Rashi brings the derivation, that eating Matzos throughout the seven days of Pesach is not obligatory; rather it is optional. Why can "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tocheilu" not be taken literally?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because then "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos" (12:18) (requiring the eating of Matzos on the first night), would make no sense. 1
But see Gur Aryeh (12:15:153.50:2).
What kind of Matzos is the Torah referring to?
How do we reconcile this Pasuk, "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tocheilu," with the Pasuk in Parshas Re'eh, "Sheishes Yamim Tochal Matzos" (Devarim 16:8)?
Rashi (citing the Mechilta): From the latter Pasuk we learn that there is no obligation to eat Matzah on the seventh day of Pesach. 1 And since the current Pasuk writes seven days - comparing the six days to the seventh, it teaches us that the non-obligation extends to all seven days. 2 This leaves us with the obligation to eat Matzos only on the first night 3 - which we learn from "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos" (12:18). 4
Pesachim 38b: This Pasuk 5 teaches us that one can be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah, only with Matzos that can be eaten for seven days -- which excludes Chalos Todah and Rekikei (Matzah wafers of a) Nazir, which due to the laws of those Korbanos may only be eaten for a day and a night.
Menachos 66a: "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tocheilu " teaches us that Matzah which cannot be eaten for seven days - i.e., Chadash, which only becomes permitted on the second day of Pesach - may be eaten for the ensuing six days.
Rashi: Though the Isur of eating Chametz remains intact.
Rashi: This is based on the principle, 'Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Klal, v'Yatza Min ha'Klal l'Lamed, Lo l'Lamed Al Atzmo Yatza, Ela l'Lamed Al ha'Klal Kulo Yatza.' See Sifsei Chachamim.
See also Ba'al ha'Turim.
Which is otherwise superfluous. See Sifsei Chachamim. See also Ba'al ha'Turim to 12:18.
Bearing in mind the Pasuk "Shiv'as Yamim Matzos Tocheilu" (lit. seven days), how do we know that the prohibition against eating Chametz applies at night-time as well (see Torah Temimah, note 116)?
Mechilta: We learn it from verse 12:18, which with regards to eating Matzah, writes "b'Arba'ah-Asar Yom la'Chodesh ba'Erev... Ad Yom ha'Echad v'Esrim la'Chodesh ba'Arev" - including all the time in between. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 116.
What are the implications of the word "ba'Yom [... Tashbisu]"?
Pesachim 5a: It implies that the Mitzvah of Bi'ur Chametz must be performed during the day (of the fourteenth). 1
Why does the Torah insert the word "Ach"?
Pesachim 5a: "Ach," 'Chalak' - It comes to divide the day (of 14 Nisan) in two, permitting the retention of Chametz up until midday. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 122.
What is the meaning of "Tashbisu"? How does one carry it out?
Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan; Rashi (to Pesachim 4b): "Tashbisu" means 'Bitul' - declaring the Chametz null and void (it does not mean 'destroying').
Pesachim 27b: It means 'destroy' in any way that one can - either by burning; or by breaking it up into crumbs and either throwing it to the wind or casting it into the sea. 1
L'Chatchila, however, it is preferable to burn it - See Torah Temimah, note 128.
Why does the Torah begin this verse with "Se'or," and end with "Chametz"?
Beitzah 7b: To teach us that, like Se'or (sourdough), the Shi'ur for Chametz is a k'Zayis. 1
Even though the Chimutz (leavening) of sourdough is more powerful than that of Chametz. See Torah Temimah, note 130.
What does the (otherwise superfluous) word "[Ki] Kol [Ochel Chametz]" come to include?
Pesachim 43a: It comes to incorporate women in the Isur of Chametz. 1
Pesachim 43a: We would otherwise have exempted them, since the Torah compares the Isur Chametz to the Mitzvah of Achilas Matzah, from which women ought to be Patur since it is a 'Mitzvas Aseh she'ha'Zeman Geramah.' See Torah Temimah, note 31.
What does the Torah mean when it writes, "ba'Yom ha'Rishon"?
Rashi and Da'as Zekenim: "Yom ha'Rishon" has connotations of 'the day before.' 1 Consequently, the obligation of nullifying one's Chametz pertains to the day before Yom-Tov. 2
Pesachim 5a: It can only mean on the fourteenth, since the Torah writes below, 3 "Shiv'as Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem" (12:19), 4 in which case the Chametz must have been cleared from the house before the advent of Yom-Tov. 5
Rashi: The word Rishon means "before" in Iyov 15:7. Da'as Zekenim - Also as in Bereishis 2:2.
Rashi: It cannot mean on Yom-Tov itself, seeing as the Torah (34:25) forbids being in possession of Chametz when slaughtering the Korban Pesach (see following footnote). See Torah Temimah, note 121.
