Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 1

Sugya Map

• Primary Issue: The definition of Achila (consumption) regarding Chametz—specifically, does Mimtcheh (liquefaction) constitute Achila, and does the Shiur (measure) change from Kazayit (olive-bulk) to Revi’it (liquid measure)?
• Nafka Mina:
  1. Liability for Karet (excision) when consuming liquified Chametz.
  2. The mechanism of the Derasha (exegesis) "Nefesh" (Exodus 12:19): Is it a general inclusion of drinking into the category of eating, or is it specific to substances that are typically eaten but liquified?
  3. Whether Chazi Shiur (half-measure) of Chametz is prohibited min haTorah across all Chametz preparations.
• Primary Sources: Pesachim 21b, 42a; Chullin 120a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 1:1–10.

---

Text Snapshot

"אחד האוכל ואחד הממחה ושותה" (1:1) The Rambam’s phrasing here is deceptively simple. The nuance lies in the juxtaposition. By stating Mimtcheh (one who liquefies) alongside Ochel (one who eats), he establishes the ontological equivalence of the two acts for the purpose of the prohibition. The dikduk of the term Mimtcheh suggests an active process—rendering a solid into a state where it is consumed via the throat, thus qualifying as Hana'at haGaron (pleasure of the throat), which the Sefer HaMenucha identifies as the functional equivalent of Achila.

---

Readings

1. The Maggid Mishneh: The Formalist Approach

The Maggid Mishneh anchors the Rambam’s equation of eating and drinking in the Talmudic source in Chullin 120a. The chiddush here is the rejection of the idea that drinking is "naturally" eating. Instead, he highlights that without the specific exegesis of "Nefesh" (a soul), drinking would remain distinct from the Torah’s category of Achila. The Maggid Mishneh argues that the Rambam views the Torah’s prohibition as focusing on the result—the ingestion of the prohibited substance—rather than the mode of ingestion. Consequently, once a substance is rendered liquid, if it maintains its status as Chametz, the Karet liability attaches because the throat has registered the Chametz as a nutritive intake.

2. The Yad Eitan: The Quantitative Reconciliation

The Yad Eitan addresses a profound tension: Why does the Rambam elsewhere (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 14:8) suggest that the Shiur for liquids is a Revi’it, while here he insists on a Kazayit? His chiddush is a elegant synthesis: the Kazayit is the Chaftza (object) measure, while the Revi’it is the Gavra (person) measure. If one consumes the Chametz while it is still solid, the Kazayit is the operative standard. If one liquefies it, the Revi’it becomes the functional volume for the act of drinking. However, the Yad Eitan posits that these are not two different laws, but two manifestations of the same nutritional density. He argues that the Rambam holds that a Kazayit of solid Chametz is, by definition, the caloric/volume equivalent of a Revi’it once liquefied. Thus, the Rambam is consistent: the liability is for the substance (the Kazayit of Chametz), and the mode (liquefaction) simply forces the law to account for the liquid state.

---

Friction

The Strongest Kushya: The Lechem Mishneh challenges the Rambam’s reliance on the exegesis of "Nefesh" to include drinking in the prohibition of Chametz. If the Talmud in Chullin 120a derives that drinking is equivalent to eating, why does the Rambam apply this to Chametz specifically in a way that seems to contradict the general rule that drinking is only Achila when the substance itself is a food that has been rendered liquid?

The Terutz: The Seder Mishneh provides a sophisticated defense. He argues that the Rambam is not merely listing a derivation, but providing a meta-halachic framework. The "Nefesh" inclusion serves to collapse the distinction between the type of substance (liquid vs. solid) and the act of consumption. Even if a substance is "drinkable" by nature, once it is a forbidden Chametz, the Torah’s prohibition attaches to the act of ingestion. The Seder Mishneh suggests that for the Rambam, the prohibition of Chametz is unique; it is not just about the food, but about the presence of the leaven in the body. Therefore, the Terutz is that the Rambam ignores the Tosefot distinction between "natural liquids" (wine/oil) and "liquified solids" (melted Chametz) because, in the specific context of Pesach, the stringency of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei creates a "total prohibition" environment where the mode of ingestion is secondary to the fact of ingestion.

---

Intertext

• Tanakh: The prohibition Lo Yachel (Exodus 13:3) is interpreted by Rambam (and Chizkiyah in Pesachim 21b) as extending even to the benefit derived from the Chametz. This parallels the prohibition of Orlah or Kilayei Kerem, where the Torah uses the term "eating" to encompass the broader sphere of "enjoyment."
• Responsa: The Nodah BiYhudah (OC 20) utilizes this Rambam to deal with the case of stolen Chametz returned after Pesach. The logic is that the Chaftza of Chametz is imbued with a prohibitive status that transcends the owner's intent, mirroring the way Chametz itself is considered inherently "leavened" and thus "forbidden" regardless of the physical state of the grain.

---

Psak/Practice

The practice today follows the Shulchan Aruch (OC 447), which codifies the Rambam’s stringency: any mixture of Chametz, regardless of its state (liquid or solid), is forbidden min haTorah even in the slightest amount (Masheh). The meta-psak heuristic here is Chumra D'Pesach: because the penalty of Karet is so severe, we do not rely on standard Bitul (nullification) rules that apply to other Issurim. If a liquid contains Chametz, the Kazayit measure is calculated based on the concentration of the Chametz within the liquid volume.

---

Takeaway

The prohibition of Chametz on Pesach is not merely an dietary restriction but a total ontological exclusion of the substance from the Jewish sphere; thus, the state of the matter (solid vs. liquid) is irrelevant to the gravity of the transgression.