Siman 453

The sages taught in the Mishnah (35a): These are the things with which a person fulfills his obligation on Pesach regarding the obligation of matzah on the first night, as it is written, "in the evening you shall eat matzot" (Rashi): with wheat, with barley, with spelt, and with rye, and with oats. And it is simple that a kezayit from all of them combine. And even though regarding the matter of challah they only combine when kneaded together, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 324, this is because one may not separate from one species for a different species. But regarding the matter of a kezayit of matzah – they are all bread.

And so, there is no prohibition of chametz except with these five species, as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the fifth chapter: There is no prohibition on account of chametz on Pesach except for the five species of grain alone, and they are the two species of wheat, which are wheat and spelt, and the three species of barley, which are barley, oats, and rye. But the legumes, such as rice, millet, beans, and lentils, and the like—there is no prohibition of chametz in them. Rather, even if one kneaded rice and the like with boiling water, and covered it with garments until it swelled like dough that has fermented—behold, this is permitted for eating, for this is not chametz but rather decay. Thus far his words. And therefore, also regarding the matter of fulfilling one's obligation on Pesach—it is so, as it is stated: "You shall not eat chametz with it; seven days you shall eat matzot with it"—matzah made from things that can come to fermentation, a person fulfills his obligation with them; these are excluded, which do not come to fermentation but rather to decay (Gemara ibid.). And consequently, it is permitted to make a cooked dish from them.

And similarly, buckwheat which they call "grechka" or "reczka" – is not a species of grain. And similarly, corn which they call "Turkish wheat," or "kukurudza" or "kikes" – it is also a species of kitniyot. And similarly, white beans which they call "fasolies" or "beblach" – it is also a species of kitniyot. And regarding our types of groats, there are some that are absolute chametz, such as "gerstna" and "haberna," which are made from barley and oats and are ground in small mills called "zarnes." And they do not make them except after soaking them in water, and it is absolute chametz. But what they call "pearl barley," which is also from peeled barley and made in large mills called "krupernia" – by the nature of their production they do not require water, and on the contrary, water spoils them. And if so, it is like the barley itself. However, for some years now we have heard that there are those who pour water on them, and if so, it is absolute chametz. And similarly, wheat and barley upon which they placed water – it is absolute chametz, and it is forbidden to keep them on Pesach. And similarly, "gagela'ch" that were crushed in a mortar – they place water on them, and they are barley and it is absolute chametz. And know that this species called "sago" – it is absolute chametz, for it is made from wheat flour (Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 4).

And know that even though according to the law it is permitted to eat rice and all types of kitniyot on Pesach, nevertheless, our teachers and our ancestors have practiced this for many hundreds of years, and they accepted upon themselves as a prohibition not to eat rice and types of kitniyot on Pesach, because it is a known matter that many grains of cereal are found among them. Furthermore: since grain is a cooked dish, just as they cook groats of barley and of oats, and kitniyot are a cooked dish, and the masses who are not experts will come to exchange one for the other (Hagahot Maimoniyot). And also, since it is fit to make dough from types of kitniyot, like several countries that eat these corn-wheat in place of bread—the masses will not distinguish between one dough and another dough (Bach and Taz). And this prohibition, since our ancestors accepted it as a fence—by Torah law it is forbidden for us to nullify it. And those who cast doubt and are lenient in this testify about themselves that they do not possess fear of Heaven or fear of sin, and are not experts in the ways of the Torah. (The Pri Chadash brings a proof for this custom from page 40b: Rava said: Is there anyone who would permit such a thing in a place where slaves are common?)

