Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 1 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Chametz and Matzah: Chapter 1 — The Prohibition of Eating Chametz and the Prohibition of Benefit

Introduction: The Order of Study in the Laws of Chametz and Matzah

Speaker 1: Good morning.

Speaker 2: Yes, good morning.

Speaker 1: We are going to begin learning the Laws of Chametz and Matzah, the laws of Pesach. The Rambam organized it so that first he laid out what all the festivals have in common, the prohibition of doing work on Yom Tov, which was in the Laws of Resting on Yom Tov. And now he’s going to take each festival separately, and he begins with the festival of Pesach, which is the first festival, “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” is Pesach, “at the head of all the festivals comes Pesach.”

And the special mitzvot of Pesach are chametz and matzah. Afterwards come other things, like the story of the Exodus from Egypt, the Seder night, but the main thing is the Laws of Chametz and Matzah. It’s also included in the Laws of Chametz and Matzah, but the chapter is Laws of Chametz and Matzah, these are the main mitzvot of Pesach. And similarly he will do shofar, sukkah, and so on.

The Language “Bichlelan” — What Does It Mean?

So the chapter of the Rambam says: The Laws of Chametz and Matzah include eight mitzvot. “Bichlelan” he says when it’s one type of laws that contains within it more than one set of mitzvot. For example, if it’s literally the same mitzvah but there are three mitzvot because the Torah repeated it, it would say “yesh bo shemoneh mitzvot.” That’s what I think. “Bichlelan” means to say between the mitzvah of chametz and matzah and the Exodus from Egypt, the totality of Pesach has eight mitzvot.

Speaker 2: Let’s see, in the Laws of Shabbat does it also say “bichlelan”?

Speaker 1: Also because there are different types of mitzvot, because there’s resting, and then… aha. “Bichlelan” means in the Laws of Shabbat. The laws don’t have to follow the order of the mitzvot. I mean, it’s not one to one. Not every single mitzvah has one law. Almost all the laws have more than one mitzvah. But “bichlelan” means to say internally, that’s what I think, within, in the framework of the Laws of Pesach or the Laws of Shabbat.

The Eight Mitzvot of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah

Which eight mitzvot? Three positive commandments and five negative commandments. Three positive mitzvot and five negative mitzvot, and this is their detail.

1. The prohibition not to eat chametz — a separate mitzvah that one should not eat chametz from the fourteenth day, from the afternoon of Erev Pesach. And with this one is connected. The Laws of Resting on Yom Tov ended with the laws of Erev Pesach, and here one continues. The first mitzvah of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah is the mitzvah of not eating chametz on Erev Pesach, the prohibition of that.

2. The positive commandment to remove leaven from your homes — that one should destroy, get rid of all leaven from your homes. Leaven, and the Rambam says that leaven and chametz have the same laws.

3. And the negative commandment, one should not eat chametz all seven days.

4. A separate prohibition not to eat a mixture of chametz all seven days — the fourth, one should not eat not only chametz that is pure chametz, but also a mixture of chametz. The novelty of this the Rambam explained, seemingly what is the additional novelty?

5. The next is that it should not be seen and should not be found — that chametz should not be seen and chametz should not be found. Also with this internally the Rambam learns the difference between the two.

6. [Included in the previous]

7. The seventh mitzvah is to eat matzah on the night of Pesach — that the first night of Pesach, he says at night, simply because he’s talking about how there are hours like a day or whatever. Ah, right, the positive mitzvah is on the main mitzvah. Okay.

8. And the eighth, the last, is to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on that night — the mitzvah of telling the story of the Exodus from Egypt.

And the explanation of these mitzvot in these chapters — and the coming chapters will explain.

Speaker 2: Ah, regarding this it fits with the word matzah. Aha. If one goes to the story of the Exodus from Egypt, there is a law in matzah.

Speaker 1: A law in matzah, it’s connected.

Speaker 2: It’s connected, yes.

Speaker 1: So these are the mitzvot.

Halacha 1: The Prohibition of Eating Chametz on Pesach — Punishment of Karet and Chatat

So the first chapter of the Laws of Chametz, therefore one begins with the laws of the prohibition of chametz. The Rambam says, he begins with the punishment, as is often his order.

Speaker 2: What is the punishment? He begins with the prohibition.

Speaker 1: With the prohibition. Always it goes, always come the three things: what is the chapter, what one may not do, and then what the punishment is. Where it says, always. The second thing is always, almost every mitzvah he begins, where it says, what is the verse, how one learns it. If it doesn’t say explicitly, he would explain a bit how the prohibition developed, let’s say, how one finds it in the verse.

And then the punishment, the Rambam is very careful to write what punishment there is for each thing. This is the beginning of the chapters, the beginning of each law.

The Rambam says, “Anyone who eats a kezayit of chametz on Pesach” — when someone eats, the measure is a kezayit, like many prohibitions where the measure is a kezayit, so if someone eats a kezayit of chametz on Pesach, when? “From the beginning of the night of the fifteenth” — from the beginning of Pesach, which begins the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, “until the end of the twenty-first day of Nissan” — which is the last day of Pesach, so, there is a separate prohibition on Erev Pesach, and a separate prohibition, and now there is no karet.

Speaker 2: Right, right. Ay, ay, ay, ah, ah, ah.

Speaker 1: He wants to say that this is different, that on this there are the punishments that he lists here, unlike the other which is a prohibition, a different type of prohibition.

So, if he did it intentionally he is liable for karet, as it says in the verse “Anyone who eats chametz shall be cut off,” he receives karet.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: And unintentionally, if he did it unintentionally, he is liable for a fixed sin offering, a sin offering that is always the same sin offering.

One Who Eats and One Who Dissolves It and Drinks It — Drinking Is Included in Eating

Now the Rambam says, what was said “eats” doesn’t necessarily mean that he ate a solid, but also if he managed to swallow it like a liquid. “One who eats” — whether one eats it, “one who dissolves it” — whether if someone makes it dissolved, “and drinks it” — and he drinks it, is called eating. Not that there is a separate prohibition of eating and a separate prohibition of drinking, but this is called eating, yes? Seemingly.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s not clear from where.

Speaker 1: It could be that on other prohibitions, there is yes a difference.

Speaker 2: There it’s different.

Speaker 1: What do I mean to say? And in forbidden foods this is also the law. There is no thing that is only forbidden to eat and not to drink. The same thing, the same piece of chametz, one takes and makes from it some shake, somehow, it doesn’t become permitted because of that. As it says about forbidden foods, one drinks milk, whatever, it doesn’t change.

There is when the measure becomes different, which was learned by… although the language of eating is stated, so, somehow, drinking is included in eating. There are derivations on this in the Gemara, but this is included.

Discussion: The Measure of Drinking — Kezayit or Revi’it?

