Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 99) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 9) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Halachah 2 describes the nature of the destruction required.

There is a deeper dimension to the words chosen by the Rambam. The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 9) questions whether the mitzvah of destroying chametz is to destroy the chametz itselfor remove it from our possession—i.e., an active deed—or is it merely to ensure that we possess no chametz. Thus, this mitzvah, like the positive commandment of resting on the Sabbath, can be fulfilled without making any active effort.
The mitzvah to destroy chametz begins at midday on the fourteenth, when chametz becomes forbidden. Thus, the Rambam’s statement that the destruction of chametz must be performed before chametz becomes forbidden, and his description of it as nullification (Halachah 2), reveal that he follows the second interpretation. At the moment the mitzvah begins to apply, the person does not perform any activity. Nevertheless, he fulfills the mitzvah, because there is no chametz.within his possession.

the mitzvah to destroy chametz also applies to chametz discovered throughout the holiday. However, at that time, the chametz must actually be destroyed. (See Halachah 3: 11.)

Pesachim 4b

The Talmud explains that the word ,ןושאר though generally, translated as “the first,” can also be rendered “before.” For example, in Job 15:7, דלות םדא ןושארה is translated as: “Were you born before Adam?”

that “the first day” ref ers to the f ourteenth of Nisan, rather than the first day of the holiday.

he prohibition mentioned in this verse is also considered as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot in its own right. lt is described by the Rambam in Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:5. Since

the mitzvah to destroy chametz must begin beforehand. Thus, quoting this verse serves two purposes:
a) supporting the principle that ןושאר also means before;
b) clarifying when on the fourteenth of Nisan the mitzvah must be fulfilled: before midday (Kessef Mishneh ).

The Kessef Mishneh quotes a different version of the text:
What is the destruction to which the Torah refers? to remove all chametz known to one from his property. [The chametz] which is unknown should be nullified ...
This version implies that, according to Torah as well as Rabbinic law (See Halachah 2), we must rid our homes of all chametz of whose existence we are conscious; its nullification is not sufficient.
Nevertheless, the Kessef Mishneh brings a number of proofs from the Talmud and also quotes other commentaries of the Rambam, which maintain that the published text is correct and that the nullification of chametz is sufficient according to Torah law. He also quotes Hilchot Berachot 11:15, which emphasizes that “from the moment a person resolves in his heart to nullify it, the mitzvah of destroying [chametz] is fulfilled.”
In the Kuntres Hashlemah, the Tzafnat Paneach contrasts the nullification of chametz to that of avodah zarah (false gods ), in which thought is not sufficient and deed is necessary. He explains that the prohibition of avodah zarah affects the very essence of the article. Hence, an act is required. In contrast, the prohibition against chametz does not affect the essence of the food. (Therefore, according to Torah law, it is permitted to be used after the holiday; see Commentary, Halachah 1:4.) Hence, one’s ownership can be nullified by thought alone.

The Rambam describes the more practical aspects of the nullification of chametz in Chapter 3, Halachot 7-10. There, he requires a person to make a formal statement nullifying his chametz. That declaration is a Rabbinic requirement. According to the Torah itself, a firm resolve is sufficient, and no statement is necessary (Binyan Shlomo ).

doing so removes his legal ownership over the chametz.

If a person nullifies chametz within his heart and genuinely does not consider it as belonging to him, Torah law does not obligate him for the possession of chametz even if large quantities of it are found within his home.

As explained in the previous halachah, according to the Torah, chametz may be within a person’s property as long as he declared it ownerless. Nevertheless, the Sages forbade such practices and required all chametz סtbe removed from one’s property.
Two reasons are given for this decree:
a) The nullification of chametz is dependent on the feelings of a person’s heart. A person may possibly have difficulty totally removing all thoughts ofownership over the chametz from his heart (Rabbenu Nissim, Pesachim 2a).
b) In contrast to other prohibited substances, chametz is used throughout the year. Thus, were he allowed to leave chametz within his property, he might accidentally forget about the prohibition and eat it on Pesach (Tosefot, Pesachim 2a).
In addition to the restriction against possessing chametz, the Sages further expanded the scope of

to destroy chametz so that it

It must be emphasized that the obligation to search for chametz is Rabbinic in nature only when a person nullifies his chametz when required. Otherwise, the obligation stems from the Torah, for the prohibitions against possessing chametz and the commandment to destroy it require such a search. The Tzafnat Paneach quotes a number of examples that demonstrate how the existence of a Torah commandment obligates a person to check and search to see that it is being fulfilled correctly.

as clarified in Halachah 6, the obligation to search applies only to those holes and crevices in which chametz is usually placed.

The destruction of chametz at night refers to the statement ארימח ,לכ in which we nullify all the chametz of whose possession we are unaware. The chametz that we know about is either eaten or destroyed the next morning.

i.e., the night between the thirteenth and f ourteenth of Nisan.

in contrast to the day of the f ourteenth, when the prohibition against possessing chametz begins (Pesachim 4a).

while during the day people are occupied outside their homes.

during the day, its light would not be as eff ective.

Rabbenu Yonah allows a person to continue a study session on the night of the fourteenth if the session began while it was still day. Rav Yosef Karo accepts his opinion, but the Ramah does not. However, the Taz explains that leniencies may be made for public study sessions. Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah go further and allow public study sessions even after nightfall, provided the subject matter is not overly involving.

half an hour before nightfall (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 431 :3).

The Maggid Mishneh mentions that it is also improper to begin a meal at this time. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 431 :2) also prohibits beginning work. Communal prayer is allowed.

There are two reasons for the preference in carrying out the search in the beginning of the night:
a) it is appropriate to carry out a mitzvah as soon as possible;
b) at the beginning of the night, there is still some daylight left, which will facilitate the search (Ra’avad, Commentary on the Rif).

If one searches by day; i.e., either one forgot to search on the night of the thirteenth and had to carry out the search the following day. Alternatively, one decided to search for chametz before the fourteenth of Nisan with the intention of keeping the room chametz-free afterwards (Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 1:1). The light of the sun is insufficient to check indoor areas carefully.

Pesachim 8a explains that a person will be scared to placed a torch close enough to check small holes and crevices carefully lest he start a fire.

lt is customary to use a candle made from beeswax.

a room with three walls and the f ourth side open.

Pesachim 8a states that the same principle applies to the area .directly under an aperture in the roof. The Magen Avraham ( Orach Chayim 433:4) also applies this principle to the area directly opposite an open window.

The Rambam’s choice of phraseology clearly implies that it is not desirable to do so. Rather, even a porch should be checked at night by candlelight. Other authorities question this perspective, but it is accepted as halachah by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 433:1).

Pesachim 8a states “a courtyard need not be searched.” The Rambam adds the words “the middle” out of fear that the birds will not eat the chametz in the cracks and holes clos·e to the wall. In this case as well, though other authorities are more lenient, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 433:6) quotes the Rambam’s opinion.

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 433:4) applies the same principle to protrusions extending from a wall.

neither very high or low, see the f ollowing halachah.

In previous generations, the walls of the homes were very thick and large holes would frequently be used f or storage.

for both may use it.

As mentioned in Halachah 2, according to Torah law, the nullification of chametz is sufficient.

see the Jew looking intently through the hole by candlelight and

This might motivate him to harm the Jew. The Sages did not require a Jew to endanger himself to fulfill their decrees.

The Kessef Mishneh (and similarly, the Taz) require the Jew to check the hole for chametz by day.

This is a major principle governing the search for chametz. The Sages only obligated a search where it was likely that chametz might be found. Therefore, they did not require a person to search places into which he did not bring chametz. Nevertheless, places where babies might have brought chametz must be searched, even though adults might not necessarily bring chametz there.

those above a person’s reach (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 433:4)

Below three handbreadths high (ibid.). The Magen Avraham (433:8) emphasizes that if children are found at home, these lower holes must also be searched.

