Daf Ditty Pesachim 37: Pas Ava, Thick Bread

and the Matza Machine controversy

1
2
The Sages taught: One may not bake thick bread on the Festival, on Passover, as it might be
leavened before it has a chance to bake; this is the statement of Beit Shammai.

RASHI

And Beit Hillel permit one to bake bread in this manner. The Gemara asks: And how much
thickness is required for the matza to be considered thick bread?

Rav Huna said: This category includes matza that is a handbreadth thick. The proof is as we
found by the shewbread, which could not be leavened and which was a handbreadth thick.

RASHI

3
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: If the Sages said that it is permitted to bake bread
a handbreadth thick for the shewbread, which was prepared by diligent priests who ensured that

4
the dough did not become leavened, will they say the same with regard to other people who are
not as diligent? Furthermore, if they said this with regard to well-kneaded bread, will they say
the same with regard to bread that is not well kneaded?

Rav Yosef continues: If they said that bread a handbreadth thick is permitted in a case where the
bread was cooked with dry wood, which was brought to the Temple during the dry summer
months, as the heat generated from this type of wood would cause the bread to cook quickly before
it leavened, will they say the same with regard to ordinary people who cook with moist wood?

If they said this with regard to a hot oven in the Temple, will they also say it is permitted with
regard to a cool oven? Finally, if they said so with regard to the shewbread, which was baked
in a metal oven that could be heated quickly, will they say the same with regard to a clay oven?

Clearly, these two cases are different, and no comparison can be drawn between the shewbread
and ordinary matza.

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: I asked my special Rabbi, and who is this? Rav. Some say
that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: I asked my special Rabbi, and who is this?

Our holy Rabbi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: What is the meaning of the expression: Pat ava? He
explained that it means: A large quantity of bread, a large batch of dough prepared in one session.
And why did they call it: Pat ava, thick bread?

It is referred to by this name due to the fact that it requires a large amount of kneading. And if
you wish, say instead that in the place where this tanna lived, a large quantity of bread was
simply called pat ava, thick bread.

5
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition against preparing a large batch? If the
reason is due to the unnecessary exertion that is required to knead a large amount of dough,
which is an improper activity on a Festival, why discuss particularly the application of this
halakha to Passover?

The same halakha should apply also to other Festivals.

6
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; it is prohibited to prepare a large quantity of dough
during any Festival.

And while this tanna was referring to the festival of Passover, he incidentally mentioned a
halakha that actually applies to other Festivals as well.

The Gemara comments: That opinion was also taught in a baraita, which states that Beit
Shammai say: One may not bake pat ava on a Festival, and Beit Hillel permit baking bread in
this manner on a Festival.

7
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; it is prohibited to prepare a large quantity of dough
during any Festival.

And while this tanna was referring to the festival of Passover, he incidentally mentioned a
halakha that actually applies to other Festivals as well. The Gemara comments: That opinion was
also taught in a baraita, which states that Beit Shammai say: One may not bake pat ava on a
Festival, and Beit Hillel permit baking bread in this manner on a Festival.

8
He said to them: It is possible for a woman to prepare this matza with a mold, and she could
set it immediately, without delaying the baking process. They said to him: People would fail to

9
understand the distinction, and they would say that all shaped matza is prohibited, and yet
Baitos’ shaped matza is permitted. Consequently, the Sages rejected this distinction, and
prohibited all forms of matza shaped in figures on Passover.

10
Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: Once I followed my father, Rabbi Tzadok, into Rabban
Gamliel’s home, and they brought before him matza shaped in figures on Passover. I said:
Father, didn’t the Sages say that one may not prepare matza shaped in figures on Passover?
He said to me: My son, they did not say this prohibition for the matza of all ordinary people;
rather, they said so in regard to the matza of bakers, who are under pressure to enhance the
appearance of their products to in order to increase sales. The dough could leaven, since bakers
might take too much time to ensure that the shape of their matza is exactly right.

11
Some say that this is what Rabbi Tzadok said to his son: The Sages did not say that this practice
is prohibited with regard to the matza of bakers, who are expert and efficient in their work and
will do it quickly, but rather this prohibition applies to the matza of all ordinary people. According
to both version of this exchange, it is permitted to eat this matza after the fact. Rabbi Yosei said:
One may prepare matzot shaped as thin wafers, but one may not prepare matzot shaped as
thick loaves, as the latter is more likely to be leavened.

Summary
The braisa cites Bais Shamai saying that one may not bake thick bread on Pesach, while Bais
Hillel permits it.

Rav Huna says that thick bread is defined as a tefach thick, as we find the show bread in the Bais
Hamikdash, which was a tefach thick and was still matzah.

Rav Yosef challenges this source, as the process of baking matzah is not as meticulous in avoiding
leavening as the process of baking the show bread:

1. The show bread was baked by kohanim, who were very quick.
2. The show bread was worked much harder than regular bread.
3. The wood used to bake the show bread was especially dry.
4. The oven used to bake the show bread was very hot.
5. The oven used to bake the show bread was metal, as opposed to a regular earthenware one.

Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba says that he asked his teacher, Rav, in private (or he quoted Rav saying
that he asked his teacher, Rebbi, in private) about this braisa, and he explained that the thick bread
in this braisa simply means a lot of bread. It is called “thick” either because the kneading is done
with thick dough to make a lot of bread, or the author of the braisa lived in a place where “thick”
bread meant “a lot of” bread.

The Gemora challenges this, as the issue of baking a lot of bread would be doing too much work
on Yom Tov, which would apply equally to any Yom Tov, and not just Pesach. The Gemora
answers that it does apply equally to any Yom Tov, but the braisa was already discussing Pesach,
and therefore mentioned Pesach.

The Gemora supports this from a braisa which cites the dispute, referring to baking thick bread on
Yom Tov, indicating that the issue is work on Yom Tov, and not matzah baking. Designs On
Matzah The Gemora cites a braisa which says that one may fulfill his obligation of matzah made
from fine or coarse flour, and with matzah with designs etched into it, even though the Sages said
that one should not make designs on matzah.

12
Rav Yehudah says that Baitus ben Zunin asked the Sages why one may not etch designs on matzah,
and they said that it was out of concern that one would spend too much time making the design,
letting the matzah rise. When he suggested that one could make a mold which would implement
the design in one short action, the Sages replied that to prohibit any designs, they had to prohibit
all, with no exception for Baitus’s.

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says that one time he followed his father to Rabban Gamliel’s house, and
they brought him designed matzos on Pesach. When he asked his father how they made designs,
as the Sages prohibited it, he answered that the prohibition was not on homemade matzos, but only
on bakers’, as they are particular about the design’s appearance. Some say that he said that they
only prohibited bakers’, but not homemade ones, as bakers have molds which make the designs
quickly. Rabbi Yosi says that one may make designs on thin matzos, but not on thick ones, as they
rise more quickly.

Thick Bread
The Gemora discusses the braisa which cites a dispute about baking thick bread on Pesach. Rav
Huna says that this braisa refers to how thick matzos can be without raising a concern of it rising,
and says that thick matzah is a tefach, just like the showbreads.

Rav Yosef challenges this comparison, and therefore says the braisa refers to baking a lot of
bread on Yom Tov. The Shulchan Aruch (160:5) rules that one may not bake a tefach thick
matzah, due to Rav Yosef’s challenge of the comparison to the show breads. The Ritva and
Rabbenu Chananel go further and state that any thick matzah, even less than a tefach, should not
be baked, due to potential chametz concerns. The Mishna Berura (17) rules that one shouldn’t
bake thick matzahs, even thinner than a tefach, but if one did bake them, they are permitted if
they are thinner than a tefach.

Is Baking Matza Like Baking the Temple Showbread?

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1

Our daf opens with a baraita that records a disagreement between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.
The topic of debate is pat ava – whether thick matza can be baked on the holiday of Pesah. Beit
Hillel permits such baking to be done; Beit Shammai forbids it.

Rav Huna interprets the expression pat ava to be similar to the size of the lehem ha-panim – the
showbread in the Temple – which was also matza and was one tefah (handbreadth) thick.

