Siman 449

The Tur wrote: A shop belonging to an Israelite, and the merchandise sold therein is his, and the laborers who work in it are non-Jews—chametz found there after Pesach is permitted even for eating, for we attribute it to the laborers. And if the shop and the merchandise belong to a non-Jew, and the laborers are Israelites—it is forbidden, for we attribute it to the Israelite laborers. This is the version of Rabbeinu Chananel. And Rav Hai has the opposite version, that it follows the owner of the shop, and such is the version of Rashi. Thus far his words, and it is in the Gemara (30b).

And ostensibly it is not understood at all, for it certainly deals with a case where they all eat there the entire year. For if not so, it is obvious that we follow the one who eats. And if we say that none of them eat there, if so, it is not relevant at all to say whom to follow. Rather, it is certain that they all eat there. If so, what did you see to follow this one, let us follow that one? And it is well according to the first version that we follow the workers, for one can say the reason is that we follow the majority. For this is implied by the language, that the shop owner is one, and the workers are many. But according to the second language it is difficult, and it appears that because of this Rashi explained there that it deals with a case where the merchandise is of chametz, for so he explained: bread and wine sold within it, see there. And according to this it works out well that we follow the merchandise of the shop, for this is more than what the workers eat. And according to this it is possible to say that the versions do not disagree in law, but rather that according to the version of Rabbeinu Chananel it does not deal with merchandise of chametz, and therefore we follow the workers who are the majority. (And see Beit Yosef and Bach and Taz, and in my humble opinion it is as I have written.)

The Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh did not cite this law at all. The Ra'avad in the book Tamim De'im (siman 245) wrote that the reasoning of the Rif is that since there are different versions—we follow the stringency, see there. And it is not understood, for if so, it is obvious that he should have cited it and ruled stringently. And there is one who says the opposite, that both are for leniency, since it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic law (Chayei Adam). And this certainly cannot be said, for how could they disagree with the Baraita that the Shas cited based on their own reasoning?

And in my humble opinion, it appears that they rejected this baraita from the halacha. For according to what we hold in siman 446, that we follow the last one, if so here too we should follow the non-Jews, whether he is the shop owner or whether he is a worker, for he is the last one regarding the eating of chametz, as he ate throughout the days of Pesach. And if one found chametz on the road after Pesach, if it can be attributed to having been made after Pesach – it is permitted even for eating. And if not – it is forbidden for eating and permitted for benefit (Bach and Magen Avraham). And there is one who says that we follow the majority of wayfarers (Chayei Adam). And I wonder about this, for whichever way you look at it: even if it belongs to a Jew – he certainly discarded it or lost it before Pesach, and it is hefker and permitted. And if because of the reason that perhaps it is chametz of a Jew that passed over it during Pesach and he discarded it, which is forbidden for benefit, nevertheless there is still a double doubt: a doubt if it belongs to a non-Jew, a doubt if it belongs to a Jew; and if you should say it belongs to a Jew, perhaps he discarded it before Pesach (see Makor Chaim who raised some of this).