הלכות חמץ ומצה פרק ג

Chapter 3 of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah: Searching for Chametz, Destruction, and Nullification

Law 1: Searching for Chametz on the Night of the 14th — How to Do It and What Comes After

Speaker 1: Okay, Chapter 3. Yeah, we can learn a bit more, yeah?

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: Okay, Chapter 3. It says like this, let’s learn it together. Do you want to learn from the text?

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: “One who searches beforehand. One who searches beforehand, searches on the night of the fourteenth.” How does one do it? “And removes the chametz from the holes and from the hiding places and from the corners.” Holes, hiding places, corners. Okay. “And gathers it all.” Where do corners come in here?

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: The Rambam is perhaps explaining that it doesn’t necessarily mean holes, it means everywhere, whatever. You should exert yourself to search, you shouldn’t just do it superficially.

Speaker 2: Ah.

Speaker 1: He says, “And gathers it all and places it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour of the day and destroys it.” Practical reasons why one should place it in one place, yeah? One shouldn’t just drag it around and so on. One should take it, it should be a stop.

Next law.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Law 2: One Can Destroy Already on the Night of the 14th

Speaker 1: “And places it in one place until the beginning of the sixth hour of the day and destroys it. And one who wishes to destroy on the night of the fourteenth, may do so.” That means destruction means to say until then one must. Before that one can. The Sages obligated, they obligated, it’s very interesting to me, the Sages obligated to search already on the night of the 14th, when then one is at home, but obviously the rabbinic obligation is universally that you will actually destroy, but they didn’t obligate to destroy immediately, rather they allowed leaving it over until morning, until the last minute when one can still actually eat. In other words, one can, if someone wants to do the search for chametz, and afterwards sit down to a meal and eat that chametz, he fulfills the enactment of the Sages.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that’s just how it looked.

Speaker 1: No, not with the ten crumbs, but he ate and made that one should eat more chametz on the eve of Pesach in the morning.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that’s a different thing, I don’t know why.

Speaker 1: Okay, I don’t know. One should do with the poison, the more with the poison, the mitzvah of tashbitu?

Speaker 2: No, I meant it’s like the cigarette that one smokes right after Shabbat.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 2: But… ah, such a “lest they say the blood of Yiftach.” Perhaps such a thing, yeah. Like the Jews who make havdalah on beer on motzaei Pesach, yeah?

Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Immediately eating a piece of chametz, because the angels don’t want to hear the insult to the honor of the angels, I know. That’s the… on that you’ll be jealous of the angels. Okay, in short, it’s very interesting, because as if they make it a bit dangerous for themselves, because now there’s going to be another problem, what does one do? Therefore they say that one should put it away. Okay, it’s a matter. Okay, yeah. Next law.

Law 3: Putting Away Chametz in a Safe Place — “Lest Mice Drag It”

Speaker 1: The chametz that one placed on the night of the fourteenth, one should place it the next day until four hours. That is, one places it scattered and separated in every place, and we don’t say since he hides it in a vessel, but rather that it should be known and revealed to all. Yeah, this is the Mishnah. Lest it be lost. Since if it is lost, one needs to search for it, but one should not place it in a place where mice might drag it.

Interesting, as if the reason is so he shouldn’t have to exert himself to search. The real reason for it is a halachic one, so that it shouldn’t be lost, so that you should fulfill the mitzvah of searching.

Again, he says here only, he says the law, he says because if it will be missing he will need to search.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, as if he says a practical reason, that you shouldn’t have to make yourself extra work. And what can one say that the obligation of searching is that you should search, and if you’ve searched you don’t throw back that you should have to search again, but you will actually search. Okay.

Not sure. I have an objection, I need to go out. The point is, okay, in short, yeah, one must put it away so the mice won’t take it. The Raavad by the way disagrees, the Raavad says that one cannot waive the four cubits, one must wait until the last minute. I don’t know exactly what the explanation is. Mouse day? It has something to do with the mouse of the first day? Mouse day? Then one should actually burn it?

It’s interesting, here it says “lest mice drag it”. So actually one doesn’t need to fear just like that from a mouse, but one does need to be careful initially that it shouldn’t be. No, because the caution is that there shouldn’t be a case where it’s missing. If it’s missing, one does need to be concerned.

Speaker 2: Yeah, then one does need to be concerned.

Speaker 1: Yeah. So the not being concerned is only that one doesn’t need to always be concerned. Okay.

Law 6: When Erev Pesach Falls on Shabbat

Speaker 1: What happens when it happens on Shabbat? What happens when it happens on Shabbat? Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat. Okay, it’s practical, what does one do? Nu, what does one do? What if one doesn’t search on erev Shabbat? One needs a candle.

Speaker 2: Eh, one can arrange it.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Law 6 — One who didn’t search for chametz on the night of erev Shabbat, which is the night of the 14th, what does he do? One places the chametz in a hidden place until four hours on Shabbat day. Why until four hours? Not until five hours?

Speaker 2: Always it’s until four hours. The last hour of the permissible days.

Speaker 1: One places in a hidden place, and the rest one destroys before Shabbat. And if chametz remains for him on Shabbat day after four hours, he nullifies it and covers it with a vessel until after the first day of Yom Tov, and destroys it. One may not make a fire on Yom Tov. Covers it with a vessel — what does this add? That one shouldn’t come to eat from it, yeah.

And if he has many loaves of terumah, he needs to burn on erev Shabbat, and he should not mix the pure with the impure and burn, because one may not make terumah impure, rather he burns impure by itself and pure by itself and suspended by itself, doubtful by itself. And one leaves from the pure enough to leave until four hours on Shabbat day and destroy.

Law 7: If One Forgot and Didn’t Search — One Searches Even During the Festival

Speaker 1: One who forgot and became distracted and didn’t search on the night of the 14th, searches in the morning at dawn. This means that the night is better because the light of the candle is good for searching, but if one didn’t do it, one can do it at dawn. Didn’t search at dawn, searches at the time of destruction. Didn’t search at the time of destruction, searches during the festival. During the festival? What’s the point? If the point is that you’ll forget and come to eat, one can understand. But if it’s more a matter that the obligation of searching continues, that even after Yom Tov, yeah, if he was given to search, there’s still a matter of searching. A different kind of matter, but there’s still a matter of searching.

No leaven shall be found among you, and on Pesach no chametz leaven shall be seen by you in your territory. The searching is actually strengthening the prohibition. No chametz leaven shall be seen by you is indeed a rabbinic prohibition of chametz that Pesach passed over it, so there’s a searching for that. This is a novelty, because one can say that on such a great thing as the prohibition of bal yera’eh there’s an obligation of searching, but altogether on something that’s a penalty, one doesn’t go make an obligation of searching on it. But the Sages did say that one must strengthen searching. It’s remembered that the whole point of the penalty is… that one should search and one shouldn’t make any tricks.

Law 8: Blessing on Searching for Chametz — “Al Bi’ur Chametz”

Speaker 1: When one searches for chametz on the night of the fourteenth or on the day of the fourteenth or during the festival, as he enumerated some of the times, one blesses before doing the searching, Blessed are You Hashem our God King of the universe who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the destruction of chametz. The language is interesting, that one doesn’t say “concerning the searching for chametz,” but rather one says “concerning the destruction of chametz.” This means that essentially the main word is the destruction, and the searching is a preparation for it.

