הלכות חמץ ומצה פרק ד

Chapter 4, Laws of Chametz and Matzah – Lo Yera’eh U’lo Yimatzei

Overview of the Chapter

We are going to learn Chapter 4, the laws of lo yera’eh u’lo yimatzei (it shall not be seen and it shall not be found). Until now we have learned about the laws of the mitzvah (commandment) of tashbitu, that was the last two chapters. And now we are going to learn, in the first chapter we learned about the prohibition of eating chametz, yes? We learned the general principles of lo yera’eh, but we didn’t learn the details of it. Now we are going to learn the detailed laws of lo yera’eh u’lo yimatzei, and so we will continue to learn which chametz one may keep on Pesach, the distinctions. Okay? Right? Yes.

Halacha 1 – The Exposition of the Verses: Lo Yera’eh, Lo Yimatzei, B’chol G’vulecha, Lecha

The Exposition of the Verses

It says in the Torah “lo yera’eh u’lo yimatzei”. Sorry, it says in the Torah “lo yera’eh lecha chametz”. One would have thought that one may not transgress lo yera’eh, one may not see it. If one doesn’t see it, how does one not see it? For example, it’s hidden under his roof, or it’s not by him, it’s by a non-Jew, he deposited it with a non-Jew, then there is no transgression.

Therefore there is another verse “se’or lo yimatzei b’vateichem”. One sees that lo yimatzei, the simple meaning is that it should not be found, even if one doesn’t see it, even if it’s not in your house, or it’s not in front of you.

If so, fine. One would only transgress in his house. What about when it’s not in his house, in his field, in his second city? Therefore it says “b’chol g’vulecha”. “B’chol g’vulecha” the Sages interpret as “b’chol reshutecha” (in all your domain). Not the simple meaning, the simple meaning of “b’chol g’vulecha” means not only in the Beit HaMikdash (Temple), but in the borders of Israel, where Jews live. But the Sages expound that it means “b’chol g’vulecha” – “b’chol reshutecha”.

The Exclusion of “Lecha”

It comes out that one could think that if so, we have already learned that one may not have chametz even when one doesn’t see it, and even when it’s not in your house, but in your domain. If so, what if I have in my domain chametz that belongs to someone else, it’s of a non-Jew or of hekdesh (consecrated property)?

Therefore it says “lo yera’eh lecha”. “Lecha” here goes back to being an exclusion. That is, seemingly earlier we said “lo yera’eh” but not only yera’eh, but even yimatzei. And here we go back and say that the prohibition of “lo yera’eh” is to exclude that chametz of others, of hekdesh, may be seen, but you shall not see that of others and of the Most High.

It comes out like this: Your chametz is lo yimatzei even b’chol g’vulecha, but chametz of someone else is chametz… and is even in your borders. Hey, could one say the opposite? Then one would have had to say “lacho”, from the word “lacho”. By both it says “lacho”, “she’eino nimna yikach lo lachem”, and by olat imo it says “lacho”. So you can’t say even not “lacho”. No, it must be “lacho”. On that “lacho” you transgress even in all those cases. But if it’s not “lacho”, that’s not what we’re talking about. Therefore, of hekdesh, of a non-Jew, one doesn’t transgress at all.

The Principle: His Own Anywhere, Others’ Even in His House

To what is this comparable? He says, to what is this comparable, it comes out, chametz of a Jew, even if it’s in his domain, even hidden, even in another pit, even deposited with a non-Jew, as long as you count, there is a prohibition and chametz, one transgresses on se’or, and on matzot. Chametz of hekdesh, of a non-Jew, even if it’s in his house, is permitted, and it’s not his.

Up to here comes out the halacha, that the main prohibition is one’s own chametz. The Sages made, the Sages like to make everything into abstract learning. It’s not the reality, it’s in your house, not in your house, it makes no difference at all. The main prohibition is abstract, it’s yours. “Lacho”. Even if it’s not lying in your house, even if it’s lying…

Ger Toshav and Partition

Now, here there is a matter, here there is a halacha, even a ger toshav (resident alien) who is under the control of a Jew for all his needs, and he gives him chametz on Pesach, it’s no matter at all. One acquires a ger toshav for Pesach matters, but not that he should have chametz.

