Siman 442

Regarding a matter where there is a mixture of chametz, it is a dispute of Tannaim in Pesachim (43a), as it was taught: For pure grain chametz—one is punished with kareth; for its mixture—with a prohibition; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Sages say: For pure grain chametz—one is punished with kareth; for its mixture—with nothing. That is to say: there is no prohibition here, only a general forbidden status. And we say there in the sugya that when there is a kezayit of the chametz within the time of eating a pras of the mixture—all agree that he is liable. And when there is an individual and a majority—the halacha follows the majority. And so the Rambam wrote in the commentary on the Mishnah there, that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. And so the Bartenura wrote, see there.

And the Rif ruled accordingly there, and this is his wording: Even though the sages said its mixture is with nothing—it is only that he does not receive lashes, but there is a prohibition. And when the sages said as well that he does not receive lashes—these words apply where there is not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, such as Babylonian kutach and the like. But where there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras—even according to the sages he receives lashes. Thus far his words; and the Rambam wrote similarly in the first chapter, law 6, and this is his wording: One is not liable for karet except for eating the chametz itself. But a mixture of chametz, such as Babylonian kutach and Median beer and the like, if he ate them on Pesach—he receives lashes and there is no karet in it, as it is said: "You shall eat nothing leavened." In what case are these words said? When he ate a kezayit of chametz within the mixture in the time of eating three eggs—it is then that he receives lashes from the Torah. But if there is not in the mixture a kezayit within the time of eating three eggs, even though it is forbidden for him to eat, if he ate—he does not receive lashes, but they strike him with lashes of rebellion. Thus far his words; behold, his words are like the words of the Rif, and according to the sages. And even though he wrote "a kezayit within the time of eating a pras" regarding "Babylonian kutach," and in kutach there is not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and on this matter the Ra'avad challenged him, and this is his wording: The master ruled regarding these like the sages, because they do not contain a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. Thus far his words. However, the Rambam did not descend to this regarding the details of the foods, but he established a general rule, that when there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras—he is liable for lashes. And if not—it is a mere prohibition (and the Maggid Mishneh wrote similarly, see there).

And as for that which he brought the verse "you shall eat nothing leavened," even though in the Gemara Rabbi Eliezer brings from this verse for when there is not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and not for the Rabbis, for regarding a kezayit within the time of eating a pras a verse is not needed, as in all prohibitions the law is so. And already the Ramban in the Sefer HaMitzvot (Prohibitions 198) and the Maggid Mishneh challenged him, for since there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras—it is obvious that there is also karet, for this is absolute chametz. And behold, in all prohibitions it is so, when there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras—one is liable just as if the prohibited matter were without any mixture at all, see there.

But the truth is that the approach of the Rambam is also regarding all prohibitions of karet, that regarding a mixture of the forbidden substance, even if it contains a kezayit within the time of eating a pras—it carries only malkot and not karet. And this matter he explained at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter of Ma'akhalot Assurot, and this is his wording: How is it considered its substance? For example, if there was a kezayit of chelev in every three eggs of the mixture, if he ate from these groats an amount of approximately three eggs, since there is in them a kezayit of the chelev—he is lashed, for the taste of the forbidden substance and its substance are present. Thus far his words. And behold, chelev carries karet, and nevertheless, he is only lashed. And we have already explained his words in Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 98, see there (and in this, the Kesef Mishneh also took issue with the Maggid Mishneh, see there). And his source is from that which is in Avodah Zarah (67a): Anything whose taste and substance are forbidden—one is lashed for it, see there. And it appeared to the Rambam, since it does not say also "and one is liable for karet in prohibitions of karet"—one may infer from this that regarding a mixture there is never karet, even in a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. However, we must explain from where he derives this.

