Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 2 (Auto Translated)

Chapter 2: The Positive Commandment of Removing Chametz – Nullification in the Heart and Searching for Chametz

Law 1: The Positive Commandment from the Torah to Remove the Chametz

Speaker 1:

Good, we are learning the second chapter of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah, and we thank all the supporters of the shiur, at their head the righteous rabbi, Rabbi Yoel Wertzberger, for once again dedicating this shiur for the year, and we are going to learn the second chapter of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah.

Yes. In the first chapter we learned all, not all, the main prohibitions of eating chametz, benefiting from chametz, bal yera’eh, erev Pesach. Now we are going to learn another thing which is essentially an obligation already on erev Pesach, getting rid of the chametz. We will see what this means.

Yes. The Rambam says, “It is a positive commandment from the Torah to remove the chametz before the time of the prohibition of eating it, as it says ‘on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses’”. He began the chapter with the positive and negative commandments, that there is a positive commandment from the Torah to remove the chametz, to destroy, to nullify the chametz before the time of the prohibition of eating it, as it says “on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.”

Discussion: What Does “On the First Day” Mean?

There is a problem, what does “on the first day” mean? It cannot be that it means the first day of Pesach, because then one is already deep in the middle of the prohibition.

The Rambam says, “from the oral tradition they learned”, the sages discovered from the oral tradition, a law given to Moses at Sinai from Moses our teacher, “that this ‘first’ is the fourteenth day”, that the “first” must mean the first before Pesach, “on the first day,” the first day before Pesach begins.

Or perhaps one could say the first day that there is a prohibition of chametz, and the prohibition of chametz already begins on erev Pesach, that day there is the positive commandment of “you shall remove leaven from your houses.”

It wasn’t one hundred percent clear to me how the… I thought perhaps “on the first day” should already be from removing, but we don’t know. It could be “on the first day” perhaps means the first day when there is a prohibition of chametz, and we already know, this is the next thing he is going to say.

But the verse says, look at the verse, it goes like this: “seven days… but on the first day you shall remove.” It is very difficult to learn that it doesn’t simply mean the plain reading of the verse. Unless we say that we should say that “but on the first day” you should already make sure that it is already so, and therefore it comes out that the mitzvah is already beforehand.

That is exactly why the Rambam says that it is from the oral tradition. If it were stated clearly, he would have had to say that it is written. It is not written. A commandment of removal is written, but that it is on the first day still on erev Pesach, that is a tradition.

But it is also necessary because of the thing that was already said that it must already be forbidden from midday.

Proof for the Matter: “You Shall Not Slaughter the Blood of My Sacrifice with Chametz”

The Rambam says, “and proof for this matter is what the Torah wrote, ‘you shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice with chametz’”. Proof for this matter, a proof that “on the first day” means already the fourteenth day, is what the Torah wrote, it says in the Torah a verse “you shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice with chametz.”

“That is to say, do not slaughter the Pesach sacrifice while chametz still exists”, what does the verse mean? Do not slaughter the Pesach sacrifice while chametz still exists, one should not slaughter the Pesach sacrifice when the chametz is still there.

It is very interesting, because he brought the verse “you shall not eat chametz with it,” it is the same thing, but… ah, that is what you asked before that… yes. But… that one was about eating, and this is about having. Because you have chametz. That is to say, do not slaughter the Pesach sacrifice while chametz still exists.

And when does one slaughter the Pesach sacrifice? “And the slaughtering of the Pesach is on the fourteenth day after midday”. It must be that “on the first day” means the fourteenth day.

It is interesting, because it is exactly the same thing as “you shall not eat chametz with it.” It is interesting that the Rambam brings a new verse. He could have gone with the verse he already brought. But there is no difference, from both verses this is implied.

Speaker 2:

Why is it the same thing?

Speaker 1:

I don’t know what exactly the difference is. Indeed not clear.

Speaker 2:

Okay, because there it says that there…

Speaker 1:

Let’s say this, I have a question here. Because that one that “you shall not eat chametz with it” means that while the chametz still exists, or at the time when the chametz still exists, the Rambam also said that it is from the oral tradition.

Okay, perhaps there he only means that it is the time, but that at the time when one actually slaughters, that is perhaps yes the plain meaning. So a doubling of the plain meaning necessitates that already on erev Pesach one may not have any chametz. It comes out that a removal must be on erev Pesach, but this is a proof.

But the Rambam says yes, that this “first” is the fourteenth day. It is not like the explanation you said that it must already be removed, but on the first day. Therefore I think, on the first day of the prohibition of chametz.

Speaker 2:

But what does “seven days” mean? There are eight days it comes out. I mean, it doesn’t all fit into the verse like that.

Speaker 1:

No, “seven days” refers to “you shall eat matzot.” Only seven days is “you shall eat matzot.”

What is the language of the verse? Seven days one shall eat matzot. But even before there is the mitzvah of matzah, still on the first day of the prohibition of chametz it should already be “you shall remove leaven from your houses.” And he concludes “for whoever eats chametz.”

If one goes with the plain reading of Scripture it is like this, you shall eat matzot. Why should you eat matzot? Because there is no chametz. The only thing you can eat is matzot. It is not like that, because we want it to be a mitzvah, not just a practical field.

He says, seven days there is a mitzvah of matzah. It could actually be that this is what the verse is saying, you should not think that all the days that there is a prohibition of chametz there is also a mitzvah of matzah, that the mitzvah of matzah already begins from erev Pesach at midday? No. The mitzvah of matzah is only there seven days. And the prohibition of chametz is already there eight days, and on the first of the eight days one should make the removal.

Not with the eight days, just to be clear. On erev Pesach there is a prohibition. On the first day of the prohibition of chametz there is the mitzvah of removal.

Not one hundred percent clear, but I go with the Rambam, because the Rambam says indeed that it is according to the oral tradition, we received it that this is what it means. There is also a bit of proof.

Discussion: The Relationship Between the Positive Commandment of Removal and the Negative Commandment of Bal Yera’eh

Right, this is just so we should have a positive commandment. That one must drive away all chametz, one would have known even without this positive commandment because of the negative commandment of having chametz, which we learned earlier that it is “but on the first day,” the Gemara says from “but,” or the Gemara says about “chametz shall not be eaten.” “Chametz shall not be eaten,” the prohibition of the fourteenth day. The Rambam learns it from “you shall not eat chametz with it.” I say, I remember the other one, the Gemara says so from “but on the first day you shall remove.”

But what? What are you saying?

Speaker 2:

What?

Speaker 1:

So again, now we are not talking about that prohibition. That is a different kind of prohibition. I mean, there is a prohibition to eat chametz. No, to have chametz. “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found” tell us. That one may not have chametz, and one may not eat. It could be that… very interesting. So on eating chametz there is a negative commandment, and on having there is a positive commandment. It seems.

And the verse perhaps “you shall not slaughter with chametz,” which means before chametz, is not the same as what he said earlier, that one may not eat at the time of slaughtering the Pesach.

Speaker 2:

And why shouldn’t that also be a negative commandment?

Speaker 1:

Also a negative commandment, it should be “you shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice with chametz,” it should be a negative commandment of having chametz when one slaughters the Pesach sacrifice. He says it only as a proof for the matter. The Rambam says that there is such a negative commandment by the way. There is such a negative commandment. Why indeed not say a negative commandment? “You shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice with chametz,” there is a negative commandment. I don’t know. I don’t know what is going on.

Fine, he says it only as a way of proof for the matter. A proof that removal means this. Yes, I don’t know. I really don’t know.

But again, this is just the Rambam’s attempt to bring that the verse should make sense that it says this. The truth is that we know this because the sages tell us that it is a law given to Moses at Sinai.

Speaker 2:

Why shouldn’t one say it as a negative commandment?

Speaker 1:

I’m telling you because… again, the source of all these definitions is not from the verse, let’s be clear. It is from the oral tradition. That what is the law? This is the law. There is a mitzvah to remove, it is not the same as the prohibition of eating chametz on erev Pesach, it is also not the same as the prohibition of bal yera’eh the entire Pesach.

I would have told you something else, I thought you meant to ask this, I remember people ask this, why do we need to have the prohibition of removal at all? There is already a prohibition of bal yera’eh. If one may not have chametz seen, somehow you must get rid of it before Pesach. What then should you do?

This is simple, there are many times in the Torah, there is a negative commandment and a positive commandment, there is a prohibition of removal from “you shall remove.” Yes, a positive commandment, he begins with a positive commandment, it was already said that there is a negative commandment on erev Pesach.

But it is interesting, why? Look, because let’s learn the next piece, let’s see. Let’s try to learn the main law of searching for chametz also, because I have here something basic. As you are learning the Laws of Pesach, use these things, they are not the first.

Okay, it is indeed a wonder why “you shall not slaughter chametz” is not a negative commandment on having chametz from erev Pesach afternoon, I don’t know. Already.

Law 2: What is the Removal Stated in the Torah – Nullification in the Heart

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says, what does the removal mean? He said “to remove.” Now he is going to explain what removal means.

He says, “What is this removal stated in the Torah? That he should nullify the chametz from his heart, and consider it as dust, and place in his heart that there is no chametz in his possession at all”. He should nullify the chametz from his heart, he should consider it like dust, he should put in his mind, he should ensure… “and place in his heart” means he should think in his heart, he should ensure…

No, I can learn it both ways, because I think yes that the Torah also doesn’t mean that crumbs should remain in his house. It means this, that you should know that you are not going to eat chametz, and therefore you should get rid of the chametz. It doesn’t yet mean that you must search. The sages say that you must search.

No, no, no, that is not correct, that is not correct. The Rambam knew from the Gemara that mere nullification is sufficient. I only made all these statements because the Rambam says very many words about what is the meaning of the nullification.

Mere nullification is sufficient means that there is still chametz in his possession, he should think that it is not there. That is the meaning. When there is bread lying on his table, it doesn’t help the…

Speaker 2:

Not correct, not correct, not correct. It does help, because he considers it as dust.

Speaker 1:

“And all chametz that is in his possession”, right? He has chametz in his possession. If there is chametz in his possession, “it is like dust. Like something that has no use at all”, that would have been sufficient removal from the Torah. That is the meaning of the removal stated in the Torah.

Discussion: Is Mere Nullification Also the Plain Meaning of “Bal Yera’eh”?

So, this I ask, if I would have wanted to ask right away, this is also “bal yera’eh” stated in the Torah? Because it is very interesting, the Rambam says this about removal, but “bal yera’eh” also means this, one should think that it is not there.

This is a question for me, because seemingly one would have had to do searching for chametz from the Torah because of “bal yera’eh.” The Rambam puts it in as removal, and you told me a minute ago that removal is basically the same thing as “bal yera’eh,” just in positive language. It is very interesting that the Rambam doesn’t say what is “bal yera’eh” stated in the Torah.

Speaker 2:

No, I hold one can learn the Rambam a bit differently, that the Torah doesn’t say that one must search in the house. The Torah says, take out the chametz that is lying in your…

Speaker 1:

That is not true. That is not true. That is certainly not true. On your table that is prepared to eat for the next day or two lies chametz, take it out. And be removing, be nullifying what has remained. After that come the sages that one must go search everywhere in the entire domain.

That is certainly not true, because it is certainly not true that one must take anything out with the law of mere nullification. That is exactly what it says, that one doesn’t need to take out.