This halachah continues the final clause of the previous one, listing a number of places into Which chametz is generally not brought.

The commentaries explain that this refers to slanted roofs.

Rashi, Pesachim 8a, explains that most likely, the animals and the chickens will eat any chametz brought there. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 433:6) qualifies this leniency explaining that it does not apply when a person definitely knows that chametz was brought into these premises one month before Pesach. (See Magen Avraham; the Makor Chayim brings a more lenient opinion.) In such an instance, he must search the premises on the night of the thirteenth by candlelight.

Hence, there is little possibility that chametz was brought there.

Small fish may be taken out during the course of a meal. However, generally, a person will take large fish to prepare only before a meal and not in the midst of eating.

In all these cases, the Sages regarded it likely that a person would get up in the middle of a meal while holding chametz in his hand to bring supplies from these storage rooms. Hence, they required such premises to be searched.

On the surface, these holes were mentioned in the previous halachah, and their mention here is redundant .

Thus, unless a person knows otherwise, he must act under the presumption that he brought chametz into these premises.

To be used the following morning.

In this instance as well, there is an obvious reason for the suspicion that chametz has been brought into the home.

for mice do not generally crumble food. (See the following halachah.)

and accidentally ignored, and the mouse deposited the bread it was carrying elsewhere.

Though some authorities do not require a second search when the bread was small and most probably eaten by the mouse, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah ( Orach Chayim 438) do not accept this leniency.

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 438: 1) quotes this opinion as halachah. The Magen Avraham (based on the Tur) is more lenient. Rather than require that the entire house be searched, he maintains that searching the room that the mouse entered is sufficient.

even if it was no longer whole

He must be able to recognize this as the bread seen in the mouse’s mouth

and may presume that the mouse ate the rest of the bread.

checked for chametz

The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 438:3) explains that if the child is intelligent enough to reply to questions, we should ask him what he did with the chametz and we may depend upon his reply.

Tosefot (Pesachim 10b) require a second search if the amount of crumbs does not equal the quantity of the original bread. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah favor the Rambam’s opinion only when the person has nullified his ownership over his chametz. If not, the search takes on the seriousness of a Torah commandment. Hence, it must be repeated.

Hence, the difference between this and the previous halachah.

and the principles mentioned in the previous halachah apply.

For example, after the search for chametz, a person will still have some chametz in his property for use the following morning. However, he may already bring out his Passover matzot.

The Mishnah Berurah emphasizes that this decision applies only when we actually saw the mouse take from the piles. lf no one saw the mouse, the ruling mentioned in the last clause of the following halachah applies.

for chametz

as if it were definitely chametz, as prescribed in Halachah 8.

the permitted and forbidden substances

The probability that the mouse took from the matzot is considered no greater than the probability that he took from the chametz.
This is a classic Talmudic case. Pesachim 9b draws a parallel to the following passage:
Nine butcher shops which all sell ritually slaughtered meat and one which sells meat which has not been slaughtered properly: should a person take meat from one of them without knowing from which he took (i.e., without knowing whether he purchased kosher or non-kosher meat), he must consider [the meat] forbidden because of the doubt involved.
In both cases, the permitted and f orbidden substances remain in one place, and their existence is theref ore considered as fixed .)עובק( In such instances, the fact that there is a much ·higher probability that the article in question was taken from the permitted substances is not considered significant, and the more stringent perspective is taken. See also Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 8:11.
Nevertheless, the Ra’avad and other authorities take issue with this halachah, explaining that the Talmud only made such a statement when a person has not nullified his chametz, and the responsibility to search the house stems from the Torah itself. However, if the person already nullified his chametz, the search is only a Rabbinic obligation. Hence, it should be judged more leniently.
The Maggid Mishneh explains that even though leniencies may generally be taken when doubts arise concerning Rabbinic obligations, the search f or chametz is an exception. The entire obligation was instituted even when there was no definite knowledge that chametz existed. Hence, even in this case, a search must be made.
Though the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 439:1) accepts the Rambam’s opinion, the Ramah and the other Ashkenazic authorities make the following qualification: If the person had already nullified his chametz and if the bread was small enough f or. the mouse to have eaten it entirely, a second search is not required.

In such an instance, we presume that the mouse holding the chametz entered the unchecked house, and the mouse holding the matzah entered the checked house. Comparable decisions are found in Hilchot Terumah 13:14, Hilchot lssurei Biyah 9:29 and Hilchot Mikvaot 10:3.
Pesachim 10a emphasizes that this leniency is only rendered because once a person has nullified ownership over his chametz, the search is only a question of Rabbinic law. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 4.39:4) agrees to this principle, but offers an addition leniency: Even if the owner did not nullify his chametz, a second search is not required when the bread the mouse was holding is small enough to be eaten at once.

Each of the homes is judged individually. Since we do not definitely know that chametz was not brought into either of the homes, we need not change our original presumption and consider each one as free of chametz.
Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 19:2 mentions a similar case, but reaches a more stringent conclusion. Leniency is only offered when the two people in question approach the Rabbis separately. If they come together, the case is judged more severely.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh both note this matter and explain that since the search for chametz is a question of Rabbinic law, greater leniency can be taken. Nevertheless, the Ramah ( Orach Chayim 439:2) and other Ashkenazic authorities do not accept this decision and require a second search, should the owners of both homes approach the court together.

Pesachim 10a compares this to a case in which a corpse was presumed to be found in a field. Though Rabbi Meir maintains that the field is considered ritually impure until the corpse is found, the halachah follows the Sages, who maintain that all that is necessary is to carry out a thorough search. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( Orach Chayim 439:6) states that this law applies even when the owner of the house had not nullified his chametz, and the search is required by Torah law.

we presume that this was the bread the mouse had taken. Pesachim 10a compares this to a case where a field was suspected to contain a grave; the field was searched, and a grave discovered. Though Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel requires the entire field to be searched, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi maintains that no further search must be made.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (ibid.) emphasizes that this leniency should only be followed when the owner of the house has nullified or can still nullify the ownership over his chametz. Otherwise, he must thoroughly search the entire house.

The passage from Pesachim 9b concerning the ten butcher shops quoted in the commentary on the previous halachah, continues:[If meat from these shops] is found, follow the majority.
The principle of עובק—judging the permitted and forbidden substances as if they were equal—applies only when the doubt concerning the identity of the substance arises in the place where the presence of the forbidden substance has become fixed. Thus, since the meat has become separated )שריפ( from its original place, this principle no longer applies and, as in most cases of mixtures, the decision depends on whether there is a greater number of kosher or non-kosher stores.
Similarly, in the case at hand: Since the loaf became separated from the piles before being taken by the mouse, there is no question of a prohibited substance having a fixed identity .)עובק( Hence, we follow the majority, and thus do not require a further search. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah emphasize that this leniency applies even if the owner of the house had not nullified the ownership over his chametz.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this is a complete thought in its own right.

According to the Kessef Mishneh, this statement applies only to the final instance mentioned in the halachah as explained.

Pesachim 10b explains that the Sages felt that it was likely that the chametz discovered was not the chametz lost. Rather, diff erent chametz was placed in the other corner, and the first chametz, deposited elsewhere throughout the house. Hence, a new search is required (See also Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav U’Moshav 12:16.)
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( Orach Chayim 439:9) states that if the same amount of chametz that was lost is f ound there is no need to search further if the owner had already nullified the ownership over his chametz. The Mishnah Berurah grants an even greater leniency and frees the owner of the necessity to search, without placing any qualifications on the chametz discovered, as long as he has nullified his chametz.

Pesachim 10a compares this to the following case: “A person put aside 100 dinars of money designated as ma’aser sheni (the second tithe, to be used only to purchase food in Jerusalem) and discovered two hundred.”
In Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 6:3, the Rambam declares that none of the money is considered as ma’aser sheni. In both instances, we suppose that the substance put aside was taken away and a new substance substituted for it. Accordingly, the Magen Avraham emphasizes that the owner cannot cease his search until he finds nine piles of chametz. This law applies even if the owner has nullified his ownership over the original nine piles of chametz.