And it appears in my humble opinion that we derive all prohibitions from chametz. For behold, Rabbi Eliezer derives from "You shall eat nothing leavened" that one violates a negative commandment for a mixture even when there is no kezayit within the time of eating a pras. And it says there: "You shall eat nothing leavened" – to include Babylonian kutach... Could it be that he is punished with kareth? The Torah teaches: "For whoever eats chametz... shall be cut off" – for pure grain chametz one is punished with kareth, for its mixture with a negative commandment; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. And for this reason, the Rambam holds that the Rabbanan also derive from this verse regarding a mixture of a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. And the derivation is not for the obligation of the negative commandment, for that is not needed; for chametz is no worse than all other prohibitions, but rather to exempt from kareth based on the verse "For whoever eats chametz... shall be cut off," that it is specifically for pure chametz without a mixture, just as according to Rabbi Eliezer for less than the time of eating a pras. And the explanation of the matter in my humble opinion is as follows: For behold, in the portion of "This month shall be to you," three warnings are written regarding chametz. First it is written, "For whoever eats chametz... shall be cut off" (Exodus 12:15), and afterwards it is written, "For whoever eats that which is leavened shall be cut off" (ibid. 19). And we expound it in the Gemara there regarding that which was leavened by means of something else, that we do not require the leavening to be of itself. And afterwards it is written, "You shall eat nothing leavened" (ibid. 20), to teach that there is a type of chametz for which there is only a negative commandment and not kareth. For it cannot be said that this verse comes as a warning as with all punishments, for the Torah does not punish unless it has warned, for regarding that another verse is written in the portion of "Sanctify to Me every firstborn": "No chametz shall be eaten" (Exodus 13:3). Rather, certainly this verse of "You shall eat nothing leavened" comes to teach that there is a type of chametz that is only a negative commandment. And which is it? A mixture of chametz according to Rabbi Eliezer when there is no kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and according to the Rabbanan when there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. And from chametz we learned for all prohibitions. (And the Tur understood that the Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer, and so too the Ramach. And so too the Kesef Mishneh lengthily discussed this and concludes that he rules like Rabbi Eliezer. And so too the Pri Chadash and the Makor Chayim lengthily discussed this and were caught in the thicket of the Rambam's words. And so too in several responsa. And in my humble opinion it appears clear as I have written, and in this the Maggid Mishneh also understood that he ruled like the Rabbanan, and he wrote so explicitly in the Commentary on the Mishnah. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And even though it is explained in the Gemara (Megillah 7b) that the Rabbis do not derive any derivation from "all leavened matter" (kol machmetzet) at all, and only Rabbi Eliezer derives it, see there, and from this it emerged to the poskim that the Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer—it appears in my humble opinion that it is certainly so: that Rabbi Eliezer derives it from the redundancy and from the expression "all," as is explained in the Gemara. But for the Rabbis, it is from the expression "machmetzet," which implies not absolute chametz, and that is by means of a mixture. And a clear proof for this is that the Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Ma'akhalot Assurot, who ruled that a thing that has a means of becoming permitted (davar she-yesh lo matirin) is not nullified even in a thousand; and he wrote there that chametz is also forbidden in any amount (be-mashehu), for the reason that it is permitted after Pesach, see there. And he wrote further: that the law of a thing that has a means of becoming permitted applies only to its own kind (be-mino), and not to a different kind (she-lo be-mino), and he wrote in this wording: And do not wonder about chametz on Pesach, for the Torah said "all leavened matter you shall not eat," therefore they were stringent regarding it. Thus far his words, meaning: that even in a different kind—it is not nullified. And it is not understood, for according to him that the prohibition is for an olive's bulk within the time of eating a half-loaf (kezayit bi-khdei akhilat pras)—behold there is no stringency in chametz from the Torah more than in other prohibitions. And also it cannot be said that his intention is regarding that which the Torah was stringent in what became leavened due to something else—ultimately it is absolute chametz. Furthermore: that what became leavened due to something else—we do not learn it from this verse, but rather from "for all who eat leavened matter shall be cut off," as is explained in the Gemara. Rather, it is certain that this is the explanation: that the expression "all machmetzet" implies any chametz that exists, such as a mixture of chametz. For even though there is no kareth, nevertheless there is a prohibition. And it also includes what became leavened due to something else, except that regarding this came the second verse of "for all who eat leavened matter shall be cut off," that one is also liable for kareth for this. And it is logical to establish it only in this and not in a mixture, for there is no reason to obligate kareth for a mixture even in an olive's bulk within the time of eating a half-loaf. And so it is proven explicitly in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the third chapter, which says there: Let it be solved with chametz and matzah that were mixed. And it asks: What are we dealing with, if the majority is chametz he is liable for kareth...? See there. Behold, only when the majority is chametz is he liable for kareth, because the minority is nullified to the majority, and not in an olive's bulk within the time of eating a half-loaf. (And that which we learned in Challah chapter three mishnah 7: One who makes a dough from wheat and from rice, if it has the taste..., see there—this is because rice is drawn to become like it, as it is brought in the Yerushalmi there, and was explained in Yoreh Deah there.)

It is found that according to the Rambam, the term "machmetzet" includes everything that is not absolute chametz. And since the Torah specified this regarding chametz, even though it is also so regarding other prohibitions, nevertheless our sages, of blessed memory, were more stringent regarding a mixture of chametz in the matter of nullification, because the Torah mentioned a mixture regarding chametz. However, Rabbi Eliezer derives this from "kol," and the Rabbis do not derive from "kol," as is stated in the Gemara. And I am astonished at the Ramban and at the Maggid Mishneh, who challenged him regarding what he said—that there is no karet for a mixture of a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. For behold, in the Rif it is also explicitly stated so, for he says explicitly that for a kezayit within the time of eating a pras one is lashed, as I wrote in section 2. And since he did not write that one is liable for karet—it is understood from this that he holds like the Rambam. And besides this, it is known that the Rambam always stands by the approach of the Rif.

