THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) CALLING THE YOM TOV BY NAME
QUESTION: Rav Asi cites the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim
whether Ma'aser Sheni is considered the property of Hashem ("Mamon Gavoha;"
-Rebbi Meir) or it is the property of man ("Mamon Hedyot;" -Chachamim). Rav
Asi states that based on this argument, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim will
also differ regarding whether or not one can fulfill the Mitzvah of eating
Matzah on Pesach with Ma'aser Sheni, since the Torah requires that the
Matzah belong to the person who is eating it ("Lachem"). According to Rebbi
Meir, one cannot use Ma'aser Sheni, because it belongs to Gavoha, while
according to the Chachamim, one may use Ma'aser Sheni because it belongs to
man. Similarly, Rav Asi says that Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim will argue
whether one may use an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni on Yom Tov, since an Esrog
must also be "Lachem."
2) HALACHAH: A GUEST WHO EATS THE MATZAH OF HIS HOST
Why does Rav Asi mention the name of the Yom Tov with regard to using
Ma'aser Sheni for Matzah on *Pesach*, but he says only "Yom Tov" when
discussing using an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni on *Sukkos*? He should have
either mentioned the specific name of the Yom Tov for both statements, or he
should have use the generic "Yom Tov" for both! Why was he inconsistent?
ANSWER: The RESHASH and RAV YOSEF ENGEL (Gilyonei ha'Shas) suggest that the
reason why Rav Asi refers to Sukkos as "Yom Tov" when it discusses using an
Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni is because the requirement to personally own the
Esrog ("Lachem") applies only on the first day of Sukkos, and not on the
rest of Sukkos (Sukah 30a). Therefore, he said "Yom Tov" to imply that the
argument concerning an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni applies *only* on Yom Tov but
not Chol ha'Moed.
But if so, why did he mention "Pesach" -- which implies the entire festival
including Chol ha'Moed -- if the Mitzvah to eat Matzah applies only the
(a) The RESHASH suggests that Rav Asi said "Pesach" in order to also include
*Pesach Sheni* in his statement. Pesach Sheni is not a Yom Tov, yet there is
a Mitzvah of eating Matzah on Pesach Sheni for one who did not bring the
Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan. "Pesach" refers to both Pesach
Rishon and Pesach Sheni.
(b) RAV YOSEF ENGEL suggests that this Gemara provides support for an
opinion we find in the Rishonim. The CHIZKUNI (Parshas Bo) (this was also
the practice of the VILNA GA'ON according to the HANHAGAS HA'GRA #185) says
that although the Torah obligates us to eat Matzah only on the first night,
nevertheless one *fulfills the Mitzvah of eating Matzah* every time he eats
Matzah throughout all of Pesach. That is, when one eats Matzah on any day of
Pesach, he fulfills a Mitzvah d'Oraisa. (This does not seem to be the
opinion of Rashi, 28b, DH K'siv.) If so, it is appropriate for Rav Asi to
say that the argument whether one can fulfill the Mitzvah of eating Matzah
by eating Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni applies throughout all of *Pesach* and not
just on Yom Tov. (Rav Asi uses the phrase "Yedei Chovaso" merely because
the first night of Pesach is also included in his statement, but not because
he is only referring to the first night.)
(c) We may add another, simple solution to our question. The reason Rav Asi
says "Pesach" and not "Yom Tov" is because when it comes to Pesach, we will
not make a mistake and think that he is referring to all of Pesach, because
there is no Mitzvah to eat Matzah any time other than the first night. When
he says "Yedei Chovaso b'Pesach" he *must* be referring to the first night.
Regarding Esrog, though, even though "Lachem" does not apply for the rest of
the festival, the *Mitzvah* of Esrog does apply, and therefore Rav Asi must
be specific and say "Yom Tov" to emphasize that the argument between Rebbi
Meir and the Chachamim applies only to the first day, when "Lachem" is a
requirement. (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: The Gemara states that there is a principle of "Lachem" regarding
the Mitzvos of Chalah, Matzah, and Esrog. "Lachem" teaches that in order for
dough to be Chayav in Chalah, the dough must belong to a Jew, and not to
Hekdesh (such as Ma'aser Sheni, which is Mamon Gavoha, according to Rebbi
Meir). The requirement that Matzah, too, must belong to a Jew is derived
through a Gezeirah Shaveh from Chalah.
The SEFAS EMES (Sukah 35a, DH Asya) raises an interesting point. We know
that an object is not considered owned by someone unless he has full rights
to do whatever he wants with it (sell it, be Makdish it, Mafkir it, etc.).
When food is placed in front of a guest, does he own that food, or does it
remain the host's food, which he happens to be eating? The Gemara in Nedarim
(34b) seems to say that when a guest eat a loaf of bread that is served to
him, the guest is *not* considered to be the owner of the bread. (This
source is cited by Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, MIKRA'EI KODESH, Pesach II p.
158). Likewise, a guest who is eating Matzah at the Seder of his host on
Pesach night should not be the owner of the Matzah served to him.. If so, the
guest should be required to acquire the Matzah from the host by having the
host be Makneh to him the Matzah; otherwise, the guest will not fulfill the
Mitzvah when he eats the host's Matzah!
