Do not eat Chometz on Pesach
Verse: לא תאכל עליו חמץ
Command: Do not eat Chometz
Devarim 16:3
Type: Negative
SMG Mitzva # 76
Cross-Ref: {link}
We explain that on the fourteenth (14th) day [of Nisan] from midday and onwards, there is a Biblical prohibition [against eating Ĉometz], but according to Rabbi Shimon, there is no negative Mitzva prohibiting [the extension of this Mitzva past the holiday of Pesaĉ]. According to Rabbi Yehuda, whom the Halaĉa [normally] follows, there is a negative Mitzva prohibiting [the eating of any Ĉometz made on or existing on Pesaĉ – regardless of when it is eaten, or who owned it during Pesaĉ].
SMG
It is forbidden to eat Ĉometz on the day of the fourteenth (14th) [of Nisan] from midday and onwards, which is from the beginning of the seventh (7th) [relativistic][1] hour of the day. One who violates this is lashed by Torah law, if[2] the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yehuda, as it says in the verse[i] לא תאכל עליו חמץ, שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות from which we derive in the Gemara[ii] according to Rabbi Yehuda, whom the Halaĉa follows as far as [an argument that exists between Rabbi Yehuda and] Rabbi Shimon [is determined in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda] that the phrase עליו חמץ refers to the time when the Pesaĉ offering was offered. In other words, [the verse means] one may not eat Ĉometz from the time appropriate to slaughter the Pesaĉ offering, which is in the afternoon – which is at midday [and onwards]. Even though [the phrase] עליו מצות refers to the time when the Pesaĉ is eaten in this opinion, nevertheless, Rabbi Moshe [the Rambam] wrote this negative Mitzva [as applying from the time when the Pesaĉ was offered].
There is a question about this [the ruling of the Rambam] because in the Gemara there, Rava and Shmuel rule like Rabbi Shimon who states[iii] that before and after the time when Ĉometz is prohibited, one does not violate “בולא כלום”[3]. And even though Rabeinu Yitzĉok explained there the words of Rabbi Shimon that there is specifically no negative prohibition. However, from the distinction provided by the phrase אך [in the positive Mitzva] of תשביתו [positive Mitzva 39] we learn that the destruction of Ĉometz must be performed in a way that does not provide benefit – which is why the Gemara[iv] there requires burning [the Ĉometz] in the sixth (6th) hour [of the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan] [when the Ĉometz is in the form of] Tahor Teruma[4]. Nevertheless, there is no negative Mitzva [before and after the time to destroy the Ĉometz]. And I [the SMG] say that the Rav’s [Rambam’s] intent was that Rava [and Shmuel] do not rule like Rabbi Shimon except in regard to Ĉometz after the time [in which it must be destroyed]. But, before the time [to destroy Ĉometz], when we do not find anyone ruling like him [like Rabbi Shimon] we may not exclude this ruling from the general ruling that was determined elsewhere in the Gemara[v] [regarding arguments between] Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon – the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yehuda says in the Gemara there[vi] that there are three (3) times the prohibition [against Ĉometz] is stated, the verse לא תאכל עליו חמץ prohibits Ĉometz before its time [of destruction], the verse ולא יאכל חמץ prohibits Ĉometz during the time [when it must be destroyed] and the verse כל מחמצת לא תאכלו prohibits Ĉometz after the time [when it must be destroyed]. And Rabbi Shimon uses these verses to derive other points and teaches that the verse כל מחמצת teaches us that [from the other verses of לא תאכל עליו חמץ and ולא יאכל חמץ, which phrase their prohibition with the word חמץ we learn that] we are talking about something that naturally became Ĉometz. But with something that became Ĉometz by the use of a different thing [ingredient], for example[vii], wine dregs which have dried out, and anything similar – where do we know that [such types of Ĉometz are also prohibited]. That we learn from the [unusual] phrasing of כל מחמצת לא תאכלו. And specifically, regarding that particular verse, that is where Rava rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon[5]. Even so, it seems to me [the SMG] that it should not be counted among the negative Mitzvos [as its own negative Mitzva] because he does [not[6]] completely rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, as he has not explained, in what [aspect of Rabbi Shimon’s derivation] he does rule [according to Rabbi Shimon] and in what [aspect of Rabbi Shimon’s derivation] he does not rule [according to Rabbi Shimon]. And this is how the Rav, Rabbi Yeĉiel son of Rabbi Yosi understood this. Regardless, even according to Rabbi Shimon, there is a Biblical prohibition [to consume Ĉometz after Pesaĉ, which Ĉometz violated the negative Mitzva of existing on Pesaĉ] as we explained. But in this manner [where after Pesaĉ one eats Ĉometz made by a non-Jew on Pesaĉ, or if one eats an admixture into which an insignificant amount of Ĉometz fell after Pesaĉ] there is no negative Mitzva being violated, unless this is done on Pesaĉ. And this is what we are accounting for in this negative Mitzva.
