Siman 436

The Rambam wrote at the end of the second chapter: One who sets sail on the sea or departs with a caravan, within thirty days—is required to search. Prior to thirty days—he does not need to search. And if his intention is to return before Pesach—he must search, and afterwards depart, lest he return on the eve of Pesach at twilight, and he will not have time to clear it away. And if his intention is not to return—he does not need to search. Thus far his words. And the reason for thirty days: because from then on, since we expound upon the laws of Pesach thirty days before Pesach, as I wrote in siman 429, the obligation of the search devolves upon him, as it is stated in the Gemara (6a). And one should not ask: that if so, anyone who travels from his home after Purim—should be obligated in the search. For it is not so, as this concern is only for one who embarks on a distant journey, such as on the seas and deserts. But on an ordinary journey—there is no concern (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). But on the sea and desert, even when he thinks to arrive several days before Pesach—he is obligated to search, because on a distant journey it is possible to be delayed. However, everything is according to the matter. And even on a short journey, if he thinks to arrive a day or two before Pesach—he must search, for in a short time it is possible to be delayed (ibid.). And it is simple that all of this is when he does not leave a wife and children in his home. For when he leaves them—behold, they shall search (Beit Yosef), and so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.

And behold, regarding this point where he was stringent, that even if his intention is to return before Pesach he is obligated to check, lest he arrive on the eve of Pesach at twilight, Rashi and the Tur did not rule accordingly. This is the wording of the Tur: One who sets sail from dry land to the sea, or departs with a caravan, and does not leave someone in his house who will check, and his intention is not to return during Pesach, if it is before thirty days before Pesach – he does not need to remove it. And when Pesach arrives – he shall nullify it in his heart. And if it is within thirty days – he must remove it, for the obligation of removal has already fallen upon him, since they expound upon the laws of Pesach. And if his intention is to return during Pesach – even from Rosh Hashanah he must remove it. And if he forgot and did not check – he shall nullify it when Pesach arrives. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not require it for before thirty days with intention to return, except when his intention is to return during the days of Pesach, for then he cannot nullify it, and he will transgress "it shall not be seen." But if he will return before Pesach – he does not need anything, for upon his arrival he will check. And if it is difficult: behold, even if his intention is not to return, why does he not need to remove it before thirty days, for behold he will transgress "it shall not be seen"? But in truth, regarding this the Tur wrote: "And when Pesach arrives – he shall nullify it in his heart," meaning: in the place where he is. And even though the rabbis decreed a checking, this is in the place where he is present, where there is concern of eating; but not when the chametz is in another place. And even according to the reason we wrote in siman 431 section 15, that the sages did not want to rely on nullification because it depends on a person's thought, and perhaps he will not nullify properly, see there – this is in permanent situations. But in an instance when he is at a distance – of necessity one relies on nullification. And it is a simple matter that if he did not nullify – he will transgress "it shall not be seen" even when he did not see the chametz, provided there is chametz in places that require checking (Magen Avraham subsection 11). And we have already written this in siman 434 section 8, see there. (And the Magen Avraham there subsection 5 made this a dispute. And we explained there that it is not so, and as the Magen Avraham himself wrote here with simplicity, and his words there require further study. And look closely and you will find it easy.)

And behold, from the words of the Tur it is explicitly clear that if it is his intention to return before Pesach—even within thirty days he is not required to remove it. And of necessity it must be so, for since according to this view we are not concerned lest he arrive on the eve of Pesach at twilight, if so, what difference is there to me within thirty and what difference is there to me after thirty? And so wrote one of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (Taz, subsection 5). But from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 2: And there are those who say that before thirty, when he does not need to search, this is when it is not his intention to return during Pesach. And even though it is his intention to return before Pesach or after it—he does not need to search, since it is before thirty… Thus far his words, and this is the view of Rashi and the Tur. And he was precise to say "before thirty," but within thirty—he is obligated to search even if it is his intention to return before Pesach, since the obligation of searching has devolved upon him. And so the great later authorities agreed. (Chok Yaakov, subsection 10, and Mekor Chaim, subsection 9, not like the Taz. And so it is implied in the Yerushalmi, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.)

