📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Shiur – Rambam Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah, Chapter 6
—
Halacha 1 – The Positive Commandment of Eating Matzah
The Rambam’s Words: It is a positive commandment from the Torah to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth, as it says “in the evening you shall eat matzos,” in every place and at every time. This eating is not dependent on the Korban Pesach, rather it is a mitzvah in its own right. The mitzvah applies all night long. But on the rest of the festival, eating matzah is optional – if one wants, he eats matzah; if he wants, he eats rice or millet or roasted grain or fruits. But on the night of the fifteenth alone it is obligatory, and once he has eaten a kezayis he has fulfilled his obligation.
Explanation: The mitzvah of eating matzah is a positive commandment from the Torah, only on the first night of Pesach (the night of the 15th), everywhere and at all times – even without the Beis HaMikdash and even outside Eretz Yisrael. The mitzvah is not dependent on the Korban Pesach, rather it is a mitzvah in its own right. The mitzvah applies the entire night. The remaining days of Pesach, matzah is optional – one may not eat chametz, but one need not eat matzah; one may eat other things. The measure is a kezayis.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. A Mitzvah in Its Own Right – Not Dependent on the Korban Pesach: The Rambam emphasizes that although the verse states “al matzos u’merorim yochluhu” (which connects matzah with the Korban Pesach), this is not the source for the mitzvah. The separate verse “ba’erev tochlu matzos” shows that matzah is a mitzvah in its own right. Therefore it applies even nowadays without the Beis HaMikdash. The verse “barishon b’arba’ah asar yom lachodesh ba’erev tochlu matzos” – “ba’erev” means at night after the fourteenth (which is Erev Pesach), that is, the night of the fifteenth.
2. “The Mitzvah Applies All Night Long” – Unlike Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah: The Rambam rules that the mitzvah applies the entire night, unlike Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah who says only until midnight.
3. “Optional” – Three Levels of Obligation: The Rambam in Hilchos Brachos speaks of “mitzvos she’einan chovah” – that is, there are three levels: obligatory, optional mitzvah, and simply optional. The Rambam’s language “optional” doesn’t exclude that there can still be a mitzvah aspect. The proof is that the Rambam uses three distinct terms: “positive commandment from the Torah” (= obligatory), “eating matzah is optional,” and “obligatory” – which shows that “optional” stands opposite “obligatory” but not necessarily opposite “mitzvah.” Just as shechitah is an optional mitzvah – one need not eat meat, but if one eats, shechitah is a mitzvah.
4. Practical Difference Regarding Blessings: If “optional” meant truly no mitzvah at all, one would not make a blessing on matzah the remaining days. But on Yom Tov there is in any case a special mitzvah of eating bread/lechem mishneh, so the question is specifically about the law of “ba’erev tochlu matzos” which applies only the first night.
5. Kezayis and Afikoman: Although the measure is only a kezayis, in practice through the custom/law of afikoman (matzah at the end), one eats more than one kezayis. But this is according to the laws/customs of the Seder night; the essential Torah obligation is with one kezayis.
—
Halacha 2 – Swallowed Matzah; Swallowed Maror; Swallowed Both Together; Wrapped Them in Siv
The Rambam’s Words: If one swallowed matzah – he fulfilled his obligation. If one swallowed maror – he fulfilled his obligation. If one swallowed matzah and maror together – he fulfilled the obligation of matzah but not of maror, because the maror is secondary to the matzah. If he wrapped them in siv or the like and swallowed – he has not even fulfilled the obligation of matzah.
Explanation: Swallowing matzah without chewing – one fulfills the obligation. Swallowing maror without chewing – one fulfills the obligation (according to the latest version). Both swallowed together – one fulfills matzah but not maror, because maror becomes secondary to matzah. Wrapped in siv (a type of grass/covering) and swallowed – even matzah is not fulfilled.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Versions in “Swallowed Maror”: There is a significant textual dispute. In the old version of the Rambam it said “swallowed maror – he did not fulfill,” but in the latest updated version it says “swallowed maror – he fulfilled.” The Ra’avad’s version was also “fulfilled” (because the Ra’avad argues on the next point, not on this one).
2. Why One Does Not Fulfill Maror When Swallowing Both Together – The Rambam’s Reason: “Because the maror is secondary to the matzah” – maror is nullified to matzah like something secondary to the primary (like Rabbi Yitzchak’s principle that bread with vegetables – bread is always primary).
3. The Ra’avad’s Reason: The Ra’avad does not agree with this reason. He understands that the difference between matzah and maror is that maror requires “chewing” – one must feel the bitter taste, whereas with matzah one feels the taste even without chewing.
4. Another Reason – Maror Nowadays is Rabbinic: Maror nowadays is only rabbinic (without the Korban Pesach), while matzah is from the Torah. When one swallows both together, one primarily thinks of the stronger mitzvah (matzah), and the weaker one (maror) is nullified. Practical Difference: According to this reason, the law would have been different in the times of the Beis HaMikdash when maror was also from the Torah – then maror would not have been nullified. But according to the Rambam’s reason of “secondary” (primary/secondary) it applies always.
5. Two Levels of Eating:
– Level 1 – “Eating” (Swallowing): The food must pass through the throat/mouth. This is sufficient for matzah (swallowed matzah – fulfilled) – with matzah one doesn’t need a complete manner of eating.
– Level 2 – “Chewing” (Taste): One must actually feel the taste. This is necessary for maror when it is eaten together with matzah (because otherwise it is nullified), or according to the Ra’avad – for maror in general.
– Level 3 – Wrapped in Siv: When there is a barrier between the mouth and the food, even matzah is not fulfilled, because the mouth is essentially not “exposed” to the food.
6. [Digression: Connection to the Investigation About Desire for Food] – This is a reference point for a broader investigation that was recently studied about desire for food: there are mitzvos where one fulfills with mere swallowing (without taste), and mitzvos that require actual taste/chewing.
7. Connection to Hillel’s Korech: How does this fit with Hillel who ate korech (matzah and maror together)? The answer: The Rambam is only speaking about swallowing (gulping down); simply eating both together (with chewing, like Hillel) is a different question. Furthermore, by Hillel both are a mitzvah, which is a different reality.
8. Practical Application: Although no one actually swallows matzah, the law can be relevant by korech – if someone comes to korech and didn’t properly fulfill earlier, the law of swallowing matzah and maror together can be relevant.
—
Halacha 3 – Ate Matzah Without Intent; A Shoteh Who Ate Matzah
The Rambam’s Words: If one ate matzah without intent, such as if gentiles forced him to eat – he fulfilled his obligation. If one ate matzah while he was compelled during his insanity, and afterwards recovered – he is obligated to eat after he recovers, because that eating was at a time when he was exempt from all mitzvos.
Explanation: Someone who ate matzah without intent to fulfill the mitzvah – for example, gentiles forced him to eat – he fulfills the obligation of matzah. But a shoteh (or someone with seizures) who ate matzah during his insanity, must eat again when he becomes well, because he was exempt from all mitzvos at the time of the act.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Great Question – Contradiction to Other Laws: By other mitzvos (like blowing shofar) the Rambam says that one does need intent. Why is matzah different?
2. Answer of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam: There is a great difference between mitzvos where the entire mitzvah is a matter of intent/attention (like hearing the Megillah or hearing the shofar – if one didn’t pay attention, there is nothing), versus mitzvos that are an action/deed (like eating). By eating – even without intent one has actually eaten. The analogy: A person who eats breakfast without thinking has still eaten breakfast; but a person who reads a book and doesn’t know what he’s reading, has not read at all.
3. What Does “Without Intent” Mean? “Without intent” doesn’t just mean that he didn’t think about the mitzvah – it means he had no intention to eat at all, the gentile forced him. “Intent” here doesn’t mean intent for the sake of the mitzvah, but intent for the act itself – he’s not focusing on eating, and therefore he fulfills.
4. An Alternative Explanation – The Rambam Need Not Be Consistent: The Rambam follows what he derives from each sugya separately. In one sugya it emerged that matzah is fulfilled without intent, in another sugya it emerged that one needs intent. The Rambam doesn’t rule according to principles but according to specifics – he follows the conclusion of each sugya. Even if it appears to be a contradiction, it could be that two different conclusions were made by different courts/Sanhedrins. Like the principle: if the Sanhedrin rules one way one day and another way another day, one must follow both, because one doesn’t rule on the principle but on the specific case. The Rambam doesn’t want to make a “nice narrative” where everything fits – he conveys what the Gemara says in each sugya.
5. The Difference Between “Without Intent” and “Shoteh”: By “without intent” he is a bar kavanah – he is a normal person who simply wasn’t intending. By a shoteh this is a completely different problem: he is not a bar chiyuva at all – he is exempt from all mitzvos. Therefore, when he becomes well, he must eat again. The Rambam’s language shows: the problem is not lacking intent, but lacking obligation – “because he was exempt from all mitzvos.”
