Mishnah Pesachim
by Jonathan Wolf

(Chapter 2 of 10)

In this chapter, the mishnah addresses a variety of issues concerning the time limits for enjoying benefit from chametz. In the first chapter, we learned about the various laws connected with the searching for chametz on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan. However, the act of searching for chametz (bedikat chametz), is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Hence, is the search conducted on the basis of Scriptual or Rabbinic ordinance. The Sages, in the gemara, will wrestle with this very question. Additionally, what is the function of "nullification" ? The Rambam stated that one must "nullify the chametz in his heart." What exactly does this mean?

According to the Sages, nullification (bitul) is a declaration of conscious intent by the owner that he considers his chametz to be "null", that is valueless in his eyes. By doing so, he divests himself of the obligation to search for and destroy his chametz. This declaration, that we saw in chapter 1, can only be made after a good faith effort to search for chametz has been made. The Sages, in the gemara, rule that the act of search is prescribed implicitly by Torah law.

Mishnah 1:

As long as it is permitted to eat chametz, one may feed it to livestock, beasts and birds, and sell it to a Gentile and deriving benefit from it is permitted. When its period has passed, deriving benefit from it is forbidden, and one may not fire an oven or range with it.

Rabbi Yehudah says: There is no removal of chametz except by burning. But the Sages say: He may also crumble it and throw it to the wind or cast it into the sea.

Mishnah 2:

Chametz of a Gentile over which Pesach has passed, deriving benefit from it is permitted; but chametz of a Jew, deriving benefit from it is forbidden- since it is said "Nor shall leaven be seen with you…"

Mishnah 3:

If a Gentile lent money to a Jew on his chametz, then after Pesach, deriving benefit from it is permitted; but if a Jew lent money to a Gentile on his chametz, then after Pesach, deriving benefit from it is forbidden.

If a ruin collapsed over chametz, it is regarded as removed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: provided a dog cannot search it out.

Commentary:

We start with a look at the Rambam:

"How must chametz be destroyed? It may be burned; crumbled and tossed into the wind; or thrown into the sea. If the chametz is hard and the sea will not cause it to dissolve speedily, one should crumble it and then throw it into the sea."

"If other substances fell upon chametz and it was covered by three handbreadths or more of earth, it is considered as having been destroyed. Nevertheless, one must nullify ownership over it in one’s heart if the sixth hour has not arrived."

"A person who gave it to a gentile before the sixth hour need not destroy it. If one burns it before the sixth hour, he is permitted to benefit from the charcoal that remains during Pesach. However, if he burns it from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward, since benefit may not be derived from it, it should not be used as fuel for an oven or range. One may not bake or cook with it."

"If one did bake or cook using the chametz as fuel, it is forbidden to derive benefit from that loaf or that dish. Similarly, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the charcoal that remains from it, because it was burned after benefit from it became forbidden."

"The Torah (Exodus 13:7) states: "No chametz shall be seen for you.’ Perhaps, if it were buried or entrusted to a gentile, he would not transgress the commandment? The Torah (Exodus 12:19) states ‘leaven should not be found in your homes’, implying even if it is buried or entrusted."

"Perhaps he would only transgress the commandment when chametz is found in his house, but if it were outside his house, in a field or in another city, he would not violate the commandment? The Torah states :’No leaven shall be seen for you’ — i.e. in all your possessions."

"Perhaps a person will be obligated to remove from his property chametz that belongs to a gentile or that was consecrated? The Torah states :’No leaven shall be seen for you’. We may infer that this means : ‘You may not see your own leaven’. However, you may see leaven belonging to others or which was consecrated."

"From the above, you can learn that chametz belonging to a Jew which was left in his possession, even though it is buried, is located in another city , or entrusted to a gentile, causes him to violate the commandments —"leaven shall not be seen" and "leaven shall not be found."

"Chametz that either was consecrated or belongs to a gentile, and is located within a Jew’s property, even if it was with him at home; this is permitted, for the chametz is not his. Even if it belonged to a resident alien under the authority of the Jewish people, we need not force him to remove the chametz from his property on Pesach."

"A gentile who entrusted his chametz to a Jew; should the Jew accept responsibility of paying for the worth of the chametz if it is lost or stolen-behold, he is obligated to destroy it. Since he accepted responsibility for it, it is considered as though it were his. If he did not accept responsibility for it, he may keep it in his domain and may eat from it after Pesach, for it was in the gentile’s possession."

"A Jew who gives his chametz to a gentile as security for a loan and tells him: ‘If I do not bring the money between today and such and such a date, you acquire the chametz retroactively from the present moment’, the chametz is considered as in the gentile’s possession and is permitted to be used after Pesach. This applies if the date specified was before Pesach."

"However, if he did not tell him :’you acquire the chametz retroactively from the present moment’, that chametz is considered as an article entrusted to the gentile, and it is forbidden to benefit from it after Pesach."

