Siman 466

Just as water leads to chimutz, and likewise dew, hail, frost, and ice when they have melted and become water, so too the derivatives of water are like water. And in Tractate Machshirin (chapter six) we learned: Derivatives of water—that which emerges from the eye, from the ear, from the nose, from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of minors. That is to say: for sometimes it also emerges from the rectum like water. And it was taught in the Tosefta that urine specifically of a human [is like water], and so the Rambam ruled in the tenth chapter of Tum'at Ochlin. And it appears to me that certainly that which emerges from the eye, from the ear, from the nose, and from the mouth is specifically of a human, as I wrote above in siman 453, section 10, see there. For behold, we see that the urine of an animal is literally like water, and despite all this, it is not like water; certainly these other things. Furthermore, in the Tosefta of Shabbat (chapter nine) it is stated: From where do we know that tears of the eye are a liquid? As it is said: "And You gave them tears to drink in large measure." From where do we know that fluid of the nose is a liquid? As it is said: "And our eyelids gush with water," see there. And this is written regarding a human, and not regarding an animal. And I have seen several who did not write so, but in my humble opinion it appears as I have written (see the HaGra"z section 1). However, the excrement of a human and of all living creatures, and human sweat, and milk, and fat, and suet, and gall—all of them are like fruit juice, and they do not cause chimutz. And together with water—they hasten chimutz, and one must bake immediately. And if they fell upon the flour and were dried—it is nothing, and it is not like fruit juice with water. And blood is also like fruit juice. But one who spits blood, if he sucked it with his teeth as is the way of those who spit—it is like fruit juice with water, because it is impossible without traces of saliva, just as we say regarding the spitting of chalitzah. (And nevertheless, it requires further study if one may learn from Machshirin, for behold, there milk renders susceptible to tum'ah. And also regarding blood there are distinctions, see there. But here it is fruit juice; and likewise honey and oil render susceptible, yet here they are fruit juice. Rather, it is those which the Tanna called by the name "derivatives of water," see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And since saliva causes leavening, therefore the sages taught in the Mishnah (39b): A person may not chew wheat and place it on his wound, because they leaven. But to chew them and swallow them—there is one who says it is permitted, since they do not leaven immediately (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And it appears to me that it is forbidden, for it is impossible that something will not remain between the teeth, as we say at the end of the seventh chapter of Chullin, and that something will become chametz. And regarding a wound, even if the bandage was placed before Pesach—one must remove it on Erev Pesach at the sixth hour, if it has not spoiled and is fit for the consumption of a dog. And it is obvious that all this is regarding an illness that is not life-threatening. But for a dangerously ill person—even the eating of chametz is permitted, for nothing stands before the saving of lives.

And know: that which we learned in the Mishnah that it is forbidden to chew wheat to place upon one's wound—this refers to his own wheat, and when it leavens he will violate "it shall not be seen." However, with the chametz of a non-Jew—it is permitted to place it upon his wound, for even though he derives benefit from the chametz that heals, nevertheless this is not in the manner of its normal benefit and is permitted, as the Rambam wrote in the fifth chapter of Yesodei HaTorah, and this is his wording: In what case are these things said, that one may not be healed by forbidden things? At a time when they are in the manner of their normal benefit, such as if they feed him creeping things and swarming things, or chametz on Pesach. But not in the manner of their normal benefit, such as if they make for him a bandage or a plaster from chametz—it is permitted for a sick person. Thus far his words, and perforce his intention is for a sick person whose life is not in danger, for if his life were in danger—behold it is permitted and an obligation to feed him chametz for healing (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And therefore one may feed chametz to nursing infants, if they are compelled to do so because of danger.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: One who gives barley to his animal and finds saliva upon them—he must remove it. For they hold that the saliva of an animal causes leavening. And specifically when he finds saliva upon them. But in an ordinary case—there is no concern, for at the time of giving the barley—he nullified them and renounced ownership of them of his own volition, and this is not like his own chametz. Nevertheless, when he sees it explicitly—one may not rely on this. (And this is the intention of the Rema, and as the Chayei Adam wrote in subsection 4. And the Magen Avraham in subsection 3 wondered about him for no reason.) Nevertheless, there are those who are stringent to remove everything remaining from the animal, even though he does not see anything upon it. And there are those who are meticulous to give to them a little at a time, so that they do not leave anything over.

