Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 3 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Chametz and Matzah, Chapter 3: Searching for and Destroying Chametz

Opening

Speaker 1:

Good evening, all the distinguished assembled. I already wished a mazel tov again to Rabbi Yoel Asher on the engagement (tena’im) of his daughter last night. May the Almighty, may the match be successful, may there be much success and much nachas, and may everything work out in the best possible way, in the most proper and best manner. And thank you to the sponsors of the shiur, to Rabbi R’ Yoel Halevi and the other sponsors. And we’re learning. Amen. Wonderful.

One must begin before davening with “V’ahavta l’rei’acha kamocha” (Love your fellow as yourself). Also before learning, it appears there is a concept of beginning with love. It’s important. The prayer before learning that appears in the Gemara, “sheyishkon beineinu ahavah v’achavah” (that love and brotherhood should dwell among us). This is one prayer that appears in the Gemara, and there’s also “v’esmach bahem” (and I will rejoice in them). “Shelo echashel bidvar halachah v’esmach bahem” (that I should not err in a matter of halachah and I will rejoice in them). We see that love of friends is a condition, an important condition in Torah study. And thank you to the sponsors and to the learners.

Introduction to the Chapter: The Topic of the Chapter

Speaker 1:

We’re going to learn the third chapter of Laws of Chametz and Matzah. And the chapter discusses the order of when one does bedikat chametz (searching for chametz), when one does bi’ur chametz (destroying chametz), and how one manages when it’s Shabbat. These are the first few laws, and so on. Essentially he speaks about the details of this as well, such as when one destroys chametz that was forgotten, how exactly one performs bi’ur chametz. So one can say bedikat u’vi’ur chametz (searching for and destroying chametz), which go together, this is the topic of the chapter.

Law 1: The Order of Searching and Setting Aside Chametz Until Destruction

The Language of the Rambam

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says: “When a person searches and investigates on the night of the fourteenth” – he already said in the previous chapter that there is a time, that the night of the fourteenth is the time when one does bedikat chametz. At that time when one does this, he says, what does one do? How does the search work? “He removes the chametz from the holes and from the cracks.”

Discussion: Translation of “When he searches… he removes”

Speaker 1:

This means, as I said it, because otherwise, it’s a bit interesting, because “when a person searches, he removes the chametz” – this means searching. I would have said, “when a person searches” means to say the time. The time that we discussed that it’s the time, “when a person searches,” what does one do? He’s now saying what searching means, and one takes out the chametz from wherever it’s stored.

I would have translated it differently. I would have translated, “when a person searches,” that means searching means looking. Removing is another step after that. When one removes from holes is the search. The search is to check and look in the holes. Removing means after you’ve found it, don’t leave it there. I mean, there aren’t two levels, like first one searches and makes a list and then one goes to pick them all up. No, rather like this, one searches and takes out. I’m saying that the way you translate it is that after one finds it, when one searches, one takes it out and puts it aside. But I say, I don’t agree that removing is the translation of searching. Searching is the translation of looking. After one searches and finds, one must take it out.

Discussion: Double Language in the Rambam

Speaker 1:

But I’m saying for example, searching and investigating, we won’t analyze here what a double language means. And the same thing, holes, hiding places, and corners, it’s also three other types, a hole is a hole, and a hiding place isn’t necessarily a hole, but another reason why it’s hard to get there. He speaks broadly, but I don’t know if one needs to be precise in his words. Perhaps there are others who are precise in his words. Simply yes, because there are Shabbat HaGadol lectures. So there are many opportunities. Where is there some praise that one can squeeze out? A hole is one thing, and a closet means simply a closet, and a corner means simply a corner. Where it’s on the table, one doesn’t need to search, it’s right there. Okay.

Continuation of the Rambam’s Language: Gathering Everything and Placing It in One Place

Speaker 1:

So when one does the search, what does one do with the chametz? One takes them all out. So that one should have finished. The search is finished, the mitzvah of searching is finished, and the next thing will be destruction. So, one takes them all together, and one is obligated to say that one takes them all together, places it in one place, one puts them in one spot, until the beginning of the sixth hour of the day. And then, one destroys it as we learned yesterday, that at that same sixth hour begins the prohibition of having chametz, so one burns it before the prohibition begins. Right.

Innovation: The Search Ends When One Has Gathered Everything in One Place

Speaker 1:

So it’s as if what the law tells us is that bedikat chametz and burning chametz, which is bi’ur chametz, is not the same thing. Because the Sages have… what wasn’t done with this? Because they said that one does it at night, on the night of the fourteenth. So what does one do in the meantime? So the answer is, one puts it away, one gathers it together, one puts it all in one place. That is, before this it was all to say what is bad. Perhaps this is indeed like an innovation. Someone will say, I already found it, I have the list. It’s not enough to have a list. One must gather the chametz in one place still during the search. The mitzvah of searching is at night, but also the gathering. Someone who can say, I have a list, and will go later. And the mitzvah of searching is the gathering as well. As if, bedikat chametz ends when one has gathered everything in one place.

Discussion: Why Must One Gather It Together?

Speaker 1:

Why exactly must one gather it together, I don’t know, but that’s what he says. Not that you haven’t yet done the search. The law that one should do it by candlelight and everything is already finished, you don’t want to. Where there is chametz, one forgot about it. That’s the simple explanation. Why shouldn’t one… why shouldn’t one… why should one need to gather it together? I don’t know. The Rambam said this.

Where did he get that one must gather it together? If he does everything… does it say so in the Mishnah? No. “And what he leaves over, he should place in a hidden place.” “He should place it in a hidden place” means after the search, yes? That’s another thing, so it shouldn’t become lost. Right, we’re going to learn the next piece, law 2, the Rambam will explain that one must put it away, because otherwise, concerns begin about mice dragging it and other things. But let’s say someone doesn’t have this problem, he calculated exactly how much chametz, and he leaves it exactly as he found it.

I learned that since they instituted the search on the night of the fourteenth, the search ends when one has everything in one place. Why? What does one have to do with the other? Okay, practically it’s simple, because why would you do it twice? Why would you work twice? Again, not work twice, it’s two different things. He has it… how do you say it? He has it… well? He has it… exposed, he already knows where it lies, and tomorrow he’ll gather it together. Okay.

The Mishnah is, presumably you’re right that the normal person will already gather it together. But the Mishnah doesn’t speak about this. What I’m saying, the Rambam added here a step and made from this like a law that he should do this, “gathers everything and places it in one place.”

Innovation: “Candlelight Is Good for Searching” Means Removing Completely

Speaker 1:

Presumably also that “candlelight is good for searching” doesn’t mean only that he should know where the chametz is, but he should completely remove the chametz, nothing should remain. And if the next day he won’t have a candle and crumbs will remain, this is lacking in the mitzvah of bedikat chametz. In the morning one also has a candle, by the way. There’s no such thing that a candle works less in the morning than at night. That’s not the point.

No, I don’t know where he got this from. I mean to say, it’s presumably practical, but in the Mishnah the Rambam’s law doesn’t appear.

Continuation of the Rambam’s Language: And If He Wishes to Destroy at Night, He May

Speaker 1:

The Rambam finishes, and he says immediately that the law I said was practical, and he says how “if he wishes to destroy at night, he may.” That searching and destruction are two different times, essentially if someone wants to destroy at night, one can destroy at night. He only speaks like this, apparently most people still eat chametz in the morning, one may still eat chametz, in the morning one still eats chametz, so one doesn’t need to destroy it yet. “And if he wishes to destroy at night, he may.” One can then already destroy it. It doesn’t mean as if the Sages instituted the mitzvah of bi’ur chametz with some specific time.

Discussion: Destruction Before the Night of the Fourteenth

Speaker 1:

What happens if someone wants to destroy even before the night of the fourteenth? Presumably also the same law. If someone is… the person who makes Pesach is already much earlier, he’s still exempt, he’s not obligated. He doesn’t make a blessing on bi’ur chametz, but… perhaps yes, by the way, why shouldn’t he make a blessing? Ah, from thirty days there’s already an obligation of searching, can one make a blessing? He didn’t say whether one does it with a blessing. Okay, he hasn’t yet told us about a blessing at all. Okay, let’s see. Later we’ll learn about a blessing. Ah, he did say. He already said the blessing, yes. Didn’t say? Am I mistaken? Didn’t say. No, he didn’t say. I’m confused. No, but when he speaks about thirty days, he didn’t tell us. Ah, no, he says it now. Okay. He’s going to say it in this chapter. I’m confused. Okay, yes.

