QUESTION: Rav Asi cites the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim whether Ma'aser Sheni is considered the property of Hash-m ("Mamon Gavo'ah") or the property of man ("Mamon Hedyot"). Rav Asi says that their argument affects another Halachah -- whether one may fulfill the Mitzvah to eat Matzah on Pesach with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni. The Torah requires that one eat Matzah that belongs to him ("Lachem"). According to Rebbi Meir, one may not use Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni, because he maintains that Ma'aser Sheni belongs to Hash-m. According to the Chachamim, one may use Matzah of 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, because an Esrog also must be the property of the one who uses it ("Lachem").
Why does Rav Asi mention the name of the Yom Tov with regard to using Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni on Pesach, but he says only "Yom Tov" when he discusses using an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni on Sukos? He should mention the specific name of the Yom Tov in both statements, or he should use the generic term "Yom Tov" in both statements.
ANSWER: The RASHASH and RAV YOSEF ENGEL (in Gilyonei ha'Shas) suggest that the reason why Rav Asi refers to Sukos as "Yom Tov" when he discusses using an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni is because the requirement that one own the Esrog ("Lachem") applies only on the first day of Sukos (Sukah 30a). He says "Yom Tov" to imply that the argument with regard to an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni applies only on Yom Tov, the first day of Sukos, but not on Chol ha'Mo'ed.
However, the Mitzvah to eat Matzah on Pesach also applies only on the first day. Why, then, does Rav Asi say "Pesach," which implies all of the days of the festival including Chol ha'Mo'ed, if the Mitzvah to eat Matzah applies only on the first day?
(a) The RASHASH suggests that Rav Asi says "Pesach" in order to include Pesach Sheni in his ruling. Pesach Sheni is not a Yom Tov, but there is a Mitzvah to eat Matzah on Pesach Sheni for one who was unable to bring the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan. "Pesach" refers to both Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni.
(b) RAV YOSEF ENGEL suggests that Rav Asi's statement here provides support for an opinion expressed by the Rishonim. The CHIZKUNI (Parshas Bo) states that although one is obligated by the Torah to eat Matzah only on the first night, he fulfills a Mitzvah every time he eats Matzah throughout all of the days of Pesach. (This is also the opinion of the VILNA GA'ON, according to HANHAGAS HA'GRA #185. RASHI (28b, DH Kesiv), however, does not seem to agree with this opinion.) Accordingly, it is appropriate for Rav Asi to say that the argument whether one fulfills the Mitzvah to eat Matzah with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni applies throughout all of Pesach and not just on Yom Tov. (Rav Asi uses the phrase "Yedei Chovaso" (which implies an obligation to eat Matzah) merely because the first night of Pesach is included in his statement, but not because his statement refers only to the first night.)
(c) There seems to be a simple solution to this question. The reason why Rav Asi says "Pesach" and not "Yom Tov" is because no one will make a mistake and think that his statement refers to all of the days of Pesach, because there is no Mitzvah to eat Matzah at any time during Pesach other than the first night. Accordingly, when he says "Yedei Chovaso b'Pesach" he must be referring to the first night. With regard to the Esrog, however, even though "Lachem" does not apply during the rest of the festival, the Mitzvah of Esrog does apply. Therefore, Rav Asi must be specific and say "Yom Tov" in order to emphasize that the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim applies only to the first day, when "Lachem" is a requirement.
Alternatively, Rav Asi cannot use the term "Yom Tov" to refer to the first day of Pesach, because the term "Yom Tov" would not indicate that he means only the first day of Pesach. This is because there are two days of Yom Tov during Pesach (the first day and the seventh day). In contrast, there is only one day (the first day) of Yom Tov during Sukos on which an Esrog is held. (M. KORNFELD)
QUESTION: The Gemara states that there is a requirement of "Lachem" with regard to the Mitzvos of Chalah, Matzah, and Esrog. "Lachem" teaches that in order for dough to have an obligation of Chalah, the dough must belong to a Jew, and not to Hekdesh (such as Ma'aser Sheni, which is Mamon Gavo'ah, according to Rebbi Meir). The requirement that Matzah must belong to a Jew in order for him to fulfill the Mitzvah is derived through a Gezeirah Shavah from Chalah.
The SEFAS EMES in Sukah (35a, DH Asya) raises a question that is relevant in practice. Generally, an object is not considered owned by someone unless he has full rights to do whatever he wants with it (sell it, destroy it, consecrate it, declare it ownerless, etc.). When food is placed in front of a guest, does he own that food, or does it remain the host's food which the guest has permission to eat?
The Gemara in Nedarim (34b) implies that when a guest eats a loaf of bread that the host serves him, the guest is not considered to be the owner of the bread. (See also MIKRA'EI KODESH of RAV TZVI PESACH FRANK, Pesach II, p. 158.) Similarly, a guest at someone's Seder on Pesach night is not considered the owner of the Matzah that the host puts in front of him; rather, the host is the owner, and the guest merely has permission to eat it. However, if the guest does not own the Matzah, then he does not fulfill the Mitzvah to eat Matzah! The guest should be required to acquire the Matzah from the host, before the Seder, with a formal act of Kinyan.
The Sefas Emes suggests that one should make this his practice. He adds that he does not know why people are not meticulous to do this. The IMREI BINAH (Hilchos Pesach, end of #23) reaches the same conclusion.
Why is it not the common practice to have a guest acquire, with a Kinyan, the Matzah from the host before he eats it on Pesach night?
(a) The SEFAS EMES alludes to the Halachah (in SHULCHAN ARUCH EH 28:19) regarding one who asks his friend for a ring with which to betroth a woman. When he asks his friend for a ring and tells him that he wants to use it for the purpose of marriage, when his friend gives him a ring it is assumed that he gives it with full intent to transfer ownership, and not merely with intent to lend it to him (because if he merely lends him the ring, it will not serve its purpose; one must own the ring that he gives to a woman for marriage). Similarly, when a person invites a guest to his Seder and he serves him Matzah, it is assumed that the host fully gives the Matzah to the guest, because the guest must own it in order to fulfill the Mitzvah.
RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH shlit'a (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 2:240, Mo'adim u'Zemanim 3:155), however, questions this logic. Many hosts are not aware that a guest does not fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzah unless he owns the Matzah. If they do not know that they need to be Makneh the Matzah to the guest, it cannot be assumed that they do so.
(b) RAV STERNBUCH (Mo'adim u'Zemanim loc. cit.) explains 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. The Rambam writes only that one does not 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 the Gemara here, 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 own his own Matzah. Rather, "Lachem" means that the Matzah must belong to Jews and not to Gavo'ah or to Nochrim. This is evident from the fact that the requirement of "Lachem" for Matzah is derived from Chalah, and one is required to separate Chalah from borrowed or stolen bread. We see that bread is considered "Lachem" as long as it belongs to a Jew, even though it does not belong to the person who presently holds it. Only bread that does not belong to a Jew but belongs to Gavo'ah (such as Ma'aser Sheni) or to a Nochri is exempt from Chalah. Likewise, as long as the Matzah belongs to any Jew and not to Gavo'ah or to Nochrim, one fulfills the Mitzvah with it.
TOSFOS (DH Asya) and other Rishonim seem to equate the requirement of "Lachem" of Matzah to the requirement of "Lachem" of Lulav. According to these Rishonim, just as a Lulav must be owned by the person who performs the Mitzvah, so, too, Matzah must be owned by the person who performs the Mitzvah. Why, according to Tosfos, are hosts not careful to give their guests complete ownership of the Matzah?
(c) The MIKRA'EI KODESH (loc. cit.) points out that TOSFOS earlier (29a, DH b'Din) writes explicitly that when a guest eats food at the home of his host, he certainly acquires it at the moment that he eats it. Hence, at the moment that a guest eats the Matzah that his host serves, he acquires the Matzah.
(It should be noted that RASHI (29a) argues with Tosfos and asserts that a Jew who eats a Nochri's Chametz is not considered to be eating Chametz that belongs to a Jew. The Chametz remains in the possession of the Nochri, even while the Jew eats it. However, this does not prove that Rashi maintains that a Jew does not acquire the food at the moment he eats it. Rather, Rashi's intention might be that when the Torah prohibits the Chametz of a Jew on Pesach, it means that one may not eat Chametz that belongs to a Jew at the moment that he begins to eat it -- that is, while he holds it in his hand and begins to bite from it. In the case of a Jew who eats the Chametz of a Nochri, when he starts to eat the Chametz it belongs to the Nochri.)
How does the Mikra'ei Kodesh address 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 for why the Gemara in Nedarim is not proof that the food that a guest eats does not belong to him.
1. The MEFARESH in Nedarim deduces 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 serves him.
2. The ROSH there suggests that the Gemara means that a guest does not own the food that is served to him -- before he eats it. The Gemara there teaches that when one makes a vow and says, "As long as this bread is mine, it is forbidden to you," he may not invite the other person to his home to eat, because when the guest sits down at the table and the bread is placed before him, he derives pleasure from it. At that moment the host still owns the bread, and not the guest.
3. The NIMUKEI YOSEF and the RITVA in Nedarim understand that the subject of the Gemara there is not whether the food that the host serves belongs to the host or to the guest. Rather, the Gemara there discusses the question of the intention of the person who makes the vow. When the host declares, "As long as this bread is mine, it is forbidden to you," his intention is to forbid the bread to the other person should he be a guest in his home. Since this is his intention, his vow applies even if a guest's act of eating transfers the ownership of the bread from the host to the guest. (See also NODA B'YEHUDAH EH 2:77, and ONEG YOM TOV #111.)
HALACHAH: The common practice is that a guest does not need to own the Matzah that he eats in order to fulfill the Mitzvah. Some authorities, however, are stringent and suggest that a guest either bring his own Matzah to his host's Seder, or specifically ask the host to give him ownership of his portion of Matzah (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos, ibid.). (See Insights to Nedarim 34:2.)