And the Halaĉa follows Rabbi Yehuda who says that one may eat Ĉometz throughout the first four (4) hours of the day. And during the fifth hour one may not eat Ĉometz, which decree was instituted out of concern for a cloudy day – when one might make a mistake in determining what time is part of the fifth hour as opposed to the sixth (6th) hour. During the sixth hour, we burn the Ĉometz at the beginning of the sixth (6th) hour, because from the sixth (6th) hour onward, the sages prohibited one from deriving benefit from [Ĉometz]. There is a prohibition from the Torah prohibiting one from eating any amount of Ĉometz on Pesaĉ, as it says in the verse[viii] ולא יאכל חמץ. Nevertheless, one is not obligated to bring a sacrifice nor is the punishment of כרת enacted unless one ate the measured amount – which is an olive’s worth. One who deliberately eats less than an olive’s worth of Ĉometz is beaten [by the courts] with Rebellious Lashes.
Anyone who eats an olive’s worth of Ĉometz on Pesaĉ from the beginning of the fifteenth (15th) [of Nisan] until the end of the twenty first (21st) of Nisan, deliberately, is punishable by כרת as it says in the verse[ix] כי כל אכל חמץ ונכרתה.[7] And if this was done accidentally, one is obligated to offer the established sin offering. And this applies to one who eats [Ĉometz] or one who processes it and drinks it. Ĉometz on Pesaĉ may not be benefitted from, as it says in the verse[x] (ו)לא יאכל חמץ[8] which implies that there may not be the permissibility of something which is eaten[9]. And the Halaĉa does not follow Rabbi Yosi from the Galilee[10] who stated that [Ĉometz on Pesaĉ] is permitted to derive benefit from.
[1] NOTE: The hours used in discussing this Mitzva are all relativistic hours and not set hours. I will not be inserting the term relativistic every time the word hours is mentioned.
Meaning, to determine the length of the hour, one divides the total time from sunrise to sunset by twelve (12), each component comprising an hour – which begins at sunrise. Midday is not noon (12 PM) but rather the point at which the sun is at its zenith. And these times are all based on local experience, not based on what is being experienced in Israel.
[2] The qualifying statement of “if” refers to an argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon as to whether the prohibition against eating Ĉometz on the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan is the result of a negative Mitzva [according to Rabbi Yehuda] or not [according to Rabbi Shimon].
According to Rabbi Shimon, there is an obligation during the first half of the day to destroy all Ĉometz in one’s possession. See positive Mitzva 39. Since there is an obligation to destroy the Ĉometz, that precludes the possibility of keeping Ĉometz and eating it. In other words, Rabbi Shimon derives the same prohibition of eating Ĉometz on the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan from the positive Mitzva to destroy it.
That does not mean that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion there is no negative Mitzva prohibiting eating Ĉometz. Instead, he is of the opinion that the negative Mitzva starts with the advent of Pesaĉ, and not on the day before. Also, as discussed later, he permits the eating of Ĉometz after Pesaĉ which was not Jewish owned during Pesaĉ, or was subsequently inadvertantly nullified in an admixture after Pesaĉ.
