Pesachim II

1:
There are two parts to our mishnah. The reisha is concerned with the limitations on the use of ĥametz
on Nisan 14th; the seifa is about the manner of its elimination.

2:
We have already mentioned on a few occasions that in addition to the fact that ĥametz may not be eaten
during Pesach in addition it may not be possessed nor may any benefit be derived from it. We have also
established that these prohibitions come into force during the morning of Nisan 14th. Tanna Kamma says
that during that morning ĥametz may be used for feeding animals (which is deriving a benefit), selling
it to a non-Jew (which is too is beneficial to the vendor) and generally permitted for all usual purposes.
And this permission extends until the time when you may not eat it yourself. from which time all the above
are also prohibited. (We have seen that ĥametz becomes prohibited at the start of the fifth hour of the
day, except for terumah which becomes prohibited at noon.)

Will Friedman writes about something I wrote: Conservative Judaism encourages women to see
themselves as being obligated by all the commandments and to ignore their being excused, as it were.

I can, and do, support women taking on the obligations from which they are halakhically exempt. However,
the suggestion that they 'ignore' their being excused smacks of promoting halakhic ignorance
(chas v&#39shalom), and does nothing long-term halakhically regarding women&#39s chiyyuvim. It seems to me
that there are three options: (1) Continue to leave the halakhic exemptions in place, with no long-term
goal of changing them; (2) Somehow overturn the exemptions in the halakha (perhaps by declaring that the
modern woman falls into the halakhic category of ish), thereby obligating all women to all
mitzvot; (3) Acknowledge and affirm the exemptions but continue to promote women taking on the mitzvot,
in the hopes that sometime in the future a change in their halakhic status vis-a-vis these chiyyuvim will
become possible. (1) seems rather weak-willed. (2) requires an authority and significant number of halakhically
committed women that we probably don&#39t have for it to be taken seriously. (3) seems like the most
logical alternative – difficult short-term, but opening grand possibilities long-term.

I respond:

I used the word 'ignore' to indicate that they are encouraged not to avail themselves of the excuse that
tradition offers them in this regard (thus approximating Will&#39s #3). This means that some women will
prefer to maintain their status as excused certain mitzvot: they don&#39t have to keep them and they elect
not to. Others will prefer to change their status: they don&#39t have to keep certain mitzvot but they
freely choose to observe them. (All this involves is ignoring the views of some earlier rabbinic
authorities who held that women who freely elect to observe certain mitzvot from which they have been
excused are acting with brazen chutzpah.) We have discussed this issue before and at length and I
reviewed the issues involved and suggested a possible approach to the issue.

---

Albert Ringer writes:

In recent commentaries you wrote on the subject of the shmitah year and the problems it created for the
poor. We today, outside Eretz Israel and indeed in Israel, obviously do not rely so much on produce from
the land for our daily support. Am I correct to suppose that the shmitah-year, combined with Pesach is
an extra problem for a farmer who would have to get rid of the cereals he produced as well as of the
seeds he would like to hold on for the next year? As far as I know, the habit of symbolically selling
ones possessions is more modern than the mishna, is that right? What was the halacha at the time?

I respond:

Albert, here, is making an erroneous assumption: that all cereals are ĥametz. After a moment&#39s thought
it will become clear that this obviously cannot be the case. After all, matzah itself is made from flour!
Cereal crops (and the flour made from them) can only become ĥametz after being in contact with water, so
there would not be (and still is not) an obligation on either farmer or consumer to eliminate dry cereals
in their possession. The custom of selling ĥametz (which we shall discuss later on in our study of this
tractate) is more ancient than Albert thinks.

3:
The prohibition against using ĥametz on Nisan 14th only comes into effect after the fourth hour of the
day. Until that time it is permitted for all purposes, just as on any other day. It seems obvious from
our mishnah that when people had a large amount of ĥametz left over they might sell it to a non-Jew. We
shall discuss this phenomenon later on in our study of this tractate; at the moment it suffices that we
note that the sale of ĥametz is not a new development, but an ancient phenomenon. The main point in our
mishnah is the fact that a Jew can sell his ĥametz to a non-Jew even though it is obvious that the non-Jew
will use that ĥametz during Pesach. From the moment of the sale the ĥametz ceases to belong to the Jew
and he or she has no responsibility over it.