But the Ramban, and the Maggid Mishneh, and most of the poskim wrote that regarding a mixture of chametz, if there is a kezayit within the time of kedei achilat pras – one is liable for karet. And so too regarding all the prohibitions that carry the liability of karet, because a kezayit within kedei achilat pras is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai regarding the eating of the forbidden substance, that one should not delay more than kedei achilat pras. And here too, it applies to a mixture. But the Rif and the Rambam hold that this applies to the forbidden substance itself regarding the duration of time, and not to a mixture. And when there is not a kezayit within kedei achilat pras – there are some of the poskim who ruled like Rabbi Eliezer, because the anonymous Mishnah of "Elu Overin" follows Rabbi Eliezer, and there is a lav regarding this. And there are those who ruled like the Sages, and there is no lav regarding this, like the words of the Rif and the Rambam, and there is in this the law of chatzi shiur, which is forbidden by the Torah except that one is not lashed for it.

And all this is regarding a mixture where the chametz does not impart flavor to the mixture, such as dry in dry. But when it imparts flavor—it depends on the dispute in Yoreh Deah siman 98: whether "flavor is like the substance itself" is from the Torah or from the Rabbis. And there it was explained that Rashi and the Rambam hold that "flavor is like the substance itself" is from the Rabbis, and Rabbeinu Tam holds that "flavor is like the substance itself" is from the Torah. And such is the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur, see there. Therefore the Tur wrote here, and this is his wording: And specifically when there is no flavor of chametz in the mixture… but if there is the flavor of chametz in it—one is liable for it, for "flavor is like the substance itself" is from the Torah. Thus far his words. And also regarding a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, he holds like the Ramban and the Maggid Mishneh, as he wrote: And it also deals with a case where there is not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. But if there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras—one is liable for them. Thus far his words.

And there is a great practical difference between these opinions regarding the matter of bitul. For behold, chametz on Pesach prohibits in any amount, and the Rosh wrote in the second chapter (siman 5) that on the eve of Pesach after midday—it is nullified because there is no kares involved, see there. And if so, any type of chametz that does not involve kares—is nullified in sixty! And according to this, for the Rif and the Rambam regarding a mixture of chametz, even if there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and even if there is the principle of taste is like the substance—it is nullified in sixty, since there is no kares in this. And for this reason, the Maharil permitted chametz nuksheh in sixty, because there is no kares in this (Magen Avraham siman 447, subsection 5). However, the Rosh at the end of Avodah Zarah wrote: The reason for the stringency of chametz, that it is not nullified in sixty, is because people do not separate from it the entire year, see there. And according to this, every type of chametz prohibits in any amount. And so too for the Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Ma'akhalot Assurot, who wrote: The reason for the stringency of chametz being in any amount is because it is a thing that has permitters—it is also prohibited in every type of chametz. However, according to his opinion, there is another leniency when the mixture is in a cooked dish, which will spoil by the time the days of Pesach pass, and we do not judge in this the law of a thing that has permitters, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 102. And later in siman 467 it will be explained that we are stringent regarding mixtures, see there. And it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 447 and in siman 467.

And the prohibition of chametz nuksheh—the Rambam did not mention it at all. However, one may infer from his words that there is a negative commandment regarding chametz nuksheh, for behold, in the Gemara (43a) it is stated that se'or is chametz nuksheh. And in the Mishnah (48b) we learned: What is se'or according to the sages? Any [dough] whose surface has become pale, like a person whose hair has stood on end. And the Rambam in the fifth chapter, law 13, wrote: And so too, if its surface has become pale like a person whose hair has stood on end—behold, it is forbidden to eat it. But one is not liable for karet because of it. Thus far his words. And since he wrote that there is no karet in it—it implies explicitly that there is a negative commandment; for if it were not so, let him inform us of an even greater point. And from where did we learn this negative commandment? One could say from the expression "machmetzet," the meaning of which is that it is not complete chametz according to the opinion of the Rambam, as I have written. However, the Tur in this siman wrote: And the Rif ruled like the sages that there is no negative commandment, neither regarding a mixture of chametz (where there is not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras), nor regarding chametz nuksheh, but rather a rabbinic prohibition… Thus far his words. And behold, the Rambam also rules like the sages, according to what has been explained. And it is also difficult to say that the Rambam would disagree with the Rif, as is known regarding most laws. And so wrote the Ran, that the Rif rules thus. And he brings proof: for behold, a mixture is more stringent than nuksheh, as is proven in the Gemara; and since regarding a mixture one is exempt—all the more so regarding nuksheh, see there. And automatically, for the Rambam as well, there is this proof. And even though in the Gemara there, there is one who says that nuksheh is more stringent than a mixture, nevertheless the poskim seized upon the other [view], the one who said that a mixture is more stringent than nuksheh. And if so, one must say that the intention of the Rambam is also thus, that even a negative commandment does not exist. And that which he mentioned karet was because he was dealing there previously [with the case] that if it remained for the time of walking a mil—it becomes complete chametz; meaning: and one is liable for karet. To this he says that in such a case there is no karet; but the same law applies that even a negative commandment does not exist. And so agreed the Rosh and the Tur, that there is no negative commandment regarding nuksheh.

