📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of the Learning Session — Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 3
—
Laws 1-2: Searching for Chametz on the Night of the 14th — The Manner and What Follows
The Rambam’s Words: “One who searches beforehand, searches on the night of the fourteenth… and removes the chametz from the holes and hiding places and corners… and gathers it all and places it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour of the day and burns it.”
Simple Meaning: One searches for chametz on the night of the 14th of Nissan in all hidden places — holes, hiding places, corners — one gathers everything together in one place, and burns it by the beginning of the sixth hour.
Novel Points:
– The Rambam’s enumeration of “holes, hiding places, corners” is understood not necessarily as specific places, but rather that one should exert oneself to search thoroughly — not just superficially, but also in hidden places.
– “And gathers it all and places it in one place” — this is a practical enactment: one should not carry it around, rather it should lie in one place ready for destruction.
—
Law 2 (Continued): “And one who wishes to destroy on the night of the 14th may do so”
Simple Meaning: The primary obligation of destruction is by the beginning of the sixth hour, but one may destroy earlier.
Novel Points:
– An interesting point: The Sages obligated searching on the night of the 14th (when one is at home), but they did not obligate destroying immediately — one can leave it until morning. This means that someone can search, then sit down to a meal and eat that chametz, and he fulfills the rabbinic enactment of searching. As if the Sages make it “dangerous” for themselves — because now chametz remains until morning, and one must be concerned about what to do with it.
– [Digression: A discussion about the custom to eat chametz immediately after Pesach — compared to “lest they say the blood of Yiftach” and havdalah over beer on Motzaei Pesach.]
—
Law 3 (First Part): Placing Chametz in a Safe Place — “Lest mice drag it away”
The Rambam’s Words: “Chametz that one placed on the night of the 14th, he should place it… and not place it in a place where mice might drag it away.”
Simple Meaning: One places the chametz away in a known place, not hidden, so that mice won’t drag it away.
Novel Points:
– The reason “lest mice drag it away” is a practical reason — if the chametz becomes lost, one must search again. This means: one need not always be concerned about mice, but if it’s missing, one must indeed be concerned. Initially one should be careful that it shouldn’t happen.
– The Raavad disagrees — he says one cannot forgo certain things, one must wait until the last minute.
—
Law 3 (Second Part): Nullification of Chametz — “All chametz in his possession that he did not see and did not know about”
The Rambam’s Words: “Searching for chametz and its destruction before six… and if he did not nullify it in his heart at the time of searching and did not destroy it, he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.” And: “All chametz in his possession that he did not see and did not know about, it is nullified and is like dust.”
Simple Meaning: Chametz that one doesn’t see and doesn’t know about, one must nullify, and it becomes like dust. Nullification can only be done before the time of prohibition (before the sixth hour). After the time of prohibition, the chametz is already “not in his possession” — he cannot nullify it, but he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.
Novel Points:
a) Nullification on Places He Doesn’t See — Two Layers of Rabbinic Law
– “That he did not see” — the nullification applies to the chametz that one did not see, not to what one found (that one destroys).
– Rabbeinu Manoach’s beautiful piece — two rabbinic enactments: According to the Rambam’s approach, there are two leniencies from Torah law: (1) one only needs to nullify, nothing more; (2) one doesn’t need to search — if one sees chametz one must nullify it, if not, nothing is lacking. The Sages instituted two enactments: (a) one should not rely on nullification alone — one should actually burn; (b) one should search in hidden places. Practical difference: After one has searched, there can still be chametz in hidden places that one didn’t find — on that one must nullify (generally, because one doesn’t know where it is). This is the meaning of “that he did not see” — from Torah law one only needs to nullify what one sees, from rabbinic law one must also nullify what one doesn’t see.
– Why do we make a blessing on searching and not on nullification: Because the searching is closer to Torah law — one searches for the chametz that one must destroy from Torah law. The nullification on places one doesn’t see is entirely rabbinic, therefore we don’t make a separate blessing on it.
b) The Text of Nullification — “Like dust” and “Like ownerless property”
– Historical development of the text: In the Gemara it only says that one must say “nullification.” Later: the Geonim added “like dust of the earth” — because they understood nullification as the chametz becoming like dust. The Tosafot (early authorities) added “like ownerless property” — because they understand that nullification works through the mechanism of declaring ownerless.
– Tosafot’s approach doesn’t mean one must say “ownerless”: Even Tosafot who say that nullification works like declaring ownerless, don’t mean that one must say the word “ownerless.” It’s an explanation of the mechanism, not of the text. In Agadot Maharam it says there were those who conducted themselves to say “and it should not be ownerless” — but this is not necessarily derived from Tosafot’s reasoning.
– Conclusion: One does what’s stated in the Gemara — nullify. The scholars discuss what the nullification does, but in practice everyone should do as he understands, or ask a halachic authority.
c) Nullification Only Before the Time of Prohibition — Two Levels of “Possession”
– Novel point — two levels of “possession”: “Not in his possession” means he cannot nullify it (because it’s forbidden in benefit, therefore he has no ownership over it). But “in his possession” regarding violation — he does violate, because it’s by him. These are two separate levels of possession: possession for nullifying (ownership) vs. possession for violating (actual responsibility).
– Why can’t one nullify after six hours: Because there’s already the prohibition of benefit on chametz (not bal yera’eh itself, but the prohibition of benefit), the chametz is already not “his” — he cannot declare it ownerless/nullify it.
d) The Raavad’s Objection
– Raavad: Bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei only apply from Pesach itself (at night), not from six hours and onward.