And one searches and investigates in all the places where they bring in chametz as we explained. And if one searches after the festival, one doesn’t bless. Because after the festival one is only looking for chametz that Pesach passed over it, then one doesn’t make the blessing.

Discussion: Is the Blessing on Rabbinic or Torah Law?

Speaker 2: Apparently yes, because as if the searching is part of the destruction.

Speaker 1: That means this is how we’ll say, there are two ways of understanding tashbitu. What destruction and tashbitu mean is the same thing. One is that you must nullify it, and second you must throw it out. So when one does this, one does al bi’ur chametz, it’s fine.

So the question is whether the blessing is on the rabbinic or on the Torah law. This is as if… one makes a blessing on rabbinic law, like “who sanctified us,” one can make “sanctified us” on rabbinic law, or is it something else? The Gemara asks on this immediately, how can one make “sanctified us” on rabbinic law? The Gemara says, “where did He command us?”

Speaker 2: No, not on that. He mentioned something.

Speaker 1: Okay, one does make blessings on various rabbinic mitzvot.

Speaker 2: The Rabbeinu Manoach says yes.

Speaker 1: Does he say something?

Speaker 2: No, I don’t remember.

Speaker 1: It’s from “lo tasur.”

He asks why should one be… if one can make blessings on rabbinic law, one should also make a blessing on a penalty. He says, one doesn’t make a blessing on a penalty.

Speaker 2: The blessing isn’t on the punishment, the blessing is on the mitzvah. The mitzvah is “lo tasur.”

Speaker 1: The mitzvah is “tashbitu,” but through a transgression. For a transgression one doesn’t make blessings, only on mitzvot. As if yes.

When one is benefiting a witness, one administers lashes, one doesn’t make a blessing. God forbid, in practice not once did he fast, did he make a blessing. He asks why one doesn’t make. It’s an obligation that you’re doing, a punishment, suffering. He speaks into ashrei yoshvecha an obligation.

Okay.

Law 8 (Continued): Nullification of Chametz — “All chametz that is in his possession that he didn’t see”

Speaker 1: That one shouldn’t finish searching until one searches on the night of the fourteenth or on the day of the fourteenth as explained. The Shulchan Aruch says: “All chametz that remained in his possession and he doesn’t see it, and all chametz that is in his possession that he didn’t see and didn’t destroy, is nullified and behold it is like dust. But one who searches from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward cannot nullify it, since it’s no longer in his possession as it already became forbidden in benefit.”

The Rambam also writes it in Hebrew, you see? “All chametz that is in his possession that he didn’t see and didn’t know, behold it is nullified and behold it is like dust. But one who searches from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward doesn’t need to nullify, since it’s no longer in his possession as it already became forbidden in benefit.” Is this the explanation that one must nullify if one has already searched anyway?

Speaker 2: No, he says “that he doesn’t see it,” on that which you don’t see.

Speaker 1: Ah, if I missed something?

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: And what’s the explanation that one must say? If one doesn’t say isn’t it enough? It’s nullification in the heart. I would have thought that one must say. It’s actually not clear. It could be that you mean to say actually that one must say in the heart?

Speaker 2: No?

Speaker 1: I don’t know. The Gemara learns, the Gemara says: “One who searches needs to nullify.” What’s the reason? The Gemara says, perhaps he swallowed at the edge, perhaps it remained.

The Rabbeinu Manoach’s Beautiful Piece: Two Enactments of the Sages

Speaker 1: The Rabbeinu Manoach has a beautiful piece on this. Ah, by the way, he also says that nullification is like sticking his face in mud.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: Ah, he explains. How does he explain it? Apparently, as we learned, the Rabbis innovated two things, according to how the Rambam learns here in another piece. One, that one must search for things that one doesn’t see. The Torah you can say two leniencies: I only need to nullify, I don’t need to do more than nullify, and I also don’t need to search. If I see, I need to nullify. If I don’t see, there’s nothing missing. The Rabbis come and say, two, you shouldn’t rely on the nullification leniency, you shouldn’t rely, rather you should actually burn. And second, you should search, right?

So now it’s like this, if someone searched, but there still perhaps remained in places that he didn’t find. The explanation is, the first rabbinic enactment, the enactment of searching. If there wouldn’t have been any rabbinic enactment… sorry, the first rabbinic enactment would have been the idea that one must burn. But the idea that one must search, the explanation is that as if you still must search, and if there’s a place, a hidden place that you didn’t find, the Rabbis say you must also nullify there. Nu, one can’t, you don’t know where, so you must nullify generally. This is what I think the Rabbeinu Manoach says. Right?

Speaker 2: He says “that he doesn’t see it.” About this he says “that he doesn’t see it.” Right? Because this is also rabbinic. Rabbinically one must nullify in places that one doesn’t see. From the Torah one only needs to nullify in places that one sees. Rabbinically one must search, and also one must take care of places that one doesn’t see. Therefore, for this one must search at least an hour, and the matter of… the nullification is on what one couldn’t search. Because the Rabbis say that even places that one doesn’t see you’re still transgressing. Therefore, from the Torah one doesn’t need to do this either. This is a contradiction, I don’t know.

Why Does One Make the Blessing on Searching and Not on Nullification

Speaker 1: Ah, about this one makes the blessing on the searching and not on the nullification. Because the searching is closer to the Torah law, because the Torah said that on this you must nullify. Because the searching one does on what one must nullify from the Torah, one does more. But the other is entirely rabbinic.

Okay, it’s a beautiful explanation. I still need to review whether it’s correct too, but it’s a beautiful explanation.

The Text of the Nullification — “Like Dust” and “Like Ownerless Property”

Speaker 1: And he looks in the Aggadot of Maharam there’s such a thing, he says that there were those who conducted themselves to say “and it should be ownerless,” because Tosafot said that nullification is not like ownerless property. But it’s very interesting, because even if Tosafot says so, doesn’t mean that one must say it. It only means that this is how it works when one says “nullified.” It doesn’t mean that one must also say it. When it’s a law in ownerless property, it could be that when one declares ownerless one doesn’t need to also say nullification, one must say the word ownerless. But this isn’t stated. In the Gemara it only says one must say nullification. And the Geonim came, added “like dust,” because they understood the concept of nullification that it becomes like dust. And Tosafot comes, which is Rishonim, and adds “like ownerless property,” because how do they understand nullification. It’s interesting. No, it’s apparently not correct halachically. The Tosafot that says that nullification means doesn’t mean that one must say ownerless, it means that it works in the manner of ownerless property. I don’t know.

Discussion: What Does One Do with Nullification?

Speaker 2: What action does the person do now? Are you now doing nullification or are you now declaring ownerless?

Speaker 1: Once, one does what’s stated in the Gemara. And the Gemara states, one must nullify. The scholars want to know what the nullification does. So, if someone takes from the explanations of the scholars, this is that they say that it works with the reasoning of ownerless property, yeah. In any case, I don’t know, everyone should do as he understands. Okay. I should ask a local halachic authority, simply I should say okay.

