Chametz U’Matza #3

Yeah I think what we were holding Halacha Gimmel. The Rambam writes that

המאכל מצה בלא כוונה כגון שאנסוהו גויים או לסטים לאכול יצא ידי חובתו.

So the Kesef Mishneh writes be-hilchos Shofar perek beis

כתבתי מה טעם פסק רבינו כאן שיצא בלא כוונה אף על גב דבעלמא סבירא ליה מצוות צריכות כוונה.

Perek beis of Shofar halacha daled

המתעסק בתקיעת שופר להתלמד לא יצא ידי חובתו וכן השומע מן המתעסק לא יצא נתכוון שומע לצאת ידי חובתו ולא נתכוון התוקע להוציא או שנתכוון התוקע להוציא ולא נתכוון השומע לצאת לא יצא ידי חובתו עד שיתכוון שומע ומשמיע.

So to be yotzei mitzvas Shofar it has to be that both the ba'al tokeia as well as the one listening to the kolos has kavana עד שיתכוון שומע ומשמיע. Ve-seima divrei Rabbeinu says the Kesef Mishneh here in hilchos Shofar

שפסק פרק ו מהלכות חמץ ומצה שאם אכל מצה בלא כוונה כגון שאנסוהו גויים יצא. והר"ן ז"ל כתב וזה לשונו

meaning the Ran already asks this kasha u-pliga didei a-didei excuse me he answers ולא פליגא דידיה אדידיה that there's no tarti de-sasri between these two piskei halacha here and in Rosh Hashanah

דסבירא ליה דתקיעת שופר כיון דחזינן דרבי זירא אמר לשמעיה כוון ותקע לי נקיטנא דצריך כוונה.

Right the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah tells the story that Rabbi Zeira said to his attendant al mocheh tehei what I want you to blow Shofar and and you have kavana and blow for me kaven u-tki li. So from that ma'aseh Ran the Rambam says that we pasken mitzvos tzrichos kavana by Shofar

אבל בכפאוהו ואכל מצה כיון דלא חזינן בגמרא מאן דפליג עליה בהדיא לא דחינן לה

so but on the other hand you have a stama de-gemara also in Rosh Hashanah that kfauhu parsi'im to eat matzah yatza

דאף על גב דבתקיעת שופר לא יצא הכא יצא שכן נהנה.

