Right, because they could become chametz (leavened dough), I guess. I don't know why, but they didn't want you to make these big matzot (unleavened bread). Did the rabbis want one turn in their special one to two kezayit (olive-sized portions) made from the goes in the hand for it? No, so everybody can get a kezayit from—oh, yeah, yeah, for a kezayit from the original. So with the soft guy is big the big one.
Let's open to tav-nun-dalet. Now let's finish this siman (section). We'll start in tav-nun-dalet. They didn't want you to make a big matzah, as we already saw. That was in the Rema, “shelo la'asot ha-matzah rechavah yoter midai” (not to make the matzah too wide), “lechem oni” (poor man's bread). Meaning, it's too big. But no one is making such a big matzah, he said.
Okay, it starts with dalet. I'll start with dalet, and we'll go around the table: “Tenan be-perek kama de-Challah, isat ha-kelavim” (the dough of dogs). What is isat ha-kelavim? The dough of the dogs? Dog dough. “Bizman she-ha-ro'im ochlim mimennah.” I guess this is dough that you feed to the dogs. But when the shepherds eat from it, “chayyavet be-challah” (obligated in the dough offering). So if it's exclusively for the dogs, it's not chayyav in challah. But once the shepherds are eating from it, then it's human food, and you have to take challah.
“Ve-yotze bah adam yedei chovato be-Pesach” (a person fulfills his obligation with it on Pesach). Okay, then a person can use that dough for Pesach. “Ein ha-ro'im ochlim mimennah,” but if the shepherds don't eat from it, “peturah min ha-challah,” there's no challah, “ve-eino yotze bah yedei chovato be-Pesach.” Wow. So the laws of challah and matzah go together. If it's chayyav in challah, you're yotze bah on Pesach. If it's not chayyav in challah, you are not yotze bah yedei chovato be-Pesach.
The Rambam's explanation: “She-lashin otah be-mursana.” They used to make this dough for the dogs and put bran in it, because it's cheap; they don't make it so well. “U-mitkavvena keda la-kelavim, lo le-adam.” Once you make dough for dogs, it's peturah. “Peturah me-challah, de-khtiv be-akholkhem mi-lechem ha-aretz,” when you eat from the bread of the land, “otam she-benei adam ochlim, ve-lo mah she-behemot ochlim.” So animal food is peturah from challah. “U-lefikhakh eino yotze chovat matzah be-Pesach, de-matzah be-challah talui.” Interesting: matzah and challah go together. Where there's mitzvat challah (the mitzvah of challah), there's mitzvat matzah (the mitzvah of matzah). No mitzvat challah, no mitzvat matzah.
“Omnam bizman she-ha-ro'im ochlim mimennah,” but if the shepherds eat from this dough, “kelomar she-derekh oto ha-makom she-af al pi she-osim le-ha'akhilah la-kelavim, mi-kol makom derekh ha-ro'im le'ekhol mimennah, shapir karinan beh be-akholkhem mi-lechem ha-aretz.” “Be-akholkhem mi-lechem ha-aretz”—and it has to be lechem (bread). So if the shepherds eat from it, it's chayyav in challah, and therefore it's chayyav for matzah. Okay, Benny, be-khavod.
Rabbenu Shimshon explained: “Ve-Rabbenu Shimshon peresh de-hakhi perusho, isat kelavim kegon she-yesh bah mursan harbeh.” A lot of bran, whatever, the chaff of the wheat—they put it in there. “Ve-lakhen bizman she-ha-ro'im ochlim, she-ein bah kol kakh mursan.” Ah, that means that when the shepherds eat it, they didn't make it with so much bran. That's why the shepherds eat from it. “Ad she-lo yakhlu le-akhilah”—now it's edible, because they didn't put in so much bran. “Chayyavet be-challah, ve-yotz'in bah yedei chovat matzah, de-mikrei lechem, aval im ein yekholim le-okhla, ein zeh lechem.” Right.
The Ramban explained based on the Yerushalmi: “She-im she-afillu hayah mi-solet, rak im arikhatah arikhata va-asiyyatah einah ki-tzurat lechem, mikrei isat kelavim.” Wow. According to the Ramban, isat kelavim has nothing to do with the ingredients. Even if you make it out of solet, fine flour, the shape of it is different: you made it like a biscuit, I don't know, like a dog bone. “Ve-kach osin la-kelavim belo tzurah, belo tzurat lechem.” Wow, that's a big chiddush (novel insight): even though you made it with solet and everything, you didn't make a form of bread out of it.
“U-khevar katavnu be-Yoreh De'ah sof siman shin-mem, de-lo peligi al ha-Rambam le-dina, ela be-ferush ha-mishnah. Ve-gam bi-Yerushalmi sham yesh pelugta ba-zeh, ayen sham, ve-gam zeh lo le-dina, ela le-feirusha de-mishnah, ayen sham.”