2:
When the moment arrives that sees the start of the prohibition of ĥametz it is not only the eating of
ĥametz that becomes prohibited; it becomes forbidden to derive any benefit whatsoever from the ĥametz –
even a very indirect one. Our mishnah points out that even though the best way to eliminate the ĥametz
is through incineration (we shall visit this point again in our study of the seifa) one cannot
use residual ĥametz as fuel for an oven or a range. Even though this involves elimination by incineration,
it also involves deriving a benefit from the ĥametz. Therefore one may not store ĥametz during Pesach
to use as fuel, even though it is destroyed in the process anyway. I should also point out that the term
I have translated 'deriving benefit' also has the connotation of 'making a profit' and 'saving money'.
Burning ĥametz as fuel during Pesach is 'saving money' – because otherwise one would have to find an
alternative fuel. It follows that, for instance, one may not store ĥametz during Pesach in order to feed
it to household pets: that, too, is 'saving money' and thus deriving benefit from ĥametz (which you
should not possess anyway).

Albert Ringer writes concerning my explanation of Chapter 1, mishnah 4:

I just don&#39t understand your explanation. I understand the two loaves are made inedible. Is the idea
that it will bring them in a state in which they don&#39t have to be consumed and can be burned? But what
about the rest of the bread?

I respond:

I shall do my best to clarify. On Nisan 13th a very large number of Thanksgiving loaves were offered.
These loaves were to be eaten by the celebrants and their relatives and friends on that same day. Here
there was no problem. However, a portion of these loaves were the perquisite of the priests, and their
share also had to be eaten on the same day. The moment the next day arrives (at dawn on the morning of
Nisan 14th) those loaves become notar, sacred perquisites that have passed their legitimate
deadline. Because there were so many of them on that day the priests could not consume them all in time
and many loaves were left over and had become notar. The problem now arises that is similar to
the problem of what to do with terumah that is ĥametz: what does one do with sacred produce that may not
be used? These notar loaves were incinerated on Nisan 14th because they were ĥametz. However,
because they were notar two of them were chosen to be used for a different purpose, as a signal
to all the pilgrims crowding the Bet Mikdash. These two loaves were placed high up on the roof of the
stoa. When the people saw a priest remove one of them they knew that the time had arrived when they
could no longer eat ĥametz and must prepare for its incineration. When they saw a priest remove the
second loaf they knew that the time had come to burn their residual ĥametz.

---

Albert has an additional question on the same topic:

I noticed the word for &#39stoa&#39 in our masehet is &#39itstva&#39 (I use Albek&#39s vocalization),
spelled with a tsade. I looked the word up in Jastrow. He gives a long line of different spellings, most
of them with a samech, &#39istva&#39. I remember having read that the tsade was pronounced in various
ways in different parts of the land. Is this what is the case here? In other words, did the writer of
this version of the text pronounce &#39istva&#39 or maybe something like &#39ishtva&#39, no matter the
way it was put down?

I respond:

There were most certainly dialectic differences of pronunciation. There is a famous story in the Bible
which tells of a massacre which was based on this phenomenon [Judges 12]. The interchange of Tzade and
Shin/Sin is also a biblical phenomenon. See, for example, Jeremiah 33:26, where the name of the second
patriarch is spelled with a Sin instead of a Tzade.

5:
The seifa of our mishnah is concerned with the manner of eliminating the ĥametz on Nisan 14th. Rabbi
Yehudah [ben-Ilai] holds that the ĥametz must be burned and that is the only acceptable manner of
elimination. (It follows that the assumption must be that the ĥametz can be incinerated.) The Gemara
[Pesachim 27b] explains that he reasons as follows:

The Torah requires all forms of notar to be incinerated. This requirement appears explicitly in
several places [Exodus 29:34, Leviticus 7:17, 8:32, 19:6]. Now, notar is only prohibited
from eating, but it may be seen and it may be possessed; surely it is but logical that ĥametz, which is
not only forbidden as food but also may not be seen or possessed, should be incinerated?

The other sages respond that his reasoning is faulty: let&#39s assume that someone can find no fuel for
incineration; would that absolve him from the requirement to eliminate his ĥametz? Obviously not.
Rabbi Yehudah makes several more attempts at defending his position, but the sages will have none of it.

6:
The fact is that the elimination of the ĥametz on Nisan 14th is not only physical but also spiritual.
We must completely and utterly and unreservedly relinquish ownership of ĥametz for all the days of Pesach.
This relinquishing can only occur in the mind. This is why we require a declaration to be made to the
effect that any ĥametz that has not been eliminated because the owner is unaware of its existence is of
no greater consequence and importance to him (or her) than the dirt under his (or her) feet.