The Blessing “Al Bi’ur Chametz” — Searching Means Removal

Speaker 1:

By the way, searching doesn’t mean looking, searching means taking out. Removal. What blessing do we make on searching for chametz? “Al bi’ur chametz.” Right when he says, he says he makes removal of chametz. Also true, but it is not true that the law of searching for chametz is only the looking. The law of searching for chametz is essentially to be removing, because certainly, one makes a blessing “al bi’ur chametz,” not “al bedikat chametz”. It is more a proactive removal, a proactive carrying out. Not only proactive, because one must actually do something.

Question: “All Chametz That is in His Possession” — Does it Mean Actually Chametz in the House?

Speaker 2:

But I don’t believe, when one says the Torah’s removal, chametz means that it can remain on his plate the bread. It means all chametz that is in his possession, certainly.

Speaker 1:

It means yes. It means yes, it is not any… it means that there is chametz, he doesn’t consider it. So says the Rambam, like something that has no use and the like.

Question: “It Shall Not Be Seen by You and It Shall Not Be Found by You” — What About These Verses?

Speaker 2:

But the Torah says it shall not be seen by you and it shall not be found by you.

Speaker 1:

Ah, very good. I think that the Rambam means only specifically about the removal. It is not true, there is no doubt. You cannot make a new Torah against everything that is written. What is written is that regarding removal, you ask a question, if removal means to remove? The same thing, removal to remove doesn’t mean literally. He means nullification, that is what he means.

Speaker 2:

What should I do?

Speaker 1:

That’s how it is. The truth is that it is indeed nullifying, because he is never going to be able to use it anymore.

Speaker 2:

Yes, there is also the prohibition that one may not use it after Yom Tov.

Speaker 1:

It is practical, probably you are right that practically, if something has no use, probably it will be cleaned out, because he cleans before Yom Tov.

The Plain Meaning of Scripture: Removal Means Nullification in the Heart

Speaker 1:

I say in the plain meaning of Scripture it looks like this, that Pesach is different from all days, your meals are not chametz. And not only that, but you should also carry it out. To this he says, it doesn’t mean that one must now go searching, but it doesn’t mean that one must carry out. It means that one doesn’t need to do anything, one only needs to think.

The Gemara Says This About Removal

Speaker 2:

I’m telling you what the Gemara says this. He says it regarding removal. Did the Gemara also hold about removal?

Speaker 1:

Yes, the Gemara says it mere nullification is sufficient, the Gemara says it about searching for chametz, “bal yera’eh” I think it says in the Gemara. One must understand more clearly. The Rambam here made a certain summary of the Gemara, and it is not one hundred percent simple that this is the simplest way to make the summary of the matter, but we are now learning how the Rambam laid it out, and this is how it looks from the Rambam.

Chametz in the Heart — The Chassidic Interpretation

Speaker 1:

But the Rambam says this that the removal means in the heart. How does one nullify chametz? How does one remove chametz? In the heart. The chametz in the heart. It is already the Chassidic interpretation. It is already chametz in the heart, but chametz, this is not chametz in the heart. It is much better, much more a subtlety in the Chassidic interpretation.

Innovation: Chassidim say that only matters of the heart can be nullified in the heart. The chametz says, no, even actual chametz can be nullified in the heart. Because the essence is the heart. Everything else is not important. Eh, we don’t know. Rabbinically it is important, because it’s not from the Torah.

Question: His actions prove otherwise — if he keeps nice chametz in the house

Speaker 2:

But the hashbata (removal) also comes with the fact that one baked chametz, one baked matzah, and one knows that one is not going to eat it now. If something remains, you say that you are practically like at a homeowner’s… and in practice, if there is nice chametz in his house, doesn’t his actions prove otherwise than what he did in his heart, that he does hold of it.

Speaker 1:

Why does he hold of it? He doesn’t hold of it, rather because. It’s like dust. By the way, the non-Jew will already take it out. The non-Jew also speaks in this context that it makes sense. If he has nice challahs, his… doesn’t help, just as a person does in his heart, his mouth and heart are not equal.

Innovation: From the Torah one may indeed have chametz

Speaker 1:

Regarding this, when he says to search, this is the end of it. We say that in the Torah there is no actual mitzvah to physically go after it. There shouldn’t be chametz, we know that chametz is no longer relevant, but it’s not true that when he says that from the Torah bittul means that one may not have chametz. One may indeed have chametz from the Torah, one just may not hold onto it.

Speaker 2:

You’re right, presumably practically. If he doesn’t hold it, it will have to come out. But this is already a practical matter.

Law 3: Checking for chametz is from the words of the Scribes

Speaker 1:

The Rambam concludes, but from the words of the Scribes, what the Sages did is, they forbade, they added, to search for the chametz. What do the Rabbis want? To search for the chametz also in its hiding places and holes everywhere, and to check and remove it from all his borders.

Speaker 2:

No, good. To remove it from everywhere.

Speaker 1:

This is one law like this, and afterwards when this comes in there are more details.

Speaker 2:

No, the innovation is because this would have been only during the day. Not only when the prohibition begins, then one should push it out, but one should make a special time for this even before.

Time of checking: Night of the fourteenth by candlelight

Speaker 1:

One checks for chametz at night from the beginning of the night of the fourteenth, and one should do it by candlelight, because it’s at night. He says two reasons. He says, why does one do it at night? Because at night all the people are found in their homes. And why does one do it with a candle? Is because the light of the candle… Why does one do it at night by candlelight? Because the light of the candle is good for checking.

Speaker 2:

Yes, the light of the candle doesn’t mean to exclude during the day. During the day one doesn’t do it, but not without a candle. To exclude something without a candle, but to exclude with a torch, whatever other things.

And one does not establish a study session — Don’t begin learning

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, and one does not establish a study session at the end of the thirteenth day, from the end of the thirteenth day, this begins before the beginning of the night after, one doesn’t begin any new time of learning. And similarly the scholar should not begin to read in his house. It means, for the entire world one doesn’t establish learning, and the scholars shouldn’t even learn Torah, they shouldn’t even be reading in their house. This simply means learning privately and individually. Publicly means a study session, but one expounds, but whatever, even alone he won’t begin to learn. Because lest he be drawn and prevented from checking at the beginning of its time, so that there shouldn’t be a concern that one will be drawn to it.

Discussion: What does “lest he be drawn” mean — Torah is something that draws

Speaker 1:

Here one learns the important thing about how one learns. If someone learns, there is no “lest he be drawn,” he always knows when your time, when the learning ends, this is not the type of learning the Sages spoke of.

From this I say to those whom I have to go pick up the baby from the babysitter every day, that everything has been arranged, it ends still in order in the yeshiva here in Lakewood, whatever, so I don’t understand how it can be. Afterwards they have complaints that I come late. What does that mean? There is indeed a law, if there were an obligation that one must come on time, there would be a solution to learn the first seder. But what? One speaks, one will arrive. One knows, it can begin that essentially the seder speaks indeed an hour later, the last hour is the “lest he be drawn” time. But learning is something that is drawing.

Clarification: “Midrash” vs. “Reading” — What does “to read” mean?

Speaker 2:

The kings is a thing that when one establishes in a study session one does it always in a study session, and only when one learns alone does one learn Scripture?

Speaker 1:

No, midrash is indeed a sense of Torah. I mean that midrash is actually a fixed lesson, a public lesson. And reading, I don’t mean that reading in the Rabbis means specifically to read Scripture. I saw in my notes from before we spoke about this once. I mean that reading in the Gemara. Reading means to read. It means specifically. He’s not over it, he’s not for himself. That’s what I mean, because it can’t be that a scholar specifically Scripture, anything that he learns is… I remember that Rabbeinu ben Nachah said something about this, or others. So it says in the note from last time.

The Ran: The conjugal rights of Torah scholars is from Shabbat to Shabbat

Speaker 1:

Very important. The Ran has already been quoted many times. The Ran says that what it says that the conjugal rights of Torah scholars is from Shabbat to Shabbat, means most Shabbatot, because it can certainly happen that the scholar doesn’t come home Friday night also, because he got caught up in a sugya, it was a difficult sugya that week. It can’t be that the scholar is not such a thing that he can have a fixed schedule when he finishes his learning. Do you hear?

Right, because the learning must be his main occupation, because it’s something that draws. As someone says, go to the thing that is most interesting, and stop. Everyone knows that when one looks at the scroll it ends up drawing. Yes, Torah is certainly so. Right.

Parallel: The law of a meal before Mincha

Speaker 1:

And just as it says that one may not begin a meal on Friday because he will be drawn in his eating. Not Friday, Friday is a different reason, but as one meant before Mincha, whatever, before Mincha, when one must do a mitzvah. There is the same law apparently. This is also about learning. It’s very important that one should be drawn.

[Digression: The Ropshitzer Rebbe]

Speaker 1:

The Ropshitzer Rebbe, R’ Yerushalayim Mordechai, had study partners. He would never say when it ends. The study partner always had to close it, because if not the Rebbe would have learned, he would have learned until Freiburg. I don’t know, he would still be learning today also, if the other one doesn’t make it stop. Tremendous.

Law 4: Details of checking for chametz

Speaker 1:

Law 4 — they learned it. It’s very interesting, because here it already goes into details. That is, until now more or less it was like the general principles. Now, that it was said that the Sages indeed were that one should do checking for chametz, all the details of checking for chametz already come in, and afterwards one will speak all the details of the actual prohibition of chametz.

Interesting, you understand, I’m saying it a bit backwards. The Rambam always goes like this. I mean that he never goes like he says all the principles, and afterwards he begins from the beginning. Almost always something somehow it goes into things. Interesting.

The Rambam doesn’t say the reason for checking

Speaker 1:

And the Rambam also doesn’t say the reason why. Why did the Sages add the mitzvah of checking for chametz? Sometimes he says reasons, sometimes he doesn’t say reasons. In the Gemara there is a well-known dispute where Rashi says about perhaps one will come to eat, other Rishonim say because perhaps he doesn’t mean his nullification sincerely, perhaps the nullification is not sincere enough. So the other Rishonim the Rambam is in a certain sense.

Where the Rambam places checking — shows the reason

Speaker 1:

That is, the Rambam doesn’t say… In the Gemara it indeed says some reason that he will find a nice piece and so on. Ah, we say, the Rambam, in the placement where he puts it, we see ourselves that it’s a part of the law. And to be exempt with the law of tashbitu. Yes, it’s seen from the Rambam. Because the Rambam, when he doesn’t say a reason, one looks where he places it. If he would have placed it next to the prohibition of eating, one would have understood that it’s a concern he will eat. No, the scholars toil over the Rambam, but I mean that one doesn’t see only from eating, not from lo yera’eh.

Innovation: Checking is a rabbinic interpretation of tashbitu

Speaker 1:

The Rambam makes it look like it’s the rabbinic interpretation as if on the subject of tashbitu. Rabbinically means tashbitu means they nullify. The Rambam says no, they nullify, they actually remove in practice. This is seen from the language of the Rambam. He doesn’t explain. Why? He doesn’t say that it was final as if one wouldn’t have done. He puts it down, as if.

Question of later authorities: Can checking become from the Torah?

Speaker 1:

And therefore such later authorities come and ask such a question, for example, according to this Rambam, if one didn’t do nullification, then will checking indeed be a Torah mitzvah? It can be, one can hear it in this Rambam, as if the Torah itself says indeed that one must remove it. But what then? The Torah says that in the heart is enough. If one didn’t do in the heart… Or if one didn’t do, you can know that the same thing. The Rabbis is also a fulfillment of tashbitu, because… This is with all the stringency, if removing it in the heart works with all the stringency that it works when one throws it out.

