|
אֵלּוּ עוֹבְרִין בַּפֶּסַח, כֻּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי, וְשֵׁכָר הַמָּדִי, וְחֹמֶץ הָאֲדוֹמִי,
וְזִיתוֹם הַמִּצְרִי, וְזוֹמָן שֶׁל צַבָּעִים, וַעֲמִילָן שֶׁל טַבָּחִים, וְקוֹלָן שֶׁל סוֹפְרִים.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִמִּין דָּגָן, הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בַפֶּסַח.
הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְאַזְהָרָה, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם כָּרֵת:
The following constitute a sin on Passover: Babylonian Kutaĥ, Median beer, Edomite vinegar, Egyptian
Zitom, dyers' Zoman, cooks' starch and scriveners' Kolan. Rabbi Eli'ezer includes women's cosmetics.
This is the rule: anything which derives from one of the species of grain constitutes a sin on Passover.
The above constitute [the transgression of] a negative commandment, but
they do not involve excision.
1:
Our present mishnah is concerned with the status of certain preparations which one would not usually
consider to be ĥametz – but they are! They all have ingredients which are definitely ĥametz. Despite
the fact that they are all ta'arovet ĥametz – a mixture of ĥametz – the ĥametz is in
proportions that would make the whole forbidden for use on Pesaĥ (i.e. more than one part in sixty).
Obviously, some of the terms used were common everyday terms in their time, whereas we need to have them
explained.
2:
The very first phrase of our mishnah is problematic. The Hebrew phrase is curious, and my translation is
more of an interpretation than a simple translation. The problem is that the Hebrew word has several
connotations. Furthermore, the grammatical structure of the phrase is idiosyncratic. A literal
translation of the phrase would be something like 'these pass on Pesaĥ'. One interpretation that has
been suggested is that 'these [items in the following list] are passed away [i.e. removed] for Pesaĥ'.
Another interpretation (that of Rabbi Menaĥem ha-Me'iri [Provence, 13th century CE] in his commentary on
the Gemara, Bet ha-Beĥirah) is that the items are passed [i.e. removed] from the table on Pesaĥ. Yet a
third interpretation of this enigmatic phrase (that of Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro) associates the Hebrew
verb, by metathesis, with the verb to burn: these are burned for Pesaĥ – like the rest of the ĥ;ametz.
3:
However, none of these interpretations agrees with the understanding of the Gemara [Pesaĥim 42a] –
an understanding which I have tried to emulate in my translation of our mishnah. This understanding
associates the Hebrew verb with the noun, Averah, a sin. Rambam, in his commentary on our
mishnah, states quite succinctly:
The meaning [of the Hebrew phrase] is that with these
[items in the list that follows] one contravenes the
prohibition that ĥametz is not to be seen or possessed during Pesaĥ.
This is also the interpretation of Rashi.
4:
We must now investigate the nature of the items mentioned in our mishnah.
Kutaĥ was a very pungent condiment that was much used in Babylon to spice foods.
Obviously, it contained a considerable amount of flour.
Median beer may not have been beer. From the description given by Rambam in his
commentary on our mishnah it seems that it was an alcoholic beverage made by steeping grains in water.
(It sounds a little like our modern whiskey.)
Edomite vinegar too may have been an alcoholic drink which was made from sour wine mixed
with grains in some way or other.
Egyptian Zitom (the word comes from the Latin Zithum) was another alcoholic
drink made from barley.
Zoman (from the Greek Xomion) was a concoction used by dyers: it contained
bran.
Kolan (from the Greek Kolla) was a kind of glue made from flour that was
used by scribes to join leaves together.
5:
Rabbi Eli'ezer would add to the list women's cosmetics. These seem to be some kind of 'facial' which women
used to apply to their faces to make them more presentable. Rambam says that they were made from barley
flour. Since the opinion of Rabbi Eli'ezer is given as one that dissents from that of Tanna Kamma
[the sage not named who is the source for the rest of our mishnah and whose opinion reflects that of the
majority of the sages] it is not accepted. The difference between all the other items mentioned and this
facial powder is that all the others contain grain products that are brought into prolonged contact with
water; the facial powder is dry and is intended to remain dry. Therefore, even if it contains ĥametz,
it does not come into the same category as the others.
6:
In order to clarify this last point, Tanna Kamma explains that ladies' facial powder and all other items
whose composition resembles it are indeed prohibited on Pesaĥ, but the prohibition is of a lesser degree
than the prohibition of actually eating pure ĥametz. The former is 'just' the transgression of a
negative commandment (thou shalt not); the latter is punishable by excision. (Again, I
remark that the punishment of excision [Karet] according to Rambam is the complete extinction
of the soul at the time of physical death.)
We have mentioned the phenomenon of women using some kind of bran ( Mursan) in their ablutions
in the public baths. I wrote: It seems that bran was also used by women in their ablutions. It
seems that the bran was used as a scrubbing agent.
Yiftah Shapir has information that sheds a most interesting light on the subject. He continues my sentence:
and it still is – in different variations. My wife's grandmother taught her how peasant girls in Rumania
used to wipe their face with maize (mamaliga in Rumanian). It makes the facial skin very
smooth and tender – probably by scrubbing the upper surface of the epidermis. (Take my word for it – she
tried it and it works!!) I guess Mursan works the same.
בָּצֵק שֶׁבְּסִדְקֵי עֲרֵבָה, אִם יֵשׁ כַּזַּיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, חַיָּב לְבָעֵר.
וְאִם לֹא, בָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ.
וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטֻּמְאָה, אִם מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו, חוֹצֵץ.
וְאִם רוֹצֶה בְקִיּוּמוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא כָעֲרֵבָה.
בָּצֵק הַחֵרֵשׁ, אִם יֵשׁ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁהֶחְמִיץ, הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר:
If there is an olive's-bulk of dough caught in the cracks of the basin in one spot it must be eliminated;
otherwise it is so small that it may be ignored. The same applies to ritual impurity. If one is
scrupulous about it, it is [considered as] a barrier; if one wants to
keep it, it may be considered as part of the basin. Deaf dough is forbidden if there is more dough like
it that became leaven.
1:
Our present mishnah continues the discussion concerning ĥametz that is not eaten but nevertheless might
have to be eliminated.
2:
If the basin in which a baker kneads the dough has cracks in it and dough has collected in the cracks the
dough must be eliminated as ĥametz if there is as much as an olive's bulk in one part (i.e. not the total
amount of dough spread over all the cracks, but just one piece). If there is no spot where dough of the
qualifying bulk has collected the dough in the cracks may be ignored and the basin used during Pesaĥ.
This is because the amount is so minimal that it need not be considered at all.
3:
This 'laxity' surely amazes us today. The very thought that a utensil which was used for baking bread
throughout the year should also be used for baking Matzah for Pesaĥ is almost anathema. Even more so
the fact that it is known that minuscule amounts of ĥametz are caught in the cracks of the basin!
Tempora mutantur (things change with time).
4:
On several occasions previously we have discussed the capacity of the "olive's bulk". I quote
an example of the discussion here for its interest and convenience. Originally I explained that: amounts of food in rabbinic parlance are measured in terms of other items: olive's bulk
[ke-zayit] egg's bulk
[ke-beytzah]> and so forth. Modern poskim
have tried to give these terms modern equivalents, but there is considerable disagreement. Let's say that
a ke-zayit is something in the region of 25 to 30 cc
[about one ounce].
On that comment Reuven Boxman wrote:
I have heard and marveled at these modern equivalents for some time, as they seemed grossly exaggerated
to me. Your shiur today prompted me to actually measure. I used the water displacement method for #1 and
#2 eggs, and measured 61 and 46 cc respectively. The only olives I had on hand were Beit HaShita pitted
green olives. Because they were pitted I couldn't use the displacement method, but the olive only reached
the 5 cc marker on a Kupat Holim medicine measurement cup, thus this is an upper limit to its volume. My
estimate is that its more likely 3-4 cc. Thus the rabbinic model of an olive (>25 cc) must have been a
super-olive! If an olive was a perfect sphere, its radius would need to be 1.8 cm, and thus an olive
shaped olive would need to be longer than 3.6 cm. If an egg and an olive had the same profile, than a
rabbinic olive would need to be 74% of the length of a #1 Israeli egg (6 cm), or 4.5 cm long. So now my
question is, on what basis did the modern poskim arrive at their figures? Did they figure that
ancient agriculture was more successful than modern? Perhaps the poskim lived in a land of
super-olives, i.e. olives almost the size of eggs? Or did they not know geometry? Or are they using a
safety factor to build a fence around the torah?
I responded:
Many have noticed the problem that Reuven has described so clearly. My response is my own and not based
on the explanations given by others – which seem to me to be rather forced (such as the "super-olive"
posited by Reuven. Since my response is my own it is to be seen as purely academic with no halakhic
implications whatsoever.
Despite the fact that biblical and rabbinic measurements seem to be based on the human body, there was a
definite system of correlation between them all – length, area, volume, weight. The basic unit of
measurement is the 'finger', which indicates the breadth of the thumb at its knuckle. Then there is the
'span' which indicates the distance between the thumb and the little finger when the hand is spread to
its greatest capacity. The 'cubit' measures the distance from the elbow to the furthest extremity of the
middle finger. As far as correlation is concerned: there are 24 'fingers' in a 'cubit'. (To me it is
clear that there are two stages in development here, but we can accept this just as we accept today that
there are 12 'inches' in a foot – a standard foot, not your own personal foot.)
Thus the most basic unit of all measurement is the 'finger', but let us refer to the 'cubit' for the sake
of our discussion. The minimum volume of water in a mikveh is set at 1 cubit by one cubit by three cubits
high (three cubic cubits), and this is to enable a person to stand upright and be completely covered by
the water. All other measurements of volume are derived from this capacity. Later on there was a
discussion as to whether the height of three cubits included the head or not. This is a clear indication
that the basic measurement – the expected height of an average human being – had gone awry. We are
gradually getting taller. Even since the middle ages only we can see the difference: one can see in
European museums (such as the Tower of London) suits of armour that even some healthy teenagers would not
be able to get into nowadays that belonged in their time to fully developed men of battle!
Thus, if we maintain the cubit at its 'standard' measurement (more or less the equivalent of 48
centimetres) we would find an expected height for the average human being at around 144 centimetres (four
foot eight and one half inches)! We are gradually getting taller – but eggs and olives are not gradually
getting bigger in proportion, and thus the whole system of intercorrelation breaks down – as Reuven has
discovered.
Yiftah Shapir brought to our attention that the mishnaic Mursan may have been similar to
maize, which was used in Rumania as a cosmetic. Now Art Werschultz adds:
Also … Aveeno oatmeal bath is used for poison ivy. (I always envisioned an advertising campaign for
that product, along the lines of "Aveeno is the king of oatmeal baths … Aveeno Malkeinu." [Sorry].)
On a more serious not, Al Sporer sends the following comment concerning the vegetable to be used as
Maror. (You will recall that the mishnah gave preference to lettuce.)
May I offer a climatic environmental reason why Ashkenazic Jews, such as myself, use horseradish as the
maror at the seder. Of course, I have been following the tradition of my parents who came
from Hungary. If you consider the state of the climatic environment around Pesaĥ time in Europe it
would have been too cold yet for romaine lettuce or endive to have grown sufficiently to be used.
Horseradish, on the other hand, because it is a root vegetable could be dug up readily, like potatoes. I
live in Northern California, where the climate is more similar to the climate in Israel. Even here, though,
it is easier (and more fun for the mitzvah) for me to dig up the horseradish in my vegetable garden while
my lettuce has not yet been planted. Of course I can go to the grocer to get endive or romaine lettuce
(and we do that too) but what grows in your own garden is much more satisfying to fulfill the mitzvah.
Furthermore, horseradish is far more fun for the children. They want to test their maturing into 'manlihood'
(sexist though that may be) to see if they can stand the bite of the horseradish.
I respond:
I believe that there are other culinary preferences that can be traced to similar considerations – the
preference of Polish Jews for salted fish and so forth.
5:
Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah, severely restricts what at first glance appears to be a very lax
ruling of our mishnah. He bases his restriction on a baraita which appears in the discussion in the
Gemara [ Pesaĥim 45b] on our mishnah. The basin has been cracked and the pieces glued together
again. The dough was inserted into the cracks in order to strengthen them. If the amount of dough thus
used is less than an olive's-bulk it may be ignored, since its function is now more like that of glue than
that of food. However, if the dough sticking to the basin is not of that very particular nature it must
be eliminated even if it is less than an olive's bulk in volume.
6:
Our mishnah states that this same rule applies as regards ritual impurity. A basin which contracts ritual
impurity – let's say an insect was found in the basin one morning – must be purified by being dipped in a
mikveh [ritual bath]. What our mishnah is saying, therefore, is that if an insect (for
example) lands on some dough in the basin the issue of whether the dough transfers that ritual impurity
to the basin itself is dependent on the volume of the dough: if it is an olive's-bulk or more the dough
is large enough to constitute a technical barrier between the source of the impurity and the basin itself,
and thus the basin is not ritually impure. However, if the amount of the dough is less than one-olive's
bulk it is, as we have seen in the case of Pesaĥ, negligible; and since it may be ignored it cannot
constitute a barrier and therefore the basin becomes ritually impure by virtue of the insect landing on
the dough.
7:
Rambam, conscientious as always, points out that this ruling is only relevant from the practical point of
view if the basin is made of metal – or any material other than earthenware. According to Torah law
[Leviticus 6:21] earthenware that becomes ritually unfit cannot be rectified by the waters of a
mikveh, and only if the article is broken and put together again can it regain its ritual fitness. (This
applies to the kashrut of earthenware to this day.)
8:
The expression 'deaf dough' is enigmatic. The most likely meaning is dough that when struck emits no
sound (just as a deaf person does not react when called). The point of this part of our mishnah is that
if such a lump of dough has possibly become ĥametz, but it is not known how much time has passed since
it came into contact with water the sound it makes should be compared with the sound made by a similar
piece of dough whose status in this regard is known.
9:
In his explanation of this point Rambam makes a very interesting comment, which impinges directly on our
discussion of some time ago concerning the length of time flour may be in contact with water before it
starts to leaven. You will recall that it was decided that this time is eighteen minutes. Rambam
explains that the time it takes for the leavening process to start is the time it takes an ordinary man
to walk at an ordinary pace one Roman mile. He then adds, most importantly, that this is "two fifths
of an ordinary hour" of sixty minutes. This means that Rambam is of the opinion that the leavening
time is not 18 minutes, but 24.
Recently I wrote that Median beer may not have been beer. From the description given by Rambam in his
commentary on our mishnah it seems that it was an alcoholic beverage made by steeping grains in water.
(It sounds a little like our modern whiskey.)" Yiftah Shapir writes:
Ethiopians make an alcoholic 'beverage' from soaked bread. it is not distilled, so it must be a kind of a
beer rather than whiskey. And as far as I understand from people who tried it – that it is not exactly a
beverage – it is more like an intoxicating porridge. I read that some archeologists think that the ancient
Egyptians used it – so it is the oldest type of beer in the world. But it is still made here in Israel by
immigrants from Ethiopia.
In my explanation of the sixth mishnah of chapter two I mentioned that Marcus Jastrow in his dictionary
identifies Maror with kusbarta, which he renders as coriander.
Josh Peri writes:
The herb kosbara is more properly translated 'cilantro' than 'coriander', at least in
contemporary usage. Translating kitchen terms is tricky.
כֵּיצַד מַפְרִישִׁין חַלָּה בְטֻמְאָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב,
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, לֹא תִקְרָא לָהּ שֵׁם, עַד שֶׁתֵּאָפֶה.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, תַּטִּיל בַּצּוֹנֵן.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לֹא זֶה הוּא חָמֵץ שֶׁמֻּזְהָרִים עָלָיו בְּבַל יֵרָאֶה וּבְבַל יִמָּצֵא,
אֶלָּא מַפְרְשַׁתָּה וּמַנִּיחַתָּה עַד הָעֶרֶב, וְאִם הֶחֱמִיצָה, הֶחֱמִיצָה:
How does one separate ritually impure ĥallah on Yom Tov? Rabbi Eli'ezer says that she should not define
it until it is baked. Rabbi Tehudah ben-Beteyra says that she should drop it into cold water. Rabbi
Yehoshu'a says that such is not the ĥametz of the prohibition of "not to be seen or found", so
she should separate it and set it on one side until the evening; if it becomes ĥametz, so be it.
In order to understand our rather enigmatic mishnah we must understand first of all the mitzvah of Ĥallah.
This term, in our present context, does not refer to the special loaves of bread that we eat on Shabbat
and Yom Tov. The Torah [Numbers 15:17-21] states:
וַיְדַבֵּר יהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם
בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה:
וְהָיָה בַּאֲכָלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה לַיהוָה:
רֵאשִׁית עֲרִסֹתֵכֶם חַלָּה תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה
כִּתְרוּמַת גֹּרֶן כֵּן תָּרִימוּ אֹתָהּ:
מֵרֵאשִׁית עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם תִּתְּנוּ לַיהוָה תְּרוּמָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:
God spoke to Moses, saying: speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you enter the land to
which I am taking you, and you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set some aside as a gift to God: as
the first yield of your baking, you shall set aside a loaf as a gift; you shall set it aside as a gift
like the gift from the threshing floor. You shall make a gift to God from the first yield of your baking,
throughout the ages.
This requirement is in force to this day. When dough is created in an amount that exceeds just over one
kilo a small (and today undefined) portion of it must be separated off. (If more than 2.25 kilos of dough
is made then the Ĥallah must be separated off with a Berakhah.) In ancient times the separated Ĥallah
was given to a kohen [priest]. Nowadays, since no kohen can prove by registered pedigree
that he is entitled to these emoluments, the separated Ĥallah is burned.
2:
Our mishnah is concerned with the problematica of separating Ĥallah on Yom Tov if it has contracted
ritual impurity. The problem can be stated succinctly. The Ĥallah should be separated off from this
dough and given to a kohen; but no kohen can eat it because it has contracted ritual impurity. Therefore
the whole batch of dough may not be baked on Yom Tov.
3:
Unlike Shabbat, when no food may be cooked under any circumstances, it is permitted to cook food on Yom Tov.
However, only food that is going to be eaten that day – only food for consumption on Yom Tov itself – can
be cooked on Yom Tov. Our 'contaminated' Ĥallah therefore cannot be baked because it is forbidden to the
kohen. On the other hand, it cannot be burned because these sacred emoluments may not be burned on Yom
Tov. So, there is a kind of 'Catch 22' situation. Our mishnah seeks to establish the way in which the
problem may be resolved.
A few days ago I posted the information provided by Yiftah Shapir concerning Mursan [Bran]
used for cosmetic purposes. He suggested that this was similar to the use of 'mamaliga' for similar
purposes in Rumania to this day. Bayla Singer writes:
One should be careful not to make too much of the 'similarity' – maize was unknown in the Eastern
Hemisphere in mishnaic times; it was introduced from the Western Hemisphere no earlier than the 1400's.
It is likely that the similarity is simply one of texture, and not of any closer relationship. While it is
true that all grains are members of the same family, they are of different genera and species – as is the
case with cattle and pigs. Many cosmetic scrubbing agents have been developed over the years, including
the ground-up shells of almonds or walnuts.
Art Werschulz writes:
As a followup to Al Sporer's climatic comments on horseradish as maror… Most people I
know use parsley (or perhaps celery) as karpas, with the explanation that its greenery is a
sign of spring. However, there seems to be a minhag of dipping a slice of potato in salt water for
karpas. Why? Most likely because potatoes were available at Pesaĥ time in Europe.
And yet again on Jewish culinary tastes. I wrote: I believe that there are other culinary
preferences that can be traced to similar considerations – the preference of Polish Jews for salted fish
and so forth.
Ze'ev Orzech writes:
I don't know where you got the idea that Polish Jews prefer salted fish. The Polish gefilte fish is so
sweet it could pass for dessert. That's what my wife thought it was (at the start of the meal!) when she
first tasted my family's gefilte fish. Her family came from Russia.
4:
As stated previously, our present mishnah seeks to establish the way in which the problem of separating
Ĥallah from dough which has become ritually impure may be resolved. (Obviously, since our mishnah is
dealing with the Yom Tov of Pesaĥ – either the first or the seventh day – the dough will be baked into
Matzah.) Three methods are brought by the mishnah – that proposed by Rabbi Eliעezer, that proposed by
Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah and that proposed by Rabbi Yehoshuעa. We shall explain these methods in their
reverse order.
5:
Rabbi Yehoshuעa proposes a 'clever' solution. In the past I have written:
The verse no ĥametz shall be seen by you can also be understood as saying "no ĥametz
of yours shall be seen". The Gemara [Pesaĥim 5b] states: It says, no ĥametz of yours
shall be seen [Exodus 13:7] – 'yours' you may not see; but you may see that of others
[i.e. non-Jews].
In other words, we are only forbidden to see and possess our own ĥametz; ĥametz that belongs to someone
else is not included in the prohibition. (We noted that this midrash opened the door to the sale of
ĥametz to a non-Jew.) Rabbi Yehoshuעa says that from the moment the baker (our mishnah presumes that it
is a woman doing the baking) separates off the appropriate amount of dough to give to a kohen as Ĥallah,
it ceases to belong to her: it is the property of a yet undesignated kohen. Since it is not hers she may
see it and have it in her house during Pesaĥ. When Yom Tov ends after dark she may then burn it (since
it is unfit to give to a kohen). As I have already explained, it could not be burned on Yom Tov because
only food that may be eaten on that same day may be cooked (in this case overcooked!) on Yom Tov. Since
the separated dough is now technically not hers, it makes no difference whether or not it becomes ĥametz
in the meantime. This solution of the dilemma is not accepted halakhah.
6:
Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah proposes a different solution. The woman should separate off the dough
destined to be Ĥallah and leave it until the evening in a bowl of cold water. The cold water will
prevent the leavening process from commencing. At the end of Yom Tov, when it is once again permitted to
burn the Ĥallah, she may do so. The solution proposed by Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah is not rejected as
halakhah, but neither is it seen as an ideal solution. I do not know whether the chemical process involved
in the leavening of the dough is inhibited by cold or not. The sages certainly thought so. Presumably
today Rabbi Yehudah ben-Beteyrah would recommend that the Ĥallah dough be kept in the freezer until
evening.
7:
This leaves the solution proposed by Rabbi Eliעezer. The solution of Rabbi Eliעezer is also 'clever',
but also reasonable. He says that the woman should bake all the dough into matzah without separating off
Ĥallah before doing so. In this way none of the dough will leaven because all of it will be baked within
the time limit (of less than eighteen minutes). After the matzot come out of the oven she can separate
off however many pieces are needed as Ĥallah and in the evening she can burn them.
8:
The solution proposed by Rabbi Eli'ezer is accepted halakhah in an ideal situation – where the baker knows
what he or she is doing, is conversant with the halakhah, and realizes that in these particular
circumstances Ĥallah should not be separated, as is usually done, before baking, but only afterwards.
If force of habit prevailed and the dough was separated off before the baking then the solution of Rabbi
Yehudah ben-Beteyrah is to be implemented.
9:
I think that it is noteworthy that the mishnayot of this chapter assume that the matzot will be baked on
Yom Tov. Nowadays, it is almost unheard of to bake matzah during the festival for fear of creating leaven
during the preparation process. But it seems that in mishnaic times, just as on other days the bread would
be baked each morning for the day, so on Pesaĥ each morning they would bake the matzah that would be
needed that day. Presumably, modern halakhists would explain that in those days they had ovens which
were far superior to those available to us today!
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר,
שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים לָשׁוֹת כְּאַחַת וְאוֹפוֹת בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד, זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים עוֹסְקוֹת בַּבָּצֵק, אַחַת לָשָׁה וְאַחַת עוֹרֶכֶת וְאַחַת אוֹפָה.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא כָל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא כָל הָעֵצִים וְלֹא כָל הַתַּנּוּרִים שָׁוִין.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, תָּפַח, תִּלְטוֹשׁ בְּצוֹנֵן:
Rabban Gamli'el says that three women may knead [the dough] at the same time and bake it in the oven one
after the other. But the [rest of the] sages say that three women may be busy with the dough
[at the same time]>, one kneading, one rolling and one baking. Rabbi Akiva says that not all women, fuels and ovens are
the same. The rule is that if it starts rising she should hit it with something cold.
1:
Our present mishnah is concerned with the actual process of baking the matzah on Pesaĥ (or before Pesaĥ
for use on Pesaĥ). This mishnah makes abundantly clear what we already noted was hinted at in the
previous mishnah: in mishnaic times the baking of matzah was the task of women – just as was the task of
baking bread at other times – and it was done in the home. Because of the special care that needs to be
taken in baking matzah it seems that several women (presumably either neighbours of members of the
extended family) were wont to club together to bake matzah. The major issue in the baking of matzah is
severely limiting the time that elapses between the moment the flour comes into contact with the water and
when the mixture is placed in the oven. We have mentioned on several occasions that this time limit is
accepted as being 18 minutes.
2:
The water that will be mixed with the flour must have been drawn on the previous day and left to stand
overnight. This curious requirement is stated explicitly in the Gemara [Pesaĥim 42a], but for the
sake of clarity I will quote the requirement as stated in the Shulĥan Arukh [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 455:1]:
[The dough] may only be kneaded in water drawn the previous day – be it water drawn from wells or
springs or rivers… The kneading may not begin before the night has completely passed.
On this statement, in his famous commentary, Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Israel Me'ir Kogan [died
1933] writes as follows:
The water drawn the previous day must be left overnight in a container. The reason for this was
explained by Rashi [in his commentary on the prime source in the Gemara]:
In Nisan [the month of spring]
the wells are hot because at that period of the year the sun is low in the heavens, close to Earth, and
thus warms the [water in the] springs. Other authorities explain that at night the sun goes beneath the
sky and warms the springs. That is why the sages forbade using such water as soon as it was drawn…
3:
This, of course, is based on astronomical presumptions that we now know to be crassly erroneous. As far
as I know the Conservative rabbinate does not supervise the baking of matzah for Pesaĥ. It would be very
interesting to know whether Conservative rabbis would still require the water to be drawn the previous
evening. The orthodox reaction can be guessed. Indeed, one rabbi asked Rabbi Tzvi Pesaĥ Frank [died
1960] whether he could use water drawn immediately from the tap since by experiment he found that the tap
water was colder than the water drawn the previous evening. The response that he got was to forget his
experimenting, since the sages obviously knew better than we do! [Har Zvi, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 64.]
Yesterday I wrote: I do not know whether the chemical process involved in the leavening of the dough
is inhibited by cold or not. The sages certainly thought so.
This has prompted two communications. The first is from Albert Ringer who also corrects a factual
error:
The process (a biological, not a chemical process) of leavening does stop with cold. In fact, in many
modern bakeries, extensive night-labor is fought by creating the dough somewhere during the daytime,
putting it in a refrigerator and getting it out during the night to let it leaven.
Jim Feldman also writes in the same vein and also has more information to add:
Yeasts are plants that are 'designed' to survive cold by inactivity and to operate most vigorously at
room temperature and modestly above that. One of the arts in sourdough baking is control of temperature,
with different temperatures for different parts of the rising process. Even robust bakers yeast does not
enjoy temperatures much above 40°C; and most fermentation has ceased at 0°C;. Even in simple bread
making, it is not uncommon to knead the dough (slightly warm) and then place it in the refrigerator to
extend the rising. It can remain overnight (at a temperature of, say 3°C;) and still have the majority
of its first rising to do in the morning. Given the exigencies of baking in Mishnah times, I strongly
doubt the efficacy of 'leaving it until the evening in a bowl of cold water.' However, like many of these
decisions, the important thing is to have a rule, and behold, here is a rule.
I comment:
Yeast is not used in the baking of matzah – only flour and water.
This comment has spawned a relatively large number of responses. I cannot choose between them since
almost every one of them has contains some piece of information that is not contained in others.
Therefore, I am posting all of the responses that I have received. The responses appear in the order I
received them.
Sue Mackson: Yeast is everywhere, which is why the concern about ĥametz- fermentation
is a result of the processes of the yeast mixing with water. That is why the comments about these
processes which you quote in this shiur are relevant. If one had only to omit yeast in order to make
matza which is kasher for Pesaĥ we wouldn't be worrying about how to keep fermentation from starting.
The point is that one cannot, in most atmospheres, eliminate yeast from 'landing' on the flour and water
and starting to grow.
Albert Ringer: You are right of course, yeast is not added to the bread. As far as I know
there is no real difference between yeast and leaven in a biological sense. The point is that dough will
always contain some spores, especially when it is made in a place where one regularly makes dough. The
spores will come to life and multiply the moment water is added and the temperature is ok. Leaven is a
standardized product. One could reason (but I am not sure about this) that water that comes directly from
a spring might contain too much CO2 in solution, just like a bottle of Coca Cola. When one uses
it to make bread it can have an effect that looks like leavening, just like baking powder. I wonder what
the rabbis from the mishna thought the woman would make for a difference
Benjamin Fleischer: From what I understand, you mean that yeast is not added to the dough
when matzah is being baked. Yeast is naturally found everywhere. I believe that is what differentiates
kosher for passover wines from others: they are sealed so that yeast in the air does not fall in and begin
fermenting.
Yiftah Shapir: Yeast exists in the air we breathe. This is the what causes the leavening
– even if we do not put commercially made yeast!!! This naturally occurring yeast is what makes sourdough
(and sourdough is the only method used to leaven bread in the olden days.
Alfred Sporer: Regarding the various explanations offered (by non-bakers) why the water
for baking the matzoh must be left standing overnight, my wife, Ruth, an excellent baker and cook, offers
the following more likely explanation. It is very likely that the water drawn from a natural well
contained a good deal of suspended particles. Allowing the water to settle overnight would allow the
particles to settle out and thus would remove doubt about whether there was ĥametz in the sediment.
Jim Feldman: On where the sun goes at night you got it right, but on your comment below,
the Mishnah gets it right. No yeast is added, that is for sure, but yeasts are everywhere. Leave wet flour
anywhere at a reasonable temperature and foof! up it comes. While the 18-minute rule may be a bit of an
exaggeration, fermentation will occur in finite time. Most sourdough starters began life just that way,
an accident that turned out to taste good. In modern times, great bakers usually want to 'select' the
yeasts that go into their starter. Typically, if their starter is not a family heirloom, they begin with
grapes. The bloom (white layer) on grapes is a well known family of yeasts that work pretty well. The
sourdough yeasts are quite different from the packaged yeasts we all use for Ĥallah. The famous LaBrea
Bakery in Los Angeles developed and develops its wonderful sourdough starter from grapes. It takes about
two weeks to develop what the bakers want, but fermentation is evident in a few hours or less. [A baker's
yeast will ferment warm sugar water in a minute or two.]
4:
Our mishnah is concerned with the amount of time that may elapse between the mixture of flour and water
and placing the dough in the oven to bake the matzot. Rabban Gamli'el envisages a situation in which
three women are sharing the same kitchen and preparing the matzah for their families at the same time.
However, he is also assuming that there is only enough room in the oven for one woman at a time to bake
her matzah. This means that two of the three will have to keep their dough before baking for a period of
time that is greater than the 18 minutes we have been referring to all along. He permits this situation
because of a rabbinic understanding that as long as the dough is being handled – kneaded – it will not
begin to rise. Three women working together will make sure that none of them will stop kneading their
dough until it gets into the oven.
5:
The rest of the sages are not so generous in their estimate. Three women may share the same kitchen, but
on a kind of 'shift' basis. After the first woman has starting kneading her dough the second woman can
mix her flour and water. When the first woman pops her dough into the oven the second starts kneading the
dough and rolling it flat and the first begins the process … and so on. Thus none of them is in danger
of overstepping the time limit.
6:
Rabbi Akiva warns that it is dangerous to make a general rule. One woman may be more dexterous than
another and have her dough kneaded and rolled ready for the oven in half the time that her neighbour
needs. And what about the time needed to bring the oven up to heat? Not all wood burns at the same rate.
And there is the question of the oven itself: some ovens heat faster than others.
7:
This prompts a re-iteration of the general rule that we have already met in this regard: if one of the
women finds herself being detained because the woman before her is taking her time, or because the wood
is not burning as fast as it should (and so forth) she can prevent her dough from rising in the meantime
by keeping it as cold as possible.
Albert Ringer writes:
The idea of putting hedges around the Tora derives (at least in Drash) from the hedges that where made
around Mount Sinai while Moshe went up to let the second pair of tablets be engraved. It seems to me that
in the case of Pesaĥ we are putting so many hedges around the Tora that it is impossible to even see the
mount, let alone stray on it. If I understand well, what Mishna wants us to do is to get rid of the five
species, at least when recognizable as such, and make sure we don't run into problems with unprepared
cereals. At the moment most rabbis will totally blur the picture by not differentiating between cereals
and vegetables, demanding an extra set of kitchen utensils and china etc. The traditional answer is
that these additional niceties are there to help us to not stray away from the flock. Most people
nowadays react more or less like 'I don't know all the rules and regulations so I won't be able to create
a kosher environment anyway, so why bother'. Would there be a case to reverse the process and advertise
the basically simple set of rules the Mishnah seems to promote? On the other hand, we are so used to the
modern interpretation that what the Mishna wants us to do, might feel unfamiliar to many Jews.
I respond:
One must be very careful to distinguish between what Albert calls a 'hedge' around the Torah and what the
Torah actually requires, but most people would make a very great error in making the attempt. It requires
a great understanding of halakhah. When we bear in mind that the eating of ĥametz on Pesaĥ is one of
the most serious sins that the Torah knows (since its punishment, Karet [excision] is the
most serious imposed) we would be wise in not taking any chances, as it were. I cannot answer for what
Albert calls 'most rabbis', but I can state what I understand to be halakhah.
In his message above Albert, for example, refers to grains and cereals, but omits all mention of
foodstuffs which might be a mixture of ĥametz and something which is not ĥametz. (We have previously
dealt with this issue of Ta'arovet Ĥametz,
I heartily applaud Albert's plea for a return to 'halakhic simplicity', but I am not certain that it
would be as simple as he suggests. It is true that one does not need a special set of kitchen and dining
ware for Pesaĥ, but how many people would know exactly which items cannot be kashered for Pesaĥ and how
one must kasher those items that can be kashered?
In our shiurim so far I have suggested a couple of ways in which life can be made more simple for those
who wish to observe the regulations of Pesaĥ kashrut: we discussed the issue of those vegetables classed
as legumes; items which do not have to bear a certification of Passover kashrut if bought before Pesaĥ
and we discussed the issue of 'selling Ĥametz'. I am sure that there will be additional issues to be
discussed as our study of this tractate proceeds.
שֵׂאוּר, יִשָּרֵף, וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ פָּטוּר. סִדּוּק, יִשָּׂרֵף, וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת.
אֵיזֶהוּ שֵׂאוּר, כְּקַרְנֵי חֲגָבִים. סִדּוּק, שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ סְדָקָיו זֶה בָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה הָאוֹכְלוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת.
וְאֵיזֶהוּ שֵׂאוּר, כָּל שֶׁהִכְסִיפוּ פָנָיו כְּאָדָם שֶׁעָמְדוּ שַׂעֲרוֹתָיו:
Partly leavened dough must be burned, but if someone eats it they are not punishable. If the dough has
shown cracks it must be burned and if someone eats it their punishment is excision. What is partly
leavened dough? – [when it looks] like the antennae of grasshoppers.
[What is] cracked partly leavened
dough? – [when it looks] as if the cracks are criss-crossed. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah; but
the [rest of the] sages hold that in both cases the punishment of someone who eats it is excision. And
what is partly leavened dough? – any [dough] whose surface has paled like a person who has been scared
out of their wits.
1:
Our mishnah is concerned with the halakhic status of dough which has already started to leaven but is not
yet fully leavened or was not yet fully leavened when it was baked (and the leavening process was stopped
by the heat of the baking).
2:
Tanna Kamma says that 'bread' baked from partly leavened dough must be burned – eliminated like ordinary
leaven foodstuffs – but if someone eats it inadvertently (thinking it was matzah) they are not subject to
the punishment of excision which is the Torah's punishment for any consumption of leaven during
Pesaĥ [Exodus 12:15 and 19]. However, if the baked 'bread' has a crust which has cracks in it –
a sure sign that it has leavened – not only must it be eliminated but anyone who eats it must have
realized that they were eating ĥametz and are therefore punishable by excision.
3:
The most widely accepted explanation of the punishment of excision [karet] is that of Rambam:
complete extinction of the soul at the time of the incidence of physical death.
4:
In our mishnah there is a difference of opinion [maĥloket] concerning the visual signs of
partly leavened bread. Rabbi Yehudah ben-Ilai says that when Tanna Kamma refers to partly leavened bread
he means that when it comes out of the oven it has a crust with small cracks in it – cracks that look
like the antennae of grasshoppers: two small cracks only in a kind of V-shape. But, continues Rabbi
Yehudah, when Tanna Kamma refers to bread that is cracked he refers to bread whose crust is covered with
many cracks and marks where the leavening process has caused the bread to rise and crack its surface.
5:
The rest of the sages disagree with Rabbi Yehudah. They say that either of the phenomena described by
Rabbi Yehudah are sure signs that the bread is leavened, and anyone who eats it deserves excision. So,
according to the rest of the sages, what does Tanna Kamma means when he refers to partly leavened dough?
They say that such a loaf or cake of bread would have its surface turned very white – like the face of
someone from which all the blood has drained because of extreme fear. (Is this not a very strange but
graphic description? I wonder what it really refers to – what would such bread look like.)
6:
Halakhah, obviously, follows the opinion of the rest of the sages.
When we studied mishnah 3 of our present chapter we found three suggestions as to how Ĥallah should be
taken from dough which had become ritually impure and therefore could not be given to a kohen. The
solution of Rabbi Eli'ezer was noted as being the most appropriate solution, one in which the dough is
baked and only afterwards is the priest's share separated off.
Monique Susskind Goldberg wrote to me: I still find a difficulty in Rabbi Eli'ezer's solution; the portion belonging to the Cohen is baked on
Yom Tov, even if it was not separated. I was not certain what Monique's question meant, so I wrote
to her: Please explain what the difficulty is that you find. Monique responded: It is
forbidden to cook food on Yom Tov if it is not for you to eat on the same day,there is among the matzot
that were baked a part for the Cohen (not yet separated but still there),so a part of the matzot were
baked not for the use of the person who baked them. I find it not so different that burning the 'Hala'
when preparing the matzot.
I respond:
This is the whole 'trick' suggested by Rabbi Eli'ezer. As long Ĥallah has not been separated off, the
bread or matzah may be considered as to be eaten that day. However, before it may be eaten a portion must
be separated off as Ĥallah. As long as the matzah was whole there was no way to know which part of it
was Ĥallah so it is all permitted.
אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת, מְבַעֲרִים אֶת הַכֹּל מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בִּזְמַנָּן.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, תְּרוּמָה מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁבָּת וְחֻלִּין בִּזְמַנָּן:
If Nisan 14th falls on Shabbat everything must be eliminated before Shabbat. This is the opinion of
Rabbi Me'ir; but the [rest of the] sages say
[that everything must be eliminated] at the usual time.
Rabbi El'azar bar-Zadok says that Terumah [must be eliminated] before
Shabbat and ordinary foodstuffs at the usual time.
1:
When we studied the very first mishnah of this tractate we noted that the search for ĥametz was only
instituted as a preparation for the mitzvah of eliminating ĥametz [ bi'ur ĥametz].
I once wrote in response to a query: Thus, the search that the sages require is seen as a
requirement to facilitate the performance of the actual mitzvah: you cannot be certain that you have
eliminated all your ĥametz unless you have searched it out. Thus the process of elimination begins with
the preliminary search; therefore the berakhah is made before the search begins, but the mitzvah referred
to is 'the elimination of ĥametz'. (Since the berakhah has already been made is is not repeated the
following morning when the ĥametz found is physically eliminated.)
Then again I wrote: 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 Pesaĥ. 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.
2:
All ĥametz had to be eliminated before the time arrived for the slaughtering of the paschal lambs. Very
soon after noon on Nisan 14th each family or group of families would take a lamb to the Bet Mikdash where
it would be slaughtered; this lamb would be roasted and eaten together with matzah and maror later that
evening at the Seder service. The slaughtering of the paschal lambs took place on Nisan 14th regardless
of the day of the week on which it fell, including Shabbat.
3:
Mishnah 4 of chapter 1 reads in part: Rabbi Me'ir says that [ĥametz] is eaten for
the first five hours of the day and is burned at the start of the sixth… It was commonplace then
– as it is today – to eliminate the last remains of ĥametz by incineration. This could not be done on
Shabbat, of course. The paschal lamb was slaughtered in the Bet Mikdash where many of the rules
concerning Shabbat were suspended; but each person's ĥametz was eliminated where it was, as it were.
4:
Two solutions to the problem are suggested by our mishnah (the third is just a clarification of the second).
Rabbi Me'ir, as we have seen, seems to think that incineration is essential, since he says that when the
first day of Pesaĥ falls on a Sunday the ĥametz must be eliminated on Friday. The rest of the sages
hold that while the burning of the ĥametz is a venerable custom it is not essential law, and when
necessary the ĥametz may be eliminated by other means of disposal.
5:
The solution of the sages (as clarified by Rabbi El'azar bar-Zadok) is accepted halakhah to this day. The
remains of the ĥametz are burned on Friday morning (instead of on Shabbat morning). Just enough bread is
left over for use on Friday night and early Shabbat morning (the first two of the three required Shabbat
meals) and the last remnants are disposed of (perhaps by casting the crumbs to the wind or by crumbling
them into the toilet waste) and the declaration is then made. All this must be done by the time ĥametz
would become prohibited on a weekday.
6:
Rabbi El'azar bar-Zadok clarifies the view of the sages. If the ĥametz is Terumah, waiting
to be given to a kohen, it must be eliminated before Shabbat. This is because it can only be eaten by a
kohen and it is unlikely that one will come along by chance to eat the Terumah. After all, how many
priests are there compared with the rest of the Jewish people? Non-sacred ĥametz [ĥullin]
may be eaten on Shabbat and the remnants disposed of as described in paragraph 5.
Some time back we had a spate of questions concerning food customs. Here's one message that has not yet
been presented. Benjamin Fleischer writes:
I thought I'd ask as long as we're somewhat on the topic: what is the origin and diffusion of the custom
of dipping the 'ĥallah' in salt at shabbat meals? I have not found any sources earlier than Rambam yet it
is now a deeply entrenched custom.
I respond:
The requirement is found in the Gemara [Berakhot 40a]. Bread is to be eaten together with
salt in order that it be tasty and thus justify the berakhah.
Benjamin also asks:
I heard that Ashkenazi Jews use apples during Rosh haShana because that's what was ripe in october (as
opposed to figs and carobs which they didn't have there).
I respond:
This seems to be correct. The custom is quoted by the Tur [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 583] as a German
custom. Two centuries later, the Sefaradi Rabbi Yosef Karo, in his Shulĥan Arukh omits this
reference, which is supplied by his Ashkenazi annotator, Rabbi Moshe Isserles.
הַהוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ, וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ,
וְלֶאֱכוֹל סְעוּדַת אֵרוּסִין בְּבֵית חָמִיו וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ חָמֵץ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ,
אִם יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר וּלְבַעֵר וְלַחֲזוֹר לְמִצְוָתוֹ, יַחֲזוֹר וִיבַעֵר.
וְאִם לָאו, מְבַטְּלוֹ בְלִבּוֹ.
לְהַצִּיל מִן הַנָּכְרִים, וּמִן הַנָּהָר, וּמִן הַלִּסְטִים, וּמִן הַדְּלֵקָה, וּמִן הַמַּפֹּלֶת, יְבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ.
וְלִשְׁבּוֹת שְׁבִיתַת הָרְשׁוּת, יַחֲזוֹר מִיָּד:
If someone is on his way to slaughter his paschal lamb, or to circumcise his son, or to enjoy the betrothal
dinner at his father-in-law's house, and he suddenly remembers that he has ĥametz in his home, if he is
able to return and eliminate it and then return to his mitzvah he should return and eliminate it; if that
is not possible he should eliminate it in his mind.
[If, when he remembers, he is on his way] to save
someone from war, from drowning, from bandits, from a fire or from a collapsed building he should
eliminate it in his mind, but [if he is on his way] to spend the
holiday [elsewhere] he must return immediately.
1:
Our mishnah is concerned with what a person should do when they suddenly recall that they have ĥametz at
home and they are not at home to eliminate it. Our mishnah is a direct continuation of the previous
mishnah, therefore it is understood that all the possibilities raised here are deemed to be occurring on
the morning of Nisan 14th. At any other time there would be no problem because one could finish what one
was doing and still have time to eliminate the ĥametz.
2:
At the heart of our mishnah is the dilemma: what should I do when I have two duties to perform at the same
time? The response is, obviously, that one must choose to give preference to whichever duty is the more
pressing and to fulfill the other duty as best one can in the circumstances.
3:
The first item, that one is on one's way to slaughter the paschal lamb, is the obvious connection with the
previous mishnah; the other items are brought by thought association. Three types of 'mitzvah' are
discussed by our mishnah in three groups. The first group is concerned with the fulfillment of mitzvot
which are, more or less, of the same level of importance as the elimination of ĥametz. In these three
cases one must give preference to the mitzvah of the elimination of ĥametz provided that doing so will
not jeopardize the performance of the other mitzvah. The reasoning here is simple. I have previously
written:
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 Pesaĥ.
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.
The true 'elimination of ĥametz' is the mental conviction that ĥametz is of no importance to us at all
during the days of Pesaĥ, that it has been cleared out of our minds and consciousness just as it has been
cleared out of our homes. The physical elimination of the last remaining ĥametz, traditionally by
incineration, is not a necessary condition to the fulfillment of the mitzvah; it is a most effective
physical representation of what is (or should be) going on in the mind. That is why our mishnah can say
that the physical elimination should be performed if doing so will not jeopardize the performance of the
other mitzvah; if it will, one can fulfill the mitzvah of eliminating the ĥametz mentally, by uttering
the declaration that accompanies the physical elimination of ĥametz.
4:
The paschal lamb must be slaughtered very soon after noon on Nisan 14th in the Bet Mikdash. Ideally,
circumcision should take place in the morning of the eighth day of the child's life (counting the day of
birth as day 1); if a boy was born on Nisan 7th he must be circumcised during the morning of Nisan 14th.
(If the child is healthy the circumcision should never be postponed.) In earlier times,
when betrothal [kiddushin] and marriage [nissu'in] were separated by one year
it was the custom to hold a festive meal in the home of the bride's father, at which, of course, the
bridegroom was the guest of honour.
5:
The next five items brought by our mishnah are mitzvot where their performance obviously is more important
than the incineration of ĥametz, for they are all concerned with the saving of a human life. Therefore
anyone in such a circumstance should not even consider returning home in order to burn the ĥametz: it
must be eliminated mentally.
6:
The last item is just an example. If the other 'mitzvah' that is engaging one is purely voluntary then it
must give way to the mitzvah of burning the ĥametz physically. The example given by our mishnah is that
someone recalls that they have ĥametz in their apartment when they are already on their way to spend
Pesaĥ with relatives or friends: they must return home to incinerate their ĥametz. If the argument be
raised that if they do so they will have nowhere to celebrate the Seder that evening the response must be:
nonsense! All one has to do is to attach oneself to another party of people gathered around their roast
lamb. On Seder night no one may refuse to host a guest who has no Seder to go to. That is the meaning of
the declaration that we make at the very beginning of the Seder.
וְכֵן מִי שֶׁיָּצָא מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ, אִם עָבַר צוֹפִים, שׂוֹרְפוֹ בִמְקוֹמוֹ.
וְאִם לָאו, חוֹזֵר וְשׂוֹרְפוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה.
וְעַד כַּמָּה הֵן חוֹזְרִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, זֶה וָזֶה בְּכַבֵּיצָה.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, זֶה וָזֶה בְכַזַּיִת.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ בְּכַזַּיִת, וְחָמֵץ בְּכַבֵּיצָה:
Similarly, if someone leaving Jerusalem remembered that he is carrying sacred meat – if he has already
passed Mount Scopus he should burn it where he is; otherwise he must return and burn it in front of the
Shrine using wood from the fire stack. For how much must one return? – Rabbi Me'ir says, in both cases
an egg's bulk. Rabbi Yehudah says, in both cases an olive's bulk. The rest of the sages say,
[in the case of] sacred meat an olive's bulk and
[in the case of] ĥametz an egg's bulk.
1:
The first word of our mishnah indicates that it is a logical continuation of the previous mishnah.
(Indeed, in the Gemara both mishnayot are treated as one.) Mishnah 7 dealt, in part, with cases in which
one is required to retrace one's steps in order to fulfill the mitzvah of eliminating ĥametz: under
certain circumstances one had to return home to do so while under certain other circumstances the ĥametz
could be eliminated where one was at present.
2:
A similar case brought by our present mishnah is that of sacred meat. There were two major categories of
sacrifice offered in the Bet Mikdash, public sacrifices and private sacrifices. The former were
sacrifices commanded by the Torah and offered on behalf of the whole Jewish people. The latter were
sacrifices brought by individuals. Sometimes these sacrifices were required by law and sometimes they
were voluntary offerings. Often the voluntary offerings were celebratory: an expression of gratitude for
some good thing that had happened to a person. In such cases the animal, after being slaughtered by a
priest, would be returned to its owner who would then roast it in a grand celebratory meal to which he or
she would invite family and friends. In most cases these celebratory meals did not take place within the
precincts of the Bet Mikdash. This 'sacred meat' could be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem.
If the sacred meat become ritually impure it had to be returned to the Bet Mikdash and ritually incinerated
on the main altar. One way in which such meat could become ritually impure is by it being taken outside
the walls of the city.
3:
It is now simple to see the connection between mishnayot 7 and 8. If someone, after leaving Jerusalem,
suddenly became aware that in their knapsack (or doggie bag) they were still carrying some sacred meat left
over from a celebratory meal, now that it has become ritually impure because it has been taken out of the
city, they must return to the Bet Mikdash in order to have the meat burned on the altar. However, if they
have already passed Mount Scopus they do not have to retrace their steps all the way back but they must
burn the meat where they are. Similarly, we saw in the previous mishnah that someone on a journey might
have to return home to burn their ĥametz but under certain other circumstances, as we have already noted,
they could eliminate it where they are. (For those who don't know: Mount Scopus is a hill to the
north-east of Jerusalem from which, in ancient times, travellers to and from Jerusalem could get their
first (or last) view of the Bet Mikdash. Today it is the home of the main campus of the Hebrew University
and part of Hadassah Hospital.
4:
Having dealt with the issue of distance our mishnah now turns to the issue of amount: how much ĥametz or
sacred meat must I have in order to have to comply with the law which requires me to retrace my steps?
Three views are given: that of Rabbi Me'ir, that of his teacher Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai, and that of the
rest of the sages. On several occasions we have indicated the great difficulty in translating mishnaic
units of measurement into modern terms. Let us say, with as much caution as we can muster, that an
egg's bulk would be about 90 cc's and an olive's bulk about 30 cc's. Halakhah
follows the view of the sages: if the circumstances require one to retrace one's steps this is only
necessary in the case of ĥametz if it is 100 cc's or more and in the case of sacred meat if it is 30 cc's
or more.
Previously we mentioned (yet again) the punishment of excision. Marc Auslander writes:
Is excision a punishment which happens, or does excision only occur if the community decides on it. I can
imagine three possibilities. One – that excision occurs independently of all human opinion, when certain
transgressions occur. The second is that humans decide on the rules, but excision occurs automatically if
those rules are transgressed. The third is that excision only occurs if a human court decides that a rule
requiring excision has been transgressed.
I respond:
Excision is a punishment meted out by Heaven. It is not in human hands. It is a punishment which
automatically follows the transgression of certain commands, which are stipulated either explicitly or
implicitly in the Torah. (This is usually with words such as that soul shall be cut off.)
In addition to the above, Heaven is deemed to mete out excision in all cases where a person was deserving
of the death penalty but for technical reasons (usually a problem with testimony) it could not be applied.
In most cases the doom of excision can be averted by sincere repentance before death.
Previously we discussed the requirement of the Gemara that the water with which the flour for the matzot
is mixed must have been drawn the previous day and kept overnight [mayim she-lanu]
Elaine Handelman writes:
Re: holding water overnight before use in making matzah. Around here, well water is about 55°F (or
13°C) year round. If that is so in Israel as well, might there be a winter and early spring period
when leaving water outside all night would result in a temperature below that?
I respond:
I do not know. If anyone has any information on this matter please let me know. However, we must note
that the requirement that the water for the matzot be drawn the previous day is worldwide and not
restricted to Eretz-Israel.
I wrote: They say that such a loaf or cake of bread would have its surface turned very white – like
the face of someone from which all the blood has drained because of extreme fear. (Is this not a very
strange but graphic description? I wonder what it really refers to – what would such bread look like.)
Yiftah Shapir writes:
When I read the Hebrew – my impression was different than yours – Sh-Hikhsiu Panaiv Ke-Adam ShAmdu
Se'arotav – I immediately had the impression of a person whose facial hair stands – and that
reminded me immediately what a dough left for a few days always look like – covered with a thick layer of
hairy mould… BTW – why do you translate Se'or as 'partly leavened dough' – I thought the
English term is sourdough.
I respond:
I do not see how the mishnah can bear this interpretation: would freshly baked bread come out of the oven
covered with mould? In addition, the traditional commentators refer to the whitish colour of the crust
of the bread.
I hesitated whether to translate se'or as sourdough. I checked with a dictionary and found
that the term 'sourdough' has two meanings in North America:
1 : a leaven consisting of dough in which fermentation is active 2: [from the use of sourdough for
making bread in prospectors' camps] : a veteran inhabitant and especially an old-time prospector of Alaska
or northwestern Canada
In order to avoid confusion I opted for a descriptive translation.
We mentioned the talmudic requirement that the bread served at the shabbat table be served with salt.
Albert Ringer writes:
Salt used not to be as commonplace as we tend to find it today. On the contrary, salt was rather expensive,
hence the habit of paying soldiers with salt. We still use the word that goes with that practice: 'salary'.
The use of salt on Shabbat together with bread is an enrichment of the table.
I wrote: If the argument be raised that if they do so they will have nowhere to celebrate the Seder
that evening the response must be: nonsense! All one has to do is to attach oneself to another party of
people gathered around their roast lamb. On Seder night no one may refuse to host a guest who has no Seder
to go to. That is the meaning of the declaration that we make at the very beginning of the Seder.
Art Werschultz writes:
I seem to recall that the list of people associated with a korban Pesaĥ must be finalized at the time
that the KP is slaughtered. (I'm not in a spot to find a reference right now.) So, there's something of a
time-crunch here; one can't merely show up at a seder when there's a KP, but would have to show up in time
to register. Of course, for the last 1931 years (or so :-), we haven't had a Korban Pesaĥ. So there's no
problem with last-minute attendees showing up at a KP-less seder these days.
I respond:
What Art says is correct. But please note the time factor of the mishnah under discussion [3:7]. The
mishnah is obviously referring to a time before the slaughter of the paschal lamb at noon time.
I wrote: If the sacred meat become ritually impure it had to be returned to the Bet Mikdash and
ritually incinerated on the main altar.
Art Werschultz asks:
Are you sure about that? I find it hard to imagine that tamei meat would be allowed into the
Bet HaMikdash, since there was such an emphasis on keeping things as tahor as possible there.
I respond:
Yes, I am sure. The meat had to be returned to the Bet Mikdash for incineration on the altar.
This concludes our study of Chapter Three.
|