Pesachim (loc. cit.): In addition to the verse in Ki Sisa, "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" (34:25) - prohibiting Shechting the Korban Pesach while there is still Chametz in the houses.
Pesachim (ibid.): Moreover, in Iyov we find that the word "Rishon" can mean 'before.'
Pesachim (ibid.): Nor can "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon... " come to include the night of the fifteenth for Bi'ur Chametz. In 12:19, the Torah compares the Isur of 'Lo Yimatzei' to the Mitzvah of eating Matzah; and in 12:20, the Isur of eating Chametz to the Mitzvah of eating Matzah. The obligation to eat Matzah comes from "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos" (12:18) - on the night of the fifteenth. It emerges that one may not possess Chametz on the night of the fifteenth - in which case one is obligated to destroy it already on the fourteenth.
The Gemara (Pesachim 5a) says that in the merit of "destroying the Se'or on Yom ha'Rishon," we will merit to wipe out the offspring of Esav, who is called "ha'Rishon" (Bereishis 25:25). What is the connection?
Maharal (Netzach Yisrael Ch. 62, p. 224): Sourdough by itself, is spoiled and inedible. Conceptually, the "Rishon" of Pesach is the time of the world's renewal, the spring, the time to negate and destroy any such Se'or or Chametz. Thus, we will merit to destroy Amalek, who is entirely spoiled. 1
See Maharal; and at more length in Derush l'Shabbos Ha'Gadol (p. 230) - Yisrael is Matzah, which lasts; whereas Esav is Chametz which will ultimately fade. The Nekiyus (cleanness) of Matzah is the antithesis of the spoilage of sourdough.
Why does the Torah add the words, "ha'Nefesh ha'Hi"?
Rashi: To teach us that one is only Chayav Kareis if one eats Chametz b'Meizid, but not b'Shogeg. 1
Chulin 120a: To include someone who drinks Chametz in the Chiyuv Kareis. 2
Rashi: The Kareis penalty applies when the Nefesh acts willingly; this excludes [if it is] under duress. Gur Aryeh - The derivation is the extra word "ha'Hi." One is liable to Kareis only if his Nefesh is in its normal state (b'Havayasah), not if he is coerced or mistaken.
See Torah Temimah, note 135.
"V'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi mi'Yisrael." Does this mean that he is cut-off from Yisrael, and that he can go and join another nation?
Rashi (in Emor): Refer to Vayikra 22:3:5:1.
The Pasuk in Emor (Vayikra 22:3) indicates that Kareis means 'cut off from before Hashem' (wherever Hashem is, i.e. everywhere). Why, in this Pasuk (as well as by every other mention of Kareis in the Torah), does the Torah insert the word "mi'Yisrael," "me'Adas Yisrael," "mi'Toch ha'Kahal," "me'Amehah" or "mi'Kerev Amah" - implying that the soul that sinned can go and join another nation?
Sifsei Kohen (to Bamidbar 19:13): The Source of the souls of the Jewish People, is the Creator; thus, the entire collection of Jewish souls is actually one, just as the Creator is One. Any soul that becomes cut off from the Jewish People, is cut off from the Oneness of Hashem.
Malbim: That is why the exactly why the Torah writes once, "Mi'Lefanai, Ani Hashem" (Vayikra 22:3). The Torah clarifies that Kareis does not leave the option to "join the destiny" of a different nation; rather, the person is cut off entirely.
What do we learn from the juxtaposition of "v'Nichresah" to "Ki Kol Ochel Chametz"?
Pesachim 43a: It teaches us that the penalty of Kareis is confined to someone who eats pure Chametz. It does not apply to a mixture of Chametz and other food, which remains an ordinary Lav - "Kol Machmetzes Lo Socheilu" (12:20).
"V'Nichresah... mi'Yom ha'Rishon Ad Yom ha'Shevi'i." Does this mean that he is cut-off for only seven days?
Oznayim la'Torah: No! We need to invert the two phrases, such that "mi'Yom ha'Rishon Ad Yom ha'Shevi'i" follows "Ki Kol Ochel Chametz" - "anyone who eats Chametz, from the first day until the seventh day, will be cut off...." 1
Oznayim la'Torah: Why does the Torah invert the two phrases? Had it written "mi'Yom ha'Rishon Ad Yom ha'Shevi'i" first, we would have thought that one is only Chayav Kareis if one eats Chametz for the entire duration of seven days.
How do we know that "mi'Yom ha'Rishon Ad Yom ha'Shevi'i" is inclusive of the seventh day?
Arachin 18a: Because the Torah writes later, "Ad Yom ha'Echad v'Esrim la'Chodesh, ba'Arev" (12:18). 1
See Torah Temimah, note 137.
