This for Pesachim 96 - https://dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-096.htm
You wrote that the Ramban says that chametz was forbidden on the first day of going out of Mitzrayim. Then you wrote that the Daas Zekeinim is similar to the Ramban. Actually the Da'as Zekeinim is different. He (they) writes that if Pesach Mitzrayim was one day, then the posuk can be explained in the simple way, that it was not chametz because they were chased out, but if Pesach Mitzrayim was 7 days, then chametz was forbidden when they went out of Mitzrayim and the reason the Torah says they were chased out is to explain why they did not bring other food.
I heard from Rav Dovid Kronglas z"l (I was in a different shiur than Rav Calman Weinreb z"l) that the argument of the Ramban and the Daas Zekeinim is whether the Jewish people were consider Bnei Noach or Bnei Yisroel before Matan Torah, (as discussed in the Parashas Derachim). The Daas Zekeinim holds they were Bnei Noach, so the explanation here is like the Hafla'ah that you quoted that the night follows the day for Bnei Noach, so they were allowed to eat chametz in the morning. The Ramban holds they were Bnei Yisroel, so the day follows the night and they were not allowed to eat chametz.
The Ramban and the Daas Zekenim hold the same opinions here as they do in Vayikra 24:10 by the Mekalel (Tosfos opinion is mentioned in the Ramban as "the tzarfasim"). The Ramban says the Mekalel did not need to convert because we go after the mother, and Tosfos holds that he did need to convert because we go after the father before Matan Torah.
Doneel Edelson
Yeyasher Kochacha for raising this point, and for sharing with us what you heard from Rav Kronglas zt'l!
We wrote that the Da'as Zekenim writes in a similar vein to the Ramban. We were relating to a question that can be asked on Shemos 12:39, which tells us that they baked the dough as Matzos, not Chametz, because they were driven out of Mitzrayim. The question is: the reason why they baked the Matzos is not because they were driven out of Mitzrayim; the reason why they baked the Matzos is because of the Mitzvah that they already had in Pesach Mitzrayim that they may not eat, or even possess, Chametz!
If one looks carefully at the Ramban, one sees that he answers this question. He explains that 12:39 can be divided into two parts. The first part says, "And they baked the dough... Matzah cakes which were not Chametz." The reason why they baked the dough is because of the prohibition against Chametz. The second part of the verse is, "For they were driven out of Mitzrayim." The Ramban implies that the fact that they were driven out of Mitzrayim was not the reason why they baked the dough. They would have baked the dough even if they would not have been driven out of Mitzrayim, because of the prohibition against Chametz. Rather, the fact that they were driven out of Mitzrayim was the cause of something else -- namely, that they were not able to bake the Matzos in the city, but were forced to take out the dough and bake it on the journey.
It transpires that the words "for they were driven out of Mitzrayim" are not an explanation of the first part of the Pasuk, "And they baked the dough," as would seem to be the simple Pshat. Rather, "they were driven out of Mitzrayim" is an explanation of why they were forced to bake on their travels.
Then we wrote in the Insights that the Da'as Zekenim answers the question on 12:39 in a similar way to the Ramban. We were referring to what the Da'as Zekenim writes:
ויש לומר דהכי קאמר ויאפו את הבצק מפני חיוב מצה ולפי שגורשו ממצרים לא יכלו להתמהמה לבקש צדה לדרך
The Pasuk says that they baked the dough because of the obligation to eat Matzah, and because they were driven out of Mitzrayim they did not have time to prepare food for the journey.
The Da'as Zekenim says clearly that the verse cannot be understood according to its simple meaning, since "for they were driven out" is not the reason why they baked the dough.
This is what we meant when we wrote that the Da'as Zekenim explains in a similar vein to the Ramban. They both mean that the verse must be divided into two parts, but on other aspects there may be differences between the Ramban and the Da'as Zekenim.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments.
The Daas Zeekenim says that if Pesach Mitzrayim was one day, then the posuk can be understood according to its simple meaning that they did not bake chometz because they were rushed out. In other words, there is no question, so there is no need for an answer. Then the Daas Zekenim says that if Pesach Mitzrayim was seven days, then there is a question, why did the posuk say this reason is that they were chased out when really chometz was forbidden. And he answers about not having prepared other food.
Basically the Daas Zekenim argues with the Ramban and holds that there is no question, just if Pesach Mitzrayim was seven days, then there is a question and he answers similar to the Ramban.
Reb Doneel, many thanks for your perceptive comments.
I think you have expressed very well what we wrote in Insights - namely, that the answer of Ramban, and the answer of the Da'as Zekenim according to the opinion that even then they had to eat Matzah for seven days -- are similar insofar as they both say that what the Torah states, "for they were driven out of Mitzrayim," is not a reason for the actual baking of the Matzos, since the latter was because they were not allowed to possess Chometz, but rather a reason why they baked Matzos on the journey, not at home, or why they did not have time to take provisions.
Chag Kasher v'Same'ach,
Dovid Bloom