SECTION 454 Which Matzah is Unacceptable for a Person to Use in Fulfilling His Obligation [to Partake of Matzah on Pesach Night] (1-15)

סימן תנד בְּאֵיזוֹ מַצָּה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ וּבוֹ ט"ו סְעִיפִים:

1 A person cannot fulfill his obligation [to partake of matzah] on Pesach [night] with a loaf made [entirely] from the outer shell of the bran (i.e., the shell that drops off from the [kernel of] wheat when it is crushed),1 nor with a loaf made [entirely] from the inner layer of bran (i.e., the thin shell that remains in the sifter after the flour is removed from it), because neither of these [types of loaves] are referred to as “bread” with regard to [the obligation to separate] challah, (as explained in Yoreh Deah, sec. 324).2

[This concept is derived as follows:] The Torah declares:3 “Seven days shall you eat matzos, the bread [of affliction], because of it.” Elsewhere, [regarding the obligation to separate challah, the Torah] says,4 “And when you will eat from the bread of the land…” According to the Oral Tradition,5 [based on the use of the word] “bread” [in both verses], a verbal association6 is drawn between [the two], teaching that a person can fulfill his obligation [to partake of matzah] on Pesach only with a loaf that would be called bread with regard to [the obligation to separate] challah.

א אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּפֶסַח לֹא בְּפַת שֶׁל סֻבִּיןא (פֵּרוּשׁ קְלִפָּה הַנּוֹשֶׁרֶת מִן הַחִטָּה בִּשְׁעַת כְּתִישָׁתָהּב),1 וְלֹא בְּפַת שֶׁל מֻרְסָןג (פֵּרוּשׁ קְלִפָּה דַּקָּה הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת בַּנָּפָהד אַחַר יְצִיאַת הַקֶּמַח מִתּוֹכָהּ), לְפִיה שֶׁאֵינָן קְרוּיִים לֶחֶם לְעִנְיַן חַלָּה (כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּיוֹרֶה דֵּעָה סִימָן שכ"[ד]ו,2), וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה:ז,3 "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם וְגוֹ'", וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר4:ח "וְהָיָה בַּאֲכָלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ וְגוֹ'", וּמִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה5 לָמְדוּ: "לֶחֶם" "לֶחֶם" לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה,ט,6 שֶׁאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּפֶסַח אֶלָּא בְּפַת הַקָּרוּי "לֶחֶם" לְעִנְיַן חַלָּה:

2 One may, however, knead flour together [without removing] the outer shell or inner layer of bran and fulfill his obligation with [matzah made from such flour.7 The rationale is that] one is obligated [to separate] challah from a dough [made from such flour] if it is [at least of the minimum size] for which one is obligated [to separate] challah,8i.e., it is an isaron.9

[The following law applies] if, however, one separated the outer shell and inner layer of bran from the flour10 and then mixed them back into [the flour] and made a dough from [the mixture]:11 One is not obligated [to separate] challah from such a dough unless [the dough] comprises [at least] the [minimum] size [for which one is obligated to separate] challah without including the outer shell or the inner layer of bran. Accordingly, one does not fulfill his obligation [to partake of] matzah unless he ate an olive-sized portion [of matzah] without including the outer shell and inner layer of bran, i.e., the outer shell and inner layer of bran are not included in the olive-sized portion of matzah, just as they are not included in [the measure of] an isaron with regard to [separating] challah.

ב אֲבָל מֻתָּר לָלוּשׁ אֶת הַקֶּמַח עִם הַסֻּבִּין וְהַמֻּרְסָן שֶׁבּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ,י שֶׁהֲרֵי עִסָּה זוֹ חַיֶּבֶת בְּחַלָּה7 אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּשִׁעוּר חִיּוּב חַלָּה,8 דְּהַיְנוּ עִשָּׂרוֹן.יא,9 אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִישׁ אֶת הַסֻּבִּין אוֹ אֶת הַמֻּרְסָן מִן הַקֶּמַח10 וְחָזַר וְעֵרְבוֹ בְּתוֹכוֹ וְלָשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ עִסָּה,11 כֵּיוָן שֶׁעִסָּה זוֹ אֵינָהּ חַיֶּבֶת בְּחַלָּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּשִׁעוּר חַלָּה לְבַד מִן הַסֻּבִּין אוֹ הַמֻּרְסָןיב – אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבַת מַצָּה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אָכַל כְּזַיִת לְבַד מִן הַסֻּבִּין אוֹ מִן הַמֻּרְסָן, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁאֵין הַסֻּבִּין אוֹ הַמֻּרְסָן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת מַצָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין לְעִשָּׂרוֹן לְעִנְיַן חַלָּה:יג

