Siman 467

Wheat that was submerged in a river or upon which water fell, and the leavening is not evident in them—for if the leavening were evident, we would have no concern that a Jew might purchase from them on Pesach since he sees the leavening, and even though in a time of pressing need one may purchase flour from the market, this is not common. However, since the leavening is not evident, there is then a concern that the Jew will purchase from them for Pesach when he sells the wheat to a non-Jew; and if we tell him to keep them until after Pesach, he will surely violate "it shall not be seen," and he does not need to eat them so much—and for this the sages said (40b) that he sells it to a Jew, and informs him that they are leavened, and he shall eat them before Pesach or sell them to a non-Jew a little to each one, in an amount that he will eat them before Pesach. And there is no concern that he might go back and sell them to a Jew, for even if he sells them to a Jew, they will surely be finished before Pesach. And there are those who are stringent that even to a Jew he should not sell except a little at a time, in an amount that they will be finished before Pesach. But a large amount—no, even when informing him that he should eat them before Pesach, lest it lead to a stumbling block (Bach in the name of the Rashal, and see Tatz). And now that we are accustomed to sell chametz, if such an incident occurred—he should not sell them at all before Pesach, but rather sells them with his chametz, and sells them after Pesach. And know that if such an incident occurred with a non-Jew, that his wheat fell into water or water fell upon them, and there is a great concern that he will sell them to a Jew for Pesach—it is necessary to announce in the synagogue and in the beit midrash that they should not purchase for Pesach from this wheat. And even though regarding a Jew in such a case we do not rely on announcements, since we required that he sell them a little at a time before Pesach (see Magen Avraham subsection 1), nevertheless regarding a non-Jew it is necessary to do so.

And there is a question regarding this: How do you find this law? For the sign of leavening in wheat is when they have split, and if so, either way: if they have split—behold, an Israelite may not purchase them for Pesach. And if they have not split—behold, they are not chametz. And the answer to this was written by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 2, that these wheat kernels that were submerged or upon which water fell, since they remain at rest—they come to leavening even without splitting. For even though regarding soaking—it is stated in the Gemara that if they have not split they are permitted, this is because one is occupied with them to soak them, and the occupation prevents them from leavening. But without occupation, as is the case here—they leaven even without splitting (Taz, subsection 3). And there are those who distinguish between wheat and barley: that wheat, which even without this are like they are split, do not require splitting, which is not the case with barley (Ran in the name of the Ra'ah). And there are those who distinguish between a heavy dripping and a slight dripping, and in a heavy dripping they do not need to split (Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of the Re'em). And in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch they wrote without specification like the first opinion. And so it is implied from the Rif and the Rambam, that the reason is because they remain at rest.

And according to this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2, that therefore one must be careful that water or dripping rain does not come upon the wheat, for then even if they did not split—they are forbidden. Thus far his words. And one should not ask that according to this, how do we buy wheat from a non-Jew in a year where there is rain at the time of the harvest? And in our countries, the falling of rain during the harvest time is very common. And it is not similar to rain that fell on heaps, which will be explained that we are not concerned, for there the reason is because we say that the rain did not enter inside, as will be explained. And this applies to large heaps. But at the time of the harvest, when it is known that they are scattered little by little across the field, and they leave them for a long time until they set up heaps—is it not obvious that the rain dominates each and every stalk? For it can be said that certainly if we know that these wheat grains had rain fall upon them during their harvest—it is certainly forbidden to take from them for Pesach. However, in an ordinary case—we do not presume a flaw, because the vast majority do not harvest on a stormy day, even the non-Jews, due to the spoiling of the produce. And they strive to harvest when the sun shines, and then even if the rain falls, they stop harvesting until the rain passes. And the small amount that was harvested—they bring them into the granary or to another place. And therefore we are not concerned in an ordinary case, for it is certain that even during a rainy time—there is much time when the rain does not fall, and in this time they harvest. This is not the case with heaps that stand for a long time in the field—there is a concern. And therefore we need the reasons that will be explained.