Regarding the matter of "bal yira'eh" in a mixture—the Rambam wrote in the fourth chapter, law 8: One violates "bal yira'eh" and "bal yimatzeh" for a mixture of chametz... Thus far his words. The Maggid Mishneh explained that presumably his intention is when there is a kezayit within the time of kedei achilat pras. And he relied on what he wrote in the first chapter. He brought that our teacher, Moshe HaKohen, explained his words, that his intention is even when there is not a kezayit within the time of kedei achilat pras. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Kesef Mishneh, and all the poskim agreed to this. And they wrote the reasoning for the matter: For it is understandable regarding eating that when there is not a kezayit within the time of kedei achilat pras—he is not eating according to the measure of eating that was given to Moses from Sinai. However, regarding the matter of "bal yira'eh," since there is a kezayit of chametz there—behold, he violates "bal yira'eh." And such is the opinion of Rashi at the beginning of the third chapter, that there is "bal yira'eh" in a mixture. But Rabbeinu Tam wrote there in Tosafot that there is no "bal yira'eh," for if not for the verse "any leaven," we would not even know of the prohibition of eating. If so, from where do we have "bal yira'eh"? See there. And one could say for Rashi and the Rambam: It is understandable regarding eating that a verse is required, because he eats it in a mixture. But regarding the matter of "bal yira'eh," since there is a kezayit of chametz in this—why should he not violate "bal yira'eh"? And similar to this we find regarding the matter of impurity with two half-kezayits of nevelah that he stuck on a splinter, where regarding contact it is tahor because the contact is not at once, but regarding carrying or moving it is tamei because he moves them as one (Chullin 124a). And here too: when the kezayit of chametz is scattered within the mixture, regarding eating—he is exempt, because he does not eat it as one. But regarding "bal yira'eh"—he is liable, for he retains a kezayit of chametz in his possession, similar to carrying regarding impurity. For here too, he sees the entire kezayit as one, just as he carries the entire kezayit as one.

Regarding the matter of "bal yera'eh" with hametz nuksheh – in the Rambam, he did not mention at all that there is "bal yera'eh" with nuksheh. It is almost explicit in his words that it is not subject to "bal yera'eh," for regarding the matter of s'ur that we brought in section 11, he wrote: It is forbidden to eat it, but one is not liable for karet for it. And if it should enter your mind that there is a prohibition of "bal yera'eh" regarding it – he should have said "and one is obligated to destroy it." And even though according to the explanation of Rashi it implies that even with hametz nuksheh there is "bal yera'eh," for in the Mishnah of "these are the things that pass" there is hametz nuksheh there, and on all of them Rashi explained that they violate "bal yera'eh" – nevertheless, according to the Rambam it appears clearly that it is not so. However, in truth, for the law there is no proof at all from Rashi, for he explained this according to Rabbi Eliezer. But if we hold like the sages – there is no prohibition of "bal yera'eh" in them at all, and as the Tur wrote, that according to the rabbis it is permitted to leave them over on Pesach, see there (and these are the general rules of the laws).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: A mixture of chametz – one violates regarding it the prohibitions of "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found"; for example, muries, and Babylonian kutach, and Median beer, and anything similar to these from among edible things. But something that contains a mixture of chametz and is not fit for eating – it is permitted to keep it on Pesach, for example, a tanners' trough into which one put flour and hides, even if he put them in one hour before the time of removal – it is permitted to keep it. And if he did not put in the hides but put in the flour more than three days before the time of removal – it is permitted to keep it, for it has become putrid and spoiled. But within three days – he is obligated to remove it. And similarly, eye-salve, and a plaster, and a compress, and theriac into which one put chametz – it is permitted to keep them on Pesach, for the form of the chametz has been spoiled. Thus far his words, and all of this is from the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the fourth chapter.