1
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim37/

13
R Yosef objects to the comparison on a number of levels:

• We know that the kohanim in the Temple were quick about their work.
• The dough was always well-kneaded.
• The fire-wood in the Temple was always very dry.
• The ovens were very well heated.
• The ovens in the Temple were made of metal, not clay.

Given the severity of the prohibition against eating hametz, and the difficulty involved in baking
thick matza properly, even if it was done in the Temple for the lehem ha-panim, how can Beit
Hillel permit it on Pesaḥ for the general public?

In explanation of this baraita, one suggestion that is raised (either by Rav or by Rabbi Yehuda
haNasi) is that pat ava does not mean to bake a thick cake; rather it means to bake a large amount
at one time. The Gemara points out that if we understand pat ava this way, the potential problem
would not be specific to Pesaḥ, but it is a general issue of possibly baking unnecessarily on Yom
Tov.

Rabbenu Yehonatan explains that if this is, in fact, the point of disagreement, Beit Shammai
forbids it lest some of the bread or matza will be left over and will be used after Yom Tov is over,
creating a situation where preparations for the regular weekday were done on the holiday. Beit
Hillel would argue that the baking process works better when a large amount is baked, so having
leftovers is of no concern.

14
Designer Matzah

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:2

Matzah is the most basic of foods. Mix some grain with water and bake ASAP, and presto! We
have the most important course for the most important meal of the year.

The simple nature of matzah can be seen in the ruling that matzah may not be a work of art,
designed in fancy shapes or figures (Pesachim 37a). As we find today with ketuvot, kiddush cups,
and other religious artifacts, people would make special "designer matzah," displaying their artistic
creativity in this most central of mitzvoth[1]. As the starring dish of the most elaborate meal of the
year, it is understandable that people might feel that the matzah should not be plain looking. The
Talmud, however, was worried that the extra time involved in preparing such fancy matzot might
lead to its leavening. Yet despite that fear, the rabbis did not want to ban the making of such
matzah-perhaps considering it hiddur mitzvah, the beautification (and enhancement) of a mitzvah-
-and only forbade it in certain circumstances.

2
https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/pesachim-37-designer-matzah

15
What these circumstances are is a source of Talmudic debate, with some arguing that only private
individuals were prohibited from making the "designer matzot," as they lacked the expertise and
equipment of professional bakeries, which could delay the process. Others argued that it was
specifically the professional matzah shops that were forbidden to make such; they were more likely
to insist on very high and exacting standards, potentially delaying its baking by a few too many
minutes, whereas the individual baker is less likely to be concerned with such niceties.

The above restriction is just one of many regarding matzah, designed to ensure that matzah remind
us of the tribulations of slavery--and hence, appreciate the great gift of freedom. We have already
learned that according to many, matzah ashira, matzah baked with honey, oil or wine, may not be
used; such would violate the notion of lechem oni, the bread of affliction. These additions are just
too fancy for food meant to commemorate our slavery.

This past Shabbat, we read about ma'aser sheni, the second tithe, in which the Israeli farmer was
to eat 10% (or spend 12.5% of the value) of his produce in Jerusalem. This food was to be eaten
in Jerusalem, shared with others bringing one to a state of happiness. And it is this requirement
of simcha that was understood by Rav Yossi HaGelili to forbid the consumption of ma'aser sheni
matzah (ibid. 36a). Matzah and simcha just don't mix; and food that is eaten b'simcha, in joy, is
inappropriate for matzah, which can be eaten even in a state of aninut, the period between the
death and burial of a relative.

This idea can be seen in another interesting Talmudic view, one that prohibits the use
of bikurim wheat for matzah[2]. The Talmud derives this from the verse, "In all your habitations,
you shall eat matzah," with the phrase "all your habitations" teaching that only items that can be
eaten anywhere can be used for matzah; and bikurim can be eaten only in the city of joy, Jerusalem.

Further emphasizing the melancholy mood of the matzah is the Talmudic discussion of marror,
where the Talmud (ibid. 39a) links the definition of marror to that of matzah. It is because matzah
must grow from the ground and is a plant species that marror must be so. And the matzah is to eat
together with marror--the basis of our korach.

Yet the matzah and marror are also meant to be eaten with the korban Pesach--the food that
demonstrates both our willingness to stand up for our beliefs, and G-d's special relationship with
us. We look forward to the day when we will be able to eat the complete Pesach meal.

[1] As all who eat handmade matzah know, the "traditional" shape of matzah is round. It was the use of machine-made matzah,
popularized by Manischewitz, that changed the shape of matzot to square--those being much easier to produce by machine.

[2] While we generally associate bikurim with the first fruits that the farmer must bring to Jerusalem and give to the
kohen, bikurim must actually be brought from each of the shivat haminim, the seven indigenous species to the land of Israel, which
include wheat and barley--two of the possible grains one may use for matzah.

16
The Halakhic Definition of "Bread"
Rav Yair Kahn writes:3

We will devote this shiur to the issue of the precise halakhic definition of lechem – bread – for purposes
of the berakha of ha-motzi. This issue arises in several other contexts, as well. In presenting
the mitzva of chala (separating some dough and giving it to a kohen), for example, the Torah says, "It shall
be, when you partake of the BREAD of the earth" ("mi-lechem ha-aretz"– Bamidbar 15:19), seemingly
indicating that this obligation hinges on the formal status of "bread." Likewise, regarding
the mitzva of matza, the Torah writes, "for seven days you shall eat matzot, BREAD of
affliction" (Devarim 16:3).

1. Rabbenu Tam

Our Daf cites a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish as to whether bread produced
through frying, rather than baking, falls under the obligation of chala. According to Reish Lakish, only
bread made through baking is obligated in chala, whereas Rabbi Yochanan extends the chala obligation
to include even ma'aseh ilfas – products made in a pan. Tosefot (Pesachim 37b, s.v. de-khulei alma) cite
the following remark of Rabbenu Tam:

"Only when the batter is liquid do they argue; Rabbi Yochanan holds that its 'baking' in a pan makes it into
bread, and it is therefore obligated in chala, and Reish Lakish holds that it does not make it into bread, and
it is exempt. But when the batter is thick, all views agree that it is obligated in chala, even [if it is cooked]
with a liquid, for the chala obligation takes effect at the time of kneading, as can be demonstrated from
numerous sources."

According to Rabbenu Tam, the need for baking as a prerequisite for the chala obligation applies
only when one does not knead the dough, but rather adds large quantities of water to the flour such
that it can be mixed through simple stirring, without kneading. This mixture, which is far more
liquid than dough, is called belila raka – a "loose batter" – as opposed to belila ava – a "thick
batter," which results from kneading.

3
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-07-halakhic-definition-bread

17
 Evidence for Rabbenu Tam's view may be drawn from a Mishna in Masekhet Chala (1:5): "Dough
which began as "sufganin" and ended as "sufganin" is exempt from chala; if it began as dough and ended
as "sufganin," or if it began as "sufganin" and ended as dough, it is obligated in chala." According to
Rabbenu Tam, the "beginning" stage of which the Mishna speaks refers to the mixture of flour and water,
while the "end" refers to how this mixture is made into food. Dough which "ends as sufganin" means that
the dough was fried or cooked, rather than baked, and "beginning as sufganin" means that rather than
kneading the dough into a thick paste, it was made into a liquid, loose batter. According to this reading of
the Mishna, the chala obligation takes effect in two circumstances: when the dough is kneaded into a thick
batter, or if it is baked. Dough is exempt from chala only when both conditions fail to be met, when it
"begins as sufganin and ends at sufganin" – meaning, it is initially made into a loose batter, and it is fried
or cooked, rather than baked.

2. The Ramban

The Ramban, towards the beginning of his Hilkhot Chala, cites and dismisses Rabbenu
Tam's view. He argues that the Mishna in Chala deals entirely with a thick batter, as evidenced
by the use of the term isa – which means dough produced from kneading – with regard to all the
cases it addresses. According to the Ramban, "began as sufganin" means that the dough was
kneaded with the intention of cooking or frying the dough afterward, while "ended as sufganin"
means that the dough was indeed cooked or fried. Thus, a batter is exempt from chala only when
the individual intended during the kneading stage to fry or cook the dough, and this is what he
ultimately does. But if he kneaded the dough with the intent of baking it, then the chala obligation
takes effect at that point and remains even if he ultimately cooked it. Conversely, if the individual
initially, at the time of kneading, planned on cooking the dough, but then changed his mind and
baked it, he must separate chala. The Ramban writes:

"If at the beginning and end he intended for sufganin, it is exempt; if he began kneading with the intent of
a regular batter and then decided to [make] sufganin, it is obligated, for it already become obligated at the
time of kneading; if he kneaded intending for sufganin and decided not to make it into sufganin, but rather
as a regular batter for some other purpose, it is obligated."