But here there is one law that one must make a partition. This is a dispute from the Rabbis. This is a whole reality, chametz of a non-Jew one doesn’t transgress on, but one must make a partition ten handbreadths high so that one won’t come to a mishap. And this is perhaps a rabbinic decree, simply so that one shouldn’t, simply so that one shouldn’t eat. Seemingly it makes sense.

Chametz of Hekdesh – How Does One Know?

And this is by a non-Jew’s chametz. By hekdesh’s chametz there is indeed a question, because one is… anyway exempt from it. To distinguish a thousand thousands of distinctions, people have a fear of the Holy. How does one know that it’s hekdesh? Is there a sign? One doesn’t know. One sees that it’s hekdesh. It’s not so clear.

When the Sages say that Jews were careful, this means that there was a system in place. There were special bags, I don’t know what. One knew what was what. One knew what was what.

Dispute Between Rambam and Ramban – His Own Alone or His Own in His Domain

Okay. This is a matter to delve into in Pesachim. Okay. Not so simple. There are others, there is a dispute. The Ramban… the Rambam learns that everything depends on whether it’s his, and even his own in another’s hand he transgresses. The Ramban and the others argued that no, that it must be both. They indeed learned that it must be both his own and in his domain. Therefore if you deposited chametz, not yours, not yours, it’s not in your domain, even if it’s yours you don’t transgress biblically. So other Rishonim learned. Okay.

Speaker 1: That it must be both conditions together?

Speaker 2: Yes, both his own and in his domain. The Rambam learns that it must only be his own, even his own in his domain, in a non-Jew’s hand. It’s a Baraita, there are many places in the Gemara where it’s implied that one may not deposit chametz with a non-Jew on Pesach. But, um, yes.

Halacha 3 – A Non-Jew Who Deposited Chametz with a Jew: The Law of Responsibility

Okay, so, here comes the halacha of responsibility. “Kesef kodshei kodashim eretz Yisrael”, but the Jew does perhaps have a bit of ownership. What does ownership mean? Yes? They learned, what if you have a non-Jew’s chametz? One learns that a non-Jew’s chametz one doesn’t transgress on. But what if you have responsibility? You are indeed liable, because accepting responsibility is enough, it becomes like his own.

Why Does Responsibility Make It “Like His Own”?

Here there’s a bit of a… although essentially, ah, although essentially what is it? Essentially it’s not yours, but responsibility makes it as if it’s yours regarding this matter? One might have said, regarding responsibility it’s permitted, you may use it after Pesach, because it’s a non-Jew’s.

Innovation: Responsibility Goes According to Reality, Not According to Halacha

Now, not only that, not only that, but, not only that, but even if you didn’t accept responsibility, but he’s a wicked person the non-Jew, a violent non-Jew, how does one say? Violent. And he what? He will hold the Jew responsible, even his own in his domain. Here one doesn’t go with the abstract learning, here one looks practically. Not only that, which is an interesting thing. You can say, okay, because something doesn’t fit so abstractly. In any case practically he will hold him responsible and it will come back.

Explanation: The Reality of Responsibility

The first abstract learning one must also understand. Why is responsibility like his own? What is special about responsibility? Responsibility, you can say responsibility, why? Because as if, what does responsibility mean? If it gets lost, it’s mine. Although as if technically it’s not mine, but basically, on some level it’s mine. So, this is not about the law of responsibility, this is about the reality of responsibility. So, this is the same thing, that if I will have to replace it it’s mine, that means that it’s for yes. One must understand. But so stands here the halacha. This one must understand. Yes.

That the responsibility doesn’t work with what the halacha says that it’s indeed responsibility, but with what the reality is. Even if it’s… yes. And it seems, we would have said that initially this was the simple meaning. The beginning, the reason for responsibility, not about the halacha. The word is not as if Israel and rule mechayeh uneh. The word is, that this means a type of responsibility. And you know in by the that you bear responsibility for it.

Speaker 1: Again?

Speaker 2: That responsibility is what happens between the two things, not what the halacha goes and says that it’s responsibility. If in practice you have responsibility… I say that… yes.

