Q&A: The Law of "Guarded" Machine-Made Matzah — Clarifying the Rogatchover's Words
The Law of "Guarded" Machine-Made Matzah — Clarifying the Rogatchover's Words
Question
Regarding guarding against leavening, it is written in the Behag (chapter “Kol Sha'ah”) that a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are disqualified, and from here (together with the views that the guarding of minors is effective for sanctifying the water of purification and for handing over a flame) the Tzafnat Pa'aneach (Choshen Mishpat 5:9) inferred that there is a positive requirement of guarding here (beyond the need merely to rule out leavening). The next step of the Gaon is to rule (in a responsum) that one does not fulfill his obligation with machine-made matzah, because from the above it is proven that “the guarding of matzah requires intention and action, not merely because of the result produced.” If I understand correctly, there is an implicit assumption here: that this obligation of guarding (beyond the need merely to rule out leavening) is an obligation of action, and therefore supervision of the machine’s operation is not enough (and likewise, according to this, it would not help for an adult to stand over a deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor). But that assumption is not explained at all. Is there some conceptual reason here—that positive requirements must necessarily have the character of an action?
Answer
With regard to handing over a flame, that is not so simple. See the Talmudic passage about the tongs of a deaf-mute.
As for your question, I do not see any necessity for this. The act of guarding can be done by supervising the machine. How is that different from supervising the matzah by hand? After all, the actual act of baking and preparing it is not the guarding, but the preparation of the matzah. The guarding there too is done through passive supervision. And in general, we find commands not to do something that are nevertheless positive commandments, such as guarding the Sabbath, fasting on Yom Kippur, and so on.