According to the Ramban, then, even a dough becomes obligated in chala only if it is actually
baked. He would thus apply the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, as to whether
producing bread in a pan amounts to baking, even in situations of a belila ava. According to

18
Rabbenu Tam, by contrast, baking is required to yield a chala obligation only in situations of belila
raka; a dough, however, is obligated in chala even if it is not baked. Rabbenu Tam was therefore
compelled to restrict the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish to cases of belila raka.

It stands to reason that Rabbenu Tam and the Ramban argue in identifying the mechayev (factor that
generates the obligation) of chala. According to the Ramban, there is but one mechayev of chala – the act
of kneading. This is indeed the implication of the Mishnayot in Masekhet Chala (chapter 3):

"One may eat incidentally from the dough until it is rolled with wheat or pasted together with barley. Once
it is rolled with wheat or pasted together with barley, one who partakes of it [before chala is separated] is
liable to death… If the dough became mixed with teruma before it was rolled, it is exempt, for dough
mixed with teruma is exempt. But [if it became mixed with teruma] only after it was rolled, it is
obligated. If a question concerning tum'a arose before it was rolled, it may be handled
with tum'a [meaning, since the chala may not be eaten in any event, one need not protect it from further
exposure to tum'a]. [If the questionable tum'a status came into being] after it was rolled, it must be handled
with tahara [meaning, it may not be exposed to tum'a]. If one consecrated the dough before he rolled it,
and then he redeemed it, it is obligated. [If he consecrated it] after he rolled it, and then he redeemed it, it
is obligated. If he consecrated it before he rolled it, and the treasurer [assigned over the Temple treasury]
rolled it, and then he redeemed it, it is exempt, for at the time of its obligation it was exempt… If a gentile
gave a Jew [flour] to make him dough, it is exempt from chala. If he gave it to him as a gift, then [if he
gave it] before he rolled it, it is obligated; after he rolled it – it is exempt… A convert who converted and
he had dough – if it was made [i.e., rolled] before he converted, it is exempt; after he converted – it is
obligated… Rabbi Akiva says: It is all determined based on when it forms a crust in the oven.

According to the majority position, rolling the dough (i.e., kneading) constitutes the act that generates the
obligation to separate chala. Rabbenu Tam, however, maintains that there are two mechayevim that
generate the obligation of chala: kneading, and baking. Each of these independently can give rise to the
obligation. Rabbenu Tam would have to concede that baking cannot generate a chala obligation if at the
time of kneading there existed a factor exempting dough from the obligation, as clearly demonstrated by
the aforementioned Mishnayot. However, if no kneading took place at all, baking can independently
generate the obligation to separate chala.

19
3. The Relationship Between Chala and Ha-motzi

Until now we have dealt exclusively with the obligation of chala. With regard to
the berakha of ha-motzi, Tosefot (37b s.v. lechem) write:

"Rabbenu Tam initially figured that they are obligated only in chala, because the obligation
of chala applies when it is still dough, as it is written [in the context of the Torah's discussion of
this mitzva], 'your dough' [arisoteikhem], and so since they were originally dough, they are obligated
in chala. But regarding [the berakha of] ha-motzi – they are exempt, since now they are sufganin."

Meaning, a thick batter that one ultimately cooks is obligated in chala because the kneading generates the
obligation, as indicated by the verse – "the first of your dough" ("reishit
arisoteikhem"). The berakha of ha-motzi, by contrast, depends on the status of lechem, which requires
baking. Ultimately, however, Rabbenu Tam rescinded this line of reasoning, and equated
the berakha of ha-motzi with the laws of chala, as explicitly recorded by Tosefot in Masekhet Pesachim
(37b, s.v. de-khulei alma):

"It appears to Rabbenu Tam that one likewise recites ha-motzi over it. He brought proof from Menachot
(75b) and [the chapter of] Keitzad Mevarkhin (Berakhot 37b), which says, 'If one was standing and
bringing a meal offering in Jerusalem, he recites she-hecheyanu. When he takes it to eat it, he recites ha-
motzi.' And it speaks categorically of any meal offering, even the offerings made in a frying pan and deep
pan, even though it is fried in oil [rather than baked]."

Thus, just as there are two ways for the chala obligation to take effect, so are there two manners
in which bread is produced – through kneading (if the dough is then cooked or fried), and through
baking (even in situations of belila raka).

According to the Ramban, however, as we saw, the status of "bread" – at least for purposes
of chala – requires both conditions, kneading and baking, and he therefore demands that the dough
be kneaded with the intent of baking. True, kneading with the intent of baking generates
a chala obligation even if one then decides to cook the dough, but this is because the act of
kneading for the purpose of baking bread generates an obligation, which cannot thereafter be
revoked. With regard to the berakha of ha-motzi, however, the product must actually be bread to
warrant this berakha. Thus, if we equate the definition of bread with respect to chala with its

20
definition for purposes of ha-motzi, we would demand both kneading and baking. (Rabbenu
Yerucham indeed appears to follow this line of reasoning. The Bach, however, in O.C. 168,
claimed that according to the Ramban, if one kneaded dough with the intent of baking it and then
decided to cook it, it nevertheless warrants the berakha of ha-motzi. This position, however,
seems very difficult to accept.)

It turns out, then, that according to Rabbenu Tam, bread produced through cooking – assuming
it has the appearance of bread, such as a bagel – requires the recitation of ha-motzi, whereas the
Ramban would require reciting borei minei mezonot over such bread. Rabbenu Tam would
concede, however, that over products that do not feature the appearance of bread, such as noodles,
one would recite borei minei mezonot. Rabbenu Tam and the Ramban likewise argue with regard
to a belila raka that one baked in an oven. Whereas the Ramban would require reciting borei minei
mezonot in such a case (as mentioned explicitly in Chidushei Rabbenu David and the Meiri to
Pesachim), Rabbenu Tam would require ha-motzi, unless it does not have the appearance of bread.

In our sugya, both the Ramban and Rabbenu Tam equate the laws of chala with those
of berakhot. According to Rabbenu Tam, the laws of chala establish that there exist two methods of
producing halakhically-defined bread: through kneading, and baking. In his view, each method
independently suffices to create "bread." According to the Ramban, we derive from the laws of chala that
both acts together are required to create bread, and only dough that has been both kneaded and baked is
included under this status. Nevertheless, there indeed remains room to argue with this position and to
distinguish between the obligation of chala and the status of "bread" for the purposes
of berakhot. Talmidei Rabbenu Yona write:

"Rabbi Yitzchak wrote that anything exempt from chala is exempt from ha-motzi and the three blessings
[of birkat ha-mazon]. It appears to my mentor, the rabbi… that a distinction must be made in this
regard. For if the batter initially was thick, and then it was made loose by adding liquids, it is obligated
in chala, for once the batter was thick, at that moment it became obligated in chala, since
the chala obligation depends on kneading. But one does not recite ha-motzi over it, because
the berakha of ha-motzi depends on bread, and this [product], since it is excluded from the category of
'bread,' one recites over it neither ha-motzi nor the three blessings [of birkat ha-mazon]."

Since the Torah describes the chala obligation as "the first of your dough," one might argue that the
obligation to separate chala at the time of kneading does not stem from the fact that kneading defines the

21
product as bread. Rather, the Torah requires separating chala from "dough," which means a kneaded
batter. This was very likely Rabbenu Tam's initial consideration, whereby he suggested that one
recites mezonot over sufganin initially prepared as a thick batter, despite its being obligated in chala.