He further wrote: Grain that was placed in an attic, and rain fell through the roof in several places and they became moistened – those that were moistened are forbidden. But the other places – it is permitted to keep them based on a double doubt: perhaps rain did not fall upon them, and if you should say it did fall – perhaps they did not become chametz. But to eat them on Pesach – it is forbidden, and a double doubt is not effective. Thus far his words. And even though a double doubt is effective everywhere, it seems to me that his reason is because the second doubt is not a complete doubt, for it is more likely that through rain they will become chametz, and only regarding keeping them which is rabbinic, since he nullified on the night of the fourteenth – we consider it a double doubt, but not for eating which is from the Torah. And according to this we would say that this law is only before Pesach, but during Pesach – for the previous nullification is not effective. And the commentators wrote that even for eating the double doubt is effective, and only because there is no loss in this – therefore he was stringent. But when there is a loss – it is permitted even for eating (Taz subsection 4 and Chok Yaakov subsection 10). And in my humble opinion it appears as I have written. And if a little snow or water fell on a pile of grain – he should scrape away the upper ones, and the rest is permitted for eating (Tur siman 466), for certainly they only dominated the upper ones. (And regarding the law of the Rema, the Beit Yosef brought in the name of the Agur that Re'em and Riva were stringent, and Ra'avyah permitted by means of eating some of them before Pesach, and to eat them on Pesach because of a double doubt, see there. And behold, since the Rema did not mention eating some of them before Pesach – learn from this that he ruled like Re'em and Riva. And only to keep them did he permit for the reason that I wrote. And this is proof for our words, and examine and you will find it simple.)

An incident occurred regarding an Israelite who bought wheat from a non-Jew, and another Israelite came and also requested of him that he sell him wheat, and he said, "I have no wheat, for the first Jew was my friend and I sold him the wheat that I washed for my household needs, and out of my love for him I sold it to him." The Israelite does not need to be concerned for this, for he is not believed in what he said after they left his possession, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 16. However, if he is believed by him—it is certainly forbidden (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And in my humble opinion, it seems proper to be stringent in any case, because this is like one who speaks in passing, for who forced him to say that he washed them? And even though it is possible he did so for the sake of boasting, to make heard how much he loves him, nevertheless, it is difficult to be lenient in a matter of chametz in such a case (so it seems in my humble opinion).

Sour wheat that became mixed with kosher wheat, if the sour ones are not recognizable—their law is like the law of dry in dry which is nullified by a majority, and it is permitted to keep them until after Pesach. But if they are recognizable—it is forbidden to keep them, for nullification does not apply to a thing that is recognizable on its own. And if he wishes to grind them before Pesach, and add to them until sixty—he may do so, for before Pesach it is nullified in sixty. And it does not reawaken, for flour in flour is considered liquid in liquid, as we ruled in siman 447 that it does not reawaken. And he may also bake them on Pesach, since they were already nullified. And this is not like nullifying a prohibition le-khatchilah, for before Pesach there is no prohibition here. But if he did not grind them before Pesach, and comes to grind them on Pesach, even if they are not recognizable on their own—it is forbidden, for this is dry in dry, and it reawakens according to the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, there, that in dry it reawakens. And even if some of them were eaten before Pesach—it is also forbidden, for in any case there is certainly a mashehu of chametz here. (All this I learned from the Magen Avraham, subsection 4, see there. And regarding what he wrote that if dry was mixed with dry on Pesach, and one of them was eaten it is permitted, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 109, see there. And it requires further study if we say so regarding a prohibition of a mashehu, and see Mekor Chaim subsection 9. And one should be stringent.)

Wheat that arrived in a ship, if they are dry and hard and their appearance has not changed—we do not establish a presumption of prohibition, and they are permitted. But if they are soft, or their appearance has changed—it is forbidden to eat from them on Pesach. However, regarding sequestering them, it appears there is no concern. But the Tur wrote in the name of the Ba'ag: Wheat that arrived in a ship, if they are damp or if their appearance has changed—it is certain that water reached them, and it is forbidden to sequester them. Thus far his words. And it appears in my humble opinion specifically if they are damp, or if their appearance has changed significantly. But if they are not damp but merely soft, and likewise their appearance has not changed significantly—there is no concern regarding sequestering them. Nevertheless, in practice, it requires further study. And if it is known that water came upon them, then even if they have not changed at all and they are hard—they are forbidden for eating. And regarding sequestering them, it is possible that it is permitted, since they are hard and have not changed at all.