3 From the fact that the Sages found it necessary to state that one does not fulfill his obligation with a loaf [made from the] outer shell of bran because it is not considered “bread,” [it can be derived] that the bran shell can leaven12 when it comes [in contact] with water. [Were this not the case, it would be unnecessary to exclude a loaf from bran, because] one may fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah on Pesach night] only with a loaf that could become chametz.13

To what does the above apply? To the outer shell of bran, because it is the shell of the wheat kernel itself. By contrast, the shell of chaff14 that is called shpriyar is unable to become chametz.15

ג מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהֻצְרְכוּ חֲכָמִים לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּפַת סֻבִּין לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה "לֶחֶם", מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁהַסֻּבִּין יְכוֹלִין לָבוֹא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ12 כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ בְּמַיִם,יד שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין יוֹצְאִין אֶלָּא בְּפַת שֶׁיָּכוֹל לָבוֹא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ.טו,13 בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּסֻבִּין, שֶׁהוּא קְלִפָּה מֵהַחִטָּה עַצְמָהּ, אֲבָל קְלִפָּה מִקַּשׁ14 שֶׁקּוֹרִין שפרייא"ר – אֵינוֹ בָּא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ:טז,15

4 A person can fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah] with matzah made with finely sifted flour, even if it is as refined as matzah [that is fit to have been eaten by King] Shlomoh.16

True, the Torah refers3 to [matzah] as “the bread of affliction.”17 [Nevertheless,] the Torah refers3 to matzah in the plural, several times, implying that many types of matzah [are acceptable], including also matzah [that is fit to have been eaten by King] Shlomoh.18 If so, what is meant by the Scripture’s description [of matz­ah] as “the bread of affliction”? This excludes matzah that became “rich” as a result of man’s actions,19 for example, [matzah] into which wine, oil, honey, or any other liquids were mixed, as will be explained in sec. 462[:1, 6].20

ד יוֹצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה מִסֹּלֶת נְקִיָּה, אֲפִלּוּ הִיא יָפָה כְּמַצָּתוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה.יז,16 אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכָּתוּב קְרָאוֹ3 "לֶחֶם עֹנִי",17 הֲרֵי כְּבָר רִבְּתָה הַתּוֹרָה3 "מַצֹּת" "מַצֹּת" הַרְבֵּה פְּעָמִים, לְרַבּוֹת אֲפִלּוּ כְּמַצָּתוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה,18 אִם כֵּן מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: "לֶחֶם עֹנִי"?יח פְּרָט לְמַצָּה שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית עֲשִׁירָה בִּידֵי אָדָם,יט,19 כְּגוֹן שֶׁעֵרֵב בָּהּכ יַיִן אוֹ שֶׁמֶן אוֹ דְּבַשׁכא אוֹ שְׁאָר כָּל הַמַּשְׁקִין,כב כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תס"ב:כג,20

Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Sichos In English)

The new layout – with the original text and the facing translation – provides a unique user-friendly approach to studying the Alter Rebbe’s work. An inclusive commentary provides insightful explanations and guidelines for actual practice.

5 Similarly, if one made a very large cake [of matzah, one that comprises] one sixth [the measure] of an ephah,21which is called an ashishah, one cannot fulfill his obligation with it.22 [The rationale is that] this is an expression of prominence and grandeur, [as evidenced by it being called] “rich man’s matzah.23 For this reason, it is desirable to be careful to make the matzah that will be used to fulfill the mitzvah [to eat matzah at the Seder] unusually wide, so that it will not resemble an ashishah.

