Anonymous

Motzei Matzah: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 20: Line 20:
#Cooked matzah doesn't fulfill the mitzvah.<ref>Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir in Pesachim 41a and Brachot 38b argue whether one fulfills the mitzvah with cooked matzah. Rabbi Yosi holds one does not. Why not?  
#Cooked matzah doesn't fulfill the mitzvah.<ref>Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir in Pesachim 41a and Brachot 38b argue whether one fulfills the mitzvah with cooked matzah. Rabbi Yosi holds one does not. Why not?  
* Taste of Matzah: Gemara Brachot 38b implies that the reason is because cooked matzah doesn't taste like standard matzah and the mitzvah of matzah needs a taste of standard matzah. This is the understanding of the Rashba Brachot 38b s.v. lo and Ritva Brachot 38b s.v. ad kan. Raah Brachot 38b s.v. vmeyhu agrees that Rabbi Yosi requires taste of matzah but thinks that Rabbi Meir does not require taste of matzah. (This is the understanding of the fnt. to Ritva n. 241 and not the fnt. to Raah n. 155 who equates the Raah with the Rashba and Ritva.) Peni Yehoshua 38b s.v. vani adopts the approach of the Raah (without having seen the Raah).
* Taste of Matzah: Gemara Brachot 38b implies that the reason is because cooked matzah doesn't taste like standard matzah and the mitzvah of matzah needs a taste of standard matzah. This is the understanding of the Rashba Brachot 38b s.v. lo and Ritva Brachot 38b s.v. ad kan. Raah Brachot 38b s.v. vmeyhu agrees that Rabbi Yosi requires taste of matzah but thinks that Rabbi Meir does not require taste of matzah. (This is the understanding of the fnt. to Ritva n. 241 and not the fnt. to Raah n. 155 who equates the Raah with the Rashba and Ritva.) Peni Yehoshua 38b s.v. vani adopts the approach of the Raah (without having seen the Raah).
**Some ask that if matzah needs taste why does the Gemara Pesachim 115b hold that if someone swallows matzah they fulfill their obligation unlike maror. The Meiri Brachot 38b s.v. linyan answers that matzah itself needs taste but since it is possible to taste, even one did swallow it in a way that one didn't taste it one still fulfills one's obligation. Rabbenu Mano'ach Chametz Umatzah 6:2 and Magen Avraham 475:11 echo this answer. Meiri Pesachim 115b s.v. mi quotes some who say that in fact that one doesn't fulfill one's obligation when swallowing matzah since one needs to taste the matzah based on the Gemara Pesachim 115a.
**Some ask that if matzah needs taste why does the Gemara Pesachim 115b hold that if someone swallows matzah they fulfill their obligation unlike maror. The Magen Avraham 475:11 answers that the type of matzah itself needs taste, but since it is possible to taste, even one did swallow it in a way that one didn't taste it one still fulfills one's obligation. Rabbenu Mano'ach Chametz Umatzah 6:2, however, says that one needs to be able to taste the matzah while swallowing it. Since one could have chewed it and didn't one still fulfills the mitzvah. Swallowing it encapsulated in a leaf doesn't fulfill the mitzvah since it wasn't possible to taste it. Meiri Brachot 38b s.v. linyan answers the question and is unclear whether he is saying like the Magen Avraham or Rabbenu Mano'ach.
Meiri Pesachim 115b s.v. mi quotes some who say that in fact that one doesn't fulfill one's obligation when swallowing matzah since one needs to taste the matzah based on the Gemara Pesachim 115a.
* Matzah Ashira: However, the Tosfot Pesachim 41a s.v. aval holds that the gemara means that cooked matzah is like matzah ashira and doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of matzah. Tosfot Harosh Brachot 38b s.v. ad and Rabbenu Yonah 27a s.v. mishum agree.
* Matzah Ashira: However, the Tosfot Pesachim 41a s.v. aval holds that the gemara means that cooked matzah is like matzah ashira and doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of matzah. Tosfot Harosh Brachot 38b s.v. ad and Rabbenu Yonah 27a s.v. mishum agree.
* Not Torat Pat: A third interpretation of the gemara is whether cooking makes the matzah not be considered bread as it invalidates it's status of bread. Indeed some say that as a result of Rabbi Yosi, cooked matzah is mezonot. This is the opinion of the Maharam Chalavah Pesachim 41a s.v. yosin, Rash Challah 1:5, Bahag (cited by Tosfot Harosh Brachot 38b), and Shiltot (Tzav 77, cited by fnt. to Tosfot Harosh).</ref>
* Not Torat Pat: A third interpretation of the gemara is whether cooking makes the matzah not be considered bread as it invalidates it's status of bread. Indeed some say that as a result of Rabbi Yosi, cooked matzah is mezonot. This is the opinion of the Maharam Chalavah Pesachim 41a s.v. yosin, Rash Challah 1:5, Bahag (cited by Tosfot Harosh Brachot 38b), and Shiltot (Tzav 77, cited by fnt. to Tosfot Harosh).</ref>
Anonymous user