Speaker 2: By Yom Kippur there was yes something… there was yes something different.

Speaker 1: The Rambam said that one learns it out separately that drinking is also forbidden, no?

Speaker 2: The word eating and drinking doesn’t appear in Yom Kippur, it says there “and you shall afflict yourselves.”

Speaker 1: That says yes, ah, okay. It’s not part at all, it’s not the same thing. One learns there that it’s not a prohibition of eating, it’s not exactly a prohibition of eating of Yom Kippur, it’s on a different measure. But also it doesn’t have the word in Yom Kippur, there’s no difference of eating and drinking there either.

But what did we see in forbidden foods it says that the measure of drinking is a revi’it, as usual. And in the Laws of Yom Kippur they also have a different measure. And here it’s not established, here it sounds like it’s the same kezayit, one needs to know. The Rambam doesn’t say what the measure is. Just as he said eating he said kezayit, and it’s implied that when he says drinking, it also goes on that that kezayit should be the measure. Right?

Speaker 2: That’s how it sounds, but it doesn’t say clearly.

Halacha 2: The Prohibition of Benefit from Chametz on Pesach

Further, the Rambam says, the prohibition of eating.

Speaker 2: Yes, what happens with benefit?

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, chametz on Pesach is also forbidden in benefit, as it says “and chametz shall not be eaten.” There is a dispute in the Gemara whether always when it says “lo ye’achel” it automatically means prohibition of benefit. But here the Rambam says separately, here it appears that the Rambam would accept that not everywhere where there is a prohibition of eating there is also a prohibition of benefit, but by Pesach there is also a prohibition of benefit. Except where the verse is separately permitting, yes, or where it says yes.

As it says, from where does one know that Pesach is forbidden in benefit?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: From where does one know that Pesach is forbidden not only in eating but also in benefit? As it says “and chametz shall not be eaten,” one expounds “there shall not be in it permission for eating.” Not only should one not eat it, but there should also not be something that is close or something that is benefit, this is called permission for eating. As if permission for eating means something that is forbidden in eating, what remains still yes permitted to do with it? Benefit, just as one may not eat neveilah, one has benefit that one gives it to the dog. Here there is “there shall not be in it” any way of having benefit from it.

Speaker 2: A better translation of permission for eating?

Speaker 1: This is a language from the Gemara. Chizkiyah said that chametz on Pesach is forbidden in benefit. A dispute in the Gemara of how one learns it, but it’s a simple law.

The Rambam’s Method in Bringing Sources

One cannot be precise in the Rambam’s sources that he rules according to the approach, because the Rambam brings the source. The Rambam has a role to show how it says in the verse the essence of each prohibition, but not necessarily that he means to rule according to the derivation and the like. He brings many times the simplest derivation that one can, to bring close to a verse. The order that I learned after the Rambam, or Tanach after the Rambam, you will know where it says, so that you won’t say…

And also in accordance with his approach that the Oral Torah is an explanation of the Written Torah, as one should remember it.

Speaker 2: In Mishneh Torah, in the introduction I think.

Speaker 1: It’s an expansion I think.

Speaker 2: No, it’s not an explanation, not an expansion.

Speaker 1: The source of the Oral Torah is that the Almighty taught Moses together with the Written Torah. It’s the explanation of the mitzvah, it’s the explanation of how to do it, but it’s not the explanation of the verses. You know that there are derivations, one calls in by Manoach.

Speaker 2: It’s the wisdom of the text, yes.

Speaker 1: But nevertheless, if there is no source, he said that it’s from the tradition, but when he can, he attributes it to the simplest derivation. This is the method of his rulings.

Rashi’s Explanation: Benefit Is “One Step Away” from Eating

And Rashi explains there in the Gemara that every benefit leads to eating. So says Rashi, because benefit usually means selling, just as…

Speaker 2: Yes, as it says by the neveilah, that one gives it to him. Oh, sell it to a non-Jew, yes.

Speaker 1: Sell to a non-Jew, sell it. It has money. And what does one do with money? He buys food, or the person who buys it, eats it.

Speaker 2: One of the two.

Speaker 1: No, one buys food. So is the Rashi. So every benefit is in the category of permission for eating. That is, you didn’t eat the neveilah itself, but you ate the money from the neveilah. So it’s like one step away from the eating.

Explanation of the Mitzvot Versus Explanation of the Verses

Speaker 1:

This is explanation of the mitzvot, this is explanation of how to do it, this is not the explanation of the verses. This is the thirteen principles that the Rambam calls in at the beginning, the wisdom of the text, yes.

But nevertheless, if there is no source, he says it according to the tradition, or when he can, he attributes it to the simplest derivation. This is the method of Chizkiyah.

Halacha 2 (Continued): The Prohibition of Benefit from Chametz

Rashi’s Explanation: Every Benefit Leads to Eating

Speaker 1:

And Rashi explains there in the Gemara that every benefit leads to eating. So says Rashi, because benefit usually means selling, just as… yes, as it says by the neveilah, one gives it to him. Oh, sell it to a non-Jew, yes. Sell to a non-Jew, sell. It has money.

And what does one do with money? He buys food, or the person who buys it, eats it. Every benefit leads to permission for eating. That is, you didn’t eat the neveilah itself, but you ate the money from the neveilah, it’s like one step away from the eating. So explains Rashi.

The Rambam’s Approach: The Language “Ye’achel”

Speaker 1:

Seemingly the Rambam also means this, I think I remember the language in a Gemara, but not simple eating is indeed.

There is another approach in the Gemara that eating includes benefit, because eating can be broader, not only eating with the mouth, but eating benefit. Differently, that lo ye’achel, the language lo ye’achel, ye’achel, that means seemingly the derivation. It doesn’t say ye’achel, ye’achel means you eat directly. Ye’achel means it gets eaten.

It’s a bit further from the eating itself, how it gets eaten that you sell it, and you make with money, and you sell with that something else. Wonderful.

Summary: The Prohibition of Benefit Is Not a Separate Prohibition

Speaker 1:

So this is… regarding this is the prohibition of benefit. Only a prohibition. Right, he doesn’t say that it’s exactly the prohibition, at least there should be lashes on it, but this is an exposition from the verse.

Rabbi Avraham’s Approach: Every Prohibition of Eating Is Forbidden in Benefit

Speaker 1:

There is the other approach of Rabbi Avraham who says what you mentioned, that every prohibition of eating in the Torah, except where it says explicitly, is forbidden in benefit.

And the Rambam brings that reasoning about forbidden foods, as if he wouldn’t have needed to bring the Chizkiyah, but he doesn’t go with the rules of the derivations, he brings the verse which is the most general. This is the verse that one can take that chametz is forbidden in benefit. And this is every prohibition that this is forbidden in benefit in the case, but it’s not our topic here.

So, this is the first prohibition, the prohibition of eating chametz.