And behold, I bring clear proof for this custom from the Yerushalmi, "Kol Sha'ah" (Chapter Two, Halacha 4), for behold, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri disagrees and says that rice is a species of grain, and one is liable for kareth for its leavening, because he holds that rice flour also reaches the state of chimutz. But the sages hold that it does not reach the state of chimutz, but rather the state of decay. And the Yerushalmi asks: Let it be tested? That is to say: Let us make a dough from rice and test whether it reaches the state of chimutz or the state of decay. And it answers: They disagree over the very essence of its testing. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that they tested it and found that it reaches the state of chimutz, and the sages hold that they tested it and found that it does not reach the state of chimutz. See there. And now, it is an a fortiori argument: for if among the great Tannaim a dispute fell regarding a matter to which the senses testify, this one saying the senses testify so and this one saying the opposite, it is an a fortiori argument, the son of a son of an a fortiori argument, that ordinary people, thousands upon thousands of small intellect, could err in this, saying that this also reaches the state of chimutz! And despite all this, the sages permitted it. And if so, the same law applies to this species of grain or that which resemble one another. And this is complete proof for the words of our holy teachers who decreed upon this, and they knew for what reason they decreed. And although there are countries that did not practice this stringency, nevertheless, all the countries of Ashkenaz, and France, and Russia, and Poland—established and accepted upon themselves and upon their descendants this good stringency, which has a reason like the essence. And one who breaks a fence, a snake shall bite him. However, they explicitly accepted that if perhaps there should be a year of famine, Heaven forbid, when the poor are hungry for bread—then all the sages of the city, and at their head the mara d'atra, permit eating kitniyot during that Pesach. And now that potatoes have become abundant—even this is not a necessity, as is known.

However, it is simple that we do not forbid the cooked food when a small amount of kitniyot fell into the cooked food. And he discards them, and eats the cooked food. And likewise, it is permitted to kindle with oils made from them, and they do not forbid if they fell into the cooked food. And the Maharil wrote not to use oil in a place where there is a concern that they will fall into the cooked food, because they crush them in a mortar in which they soak barley. But even in this there is no concern, for it was nullified before Pesach, and this is not a sharp thing (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And now we do not know of this at all.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of section 1: And so too it is permitted to keep types of kitniyot in the house. And so too it is permitted to derive benefit from them (ibid. subsection 3). And consequently, it is permitted to sell them during Chol HaMoed to a non-Jew and to profit, and so too to buy them. And so too buckwheat – it is permitted to buy and sell. But other types of groats are complete chametz, and one violates "bal yera'eh" regarding them. But grain, and wheat, and barley, and oats – it is permitted to buy and sell on Pesach, and the flour from them, one must know if water came upon them – it is forbidden, and if not – it is permitted. And there is much wheat flour that water came upon, but not rye flour which they call "korn." And the main thing is to know if water came upon them or not.

He further wrote that the seeds of anise, anise, and coriander are not types of kitniyot, and it is permitted to eat them on Pesach. Thus far his words. And we do not know what these are. And there are those who wrote that it is good not to eat anise and cumin until the last day, because it is impossible to clarify them well (ibid.). And there are those who distinguish between caraway cumin, in which there is a concern, and not in field cumin, in which there is no concern (Taz subsection 1). And one should not be overly stringent in these matters (Chok Yaakov subsection 9). And all these that we have written which do not forbid if they fell into a cooked dish—even if there is not sixty against them, it is permitted (ibid.), provided that they do not constitute the majority of the cooked dish (ibid.). And even though in a cooked dish they do not forbid, nevertheless, if they were found in a baked matzah—they forbid this matzah (Taz ibid.), and the reason will be explained in siman 460.

We learned in the third chapter of Challah: One who makes a dough from wheat and from rice, if it has the taste of grain—he fulfills his obligation with it on Pesach. The Rambam wrote this same wording in the sixth chapter, law 5. And the Ra'avad wrote that this is specifically when there is a kezayit of grain within the volume of k'dei achilat pras, and the Rashba wrote similarly. This is more logical, for if it is only because of "taste is like the substance"—even regarding prohibitions one is not lashed for this according to many of the poskim, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 98. And even if "taste is like the substance" is from the Torah, nevertheless it is not reasonable to fulfill with this the positive commandment of eating matzah. However, the Ramban and the Rosh wrote based on the Yerushalmi there, that this is so even if there is not a kezayit within the volume of k'dei achilat pras. And it appears so from the words of the Tur, for the Yerushalmi says that the wheat drags the rice along so that it has the taste of the wheat itself, and the rice is transformed to be like the wheat itself. Therefore, this law applies only to wheat and rice, and not to other species. And in the Yerushalmi there, there is a dispute regarding this: for one said until there is a majority of grain, and one said that a majority is not required. And the reasoning of "dragging" was not mentioned there, but rather at the beginning of tractate Challah. See there, for there are also variant versions. And in practice, one should be stringent. (See Pri Chadash, and his words require further study, as the Makor Chaim wrote.)

