Siman 460

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: One may not knead the matzah of mitzvah nor bake it by means of a non-Jew, nor by means of a deaf-mute, a deranged person, or a minor. Thus far their words. And we have already explained this in siman 453, that the reason is because of "lishmah." And even if one says to him, "Do it for such-and-such a purpose" – he acts according to his own mind. And so wrote the Rashba in a responsum (siman 26). And also the grinding and the harvesting require "lishmah," as I wrote in siman 453, except that there are opinions regarding this as to whether it is also required from the time of harvesting. And in the Gemara there is a dispute regarding this. (And the words of the Taz, subsection 1, are perplexing, as I wrote there.)

And so, none of these should assist in any of the labors belonging to this. However, the poskim wrote that if it is impossible without the non-Jew, an Israelite should stand over him and say to him, "Do this for the sake of the mitzvah of matzah," as the Rosh ruled regarding tzitzit above in siman 11 (Bach and Magen Avraham). In any event, the Israelite should see to it to assist a little. And know that a minor is preferable to all of these, for he will eventually come to the obligation of mitzvot (ibid.). And all these matters are only regarding the matzah of the mitzvah, and not regarding the matzah of all the days of Pesach. And we have already written in siman 453 that the Rif and the Rambam have another system regarding the guarding of matzah. And according to them, there is no difference between the matzah of the mitzvah and the matzah of all the days of Pesach; see there well.

A "cheresh" is one who neither hears nor speaks. And a "shoteh" is as its plain meaning, and the definition of a shoteh was explained in Yoreh Deah siman 1. And a "katan" is as its plain meaning, who has not reached thirteen years and one day. And there is one who says that he is called a "katan" when he lacks understanding, but when he has understanding such that he understands what they tell him to do for the sake of the mitzvah – it is permitted ab initio (Taz subsection 1). And in my humble opinion, it appears that certainly anything that requires "lishmah" – requires thirteen years and one day (and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah). And it appears to me that a blind person and a drunkard are forbidden to engage in the kneading of matzah and their shaping, even with matzah that is not for the mitzvah, for the blind person will not see to gather all the dough together, and in the meantime it will come to leavening. And the drunkard – it is obvious that he does not know well what he is doing, even if he has not reached the drunkenness of Lot.

Even though one is able to bake the matzat mitzvah through an agent, nevertheless, if it is possible for him to do it himself—the mitzvah is greater when performed by him than by his agent. And the Rosh, of blessed memory, would stand over their preparation, and would exert himself in the matzat mitzvah, and would urge those involved, and would assist in their rolling. And so it is proper for every person to busy himself and involve himself personally in this great mitzvah. (And in the name of the Arizal, the Taz wrote that it is a great rectification that one should toil in this mitzvah until he sweats, see there.)

One who kneads after the time of the prohibition of chametz should say at the time of kneading: "All crumbs that fall during the time of kneading and shaping, and likewise dough that sticks to the vessels—I nullify them," so that it turns out he nullifies them before their leavening, for after their leavening it is not in his domain to nullify, since it is after the time of its prohibition. And after the conclusion of the kneading and shaping, they shall sweep the place where they kneaded and shaped there. And even though crumbs are anyway considered ownerless even ordinarily, nevertheless we fear lest all the crumbs of the kneading gather together and become a significant matter, and therefore one must nullify. And it is not similar to bread crumbs which do not stick together and are not significant (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And the world is accustomed to say "the crumbs are ownerless." And they wrote that this is not effective, for this phrasing implies that they are ownerless on their own. And it is not so, but rather one must say "let them be ownerless" (ibid. and see Taz subsection 3). But in truth the custom is correct, for regarding chametz the revelation of his intent is sufficient, as I wrote in siman 431 regarding the essence of nullification, and specifically regarding crumbs which are anyway ownerless. (See Chok Yaakov subsection 7, who answered based on the reason that ownerless status is like a vow. However, we have already explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 273 section 4 that the matter of ownerless status has nothing to do with a vow, see there.)

In ancient days, they were accustomed to making signs on the three matzot that are in order. They called the first "Kohen," as one recites the blessing of "HaMotzi" over it; the second "Levi," for "Yachatz"; and the third "Yisrael," for "Korekh." Now they are not accustomed to doing so, because it is not proper to delay the matza before baking to make the signs. For one may not make decorated cakes on Pesach, meaning to make designs on the matzot, because one delays in their making and it will come to a state of chimetz. Even by means of a mold—it is forbidden. There is no difference between a homeowner and a baker; even though he is accustomed to doing so and does not delay in their making, nevertheless, the rabbis did not differentiate and they forbade all designs. Nevertheless, ex post facto if they were made—the matza is not forbidden by this if one did not delay in their designing, and it is permitted ab initio to eat them. The perforations that they make, which are called "radlen"—this is not a design, and on the contrary, they are done quickly. It is an engagement with the dough and prevents chimetz, and prevents the matza from swelling in the oven. It is good and proper to do so.

One may not make matzah a tefach thick, for when it is that thick – there is a concern that the fire will not dominate its middle quickly, and it will come to leavening. And post facto – they are permitted for eating (Magen Avraham subsection 4 and Chok Yaakov subsection 14). And less than a tefach – it is permitted, for the sages established that the fire dominates there. Nevertheless, we are accustomed to make the matzot thin wafers, and not thick bread like other bread, for wafers do not hasten to leaven.

The early authorities forbade making muliyot on Pesach, which means filling dough with meat and eggs like a pastida, for they delay the baking and it is close to becoming chametz. Furthermore, the moisture that emerges from them is like fruit juice, and fruit juice with water hastens fermentation, as I wrote in siman 462. And even ex post facto, it should be forbidden. However, if one put seeds inside it, even if they are not crushed—it is permitted for consumption ex post facto, for this does not delay the baking. But ab initio—it is forbidden. And in our days, we have not heard nor seen anyone do so (and the Taz, subsection 6, forbids it even ex post facto).