📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Lecture — Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 3 (and Transition to Chapter 4)
—
General Structure of the Chapters
In Chapter 3 we learned that there is a mitzvah of tashbitu, and the Sages said that one must fulfill it through bitul (nullification), and also through bedikah (search) and biur (destruction). Chapter 2 dealt with the order of the bedikah. Now we will learn the laws of biur — what one does after the bedikah.
—
Law 1 — What One Does After the Bedikah: Putting Away the Chametz Until the Time of Biur
The Rambam’s Words
After the bedikah, one does not need to burn the chametz immediately. One can leave it until tomorrow, until the end of the fifth hour.
Explanation
One puts away the chametz after the bedikah, and destroys it only on the fourteenth day. It is a practical caution not to leave over too much, but it is not a formal obligation to burn it at night.
Insights and Explanations
1. Why doesn’t one need to burn it at night? At night the chametz is still permitted — one may still eat chametz the entire day. The Sages only said one should search at night because it is a better time for bedikah (candlelight is better at night), but they did not obligate destroying it then. The obligation of biur only comes at the sixth hour from the Torah.
2. The Raavad disagrees — he learns that there is a concept to burn it at that time (at night). The reason of the Raavad was not clearly explained.
3. The “caution” is practical, not an obligation — because the Sages were lenient (one does not need to burn immediately), one must be careful that it should not get lost. But if something happens, one has still searched — it is a beginning, not nothing.
—
Erev Pesach That Falls on Shabbat — Biur on Erev Shabbat
The Rambam’s Words
When erev Pesach is Shabbat, one performs the biur on erev Shabbat. What one wants to eat on Shabbat, one leaves over. If it remains, one nullifies it, and one sells it until after the first Yom Tov.
Explanation
Because one cannot destroy on Shabbat, one performs the biur earlier — on erev Shabbat. What one wants to eat on Shabbat, one leaves over, and the rest one nullifies.
Insights and Explanations
1. Why can’t one destroy on Shabbat? Several concerns are mentioned:
– Muktzeh — once it becomes the time of prohibition, the chametz becomes muktzeh.
– Hotza’ah — one may not carry.
– Techinah (similar to grinding) — the Aruch HaShulchan brings this, Rabbeinu Menachem also says so.
2. Main answer — one doesn’t need to at all: The fundamental explanation is simple: why does one need to destroy? Only rabbinically — because from the Torah, bitul is enough. If one nullifies on Shabbat, from the Torah there is no problem. And the Rabbis, who obligated biur, do not require that one do it on Shabbat — they say one should destroy it after Yom Tov, and that is enough.
3. Terumah on Shabbat — when it is still before the time of prohibition, one may not make terumah impure (because it is still permitted). One does not need to mix it up, but one must eat it.
—
Bedikah After the Time — Even on Yom Tov and After Yom Tov
The Rambam’s Words
If one forgot to search, one must still search — even on Yom Tov, and even after Yom Tov, in order to destroy the chametz, because the Sages made a penalty/fine (chametz she’avar alav haPesach).
Explanation
The obligation of bedikah does not fall away if one missed the time. One must still search — even during Yom Tov, and even after Pesach — in order to destroy the chametz, because chametz she’avar alav haPesach is forbidden in benefit.
Insights and Explanations
No specific insights were elaborated on this point, except that it is connected to the blessing (see further).
—
Blessing on Bedikat Chametz
The Rambam’s Words
One makes a blessing on the bedikah.
Explanation
Before the bedikah one makes a blessing.
Insights and Explanations
1. On what is the blessing? Apparently on the Torah obligation of tashbitu/biur, which the Sages say one should fulfill through bedikah. It is not entirely clear, but this is how one learns.
2. Blessing only at the first bedikah — the blessing is only made at the main bedikah (the night of the fourteenth). On the bedikah that one does later (after Yom Tov, for the penalty of chametz she’avar alav haPesach) one does not make a blessing — because on a penalty/fine one cannot make a blessing. This is an interesting insight.
—
Bitul After the Bedikah
The Rambam’s Words
After the bedikah one must nullify — “kol chamira de’ika birshuti” — on the chametz that one did not see.
Explanation
After the bedikah one says bitul on the chametz that one did not find.
Insights and Explanations
1. Why does one need bitul if one already searched? The entire concept of bedikah came because one should not rely on bitul. Therefore the Sages say that one must still nullify — this is another stringency of the Sages, on the chametz that one did not find.
2. From the Torah — what one doesn’t see doesn’t clearly exist: The principle is that from the Torah, chametz that one doesn’t know about is not a clear reality. Rabbinically however one must destroy what one searches for, and nullify what one did not find.
3. Bitul only works before the time of prohibition: After six hours one can no longer nullify, therefore one must nullify immediately (after the bedikah, the night of the fourteenth).
—
Returning for Chametz — Erev Pesach (During the Time of Biur)
The Rambam’s Words
If someone left and did not search/destroy: for his own needs — must return. For a mitzvah — if he can, he should return; if not, not. To save lives — does not need to return, should only nullify.
Explanation
There are three levels: for one’s own purposes — must return; for a mitzvah — if possible; for saving lives — not at all, only nullify.