7:
The sages say that the Torah [Exodus 12:15] requires us to eliminate ĥametz from our homes. To
that end any effective form of elimination is acceptable: it could be crumbled and thrown to the wind or
hurled into the sea. An extra argument against Rabbi Yehudah that the sages could have used would be
what happens when Nisan 14th falls on Shabbat. Almost all the ĥametz has been eliminated the day before,
but some has been left over for the first two Shabbat meals. What does one do with the remnants of that
ĥametz? It cannot be incinerated: that is forbidden on Shabbat. (The modern solution is to crumble it
and wrap up the crumbs and dispose of it down the toilet.)

I wrote: The presence of the loaves of bread meant that pilgrims would not be able to offer their
thanksgivings during Pesach; and Deuteronomy 23:22 would prohibit them from postponing offering their
thanksgiving until after Pesach.

Art Evans writes:

I fail to see why Deut 23:22 implies that restriction. Of course, if a person has vowed to make the
sacrifice of well-being, the cited passage does require prompt execution. But a person who wants to make
the sacrifice but has refrained from vowing could, it seems, wait till after the holiday.

I respond:

We dealt with this when we studied tractate Rosh ha-Shanah. Deuteronomy 23:22 is understood as meaning
that all such promises must be redeemed by the next pilgrim festival. For pilgrims in Jerusalem at this
time the deadline must be Pesach.

---

Rémy Landau writes:

I know that you&#39ve mentioned this before… sorry for re-asking… but when the expression "4th
hour of the day on Nisan 14" is used… does it mean 4 hours after sunrise of the day of Nisan 14?
My confusion stems from the fact that in normal Jewish practice the day is usually considered to begin on
the previous evening somewhat after sunset. The other puzzle in my mind stems from the expression used
'oven or range'. What would have been a 'range' in mishnaic times? I can understand the word 'range' in
its modern sense. What would the object have been or looked like in mishnaic times?

I respond:

The first hour of the day ends when one-twelfth of the total time between sunrise and sunset has elapsed.
It is concerned with daytime and not with 'day' in the sense of a 24 hour day, which begins at the onset
of dark.

Ovens were a clay pot in which fuel (i.e. twigs) was burned. The food was cooked inside the pot.

Ranges were similar pots with fuel being burned inside but the food was placed on top of the pot.
These pots (both oven and range) seem to have been cone-shaped with the cone cut short and flat on top. In the case
of the range the cone was left open at the top. Ranges have been found which were double pots, one next
to the other.

1:
The Torah is most insistent that no ĥametz be possessed by any Jew throughout the whole of the festival
of Pesach. The phrase used by the Torah in this regard is open to more than one interpretation. A
literal translation of the phrase from the Torah quoted in our mishnah would be no ĥametz shall be
seen by you. The fact that a similar phrase occurs in Exodus 12:19 which reads no ĥametz
shall be found in your homes led the sages to the following exegesis: no ĥametz belonging to a
Jew may be seen by [any] Jew throughout Passover; furthermore, no Jew shall possess any ĥametz for the
whole of that period. These two contingencies are referred to as 'bal yera&#39eh' and 'bal yimmatzeh'
– "no seeing and no possessing".

2:
The Torah also requires bi&#39ur ĥametz – the elimination of ĥametz. But this elimination
is not just a physical elimination; it is also a mental elimination. From the time that ĥametz becomes
forbidden before Pesach a Jew must have no regard whatsoever for ĥametz. In the Aramaic formula that is
still used he stipulates that any ĥametz that belongs to him of which he is innocently unaware is of no
greater consequence to him that the dirt on the ground. He has removed from his heart and mind all
concern for ĥametz.

3:
Obviously, such a complete abandon of all ĥametz is possible only in the simplest of economies. The
more complex the economy the more likely it will be that amounts of ĥametz will be left towards Pesach
which it will be very difficult to eliminate, and possibly its elimination would be economically crippling.
Under such circumstances, even if the wealthy were to actually eliminate their surplus ĥametz they would
not be able to truthfully declare that "ĥametz is of no greater consequence to them than the dirt on
the ground", that they have removed from their heart and mind all concern for ĥametz. Throughout
Pesach they will be thinking only of their financial loss.

4:
The rabbis gradually came to give a further polish to their understanding of 'bal yera&#39eh' and
'bal yimmatzeh'. The verse "no ĥametz shall be seen by you" can also be understood as
saying "no ĥametz of yours shall be seen". The Gemara [Pesachim 5b] states:

It says, 'no ĥametz of yours shall be seen' [Exodus 13:7] – &#39yours&#39 you may
not see; but you may see that of others [i.e. non-Jews].