And know that the positions of the Rambam and the Tur are according to our Talmud, that the intent to return is more stringent. However, they disagreed in its interpretation: for the Rambam holds even if his intent is to return before Pesach, and the Tur explains specifically during Pesach, as I have written. But in the Yerushalmi it is explained with this wording (Yerushalmi Pesachim Chapter 1 Halacha 1): One who goes out to set sail before thirty days—he does not need to search. Within thirty—he needs to search. This applies when it is in his intent to return, but if it is not in his intent to return—even before thirty days he needs to search. And in a case of doubt, but in a case of certainty—even from Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Ba said: And even if it is in his intent to return—he needs to search, lest he reconsider and not return. Thus far the wording of the Yerushalmi.

And behold, according to the method of Rashi and the Tur – one must align the matters with our Shas, and this is the explanation: That which you say is when it is in his mind to return before Pesach. But if it is not in his mind to return before Pesach, but rather during Pesach – even before thirty days he must check. And according to the explanation of the Rambam, the Yerushalmi disagrees with our Shas (Ran ibid.). And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Rambam would explain our Shas as referring to certain chametz, for the Yerushalmi itself says that he is always obligated to check. However, when it is not in his mind to return at all – the Yerushalmi would concede that he should nullify it in its place, and that is sufficient. And there is proof from the language of the Shas that it deals with certain chametz, from its saying "bound to remove," and it did not say "bound to check" like the language of the Yerushalmi. For "checking" is regarding a doubt, and removal is regarding a certainty. And even though the Rambam himself wrote the language "to check" – he was not concerned with this detail to change his language from all the chapters. But in a case of doubt – it could be that the Rambam concedes to Rashi and the Tur, and the Rambam would rule like Rabbi Ba, that in a case of certainty even if it is in his mind to return before Pesach – he is obligated to remove. And according to this, our teachers would not disagree as a matter of law, but only in the explanation of the Gemara. For Rashi and the Tur explain it regarding a doubt, and the Rambam would explain it regarding a certainty. However, be it this way or that way, for us as a matter of law, in a case of certainty one must certainly be stringent in every case, and in a case of doubt one should instruct like Rashi and the Tur, since the Yerushalmi supports them. (And the commentators of the Yerushalmi were very pressed to explain according to the Rambam, and according to what I have explained it settles well with simplicity. Examine and you will find it easy.)

And know: that in a place where we have required him to search—he must search on the night before his departure by the light of a candle (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And at the time of the search he shall also nullify (ibid.), and some say that he should leave the nullification for the eve of Pesach (Taz and Chok Yaakov, subsection 3). And in my humble opinion, the primary view is like the first opinion (and so wrote the Mekor Chayim, subsection 2), for in every place where the sages enacted a search—nullification is required, as they said: One who searches must nullify. (And what our teacher, the Rema, wrote—this refers to before thirty days, see there.) But he shall not recite a blessing, for the blessing was only enacted for the time of the search for chametz. And similarly, in a place where we said he must search, and he forgot and did not search—he shall nullify when Pesach arrives. And he shall not recite a blessing over the nullification, for since the essence of nullification is in the heart—one does not recite a blessing over matters of the heart (Magen Avraham, subsection 13).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding these laws, and this is his wording: His wife should also search and nullify in his house, lest he forget to nullify in the place where he is. Thus far his words. And his words are puzzling: for it has already been explained that these laws only apply when he did not leave anyone in his house who would search and nullify. But when he has left someone—he does not need anything (ibid. subsection 14). And it must be said: that which was explained—is when he left a man in his house, but one may not rely upon a woman (Bach). And for this reason he says that in any event she should also search and nullify. And there is one who says that that which was explained, that when he left someone in his house he does not need to search—that is when he commanded that they search without him, but here it deals with a case where he did not command, and therefore he should not rely upon the searching of his household (Magen Avraham ibid.). And for this reason he says that in any event she should also search and nullify. And there is one who explained, for example, that he has a private room, and his wife and household have private rooms (Chok Yaakov subsection 14). And it seems to me that he holds that they only did not require him to search when he leaves someone in his house, because they will search on the night of the fourteenth. But the nullification—is always incumbent upon him even when he is on a journey from afar, for in any place he can nullify. And his nullification is much preferred over theirs, for the chametz is not theirs. And therefore, one who goes on a journey—they shall search on the night of the fourteenth, and he shall nullify in whatever place he may be, and they do not need to nullify. And for this reason he says that in any event his wife should search and nullify in his house, for perhaps he will forget to nullify in the place where he is, meaning: that she, at the time of the search, shall nullify as well.