The question is, why does the SMG qualify his statement about the punishment for eating Ĉometz on the second half of the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan. As we will see from the discussion that follows, it was not clear to the SMG as to whom the Halaĉa follows with regards to this Mitzva.
[3] This phrase אינו עובר עליו בולא כלום – one does commit the violation of בולא כלום seems to be a pun; both the prohibition of seeing or finding Ĉometz is typically rephrased in rulings as being בל יראה ובל ימצא, even though the verse uses the word לא instead of בל. So, בולא seems to be a conjunction of בל with ולא. It could also just be a scrivener’s error, and the phrase should read אינו עובר עליו ולא כלום – one does not commit a violation about it, nor is it [Ĉometz] anything [problematic].
[4] The SMG is referring to the additional clause discussed in the Mishna quoted in the Gemara above, where Raban Gamliel says, ‘mundane food is eaten all of the fourth (4th) [hour on the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan], Teruma is eaten all of the fifth (5th) [hour on the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan] and they are burnt in the sixth (6th) [hour on the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan]’.
As we know from positive Mitzva 133, the obligation to give Teruma to the Kohen, the food designated as Teruma becomes sanctified in the process, and may not be mistreated, including a prohibition against wantonly destroying so long as it can be used by the Kohen.
Here, Raban Gamliel is talking about Teruma that was separated and given to the Kohen, who used the Teruma to create a food that was Ĉometz, presumably intending to eat the Teruma during the time permitted to do so. Since it is Teruma, Rabban Gamliel states that the Rabbinical additional hour of prohibition against the eating of Ĉometz – the fifth (5th) hour of the fourteenth (14th) day of Nisan – which was enacted by the sages to protect against miscalculations of the time on a cloudy day, does not apply, as the Biblical obligation to treat Teruma properly trumps the Rabbinic concern of a possible miscalculation of the time on a cloudy day.
And yet, when it comes to the sixth (6th) hour of the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan, the owner of this Teruma is commanded to destroy the Ĉometz, in a manner in which he can derive no benefit from doing so, even though it is Teruma.
[5] Meaning, that regarding the first two verses of לא תאכל עליו חמץ and ולא יאכל חמץ, there we assume that Rava [and Shmuel] rule in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, as is normal in a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Because, unless we are told otherwise, that is how we always rule in such disputes. It is only regarding the argument as to the proper derivation from כל מחמצת לא תאכלו that Rava [and Shemuel] rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who teaches that all processes which create Ĉometz are derived from this verse. Not that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with that conclusion, he just does not derive it from the verse כל מחמצת לא תאכלו. Therefore, if the verse כל מחמצת לא תאכלו does not teach us about a prohibition of Ĉometz after the time during which it must be destroyed, that must mean there is no verse prohibiting this.
The SMG does not explain what Rabbi Yehuda’s intent is when noting that there is a prohibition of Ĉometz after the time during which it must be destroyed. Perhaps, the SMG holds that Rabbi Yehuda means Ĉometz which has lasted throughout Pesaĉ without being destroyed must be destroyed after Pesaĉ. And that a failure to do so, where one instead used that Ĉometz later, results in the violation of this negative Mitzva.
In that case, it seems to me farfetched to say that Rabbi Shimon allows the use of Ĉometz once the holiday is over. In other words, an item to which such fearsome prohibitions has been attached, and by which a person violated several negative Mitzvos, suddenly becomes permitted after Pesaĉ. Rather, I would say that according to Rabbi Shimon, the obligation to destroy that Ĉometz still exists, which obligation fell on the person prior to the start of Pesaĉ. But, once Pesaĉ is over, the destruction of the Ĉometz might be accomplished in a way that provides the person with a benefit without violating yet another negative Mitzva. However, this too instinctively feels incorrect, as that would mean a person could eat the Ĉometz, through which he violated Pesaĉ, as soon as Pesaĉ was over, which, as I said before, seems farfetched.