What is the symbolism of Matzah? Why does the Torah call it "Lechem Oni" (Devarim 16:3) - bread of affliction or poverty? (Certainly, a finely-sifted, beautifully-made Matzah is valid for the Mitzvah as well - See Pesachim 36b; refer to 12:20:2:6).
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem, beg. Ch. 51, p. 218): Some explain that just as a poor man is stooped and lowly, so too the Matzah is low in height. 1 Some explain that Matzah is difficult to digest; so it is favored by the poor, because it will last longer (sparing him from pangs of hunger). 2
Maharal #2 (ibid. p. 219): Matzah kneaded with other liquids (such as oil or honey) is called Matzah Ashirah (lit., 'rich Matzah'). It is the antithesis of "Lechem Oni;" it cannot be used for the Mitzvah. A poor man has no money - just his own body and self. So too, Matzah dough must consist of flour and water only. Chametz is even more "rich" than Matzah Ashirah; its fermentation is an added dimension within the dough itself. 3
Maharal #3 (ibid.):Nevertheless, "Lechem Oni" and freedom are one and the same conceptually. Unlike both the slave - who is attached to his master; and the rich man - who is attached to his possessions; the poor man is attached to no one -- and that is redeeming. (Matzah represents, not a pauper as an individual, 4 but rather non-association as a concept. The Exodus was dis-association from Egyptian bondage. 5 )
Maharal #4 (ibid.): A poor man has nothing; this is the trait of simplicity (Pashtus), or in other words, of standing alone. In the commonly-held perspective in this world of complexity, the trait of simplicity is generally seen in a negative light. 6 But in the straightforward world (Above), simplicity is a virtue. The Redemption from Egypt emanated from those upper realms; 7 and so we are commanded to eat Matzah - a simple food with no additives. 8
Maharal #5 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 60, p. 265): The Redemption took place hurriedly; it came "with a strong hand." To commemorate this, Chametz - which is made through delay - is forbidden. We are commanded, on the night the Redemption took place, to eat Matzah, which is made hurriedly. 9
By definition, as it does not rise.
These two opinions emphasize the physical characteristics of Matzah as "Lechem Oni." Maharal discusses an essential difficulty in understanding the Mitzvah of Matzah. The reason the Torah gives for eating Matzah, is to remember "that you left Egypt in haste (Chipazon)" (Devarim 16:3); this would mean that Matzah symbolizes our freedom. But that very same Pasuk calls Matzah "Lechem Oni" (bread of affliction) - which implies that it symbolizes the period of slavery! The same contradiction exists in the Hagadah Shel Pesach. At the beginning of Magid we say "Ha Lachma Anya - This is the bread of affliction that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt;" whereas at the end of Magid, Raban Gamliel explains that we eat Matzah to remember that Hashem took us out in such haste, that the dough did not have time to rise. Indeed, Maharal (ibid. p. 221) cites Ramban (to Devarim ibid.) that the Matzah alludes to both concepts -- both the affliction, and the haste of the Redemption. However, Maharal finds this difficult; are these not two opposing ideas? Furthermore, we do not have a source that Bnei Yisrael ate Matzah during their enslavement. Therefore, to Maharal, the Matzah symbolizes the Redemption only, as will be explained below. Also see 12:8:2.2, regarding Matzah's place among the three Mitzvos - Pesach, Matzah and Maror.
Obviously, a poor man is no closer to freedom then a rich man. Maharal means that poverty as a concept is more closely related to freedom than is wealth. Freedom means no dependency on anything else, and a wealthy man is dependent on his assets. (That is the symbolism of Matzah as "Lechem Oni.") (EK)
Maharal: By extension, this concept of 'no associations' also explains why the Exodus took place in the first month, and why it came in haste (also refer to 12:2:4.1:3 and its notes, and to 12:11:2.1:3). Maharal (ibid. p. 221) - With this positive approach to "Lechem Oni," the Hagadah could have said, 'Ha Lachma Anya that our forefathers ate when they LEFT Egypt....'
"Simple" is the opposite of "complex." All components of this world are a blend of Chomer, and the Tzurah that the Chomer has assumed; as any Chomer must have some Tzurah. (For an explanation of Maharal's terminology, refer to 12:12:7.6:3*.) Hence, our world is complex; whereas the upper realm, which is non-physical, is simple -- i.e., it is Tzurah without any Chomer. Maharal (ibid. Ch. 60, p. 265) - Any complex being is subjugated; in that his two aspects act upon and are affected by each other. In other words, not only does Tzurah affect and direct its Chomer, but the reverse is true as well - Tzurah is dependent upon Chomer, and to some degree controlled by and subjugated to it. (EK)
This also explains the concept of "haste" - Elapsing of time is a need of physical beings, not of what emanates from Above. Also refer to 12:15:159 about the physicality of Chametz.