ה וְכֵן אִם עֲשָׂאָהּ גְּלֻסְקָא גְּדוֹלָה כְּמוֹ שִׁשִּׁית הָאֵיפָה,21 וְהִיא נִקְרֵאת "אֲשִׁישָׁה",כד וְהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חֲשִׁיבוּתכה וּגְדֻלָּה – הֲרֵי זוֹ מַצָּה עֲשִׁירָה23 וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בָּהּ.22 לְפִיכָךְ, טוֹב לִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמַּצָּה שֶׁל מִצְוָה רְחָבָה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נִרְאֶה כְּעֵין אֲשִׁישָׁה:כו

6 Similarly, if [a person] blanched flour in boiling [water]24 before kneading it and afterwards, he kneaded it and made a thick blend of dough, and [then] baked [this dough] in an oven like other bread, one cannot fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah] with [this loaf. The rationale is that] since [the flour] was blanched with boiling [water, the loaf] is deemed “rich man’s matzah,” (for it is the practice of the rich to blanch flour to bleach it).25 If, however, after blanching the flour, one made a soft blend of dough and baked it in an oven,26 one may fulfill his obligation with it. [The rationale is that] since the blend [comprising the dough] is soft, it is not deemed “rich man’s matzah.

All the above27 applies with regard to the matzah used for the mitzvah [to partake of matzah]. With regard to other matzah,28 once the flour has been blanched with boiling [water], whether it is made [into] a soft blend [of dough] or a thick blend [of dough] is of no consequence.29 There is no concern that it became chametz, i.e., that the flour already became chametz when it was in the boiling [water], before one actively occupied oneself with kneading [the dough] and arranging it. [The rationale is that] the boiling [water] speedily cooks the flour before [it has a chance to become chametz], and once [the flour] is cooked, it will never become chametz, even after the boiling [water] ceases to boil. [To cite a parallel, this flour is] like [grain products] that were baked [before becoming chametz], that will never become chametz afterwards, as will be explained in sec. 463[:3].30

ו וְכֵן אִם חָלַטכז הַקֶּמַחכח בְּרוֹתְחִין24 קֹדֶם הַלִּישָׁה וְאַחַר כָּךְ לָשׁ אוֹתוֹ וְעָשָׂה מִמֶּנּוּ עִסָּה שֶׁבְּלִילָתוֹ עָבָהכט וַאֲפָאָהּ בַּתַּנּוּר כְּמוֹ שְׁאָר פַּת – אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בָּהּ, דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁחֲלָטָהּ בְּרוֹתְחִין – הֲרֵי זוֹ מַצָּה עֲשִׁירָה (שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ הָעֲשִׁירִים לַחְלֹט הַקֶּמַח כְּדֵי לְלַבְּנוֹ).25 אֲבָל אִם לְאַחַר שֶׁנֶּחְלַט הַקֶּמַח עָשָׂה מִמֶּנּוּ עִסָּה שֶׁבְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה וַאֲפָאָהּ בַּתַּנּוּר26 – יוֹצֵא בָּהּ, הוֹאִיל וּבְלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה – אֵין זוֹ מַצָּה עֲשִׁירָה.ל

וְכָל זֶה27 בְּמַצָּה שֶׁל מִצְוָה, אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַמַּצּוֹת28 בֵּין שֶׁבְּלִילָתָן רַכָּה וּבֵין שֶׁבְּלִילָתָן עָבָה לְאַחַר שֶׁנֶּחְלַט הַקֶּמַח בְּרוֹתְחִין – אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם,29 וְאֵין כָּאן חֲשַׁשׁ חִמּוּץלא לוֹמַר: שֶׁמָּא כְּבָר נִתְחַמֵּץ הַקֶּמַח כְּשֶׁהָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָרוֹתְחִין קֹדֶם שֶׁהִתְחִיל לַעֲסֹק בָּהּ בְּיָדַיִם בְּלִישָׁה וַעֲרִיכָה, לְפִי שֶׁרְתִיחַת הָרוֹתְחִין מְמַהֶרֶת לְבַשֵּׁל אֶת הַקֶּמַח קֹדֶם, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל – שׁוּב אֵינָהּ בָּאָה לִידֵי חִמּוּץ לְעוֹלָם אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁנָּחוּ הָרוֹתְחִין מֵרְתִיחָתָם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁדָּבָר הָאָפוּי אֵינוֹ בָּא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ לְעוֹלָם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תס"ג:לב,30

7 All the above31 applies to the law as stated in the Gemara. Nevertheless, the Geonim32forbade all types of blanching with boiling [water. The rationale is that] we are no longer knowledgeable regarding [the technique of] blanching with boiling [water], and it is possible that one will not boil the water adequately.

