ת"ר יכול יוצא אדם ידי חובתו במעשר שני בירושלים ת"ל (דברים טז, ג) לחם עוני מה שנאכל באנינות יצא זה שאינו נאכל באנינות אלא בשמחה דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי
The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with matza of second tithe in Jerusalem. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3), oni with the letter ayin, i.e., poor man’s bread. As this is similar to the phrase: Bread of acute mourning [leḥem oni], oni with an alef, it can be inferred that this mitzva must be fulfilled with matza that can be eaten during a period of acute mourning, on the day one’s close relative has died. This excludes this second tithe, which cannot be eaten during a period of acute mourning but only in a state of joy, as the Torah states: “I have not eaten from it in my acute mourning” (Deuteronomy 26:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
מי שנאכל באנינות - שמותר לאוכלו כשהוא אונן דרוש ביה לחם אוני ומעשר שני אינו נאכל באנינות דכתיב (דברים כו) לא אכלתי באוני ממנו:
ר' עקיבא אומר מצות מצות ריבה אם כן מה ת"ל לחם עוני פרט לעיסה שנילושה ביין ושמן ודבש
Rabbi Akiva says: The repetition of matzot matzot serves to amplify, and teaches that all types of matza may be eaten on Passover. The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states leḥem oni, poor man’s bread? The baraita answers: This phrase excludes dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, which is not classified as poor man’s bread and therefore cannot be used for this mitzva.
מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא מי כתיב לחם עוני עני כתיב
The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara explains: Is it written in the consonantal text leḥem oni with a vav? That would allude to the comparison of matza to food eaten by an onen, an acute mourner, as onen is also spelled with a vav. Actually, it is written leḥem oni without a vav, meaning poor man’s bread.
מי כתיב עוני - בוי"ו דתשמע מיניה אוני:
ור' יוסי הגלילי מי קרינן עני עוני קרינן ור' עקיבא האי דקרינן ביה עוני כדשמואל דאמר שמואל לחם עוני לחם שעונין עליו דברים הרבה
And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could respond: Do we vocalize the word as ani, as would be appropriate for a phrase meaning a poor man’s bread? In fact, we vocalize it oni, which means oppression, affliction, or mourning. And Rabbi Akiva could retort: The fact that we vocalize the word as oni is in accordance with a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: The expression leḥem oni means bread over which many matters are recited [onin], an allusion to the Passover Seder, at which one recites the Haggadah and eats matza.
שעונין עליו דברים - שגומרים עליו את ההלל ואומרים עליו הגדה:
תנו רבנן לחם עוני פרט לחלוט ולאשישה יכול לא יצא אדם ידי חובתו אלא בפת הדראה ת"ל מצות מצות ריבה ואפילו כמצות של שלמה א"כ מה ת"ל לחם עוני פרט לחלוט ולאשישה
The Sages taught that the phrase poor man’s bread [leḥem oni] excludes matza that was boiled [ḥalut] in hot water after it was baked, which is considered to be a relative delicacy; and this expression also excludes matza that was baked as a large cake [ashisha]. I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza only with coarse [hadra’a] bread; therefore, the verse states: “Matzot,” “matzot,” which serves to amplify and include matza prepared with fine-grade flour. And in fact, one could fulfill his obligation even with matzot like those of King Solomon, which were prepared from the finest sifted flour. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Poor man’s bread”? This phrase comes to exclude boiled matza and large cakes, but it does not exclude matza prepared from refined flour.
חלוט - אישקלדי"ר וחשיבות הוא:
Chashuv cooking method
אשישה - גלוסקה גדולה:
Large bread
הדראה - שניטל כל הדרה דהיינו פת קיבר:
All of it's beauty is taken away. Like dry bread
של שלמה - שהיה מעונג כלומר סלת נקייה:
pleasureful white bread of the finest flour
תנו רבנן יכול יוצא אדם ידי חובתו בבכורים תלמוד לומר (שמות יב, כ) בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות מצה הנאכלת בכל מושבותיכם יצאו בכורים שאין נאכלין בכל מושבותיכם אלא בירושלים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי
The Sages taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one can fulfill his obligation by eating matza prepared from the wheat of first fruits; therefore, the verse states: “In all of your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). This verse indicates that one fulfills his obligation only with matza that may be eaten “in all of your habitations.” This expression excludes first fruits, which may not be eaten in all of your habitations, but only in Jerusalem. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
רבי עקיבא אומר מצה ומרור מה מרור שאינו בכורים אף מצה שאינה בכורים אי מה מרור שאין במינו בכורים אף מצה שאין במינה בכורים
Rabbi Akiva says: That verse is not the source for this halakha; rather, the fact that one cannot fulfill his obligation with matza of first fruits is derived from the juxtaposition of matza and bitter herbs: Just as bitter herbs are not first fruits, as they are not included in the seven species to which the mitzva of first fruits applies, so too matza may not be from first fruits. If you will claim: Just as bitter herbs are from a species that are not brought as first fruits, so too matza must be prepared from a species that are not brought as first fruits, e.g., spelt,
אוציא חיטין ושעורין שיש במינן ביכורים ת"ל מצות מצות ריבה אי מצות מצות ריבה אפילו ביכורים נמי הדר ביה רע"ק
I would then think this comparison excludes wheat and barley, which are from a species that are brought as first fruits and should therefore not be used for the mitzva of matza. Therefore, the verse states: “Matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) to amplify and teach that any matza is acceptable for this mitzva. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of matzot matzot comes to amplify this halakha that any matza is fit for Passover use, it should also include matza prepared from first-fruit wheat. The Gemara answers: This is indeed true, and Rabbi Akiva retracted his statement. He too derives the halakha from the verse: “In all of your habitations.”
אי מצות מצות ריבה אפי' ביכורים נמי - תימה לר"י דנימא אהני ריבוי לרבות יש במינו ביכורים ואהני מיעוט למעט ביכורי' ויש לומר דסברא הוא אי מרבינן הא מרבינן נמי הא:
דתניא יכול יצא אדם ידי חובתו בביכורים ת"ל (שמות יב, כ) בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות מצה הנאכלת בכל מושבות יצאו ביכורים שאינן נאכלין בכל מושבות אלא בירושלים יכול שאני מוציא אף מעשר שני תלמוד לומר מצות מצות ריבה
As it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation with matza from first fruit; therefore the verse states: “In all of your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). The verse indicates that one can fulfill his obligation with matza that may be eaten in all habitations. It excludes first fruits, which may not be eaten in all habitations, but only in Jerusalem. I might have thought that I should also exclude second-tithe produce as fit for matza; therefore the verse states: “Matzot,” “matzot.” As stated above, this repetition serves to amplify, and it includes second tithe in the materials that may be used in the preparation of matza.
ומה ראית לרבות מעשר שני ולהוציא ביכורים מרבה אני מעשר שני שיש לו היתר בכל מושבות כדר' (אליעזר) ומוציא אני ביכורים שאין להן היתר בכל מושבות
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include second-tithe produce due to the words matzot matzot but to exclude first fruits? The Gemara explains: I include the second tithe, which has a means by which it may be permitted to be eaten in all habitations, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as will be explained. And I exclude first fruits, which do not have, under any circumstances, a manner by which it is permitted to eat them in all habitations.
והכהנים בחלה ובתרומה וכו': פשיטא מהו דתימא מצה שוה לכל אדם בעינן קמ"ל מצות מצות ריבה:
And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of ḥalla and with teruma. The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat ḥalla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words “matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.