4. The Halakhic Ruling

With regard to a thick batter that was not baked, the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 168:13)

"Even something whose mixture is thick – if it was cooked or fried, one does not recite over it ha-motzi,
even if it has the appearance of bread, and even if it was obligated in chala, because the berakha of ha-
motzi depends solely on the moment of baking. Some disagree, and say that whenever the batter started
out thick, even if was later made loose through water and it was made into sufganin, and cooked in water
or fried in oil, one recites over it ha-motzi (Rama: the practice is to act leniently). A God-fearing person
should satisfy both views and eat it only by first reciting the berakha over other bread. (Rama: This applies
only if it has the appearance of bread after baking.)"

The Shulchan Arukh's presentation suggests that he considered the Ramban's view the more
authoritative position, and he therefore cited Rabbenu Tam's view as "those who
argue." Nevertheless, he recommends that one endeavor to satisfy Rabbenu Tam's position, as
well.

Accordingly, we would assume that in the reverse situation, of a loose batter that was baked,
Halakha should require reciting mezonot. Yet, the Shulchan Arukh rules (168:8), "Those with a
loose batter and that are very thin… one recites over them borei minei mezonot and a berakha
achat me'ein shalosh [al ha-michya]." The Magen Avraham inferred from this formulation that
one recites mezonot only over an item that is very thin. A baked food that it is not exceedingly
thin requires ha-motzi even if it was made from a belila raka. Indeed, the Rama explicitly writes,
"Similarly, an item from a loose mixture that was baked in an oven without liquids has the status
of bread, and one recites over it ha-motzi and the three berakhot [of birkat ha-mazon]" (168:14).

We find a similar phenomenon in the Shulchan Arukh's rulings concerning chala:

"Dough of a thick mixture which one kneaded with the intention to cook it, fry it, make into sufganin, or
let it dry in the sun, and he did so, is exempt [from chala]. If he kneaded it with the intention of making

22
bread from it, but then decided to cook it, fry it, make it into sufganin, or let it dry in the sun, it is obligated,
for it had already become obligated from the moment of kneading. If one kneaded it with the intention of
[making it into] sufganin and the like, and then he decided to make bread, it is obligated." (Shulchan
Arukh, Y.D. 329:3)

The Shulchan Arukh codifies the Ramban's reading of the Mishna, and thus rules that if one
kneaded the dough into a thick mixture with the intention of cooking it, the obligation
of chala does not apply. Yet, in the immediately preceding halakha, the Shulchan Arukh writes,
"Dough of a loose mixture that was baked in an oven or frying pan… is obligated in chala." Here
he codifies the position of Rabbenu Tam.

It would seem that the Shulchan Arukh decided upon the Ramban's position only with regard
to a thick mixture that was cooked, which he does not consider bread and which he exempts from
the obligation of chala. Regarding the converse situation, however, of a loose mixture that was
baked, the Shulchan Arukh follows Rabbenu Tam's view. This is indeed the implication of
the Gra's comments.

According to the Shulchan Arukh, then, only baking defines a product as bread. Regardless of
whether the batter was thick or loose, if it is baked it requires the berakha of ha-motzi (provided
that it has the appearance of bread), and if it is cooked it requires borei minei mezonot. In his view,
the significance of belila ava lies not in its defining the product as bread, but rather as generating
an obligation to separate chala, as indicated by the verse, "reishit arisoteikhem." If one kneaded
a thick mixture with the intention of baking it, the chala obligation takes effect even if the
individual then decides to cook it (in which case he recites mezonot, since it is not actually
bread). If, however, he mixed the flour into a loose batter, such that it never met the Torah's
criterion of isa – a thick batter, it can nevertheless obtain a chala obligation if it is baked, as it will
then earn the status of bread, which the Torah likewise obligates in chala ("mi-lechem ha-
aretz"). Meaning, its status as bread generates an obligation to separate chala, even if there was
never an act of kneading that generated the obligation.4

4
Translated by David Silverberg

23
1. 38a "hai duvsha … kidimei-ikara," Rashi s.v. trima.

2. 38b "ve-al hayirakot … bitumi ve-karti," Ritva s.v. tmarim, Trumat Hadeshen siman 29.

3. Rosh siman 15.

4. Rambam hilkhot berakhot ch. 8 halakhot 3-4.

One who erases ink from parchment or wax from ledger is liable for punishment if the space that
he erased has room for two letters. Rem"a It is forbidden to cut a cake that has letters on it, even
though one just intends to eat it, because it is considered erasing (Mordechai Perek Klal Gadol).

Rema (O.C. 340:3) above, writes that it is prohibited to break apart a cake on Shabbos if it has
upon it any type of lettering. 5

Even if one only has in mind to do so for the sake of eating, nevertheless, this is still considered
“erasing,” and it is a violation of Shabbos. This seems to be a problem with our Gemara.

We prohibit fashioning the matzah into shapes only due to the concern that the one baking it will
spend extra time shaping the dough, thus creating a problem of chometz.

However, this suggests that had it not been for this specific concern, it would be permitted to eat
cakes or breads which are in the shape of letters.

If Rema is correct, how can this be permitted, even without the issue of chometz?

Magen Avraham cites the who answers that the only case where the Rema prohibits
breaking of cakes is where the writing on the cake is formed by a different substance (icing).

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20037.pdf

24
However, if the writing is part of the cake or bread itself, this is permitted. Chazon Ish brings our
Gemara as a source for the opinion of the

One can not bake “thick bread.” And how much is “thick bread?” R. Huna says: one
handbreadth. As we find by the show-bread (in the Holy Temple) which was the size of a
handbreadth. R’ Yosef asked….

Even though R’ Yosef argued against R’ Huna, and rejects his proof that the size of “thick
bread” is a handbreadth, we still find many Rishonim (1) and even the Shulchan Aruch (2) who
hold that “thick bread” is one handbreadth. 6

Therefore, the size of the matzahs should not be this size. Nonetheless, the Rema, (3) writes, that
ideally (4) one should make his matzahs extremely fine so they will not quickly ferment (and
thereby become chometz).

Truthfully, thin matzos have another advantage, because if thick matzahs split (5) in the middle,
and the upper part becomes raised (i.e. it forms a bubble), it will become forbidden as it will be
“matzah nefuchah”.

Thin matzos however, says the Mishna Berura (6) , have no problems with the holes and cracks
which are apparent on the outside. Furthermore, even if the matzah is only partially thin layered,
one does not have to worry about small bubbles that result from the baking (as opposed to the
thicker matzos where such bubbles do indeed present a problem).

Also, the laws of “doubled-over matzos” (where part of the matzah folds upon itself) are more
lenient (7) for thin matzos than for thick ones.

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20037.pdf

25
BAITOS (Boethus) BEN ZONIN

(beginning of second century), respected and wealthy resident of Lydda, whose home was a
meeting place for scholars. It is related that the rabbis, headed by Rabban *Gamaliel of Jabneh,
"reclined in the home of Baitos b. Zonin in Lydda and discussed Passover halakhot the whole of
that night [of the *Passover Seder] until cockcrow" (Tosef., Pes. 10:12).

He also discussed halakhic problems with the rabbis (TJ, Pes. 2:end of 4, 29c; Pes. 37a). Baitos
conducted his life in accordance with the teachings of the rabbis, particularly *Eleazar b.
Azariah (Meg. 27b; BM 63a; BB 13b), and his conduct is cited in tannaitic sources as evidence for
the halakhah in both ritual and monetary matters (BM 5:3; Av. Zar. 5:2).

Round or square matzah at the seder

RABBI RALEIGH RESNICK WRITES:7

The Industrial Revolution brought all kinds of technological advances: Many tasks once performed
by hand could be performed by newly invented machines. This presented an opportunity for the
Jewish community: The baking of matzah by hand is a labor-intensive process, and a machine was
invented to automate the process. To minimize waste and streamline production, the matzahs went
from round to square.

This generated quite a controversy, with varying opinions (not surprising!).

There are two reasons one eats matzah:

7
https://www.jweekly.com/2014/04/11/passover-round-or-square-matzah-at-the-seder/

26
1) As a substitute for leavened bread that we abstain from eating during the eight days of Passover.
This is known as matzah peshuta, ordinary matzah.

2) To fulfill the Torah’s commandment to eat matzah at the seders. These are called matzot
mitzvah, matzahs for the purpose of fulfilling a mitzvah.

The only requirement for matzah peshuta is that it be unleavened, baked in under 18 minutes.
When machine-made matzah was first proposed, many rabbis opposed the notion, questioning
whether one could be certain that no dough was stuck between the rollers, remaining there for
longer than 18 minutes and thus tainting the subsequent batches.

