Siman 433

The examination must be specifically by the light of a candle, and not by the light of the moon. And even though on the night of the fourteenth the brilliance of the moon shines, nevertheless, one specifically needs the light of a candle, because the light of a candle is good for examination. And so the prophet said (Zephaniah 1:12): "At that time I will search Jerusalem with candles." And it is not only superior to the light of the moon, but even to the light of the sun. For example, if one did not examine at night, and needs to examine during the day—he should not examine the rooms by the light of the sun, but rather he should light a candle and examine by its light, because the candle can be brought into holes and cracks. And only an exedra, which has much light, as the fourth side is entirely open (see Tosafot Eruvin 25a), may they examine by the light of the sun. And the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: if they examined by the light of the sun—it is sufficient, which implies after the fact. But in the Gemara (8a) it is explicit that it is even permissible initially, and so wrote the Tur. And there is one who says that their intention is because initially one should examine at night (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And this is not sufficient, for we are dealing with a case where he did not examine at night. Therefore, it seems to me: because in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Pesachim it was asked that perhaps even in places where there is much light one specifically needs a candle, see there. Therefore, even though for the law we hold like our Gemara, nevertheless the Rambam was concerned for the Yerushalmi, and wrote the language of "after the fact." And so too opposite a skylight in the roof where the sun shines strongly—it is like an exedra. And according to the opinion of the Tur: also opposite a window in the wall the law is so, and there are those who disagree on this (ibid. subsection 4 in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). And through glass it is forbidden (ibid.).

One does not search by the light of a torch, but rather by the light of a candle. Because with a torch one is afraid to bring it into holes and crevices, and also its light is behind it, and even ex post facto it is not effective, just as with the light of the moon (ibid. subsection 5). And there is one who says that ex post facto he has fulfilled the obligation (Taz subsection 3), but such is not the opinion of the later authorities (Eliyah Rabbah and Mekor Chayim). And what is a "torch"? When one has braided two candles together, or attached them together. And specifically a single candle, and the candle must be of wax, and not of tallow nor of fat, for he is afraid lest it drip on vessels and clothes. And ex post facto – he has fulfilled the obligation. Therefore, if he does not have one of wax – he should take one of tallow, and similarly not with oil. And regarding this there is one who says that he has not fulfilled the obligation, because he is afraid to bring it into holes and crevices, lest the oil spill (Magen Avraham ibid.). And it is an excessive stringency (and so it is implied in the Chayei Adam, and so wrote the Magen HaElef). And all the more so the kerosene that they light now in glass – that he has fulfilled the obligation ex post facto. But with wood – certainly he has not fulfilled the obligation, for it is like a torch.

And one is obligated to check all the places into which they brought chametz, and likewise the places where there is concern that perhaps one entered there with his bread when he had some use there. Therefore, all the rooms of the house and the attics require checking. And likewise the cellars where there is wine, and beer, and oil, and other liquids, and types of food, for sometimes one enters them with his bread. And likewise the wood-shed, and the straw-shed, and the coal-shed, and similar to them. But storehouses of wine and oil, from which one does not regularly take, or when he does take he takes at one time what he needs, and does not take little by little – they do not require checking. And likewise a storehouse of straw which one does not enter regularly – it does not require checking, and likewise anything similar to this. And likewise among us: under the beds, and under the large chairs. And likewise under the chests and the cabinets, when there is a space between them and the ground – they require checking, for many times chametz rolls there. And likewise the small boxes that are inside the cabinets, and that are inside the large chests – they require checking, for sometimes one hides rolls and the like in them.

The holes of the house, and the ledges that protrude from the walls that are not very high, such that a person's hand can reach there while standing on the ground, and are not very low near the earth—require bedikah. However, those that are high where a person's hand does not reach, and those that are low, less than three tefachim near the earth—do not require bedikah, as it is not the way to use them. But if children are common there—the low ones require bedikah, for they play on the ground and hide chametz there (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And likewise the roof of the gallery and the tower, whose roofs are sloped; or in our case where all our roofs are sloped—they do not require bedikah, because they are not used, as they are not fit for any use. And even if there was such a roof inside the house, such as a tower whose roof is sloped—it does not require bedikah. But when its roof is flat—it requires bedikah, even though it is very high, because in the house many times one stands on a chair and uses it. And so it seems to me in our case regarding the flat roof that is under the sloped roof, which is called "boydem," and one ascends to it with a ladder; if one uses it occasionally throughout the year for many uses—it requires bedikah, and if not—it does not require bedikah.