There’s no obligation to leave over, but simply that one may leave over. That’s the point. If one wants to burn now already, he may burn now. He doesn’t have to. Destroying means I think you won’t burn, because later the Rambam will say what does destroying mean? Already.

Law 2: Guarding the Chametz on the Night of the Fourteenth

The Language of the Rambam

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, the chametz that one leaves on the night of the fourteenth, the chametz that one leaves over, as he says that one leaves it over in order to eat from it tomorrow until four hours, he didn’t yet say that only because of the Rabbis they already prohibited also the fifth hour, but one eats until the fourth hour. The Rambam says, one doesn’t leave it scattered and spread out in every place, one doesn’t leave it thrown about, rather one hides it in a vessel or in a known corner, one puts it in a specific place, either in a vessel or in a known corner, and one is careful with it. One is careful with this. Lest one not be careful with it, and one was lacking, if he won’t be careful.

Answer to the Previous Question

Speaker 1:

Ah, this will presumably be the answer to the question we asked earlier. Let’s finish. Lest one not be careful with it, if he won’t be careful and he’ll see that chametz is missing, one must search for it and check again, he must search again and check again, lest mice dragged it, perhaps mice dragged it around. So this is presumably also the answer. If it lies in the hole, he must also still be afraid of the same thing of lest mice dragged it.

Discussion: Connection to Law 1

Speaker 1:

So he says, if he knows exactly where the point is, that’s what we learned. He now goes back to the law that we learned in the previous chapters. He left ten pieces and he found only nine. He must search for the tenth.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but it’s very impractical to say that he should leave it in the hole, because he counted in the hole exactly how big the piece of chametz is. Just as he counted later.

Speaker 1:

No, but here he puts it in a vessel as it’s known, where mice don’t come. That’s the idea. When he says a vessel as it’s known, he means in a way that one shouldn’t be afraid of any mouse.

Speaker 2:

I hear, but no, that’s the “being careful with it.” The “being careful with it,” you’re right. The “being careful with it” looks like a practical thing. You should put it, as you say, put it in a box that mice don’t come to, because if a mouse will come, you’ll have a problem. So if it remains lying in the hole is also the same “not being careful with it.” True, true. I hear.

Discussion: “Being Careful With It” – Practical or a Law in Searching?

Speaker 1:

Okay, wait, is this a practical thing? I mean, perhaps not practical, perhaps it’s more… a practical thing, but it’s a law in searching. The Sages say that from when there’s an obligation of searching there’s an obligation of being careful. Right, he says, perhaps if he must do a search again, his previous search he wasn’t essentially fulfilled. There’s a fresh obligation of searching upon him. The concept that the Sages said searching is only in a way that from then there’s no more searching. If not, your obligation of searching still begins. The search only ends when it’s careful, when it’s safe.

Law 3 (Beginning): When the Fourteenth Falls on Shabbat

The Language of the Rambam

Speaker 1:

So this is a normal year where on the fourteenth in the morning he’ll already destroy it. What happens if it’s erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat? What happens? Ah, when erev Pesach is Shabbat, and on Shabbat there’s a mitzvah of eating meals, eating bread the Rambam said, yes? I’ll perhaps come to this, the point is there’s a problem, but one doesn’t do any destruction, he hasn’t yet said, but one can’t do bedikat chametz on Friday night, one may not use any candle, whatever. So what must one do? Yes, one searches for the chametz on the night of erev Shabbat, and one searches for the chametz the night of erev Shabbat, meaning what we call Friday night, the night before erev Shabbat, which is the night of the thirteenth.

Discussion: Why Destroy It Before Shabbat?

Speaker 1:

The Sages say that from when there’s an obligation of searching there’s an obligation of being careful. Perhaps if he must do a search again, his previous search he wasn’t essentially fulfilled. There’s a fresh obligation of searching upon him. The law that the Sages said searching is only in a way that from then there’s no more searching. If not, your obligation of searching still begins. The search only ends when it’s careful, when it’s safe.

So this is a normal year where on the fourteenth in the morning he’ll already destroy it. What happens if it’s erev Pesach on Shabbat? Ah, when erev Pesach is Shabbat, and on Shabbat there’s a mitzvah of eating meals, eating bread the Rambam said, yes? I want to perhaps come to this, the point is there’s a problem, but one doesn’t do any destruction, he hasn’t yet said, but one can’t do bedikat chametz on Friday night, one may not use any candle, whatever. So what must one do?

Speaker 2:

Yes, one searches for the chametz on the night of erev Shabbat.

Speaker 1:

And one searches for the chametz the night of erev Shabbat, meaning, what we call Friday night, the night before erev Shabbat. Which is the night of the thirteenth. And one leaves over from the chametz. Usually one only leaves over to eat for the next four hours. Here one must leave over for a whole day, in order to eat from it until four hours on Shabbat day. And one places it in a hidden place, one puts the food also in a hidden place, one puts it in a specific place. And the rest one destroys before Shabbat, the remainder one should destroy before Shabbat.

Speaker 1:

Is this also good advice, or is there some law that one shouldn’t leave over too much before Shabbat?

Speaker 2:

What does “the rest” mean on Shabbat? What one won’t eat.

Speaker 1:

Yes, one shouldn’t do the throwing out on Shabbat. He doesn’t say about throwing out, the Rambam didn’t think that one shouldn’t throw out chametz on Shabbat, by the way, soon we’ll see. The point is, he says one shouldn’t leave over more than what he needs. What’s the problem?

Speaker 2:

Never. Apparently, all I don’t know.

Speaker 1:

I’m saying this, when he guards it for Shabbat, it could be that it’s good advice, it could be that it’s a law regarding Shabbat, and it could be that it’s a law regarding bedikat chametz. Again, he’s going to have chametz, he’s going to transgress bal yera’eh (the prohibition of having chametz be seen) if he’s going to forget and not nullify it. I saw Rabbeinu Manoach says, because bi’ur chametz can bring concerns of carrying from domain to domain. Making bi’ur chametz from a domain. I’m saying, the thing that one should burn as much as possible before Shabbat.

Well, why shouldn’t one destroy on Shabbat morning? It never says here that one destroys chametz on Shabbat. Let’s say it, a fact. Why I don’t know? I’ll see the next law. There’s no such thing that bi’ur chametz is on Shabbat.

Speaker 2:

You confused why.

Speaker 1:

But the fact is that there isn’t. If it’s not Shabbat, one will need to do a post-facto thing of nullification, and so on. It’s post-facto. There he has chametz first that one should destroy. So, what you eat is already destroyed, because it’s eaten. But if you don’t eat to eat, you’re obligated with this bedikat chametz to destroy. What’s the problem?

Speaker 2:

Do you want to say that you have a solution how to do bi’ur chametz on Shabbat?

English Translation

Speaker 1:

Okay, that’s a good question. But the halacha is simply that there’s no such thing on Shabbos. On Shabbos one cannot burn, simple. So… later it will explain in detail how spiritual elevation works, you’re asking a good question. But… it is indeed a good question. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m just stating a fact that the halacha is simply that one cannot be meva’er on Shabbos, and regarding this he says one must be meva’er, period.

Bi’ur Through Eating

Speaker 1:

The primary bi’ur on Shabbos is through eating it. This is the portion that one leaves over to eat. Very good. As the Gemara says in Bava Kamma that “meva’er zeh shen,” one eats up with the teeth and one makes bi’ur.

Speaker 2:

Not exactly. Bi’ur is a different root word.

Speaker 1:

One performs two mitzvos with the same piece of bread, one eats there the mitzva of seudas Shabbos and bi’ur chametz. I don’t agree that it’s the same concept, because bi’ur there means that the animal should eat.

Speaker 2:

Okay. Okay. Yes.