Okay, open the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) for a second, rabbotai. I mean, this isn't really a practical case, but nonetheless, open to tav-nun-dalet, halachah bet. Be-khavod. “Isat kelavim. Isat ha-kelavim bizman she-ha-ro'im ochlim mimennah yotzim bah, ve-im lav ein yotzim bah, she-ein zo meshumeret le-shem matzah.” Ah! That's the reason. It's got nothing to do with anything else; it's because it wasn't guarded for the sake of matzah.
Look at the Mishnah Berurah (Mishnah Berurah commentary) here. “Bizman she-ha-ro'im ochlim.” It means, if it's the owner's practice to feed some to his Jewish shepherds, then, when he kneads it for baking, he intends that people will eat it as well. Right, they are yotzim bah, because since the shepherd has a share in it, it is presumed to have been guarded for the sake of matzah. Even though it presumably has a lot of bran mixed in, as is usual with dog dough, you can still fulfill your obligation with it.
“Ve-im lav”—if the shepherds don't eat from it, and he kneads and bakes it only for the dogs, then even if it was made of solet, even if it was fine bread, he doesn't fulfill his obligation with it. “Ein zeh meshumeret le-shem mitzvah.” The wording isn't precise, because in truth, since he didn't think at all about people eating it, it isn't bread at all. Right, that's the issue! Not because you didn't have kavanah le-shem matzah (intention for matzah). Bread made for dogs isn't called lechem. It's not called lechem! It has nothing to do with le-shem matzah. Matzah has to be lechem, lechem oni; it has to be called lechem.
So I don't know why Maran says it wasn't made le-shem matzah. It has nothing to do with kavanah le-shem matzah; the bottom line is “lechem shel kelavim lo mikrei lechem.” So “ha-lashon lo medukdak,” the wording isn't precise, “ve-afilu le-inyan birkat ha-motzi.” Rather, since he's discussing Pesach, he added another reason. Ah, he added another reason: they didn't make it le-shem matzah. But that's an additional reason; you don't even have to get to that. That's overkill.
It's the same ingredients, but it was made for the dogs. It was made for the dogs. It's the same item. Same item. That's right. Once you're making it for the dogs, and humans aren't going to eat it, it's not called lechem, and they don't make hamotzi on it. No hamotzi on it, exactly.
Now look at the Rema. “Kach hem divrei ha-Rambam, aval”—wait, what does “kach hem divrei ha-Rambam” mean? “Aval yesh omrim ha-ta'am mishum she-eino karui lechem, kol zman she-ein ha-ro'im ochlim mimennu, ve-kach nireh ikar.” Ah, he says that was the Rambam's reason, but the Rema says the real reason is that it's not called lechem.
What does he want with this? He's explaining the Mishnah Berurah: “Kach hem divrei ha-Rambam, ha-rav kitzer ba-zeh, ve-tochen kavanato.” It means that, according to the Rambam, the discussion applies both to fine bread and to bread with a lot of bran mixed into it. Exactly what you just said: even if it's made out of solet, the ingredients don't matter. “Ve-ikar ha-chiluk hu im chashav rak la-kelavim, o gam le-achilat adam.” That's it; that's all it is! Eating by a person makes it lechem; eating by an animal takes it out of the category of lechem. That's the Rambam's position.
But the Rema is saying there's another rationale: it doesn't depend on intention at all. Where a lot of bran is mixed in and it's not fit for the shepherds to eat, it's not considered bread. Even if he explicitly intended it for the shepherds, his intention is null, because people don't eat bread like that. Ah, according to the Rema, it's the ingredients. The Rema says that even if you put all that bran in there, who eats bran? So even if you intended it for a person, it won't change anything. Most people don't eat this. Therefore, if it's bran, it's not going to work.
And the opposite: “Im ha-pat yafeh, afilu as'ah la-kelavim, din lechem aleha le-khol ha-devarim, ve-rak le-inyan matzah”—if the bread is fine, even if he made it for the dogs, it has the status of bread for all purposes, but only with regard to matzah. Right, what do I care about the solet? Solet is eaten by people. What do I care if you intended it for animals? The bottom line is, it's edible for people. “Ve-rak le-inyan matzah ein yotz'in bah mishum de-lav le-shem matzah.” Ah, that's another point. You didn't make it le-shem matzah, so that's a separate matter. For bread, it will be bread, but it won't be le-shem matzah.
But the Rambam—no, the Rambam holds that even if you made solet le-shem kelev, it's dog food. It's dog food. But the Rema says no: regarding bread, it'll be lechem, but it won't be matzah because you didn't make it le-shem matzah. “Ve-zehu ta'am ha-Rambam, ve-yesh omrim be-ta'amo mishum she-eino karui lechem kol zman she-ein benei adam ochlin mimennu, ve-kach nireh le-ikar.” So there's a machloket (disagreement) about how to understand this passage.
“Ha-gidul shel ha-isah na'aseh bi... afilu she-benei adam achar kach yochal et zeh, lo yachol la-hafoch oto mi-klal ha-chiuv.” Right, right. Once it was made for dogs, let's say, that's it; it's for dogs. You can't change it. Like a non-Jew who made it. Right, right, there's an exemption. Now, really, it isn't bread. It could be tasty bread, but it isn't bread.