That is what we recite in the Hagadah - "This Matzah we eat ... because the dough of our forefathers did not have the chance to rise..." which shows the power and speed of the Redemption. Also refer to 12:11:2.1:4, and to 12:17:1.2:1. See Maharal (ibid. Ch. 51, p. 220) further, regarding the multiple derivations in Chazal from the term "Lechem Oni," and how they are not contradictory.
Maharal - Matzah symbolizes the Redemption (see the preceding question 12:15:154); and the reason the Torah gives for eating Matzah, is to "remember the day you left Egypt, all the days of your life" (Devarim 16:3). But in Egypt, were commanded to eat Matzah (with the Korban Pesach - 12:8), even the night before we were redeemed!
Ramban (cited in Maharal, Gevuros Hashem Ch. 51, p. 220): Hashem knew in advance that the Redemption would be in haste (Chipazon), and our dough would not have a chance to rise. Even before those events took place, Hashem commanded to eat Matzah on the night of Pesach. 1
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 36, p. 134): The Matzah's essence represents freedom, just as clearly as the Maror represents slavery. The automatic reaction to tasting the bitterness of the Maror, mirrors the reaction to being enslaved. The Matzah has no such taste, nor does it elicit such a response -- and this represents freedom. 2
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The Exodus from Egypt was performed by Hashem Himself, through no other power. 3 Bnei Yisrael left Egypt on a level that was above (nature or) time; 4 so they were commanded to eat Matzah, which is made with no time elapsed. 5
Although this is how Maharal cites Ramban, Ramban to 12:39 writes otherwise. Mizrachi cites the same from Rabeinu Yeshayah; see 12:34:2.1:2*.
Freedom is when a person is his own master; he is not merely someone set in motion by others. Thus, the Matzah represents freedom, whereas the Maror represents slavery. We might add that when food is not bitter (e.g., Matzah), a person wants to eat it; and it is he who is acting upon the food. But with bitter Maror; it is the food that acts upon him. (EK) (Maharal in this context is explaining why the Korban Pesach must be accompanied by Matzah and Maror; refer to 12:8:2.2:1. He is consistent with his view in Ch. 51 (see the preceding question, 12:15:154 and its notes), that Matzah represents the Redemption only - not slavery or affliction. (EK)
See Rashi to 12:12, and the Hagadah Shel Pesach; As for why this was so, refer to 12:12:7.6.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, beg. Ch. 46): Time is a property of the natural, of Chomer. Also refer to 12:11:2.1:3 and its notes.
See Maharal (ibid.), who explains the Hagadah's expression "their dough had not had the chance to rise, before Hashem revealed Himself to them and redeemed them." As above, according to Maharal, the nature of Matzah reflects the Redemption in its essence; it is not merely a reminder of past events. That is why we were commanded to eat it, even the night before the Exodus. (EK)
We left Egypt entirely in only one day (the 15th of Nisan); so why is Chag ha'Matzos celebrated for seven days?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 138): The ultimate stage of the Exodus came only when Bnei Yisrael crossed the sea, on the seventh day.
Since indeed the Yom Tov is celebrated for seven days, why (conceptually speaking) is it obligatory to eat Matzah only on the first night? And why is Chametz nevertheless forbidden for the entire seven days?
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 138): Matzah indicates freedom, and our freedom came on the night of the 15th of Nisan. But the Exodus extended throughout seven days, culminating in Keri'as Yam Suf; 1 so we may not eat Chametz.
Maharal #2 (end of Hagadah Shel Pesach, p. 197): As we have explained, destroying Chametz represents destroying one's Yetzer ha'Ra. 2 After one has conquered his Yetzer, one must then work to ensure that he remains free of sin! 3 So too, Chametz is forbidden for another seven days. 4
See the preceding question (12:15:156:1).
Maharal: That is why it becomes forbidden at midday; refer to 12:15:1.4:1.
Maharal: Bi'ur Chametz (i.e. Siluk ha'Yetzer) is not performed on Yom Tov itself, because conquering it is a difficult Avodah! But once a person does conquer it, it does not re-awaken, and he will have the seven days of the Festival without worry.
I.e., one entire cycle of time.
Why is the Yom Tov following [the Korban] Pesach Rishon celebrated for seven days, whereas Pesach Sheni is one day only? Why is Pesach Sheni observed one month later (in Iyar)?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 38, p. 143): Pesach Rishon relates to the nation as a whole; whereas Pesach Sheni relates only to individuals. That is why Pesach is celebrated in Nisan for a whole set of time (a week), whereas Pesach Sheni is one day only. 1 This also explains why the nationwide Pesach 2 must precede the Pesach of individuals.
According to Maharal, what is the symbolism of Chametz and Se'or (leavened goods; sourdough)? Why are they forbidden on Pesach?
