Chametz U’Matza #2

פסחים דף לה ו א ד. ואלו דברים שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח. ואין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו באכילת מצה אלא אם כן אכלה מחמשת המינים שנאמר לא תאכלו עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכלו עליו מצות. דבר הבא לידי חימוץ אם אכלו מצה יוצא בו ידי חובתו אבל שאר דברים כגון אורז ודוחן וקונית אין יוצאי בהן ידי מצה לפי שאין בהן חימוץ.

But in this din, this is from the Gemara on daf mem vav. Gemara says it's a hekesh. Whenever you have two mitzvot in the same pasuk, so one of the מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן is that the fact that two mitzvot are put in the same pasuk is to be makish. Now there is a very, very fundamental machloket between the Ba'al HaMaor and the Ramban relating to the Gemara on mem vav in Pesachim about this din of

דבר הבא לידי חימוץ אם אכלו מצה יוצא בו ידי חובתו.

The Ramban says or let's begin with the Ba'al HaMaor. The Ba'al HaMaor says that what this hekesh does is it identifies those types of grain from which matzah can be produced. Those types of grain which if you allow it will be ba lidei chimutz. So when you bake matzah from those types of grain אם אכלו מצה יוצא בו ידי חובתו. Some other plants, other foods that grow from the ground if they don't have the potential to be ba lidei chimutz you can't make them into matzah. So it's a way of identifying how do you know that you baked matzah

אלו דברים שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח מן המשנה מה החיטה השעורה הכוסמין השיבולת שועל והשיפון?

How do you know that those chameshet haminin are the minim from which you can bake matzah? Because those are the minim which potentially are ba lidei chimutz. That's what it means according to the Ba'al HaMaor. Ramban says it means more than that. Ramban says it means that it was also baked in a way that it had the potential to be ba lidei chimutz. Not only that these minim under some circumstances could be ba lidei chimutz, but no, in this actual baking it could have been ba lidei chimutz. Now just to kind of concretize that difference, so to concretize it within the shitat haRamban, so there is a din of lechem oni and the Gemara says on mem vav also among other places that lechem oni is la'afukei matzah ashirah. That you're not yotzei mitzvat matzah by eating matzah ashirah. So most rishonim learn that matzah ashirah means when the dough has anything other than just water. If this dough is more than flour and water, if it's anything besides flour and water, so that makes it into a matzah ashirah, it makes it into a richer dough. The Ramban has an interesting shitta that he thinks that matzah ashirah is only if you add יין שמן חלב ודבש. Only those four make it into matzah ashirah. But apple juice, eggs, egg matzah according to the Ramban is not matzah ashirah. If you would have apple juice matzah according to the Ramban it wouldn't be matzah ashirah. Davka יין שמן חלב ודבש. Those are the examples the Gemara gives, the baraita gives, the rishonim say you know sort of dibra belashon hovah. That was sort of what was customarily done, but it means anything other than mayim hagam derashi was mesupak about egg, whatever. So the Rambam holds that only יין שמן חלב ודבש is matza ashir. So according to the Rambam egg matza is not matza ashir. Fine. Now there's another din that מי פירות אין מחמיצין. Right? That if you, and according to rov rishonim, leaving aside shitas Rashi, the Ramban doesn't agree with Rashi, it means ein machmitzin kol. That if you knead a dough without water, exclusively with mei peiros, again, whatever, apple juice, egg, whatever it is, without water, so then it's eino machmetz. מי פירות אין מחמיצין. That's what it says in the Gemara. מי פירות אין מחמיצין. Now so according to the Rambam you can eat egg matza at the Seder according to the Rambam. Obviously we don't do that, the Rambam is a das yachid in terms of that. But according to the Rambam you could eat egg matza at the Seder for your kazayis. For your kazayis. Now that egg matza that you eat at the Seder for your kazayis, do you have to add water when you knead it? Because otherwise it's not בא לידי חימוץ, and if it's not בא לידי חימוץ, אי אתה יוצא משום מצות מצה. Right? So this would be a case where you'd have a nafka mina between the Ramban and the Baal HaMaor. Right? According to the Baal HaMaor the דבא לידי חימוץ is just a way of identifying the chita, the se'ora, the chamesha minim, it's not talking about the ofan ha'asiya, the ofan halisha, it's just identifying אלו דברים שאדם יוצא בהם ידי חובתו בפסח, so then if you would apply that understanding within the shitas haRamban, so then the egg matza that the Rambam could eat at the Seder could be nilosha exclusively with mei beitzim. It wouldn't have to have mayim in addition. מה שאין כן according to the Ramban, דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אתה יוצא משום מצות מצה means not only that it identifies the chita, the se'ora, etc., but it also means that the way you went about baking the chita into matza, it had the potential to become chametz, but again, but you prevented it. So that would then mean that since mei peiros alone are not machmetz, only if mei peiros are mixed with mayim would there be chametz, so then the Rambam's egg matza for the Seder would have to be nilosha with egg and water. So the Maggid Mishneh actually touches upon this question. He doesn't reference Ramban and the Baal HaMaor. If you take a look in halacha hey in our perek halacha hey. מצה שלשה במי פירות. You see it's a few lines into the halacha. מצה שלשה במי פירות. You have it?