In time, machines were improved and most rabbis felt that the machine matzahs were acceptable.
Some authorities even said that they were preferable because machines don’t make mistakes.

With matzot mitzvah, the concerns were different. These matzahs needed to be baked lishma, with
the intent that they be used for the mitzvah. When the matzahs are rolled out in the bakery, the
matzah-makers declare that they are doing so with the intent of using the matzah for a mitzvah.

Those opposing the machine-made matzahs felt that a matzah made by machine cannot fulfill the
requirement for intent. Those in favor felt that a machine is no different than a rolling pin.

27
Additionally, the Zohar (the kabbalistic “Book of Light”) teaches that the round handmade
matzahs we eat at the seder are “bread of faith” and “bread of healing,” infusing us with a potent
dose of energy that helps us cultivate a firm belief in God and gives our physical body the good
health it needs to joyously continue our mission on Earth.

So what’s the bottom line? While machine-made matzah is no doubt kosher for Passover and
perfectly fine to eat throughout the holiday, I recommend that you try to use the handmade matzah
at the seder. This rustic matzah evokes a sense of history and authenticity, which greatly enhances
the atmosphere at the seder and the blessings associated with it.

In 1954, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem M. Schneerson launched a campaign to encourage and
popularize the use of handmade matzahs. Today, it’s not a rarity to find them in your supermarket’s
kosher for Passover section — one less thing to kvetch about as you shop!

The Machine Matzah Controversy

Rabbi Singer writes:8

Dating back to the time of Moshe Rabbeinu, the practice had always been to make matzah by hand.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the first half of the nineteenth century, however,
things changed. In France, in 1838, Isaac Singer invented the first machine for baking matzah.

With the popularization of the machine, a major halachic controversy broke out over the kosher
status of machine matzah. The controversy erupted in 1859, when Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody

8
https://jewishaction.com/religion/shabbat-holidays/passover/machine-matzah-controversy/

28
(1785-1869) came out in opposition to machine matzah. Some rabbis even contended that machine
matzah was no better than chametz.

Great rabbis of the era who opposed machine matzah included Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Alter of Gur
(1789-1866), Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1793-1876) and other Chassidic rabbis,
particularly from Galicia. Equally great personalities, mostly from Central and Western Europe,
maintained that machine matzah was actually more kosher than handmade matzah. These included
Rabbi Yosef S. Nathanson of Lemberg (1810-1875), Rabbi Abraham Shmuel B. Sofer of
Pressburg (the Ktav Sofer) (1815-1871) and Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger of Altona (1798-1871).9 As
the matzah-baking machine spread to other parts of the Jewish world, many great rabbinic
personalities from Lithuania, Jerusalem and the Sephardic countries also approved of the machine.

Why were some rabbis so opposed to machine matzah? One objection was that since the machinery
consisted of many small parts it was impossible to clean it adequately. Dough remnants could
potentially become chametz and mix with the newly made Pesach dough. There was also concern
that if the machine matzah was made in the traditional round shape, pieces of dough would have
to be cut off and combined with the general dough mixture. Here again, there was fear of those
pieces becoming chametz before being returned to the dough.

The defenders of the machine maintained that to the contrary, a machine is easier to clean than the
equipment used for hand matzah (such as rolling pins and even human hands). The rabbis did
concede that round-shaped matzot might lead to problems, and therefore they determined that
machine matzah should be square shaped.

More general concerns were raised as well. Many poor families depended on the matzah bakery
for their livelihood. If machines replaced the handmade matzah bakeries these indigent people
would lose their source of income. The defenders responded that such an argument was not valid,
especially when the machine could arguably raise the kosher status of matzah. Additionally, they
asserted that the use of a machine could result in a considerable price reduction of matzah, which
would greatly benefit the poor.

A most interesting objection against the machine did not concern the machine itself but the
innovation in general. The argument went as follows: Innovation, even if halachically defensible,
should be avoided, as one change leads to another, and eventually serious changes would be made
in Jewish life and mitzvah observance. This argument reveals much about this period of Jewish
history. Halachic Judaism was under constant assault and constantly forced to give ground. More
and more Jewish communities and practices were lost to the encroaching modernism. Those who
were lenient on the issue of machine matzah were generally less fearful of the onslaught of
modernity on Orthodox Judaism and did not feel the same need to thwart innovation in Jewish life.

The halachic concerns mentioned above centered around matzah peshutah, that is, ordinary
matzah—for use during the eight days of the holiday. A more heated controversy
concerned matzah shemurah, that is, matzah used at the Seder to fulfill the mitzvah of achilat
matzah, eating matzah. According to most authorities, the Torah requirement to eat matzah only
applies to the Seder night. While the Torah forbids one from eating chametz during the rest of

9
See two works issued in the nineteenth century: Moda’ah LeBeit Yisrael, a collection of teshuvot forbidding use of the machine
and Bitual Moda’ah, a collection of teshuvot permitting its use.

29
Pesach, there is no positive requirement to consume matzah on those days. Hence, there are more
stringent requirements for matzah shemurah than there are for matzah peshutah.

Thus, matzah shemurah must be made from grain that is guarded (so that it will not come into
contact with water) from the time the wheat is reaped.10 In contrast, matzah peshutah is made from
grain that is guarded from the time it is ground into flour. Furthermore, matzah shemurah must be
prepared with the intention of fulfilling the mitzvah of achilat matzah. This means that if the
cutting, grinding, kneading and baking of the matzah were done without the
proper kavanah (intention), then the resulting product may not be used to fulfill the mitzvah at the
Seder.

This brings us to the primary objection against machine matzah: Matzah shemurah needs to be
made by committed Jews who have the proper kavanah, and a machine could obviously have no
such kavanah. The defenders of the machine asserted that a machine was a tool, no different than
a rolling pin, and therefore, it sufficed if the Jew operating the machine had the correct kavanah.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, virtually the entire non-Chassidic world accepted the
use of machine matzah peshutah for the eight days of Pesach. Most Chassidim continued to
disagree. The debate about using machine matzah shemurah at the Seder continues until the
present day.

How Matzah Became Square:

Manischewitz and the Development of Machine-Made Matzah in the United States

Jonathan D. Sarna writes:11

"The History of Matzah" calls to mind the monumental composition by artist Larry Rivers
recounting thousands of years of Jewish history laid out against the background of the Passover
matzah. To Rivers, the unleavened bread eaten on Passover seemed like the perfect canvas for his
"Story of the Jews." Matzah to him was not an object of Jewish history but rather a metaphor for
it.' Rivers might have been surprised to learn that matzah itself possesses a fascinating history,
particularly in the modern era when, like the Jewish people, it underwent monumental changes
brought about by new inventions, new visions, and migration to new lands. These changes
transformed the character and manufacturing of matzah, as well as its shape, texture and taste.
They also set off a fierce and revealing debate among Europe's greatest rabbis that, in some
respects, remains unresolved to this day.

10
This is why many individuals choose to eat matzah shemurah all of Pesach, as there is almost no chance of the matzah
becoming chametz.
11
https://www.brandeis.edu/hornstein/sarna/americanjewishcultureandscholarship/Archive/HowMatzahBecameSquare.pdf

30
This paper focuses on a little-known American chapter in the long history of matzah. It recounts
the role of the Manischewitz company in transforming both the process of matzah-making and the
character of matzah, and it points to the role played by rabbis and advertisers in legitimating this
transformation. At a deeper level, it suggests that even "timeless rituals" are shaped by history's
currents. The transformation of matzah, we shall see, reveals much about transformations within
Judaism itself.

The Manischewitzes Come to America

Sometime about 1886, Behr Manischewitz (he sometimes spelled it Ber and was often known as
Dov Behr) emigrated to Cincinnati, Ohio from the city of Memel, then under Prussian rule-' Memel
was a relatively new Jewish community -Jews had only received permission to settle there in the
early 19'" century- and most Memel Jews, including the Manischewitzes, were immigrants from
Russia and Poland; Behr himself was born in Salant. 3

During Behr Manischewitz's youth, Memel served as the home of Rabbi Israel Salanter (who lived
there from 1860-1879), and according to family tradition, Behr was one of his "best-loved pupils
... and was so highly regarded for his learning and devotion that the Gaon of Salant had designated
Rabbi Dov Ber as his personal Shochet."'

Various elements of Manischewitz's later life reflected the Mussar movement's influence. We do
not know precisely why Behr, his wife Nesha Rose (sometimes known in America as "Natalie"),
and their three very young children, left Memel for the United States. One source claims that
Cincinnati Jews from -I- Jonathan D. Sarna Salant, Lithuania, landsmen of Behr's father, Yechiel
Michael Manischewitz, needed a shohet, knew that Behr was a certified and respected kosher
slaughterer, and paid to bring him and his family over to serve them.

Rabbi Elias Hillkowitz from Salant was a rabbi in Cincinnati at that time, and was a relative of
Manischewitz, so this is plausible. Another possibility is that Behr Manischewitz emigrated to the
United States in response to the 1886 Prussian expulsion of "Russians" (i.e., jews) from Memel
which, in turn, came in reprisal for Russia's expulsion of Prussians from Kovno.5

The Changing World of Matzah

Whatever the case, in 1888, after several years as a shohet ubodek and part-time peddler,
Manischewitz opened a matzah factory in Cincinnati. This was a common profession for Jewish
immigrants, especially those trained in shehitah, for matzah too was a Jewish food strictly
regulated by Jewish law and requiring supervision. Moreover, demand for matzah was rising
steadily in the United States, keeping pace with the growth of America's Jewish population, and
the industry as a whole was in the midst of a great transformation. Through the mid-19"' century,
most matzah had been baked by synagogues which either maintained special ovens of their own
for this purpose, or (as happened in New York) contracted with commercial bakers whom they
supervised. With the collapse of the synagogue community and the subsequent proliferation of
synagogues in all major American jewish communities, the now functionally delimited
synagogues spun off many of their old communal functions (including responsibility for

31
communal welfare, the mikvah, and kosher meat), and it was at this time, at mid-century, that
independent matzah bakers developed6

The kashrut of the matzah made by these new independent bakers became a matter of considerable
Jewish debate. In Cincinnati, in 1862, for example, Orthodox jews published a public notice
warning that a matzah baker named Mr. Simon "in no wise conducts himself in accordance with
the requirements of jewish law." The notice declared his matzah "chomets ... no better than any
other bread bought of any baker." New York's Jewish Messenger likewise expressed concern in
1863 over the lack of rabbinic supervision over private matzah bakers. Jews who came from
stringent European backgrounds and were used to matzah made from wheat that had been
continually "watched" since harvesting to prevent contact with water found the state of American-
made matzah particularly disturbing. New York's Rabbi -2·

Behr and Nesha (Natalie) Manischewitz early in the twentieth century.

Moses Weinberger, a native of Hungary, deplored the fact that as late as the 1880s "most New
York Jews used matzos made from ordinary market quality flour;• rather than "watched flour:''
Given this background, it is easy to understand why an Orthodox Jew like Behr Manischewitz
thought to enter the matzah business himself (so eventually did Rabbi Weinberger). Since demand
was growing and local Lithuanian Jews trusted him to maintain the highest standards of kashrut,
the business seemed to have substantial upside potential.

At the time that Manischewitz entered the matzah business, the industry was in a state of
considerable flux. Much of the world's matzah was still Behr and Nesha (Natalie) Manischewitz
early in the twentieth century. Courtesy of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the made totally by
hand. The process, which according to the later authorities must be completed within 18 minutes,'

32
had been refined over many centuries and was characterized by a careful division of labor that is
still found in hand-made shmurah matzah bakeries today. One person, usually an apprentice,
measured out the flour. Another worker poured cold water into the batter. Then the mixture
underwent a multi-stage process of kneading and rolling, usually performed by women. Next, the
dough was scored or perforated, placed on a rolling pin or a long pole, baked (usually by a man)
in a very hot oven, and sent off to be packed. Any dough not mixed, baked, and out of the oven
within 18 minutes was, of course, discarded. All the rolling pins and poles were then carefully
sanded and wiped. The paper on the tables was changed. The workers washed their hands to get
rid of any remaining dough. And the process started all over again. This is roughly how traditional
matzah baking worked and still works. By Manischewiu's day it had become a highly gendered
process - men and women had different roles -and it was divided into a series of well-defined
sequential steps.'

In the 19'h century, with the rise of industrialization, processes like this began to be mechanized,
and in 1838 an Alsatian Jew named Isaac Singer produced the first known machine for rolling
matzah dough. Although this is often called a matzah-making machine, the machine actually only
covered one part of the process-rolling-not the equally critical and very labor-intensive process of
kneading the dough. Singer's machine, and variants of it, won approval from various rabbis and
quickly spread into France, Germany, England, Hungary and the United States (where it was
discussed in Jewish newspapers as early as 1850). 10

The machine changed and shortened the process of matzah baking, and also deprived many poor
women of their meager livelihoods. At the same time, as machines are wont to do, it increased the
supply of matzah, which was critical given the rapid growth of the world Jewish population in the
19"' century, and it also led to a reduction in the price of matzah, since fewer hands were now
needed to produce it. II

The Controversy Over Machine-Made Matzah in Europe

Subsequently, the matzah machine became embroiled in a sharp and very significant halakhic
controversy.

The dispute was initiated in 1859 with the publication of an "announcement to the House of Israel"
(Moda'ah le-Beit Yisrael by Rabbi Solomon Kluger of Brody, and within the next few decades
some eighteen other leading rabbis, particularly rabbis from Galicia as well as Hasidic rabbis, came
out in opposition to the machine; some of them went so far as to declare machine-made matzah to
be no better than hametz. Some two-dozen other rabbis, many of them from Lithuania, Central and
Western Europe, and Jerusalem, strongly disagreed. Led by the influential posek Rabbi Joseph
Saul Nathanson, who published a work entitled Bittul Moda'ah, annulling the announcement, they
vigorously defended the matzah machine; some insisted that machine-made matzah was actually
more kosher than the hand-made kind, because there was less possibility of human error. The
arguments on both sides of the question were complex, and this is not the place to rehearse them.
But it is worth noting that in addition to strictly halakhic arguments around issues such as whether
the machine fulfills the requirement of kavannah (intentionality) in baking matzah, there were also
other issues involved in the debate.

33
For example, there were technological arguments: is the machine fully reliable in preventing
hametz from entering the process? There were also social justice arguments- is it better to sustain
traditional, expensive hand-made matzah that provides work for poor people, or is it better to
encourage cheaper machine-made matzah that even poor people can afford?

Finally, and one suspects most importantly, the machine kindled arguments concerning modernity.
Supporters of machine-made matzah promoted the idea that modern technology could strengthen
traditional Judaism; indeed, some rabbis optimistically argued that technology could produce
better and more kosher matzahs than Jews had ever enjoyed before, at least since the days of the
Second Temple. Meanwhile, opponents of the machine feared that machine-made matzah, like so
many other innovations in matters of religious tradition, would become a dangerous instrument of
modernity leading inevitably to assimilation, Reform, and apostasy.

The Gerer Rebbe, for example, argued that supporters of the matzah machine sought as their long
term aim to uproot the entire Torah. A later opponent insisted that the invention, from the
beginning, was intended to introduce reforms into the religion of Israel. 12 These vituperative
arguments were by no means settled by the time Manischewitz became involved in the matzah
business. To the contrary, the Jewish world of his day was divided between those who accepted
matzah made with the assistance of a machine and those who did not. .

The issue of square matzah had been debated in the nineteenth century by Kluger and Nathanson,"
but most matzah, even that produced with the help of a rolling machine, remained round. Matzah
produced by Manischewitz and its mechanized competitors, by contrast, was invariably square.12
Second, where before each matzah was unique and distinctive in terms of shape, texture, and
overall appearance no two were identical as is true of shmurah matzah to this day- now, every
matzah in the box came out looking, feeling, and tasting the same.

Matzah thus underwent the same processes of rationalization, standardization, and mechanization
that we associate with the American management revolution wrought by Frederick Winslow
Taylor." Manischewitz matzah, in short, became a distinctive brand of matzah, with all that that
implied. Finally, where before matzah was a quintessentially local product, produced on an as-
needed basis in every Jewish community and not shipped vast distances for fear of breakage, now
it became a national and then an international product - just like soap and cereal. In time, along
with smaller matzah brands like Horowitz-Margareten, Goodman, and Streits, Manischewitz
would extend its market share to take maximum advantage of its ability to mass-produce matzah,
and local matzah bakers who could not compete would go out of business.

On a much larger scale, Cincinnati's Proctor and Gamble was doing the same thing at roughly the
same time to the production of soap and detergent. Marketing Challenges and Solutions But there
is also a critical difference, extremely important for the student of religion, since in the case of
matzah two very significant challenges had to be met before Manischewitz could take full
advantage of these technological and business innovations, and translate them into commercial
success. First, the company needed to confront popular resistance to changing a]. Jonathan D.
Sarna long-familiar Passover ritual product. Matzah, after all, reflects and evokes a sense of

12
Though in 1942, "special-shaped matzoth were baked as part of the 'Y for Victory' movement;' during World War 11.20

34
tradition; it is, according to the Haggadah, "the bread of affliction that our fathers ate in the land
of Egypt." This was hard to reconcile with Manischewitz's newfangled machine-made square
matzah, and the company had therefore to find some way to make its new matzah seem not only
superior but also "traditional" and religiously "authentic."

Second, the company needed to confront what we have seen to be significant rabbinic resistance
to machine-made matzah. Given the volatility of the issue, and the emotional energy invested in it
by both sides of the controversy, Manischewitz had every reason to be nervous about the reception
that the matzot made by its new machine would receive. It must have known that it would need
powerful rabbinic endorsement for its matzot to succeed in the marketplace-" Manischewitz
confronted the first issue - how to make its matzot seem superior and authentic- through
advertising. In Anglo-Jewish newspapers, the company described its matzot as being in all ways
superior to the competition: they were produced in what the company called "a temple of kashruth,
a palace of cleanliness, a gigantic structure of steel and glass, overflowing with light, air and
sunshine:'"

In other words, they met the highest American food and health standards; they were, in their own
way, therapeutic. Indeed, Manischewitz advertised at one point that "No human hand touches these
matzahs in their manufacture," as if this fact, rather than the production of matzot by hand,
reflected Judaism's highest precept! 24 By appealing to modern American consumer values to sell
their traditional food product, the company implied that purchasers of Manischewitz matzah could
subscribe to the highest values of both Judaism and America. When it advertised in Hebrew and
Yiddish to more Orthodox customers, Manischewitz switched gears and emphasized its high
standard of kashrut ("the most kosher matzot in the world").
.
It called them "fine matzos" and sold them in a cigar-type box which protected the contents and
projected an aura of affluence. This, of course, was a clever attempt to give Manischewitz's square
matzahs extra cache. The company understood that if theirs became the preferred matzah of rich
and powerful Jews, other Jews would soon follow suit. Apparently, the strategy worked, for at one
point in the 1920s the company claimed that it delivered matzah "to 80 per cent of the Jewish
population of America and Canada."" Rabbinic Endorsements As important as its advertising was,
Manischewitz also understood that it needed powerful rabbinic endorsements. Without them it
could not hope to legitimate its machine-made square matzah, much less win over customers used
to eating handmade, round matzah on Passover.

Vituperative controversies over machine-made matzah, such as those that rocked Europe in the
nineteenth century and divided Jerusalem in 1908-09, were to be avoided at all costs-" The
company began with two great advantages peculiar to America. First, the majority of East
European immigrants came to the United States from areas (such as Lithuania) where machine-
made matzah had already won rabbinic sanction, and (the immigrants tended in any case to favor
accommodations to modernity, if not they would never have ventured to the New World in the
first place. Hasidim comprised the strongest elements opposed to machine-made matzah, both in
Europe and in Palestine, but in America their numbers prior to World War II were comparatively
small, and their leadership pitifully weak. American soil was described by one writer in 1918 as
being "rather unfavorable for the seed of the Hasidic cult;' and America's four Hasidic Rebbes at
that time had almost no Hasidic followers. Even had Hasidim decided to wage war against

35
machine-made matzah in America, they would not have posed much of a threat 28 Second, even
several rabbis opposed to machine-made matzah in Europe wrote early in the twentieth century to
support its production in the United States.

They understood that in the absence of machine-made matzah, the fast-growing American Jewish
community might not have had sufficient matzah for its requirements, and they argued that in
America, unlike in Eastern Europe, there was no tradition of handmade matzah that needed to be
upheld. Thus, even in matters of Jewish law there was a sense at that time that "America is
different."" Nevertheless, Manischewitz spared no effort to ensure that rabbis endorsed its matzah
as appropriate even for the most religiously punctilious. As early as 1903, it announced that its
bakery was open to all rabbis "seeking truth and righteousness," and through the years many
apparently took the firm up on the offer.30 For its fiftieth anniversary, in 1938, the company
published a list of 124 "leading figures of the generation; most of them renowned rabbis (some by
then deceased), who, it said, had visited the bakery and attested to its high level of kashrut.

The list was headed by Rabbi Abraham I. Kook, chief rabbi of Eretz lsrael, and it included Rabbi
Meir Shapiro of Lublin, Rabbi Meier Hildesheimer of Berlin, and thirty-two other European
rabbis, largely from Poland and Lithuania, along with nine rabbis from the land of Israel, the chief
rabbi of Cairo, the leaders of the Agudath haRabbanim in the United States, and dozens of other
American rabbis from cities across the land."

A pamphlet entitled Kashrut at Manischewitz (1955) offered testimonials from some of these
luminaries. According to its information, Rabbi Shapiro, the founder of Yeshivath Hakhmei Lublin
and of the Daf Yomi, "ate only Manischewitz Matzos throughout the year;· since he "was never
sure of the strict kashruth of bread:'" Most rabbis did not go that far, but especially in the United
States the leading rabbis did agree to link their names to Manischewitz, thereby endowing its
matzah with special prestige. At an annual ceremony in the weeks prior to Passover, rabbis
gathered to tour the Manischewitz plant, to witness the baking of machine made shmurah matzoh
prepared especially for the most fervent of Jews, and to enjoy a scrumptious banquet, complete
with learned lectures from leaders of the Agudath ha-Rabbanim.

The setting, along with the prestigious rabbinical names associated with it, generated substantial
publicity in Orthodox circles, buttressing Manischewitz's claim to be the most kosher matzah of
them all.33 Ties to Zion In its fiftieth anniversary publication, published in HaPardes,
Manischewitz paid special attention to the ties that it had forged with the Land of Israel. Letters in
Hebrew from Jerusalem's Chief Rabbi, Zvi Pesach Frank, and the head of Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav
Jacob M. Charlap, appeared on facing pages near the front of the booklet, second in prominence
only to the letter from the American Agudath ha-Rabbanim.

Manischewitz regularly mentioned that Rabbi Hochstein had trained and lived in Jerusalem. It
knew that scrupulous Jews in Europe would trust a Jerusalem mashgiach over an American one.
Indeed, when Rabbi Meir Dan Plotzki of Ostrova, on a visit to America, pronounced Manischewitz
matzah to be thoroughly reliable ("there is none more faithful to be found"), he -13- Jonathan D.
Sarna revealingly singled out for praise "the constant supervision of one of the sages of Jerusalem"
- Rabbi Hochstein." In short, a complex, reciprocal, and mutually beneficial relationship developed

36
between Manischewitz and the rabbis of the Holy Land: each provided the other with what they
needed. Manischewitz provided material support to Jerusalem charities, and the Manischewitz
yeshiva provided a position for Rabbi Hochstein and treated Jerusalem's rabbis with special respect
and status, implying without ever saying so that they were the central rabbinic figures in the Jewish
world. In return, the rabbis provided them with public recognition, the kinds of recommendations
that they needed to expand abroad, and rabbinic approbation for their machine-made matzah. For
years, the firm advertised that Rav Kook and later "the Chief Rabbinate of Israel" recognized that
it offered "the greatest possible assurance of kashruth."