Halacha 3 (continued): And If Chametz Remains on Shabbos

Speaker 1:

Further, what does one do with chametz on Shabbos after four hours? One must mention here, because when erev Pesach falls on Shabbos, people become very nervous, because we are very stringent on Pesach. But the basic halacha that stands here is, one properly leaves over the chametz from erev Shabbos. It doesn’t say that one must put it in a bag, so that no crumbs should fall. Crumbs are nullified, it’s not a problem. And the same thing, and so on, the Shulchan Aruch does state stringencies. One shouldn’t cook… one shouldn’t cook things that are… yes. But it doesn’t say in the Gemara or in the Rambam, one doesn’t see these stringencies.

But also a question is when one does bi’ur chametz on erev Shabbos. Theoretically one can do it any time, but the custom is to do it also before chatzos, simply like every year, and so on. And on Friday one does it before chatzos, even though it’s not erev Yom Tov, it’s not the reason of six hours, one can do it any time in the afternoon. There’s something of a concept about that one should remember that all years, a child whose first year that he remembers is from erev Shabbos, he shouldn’t think that one burns in the afternoon. That’s what he means.

And if chametz remains on Shabbos after four hours, when one may no longer eat, he should nullify it, he should be mevatel it, as we learned bitul chametz, mevatel b’libo.

Discussion: Bitul Alone and Kofeh Alav Kli

Speaker 1:

What about the takanas chachamim that one shouldn’t do bitul alone?

Speaker 2:

No, no, nothing.

Speaker 1:

But also perhaps because of “shema yavo le’ochlo”?

Speaker 2:

For that helps the “kofeh alav kli”.

Speaker 1:

Ah, that’s true, but that’s not… I don’t know if one fulfills with that like the Ramban, but that’s a practical thing here.

Speaker 2:

No, no, I have a proof that I have a proof that I have a proof. I thought that way for you, but you’re not right, because it’s simply not shema yavo le’ochlo, but it’s simply a new shema yavo le’ochlo, because it’s not the same as bedikas chametz. Because for example, we see that chametz shel kodesh it says in the next se’if that one doesn’t need kofeh alav kli because it’s anyway batel. Even though even chametz theoretically already becomes here an obligation of bedika and bi’ur, you understand that it’s not the same takana, it’s perhaps similar in nature, but kofeh alav kli, specifically shelo yavo le’ochlo until one already has what to be meva’er, then it’s completely meva’er.

Speaker 1:

Why? Why would he do with it? That’s the point. I don’t know, you don’t need to be meva’er theoretically. Why do you need to be meva’er it? The din of bi’ur chametz, there is indeed the din that chachamim did say that lechatchila one should do bi’ur. But it’s already been mevatel, the stock, the person has already fulfilled the chachamim.

Speaker 2:

Yes, but it’s still Yom Tov. Motza’ei Yom Tov one may already do bi’ur chametz, one may already burn, one may already do things, Chol HaMoed. Why shouldn’t one fulfill the takanos chachamim from now and on? The takanos chachamim that the chametz should be destroyed the entire Pesach.

Speaker 1:

But always the bi’ur chametz is on top of bitul, because the reason for bitul because they relied on that, on top of that they enacted bi’ur on the chametz. I would have thought that the bi’ur is for chametz that one transgresses with bal yera’eh uval yimatzei, that one didn’t mevatel. Therefore, we conduct ourselves, the chametz that one burns is not mevatel beforehand, because then one hasn’t fulfilled bi’ur chametz. One can say it, you see that there’s still a chiyuv to burn even though. I don’t know, we say kol chamira also. After bedikas chametz.

Speaker 2:

No, we make a distinction, except for what one is going to burn. And we make two, we make two, one before and one after regarding this distinction. And with the calculation that what one hasn’t been mevatel, one is obligated min haTorah to be meva’er. If one doesn’t use the trick of bitul, then it’s… we want to capture that when one burns chametz, it will be more of a d’oraisa din. But here it appears that… nevertheless, even though he already was mevatel, he’s already not transgressing bal yera’eh on this chametz, nevertheless he must be meva’er. It could be, if we go that bi’ur is because of shelo yavo le’ochlo, it’s simple, because kofeh alav kli is in order shelo yavo le’ochlo. But still, a vessel isn’t so secure, I know, a child will go over and remove the vessel, so one does the bi’ur beforehand, that’s a secure shelo yavo le’ochlo.

Discussion: Why Not Throw in Toilet or Sea?

Speaker 2:

Today’s rabbis all say that one should flush the chametz down the toilet if it remains. I don’t know if they took on the new obligation. What’s wrong with what it says in the Rambam? Perhaps not because of that? The Rambam says when you have no other option, because later one won’t see, because there are no concerns of Shabbos, I don’t know. He won’t see. Let’s say, there is an option here. The mefarshim ask why shouldn’t one be able to be mefarrer? Keitzad meva’er chametz? That’s later, in the general section, but on Shabbos. He’s a student, but he’s not meva’er chametz on Shabbos. What will he do? Why may one not be meva’er in the sea?

Speaker 1:

Perhaps it becomes muktzeh? Perhaps it becomes muktzeh? Yes, but once he’s already eaten his entire shi’ur, it’s already completely muktzeh machmas gufo. He’s already not going to do anything with it. He already has enough. From now it becomes… I don’t know if to think that way. When Shabbos entered it was ra’uy. But it’s going to be assur b’hana’ah, and also it’s going to be assur b’hana’ah even after Pesach, so perhaps it becomes muktzeh.

Later the Acharonim will indeed seek such answers. One can throw in the beis hakisei, one can give to a non-Jew, or some other method.

Speaker 2:

Throwing in the beis hakisei is kofeh alav kli, I mean.

Speaker 1:

No, it’s not. It’s a bi’ur. In those times there was no kofeh alav kli.

Speaker 2:

No, no, it’s not strong. There was also beis hakisei. Beis hakisei wasn’t used today. Not necessarily beis hakisei that it became hidden, and it went into the entire static sewage system. It was somewhere in the basement of the house where it came to be cleaned. They were aware on Shabbos that there’s such a thing.

Speaker 1:

Yes, but what they used, there was an abundance of water.

Speaker 2:

Okay. Whatever, the substance didn’t remain. One had somewhere where one throws away beis hakisei material. I mean, some process existed almost always. Especially more advanced in the city has existed for thousands of years.

Speaker 1:

No, before that it doesn’t appear that the assumption fell that one can do that. I can’t tell you why, but they assumed that bi’ur means burning. Although technically one can also be mefarrer, no one does that. In practice it means burning, and one doesn’t burn on Shabbos. That’s how the halacha appears to us. And one sees that the name, the well-known name for burning chametz is called bi’ur, which means a fire. That was the accepted practice.

Digression: The Meaning of “Bi’ur”

Speaker 2:

Could be bi’ur means to destroy, not specifically lisrof, burning.

Speaker 1:

No, bi’ur here doesn’t mean hav’ara. Bi’ur here means, it’s a different root. Bi’ur here means to destroy, as… yes, I don’t remember, I know what you mean. Hav’ara is not the language of hav’ara.

Speaker 2:

To destroy is simply a borrowed term from burning.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps the opposite, hav’ara is called that, but there’s a word sreifa. It’s a different word, not the same thing. Sreifa means burning. Bi’ur means to destroy, to annihilate.

Speaker 2:

Leva’er the author.

Speaker 1:

No, one can be meva’er. Meva’er. Meva’er. Not the same thing. Meva’er is meva’er. I mean that it’s a different root. No, I mean that it’s a different root. Ahh. There’s a word for fire. Fire means sreifa. One can say that the fire eats, one can say that it’s eish meva’er. One can say, one understands that it’s a fire.

Discussion on the Language “Bi’ur” — Does It Mean Fire?

Speaker 1: There’s a bi’ur that has nothing at all to do with fire. But it’s not certain that it’s a borrowed term, because usually destruction is through fire, one uses it also as a metaphor to be meva’er the yetzer hara. On the contrary, fire has a word for fire. Fire means sreifa. One can say that the fire eats, one can say that it’s eish meva’er, one can say, one understands that it’s a fire. So it seems to me, I need to check the dictionary, but as it seems to me.

