Komentarz do Wyjścia 12:19

לא ימצא בבתיכם NO LEAVEN SHALL BE FOUND IN YOUR HOUSES — Whence may we derive that this applies also to the external properties which belong to you? From what Scripture states, (Exodus 13:7) “[Neither shall leaven be seen with thee] in all thy boundaries”. If this be so, why then need Scripture specify here “in your houses” (since this term is comprised in the more general term “in all thy boundaries”)? It is for the purpose of defining the latter term through the former. How is it the case of thy house? Everything contained in it is under thy control! So, too, the term “[leaven in all] your boundaries” means only such leaven as is in your boundaries and under your control, thereby excluding such leaven belonging to a non-Israelite as is deposited with an Israelite but for which he has accepted no responsibility (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:19:2).

NO LEAVEN SHALL BE FOUND IN YOUR HOMES. “Whence do we know that this applies also to the borders? Scripture therefore says, Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. Why then need Scripture say here, in all your homes, [since these are already included in the comprehensive term of borders]? It is to teach us that just as what is in your home is under your control, so also what is in thy borders must be under your control. Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] leavened bread actually owned by a non-Israelite but deposited with an Israelite for which the latter has accepted no responsibility.” This is the language of Rashi.
I do not find it correct. The purport of the term “under your control” is not to exclude leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite [which is deposited with an Israelite], since that is indeed under the Israelite’s control. Homes and borders are both alike in this respect since both of them are under his control and the leavened bread belongs to others.²¹⁵In other words, what new principle could there be derived by this comparison, which Rashi mentioned, of the border to the home, since there is no difference between them regarding a case of this kind? Moreover, the case of leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite [and deposited with an Israelite for which the Israelite] has accepted no responsibility, is not covered by this analogy, since the term “home” indicates permission no more than does the term “border.” Instead, the term “home” implies prohibition, as is obvious from the language of this verse before us, it shall not be found in your homes [under any circumstance]. We derive the permission from the expression, Neither shall there be seen leaven with thee,²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. [i.e., that which actually belongs to you,²¹⁶And not, as Rashi explained it, that the permission for this case, i.e., of leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite and deposited with an Israelite for which the Israelite assumed no responsibility — is derived from the expression “in your homes” in the verse before us. as the Rabbis commented upon it]: “You may not see [leaven or leavened bread] which is yours, but you may see that of others and that which belongs to the Temple-treasury. I know only that this principle applies to the borders, [since the expression with thee is stated in connection with the borders, as it says, Neither shall there be leaven seen ‘with thee’ in all ‘thy borders’]. Whence do I know this applies also to the homes? Scripture therefore uses the identical word s’or (leaven) in the case of both home and border,”²¹⁷This principle of interpretation is known as gzeirah shavah, “an equal expression.” Where a verbal congruity appears between two laws in the text of the Torah, it indicates that a law mentioned in one case applies equally to the other. In the case before us, the word s’or (leaven) appears here in Verse 19 where “home” is mentioned, and is also mentioned further, 13:7, where the border is mentioned. Now in the case of the border, the Torah clearly stated that the prohibition applies only where it actually belongs to the owner. On the strength of the gzeirah shavah, the same law applies to the case of the home. The gzeirah shavah is one of the thirteen rules by which the Torah is interpreted. One cannot establish, though, an analogy from congruent expressions of one’s own accord; the application of the similarity of expression must be authorized by tradition. as is explained at the beginning of Tractate Pesachim.²¹⁸Pesachim 5b.
But this Midrash [mentioned by Rashi], which explains, “just as what is in your home is under your control, so also what is in thy borders must be under your control,” is only intended to exclude [from this prohibition] an Israelite’s leavened bread which is deposited with a non-Israelite. And thus it is taught in the Mechilta:²¹⁹Mechilta on the verse before us. “In your homes. Why is this said? Because it is stated, in all thy borders,²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. which I might understand literally, [i.e., that we are not to leave our leavened bread in all our borders even if it is deposited with a non-Israelite]. Scripture therefore says, in your homes; just as what is in your home is under your control, so also what is in thy border must be under your control. Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] an Israelite’s leavened bread which he deposited with a non-Israelite. Even though the Israelite may destroy it, he could not do so because he does not have complete control over it. [Also] excluded [from this prohibition] is the leavened bread of a non-Israelite which is deposited with an Israelite, and [an Israelite’s] leavened bread buried under debris, for although it is under the control of the Israelite [or in his territory], he has not the right to destroy it, [or in the case of debris, he does not have the physical ability of actually destroying it], etc.”