Speaker 1: I didn’t understand what that means to say?

Speaker 2: Nothing. Let me when words. Whatever responsibility there is relevant, it seems… I haven’t looked into it yet, if it seems that it’s built on the fact that you will have to replace it! You don’t have chametz that you will have to replace it if it gets lost. Above, what difference if it’s a halacha tikra responsibility, if it’s a technical responsibility, over all my responsibility. That’s the responsibility?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Halacha 5 – A Jew Who Pledged Chametz to a Non-Jew: Collateral

Speaker 2: Okay, what if a Jew made not a deposit, but a pledge? He pledged chametz, borrowed money from a non-Jew. How so, if he says… if he told him… he knows lecha’i that ekni is still after Pesach, and he indeed didn’t do it. Seemingly, right. That then it’s in the non-Jew’s domain and it’s permitted. If he was then before Pesach, if he didn’t say after Pesach, it comes out a deposit and it’s prohibited after Pesach. Okay.

Halacha 6 – Selling Chametz to a Non-Jew

Now we have the halacha of sale. Right? What does one see from the halacha? That… a deposit… a pledge means… it’s the non-Jew’s and prohibited. A complete, a time, Pesach is perhaps night and can still pay. But after he didn’t pay, it became the non-Jew’s prohibited. More after Pesach. But if it wasn’t the prohibited, if the deal was that it becomes the non-Jew’s afterwards, it was his on Pesach. Very simple. It was proven. It’s only prohibited after. Yes? Right? No, it’s not right.

Rabbi, are you here? Hello? Yes, weren’t you here? Ah, ah. Ah. Ah. I sometimes make a mistake with the student. Student.

The Case: A Jew and Non-Jew Who Were on a Ship

And the Jew needs very important chametz. He had chametz, and the fifth hour comes. What does he do? Can he sell it to a non-Jew, or give it to him as a gift, provided…

But the gift must be a real gift. This is the halacha of selling chametz. He may not do it with a condition, etc.

Speaker 1: A condition?

Speaker 2: He tells him, “I’m selling it to you now, but you must keep it until after Pesach” or such a thing. This is not a sale. This is not a sale. This must be a complete gift. Or a gift or…

What One May Say – Hint and “Purchased with Much Money”

But one can indeed do certain things, and this is far from normal. Why is this not a normal case? Why does one need the ship? Because who then? Why shouldn’t he make a serious sale? Because here is the simple meaning of the ship, he has no way to have chametz after Pesach. The Jew has to die of hunger. Therefore there is this case. It’s not clear if one can learn from this that initially one may not. I don’t know. The simple understanding is that one can work it out.

One can even say to the non-Jew… ah, so clear. One can even say to the non-Jew… yes, this is indeed clear. Even “purchased an animal with much money”. That is, I’ll give you cheap.

“A non-Jew purchased from him with much money”, that is, I will buy it back from you for an expensive price. This is even a great innovation.

One can even say, “It could be that you’ll make a good business”, yes. But one may not tell him a condition. Well, by us one transgresses on “lo yera’eh u’lo yimatzei”. Why?

Explanation: “Purchased an Animal with Much Money”

Even that which one purchases an animal is also that. He tells him, “I don’t need bread”. He says, “You don’t need? Take more bread”. He says, “I already bought an animal”. “Bo v’kach mimeni” means, even if you don’t need it, buy for two hundred. Does that mean? You’ve already taken from a non-Jew, now take from a Jew. But this is just a word. Here perhaps the seriousness is lacking, because the non-Jew isn’t buying it because he needs it now. But Yosef didn’t make any condition. And so learns Rabbeinu Manoach.

Speaker 1: Why?

Speaker 2: Ah, I see, I see. Not clear. The other opinion that he brings afterwards, he brings the other way opposite. But that one is a very strange interpretation, and he says that that one didn’t hold out because that one was a great poor person. He was a poor person what does he do? And only that way pained him, but also meanwhile he grabs the money, and then he withdrew from the deal. I don’t know. A Jewish story.

