Siman 444

The sages taught in the Mishnah (49a): If the fourteenth falls on Shabbat – one removes everything before Shabbat, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the sages say: At their appointed time. Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Tzadok says: Terumah before Shabbat, and chullin at its appointed time. For terumah does not have many eaters, but for chullin one will find many eaters (Rashi). And it is better to remove them at their appointed time on the fourteenth. And the removal shall not be by means of burning, which is forbidden on Shabbat, but rather by scattering to the wind or casting into the sea. And according to this, we should have ruled like the sages, for in a case of an individual and many, the halakhah follows the many.

But the Rambam did not rule so in chapter three, law 3, and this is his wording: If the fourteenth falls on Shabbat, one searches for the chametz on the night preceding the eve of Shabbat, which is the night of the thirteenth. And he leaves over from the chametz enough to eat from it until four hours on the day of Shabbat, and he places it in a hidden place. And the remainder—he removes it before Shabbat. And if any chametz remains after four hours—he nullifies it, and overturns a vessel over it until the conclusion of the first day of the festival, and removes it. Thus far his words. And so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and such is the common custom. And even though it is against the Mishnah, they relied on that which is stated in the first chapter (13a), as it was taught: If the fourteenth falls on Shabbat, one removes everything before Shabbat... the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, which he said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua... they said: They did not move from there until they established the halacha accordingly. See there. And even though one does not derive halacha from a Mishnah or a Baraita (Niddah 7b, and see there in Rashi and in the Rashbam Bava Batra 130b), and so it is stated in the Yerushalmi (Pe'ah chapter two), nevertheless here, where the Gemara brought the Baraita and said that "they did not move from there until they established the halacha accordingly"—one may infer from it that it is a clear halacha. (However, the Rif has another system in this, and he rules like Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Tzadok that chullin is in its time, and this is like the Sages. And he wrote that because Rabbi Eleazar of Bartota stands like him, see there. And the Ran, and the Beit Yosef, and the Taz subsection 1, and the commentators found difficulty with his words. And we, with the help of Heaven, explained in the introduction to the Haggadah that his words are simple, for he rules like the Sages. And that which he wrote like Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Tzadok—is because regarding terumah the halacha is not like the Sages but like Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Tzadok, because he stands like Rabbi Eleazar of Bartota, for the halacha was ruled like him. And even though the Rif does not rule halacha regarding terumah, nevertheless he cannot write the opposite of the law, and therefore he acted wisely to rule like Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Tzadok. And this is also the intention of the Ran, of blessed memory, and everything they questioned against him is settled. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

And for the Tur, I have another reason why he was compelled to reject this Mishnah from the halacha, for behold, according to Rabbi Yehuda who says there is no biur chametz except through burning—consequently, it is impossible on Shabbat. However, the Rambam rules like the sages that it does not require burning, and Rashi rules like Rabbi Yehuda, as the Tur wrote later in siman 445. But the Rosh wrote that even according to Rashi, it is only on Erev Pesach, but prior to this it does not require burning. And the Tur disagrees with him later, and wrote that according to Rashi, even beforehand it specifically requires burning, see there. And according to this, it is necessary according to his view to check and to perform biur on Erev Shabbat by means of burning, and this is what the Tur wrote in this siman, and this is his wording: And so Rashi instructed to perform biur on everything before the Shabbat. Thus far his words. And why did he attribute this to the instructions of Rashi? Rather, his intention is that this is a proof for his view in siman 445, that even before its time it specifically requires burning according to the view of Rashi, of blessed memory. (However, the commentators explained that the Tur refers to what follows, see there).