6. Parallel Cases: It is brought up that the discussion is relevant by a slave who was freed or a convert, but it is rejected because Yom Tov at night (when the obligation of matzah is) is not a time when such changes occur. A minor who reached majority is also mentioned but is not practically relevant.
—
Halacha 4 – The Five Species of Grain for Matzah
The Rambam’s Words: A person only fulfills the obligation of eating matzah with food from the five species, as it says “you shall not eat chametz upon it” and it says “you shall eat matzos” – things that can become chametz, if one ate matzah from them he fulfilled his obligation. But other things such as rice and millet and legumes – they have neither the aspect of matzah nor the aspect of chametz.
Explanation: Matzah can only be made from the five species of grain (wheat, barley, spelt, oats, rye). This is learned from the verse – only things that can become chametz can be matzah. Rice, millet, legumes – cannot become chametz, cannot be matzah.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Foundation “Things That Can Become Chametz”: The mitzvah of matzah is connected to chametz. Only what can become chametz can one make matzah from. Fruits or other things – even if one can make a piece of bread from them – is not “something that can become chametz,” therefore one cannot fulfill.
—
Halacha 4 (Continued) – Mixture of Grain with Other Species
The Rambam’s Words: If one mixed dough from wheat and from rice – if it has the taste of grain, he fulfills his obligation with it.
Explanation: If one mixes wheat (kosher for matzah) with rice (not kosher), one follows the taste – if one tastes the grain, one fulfills.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Ra’avad’s Addition: The Ra’avad adds that presumably one also needs to have a kezayis of grain within the time of eating a half-loaf – just as we learned by mixtures of chametz, that one only transgresses if one eats a kezayis within the time of eating a half-loaf. The Rambam doesn’t say this explicitly, but presumably it is true.
2. Difference Between Taste of Grain Here and by Chametz: By chametz in a mixture one didn’t go so strongly after taste, but here is a different question – here the question is what is the primary component of the bread, not just whether one tastes something.
—
Halacha 4 (Continued) – Dough for Dogs
The Rambam’s Words: Dough for dogs – when shepherds eat from it, one fulfills with it… but if shepherds do not eat from it, one does not fulfill with it, because it is not guarded for the sake of matzah.
Explanation: Bread made for dogs – if it is good enough that shepherds eat from it, one fulfills. If not – one does not fulfill, because it is not guarded for the sake of matzah.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Reason for “Does Not Fulfill”: The Rambam says the reason is “because it is not guarded for the sake of matzah” – when one made it for dogs, one didn’t think of matzah. This is not because it is not fit for eating (it is indeed fit – a person can eat it), but because the guarding for the sake of matzah is lacking. When one asks the person “why did you make this?” he answers “for the dog” – this is not for the sake of matzah.
2. When Shepherds Eat From It: If shepherds eat from it, it means the person also intended it for people, and therefore it is guarded for the sake of matzah.
3. The Foundation of “Guarded for the Sake of Matzah”: Here is introduced the foundation that matzah must be guarded for the sake of matzah. “For the sake of matzah” doesn’t mean one must stand and shout “for the sake of matzah” – it means that the reason why one does it is for matzah. Intent/for its sake means: if one asks the person why he is doing this, he answers with the correct answer.
—
Halacha 4 (Continued) – Matzah Kneaded with Fruit Juice
The Rambam’s Words: Matzah that was kneaded with fruit juice – one fulfills his obligation on Pesach with it. But one should not knead it with fruit juice.
Explanation: Matzah kneaded with fruit juice (not water) – one fulfills with it after the fact. But initially one should not knead with fruit juice.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Seemingly a Question: Earlier the Rambam taught that fruit juice itself does not cause leavening, and the principle is “things that can become chametz” – only what can become chametz can be matzah. How can one fulfill with matzah from fruit juice if it cannot become chametz?
2. Answer: The condition of “can become chametz” is a condition in the grain, not in the water/liquid. Wheat can become chametz – that is enough. What liquid one uses for kneading is not relevant to the principle.
3. The Opinion of Rabbeinu Menuach: According to Rabbeinu Menuach’s explanation that fruit juice works like scalding (it prevents leavening but the grain can still become chametz if a drop of water comes to it), this certainly makes sense – because the grain is subject to chametz.
4. Maggid Mishneh’s Note: The Maggid Mishneh brings that there are opinions that say “fulfills with fruit juice” only means when there is a bit of water in it. But the Rambam doesn’t state this condition – he simply says one fulfills with fruit juice.
—
Halacha 5 (Continued) – One Should Not Knead Matzah with Wine, Oil, Honey, Milk – Because of Lechem Oni
The Rambam’s Words: But one should not knead… with wine, oil, honey, or milk, because of lechem oni.
Explanation: The Rambam makes a distinction between different types of fruit juice. “Simple” fruit juices like apple juice are permitted, because the matzah is still called lechem oni. But “richer” things like wine, oil, honey, and milk make the bread into a rich bread, and one does not fulfill with it.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Distinction Within Fruit Juices: Earlier in the laws of chametz the Rambam did not distinguish between different types of fruit juice – all fruit juices are equal regarding leavening. But regarding lechem oni he makes a distinction – simple fruit juices are almost like water regarding lechem oni, but more important things like wine, oil, honey make it into a rich bread and it lacks the condition of lechem oni.
2. Opinions That Disagree: There are opinions that hold that all fruit juices would no longer be called lechem oni – only with water itself is it called lechem oni.
3. Distinction Between First Day and Other Days: On the first day one cannot fulfill with the richer fruit juices.
—
Halacha 6 – Bread of Bran, Bread of Coarse Flour, Bread of Very Fine Flour
The Rambam’s Words: One does not fulfill with bread of bran or bread of coarse flour. But if one mixes bran or coarse flour into regular flour and bakes bread – he fulfills his obligation with it. Similarly, bread of very fine flour – this is permitted… and we do not say about this that it is not lechem oni.
Explanation: Bread that is entirely made from poor quality ingredients (bran/coarse flour) one does not fulfill. But if one mixes it into regular flour, one fulfills. Also bread of very fine flour – very pure white flour – one fulfills, and we do not say that this is not lechem oni.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Bread of Bran/Coarse Flour – Why Not Fulfill? Not because it cannot become chametz, but because it is not called bread. “Bread of poverty” – one would have thought that this is specifically good lechem oni because it’s cheap, but therefore one does not fulfill because it is not called bread.
2. Bread of Very Fine Flour – The Rambam’s Novel Point: It appears that there were opinions that held that very pure white flour is also not called lechem oni (because it’s too rich). The Rambam rejects this – lechem oni specifically means it should not have wine, oil, honey, but even pure bread is still called lechem oni.
—
Halacha 7 – Methods of Baking Matzah
The Rambam’s Words: Any matzah that was baked in an oven, or on a griddle, on tiles… one fulfills with it. If it was not completely baked one fulfills, as long as there are no threads of dough stretching from it when one breaks it.
Explanation: Matzah that is baked in different ways – oven, griddle, tiles, even in a pit in the ground – one fulfills. Even if it is not completely baked, one fulfills, as long as when one breaks it threads of dough don’t stretch.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Rambam’s Matzos: The Rambam’s matzos were softer than our hard matzos – he speaks of different methods like griddle (pita-style), tiles, pit with coals stuck to the side.
2. Griddle – Two Methods: (1) First one places the dough on the griddle and then makes it hot, (2) or vice versa. The novel point is that even when one places the dough first and only then lights the fire, the bit of time until it becomes hot is not a problem of leavening.
3. Measure of “Complete Baking”: It must be at minimum edible in a dire situation – somewhat baked. When threads of dough stretch, it is not yet bread at all.
—
Halacha 8 – Soaked Wafer and Cooked Matzah
The Rambam’s Words: One fulfills with a soaked wafer, as long as it has not dissolved. Matzah that was cooked – one does not fulfill his obligation with it, because it does not have the taste of bread.
Explanation: Matzah that one soaked in water (gebrukts) – one fulfills, as long as it hasn’t completely dissolved. But matzah that one cooked – one does not fulfill, because it has lost the taste of bread.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Soaked Wafer – “As Long As It Has Not Dissolved”: The condition is that it should not completely dissolve. If it has completely lost the form of bread, one does not fulfill. But somewhat broken is still good.
2. Cooked Matzah – “Because It Does Not Have the Taste of Bread”: The Rambam’s language is “because it does not have the taste of bread” – not “the form of bread.” This is an important distinction: by soaked wafer we speak of the form of bread (it should not dissolve), but by cooking the deficiency is that it loses the taste of bread – it tastes like porridge, not like matzah. This is logical because soaked wafer already doesn’t have the form of bread (it’s soaked), but it still has the taste; by cooking however the taste itself is lost.
3. Practical Application: Matzah brei (simply soaked) – one can perhaps fulfill, because it’s only soaked, not cooked. But a kneidel (completely cooked) – one cannot fulfill.