And behold, "muryas" is not present in the Mishnah of "Elu Overin," and also in no place is it mentioned that there is chametz in muryas. And "Median beer" is mentioned in the Gemara, that they would cast barley-water into it; and Rashi explained: because their beer was date beer, and in Media they make beer from barley-water similar to ours, therefore it is called "Median beer." Thus far his words. And I wonder: for if so, this is not a mixture of chametz, but rather absolute chametz, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5. And it must be said that Rashi says "similar to ours," and not literally "like ours," and there are also other species in it. And we have already explained that the opinion of most poskim is that even where there is not a kezayit within k'dei achilat pras—one is obligated to remove it. And this is specifically regarding a species in a different species. But a species in its own species, such as chametz flour in Pesach flour, since according to the Torah it is nullified by a majority, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 98, even though according to the Rabbis a liquid in a liquid requires sixty, and flour is like a liquid in a liquid, nevertheless—it is permitted to keep it (Magen Avraham subsection 1).

And behold, the Tur wrote that any matter that is not prohibited for consumption by the Torah—it is permitted ab initio to mix it and to retain it, see there. However, the Tosafot at the beginning of Pesachim wrote that the sages did not distinguish, for even nuksheh which is only prohibited by rabbinic law—it is prohibited to retain it. And so it appears to be the opinions of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in siman 447, who ruled that it is prohibited to retain chametz nuksheh, yet one does not violate "it shall not be seen," and consequently, even regarding consumption it is not prohibited by the Torah. And despite all this, it is prohibited to retain it, but if one did retain it—it is not prohibited for benefit, see there (ibid.). And all the more so regarding that which imparts a flavor, it is prohibited to retain it, and if one did retain it—it is permitted for benefit (Chok Yaakov and Mekor Chaim). However, a matter that is prohibited due to the discharge of a vessel of chametz—it is permitted to retain it (ibid.), and that which is pickled is prohibited (ibid.).

And what is "chametz nuksheh"? This refers to that which from its beginning was not absolute chametz, such as those which scribes use to paste their papers, which they make from flour and water, or dough whose surface has turned pale, which did not become chametz, or chametz that is bad for eating from its beginning. But if from the beginning it was absolute chametz, and good for eating – the status of absolute chametz is not nullified from it until it becomes unfit for consumption by a dog (Magen Avraham ibid.). And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: The bread itself, which became moldy and unfit for consumption by a dog, and a poultice that became foul – one is not obligated to remove. Thus far his words. But regarding eating – it is forbidden. And if the bread became moldy after the time of its prohibition – one is obligated to remove it (ibid. subsection 3), for since it was fit for eating at the arrival of the time – behold, one violates "bal yera'eh." And it seems to me that this is according to the one who holds that one violates "bal yera'eh" after six hours; but those who hold that one does not violate "bal yera'eh" until the night – it is possible that one is not obligated to remove it. And it requires further study.

Garments that were laundered with wheat milk, or garments that are soaked in bran with water – it is permitted to wear them, for they do not bear the name of chametz at all. Similarly, papers that were pasted together with chametz, in the manner that bookbinders do – it is permitted to keep them on Pesach. And certainly this mixture of chametz, if papers were not pasted with it – it is forbidden to keep it, for the name "chametz" is upon it. But after the papers were pasted with it – it is permitted. And that which we learned in our Mishnah: "the paste of scribes" – this refers to before the papers were pasted (Magid Mishneh and Taz, subsection 2). Therefore, it is permitted to paste papers on a window within thirty days of Pesach. And there are those who are stringent within thirty days if the paste is visible from the outside, for then the form of the chametz remains. But before thirty days – it has already hardened. And there is one who is stringent regarding spreading garments laundered with wheat milk upon the table, and similarly regarding laundering women's scarves with them (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And there is no sense or reason in this, for behold, our eyes see that there is no crumb in them, such that we should suspect perhaps a crumb will fall into the food. And perhaps in their days crumbs would remain, but now it is simple that it is permitted without any doubt (Chok Yaakov, subsection 11).

An object in which chametz was mixed, and it is not human food at all, or it is not food for all people, such as the theriac that they make for medicines and the like, even though it is permitted to keep it—nevertheless, it is forbidden to eat it until after Pesach. And even though it contains only a minute amount of chametz, nevertheless, it is forbidden for eating and for benefit (Mekor Chaim). And later in siman 447 it will be explained that there are those who disagree, and permit a minute amount of chametz even for eating, when it was already nullified before Pesach, and so it appears. And there it will be explained with the help of Heaven. (The Taz, subsection 3, is stringent, and the Chok Yaakov, subsection 14, disagrees with him, see there.)