מצה שלשה במי פירות יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח. אבל אין לש אותה ביין או שמן או דבש או חלב משום לחם עוני כמו שביארנו.

Right, so that's shitas haRambam that davka those four, yayin, shemen, chalav, and devash, make matza ashirah, but other mei peiros don't make matza ashirah. So if you take a look in the Maggid Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh says, if you're looking in the Frankel it's the first wide line in the Maggid Mishneh towards the end of the line:

ואמנם ראיתי מי שכתב שאינו יוצא במצה הנילושה במי פירות בלבד אלא עם תערובת מים.

Now he gives a second reason, not the reason we gave in the Ramban, the Ramban gives this reason also:

לפי שאנו צריכין שימור מחמץ וכל שאינו מחמיץ אין יוצאים בו ידי מצה.

Because it's not nitfas in shimur. So the Ramban says there's another, the Ramban says there are two reasons why when you bake matza it has to have the potential to become chametz. Number one because otherwise it's lacking in

דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אתה יוצא בהן משום מצות מצה.

And number two the din is ushmartem es hamatzos, the מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה. That, that you have to do a shimira for mitzvas matza. So says the Ramban and says the Maggid Mishneh: the shimira is only if there is, if if there is. if there's a process underway that could result in chametz and you're you're supervising and you're accelerating to prevent that chametz from happening because once it's baked then it can't then then it can't become chametz. So you're accelerating to prevent it, so then that shmira. But but if you're doing it under such secure conditions, you know, you'd be using only egg, so then even if you hold like the Rambam that that's not a chisaron in matzah ashira, which is what most Rishonim hold, but it would be a chisaron that there's no shmira. Right. So this din, kitzur ma'aseh, this din in which the Rambam quotes in the Gemara in Daf Lamed Hey that he introduces us to here in halacha daled that דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ potentially only devarim which are potentially baim lidei chimutz, only then only those can be made into matzah according to the Ba'al HaMa'or that's just a way of identifying the chitos, se'oros etcetera from which you make matzah. And according to the Ramban it's more than that. It's that but it's also it tells you how it was baked. It was baked in a way that if you would have been more laid back it taki would have become would have become chametz. Again the Rambam doesn't really tell you explicitly what what he thinks. He doesn't tell you explicitly. The Maggid Mishneh assumes that that he's on the same page with the with the Ramban. But the Rambam you it can't it's not really mefurash either way in in the Rambam. Now again the whole nafkamina that we've been talking about until now is is not again it's not really a nafkamina for us because we don't pasken like the Rambam concerning matzah ashira, right? The Rambam is a da'as yachid. So we would never eat at the Seder, we would never eat anything other than other than if it was kneaded with with water where the potential for chimutz was always there. In addition Ashkenazim leaving aside a choleh or or zakein we don't eat matzah ashira for other reasons. Maybe we'll we'll talk about that later bli neder. We wouldn't eat it even not for the kezayis for for reasons that that is a different sugya. We'll talk about that בלי נדר אם ירצה השם later. But lichora all of this does affect the following shaila. There is a shaila let's say you have someone who his system can't tolerate gluten. Can't tolerate gluten. So the chameshes haminim all have gluten. Oats have the least but all the chameshes haminim have gluten. So some depending upon what the degree of sensitivity is so some can tolerate the amount of gluten in oats and and would eat oat matzah. That's why they that's why they make oat matzah for to accommodate to accommodate such individuals. But there is in theory the question is whether this works. In theory there is another way to to navigate that problem which is I think they they can take the gluten out of the chitos. Abracadabra for for some science. And they take the and they take the gluten out of the chitos. But here's the rub. I think this is correct you can if you know you can by all means chime in if not you know check it check up on it. Kimeduma that it's the gluten which is responsible for the chimutz. And that once you take the gluten out of the chameshes haminim they're not machmitz anymore. I think that is the metzius. Again I think so. So assuming that that is correct so then the question is are you yotzei if you make matzah from the chameshes haminim this this is chitos but it's chitos where you removed the gluten. So the pshat is that that at least partially that's totally what we're talking about right now that according to the Ramban both of the Ramban's reasons that the way you bake the chitos into matzah it has to be susceptible to becoming chametz a because that's implied by the hekesh of

דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ. דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אדם יוצא בהם משום מצות מצה

and B because you need to do a shemirah and it's only a shemirah if there's a real if there's a possibility of khimutz that you're guarding against. If there's no possibility of khimutz that you're guarding against then you're not doing a shemirah so then the pshat is again assuming that the metzius is correct that it's the gluten she-bo which is indispensable for it becoming chametz so then according to the Ramban it doesn't work because according to the Ramban you're not yotzei mitzvas matza with that. So it wouldn't be a solution. What happens if the person can't eat? A person can't eat can't eat. So then it's an ones rachmana patrei so it's not a I mean either the person can eat or can't eat but the fact that this isn't the solution doesn't change that if you can't eat you can't eat. According to the Ba'al HaMa'or so then yesh ladon. According to the Ba'al HaMa'or yesh ladon. So according to the Ba'al HaMa'or assumes that the din of the Rambam's din in Halacha Daled from the Gemara in Mem Hei of דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אתה יוצא משום מצה is a way of identifying the khittos. It's not telling you about how it was baked. And the Ba'al HaMa'or also assumes what would the Ba'al HaMa'or do with the din of shemirah? I don't know. The question is whether maybe it's good according to the Ba'al HaMa'or. Is it good according to the Ba'al HaMa'or? But the pshat is that according to the Ramban according to the Maggid Mishnah it definitely doesn't work. As far as that's the the Tosfos Yom Tov thinks is a raya against the Ramban from a Mishnah in Challah. So what do you have to be mafresh challah from? The chamesh minim. How do you know that? It doesn't say in the Torah in Parshas Shelach about the chamesh minim. So how do you know that the chiyuv challah is from chamesh minim? Torah talks about והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ. When you're eating lechem. So how do you know what lechem is? Maybe lechem is cornbread maybe lechem is potato bread. How do you know what lechem is? So the Torah refers to matza as lechem oni. Matza again it's not only lechem but it's even more narrowly it's lechem oni but it's lechem. So matza has a shem lechem. Matza is from the chamesh minim. So lechem lechem והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ so that's how you know there's a chiyuv challah davka by the chamesh minim. The Rash in the beginning of Challah quotes a Yerushalmi from Challah.

נאמר לחם בפסח ונאמר לחם בחלה. מה לחם האמור בפסח דבר שבא לידי חמץ ומצה אף לחם שנאמר בחלה דבר שבא לידי חמץ ומצה.

