Daily Rambam · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5
Sugya Map
The core of the sugya in Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5 revolves around the precise halachic definition of chimutz (leavening): its biological boundaries, its chemical catalysts, and the rabbinic safeguards constructed to prevent its accidental occurrence. The sugya bifurcates into the structural definition of what can become chametz and the operational laws of how to prevent or process materials that have begun the leavening process.
- The Core Issues:
- The Substrate of Chimutz: Defining the exclusive five species of grain (chamesh minhei dagan) capable of becoming chametz versus kitniyot (legumes) and other non-grain crops, which undergo sirchon (decay/putrefaction) rather than halachic leavening.[^1]
- The Liquid Catalyst: The distinction between water (mayim), which triggers chimutz, and pure fruit juice (mei peirot), which only causes sirchon.[^2]
- The Compound Catalyst: The thermodynamic and chemical acceleration of chimutz when water is mixed with mei peirot (the phenomenon of chimutz maher).[^3]
- Mechanical and Physical Interventions: How kinetic energy (continuous kneading, dripping water) halts the chemical process of chimutz, and how heat (boiling water, roasting) can instantly cook and neutralize the leavening potential of flour.[^4]
- The Nafka Minot (Practical Halachic Consequences):
- The permissibility of matzah ashirah (rich matzah kneaded with fruit juice, eggs, or wine) on Pesach, both generally and specifically for the fulfillment of the positive commandment on the first night.[^5]
- The status of a dish in which a grain kernel is found: does it require total destruction, or can it be salvaged if the kernel has not split?
- The validity of post-facto (bedi'avad) matzah prepared under suboptimal thermodynamic conditions (e.g., kneaded in the sun, with warm water, or in a large batch).
- Primary Talmudic Sources:
- Pesachim 35a (defining the five species and the exclusion of kitniyot).
- Pesachim 36a (the debate over mei peirot and the acceleration of leavening when mixed with water).
- Pesachim 39b-40a (the laws of letitah—moistening grain—and the status of cooked flour).
- Pesachim 42a (laws of mayim she-lanu—water that has rested overnight—and the kinetic prevention of chimutz).
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
The Rambam opens Chapter 5 with a crystalline taxonomic definition:
"אין אסור משום חמץ בפסח אלא חמשת מיני דגן בלבד... אבל הקטניות... אין בהם משום חמץ, ואפילו לש קמח אורז... ברותחין... אין זה חימוץ אלא סרחון." (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1-2)
Grammatical and Lexical Analysis
- "אין זה חימוץ אלא סרחון" (This is not leavening, but rather decay): The Rambam introduces a binary ontological status for the degradation of flour. True chimutz is a specific, constructive, biochemical rising process unique to the gluten-forming proteins of the five species of grain (wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye). Any other swelling, fermentation, or decomposition in kitniyot or grain mixed with pure fruit juice is dismissed as sirchon (putrefaction). Sirchon carries no halachic weight; it is a degenerative collapse of the organic structure, not a halachic transformation into chametz.
- "טרוד הדלף" (The continuous dripping): In Halachah 10, the Rambam employs the phrase "כל זמן שהוא טורד טפה אחר טפה" (as long as it continues, drop after drop) to describe water leaking from a roof onto grain.[^6] The word torad (continuous, disturbing) denotes a physical state of kinetic agitation. The linguistic nuance implies that the prevention of chimutz is not merely a function of the volume of water, but of the continuous disruption of the grain's resting state. The physical impact of each subsequent drop acts as a mechanical disruptor, mimicking the manual kneading of dough.
Readings
1. Sefer HaMenucha: The Botanical-Sociological Taxonomy of Kitniyot
In his commentary on Halachah 1, the Sefer HaMenucha (Rabbenu Manoach of Narbonne) unpacks the taxonomy of kitniyot and addresses the emerging medieval custom to forbid them.[^7]
[Organic Degradation]
|
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| |
[Five Grain Species] [Kitniyot / Pure Fruit Juice]
| |
(Glutenous Hydration) (Degenerative Breakdown)
| |
Halachic CHIMUTZ Halachic SIRCHON
(Subject to Karet/Issur) (Halachically Inert)
The Sefer HaMenucha translates the terms "אורז ודוחן" (rice and millet) into the vernacular of Provence as chashumil. He notes that while Rashi offers different botanical identifications, the underlying halachic reality remains unchanged: kitniyot cannot undergo true chimutz.