Barley beer is absolute chametz, and one is liable for kareth because of it. And this is not due to the principle of "taste is like the substance," for there are those who say "taste is like the substance" is not a Torah prohibition. And it is also not due to the reason that there is a kezayit of chametz within the time of eating a pras, for which according to most poskim one is liable for kareth. Rather, even according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam that we explained, that there is no kareth for a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, as I wrote in section 2—nevertheless, here it is entirely chametz, because the essence of the barley enters into the water. And this is like one who dissolved chametz and swallowed it, for which one is liable for kareth (Chullin 120a). Similarly, brandy that they make from grain is absolute chametz, and one is liable for kareth because of it. And so all the Geonim agreed. And whoever wishes to say that it is merely vapor—it is a great error, for the substance of the grain itself is dissolved into it, and only the waste remains. And even brandy that they make from potatoes and also a portion of grain, there is in it a kezayit of the grain within the time of eating a pras, and one is liable for kareth according to most poskim. Furthermore: the primary stabilizing agent is the malt of barley, which is absolute chametz.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: And so too if one curdled cheeses with the dregs of beer made from barley or wheat—he is obligated to destroy them. Thus far his words, for a curdling agent is not nullified even in a thousand. And the same law applies if they poured chametz into it, or beer, or brandy so that it would be sharp; even though the cheese was already made and curdled with rennet—nevertheless, this is made for flavor, and it is not nullified (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 11). And even though a curdling agent and a matter made for flavor are only of rabbinic status—nevertheless, it is like the substance itself, and even after the fact it is forbidden (Chok Yaakov, subsection 16). And even if he kept it until after Pesach, it is forbidden (ibid.). And there is one who is lenient in a case of great loss by casting the value of the forbidden substance into the Dead Sea (Eliyah Rabbah, ibid.). And so too if one leavened dough after Pesach with yeast that had passed through Pesach—the entire dough is forbidden due to the rule of a curdling agent (ibid. in the name of the Responsa of Maharam Lublin, see there). And there is one of the great authorities who wrote that a curdling agent is nullified, and it is permitted to keep it (Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin, chapter 8, siman 6). And this is against all the words of the early authorities (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). And the Rashba explicitly wrote in a response (Part 1, siman 458) that vinegar that was fermented with the dregs of beer—it is forbidden to keep it.

And even if the curdling agent was the fourth or fifth—it is forbidden, such as honey-water called mead, which they curdled with dregs of beer and dregs of honey-water. This one curdled a second honey-water, and with the dregs of the second he curdled a third honey-water, and from the third to the fourth, and from the fourth to the fifth—behold, he is obligated to destroy even the last honey-water. And if it passed until after Pesach—they are forbidden for benefit, for a curdling agent is like chametz itself (ibid. in the name of Ramban, see there). And we have already written that in a case of great loss—it is possible to permit it by means of casting the benefit into the Dead Sea, or to sell it to a non-Jew, excluding the value of the forbidden matter within it, for there is no concern lest he return and sell it to an Israelite (the HaGra"z section 10). And there is one who permits in the fourth honey-water (ibid.), because in three times its curdling power is exhausted. And one may rely on this in a case of great loss, since the prohibition of a curdling agent is rabbinic.

And "this and this causes" is permitted even regarding a curdling agent, such as if one curdled with permitted honey dregs along with beer dregs—it should be permitted, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 87 (Magen Avraham and Chayei Adam there). And there is one who wondered about this, for is it any worse than the second or third curdling? For certainly there it is superior to "this and this causes," since the primary factor is the permitted substance (Mekor Chaim, subsection 6). And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is not a valid comparison. For granted that in the second or third curdling the curdling agent has less power than "this and this causes," nevertheless, the essence and root of the permitted substance also comes from the forbidden substance, and this is its power which is never nullified. This is not the case with "this and this causes," where its essence and root come from the permitted substance just as from the forbidden substance. And it is explicitly explained in the Mishnah in Orlah (chapter two, Mishnah 14) that even with items from which benefit is forbidden, such as kilayim of the vineyard, "this and this causes" is permitted. See there, for it is permitted even for eating.

Cheese that was curdled with a stomach lining that was in a chametz vessel—it is forbidden to eat it, but it is permitted to keep it (Magen Avraham there in the name of Radbaz). And specifically when the stomach lining was in the chametz vessel for twenty-four hours (ibid.). And even though after twenty-four hours it becomes defective, one must say that this is like a sharp substance (Eliyah Rabbah there). But it is difficult to say so (ibid.). And those who cook honey-water in a beer cauldron, if it is within twenty-four hours—they are completely forbidden, and after twenty-four hours—they are permitted to be kept, as it is a giver of a defective taste (Taz subsection 4). And in a case of doubt whether it is within twenty-four hours or after twenty-four hours—one should be lenient, for generally vessels are not "of their day" (ibid.). And there are those who drink on the last festival day of Pesach from honey-water of the whole year, and it is not the primary view. And one should not be lenient in this, and he who guards his soul shall distance himself from this (ibid.).

