Peninei Halakha

Languages
Asset 4

Peninei Halakha

Peninei Halakha
Asset 4
Join the daily Halakha study with Peninei Halakha. Start a new book – Peninei Halakha: Prayer – on Sunday, 25.1.
Peninei Halakha

    01. The Time for Bedikat Ḥametz

    As we learned in the previous chapter, one who possesses ḥametz on Pesaḥ transgresses two prohibitions: “no ḥametz of yours shall be seen” (Shemot 13:7), and “there shall be no se’or found in your homes” (ibid. 12:19). In order not to violate these Torah prohibitions, one must eliminate all ḥametz from his possession. According to the Torah, it is possible to dispose of the ḥametz by nullifying it verbally, because when one nullifies the ḥametz in his possession, it becomes like dust, no longer belonging to him, and consequently, it does not cause him to transgress the prohibition of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.

    Nonetheless, the Sages ruled that we must not rely on this nullification (bitul) alone; rather, one must also physically remove ḥametz from his possession, for two reasons: First, they feared that people would nullify ḥametz insincerely, intending to benefit from it after Pesaḥ, and this would result in their transgressing the prohibition of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Second, they feared that after nullifying his ḥametz, one might see an enticing piece of pastry and eat it, forgetting that it is Pesaḥ. The Sages therefore ordained that, in addition to bitul ḥametz, one must search out ḥametz in order to eliminate it from his possession.

    At first glance, the appropriate time for bedikat ḥametz should be just before midday on the day of the 14th of Nisan, the deadline for removing ḥametz. However, the Sages ordained that we search for ḥametz at nightfall of the 14th, because during the day people are busy with their affairs, and if one waits until the day of the 14th to do bedikat ḥametz he is liable to forget it altogether. Furthermore, candlelight is especially effective for checking the cracks and crevices of the house. But during the day, candles do not illuminate well, since sunlight prevents the eye from focusing on the weaker light of the candle. Therefore, the Sages instituted bedikat ḥametz at nightfall of the 14th, because at night, people are usually at home and candlelight is effective at this time (SAH 431:5).

    Since people normally pray Ma’ariv at the beginning of the night, they should do so prior to the bedika, as a more frequent mitzva takes precedence. They should then proceed quickly to bedikat ḥametz (MB 431:8). One who is accustomed to praying with a minyan later in the evening should search for ḥametz at tzeit ha-kokhavim (the appearance of three distinct stars) and then pray at his usual hour.

    The obligation to search for ḥametz rests upon the male head of the household, but if it is difficult for him to do so because he is weak or does not see well, he should appoint his wife or another adult family member to search in his stead. Regarding this mitzva there is no difference between men and women, and one should choose someone reliable to perform a bedika properly and responsibly (see AHS 437:7). If the head of household is capable of performing a proper bedika but is compelled to come home late that evening, he should appoint someone to perform the bedika in his stead at the regular time at the beginning of the night. If there is no one to perform the bedika in his home at the set time, then be-di’avad he should perform the search himself when he gets home.[1]

    [1]. Some have suggested that one who wishes to engage in the search himself should appoint one of his family members to search the house at the proper time and leave one room unchecked; when he returns later that night he can search the unchecked room. He should be sure to ask them to remind him to check the room when he returns, or if he does not return, to check the room themselves (Piskei Teshuvot 431:5). However, it seems to me that if there is someone in the house who can perform the search instead, it is better to appoint this person as a shali’aḥ to search the entire house at the set time. This issue is dependent upon a fundamental question: did the Sages decree that the bedika should be conducted specifically at the beginning of the night, or is the entire night acceptable for bedika since the candlelight is more visible at night, but in order to prevent a person from forgetting to check, they forbade working and eating before the bedika? According to most poskim, the primary time for the bedika is at the beginning of the night. This is the opinion of Taz, Pri Ḥadash, Gra, and SAH in 431:5. Conversely, Rema and Mekor Ḥayim maintain that the bedika can be done throughout the entire night. Thus, according to them, one may be more lenient about postponing the bedika as long as there is someone who will remind him to check later on. I have written in accordance with the view of most poskim, and in the next section, I have written that it is proper to refrain from eating even casually once the time for bedikat ḥametz has arrived, so as not to delay the bedika.

    02. Activities Rabbinically Forbidden before Bedikat Ḥametz

    The Sages prohibited starting a task or a meal during the half hour before the time of bedikat ḥametz, out of concern that one might become caught up in these activities and forget to search for ḥametz. It is permitted, however, to snack on fruit or pastry, or to perform light work that can be finished quickly.

    Once the time for bedika arrives, it is improper to start any sort of work or eat fruit, even as a quick snack, for it might impede the fulfillment of the mitzva at its proper time (BHL §431).

    One should not begin studying Torah once the time for bedikat ḥametz has arrived. If one began studying Torah beforehand, some poskim rule that he may continue studying (Beit Yosef), but according to many poskim, even in this situation it is best to stop studying at tzeit ha-kokhavim, in order to fulfill the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz at its proper time (MB 431:11; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 23).

    It is best not to cancel a regular, public Torah lecture at this time. Proceeding with the study will not cause participants to neglect the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz, for the search can be performed after the lesson, but canceling the lecture will result in the loss of group Torah study (SAH 431:9). After the lesson, it is good for the participants to remind each other to hurry and perform the bedikat ḥametz.

    03. The Berakha

    Before the bedika, one recites the berakha: “Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning bi’ur ḥametz” (“asher kideshanu be-mitzvotav ve-tzivanu al bi’ur ḥametz”). Though the actual bi’ur ḥametz will not take place until the following morning with the burning and nullification of ḥametz, we recite “al bi’ur ḥametz” before the search on the night of the 14th, because bedikat ḥametz is the first step in the process of eliminating ḥametz from the home.[2]

    One must not speak between the recitation of the berakha and the beginning of the bedika, and if at that point one spoke about matters unrelated to bedikat ḥametz, he disqualified that berakha and must recite another before beginning the bekida. If, however, one talks about unrelated matters after beginning the search, his berakha remains valid, for it applies to the part of the bedika that he already performed. Le-khatḥila one should not talk about unrelated matters during the bedika, so that one maintains focus on the task at hand (SA 432:1; MB ad loc. 5, 6).

    One who owns several houses must search them all. He recites the berakha before searching in the first location. He recites it only once, even if the houses are located a distance from one another.[3]

    If one must travel, and therefore performed bedikat ḥametz before the 14th of Nisan, even though his search is valid, he does not recite the berakha. One only recites the berakha over a search performed from the night of the 14th onward, because such a search is adjacent to bi’ur ḥametz. Any ḥametz found on the evening of the 14th will be destroyed the next morning. If one was unable to search on the evening of the 14th, and instead searched the following day, or during Pesaḥ, he recites the berakha, because he will immediately destroy any ḥametz he finds, and it is appropriate to recite “al bi’ur ḥametz” over such a search. (Rema 436:1 and BHL ad loc.; MB 435:5).[4]

    [2]. If one forgot to recite the berakha before the bedika and remembered while in the middle, as long as he has other areas to check, he may still recite the berakha. If he remembered after completing the bedika, some say that he should recite the berakha before burning the ḥametz on the day of the 14th (MA, Taz, and others; MB 432:4 is inclined to accept this view). Others maintain that the Sages instituted the berakha to be recited over the bedika and not on the burning, so if one forgot to recite the berakha by the end of the bedika, he has lost his opportunity to do so (Baḥ, SAH, and others). When there is uncertainty about whether to recite a berakha, we are lenient, so one should not recite the berakha. One should not recite a berakha on bitul ḥametz alone, as we do not recite berakhot on mere words or thoughts.

    [3]. The authorities disagree about this, as noted in MB 432:7. According to Pri Ḥadash and Ḥayei Adam, walking a far distance is considered a significant interruption, and he would have to make a new berakha. Conversely, according to Ḥok Yaakov and Ma’amar Mordechai, walking is not considered a significant interruption. This is also the opinion of Kaf Ha-ḥayim 432:22. When in doubt about whether or not to make a berakha, we are lenient. If a homeowner wants to search part of his house and wants to appoint someone else to search the rest of the house on his behalf, he should make sure that the appointee hears his berakha. Be-di’avad, if the appointee did not hear the berakha but it is hard for the homeowner to search the entire house, the appointee should perform the rest of the bedika without a berakha (MB 432:11).

    [4]. Indeed according to Ra’ah and Pri Ḥadash, one who is halakhically required to check should make a berakha, since the purpose of the bedika is to ensure that he does not violate bal yera’eh/bal yimatzei afterward; since the Sages decreed that one who leaves his house before the night of the 14th should check before he leaves, he should also make a berakha. According to Ritva and Baḥ, he should make the berakha as long as he checks within the thirty days before Pesaḥ. But Kol Bo and Rema (436:1) are of the opinion that the berakha is also on the burning that takes place the following morning. This is also the opinion of Gra, and seems to be the conclusion of MA, Taz, and others. If one is uncertain about the berakha, we are lenient, and this seems to be the opinion of BHL ad loc.

    Itur states that there are those who maintain that one must also make the berakha of “she-heḥeyanu” prior to the bedika, since it is a mitzva that comes periodically, and there are those who say not to recite this berakha. Rosh rules that one should not make this berakha, since the bedika is connected to the Pesaḥ holiday, when anyway he will recite she-heḥeyanu. SA does not even mention the idea of she-heḥeyanu on the bedika. However, some Aḥaronim suggest, as a nice custom, that one take a new fruit or new garment and recite she-heḥeyanu on it before the bedika (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 432:9).

    04. Places That Must Be Searched

    Any property owned by a Jew that might contain a kezayit of ḥametz must be searched. Therefore, the kitchen and the dining room where people eat must be searched, and any room, storage space, or porch where people sometimes bring ḥametz must also be searched (SA 433:3-4).

    Clothing closets that are not generally used during the course of a meal need not be searched. However, if there are children in the house, closets must be searched, because the children may have played in them while holding ḥametz or may have even hidden ḥametz in them. Closets that are too high for children to reach need not be searched.

    One must search cars and carrying cases into which he sometimes places food. Adults who generally do not put food in their pockets need not search them. However, the pockets of children must be searched. Garments that were washed and had their pockets emptied out beforehand need not be searched on the night of the 14th (see below, section 8). One who does not have a home does not recite the berakha when searching his car or pockets, for the Sages instituted saying a berakha only when searching a house (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 433:91).

    The stairwell of an apartment building or condominium is shared by all of the building’s occupants, and therefore they have a collective obligation to search it. In such a case, one of the occupants should be given the responsibility of performing bedikat ḥametz. Open yards need not be searched because we can reasonably assume that animals ate any ḥametz that might have been there. However, if there are alcoves in the yard that might contain ḥametz, they must be searched, because animals may not have crawled into them to eat the ḥametz. Likewise, if one knows for certain that there was ḥametz in his yard on the night of the 14th, he must search it, because he cannot be certain that animals will eat it by midday of the 14th (MB 433:27, citing Mekor Ḥayim). An enclosed porch, even if it opens into a yard, must be searched.

    Ownerless public domains need not be searched, for even if they contain ḥametz, no violation has been committed. This is because such ḥametz is not in the possession of any particular Jew, and the ḥametz prohibition only applies where ḥametz is in the possession of a Jew, and not in an ownerless domain (SA 445:3; MB ad loc. 18; garbage bins are discussed below, 5:5).

    05. The Candle and the Flashlight

    The Sages ordained that bedikat ḥametz be performed by candlelight, because candlelight is focused and effective for searching. Therefore, they ordained searching at night, because at night candlelight is more brilliant and does a good job of illuminating holes and crevices, where the essence of the search is carried out. During the day, sunlight makes the candle seem dimmer, so it is hard for the eye to focus on searching cracks and crevices by such weak light (Pesaḥim 8a).

    One may not search for ḥametz by torchlight, i.e., with a candle that has two or more separate wicks. This is because the large flame of the torch is liable to start a fire, and the searcher will be preoccupied with making sure nothing catches fire. As a result, he will be unable to concentrate on the bedika. If one mistakenly searched by torchlight, he did not fulfill his obligation. One may not even search by the light of an oil lamp, because the fear of spilling oil and staining his belongings will deter him from maneuvering the lamp into narrow spaces to get a good look at cracks and crevices. Likewise, le-khatḥila one should not use a paraffin candle for bedikat ḥametz, for it, too, is hard to maneuver into narrow spaces, as it can drip and stain his belongings. Therefore, the widespread custom is to prefer wax candles, which barely drip (SA and MB 433:2).

    It is technically permissible to use a flashlight for bedikat ḥametz, because the reason the Sages ordained using a candle is its focused light, and the light of a flashlight is also focused. A flashlight even has an advantage in that one need not worry about burning things or spilling wax and oil, and if it is a good flashlight, its light is stronger and more focused than a candle’s. Some people beautify the mitzva and do not search with a flashlight because the Sages derived from Scriptural verses that the search for ḥametz should be performed with a candle (Pesaḥim 7b; see She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 111:4; Yeḥaveh Da’at 1:4; Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 13:10).

    In practice, each person may choose how to conduct the bedika – with a candle, as Jews have done for generations, or with a flashlight, whose light is better for the bedika. One may even begin with a candle, in keeping with tradition, and continue with a flashlight, which is better for searching. In places where the searcher is concerned that the candle will cause a fire, or if one does not see well by candlelight, it is preferable to search with a flashlight.

    06. Must One Search for Crumbs Less than the Size of a Kezayit?

    The purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to find pieces of ḥametz that are a kezayit or larger, for one only violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei if there is a kezayit or more of ḥametz in one place in his home. The prohibition of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei does not apply to less than a kezayit of ḥametz. Any part of the house where people sometimes bring ḥametz must be searched. Where children are present, one must search anywhere that the children reach; however, one need not search closets or high shelves that the children cannot reach.

    Some poskim are stringent, maintaining that the purpose of the search is to ensure that not a single edible crumb of ḥametz remains in one’s possession, for if even one crumb remains, somebody might mistakenly eat it on Pesaḥ and thus transgress a Torah prohibition. Even though there is no punishment for eating less than a kezayit of ḥametz, the Torah nonetheless prohibits it. According to this position, one must search the entire house meticulously and keep an eye out for even small crumbs that might be ḥametz. Such a search in a normal house should take at least two hours. However, even according to stringent opinions, one need not search for crumbs so small that they are not recognizable as food. Likewise, there is no need to search for crumbs so filthy that they are inedible. For example, it is not necessary to inspect the cracks between floor tiles, because the crumbs there are repulsive and not fit to be eaten.

    In practice, the halakha follows the lenient view because the obligation to search for ḥametz is rabbinically ordained. According to the Torah, one who mentally nullifies his ḥametz has already avoided the prohibition of ḥametz and need not search his home. It is the Sages who ordained that, in addition to the bitul, we must seek and destroy ḥametz. Whenever there is a disagreement about a rabbinic enactment, the lenient opinion is generally preferred.

    All this applies to the house in general, but any place that comes into contact with food during Pesaḥ must be thoroughly cleaned, so that not even a crumb remains, for even the slightest amount of ḥametz renders food forbidden on Pesaḥ. Therefore, countertops, tables, and cabinets must be cleaned so well that not a single crumb of ḥametz remains.[5]

    [5]. SAH explains in 446, Kuntrus Aḥaron 1, that according to most Rishonim, there is no need to eliminate a piece of ḥametz smaller than a kezayit. (See Berur Halakha on Pesaḥim 45a regarding dough in the cracks of a kneading tub.) MB 442:33 cites a dispute about whether one must eliminate a piece of ḥametz smaller than a kezayit: some say that since one transgresses a prohibition by eating it on Pesaḥ, he must eliminate it beforehand, and others are lenient. SHT ad loc. 52 states that the practice is to be stringent and eliminate this ḥametz but does not discuss whether one must search for crumbs smaller than a kezayit during bedikat ḥametz. However, it seems from the comments in SHT 442:60 that the main point of the bedikat ḥametz is specifically to find ḥametz that is larger than a kezayit, and indeed this is the opinion of Pri Ḥadash and many other halakhic authorities. In contrast, Ḥayei Adam (109:6) rules stringently that one must search even for small crumbs. This is also the view of Ḥazon Ish (OḤ 116:13, 17).

    At first glance, it seems possible to connect this dispute to a disagreement about the purpose of bedikat ḥametz. According to Rashi, the purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to prevent one from transgressing the Torah prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, which, according to almost all authorities, one does not violate with less than a kezayit of ḥametz. Sha’agat Aryeh explains that small amounts of ḥametz do not combine (“lo ḥazi le-itztarufei”) to cause one to transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, unlike small amounts of forbidden foods, which combine to the size of a kezayit (according to Ḥakham Tzvi, since there is no action involved in the violation of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, the principle of “aḥshevei” does not apply). On the other hand, according to Tosafot, since the purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to prevent one from eating any ḥametz that remains in his house on Pesaḥ, it would seem that one would be required to check for even small crumbs of edible ḥametz, for one who eats them violates a Torah prohibition. And since we follow both Rashi’s and Tosafot’s reasons, and Ran also writes both, perhaps one must be stringent in this matter.

    However, it seems that even according to Tosafot we can say that the Sages ordained bedika in addition to bitul out of concern that one will not wholeheartedly annul the ḥametz in his heart or that he will find a piece of cake and end up eating it. This applies only to a piece that is the size of a kezayit (at least its size nowadays) which has a certain amount of significance and can conceivably stimulate appetite (and which incurs karet). Even if one were to find, say, a small crouton somewhere in his house, it is not likely that he will eat it, since it was found where food is not normally stored. (And even if he does eat the crouton, he arguably did not intend to eat it; rather, he was cleaning, and instead of throwing the crouton in the garbage, he put it in his mouth. Such an action is not a Torah prohibition, and not something for which the Sages would mandate bedikat ḥametz. Nevertheless, perhaps one who normally eats these types of crumbs should be stringent in accordance with the ruling of Ḥazon Ish.)

    See also Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag ch. 6 n. 2, which discusses the two opinions in this matter and proves the lenient approach from the implication of Pesaḥim 4a that bedikat ḥametz lasts for less than an hour. And see Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato §13 n. 39, which rules that one must check for crumbs. However, since this is a dispute about a rabbinic injunction, practice follows the lenient approach. (This is also the view of Or Le-Tziyon 1:32 and R. Elyashar’s Yevakesh Torah, ch. 9, based on the majority of poskim.) Nevertheless, one must differentiate between places that come into contact with ḥametz and the rest of the house, similar to the distinction made regarding kashering kelim and bedikat ḥametz.

    07. Do Books Require Bedikat Ḥametz?

    According to several Aḥaronim, one is required to search every book that one studied during the year, page by page, because a crumb of ḥametz might have fallen into one of them. These authorities maintain that the objective of bedikat ḥametz is to remove every crumb of ḥametz from one’s possession (Ḥazon Ish).

    However, according to those poskim who maintain that the purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to find pieces of ḥametz the size of a kezayit, clearly there is no need for such a thorough search of books, for it is inconceivable that there could be a kezayit of ḥametz between the pages of a book. In fact, even some of the stringent poskim who say that all ḥametz must be sought out maintain that one is not required to search for the sort of tiny crumbs one is liable to find in books, because even if one sees them on Pesaḥ, there is little concern that one will want to eat them.

    Therefore, one should not search his books page by page, because this is overly stringent behavior that may even cause one to waste Torah-study time. This is the accepted practice.

    Nevertheless, one should not put books on the dining table during Pesaḥ unless he was careful to distance them from ḥametz throughout the year. Such books might contain a crumb of ḥametz, which could fall into some food on Pesaḥ, and any amount of ḥametz on Pesaḥ is forbidden, even if it is mixed with a much greater quantity of other foodstuffs. It is permissible, though, to read such books on a table at which one does not eat.

    If during the year one places such books on the dining table between meals, he must clean the table well after eating, so that no crumbs remain. Even the stringent poskim maintain that one who is careful all year long to distance his books from ḥametz, and when bringing them to the dining table is careful that no crumbs of ḥametz fall into them, is not required to search his books, because they are already considered ḥametz-free.[6]

    The status of a bookcase itself depends upon the household. If there are no children, and the adults are careful not to put any food on the bookshelves, no bedika is required. If there are children who may have placed food on a shelf, one is required to search among the books and behind them. If the bookshelf was cleaned well before Pesaḥ, a casual search is sufficient.

    [6]. The opinion of Ḥazon Ish appears in Ḥazon Ish OḤ 116:18. In practice, he would check the books he wanted to study over Pesaḥ page by page, and he sold the rest of his books to a gentile and placed a screen before them, so that he did not need to check them. Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 2:1 is very strict about small crumbs, but regarding the issue of checking books, states in 3:24 that the custom is not to be strict like Ḥazon Ish, since the crumbs in books are extremely small and insignificant. Responsa Or Le-Tziyon 1:32 disagrees with Ḥazon Ish and proves from Rambam that one need not be concerned with ḥametz that is smaller than a kezayit. However, as noted in the previous section, whenever there is a concern that a small crumb might mix into food, one must be stringent, and as such, one should not bring books that may have crumbs in them into contact with food on Pesaḥ.

    08. Do We Rely upon the Cleaning Done before Pesaḥ?

    Most Jewish families clean their homes thoroughly before Pesaḥ. Any part of the house that was cleaned well, and into which people were careful not to bring ḥametz afterward, does not require a thorough search (Sha’arei Teshuva 433:1; Da’at Torah 433:2).

    However, some poskim take a stringent position in this regard and assert that the cleaning does not change a thing, for the Sages ordained searching the cracks and crevices of one’s entire home on the night of the 14th. Other poskim are stringent on the grounds that one cannot rely upon previous cleaning unless it was carried out at night by the light of a candle. Only in this manner, they maintain, is it possible to discern the ḥametz in the cracks and crevices.

    In practice, though, the custom is to follow the lenient approach and to perform a relatively cursory search of all those places that were cleaned beforehand. Although a search is not effective unless it was carried out at night by the light of a candle, a thorough cleaning is more effective than searching. For example, when one cleans a clothing closet, he takes out all of its contents and wipes off all of the shelves. After this, the chances of ḥametz remaining are less than the chances of finding ḥametz remaining there after a thorough search on the night of the 14th by candlelight.

    Nonetheless, even after such a thorough cleaning one must search for ḥametz with a berakha on the night of the 14th, because the dining area certainly needs to be searched. In addition, one may have forgotten to clean a closet, drawer, or corner. Thus, when performing bedikat ḥametz, one must search the entire house and confirm that everything has indeed been cleaned well. If the one performing the search did not participate in the cleaning, he must ask those who cleaned to search with him so that he may ask them if each part of the house he inspects was properly cleaned. Alternatively, they can mark all properly cleaned places with stickers, and all such places need only be given a cursory search.[7]

    However, even when performing a casual search, one must check every corner of the room, along the walls, and between the furniture, and one must open every closet and drawer that could possibly contain ḥametz, in order to assure that they are indeed clean and remain so. Searching a room in this manner should take no more than a few minutes.

    [7]. See Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 13:1, which inclines toward stringency, citing Derekh Pekudekha that those who do bedikat ḥametz superficially are in violation of the rabbinic enactment, and their berakhot may be considered in vain. However, as I have written, the custom is to be lenient in this matter, as Kaf Ha-ḥayim 433:85 states. This is true even though bedikat ḥametz with a candle during the day is not effective, as per MB 433:1, and even though a proper house cleaning does not exempt one from conducting bedikat ḥametz, as per SA 433:11 and MA 20. There are two reasons mentioned (concerning the ineffectiveness of checking during the day): firstly, because only at night does the candle illuminate the small cracks and crevices properly, and secondly, because the Sages decreed that the bedika be done on the 14th of Nisan at night. Clearly, our customary checks fulfill both aspects: firstly, a full cleaning of the house accomplishes more than a daytime bedikat ḥametz, and since we check on the night of the 14th, we also fulfill the second aspect of the Sages’ decree. Accordingly, one may not claim that he is exempt from the bedika after cleaning his house, or that he cannot make a berakha on the bedika, for the reasons I have just mentioned. (Moreover, see the next section, which will explain that according to most authorities there is no need to place small pieces of bread around the house for the bedika even though it is clear that no ḥametz remains.) Since, as we have learned, bedikat ḥametz is a rabbinic decree and its main purpose is to ensure that there is not a kezayit of ḥametz in the home, it is clear that if the house has already been cleaned well, a cursory bedika is sufficient.

    09. Hiding Pieces of Bread and Receiving Help from Family Members

    It is customary hide pieces of bread before bedikat ḥametz, so that the person performing the search will have to discover them. Some maintain that this custom is meant to ensure that the searcher finds ḥametz, because if he does not his berakha may have been in vain. In truth, though, this is not the case, for even if no ḥametz was discovered, there is no berakha le-vatala, since the objective of the search is to ensure that there is no ḥametz in the house, and this objective is achieved even if no ḥametz is found. In addition, the berakha is not on the search alone; rather, it covers the entire process of ḥametz removal, which begins with the bedika and ends with the bi’ur and bitul of the ḥametz the following day. This is evident from the fact that the berakha is “al bi’ur ḥametz,” and not “al bedikat ḥametz.” Thus, even if one does not find ḥametz in his search, he continues the process of removing the ḥametz the next morning, and hence his berakha in not in vain (Rema 432:2; MB ad loc. 13).

    Nonetheless, this Jewish custom should not be discontinued. Arizal himself had a custom to scatter ten pieces of bread before his search. Some poskim explain that the reason for this practice is so that some ḥametz will remain after the search, and thus one will not forget to nullify his ḥametz. Another explanation is that these pieces will ensure that one is not negligent in his search (Ḥok Yaakov 432:14). Therefore, where the house has received a thorough cleaning, and in principle a casual search is sufficient, the pieces of bread should be put in places where they can be found without much trouble; but where the house has not been cleaned well, they should be hidden more carefully. At any rate, it is a good idea for the person who scatters them to make a list of where he hid them, so that if they are not found initially, it will still be possible to locate and remove them.

    After the search, one should nullify the ḥametz that he did not find and that might remain in the house (as will be explained below in section 5:1). One must exercise extreme caution with the ḥametz that was found and the ḥametz that he plans to eat until the following morning, making sure that they not become scattered about the house.

    If it is difficult for one to search the entire house on his own, he may ask family members to help him. In this case, they should stand next to him while he recites the berakha and answer “Amen.” Then they should spread out in the house to search it. If the homeowner is unable to perform the search, he should ask somebody else to search for him, and the searcher says the berakha (SA 432:2; MB ad loc. 10).

    10. One Who Travels

    If one travels abroad before Pesaḥ and plans to return home after Pesaḥ, his performance of bedikat ḥametz depends on when he departs: if he departs within thirty days of Pesaḥ, i.e., from Purim onward, he must search his home for ḥametz before leaving. That he will certainly nullify his ḥametz has no bearing, because, as we have learned, the Sages ordained that in addition to bitul ḥametz, one must perform bedikat ḥametz, and since he is still at home within the thirty days before Pesaḥ, the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz already applies to him. Therefore, he must perform bedikat ḥametz on his last night at home. However, he does not say a berakha over this search because it is conducted before the time the Sages ordained for searching (above, 3:4).

    If one leaves home more than thirty days before Pesaḥ, i.e., before Purim, he need not perform a search before he leaves. Then, on Erev Pesaḥ, he must nullify all of the ḥametz in his possession so that he does not transgress by possessing ḥametz. When he returns home after Pesaḥ, he must physically dispose of all or any significant ḥametz in his home.

    However, if at the time of departure one intended to return home before or during Pesaḥ, the Sages ordained that he must perform a bedika before leaving, even if he sets out at the beginning of the year. This is because something could go wrong on his journey, preventing him from returning in time for bedikat ḥametz (Pesaḥim 6a, according to Rambam). However, if one appoints a shali’aḥ to search on his behalf on the night of the 14th in case he is unable to return in time, he is not required to search before his departure. Nowadays, when one can make a phone call from anywhere in the world, one need not search before setting out on a trip because even if he is unable to return in time for bedikat ḥametz, he can ask a friend or relative to search on his behalf (see SA 436:1-2; MB 9; SHT 10).

    The poskim differ over what should be done when one was supposed to perform bedikat ḥametz before traveling but forgot to do so, and he cannot find someone to do the bedika on his behalf. Thus, if it is very difficult for him to return, he may rely upon his bitul ḥametz (BHL 436:1, s.v. “zakuk”). Then, after Pesaḥ, he must burn or destroy the ḥametz he nullified, because if he derives benefit from it after Pesaḥ, he demonstrates that his nullification was insincere. The same applies any time one nullifies ḥametz but does not remove it – the Sages forbid eating or deriving benefit from it after Pesaḥ (SA 448:5). The best thing for one who forgot to search his house before traveling to do is to rent it to a gentile and sell him all of the ḥametz in it.

    11. Does Renting One’s Entire House to a Gentile Exempt It from Bedika?

    Some families leave home for the entire Pesaḥ holiday, and the question arises: Can these people exempt themselves from cleaning and searching for ḥametz by selling or renting their entire house to a gentile?

    The poskim differ on this issue. Some take the lenient position that since the house is not actually in the owner’s possession on Erev Pesaḥ, he is not obligated to search it (Ḥok Yaakov; Gra’s understanding of Tur and Rema). Many others, however, take the stringent position that since the owner lives in this house during the thirty days prior to Pesaḥ, it becomes incumbent upon him to perform bedikat ḥametz there. Only if he moves to another house in which he will become obligated to search for ḥametz will he be exempt from searching the house he rented or sold to the gentile (Avi Ha-ezri, SA 436:3, MA ad loc., and SAH’s understanding of Tur and Rema). In addition, it is inappropriate for one to avoid performing the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz.

    In practice, in order to satisfy all opinions, one should sell or rent his entire house except for one room, and in it he fulfills the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz. Once one has fulfilled the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz in this room, all poskim agree that there is no need to search the rooms that have been sold or rented to a gentile.

    In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to sell a house to a gentile (SA YD 151:8), and it must therefore be made clear in the sale of ḥametz contract that a rental is being transacted. In addition, the homeowner must sell the ḥametz in all of the rented rooms, and by doing this, he becomes exempt from searching these rooms.[8]

    When possible, it is best to rent one’s house before the night of the 14th, because some poskim maintain that if, on the night of the 14th, the rooms are still in the homeowner’s possession, he becomes obligated to search them (Mekor Ḥayim and Ḥayei Adam). When it is difficult to rent out the house before the night of the 14th, as most rabbinical authorities execute the sale (and rental) on the morning of the 14th, one may rely on the lenient opinions. Since he intends to rent out these rooms, there is no longer a fear that he will violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, and he therefore need not search them (Binyan Olam, Ḥatam Sofer, as cited in MB 436:2).

    The kelim and the stove should be cleaned of all substantial ḥametz before Pesaḥ, for if this is not done, it will be necessary to clean them after Pesaḥ in order to avoid eating ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ (ḥametz that remained in a Jew’s possession during Pesaḥ). However, it is not advisable to sell the kelim to a gentile, because this will necessitate immersing them in a mikveh after Pesaḥ, in keeping with the law regarding kelim bought from a gentile. To sell the ḥametz on them, or absorbed into them, makes no sense at all, as will be explained in 6:4 below.

    [8]. SA expresses the same opinion as Avi Ha-ezri. The Aḥaronim disagreed regarding the opinion of Tur and Rema. According to MA (436:17) and SAH, one is only exempt from the bedika if the gentile will actually enter his house before Pesaḥ. According to Ḥok Yaakov and Gra, even if the gentile will not actually enter the house, since the Jewish owner declared the ḥametz in it ownerless, there is no need for bedikat ḥametz. MB 436:32 seems to lean toward a strict ruling (see SHT ad loc. 31-32).

    In Eretz Yisrael, where it is forbidden to sell a house to a gentile, one is permitted to rent his house. However, Mekor Ḥayim 437:4 and Ḥayei Adam 119:18 in the name of Eliya Rabba state that one who rents his house to a gentile still must conduct bedikat ḥametz. Nonetheless, it seems that if one sells all of the ḥametz in his house, even these poskim would agree that no bedika is required. This is the opinion of Ḥatam Sofer §136 and Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 6:20 (pp. 103-104), Noda Bi-Yehuda, SAH, and Kitzur SA. Another benefit of renting one’s house is that it is done wholeheartedly, as is written in Beit Shlomo §91 and Zekher Yehosef §138.

    12. Bedikat Ḥametz after the Proper Time and the Status of One Who Rents a Hotel Room

    The Sages ordained searching for ḥametz on the night of the 14th of Nisan. If one did not search at this time, he is required to do so on the 14th by day, and to say a berakha over the search. If one did not search before Pesaḥ at all, he must search on Pesaḥ, with a berakha. The fact that he nullified his ḥametz before Pesaḥ does not change this, because he is still required to fulfill the Sages’ enactment, and secondly, because there is a possibility that he will come across some ḥametz during Pesaḥ and, forgetting the prohibition, eat it. If, after Pesaḥ, one suddenly realizes that he did not perform bedikat ḥametz, he must do so, in order not to violate the rabbinic prohibition of ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ. This search, however, requires no blessing (SA 435:1).

    One who rents a hotel room has the status of a tenant. This is because he pays for the room, it is at his disposal, he receives a key to lock and unlock it, and strangers and hotel personnel are only allowed to enter with his permission. Therefore, he is commanded to recite a berakha and search his room on the night of the 14th, and afterward he must nullify any ḥametz in his possession that may have gone undiscovered. One who checks into a hotel during Pesaḥ must inquire whether the rooms were searched for ḥametz. If they were not searched for ḥametz, but were merely cleaned in the routine manner, or if they were cleaned but then a gentile lodged there, he should perform a bedika with a berakha.

    A hospital patient is required to search his room and his closet on the night of the 14th. However, no berakha is said over this search, since the room is not at his disposal; at any time he can be moved to a different room, and other patients can be moved into his room.

    A hotel owner is required to perform bedikat ḥametz in every room of his hotel, and if it is difficult for him to do this himself, he can hire a shali’aḥ. Regarding rooms rented to gentiles, or to Jews who do not perform bedikat ḥametz on the night of the 14th, a problem arises. On the one hand, the rooms are rented to them, and the owner cannot force them to keep halakha and search for ḥametz. On the other hand, if they vacate during the holiday, he will have to search their rooms immediately and remove any ḥametz left behind, and he might not have time to do this. The solution, therefore, is to sell or rent all the hotel rooms to a gentile before Pesaḥ, and to have the hotel owner serve as an intermediary during Pesaḥ between the gentile and the guests.

    13. Synagogue, Dormitory, and Yeshiva

    Synagogues and batei midrash (Torah study halls) require bedikat ḥametz on the night of the 14th, because people sometimes eat ḥametz in them. This is true even of synagogues where people generally do not eat, for children sometimes enter them with ḥametz (SA 433:10). However, when it comes to saying a berakha over this search, there is some uncertainty. Therefore, it is best that the person responsible for searching the beit knesset first search his own home, and when saying the berakha there, intend to include the synagogue.[9]

    Boys and girls living in a dormitory and paying for this facility have the status of tenants, and if a kezayit of ḥametz remains in their room during Pesaḥ they violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Therefore, they are obligated to search their rooms before Pesaḥ. If they will be staying there during Pesaḥ, they are required to search on the night of the 14th with a berakha. If they leave the dormitory a number of days before Pesaḥ, they are required to search on the night before they leave, without reciting a berakha.[10] The responsibility for searching the rest of the rooms and halls in the yeshiva belongs to the yeshiva administration.

    One who buys or begins renting a home before Pesaḥ must search it even if he has not yet occupied it, because the previous resident may have left some ḥametz there. Since the house is in his possession, this ḥametz will cause him to violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. If he owns another house where he will be fulfilling the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz, he can sell or rent out the new home to a gentile and thus exempt himself from the obligation to search it (see above, section 11).

    [9]. The opinion of most poskim is that he should recite the berakha, since it is a mitzva. See MB 433:43 in the name of SAH. But AHS 433:12 states that one of the reasons for bedikat ḥametz is to prevent violation of bal yera’eh, and since a synagogue does not belong to any one individual, no one would violate bal yera’eh on any ḥametz that remains there. Accordingly, there is no mitzva to check the synagogue, and thus no berakha should be recited. See Maharsham 5:49. Nonetheless, if the synagogue or beit midrash belongs to one particular individual or to several partners, according to all authorities he/they must check it with a berakha. However, if the synagogue owner had already recited the berakha in his house, he need not recite another berakha in the synagogue.

    [10]. Ḥazon Ish ruled for a yeshiva student that even if he would not be in his room over Pesaḥ, it is preferable for him to check his room on the night of the 14th with a berakha. This opinion is quoted in Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 12:9. Some authorities debate whether the yeshiva student is considered a renter, since the yeshiva administration can switch him to a new room at a whim (see Piskei Teshuvot 437:4). However, it appears that yeshiva administrations generally do not transfer older students to new rooms without prior agreement. Therefore, this is similar to a standard rental agreement where there are conditions that if breached result in the cancelation or abrogation of the rental agreement. Thus, older yeshiva students are considered renters of their rooms.

    14. Ḥametz Buried under a Pile of Dirt and the Question of Searching a Storeroom

    If ḥametz is buried under less than three tefaḥim (c. 24 cm) of stones, dirt, and the like, it is not considered to have been disposed of, and it must be uncovered and disposed of before Pesaḥ. This is because it is possible for a dog to smell it and dig it up.

    However, if the ḥametz is covered by more than three tefaḥim, it is considered to have been disposed of and does not cause one to transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Therefore, it need not be dug up and disposed of. Bitul ḥametz is nonetheless required, because it is possible that some of the stones will be moved during Pesaḥ, and the ḥametz will no longer be covered by three tefaḥim, causing the person to violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.[11] Likewise, in a case where ḥametz falls into a pit in one’s yard, if it is the sort of pit one does not generally enter, one may nullify the ḥametz without extracting and disposing of it.

    Accordingly, if ḥametz is stuck behind a wall cabinet and impossible to remove without first taking the cabinet apart or emptying it out and moving it, one need not remove the ḥametz. In this case, one may rely upon its bitul (SAH 333:19). If ḥametz is located where it can only be removed with some difficulty, one may pour bleach or soapy water on it until it is no longer fit for consumption, and hence no longer considered food, as it will not even be fit for a dog’s consumption, and it therefore need not be removed and eliminated.

    A storage room where one keeps articles not in use or merchandise that he does not intend to use until after Pesaḥ need not be searched for ḥametz. It is sufficient to nullify any ḥametz that might be there. However, if one wishes to fill the storage room during the thirty days prior to Pesaḥ, he must search it first, because the obligation to prepare for Pesaḥ has already taken effect. If one did not search it beforehand, it must be thoroughly searched for ḥametz on the night of the 14th (SA 336:1). If it is difficult to move all of the storeroom’s contents in order to carry out the search, one may sell or rent it to a gentile and thus exempt oneself from the obligation to perform bedikat ḥametz there.

    [11]. The opinion of Rashi, Ran, and most poskim is that if the ḥametz is covered by more than three tefaḥim it is considered destroyed, and one would not violate bal yimatzei with this ḥametz. This is what I wrote above. However, the opinion of Smak is that if it is covered by something that is generally moved, the ḥametz would indeed be considered in the owner’s possession and he would violate bal yimatzei. In such a case, he would only be exempt from destroying the ḥametz if he nullified it verbally.

    In a case where the ḥametz is covered by less than three tefaḥim, one would be required to remove the ḥametz, as I have written, but only if one is certain that there is ḥametz under this particular covering. Even if there is a danger of snakes and scorpions, he still must take a shovel and remove the covering to expose and destroy the ḥametz. However, if one merely suspects that there is ḥametz under the covering but is not certain, he is not required to check for the ḥametz if there is a danger of snakes and scorpions, and is only required to nullify the ḥametz verbally. If there is no danger, though, he is required to check (SA 433:8, MB ad loc. 35). In any situation where one is required to check, he can exempt himself from checking by selling the item to a gentile. It seems that if the ḥametz is likely to spoil before Pesaḥ to the point that it is unfit for a dog’s consumption, or if it is already being eaten by bugs, then even if there are not three tefaḥim above it, it is not necessary to check it.

    01. Bitul Ḥametz in the Evening and Morning

    As we learned (above, 3:4), one fulfills the mitzva of bi’ur ḥametz (disposing of ḥametz) in two ways, in action and in thought. The process of bi’ur ḥametz involves four stages. The first two, bedika and the first bitul, are performed on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. The second two stages, bi’ur and the second bitul, take place the following morning. Having discussed the laws relating to bedikat ḥametz in the previous chapter, we shall now address bitul ḥametz.

    After bedikat ḥametz, we immediately rid ourselves of the ḥametz by nullifying it mentally. To make this process easier, a formal declaration of nullification – bitul ḥametz – was composed. This declaration is in Aramaic because it was composed at a time when most Jews understood only Aramaic. It reads (according to the Ashkenazic rite):

    Kol ḥamira ve-ḥami’a de-ika bi-rshuti, de-lo ḥazitei u-delo bi’artei, li-vtil u-lehavi hefker ke-afra de-ar’a.

    This declaration can also be said in Hebrew:

    Kol ḥametz u-se’or she-yesh bi-rshuti, she-lo re’itiv ve-shelo bi’artiv, yivatel ve-yehei hefker ke-afar ha-aretz.

    In English:

    All ḥametz and leaven in my possession that I have not seen and have not eliminated shall be nullified and become ownerless, like the dust of the earth.

    The Sephardic version mentions only ḥametz, which includes leaven, and only nullification, which includes renunciation of ownership (see Ḥazon Ovadia, p. 32).

    Following the actual bi’ur ḥametz on the morning of the 14th (see section 3 below), we perform a second bitul ḥametz. Even though we already annulled the ḥametz at night, after the bedika, that bitul applied only to ḥametz we did not find in our search, and of which we remain unaware. It cannot, however, apply to the ḥametz we still intend to eat, since such ḥametz is important to us. We likewise cannot nullify the ḥametz we found in our search, because we intend to dispose of this by burning. Moreover, applying our evening bitul ḥametz to the ḥametz we still plan to eat would reveal the insincerity of our bitul and render it ineffective.

    Therefore, in the evening we nullify only the ḥametz we did not find in our search, not the ḥametz we set aside for the remaining ḥametz meals and to be burned. But since we might misplace or overlook some of this remaining ḥametz, so that we do not violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, we nullify the ḥametz a second time. One must make sure to nullify the ḥametz by the end of the fifth seasonal hour of the day, for with the onset of the sixth seasonal hour it is forbidden to derive any benefit from ḥametz, and it can no longer be nullified (SA 434:2).

    The wording of the morning nullification is slightly different from that of the evening. In the evening we nullify only the ḥametz that was not found during the search, while in the morning we nullify the ḥametz in its entirety. It reads:

    Kol ḥamira ve-ḥami’a de-ika bi-rshuti, de-ḥazitei u-delo ḥazitei, de-bi’artei u-delo bi’artei, li-vtil u-lehavi hefker ke-afra de-ar’a.

    This declaration can also be said in Hebrew:

    Kol ḥametz u-se’or she-yesh bi-rshuti, she-re’itiv ve-shelo re’itiv, she-bi’artiv ve-shelo bi’artiv, yivatel ve-yehei hefker ke-afar ha-aretz.

    Or in English:

    All ḥametz and leaven in my possession that I have seen and that I have not seen, that I have destroyed and that I have not destroyed, shall be nullified and become ownerless, like the dust of the earth.

    02. The Meaning of Bitul Ḥametz

    The bitul ḥametz text is in Aramaic because it was composed when this was the vernacular. Yet one is free to recite it in Hebrew or any other language, as long as he understands what it means. If one utters the declaration in Aramaic without understanding its general significance as an act of bitul, thinking instead that it is an Erev Pesaḥ prayer, he has not nullified his ḥametz (MB 434:9).

    The Rishonim explain the significance of the bitul (nullification) in two ways. Rashi and Ramban explain that human beings have the power to nullify ḥametz. This capacity is unique to the context of ḥametz, since according to the Torah ḥametz is entirely insignificant during Pesaḥ. It is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and consequently it is like the dust of the earth. In one respect alone does ḥametz retain significance during Pesaḥ: if it remains in one’s home, he transgresses the law of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, but if the owner nullifies his ḥametz before it becomes forbidden, his intention is in accord with the Torah’s intention, so even if ḥametz remains in his possession during Pesaḥ, he will not have violated bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.

    Tosafot explain that the bitul is effective because it renders the ḥametz ownerless (hefker), and the Sages teach that bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei apply only to ḥametz one owns, not to ownerless ḥametz.

    Thus, according to the first explanation, the nullification focuses on the ḥametz itself, while according to the second explanation, the nullification is directed at the owner, who relinquishes his ownership over the ḥametz. The Ashkenazic version of the declaration takes both explanations into account, and therefore mentions both nullification and renunciation of ownership. The Sephardic version mentions only nullification, which includes renunciation, for if something is nullified it consequently becomes ownerless.

    03. Laws Regarding Bitul Ḥametz

    Most Rishonim agree that, in principle, it is not necessary to recite the bitul ḥametz aloud. It is possible to nullify the ḥametz “in one’s heart,” i.e., to mentally regard his ḥametz as null and consider it as the dust of the earth. Preferably, however, one should express the bitul verbally, because this makes it clear and explicit. Moreover, some Rishonim maintain that the bitul must indeed be pronounced aloud. All poskim agree that it is not necessary to pronounce the bitul in the presence of others. Nonetheless, some people are meticulous about reciting the bitul in the presence of their family, to remind them of the mitzva.[1]

    The bitul must be sincere. One must agree in his mind that the ḥametz is null and void forever, and that he will not use it even after Pesaḥ. If one intends to use the ḥametz after Pesaḥ, the bitul is not effective, and he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Even if he renounces ownership of his ḥametz and places it in a completely open domain, he must not intend to reclaim it after Pesaḥ, for if he does, his renunciation is not wholehearted (MB 445:18).[2]

    As mentioned above (3:4), according to the Torah, one can dispose of his ḥametz by merely nullifying it, and even if one were to keep ḥametz of great value in his possession, he may nullify it and would not transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei as long as he makes a firm mental commitment that the bitul is absolute and that he will never again derive benefit from the ḥametz. However, the Sages were concerned that the bitul might not be wholehearted, so they ordained that we physically eliminate the ḥametz from the home. Be-di’avad, however, if one forgets to eliminate his ḥametz, and when Erev Pesaḥ arrives he is far from his home, he may rely on the bitul alone – but as soon as he returns home he must destroy the ḥametz. Even if he returns after Pesaḥ, he must remove the ḥametz, for if he fails to remove it, he proves that his bitul was not wholehearted (SA 448:5; MB ad loc. 25).

    In principle, it is possible to nullify ḥametz through a shali’aḥs. However, preferably the owner of the ḥametz should perform the bitul himself, as some authorities maintain that only the owner of the ḥametz has the power to nullify his ḥametz (SA 434:4; MB ad loc. 15).

    [1]. According to Tur §436, Ramban, Ran, and Maharam Ḥalawa, bitul in one’s mind is sufficient. SAH (434:7 and Kuntrus Aḥaron) explains that even though these authorities believe that nonverbal nullification suffices on a Torah level, they still maintain that on a rabbinic level preferably one should nullify the ḥametz verbally. According to Ritva and Beit Yosef, based on the Yerushalmi, one must verbalize the bitul. However, SA 437:2 states: “He nullifies it in his heart and this is sufficient.” BHL 437:2 states that there are two opinions on the matter, and Gra agreed that nullification in one’s mind is sufficient. Whatever one nullifies to himself is considered hefker, as per Tosafot’s explanation that the purpose of the nullification of ḥametz is to deem it ownerless. Even though generally if one wants to declare his property ownerless he must do so in front of three others, as per rabbinic injunction, in this case the Sages deferred to the Torah standards of hefker and allowed one to make the declaration to himself.

    [2]. See Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 6, n. 7, which cites Responsa R. Akiva Eger that if one verbalized the declaration to make his ḥametz ownerless, it becomes ownerless, even if he did not make the declaration wholeheartedly. Thus, anyone can claim his ḥametz, and the former owner is not able to claim that he did not mean what he said. Perhaps, according to MB 445:1, in the name of SAH, although legally another individual can acquire the ḥametz, if the original owner did not nullify his ḥametz wholeheartedly, the ḥametz remains in his possession until someone else actually claims it (as opposed to becoming ownerless right away).

    04. The Custom of Bi’ur Ḥametz by Burning

    As we have learned, in addition to bitul ḥametz, the Sages ordained the active elimination of all ḥametz remaining after breakfast on the morning of the 14th, and any ḥametz that was found during bedikat ḥametz (including the ten pieces of bread that were hidden before the search). Technically one may eliminate the ḥametz in any number of ways, for example: by crumbling it and scattering it into the wind, the sea, or a river (SA 445:1); by pouring bleach or some other substance on it, thus rendering it unfit to be eaten by a dog before the prohibition of ḥametz takes effect, for then it is not considered ḥametz food, so it need not be eliminated (SA 442:9); by placing it, before the prohibition takes effect, in an ownerless public domain; or by flushing it down the toilet, whereby it no longer remains in the house (MB 445:18).

    Nonetheless, the holy people of Israel customarily enhance the mitzva of eliminating the ḥametz via burning it. Nothing eliminates ḥametz better than fire. Furthermore, there are poskim who maintain that the mitzva to dispose of ḥametz must be fulfilled by burning.

    Those who wish to enhance this mitzva further must make sure to nullify the ḥametz after burning it, since if they nullify it beforehand, the ḥametz will no longer be considered theirs, and they will lose the enhancement of bi’ur by burning. One must therefore be careful to leave enough time after burning the ḥametz to nullify it, for after the fifth hour of the day it is no longer possible to nullify ḥametz (as we learned above 3:6). Hence, as soon as a kezayit of ḥametz has been burned, the enhancement of bi’ur ḥametz by burning has been achieved, and the bitul can be recited.

    Some people, when using kerosene to light the fire, are careful not to pour it directly on the ḥametz. They do this so that the fire alone destroys the ḥametz, and the kerosene does not render it unfit for consumption by a dog before it is burned.[3]

    [3]. There is a dispute in Pesaḥim 27b regarding the mitzva of destroying the ḥametz: R. Yehuda says it must specifically be burned, and the Sages say it can be destroyed in any fashion. According to the majority of Rishonim, including Rambam, Rosh, Ritva, and Ran, the halakha follows the Sages; this is also the ruling of SA 445:1. Some, including Tosafot and Smak, rule in accordance with R. Yehuda. Baḥ and Gra add that even the Sages believe that the preferred method is burning, just that it is also possible to destroy the ḥametz in other ways. Other Aḥaronim disagree and feel that according to the Sages there is nothing special or preferable about burning, and one may destroy his ḥametz in any way.

    Most Rishonim feel that even according to R. Yehuda, the mitzva to burn ḥametz only applies to ḥametz that is left over past midday of the 14th, when it becomes forbidden, similar to the law of notar (uneaten portions of a sacrifice left over until the morning), which must also be burned. However, before midday of the 14th, it is possible that even R. Yehuda would agree that one may destroy the ḥametz any way he wants; this is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and Maharam Ḥalawa. On the other hand, Rashi explains that according to R. Yehuda the mitzva is to burn the ḥametz before midday. According to Rosh’s understanding of Rashi, the mitzva to burn the ḥametz only applies during the sixth hour of the day, but according to Tur’s understanding of Rashi, the mitzva to burn the ḥametz applies even prior to the sixth hour. If this opinion is correct, the mitzva to destroy the ḥametz is specifically by burning it. See Berur Halakha on Pesaḥim 27b for a summary of the topic. Even though it is clear according to almost all poskim that there is no mitzva to burn the ḥametz before it becomes forbidden, Rema 434:2 and 445:1 writes that the custom is to burn the ḥametz even earlier. See Or Le-Tziyon 1:33, which explains that the stringency of burning the ḥametz is dependent upon the combination of several opinions: firstly, the authorities who follow R. Yehuda; secondly, Tur’s understanding of Rashi that the mitzva to burn the ḥametz applies even before the ḥametz becomes forbidden; and thirdly, Tosafot’s opinion that the act of nullification renders the ḥametz ownerless, as opposed to Rashi’s understanding that nullification accomplishes the mitzva of destroying the ḥametz (and thus the only way to fulfill the mitzva of destroying the ḥametz according to Tosafot is by burning it). See above, 3:5, on the essence of the mitzva.

    According to a simple reading, the mitzva of removing ḥametz (in Shemot 12:15) is to dispose of the ḥametz before it becomes forbidden, as most Rishonim write. Ran and Ritva also write that one fulfills this mitzva by conducting bedikat ḥametz. Rambam writes that the mitzva of removing ḥametz begins on the night of the 14th (MT, Laws of Ḥametz and Matza 3:1). However, Rosh maintains that the mitzva only begins once the ḥametz becomes forbidden.

    Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 15:4 states that one should be careful not to pour lighter fluid on the ḥametz itself, so that the ḥametz is eradicated by burning and not by being befouled by the kerosene. Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 8:10, n. 17, states that one need not be meticulous about this, since the main objective is to turn the ḥametz into ashes, not to befoul its taste. See above, 3:5, n. 8.

    05. Ḥametz in the Garbage

    On the morning of the 14th of Nisan the question arises: Must ḥametz that has been placed in the garbage also be destroyed?

    If the garbage bin belongs to a Jew or is located on his property, the owner should, le-khatḥila, pour bleach or some other foul substance on the ḥametz to render it unfit for consumption by a dog. When necessary, since ḥametz that has been thrown into the garbage is considered disgusting, there is no need to further befoul it, as it is already deemed eradicated given its disgusting state.

    If the garbage container is the property of the local authority and is located in the public domain, one need not destroy the ḥametz he placed in it before the ḥametz becomes prohibited. The local authority is not obligated to destroy it because it was not interested in acquiring the ḥametz to begin with. Its only aim was to remove it to a garbage dump.[4]

    [4]. Igrot Moshe OḤ 3:57 states that placing ḥametz in the trash is a clear indication that one renounces ownership of the ḥametz. However, if the trash bin belongs to him, according to Taz and MA 445:3 he has a rabbinic obligation to burn the ḥametz. However, if the trash can is in the public domain, he does not have to burn any ḥametz he placed inside the trash can. Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 3:45 adds that if the ḥametz is so filthy that clearly no person would use it for any purpose, it is considered destroyed. It also states in n. 130 there that ḥametz that is unfit for humans but suitable for dogs only must be destroyed if the ḥametz is able to cause other dough to become ḥametz. However, if the ḥametz is so filthy that it is no longer suitable to any person for any purpose, it is considered nullified and need not be destroyed (see also Piskei Teshuvot 445:7, which cites other opinions). Nevertheless, when one discards his trash into a bag, as is the modern custom, the ḥametz does not always become that dirty. Thus, if the trash can is in his domain, it is best to dispel all doubt and refrain from discarding ḥametz that is still suitable for dogs into that particular trash can in the days leading up to Pesaḥ.

    06. Ḥametz Found after the Onset of the Prohibition

    If one finds ḥametz in his possession after midday on the 14th, he must eliminate it immediately. If he forgot to nullify the ḥametz in his possession, he is obligated by Torah law to eliminate it. Le-khatḥila the mitzva is to burn the ḥametz, but if he wants, he may eliminate it in other ways. For example, he may crumble it up and scatter it into the wind, or he may break it up and flush it down the toilet. However, if he throws it into an ownerless public domain, he has accomplished nothing. Although before the sixth hour one may still renounce ownership of his ḥametz and thus exempt himself from the obligation to eradicate it, once the sixth hour began, it became forbidden to derive benefit from the ḥametz in his possession, and it is no longer possible to get rid of the ḥametz and avoid the prohibitions it entails without destroying it completely.

    Similarly, once the prohibition has taken effect, it is no longer possible to get rid of ḥametz simply by pouring a foul substance like bleach on it to make it unfit to be eaten by a dog. Only before the ḥametz becomes prohibited is it possible to do so. If the ḥametz was fit for consumption when the prohibition took effect, one is obligated to eradicate it completely. Therefore, if one finds such ḥametz in his possession, he must burn it, scatter it in the wind, or crumble it into pieces and flush it down the toilet, in order to eliminate it. As stated, the best way to fulfill this mitzva is by burning the ḥametz. Moreover, even after the ḥametz has been burned, it is forbidden to derive benefit from its ashes.[5]

    If one finds ḥametz on the first or last day(s) of Pesaḥ or on Shabbat of Ḥol Ha-mo’ed, he may not burn it or even carry it to the bathroom to flush it down the toilet, as ḥametz is muktzeh and may not be handled. Rather, one must cover it with a container so that nobody accidentally eats it, and it must be burned as soon as possible after the Shabbat or holiday. If the same person forgot to nullify his ḥametz before Pesaḥ, he violates two Torah prohibitions – bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei – every moment the ḥametz remains in his possession. In order for one to spare himself from these transgressions, according to many poskim he may pick up the ḥametz, break it up somewhat, and throw it into the toilet; these poskim permit violating the laws of muktzeh, which are of rabbinic origin, in order to avoid Torah prohibitions. Nonetheless, some poskim take the stringent position that he should wait until Shabbat is over before eliminating the ḥametz (MB 446:6).

    Regarding the berakha, if one finds ḥametz during Pesaḥ, even though it is a mitzva to dispose of it, he does not recite a berakha before the bi’ur, because the blessing he said before bedikat ḥametz included all ḥametz in his possession that required removal. However, if one kneads dough during Pesaḥ and it becomes ḥametz, or if one accidentally bought ḥametz on Pesaḥ, he must say the berakha over its disposal since this ḥametz was not in his possession before Pesaḥ, at the time of its bedika and bi’ur, and thus the berakha he said then did not apply to it (see MB 435:5).

    [5]. See n. 3, where we learned that the main dispute between R. Yehuda and the Sages is about ḥametz that one finds after it has already become forbidden. According to the Rishonim who follow R. Yehuda, one has a mitzva to burn this ḥametz. Even though most poskim follow the Sages, as quoted in SA 445:1, burning the ḥametz is an acceptable method, especially according to R. Yoel Sirkis (Baḥ) and Gra, who maintain that the Sages agree that the preferable method to destroy the ḥametz is burning. This is what MB states in 445:6.

    Once the ḥametz becomes forbidden, there is an obligation to destroy the ḥametz completely, as cited in SA 442:9 and MB ad loc. 40. Even declaring the ḥametz ownerless does not work at this point; it only works before the ḥametz becomes forbidden, as explained in MB 445:18. Even after the ḥametz is burned, one is forbidden to benefit from the ashes, as explained in SA 445:2. MB 445:5 states that if one throws ḥametz into an outhouse, it is considered destroyed. However, the outhouses in the times of MB were exceptionally filthy, and anything that was thrown there became so repulsive that it would no longer be usable in any capacity. Conversely, bread that has been discarded in a modern toilet is likely to emerge intact from the drainpipes, and would likely be fit for a dog; therefore, I wrote that if one were to discard bread this way, he should first break up the bread into smaller crumbs.

    Although in general any ḥametz found on Pesaḥ has already been nullified and would therefore only be rabbinically forbidden, the ḥametz must still be destroyed, as would any ḥametz that had not been nullified, since, as noted, the rabbis decreed that all ḥametz must be nullified and eliminated. SAH (435:4) adds that if one did not burn his ḥametz, he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei on the rabbinic level and is subject to the rabbinic obligation of tashbitu.

    Regarding the time for burning the ḥametz: if one finds ḥametz in his possession after the beginning of the sixth hour of the day, he has a rabbinic obligation to burn it, and if he found ḥametz that he did not nullify, he has a Torah obligation to destroy it. If he does not, he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei as soon as the festival begins. If he nullified his ḥametz, he does not violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei on the Torah level, but he still has a rabbinic obligation to burn it.

    01. Sparing Ḥametz from Destruction by Selling It to a Gentile

    By midday of the 14th of Nisan, every Jew must have disposed of the ḥametz in his possession. In the past, Jews would plan their food purchases and their meals so that by Pesaḥ they would have finished consuming any ḥametz foods and thus not have to dispose of large quantities. They would leave only a small amount of ḥametz with which to fulfill the mitzva of bi’ur ḥametz in the best possible manner: by burning it.

    However, occasionally one’s plan would backfire and he would find himself possessing a large quantity of ḥametz when Pesaḥ arrived. In such a case, if he did not mind losing the ḥametz, he could burn it or give it as a gift to a decent and deserving gentile. If he did not want to lose the value of his ḥametz, he could sell it to a gentile before Pesaḥ, since, as long as the prohibition has not gone into effect, it is permissible to sell the ḥametz and receive its full value. The prohibition against deriving benefit from ḥametz goes into effect on the sixth hour on the day of the 14th of Nisan, and until that time it is permissible to sell the ḥametz.

    This was especially important for food merchants who would remain with large stocks of ḥametz before Pesaḥ and had no choice but to sell to a gentile, in order to avoid great financial loss. Even if a gentile could not be found who was sincerely interested in buying all of the ḥametz, the Sages teach that it is permissible for a Jew to say to a gentile, “Even though you do not need so much ḥametz, buy all of my ḥametz for the full price, and if you want, I will buy it back from you after Pesaḥ” (based on t. Pesaḥim 2:7).

    02. How the Practice of Selling Ḥametz Spread

    About 400 years ago, many Jews living in Europe began to support themselves through the production and sale of whiskey. This was because the barons, the landowners, would often contract Jews to manage their affairs, and it was common for them to lease their distilleries and inns to Jews in exchange for a fixed price and/or a percentage of sales. This whiskey, which was made from barley and wheat, is considered ḥametz gamur. To prevent the great financial loss that would come each year with its disposal before Pesaḥ, it became necessary to sell it to a gentile before Pesaḥ and buy it back again immediately thereafter, in order to continue selling the whiskey as usual.

    Over time, rabbinic leaders noticed that the sale was sometimes carried out improperly, leading to serious problems. If the sale is improper, the ḥametz remains in the possession of the Jew, and with every hour that passes he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Additionally, it is forbidden to derive benefit from such ḥametz after Pesaḥ, and it must all be completely destroyed. Therefore, rabbinic authorities began to oversee the sale of ḥametz, in order to ensure its proper sale. Seeing that the sale was being carried out in an orderly manner, other Jews began to participate in the transaction, in order to save their own ḥametz from being lost. This is how mekhirat ḥametz began to spread and become increasingly common.

    However, a number of prominent rabbis claimed that mekhirat ḥametz was not a real sale, but merely a fiction. In the first place, it is clear that after Pesaḥ the ḥametz will return to the Jew. Moreover, no sales tax is paid to the government on this sale. Thirdly, in a normal sale the buyer pays for all of the ḥametz and physically takes it into his possession, but here the gentile neither pays the full price, nor takes the ḥametz with him.[1]

    Nevertheless, the opinion of the vast majority of poskim is that mekhirat ḥametz may be relied upon and is as valid as any sale. By law, the gentile can refuse to sell the ḥametz back to the Jew after Pesaḥ. It is a real, binding sale, not a fiction. Nevertheless, in order to avoid even the appearance of a fiction, the rabbis made a practice of being very meticulous about all details of the sale. Since there are different halakhic opinions regarding the proper mode of purchase when a gentile buys from a Jew, the rabbis are careful to execute the sale using all forms of acquisition, so that it is clear that the sale is effective according to all opinions. In addition, they make sure that the sale is effective according to state laws as well (see MB 448:17, 19, and BHL ad loc.).

    Regarding payment, they would draw up a bill of sale for the actual value of the ḥametz, and the gentile pays a cash deposit, as merchants are wont to do. The remainder of the sum is charged to him as a debt, but this does not prevent the completion of the purchase. After Pesaḥ, the gentile can decide: if he wants to keep the ḥametz, he must pay the debt; if he wants to sell the ḥametz back to the Jew, the Jew repays the cash deposit, and in return for the ḥametz, he pardons the gentile’s debt from before Pesaḥ. The reason no tax is paid on mekhirat ḥametz is that the king, or government, understands that this sale is carried out for religious, not commercial purposes, and therefore waives the tax.

    To reinforce the sale, so that it resembles any other sale in which the buyer takes the purchased item into his possession, the rabbis ordained that the Jew sell or rent to the gentile the ground on which the ḥametz rests, thereby transferring the ḥametz into the gentile’s possession (MB 448:12). In Eretz Yisrael, where it is forbidden to sell land to a gentile, the area is rented, and some poskim say that even outside Eretz Yisrael it is best to rent the area instead of selling it.[2]

    [1]. Tevu’ot Shor, a commentary on Pesaḥim, is hesitant about the idea of selling ḥametz, since it might be considered a fiction. Baḥ, Eliya Rabba, and Maḥatzit Ha-shekel (§448) state that one should not rely on mekhirat ḥametz except in extreme situations, to prevent a significant loss. In Ma’aseh Rav (a compendium of the Vilna Gaon’s customs) it is written that one should only sell ḥametz gamur in an irrevocable sale, and after Pesaḥ one should not purchase ḥametz that had been sold in a standard ḥametz sale. This was also the practice of R. Akiva Eger. Over time several of the concerns of those opposed to selling ḥametz have been allayed by the addition of specific clauses to the sale. For example, Bekhor Shor claimed that the gentile buying the ḥametz does not understand the details of a legal sale, but nowadays, we sell our ḥametz to knowledgeable gentiles who certainly understand the legal ramifications of the sale. Another allegation was that the ḥametz was sold for a symbolic sum, as written in SA 448:3, and those opposed to the sale claimed that the seller in such a case does not have full intention to sell. The answer to this problem was that the Jewish seller would certainly agree to sell his ḥametz for a nominal fee in order to save himself from violating the prohibition of owning ḥametz, as is written in Ḥok Yaakov. Nowadays, however, our custom is to sell the ḥametz for its full value, as per MB and BHL 448:19, which effectively eliminates this issue.

    [2]. It is impossible to list all of the poskim who permit the sale of ḥametz, since there are too many, but I will mention several of them: Noda Bi-Yehuda 141:8, Ḥatam Sofer OḤ §62 and §113, Oneg Yom Tov 28, and Sdei Ḥemed 8:9, which discusses the opposition to the sale at length. See also R. Zevin’s Ha-mo’adim Be-halakha in the chapter about selling ḥametz and its evolution. Igrot Moshe OḤ 2:91 states that the sale works even if the seller is not an observant Jew. MB 448:12 discusses the optimal procedure of selling the area where the ḥametz sits as well. There are those who prefer to rent their rooms or houses that contain ḥametz, since they themselves are only renting and therefore cannot sell the house. Additionally, Avnei Nezer §345 states that renting is preferable, since it seems less fictitious, as one certainly does not really want to sell his house.

    03. For Whom Is the Ḥametz Sale Intended Today?

    In recent generations, new storage methods have been introduced that allow us to preserve food products for long periods of time. As a result, food manufacturers and dealers are in constant possession of large inventories of food, and they need to sell their ḥametz before Pesaḥ in order not to lose the value of their stock. Moreover, if food manufacturers were to make a point of exhausting their entire inventory before Pesaḥ, it would take days and even weeks to restock and market their products. In addition to the loss it would cause to manufacturers and merchants, it would cause inconvenience to those unable to purchase ḥametz foods during the weeks after Pesaḥ. Therefore, factory owners, food chains, and stores sell all of their ḥametz to a gentile before Pesaḥ, and as soon as Pesaḥ passes, they buy it back again and remarket it.

    In principle, anyone may sell his ḥametz to a gentile via the mekhirat ḥametz organized by his local rabbis. He may do so even if he only wishes to sell a small amount of ḥametz – for example, a package of pasta – because once it has been sold, the Jew no longer violates the prohibitions relating to ḥametz.

    Some are stringent and prefer not to rely on mekhirat ḥametz since it appears fictitious: the ḥametz remains in the Jew’s house, the gentile will almost certainly not come to take it, and the Jew resumes eating the very same ḥametz as soon as Pesaḥ is over. According to these poskim, it is only proper to sell ḥametz in order to prevent a great loss; concerning a small loss, one should not sell his ḥametz.

    Nowadays, all are advised to participate in mekhirat ḥametz, because some food products and flavored medicines may contain small amounts of ḥametz, and they should not be destroyed just because of this possibility. On the other hand, these must not be kept because they may actually contain ḥametz. Therefore, the proper thing is to sell them and thus avoid all doubt. In addition, some maintain that people who have stock in companies that own ḥametz must sell their shares; the shares are sold with the rest of the ḥametz.[3]

    Concerning ḥametz gamur, it is customary to advise people not to sell insignificant amounts of ḥametz, so as not to use the sale for minor needs. However, when significant loss is involved, it is permitted le-khatḥila to sell the ḥametz. Each person should decide for himself what he considers a significant or small loss. There is no reason to ask a rabbi about this, and there is no reason to ask what is ḥametz gamur and what is uncertain, as the basic halakha is that even the sale of real ḥametz of little value is permissible, for the sale is valid even le-khatḥila, and one may rely without concerns or questions on the rabbis conducting the sale.[4]

    Because the sold ḥametz remains in the Jew’s house, there is a risk that he will forget that it is prohibited and eat it during Pesaḥ. Therefore, one must set up a partition at least ten tefaḥim high (c. 80 cm) to act as a barrier between himself and the ḥametz or lock the ḥametz in a cupboard and hide the key. One may also tape up the cupboard. It is best to write “sold ḥametz” on it so that one does not accidentally open it on Pesaḥ (see SA 440:2).

    [3]. See above, 3:3, n. 5, where I write that in my opinion, the mainstream view is that one who has no decision-making capacity in the company is considered a creditor, not a partner, and he would not be required to sell his shares. However, some are stringent, and in this respect, too, it is best to participate in the sale of ḥametz. See above, 4:11, where we cited a dispute between poskim regarding whether or not one can exempt himself from bedikat ḥametz by selling his home to a gentile. According to all opinions, however, if the Jewish owner leaves one room in the house for himself, he can perform bedikat ḥametz in that room and exempt himself from bedikat ḥametz in the rest of the house.

    Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 8:17; 22, states that in addition to bitul, one should sell all of the ḥametz in his possession, since if he was unaware of a piece of ḥametz during the time of nullification and did not nullify it properly, the ḥametz sale will protect him from violating any prohibition. In my opinion, however, this is not the proper course of action, because such a sale looks like a fiction, and it has no value (as opposed to stocks, which have value). Regarding ḥametz that one forgot about, the Sages instituted bitul, not sale.

    [4]. Some rule that the sale should only be done for the great needs of owners of large businesses, but individuals must take care, as much as possible, to only sell uncertain ḥametz, not ḥametz gamur (Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 8:9; Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:16 inclines toward this as well; but see Piskei Teshuvot 448:10). According to the letter of the law, anyone may rely on the sale, since the sale is valid according to the majority of poskim. Even if the seller feels that the sale is somewhat fictitious, if the gentile wishes to do so, he could take the seller to court and legally claim the purchased ḥametz, which proves that the ḥametz indeed belongs to the gentile. Additionally, some say that since every person nullifies his ḥametz, and subsequently there is no Torah prohibition on this ḥametz (there is only a rabbinic injunction that requires destroying or selling the ḥametz in addition to bitul), the ḥametz assumes the status of a safek de-rabanan (an uncertainly about a rabbinic prohibition). Thus, one may certainly rely on the lenient opinions that permit the sale.

    04. The Laws of the Sale

    Every Jew, before selling ḥametz, should read the authorization contract he will be signing, so that he understands that he is empowering the rabbi to sell his ḥametz, and that the sale is absolute. But even if instead of reading the contract one simply relied on the rabbi, the sale is valid, for, if the gentile comes during Pesaḥ to take the ḥametz, and the rabbi tells the Jew that the ḥametz indeed belongs to the gentile, and that he must give it to the gentile, he will do so.

    The seller should write his name and address in clear script on the contract of sale so that the gentile buyer knows who he is and where he lives. Thus, the gentile buyer will be able, if he wants, to collect his ḥametz.

    Le-khatḥila, it is proper to give the gentile the key to the place where the ḥametz is located so that he can enter and take his ḥametz. In practice, though, it is sufficient to give the gentile the seller’s phone number so that if the gentile wants, he can call to come and take his ḥametz. This is the most important principle: all sellers must know that after the sale, the ḥametz indeed belongs to the gentile, and the seller must allow him to enter the house and take his ḥametz (MB 448:12).

    Le-khatḥila, the seller should indicate the various types of ḥametz, and even list their prices, on the contract the rabbi gives him to sign, and some people are meticulous about this. In practice, though, this is very difficult to carry out. Therefore, the custom is to write that all ḥametz in one’s possession is included in the sale, and that the price is in accordance with the accepted market price, as determined by appraisers (see BHL 448:3, s.v. “be-davar mu’at”).

    It is proper to write in the contract where exactly the ḥametz is located, for example: “In the upper left kitchen cupboard,” or “in the room on the right, in the box so marked.” Several places may be listed. Be-di’avad, even without this, the sale is still valid, though all ḥametz should be gathered to one place and labeled. Everything gathered to the place determined for the sale by two hours before the onset of the prohibition against deriving benefit from ḥametz is included in the sale. Le-khatḥila, the place where the ḥametz is kept is also rented to the gentile, so that the ḥametz is in the gentile’s possession and the sale resembles any other sale in which the buyer transfers the purchase into his possession.

    One may sell ḥametz through a proxy who writes all relevant details and signs on the owner’s behalf. One may also sell ḥametz over the phone, by fax, or via the Internet. Even though it is proper for the seller to sign and perform a kinyan (act that formalizes a transaction) to reinforce the sale, be-di’avad it does not prevent the sale from taking effect, as the most important thing is the kinyan performed when the rabbi sells the ḥametz to the gentile, and this kinyan is effective for everyone who asked the rabbi to sell their ḥametz.

    In kitchens that belong to public institutions, the manager or his representative sells the ḥametz.[5]

    One should not sell the ḥametz that is stuck to and absorbed into kelim. Quite a few laws relating to mekhirat ḥametz were introduced in order to make it clear to all that it is an actual sale, but if one writes that he is selling the ḥametz absorbed in or stuck to his kelim, the sale will appear to be lacking seriousness, since this has no value and nobody is interested in buying it. Therefore, one should not indicate this in the sale contract.[6]

    [5]. See Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:7-10. If one did not sell his ḥametz for reasons out of his control, under pressing circumstances his friend may sell it for him without his authorization, because of the principle of “zakhin le-adam she-lo be-fanav” (one may act to benefit another even without his permission; Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:11; Piskei Teshuvot 448:21).

     See Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:7-8 and in the notes. Ibid. 12 states that one is permitted to enter into a ḥametz sale agreement with multiple rabbis. Even if each rabbi sells to a different gentile, the sale completed first takes effect. Preferably, one should not do this, since it makes the sale seem fictitious. Only if he is worried that one rabbi may not sell his ḥametz may he ensure that his ḥametz is sold one way or another. See Piskei Teshuvot 448:6.

    [6]. Selling the kelim themselves to a gentile is not worthwhile, since after Pesaḥ one would be required to immerse the kelim in a mikveh, like any eating implement bought from a gentile. This is the view of Ḥatam Sofer OḤ §109 and most poskim. (However, AHS YD 108:52 is lenient about this.) The truth is, though, that this is unnecessary, because once the ḥametz was nullified, there is no cause for concern. Even if there is actual ḥametz substance on the kli, as long as there is less than a kezayit cumulatively, according to most poskim there is no need to eliminate it, as explained in SAH 446, Kuntrus Aḥaron 1 (above, 4:5). However, one must store these ḥametz utensils in an enclosed area, and after Pesaḥ one must remove any remaining ḥametz substance before using them. Le-khatḥila, in order to satisfy the opinion that one is required to eliminate even less than a kezayit of ḥametz (MA 442:12), one should remove any trace of ḥametz from the kelim before Pesaḥ or ruin the residue with detergents until they are no longer fit for a dog’s consumption. In this case, even if more than a kezayit remains, there is no need to eliminate it. Therefore, there is no need to sell the ḥametz on kelim, and certainly not the ḥametz that is absorbed in the kelim.

    05. The Deadline for Selling Ḥametz and the Status of One Visiting Eretz Yisrael or Abroad

    The sale must take place while it is still permitted to derive benefit from ḥametz, for when the sixth hour of the 14th of Nisan arrives, and it becomes forbidden to derive benefit from ḥametz, it may not be sold; it must be destroyed. So that people can join the sale until the last day, the sale customarily occurs on the 14th, just before the end of the time that it is permissible to derive benefit from ḥametz.

    The prohibition takes effect according to one’s location. In Eretz Yisrael, the sixth hour arrives approximately seven hours before it arrives on the East Coast of the United States. Therefore, a U.S. resident who is in Israel must sell his ḥametz in Eretz Yisrael, because if he sells his ḥametz according to U.S. times, the sale will take place when ḥametz is already forbidden for him to sell.

    At first glance, the end of Pesaḥ also poses a problem for such a person, because he must observe yom tov sheni shel galuyot (the extra day of Yom Tov observed in the Diaspora; see Peninei Halakha: Festivals 9:8), which means that the prohibition of ḥametz applies to him until the end of the eighth day, while in Israel the ḥametz is bought back from the gentile after the seventh day. Nevertheless, he may still sell his ḥametz in Eretz Yisrael. Even though the gentile sells the ḥametz back at the end of seven days, since the U.S. resident is still observing Pesaḥ according to the custom of Jews in ḥutz la-aretz, and he is not yet interested in buying the ḥametz back, the ḥametz remains hefker or in the possession of the beit din. Only after yom tov sheni shel galuyot has passed does the ḥametz return to his possession.

    If his family remains in America, and they plan to eat the ḥametz after the prohibition has commenced in Eretz Yisrael, he must renounce ownership of his share of that ḥametz, and his family sells the ḥametz there.

    A resident of Eretz Yisrael who travels to the U.S. before Pesaḥ may, in principle, sell his ḥametz in the United States, for, according to most poskim, the obligation to eliminate ḥametz depends on the owner’s location, not the location of the ḥametz. Nevertheless, one should preferably sell it in Eretz Yisrael, in order to satisfy the opinions of all poskim, for some maintain that one must eliminate ḥametz according to its location, and, if this is the case, one must sell the ḥametz before the onset of the prohibition in Eretz Yisrael.[7]

    Additionally, a resident of Eretz Yisrael who is visiting a Diaspora community should not eat ḥametz on the eighth day of Pesaḥ, just as he should not do any other activity forbidden on Yom Tov, even in private (AHS 596:5). If such a person has his own place of residence, he need not partake in a second Seder. However, if he is being hosted by people who live abroad, he should participate in the second Seder. He should not recite berakhot on mitzvot, but instead should answer “Amen” to the berakhot of others (see Peninei Halakha: Zemanim, ch. 9, for a thorough treatment of these issues).

    [7]. Responsa Oneg Yom Tov (§36) states that we follow the location of the ḥametz. Many disagree with this ruling and maintain that the prohibition takes effect according to the location of the owner. This is the opinion of Ḥesed Le-Avraham §35, Eretz Tzvi 1:83, and other poskim. Le-khatḥila, we take both opinions into consideration and follow whichever time is earlier, as is written in Igrot Moshe OḤ 4:94-95. The suggestion that a U.S. resident whose family remained in America for Pesaḥ should renounce ownership of his ḥametz is mentioned in Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:14.

    A resident of the Diaspora who is in, and sells his ḥametz in, Eretz Yisrael should have in mind not to reacquire this ḥametz until after the eighth day of Pesaḥ. However, even if he did not have this intention, Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:35 states that presumably he does not want to reacquire the ḥametz before the festival ends, so he does not reacquire it until it becomes permissible. Mikra’ei Kodesh Pesaḥ 1:76 states that even if one acquired ḥametz on the eighth day of Pesaḥ in the Diaspora, the ḥametz may be eaten after Pesaḥ, since there are poskim who maintain that a Diaspora resident in Eretz Yisrael is not required to observe yom tov sheni shel galuyot (see Peninei Halakha: Festivals 9:8). Since this is an uncertain situation on the rabbinic level, we are lenient.

    06. Ḥametz That Was Sold – Its Status after Pesaḥ

    After Pesaḥ, it is better not to use the ḥametz that was sold until one can assume that the rabbi has bought it all back. When necessary one may take out some ḥametz immediately after Pesaḥ with a willingness to repay the gentile for it at his request. It is best that the rabbis stipulate explicitly with the gentile that a Jew will be obligated to pay for any sold ḥametz he takes, if the gentile so desires. Thus, there will be no question about the Jew taking ḥametz immediately after Pesaḥ.

    Some people are strict and do not eat ḥametz that was sold because, according to the stringent poskim, such a sale is not legitimate, and so this ḥametz has the status of ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ, which one may neither eat nor derive benefit from.

    In practice, however, one need not be concerned about this stringency, because the prohibition of ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ is rabbinic, and whenever there is uncertainty about a rabbinic law, halakha follows the lenient opinion. This is certainly true where only a small number of poskim are strict, while the overwhelming majority permit. Indeed, there were great rabbis who, after Pesaḥ, would make a point of eating ḥametz that had been sold through mekhirat ḥametz, to demonstrate that the sale was in keeping with halakha.

    When shopping for food after Pesaḥ, one must make sure that the seller has a certificate verifying that he sold his ḥametz in keeping with the halakha so that one does not buy ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ. Even more caution is needed if the seller is not religious, because if he did not understand the significance of the sale and continued to sell ḥametz in his store during Pesaḥ, a few poskim (Sdei Ḥemed, Maharam Schick) maintain that the sale was not legitimate, and that it is forbidden to eat or derive benefit from any ḥametz in his store. In this case, it is proper to follow the stringent poskim and wait for goods produced after Pesaḥ to arrive. If, however, it becomes clear that the seller performed bedikat ḥametz in keeping with the halakha and was careful not to let anybody go near the ḥametz that was sold one may buy ḥametz from him immediately after Pesaḥ.[8]

    [8]. See Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:13, 23 and Piskei Teshuvot 448:20. See also n. 1 ad loc., which lists those who adopted the stringent view. Foremost among them is the Vilna Gaon, who refrained from eating ḥametz that had been sold. Note 2 (ad loc.) lists those who adopt the lenient view, which is the majority opinion. See Piskei Teshuvot 448:10 and n. 46 regarding the custom to eat from ḥametz that had been sold in order to show that the sale was valid.

    01. Even a Drop of Ḥametz Renders Food Forbidden

    In general, when a forbidden food becomes mixed with a permitted food, it is batel be-shishim (rendered insignificant if the forbidden food constitutes less than one sixtieth of the mixture); in such small quantities, it does not contribute flavor. At the level of Torah law, ḥametz is also batel be-shishim. The Sages, however, ordained that even a drop of ḥametz render a permitted food forbidden when mixed with it. Even if the quantity of permitted food is a thousand or ten thousand times greater than the ḥametz, the entire mixture becomes forbidden.

    The Sages added this stringency because the Torah itself is more stringent about ḥametz than other forbidden foods: 1) Generally, if one consumes a Torah-forbidden food, the punishment is malkot (lashes), but one who eats ḥametz incurs the more severe punishment of karet (extirpation). 2) Whereas all other forbidden foods may be kept in one’s home, ḥametz can neither be seen nor be found in our homes throughout Pesaḥ. The Sages therefore continued in this direction by establishing a safeguard: even if a drop of ḥametz falls into a food, it is forbidden to consume or derive benefit from it. 3) All other forbidden foods are prohibited throughout the year, and we are therefore accustomed to distancing ourselves from them, but since we eat ḥametz all year long, we are liable to forget that it is forbidden on Pesaḥ. The Sages, therefore, are more stringent about ḥametz, so that everybody remembers to be careful about it.

    This law, that even a drop of ḥametz renders a mixture forbidden, goes into effect with the onset of Pesaḥ. Before Pesaḥ, ḥametz is batel be-shishim like all other forbidden foods. Although the prohibition against eating ḥametz and the mitzva to dispose of ḥametz go into effect at midday on the 14th of Nisan, the law that ḥametz is not batel be-shishim does not take effect until Pesaḥ begins, when one who consumes ḥametz incurs karet and when the prohibition of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei take effect (SA 447:2).[1]

    [1]. According to She’iltot, Rabbeinu Tam, and Ha-ma’or, ḥametz has the same status as other forbidden foods and is batel be-shishim. All other poskim (including Rif, Rosh, and Rambam) maintain that ḥametz is not batel even in a thousand-to-one ratio, as per the opinion of Rava, following Rav, in Pesaḥim 30a. Even Rabbeinu Tam and Ha-ma’or refrained from acting leniently (see Berur Halakha ad loc.). However, MB 447:2 states, citing Aḥaronim, that where there are other grounds for leniency, one may combine the view of She’iltot and Rabbeinu Tam to support a lenient ruling.

    The reasons for strictness about ḥametz are mentioned by Rashi, Rosh, Smak, Rabbeinu Yona, and many others. The first reasons are the principal ones, and therefore ḥametz becomes forbidden in a tiny quantity only once Pesaḥ begins. However, Rambam and Ramban explain that the reason a tiny amount of ḥametz is forbidden is that after Pesaḥ it will again become permitted, since on the Torah level ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ is permissible, and anything that will become permissible in the future (davar she-yesh lo matirin) is not batel in any mixture. According to this opinion, the tiniest amount of ḥametz is forbidden from midday of the 14th. (This is the case only if it is mixed with the same sort of food item [min be-mino]. But the tiniest quantity of ḥametz renders a mixture with dissimilar items [min be-she’eino mino] forbidden only with the onset of the holiday, as explained in Magid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh [MT, Laws of Ḥametz and Matza 1:5]. And according to Ran, there is a basis to forbid a mixture already from midday of the 14th, based on the rationale that we are not used to avoiding ḥametz. Accordingly, there are grounds to forbid a mixture with even the tiniest amounts of ḥametz starting from midday of the 14th, even min be-she’eino mino.) Nevertheless, SA 447:2 rules that tiny amounts of ḥametz render a mixture forbidden only once Pesaḥ begins, and most Aḥaronim accept this view.

    02. Can a Mixture Containing a Drop of Ḥametz Be Salvaged?

    As we have learned, the laws of ḥametz are uniquely strict: even a miniscule amount of ḥametz mixed with a permitted food renders the entire mixture forbidden for consumption or benefit. However, most poskim maintain that if the ḥametz is less than one sixtieth of the mixture, one may salvage its monetary value by selling it to a gentile. For example, if a kilogram of ḥametz falls into a metric ton of another food, one should throw away one kilogram, so as to avoid benefiting from the added ḥametz, and sell the rest to a gentile. This is because when the Sages forbade benefiting from such mixtures, their intention was to forbid benefiting from the ḥametz. Thus, if one disposes of a quantity of the mixture equaling the amount of ḥametz that was added, he does not benefit from it, and he may then sell the mixture to a gentile. If a single wheat grain of ḥametz fell into a large amount of cooked food, it all becomes forbidden to eat, and as long as it remains in a Jew’s hands, it is also forbidden to derive benefit from it. However, one may sell it to a gentile. It is not necessary to dispose of any of the mixture since the wheat did not cause the price to rise (SA 467:10).

    Rema (447:1), however, rules stringently in accordance with the view of the few Rishonim who maintain that since it is forbidden to derive benefit from the mixture, it is likewise forbidden to sell it to a gentile. Rather, the entire mixture must be burned. This is the practice of Ashkenazim. However, in a case of a very large loss, even Ashkenazic custom relies upon the view of those who permit selling the mixture to a gentile (MB 447:3).[2]

    [2]. There is a dispute as to whether ḥametz renders the entire mixture forbidden to derive benefit from. Raavad and Ramban forbid eating but not deriving benefit. According to Rif, Rosh, and most poskim, it is also forbidden to derive benefit. This is the ruling of SA 447:1.

    However, according to Rif and Rosh, if one would discard the value of the ḥametz in the mixture, he would be permitted to sell the mixture to a gentile, since he obtains no benefit from the ḥametz; rather, he merely receives payment for the portion of the mixture that is not ḥametz. The overwhelming majority of poskim agree, and so states SA 467:10. However, Rema writes in Darkhei Moshe 447:2 that Mordechai, Terumat Ha-deshen, and Mahari Brin all adopt a stringent approach – that the entire mixture must be burned. MB 447:3 states in the name of Aḥaronim that one should sell it to a gentile. Moreover, SHT 467:74 states in the name of Beit Meir that if one will suffer a very large monetary loss despite selling the mixture to a gentile, he may even keep the mixture until after Pesaḥ, and then eat it or sell it to a Jew.

    03. Can Ḥametz That Was Nullified before Pesaḥ Regain Its Status (“Ḥozer Ve-ne’or”) on Pesaḥ?

    The Rishonim disagree about fundamental question: Is ḥametz that was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ ḥozer ve-ne’or (“reawakened,” i.e., its nullification is reversed) when Pesaḥ arrives, and since on Pesaḥ ḥametz in not batel even in less than one part per thousand, it renders the entire mixture forbidden? Or does its bitul before Pesaḥ mean that it cannot be ḥozer ve-ne’or? For example, a crumb of ḥametz that falls into a large dish of cooked meat before Pesaḥ is obviously batel, and this food may even be consumed after midday on the 14th of Nisan. The question is whether it is still permissible to eat it after Pesaḥ begins.

    Some poskim rule that if ḥametz was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ, it is considered completely eliminated, and it cannot be ḥozer ve-ne’or on Pesaḥ. Therefore, the entire mixture is permitted for consumption (Rosh, Smag, Tur, and others). Other poskim say that the annulment that takes place before Pesaḥ is not effective; as soon as Pesaḥ begins the ḥametz reawakens, and the entire mixture is rendered forbidden (Rambam, Rashba).

    This question has important implications for the status of matzot. Occasionally, some water drips on a mound of wheat grains, causing a few of the grains to leaven. It is very difficult to find these grains and remove them from the pile, but it is clear that the kosher wheat grains that did not become ḥametz outnumber the leavened grains by more than sixty-to-one. According to the view that ḥametz is ḥozer ve-ne’or, if all the wheat is milled together and matzot are baked from its flour, it will be forbidden to eat them on Pesaḥ, because the drop of ḥametz in it renders all of the matzot forbidden. It is therefore important to make sure that there is not even a single ḥametz grain in the wheat from which matza is made. But according to the opinion that ḥametz nullified before Pesaḥ is not ḥozer ve-ne’or, the matzot are kosher for Pesaḥ. There is no need to check the wheat kernels one by one in order to remove the leavened ones, because they were already batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ.

    04. Ḥozer Ve-ne’or in Practice

    In practice, many poskim rule in accordance with the view that when ḥametz is batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or, and therefore it is permissible to eat such a mixture on Pesaḥ. This is because, according to the Torah, ḥametz is batel be-shishim even during Pesaḥ. The Sages added the stringency of rendering a mixture forbidden because of even a drop of ḥametz. This means that the dispute about ḥozer ve-ne’or relates to a rabbinic prohibition, and when in doubt about a rabbinic dispute, the halakha follows the lenient opinion. This is the position adopted by most Sephardic Jews (SA 447:4).

    Some rule that if the ḥametz that was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ was fluid (laḥ), the halakha follows the lenient opinion, and the ḥametz is not ḥozer ve-ne’or. If, however, it was solid (yavesh), the law follows the stringent view, and it is ḥozer ve-ne’or. For example, if a drop of beer falls into another beverage, it blends with the liquid and ceases to exist independently. As a result, after being nullified, it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or and does not render the mixture forbidden. However, if a crumb of ḥametz falls into a solid food, because it continues to exist independently and does not blend with the mixture, it has a degree of significance. Therefore, when Pesaḥ arrives it is ḥozer ve-ne’or and renders the entire mixture forbidden (SA and Rema 447:4, based on Terumat Ha-deshen). This is the approach adopted by Ashkenazim and some Sephardim.[3]

    Flour, because of its fineness, is considered a fluid mixture. This is because the distinction between fluid and solid depends principally upon whether or not the forbidden food blends completely with the permitted food. In a fluid mixture, the forbidden food blends completely with the permitted food, and in a solid mixture the forbidden food remains independent. Accordingly, there is no need to check the wheat grains before they are milled and baked into matzot, because after the wheat is milled, the flour produced from the leavened grains will be nullified and blend completely with the rest of the flour, and when Pesaḥ arrives it will not reawaken to render the mixture forbidden (SA and Rema 453:3).

    Based on this principle, some poskim say that it is best to bake matzot before Pesaḥ so that if even a tiny quantity of flour or dough becomes ḥametz during the kneading process, it will blend with the rest of the dough and be batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ. This assures that it will not reawaken and render the matzot forbidden during Pesaḥ. Likewise, with respect to machine matzot, sometimes tiny particles of dough get stuck in the tines of the machine during kneading, and they remain there long enough to become ḥametz, whereupon they fall back into the dough. However, because the pieces of dough that became ḥametz blend completely with the rest of the dough, it is considered a fluid mixture, and since the ḥametz is batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ, it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or.

    All of this is be-di’avad, but le-khatḥila we take special care to bake matzot in which there is no concern that even the tiniest bit of ḥametz got mixed in. Those who are meticulous take care to eat matza from wheat that was guarded from the moment it was harvested, which is acceptable even according to the stringent view that ḥametz is ḥozer ve-ne’or even in a mixture of fluids with fluids (below, 12:5, n. 5).[4]

    [3]. The custom of the Sephardim: Kaf Ha-ḥayim 447:76-78 states that many Sephardim have the custom to be stringent about ḥozer ve-ne’or, and this is the opinion of Pri Ḥadash and Ḥida in Birkei Yosef 447:14. It seems that these authorities were also stringent about liquid mixtures. Kaf Ha-ḥayim adds that Sephardim have the custom to be as strict as Rema, but no more. This is similar to what Zekhor Le-Avraham states: Sephardim on Pesaḥ follow Rema. Nonetheless, SA cites the lenient position anonymously, which indicates that it is completely lenient in this matter. Additionally, Yabi’a Omer OḤ 2:23 expands on the topic and upholds the lenient view, which is the view of most Rishonim, that it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or. Moreover, according to She’iltot, ḥametz is batel be-shishim even on Pesaḥ, and even those who are stringent maintain that this prohibition is rabbinic, and in a dispute about rabbinic law we are lenient.

    The view of Shulḥan Arukh warrants closer study. SA (442:4) cites Rambam that “tiryaka” (“theriaca,” a type of medicine) is prohibited on Pesaḥ since the concoction contains a drop of ḥametz, as it is ḥozer ve-ne’or once Pesaḥ begins. This seems to contradict the lenient ruling in SA 447:4. According to Rema, SA retracted what was written in §442 and permitted ḥozer ve-ne’or. Pri Ḥadash explains that ḥozer ve-ne’or applies in a case where one intentionally mixed ḥametz into the mixture. Taz states that tiryaka is forbidden because the ḥametz in it acts as a stabilizer (davar ha-ma’amid) in the mixture.

    It is also important to note that even according to the lenient opinions that ḥozer ve-ne’or is permitted (according to SA – in all cases; according to Rema – in liquid mixtures), it is forbidden to intentionally blend ḥametz into a mixture before Pesaḥ and annul it in a sixty-to-one ratio in order to eat the mixture on Pesaḥ (as per Pri Ḥadash’s explanation of SA and MB 447:102 at the end). Only ex post facto, when the ḥametz was mixed in unintentionally, may it be eaten le-khatḥila. According to the stringent opinions, since the mixture may not be eaten, it also may not be kept in one’s house, though be-di’avad, if he kept the mixture in his house over Pesaḥ, he may eat it after Pesaḥ (MB 447:102).

    MB 453:32 states that according to Taz, if a bit of ḥametz was already mixed in before Pesaḥ and there are less than sixty parts of permissible food in the mixture to annul the ḥametz, one is permitted to add more permissible food to the mixture to nullify the ḥametz. However, MA and most poskim maintain that this is forbidden, since it appears that he is intentionally trying to nullify a forbidden food. In extreme situations one may rely on the lenient opinions.

    [4]. Terumat Ha-deshen 1:114 states that flour is considered a fluid mixture, and this is the opinion of the majority of poskim, as MB states in 447:32. However, Baḥ states that according to Smak and Raavyah, flour mixed with flour is considered a solid mixture; therefore, one should preferably take care that no leavened flour mixes with the matza flour. This is also the view cited in MB 453:17 and SHT 25. Additionally, it is clear that le-khatḥila one should take into consideration the opinions that all ḥametz reawakens on Pesaḥ, whether solid or fluid.

    There are three views regarding the rationale behind ḥozer ve-ne’or. According to the most stringent view, even in the case of a fluid mixture, and even if the ḥametz itself has been removed and only a minuscule amount of it was absorbed into the mixture and is not discernible, it is still ḥozer ve-ne’or. In contrast, MB 453:17 mentions the more lenient view of Olat Shabbat and Eliya Rabba that the ḥametz is ḥozer ve-ne’or only if one re-cooks the mixture, for only then does the ḥametz contribute more taste to the mixture. If it is not re-cooked, it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or. The mainstream view, as MB states ad loc. based on MA, is that ḥozer ve-ne’or applies to solid foods, i.e., only when there is actual, substantial ḥametz remaining in the mixture.

    05. Does Ḥametz That Imparts Foul Taste (“Noten Ta’am Li-fgam”) Render a Mixture Forbidden?

    There is a well-known rule that something that imparts foul taste (“noten ta’am li-fgam”) does not render a mixture forbidden. For example, if non-kosher meat falls into a pot of kosher food, and the quantity of kosher food is sixty times that of the non-kosher meat, the taste of the non-kosher meat is nullified, and it is permitted to eat the cooked dish. If the kosher food is not sixty times the quantity of the non-kosher meat, since its taste is discernible, the cooked dish is forbidden. If, however, the taste of the non-kosher meat is foul (“pagum”), since it spoils the cooked dish, then as long as the kosher food constitutes the majority of the mixture, it is permitted to eat it (SA YD 103:1).

    What about a ḥametz mixture on Pesaḥ? Some say that the fact that the Sages, due to the gravity of the ḥametz prohibition, ordained that even a drop of ḥametz renders any mixture forbidden indicates that the matter does not depend upon the taste it gives to the mixture. Therefore, even when it contributes a foul taste, it is no different than a drop of ḥametz that renders its entire mixture forbidden (Rashbam, Rashba).

    The opinion of most Rishonim is that ḥametz is like other prohibited foods except with regard to bitul be-shishim. Thus, in cases like noten ta’am li-fgam, where other forbidden foods would not render a mixture forbidden, ḥametz also does not render a mixture forbidden (Rabbeinu Tam, Ri, Rosh, and Mordechai).

    In practice, SA 447:10 rules leniently whereas Rema writes that in Ashkenazic communities the custom is to follow the stringent ruling that even a drop of foul-tasting ḥametz renders an entire mixture forbidden.[5]

    [5]. The Rishonim disagree about the status of forbidden foods that the Sages determined are not nullified even in one part per thousand, like ḥametz on Pesaḥ and yein nesekh. Some are stringent and maintain that just as we are stringent about even the smallest quantity, so too we are stringent if it contributes foul taste. This is the view of Yere’im §52; Raavyah, Pesaḥim §464; Roke’aḥ §487; Or Zaru’a, Avoda Zara §262; and Responsa Rashba 1:499. Against them, most Rishonim maintain that only good taste is not nullified even in one part per thousand, but foul taste does not render a mixture forbidden. This is the view of Rabbeinu Tam; Ri; Ramban; Smag, negative commandment §78; Rosh, Avoda Zara 5:6; Ritzva ad loc.; Nimukei Yosef, Pesaḥim 30b; Ra’ah; and Rashbatz.

    The custom of most Ashkenazic communities is to be stringent, but MA and MB 447:98 state (based on Terumat Ha-deshen §128) that where there is no established custom, one should rule that one who acts leniently has done nothing wrong, though one who acts stringently is commendable. The prevailing Sephardic custom follows SA, as stated by Pri Ḥadash, Ḥida, Mahari Ayash, and others, for in addition to the fact that most Rishonim are lenient, this dispute is about a rabbinic enactment, in which halakha follows the lenient view. Even so, some accept the stringent practice, as stated by Kaf Ha-ḥayim 447:228. Rema 447:2 states that the custom to be stringent about ḥametz pagum only applies once Pesaḥ begins, but before the onset of the holiday, the ḥametz is nullified even in less than a sixty-to-one ratio, like any other prohibited food that befouls a mixture.

    06. Eating and Keeping Ḥametz Mixtures on Pesaḥ

    The Torah law concerning a ḥametz mixture is complicated, subject to dispute among Tanna’im, Amora’im, Rishonim, and Aḥaronim. We shall summarize its laws here succinctly.

    The Torah declares that one who eats a kezayit of ḥametz on Pesaḥ incurs karet. If ḥametz that was mixed with other foods such that there was a kezayit of ḥametz within a shi’ur akhilat pras (three or four eggs’ bulk), and one ate a shi’ur pras of the mixture, then according to Ramban and other Rishonim, he incurs karet, while Rif and Rambam maintain that his punishment is only malkot (lashes). (According to Rabbeinu Tam, even if he ate only a kezayit of the mixture, he incurs punishment from the Torah, as cited by Rosh, Ḥullin 7:31.)

    If the mixture does not contain a kezayit of ḥametz within a shi’ur akhilat pras, and one ate a quantity of the mixture that has a kezayit of ḥametz: according to Ha-ma’or and Itur, he incurs malkot, but according to Tur, whether he ate a lot of the mixture or just a little, if the mixture has the taste of ḥametz, he has violated a Torah prohibition, but he does not incur lashes; according to Rambam, he has violated only a rabbinic prohibition. (According to Rambam and SA 453:2, in a mixture of wheat and rice, if the taste of the ḥametz is discernible, eating only a kezayit constitutes a violation of a Torah prohibition.)

    If ḥametz was mixed with food of the same type – for example, leavened flour with unleavened flour – since they taste the same, the ḥametz flour is nullified by the majority (batel be-rov) at the Torah level, but it is still rabbinically prohibited (SA 447:1).

    Regarding the prohibition against keeping ḥametz on Pesaḥ, if a kezayit of ḥametz becomes mixed with other food, as long as it is less than sixty times the quantity of the ḥametz, one violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. If the mixture is more than sixty times the quantity of the ḥametz, the ḥametz is batel at the Torah level and no prohibition is violated. Likewise, if the ḥametz becomes mixed with its own kind – for example, leavened flour with unleavened flour – that has the same taste, if there is more kosher flour than ḥametz flour, then according to Torah law the ḥametz is batel and no prohibition is violated. Nevertheless, even though no Torah prohibition is violated in these scenarios, the Sages ordained that the mixture must be eliminated, lest one eat it on Pesaḥ.[6]

    [6]. If one did not eliminate it, since he did not violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei he may benefit from it after Pesaḥ. As for eating it after Pesaḥ, Eliya Rabba claims that since he violated a rabbinic prohibition by keeping it over Pesaḥ, he may not eat it, although according to MA, he may eat it (MB 447:102).

    01. Matza Ashira (“Egg Matza”)

    The ḥametz that the Torah forbids is comprised of flour and water. If flour was kneaded with fruit juice – even if the dough sits a full day and rises – it is not considered ḥametz since rising of this kind is different from the type forbidden by the Torah. The category of “fruit juice” (“mei peirot”) includes wine, honey, milk, oil, and egg, in addition to all juices squeezed from a fruit, like apple or berry juice. Since fruit juice does not cause dough to become ḥametz, one may knead, bake, and eat such dough on Pesaḥ. Nevertheless, one would not fulfill the mitzva of matza on the first night of Pesaḥ with it, because the Torah calls matza “leḥem oni” (“poor man’s bread”), whereas matza made from fruit juice is “matza ashira” (“rich matza” – colloquially known in English as “egg matza”), since it possesses more than the taste of just flour and water.

    If a drop of water gets mixed in with the fruit juice, the dough can become ḥametz. Moreover, according to many poskim, the combination of water and fruit juice actually expedites the leavening process. Thus, in order to avoid such doubts, the Sages prohibited kneading dough with a mixture of fruit juice and water during Pesaḥ (SA 462:1-3).

    Ashkenazic custom is to prohibit eating anything made of dough kneaded with fruit juice out of concern that water mixed with the fruit juice, causing the dough to become ḥametz. Furthermore, it takes into account the opinion of Rashi, who disagrees with most Rishonim and maintains that fruit juice alone can cause something to become ḥametz on the rabbinic level. Although in principle it is possible to follow the lenient ruling of the vast majority of poskim, Ashkenazic custom, which should not be altered, is nevertheless strict, except in the case of the elderly and ill, where the custom is to be lenient (Rema 462:4). Nowadays, many Sephardic poskim also rule stringently, because it is known that water and other ingredients are generally added to fruit juice, increasing the likelihood that the egg matza became ḥametz (R. Mordechai Eliyahu).[1]

    [1]. There are two sugyot that pertain to this issue: the first is whether flour mixed with fruit juice can become ḥametz, and the second is whether, in a case where water was added to the dough, one may knead the dough while being careful that it does not become ḥametz. The first issue relates to the law that “fruit juice does not cause ḥametz” (Pesaḥim 35a). According to Rashi and those who agree with him, a flour and fruit juice mixture can become ḥametz nuksheh, which is rabbinically forbidden. Most Rishonim maintain that flour mixed with fruit juice alone never becomes ḥametz, but if any water got into the mixture, the mixture can become ḥametz. There is a dispute about the severity of this ḥametz: according to Rambam, it is ḥametz gamur, and according to Rabbeinu Tam it is ḥametz nuksheh. Pri Megadim states that all agree it becomes ḥametz gamur when the majority of liquid in the mixture is water (BHL 462:2 s.v. “memaharim”). See Berur Halakha ad loc. and Matza Ashira (Alba) 5:7-8.

    The second sugya, on Pesaḥim 36a, concerns a tannaitic dispute about matza ashira on Pesaḥ. According to Rif and Rambam, the halakha follows R. Akiva that one is permitted to knead flour in a mix of fruit juice and water provided that one takes caution to prevent the mixture from becoming ḥametz, just as one would with a standard flour-water mixture. This is also the opinion of R. Natronai Gaon and Me’iri. Against them, many Rishonim maintain that one should not knead flour with fruit juice and water, since it turns into ḥametz faster than does flour and water, but they disagree about what to do be-di’avad. According to R. Hai Gaon and Behag, the halakha follows Rabban Gamliel that one is required to burn the kneaded dough. According to Rabbeinu Ḥananel, Ritz Gi’at, and Rosh, the halakha follows the Sages that if one bakes the dough very quickly, he is permitted to eat it. This is the ruling of SA 462:2.

    Ashkenazic custom is to be strict out of concern for the view of Rashi and those who agree with him, who maintain that flour and fruit juice alone can become ḥametz, or out of concern that some water will mix with the fruit juice. The parameters of what is considered water and what is considered fruit juice are discussed in SA 462:3 and 7 and §466 (and see the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry “Ḥametz,” pp. 89-99). Regarding Sephardic custom, R. Mordechai Eliyahu had a long-standing opposition to certifying matza ashira as kosher for Pesaḥ out of concern that the fruit juice has been mixed with water or substances that have the status of water, like an agent that causes the dough to rise. (There are also grounds to forbid this because it catalyzes an action that resembles leavening, as explained in Pesaḥim 28a, in the commentary of Maharam Ḥalawa, and in Matza Ashira, p. 178.) Over time, it became apparent that his concern was justified, and water and occasionally even agents that cause the dough to rise are added to fruit juice. Nevertheless, some authorities rule leniently; according to them, these leavening agents do not cause the dough to become ḥametz. This ruling appears in Yabi’a Omer 9:42 and Shema Shlomo 4:13-17. However, according to many authorities these agents are forbidden by the Torah, or at least rabbinically, and therefore they prohibit Sephardim from eating factory-produced matza ashira on Pesaḥ.

    02. Becoming Ḥametz Once It Has Been Baked, and the Status of Matza Sheruya (Soaked Matza; “Gebrokts”)

    Once matza has been completely baked, the flour in it loses the capacity to become ḥametz, even if it is soaked in water for a long time. An indication that the matza is fully baked is that a crust has formed on its surface and that it breaks cleanly, with no threads of unbaked dough extending from it. Since completely baked matza cannot become ḥametz, it is permitted to soak it in soup. An elderly or sick person who cannot eat dry matza on the Seder night may soften matza by soaking it in water (SA 461:4 and below 16:29). Likewise, if the matza was milled into flour, it is permitted to knead it with water; one need not worry about it becoming ḥametz because, as mentioned, once it has been thoroughly baked, it cannot (SA 463:3). Therefore, one may bake cakes from the five species of grain during Pesaḥ or cook various dishes – such as gefilte fish and matza balls – that contain matza meal.

    Yet there are some who avoid soaking fully baked matza in water, lest some of the flour was not kneaded properly and remained unbaked, and soaking the matza will cause the unbaked dough to become ḥametz. They likewise fear that some flour may have stuck to the matza after the baking process, and if the matza is soaked in water, this flour will become ḥametz. There is yet another reason to be strict about matza meal: an unlearned person might confuse matza meal with flour and end up violating the prohibition of ḥametz on Pesaḥ. Ḥasidim accept this stringency and refrain from eating soaked matza, or “gebrokts.”

    The poskim, however, nearly unanimously agree that one need not be stringent, since it can be assumed that the kneading was thorough, leaving no flour unkneaded or unbaked. This is the custom of Sephardim and non-Ḥasidic Ashkenazim. Today, even some Jews from Ḥasidic families are lenient because the common practice is to bake thin matzot, so there is no longer any concern that some of the flour was not properly baked. Likewise, there is no concern that flour may have gotten stuck to the matza, since matza bakeries are careful to separate the area where flour is handled from the area where the matza comes out of the oven. Although technically eating soaked matza is permitted le-khatḥila, one should not disparage those who practice this stringency.[2]

    [2]. A baraita in Pesaḥim 39b states: “These are the things that cannot become ḥametz: baked items….” Rambam rules accordingly in MT, Laws of Ḥametz and Matza 5:5, and this is the consensus of the Rishonim. The sign that something is completely baked is that it has a crust on the outside and that it breaks cleanly, with no threads of dough extending (these two standards are identical, as per MB 461:15 and SHT 23 ad loc.). SAH 463:3 states that a baked item cannot become ḥametz and one may cook with matza meal. However, responsum §6 at the end of SAH states that matza meal is only permissible if one is absolutely certain that all of the flour was fully baked, and one should be concerned that perhaps not all of the flour was fully baked or that some flour may have stuck to the matzot after baking. SAH concludes that one should not reprimand the masses who are lenient since they have acceptable authorities on which to rely, but one who is stringent is commendable. Regarding matza meal, Knesset Ha-gedola §461 recounts that a woman once saw her neighbor, the rabbi’s wife, cooking and frying with matza meal and mistakenly assumed that it was permissible to use actual flour on Pesaḥ. When the town’s rabbis heard what had happened, they banned matza meal because of marit ayin (see Tur §463). Pri Ḥadash and many other Aḥaronim disagreed with this ban; see also She’elat Yaavetz 2:65 citing the author’s father (Ḥakham Tzvi) and Sha’arei Teshuva §460, cited in MB 458:4. In Ma’aseh Rav §183 it is written that one is permitted to make kufta’ot (dumplings). See the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry “Ḥametz”, pp. 83-84. Many maintain that even according to the stringent view, there is no need to be concerned about thin matzot, like the ones we use (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 461:31). Yeḥaveh Da’at 1:21 rules leniently le-khatḥila and states that one who was stringent because he thought that this is the halakha erred and may switch to the lenient practice without performing hatarat nedarim (the annulment of vows). However, one who accepted the stringency (without saying “bli neder”) because he wanted to go beyond the letter of the law and now wishes to be lenient should first perform hatarat nedarim.

    In practice, many people of Ḥasidic descent no longer observe the stringency of gebrokts because today’s matzot are very thin and our ovens are very strong. If one’s father was lenient in this matter, one need not perform hatarat nedarim, even if he is from a Ḥasidic family. However, if one’s father was stringent and he wants to be lenient, he should perform hatarat nedarim and make sure not to insult his father.

    The details of practicing the stringency of gebrokts: Those who do not eat gebrokts may be lenient when it comes to children or sick people, since soaking matza is not considered making ḥametz on Pesaḥ. Additionally, Jews in the Diaspora who keep gebrokts customarily make matza balls on the eighth day of Pesaḥ to show that matza sheruya is not fully prohibited. They prepare the matza balls on Ḥol Ha-mo’ed but do not otherwise eat off the dishes used to prepare the gebrokts. She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 113:7 allows using kelim in which matza was soaked. Responsa Kinyan Torah Be-halakha 2:87 rules stringently that one may not even soak matza for children or sick people.

    As far as soaking matza in fruit juice, SAH (op cit.) states that one need not be stringent, and indeed the widespread custom is to soak matza in wine and spread various spreads on matza. Kinyan Torah Be-halakha 2:87 is stringent regarding this as well. (See Piskei Teshuvot 458:5-7.) Sha’arei Teshuva 460:10 states that even those who are strict about gebrokts may dip matza in water and eat it immediately, before it could conceivably become ḥametz. Those who are stringent about dipping matza in fruit juice are stringent about this as well.

    03. Sephardic and Ashkenazic Approaches to Keeping Kosher on Pesaḥ

    In general, there are two fundamental approaches to the laws of kashrut on Pesaḥ. According to most poskim, the laws of ḥametz on Pesaḥ are no different than the laws of all other forbidden foods, with one exception: all other forbidden foods are batel be-shishim (rendered insignificant when constituting less than one sixtieth of the volume of a mixture), whereas ḥametz is not. However, all other laws of mixtures apply to ḥametz on Pesaḥ. Therefore, when there is no halakhic reason to suspect that a food mixture has absorbed the taste of ḥametz, it is kosher for Pesaḥ. Likewise, where an individual posek is stringent and the great majority of poskim are lenient, halakha follows the lenient opinion.

    However, Ashkenazim are customarily very strict about ḥametz, often showing concern for a stringent opinion even against the lenient majority and practicing caution where general halakhic principles indicate no reason to do so. Nevertheless, Ashkenazic custom also places a limit to its stringencies, and care is taken not to pile restrictions upon existing restrictions. The general tendency, though, is to show concern for every uncertainty. The basis for this approach is the Sages’ ruling that even a drop of ḥametz is forbidden; thus, if a mere crumb of ḥametz renders its entire mixture forbidden, so too individual halakhic opinions should be taken into account.

    This is the root of the consistent difference between the rulings of Shulḥan Arukh, which follow general halakhic principles, and those of Rema, which account, le-khatḥila, for the stringent opinions. Nonetheless, in cases of pressing need Rema adopts the lenient approach, since halakha fundamentally accords with most poskim.[3]

    In general, Sephardim follow Shulḥan Arukh and Ashkenazim follow Rema. However, some Sephardic poskim tend to be stringent, and their rulings are accepted in some Sephardic communities.[4]

    [3]. Here is brief overview of the major disputes between SA and Rema: 1) In 447:4, regarding the dispute among the Rishonim about ḥozer ve-ne’or, since it is an uncertainty about a case of rabbinic law, SA rules in accordance with the lenient view that it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or. Rema rules strictly that ḥametz in a dry mixture “reawakens,” though not in a fluid mixture. 2) In 447:5, regarding a food that was not guarded for Pesaḥ but there is no indication that it may have become forbidden for Pesaḥ: according to SA it is kosher, and according to Rema it is not. 3) In 447:10, regarding ḥametz that is noten ta’am li-fgam: according to SA and most poskim, it is kosher on Pesaḥ (especially since the uncertainty relates to a rabbinic law), and according to Rema it is prohibited. 4) In 451:6, regarding the proper method for kashering kelim: according to SA, we determine the method based on the main use of the kli, and according to Rema we determine the method based on the most severe usage. 5) In 451:11, regarding kashering a frying pan: according to SA, it may be kashered in boiling water (hagala), and according to Rema, it is kashered le-khatḥila in fire (light libun). 6) In 451:16 and 17, regarding kashering ḥametz pounding and kneading kelim: according to SA, they are kashered via hagala, and according to Rema, they are kashered via light libun. 7) In 453:1, the well-known custom of kitniyot. 8) In 462:1, regarding egg matza: according to SA, it is kosher, and according to Rema, we are concerned that perhaps a drop of water mixed in with the fruit juice, causing it to become ḥametz. Rema states in 462:4 that we are only lenient in extreme cases, for sick people. 9) In 467:9, regarding whole, uncracked kernels of wheat or barley that are found in a cooked dish: according to SA, the dish is permissible, and according to Rema, it is prohibited. 10) In 467:10 and 447:1, regarding a cracked kernel of wheat that is found in a cooked dish: according to SA, one may sell the dish to a gentile, excluding the value of the wheat kernel, and according to Rema, he must burn the entire dish. 11) The custom of the Ḥasidim is to prohibit gebrokts.

    [4]. Some Sephardic poskim are stringent like Rema, as Kaf Ha-ḥayim states in 447:86, 88, and 119. Also, Zekhor Le-Avraham states at the beginning of the laws of Pesaḥ that the Sephardim have the practice to be stringent like Rema “to the extent that when it comes to Pesaḥ, we are Ashkenazim.” This is echoed by additional Sephardic poskim. On the other hand, in extenuating circumstances even Rema rules to be lenient in accordance with SA (in most cases).

    04. Principles of Kosher Supervision on Pesaḥ

    There is a fundamental question regarding the laws of kashrut on Pesaḥ: What is the status of foods that are not normally made with ḥametz all year round? Are they kosher for Pesaḥ as they are, without any special supervision, or must we consider the possibility that they were somehow mixed with ḥametz and should not be eaten on Pesaḥ?

    According to Shulḥan Arukh, as long as there is no real concern that some ḥametz fell into this food or that it has absorbed the taste of ḥametz by being cooked in a pot in which ḥametz was cooked recently, there is no need to suspect that the food contains ḥametz.

    However, Rema writes that Ashkenazic custom is preferably to avoid eating specific products without special supervision for Pesaḥ. This is because ḥametz is used throughout the year, and we are not generally cautious about it, so we suspect that some of it may have fallen unnoticed into these particular foods. We are also concerned that the foods may have been unwittingly cooked in ḥametz pots.

    In practice, all kashrut organizations today tend to follow the stringent ruling of Rema and do not certify foods for Pesaḥ unless due caution to avoid ḥametz was exercised during the food’s preparation. Perhaps this is the way one must act today even according to Shulḥan Arukh, because all industrially produced foods contain a variety of ingredients, and there is concern that one of them is not kosher for Pesaḥ. Therefore, during Pesaḥ, one must be careful not to eat any factory food products that are not certified kosher for Pesaḥ.

    Where the facts of a case are not in doubt, there are still often practical differences between the rulings of Shulḥan Arukh and Rema. Although fundamentally the law accords with Shulḥan Arukh, the tendency today is to be stringent so that food will be kosher for all communities. This is the appropriate practice when it is not overly difficult to be stringent. However, when stringency causes significant loss, there are grounds to encourage those who follow Shulḥan Arukh and the majority of poskim to continue following their practice.[5]

    [5]. The issue of ḥozer ve-ne’or lies at the heart of this question. Those who are stringent are concerned that a crumb of ḥametz fell into a food before Pesaḥ, and that when Pesaḥ begins ḥametz “reawakens” and causes the entire mixture to become forbidden (Rema 447:4 based on several Ashkenazic Rishonim, and Radbaz 1:487). However, according to the opinion that ḥametz is not ḥozer ve-ne’or, even if a crumb had fallen into the mixture, it would have been batel before Pesaḥ and does not reawaken on Pesaḥ. Moreover, Pri Ḥadash states that even according to the opinion that ḥametz is ḥozer ve-ne’or there is room to be lenient in this case, since there is no reason to suspect that a crumb of ḥametz fell into the mixture. Furthermore, all agree that the prohibition of eating a food into which a drop of ḥametz fell is rabbinic, and according to She’iltot, even ḥametz is batel be-shishim.

    There is another concern that one cooked the food in ḥametz utensils, and it absorbed some of the ḥametz taste from the kelim. However, those who are lenient hold that there is no reason to suspect this, since it is assumed that most kelim have not been used within 24 hours and would then not influence the taste of the dish in a positive way (and would not make the dish prohibited). Furthermore, even if the kelim had been used within 24 hours of cooking the dish, ḥametz before Pesaḥ is permissible, thus the cooked dish is a “nat bar nat” (the pot absorbed the taste of the ḥametz and in turn, passed the taste on to the cooked dish) of permissible food, which is permitted; and see Yeḥaveh Da’at 1, 11 and in the notes. This fundamental dispute hinges on other issues, such as whether sharp food (davar ḥarif) restores and improves the taste absorbed in the kelim. (See Peninei Halakha: Kashrut 23:8, 12; MB on SA 447:5.)

    05. Milk from an Animal That Ate Ḥametz

    One issue that the foremost Aḥaronim dealt with is the status of milk which came from a cow that ate ḥametz. Clearly the milk itself does not contain ḥametz, for it was digested and completely transformed to the point that it is no longer considered ḥametz at all. However, the cow was able to produce milk by virtue of the ḥametz, and since it is forbidden to derive benefit from ḥametz, perhaps it is forbidden to benefit from milk produced by the virtue of ḥametz.

    The poskim agree that milk obtained from a cow before the onset of the prohibition of ḥametz is kosher for Pesaḥ, because one is allowed to derive benefit from ḥametz before Pesaḥ. Just as it is permissible to sell ḥametz before Pesaḥ and use the money to buy food for Pesaḥ, so too it is permissible to feed a cow ḥametz before Pesaḥ in order to produce milk that will be consumed on Pesaḥ.

    The dispute concerns milk from a gentile’s cow that ate ḥametz after the onset of the prohibition. Some are lenient, contending that since the ḥametz prohibition does not apply to the animal of a gentile, its milk is not considered produced in a forbidden manner. Furthermore, ḥametz alone does not cause milk to be produced. Rather, it must be combined with other foods and the animal’s biological processes. Since the ḥametz is only one factor, it is not prohibited. Against them, some poskim rule stringently that as long as ḥametz is a factor causing production of milk, the milk is forbidden. Others say that if 24 hours elapsed between the eating of ḥametz and the milking, the milk is kosher.

    If an animal owned by a Jew was fed ḥametz in violation of halakha, one must be strict and not drink its milk, firstly because it is forbidden for the animal’s owner to derive benefit from ḥametz, and secondly because one may not assist those who violate the Torah.[6] The same applies to eggs and meat.

    During Pesaḥ, Tnuva, a major Israeli dairy producer (and perhaps others) only accepts milk from dairy farms that have been made kosher for Pesaḥ and whose cows are not fed ḥametz. In this case, it is unnecessary to be scrupulous and buy milk products before Pesaḥ, because even dairy products manufactured on Pesaḥ are completely kosher for the duration of the holiday.[7]

    [6]. There are two factors in the production of milk: the cow’s physiology and the food it eats. If the cow ate ḥametz, the status of the milk is subject to the tannaitic dispute about something that is produced by multiple factors (“zeh ve-zeh gorem”), one of which is permitted and the other forbidden (Avoda Zara 48b). In practice, SA YD 142:11 rules that something that is produced by a combination of two factors is permissible. Accordingly, the milk of a cow that ate ḥametz is permissible.

    However, MA 445:5 (as well as Taz) states that due to the stringency of ḥametz, which renders mixtures forbidden even in the smallest quantity, something produced by ḥametz and another factor is forbidden. Nevertheless, most poskim, including SA, Shakh, and Gra, maintain that even in the case of ḥametz “zeh ve-zeh gorem” is permitted. SAH (445:10 and Kuntrus Aḥaron) concludes that the consensus of most poskim is to be lenient, and one may certainly be lenient in a situation of significant loss or an extenuating circumstance. This is also the view recorded in BHL 445:2.

    Some, however, argue that regardless of one’s position on zeh ve-zeh gorem, milk from a gentile’s cow that ate ḥametz is permitted. As explained in Beit Ephraim, OḤ 35 (cited in Sha’arei Teshuva at the end of §448), since ḥametz is permissible for a gentile on Pesaḥ, we do not view the milk from his cow as having been produced by something from which one is forbidden to benefit. Nishmat Adam §9 permits on different grounds: MA’s stringency only applies when the ḥametz is intact, unlike in the case of the milk. Responsa Mahari Aszod §127 and Responsa Maharam Schick §§212 and 222 rule likewise. Igrot Moshe OḤ 1:147 states that even if the gentile feeds his cow only ḥametz, its milk is permissible even according to the strict opinions.

    On the other hand, Pri Megadim (in Eshel Avraham on §448) is concerned about causing benefit that derives from ḥametz. Thus, there is still uncertainty if less than 24 hours passed between when the cow ate ḥametz and the milking (if more than 24 hours passed, the milk is permissible). Yeshu’ot Yaakov also states that one should preferably use milk that was extracted from the cow more than 24 hours after the cow ate ḥametz, but if less than 24 hours passed, the milk is still permissible as long as the cow ate permissible foods in addition to the ḥametz (because of zeh ve-zeh gorem; see MB 448:33). Some authorities ruled stringently: Kitzur SA 117:13 cites both opinions and concludes: “One who guards his soul should be strict, and especially in places where the prevalent custom is to be stringent, God forbid one should be lenient.” Arugat Ha-bosem 2:138 states that even according to those who permit the milk, a righteous person (“ba’al nefesh”) should refrain from drinking it, since it has negative spiritual effects. Ben Ish Ḥai (Year One, Tzav 42) states that one should not drink milk from a gentile’s cow out of concern that the gentile fed it ḥametz. R. Ḥayim Palachi writes similarly in Ru’aḥ Ḥayim 448:1.

    If the cow ate ḥametz before the ḥametz became prohibited and was milked after the ḥametz became prohibited, the vast majority of poskim maintain that the milk is kosher for Pesaḥ. Sdei Ḥemed mentions the opinion of Rinun Yitzḥak forbidding the milk of a cow that ate ḥametz before Pesaḥ and was milked after the ḥametz became forbidden, and states that this goes too far, since all other poskim say that this milk would be permissible. Nonetheless, because of this opinion some act stringently and only purchase dairy products before Pesaḥ. Sdei Ḥemed expands this topic in Ma’arekhet Ḥametz U-matza 2:4, and see Kaf Ha-ḥayim 448:113 as well.

    [7]. According to Nishmat Adam and Igrot Moshe OḤ 1:147, if a Jew feeds his animal ḥametz on Pesaḥ, the animal’s milk is kosher for Pesaḥ. Nonetheless, many others are stringent, not only because of zeh ve-zeh gorem, but because the Jew assists in the violation of a prohibition (“mesayei’a”). In fact, I heard from R. Weitman, the rabbi of Tnuva, that all dairy products produced on Pesaḥ are made from the milk of cows that did not eat ḥametz, so that the milk will be acceptable to everyone and can be bought on Pesaḥ. Another potential problem was that straw and possibly some grain might stick to the cows’ bodies as they wallow in mud, and these grains might accidentally get mixed into the milk. If the milk was produced before Pesaḥ, the taste of the grain is batel be-shishim even if it found its way into the milk, and since this is a liquid mixture even Rema (447:4) would agree that the taste of the ḥametz is not ḥozer ve-ne’or. If the grain fell into the milk on Pesaḥ, however, it is not batel. Although in the present case it is uncertain that any grain fell in, it would nevertheless be commendable to buy dairy products before Pesaḥ. However, I heard from R. Weitman that Tnuva introduced the practice of filtering all the milk very thoroughly right after the milking, so that no grain that falls in would have enough time to flavor the milk. Thus, one may purchase dairy products on Pesaḥ even according to the strictest opinions.

    06. Meat and Eggs

    The status of beef and chicken in this regard is the same as that of milk. If the animal was slaughtered before Pesaḥ, there is no halakhic problem, even if it had eaten ḥametz. However, since the stomach may contain undigested leavened barley grains, its contents must be thrown out. If a gentile’s animal was fed ḥametz and slaughtered during Pesaḥ, some poskim forbid consuming its meat, while others are lenient. One should be stringent and not buy the meat of a Jew’s animal that was fed ḥametz on Pesaḥ.

    In actuality, most meat is sold in packages, which thus must be labeled kosher for Pesaḥ. Even if the animal was slaughtered before Pesaḥ, when there is no problem if it was fed ḥametz, supervision is nevertheless required to ensure that no ḥametz crumbs fell into the meat between the slaughtering and the packaging.

    The same applies to eggs: as long as the eggs were bought before Pesaḥ, they are entirely kosher for Pesaḥ; that the hens were fed ḥametz makes no difference because it was not prohibited when eaten. The halakhic status of an egg that comes from a hen that ate ḥametz on Pesaḥ depends who the owner is. If the hen belongs to a gentile, the poskim disagree about the permissibility of the eggs. If the hen belongs to a Jew, even though some poskim are lenient, one must be stringent and refrain from buying such eggs. In practice, there is no supervision on eggs laid during Pesaḥ, so it is best to buy eggs laid before Pesaḥ.[8]

    [8]. Nevertheless, those who are lenient and purchase eggs on Pesaḥ have committed no transgression, even if the eggs are not certified kosher for Pesaḥ. As noted, even though a Jew owns the chickens and fed them ḥametz, there are lenient authorities. Furthermore, most of the food chickens consume on Pesaḥ is not ḥametz, so even according to the stringent opinions it is unclear that these eggs are forbidden. Thus, there are two uncertainties (“sfek sfeika”) about a rabbinic prohibition.

    A problem also arose with regard to the markings stamped on each egg. Some are concerned that these markings contain ḥametz and that a drop of it might fall into Pesaḥ food. But I heard from Tnuva’s Rabbi Ze’ev Weitman that all eggs brought to market via Israel’s Egg Production Council (which does not include the black market) are marked before Pesaḥ with a stamp that contains no ḥametz. (The stamp’s pattern is several stars.)

    07. Medicines on Pesaḥ

    Medicines are the subject of some of the most common questions on Pesaḥ. For example, there is concern that pills contain wheat-based starch. The purpose of the starch is to solidify and harden the pills. Had the starch been produced from potatoes or kitniyot, there would be no problem even for Ashkenazim, as for medicinal purposes one may swallow pills containing kitniyot. But what about starch extracted from a type of grain that can become ḥametz? It must be emphasized that a dangerously ill person whose treatment requires eating ḥametz has a mitzva to eat ḥametz. Saving a life overrides the prohibition against eating ḥametz. The question applies to an ill person whose life is not at risk.

    The answer depends on the taste of the medicine: if it is flavored, like syrup, lozenges, or chewables, then one must ascertain that it is kosher for Pesaḥ. In cases of uncertainty, it is forbidden to ingest them. Under pressing circumstances, if there is no way to clarify the uncertainty, one may be lenient (see the note).

    However, if the medicine is bitter or tasteless to the point that it is not fit as food, it may be swallowed on Pesaḥ. Even if the starch was derived from wheat, since it has been mixed with various bitter substances it is inedible and has lost its status as ḥametz. As we have seen, ḥametz that was rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption before Pesaḥ is no longer considered ḥametz and may be kept on Pesaḥ. The fact that one wants to swallow the medicine does not demonstrate that the ḥametz in the medicine is important to him, since the medicine, not the ḥametz, is significant for him, and the ḥametz itself is bitter and unfit for consumption. The ḥametz in it is thus batel and not prohibited (Ḥazon Ish, Mo’ed 116:8; Igrot Moshe, OḤ 2:92).

    Some meticulously observant people try to avoid even bitter medicines that contain ḥametz. They show concern for the opinion of the few poskim who maintain that medicine is not considered unfit for a dog’s consumption since we deem it significant, and it is thus rabbinically prohibited. Other poskim permit swallowing bitter medicines that contain ḥametz starch for one who is bedridden or whose entire body is in pain, but rule stringently for one suffering from mild aches and pains. But the view of most poskim is that bitter medicines containing ḥametz starch may be taken by any ill person and even only to reduce mild pain, as a prophylactic, or to fortify the body.

    Practically speaking, if one is uncertain whether certain bitter or tasteless medicines contain wheat starch, he may swallow them without checking that they are free of wheat starch. As we have learned, most poskim maintain that medicines rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption before Pesaḥ may be consumed during Pesaḥ even if they are known to contain ḥametz. Even one who prefers to comply with the stringent opinion on this issue need not be strict if he is uncertain whether the medicine contains ḥametz. This is especially true nowadays, when we know that potato and corn starch are used more widely than wheat starch. Thus, in practice, one may consume bitter or tasteless medicines on Pesaḥ without ascertaining whether they contain ḥametz. When one knows for certain that a particular medicine contains ḥametz starch, he may choose to rely on the lenient opinion of most poskim or the stringent minority.[9]

    [9]. Ḥametz that was rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption prior to Pesaḥ is no longer considered ḥametz, and according to Ha-ma’or, Ran, and other Rishonim it may even be eaten on Pesaḥ. Conversely, Rosh, Rabbeinu Yeruḥam, and other Rishonim maintain that this type of ḥametz is rabbinically prohibited, since by eating it the person assigns importance (“aḥshevei”) to it and shows that, for him, the food is still edible. Accordingly, SA 442:9 and MB 43 ad loc. rule that one may keep such an item over Pesaḥ since it is unfit for a dog’s consumption and thus not considered ḥametz. However, he may not eat it, since by eating it he assigns significance to it. However, even according to the view of Ha-ma’or and Ran, it is not clear that it would be forbidden to swallow bitter ḥametz-containing pills on Pesaḥ, and even according to Rosh and those who agree with him it may be permissible, since the Aḥaronim debate whether swallowing ḥametz that is unfit for a dog’s consumption for medicinal purposes assigns significance to the ḥametz. Sha’agat Aryeh §75 states this indeed assigns significance to the ḥametz, whereas Ktav Sofer OḤ §111 states that it does not impart significance. If the ḥametz is not the main ingredient in the pill, most Aḥaronim maintain that even Rosh would concede that swallowing a bitter pill does not impart significance to the ḥametz. See Ḥavalim Ba-ne’imim 5:4; Ḥazon Ish, Mo’ed 116:8; Igrot Moshe OḤ 2:92; Yeḥaveh Da’at 2:60; SSK 40:74; and many others. However, it seems that SAH 442:22 derives from the case of tiryaka, an edible type of medicine, that Rosh would prohibit swallowing a pill as well. Most authorities, who are lenient, would differentiate between tiryaka, which is eaten by the ill, and medicines that are swallowed but not eaten.

    Moreover, even when the starch is from wheat flour, it generally did not have time to rise, and at worst would be classified as ḥametz nuksheh, which did not undergo a complete leavening and is only rabbinically prohibited. Since this ḥametz nuksheh is part of a mixture within a bitter pill, there is no reason to be stringent. Nevertheless, some incline toward stringency (Arugat Ha-bosem 2:99, and Atzei Ha-Levanon §19). Some have written that although these pills are technically permitted, the holy people of Israel are strict even about ḥametz mixed into a bitter pill (Tzitz Eliezer 10:25:20). But Nishmat Avraham OḤ 1:466:1 states that most pills do not contain ḥametz at all. It is further stated there in the name of R. Ovadia Yosef that even though he writes in Yeḥaveh Da’at 2:60 that only a genuinely sick person may be lenient, if it is uncertain whether or not the pill contains ḥametz, there is no need to ascertain. As noted, the vast majority of poskim maintain that it is not at all prohibited to swallow a bitter pill, and even one with a minor ailment may take a pill that contains ḥametz rendered unfit for a dog before Pesaḥ started.

    A tasty medicine requires kosher certification. However, under pressing circumstances, and when it is uncertain whether there is ḥametz in this medicine and there is no way to clarify (generally because companies guard the composition of medicines like a trade secret), since the vast majority of medicines do not contain ḥametz, one may be lenient based on the majority, as explained in SA YD 110:3. Regarding concern for a prohibited substance in tasty medicines, I wrote in Peninei Halakha: Kashrut 37:8 that if there is no medicine with kosher certification, one may take a tasty medicine without kosher certification. However, in the present case, due to the stringency of the prohibition of ḥametz, I wrote that one may be lenient only under pressing circumstances.

    08. Citric Acid

    Citric acid is used to flavor juices, jams, candies, and various food items. In the past it was extracted from lemons and other fruit, but nowadays it is produced commercially from wheat flour.

    Although during the production process the flour is initially mixed with water and may become ḥametz, at a later stage it loses its taste and appearance, is rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption, and thus loses its status as ḥametz. Some poskim therefore permit eating products containing citric acid on Pesaḥ (Yeḥaveh Da’at 2:62).

    In contrast, many poskim are stringent in this case. In their opinion, ḥametz only loses its status if it becomes unfit for a dog’s consumption due to spoilage. If it is intentionally rendered inedible so that it may be used to flavor foods, it is not nullified and is considered ḥametz for all purposes (Minḥat Yitzḥak 7:27; Or Le-Tziyon 1:34; Shevet Ha-Levi 4:47).

    The halakha follows the lenient view, and in accordance with the words of R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen, of blessed memory, the municipal rabbi of Haifa, who investigated and found that there is no concern that citric acid is ḥametz. First, the flour that starts the process does not become ḥametz since it sits in water for only six minutes – not enough time to become ḥametz. Second, the starch is then extracted from the mixture, and starch alone cannot become ḥametz. Third, citric acid is not produced from the wheat starch itself, but from molds that feed off a substance whose ingredients include a material extracted from the unleavened starch.[10]

    [10]. This debate is very extensive, and the key questions are: Is something that was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ ḥozer ve-ne’or once Pesaḥ begins? Even if not, would a stabilizing agent (“davar ha-ma’amid”) be any different? And what if it is not the sole agent? The Badatz and many other kosher-certification agencies are very strict about citric acid and similar products. However, according to R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen’s long essay in Teḥumin vol. 1, it seems clear that there is no reason for concern that citric acid contains ḥametz. More precisely: the starch is first separated from the gluten by spinning the wheat flour in water for six minutes. As we know, it takes 18 minutes for flour and water to become ḥametz, so the flour could not have become ḥametz in those six minutes. By then the starch, which has already been separated from the gluten, cannot become ḥametz, because the gluten is the substance within the flour where the leavening takes place. Without gluten, starch cannot become ḥametz. The starch is then heated to 140ºC until it liquefies as dextrose (glucose). This heating process destroys the existing molecules and changes their composition. To dispel any doubt, an attempt was made to leaven this substance, but it was unsuccessful.

    The liquid dextrose is then mixed with sulfur to destroy the enzymes in it and render it inert and unable to ferment. Since it never had the chance to become ḥametz, it certainly will not become ḥametz in the future. This is the first stage of the process, which shows that the extracted starch does not become ḥametz. The next step is to place the liquid into large vats, to feed the molds. It is left until the mold has finished digesting all of the dextrose and excreted another substance: citric acid. Thus, citric acid is not a product of the starch, but a product of the mold. Just as if one used organic fertilizer that contained remnants of bread to fertilize vegetables, the vegetables would undoubtedly be kosher for Pesaḥ, certainly citric acid excreted by molds that digested a liquid that never became ḥametz in the first place would be kosher for Pesaḥ. This conclusion has major implications for other industrial ingredients that use wheat starch that never became ḥametz and that undergoes fundamental alterations before being reintegrated into food.

    Chapter Contents

    Peninei Halakha We use cookies to ensure the website functions properly and improve user experience. You can choose which types of cookies to enable.
    Cookie Selection


    Privacy Policy

    Menu

    languages

    Books list