Хамец і маца — Рамбам

Хамец і маца

Хамец і маца — Рамбам на Бет га-Мідраш: текст на івриті та його український переклад, із Раші й великими коментаторами. Безкоштовно, онлайн.

כָּל הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח מִתְּחִלַּת לֵיל חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר עַד סוֹף יוֹם אֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים בְּנִיסָן בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב טו) "כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה". בְּשׁוֹגֵג חַיָּב קָרְבַּן חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. אֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל וְאֶחָד הַמְמַחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה:Anyone who intentionally eats an olive's size 4b as the size of an olive.It must be emphasized that the measure of a כזית (an olive's size) cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages and this is the subject of debate by the Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive as one third the size of an egg (כביצה, a more familiar Talmudic measure). In terms of modern measurements, this olive size would be between 16.6 and 24 grams, according to various Halachic opinions.Tosefot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines a כזית(the size of an olive) as one half the size of an egg (between 25.6 and 36 grams according to the various opinions). With regard to the practical application of the law (halachah l'ma'aseh), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 486) advises that in all questions of Torah law, Tosefot's opinion should be followed. However, in questions of Rabbinic law, the more lenient opinion can be relied upon. [כזית, or more] of chametz on Pesach from the beginning of the night of the fifteenth [of Nisan] until the conclusion of the day of the twenty-first [of Nisan] is liable for כרת,, negative commandment 197; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 19. as [Exodus 12:15] states: "Whoever eats leaven... will have his soul cut off." 28a relates that a person who violated a sin punishable by כרת would die before reaching the age of fifty.In his commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6, the Rambam emphasizes that premature death does not represent the totality of the retribution these individuals will receive. In addition, "their souls will be cut off."In Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1, the Rambam elaborates on the latter dimension:The good that is hidden for the righteous is the life of the world to come... The retribution of the wicked is that they will not merit this life. Rather, they will be cut off and die.This is the intent of the meaning of the term כרת in the Torah, as [Numbers 15:31] states: "That soul shall surely be cut off."[Should one eat this amount of chametz] unintentionally, one is liable to bring a fixed sin offering 1:3.) The latter offering is not "fixed," but rather is adjustable according to the financial state of the person liable. [as atonement].[The above applies] equally to one who eats chametz and one who converts it into a liquid and drinks it.

הֶחָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יג ג) "לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ" לֹא יְהֵא בּוֹ הֶתֵּר אֲכִילָה. וְהַמַּנִּיחַ חָמֵץ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּפֶסַח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אֲכָלוֹ עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יג ז) (דברים טז ד) "לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל גְּבֻלֶךָ" וְנֶאֱמַר (שמות יב יט) "שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם". וְאִסּוּר הֶחָמֵץ וְאִסּוּר הַשְּׂאוֹר שֶׁבּוֹ מַחְמִיצִין אֶחָד הוּא:On Pesach, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from chametz, as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating. 21b records the following disagreement between the Sages:Chizkiyah states: What is the source from which we learn that it is forbidden to derive benefit from chametz? [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat (לא יאכל) chametz"; i.e., it is not permitted [to be used to derive benefit that leads to] eating.His decision is based on the fact that the Torah uses the expression לא יאכל. Had the Torah not written יאכל לא, we may presume that a prohibition against eating would be implied, but not a prohibition against deriving benefit.This contradicts the opinion of R. Abahu who states: Wherever the Torah states לא תאכל, לא יאכלor לא תאכלו, a prohibition against eating and deriving benefit is implied.The Rambam's statements in this Halachah quote the opinion of Chizkiyah. However, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 8:15, he quotes the opinion of R. Abahu as accepted halachah.The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that in the halachah at hand, there is no difference in law between Chizkiyah and R. Abahu. Therefore, although the Rambam generally accepts R. Abahu's opinion, in this instance he quotes Chizkiyah's statements because the manner in which the latter derives the concept is more explicit.A person who leaves chametz within his property on Pesach, even though he does not eat it, transgresses two prohibitions: [Exodus 13:7] states: "No leavening agent may be seen in all your territory", negative commandment 200; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 20. and [Exodus 12:19] states: "No leavening agent may be found in your homes.", negative commandment 201; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 11.[Though the prohibitions stated in these verses apply to שאור,] refers to leavening agents, notably yeast. it is the same prohibition which forbids both חמץ (leaven) and שאור (a leavening agent). 7a explains that Exodus 13:7 mentions both chametz (leaven), and שעור (S'or, a leavening agent) in the same verse to emphasize that they are identical.The Ra'avad comments that the equation between the prohibitions against chametz and S'or is not complete. Among the differences between them are: Once chametz is no longer fit to be eaten by a dog, it is no longer prohibited. In contrast, yeast is never fit to be eaten and is prohibited even in that state. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh do not accept his statements.

אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם לֹא יֵרָאֶה וְ(שמות יב יט) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא" אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָנָה חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אוֹ חִמְצוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לוֹ חָמֵץ קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח וּבָא הַפֶּסַח וְלֹא בִּעֲרוֹ אֶלָּא הִנִּיחוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר עַל שְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:[A violator] is not lashed for [transgressing the prohibitions] not to have [chametz] seen [in his possession] and not to have [chametz] found [in his possession] unless he purchased chametz on Pesach emphasizes that this law applies only to chametz purchased from a gentile. However, once chametz belonging to a Jew becomes prohibited, that Jew no longer has the authority to sell it. Thus, the purchaser will never really become the legal owner of the chametz (See Rashi, Sukkah 35a; Tosefot, Chullin 4b).The Or Sameach questions how a person can become liable even for chametz purchased from a gentile, but resolves the issue based on the commentary of Rabbenu Nissim (Avodah Zarah, Chapter 3). or [caused flour] to become leavened, and thus committed a deed. raises a significant question: A person is not liable for lashes for violating any prohibition which he can correct by fulfilling a positive commandment (לעשה לאו הניתק): For example, if a person violates the prohibition against taking both a mother bird and her eggs, he can free himself from the punishment of lashes by sending away the mother bird.Tosefot (Pesachim 29b) states that the prohibition against chametz being seen in one's property falls into the above category, because one can correct the violation of this prohibition by fulfilling the positive commandment to destroy chametz. Thus, it appears that a person can never be held liable for lashes for this transgression.Among the resolutions offered to this difficulty is that of Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, who explains that Tosefot's statements apply only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who maintains that chametz must be destroyed by burning. However, according to the Sages (whose opinion is accepted by the Rambam, Halachah 3:11), who maintain that chametz can be destroyed by any means, not necessarily burning, the prohibition against possessing chametz is not considered a לאו הניתק לעשה.What is the essential difference between these opinions: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the fundamental aspect of the mitzvah to destroy chametz revolves upon the article itself (חפצה); it is a mitzvah to destroy chametz. In contrast, the Sages maintain that the mitzvah centers on the person (גברה); he is commanded to remove all chametz from his possession.According to Rabbi Yehudah, since the commandment revolves around the chametz itself, its destruction directly "corrects" the sin of its possession. In contrast, according to the Sages, the positive commandment of ridding one's house of chametz is merely a reinforcement of the prohibition against its possession, and the fulfillment of the positive commandment does not have the power to "correct" the violation of the prohibition.However, if he possessed chametz before Pesach, and when Pesach came he did not destroy it and left it in his possession, even though he transgresses two prohibitions, according to the Torah, he is not lashed, for he did not perform a deed. 21b states: "The transgression of any prohibition which does not involve a deed is not punishable by lashing." [Nevertheless,] he is given "stripes for being rebellious." 14b states that this punishment is also inflicted upon those who violate a Torah prohibition that is not punishable by lashing.

חָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה לְעוֹלָם. וְדָבָר זֶה קְנָס הוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר עַל בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא אֲסָרוּהוּ. אֲפִלּוּ הִנִּיחוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה אוֹ בְּאֹנֶס. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַנִּיחַ אָדָם חָמֵץ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּפֶסַח כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה בּוֹ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח:It is prohibited to ever benefit from chametz [that a Jew] 28a). possessed during Pesach. 28). Thus, it is prohibited to buy chametz from a store owned by a Jew who did not observe the prohibition against possessing chametz on Pesach. This prohibition is a penalty instituted by the Sages. 29a mentions Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the prohibition stems from the Torah itself. However, this opinion is not accepted as halachah.The Tzafnat Paneach explains that the debate between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon (who maintains that the Torah does not forbid benefiting from chametz after Pesach) revolves around an abstract concept. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that once Pesach comes, chametz itself becomes forbidden and, therefore, can never become permitted again. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon maintains that the prohibition does not affect the essence of the chametz itself. Thus, we are forbidden to benefit from it during Pesach, but after Pesach there is no prohibition. Since the person transgressed [the prohibitions against chametz] being found and being seen [in his possession], they prohibited its use. explains that the prohibition against using a Jew's chametz after Pesach applies even when the prohibitions against possessing chametz are not violated. See Halachah 4:5.[The above applies] even if he inadvertently left [the chametz in his possession during Pesach] or was forced to do so. (Orach Chayim 20) gives an example of such a case. A thief stole chametz from a person before Pesach and returned it to him after the holiday. Even though the person had no opportunity to destroy it before Pesach, it is forbidden.In that responsum, the Nodah BiYhudah also raises the following question: A person died on the fourteenth of Nisan without nullifying or selling his chametz. Are his heirs forbidden to benefit from that chametz or not? He maintains that although the Rambam would probably prohibit benefiting from this chametz, there are rationales on the basis of which its use may be permitted. [Other authorities (note Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Kuntres Acharon 435) do not accept this conclusion.] [These stringencies were instituted] lest a person leave chametz in his possession during Pesach in order to benefit from it after Pesach.

חָמֵץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדָבָר אַחֵר תּוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. וְחָמֵץ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה אִם נִתְעָרֵב בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. שֶׁלֹּא קָנְסוּ וְאָסְרוּ אֶלָּא בֶּחָמֵץ עַצְמוֹ אֲבָל הַתַּעֲרֹבֶת מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח:If, on Pesach, maintain that this principle does not apply until the holiday itself actually begins. Thus, even if chametz became mixed with other substances on the fourteenth of Nisan, after the time chametz is forbidden, the mixture is bound by the laws regarding the nullification of forbidden objects (ביטול איסורים) that apply throughout the entire year.The Kessef Mishneh maintains that a simple interpretation of the Rambam's statements leads to the conclusion that he accepts this opinion. Though others, among them the Maggid Mishneh, do not accept this view, it is accepted as Halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 447:2). even the slightest amount of chametz becomes mixed together with another substance, either of its kind 15:1). or not of its kind, [the entire mixture] is forbidden. (15:9), the Rambam explains that this stringency is instituted because chametz is a דבר שיש לו מתירין (a substance which later will become permitted).A דבר שיש לו מתירין which becomes mixed together with a permitted substance of its own kind is never permitted to be used because of the following rationale: Since its use in its entirety will later become permitted, there is no need to grant a leniency allowing it to be eaten when forbidden.Similarly, with regard to chametz on Pesach: There is no prohibition against using a mixture of chametz after Pesach. Hence, there is no need to grant permission to eat such a mixture on Pesach itself, even though the quantity of the permitted substance far surpasses that of the chametz.Furthermore, there is a stricter dimension to chametz than to any other דבר שיש לו מתירין. Generally, a דבר שיש לו מתירין is permitted if it becomes mixed with a substance of another kind to the extent that its taste can no longer be discerned. However, this leniency is not granted regarding mixtures of chametz. Since Exodus 12:20 states: "You must not eat any leaven," the severity of the prohibition obligates additional stringency.Though it is forbidden to benefit from chametz which a Jew possessed on Pesach, if it became mixed with another substance, whether of its kind or not of its kind, it is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. explains that this leniency applies whether the mixture occurred after Pesach or on the holiday itself. Nevertheless, the latter point should not be misinterpreted. Should such a mixture be discovered on Pesach, we are obligated to destroy it (Ramah, Orach Chayim 447:1). Nevertheless, if either intentionally or unintentionally, the mixture was not destroyed on the holiday itself, it may be used afterwards. [The Sages] only penalized and forbade [the use of] chametz itself. A mixture [containing chametz possessed on Pesach] is permitted to be eaten after Pesach. 30a explains that since the penalty is of Rabbinic origin, it was applied only to chametz itself and not to mixtures.

Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread.1