It also became the only matzah in the world to receive certification from the Agudath ha-Rabbanim
during the interwar years. Its "association with the Yeshiva in Palestine; · it admitted, "was of
some aid in obtaining th[is] annual 'hechsher'." As a result of all of this, Manischewitz did for some
time gain a reputation in Europe as being the most kosher matzah of all. My own maternal
grandmother in London, scion of a distinguished Hasidic line, preferred Manischewitz matzah for
this very reason and selected it over local English brands. This is particularly remarkable when
one remembers America's longstanding reputation among Orthodox Jews as being lax in matters
of religion, a treifene medinah 41

The square matzah or the round matzah: What shall you eat?
Rabi Berel Wein writes:13

No holiday has as much halachic literature published concerning it as Passover. And the questions
under discussion reflect Jewish life throughout the centuries and in all of the countries and
circumstances of the long Jewish exile.

In the middle 1850's, as the Industrial Revolution gained momentum in Central and Eastern
Europe, an ingenious inventor in the Austro-Hungarian Empire created a machine to bake matzot.
Until that time, matzot were always baked by hand. They were usually round in form and no two
matzot were exactly the same in size, color and even consistency.

Many times, the matzot were baked by each family individually, though by the early part of the
18th century there were many commercial matzah bakeries throughout the Jewish world. The
matzah baking in those bakeries was done by hand and almost all of the workers were women.
Most of the women were widows who were able to live (survive is a better word) the rest of the
year on the money they earned in the months of matzah baking.

The work was physically very demanding and tension laden, since the matzah had to be completely
baked within 18 minutes of the time that water touched the flour at the beginning of the kneading
process. The rabbinic literature of the ages is replete with warnings to owners of matzah bakeries
not to exploit or verbally abuse the women workers especially those who were widows.

13
https://www.aish.com/h/pes/l/48965626.html

37
The invention of the matzah-baking machine raised a furor in the rabbinic world. Great rabbis
permitted the use of the matzah-baking machine and in fact preferred its products to the hand-
baked matzot. The machine did not get tired at 4 in the afternoon, its products were uniform and
well-baked, and the machine suffered naught from any remarks addressed to it. It also allowed for
lower prices for matzah, and produced far greater amounts of matzah to be distributed for the
Passover holiday. However, there was determined rabbinic opposition to the new matzah-baking
machine.

The main objections to the matzah-baking machine were two. One was the social and economic
dislocation that new technology always creates to individuals trapped in the old way of doing
things. The rabbis who opposed the matzah baking machine came to the defense of the poor
women, especially the widows, who were rendered redundant by the use of the new machine. Such
social concerns are an integral part of all rabbinic literature throughout the ages, no matter what
the actual issue involved.

The second objection dealt with the fact that small bits of dough could remain in the machine for
longer than 18 minutes, and thus became chametz -- and could potentially find its way into the
matzah itself being baked in the machine.

Most of the Chassidic communities in Eastern Europe refused to use the machine-made matzot on
Passover. However, machine matzot gained popularity amongst the rest of the Jewish society,
especially in the United States and Israel.

Great technological improvements in matzah-baking machines have occurred over the century and
a half since its introduction, so that none of the objections to the original matzah machines are
really valid today.

Nevertheless, there are yet large numbers of Jewish families that use hand-baked matzot today,
especially for the Seder itself. It is obvious that our ancestors did not use machine-baked matzah
when they left Egypt, and thus the tradition of eating hand-baked matzot has its place today, even
in our technologically advanced world, as a symbolic reminder of the Exodus from Egyptian
bondage.

38
 matzah-machine
The Matzah-Baking Machine
A 19th-century controversy

PHILIP GOODMAN writes:14

In about 1857, the first matzah–baking machine was invented in Austria, beginning a heated
controversy that raged for half a century.15 Dr. Solomon B. Freehof has given us a full account of
this dispute, which he calls "one of the most acrimonious discussions in the history of the responsa
literature." However, this should not be surprising as this was, indeed, a radical innovation for the
fulfillment of a duty whose execution had long ago been elaborately defined to the minutest detail.

The newly invented machine kneaded the dough and rolled it through two metal rollers from which
it came out thin, perforated, and round. It was then placed in an oven. As the corners of the dough,
cut to make the matzot round, were re-used, it was feared that the time elapsing until these pieces
of dough were used again might allow them to become leavened. A later machine was developed
that produced square matzot so that there would be no leftovers. Other subsequent improvements
in the machinery speeded up the entire process of production, leading to a general acceptance of
the modern method. Meanwhile, many distinguished rabbis raised their voices in protest against
the new machine, while others, equally respected, permitted its use.

14
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-matzah-baking-machine/
15
A Passover Anthology (Jewish Publication Society).

39
Solomon Kluger of Brody, in a letter to Rabbi Hayyim Nathan and Rabbi Leibush Horowitz of
Cracow, Galicia, where the machine was already in use, prohibited the eating of the machine-made
matzot, especially for the matzot mitzvah [the matzah eaten to fulfill the commandment at the
seder]. This letter and similar pronouncements by other rabbis were published under the
title Moda’ ah le-Bet Yisrael16 In rebuttal, Rabbi Joseph Saul Nathanson published the
pamphlet Bittul Moda’ah ("Annulment of the Announcement," Lemberg, 1859).

One of Kluger’s most telling arguments was that the opportunity given to the poor to earn money
for their Passover needs by working in matzah bakeries would be denied to them, as the use of
machinery required fewer manual workers. He and his adherents also argued that matzah
shemurah17 particularly, must be made with the intention of fulfilling the precept that requires the
understanding of a mature adult. They also claimed that there was a suspicion that the pieces of
dough left in the wheels of the machine, which were difficult to clean, would become leavened.

In the forefront of the rabbis who permitted the use of machinery was Joseph Saul Nathanson of
Lemberg. They refuted the arguments of the opposition seriatim. If concern need be expressed
about the displacement of the hand-bakers, the same solicitude should be shown to scribes whose
replacement by the printing press had been universally accepted. They also held that these matzot
are baked with the intention to comply with the law, as it is necessary for an adult to start the
machine.

They had no fear that the dough would be left in the machines as they are cleaned well and often.
Furthermore, they contended that the machine speeds the process and is more efficient than the
men and women who worked in the bakery day and night. The views of Nathanson and those who
sided with him have been accepted by most Jews.

Don’t Pass Over the Significance of the Shapes of Matzah

Mel Alexenberg writes:18

16
("Announcement to the House of Israel," Breslau, 1859).
17
["watched" matzah that is prepared in less than 18 minutes to be certain that no leavening has taken place],
18
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dont-pass-over-the-significance-of-the-shapes-of-matzah/

40
My wife Miriam and I learned about the Passover as the Holiday of Freedom by participating in
creating a Jewish community for the holiday on the Greek island of Crete.19

I photographed hand-made round matzah, machine-made rectangular matzah, and the raising of
the Torah scroll there. These matzah shapes in relation to the spiral challah eaten when Passover
ends give us clues to understanding the structure of Jewish consciousness.

For Passover, 300 Jews flew into Crete from three continents to create a Jewish community in a
holiday village overlooking Daios Cove. The entire village was rendered kosher for Passover.
Circular hand-made matzah and rectangular machine-made matzah were served at meals.

Round matzah symbolizes idolatry. Since words in the Torah scroll are written without vowels,
calf (EGeL) can also be read as circle (EGuL).

The idolatrous transgression of the Israelites was their worship of Ra, the sun God represented in
Egyptian art as a golden circle.

19
In 1944, the Nazis herded the Jews of this Greek island into a ship that was torpedoed. All 300 Cretan Jews drowned enroot to

Auschwitz.

41
Rectangular matzah symbolizes slavery. The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites in the malben,
meaning both brickyard and rectangle.
Mitzrayim, the biblical name of Egypt, means narrowness. The exodus into the wide expanses of
the Sinai desert expanded consciousness.

Jews recite these words from Psalm 118 in their prayers: “From narrow straits I called out to
God. God answered me with expansiveness.”
As we break matzah to eat them, we break out of the box and circle, both closed forms, breaking
away from narrowness of thought.

Jewish consciousness is shaped by spiral forms, from Torah scroll to tzitzit fringes to ram’s
horn shofar to spiral challah bread.

The spiral form is the shape of DNA molecules in our cells and in cells of all plants and animals.
It is the growth pattern of life, of palm fronds and nautilus shells.

42
43