This opens the door to a solution of the problem of the more complex economy. Large quantities of ĥametz
whose elimination would be economically crippling may be sold to a non-Jew for the duration of Pesach.
The sale is not a fictitious sale, but a veritable sale according to Jewish law, and the legal ownership
and responsibility for the ĥametz thus sold is entirely that of the non-Jewish buyer – even if the ĥametz
remains physically on the premises of the vendor ("&#39yours&#39 you may not see; but you may see
that of others"). The fact that there is an understanding that the ĥametz will be bought back after
the festival is of no consequence to the validity of the sale – and may even offer psychological help to
the Jewish vendor who can now truly 'eliminate' this ĥametz from his mind for the duration of the festival.

5:
Obviously, this kind of arrangement is open to abuse – and it is widely abused, mainly because of ignorance.
The kind of ĥametz that should be sold is only that whose elimination would cause severe economic distress.
In a normal modern household this may include large quantities of spirits and liqueurs and so forth, but
little else. During the weeks that lead up to Pesach every effort should be made to arrange the household
economy in such a manner that in the couple of days leading up to Pesach very little ĥametz is left. Of
that which is left some may be sold to a non-Jew – the ĥametz that cannot reasonably be eliminated. The
rest should either be eliminated by incineration on the morning of Nisan 14th or should be given away as
a free gift to needy local non-Jews. It can be done this way and it should be done this way.

6:
The sages placed a 'fine' on ĥametz that is maintained in a Jew&#39s possession during Pesach: such
ĥametz (neither sold nor eliminated) is forbidden in perpetuity. It may not be eaten and no benefit may
be derived from it by any Jew at any time after Pesach. (That is why it is so important for Jewish
shopkeepers to sell their ĥametz, so that Jews may continue to buy from them after Pesach.)

1:
There are two sections to our mishnah. The Reisha concerns the status of ĥametz which
serves as security for a loan, while the Seifa is concerned with the status of ĥametz which
has been covered by debris.

2:
The Reisha of our mishnah is concerned with the status, after Pesach, of ĥametz which was
used as security for a loan. Our mishnah is very elliptic and we can better understand the situation if
we use the parallel halakhah from the Tosefta [Pesachim 2:5]:

The reasoning is quite clear: in the first case the Jew&#39s ĥametz was sold to the non-Jew when he
defaulted on his loan before Pesach; since the ĥametz, by agreement, belongs to the non-Jew during Pesach
there is no reason why the Jew may not reclaim it after Pesach when he repays his loan. However, by the
same logic, if the roles are reversed, there is no way in which the Jew can derive benefit from that
ĥametz, since it was technically his during Pesach and therefore now constitutes ĥametz she-avar
alav ha-Pesach – ĥametz belonging to a Jew which was maintained during Pesach. Such ĥametz, as
we have already noted, is forbidden in perpetuity.

3:
The Seifa of our mishnah is concerned with a different matter (indeed, in the Gemara it is
treated as a separate mishnah). In mishnaic times (and later) many dwellings were very flimsily built –
even those that consisted of more than one floor. So it was a usual occurrence for buildings or floors of
buildings to collapse. When such a thing happens and people are trapped under the rubble it is an obvious
religious requirement to spare no efforts to rescue them – even to the extent of desecrating Shabbat in
order to rescue them. Rambam [Hilkhot Shabbat 2:16] summarizes:

On Shabbat we rescue people who are in danger, and there is no need to receive permission to do so from a
rabbinic authority. The faster one acts the better.

However, if rubble covers ĥametz, according to Tanna Kamma in our mishnah there is no need to search it
out in order to eliminate it: it may be considered as eliminated by the rubble covering it. Rabban
Shim&#39on ben-Gamli&#39el adds a rider. According to him what Tanna Kamma says is only true when the
amount of rubble covering the ĥametz is such that a very determined dog would not be able to reach it.
The discussion on this mishnah in the Gemara [Pesachim 31b] indicates that Rabban Shim&#39on
ben-Gamli&#39el&#39s understanding of Tanna Kamma is the correct one, and that if the ĥametz is covered
by rubble three tefachim deep – about 30 centimetres – it is considered as being eliminated.