Insights and Explanations
1. Saving lives — meaning: “Pikuach nefesh” does not mean that he himself is in danger, but he is going to help others — “lifko’ach al hanefashot.” Therefore he does not need to return even if he technically can.
2. Why for saving lives does he not need to try at all? It is not only because he is in the middle — it could be that even after he has finished, since his departure was for such an important thing, he was exempted from the mitzvah. The point is discussed but remains open.
3. Shiur kebeitzah: The obligation to return is only when there is a kebeitzah of chametz. If less, there is no obligation. The reason why specifically this measure was not clearly explained.
—
Returning for Chametz — During Pesach Itself (Yoshev Lifnei Rabo)
The Rambam’s Words
If someone is sitting before his teacher (learning by his rabbi) and remembers that he has chametz at home: if it is still before the time of prohibition — he nullifies. If it is already chametz (after the time of prohibition) — he must go home to destroy it, but he does not need to run immediately; when he goes home, he destroys it.
Explanation
By yoshev lifnei rabo there is a leniency — he does not need to run away immediately, but when he goes home, he destroys it.
Insights and Explanations
1. “Yoshev lifnei rabo” — a special status: It is interesting that the Rambam brings specifically the case of yoshev lifnei rabo. Parallel: on Yom Kippur they also gave extra leniencies for one who goes to his rabbi (techum).
2. This is during Pesach itself, not erev Pesach — the case of “yoshev lifnei rabo” speaks of during Pesach itself, not erev Pesach.
—
Law 3 — How Does One Perform Biur?
The Rambam’s Words
“He burns the chametz, or crumbles and scatters to the wind, or throws to the sea… and if it was hard chametz that he cannot crumble, he burns it or crumbles it and throws it to the sea… and if he buried it — it must be more than three tefachim and he nullifies it in his heart.”
Explanation
The Rambam brings different ways of destroying chametz: burning, crumbling and throwing to the wind, or throwing to the sea. Burial is also a possibility but with conditions.
Insights and Explanations
1. Are these specifically three ways, or examples? One says that it is not specifically only these three — they are examples of the principle that one must make the chametz non-existent. The second asks: if so, why are specifically three listed? Can’t one bury or throw away? It is answered that “garbage truck” did not exist in those times.
2. “Garbage truck” — a modern question without a source: In the Rambam it does not say any method of “throwing out in garbage.” The methods are: burning, crumbling to the wind, throwing to the sea. Perhaps one can say that garbage truck is a form of “throwing to the wind” — but it is not clear, because the Rambam requires “crumbling” first. Today’s rabbis say it is good, but it has no explicit source in the Rambam.
3. Meaning of “biur” — destroying, not just removing: An important insight: “biur chametz” does not mean simply removing chametz from your domain, but destroying the chametz — actually destroying it. This is proven from the fact that the Rambam requires crumbling, burning, or throwing to the sea — all methods where the chametz is annihilated.
4. Burial — a post-facto method: Burial seems like a post-facto option — “who goes to bury chametz?” — and the Rambam sets conditions: more than three tefachim (so a dog won’t catch it), and one must also nullify in one’s heart. This shows that burial alone is not enough as biur.
5. Dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages — specifically burning: Rabbi Yehudah holds “there is no biur chametz except burning” — one must specifically burn. The Rambam rules like the Sages that one can also use other ways. The Ashkenazic Rishonim however thought one should rule like Rabbi Yehudah.
6. Hagahot Maimoniyot — Riva’s position: The Hagahot Maimoniyot brings in the name of Riva (and Rashi) that one may throw chametz in a ownerless place where dogs eat it. But this is only before its time of prohibition — before the time of chametz prohibition, when it is still permitted in benefit. After its time of prohibition one must actually destroy it.
7. Shulchan Aruch and Rema: The Mechaber brings the language of the Rambam. The Rema says: “And the custom is to burn, and it is good to burn it during the day, similar to notar which is burned during the day.” This is the Rema’s own innovation — he compares biur chametz to notar which is burned during the day. This stands in contrast to the Rambam who permits burning at night (as discussed above regarding the dispute of Rambam and Raavad).
8. Maharil’s custom — burning the bedikah utensil: The Maharil brings: if one did not find any chametz during the bedikah, one should burn the utensil (spoon, feather) that was used for bedikah — so one should not forget the obligation of biur. This is the source for the custom of burning the spoon with the pieces of bread.
[Digression: a humorous comment in the Chassidic style — “one who searches for another’s chametz must also be burned” — one must burn the evil eye, the burner, etc. — “and he still sings Chad Gadya.”]
9. Criticism of today’s practice: Today’s practice is “funny” — one has huge cases of chametz that one throws in the garbage, and then one takes a small pathetic roll and burns it. Apparently according to the Rambam one must destroy all chametz (but not specifically through burning — “one can fulfill it in a poor way however”).
10. Crumbling on the water — sea vs. lake: It is discussed whether a lake (fresh water) is the same as a sea (salt water). The Gemara brings a language “dissolves” — the sea dissolves the chametz, which could be specifically because of salt water. But the Rambam writes simply “sea” — it remains a doubt whether specifically sea or also other waters.
—
Law 3 (Continued) — Coals from Chametz Burned During Its Time of Prohibition
The Rambam’s Words
Chametz in its time… he burns it and its coals are forbidden in benefit.