“Put your money where your mouth is” — prove the nullification

Speaker 1:

One can also look at it a bit, as if when a person does something in his heart, one says to him, let’s see, put your, I know, your money where your mouth, I don’t remember the expression. Let’s see if you mean it sincerely. If you hold it and you

Law 2 — One does not check by moonlight or by sunlight

Speaker 1: But if you know that after the holiday one will anyway not use it, and you do the rabbinic enactment, then we know that the nullification was sincere.

Yes, but the Rambam doesn’t say it, and they make speculations. Fine, but it looks like the point, that the Rambam understands that this is the…

I would have said, if you ask me, I would have said the opposite. I would have said, I mean that it’s a bit it looks like still in the sugya of the Gemara. I would have said that simply simply is the plain meaning in the depth of the learning of the Gemara, of the Amoraim essentially.

Because the innovation that nullification alone suffices means it only says in the Gemara. I would have said, that it says in the Torah “tashbitu,” why would a normal Jew understand, a homeowner’s lesson? Certainly, he takes the chametz and throws it out.

The Sages say, come more, think into it, you’ll see what is the matter of throwing out, that it should be there, the essence is indeed it should be nullified. It’s essentially one can nullify.

But it’s certain that the normal order is to check to be. It’s not that it was, once one conducted oneself with nullification alone, and the Rabbis came and said, it becomes a stumbling block, as other laws are so.

It’s more, always one used to do checking for chametz. Only the Rabbis, the Torah scholars understand that this is not essentially required from the Torah side. Why? Because from the Torah one can indeed nullify. But what? The actual removal is already rabbinic, consequently leniencies and details come out in this.

But you understand indeed that it’s not so strong as… You understand to say for example by Shabbat, when it says “tishbot,” one certainly means that you shouldn’t do any actions. That you should think, this is also just such a thing as if all your work is done, but this is already that this one sees through not doing work.

I mean that there are rabbinic things that are more like a decree in order to remove a problem. It means, once one used to perhaps not conduct oneself this way? There are such decrees, there are sometimes what one always conducted oneself, and the Sages come and made a new fence with a stumbling block.

It doesn’t look like checking for chametz is so, it’s more that certainly one always used to check that it’s chametz, only the scholars, the Gemara, learns that this is not essentially what the Torah meant from the basic law, some such sort of distinction.

The Rambam’s language: One does not check by moonlight or by sunlight

Speaker 1: Okay, so “one does not check”. We learned details, already, we learned that the checking must be at night. Now one goes to speak further, “one does not check”, one should do it “by candlelight”.

The Rambam said two things: one should do it at night, and one should do it by candlelight, because at night both the world is at home at night, and also the candle works well at night.

The Rambam says further, “one does not check neither by moonlight nor by sunlight”. The enactment of the Sages is one should do it specifically by a candle, and not use the light of the moon, or if one does it during the day, the sun.

Speaker 2: No, during the day yes the sun is good.

Speaker 1: I mean that “by sunlight” means to say a bit… You should do it specifically at night.

Speaker 2: During the day you mean the 13th, right, the day before, right.

Speaker 1: I mean but that it means at night, perhaps when it’s still at sunset one needs a bit…

Speaker 2: Could be, yes, beginning of night, yes.

Speaker 1: I can understand it, because not this is the same thing as saying early. One can indeed check during the day in a lit room by sunlight. He’s already going to say when the sunlight helps.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Specifically by candlelight — not a torch

Speaker 1: “And not by moonlight”. He means to say that when the Sages said “by candlelight,” they meant specifically. Not that they gave you an idea and you’ll say, “ah, it can also be anything similar.” No, they meant specifically a candle.

And not for example a torch. A person would have thought, a torch is even better than a candle, it’s a bigger light. But the Gemara for example says that a torch is difficult to check with a torch, because the torch as if he doesn’t go forward, he goes back, whatever, I don’t remember exactly what the Gemara says why not a torch.

Only “by candlelight”, because the light of the candle is good, one can bend down and look with it.

Practical difference for law: Flashlight

For example, in today’s reality one says that a flashlight has a similarity, because it shines to the place, the focused light.

Speaker 2: Yes, no question with “to buy candles” by the checking for chametz.

Speaker 1: Right, I mean to say, if you’ll compare it to something, you’ll say that a flashlight is like a candle, whereas let’s say just a big light is more similar to sunlight or the light of a torch.

Already, it’s not so important, we don’t mean here to make the practical law.

Law 3 — In what case are these words said: in holes and hiding places; a porch; the middle of the courtyard

In what case are these words said — in holes and hiding places

Speaker 2: By my teachers and rabbis, the Rambam says the law that one must check… One can already do nothing with a candle. You know what one uses a candle for light? Seriously?

Speaker 1: But on the other hand, today people do checking for chametz much more thoroughly from a few days before the holiday.

Speaker 2: That’s the other thing, one must know. Another conversation, not for now.

Speaker 1: Yes, the Rambam says, in what case are these words said? That one needs a candle, that one must check by candlelight, in holes and hiding places, in corners and in holes, in hidden places where there it’s dark and hard to see, and the candle helps. And also the sun doesn’t come there.

But, interesting, and presumably he would have also meant to say, or just so, in a room where there are no windows, such a kind of place, must be lit.

I tell you, the “but” he doesn’t go the opposite of holes and hiding places, but he goes the opposite of a room where it’s not lit.

Speaker 2: Right, but in the middle of the room one doesn’t need any candle at all, you can indeed see.

Speaker 1: One can plainly sweep and see, yes.

A well-lit porch — sunlight is enough

Speaker 1: But a well-lit porch, a place where it’s illuminated, a porch is a room that has no walls, consequently it’s well illuminated, so if he checked it by sunlight this is sufficient, because the essence is one should see it, it’s not some decree of the Scripture about a candle.

The middle of the courtyard — birds are found there

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, and the middle of the courtyard doesn’t require checking, in the courtyard one must also look in the corners, but in the center of the courtyard it doesn’t require checking, because birds are found there, in such a place there are birds, and they eat all chametz that falls there, if something falls down the birds will eat it. Consequently one doesn’t need any further checking, one can assume that the birds ate it.

Innovation: Today’s houses with large windows

Speaker 1: Perhaps in former times there weren’t so many windows, the picture that the Sages thought that it will be enough the sun is only a porch, which is open entirely from the side or from one side.

Today’s Building Practices and the Law of Achsadra

Today they build with very large windows in every room, so during the day it’s quite bright. I think that in the old way of building, a normal house didn’t have large windows.

So today every room will have the law of an achsadra, a place that is illuminated. I mean during the day, what is a room with windows?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Law 4 — A Hole in the Middle of the House; A Hole Between a Jew and a Non-Jew

A Hole Between a Jew and His Fellow — As Far as His Hand Reaches

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, now, the middle of the courtyard is because there’s a chazaka that birds eat, therefore one doesn’t need to check at all, or therefore it’s truly nullified. If something, some crumb, falls down, we check, the checking is not lacking in a place where we have that birds would certainly have eaten.

Speaker 2: Very good.

Speaker 1: Now, more laws of checking. The Rambam says, “A hole in the middle of a house between him and his fellow”, between two rooms there is a hole, and let’s say it’s a place where one puts chametz there. And what is the law?

One doesn’t need to, as it were, dig up and do extra actions to actually reach everywhere in the hole, rather each one must try his best. “This one checks as far as his hand reaches, and that one checks as far as his hand reaches”. Each one must go into his part of the hole as far as it goes. “And the rest he nullifies in his heart”. The remainder, the place where it is… where both cannot reach, the bitul b’lev is sufficient.

Just as we learned that the bitul b’lev is indeed the main thing, and the enactment of the Sages regarding checking is only as much as is applicable. They didn’t obligate doing something, I don’t know, such things as throwing down a wall or such a thing.

A Hole Between a Jew and a Non-Jew — Concern for Danger

Speaker 1: Further, there is another line in the Rambam, in certain versions it’s not there, he adds, but this is between two Jews that each one should search.

But if one lives next to a non-Jew, “a hole between a Jew and a non-Jew”, one should not check it, because the non-Jew will sense something, the non-Jew observes in the hole next to him, and he stands there at night dressed in his Shabbos clothes in honor of the mitzvah, with a candle, he goes to look out what he’s doing here with some rituals, and he’ll say “ma’asei kishufim”, he’s doing some witchcraft, he’s bewitching me, he’s making curses, I don’t know what, he’s doing a pulsa d’nura, and it will bring danger. One doesn’t need to check in such a case.

Further, because of the same reason, what is only d’rabbanan one doesn’t need to do it in a place when there’s a concern for danger.

Discussion: The Maggid Mishneh Doesn’t Have This Version; The Rambam’s Position on Witchcraft

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, all these things are… I just want to see about this, the Maggid Mishneh says that he doesn’t have this piece in his version. I also see in my edition that I bring here, it indeed stands in the Ishtana’i of Rav Shilat.

And I think this has to do with the fact that the Rambam didn’t believe in witchcraft. So even the non-Jews, according to the Rambam, don’t believe in witchcraft. So if the non-Jew is a Rambamist…

Speaker 2: No, the Maggid Mishneh brings that there’s a dispute in the Gemara, and there are those who say that one shouldn’t be concerned.

Speaker 1: It could be that the Rambam rules that if the non-Jew is a Rambamist… I mean, the main point is indeed that the Sages didn’t make the decree in a place of concern for danger.

Speaker 2: That’s true, there the Gemara indeed took up about danger, about a place of common chazaka this means, one cannot take it upon oneself, and one can, it’s a mitzvah.

Speaker 1: But I think that perhaps the non-Jew fell in by mistake, he already believes in witchcraft.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Principle: As Far as His Hand Reaches

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, you’ve now learned about searching at night. It could be that it’s included, if you understand yourself that for danger one doesn’t need to, that means that as far as his hand reaches.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: That means, we see here that if one cannot…

Speaker 2: Ah, that’s what yado maga’as means, true. Thank you.

Law 5 — Any Place Where One Doesn’t Bring In Chametz Doesn’t Require Checking

The Principle: A Place Where One Doesn’t Bring In Chametz

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, the laws, I just said one must check in holes, you’ll become confused and think that one must check everywhere.

He says, no, I’m speaking about holes where it happens that one puts chametz there. But any place where one doesn’t bring in chametz, a place where one doesn’t put any chametz there, but what is meant by bringing in chametz, at least in the Gemara, is not where one doesn’t put it every day, but where there’s no reason to think that one put chametz, because even a place where the picture in the Gemara is that perhaps the servant will go put down his bread.

A place where one doesn’t put any chametz, doesn’t require checking.

Chazaka: Birds Have Taken It Away

This also fits with the law that in the courtyard one doesn’t need to because of birds. It’s an interesting chazaka like this, because they’ve already taken it away. One does put chametz, but they’ve taken it away. But one can rely on logic and on chazaka.

Examples of Places Where One Doesn’t Bring In Chametz

So now the Rambam will enumerate examples of places. Ostensibly a house, we just spoke about a hole one must yes, but that’s in the middle. There where the person reaches, he sometimes puts things in.

But holes above or below the house, where it’s not the reach of where people normally put chametz. Or gag hayetzi’a, the roof…

Law 2 (Continued) — Which Places Require Checking and Which Don’t

Speaker 1: He says that the yetzi’a is such a small storage place next to the house, and it comes with such a slanted little roof above it. And if yes that it’s a slanted roof, it’s not a place where one puts something because it will fall off. Or refes bakar, a stable, or u’lulin, a stable for chickens. Matben, a place where one keeps straw. V’otzros yayin v’otzros shemen she’eino mistapek bahem, because he’s going to say the opposite of this. Otzros yayin v’shemen, like for example where it’s stored away in large barrels that one doesn’t go there in the middle of the meal to take. U’veis dagim gedolim, the place where large fish are stored, it’s not the place where one comes in the middle of the meal to take fish, because one needs a knife beforehand, it’s not practical.