So the Ran suggests and this is the Kesef Mishneh just sort of quoting and endorsing the Ran's teirutz that mitzvas achilah shani that the Rambam's general psak is mitzvos tzrichos kavana and mitzvas achilah shani that by a mitzvas achilah one is yotzei even belo kavana why because it's analogous to כדאמרינן בעלמא המתעסק בחלבים ובעריות חייב שכן נהנה. Generally if you have something which is a chiyuv kares be-meizid and it's a chiyuv chatas be-shogeg but the person violates it not as a shogeg but as a misasek so then he's pattur a misasek is generally pattur bi-chalovim va-arayos the Gemara says. How do you have misasek be-chalavim? So let's say a person is aware that there's I guess a liquid in his mouth and he thinks it's an accumulation of saliva and in reality it's liquefied chelev. So he swallows thinking that he's swallowing saliva, he's swallowing saliva which isn't even in this context, isn't even a mashkeh. So he's totally misasek. He doesn't even know that he's engaging in an act, he doesn't even know that he's engaging in an act of achila because as far as he understands he's swallowing something which isn't even a mashkeh because saliva is not even a mashkeh. And in reality it's liquefied chelev. So that's a case of misasek. By standards of kol ha-Torah kullah we would have said that a misasek is not even chayav a-chatas. misasek mikol ha-Torah kullah is less than a shogeg and even where a shogeg is chayav a-korban, a misasek is nothing. But בחלבים ועריות שכן נהנה because the person has the hana'ah from the chelev so then he is chayav. So the Ran suggests that the same way the sevara of she-ken nehena in context of aveira makes something into a ma'aseh aveira and therefore is mechayev a-korban, so it also has an impact in terms of mitzvah. That's what this Ran says. And therefore again the shita of the Rambam l'maysa in Shulchan Aruch, the Mechaber in Orach Chaim quotes mitzvos tzrichos kavana is a machlokes amora'im in a few places in the Gemara but the Gemara never explicitly paskens, doesn't pasken first how we pasken. So in Shulchan Aruch the Mechaber quotes both dei'os and says we hold mitzvos tzrichos kavana. That's what the Mechaber says in Shulchan Aruch. Magen Avraham says maybe that's only d'oraisa, not d'rabanan. But in Shulchan Aruch it says we pasken mitzvos tzrichos kavana. What's the pshak of the Rambam? So the Ran quoted by and accepted by the Kesef Mishneh says that the Rambam thinks that in general yes he agrees that we pasken mitzvos tzrichos kavana but the Rambam thinks that mitzvahs achila shani. Why mitzvahs achila shani? Because he models it, he models it on the din of מתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה. So Rav Chaim had two, Rabi Yitzchak Zev or Rav Chaim, two sort of two reactions to the Ran. First of all he said pshat in the Ran. So what you see from the Ran is as follows. Rav Chaim had other reayos to this yesod but this is one of them. What you see from the Ran is as follows. The pshitus is when you learn this question of mitzvos tzrichos kavana. So what's the question of mitzvos tzrichos kavana? Mitzvos tzrichos kavana is ich veis the Torah said eat matzah, fine. So in order to be yotzei the mitzvah, okay I ate matzah so I'm yotzei the mitzvah or not? The ma'aseh ha-mitzvah of achilas matzah has to be accompanied by a kavana latzeis in order to be yotzei. That's how we learn pshat in the machlokes mitzvos tzrichos kavana מצוות אין צריכות כוונה. מצוות אין צריכות כוונה says the Torah said tochlu matzos, I ate my matzah. And the other man d'amar says no to be yotzei a mitzvah you have to, yes you obviously have to eat the matzah, you have to be mechaven l'shem mitzvah in order to be yotzei, you have to be mechaven that you're doing it l'shem mitzvah. Okay so that lichora is the before Rav Chaim that was pshat in mitzvos tzrichos kavana מצוות אין צריכות כוונה. So says Rav Chaim but then this Ran is... is is incomprehensible what what this Ran says. So by chalitzah and arayos in terms of chiyuv so we say that the fact that sheken nehene it means chayav chatas. How does sheken nehene provide kavana? If if you hold mitzvos tzrichos kavana which means that it's not enough to do the mitzvah but you have to be mechaven leshem mitzvah. So how in the world does the fact that that it's a mitzvas achila which means that it's a sheken nehene how does that substitute for for kavana latzeis? It it doesn't make any sense. So says Reb Chaim al korchacha he says like again he had other rayos for the Ran also. Al korchacha he says like this. Everyone agrees that to fulfill the mitzvah you have to do it with a maaseh. Torah said u'lekachtem you have to do u'lekachtem. Torah said listen to shofar you have to listen to shofar. The way you yotzei the mitzvah is you do the maaseh. The man d'amar who holds mitzvos tzrichos kavana says that if you're not mechaven so then vis-a-vis a maaseh hamitzvah you are mizasek. Dehainu like this. Let's say the man d'amar מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה said you picked up a lulav and an esrog hadasim and aravos you did the mitzvah. The the man d'amar who says mitzvos tzrichos kavana says no you didn't because if you're not being mechaven latzeis so when you pick up the lulav so you're getting ready to play stickball and this is going to be this is going to be your bat. And when you pick up the esrog so it's not an esrog it's a it's a this is going to be the ball. Not sure exactly what you're doing with hadasim and aravos but we'll figure it out. We'll figure out what you're going to do with the hadasim and aravos. Keep score with the with the