And that's what the Yerushalmi says. How do you know that the chiyuv challah is from chamesh minim is a yalpuso of lechem lechem. And how do you know that matzah is from chamisha minim? Because it ba l'yedei chimutz. Good, fine. What does ba l'yedei chimutz mean in terms of matzos? That's what we've been discussing, the Ramban on the bottom, right? So says Meshech Chochma, so there's a Mishna in Challa Perek Beis Mishna Beis. עיסה שנילושה במי פירות חייבת בחלה ונאכלת בידיים מסואבות. What does it mean that it's ne'echeles b'yadayim mesu'avos? It means that it's not muchshar lekabel tumah, right? It hasn't had Hechsher lekabel tumah. Why? Because clearly it means it was nilosh b'mei peiros alone, so there's no water and none of the other shiva mashkin which are machshirin l'kabalas tumah. So the Mishna in Challa is talking about mei peiros not with ta'aruvos mayim. It's talking about an עיסה שנילושה במי פירות alone and it's chayaves b'challa. But how do you know what kind of issa is chayav in challa? You know it from lechem lechem from matzah. Oh, so Meshech Chochma thinks that this should be a kasha on the Ramban, that don't you see that the whole din of ba l'yedei chimutz is just identifying the minim of chita and seora? It's not telling you about how it's baked, about how it's being prepared because otherwise meheicha taysi why doesn't that din carry over to challa also? So you have to figure out what the Ramban's teretz is going to be in that kasha from the Meshech Chochma. Let's backtrack for a minute to Halacha Gimmel.

אף מצה בלא כוונה כגון שאנסוהו גויים או לסטים ואכל יצא ידי חובתו.

So you don't require kavana to be yotzei mitzvah matzah. So he's not eating the matzah lesheim mitzvah. He's eating it because for whatever reason the goyim or listim coerce him into eating the matzah.

אכל כזית מצה והוא נכפה בעת שטותו ואחר כך נתארפא חייב לאכול אחר שנתארפא לפי שאותה אכילה הייתה בשעה שהיה פטור מכל המצוות.

So the Rambam says agam that you don't need kavana to be yotzei mitzvah matzah, but that doesn't mean that a shoteh has a kiyum hamitzvah. Let's say a person was a shoteh leil tes-vav and b'eis shtuso he'll eat a kezayis and then within leil tes-vav he'll return to lucidity, so then the Rambam says he has to eat again because שאותה אכילה הייתה בשעה שהיה פטור מכל המצוות. So there's a machlokes tannaim in the beginning of the ninth perek in Maseches Psachim about what the relationship is between Pesach Sheni and Pesach Rishon. And specific, it's a three-way machlokes tannaim, and specifically, if someone wasn't chayav in Pesach Rishon, so is he mischayiv in Pesach Sheni? Or no, Pesach Sheni is a makeup. If you weren't chayav in the first place, it's tashlumin. But if you weren't chayav in the first place, again, so what's the nafka mina? Nafka mina is two cases: ger shenisgayer, if you'll have a ger who was nisgayer after Rosh Chodesh Iyar, or a katon who becomes bar mitzvah Rosh Chodesh Iyar. So both of the above were patur from Pesach Rishon and now are eligible for to be chayav in Pesach Sheni, but the shaylah is, is Pesach Sheni its own mechayev or no? That's a three-way machlokes tannaim in the ninth perek in Maseches Psachim. Now the Rambam paskens that they are mischayiv in Pesach Sheni, that the ger shenisgayer and a katon shehigdil between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni do become chayavim in Pesach Sheni. פרק ה הלכה ז Hilchos Korban Pesach.

גר שנתגייר בין פסח ראשון לפסח שני וכן קטן שהגדיל בין שני פסחים חייב לעשות פסח שני.

