Siman 447

It is a settled halacha that even though all prohibitions are nullified in sixty, nevertheless, chametz on Pesach is prohibited in any amount, whether it was mixed with its own kind or with a different kind. And there are three reasons for this: The Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Ma’akhalot Assurot explained the reason: because chametz is a "thing that has permitters," which is not nullified even in a thousand, for this chametz will be permitted after Pesach when it is in its mixture. And even though every "thing that has permitters" requires that the prohibition itself will be permitted, and here the chametz when it is distinct was prohibited because of a penalty, since he transgressed "it shall not be seen" as will be explained, and indeed there are those who challenged him for this reason (the Ran as the Kesef Mishneh wrote in the first chapter), nevertheless, the Rambam holds that this also is called a "thing that has permitters." And even though every "thing that has permitters" which is not nullified—it is only in its own kind and not in a different kind, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 102, the Rambam wrote there that regarding chametz they were stringent even in a different kind. See there.

The Rosh in the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" (siman 5) wrote the reason they were stringent regarding chametz: because the Torah was more stringent regarding chametz than all other prohibitions in that it mandated kareth—they were stringent regarding its nullification in a minute amount, see there. And this reason is not sufficient, for behold, chelev and blood are also subject to kareth, and despite all this, they are nullified in sixty. And it must be said that his intention was also for the prohibition of "bal yera'eh," which does not exist among all other prohibitions. And in the fifth chapter of Avodah Zarah (siman 29) he wrote the reason: because people do not separate from it the entire year, see there. And it is a wonder that the Rosh would contradict himself. Therefore it appears that both are necessary: for the primary reason is because it is a prohibition of kareth, and even though chelev and blood are also prohibitions of kareth—however, people separate from them, and from chametz they do not separate. (And now there is no need for the reason of "bal yera'eh" that we wrote. And so it is explicit in Rashi 29b, starting with the words "shelo bemino," and this is his wording: Rav decreed regarding chametz in its time, even in a different species, on account of its own species, since it is subject to kareth. And even though regarding chelev and blood he did not decree—there they separate from it. But..., thus far his words. Behold, it is explicitly like the words of the Rosh in both places.)

It appears to me that there is a practical legal difference between the reasoning of the Rambam and the reasoning of the Rosh. For according to the Rambam, even chametz nuksheh that was mixed on Pesach is not nullified in sixty, since it is a "thing that will become permitted." And similarly, if chametz was mixed into matzah before Pesach in a manner where there is not sixty, and there is also not a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and some of this mixture was mixed on Pesach—it is also not nullified in sixty for this reason. But according to the Rosh, for whom the reason is because of karet—chametz nuksheh should be nullified in sixty, and similarly in this mixture, since there is no karet in them. Most of the poskim mentioned only the reason of the Rosh, because Rashi also holds accordingly as I have written, and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven. (See Taz, subsection 1, who brought only the words of the Rosh at the end of Avodah Zarah, and according to this, also in chametz nuksheh and a mixture it is so, as is understood, and the words of the Rosh in Pesachim were not mentioned, which is the primary reason as is explained from Rashi; examine and you will find it simple.)

There is another practical difference between the reasons: for according to the reason of the Rambam, because it is a thing that has permitters, if it was mixed into a cooked dish and it will spoil before after Pesach – it is permitted, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 102, that the concept of a thing that has permitters does not apply when the food will spoil before it becomes permitted, see there. This is not the case according to the reason of the Rosh – in all manners it is forbidden. Thus it is found that for each of the reasons there is a side of leniency and a side of stringency. And most of the poskim accepted the reason of the Rosh, as I have written.

And know that the opinion of the Ra'avad, the Ramban, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, is that this rule that chametz on Pesach is forbidden in any amount—is only regarding eating, and not regarding benefit (Responsa of the Rashba, siman 53 and siman 737). However, these words were not accepted among the poskim. For the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot, and the Rif and the Rambam, is that even regarding benefit it is forbidden in any amount, as the Rosh and the Ran wrote (in the fifth chapter of Avodah Zarah). And they also cited that the opinion of the She'iltot and our teacher Tam is that chametz on Pesach is neutralized in sixty, and they rejected this from the halacha. Furthermore, our teacher Tam himself did not rely on his own opinion to rule so. And the version before us in the She'iltot is "in any amount." And the Mordechai wrote in the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" that in any place where there is otherwise a side to permit, even though we forbid in any amount, nevertheless in such a case we rely on their words to permit in sixty (the Rema cited him in Darkei Moshe, letter 1, see there).

The Mordechai further wrote at the end of the third chapter of Avodah Zarah, and the Ran there (chapter five), that regarding all prohibitions of benefit where their mixture is prohibited for benefit in any amount—one takes the value of the prohibited item to destruction, and the remainder is permitted for benefit. And he wrote similarly in the name of Rashbam (Beit Yosef in the name of Hagahot Maimoniyot). However, the conclusion of the Mordechai in the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" is that it is not effective. And so wrote the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 164) that a wheat grain found in a chicken—one burns everything. This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 1: And one must burn everything. And it is not sufficient to redeem the value of the chametz and sell the remainder. However, vessels in which they were cooked—they are permitted after Pesach, and they do not require breaking or hagalah. Thus far his words. And it is permitted ab initio to leave them until after Pesach, as I wrote in siman 451. (Magen Avraham subsection 1. And the Arizal wrote: One who is careful regarding any amount of chametz on Pesach—it is guaranteed to him that he will not sin the entire year.) And since it is prohibited to take the value of the prohibited item to destruction, it follows that it is prohibited to sell to a non-Jew excluding the value of the chametz within it. And it is a logical reason, for since the primary reason for the stringency is to distance him from a prohibition of karet, from which he is not separated all year, if you grant him these leniencies—the distancing is nullified, as is understood. And if a chametz vessel was mixed with Pesach vessels—it is not nullified, for it is a "thing that has permitters" (Bach). And one leaves them all until after Pesach. And it is possible that in a case where it is not "of its day," according to the one who holds it is a "flavor that imparts a defect," there is room to permit as will be explained. Therefore, regarding vessels, it seems that one may rely that one in two is nullified like "dry in dry." (The Pri Chadash wrote at length to disagree, that it is permitted to sell to a non-Jew excluding the value of the prohibited item within it. And this is against all the later poskim. And the Chok Yaakov subsection 2 also agrees in a case of great loss to cast the value of the chametz to destruction, and the remainder is permitted for benefit but not for eating. And the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 2 disagrees with him. And the Mekor Chaim subsection 2 wrote that regarding chametz nuksheh, or fruit juice with water—one should be lenient, see there. And so one should instruct.)