Pesachim 10a likens this to a case when a person traveled through a valley in which one of the fields was known to possess a grave. Though he is unsure of whether he entered the field containing the grave or not, he must consider himself ritually impure (See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot,,.HaTum’ah 20:9.)
The Ra’avad’s text of the Mishneh Torah contained an additional clause: or there were nine piles of chametz and one pile of matzah: A loaf became separated from them and it is not known whether it was chametz or matzah. A mouse came and took it into a checked house.
The Kessef Mishneh rejects the inclusion of this clause because in the previous halachah, the Rambam had already stated that once a substance is separated from its original place, its identity is determined on the basis of the majority.

of chametz

The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 438:1) follows this decision even when the owner did not nullify his chametz. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows his opinion, though the Tur requires the owner to nullify his chametz or search.

Obviously the mouse which left is not the same as the mouse that entered, and it is not likely that one mouse took the chametz from the other (Pesachim 10b). Hence,

even if he has already nullified his chametz (Pri Chadash Shulchan Aruch HaRav).

Even though it is possible that the weasel took the chametz from the mouse, that probability is not strong enough to free the owner from the obligation to search (Pesachim, ibid. ). This applies even if he nullifies his chametz (Pri Chadash, Shulchan Aruch HaRav).

the weasel’s

Even though one might say that unless the chametz is found in the mouse’s mouth, we cannot be sure that it is the same Nevertheless, since it is possible that the mouse dropped the chametz out of fear (Pesachim ibid.)

The Talmud left this questioned unanswered .)וקית( The Pri Chadash and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav explain that this decision applies only when the owner nullifies the ownership over his chametz. In such an instance, the question is only one of Rabbinic law (for according to Torah law, the nullification is sufficient). Hence, the Rambam chooses the more lenient opinion.

This question is also left unanswered by the Talmud (Pesachim, ibid. ). Therefore, the Rambam again chooses the more lenient view. In this case as well, the owner must nullify his ownership over the chametz. Thus, since the question is only one of Rabbinic law, he is not required to spend extra money when the possibility exists that the snake ate the forbidden food or took it out of his premises.

even if he must rent the ladder

And the owner might come to eat it.

to which a person does not have easy access

The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that a person is not allowed to store chametz in a pit. However, should chametz accidentally fall into the pit bef ore it becomes forbidden ...

However, if he had not nullified ownership over his chametz and did not discover the chametz until after it becomes forbidden, he is obligated to remove the chametz from the pit (Mishnah Berurah ).
The Tosefta (Pesachim 3:3) states: “Chametz which fell into a pit is considered as if it has been destroyed;” implying that even nullification is unnecessary. However, the Tzafnat Paneach differentiates between the two cases, explaining that our halachah ref ers to a pit to which a person could descend if required. In contrast, the Tosefta refers to a pit which is totally inaccessible, or accessible only with extreme difficulty. Since the owner cannot make use of his chametz, there is no necessity for him to nullify his ownership of it.

Generally, all prohibitions against eating forbidden foods do not apply after the food is no longer fit for human consumption. Nevertheless, additional stringencies are placed on chametz, because it may be useful as a leavening agent even if it is no longer fit to be eaten by a human being. Hence, it is not nullified until it is no longer fit even for animal consumption. (See Ra’avad, Maggid Mishneh, and Kessef Mishneh to Chapter 1, Halachah 2.)

The Mishnah Berurah ( Orach Chayim 442:42) explains that if the surface of the block is covered with mortar, it does not become forbidden even though it is still fit to be eaten. This act clearly implies that the owner no longer considered the chametz as food.

Its possession does not violate the prohibition against owning chametz.
The Taz emphasizes that only the prohibition against owning chametz is lifted. Even if the chametz is unfit for animal consumption, a person is forbidden to eat it on Pesach should he desire to do so.

As mentioned in Halachah 1: 1, the size of an olive is considered the minimum amount for which one is liable for the transgression of most of the Torah’s prohibitions.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav emphasizes that this applies even when one has nullified his ownership over this chametz or covered it with mortar. The size of an olive is considered as a significant amount and must be destroyed at all times:

of dough in one place, though there are many smaller pieces of dough throughout the kneading trough

the dough

and thus, part of the kneading trough

and, theref ore, need not be destroyed.

If the dough does not serve a useful purpose

for the obligation to search after and destroy chametz applies to all quantities of that substance, even if they are smaller than the size of an olive (Maggid Mishneh).
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( Orach Chayim 442:28) explains that dough which has not become stuck to the cracks of the kneading trough must be removed. However, leniency may be taken regarding dough stuck in the cracks of the kneading trough, even though it does not serve a purpose. Should the owner nullify his ownership over his chametz, that dough need not be destroyed if:
a) the entire kneading trough contains less than an olive size of chametz stuck to its sides;
b) the dough has become dirty and unfit for consumption.

used to fill cracks in the kneading trough

Thus, the question is raised:
Are the two considered as a single quantity, and hence obligated to be destroyed;
or
Can they be considered as separate entities, and thus allowed to be kept?

This leniency applies only to dough that strengthens the kneading trough. Otherwise, they must be destroyed (Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chayim 442:35).

leniency

whether the dough is used to fill cracks in the house or not

Based on this decision, whenever there is more than the size of an olive of dough in the same room, we are obligated to destroy any and all pieces of dough in the room, even if they are not connected by strings of dough.

when the house is swept, and thus produce a quantity the size of an olive (Rashi, Pesachim 45b ).

where it would be unlikely for the two halves to come together (ibid.);

where there is a greater probability of the two small portions of chametz coming together

Generally, the word תיב means “house.” However, it is often used to mean “room.”

where the probability is even greater.

This is a major point of debate among the halachic authorities. Rabbenu Asher (Pesakim, Pesachim 3:2) writes that the dough need not be stuck to the walls of the house. However, the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh oppose that thesis. They argue that the only reason for leniency is that when the dough is stuck to the walls of the house, it is considered as part of the house and not as an entity in its own right.

After describing the above laws in detail, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( Orach Chayim 442:30) concludes:
The above represents the law itself. However, the Jews are holy and have customarily accepted greater stringencies upon themselves. They scrape away even the slightest amount of chametz, even if it is stuck to the walls of a home or utensil. They have accepted the stringency of scraping down all benches, chairs, and walls that have come into contact with chametz.

One might suppose that the sequence of this halachah and the following halachah should be reversed. First, the Rambam should state who is obligated to search for chametz, and only then the fact that we can rely that this search was properly carried out. Indeed, Pesachim 4 and the Shulchan Aruch follows that sequence when discussing these laws.
Possibly, the Rambam’s choice of sequence can be explained as follows: The motivating principle of many of the previous halachot is that once a person has nullified the ownership over his chametz, the search is merely a Rabbinic obligation. Hence, many leniencies can be taken.

Pesachim 4b questions whether we can rely on this presumption or not and does not arrive at a conclusion. Nevertheless, the Rambam’s statements can be understood in light of the Pesakim of Rabbenu Asher. He explains that if ownership over the chametz is negated the obligation to search is only Rabbinic. When doubt arises regarding matters of Rabbinic law, the more lenient position may be accepted.

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 437:2) qualifies this statement, requiring the prospective tenant to ask the owner of the house if it has been searched. However, if he cannot possibly ask the owner, he need not search the house. However, this applies only when the tenant has the opportunity to nullify his ownership over any chametz that may be found within the home.

and we know that before Pesach, chametz had definitely been kept within the home (Mishnah Berurah)

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah emphasize that this law applies only if the chametz has been nullified. Otherwise, the statement of a. woman or child may not be relied upon.
Generally, a woman’s statements are accepted even as regards Torah prohibitions. However, an exception is made in this case because the search for chametz involves much effort. Hence, our Sages worried that perhaps a woman might state that she had made a thorough search even though she had merely made a superficial inspection (Tosefot, Pesachim 4b)

Tosefot (ibid.) states that slaves are believed in matters where a woman’s word is accepted.