Discussion: Is Benefit a Separate Prohibition?

Speaker 1:

Now he’s going to say, the second thing is… yes. Benefit is connected with a question, but it’s still a prohibition, not another prohibition, right?

Speaker 2:

Right. It’s lo achol, it’s in the language of the prohibition of eating, yes. He doesn’t say whether there are lashes on this.

Speaker 1:

Okay, further.

Halacha 3: The Prohibition of Bal Yera’eh and Bal Yimatzei

The Rambam’s Language

Speaker 1:

And then there is the prohibition of lo yera’eh. The next thing is, what was counted among the prohibitions, there is lo yera’eh, it should not be found. Lo yera’eh lo yimatzei.

The Rambam says, “And one who leaves chametz in his possession on Pesach,” and someone indeed won’t eat Pesach, but he will leave it over for after Pesach. And someone leaves over chametz in his possession on Pesach, “even though he didn’t eat it.” So he “transgresses two prohibitions, as it says ‘and leaven shall not be seen by you in all your borders,’” should be seen, “and it says” another verse “leaven, shall not be found in your houses,” should not be found leaven in your houses.

Why Does It Say “Leaven” Instead of “Chametz”?

Speaker 1:

I think that how we should understand it simply in the plain meaning of Scripture is that leaven is what makes chametz, and the Torah doesn’t say that you shouldn’t have chametz not only that, but you shouldn’t even leave over the leaven that is used to make chametz. This is something that usually one keeps, you should also get rid of this, because I want that you shouldn’t have any chametz at all at home. Therefore one goes from chametz to leaven.

The Rambam’s Answer: Chametz and Leaven — One

Speaker 1:

But here the Rambam says immediately further, why was it written earlier lo achol chametz, and suddenly on lo ra’u and lo yimatzei it says leaven?

The Rambam says, “And the prohibition of chametz and the prohibition of leaven with which one leavens are one.” Chametz, or the thing that makes chametz, is the same prohibition. When it says lo hera’eh lecha se’or, it’s the same as if it said lo hera’eh lecha chametz.

The Ra’avad’s Distinction: Leaven Regarding Measure and Fit for Eating

Speaker 1:

There are differences, yes. The Ra’avad comes with a difference, or Ra’avad comes immediately and he says that there is yes a difference, regarding measure. No, the opposite. There is a dispute. There was, by Shammai he said that there is a difference in the measure. By Shammai they held like an olive, and chametz like an olive, but only what are like an olive. There was a difficulty by Shammai he said that there is a difference that the measure is different. On this it doesn’t fit.

But I think that the Rambam when he says one, I don’t know if he even means to say that it’s the same measure, he would have had to write clearly like an olive. He simply assumes, what he already said earlier that the measure is everything a kezayit.

And he means here primarily to say that the verse, I mean that the Raavad made a mistake, he thought that the Rambam means here to say regarding the laws. It seems to me that the Rambam is saying the learning, that as you say more the plain meaning of Scripture.

Discussion: How Do We Derive Chametz from Se’or?

Speaker 2:

Simply, the verse only says se’or. So how do you know that there’s a prohibition regarding chametz?

Speaker 1:

True, it’s a good question. The answer is, it’s the same thing. Because the logic is, as you say, perhaps one needs a proof, that you say to warn about se’or, but this one would hold, chametz one would learn, but essentially this itself, you mean that you don’t have chametz if you don’t have se’or? That’s a kal vachomer. If even se’or one may not keep, it’s a kal vachomer that chametz one may not keep.

Speaker 2:

Not necessarily a kal vachomer, one can’t say that this is remove se’or, so that you shouldn’t make chametz. Chametz and se’or isn’t something that’s mixed. This is remove se’or, so that you shouldn’t make chametz, and you may not have chametz. Because you may not have chametz.

The Raavad’s Distinction: Fit for Eating

Speaker 1:

The Raavad says that there is indeed a distinction regarding for example that chametz is only forbidden if it’s fit for eating. Se’or doesn’t have to be fit for eating, se’or is perhaps never fit for eating, it’s only made to make other chametz.

The Rebbe’s Position: Bal Yera’eh is Connected with Eating

Speaker 1:

Let’s say what the Rebbe says, and one needs to know if the Rebbe holds this way. The Rebbe says that it does make a difference the distinction between se’or and chametz regarding bal yera’eh, because chametz, which we learn, if it becomes unfit for a dog to eat, one doesn’t transgress bal yera’eh. That is, apparently the word is because it’s from the Torah, but bal yera’eh is like a kind of fence because of eating, when one will come to eat, and one will have it from this, because we say lo badil minei, therefore there is the prohibition of tashbitu and another prohibition actually, and bedikat chametz. But even regarding yera’eh it’s apparently connected with the fact that it’s like a fence.

Speaker 2:

So what does it have to do with eating?

Speaker 1:

Not so with se’or, as you say, a fence, that one will make chametz from it. It’s also come out what one can make chametz from, even though it’s not fit for eating, because perhaps se’or is never fit for eating at all, because who says even if it’s become even worse, it’s become weaker, but not even a dog can eat it still. As long as one can cause leavening with it, it’s forbidden.

When Does Se’or Become Completely Unfit?

Speaker 1:

There is indeed a way that se’or becomes completely unfit, which is if one designated it for sitting, as we have I don’t know in reality so strongly, simply somewhat it still doesn’t become se’or. It’s not simply se’or isn’t old bread, it’s something a kind, it’s something a kind of bread or what. There’s a certain process, one wants to make there is it.

What does the Raavad mean bringing that it says pat she’ipsa, because one can indeed, the Raavad says at home. Specifically pat of se’or, a kind of pat.

Speaker 2:

Ah, very good.

What Does the Rambam Hold Regarding Fit for Eating?

Speaker 1:

So, we don’t know what the Rambam holds about the question whether it’s to be arranged for example will be the topic of fit for eating. It seems that the Rambam holds differently. So he brings, that the Rambam holds yes that by both regarding fit for eating.

But so say indeed other Jews, indeed learn as we do, that the Rambam doesn’t mean to say that there are these distinctions, one doesn’t go into at all the investigations of clarification, not regarding the measure, not regarding the topic of seeing. The Rambam only means to say that it’s one prohibition, perhaps he means at all that it’s one prohibition in the count of commandments, as one thought that one learns from such a place.

The Rambam says further, we’re not yet holding by the details of laws, we’re not yet holding by the first laws whose custom is to say the main law, the main, not the main law, the main like the form of the commandment. So one can be later one needs to look into the topic of fit for eating or permission.