—
Halacha 8 (Continued) – Matzah That Is Forbidden to Him
The Rambam’s Words: A person does not fulfill his obligation by eating matzah that is forbidden to him, such as if he ate tevel, or first tithe from which its terumah was not taken, or that was stolen. This is the principle: Anything over which one does not recite Birkas HaMazon – one does not fulfill his obligation with it.
Explanation: One cannot fulfill matzah with something that is forbidden – tevel, first tithe without terumah, theft. The principle is: Everything over which one does not recite Birkas HaMazon, one cannot fulfill matzah with it.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Connection to Birkas HaMazon: The Rambam connects matzah to Birkas HaMazon: because matzah is eating bread, it has the same laws as bread regarding Birkas HaMazon – both must be “yours” (not stolen, not tevel). By Birkas HaMazon it says “botze’a berach ni’etz Hashem” – whoever recites the blessing over theft blasphemes.
2. Another Reason: There is another reason why forbidden matzah doesn’t work: from the verse “lo sochal alav chametz, shivas yamim tochal alav matzos” – matzah is something that doesn’t have the prohibition of chametz, but if it has other prohibitions it also doesn’t work. In the Gemara there are different reasons for this law.
—
Halacha 8 (Continued) – Challah, Terumah, Second Tithe, Bikkurim
The Rambam’s Words: Kohanim can fulfill with challah and terumah. Similarly one fulfills with matzah of second tithe in Jerusalem. But one does not fulfill with matzah of bikkurim even in Jerusalem – because bikkurim have no permission in all settlements, while second tithe can be redeemed and eaten anywhere.
Explanation: The verse says “b’chol moshvoseichem tochlu matzos” – matzah must be fit to eat in all places. Second tithe has a way to be eaten everywhere (through redemption), but bikkurim have no redemption – therefore bikkurim are not fit for eating in all settlements.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Distinction Between Second Tithe and Bikkurim: Both may only be eaten in Jerusalem (according to the verse “lo suchal le’echol bish’arecha”). But second tithe has a possibility of redemption – one can redeem it and eat it everywhere. Bikkurim have no redemption at all. Therefore second tithe is “fit for eating in all settlements” (because it has potential), but bikkurim are not.
2. Opinions About “Fit for Every Person”: There were opinions that matzah must be fit “for every person” – challah/terumah is only for Kohanim, but the Rambam rules that for the Kohen it is his bread, and he can fulfill with it.
—
Halacha 9 – Loaves of Thanksgiving and Wafers of Nazir
The Rambam’s Words: Loaves of thanksgiving and wafers of nazir that one made for himself – one does not fulfill with them, because from “u’shmartem es hamatzos” we learn that matzah must be guarded for the sake of matzah. If he made it to sell in the market – he fulfills his obligation, because one who makes to sell in the market has in mind that if they don’t sell he will eat them.
Explanation: If someone baked matzos for a thanksgiving offering or nazir, he cannot fulfill the obligation of matzah with them, because the guarding was for the sake of the offering, not for the sake of the mitzvah matzah. But a baker who bakes to sell in the market – with such matzos one does fulfill.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Law of “Lishmah” by Matzah: From “u’shmartem es hamatzos” we learn that one must have intent specifically for the mitzvah of matzah. If someone asks him “why are you baking matzos?” and he answers “for my thanksgiving offering” – it is not “guarded for the sake of matzah” even though it is indeed matzah and it was protected from leavening. This is a deficiency of lishmah – it must be specifically for the mitzvah of eating matzah, not for another mitzvah that also requires matzos.
2. Distinction Between “Made It for Himself” and “Made It to Sell in the Market”: The baker who bakes to sell has in mind that if he doesn’t sell, he or other people will eat it themselves. Therefore, at the time of making his intent is not exclusively for the sake of thanksgiving/nazir, but also for the sake of regular eating – which includes matzah. Unlike when someone bakes only for his own thanksgiving/nazir offering, he usually doesn’t think of the option that it should be for regular eating, and it is not “matzah in the name of matzah.”
—
Halacha 10 – Everyone Is Obligated in Eating Matzah
The Rambam’s Words: Everyone is obligated in eating matzah, even women and slaves. A minor who is able to eat bread, we educate him in mitzvos and feed him a kezayis of matzah. A sick person – soaks the wafer in water, as long as it does not dissolve.
Explanation: Everyone is obligated in eating matzah – even women and slaves. A minor who can already eat bread, we educate him and give him a kezayis of matzah. A sick person who cannot eat hard matzah may soak the matzah in water, as long as it doesn’t completely dissolve.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Source of the Obligation of Women and Slaves: The Gemara derives it from the verse “lo sochal alav chametz shivas yamim tochal alav matzos” – whoever has upon himself the prohibition of chametz (with kares), also has the mitzvah of matzah. And women and slaves are obligated in the prohibition of chametz (because “women were equated to men for all punishments in the Torah”), therefore they are also obligated in matzah – even though matzah is a time-bound positive commandment.
2. Why Not the Reason of “They Too Were in That Miracle”? “They too were in that miracle” is a reason for rabbinic mitzvos (like the four cups), but here we are speaking of a Torah obligation, so the derivation is from the verse.
3. The Mitzvah of Education for Minors – Practical Point: “A minor who is able to eat bread” is already at about two years old. Often small children go to sleep before the Seder (because one makes a long Seder), and one does not fulfill the obligation of education. One must give them a kezayis of matzah before they go to sleep. A kezayis is actually a small piece, and a small child can indeed eat it.
4. Sick Person – Soaks in Water: It appears that soaking in water is only after the fact – because the Rambam only brings it by a sick person or elderly person, not by a healthy person. If it would have been good initially, he would not have limited it to a sick person. A healthy person should not do it – because it loses the taste of matzah, and it is only a post-facto permission.
—
Halacha 11 – One Does Not Conclude After Matzah with Anything (Afikoman)
The Rambam’s Words: It is from the words of the Sages that one does not conclude after matzah with anything, even roasted grain and nuts and the like. Rather, even though one ate matzah and ate other foods and fruits afterwards, he returns and eats a kezayis of matzah at the end and stops.
Explanation: Rabbinically one may not eat anything after matzah – not even roasted grain and nuts. If one did eat other things after the matzah, one should eat another kezayis of matzah at the end (afikoman) and then stop eating.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. “One Does Not Conclude After the Pesach with Afikoman” – this doesn’t mean one should only eat matzah and nothing else. The explanation is: one eats matzah, then one may eat other things (the meal), but at the end one should eat another kezayis of matzah (afikoman) and then not eat anymore.
2. Interesting Point: It appears from the Rambam that he didn’t have a “meal” in the sense we know it – a poor person eats matzah, then more matzah.
3. No Contradiction to “Once He Ate a Kezayis of Matzah He Fulfilled”: Earlier we learned that with a kezayis of matzah one fulfills. Here we see that one can indeed eat another piece of matzah afterwards – this is not a contradiction, because the afikoman is a rabbinic law (rabbinic distraction), not the essential Torah obligation.
—
Halacha 12 – It Is Forbidden to Eat Matzah on
Halacha 12 – It Is Forbidden to Eat Matzah on Erev Pesach
The Rambam’s Words: The Sages forbade eating matzah on Erev Pesach so that there will be a distinction for its eating in the evening. One who eats matzah on Erev Pesach receives lashes of rebellion.
Explanation: The Sages forbade eating matzah on Erev Pesach, so that there will be a distinction that one is eating matzah for the sake of the mitzvah. Whoever eats matzah on Erev Pesach receives lashes of rebellion.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. The Reason “So That There Will Be a Distinction”: It is not only a matter of desire (hunger), but a matter of the importance of the mitzvah – that it should be noticeable that one is eating for the sake of the mitzvah.
2. Historical Background: By the Rishonim we see that one would bake matzos on Erev Pesach in the afternoon (or on Pesach itself), not earlier. This fits with the law of “guarded for the sake of matzah” – one must bake at a time when there is already a prohibition of chametz. Rashi holds that one does not fulfill at all with matzos that are not baked at that time. Therefore, when one bakes matzos Erev Pesach in the afternoon (when one may no longer eat chametz), one says that one should not snack on the fresh matzos – one should save it for the night, so that there will be a distinction that the baking is for the great mitzvah, not simply because one may no longer eat chametz.
3. Lashes of Rebellion: This is truly a rabbinic prohibition with a severe punishment. There is a version “until his soul departs” – which means that if someone is stubborn, one strikes him until he stops.
—
Halacha 13 – Not Eating on Erev Pesach from Midday / Desire
The Rambam’s Words: A person should not eat on Erev Pesach close to Minchah so that he will enter into eating matzah with desire. But he may eat a little fruit and vegetables, but should not fill his stomach with them. The early Sages would starve themselves on Erev Pesach so that they would eat the matzah with desire and the mitzvah would be beloved to them.