Sweat of houses, pits, ditches, and caves – we learned in Makhshirin (beginning of chapter two) that it does not render susceptible to impurity, and this is not like water. According to this, a sack full of flour that became moistened from the sweat of a house or a wall – does not cause leavening. This is the opinion of the Rosh (chapter two, siman 22), and so wrote the Hagahot Maimoniyot in chapter five. However, the Rokeach forbids it, and wrote that it is not similar to rendering susceptible to impurity, and this is like what I wrote at the end of section 1. And the Rosh compares it to the sweat of a person, which does not cause leavening. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 5, who wrote that it requires further study because, on the contrary, the majority forbid it, see there. And I do not know who they are, for behold the Mishnah supports those who permit it. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did well in writing the opinion of those who permit it as the primary ruling. And also what he wrote, that the wall sweats due to the power of the water, see there – it is difficult, for if so, why does it not render susceptible to impurity? But it can be said that we see regarding the sweat of houses, that when the weather is humid – they sweat more, and then it is certainly due to the power of the rains. Therefore, during the time of Pesach, which is a time of rains and the melting of snows, when the air is humid – it is possible that it certainly causes leavening. And the Rosh, who was in Spain, where it is then the summer season – was lenient in this. But in our northern countries, it seems that it is certainly forbidden. Examine it and you will find it light.) (Sweat of meat – is like water.)

Flour upon which dripping water fell all day, when it descends continuously drop after drop—it does not become chametz, for the dripping itself does not allow it to become chametz. However, when there is an interruption between drop and drop—it becomes chametz. Therefore, when there is a slight doubt whether the dripping descends continuously or not—it is forbidden. And even when it descends continuously—one must bake it immediately, for if one leaves it for a short time—it hastens to become chametz. And when it does not drip continuously—all the flour is forbidden, even that which is not seen to be soaked in water, because the flour absorbs and it is not discernible. And behold, in our days we have not heard this law ruled in practice, for who can testify that it was drop after drop? (See Taz, subsection 5.)

And behold, this law that we have written is in the Gemara (39b) in a Baraita: Flour into which dripping water fell all day long – it does not become chametz, provided that it is drop after drop. The Rambam in the fifth chapter, law 10, wrote: Grain upon which dripping water fell, as long as it is continuous drop after drop, even all day long – it does not come to the state of chametz. But when it stops, if it remained for the required duration – it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And I am wondered: what benefit is there in grain for drop after drop? For until they grind it and knead it, it will become chametz. And I saw one who wrote that it is necessary to grind it immediately (the Ha-Gra"z section 16). And it is a wonder: granted that at the time of grinding it will not become chametz because of the engagement, nevertheless after the grinding until the kneading – it will become chametz?! And if we say to knead immediately, behold immediately after the grinding it is forbidden to knead, as is explained at the end of siman 453. Therefore it is clear to me that the intention of the Rambam is also regarding flour. And his way throughout the chapter there is to call flour "grain," as he wrote there previously: These five species of grain, if one kneaded them with fruit juice..., one must be careful with the grain that one eats on Pesach... – and the intention is regarding the flour from the grain. And here too it is so.

The Rosh wrote (ibid.) in the name of the Rokeach: If water fell onto flour, or the sack became damp—one should sift the flour, and the remainder is permitted. The Rosh challenged him, and this is his wording: For it is a great leniency to do so during Pesach when chametz is prohibited in any amount, because perhaps a minute amount of chametz will pass through the sieve with the flour. And I have seen those who rule in practice that one should grasp with his hand the entire damp area of the sack until he empties all the flour in the sack. Thus far his words, and the Tur cited him. And it is clear that he was only stringent during Pesach, but before Pesach it is permitted to sift, because it will be nullified before Pesach. And if it is because of "returning and awakening"—behold the Rosh and the Tur ruled in siman 447 that we do not say "returning and awakening." And they also do not distinguish between liquid and dry, as I have written there. And also in the Mordechai, chapter "Kol Sha'ah," it is brought so, that on Pesach it is forbidden when it has dried, see there. But before Pesach he also holds that it does not return and awaken.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 447 also ruled that it does not return and awaken, only that he wrote that there are those who disagree, see there. And the primary view he holds for the halacha is that it does not return and awaken, whether in a liquid or in a dry substance. Our teacher, the Rema, distinguishes there in this matter, but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, does not hold so. And there we explained that such is the primary view for the halacha. Our teacher, the Rema, also only wrote so because of the custom, but as for the din, we explained there that the primary view is that it does not return and awaken.