Law 9 — Nullification Only Before the Time of Prohibition

Speaker 1: “Searching for chametz and its destruction before six.” What? I think one only needs to say “nullified and void.”

Speaker 2: Yeah, on the contrary.

Speaker 1: Yeah, but now there’s an important law, that one can only nullify before the time of prohibition, because after the time of prohibition it’s already not in your possession. It’s in your possession to transgress, but not in your possession to nullify, yeah?

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1:

Therefore, if he didn’t nullify it, and he didn’t know that he didn’t intend to have da’as alav (awareness of it), if his heart during the time of checking was not nullified to the nullification, behold he transgresses bal yera’eh. He transgresses both prohibitions, bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. It says “yevatlenu belibo” (he should nullify it in his heart). There is something that there was no da’as alav, so it’s automatically not nullified, right? Nullification means da’as alav, it’s the same thing. No, I don’t want to mean anything. If I don’t know where it is, it means there’s no da’as alav. One doesn’t consider that it’s nullified.

“Belibo bish’as bedikah velo bi’aro, harei zeh over al bal yera’eh uval yimatzei” (In his heart at the time of checking and he didn’t destroy it, behold he transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei). Yes?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Discussion: Why Can’t One Nullify After the Sixth Hour?

Speaker 1:

And he can’t do nullification, it’s not in his possession. “Af al pi she’eino bireshuto, chayav al bal yera’eh uval yimatzei” (Even though it’s not in his possession, he’s liable for bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei). Because he couldn’t do nullification at the time, it’s already not in his possession, therefore he can no longer nullify. It’s as if one takes away the free choice, like with a ram. “She’eino bireshuto, af al pi she’eino bireshuto, chayav al bal yera’eh uval yimatzei”. This is as if it’s in his possession, the possession of being an eved (servant) is a different level of possession than the possession of nullifying.

Aha, “chayav le’va’arah bechol hashanah kulah” (obligated to destroy it the entire year), no. Perhaps one can say that we still know that the nullification is not a true nullification, because certainly he didn’t make any nullification, rather he now grabbed onto a fear of bal yera’eh, therefore I’m afraid that the nullification is not a good nullification, because of this one says he’s obligated to destroy it. I don’t know, it is indeed a good nullification, even if he does it, there’s no difference why he does it, he does it.

Again, good, one must destroy it because it wasn’t nullified, therefore it’s not in his possession, yes. Okay. And in hefseyd merubeh (significant loss) one must designate a vessel, because that’s the reason, this is from the law like checking for chametz, so one shouldn’t come to checking for chametz, so one shouldn’t come to eat it.

Discussion: The Raavad’s Objection

Speaker 1:

The Meiri, what’s now the situation with… yes. And I see on this the Raavad argues, and he says that lo yera’eh velo yimatzei is only from Pesach itself, not from the sixth hour and onward. Therefore one can indeed nullify according to the Raavad?

Speaker 2:

Ah, apparently yes. From erev Pesach until Pesach night.

Speaker 1:

No, but I mean that the Gemara says clearly that… ah, no, he only says about the matter that he transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. I mean that the Gemara says about from the sixth hour and onward that it’s already not in his possession. It doesn’t say so. “Hamekadesh bechitim o bise’orim mishesh sha’os ulema’alah, einah mekudeshes” (One who betroths with wheat or barley from the sixth hour and onward, she is not betrothed).

I remember the Maggid Mishneh brings this Raavad, ani omer (I say), we have no shame… like Rav Avraham would have been to you, like one must do when one asks questions on someone, he would have understood. He says, vehu hadin (and the same applies), it’s not correct. What doesn’t work with nullification is because one is already obligated in the oath. He says that this is the distinction you’re saying, it’s felt. Ah, okay. No, he says that one who transgresses bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, he doesn’t mean to say a piyut (liturgical poem), he means to say that the nullification won’t help. If you’re going to leave it with you, when will you transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei? Actually at night, as the Raavad says. Because of this there’s the sale to a non-Jew, you already told me this. Right. And why now may one not? Why now is it already not in his possession? Because there’s the other prohibition of eating chametz, not bal yera’eh. The prohibition of eating chametz, the prohibition of benefit, is already there. Not bal yera’eh. Yes. Okay.

Law 10 — Finding It on Yom Tov

Speaker 1:

“Ve’im motzo beyom tov kofeh alav keli kedei le’echol, ve’ein meva’aro” (And if he finds it on Yom Tov he covers it with a vessel in order to eat, and doesn’t destroy it). For example the gluskas (dumplings), one must cover them with a vessel, “shehakol porshim mimenu” (because everyone separates from it). Because from gluskas it’s certain that everyone becomes separated. I mean that on gluskas there’s still something else, the Gemara says that there’s a petichah shulchan (opening of the table), a terumah of the gluskas. He transgresses bal yera’eh also. He transgresses bal yera’eh, but here we’re talking about concern lest he eat it, that’s the covering with a vessel. Right. “Shehakol porshim”, but he doesn’t say that one doesn’t know. This is a different version of the Rambam, Kapach’s version. It doesn’t say at all the obligation because of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. The question of the Raavad is not a question.

Okay, okay, no problem.

Law 11 — Leaving His House Before the Time of Destruction

Speaker 1:

In short, further. “Mi sheyatza mibeito kodem shehigi’a zeman habi’ur la’asos mitzvah, o le’echol se’udah shel mitzvah, kegon se’udas eirusin venisu’in, shehalach ledavar chashuv, eino choshesh shema yachmitz hachametz shebeido, ela im yirtzeh lachzor uleva’er, vela’asos hamitzvah yachzor, ve’im lav yevatlenu belibo” (One who left his house before the time of destruction arrived to do a mitzvah, or to eat a meal of a mitzvah, such as a betrothal or wedding feast, who went for an important matter, doesn’t worry lest the chametz in his possession become leavened, rather if he wants to return and destroy, and to do the mitzvah he should return, and if not he should nullify it in his heart). And so Chazal ruled that one can further be in his heart. It’s interesting that to eat a meal of a mitzvah is a semi-mitzvah. If one goes to simply take care of other things there’s always the obligation that he should return. No? Again. It seems that to eat a meal of a mitzvah is itself somewhat a bit of a mitzvah. Because if he had gone simply for a matter of permission apparently one would say that he must return in any case. No, because this is a mitzvah, what’s the question? Something that’s a meal of a mitzvah is a bit of a mitzvah. A mitzvah mitzvah? But it’s a mitzvah.

Discussion: Meal of a Mitzvah as a Mitzvah

Speaker 2:

What’s a mitzvah? I don’t understand. Why is this a bit? The meal is already a mitzvah, the bread is a mitzvah. Then he’s going to need to be a mitzvah?

Speaker 1:

Yes. Very good, let’s take going to weddings. A wedding. You can eat and drink nicely and have pleasure, and you do many mitzvos. It’s a mitzvah, it still doesn’t mean so. Doesn’t yet mean that… yes. Yes. But if he went to do a great mitzvah of saving a life, “yatza lamilchamah” (he went to war), he’s a doctor, he went to the military, “o minah nahar” (or appointed over a river), if they appointed him as a guardian, he throws him a love certainly, one shouldn’t place upon him the obligation of checking, which is a… the obligation of destruction which is a rabbinic obligation. “Yatza letzorekh atzmo” (He went out for his own need), and not on a mission of a mitzvah, he must indeed.