The Tur wrote in the name of our teacher Peretz, that there are those who are accustomed to select the wheat kernels one by one from the eating of a mouse. And some say they are not necessary, as it is similar to fruit juice. However, it is not similar to fruit juice, for saliva causes leavening, as we learned in a Mishnah: A person should not chew wheat and place it on his wound. And one should not be lenient. And the Tur wrote that it appears there is no concern for this at all, for it is a remote concern to say that a hard wheat kernel would leaven with the small amount of saliva in the mouth of a mouse… Furthermore: even if there are bitten ones among them – they are not even one in a thousand, and they are nullified when he grinds. And this is not nullifying a prohibition le-khatchilah, for he does not grind in order to nullify it. Thus far his words. And I wonder at his comparing the saliva of a human to the saliva of a mouse, for this is against the Mishnah in Makhshirin chapter five, where we learned: "Derivatives of water are that which emerges from the eye…, from the mouth: urine…". And we learned in the Tosefta: specifically of a human even regarding urine, but from other living creatures – it is like fruit juice. And so wrote the Rambam in the tenth chapter of Tum'at Okhalin, see there. Furthermore: for if so, you have no wheat or any types of grain in the world that have not been rendered susceptible to impurity. Rather, it is certainly because they are similar to fruit juice, and they do not render susceptible. And see siman 466.

And so wrote the Rashba in a response (siman 488), even though he did not bring this proof, and this is his wording: It stands to reason that there is no concern of chimutz in this, for they only spoke of a person chewing wheat. But regarding the biting of mice – there is no concern of chimutz in it. For if it were so – we would not find wheat that would be permitted on Pesach, for there is not a single granary from which the mice do not eat… Thus far his words. And according to this, even if there is not sixty against them – it is permitted. But according to the second reason of the Tur – sixty is required. And one should not ask that according to what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in siman 447, that dry in dry is "awakened" on Pesach – what does it avail? For it can be said that flour in flour is called "liquid in liquid," since it is not recognizable on its own. Therefore, since it was ground before Pesach – it was already nullified, and he may bake it even on Pesach itself. And all the more so when he baked before Pesach, for it was already nullified. And it is not similar to flour that became moist and dried, where we say it is "awakened" as I wrote in siman 467, for there the crumbs are present as will be explained there. And so too he does not need to check the wheat perhaps there is grain that sprouted, when we do not know that there are many of them there in a manner that there will certainly be sixty against them, because when he grinds them – they will be nullified before Pesach. And this is "liquid in liquid," as I wrote. And it is better to bake it before Pesach (see Taz subsection 2, and Magen Avraham subsection 6, and in siman 467 subsection 9). And see in siman 466.

The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: Rav Alfas wrote that one must guard the wheat with which one fulfills the obligation of matzah from the time of harvesting, so that water does not come upon them. And my lord father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that it is only necessary from the time of grinding, because then they bring them near the water, as they grind with water mills. And so he wrote in the She'iltot: One does not fulfill his obligation except with matzah that is guarded from leavening, from the time that water falls upon it. And if a non-Jew, a deaf-mute, a deranged person, or a minor brought the wheat—one does not fulfill his obligation with it. Thus far his words, meaning: if these brought it to the grinding they are disqualified, because we require "lishmah," meaning "for the sake of the matzah of the mitzvah." As it is stated in the Gemara (40a) according to Rava, who holds from the time of harvesting, for he said to those who harvest and bind the sheaves: When you turn them over—turn them for the sake of the mitzvah. And Rashi, of blessed memory, explained there that for the matzah of the mitzvah, guarding lishmah is required. Thus far his words. And it follows that anything that requires "lishmah" requires an adult Israelite, except that they disagreed: for the Rif ruled like Rava that the guarding "lishmah" is from the time of harvesting, and the Rosh holds like those who disagree with Rava, and he holds that guarding from the time of harvesting is not required.