– Discussion: Seemingly according to the Raavad one can indeed nullify between six hours and Pesach night? But the Gemara (Kiddushin) says “one who betroths with wheat or barley from six hours onward, she is not betrothed” — which proves that from six hours it’s already not in his possession.
– Maggid Mishneh’s answer: The Rambam doesn’t mean that he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei now (from six hours), but that when he lets the chametz remain, he will at night violate — just as the Raavad himself says. But the nullification no longer helps because from six hours it’s already not in his possession.
– Novel point — Kapach’s version: In Kapach’s version of the Rambam it doesn’t say at all “becomes liable for bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei” — and according to this the Raavad’s question falls away entirely.
—
Law 6: When Erev Pesach Falls on Shabbat
The Rambam’s Words: “One who did not search on the night of Erev Shabbat… places the chametz in a hidden place until four hours on Shabbat day… and if chametz remains on Shabbat after four hours, he nullifies it and covers it with a vessel until after the first day of Yom Tov and destroys it.”
Simple Meaning: When Erev Pesach falls on Shabbat, one places chametz away in a hidden place until the fourth hour of Shabbat, the rest one destroys before Shabbat. If it remains after four hours, one nullifies it and places a vessel over it until after the first day of Yom Tov.
Novel Points:
– “Covers it with a vessel” — the purpose is so one won’t come to eat from it.
– Terumah: If one has many loaves of terumah, one must burn on Erev Shabbat, but one may not mix pure with impure — “burns impure by itself and pure by itself and doubtful by itself” — because one may not render terumah impure.
—
Laws 7-8: Forgot and Didn’t Search — Searches Even During the Festival
The Rambam’s Words: “One who forgot and was distracted and did not search on the night of the 14th, searches in the morning at dawn. Did not search at dawn, searches at the time of destruction. Did not search at the time of destruction, searches during the festival.”
Simple Meaning: If one didn’t search on the night of the 14th, one can make up — at dawn, at the time of destruction, or even during the festival.
Novel Points:
– Why does one search during the festival? Two approaches: (1) Practical — so one won’t forget and come to eat chametz; (2) A fundamental matter — the obligation of searching continues, even after Yom Tov there’s still a concept of searching, though it’s a different kind of matter.
– Searching after Pesach — this applies to chametz she’avar alav haPesach, which is rabbinically forbidden (a penalty). Novel point: One might think that on a Torah prohibition of bal yera’eh there’s an obligation to search, but on a mere rabbinic penalty one shouldn’t make any obligation to search — but the Sages indeed said one must search, so one won’t make any clever schemes, and the entire purpose of the penalty is that one should search.
Finding It on Yom Tov — Covers It with a Vessel
Rambam: “And if he finds it on Yom Tov he covers it with a vessel so he won’t eat it, and doesn’t destroy it.”
Simple Meaning: If one finds chametz on Yom Tov, one places a vessel over it (one cannot destroy it because it’s Yom Tov).
Note: The example of “gluska” (a fine bread) — which everyone is tempted by, therefore the concern lest he eat it is stronger. The Gemara also speaks of a “setting of the table” with gluska.
—
Law 8: Blessing on Searching for Chametz — “Al bi’ur chametz”
The Rambam’s Words: “When one searches for chametz on the night of the 14th or on the day of the 14th or during the festival, he blesses before he performs the search: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the destruction of chametz.”
Simple Meaning: One makes a blessing before searching, and the language is “al bi’ur chametz” — not “al bedikat chametz.”
Novel Points:
– “Al bi’ur chametz” not “al bedikat chametz” — this shows that fundamentally the main matter is the destruction, and the searching is a preparation for destruction.
– Blessing on rabbinic law: We do make blessings on rabbinic commandments (by virtue of “lo tasur”). Rabbeinu Manoach asks: If we can make blessings on rabbinic law, why not on a penalty? Answer: We don’t make a blessing on a penalty/punishment — blessings are on commandments, not on transgressions. [Digression: On lashes one doesn’t make a blessing, even though it’s an obligation.]
– After Pesach one doesn’t make a blessing — because then one is only searching for chametz she’avar alav haPesach (a penalty), not for bal yera’eh.
—
Law: One Who Leaves His Home Before the Time of Destruction — Mitzvah, Festive Meal, Personal Need
The Rambam’s Words: “One who leaves his home before the time of destruction arrives to perform a mitzvah, or to eat a festive meal such as a betrothal or wedding feast… if he wishes to return and destroy he may return, and if not he nullifies it in his heart.”
Simple Meaning: Someone who goes away for a mitzvah or festive meal need not return — he can nullify in his heart. But someone who goes for a personal need must return.
Novel Points:
a) A Festive Meal Is Itself a Mitzvah
The Rambam counts “to eat a festive meal” together with “to perform a mitzvah” — which proves that a festive meal is itself somewhat of a mitzvah, not just a preparation for a mitzvah. Because if it were only a voluntary matter, we would say he must return.
b) Levels of Exemption
– Life-threatening situation / war / major mission — one need not return at all, one nullifies without any doubt.
– Regular mitzvah / festive meal — one need not nullify the mitzvah, one can nullify the chametz in his heart (because searching/destruction is rabbinic, and a mitzvah overrides rabbinic law).
– Personal need — one must return.
c) Measure of Ke’beitzah vs. Ke’zayit — Until How Much Must One Return
Rambam: “One who leaves for a personal need returns for up to a ke’beitzah.”