Explanation
When one burns chametz during its time of prohibition, the coals are forbidden in benefit.
Insights and Explanations
1. Chametz on Pesach is among the burned items: The principle of “all that are burned — their ashes are permitted, all that are buried — their ashes are forbidden” is discussed. Because the Rambam says that the ash of burned chametz is permitted, it comes out that chametz on Pesach is among the burned items. This is proven from Rambam Chapter 7 of the Laws of Shabbat.
2. Rabbeinu Yonah’s innovation — coal from chametz: Rabbeinu Yonah says: “If he burned it before its time — it is permitted in benefit even after its time.” Further Rabbeinu Yonah says that the coal from chametz is not a way of eating at all, and one can even eat it — because it is no longer chametz.
3. The question of benefit during burning: When one burns chametz during its time of prohibition, one has benefit from the chametz itself during the burning — the chametz serves as “wood” (firewood). This is a form of “benefiting from things forbidden in benefit.” The answer is that the Rambam’s question is not about the act of burning itself, but about the status of the coals after the burning.
4. The Magen Avraham’s explanation — burned vs. buried: The Magen Avraham brings the principle: “Burned items — their ashes are permitted; buried items — their ashes are forbidden.” He learns that chametz after its time is a prohibition of benefit, and like “buried items” — therefore the coals/ashes are forbidden. But chametz before its time is not a prohibition of benefit, therefore when one burns it before the time, there is no more chametz — it is only ash, and the coals are permitted. The Rambam learns that chametz (in its time) is like “buried items” — therefore their ashes are forbidden.
5. A difficult question on the Magen Avraham: Ash/coals are not the original thing — what is the difference between before the time and after the time, if in both cases the chametz is already burned and gone? The Magen Avraham’s answer — that before the time “there is no chametz, it is ash” — is also true after the time!
6. An approach to understand the matter — coals as a “new creation”: After long discussion, an explanation is proposed: coals are a derivative (a “new creation”) from the chametz — a new form that the chametz has acquired. The status of the coals is determined according to the moment when they are “born”:
– If the chametz was permitted when it became coal (i.e., before the time of prohibition), the coal never became forbidden — because at the moment of its “birth” it was permitted, and it is “stable” in that status.
– But if the chametz was already forbidden during burning (i.e., after the time), the coal is automatically a derivative of prohibition — it inherits the forbidden status of its “source.”
This is like the concept of “nolad” — something that is “born” from a thing, takes on the status of its source. Even though it is not eating food, it is still a benefit from chametz when one uses its coals.
7. Bitul beshishim — on Pesach doesn’t help: The principle is mentioned that chametz that becomes nullified in a mixture before Pesach — on Pesach nullification in sixty doesn’t help (chametz on Pesach chozer vene’or). This relates to the question of “these are wood” — if the coal/ash is no longer chametz, why should it be forbidden?
8. Conclusion: The explanation is not completely satisfying, but it is accepted as an understanding of the Rambam’s position.
—
Transition to Chapter 4
After the discussion in Chapter 3 Law 3 (and the Magen Avraham), we move on to Chapter 4 of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah.
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of Destroying Chametz – Order of Destruction, Erev Pesach that Falls on Shabbat, and Returning for Chametz
General Overview: Order of the Chapters
Speaker 1: Okay, so let’s say this way, we learned in Chapter 3, what did we learn? We learned that there is a mitzvah of “tashbitu,” and therefore the Sages said with the Reish, with the Rabbis they said that one must also search and destroy, these two things. And we learned essentially the order of the search was in Chapter 2, and now we’re going to learn essentially the laws of destruction. This is more or less the order, as I understand it.
Law 1 – What One Does After the Search: Putting Away the Chametz Until the Time of Destruction
Speaker 1: And we learned that the search is not just to look, but one must remove it, one must burn it. But one doesn’t have to burn it immediately, one can leave it, so the Rambam learns, one doesn’t have to burn it immediately, one can leave it until tomorrow, until the end of the fifth hour that shows. And therefore not, if you want to destroy it you can, but one doesn’t have to.
And therefore this is essentially a practical issue that one must make sure not to leave over, it shouldn’t become a practical problem. This is a practical thing apparently, it’s not… but it’s presumably yes a halachic thing, he wants to say that one must pay attention.
Why Doesn’t One Need to Burn at Night? – Rambam vs. Ra’avad
Speaker 1: But he also says one concern already, it’s a practical thing, obviously, if there is… And I think he also explained that meaning that with the fear they might have gotten taken or something, one could have made an enactment that one should burn it at night. So obviously there’s a reason they burn it during the day, and it’s also simply practical that people should still be able to eat as long as they want.
According to how the Rambam learns, the Ra’avad learns differently. According to how the Rambam learns is… is… no, it’s simply the chametz is not obligated, why should you have to burn at night? You have a whole day to eat chametz. They told you specifically to search for chametz at night, because they have a reason that it’s more suitable better then, but they haven’t yet obligated to destroy. Obligated to destroy we’ll know with certainty from the Torah at the sixth hour.
And the Ra’avad learns yes that there is a concept to have to burn at that time, I didn’t understand why. But the Rambam learns that it’s simple that one is not obligated, and specifically because of this, meaning because they were lenient with you, so one must be careful, but it’s still a practical thing the carefulness, it’s not an obligation, it doesn’t mean you didn’t do anything, you still searched, it’s an beginning, it means it’s simply such a beginning.