And it is to be wondered: for in the Gemara it is only mentioned according to Rava "from the time of reaping," and for those who disagree with Rava it is from the time of kneading. For it says there explicitly that guarding of kneading is considered guarding. If so, from where do the Rosh and the Tur derive that guarding is required from the time of grinding? For this guarding is not mentioned in the Gemara at all. And one cannot say that this is not because of "lishmah" but rather due to the concern that perhaps they will fall into water, for if so, why if a non-Jew, a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor brought them is it invalid? Rather, it is certain that for the requirement to be met, "lishmah" is needed from the time of grinding. And perforce it must be said that it was clear to our teachers that certainly the guarding is from the time of grinding, since they are proximate to water. And the Shas which says "from the time of kneading" is because in their days most of them would grind with hand-mills, or a mill that goes by means of an animal, or of wind. For in several places in the Shas it is implied that water-mills were not common among them but rather hand-mills, as is explained from the end of the fifth chapter of Gittin and the beginning of Chullin, and it is also implied from Machshirin (chapter three, mishnah 5). And consequently, the approach of the water is from the time of kneading, and then the guarding is required. This is not the case when one grinds in water-mills—the guarding is required from the time of grinding.

And one should not ask: If so, why did they not bring the primary guarding from the time of kneading? For the truth is that the Tur abbreviated their words, and the Rosh concludes there in the name of the Sheiltot, and this is his wording: Alternatively, if a non-Jew, a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor kneaded the dough, they are not capable of guarding. And even though a mentally competent Israelite baked them and performed guarding for them at the time of baking, even so, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. Behold, he required guarding "lishma" from the time of grinding until after the baking.

It further seems to my humble opinion to resolve the words of our teachers who required guarding from the time of grinding: because they interpret in the Gemara that even those who disagree with Rava—nevertheless, guarding of the kneading is not considered guarding. And it is by way of rejection that they say "perhaps there was guarding from the time of kneading," but according to the truth, guarding is required prior to kneading, which is from the time of grinding. And so it is explained from the words of the Ran there, who wrote regarding the words of the Rif who requires guarding from the time of harvesting, and this is his wording: However, it is possible that even if he did not do so, but rather took wheat from the market and guarded it for the sake of matzah—he has fulfilled his obligation. And in the Gemara it is explained that guarding of the kneading—is not considered guarding. That is to say: prior to kneading is when guarding is required, but as long as he guarded the wheat before kneading—he has fulfilled the obligation. Thus far his words. And therefore the She'iltot and the Rosh say from the time of grinding.

The Ran, of blessed memory, wrote that a certain Gaon said that one who buys flour from the market in a time of pressing need—it is permitted, and he has fulfilled his obligation with it. And it implies that he holds that when we say in the Gemara that guarding from the time of kneading is not considered guarding—this is only ab initio. Thus far his words. The Tur also wrote a response of a Gaon that to buy flour from the market in a time of pressing need—it is permitted and they fulfill their obligation with it, for we do not presume a prohibition. But ab initio—it requires guarding. Thus far his words. And in my humble opinion, it appears that this Gaon interpreted in the Gemara that guarding from the time of kneading is considered guarding—according to those who disagree with Rava. And that which he wrote "in a time of pressing need" is because ab initio one requires guarding from the time of harvesting like Rava.

And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4 with brevity, and this is his wording: The wheat with which one makes the matzah of the mitzvah – it is good to guard them so that water does not fall upon them from the time of harvesting, and at least from the time of grinding. And in a case of pressing need, it is permitted to take flour from the market. Thus far his words. And there is one who wrote in this language: This is the implication of the verse "And you shall guard the matzot" – whatever guarding one is able to do, he should do. If it is not possible from the time of harvesting because he buys from the market – he should guard from the time of grinding. And if he did not find wheat to buy from the market – they guard from the time of kneading. And according to this, the Geonim do not disagree at all (Bach). And it is a simple matter that in places where they wash the wheat before the grinding – it is absolute chametz, and it is forbidden even in a case of pressing need to buy flour from the market (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And there is one who wrote that one might say it did not become chametz, and Heaven forbid to say so (see Taz, subsection 3).