Eino tzrichin bedika, ela im ken only, he knows that zachrin eiz lahem chametz, that one once put chametz there.

But what yes? Otzros shechar, the place where one keeps beer, it’s different from otzros yayin that was spoken of earlier. Shechar we’re speaking here presumably of non-chametz beer, yes? The beer of dates. But that one goes there in the middle of the meal, v’otzros yayin shemistapkin mimenu where the wine is, that one can go in the middle of the meal to take wine from there. U’veis hamelach, the same thing, the place where one keeps the salt. U’veis hasha’avah, the place where one keeps the wax to make candles. All these things one goes in the middle of the meal. The candle went out, one goes to take more wax for candles. U’veis dagim ketanim, the place where one keeps the fish, which is yes smaller pieces, ready to take at the meal. U’veis ha’etzim, the place where one keeps the wood, one goes in the middle of the meal to take wood. U’veis hamuryas, the place where one keeps the pickled fish. O chorei habayis ha’emtza’im, the holes of the house that are in the middle of the house, where it’s the place where one reaches easily, v’chayotza ba’elu, similar places to this, yes requires checking.

Here one doesn’t say if he knows, but even if he doesn’t know, but this is the chazaka she’stama asher machnisin lahem chametz. The general matter is that in such places it happens that one brings in chametz.

The Principle of Knowledge vs. Chazaka

The Rambam says, even in these places it’s not simple that the general assumption is stronger than your knowledge. V’im yada b’vadai shelo hichnis sham chametz, eino tzarich bedika. Everything when he doesn’t know. When he doesn’t know, I say that these things have a chazaka that no, these things have a chazaka that yes. But when he knows, one goes entirely according to his knowledge, l’chumra and l’kula.

Law 2 (Continued) — Checking a Wine Cellar, Two Outer Rows

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, k’shebodek hamartef, when one checks the wine cellar, the place where one keeps the wine. Wine used to be kept in a cellar, because it’s a place where it stays cold, wine needs a good temperature. So how far must one check? One doesn’t need to check the entire cellar, but the places where it makes sense that one would take from there. Bodek mimenu shtei shuros hachitzonos. In the Mishnah there are two opinions how in the cellar one must check, and the Rambam tells us the law, one must check the two outer rows. The two rows are the closest to where the person comes in, which is the most exposed. What does it mean? She’hi ha’elyona, the uppermost level, v’sheshlematah mimenah, the second level. Yes, these are the details of how it used to lie in the wine store.

Okay, another important thing that the Rambam said.

Law 2 (Continued) — We Don’t Worry Perhaps a Weasel Dragged

The Rambam’s Explanation vs. Rashi

Speaker 1: The Rambam says thus: What happens if a person has already… The Gemara says it if he has already checked, but a person can indeed now start thinking, and indeed, the place is not a place, beis dagim gedolim is not a place where I sometimes put down chametz, but it happens by chance, I’ll be carrying things from one place to another. The Rambam says, no, ein choshin, one doesn’t need to be concerned, shema garrah chulda chametz l’makom she’ein machnisin bo chametz. That perhaps everywhere should mean a place where one brings in chametz, because there are indeed animals that carry things. The Rambam says, no, she’im nachoosh, if one is going to be concerned from one place to another, one will start to be concerned more and more. It is indeed, one can always think such kinds of concerns, nachoosh me’ir l’ir, v’ein l’davar sof. Ostensibly one can start that birds eat, but in a whole place where we know for certain that birds come. But in any case, the Rambam says that one may not, one must indeed be concerned thus like a place, perhaps one put chametz, but not exaggerate.

Right, the Rambam’s explanation, says the Ma’or Einayim, the Mishnah is explaining that the Mishnah doesn’t speak, as Rashi learns that this speaks after bedikas chametz, that one should be afraid perhaps he now checked here, and later an animal came and took there. Rather the Rambam speaks that this is a law in a place where one brings in chametz. That one doesn’t say, in every place is perhaps a place because some weasel can come.

The Rambam interprets, what comes in me’ir l’ir. Do you understand it thus?

Speaker 2: Yes, because me’ir l’ir there means in a city where the whole city already from yom chamishi, it’s not the Rambam. The Rambam says that according to Rabbeinu it did happen.

Speaker 1: I don’t understand the Rambam’s explanation so well, because the question doesn’t make any sense, or makes less sense in my head. That means the language me’ir l’ir. The word v’ein l’davar sof fits very well with the Rambam. One hears what the Rambam says that… that one cannot exaggerate concerns. Okay, everything nine, one is not concerned so further. But the whole matter of bayis l’bayis, me’ir l’ir, that sounds something else. The whole matter v’ein l’davar sof sounds more like Rashi’s explanation that it speaks after the checking, and perhaps one didn’t put back.

Digression: Safek D’rabbanan by Bedikas Chametz

Speaker 1: One can give it such a bit of a halachic principles thing, that all these things are indeed d’rabbanan’s. Normally right one would say that safek d’rabbanan one doesn’t need to be stringent, but you see indeed that the Sages said yes, perhaps one put chametz, one sees that one was indeed concerned about a safek d’rabbanan. Bedikas chametz is indeed the Rabbanan.

Speaker 2: Yes, but that’s the mitzvah. It’s not a mitzvah on concerns.

Speaker 1: What can you say places where there’s a serious chazaka? In the kitchen. But going outside the kitchen is indeed only a safek d’rabbanan. But one sees that no, one was indeed stringent in this.

Speaker 2: Says Rabban, one wasn’t stringent with this up to the measure. One was stringent in this…

Speaker 1: Ay, ay, ay. Now. Okay, further.

Law 3 — He Put Down Ten Loaves and Found Nine

Speaker 1: Now one will learn… yes, let’s learn… once one learned that one may not be too concerned, one will learn what one can always be concerned about. What kinds of stories can always happen? According to the Rambam it fits very well. It’s not at all a contradiction. This stands one concern, and it speaks that one shouldn’t say that every place is a concern of bringing in chametz. But… and yes, further, but… what is… oh, what does have a good reason to be concerned, he must yes be concerned.

What happens in such a case? A person checked on the night of the fourteenth, and there is the custom, it seems from here comes the custom that one makes ten crumbs. Yes, there is the number, ten crumbs. “V’hiniach eser chalos” — he put down ten pieces of bread, or ten… it seems chalos means ten k’zeisim. A chala means a…

Speaker 2: Yes, but he’s speaking of whole ones, not crumbs. A chala means a loaf, a roll, I don’t know how.

Speaker 1: Yes, but I’m just saying that simply a k’zayis, less than a k’zayis would perhaps be different, the law would already have been different. And but the chala means a whole piece.

Speaker 2: Yes, I’m just saying that he’s speaking here of large pieces.

The Case and the Law

Speaker 1: And he comes back the next day when he wants to do bi’ur chametz, and he finds only nine.

Speaker 2: Yes, Rabbi, I mean to say, he comes back and he finds only nine, it means one of them has disappeared.

Speaker 1: So what would one when you could have said? One could have said, I know, one doesn’t need to be concerned, it’s only d’rabbanan, one doesn’t need to be concerned. No, “harei zeh choshesh”, one must yes be concerned. And “v’tzarich livdok pa’am shniya”. The mitzvah of checking begins anew once. One must… it’s indeed obvious, because he knows indeed now that there is…

Speaker 2: Ah, why?

Speaker 1: Because here one says a regular chulda, o achbar vadai. And what one says that one doesn’t need to be concerned that a weasel carries from one place to another, is when we would have no reason to think so. But here there is indeed something, legs to the matter that it’s a certainty. It’s a certainty, it’s yes certain. Where did the tenth piece go?

Speaker 2: It could be that one speaks here that it’s not… if it’s a certainty it wouldn’t be a novelty. What you miscounted seeing ten was a mistake.

Speaker 1: What happened?

Speaker 2: Says to me, no, a weasel can come. What do you know for certain?

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, yes, certainly. The law is, I say this, you’re perhaps right that one is yes concerned and one is not concerned. If I know, and the law is basically that now I know that there is lost a piece of chametz. It must specifically be a weasel, it could be an angel who knows.

Speaker 2: No, but I can still hear, what is the other? Because another logic would have been?

Speaker 1: There is no other logic. He doesn’t want to say here that if there’s certain chametz in the house one must check again. It’s indeed obvious that there’s a new obligation of checking. But here one can indeed also think that the weasel perhaps carried it very far away. It’s further only a doubt. The weasel took it away, but once… every checking is a doubt.

Speaker 2: I understand what you’re saying? He must check. If he checks and he doesn’t find, he hasn’t found. He was indeed discharged from his obligation of checking. But now you know for certain that here in this room there is some chametz. What did you find?

Speaker 1: Yes, not certain. You know for certain that it’s not checked, it’s the word not checked, because there’s certainly some piece that is somewhere here, that is somewhere here and he doesn’t see it.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Now, and further, further.

Law 3 (Continued) — He Saw a Mouse That Entered the House with Chametz in Its Mouth

Speaker 1: V’chen, im ra’ah achbar shenichnas labayis, such a case, a person sees a mouse coming into the house, chametz b’fiv achar bedika, one has already checked for chametz, here he sees a little mouse with chametz. So also, although, one can think perhaps it’s from somewhere else or what, but no, tzarich livdok pa’am shniya. It goes into your house, the little mouse travels into your house with chametz. So one must be afraid that the little mouse will leave it here somewhere in your house. So tzarich livdok pa’am shniya, one must make bedikas chametz again.

Even if he found crumbs in the middle of the house

Even if he found crumbs in the middle of the house, he found small crumbs, this makes him think, ah, the mouse ate it, and it crumbled when he was eating. We do not say, look, he already ate that bread in this place and see the crumbs, I have here even some proof that he ate it. No, this is only an assumption. And we don’t do that, rather we are concerned that he indeed left it somewhere in a hole or in a window. Ah, you see the crumbs? Perhaps the crumbs were there. One must search anew.

Because indeed you see that a child is different, but a mouse, because it’s not the way of a mouse to make crumbs. So, the crumbs have nothing to do with it. Presumably the mouse still kept the piece of bread somewhere, and the crumbs are just, he didn’t notice before, there were crumbs. Or you did notice, not the point, it has nothing to do with it.

If he found nothing, if he finds nothing at all by the hole or window, he must search for it.

Law 9: A Child with Bread in His Hand – The Law of Crumbs

Speaker 1: You even have the raglayim l’davar (grounds for the matter), the crumbs are the evidence that the child ate the bread. Why? It is the way of a child to crumble while eating, children crumble when they eat, but it is not the way of a mouse to crumble, mice don’t crumble. And if he found no crumbs at all, but if he didn’t find any crumbs at all, further it’s indeed the same law as before with the mouse, and one must search perhaps the child didn’t eat it, but put it away somewhere.

Innovation: Crumbs Have No Significance at All

Speaker 1: Something we see here that’s interesting is that the crumbs themselves, apparently one never needs to search for them. That’s how it clearly comes out here, because it doesn’t say that one must pick up the crumbs. And you see that if there are crumbs, we say “ah, he’s exempt”, because these are the crumbs from that. Crumbs are just nullified like that. I don’t know what it says. It says here that crumbs are not something one needs to search for. That’s what it says, I mean, apparently explicitly in the law. Crumbs should be ownerless.

Speaker 2: Ah, now they say regarding matzah crumbs.