Erev Pesach that Falls on Shabbat – Destruction on Erev Shabbat
Speaker 1: And therefore what is if it’s Shabbat, erev Shabbat, and one still leaves over until Shabbat, and Shabbat is still a problem, one can’t properly destroy, and therefore one must eat it basically on Shabbat. And he doesn’t say the option of why shouldn’t one be able to destroy or something like that on Shabbat. Not clear. He doesn’t speak from the commentators, why.
Speaker 2: Yes, one says one can put it in worms, things, but usually it looks like on Shabbat one must destroy on erev Shabbat, and what you may still eat on Shabbat, one leaves over.
Speaker 1: If it’s left over, he says explicitly, if it remains over, one simply leaves it over, and one buys on credit until after the first Yom Tov. It’s very interesting. As if, hey, should one find some way how to destroy on Shabbat? No, one doesn’t have to. That means, initially one shouldn’t leave over too much, but as if… because apparently, what would be the problem of doing it on Shabbat? For example, what should be the prohibition?
Discussion: Why Can’t One Destroy on Shabbat?
Speaker 2: There are concerns of carrying out, muktzeh. Yes, it’s completely muktzeh. Once it becomes the time of prohibition it’s muktzeh.
Speaker 1: He speaks about this, but I see… he doesn’t say. I saw one speaks about this. He says that there is with grinding, the Rabbeinu Manoach says yes. Not okay. It’s carrying out, or it’s grinding perhaps the problem. In short, there’s no way. Or grinding, no. I don’t know. Similar to grinding, the Aruch HaShulchan says. In short, let’s say this way, one doesn’t have to. One doesn’t have to.
Speaker 2: No, but it can also be, I would perhaps say that it’s muktzeh. Once one has nothing there at all, it’s no longer food. I don’t know.
Speaker 1: One doesn’t have to go back to prohibitions, one doesn’t have to create new prohibitions. One can say, let’s say the main thing, one doesn’t have to. In other words, why must one destroy? Only rabbinically, apparently, right? Because from the Torah it’s sufficient with nullification. If one simply nullifies on Shabbat, obviously. So therefore there’s no problem from the Torah. Only the Rabbis say that one must destroy. So the Rabbis say, if it’s Shabbat, the Rabbis don’t demand from you. They say you should destroy, but you should destroy after Yom Tov, it’s not a problem.
Terumah on Shabbat
Speaker 1: So this is apparently the thing I wanted to tell you, and it’s not relevant. Therefore, since it’s Shabbat, there’s another law that terumah one may not make impure, because then it’s not yet the time of prohibition, and therefore there’s a prohibition of making terumah impure. Very good. So one doesn’t have to make it impure. And still one must eat it.
Search After the Time – Even on Yom Tov and After Yom Tov
Speaker 1: After this there are laws that one has already forgotten, that one must still search even on Yom Tov, and even after Yom Tov in order to destroy the chametz, because the Sages made a punishment and a fine. This is all very good.
Further, the Sages are obligated to destroy the search. Although there is a law from the Torah initially, I mean one must do it on the eve of the night of the 14th, but it increases the obligation from the Rabbis that one shouldn’t rely on the nullification, and destroy and search. And this is the whole Pesach, and even after Pesach the Rabbis speak about the matter of chametz she’avar alav haPesach.
Blessing on Searching for Chametz
Speaker 1: It’s only spoken about the law of when one makes the blessing. The blessing one only made during the festival period, on the punishment and fine one can’t make a blessing. Yes, this is interesting, by the way, but okay.
Nullification After the Search
Speaker 1: And after this there is, one makes a blessing, very good. But he says how the nullification works. One must make the nullification which is before Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov itself one can’t… righteous one, let’s make clear.
We have until now learned the first law of the chapter tells us what one does after the search. What one does after the search is, one puts it away and one destroys. On the sixth day, if it’s Shabbat, it has details. If you still hold after the search, you didn’t do the search, you must still search and destroy. This is the first group of laws here. You can say like matters after searching for chametz, what one does.
Now, what other things does one do by searching for chametz? First of all, one must make a blessing, that’s the first thing. Apparently the blessing is on the Torah obligation of destruction, we spoke. It’s not clear, but on the tashbitu, which the Sages say that one should fulfill in this manner, so we learn. Okay.
After this, not only this, not only must one make a search with a blessing, one must add another thing: a nullification. The Sages said, although you searched, and although apparently the search comes to nullify the nullification, that means one shouldn’t rely on the nullification, but nevertheless the Sages say, one must still make nullification, on what? On the chametz that you didn’t see.
Hey, we learned truly only the Rabbis said that this is another stringency of the Sages. That means, hey, the Sages say yes, if at night you must nullify, you must see what you can. It looks like even a nullification. What one doesn’t see doesn’t clearly exist. So the Rabbis were accustomed to say, so from the Torah. Rabbinically one must yes destroy what one searches and nullify what one didn’t find, very good.
And we learn further laws of destruction, laws of nullification, that nullification only works when it’s not yet chametz. Therefore after six hours one can no longer nullify, therefore one must immediately nullify, and kol chamira d’ika birshuti is not consecrated, very good.