And similarly, one who makes his house a storehouse, meaning: that all year he used hametz there, and now he wishes to make it a storehouse for wood or for another matter (Magen Avraham, subsection 4) – within thirty days he is required to search, and afterwards he brings his storehouse into it. And if he did not search beforehand – he must clear out the storehouse and search (ibid., subsection 5). And even if he does not intend to clear it out before Pesach, such that it is like a ruin that fell upon it, nevertheless since it is within thirty days – the obligation of searching takes effect upon him. And if it is before thirty days, if he intends to clear it out before Pesach – he must search, and afterwards he makes it a storehouse, because we concern ourselves that perhaps he will clear it out until there does not remain upon it three tefachim, and afterwards he will be preoccupied and will not search (ibid., subsection 6). And if he does not intend to clear it out before Pesach – he does not need to search, for it is like a ruin that fell upon it. And this is according to the opinion of the Rambam. But according to the opinion of the Tur, if he intends to clear it out before Pesach – he also does not need to search, for he will search then, as he holds regarding one who goes out on a journey and intends to return before Pesach (Beit Yosef). And that which they said in the Gemara (ibid.) that if he intends to clear it out he is obligated to search – this is when he intends to clear it out during Pesach.

And this is regarding an ordinary search. But if there is known chametz there—in any case one is obligated to destroy it (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). And it is not similar to chametz upon which a ruin fell, which is considered as destroyed; for that is where it fell, and not where one places it upon it with his hands, like this case of a storehouse, for this is like hiding it initially. And we have already written that any case of one departing on a journey does not deal with known chametz. And only according to the opinion of the Rambam did we innovate that it deals with known chametz, as I wrote in section 5. (And I am surprised at the Magen Avraham, for here he wrote that it does not deal with known chametz, and in subsection 1 regarding one departing on a journey he wrote that it deals with known chametz. And behold, in the Gemara one departing on a journey is compared to one who makes his house a storehouse, see there. And it requires further study.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Regarding a wheat storehouse, where there is leavened wheat at the bottom of the pit, if the storehouse was established thirty days before Pesach—one is not required to remove it, but rather nullifies it in his heart and that is sufficient. However, after Pesach when he clears out the storehouse—it is forbidden to derive benefit from that wheat. And if there is no known chametz there but only a doubt—it is permitted to sell the storehouse as it is, in its entirety. Thus far his words. And there is one who disagrees with him, for regarding known chametz, it has already been explained that in any case one is obligated to search (Taz subsection 4). Furthermore: regarding this law where there is a concern of leavening in this storehouse itself—there is no distinction between within thirty days and before thirty days. For specifically when in the storehouse itself there is no relevance of leavening, but rather the concern of leavening is from what was previously beneath the storehouse—in this case it is relevant to distinguish because it is like chametz upon which a ruin has fallen, which is considered as removed. Therefore, before thirty days—one is not required to remove it. But if in the storehouse itself there is a concern of leavening—what difference is it to me whether it is within thirty days, and what difference is it to me whether it is before thirty days (ibid.)?