Eruvin 58b and Ketubot 28a quote instances where a child’s statements are not accepted even with regard to Rabbinic prohibitions. However, we may rely on their word regarding the search f or chametz, because they are capable of perf orming the search.

I.e., he has reached the age where his parents have begun to educate him about the prohibition against possessing chametz.

Different rules apply to a sale (Rabbenu Nissim).

the beginning of the

I.e., the night between the thirteenth and the fourteenth.

Rashi (Pesachim 4a) explains that giving the keys to the tenant represents the transfer of ownership of the house to the tenant. Whoever is the rightful owner of the property at the time the obligation to search begins must carry out this mitzvah. However, Tosafot and most other halachic authorities explain that giving the keys does not formalize the act of transfer. Thus, the Maggid Mishneh explains that in this instance, the rental agreement has been concluded beforehand. Nevertheless, since the landlord is still in possession of the keys, the tenant is not able to conduct the search. Hence, the responsibility becomes that of the landlord.

He is required to undertake this search, even though he has abandoned ownership over any chametz that might be left in the house and does not violate the prohibitions against possessing chametz because of it (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 437:1).

However, the Mishnah Berurah mentions other opinions that require a search even if the tenant has not formalized the rental agreement.

Even though the chametz was left by the landlord, when the tenant takes over the ownership of the house, he becomes the owner of all its contents, including the chametz.

If the landlord is available, the tenant must ask him whether the house has been searched or not.

He must carry out the mitzvah even though he made an explicit condition requiring the landlord to do so.

Under certain conditions, a person can nullify a business agreement on the grounds that it was carried out under false premises.

in that locale

Pesachim 4b explains that the need for searching the house is not the real factor motivating him to retract his agreement, because every Jew desires to perform mitzvot, even if doing so requires financial expense.
Based on the Maggid Mishneh, the Ramah ( Orach Chayim 437:3) requires the landlord to reimburse the tenant if it is customary to hire people to search. After all, the house was rented with the explicit condition that it had been searched.

Furthermore, any chametz which he knows about must be removed from his possession (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 436:1.

At night by candlelight before he departs (Magen Avraham). However, no blessing is recited (Shulchan Aruch). The Shulchan Aruch emphasizes that this law applies only when a person does not leave anyone else at home (e.g., a wife or older child) who could conduct the search at the customary time.

Thirty days before Pesach, we begin “asking and explaining the laws of the holiday.” Hence, from that time onward, concern is shown for all the Pesach laws (Pesachim 6a).

Even if his intention is to return far bef ore Pesach, if there is a likelihood that his return may be delayed until the holiday, he must search before departing (Chatam Sofer).

Even if he departs at the beginning of the year (Pesachim 6a).

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 436:9 and the Mishnah Berurah 436:9 maintain that this law applies only when the person is going on a sea voyage or caravan where delay is a frequent phenomenon. A person who sets out on a sure land journey is not obligated to search before he departs.

As stated in Halachah 1:9, the prohibitions against possessing chametz begin after the conclusion of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan. From that time onward, it is forbidden to nullify any chametz that we possess.

until after Pesach

Nevertheless, he is obligated to nullify any chametz that might be in his possession on Pesach eve. This nullification takes effect even though he is very far from the chametz in his home (Ramah; Magen Avraham).

chametz which is buried under more than three handbreadths ofother substances is considered as having been removed from a person’s property and need not be uncovered and destroyed before Pesach. (See Halachah 3: 11.) Thus, making the house a storeroom and covering any chametz with more than that amount ofother material would free him from the obligation of searching (Rashi, Pesachim 6a).
However, the Sages explain that this leniency applies only to chametz which accidentally becomes covered by other substances.

intentionally covering the chametz with other goods

Once the thirty-day period when the Pesach laws begin to be studied arrives, one is obligated to search.

The Kessef Mishneh (and the Shulchan Aruch) quote certain opinions that do not obligate a .search, explaining that it is far less likely that the person will be delayed in removing his goods and bring about a situation where he will uncover the chametz on Passover eve.

The Mishnah Berurah (437:15) explains that most authorities allow this leniency only when the owner has only a suspicion, but no definite knowledge of chametz. However, if he definitely knows that chametz is found under the goods, the chametz must be removed. Nevertheless, there are some opinions that do not require the removal of chametz whose existence is known.

In the second chapter (Halachot 2:3-2:6), the Rambam discusses the theoretical aspects of the search f or chametz. In this chapter, he concentrates on their practical application.

when the obligation to destroy chametz begins (Halachah 1:9)

as explained in Halachah 11, below

The Ramah ( Orach Chayim 445) explains that though chametz can be destroyed through any means, some choose to burn it, utilizing the means required to dispose of notar (leftover sacrificial meat). Just as notar cannot be burned until the morning, similarly, those who follow this custom should not burn their chametz at night.

There is an advantage to waiting to destroy the chametz. As explained in the following halachah, we are allowed to save a certain amount of chametz to eat on the morning before Pesach. By saving the chametz found in the search, we will remember to destroy all the chametz that we possess.

The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 434:1) explains that the same law applies to the chametz found in the search. Nevertheless, only the chametz set aside for eating is mentioned, for it is possible that no chametz will actually be found in the search.

as stated in Halachah 1: 10

Accordingly, Shulchan Aruch cautions that the chametz should be covered by a bowl, placed in a cabinet, or hung from the ceiling.

Pesachim 9b also mentions the possibility of children taking this chametz.

Halachah 2:7 explains that a person who finds less chametz than he set aside must search the entire house again. Similarly, if we see a mouse taking the chametz, a second search is required.

the Pesach holiday being celebrated Saturday night. According to the fixed calendar we follow, this is an infrequent, but not totally uncommon, phenomenon.

I.e., Thursday night, the night between the twelfth and the thirteenth of Nisan. Searching with a candle is forbidden on the Sabbath itself. Hence, the search for leaven is carried out on Thursday night. The chametz that is collected is burned on Friday morning.

On Friday and on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, we are obligated to eat bread at both the evening and morning Sabbath meals.

When the Rabbinic prohibition against eating chametz (Chapter 1, Halachah 9) takes effect. Before that time, the chametz saved for the Sabbath meals should have been completed and disposed of in a way other than burning—e.g., throwing it in the toilet.

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 444:2) suggests burning the chametz on Friday morning, to prevent confusion arising in future years. However, ifone is prevented from doing so, the chametz may be destroyed later on with no compunctions.

The Ra’avad notes that in Pesachim 49a, the majority opinion accepts this decision only as regards Terumah. In contrast, other chametz need not be destroyed until the appropriate time on the Sabbath.
The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 444) explains that the Rambam’s decision is based on Pesachim 13b, which differs from the opinion in Pesachim 49a. However, even according to the Rambam, the obligation to destroy the chametz before the Sabbath is not a hard and fast rule. On the contrary, our halachah itself states that one is allowed to keep all the chametz he needs for the Sabbath meals. Rather, this can be seen as good advice, f acilitating the destruction of chametz, which is much easier before the Sabbath than on that sacred day.

so he is no longer the owner and thus does not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz.
The halachic authorities note that even when the person does not have any chametz which he knows about, he should nullify his chametz before the beginning of the sixth hour, as is done on Pesach eve every year.

so it is not seen. This obligation is derived from Pesachim 6a, which states such a law as regards chametz discovered on the first day of the festival.