The explanation of this Mechilta is as follows: One might have thought that the intent of the verse, Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy borders, is to prohibit the leaving of our leavened bread in all our borders, even in the house of a non-Israelite. Therefore the Torah wrote in your homes to exclude [from this prohibition] the house of a non-Israelite. Thus we learn from this Beraitha²⁰⁹Literally: “outside.” A teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The teachings contained in the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy fall into the category of Beraithoth. that by law of the Torah we are admonished only against keeping our leavened bread under our control, whether it be in our homes or in our borders. But if we have deposited it with a non-Israelite in his home, we do not transgress [the two prohibitions], Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee,²¹⁴Further, 13:7. The term “our borders” is to be understood as “our external properties” besides our homes. and There shall no leaven be found in your homes.²²⁰Verse 19 before us. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 197-8, where Rambam states that these are counted as two separate commandments. And it must necessarily be so. If you do not say thus, then it should follow that for his own leavened bread, an Israelite will transgress the commandments even if he deposited it with a non-Israelite who is beyond the sea, while for a non-Israelite’s leavened bread, even though it be in the Israelite’s home, the Israelite does not violate the prohibitions. If that is the case, why does Scripture say [in one place], in your homes, and in another, in thy borders, when there is no difference between our homes and our borders and the homes and borders of the non-Israelites! Instead, we must conclude that by law of the Torah, we are admonished [against keeping and seeing leaven or leavened bread] only when it is in our control.²²¹Hence by law of the Torah, an Israelite who deposited his leavened bread with a non-Israelite is not dutybound to destroy it. It is by law of the Rabbis, Ramban continues, that he is bound to destroy it in that case. But by enactment of the Sofrim, [the Rabbis of the pre-tannaitic period beginning with Ezra], we are obligated to destroy our leavened bread under all circumstances.
Accordingly, the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:²²²Pesachim 6a. See above, Note 204, for the word Gemara. “If the Israelite singled out a room [to the non-Israelite and said to him, ‘This corner is for you to keep your leavened bread’], the Israelite does not violate [the prohibitions against keeping or seeing leavened bread in his possession].” This teaches us that for a non-Israelite’s leavened bread for which the Israelite has accepted responsibility, even though it be deemed as belonging to the Israelite, it is forbidden only when it is under the control of the Israelite, but if it be under the control of the non-Israelite, it is permissible. [In this case where the Israelite singled out a room for him to keep his leavened bread, “it is as if the Israelite assumed responsibility for the non-Israelite’s leavened bread which is in the non-Israelite’s home”], and even by law of the Rabbis, nothing was decreed against it. The Rabbi [Rashi], however, is not of this opinion in his commentary on the Gemara Pesachim.²²³In his commentary (Pesachim 6 b), Rashi explains that the case of the Israelite who singled out a room for the non-Israelite to keep his leavened bread, applies only if the Israelite did not assume responsibility. If he assumed responsibility for it, he transgresses the prohibitions entailed. Ramban’s position that the above case applies even if the Israelite assumed responsibility for the non-Israelite’s leavened bread, coincides with that of Rabbeinu Tam, mentioned in Tosafoth there.
It is this principle which is the purport of the Beraitha²⁰⁹Literally: “outside.” A teaching of the Tannaim that for some reason had not been included in the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The teachings contained in the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy fall into the category of Beraithoth. we have cited: “Thus there is excluded [from this prohibition] leavened bread owned by a non-Israelite which is deposited with an Israelite.” [It is excluded] on account of the analogy between the homes and the borders:²²⁴See Note 217 above. And not, as Rashi explained, that it is derived from the expression in your homes, as explained above. just as in the case of the borders it is permissible because it says with thee, meaning, “you may not see [leaven or leavened bread] which is yours, but you may see that of others and that which belongs to the Temple-treasury,” so too in the case of the home it is also permissible. Excluded also is the case of an Israelite’s leavened bread buried under great debris where it is impossible for him to clear away the ruin, and it is lost to him and everyone. It is permissible since it is no longer called “his.”