So, we are left with explaining that Rabbi Shimon is focused instead on the idea that the prohibition of the Ĉometz extends to the physical body of the Ĉometz, not to the time period during which the Ĉometz exists. I believe, that according to Rabbi Shimon, the body of Ĉometz itself becomes prohibited once Pesaĉ starts, whether the Ĉometz became Ĉometz naturally or through the presence of an additive. Therefore, he does not feel the need for a verse to derive that after Pesaĉ this same forbidden substance remains prohibited. Once the substance has become a forbidden substance, it remains forbidden thereafter.
Therefore, while Rabbi Shimon might not provide us with a specific negative Mitzva prohibiting the consumption of Ĉometz after Pesaĉ, such Ĉometz would remain a prohibited material after Pesaĉ as a result of achieving that status by its existence on Pesaĉ. In that case, the continued existence of the Ĉometz no longer violates either negative Mitzva of לא יראה or לא ימצא, like it did throughout Pesaĉ. But that doesn’t mean that the forbidden material is suddenly permitted to be eaten.
This seems to me to be the actual ideas discussed in the Gemara:
Rava said, ‘the Halaĉa is: Ĉometz in its time [during which it is prohibited], whether on its own, or mixed with another substance, is prohibited no matter the quantity – in accordance with Rav. After its time [during which Ĉometz is prohibited], whether on its own, or mixed with another substance is permitted – in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.’
Question: Did Rava say this? Rava said, ‘Rabbi Shimon established a penalty [to prohibit Ĉometz after the time period in which it must be destroyed]; since he violated the negative Mitzvos of בל יראה and בל ימצא.’
Clarification: This [penalty] means, when the Ĉometz is in its original form – [it is then that Rabbi Shimon penalized the person who violated the negative Mitzvos of לא יראה and לא ימצא, at which point Rabbi Shimon says], but in its admixture form, no [there is no prohibition against eating it]. And this reasoning by Rava is consistent with what Rava said, ‘when I [Rava] was by Rav Naĉman, when the seven (7) days* of Pesaĉ passed, he [Rav Naĉman] told us [Rava and Abaya], “go and by Ĉometz from the gentiles”’.
- Since Rava and Rav Naĉman lived in Babylon, why is there the notation of seven (7) days of Pesaĉ. In exile we keep eight (8) days. Normally, I would say the distinction is pedantic. But since this is Rava, there must be a reason he included the number of days instead of simply saying ‘when the days of Pesaĉ passed’.
The Gemara clearly provides, according to Rava (and since he quotes a story to support his opinion, we can assume this is a matter of practical Halaĉa) that the material of Ĉometz is what becomes a forbidden material on Pesaĉ, and therefore, once Pesaĉ is over, it is subject to the standard rules regarding admixtures in which forbidden materials are nullified if such forbidden materials are of miniscule quantities (less than one sixtieth [1:60] of the total).
As to why the story with Rav Naĉman is proof of that: since they [Rava and Abaya] were told to buy Ĉometz from the gentiles, how would that be an indication that Ĉometz which had become forbidden on Pesaĉ becomes a forbidden material. Rashi there explains that according to Rabbi Yehuda, Ĉometz made on Pesaĉ is forbidden regardless of who makes it. Therefore, Rav Naĉman’s willingness to purchase Ĉometz immediately after Pesaĉ, even though it was made on Pesaĉ, indicates we do not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this particular component of the prohibition.
In conclusion: When it comes to before and during Pesaĉ, we follow all opinions that Ĉometz is prohibited, no matter who made it or when it was made or how it was made. Once Pesaĉ is over, we follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that the material itself of Ĉometz through which a negative Mitzva was violated becomes a forbidden material and is to be treated like any other forbidden material – destroyed if possible but potentially permitted if accidentally mixed in to permitted material. However, the material of Ĉometz that existed on Pesaĉ through which a negative Mitzva was not violated, e.g. Ĉometz owned by a non-Jew, is not prohibited at all.