According to this, one must understand the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4, who wrote: If water fell upon flour, or the sack became damp—one should grasp with his hand every damp place in the sack until he empties all the flour in the sack. And if it is impossible to do so (for example, if it became damp in many places)—he should sift the flour, and the remainder is permitted. And specifically as long as it is damp. But if the dampness dried—sifting is of no avail, for it crumbles and mixes with the rest. And it is forbidden to eat it on Pesach; rather, he should sift it and keep it until after Pesach. And if it dried on Pesach—it is forbidden to keep it. Thus far his words, which imply that he is dealing with before Pesach. And it is difficult: for before Pesach, why do we care, for do we not say "it returns and awakens"? (And it is a strained explanation to say that he wrote according to the "there is one who forbids" in siman 447. For if so, he should have explained it so, since he adopted the opinion of those who permit as the primary view there.)

In my humble opinion, this is the explanation: Certainly, if he wishes to bake it before Pesach, we do not care, for since it was already mixed and kneaded together—we do not say "it returns and is awakened." Rather, his intention is if he wishes to bake on Pesach, for then certainly even if it does not return and awaken, since on Pesach the crumb stands on its own—it is like dry in liquid, where the dry stands on its own, and he nullifies it on Pesach in sixty. And this is obvious that it is forbidden, for chametz on Pesach is forbidden in any amount. But if he bakes before Pesach—it is permitted in any case, even if the moisture dried up, since it does not return and awaken, and it was already mixed and nullified. (And so one must say is the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 9, who wrote based on the reason of "returns and is awakened," see there. And that is when he bakes on Pesach. And so it appears the HaGr"z understood in section 9, see there carefully. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And according to this, it appears in my humble opinion clear, that even though we are stringent like the words of our teacher, the Rema, that regarding dry within dry we say "it returns and is awakened," nevertheless, if it occurred that the moisture dried and they sifted everything before Pesach, and it was baked before Pesach – it is possible to permit it in a case of great loss, since the primary law is that it does not return and awaken, as I wrote in siman 447. And so I saw written by one of the great authorities (the HaGr"z at the end of section 10), and this is his wording: Therefore, if one baked before Pesach – it is permitted. And one may rely on their words in a time of pressing need..., and nevertheless one should be stringent, and take from the flour before Pesach and eat, in order to attribute the crumbs to that which he already ate. Thus far his words, meaning: to take from the matzot that he baked and eat a little before Pesach. (And in section 15 it will be explained that even according to the Rema it is permitted.)

And according to this, for the practical halacha it is as follows: If the sack became moist in one place – he should hold this place with his hand until he empties all the flour. Nevertheless, he should sift it afterward (Magen Avraham subsection 6 and Taz). And it is nothing more than a mere stringency. And this remedy of holding the moist place is effective even when the moist place has dried, for since he removes the entire place where there is a doubt – what further concern do we have in this (Taz subsection 4)? And if there are several moist places in the sack, such that it is impossible to hold this moist place in his hand, in this there is a distinction between moist and dry. For if the moist places are still moist – he should sift all the flour that is in the sack, and automatically the moist flour will be like dough and remain on top (Magen Avraham subsection 8). And if all the flour was sifted – this is a sign that the moisture only took hold of the sack from the outside, and the moisture did not enter the flour at all, and therefore all the flour was sifted. And it appears to me that when he sifts – he is forbidden to sift the flour with his hand inside the sieve, for in such a case it is possible that he will crush the moist flour, and it will exit through the holes of the sieve. Rather, he should shake the sieve with his hands, and then necessarily the stuck moist flour will not exit from the holes of the sieve.