The Main Point: Hint Yes, Condition No

The main point seemingly is not that. The main point seemingly is, one can hint to him and one can tell him… we say clearly that after Pesach there is what to do with it, it’s not just a sale in concealment. This we may say, but on condition, to say “I’m selling to you on condition that I will help you” or something like that…

Summary of Chapter 4 – Laws of “Lo Yera’eh V’lo Yimatzei” and Sale of Chametz

Opening – Summary of Chapter 4

Speaker 1: Okay, we’re learning now Chapter 4. We’ve already learned it. Should we make a summary of the points that we learned? I mean we’ve almost finished Chapter 4, no? Have we finished it or haven’t we finished it?

Okay, so let’s say the kitzur inyan (brief summary).

Kitzur Inyan – “Lo Yera’eh V’lo Yimatzei”

Speaker 1: The kitzur inyan is that the Torah states “lo yera’eh v’lo yimatzei” (it shall not be seen and it shall not be found). There are various midrashim and various gemaras about this.

Shitat HaRambam – “Lo Yera’eh” and “Lo Yimatzei”

Speaker 1: The summary in the shitat HaRambam (Rambam’s approach) is that “lo yera’eh” teaches us that… if it only said “lo yera’eh,” one would think that when you don’t see it, but there is “lo yimatzei,” this implies that even if you don’t see it, hidden or deposited with a non-Jew, these two things. When it’s hidden and when it’s deposited with a non-Jew.

That is, in other words, “lo yera’eh” means… in other words, let’s learn what it says here. “lo yera’eh” means what is not seen. There are two conditions, it must be seen, visible, not under a partition, it’s tamun (hidden), whatever tamun exactly means. And also it must be here.

It’s understood that it’s… what does one think? What happens if it’s in my possession somewhere in Africa, I rented an apartment and it’s there? That already has to do with the next thing of “kol gevulecha” (all your borders).

Three Foundations – “Lecha,” “Yera’eh,” “B’chol Gevulecha”

Speaker 1: So apparently there are three things essentially. It must be yours, that is in your possession, and in the house where you live, where you move about, apparently “lo yera’eh lecha,” and it must not be hidden.

Now, “lo yimatzei,” that’s where we start, that’s like the starting point comes in. “Lo yimatzei” comes and says, no, even tamun or hifkido (deposited it), it should not be found. And for some reason, that means found. Right?

Hifkido Bid Goy – Question and Answers

Speaker 1: That is, tamun… why should hifkido mean? Hifkido, hifkido with a dalet. I don’t know, because it’s yours, clearly. Because it’s still yours, it’s still lying… it belongs one hundred percent to me, I’m holding it by you. I put it in a bank, I put it in… hifkad (deposit) can… let’s think what is hifkad.

Hifkad can also mean I have a storage, what’s that called? People rent storages, yes? I put it there. Essentially it’s deposited with that storage, he has responsibility, he doesn’t have responsibility, it’s a difference, that’s my deal with him, but it’s not by me, it’s not “yimatzei,” it’s not “yera’eh.” “Yimatzei” it is, yes. Very good.

And for some reason… and only if it’s in another city. This is very interesting, because hefker is apparently equivalent to being in his house, and how can you deposit it? That’s what I don’t understand now.

Speaker 2: So my clever son asks this question. He asks me a question, not crazy, it’s a good question. When you think about it, he’s asking me a good question.

Speaker 1: Perhaps one must say, let’s think for a second, one must say that hefker means to say, the non-Jew is actually here, he lives by me. Because if not, one could also derive this as being in another city from me, yes? You wouldn’t need the b’chol gevulecha. The Rambam says it’s not that issue, it’s a different issue. He doesn’t say it about the other things, he says it’s an attack built on different…

Oh, the second explanation is a simpler explanation, that hifkido bid nochri (deposited with a non-Jew) can mean that the non-Jew who lives by you, as if you have a worker or I don’t know, hifkido bid nochri.

Chiddush HaRambam – Dispute with the Ramban

Speaker 1: But again, let’s need to remember one thing that we already learned yesterday too, the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah brought, that what the Rambam says hifkido bid goy is a chiddush (novel ruling) of the Rambam, it’s not stated in the gemara, and the Ramban al HaTorah said explicitly that one is not obligated regarding hifkido bid goyim, because it must be sheloh bireshuto (peacefully in his possession), and the Rambam says it must only be sheloh even not in his possession.