Halacha 3 (Continued): Lashes for Bal Yera’eh and Bal Yimatzei

The Rule: A Negative Commandment Without an Action — No Lashes

Speaker 1:

Now, the Rambam says, when we discussed that leaving over chametz in one’s possession is two negative commandments. But he says, usually when there’s a negative commandment there are lashes, but he says, here one doesn’t receive lashes, for leaving over chametz at home one cannot receive lashes, because it’s a negative commandment without an action, unless one purchased chametz on Pesach, only if one purchased chametz on Pesach, bought, or one caused leavening, one took fresh flour and made chametz from it. Why? So that there should be an action.

We have a rule that lashes one receives only when there’s an action, a negative commandment without an action there are no lashes. So when one simply left it over, then it’s a negative commandment without lashes, and lashes exist when it comes with an action.

The Rambam’s Language

Speaker 1:

But if he had chametz before Pesach, and Pesach came, Pesach came and he didn’t destroy it, rather he left it in his possession, he left it over, even though he transgressed two negative commandments, he indeed transgressed two negative commandments, but he doesn’t receive lashes from the Torah, he doesn’t receive lashes from the Torah, because he didn’t do an action, he didn’t do an action.

But what yes? They give him lashes of rebellion, lashes of rebellion he can indeed receive.

Innovation: Lashes of Rebellion Don’t Need an Action

Speaker 1:

It seems that the Rambam learns, that for lashes of rebellion there doesn’t need to be an action. The rule that lashes one can’t give on an action is only on lashes, but the rabbinic lashes, lashes of rebellion one can indeed give.

Discussion: Why Does One Receive Lashes of Rebellion?

Speaker 2:

Yes, but that’s fine, that’s fine. But why indeed? Because there’s interesting, we have a rule that every rabbinic receives lashes of rebellion.

Speaker 1:

Okay, listen.

Speaker 2:

But now it comes out, the rabbinic is something a new rule, that when a person does this, he is that. The connection he went up on the rabbinic commandment of bedikat chametz, of bi’ur chametz. And he says and didn’t destroy it something. He didn’t fulfill the rabbinic commandment of bi’ur chametz. Perhaps?

Speaker 1:

Let’s see. How is the… I want to see this perhaps Rabbi Rabinowitz some sort of how it says above a purchase. There are other reasons in the Gemara that even a negative commandment with an action one should receive.

Ah, you see he also says this thing without destroying he transgressed the rabbinic commandment of lehashbit hachametz of bi’ur chametz. Ah, for that I want to know.

Investigation: Negative Commandment Without Action — A Law in the Prohibition or in the Person?

Speaker 1:

So, so, okay, perhaps I didn’t understand wrong. What is the rule on the rule that you know? When a person, a negative commandment without action is a law in the type of prohibition, or in the way how one does it. Leaving over, yes. Lo yimatzei means? Leaving over.

Halacha 3 (Continued): Negative Commandment Without Action and Lashes of Rebellion

Speaker 1:

Ah, for that I want to know, so, so, perhaps I didn’t understand wrong. What is the rule that you know? When a person, a negative commandment without action, is a law in the type of prohibition or in the way how one does it?

Speaker 2:

No, the person doesn’t get the great punishment because he didn’t do something. You left over.

Speaker 1:

Leaving over, yes.

Speaker 2:

“Lo yimatzei” means to leave over. It’s not that the prohibition becomes a weaker prohibition, rather the person didn’t do something with a high hand. There’s something a greater audacity in doing.

Speaker 1:

I’m asking you another prohibition, here it says, I mean that yes. That is, there’s a prohibition that one can do in both ways, right?

Speaker 2:

A negative commandment without action isn’t that the prohibition now never receives lashes. It’s a question of practically. If you still have a way to do with an action, as apparently we saw in the laws of idolatry, various things, that the Rambam said in connection, if he did an action with it, if you didn’t with an action, he receives lashes. It’s not a law in the severity of the prohibition. It’s a law in the practical. If he finds a way to do this prohibition without an action, he doesn’t receive lashes. Or he finds a prohibition that usually one does without an action, he does with an action, he receives lashes.

Therefore the Rambam says, if he purchased he receives lashes from the Torah, but the normal way isn’t that.

The Word “And Didn’t Destroy” and Lashes of Rebellion

Speaker 2:

And probably only here will be according to this explanation that the word is here “and didn’t destroy”, here there are lashes of rebellion, not simply another negative commandment without action where there isn’t something another rabbinic prohibition attached, perhaps there won’t be lashes of rebellion either. The Rambam doesn’t make rules of lashes of rebellion. It’s interesting he says it here, when he hasn’t yet told us the rabbinic commandment of bi’ur chametz. Because here he’s speaking of the punishments. The normal way is to leave over, it comes, one should say don’t leave over, and it shouldn’t follow the rabbis, and one should see further. It makes sense. I say this word “and didn’t destroy” is how the Rambam gives us the hint.

Halacha 4 – Chametz That Pesach Passed Over It is Forbidden in Benefit Forever

Speaker 2:

Now, further, the Rambam says, another part of the punishments, a part of the… Yes, yes. Further, now it’s like a part of… What happens if one transgressed? It’s like this, chametz that Pesach passed over it, if one indeed transgressed and left over Pesach, or he’s going to say not necessarily transgressed, if there remained… Yes, but he’s going to say that even if one transgressed inadvertently, chametz that remained over Pesach, is forbidden in benefit forever. Forever he means to say that there are places where forbidden in benefit is in order that they should do, or in order that they should do, it’s forever, yes, even when there’s no longer a prohibition of chametz. Yes. Forbidden in benefit forever.

He says, and this matter, that it’s forbidden in benefit after Pesach is a fine from the words of the Sages. It’s not a Torah law, it’s a rabbinic law, the rabbis fined.

If a person transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, the Sages forbade the chametz. The Rambam says, the fine, you might have thought that the fine comes only when he transgressed intentionally? No! Even if he left it inadvertently or under duress, there’s also the same fine of forbidden in benefit forever. Why? So that a person shouldn’t leave chametz in his possession so that he should benefit from it after Pesach. So that a person shouldn’t leave over chametz so that he should be able to have benefit from it later. They said that there’s no way at all of having benefit after Pesach, this will remove the motivation of a person to spare. Once all are forbidden, a person also can’t do any cleverness, he can’t make any tricks, there’s no chametz at all.

Discussion: Why Fine an Inadvertent Act?

Speaker 1:

The answer is, because the normal way would be inadvertently. That is, this also has to do apparently with the topic of bi’ur chametz or bedikat chametz. A person has chametz in the attic, he won’t forget. The chametz says, no, he won’t be able to ever use. Therefore it becomes very strong the thing that one must indeed take out the chametz, because he knows that it shouldn’t remain a forgotten matter. But you remember that we already saw on the thirtieth and nullified owner of things, forgotten, the Sages were indeed bedikat chametz.