And they wrote that it is the custom to scrape the walls and the chairs that have some adhesion of chametz. And even though it has already been nullified—nevertheless, they have that which to rely upon, for perhaps a crumb will fall during Pesach. And if there is chametz in a crack that he cannot dig after—he should place a bit of clay over the crack, so that it loses its form. And now they clean extensively, and wash and rub and dig after even a minute amount of chametz to destroy it. And dough that remained in the cracks of a kneading trough, if there is a kezayit in one place—he is obligated to destroy it, and he violates "it shall not be seen" regarding this. And less than a kezayit, if it is for the purpose of strengthening the cracks of the kneading trough, or to plug a hole with it—it is nullified by its minority. And if not—he is obligated to destroy it. And a kezayit, even in a place intended for strengthening—he is obligated to destroy it. And this is the approach of the Rif in the third chapter, and the Rambam in the second chapter.

The approach of Rashi (45b) is that regarding the bottom of a kneading trough—even with a kezait, one is not required to remove it. And on the upper rim—even with less than a kezait, one is obligated to remove it. And on its sides, if there is a kezait in one place—one is obligated to remove it; less than a kezait in one place—one is not required to remove it. And according to Ri, the author of the Tosafot: in the place of kneading, which is the entire trough except for its upper rim, if there is a kezait in one place—one is obligated to remove it, even if it is intended to strengthen it. Similarly, less than a kezait, when it is not intended to strengthen it—one is obligated to remove it. But less than a kezait in a place where it is intended to strengthen it—one is not required to remove it. And in a place other than the place of kneading—one is never required to remove it, unless there is a kezait in a place where it is not intended to strengthen it. But less than a kezait, even if it is not intended to strengthen it, or if it is intended to strengthen it even if it is a kezait—one is not obligated to remove it. And as for that which we do not fear regarding any less than a kezait in a place where one is not required to remove it that perhaps he will eat it—this is because regarding dough there is no such fear at all, as it is not fit for eating. And as for the fear that perhaps he will bake it and eat it—we do not find this fear. And it also appears that it is not fit for baking, due to its age and its hardness. Nevertheless, it is chametz. (And with this, the difficulty of the Taz, subsection 5, is settled; see there.)

There is one who says that in every place where we have obligated him to remove less than a kezayit, this is only when their gathering together would constitute a kezayit. But otherwise—in any case, he is not obligated to remove it (Magen Avraham subsection 10 in the name of the Semak). And there are those who disagree regarding this (ibid.). And it appears more like the first opinion, and the proof is from the law that will be explained in the next section. And also the half-kezayit—it must be clean, but if it is slightly soiled—he does not need to remove it (ibid.). And regarding a kezayit, there is no distinction unless it is very soiled, such that it is not fit for the consumption of a dog. And all this is according to the law. But the custom is to remove and to scrape out even a mere mashehu, as I have written.

In a place where specifically a kazeit is required, if there were two half-kazeits in two places, and a thread of dough is between them, we see if when the thread is removed they are removed with it – he is obligated to destroy it; and if not – he does not need to destroy it. In what case are these words said? Regarding a kneading trough. But in a house, even if when the thread is removed they are not removed with it – he is obligated to destroy it, because sometimes he gathers them together when they sweep the house. And if there was a half-kazeit in the house and a half-kazeit in the upper story, or a half-kazeit in the house and a half-kazeit in the portico, or a half-kazeit in this house and a half-kazeit in the house inner to it – in all these cases it was an inquiry in the Gemara (45b) and was not resolved. Therefore, when he has nullified the chametz – the bedikah is a rabbinic doubt, and we rule leniently. And if he did not nullify it – it is a Torah doubt, and we rule stringently. Therefore, if it is before the sixth hour – he nullifies it in his heart, and that is sufficient. And if it is at the sixth hour, and certainly thereafter, and he did not nullify it – he is obligated to destroy it. (And from this it is explained that there is no "half-measure" regarding the prohibition, Beit Yosef.)

According to the commentary of Rashi there, the inquiry was when the half-kezayit portions are placed here and there, and so it is explained from the words of the Rosh and the Tur. However, from the words of the Rambam in the second chapter, who wrote: Since these half-kezayit portions are attached to the walls, or to the beams, or to the floors—he is not obligated to remove them, but rather nullifies them in his heart and that is sufficient; thus far his words; and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8—we learn from this that they interpret the inquiry specifically when the half-kezayit portions are attached. But without this—we certainly fear that they will come into contact with one another. And in one house, even if they are attached, we fear that perhaps when he cleans the house he will remove them from their attachment and bring them close to one another.