4:
Mishnah 4 is concerned with the eating during Pesach of Terumah which is ĥametz by someone who is not a
priest. It raises a curious anomaly. Terumah, we recall, is a certain amount of his produce that a
farmer must give to the Kohen [priest] of his choice; this Terumah may only be eaten by the Kohen and his
domestic entourage (and all have to be in a state of ritual purity to do so). If someone who is not a
Kohen inadvertently eats Terumah produce they must make financial restitution of the amount of the Terumah
itself and they must add on to that a fine of 20% [Leviticus 22:14]. (Actually, rabbinic
interpretation makes the fine 25%.) And this is the case even if the Terumah was ĥametz which was eaten
during Pesach. However, our mishnah points out a curious anomaly. If this person deliberately eats the
ĥametz Terumah during Pesach (and not inadvertently) they need make no restitution whatsoever. This is
because this person is treated as if he were a thief (who has stolen sacred property). Now a thief must
make restitution by repaying the original value plus a fine of 100%. However, ĥametz on Pesach has no
value whatsoever, so the thief cannot make any restoration. The ĥametz does not even have the minimal
value of the Terumah if it were simply burned as fuel. (Of course, our hapless thief is guilty of eating
ĥametz during Pesach, for which the punishment is excision, Karet. When studying Tractate
Sanhedrin we noted that Rambam&#39s explanation of Karet is that with the incidence of
physical death the soul becomes dead as well.

Gabrielle Harris writes:

On the subject of women follow halakhic obligations or 'being excused', I have always understood this,
especially when my children were little, as the very humane 'let-out' for those times when a woman has to
be a mother, foremost, and is not going to be afforded the luxury of kavannah that she can
develop at a different stage of her life. If women had been made to think that they should be fixed on
prayer when their children were screaming or playing around, it would have made the mothers angry toward
their children.

I respond:

One of the philosophic traits of Conservative Judaism is its attempt to 'sugar the pill' when faced with
a religious requirement whose rationale is not appropriate to modern susceptibilities. Now this is
perfectly legitimate – and greatly to be applauded – when it is presented as a new and additional insight.
But the re-interpretation of the rationale for mitzvot is to be condemned when it tacitly claims to replace
the original rationale.

The mishnah [Kiddushin 1:7] excuses women from observing all mitzvot that require them to do
something at a very specific time. (There are exceptions to this rule but they need not concern us here
because they are irrelevant to our present discussion.) The discussion in the Gemara
[Kiddushin 30b] makes the rationale for this very clear. A wife was considered to be completely
subordinate to the dictates and needs of her husband. In order that a woman never be put in the position
of having to choose whether to obey God or her husband God foregoes, as it were, his requirements in
favour of the husband!

Today, this is completely alien to the Weltanschauung of Conservative Judaism. Gabrielle
has brought one attempt to sugar this very bitter PC pill. It seems to me that all it is doing is
substituting 'children' for 'husband'. As I have implied before, the prevalent response of Conservative
halakhic thought to this issue is to point out that 'excusing' someone from a duty does not mean 'prohibiting'
them from performing that duty: Conservative Judaism encourages women to see themselves as being
obligated by all the commandments and to ignore their being excused, as it were.

4:
We have established that only food which contains one or more of the five grains and cereals wheat, barley,
spelt, rye and oats can become ĥametz (through contact with water) and that others from which flour may
be made, such as rice, can never become ĥametz. (In other words, in order for Matzah to be acceptable
for use on Pesach the flour from which it was made must have been capable of becoming ĥametz.) The
Shulchan Arukh [Orach Chayyim 453:1] states this as follows:

It is well known that the author of the Shulchan Arukh, Rabbi Yosef Caro [died in Eretz-Israel in the year
1575 CE], built into his compilation a preference for Sefaradi custom. It was this that made the work
quite unpopular in Europe when it was first published [in 1556]. However, the 'notes' that were added to
the Shulchan Arukh by Rabbi Moshe Isserles [died in Cracow, Poland, in the year 1572 CE] reversed this
trend. In rabbinic circles Isserles is better known by his sobriquet Rema. (The Shulchan
Arukh together with the 'notes' of Rema was first published in Cracow in 1571 CE.) To Caro&#39s text, as
quoted above, Isserles added the following 'note':

5:
It seems reasonably certain that the reason for this Ashkenazi stringency was the fact that since rice
and beans etc were, indeed, ground into flour in those days it was customary to store them together with
the flour made from wheat etc. It was to be feared that in the storerooms the flour made from legumes
might become mixed up with the flour made from wheat etc.

6:
The only serious consequence of such a possible mixup would be that someone would prepare Matzah for
Pesach from the wrong kind of flour. No other consideration would have any practical consequence: if a
little legume flour got into a sack of wheat flour before Pesach the amount would certainly be less than
one sixtieth of the whole, and can safely be ignored. (We shall discuss this in detail separately.)
Furthermore, Isserles himself wrote that "it is obvious that [legumes] cannot be prohibited after the
event, if they fell into a dish [containing acceptable food]".

7:
It follows that even those sections of the Jewish people that have the custom not to eat legumes on Pesach
may certainly store them (together with foods Kasher for Pesach). If they are served legumes they can
certainly eat everything else on the plate and just leave the legumes uneaten. Their custom is not to
eat legumes on Pesach, which does not mean that the legumes are not Kasher for Pesach – as
is readily admitted both by Caro and Isserles.