They did not treat chametz more stringently than all other prohibitions except regarding the quantity of nullification, for whereas in other prohibitions it is nullified in sixty—in chametz it prohibits in any amount. However, regarding the quality of the prohibition they did not treat it more stringently; for example, if in other mixtures one did not require sixty but rather peeling or removing a finger's breadth—so too it is with chametz. And just as with other prohibitions, hot with hot without liquid, such as when hot meat of a carcass touched kosher meat, where it requires peeling or removing a finger's breadth according to the laws explained in Yoreh Deah siman 105. And this is when there is no substance that diffuses, such as lean meat, but with fatty meat, even if the permitted substance is fatty and the prohibited substance is lean—it goes and diffuses into the prohibition, for the prohibition is fattened by the permitted substance and diffuses throughout all of it. And so too it is with chametz.

Therefore, a hot matzah wafer that touched a hot chametz wafer—it is sufficient to peel it. And if they did not peel it, and cooked it as such, it appears that even though regarding all other prohibitions it is permitted as I have written there, nevertheless regarding chametz it is prohibited. For the reason that regarding all other prohibitions it is permitted is because there is nothing that does not have sixty against the peeling, as is explained there. And this is not applicable to chametz, whose prohibition is in any amount (and so wrote the Or Zarua). And there is one who wrote that regarding benefit it is permitted (Chok Yaakov subsection 9), and I do not know why.

But when there is fat here that permeates, such as a pashtida of chametz that contains fat, or even if the matzah is a pashtida or smeared with oil or fat – it is completely forbidden, for the fatty matzah goes and fattens the chametz, and it permeates throughout it. And even though regarding other prohibitions we require, according to the Tur there in Yoreh Deah siman 105, that the prohibition itself be capable of being fattened, but a lean prohibition absorbed from fat that is not prohibited in its own right does not permeate, for that which is forbidden cannot forbid except in a place where the prohibition itself can travel, and here the chametz is unable to permeate, nevertheless regarding chametz, where its prohibition is even with a mashehu, in such a case it is also forbidden, for in any event it permeates with a mashehu (so it appears to me according to the opinion of the Magen Avraham subsection 2, and see Chok Yaakov subsection 8). And in any event, this is when the matzah touched the fatty chametz. But a piece that is half matzah and half chametz, such as a folded matzah where they consider the folds to be chametz, and it is entirely smeared with oil, and another matzah touched this matzah in a place where it was not folded – it is permitted. And we do not say that the fat permeates from the place of the fold to the place that is not folded, and it is as if it touched chametz, which is the place of the fold, for a prohibition does not go out from piece to piece without liquid. And even though we said that the permitted also permeates to the prohibition, and if so, the prohibition also permeates to the permitted even without liquid, and the permitted becomes like a prohibition and would forbid the second matzah, nevertheless it is not so. For specifically in the touching of the permitted to the prohibition itself we do not require liquid, but the touching of permitted to permitted, and that permitted touches a prohibition – we do not forbid without liquid. However, the entire folded one is forbidden when it is fatty, for this is the touching of permitted with a prohibition. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And it is possible that according to the one who forbids two mashehu – in such a case it is also forbidden, and it requires further study. And from the words of the Magen Avraham there it appears that his intention is to permit in such a case. But since he concludes "as in salting" – it appears his intention is to forbid that piece. And his intentions are obscure. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

Chametz is not forbidden in any amount except on Pesach itself, but not on Erev Pesach from midday onwards: since it does not involve karet—it is nullified in sixty. And all the more so if it was mixed before Pesach, that it is nullified in sixty. Such is the consensus of all the poskim. Therefore, a wheat grain found in a cooked chicken on Erev Pesach—it is permitted, as it is nullified in sixty. This is when they threw the wheat grain out from it. But if they left the wheat grain inside it, and returned and heated it on Pesach—it returns to impart flavor within it, and then it forbids in any amount. For it is not relevant to say that it was already nullified, as that would be if they were heating it without the wheat grain. But in heating it with the wheat grain—behold, it is a new absorption. And this is even according to the one who does not hold "it returns and awakens" as will be explained—it is forbidden, for this is not an awakening of the previous state, as I have written.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 regarding this law, and this is his wording: However, regarding heating in a kli sheni – there is no concern. And there are those who are stringent regarding a kli sheni on Pesach. And it is good to be stringent if the hand recoils from it, for otherwise it is not called a kli sheni. Thus far his words. And it appears clearly that his opinion tends toward the law that one should not forbid in a kli sheni, for since we are only stringent regarding chametz in a case where regarding other prohibitions it would be nullified in sixty – it forbids in chametz with any amount. But a kli sheni, which does not forbid regarding other prohibitions, consequently also regarding chametz it does not forbid. Rather, he wrote that it is good to be stringent because, according to the opinion of the Rashba, a kli sheni forbids even regarding other prohibitions when the hand recoils from it. And although we do not hold accordingly, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah there, nevertheless regarding chametz one should be stringent. And it appears to me that also regarding pouring, which regarding other prohibitions only forbids to the thickness of a peel – also regarding chametz it is so. Rather, since he wrote that it is good to be stringent in a kli sheni – all the more so regarding pouring. However, according to the essential law it is permitted, and in a case of great loss or the honor of the Yom Tov, perhaps it is possible to rely on this. And one must deliberate on this.

However, one must wonder about our teacher, the Rema, for later in siman 451 he wrote simply to forbid in a keli sheni, and in siman 467 he forbids even in cold, and he did not bring two opinions in this matter at all. But one could say that he relied on our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there, who brought two opinions regarding cold, see there. However, how distant is the leap from cold to a keli sheni! And all the commentators labored over his words, and likewise over the words of the Rishonim, as there are contradictions in their words regarding this matter (see Magen Avraham subsection 9, and Chok Yaakov and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 15). And there is one who says that here he was lenient because it deals with chozer vene'ur (Eliyah Rabbah ibid.). But this is not clear: for when they heated it while the wheat was inside it on Pesach—it is not called "chozer vene'ur," as I have written. And behold, from siman 451 it can be settled: for there it does not deal with a prohibition of mashehu, but rather regarding a vessel that was used for chametz, and it is a keli sheni as I wrote there in section 1. And if so, the entire vessel is saturated with chametz, and it is not similar to a prohibition of mashehu. But from siman 467 it is difficult, for there in section 12 it also deals with a prohibition of mashehu, see there.