Explanation: One should not eat on Erev Pesach from a bit before Minchah (afternoon), so that one will be hungry and eat matzah with desire. One may eat a bit of fruit and vegetables, but not fill oneself with them. The pious Sages of earlier times would starve themselves the entire Erev Pesach, in order to eat matzah with desire and love of the mitzvah.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1. Two Separate Laws: (1) Not eating matzah the entire Erev Pesach from the morning – regarding “distinction” (Halacha 12); (2) Not eating a fixed meal from midday/Minchah – regarding “desire” (Halacha 13). These are two separate topics.
2. What May One Eat? Bread one may not (because after midday chametz is already forbidden), matzah also not (the prohibition of Erev Pesach). Fruit and vegetables – yes, but not too much. The Rambam doesn’t say explicitly that one may eat meat.
3. Hagahos Maimoniyos – Fast of the Firstborn: Hagahos Maimoniyos brings that in Maseches Sofrim it says that firstborns and other upright Jews fast on Erev Pesach. An interesting connection – that the fast of the firstborn on Erev Pesach is connected to the matter of eating matzah with desire.
4. Distinction Between Erev Pesach and Other Festival Eves: By all festivals there is a mitzvah of a meal at night, but only on Erev Pesach is there the matter of starving oneself. Why? Because eating matzah is a special Torah mitzvah – a greater mitzvah than simply the joy of Yom Tov. For simple joy of Yom Tov one would not make such a law of being starved. But on other festival eves – “one eats continuously until it becomes dark,” one may indeed eat (just not a fixed meal).
—
Until here Chapter 6 – the laws of the mitzvah of eating matzah.
📝 Full Transcript
Rambam Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah Chapter 6 – The Mitzvah of Eating Matzah
Halachah 1 – A Positive Commandment from the Torah to Eat Matzah on the Night of the Fifteenth
Good. We’re going to learn today the sixth chapter of Rambam Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah, the laws of Pesach. In this chapter he’s going to speak about the mitzvah of eating matzah, mitzvot matzah.
The Rambam says: A positive commandment from the Torah, as he already began, he enumerated at the beginning of Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah he enumerated that there are how many mitzvot? Six, I think, if I remember correctly. So a positive commandment from the Torah to eat matzah on the night of the fifteenth. Eight, excuse me, there are eight mitzvot in Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah, and here we’re speaking about the mitzvah of eating matzah on the night of the fifteenth.
The Rambam says that the mitzvah is only the first night of Pesach is the mitzvah from the Torah. As it says, the verse says “on the first, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening you shall eat matzot”. Not after the fourteenth, the evening of the fourteenth, right? The fourteenth is erev Pesach. At night after the fourteenth, “in the evening you shall eat matzot”.
And where does the mitzvah apply? In every place, everywhere, not only in Eretz Yisrael, and at every time, not only when there’s a Beit HaMikdash. And the Rambam is now explaining what he means to say that it’s not dependent on the Beit HaMikdash. Ah, many times you see, it says in the verse “on matzot and maror they shall eat it”. The Rambam says, but it’s not so, “and He did not make this eating dependent on the Korban Pesach, rather this is a mitzvah in itself”. That means, when there’s a Korban Pesach, one eats matzah together with the Korban Pesach, “on matzot and maror they shall eat it”. But there’s also the verse of “in the evening you shall eat matzot”, that always, even when there’s no Beit HaMikdash, even when one is not in Eretz Yisrael, there’s a mitzvah of eating matzah. But this is indeed only the first night, or by us with two days of Yom Tov of the diaspora, the first two nights of Pesach.
The Time of the Mitzvah – All Night
The Rambam says, and its mitzvah, when is the mitzvah? All night, the entire night is the mitzvah of eating matzah. Yes, not like Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah who says only until midnight. Yes, the Rambam rules that the entire night one can eat the matzah.
The Rest of the Festival – Eating Matzah is Optional
The Rambam says, this is only the first night. But on the rest of the festival, the remaining time of Yom Tov, eating matzah is optional. If he wants he eats matzah, if he wants he eats matzah. That means, one may not eat bread, because about this it says in the verse that the days one should eat only matzah. But it doesn’t mean to say that one must eat matzah. If he doesn’t want to eat at all from the five types of grain, he wants to eat rice or millet or roasted grain or fruits, he wants to eat completely other things. They can indeed eat other things, therefore it’s not a mitzvah, it’s only optional. Therefore there’s also not, for example the first night there will be a blessing, but the rest of Yom Tov there won’t be any blessing. But on the night of the fifteenth alone it’s an obligation, it’s an obligation, one must. And how much is the obligation? The Rambam says, the measure of how much one must eat is a kezayit, and one who ate a kezayit has fulfilled his obligation. That with a kezayit one fulfills his obligation.
Yes, although we’ll see later that there’s something more than this, we want that one should eat matzah at the end, so automatically it’s already more than a… as this is called afikoman, it comes out more than a kezayit. But this is other mitzvot, other halachot or customs of the night of the Seder, but the essential mitzvah is a kezayit of matzah. It could be simply, the virtue, that one eats a meal at night, one eats more than a kezayit, but the point is that with a kezayit one has fulfilled.
Discussion: Does “Optional” Have a Mitzvah Aspect?
Yes, it’s known that it’s not clear that optional means to say that it’s not a mitzvah. It could be as the Rambam explained in Hilchot Berachot, that there are mitzvot that are called optional, as one fulfills the mitzvah, but it’s not an obligation. There are actually three levels: mitzvah, obligation, optional. Not an obligation doesn’t yet mean optional in the sense of a completely mundane thing. Why do you say so? Why should you say that it’s at all a mitzvah? Because he adds the word obligation. There’s a remembrance that the Rambam says that there are mitzvot that are not obligations. And to do it, and now mitzvot that are optional. So optional is not necessarily a contradiction to mitzvah. There’s a mitzvah, either because the Rambam says that there are three expressions that one can deduce here. It’s a positive commandment from the Torah to eat matzah, means to say that it’s an obligation. But when one says eating matzah is optional, it can also be part of the mitzvah of the essential mitzvah of Pesach, but it’s only an optional mitzvah. That if one eats, just as slaughter is an optional mitzvah, if one wants to eat one must slaughter. One does make a blessing, you’re right that one doesn’t make a blessing the whole Pesach, but that’s a different question. But it’s not necessary for me that one wants as you say that it’s optional, doesn’t yet mean that it’s not a mitzvah.
It’s a bit correct, because for example the second days of Yom Tov, it’s indeed Yom Tov, on Yom Tov there’s a mitzvah to eat bread lechem mishneh, a different mitzvah, but he means to say the law of “in the evening you shall eat matzot” applies only to the first day, as you say the obligation.
Halachah 2 – Swallowed Matzah, Swallowed Maror, Swallowed Matzah and Maror Together
What does the Rambam say further? Another interesting halachah about the kezayit’s action. We learn, eating matzah and maror has indeed some reason, one should remember, one should this. One might think, I know, one must feel the taste. The Rambam says, no, swallowed matzah, if one swallowed the whole piece of matzah, one didn’t taste it, one swallowed it entirely, he fulfilled. It’s relevant because… It’s not good etiquette, basically. It’s relevant because one only needs a kezayit, a kezayit is not so large, one can give it a swallow down. Today with the large kezayit, it’s almost not relevant. Swallowed maror, also the same thing, he fulfilled, he has fulfilled.
Versions in “Swallowed Maror”
One minute, but this is a dispute. The Raavad says, what? No, there’s a dispute, people shouldn’t argue. In our Rambam, the latest updated version, it says swallowed maror he fulfilled. So he reads it, I don’t remember, today’s say that this is the correct version. But in the old version it said the opposite, swallowed maror he did not fulfill. So it’s very different the halachah. But the Raavad’s version was also fulfilled, because the Raavad argues and he says that… No, he argues on the next piece, on the… It seems that the Rambam, on the contrary, so he says, that the Raavad could have been did not fulfill. There’s a reasoning that says that maror one needs a taste, matzah one doesn’t need a taste, swallowed matzah fulfilled, but maror did not fulfill. In practice, the Rambam according to our version, he rules that both are fulfilled.
Swallowed Matzah and Maror Together
Only when is one not fulfilled? The third case. The Rambam says so, swallowed matzah and maror together. What happens if someone swallowed matzah and maror? Together. So, regarding matzah he fulfilled, he fulfilled the part, the Torah obligation, the matzah is fulfilled. But regarding maror he did not fulfill, he did not fulfill the mitzvah of maror. Why? It’s not yet at all said that there’s a mitzvah of maror. He gives us a throw in by the way from matzah. Regarding maror he did not fulfill, the Rambam says, why? Because the maror is like secondary to the matzah, the maror becomes like secondary to the matzah. Or, as Rabbi Yitzchak learned, that always bread with vegetables or bread with anything is always the bread the main thing. So we learn in our Hilchot Berachot.