If a piece of dough [prepared to be baked as] matzah fell into a pot of boiling [water], it is forbidden to eat anything that was in the pot33 even though one immediately removed [the piece of dough from the boiling water]. It is, however, permitted to benefit from [the food in the pot]34 or to leave it until after Pesach, provided [the pot] contains 60 times [as much of a permitted substance as the volume of] the dough. [The rationale is that] the stringency of forbidding benefitting from or maintaining possession of even the slightest trace [of food that may possibly contain chametz]35 is not applied regarding dough that was blanched. [Rather,] it is sufficient to forbid partaking of it.

ז וְכָל זֶה31 מִדִּינָא דִּגְמָרָא, אֲבָל הַגְּאוֹנִים32 אָסְרוּ לָנוּ כָּל מִין חֲלִיטָה בְּרוֹתְחִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בַּחֲלִיטַת הָרוֹתְחִין,לג וְיֵשׁ לָחֹשׁ שֶׁמָּא לֹא יַרְתִּיחַ אֶת הַמַּיִם יָפֶה יָפֶה.לד

וְאִם נָפְלָה חֲתִיכַת עִסָּה שֶׁל מַצָּה לְתוֹךְ הָרוֹתְחִין שֶׁבַּקְּדֵרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּד – הֲרֵי כָּל מַה שֶּׁבַּקְּדֵרָה אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה,לה,33 אֲבָל מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה,34 אוֹ לְהַשְׁהוֹת עַד לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַחלו אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם שִׁשִּׁים כְּנֶגֶד הָעִסָּה,לז שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַחֲמִירִין כָּל כָּךְ בַּחֲלִיטָה לֶאֱסֹר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֲפִלּוּ בַּהֲנָאָה, אוֹ לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ,35 וְדַי שֶׁאוֹסְרִין בַּאֲכִילָה:לח

8 [The following laws apply regarding] a dough that is made for shepherds’ dogs:36 If, when preparing [the dough, the person] intended that it would also be used for human consumption, i.e., he intended that the shepherds would also partake of it when they desired, one may fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah] on Pesach with it, provided care was taken that it did not become chametz despite it being coarse bread.

If, by contrast, [the dough] was made solely for the dogs, i.e., the person did not have in mind that the shepherds would [also] eat from it, one may not fulfill [his obligation to eat matzah by eating matzah baked from this dough. This applies] even when [the dough] was made from finely refined flour, and [thus] it is fit to be eaten by all people, and challah must [be separated from it]. Nevertheless, [one may not fulfill the mitzvah to eat matzah with it, since] it was not guarded against becoming chametz for the sake of performing the mitzvah of eating matzah;37 [it was] only [made] so that the dogs [could eat from it].

There are authorities38 who maintain that if [the matzah] is not fit for shepherds’ consumption, for example, a large amount of bran was mixed into [this matzah], even if one intended that the shepherds would eat from it, his intent is inconsequential in light of the attitude of people at large.39 [Hence,] a person cannot fulfill [his obligation to eat matzah] with it. [This restriction applies] even if one ate a large amount of [this matzah], and thus, he ate an olive-sized portion [of matzah] without [including] the bran in it.40 [The rationale is that] since this [matzah] is not fit for shepherds to eat, it is not considered as bread at all, and there is no obligation [to separate] challah from it. Fundamentally, the halachah follows this view.

ח עִסָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בִּשְׁבִיל הַכְּלָבִים שֶׁל הָרוֹעִים,לט,36 אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן בַּעֲשִׂיָּתָהּ גַּם בִּשְׁבִיל אֲכִילַת אָדָם,מ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁגַּם הָרוֹעִים יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֶׁיִּרְצוּ – יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ בְּפֶסַח אִם נִשְׁמְרָה מֵחִמּוּץ, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא פַּת קִבָּר.מא אֲבָל אִם לֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל הַכְּלָבִים בִּלְבַד, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ הָרוֹעִים מִמֶּנָּה – אֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נַעֲשֵׂית מִסֹּלֶת נְקִיָּה וַהֲרֵי הִיא רְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילַת כָּל אָדָםמב וְהִיא חַיֶּבֶת בְּחַלָּה,מג מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי לֹא נִשְׁמְרָה מֵחִמּוּץמד לְשֵׁם מַצַּת מִצְוָה,מה אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם הַכְּלָבִים.37

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםמו,38 שֶׁאִם אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילַת הָרוֹעִים, כְּגוֹן שֶׁעֵרֵב בָּהּ מֻרְסָן הַרְבֵּה, אֲפִלּוּ אִם הָיָה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁגַּם הָרוֹעִים יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנָּה – בְּטֵלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כָּל אָדָם,מז,39 וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל הַרְבֵּה מִמֶּנָּה בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת לְבַד מִן הַמֻּרְסָן שֶׁבָּהּ,מח,40 דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילַת הָרוֹעִים – אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה לֶחֶם כְּלָל וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה. וְכֵן עִקָּר:מט