Speaker 1: Yes, I don’t know what it has to do with it. One doesn’t need to make them ownerless. They’re literally ownerless. They’re not considered like dust, they are like dust. That’s how it looks.

Speaker 2: Yes. I don’t know. It’s only an inference.

Speaker 1: No, that’s actually how it is. In halacha they say that things that have no significance at all, small crumbs, are literally not important at all.

Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Yes, continue.

Introduction to the Laws of Doubts in Searching

Speaker 1: So, now we’re going to learn when there are doubts. Until now when we learned that it’s certain that it’s built on the same. It’s built on the same situation, that means he had ten and only nine remain. But there’s no doubt whether the nine are chametz or matzah. In short, everything is in a similar situation that he knows something remained, but it’s not certain that there was a piece, rather such a doubt.

Dispute Between Rambam and Raavad: Whether These Laws Belong to Searching or Nullification

Speaker 1: And the Rambam learns that all these laws have to do with the laws of searching. Very interesting. The Raavad I think argues, because the Raavad says that he doesn’t understand, if it’s a doubt I should immediately be…

Speaker 2: Yes, you see that the Raavad argues?

Speaker 1: I want to leave it here in the law. Law 10, the Raavad says, that he doesn’t agree with the whole thing, because the Raavad says that all these laws, the novelty stands in the Gemara, all these doubts are discussed learning about bitul (nullification) which is from the Torah, but searching is only rabbinic. It should just be that the moment there’s a doubt it should be a rabbinic doubt to be lenient, and one shouldn’t be able to make… Besides this, the Raavad disagrees on various of the Rambam’s principles that he makes here.

In any case, the essential law, the Rambam doesn’t look like he’s rabbinic. It could be if there’s a majority that it’s a doubt, one needs to know. Rabbinic doubts one should indeed be stringent, but fundamentally, I mean that there’s a dispute whether all these laws are with the laws of searching or with the laws of nullification.

Questions on the Raavad

Question 1: Searching Means Investigating Doubts

Speaker 1: I don’t understand the Raavad’s thing, because the entire law of searching in holes and cracks says that I don’t rely on being. What does searching mean? That I don’t rely. Searching in holes and cracks. One must search perhaps here in a hole. In a hole is already a doubt.

Speaker 2: Yes, but that’s the same thing.

Speaker 1: The word searching means that one must investigate. That’s included…

Speaker 2: No, I don’t agree.

Question 2: Bitul Is Not Specific

Speaker 1: But the other thing I wonder about the Raavad is that bitul isn’t… He can say about a whole world, everything is nullified, everything is nullified. How do all these great difficult doubts happen? Bitul isn’t on the specific piece of bread. Bitul is that if there’s any chametz, or… It’s said along the way.

Speaker 2: According to you that’s what’s said.

Speaker 1: No, I’m asking. On the contrary, tell me. The Raavad said nothing about chametz that you don’t know about. It only said that bitul means that he takes chametz and nullifies it. It didn’t say anything, he nullifies a chametz from his heart. He didn’t say about a specific one, he didn’t nullify his, how is there all chametz is nullified.

Speaker 2: That’s what you say.

Speaker 1: And that doesn’t say, nothing was said, not even a bit was said. I say, in the Raavad it looks like something… The bitul must be specific. On that specific piece, he must know where it is?

Speaker 2: No, one must know that he’s still obligated, only if he wasn’t mevatel (nullify), he took it upon himself from the majority.

Speaker 1: All these doubts, to whom does it matter, I don’t know. And how do such kinds of cases happen at all? And I remember that the Maggid Mishneh didn’t have time to learn all these laws.

Speaker 2: Yes, let’s see. No. One. Um… where, you’re very busy. Yes yes. What yes yes?

Speaker 1: But someone talks about this, whether the searching must be specific on the chametz that one knows?

Speaker 2: Searching?

Speaker 1: I mean the bitul. We haven’t learned anything until now about…

Speaker 2: But you see it yes here in the note of the Raavad.

Speaker 1: He doesn’t mean that, he only means to say that it’s not a topic of searching, he only means that one must nullify.

Discussion: How Does One Perform Bitul?

Speaker 1: Let’s understand, a normal person must… Whatever the Rambam said that one must say something by the bitul?

Speaker 2: But in the Gemara you see that there’s such a thing that one must do, right?

Speaker 1: The question is, the person must still nullify his chametz. If he has no chametz, let’s say, by us it already says in the siddur one nullifies every week, you don’t understand the case. But it doesn’t say in the Gemara that there’s such a siddur, and the Rambam doesn’t have such a siddur. It says, if a person knows he has chametz, he must nullify. He must nullify now. And by the week, you think he nullified something easy, he’ll say, one must actually nullify it. It’s very difficult. I don’t know if that’s the truth.

Summary of the Dispute

Speaker 1: And the dispute is mainly said on the other question, whether there’s a rabbinic doubt on the matter of searching. It looks like the Rambam held that we don’t say on this a rabbinic doubt, perhaps because the service of searching itself is that one must investigate, one must ensure, and one can’t rely on doubts. That’s a nice reasoning that one must think about.

But I understand yes, the simple explanation, what you say that the simple explanation doesn’t fit, I can’t say it doesn’t fit, because the whole thing is a bit theoretical. Just as in the Gemara there can be a thousand two, as if only he’s obligated in a sin offering, and there’s no one who brings a sin offering. It’s whether he transgresses or doesn’t transgress. And what does transgress mean? Transgress is certainly only transgress if he’s not mevatel, right? And that means he must nullify. You ask, as if to make a bitul on the side that he must. He can’t, but we speak in such a way. It’s practical, practical.

Digression: The Tur’s Humility

Speaker 1: If I remember, I remembered the other day, or someone I saw in laws of Pesach writes about where is the Tur in the law, it’s a sign for example how one looks in the Tur. If I remember, and… yes, if I remember, and the Tur is very good, I remembered. The Tur in Orach Chaim 439 brings the summary of the laws from the Rosh, not from the Rambam, and he presents it thus: There are laws of the Rambam in these halachic rulings, and I was unable to write them. And I wrote what seemed correct to me. He writes his total, and apparently the reason he does this is because there aren’t so many questions. It’s very possible, the reason there are so many small laws is because there’s a law, we say a Shabbat HaGadol sermon, there’s a law thirty days one must say sermons, one must speak about the laws of Pesach, there must be material, yes? There are enough practical things for Pesach, no?

I always have pleasure when I see such a piece, I always have pleasure when I see such a piece, for our imagination always that the poskim (halachic decisors) were angels, they always had strength to learn. The Tur tried, he made difficult work, he wrote a book on the entire Shulchan Aruch, not to mention the Beit Yosef.

But I’ll tell you, I saw in Parshat Va’etchanan by the Ten Commandments, Rashi says on the first piece of the Ten Commandments, that the Ten Commandments were already explained in Parshat Yitro. And this is simply Rabbeinu’s humility, he doesn’t go over it again, because everywhere it must fit when one learns Chumash with Rashi of the week. Ah, that’s because in Rashi’s times it didn’t go so poorly, he imagined that people would come back already.

Today’s book, first of all, he wants to make his book big, paper is cheap. And secondly, he doesn’t trust the public that you’ll go back to check at all. One must repeat everything, all of them and more, ten times perhaps people will learn it.

Law 10: Nine Piles of Matzah and One of Chametz – Everything Fixed Is Like Half and Half

Speaker 1: Okay, let’s go further. Says the holy Rabban, okay, let’s try to learn, but if you know that a scholar is very happy with you.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s lively.

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s similar to the laws of nine piles, wherever, nine stores. It’s like this, two piles, there are two piles before. He placed nine piles, yes, here it begins.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: He placed nine piles of matzah, a person prepared for his Pesach, and he left over nine piles of breads that are matzah breads, and one, and there was one pile of chametz. A mouse came and took. And we don’t know, we don’t know if he took chametz, or if he took matzah.

Speaker 2: Yes, the Gemara says on this, a weasel doesn’t have prophecy, so he doesn’t know to take only from the kosher ones, yes?

Speaker 1: No, I remember that here there’s the joke in the Gemara. The Gemara also sometimes makes a good joke, a weasel has no prophecy.

And came to a searched house. And we don’t know, we don’t know if the house took from the pile, or if it was a good house, he only took from the matzah and saved it, or he took chametz, and entered a searched house. What’s the law now? The law is one must search, one must search. Why? Because everything fixed is like half and half. Every thing that’s fixed, gets, receives a law like half and half? And although there are here nine piles of matzah, but one doesn’t go after a majority in such a thing, but one looks at it as equal.

Apparently the Raavad would also say here that we’re only speaking regarding further. What is the Raavad on? It’s certain. That means, one must ask on the other thing whether the Raavad also disagrees, because here it’s literally a doubt. Perhaps it becomes literally a doubt, a weighing. A doubt weighing properly belongs to the topic of a rabbinic doubt. That’s the principle.

Explanation of the Reasoning of Fixed – Why Majority Doesn’t Apply

What does fixed mean? Because the piles are fixed. It means, the mouse took it from a place that’s fixed. What happens in another case? It cuts piles. I mean that… It falls out? I don’t know. I want to say, I mean that the beginners become very confused with the topic of fixed and separated and so on. I mean that the reasoning is very simple.

The original case means like this: I go into the nine stores, yes? It comes from the nine stores, right? The topic of fixed, yes? That’s the original case of the fixed. And it makes very much sense, that the majority doesn’t come. Majority is when it’s… I don’t know how I say it, but I’ll tell you a story.

Come here, there were ten… I went into a Jewish town, he has here ten… I’ll understand why a Jew would at all, but in short, there are ten Jewish butchers, nine are kosher, one is non-kosher. And he’s now in a butcher, he doesn’t know which butcher he’s in now. Yes, something very good. And he asks, I say, what does presumably mean? I’m here! There’s no presumably. Presumably is when you don’t know where you are, when you don’t know where something came from, when there’s a doubt. There’s no doubt, it’s a doubt, but it’s very difficult to say majority. I’m only in one store now. You’re only in one store. The one store you don’t know which it is. Yes, something like that.

I mean that everyone will hear… But you’ll still say that every store he has a chance to enter there. It’s not that the chance is… I don’t know what the word chance is. No, instead of seeing… Let’s remove the word chance, because it’s a word we were taught from modern times and we don’t know what it means. Today also no one knows what it means, there’s no difference, it’s another investigation.

I’m only saying that with straight thinking, you tell a person the story, and he says, as you say, where are you? Presumably you’re where the majority is. But the word fixed also makes a lot of sense. I’m here.

You tell him, which is not so when a Jew comes from far away, yes, you ask him, where does a Jew come from? He comes from London, from England, he says. Most Jews from England come from London. Thirty Jews in Manchester also, I don’t know, I have no idea, I’m telling the truth, but let’s say, yes? Presumably you come from London, because most people who come from England come from London.

But a Jew travels to England, I see the difference, he travels to England, he says, where are you? Where should I travel? Presumably you should travel to London. What’s the connection? Do you understand what the difference is? It depends where I’m going, I’m going there, and then I say I came from there, and the piece of meat or the chametz, the piece of bread is from there. It makes very little sense. Everyone can hear the difference that it’s very different to say, ah, presumably you’re there, because there’s a majority there. It’s not so… It’s not the same majority.

It’s very simple, the difference is very simple. One can say Torah insights on each one, but I mean that the basic difference, when one thinks of the picture of nine stores, everyone can see that it makes much less sense to say majority on such a kind of case than on another case. Certainly it doesn’t become certain, it becomes a doubt. Understand?

Afterwards when one makes from this the abstraction and wants to apply it to other cases where there aren’t the basic reasonings, indeed it becomes very complicated. But I mean that the original is very simple.