In a year where rains fell at the time of harvest upon the heaps in the fields, until some of the stalks on top of the heaps were sprouting, nevertheless, one need not be concerned regarding the wheat of that year to say that the majority of them have become chametz. For if so, we would never eat matzah, as there is no year in which rain does not fall upon the heaps. Rather, by Torah law we follow the majority, and the majority do not become chametz (Rashba in a responsum, siman 102). And even regarding those heaps that we saw rain fall upon them—we rely on them to be lenient, for perhaps the water only entered the upper stalks, but not those in the middle of the heap. And so the matter is known and visible to the eye. And even if they did enter—perhaps they did not have sufficient time to become chametz (ibid.). And the primary basis for the permission is because it is certainly so, since it is visible to the eye that the leavening did not reach there, as they do not have sprouts upon them.

Therefore, wheat in which split grains were found, which is a sign of leavening—we do not say that all of them have become leavened. Rather, those that are not split are permitted, because it is common that during rains the top and bottom of the stack become leavened and split, while the water does not touch the middle at all. And if it is difficult to separate the split ones, if there is sixty against them—it is permitted to grind them before Pesach and eat from them on Pesach. And in most years they almost do not require inspection, for it is obvious that there is sixty against the sprouted ones. However, in a year where there was an abundance of rain during the harvest time—it is obvious that inspection is required to see if there is sixty. And if there is not sixty—one may add until there is sixty. But without inspection—it is forbidden in that year. And such is the common custom among us, that they bring several handfuls of the wheat, and the Rav inspects them to see if there is sixty against the sprouted ones, and he gives a hechsher. And without a hechsher—one does not use Pesach flour. And they give the hechsher on the wheat and on the grinding. And now that they bring it from afar on the railroads, the obligation is to supervise the transport as well, that they cover the sacks properly. And such is our duty, and such is proper for us. And the hechsher is brought from the Rav there, in the place of the grinding.

In the Gemara (33b) we say: For example, if it became chametz while attached to the ground. From this it is clear that even while attached—it can come to a state of chametz. This is when the wheat has dried completely and no longer requires any nourishment from the ground at all. For then they are like they are placed in a vessel, and they will come to a state of chametz when rain falls upon them. And the signs of chametz are well-recognized by us when they have sprouted, and a small ear emerges at its head, or it has softened and split. For this matter, expertise is required, as is known. Therefore, it is the custom to reap shemura while the growth is not yet entirely finished. However, those who reap while they are truly green—it seems to me that they do not act well, for they are difficult to grind and to knead, and they also contain much moisture and are more prone to come to a state of chametz. Rather, one should not reap them until they are finished and have become white. However, one should not wait for their complete drying, and after the reaping, one should gather them immediately to the threshing floor.

An Israelite who has pits full of wheat, and fears lest there be in the bottom of the pit and on its walls wheat kernels that have split from the moisture of the pit and the earth – a mere nullification is sufficient, for even the split kernels do not contain complete chimutz but rather decay and spoilage, as the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in a responsum (Part 10, subsection 15). And among us, it is customary to sell all types of grain on the eve of Pesach at the time of the selling of chametz, as I have written in siman 448, and it is proper.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 8: Honey of non-Jews—we do not maintain a status of prohibition regarding it to say it is adulterated, and we eat it on Pesach. Thus far his words, meaning: because there are those who prohibit it, since they mix flour or semolina into it. To this they said there is no concern, for even if they mixed it—it is fruit juice. And that we should concern ourselves lest they mixed water into it as well, and it would be fruit juice with water and leaven immediately—we do not have to concern ourselves with a remote concern regarding the mixing of two things. And aside from this, the Rosh wrote in a responsum in the name of the Ri that honey transforms everything mixed into it into honey, and therefore also throughout the year when they say they mix neveilah meat into it—should we concern ourselves with this and prohibit it entirely? Rather, even if they mix it, the honey transforms it into honey (Beit Yosef). However, the Rosh himself in the sixth chapter of Berakhot (siman 35) wrote that this matter requires proof, see there. And in the Yerushalmi at the end of the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" it is explicitly stated as a prohibition, as it says there: Rabbi Chanina had honey adulterated with semolina. He came and asked Rabbi Mani. He said to him: You must remove it, see there. And it is possible that it is specifically semolina, because they soak it and it is absolute chametz. (And this is a contradiction to the reasoning of the Ri. And perhaps for this it requires a long time until the honey transforms it, and in the case of the Rosh Chodesh it was close to Pesach. Also, perhaps with them it was date honey. And it requires further study, and be precise and you will find it easy.)

And regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom in these lands is not to eat honey, except for that which they bring in a barrel from the hive, from which they make a drink called mead. Thus far his words. That is to say: that from this honey it is the way to make a drink. And this honey is permitted to be eaten even as is (Taz, subsection 6), even though there are those who forbid eating any type of honey, because one might come to exchange it for that which they mix, as wrote the Mordechai. And there is one who wishes to explain the words of our teacher, the Rema, in this way, that his intention was to permit only making honey-water called mead and not to eat it as is, for this reason that one might come to exchange it (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). And the matter is astonishing, to be stringent with a stringency upon a stringency, and to make decrees from our own minds. And the main point is as I have written, that even as is, it is permitted (Chok Yaakov, subsection 17).

And now, even though we have heard clearly that they do not mix in flour, nevertheless, we do not purchase honey from a non-Jew except for that which is still mixed with the wax and formed like small cells, as it is taken from the hive. And likewise what is called "Lifyetz," which is the good honey that flows by itself and has no mixture in it, because even a small amount of mixture would spoil it, and he would not be able to sell it even for half the price of what it is worth when pure, and those who are expert know this well. But ordinary honey we forbid for Pesach. And nevertheless, if it was mixed into food on Pesach – we do not forbid the food, even when there is not sixty. And likewise with all dried fruits for which it will be explained that we have practiced a prohibition – they do not forbid if they fell into food. And this is like kitniyot in siman 453. And to make mead – one may make it before Pesach from all types of honey, for even if there is a leavened substance – it was nullified before Pesach. But during Chol HaMoed one should not cook honey-water except from honey that comes from the hive.

Sugar, according to what is known to us regarding its manufacture in this time—there is no concern of chimutz in it, for everything is made by means of steam. Nevertheless, it is the practice to set aside for Pesach sugar that is made for Pesach under the supervision of a talmid chacham who supervises in the factory and provides a hechsher for them. And to sell to a non-Jew—it is permitted even with the sugar of the entire year. And so too all types of dried fruits—they are permitted for sale. Except for the candies that have a mixture of flour—they are forbidden for sale, for even though this is fruit juice, nevertheless these candies are simple, and it is likely that they also contain a small mixture of water, and one sells them with the chametz. (And regarding what our teacher, the Rema, wrote that sugar is forbidden even for retention, and sugar candy is permitted, they have already written that it is the opposite. And one should not elaborate on what the Acharonim wrote regarding sugar loaves and that which comes in a barrel, for all this was in their time. And now everything is made in the large factories by means of the power of steam, and there is no concern of chimutz in it.)

He further wrote that dried figs and dried grapes, which are called "rosyani," whether large or small, depend on the custom of the locales. For there are those who are stringent not to eat them, and there are those who are lenient. Therefore, the custom in these provinces is to be stringent not to eat any dried fruits, unless it is known that they were dried in a manner where there is no concern for chametz. Thus far his words. For the early authorities wrote that they would scatter flour upon the figs, and regarding all dried fruits, who knows the manner of their drying? And behold, dried apples and pears—we see that they dry them in an oven after the baking of bread. Therefore, we do not eat any types of dried fruits on Pesach, except for plums, which are called "ploimen," as it is known that due to their great abundance they were dried in the fields. Nevertheless, the custom is to bring those specifically designated for Pesach. And almonds, even those without shells—this is not of the dried fruits, for they do not dry them, and they are thus by their nature. And regarding "pomerantzen," it would seem that the good ones among them have no concern, for they are not dried in ovens. However, there are simple ones peeled from "limones," and those they dry in ovens, and who can distinguish? Therefore, one should not eat them on Pesach. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 8, who wished to say that even what was baked in an oven after bread is permitted, due to "natant ta'am bar natan ta'am," see there. And his words are astonishing, for there is actual flour in the oven, which they place under the bread at the time of baking. And the Noda BiYehuda already refuted him, as he wrote in Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 14, see there. And it is a complete prohibition.)