8:
The real origin of this Ashkenazi custom is lost in the mists of time. In a responsum written for the
Halakhah Committee of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel Rabbi David Golinkin suggests that the custom may
have arisen during the 13th century CE in Provence in southern France. In all probability it arose as
the result of a misunderstanding or ignorance. It is most interesting that halakhic authorities in Provence
during 13th and 14th centuries CE determine that the custom not to eat legumes during Pesach is 'a mistake',
'nonsense', 'supererogation', 'a stringency for which there is no rhyme or reason'. Rabbi Golinkin&#39s
conclusion is that this is a custom which it would be better to ignore; the only reasonably plausible
justification for continuing to observe it would be the fact that it is a time-honoured custom.

9:
Before we move on to the next part of our mishnah perhaps we should briefly clarify a point hinted at in
previous paragraphs. Ĥametz is completely forbidden during Pesach: as we have written many times so far,
it may not be eaten, it may not be possessed and no benefit or profit may be derived from it. However,
there is one way in which small amounts of ĥametz might be permitted during Pesach. We call a situation
in which this might occur "ta&#39arovet ĥametz", a ĥametz mixture. What this
term means is that a very small amount of ĥametz may have become mixed up with a very large amount of
foodstuff that is Kasher [acceptable] for Pesach. In almost all matters of Kashrut the rule is that if
something prohibited gets mixed up with something permitted it does not automatically disqualify the
mixture. If what is prohibited constitutes less than one sixtieth (1.67%) of the whole mixture the
'contaminated' mixture is permitted, since the contaminating material may be considered nullified. Thus,
if there is a fear that something that is kasher for Pesach in itself might have been 'contaminated' by
a minute quantity of ĥametz – and the ĥametz would certainly be less than 1.67% of the whole – then the
mixture is kasher for Pesach by all standards.

10:
But there is here a very important rider. What I have written in the previous paragraph is only true when
the mixture was created before Pesach begins – that is, before mid-morning on Nisan 14th. If this very
same mixture was created – or came into my possession – during Pesach itself it is completely prohibited.
The rule is ĥametz be-Pesach be-khol-shehu – ĥametz during Pesach is prohibited even in
the minutest of amounts. The ĥametz in a 'ĥametz mixture' would only be acceptable if it had been
'nullified' as described in the previous paragraph before Pesach begins.

11:
This, of course, has practical consequences. Strictly speaking, pure coffee – for example – is kasher for
Pesach and really needs no special treatment. However, there could be a consideration that a minute
amount of ĥametz got added to the coffee during production. If this coffee comes into my possession
before Pesach begins it is kasher for Pesach and needs no special authorization. However, that very same
coffee, may not come into my possession during Pesach because even the smallest amount of ĥametz in it
would disqualify it.

12:
We can now restore our attention to the main provisions of our mishnah. The seifa of our
mishnah is concerned with the religious status of the flour from which matzah may be made. It contains
terms that require clarification.

13:
We have mentioned on several occasions during the years that in earlier times the farmer was required to
separate from his produce certain 'taxes' that were to be given over to certain kinds of people or
purposes. The 'taxes' that are relevant to our understanding of this present mishnah are as follows:

Terumah: a small amount of the total produce (around 2%, depending on the farmer&#39s generosity) which
had to be given by the farmer to the kohen [priest] of his choice.

First Tithe: from the remainder he had to separate off 10% and give it to the levite of
his choice. From this tithe the levite, in turn, had to give Terumah to a priest.

Second Tithe: from the remainder another 10% had to be separated. In the third and
sixth years of the shemittah cycle of seven years this tithe was either to be taken and consumed in
Jerusalem or exchanged for its cash value and the money spent in Jerusalem. In the other years of the
cycle (with the exception of the shemittah year itself, of course, when no 'taxes' were paid) the second
tithe had to be donated to the destitute.

14:
Our mishnah mentions Demai. This is a technical term which indicates produce whose
status, as regards the 'taxes' is unclear. When we studied tractate Yadayyim we mentioned that in
Tannaitic times society was divided, as it were, between the Chaver and the Am ha-Aretz.
I wrote:

Produce obtained from a farmer who was an Am ha-Aretz was Demai [unclear] since
the Chaver could not be certain whether Terumah and tithes had been deducted by the farmer
or not.