“Not in His Possession” – Two Approaches

Speaker 1: Now, not in his possession, let’s say this way, in any case this is certain, not in his possession can mean two different things. It can mean not in my house where I am, where I stand today physically, where I live, or it can be not in his possession, not in my logical possession, in my legal possession. Hefker is in my legal possession, but in a sense not, it’s in someone else’s property.

So, in the Rambam he learns that it must be even hifkido bid goy, yes, hifkido bid goy he is obligated.

The Rambam’s Understanding – Hatmanah and Hafkadah

Speaker 1: But this is actually interesting, and the confusion is apparently from where does he take that hifkido has something to do with this, because apparently the Rambam understood, one must say that the Rambam understood that hatmanah (hiding) and hafkadah (depositing) is the same thing. It’s not like I say that hifkido is a hidden thing. No, hifkido is not like… mufkad bid goy (deposited with a non-Jew) is not like… it’s not similar, what I’m saying, it’s not similar to my possession in a distant place. That’s a different thing. We don’t know that yet. It’s not from there that he derives it.

The Rambam derives it from “lo yimatzei.” That hefker is as if it’s a bit deposited from me, a bit hidden from me. One can hide. I hid, and the hefker is also hidden. Right? So that’s the prohibition, that’s the prohibition according to the Rambam.

As we say, the Ramban says differently, that he is not obligated.

Chametz of a Non-Jew and of Hekdesh

Speaker 1: Afterwards, conversely, what is not yours, what is that? Hekdesh (consecrated property), non-Jew and hekdesh. Interesting, he has non-Jew and hekdesh in not yours.

“Lecha” – Chametz of a Non-Jew

Speaker 1: The non-Jew not yours, on this he derives from “lecha.” Yes? That “lecha,” “shelcha atah ro’eh v’atah ro’eh shel acheirim” (yours you see and you see of others), even if it’s revealed. Fundamentally, we’ll soon see that sometimes one must make a partition, but fundamentally, even if I have on my table a non-Jew’s chametz, it’s not yours. That’s the shitat HaRambam. Even a non-Jew who is sho’el alav (borrowed it), he has nothing to do with it, it’s only all about ownership.

Partition by Chametz of a Non-Jew – Due to Concern

Speaker 1: So, but there is a law that when there is a concern, when there is a concern, even by a non-Jew there is a concern, then one must make a partition simply shelo yavo l’histafeik mimenu (so he won’t come to benefit from it). Right? Unlike hekdesh where there isn’t such a concern, one doesn’t need to make any partition. It’s a simple matter. Yes? Good.

Discussion – Difference Between Rambam and Ramban

Speaker 1: Now, let’s take a bit more. What does the Ramban hold regarding the second law? He only argues with one thing, hifkido bid goy. Why is according to the Ramban a difference between hifkido bid goy and in his courtyard in another city? Because the Ramban says it’s not in his possession, it’s in someone else’s possession.

The question is, it’s ownership but in one’s own possession. Wait. If it’s tamun bireshut harabim (hidden in the public domain), someone found it, it’s buried in the forest, but he didn’t give up ownership on it, will the Ramban also hold that he is obligated?

Speaker 2: It’s an ownership that has responsibility.

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s not support the Rambam, now let’s take the Rambam. I mean that the Ra’avad also has such a similar thing. I didn’t look up the Ra’avad. Ah, later. Conversely, by the hefker he is, by the responsibility I think he is the other thing. No, I don’t know.

The Rambam is Consistent – Everything is Ownership

Speaker 1: But in any case, this is an important thing. The Rambam is consistent. One can understand the Rambam, because hefker by him is the opposite. The Rambam looks at everything as ownership, not where it lies, but ownership. The law, the prohibition is dependent on this. And not only ownership, but even some kind of potential ownership. That if the other is a worker that you will have to pay. It’s not exactly ownership, not any halachic ownership.