The custom in these provinces is not to eat saffron, which they call "zafran." And even that which they call "land zafran," in which there is no concern at all—we do not eat it, because due to its expensive nature, people are not expert enough to distinguish it (Taz subsection 9 and Magen Avraham subsection 10). Similarly, cloves are not eaten on Pesach. However, peppers, even though they have been dried—there is no concern regarding them, because in their place of origin they are produced by the thousands and tens of thousands, and there is no concern that they were dried in an oven. Similarly, that which they call "English pepper"—there is no concern regarding them. And know that some years ago we heard from the city of Warsaw that forgeries were discovered in peppers, that there is flour in their center. However, since the vast majority do not contain a forgery—we do not need to be concerned regarding ordinary peppers. Furthermore: the government punishes with a harsh punishment one who forges, and therefore they are certainly not common among us. (The Magen Avraham there wrote regarding tobacco, that they sprinkle it and soak it in beer. And now it is known that this concern does not exist.)

Zingiber, which is called ingber, and tzimring—we eat them on Pesach, and presumably there is no concern regarding them. And saftalin, which is a type of plum—it is of the dried fruits, for even plums are brought specifically for Pesach. And sauer salz—it is permitted to use on Pesach, for there is no concern of chimutz in them. And it is a great benefit for the poor who put this in the beets called burikes, for the primary food of the poor on Pesach is these beets, and they cannot afford to place them in a vessel before Pesach until they become tart, as is known. And when they put a little of this in—it has a good taste. And one who is stringent—let him be stringent for himself and not for others. And so too the soda called shada—it is permitted on Pesach, and there is no concern in it. For it is known that in the factories where they make the sauer salz and the shada—they have specific vessels for these, and there is no concern in them. And so too it is permitted to drink on Pesach the water called seltzer wasser, which is made in specific vessels, and there is no concern of chimutz in them. And so too lemonade water which has lemons and sugar, when they are made specifically for Pesach—only they do not put in it the oil of the whole year. Rather, another in which there is no concern, and this oil they put one drop for many bottles and they are made before Pesach, and even if perhaps there was some concern in this—it was already nullified in a thousand and more than a thousand. And this is not a stabilizing agent, and especially according to what we have investigated there is no concern in this. And one who is stringent—let him be stringent for himself and not for others. And carobs which are called bokser—we also eat them on Pesach, for there is no concern of chimutz in them. And it is a simple matter that dried fruits that an Israelite dries are permitted for eating.

We learn in the Gemara (40a): Our Rabbis taught: One may not soak barley on Pesah. And if one soaked them and they split—they are forbidden; if they did not split—they are permitted. Rabbi Yose says: One soaks them in vinegar. And vinegar contracts them, and does not allow them to become hametz (Rashi). Shmuel said: The halacha is not like Rabbi Yose. And we learn from this that even if they split—they are not yet absolute hametz, for if so, what benefit is there in vinegar according to Rabbi Yose? And so Rashi explained that if they split—they hasten to become hametz, see there. And so wrote the Ran. And it says there: Mar Ukva said: Not that they split literally, but rather that if one places them on the mouth of a barrel—they split on their own. And Shmuel said: They split literally. Shmuel performed an action—they split literally, see there.

The Rif wrote: Since the halacha was not explicitly decided, we act stringently like Mar Ukva, as it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition. And these words apply regarding eating these barley grains as they are. However, if they are found within a cooked dish and they have not split, since a prohibition of even a minute amount is rabbinic—we do not prohibit that cooked dish in which two or three barley grains are found, unless they have split, according to Shmuel, because it is a rabbinic doubt and we rule leniently. And some say that the halacha follows Shmuel, for Mar Ukva was his student. Furthermore: for Shmuel performed an action regarding this… Thus far his words.