A cattle shed does not require bedika, for if there were chametz there, the animals would eat it. Similarly, a chicken coop does not require bedika there, for if there were chametz there, the chickens would eat it. Similarly, the floor of the house where chickens are common does not require bedika (ibid., subsection 9). Nevertheless, under the beds requires bedika, for perhaps they dragged a large piece there that they are unable to eat. Therefore, sweeping is sufficient, and it does not require bedika (ibid.). But when there are no chickens, it requires bedika, for perhaps it was dragged into a hole or a crack, and the chickens would have dug it out from there. When there are no chickens, it remains there. And it is obvious that one must check under the chairs and the benches (ibid.).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: And similarly, the middle of a courtyard does not require checking, for if there were chametz there, the ravens and other birds found there would eat it. And these words apply to a doubt of chametz. But for certain chametz, no. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: But later in siman 445, section 3, it is explained that it is permitted to cast chametz into a place where birds are found. And all the more so that one does not need to remove it from there, even certain chametz, until after the time of its prohibition. Thus far his words. And there are those who answered that here it deals with his courtyard, and there it deals with the street or a courtyard that is hefker (Bach, and Taz subsection 5). And there are those who answered that certainly before the time of the checking, we rely even regarding certain chametz that they will eat it. But if one sees chametz at the time of the checking, he is certainly obligated to check. And we do not rely on the fact that they will eat it, for a doubt does not remove a certainty (Chok Yaakov, and this is also the intention of the Magen Avraham subsection 10, and the Levush, as the Eliyah Rabbah wrote). And there is one who distinguishes between the night of the fourteenth, for then we do not rely on the fact that they will eat it, and before the fourteenth (Mekor Chayim subsection 7). And in my humble opinion, the first answer appears primary. For that which they said in the Gemara (9a) that a doubt does not remove a certainty—this is in his domain, in places that he is obligated to check. And in such a case, even several days beforehand, if it was merely established as having chametz, he is certainly obligated to check and to remove it. But later in siman 445, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote explicitly, and this is his wording: Before the time of its prohibition, he may cast it in a place where ravens are found there. And if he found it after the time of its prohibition, even though the place is hefker, he shall not leave it there, but rather he shall remove it. Thus far his words. Behold, it explicitly deals with one who casts it into a place that is hefker, and this matter has no relation to the other at all. And so is the primary ruling. (And as for what the Magen Avraham questioned: that if so, what was the challenge from Rava, perhaps here it deals with certain chametz? And his intention was to page 8. And it is not a difficulty at all: for every checking is to see if there is chametz, and therefore it requires the light of a candle. And if so, perforce it deals with a doubt of chametz. And regarding all that he contested there against the Bach—the one who examines will see that the law is with the Bach. And the Gra"z in section 28 wrote according to the words of the Magen Avraham, and in my humble opinion the primary view is like the Bach and the Taz. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And so too regarding a cattle shed and a chicken coop that were explained – it is only in a case of doubtful chametz. But when there was certain chametz, even many days beforehand – as long as this is in his possession, one does not rely on the eating of the animals and the chickens, and he is obligated to search and to remove it. And the sides of the courtyard – even in a case of doubtful chametz require searching; and only the middle of the courtyard, where crows are common – does not require searching in a case of doubt, but not the sides of the courtyard. And in our regions, we have no custom at all to search in the courtyard, because we are not accustomed to eating in the courtyard. Furthermore: in our regions, the dogs and the pigs scavenge in the holes and eat. Furthermore: for we are accustomed to sweeping the courtyard. Furthermore: for until Pesach, in most years, it is still the winter season in our regions, and it is not common at all that chametz would be found in the courtyards, as one does not eat in the courtyard because of the cold.

A hole that is between a Jew and his fellow—this one checks as far as his hand reaches, and that one checks as far as his hand reaches; and the remainder he nullifies in his heart, and it is sufficient. However, nullification is required, for perhaps a small amount of chametz rolled there. And that which is between him and a non-Jew—it does not require checking at all, for perhaps the non-Jew will say that he is performing sorcery against him, and he will come to a state of danger. Therefore, nullification is sufficient. And even though "those sent to perform a mitzvah are not harmed"—wherever harm is common it is different (8b), and we do not rely on a miracle. Nevertheless, regarding certain chametz—he must remove it during the day (Taz, subsection 6). And it seems that nowadays one is obligated to check, for in our days the non-Jew will not say that he is performing sorcery, and they know that he is engaged in his religion.

A wall that was used for chametz in its crevices, and it fell and became a heap; even if it is not three tefachim high, and a dog can search there—nevertheless, it does not require checking beneath it, since there is a danger of a scorpion in this. And this is in their warm countries. But in our regions, this danger does not exist, and one is obligated to check. And in a place where snakes are common but not scorpions—one is also obligated to check (Magen Avraham subsection 13), because there is no danger in a snake like there is in a scorpion. And as for that which we concern ourselves with danger, even though "messengers for a mitzvah are not harmed"; and it is not similar to the previous law where injury is common, for that is regarding a person and not regarding a scorpion, as a scorpion is not called "injury is common." However, here we are concerned that perhaps he previously lost a needle in this place, and after he completes his checking, when he is no longer engaged in the mitzvah—he will search for the needle, and then the scorpion will bite him, and he will come to danger. And this is only regarding a doubt of chametz. But when there is certain chametz, if there is not a height of three tefachim over it—he is obligated to remove it by means of a shovel and a pickaxe, in a manner that he will not come to danger. And if there is a height of three tefachim over it—he nullifies it in his heart and it is sufficient, for it is as if it were destroyed. And there is one who says that even in a case of doubt he is obligated to destroy it, but that the obligation is not by the light of a candle and precise checking (Bach), rather he should check by the light of day as much as he can. And in a case of certainty, it requires checking at night, and by the light of a candle, and all by means of a shovel and a pickaxe (Kesef Mishneh in Magen Avraham end of subsection 12). And so it is explained from the wording of Rashi (8a, starting with "De-nafal") who wrote: We do not obligate him to check a heap of stones except for appearance's sake, and not to insert his hand between them. Thus far his words, for it is explained that he is not exempt without any checking at all.