Returning for Chametz – Erev Pesach at the Time of Destruction
Speaker 1: After this we learned more laws from the matter of when one must return if one forgot to search for the chametz, didn’t search for the chametz, there are laws of when one sees the chametz, “bal yera’eh u’val yimatzei” chametz within his house. There are laws of erev Pesach first of all at the time of destruction, yes.
At the time of destruction the law is like this, that when it’s for what he went away, if he went away for the sake of a mitzvah there is a trying to return but he doesn’t have to. But if it’s a greater mitzvah which is saving a life, he doesn’t even have to try, he doesn’t have to trouble himself, unlike a matter of danger where one must yes put oneself in danger for a mitzvah, this is bad in danger for a mitzvah.
Discussion: Saving a Life – Meaning and Details
Speaker 2: No, no, what are you saying? Again, you’re confused.
Speaker 1: If he went for a mitzvah, then if he can he should return. If he went for saving a life, not he has saving a life, he went to help another, saving a life is not the meaning by the way, pikuach nefesh is the meaning lifkoa’ach al hanefashot, to go save other people. Then one doesn’t say if he can, he can, but there people will be burned, so he basically can’t, so there’s no if you can, you must nullify it in the heart only certainly.
Speaker 2: If it went for the can, no, it can be that one speaks even when he has already finished now, but since his going away was a…
Speaker 1: I mean that he must now save people is obvious. It can be the word is that since his departure was for such an important thing, so he became exempt from the mitzvah, he was no longer obligated, not that is the point, for what one says that he shouldn’t return, because he’s holding in the middle of running for saving a life, he doesn’t have to return even for a great thing. Very good, so one says, so it stands here specifically that one doesn’t have to, what stands here? Why must one add things that don’t stand? What does it look like? One can always say some excuse, and what says that one can quickly return and also extinguish the fire? No, don’t go back. Very good.
Speaker 2: But that’s the question. Very good, I understand it.
Speaker 1: And now, but I’m just making a summary. If he went for a mitzvah, he should try to return. If he can’t, then not. If he went for saving a life, he shouldn’t try to return. If he went for his own sake, he should return, there’s no way. Very good.
The Measure of a Ke’beitzah
Speaker 1: And now, but the law is only if there is a ke’beitzah. If there isn’t a ke’beitzah, there’s no obligation to return. So they learned. I didn’t understand clearly why is the measure, but in any case, so it stands.
Returning for Chametz – During Pesach Itself (Sitting Before His Teacher)
Speaker 1: Now, the same thing is during Pesach itself. If he went to a mitzvah, apparently, it’s very interesting, it stands “sitting before his teacher.” That means, perhaps here apparently also, if he went for his own sake, he must certainly go home. But unlike when he’s sitting before his teacher, he’s not obligated to go home.
So also it’s still very interesting, one can nullify. If it’s not yet chametz, he can nullify it. If it’s already chametz, he can nullify it, saying “why? Because it’s not in my possession.” So he must go home to destroy it, but he doesn’t have to run immediately. When he goes home, he destroys it. That’s all.
Discussion: Sitting Before His Teacher – Parallels and Clarifications
Speaker 1: Interesting, on Yom Kippur one also gave extra credit for one who goes to his teacher, he may be lenient with techumin. Yes, he goes to the teacher all the time.
Speaker 2: Ah, that’s not erev Pesach, that’s on Pesach itself.
Speaker 1: You said that we made a mistake yesterday, that one says that he learns erev Pesach. It can also… ah, earlier it stood… no, a festive meal. Festive meals one makes say on erev Pesach. He goes understand, a brit, I know what. Here stands a betrothal. I don’t know about a brit. Perhaps a brit also? Okay. Yes, it’s very important, because a betrothal can always be “lest another precede him,” and one must grab it. Very good. Okay, I don’t know, it doesn’t stand yet. It’s not a distinction.
Speaker 2: Normal people it was, I can do all nerdy. Erev Pesach. Erev Pesach, erev Pesach. Is the wedding. What’s not easy? What can make me the wedding on erev Pesach? I want it is today’s nervous people? If one does the match with thread and curtains, then one must do it until half an hour before, that’s it. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay, now.
How Does One Destroy?
Speaker 1: And after this, until here one learned when one is distant from before. How does one make destruction? How one makes the destruction there are three ways: burns, scatters to the wind, or throws to the sea. And throws to the sea has some condition that one doesn’t have to crumble it beforehand.
Discussion: Are These Specifically Three Ways?
Speaker 2: But simply it’s not specifically the three ways, they are three examples. Like oh, a thing, he gives you the idea.
Speaker 1: I don’t know, but you say so. Here it stands yes the three ways. Isn’t there another way do you have? I don’t understand the thing. May one not bury it and put it in the garbage truck?
Speaker 2: No, no, garbage truck wasn’t in those times, righteous one.
Law 3 (Continuation) — Methods of Destroying Chametz
The Rambam’s Words
“Burns the chametz, or crumbles and scatters to the wind, or throws to the sea… and if it was hard chametz that he cannot crumble, behold he burns it or crumbles it and throws it to the sea… and if he buried it — it needs to be more than three tefachim and he nullifies it in his heart”
Discussion: Garbage Truck — A Modern Question Without a Source
Speaker 1: Garbage truck doesn’t fulfill.
