Cheftzah Of Chametz

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot לא תעשה  number 198 and #199 counts a prohibition of eating chametz and a seperate prohibition of eating chametz that has been absorbed in a mixture. The Ramban asks why is there a separate mitzvah not to eat חמץ בתערובת, if there is an amount of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס then by all issurim it is considered as if the issue is intact, we should not need a special prohibition here and if it's less than that amount, it is nullified?

The answer can be found in the laws of chametz. It is subject to debate how to understand the rulings of the Rambam. But it is possible that the Rambam rules according to the opinion of R' Eliezer in the Gemarah Pesachim (42-43) that chametz which is in a mixture carries the lav but not the punishment of kares. This is also fits with the Michelta that the Rambam himself in Sefer Hamitzvot 198 quotes ולשון המכילתא: "כל מחמצת לא תאכלו - לרבות כותח הבבלי ושכר המדי וחמץ האדומי. יכול יהו חייבין עליהן? תלמוד לומר: "חמץ" - מה חמץ מיוחד שהוא מין גמור, יצאו אלו שאינן מין גמור. למה באו? לעבור עליהן בלא תעשה. It clearly states there is a lav but no kares for chametz in a mixture. Once we see that there is a מיעוט to exclude the mixture of chametz from kares we would have said that chametz in a mixture does not have a שם חמץ. Therefore, we need a new derasha to renter the chametz into the status of issur even in a case of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס. However, it still needs explanation for in a תערובת there is a halacha of טעם כעיקר telling us that the taam of chametz is considered like the chametz itself so how can we say the derasha is referring to and excluding a case of כזית בכדא"פ? 

Why would there be this split that there would be a lav but no kares? We see that there are two aspects to the issur of chametz. Chametz is prohibited like any other forbidden food and is there is a כזית בכדי אכילת פרס it is assur. However, the kares punishment is meted out only for eating pure chametz. The kares punishment is not for eating merely forbidden chametz but for eating pure chametz. In other words, for the lav one is obligated on the mere taste of the issur, it doesn't have to be a cheftzah of chametz but for the kares one is obligated only for eating a cheftzah of chametz. In light of this the Rambam understands that this split to establish the lav separate from the kares is derived from כל מחמצת. That introduces a new issur on the חמץ בתערובת even though it is not bonified kares prohibited chametz.   

The Minchas Chinuch (12) points out that the Rambam in the list of the mitzvot in the beginning of Chametz U'Matzah mentions the issur on chametz from erev Pesach but not the issur on a mitzure of chametz. He derives from there the issur of כל מחמצת only kicks in on Pesach itself. This would fit well assuming the issur on תערובת חמץ is its own unique issur and not just a גילוי that it is the regular issur of chametz. 

The Rambam (1:7) says האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל. ואף על פי כן אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית. The Achronim aks why do we need a possuk to tell us that the issur of chametz is even on a minute amount, that is the general law of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה? According to this, the Rambam may have understood that chametz that does not meet the bar of a chiuv kares because it is less than the shiur doesn't have a qualitative amount to be defined as a cheftzah of chametz and therefore a new possuk is required to determine it is assur.  

The prohibition on a mitzture of chametz is derived from כל מחמצת לא תאכלו. The Rambam as mentioned in 'Chametz as דבר שיש לו מתירין' holds that the chumrah of דבר שיש לו מתירין applies by chametz even to a מין בשאנו מינו due to the possuk of כל מחמצת. What does the Rambam see in this possuk about דשיל"מ?

Rav Leib Malen (siman 11) cites the Pri Chadash understands the Rambam rules that when it comes to chametz, it is assur if it כזית בכדי אכילת פרס is present even if there is no טעם of the issur. In light of this, says Rav Leib, we see that for chametz being מבטל the טעם doesn't suffice. The difference between מין במינו ושאינו מינו is that מין במינו there is no ביטול of the טעם and hence if it is a דשיל"מ it is more strict but for מבשא"מ when there is no more טעם the issur is gone entirely and the chumrah of דשיל"מ is not imposed for the issur is not in existence any more. But when it comes to chametz we see in the law of כל מחמצת that even without טעם the issur remains intact so the rule of דשיל"מ will apply even for מין בשאינו מינו. This works according to the peshat of the Pri Chadash. According to above peshat in the Rambam that the Rambam is referring to a regular case of כזית בכא"פ we would have to say that Rambam means is that even though the taste of chametz should not be assur, only the cheftzah of chametz itself, nonetheless כל מחמצת teaches us it is assur. So too, when it comes to דשיל"מ, the bar of bittul is raised. It is not enough to eradicate the shem chametz but any trace of chametz in a taaroves remains forbidden. 

New Wine How Many Berachot

The Magen Avraham (175:1) cites from the Maharil that one should not say הטוב והמטיב during the Seder for it looks like adding to the number of cups. The Pri Migadim says that if one switches wine for the cups itself, according to Ashkenazik custom that one says הגפן for each of the cups, then one says both הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. The Shaar Hatzion (175:3) cites this. This would be the M.A. לשיטתו according to how R' Akiva Eger points out that he holds in theory one can say both the beracha of הגפן and הטוב והמטיב together. However, according to those that hold one says הטוב והמטיב when there is no הגפן said, then in this case one will only say הגפן. (It is interesting that in Shaar Hatzion #2 he cites the logic of R.A.E. but in #3 he goes with the understanding of the M.A.) 

Chametz As דבר שיש לו מתירין

The Gemarah Pesachim (30a) concludes that chametz is not batal on Pesach. The simple read of the Gemarah is since the law in general is that מין במינו is not batal there is a gezerah on Pesach to say even שלא במינו is not batal. Many Rishonim rule however that is general במין במינו is batal and try to justify the pesak of the Gemarah with the bottom line pesak. 

The approach of the Ramban (Milchamos) is to come with an entire new reason why chametz should not be batel and that is due to the rule of דבר שיש לו מתירין אינו בטל and since the chametz will become mutar after Pesach it is not batal on Pesach. The Ramban asks on himself that there is a Rabbinic issur on chametz not gotten rid of before Pesach, so how is it דשיל"מ if it will not become mutar? He answers the Rabbinic law is meant to serve as a chumrah, not as a קולא to remove the din of דשיל"מ. The Ran asks that this answer doesn't work for the entire din of דשיל"מ is Rabbinic so it has to work within the Rabbinic rules? 

In the post 'After Pesach Chametz' there was a chakirah presented if the issur of chametz after Pesach is an extension of the issur on Pesach itself or a new issur. Rav Leeb Malin (siman 10) says that the Ramban holds the nature of the prohibition of chametz after Pesach is a new issur, not a new prohibition. Hence, the issur on Pesach itself is an issur that is דשיל"מ, there is just a new issur that kicks in after Pesach. This explanation only works if the law of דשיל"מ is a lomdus like the Ran in Nedarim (52a) explains. It if is a simple sevarah to eat something in a state of definitive heter instead of relying on bittul like Rashi Betzah (3a) explains then that should apply no matter what the geder of the issur is. It theory one can explain that is why those that don't like the Ramban saying it is a דשיל"מ. However, since the Ran himself asks on the Ramban, he would have to be asking with the understanding that chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is a continuation of the issur on Pesach.    

The Mordechai Pesachim (תקעג) says that chametz is not a דשיל"מ since it will become prohibited next year. At face value this is difficult to understand, so what it will become assur again in the future, there is plenty of time when one can eat the chametz in a state of heter? The Mordechai would seem to make sense in the understanding of the Ran Nedarim that a דשיל"מ is not batul due to the din of מין במינו in a halachik sense. Since the issue itself will become mutur by itself with the passage of time that proves that the issur is not innate and it is like the heter itself and will not be batal. In light of this the Mordechai may mean that chametz on Pesach is an innate issur, the fact that it becomes mutar after Pesach is not because the issur goes away but rather that the entire shem of the issur is chametz on Pesach and if its not Pesach, there is no issur. The fact that the issur comes back next Pesach in fact proves the issur does not go away but the cheftzah of the issur is tied to the timeframe (in בעניין חמץ בפסח אם הווי דבר שיש לו מתירין footnote 5 he says such an explanation in the name of Rav Shmuel Rozovsky.) [It is noteworthy that the Rema YD 102:4 and clearly R' Akiva Eger understand this Mordechai is a general rule for any issur that will come back again, not just a local severah for chametz on Pesach.]

The Rambam in Maachalos Assuros (15:9) says that chametz is not batal because it is a דבר שיש לו מתירין. According to Rav Leeb Malen that would be because he holds of the lomdus severah in דשיל"מ. The Bach (YD siman 102 #4) proves from the Rambam that even when the food will spoil we still impose the rule of דשיל"מ since the Rambam rules even from the beginning of Pesach the chametz is not batal due to the rule of דשיל"מ even though it will spoil. According to the practical severah of Rashi in that case it should be batal, this would be further proof the Rambam agrees to the Ran. 

The Rambam continues in law 12 יֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאַפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין - אִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְלֹא נָתַן טַעַם - מֻתָּר. לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין חָמוּר מִטֶּבֶל, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַל תִּתַּמָּהּ עַל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה "כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת" (שמות יב, כ); לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנ. Achronim ask if the Rambam has a possuk why does he need the Rabbinic reason of דשיל"מ? Presumably the Rambam means the possuk to be an asmachtah to explain why the rule of דשיל"מ applies to chametz even for מין בשאינו מינו. But what does the Rambam see in כל מחמצת that says it shouldn't be batal?  

The Aleph In It

Rashi notes the difference between Moshe who is addressed with ויקרא and Bilim who is addressed with ויקר. The word is the same with an additional א. This א hints to the difference between Moshe and Bilam. Both of them received messages from Hashem, both had great capabilities, but Bilam viewed events in his life as ויקר, a מקרה, it happened - but it didn't make an impression upon him. Moshe connected everything to the א - the אלופו של עולם - to Hashem. The exact same event Bilam would view as an accident, while Moshe would take it as a lesson from Hashem. Everyone gets messages -the question if one hears Who the sender is.  

What Makes A Kahal

ויקהל משה. Why is this parsha said in front of thep resence of the entirety of Klal Yisrael? 

The Gemarah Taanis (11b) says אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא: אין תענית ציבור בבבל, אלא תשעה באב בלבד. The Gemarah does not explain why and there are different opinions in the Rishonim ranging from a practical point Bavel did not as much rain and there was no need to create fast days for rain to halachik requirements of a nasi to establish a taanis on the tzibbur.  The Minchas Chinuch (284:24) explains the basis of the law is that a taanis tzibbur requires an actual tzibbur. Only in Eretz Yisrael does Klal Yisrael attain a chalos shem tzibbur. Outside the land, we are merely a collection of individuals acting together, but not a halachic kahal. Accordingly, he writes that even in Eretz Yisrael today—after the destruction and exile—since the full kedushas ha’aretz is lacking, there is no genuine chalos tzibbur. As a result, Hallel would not be recited even for miracles occurring in Eretz Yisrael today, since Hallel on a miracle depends on a functioning tzibbur. (See more about this here.) The Tzafnas Paneach Berachot (10:11) echoes the same idea. He roots the idea in the Gemarah Horiyos (3b) grounding it in Horiyos (3b) that says only a kahal in Eretz Yisrael is defined as a  kahal. Why is it only in E.Y. that there a chalos tzibbur, a kahal?  

E.Y. is the place where there is direct connection to Hashem. It is that connection to the Ultimate Oneness that joine together different people together as one unit. 

The Meshech Chachma Re'ah asks how in Shoftim Ch. 2 the people offered a korban on a bamah if the Mishkan in Shilo was already erected? He explains that since the Aron was not present in the Mishkan there is no issur bamos. The issur is only when the presence of the Aron is there. In other words, the Aron creates the presence of the Shechina in the Mishkan and that is the place that unites Klal Yisrael thereby forbidding private alters. If the Aron representing the Shechina is not present in the Mishkan, then there is no issur on making a bama. The Mikdash is a place where the Shechina is present and joins the Klal together. When there is a place for the klal that creates an issur on making individual, private alters. That issur depends on the Shechina being present in the Mikdash and that is represented by the Aron.   

The Chinuch #487 counts a lav of shechting a Pesach on a bamah. There is a specific prohibition for the korban Pesach since the holiday of Pesach is to commemorate Klal Yisrael becoming a nation and therefore it has to be offered as a national korban, as one nation, on a public alter. 

This is why the parsha of Mikdash and Shabbos is said after everyone is gathered together. These two mitzvot are mitzvot where one comes to a time and place elevated with the Presence of the Shechina and that units everyone together. 

103

The Ariza"l connects the sin of the egel (עגל גימטריא 103) with the 103 methods of derash that Yeravam had in Toras Kohanim (which is stated in Sanhedrin on daf 103.) This why when Yeravam had his turn to the dark side he made his own version of the egel. What is the connection? The sin of the egel was that Klal Yisrael didn't feel intellectually equipped to deal with the death of Moshe Rabbenu and hence they looked for a substitute in the form of a egel which is a calf, completely submitted to the desire of their master. The tikkun is to come to a level of Torah that is beyond the natural grasp of a person (see sicha Ki Sesa 5751.) 

The number 103 has prominence in a few other places. The Zohar Terumah (162b) that the 310 worlds that are promised to the tzaddikim are split into 2 parts of the chesed side and one part of the gevurah side and a third of 310 is 103. It is pointed out by the Beis Yaakov of Ishbitz in Vayigash that the word mincha is also gematria is also 103. It would seem from these citations that the number 103 is connected with gevurah (as noted in the past there are those that associate the time of mincha with a time of din.) The Ramban (32:1) also connects the egel to the shor of the merchava which is on the left side, the midday of din. I'm not sure what the connection is with the number 103 or if this relates to the first part. 

Megillah Prayer

The Shulchan Aruch (689:5) says מקום שאין מנין אם אחד יודע והאחרים אינם יודעין אחד פוטר את כולם ואם כולם יודעים כל אחד קורא לעצמו. The Magen Avraham (cited in Mishne Berurah) says we see that we don't apply the rule of שומע כעונה unless there is a minyan present. Why is it different than shofar? He says Megillah is like tefillah that a minyan is required. (The Chachmas Shlomo suggests this is due to the fact that קרייתא זו הלילא.) However, at face value why is the Megillah compared to prayer? In light of the Rambam (Sefer Mitzvot katzar) that the point of the Megillah is to demonstrate that Hashem answers our prayers it is logical that the Megillah itself should be considered to bear the laws of tefillah. In light of the Briskor Rav's explanation that it is the tefillah of the tzibbur that is unique to Klal Yisrael that we demonstrate Hashem heeds, it is well understood that the Megillah will have the need to have the status of a tefillah bitzibbur. 

According to the Magen Avraham why is there a difference between if the people know how to read the Megillah themselves or not? The Gra says והוי זה כמ"ש בסוף ר"ה יחיד שלא בירך אין חבירו כו' וע"ש בר"ן וכ' שם ומיהו ה"מ בשיודע אבל בשאינו יודע חבירו מוציאו דהא שלשה דברים מוציא בירושלמי מן הכלל ק"ש ותפלה ובה"מ ואמרינן בברכות פ"ז שנים שאכלו כו' אבל אחד סופר כו'. In other words, we find the same concept by tefillah itself that when each individual knows the prayers, they must say it themselves but if someone doesn't know then one person can be motzei others. How does this work? It means that the basic din of שומע כעונה is in palce even when there is no minyan present but for the kium din of tzibbur that will be lacking unless said with a minyan. Or in other words, the law of שומע כעונה will be in place to say everyone said the Megillah but it is viewed as if everyone read the Megillah individually and they are not joined together. (צ"ע that the Magen Avraham seems to be saying there is no law of שומע כעונה at all with less than 10.)

Rav Biderman on the power of the act of prayer itself: וגם כאשר 'רואה ' שננעלו בפניו כל השערים , ולא מיבעיא ש 'שערי ההצלחה' סגורים וחתומים אלא אפילו שערי התפילה , שעומד ומתחנן פעמים רבות ולא נענה , אל יפול רוחו בקרבו אלא יחזור ויתפלל , ובוודאי ישמע א-ל ויענהו . צא ולמד מדברי חז"ל (מגילה יב :) על הפסוק (אסתר ב ה ) 'איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה ושמו מרדכי בן יאיר בן שמעי בן קיש' – שהקיש על שערי רחמים ונפתחו לו, ולכאורה עיקר מעלתו של מרדכי ש 'נפתחו' לו שערי רחמים , ואם כן היה צריך לומר 'בן יפתח', ומדוע נקטו 'בן קיש', אלא ללמדנו על גדולתו של מרדכי שלא התייאש לנוכח הגזירה, ואף שידע כל אשר נעשה , מכל מקום עמד והקיש שערי רחמים, מתוך האמונה בכוחה של תפילה, והיא שעמדה לבטל את הגזירה , והיא היא גדולתו.

.ושמע נא למה שביאר הגה "ק רבי אליהו מאיזמיר זי"ע (בעל ה'שבט מוסר' בספרו תהלות ה ' על מזמור כב) בלשון המזמור 'על איילת השחר' שהוא מעניינו של יום, כי כך אמרה אסתר המלכה 'אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה' ואף על פי כן לא התייאשתי אלא 'ולילה ולא דומיה לי', וכדאיתא בגמ ' (ברכות לב :) 'אמר ר' חמא בר' חנינא, אם ראה אדם שהתפלל ולא נענה יחזור ויתפלל, שנאמר (תהילים כז יד) קוה אל ה ' חזק ויאמץ לבך וקוה אל ה ''. וזאת למדנו מאבותינו , שבך בטחו אבותינו, ואף שלא נענו מיד לא נסוגו אחור ולא התייאשו אלא חזרו ובטחו, וסוף דבר היה ותפלטמו... ומוסיף לפרש עוד בסמיכות הכתובים 'אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי, ואתה קדוש יושב תהלות ישראל ', שאם רואה שהוא קורא יומם ולילה ולא נענה, אל יאמר חלילה שאין הקב"ה שומע את קולו, אלא אדרבה הקב "ה שומע אותו ומתענג למשמע קולו, אלא שאתה קדוש יושב תהילות ישראל , והוא מחכה ומצפה לשמוע אותו עוד, ועל דרך שאמרו חז"ל (יבמות סד.) 'מפני מה היו אבותינו עקורים מפני שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים '

.דיוק נפלא אמרו לדייק בלשון קדשו של רש "י (מגילה ד. ד"ה ולשנותה ) על הא דאיתא בגמ ' 'חייב אדם לקרות את המגילה (- מגילת אסתר) בלילה ולשנותה ביום ' ופירש רש"י 'זכר לנס שהיו זועקין בימי צרתן יום ולילה ', ולכאורה אם קריאת המגילה היא זכר ל'זעקתם' ביום ובלילה - מה שייך לומר זכר לנס, הא אותם ימים שהיו זועקים ומתפללים היו ימי צרה ולא ימי נס ? אלא, שאכן נס גדול היה באותם הימים , שזעקו יומם ולילה ולא התייאשו, הגם שהיה נראה בדרך הטבע שהכל אבוד וכבר אין מה לעשות ... נחתמה גזירה בעליונים ובתחתונים, והחרב מונחת על צווארם להשמיד להרוג ולאבד ל "ע , מכל מקום הם לא התייאשו אלא המשיכו לדפוק על שערי רחמים אולי