It's an amazing thing. And even then, he wouldn't make a berachah (blessing) on it—meaning, he wouldn't make hamotzi on it? Depending on whom you follow, yeah, whatever. If it was made for dogs, it's amazing; it goes with the intention of the… Because it's exempt from challah. Once it's exempt from challah, it isn't called lechem. “Mi-lechem ha-aretz”: it has to be called lechem to be chayyav in challah, and “lechem adam” is what is called lechem. So go through this whole section.
Okay, good. Continue now back to Aruch HaShulchan (The Set Table). This isn't relevant to us. Now we have another matter. Look at zayin. “Tanu rabanan,” be-khavod, Daniel, you're reading today. “Tanu rabanan: lechem oni, perat le-chalut.” What is chalut? You're boiling the flour! “Ve-ha-im chalitat ha-kemach be-rotchin, de-eino manicho le-hachmitz.” Ah, that's a good sketch! He's telling you a secret here: if you take the flour and poach it—boil it—it stops the chimutz (leavening) process.
So I would say that's a great idea: bagels. Drop it into boiling water, and then you're protected. No, because matzah has to be ra'ui (fit) to become chametz. It has to be lechem. Once you poach it, it's not going to be considered suitable for matzah. “Mi-kol makom, eino yotze bah yedei chovato be-Pesach.” So you can eat it; go ahead and eat it. I mean, you just don't—you can, but you don't fulfill your obligation with it on Pesach.
“Ve-zehu lechem ashirim, ve-lo lechem oni.” That's how, yeah. The poor don't poach their flour.
“Ve-khatav ha-Tur: isah she-belilatah rakah ve-chalutah be-rotchin, lo mikri lechem, u-varech aleha ha-motzi.” Right, so you took a soft batter, like a pancake, and put it in hot water; it's not considered bread. “Ve-hi afiyah batar hachi ba-tanur, mikri lechem.” Oh, it can come back! If you put it in the oven, then it becomes the relevant issue. “Ve-ta'un ha-motzi ve-challah, ve-yotze bah yedei… ve-zeh ba yedei matzah.” Wow. So you have a soft batter that they put into hot water and then baked; that's okay. It's like a bagel: they put it in hot water and bake it. Right. Nobody's having bagels made from soft batter.
“Ve-im afiyah acharei zeh ken, afiyah oseh she-zeh lo yiheh lechem la-ashirim.” Right. Baking makes it poor man's bread. So the Tur's intention is: “Ve-im belilatah avah ve-chalutah va-afuyah, havei lechem le-inyan challah ve-ha-motzi, aval ein yotze bo be-Pesach, ve-le-Rav...” Okay. If it's thick dough, like regular dough, and then they poached it and baked it, that's not called lechem oni; that's called bread of the wealthy, and you don't fulfill your obligation with it.
“Ve-Rav Hai yotz'in bo be-Pesach, yotz'in bo be-Pesach.” Oh, there's a whole discussion, rabbotai. These are technical questions: if they boiled the dough first and all that. “Ve-khol zeh min ha-Gemara, aval ha-Ge'onim asru kol chalitah.” Rabbotai, we don't do this at all today, so have a good day. The Ge'onim said no chalitah. “Ve-kach katav ha-Rif ve-ha-Rambam, u-vizman ha-zeh leika man de-yada le-michlatei.” We don't know this process anymore. Nobody knows how to do it. “Hilkach, kol min chalitah asur.” That's it.
“U-mi-kol makom, im nafal chitah o se'orah o chatichat isah le-tokh tavshil rote'ach, efshar de-yesh le-hatir ha-tavshil ad k...” “Ve-al kol panim le-tzarfah le-eizeh kula.” Oh, but if a piece of dough falls into a boiling dish, it could be that it's not the worst thing. Because if it falls into a boiling dish, it freezes it; it stops the chimutz process. It could be… Maybe a guy finds a wheat grain in his rice; it's not so bad. Yeah, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe it's not so… Dough, he says dough. Well, why wouldn't it work with this?
Look at tav-nun-dalet-gimmel, Benny. Gimmel, straight to the halachah. “Leika… leika, okay. Bizman… bizman ha-zeh de-yada le-mechlat, hilkach kol min chalitah asur.” That's it. Between putting water on top of flour or flour on top of water, even if the water is boiling hard, bubbling over the fire, it's forbidden, both to eat and to benefit from. “Asur la-asoto.” We don't know how to do it; perhaps you made chametz. Without knowing this process of chalitah, you could be eating chametz. So get it out of the house.
Look at the bottom here: “Od katvu acharonim, mi she-yesh lo choli be-vitno,” someone who has a stomach ailment, “u-refu'ato she-choltin se'orim,” and his treatment is to scald barley, or oats, “u-menichim al bitno”—they put it on his stomach. Now, he doesn't eat it. Aha. They make a paste and stick the paste on his stomach.