hadasim and aravos. It's not the pshat it's not the pshat that mitzvos tzrichos kavana holds that without kavana that it's a din in being yotzei it's a din in the kiyum hamitzvah it's a din in creating the chalo shem maaseh hamitzvah. That says Reb Chaim according to that then the Ran says the same way sheken nehene creates a chalo shem maaseh aveira so it also creates a chalo shem maaseh mitzvah. Why is it that a mizasek outside of chalitzah and arayos is not chayav? Why is it that a mizasek outside chalitzah and arayos is not chayav? Because it's not your maaseh. It's not your maaseh. You you don't even know what you're engaged in doing. You think you're doing one thing not that you think it's mutar you think you're doing something which taki would be mutar. You think you're doing one thing and then it turns out you did you did something else that's like sleepwalking. It's not it's not your maaseh that's what the din of mizasek is. And yet sheken nehene says no the fact that sheken nehene you can't disassociate the person from the maaseh. It is his maaseh. That's that's what sheken nehene the effect that that sheken nehene has. So sheken nehene takes something which isn't a maaseh and makes it into a maaseh. You can't disassociate someone from from something where he had hana'ah. You can't what do you mean it wasn't his maaseh? He now has 200 calories in his stomach that he didn't have before and he feels full from from having swallowed the liquefied chelev which he did before. So what do you mean it's not the so if sheken nehene makes something into a maaseh okay so that's what's missing for man d'amar mitzvos tzrichos kavana. That was that was comment number one that Reb Chaim had on the Ran. Comment number two was he still didn't like it. That he still thought no sheken nehene takes something which isn't a maaseh aveira and makes it into a maaseh aveira but that doesn't mean that it can take something which isn't a maaseh mitzvah and make it and make it into a maaseh mitzvah. So Reb Chaim said he thought the pshat in the Rambam was was delo k'haRan. That the pshat in the Rambam is that the Rambam really holds like he says in our halacha that מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה. And what the Rambam says in hilchos chametz u'matzah is not the exception but is the rule. The Rambam paskens מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה. Again it's a meforesh a machlokes in the gedolei harishonim how we pasken. Ramban says we pasken mitzvos tzrichos kavana Rashba says we pasken that מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה. So leaving the Rambam aside it is a machlokes in the gedolei harishonim how how to pasken. So Reb Chaim says he thinks that the Rambam paskens מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה. And what the Rambam says in hilchos chametz u'matzah in our halacha that's the norm that's standard. אוכל מצה בלא כוונה yatza why not because sheken nehene and מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה. Ay what is the Rambam talking about in hilchos shofar when he says עד שיתכוון שומע ומשמיע? Reb Chaim said the Rambam agrees with there is a the Baal HaMaor quotes such an opinion. The Baal HaMaor himself doesn't like this. But the Baal Hamayor quotes an opinion that says that even if you hold מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה, by Shofar you need kavana for shomea k'oneh. That it's not enough to hear the kol shofar on Rosh Hashanah, but the maaseh tekiyah has to be misyachess to you also. And the maaseh tekiyah, again, since it's, since it's creating sound, is governed by the din of shomea k'oneh. The same way, the same way dibbur is governed by the din of shomea k'oneh, so too, the producing the kol shofar, the tekiyah, is also governed by the din of shomea k'oneh. So the din of shomea k'oneh requires sheyikavein shomea umashmia. So when the Rambam in Hilchos Shofar says עד שיכוון שומע ומשמיע, it's because the Rambam is talking about a case where you're not blowing shofar for yourself. You're talking about a case where you want to be yotzei, you're coming to shul, you want to be yotzei with the tekiyos of the Baal Tokeia, to be yotzei with the tekiyos of the Baal Tokeia, so you need the shomea k'oneh has to be operative. For shomea k'oneh to be operative, it's got nothing to do with kavana latzet. It's got nothing to do with mitzvos tzrichos kavana. There's one din of mitzvos tzrichos kavana or מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה. Then there's another din of shomea k'oneh. Shomea k'oneh, when you want a dibbur, or in this case a tekiyah, that someone else is articulating, emitting, you want that to be misyachess to you, so within the din of shomea k'oneh, there's a requirement of sheyikavein shomea umashmia. And that's what the Rambam requires here in Hilchos Shofar. Then the question would be if you take a look in Hilchos Krias Shema, perek beis, halacha aleph. Beis-aleph in Krias Shema. Why does the mashmia have to have kavana according to the shita of the Baal Hamayor? Because the way shomea k'oneh works is, what Reuven says is only misyachess to Shimon if that's the dinei shomea k'oneh. That Reuven has to intend to, the same way, you want to listen to someone's Kiddush, you say, "I have in mind to be motzi you," right? That's what you need, that's sheyikavein shomea umashmia. That's not something which is sort of me'eila. Me'eila, if Reuven is saying Krias Shema, he's not, he's not looking to connect with another neshamah. That's the dinei shomea k'oneh. So in perek beis of Krias Shema, halacha aleph, the Rambam says:

הקורא את שמע ולא כיוון לבו בפסוק ראשון שהוא שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד לא יצא ידי חובתו. והשאר אם לא כיוון יצא.

Because it's a braisa and a Gemara at the beginning of the second perek in Masechet Berachos. So here too the Rambam has a din of kavana le'ikuva. The emes is, even if we weren't trying to figure out the sort of how to integrate with other Rambams in Shofar and Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah, the question would be, and it's really a question ultimately in the braisa and the Gemara, just minei u'vei, how do you get this distinction between pasuk rishon and the rest of Krias Shema? So lu yehei that you would hold that only pasuk rishon was d'Oraisa and the rest of Krias Shema was d'Rabbanan, so that would be a possible mahalich. But the Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Krias Shema certainly doesn't subscribe to that. The Rambam thinks all three parshiyos are min haTorah. So despite the fact that all three parshiyos of Krias Shema according to the Rambam are min haTorah, so אף על פי כן the braisa and the Gemara have this, draw this distinction between pasuk rishon and the rest. So according to Rav Chaim, it's actually, again, so according to Rav Chaim. The norm in Rambam is what he says in Chametz U’Matzah: אלו ההלכות מצוות עשה אחת. So then it's easier. Then you say what the Rashba says in the Chiddushim in Berachos daf yud gimmel that the kavanah here is not kavanah latzeis midin mitzvos tzrichos kavanah but it's the kavanah of קבלת עול מלכות שמים which is an added kavanah that's required by pasuk rishon. So then that's very good. So aderaba here too you see reflected the shitat ha-Rambam that מצוות אינן צריכות כוונה which is what he tells us in Hilchos Chametz U’Matzah. The only thing is Krias Shema as the Rashba famously explains has an independent requirement of kavanah that the mitzvah of Krias Shema is not simply to read the pasuk the parshiyos but it's to affirm it. So you have to have a kavanah of קבלת עול מלכות שמים that you're not just saying the six words of Shema Yisrael but you're saying them affirmatively you're affirming them that there's a kavanah that you're thereby being מקבל עול מלכות שמים. So then it's very good. So that din was only required by pasuk rishon. The only possible din of kavanah you would have for the rest of Krias Shema would be a din of kavanah latzeis. No there is no requirement of kavanah latzeis אם לא כיון לבו יצא because the way the Rambam paskens in Chametz U’Matzah. He just when the Rambam is giving a tziyur of אכילת מצה בלא כוונה he gives the example of onsuhu. So why does the Rambam need that? Why not just say he's hungry? You know he searches high and low and all the bagels are googled I think I say I thought before Pesach someone got rid of them apparently so there's nothing else to eat in the house but matzah. He's hungry so he stam he and he has some matzah. Well why do you need this sort of you know obscure case of onsuhu goyim or listim? No he's just there's no kavanah. He's hungry so he ate it. So mashma the impression you have in the Rambam is that no that sort of doesn't that isn't the test case for mitzvos tzrichos kavanah or einan tzrichos kavanah. Sounds like that that would have qualified that you would have been yotzei in that case even if mitzvos tzrichos kavanah right? That's why the Rambam you know needs this more exotic nafka mina of onsuhu goyim or listim. So I don't know we'll say it quickly today and then maybe revisit it b'ezrat Hashem. Even though as the phrase מצות סוכה אינה צריכה כוונה indicates it's you know it's a question which affects kol hatorah kula. But the Gemara only has a handful of cases where it comes up. Gemara talks in about tekiah shofar if he's tokeia lashir. So if he's blowing the shofar as a musical instrument and instead of playing Beethoven's 5th he plays Rabbi Abbuha's first. He ends up producing the kolos of תקיעה שברים תרועה תקיעה. It has by achilas matzah the kfa'u parsi or the Gemara quotes the kfa'u goyim. I don't know it doesn't have let's say you walk into shul in the morning and sort of on automatic pilot you put on your tefillin. You don't say the you know the tefillah in the siddur beforehand you didn't even mechaven by hanachas tefillin. You just on automatic pilot you get up in the morning you get dressed you brush your teeth you wash negel vasser you put on tefillin everything's on automatic pilot. So the Gemara doesn't get into those kinds of cases. So the Gemara says let's say you get home Friday night to make kiddush you're hungry you don't stop and take a minute to think זכור את יום השבת לקדשו you know zochrehu al hayayin you just make kiddush. So says the Chayei Adam obviously that's not optimal no one's no one's lauding that as the most optimal way of being mkayem mitzvah but lamayseh lamayseh why are you making kiddush? Why why are you making kiddush? Why are you putting on tefillin? Obviously albeit you know somewhat understated obviously there is a there is a kavanas mitzvah. It's only where you have some kind of contrary kavana that that you really have the case where there's no kavana. Where you can have a metzius of tokeia lashir so then you taka have a case where there's no just coming into shul and not stopping to think that יום תרועה יהיה לכם just you know coming to the to the Shabbos table and not stopping to think זכור את יום השבת לקדשו that's not a chisaron kavana. Again it's it's not ideal it's not wonderful but it's not a shayla whether or not you yotzei למאן דאמר מצות צריכות כוונה. Same thing with tefillin. So ein hachi nami should we do it mitzvos anashim melumada? No of course not. Are you yotzei? Of course you're yotzei even למאן דאמר מצות צריכות כוונה. Why else are you putting on the why else are you putting on the the tefillin? So I don't know so even with that you know sort of that scenario of being hungry I don't know is it really possible that he's eating the d'achilas matzah and what happened to all the I don't know what happened to all the kosher l'Pesach there must be kosher l'Pesach chocolate mousse you know? So where do you have a case where he's eating matzah and there isn't the stama demilsa that he's mechaven? No so the answer is no you can have it if you have this exotic case of אנסוהו גוים כפאו פרסי so then you taka have that he's honed in exclusively on that and that there isn't you know even this subliminal or understated kavana lasos. But if it would stam be you know that he's not thinking but he is hungry I don't know does that really you know eclipse the again that understated din kavana that we assume the Chayei Adam says that we assume that you have and that's why it's only by these mitzvos which somehow or other can lend themselves to a you know some other non-mitzvah active kavana it can be kfa'u parsi it can be tokeia lashir you know maybe by krias shema you could have that he's koreh lehagia that he's really proofreading the parsha in the sefer Torah to make sure that it was written properly vechulu.