Matza Ashira

Ask author
Apr 19, 2019

Li-zchus כ"ק מרן אד"ש


Li-zchus Adina Bas Sheva bas Necha Gittel 




The Maharal says a HUUUGE chiddush!!


He says that even though one does not fulfill the mitzva of לחם עוני when he eats מצה עשירה [matza kneaded with oil and the like], nevertheless he still fulfills the mitzva of בערב תאכלו מצות. Meaning, the לחם עוני is not a תנאי in the שם מצה. It is called מצה even if it is not עוני. There is an ADDED mitzva of eating לחם עוני besides the mitzva of eating matza. If one doesn't have לחם עוני he should AT LEAST eat מצה עשירה to fulfill his basic obligation. This yesod has spawned a tremendous amount of literature over the last hundred plus years. 


Let us explore one question:


There is a gemara [Psachim 38a] that says that one may not use the challos of a korban toda or the wafers of a Nazir for the mitzva of matza [even though they are matza]. The reason given is that they are not able to be eaten for all 7 days but just for a day and night [and matza must be able to be eaten all 7 days]. 


Asks the gemara: There is another reason why one may not use חלות תודה and רקיקי נזיר for matza - because they are made with oil and matza must be לחם עוני and מצה עשירה is therefore disqualified!! So why doesn't the gemara say that?? תיפוק ליה משם מצה עשירה!!!


But WAIT!!


According to the Maharal, the gemara's question doesn't start! It is true that there is a special מצוה of לחם עוני but one is still יוצא with מצה עשירה as we explained. So how will the Maharal deal with this gemara!! Use the חלות תודה and רקיקי נזיר to fulfill the BASIC mitzva of matza [without the קיום of בערב תאכלו].




Maran ztz"l [ספר זכרון למרן בעל הפחד יצחק] answers as follows באופן שהוא פלאי פלאות: 


Even the Maharal agrees that in order to fulfill the mitzva of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו we need לחם עוני. The reason is that Reish Lakish says that if one kneads with fruit juice and it becomes chametz one is not חייב כרת if he eats it. The gemara explains that his rationale is that fruit juice doesn't become chametz. Since he can't fulfill the mitzva of eating matza with matza made from fruit juice, he is also not חייב כרת for eating chametz made from fruit juice. The היקש is that the pasuk says לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות - only when he is יוצא מצות מצה can he be עובר on the איסור of אכילת חמץ - excluding fruit juice.   


Apparently, this sugya contradicts the Maharal that with מצה עשירה one fulfills the mitzva of matza because according to him מצה עשירה should not be excluded from this היקש and one should be חייב for eating חמץ made from fruit juice. 


However, after you think about it, you will see that the Maharal is correct! For the pasuk from where we learn this היקש says לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות לחם עוני. It emerges that the היקש is only talking about חמץ with which one fulfills the מצוה of לחם עוני. Thus, it makes a lot of sense to exclude מצה עשירה from the איסור כרת because there is no קיום מצוה of לחם עוני with מצה עשירה. The Maharal MUST learn this way.


Now - we will take this a step further. The pasuk emphasizes עליו - on the chametz and on the matza. What is this עליו? The answer is that we are referring to the קרבן פסח. The mitzva of matza and the איסור חמץ are both stated in the context of the mitzva of eating the קרבן פסח. Meaning that there is a לאו of shechting the קרבן while owning chametz and there is a mitzva to eat the קרבן with matza - על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו. That is what we meant when we said that even according to the Maharal, in order to fulfill the mitzva of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו  one must eat לחם עוני specifically.


Now that we have been fortunate enough to arrive at this destination, we will take another leg of this journey and explain the gemara's question. The gemara asked - why don't we say that חלות תודה and רקיקי נזיר are not valid for matza because they are מצה עשירה. Now, the sugya is talking about רקיקי נזיר and חלות תודה before they were sanctified, as Rashi says, that the חסרון of אינה נאכלת לשבעה is because of a חסרון לשמה when producing them. But in the meantime - they have not yet been מוקדש. 


So if we learn NOT like the Maharal, the gemara's question is - that since this matza was kneaded with oil, it is not לחם עוני. But according to the Maharal, this is not a problem because he maintains that one can be יוצא with matza that is not לחם עוני. So what is the gemara's question???


However, the Maharal learned the gemara's question differently. He understood that the gemara was asking that since it is מצה עשירה there is a פסול in the לשמה of the לשם מצות מצה. The pasuk says ושמרתם את המצות - that one must do שמירה לשם מצה and this pasuk includes BOTH types of matza, the matza of לחם עוני and the matza of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו. Since we established that for the קיום of  על מצות ומרורים, there is a requirement of לחם עוני therefore מצה עשירה would be פסול. So it emerges that if he watches the matza for the sake of חלות תודה and רקיקי נזיר which are מצה עשירה, this שמירה precludes the matza from fulfilling the mitzva of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו. 


The sugya is actually a proof from the Maharal. Because the gemara asks that we should exclude חלות תודה because they cannot be eaten באנינות and matza may be eaten באנינות, and that is a פסול מחשבה [that it wasn't נשמר for the sake of matza - see Tosfos ל"ח ד"ה חלות]. It follows that the next question of the gemara  - that it is מצה עשירה - is also a question on the חסרון לשמה. However, according to the simple pshat in the sugya, the first question is about לשמה and the second is about the matza itself. It makes more sense to say that both questions run along the same line. 


So not only is the sugya not a question on the Maharal - it is a ראיה that he is correct. 


שפתיים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים!!!  . 



More from this:
0 comment
Leave a Comment

Learning on the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah site is sponsored today for a refuah shleimah for Moshe Yehuda ben Yehudis and by Debbie Nossbaum in loving memory of her father, Nathan Werdiger