“Im eira choli zeh be-Pesach, ve-yesh bo sakanah (danger), mutar la-asoto be-derekh chalitah,” if this illness happens on Pesach and there's danger, it may be done by way of chalitah. “De-haynu she-martichim oto heitev, ve-achar kach notnim ha-se'orim le-tokho.” Since he's in danger, “kol she-efshar be-tzad heiter, ya'aseh be-tzad heiter.” Yes. “Ve-im eino sakanah, asur afilu be-derekh chalitah. De-me'achar she-ein beki'im, eika le-michash de-mamri lei.” Wow. So only in a dangerous situation will we let you do this chalitah business, and all that. Because, wait, isn't it dangerous? And then he gives you other ways out here. That sounds like oatmeal, Rabbi. Putting hot water over… to feed the sick man. That's it.
Okay, rabbotai, now let's get to the next halachah. This halachah might be relevant: stolen matzot. “Tanu rabanan”—I'm sorry. “Ein adam yotzei yedei chovato be-matzah gezulah” (a person does not fulfill his obligation with stolen matzah). Aha, what kind of guy is this? He stole a matzah? “Ve-zeh leshon ha-Rambam be-perek vav, din zayin.” Maybe he didn't pay on credit. Would you? Oh, he didn't pay correctly, or he went and stole the thing? Maybe he's a thief. If he's a thief, what's the matter? Maybe he's a thief. This isn't talking about the guys you know. A guy went to the next guy's table on a Pesach trip and took the matzot. That's… What does that have to do with matzah and… Making it is Chol Hamo'ed now, okay.
“Ein adam yotzei yedei chovato be-matzah she-hi asurah lo, ke-gon she-achal tevel (untithed produce), u-ma'aser rishon (first tithe) she-lo nitlah terumato,” for example, if he ate tevel or first tithe from which the terumah had not been taken, “o she-gazlah.” This is the principle: “Kol she-mevarchin alav Birkat Hamazon (grace after meals), yotzei bo yedei chovato.” That's true: if you can recite Birkat Hamazon on it, you can fulfill your obligation with it. That's not a chiddush; you don't say Birkat Hamazon—that's in the seventh perek of Masechet Berachot (Tractate Berachot), the first Mishnah. “Yotzei yedei chovato, ve-khol she-ein me-varchin alav Birkat Hamazon, eino yotzei bo yedei chovato. Ad kan leshono.”
And the Rosh, in perek Kol Sha'ah, also wrote that a person does not fulfill his obligation with stolen matzah because “eino shelachem” (it isn't yours). We learn matzah from challah in the Gemara, that it has to be yours. See there. But borrowed matzah is considered yours, and you fulfill your obligation with it. You can borrow somebody's matzot; that's okay. Borrowing is okay.
And with stolen property, it's specifically when he stole matzah. But if he stole wheat or flour and made it into matzah, he fulfills his obligation with it, because he acquired it through a change, though he still owes its value. That's in perek Merubah, Bava Kama. Exactly, which means there's a kinyan be-shinui (acquisition through a change). You made a shinui ma'aseh (physical change). I stole wheat and made it into flour—and baked it. The Gemara says, “Ein zeh mevarech ela mena'etz. Botzei'a berech ni'etz Hashem.”
Well, you're saying he still fulfills his obligation, because the bottom line is, he acquired it through a change. He acquired it through a change. How about the payment? No matter how much he's paying back? No, he only owes the money. If he goes to Beit Din (rabbinical court), Beit Din will make him pay money. He owns the matzah now because he stole it and made a change to it. So it's his, but Beit Din will make him pay money. But that's considered not theft.
But the Rambam made the reason depend on the blessing. According to what we establish later, in siman tav-resh-mem-tet regarding lulav (palm branch), even if he acquired it through a change, he shouldn't recite a blessing over it. Oh, so interesting: the Rambam learned the exact opposite from lulav. The Rambam said that with lulav, even if you acquired it through a change, you still can't make a blessing. So if that's the case, here too, according to the Rambam, he doesn't fulfill his matzah obligation. Even though it's his, “ein zeh mevarech ela mena'etz.” So since you can't make a blessing, you can't fulfill the obligation. Interesting.
“Ve-yesh mi she-mechlek bein shinui ha-shem le-shinui ma'aseh. Ha ke-ein ha. Ve-eino chen, ve-chen huchach be-Tosafot be-khol makom.” And one shouldn't say that since Birkat Hamazon is a Torah-level obligation, one must recite it, because the Rambam explicitly ruled at the end of perek alef of Berachot that one does not recite Birkat Hamazon over something forbidden. The Rosh disagrees with him, as he wrote. Therefore, I'm surprised at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who ruled in the name of the Rambam in one place and here ruled like the Rosh. However, the Maggid Mishneh also wrote that through a change, he fulfills his obligation.
Okay, so we see there's a big machloket here. The machloket is whether, if you stole wheat and ground it, according to the Rambam you don't fulfill your obligation of matzah, while according to the other Rishonim (early authorities), the Rosh, he does fulfill it, as long as… If he stole the matzah—no, if he stole the matzah, everybody agrees you don't fulfill your obligation.
You can see this happening on trips easily. A guy doesn't have any, so he goes to another guy's table—boom. But I don't know if that's stealing. It is. Yeah, whose does it belong to? It's a trip. Right, that could be understood as stealing. What if I have a private room? Yeah, you stay in a private… No, I didn't say private. You have a big room, there's a ballroom, and you go to the next table like that. Is that stealing? I wonder if that's stealing. And what if I go to the guy's private seder (Seder meal)? Whose matzah is that? That matzah is… I'm bringing it from my house. Oh, you bring matzah from your house? Oh, that's for sure. One hundred percent. One hundred percent. One hundred percent.
Can I take a water? Right, the hotel doesn't allow you to steal. That's stealing, no? That's called stealing. And then he comes afterward and says, “By the way, I took a couple from your box.” Now what? “Modeh ve-ozev yerucham” (one who admits and desists will be shown mercy). Now he gives an answer.
Why did they say this? Look at the yud: “Ve-lich'orah, lamah lo amru raboteinu ha-ta'am mishum mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah” (a mitzvah performed through a transgression)? Why not say simply: forget about theft; just say you don't fulfill your obligation because of mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah?
“Ach nir'eh mishum de-sevira lei de-mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah eino ela de-rabbanan.” That prohibition of mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah is only rabbinic, so you'll fulfill the Torah-level obligation. There are opinions about this among the Rishonim. “U-vi-Yerushalmi perek alef de-Challah omer matzah gezulah asur levarech aleha, amar Rabbi Hoshaya al shem she-ne'emar u-votzea berech ni'etz Hashem. Chada de-teima bi-tchilah, aval ba-sof de-chayav lei.” Right, because he stole it and made a change to it.
The Rosh explained there that the intention is initially and after the fact: after the fact, he fulfills his obligation with stolen property. Wow, the Rosh says that after the fact he fulfills his obligation with stolen property. The Maggid Mishneh explained that the end is referring to a change. Some say it's okay; he didn't make a change… One can say that this is the meaning: initially refers to the first blessing, when he can still return it; at the end refers to Birkat Hamazon, after he's eaten it and owes the money, so he recites the blessing. “De-mai de-havah havah.”
Okay, so then the question is whether you can recite the blessing or not. Continue. “Ve-achar kach omer Yerushalmi: Rabbi omer ein aveirah mitzvah, ve-ein aveirah mitzvah.” What does that mean? Rabbi Yose says… Rabbi says there's no mitzvah in a transgression. “Amar Rabbi Elazar, ela ha-mitzvot, im asa'an ke-mitzvatan mitzvah, ve-im lav einah mitzvah.”
The Rosh writes: “Ve-efshar de-hanei amora'ei peligi, ve-it lehu keivan de-lo asa'an ke-mitzvatan einah mitzvah, ve-eino yotzei yedei chovato. Ad kan leshono.” Their reason is mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah, though they express it in different ways. According to this, it seems that mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah is a Torah-level prohibition.
Hold on, let's open Maran here. Let's see what Maran holds about this theft. This is a very important halachah. “Ein adam yotzei yedei chovato be-matzah gezulah. Bameh devarim amurim? Ke-she-gazal matzah. Aval im gazal chittim o kemach va-asan matzah, yotzei bah, she-kena'ah be-shinui, u-damim levad hu chayav lo.” So Maran's straightforward: that's what you stole. “Ein adam yotzei.”
That means that even after the fact, he has to go back and eat. From the concise wording, it seems that he has to go back and recite the blessing. See Mas'at Kappayim, who says that even on the second night of Yom Tov, he doesn't fulfill his obligation. I don't think he can steal matzah on the second night of the seder.
“Matzah gezulah, mah ha-ta'am? De-afilu mi-ta'am gezeilah shama'anu lechem mi-lechem.” What about challah? “Mah hatam ein adam mafrish challah ela me-isah shelo”—challah has to come from his own dough—“de-khtiv arisoteichem; af kan.” And it's specifically stolen property. But if he borrowed matzah, he fulfills his obligation, because he borrowed it in order to eat it. So it's his.
The authorities wrote that one should be careful when many people are baking in one oven. That's a big one. A lot of people are cooking, and they take the wrong ones. The matzot often get mixed up. It's proper to say, “Whoever's matzah comes into his hands, let it be his as a gift.” Hey, make a declaration, rabbotai: whoever takes it, it's yours! Otherwise, there's concern that the mitzvah is being performed with stolen matzah. He also wrote that it's good to say this when grinding, too, because sometimes the flour gets mixed up.
There's another common detail where people can stumble. For example, someone bought matzah and took it into his possession. If the seller made clear at the time of sale that he needed the money and couldn't sell on credit—he said, “I'm short on money; I need to get paid before the holiday”—and he keeps pursuing the money while the buyer puts him off with “Come back tomorrow” or “The check is in the mail,” and doesn't pay him, then legally he hasn't acquired it. In a case where the guy says, “I need the money. Listen, I've got bills to pay,” why hasn't the buyer acquired it? He didn't pay. Then it's theft.
“U-mi-meila eino yotzei bahem chelek yedei chovat matzah min ha-Torah.” Is a credit card a problem? Why would a credit card be a problem? Where do you see that? No, you paid; that's money. What's the difference? This is a check, or you put it on my account and I don't pay the credit card. If he takes credit, no problem. He's talking about a case where the seller says, “I need to get paid. Listen, I have bills to pay,” and the buyer delays him. There's no special requirement that the matzot be your own. What does “your own matzot” mean? My father has them, or my brother bought them. It's okay; he's giving them to you. No, but the point is not to have stolen matzot. You have to ask him, “Did he pay for them?” Sometimes the rabbi gives the guys matzot.
Here, we had a pidyon (redemption of the firstborn) the other night. I had two pidyons this week: one Monday night and one Wednesday night. For the Monday night pidyon, Steve Aziz is always my pidyon coin guy. He got the zechut (merit). Whenever I need coins for a pidyon, Steve Aziz gets me beautiful coins. Okay, beautiful. Silver went down, so now five coins are a hundred dollars. Each coin is an ounce of silver, so five ounces of silver are exactly a hundred dollars. A hundred dollars even, five ounces. That's it, exactly. I have the bill: one hundred dollars, no more, no less—one hundred dollars flat, 1-0-0. Five coins.
So I get to the pidyon and tell the guy, “Okay, I have the coins for you.” “Okay, give them to me.” I have to pay Steve. So he says, “All right, I don't have the money now.” “You don't have the money now? How can that be?” He looks at him. “You don't have the money now? Why didn't you pay for these coins?” “I didn't bring money with me.” I could have given them to him as a matanah (gift), but I didn't want to start with, “Do me a favor, go get a hundred dollars from your father and pay for the coins here.” I want the coins to be your coins. I don't want to get into a safek (doubt) that you didn't pay and that I'm makneh (transferring ownership) to you with my da'at (intention). We got to the…
It's the same thing here: the guy needs the money, so it's a problem. They basically have to pay for the matzot I bought for them. I pay for your matzot before you get them. Don't take credit if the seller doesn't accept credit. A check is fine. A check is payment.
Another trick question: you paid for the trip, but the trip operator stiffed all the vendors and didn't pay for the matzot. Oh, he didn't pay for the matzot? I ate matzah; that's not your problem, it's his problem. “Am ha'aretz Pesach.” Ah, yeah? But he bought it on credit, so he's… What? I buy from a store; I don't know whether the store pays its supplier. I don't know. This isn't a—We're there. That's your—Why, man, are you answering me with another problem? No, just try it. When I figure out the answer to his question, I'll know the answer to your question. You just changed it from a hotel to a store. Okay, I know that trick. No, I was—Everybody's saying, “Oh yeah, yeah, good answer, Joey.” What did you do? You just changed the case from a hotel to a store. Okay, now we have two questions. You can't fool me with that; I know that trick. What if it's a store? Oh, okay, it's a store. Hey, he's right, he's right, he's right. Why is he right? I don't understand either. He's right. Okay, I don't know; we have to see. I think Chacham David or Chacham zeh talks about it.
It continues: “She-kenah be-shinui,” meaning, a guy stole wheat and then ground it; then he acquired it through a change. That's a big kinyan (acquisition). “Rotzeh lomar, be-shinui ma'aseh.” The same law applies if someone stole the matzah and gave it to another person; that other person fulfills his obligation, because there was a change of ownership. What? The first guy stole it. The hotel operator stole the matzot, and then gives them to you. That's already a change of ownership, so you acquire them through a change. Therefore, it's not a problem, even though he didn't pay the vendors; he was the thief. Now he says, “Here, Steve, here's your box.” Okay, so that's a change of ownership, and you acquire it. After the fact, I guess. He fulfills his obligation after the fact. You're at Pesach; what are you going to do now? You're not going to tell the guy, “Go steal it; that'll give you a change of ownership.”
Continue: “U-davka heichi de-havei gam ken ye'ush be'alim (despair by the owners), de-shinui reshut gerida lo kani.” Who has ye'ush? The guy? Of course not. So you're back to the problem. Ye'ush and a change of ownership together make an acquisition, not a change of ownership alone. So is the guy experiencing ye'ush? On the contrary, he's taking him to court.
“Ve-oto ve-oto acher mutar levarech aleha, she-harei lo be-issur ba'ah ha-mitzvah le-yado, ve-sheneheneh min ha-gazal mi-meila kodem she-ba'ah le-yado. Ve-im me-acher chazar ve-netano la-gazlan, gam ha-gazlan yatza bo, de-havei ye'ush ve-shinui reshut. U-ve-inyan maror im yatza be-gezel be-diavad, ayen.” Wow, what kind of seder is this? Stolen maror, the guys having it in Rikers Island, the seder. What kind of seder is this? Yeah, this is unbelievable, an unbelievable seder. Unbelievable seder the guy's having. Rikers, the best place. Oh my gosh.
Look at this here. Wow, look at the great Beur Halachah (Beur Halachah commentary). What a great Beur Halachah. When do you fulfill the mitzvah (commandment) of matzah? At night? No, at the time that you swallow. So by the time you've chewed it up, it's a shinui ma'aseh! You stole matzah. So what do you say? If you stole wheat and ground it, that's a shinui ma'aseh; you acquire it. Okay, I stole a matzah. This is what I stole. While I'm chewing it, I haven't done anything yet. I haven't fulfilled the mitzvah. By the time I fulfill the mitzvah, it's a glob of… That's what the Ritva wants to say! Therefore, when I stole it, by the time I performed the mitzvah, there was a change. I acquire it! That's why he's giving all the people merit. That means… Just continue.
Look at the Mishnah Berurah, look at—“Ayen Mishnah Berurah, ayen be-Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger (R. Akiva Eiger's novellae), u-ve-she'ar acharonim.” In the Mishnah Berurah, it's the Beur Halachah: “Ein adam yotzei yedei chovato be-matzah.” Sammy, which sefer tomorrow? The good one? They're all good.
“Ayen be-Mishnah Berurah u-ve-Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger u-ve-she'ar acharonim she-hevi shitat ha-Ritva, de-da'ato de-af be-gezel matzah yesh shinui ma'aseh keivan de-le'isah kanya be-shinui ma'aseh.” You chewed it, so you acquired it through a physical change. “Ve-ha-mitzvah mitkayemet achar kach bi-vliyat ha-matzah, de-ha bala matzah yatza.” Yeah, so therefore it's like stealing wheat. “Ve-im ken domeh le-gazal chittim.” Okay, what? And now the matzah—that he fulfilled it? He fulfilled it.
“Ve-af al dina bevadai naktinan ke-shitat ha-Shulchan Aruch, she-hu da'at rov ha-poskim, de-sfeika sevirah leh de-lo yatza, ve-tzarich lachazor ve-le'echol matzah acheret mi-shelo.” In practice, we certainly follow the Shulchan Aruch, which is the opinion of most authorities: he has not fulfilled the obligation, and he has to go back and eat another matzah of his own.
“Ve-efshar de-sevirah lehu de-zeh mikri she-ha-kinyan ba al yedei ha-mitzvah gufa, de-kayma lan be-siman tav-ayin-heh, de-la mahani.” Even though if he swallowed it without chewing, he fulfilled his obligation, in any case, initially he has to chew it. So the chewing isn't essential to the mitzvah. “Mi-kol makom,” regarding whether he has to go back and recite a blessing, it could be that he doesn't have to recite a new blessing, because perhaps he fulfilled the obligation according to the Radbaz. Wow, that's an amazing Radbaz. The Radbaz holds that if you chewed it, you're okay. So we don't rule like that, but it will be enough if you did that: eat again, but don't recite a new blessing over the second one.
Okay, now go to the next one, regarding maror. “U-le-inyan maror, im yotze be-diavad be-gezel.” Oh, so if you stole maror! Because maror is only rabbinic. So maybe, with a rabbinic obligation, we don't apply this theft issue, right? “Da'at ha-Kenehag be-shem ha-Maharyu, yatza.” He fulfills it. “Ve-ha-Peri Chadash cholek alav, de-itkosh matzah le-maror la-hadadi, ki-mevo'ar be-perek Kol Sha'ah.” Why? Because even with stolen matzah, the reason it's invalid is mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah, and the same applies to maror. Since it's only rabbinic, it is mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah at a rabbinic level. According to the Mechaber in siman tav-resh-mem-tet, section heh, he fulfills it after the fact.
Wow, so it could be that mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah at a rabbinic level isn't so bad. That's why I did maror the second night. Right. “Ve-kach katav be-Mekor Chayim,” see there.
“Achen le-da'at ha-Rema sham ba-hagahah she-katav she-ein anu nohagim”—but according to the Rema there, in his gloss, we follow the authorities who say that even rabbinic mitzvah ha-ba'ah ba-aveirah is invalid, so certainly one doesn't fulfill the obligation with maror either.
“Ve-ra'iti davar pele.” What's the remarkable thing? The Kenehag wrote in the name of Maharyu that this is in siman kuf-tzadi-gimmel, that one fulfills the obligation with stolen maror. Okay, he says you can fulfill the obligation with stolen maror. But I looked there and found the opposite! “Ve-zeh leshono sham: Maharav Antshil mi-Marfruk nistafeik, keivan de-maror hukash le-matzah ve-gazul pasul, im ken Yisrael lo ya'akor maror be-atzmo min ha-karka miyad, midei de-havei asa.” It says to go buy myrtle. When you go to the non-Jew, who knows, maybe the non-Jew stole the maror field. So the non-Jew says, “You want maror? Bevakashah, be-khavod, go pick it. Pick it yourself.” Don't pick it yourself, because if you pick it yourself, you're the thief! Let the non-Jew pick it and give it to you, and then that's a change. But don't pick it yourself!
“Ve-ayein sham be-gazul, ve-nir'eh li de-la dami de-hatam gabei asa de-mitkayem be-karka mishum hachi havei ke-karka, ayen sham. Harei mevo'ar le-hedya.” Okay, so we'll have to look at this question. The last question would be like this, rabbotai. Answer the question. This is going to be a question for this year.
Let's say you're eating—the Pesach seder this year is Friday night—and you have one wise guy who carries a box of matzah. He follows the Eruv (Shabbat boundary arrangement). He carried the matzah with him; he's walking in the reshut ha-rabbim (public domain) Friday night to the seder. He walks in and says, “Hey, rabbotai, I brought special matzah!” “Where'd you bring it from?” “I brought it from home.” “How'd you carry it?” “Eruv; I carried it here with the Eruv.” Now you want to eat this matzah. Can you eat it if you don't follow the Eruv? The guy carried it! If you don't follow the Eruv, the only way the matzah got here was through a transgression. So is that considered a transgression that won't allow you to eat the matzah?
Look at the next Beur Halachah. “Inyan berachah. Ve-chatvu ha-poskim le-inyan berachah: de-davka bi-gezulah ein yotzin lefi she-ha-matzah gufa ba'ah ba-aveirah, mah she-ein ken be-hotzi matzah mi-reshut ha-yachid li-reshut ha-rabbim ke-she-chal Pesach be-Shabbat, yotze bah yedei chovato, ve-gam yevarech alav, lefi she-hu avar aveirah ve-lo ha-matzah gufa ba'ah ba-aveirah.” Ah, that's a very important nafka minah (practical difference)! You have to make that distinction, rabbotai. Cheftza (the object itself). Cheftza, exactly. In any case, we're going to see a whole halachah in shin-yud-chet: what do you say on Shabbat if somebody cooked on Shabbat? Are you allowed to benefit from that? No, you have to wait until Motza'ei Shabbat (after Shabbat), depending on whether it was shogeg (unintentional) or mezid (intentional), for you or for others—the whole law.
But let's say somebody carried something to shul on Shabbat. A guy carries candies, the candyman. Or he carries almonds to shul on Shabbat and doesn't leave them in his locker. Then we have kiddush (sanctification over wine) in the morning. “Hey, Rabbi, have an almond.” Hold on, where did this almond come from? “Oh, my brother brought it to shul this morning with my handkerchief.” Are you allowed to benefit from something prohibited that was done? Look at shin-yud-chet, he says. The famous shin-yud-chet: section alef, Mishnah Berurah, Beur Halachah. Open shin-yud-chet, boys.
Well, if you hold that there is no Eruv, that's what we're talking about. That's the whole point. There's no problem. Why? Because the prohibition wasn't performed on the matzah itself. The matzah was made permissibly. There was an ordinary prohibition that was done. The theft was done to the matzah. Look at shin-yud-chet, alef, rabbotai. “Achat mi-she'ar melachot” (one of the other labors). You see the Beur Halachah? “Achat mi-she'ar melachot.” Maran is talking here about a person who cooked on Shabbat, and then the Rema says, “O she-asah achat mi-she'ar melachot.” Whatever the person did, he performed one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat, so you're not allowed to benefit from that labor.
The Mishnah Berurah, Beur Halachah says: “Katav be-Chayei Adam, klal tet: davka be-davar she-na'asah ma'aseh be-guf ha-davar, she-nishtanah mi-kamut she-hayah, ki-mevashel.” Specifically, something where an action was done to the object itself, changing it from what it was, like cooking. Cooking changes the item from raw to cooked.
“Aval ha-motzi mi-reshut li-reshut, she-lo nishtanah davar mi-kamut she-hayah.” But when someone carries something from one domain to another, the object hasn't changed. You just transferred it; it's the same item. “Im be-shogeg, mutar afilu lo”—if it was unintentional, it's permitted even for him, even that same day. “Ve-im be-mezid, asur afilu la-acherim ad Motza'ei Shabbat miyad.” If it was intentional, it's forbidden even for others until after Shabbat. “Mi-kol makom, yesh de'ot be-khol issurei Torah kemo bi-mevashel.” Oh, one should be stringent. So he holds that technically, if the person acted unintentionally, it should be okay, and if he acted intentionally, it should be forbidden for everyone. But one should be stringent; even when it was unintentional, we won't make distinctions.
Okay, that's the issue here. But regarding matzah, clearly he says what? You're allowed to eat the matzah. Where's Yalkut? Where's the English Yalkut? This is a very, very important halachah, rabbotai. This can happen this year. It's going to happen this year. In honor of Elliot. Yeah, for sure.
So look at tav-nun-dalet. Let's read somebody's halachot (laws) here. Tav-nun-dalet—what, he skipped the whole tav-nun-dalet? Nothing in tav-nun-dalet was worth documenting. Nice. That's very nice, thank you. Okay, bring us the Ben Ish Chai. Bring us the Ben Ish Chai.