One Must Remove the Concept of “Chances”

The key to this is that you have to remove the word “chances,” because if we think of chances the way we think in modern times, it will be the same by kove’a (establishing). Because you can say that at every storefront there’s a chance that he’ll walk in there, so there are nine chances. But if you remove the word chances and you say chachamim (sages) don’t look at chances, rather they look at sfeikos (doubts) differently, then you understand the difference very well.

I also don’t know what “chance” means, is that the truth. This is also, he says that a Jew comes from London. Very good, then I agree, because most people, most people live in London. Very good, it’s a rov (majority), most Jews, most English Jews are from London. Very good, so he’s probably from London. It’s not certain, it’s also a mistama (probably), but it’s a rov. It’s just levels of hachro’os b’sofek (decisions in doubt), true, and none of them is certain. It can certainly be that he comes from Manchester, it can also be that he comes from Leeds, two more Jews, okay? But… but if I travel to London, and I say, “I probably traveled to London, because most times one travels to London,” that doesn’t make sense. That makes much less sense, at least.

Speaker 2:

Okay, that’s… that’s an extreme case. It’s true that the word “sense” is peculiar.

Halacha 11: Two Piles, Two Houses, Two Mice — There Is No Kevi’us Here

Speaker 1:

Okay, shnei tziburim (two piles). Let’s learn further. Shnei tziburim. Let’s make the case more complicated. There are two piles, echad chametz v’echad matza (one chametz and one matza), and there are also shnei batim, echad baduk v’echad she’eino baduk (two houses, one checked and one not checked), and there are also two mice, and one took chametz and one took matza, and we don’t know who went to which house.

Or a similar case: shnei batim bedukim (two checked houses), two cleaned houses that were already checked, and there’s one pile of chametz, u’va achbar v’natal (and a mouse came and took), and we don’t know which one it went into. Or we do know which one it went into, but badak v’lo matza klum (he checked and found nothing), and he doesn’t know if he left it here or went further with it. Or she’badak (that he checked), or he went in and he does find a cookie, but his question is whether the cookie is what the mouse brought, or perhaps there’s still another cookie here.

So the halacha is b’chol elu… what? It seems for a blessing b’chol elu eino tzarich livdok pa’am shniya, she’ein kan kevi’us (in all these cases he doesn’t need to check a second time, because there is no establishment here). Because now the question didn’t happen now by the piles, the question is now in the house where it is, and the question is already… the incident has already passed. Here the question isn’t which pile the mouse went to, because it went to both. The question is, or there are two mice, that’s not the question. The question is, the piece of bread that’s here, from which pile did it come? Probably it came from the majority. Very good.

Maggid Mishneh’s Answer — The Essence of Bedikas Chametz Is Upon Doubt

Speaker 2:

By the way, he actually says that your reasoning that you said is what the Maggid Mishneh says, that the others who justify the Rambam’s position is that actually bedikas chametz ikaro al hasofek, machmirim b’sfeikos (the essence of checking for chametz is upon doubt, we are stringent with doubts). Like the Ra’avad, the Rambam answers differently than the Ra’avad.

Speaker 1:

It’s better that one says it oneself, because then one can think for oneself whether it’s good reasoning, one doesn’t become biased that the holy Ro’ah said it, I start to feel like I’m asking myself foolishness, I don’t know. One shouldn’t really learn that way, but it’s important not to learn that way, because a person should also have his own opinion, no?

Speaker 2:

Yes, yes. Also this way it’s his Torah, not… no, okay, it’s a discussion in the way of learning.

Speaker 1:

Yes, further.

Halacha 12: Cases Where One Must Check — New Concerns

Speaker 1:

What happens here? Hiniach chametz b’zavis zo (He placed chametz in this corner), he placed chametz here, and he comes back, he finds it in another place. Someone moved it around. Can he think that the mouse took it from here and placed it here? Or can one think, no, the mouse took it from here and carried it completely somewhere else, and this the mouse brought completely from somewhere else.

O she’hiniach tesha chalos u’matza eser (Or he left nine loaves and found ten), he left nine, here he finds a tenth. From where is the tenth? Can he think, okay, fine, baruch Hashem, it’s lying here together. Or can he think, no, once something happened here, a change, the mice here commanded, so who knows what else they did? Perhaps they brought another eleventh and it’s lying hidden.

O she’hayu tish’a tziburin, tisha pe’os shel matza v’echad chametz, u’farash kikar meihem (Or there were nine piles, nine corners of matza and one chametz, and one loaf separated from them), one bread disappeared from the whole thing, v’ein yadu’a (and it’s not known), I don’t know if the bread went away from the nine matza or from the one chametz. U’va achbar v’natal hakikar she’farash v’nichnas l’bayis baduk (And a mouse came and took the loaf that separated and entered a checked house), it went into a house that was checked for chametz.

O she’ba achbar v’natal chametz, v’sofek nichnas l’bayis zeh o lo nichnas (Or a mouse came and took chametz, and there’s a doubt whether it entered this house or didn’t enter), one saw a mouse going with chametz, and one doesn’t know if it went in.

B’chol elu (In all these), all these one must check. Why? Because this isn’t pirush (separation). There’s no majority here, but this is the opposite of majority. Another one was added, there are other types of sfeikos (doubts) entirely. New concerns were added, perhaps mice come, perhaps mice come, perhaps mice come. So these things one must check, as we learned earlier. On such a type of doubt one must check, as we learned earlier.

Halacha 13: A Mouse Entered and a Mouse Exited — Talya (Attribution)

Speaker 1:

Further, more sfeikos. Nichnas achbar l’bayis v’chikar b’fiv (A mouse entered a house with a loaf in its mouth), and afterwards one sees a mouse running out also with a loaf in its mouth. So a person who has extra concerns could think, perhaps it’s a new mouse? The mouse put down the loaf, and the new mouse is already a different mouse. It says, no, omrim hu harishon she’nichnas hu ha’acharon she’yatza (we say the first one that entered is the last one that exited). On the contrary, one can rely that it’s the same mouse, and it went away with its account. This is a talya (attribution), that means like a talya, yes? We say.

But haya harishon shachor v’zeh she’yatza lavan (if the first was black and this one that exited was white), we don’t say that in the meantime it became old, or I don’t know what happened to it. Yes tzarich livdok (he must check), because then you can’t say the one that entered is the one that exited.

Nichnas achbar b’chikar b’fiv, yatz’a misham chulda b’chikar b’fiha (A mouse entered with a loaf in its mouth, a weasel exited from there with a loaf in its mouth), it’s the same thing tzarich livdok, because it’s not the same one that went in and came out.

Yatza achbar b’chikar b’fiv (A mouse exited with a loaf in its mouth), then eino tzarich livdok (he doesn’t need to check), because we say that this is the loaf that it had the whole time, not that once one sees a mouse with a loaf one must fear that there was more than one loaf.

Nachash she’nichnas l’chor u’fas b’fiv (A snake that entered a hole with bread in its mouth)? We know for certain that a snake went with a piece of bread. So then the halacha is like a hole that requires checking, but since it requires checking because we saw that the snake goes in there, the person himself certainly may not check because there’s a concern of danger. But if a person thought, perhaps one must nevertheless make such an effort that he goes to call a professional and have it removed? Ein chayav lo chova l’hotzi’o (He is not obligated to remove it). This is probably a law in column A that one doesn’t need to go so far, once there’s a concern of danger one is completely exempt, one doesn’t need to do that.

Danger Exempts Completely

Also for example by the non-Jew, we don’t say for example that he must now go buy gifts from the non-Jew and bring down a lawyer to explain to him, because once there’s danger, the same thing here, once there’s danger the Chachamim exempted.

This Fits with the Foundation that Bedika Is Essentially Upon Doubt

Speaker 2:

Apparently this fits with what you said that the entire law of bedika is upon doubt, you would perhaps say that about this he says at the end.

Speaker 1:

It fits here very well at the end with the thing you said that the entire law of bedika is upon doubt. You see, usually Chachamim say one doesn’t need to be concerned about a doubt. Here something they are stringent about a doubt, so how far does one go? He says only when it makes sense, and also here he thought that it’s a danger. Also, probably the snake hasn’t yet eaten the bread, because that’s why it took it.

Kezayis Chametz She’b’shmei Kora — Chametz Up by the Ceiling

Speaker 1:

Apparently, this fits that you said that the entire law of bedika is upon doubt. You would perhaps say that about this came the other side, the one end of the matter. It fits here very well in the end with the thing he said that the entire law of bedika is upon doubt. Usually Chachamim say one doesn’t need to be concerned about a doubt. Here something they are stringent about a doubt, so how far does one go? He says only when it makes sense, and also he hasn’t eaten the bread, that’s why he took it.

I mean, there’s also a doubt that the bread is no longer there, because it ate it. Ah, I don’t know, isn’t the word doubt? And isn’t it the word doubt? Both, it’s certainly connected to this.

Digression: The Cost of Bedika

He also brings that the professional service, I don’t know, the professional service is very expensive, one can’t show a person. One sees all the time. I don’t know, today’s Lithuanians don’t understand so well, but there’s a measure of how much one must spend in the world. Every thing, exactly. The Chachamim will say, come here, all bedikas cost money, right? I mean, we learned, we’re going to learn later about this, about money. But it costs time. Something, some effort, something the Chachamim obligated. But a hundred dollars? What does it mean it’s expensive the professional service? Some professional service, it costs three hundred dollars.

And simply there are rules in this of how much a person must spend for a d’oraisa (Torah law), for d’rabanan (Rabbinic law). This isn’t rules, this is the Rabbanan themselves. What does this mean rules? D’rabanan say, come here, so expensive? To such an extent, here it’s also, it’s both, it’s… And one is exempt from such a thing. The whole thing is here one thing. And it’s not that the person won’t go on Pesach and eat it because it doesn’t turn anymore.

Digression: The Flexibility of Halacha

In short, I’m just saying that halacha is very practical. I never understand, I’ve already said enough times, I never understand the person the halacha, one may not go against the halacha. I learn a halacha. The halacha is the most flexible system that was ever invented. For everything there’s a heter (leniency). There’s a heter, there’s always a way out, there’s always a heter. It’s very not ideological, it’s very not… The holy… Everything becomes a case if it’s really… It’s not all or nothing. There are times when one becomes strong, there are times when it’s a thing that the halacha I should do, but most halochos aren’t. Most halochos, the study of halochos is mostly to find. Yes, in such ways one actually doesn’t need to.

Nu, can you stop a minute?

Speaker 2:

Kezayis chametz she’b’shmei kora.

Speaker 1:

Very good. Yes.

Halacha 14: Kezayis Chametz She’b’shmei Kora

Speaker 1:

So this is still from the halochos of how far one must check. As we learned like in the hole one must go until the place his hand reaches. The similar halacha is thus, kezayis chametz b’shmei kora (an olive’s volume of chametz in the ceiling beams), an olive’s volume of chametz that’s up by the ceiling, by the beam above, chayav hanosen l’havi sulam l’horido (the giver is obligated to bring a ladder to bring it down), one obligates the person that he must bring a ladder to take it down. Why? She’pe’amim yipol mi’shmei kora (Because sometimes it will fall from the ceiling beams), it can fall down.

It’s interesting actually this halacha. Here one actually sees a bit like the matter is that he’s going to eat it. Because if it has nothing to do with eating, what does it matter to me if it’s going to come down or not?