Question: Earlier the Rambam spoke of ke’zayit as the measure of chametz, and here suddenly it says ke’beitzah — why?
Discussion: In the Gemara there’s a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah: Rabbi Meir says ke’beitzah, Rabbi Yehudah says ke’zayit. The Sages say: For consecrated meat ke’zayit and for chametz ke’beitzah. The Rambam rules like the Sages — for chametz the measure is ke’beitzah for the matter of returning. This fits with the principle that we’re speaking here of rabbinic destruction of chametz — one only needs to return when there’s a measure that truly violates Torah law. However, it’s asked: Why regarding nullification on a journey do we take the measure of ke’zayit? This remains an open question.
—
Law: One Sitting in the Study Hall Who Has Chametz — Nullification Before the Sixth Hour
The Rambam’s Words: “One who sits in the study hall and has chametz there, before the sixth hour — he nullifies it in his heart.” But “If it became leavened — nullification is of no effect,” rather “it’s a mitzvah to destroy immediately when he returns home.”
Simple Meaning: Before the sixth hour one can still nullify in the heart, because it’s not yet forbidden by Torah law. After the sixth hour nullification no longer helps, and one must destroy when one comes home.
Novel Points:
1. Nullification on mere dough: One can nullify not only actual chametz, but also mere dough that hasn’t yet become leavened. Before the sixth hour it’s still “just a piece of dough” — it’s not yet chametz, and yet one must nullify it. This is an interesting point — that nullification also works on dough that lies somewhere with significance.
2. The greatest novel point — learning vs. going home: Someone who sits and learns in the study hall need not go home — he can nullify in his heart. This shows that nullification in the heart is a complete solution before the sixth hour, even though he can physically go home and destroy.
—
Law: How to Destroy Chametz — The Manner of Destruction
The Rambam’s Words: “How does one destroy chametz? Burns it, or crumbles it and scatters it to the wind, or throws it into the sea.” If it’s “hard chametz — crumbles it and then throws it into the sea.” If it’s “not fit for a dog to eat — it’s permitted to keep it in his house.”
Simple Meaning: Destruction of chametz can be through burning, crumbling and throwing to the wind, or throwing into the sea. Hard chametz must first be crumbled before throwing it into the sea.
Novel Points: It’s asked why hard chametz must be crumbled before throwing it into the sea — is this because it won’t dissolve quickly enough in water? This remains an open question. It’s attributed to Rabbi Yechezkel that one must crumble.
—
Law: Chametz Under a Collapsed Structure
The Rambam’s Words: Chametz that’s buried under a collapsed structure more than three tefachim — is as if destroyed, but requires nullification in his heart.
Novel Points: A collapsed structure is “as if destroyed” — like destruction, but not actually destruction. Because it’s only a leniency based on the fact that one cannot access the chametz, one must still nullify in the heart. This shows that “as if destroyed” is a lower level than actual destruction — one fulfills the obligation, but one needs nullification as well.
—
Law: Chametz Given to a Non-Jew / Burned Before/After the Time of Prohibition — Law of Benefit from Coals
The Rambam’s Words: If one gave chametz to a non-Jew before the sixth hour — one need not destroy it. If one burned it before its time — one may use the coals on Pesach. But if one burned it at its time (after the sixth hour) — it’s forbidden in benefit, and therefore the coals are also forbidden.
Simple Meaning: Chametz that’s not yet forbidden (before the sixth hour) — its destruction has no prohibition of benefit, and one may benefit from what remains. But chametz that’s already forbidden in benefit — everything that comes from it is also forbidden.
Novel Points: The principle of prohibition of benefit from chametz on Pesach extends to all forms that come from the chametz:
– A cooked dish that one cooked with chametz — forbidden in benefit, because “the power of the chametz lies in it.”
– Coals from burning chametz — forbidden in benefit.
– Heat (the warmth from burning) — also forbidden in benefit.
The principle is that when chametz is forbidden in benefit, one may not benefit from any form of the destruction itself — not from the coals, not from the heat, not from the cooked dish.
📝 Full Transcript
Chapter 3 of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah: Searching for Chametz, Destruction, and Nullification
Law 1: Searching for Chametz on the Night of the 14th — How to Do It and What Comes After
Speaker 1: Okay, Chapter 3. Yeah, we can learn a bit more, yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, Chapter 3. It says like this, let’s learn it together. Do you want to learn from the text?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: “One who searches beforehand. One who searches beforehand, searches on the night of the fourteenth.” How does one do it? “And removes the chametz from the holes and from the hiding places and from the corners.” Holes, hiding places, corners. Okay. “And gathers it all.” Where do corners come in here?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The Rambam is perhaps explaining that it doesn’t necessarily mean holes, it means everywhere, whatever. You should exert yourself to search, you shouldn’t just do it superficially.
Speaker 2: Ah.
Speaker 1: He says, “And gathers it all and places it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour of the day and destroys it.” Practical reasons why one should place it in one place, yeah? One shouldn’t just drag it around and so on. One should take it, it should be a stop.
Next law.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Law 2: One Can Destroy Already on the Night of the 14th
Speaker 1: “And places it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour of the day and destroys it. And one who wishes to destroy on the night of the fourteenth, may do so.” That means destruction means to say until then one must. Before that one can. The Sages obligated, they obligated, it’s very interesting to me, the Sages obligated to search already on the night of the 14th, when then one is at home, but obviously the rabbinic obligation is universally that you will actually destroy, but they didn’t obligate to destroy immediately, rather they allowed leaving it over until morning, until the last minute when one can still actually eat. In other words, one can, if someone wants to do the search for chametz, and afterwards sit down to a meal and eat that chametz, he fulfills the enactment of the Sages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that’s just how it looked.
Speaker 1: No, not with the ten crumbs, but he ate and made that one should eat more chametz on the eve of Pesach in the morning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that’s a different thing, I don’t know why.
Speaker 1: Okay, I don’t know. One should do with the poison, the more with the poison, the mitzvah of tashbitu?
Speaker 2: No, I meant it’s like the cigarette that one smokes right after Shabbat.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But… ah, such a “lest they say the blood of Yiftach.” Perhaps such a thing, yeah. Like the Jews who make havdalah on beer on motzaei Pesach, yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Immediately eating a piece of chametz, because the angels don’t want to hear the insult to the honor of the angels, I know. That’s the… on that you’ll be jealous of the angels. Okay, in short, it’s very interesting, because as if they make it a bit dangerous for themselves, because now there’s going to be another problem, what does one do? Therefore they say that one should put it away. Okay, it’s a matter. Okay, yeah. Next law.
Law 3: Putting Away Chametz in a Safe Place — “Lest Mice Drag It”
Speaker 1: The chametz that one placed on the night of the fourteenth, one should place it the next day until four hours. That is, one places it scattered and separated in every place, and we don’t say since he hides it in a vessel, but rather that it should be known and revealed to all. Yeah, this is the Mishnah. Lest it be lost. Since if it is lost, one needs to search for it, but one should not place it in a place where mice might drag it.
Interesting, as if the reason is so he shouldn’t have to exert himself to search. The real reason for it is a halachic one, so that it shouldn’t be lost, so that you should fulfill the mitzvah of searching.
Again, he says here only, he says the law, he says because if it will be missing he will need to search.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It’s interesting, as if he says a practical reason, that you shouldn’t have to make yourself extra work. And what can one say that the obligation of searching is that you should search, and if you’ve searched you don’t throw back that you should have to search again, but you will actually search. Okay.
Not sure. I have an objection, I need to go out. The point is, okay, in short, yeah, one must put it away so the mice won’t take it. The Raavad by the way disagrees, the Raavad says that one cannot waive the four cubits, one must wait until the last minute. I don’t know exactly what the explanation is. Mouse day? It has something to do with the mouse of the first day? Mouse day? Then one should actually burn it?
It’s interesting, here it says “lest mice drag it”. So actually one doesn’t need to fear just like that from a mouse, but one does need to be careful initially that it shouldn’t be. No, because the caution is that there shouldn’t be a case where it’s missing. If it’s missing, one does need to be concerned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, then one does need to be concerned.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the not being concerned is only that one doesn’t need to always be concerned. Okay.
Law 6: When Erev Pesach Falls on Shabbat
Speaker 1: What happens when it happens on Shabbat? What happens when it happens on Shabbat? Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat. Okay, it’s practical, what does one do? Nu, what does one do? What if one doesn’t search on erev Shabbat? One needs a candle.
Speaker 2: Eh, one can arrange it.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Law 6 — One who didn’t search for chametz on the night of erev Shabbat, which is the night of the 14th, what does he do? One places the chametz in a hidden place until four hours on Shabbat day. Why until four hours? Not until five hours?
Speaker 2: Always it’s until four hours. The last hour of the permissible days.
Speaker 1: One places in a hidden place, and the rest one destroys before Shabbat. And if chametz remains for him on Shabbat day after four hours, he nullifies it and covers it with a vessel until after the first day of Yom Tov, and destroys it. One may not make a fire on Yom Tov. Covers it with a vessel — what does this add? That one shouldn’t come to eat from it, yeah.
And if he has many loaves of terumah, he needs to burn on erev Shabbat, and he should not mix the pure with the impure and burn, because one may not make terumah impure, rather he burns impure by itself and pure by itself and suspended by itself, doubtful by itself. And one leaves from the pure enough to leave until four hours on Shabbat day and destroy.
Law 7: If One Forgot and Didn’t Search — One Searches Even During the Festival
Speaker 1: One who forgot and became distracted and didn’t search on the night of the 14th, searches in the morning at dawn. This means that the night is better because the light of the candle is good for searching, but if one didn’t do it, one can do it at dawn. Didn’t search at dawn, searches at the time of destruction. Didn’t search at the time of destruction, searches during the festival. During the festival? What’s the point? If the point is that you’ll forget and come to eat, one can understand. But if it’s more a matter that the obligation of searching continues, that even after Yom Tov, yeah, if he was given to search, there’s still a matter of searching. A different kind of matter, but there’s still a matter of searching.
No leaven shall be found among you, and on Pesach no chametz leaven shall be seen by you in your territory. The searching is actually strengthening the prohibition. No chametz leaven shall be seen by you is indeed a rabbinic prohibition of chametz that Pesach passed over it, so there’s a searching for that. This is a novelty, because one can say that on such a great thing as the prohibition of bal yera’eh there’s an obligation of searching, but altogether on something that’s a penalty, one doesn’t go make an obligation of searching on it. But the Sages did say that one must strengthen searching. It’s remembered that the whole point of the penalty is… that one should search and one shouldn’t make any tricks.
Law 8: Blessing on Searching for Chametz — “Al Bi’ur Chametz”
Speaker 1: When one searches for chametz on the night of the fourteenth or on the day of the fourteenth or during the festival, as he enumerated some of the times, one blesses before doing the searching, Blessed are You Hashem our God King of the universe who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the destruction of chametz. The language is interesting, that one doesn’t say “concerning the searching for chametz,” but rather one says “concerning the destruction of chametz.” This means that essentially the main word is the destruction, and the searching is a preparation for it.
And one searches and investigates in all the places where they bring in chametz as we explained. And if one searches after the festival, one doesn’t bless. Because after the festival one is only looking for chametz that Pesach passed over it, then one doesn’t make the blessing.
Discussion: Is the Blessing on Rabbinic or Torah Law?
Speaker 2: Apparently yes, because as if the searching is part of the destruction.
Speaker 1: That means this is how we’ll say, there are two ways of understanding tashbitu. What destruction and tashbitu mean is the same thing. One is that you must nullify it, and second you must throw it out. So when one does this, one does al bi’ur chametz, it’s fine.
So the question is whether the blessing is on the rabbinic or on the Torah law. This is as if… one makes a blessing on rabbinic law, like “who sanctified us,” one can make “sanctified us” on rabbinic law, or is it something else? The Gemara asks on this immediately, how can one make “sanctified us” on rabbinic law? The Gemara says, “where did He command us?”
Speaker 2: No, not on that. He mentioned something.
Speaker 1: Okay, one does make blessings on various rabbinic mitzvot.
Speaker 2: The Rabbeinu Manoach says yes.
Speaker 1: Does he say something?
Speaker 2: No, I don’t remember.
Speaker 1: It’s from “lo tasur.”
He asks why should one be… if one can make blessings on rabbinic law, one should also make a blessing on a penalty. He says, one doesn’t make a blessing on a penalty.
Speaker 2: The blessing isn’t on the punishment, the blessing is on the mitzvah. The mitzvah is “lo tasur.”
Speaker 1: The mitzvah is “tashbitu,” but through a transgression. For a transgression one doesn’t make blessings, only on mitzvot. As if yes.
When one is benefiting a witness, one administers lashes, one doesn’t make a blessing. God forbid, in practice not once did he fast, did he make a blessing. He asks why one doesn’t make. It’s an obligation that you’re doing, a punishment, suffering. He speaks into ashrei yoshvecha an obligation.
Okay.
Law 8 (Continued): Nullification of Chametz — “All chametz that is in his possession that he didn’t see”
Speaker 1: That one shouldn’t finish searching until one searches on the night of the fourteenth or on the day of the fourteenth as explained. The Shulchan Aruch says: “All chametz that remained in his possession and he doesn’t see it, and all chametz that is in his possession that he didn’t see and didn’t destroy, is nullified and behold it is like dust. But one who searches from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward cannot nullify it, since it’s no longer in his possession as it already became forbidden in benefit.”
The Rambam also writes it in Hebrew, you see? “All chametz that is in his possession that he didn’t see and didn’t know, behold it is nullified and behold it is like dust. But one who searches from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward doesn’t need to nullify, since it’s no longer in his possession as it already became forbidden in benefit.” Is this the explanation that one must nullify if one has already searched anyway?
Speaker 2: No, he says “that he doesn’t see it,” on that which you don’t see.
Speaker 1: Ah, if I missed something?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And what’s the explanation that one must say? If one doesn’t say isn’t it enough? It’s nullification in the heart. I would have thought that one must say. It’s actually not clear. It could be that you mean to say actually that one must say in the heart?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: I don’t know. The Gemara learns, the Gemara says: “One who searches needs to nullify.” What’s the reason? The Gemara says, perhaps he swallowed at the edge, perhaps it remained.
The Rabbeinu Manoach’s Beautiful Piece: Two Enactments of the Sages
Speaker 1: The Rabbeinu Manoach has a beautiful piece on this. Ah, by the way, he also says that nullification is like sticking his face in mud.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Ah, he explains. How does he explain it? Apparently, as we learned, the Rabbis innovated two things, according to how the Rambam learns here in another piece. One, that one must search for things that one doesn’t see. The Torah you can say two leniencies: I only need to nullify, I don’t need to do more than nullify, and I also don’t need to search. If I see, I need to nullify. If I don’t see, there’s nothing missing. The Rabbis come and say, two, you shouldn’t rely on the nullification leniency, you shouldn’t rely, rather you should actually burn. And second, you should search, right?
So now it’s like this, if someone searched, but there still perhaps remained in places that he didn’t find. The explanation is, the first rabbinic enactment, the enactment of searching. If there wouldn’t have been any rabbinic enactment… sorry, the first rabbinic enactment would have been the idea that one must burn. But the idea that one must search, the explanation is that as if you still must search, and if there’s a place, a hidden place that you didn’t find, the Rabbis say you must also nullify there. Nu, one can’t, you don’t know where, so you must nullify generally. This is what I think the Rabbeinu Manoach says. Right?
Speaker 2: He says “that he doesn’t see it.” About this he says “that he doesn’t see it.” Right? Because this is also rabbinic. Rabbinically one must nullify in places that one doesn’t see. From the Torah one only needs to nullify in places that one sees. Rabbinically one must search, and also one must take care of places that one doesn’t see. Therefore, for this one must search at least an hour, and the matter of… the nullification is on what one couldn’t search. Because the Rabbis say that even places that one doesn’t see you’re still transgressing. Therefore, from the Torah one doesn’t need to do this either. This is a contradiction, I don’t know.
Why Does One Make the Blessing on Searching and Not on Nullification
Speaker 1: Ah, about this one makes the blessing on the searching and not on the nullification. Because the searching is closer to the Torah law, because the Torah said that on this you must nullify. Because the searching one does on what one must nullify from the Torah, one does more. But the other is entirely rabbinic.
Okay, it’s a beautiful explanation. I still need to review whether it’s correct too, but it’s a beautiful explanation.
The Text of the Nullification — “Like Dust” and “Like Ownerless Property”
Speaker 1: And he looks in the Aggadot of Maharam there’s such a thing, he says that there were those who conducted themselves to say “and it should be ownerless,” because Tosafot said that nullification is not like ownerless property. But it’s very interesting, because even if Tosafot says so, doesn’t mean that one must say it. It only means that this is how it works when one says “nullified.” It doesn’t mean that one must also say it. When it’s a law in ownerless property, it could be that when one declares ownerless one doesn’t need to also say nullification, one must say the word ownerless. But this isn’t stated. In the Gemara it only says one must say nullification. And the Geonim came, added “like dust,” because they understood the concept of nullification that it becomes like dust. And Tosafot comes, which is Rishonim, and adds “like ownerless property,” because how do they understand nullification. It’s interesting. No, it’s apparently not correct halachically. The Tosafot that says that nullification means doesn’t mean that one must say ownerless, it means that it works in the manner of ownerless property. I don’t know.
Discussion: What Does One Do with Nullification?
Speaker 2: What action does the person do now? Are you now doing nullification or are you now declaring ownerless?
Speaker 1: Once, one does what’s stated in the Gemara. And the Gemara states, one must nullify. The scholars want to know what the nullification does. So, if someone takes from the explanations of the scholars, this is that they say that it works with the reasoning of ownerless property, yeah. In any case, I don’t know, everyone should do as he understands. Okay. I should ask a local halachic authority, simply I should say okay.
Law 9 — Nullification Only Before the Time of Prohibition
Speaker 1: “Searching for chametz and its destruction before six.” What? I think one only needs to say “nullified and void.”
Speaker 2: Yeah, on the contrary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but now there’s an important law, that one can only nullify before the time of prohibition, because after the time of prohibition it’s already not in your possession. It’s in your possession to transgress, but not in your possession to nullify, yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1:
Therefore, if he didn’t nullify it, and he didn’t know that he didn’t intend to have da’as alav (awareness of it), if his heart during the time of checking was not nullified to the nullification, behold he transgresses bal yera’eh. He transgresses both prohibitions, bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. It says “yevatlenu belibo” (he should nullify it in his heart). There is something that there was no da’as alav, so it’s automatically not nullified, right? Nullification means da’as alav, it’s the same thing. No, I don’t want to mean anything. If I don’t know where it is, it means there’s no da’as alav. One doesn’t consider that it’s nullified.
“Belibo bish’as bedikah velo bi’aro, harei zeh over al bal yera’eh uval yimatzei” (In his heart at the time of checking and he didn’t destroy it, behold he transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei). Yes?
Speaker 2:
Yes.
Discussion: Why Can’t One Nullify After the Sixth Hour?
Speaker 1:
And he can’t do nullification, it’s not in his possession. “Af al pi she’eino bireshuto, chayav al bal yera’eh uval yimatzei” (Even though it’s not in his possession, he’s liable for bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei). Because he couldn’t do nullification at the time, it’s already not in his possession, therefore he can no longer nullify. It’s as if one takes away the free choice, like with a ram. “She’eino bireshuto, af al pi she’eino bireshuto, chayav al bal yera’eh uval yimatzei”. This is as if it’s in his possession, the possession of being an eved (servant) is a different level of possession than the possession of nullifying.
Aha, “chayav le’va’arah bechol hashanah kulah” (obligated to destroy it the entire year), no. Perhaps one can say that we still know that the nullification is not a true nullification, because certainly he didn’t make any nullification, rather he now grabbed onto a fear of bal yera’eh, therefore I’m afraid that the nullification is not a good nullification, because of this one says he’s obligated to destroy it. I don’t know, it is indeed a good nullification, even if he does it, there’s no difference why he does it, he does it.
Again, good, one must destroy it because it wasn’t nullified, therefore it’s not in his possession, yes. Okay. And in hefseyd merubeh (significant loss) one must designate a vessel, because that’s the reason, this is from the law like checking for chametz, so one shouldn’t come to checking for chametz, so one shouldn’t come to eat it.
Discussion: The Raavad’s Objection
Speaker 1:
The Meiri, what’s now the situation with… yes. And I see on this the Raavad argues, and he says that lo yera’eh velo yimatzei is only from Pesach itself, not from the sixth hour and onward. Therefore one can indeed nullify according to the Raavad?
Speaker 2:
Ah, apparently yes. From erev Pesach until Pesach night.
Speaker 1:
No, but I mean that the Gemara says clearly that… ah, no, he only says about the matter that he transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. I mean that the Gemara says about from the sixth hour and onward that it’s already not in his possession. It doesn’t say so. “Hamekadesh bechitim o bise’orim mishesh sha’os ulema’alah, einah mekudeshes” (One who betroths with wheat or barley from the sixth hour and onward, she is not betrothed).
I remember the Maggid Mishneh brings this Raavad, ani omer (I say), we have no shame… like Rav Avraham would have been to you, like one must do when one asks questions on someone, he would have understood. He says, vehu hadin (and the same applies), it’s not correct. What doesn’t work with nullification is because one is already obligated in the oath. He says that this is the distinction you’re saying, it’s felt. Ah, okay. No, he says that one who transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, he doesn’t mean to say a piyut (liturgical poem), he means to say that the nullification won’t help. If you’re going to leave it with you, when will you transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei? Actually at night, as the Raavad says. Because of this there’s the sale to a non-Jew, you already told me this. Right. And why now may one not? Why now is it already not in his possession? Because there’s the other prohibition of eating chametz, not bal yera’eh. The prohibition of eating chametz, the prohibition of benefit, is already there. Not bal yera’eh. Yes. Okay.
Law 10 — Finding It on Yom Tov
Speaker 1:
“Ve’im motzo beyom tov kofeh alav keli kedei le’echol, ve’ein meva’aro” (And if he finds it on Yom Tov he covers it with a vessel in order to eat, and doesn’t destroy it). For example the gluskas (dumplings), one must cover them with a vessel, “shehakol porshim mimenu” (because everyone separates from it). Because from gluskas it’s certain that everyone becomes separated. I mean that on gluskas there’s still something else, the Gemara says that there’s a petichah shulchan (opening of the table), a terumah of the gluskas. He transgresses bal yera’eh also. He transgresses bal yera’eh, but here we’re talking about concern lest he eat it, that’s the covering with a vessel. Right. “Shehakol porshim”, but he doesn’t say that one doesn’t know. This is a different version of the Rambam, Kapach’s version. It doesn’t say at all the obligation because of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. The question of the Raavad is not a question.
Okay, okay, no problem.
Law 11 — Leaving His House Before the Time of Destruction
Speaker 1:
In short, further. “Mi sheyatza mibeito kodem shehigi’a zeman habi’ur la’asos mitzvah, o le’echol se’udah shel mitzvah, kegon se’udas eirusin venisu’in, shehalach ledavar chashuv, eino choshesh shema yachmitz hachametz shebeido, ela im yirtzeh lachzor uleva’er, vela’asos hamitzvah yachzor, ve’im lav yevatlenu belibo” (One who left his house before the time of destruction arrived to do a mitzvah, or to eat a meal of a mitzvah, such as a betrothal or wedding feast, who went for an important matter, doesn’t worry lest the chametz in his possession become leavened, rather if he wants to return and destroy, and to do the mitzvah he should return, and if not he should nullify it in his heart). And so Chazal ruled that one can further be in his heart. It’s interesting that to eat a meal of a mitzvah is a semi-mitzvah. If one goes to simply take care of other things there’s always the obligation that he should return. No? Again. It seems that to eat a meal of a mitzvah is itself somewhat a bit of a mitzvah. Because if he had gone simply for a matter of permission apparently one would say that he must return in any case. No, because this is a mitzvah, what’s the question? Something that’s a meal of a mitzvah is a bit of a mitzvah. A mitzvah mitzvah? But it’s a mitzvah.
Discussion: Meal of a Mitzvah as a Mitzvah
Speaker 2:
What’s a mitzvah? I don’t understand. Why is this a bit? The meal is already a mitzvah, the bread is a mitzvah. Then he’s going to need to be a mitzvah?
Speaker 1:
Yes. Very good, let’s take going to weddings. A wedding. You can eat and drink nicely and have pleasure, and you do many mitzvos. It’s a mitzvah, it still doesn’t mean so. Doesn’t yet mean that… yes. Yes. But if he went to do a great mitzvah of saving a life, “yatza lamilchamah” (he went to war), he’s a doctor, he went to the military, “o minah nahar” (or appointed over a river), if they appointed him as a guardian, he throws him a love certainly, one shouldn’t place upon him the obligation of checking, which is a… the obligation of destruction which is a rabbinic obligation. “Yatza letzorekh atzmo” (He went out for his own need), and not on a mission of a mitzvah, he must indeed.
Levels of Exemption
Speaker 1:
Wait I have a comment. Again, if he simply goes to do a mitzvah, then what? He must try to return. If one must nullify the mitzvah, then he doesn’t have to. As we said that for the mitzvah you can nullify the rabbinic mitzvah. Right. If for example one can, this is saving a life, ah, he doesn’t have to return. If for example one can, this is rabbinic, you forgot, saving a life one doesn’t even need to try, right? One nullifies without any doubt. But a mitzvah, a simple personal need, then you must return, you should burst. Yes. Okay.
Measure of Kebeitzah vs. Kezayis
Speaker 1:
“Hayotzei letzorekh reshut chozer ad kebeitzah” (One who goes out for a permitted need returns up to a kebeitzah). This is a wonder, because earlier it said that it has to do with kezayis, not kebeitzah. And even the smaller ones we said, because the smaller would perhaps be because perhaps for a need, or because… I don’t know. And here it remained that what? That here they teach us that… well… here they teach us that in the laws from a kebeitzah one can nullify without any doubt. I don’t know what the explanation is.
I didn’t say what it turns out to be like the matter of nullification of permission, the thing was a kezayis. Why is there suddenly returning is a kebeitzah? What is the measure of kebeitzah? I understand. I don’t understand. But I heard that one struggled with this for a year.
Speaker 2:
Yes? And what was the answer?
Discussion: Dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir
Speaker 1:
In short, one must look in the Gemara. There’s a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir whether for chametz one follows kebeitzah or kezayis. One must look in the Gemara. One will see if he brings the Gemara. He brings. The Gemara says, “Hayotzei lamilchamah chozer, Rabbi Meir omer eino chozer ad kebeitzah, shachametz ein lo inyan shel se’ah kodesh, Rabbi Yehudah omer eino chozer ad kezayis” (One who goes out to war returns, Rabbi Meir says he doesn’t return up to a kebeitzah, because chametz has no matter of a se’ah of holiness, Rabbi Yehudah says he doesn’t return up to a kezayis). The Sages didn’t decree chametz in less than a kebeitzah, the Sages ruled.
The question is thus, because transgressing is only transgressing on a kebeitzah, and therefore as if checking, we’re now talking about checking for chametz, we’re now talking about the rabbinic law of destroying chametz, it can be that one knows
Laws of Destroying Chametz – Measures, Methods, and Times
Law 12: How Far Does He Return – The Measure of Returning to Destroy Chametz
Speaker 1: He brings… that the Gemara asks ad kamah hu chozer? Rabbi Meir omer zeh vazeh bikebeitzah (how far does he return? Rabbi Meir says both this and that in a kebeitzah), both chametz and the matter of holy meat, veRabbi Yehudah omer zeh vazeh bikezayis, uvachachamim omrim bevasar kodesh bikezayis uvechametz bikebeitzah (and Rabbi Yehudah says both this and that in a kezayis, and the Sages say regarding holy meat in a kezayis and regarding chametz in a kebeitzah). The Sages ruled.
Because transgressing is only transgressing on a kebeitzah, and therefore as if checking, we’re now talking about checking for chametz, we’re now talking about the rabbinic law of destroying chametz, so that he has that one knows there’s chametz, but one isn’t there, one wants to nullify it, right? On this…
Speaker 2: No, but why regarding nullification by a journey, when all these things take then from kebeitzah? Kezayis!
Speaker 1: Okay, let’s go further. I don’t know, this is an interesting law, returning for destroying chametz, when one must return, what’s the measure of how much he is there from the chametz? Which mitzvah must one nullify, yes.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is also a similar law.
Law 13: Sitting in the Study Hall and He Has Chametz – Nullification Before the Sixth Hour
Speaker 1: Mi sheyatza miYerushalayim venizkar sheyesh beyado basar kodesh, veyatza venizkar sheyesh beido, veyoshev beveit hamidrash, veyesh lo sham chametz, kodem sha’ah shishit, harei zeh mevatel belibo kodem sha’ah shishit (One who left Jerusalem and remembered that he has holy meat in his hand, and left and remembered that he has, and sits in the study hall, and he has chametz there, before the sixth hour, behold he nullifies it in his heart before the sixth hour). Because before the sixth hour one can still simply nullify, because it’s not yet forbidden by Torah law until the sixth. Right? It’s simply a piece of dough, and what do you say? You say this before the time. It’s not yet chametz. One can nullify not only chametz, one can nullify simple dough also. A dough that lies somewhere in a bowl with importance, one must nullify, interesting.
Aval im hechmitzah, eino bitul mo’il kelum, ela kodem sha’ah deoraita umitzvah leva’er miyad sheyachzor leveito (But if it became leavened, nullification doesn’t help at all, rather before the Torah hour and it’s a mitzvah to destroy immediately when he returns to his house). Uhm. But you see here also that on erev Pesach in the afternoon the rabbis taught classes in Gehinnom. And what else here, what’s no simple dough? And matzos. I know. How is chametz destroyed.
Speaker 2: Okay, but if it’s an escape, one must show that he must doesn’t want to go home.
Speaker 1: Listen, one who sits and learns, he must go home, or is he nullifying, interesting, this is the greatest novelty, the greatest matter, right? Yes. Very interesting. Yes.
Law 14: How is Chametz Destroyed – Methods of Destruction
Speaker 1: Keitzad bi’ur chametz (How is chametz destroyed), how does one do the mitzvah of destroying chametz? Um… Poraro vezoreh laru’ach, o zorekho leyam (He crumbles it and scatters it to the wind, or throws it to the sea). If it’s hard chametz ve’eino ra’ui lema’achal kelev mutar lehashoto beveito (and it’s not fit for a dog’s food, it’s permitted to keep it in his house).
Okay, what is destroying chametz? Now we’re talking about all the chametz that we talked about that one must destroy. What is the proper way that it’s a destruction? One burns it, or one crumbles it, or one throws it to the sea. And then it was… Interesting, if it was hard chametz, one must crumble it before throwing it to the sea. An interesting thing.
Speaker 2: What’s the explanation? Because it’s not long enough?
Speaker 1: I don’t know. So says Rabbi Yechezkel that one must crumble.
Chametz Under Rubble
Speaker 1: Okay, if it’s in rubble, it’s also a type of destruction. If there’s more than three tefachim, it’s as if destroyed. Vetzarich levatlelo belibo (And he needs to nullify it in his heart). Heh, interesting. It’s as if destroyed, but not actually destruction, because it’s only a leniency, one can’t reach it. Therefore he fulfilled, but he still must… That’s interesting.
Law 15: Chametz Given to a Non-Jew or Burned – Law of Benefit from the Coals
Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue. One gave it to a non-Jew before the sixth hour, one doesn’t need to destroy. And so if one burned it before the sixth hour, one may use the coals on Pesach. Why? Because it’s not yet chametz. But if one burned it in the time of its prohibition, one may not. Why? Because it’s forbidden in benefit. And forbidden in benefit means that one may not have benefit from the destruction also. And if one did, the cooked dish is forbidden in benefit, because in it lies the power of the chametz. The same thing the coals are forbidden in benefit, because it’s forbidden in benefit. The same thing heating, because it’s forbidden in benefit. Tremendous.
Alright, that’s the story for today. Tremendous, thank you, yes. Okay, we’ll continue.