Levels of Exemption

Speaker 1:

Wait I have a comment. Again, if he simply goes to do a mitzvah, then what? He must try to return. If one must nullify the mitzvah, then he doesn’t have to. As we said that for the mitzvah you can nullify the rabbinic mitzvah. Right. If for example one can, this is saving a life, ah, he doesn’t have to return. If for example one can, this is rabbinic, you forgot, saving a life one doesn’t even need to try, right? One nullifies without any doubt. But a mitzvah, a simple personal need, then you must return, you should burst. Yes. Okay.

Measure of Kebeitzah vs. Kezayis

Speaker 1:

“Hayotzei letzorekh reshut chozer ad kebeitzah” (One who goes out for a permitted need returns up to a kebeitzah). This is a wonder, because earlier it said that it has to do with kezayis, not kebeitzah. And even the smaller ones we said, because the smaller would perhaps be because perhaps for a need, or because… I don’t know. And here it remained that what? That here they teach us that… well… here they teach us that in the laws from a kebeitzah one can nullify without any doubt. I don’t know what the explanation is.

I didn’t say what it turns out to be like the matter of nullification of permission, the thing was a kezayis. Why is there suddenly returning is a kebeitzah? What is the measure of kebeitzah? I understand. I don’t understand. But I heard that one struggled with this for a year.

Speaker 2:

Yes? And what was the answer?

Discussion: Dispute of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir

Speaker 1:

In short, one must look in the Gemara. There’s a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir whether for chametz one follows kebeitzah or kezayis. One must look in the Gemara. One will see if he brings the Gemara. He brings. The Gemara says, “Hayotzei lamilchamah chozer, Rabbi Meir omer eino chozer ad kebeitzah, shachametz ein lo inyan shel se’ah kodesh, Rabbi Yehudah omer eino chozer ad kezayis” (One who goes out to war returns, Rabbi Meir says he doesn’t return up to a kebeitzah, because chametz has no matter of a se’ah of holiness, Rabbi Yehudah says he doesn’t return up to a kezayis). The Sages didn’t decree chametz in less than a kebeitzah, the Sages ruled.

The question is thus, because transgressing is only transgressing on a kebeitzah, and therefore as if checking, we’re now talking about checking for chametz, we’re now talking about the rabbinic law of destroying chametz, it can be that one knows

Laws of Destroying Chametz – Measures, Methods, and Times

Law 12: How Far Does He Return – The Measure of Returning to Destroy Chametz

Speaker 1: He brings… that the Gemara asks ad kamah hu chozer? Rabbi Meir omer zeh vazeh bikebeitzah (how far does he return? Rabbi Meir says both this and that in a kebeitzah), both chametz and the matter of holy meat, veRabbi Yehudah omer zeh vazeh bikezayis, uvachachamim omrim bevasar kodesh bikezayis uvechametz bikebeitzah (and Rabbi Yehudah says both this and that in a kezayis, and the Sages say regarding holy meat in a kezayis and regarding chametz in a kebeitzah). The Sages ruled.

Because transgressing is only transgressing on a kebeitzah, and therefore as if checking, we’re now talking about checking for chametz, we’re now talking about the rabbinic law of destroying chametz, so that he has that one knows there’s chametz, but one isn’t there, one wants to nullify it, right? On this…

Speaker 2: No, but why regarding nullification by a journey, when all these things take then from kebeitzah? Kezayis!

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s go further. I don’t know, this is an interesting law, returning for destroying chametz, when one must return, what’s the measure of how much he is there from the chametz? Which mitzvah must one nullify, yes.

Speaker 2: Okay, this is also a similar law.

Law 13: Sitting in the Study Hall and He Has Chametz – Nullification Before the Sixth Hour

Speaker 1: Mi sheyatza miYerushalayim venizkar sheyesh beyado basar kodesh, veyatza venizkar sheyesh beido, veyoshev beveit hamidrash, veyesh lo sham chametz, kodem sha’ah shishit, harei zeh mevatel belibo kodem sha’ah shishit (One who left Jerusalem and remembered that he has holy meat in his hand, and left and remembered that he has, and sits in the study hall, and he has chametz there, before the sixth hour, behold he nullifies it in his heart before the sixth hour). Because before the sixth hour one can still simply nullify, because it’s not yet forbidden by Torah law until the sixth. Right? It’s simply a piece of dough, and what do you say? You say this before the time. It’s not yet chametz. One can nullify not only chametz, one can nullify simple dough also. A dough that lies somewhere in a bowl with importance, one must nullify, interesting.

Aval im hechmitzah, eino bitul mo’il kelum, ela kodem sha’ah deoraita umitzvah leva’er miyad sheyachzor leveito (But if it became leavened, nullification doesn’t help at all, rather before the Torah hour and it’s a mitzvah to destroy immediately when he returns to his house). Uhm. But you see here also that on erev Pesach in the afternoon the rabbis taught classes in Gehinnom. And what else here, what’s no simple dough? And matzos. I know. How is chametz destroyed.

Speaker 2: Okay, but if it’s an escape, one must show that he must doesn’t want to go home.

Speaker 1: Listen, one who sits and learns, he must go home, or is he nullifying, interesting, this is the greatest novelty, the greatest matter, right? Yes. Very interesting. Yes.

Law 14: How is Chametz Destroyed – Methods of Destruction

Speaker 1: Keitzad bi’ur chametz (How is chametz destroyed), how does one do the mitzvah of destroying chametz? Um… Poraro vezoreh laru’ach, o zorekho leyam (He crumbles it and scatters it to the wind, or throws it to the sea). If it’s hard chametz ve’eino ra’ui lema’achal kelev mutar lehashoto beveito (and it’s not fit for a dog’s food, it’s permitted to keep it in his house).

Okay, what is destroying chametz? Now we’re talking about all the chametz that we talked about that one must destroy. What is the proper way that it’s a destruction? One burns it, or one crumbles it, or one throws it to the sea. And then it was… Interesting, if it was hard chametz, one must crumble it before throwing it to the sea. An interesting thing.

Speaker 2: What’s the explanation? Because it’s not long enough?

Speaker 1: I don’t know. So says Rabbi Yechezkel that one must crumble.

Chametz Under Rubble

Speaker 1: Okay, if it’s in rubble, it’s also a type of destruction. If there’s more than three tefachim, it’s as if destroyed. Vetzarich levatlelo belibo (And he needs to nullify it in his heart). Heh, interesting. It’s as if destroyed, but not actually destruction, because it’s only a leniency, one can’t reach it. Therefore he fulfilled, but he still must… That’s interesting.

Law 15: Chametz Given to a Non-Jew or Burned – Law of Benefit from the Coals

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s continue. One gave it to a non-Jew before the sixth hour, one doesn’t need to destroy. And so if one burned it before the sixth hour, one may use the coals on Pesach. Why? Because it’s not yet chametz. But if one burned it in the time of its prohibition, one may not. Why? Because it’s forbidden in benefit. And forbidden in benefit means that one may not have benefit from the destruction also. And if one did, the cooked dish is forbidden in benefit, because in it lies the power of the chametz. The same thing the coals are forbidden in benefit, because it’s forbidden in benefit. The same thing heating, because it’s forbidden in benefit. Tremendous.