Discussion: Reason for “Because the Maror is Secondary to the Matzah”
I’ve seen others say because maror is from the Torah, and I mean matzah is from the Torah, and maror is rabbinic, as we’ll see later. Maror is a weaker mitzvah, therefore he thinks more about the vessel, when he swallows both together, he mainly means the matzah, therefore he doesn’t fulfill maror. Right, the difference of this is that that halachah would have to be only nowadays when maror is rabbinic, if one goes with the reason, because in the time of the Temple when there’s a Pesach, maror is indeed from the Torah, when then there’s no distinction. Yes, on this the Raavad objects that this is not the reason. That means, the Raavad understood something that this maror is secondary is the reason why swallowed maror did not fulfill, according to what he read.
But I want to understand, Hillel who ate korech, he ate both together. The Gemara speaks about this, it doesn’t fit with the aleph. He argues with this, or did he also do both? No, he argues, he argues. It could be that that is only if both is a mitzvah. I mean that in the Gemara it says this explicitly, that Hillel doesn’t fit according to the problem. But swallowed, here it’s only spoken about swallowed. Simply as one eats both together is a different question. Yes, so the Rav didn’t agree with something. Okay, let’s skip this, it’s not relevant.
It’s also not relevant halachah lemaaseh, no one swallows. I mean, why does the halachah come in? Who swallows matzah? It’s relevant for example if someone comes to korech, he didn’t have any… Yes, one must make extra. The reasons that one must… This can be relevant if someone comes to korech, he doesn’t make before… But what one says that the Rambam brings it only by swallowed. If someone is indeed did not fulfill, according to the Rambam he fulfills. But the point with the maror secondary to the matzah, as you said, because one goes after the main thing… No, that’s the main reason. When he has no taste at all, he’s only swallowed… I don’t see that the Rambam says simply ate matzah and maror together did not fulfill. It says swallowed. What’s the novelty being spoken of at all that one fulfills?
The Raavad says differently. The Raavad understood that there’s indeed a distinction between matzah and maror. He didn’t know what the Rambam wants from the secondary to the matzah. He said, the reason is not secondary. The reason is because maror one must chew. Unlike matzah, the Raavad understood something that matzah one feels the taste even without chewing. But maror is not a matter of chewing, or one tastes without chewing. In short, this is the… the discussion here.
Connection to the Investigation About Desire for Eating
It’s more relevant to my investigations about, we’ve been learning lately about desire for eating, that here one can see that there’s a law of eating, there’s something such a law of taste that one must chew it, there are mitzvot that one fulfills so, there are mitzvot that one fulfills so. This is something a source for that investigation. Very good.
Wrapped Them in Fiber
The Rambam says a new halachah. What happens? Wrapped them in fiber. He wrapped the matzah, or maror, or both, in fiber. Fiber is… He wrapped it with something. He sees that it goes on the previous case. He took matzah and maror together. What is fiber? Some grass? He put it in plastic in a capsule. And the like and swallowed, even regarding matzah he did not fulfill, because his mouth didn’t become at all exposed to the matzah. It’s a barrier with a…
Two Levels of Eating
On this Rambam one sees that there are such two levels of eating. There’s a thing that’s called eating. Eating, at least means that one must touch your throat, I don’t know if your mouth must touch the food. This is by matzah is enough. For maror, or at least for maror and matzah together it’s not enough. Through this there’s a next level of chewing, yes? The Rambam doesn’t say the word chewing, but according to the simple meaning means chewing, because then one tastes the taste. This is only by maror, or only when one eats both together, the Rambam says that it’s a problem because the matzah nullifies the maror.
What when can you say that it’s not a manner of eating at all by swallowing, but we don’t need exactly a manner of eating. It seems that yes, perhaps without force in a box you can say that it’s not a manner of eating, but it seems that sometimes such a thing happens, there are things that one chews. Perhaps this yes. You mean that on Yom Kippur one will also be able? It doesn’t say that one should be able.
Halachah 3 – Ate Matzah Without Intention
Okay, halachah 3. Okay, ate matzah without intention. The Rambam says such a halachah. What happens? A person ate matzah without intention, he didn’t have in mind, he wasn’t intending that he’s fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah. For example, that gentiles forced him to eat, gentiles forced matzah into his mouth. He fulfilled the obligation of matzah, even though he didn’t have any intention.
The Great Question: Contradiction to Other Halachot
Right away on the spot, where are the commentators on the Rambam who struggle? Because by other halachot it seems like the Rambam says, yes, one must have intention, for example blowing shofar and other things. And why here does he say that it’s good even without intention?
Answer: Distinction Between Mitzvot That Are a Matter of Intention and Mitzvot That Are Actions
I saw a good explanation. Ah, he brings here from Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam that there’s a great distinction when the entire mitzvah is a matter of intention. For example, hearing the Megillah reading. What does hearing the Megillah reading mean? Participating in an action of Megillah reading, or hearing shofar. If one doesn’t have awareness there’s nothing there. Unlike a thing like eating or something that’s an action, eating is even if you didn’t have in mind that you ate.
But when… One can understand the distinction. So that’s what he says? One can still understand the distinction. Such a reading is indeed simple that… that… readings tell a story. If one heard something and doesn’t grasp what one hears, one heard nothing. Unlike eating, when a person eats breakfast without thinking, he still ate breakfast. When a person reads a book and doesn’t know what he’s reading, he didn’t read at all. Right it’s so good.
Precision: What Does “Without Intention” Mean?
But one must add here that you said without intention means he didn’t intend to say the mitzvah, but you must see that the case that it says the opposite, both here and by matzah, it never says that he didn’t forget that it’s a mitzvah. It’s more that he’s not at all intending to eat. The gentile pushes him, forces him, he doesn’t want to eat at all, he’s interested. I don’t mean the action, I don’t mean the mitzvah. The friend doesn’t mean like we usually say intention, it means that one thinks about the mitzvah, rather intention means like that he focuses.
Speaker 2:
Yes, it’s a reasoning.
Alternative Reasoning: The Rambam Doesn’t Have to Be Consistent
I mean that I also have another reasoning, that the Rambam doesn’t have to be consistent. The Rambam came out in the Gemara that matzah one fulfills without intention, and there one came out in the Gemara that one indeed needs intention. Ah, it doesn’t fit according to the principles? The Rambam wasn’t with principles, he goes indeed with particulars. There’s indeed the whole reason why one rules. He rules the Gemara, because this is the conclusion of the Gemara. It came out to him that the Gemara concludes here so and there so. It could be even the Gemara is not consistent. The one who made the conclusion was a second person made that conclusion, and that’s it.
Speaker 2:
But there’s indeed also a sugya in the Gemara that’s called mitzvot require intention, which one sees indeed.
Lecture on Laws of Matzah – Chunk 2
Speaker 1:
True, but the Rambam doesn’t have to rule according to that principle. He can say that… what we have reasoned out is that here the ruling is thus. It could even be that the reasoning is because two other people ruled this way. The Sanhedrin of that time, so to speak, held this way, and from that time onward. We’re not – you remember, make a distinction – if the Sanhedrin will rule one day this way and one day that way, regarding this law thus, regarding that law thus, one must follow both, even though it’s a contradiction, because we don’t rule on the general principle, we rule on the specific case.
It’s true that the Rambam wants to tell us how the sugya comes out. He doesn’t want to make his own order so that everything should fit with some nice narrative. Many people would have wanted the Rambam to be that way, but that’s not how the Rambam does it.
Law 3 (Continued) — A Shoteh Who Ate Matzah
Speaker 1:
But this is when he ate matzah without intention, he was capable of intention, he was a person who can have intention, only something happened that he was forced. But if he ate matzah while he was afflicted with his insanity, precisely at a time when he is ill, he is a shoteh, and afterwards he recovered, he is obligated to eat after he recovers. When he becomes obligated, he should then eat again. Why? Because that eating was at a time when he was exempt from all mitzvot. When he ate matzah, earlier when he ate matzah, he was still exempt from all mitzvot, and now he has become obligated.
The Distinction Between “Without Intention” and “Shoteh”
Speaker 1:
This is very different, not simply that he didn’t have awareness, a shoteh – the problem isn’t lacking intention, the problem of a shoteh is that he is a shoteh. Seemingly it would also be the same, I know, let’s say a slave who was freed or a convert, I don’t know if it’s relevant, because on Yom Tov at night one doesn’t go when he becomes obligated. Also, a man is anyway obligated in eating matzah. Ah, a minor, but it’s not relevant, because he becomes an adult. The obligation comes. The point is because he wasn’t obligated. This has nothing to do with… he wasn’t a shoteh, perhaps intention was lacking, but the point is because he wasn’t obligated. When he becomes obligated, then is the mitzvah to eat.
Speaker 2:
Right. By a shoteh it could be that he is sometimes ill, he has some kind of attack, he doesn’t become well.
Speaker 1:
Yes.