But then the Rambam says ואם שחטו עליו בראשון פטור, meaning the katon. ואם שחטו עליו בראשון פטור. But if the katon was nimneh on a korban Pesach Pesach Rishon, so then he's not chayav in Pesach Sheni. So lichora you see here that agam that he wasn't chayav in Pesach Rishon, but since he was part of Pesach Rishon, so he was mekayim the mitzvah. So mai shna, mai shna from our halacha here? And our halacha here is in the, is also a gemara. The gemara that if achal when he was a shoteh, so it's a gemara in Rosh Hashana. So the, so this is, again, the ואם שחטו עליו בראשון I think is the Rambam's own in Hilchos Korban Pesach. But the fact in our halacha here, that if a, that if a person was a shoteh when he ate matzah, so that when and he returns to lucidity that same night that he's chayav, that's a gemara in Rosh Hashana. So the shaylah is what's the difference between the two cases? So I guess you might have thought maybe there's a bein a shoteh and a katon. Maybe a katon is just sort of gezeiras hakasuv there's a lav ba'as, but maybe when a katon does something he has a kiyum mitzvah. Ma she'ein kein a shoteh means he's out of touch with reality, so a shoteh doesn't have any kiyum mitzvah even when he's patur, a katon does. But I see Rav Chaim doesn't give that answer probably because when our halacha, when the Rambam explains why the achila at the time he was a shoteh doesn't register and why he's chayav l'echol achshav, so the Rambam says לפי שאותה אכילה הייתה בשעה שהיה פטור מכל המצוות. He doesn't say anything which is more true of a shoteh than than a katon. But that sentence is equally true of a katon. Just mistama there is the Minchas Chinuch has in Hilchos Ishus, he quotes a machlokes rishonim whether or not gadlus depends upon sha'os or it only depends upon yamim. So let's say the baby's born at 3:00 in the morning. He was born Leil HaSeder at 3:00 AM. So the generally accepted opinion is, so he becomes a gadol, he becomes bar mitzvah at tzeis hakochavim on Leil HaSeder. Ay, but it's still six hours before he was born. No, so gadlus is talui on shanim and yamim, it's not talui on sha'os. There is one view in the Rishonim, which Minchas Chinuch has, that it's talui on sha'os also. So lemayseh, if you would hold like that view, you could clarify the same shaylah that the gemara has about a shoteh, you could have that by a katon also according to that view because according to that view he becomes a gadol 3:00 in the morning on the Leil HaSeder. Mistama from the fact that the Rambam doesn't have... Al kol panim, so the question is, what's the difference between the case of a קטן ששחטו עליו פסח ראשון that by virtue of that he's potur, where even though otherwise he would have been mechuyov in pesach sheni, as opposed to the shoteh who אכל כזית מצה ונשתפה, if it happened within the night, so then he's chayav to eat again? The mashmaus in the Rambam is that it isn't a difference between shoteh and- it's not that shoteh is gora tfei. Since Rav Chaim has in the sefer, he explains as follows, he has it right here, he doesn't just say this, but sort of just distilling the punchline, Rav Chaim has in the sefer as follows. He says that most mitzvos you mekayem the mitzvah, there's a prescribed ma'aseh hamitzvah, you do the ma'aseh hamitzvah, so then you're mekayem the mitzvah. If someone is not mechuyov in the mitzvah, so then it doesn't have a חלות שם מעשה המצוה, so he's not going to be mekayem the mitzvah. Korban Pesach where in addition to the fact that there's a mitzvah, there's also a chalos of, let's say that he's monu on the pesach, which allows him to eat from the pesach. The kiyum hamitzvah is m'meila. Someone who was makriv the Korban Pesach, so m'meila that constitutes a kiyum hamitzvah. But the standard you look at is not whether or not the person was mechuyov in the mitzvah, but whether or not the person was makriv the Korban Pesach. By achilas matza, there's no chalos to achilas matza, other than the fact that there's a mitzvas achila. Mah she'ein kein by korbanos, there's a chalos to being monu on the pesach and shechting a pesach, even independent of the mitzvah. So there the kiyum hamitzvah depends upon whether or not one was makriv, as opposed to matza, which is the norm by almost every other mitzvah, there the kiyum hamitzvah is a function of having done the ma'aseh hamitzvah. So the Rambam says if you were potur at the time, so then it's not a ma'aseh hamitzvah that's going to result in a kiyum. For purposes of hakravas hapesach, the kiyum hamitzvah just depends upon the fact of hakravas hapesach, so hayos that a koton is a bar hakrava, so then m'meila he'll also have the kiyum hamitzvah. He has two mahalachim, but that's one of the two.