From Poor To Rich

The Gemara in Pesachim (36a) teaches that matzah ashirah, matzah kneaded with wine, oil, or honey may not be eaten on יום טוב ראשון, but is permitted ביום טוב שני. Rashi explains that יום טוב ראשון  here does not literally mean the entire first day; rather, it refers specifically to the first night, when there is a Torah obligation to eat matzah. At that time, the matzah must fulfill the requirement of לחם עוני.

Rabbenu Channanel seems to hold that the halacha of לחם עוני applies the entirety of the night. This may be since he holds that לחם עוני is not a law merely describing the matzah but a law in the Haggadah. The Haggadah demands the presence of matzah - what matzah? לחם עוני. Hence the Haggadah obligates the eating of לחם עוני (one can also explain the Rach's opinion that all the matzah eaten at the Seder is part of the kium mitzvah of eating matzah and hence all the matzah should be לחם עוני.)  

The Rambam (Chametz 5:20) however is of the opinion that entire first day of Yom Tov one can not eat מצה עשירה. This fits with the simple read of the Gemarah, בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן but why would there be a law against מצה עשירה the entire first day?

The Briskor Rav points from the terminologies of the Rambam it emerges that he doesn't hold that לחם עוני defines the matzah of the obligation of the first night, but rather it is a separate דין to have לחם עוני and that is why it is not limited to the matzah of the obligation. The דין of לחם עוני doesn't define the matzah of the mitzvah but rather is a separate halacha with its own dinim. 

This approach is reflected in the Maharal Gevurot Ch. 48 that holds someone who does not have regular matzah for the seder should still eat מצה עשירה for although there will be no kium of לחם עוני it will still be a kium of eating matzah. Based upon this he does not allow for eating מצה עשירה on Erev Pesach (not like Tosfos Pesachim 35b and 99b.)  

It is also clear that in the הו"א of the Gemarah that לחם עוני applies all seven days. It is clear (as the Chidushay HaRan and R' Dovid point out) that the Gemarah initially holds that the law of לחם עוני is not a law in the matzah of them mitzvah but rather is a separate law. Furthermore, the Nemukay Yosef and R' M'lonil understand that there is an actual opinion in the Gemarah that one may not eat מצה עשירה all 7 days for all 7 days one is required to eat לחם עוני. 

However, this still doesn't explain why this דין of לחם עוני should apply the first day? What is unique about the first day?   

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky connects this to the Gemarah (28a, 96a) that mentions the issur chametz is Egypt was one day. למאי נ"מ? He suggests that the issur of chametz from Egypt lasts even now - and that issur is not based upon the fact that dough didn't rise but is because of a דין of לחם עוני. However, it is not clear why would the issur of the first day be linked to לחם עוני?  

Rav Yaakov notes that with this Rambam we can answer the contradiction in the Haggadah if we eat matxah since it is what was eaten in Egypt as said in the beginning of the Haggadah or because there was no time for the matzah to rise as said in מצה זו? The answer is that there are two matzos. There is the matzah that we eat the first day - and that is the matzah eaten for to remember the matzah eaten as we were leaving Egypt. The matzah the rest of the days of Pesach is since there was no time for the matzah to rise. 

The possuk in Reah (16:3) says תאכל עליו מצות לחם עני כי בחפזון יצאת מארץ מצרים למען תזכר את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך. The לחם עוני is connected to the day of leaving Egypt. The leaving of Egypt, as the Ramban (Bo 12:12) notes, started at night but was completed during the day. The first day in its entirety was devoted to getting out of Egypt. Based upon this we can say the source for the first day is not from the issur of chametz but rather since the entire first day is considered the time of leaving Egypt. 

What is the nature of this dual leaving- in the night and the day? The dual nature is not just a historical sequence but a spiritual model. At night, darkness limits vision, one can't see properly and things are unclear. This is how the geulah began. In the nighttime phase, Bnei Yisrael followed Hashem not because they had reached a mature recognition of His truth. They followed simply because it was a way out of Egypt. It was a redemption as a way out of slavery.  As explained in the maamer of Pesach 5719 (second night), this stage is marked by kabbalas ol without daas, movement without clarity, acceptance rooted in bittul rather than comprehension.

In daylight one can see properly, distinguish directions and move with intention.  In the day there is clarity, resolve, and conscious commitment. The daytime leaving of Egypt represents the stage where the Jewish people follow Hashem not simply because He is pulling them out but because they themselves perceive that it is the best to follow Hashem (see maamer 5719 second night Pesach.)

We begin counting the Omer only after the first day of Pesach. The Sefer HaChinuch asks: why don’t we start counting from the very first day of Pesach? The answer is that the first day was devoted entirely to leaving Egypt. Only once we were safely out could we begin the process of internal growth and self‑refinement. This also explains why the Gemara records that R’ Yehoshua instructed his children specifically to prepare matzah ashirah only after the first day. On the first day we must eat לחם עוני because, at that stage, our role was pure submission to Hashem. It was a moment of complete bittul, without asserting our own identity. Hashem took us out, and our task was simply to follow. After that first day, however, the work changes. We are still in the “matzah mode” of humility and simplicity, but now we can begin to add some some ashirus. This represents taking our own independent strengths, personality, and capabilities and using them in the service of Hashem. It is still Pesach, still rooted in bittul, but now flavored with our own contributions.

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.