Law 4 — The Five Species of Grain for Matzah
Speaker 1:
We now learn from what one must make the matzah. The Rambam says, we already learned earlier that chametz only applies to the five species of grain. The Rambam says, that indeed only matzah can also be made with the same five species of grain. “A person only fulfills his obligation of eating matzah with food from the five species, as it says ‘You shall not eat chametz upon it’, and it says ‘You shall eat matzot'”. We learn from this that “things that can become chametz”, things that can become chametz, these are things from which one can make matzah. “If he ate matzah from them he fulfills his obligation, but other things such as rice and millet and legumes, there is no mitzvah of matzah in them and there is no chametz”, because they cannot become chametz.
The mitzvah of matzah is to be careful not to become chametz, but to eat matzah. Things that can become chametz, you should eat as matzah. But something that you cannot fulfill with fruit either, I mean, eh, the distinction of generations and generations, though, one can indeed make from it a piece of bread, but it’s not, it’s not called something that can become chametz, therefore one cannot make the matzah.
Law 5 — Mixture of Grain with Other Species
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says, but if one mixes the five species of grain with non-five species of grain, it is thus: “If he mixed dough from wheat and from rice”, from that which is kosher for matzah and that which is not kosher for matzah, we follow the taste. “If it has the taste of grain, he fulfills his obligation”. We follow the taste in such a case.
The Raavad adds that seemingly he must be able to eat the grain there within the time of eating a pras, just as we learned by the laws of mixtures and mixtures of chametz earlier, that one only transgresses if one eats a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. Seemingly the same thing must be here – a kezayit of grain that he eats within the time of eating a pras. The Rambam doesn’t say this, but seemingly this is true, no?
Speaker 2:
That means, we don’t say that it becomes nullified, that it becomes less than most. That means we need to say. Perhaps yes, the Rambam doesn’t say, perhaps I know that the rice only spoils it, but if it’s mixed, I don’t know.
Speaker 1:
He indeed brings that there are two opinions. I would have thought so, because what we learned earlier regarding a mixture of chametz, it doesn’t look like it’s a… yes. Okay. So here we follow the taste of grain, and by the owner of the matzah we didn’t want taste so strongly, but it’s a different kind of thing, because here the question is what is the… not that I need to have taste, but what is the… what is the cookie here?
Speaker 2:
Yes.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Law 5 (Continued) — Dough of Dogs
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says thus: Dough of dogs, we already had the dough of dogs by the laws of eruvin, such cookies that are made for dogs, when the shepherds eat from it, if it’s… it’s indeed made more for dogs, it has that taste, yes, but if it’s a bit good so that the poor shepherd boy can eat from it, he fulfills with it, because it’s called bread, it’s called something that one eats. It was made for its purpose, because it was guarded for the sake of matzah. It was also intended, it was indeed intended for the dog, but it was also intended for the shepherd.
The Reason for “He Does Not Fulfill”: Because It Is Not Guarded for the Sake of Matzah
Speaker 1:
But why don’t we say, okay, but if the shepherds do not eat from it, if it’s only good for the dogs, he does not fulfill with it, because it is not guarded for the sake of matzah. When the person made it, he didn’t think of matzah, it wasn’t guarded for the sake of matzah. He indeed made a bread that is not matzah, but it wasn’t guarded. Why don’t we say that if the shepherds do not eat from it, it’s not called bread? It’s not something fit for eating? We’re speaking indeed when it’s fit for eating, but it’s not the custom that the shepherds eat… in that region the shepherds don’t eat from it. The distinction is, the main distinction is… the guarding for the sake of matzah.
Speaker 2:
I don’t know what is the essence of matzah.
Speaker 1:
Yes, but someone argued it this way: if at all shepherds eat, it’s called bread, if not it’s not called bread. But here it appears that we’re speaking indeed in a manner, it’s not disqualified, okay, it’s certainly not disqualified, it’s not, a person can eat it. I don’t remember how it was learned exactly by the laws of eruv. Here it states that the problem is that it’s for its purpose, it must be guarded for the sake of matzah. For the sake of matzah for the dog is not matzah. Matzah means matzah that a person eats. That’s somewhat the point. Okay. There is a point, it hasn’t yet been stated the law that it must be guarded for the sake of matzah.
Speaker 2:
True, he says it now. Here he says it. That’s what it says.
Speaker 1:
No, this is the practical difference. What else is the practical difference?
Speaker 2:
No, there’s no other minute, that’s what I want to bring out to you.
Speaker 1:
Ah, guarded for the sake of matzah, guarded for the sake of matzah, guarded for the sake of matzah.
What Does “Guarded for the Sake of Matzah” Mean?
Speaker 1:
He says, one doesn’t need to stand and shout “for the sake of matzah,” that’s just a waste of taste. One needs to know that now we are baking matzot. There’s no doubt that in the bakery we’re not baking matzot. Thinking doesn’t mean from your head, thinking means what is the reason why you’re doing it. That’s how we always learn, intention. Intention means that I ask the person, why are you doing this? He answers the question. Why did you make the dough? He says, for the dog. If it’s for the dog and for the shepherd, then it’s good.
Law 6 — Matzah Kneaded with Fruit Juice
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says further, “Matzah kneaded with fruit juice, he fulfills his obligation on Pesach with it”. Matzah that was kneaded with fruit juice, one also fulfills the mitzvah of matzah with it. Even though we learned that it doesn’t become chametz. We learned earlier that it doesn’t become chametz, and we learned regarding the five species of grain that in such a case it wouldn’t be fit for matzah. But it can become chametz. It appears that the fact that it must be able to become chametz means that the grain from it must be able to become chametz. That’s how it appears, right? Especially according to the way Rabbeinu Menachem learned that the sharpness of the fruits is like a scalding, it certainly makes sense, because it can become chametz, only… if it has a drop of water it can become chametz. It’s clear that chametz applies to it, not like… there were those who thought so.
The Maggid Mishneh brings that there are those who say that what it says “kneaded with fruit juice he fulfills” means when there’s a bit of water in it. But the Rambam doesn’t state this condition. It could be that the Rambam held as you say, that the condition of “anything that can become chametz” is a condition in the grain, not in the water. Yes.
“But One Should Not Knead It with Fruit Juice” — Initially
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says further, “but one should not knead it with fruit juice”. One can indeed. The Rambam makes here a distinction: earlier, when we learned which things can become chametz, we learned that fruit juice makes no difference – it’s apple juice, like apple cider, or wine and oil and honey. Here he makes a big distinction. Fruit juice, which is a cheap thing, one can fulfill, because it’s still called lechem oni (bread of affliction). But a richer thing, like wine – he now says, “but one should not knead” – one may not make matzah with wine, oil. One cannot make matzah with wine, oil, or honey and milk. Why? Because these things make the bread a richer bread. And because of “lechem oni” it states in the verse that one should eat lechem oni, as we explained – that these things… there’s a distinction between the first day and the other days. The Rambam said that the first day one cannot, because one doesn’t fulfill with it.
But here is the great novelty, that there’s a distinction between which types of fruit juice. Things that are cheap fruit juice are like water regarding lechem oni, and others… as opposed to the others, more… it appears more important. That makes it a rich bread, and it lacks the condition of lechem oni. Yes, that’s how the Rambam learns.
There are those who indeed argue on this distinction, and they say that all fruit juice would be called lechem oni. Not lechem oni – it’s really only water. Right? There are those who say so?
Speaker 2:
Others?
Speaker 1:
Yes. There are those who say differently.
Law 6 (Continued): Bread of Bran, Bread of Coarse Flour, and Bread of Fine Flour
Speaker 1:
Okay, another law further. “One does not fulfill” – and one doesn’t fulfill neither with bread of bran nor with bread of coarse flour – and bread that is made from inferior quality. And one doesn’t fulfill, because the inferior quality also cannot… even though we learned earlier that one must be concerned about the inferior quality. It cannot become chametz?
Speaker 2:
Perhaps just?
Speaker 1:
It’s not any… it’s not called the five species of grain? It’s not called bread. That’s what it says here. Bread is not bread? What does it say in the Gemara? Bread of affliction? One would have thought it’s actually a good lechem oni. It’s indeed not the cheapest.
The Rambam says, “but” – but listen, one can indeed. When it’s made entirely from the inferior quality one cannot. “But if he mixed the flour with his coarse flour” – he may mix into the flour his inferior quality, or his bran – two types of inferior quality. “And baked bread and fulfilled his obligation with it” – even though it’s not such a pure bread. It’s called bread though.
And likewise – another thing, bread of very fine flour – one can also make from not listen, from something that is entirely white flour that is very pure, this is permitted and he fulfills his obligation, and we don’t say about this that this is not lechem oni. It appears there were those who held that this also wasn’t called lechem oni. Lechem oni means it must be poor. He says, no, lechem oni means specifically when it has the wine, oil and honey, those things. But even if it’s pure and bread, it can still be called lechem oni.