And behold, in any case, all these teachers of ours hold that the essence of matzah shemurah is for the eating of the kezayit on the first night, for this is the "matzat mitzvah" that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote about. However, that which is eaten all the days of Pesach does not require shemirah at all. And so wrote the Ran, of blessed memory, and this is his wording: However, these words apply to the matzat mitzvah, but the rest of the bread that a person eats on Pesach does not require shemirah for the sake of matzah at all, but rather that he must know with certainty that it did not come to a state of chimutz, as it was taught: Regarding the flours and doughs of a non-Jew, a person may fill his stomach with them, such as if he kneaded in our presence, etc. Thus far his words. And so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also in his great work, and this is his wording: And that which we require shemirah is specifically for the matzat mitzvah, but the rest of the matzah, etc., does not require shemirah at all, etc. Thus far his words. And this is what Rashi explained in Gittin (10a, starting with "And a person fulfills"), regarding the matzah of a Kutite: The obligation of the first night is that he is required to eat matzah that is guarded, and even if we know regarding it that it did not leaven, he does not fulfill his obligation with it unless he performed shemirah for it for the sake of the obligation of matzah, as it is written (Exodus 12:17), "And you shall guard the matzot." Thus far his words. And according to this, this shemirah is "lishmah," like the "lishmah" that is in all the mitzvot, as Rava said: Turn it for the sake of the mitzvah, and as Rashi explained there. And therefore, it is disqualified if done by a Kutite, a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, for they are not capable of "lishmah." And so he wrote in the great Or Zarua (Siman 249), and this is his wording: It implies explicitly that a person does not fulfill his obligation even with complete matzah unless he baked it for the sake of the obligation of matzah, etc. And an ordinary Israelite is considered as "lishmah," for regarding consecrated offerings we require slaughtering "lishmah," and we hold that "ordinary" is as "lishmah," etc. Thus far his words.

And in this path followed all the poskim, early and later. According to this, there is no matter at all regarding the eating of shemurah all the days of Pesach, for guarding is only for the first night, as was written by one of the great later authorities (Pri Chadash in siman 496, cited in Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 8), and this is his wording: Those who are accustomed to eat matzah all of Pesach from the time of harvest—it is not called a "fence," but rather it is an extra matter that he does. And if he wishes to eat from matzah that is not shemurah from the time of harvest all the days of Pesach, except for the first night—he does not require hatarah. Thus far his words. And there are those who wrote that he requires hatarah (see there in Sha'arei Teshuva).

In my humble opinion, it is not so. For it is true that this is the approach of Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, and other early authorities. However, the approach of the Rif and the Rambam is not so, and according to them, the obligation is to eat matzah shemurah throughout all the days of Pesach. For they do not interpret "guarding" as being for the sake of the mitzvah, but rather "guarding from chametz," and they do not have the version in the Gemara where Rava said to them "turn them for the sake of the mitzvah," but rather "for the sake of the matzah." For such is the version in the Rif, and this is the wording of the Rif there: A person must guard the flour of Pesach from the time of reaping, as it is written, "And you shall guard the matzot" (and this verse refers to all seven days, see there). And Rava said to those who were turning the sheaves: When you turn them, turn them for the sake of the matzah. That is to say: be careful with them so that water does not come upon them. Thus far his words. Behold, he did not mention the first night, and he had the version "for the sake of the matzah" and not "for the sake of the mitzvah." And he explained explicitly "that is to say..."—so that you should not err that there is some "for its sake" here, but rather the guarding is from water and from leavening. And this applies to all the days of Pesach.

The Rambam also in chapter five, law 8, explained this explicitly, and this is his wording: A cooked dish that was cooked... and if they did not split..., for grain that did not split is not absolute chametz from the Torah. It is only from the words of the scribes, because it is said, "And you shall guard the matzot," meaning: be careful with the matzah and guard it from any aspect of leavening. Therefore the sages said: a person must be careful with grain that he eats from on Pesach, that water should not come upon it after it was harvested, so that there will be no aspect of leavening in it. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that the guarding is for all the days of Pesach equally, for the guarding is from leavening and not because of the matter of "for its sake" of the mitzvah. Therefore, the Rif and the Rambam omitted that which was said regarding the doughs of Cuthites, that a person may fill his stomach with them. Many have labored over this, but the matter is simple: they rejected this from the halacha because of that which Rava said, that guarding is required for all matzah on Pesach from the time of harvesting, to guard them so they do not leaven. (However, since this is only rabbinic, therefore the Rif and the Rambam wrote at the end of the Seder that if it is impossible to obtain shemurah for all the days of Pesach—at the very least he should obtain it for the first kezayit to eat matzah properly according to the enactment of the sages, see there. But when he is able to obtain it—he is obligated to eat shemurah all the days of Pesach.)