15:
We, of course, can ask ourselves how it is possible that a Chaver would permit himself to bake his Matzah
for Pesach from flour from which the 'taxes' might not have been deducted. The Gemara
[Pesachim 35b] asks the same question. It comes to the conclusion that the permission granted in
our mishnah that Matzah may be made from Demai is for the destitute (and we know of several great sages
who come into that category). The Gemara quotes a baraita which specifically states that the poor and
tenants (somebody who is housed in someone else&#39s home for payment) may be fed Demai.

16:
Our mishnah also mentions that a levite may bake his Matzah from from produce that he received as a First
Tithe, provided that he had deducted from that produce the Terumah that he was required to deduct. Any
Jew could use produce that had been designated as Second Tithe. We have mentioned above that this tithe,
which became due in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle was to be consumed in Jerusalem.
Most people, however, would avail themselves of the permission given by the Torah [Deuteronomy 14:24-25]
to 'redeem' the produce by taking its monetary value to Jerusalem and spending the money there.(Thus this
tithe was, in fact, an obvious effort to bolster the economy of the city.) If the produce of the second
tithe had been redeemed and the money set aside there was no reason why it could not be used for baking
Matzah.

17:
In moments of great joy (or distress) people were wont to make donations to the Bet Mikdash. These
donations were called 'Hekdesh', which in my translation of our mishnah I have rendered 'dedications',
since from the moment that the donor had decided to make the donation (even before it was handed over in
fact) it was Temple property, or, to use the term preferred by the treasury of the Bet Mikdash, God&#39s
property. If someone had decided to donate some of his wheat or flour he was at liberty to redeem it for
its cash value. After such redemption there was nothing to prevent him using the wheat to bake his Matzah.

18:
Tevel is produce from which the 'taxes' have definitely not been deducted. Obviously, it
cannot be used for any purpose until 'put right'.

19:
The Torah [Leviticus 7:12] requires the Thanksgiving Offering to be presented together with three
kinds of Matzah:

When the Nazir reached the end of the term of his vow (to abstain from drinking wine and cutting his hair)
he was to make an atonement offering. The Torah [Numbers 6:12] says that this offering must be
accompanied by a basket of unleavened cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in, and unleavened wafers
spread with oil.

Our mishnah states that it one prepared such matzot for sale on the open market (to make it easier for
those making these offerings to buy them ready made) they could, instead, be used by the baker for Pesach
since they would only become sanctified for their sacrificial purpose the moment the ones offering them
bought them. However, if he made these matzot – the thanksgiving or the nazirite matzot – for his own
use they are already sanctified to that purpose and may not be used for Pesach.

1:
The Torah [Exodus 12:8-9] stipulates the conditions under which the passover lamb must be eaten at
the Seder service:

The previous mishnah dealt with the unleavened bread that must accompany the passover lamb; our present
mishnah is concerned with the 'bitter herbs' that must also accompany the lamb.

2:
Our mishnah lists five vegetables that are acceptable for the purpose and are held to answer to the
definition Merorim, 'bitter herbs'. However, the translation 'bitter herbs' is misleading
since the sages obviously understood the biblical term as defining certain vegetables in general.
Indeed, in the list given in our mishnah one of them – the last – has the specific Hebrew name Maror.

3:
The translations I have given for these five vegetables are not all as certain as they sound. The first
bears the Hebrew name Chazeret, which in Israeli Hebrew is now the term used to indicate
horseradish, the last item on the list. However, almost all the classical sources are agreed that in our
mishnah the name Chazeret refers to lettuce. To make absolutely certain Rashi translates
the word into French, Rabbi Ovadyah mi-Bertinoro translates it into Italian and Rambam translates it into
both Arabic and Hebrew (Chassah) – and they all mean 'lettuce'.

4:
The second item is in Hebrew Olshin, which is translated as endive by both Blackman and
Albeck (who also renders it in English to make certain). Rambam chickens out in his commentary on our
mishnah and says that the term is 'well known'. Rabbi Ovadyah mi-Bertinoro translates it as endive.

5:
The third item is Tamchah. This is translated as chervil by Blackman, and this is the
translation also given by Jastrow in his Talmudic dictionary. Albeck becomes botanical and renders (in
Latin) Picridium (which the Agricola database says is a root vegetable).

6:
The fourth item is Charchavinah. Blackman translates this term as snakeroot but also gives
the alternative sea-holly. A quick check on the Internet reveals that White Snakeroot is 'poisonous and
lethal', so it can&#39t be that! A similar check on Sea-Holly reveals that this is an edible plant which
belongs to the genus Eringium. Now this is the Latin translation also given by Albeck.
(It appears that the Latin is from the Greek: "The name of this genus has reference to its supposed
efficacy in flatulent disorders, coming from the Greek word eruggarein (to eructate). Dioscorides
recommended the roots for this purpose." The things one learns on the Internet!) Jastrow, however,
derives the name from the Aramaic word to sting and defines it as 'a hair-like creeper on palm trees …
palm-ivy, garden-ivy and wall-ivy'. Interestingly enough, Rambam also notes that this is a plant 'that
grows around palm trees'.