Law 7: Methods of Baking Matzah
Speaker 1:
Okay, the Rambam says thus, how should the matzah look? We are accustomed to our hard matzot. But the Rambam says there are many ways of making matzot. Whether matzah baked in an oven, or on a pan over coals – I don’t know, like how one makes pita, I don’t know what different work. No, it’s very different standards than we make, and it’s softer. It’s softer. It’s cooked, because he says baked. Right, it’s baked what. It’s not soft dough. It’s still softer, yes. And likewise roasted and pressed.
He says, there are two types of ways to make the dough on a pan. Either he first placed the dough on the pan, and afterwards he made it hot, or he also does like a crepe. Two types of ways? I don’t know why he needs to say this novelty. Perhaps the novelty is, because he places it on and it takes longer.
Speaker 2:
Yes, it takes longer.
Speaker 1:
Okay, again, if it’s really long, but we’re speaking that the bit that it takes until it will be lit and made hot, is not a problem. There’s a third way further, even even in the ground. There’s a way of cooking in a pit. One makes a pit, and there one puts in coals, and one sticks it on the side of the pit. So also, one can make it this way also, he fulfills his obligation with it.
Discussion: The Measure of Complete Baking
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says more than this, and likewise if it was not baked completely he fulfills – even if it didn’t become completely baked through, it’s half-baked, it’s such a soft one, it’s still a bit doughy. But and this is – what is the measure? That threads of dough should not stretch from it when he breaks it. When one tears it, if pieces tear – it’s like really a dough that is sticky, it drags pieces, it doesn’t tear. Gluten is the thing that it becomes very sticky. That threads of dough should not stretch from it when he breaks it. That means, when it’s baked, that you break it, it breaks. If it’s still soft, it’s still soft. It’s really not complete baking. Like a dough that one must completely… yes, that one can stretch it long. Then it’s not properly cooked through.
Speaker 2:
What? That means it’s not bread, or it’s not baked?
Speaker 1:
It’s not bread. It becomes chametz. He says that it’s not… it’s not bread. I mean, it must be baked, somewhat baked it must be. I mean, it’s a food that’s somewhat baked, that’s how it appears. It must be somewhat bread. Yes, it can be soft-baked, not really hard, but it must be baked, that’s how it appears.
A Wafer That Was Soaked and Matzah That Was Cooked
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says further, “And one fulfills with a soaked wafer” – one can also make matzah that was afterwards broken. That means, first one made from it a wafer, a cracker, and afterwards one soaked it in water. The Rambam says, “and this is only if it did not dissolve” – this is only if it didn’t become completely dissolved, and it lost the form of bread. If it lost the form of bread, it’s no longer called matzah. So one doesn’t fulfill – that means one doesn’t fulfill. It’s simple. Yes, he’s not speaking here about chametz, then it doesn’t look like bread, it no longer has the law of bread.
But all these things are when one baked it in other ways. But “matzah that was cooked” – if one cooked it, one made from it, I don’t know, a sort of groats let’s say – “he does not fulfill his obligation with it, because it doesn’t have the taste of bread” – it doesn’t have the taste of bread. That when one takes a matzah, puts it in water, makes it soft and the like, it still has, even if it’s a bit broken, it’s not dissolved, it’s still good. But when one cooks it completely, it loses the taste of bread.
Speaker 2:
Not the form of bread?
Speaker 1:
No, because the form of bread also doesn’t turn out, because a soaked wafer already doesn’t have the form of bread. But dissolved he indeed wanted that it shouldn’t be. Dissolved is completely dissolved, not that it became somewhat swollen with the water, I don’t know what. Cooking takes away the taste of bread. It tastes like, I don’t know, it tastes like groats, I don’t know, it doesn’t taste like any matzah. Then one doesn’t fulfill. That means, that like a kneidel one cannot fulfill matzah, such a thing that is completely made. But then, if one just breaks it as it is, matzah brei, one can perhaps indeed fulfill. It’s indeed possible.
Speaker 2:
Very good.
Halacha 8: Matza That is Forbidden to Him
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says further, he goes here to enumerate things that a person may not eat, whether one can fulfill the mitzva of matza with them. When yes, when not. The Rambam says, “ein adam yotzei yedei chovato ba’achilat matza she’hi asura lo” — one cannot fulfill the obligation of matza with things that are forbidden to him. “kegon she’achla tevel, o ma’aser rishon shelo nitlu terumato, o shegazla” — one is not yotzei. I mean, the Gemara says this simply, because it says, it must be… it’s compared to challa, or perhaps simply the regular mitzva haba’a ba’aveira.
Discussion: Zeh Haklal — Kol She’ein Mevarchin Alav Birkat Hamazon
Speaker 1:
Okay. Yes. Zeh haklal, kol she’ein mevarchin alav birkat hamazon.
Speaker 2:
What? Yes. Also by birkat hamazon we learned such a thing, that the osher gozel.
Speaker 1:
Yes, perhaps gezela. No, the same thing, tevel is a theft from the kohanim, he stole from the… it’s also with the error of stone simply such. No, no, I’m saying it means it’s not yours. It’s a concept that it’s not yours. Okay, the osher gozel is certainly, but okay, there are other inquiries about this.
The Rambam says, zeh haklal — this is the principle, kol she’ein mevarchin alav birkat hamazon — and in the laws of birkat hamazon we also had that the thief who stole from someone, or eats tevel, which is a type of theft, is “botze’a berech ni’etz Hashem,” his blessing is not a blessing. The Rambam says, zeh haklal — this is the principle regarding matza. Kol she’ein mevarchin alav birkat hamazon — those things regarding which there is an obligation of birkat hamazon, yotzim bo yedei chovatan, kol she’ein mevarchin alav birkat hamazon ein yotzin bo yedei chovatan. Very nice, because matza is an eating, so it has the same law as bread regarding birkat hamazon. This isn’t… it’s a different reason, this is a mitzva of matza.
I saw that the reason for forbidden is different, because we learn “lo tochal alav chametz, shivat yamim tochal alav matzot”. That matza is something that doesn’t have the prohibition of chametz, but if it has other prohibitions it also doesn’t work. There are in the Gemara different reasons, and one can go into those who learn more in depth about this.
Halacha 9: Challa, Teruma, Ma’aser Sheni, and Bikkurim
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says more, what happens with challa and teruma? A kohen, who has challa and teruma, is af al pi she’hi matza she’eina re’uya lechol adam — and it seems there were opinions that it must be matza for everyone, and this is only the kohen may have the challa teruma, but for him it’s his bread. Vechen yotzei bematza shel ma’aser sheni biYerushalayim. But outside one may not eat it.
The Rambam says, aval ein yotzei bematza shel bikkurim, afilu biYerushalayim — bikkurim is also the same as ma’aser sheni. As it says there in the verse, “lo tuchal le’echol bish’arecha ma’aser degancha tiroshcha veyitzharecha uvechorot bekarcha vetzonecha, ki im bamakom asher yivchar Hashem” — one must eat it in Jerusalem. But it’s different from ma’aser sheni. Why? He says so, with Rashi bikkurim ein bahem heter bechol hamoshavot — bikkurim has no way at all to eat outside of Jerusalem. Which is not so with ma’aser sheni, there is a way, because efshar yifde veyochal bechol makom. Even if the person didn’t make pidyon ma’aser sheni, he takes the wheat and he goes up to Jerusalem, he may. Why? Because he has a way to be eaten in all the settlements.
In order, what’s the problem with something that can’t be eaten in all the settlements? It says in the verse “bechol moshvoteichem tochlu matzot”. Chazal learn from this, matza hare’uya le’echol bechol hamoshavot hi sheyotzin ba yedei chovatan. Specifically something that can be eaten in all cities, not only in Jerusalem. Therefore, bikkurim, a resident, there’s no way at all, there’s no pidyon bikkurim. Therefore it’s not something that can be eaten in all settlements, one cannot do it. Which is not so with ma’aser sheni. It’s an interesting distinction.
Halacha 10: Challot Toda and Rekikei Nazir — Guarding for the Sake of Matza
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says further, challat toda verekikei nazir. A person baked, a person wants to bring a korban toda or a nazir wants to bring, he must also make matzot. When one brings toda one brings challot and one brings matzot. Challot means matzot. That is, here challot and challot matzot. Challot means loaves, yes. Rekikei hanazir. What is so? She’asan le’atzmo — he made it for himself to bring for a korban. Ein yotzin bahen. Why is it taken? “Ushmarten et hamatzot”. One must guard the matzot. We learn from this, matza hamishtameret le’inyan matza bilvad — something that when one bakes it one has in mind, or the intention of the baking is for matzot, hi sheyotzin ba. But zo, mishtameret le’inyan zeh — when someone asks him, why are you making matzot now? He would say, ah, because I have a korban toda, or because I must bring nazir. It’s not mishameret leshem matza. It’s also a deficiency of lishma in a way. Lishma must be specifically for the mitzva of matza, not for another mitzva.