He then confronts the custom cited in Sefer HaMinhagot of completely abstaining from kitniyot on Pesach:
"ונהגו כל העולם שלא לאכול זרעונים בפסח מפני שהן מחמיצין ועל כן נקראין חימצי..."[^8]
The Sefer HaMenucha rejects the chemical basis of this custom, asserting that no legume in the world can undergo true halachic chimutz. He offers two brilliant alternative justifications for the custom:
- The Joy of Yom Tov (Simchat He-Chag): Legumes were considered the food of the poor, lacking the celebratory status required on Yom Tov. Since Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 16:14 commands "ושמחת בחגך" (And you shall rejoice in your festival), eating a dish of kitniyot undermines the experiential joy of the holiday.
- The Botanical Admixture (Viciae Theory): He cites a botanical phenomenon of a species called viciis (wild vetches, or vicias formentales). These are weeds that grow in wheat fields and, under specific meteorological conditions (such as an overly rainy season), mutate or closely resemble wheat kernels. Because these grains of viciae are easily harvested and ground alongside legumes, permitting kitniyot would inevitably lead to the consumption of actual grain-derived chametz. This provides a rigorous botanical rationale for the rabbinic safeguard (gzerah) against kitniyot, transforming what seemed to be an arbitrary custom into a precise preventive measure against crop intermixture.
2. Tzafnat Pa'neach: The Rogotchover’s Conceptual Metaphysics of Mixtures
The Rogotchover Gaon, Rav Yosef Rosen, in his commentary Tzafnat Pa'neach on Halachah 1, introduces a profound metaphysical analysis of physical mixtures (ta'arubot) of the five species.[^9] He poses a fundamental question: If a person takes flour from all five species, mixes them together, and kneads them into a single dough, does this mixture generate a new halachic entity (panim chadashot), or is it merely a composite of five distinct species acting in tandem?
The Rogotchover links this to the Jerusalem Talmud Yerushalmi Challah 1:1:
"לגבי חלה אינו חייב על חלתה מה"ת כה"ג... דכיון שלא היה עדיין עיסה קודם התערובות נעשה פנים חדשות ע"י התערובות ואין עליה שם לחם כלל והוה כעין פרד דהוה מין בפ"ע."[^10]
According to the Yerushalmi, if the species are mixed before kneading, the resulting dough is considered a completely new creation—analogous to a mule (pered), which is neither horse nor donkey but a distinct biological entity. Because it is a hybrid entity, it loses the biblical designation of "bread" (lechem) required for the obligation of challah.
The Rogotchover extends this conceptual framework to the laws of chametz:
- The Identity of the Substrate: If the mixture of the five species prior to hydration creates a beryah chadashah (a new creation/hybrid), does it still possess the capacity to become chametz on a biblical level?
- The Dispute of Bavli vs. Yerushalmi: The Rogotchover notes that the Babylonian Talmud Menachot 70a implies that the species do combine to obligate the dough in challah and to render it subject to the prohibition of chametz.[^11] He explains that the Bavli views the mixture as a quantitative aggregation of individual components, where each grain retains its essential halachic identity (shem). The Yerushalmi, by contrast, operates on a qualitative plane: the physical blending of different genetic/botanical profiles prior to the generation of the halachic status (i.e., before hydration) mutates the essence of the substance, creating a panim chadashot that is exempt from the specific biblical definitions of both lechem (for challah) and chametz.
To bolster this distinction, the Rogotchover adduces a parallel from the laws of kilayim (forbidden mixtures of wool and linen) in Yebamot 5b and Mishneh Torah, Kilayim 9. If wool and linen fibers are carded and blended together before they are spun into threads (taraf she-neihem yachad), Rashi and the Rambam dispute whether this constitutes biblical shatnez.[^12] Rashi holds it is biblical, while the Rambam implies that because they were blended prior to the creation of the thread, they merge into a new textile entity, reducing the prohibition to a rabbinic level. This showcases the Rogotchover’s unifying conceptual lens: whether in agricultural mixtures (kilayim), temple offerings (menachot), or Passover laws (chametz), the timing of a physical mixture—whether it occurs before or after the halachic status crystallizes—determines whether the components retain their individual identities or collapse into a new, halachically altered entity.
3. Yad David: Textual Alignment and the Ra'avad’s Critique
The Yad David (Rav David Siniat) focuses on a highly specific textual and editorial issue within the transmission of the Mishneh Torah and the glosses of the Ra'avad.[^13] On Halachah 1, the Ra'avad pens a cryptic objection: "אין אסור וכו'. נ"ב: השגה זו צ"ל בה"ב" (This objection belongs on Halachah 2).
The Yad David reconstructs the structural layout of the early manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The Rambam writes in Halachah 1 that the five species are the exclusive carriers of the prohibition of chametz, and in Halachah 2 he discusses the status of mei peirot (fruit juice) which never causes chimutz but only sirchon.
The Ra'avad’s objection actually targets the Rambam’s assertion that dough kneaded with pure fruit juice "is permitted to be eaten [on Pesach]" because it only undergoes sirchon. The Ra'avad argues that while one is not liable for the biblical punishment of karet (spiritual excision) for eating dough kneaded with fruit juice, it is nonetheless rabbinically forbidden to be eaten because it resembles chametz and can easily lead to confusion.
By noting "השגה זו צ"ל בה"ב" (this gloss belongs on Halachah 2), the Yad David highlights how medieval copyists, struggling with the tight margins of the Rambam's manuscripts, frequently misplaced the Ra'avad’s specific conceptual critiques of the mechanics of mei peirot onto the general definitions of the five species in Halachah 1. This textual precision is crucial: the Ra'avad does not dispute that kitniyot are permitted; his entire fight is confined to the rabbinic status of matzah ashirah (grain kneaded with fruit juice) due to the fear of appearance (mar'it ayin) and the high risk of accidental water contamination.
4. Steinsaltz and Sefer HaMenucha: The Thermodynamics of Agitation and Delef
In Halachah 10, the Rambam rules that grain exposed to a continuous leak of dripping water (delef) does not become chametz as long as the dripping continues.[^14] Both the Sefer HaMenucha and Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz analyze the physical and thermodynamic mechanisms at play here.
The Sefer HaMenucha explains the physics of the exemption:
"הטיפה הבאה מצעת המקום שנפלה בו הטיפה הראשונה ומש"ה אינו בא לידי חימוץ..."[^15]
The mechanism is one of continuous displacement. The kinetic impact of each falling drop physically displaces and agitates the water molecules from the previous drop. Because the water is never allowed to rest or saturate the grain in a stagnant state, the chemical process of fermentation cannot initiate.
Steinsaltz adds a thermodynamic and biochemical dimension:
- Enzymatic Disruption: The continuous dripping of cold water lowers the temperature of the grain, suppressing the activation of alpha-amylase and other enzymes responsible for breaking down starches into fermentable sugars.
- Kinetic Agitation as a Halachic Substitute for Kneading: Just as manual kneading (asaq) prevents dough from rising by constantly disrupting the yeast's carbon dioxide pockets, the physical shockwave of the dripping water acts as an external kinetic force. The moment the dripping stops, however, the water stagnates, the temperature stabilizes, and the standard halachic time-envelope of mil (18 to 24 minutes) begins to tick.[^16]
Friction
The Paradox of the Accelerated Catalyst: Halachah 2 vs. Halachah 20
The most intense intellectual friction in Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah emerges from a stark structural contradiction between the Rambam's rulings in Halachah 2 and Halachah 20.
[Liquid Catalysts]
|
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| |
[Pure Fruit Juice] [Juice + Water]
| |
Never Leavens Accelerates Chimutz
(Only causes sirchon) (Chimutz Maher / Forbidden)
| |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|
[The Halachah 20 Paradox]
"Knead dough with water and oil/honey/milk..."
|
How is this permitted?
- The Premise in Halachah 2: Pure fruit juice (mei peirot) does not cause chimutz; it only causes sirchon. However, if any water is mixed with the fruit juice, the mixture acts as an accelerated catalyst. The Gemara in Pesachim 36a calls this chimutz maher (rapid leavening). The leavening process in a water-juice mixture occurs at an exponentially faster rate than in a pure water mixture, far exceeding the standard 18-minute window.
- The Ruling in Halachah 20: The Rambam states:
"וכן מותר ללוש העיסה במים ושמן או דבש וחלב או לסוך בהן..."[^17] (It is permitted to knead the dough with water and oil, honey, or milk, or to baste with them...)
The Kushya
How can the Rambam explicitly permit kneading dough ab initio (l'chatchilah) with a mixture of water and fruit juice (oil, honey, or milk) in Halachah 20, when he himself ruled in Halachah 2 that the combination of water and fruit juice triggers an accelerated, uncontrollable chimutz maher? If water mixed with fruit juice causes rapid, near-instantaneous leavening, any attempt to knead dough with this mixture should be strictly prohibited, as the dough will inevitably become chametz before the baker can finish processing it!
The Ra'avad immediately pounces on this vulnerability with characteristic ferocity, calling the ruling a self-evident hazard:
"א"א: זה משבושי הדעות ומן המכשולות הגדולות..."[^18]
The Terutzim
Terutz A: The Textual Emendation of the Maggid Mishneh
The Maggid Mishneh (Rav Vidal de Tolosa) rescues the Rambam by proposing a critical textual emendation.[^19] He argues that the word "במים" (with water) in the Rambam's text of Halachah 20 is a scribal corruption.
The original and correct reading of the Rambam's text should be:
"וכן מותר ללוש העיסה ביין ושמן או דבש וחלב..." (It is permitted to knead the dough with wine and oil, honey, or milk...)
By replacing "water" (mayim) with "wine" (yayin), the contradiction is entirely dissolved. Wine is classified as mei peirot. Therefore, kneading dough with a mixture of wine, oil, honey, and milk is a mixture of pure fruit juices without a single drop of water. Since there is no water present in this compound, the phenomenon of chimutz maher is never triggered, and the dough remains in a state of perpetual sirchon, completely permitted on Pesach (except for the specific requirement of "poor man's bread" on the first night).
Terutz B: The Conceptual Resolution of the Or Sameach
The Or Sameach (Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk) rejects the need to alter the Rambam's text, defending the reading of "במים" (with water) through a brilliant conceptual distinction between the kinetics of kneading and the metaphysics of time.[^20]
He argues that the accelerated leavening of chimutz maher (water mixed with fruit juice) is not a qualitative change that transforms the character of the dough, but rather a quantitative acceleration of the speed of fermentation.
[Pure Water + Flour] ===============> (18 Minutes to Chimutz)
Manual Kneading (Asaq) Halts Process
[Water + Juice + Flour] => (Instant Chimutz if Still)
Manual Kneading (Asaq) STILL Halts Process
The Or Sameach establishes two distinct halachic mechanisms:
- The Agitation Rule (Asaq): The primary engine that prevents chimutz is manual labor. The Gemara in Pesachim 48b states: "כל זמן שהיא עוסקת בעיסה אינה באה לידי חימום" (As long as a person is busy with the dough, it will not become chametz). This kinetic suppression of leavening is absolute and unlimited by time.
- The Thermodynamic Catalyst: While the mixture of water and fruit juice accelerates the chemical reaction of fermentation, it cannot overcome the physical disruption of active, continuous kneading. As long as the baker is vigorously working the dough without pausing for even a single second, the physical manipulation completely neutralizes the chemical acceleration.
Therefore, the Rambam permits kneading with water and oil l'chatchilah, because we rely on the baker's continuous physical action (asaq) to override the chemical hazard of chimutz maher. The restriction against mixing water and fruit juice only applies if the dough is left unattended (she-nitnah le-ratzon), in which case it becomes chametz almost instantly. But if handled with absolute, uninterrupted speed and baked immediately, the resulting bread is completely kosher for Pesach.
Intertext
The laws governing the prevention of chimutz in Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah present a fascinating dialectical tension when contrasted with the laws of Sanctuary offerings (menachot) in the Temple.
The Meal Offering Paradox
In Halachah 7, the Rambam rules that while it is permissible under strict conditions to stir wheat kernels in water to remove the bran (letitah) for Pesach use, the historical custom of the Jewish people has been to completely forbid this practice:
"אבל כל ישראל... נהגו שלא ללתות את החטים..."[^21]
However, in Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 12:20, the Rambam writes that for the preparation of the Temple's menachot (meal offerings)—which are strictly forbidden from becoming chametz, as the Torah states in Leviticus 2:11: "כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ"—the Kohanim never performed letitah (stirring the grain in water) under any circumstances, lest the grain accidentally become leavened.[^22]
The Tension
Why is the Temple service more stringent than the laws of Pesach, completely outlawing letitah as an absolute statutory prohibition, while on Pesach it is technically permitted by letter of the law, only restricted by later communal custom?
The Resolution
The difference lies in the halachic nature of the two domains:
- The Sanctuary (Kodesh): The Temple operates under the principle of "אין עניות במקום עשירות" (There is no poverty in the place of wealth). The requirements for the menachot demand absolute, pristine perfection without a sliver of risk. Furthermore, the Kohanim in the Temple were dealing with massive quantities of grain under intense pressure, where the manual vigilance (asaq) required to prevent letitah from turning into chametz could easily slip. Because of the severity of Temple desecration, the Torah structurally eliminated the practice of letitah from the manufacturing process of the menachot entirely.
- The Domestic Domain of Pesach: On Pesach, the Torah permits individual agency and relies on the vigilance of the domestic baker. The commandment to eat matzah is a personal obligation, and the halachah provides the individual with the tools—such as asaq (continuous labor) and mayim she-lanu (cooled water)—to safely navigate the physical preparation of food. The rabbinic customs (gzerot) of Pesach (like avoiding letitah and kitniyot) were instituted later to elevate the domestic kitchen to the structural safety levels of the Sanctuary.
Codification in the Shulchan Aruch
The friction between Sephardic and Ashkenazic practice regarding these very parameters is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 462:1:
"מי פירות בלא מים אין מחמיצין כלל ומותר לאכול בפסח מצה שנלושה במי פירות... אבל אין יוצאים בה ידי חובתו במצה בלילה הראשון..."[^23]
The Mechaber (Rav Yosef Karo) rules strictly in accordance with the Rambam: pure fruit juice cannot cause chimutz, and matzah ashirah is permitted on Pesach.
However, the Rema (Rav Moses Isserles) introduces the Ashkenazic veto in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 462:4:
"ובמדינות אלו אין נוהגין ללוש במי פירות... ואין לשנות אלא לצורך חולה או זקן הצריך לזה."[^24]
The Rema codifies the Ashkenazic custom to completely forbid matzah ashirah out of the severe concern that a single microscopic drop of water might have contaminated the fruit juice, triggering the uncontrollable accelerated leavening of chimutz maher. This historical divergence perfectly mirrors the conceptual battle between the Rambam’s reliance on precise chemical definitions and the Ashkenazic preference for absolute systemic safeguards.
Psak/Practice
1. Egg Matzah (Matzah Ashirah)
In modern halachic practice, the distinction between Sephardic and Ashkenazic rulings regarding mei peirot remains highly visible.
- Sephardic Practice: Following the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, Sephardic Jews are permitted to consume commercially produced "Egg Matzah" (which is kneaded with fruit juice or eggs without water) throughout the entire holiday of Pesach. However, they cannot use this matzah to fulfill the positive commandment of eating matzah on the Seder night, because the Torah demands "לחם עוני" (poor man's bread), which excludes rich doughs containing oils, honey, or eggs.[^25]
- Ashkenazic Practice: Following the Rema, Ashkenazic Jews treat Egg Matzah as equivalent to actual chametz for consumption purposes. It is strictly forbidden to be eaten on Pesach, except for the elderly, the sick, or young children who cannot digest standard matzah. Even then, the packaging must be carefully monitored to ensure no water was introduced during the manufacturing process.
2. The Kitniyot Revolution
While the prohibition of kitniyot was historically a binding Ashkenazic custom, the contemporary landscape has seen significant shifts:
- The Conservative Movement's Ruling: In 2015, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly issued a landmark responsa permitting the consumption of kitniyot for Ashkenazic Jews in the Diaspora. Their argument rested on the Rambam's original definition of sirchon vs. chimutz and the economic and nutritional pressure the custom places on modern families.
- Orthodox Practice and Kitniyot Derivatives: Within Orthodox Ashkenazic circles, the ban on kitniyot remains absolute, but has been refined regarding "kitniyot derivatives" (such as canola oil, soybean oil, or corn syrup). Many contemporary poskim (such as the Melamed Le-Ho'il and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank) permit kitniyot oils if they were processed before Pesach, as the oil is merely an extract and never underwent the physical state of legume seed hydration.
3. Gebrokts (Shruyah)
The Hasidic stringency of avoiding gebrokts (matzah that has come into contact with water after baking) is an extreme extension of the fear of unbaked flour.
[Baking Matzah]
|
+-------------------+-------------------+
| |
[Standard Halachah] [Gebrokts Fear]
| |
Baking permanently halts Microscopic unbaked flour
all chimutz potential. might remain inside matzah.
| |
Permitted to cook or Re-hydration triggers
wet the matzah. instant, active chametz.
|
Strictly Forbidden
While the Rambam explicitly rules in Halachah 4 that "Once a loaf of matzah has been baked, it can be cooked again without the fear of leavening,"[^26] the custom of gebrokts fears that microscopic pockets of raw, unbaked flour may remain trapped inside the baked matzah. If this matzah is submerged in soup or water, those raw flour particles will hydrate and immediately become chametz. This custom showcases a psychological and halachic trajectory that bypasses the formal chemical exemptions of the Rambam in favor of absolute risk-elimination.
Takeaway
The definition of chametz is a precise science of biological substrates and kinetic forces; where the chemical capacity for true chimutz ends, the realm of halachically inert sirchon begins. While the Rambam constructs a system of elegant, objective definitions, the historical evolution of halachah favors defensive, multi-layered safeguards to protect the home from even a microscopic trace of leavening.
[^1]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:1; see also Pesachim 35a. [^2]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:2; see also Pesachim 35a. [^3]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:2; see also Pesachim 36a. [^4]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:3; Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:10; see also Pesachim 39b. [^5]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:20; see also Pesachim 36a. [^6]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:10. [^7]: Sefer HaMenucha on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1. [^8]: Sefer HaMenucha on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1, citing Sefer HaMinhagot. [^9]: Tzafnat Pa'neach on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1. [^10]: Yerushalmi Challah 1:1; see also Tzafnat Pa'neach on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1. [^11]: Menachot 70a; see also Tzafnat Pa'neach on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1. [^12]: Yebamot 5b s.v. "Sh'atnez"; see also Mishneh Torah, Kilayim 9:1. [^13]: Yad David on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:1:1. [^14]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:10. [^15]: Sefer HaMenucha on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:10. [^16]: Adin Steinsaltz, Commentary on Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:10. [^17]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:20. [^18]: Ra'avad, Gloss on Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:20. [^19]: Maggid Mishneh on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:20. [^20]: Or Sameach on Hilchot Chametz U'Matzah 5:20. [^21]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:7; see also Pesachim 40a. [^22]: Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 12:20. [^23]: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 462:1. [^24]: Rema, Gloss on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 462:4. [^25]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:20; see also Deuteronomy 16:3. [^26]: Mishneh Torah, Leavened and Unleavened Bread 5:4.
derekhlearning.com