And I say that this is also the opinion of Rav Hai Gaon which the Rosh brought there, and this is his wording: Rav Hai Gaon, of blessed memory, wrote: Matzah that a non-Jew baked before an Israelite by means of guarding according to its requirement—it is permitted for an Israelite to eat it. And the Rosh wrote regarding this that the "masters of deeds" are stringent upon themselves like the Geonim who are stringent, and they knead and bake by themselves. Thus far his words. And they have already exerted themselves over the words of the Gaon, for since it requires "lishmah"—how is it permitted in such a case? However, the matter is clear that he holds that there is no issue of "lishmah" here at all, but rather guarding from chametz, and therefore there is no difference who the performer is. (And there is great wonder at the Tur, who wrote in the name of the Rif that one must guard wheat with which one fulfills the obligation of matzah....—where did he see in the Rif "wheat with which one fulfills the obligation of matzah"? For the Rif is referring to all the days of Pesach? Rather, because the matter was simple in his eyes that it is only regarding the obligation of the first night, he therefore wrote so also regarding the words of the Ran; it requires some study. However, the Maggid Mishneh wrote, and this is his wording: And there is not mentioned in the Halakhot nor in the words of our teacher any distinction between the matzah of the first night and the matzah that a person eats during the rest of the days of Pesach. Thus far his words, and he exerted himself in this, and according to what I have written the matters are explained. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

It emerges that for the practical halacha: one who wishes to fulfill the obligation of matzah on Pesach properly—must eat shemurah, where the wheat was guarded from the time of harvesting for all the days of Pesach, to fulfill the opinion of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Gaon. Aside from this, one should harvest a portion "lishmah," for the sake of the mitzvah of matzah for the first night, and grind it "lishmah," and knead it and bake it—all "lishmah" by an adult Israelite. For this is the system of Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, most of the early authorities, the She'iltot, and the Bahag. However, there are poskim who rule like Rava, that it is specifically from the time of harvesting. And there are poskim who rule like those who disagree, that it is sufficient from the time of grinding until after the baking. And there are poskim that it is sufficient from kneading onwards, as we have explained regarding this with the help of Heaven. (And it seems to me that also in the Mechilta, Bo, parashah 9, there is this dispute. For it says there, "And you shall guard the matzot"—guard it before you bring it to a state of disqualification. From here they said: if it swelled, slap it with cold water. [This is like the Rif and the Rambam, that the guarding is because of chametz.] Rabbi Yoshiyah says: Do not read it so, but rather "And you shall guard the mitzvot..." [This is like Rashi and Tosafot.] And that which it says afterward, "Just as one does not allow the matzah to become leavened, so too one does not allow the mitzvah to become leavened, but rather if a mitzvah comes to your hand, perform it immediately"—this is a further homily, see there.)

In the time of the Gemara, they were expert in tempering the wheat, that is to say, washing them in water and guarding them so that they would not become chametz. However, already in the days of the Savoraic rabbis, they sent from the academy that we are not expert in tempering, and it is forbidden for us to temper, whether wheat or barley. For barley is forbidden even by the law of the Gemara, as they are softer than wheat and hasten to become chametz. Therefore, all Israel have accustomed to bake matzah only from wheat, because they are hard and the flour is hard, and the dough does not stick so much. And nowadays, wheat upon which water has fallen—we hold them to be absolute chametz. And all the more so other types of grain, such as rye which is called korn, and barley, and oats.

Sacks in which flour is placed throughout the year, and even if flour was placed in them only once, and one wishes to wash them and place Passover flour in them—one must undo all their stitching before washing, including at the edges. Also, if there are patches on them—one must remove them before washing, and wash them very thoroughly, and afterwards sew them and replace the patches. Certainly, it is better to make new ones when possible, for indeed there is one who wishes to forbid them even by means of washing and undoing, because the flour adheres to them strongly (Taz, subsection 5). However, the halacha is not so, nor is the custom so, for they rub them by hand very thoroughly (Chayei Adam, subsection 20). Nevertheless, in any event, one must be very careful in their washing. And if one did not undo the stitching—even ex post facto the washing is not effective. And it is simple that the same law applies when they contained Passover flour this year, and for the following year one wishes to wash them, that one must undo the stitching as a requirement.