Speaker 2: Wait a minute, wait a minute, let’s come back. Tzaddik, tzaddik, you are jumping ahead. You are jumping ahead. You are jumping ahead. We know that they already learned yesterday, but… apparently, apparently what?

Speaker 1: I’m saying, the Rambam one can understand, it’s consistent that it’s all about the ownership, the thing, not from where it lies, but the ownership. So, no difference if it’s yours and it lies by a non-Jew, or it’s yours and it lies in another field, or even it’s not yours, but we know that you will have to pay for the non-Jew, which makes it also something like yours.

Speaker 2: I understand, but that’s the opposite. That’s not yet relevant to this. Unlike when it’s the non-Jew’s and it’s in your possession, one won’t consider it, because one doesn’t look at all at the physical where it lies, one only looks at the…

Speaker 1: Exactly. That’s everyone agrees though, that the non-Jew’s that is not obligated, is not any controversy. The only point that is controversial is the middle thing, when it’s mine and it lies in someone else’s possession. And the Rambam says, it’s yours, I don’t care that it’s in someone else’s possession. And the Ra’avad says, no, I do care that it’s in someone else’s possession. That’s the dispute. Right? Yes. Okay. In any case, it’s fine.

Non-Jew Who Deposited Chametz with a Jew

Speaker 1: Now, let’s go further and we see that what… what happens when a non-Jew deposits with a Jew conversely? We spoke about this, that it says yes that a worker one may not leave, remember that? If the non-Jew is a worker, even with a partition it didn’t help. Hello? Yes. Okay, I don’t know. Let’s go further. Yes.

Ah, it says that one may not give to a non-Jew forbidden foods where there is possibly mar’it ayin (appearance of wrongdoing). You say it wasn’t yet in Eretz Yisrael, so there weren’t any strange non-Jews, but still it’s already there. It doesn’t say, I think, such a thing. Okay, in Rambam it doesn’t say such a thing. Okay.

Law – Non-Jew Who Deposited Chametz with Responsibility

Speaker 1: Now, let’s go further. Already. Now, if when a non-Jew gave chametz to a Jew, if he has responsibility one must destroy it. That’s the law. Why? Because responsibility is enough to be called shelo (his). Shelo kamoso (his like him). Responsibility.

Chiddush – Responsibility is Potential Ownership

Speaker 1: It’s a chiddush, because responsibility is after all only a potential that it should be shelo. It’s still a means that one can say so, it could perhaps have been marked as a three. So it says in the gemara. It’s not now, it’s later it will be his. No, no, not about that. It’s about the current responsibility. Responsibility is a type of ownership.

Dispute of Ra’avad

Speaker 1: And the Ra’avad holds that this is built on a gemara of Rav Nachman, and he holds that it’s not correct, because that gemara speaks of a manner where it never belonged to them at all, right? Not that there is anyway responsibility from others. If so, how can one bring a proof from there? It won’t arise at all. And in short, he doesn’t agree. The Ra’avad holds that this was his. Okay, already.

Law – Jew Who Pawned Chametz with a Non-Jew (Collateral)

Speaker 1: The next law is when a Jew made his chametz a collateral. The law is, if he made it a collateral, it’s good.

Dispute of Ra’avad – Setting a Time

Speaker 1: And the Ra’avad also disputes this on which point? On the point that the Rama says that one may eat it after Pesach, that you must set a time before Pesach. The Ra’avad says, even if he didn’t set a time, even not from now, because this is only an asmachta (conditional agreement) for the non-Jew.

Interesting Contradiction in the Ra’avad’s Position

Speaker 1: The Ra’avad is… it’s interesting, because with the logic from before of responsibility you said the opposite, now it’s of the non-Jew because for the same reason, because the non-Jew received responsibility. The non-Jew has no responsibility on the collateral. He owes you until the collateral.

And the Ra’avad holds that it’s not a question if it’s asmachta or collateral, what the law is. Until here are the main laws, basically, right?

Summary – Three Main Points in Ownership

Speaker 1: In total, until now we’ve learned the main laws from destroying to selling. We learned that it must be his. We learned that even responsibility, and we learned that conversely, the meaning of a collateral is if it was from now, and if the time of payment came before Pesach, it’s the non-Jew’s. That is, these are the laws in laws of ownership, right? What means yours? What means the non-Jew’s?

