Siman 455, Se'if 5 · Putting salt into the matzah dough

Shulchan Aruch, Siman 455, se'if 5

"The custom is not to put salt into the matzah, and this is proper."

(Shulchan Aruch)

Putting salt into the matzah dough

The reason: a concern of chimutz

"Because some say that salt heats the dough, and through this the dough comes to leaven easily."

(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 40)

• What is being discussed: The halachah is stated regarding the matzah eaten at the Seder, the matzas mitzvah, the one over which we make the berachah "al achilas matzah."
• Salt has the status of boiling heat: The well known rule that salt cooks and boils shows that salt has a heating effect, and therefore the concern arose that a mixture of flour, water and salt would leaven faster.
• A dispute among the Rishonim: There was a major dispute about this, much like the dispute regarding kitniyos, and some held there was nothing to it. In practice the ruling is that we do not put salt into the dough.
• The scope of the prohibition according to this reason: If the concern is chimutz, leavening, then there is no difference between the Seder night and the rest of Pesach, and it is forbidden to bake matzos with salt throughout Pesach.

Background: the concern about any source of warmth

• The eighteen minute measure: Within eighteen minutes the dough can be baked; after that it leavens. But that measure was given for ordinary room conditions, and any deviation from the norm raises a concern.
• Mayim shelanu: The expression "mayim shelanu" does not mean "our water" but water that has "lodged," water that has sat overnight. The reason: water drawn from a spring is warmer than room temperature, and kneading with it could speed up leavening. There are differing opinions as to how long the water must sit in the house.
• Not kneading in a sunny spot: The laws of baking matzos also state that one may not knead in a place exposed to the sun, another illustration that even a little heat can create a problem.

A second reason: lechem oni and matzah ashirah

• The reason: Some say the prohibition is not because of leavening at all, but because the salt turns the matzah into matzah ashirah, "rich matzah." This is not the reason the Mishnah Berurah brings.
• The definition of lechem oni: The Torah calls matzah "lechem oni," poor man's bread, and the mitzvah of eating matzah on the first night must be fulfilled with such matzah. Its definition: flour and water only. Any addition, even sugar, which does not cause leavening, enriches the mixture and takes it out of the category of lechem oni.
• The view of some of the Karaites: Some Karaites said that even matzah made from wheat counts as matzah ashirah, and in their view one should bake from barley, which is not normal human food, since lechem oni is what a person eats when he has nothing. The question is how far one must "impoverish" the matzah, and Chazal said flour and water is enough, and the halachah follows them.
• The source of the ruling: The matter of salt does not appear in the Gemara, and the Shulchan Aruch's wording, "the custom is," shows that this is a minhag that took hold and became accepted.

The Rema's view and the law after the fact

"And even bedieved one should forbid it."

(Rema)

• Lechatchilah and bedieved: From the Shulchan Aruch's wording it emerges that the prohibition is lechatchilah, from the outset, and if one did put in salt it is not so severe, since it is not clear that the dough actually leavened.
• The Rema's stringency: The Rema is stringent and forbids it even bedieved, after the fact, and there is a dispute whether we forbid it bedieved in practice.
• The parallel to kitniyos: Here too, as with kitniyos, there was a major dispute in the earlier period, and in practice it became accepted that we do not put salt into matzah.

Salt after the baking

• The scope of the prohibition: The prohibition applies only at the time of kneading the dough. Someone who puts salt on the matzah after it has been baked, for example to dip the hamotzi in salt, has no problem at all.
• Baked matzah cannot leaven: From the moment the matzah has been baked in the oven it can never leaven again, and one may put anything into it.
• Matzah meal: One may use matzah meal and make mixtures with it, since it comes from baked matzah, which can no longer leaven.
• Gebrokts: The concern with gebrokts, matzah soaked in liquid, is not with the matzah itself but that some flour remained in it unbaked, and when placed in water it would leaven.
• Those who are stringent with gebrokts: According to their approach there is a problem with matzah meal as well, and therefore they have no kneidlach, and they use potato flour instead.

Matzas mitzvah: who bakes it

"One does not knead the matzas mitzvah, nor bake it, through a non Jew, nor through a deaf mute, a shoteh or a minor."

(Shulchan Aruch, Siman 460, se'if 1)

• What is matzas mitzvah: This does not refer to every matzah baked on erev Pesach, but to the matzah with which one fulfills the obligation to eat matzah at the Seder, over which we say "asher kideshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al achilas matzah."
• A precision in the wording: The Shulchan Aruch rules out baking by someone who is not Jewish, and from that negative we hear the positive: the baking must be done by a Jew.