The Sefas Emes writes that perhaps a person should make this his practice,
but he adds that he does not know why people are not normally careful to do
this. The IMREI BINAH (Hilchos Pesach, end of #23) reaches the same
Why indeed are guests not careful to be Koneh the Matzah from the host
before they eat it on Pesach night?
(a) The SEFAS EMES alludes to the Halachah mentioned in Even ha'Ezer 28:19,
where we find that if a person asks his friend for a ring and tells him that
he wants it in order to be Mekadesh a woman to be his wife, when his friend
gives him a ring we assume that the friend was Makneh it to him and was not
merely lending it to him -- since otherwise, it would not serve its purpose.
Similarly, when a person invites a guest to his Seder and he serves him
Matzah, it is understood that the host is Makneh the Matzah to the guest,
because the guest must own it in order to fulfill the Mitzvah.
But what about the Gemara in Nedarim (34b) that implies that a guest does
not own the food that his host gives him? Although the Mikra'ei Kodesh does
not discuss this point, several reasons may be suggested why the Gemara in
Nedarim does not actually show that what a guest eats is not his:
RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 2:240; Mo'adim u'Zemanim, vol. 3,
p. 155), however, questions this. People do not realize that their guest
will not fulfill the Mitzvah unless he owns the Matzah. If they do not know
that they have to be Makneh the Matzah to the guest, how can we assume that
they do so?
(b) RAV STERNBUCH (Mo'adim u'Zemanim loc. cit.) writes instead that perhaps
we rely on the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 6:7) who does
not mention the principle of "Lachem" with regard to Matzah, but writes only
that one cannot fulfill his obligation with stolen Matzah because of the
principle of "Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah." Since he does not say that the
reason is because one must own the Matzah, it must be that he maintains that
there is no requirement that the individual own the Matzah with which he
fulfills the Mitzvah.
However, how does the Rambam understand our Gemara, which says that the
principle of "Lachem" applies to Matzah? The YAD HA'MELECH explains that the
principle of "Lachem" does not mean that each individual must be in
possession of his own Matzah. Rather, "Lachem" means that the Matzah must
belong to *Jews* and not to Gavoha or to gentiles. This is clear since the
need for "Lachem" when eating Matzah is learned from Chalah, and one
certainly *is* required to separate Chalah even from borrowed or stolen
bread. It is considered Lachem since it belongs to a Jew, even though it
does not belong to the person performing the Mitzvah. The only bread which
is exempt from Chalah is bread that does not belong to a Jew but belongs to
Gavoha (such as Ma'aser Sheni) or to a gentile. Likewise, as long as the
Matzah belongs to any Jew and not to Gavoha or gentiles, one fulfills the
Mitzvah with it.
The TOSFOS (DH Asya) and other Rishonim seem to equate the "Lachem" of
Matzah to the "Lachem" of Lulav. If so, just as a Lulav must be owned by the
person performing the Mitzvah, so too with Matzah. According to them, our
question remains unanswered.
(c) The MIKRA'EI KODESH (loc. cit.) points out that TOSFOS earlier (29a, DH
b'Din) says explicitly that when a guest eats food that belongs to his host,
he is certainly Koneh it at the moment that he eats it. If so, at the moment
that a guest eats the Matzah that is given him, he is Koneh the Matzah, and
thus our question does not begin!
(It should be noted that RASHI (29a) argues with Tosfos and asserts that a
Jew who eats a gentile's Chametz is *not* considered to be eating Chametz
that belongs to a Jew; it remains the gentiles. This is no proof, though,
that the Jew is not Koneh the food at the moment that he eats it. Rather,
Rashi might mean that when the Torah prohibits the Chametz of a Jew, it
means that one may not eat Chametz that belongs to a Jew *at the moment*
that one begins to eat it -- that is, while he is holding it in his hand and
beginning to bite from it. In the case of a Jew who eats the Chametz of a
gentile, when he starts to eat it it belongs to the gentile.)
1. First, the MEFARESH there educes the *opposite* point from the Gemara. He
understands that the point of the Gemara is that a guest *is* the owner of
the food that his host places before him.
HALACHAH: The common practice is not to require one to own the Matzah which
he eats to fulfill the Mitzvah. Some, though (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos, ibid.),
are stringent, and either make sure to bring their own Matzah to their
host's Seder or specifically ask the host to be Makneh them their portion of
2. Second, the ROSH there suggests that the Gemara just means that a guest
does not own the food that is *served* to him -- that is, *before* he eats
it. Therefore, if a person makes an vow saying, "As long as this bread is
mine, it is forbidden to you," he may not invite that person to his home to
eat from it, since when the guest sits down at the table in front of the
bread he derives pleasure from it, and at that point he does not own it.
3. Finally, the NIMUKEI YOSEF and the RITVA there understand that the Gemara
is just discussing a question concerning the *intention* of the person
making the vow. It is not discussing the technical question of what belongs
to whom. Even if the guest who eats the bread *is* Koneh it when he eats it,
if someone makes an vow saying, "As long as this bread is mine, it is
forbidden to you," his intention is that the other person should not eat the
bread as a guest in his house, even though the act of eating will transfer
the ownership of the bread.