Explanations in “She’pe’amim Yipol”

Perhaps the word is that now it’s in a place where bedika wasn’t obligated, but it can become a place where bedika is obligated. Perhaps that’s the word. Not about eating, rather when it’s something that’s like deep deep in a hole that will never come out from there, we didn’t obligate bedika at all. First of all there’s an issue of difficulty. But you see here that despite the difficulty one didn’t change. He must bring a ladder to take it down, and the reason is shema yipol (lest it fall).

Shema yipol, is the simple meaning that because it can very easily become a place where one is obligated in bedika. I mean, if one doesn’t say that the word is about eating, this would be the only thing I can think of. Now it’s actually a place that’s perhaps exempt from bedika, like something that’s very deep in a hole. But it can come down and become a place that’s obligated in bedika, that’s why one must take a ladder.

The hole is obligated in bedika, but a place his hand reaches. I say that the kora (beam) would have been able to be called a place his hand doesn’t reach. His hand reaches means without special equipment, without a ladder, without some special tools. But something that’s in a hole won’t come up. This can come down, and when it comes down it will become a place where bedika is obligated. On Yom Tov one cannot check.

Speaker 2:

Yes, my Gemara says something like this. About what?

Speaker 1:

No, he’s talking about another plan when the Ra’avad. I didn’t understand. What did he say about that?

Let’s learn the next halacha, perhaps to say.

Halacha 15: Chametz in a Pit

Speaker 1:

Haya chametz b’bor (If chametz was in a pit), then once he’s obligated to bring it up, because it won’t come up. Things fall down, there’s gravity. It’s a custom of the world. They all follow Einstein’s theory something. Ein mechayvin oso l’ha’aloso, ela mevatel b’libo v’dayo (We don’t obligate him to bring it up, rather he nullifies it in his heart and that’s sufficient).

Discussion: Why Does Bitul Help by a Pit?

About this bitul helps. So about this I want to think here, or if the word is always shema yavo l’ochlo (lest he come to eat it), it fits very simply, because it will fall down, he can eat it, so there’s the concern that he’ll eat it.

But if the concern isn’t shema yavo l’ochlo, that the Chachamim established bedika simply as a greater level of tashbisu (removal), one can also hear that then when there are great chances that it will fall down, and on Yom Tov, the entire obligation of bedika is erev Yom Tov (the eve of the holiday), one must already now be concerned, because it can fall down it will become a place that’s obligated in bedika. And one can think this way.

Speaker 2:

I understand, but according to all opinions, even the Rambam says that it has to do with tashbisu, the point of tashbisu is certainly so that he won’t eat it. That means, the reason for bal yera’eh (the prohibition of having chametz visible). Bal yera’eh is also more important than eating.

Speaker 1:

Bal yera’eh, no, we say, bal yera’eh is also so one won’t eat.

Speaker 2:

Also so one won’t eat?

Speaker 1:

Yes. What did he mean? It’s risk management? An extra thing?

Speaker 2:

No, it’s not an extra thing. It’s certainly so one won’t eat. I mean that it’s simply so.

Speaker 1:

Naturally okay, let’s learn.

Halacha 15: A Lump of Leaven and Bitul Chametz

A Lump of Leaven That Was Designated for Sitting

Speaker 1:

Now we’re going to learn how one can nullify, or leaven, let’s not with this. How it becomes nullified, how one looks at the chametz is nullified.

So thus, kapas se’or (a lump of leaven), a person had for example a large pile of dough. Not a pile, kapas se’or is the bowl where one keeps the leaven. Ah, and the leaven became hardened. And the leaven remained inside, and now he uses the whole thing like a bench.

Speaker 2:

He says that it means the leaven itself, it became hard.

Speaker 1:

It became hard, and he uses the whole thing like a bench. Now he has a heavy bench, the bowl itself if he sat on it would break, but now it’s filled with hard dough.

I understand what kupa (bowl) means? Kupa means the dough itself, or something that… not a sieve, I was mistaken, the sieve is the next halacha. He says yes kupos se’or looks like… the Geonim translate a sieve, or when the dough itself became like a bench. Hardened dough that starts being used like a bench. Sheyichado lishiva (that was designated for sitting) that was designated that from now one will sit on it.

So the question is whether we look at it as if it’s chametz, or we look at it? No, the chametz is no longer there, now it’s a bench. It depends.

So thus, im tach pnei mit (if he smeared its surface with clay), if he smeared it with clay, harei zo bitla (behold it is nullified) it became nullified from it, so the chametz is no longer chametz. That means, we don’t look at it as if it’s food, we look at it like a bench, u’mutar l’kayma (and it’s permitted to keep it). Yes. You don’t even need to nullify this. It’s not such chametz that isn’t… Look not only like it’s no longer, it’s former chametz. It’s former chametz.

Explanation: Why Is It Nullified?

This is apparently, here comes in very much the Rav who learned in Chapter 1. That is, essentially all shiurim (measurements), perhaps they have raui l’achilah (fit for eating), the answer is not because it’s not raui l’achilah. It’s not enough that it’s not raui l’achilah, because for a shiur one transgresses even if it’s not raui l’achilah. But when one has completely destroyed it with this, you’ve made it destroyed, it’s no longer any substance now. That’s one way.

One can also think further with this matter of eating, it’s also so, umitoch pnei avidus (and because of its being worked) there’s no way at all that one should eat it. But it’s not just that there’s no way, it’s become nullified, because for the world l’chatchilah (from the outset) it’s not a thing that one eats, it’s only a thing that one should make with other things with it. But now that it’s become a bench, it’s not just no.

Batzek Shebesidkei HaAreivah — Dough in the Cracks of a Bowl

Speaker 1:

Batzek shebesidkei ha’areivah, a person has a bowl, and bowls develop holes in them, and one uses it for the areivah, the bowl, the dish one uses for dough. And there where there are holes, it gets filled with dough. Dough is sticky.

So it is, if there is a k’zayis in one place, if there is such a large crack in the bowl that there is a whole k’zayis of dough in one place, chayav l’va’er (obligated to remove) one must scrape it out there and do everything. To be exempt from the chametz. You’ll take it out, take it out. There’s a whole k’zayis in one place.

V’im lav (and if not), if there isn’t a k’zayis, it is so. It depends: if it was used to strengthen the broken pieces of the bowl, if one looks at the dough there as if this is the new pot, as if this is in place of the pot, or to seal, this is in place of holding pieces together, or to seal a hole, or to plug up a hole, it is batel b’mi’uto (nullified in its minority), it becomes nullified to the pot.

Explanation: What Does “Batel B’mi’uto” Mean?

But because it’s a minority, it says here something like this, I’m not so clear, batel b’mi’uto is because it’s less than a k’zayis. Can one say so, because it’s less than a k’zayis, and it’s not a shiur d’oraisa (Torah measurement), therefore one accepts that from now one also looks at it as if it’s a part of the pot.

But if it doesn’t hold together the pot, the pot wouldn’t fall apart even without the dough, then one doesn’t say that the dough has become nullified, it’s now become a piece of plate. Rather there is a plate, and there is dough, and it’s sticky on it. So there’s still the obligation to remove it, to scrape it out and be meva’er (remove).

I bring here from the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, it makes sense that the previous law of toch pinah batit (inside a corner with mud) will also help here. If one smears everything around with mud, if he smears everything around with mud and further. If one has done something that he has glazed it, I don’t know what one has actually nullified it. Every thing, if one takes a… I agree. But I mean, that’s the point. Batel b’mi’utam doesn’t mean that it becomes nullified. Half a line is also obligated. Obligation in nullified and everything. But because it’s less, it’s less important, one says, ah, it doesn’t exist, it’s a part of the bowl.

Two Half-Zaysim in Two Places

Speaker 1:

And further, if there are two half-zaysim in two places. What happens on the same areivah? On the dish there are two half-zaysim in two other places. Here there’s a hole and a piece of dough stuck in here.

So it is, if there is a thread of dough between them, the two places are connected with another piece of dough, there’s something like a bridge between them, a small piece of dough, then it is so ro’eh (one checks). Kol she’ilu yinatel hachut, yinatel imo (anything that if the thread is removed, it is removed with it). If the thread is so strongly connected to both pieces of dough, that if one removes the thread, it drags along, it drags along the two half-zaysim, one now looks at it as if it’s one whole k’zayis, it’s just that there’s something that connects the two small pieces. Chayav l’va’er (obligated to remove).

Continuation: Half-Zaysim Connected by a Thread of Dough

Speaker 1:

V’im lav (and if not), meaning, if the two half-zaysim don’t connect, essentially apparently even if it’s a bit smaller than two half-zaysim, because one can simply calculate the thread of dough itself is something like a piece, it’s a bit. V’im lav, if the thread is not strong enough or not big enough, and each half is a thing by itself, eino chayav l’va’er (not obligated to remove), because as we learned earlier, when it’s in an areivah, then it becomes nullified to the areivah.

He says, in the words of the Torah that a small piece becomes nullified, is when it lies in a pot, one says that it becomes connected to the pot. But in a house, if a person simply has crumbs lying on the floor in the house, ah, simply in a wall, but if the thread is removed and it is removed with it, one is obligated to remove it, even if it’s not there except to gather them.

Explanation: The Distinction Between Areivah and Bayis

Speaker 2:

I mean what he means to say here is like we learned earlier that one doesn’t need to worry about crumbs. If a person has for example many small crumbs, so if all these small crumbs are somehow connected… It doesn’t say crumbs, it says dough. Such a type of thing that it happens that a person seeks to make his dough a k’zayis, and he doesn’t have, he takes a piece here, a piece there, so naturally it becomes, with this he makes his challah for Shabbos. Such a type of thing he is obligated to remove, because it happens that he will go take it.

Speaker 1:

I understand what is the hava amina (initial assumption)? Bedikas chametz means the pieces of dough?

Speaker 2:

No, bedikas chametz means k’zeisim.

Speaker 1:

Only k’zeisim?

Speaker 2:

Yes, only in such a manner that a k’zayis that one can put together, then it is, because bedikas chametz is on a thing that one transgresses on it on Pesach, which is a k’zayis as we learned.

Speaker 1:

I tell you, it fits with what you said earlier about the crumbs, here one also sees it, that one only speaks of when it begins to become something like a measurement. He doesn’t say any measurement, he says half a zayis. Half a zayis means something like a measurement, but the point is that it’s such a manner that one can take it together. I mean that presumably it’s speaking of such se’or (leaven), that it’s not a thing that one will go eat. I don’t mean that people eat pieces of dough and peels. It could be it’s all se’or, and it falls out, therefore it is… But v’im lav, if there isn’t anything at all that unites the half-zaysim, no, excuse me, I got off track.

Half a Zayis in the House and Half a Zayis in the Upper Story

Speaker 1:

Okay, what happens when there is in his house, in one house, but it doesn’t lie in one place? Half a zayis in the house and half a zayis in the upper story, or half a zayis in the house and half a zayis in the achsadrah, and in achsadrah we have… yes, okay, achsadrah. Or half a zayis in the house and half a zayis in the house before it, in another room, another house. Since these half-zaysim are stuck to the walls or to the floors, it doesn’t lie in a place where it’s easy to remove, eino chayav l’va’er (not obligated to remove). It’s completely nullified, ela mevatel b’libo v’dayo (rather he nullifies it in his heart and that’s sufficient), because he won’t go take it together.

And again, this that one must take together, or in other words, if someone will say that here one sees that there are situations where one must indeed be meva’er a half-zayis, the answer is true, but the manner is when it’s such a thing that it happens that he takes it together. It could be a person goes to a matzah bakery, and for example in the middle of baking the matzah, and a piece falls off, you can’t say that this is a half-zayis, because it happens that one picks it up and puts it back in. But if it fell out the window, it’s somewhere else, then that’s not relevant. This is very practical…

Speaker 2:

As you say, one sees apparently that the removal, the checking, has to do with what he will do with it. He will eat it apparently. It’s further connected with what one sees that it’s such a type of thing that he can make, he will make from it a k’zayis, and he will apparently bake the k’zayis. It’s not just a k’zayis, it will lie there, he will take it together because he wants to eat it.

—

Law 17: HaMaskir Bayis Stam B’Yud Daled — Chezkas Baduk

Speaker 1:

Okay, until here are the details of what one must check. Now we’re going to learn a few laws about which person or which house one must check, not meaning the cases of someone renting or he travels away, not what we’ve seen until now the places in the house or parts of the house that one must check.

The law says so: HaMaskir bayis stam b’yud daled (one who rents out a house simply on the 14th), if someone rents a house erev Pesach, the 14th already, the 14th, and he doesn’t say whether it’s checked or not, apparently one must add here that we’re speaking of an honest Jew, obviously. According to the Torah one speaks already of no wicked people, what there is in tribes and elders. Harei zeh b’chezkas baduk (behold it is in the presumption of being checked), we can assume that since there is already an obligation of checking from the night before, we assume that he is an honest Jew, and he has already done the law, he checked, v’ein tzarich lish’ol (and one doesn’t need to ask), he doesn’t need to ask. It’s the law, but one doesn’t need to. Should one clarify the nervousness. One doesn’t need to clarify, one can assume the presumption and be calm.

If one knows that he didn’t check, or he says that not, if he knows that he wasn’t or whatever. But against the presumption there is however a single witness which is not simple. V’amrah ishah o katan, “anu bedaknuhu” (and a woman or minor said, “we checked it”), we checked, harei elu ne’emanim (behold these are believed), they are indeed believed. Why? Because apparently, on a d’oraisa (Torah law) they wouldn’t be believed. But since it’s a derabbanan (rabbinic law), hakol ne’emanim al bi’ur chametz (all are believed regarding the removal of chametz).

Further says the Rema, “v’hakol kesherim livdikah” (and all are fit to check). This is a new law. It means both, whether she can say that she herself checked, you need to know both that she is believed, and that let’s already say that she is believed, that her checking worked. Yes, but the law “hakol kesherim livdikah” is a bit of a bigger law. Here it stands in this case, but there is a bigger law. What we learned that one must check for chametz is not that the father must, rather everyone is fit to check, even women and slaves and minors, provided that the minor has understanding to check. A minor one always checks for the specific mitzvah. The specific mitzvah of bi’ur chametz is the measure when he is a minor who already knows how to check for chametz. This is more a practical thing. If he is a minor, one tells him “go look for bread”, he knows what bread is, he knows what he must check.

Speaker 2:

Yes, he says that then it’s more like the obligation of chinuch (education). Here he doesn’t say that a minor is not obligated to check. Here we don’t speak of obligation, here we speak of fitness.

Speaker 1:

No, that’s true… Obligation is certainly that women and slaves, if they have chametz, they have the mitzvah, like everything, with the chinuch or with the… Very good.

—

Law 18: HaMaskir Bayis L’Chaveiro — Who Is Obligated to Check?

Speaker 1:

Further, “HaMaskir bayis l’chaveiro” (one who rents a house to his fellow). Or until now we learned about someone who rented a house after it was already the time of checking, it was on Pesach or the 14th. Very good. But now one can learn when… on whom is the obligation to check, whether on the renter or on the landlord?

The law says so: “Im ad shelo masar hamafteach chal arba’ah asar” (if before he handed over the key the fourteenth arrived), before one handed over the key, if one handed over the key still before the fourteenth, before the night of the 14th he means, right?

Speaker 2:

Yes, before the obligation of checking begins.

Speaker 1:

Then “al hamaskir livdok” (it’s on the landlord to check), because he hasn’t yet given the key, the obligation of checking fell on him when it’s still his house. The opposite.

Speaker 2:

Yes, yes, it’s a matter exactly the same.

Speaker 1:

But “v’im mishemasar hamafteach” (but if he already handed over the key), if he already handed over the key before that, then when the fourteenth happens, when it becomes night of the fourteenth, it’s already the renter’s, then the obligation goes up on the renter to check.

As if the point here is that one might have thought that the obligation of checking is a law and a condition in the mitzvah that happens only on Pesach. It’s only that the obligation begins earlier. Therefore perhaps it should only depend on who has it on Pesach? One says no, when the obligation happens, when the night comes. It could also be that this is more like a Choshen Mishpat law, that the assumption is that whoever must do the… let’s see, the next piece let’s see.

HaMaskir Bayis B’Chezkas Shehu Baduk V’Nimtza She’eino Baduk

Speaker 1:

HaMaskir bayis, an interesting law. HaMaskir bayis b’chezkas shehu baduk (one who rents a house with the presumption that it is checked), he rents a house, as we learned that when he rents it there is a presumption, on erev yom tov there is a presumption, or in another manner there is such a presumption. And he takes it already checked, in practice he sees that it’s not checked. The law is, al hasokher livdok, v’eino mekach ta’us (it’s on the renter to check, and it’s not a mistaken purchase). This is not enough to say that this makes it a mistaken purchase, that if he had known he wouldn’t have bought it. Why? V’afilu b’makom shebodkin b’sachar (and even in a place where they check for payment), even if we’re speaking of a place where one spends money to hire cleaning and to check. Why? Why isn’t it called a mistaken purchase? Sheharei mitzvah hu oseh (for behold he is doing a mitzvah). It’s a mitzvah to check for chametz. So you can’t say that if I had known I would, obviously, there’s reason to the matter, that if I had known I wouldn’t have rented? No! Even if you had known you might have still rented, because it’s a mitzvah. It’s not just a burden, there’s a mitzvah in this. Very good.

Discussion: Why Isn’t It a Mistaken Purchase?

Speaker 1:

Very interesting. Because it’s a mitzvah is what? Therefore he can’t say that it’s certainly a mistaken purchase. A mistaken purchase must be when it’s an obvious mistaken purchase, and it’s a certain mistaken purchase. It’s indeed a mistaken purchase, I’m not telling you. But you’re not a mistaken purchase, because in practice you have benefit that you do a mitzvah. It’s funny, right? You agree with me that it’s funny? Perhaps I don’t know the word funny? It’s interesting.

Speaker 2:

No, because what does it matter to you that it’s a mitzvah? Because it’s a mitzvah, let’s say that it’s a mitzvah, but if the mitzvah costs money, and you made me lose money. I was indeed privileged to do a mitzvah. Imagine that someone steals from me, but it’s a mitzvah. I don’t catch, you understand, I’m asking, it’s a very basic thing.

Speaker 1:

But it must be in a place where it’s very clear that no normal person would rent a house in such a condition. On this there is, and I come in, you’re indeed not such a lover of mitzvos. It happens that you’re a weak Jew, you indeed need to strengthen yourself in more love of mitzvos. But can you say that by all Jews this is called a mistaken purchase?

Speaker 2:

Very good, you’re right. It’s not a mistaken purchase, but he brings that it’s indeed a dispute between the Mechaber and the Rema, that he must pay the money that he spent on the checking. Perhaps he indeed must explain this to him. A mistaken purchase must be simply something that is an “obvious”, a regularity of things. That there are those who say indeed, that it can’t be that he is exempt from paying. You’re right, it’s not a mistaken purchase. Why? Because a Jew can withstand checking. That’s something like the assumption. But the question is whether he can extract from him the money, whether… he brings that if it’s a dispute one can no longer extract. Hello, anyway, fine, let’s go further.

—

Law 19: HaMafrish B’Yam V’HaYotzei B’Shayarah

Speaker 1:

Now we’re going to learn whether one must check when one travels away. That is, he’s not there at home, or he’s not there now at the time of bedikas chametz.

The law says, a mafrish b’yam (one who sets sail), someone sets out, mafrish is an interesting expression. It’s the spreading of the ship, one spreads out sails, no? It simply means that he is mafrish, he goes away from his city, he travels away to a sea country, or or yotzei b’shayarah (or goes out in a caravan), he sets out on a long journey with a caravan. I mean that usually, mafrish b’yam means with a ship. Yotzei b’shayarah means he goes out with a camel, a desert, such a thing. With a caravan.

Speaker 2:

Yes, so it is, within thirty days, Pesach begins that thirty days there is already something like a fear of Pesach, something like a law of Pesach.

Law 19 (Continuation): HaMafrish B’Yam V’HaYotzei B’Shayarah — If His Intent Is to Return Before Pesach

So, he must check beforehand, before he travels away he must do the checking. Before thirty days it depends, if his intent is to return before Pesach, if he plans to return before Pesach, then the law is that he can’t rely that he will return in time, and he must check and afterwards go out. Why? Because there is a concern lest he return erev Pesach, perhaps he will come back home at the last minute.

Innovation: The Contemporary Application of This Concern

Seemingly, we’re talking here about earlier times when one couldn’t calculate the routes as well, and he won’t have time to check. Today also it’s hard to calculate, when there isn’t… he’s not talking about such a trip, he’s talking about such a major trip, a mafris bayam (sea voyage). Today a person, one can approximately calculate, he knows when he’s on a plane, he knows when he’ll land, he knows how late he’ll be.

He hasn’t yet encountered a Brisker who travels away for Shabbos after Purim and he starts checking him. You can’t be Brisker enough, I’m afraid. Yes, I say this, I can imagine that a Brisker is against his will. But even, mafris bayam, we’re not talking about that. Even the mafris bayam today, someone travels away for a major trip, but he knows, he knows that he lands erev Pesach at such and such time, he knows… Okay, in general also, today perhaps one only needs to be concerned in a place where the concern is justified. That’s what I would say.

Law 19 (Continued): The Mafris Bayam — He Doesn’t Intend to Return

Therefore he doesn’t intend to return, if he doesn’t plan at all to return for Pesach, he doesn’t need to check. Why indeed? Why? Because he is before thirty days, before thirty there is no obligation of checking.

Question: Bal Yera’eh

But Pesach is going to come, he’s going to violate bal yera’eh (the prohibition of having chametz seen) in his house.

Answer: Bitul

Okay, seemingly, bitul (nullification), bitul, he will nullify it. He can nullify it, as we’ll take later. The obligation of checking hasn’t yet come upon him, and it’s far from him. The obligation of checking is only something that’s relevant when it’s close to him. That’s what he means.

Law 19 (Continued): One Who Makes His House a Storehouse

And similarly, like a storehouse, he makes his house into a storehouse, it becomes a storehouse. The storehouse doesn’t need to be a storehouse of chametz, it becomes a place where chametz is brought in. That’s the point.

So within thirty days he needs to check first. So in the thirty days before Pesach he needs to check. So if he intends to clear it out, he’s going to remove the storehouse before Pesach, he needs to check.

No, before thirty days even not. He says, before thirty days, when there is an obligation of checking, and one can’t. There is an obligation of checking, and there is a place where chametz is brought in. There is an obligation of checking.

But before thirty days, when there is an obligation of checking, there is the same thing as returning. One is concerned, perhaps it will be discovered. And one means now to clear it out before Pesach, he doesn’t need to check, because now there isn’t yet the obligation of checking, and when it will be Pesach it won’t be an obligation of checking as it were, a proper obligation of checking. Therefore he doesn’t need to check.

—

Conclusion of Chapter 2

We have with this concluded Chapter 2 of the Laws of Chametz and Matzah. What does it mean we have with this concluded the Laws of… ah, there are still Laws of Checking for Chametz, there is still another chapter.