And behold, there is no proof from our teacher, the Rema, that his intention is that there is a concern of leavening in this storehouse. For if so, there is certainly no distinction between within thirty days and before thirty days. Rather, it deals with one who brings in good wheat in which there is no concern of leavening, and the leavened ones were there from before. And that which he permitted even with known chametz, even though with known chametz it is certainly forbidden – this is ab initio. But ex post facto there is no concern, for it is like a ruin (Magen Avraham subsection 8). And there is one who says that even ab initio it is permitted even with known chametz, for the reason of a ruin, and for the reason that before thirty days we do not care, and when the time arrives he will nullify it (Chok Yaakov subsection 8). And it is an excessive leniency. And from the Yerushalmi it is explicitly clear that with known chametz one must remove it even before thirty days, as I wrote in section 5.

One who places good wheat in a clean pit, and there is no concern of chimutz, and afterward, due to moisture, some wheat became chametz—he is not required to remove it, even if it occurred within thirty days. For since at the time he placed it there was no chametz there, afterward when it became chametz it is like a ruin fell upon it, which is considered as if it were removed. And all the more so when there is a doubt if they became chametz, and you have no man who would clear out his pit (Magen Avraham, subsection 8, in the name of the Responsa of the Rashba).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: An Israelite who departs from the house of a non-Jew within thirty days, and enters another house in this city, or goes to another city – he does not need to remove chametz from the house of the non-Jew, for he will fulfill the mitzvah of removal in that other house. But if he sets sail or departs with a caravan, and will not enter a house during Pesach – there is one who says that the obligation of removal falls upon him, since it is within thirty days. And he must remove chametz from the house of the non-Jew that he is departing from in order to fulfill the mitzvah of removal, even though the non-Jew will enter the house during Pesach. And some say that he does not need to when the non-Jew will enter it. Thus far his words. And ostensibly the first opinion is astonishing, for is bedikah a personal obligation? And that which within thirty days the obligation of bedikah falls upon him – this is when he has something to search. But in such a case where the non-Jew enters the house, and the chametz that remains there will remain with the non-Jew, for what does the Israelite require bedikah? Furthermore: if so, also one who departs from the house of an Israelite within thirty days – we should require him to perform bedikah, if it is a personal obligation. And indeed, there is one who rejected the first opinion for this reason (Taz subsection 7).

And it appears to me that the intention is as follows: that certainly if the non-Jew enters the house before Pesach – it does not require bedikah. However, when he enters it during Pesach, and until Pesach the chametz of the Israelite was located there, even though this is like hefker since he left it there – nevertheless, the obligation of bedikah for this house rests upon him. For behold, all chametz is not in a person's possession during Pesach, and despite all this the Torah commanded to perform bedikah, and if not, he violates "it shall not be seen." And if so, here too: granted that he does not violate "it shall not be seen," nevertheless, he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of bedikah on his chametz, for even when the first hour of Pesach arrives it is called his chametz. It would be well if an Israelite were to enter it, for the second person would fulfill the mitzvah of bedikah on this chametz, or if the non-Jew were to enter before Pesach, the status of the non-Jew would take effect upon this chametz. But when he enters during Pesach – he must perform bedikah. However, when he has another place to perform bedikah – we are no longer concerned for this, because the name of the Israelite has been nullified from this chametz, when he has another house and other chametz. And it is a simple matter that if no person enters the house – that he is obligated to remove it if it is within thirty days (Magen Avraham subsection 17).

It is proper that for the entire thirty days before Pesach, when one performs an action, he should take care that no chametz remains stuck there which would be difficult to remove, or chametz hidden in a hole. Therefore, one who studies a book during a meal—it is proper that from Purim onwards he should take care that no minute amount of chametz remains in it, so that he does not find it on Pesach. And so too regarding anything similar to this (see Magen Avraham there and Bach).