Siman 469

Know that in the Torah this yom tov is called "Chag HaMatzot." In the language of the sages it is called "Pesach," and so it is in the language of people. And perhaps because in this language is included the great miracle that was performed for us in Egypt during the plague of the firstborn, that the Omnipresent passed over the houses of the children of Israel, and therefore they called it by this name. And our sages, of blessed memory, said (53a): It is forbidden to say "this meat is for Pesach," because it appears as if one is consecrating his animal and eating kodashim outside. That is to say: even though this is our way, that what we prepare and buy for this festival we say with the language of "Pesach," nevertheless with meat one should be careful not to say so, so that it does not appear as if he is saying it is for a Korban Pesach, and it would be kodashim outside. But wheat and barley—it is permitted to say this language, as they have no connection to a korban. And so too all other things, and everyone knows that the intention is for the festival of Pesach. And also with meat when one says so—it is permitted. And it appears that the stringency is only ab initio, but ex post facto there is no prohibition of eating (Taz), for everyone knows that such is the way of the language of people.

The Rosh wrote there that it appears the prohibition applies specifically to the meat of a lamb or a goat, from which the pesach sacrifice is brought. However, Rashi wrote that the prohibition is because it appears as if one is consecrating them for the proceeds of a pesach, meaning to sell them and purchase a pesach with them. And if it is difficult: for if so, why did they say wheat and barley are permitted, for could we not also say this regarding them? For one can say: because wheat and barley require guarding from leavening, it is therefore appropriate to say regarding them to guard them for Pesach (Chok Yaakov). And according to this, other things would be prohibited. But it does not appear so; rather, it appears that even according to the explanation of Rashi, there is no prohibition except for an animal fit for the altar, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote. This is his wording: It is prohibited to say regarding any animal, whether living or slaughtered, "this meat is for Pesach," because it appears as if he consecrated it while alive for a pesach sacrifice, and he is found eating consecrated items outside. Rather, he should say, "this meat is for Yom Tov." But it is permitted to say "this wheat is for Pesach." Thus far his words.

And ostensibly it is a great wonder, for since he wrote the reason is because it appears that he consecrated it while alive for a Pesach sacrifice, if so, it should only apply to a kid or a lamb, and why is every animal forbidden (Magen Avraham)? Rather, perforce one must say that his intention is according to the explanation of Rashi, that they will say he consecrated it for the value of a Pesach sacrifice. However, regarding other things there is no concern, as one can say he consecrated it and then redeemed it. This is not the case with an animal—it has no redemption, for anything fit for sanctity of the body has no redemption, as is known. Therefore, every animal fit for the altar is forbidden, but other things are permitted. However, regarding wheat and barley which are fit for meal-offerings, I would have said they are forbidden; it comes to teach us that it is permitted (ibid.) because with wheat everyone knows that the intention is to guard them for Pesach. And there are those who wish to forbid every type of poultry that requires shechitah, but it is an excessive stringency, since they are not fit for the altar (ibid. subsection 1).

And know that the Rambam omitted this law entirely, and I wonder at the commentators who did not notice this. It seems to me that his reason is clear, because Rava holds in Menachot (103b) that anyone who did not vow in the manner of those who vow, such as one who says "Behold, I take upon myself a mincha of barley" – his words are nothing. And in the Tosefta it is taught in the final chapter of Menachot: One who says "Behold, I take upon myself an olah on the condition that I shall offer it in the House of Chonyo" – Rabbi Shimon says this is not an olah. And all the more so one who says "on the condition that I shall offer it outside" (Tosafot Pesachim 53a, starting with the words "Mipnei"). And the Rambam in the seventh chapter of Maaseh HaKorbanot ruled like Rabbi Shimon. Therefore he omitted this, for in the Gemara they said that according to Rabbi Shimon even a gedi mekulas is nothing for this reason, and all the more so regarding one who says "this meat is for Pesach." Nevertheless, regarding a gedi mekulas, since all the sages of Israel rebuked Todos of Rome with a reprimand as is explained in the Gemara, he therefore also ruled accordingly, as will be explained. This is not the case regarding "this meat is for Pesach."

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter eight, law 11: In a place where they are accustomed to eat roasted meat on the nights of Pesach—they may eat. In a place where they are accustomed not to eat—they do not eat, as a decree lest they say it is the meat of the Pesach offering. And in every place it is forbidden to eat a lamb roasted entirely as one on this night, because it appears as if one is eating sacrificial meat outside. And if it was cut, or if a limb was missing from it, or if a limb was boiled while still attached—this is permitted in a place where they are accustomed. Thus far his words. And roast is when they roast on a spit over the fire, and not what we call "braten." And a "gidi mekulas," even though he did not explicitly say "this meat is for the Pesach offering"—it is forbidden to prepare it, and it will be explained in siman 476. (The Magen Avraham and the Chok Yaakov wrote that regarding one who says "this meat is for Pesach"—there is no concern. For if his intention was for the sacrifice—he should have said "for the Pesach offering," and "for Pesach"—the intention is for the holiday. And regarding what he wrote that with a kid or a lamb one should be stringent even after the fact when he said "for the Pesach offering," see there—the Chok Yaakov already rejected this, for there is no prohibition after the fact according to Rabbi Shimon, see there. And the Rokeach wrote that a person should not say "how much is the burden of Pesach," for in the Yerushalmi it says: What does the wicked one say? "What is this service to you," what is this burden. Thus far his words, and see Chok Yaakov.)