Therefore, when the eve of Pesach falls on Shabbat—one searches for the chametz on Thursday evening with a blessing. And he says "Kol Chamira," and leaves over for the evening meal, and for the meals of the eve of Shabbat, and also for two meals of Shabbat. For there is no third meal, because the third meal must be after midday, and at that time it is forbidden to eat chametz. And likewise, it is forbidden to eat matzah on the eve of Pesach. Only matzah ashirah kneaded with fruit juice may one eat on the eve of Pesach, and he fulfills with it the obligation of the third meal, for the prohibition of matzah on the eve of Pesach applies only to matzah with which one fulfills the obligation of matzah on the first night. And with matzah ashirah one does not fulfill it, for we require "bread of affliction." And he should be careful to eat it before the tenth hour, for from then on it is forbidden to eat so that he will eat the kezayit of matzah with an appetite at night, as will be explained in siman 481.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: In these countries where it is not the custom to eat matzah ashirah, as below in siman 462—one should fulfill seudah shlishit with types of fruit, or with meat and fish. Thus far his words. And it appears that the intention is not that even on Erev Pesach one should not eat matzah ashirah according to the custom, for there is no reason for this. Rather, the intention is that since it is not our custom to eat matzah ashirah on Pesach—it follows that we do not prepare matzah ashirah, and to prepare it only for seudah shlishit—it is not the way of people to trouble themselves for such a small meal. And behold, even among us one can make seudah shlishit with cooked matzah, and many among us practice accordingly. And he prioritized "types of fruit" over "meat and fish," even though meat and fish are preferable to fruit regarding the matter of seudah shlishit as I wrote above in siman 291, nevertheless on Erev Pesach fruit is preferable so that he does not become satiated and will eat matzah with an appetite. And perhaps because of this he also did not mention cooked matzah, because it is very satiating as is known by the senses. And there are those who say to divide the morning meal into two, for there are those who say that one fulfills the obligation with this (Magen Avraham).

And in the Zohar it is written that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would engage in Torah study in place of seuda shelishit (ibid. subsection 2). And it must be understood: Could it be that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was unable to fulfill seuda shelishit with any of the things that have been explained? And it appears in my humble opinion clear that all of this is a superfluous matter. For on this Shabbat, perforce, we were not commanded at all regarding three meals, since it is impossible in any way, just as it is for Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat. And the same law applies to Shabbat Erev Pesach regarding seuda shelishit. For even if we say that the prohibition of eating matzah on Erev Pesach is rabbinic, nevertheless, we find that absolute positive commandments were set aside through "sit and do not act" because of rabbinic decrees, such as shofar and lulav on Shabbat. And all the more so is the mitzvah of seuda shelishit set aside. And since this is so—the mitzvah of seuda shelishit is nullified on this Shabbat. And since a complete meal is impossible, it follows that there is no relevance to fulfilling it with fruit, or with meat and fish, as there is no need at all for this. Furthermore: for certainly even from the Torah it is a mitzvah to eat the kezayit of matzah with an appetite. And this is the reason of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who engaged in Torah study, because there is no mitzvah at all on this Shabbat to eat seuda shelishit.

Even though one is able to burn the chametz throughout the entire day of Friday, nevertheless it is good to do as in other years and burn it before midday, so that they do not come to err in all other years by burning it after midday. However, one should not nullify the chametz a second time then, for how can he say "that which I have seen and that which I have not seen" – behold, he must still eat more? And this is just as we do not say this at night during the time of the bedikah, as I wrote in siman 434. Therefore, this nullification should be said on Shabbat after the morning meal. And even though no more chametz will remain in the house, nevertheless one must nullify it in the manner that he nullifies it in other years at the time of the burning of the chametz.

One does not cook on this Shabbat porridge and the like, for it is absolute chametz and sticks to the vessels, and he will be required to rinse them with hot water on Shabbat and to scrub them very well, and it is an excessive exertion on Shabbat and is forbidden, since it is not for the need of Shabbat. Therefore, also bread toasted in a bowl which they call "sukhares," and they soak them in hot water – one does not make them on this Shabbat. And the custom is already not to cook any dough on this Shabbat. Rather, on the eve [of Shabbat] they cook rice or legumes or potatoes, and in the morning likewise. And the kugel they make from matzah meal, and they bury it in new pots fit for Pesach, and they pour it into chametz bowls. However, if he transgressed and cooked, and the food is stuck to the pot and it is impossible to wipe it – he is forced to rinse it a little in order to remove the chametz. And it is called "the need of Shabbat" since it is forbidden to leave it thus on this day.

And after they have eaten the morning meal on this Shabbat—one should shake out the tablecloth upon which they ate. And one may shake it out according to the law in the house, because the crumbs stick to the feet and are trodden upon, and they do not have the required measure and are nullified. Nevertheless, one should not do so, and they shake the tablecloth in the courtyard in a place that is not clean and where people do not walk. And the bowls, even though they do not contain chametz, nevertheless it is unseemly that they remain so. Therefore, one may wipe them with his fingers, as this is not a burden, and hide them from sight with the rest of the chametz vessels. And if bread remains—one may give it to a non-Jew. And if he is in a place where there is no public domain, and all the more so in a place where there is an eruv—it is permitted to tell him that he should not eat it here, and he should go with the chametz. But in a place where there is a public domain—it is forbidden to tell him to go out with the bread, as I wrote in siman 325. And even without speaking—it is forbidden to give him much chametz that it is impossible for him to eat here. And how should he act? He should give him a little at a time by way of artifice, as if he does not care if he eats it here, and when he takes it out on his own—he does so for his own sake. And when there is no non-Jew to give the chametz to—he nullifies it in his heart, and overturns a vessel upon it until the conclusion of the first day of Yom Tov, and then he shall burn it.