Chametz that became moldy before the time of its prohibition and was disqualified from being fit for consumption by a dog, or that one burned in fire before its time and it was charred until it is not fit for a dog, or that one designated it for sitting and plastered it with clay—it is permitted to keep it on Pesach. However, regarding eating—it is prohibited; for since he ascribed importance to it for eating, it is considered eating. And it is simple that the obligation is not from the Torah, for would its name change just because he ascribed importance to it? Rather, it is prohibited by rabbinic law, since it was chametz originally (Taz, subsection 8). And why do we require regarding chametz that it be disqualified from being fit for consumption by a dog, and it is not sufficient that it is unfit for human consumption, as is the case with all other prohibitions? Because chametz is different, for behold, leaven is also not fit for human consumption, and nevertheless one is liable for karet, because it is fit to leaven another dough with it. And here too regarding chametz: even when it is not fit for eating, it is fit to leaven a dough with it; which is not the case when it is disqualified from being fit for consumption by a dog—it is fit for nothing.

The Rosh wrote at the beginning of the chapter "Kol Sha'ah": The muries that they make nowadays, which is called almadi, into which they place toasted bread—some say that it is permitted after Pesach, for chametz by way of a mixture that has passed over Pesach is permitted for benefit. Furthermore, for he charred it before its time, and it is permitted for benefit after its time. But we do not hold accordingly, for Rabbi Shimon only permitted it when he mixed it unintentionally. But to mix it and to leave it over—no. And regarding the fact that he charred it as well, I would say he did not char it very well, for he did not have Pesach in mind at the time of its making. And furthermore... but muries that is the way to eat it as such—it is forbidden. Thus far his words, meaning: that charring it is only permitted when it is not fit for eating at all. But muries that they eat—there is no permission in the matter. And this is also the opinion of the Rambam, who considers muries among the prohibitions of "bal yera'eh," as I wrote in section 14. And from the wording of the Rosh, even though he forbids it after Pesach—nevertheless it does not appear from his words that one would violate "bal yera'eh" because of it. And even more so from the wording of the Tur, who wrote that almadi is forbidden to eat after Pesach, see there, it implies explicitly that only to eat it is forbidden. And it is a wonder regarding the Tur, for from the wording of the Rosh it is clear that it is also forbidden for benefit (Magen Avraham, siff katan 14). However, in truth, the Tur follows his own reasoning at the end of siman 447, that it is permitted to mix it initially and to leave it over, see there. However, regarding eating—it is forbidden (see Korban Netanel ibid.).

Ink that is cooked in barley beer—it is permitted to write with it during Chol HaMoed Pesach. And specifically when it was made before Pesach, but to make the ink on Pesach is forbidden. And we are not concerned that perhaps at the time of writing he will put the quill into his mouth. And even though it has been disqualified from being fit for the consumption of a dog, nevertheless it is forbidden to eat it as has been explained, because it is not the way to put the side with the ink into one's mouth. Furthermore: that which is forbidden for eating is because he has ascribed importance to it, as I have written, and here he has not ascribed importance to it.

And that which has been explained regarding the laws of dough in the cracks of a trough—this is in a trough where they only store bread. But a trough in which they knead bread—it is not sufficient that one must remove all the chametz within it; rather, even washing with hot water and picking out all the chametz within it does not avail, for it is impossible to pick them out such that a kezayit does not remain in the vessel. And the vessel joins them together, for since it is made for kneading, everything in the vessel is like a single piece. And it is not necessary to say that to use it on Pesach is forbidden, but rather that one is close to violating "bal yira'eh" over it. And one must give it as a gift to a non-Jew, or sell it until after Pesach, as will be explained in siman 448, or plaster it with clay. And although this is a great stringency, nevertheless one should do so. However, this is in a trough made of planks, which has cracks. But a small trough like ours, which is made from a single piece and has no crack—certainly one is able to wash it and pick out the chametz within it, and may keep it. But to use it is forbidden, for this is the "yeast-crock" in the Gemara (30b), which is forbidden to use. And such is the law for dough in a vessel of planks, from which one cannot extract the chametz—he should give it to a non-Jew as a gift. And so it is good to do with vessels in which they place flour all year, when there are planks in the vessel—certainly there is flour between the cracks that has become chametz. And so too with vessels in which they place bread all year and there are cracks there, and it is made of wicker which is difficult to scrape, and a cloth that was placed on a sack of flour—shaking it does not avail, and one must wash it in hot water if he wishes to use it on Pesach. And it requires washing in hot water and ash and beating (Magen Avraham, subsection 19). But ordinary cloths that are on the table all year—washing is sufficient. And it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 451.