9 A person may only fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah] with matzah that belongs to him.41 [This is derived from the verbal association between the mitzvah to eat matzah and the mitzvah to separate challah.42With regard to the mitzvah to eat matzah, the word] “bread” is used.3 Elsewhere, with regard to [the mitzvah to separate] challah, it is written,4 “And when you will eat from the bread of the land.” With regard [to separating challah], a person is only obligated to separate challah when he makes his own dough, not [when he makes dough] for another person. Similarly, in this instance [with regard to eating matz­ah], [a person] fulfills his obligation only with his own [matzah], but not with [matzah] belonging to another person unless [the other person] gives [the matzah] to him as a gift.43 [In that instance, the matzah] actually becomes owned [by the person fulfilling the mitzvah].

If, however, one (ate matzah belonging to another person without his consent, and needless to say, if one) stole44 matzah belonging to another person and ate it,45 he does not fulfill [his obligation.46 The rationale is that] if [before the thief ate it], the person from whom he stole [the matzah] would come and demand ]that he return it[, he would be obligated to return [the matzah itself] to [that person. The thief] could not free himself from the obligation [of returning the matzah] by paying money [in lieu of the matzah] against the will of the person from whom he stole. This indicates that [the matzah] is not his.

ט אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמַצָּה שֶׁלּוֹ,41 שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן "לֶחֶם",נ,3 וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּחַלָּה4:נא "וְהָיָה בַּאֲכָלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ וְגוֹ'",42 מַה לְּהַלָּן אֵין אָדָם חַיָּב לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלָּה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמְּגַלְגֵּל עִסָּה שֶׁלּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ,נב אַף כָּאן אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלּוֹנג אֲבָל לֹא בְּשֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה,43 שֶׁאָז נַעֲשָׂה שֶׁלּוֹ מַמָּשׁ.

אֲבָל אִם (אָכַל מַצָּה שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ,נד וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם) גְּזָלָהּ44 מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וַאֲכָלָהּ45 – לֹא יָצָא,נה,46 שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם בָּא הַנִּגְזָל לִתְבֹּעַ אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ חַיָּב לְהַחֲזִירָהּ לוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִפְטֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּדָמִים בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁל הַנִּגְזָל – נִמְצֵאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ:נו

10 When does the above apply? When the person stole matzah. If, by contrast, [a person] stole flour and made matzah [from the flour], and ate it, he fulfills his obligation. [The rationale is that] if the person from whom he stole would demand that [the thief] give him the matzah [in lieu of the flour he stole, the thief] would not be obligated to give it to him. Instead, [the thief] could pay [the person] the value of the flour and be exempt from [further obligations to] him. Even though the matzah was made from [that person’s] flour, the thief nevertheless acquired the stolen object through the change that his actions brought about within [that object], i.e., that he made bread from [this] flour.47 Through [this change, the flour] actually became his, and [therefore, the thief] is only obligated to pay money to the person from whom he stole. [Hence,] he fulfills his obligation with [this matzah].

Nevertheless, (as an initial preference, it is not desirable for [the thief] to fulfill his obligation with [this matzah], for the reason explained in sec. 11[:12].48 If [the thief] does not have other matzah [and thus, his only option is to partake of the matzah made from the stolen flour,]) he should nevertheless not recite a blessing over it.49 [This ruling applies] even if he stole flour or wheat from a non-Jew;50 [the rationale is that] since [the thief’s opportunity to fulfill] the mitzvah was made possible by a transgression, he is not blessing G‑d, but blaspheming Him (for it appears that he is blessing G‑d for the transgression that presented itself to him).

To whom does the above apply? To the thief himself. If, however, [the thief] gave this matzah to other people, [those people] may recite a blessing over it, for [their opportunity to fulfill] the mitzvah was not made possible [directly] by a transgression.51 [The rationale is that these people received the matzah from the thief and] the thief had already acquired it because the [flour] underwent a fundamental change.

י בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁגָּזַל מַצָּה, אֲבָל אִם גָּזַל קֶמַח וַעֲשָׂאָהּ מַצָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ – יָצָא, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם בָּא הַנִּגְזָל לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַמַּצָּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לִתְּנָהּ לוֹ, אֶלָּא מְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ דְּמֵי קִמְחוֹ וְנִפְטָר מִמֶּנּוּ.נז וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּצָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מִקִּמְחוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כְּבָר קָנָה הַגַּזְלָן אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה עַל יְדֵי שִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁעָשָׂה מִקֶּמַח פַּת,47 וְעַל יְדֵי כֵּן נַעֲשֵׂית כְּשֶׁלּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, וְדָמִים בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁחַיָּב לְהַנִּגְזָל, לְפִיכָךְ יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ.

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם (לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֵין לוֹ לָצֵאת בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, מִטַּעַם שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן י"א.נח,48 וְאִם אֵין לוֹ מַצָּה אַחֶרֶת – עַל כָּל פָּנִים) לֹא יְבָרֵךְ עָלָיו,נט,49 אֲפִלּוּ גָּזַל קֶמַח אוֹ חִטִּים מִנָּכְרִי,ס,50 דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁעַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ מִצְוָה זוֹ – אֵין זֶה מְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא מְנָאֵץסא (שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּמְבָרֵךְ עַל עֲבֵרָה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לְיָדוֹסב).

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בַּגַּזְלָן עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל אִם נָתַן מַצָּה זוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – מֻתָּרִים לְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה מִצְוָה זוֹ לְיָדָם,51 (שֶׁ)כֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר קְנָאָהּ הַגַּזְלָן בְּשִׁנּוּי קֹדֶם שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לָהֶם:סג

11 If, however, a person stole matzah and gave it to other people, [those people] cannot fulfill their obligation with [this matzah]52 unless the person from whom it was stolen despaired [of the matzah ever being returned to him] before the thief gave [the matzah] to [the other people. Were the former owner to have despaired of its recovery,] they would have acquired [the matzah] because of [the owner’s] despair and the transfer [of the matzah] from one person’s domain to another’s (i.e., [the matz­ah was transferred] from the domain of the thief to that of [the other people]).53 [In such an instance, these people] are permitted to recite a blessing over [the matzah] because [their opportunity to fulfill] the mitzvah was not made possible by a transgression, for the person from whom [the matzah] was stolen already despaired of its return before it entered their possession.

If, after the thief gave [the matzah] to [others] as an outright gift, they returned [the matzah] to [the thief] as an outright gift, [the thief] is permitted to fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah] with it and recite a blessing over it. [The rationale is that] at this time, [his opportunity to fulfill] the mitzvah is not being made possible by a transgression.54

יא אֲבָל אִם גָּזַל מַצָּה וּנְתָנָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵינָן יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ,52 אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִתְיָאֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה הַנִּגְזָל קֹדֶם שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לָהֶם הַגַּזְלָן, שֶׁאָז נִקְנֵית הִיא לָהֶם בְּיֵאוּשׁ וְשִׁנּוּי רְשׁוּתסד (פֵּרוּשׁ מֵרְשׁוּת הַגַּזְלָן לִרְשׁוּתָם).53 וּמֻתָּרִים הֵם אָז לְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ,סה שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה בָּאָה מִצְוָה זוֹ לְיָדָם, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְיָאֵשׁ הַנִּגְזָל מִמֶּנָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁבָּאָה לְיָדָם.סו

וְאִם לְאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ הַגַּזְלָן לָהֶם בְּמַתָּנָה גְּמוּרָה הֶחֱזִירוּ אוֹתָהּ לוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה גְּמוּרָה – מֻתָּר לוֹ לָצֵאת בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹסז וּלְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, שֶׁעַכְשָׁו אֵין הַמִּצְוָה בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ בַּעֲבֵרָה:54

12 When a person transferred matzah from a private domain to a public domain or from a public domain to a private domain on the night of the fifteenth [of Nissan, when that night] fell on Shabbos,55he is permitted to fulfill his obligation with [that matzah] and to recite a blessing over it. It is not considered as if [the person’s opportunity to fulfill] the mitzvah was made possible by a transgression. [The rationale is that] the matzah belonged to him before he took it out [to the public domain] or brought it in [to the private domain]. Thus, [the person’s opportunity to fulfill] the mitzvah was not made possible by a transgression. Instead, although [the person] performed a transgression with [the matzah, the matzah] was not produced through a transgression,56 nor was it acquired by him through a transgression that he performed.57