The Rambam in chapter five, law 8, wrote: A cooked dish that was cooked, and barley or wheat were found in it, if they split—behold, the entire dish is forbidden, for chametz has been mixed into it. And if they did not split—one removes them and burns them, and eats the rest of the dish. For grain that was soaked and did not split is not absolute chametz from the Torah but rather from the words of the scribes, as it is said: "And you shall guard the matzot." That is to say: be careful with the matzah, and guard it from every side of leavening. Thus far his words, and it appears that he rules like Mar Ukva stringently. And he holds that Mar Ukva forbids by rabbinic decree (and so wrote the Lechem Mishneh and the Beit Yosef). And there is one who wishes to distinguish between wheat and barley, that wheat even if it did not split—it is absolute chametz (Ran in the name of the Ra'ah). And they challenged this (Ran ibid.), for there is no distinction. And so the Rambam equated them, for behold he wrote "wheat or barley"—behold he equated their law.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9 wrote the wording of the Rambam that if they did not split—the cooked food is permitted. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And the custom is not so, but rather we forbid everything even in a minute amount even if they did not split. Thus far his words. And the reason for the custom is established based on two reasons that the Mordechai wrote in the chapter "Kol Sha'ah": The first is because of a thing that has permitters. And the Mordechai himself rejected this reason, for a thing that has permitters is not applicable when the food spoils. And furthermore: behold it will return to its prohibition next year, and all the more so in a matter that is only a mere taste, see there. And the second: because we are not experts in what is called "fit to be split." And he wrote regarding this: And one who is lenient for the sake of the joy of the Yom Tov—has not lost. See there.

It is clear that our teacher, the Rema, did not state a law, but rather because such was the custom to forbid everything: the cover, the spoon, and everything that was mixed from that cooked dish (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). And so wrote the Mordechai, and this is his wording: And because of the custom I forbid it due to doubt. But one who is lenient for the sake of the joy of the Yom Tov has lost nothing. Thus far his words. And it implies that even regarding eating there is grounds to permit (Chok Yaakov, subsection 27). And even according to the custom—it is only if it softened in any case, but if it did not soften, it is nothing (Turei Zahav, subsection 10). And even if three grains were found, we do not say there is a presumption that there are many, for it is possible to check. And behold, the Rif says explicitly: two or three barley grains, as I wrote in section 20. Furthermore: there is one who says that we do not apply this presumption to worms that come from the outside, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah, siman 84. And here too: the wheat comes from the outside. And although there are those who disagree on this as I wrote there, nevertheless here it is permitted for the first reason, because it is possible to check. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 12, and Chok Yaakov, subsection 26. And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote, why do we not say that since they are at rest—they will come to a state of chametz? And he answered with difficulty, see there. And in my humble opinion, it seems that in a pot during the time of cooking, and even after the cooking during the time of great heat—it is not at rest since it is boiling.)

But in a case where it split—the entire cooked food is forbidden by the law, as is the kli rishon, and the bowl into which one poured from the kli rishon, and the spoon that entered the pot, and the cover. And there are those who are stringent even regarding a kli sheni, as I wrote in siman 447. However, on the seventh day of Pesach, one may cover the food and wait until the conclusion of the Yom Tov, and then eat the cooked food, and the pit he shall burn (Eliyah Rabbah in siman 446 subsection 3, and Chacham Tzevi siman 86, cited in Sha'arei Teshuvah in this siman subsection 18). And all the more so on the last day of Pesach. And if a non-Jew comes to take them on the seventh day of Pesach—it is forbidden to protest against him, but on the last day of Pesach—one may protest against him (ibid. in Sha'arei Teshuvah). And see the following section.