Extending the ruling to the other stages of production (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 1)

"And the same applies to rolling out the matzah... and regarding the perforating of the matzos, it is good to be careful lechatchilah not to have it done by a non Jew, likewise for matzah of the mitzvah."

(Mishnah Berurah)

• Rolling and perforating: The ruling is not limited to kneading and baking; it applies also to rolling out the matzah and to the nikur, making the holes.

Ordinary matzos versus matzas mitzvah (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 2)

"Matzas mitzvah, as opposed to the other matzos, which do not require shimur for the sake of the mitzvah, only that one be careful that they not come to be chametz, heaven forbid; therefore it is permitted to have them made by such people if one supervises them. But Israel are holy, and they have the custom to perform shimur for the sake of matzah with all the matzos."

(Mishnah Berurah)

• Two levels: For ordinary matzah eaten during Pesach there is no need for a positive act of shimur, guarding for the sake of the mitzvah, only the negative care that it not become chametz. Therefore it may even be made by non Jews when a Jew supervises them.
• The custom of Klal Yisrael: The phrase "Israel are holy" appears in almost every halachah in the laws of Pesach, and it means that strictly speaking the thing is permitted, but the custom is to be stringent, and here the custom is to perform shimur for the sake of matzah with all the matzos.

The source of the requirement to do it lishmah: "ushmartem es hamatzos" (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 3)

"And it is written, 'and you shall guard the matzos.' This implies: this guarding that you perform so that it not leaven, you should intend it for the sake of matzah of the mitzvah. And a non Jew, a deaf mute, a shoteh and a minor are not capable of such guarding."

(Mishnah Berurah)

• The derashah: The Torah has already forbidden eating chametz, so the question is what the verse "ushmartem es hamatzos" adds, since it is obvious that one must guard against leavening. From here Chazal learned that this is not mere guarding but guarding with the intention of producing matzah of the mitzvah.
• Those who are disqualified: A non Jew, a deaf mute, a shoteh and a minor are not capable of this shimur, and therefore the matzah is not made through them.

The two opinions where a Jew stands over them

"And many poskim agreed that even if a Jew stands over them and warns them to have in mind that it is for the sake of matzas mitzvah, that too does not help, and he does not fulfill his obligation even bedieved."

(Mishnah Berurah)

"And there are a number of poskim who are lenient when he stands over them and warns them to intend in their work that it is for the sake of matzah, for then we say that he acts with the Jew's intent in mind."

(Mishnah Berurah)

1. The stringent view: Even when a Jew stands over them and warns them to intend it for matzas mitzvah, it does not help, and one does not fulfill his obligation even bedieved.
2. The lenient view: When a Jew stands over them and warns them to have the proper intent, we say "adaata deyisrael ka avid," the one doing the work acts on the intent of the Jew who instructed him. Even the deaf mute understands the instruction and knows how to do his work.

"And the Bach and the Magen Avraham wrote that one may rely on this when there is no other way, and it is good that the Jew himself also complete a bit of the work."

(Mishnah Berurah)

• There is no shelichus here: The one making the matzah is not the agent of the one who eats it. Any Jew may bake matzah, as long as he is careful that it not leaven and he has in mind that it is for matzas mitzvah.

The practical application: hand matzah and machine matzos

• The claim of those who disqualify machine matzah: A machine is not capable of intent, while those who are lenient say that the person pressing the button has the intent at the time of the act, and that is the root of the dispute.
• The parallel: The discussion about the machine parallels the discussion about a non Jew or a deaf mute who work at the instruction of a Jew, and according to the stringent view a continuous thought is required from the one performing the act while he performs it.
• Why one takes hand matzah at the Seder: Beyond the reason of remembering our forefathers, which is not really the central argument, since our forefathers did not eat exactly this kind of matzah, the central point is the matter of kavanah: in hand baking the intent is fuller than in pressing a button on a machine.

The baal habayis making an effort in the matzah baking

"The Rosh would exert himself over matzas mitzvah, standing over its production, warning those engaged in it and assisting in the rolling... and so it is fitting for every person to do, to occupy himself personally with the mitzvah."