Refer to 12:2:4.1:1 - Nisan is the world's rebirth (as it flowers after the winter); it must be free of the spoilage of Chametz (refer to 12:15:3.1:1).
Refer to 12:15:154:3 - Matzah represents freedom, whereas Chametz represents subjugation and dependency. 1
See 12:17:1.2:1 - Chametz is made through delay and elapsing of time; and time is a characteristic of the natural (see also 12:15:154:4***).
See 12:17:1.2:3 - Se'or is an example of the surplus inherent in physicality.
Refer to 12:3:1.3:1 - Destroying the Chametz symbolizes negating the Yetzer ha'Ra. Only afterwards can one reign in his Guf to serve Hashem through the Korban Pesach. 2
See 12:8:2.2:3** - A convert is liable to return to his previous evil (Suro Ra); this term is related to "Se'or." Avraham Avinu was free of this Se'or, and we find that he ate Matzos.
See 12:42:1.2:2 and its notes - Chametz and Se'or are associated with the left side, the source of Mazikim.
That which is dependent upon others, is subjugated. Chametz is dough that requires something extra (i.e. sourdough and fermentation).
Maharal (Derush l'Shabbos Ha'Gadol, p. 220): Chametz is used in the Korban Todah and the Shtei ha'Lechem; this shows us that there is also good in Chametz! Chazal teach that because of the Yetzer, a person marries and has children; and in general, it is because of the Yetzer that he will be rewarded for his Mitzvos. Maharal (ibid. p. 223) - The Chametz of the Korban Todah represents Teshuvah, and offering up one's Yetzer. Indeed, in "Mizmor l'Sodah" (Tehilim 100:3), we say "Hu Asanu" - Hashem initially created us clean (like Matzah); "... v'Lo Anachnu" - We are His when we return to Him after having sinned (like Chametz).
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "Shiv'as Yamim - a seteine of days (a group of seven consecutive days; a week)." What is Rashi explaining here?
Gur Aryeh: The term 'Shiv'ah means a number of some item that can be counted (e.g., seven apples). The letter Sav makes it "Shiv'as" or "seven of," i.e. the number seven as a concept. 1
For example, one cannot say 'seven of apples,' but one can say 'a set of seven apples.' Rashi and Gur Aryeh both discussed this above (to 10:22); refer to 10:22:1.3:1.
Rashi writes: "'However, on the first day, destroy any Se'or (leavening)' - [I.e., destroy it] from the eve of the festival (Erev Yom Tov)...." The Gemara (Pesachim 4b) derives that the Biblical prohibition of Chametz begins after midday (of the 14th of Nisan). Why is this so, on a conceptual level?
Maharal (Derush l'Shabbos Ha'Gadol (end of Hagadah Shel Pesach, p. 196)): Destroying the Chametz corresponds to destroying the Yetzer ha'Ra. 1 The appropriate time for doing so is as the sun turns towards setting. Then, a person contemplates how all creations eventually fade; and thus, he conquers his Yetzer ha'Ra. 2
See the references in 12:15:159. Also see 12:3:1.3 and its notes.
See Avos 3:1 - "Contemplate three matters, and you will not come to sin... To where are you going? To the place of earth, maggots and worms." Maharal tells us that nighttime reminds us of death, and this too helps to conquer the Yetzer ha'Ra. Also refer to 12:15:157, for the meaning of the ensuing days of Pesach along these lines. (EK)
Rashi writes that this is a 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Klal, v'Yatza...." But the seventh day was not taught here?
Hadar Zekenim: Refer to 12:15:152:3.
Moshav Zekenim (to 12:18 - citing R. Yom Tov): The seventh day is equated with the six. 1
Moshav Zekenim: The Mechilta, which says that the rule 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Klal, v'Yatza ... ' applies - is imprecise. Moshav Zekenim refers to it as 'Gimgum' (unclear).
Rashi writes that this is an example of 'Davar she'Hayah bi'Klal, v'Yatza ..." But the Klal and Prat are always similar, whereas here, the Klal is Isur and the Prat is Heter!
Hadar Zekenim (citing Ri of Ivra): Since it says "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos," this implies that afterwards it is not a Chovah. This is unlike Rashi.
Hadar Zekenim #1 (citing R. Yom Tov): Here, the Klal is not Isur, since it is not clear whether the seven days are Chovah or Reshus. The Prat reveals that it is Reshus. 1
Hadar Zekenim #2: Some commentaries 2 explain that "u'va'Yom ha'Shevi'i, Atzeres... Lo Sa'aseh Melachah" (Devarim 16:8) was bi'Klal, v'Yatza. (Before that Pasuk, the Torah says "Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos" (Devarim 16:3)). The Torah mentioned the seventh day only for the Isur Melachah, but not for the Mitzvah to eat Matzah! 3
Riva (citing R"A): Here the Prat (i.e. the seventh day) was not taught explicitly, but it is learned from the Klal, so it is like Isur.