Alright, that’s the story for today. Tremendous, thank you, yes. Okay, we’ll continue.

Laws of Destroying Chametz – Order of Destruction, Erev Pesach that Falls on Shabbat, and Returning for Chametz

General Overview: Order of the Chapters

Speaker 1: Okay, so let’s say this way, we learned in Chapter 3, what did we learn? We learned that there is a mitzvah of “tashbitu,” and therefore the Sages said with the Reish, with the Rabbis they said that one must also search and destroy, these two things. And we learned essentially the order of the search was in Chapter 2, and now we’re going to learn essentially the laws of destruction. This is more or less the order, as I understand it.

Law 1 – What One Does After the Search: Putting Away the Chametz Until the Time of Destruction

Speaker 1: And we learned that the search is not just to look, but one must remove it, one must burn it. But one doesn’t have to burn it immediately, one can leave it, so the Rambam learns, one doesn’t have to burn it immediately, one can leave it until tomorrow, until the end of the fifth hour that shows. And therefore not, if you want to destroy it you can, but one doesn’t have to.

And therefore this is essentially a practical issue that one must make sure not to leave over, it shouldn’t become a practical problem. This is a practical thing apparently, it’s not… but it’s presumably yes a halachic thing, he wants to say that one must pay attention.

Why Doesn’t One Need to Burn at Night? – Rambam vs. Ra’avad

Speaker 1: But he also says one concern already, it’s a practical thing, obviously, if there is… And I think he also explained that meaning that with the fear they might have gotten taken or something, one could have made an enactment that one should burn it at night. So obviously there’s a reason they burn it during the day, and it’s also simply practical that people should still be able to eat as long as they want.

According to how the Rambam learns, the Ra’avad learns differently. According to how the Rambam learns is… is… no, it’s simply the chametz is not obligated, why should you have to burn at night? You have a whole day to eat chametz. They told you specifically to search for chametz at night, because they have a reason that it’s more suitable better then, but they haven’t yet obligated to destroy. Obligated to destroy we’ll know with certainty from the Torah at the sixth hour.

And the Ra’avad learns yes that there is a concept to have to burn at that time, I didn’t understand why. But the Rambam learns that it’s simple that one is not obligated, and specifically because of this, meaning because they were lenient with you, so one must be careful, but it’s still a practical thing the carefulness, it’s not an obligation, it doesn’t mean you didn’t do anything, you still searched, it’s an beginning, it means it’s simply such a beginning.

Erev Pesach that Falls on Shabbat – Destruction on Erev Shabbat

Speaker 1: And therefore what is if it’s Shabbat, erev Shabbat, and one still leaves over until Shabbat, and Shabbat is still a problem, one can’t properly destroy, and therefore one must eat it basically on Shabbat. And he doesn’t say the option of why shouldn’t one be able to destroy or something like that on Shabbat. Not clear. He doesn’t speak from the commentators, why.

Speaker 2: Yes, one says one can put it in worms, things, but usually it looks like on Shabbat one must destroy on erev Shabbat, and what you may still eat on Shabbat, one leaves over.

Speaker 1: If it’s left over, he says explicitly, if it remains over, one simply leaves it over, and one buys on credit until after the first Yom Tov. It’s very interesting. As if, hey, should one find some way how to destroy on Shabbat? No, one doesn’t have to. That means, initially one shouldn’t leave over too much, but as if… because apparently, what would be the problem of doing it on Shabbat? For example, what should be the prohibition?

Discussion: Why Can’t One Destroy on Shabbat?

Speaker 2: There are concerns of carrying out, muktzeh. Yes, it’s completely muktzeh. Once it becomes the time of prohibition it’s muktzeh.

Speaker 1: He speaks about this, but I see… he doesn’t say. I saw one speaks about this. He says that there is with grinding, the Rabbeinu Manoach says yes. Not okay. It’s carrying out, or it’s grinding perhaps the problem. In short, there’s no way. Or grinding, no. I don’t know. Similar to grinding, the Aruch HaShulchan says. In short, let’s say this way, one doesn’t have to. One doesn’t have to.

Speaker 2: No, but it can also be, I would perhaps say that it’s muktzeh. Once one has nothing there at all, it’s no longer food. I don’t know.

Speaker 1: One doesn’t have to go back to prohibitions, one doesn’t have to create new prohibitions. One can say, let’s say the main thing, one doesn’t have to. In other words, why must one destroy? Only rabbinically, apparently, right? Because from the Torah it’s sufficient with nullification. If one simply nullifies on Shabbat, obviously. So therefore there’s no problem from the Torah. Only the Rabbis say that one must destroy. So the Rabbis say, if it’s Shabbat, the Rabbis don’t demand from you. They say you should destroy, but you should destroy after Yom Tov, it’s not a problem.

Terumah on Shabbat

Speaker 1: So this is apparently the thing I wanted to tell you, and it’s not relevant. Therefore, since it’s Shabbat, there’s another law that terumah one may not make impure, because then it’s not yet the time of prohibition, and therefore there’s a prohibition of making terumah impure. Very good. So one doesn’t have to make it impure. And still one must eat it.

Search After the Time – Even on Yom Tov and After Yom Tov

Speaker 1: After this there are laws that one has already forgotten, that one must still search even on Yom Tov, and even after Yom Tov in order to destroy the chametz, because the Sages made a punishment and a fine. This is all very good.

Further, the Sages are obligated to destroy the search. Although there is a law from the Torah initially, I mean one must do it on the eve of the night of the 14th, but it increases the obligation from the Rabbis that one shouldn’t rely on the nullification, and destroy and search. And this is the whole Pesach, and even after Pesach the Rabbis speak about the matter of chametz she’avar alav haPesach.

Blessing on Searching for Chametz

Speaker 1: It’s only spoken about the law of when one makes the blessing. The blessing one only made during the festival period, on the punishment and fine one can’t make a blessing. Yes, this is interesting, by the way, but okay.

Nullification After the Search

Speaker 1: And after this there is, one makes a blessing, very good. But he says how the nullification works. One must make the nullification which is before Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov itself one can’t… righteous one, let’s make clear.

We have until now learned the first law of the chapter tells us what one does after the search. What one does after the search is, one puts it away and one destroys. On the sixth day, if it’s Shabbat, it has details. If you still hold after the search, you didn’t do the search, you must still search and destroy. This is the first group of laws here. You can say like matters after searching for chametz, what one does.

Now, what other things does one do by searching for chametz? First of all, one must make a blessing, that’s the first thing. Apparently the blessing is on the Torah obligation of destruction, we spoke. It’s not clear, but on the tashbitu, which the Sages say that one should fulfill in this manner, so we learn. Okay.

After this, not only this, not only must one make a search with a blessing, one must add another thing: a nullification. The Sages said, although you searched, and although apparently the search comes to nullify the nullification, that means one shouldn’t rely on the nullification, but nevertheless the Sages say, one must still make nullification, on what? On the chametz that you didn’t see.