The Rambam forbids destroying the chametz after the fourth hour on the Sabbath itself for the following reason: Since it can no longer be eaten, it is considered muktzeh and cannot be moved any longer.
A basic question is asked concerning the Rambam’s statements: Until the beginning of the sixth hour on Pesach eve, a person may benefit from chametz by giving it to a gentile or feeding it to an animal. Therefore, it should not be considered muktzeh until that time.
The Rivosh explains that since eating is the most important use of chametz, it is considered muktzeh once it can no longer be eaten. However, the Bach considers “the fourth hour” a printing error and amends the Rambam’s text to read “the fifth hour.” All Ashkenazic halachic authorities decide accordingly. Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham justifies the Rambam’s statements, explaining that they apply in a situation where there is no gentile or animal to give the chametz to.
In practice, the following procedure is suggested when Pesach falls on Saturday night. The transfer of chametz and Pesach pots, dishes, and cutlery is carried out on Thursday night or Friday, and no chametz is cooked afterwards. The Sabbath meals should be totally kosher for Pesach and prepared in the Pesach pots. Four small challot are kept in a special place for the evening and morning meals (two for each meal).
They are eaten away from the table, and afterwards, the crumbs are collected and flushed down the toilet. Otherwise, the meals are eaten as all the other meals of the Pesach holiday itself.
As mentioned, it is forbidden to eat chametz on the fourteenth of Nisan after the fourth hour of the day (usually around 9:20 AM). To complete the eating of the above-mentioned challot before this hour, certain synagogues may have to conduct their morning services at an earlier time than usual.

i.e., when Passover comes out Saturday night and the chametz must be destroyed on Friday as explained in the previous halachah.

For we are forbidden to cause terumah to become ritually impure (Rashi, Pesachim 14a). Even though we are destroying the terumah, we must be careful it does not become impure.

Based on Pesachim 15b and 20b, the Kessef Mishneh and Rabbenu Manoach explain that the same principles apply when burning Terumah every Pesach eve until the end of the sixth hour. However, afterwards, when chametz is forbidden according to Torah law, no differentiation is made, and both pure and impure Terumah are burned together.

as Terumah

I.e., their status is pending because a question that arose whether they became impure or not. Generally, the law is that such terumah may not be eaten, perhaps it contracted impurity, nor is it burned immediately as impure terumah, because perhaps it is pure, and the destruction of pure terumah for no purpose is forbidden. Rather, it is left until it is no longer fit to be eaten, and then burned.

Pesachim 15a asks rhetorically: How can we burn the Terumah of questionable status with that which is definitely impure? Perhaps Elijah will come and determine that the former was, in fact, pure.

These words of qualification are added as regards Terumah in contrast to other chametz. (See the previous halachah.) Other chametz is fit to be eaten by all people or beasts. In contrast, Terumah can be eaten only by a priest’s household. Hence, greater precautions should be taken not to leave over extra amounts (Rabbenu Manoach).

when the prohibition against eating begins and they must be destroyed.

Even though searching with a candle at night is preferable, as explained in Halachot 2:3-4, if that is impossible the search should be carried out as soon as possible the following morning.

There is an advantage to carrying out the search in the early morning. In this manner, there will be no last minute pressure or tension to complete the search and the destruction of chametz before the prohibition against possessing chametz takes effect.

before the completion of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.

Pesachim 10b explains that even though by searching for chametz a person exposes himself to the possibility of eating the chametz that he finds, nevertheless, a person searching to destroy chametz is highly unlikely to lose sight of the prohibition against eating it.
The obligation to search for chametz in the midst of the festival emphasizes that the Rambam conceives that the mitzvah to destroy chametz applies, not only before Pesach begins, but throughout the holiday. Indeed, this concept can be seen in the Rambam’s words describing the mitzvah in the preface to this text. There, he explains that the mitzvah is to destroy chametz “from” and not “on” the fourteenth of Nisan.
[It must be noted that the adoption of such a position represents a change of mind for the Rambam. In Sefer HaMitzvot (positive mitzvah 156) and in the earlier handwritten texts of the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam writes that the mitzvah is to destroy chametz “on the fourteenth. “]
The definition of the term “in the midst of the festival” is the subject of debate among the commentaries. Some define it as “in the midst of Chol HaMoed,” explaining that since chametz is muktzeh and cannot be moved or destroyed on the first day of the festival, there is no need to search for it at that time (Rabbenu Manoach).
Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 435:1) and the other Ashkenazic halachic authorities require a search on the first day of Pesach itself even though it is Yom Tov. Should chametz be found, it should be covered with a utensil.

This applies even if the person nullified his chametz, and thus did not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz on the holiday. Were he not to destroy this chametz, it would be obvious that he had not totally negated his ownership over the chametz, and thus his nullification would be proven as invalid retroactively.

as mentioned in Halachah 1 :4.

Though, as explained in Halachah 2:3, the search for chametz is only a Rabbinic obligation ifone nullifies his chametz, blessings are also recited when fulfilling Rabbinic commandments. (See Hilchot Berachot 11:3.)

This emphasizes that, as explained in the previous halachah, even when searching during the festival, one fulfills a positive commandment.

Pesachim 7b emphasizes that all blessings should be recited before the performance of the mitzvah.

Pesachim (ibid.) debates whether the blessing should state ץםח רועינ לע ( concerning the destruction of chametz) or ץםח רענל (to destroy chametz), and reaches the conclusion stated by the Rambam.
Hilchot Berachot 11: 15 explains that it is not proper to state “to destroy chametz,” since from the moment the person decides to nullify the chametz, the mitzvah to obliterate chametz has been completed according to Torah law. Hence, the expression “concerning the destruction” is more appropriate.
The blessing mentions “the destruction of chametz,” for that is the ultimate aim of the search.

in Halachah 2:3.

Though the Sages also required the search after Pesach, carrying out such a search is not considered the fulfillment of a Rabbinic commandment. The prohibitions against possessing, and hence the mitzvah to destroy, chametz are completed by the end of Pesach. This search is not considered as an end in its own right, but rather was instituted merely to prevent a person from eating the chametz, which is forbidden according to Rabbinic decree.
A parallel can be drawn to the following instance (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 57): Fowl were attacked by beasts of prey and wounded to the extent that they would not recover. Even though they did not die immediately, the Sages required that they be slain, lest another Jew not be aware of their wounds and slaughter them to eat as kosher birds. Needless to say, no blessing is required when killing them for these reasons (Shulchan Aruch HaRav).

as stated in Halachah 2:2.

Pesachim 6b states that the Sages feared that even after a thorough search has been conducted, the possibility exists that perhaps, some chametz will have been overlooked.

for the chametz that is seen must be destroyed, as stated in Halachah 2:3.

The text in most Haggadot is in Aramaic, because that was the language of the common people in Talmudic times. A person who does not understand that text must make the declaration in a language that he comprehends.

Since this statement is being made while it is still possible to benefit from chametz, we do not nullify all the chametz we possess. It is customary to make a second statement nullifying the chametz after burning the chametz in the morning, and in that statement we nullify all chametz “that I have seen or not seen, that I have destroyed or I have not destroyed.”

The text in most Haggadot states “dust of the earth.” Job 28:6 uses the expression בהז תורפע “gold dust,” a substance with obvious worth. By stating “the dust of the earth” we imply that we attach no value to the chametz at all.

Though the prohibition against possessing chametz during the sixth hour is only Rabbinic in origin, the Sages enforced their decree and gave it the same strength as Torah law.

see the following halachah.

The Ra’avad questions the phraseology used by the Rambam, noting that the prohibitions against owning chametz do not begin until the evening. On the day of the fourteenth of Nisan, there is only a positive commandment to destroy chametz.
Most commentaries explain that the Rambam himself intended this interpretation. However, some note that Rashi (Pesachim 4b) does maintain that the prohibitions against owning chametz begin on the fourteenth, and they maintain that the Rambam shares this view (See Responsa, Nodah BiYhudah, Orach Chayim 20).