(Shulchan Aruch, Siman 460, se'if 2)

• Actual participation: It is fitting that the baal habayis not only stand and warn, but also help a little himself in rolling out the matzos, and this is what the Bach and the Magen Avraham meant when they wrote that it is good for the Jew himself to complete a bit of the work.
• Mitzvah bo yoser mibishlucho: Even though there is no shelichus here at all, since we are dealing with a person doing his own job, the principle that it is a greater mitzvah to do it oneself than through another still applies.
• In today's reality: When the baking is done industrially it is hard to demand this of everyone, and there are places where people organize to do it in groups.

In passing · Decorated pastries and breaking a decorated baked good on Shabbos

"One does not make decorated pastries... that is, to draw on the bread forms of animals and birds."

(Shulchan Aruch, Siman 460, se'if 4)

• What are sirikin: The term appears already in the time of the Gemara, and refers to types of pastry on which people would make drawings and various shapes, to delight the children and the parents.
• A related Shabbos question: There is a discussion whether one may break, on Shabbos, a baked item that has a picture or writing on it, because of erasing. The problem is not unique to matzos; it applies to any decorated cake, and on Yom Tov some are more lenient.
• The ruling of most poskim: If the decoration is an integral part of the cake there is no problem; if it is something additional resting on it, such as sugar beads, the problem is greater. Some hold that beads too are considered food that is part of the cake, and the approaches differ.

In passing · Potato flour and the laws of kitniyos

• Potato flour: Those who are stringent about gebrokts use potato flour, since they have no other option.
• The view of the first Sanzer Rebbe: He forbade potatoes because he held they are included in kitniyos. From this we see that the matter was not obvious from the start.
• How the practice became accepted: At first there were objections to potato flour, as with anything new that not everyone accepts immediately, and eventually it became accepted. It was mentioned that even in recent generations there were objections to its use, and the details were not clarified.

In passing · Clean speech: "davar acher" and saying "bread" on Pesach

• The words of Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur: A great grammarian who lived about four hundred years ago and wrote many works. He writes that a pig is called "davar acher," "another thing," "just as one does not say 'bread' on Pesach," and his wording is not entirely clear.
• The Pri Megadim's explanation: About a hundred and fifty years later the Pri Megadim explained his intent and praised his words. The point is educational: if we call matzah "bread," the child who is used to bread all year will ask for bread, will be handed matzah, and will protest that this is not what he asked for, and an argument will break out at home. Therefore we accustom people that on Pesach there is no bread, only matzah.
• And why "davar acher" for a pig: There is a midrash that the pig, chazir, is so named because the Holy One will one day return it, yachzirenu. Some understood from this that it will one day become permitted, but this cannot be said, since the Torah never changes, and there are other explanations of the midrash. So that people not err and say that it may already be eaten now, it was established to call it "davar acher."
• The usual explanation of "davar acher": It is an expression of distancing and disparagement, in the manner of what is said about Yiftach, "for you are the son of another woman," where his brothers did not want to use the explicit term. So too with the pig, which stuck its claws into the wall, and in the incident of it being sent up in place of a korban before the Churban.
• A contemporary note: Some mention in this context the medical use of organs and valves from pigs for transplant into the human body.

In passing · Why the Torah calls it "lechem oni," and why we say "hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz"

• The difficulty: If we do not say "bread" on Pesach, why does the Torah itself call matzah "lechem oni"?
• The principle of clean speech: In Parshas Noach the verse says "of the animal that is not pure" rather than "impure," and the text added letters in order to teach clean speech. Yet in Parshas Shemini the Torah repeats "tamei," impure, again and again.
• The explanation: The first time, where there is no halachic difference, the Torah teaches clean speech. But when the Torah comes to lay down laws and statutes, precision in the definition is required, and therefore it says "tamei."
• And from here to "lechem oni": Here too the Torah must be precise and state what matzah is made from, and therefore it calls it "lechem oni," which is flour and water only. Halachic precision outweighs distancing oneself from the word "bread."

• The text of the berachah: The child hears that over matzah we say "hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz," and seemingly here too the matzah is called bread.
• We do not deviate from the formula Chazal established: In bentching on Shabbos we say "tend us, sustain us, support us, provide for us and give us relief," even though we do not make requests on Shabbos. One answer: the request is in the plural, and is not a request for oneself but for Klal Yisrael. Another answer: we do not deviate from the formula the Sages established, for if the text were changed between weekday and Shabbos people would come to confusion, just as people already get confused with the various insertions.
• The distinction in practice: For the same reason the text of the berachah was not changed on Pesach, and we say "hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz" over matzah as well. There is no concern of confusing the child, since he understands that the wording of the berachah is fixed. The care applies only to everyday use of the word "bread," where the child is liable to ask for actual bread.