Siman 450

An Israelite who borrowed a loaf from his fellow before Pesach – he must repay him after Pesach. And there is an element of gezel in this if he does not repay him. And this is not considered chalifei chametz, for we hold that even though it does not seize its value, nevertheless it is forbidden ab initio, as I wrote at the end of siman 443. For this is not chalifei chametz, as it is only called chalifin when the chametz is in existence at the time he gives him the exchange, which is not the case when the chametz has already been eaten. And according to this, even on Pesach itself he can receive other things in exchange for the loaf, except that after Pesach he can also receive chametz (Chayei Adam, subsection 1). However, in truth, regarding a loan he is permitted to pay a loaf after Pesach, even when the first loaf is still in existence, for this is not a matter of chalifei chametz at all. For a loan is given to be spent, and the borrower already acquired it before Pesach, and became obligated to him for its value (Mekor Chaim, subsection 1). And so too he can pay him other things on Pesach, for he is taking his debt. And the law that we explained, that there is no permission except when it is not in existence – that is regarding actual chalifin. (And it is not similar to shevi'it at the beginning of the fifth chapter of Avodah Zarah, for shevi'it seizes its value, which is not the case with chametz; examine carefully and you will find it simple.) And all the more so regarding one who buys chametz before Pesach, that he must pay him.

An Israelite who receives a loaf of chametz from a non-Jew every week as interest, for so he stipulated with him at the time of the loan, how shall he act during the week of Pesach? He should say to him before Pesach that during the week of Pesach he should give him flour or money. And since he stipulated with him thus, even though he gives him a loaf of chametz after Pesach, it is the exchange for the flour and the money, and it is permitted. And post facto, even if he did not say this to him, but rather he brought him a loaf after Pesach for the week of Pesach – it is permitted, for the Israelite did not acquire it during Pesach (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 2). And there is one who says that specifically a stipulation is required, and without a stipulation – it is forbidden (Taz subsection 1). But one should not be so stringent in this matter, for the entire prohibition of chametz that remained over Pesach is only due to a penalty (Chok Yaakov subsection 3). And such is the law regarding one who purchased the "servants' portion," where they are given chametz, that it is permitted to take after Pesach what they lacked during Pesach (ibid.). For in this, a penalty is not applicable at all, as is understood.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: An Israelite and a non-Jew who have an oven in partnership, he says to the non-Jew before Pesach, "You take yours during Pesach, and I will take mine afterward." Thus far his words. And even though regarding the matter of Shabbat this is not effective unless they stipulated at the outset before forming the partnership, as I wrote above in siman 245—for there, since both of them must work every day, it is therefore like Shabbat wages, because in exchange for him baking on Sunday, the non-Jew bakes on the day of Shabbat. But here, there is no prohibition in the labor of baking, and behold, he is able to bake matzah in it. And he does not say to him during Pesach, "Bake chametz, and I will bake chametz after Pesach," for in such a case it is certainly forbidden. Rather, he says to him without specification: "You bake this week, and I will bake another week." Therefore, it is certainly forbidden to say to him, "However many loaves you bake during Pesach—I will bake afterward" (and so wrote the Makor Chayim, subsection 3). So it appears to me regarding the reason for the permission. The great authorities labored over this, but in my humble opinion it appears as I have written (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 3).

It is obvious that regarding the Shabbat that falls within Pesach—it is forbidden, as above in siman 245. And there is one who wishes to forbid even the four days of Yom Tov just as on Shabbat, but it is not so. For on Yom Tov, ochel nefesh is permitted. And granted that he bakes for them, which is forbidden for us to bake for them on Yom Tov, nevertheless, he does not tell him to bake for them, and he is able to bake for those who are permitted. Thus it returns to the reasoning we wrote regarding chametz in the previous section (and for the law, the Chayei Adam in subsection 4 also agrees to this). And there is one who says even regarding the law of chametz that the Israelite must receive his portion from him in money before Pesach, but this is not a necessity (see Magen Avraham there; examine closely and you will find it easy).

He further wrote in section 4: An Israelite who had an oven, and non-Jews baked chametz in it during Pesach – he is forbidden to receive even money as his payment, for he would be one who profits from forbidden benefits. And if he already received the money – it is permitted to benefit from it. Thus far his words, meaning: it is not only necessary to say that if they brought him loaves after Pesach, it is forbidden to benefit from them since he acquired them during Pesach as payment for his oven, and it is chametz of an Israelite that passed over Pesach; but even if they brought him money – it is also forbidden for benefit because he is profiting from forbidden benefits. And it is not similar to a partnership oven of the previous law, for there he does not benefit from that which belongs to Pesach, as the week of Pesach belongs to the non-Jew. And if it is because he takes another week in exchange for it, we have already explained the reason is because he does not say to him "bake chametz." But here, where the oven is entirely his, and they baked chametz in it – how can he take payment for chametz, and profit from forbidden benefits? However, if he received money – it is permitted post facto, because chametz does not transfer its status to its exchange value. And even though for the one who exchanges it himself – it is forbidden, as I wrote at the end of siman 443 – that is regarding one who exchanges actual chametz, and not in a case such as this. (The Taz, subsection 3, wondered that the two laws of section 3 and section 4 contradict one another. And according to what I have written, there is no contradiction here. And so it is implied from the Magen Avraham, subsection 4, see there. And so wrote the Tosafot in Avodah Zarah 62a, beginning with the words "Mai Ta'ama").

The Tur wrote that it is permitted to rent out one's oven to a non-Jew on the condition that he bake matzah in it. And even if he baked chametz in it—he is not concerned with him, and he may take his payment. And even though regarding wine used for idolatry it is not so, for if he hired him to perform another task with him, and he performed it with wine used for idolatry—his payment is forbidden, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 133; for there, if he had not performed the task he would not have taken anything, therefore when he takes payment—he takes the payment of wine used for idolatry. This is not the case with an oven for a day or for a week, for even if he does not bake in it at all—he is obligated to pay his rent. If so, what do we care that he baked chametz, since he stipulated with him for matzah (Magen Avraham subsection 5). Therefore, if indeed the condition was explicit, that when he bakes he shall pay, and if he does not bake he shall not pay—it is forbidden. And one should not ask that still, what does the condition avail, for are we not witnesses that he will certainly bake chametz in it, as above in siman 246? For a condition does not avail to rent out one's horse on the condition that it rest on Shabbat, because it certainly will not rest, and if so, here too it is so. And there is one who raised this difficulty (Taz subsection 4). However, this is not a comparison, for there he is commanded regarding the resting of his animal, and since it is known that it will not rest—it is forbidden. This is not the case here, for he is not commanded regarding the resting of the oven from chametz, but only that he should not benefit from the chametz. And since he rents him his oven not for the sake of chametz but in a general sense, he is not taking the payment of chametz (Chok Yaakov subsection 8). And all the more so when he says explicitly: on the condition that he bake in it something that is not chametz.

And when one leases a house to a non-Jew on Pesach or on the eve of Pesach – it is forbidden to lease it explicitly for him to bring chametz into it. Rather, he leases it without specification, and if he afterwards brings chametz into it – we do not care, for he is not taking payment for chametz, but rather payment for his dwelling. However, before Pesach – it is permitted to lease even though he leases explicitly to bring chametz into it, for he does not say explicitly to bring it in on Pesach, and he takes his payment for what he will bring in before Pesach (the HaGra"z section 11). And there is one who is stringent even within thirty days before Pesach (Pri Chadash). However, this is a simple matter, that if the Israelite must guard the chametz – it is forbidden on Pesach even when the chametz belongs to the non-Jew. For granted that it is permitted to see it, as we say "yours you may not see, but you may see that of others." However, to guard it – it is forbidden, even to guard for free, because he desires its existence. And anyone who desires its existence – it is forbidden regarding all prohibitions of benefit, as with wine used for idolatry in Yoreh Deah there (Ch"y subsection 9). (The Pri Chadash wrote at length that regarding chametz there is no prohibition of "desiring its existence," see there. And he is against the Tur and the poskim.)