Tosefot (Pesachim 21a) states that a person does not violate the prohibition against possessing chametz unless he becomes conscious of the chametz in his possession. As long as he is unaware of its existence, he does not violate the prohibition.

Tosefot (Pesachim 6b) states that the prohibitions only apply when the chametz has an intrinsic value, in contrast to crumbs.

as stated in the previous Halachah.

Pesachim (6b) compares the possession of chametz at this time to digging a pit in the public thoroughf are. The pit does not belong to the person who dug it; nevertheless, he must pay for any damages it causes.
Similarly, with regard to chametz, since one is forbidden to benefit from it, it is no longer considered in one’s possession and cannot be sold, bartered, or given away. Nevertheless, the person retaining it is still liable for transgression of the prohibitions involved.

When the chametz is considered muktzeh, and hence cannot be moved.

This statement raises questions among many of the commentators. ln Halachah 3, the Rambam also mentions covering chametz with a utensil. However, in that instance, the person had already nullified his possession of the chametz, and thus his possession of chametz violated only a Rabbinic prohibition.
In contrast, this instance describes chametz that has not been nullified, and thus the violation of a Torah prohibition is involved. Nevertheless, the Rambam considers the Rabbinic prohibition against mukzteh as important enough to override the fulfillment of a Torah commandment. Furthermore, the Kessef Mishneh explains that since the person himself desires to destroy the chametz, and the only reason he f ails to do so is the Rabbinic commandment, he is not considered to have violated the Torah’s prohibitions against possessing chametz.
This view is not accepted by all authorities. Many explain that since three Torah mitzvot (the two prohibitions against possessing chametz and the positive commandment to destroy chametz) are involved, their observance overrides the prohibitions of muktzeh. Others maintain that even if the prohibition against muktzeh must be observed, the chametz can be destroyed by burning it in the place where it is located.
Nevertheless, in practice, the Magen Avraham ( Orach Chayim 446:2), the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, and the Mishnah Berurah do not accept the latter view, and advise waiting to destroy the chametz until after the holiday. They explain that a person is allowed to light a fire on a f estival only if doing so increases his f estive joy. Hence, they prohibit burning the chametz in that manner. However, they mention that, if it is possible, a gentile may be asked to destroy the chametz. Furthermore, in the diaspora, a Jew is also allowed to destroy chametz he finds on the second day of a festival.

consecrated for use in the Temple;

Property consecrated for use in the Temple may never be used for mundane purposes. (See Halachah 4:2.)

The Mishnah (Pesachim 49a) mentions a person who goes out to slaughter the Paschal sacrifice or circumcise his son. The Rambam postulates that the same applies to anyone who leaves his home to perform any mitzvah.

Partaking of such a feast is also considered as equivalent to the fulfillment of a mitzvah. As an example of such a feast, the above Mishnah mentions a feast associated with a betrothal.

In Judaism, marriage is a two stage process. Betrothal )ןיסוריא( involves the consecration of a woman as a wife. However, the new couple do not live together as man and wife until marriage )ןיאושינ( (See Hilchot lshut 10:1-2.

home, and thus, fulfill the mitzvah of destroying chametz as required by the Sages.

If returning home to destroy the chametz will cause him to neglect the fulfillment of the mitzvah with which he is involved,

for by doing so, he fulfills the mitzvah of destroying chametz according to Torah law.
The above applies when the person can still nullify his ownership over the chametz. However, if the person recalls the possession of chametz after the beginning of the sixth hour, he must return to destroy his chametz even if he is involved in the perf ormance of a mitzvah. The only exception is the burial of a corpse who has no one else to tend to him (Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 444:11).

people’s lives

The Maggid Mishneh explains that since human lives are at stake, one should not think of returning, but should nullify the chametz, since according to Torah law, that is all that is required. The Kessef Mishneh goes further and explains that saving the people’s lives supersedes all matters. Hence, even if a person has time to return home to destroy the chametz, he should first deal with saving the lives, for that is the primary concern.
Though the primacy of saving lives is accepted by all authorities, the Magen Avraham qualifies the matter. If the person knows for sure that he will be able to return home, destroy his chametz, and still have time to save the people’s lives, he must destroy his chametz first.

to deal with his own business affairs

to destroy it. Even if he has already nullified it, the Sages required him to fulfill the mitzvah as they ordained.

The prohibition against eating chametz applies to size of an olive. However, the Sages showed leniency, since the nullification of chametz is sufficient according to Scriptural Law. They did not require a person to return to destroy chametz unless a quantity the size of an egg, the measure associated with ritual purity and impurity, was found.

as required by Torah law. The above applies when the person can still nullify his ownership over the chametz. However, beyond the beginning of the sixth hour, if the person has not nullified his chametz he must return to destroy even an amount the size of an olive. However, should he possess less than an olive’s size of chametz, there is no need especially to destroy the chametz.

A dough that was kneaded, but which had not yet risen.

This halachah, a quote from Pesachim 7a, describes a situation which occurs after the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan or later, when chametz has become forbidden.

And thus leaving would be a sign of disrespect to his teacher.

and bake it as matzah

Since the dough has not become leaven, its possession is still permitted. Hence, a person is still entitled to nullify his ownership of it.
Once he has nullified his ownership of the dough, its presence in his house does not constitute a violation of the prohibitions against the possession of chametz, because it no longer belongs to him.
At present, people very infrequently bake matzah on Pesach itself in Ashkenazic communities. However, it is customary to do so in certain Sephardic communities. When preparing the dough, the women always nullify their ownership of any small pieces of dough that become stuck to the kneading pin or bowl before they become leavened, so that they will not possess even the slightest amount of chametz. (See Hagahot Maimoni.)

Just as one cannot nullify one’s ownership of other chametz after the end of the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nissan (Halachah 8).

or cover it with a utensil if this occurs on the day of the festival itself.

Furthermore, he must return home to do so as fast as possible.

Halachah 2:2 explains that the mitzvah “to destroy chametz” is fulfilled by nullifying one’s ownership of it. This halachah refers to the Rabbinic prohibition to destroy all known chametz; alternatively, to the destruction of chametz discovered after the beginning of the sixth hour.

Other authorities (Tosefot, Pesachim 27b) explain that this applies only when destroying chametz before it becomes forbidden. Once it is forbidden, it can be destroyed only by burning.

In his commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:1), the Rambam writes that dried bread should be crumbled “a lot” before being thrown to the sea. Pesachim 28a records a debate among the Sages whether it is necessary to crumble all chametz before throwing it to the sea. There is extensive debate among the commentators regarding the Rambam’s interpretation of this passage. Most halachic authorities (Taz, Orach Chayim 445:1) require chametz to be crumbled even before it is tossed into the sea.

The Mishnah (Pesachim 31b) states this law applies when “a dog will no longer search for it.” The Gemara explains that a dog will not search more than three handbreadths deep.

Thus, even if the chametz is uncovered during Pesach, it will no longer be within one’s possession (Rashi, Pesachim ibid. ).

Or sold.

Pesachim 5b notes that Exodus 13:7, the verse prohibiting the possession of chametz, states: “No chametz will be seen for you.” The addition of the latter phrase implies that there is no prohibition against chametz that belongs to a gentile being found in one’s domain during Pesach. The following chapter discusses this subject in depth.

Tosefot, Pesachim 21a explains that once chametz has been burned to the extent that it is not fit for a dog to eat, there is no prohibition involved in its use.

while it is being burned.

Shabbat 38b defines a range as an earthenware vessel in which coals can be placed, with two holes upon which to place two pots, and an oven as a larger structure.

even after it becomes charcoal.

Nevertheless, this prohibition applies only if there is enough charcoal from the chametz to sustain a fire sufficient to cook or bake by itself (Shulchan Aruch HaRav).

Temurah 34a states that we may benefit from the ashes of any substance that must be destroyed by burning. In contrast, if a substance may be destroyed by other means, we are prohibited from benefiting from its ashes.

because the chametz is not “seen.”

because ostensibly, the leaven is not “for you.”

it is still “found in your homes.” The place in which a watchman keeps an entrusted article is also considered “your homes.”
The prohibition against entrusting chametz to a gentile is not explicitly stated in the Talmud .. It can be derived from the leniency allowing one to maintain possession of chametz belonging to a gentile mentioned at the conclusion of the Halachah. Some authorities explain that the Rambam derived the concept trom the Mechiltah of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.
In his commentary on the Torah (Exodus 12:19), the Ramban differs with the concept in its entirety and states that a person does not transgress the prohibition against possessing chametz when it is entrusted to a gentile. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 440:4) accepts the Rambam’s opinion. No later halachic authorities question the matter.

if the latter verse were taken as the source of the prohibition

as that verse states

Therefore,

includes the verse originally mentioned which

in the totality of a person’s domain.

for that is also “seen.” Therefore,

From the addition of the latter phrase

for that is not “for you.” The rules governing this concept are the major subject of this chapter.

For use in the Temple or to be sold for the purposes of the Temple. Once an article has been consecrated, it no longer belongs to its original owner and becomes the property and responsibility of the Temple treasury. Property pledged to be given to charity is not governed by these rules.

for in each of these instances, chametz was present within a Jew’s possession on Pesach.

As evident from the following halachah, this law applies only when the Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz.

the Jew’s,

Hilchot Melachim 8:10 and Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:6 define this term as referring to a gentile who keeps the seven universal laws given to Noah’s descendants. A gentile who accepts these rules of behavior may be granted the privilege of living in Eretz Yisrael.

Pesachim 5b emphasizes that even a gentile who lives in a Jew’s home may keep chametz during Pesach.

the Jew

Some manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state: “We need not force him (i.e., the gentile) to remove his chametz from our property.”

A similar partition is not required when a gentile entrusts other forbidden objects to a Jew. As mentioned above, greater stringencies are taken regarding chametz than other forbidden substances, since the use of chametz is permitted during the entire year.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Halachah 3:8, the Rambam considers covering the chametz with a utensil as a sufficient measure to prevent the use of the chametz. Two explanations are offered why, in the present instance, a more stringent measure is required:
a) the amount of chametz the gentile entrusted for safekeeping is probably too large to be covered by utensils;
b) covering the chametz with a utensil is only a temporary measure, intended to be eff ective only until the end of the day of the festival. Once that day is concluded, thechametz must be destroyed. ln contrast, in this instance the chametz will remain in the Jew’s possession throughout the entire holiday. Hence, more severe measures must be taken.
The Ramban and the Ba’al Haltur do not accept this requirement and maintain that if a Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz, he is not obligated to construct a partition. All that is necessary is that the chametz be placed out of the way. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:2) and the later halachic authorities all follow the Rambam’s opinion.

Leviticus 5:15-16 describes the prohibition of ,הליעמ the misappropriation of consecrated property for personal use.

caring f or the chametz as a watchman would, and

due to factors other than his personal negligence. Rashi and Rabbenu Asher obligate a Jew to destroy any chametz belonging to a gentile for which he has accepted responsibility, even if his responsibility is less than that specified above. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( Orach Chayim 440:13,16) and the Mishnah Berurah advise following the latter opinion.

before the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.

and would have to pay for it if it is lost. Pesachim 5b offer two possible explanations why the chametz is considered as if it belongs to the Jew. One opinion maintains that throughout the Torah, an article that causes financial liability is considered as one’s responsibility.
Another opinion maintains that in this instance, since the Torah adds a special commandment “leaven should not be found,” extra stringency must be taken. From this discussion, we see that the responsibility to destroy this chametz stems from the Torah itself, and is not merely a matter of Rabbinic decree.

and, hence, must be destroyed. Tosefot, Pesachim 6a maintains that if a Jew designates a specific place within his home for the gentile and tells him to place his chametz there, he is not obligated to destroy it even though he accepted responsibility for it. Rashi does not accept this position. From the Rambam’s omission of the matter, we may assume he also follows Rashi’s view (Lechem Mishnah ).
The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 440: 1) quotes the Rambam and hence, requires the acceptance of the more stringent position. However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav ( 440: 16) and the Mishnah Berurah (440:3) mention certain leniencies based on Tosefot’s position.

the gentile’s chametz

without transgressing the prohibitions against possessing chametz

in contrast to chametz possessed by a Jew during Pesach which is forbidden to be used (Halachah 1:4)

Pesachim 6a mentions a situation where a gentile brings chametz that he wishes to entrust to a Jew, and the latter designates a particular portion of the house for him to put the chametz. Under such circumstances, there is no need to destroy the chametz.
There are some authorities who explain that the Talmud is speaking about a situation in which the Jew accepted responsibility for the chametz. Nevertheless, since he told the gentile to put it in one specific place, it is considered as if that place belongs to the gentile, and thus the chametz is not found in the Jew’s possession.
The Rambam does not accept this interpretation and requires the gentile’s chametz to be destroyed whenever a Jew accepts responsibility for it. Though the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah mention the more lenient opinion, they require that the more stringent approach be followed.

a literal translation of the word .םנא Some editions of the Mishneh Torah use the expression םלא instead. However, the intention remains the same, regardless of which term is used.

This law is derived from the following passage (Pesachim 5b ): Ravvah told the inhabitants of Mechuzah: “Destroy the chametz belonging to the king’s soldiers.” Since the army would hold the Jews responsible if it were stolen, it was considered their property.

In the previous halachah, the Rambam requires a Jew to destroy chametz only if he willingly accepts responsibility for it. Nevertheless, in this instance,

whether the Jew willingly accepts that responsibility or not. Certain opinions maintain that this law applies only when the secular law of the land would uphold the gentile’s view, as in the instance cited from Pesachim, and not when a private individual takes the law into his own hands (Maggid Mishneh ). Nevertheless, this differentiation is not accepted by most halachic authorities.

before Pesach, transferring it into the latter’s domain

The Aruch relates that the word ןחו means security in Arabic.

This specific statement is. required, because although a Jewish lender is considered to have acquired a certain degree ofownership over an article given him as security, this principle does not apply with regard to a gentile (Pesachim 31 b, Maggid Mishneh ).

payment f or the loan. Hence, it is

In a responsa (no. 252), the Rambam writes that it is as if the Jew sold the chametz to the gentile outright.

as is all chametz that belonged to gentiles during the holiday.

more specifically, before the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan.
The Ra’avad disagrees with this law and maintains that if this stipulation was included, the chametz is considered as belonging to the gentile even if the date mentioned is after Pesach. The Rambam maintains that since the Jew has the right to redeem his chametz during Pesach, it is still considered his (Rabbenu Ephraim). In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 441:1) accepts the Ra’avad’s view.
Nevertheless, this leniency applies only when the Jew willingly foregoes any right to the chametz and considers to have repaid his loan with it. Should the Jew decide to redeem his chametz after Pesach, he is retroactively considered the owner and is liable for possessing chametz throughout the holiday.