And know that on this Shabbat, if one forgot to take challah on the eve of Shabbat, even though we hold that regarding challah of the diaspora one may continue to eat and afterward separate, nevertheless nowadays it is impossible, for how can he leave over chametz? Therefore, the great authorities wrote that if one forgot to take challah—it is forbidden to eat the bread (Magen Avraham in siman 506). And some say since there is no other remedy for this—he may leave over a small portion of challah with the intention for it to be challah, and without a berakhah, and call a minor kohen who has not experienced a seminal emission to eat it (Sha'arei Teshuvah in the name of the Panim Me'irot and the Ya'avetz, see there). And of necessity one must rely on this, since there is no other remedy. And they wrote not to lengthen the prayer on this Shabbat, so as not to delay the time of eating (Chok Yaakov subsection 9 in the name of Sefer Chasidim).

And when the Temple is rebuilt, how will the biur chametz of terumah be performed on a Shabbat that falls on Erev Pesach? Behold, regarding terumah, even the Rif admits that one performs biur on Erev Shabbat, and leaves over only enough for two meals. But how does he perform biur? The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 4, and this is his wording: If he had many loaves of terumah, and he needs to burn them on Erev Shabbat, he may not mix the pure with the impure and burn them; rather, he burns the pure by itself, the impure by itself, and the suspended by itself... Thus far his words. And it is implied from this that he holds that specifically on Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat, when he burns them on the thirteenth before their time of prohibition—it is then that he burns each one by itself. But on every Erev Pesach, he may burn pure and impure as one. And in the Gemara (14a) it is not so, and it requires further study (Kessef Mishneh). And more difficult than this: if so, why did he not explain explicitly that on every Erev Pesach we burn them together? Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the matter is as follows: even though the flow of the sugya implies that also on every Erev Pesach we burn this one by itself and that one by itself, nevertheless, it is not according to everyone. And the proof is that Rabbi Yochanan says there (15b) that at the seventh hour, since it is prohibited by Torah law—everyone agrees we burn them together, for a prohibition is like impurity, and even the pure ones are like impure ones. And we further say there that pigul, notar, and tamei—Beit Hillel hold that they are burned as one; even though pigul and notar are only rabbinic impurity, it is permitted to burn them with Torah impurity. According to this, even when he burns them in the sixth hour it is a rabbinic prohibition, and it is like a Torah prohibition and he is permitted to burn them together. Therefore, the Rambam, of blessed memory, could not write this explicitly, that on every Erev Pesach they are burned together, because it is not his way to cite a law that is not explicitly stated in the Gemara. But nevertheless, his opinion leans this way. Therefore, he only wrote this law regarding Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat when he burns them on the thirteenth. (And in the introduction to the Haggadah we have elaborated on this, that this depends on the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Yossi in the Mishnah there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

We learned in the Mishnah (49a): One who is going to slaughter his Pesach offering, or to circumcise his son, or to eat a betrothal meal at the home of his father-in-law, and remembers that he has chametz within his house—if he is able to return and destroy it and return to his mitzvah, he must return and destroy it. And if not, he nullifies it in his heart. To rescue from an army, or from a river, or from bandits, or from a fire, or from a collapse—he nullifies it in his heart. But to establish a residence of choice—he must return immediately. And the Tanna divided this into three parts: that for a matter of a mitzvah, if there is time, he must return; for a matter of rescue from mortal danger, even if there is time, he shall not return; and for a matter of choice, even if there is no time, he must return.

Behold, according to this, regarding a matter of a mitzvah, if it is the sixth hour when it is impossible to nullify, he must return against his will even if there is no time remaining, so that he does not transgress "it shall not be seen" (Magen Avraham subsection 12). And only when he is able to nullify, even though according to the Rabbis he is obligated to destroy it, nevertheless, in a matter of a mitzvah they established it upon the Torah law (ibid.). And so too regarding one who goes to rescue, and it is impossible to nullify, and it is clear to him that he can rescue also afterward—he shall return and destroy it. But if there is a doubt—the doubt of saving a life overrides all the mitzvot (ibid.). And all the more so a met mitzvah overrides everything (ibid.). And one should not ask: Why did we say regarding one who goes for a matter of a mitzvah, that if he cannot nullify he must return immediately? For according to the one who holds that until the night he does not transgress "it shall not be seen," and there is only the positive commandment of "you shall remove"—what makes this positive commandment stronger than that positive commandment? For it can be said that the positive commandment of "you shall remove" is more stringent, for in every moment he transgresses this (ibid.). And even though regarding milah he also transgresses every day, nevertheless, in the duration of this day there is no difference when he will perform the milah, and there is nothing in this except for the principle that the zealous hasten to mitzvot. And if so, he can perform the milah afterward until the night. (And the Machatzit HaShekel was pressed on this in subsection 11, and the matter is clear as I have written.)

And behold, the Tanna considers an erusin feast. And above in siman 249 it was explained that it is forbidden to make an erusin feast on Erev Shabbat, see there, and it is from the Yerushalmi. Therefore, there is one who says that this is when the erusin was not on that day, but when the erusin took place—the feast is permitted (Magen Avraham there, and see what I wrote here in subsection 9). However, we have already explained there in section 8 that in truth, if there is no necessity—it is forbidden. But when there is a necessity, such as a chatan going to his father-in-law's house, where it is impossible to leave it for after the Shabbat—it is permitted. And here it is dealing with such a case, as the Mishnah was precise: "And to eat an erusin feast in his father-in-law's house," meaning: that he goes to his father-in-law's house and will return to his home. And specifically the chatan, but another must return. (See Magen Avraham subsection 10, who wrote that from the Rambam it does not imply so. And I do not see any such implication, for it is simple that it refers to the chatan. And I saw that the Chayei Adam and the Mekor Chaim also wrote like the Magen Avraham. And for me, this requires great study.)

And that which has been explained, that for a discretionary matter he must return immediately, the Tur wrote that even if he is going to study Torah with his teacher—it is called a discretionary matter relative to the removal of chametz. And so it is in the Yerushalmi regarding this Mishnah: What is a discretionary cessation? One who goes to his teacher, or to one who is greater than him in wisdom. Here Rabbi taught: The action is greater than the study. Thus far the wording of the Yerushalmi. And it concludes there that a mitzvah that can be performed by others—study is greater than action, and that which cannot be performed by others—action is greater than study, see there. And according to this, if he left someone in his place who will remove the chametz—he may go and study. And there is no novelty in this law, for even in our Gemara they forbade studying when the time for the checking of chametz arrives, as I wrote in siman 431. And so we maintain in Yoreh Deah siman 246. (And it requires further study regarding the Magen Avraham in subsection 13, who raised a difficulty: Did they not permit passing through a beit hapras to study Torah? See there. And it is a wonder: What is the connection between this and that? There the sages permitted their prohibition for the sake of constant Torah study, and what connection does that have to temporary study when the time of a mitzvah has arrived? And I found that the Magen HaElef also wondered about him.)

In a case where we have obligated him to return, how much chametz must he have to be obligated to return? Up to a kebeitzah, which is a significant measure. But less than this—he nullifies it in his heart and it is sufficient for him, for with less than a kebeitzah the sages did not trouble him. And less than a kezayit even after the time of its prohibition, when he cannot nullify—he does not need to return, for he does not transgress "it shall not be seen" regarding it (see Magen Avraham, subsection 14).

It is stated in the Gemara (Pesachim 7a) that if one had dough in his house, and he is occupied in another place and fears lest it become chametz—he nullifies it in his heart before it becomes chametz. But if it became chametz—the nullification is not effective except before the sixth hour and not afterward, and therefore he is obligated to go and remove it. And so all the poskim ruled. And it appears in my humble opinion that before it becomes chametz, a complete hefker was necessary according to what we wrote in siman 431. For the reason that nullification is effective regarding chametz is because the chametz is not in his possession, see there. And if so, when it has not yet become chametz—how shall nullification be effective? And in truth, in the Gemara it does not say nullification in the heart, only Rashi explained it so. And such is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 8, and such is the wording of the Rambam in the third chapter, halacha 10. And it requires further study. And perhaps since it is standing to become chametz—it is considered like chametz, and a disclosure of intent is effective so that he shall not acquire it.