Hey, we learned truly only the Rabbis said that this is another stringency of the Sages. That means, hey, the Sages say yes, if at night you must nullify, you must see what you can. It looks like even a nullification. What one doesn’t see doesn’t clearly exist. So the Rabbis were accustomed to say, so from the Torah. Rabbinically one must yes destroy what one searches and nullify what one didn’t find, very good.

And we learn further laws of destruction, laws of nullification, that nullification only works when it’s not yet chametz. Therefore after six hours one can no longer nullify, therefore one must immediately nullify, and kol chamira d’ika birshuti is not consecrated, very good.

Returning for Chametz – Erev Pesach at the Time of Destruction

Speaker 1: After this we learned more laws from the matter of when one must return if one forgot to search for the chametz, didn’t search for the chametz, there are laws of when one sees the chametz, “bal yera’eh u’val yimatzei” chametz within his house. There are laws of erev Pesach first of all at the time of destruction, yes.

At the time of destruction the law is like this, that when it’s for what he went away, if he went away for the sake of a mitzvah there is a trying to return but he doesn’t have to. But if it’s a greater mitzvah which is saving a life, he doesn’t even have to try, he doesn’t have to trouble himself, unlike a matter of danger where one must yes put oneself in danger for a mitzvah, this is bad in danger for a mitzvah.

Discussion: Saving a Life – Meaning and Details

Speaker 2: No, no, what are you saying? Again, you’re confused.

Speaker 1: If he went for a mitzvah, then if he can he should return. If he went for saving a life, not he has saving a life, he went to help another, saving a life is not the meaning by the way, pikuach nefesh is the meaning lifkoa’ach al hanefashot, to go save other people. Then one doesn’t say if he can, he can, but there people will be burned, so he basically can’t, so there’s no if you can, you must nullify it in the heart only certainly.

Speaker 2: If it went for the can, no, it can be that one speaks even when he has already finished now, but since his going away was a…

Speaker 1: I mean that he must now save people is obvious. It can be the word is that since his departure was for such an important thing, so he became exempt from the mitzvah, he was no longer obligated, not that is the point, for what one says that he shouldn’t return, because he’s holding in the middle of running for saving a life, he doesn’t have to return even for a great thing. Very good, so one says, so it stands here specifically that one doesn’t have to, what stands here? Why must one add things that don’t stand? What does it look like? One can always say some excuse, and what says that one can quickly return and also extinguish the fire? No, don’t go back. Very good.

Speaker 2: But that’s the question. Very good, I understand it.

Speaker 1: And now, but I’m just making a summary. If he went for a mitzvah, he should try to return. If he can’t, then not. If he went for saving a life, he shouldn’t try to return. If he went for his own sake, he should return, there’s no way. Very good.

The Measure of a Ke’beitzah

Speaker 1: And now, but the law is only if there is a ke’beitzah. If there isn’t a ke’beitzah, there’s no obligation to return. So they learned. I didn’t understand clearly why is the measure, but in any case, so it stands.

Returning for Chametz – During Pesach Itself (Sitting Before His Teacher)

Speaker 1: Now, the same thing is during Pesach itself. If he went to a mitzvah, apparently, it’s very interesting, it stands “sitting before his teacher.” That means, perhaps here apparently also, if he went for his own sake, he must certainly go home. But unlike when he’s sitting before his teacher, he’s not obligated to go home.

So also it’s still very interesting, one can nullify. If it’s not yet chametz, he can nullify it. If it’s already chametz, he can nullify it, saying “why? Because it’s not in my possession.” So he must go home to destroy it, but he doesn’t have to run immediately. When he goes home, he destroys it. That’s all.

Discussion: Sitting Before His Teacher – Parallels and Clarifications

Speaker 1: Interesting, on Yom Kippur one also gave extra credit for one who goes to his teacher, he may be lenient with techumin. Yes, he goes to the teacher all the time.

Speaker 2: Ah, that’s not erev Pesach, that’s on Pesach itself.

Speaker 1: You said that we made a mistake yesterday, that one says that he learns erev Pesach. It can also… ah, earlier it stood… no, a festive meal. Festive meals one makes say on erev Pesach. He goes understand, a brit, I know what. Here stands a betrothal. I don’t know about a brit. Perhaps a brit also? Okay. Yes, it’s very important, because a betrothal can always be “lest another precede him,” and one must grab it. Very good. Okay, I don’t know, it doesn’t stand yet. It’s not a distinction.

Speaker 2: Normal people it was, I can do all nerdy. Erev Pesach. Erev Pesach, erev Pesach. Is the wedding. What’s not easy? What can make me the wedding on erev Pesach? I want it is today’s nervous people? If one does the match with thread and curtains, then one must do it until half an hour before, that’s it. Okay.

Speaker 1: Okay, now.

How Does One Destroy?

Speaker 1: And after this, until here one learned when one is distant from before. How does one make destruction? How one makes the destruction there are three ways: burns, scatters to the wind, or throws to the sea. And throws to the sea has some condition that one doesn’t have to crumble it beforehand.

Discussion: Are These Specifically Three Ways?

Speaker 2: But simply it’s not specifically the three ways, they are three examples. Like oh, a thing, he gives you the idea.

Speaker 1: I don’t know, but you say so. Here it stands yes the three ways. Isn’t there another way do you have? I don’t understand the thing. May one not bury it and put it in the garbage truck?

Speaker 2: No, no, garbage truck wasn’t in those times, righteous one.

Law 3 (Continuation) — Methods of Destroying Chametz

The Rambam’s Words

“Burns the chametz, or crumbles and scatters to the wind, or throws to the sea… and if it was hard chametz that he cannot crumble, behold he burns it or crumbles it and throws it to the sea… and if he buried it — it needs to be more than three tefachim and he nullifies it in his heart”

Discussion: Garbage Truck — A Modern Question Without a Source

Speaker 1: Garbage truck doesn’t fulfill.

Speaker 2: I don’t know what you wanted to say. Today’s rabbis say yes, but it doesn’t stand here garbage truck. It stands one burns it, or one throws it in the wind. Perhaps the garbage truck is an aspect of scattering to the wind, I don’t know, but it must be crumbled. Or in the sea. It doesn’t stand garbage truck. I don’t know what kind of thing is this garbage truck. How was such a thing? Wasn’t.

Speaker 1: Did one for example bury, is one not fulfilled with this? Burying in those times?

Speaker 2: Chametz fell on it a collapse, that stands in this section. Burying stands here.

Speaker 1: What do you see so fallen?

Speaker 2: No, it looks like such a post-facto. It looks like burying is an option. Who goes to bury chametz? One must be crazy who has extra burial society to bury? One who has a field, it’s easier for him than to come to the sea, or he doesn’t want to be in the sea. I don’t know. What stands, stands. What doesn’t stand, doesn’t stand. I can’t help you.

Speaker 1: I think it’s examples. The Sages say…

Speaker 2: It’s not correct. It’s not true, it’s not true. It stands here exactly this, and there’s a whole dispute. There was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who says that one specifically needs burning.

Speaker 1: What are you saying? What looks with you?