Compare to Mizrachi (12:15:153.3:1).
Rashi (to Devarim 16:8, Pesachim 120a DH Mah) explains like this, only less explicitly. The Moshav Zekenim (to Shemos 12:18 below) states that Rashi realized [that what he wrote here is difficult, and retracted].
Compare to Mizrachi (12:15:153.2:1).
Rashi writes that just like six days are Reshus (optional), so are all seven days Reshus; and only the first night is Chovah. But we should rather say that just as the first night is Chovah, all six days are Chovah, since, whenever there are two ways to learn, we always choose the stringent one?
Moshav Zekenim (citing R. Tam): If so, the Torah should have written only six for Chovah, and seven for Reshus. Why did it teach also "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos"? We must say that it is to teach that also six days are Reshus. 1
Hadar Zekenim and Riva: It is more reasonable that seven days teaches about six days, for both of them say "Yamim," and not nights. 2 Also, "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos" cannot teach about all seven days, for since the Torah taught six and seven, you are forced to say that the seventh is Reshus!
Moshav Zekenim: This is difficult. Let the Torah write only "ba'Erev Tochelu Matzos," and seven days for Reshus! Riva - We would say that the other nights are Reshus, but all the days are Chovah. Or, I would not know which night is obligatory; "Sheishes Yamim" teaches us that the first night is obligatory.
Compare to Gur Aryeh (12:15:153.51:2).
Rashi writes: "Seven days you shall eat Matzos - But elsewhere it says, 'Six days you shall eat Matzos' (Devarim 16:8)! This teaches that it is not obligatory to eat Matzah on the seventh day of Pesach -- provided one does not eat Chametz. How do we derive that the [first] six are [also] optional? The verse says, 'six days;' and this is a principle of [derivation in] the Torah...." But if the simple inference from the text, is that the seventh day should be distinct from the previous six, how can we then turn back and derive that all the days should be the same?
Gur Aryeh: The derivation is as follows - Had Matzah on the seventh day been obligatory, there would be no way to explain the verse which says "six days." But if Matzah on the seventh day is optional, then the expression "six days" is valid -- even if the previous six days are likewise optional. In other words, when the verse in Devarim specifies "six days" rather than seven days, it might be omitting days that are optional, but it would not omit a Mitzvah.
Rashi writes: "... 'Six days' ... this teaches that it is not obligatory to eat Matzah on the seventh day of Pesach." But Rashi to Pesachim 120a seems to give a different derivation! (The verse in Parshas Re'eh says, 'Six days... Matzos; and on the seventh day an Atzeres (i.e. a Yom Tov)' (Devarim 16:8) - rather than saying, 'on the seventh day, Matzos and Yom Tov'!)
Gur Aryeh: The precise Derashah is what Rashi writes here; and that is the intent of Rashi to Pesachim 120a as well. 1 (The verse (Devarim 16:8) could not write, 'Seven days eat Matzos, and on the seventh day a Yom Tov,' for that could be mis-interpreted as another Yom Tov seven days after Chag ha'Matzos concludes! 2 Rather, "Six days eat Matzos" makes it clear that the "seventh day" is the day immediately following. That is what Rashi (to Pesachim 120a) means, that had Matzos been obligatory on day 7, it should have written, 'on the seventh day eat Matzos and [make] a Yom Tov.')
Mizrachi, on the other hand, understands Rashi here along the lines of Rashi in Pesachim. See the next question (12:15:153.2:1).
I.e., on the 28th of Nisan.
Rashi writes: " ... This is a method of interpreting the Torah (the 8th Midah of the Beraisa of Rabbi Yishmael) - 'A matter that was part of a general category, and then departs that category to teach [some change in the law] ....'" Mizrachi asks - That principle would apply when the matter that had been part of the category, is later directly removed by an explicit verse. But in this case, Matzah on the seventh day of Pesach is not mentioned explicitly (in Devarim 16:8); we merely infer that it is optional (in that it says "six days" and not the seventh)!
Mizrachi: The true derivation is not from that phrase ("six days eat Matzos" - rather than seven); but rather from the end of that verse, when it says, "... and on the seventh day, an Atzeres" - rather than, 'on the seventh day eat Matzos and [make] an Atzeres.' 1
Gur Aryeh: Even an inference which is not stated explicitly, can serve as the basis for utilizing this Midah (#8) of interpreting the Torah. As above, the derivation is from "six days" (Devarim 16:8), which implies to exclude the seventh.