even if the day of payment is fixed before Pesach

not considered as repayment for the loan. Rather, it is

to ensure payment. Hence, it is still considered as the Jew’s property

as stated in Halachah 1:4.
The Ra’avad disagrees with this point as well, maintaining that if the date mentioned is before Pesach, the chametz becomes the gentile’s property, and the Jew does not transgress the prohibitions against possessing chametz.
The difference between the Rambam and the Ra’avad revolves around the principle of Asmachtah, an agreement which was never intended to be fulfilled. The Ra’avad maintains that, generally, the fact that a borrower does not specify that the security would retroactively become the lender’s property implies that he never really intended to sell it to him and always considers it as his own. Thus, were such a transaction to be carried out between Jews, the Ra’avad maintains that the security would never become the lender’s property. However, he explains that this law applies only regarding business dealings carried out between Jews, and not to those involving gentiles. Therefore, in this instance, the chametz given as security becomes the gentile’s property.
In contrast, the Rambam does not consider such an agreement an Asmachtah. However, he does not accept a gentile’s right to an article given as security. Hence, though the date for repayment · passes before Pesach, he still considers the article as belonging to its original Jewish owner.
In this matter, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows the more stringent view if the chametz is worth more than the loan, and forbids its use after Pesach. However, if it is not worth more than the loan, that text and, similarly, the Mishnah Berurah, require the Jewish borrower to redeem his chametz before Pesach. However, if he fails to so, they allow people to rely on the Ra’avad’s opinion and benefit from the chametz.
Different laws apply to chametz given to a Jew as security by a gentile or by another Jew. In the former instance, a Jew is considered the owner of the chametz if the agreement included the clause specifying retroactive ownership, even though the time for payment is not fixed until after Pesach. If the agreement lacked that clause, and the Jew is not held responsible for the chametz (see Halachah 3 above), the Jew is not liable for that chametz (Shulchan Aruch). Nevertheless, other authorities do not accept this decision.
When security is given from one Jew to another, the lender is considered the owner until the debt is repaid. Therefore, should chametz be given as security, the lender is responsible to sell it or remove it from his property through other means before Pesach.

This halachah is a quote from the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6. Nevertheless, it is worthy of question why the Rambam quotes that source verbatim. Often, when mentioning such a law, the Rambam will eliminate particulars that are extraneous to the principle he wishes to communicate.

in the ship or in other places.

Today, in many Jewish communities, the sale of chametz to gentiles is an almost indispensable element in the observance of Pesach. Nevertheless, the details of the sale and the legal provisions which, a) on one hand, ensure that the gentile is the sole legal owner of the chametz on Pesach, and b) assure the Jewish owner of receiving the goods in return or their monetary equivalent are a technical matter which has been discussed by the Rabbis in their responsa over the generations. For this reason, it is not advisable for a person to sell his chametz himself. Rather, he should entrust the local Rabbi with the responsibility of carrying out the sale.

Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:4 states that we should not give presents to gentiles. However, in this instance, giving such a gift will prevent a Jew from violating a Torah prohibition. Hence, there is no objection.
The halachic authorities emphasize that the sale or gift of chametz to the gentile must be formalized by a kinyan (legal transaction) recognized by both Torah and secular law. Thus, the gentile becomes its legal owner.

The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 448:3) states: “Even though the Jew who sells it to the gentile knows that he will not touch it at all, but will watch it f or him until after Pesach and then return it to him, it is permitted.”

This expression excludes conditional gifts or sales, as explained in the following halachah.

This is a continuation of the above Tosefta, ibid. 2:7.

I.e., don’t buy a small amount from me; buy a larger quantity.

i.e., from me

The halachic authorities even allow the Jew to promise the gentile a profit. These statement are permitted as long as the Jew does not make a binding commitment. The intimation that he will repurchase the chametz after Pesach is not considered significant.
However, he cannot sell or give [ chametz] to him on condition. — This includes all conditional agreements, not only those requiring the gentile to return the chametz after Pesach.

For until that condition is fulfilled, the Jew remains the owner of the chametz.
The above restrictions apply even if the condition is phrased in a manner in which, once the gentile fulfills the condition, he retroactively becomes the owner of the chametz from the time the agreement was originally made. We fear that, perhaps, the gentile will not fulfill his commitment, and thus the Jew will remain the owner of the chametz. Hence, even though the chametz was in the physical possession of the gentile during Pesach, the Jew might be its legal owner. See also Radbaz, Vol. 5, Responsum 1416.

As explained in Halachah 1 :6, according to the Rambam a person who eats a mixture of chametz does not transgress the same Torah prohibition as one who eats chametz itself. Hence, he is not liable for the punishment of .תרכ The Maggid Mishneh explains that the possession of these mixtures only violates the prohibitions against possessing chametz when they contain a substaritial amount of chametz (at least the size of an olive in a quantity to be eaten םרפ תליכא .)ידכב
Rav Moshe HaCohen maintains that even the possession of a smaller amount violates these prohibitions. Rav Yosef Caro supports this view in the Kessef Mishneh. Although he does not explicitly state so in the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 442: 1) when discussing this law, the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Mishnah Berurah) accept this opinion as binding.

a mixture containing brine, fish-hash, flour, and sometimes wine.

See Halachah 1 :6 f or a description of these substances.

by human beings.

This is called חָמֵץ נוֹקְשָׁה, “hardened chametz,” and is permitted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 447:12). See the following halachot. However, if the substance is originally intended for human consumption and then becomes spoiled, one is considered to have violated the prohibitions against possessing chametz unless it becomes spoiled to the extent that it will not be eaten by a dog before the prohibition of the ownership of chametz takes effect on the fourteenth of Nisan. (See Halachah 11.)

allowing one to keep chametz unfit for consumption

The flour is useful in drying out the hides and absorbing their natural moisture. See also Shabbat 79a (“There are three hides”).

the end of the fifth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan

for as soon as the flour comes in contact with the hides, it is no longer fit for consumption.

from the residual moisture and odor left in the trough. If the chametz was placed in the trough

of the end of the fifth hour on the fourteenth

for it may not have spoiled.

This remedy, more specifically known as colorium, is mentioned frequently in the Talmud—e.g., Shabbat 18a.

into which healing ointments are placed

Shabbat 109b describes this as a remedy for poisonous venom. Rabbenu Mano’ach describes this as a trusted remedy containing animal meat, an egg of a certain beast, honey and other substances.

This applies even if the mixture contains a substantial amount of chametz, the size of an olive םרפ תליכא י

and no longer fit to be eaten. The Ra’avad disagrees with the Rambam’s statements. Though he accepts the law (a quote from the Tosefta, Pesachim 3:2), he explains that it is motivated by a diff erent rationale. The Lechem Mishneh maintains that he considers it food that has become spoiled to the point it is unfit for a dog, as mentioned in the following halachah.

In contrast to chametz which is not human food, as mentioned in the previous halachot, and is permitted once it is no longer fit for human consumption. Rav Chayim Soloveitchik (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 15:1) differentiates between the two cases as follows. Chametz itself is a forbidden substance. Hence, it must be spoiled to the point that a dog cannot benefit from it. In contrast, the other substances are merely mixtures of chametz. They are only forbidden because they contain the taste of chametz. Hence, once that taste is no longer suitable for human consumption, there is no reason why they should remain forbidden.

This compress differs from the one mentioned in the previous halachah. lt is made from wheat and figs that have been chewed, and is then applied to an infected area. (See Bava Kama 102a.) It is not mixed with bitter medications, and hence is generally fit to be eaten before it becomes spoiled.

beyond being fit f or consumption by a dog. Rabbenu Manoach emphasizes that it must become spoiled bef ore the prohibition against chametz takes eff ect. Otherwise, it must be destroyed.

for in its present form it is no longer considered useful.

made from wheat

This law is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 442:3) states that if the chametz is visible as a separate entity, it must be destroyed.

i.e., they are not in the form of food. Halachah 2:15 provides a similar example: a mound of yeast that has been set aside as a seat.

even if it has not been spoiled to the point that it is unfit for human consumption (Rav Chayim Soloveitchik, ibid.)

see Commentary, Halachah 10.

as stated in Halachah 10.

Though the mixture is generally not used for human consumption, the fact that an individual eats from it shows that he considers it as food. Hence, it is prohibited.

Nevertheless, a person may benefit from it on Pesach (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 442:24, Mishnah Berurah).

less than the size of an olive סרפ תליכא ,ידכב as in Halachah 1 :6.

Nevertheless, in the case of danger to life or limb, one may use a remedy which is chametz in the midst of Pesach (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 466:5, Mishnah Berurah ).