From where do we know [that this applies] to [your properties] outside your house? “Your boundaries” (v. 13:7) comes [to extend the prohibition to areas] outside the house, such as in the fields and vineyards, [although houses are included in “your boundaries”].

V. 19 u. 20. Siehe zu V. 15. מחמצת: Hiphilform von חמץ. Wie in den Formen מקרין מפריס (Ps. 69, 32) der Hiphil das Darbieten eines Objektes bedeutet, Horn und Klaue zeigen, ebenso: האדים ,הלבין, die weiße Farbe, die rote Farbe dem Auge darbieten, so heißt auch מהמצת dasjenige, was nicht selbst חמץ ist, doch חמץ in konkreter Erkennbarkeit darbietet, somit ein Stoff, in welchen חמץ mit hervortretender Massenhaftigkeit gemischt ist. Es ist dies תערוכת המץ כזית בכדי אכילת פרס; eine solche Mischung in dem ungemischten Chamez gleich mit כרת verpönt. כל מחמצת erweitert den Begriff und verbietet eine jede Mischung, die das darin enthaltene Chamez auch nur für den Geschmack erkennbar enthält, תערובת חמץ טעמו ולא ממשו. Eben durch diese Ausdehnung des חמץ-Verbotes wird unsere Gewissenhaftigkeit die ganze Dauer des Mazzafestes wach gehalten und damit dieses Grundsymbol unseres nur von Gott getragenen nationalen Daseins in seiner ganzen Bedeutsamkeit unserm Innern zur völligen Einprägung dargeboten. Es ist aber das חמץ während der Dauer unseres Erlösungsfestes aus unserm Bereiche (לא ימצא), aus unserer Benutzung (הנאה), aus unserer Nahrung (אכילה), verwiesen, und sind damit wieder jene drei Seiten des ägyptischen Galut gezeichnet, das uns durch גרות besitzlos, durch עבדות machtlos in Verwendung unserer Kräfte und Mittel, und durch ענוי freudelos im Genusse unseres Daseins sein ließ. Wir hatten keine Selbständigkeit, (kein חמץ) hinsichtlich des Besitzes (לא ימצא), des Gebrauches (הנאה) und des Genusses (בכל מושבתיכם — .(אכילה, während das ganze Jahr hindurch nur vom Altar und den vom Altar stammenden Genüssen חמץ entfernt war, und nur das auf den Altar gebrachte und von ihm stammende Brot Mazza sein musste, tritt am Mazzafeste dieses Symbol in alle unsere Wohnstätten ein, uns eben in unserem ganzen bürgerlichen Dasein und mit demselben unsere Unselbständigkeit vor Gott zu vergegenwärtigen, und darum taugte zu der Mizwamazza am Peßachabende nur מצה הנאכלת בכל מושבות (siehe Peßachim 36 a).

שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם, “for seven days no leaven shall be found in your homes. This verse is meant to enlighten us about the proper meaning of the words in verseביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם :15If translated literally, it would mean: “on the first day you are to get rid and destroy all the leaven that you own from your houses.” However, it is clear that this must occur not on the first day of Passover but before, at least on the day before at noon, after which the blood of the sacrifice called Passover can be offered on the altar. The seven days following that day are equal in all respect concerning the laws governing leaven, in that no leaven must be capable of being found in a Jew’s house (if it is his). It had to be gotten rid off or destroyed already on the day prior to the 15th of Nissan. Some commentators therefore understand the plain meaning of the text as: “you do not need to have leaven on hand to facilitate the rising of your dough already when you prepare your dough which is to be eaten on the first night of the festival.” This precaution is necessary, as the penalty for eating leavened products is so severe, i.e. karet, being cut off from your people spiritually, permanently as stated in verse 19. The precaution therefore is to remove the leaven prior to, not only at or after the onset of the festival. You may not even eat a product which contains a mixture of leavened and unleavened dough.

כי כל אכל מחמצת FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THAT WHICH LEAVENETH — The purpose of this statement is to mention the punishment of excision for eating שאור (a synonym for מחמצת, which is something that causes the leavening process to set in, such as yeast etc., whilst חמץ denotes food which has become leavened). But has not Scripture already mentioned this punishment for eating leavened food (v. 15)? But the mention of this punishment is repeated here in connection with leaven מחמצת, in order that you should not argue as follows: For eating leavened food — a thing which is fitted to be eaten — it mentions this punishment, but if one eats leaven itself — which is something not fitted to be eaten — one should not be punished for it. If, however, it had mentioned the punishment for eating leaven but had not mentioned the punishment for eating leavened food, I might have said: For eating leaven — a thing which has the property of making other things leavened — it mentions the punishment, but if one eats leavened food — which is something that does not possess the property of making other things leavened — one should not be punished for it; therefore they are both mentioned (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:19:3; cf. Beitzah 7b).

A non-Jew’s chametz which is by a Jew. . . I.e., the Jew does not transgress the prohibition of having chametz. Also the prohibition of “your boundaries” (v. 13:7) applies only when you have rights to the chametz, as is learned from “in your homes.” This is because “in your homes” would otherwise be superfluous, [since homes are included in “your boundaries”]. Thus, “in your homes” comes to exclude [cases where the Jew has no rights to the chametz, such as] a non-Jew’s chametz stored by a Jew.

בגר ובאזרח הארץ WHETHER HE BE A STRANGER OR A NATIVE OF THE LAND — Because the miracle of the Exodus was performed for Israel it is necessary expressly to include the stranger who has become an Israelite in this command (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:19:4).

But has it not already provided for the kares punishment regarding chametz?! Rashi is saying that the prohibition on שאור may be derived through a fortiori reasoning, as follows: חמץ is not so strongly leavened that it can ferment other dough. Nevertheless, one who eats it is liable for kares. Then regarding שאור , which is strongly leavened, all the more so that one who eats it should be liable for kares.