It appears that specifically here, regarding a wheat kernel in a roasted chicken without gravy, his opinion inclines not to forbid in a keli sheni. For there are those who say that with a roast, it never forbids more than the thickness of a peel. And there are those who forbade the whole of it, for the reason that during the roasting the spit is turned on every side, but otherwise—it does not forbid the whole of it, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in siman 467, section 15, see there. And there it deals with a lean one, for with a fat one the whole of it is forbidden as will be explained there. However, in any event, roasting is much lighter than cooking in water. And here, even though it deals with a cooked chicken, nevertheless it deals with a case where when they heated it on Pesach it was without water, and therefore he was lenient regarding a keli sheni, though it is good to be stringent. This is not the case in siman 467 which deals with water, and therefore there in section 12 he forbids scalding in a keli sheni, and even in cold water. And it appears that in cold water it only forbids if it remained there a long time, like two or three hours, but not in a short time. However, in a keli sheni when the hand recoils from it—it is forbidden immediately, which is not the case with the roasting of a keli sheni. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 9.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If chametz was mixed before Pesach and was nullified in sixty—it does not wake up again on Pesach to forbid in a minute amount. And there are those who disagree. Thus far his words. And this is like a wheat grain found in a chicken on the eve of Pesach, and they removed it from it, and they heated the chicken on Pesach—the prohibition does not wake up again. And so too any type of chametz that was nullified before Pesach, if the chametz is not recognizable on its own on Pesach but was completely mixed even dry in dry, such as if crumbs of chametz were mixed into many crumbs of matzah—it does not wake up again. So ruled the Rosh and the Tur and other poskim. And they brought proof from that which we learned in Kilayim (chapter nine): Camel hair and sheep wool that one mixed with each other, if the majority is from the camels—it is nullified. And it is permitted to join it afterward with linen, for we do not say that the prohibition wakes up again. And in my humble opinion it seems that even this proof is not necessary. For it is well that regarding there where something else was added after the nullification that is forbidden with the mixture, such as there where after the nullification in camel hair it was joined with linen which is forbidden together with the sheep wool—it is appropriate to require the reasoning of "it does not wake up again." But here, behold, nothing was added, and it was already nullified. However, one could say that the arrival of the time of Pesach is like an addition of a prohibition, meaning that a prohibition of a minute amount was added to the previous prohibition of sixty.

And those who disagree brought a proof from Bekhorot (22a), that water that was nullified in brine, if it later came into a pot of water—the water that was nullified is "awakened" again regarding the matter of impurity. And the law is the same regarding a prohibition, as the Tosafot wrote there. And so it is explicitly stated in Yoreh Deah siman 99, that a prohibition that was nullified because there was sixty against it, and more of the first prohibition was later added—it is "awakened" again, and it makes no difference whether it is a type in its own type or a type in a different type. And there is no distinction between liquid and dry, or whether the prohibition became known in the meantime or did not become known, see there. And in my humble opinion, I do not know the comparison. For there, a prohibition was added, but here, nothing was added. And if you say that the arrival of the time is like an addition as I have written, nevertheless, in the end, it has already been nullified. And this is exactly similar to what he wrote in Yoreh Deah there: a kezayit of chelev that fell into water and was nullified in sixty, and afterwards it fell from the water into a pot of meat—it is permitted, even though there is not sixty in the meat against the chelev, because it was already nullified in the water, see there. And here too: even if we say that the arrival of the time is like an addition of a prohibition, behold there the meat is certainly a prohibition, and nevertheless since it was already nullified—it is nullified. And here too it is so. And behold we have said explicitly that we were not more stringent regarding chametz over other prohibitions except in the quantity of nullification, and not in other matters (those who prohibit are in the Mordechai, second chapter). And see in section 17.

And those who forbid stated another reason: that before Pesach, bitul is not applicable at all, for the time of the prohibition has not yet arrived. And it is not similar to other prohibitions, where the prohibition already existed and was nullified, which is not the case here: there was no prohibition that we could say should be nullified (ibid. in the name of the Raviah). And I do not understand these words. For when Erev Pesach at the sixth hour arrives—the time of the prohibition arrives and it is nullified in sixty as I have written, unless this opinion holds that even on Erev Pesach it prohibits in a mashehu. But we do not rule accordingly. Furthermore: on the contrary—when the time of the prohibition has not arrived, it is even better. For for this reason we rule in Yoreh Deah there that milk is nullified in water, and the meat does not prohibit it, because it was nullified while it was not yet a prohibition. And in the Mordechai there, he brought that our teacher Tam, and the Ri, and the Sefer HaTerumah ruled that it does not return and awaken, and so wrote Rav Paltoi Gaon. And only the Raviah disagrees with them, and he is a lone opinion against many. Furthermore: if so, for what purpose did the poskim say that before Pesach and on Erev Pesach it is nullified in sixty, since you say that when Pesach arrives it will become prohibited? And you must say it is for the purpose of eating them before the night, meaning from the sixth hour until the night. And this is nothing but a wonder, and see in section 17. Furthermore: according to this opinion, how can we find our hands and feet to cook with matzah on Pesach? For certainly there are several sprouted wheat grains but they were nullified, and now if we cook on Pesach will it return and awaken? Rather, certainly the primary ruling is like the first opinion, that it does not return and awaken. And so it is clear from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote the first opinion anonymously, and the second in the name of "there are those who disagree." (Except that we practice according to the decision of the Rema, as will be explained. And regarding the primary proof of the Raviah from Nedarim 76a regarding whether one immerses an impure vessel to become pure...—the Gra rejected it in subsection 21, and wondered about him that on the contrary, according to the conclusion it is the opposite, see there. And also our proof from Yoreh Deah siman 99 regarding milk is a refutation of him. Examine and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is according to the first opinion in any mixture that is liquid in liquid. However, in a dry substance that was mixed, or where there is concern of a mixture, such as bread that fell into wine, even though it was removed from there—it is forbidden on Pesach, for we fear perhaps crumbs remained, and they impart flavor on Pesach. Thus far his words. From his words it is proven that even the one who holds the opinion of "returning and awakening"—it is only regarding a substance of tangibility, such as a mixture of beer in wine. But regarding the absorption of chametz flavor—even this opinion admits that it does not return and awaken. And according to this, they would hold that that which we said, that it was nullified before Pesach—this refers to the absorption of flavor. And so too according to this, what we wrote regarding the heat of a chicken after the wheat was removed from it, that according to the first opinion it is permitted—it is not so, for regarding mere flavor even this opinion admits that it does not return and awaken (and so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 7). And there is one who permits bread that fell into wine by means of straining (Magen Avraham, subsection 13 in the name of the Shach). And specifically when he strained it before Pesach, but on Pesach one may not strain (ibid.). And so too when the liquid is thick—straining is not effective (ibid.). And there is one who says that straining is not effective, for perhaps there are very fine [crumbs] that pass through the holes of the strainer (Taz, subsection 6). And this is not the primary view, for why should we be stringent with remote concerns, regarding that which according to the core of the law is completely permitted even according to the concerns? For it has already been explained that the primary ruling is according to the first opinion (and also the Chok Yaakov, subsection 17, rejected his words, see there). (And what the Magen Avraham wrote at the end of subsection 13 in the name of the Rashba, that if after he removed the bread he took wine from this barrel and mixed it with other wine that it is all forbidden, see there—this is certainly an excessive stringency for us, as we hold the primary ruling is according to the first opinion. And the Rashba holds that it returns and awakens, as he wrote there in the name of the Shach. And also the Noda BiYehuda, Kama, Orach Chaim siman 24, testified that in all of Poland and Ashkenaz they instruct the halacha that it does not return and awaken. And so too the Gr"z in a responsum wrote that the primary ruling is that it does not return and awaken even dry in dry, see there.)

And regarding the matter of "two mashehu," meaning a pot that became forbidden by a mashehu, and a mashehu fell from that pot into another pot—there is one who permits it (Taz in Yoreh Deah siman 92, and below siman 467 subsection 17). Many disagree with this (Magen Avraham in siman 467 subsection 13, and Chok Yaakov siman 447 subsection 5, and the Mekor Chayim in siman 467 subsection 17). And even the one who permits did not permit it in a liquid substance that became forbidden by a mashehu, which was poured from this into another liquid substance, for in this it is obvious that in the second there is also a mashehu. Rather, in a solid substance, such as a piece of meat that absorbed chametz and became forbidden by a mashehu, and a mashehu from this piece fell into another pot, for the thing forbidden by a mashehu does not have the power to forbid others by a mashehu. Those who disagree forbid even in such a case, and wrote that this is the practice of all poskim. (And the Eliyah Rabbah in this siman subsection 1 agrees with the Taz, that a piece forbidden by a mashehu that fell into another cooked dish where there is a majority against it—that one removes the piece from the dish, and the dish is kosher. See there.)

Regarding the law of reicha, whether it prohibits in the case of chametz, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: Regarding the law of "reicha milta" in the case of a dish containing chametz with other dishes, there are those who are lenient in a situation where it would be permitted with other prohibitions. And there are those who are stringent, for there is at least a "mashehu." And specifically in a place where reicha is applicable, but in other prohibitions it is not considered a "milta," as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 108. Thus far his words. Meaning: for example, in a small oven that does not hold twelve esronim and it is closed, and the chametz and the matzah are both uncovered inside the oven, for in this case we permit post facto regarding other prohibitions as I wrote there—in this case there are those who are stringent regarding chametz. But in a large oven, even when the dishes are uncovered, or in a small one and one of the dishes is covered—even with chametz there is no concern (Taz subsection 3). And regarding bread, the poskim wrote that reicha is not applicable at all. Therefore, if matzah and chametz were baked in one oven, even if the oven is small and closed—it does not prohibit (ibid.). And it appears to me that if they were baked on one floor—it is prohibited for another reason, for the floor absorbs from the chametz bread, and the matzah absorbs from the floor. And even though with other prohibitions we are not concerned for this, nevertheless there is at least a "mashehu." And likewise, steam rising from chametz to matzah—it is a "mashehu" in any event and prohibits. And see in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 92, where it is explained there that with other prohibitions there is no concern in this.

And know that our teacher, the Rema, in Yoreh Deah siman 108, decided that in a case of loss—one may rely on those who are lenient regarding reiha in chametz, see there. That is to say: even in a small and uncovered oven. And there is one who says specifically when it is slightly open in a place where the smoke exits, but in a completely closed one—it is explained there that even regarding other prohibitions one should not be lenient except in a case of loss. And if so, regarding chametz even in a case of loss—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham subsection 4). However, this is regarding roasting in the oven itself, without a vessel. But regarding cooking, even if the pot is uncovered—it is permitted, except for the cholent of Shabbat where we see through our senses that it has a reiha (ibid.) because of the hatmanah. And there are those who are lenient in all of this (Pri Chadash and Chok Yaakov subsection 10). And there was an incident where they closed the oven on Pesach with the board that they close with all year before the chametz, and they permitted the cooked foods (ibid.). And since the entire essence of the doubt regarding reiha is whether it constitutes a mashehu at any rate or not, it seems to my humble opinion that there is clear proof from Shabbat (62b) that reiha is not even a mashehu, and it is as if it does not exist. (As it says there: but if they do not contain perfume she is liable for the vessel. This means: one who carries out food less than the measure..., for since it does not contain perfume—it is like less than the measure because of the reiha, as Rashi explained in the heading "for since there is no." And Rava Ashi rejected this: it is different here, for there is no substance at all, for reiha has no substance whatsoever, see there in Rashi. Thus it is nothing. However, regarding a sharp thing one should forbid, when the matzah is a sharp thing, as the Chok Yaakov wrote there. And the Pri Chadash is lenient even in this. And it is an excessive leniency, for a sharp thing certainly absorbs. And if the forbidden item is a sharp thing—it is permitted, as the Chok Yaakov wrote, see there. And in chametz there is a sharp thing like borscht, as the Magen Avraham wrote there. And examine and you will find it light.)

And regarding the matter of imparting a flavor for the worse, there are also opinions. For our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 10 wrote that imparting a flavor for the worse is permitted even on Pesach. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who are stringent, and such is the custom in these lands. And in a place where there is a custom to be stringent, even imparting a flavor for the worse and a minute amount – it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And if a scent is also added to this, it is permitted. However, in a place where there is no custom, one who is lenient regarding imparting a flavor for the worse has not lost out (Magen Avraham, subsection 41), and even in less than sixty it is permitted (Chok Yaakov, subsection 45), for such is the primary law. And according to this, one who cooks on Pesach in a chametz vessel that is not a "ben yomo" – the cooked food is permitted, as with other prohibitions. Nevertheless, one should not rule so except for a poor person and not for a wealthy person. And regarding a pot over which twelve months have passed, it should be permitted for everyone, for its flavor and scent have already dissipated. And on the eve of Pesach after midday, it is permitted in all places. And so too if the chametz is completely spoiled until it is like dust – it is obvious that it is nothing even on Pesach itself (Chok Yaakov, ibid.). And chametz nuksheh – there are those who say that it is nullified in sixty (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And see in siman 462.

And so too regarding a mixture of dry with dry, there is a dispute of the great authorities. The Rif, of blessed memory, at the end of Avodah Zarah, ruled that it prohibits in any amount just as in liquid with liquid; for even though regarding other prohibitions it is nullified by a majority when it is not a piece fit to be served to guests or a thing that is counted—this is regarding prohibitions of imparting flavor, and not regarding a prohibition of any amount. Therefore, even in a thousand it is not nullified. And the opinion of Rashi and the Rosh and the Tur is that it is nullified by a majority as with other prohibitions. For specifically liquid with liquid, where regarding other prohibitions it is prohibited by imparting flavor—it is prohibited in chametz in any amount. But regarding the matter of nullification by a majority—there is no difference. And Rashi, of blessed memory, required casting one into the river. And the Rosh disagrees on this, as the Tur wrote. And if it is a whole loaf—it is certainly not nullified even regarding other prohibitions, as I have written. And the consensus of the great authorities for practical law is like the opinion of the Rif (Chok Yaakov, subsection 44). And on Erev Pesach until the night—according to everyone it is nullified by a majority, and one should eat them until the night (Magen Avraham, subsection 40). And if one of them fell into the river—it is permitted on Erev Pesach even with a whole loaf (Makor Chaim), as I have written in Yoreh Deah siman 110.

It has already been explained in section 13 that we prohibit even in a kli sheni if the hand shrinks back from it. This is especially true regarding a liquid substance like water, and all the more so regarding pouring from a kli rishon. However, regarding pouring from a kli sheni – there is no reason to be stringent at all. And all the more so there is no reason to be stringent with a plate, which is a kli shelishi (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). However, when they placed hot meat upon it which had absorbed chametz – one should be stringent, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 94, that a solid mass is always considered like a kli rishon, because it retains much heat (ibid.). And even though there are those who are lenient there, nevertheless, regarding chametz it is certainly prohibited. (And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote from siman 318, that there are things that are cooked in a kli sheni – I do not know if there is such a thing regarding chametz. And similarly, what he wrote there regarding meat that has cracks, that it is prohibited even with cold, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 91 – I also do not know if this applies to chametz. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: Dried meat and cheese and fish that were salted before Pesach, and they were not careful with them – it is permitted to eat them on Pesach. However, salted fish that are soaked in water on Pesach in chametz vessels – one should be stringent to be careful of them, because they absorb on Pesach from the discharge of the vessels, and chametz on Pesach is prohibited in any amount. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: That from the perspective that they were salted before Pesach and they were not careful to select the salt from chametz, perhaps there are crumbs of chametz in them – there is no concern at all, even as a mere stringency. And it is not necessary to state according to those who hold in section 14 that when it was nullified before Pesach it does not return and awaken. And this opinion is primary to the law, as I wrote there. Rather, even according to those who hold that it returns and awakens – this is when we knew that there were crumbs of chametz there. But we do not know of this, and we do not presume a prohibition. (The Tur brought this law in the name of Rashi, and for the reason that it was nullified before Pesach, and he holds that it does not return and awaken, for it stands upon this, see there. However, we have explained that even according to the one who says it returns and awakens – it is permitted. For if not so, since the Beit Yosef in section 4 brought also this opinion that it returns and awakens, he should have explained that according to this opinion it is forbidden; rather, it is certainly as I have written. Examine and you will find it simple.) (And this is the intention of the Taz, subsection 7.)

And that which he wrote: "However, salted fish soaking in water during Pesach in a chametz vessel – one should be stringent...", for it implies explicitly that by the law it is permitted, but rather that one should be stringent. And the truth is so, for even though the vessel is of chametz, nevertheless it is not ben yomo, for ordinary vessels are not ben yoman, and all the more so if we knew that it is not ben yomo. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 10 that a flavoring that imparts a tainted taste is permitted, as I wrote in section 21. Rather, nevertheless one should be stringent, for perhaps salted fish is like a sharp food, which is forbidden even if it is not ben yomo. Or it is possible that since the water nullifies the strength of the brine, it is nothing. Therefore, those soaking during Pesach itself, one should be stringent. But those soaking before Pesach – one should not be stringent at all. For what should we be concerned about? If because of the sharp food of the brine – behold the water nullifies the strength of the brine. And if because it was pickled in it for a twenty-four hour period and it is like kavush, and kavush is like cooked, still it is not ben yomo? Furthermore: before its time it is permitted, and "kavush is like cooked" does not apply to it (Magen Avraham, subsection 16). And so too those soaking during Pesach not in a chametz vessel – one also should not be stringent for the reason that perhaps there are crumbs of chametz there, as I wrote in the previous section.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who disagree and are stringent. And in these provinces, the custom is to be stringent ab initio, not to eat cheeses, fish, and dried meat. However, if they rinsed the meat three times before Pesach – the custom is to eat it. And for intestines, rinsing is of no avail; therefore, one should not soak the dried cooked meats. And ex post facto, one should not be stringent regarding these. But regarding fat melted in a chametz vessel – it is forbidden by law if they were not careful at the time of its preparation regarding chametz, and that they did not melt it in chametz vessels that were used within twenty-four hours. And so too, anything that they cook in a chametz vessel, such as cooked wine, or preserves and the like – it is forbidden on Pesach. However, on the last day of the festival, one may be lenient regarding it. And the same law applies if a minute amount of these things became mixed into the food, that one should not be stringent to forbid the mixtures. Thus far his words, and his words require explanation.

And this is its explanation, that he disagrees with the two rulings of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: regarding the first ruling, that items that were salted before Pesach and they were not careful with them to clarify the salt are permitted, our teacher, the Rema, ruled that one should be stringent because we concern ourselves with the opinion that holds that regarding a dry substance, it reawakens. Therefore, perhaps there were crumbs of chametz in the salt, and it reawakens on Pesach. Therefore, they were accustomed to be stringent not to eat anything that was salted before Pesach if they were not careful with the salt to clarify it from crumbs of chametz. However, when one rinsed it three times before Pesach—behold, the concern is removed. And three times is merely for enhancement, in order to rinse very well. And it is permitted to rinse even in a chametz vessel, for cold does not cause a discharge. However, initially they were accustomed to rinse in a vessel that is not of chametz (Taz, subsection 9). And some say further that specifically meat, which is not normally eaten without rinsing, and similarly dried fish. But cheese and fish, even if one wants to rinse—it is forbidden, for perhaps he will eat without rinsing. Therefore, the custom is not to eat any salted item (Magen Avraham, subsection 18 and Bach). And therefore we do not eat salted lemons that were not made for the sake of Pesach with the clarification of the salt (ibid.). And for the intestines, rinsing does not help, for behold they are filled with very thin pieces, and rinsing is only on the outside. And it is understood that these are only mere stringencies, and after the fact there is no concern in all of this. But when there is garlic in the intestines—in this it is certainly forbidden, for behold they were cut with a chametz knife. And garlic is a sharp item, and it is forbidden to eat them on Pesach. And it is permitted to leave them until after Pesach (Chok Yaakov, subsection 26). And that which was explained that they should rinse before Pesach, the Maharil permitted after the fact if they were not rinsed before Pesach to rinse them even on Pesach (ibid., subsection 24).

And likewise, he disagrees with the second ruling regarding salted fish soaking in water in a chametz vessel on Pesach, where our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that one should be stringent. And it implies that according to the essential law it is permitted, and if they were soaking before Pesach, one should not be stringent at all. But our teacher, the Rema, does not hold this way, and he ruled regarding fat melted in a chametz vessel before Pesach that it is forbidden by law. For regarding Pesach, we do not say that ordinary vessels are not "of their day." Furthermore: regarding a flavor that imparts a blemish, there are also those who forbid it, and in a chametz vessel there is no sixty against the vessel. And so too anything cooked in a chametz vessel. However, if it is known to him with certainty that the vessel was not "of its day," one may permit it post facto, for regarding a flavor that imparts a blemish post facto, one should not be stringent (Magen Avraham, subsection 23). And behold, according to his words, also regarding salted fish soaking in water in a chametz vessel for a twenty-four hour period, one must forbid it due to the principle that "soaking is like cooking," and even before Pesach, since he does not hold regarding Pesach that ordinary vessels are not "of their day." And regarding the permission that before its time it is not considered "soaking"—there is no proof for this reasoning. However, one could say regarding soaking another reason to permit it, for it does not become "soaked" until after a twenty-four hour period, and by then the flavor is blemished. But it is possible that regarding Pesach we do not say this reasoning. However, on the last day of Yom Tov one may be lenient, but regarding a preserve of something sharp, one should not be lenient (Taz, subsection 10).

And know: that seemingly, regarding something cooked in a chametz vessel before Pesach—there should be a permit based on the principle of "giving flavor from flavor" (noten ta'am bar noten ta'am). Granted, during Pesach it is impossible to permit based on this reason, for the reason of "giving flavor from flavor" is because the flavor has been weakened. However, regarding a "minute amount" (mashehu), this is not a permit, for there is at least a minute amount of flavor. But before Pesach, why should it be forbidden? However, regarding chametz, this permit does not exist at all, for in Yoreh Deah siman 95 it was explained that only "giving flavor from flavor" of a permitted substance is called "giving flavor from flavor," and not of a forbidden substance, see there. And regarding chametz, it is like a forbidden substance (Magen Avraham subsection 24), meaning that the name "chametz" is upon everything there. And only on the last day of the festival do we not concern ourselves with this. And so too, if it fell from this vessel into another vessel—one should deliberate on this with the law of "giving flavor from flavor." However, even in this, he only permitted if a minute amount fell from this pot. And it is a wonder: why should we not permit even more than a minute amount? And there is one who says that in truth it is so, and that which he wrote "a minute amount"—this is regarding the melting of fat, where there is concern for thin crumbs of chametz remaining within it. But in cooked wine and the like, even if much was mixed in—it is permitted (ibid. subsection 26). But if so, what distinction is there between a little and a lot (Mekor Chaim subsection 13)? But in truth it is as I have written, that we do not adjudicate the law of "giving flavor from flavor" at all during Pesach itself. Therefore, even if it fell into another pot—one should not permit except in a minute amount. And that which he wrote "a minute amount"—it refers to Pesach itself. And see what I wrote in siman 452 section 9 regarding "giving flavor from flavor."

From all the matters that have been explained, it is clear that there is no concern regarding our herring. For what should we be concerned? For the vessels are new, as is known. And to be concerned for crumbs of chametz—since in their place the merchants put them into hundreds and thousands of barrels, it is obvious that the merchants are meticulous regarding cleanliness. And indeed, it has never occurred that a piece of chametz was found in the barrels of salted fish. And if it should occur—it would be one in a thousand. And when they salt them—they salt them in a large storehouse by the thousands, where chametz is not found at all. And I have heard some say that perhaps the workers do this during the time of their eating, and chametz fell there. This is an error, for it is clear that in a large business such as this, they do not allow the workers to eat during the time of the work. And when the time for eating arrives, the workers go to the place of eating, and they close the storehouse. Certainly, it is forbidden to use an open barrel standing in a shop, for there it is easy for chametz to fall into it. However, from a whole barrel there is no concern. Nevertheless, we have practiced according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, to rinse them three times before Pesach. And if what they prepared before Pesach did not suffice—they rinse even on Pesach, as I wrote in section 27. And those who are stringent not to eat herring at all on Pesach—there is no place at all for this stringency, according to how they are made now in our days.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5: There are those who are stringent to abstain from wine vinegar that they use throughout the year, for we concern ourselves that perhaps they placed into it that which remained from the meal, and sometimes there are bread crumbs in it. And in these places where wine vinegar is not common – I have not seen people being stringent in this. Thus far his words, meaning that we are not dealing with a case where they take from it a little at a time for every meal, for if so, even without this concern it would be forbidden, as we concern ourselves that perhaps he went in the middle of the meal to take from there, and crumbs of chametz fell in there. For behold, even bedikat chametz is required there for this reason, as I wrote in siman 433. Rather, we are dealing with a case where they take from there for many days, and there is no concern there of chametz falling in. And the concern is only because it is good for the vinegar, regarding its strengthening, to place into it remnants of food, as with kvas in Russia, therefore we concern ourselves with this. And this is in places where wine vinegar is common, they are accustomed to do so. But in places where it is not common, they were not accustomed to this at all, to place remnants of food there. And therefore they were not stringent in this. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 27, who wrote that it is because it is difficult to obtain other [vinegar]. And according to our words, it is settled well with simplicity.)

He further wrote that there are those who are stringent ab initio not to fill chametz vessels with wine or wine vinegar within thirty days of Pesach. And if they filled it within thirty days—it is the custom not to drink it on Pesach. However, one who is lenient has lost nothing, all the more so in a place where wine and vinegar are not common. Thus far his words. And if the vessel was scoured and rinsed—it is certainly permitted (Magen Avraham subsection 29). And there is one who says that regarding strong vinegar, which easily absorbs and emits—it is certainly forbidden, and natan ta'am bar natan ta'am is of no benefit regarding a sharp substance (ibid. subsection 28). And even if it is not ben yomo—it is of no benefit regarding a sharp substance (Chok Yaakov subsection 34). And there is one who is only stringent if it is ben yomo (Magen Avraham ibid.), for even though we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 96 that its sharpness makes it for the better even in one that is not ben yomo, nevertheless, since there are those who disagree there regarding this—one should not be stringent in a mere apprehension (Machatzit HaShekel). And all this is when it remained in the vessel for the time it takes to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil, for this is the duration of kavishah in brine. But less than this—there is no concern at all (ibid.).

He further wrote: A wine barrel whose staves were joined with dough, if it is within two months before Pesach—it is still soft, and it imparts flavor during Pesach, and it is forbidden to drink it. But if they applied it before then, it has already dried, and it does not impart flavor during Pesach, and it is permitted. However, if there is a kezayit of dough in one place—one is obligated to remove it even though it was made to strengthen [the barrel], as I wrote in siman 442. Thus far his words. This measure of two months, even though regarding the adhering of papers thirty days is sufficient, nevertheless regarding the imparting of flavor two months are required, unlike the one who disagrees and says that thirty days are sufficient here as well (Chok Yaakov, subsection 36, and not like the Taz). Furthermore: they are not comparable at all, for there, there is nothing to moisten it, whereas here the wine moistens it, and it does not dry quickly. In truth, here too the measure is thirty days, meaning thirty days until it ceases to absorb moisture, and thirty days for drying. And regarding that which he wrote that it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to keep it. And even though the wine absorbs the flavor of chametz, nevertheless it only imparts a minute amount of flavor, and it is chametz nuksheh. There is no proof from here that chametz nuksheh prohibits in a minute amount, for it is different here because he does so ab initio, whereas chametz nuksheh that fell into a cooked dish—it only prohibits by imparting flavor (Magen Avraham, subsection 30). And when there is a kezayit in one place, and he plastered it with clay—he does not need to remove it, as I wrote there (ibid., subsection 31). All this is ex post facto, but ab initio it is obvious that it is forbidden to join a barrel with dough, even a long time before Pesach. And such is the prevalent custom, and it is not to be changed.

Salt that was placed in a mortar of chametz, but the salt was not crushed in it—it is permitted to salt meat with it on Pesach, because it does not exude through cold in a dry state. And even though it was explained in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 95 that ab initio one should not put into milk salt that was placed in a meat bowl, nevertheless, in a mortar it is permitted even ab initio. And all the more so in our mortars, in which it is not customary to use chametz at all. Nevertheless, if the salt was crushed in them—it is forbidden to use this salt on Pesach, for due to the pressure of the crushing—it absorbed a bit of chametz (ibid. subsection 32). And if it was crushed before Pesach—one should permit it in our mortars which contain only a concern of a minute amount, and it was nullified before Pesach (Chayei Adam subsection 38). And ab initio it is forbidden even before Pesach to crush salt in it for Pesach. And such is the simple custom, and one should not change it.

Bosser, which refers to grapes or other fruits that have not ripened, which have acidity, that were crushed before Pesach in chametz mortars—it is permitted to eat them on Pesach, because it does not exude through cold in a dry state. And the mortars must be clean. And even though bosser is like a sharp substance, nevertheless, regarding exudation and in a mortar where the chametz use is minimal, and before Pesach there is only a concern of a minute amount, it was nullified before Pesach. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that even if it was done during Pesach—it is not forbidden if the vessel was clean. Thus far his words. And it is a wonder: for indeed it is implied in the poskim that bosser is a sharp substance. And granted that before Pesach one may be lenient, but on Pesach itself where there is sharpness and the pressure of the knife—how is it possible to permit it? And even without sharpness, certainly by means of the pressure of the knife and it being somewhat moist—it exudes a little. And it requires great study. (The Magen Avraham, subsection 33, forbids even before Pesach. And the Chayei Adam permits, and so too the Mekor Chaim. But on Pesach itself it is a matter of wonder. And from the words of the Taz, subsection 13, it appears that it was not written before him in the Shulchan Aruch that even during Pesach it is not forbidden, see there. And such is the primary ruling. Examine carefully and you will find it light.)

And unripe grapes that were cut with a chametz knife during Pesach—it is forbidden, for an ordinary knife is not wiped clean, and one must concern himself with chametz stuck upon it. Nevertheless, if some of it was mixed into a cooked dish, our teacher, the Rema, ruled there that one should not be stringent and forbid it out of doubt, for he holds that unripe grapes are not sharp. And even though in any event there is at least a minute amount, since it is not wiped clean, he holds that this pertains to fat that sticks to the knife. But chametz does not stick, and it is like one that is wiped clean regarding this matter of mixtures. Nevertheless, it requires further study for practical application, for in any event there is a minute amount (Magen Avraham, subsection 37). Furthermore: for we see that bread also sticks to a knife. Furthermore: for many hold that unripe grapes are a sharp thing, and even if cut before Pesach, and even with a clean knife, it requires further study. However, before Pesach with a clean knife—one may be lenient, as I wrote in the previous section. But during Pesach one should not be lenient at all according to the opinion of the great Acharonim.

And regarding items that are certainly not sharp which were cut with a chametz knife on Pesach and it was not wiped, even if it is a ben yomo—it is permitted to eat it on Pesach by means of washing it very well at the place of the cut, and also scraping a bit at the place of the cut. And if it was wiped—it is permitted even without washing. For even though there is the pressure of the knife, nevertheless, it does not cause an emission into a dry item. And if that which he cut was slightly moist—one should require washing. And if the item is sharp, such as a radish, an onion, horseradish, and the like—one should forbid it even if it was cut before Pesach, and even if it is not a ben yomo, and even if it was wiped, for sharpness and the pressure of the knife certainly cause an emission (the HaGra"z section 59). And nevertheless, one should be lenient in a case of pressing need if he cut it before Pesach, as I have written regarding unripe grapes, because in any event it is only a minute amount, and it was already nullified. But on Pesach itself, it is always forbidden.

And all this is regarding the knife of a homeowner in his house when he cut with it on Pesach, which is merely incidental. However, something that was cut with a chametz knife on a regular basis by the hand of a non-Jewish shopkeeper, such as pieces of fish called "lox," or other types of fish that they sell on Pesach; and Jews buy from them, such as those that are not salted, for salted ones are anyway forbidden to buy from them on Pesach because of the salt; rather, even if they are not salted, if the shopkeeper cuts them with his knife with which he also cuts bread—one should be stringent not to eat it even by means of rinsing. But when they cut it before Pesach—one should not be stringent, and it is permitted to eat it by means of rinsing (the Ha-Geraz). And so too, if he has a knife designated for this—it is permitted even on Pesach.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: Olives that were carefully cut with a new knife, even if they were not carefully pickled in a new pot, if it is not a ben yomo—it is permitted according to everyone. Thus far his words, meaning: that olives are certainly a davar charif. And if one cut them with an old knife, even if it is not a ben yomo—they are forbidden even if they were cut before Pesach. And even though in all the olives there is sixty against the knife and it was nullified before Pesach, like onions that were cut with a forbidden knife in Yoreh Deah siman 96—it is not comparable. For there the onions were cooked in broth, and the flavor was mixed into everything, and in the whole there is sixty against the knife. But here each small piece stands on its own, and each one absorbed a little from the knife, and in each one there is not sixty against the absorbed matter. Therefore, the combination is not effective (Taz subsection 14, and Magen Avraham subsection 38). And therefore it is also not comparable to unripe grapes in a mortar, for the crushing mixes them all together. And if indeed after the cutting one pickled them all in water before Pesach—they are permitted, because the water carries the discharge from one to the other, and they become as one, and it is like onions. And see the following section.

However, if one cut them with a new knife, but only pickled them in a chametz pot before Pesach, and the pot is not ben yomo—it is permitted. And even though regarding a davar charif a non-ben yomo is like a ben yomo, nevertheless, since they are pickled in water—the water nullifies the sharpness (Tur), and it is a case of giving a flavor for the worse before Pesach and is permitted. But on Pesach itself, it is forbidden. And know that regarding what we wrote in the previous section, that if after one cut them with a chametz knife one pickled them in water before Pesach they are permitted, there are those who disagree with this. And they hold that only if one boiled them are they permitted, for boiling conducts the flavor through all of them, but pickling does not (Taz ibid.). And there is one who forbids even if one boiled them (Magen Avraham ibid.), and only the water is permitted, whether in pickling or in boiling, for in the water the discharge is certainly mixed and nullified in sixty. And one should be lenient like the first opinion (the Gra"z), for pickling is also an extra stringency, for why should the flavor not be conducted from this to that when they are pickled in water? Rather, thus it is explained from the words of the Tur, see there. And it is enough for us to be stringent regarding pickling and not regarding boiling.

Just as chametz before Pesach is nullified in sixty, so too after Pesach it is nullified in sixty. This includes chametz that was mixed before Pesach and remained until after Pesach, in a manner where one did not violate "bal yera'eh" according to the details explained in siman 442, section 12. And even though according to rabbinic law one was obligated to destroy it, as I wrote there in section 16, nevertheless, since according to Torah law one did not violate the prohibition—it is permitted after Pesach. The great authorities agreed that it is permitted ab initio to mix it before Pesach and keep it until after Pesach, since one does not violate "bal yera'eh" (Magen Avraham, subsection 42; and Taz, subsection 17; and Chok Yaakov, subsection 47). This is not like one who nullifies a prohibited substance ab initio, since there is no prohibition here yet. However, during Pesach itself, or after Pesach—it is obvious that it is forbidden to mix it. Nevertheless, if it was mixed during Pesach in sixty, and one transgressed and kept it even intentionally, provided only that one did not violate "bal yera'eh," such as less than a kezayit or nuksheh—it is permitted after Pesach (ibid.). So too if one nullified his chametz, and also after Pesach when it was mixed it is nullified in sixty, even though he violated "bal yera'eh" and its law is like during Pesach. But if he mixed it intentionally during Pesach or after Pesach—it is not nullified at all. Specifically when it was mixed inadvertently and he kept it intentionally we permitted it, but not when it was mixed intentionally.

And many poskim hold that after Pesach when it was mixed—it does not require sixty, and it is nullified by a majority. And this is clearly implied in the Gemara (30a) which says that Rabbi Shimon imposed a penalty that chametz that remained over Pesach is forbidden for benefit. And when he penalized, these words apply to it in its original state, but through a mixture, no; see there. And the penalty is because he transgressed "it shall not be seen." Consequently, anything that is not in its original state—is permitted. And if so, when there is a majority against the chametz—it is permitted even for eating. And even in a liquid-in-liquid mixture a majority is sufficient, for if it were dry-in-dry—certainly even according to the first opinion nullification by a majority would suffice, as it is no stricter than other prohibitions. And even though during Pesach itself we were stringent even in dry-in-dry, nevertheless after Pesach—it is certainly nullified by a majority. And our teacher, the Rema, in section 11 wrote that with less than sixty—it is sufficient for him to cast the benefit of the prohibition into the Dead Sea. Thus far his words. And it is implied from his words that this is even according to the first opinion that requires sixty, for he is standing upon this opinion (and so it is in the HaGra"z section 61). And when there is sixty—he does not require anything. And according to the latter opinion, nullification by a majority is sufficient, and he does not require anything. And in a case of great loss or a time of pressing need, one may rely on the opinion of those who are lenient, for such is the primary law (HaGra"z). And all this is after Pesach. But before Pesach—according to all opinions one requires sixty. And it has already been explained that one is permitted to nullify before Pesach with sixty. Therefore, when there are leavened wheat stalks—he may add to them until there is sixty, and such is the simple custom (and so the Magen Avraham agreed in subsection 45).

But dough that was leavened with beer yeast that had remained over Pesach—the entire dough is forbidden for benefit even if there is sixty. For a stabilizing agent is not nullified even in a thousand. And neither casting the value of the forbidden substance into the Dead Sea nor selling it to a non-Jew excluding the value of the forbidden substance is effective for this, because we view the entire dough as if it were yeast. And so too if one stabilized cheeses with chametz vinegar that had remained over Pesach, or if one stabilized honey water, which is called mead, with beer yeast that had remained over Pesach. And there are those who disagree on this, and they hold that casting the value of the forbidden substance into the Dead Sea is effective even for a stabilizing agent, and likewise to sell to a non-Jew excluding the value of the forbidden substance within it. And in a case of great loss, one may rely on their words (the HaGra"z section 62, and so wrote the Chayei Adam in siman 442). And if it was leavened also with permitted yeast, "this and this causes" it is permitted.

And know that in all of this there is no distinction between one who nullified his chametz on the fourteenth and one who did not nullify. For in a case where we permit it to him by way of mixture—it is permitted even without nullification, as the Shas explained that the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon that chametz that passed over Pesach is not subject to a prohibition, but rather it is forbidden for benefit by reason of a penalty that they penalized him, since he transgressed "it shall not be seen." And they did not penalize in a mixture, as I have written. And in a case where they forbade—they forbade even when he nullified the chametz and did not transgress "it shall not be seen," since he did not destroy the chametz. And even if he was unintentional or under duress. And the reason for the matter will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 448 according to the Yerushalmi.

Chametz nuksheh, even in its pure form without being part of a mixture, is not forbidden for benefit after Pesach, because one did not violate "it shall not be seen" regarding it. And it is even permitted for eating, except that chametz nuksheh is not fit for eating (Magen Avraham, subsection 46). And even though we said that even when one nullified the chametz it does not help, and behold, there too one did not violate "it shall not be seen," yet this is not a comparison. For there, the essence of the chametz is subject to "it shall not be seen," and therefore they penalized it in all cases. This is not so regarding nuksheh, which is never subject to "it shall not be seen." Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman that there are those who refrain from playing with cards on Pesach on the table, for they fear lest some of their chametz nuksheh fall into the food. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12 that fidios are total chametz, and are forbidden for benefit after Pesach. Thus far his words, and we do not know what this is.