It is forbidden for an Israelite to purchase chametz on Pesach for a non-Jew, even with the money of the non-Jew, for there are three prohibitions in this: that he desires the existence of the chametz, which is forbidden as I have written. Furthermore: lest he come to eat it. Furthermore: that there is no agency for a non-Jew, and it turns out that he is purchasing it for himself (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). And likewise, it is forbidden to assist in matters of chametz, such as loading the chametz of a non-Jew onto a wagon, for the non-Jew will feel gratitude toward him, and this is like a wage, and it turns out he is profiting from prohibitions of benefit (ibid.). And even not in his presence, where there is no feeling of gratitude—it appears that it is forbidden, for this is like desiring its existence. However, in a case of suffering of living creatures, such as where his animal is loaded with chametz and is crouching under its burden, where it is a mitzvah to unload—he is obligated to unload. Since there is a positive Torah commandment in this—we do not fear that he will feel gratitude toward him, for it is like "it is not possible and he does not intend," which is permitted (ibid.), as it is brought in Pesachim (25b).

It is forbidden to rent a vessel to a non-Jew to cook chametz in it during Pesach, for he would be profiting from forbidden benefits. However, to rent it without specification is permitted, as it is not designated for chametz alone. But in the case of an oven in such a manner, it is forbidden, for an oven is typically for the baking of chametz. Therefore, he must stipulate that he bake matzah in it, as I wrote in section 6. However, the Tur forbade a vessel for another reason, namely, because he desires its preservation through something else, so that the vessel will not crack. Thus far his words, meaning: that he desires that the chametz remain within it, for if not, the vessel would crack near the fire, and it turns out that he benefits from the chametz. And he wrote another reason: that since the vessel itself is forbidden for benefit from the absorption of chametz within it, it is forbidden to rent it out ab initio, see there. But it is permitted to rent him a donkey or a horse to carry a load upon it, and even if he brings chametz upon it, we have no concern regarding it. But to explicitly bring chametz upon it is forbidden. (All this is according to the words of the Magen Avraham, subsection 11, and is the truth for the halachah.)

An incident occurred regarding Israelites who sold their chametz to non-Jews on the eve of Pesach, and the chametz was placed in a room not far from the river. On Pesach, the waters overflowed and were close to the room, and all the chametz was about to be lost. They permitted them to go to the non-Jew who purchased the chametz and say to him: "See to the rescue of your merchandise." And if he is not here, they shall say to another non-Jew: "See that the merchandise of so-and-so will be lost," and through this they will move it to another place (Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 13 in the name of Shevut Yaakov). But he himself is forbidden to rescue chametz on Pesach.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: There are those who permit heating hot water in a chametz vessel and washing with it, and similarly other needs of benefit with a chametz vessel. And such is the custom. Thus far his words. For example, placing cold items in it in a temporary manner when dry, or a liquid item for something that is not for eating, such as washing and the like (Chok Yaakov, subsection 14). And it is simple that this is when it is not a ben yomo. And know that according to the second reason of the Tur in section 9, who forbids renting out the vessel because of the absorbed chametz within it—all the more so is it forbidden to use it. And there are those who forbid for this reason (see Magen Avraham, subsection 12). Nevertheless, the primary ruling is that it is permitted. And perhaps the Tur’s intention was regarding a large amount of absorbed chametz, and a bat yoma. And it requires further study. And now in our times, we do not use any chametz vessel. Even if chametz was used in it while cold, such as water jugs—we do not use them on Pesach.