Halacha 9 (Continued) — He Made It to Sell in the Market
But, the Rambam says, asa limkor bashuk — he’s a baker in Jerusalem and he sells challot toda, rekikei nazir — then he is yotzei yedei chovato.
Why? She’oto limkor bashuk, beda’ato — he thinks — she’im lo yimachru, yuchlu those who make Pesach themselves take. Venimtza bish’at asiyatan — when someone asks him, “For what are you making it now? Why would you guard the rekikin?” — he would say, “Either for challot toda, rekikei nazir, or for something it will remain for me, or for whoever will want to eat matzot.”
Which is not so, when someone thinks only for his own toda, rekikei nazir — usually he doesn’t think of the option that it should be for him, and it’s not matza beshem…
Halacha 10 — Everyone is Obligated in Eating Matza
Who must eat matza? Everyone. Hakol chayavim ba’achilat matza, afilu nashim va’avadim.
And the Gemara learns it because we compare — just as it says “lo tochal alav chametz… shivat yamim tochal alav matzot” — that whoever has upon him the prohibition of chametz, has the mitzva of matza. And slaves — “hushvu isha le’ish lechol onshin shebaTorah” — and since regarding the prohibition of chametz, the prohibition of karet, women and slaves are also obligated, they also have the mitzva of eating matza.
Why isn’t there the “af hen hayu be’oto hanes”? It could be we’re speaking of d’oraita, and the miracle is only derabbanan. Yes, it could be the four cups, one can be later.
Mitzva of Chinuch — A Minor Who Can Eat Bread
The Rambam says further, what happens regarding mitzvat chinuch? The Rambam says, as we already know the principle that mitzvat chinuch is always by the mitzva — whoever is already relevant to the mitzva, should become relevant to mitzvat matza.
The Rambam says, who is relevant? One who can eat bread. “Katan sheyachol le’echol pat” — one who can already eat matzot — “mechanechin oto bematzot”. What does it mean we educate him? “Ma’achilin oto kezayit matza” — and one gives him to eat a kezayit matza.
Very important, not everyone knows — because this is already at the age, like two approximately, one can already eat bread, and often the small children go to sleep earlier, because we make a long seder. One doesn’t fulfill what it says that one should do it quickly. So one must give the small children a piece of matza before they go to sleep.
What I mean it also has to do with — when we think of a kezayit matza, we think of three quarters of a huge matza, and a child cannot. But just a small piece of matza, as large as a kezayit, and one gives to the children.
A Sick Person Who Cannot Eat — Soaking the Wafer in Water
The Rambam says further, choleh she’eino yachol le’echol matza — the Rambam already taught us earlier that one can have matza soaked in water — but shoreh et harakik bemayim — that he puts in a matza and one breaks it when one eats it — but vehu shelo nimoach — not if it becomes completely dissolved. The Rambam said earlier that it’s called isa, and one is not yotzei with it for the mitzva of matza.
It seems it’s bedi’eved — that although they learned, otherwise he wouldn’t have said only a sick person or elderly. Although they learned clearly earlier that one is yotzei, it seems only bedi’eved. It’s better… perhaps on this, vehu shelo nimoach is perhaps his tradition. But it’s also a general rule of things we already learned. It seems to me that from this one sees that a healthy person should not do it, because everything has no taste — a person is weak.
Halacha 11 — One Does Not Conclude After Matza with Anything (Afikoman)
The Rambam says, until now we learned the Torah laws of matza, and now we go to learn a few rabbinic laws.
The Rambam says so: Midivrei sofrim — from the laws of the sages is — she’ein maftirin achar matza kelum — one eats nothing after matza — afilu kelayot ve’egozim vechayotza bahem — one doesn’t eat even things that are usually such dessert things.
Ela af al pi she’achal matza — even if he was already yotzei mitzvat matza — ve’achal ma’achalot acherim ufeirot kayotza mehem, chozer — there’s a mitzva that he should afterward eat another kezayit matza at the end. It means that the end of the meal should be matza, veposek — and afterward he should finish eating.
This which is called “ein maftirin achar hapesach afikoman” — one doesn’t say after the mitzva of matza to eat other things. There’s a prohibition, a measure that we hope not to eat after matza.
Discussion: What Does “Ein Maftirin” Mean?
He explains: this doesn’t mean that only eat matza and not eat anything. Matza eat first. Eat other things, one should eat another piece of matza. It’s indeed eating another piece of matza.
It’s interesting. It means he has no shulchan orech. I know that a poor person eats after matza, eats after after matza.
Right, if it’s interesting, because… okay, one must speak later as you say by the seder, because we learned earlier that from the table a kezayit matza one is yotzei. Here you see that one can indeed eat another piece — hesech hada’at derabbanan.
Ah, was he already yotzei earlier the mitzva of matza?
You understand, it’s not a contradiction.
Okay.
Halacha 12 — It is Forbidden to Eat Matza on Erev Pesach
Another thing that one doesn’t eat matza: Asru chachamim le’echol matza be’erev haPesach. Why? Kedei sheyehe heiker ba’achilato ba’erev — so there should be a distinction.
It’s not about… immediately one saw that the Tosafot is a stringency, but the prohibition is that one must be recognizable that you’re eating for the sake of the mitzva.
Umi she’ochel matza be’erev haPesach — one who eats matza on erev Pesach — makin oto makat mardut. This is truly a rabbinic prohibition.
I mean that this thing has a lot to do with this — we didn’t really discuss it, but the original way as seen in the Rishonim was that one baked matzot on Pesach, or one baked matzot erev Pesach afternoon. One didn’t bake matzot before, because earlier I saw on the law of… it must be guarded for the sake of matza — the simple meaning is that one must eat it the whole time, mi sheyesh bo mishum achilat chametz. It means, one must bake matzot at a time when there’s already a prohibition of chametz.
And Rashi holds that one is not yotzei at all with matzot. I said, therefore it’s also not relevant that now one can no longer eat chametz, and now one bakes matzot — he goes to nibble a bit. One says, no, hold it for tonight, kedei sheyehe heiker la’achilato — that all this baking that one bakes now is not because one may no longer eat chametz, but because one prepares it for the great mitzva. It’s an importance of the mitzva.
Vechen, mi she’ochel matza be’erev haPesach, makin oto makat mardut. And your version doesn’t say “ad shetetzei nafsho,” and the other version is sharper. Perhaps there’s no reason to write this. Okay, the other version. “Ad shetetzei nafsho” — something a normal person. Makat mardut is always the language. “Ad shetetzei nafsho” means one is stubborn with him. If it’s a greater stubbornness, it’s an even greater stubbornness.
Halacha 13 — One Should Not Eat on Erev Pesach Close to Mincha
Besides that there’s a future to eat matza a whole erev Pesach from early morning, even when one may still eat chametz — one may not eat matza. But one may not eat erev Pesach from… nothing! From midday time, from a bit before mincha. Kedei sheyikanes la’achilat matza — one should not eat anything a fixed meal, no big things, no fixed meal.
He says first one should really not eat at all. Why? This is not because it’s a distinction — this is a different topic. He should be hungry — it’s a new thing. And sometimes mincha doesn’t mean mincha gedola, it means later, later afternoon. Kedei sheyikanes la’achilat matza beta’ava — he should have desire, he should be hungry and he should eat matza with desire.
Aval ochel me’at peirot veyerakot — fruits and vegetables one may — aval lo yemale kreiso mehen — from those he also shouldn’t eat too much, so that he should eat with desire.
He doesn’t have anyway what to eat — bread one may not, and matza also not, and perhaps meat? He doesn’t say that one may eat meat.
The Custom of the Early Sages — They Starved Themselves
The Rambam says, chachamim harishonim — so this is the main law, that is what one may not. The Rambam says, there’s a custom, a custom of the pious, a custom of the early sages — that hayu mar’ivim atzman be’erev Pesach — they truly starved, they ate nothing on erev Pesach — kedei sheyochlu hamatza beta’ava, utehei mitzvot chavivot aleihen — so that he should eat matza with desire and he should have a desire for the mitzva.
And on this the Hagahot Maimoniyot brings that it says in Masechet Sofrim that firstborn and other proper Jews fast. Interesting combination — that the fast of erev Pesach is so that one should eat the matza with desire.
Distinction Between Erev Pesach and Other Eves of Holidays
Aval bish’ar arvei yamim tovim — this is the… all holidays there’s a mitzva to eat a meal at night, but it’s not so important, because it’s not such a Torah mitzva of matza. So one is not particular. Ochel veholech ad shetechshach — one may eat. One did learn, it’s not a fixed meal, but one may eat.
There isn’t the concept of being starved. The concept of being starved one wouldn’t do simply for a mitzva of simchat yom tov. Or even the prohibition to eat, this… there isn’t the mitzva of being starved one wouldn’t do for simchat yom tov, only for the mitzva of matza, which is a greater mitzva. On this one made the law that one should truly not eat, one should be hungry.
—
Okay, until here Chapter 6, where we learned the mitzva of eating matza. Wonderful.