That would seem to align with Rashi to Pesachim 120a as well. But Gur Aryeh asks, the same problem exists with that derivation as well! Failing to say 'eat Matzos' is also an inference, not an explicit verse. Also see the preceding question (12:15:153.11:1.)
Rashi writes: " ... This is a method (#8) of interpreting the Torah, 'A matter that was part of a general category, and then left that category to teach [some change in the law], it teaches not about that matter alone, but rather about the entire category.' [Therefore,] just as the seventh day is optional, so too are [the first] six days optional." Mizrachi asks - Even without invoking this principle, once verse Devarim 16:8 specifies Matzah for six days, which implies that Matzah on the seventh day is optional, we have no choice but to interpret our verse, "Seven days you shall eat Matzos," as all being optional!
Mizrachi: Had we not invoked the principle, although we might have interpreted our verse (seven days) as being optional, we might have learned that Devarim 16:8 then makes the first six mandatory! 1
Gur Aryeh: Had we not invoked the principle, we would have learned our Pasuk as a straightforward obligation to eat all Matzos all seven days. The other verse which says six days, would then have to be used for some other interpretation.
But Gur Aryeh points out that Midah #8 is supposed to teach us about the Klal - i.e., our verse, which mandates seven days to eat Matzah. In Mizrachi's approach, the Midah is essentially teaching us about the Prat - i.e. that the six days in verse Devarim 16:8 are optional, and not mandatory.
Rashi writes: "... This is a method (#8) of interpreting the Torah; 'A matter that was part of a general category, and then leaves... teaches not about that matter alone, but rather about the entire category.'" Mizrachi asks - The Gemara (Yevamos 7a) limits the application of this method; for example, we cannot invoke it when the general category forbids, and the specific matter permits. In our case as well, the seven days are obligatory, and the seventh will be optional, so we should be unable to use this rule!
Mizrachi: We may invoke the principle when the general category and the specific matter both lead in the same direction. 1 In our case, whether the seven days as a whole are obligatory or optional has yet to be determined. When we learn that the seventh day is optional, we may invoke this principle to prove that they all are optional. 2
Gur Aryeh: In the example in Yevamos 7a, the general rule absolutely forbids [Arayos of close relatives], whereas the specific case is permitted (Yibum by a brother-in-law). 3 In our case, however, the general rule involves a positive Mitzvah (to eat Matzah), not a prohibition. This does not pose a contradiction to the specific case (the option to eat Matzah), and so we may invoke this principle.
Also see 12:15:152 for various answers from the Baalei Tosafos.
Mizrachi: For example, one who eats Kodshim when he is in a state of Tum'ah is liable to Kareis (Vayikra 22:3); and one who eats Shelamim when in a state of Tum'ah is liable to Kareis (Vayikra 7:20). We invoke the principle to show that the entire category applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and not Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.
Mizrachi himself queries this answer, and provides an alternate approach at length.
One's brother's wife is forbidden as an Ervah (i.e. a close relative), and the Torah removes this prohibition from its category and permits it in a case of Yibum. And yet, we do not derive that all other relatives would be permitted in cases of Yibum; the permission is limited to the specific example written. The applicable rule is (Rebbi Yishmael #11), 'If a matter that was part of a category, leaves to discuss something new; you may not return it to its category, unless the verse does so explicitly.'
Rashi writes: "Seven days you shall eat Matzos - ... This is a method of interpreting the Torah ... just as the seventh day is optional, so too are [the first] six days optional." Mizrachi asks - Perhaps the verse only comes to add an Isur Aseh upon one who eats Chametz, "Seven days eat Matzos" - i.e., and not Chametz.
Gur Aryeh: Had the verse said 'eat bread of Matzah,' one could then derive an Isur Aseh - ' ... as opposed to bread that is Chametz.' 1 But the verse says generally "eat Matzos." Would it be coming to exclude eating any other food and drink, even fruits and water? (Rather, no Isur Aseh can be derived from this verse.) 2
But the Torah does specify elsewhere that Matzah is bread - "Seven days you shall eat due to it (i.e. to the Korban Pesach) Matzos, bread of affliction" (Devarim 16:3).
Later, however, Gur Aryeh (to 12:18; see 12:18:1.5:2) indeed infers from our Pasuk, 'Seven days eat Matzah - since you will not be eating Chametz.' Nevertheless, Gur Aryeh to our Pasuk tells us that this does not constitute an Isur Aseh.
Rashi writes: "... Just as the seventh [day] is optional (regarding eating Matzah), so too are the [prior] six. I might have thought that even the first night is optional; [so] the verse says, '... at night you shall eat Matzos" (12:18) -- the verse makes it an obligation.' Why is the verse in Devarim 16 interpreted as optional, whereas verse 18 of our Perek is interpreted as obligatory?