And regarding whether one violates "it shall not be seen" when a mound fell upon the chametz and he did not nullify it: if there are not three tefachim upon it—it is obvious that he violates it. However, where there are three tefachim upon it—there are those who say that he does not violate it, as it is like that which has been destroyed. And there are those who say that since he can take it by means of a hoe and a pickaxe—it is not like that which has been destroyed, and he violates "it shall not be seen." And according to this, if he did not nullify it until after its time of prohibition, for then he cannot nullify it—he is obligated to clear the mound to destroy it. And it is simple that if a large mound fell upon it, such that it is not in his power to clear it—that he does not violate it, for we do not read concerning it "yours" (Magen Avraham subsection 17). And therefore there are those who say that in such a case, if it is found after Pesach—it is permitted to eat. And it requires further study. (See Magen Avraham ibid., and Chok Yaakov subsection 2, and Taz subsection 8.)

A wine cellar from which one takes for the needs of a meal, and rows of barrels were arranged in it one next to the other until it was entirely filled, and they then return and arrange other rows upon the lower ones until the beam—one only needs to search the uppermost row and the one below it, which is to say, a row across the width of the cellar. And not over the entire area of the cellar, but rather the uppermost one that sees the beam and the entrance, and the one below it; that is, when one opens the entrance—the uppermost row and the one beneath it. For in these two, they are accustomed to use wine for the meal, and there is a concern of chametz in them, and no more.

Synagogues and study halls—certainly the children bring chametz into them throughout the year, and they are termed "places into which one brings chametz." The sexton is obligated to search according to the law on the night of the fourteenth, and with a blessing. He must search all the hiding places, and in all the boxes and shtenders. And if he did not search at night—he may search during the day by the light of the sun, for they have many windows, and it is like an exedra whose light is abundant (Chayei Adam, subsection 22). And it appears in my humble opinion that according to the Tosafot, who wrote at the beginning of Pesachim according to one answer, that the reason they required a search is so that one does not transgress "it shall not be seen"—he does not need a blessing for the search of the synagogue and the study hall, for they have no specific owners who would transgress "it shall not be seen." For this matter, it is like a house of ownerless property. And one cannot say that the treasurer or the sexton would transgress "it shall not be seen," for he can say, "I do not desire that the forbidden item should be acquired by me," as we say in the Gemara (Bava Metzia 96b). And the chametz that is found is completely ownerless. And according to all opinions, it is obvious that the enactment of the sages regarding the search was not for such a case. Therefore, it appears to me that the sexton should not recite a blessing, but rather he searches without a blessing. Also, he does not need to say "Kol Chamira," for this chametz does not require nullification, nor does nullification avail it, since it is not his (so it appears in my humble opinion).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 11: One who sweeps his room on the thirteenth of Nisan, and intends to search for the chametz and destroy it, and is careful not to bring any more chametz there—nevertheless, he must search on the night of the fourteenth. Thus far his words, and this is as I wrote at the end of the previous siman, that even though they have already searched, as is our custom—nevertheless, they are obligated in the primary search that they instituted for the night of the fourteenth. And they wrote that one must search well at night, and not only to fulfill the obligation of searching, because through sweeping, that which is in the crevices is not destroyed, and one must now search with the light of a candle in the crevices and in the holes and cracks (Magen Avraham, subsection 20). And this is not applicable to us, for we search very thoroughly before Pesach. And there is one who says: specifically when he searched on the day of the thirteenth. But when he searched on the night of the thirteenth—he does not need to search again on the night of the fourteenth (Chok Yaakov, subsection 23). And I wonder: since he did not act according to the institution of the sages—certainly it is not effective, and he is obligated to search on the night of the fourteenth. Unless he searched on the night of the thirteenth with a berakhah, for then certainly he cannot recite a berakhah again, and he has not performed the mitzvah in the most preferred manner (and perhaps this is the intention of the Chok Yaakov).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Every person must sweep his rooms before the bedikah. Thus far his words, because they are not checked well without sweeping. For this reason, it is customary to take feathers for the bedikah of chametz in order to sweep (Magen Avraham subsection 21). And for us, who wash and scrape—it is even better than sweeping. And the pockets or sleeves of garments, in which one sometimes places chametz—require bedikah at night, and on the following day, and to shake them out very well.