When transporting the sacks from the mill on the back of an animal—not in a wagon—one must be careful not to place them directly on the body of the animal. Rather, one should place a saddle, or a thick hide, or a thick garment under the sack. For if not so, the sack will become moistened from the sweat of the animal. And even though the sweat of an animal is perhaps not like water, as is proven from tractate Machshirin chapter six, nevertheless one should not be lenient. And even if we compare this to fruit juice, behold, afterwards when water comes upon them during kneading, it will be fruit juice with water and it hastens leavening, as I wrote in siman 462. And although it could be said that this sweat, since it has dried by the night, does not become reawakened at the time of kneading, and there is no fruit juice with water here; and of necessity one must say so, for if not so, why did the Tur permit in the name of our teacher Peretz regarding the bite of mice on the grounds of fruit juice as I wrote there, for behold at the time of kneading there will be fruit juice with water; rather, perforce one must say as I wrote that it has already dried—nevertheless, it is forbidden to do so ab initio. And for us this is not relevant at all, for behold we transport in a wagon. One must only be very careful, since usually at that time there are snows and rains, to spread mats or sacks in the wagon under the sacks of the Pesach flour, and also above the sacks to cover them well. And especially now that they transport over long distances on the railroads, and there are several unloadings and loadings—to be very, very careful in covering the sacks. And one who is not careful in this causes the public to stumble, and the iniquities of the public are suspended upon him, and may his iniquities be upon his bones. And one who is careful in this shall be blessed from Heaven (see Chayei Adam, subsection 22).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: And so too one should be careful ab initio not to place many sacks with flour one upon the other in a place where it is possible. Thus far his words. And behold, now this is impossible in any manner. And in truth there is no concern in this, for behold the reason for the stringency is that from the warmth of lying one upon the other, and if one kneads immediately—they will become warm and come to a state of chimutz (as the Chayei Adam wrote in subsection 23). And with us, when they bring the sacks, days will yet pass until the time of kneading. And besides this, we see through the senses that in our sacks, where the flour is placed there with strength and the sacks are smooth, there is no warmth there; and besides this, from the time of taking the flour to the bakery many hours will pass. Therefore, we do not have to be careful in this at all.

It is customary to pick the millstones, because sometimes they placed grain in them that was soaked for fine flour. It is customary that the first flour ground after the picking is kept until after the festival. Men of action are accustomed to go themselves to the location of the millstones, for the mitzvah is greater when performed by oneself than by one's agent, and they see for themselves the grinding of their flour. If it is impossible for him to go himself, they should see to it at any rate that some ben Torah and God-fearing person is present at the time of the grinding. There is one who wrote that when they grind soaked grain in the millstones, they should not grind for Pesach in that same house even in a different millstone, because the dust flies from one to the other, and a minor cannot guard the millstones (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). If there is no dust, it is permitted. We have already written in the previous siman several laws and cautions regarding millstones, and in general it is impossible to explain everything in writing, especially in these days of ours when several machines have been newly invented for millstones. Rather, one who is expert in them must guard all the places from which leavening could come, whether from the side of moisture, or from the side of the dough that collects there, or from the side of the heat. Let a wise man hear and increase in learning. All of this requires the supervision of a talmid chacham and a God-fearing person.

One must grind the wheat a day or two before the kneading, so that the flour may cool. And some say three days, and some say that staying overnight is sufficient. And the primary view is that one requires twenty-four hours, no less (see Magen Avraham subsection 23 and Chok Yaakov subsection 26). And initially one requires two days of twenty-four hours (ibid.), but after the fact it does not invalidate. However, if they ground on Erev Pesach, some say that it is forbidden even after the fact to knead on the day of Erev Pesach, because the flour at the time of grinding is boiling, and it heats the water, and the dough is prone to become chametz. And some wrote that even this, after the fact, does not invalidate, because they sift the flour before kneading and it cools (ibid. subsection 14). And know that from the words of the poskim it is explicitly implied that heating without water does not lead to chametz. And according to this, one must say that which is found in the Yerushalmi, third chapter, end of halacha 1, that Rabbi Abbahu would command the grinders not to place these sacks upon those, so that they should not boil and become chametz—the intention is not through the boiling itself, but rather through the boiling and the water that follows it. (And so it is explained from the words of the Agur which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited. And see Magen Avraham subsection 15.)