And this is regarding moist [flour], for in such a case even on Pesach itself it is permitted. Only on Yom Tov, if he does not need all of the flour—he should not sift it himself, because this is not a necessity of Yom Tov. Rather, he should sift it by means of a non-Jew, in order to remove the chametz if there is any there. And even though sifting is a Torah-prohibited labor, and speaking to a non-Jew is a shevut, here, since there is no waste matter in this—it is not a primary category of labor (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And likewise, if it has not yet become chametz, but rather that when it lingers it will become chametz—he may give the flour to the non-Jew as a gift while it has not yet become chametz, and he will not violate "it shall not be seen" (ibid.). And behold, for us, we do not bake on Yom Tov, and everyone bakes before Yom Tov, and this law is not necessary for us.

But when one of the locations has dried, for in such a case it is impossible to take hold of it because there are many locations in the sack that were moistened, and also sifting is of no use, for the moistened flour that dried and crumbled will exit through the holes of the sieve—therefore, there is no remedy for this flour according to the one who holds that it "returns and is awakened" on Pesach. But according to the primary law that it does not "return and be awakened"—it is permitted when he kneads and bakes before Pesach. And therefore, even according to our teacher, the Rema, that regarding a liquid we do not say "it returns and is awakened" and regarding a dry substance we do say it—it is also permitted ab initio to bake before Pesach, for since it was mixed and kneaded together—it is as a liquid in a liquid, and it is nullified before Pesach, as I wrote in siman 447 that flour in flour is as a liquid in a liquid. But to bake on Pesach—it is forbidden even if we do not say "it returns and is awakened," because it is actual chametz on Pesach, as I wrote in section 11. And according to this, what we wrote in section 12 that in a case where it dried and was baked before Pesach the permission is only in a case of great loss because of the words of our teacher, the Rema—it is not so. For even according to his words it is permitted ab initio, for this is like a liquid in a liquid. And the poskim who wrote to forbid when it has dried—this is regarding baking on Pesach, or according to those who hold that even with a liquid in a liquid we say "it returns and is awakened." But for us, according to the ruling of our teacher, the Rema—it is permitted ab initio (so it appears in my humble opinion).

If mice ate from flour, there is one who wrote that he should take that place and its surroundings well, and the remainder he shall sift and eat on Pesach. For it is no worse than water that fell upon flour in one place, and regarding this even on Pesach it is permitted, as with water in one place (Taz, subsection 4). And there is one who challenged this, for these mice are wicked, and they go throughout the entire sack and eat. And all the more so if the flour is placed in a barrel, for they go through all of it. And it is not similar to flour that became moistened in one place (Magen Avraham, end of subsection 9). And in my humble opinion, this is not a challenge, for even if they went through all the flour—it is still not clear to us that they dripped saliva there, and it would be a doubt regarding a rabbinic law, and we should not be so stringent. And regarding the essence of the matter, there is reason to doubt if its saliva causes leavening, according to what we wrote in section 1. Therefore, we need not be concerned except for the place where our eyes see that the mice ate there.

And there is one who wrote in this language: Mice that ate from flour, if it dried before Pesach – he should sift it and guard it until after Pesach. And if it is found so on Pesach – everything is forbidden for benefit. And if the sack is resting in its place without movement, and the flour was not mixed – then he should grasp with his hand the place of the bite, and tie there beneath the bite with a bit of flour, and shake out all the flour in the sack and sift it, and it is permitted to keep it but forbidden to eat it on Pesach. And all this is when it appears that the mouse ate some of the flour. But if they only bit the sack, and there is a doubt whether they ate from the flour or not, even if it is found on Pesach – it is permitted to keep it… (Magen Avraham subsection 9 in the name of the Bach). And he went to great lengths to be stringent with excessive stringencies. And this is good to be stringent for oneself, but not to instruct others.

The primary ruling is as one of the great authorities wrote (the Maharal of Lublin in the Magen Avraham there), and this is his wording: Regarding sacks that were bitten by the eating of mice and they sifted it, and there is a concern lest the places dried out, and it crumbled and became mixed into the flour… they should take for themselves other flour that was guarded for the first two nights, and that flour they should bake before Pesach. And one should not be stringent regarding it, and it is permitted for all the days of Pesach. Thus far his words. And this is similar to the first opinion, except that he was stringent regarding the matter of the kezayit of matzah on the first two nights. And so one should instruct.