law is thus, it says here in passing, “achal mishhu kezayis”, and in the Gemara there it discusses regarding when one must sit, it’s with haseibah. We’re not talking about measures at all. So I don’t know, there’s… Okay, he says that the Magen Avraham says in several places about Pesachim that a kezayis is enough, I don’t know.

Okay, let’s continue.

Ah, the Mishnah says how he must meet the kezayis, regarding different types of maror. Okay, that maror must be a kezayis. I mean it’s the same thing.

Maror only says the thing from names. I mean you need proof that it’s a kezayis, because it’s a general rule in all of Torah that measures are a kezayis. I mean it’s in Chaim Sha’al, where exactly does the rule say? I also want to ask. I don’t know, I don’t know.

Okay. Let’s continue.

Yes.

Halacha 6 (continued): Swallowing Matzah and Maror

Okay. “bole’a matzah yatza”. Ah, he didn’t taste it, he swallowed it. Bole’a, that also means eating, swallowing means eating. One doesn’t need to taste. The Meiri says it’s not a matter of tasting, swallowing means eaten. But the same thing, “bole’a maror also yatza”.

“Bole’a matzah u’maror” I would apparently have said he fulfills, because he swallowed both, and both is enough with a kezayis. But in practice it’s not so. “Yedei matzah yatza, yedei maror lo yatza”. Why? Because the maror becomes secondary to the matzah. Always when one eats bread with some vegetable, I don’t know what, the vegetable is secondary, the accompaniment.

And what’s the problem then? Does that mean you didn’t eat maror? So and so. What is it? I don’t know.

Halacha 3 (continued): Swallowing Matzah and Maror – Matzah Fulfilled, Maror Not Fulfilled

Speaker 1: Swallowing matzah and maror – you would apparently have told me he fulfills, because he swallowed both, and both is enough with such swallowing. But in practice it’s not so. Your matzah is fulfilled, your maror is not fulfilled. Why? Because the maror became secondary to the matzah. Always when one eats bread with some vegetable, I don’t know what, the vegetable is secondary, the accompaniment.

And what’s the problem then? Does that mean you didn’t eat maror? So and so. What is it? I don’t know, because it’s secondary to the matzah.

Fine. The Gemara says differently. Let’s see. The Rambam says so and so, it sounds like you’re saying, that it’s secondary and nullified, because it’s swallowed. Again, if he eats tasting together, secondary is not a problem, right? Secondary is together with the main thing and with the tasting. It’s a problem, right? But if in practice he tasted both, the question is only, if he didn’t taste it becomes a problem, right? That’s why the Rambam nullifies it.

Source: Rava’s Statement – Pesachim 115b

Speaker 1: Let’s finish. What does the wise man say? And do we fulfill even with this? What’s the problem then? It’s not… I don’t understand clearly. What does it mean didn’t eat? He swallowed something, he didn’t eat? He didn’t taste, it’s not… the mouth didn’t come in contact with the food.

Okay. So what’s the story? This is all a Gemara in Pesachim, amar Rava, bole’a matzah yatza, bole’a maror lo yatza. Bole’a matzah u’maror, matzah yatza, maror lo yatza. This is the whole, all four halachos are all one statement of Rava in Pesachim 117b.

Dispute in Versions: Swallowing Maror – Fulfilled or Not Fulfilled?

Speaker 2: And what’s the answer? Ah, there are two answers here. There are two answers here. First of all there’s a dispute among the Rishonim. So if one goes with swallowing maror lo yatza, one also understands the second halacha, swallowing together lo yatza. That is, one says that matzah no, matzah one fulfills because one doesn’t need to taste, but with maror, because one wants to bring out a taste of bitterness, lo yatza. That’s one explanation, right? But if one says that swallowing maror also yatza, one needs to understand the second, why eating both together lo yatza. The Rambam has the version “bole’a maror lo yatza”.

Speaker 1: From where do you say what you’re saying here about guarded as swallowed? It’s obviously about would have been swallowing.

Right, so let’s again, let’s say what is the…

Speaker 2: The Ra’avad, the Maggid Mishneh, all of them had the version “bole’a maror lo yatza”.

Speaker 1: No, no, yatza.

Speaker 2: “Bole’a maror lo yatza”.

Speaker 1: No, no, no one had that version. What are you saying here? Look, you can see it.

Speaker 2: Ah… it’s very confused.

Speaker 1: Look in the Maggid Mishneh, you’ll see.

Speaker 2: Ah, so if… again, if…

Speaker 1: What does it say in the Gemara? What’s the version in the Gemara? Look what the Gemara says.

Speaker 2: There are both versions in the Gemara.

Speaker 1: No, in the Gemara there’s a dispute.

Speaker 2: No, no, it’s not both. The Rambam has…

Speaker 1: There’s also a dispute… there’s also a dispute… there’s also a dispute of…

Speaker 2: Ah, I see in Rashi there’s a dispute “lo yatza”. Ha, in Rashi there’s “bole’a maror lo yatza”, and the word “lo” is circled, and he says “i efshar shelo yit’om ta’am maror”.

Two Ways to Understand According to Both Versions

Speaker 1: So again, so… ah… so again, what’s the point? If there are two ways for us to understand, let’s understand both ways. What are we going to do? Who… what comes out here? What do we need to know? It’s a simple question. “Shloshah mekomos bachag” I’ll come ask, “bole’a” I when the matzah.

Speaker 2: No, but here comes out interesting halachos about the mitzvos must taste the mitzvos. What does eating mean? These are investigative halachos here essentially. There are very strong practices, for example, we have a sick person, we give the matzah, we make it from crumbs, and we crush it, and we crush it.

Speaker 1: Okay, it’s not the same thing as swallowing! Wrapping in a napkin?! I’m asking strongly! Wrapping in a napkin?! I’m asking where it says! Wrapping the matzah or Gemara. You’re sure, and I’m not sure.

Speaker 2: No, I’m sure, so why good what’s sure for a good yes? From the Gemara, but it comes out clearly like this. Because the Gemara says, swallowing matzah maror the matzah yatza, wrapping in a napkin even the matzah namely yatza. So what is he talking about from the case that you made both at once.

Speaker 1: No, what does it say?

Speaker 2: So, he’s talking about this, that if… meaning if, have you seen the Gemara’s language? I was exactly, but the Gemara says, even from the matzah yatza, because wrapped is worse than simply not feeling the taste. If wrapped and the matzah lo yatza it wasn’t wrapped. Not all maror is necessary because wrapped.

Speaker 1: No, if it’s not already lost. What always should be… it’s not correct what you’re saying. Simply when the Gemara discusses the case, it’s correct that if the reason would be here that you yourself actually had that this is the reason, I don’t know that this is the reason, perhaps this is a problem that what makes it that the maror should nullify the matzah they have no problems like that, right? But has another reason, let’s see his reason… but this stands only on the…

Speaker 1: So which is the true version in the Rambam? What do I care what the true version is, first let’s see what the problem is here.

According to the Version “Swallowing Maror Yatza” – The Problem of Secondary

Speaker 1: Even let’s learn both versions, if one says “bole’a matzah yatza, bole’a maror yatza”, it’s implied apparently that there doesn’t need to be actual taste, there doesn’t need to be taste. But what then? Even if there doesn’t need to be taste, if it’s secondary it’s even worse. And the matzah one fulfills, because the matzah is not secondary, but the maror, because it’s secondary, doesn’t mean you ate real maror. Unless one will learn the halacha that the whole maror is there to be secondary, “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu”. Apparently it’s implied that specifically Hillel learned this way, but the simple reading says very clearly “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu”, he makes a meat sandwich.

Korech – Hillel’s Opinion and the Matter of Secondary

Speaker 1: Either way, on this the Gemara says on page 111, that Hillel said in the name of the Gemara that nowadays one shouldn’t make korech, why? Because “making maror nullifies the taste of matzah”.

Speaker 2: Ay, matzah nullifies how? It’s Torah law, it’s Torah law.

Speaker 1: No, initially but he also says “lo yatza”, differently. I don’t know, “lo ya’aseh”, I don’t know. Because it’s actually nullified. That is, if both were Torah law, then one could say such a thing. Like the opinion, but since today maror is Rabbinic, it’s nullified and one doesn’t fulfill both.

Speaker 2: Okay, it’s difficult, because according to that Gemara it’s implied that the matzah one also doesn’t fulfill. Unless the Rambam understood that the matzah one does fulfill. He says perhaps the Rambam’s version was different, he learned differently. But the point is, according to the Rabbis the problem is actually what you’re saying that it’s secondary, and therefore the maror becomes secondary, therefore one doesn’t fulfill eating maror, because one doesn’t eat maror as secondary.

Speaker 1: Ay, you’re saying that maror is secondary in its essence, it seems that the mitzvah of Rabbinic maror is not. Rabbinic maror is an extra mitzvah to eat maror. Unlike the matzah which is despicable.

Speaker 2: Okay, korech with haseibah, one must learn like you until now, it has nothing to do with it. I could indeed say that korech with haseibah is the explanation, it’s not in matzah, that doesn’t mean it’s not a way of eating.

Practical Difference – A Sick Person’s Matzah

Speaker 1: Okay. It’s further that someone eats matzah through an IV, but even whatever, one swallows things in a capsule, chapter 14.

Speaker 2: Very good. So, this is the…

Source Reference – “Anything Fit for Swallowing”

Speaker 1: The source reference says for example why does one fulfill swallowing matzah? Because one can taste, “kol hara’ui livilah ein bilah me’akeves bo”, that’s his language, he says. He goes yes with the version yatza. If it goes with the version yatza, it’s because this is the version lo yatza. According to the version swallowing maror is also lo yatza. According to that version… I have two explanations to say afterwards. Either because in practice one feels a taste, in doubt, one doesn’t feel any taste, but with every swallowing one feels a bit of a taste, one doesn’t feel the full taste as one would have when chewing, so the Rashbam learns.

Rashbam’s Explanation – A Bit of Taste When Swallowing

Speaker 1: Okay. Unlike swallowing matzah with maror, according to the version that matzah yes fulfills maror no, because then there’s… ah, what apparently if one feels the taste, one feels the taste, even when there’s both together.

Discussion on the Question of Taste in Eating Matzah and Maror

The Version that Maror is Different from Matzah

Speaker 1: But even the taste, you still feel the taste, even if you eat both together.

Speaker 2: No, because again, according to the version is he yotzei or not yotzei? According to the version that maror is different. It’s clear that that version held that there is a concept of tasting maror, because maror – the taste is bitter. Maror isn’t just eating green vegetables, it has to be bitter. But you don’t taste it when you’re not yotzei. Unlike matzah where there isn’t a concept of tasting, or not such a major concept of tasting. It makes sense, it’s not so hard to understand, right? Not a problem. True.

Speaker 1: Because here it touched your mouth, here it didn’t. That’s the difference between wrapped or not wrapped.

Three Different Versions in the Foundation of Eating

Speaker 2: So let’s understand clearly. There are three different versions simply. Yes. So here one must be. According to the approach, most Rishonim held that whenever the Torah says achilah it means you must eat. What does eating mean? Have the full taste, to chew and eat. But that’s obviously when it’s not yotzei.

For example, if I understand that the essence of maror is to feel the taste… wait, wait, wait. Let’s go further with the taste. According to the side that one must always be tasting, someone who doesn’t have taste buds for example, that’s for him a different type of eating. Generally speaking, achilah means pleasure, one must be tasting. Basically beliah, beliah means I eat without a taste, right?

Question: Must One Have the Specific Taste?

If I have… yes, someone doesn’t have taste buds. Or someone, let’s say deeper, if let’s say I have an abnormality, I had corona, and he thinks he ate something that’s not fit for eating, it’s already become completely moldy, perhaps that’s an object not kosher.

Let’s speak, Rebbe, one can argue, you want to argue that achilah means one must taste, and not necessarily, or one must taste the specific type of thing that’s there. That is, not just feel that there’s something in the mouth. No, for example let’s say, I had covid, someone had covid unfortunately, and he feels that maror tastes to him like matzah, and matzah like maror, I don’t know, it got mixed up, his wires are mixed. For him chametz tastes like sour cream.

You can ask according to the Rambam who says that a sick person for whom maror is sweet, he needs to eat something sweet to be able to have the taste of maror. Just the opposite, just the opposite, well, let’s not get into if such a person exists, because that’s the same thing, it’s an abnormality.

The question is whether achilah means… I’m not speaking now halachah, I’m speaking now the sides. Whether achilah means one must have a taste in general, or one must have the taste of the specific thing.

Nullification of Taste – Matzah and Maror Together

So if the halachah would have been that matzah and maror one is not yotzei with beliah, but with actual achilah, beliah is as the Gemara says without a taste. For example if someone… one can even say, wait a minute, one can say that even if one must have taste one can be yotzei with beliah, because with beliah there is some taste. That’s also an approach to say. With beliah you feel something, it’s like a certain, I mean the Rashbam says so, that with maror, because it’s a sharp thing, he will indeed feel the beliah, even not…

In short, just the opposite. Even if one says the thing that beliah means tasting, it could be that achilah means tasting, it could be that beliah is a weak tasting. One must know. But if one goes that beliah is not tasting at all, then apparently one is not yotzei neither with matzah nor with maror.

If one goes to learn that beliah means not necessarily tasting, I mean, achilah means not necessarily tasting, then automatically matzah one is yotzei. With maror there’s an extra law that it should remind him of the matzos and marorim.

Speaker 1: Yes, what one wants to say, you give me from maror is different from matzah, that the maror is different because of vaymareru, and that says… the question is nothing, and they ate the maror on the opening of Rabbeinu Chananel.

Speaker 2: So if the general rule in the Torah doesn’t need to be tasting, I don’t know, all other mitzvos. When for example matzah doesn’t need to be tasting. Because matzah reminds of lechem oni. Lechem oni apparently reminds in the shape and appearance thereof, or in the way it’s digested. It has nothing to do with taste. It’s not the taste of lechem oni.

I say, matzah must remind of something just like maror must remind of vaymareru es chayeihem, but now it has nothing to do with taste, that’s matzah not she’hechemitz, one must feel that this isn’t a matter of the taste, it’s a matter of you’re going to feel that it’s different which is hard, which is crude, or which is digested differently, maror is experiencing the taste and you’re going to feel there.

Taste as a Condition in Eating

So there’s generally the question whether achilah is the taste that one must taste and therefore someone doesn’t taste, can one go someone who doesn’t taste? Yes! Wrapped in a sack, wrapped in a sack, certainly not, certainly not and the like. Afterwards there’s another side that wants another means, according to that side never must one be yotzei, because one can say that apparently beliah apparently is also not eating.

And therefore if it’s ruined… no, wait a minute that side is more complicated. That’s certainly also, that it’s in that side in that approach, it’s not just that there must be a taste in general. There must be a taste of the thing, it’s obviously demonstrated.

Wait a minute, it’s the topic of nullification, batel, nullifying. If I… from this I understand only mitzvos. Yes, if I put in a… I said an example of someone who had covid. But what if someone puts something else in his mouth while he eats? No, let’s make the case even more. He puts in something sharp that makes him barely taste what he eats. That’s also a problem.

Speaker 1: No, but what you’re saying even more, that not only swallowing matzah and maror, but even if he chews together matzah and maror, he has full taste, but they nullify each other’s taste. That is swallowing matzah and maror. But that’s a different Gemara. But there is such a Gemara also, right?

Speaker 2: Wait, wait. It wasn’t clarified, I didn’t go into that. When I said the Rambam on page 115a, it wasn’t clarified, but they all bring and cite the Gemara. Because he holds that matzah, even if there’s only one mitzvah, so and so, derabbanan nullifies de’oraisa. There are those who learn that this means the taste is nullified, and therefore it’s as if an addition of evil. A piece isn’t, it’s fine, but if one puts a sharp thing, something that completely nullifies, and it could be… does he say it as bedieved or also lechatchilah? I don’t know. And it could perhaps be bedieved also.

It could be that even maror is indeed such a thing, because it’s a very sharp thing, it completely takes over the taste of the matzah. And since if it would have been a mitzvah, even a mitzvah is a small mitzvah, one mitzvah nullifies the other, but since it’s derabbanan, that doesn’t help. And therefore it’s a problem.

Koreich in a Sack – Two Interpretations

So it comes out that according to the side that one must completely have a taste, one hundred percent comes out the Gemara that if I put in something… I take a drug, I take a drug and I taste nothing, it’s a problem. But apparently, if one goes with the ruling, one must apparently say with the same logic like someone who ground well and spit out, you had the achilah because you had the taste. So the logic is that the taste is a condition in the achilah, not that this means the achilah? It’s a condition in the achilah. Right, right, of course. One must be tasting.

Speaker 1: But an argument, if I have a drug that gives me the taste, the comparison that I have the taste and I don’t have the taste. Many times I see a cake that speaks to me, it looks terribly good. But I don’t need, I’m not now in the mood to just engage with another cake. And let me put in a bit to have the taste of it.

For example, someone who has achilah gasah, is it different the problem. Someone who has already eaten too much. I don’t want to look into those sugyas, because achilah gasah is not looking into those sugyas. Achilah gasah, achilah gasah. Fine, it’s a… it reminds…

But before we go into the sugyas, let’s think the second approach that one can say that one doesn’t need taste. One doesn’t need taste. But what? With maror there’s an extra law that one must, “al merorim yochluhu”, that here you must have indeed taste. But the only one is maror. I looked up for a moment, something wasn’t hinted at, I didn’t hear it.

Speaker 2: Matzah must also remind of something that it’s lechem oni. But I say, the lechem oni has nothing to do with the taste. Lechem oni is a piece, but it doesn’t digest well. It’s not the taste. Because it says maror, it’s plain, pure taste. Therefore maror must have an extra law that it must have taste.

Texture as Part of Eating

What is now koreich in a sack? Koreich in a sack one can say thus: if the matter is taste, then koreich in a sack according to halachah is several times, that there isn’t even the bit of taste that exists during beliah. But if one says that one doesn’t need taste, then it hangs back on the question of koreich in a sack. It could be koreich in a sack is even worse because there’s a chatzitzah, it doesn’t touch the mouth. The touching of the mouth is a matter. This one must understand.

It could be the word isn’t… I’m settled that one must understand in this. It could be it doesn’t mean the word chatzitzah like a chatzitzah in tefillin. Chatzitzah means that this isn’t called achilah, it’s a strong shelo kederech achilah, because not even, both it didn’t have taste, and both it didn’t have that your mouth touches the food, the sensation.

Like with covid, when one asks people what do you feel, he doesn’t feel the taste, but he can very strongly feel the texture. Because he doesn’t have… texture is also a major part of the… of what you feel. In your imagination, when it also has salt, you feel it together like one big thing which is taste. The texture is a piece of taste.

It’s even worse. He says when he says because this you didn’t feel during beliah, it doesn’t necessarily mean the matter of the law of chatzitzah. He means to say it’s a strong shelo kederech achilah, an even stronger shelo kederech achilah.

The Spectrum of “How Far Must One Not Taste”

If normally one must taste, certainly not. But if one says never taste, the question is how extreme does one say one doesn’t need taste. Whether it only matters to me what landed in my belly, even wrapped in a sack, doesn’t matter to me? Or the word is yes, some bit of taste, and when one wraps in a sack, it’s much further, then it doesn’t mean any achilah.

Speaker 1: A good point. And I mean it’s the whole matter, because…

Swallowing Matzah and Maror Together – Continuation of Discussion in the Rambam’s Interpretation

Shelo Kederech Achilasah – Capsules and Medicine

Speaker 1:

It was said that it’s a strong shelo kederech achilasah, an even stronger shelo kederech achilasah. So if normally one must be tasting, certainly not. But if one never needs to be tasting, the question is how extreme does one say that one doesn’t need to be tasting. Whether it only matters to me what landed in my belly, even wrapped in a drug doesn’t matter to me? Or the word is, yes, some bit of taste, and one doesn’t understand any sacks, it’s much further, then it doesn’t mean any achilah. A good point.

And I mean that’s the whole sugya, because that’s the thing that one can put in capsules and all things where there’s a concern that one will eat it, or a person would have eaten it, apparently not for this is that permitted as… a capsule isn’t any derech achilah. It’s not even inside any eating.

Speaker 2:

Shall I tell you? Apparently that’s not just a drug, it’s not even inside needs to be eaten.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps that’s the thing. Perhaps on that type of medicine one should be stringent to eat it in a drug. I’m speaking in this manner, let’s say that it doesn’t matter taste. I’m speaking the first discussion of the Mishneh LaMelech. I know certainly that there are people who practice this. I don’t know. But I don’t know… it’s roughly like someone there is who is about the young man who said that… no, no, that doesn’t come in. Okay, I hear. In short, I don’t know, it seems that…

Return to the Sugya of Swallowing Matzah and Maror

Speaker 1:

But one must know whether what we discussed, swallowing whether one who swallowed, both were forbidden, said that the Gemara speaks about this. Not matzah and maror at one time. That’s the topic, whether they can nullify each other. That one has no problem with “al matzos umerorim yochluhu”. Yes, that one didn’t go with Hillel. Again, that one says he only works on the reisha, or doesn’t he go with him? Or should there be an extra answer of together? Or is it indeed a dispute? Don’t do like Hillel, which is indeed a major. Or is there a difference that with the Rabbis it only works, it doesn’t work for the head with the Rabbis together, whatever that is exactly I’m not going into. Hello?

Maror in Charoses – The Matter of Taste of Maror

Speaker 2:

Everyone dips maror in charoses, that the charoses should take away the sharpness of the maror.

Speaker 1:

Ah, a Tosafos, he brings a Tosafos, he brings a Tosafos here, that matzah metubeles it says in the Gemara that it’s reasonable… it’s the same thing as the charoses.

Speaker 2:

No, it’s interesting, because he says here, the commentators say that one must feel the bitterness in the maror, that therefore, because of this one is not yotzei, even generally there isn’t the rule. According to that approach comes out another topic, that according to that approach… and by the way, it indeed says so in the poskim. No, one dips it in, but one shakes it off, just a bit. And not only that, there are those who according to the reasoning perhaps want to say that one needs a maror that has been shaken off, or if a person is in doubt which one the Mishnah means, apparently it’s better when he takes one of all. Okay, because if one is not the correct one…

The Raavad’s Difference with the Rambam – Reason for “Maror Tafel to Matzah”

Speaker 1:

In short, the Raavad had… you had a difference for me, I just forgot to say, the Raavad says that what the Rambam says that maror is tafel to matzah, the Raavad agrees to the halachah, but doesn’t agree to the reason, because the Raavad’s reason is what you told us earlier, that the reason is because the other interpretation in the Rambam, that there’s a question what the Rambam means. But this is a reason separate from the Raavad, he says that one fulfills not yotzei maror, unless they didn’t eat.

Speaker 2:

Very good. Very good. Unlike matzah.

Speaker 1:

Ah, perhaps the Raavad understood that matzah one tastes even when swallowed, unlike maror, maror is such a type of thing that one cannot taste, that’s the point.

Speaker 2:

No, I mean he goes with the Ramban and all that with maror there’s extra that one must indeed have taste.

Speaker 1:

Okay, he doesn’t say clearly what he means. He asks reason reason of maror. We don’t know, truly. We don’t know, I would have assumed that he means that he goes with the other Rishonim who say so, because for us there’s no question.

Analysis: What Does “That Maror is Tafel to Matzah” Do?

Speaker 1:

The question is however if so, whether when the Rambam says that maror is tafel to matzah, is that indeed the reason why one is not yotzei the maror, because it becomes a tafel, and a new problem of tafel? Or is that a reason why the matzah one is indeed yotzei?

Apparently both things are true.

Speaker 2:

No, that the matzah one is indeed yotzei is simple, because swallowing matzah.

Speaker 1:

Ah, but one has a deficiency. It depends, it depends on the question. If this is swallowing matzah extra, or perhaps this is a new problem?

Discussion: Taste vs. Importance – What Does “Tafel” Mean?

Speaker 2:

No, he says like this, if one swallows matzah yatzah, swallows maror lo yatzah, the end of swallowing matzah and maror doesn’t fit, he’s explaining it again. Because the maror one is not yotzei because it wasn’t felt at all. Then why do you need the distinction of shehmaror tefilah lo?

Speaker 1:

Ah, no, he says that then you need the distinction of shehmaror tefilah lo, because seemingly the taste of the maror would nullify the taste of the matzah. To this the Rambam answers that it’s not mevatel because it’s a tafel. Understand?

Discussion: Taste vs. Importance – What Does “Tafel” Mean?

Speaker 2:

What does he mean that it’s a tafel? Tafel seemingly you shouldn’t say that it has to do with tafel in importance, it has to do with taste. If the whole discussion is about taste, seemingly the opposite, maror is sharper, maror seemingly overpowers. When a person takes maror and matzah, what will he feel much stronger? Seemingly the sharpness of the maror. So, tefilah lo means because it’s less important? Shehmaror tefilah lematzah, it’s less important? On the contrary, the opposite.

Speaker 1:

If you say that matzah doesn’t need to have taste, matzah doesn’t need to have taste, so that’s why bole’a matzah yatzah. Eh, should one be concerned here that in practice you don’t have matzah in your mouth entirely, because the maror is mevatel? Perhaps one should look at it like this, like when you take the matzah until it’s swallowed, because you’re not going for a long time, it doesn’t matter to me, because the maror is not mevatel, because the maror is a tafel in importance. So it’s interesting. Because if the problem is practical, you can’t give me the halachic solution of importance. If you tell me that the maror has a very strong taste, automatically…

Speaker 2:

Ah, again, you don’t need to have the taste of matzah. But if what then should one say it doesn’t mean at all like you’re eating matzah, because your mouth is surrounded with maror while you’re eating matzah, then I say that the maror is less important.

Speaker 1:

I said that one is not yotzei the maror, if bole’a maror one is not yotzei, then one is not yotzei the maror. Why is one not yotzei the maror? Because it was said that the maror needs to have… If you go with the version “bole’a maror yatzah”, why is there a chiddush? Why is one not yotzei matzah when one also eats maror? Why is one not yotzei matzah in bole’a maror matzah together? Because it’s tefilah.

If both are yotzei with swallowing, it means seemingly that taste doesn’t matter to me. Taste doesn’t matter to me, but it’s more similar to chatzitzah. I don’t want to have any chatzitzah, but the fact that you don’t have maror in your mouth now, because you have more important things in your mouth, you have matzah. It will be worse, it will be worse.

Speaker 2:

No, but taste doesn’t matter to me, because if yes, bole’a maror yatzah. I see that I’m being told there must be something real in the mouth, because you have the more important thing in the mouth. I’ll tell you, what do you have in your mouth now? You have the holy matzah, you would completely forget that you now have the foolish maror in your mouth.

Speaker 1:

It seemingly has nothing to do with taste. Because if taste, it matters to me which is more important. If we’re talking here about taste, seemingly the “shehematzah tefilah lo” in halachah is a bit different than you’re saying, because the matzah is double in importance.

I want to tell you another thing, the “shehematzah tefilah lo”, this is the reason why one is not yotzei the maror, because it’s a tafel. You see that the mitzvah is that one is yotzei the matzah and not the maror. On this halachah there’s no doubt. I say like this, the question is only what does the maror tafel lematzah do? If the reason is the cause why the maror is not good and the cause why the matzah is yes good, if it’s the reason why the maror is not good, then you only need it if bole’a maror lo yatzah. If bole’a maror generally yatzah, if bole’a maror lo yatzah, you don’t need to come to this. You don’t need it, right? You only need it if bole’a maror yatzah, you only need the chiddush that shehmaror tafel lematzah, but then it comes out that one is yotzei maror. You don’t need it. You don’t need it, because bole’a maror is usually yotzei.

Proof That the Version Is “Bole’a Maror Yatzah”

Speaker 1:

So, again, if bole’a maror lo yatzah, then you don’t need to have shehmaror tafel lematzah. You don’t need it, you don’t need it. Right? You don’t need it. Finished. One is not yotzei, even maror together with matzah one is not yotzei. Why don’t you need it? Why might you need it? Because the matzah one is yes yotzei, because the maror was a new problem that doesn’t stand in the Rambam. Just, we’re imagining it, right? Just to be clear, it’s not the correct pshat, because we’re imagining it. We see that the version can’t be correct, understand? Because we’re imagining that here there’s another problem that the maror is mevatel the matzah. He says that it’s not mevatel because maror tafel lematzah. One tries to make chasurei mechsera vechi katani in the Rambam, one can’t make chasurei mechsera vechi katani in the Rambam.

Rather what, the version must be bole’a maror yatzah. If so it’s difficult why koreich, or is the shittah that the tafel makes a problem. If bole’a maror yatzah, seemingly the bole’a matzah umaror together is only like this, an allusion, to such an extent one is okay with maror without taste, with matzah without taste, that even if there are other things in his mouth, even if there’s maror during the act. This is the whole chiddush in the second piece.

Speaker 2:

No, again. If I would have said that by both swallowing is yotzei, no, then it’s a great chiddush, because here by koreich one is not yotzei the maror. Great chiddush, one must even make a new din. It bothers, because then it becomes a tafel, and the tafel is not good. The other shittah fits. The other shittah needs to make a great difficulty on the words “shehmaror tafel lematzah” and insert a whole piece that doesn’t stand.

Speaker 1:

It’s also a great discussion whether the problem is taste or it’s a matter of importance. Whatever the reason is, true. I also couldn’t reconcile the two, it wasn’t clear to me the two. It makes further no sense. If indeed further it’s a proof that the version in the Rambam is yatzah, right? Because if the reason is taste, it makes no sense, why do you need to have bole’a maror yatzah? What is it when it’s the two you need a problem? Rather what, it’s a different sort of problem. Tafel, I don’t know exactly. It’s two together not good, one doesn’t eat. One must eat maror separately.

Speaker 2:

One doesn’t eat, one is not using a kezayit.

Speaker 1:

One must find some pshat, perhaps it is as I hear. I need to understand exactly. If there is here majority and minority, one says that one is mevatel the other. One can hear, perhaps there is a full eating, because what can he do?

Halachah 3: Eating Matzah Without Intent

The Rambam’s Language

One who ate matzah without intent, such as if gentiles or bandits forced him to eat — he fulfilled his obligation.

It only says gentile, but it also says bandits, interesting. Ah, I bring it here in the Tosafot Al HaTorah, it’s not a chiddush. There is in the Devarim Nechemadim this, that he says, ate matzah, gentile or bandits to eat, he fulfilled his obligation.

Question: How Does This Fit With Mitzvot Requiring Intent?

No, how does the Rambam say mitzvot don’t require intent? It’s indeed a wonder, because many other places he rules that mitzvot require intent. It’s indeed, one can hear that, that, that, ah, I said in the laws of Megillah, when we learned last week, that the Rambam rules “anyone who does without intent is yotzei”. And how is the pshat that here it says that one needs to have intent?

Answer from Devarim Nechemadim: Pleasure Is in Place of Intent

So the holy one, he elaborates on this, that this is indeed a sugya in the Gemara that when there’s pleasure, this is in place of intent. Like the Gemara says “shlumei emunei Yisrael nehenim mizeh umizeh”, and he shows it like the Gemara says that the mitzvah is enjoyed.

Another Answer: Mitzvah in His Body

He says a bit differently that, that the mitzvah is the body of doing the mitzvah doesn’t need intent. As opposed to the mitzvah which shofar is, as if the mitzvah one must afterwards do some action, it’s a preparation for the mitzvah to remember. As opposed to if the mitzvah is matzah is in order to remember that one left Egypt, this is not, it’s a mitzvah in his body. As opposed to eating shofar, if you don’t have intent there was no act of mitzvah at all. This is approximately the answer, it’s a bit different than the Yosef. But other commentators say the answer that the pleasure is equivalent to intent, and there are other explanations.

Alternative Explanation: What Does “Without Intent” Mean?

Or one can say at all that the Rambam doesn’t mean here “ate matzah without intent”, doesn’t mean which “without intent” does he mean? “Without intent to fulfill the obligation of the mitzvah”, or “without intent” that he doesn’t know that it’s Pesach at all? And in the next section it clearly says that what, “One who ate matzah without knowledge of Pesach, and afterwards Pesach came, he is obligated to eat again”. One sees that as if he’s exempt, all the mitzvot, not that there was no act of eating. From this one sees that even by force he’s obligated, but he wasn’t a bar chiyuva then. As opposed to the first thing, he was indeed a bar chiyuva.

Be well. Rabbeinu Manoach says this answer, I have no comment. I have no comment, yes. Okay.

The Foundation: One Must Be a Bar Chiyuva

But this is certain that the person must be a bar chiyuva, this is simple. It’s not similar to… It’s not intent, it’s not a matter of not intent. He wasn’t yotzei because he’s not a bar da’at, he’s not a person. The person died. In general, yes.

Distinction Between Hearing Without Intent and Eating Without Intent

One can actually hear the distinction between hearing something without intent and eating something without intent. I mean simply and practically, every person who…

Yes, because something that you heard and you didn’t have intent, here there are millions of noises, you didn’t hear it. If you didn’t have intent, it’s as if you didn’t hear it. Because hearing is… As opposed to eating, it’s in, in. This is approximately more the simple matter, the distinction in reality. This is approximately the distinction.

When he takes the poskim and he brings something according to this, I’m not sure, he says that according to this he must know that it’s Pesach. I don’t know, on the contrary, this he says indeed that it makes no sense. You’re going to eat matzah, what do you think? Shofar, you say, “I know what I’m doing, I’m going to stand, I’m going to do a mitzvah.”

Discussion: The Case of One Who Was Asleep

You mean to say if he knew that it’s Pesach, yes, that first day, that night. They grab me now, tell me my wife was two years ago in a hospital that was in and out, asleep, seconds.

No, but anyway, ah, excuse me.

No, but the Nechenami, seemingly, no, seemingly this means it. No, the awakened means exactly that. You say he still couldn’t awaken either? But what does awakened mean? He’s in such a state that he can’t be? Not conscious. If he’s not conscious, he’s certainly such a case, right? Unconscious he’s exempt, he’ll come back, he’ll need to eat.

The Chiddush of the Halachah

The chiddush here is that he already ate while he was a shoteh, right? This is indeed the chiddush of the halachah. The chiddush is not simply that… Right?

Yes.

The chiddush here is that he was… that he already ate yes, again, the chiddush here is that he didn’t eat, he’s indeed not obligated. You can’t now combine now the intent with the previous eating. There must be intent during eating. This is indeed the main chiddush, seemingly.

Makes sense? Yes. Okay.

Investigation: Intent Before Eating or Intent for Mitzvah?

What can do now? Yes. So seemingly the “ate matzah without intent”, seemingly, I can also have a less dramatic version, and say for example mitaseik. He snacked, he didn’t have in mind that he… We know the definition of “requires intent” is, he must eat for the sake of the mitzvah of matzah, or is it enough that he eats? One is Pesach and he doesn’t observe Pesach, a secular Jew, and he snacks on matzah at home. And the Rambam still didn’t understand the matter of for the sake of mitzvah. Everything he must understand for the sake of mitzvah. But here he seemingly spoke that his without intent is already “forced by gentiles”. Ah, I don’t know what this means “forced by gentiles”. What does this without intent mean? He eats it because he… I don’t know, I really don’t know. One must understand better the example of “forced by gentiles”.

Understanding the Case of “Forced by Gentiles”

If the gentiles essentially have a reality to be with the matzah, there is indeed a reality of matzah. This is what the gentile holds in his head doesn’t determine the status. The question is whether he thinks of matzah or he doesn’t think of matzah. Yes?

He doesn’t think of matzah, without the word. But he has no connection. But if he’s not an observer… “Forced by gentiles” means that he only thinks of the gentile who’s on his head. Means like this, let’s say that a Jew who’s a renegade decided that he’s going in no way to eat matzah. So we know that he won’t eat matzah. So the fact that he did eat matzah we know clearly that this was by force. Now one must know what comes in.

My question was whether there must be intent for the mitzvah or there must be intent for eating. Because the “forced by gentiles” can be both. It can be not that he had in plan with other words to eat matzah, and he didn’t have in plan at all to eat. He didn’t have in mind at all to eat. Because if we had the matter that one must have in mind the mitzvah of matzah, one could have said that he ate matzah without knowing let’s say, he didn’t know that now is Pesach, he ate matzah. Later he told me, “Ah, it was Pesach last night, now last night.”

Shogeg and Uncertain

And this is called in the laws of Shabbat this is called shogeg, forgetful. The shogeg goes on a transgression, but he’s a shogeg, he’s not uncertain. I don’t know exactly uncertain. You say the word uncertain, I don’t know what that means.

—

Digression: Chatzitzah in Intercourse with a Condom

Connection to the Previous Discussion About Koreich

What is it when it’s the two you need a problem? Always it’s a different sort of problem. The tafel, not exactly, it’s two together, not good, I don’t know, one must eat maror separately. I need to understand exactly why. I need to find some pshat. Perhaps it is indeed a pshat, I need to understand exactly why.

There are different… There is such a thing as in hearing one says that one sound is mevatel the other. One can hear, you have even an eating, because you eat it. I don’t know, perhaps. It’s indeed all an eruv tavshilin.

No, you don’t lose it. You don’t lose it. You ask a person, what should you now only eat? Very good, you have an answer. Why is it an interruption? In the aspect of interruption. If you call it in the aspect of interruption, because the matzah is so important, it means that you shouldn’t have anything else in your mouth. But not in the aspect of interruption. Let’s call it like this, not chatzitzah, not that it doesn’t touch. A different kind of interruption.

Complete Chatzitzah

But it’s indeed a complete chatzitzah, it’s indeed… A touch essentially is worse than not being. It makes a lot of sense. No, the world doesn’t explain that it’s only not there. The world explains that it’s much more. There is a complete chatzitzah that nullifies the important and the tafel goes away. Means that the tafel is not yotzei. Complete chatzitzah, let’s say, is even matzah itself. Is there such a thing? That you have a plastic bag on something and you eat it? Perhaps indeed about this.

The Case of a Condom

Like there was someone who wanted to say that if one has intercourse with a condom… Ah, I thought about this. There it’s the matter of pleasure, no? No, no, no. I can ask, I can set up that a chatzitzah of immersion and a chatzitzah regarding that it doesn’t touch the body. I don’t know, I can’t the chatzitzah. I don’t know. Perhaps the matter of impurity is indeed like this, perhaps he doesn’t become impure at all. Or perhaps no, perhaps if there’s impurity it works through intercourse, like the bedding of a zav and niddah is impure because of the intercourse, not because of the touch. Then even if it’s intercourse it’s impure anyway.

By intercourse it’s indeed not the matter… it’s indeed the matter of pleasure. Perhaps he’ll have less pleasure, but it can still be the same. So one must understand the reason for eating. Okay, very good.

The Heter Is Not Asked

Translation

Doctor, I’m not so sure that that sugya is such a settled sugya. One needs to look into the sugya of shelo k’darkah hana’atah (intercourse not in the usual manner – its pleasure), the whole thing. The rabbis certainly don’t hold of that heter (leniency) of the condom, because I’m not sure that it’s such a settled thing halacha l’ma’aseh (in practical law).

Why is it indeed settled, this thing? Why? Because everything is there, there is bi’ah (intercourse) and there is… What should be less of an issur (prohibition)? First of all, it’s certainly an issur of zera levatala (wasting seed). The kula (leniency) is the chiddush (novelty) of the bi’ah. Well, a bi’ah she’einah re’uyah (improper intercourse)… My thing makes it worse than derech evarim (through the limbs). It’s worse than a bi’ah she’einah re’uyah. Why? What’s the difference between derech evarim and this? What’s the difference? Because here he does it with the wife, but he doesn’t ejaculate on the wife. He’s not with the wife.

Derech Evarim and Bi’at Issur

No, I’m talking about derech evarim or just plain zera levatala. In all the issurim (prohibitions) of the Torah, bi’at issur is not an issur, eshet ish (a married woman) is not an issur. Derech evarim… I don’t understand what you’re asking. Perhaps b’derech… shelo k’darkah one is punished. I don’t understand what you’re asking. Mishkav zachor (male homosexual relations) one is punished, but plain derech evarim one is not punished. This is not a chiddush in the matter. But this is indeed derech evarim, because even if there is a chatzitzah (barrier)… bi’ah through a garment between them, it’s still an ervah (forbidden relation). An ervah is not present. Okay, it can’t last. At the very least it can’t last. At the very least not. Yes, it’s not a chatzitzah. One can say that it’s not a derech (way). Perhaps the custom is that it is indeed so. There is indeed derech hana’ah (way of pleasure), derech achilah (way of eating), plain derech hana’ah. Okay, let’s continue. Yes, there is the thing, but one doesn’t need to go into the extremes, okay? It’s already been enough of the ta’am (reason) according to halacha.

—

Siman 3: Achal Matzah — Connection to Devarim Nechmadim

Siman 3, achal matzah (ate matzah). It’s a bit connected, siman 3, also according to certain interpretations of the Devarim Nechmadim. Yes, achal matzah b’lo kavanah (ate matzah without intention). Such as if a non-Jew or bandits forced him to eat, he fulfilled his obligation. It only says non-Jew, but it also says bandits, interesting. Ah, I bring it here in the Tosafot al HaTorah, it’s not a chiddush. It’s there in the Devarim Nechmadim, that he says, achal matzah, a non-Jew or bandits forced him to eat, he fulfilled his obligation.

Discussion on Mitzvot Tzrichot Kavanah and Laws of Eating Matzah

Continuation of Discussion: Mitzvot Tzrichot Kavanah

Speaker 1: It could be not that they intended for him to eat matzah, but rather he didn’t intend to eat at all. He didn’t want to eat. If the issue were that one needs to have in mind the mitzvah of matzah, the Rambam could have said he ate matzah unknowingly. Let’s say he didn’t know that today is Pesach. He ate matzah, later someone said, “Ah, it was Pesach last night, now last night.”

And that’s called in Hilchot Shabbat it’s called shogeg (unintentional).

The shogeg applies to a transgression, but it’s called a shogeg. Mitaseik (acting without awareness). I didn’t say mitaseik. You’re saying the word mitaseik, I don’t know what that means. That’s the context of mitaseik.

That means he’s distracted, he doesn’t have it in mind.

No, mitaseik means someone does a melachah (forbidden labor) without thinking, he’s playing with trees and he gave a speech. That’s not the original context of mitaseik, that’s psak din (halachic rulings) from today’s tzaddikim.

Normally, I don’t know what mitaseik means. It doesn’t say mitaseik here, so I don’t know what it means. I know what it says here. I don’t know us, so the problem isn’t that he didn’t know. I said, when someone eats matzah, he knows that he’s eating, but he has no intention to eat matzah. When he doesn’t know that it’s Pesach, it’s called in Hilchot Shabbat it’s called shogeg.

Speaker 2: I don’t know what it means. I understand that it’s possible to do a mitzvah b’shogeg. But what I’m trying to understand is a bit funny, because also, let’s say, he does a transgression b’ones (under duress), certainly ones rachmana patrei (the Merciful One exempts one under duress). True? If non-Jews forced him to transgress one of all the mitzvot, he must give up his life.

Speaker 1: Except for the three severe ones.

Speaker 2: He doesn’t need to give up his life. Again, here ones doesn’t necessarily mean ones of life, whatever. But if they forced him, I’m not transgressing. True?

Well, but a mitzvah yes? But the mitzvah I ate.

Speaker 1: No, the mitzvah I also wasn’t yotzei (didn’t fulfill).

Speaker 2: The mitzvah I was yotzei.

Speaker 1: One needs to be yotzei.

Speaker 2: The non-Jew ate matzah, what does it have to do with you?

Speaker 1: No, because it had the taste of matzah.

Speaker 2: Ah, you said that it’s connected to the previous one. No problem. So when the non-Jew, according to Rabbeinu Menuach’s answer, so when the non-Jew forces you to do a transgression in this joint, does ones mean specifically with a gun? If they stuff his mouth and nose, and they stuff matzah in, and he chokes on it, is that like the sword? It’s not like the sword.

I understood. But I ask you a question. The right sword is perhaps it would have been a chatzitzah. Okay, I don’t see that that’s the problem. I mean I’m asking another question. The right sword, the non-Jews who forced him to eat matzah. What do non-Jews want? They go around forcing people to eat matzah? I don’t get what’s going on here.

Speaker 1: The non-Jews wanted to do teshuvah (repentance). For years they forced the non-Jews to do transgressions, so a camp went around forcing the Jews to do mitzvot. Can you see that Trump with the Creator should start forcing all the Reform Jews to become Orthodox?

Speaker 2: It’s very funny, the case of ones. Why is this the example of lo kavanah (without intention)? Do you understand what I’m asking? What does lo kavanah mean? I threw such a thing into his mouth. He doesn’t know that it’s Pesach, he doesn’t know that it’s matzah. I don’t get how he slept through this. But what was the question? That they can be specifically ones. I don’t see that the Rambam changed the culture of… because mitzvot tzrichot kavanah is…

The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah: Kafa’uhu V’achal Matzah

Speaker 1: Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Shmuel, kafa’uhu v’achal matzah, yatza (they forced him and he ate matzah, he fulfilled). Kafa’uhu from the world or kafa’uhu for a demon? The Gemara asks this. Amar Rava, says the Gemara, says Rava, zot omeret (this teaches), that taka’u lo shofar, yatza (they blew shofar for him, he fulfilled). Because either for singing or for a demon. Yes, Rashi has two versions. Either he wants to drive away a demon, or simply because he wants to sing and he doesn’t have mitzvah in mind. So here we see yes, that kafa’uhu is compared to other cases like for singing. I would have said, similar to for singing would be like we say ones, he doesn’t know that it’s a mitzvah of eating matzah, yatza. Obviously.

Hai nami, achal matzah rachmana amar, v’ha achal. Aval lo zichron teru’ah, v’hu mitaseik b’alma, kamashma lan (This too, the Torah said eat matzah, and he ate. But not remembrance of the shofar blast, and he’s just occupied with something else, it teaches us), says Rashi, afilu hachi mitaseik yotzei, d’mitzvot ein tzrichot kavanah (even so, one occupied fulfills, for mitzvot don’t require intention). So this is the Gemara, Rava who holds mitzvot ein tzrichot kavanah.

But also the hava amina (initial assumption) in the Gemara is very interesting, what does it have to do with this? “He thought eating matzah is what the Torah requires.” The main thing is that he held that at the time, he held that when there’s taste, ah, I can hear, because he held that the action is the taste, as you say, mitaseik, perhaps that’s the explanation of Rabbeinu Menuach.

Speaker 2: No, the Gemara certainly doesn’t say so. Rabbeinu Menuach one can answer a different question. Here it goes, according to the position of mitzvot ein tzrichot kavanah one doesn’t need to arrive at Rabbeinu Menuach’s teaching. According to the position of mitzvot ein tzrichot kavanah, the simple meaning is, as you say, mitzvot ein tzrichot kavanah regarding being yotzei. Mitzvot ein tzrichot kavanah means, the Almighty wants, it’s like a theological question, whether the Almighty doesn’t want people to have in vain, it has to do with this, perhaps. The Almighty wants, as you say, the Almighty says “eat matzah”, you ate matzah. Part of why did you eat?

Discussion: The Philosophical Foundation of Mitzvot Tzrichot Kavanah

Speaker 1: Apparently it would have to do with this, whether the mitzvot need to give us good character traits, or the mitzvot are simply like a holy power, they’re an atomic bomb that breaks us, as Rabbeinu Bachaye says, I don’t know where.

Speaker 2: Which way? What? Which way does it connect? Because if one says that the whole matter is, ah, one can learn it both ways. One can learn both ways, but apparently, if one would only say that the only thing that has to do with character traits, you need to be aware that I’m working now on my character traits, I’m making now my habits, and that makes the habits.

Speaker 1: I would have thought exactly the opposite, truly. I can hear. That if a mitzvah has a reason, I’m doing now a mitzvah for the Almighty. I mean already, if you’re simply working on having better habits. If we’re talking with this intention or that intention. But also this one can, regarding making better habits, perhaps part of it is that one knows that one is making better habits. It’s not that one does good actions alone, it’s perhaps also, it comes with the intention of this. This is a conversation that we’ll see in Shemonah Perakim, yes? That when a person habituates himself to do good things, whether it has to do with the fact that it has to do with intention, or that has nothing at all to do with intention, the action itself. It could be that when one does, when one habituates himself with good things, part of it is with intention, with knowledge, not monkey actions. If you turn it into monkey actions, I don’t know if it brings anything else. It depends what kind of knowledge you’re talking about. If you’re talking about knowledge that you’re doing something, then you must have yes. If you’re talking about knowledge that it’s a mitzvah or something like that, you don’t need to have. If he’s going to learn, I don’t know, but at some point, yes. One needs to learn even after Sefer HaMitzvot, as we’ll learn Sefer Lamdan today.

So let’s go further, okay? One needs to learn the halachot. Let’s see there the Gemara how… Already, the whole thing comes from that Gemara. It’s coercion, there isn’t, he’s obligated. But Persian coercion is… The Gemara goes into the sugya whether one needs to have intention. All the sugyot are interesting.

Speaker 2: No, I don’t want to. Do you want?

Speaker 1: Yes, because there are very difficult questions. I don’t know, simply, I don’t know why one goes into all these scholarly matters. Here is a dispute of Amoraim whether mitzvot tzrichot kavanah. Here he goes in with the position that mitzvot tzrichot kavanah. Already, fine. What bothers you? Is there a problem?

Speaker 2: No, there’s no problem. There’s no problem, everything is perfect.

Halacha 4: The Material of Matzah – Only from the Five Species

Speaker 1: Let’s go further. Back further to the sugya. There are many sugyot here, much Shabbat HaGadol drasha material. On each section here, on each line here, rabbis have already preached for long hours, and we unfortunately, we’ll first see the Shulchan Aruch, the simple halachot. The Mishneh LaMelech is a classic Sha’agat Aryeh, Noda BiYehuda, precious responsa.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, exactly. Let’s go further.

Speaker 1: Achal matzah, one of the mitzvot, section 5, 4, okay? One of the mitzvot is the obligation of eating, achilat matzah. Eating. We’re talking that there’s an obligation. We’ve already had how many times there was an obligation. Okay, okay, righteous one, righteous one, let’s go further. Obligation, obligation, obligation. It’s all details. Okay, okay, yes. One of the mitzvot is the obligation of eating, achilat matzah. No eating except from one of the five species. It’s also an interesting language, “lo yochal chametz” (he shall not eat leavened bread). He could have told him, “lo yochal chametz” is indeed a matter of eating. He could have said “lo yochal chametz”, and one would have had to make it with one of the five species.

Speaker 2: “Lo yochal chametz”, how was that said?

Speaker 1: “Lo yochal chametz” he brings, “lo yochal chametz” was said regarding korban Pesach (Passover offering). “Lo yochal alav chametz” (he shall not eat leavened bread upon it). That was said regarding korban Pesach. But here it says so, here it says “lo tochal alav chametz” (you shall not eat leavened bread upon it).

Speaker 2: Why doesn’t he say that verse fits?

Speaker 1: Because that one speaks of the korban Pesach. Okay.

“Lo tochal alav chametz, shiv’at yamim tochal alav matzot” (You shall not eat leavened bread upon it, seven days you shall eat matzot upon it). But other things, like rice and millet and legumes, the point is that it says “lo tochal alav chametz”, the Sages learn things that can become chametz, can become matzah. But things… Rashi says that matzah means bread that didn’t become chametz. But other things, that are not included in chametz, like rice and millet and legumes, which we learned or which the Sages saw, even if you see it risen, it’s merely sirchon b’alma (mere decay).

Speaker 2: “Ein matzah ela min chametz” (There is no matzah except from something that can become chametz). Exactly.

Drush: The Reverse Logic of Matzah

Speaker 1: What did I want to tell you? Yes, from here one learns, as is the position of the Sages, not Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s position, that a thing called matzah is only “mi sheba lidei chametz v’lo hechemitz” (that which can become chametz but didn’t become leavened). But one that is “ein bo lidei chametz” (cannot become chametz) is worse. It’s better. Exactly. One that is “ein bo lidei chametz” is also not really… is not truly a matter of matzah. That’s the chiddush that he says here.

Further, according to the drasha that matzah is only from the species of the evil inclination, he would have had to say that one should stay away from everything. As I said earlier, because in other places in the Torah there is the thing of “sur mera” (turn from evil) and “aseh tov” (do good). Apparently a person would have had to say that the thing that is the most staying away is what has a connection to chametz. The whole Pesach one should only eat rice and millet, like the Lisker custom. Exactly. I once heard from a Brisker, the most chametz-like thing that can only be on Pesach is matzah. It’s actually true. But the Torah doesn’t say so. One needs to take risks. One can’t go with the way of the straight path that is… for transgressions, just foolishness.

Rabbi Yitzchak, chametz is simple, the logic is simple, and one doesn’t need any drashot. Or one will say that the drasha strengthens the simple logic, isn’t that reasonable?

Law of Mixture of Rice with Grain, Dog Dough, and Matzah Ashirah

Halacha 6 (Continuation) – Mixture of Rice with Grain

Speaker 1:

It’s actually true that Pesach means matzah, but one doesn’t need to take risks. We’re joking, one can’t go with the way of the straight path that is… for something, it’s foolishness. The Rabbis say it’s chametz, it’s simple, the logic is simple, and one doesn’t need any drashot. And I must tell you that the drasha strengthens the simple logic, and doesn’t agree.

Great, because here is also the proof that they didn’t learn the verses as you learned them. Because as you learned them, if you find another type of bread that can’t at all become chametz, it’s surely good and pleasant.

Speaker 2:

No, no, what are you saying? Because you want to come to say that I can learn the Torah so, that people eat bread.

Speaker 1:

Let’s go further, we’re not going to talk about this forever. You’ve already understood correctly what I want to say. I know, I feel that I don’t have the strength to go into it. I feel that your kashrut needs to be kosher, and not kashrut that I say.

Discussion: Law of Taste of Grain in a Mixture

Speaker 2:

On the contrary, it goes to me that the water has the taste. Im yesh bah ta’am dagan (if it has the taste of grain), one doesn’t go after the majority or after others, one goes after taste. You fulfill your obligation.

Speaker 1:

Taste works well. I just wanted to know if one fulfilled.

Speaker 2:

Doesn’t one say that there needs to be a k’zayit (olive-sized portion) of the wheat itself? Isn’t that the word?

Speaker 1:

That’s not what it says here. Here it says that there needs to be a taste.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but if he ate a k’zayit and part of it is nullified, potatoes become so nullified. And there becomes a thing nullified, the waffles.

Speaker 1:

Yes, I still need a k’zayit from the part of the wheat itself, and the word is that the intention is not nullified.

Speaker 2:

Yes, that’s the word perhaps?

Speaker 1:

You’re asking questions, that one needs a measure. I know, that it’s a good question. It doesn’t say about the measure. We learned in other places. Our going further later. We learned because of lentils and they learned at… That’s what the Rambam says. But he doesn’t see this clearly according to the Rambam. He doesn’t say the Rambam.

Ah, the Maggid Mishneh brings from the Rambam, a young woman spinning without a k’zayit is yotzei, yotzei, yotzei, and from something else, wheat flour and barley.

Speaker 2:

Okay, then the wheat flour and barley become yes kosher, because it could have become chametz with the help of the wheat with which it’s together?

Speaker 1:

Well, what is something… for the Sifra, for the way. The Maggid Mishneh, he won’t simply. Okay, what are what they are with this, what does it say. Okay, it won’t say that it’s not called bread. It’s that it says in the vicinity, Menachot is all laws. It won’t be called so bread, because there should be other things?

Now there’s still a problem. People… okay, lox, one fulfills the obligation with rice and millet, like a measure of a quarter of fish. That’s the Talmud. Here is the halacha SMINE, one fulfills the obligation with the measure, because it also had before, one fulfills the obligation with rice and millet, like a measure of a quarter of fish.

The Rambam says nothing further about millet, not much. The Yerushalmi says that it goes according to much, and the Rambam here goes with taste. It’s a Mishnah and Gemara in practice.

Question of Chatzitza (Interposition)

Speaker 2:

Why don’t we say here that it’s like a chatzitza that the skins prevent from the… tent, as it were, and the matzah there, because oil is nullified. Can we also say here that the part that has the skins is nullified? If not, one would seemingly say that it’s a chatzitza, the rice part is a chatzitza for the matzah part.

Speaker 1:

We’re talking even more, it becomes nullified, it becomes reversed from that side. This is a very great novelty, but if we don’t go with the exact reasoning of the Ramban this way. This is the Radbaz in the Mishnah, and he brings that the Shalmi Tzibur says so, the Ramban says so, and the Maharitz says so.

The Yerushalmi’s Distinction

Speaker 2:

But there is a Yerushalmi, there is a distinction whether there is a minority of grain with a majority of grain. It’s a complete prohibition with a minority of grain. If so, wouldn’t we say that it’s a problem that it’s a chatzitza?

Speaker 1:

I told you, it becomes nullified.

Speaker 2:

No, but if previously we would have said that the matzah is invalid because there is matzah, then even with a mixture of the measure.

Speaker 1:

I don’t understand what you’re saying.

The Raavad’s Position

Speaker 2:

The Rambam says so, the Raavad holds differently. The Raavad asks a very strong question.

Speaker 1:

The Rambam doesn’t say this clearly.

Speaker 2:

Yes yes, all the commentators assume that the Rambam holds it’s simply understood, and they bring that it’s stated explicitly so, and this is not a problem. But there is a long Gra on this, the Biur HaGra.

Speaker 1:

Okay, I’ll tell you what the Rambam says.

Speaker 2:

The Gra, yes.

Speaker 1:

These are clear matters. Rice is dragged along, so brings the Ramban and the like.

Speaker 2:

Okay, continue.

Speaker 1:

Yes. The Raavad actually disagrees.

Speaker 2:

What does the Raavad say?

Speaker 1:

The Raavad, we’ve already seen this, the Raavad understood that one must indeed.

Speaker 2:

You ask, according to him, according to the Raavad there is a question that it is, but the answer is that he doesn’t hold that this nullifies the taste. Perhaps rice doesn’t nullify the taste, because rice blends in the taste, it’s the same type of taste.

Speaker 1:

Oy, I have to give a shiur on rice, forget it.

Speaker 2:

One thirtieth?

Speaker 1:

Now it’s two o’clock, that’s not one thirtieth, now it’s two o’clock.

Speaker 2:

Well, okay. Seemingly one must give a shiur.

Speaker 1:

Okay, I’m moving away from this. I don’t have strength to talk about this. I don’t know what you want, do you want me to talk about Tosfos or about one Tosfos?

Speaker 2:

I want you to talk about everything.

Speaker 1:

That’s the question, what’s more important, Tosfos or thirty days before the holiday?

Speaker 2:

A fixed shiur, yes.

Speaker 1:

Okay, unless it’s fixed.

Speaker 2:

If you’re a wise man, yes.

Halacha 6 (Continued) – Dough for Dogs

Speaker 1:

Dough for dogs, let’s finish thank God. Dough for dogs, what does one make dough for dogs from?

Speaker 2:

That’s from the dough.

Speaker 1:

It’s completely kosher. There’s nothing mixed in. There’s no question of mixing. It’s a question of lishmah, of being guarded for the sake of matzah.

Speaker 2:

You’re right, that’s not the problem.

Speaker 1:

But I want to tell you, what does dough for dogs mean? Dough for dogs means… not our type of bread, and not regular bread.

The Law of Fit for Human Consumption

And when you say fit for human consumption, it means something that is fit for people to fulfill their obligation with.

Speaker 2:

What does it mean, guarded for the sake of matzah?

Speaker 1:

Correct, if it’s not fit for human consumption, one doesn’t fulfill the obligation with it, even if guarded for the sake of matzah. We’ve learned a new principle, that it must be guarded for the sake of matzah, which is not explicit.

Speaker 2:

But what does guarded for the sake of matzah have to do with fit for human consumption?

Speaker 1:

Fit for human consumption makes it that it’s called bread that one can eat. A dog is not a matzah eater! A dog is a dog! Only people are matzah eaters. Ah, it must be fit for human consumption. And it doesn’t mean that it’s fit for eating. There are many things to eat. My Pesachim made it that people sing.

Speaker 2:

Exactly.

Speaker 1:

And people perhaps guard it for the sake of matzah, for the sake of matzah on Pesach, or for the sake of matzah. I don’t know. In any case, there must certainly be matzah for people, matzah for dogs. Not matzah. Something like that.

But here one can learn that if one goes to a matzah for poor people, which is made for dogs, one doesn’t fulfill the obligation. This is made for dogs. Or for example such certain Chassidim who are in the category of dogs, one doesn’t fulfill with it. There will be those categories there, one doesn’t fulfill. But truly one fulfills. It’s fine. They’re not dark.

In short, one fulfills with that which goes upon people, not upon dogs, right?

Speaker 2:

What is not upon my explanation?

Speaker 1:

See, I mean that it means that the dogs fulfill.

Speaker 2:

Why do you say it doesn’t mean that the dogs fulfill?

Speaker 1:

That we know, perhaps the dogs did a favor for Jews at the Exodus from Egypt, one wants to make it for dogs. Dogs are seemingly the dogs that work for the shepherds, that’s the word. Working dogs, sheep dogs.

Speaker 2:

Okay, okay.

Halacha 7 – Matzah Kneaded in Fruit Juice

Speaker 1:

“Matzah kneaded in fruit juice”, the last halacha of this section.

Speaker 2:

What does it mean? The whole long discourse?

Speaker 1:

Here comes a new topic of “matzah kneaded in fruit juice”. In my edition of the Rambam it’s still in the same halacha.

Speaker 2:

Ah, you’re right. But it’s a new topic, the topic of “fruit juice”. We’ll do it later, tomorrow. The topic of “rich matzah”. It’s not too long, anyway.