The permissibility by Rabbi Shimon of an admixture of Ĉometz, after Pesaĉ passes, is derived from the verse כל מחמצת לא תאכלו – anything that causes something else to become Ĉometz may not be eaten, which prohibition, according to Rabbi Shimon, only applies during Pesaĉ. Therefore, when Ĉometz is added to something else, in other words, when Ĉometz is added to a different food to cause it to become מחמצת, after Pesaĉ, that is when this admixture is permitted (so long as the amount added is insignificant – as noted above).
And, I would argue, that this permissibility applies only so long as the food is in its מחמצת status. Once the addition of Ĉometz causes the admixture to become Ĉometz [for example, the making of sourdough bread is done by taking a small piece of sourdough and adding it to the regular dough, before it has a chance to rise] then the mixture is no longer מחמצת, but is now actual Ĉometz, which becomes an extension of the original forbidden material and is in itself forbidden. This idea follows the Halaĉic logic that anything which provides an overwhelming effect to the admixture cannot be nullified by simple quantitative measurement.
This seems to me to be the correct understanding of the SMG, the Gemara, the Halaĉa, and how it is derived.
[6] It seems to me that there is a scrivener’s error in the text here. The SMG text reads:
כי לגמרי פוסק כר’ שמעון מאחר שלא פירש במה פוסק ובמה אינו פוסק – because he rules completely in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since he has not explained; in what he rules and in what he does not rule.
I am unable to make sense of that phrase, unless the word אינו is to be added as follows:
כי לגמרי אינו פוסק כר’ שמעון מאחר שלא פירש במה פוסק ובמה אינו פוסק – because he does not completely rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since he does not explain in what he rules and in what he does not rule.
In other words, Rava states he rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, but does not specify exactly in what scenario he rules according to Rabbi Shimon and in what scenario he does not rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, Rava is not establishing that the Halaĉa completely follows Rabbi Shimon, only that the derivation from this particular verse follows Rabbi Shimon, which, according to Rabbi Shimon, only serves to qualify the details of the other associated negative Mitzvos. Therefore, this verse is not the source of a new negative Mitzva.
[7] Meaning, this verse, according to Rabbi Yehuda, provides us with the second-tier punishment of כרת for the days of the holiday, as opposed to a violation of this Mitzva on the fourteenth (14th) of Nisan, which is punishable by lashes.
[8] There is no phrase in the Torah לא יאכל חמץ – without the letter Vav. I assume this is a scrivener’s error.
[9] In other words, things which may be eaten may also be used to derive benefit from. We already know from other verses that Ĉometz may not be eaten on Pesaĉ – therefore, this verse ולא יאכל חמץ – and do not allow Ĉometz to be eaten, means that one may not apply the permissibility rules of food which may be eaten to Ĉometz on Pesaĉ – which permissibility rule is that one may derive benefit from food which may be eaten.
[10] Rabbi Yosi from the Galilee derives his reasoning from the juxtaposition of ולא יאכל חמץ to היום אתם יוצאים – the prohibition against benefitting from Ĉometz is only the day on which the exodus took place. I am unclear if this is a true derivation from the juxtaposition or if Rabbi Yosi from the Galilee learnt that the word היום is not part of a separate verse. Instead, he would read the prior verse as ולא יאכל חמץ היום followed by the next verse אתם יוצאים בחדש האביב. This seems to be what Rashi on the Gemara is implying based on the phrasing Rashi uses.
[i] Devarim 16:3
[ii] Gem. Pesaĉim 28b
[iii] Gem. Pesaĉim 30a
[iv] Gem. Pesaĉim 11b
[v] Gem. Eiruvin 46b
[vi] Gem. Pesaĉim 28b
[vii] See Tosefos מחמת there which provides this example
[viii] Shemos 13:3
[ix] Shemos 12:15
[x] Shemos 13:3
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[Maharshal’s comments on the prohibitions of Ĉometz on Pesaĉ are included in the discussion on negative Mitzvos 77 and 78]
RASHI
Rashi does not comment on either of the verses quoted by the SMG in relation to this Mitzva.
Discussion by SMS
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms