הלכות חמץ ומצה פרק ב

Laws of Chametz and Matzah – Nullification of Chametz and Search for Chametz

Law 2: Nullification of Chametz – “And Consider It as Dust”

Speaker 1:

The Rambam begins, “And consider it as dust, and place in his heart that there is no chametz in his possession at all, and that all chametz in his possession is like dust and is worth nothing”.

The Question on the Language “It is Like Dust”

The question is the language, “it is like dust.” I always say, there’s a joke in the custom of scribes that people say that dust is not chametz, but chametz is dust, like dust. It’s not chametz, one needs to do the opposite, one needs to make chametz like dust. That’s the meaning of the Rambam.

For whom does it not become chametz? Because you don’t have any chametz. He said that there shouldn’t be any chametz, and he shouldn’t have any fear.

The Reason for “Like Dust” – Not Hefker, Rather Daas

I saw that the reason for “it should be like dust” is not according to Tosafos that he had from hefker (ownerless property), but rather what? That he doesn’t reckon with it, he’s absolutely certain that this is not… “lo yera’eh” (it shall not be seen), it wasn’t seen, but there’s something in the head.

Just as everyone knows that in his house there is dust, but no one cares about the dust. There are people who ask about streets and all dust, I also have chametz, where do I have dust? I know that I have dust, but I don’t care about it. Because I saw it, and it can even be that one might go with the chain, one should have in mind a bit of dust under his house, the lower part is a building of his house.

A level up, a level down. You say the same thing, he doesn’t think that it’s chametz, he doesn’t have any chametz. That is “in his heart that he has no chametz.”

Tashbitu and Daas

Why does it make sense? Because if the reason for the mitzvah is “tashbitu” (you shall remove), which is from the Torah, that the removal should be through your mind not being in business, and you went into the store and your mind is in business, then how is tashbitu fulfilled? But tashbitu should mean by definition that the word tashbitu has more to do with daas (knowledge/awareness) than not. Everything in the world has to do with daas at the end of the day. I mean to say, everything in the human world. “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Hashem, as the waters cover the sea”. As if from daas, I mean. Yes?

Law 3: Search for Chametz from the Rabbis

Speaker 1:

Okay, from the Rabbis there is a mitzvah, not just, uh, one must die rather than transgress, but one should do actual work, to search for the chametz in hiding places and to check and remove in every place. That’s one thing from the Rabbis.

Another thing from the Rabbis, what is there? That it has a specific time. It’s like a positive commandment, like something that one does. Not just that one should be exempt from all this, but one should do it at a specific time, in a specific manner. One should actually search for it, and not search to actually remove it. It’s not enough that one shouldn’t rely on the nullification in the heart, when one removes it one shouldn’t be actually exempt.

Time of the Search – Specifically at Night

Another thing is that it must be at night, and it must be specifically at night. It must be on the night of the fourteenth. Why? Because then the person is at home. It is at night all people are found in their homes. The light of the candle is good for searching.

This is a very interesting law, because the light of the candle is good for searching, one must do it at night, but one could do it during the day. But then one is not at home.

The Advantage of Candlelight – A Deeper Explanation

But I think there’s another aspect, that is the light of the candle is good for searching, that I think I learned a year ago, that during the day one sees everything, but there’s such an extra power of shining a light on certain places, and during the day you don’t see as well as when you look with a flashlight in the corners. One clearly sees that there’s an aspect to learn from this. There is such a thing, that one can, yes, if there’s enough sun one can light. There’s such a piece of Pesach lechatchilah (ideally).

Why must one do this during the day? Yes, so no, that’s how I understand it. There’s something to investigate, it says differently, but I suspect it’s simpler and more powerful to say it this way. One must certainly think about it, because one sees that it’s very true.

Not Learning Before Searching for Chametz

There’s one difficulty in the Midrash at the end of Yonah the Prophet, it’s very… no, no, it’s very correct. What does a Jew do? What does it mean to say that when one says that a Jew must remove chametz, one must remove chametz? What does it mean? To say that one shouldn’t go to the study hall? What’s different? What’s different here? There are people at that time. Does one go to the study hall, and what’s the rest of the night? One goes to the study hall to learn. Establishing a study session, that’s also an answer. I’ll say it again. Ah, a very good expression, yes. Not to give such a lecture. A Jew doesn’t give lectures. He makes a study hall, we learn. A study hall. He says the language like this: “They gather little by little by candlelight in the study hall”.

“A person is obligated to refrain from his studies at that time, lest he be drawn after his learning and be prevented from the search at its proper time”. He gives a sermon, he brings… ah, by the way, here is Rabbeinu Manoach with his powerful explanations, I’ve already forgotten the name. That it says in the Gemara, he has a fixed practice that every night he learns at home, he should learn after the search, not before the search. Why? Because he says that even to read, to read which means Scripture, because even when he learns Scripture, he finishes and becomes absorbed.

A fool may go to the study hall, hear the lecture, hear the sermon. Perhaps he may… he doesn’t give a sermon, he has nothing to learn, but perhaps he may read. Because reading doesn’t take time, he has anyway a… He says that he must read. Okay, it’s the same question. If he’s alone, is a scholar, even a chapter of Psalms he shouldn’t learn, because he won’t finish. It’s a question.

The Connection to Candlelight

I think perhaps that the learning has to do with the candle. We know that one learns by candlelight, yes? What question? One learns by candlelight. So obviously when a person comes home from work, he goes to sleep. If there’s a candle, he sits down to learn, yes? If he decided that he can spend the money, he has a candle, he sits down to learn. That’s the Gemara. The first thing he does with a candle is to think, “I’ll sit down to learn a page of Gemara, a Mishnah, a law.” The Gemara comes and says, “No. The candlelight of the search, use it for learning for searching for chametz.”

Rabbeinu Yonah says, he says “The Sages required the Rabbis for candlelight at the time of Torah”. He says further, why? “Great is Torah study that one gives his life for the mitzvah”. What is the source of protecting? What does such language say here? “Lest he be drawn”? No, that remains for Torah, challenge. One cannot read the Megillah at all because it’s nullification of Torah. But I think no, one sees that the Sages always had concerns about not doing mitzvos which cause punishment. They make you do other types of decrees. He brings here a law. Simple Jews don’t have this problem. That one has already not forgotten any mitzvah.

Searching for Chametz as Torah Study

So, one searches. In laws, in Megillah people ask, wasn’t this Torah study? So Rabbi Elazar, how he deals with stolen chametz, how he deals with his children, and one asks further, what is kitniyos? What are fruits? And he says the halachic rulings, practical law. It’s not the decrees of the Gemara.

But I say, today’s is also a certain Torah study. One deals with it, one learns it as Torah study, that one goes around the house and fulfills a mitzvah. Yes. True.

Law 4: The Light of the Search

Speaker 1:

One does not search by moonlight, nor by sunlight, nor by torchlight, but by candlelight. Nu, how does it say there in that verse? “The candle of Hashem is the soul of man”. No, no, first… yes. The candle of Hashem is the soul of man. Yes. Here there doesn’t need to be any evil tongue. Yes, here there doesn’t need to be. But there, candle. One doesn’t search with the moon, not the sun, not the torch, not the candle. But by candlelight. Yes, one must have a candle.

The Advantage of a Candle – Focused on Specific Places

The holes and cracks. One says, the candle doesn’t reach. The moon and sun don’t reach, because they’re too large. One must have a candle that gives light into the… The advantage of a candle is that it’s focused on the place where you need to focus. The holes… It goes in. It goes in.

Sunlight Bedieved

Even though its light is abundant, one does not search by sunlight. Here there is reasoning bedieved (after the fact). One means to say bedieved, but not necessarily. It could be lechatchilah also at night, when there’s no sun, but… but he’s speaking… One can also make me a father, he can make me… a father. No, no. That says… says… a courtyard that doesn’t require searching… the opinion of Rav, Rava said, even though its light is abundant, one does not search… The Yerushalmi says, “Concerned about sun in the upper room”. Aha. In the explanation of the difficulty. Because the Yerushalmi held that on one hand there’s disgrace of honor. That also says, the Gemara… Everything here is such a kind… One had established a time.

Shmuel says, the answer is that there are certain bedieveds, like when one doesn’t search at night. Or, whoever doesn’t search at night, it could be that he can no longer check properly. Because the moon… I don’t know. There is a law that one had established a time. That’s an important thing, that one shouldn’t forget, no? Right?

A Courtyard That Doesn’t Require Searching

Speaker 1:

Yes, but a courtyard that doesn’t require searching, because birds are commonly found there and they eat all chametz that falls, one needs to ensure that they don’t bring chametz there, and perhaps it’s a place where they don’t bring chametz, and if they bring it there they’ll forget to remove it. I think it’s a place that… it’s a concern. Yes. Yes. Okay. “Concerned lest he find a house burned by his fellow.” Aha.

Law 5: Searching to Where His Hand Reaches

Speaker 1:

“And the searcher searches to where his hand reaches”. Why does the searcher search to where his hand reaches? “Lest he nullify it in his heart.” Ah, no. The practical difference is why. What’s the point? What’s the point here of this? Why must one only search to where his hand reaches? To where his hand reaches.

I remember that the Rambam said somewhere why one must search. One did say it with the Baraisa even. I don’t remember the place. I don’t want to say because perhaps one will come late. No, he didn’t say it. Right. He said it with the Baraisa even, and there’s who asks. It’s not a plan.

Such a difficulty exists, the Rambam isn’t particular to always say the reason. It doesn’t say in the Gemara, and he has the Rambam’s formula which is in parentheses, which aren’t typical. Yes? Yes. No. Oh, I’m in… concerned lest he find a house… yes.

Discussion: Why to Where His Hand Reaches?

So what did you say, you know why one doesn’t need to check in between? Because one can’t reach with the hand. That’s apparently chametz that has no feeling.

And here he searches apparently in the place where his hand reaches. The Rambam says the word “to where his hand reaches.” Yes. And that’s the language he says here, “Therefore one needs to search the holes and cracks to where his hand reaches”. Apparently it would be simpler to understand that apparently there’s a place where he says this word. Holes and cracks. That’s simply so. One can only search to where his hand reaches. But that’s the question, what’s the question when he says “to”? It’s better for me, I’ll look at the chart.

Witchcraft in Searching for Chametz

So, in the Mishnah it says as a preparation for the law that if it’s a non-Jew one shouldn’t because of witchcraft. So, it could be that this is the entire law. Why should the Rambam bring not the end? Why should we even know this part? The part is apparently not so important to bring a novelty. And the words he says, “to such an extent.” The second Rambam that he says under witchcraft, because it’s a law. No, the word is “lest the non-Jew say I performed witchcraft on him”. Yes, yes, fine.

I hold that perhaps the Rambam held that it’s only a law that’s relevant if one knows that a non-Jew is afraid. Today, the non-Jews in the Rambam’s times weren’t afraid of witchcraft. But one was afraid of witchcraft in the names. Ah, I know, one must know.

It’s a good question, because it’s obvious that all the entire Torah is only to where his hand reaches. No, no, no, all the entire Torah is not only to where his hand reaches. To where his hand reaches is searching, and the essence of searching. What’s the one way is there a concept to bring this word? That’s the Rambam’s novelty. But what you’re saying is better than mine, that it’s a good question. What could be the novelty here? I don’t know.

But, that perhaps in essence that a hole in the middle of the house has a certain area, why should it be a place where they bring holes and cracks? Again, all holes, holes and cracks, that’s not an area. All holes and cracks are indeed a work reason, holes and cracks. A hole means it, but not such a piece of place that makes

Searching for Chametz – Places Where They Don’t Bring Chametz, Mouse, and Concerns After Searching

The Rambam’s Novelty – A Place Where His Hand Doesn’t Reach and Nullification in His Heart

That’s the novelty of the Rambam.

But that’s by the neighbor, everyone’s lenient. You don’t need to have responsibility for the neighbor, and each one has responsibility for his own invalid stuff. What could be the novelty there? I don’t know.

Or perhaps in essence, that a hole in the middle of the house, that a person thinks, why would it be a place where they bring chametz? Again, all holes, holes and cracks, that’s not a question, all holes and cracks have hundreds of answers why holes and cracks. But a wall means that there’s such a piece of place that makes it so I shouldn’t be free from chametz. Okay.

The Binyan Olam’s Difficulty

What does the Binyan Olam say? That he says, he says it like you, that a place where his hand doesn’t reach is in one Mishnah it says that one doesn’t need searching, once one needs to nullify, why should I include that? I should divide chametz. I don’t need to have responsibility for that. Nullifying in his heart is not a permission for searching for chametz.

He says that one needs to nullify in his heart, because if it’s a place where they bring chametz, the question is about bringing chametz there. And if he nullifies in his heart and he doesn’t have enough of a comprehensive nullification in his heart, this looks like all prohibitions in the Torah. No, on the contrary, according to what he says nullifying in his heart, that’s a comprehensive nullification that he makes on his house.

The Definition of the Obligation to Search for Chametz

Therefore, the explanation of searching for chametz here, the definition of the obligation to search for chametz, one said that if you know a place where there is chametz, you shouldn’t rely on the nullification in the heart. If you know a place where there could be chametz, you must go search. But if not, one returns to the nullification in the heart.

If so, what novelty is here? I don’t understand what the novelty is. If so, because one must search in holes and cracks, and the novelty here is that a place where his hand doesn’t reach one must also nullify in his heart.

But he says that it’s certain that it’s not there at all. One will say, why aren’t you fulfilled with the comprehensive nullification in the heart that you’re going to make on all your chametz? Why does one need another thing?

I don’t know, the question of the non-Jew once made sense, because one can say that there’s a life concern, a question of guarding the mitzvah, the entire topic. But the Rambam, who doesn’t have that part in his text, is indeed unclear what he says simply.

List of Places Where They Don’t Bring Chametz (Mishnah)

Okay, let’s go further. In practice, the next thing one will speak clearly, apparently the upper and lower ones, yes? Holes of the house and the upper and lower ones. Apparently the upper houses are the upper floors, and the lower ones are the lower floors, and the middle is Rabbi Moshe Rambam, Laws of Chametz and Matzah, let’s go back to the Mishnah.

Apparently the lower and upper houses, it’s relevant to be abundant in fear and vow, there’s a dangerous place not to make chametz. The roof and the balcony, what’s a balcony? A balcony is the storage that’s next to the house where one puts things. Okay, the roof thereof. The roof. And the cattle barn and chicken coops and slaughterhouses. There’s a list of places where they don’t bring chametz.

Why Does One Need the List?

Why do I need the list? I want to understand myself why one needs to bring the list. There are already the principles, I want to understand myself.

He brings here a few explanations from the Gemara

He brings here a few explanations from the Gemara. That there is a concept of a chicken coop. A chicken coop is the same idea as we had before, that by “onsa d’rabbanan” (circumstances beyond one’s control according to the Rabbis), a place where the birds will come or the chickens will come, you can reckon that the animals will do their work.

“Otzarot yayin v’shemen, she’ein darech l’haniach sham pat” (storehouses of wine and oil, where it is not customary to place bread there). The Gemara says that the shamash (sexton) should leave over his bread, because one doesn’t go in the middle of the meal. Here he says large fish, it’s also the same thing, that one doesn’t go in the middle of the meal. For a small fish one goes to take in the middle of the meal, but large fish one prepares before the meal. It has no connection to chametz. If you know that chametz was placed there, then yes, one must.

But storehouses, yes, storehouses of wine and oil, storehouses of wine and oil in general is not relevant. Storehouses of wine and oil in general. Yes, beer he means regular beer from grain, because beer is not relevant to place there. Storehouses of wine and oil in general, the salt house, the snow house, the house of small fish, the wood house, the house of muries. What is muries? Muries is the food that one gives to animals, right? Ah, yes, fish sauce. Tzir muries that we see in halachot, that in the laws of insects we had this.

The Definition of Places Where One Doesn’t Bring In

Apparently the common houses, where one does come in, “v’yotzei bazeh” (and goes out with this), require checking. And generally there is no bringing chametz into them. I mean, one can even extract a side thing, which is a Jew’s life. A Jew’s life is a house that has a cellar, with an upper story, with a balcony, with a cattle shed, with a house of large fish, with storehouses. Not a small apartment. Okay. When a Jew checks, that he shouldn’t bring chametz there, one thing is certain. There is no law that one must check when one knows that one hasn’t, but when one is not sure one must be concerned.

As always, the halachot, the list that stands here in the Gemara, it’s certain topics. You don’t know, he tells you that these things make sense as “machnisim” (places where one brings in). I mean, there was back then a halachic rule, that you shouldn’t think that only where you know for certain, but where you know for certain that not, you are exempt. There is a statement from an Amora who says this, that it’s not enough that you know for certain that you didn’t carry chametz, you are exempt. You are only exempt when you know for certain that not.

However, either way, generally, like every other place in the world. If you know certainly that yes, you must check. If you know certainly that not, you are exempt. If you don’t know, I look at you. You are a certain type, you are a place that is customary, you place there, you don’t place there. So I go generally. And this is the place that you don’t place there.

The Gemara goes into the law, what here what, that the wine house wasn’t one of the places, and you didn’t think about the shamash going in carrying bread. It wasn’t thought about with the shamash.

So, in other words… So, now comes the whole Gemara discussion of the advice. So, when it’s better clear. But the Talmud which is not clear, there is better… This is a place that is checking. So, there shouldn’t be any definition. We should only make a list. So, this one sees from when he is better places that he makes himself. So, because one can already make oneself. So, you won’t make a list of every house with all the types and varieties. So, can you already a mikveh? So, because bringing in will start to rule, saying, how I don’t think, because what fits with your names? So, you’ll still come a good thing. So, occasionally. So, but only therefore occasionally.

Chuldah – “Yedei Basar”

So, a child has dragged away, out, all the types of things that come to you. But one is already after… And the tractate makes this foundations, if people already say then a chuldah (weasel) has perhaps taken. So, it’s already not. It’s already not! So, I say the chuldah comes very well in right after this. So, you said that one perhaps has the names once brought in. No, no, the chuldah is still a whole text. So, righteous, righteous.

Okay. Rabbi Yehuda, shows the war needs checking. So, there is concern after searching for chametz. After checking for chametz. Right. Why does one need all these places? Because perhaps one has made there chametz. If so, will any person think to bring in? No, no, no. So will he be concerned? Always your generation. But because of what is now… Still, so, now one has finished checking for chametz. No, one has finished checking for chametz. One has checked above, finished, “machnisim bo chametz” (one brings chametz into it).

The Concern of Chuldah

That there are chuldot (weasels) that they make everything into a place where one brings chametz into it. That is, they don’t take it here, they don’t take it here, they don’t take it here, they don’t take it here, they don’t take it here, they don’t take it here. They take it from one place to a second. That is, the whole world is called a place where one brings chametz into it, and this is already too much. And “yedei basar” (human hands) is a great principle in halacha, that when there is “yedei basar” it’s fallen through.

This is not such a good argument practically. Why can’t one say that not? Where it’s reasonable, it’s reasonable. Where not, not. It’s not such a good argument. The halacha one will see, one can make logical calculations, instead of a majority, a chazakah (presumption), how strong a minority is the chuldah.

Dispute Between Rashi and Ramban

Now let’s come today to the sort of feelings, what has become here simply “yedei basar”? It’s a simple thing. What does the Gemara say in Eruvin? When I eat in challah close to nine, that is the difference from house to house is from house to city. No, it’s very difficult. Why? Because it’s not clear cut. It’s very clear cut, sorry. Why? Because it’s in my eyes this. He does here a precious thing. What does “davar she’ein machnisim bo chametz” (a thing where one doesn’t bring chametz into it) mean? It’s not a clear thing. It tells you that it’s perhaps something that you must think, something a thing that can happen. It’s only something day-to-day. Day-to-day I can’t say that I’ll leave over my bread, because perhaps will come a chuldah from far away.

Okay, it’s certainly to the other reasoning, the different reasoning. It’s something the frequent minority. I have a… There is also the Gemara… Ah, you have a phone? I want to see that there is a dispute. All the foolishness one can see there, not for my Gemara. In my Gemara he brings that this is actually a dispute, and it was never a dispute. It’s actually a dispute between Ramban and Rashi.

Rashi learns that “yedei chashiv” is this, because of the public matter, the public matter, you must go… you must turn a whole night. And this makes sense the “yedei basar”.

No, according to Rashi it’s speaking in the middle of the checking or after the checking. Therefore, you must be in corners. Therefore, you must be in corners. The question… according to Rashi is not the question that there is a place where one brings chametz into it. According to Rashi the question is that after checking, perhaps will come a chuldah and take to a place that is not checked. Therefore he says, come here, you must turn a whole night, it’s never finished.

But the Ramban learns that the question is about a place where one brings chametz into it. The novelty of the one explanation is that it won’t all places where one doesn’t bring chametz into them become places where one brings chametz into them because of chuldot.

Doubt of Torah Law and Concern

And according to this it’s difficult to understand the concept of “yedei basar”. One can learn the whole thing with the clear topic of doubt of Torah law. “A place where one brings chametz into it” is simply that there is a presumption. This has become for the Rabbis, the whole thing is for the Rabbis. And afterwards he said with the Rabbis so, what are the Rabbis now? The Rabbis that one spoke about in the Torah law. He says so: Here is a place where one brings chametz into it, is simply a presumption. It’s like a lazar. A place that is not a place where one brings chametz into it, is perhaps a concern of doubt of chametz, doubt of Torah law. You say that even there is perhaps there a minority, or… No, no, no.

But the truth is that with Torah law by doubt of Torah law doesn’t mean everyone can review. But because one has brought this in, is not because one has given us any knowledge. One learns the halacha from this, is also because the Rambam learns regarding checking is the halacha from fast watchers, which is very interesting. This is still a side thing.

But in any case, when there is… No, doubt of Torah law doesn’t mean perhaps there has flown in once a dog, or a dog has brought a challah. This doesn’t make any doubt of Torah law. Doubt of Torah law means when there is an equal doubt, and you can’t… whatever it is, it’s equal. The halacha of a concern is a law in doubt, that the doubt doesn’t begin at all. But it’s not any concept of doubt, because the whole thing is for the Rabbis that one should make sure. You say that it’s a concept of checking? Checking means that it’s already going into doubt. Checking is perhaps a new commandment. Soon it will go into doubt, but it’s not now our standing.

Concerns After Checking for Chametz – Mice and Differences

Let’s go further. “And obligation to smear after them, chametz that was checked after checking, they need to check a second time”. Let’s see. “That I didn’t hear who checks, and perhaps that he relies on what checks the whole house entirely”. Yes, there is a Rambam. To interpret, he is very concerned to one must check the first time. Because you see the Tosafot writes “but that mice divided it certainly”. So once you have dragged around there, there is a fear that one has left it over. Why shouldn’t one say that the Gemara there speaks about the guests, no question, there is a checking. Because there is a majority of bread.

“And obligation to smear after him that chametz shouldn’t come after checking, they need to check a second time. Even if one finds crumbs in the middle of the house, we don’t pay attention that mice shouldn’t come to a place of garbage, and they are not crumbs, and we rule that it’s not sold at all. But the crumbs close to dough, he returns and checks. If he didn’t find anything, behold this one checks the whole house, he found them in the place where he places them, he doesn’t need checking”. He is afraid actually that there is a concern that one has left over. Look, I won’t tell you that I didn’t have the first hand of the harmony, because I have the specific upstate.

The Topic of a Mouse That Entered a Checked House — Laws of Fixed and Majority

A Mouse Before — Like a Mouse in Its Mouth

Speaker 1: The Rema ruled that a mouse before, a mouse that is more reached with the children, him one must well lead. What does lead mean? Is the question how one eats.

By the way, a child is like a mouse in his hand, not in his mouth. He is born, and the Gemara stands yes on like a mouse in his mouth, it’s very interesting. No, the Gemara stands yes on like a mouse in his mouth. But a mouse is like a mouse in his mouth, actually therefore because we know that to come in a mouse, what it is, one must search only. A child is like a mouse in his mouth, a mouse is like a mouse in his mouth, because he carries it actually generally so before.

He brings the Magen Avraham who says that one must make sure that there are enough crumbs from the whole thing. The question is what does before mean? The Rema learns before during eating. It’s I leave crumbs.

Speaker 2: No, no, no, sugar. What is the mouse that the same thing, but away?

Speaker 1: I’m not like that. But it’s interesting, I see bringing in that you exchange the child for the in his hand, because he doesn’t go from the mouth, and disgusted from this has his hand.

Speaker 2: By the Shulchan Aruch, yes, a child from the honor sits.

Speaker 1: But it means that in his hand means the privilege to hold something.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Because it’s a hacker easily such. More because it’s not any inseli from the nkala.

Speaker 1: Okay, you’re not red to bring it to a checked house.

Entered a Checked House — Law of Fixed

Speaker 1: Entered a checked house, the children entered into a house house checked, and he is entered a checked house. We have learned it. Or so, that if he found crumbs, he doesn’t need to check.

Speaker 2: I don’t catch what the crumbs is, is it pieces? What does it mean, he saw that someone has eaten there? Or perhaps he entered into a place that is easy to become chametz?

Speaker 1: If you see that there are crumbs, crumbs is a hint that it can also hold in itself. This is the point.

Two Piles — One Chametz and One Matzah

Speaker 1: And if you have two piles of matzah and one of chametz, and a mouse came and took, and we don’t know if chametz he took or matzah he took, and he entered a checked house, he needs to check, because everything fixed is like half and half.

Although there is a majority of matzah, but in the place where he entered, the question is on the fixed place. The question is not on the piles, the question is on the house, whether there is there. Therefore one looks at the house, and the house is the fixedness, and it’s half and half.

If you go plain with the majority, it should have been that it’s a majority, that it’s kosher, that it’s a majority of matzah. But since the question is on the house, and the house is the fixed place, no, this is not true.

Speaker 2: Entered a checked house, this is not what concerns me. The fixed place is the piles. I mean that the fixedness is always from where one has taken it. You go with the question.

Speaker 1: Right, right, right, right. Therefore the fixed place is the piles, therefore one looks as it would have been half and half.

Dispute of Raavad and Rambam — Needs Checking or Nullification

Speaker 1: Here there is a great point, that the Raavad argues and he says that the Rambam says “needs checking”, but the Raavad says “needs nullification”. It can be that the Rabbis are strict on all these doubts. Because the Rabbis, the whole concept of checking, I don’t know if it’s relevant that the Raavad should say “needs nullification”. Nullification is a concept from the Torah, and checking is from the Rabbis. Both opinions are from the Rabbis.

The Rebbe’s Approach — Checking for Chametz Is About Doubt

Speaker 1: The Rebbe’s approach is like the Rishonim and other commentators. He wants the simple meaning, that actually because checking for chametz is the main doubt, one must say that the whole idea of checking for chametz is not about the doubts. It’s only on the chametz that you have regularly bound up. The checking means that you will remove the doubts. The doubts is actual, and this is the reason for the checking.

This is exactly true, because once you do checking for chametz everything is a doubt, because you don’t think that there is chametz. You search for chametz that perhaps is there.

Speaker 2: Right, but the doubt that the Torah speaks is not chametz that you say that it’s certainly there. It speaks of all chametz that you think that it’s perhaps there.

Speaker 1: But once the Sages added the concept of, the concept of checking, they made something that it’s not only, even not, here he speaks of the certainties, but it’s a different thing, that you are saying.

Speaker 2: I don’t understand what you’re saying here. The Gemara has a doubt, the Gemara says that one shouldn’t rely on nullification, there is a doubt. So, what is the question?

Speaker 1: You are right that there is a doubt, because I don’t know if there is actually bread at all.

Speaker 2: Right. A place where one brought chametz into it, what means a place that everything is chametz?

Speaker 1: No, there is certainly chametz.

Speaker 2: It’s also, that is, here are apparently two other things, one is, there are two things, but there is, one should check places where one knows that there is chametz and not rely on the nullification.

Speaker 1: No, one should remove, and not rely on nullification. Afterwards there is still another thing, that even one doesn’t know that there is chametz one must search for it. There are two other halachot that you see the Tosafot here the whole time.

Discussion — Obligation of Removal and Obligation of Checking

Speaker 2: I don’t know how it doesn’t stand here the obligation of removal from the Ramban. It stands, even if there wouldn’t have been any nullification from Torah law, there would have been a commandment of nullification. There would have been a commandment of removal.

Speaker 1: The Divrei Yosef says that there are two things, as the Ramban says, Divrei Yosef says that there are two things, as the Ramban says, there is the removal, there are two extra things. It’s, if there is Torah there wouldn’t have been the permission of nullification at all.

It’s, one can learn two ways, it can be that the Torah says only, this is like, this is not any obligation of checking. It’s not any obligation of checking, it can be that it’s yes, there would have been an obligation of checking, because all this and perhaps chametz is an obligation from Torah law, therefore one must check, as it stands in the Rishonim.

Translation

One could learn from all this that it would be something like a chazakah, that a place where chametz was brought in has a chazakat chametz (presumption of chametz), therefore the chazakah says that it’s not nullified by majority on a Torah level, therefore you need to check so there shouldn’t be the chazakat chametz.

I don’t know, I’m saying novel ideas. I’m telling you that there are two things, it could be that it says here, if there wouldn’t be bitul (nullification) one would have to destroy it. Bedikah (checking) is still a third thing.

The Rambam means to say that the Ramban distinguishes between the two things. If there wouldn’t be bedikat chametz (checking for chametz) one would have to destroy everything, one wouldn’t have to search. They’re different things.

In any case, the halachah is that if a mouse came and it took from the place, right? It took and we don’t know, it went into a house that we know is checked, there we say it’s kavu’a (fixed), and therefore it’s a mechtzah al mechtzah safek (equal doubt), that what? That there’s chametz in the house, one needs to check it again.

Two Piles and Two Houses — There Is No Kavu’a Here

Speaker 1: What if there are “two piles and two houses”? That not only is there a doubt about which pile, but also about the houses.

Speaker 2: No, “one checked and one not checked”, “and two piles, one chametz and one matzah”, “he checked the checked one and found chametz in it”, “he must be concerned”, “perhaps this chametz is that chametz which was in the pile”, “and if so, the checked one has returned to its chametz state”, “and he needs to check a second time”, “because there is no kavu’a here”.

Discussion — Why Is There No Kavu’a Here?

Speaker 1: Right, if the question is about the house, there’s no kavu’a. If the question is from which pile he took, even according to Rav against this, it’s all “davar she’yesh lo matir” (something that has a permitting factor), “nine of chametz and one of matzah”, “this is kavu’a”, “this is like mechtzah al mechtzah”. Yes?

Speaker 2: No. Did it go according to majority, or should one go according to majority? Because what didn’t go is the “kol kavu’a”, we’ll go according to majority.

Speaker 1: Ah, it’s a safek hashakul (equal doubt), and you have another new doubt in the house, which house yes has. There’s a new doubt here. This is the only doubt that exists. Do you understand the doubt? Here actually, if it’s a doubt from which pile he took, it’s called kavu’a, one needs to have “majority and needs to check”. If it’s a doubt which house he went into…

Speaker 2: Right, what’s the difference? Is it “safek sefeika” (double doubt)?

Speaker 1: No, it’s not a safek sefeika. It doesn’t say here that it’s a safek sefeika. It says that Rav is here, and there’s no kavu’a, one needs to go according to majority.

Speaker 2: But there’s a majority that I have chametz in my house?

Speaker 1: Here it’s not kavu’a, there’s no majority.

The Gemara’s Foundation — “Shani Omer”

Speaker 2: But it seems that he… it actually comes… he explains that the Gemara says that the yes itself fell into the yes, and there’s no kavu’a.

Speaker 1: No no no, but he says that the chametz-ish chametz came to the chametz-ish house. He already asks, no, the Rambam already says here, the Mechaber already says here the difference, actually. The Rambam says, the commentators give me, one can’t… The Rambam says at this moment, one can’t, the Rambam says that… two piles… “shani omer”, yes! The Gemara actually says it.

The Gemara says, “two piles, one chametz and one matzah”, “and they told him two mice”, “one took chametz and one took matzah”, “and it’s not known which of them entered the checked house”, “this is like one who didn’t check”. “Shani omer”, “shani omer”, “shani omer”, “kavu’a”, “shani omer”, yes, exactly. This is all built on “shani omer”. The Almighty loves the Jews, and He makes a case, the Gemara says “derabbanan”, one says “shani omer”. It turns out that the Rabbis, what are they relying on this thing.

But the Rambam doesn’t say this. The Rambam says it’s completely kavu’a. I don’t know, it’s very funny. I’m trying to cut with the bottom, and also with the teacher. The first, the first case is different.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s understandable. But what’s the second case? It’s forbidden, there’s a doubt here.

Speaker 1: True, the second case is, let’s say, he left you with eleven two pieces. Further, one hangs the leniency, I don’t know. One needs to kill the nine, even if it was nine, explain this to me.

Speaker 2: True, does it say to kill nine in the Rambam? It says right in the old Rambam simple halachah.

Speaker 1: Ah, he shows there, you know what’s the simple explanation there? He says that the Ra’avad’s position is that kavu’a is certainly so, and one hangs leniently. The Rambam says that there’s no kavu’a. The Rambam says that it is kavu’a, it comes from one place, and the Rambam has kavu’a. It’s only hanging leniently, because he has a doubt in our hands whether specifically and hangs this with that. It’s not such two piles, it’s a new chiddush, a new explanation.

Discussion — The Ra’avad’s Position

Speaker 2: So what does the Ra’avad say that it’s completely kavu’a? In the midrash it’s that he should say that it’s completely kavu’a, he wouldn’t have said this two piles. He would have said that one makes it easy, he doesn’t say any two piles. He would have said that there’s no kavu’a, so yes there is kavu’a, this means the Ra’avad that there’s no kavu’a. But there’s no kavu’a by us, because what is there…

Speaker 1: My thing is this thing, he doesn’t say any two piles, he doesn’t say any kol defarish. He doesn’t say that one makes it easy.

Speaker 2: He argues, it is kavu’a.

Speaker 1: Yes, one has a doubt in the law, from which pile did he take. The doubt is also again, it’s still another thing. Because the two piles says that you have a doubt from which pile it came, how does one rule? One says mechtzah al mechtzah, because you have a way you should have a rabbinic doubt.

But the question is, from the pile it came from one of the two places, but one of the two places isn’t kavu’a. It’s already a new doubt, safek sefeika. It’s completely a new way in the Rambam, that he says that it is kavu’a, he says that there isn’t the law that one needs to kill nine. Yes, there is kavu’a.

Speaker 2: The question is a wonder, this doesn’t make a safek sefeika, because why do I have a safek sefeika? One has here a doubt from which pile, one only has a doubt from which mouse it went in. But fine, it’s kavu’a and one has another doubt.

Speaker 1: Hey, in the normal one speaks of a group, but here what is kavu’a and one has another doubt, doesn’t one look at it like a kavu’a which is mechtzah al mechtzah? But yes, there’s a safek sefeika, it’s innocent. Yes, the Rambam has such two laws.

Every house, let’s learn further, we’ll see what the black text says. And the standards are going down.

Conclusion

Speaker 1: Another point I wanted to add, which I saw a chiddush that I didn’t think this word is. Afterwards we’ll come to the questions that we received. But the sugya is difficult and important.

One Who Rents a House to His Friend and One Who Goes Out on a Ship

One Who Rents a House to His Friend

Speaker 1: What’s the reasoning? Actually a kevi’ut (fixedness) can’t be, normal one’s own group. But here where you say a kevi’ut that there you depend on it, they don’t look at it like a kevi’ut, so this is easy upon easy. But, yes, here you have many answers, I know. Yes, they have such two laws.

Yoreh De’ah, let’s learn further, in natural, I understand what’s going on here.

The Rambam’s Language

“One who rents a house without specification to his friend – the renter must check. If before he gave him the key the fourteenth arrived – the renter must check. Once he gave him the key – the tenant must check. One who rents a house with the presumption of being checked and it’s found that it’s not checked – the tenant must check.”

Simple Meaning: Giving the Key Is Like a Kinyan (Acquisition)

Speaker 1: After the sugya in Pesachim to understand what they said then, because one couldn’t answer me. Yes, I said the sugya is difficult, but sometimes also.

“One who rents a house without specification to his friend” – what is this? “If before he gave him the key” – why do you need that giving the key should make this kevi’ut?

Again, ah, giving the key one looks. He didn’t take from that one… He didn’t take from a… And another piece. According to this a mouse came and took chametz, and you don’t know if it went in at all. All these troubles one learns there, in man until terl.

Speaker 2: So what was there the real difference between Yoreh De’ah aleph and Yoreh De’ah beit? What is there… I don’t know.

Chezkat Checked and Found Not Checked – Why Not a Mistaken Purchase?

Speaker 1: But this also, what you say a holy… This is a holy… This is a dispute. That three of the Maggidei Mishneh want to tell, and he says that it means mostly chametz. One needs simple understanding, not transk, been mostly matzah, but it means mostly chametz.

Speaker 2: What’s practical? I don’t know.

Speaker 1: Okay, “One who rents a house with the presumption of being checked and it’s found that it’s not checked – the tenant must check, and it’s not a mistaken purchase.”

In practice it can’t be. How long does one let in to see? There’s a sugya in Bava Metzia. It stands there. You know, thirty days, or the chapter of HaMafkid, yes, one lets in to see in that chapter.

Chiddush: Checking Is a Mitzvah – Therefore One Forgives

Speaker 1: Okay, “One who rents a house with the presumption of being checked and it’s found that it’s not checked” – the despair of the owner is presumably a loaf in his mouth. They said, since he entered with permission, the owner’s despair doesn’t help him. You say, he entered with permission. How do you say he entered with permission?

Okay, this is a dependent, you made the correct comment earlier, which you said. Okay, this is the result of… Don’t go make a new mouse. This is the same, you know, there’s a question, the Almighty, what does He lack one mouse more or less? I don’t know. I think that there’s a matter of the owner’s despair doesn’t help him. I think that there’s a measure, a dependent.

But what’s the reason not to make a new chiddush at all? This is the same story. Since he entered with permission, the owner’s despair doesn’t help him. A mouse entered, yes, a mouse entered with a loaf in its mouth, the owner’s despair no longer helps him, and a loaf in its mouth doesn’t help him. So the loaf is already, yes, mouse.

A Snake Entered a Pit – One Is Not Obligated to Bring a Friend

Speaker 1: A snake entered a pit, one is not obligated to bring a friend, someone who is a good friend with the snake who can drag it out? Because, why? Because it’s a danger, or because this is already a dangerous place, it’s a war?

A snake entered a pit, one is not obligated to bring a friend. You don’t need to bring someone who is a friend who will drag it. A friend means a snake bringer.

Speaker 2: Ah, it’s a danger? Am I obligated even when he’s not a snake bringer?

Speaker 1: Yes, he said that he’s not talking about a snake bringer. Yes, something one doesn’t do. He’s not obligated.

Speaker 2: What does it say here? Yes, what’s the danger? Just like before, what’s the difference by a house to a non-Jew one doesn’t need… not obligated, it’s a burden.

Speaker 1: Tosafot says, the rabbinic burden, it’s not a danger. I think that the Sages rabbinically, it’s a danger, it costs you money for it, because you’ll need to pay for the friends. I don’t know, I haven’t seen such an implication.

Dough in the Cracks of the Kneading Trough – A Thread of Dough Between Them

Speaker 1: Okay, in short, here is back another law. Actually, there’s another law. Actually, the Rambam, the Rambam has another definition with this law. The law according to him should have been, the explained, that it fell on Pesach and he came to eat. The Rambam didn’t say the thing that one fears lest he come to eat it.

Gravity – It Can Fall Down, But Going Up It Doesn’t Go

Speaker 1: Let’s see, I say sit in my spices the reader, because say gravity, it can fall down, but going up it doesn’t go. Also what should enter took the upper, and nullifies from below and from its sides, because we believe very strongly in gravity.

For it is simple the yeshiva’s position, that an apple seed participates with the bite. It became nullified. It became a backfall, one needs to check, and we have those who say Lezburg made a connected thing without? It becomes another what to strengthen with seven the Rav great customs nullified and canceled.

Connected Thing – A Thread of Dough Between Them

Speaker 1: Because aha, what rings there, aha, and one plans to take out, connected thing. Oh, sending the command, be it two places and a thread of dough between them, the Sages said one doesn’t take out loaves with the student, connected thing. What becomes when it’s said a large olive’s worth, because one leaves one connected thing.

From our words we learn with proof from a top, above and from its sides, even if from it took the thread one student, connected thing. We hear from this receives impurity.

Speaker 2: Thank you.

Speaker 1: Yes, sometimes a person takes himself goes into a wall, and scratches out a piece of sore, and makes from this connected thing. Be enough poor.

The Amount of Swallowing – When Does It Receive Impurity

Speaker 1: Also be it be it between them, if it’s, if it’s, if it’s one can’t not sa… this one can say for a starter. Also if it’s be it between them, if be it when it’s between like a thread. If they are far one from the second, this won’t receive impurity.

So between them if they are the amount of swallowing. Or… well, always, one speaks of course from squeezed. Squeezed which is close, even it until take that Eve needs to be with a thread, and an evil with a thread. But squeezed that it’s far a two-hundred piece… ah… not quite, it’s not so by.

What Chametz Is Obligated in Checking – Less Than an Olive’s Worth

Speaker 1: These are new laws, not from Michumesht also sprout a chametz, but he can say just like what chametz is obligated. A chametz… what chametz. Right?

Speaker 2: Interesting. It’s as if when they didn’t answer the basic question. It means here places that one needs to check, but… let’s say, I know that there’s chametz.

Speaker 1: Interesting. Actual chametz three quarters after one at night. Huh?

Speaker 2: The question isn’t if you know that there’s chametz.

Speaker 1: Yes yes, I know that there’s chametz in my spices the reader, the question is whether one needs to check for this, means to take out. The second thing that one needs to say here. Yes, the enactment of the Sages says that one needs to check. And he’ll nullify it and he’ll take out the chametz, it’s not always he’s obligated.

When Is One Obligated in Checking

Speaker 1: When is he obligated? When it’s something that will fall down, or if it’s something that one will sometimes use, and so on. If one will never use it, and it’s less than an olive’s worth… yes?

Speaker 2: Right that one will learn? Right that one will learn?

Speaker 1: Why are you so happy? You’re tired, you want to go in that it’s right? Good. It’s always not a good ring.

One Who Goes Out on a Ship and One Who Goes Out in a Caravan

The Rambam’s Language

Speaker 1: “One who rents a house without specification to his friend, without specification,” it means without saying what the status of the house is, “the renter must check,” because yes, Jews… there are those who say that Jews do the mitzvah in its time, but actually every house has a presumption that it’s chametz-ish. But there are those who say that an honest Jew, this is the Gemara, this is without specification, and I don’t know the language. But I agree that but if there’s a minor in the house, certainly, it has the presumption of being clean. But a house without specification, the renter must check. From the ends, the without specification is rabbinic, and the Rabbis believe the minor, terrible rabbinically, there’s a minor who doesn’t intend to check. Yes, not a baby of two years old, one speaks of a small boy, or a big boy.

“One who rents a house to his friend, if before he gave him the key his work arrived, the renter must check.” Because it’s still his time, the obligation of checking happened, and even though he no longer lives in the house, “the tenant must check.” Giving the key means a law of acquisition, that is, it’s no longer his.

“One who rents a house with the presumption of being checked and it’s found that it’s not checked, the tenant must check, because of a mistaken purchase.” Even by law he’s obligated, what’s the mistaken purchase that he’ll now have to pay money? No, what would there have been a mistaken purchase? Here there’s no mistaken purchase, it’s a mitzvah. Because it’s not so difficult, a person isn’t so angry that he needs to check, he has gratitude because it’s a mitzvah. There he’s presumably forgiving, he wants to do the mitzvah.

Within Thirty Days – Before Thirty Days

Speaker 1: Okay, “One who goes out on a ship and one who goes out in a caravan,” interesting, as if one grabs them together, as if what? It’s not the same thing. Okay. “One who goes out on a ship and one who goes out in a caravan, within thirty days,” he should learn well, because the obligation of checking begins within thirty days. “Before thirty days,” he needs to check the house, because he’ll be on Pesach back on Pesach eve. Why? “Because a person doesn’t leave his house empty, lest something happen to him.” Therefore he needs to leave the house prepared.

Question: Why Doesn’t the Thirty Days Help?

Speaker 1: It’s interesting that he must leave the house prepared for Pesach, the thirty days doesn’t help. The simple explanation is, the thirty days is an obligation. This is an obligation because it’s from the time when one has an obligation of bedikah (searching for chametz). But you know, there is a way to return, so there is an obligation of bedikah.

Speaker 2: Right, first of all there is an obligation of bedikah. Exactly. Why? Because someone is going to return and search there. He returned the same night.

Speaker 1: Right. But someone has a circumstance, he’s planning to travel to a place where he knows he’ll return at the last minute. He’s under duress, he’s under duress. He’s under duress.

Speaker 2: If there is duress. Yes.

Gilyon Maharsha: Duress – Nullified and Voided

Speaker 1: If someone has a circumstance, someone remained behind, and consequently there is duress, it’s simple that if there is chametz somewhere it will become nullified and it will be used as wood, and there is no circumstance, says the Gilyon Maharsha, that this is the reason why he is not obligated. All the more so here, that someone has a circumstance, he doesn’t want to go for Pesach to his wife and children, because perhaps he won’t be able to get rid of the chametz.

Seemingly in any case, someone has a circumstance, he doesn’t want to go for Pesach, so he didn’t go, so he’s under duress, he can’t search, so everything is just like before.

Digression: The Enactments of the Sages and the Life Situation

Speaker 2: Ah listen. You know, there’s a whole world with this. It depends on how the person lives. Yes. It’s a matter. The enactments were made for people who have servants and maids who take care of everything, who are not people who toil. As they are the great travelers, so they are. Yes.

Speaker 1: You’re saying a good thing. Did they see this? That’s a good thing. A Jew must have, not that he must work from Pesach to Pesach. They saw, ah, they were in a corner, they had greater responsibilities which is not toiling. Heaven have mercy. Foolishness. Once someone had those desires.

Speaker 2: Huh? Another type?

Speaker 1: On the contrary, I’m learning with the grandchildren. But the main thing is the yishuv hadaas (settled mind), it’s not the money. Money is nothing.

Laws of Chametz and Matzah – Chapter 3: Structure of the Prohibitions and the Mitzvah of Tashbitu

Introduction: General Structure of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah

So, we’re learning that the Laws of Chametz and Matzah, we’re holding at Chapter 3. We see in general, there is indeed chametz and matzah, and there are, as we’ve learned, the mitzvot, right? There are the prohibitions of not eating chametz, various forms, and then there is the mitzvah of eating matzah, and the mitzvah… In other words, the Rambam organized the mitzvot according to erev Pesach, the seven days, and erev Pesach. Yes, but the laws don’t really work exactly that way. It goes roughly like that. That is, but the first category, the first six mitzvot, are all in the first five chapters, let’s say. That is, all kinds of matters of the prohibition of chametz, and then Chapter 6 begins the mitzvah of eating matzah, and Chapter 7 is the story of the Exodus from Egypt, and the five types… the Seder night is Chapter 8.

So, it comes out that he shows that the first… It’s not really true, that is, not certain. The first four chapters are certainly about the prohibitions of not eating chametz and hashbatat chametz. I think the fifth chapter also has a bit, so I’m not sure. The first five chapters. I had notes somewhere that I found from last year that we made on… Let me see if I find it. That’s what I think. It says here that chapters aleph through hei are the prohibition of chametz. Yes, the first five chapters, most of the laws are about the prohibition of chametz. Interesting.

Yes. So, how is the matter of chametz divided? So that’s what we need to understand. So the first chapter was, ah, one could say, apparently it should be more general, right? That’s how one begins, in a general way.

Review: Chapter 1 – The General Definitions of the Prohibitions of Chametz

The first chapter we learned, I said, in other words, the Rambam always goes and begins with the definition, as it were, of the mitzvah, right? That’s essentially what it is. He begins with the definition of the mitzvah. The mitzvah, ah, the prohibition, what is the definition of the prohibition of eating chametz? Yes, what punishments are there? When does one receive the punishments? Such sorts of things.

The Prohibition of Eating Chametz

So we said that there are, ah, three other mitzvot essentially, apparently. There is the prohibition of eating chametz on Pesach itself, the prohibition of eating chametz. There is also another prohibition of mixtures of chametz, an extra prohibition according to the Rambam, which already receives karet. On the first one receives karet, yes, according to the opinion of the Rambam. The other Rishonim, the Ra’avad and the Ramban, they all disagree, but the opinion of the Rambam is that there is one prohibition to eat any food of a kezayit of chametz on Pesach, he receives karet, and a chatat, like a… yes? Yes, yes. Karet and chatat.

There is no punishment, not like Shabbat. Shabbat has for example karet, chatat, and stoning. Here there is no stoning, there is no punishment by human hands. It’s interesting. One must know which sins also have this punishment. I mean, karet means one receives lashes apparently, but… Lashes one receives on the prohibition, but not death by human hands, only karet by Heaven if it’s intentional, and if unintentional he brings a sin offering. That is eating chametz.

The Prohibition of Benefit – Question: Does One Receive Karet for Benefit?

And that’s one thing, and he also writes benefit, he doesn’t say what happens if benefit is also karet. I never understood this. Here there is a prohibition of eating and benefit, also benefit. Benefit is forbidden from chametz, there is a derivation, “lo ye’achel,” in the manner of eating. But does one receive karet for benefit from Pesach chametz as well? Benefit included in eating means is it the same thing, or that benefit was also forbidden? The language “included in eating” means apparently that it’s the same thing, it’s one thing. I don’t know, I don’t know.

So, law 1, law 2, it’s not clear. There is… I see in the back that there are those who say that no, even lashes doesn’t apply, it’s only a prohibition. What does benefit is only a prohibition mean? So he brings, because one should have said apparently that there is a punishment. I don’t know, I don’t know what the explanation is. In any case, benefit is also not allowed, but he doesn’t say what happens.

On this I explain, I don’t know, I don’t know. In any case, that’s one prohibition, a prohibition to eat chametz, okay?

The Prohibition of Mixtures of Chametz – Dispute Between Rambam and Rishonim

Another prohibition there is, prohibition number one, that’s the most basic thing, one may not eat chametz on Pesach. Another prohibition there is, to have chametz on Pesach, right? It says “lo yera’eh” and “lo yimatzei.” There are distinctions, we’ll see details of this in Chapter 4 with God’s help. Chapter 4 speaks of details of “lo yera’eh” and “lo yimatzei,” but Chapter 1 is only the general definition, one may not have chametz on Pesach, “lo yera’eh” and “lo yimatzei,” two prohibitions. And understandably, if one transgresses, that he should receive lashes he must do an action, and therefore this is… okay.

Then, the Rabbis made that chametz she’avar alav haPesach, which was subject to bal yera’eh, it is forbidden in benefit forever. That’s already a thing like a general rabbinic matter.

Discussion: Chametz She’avar Alav HaPesach – Is This a Fine?

Chavrusa A: Like one may not have benefit from work done on Shabbat, is this a kind of fine such a thing?

Chavrusa B: It’s a fine, and we learn that the reason for the fine is so that one should not transgress bal yera’eh. So one shouldn’t come to do bal yera’eh. It’s like many fines. It’s not simply a fine… What does a fine mean? A fine is like I give you a ticket. You cross a red light, you get a ticket. What’s the point of the ticket? That you shouldn’t cross the red light. You crossed, and you got through it with some trick, it’s not even to say that you shouldn’t eat it afterwards.

Chavrusa A: But this is already from the Torah. The distancing from the Torah doesn’t say… You’re saying a good reasoning. I see that the commentators saw the explanation. When the explanation is a verse, yes, the explanation is a text, one can say it that way. It could be that there’s no contradiction. The law will already make from it an extra mitzvah. But just as there is the prohibition of the revelation, there is a distancing from the Torah.

Chavrusa B: No, the Torah also made a distancing from the prohibition, yes. It seems so, yes. And the plain meaning commentators that we saw last night or the night before certainly learn that the seeing is a distancing from eating. And it’s not so hard to understand. I mean, you ask why is it different from all other prohibitions? The answer is because it’s… I once wrote a whole piece of Torah about this, I don’t see it here in my book. But that you shouldn’t hold this by the ear, because you don’t need the chametz. It’s certain that if one learns here simple plain meaning of Scripture, it’s certainly so. Yes.

In any case, okay, already. Then we learned that according to the Rambam there is another prohibition of eating mixtures of chametz, it’s an extra prohibition. And in practice the prohibition is also only when one eats a kezayit of the chametz in the mixture. It’s a very difficult interesting thing. And all other commentators say no, if you eat a kezayit you’ve eaten chametz. Not chametz itself, but the Rambam says that the mixture is already not chametz itself. And everyone else understands that no, this is actually chametz, only mixtures should have been a different thing. And what is it then? Then it’s a dispute of Tannaim, and one didn’t rule at all that it’s forbidden, it’s only forbidden perhaps rabbinically to something like that.

Okay, that’s regarding mixtures of chametz. We spoke about half a measure, forbidden, also has details like the punishment, right? The general things, always the general things include these sorts of things. And very good.

The Prohibition of Eating Chametz on Erev Pesach – From Midday and On

Then we learned that there is, in short, two prohibitions from the Torah, or three you can say: the prohibition of eating chametz, the prohibition of benefit, the prohibition of mixtures of chametz. These are all things from the Torah according to the Rambam. Then there is a fourth prohibition which is also from the Torah not to eat chametz from midday and on. This is only eating, not benefit apparently, and it doesn’t say that there are mixtures of chametz, and all other stringencies that we learned, it didn’t transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, all the stringencies that we learned about chametz on Pesach don’t exist on this prohibition of erev Pesach from six hours and on.

But from the Torah there is a Torah prohibition from oral tradition that “lo tochal alav chametz” means not to eat chametz at the time… One shouldn’t slaughter the Pesach offering when chametz exists. And on this from the Torah there are also rabbinic decrees in time, right? That eating was decreed from six hours. One is one adds an hour, and then one still has fear of a cloudy day. Right, so basically one adds two hours, however exactly it works. Therefore there are distinctions that this is actually added, one may not have benefit also not. It says here one is actually added, and one is something interesting how the Rambam asks it. This is all from the commentators on the Gemara on page 84. Yes, but it shouldn’t look like two hours were added. The Rambam doesn’t want to say two hours were added. He says one hour was added, but one hour is actually… The one hour is something a matter, it’s not actually a prohibition, it’s a different kind of prohibition. It’s a distinction, it’s a distinction in benefit, it was forbidden in terumah, right? There is indeed a distinction.

Discussion: Plain Meaning in the Verse “Lo Tochal Alav Chametz”

In short, that’s the point of the first chapter, the principles, the prohibitions of the three prohibitions, you can say: not eating chametz, bal yera’eh, with mixtures of chametz, and not eating chametz on erev Pesach also. Think, by the way, the simple plain meaning of the verse “lo tochal alav chametz” doesn’t mean this at all. Simple plain meaning means, “alav” doesn’t mean at the time of its slaughter. “Alav” means apparently, like every sacrifice, “al chalot lechem matzot yakriv korbano” it says by todah. Al matzot umarorim yochluhu. “Al” means, when one eats the meat, one eats it on bread. Perhaps literally one ate the meat on bread, like a sandwich, like Hillel. This is what Rav Sherira Gaon thought about the sugya. We mean that the Pesach offering, when one eats it at the Seder, one shouldn’t eat it with chametz. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Doesn’t mean at the time of slaughter. This is all according to interpretation. According to plain meaning it doesn’t mean that. They should say according to tradition, but according to plain meaning… I’m just saying, we always think that sounds reasonable, that there is indeed chametz. I say, it’s not the plain meaning in the verse, it’s only an interpretation. Okay? Does it make any practical difference? It doesn’t help you.

Chavrusa A: We’re learning Scripture now, we’re not in law.

Chavrusa B: Yes, but we need to know the plain meaning in the verse also. It’s one of the things that’s good to know. True. And also, that many times, after one finds the plain meaning, one can figure out that perhaps the law does indeed agree with it. It gives clarity in law many times. Okay.

The Mitzvah of Tashbitu – The Fifth Mitzvah

Okay, now, there is a fifth mitzvah. We’ve already learned four mitzvot, or whatever according to the count. And now there is a fifth mitzvah. This is the mitzvah of hashbatat chametz. There is a mitzvah “tashbitu se’or mibateichem.” The general principle first of all of the mitzvah of tashbitu. The Rambam says, “tashbitu” means bitul belev. This is according to… yes, all these many Rishonim who disagree with this, so you shouldn’t grab your head, let’s say what it says in the Rambam. Hashbatah means bitul belev, and that’s what tashbitu means. It’s very funny actually, because the Rishonim argue what bitul should work, whether it’s with hefker, whether it’s with…

Dispute Between Rambam and Tosafot: What Does Tashbitu Mean?

It’s true, on this the Rambam says that tashbitu means bitul, and it’s not so simple. It’s very not simple, I’ll remind you. All other Jews say, I’ll remind you, that from the Torah one must indeed, it’s not so funny. It’s funny that tashbitu should then mean bitul.

Chavrusa A: That bitul is only one form of tashbitu? Or burning, or…

Chavrusa B: No, I mean, tashbitu means one shouldn’t have, like a positive commandment of bal yera’eh. The Rambam makes it an extra thing. I’ll remind you it’s not clear now the dispute. Let’s see what he says.

The Gemara says from the Torah bitul alone is sufficient, but searching for chametz is rabbinic. The Gemara never says that the Gemara has a mitzvah of tashbitu. The Gemara only says this on the matter of searching for chametz. It’s not so clear. The Rambam understood this from the Gemara, and further. Ah, not simple matters.

Tosafot, for example, according to Tosafot also holds that tashbitu is one of hefker, that bitul is one of hefker. But in practice according to Tosafot it’s not the plain meaning that tashbitu means to nullify. Tashbitu means that there is no chametz, literally. There is no chametz. One of the ways is either through burning or through nullifying. No, or through declaring hefker, which then you don’t have. Declaring hefker. But it’s not that the Rambam learns a completely different thing.

The Fundamental Question: What Does “Tashbitu Se’or” Mean from the Torah?

Speaker 1: That’s the meaning, tashbitu means to nullify.

Speaker 2: No, not to nullify.

Speaker 1: The Sages come and changed, it’s not changed. They said that one shouldn’t rely, one should… It’s a bit funny how the Rambam says it, because as if, when actually, what is the form? As if, I’m not starting to give advice, yes? As if, when Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t want to give the words of the books, let’s say, what does one do on erev Pesach? Nothing, right? No, one nullifies. One says “kol chamira.” One must say it, whether it’s enough in the heart I don’t know. And the other side, I mean that we learn to think usually, as you say only afterwards, that the simple plain meaning is you’re told no, the Torah says throw out the chametz. Already, if someone doesn’t want… But, one must see.

“Tashbitu” — A General Language, Not a Specific Action

Speaker 1: Both the commentators on the Rambam, also the commentators on Scripture, say that the word “tashbitu” can mean “throw,” as it says in other places, “lekarev tashlichenu,” or more details what one should need to do. “Tashbitu” is very general, like “hashbatat hamalchut.” You shouldn’t have chametz. Not have. It doesn’t say that you must do some action. Not have. Not have means the minimum. What is the minimum not to have? The minimum not to have, he must nullify. He should remove the ownership. If the simple plain meaning would have been that the minimum is any kind of way of removing from possession, so one could perhaps say. The most minimum is bitul belev.

Speaker 2: But one can say even less, righteous one. One can say that minimum means “tashbitu” from the power of chametz or from making chametz.

Speaker 1: No, you shouldn’t have. You simply shouldn’t have, literally. You shouldn’t have chametz on Pesach. You whatever, it doesn’t matter. It’s not a positive commandment, it’s a negative thing, not a positive thing. The Rambam does make it a bit of a positive thing. True, there’s nothing to do, it’s only like a bitul belev, but he makes it such an extra thing.

Comparison to Shabbat — “Hashbatah” Means Not Doing, Not an Active Action

Speaker 1: A tashbitu is not yet like Shabbat, right? Shabbat has a positive and negative commandment. You shouldn’t do work, and you should rest. What does one do in order to rest? One nullifies the work in the heart? No, one does nothing, one doesn’t do work. I would have said that one can say Pesach, there is a negative commandment, “lo yera’eh lecha chametz,” and a positive commandment, “tashbitu chametz.” Both mean the same exact thing, it’s only strange… “Tashbitu” is not chametz. The Torah doesn’t say “tashbitu.” It could be that’s what the Rambam says.

I’ll tell you the most simple. After when the Sages added that one should indeed make an extra hashbatah. I’m telling you that what the Rambam says is not the most simple. The most simple is nothing. That the Torah says nothing. You shouldn’t have chametz. It’s your issue, it’s not my issue.

Discussion: What Is the Minimum of “Tashbitu”?

Speaker 1: So about this the Rambam says, you’ll know the most basic hashbatah, the easiest, the minimum, the minimum hashbatah that you nullify in the heart.

Speaker 2: No, no, that’s not correct, but that’s a great novelty, righteous one, again. Because the other option is that you must actually remove it.

Speaker 1: I’m saying, this is the minimum, because this is not hefker, lo yera’eh. Because according to you, “tashbitu” means nothing at all. Right? Minimum you can interpret in two ways. Minimum that you mean is… No, I’m saying that it could be that the Rambam holds like you, that “tashbitu” means nothing. And the Rambam just wants to tell you, what is the minimum nothing? What is the minimum nothing? The maximum nothing is what Chazal added, that you should burn it. The minimum nothing… It could be, it could not be that this is what the Rambam means. “Mahi hashbatah zo ha’amurah baTorah?” What is the hashbatah that is stated? Such a weak expression doesn’t appear in the Torah. It means the minimum. What is the minimum how you should fulfill “lo yera’eh”?

Speaker 2: I understand, but you are using the word “minimum” differently than me. For me, the word “minimum” means how many chidushim are stated in this verse. According to what I’m arguing, the simple peshat, and I’m sure there are other Rishonim who learn this way, nothing is stated. It’s “liten aseh al hadavar”, as it were.

“Tashbitu” — A Positive Formulation of a Negative Thing

Speaker 2: In other words, many times we learn, a mitzvas aseh can simply be the formulation of the Torah. You can say the same thing in a positive way and in a negative way. Here it’s stated in a positive way, as it were. It’s a formulation. I saw that the Even Kaspi even talks about this, it fits with Aristotle, but you can talk this way. The Torah, sometimes, speaks of negative things in a positive way. This is a sugya in the Torah, as it were. It makes a difference lehalacha, that it’s a mitzvas aseh, and so on. Give me one second.

The Great Chidush of the Rambam — Bitul Belev is a Din in Itself

Speaker 2: But the Rambam adds a great chidush, that what? That “tashbitu” doesn’t just mean that, that “tashbitu” means that one can, as it were, one fulfills it with a bitul belev. Where in the Torah is there such a thing that I should say “I don’t want to have something”? It means to say, make yourself as if you don’t have it. It’s a huge chidush, no?

Speaker 1: It’s not make yourself, if it works like… ah, wait, it’s a chidush. You understand? It’s not clear where this is stated at all.

Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam learned this in the word “tashbitu”. That “tashbitu” is not an action, “tashbitu” is a shevitah mimelachah, shevitah me’achilah. Shevitah is not an action. So what can not be an action? That you are mevatel it. Just as you don’t work, you don’t eat, you don’t have, you don’t have through belev. I make myself as if I don’t have it.

Speaker 1: I understand, but it’s still, as it were, I hear, there must be a sevara for this, because seemingly it’s strange.

“Lo Totiru” and the Concept of Hefker

Speaker 1: “Lo totiru” is as it were here a clear thing of hefker. The Torah just says you shouldn’t have. If “lo totiru” is peshat, it’s not such a great chidush, because the Torah says you shouldn’t have. If you’re not mine, it doesn’t belong to you. So it’s a general thing that hefker works, you understand? But the Rambam says a new kind of thing, that it’s a “liyosem belibo she’afar”, I don’t know, the whole Torah is a davar peleh seemingly. In other words, where does this kind of idea even come from? Do you understand my question? I want to ask this. Do you understand what I mean?

Digression: Bedikas Chametz — D’oraisa or Derabanan?

Speaker 2: When he says “tashbitu”, I want to ask this. I see here, I’m learning now in Sifrei, I see he cites the halacha in the Rambam that we learned, “aved te’abedun”, he means that in Eretz Yisrael, “mitzvah le’abdan beyad ad sheyeabed osam min ha’olam”, he cites. But when the Rambam learns “aved te’abedun”, he means that there you’re obligated to be meva’er, not that you have to go actively searching. And he suggests that the Rambam learns that bedikah of chametz is d’oraisa, min haTorah le’abdan. If so, that we learn that a tevilah must be without a chatzitzah, one must do the action to get there.

Speaker 1: So, I don’t agree with this, because I always learn that when the Rambam makes all things positive for you, it’s also a matter of sugya, and he doesn’t really hold that it’s a mitzvah to be bodek. I’m not sure it’s correct. It’s so it shouldn’t be. It’s understood, one must do the action practically, but I’m not convinced that this is actually the peshat in what we’re explaining.

Speaker 2: No, but here it says yes “mitzvah lirdof acharehah”, one must search for it. Chametz is not a mitzvah lirdof acharehah, that’s an issur.

Speaker 1: No, no, I mean it’s less. I mean, with the Rabbinic ones must yes lirdof acharehem.

Speaker 2: It’s interesting, just as we learned that in Eretz Yisrael and chutz la’aretz, so we learned.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s a thing. In Eretz Yisrael one doesn’t have to chase after, in chutz la’aretz one does have to chase after, whatever the details of that are. It comes out that chametz is like the issur in Eretz Yisrael, and the Rabbinic ones, that is, “lo yechatz larutz”, there’s a Rashba about this. The Rogatchover brings it.

Speaker 2: I hear. I don’t know, I don’t know. In any case, you understand the point, it’s an interesting thing.

Back to the Language “Hashbatah” — What Does It Mean?

Speaker 2: What can it have to do with the language “hashbatah”? Because for example the Targum translates “hashbatah” – “tevatlun”. That “hashbatah” is a very minimal word, because “hashbatah” means not eating, not working. But “hashbatah” means not having, it doesn’t mean being me’abed, it doesn’t mean like “teva’arun”, “te’abedun”. It’s still a language of not having.

Therefore Chazal sought how can one not have and not have to do major work? Rather one should be mevatel in one’s heart, hefker, or whatever way it works. Without doing that. Or giving up ownership of it. Instead of you being busy with the chametz, you can do something with yourself, a small thing, a word that you speak out that has changed the reality.

And only then did Chazal go back to the actual Torah, and yes said that one must actually, they made miderabanan that one must yes search. But to interpret the word “tashbitu” they did only the minimum, that you shouldn’t have. Just like the shevitah from melachah, the shevitah of a kehillah, just as you say “shevisas asor”.

Speaker 1: But not having can mean that one must yes be meva’er, that’s what I’m telling you. Here states another chidush that one doesn’t even have to…

Speaker 2: No, but if so there doesn’t stand in the Torah a positive language of go be me’abed, just as it could say “teva’arun”.

Speaker 1: But it’s like someone would say that on Shabbos one stops melachah, it still doesn’t have to be mechashev. What kind of thing is this?

Speaker 2: No, no, no. When you are mevatel for Shabbos, you’ve given up ba’alus on it.

Speaker 1: No, I haven’t given up ba’alus, what are you holding?

Speaker 2: That’s not such a thing. That’s Tosafos’s peshat. That’s… right, okay.

Dispute: Whether Bitul is Hefker (Tosafos) or Something Else (Rambam)

Speaker 1: What does according to the Rambam “yachshov belibo” mean? What does “mistalek” mean according to the Rambam? What did the Rambam think? How does it work? It’s such a strange thing? You make yourself as if you don’t have it?

Speaker 2: No, you don’t have it.

Speaker 1: You don’t have it?

Speaker 2: No. What is peshat according to the Rambam? According to the Rambam it’s not completely hefker, but it’s also something. Something such a kind of thing that the person doesn’t feel the chametz is worth to him, or something. There must be something there. It has nothing to do with ba’alus. It certainly has nothing to do with ba’alus. It has, you can say, to do with chashivus.

Speaker 1: What does it mean according to the Rambam? How does it elevate?

Speaker 2: Chashivus. I told you yesterday, just like… just like we learn… It makes sense, one can make it make sense. I’m just saying that it’s a chidush, it’s not the minimum.

Speaker 1: You come and you say that it’s a chidush.

Speaker 2: It makes sense, one can make it make sense.

The Explanation of “Not Relevant” — Hesech Hadaas

Speaker 2: That one says for example, just as they said yesterday, that it says in the Torah “don’t have chametz”. What does “don’t have chametz” mean? “Don’t have chametz” means “own” not chametz. Okay, that’s a chidush, because what’s the problem of “owning”? Just as in Zevachim it says “lo yera’eh velo yimatzei”, you shouldn’t be involved with chametz.

Now, when I have, as you say, he asks you, “Do you have a piece of dust?” “I have.” Yes, it’s not relevant. The question is whether it’s relevant. Make it so the chametz should be not relevant. How does one do that? It could even be that to do this with the Rabbinic ones must yes bitul chametz. That the Rabbinic ones, bedikas chametz with the Rabbinic ones, is yes even more strongly made that it’s not relevant.

But essentially, as it were the minimum not being relevant is, I’m mesi’ach daas. Lo ichpas li. I’m not going to… not only I’m not going to eat it, it doesn’t exist anymore from my perspective. That is, how can you say it doesn’t exist from my perspective? Yes, you can say, why not? Just as you have dust in your house. “Shema yimatzei tipos dam vehi beheichal melech”. In the king’s house are there mosquitoes? You know? No, there aren’t. It’s not relevant.

Speaker 1: Anyway, okay.

Digression: Comparison to Avodah Zarah Bitul

Speaker 1: If so, it helps, you can’t be mevatel just with the heart.

Speaker 2: What?

Speaker 1: Avodah zarah one can’t be mevatel just in the heart. I don’t know what other things. But avodah zarah is… one can be mevatel in the heart. Avodah zarah of goyim, if the goy says it’s no longer avodah zarah, he gives it a swipe with his… whatever, yes, but…

Comparison to Bitul Avodah Zarah

Speaker 1: What does it mean, how can you say it doesn’t exist from his perspective? Yes, you can say, why not? Just like dust in your house. “Semamis beyadayim titpas vehi beheichal melech”. In the king’s house are there spiders, you know? No, there aren’t. It’s not relevant.

Anyway, okay.

If avodah zarah helps, one can’t be mevatel just in the heart.

Speaker 2: What?

Speaker 1: But avodah zarah one can’t be mevatel just in the heart.

Speaker 2: If the avodah zarah one can yes be mevatel in the heart, if the avodah zarah of goyim, if the goy says that it’s no longer avodah zarah and he gives it a swipe with his whatever.

Speaker 1: But the goyim?

Speaker 2: Yes, but an avodah zarah of a Yisrael, one must understand that the matter of bitul avodah zarah means yes, I mean to say, it’s assur behana’ah and so on, but if the goy stops serving, it’s not anymore that it becomes nullified. I mean, the goy says, “I no longer believe in this god”, it’s no longer a god. Finished god, statue, we worship it.

One can’t say it’s finished chametz. One can only say it’s finished something, finished eating in general, it’s hefker.

Speaker 1: Right. But you can say it’s similar. Bitul chametz, bitul belev. What other things can one be mevatel in the heart?

Speaker 2: Me’un.

Speaker 1: Who?

Speaker 2: Me’un. On a kiddushin derabanan me’un helps. But on other things one can’t say, “No, I don’t want to be obligated in this money.” One must make a sefer kerisus. Right.

Speaker 1: Okay. On kiddushei derabanan, lekiddushin, okay.

Speaker 2: Okay, in any case, no, it’s not relevant. In any case, no, one must find another thing where the matter is not having something, not having a connection with something, and that means simply that you don’t hold anything. Something like that. Lo chashiva.

Foreign thoughts one must deal with this way.

Speaker 1: Yes. Okay.

Speaker 2: But with Rabbinic ones must burn them.

Why? One must say “esh tukad ad avedon”, “yachid talmidei”. Yes.

With the Reish one can do like the Butchatcher Rav said, and say that all foreign thoughts are mevatel.

Ke’afra de’ara.

In any case, also bitul of a person is only hefker ba’alei chayim, this is exactly like with chametz. It’s tashbitu, one searches for thoughts. “Minafshi achaprah al kol teha”.

Transition to Chapter 3 — The D’oraisa and Derabanan of Mitzvas Tashbitu

Speaker 1: Okay. Let’s begin chapter 3. No, I mean one must finish the chapter because it’s good. Levels. Let’s learn as we learn, that this is the d’oraisa and the derabanan of mitzvas tashbitu. Just like for example miderabanan one may not eat chametz even less than a shi’ur, that this is miderabanan. Eh, miderabanan one may not eat even chametz erev Pesach? You should know, miderabanan one must actually be mashbis. What does actually be mashbis mean? Is to search and remove. Yes? And therefore there are details of this. There are details that the Chachamim make things, they make with their whole schedule, you understand? The d’oraisa goes, no, there’s also a schedule. In short, they make their whole schedule. One must do the leil 13th, leil 14th, yes? And one must, there are halachos how one must be bodek. What is the peshat of the halachos how one must be bodek according to the halachos?

In other words, the Rabanan say that you must search for the chametz, and two things: search to have and they should be meva’er. You should search, what does search mean? Search places, make sure that your places that are a bit prepared even that one brings in chametz, you should go search and be meva’er. Very good. And after that…

I mean here is the question when the obligation begins, the thing of thirty days. But before that there are all the doubts and… right? The doubts and whatever, I don’t know exactly. Let’s skip that for now, yasher koach. And if there is chametz erev Pesach, I know, one day in the middle they’ll be very board, you’ll learn that. Yes. You’ll learn the sugya, because they’re difficult gemaras. The Rambam tries his best, but the gemara is difficult. Yes.

In any case, there are here a bunch of cases of doubts. There’s also the din of how chametz becomes batel betzedakah hareiseh, or when one made it for a bagel in cabinet the week. Now there’s a din of… one minute, there’s here… let’s just try to understand. The Rabanan say you must search places… let’s say the first point. You must search. The second point we’ll learn be’ezras Hashem in chapter 3 more. You must search places where there can be chametz. That is, don’t say… that’s another thing, right? This is not davka davka bitul belev. This is davka… you must search. Just as we learned by avodah zarah, that if I’ll find chametz, I should be meva’er it. No, the peshat is you must search. Why must you search? Because you’re not supposed to have any chametz on Pesach, so make sure you don’t have. In other words usually, right? The question is perhaps what the usually is. We said usually, that means here places where one brings in chametz, places where it’s not usual we don’t go in. But places where usually there is chametz, that you’re obligated to make sure it’s not there, one can ask by all mitzvos hateluyos if one is obligated mid’oraisa to search, you understand? I know.

The Rambam’s Approach — Hashbatah and “Lo Yavo Le’ochlo”

Speaker 1: The Rambam doesn’t say that one must remove it because perhaps “shema yavo le’ochlo”. He doesn’t hold this way, or it’s not important to him because he doesn’t say any reasons. No, he holds that it’s one of the hashbatos, one should yes do. I added that the hashbatos, the basic kind of hashbatah is the minimum bitul, but hashbatah can also mean an act that one must do with bedikah, with bi’ur.

Speaker 2: Exactly, it could be that the whole hashbatah, that one says the whole “bal yera’eh” is “lo yavo le’ochlo”. The gemara says this a bit once, but he doesn’t bring this. It seems that it’s more, exactly, that this is the hashbatah miderabanan, but miderabanan one must yes make hashbatah in this manner, in a manner actually physically being busy. So it’s a bit implied. And yes, it could actually be about this, because the Rambam understands that the whole matter of not having is as a geder of achilah, “lo yavo le’ochlo”. Exactly, completely plain like that. It’s not simply so, you understand what I’m saying? Yes, wonderful.

So in my opinion. Right, and therefore, obviously places, there are certainly halachos. That is, the places, and therefore from something there are concerns, how should one place the chametz. Uh, sorry, what is… soon we’ll talk about how one should place it. There is, what is if one sees later that there is too little chametz or too much chametz, it’s obvious that it became again. It’s very interesting by the way, not just a makom shehichnisu bo, it became again a place where you know almost certainly that there is chametz. If for example “hiniyach eser u’matza tesha”, you know that there is chametz there, you need to go search for it, right? A child you don’t need to, but you know that it’s actual crumbs, crumbs, crumbs. And what is if you know that it’s not, you don’t know? In other words, these are questions about places where you know for certain that there is chametz, right? It’s a bit different, because earlier, you understand what I’m saying, from the laws of doubts and also the rest of the halachos from the Sukkah, avodah zarah matters, we spoke about the question of bedikah. Right? Here is… a place that is obligated in bedikah, for example, we’re not concerned that perhaps there’s a distinction, that all places are makomos shemachnisin bahem chametz according to the Rambam’s interpretation. But afterwards there is a question, what if I know for certain that there is chametz? How do I know for certain? Because almost certain, from doubt. I have a doubt, perhaps there is chametz. Understand? About this it makes a bit of sense what we learned according to the Rambam’s interpretation, that all these doubts speak about bedikas chametz. Because that is indeed the meaning of bedikas chametz. The meaning of bedikas chametz, a place where perhaps there is chametz, one must go search for it, right? Always it’s perhaps. So in other words, you’ll see, all these doubts you can say makes it in the category of makomos shemachnisin bahem chametz, understand?

And therefore, makomos shemachnisin bahem chametz need to be checked, correct? Therefore there is established, if there is actually a majority, one doesn’t need to, perhaps there are places where there is a whole… there are two halachos that one must… there are several halachos that one must yes, several things that one doesn’t need to. There is a way that one doesn’t need to, which is not established, or it’s dependent, there is even a way that one uses dependent sometimes not, I don’t know clearly. But in any case, places where there is doubtful chametz, a normal doubt, need to be checked. Very good, I understand.

Clear Halachos — Shemei Korah, Sidkei HaReichayim

Speaker 1: Okay, afterwards we learned even clearer halachos, not even a doubt, right? The last group of halachos in chapter 3 was the places where it’s not even a doubt, it’s clear that there is chametz there. For example, in the ceiling one must search. “Shemei korah”, not in the heavens, which says shamayim. Did you know that the korah is a piece of heaven? The ceiling of your house is the korah. And in short, one must check because it falls down. But deep in the earth one doesn’t need to, because it doesn’t come up.

From this one can learn a hint according to Kabbalah, understand? If someone has a yetzer hara in a very high place, then he must search for it, because it only makes you fall down. In a low place one doesn’t need to search, because it doesn’t come up. Okay, afterwards there is, already one doesn’t need to search. Afterwards there is a matter of the sidkei hareichayim, which is perhaps a matter of bitul, right? Very interesting. The sidkei hareichayim is bitul like we learned, bitul like bitul chametz? No, it’s a different kind of bitul, that it’s batel b’metzius, it became a clod. Well, very good, perhaps that’s also the bitul, all bitul works that way. That it becomes sand, just as that one becomes a clod, it becomes sand. Interesting. Okay, in any case, what is the principle? Can you tell me the principle of this? Because I don’t know it.

Speaker 2: No. What is the klal hadevarim? When there are things that are… when are there things that are… when must one, in other words, let’s preface the question for a second. What is a kipah shel or, by the way? What is the meaning? A bench that was made from… I don’t know what kipah means. Yes, a bench? No, kipah, he says he means a vessel. Ah, kipah. It means a thing full of se’or, one turned it over, one finished with the se’or, one turned it over, not just se’or alone, this is a clod of se’or that was turned over, one covers its face, one covered it with clay, that the se’or is kulo tach ba’aretz. Okay, so that’s one thing. It means that there is a way, let’s understand one thing. According to the way they learned that everything is a distancing from eating, one can understand you a bit. Once one has tach panav b’tit, it’s already like under the ground, it’s already like earth. If that’s not so, what does it matter to me? It’s covered with clay, I have a piece of se’or in my house. But if everything is connected to do with eating, one can understand it more easily. Again, yechidah hi shitah, that’s what he’s talking about here. I’m saying, but if the point is that everything is distancing from eating, the main prohibition is eating, and all other things were added, one can understand. Once tach panav b’tit, nothing of the se’or is exposed, it’s not relevant to eat, therefore it’s as if it’s in a pit, or it’s as if… he brings the language in shitas hage’onim, “v’harei hu k’gon even, she’hu batel, v’nafka lei mitoras ochel k’afra b’alma.” Yechidah hi shitah, he shows that a person can… that the dough is not food, this is a stone made from se’or, but there you go.

And it also only fits with the fact that “tashbisu” doesn’t mean actually in practice. Because if “tashbisu” would mean actually in practice, it’s not clear that one would be able to permit this. No, “tashbisu” means food, means not… “tashbisu” means… I can understand how this works. But if one would say so, it would mean actually like mixtures. But it seems not, because another way, it seems that… again, according to all opinions bitul means, hashbasah means to eliminate chametz, which is food not chametz, which is defective chametz. So far, right?

Halachah: K’zayis in One Place – Obligation of Removal Even in a Crack of the Trough

Speaker 1: The se’or doesn’t need to be a taste that one could eat, the se’or is that one should be able to make from it another dough. If the point is “tashbisu” like “shabbason”, and therefore batel a half, one can very well understand how this works. But if one would say “tashbisu” means actually like “teva’aru”, but it seems not, because another… it seems that… again, according to all opinions “tashbisu” means the elimination of chametz, which is food, not chametz which is defective chametz.

So, alright. Let me see, okay. Interesting going? Yes. Let me see a moment, I’ll go… I’ll go take my daughter… take the… okay, no, the women’s thing I’ll use. Do you want to try it? Do you want to try it and they’ll ask if you can the women?

Speaker 2: Ah, I’m not going there.

Speaker 1: Okay, I’ll take you later to women. Hello, Mendel tzaddik. Okay, continue. Very good. It’s good to the matter.

So, the next thing was, after the matter of kipas se’or and mazon hametzora when it becomes batel to the clod, is the question of when is the obligation of bedikah? Ah, we have here the thing of chesaron bedikah, chesaron inui bedikah. One minute, so, that doesn’t mean the principle. So, the principle is thus, the principle is thus: a k’zayis in one place, even when it’s stuck in a crack of the trough, is obligated to remove. Why? Because seemingly according to Rabbi Shimon one can even use it, it’s useful even, the problem is that it’s stuck. It’s stuck, what’s the difference? If it’s not a k’zayis, is to strengthen, it’s different, to strengthen, and then it will enter into their dispute. There are many expressions in the Gemara, I see that it’s a whole sugya.

Halachah: Less Than a K’zayis – Asui L’chazek vs. Lo Asui L’chazek

There are three other sorts of main points. There is one point which is if it’s to strengthen or to seal, and not… it’s stuck there, there is a concern that it will smooth the clod, the plate, the trough. In this situation, even in this situation, if it’s a k’zayis, it’s not batel, because one will take it back and one will make from it bread.

Speaker 2: Yes, different from kipas se’or, because there one doesn’t see any plan from that it goes.

Speaker 1: Yes, one can also make that.

Speaker 2: Yes, here we’re talking about mixtures.

Speaker 1: But if it’s less than a k’zayis and it’s asui l’chazek is exempt, and don’t stand. But less than a k’zayis, when it’s not to strengthen, generally less than a k’zayis, what is found not to strengthen less than a k’zayis, then if there is a thread that can connect, he is obligated. Why? Again, because it’s a k’zayis.

Discussion: What is the Measure of a K’zayis?

Speaker 2: What is the measure of a k’zayis? Only a k’zayis must one remove, that’s the point? Less than that is outside the measure? But here we see that less than a k’zayis one must also remove. Why here less than a k’zayis doesn’t one need to remove? Because it’s batel.

Speaker 1: No, it’s asui l’chazek.

Speaker 2: Yes, we’re only talking about a case where it’s asui l’chazek. Well, and then is the question whether it should become forbidden as a k’zayis. It’s not asui l’chazek, obligated to remove even less than a k’zayis.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Well, why does one need the whole halachah of two half-olives in two places? We just learned that lo asui l’chazek one must remove even in one place.

Speaker 1: No, if it’s two half-olives we’re talking about a case when it is yes to strengthen, she’ra’o hara’ui lo, there isn’t from the beginning. Ah, that’s what he’s talking about here.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: It’s that, and such a case when it’s less than a k’zayis is okay. The question is what means less than a k’zayis. About this one says, because one can say that the clod strengthens it, it becomes one, yes, for example by challah one says that the clod joins them all. I could say that in the whole clod there is a k’zayis, and one is obligated to take a piece that should be joined. Here, here. It’s in short, one must have all things, one must have both less than a k’zayis, and less than a k’zayis means even not what one can connect it back with one piece, and both, let’s see what goes to seal with the next halachah.

Halachah: Half an Olive in the House and Half an Olive in the Upper Story – Law of Joining and Stuck to the Wall

The next halachah says, in the house, in the house one must even without a… that there lie small pieces of chametz that together it’s a k’zayis, in the house but one must even without a thread one must remove even less than a k’zayis, but in the house and in the upper story and the like one doesn’t need to, since they are stuck to the walls they are not obligated. So here we see yes that there is a way that it became batel in the house here, batel in the house here, batel in the house here, I understand that one must. Ah, so it’s essentially lo yera’eh one must even less than a k’zayis, that’s chatzi shiur is forbidden from the Torah. And the problem is only that when one joins them it becomes a k’zayis. If it’s stuck to the wall, something for some reason it’s a bit easier. Usually, if you see a half-olive in your house, you must remove it. Next to a half-olive you must remove it. Why? Because it’s chatzi shiur. Yes?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: So it comes out. A half-olive you must remove. Why must you remove it? Because it’s chatzi shiur forbidden from the Torah. Not so. But if it’s stuck to the wall, then one doesn’t need to, because so far you can’t rely on the bitul.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Language “Shema Yekabetz Osam”

But the Rambam says, the Rambam says in the language “shema yekabetz osam”. It seems that chatzi shiur wasn’t yet any problem. The problem is that when they come together. That’s when it’s stuck in the house. He says, that’s one needs. Why is one needs? No, again, we’re talking here about rabbinic. Everything is even after eight, perhaps he’ll gather them. What’s missing here from the words “shema yekabetz osam”? Why doesn’t he say because it’s a chatzi shiur? He says clearly in the next piece why. Come here, but that it’s far, there is a way that he won’t gather it, right? Then what? Then one may yes. If one has nullified it one may. But one may not without a bitul. Ah, so all these things are apparently halachos from the Rabbis. It has to do with the rabbinic obligation of bedikah. Indeed with the Torah obligation you already fulfilled with bitul. So now there is the problem of the rabbinic concern, and about this is the distinction, whether you can gather it together or not.

It seems that the rabbinic prohibition is yes, the Rabbis didn’t also say that it must have a chatzi shiur. Rather the rabbinic prohibition is mainly on a k’zayis, or on what can become a k’zayis. So about this they say that a bitul is not enough, rather one must also have bedikah. It’s not correct. According to the Rambam it says here clearly, I mean it doesn’t say here clearly, but it’s implied here, that if there is a k’zayis not stuck to the wall, a half-olive that’s just on the table, you must remove it rabbinically. Even if it’s only a half-olive. He doesn’t say. He only says how a half-olive in one place, and with other places is more. Again, he says why the half-olive stuck one doesn’t need to remove, if and if the half-olives are stuck to the wall or to the beams…

Speaker 2: No, but… no, no, he doesn’t say here more than one half-olive. When there is only one half-olive in the whole house, one can rabbinically also not make bedikah on that.

Speaker 1: Tzaddik, he doesn’t say clearly, he doesn’t say clearly, but why does he say that one must? That there are other halves where there one said that they are joined, and the whole house you have yes a k’zayis, that would be the rabbinic obligation of bedikah. That’s one thing. Therefore when it’s far one from the other, one won’t join them. And therefore it’s not the same with it, one must add another thing.

Speaker 2: Right, according to you one could stop here. One can say, if it’s far, one doesn’t need to check.

Speaker 1: He doesn’t say that, he says, since it’s stuck… no, not it’s far, he says “because of joining”, one doesn’t need to mean a practical eating. He says, since one joins, one looks at it as if in your whole house there is a k’zayis. Again, “mah she’ein ken devukim b’kosel o b’koros”, finish the rest of the halachah. Read the whole thing.

What’s interesting, because he adds the “devukim”, what happens when it’s half an olive in the house and half an olive in the upper story and it’s not stuck? It just lies. There he says that one must yes. That’s what I’ve been talking about with you for ten minutes, tzaddik. But what happens when there is only one half-olive and it’s not stuck? One doesn’t need to either!

Speaker 2: One must yes! We see that one must yes.

Speaker 1: I mean that not. He only says that half-olives would be a problem that you should look at it as one whole – he says that it’s not, because it’s stuck to the wall, therefore it will never become one whole. It seems if there is in the whole house everything together only one half-olive, one indeed doesn’t need to!

Speaker 2: Why isn’t it joined? Because it’s far one from the other! That’s the reason! “Half in the house and half in the upper story”, one always joins things from the wall. The whole thing is that a wall one must even when it’s in the wall, one takes it together. What’s not so when it’s far, one doesn’t take it together. One has already solved the problem of gathering, and still everything remains something left over why one must add that one doesn’t need only because it’s stuck.

Speaker 1: What happens when one has only one half-olive in the house? Certainly one doesn’t need to check rabbinically. It doesn’t say here, tzaddik. I know you’re not just a scholar, but it doesn’t say so here, and the halachah is not so what it says here. You see as if the words are “because he gathers them together”, that’s the reason for the prohibition, no?

Speaker 2: No, that’s the reason for prohibition when it’s stuck to the wall, “since they’re stuck to the wall”, and it’s not gathered, therefore one may. Therefore if one of the things is missing, it’s not stuck to the wall, is even without gathering one shouldn’t, so it comes out here. I don’t understand what you’re saying at all.

Speaker 1: So what does being stuck to the wall do? Does it make it harder to remove, or does it make it nullified to the wall, and therefore there would be a permission? The thing is that it’s possibly one of these two things. It’s not so clear to me. I think that “meshavev imo umekabetz osam” (gathering it together) is not really a practical problem, so it will become a k’zayis (olive-sized portion). What’s the difference? I don’t understand what the practical difference is in this. The fact is that the Rambam needs to add something, that when there isn’t the problem of gathering, and it’s a half-zayis, the reason why you’re not required to remove it is because it’s stuck. That’s what he says. According to you, it doesn’t come into this, it doesn’t matter. Whether it’s stuck or not stuck, it’s less than a k’zayis anyway, so good Purim.

Speaker 2: No, less than a k’zayis, but when it’s stuck there’s a permission, if not you need to remove it. That’s what it says here.

Speaker 1: And it’s a problem, because in most earlier laws it says “k’zayis in a beam.” What is this less than a k’zayis? I don’t know. You can find other places where it says that only a k’zayis needs to be removed, I don’t know. If you hold that one must remove it, “meshavev imo umekabetz osam,” will it then be stuck to the wall or will it become a k’zayis? It will become a k’zayis, right? I don’t know, I’m not understanding something, I don’t know what you want to say.

Speaker 2: What’s the problem with “meshavev imo umekabetz osam”? So what will happen then? It will become a k’zayis, right?

Speaker 1: Yes, and then the Sages say you must remove it. What happened with the half k’zayis? This is a half k’zayis, this is exempt from… On a half k’zayis, when it’s stuck to the wall, he holds you don’t need to. And when it’s not stuck to the wall? It’s implied that you do need to. We’re talking about him. He explains bedikah (searching). That’s what’s implied, I can’t help you. Please, he already, the Charan HaShadchan says right away that one must even for small ones. Charan HaShadchan means a small crumb of chametz. He knows that. But he’s not, he introduces a large chametz. A large chametz?

Speaker 2: Yes, we’re not talking about a tiny hole, it’s a large hole. Even a k’zayis is quite small, you’re confused.

Speaker 1: Right, okay. A k’zayis is as big as an egg. Like half a matzah. Okay. In short, I don’t know, I’m not sure.

Discussion on the Rambam’s Language: “Chorin V’Sedakin”

Speaker 1: It’s implied that you do need to, we’re talking about him. It explains bedikah.

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: That’s what’s implied, I can’t help it. Please, he says “chorin v’sedakin” (holes and cracks), he says right away that one must even for small ones. “Chorin v’sedakin” means a small crumb of chametz. I know that. “Chorin v’sedakin” introduces large chametz.

Speaker 2: Cracks? Yes, we’re not talking about a tiny hole, it’s a large hole. Even a k’zayis is quite small, you’re confused.

Speaker 1: Right, okay. A k’zayis is as big as an egg. Like half a matzah. Okay.

Speaker 1: In short, I don’t know, I’m not sure. The Magen Avraham says this inference, but that’s what’s implied here, and in other places it’s implied differently. So I don’t know.

Summary of the Laws Studied

Speaker 1: Okay, now, let’s continue. Let’s finish at least, and say this. Okay, all of this.

After that there was the question, two questions.

Question A: Who Must Appoint a Searcher?

One question is, who must… no, one question is, who must appoint someone to be a searcher? Okay, it’s a halachic question in the house, I don’t know exactly. One question is, that chezkas bedikah (presumption of searching), chezkas baduk (presumption of having been searched). And another question, and even a slave or a non-Jew can say. He says yes, women and slaves.

Question B: Who Is Obligated to Search in a Rental?

After that there’s a question, who is obligated to search in a rental? The answer is, whoever had it on the night of the 14th.

Question C: One Who Goes on a Journey or Makes a Storehouse

And after that is the answer, another question what happens if someone goes away before Pesach or he makes a storehouse, it’s like this:

– If it’s with intention to return he must search always

– If it’s not with intention to return, if it’s before thirty days he doesn’t need to

Thus far the laws.

Explanation of the Matter of Thirty Days

Speaker 2: What’s the meaning of the thirty days?

Speaker 1: It’s like the custom, within thirty days it appears that preparation for the holiday begins. One begins to learn, certainly.

Speaker 2: Yes. As if the enactment of the Sages to search actually takes effect on Purim.

Speaker 1: Ah, about this the Gemara says, “Hani shloshim yom mai ta’ama?” (These thirty days, what’s the reason?) The Gemara says, “She’ra’ah Moshe omed b’Pesach rishon u’mazhir es Yisrael al Pesach sheni” (That we saw Moshe standing at the first Pesach and warning Israel about the second Pesach).

Speaker 2: Right, but it’s as if, here we’re talking about the Rabbis, it’s there by the Rabbis.

Innovation: When Does the Obligation of Searching Take Effect?

Speaker 1: The question is like, the point is like this, the whole matter, the whole obligation of bedikah is like an innovation from the Rabbis, they say you shouldn’t rely on the nullification, you should go and search. Now, when do they say one should do it? The night of the 14th. But when does it take effect, when essentially does the obligation become? If someone has the obligation, it doesn’t help that he goes away, right? He goes away before midday, yes? So the question becomes, when does the obligation become? The Tosafos, it becomes thirty days before, something like that.

Moving to Chapter 3

Speaker 1: Okay, now let’s learn more topics about removal of chametz and the order, okay? Chapter 3, already.

Speaker 2: Was all of this a review of chapters 1 and 2?

Speaker 1: No, this can’t be in chapter 3. Where, it was a long time the obligation. I don’t remember, we didn’t learn chapter 2 very well. The Torah always speaks, but no one learns such a thing well.

Um, let me make a stop and I’ll make another recording.