One sees what one sees here. This is a third root, I say, it’s a third root. Meva’er, meva’er. A third word. Yes, bi’er v’shulachas be’ira, bi’er, there it means, could be it means that bi’er will mean that an animal eats, that’s a different meaning. It’s mechale, it eats, it’s mechale, yes. But one certainly sees here that the normal bi’ur is from burning, and one can’t do it on Shabbos, you can seek options what one can. One can in general, one learned, one will learn later, one hasn’t yet learned that one can give chametz to a non-Jew. One learned, there’s such a thing in Shulchan Aruch, and it didn’t occur here to anyone to do that, because it doesn’t go that way, one doesn’t do it.

Halacha 4: Teruma on Erev Shabbos

Speaker 1: Okay, what happens if one has teruma? We learned yesterday in the previous chapter that when one has teruma one shouldn’t be meva’er before the time, because as long as it can still be relevant to eat, one may not destroy kodashim. If one has many loaves of teruma. But here one must indeed, one may indeed, because it’s erev Shabbos, there’s no choice, because one can’t possibly eat so much on Yom Tov. For the time of bi’ur… one has many loaves of teruma, and he won’t be able to eat everything on Shabbos. He must burn it on erev Shabbos. He must burn it on erev Shabbos.

There’s a halacha that you shouldn’t think that when it’s going to burning anyway, then one may mix the pure teruma with impure teruma. Because on the way out, what do I care that it becomes impure now? He says, no, one should not mix pure teruma with impure and burn, rather burn pure by itself, one must burn separately the teruma, impure by itself. And even the uncertain by itself, if there’s a doubt whether impure or pure, one must also be stringent on that and not burn with definitely impure or with definitely pure, because you will either make impure in doubt the pure, or make impure the doubtful.

And he leaves from the pure enough to eat until four hours on Shabbos only. A little of the pure he leaves over to eat.

Innovation in “And He Leaves from the Pure”

The last thing doesn’t seem necessary to say, but one wants primarily to say the halacha that even at the time of being meva’er one shouldn’t… even though one may already be meva’er it. Perhaps for example, perhaps he means to say that when he has pure teruma or regular chullin he should leave differently than the pure teruma, to burn less, less than one leaves regular chullin. He’s teruma, he’s a kohen, he’s teruma. One doesn’t eat impure teruma. Impure teruma may not be eaten. He must eat the pure teruma.

And the point is, he only leaves over that much. Even from teruma he burns before Shabbos, and he only leaves over what he needs, just like other Jews. I think, perhaps he indeed means to say something of an innovation with the last words, leaves from the pure, that he should leave differently that the teruma should be… if one can preserve teruma, one tries to preserve it and not destroy it by eating. So if he has chullin or teruma to eat on Shabbos, he should eat on Shabbos the teruma.

Why do we say another Torah? This I say, not from the impure, because even from the pure he only leaves over as much as he needs.

Distinction Between Shabbos and Weekday

The halacha is however only Shabbos, because during the week one may indeed burn pure and impure teruma together, because during the week one burns already when it’s forbidden to eat. If it’s forbidden to eat, it’s already perhaps relevant to say that you’re making it forbidden to eat, but here, he ruins the teruma, it can’t now be eaten. Even though one burns it, one may not burn it together. Until here we learned what one does on erev Shabbos.

Halacha 5: Bedika After the Night — One Who Forgot and Didn’t Check

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, what happens in such a case? One who forgot, someone forgot, or he was intentional, and didn’t check on the night of the fourteenth. He was indeed fixed in a Mishna, a Midrash, what Rabbi so-and-so they learned, and he didn’t check on the night of the fourteenth. What does one do? This is the halacha, he checks on the fourteenth in the morning, one can check in the morning. If he didn’t check in the morning, meaning, check in the morning, the innovation is that lechatchila one shouldn’t push it off to the last minute, but when you remember you should do it. If he didn’t check in the morning, then one should at least do at the last minute at the time of bi’ur, when one must already burn it, one should do bedika and bi’ur at the same time.

What happens if he didn’t check at the time of bi’ur? It’s not simple that the mitzvas chachamim of checking chametz is a mitzva that was enacted on erev Yom Tov and it expired, rather the mitzva continues on. He checks during the festival, he should check on Yom Tov. The takanas chachamim continues, the mitzvas bedikas chametz continues as long as there’s still chametz.

If the festival passed and he didn’t check. So far, the entire Yom Tov passed and he didn’t check. You would think that now there’s no longer any reason to check chametz? There’s still a reason. Why? Because it’s chametz she’avar alav haPesach which we learned yesterday is assur b’hana’ah, he should now check to make sure that he doesn’t have chametz she’avar alav haPesach. Although the primary takanas chachamim was not to transgress bal yera’eh or shelo yochlu, this is already a bedika not to stumble in the issur d’rabbanan, the penalty of chametz she’avar alav haPesach, but no difference, the obligation of bedika continues. In order to be meva’er what he finds from chametz she’avar alav haPesach lest he derive benefit from it.

Halacha 6: The Blessing on Bedikas Chametz

Speaker 1: Very good. And the Rambam is going to tell us that there’s a distinction, the bedika is not the same mitzvas bedikas chametz, but the last one. It’s a different type of bedikas chametz, the last one. If the entire Yom Tov has already passed, the bedika is not a stringency in the essence of bal yera’eh or lo sochlu chametz, it’s a stringency in something else. He’s going to tell us how the distinction comes out. The Rambam says, regarding a blessing comes out a distinction.

The Law of Blessing on Bedika

The Rambam says thus, first he tells us, the law one makes a blessing. He says, when one checks chametz on the night of the fourteenth, or on the day of the fourteenth, or during the festival, one of the three options, not options lechatchila is the night of the fourteenth, but whenever one checks chametz, even if one checks already after the time of takanas chachamim, one makes the blessing before he begins to check, one makes the blessing, as with all blessings it’s beforehand, one says Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam, asher kidshanu b’mitzvosav v’tzivanu, al bi’ur chametz, as we’ve already learned several times that “asher kidshanu b’mitzvosav v’tzivanu” one says also even on a d’rabbanan, “al bi’ur chametz”.

And after he says the blessing he checks and searches in all the places where they bring in chametz as we explained. Interesting that his length is again “checks and searches”, as if he means to innovate again that you should remember that one makes a blessing over la’asiyasan. Beforehand, yes. He says first “before he begins to check”, and then he says again “and he checks and searches”. Okay, he states the halacha very many times.

And One Who Checks After the Festival Doesn’t Bless

English Translation

And the law that one makes a blessing before any bedikah (search), you would think that it should also apply to the last one, what was said even if Yom Tov has passed. He says, no, “and one who checks after the festival does not make a blessing”. Then he doesn’t make the blessing, because it’s not the same mitzvah. One cannot say that the mitzvah is “al bi’ur chametz” (on the removal of chametz). It’s a different type of takanas chachamim (rabbinic enactment) that one should even then check for the prohibition of chametz she’avar alav haPesach (chametz over which Pesach has passed).

The point is, he’s only going to transgress, it’s only a d’rabbanan (rabbinic prohibition). And it seems that there is a d’rabbanan, just as there is a mid’rabbanan (rabbinic requirement) that one must be meva’er (remove) chametz in order not to transgress a biblical prohibition, so too there is a mid’rabbanan, like the same idea, that one should not leave over chametz that one will transgress after Pesach on chametz she’avar alav haPesach. But that is already a new mitzvah, it’s not essentially the same mitzvah of bi’ur chametz. It’s a different mitzvah. Also, this isn’t such a nice Jew, you transgressed, and it’s like a knas (penalty), not a knas, but the essential law is a knas, the essential law of chametz she’avar alav haPesach.

Discussion: Why Doesn’t One Make a Blessing After the Festival?

Speaker 1: Yes, I don’t know what the difference is, but because there is a difference, I want to go further, I don’t want to make a bi’ur chametz, the halachah isn’t so simple to me.

In practice, there is a mitzvah, one doesn’t have to, one has to, there is a mitzvah. The mitzvah of bedikas chametz is leil arba’ah asar (the night of the fourteenth). But they said that as long as one hasn’t yet checked, there is still the obligation of bedikah. That one must check even after the festival is a new takanah. And on this takanah they didn’t institute a blessing.