7:
The last item is Maror. Blackman, of course, translates horseradish and even adds a note
that 'this is the one most used'. However, Rambam and Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro say that Maror is 'a
kind of Kusbarta'. Jastrow translates this term as coriander. If this is correct then our mishnah is
obviously referring to the leaf of the coriander and not the much more widely used seed. A quick check
on the Internet reveals that 'the green herb is used very widely in several cuisines. The leaf is
available in markets from Beirut to Beijing, as well as Japan and both Mexico and South America. The herb
is a key component to curries, and when ground with green chilies, coconut, salt and a squeeze of lemon,
it makes a delicious common Indian chutney.'

8:
The uncertainty of the identity of some of these plants, coupled with the fact that the eating of
Merorim is a command of the Torah, led the medieval poskim [decisors] to take
no chances. The Tur, for instance [Tur Orach Chayyim 473], states that 'the best way to fulfill
the mitzvah is with lettuce; if lettuce is not available choose from the others in the list, their order
also being the order of preference'. It is this rather puzzling how the last item on the list became so
prevalent.

1:
The last two mishnayot of this chapter are concerned with habitual, everyday actions, actions that in
earlier times one would do almost without thinking, that are prohibited on Pesach for fear of creating
ĥametz.

2:
It seems that bran soaked in water was used for chicken feed. (The Hebrew word Mursan
indicates the coarse outer husk of the wheat.) Obviously, if the bran is left to soak in water it will
become ĥametz. Perhaps it is not out of place to note here, parenthetically as it were, that today as
well we may not feed ĥametz to our household pets. To do so would contravene two severe prohibitions:
that of possessing ĥametz and that of deriving a benefit [profit] from it. Mishnah seven notes that the
bran can be prevented from becoming ĥametz by scalding it with boiling water – either pouring boiling
water over it or putting into a pot of boiling water – because the intense heat will cook it almost
instantaneously, and after cooking the grains and cereals cannot become ĥametz.

3:
It seems that bran was also used by women in their ablutions. It seems that the bran was used as a
scrubbing agent. Mishnah seven warns women not to take the bran (the same bran as is prepared for
chicken feed!) to the public baths – most people did not have private baths. The reason is clear: the
bran will come into contact with the water in which the woman is washing herself and after a short while
will become ĥametz. Here again our mishnah suggests a way round the problem: the woman can scrub herself
with dry bran – even though her body is wet or she is perspiring from the heat. I am curious: did men not
use bran to scrub themselves?

4:
The last item in mishnah seven warns against chewing wheat and then laying it on a wound. I do not know
whether this action was taken as a kind of band-aid or bandage to cover the wound or as a kind of remedy.
At any rate, the chewing is prohibited because the spittle in the mouth will turn the wheat ĥametz –
which suggests that this prophylactic involved a lot of chewing!

5:
Mishnah eight warns not to put flour into charoset or mustard. Charoset was regularly used,
throughout the year, as a kind of sweet dip for vegetables. It was made from fruit steeped in wine. It
seems that a little flour was added to the mixture, probably to make it bind a little. People were so
used to making this condiment every day that they had to be especially warned that the flour should be
omitted from the recipe on Pesach. Mustard was also used as a dip for vegetables. However, unlike
charoset, it seems that the mustard had a very short 'shelf life', so our mishnah adds a rider: if the
mustard is to be eaten immediately it may have flour added. Rabbi Me&#39ir does not accept this laxity.

6:
The next item in mishnah eight is concerned with the preparation of the Passover lamb. It seems that
throughout the year the usual way to prepare lamb was by stewing it in liquids, mostly fruit juices. The
lamb that was eaten at the Seder service, however, had to be roasted only. As we have already seen, this
is by command of the Torah [Exodus 12:9]:

Here again, however, our mishnah suggests a way out: the fruit juice can be used to braise the lamb while
it is roasting over an open fire, or the meat can be dipped into the liquids at the table.

7:
Bakers always had a large barrel of water into which, ever now and then, when necessary, they could dip
their flour-covered hands to clean them. The last item in mishnah eight warns that before Pesach this
barrel must be emptied, because the flour having been in the water – probably for days at a time – was
ĥametz.

This concludes our study of chapter 2.