So the ways means, the manner of the non-Jew that he gave to you means it’s yours if you have responsibility, and the Jew who gave to the non-Jew means it’s his if it was a collateral. Basically three points in total.

Sale of Chametz

Speaker 1: Afterwards we learn with the interesting law, sale of chametz. Now, until here are the main laws. Now we learned, what is the point of the law? In order to do what? This built, ah, built on what is the chametz of another, even if it’s in your possession, even if it’s in your house, even if it’s in your physical house, is not obligated, he is obligated like this. What does one do if it’s difficult? One can sell the chametz to a non-Jew.

It doesn’t say that one can sell it to a non-Jew, it only says in one case. We are partners. Yes, it could be that the chiddush there is more than that, I don’t know. Yes, but…

Cosmetics, Destroyed Form of Chametz, and Mixture of Chametz – Laws 11-12

Law 11 – Destroyed Form of Chametz: Cosmetics, Glue, and Starch

Speaker 1:

Yes, this is the source of the law of all the cosmetics. Simply is very stringent, but simply, it is destroyed form of chametz, consequently…

It’s interesting, because for example, today’s people are not excluding, what is if someone, some crazy person, gave to a dog to eat, and he ate it? You’ll tell me not l’chatchilah (initially), here it doesn’t say that you shouldn’t… it’s l’chatchilah not any eating.

Difference Between Unfit for Dog Food and Destroyed Form of Chametz

Eating must become when it’s fine for dog food, because eating no one no eating, it’s a thing in itself. As it says the Pesach itself, Pesach by Pesach there is the law of unfit for dog food, or spoiled dough that rotted. But by these things is a different law, it’s not unfit for dog food, it’s destroyed form of chametz. It’s not chametz! Now, what is this? It’s a cream, it’s not chametz. The Torah tells us not to eat chametz.

What Means “Dog Food”

A Pesach itself, that it’s impossible… no, also dog food means when the dog eats it. A person can also bite stones. Dog food is when there is also like a more extreme of human food. Something that a person would never eat, one doesn’t need to wait for dog food. Dog food is simply human food, only not so appetizing anymore, but it’s still edible. Something that is not at all any food, but you wait for a dog that should eat it… no, that doesn’t mean it. Dog food, dog food is perhaps not at all human food.

Speaker 2:

No, no, no, you’re saying a different thing.

Speaker 1:

What we said is that if it’s not eating, if it’s not food, it’s destroyed form of food, that’s for the karet (excision). That’s for the karet, because it’s not food. If it’s food, and it’s rotten meat, I know what, dogs eat it, that’s something that was once human food, and it became repulsive, it became moldy. But something that at the time became as not human food at all, dog food is food, dog food is food. There are things that even when the dog eats it, it’s not eating. Not only that, a person can also eat it. You can eat a stone, because of that it doesn’t become… the same thing, if the dogs are a bit crazier than people, eat more things, because of that it doesn’t make… it must be dog food. But even a dog one must have a law of eating. The intention is, one can be stringent, but the intention is this.

Examples: Hides, Starch, and Papers

The same thing, hides that he gathered them in pig’s milk, yes, one still makes it, starch, yes, one starches clothes, or papers that he glued them with chametz, yes, there is such a thing. The Pesach itself says, that if one needs to destroy, it can’t be that a pit must be before him throwing to it a smell. I agree. Can I put this down a year before Pesach in the sea sometimes? I’ll agree that perhaps it escaped and one could eat it. But I agree, if one puts the bleach, it makes it unfit for dog food too. Also must be somewhere, one does, that there are people who are concerned about the garbage, how long it becomes before it becomes unfit for dog food.

Chiddush: Glue Made from Wheat

A good point that you made is wheat. I don’t like kissing with chametz, no evil eye. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Glue, glue, milk one can chew, less because of the paste, there’s no tzuras hachametz (form of chametz) on it. So what’s the explanation that people… the Elmer’s glue, the white glue, is made from wheat for Pesach children. It’s made from wheat. But it doesn’t have tzuras hachametz. One may use it on Pesach l’chatchila (from the outset).