Speaker 2: I can’t confuse the sugya in the Gemara not here. Anyway, the question is what is the meaning in “destroys all chametz.” If there is… and not only this, here it stands clear, not only this, righteous one. It is yes there where it stands burial. “Prohibition of benefit” there is a burial, that is specifically burning. And here it stands explicitly also, if it’s buried, first of all it must be more than three tefachim because a dog can grab it, and secondly, even then one must nullify in the heart.

Innovation: Meaning in “Destruction” — Destroying, Not Just Removing

Speaker 2: It means, what means not destroying? Only some destruction. It looks here that destruction means to eliminate chametz. Destruction doesn’t mean to remove the chametz from your possession. That perhaps simply fulfills, it’s not with burning chametz. I don’t know, can one declare ownerless.

Speaker 1: Why doesn’t it stand declaring ownerless?

Speaker 2: I don’t know. Here stands something else though. Hagahot Maimoniyot speaks about this, that one may throw it in an ownerless place and dogs should eat it and the like.

Speaker 1: Okay, that’s perhaps a different text version.

Speaker 2: But destruction that the Sages speak doesn’t mean… destruction that the Sages speak means to eliminate the chametz.

Discussion: Hagahot Maimoniyot and the Riva

Speaker 1: What is with… how do you say, about ownerless?

Speaker 2: No. Where do you see it? Hagahos Maimoniyos stands in the middle, Riva, Rashi Beitzah 25a, “You should throw chametz to a place…”

Speaker 1: Give me a number.

Speaker 2: Ah, beis.

Speaker 1: What beis?

Speaker 2: Hagahos Maimoniyos… I’m sorry, chaf I mean, Hagahos Maimoniyos siman… He says that there are those who hold like Rabbi Yehuda in general, and you have to burn it.

Speaker 1: Right. And the Riva, who is the Riva?

Speaker 2: I don’t know. I think that… ah, so the pshat is like this, I don’t know, here we’re talking about after zman achilaso.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s how he sees it.

Speaker 2: He sees it exactly like us, that he’s on my side, that if you want to throw out the chametz before the zman issur, okay, it’s not yet chametz, it’s not yet relevant. That’s not yet the question. The question is only when there’s already a chiyuv biur chametz, meaning the zman issur chametz has already arrived, you’re obligated to be meva’er now, so we’re told clearly that you have to destroy the chametz, you can’t throw it out. That’s what he says here, I don’t know.

After that, I see the Lechem Mishneh for example says… ah, he’s talking about… no, burial has to do with posach itzo with other things. I see here, I don’t know, it seems that you have to burn the chametz. I don’t know.

Critique of Current Practice

Speaker 2: The world doesn’t conduct itself to burn all chametz, they throw it in the garbage with things. I don’t know. I feel like going, the Rambamists should go to the lake with my children early in the morning, instead of tashlich we’ll do chametz. They should say meforer al pnei hamayim.

Speaker 1: Yes, okay. But it has to be first meforer and then throw it into the sea, because it’s not a strong…

Speaker 2: I mean, when it’s in a sea or a lake it’s also the same thing. It’s a sea is salt water, I mean… I don’t know, maybe it has to be specifically a sea, I don’t know. Memeis, there’s something in the Gemara a lashon that the sea is memeis the chametz, and it’s like it’s without the salt water, which does something, I don’t know. Memeis the chametz easily. In general, he brings some lashon, that memeis meforer al pnei hamayim, from… someone had an ox, the baal hakarem told him, “You can travel to the sea, the sea isn’t so far.”

Speaker 1: True, you can also do that.

Shulchan Aruch and Rama — “U’minhag Lisrof”

Speaker 2: Let’s see, how is it paskened in Shulchan Aruch? Is it something different?

No, because we see that the Rishonim of Ashkenaz thought that you have to pasken like Rabbi Yehuda that in biur chametz it’s only burning, and then you can’t do it. The Rambam says that you can be meforer, but Rabbi Yehuda holds that… here, the Rama says, “U’minhag lisrof.” “U’minhag lisrof.” The Mechaber brings the lashon of the Rambam, he adds here, “If the chametz was hard…” ah, no, it’s also the lashon of the Rambam.

The Rama says, “U’minhag lisrof, v’tov lesarfo bayom.” Interesting thing, because earlier we spoke, the Rambam says you can burn it at night, but he brings his own words, he brings the Rama says his own chiddush, “Tov lesarfo bayom, dumya d’nosar shenisraf bayom.”

And by the way, what do we mean? He says, “Not that you can also burn it achar habedikah so that he won’t be lazy and won’t delay.” No, that’s the machlokes of the Rambam and the Raavad that we saw. Ah, and before, the minisira you can throw it to a place where the wind carries it there. That also stood in the etzem halacha by the chaticha d’issura, that you don’t need any new other thing.

Discussion: Why Not Throw in the Sea?

Speaker 1: But I don’t understand, why are we afraid that if you throw a whole chametz in the sea that someone will come eat it?

Speaker 2: I don’t know. The husband who went to medinas hayam, the husband of that woman, the chametz arrived there.

Speaker 1: Okay, perek daled.

Speaker 2: I don’t know, you have to… it seems that biur chametz means to eliminate the chametz. I don’t know, that’s what it seems. The Gemara talks about the breaking, whether you should be meforer, how you should do this. There’s a machlokes how the Rishonim pasken, I don’t see anymore.

Maharil’s Custom — Burning the Bedikah Utensil

Speaker 2: Look how the Ashkenazic gedolim come in here with interesting chiddushim. The Maharil comes and he brings him, if you didn’t find any chametz to be bodek, you should burn the utensil that you used for bedikah, so that you won’t forget the chovas biur. Okay. And then comes the spoon with all the things.

I say once that according to Chassidus, that the one who searches for someone else’s chametz also has to be burned. The one who searches for someone else’s chametz, but you also have to burn the ayin hara. Understand? And you have to burn the burner. Is there someone who counts this. And he still sings Chad Gadya. About this the Mishnah says that there’s someone who counts.

I don’t know, in short, the matter of burning isn’t clear. I don’t understand what the pshat of biur is. I don’t know.

Further Critique of Current Practice

Speaker 2: In current times I sometimes feel that the biur chametz is very funny. You have huge cases of chametz, you throw them out, and then you take a poor roll and burn it. I don’t get it. This is more based on the Maharil, on the custom of the Maharil. Again, you’ll see that apparently you have to burn all the boxes of chametz that you have at home.

Speaker 1: No, the Rambam paskens that you don’t have to burn, you can be yotzei with any way whatsoever.

Discussion: Garbage — Hefker or Not?

Speaker 1: What about the garbage?

Speaker 2: What about the garbage? It’s a kind of hefker thing, like perur b’alma. No one goes to eat from after the garbage truck was there. It’s like perur b’alma. The cats can eat, people, I don’t know, eat from garbage?

Speaker 1: But you have benefit from it.

Speaker 2: You have to make sure that you don’t have benefit from it. You’re not allowed to make that an animal should have benefit, but you’re not allowed to make that an animal should have benefit also not.

Speaker 1: It’s not your animal.

Speaker 2: But it’s not an issur hana’ah that birds go eat from it.

