Monday, August 13, 2007
matzah made from chadash
Rashi in last week’s parsha (16:6) writes that there is no contradiction between the Torah’s command to eat matzah for six days and the command to eat matzah for seven days – matzah of chadash is permitted only for six of the seven days of pesach. Is Rashi just telling us a practical metziyus or is he telling us a din? Maharal notes that Tosfos (Kiddushin 39a) assumes matzah made of chadash cannot be used to fulfill mitzvas matzah. Tosfos asks: why don't we say that the aseh of matzah is doche the lav of chadash? Tosfos answers: 1) the aseh of matzah was given before Sinai and is different than other mitzvot aseh; 2) we do say aseh doche lo ta’aseh, but there is a gezeirah derabbanan not to eat this type of matzah lest one eat more than a k’zayis, which exceeds the shiur of the mitzvah. According to Rashi the entire question is moot - our Rashi tells us that there is a din in mitzvas matzah that precludes it being made from chadash.
Are you familiar with the whole discussion of the shagas aryeh and the Or Sameach on this point? Basically, the Rambam paskens no matzah made out of chadash. SA asks Tosfos questions, and concludes in the end you can use. OS argues and explains a yesod in aseh docheh lo taaseh, chiluk between issurei cheftza and gavra and that the bavli and yerushalmi argue re: the nature of the issur of chadash -- that if it is an issur gavra then it would be docheh, but not an issur cheftza. Perhaps the derasha (according the OS) sheds light on the nature of chadash, and whether we would say aseh docheh lo taaseh. I've been mekatzer (the whole discussion is a longer piece, and I have a feeling you have heard this shtikel before) so let me know if this was too much be-kitzur.
ReplyDeletecan say it is the maharal l'shitaso, does not accept tos. (2nd) ans. because acc. to the maharal, all matzah eaten that night is a fulfillment of ba'erev tochlu matzos.
ReplyDeleteAnon1,
ReplyDeleteI have seen the SA, but not the OS, but I catch your drift. The only thing is that it sounds from Rashi like this is a din in matzah, and acc to the OS it sounds like a din in the nature of the issue chadash.
WfB, on your l'shitaso, is this the maharal's shita elsewhere?
I agree with your point -- does sound that way from Rashi. And the OS does not (to the best of my recollection) cite Rashi either. More be-derech efshar. Anyway, interesting point you make.
ReplyDeleteyes: gevuros hashem chap. 48, also i think cited by the bach.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this whole question an open sugya in Yerushalmi?
ReplyDelete