(end of the Rambam’s commentary)

We can now focus on the contents of first three mishnayot. In mishnah 1, the Sages comment on the apparent superfluous statement concerning being able to feed chametz to livestock. They point out that it is not necessary to state that during the time in which it is permitted to eat chametz, one can feed it to livestock. This is obvious! The point of the mishnah, however, is to point out that during the time when it is not permitted to eat chametz, one may not feed it to livestock.

The gemara discusses why the mishnah lists livestock, beasts and birds. Shouldn’t one suffice for all. The gemara points out that you cannot derive one from the other. Had the mishnah mentioned only livestock, one might be concerned about visible leftovers as the animals move about. The gemara therefore concludes that all three were necessary to cover all contingencies.

Rabbi Yehudah’s ruling about burning chametz is refuted by the Sages who allow one to toss it away. The Rambam covered this aspect in his Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah from which we quoted above.

Mishnah 2 seems to be explained nicely by the Rambam, so we will go on to mishnah 3. Some commentators of the Rambam disagree with his views concerning the using of chametz as security for a loan between a Jew and gentile. The Rambam stated that his ruling of use is valid even if "the date specified (for repayment by the Jew) was before Pesach. The Ra’avad disagrees with this law and maintains that if this stipulation was included, the chametz is considered as belonging to the gentile even if the date mentioned is after Pesach. The Rambam maintains that since the Jew has the right to redeem his chametz during Pesach, it is still considered his.

The is also disagreement with the Rambam stipulating that the Jew must make the declaration about retroactive ownership. The Ra’avad maintains that such a declaration is an ‘asmachtah’, an agreement which was never intended to be fulfilled. He maintains that generally, the fact that a borrower does not specify that the security would retroactively become the lender’s property implies that he never really intended to sell it to him and always considers it his own. Thus, were such a transaction to be carried out between Jews, the Ra’avad maintains that the security would never become the lender’s property. However, he explains that this law applies only as regards business dealings carried out between Jews, and not to those involving gentiles.

Mishnah 4:

One who eats Terumah of chametz on Pesach inadvertently , must repay a Kohen the principal plus a fifth. If he eats it deliberately, he is free from payment and from liability for its value as fuel.

Commentary:

To quote Rashi in Bereishis , "this verse calls out for understanding!" It seems, on the surface, that the person who accidentally eats chametz on Pesach which is terumah, has a greater penalty than one who deliberately ate it! To further understand this mishnah, let’s review some aspects of terumah.

In Eretz Yisroel, the Kohen were supported by tithes. Terumah was the first produce separated from produce and given to a Kohen. It had holy status and could not be eaten by a non-Kohen. The Torah (Vayikra 22;14) specifies that if someone inadvertenly eats terumah, they must repay the principal plus a fifth. This repayment must be in produce(which now becomes terumah) and not in money! On the other hand, if a person knowingly ate terumah, they were guilty of common theft and different rules applied as regard to the damages. This restitution (which must still be made) may be in money and if it is in produce, the produce is not considered terumah. The Sages also said that the person is subject to punishment "at the hands of Heaven"

Mishnah 4 is concerned with terumah that was separated before it was leavened or that was separated in its leavened form before Pesach. It was valid terumah nevertheless and could not be eaten by a non-Kohen. Rashi comments that the person may have known it was chametz. Monetarily, the terumah eaten was worthless because chametz is forbidden to a Jew during and after Pesach. The repayment, according to the Talmud is not based on monetary value but volume. Even if it is contaminated and unfit for consumption by the Kohen it still could be used as fuel (in burning). One must consider the status of the terumah at the time it was eaten and the intent of the perpetrator. Note that uncontaminated terumah may not be used as fuel. We will discuss the concept of tithes in more detail in the next set of mishnayot. Since produce is at the heart of Pesach and the seder, we need to investigate the laws governing the use of tithed produce to fulfill the obligations of pesach.

______________________________________________________________________________

Mishnah 5:

These are the species of grain which a man fulfills his obligation (of matzah) on Pesach: with wheat, barely, spelt, rye, and oats. And we can discharge it with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with second tithe or consecrated produce that were redeemed. Kohanim can fulfill their obligation with challah and with terumah; but not with untithed produce, not with first tithe whose terumah has not been separated, nor with second tithe or consecrated produce that were not redeemed.

Regarding the unleavened loaves of the thanksgiving offering, and the nazirite’s wafers; if he made them for himself, he cannot fulfill his obligation with them. But if he made them to sell in the market, he can fulfill his obligation with them.

Mishnah 6:

And these are the herbs with which one fulfills his obligation on Pesach: with lettuce, endives, horseradish, charchavinah, and maror. One fulfills his obligation with them whether moist or dry, but not preserved, nor stewed, nor boiled. These combine to the size of an olive. One can fulfill his obligation with their stalk; with demai, with first tithe whose terumah has been separated, and with consecrated property and second tithe that were redeemed.

Commentary:

We begin our commentary with a look at the various tithes separated from produce.

• Tevel — a generic name given to any commodity that requires a tithe be taken from it. This is a contraction of two words tov lo meaning "not good". This is because the food is not fit for consumption until it has been properly tithed.
  
• Terumah — the first portion separated (representing a fortieth and a sixtieth of the total) is given to a Kohen and is forbidden to a non-Kohen.
  
• Ma’aser Rishon — the first tithe separated after terumah which is given to a Levite. It consists of one tenth (ma’aser) of the remainder.
  
• Ma’aser min Ha ma’aser (Tithe from a tithe) - From the tithe he has been given, a Levite separates out terumah to be given to the Kohen. This amounts to one tenth of the amount he received.
  
• Ma’aser Sheni — the second tithe is separated in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the seven year Sabbatical cycle. This is separated after the Kohen and Levite tithes. The ma’aser sheni must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there by the owner. If the food cannot be transported, it may be redeemed for money which must be spent on food in Jerusalem to fulfill the obligation.
  
• Ma’aser Oni — the tithe of the poor is separated in the third and sixth years of the seven year Sabbatical cycle and given to the poor. It has no special status must the crop remains tevel until this tithe has been separated.
  
• Challah — dough requires an extra terumah. This is called challah and a special blessing is recited as "challah is taken". It is governed by the same rules as terumah and has the same special status.
  
• Demai — in time, the Sages felt that the people were not scrupulous in the separation of tithes. Doubts remained about whether produce purchased in the market had been properly tithed. The Sages instituted the concept of demai which is a contraction of the Aramaic phrase dah mai which means "what is this". The Sages forbid the consumption of doubtful produce unless they separated an additional tithe. This restriction was not imposed on poor people and they could use demai without making an extra tithe.

The gemara notes that mishnah 5 demands that matzah may

made from only one of the five grains listed. Rice and millet are not valid for matzah since they do not leaven.

The mishnah speaks of thanksgiving loaves and the wafers of a nazarite. In the Torah (Vayikra 7:12) we read:

"If he offers a peace offering for thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened loaves mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers smeared with oil"

A nazarite is a person who has taken a strict vow to abstain from something allowed by the Torah. Typically, the nazarite is abstaining from the consumption of alcohol. Since this goes against what the Torah allows, the nazarite had to bring special offerings (including a sin offering). When his term ended, he brought thanksgiving offerings to the Temple including a basket of unleavened bread, loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers smeared with oil (Bamidbar 6:15).

He cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matzah if the intention was not for that purpose. The Torah states (Shemot 12:17) :"And you shall guard the matzot…" The Sages interpret this to mean that the proper intent to make matzah for the mitzvah of Pesach is required before it is fit for consumption at the seder and during Pesach.

In mishnah 6, the Tanna continues with the line of reasoning about what fulfills the obligations for a mitzvah on pesach. In this case, the commandment to eat "bitter herbs" (maror) is discussed. The unique situation here is the commandment to eat matzah is singular but the commandment to eat bitter herbs demands with the Pesach offering. As it says in the Torah (Shemot 12:8) : "With bitter herbs they shall eat it…"

The herb "charchavinah" is interpreted in the gemara as a vine growing around palm trees. The Rambam interprets it to be a type of "thistle" while the tenth century Rav Hai Gaon interprets it as a form of "acacia". The minimum amount of herbs (or grains for matzah) that must be consumed is called a kazius (olive size). The mishnah states that a combination of herbs (or grains for matzah) may be used to achieve this minimum size.

Mishnah 7:

We may not soak bran for chickens, but we may scald it. A woman may not soak bran to take with her to the baths, but she may rub it on her skin dry. A man may not chew wheat and place it on his wound on Pesach, because it becomes chametz.

Mishnah 8:

Flour may not be put into charoses nor into the mustard. However, if one did put it in, it must be eaten immediately. But Rabbi Meir forbids it.

We may not the Pesach offering neither in liquids nor fruit juices. Nut we may baste and dip it in them.

The waters used by a baker must be poured out, because they become chametz.

Commentary:

We comment briefly on the last two mishnayot in this chapter. Soak bran for chickens was common since it softness them up for digestion. However, on Pesach, soaking is forbidden since the bran rises. Scalding it in boiling water softness the bran without causing it to leaven. It would seem that in mishnaic times people used bran for medicinal and cosmetic purposes. Hence even if the bran is not being consumed, we cannot use it if it is chametz.

In mishnah 8, the word charoses is a dip used in mishnaic times consisting of fruit, spices, vinegar and water. Contrast this with our version of the dish containing apples, nuts, and wine. Flour cannot be added since it might become chametz. The concept of identifying charoses with the mortar used to make bricks in Egypt comes from the similarity to the word cheres which means "earthenware" and the mixture of charoses has the appearance of clay (or mortar).

Adding flour to the mix is forbidden since the flour can absorb the water and become chametz (just like the bakers water). The Sages comment that the liquids referred to in this mishnah are milk, honey, blood, water, wine, oil, and dew. Fruit juices are added since they are not part of this list and so without stating them, one might think that it was acceptable to cook the Pesach offering in it. The mishnah states that this is not the case, but a small dipping or basting is fine.