Halacha 12 – Eating Chametz That Is Not Food: Permitted to Keep, Forbidden to Eat

Now, ah, but one may not eat it. Achilas… that is, chametz that is nifsal me’achilas kelev (unfit for a dog to eat), there is no achilas chametz (eating of chametz). It’s not so simple, every Raavad argues on this halacha. We hold like the Raavad says. Come, let’s finish the Raavad’s halacha.

Things that are a mixture of chametz, there is no dispute among people at all. If one is in dispute with everyone, there is theriac. What do people who eat it do? Ah, there aren’t such people. Simply “to fulfill ‘and you shall desire to eat it'”. Why do I need proofs for this? Anything that has in it is forbidden to eat. One may not eat even nuksheh chametz (hard chametz). But one may keep it.

Hasagas HaRaavad – There Is No Tzuras Hachametz Upon It

What do you say that the Raavad says? The Raavad doesn’t see the concept of “there is no tzuras hachametz upon it.” For him there is only one thing: if it is nifsal me’achilas kelev. Despite all this, I must tell you, I haven’t seen that the Raavad should say this. I saw that the Raavad says this: “yechdal yeshiva” (let him cease sitting), it won’t help with a mixture of chametz that nullifies itself. In a mixture of chametz there is no nullification of itself. Yes. After that, it itself became mixed in nosen ta’am (giving taste), when it doesn’t give taste, what are you doing with the mixture? And even after the taste, and nevertheless, one sees that besides what the Raavad means, the Maggid Mishneh says that Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol went with an approach that it doesn’t exist. That means the Rambam with Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol is already greatly strengthened on Pesach. He sits at the seder with a large chametz on the table. A large piece of chametz on the table.

Maggid Mishneh – Mixture of Chametz: K’zayis, Kol Shehu, and Shishim

Question: Why K’zayis and Not Nullified in the Majority?

It’s very interesting, because he asks, the Maggid Mishneh, the Rambam said that a mixture of chametz only transgresses with a k’zayis (olive-sized portion); less than a k’zayis is nullified in the majority. Also, what’s the difference? Why shouldn’t it be like a regular prohibition, that it’s nullified in the majority? Why by a mixture of chametz does one specifically need a k’zayis? Also, why shouldn’t it be that even a k’zayis should be nullified in the majority? Ah, the Maggid Mishneh says that he told him that one only transgresses with a k’zayis; less than a k’zayis is nullified in the majority, but if it’s before Pesach, then that’s the claim.

Maggid Mishneh Against the Raavad

This is what the Raavad is here, truly his words are puzzling. In short, the Maggid Mishneh doesn’t agree with the Raavad’s claim. I don’t know what the Raavad’s claims are. Truly his words are puzzling, his words, I don’t know, the Maggid Mishneh takes strong issue. No, we’re talking here about taste. The Raavad says that taste is not like the essence, says the Maggid Mishneh, truly his words are puzzling. Truly his words are puzzling, his words don’t seem right.

The Rambam Doesn’t Say the Leniency of Before Pesach

By the way, the Rambam brings here, the Rambam doesn’t say the leniency that it’s before Pesach. The Rambam says, anything that chametz was mixed into is forbidden even in any amount. And here, very important, and here says the Maggid Mishneh, it’s different. This is that a mixture of chametz is like all mixtures. That what for all other mixtures is in sixty is on Pesach in any amount. But there are even other mixtures that wouldn’t be only k’dei klipa (the thickness of a peel), for example like we learned hot in hot without liquid and so forth. Also one doesn’t need, you placed a hot piece of chametz on a hot piece of matzah without any davar hamafria (intervening substance), without any liquid, basically one needs to cut it off. That’s the halacha. The whole question of this is only even goes in even… okay, we’ll go further.

Beyond Chapter 10 – Laws of Mixtures of Chametz

The Rambam didn’t go into here the laws of mixtures of Pesach and all these things. Yes, later, here they learned. Chapter 10, yes, chapter 10. Let’s take chapter 10 also not too quickly, slowly, yes, chapter 10.