Speaker 2: Why not?

Speaker 1: Because it’s a different type of bedikah, it’s a geder (category) in the knas of… How does it say that they didn’t institute a blessing? How does it say? Who told him? Why? Perhaps they did?

Speaker 2: Because when a person doesn’t eat something that was made on Shabbos, he must wait kedei she’ya’asu (the time it takes to make it), he doesn’t make a blessing on the rabbinic prohibition. It’s a different type of rabbinic prohibition.

Speaker 1: By the way, because one doesn’t make a pruzbul, the rabbis don’t make a blessing. But that’s also not a positive mitzvah. The Rambam says it’s a mitzvah. That one may not eat chametz she’avar alav haPesach goes so far that one must even search for it. Nu, there is a mitzvah, very good. There is a positive mitzvah, the rabbis come and tell him, “Reb Yid, do me a favor, do a mitzvah, check for chametz.” Why shouldn’t one make a blessing on this mitzvah? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Speaker 2: Yes, but the mitzvah of bedikas chametz is a chumra (stringency) in…

Speaker 1: Another thing, there are two mitzvos. It’s a chumra in the knas. On that they didn’t make a blessing. Because they didn’t make a blessing on every takanas chametz, but on every takanas chametz there is a blessing.

Speaker 2: Certainly yes, certainly.

Speaker 1: In general, yes.

Speaker 2: The answer is in general, yes, yes.

Speaker 1: Why not? This is the same takanos chachamim on which there is no pressure. I don’t know here, there isn’t. Let it start to tell.

Speaker 2: Yes, tell me one thing that one does with the rabbis, a positive mitzvah that one must do, and one doesn’t make a blessing on it. Tell me one.

Speaker 1: I need to think.

Speaker 2: Ah, not so easy to think, huh?

Speaker 1: I don’t understand. If you are mekadesh a woman al menas (on condition), that you don’t understand that the woman has proper kiddushin.

Speaker 2: Look, when you don’t have an answer, a question, say it, I have a question.

Speaker 1: The mitzvah of bi’ur chametz is a serious mitzvah that makes sense. It’s a seyag (fence) for a great sin of bal yera’eh (the prohibition of having chametz visible), it’s a chumra of Pesach. This is something weak. One says that if there wouldn’t have been initially a law of bedikah, one wouldn’t have instituted the law of bedikah. You haven’t yet checked.

By the way, it doesn’t say in the Gemara, why am I saying this? The Divrei Rabbeinu, the Rambam, Rav Kedei Chemed, Maggid Mishneh.

Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam unfortunately was mechadesh the distinction. No blessing means no blessing.

Speaker 1: Yes, it says explicitly in the Gemara that one checks after the festival. So it says, in the same place where it says that one makes bedikah before, it says that one makes bedikah after. But the mitzvah of bi’ur chametz is not a law.

Speaker 2: You decided? You mean in Mishneh Torah. It’s not a law in the knas.

Speaker 1: I don’t know what you want. The law in the knas is such a small detail of a d’rabbanan, which has such types of small d’rabbanans that never made a chiddush. The entire bedikas chametz is a small detail d’rabbanan.

Speaker 2: If there wouldn’t be a blessing, he would say on this also that.

Speaker 1: I don’t know what you want. No, it’s usually a seyag for biblical laws, and it’s a serious foundation d’rabbanan, and on that they instituted a blessing.

Ma’aseh Nashim: Placing Ten Pieces Before Bedikah

Speaker 1: It doesn’t make sense, and if it would have said in the Gemara, it would have said something like, okay, what doesn’t one need to institute when it doesn’t say. The Rambam concluded that it cannot be that there is a blessing on this. Why can’t it be? It certainly can be. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be able to be. He doesn’t reserve the blessing either. A blessing has no problem.

A pleasure. I’m going to do a mitzvah d’rabbanan? You’re a fool. So? So, so, so in order to be able to make the bedikah and the holy things, like placing ten pieces. This is a ma’aseh (practice), and indeed the women do it, and it goes with him. U’chedivrav ke’eino, let’s say in vain al metzi’as chametz (on finding chametz), v’lo bedikah (and not checking), one doesn’t find, so it’s good, it’s not a problem.

The person did, he was concerned about a berachah levatala (blessing in vain), because he doesn’t find chametz. One doesn’t need to find chametz, one needs to search for chametz. Okay, ma’aseh nashim (women’s practice) is not a bad thing.

Speaker 2: You said earlier about Rebbe Yehudah HaKadosh, that the women have a high level, the women of talmidei chachamim.

Speaker 1: Continue.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: That they held that it would be a berachah levatala is indeed interesting, because it could be that they held that the blessing must be on a positive and not on a negative?

Speaker 2: No difference, the positive is the search. If a person knows that he has no chametz at all in his house, does he make a blessing on not having? It’s a bit difficult, because bi’ur chametz is a requirement.

Speaker 1: No, he must check certainly, except for a place where one doesn’t bring in chametz.

Speaker 2: This is the ma’aseh nashim, that one should… For example, if a person knows that he has no chametz at all. He just moved into a new house, he was never there. He doesn’t need to make bedikas chametz, this person. That person is exempt, no problem.

So, the ma’aseh nashim took it a step forward, and if so, perhaps in my house there should be a place where one doesn’t bring in chametz. What does it mean, the room that you already cleaned?

Speaker 1: I already cleaned, I already cleaned, I already cleaned.

Speaker 2: But one knows everything, one maintains the presumption of chametz. The houses, what is it like under the houses, which is already a week or two before Pesach, one forbids with a severe ban for the children to bring in chametz, it’s indeed a question whether one can make bedikas chametz. But it doesn’t help to place pieces to search. But it becomes required to place.

But now, in the minute that one placed, you now have an obligation of bedikah. One doesn’t place it oneself. Usually one takes someone, a child to place, and so technically, from the perspective of the father, there is an obligation of bedikah. He doesn’t know where the child placed it.

But it’s not really, people place themselves also. Because one won’t give a child to place, one will place oneself.

Speaker 1: I would say that when the child places, it makes a bit more sense, because you can say that then there is a legitimate obligation of bedikah.

Speaker 2: Yes, you made it, it’s fake. It doesn’t concern me, but in practice do you need to check now. Now when it’s leil yud daled, is there on you an obligation of bedikah? Yes, there is on you an obligation of bedikah, because your child hid chametz.

In any case, the question I asked that one cleans, I mean that it’s a fake question, because this is the reality, to make sure. You can convince yourself, perhaps one will forget to clean one place? There’s no difference if one forgot. Bedikas chametz is the end of the entire process of being bodek chametz, and then one makes the blessing. One has already begun being bodek chametz from the fifteenth of Shevat. And now one finishes the entire long process with an act of bedikah. So it is practically.

Speaker 1: I would say differently. I would say that bedikas chametz means making sure, not being sure. You say I’m sure, you’re not sure, the Chachamim say you’re not sure. As long as you haven’t checked you’re not sure. It’s true, there is always chametz almost by bedikas chametz. This is the truth. Because one finds some chemical, some thing that…

Speaker 2: No, the concern of chametz is already not there, but one finds things that the wife doesn’t always know if one needs to be concerned.

Speaker 1: The point is that one cannot be sure. This is what bedikas chametz means, that every time a person can say I don’t have.

Speaker 2: Certainly, if you think that you have, the Chachamim wouldn’t have needed to institute bedikas chametz. The bedikas chametz was made initially for the one who thinks he doesn’t have.

What you’re saying is also only a question of the men who help, but the men who sit with their feet up, until now only their wife has done the takanas chachamim. But there is a takanas chachamim of bedikas chametz, which also the husband should do in it. Nashim mitros, nashim, we learned earlier, nashim should do in it. And already I don’t make the blessing, like everything that the husband does, because like the order of the world that the husband does…

Speaker 1: Poor thing, she already works a whole month.

Speaker 2: Show me that your wife goes around with the candle and makes the blessing.

Speaker 1: The candle certainly goes around, the blessing is made by one who is yotzei for everyone.

Speaker 2: I don’t know what the halachah is. Don’t make a candle. The candle is also some kind of zecher lechurban (remembrance of the destruction). It doesn’t hold anything. One must stop the candle.