Gur Aryeh: Verse 12:18 inserts the phrase "Tochelu Matzos," not at the beginning or the end, but rather in the middle, essentially separating the first night from the remaining days of Pesach, "In the first [month], on the fourteenth day in the evening, you shall eat Matzos; until the twenty-first day in the evening"(12:18). It must be that this night alone has an obligation to eat Matzah. 1
Also refer to 12:18:1.5:1.
Rashi writes: "... The verse says, '... at night you shall eat Matzos" (12:18) -- the verse makes it an obligation.' But the principle we invoked makes all seven days of eating Matzah optional -- including even the first night!
Gur Aryeh: Our verse, and Devarim 16:8, discuss "Yamim" - meaning the daytime only, making no mention of the nights. 1 The principle we invoke to interpret these verses, likewise refers to the daytime only. 2
Rashi to 12:18.
Gur Aryeh: And if so, the nights could still be obligatory. (Gur Aryeh will use this idea to answer 12:15:153.50:2, 12:15:153.51:2, and 12:18:1.3:1 as well.) But Mizrachi explains otherwise; refer to 12:15:153.51:1.
Rashi writes: "... This is a method (#8) of interpreting the Torah ... The verse says, '... at night you shall eat Matzos' (12:18) -- the verse makes [eating Matzah on the first night] an obligation." If the derivation in 12:18 is necessary, we can infer that eating Matzah on the rest of Pesach must be optional! So why must we invoke method #8 to prove that it is optional?
Mizrachi: See 12:15:153.60:1.
Gur Aryeh: Our verse says to eat Matzah "seven days;" it does not discuss the nights. 1 Even had we not invoked method #8 -- meaning that Matzah would be obligatory all seven days (in daytime) -- we would still need verse 12:18 to make it obligatory on the first night.
Refer to 12:15:153.41:1.
Rashi writes: "... The verse says, "... at night you shall eat Matzos" (12:18) -- the verse makes it an obligation." But if so, we can then invoke method #8 (see 12:15:153.21) in the opposite direction, as follows -- Just as the first night has an obligation to eat Matzah, so too do all seven days!
Mizrachi: Were it not for the derivation that eating Matzah is optional, I would have thought that it is obligatory all seven days - both by day and by night. Once we derive that the seventh day (and hence all seven days) are optional, we no longer derive any further obligation after the first night. 1
Gur Aryeh: The nights were never part of the general category of "Shiv'as Yamim" (neither the first night, nor the subsequent 6 nights). Therefore, the principle cannot be invoked. 2
Also see 12:15:153 for various answers from the Tosafos school.
Gur Aryeh queries this approach.
Gur Aryeh: But according to Mizrachi, that "Shiv'as Yamim" does include the nights, the principle cannot be successfully applied! We cannot derive that like the seventh day, all seven days are optional -- because the first night remains obligatory. If we cannot fully invoke the principle upon the entire category, we cannot invoke it at all! (Rather, the nights were never part of the category; see 12:15:153.41:1.) Also refer to 12:18:1.3:1.
Rashi writes: "Seven days you shall eat Matzos - ... Just as the seventh day is optional, so too are [the first] six days optional ... The verse says, '... at night you shall eat Matzos' (12:18) -- the verse makes [eating Matzah on the first night] an obligation." Mizrachi asks - Let our verse omit the words "seven days;" and let Devarim 16:8 leave out "six days" as well! We could simply infer that if eating Matzah on the first night is obligatory, then the rest of Pesach is optional!
Mizrachi: Our verse states "seven days" as a matter of course - 'since you will not be eating Chametz, you should eat Matzah.' Then, so that we should not take this as an obligation, the verse "six days" (Devarim 16:8) is needed to teach us that it is optional.
Gur Aryeh #1: Our verse is needed for a specific derivation (see Pesachim 38b) - Only Matzah that may be eaten for seven days can be used for the Mitzvah; this excludes the Matzah loaves of a Todah and Nazir, which become Nosar after a day and a night.
Gur Aryeh #2: These two verses tell us that the Torah gives the option of eating Matzah throughout Pesach, and that one who does so has not violated the prohibition of Bal Tosif (even if he intended to fulfill a Mitzvah by doing so).
Rashi writes: "... The verse makes [eating Matzah on the first night] an obligation." The reason the Torah gives for eating Matzah, is to remember "that you left Egypt in haste (Chipazon); in order to remember the day you left Egypt, all the days of your life" (Devarim 16:3). If indeed we left Egypt by day, why is the Mitzvah to eat Matzah fulfilled at night?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 138): The "haste" was already present at night, when the Egyptians were in a hurry to send the Bnei Yisrael out. 1
Despite that the Exodus itself took place only the next day - see Berachos 9a. Also refer to 12:12:2:1 and its note. On the theme of "Chipazon," see 12:11:2.1.
