Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

As DoubleAA has reminded me, the Mishna in Pesachim 2:5 forbids the usage of matzah that is tevel or heqdesh on the evening of Pesach. In his commentary on Nedarim 2:2, however, the Bartenura appears to suggest that it is merely a mitzvah that comes from an 'aveirah. As none of the super-commentaries appear to have a problem with this, how best might one understand that passage in the Bartenura?

For context, the mishna there says that one may make a vow that forbids him from utilising his sukkah, waving the four species and laying tefillin, but may not make an oath that prevents him from doing so (אמר: קונם סוכה שאני עושה, לולב שאני נוטל, תפלין שאני מניח - בנדרים אסור, בשבועות מותר שאין משבעין לעבור על המצות). Obviously, saying that one may vow to abstain from such things doesn't mean that one is necessarily permitted to do so, but that the vow stands.

In his commentary on the Mishna, Rambam implies that one should nevertheless still sit in the sukkah, wave the four species and lay tefillin, but that this would then obligate him to bring a qorban. Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro explains similarly, and notes that it would be accounted a mitzvah that comes from an 'aveirah. To my confusion, the Bartinura then likens it to somebody who only has matzah of tevel or heqdesh on the evening of Pesach.

Seeing as the mishna in Pesachim forbids one from utilising such matzah at all, why would the Bartenura suggest that it is similar to somebody who makes a vow that precludes him from using the sukkah, and who then uses it and brings a qorban?

share|improve this question
Mishna Pesachim 2:5 so your Bartinura is even more odd. – Double AA Apr 9 '13 at 3:55
Thank you! That then makes this a question on the Bartenura, and not on the halakha... I don't know if I can edit that into it - it's a whole other question. Should I delete it, or should I rephrase it and let you just post this as an answer? – Shimon bM Apr 9 '13 at 3:59
Whatever you like. Perhaps change this into just asking about tevel/hekdesh matza without all the background, and then ask a new question referencing this as a question on the Bartinura? Just an idea – Double AA Apr 9 '13 at 4:03
Thanks, @DoubleAA; I decided to simply rephrase the question in accordance with the new information. Feel free to delete these comments if you think that would be appropriate. – Shimon bM Apr 9 '13 at 4:11
See P'sachim 35b, which explains that the tevel referred to in the mishna is tevel mid'rabbanan (e.g. from an atzitz she'eino nakuv), from which one is yotzei b'di'avad (see Rashi 35b, s.v. t'vul mid'rabbanan). The hekdesh referred to is hekdesh that was redeemed al gabei karaka, which I guess perhaps R' Ovadia miBartenura holds is not fully hekdesh. Alternatively, maybe he used the expression "shel tevel oh shel hekdesh" but only meant referring to "shel tevel". – Fred Apr 9 '13 at 4:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.