When one has a non-Jewish servant in his house—it is permitted to say to him on Pesach: "Take this dinar, and buy and eat," even though he knows that he will buy chametz and eat it. For he derives no benefit from this, and he also does not tell him to buy chametz. However, he should not eat in his house because of suspicion, so that they do not say that he gave him the chametz. But he may not say to him "go out and eat, and I will pay" when he knows that they will certainly feed him chametz. Thus ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6, and their words are astonishing. For they themselves ruled in Yoreh Deah siman 132 regarding yen nesech in such a case that it is permitted, unless he advanced a dinar to the shopkeeper, for then the forbidden item is acquired for him. But without advancing a dinar—it is permitted, for through what was the forbidden item acquired for him? And when he pays, the forbidden item is already no longer in the world. And at the time they eat or drink the forbidden item—the forbidden item is not the householder's but the shopkeeper's. And in truth, the Mordechai also here regarding chametz does not forbid, unless he advanced a dinar to the shopkeeper, or if he handled the chametz with his hands and gave it to them. And this is the opinion of the "there are those who say" brought by our teacher, the Beit Yosef, see there. And thus ruled the great Acharonim (Magen Avraham subsection 9, and Pri Chadash). And the first opinion, which is the opinion of the Tur—is astonishing.

And there is one who wrote that they were stringent due to the severity of chametz (Chok Yaakov subsection 11, and Eliyah Rabbah), and there is no reason for this. And there is one who says that the Jew is like a guarantor for them for the chametz, for if it is lost from the time they receive it in their hand until they place it in their mouth—he would be liable for the responsibility, and it is like the chametz of a non-Jew for which the Jew accepted responsibility, where he violates "it shall not be seen" (Mekor Chaim subsection 4). And this too is nothing, for by what means did he accept the responsibility? And in my humble opinion, the words of the Tur are correct and necessary, for the prohibition is because he desires the existence of the chametz. For if not so, he would need to feed them other food. This is not the case regarding wine used for idolatry, there he does not desire its existence, for even if they do not drink it he will not give them other [wine], as there is no necessity in drinking wine as there is in eating bread, as is understood. And therefore he does not desire its existence and it is permitted.

And one who has an infant who is crying to eat chametz, and it is impossible to restrain him, the great authorities wrote that it is permitted to say to a non-Jew: "Feed him or give him chametz to drink, and I will pay" (Magen Avraham ibid.). This is according to their approach, for they rejected the words of the Tur. However, according to how we have settled his words—it is forbidden to say so; rather, he should say: "Give him to eat," and he will automatically give him chametz. Or, he should give him a dinar and say to him: "Feed this infant for this dinar." All this is regarding an infant who is not in danger if he does not eat chametz. But when there is danger—everything is permitted (ibid.). And he is obligated to feed him himself, according to the law of any doubt regarding a life, which overrides all prohibitions. Therefore, for us where there are many nursing infants who from the day of their birth are accustomed to the soaking of toasted bread which they call "sukharikes" from wheat flour, and if they do not give it to them even for one day they will fall ill and are close to dying—they are obligated to prepare these toasts for them before Pesach, and to hide them in a concealed place, and to have for this a special vessel and spoon. And at any time that is necessary—he should mix it in the hot water or in milk, and put it into his mouth, and be careful with the crumbs. And if it is possible through a non-Jew—it is better.

The great ones among the Acharonim have written at length regarding the matter of the arendes and those who hold the mills from the ministers, who receive a measure of grain for the grinding of such and such. And there are those who grind absolute chametz, such as maltzin. And how can the Israelite receive the measures even after Pesach, and profit from chametz on Pesach? And also, since the chametz is his, he has surely transgressed "it shall not be seen." And it is simple that he should sell the arende or the mills before Pesach, just like the sale for Shabbatot (Bach) and as we do, as I wrote in siman 448. And there is one who raised a difficulty: How is the sale effective? For it is a thing that has not yet come into the world (Taz, subsection 6), and before Pesach the chametz has not yet come, so how can he sell it? However, this is not a difficulty, for if so, the Israelite also did not acquire it from the minister (Mekor Chaim, subsection 8). Furthermore, removal is effective even for a thing that has not yet come into the world, and he is removing himself from the business (Pri Megadim). However, the truth is that all these acquisitions are based on the custom of the merchants and the law of the land, just as we sell merchandise that is not yet in our possession by means of a contract, as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 209, section 16, see there. And here too it is so. Therefore, he also acquires from the minister, and the non-Jew also acquires from him. And one should not cast doubt on this at all, and so we conduct ourselves regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov.