Siman 445

We learned at the beginning of the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" (Pesachim 21a): Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no removal of chametz except through burning. But the sages say: One may even crumble it and scatter it to the wind, or cast it into the sea. Rashi and Tosafot ruled according to Rabbi Yehuda, while the Rambam and the Geonim ruled according to the sages. However, all of Israel have the custom to burn the chametz. The reasoning of Rashi and Tosafot is because at the end of Temurah, the Tanna counts chametz on Pesach among those things that are burned, according to Rabbi Yehuda; thus it is a dispute and afterwards an anonymous statement, and the halacha follows the anonymous statement. (And for the Rambam this is not a difficulty, for across two tractates there is no chronological order to the Mishnah. See Tosafot Yom Tov there. And Tosafot on 27b, beginning with the words "Ein," brought another proof that the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda, for Rabbi Yehuda learns from notar through a "mah matzinu" on page 28a. And the Rabbis rejected it according to his reasoning, but according to their own reasoning it would be a derivation. The Rosh there rejected this, see there.)

And behold, according to our version, "the sages say: even crumbles..." – there is nothing to analyze. However, the version of the Rif, the Rosh, and the Tur is "and the sages say: he crumbles..." – implying specifically crumbling. And according to this, one must analyze that according to their words, as they ruled like the sages, how is it permitted for us to burn the chametz? For at the end of Temurah (34a) we learned: All things that are buried shall not be burned, because the ashes of those that are burned are permitted, and the ashes of those that are buried are forbidden. And also the Rambam, who ruled like the sages, and ruled that it is permitted to burn the chametz, as he wrote in the third chapter, law 11: How is the removal of chametz? He burns it or crumbles it..." – and how is it permitted to burn it, for behold its ashes are forbidden? Therefore, there is one who wrote that in truth his intention is that he should be careful not to use its ashes (Magen Avraham, subsection 1).

However, in truth, there is no need for this, and regarding chametz this is not applicable. For behold, the Tosafot in Temurah ibid. were exacting as to why, in truth, those that are buried, their ash is forbidden, and those that are burned, their ash is permitted. They wrote that regarding those that are burned, since the Torah commanded to burn them—its mitzvah has been fulfilled, and the prohibition is gone. But those that are buried—the prohibition continues forever, see there. And now regarding chametz—even with burial the mitzvah of "you shall destroy" is fulfilled, and if so, their ash is subsequently permitted (and so wrote the Makor Chayim). Furthermore: for behold, Rabbi Yehuda maintains at the end of Temurah that if one wished to be stringent upon himself to burn those that are buried—he is permitted. And even though the sages disagree with him, nevertheless regarding chametz they agree with him (and this is the intention of the Rosh, chapter two, siman 3, see there). Furthermore: for regarding chametz, the permissibility of using the coals and the ash and their prohibition depends on the time of their destruction, as will be explained. And chametz is not included at all in this matter among all the prohibitions.

However, even according to Rashi and Tosafot, who ruled like Rabbi Yehuda that it must specifically be by burning, behold it was taught (12b): When? Not during the time of its removal. But during the time of its removal—its destruction is by any means. Rashi explained "not during the time of its removal" as the sixth hour, and "the time of its removal" as from then on, and he calls it "the time of its removal" from the hour the chametz is forbidden by the Torah. According to this explanation, we are indeed obligated to burn the chametz, for we burn it during the sixth hour. But our teacher Tam explained the opposite, that "the time of its removal" is the sixth hour, and "not during the time of its removal" is from then on, and he calls it "the time of its removal" at the hour when the world removes the chametz. According to this explanation, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, it does not specifically require burning when we remove it during the sixth hour. And even according to the explanation of Rashi, according to what the Rosh wrote there, that according to Rashi specifically during the sixth hour it must be by burning, but during the fifth hour or before then—it does not require burning. If so, even according to the explanation of Rashi, if we remove it before the sixth hour—and such is the custom of the world not to wait exactly until the sixth hour—it does not require burning. However, the Tur rejected this, for Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote explicitly (27b, starting with the words "that if") that one who sets sail or leaves with a caravan within thirty days must specifically burn it, see there. Therefore, our custom is like Rashi and Tosafot, and according to the explanation of Rashi, of blessed memory. And furthermore, this is not against the opinion of the Rambam and the Geonim, for they admit that it is also permitted by burning, rather according to them we can also fulfill the obligation not by burning, but by crumbling and scattering to the wind or casting into the sea. According to this, our custom is like the opinion of all the poskim.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 1: And the custom is to burn it. And it is good to burn it by day, similar to notar which was burned by day. Thus far his words, meaning: since Rabbi Yehuda learns the law of burning chametz from notar—just as notar requires burning, so too chametz requires burning, as is stated in the Gemara (27b)—therefore, regarding this matter as well we learn from notar that it must specifically be by day, for all consecrated items have their burning by day. And he wrote further: But if one wishes to burn it immediately after the bedika, so that a marten does not drag it away—he has the permission to do so. Thus far his words, for this is not an absolute requirement. For specifically regarding consecrated items, all their service is only by day, but not regarding chametz. And even though regarding chametz it is also proper to fulfill the mitzvah close to the time of "tashbitu," nevertheless, even when one burns it at night and the time of "tashbitu" arrives and he has no chametz—he has fulfilled the mitzvah of destruction. And nevertheless, the Maharil was particular specifically to burn it by day, and so we do. And some have written to burn the chametz with the aravot of Sukkot, but we do not have the ability to preserve them until the removal of chametz.

The Rambam wrote in the third chapter: How is the biur of chametz performed? One burns it or crumbles it and scatters it to the wind or throws it into the sea. And if the chametz was hard, and the sea does not break it down quickly—he must crumble it and afterwards throw it into the sea. Thus far his words, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote similarly in section 1. However, the Tur wrote in the name of the Geonim that every type of chametz requires crumbling when one casts it into the sea, see there. And so it appears explicitly from the Shas (28a according to Rava, for the halacha follows him over Rav Yosef. And the Kesef Mishneh asked: How did the Rambam rule like Rav Yosef? And the Taz struggled [to answer], see there. And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is not like all their disputes between Rava and Rav Yosef in the Shas, where this one says thus and that one says thus. But here Rav Yosef said to Rava: On the contrary, the opposite stands to reason..., and Rava did not answer him. Learn from this that he conceded to him. However, the Maggid Mishneh explained that wheat requires crumbling, and as the Magen Avraham wrote in small subsection 2, that he should cut it into pieces, but bread does not require crumbling. And the Beit Yosef explained the opposite. And consequently, according to both of them, it requires crumbling. Nevertheless, if he threw it into the latrine—it does not require crumbling. So wrote the Magen Avraham there.)

There is one who wrote that it is forbidden to perform labor from the time the moment for burning the chametz arrives, that is, from the beginning of the sixth hour, until one burns the chametz (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And this is specifically regarding business that does not pertain to Pesach. But that which pertains to Pesach is permitted, for since one is occupied with the matters of Pesach, he will not forget to burn the chametz. (Similar to what they said in the Gemara 11a: He himself..., see there.)

If he gave the chametz to a non-Jew before the sixth hour – he does not need to destroy it, for he possesses no chametz. And he is able to give it even to his Canaanite manservant or maidservant. This applies to a small amount of chametz, such that it would be within their ability to eat it immediately. However, a large amount of chametz, which they would have even during Pesach – it is forbidden, for since he is required to provide them with sustenance – it appears as though he is paying his debt with forbidden items of benefit (Ba'er Heitev subsection 3 in the name of the Responsa of the Bach). And if they are hired by him for a year or more, if he is required to provide them with sustenance – it is forbidden to give them much chametz. But if their sustenance is not upon him, but rather he gives them money and they purchase sustenance for themselves – it is permitted to give them even much, provided he does not deduct from the payment. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 450 with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: If one burned it before the sixth hour—it is permitted to benefit from its coals during Pesach. But if one burned it from the sixth hour and onward, since it is forbidden for benefit—one may not light an oven or a stove with it, nor may one cook. And if one cooked or baked—that bread and that cooked food are forbidden for benefit. Likewise, its coals are forbidden for benefit, since he burned it after it became forbidden for benefit. Thus far his words. And the flame of chametz—is also forbidden for benefit. For just as we learned in Beitzah (31a) that one may not benefit from a flame of hekdesh, because people do not distance themselves from it, see there—all the more so chametz, as they do not distance themselves from it the entire year (Chavat Yair, subsection 6, and not like the Bach).

There are those who say that regarding bread, the prohibition applies only when the flame is opposite it, for then, since there is the "improvement of the wood" in the bread—it is as if the chametz alone baked the bread. But when the flame is not opposite it, even though the chametz caused the bread to be baked, nevertheless the oven also causes it to be baked, and it is a case of "this and this cause" and it is permitted. And only regarding one who cooked a cooked dish—it is forbidden, for the dish does not require the oven (Kessef Mishneh). And there is one who disagrees with this: that specifically for a matter that has nullification, such as orlah which is nullified in two hundred—in that case "this and this cause" is permitted, but not regarding chametz which has no nullification, for its prohibition is in any amount, and at any rate there is at least some amount (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And we have already elaborated on this in Yoreh Deah, siman 142, from section 10 until section 18, see there. And it was also explained there regarding the matter of casting the benefit into the Dead Sea, and regarding the matter of selling to a non-Jew excluding the value of the prohibited matter within it, see there.

He further wrote in section 3: Before the time of its prohibition – one may throw it in a place where ravens are common. And if he found it after the time of its prohibition because the ravens did not eat it, even though the place is hefker – he shall not leave it there, but rather he must burn it. Thus far his words. And the intention is not that he threw it in the street in a place of hefker, for if so, even if he found it after the time of its prohibition, what of it? He already made it hefker before the time of its prohibition, and you have no greater hefker than this. Rather, the intention is that he threw it in the middle of his courtyard because ravens are common there, like that which we say (8a): A courtyard does not require bedikah because ravens are common there, and as I wrote in siman 433. Therefore, when he finds it – he is obligated to burn it, since it lies in his domain. And that which it says "even though the place is hefker" its meaning is: that he threw it in his courtyard in a place that is abandoned to the ravens (Magen Avraham subsection 7). And one should not ask: how is it permitted to do so? For in siman 438 it was explained that when a mouse dragged [chametz] before us – one is obligated to search after it, for a doubt of eating does not remove a certainty of chametz, see there. And how do we permit throwing chametz into his domain relying on the eating of the ravens? For it is not comparable, as specifically a mouse, because its way is to drag into holes and cracks – it is what requires bedikah, which is not the case with ravens (Chok Yaakov subsection 10, and the difficulty of the Taz is answered). And this is all before the time of its prohibition, and not afterward. And it is forbidden to throw it even to dogs that are not his, as we say in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the chapter "Kol Sha'ah," and this is its wording: One shall not eat chametz even to dogs. In what [case] are we standing? If to his dog – behold it is a prohibition of benefit. Rather, even to the dog of others. This means that it is forbidden to feed it to an animal of hefker. Thus far its words. (And the Rema wrote that if he did not find chametz when he searched – he should burn the vessel he took for the bedikah, so as not to forget the obligation of biur. Thus far his words. And it has already been explained in siman 432 that therefore we are accustomed to place pieces of chametz at the time of the bedikah, so that his berakhah should not be in vain, see there, and automatically so that he will have what to burn.)