Speaker 1: Okay, but then it says in Tosafos, if you give it to a non-Jew you don’t have to.

Speaker 2: So yes, if you burn it still before shesh, it’s mutar b’hana’ah.

Chametz on Pesach — Nisrafim or Nikbarim

Issur Hana’ah After Zman Issur

Speaker 2: But from shesh sha’os and above it’s assur b’hana’ah, and above you also can’t, if you baked bread on it it’s assur b’hana’ah. So says the Rambam, on this there are also matters in the mefarshim to explain what the matter is.

Question: Is Chametz from Nisrafim or Nikbarim?

Speaker 2: There’s a question whether chametz is from nisrafim or nikbarim. It’s not clear. If it’s from hanikbarim, you take it… I can tell you always, things that are nikbar, the pshat is you’re not allowed to have benefit from burning them. Kol hanikbarim afran assur.

Ah, the pecham is assur. So it comes out that chametz on Pesach is from hanisrafim, because he says that the efer is mutar.

Discussion: Why Is Burning on Pesach Different?

Speaker 1: If you burned it, why is if you burn it on Pesach different? What’s different on Pesach? Why do you specifically have to burn it?

Speaker 2: No, why can’t you… ah, because maybe there’s something with the halacha that before Pesach it can become batel? On Pesach bittul doesn’t help?

Speaker 1: I don’t mean bittul, I’m sorry. On Pesach it doesn’t help.

Speaker 2: But bittul also, because on Pesach it doesn’t help.

Speaker 1: Yes, bittul.

Rabbeinu Yonah — Burned Before Its Time

Speaker 2: So Rabbeinu Yonah says, “Burned before its time is mutar b’hana’ah even after its time.”

Umm… no, what does that have to do with it?

Speaker 1: Not just bittul, it has something to do with the halacha of… that a thing becomes batel b’ta’aroves before Pesach, on Pesach bittul b’shishim doesn’t help.

Speaker 2: What does that come in here? I don’t understand. I mean, we’re not going to talk about random things. It’s not random things.

Speaker 1: “And what reason are these wood?”

Speaker 2: But what does that have to do with before yom tov and on yom tov?

Speaker 1: “And if so, are these wood?” “Since they burned it after its time,” it’s simply such a…

Speaker 2: Maybe there’s such a little clever vort. Because acorns are actually mutar, it’s not a dead body. But if it’s actually acorns are actually mutar, it’s not a dead body, what did he say earlier? So if so why do you need before its time also? I don’t understand.

The pshat is… what is “these are wood”?

Speaker 1: Yes, what is the word of “these are wood”?

Speaker 2: Maybe it simply became an issur, maybe it’s like that? Maybe it’s only an issur when the issur comes, zman issuro?

Speaker 1: You’re saying? What? You’re saying that only when zman issuro comes, then it’s called “nisrafim”? Maybe.

Speaker 2: No, we say… it’s not dependent on that. He says that the Rambam… I don’t know, he brings that chametz on Pesach is yes from hanisrafim. He brings from Rambam like this in perek zayin from hilchos Shabbos. I don’t know.

Rabbeinu Yonah — You Can Eat the Charcoal

Speaker 2: Not only that, Rabbeinu Yonah says that you can also eat it. Again, if the pecham is simply not eating, you can even eat it.

Speaker 1: What does Rabbeinu Yonah say? What, the pecham?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Not derech achilah at all.

Speaker 2: Okay, yes, you can eat fire, it’s nothing.

Speaker 1: What’s the question?

Question: Benefit at the Time of Burning — A Consideration of Shli’ach?

Speaker 2: Because no, the problem apparently is that when you burn the chametz bizman issuro, you now have benefit from chametz. Again, the question is only the next thing. Does it have the aspect of shli’ach? That which you burn, do you now have benefit from the chametz.

Speaker 1: The benefit from the chametz is your wood.

Speaker 2: The benefit is already when it’s hot, when it’s already burned.

Speaker 1: You have to know that, okay.

Speaker 2: Why is it the aspect of shli’ach? Because it’s already a little…

The Question of Benefit at the Time of Burning

No, the problem apparently is that when you burn the chametz bizman issuro, you now have benefit from chametz.

Again, the question is only the next thing, that its coals are forbidden. That which you burn, do you now have benefit from the chametz. The benefit from the piece of chametz, the chametz is your wood. The benefit is already when it’s already burned. That you have to know. Okay.

The Magen Avraham’s Explanation — Nisrafim vs. Nikbarim

Why are its coals forbidden? I don’t know. It could be it’s a little punishment, because it was burned late. Come in, let the punishments go, please. That’s the benefit. So it’s somewhat implied in the Magen Avraham.

No, he says that there’s a rule that nisrafim their ashes are mutar, nikbarim their ashes are assur. Very good, but that’s about issurei hana’ah. And so he learns, that chametz after its time is an issur hana’ah. But what’s the difference? Because all chametz before its time isn’t an issur hana’ah. That’s the point. Because it’s not an issur hana’ah, so when you burn it, now there’s no chametz, now there’s fire. Which is not so after its time it’s an issur hana’ah, and the rule of issur hana’ah is that ashes are assur. That’s the Magen Avraham.

The Rambam’s Approach According to the Magen Avraham

But he brings that the Rambam doesn’t hold that chametz is like nikbarim. The Rambam must have a different pshat. Kol hanisrafim lo yikavru, and I don’t understand.

No, the Rambam learns yes that chametz is like nikbarim, and therefore ashes are assur. Very good. I didn’t read it correctly. Ah, ah. Nikbarim isn’t destruction. Okay. Nikbarim means, right, that the ashes are assur. Because you can’t have benefit from the ashes. Which is not so nisrafim, after you burn it you can use the ashes, because it’s already…

The Difficult Question on the Magen Avraham

But that’s what they say, but there’s still the question, what’s the pshat that the ashes aren’t the thing? The ashes are the thing. I don’t get it. I don’t know what he says. He says that when you burn it before its time there’s no chametz, it’s fire. It’s yes, but it’s mutar because it wasn’t issur hana’ah then. I don’t understand what he says.

Okay, fine. I hope I’m not nogei’a in the halacha. Okay, now you can see perek daled. Very good guidance.

An Approach to Understand the Matter — Coals as a Toldah

He simply tried to say something, I don’t see what he says. He simply says what he says, that nikbarim their ashes are assur. I don’t know if he says something else.

The chametz was heter. Ah, of course. The coals are like… for the coals no zman issur comes, because when the coals are coals. When a coal is a coal. But it was mutar at the time when it became coals, and the coal is something a toldah of the thing itself. So that the thing was mutar, now it’s stable, as if the coal doesn’t get a zman issur on the coal, but if it was assur before the coal from it is assur.

As if the coal is something a new creation from the chametz, a new form that the chametz received. So if the chametz itself was mutar, the coal never became assur. But if the chametz was assur, the coal from it is automatically a toldah of issur.

The Conclusion

It’s a toldah, it’s like nolad, the little hair is born from something. It’s benefit, even though it’s not achilas ochel, but it’s a benefit from the chametz that you use its coals.

Yes, okay, fine, I don’t know better than this, I’ll use it like this, I can learn the pshat. Okay.