Speaker 2: I don’t know what you wanted to say. Today’s rabbis say yes, but it doesn’t stand here garbage truck. It stands one burns it, or one throws it in the wind. Perhaps the garbage truck is an aspect of scattering to the wind, I don’t know, but it must be crumbled. Or in the sea. It doesn’t stand garbage truck. I don’t know what kind of thing is this garbage truck. How was such a thing? Wasn’t.
Speaker 1: Did one for example bury, is one not fulfilled with this? Burying in those times?
Speaker 2: Chametz fell on it a collapse, that stands in this section. Burying stands here.
Speaker 1: What do you see so fallen?
Speaker 2: No, it looks like such a post-facto. It looks like burying is an option. Who goes to bury chametz? One must be crazy who has extra burial society to bury? One who has a field, it’s easier for him than to come to the sea, or he doesn’t want to be in the sea. I don’t know. What stands, stands. What doesn’t stand, doesn’t stand. I can’t help you.
Speaker 1: I think it’s examples. The Sages say…
Speaker 2: It’s not correct. It’s not true, it’s not true. It stands here exactly this, and there’s a whole dispute. There was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who says that one specifically needs burning.
Speaker 1: What are you saying? What looks with you?
Speaker 2: I can’t confuse the sugya in the Gemara not here. Anyway, the question is what is the meaning in “destroys all chametz.” If there is… and not only this, here it stands clear, not only this, righteous one. It is yes there where it stands burial. “Prohibition of benefit” there is a burial, that is specifically burning. And here it stands explicitly also, if it’s buried, first of all it must be more than three tefachim because a dog can grab it, and secondly, even then one must nullify in the heart.
Innovation: Meaning in “Destruction” — Destroying, Not Just Removing
Speaker 2: It means, what means not destroying? Only some destruction. It looks here that destruction means to eliminate chametz. Destruction doesn’t mean to remove the chametz from your possession. That perhaps simply fulfills, it’s not with burning chametz. I don’t know, can one declare ownerless.
Speaker 1: Why doesn’t it stand declaring ownerless?
Speaker 2: I don’t know. Here stands something else though. Hagahot Maimoniyot speaks about this, that one may throw it in an ownerless place and dogs should eat it and the like.
Speaker 1: Okay, that’s perhaps a different text version.
Speaker 2: But destruction that the Sages speak doesn’t mean… destruction that the Sages speak means to eliminate the chametz.
Discussion: Hagahot Maimoniyot and the Riva
Speaker 1: What is with… how do you say, about ownerless?
Speaker 2: No. Where do you see it? Hagahos Maimoniyos stands in the middle, Riva, Rashi Beitzah 25a, “You should throw chametz to a place…”
Speaker 1: Give me a number.
Speaker 2: Ah, beis.
Speaker 1: What beis?
Speaker 2: Hagahos Maimoniyos… I’m sorry, chaf I mean, Hagahos Maimoniyos siman… He says that there are those who hold like Rabbi Yehuda in general, and you have to burn it.
Speaker 1: Right. And the Riva, who is the Riva?
Speaker 2: I don’t know. I think that… ah, so the pshat is like this, I don’t know, here we’re talking about after zman achilaso.
Speaker 1: Yes, that’s how he sees it.
Speaker 2: He sees it exactly like us, that he’s on my side, that if you want to throw out the chametz before the zman issur, okay, it’s not yet chametz, it’s not yet relevant. That’s not yet the question. The question is only when there’s already a chiyuv biur chametz, meaning the zman issur chametz has already arrived, you’re obligated to be meva’er now, so we’re told clearly that you have to destroy the chametz, you can’t throw it out. That’s what he says here, I don’t know.
After that, I see the Lechem Mishneh for example says… ah, he’s talking about… no, burial has to do with posach itzo with other things. I see here, I don’t know, it seems that you have to burn the chametz. I don’t know.
Critique of Current Practice
Speaker 2: The world doesn’t conduct itself to burn all chametz, they throw it in the garbage with things. I don’t know. I feel like going, the Rambamists should go to the lake with my children early in the morning, instead of tashlich we’ll do chametz. They should say meforer al pnei hamayim.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay. But it has to be first meforer and then throw it into the sea, because it’s not a strong…
Speaker 2: I mean, when it’s in a sea or a lake it’s also the same thing. It’s a sea is salt water, I mean… I don’t know, maybe it has to be specifically a sea, I don’t know. Memeis, there’s something in the Gemara a lashon that the sea is memeis the chametz, and it’s like it’s without the salt water, which does something, I don’t know. Memeis the chametz easily. In general, he brings some lashon, that memeis meforer al pnei hamayim, from… someone had an ox, the baal hakarem told him, “You can travel to the sea, the sea isn’t so far.”
Speaker 1: True, you can also do that.
Shulchan Aruch and Rama — “U’minhag Lisrof”
Speaker 2: Let’s see, how is it paskened in Shulchan Aruch? Is it something different?
No, because we see that the Rishonim of Ashkenaz thought that you have to pasken like Rabbi Yehuda that in biur chametz it’s only burning, and then you can’t do it. The Rambam says that you can be meforer, but Rabbi Yehuda holds that… here, the Rama says, “U’minhag lisrof.” “U’minhag lisrof.” The Mechaber brings the lashon of the Rambam, he adds here, “If the chametz was hard…” ah, no, it’s also the lashon of the Rambam.
The Rama says, “U’minhag lisrof, v’tov lesarfo bayom.” Interesting thing, because earlier we spoke, the Rambam says you can burn it at night, but he brings his own words, he brings the Rama says his own chiddush, “Tov lesarfo bayom, dumya d’nosar shenisraf bayom.”
And by the way, what do we mean? He says, “Not that you can also burn it achar habedikah so that he won’t be lazy and won’t delay.” No, that’s the machlokes of the Rambam and the Raavad that we saw. Ah, and before, the minisira you can throw it to a place where the wind carries it there. That also stood in the etzem halacha by the chaticha d’issura, that you don’t need any new other thing.
Discussion: Why Not Throw in the Sea?
Speaker 1: But I don’t understand, why are we afraid that if you throw a whole chametz in the sea that someone will come eat it?
Speaker 2: I don’t know. The husband who went to medinas hayam, the husband of that woman, the chametz arrived there.
Speaker 1: Okay, perek daled.
Speaker 2: I don’t know, you have to… it seems that biur chametz means to eliminate the chametz. I don’t know, that’s what it seems. The Gemara talks about the breaking, whether you should be meforer, how you should do this. There’s a machlokes how the Rishonim pasken, I don’t see anymore.
Maharil’s Custom — Burning the Bedikah Utensil
Speaker 2: Look how the Ashkenazic gedolim come in here with interesting chiddushim. The Maharil comes and he brings him, if you didn’t find any chametz to be bodek, you should burn the utensil that you used for bedikah, so that you won’t forget the chovas biur. Okay. And then comes the spoon with all the things.
I say once that according to Chassidus, that the one who searches for someone else’s chametz also has to be burned. The one who searches for someone else’s chametz, but you also have to burn the ayin hara. Understand? And you have to burn the burner. Is there someone who counts this. And he still sings Chad Gadya. About this the Mishnah says that there’s someone who counts.
I don’t know, in short, the matter of burning isn’t clear. I don’t understand what the pshat of biur is. I don’t know.
Further Critique of Current Practice
Speaker 2: In current times I sometimes feel that the biur chametz is very funny. You have huge cases of chametz, you throw them out, and then you take a poor roll and burn it. I don’t get it. This is more based on the Maharil, on the custom of the Maharil. Again, you’ll see that apparently you have to burn all the boxes of chametz that you have at home.
Speaker 1: No, the Rambam paskens that you don’t have to burn, you can be yotzei with any way whatsoever.
Discussion: Garbage — Hefker or Not?
Speaker 1: What about the garbage?
Speaker 2: What about the garbage? It’s a kind of hefker thing, like perur b’alma. No one goes to eat from after the garbage truck was there. It’s like perur b’alma. The cats can eat, people, I don’t know, eat from garbage?
Speaker 1: But you have benefit from it.
Speaker 2: You have to make sure that you don’t have benefit from it. You’re not allowed to make that an animal should have benefit, but you’re not allowed to make that an animal should have benefit also not.
Speaker 1: It’s not your animal.
Speaker 2: But it’s not an issur hana’ah that birds go eat from it.
Speaker 1: Okay, but then it says in Tosafos, if you give it to a non-Jew you don’t have to.
Speaker 2: So yes, if you burn it still before shesh, it’s mutar b’hana’ah.
Chametz on Pesach — Nisrafim or Nikbarim
Issur Hana’ah After Zman Issur
Speaker 2: But from shesh sha’os and above it’s assur b’hana’ah, and above you also can’t, if you baked bread on it it’s assur b’hana’ah. So says the Rambam, on this there are also matters in the mefarshim to explain what the matter is.
Question: Is Chametz from Nisrafim or Nikbarim?
Speaker 2: There’s a question whether chametz is from nisrafim or nikbarim. It’s not clear. If it’s from hanikbarim, you take it… I can tell you always, things that are nikbar, the pshat is you’re not allowed to have benefit from burning them. Kol hanikbarim afran assur.
Ah, the pecham is assur. So it comes out that chametz on Pesach is from hanisrafim, because he says that the efer is mutar.
Discussion: Why Is Burning on Pesach Different?
Speaker 1: If you burned it, why is if you burn it on Pesach different? What’s different on Pesach? Why do you specifically have to burn it?
Speaker 2: No, why can’t you… ah, because maybe there’s something with the halacha that before Pesach it can become batel? On Pesach bittul doesn’t help?
Speaker 1: I don’t mean bittul, I’m sorry. On Pesach it doesn’t help.
Speaker 2: But bittul also, because on Pesach it doesn’t help.
Speaker 1: Yes, bittul.
Rabbeinu Yonah — Burned Before Its Time
Speaker 2: So Rabbeinu Yonah says, “Burned before its time is mutar b’hana’ah even after its time.”
Umm… no, what does that have to do with it?
Speaker 1: Not just bittul, it has something to do with the halacha of… that a thing becomes batel b’ta’aroves before Pesach, on Pesach bittul b’shishim doesn’t help.
Speaker 2: What does that come in here? I don’t understand. I mean, we’re not going to talk about random things. It’s not random things.
Speaker 1: “And what reason are these wood?”
Speaker 2: But what does that have to do with before yom tov and on yom tov?
Speaker 1: “And if so, are these wood?” “Since they burned it after its time,” it’s simply such a…
Speaker 2: Maybe there’s such a little clever vort. Because acorns are actually mutar, it’s not a dead body. But if it’s actually acorns are actually mutar, it’s not a dead body, what did he say earlier? So if so why do you need before its time also? I don’t understand.
The pshat is… what is “these are wood”?
Speaker 1: Yes, what is the word of “these are wood”?
Speaker 2: Maybe it simply became an issur, maybe it’s like that? Maybe it’s only an issur when the issur comes, zman issuro?
Speaker 1: You’re saying? What? You’re saying that only when zman issuro comes, then it’s called “nisrafim”? Maybe.
Speaker 2: No, we say… it’s not dependent on that. He says that the Rambam… I don’t know, he brings that chametz on Pesach is yes from hanisrafim. He brings from Rambam like this in perek zayin from hilchos Shabbos. I don’t know.
Rabbeinu Yonah — You Can Eat the Charcoal
Speaker 2: Not only that, Rabbeinu Yonah says that you can also eat it. Again, if the pecham is simply not eating, you can even eat it.
Speaker 1: What does Rabbeinu Yonah say? What, the pecham?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Not derech achilah at all.
Speaker 2: Okay, yes, you can eat fire, it’s nothing.
Speaker 1: What’s the question?
Question: Benefit at the Time of Burning — A Consideration of Shli’ach?
Speaker 2: Because no, the problem apparently is that when you burn the chametz bizman issuro, you now have benefit from chametz. Again, the question is only the next thing. Does it have the aspect of shli’ach? That which you burn, do you now have benefit from the chametz.
Speaker 1: The benefit from the chametz is your wood.
Speaker 2: The benefit is already when it’s hot, when it’s already burned.
Speaker 1: You have to know that, okay.
Speaker 2: Why is it the aspect of shli’ach? Because it’s already a little…
The Question of Benefit at the Time of Burning
No, the problem apparently is that when you burn the chametz bizman issuro, you now have benefit from chametz.
Again, the question is only the next thing, that its coals are forbidden. That which you burn, do you now have benefit from the chametz. The benefit from the piece of chametz, the chametz is your wood. The benefit is already when it’s already burned. That you have to know. Okay.
The Magen Avraham’s Explanation — Nisrafim vs. Nikbarim
Why are its coals forbidden? I don’t know. It could be it’s a little punishment, because it was burned late. Come in, let the punishments go, please. That’s the benefit. So it’s somewhat implied in the Magen Avraham.
No, he says that there’s a rule that nisrafim their ashes are mutar, nikbarim their ashes are assur. Very good, but that’s about issurei hana’ah. And so he learns, that chametz after its time is an issur hana’ah. But what’s the difference? Because all chametz before its time isn’t an issur hana’ah. That’s the point. Because it’s not an issur hana’ah, so when you burn it, now there’s no chametz, now there’s fire. Which is not so after its time it’s an issur hana’ah, and the rule of issur hana’ah is that ashes are assur. That’s the Magen Avraham.
The Rambam’s Approach According to the Magen Avraham
But he brings that the Rambam doesn’t hold that chametz is like nikbarim. The Rambam must have a different pshat. Kol hanisrafim lo yikavru, and I don’t understand.
No, the Rambam learns yes that chametz is like nikbarim, and therefore ashes are assur. Very good. I didn’t read it correctly. Ah, ah. Nikbarim isn’t destruction. Okay. Nikbarim means, right, that the ashes are assur. Because you can’t have benefit from the ashes. Which is not so nisrafim, after you burn it you can use the ashes, because it’s already…
The Difficult Question on the Magen Avraham
But that’s what they say, but there’s still the question, what’s the pshat that the ashes aren’t the thing? The ashes are the thing. I don’t get it. I don’t know what he says. He says that when you burn it before its time there’s no chametz, it’s fire. It’s yes, but it’s mutar because it wasn’t issur hana’ah then. I don’t understand what he says.
Okay, fine. I hope I’m not nogei’a in the halacha. Okay, now you can see perek daled. Very good guidance.
An Approach to Understand the Matter — Coals as a Toldah
He simply tried to say something, I don’t see what he says. He simply says what he says, that nikbarim their ashes are assur. I don’t know if he says something else.
The chametz was heter. Ah, of course. The coals are like… for the coals no zman issur comes, because when the coals are coals. When a coal is a coal. But it was mutar at the time when it became coals, and the coal is something a toldah of the thing itself. So that the thing was mutar, now it’s stable, as if the coal doesn’t get a zman issur on the coal, but if it was assur before the coal from it is assur.
As if the coal is something a new creation from the chametz, a new form that the chametz received. So if the chametz itself was mutar, the coal never became assur. But if the chametz was assur, the coal from it is automatically a toldah of issur.
The Conclusion
It’s a toldah, it’s like nolad, the little hair is born from something. It’s benefit, even though it’s not achilas ochel, but it’s a benefit from the chametz that you use its coals.
Yes, okay, fine, I don’t know better than this, I’ll use it like this, I can learn the pshat. Okay.