It comes out that with the Torah because when apparently there was after Pesach chametz… No, the whole question is whether the decree of chametz of a rabbi on Pesach is because of bal yera’eh or it’s essentially because of bedikat chametz, because that means because you won’t make nullification, that’s the question, or perhaps it’s even simple, perhaps it’s simply still part of the topic of bedikat chametz, understand? Means to say like this, that when one nullified there isn’t bal yera’eh, on this chametz didn’t happen bal yera’eh. Perhaps the fine is that he won’t nullify. Why will he? How do you know that he won’t nullify? Because he’ll use after Pesach. What does that mean? How will he use after Pesach? We come a wise one says, you can’t use after Pesach.

But the “so that he shouldn’t leave it” simply goes on the inadvertence. It means, when it’s intentional, it’s obvious that he transgressed a sin, he gets a severe fine. But by inadvertence, why comes then a fine?

Speaker 2:

On that he says, so that there shouldn’t be any way at all.

Speaker 1:

I’m asking a practical question, how can one make a warning on an inadvertent act? Inadvertent means, I don’t know. What are you saying? I’ll give you a fine, you won’t make an inadvertent act? What does that mean?

Speaker 2:

So, he means to say like this, when it’s intentional it’s a fine for you. When it’s inadvertent it’s not a fine, rather it’s a kind of warning of chametz. Such… that there shouldn’t be any way at all that a person should have benefit after Pesach from chametz.

Speaker 1:

How does one remove inadvertence? You know, a person does something, one can say he shouldn’t do it. How can one say that a person does something? Again, after Pesach he finds the chametz. He finds the Pesach after chametz. One tells him, I mean he finds the chametz after Pesach.

Speaker 2:

No, not so that there shouldn’t be a reason that a person should… People can also play inadvertent.

Speaker 1:

Very good. You’re saying that he’ll make inadvertence intentionally? A cleverness… What I’m asking, this is my practical question, how can there be a decree so that one shouldn’t do an inadvertent act? It’s a bit funny. I mean that there’s an answer to what is my practical question. It doesn’t make… You know what, you’ll make a mistake? I’ll make an enactment, and a person shouldn’t make this mistake. Something like that.

Speaker 2:

Anyway, and what would be bad? He would leave fresh for two hours, and he would also be, because he would hide it in the stack.

Speaker 1:

Certainly therefore. Okay. Yes. Okay.

Halacha 5 – A Mixture of Chametz on Pesach Forbids in Any Amount

Speaker 2:

Chametz, the main prohibition of chametz. Now we’re going to learn about mixtures of chametz. By all other prohibitions there is a law, I don’t know if by all, many other prohibitions there is a law, a nullification, as it gets mixed in neveilah and the like. But here there isn’t nullification, he says. Chametz that got mixed with something else on Pesach, yes, look, behold it forbids in any amount. That’s the law. The whole thing is forbidden in any amount. Later he’ll speak about the measure, but… There’s a prohibition of a mixture of chametz, the Rambam will say that one receives lashes for this.

This has nothing to do with the fact that there’s no nullification. That there’s no nullification, that’s precisely a question of nullification. Nullification, a mixture of chametz doesn’t mean that it doesn’t become nullified. We see other explanations, what does the Raavad say about this? Other people… But in any case, it’s not true that a mixture of chametz means that there’s no nullification. A mixture of chametz means he eats chametz with another thing.

What Does “Behold It Forbids in Any Amount” Mean?

Speaker 1:

But what does “behold it forbids in any amount” mean? What does “behold it forbids in any amount” mean?

Speaker 2:

That’s the answer. If it would be nullification, it would only be nullified. But mixture means when it’s not nullified. Not every, when it’s half and half, when it’s less than half. No difference. The prohibition that there’s an innovation in chametz, and there’s a mixture of it is forbidden. Mixture means that one eats it with another thing. Precisely the Rambam rules that it forbids in any amount, but that’s still a detail. Afterwards, the Rambam rules so, it comes out, they learned from this?

Speaker 1:

Why?

Speaker 2:

But we haven’t learned anything from this yet. But I say there, that the innovation here that you say that there’s a concept of a mixture of chametz, the Rambam brought from him a verse in a minute, this doesn’t have with the detail that precisely rules with the opinion of certainly all the more so. This is perhaps because there’s no that which permits, it’s already a detail on the laws of nullification. Nullification works on chametz Pesach, theoretically certainly. I don’t know, there’s a derivation one can say. The thing won’t become permitted. The chametz that passed over Pesach is forever forbidden. Okay.

A Mixture of Chametz That Pesach Passed Over It

Speaker 2:

A chametz that passed over Pesach. Whether in its kind, what does he mean it mixed in its kind? Let’s say chametz with flour that isn’t chametz. Whether not in its kind, chametz in something another thing, I know, in wine. Behold it’s forbidden in any amount, everything that got mixed in this even only a tiny amount, chametz becomes forbidden, it doesn’t become permitted because it was a small amount.

Further Discussion: Mixtures of Chametz

Further, says the Rambam, he returns to ta’aroves (mixtures), but he will throw out an exception, chametz she’Yisrael she’avar alav haPesach (chametz belonging to a Jew over which Pesach has passed). He says, the law that it is oser b’chol shehu (forbidden in any amount) is only when it’s on Pesach. But chametz shel Yisrael she’avar alav haPesach, we have learned that it is asur b’hana’ah (forbidden in benefit) after Pesach, af al pi she’asur b’hana’ah, avel im nit’arev bein b’mino bein shelo b’mino, harei zeh muttar l’achlo achar haPesach (even though it is forbidden in benefit, but if it became mixed whether with its own kind or not with its own kind, behold it is permitted to eat it after Pesach), one may eat it after Pesach. Why? Shelo kansu v’asru ela chametz atzmo (they only penalized and forbade the chametz itself). The penalty that we learned earlier, that any chametz that one left over even b’shogeg (unintentionally) becomes forbidden after Pesach even forever, this penalty of benefit was on chametz atzmo (the chametz itself). But ta’aroves (mixture) is indeed permitted for eating after Pesach.

Discussion: When Did the Chametz Become Mixed?

Speaker 1:

If one was transgressing bal yera’eh (the prohibition of being seen) on ta’aroves chametz… excuse me, bal yera’eh doesn’t exist perhaps on ta’aroves chametz. When? If it was nit’arev (mixed) after yom tov, meaning? If it became mixed after Pesach?

Speaker 2:

He begins with chametz she’avar alav haPesach, and this he says that it is muttar l’achlo achar haPesach (permitted to eat after Pesach). Yes, but I think that this is the case he’s discussing. Chametz after Pesach, there is a ta’aroves chametz she’avar alav haPesach. I think there are two ways how to learn this, whether we’re talking about when it became a mixture. Because you can learn that chametz was already nit’arev (mixed), the whole thing became chametz, and now it’s also an issur (prohibition) after Pesach. But it may not be. The issur of hana’ah after Pesach is on chametz alone, the penalty. On ta’aroves chametz they didn’t make this penalty.