יב מִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא מַצָּה מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בְּלֵיל ט"ו שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת55 – מֻתָּר לוֹ לָצֵאת בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ, וְאֵין זוֹ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיְתָה שֶׁלּוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁהוֹצִיאָהּ אוֹ הִכְנִיסָהּ – נִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא בָּאָה מִצְוָה זוֹ לְיָדוֹ עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בָּהּ עֲבֵרָה, אֲבָל הִיא לֹא נַעֲשֵׂית בַּעֲבֵרָה,56 וְלֹא בָּאָה לְיָדוֹ עַל יְדֵי עֲבֵרָה שֶׁעָשָׂה הוּא:סח,57

13 When many people bake in one oven matzah to be used for the mitzvah [of eating matzah], it is desirable that each one make a statement: “[If] my matzah reaches someone else, it is given to him as a gift.”58 [The rationale is that] there is room for concern that one person’s matzah will be exchanged for another’s. [Unless these gifts are made, the person will not fulfill his obligation, because] a person may only fulfill his obligation with matzah that belongs to him.

Similarly, when grinding [grain], when many people grind [their grain] together, it is desirable for [everyone to make a similar statement], since at times [one person’s grain or] flour will be exchanged [for another’s] and thus, they will be reciting blessings improperly.59

יג כְּשֶׁהַרְבֵּה בְּנֵי אָדָם אוֹפִין מַצֹּת שֶׁל מִצְוָה בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד – טוֹב שֶׁיֹּאמַר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם: "כָּל מִי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ מַצָּתִי לְיָדוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא נְתוּנָה לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה", לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחֹשׁ שֶׁמָּא יִתְחַלְּפוּ מַצֹּת שֶׁל זֶה לָזֶה, וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בְּמַצָּה שֶׁלּוֹ.סט,58 וְכֵן טוֹב לוֹמַר בִּשְׁעַת הַטְּחִינָה כְּשֶׁטּוֹחֲנִין הַרְבֵּה בְּיַחַד, שֶׁלִּפְעָמִים מִתְחַלֵּף הַקֶּמַחע וְנִמְצָא מְבָרֵךְ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדָּת:עא,59

14 If a person borrowed matzah from another person, he may fulfill his obligation with it as an initial and preferred option.60 [The rationale is that the owner of the matzah] did not lend it to [the borrower] with the intent that he return [that specific matzah] to him. Instead, [he intended that the borrower] eat [that matzah] and return another matzah to him. Thus, this matzah is actually [the borrower’s] in all contexts. (See sec. 461.)61

יד אִם שָׁאַל מַצָּה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ – יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה,60 שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִשְׁאִילָהּ לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה לוֹ, אֶלָּא עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֹּאכְלֶנָּה וְיַחֲזִיר לוֹ מַצָּה אַחֶרֶת, וְנִמְצָא מַצָּה זוֹ הִיא שֶׁלּוֹ מַמָּשׁ לְכָל דָּבָרעב (עַיֵּן סִימָן תס"א61):

15 Just as a person cannot fulfill his obligation [to eat matzah] with matzah that does not belong to him,62 so too, he cannot fulfill his obligation [to eat maror] with maror that does not belong to him.63 [This concept is derived from] the verse,64 “You shall eat [the Paschal sacrifice] together with matzah and bitter herbs….” [Our Sages understood this verse to be] establishing an association [between the mitzvah of eating matzah and that of eating maror] with regard to all their [relevant] laws.63 [This concept applies] even in the present age, when the mitzvah of eating maror merely has the status of a Rabbinic commandment,65 as will be explained in sec. 475[:15, 29]. Nevertheless, all the ordinances ordained by our Sages were ordained in a manner paralleling the Scriptural [mitzvos they are associated with].66

טו כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בְּמַצָּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ,62 כָּךְ אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בְּמָרוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ,עג,63 שֶׁנֶּאֱמַרעד,64 "עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים וְגוֹ'", הֻקְּשׁוּ זֶה לָזֶהעה לְכָל הִלְכוֹתֵיהֶם.63 וְגַם עַכְשָׁו בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה שֶׁמִּצְוַת אֲכִילַת מָרוֹר אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִיםעו,65 כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תע"ה,עז מִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל מַה שֶּׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים – תִּקְּנוּ כְּעֵין שֶׁל תּוֹרָה:עח,66