Speaker 1: No, flashlight.

Speaker 2: Already. Okay.

Hasagas HaRa’avad: Distinction Between Terumah and Chullin on Shabbos Erev Pesach

Speaker 1: The Ra’avad says further, I’m sure that the feather with the spoon I don’t know what is for. Does the Ra’avad have something on the blessing of after the festival has passed?

Speaker 2: No, the Ra’avad has a disagreement on the previous halachah.

Speaker 1: Yes, something he disagrees.

Speaker 2: No, the Ra’avad has a disagreement on the terumah. I didn’t catch exactly there.

Speaker 1: On Shabbos?

Speaker 2: But one can indeed make bi’ur chametz on Shabbos. So it is yes, it’s today in the Rambam halachah gimmel. I’m not sure. I didn’t exactly understand what he means, but I didn’t exactly understand what he means.

Speaker 1: Ah, he only says the opposite, he argues on the halachah of the…

Speaker 2: So it seems to me. He argues on the halachah of… The Rambam that one may not leave over on Shabbos except what one will eat. What the Rambam makes a halachah, he says that the halachah is on terumah, but on chullin one may indeed leave over. What’s the difference? Because one can give it to other people. You will have more, one cannot give it to a non-Jew, you won’t give to a Jew either, only to a Kohen, the wife of a Kohen etc., but you cannot give the terumah to a second person. So terumah one must make with precision.

The halachah that the Rambam said that even on chullin one must make with precision, there is the Rif and others I saw an interesting note. The Rambam said lo badak Yom Tov harishon. The Taz says that on Yom Tov sheni shel galuyos (the second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora) one will be able to make bi’ur chametz. Interesting, because usually Yom Tov harishon means the first two days, one doesn’t mean according to Yom Tov harishon.

Okay, now one goes to learn about bitul chametz.

Bitul Chametz After Bedikah — Halachah Zayin

Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam says, when one finishes checking, when one finishes being bodek chametz it is thus: if one checked on the night of the fourteenth or on the day of the fourteenth before the sixth hour, then he is required to nullify all chametz that remains in his possession and he doesn’t see it. It means, perhaps there is still some chametz and he doesn’t see it, he should nullify it.

This is not the essential law of bitul from the Torah. This is not the bitul d’oraisa. The bitul d’oraisa is if there is. And we have already fulfilled with bedikah. But there is a new chumra, a new takanas chachamim, like a new hiddur (enhancement), I don’t know what you want.

It could be that the point is that the Chachamim didn’t want that because of their takanah there could come out a problem, yes? It means, because of the bedikah it will come out now that a person can specifically stumble. If he would have done as the Torah requires he wouldn’t have stumbled. A person is not obligated as much as he is obligated.

This is a new hiddur, a new hiddur which is again. But if it could come out that because of the obligation of bedikah, I remember, he’s going to go back to the desires of the year, that bitul is indeed a beginning on things that one doesn’t see. I mean that normal bitul is on what one does see, as I said last night. Here stands the new kedushah (holiness) that what one doesn’t see, one should nullify everything.

To me it’s something that one doesn’t see, there are two obligations mid’rabbanan, both are mid’rabbanan in my opinion. First of all, that one should check and secondly, that one should nullify even after the bedikah. There are such levels of chumros, like hiddurim.

Why Must One Say Bitul Orally?

But it’s interesting to me, why? Bitul when one doesn’t say it out loud, it is indeed like dust of the earth, because he made bedikah, perhaps something remained. It is indeed batel (nullified) to him, he doesn’t want it, it is indeed like dust of the earth to him. But he must say it, it seems.

The Rambam says and he should say all chametz that is in my possession that I didn’t see and didn’t know, all chametz that is still there, that I didn’t see and didn’t know, because what I saw and knew I already fulfilled bi’ur chametz. Behold it is nullified and behold it is like dust.

Yomar (he should say) can already mean yomar belibo (he should say in his heart), because… This is the first time that the Rambam says v’yomar, true? Here suddenly it says v’yomar. V’yomar… It could be that it’s the takanos chachamim.

Ah, it could be that the point is thus: As long as he still had an obligation of bedikah, he didn’t nullify, because he wanted to be able to do bedikah. So because of this is v’yomar… Yes? Because he didn’t really nullify in his heart until now, because he still wanted to be able to do bedikah. I don’t know clearly.

The Text of the Bitul

We say “kol chamira vachamia” (all leaven and leavened bread). The Rambam says “kol chametz” (all chametz). “Kol chametz” includes all types of chametz, as we learned in the Rambam that chametz and se’or (leaven) are the same type of thing, it’s the same prohibition. “Kol chametz” means everything, everything should be… The Rambam says yes, one should say chametz and se’or, “chamira vachamia”. I don’t know why. Even the Rambam says that “chamira” in Aramaic certainly also means se’or. In short, it doesn’t cost money to say another word.

Speaker 1: I don’t say. I never have se’or in my house, so in general the thing is not relevant.

Speaker 2: Do you ever have se’or at home?

Speaker 1: There is the… Usually yeast is chemicals, but those who make sourdough do indeed have real se’or.

Speaker 2: Okay. Already.

Bitul After the Sixth Hour — Continuation of Halachah Zayin

Speaker 2: But, the Rambam says further, this is when one checks at their time. But when one checks from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward, then he is not required to nullify. Why? Then… He cannot nullify, but he says “he is not required to nullify”. He doesn’t have what to nullify. Why? Because the bitul doesn’t work anymore. He can say until tomorrow, it is already “for it is not in his possession”, it is already not in his possession.

It says that the Chachamim… The Gemara says that the Chachamim took away and made it as if it is not in his possession. Not the Chachamim, the Torah, because he doesn’t have the benefit. “For it is already forbidden in benefit”. It became forbidden in benefit.

Ownership and Benefit

Interesting. This means, ownership has to do with that he can use it in his house? Isn’t ownership a thing in itself?

Speaker 1: No, that’s what ownership means.

Speaker 2: Okay. So, “that is already forbidden in benefit,” he has no right whatsoever, he has no advantage from having it, therefore bittul also doesn’t help. The Torah has taken it away from him.

Speaker 1: Yes, it’s simply correct, it’s a beautiful way of learning.

Speaker 2: That’s how it looks. He brings from below that there is a bit of a dispute about this, and he says indeed

The Rambam’s Words: “It is not in his possession” but “the verse made it as if it were in his possession”

Therefore, if he did not nullify before the sixth hour, and from the sixth hour onward he found chametz, for behold you say that he found chametz. That he indeed thought about it, and it was in his heart. If he hadn’t known about it at all, perhaps it would have been an automatic bittul. It simply seems that the “vayomer” is just such a ritual, a custom, it’s not… But “and forgot it at the time of destruction and did not destroy it,” when he was destroying he forgot about that piece. So bittul wasn’t there because it was in his heart, and no destruction was there. So the person is stuck, poor thing, he is transgressing bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, he is transgressing two negative commandments, for he neither destroyed nor nullified.

Ah, should he now nullify? And behold bittul does not help him at all, because it is not in his possession. And the verse made it… And ah, you might think, ah, it’s not in his possession, so he’s not transgressing bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. But no, stringently it is yes. And the verse made it as if it were in his possession to obligate him in bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.

A Conceptual Investigation: Is chametz on Pesach truly “not his”?

Why? How do we know that the verse? It says in the Torah “lo yera’eh,” and if every time something is forbidden in benefit he is never transgressing, how can a Jew transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei? Rather what, the verse says it is yours.

What does it mean it is yours? The gentile ate it for his evening meal. Can I not buy it? No, I cannot buy it, it’s not mine. Do you understand?

So, but you could say that bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei could have been interpreted that it’s not yours, but in practice it is seen and found. Seen and found, it’s not yours, but it’s lying in your place.

Because you would have thought, we’re going to learn the next chapter four, they’re going to learn the principle of bal yera’eh, we’ll see that the Sages said that something that is not yours you don’t transgress bal yera’eh. Bal yera’eh doesn’t mean the practical seeing. They derived it from the verse. On the contrary, chametz of others in his possession he doesn’t transgress, but not in his possession of others he does transgress.

If the Sages had left it to interpret the plain meaning of Scripture, it would have been said as I say, that it is seen or found. But no, it says that it may not be in your possession. It says it’s not in his possession, but the verse made it as if it were in his possession.

But bittul, ah, now can I nullify it? No, you cannot. Why not? Because it’s not yours. So he’s still transgressing? Yes. Do you understand?

Other Examples: Idolatry

There are such laws also for example regarding, let’s say, idolatry is “crushed to smithereens,” but it’s still enough that you should transgress on it. Okay, not even relevant.

Discussion: Is idolatry the same law?

Further, says the Rambam, “crushed to smithereens” the process isn’t the same law of not his. Seemingly idolatry should also be.

Well, the Gemara says more than one thing. Well, what does the Gemara say? Things that are not in a person’s possession and the verse made them as if in his possession, chametz on Pesach, and there are other things, no? It’s not the same thing?

The Ra’avad there is a dispute. I just need to mention the Ra’avad that I mentioned earlier when we looked through, that the Ra’avad says that the Rambam says from the sixth hour onward he transgresses. Says the Ra’avad, that means, it implies that the Rambam holds that there is bal yera’eh on erev Pesach, he’s not there. There’s the other one, the lashon of the chametz, the other one. There’s tashbitu. Or ach bayom harishon according to the plain meaning in the Gemara.

There are two things: there’s a positive commandment obligation, which is a verse of tashbitu, and there’s a prohibition to eat chametz, but there’s no prohibition of bal yera’eh.

Says the Rav z”l, that… but bal yera’eh bal yimatzei is stated after the words seven days. It explicitly says that it’s only there then. And to this the Ra’avad says what? That… he argues on this. One doesn’t transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.

Yes, the Maggid Mishneh argues that the Rambam agrees, so says the Maggid Mishneh, that the Maggid Mishneh also agrees that one doesn’t transgress bal yera’eh. Does he only mean to say tashbitu?

Others say no, that the Rambam indeed argues, and he indeed holds that yes there is bal yera’eh, because it’s not implied in the Gemara in certain places. So there’s a dispute. And the Rambam held that it must make sense. Once the Sages forbade from erev after midday, then one already counts the seven days, like seven days with a half day.

How did he learn from the verse? But so, I just want to see… how is the… he doesn’t bring the… okay, I won’t speak about it now. Okay.

The Rambam’s Words: Finding chametz on Yom Tov — Cover it with a vessel

And therefore, what must he do? And he is obligated to destroy at any time he finds it. When he finds the chametz, he must destroy it. That’s erev Pesach. And on Yom Tov itself, if he finds it on Yom Tov, he can no longer destroy it. On a Yom Tov, that is on a Yom Tov he finds it, must destroy it. If on a Yom Tov he finds it, can destroy it. Then one can already destroy it, and Rabbeinu Menachem in his place says that it’s muktzeh, as I thought.

But it could be that it says he covers it, and not he puts it in a vessel. Ah, he covers it until evening, and destroys it.

Discussion: Why not destroy on Yom Tov?

But also, one cannot destroy why, because it’s a fire not for need. What is the word? Even though from that which is permitted for need is permitted not for need?

Another question, right? Burning I had indeed nullified not for need.

You say a good thing. It seems it doesn’t go that far. As we learned several times in the laws of Yom Tov, that burning not for need only means to say for the need of the body. For the need of… but also further for the need of the body, not a need of another type of thing. Right? So because we say need for a mitzvah?

Okay, it’s not a need. The person has no need, a mitzvah is a mitzvah. Right. Need to do a mitzvah, but need means to say a need of the body, a need of the person, similar to food.

The Rambam’s Words: Chametz of hekdesh

And if it’s of hekdesh, if the chametz is chametz of hekdesh, on this there is also, as we learned regarding terumah, there is also an obligation of searching and destroying that the Sages made on this. But bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei one doesn’t transgress on this.

No, one does transgress yes, but that’s different, of an animal that was grazing of others and of the Most High, itself there isn’t the law comes in. No, he doesn’t say that, he only says one says “because all holy things we heard,” because one always has fear of me’ilah, and it seems here the word is “lest he come to eat it,” because if the word is a concern in bal yera’eh…

Yes, I said, the covering it with a vessel is always… is this all a practical thing. Ah, it doesn’t become yours, it’s just a fence that one shouldn’t eat it. When he asks the question, see that it’s “things not for need a thousand not,” I know. But what about of the Most High?

No, the truth is correct, he is correct, one indeed doesn’t need to be stringent also not, so he brings. But he means to say, the covering it with a vessel has nothing to do with bal yera’eh. Covering it with a vessel is a practical thing, bal yera’eh he’s stuck now. Poor thing, the Jew is transgressing, whatever, by accident, I don’t know what he calls it, he’s transgressing now, because he cannot burn on Yom Tov, and that’s it, good day.

But the novelty here is, you shouldn’t say that even by hekdesh perhaps someone will forget that it’s hekdesh. It’s hekdesh and everyone has fear of… no, hekdesh everyone has fear. It’s a terror of me’ilah. Exactly, exactly, hekdesh doesn’t come up by you either. Because that’s another topic, it’s not related to this. That’s how it looks.

The Rambam’s Words: One who went out for a mitzvah matter or to a mitzvah meal

And now we’re going to learn about how much one must exert oneself essentially to return home in order to fulfill the mitzvah of searching for chametz. Right? Yes. Similar laws, similar laws of prayer, right? They learned in other places. Up to a mil, up to three mil, or what will be. Yes, here are other principles, but basically the same question. Right? Okay.

One who left his house before the time of destruction. It depends. I’m going to have three types of situations. If he went for a mitzvah, or to eat at a mitzvah meal, which is also somewhat of a mitzvah. At an engagement or wedding meal. See, here we see that it’s a mitzvah to eat at an engagement meal. I don’t know about giving a piece of kugel afterward. Yes, but I don’t know if it’s at an engagement meal, it’s also somewhat of a mitzvah.

And he remembered that he has chametz in his house, he remembered, how? If he can return and destroy and return to his mitzvah, if he can do both, one must do both. He should return, he should go back. And if not, if one cannot do both, perhaps it has to do with the law of one engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah? So there’s a way to do it. It’s only a Torah law he must certainly do, he must certainly nullify in his heart. But the rabbinic commandment of destroying chametz, since he is now already engaged in a mitzvah, he doesn’t need to go back if he cannot, if with this he will nullify his part of the mitzvah meal.

Discussion: What does “mitzvah meal” mean?

I imagine we’re also speaking in a manner that his participation adds to the joy. If you’re a celebration of a thousand people, just eating, I don’t know what a mitzvah meal means. Just that this is part of the celebration. A celebration is only when there are people. Each person is part of the celebration.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. You’re making a celebration? You need to say, hello, don’t say before the people here that not everyone is part of the celebration.

No, on the contrary, I want to take away from the pressure. You were at the first course, you went home at the second course because you didn’t destroy chametz. I say, it could be we’re speaking in a manner when his participation makes the celebration. Okay.

And if not, he should nullify in his heart, he should nullify in his heart.

The Rambam’s Words: One who went out to save from the hand of gentiles

What happens when it’s a much greater mitzvah? One who went out to save from the hand of gentiles. If he can, the first level is such a type of mitzvah, which is a mitzvah meal. It’s not a mitzvah itself, it’s a mitzvah, but it’s a mitzvah meal, a bit of a mitzvah. He’s not doing the mitzvah, he’s not himself the groom, no difference. The meal isn’t the mitzvah, the meal is the party of it. So he should go home if he can. If he can.

But one who went out said an even greater mitzvah, it’s a life-threatening situation. He went to rescue from the military, it’s already gone into the military.

Law 11 (continued) – One who went out to save / One who went out for his own need

The Rambam’s words: One who went out to save from the army and from the river and from bandits and from fire and from collapse – he need not return. One who went out for his own need and remembered that he has chametz in his house – he should return immediately.

Yes, not saving the Jews from conscription, that’s a sin. We’re speaking of saving from the gentile army from the military that comes, or from the river, or he went to save from the army and from the river and from bandits and from fire and from collapse, from the troubles that come upon Jews, and one must save Jews. Then it seems here he doesn’t need to think about whether he can return. He should focus on the… as we see many times that by life-threatening situations one says, don’t worry now about mitzvot. Don’t think that it’s perhaps lashon hara. He should nullify in his heart and that’s enough, he doesn’t need to worry now.

But one who went out for his own need, if he went for his own need, not for a mitzvah, and he remembered that he has chametz in his house, then there’s always the obligation that even for the rabbinic enactments of searching for chametz, he should return immediately, he must go back.

The measure of a ke’beitzah for returning

But says the Rambam, in this there’s a measure, this is only when there’s truly a significant amount of chametz. And how much does he return for, for how much chametz must he go back? On this the law is up to a ke’beitzah. If there’s a ke’beitzah of chametz in his house, for this he must go back to destroy the chametz. Even if he cannot, he must go himself. Just a party, in other words, for his own need, which isn’t a mitzvah party, he must go home.

But if it was less than a ke’beitzah, if it’s less than a ke’beitzah, one knows the opinion. It’s somewhat of a new measure, they haven’t learned until now of a measure of a ke’beitzah. There is, the measure was a kezayit, the prohibition measure is a kezayit. But seemingly the novelty is, that the Sages who decreed perhaps lest he come to eat it, or for whatever reasons, they didn’t decree so far that it’s less than a ke’beitzah. It’s actually interesting. Why? A kezayit is the prohibition of a kezayit. Yes, but the chametz wasn’t sustaining. But he’s going to nullify it. We’re speaking, right. And this is only rabbinic. The rabbis didn’t make on a… but if he would have less than that, he can nullify it. Here we also see that one can nullify chametz that is known, chametz that he knows is lying somewhere and it’s nullified.

Law 10 – One who left his dough rolled up

Okay, a similar law. One who left his dough rolled up in his house and went out, he kneaded dough and he went out from home, and he remembered when he already went out, and he’s already sitting by his rabbi at a class, but he remembers that it’s already going to be eighteen minutes, bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Not eighteen minutes, obviously, because that doesn’t make sense. Obviously, we’re speaking here of true chametz, not of eighteen minutes which is only like a concern and one is concerned for a decree. Okay, but it will become chametz here. The Gemara has a measure, the Mishnah has a measure. One can check, it’s not the measure of time, it’s a measure of… he knows what chametz means, not like today when we don’t know what chametz means.

If he fears lest it become chametz before he comes, he fears that it will become chametz before he comes, before he arrives home, he should nullify in his heart before it becomes chametz. We’re speaking here erev Pesach when it’s already… or on Pesach. But before it’s complete chametz, he can still nullify it, because this is in… in general there’s an obligation of a word, there’s no difference. The previous one also isn’t to nullify seemingly, because they learned that one must nullify even if one nullified.

But the word is that he’s transgressing, he must run faster the person, because every minute he’s transgressing a negative commandment. It’s not lashes, because it’s without an action, but he’s transgressing a negative commandment. The previous one is transgressing a negative commandment, one must be careful with the rabbis if it’s such a situation that he might come to eat it. But the second one wants to actually run and nullify.

I even saw he asks a question, how can it be that on Yom Tov let the tables destroy, he’s going to save a Jew from being a sinner. As we see regarding saving a life, one may take out… in short, not clear.

Let’s go further.

Law 11 (continued) – How is chametz destroyed

How is chametz destroyed… let’s finish. Until here we’ve seen when we need to show. What is the definition of destroying chametz?

Says the Rambam thus: How is chametz destroyed? Does one burn it? Or through burning? Or crumble it and throw it to the wind? Or through breaking into small pieces? How? To throw to the wind? Or throw it to the sea. It’s both, crumble and throw to the wind, that’s one together. But the sea does it small further. But throwing in the sea only helps for weak, or soft chametz that the sea will crumble. Oh, hard chametz, the sea does not cut it quickly, the sea won’t… ultimately the sea will crumble everything, but we’re speaking until Pesach. But the right time it must happen. Behold he crumbles it and then throws to the sea. So also by throwing to the sea there’s the obligation of crumbling. All these things it’s simple that it should become truly, destruction means that it should become gone. It should become tiny pieces and hidden. A whole loaf one will throw in the sea, doesn’t help, one must then also break it.

Law 11 (continued) – Chametz upon which a collapse fell

Says the Rambam further, Chametz upon which a collapse fell, if a wall fell on chametz, and there is found upon it earth of three tefachim or more, if it’s more than three tefachim, buried, behold it is as if destroyed means it’s as if destroyed. It seems that buried also means like a form of destroying chametz. But even if it’s destroyed, it’s still visible in his possession. But he must nullify in his heart if the sixth hour has not yet entered.

Discussion: Why does one need bittul if it’s as if destroyed?

What is really the explanation? If we say “it is as if it’s destroyed,” ah, because it can be uncovered. It can be explained. It can indeed be uncovered. Why does one need to nullify it? Because it’s only “as if destroyed.” I don’t know. I think somewhere in the Gemara because it can be uncovered. No, because a dog will uncover it, or what? Not clear.

And what does the nullification help then? Nullification only helps for the Torah prohibition. If it’s practical, it becomes forbidden at the sixth hour. Yes, I understand that, because nullification can never help us after the sixth hour. That I understand. I’m asking why there needs to be nullification. If it’s destroyed, it’s destroyed. You say it helps, why? But practically it can be destroyed. It’s not the best form of destruction. Let’s say the prohibition is even if there are very slim chances. Nullified is nullified. The discarding from rabbinic law doesn’t apply, because it’s under the ground.

Rather what? You say that it’s a problem, one goes, it will be uncovered and one will actually eat it, then nullification doesn’t help. Nullification doesn’t help for “not seen and not eaten.” Never. Nullification only helps for the Torah prohibition. Okay, so the nullification… Nullification is not a solution that helps for rabbinic prohibitions.

So he says that merely nullification in the heart means as if you have fulfilled the commandment of destroying. You don’t need to now dig up and destroy. It comes to address the rabbinic enactment of destroying chametz, and to address not transgressing the Torah prohibition, but in practice it does lie in his possession. Yes, it only comes to address the rabbinic law, so you say the opposite. Yes, because usually “crumbled and scattered by the wind” is indeed nullified, it’s all tiny pieces, it disappears. This doesn’t disappear, it still lies in his possession. That’s the question. I actually see both explanations here, okay.

In short, in general, when we look inside we see that we’re not the first ones who don’t know, and only when one learns does one think that other people do know, and both don’t know. And when we do have explanations we also see that others have already thought of these explanations. Usually, almost always.

Law 12 – Gave it to a Non-Jew / Burned it Before the Sixth Hour

Further, gave it to a non-Jew, where he states such a law, if a person gave chametz to a non-Jew, gave it to a non-Jew before the sixth hour, he doesn’t need to destroy it, because it’s already not his chametz. We learn later that it means it’s no longer your chametz, “lo yera’eh v’lo yimatzei” applies to your chametz.

If he burned it before the sixth hour? No, he says, one may benefit from the burning. Just as one burns it before the sixth hour, he is permitted to benefit from its coals during Pesach, one may benefit from the fire, because the fire is no longer the same thing.

But from the sixth hour onward, since it’s forbidden to benefit from, the chametz has already become forbidden to benefit from, so also the fire means that he has benefit from chametz. The fire only came about through chametz, so he has benefit from chametz. He shall not heat the oven or the stove with it, he should not use it for heating, and he shall not bake with it and he shall not cook with it.

And the stringency goes so far, if he baked, if he did indeed transgress and baked, the benefit that he had is not gone, rather the benefit has as if entered into the food, the bread or the cooked dish is forbidden to benefit from. And likewise its coals, even if from the bread there became coals, from the bread or cooked dish there became coals, it’s also forbidden to benefit from, one must go and burn it after it was made with benefit.

Interesting. So, that one may not benefit during the act when one burns it I understand, but it turns out that the result of the burning has also become the problem. Okay.

—

Conclusion of Chapter 3

We have finished which chapter? The third chapter in the Laws of Chametz, which teaches the details of when and how one must perform the search and destruction of chametz. Wonderful. Already ready for Pesach almost. Wonderful. Okay.