And this, to be clear, as he brings from below, this means that even if there is chametz, even less. Ta’aroves means this with another thing. If you eat chametz together with another thing, even on Pesach it’s not forbidden. It doesn’t need to be batel (nullified).

Halacha 5 (Continued): Mixture of Chametz That Passed Over Pesach

Speaker 1:

But it could be that… actually, not yet forbidden. Both probably together. The issur of hana’ah after Pesach is on chametz alone, and the penalty. On ta’aroves chametz they didn’t make this penalty. And this to be clear, what he brings from below, this means that even if there is a little bit of chametz, even less.

Ta’aroves means this with another thing. If one eats chametz together with another thing, even I know that it’s not forbidden, it doesn’t need to be batel, it doesn’t need to be a majority. This he says, ta’aroves means one eats it together, ta’aroves literally means not the thing alone, but one eats it with another thing.

If you have, according to the Rambam, as many commentators say here that it’s clear this way, that if one eats chametz avar l’Pesach (that passed over Pesach) with another thing, one doesn’t transgress the issur d’Rabbanan (rabbinic prohibition). Why? Because the Chachamim only decreed on pure chametz. Ta’aroves chametz they didn’t decree, it doesn’t need to be a majority, it doesn’t need to be sixty times, it doesn’t need to be anything.

This is, the Mishnah Berurah brings that there is no one who argues against this. It’s not even his rabbi, so it means. For a majority there is no issur.

Definition of Ta’aroves Chametz

Understand that there are further conditions in this. I mean, if the chametz is nikar (recognizable), if it’s called that you’re eating chametz, meaning he spreads it with peanut butter, it’s not yet ta’aroves chametz.

Speaker 2:

No, apparently not. One should know, it became mixed together. Let’s say, you can already see which is which. Cereal with milk, because it’s together with milk?

Speaker 1:

Okay, that’s not the main thing. The two things together. And we’ll see later by chametz, that if one eats matzah together with maror together, the mitzvos are mevatel zo es zo (nullify each other), one fulfills.

When it says that a thing is forbidden, when not that there is a part of ta’aroves chametz, it means that one eats it alone. Yes?

Speaker 2:

Or mine. Can, we need to understand. He eats two k’zeisim (olive-sized portions). One k’zayis is chametz, the other k’zayis is not chametz. What does it help me?

Speaker 1:

Look in the next section, see clearly that this is what one speaks of by ta’aroves chametz. Look at the end.

And they learned that chametz shenit’arev (that became mixed) is forbidden, and after Pesach, the issur of the penalty that it’s forbidden forever, doesn’t apply to chametz shenit’arev.

Halacha 6 — Punishment for Ta’aroves Chametz

Kares Doesn’t Apply to Ta’aroves Chametz

And now the Rambam says the punishment for chametz shenit’arev. Says the Rambam, “ta’aroves chametz ein chayavin kares” (for a mixture of chametz one is not liable for kares). What they learned that eating chametz is kares, this is only al achilas atzmo shel chametz (for eating chametz itself), for eating chametz alone.

“Aval ochel ta’aroves chametz, k’gon kutach haBavli v’sechar haMadi” — kutach haBavli is some mixture of milk with spices with bread. And sechar haMadi is also some beer that one makes from chametz and from other things.

“V’chol hadomeh lahem midvarim shehechametz me’urav bahem” — anything that is mixed in the chametz, “im achlan b’Pesach lokin” — one indeed receives malkos (lashes), as the Rambam said that it’s forbidden in mixtures, “but kares there isn’t, v’ein bo kares.”

The Lav of “Kol Machmetzet”

“Shene’emar, kol machmetzet lo sochelu” — kol machmetzet means anything that is chametz. This is the lav, the lav is kol machmetzet says the lav that on mixtures, you would with the same explanation that there is no kares, you would also have said that there is no malkos, because one didn’t eat pure chametz.

But kol machmetzet is a ribuy (inclusion), that also a mixture of chametz is a lav. Machmetzet, not chametz but machmetzet, a davar hanigun (a thing that contains), a thing that has in it chametz. This says that there is a clear lav, an extra lav, but there is no kares. Kares is only on ochel chametz, not on ochel machmetzet. It comes out that there is a lav v’ein bo kares (a prohibition without kares).

Shi’ur K’zayis Within Kedei Achilas Shalosh Beitzim

Says the Rambam, “bameh devarim amurim” (when are these things said) that there is malkos for eating chametz in a mixture? “Keshe’achal k’zayis chametz betoch hata’aroves bikdei achilas shalosh beitzim.” If the mixture was so much that in three eggs there was a whole k’zayis. Three eggs are like six times a k’zayis, and in this there was however a k’zayis chametz, “then hu lokeh min haTorah” (then he receives lashes from the Torah).

“Aval im ein bata’aroves k’zayis bikdei achilas shalosh beitzim, af al pi she’asur lo le’echol” — even though it’s forbidden to eat, “aval im achal eino lokeh ela makas mardus” — then he doesn’t receive malkos.

There must be a shi’ur, even in the ta’aroves chametz there must be. It’s not the simple meaning that the chametz makes the whole thing forbidden and a k’zayis of ta’aroves chametz is forbidden, rather ta’aroves chametz is the issur because there is in it chametz. There isn’t the heter that when it’s mixed with something else it becomes nullified, it’s no longer called pure chametz, that doesn’t exist. But we also don’t say that the whole mixture becomes forbidden enough to receive malkos. It becomes forbidden enough not to be allowed to eat, even a mashehu (any amount), as was said.

Three Levels of Issur

So, there are three, one can say three categories here, yes? Kares doesn’t exist when it’s mixed with something. Malkos exists when there is a significant enough portion of it, I know, let’s say perhaps a certain percentage, thirty percent, I don’t know exactly what it comes out, that within achilas shalosh beitzim there is a k’zayis.

Question: Talma Heichi Dami?

The question is about he ate a k’zayis? He ate a k’zayis, talma heichi dami (what are the circumstances)? This is the explanation that ta’aroves doesn’t help.

Answer: The Law of K’zayis Within Kedei Achilas Pras

The simple meaning is, what the Rambam says is simple according to the rule. There is indeed a rule that one is never lokeh (receives lashes) unless one eats a k’zayis of an issur, there isn’t less than a k’zayis. That we said ta’aroves, if you say, doesn’t yet mean that a permitted thing becomes forbidden. It means simply that even though one ate the chametz in a mixture, and it was only the taste of chametz, it was only in a mixture, I don’t even need to look for taste, because it was even just the chametz in it. With mixtures you need an extra issur, but it doesn’t yet mean that the shi’ur k’zayis became nullified. So it must still be a k’zayis.

And what is the shi’ur k’zayis? That you must eat a k’zayis kedei achilas pras (within the time of eating a half-loaf), like everything. The other point, like the rule always when one eats a k’zayis not at once, he doesn’t eat at once, the rule is kedei achilas pras. So the other point, according to my interpretation, the interpretation is also achal k’zayis bikdei achilas pras.

It doesn’t say exactly in the Rambam this way, it says in the Rambam this way, yesh bata’aroves bikdei achilas pras. So I think, the simple meaning is, that since he eats a k’zayis, it’s difficult, why eating a k’zayis is indeed not. The answer is, that every time he eats a k’zayis is a k’zayis, even if one interrupts, as long as it’s kedei achilas pras, one receives lashes. The same thing, ta’aroves chametz must be kedei achilas pras.

Issur D’Rabbanan on Kol Shehu

And simply for an issur it’s even a kol shehu (any amount) that is a ta’aroves chametz. And this is d’Rabbanan, the ta’aroves chametz is d’Rabbanan, but it’s not a lav, because the… d’Oraisa is because it’s ta’aroves chametz, it is from the Torah, and it’s chatzi shi’uros (half-measures), it is from the Torah. But the lav kol machmetzet lo sochelu doesn’t apply to it.

Speaker 2:

So what yes? So the majority of… ah, the shi’ur is missing. Ah, so further the kol machmetzet lo sochelu, the lav of it he cannot have.

Speaker 1:

As the Ra’avad will say in a minute, that anyone who eats chatzi shi’ur is in makas mardus. And it comes out in makas mardus.

Speaker 2:

Very good.

The Ra’avad’s Disagreement

Speaker 1:

The Ra’avad disagrees here, and there are other ways. I remember that there is a Ramban about how one understands. The Ra’avad says that he doesn’t understand that it comes out that one doesn’t eat achilas pras. He says that in short, one must look in the Gemara about the Gemara that the Rambam brings, because there are those who don’t say so that what, that one is indeed transgressing even.

Probably the others say that the fact that he ate a k’zayis is indeed not a novelty that he must receive malkos, because he ate a k’zayis chametz. And talma heichi the other things. The novelty is that if between all together there is a k’zayis, ta’aroves doesn’t help and it’s not considered that he ate a k’zayis chametz. That is, it could be the opposite.

The Ra’avad perhaps argues that by ta’aroves mevatel one is never actually liable because of this, because one doesn’t eat… there is no shi’ur kedei achilas pras.

The Ramban’s Position

Speaker 2:

Yes, the Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvos.

Speaker 1:

The Ramban held… I said differently is only d’Rabbanan, I meant that it’s d’Oraisa without a shi’ur. He says that the Ramban held like you, that it’s… there is something another way of learning here which has to do with the rule that one learns in Ma’achalos Asuros of ta’amo v’lo mamash. That ta’amo v’lo mamash is a weaker issur, and they would have learned that the shi’ur of kedei achilas pras is not as I say simply a law in the shi’ur that one must eat, but it’s something a law, that is mamashus (substance).

What is very weird for me? What does this have to do with mamashus? Mamashus means as long as there is there a piece. But so they learn that mamashus means something a… that the shi’ur of k’zayis bikdei achilas pras… I need to speak about pras.

In short, there are others in this the Ramban. I remember that the Ramban, something in the minyan hamitzvos, disagrees with the Rambam who counted previously, it is an extra lav, one may not the roast. But we are happy with the shitas Rambam today.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Halacha 7 — Eating Chametz Itself

Speaker 1:

Says the Rambam further, “ochel min hachametz atzmo” — here one returns to chametz, not mixtures. I could have this is the continuation, according to my simple understanding it fits very well, because you’re talking now exactly about the topic of eating the chametz.

Speaker 2:

I I I yes, but I mean to say ta’aroves only if there is in it some chametz. Let’s say that a little bit of chametz got mixed into a huge amount, and he eats only a drop, and in this piece there wasn’t.

Speaker 1:

Yes, let’s say… it’s not a lav of lo yochel chametz. “Harei zeh oveir min haTorah shene’emar lo yochel chametz.”

Halacha 8 (Continued) — Less Than a K’zayis of Chametz

Speaker 1: Yes, but I mean to say ta’aroves only if there is in it some chametz. Let’s say that a little bit of chametz got mixed into a huge amount, and he eats only a drop, and in this piece there wasn’t. Yes, let’s say…

It’s not a lav of “lo yochel chametz”, harei zeh asur min haTorah, shene’emar “lo yochel chametz”, meaning even less than the shi’ur. Yes. Says the Rambam, even a little bit is called “lo yochel chametz”, but malkos won’t be able to be. Af al pi chen, eino chayav kares o korban ela al kashi’ur shehu k’zayis. V’ochel pachos mik’zayis b’meizid, what happens if he did it b’meizid? There is also no malkos, also less than the shi’ur he won’t be liable b’meizid. But what then? Yes, he will be liable for makas mardus, because it’s forbidden, and therefore he will receive makas mardus. Malkos one doesn’t receive.

Discussion: Makas Mardus vs. Malkos D’Oraisa

Speaker 2: What is it? Not exactly as much. To 39? Or according to how much he can withstand. Sometimes it will be perhaps more. Malkos… makas mardus can be more also, no? But the shi’ur is 39? I think the other side says that… one estimates how much one should give him.

Speaker 1: No, by the d’Oraisa one estimates whether he can withstand a full 39. But it could be if he is a great hero they will give him 350. I don’t know why, makas mardus doesn’t have the shi’ur of the d’Oraisa. I don’t know. But it seems to me, I think it’s the same malkos, and it says in a minute only which intention the shaliach beis din has, whether he says leshem yichud lekayem mitzvas aseh (for the sake of fulfilling a positive commandment), or he says lekayem mitzvas d’Rabbanan (to fulfill a rabbinic commandment). There is no practical difference, it’s only a difference.

Novelty: Old Chametz — Double Makas Mardus

Speaker 1: When it was a lav she’ein bo ma’aseh (a prohibition without an action) he left over chametz. Now one sees something a new novelty, that on old chametz one receives makas mardus. So the person who eats old chametz probably received twice makas mardus. One, he left over chametz in his house, and second he ate the five grains.

Speaker 2: Ah, he ate at someone else’s.

Speaker 1: Ah, okay. So, very good.

Novelty: Old Chametz — D’Oraisa or D’Rabbanan?

Speaker 1: Further says the Rambam, now the Rambam will tell us the times of eating. When? The novelty is that if old chametz would have been d’Rabbanan, it would make sense according to the rule makas mardus.

Speaker 2: Nu, aha.

Speaker 1: If you say that it’s d’Oraisa, one must understand what is the matter. But there is a takanah, the malkos that the Rabbanan said on this. Okay. We can learn about the issur.

Halacha 9 — Times of the Prohibition of Eating Chametz on the 14th

Issur D’Oraisa: From Midday (Seventh Hour)

Speaker 1: Until now we learned kol shiv’ah (all seven days), right?

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: Pesach itself, from the fifteenth day at night. I will learn the next issur, the list of mitzvos aseh and lav, because how it is the order of times. Yes.

Says the Rambam, asur le’echol chametz b’yom arba’ah asar meichatzos hayom ul’ma’alah, shehi mitchilas sha’ah shevi’is bayom. Now we spoke about on Pesach itself. Now he tells us that the fourteenth day, it’s not yet Pesach, it’s erev Pesach, meichatzos hayom ul’ma’alah, it’s yom tov, yom tov and erev Pesach, as the Rambam spoke about it earlier at the end of Hilchos Yom Tov, is already mitchilas sha’ah shevi’is bayom, from the beginning of the… it’s already passed the six hours, as one says eight in the day means half the day. From then one may not eat chametz.

Says the Rambam, this is d’Oraisa, v’chol ha’ochel bazman hazeh lokeh min haTorah, shene’emar, there is an extra lav, besides the lo yochel chametz that he already said? There is lo sochal alav chametz. What does alav mean? The verse is in the middle when one speaks about hakravas korban Pesach. Klomar, al korban haPesach, you should not eat chametz at the time when there is already the mitzvah of hakravas korban Pesach. Kach lomdim mipi hashemu’ah peirush davar zeh, so the Chachamim learned the lo sochal alav chametz. “Lo sishchat al chametz dam zivchi”, misha’ah hara’uyah lishchitas haPesach shebo hana’ah aveihem. That is, one could have learned “lo sishchat al chametz” that one means exactly when the person is in the middle of being makri, or he shouldn’t bring into the azarah any chametz. But no, the Chachamim said that the word is the shi’ur, the time. From when it’s the time of korban Pesach, from then one may not eat chametz, v’hu chatzi hayom. Therefore one receives malkos, that is, it’s mipi hashemu’ah explains the verse, but it’s still a lav d’Oraisa, malkos. All mipi hashemu’ah is a lav d’Oraisa.

The simple translation would be that he’s saying that just as a todah offering, one brings chametz upon it, and you’re comparing that one doesn’t bring chametz with it. But here you see no, that the Chachamim (Sages) learned that at that time there shouldn’t be any chametz in existence, yes?

Speaker 2: There is that the Rambam doesn’t bring the other verse “lo tochal al chametz dam zivchi”, where there too is the same thing, one might have thought “al chametz” means eating the Pesach with chametz? “Lo tochal al chametz”…

Speaker 1: No, there is another verse similar to this. Okay, not relevant, the Rambam brings this verse.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s not… “lo tochal al chametz”.

Rabbinic Decree: The Sixth Hour — Forbidden in Eating and Benefit

Speaker 1: Yes, says the Rambam, all this from the sixth hour, take it is d’oraita (Biblical), from the second half of the day, from after midday, from after the beginning of the seventh hour. But the Chachamim added another hour, the Sages forbade eating chametz from the beginning of the sixth hour. Why? So that one should not come to a Torah prohibition, so one shouldn’t come close to a Torah prohibition. So they made a fence of another hour.

And what happens from the sixth hour? The Chachamim forbade everything just like actual Biblical chametz, from the beginning of the sixth hour, the chametz shall be forbidden in eating and in benefit. And the Rambam explains, the sixth hour is from the words of the Scribes (Rabbinic), and from the seventh hour onwards it becomes from the Torah. But both are still forbidden in benefit, the Chachamim forbade it just like the Biblical prohibition.

A Decree for a Decree: The Fifth Hour — Forbidden in Eating, Permitted in Benefit

Speaker 1: And you thought that here they finished? No, no, no, the Chachamim added another hour. The fifth hour, also it’s rabbinically forbidden to eat chametz, but this is no longer with the same severity. One doesn’t eat chametz in it, one doesn’t eat chametz. Why? A decree because of a cloudy day. This is already a decree for the sixth hour. Because if it will be a cloudy day, and they didn’t have clocks then etc., so perhaps he will err between the fifth hour and the sixth hour, he will make a mistake between the fifth hour and the sixth hour. The sixth is forbidden, completely forbidden, as if it were actually Biblical, because they also forbade it in benefit. But they also forbade an hour before that, so that one shouldn’t stumble in the sixth hour. They gave the sixth hour all the Biblical laws, so much so that one must also add a decree to this as well. Just as the Biblical laws receive a decree, this also receives a decree.

Speaker 2: He says “ein ochlim” (one doesn’t eat), he doesn’t say… the fifth is because of a cloudy day, the sixth hour isn’t because one makes a mistake. It could be that midday one can see clearly even on a cloudy day, I don’t know.

Speaker 1: The fifth hour is about a cloudy day.

Law 10 — Terumah and Thanksgiving Bread in the Fifth Hour

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, and it’s not forbidden in benefit in the fifth hour. When the Chachamim forbade the fifth hour, they forbade eating, but not benefit. Therefore, so what comes practically? Therefore one suspends in it the terumah and thanksgiving bread and similar things from chametz that is holy. Terumah and thanksgiving bread, which is, by thanksgiving bread one brings loaves which are chametz, and the same thing terumah one takes from… all other chametz we say that one should already be exempt beforehand. But terumah and thanksgiving bread there is something of a prohibition that chametz which is holy there is a prohibition that one shouldn’t burn before the time, because as long as it’s still fit to eat, one may not destroy holy things.

What is the law? One doesn’t eat, the Chachamim forbade. Since the Chachamim forbade, they also forbade regarding holy things, one doesn’t eat, one also may not eat terumah and todah. But one doesn’t burn, one still may not burn, until the sixth hour arrives, then the Chachamim indeed gave an actual law like the Biblical one, then one may already also burn even matters of holy things.

Law 11 — Summary of Three Times

Speaker 1: Now the Rambam will make a quick summary of the three times. Behold you have learned… what? He’s going to give him such a quick rundown of the three measures, three times. That it’s permitted to eat chametz on the fourteenth day until the end of the fourth hour one may. And one doesn’t eat in the fifth hour but one benefits from it. The fifth hour one may not eat, but one may have benefit. And it’s forbidden in the sixth hour, from the sixth hour it’s already so severe that one receives lashes of rebellion. And one who eats from the beginning of the seventh hour, then it’s already Biblical, then it’s already lashes.

So in eating and not in benefit, rabbinic prohibition, Biblical prohibition. And after that comes a fifth level which is Pesach itself, where there’s also karet (spiritual excision), right? Here there’s only lashes. There are very many levels. Two types of eating prohibitions and two types of punishments. Come such types of punishments, other types of punishments.

Until here Chapter 1, where we learn the general principles which are the main commandments of the prohibitions of chametz on Pesach.