According to the essential law, when a seed is found in a cooked dish, or a cooked chicken in which a split wheat grain is found on Pesach, it is permitted to sell it to a non-Jew. This is not considered benefiting from chametz, for he does not take payment for the wheat but rather for the chicken, and it is not sold at a higher price because of the wheat found within it. Nevertheless, it is the custom in these lands to burn everything or to cast it into the latrine, because they consider the entire dish or the entire chicken to be chametz. However, regarding the final day of Pesach, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10 that if the wheat is found on this day, it is permitted to keep it until after Pesach; for since a minute amount is a rabbinic prohibition, they were not stringent regarding it on the final Yom Tov with respect to keeping it, and certainly regarding a imparting a flavor that impairs, one should be lenient regarding keeping it (Taz, subsection 11). And in the previous section, we brought that even on the seventh day of Pesach one should be lenient by overturning a vessel over it and waiting until the conclusion of the Yom Tov. Some have the custom that on the seventh day of Pesach, when such a question comes before the teacher, he should say to the inquirer that it is difficult for him to answer now and that he should come at night, for then it is the final day of Pesach. And he shall permit him to keep it until the following night and eat it.

If they baked matzot on Pesach, and a split wheat grain was found in the dough or in the baked matzah, the Rosh ruled that one should remove from it the amount of a "grasp of a place," and the rest is permitted. For at most, it did not receive the taste of the wheat grain more than a "grasp of a place," as this is not a fatty substance that would spread. And there is one who forbids the entire dough or the entire matzah, as the Rashba wrote in a responsum (siman 176), for the wheat grain did not touch only one place, but rather it touched all of it through its rolling. And it is not relevant to say in this case "here it was found – here it was," since by necessity through its rolling it is dispersed throughout the entire dough, and since it is during Pesach when it is forbidden in any amount – it is all forbidden. Furthermore: the water that is in the dough carries the taste throughout the entire dough. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11 that it is proper to be concerned for this opinion, except in a case of great loss or in a time of pressing need, for then one should rule according to the opinion of the Rosh. And the reason may be said: for it is not a necessity that it would give taste to the entire dough, even if it rolled through all of it. Therefore we say "here it was found – here it was," meaning: that it did not give taste except in this place. Furthermore: even if it split – it is not absolute chametz but rather close to becoming chametz (Tur), and as I wrote in section 19.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that such is the custom during Pesach: to forbid that matzah in which the wheat was found, and we permit the others, whether it was found baked or raw. And we say, "where it is found – there it was." If it was found in the dough – we forbid the entire dough. And specifically during Pesach, but before Pesach – we only forbid a k'dei netilah, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. That is to say: when it is found in the matzah – we do not say that the wheat was in the dough and the entire dough should be forbidden, but rather we say "where it is found in the matzah – there it was," and we do not presume a prohibition from one place to another. According to this, if it appears that the wheat is full of water from side to side, such that it must have been in the water – the entire dough is forbidden. However, one could say that it became filled with water in another place, and fell into the matzah (Magen Avraham subsection 16).

And behold, among us, we do not bake on Pesach. And regarding that which was baked before Pesach, even if a wheat grain is found in the matzah during Pesach – it does not forbid except for a k'dei netilah. And in this case, "returning and awakening" is not applicable, for during Pesach it did not impart flavor. Therefore, he throws away the wheat grain with about a finger's breadth of matzah adjacent to it, and eats the rest. And at the time of kneading before Pesach, if a wheat grain is found in the dough – he removes a k'dei netilah. Therefore, there is no practical difference for us in the previous law. However, in any event, it is proven from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, that even with cold items there is a prohibition, for the one who holds during Pesach to forbid the entire dough – it is because the wheat grain was in the water. And the one who permits holds that it was not in the water, as we have explained. But if it was certainly in the water – it would forbid. And upon this the Levush objected, that a cold item does not forbid.

And so it is explicitly stated in the Rosh and the Tur, and this is their wording: It happened that a split wheat grain was found in a vessel of water, and they cooked a dish in that water, and they permitted the dish. And we do not say that the water became forbidden and the dish should be forbidden. And so the Avi HaEzri permitted wheat grains that fell into a pit... for since the water is cold, the wheat does not impart taste into them. And even actual chametz that fell into a pit is permitted for this reason. Thus far their words. Behold, it is explicit that cold does not forbid. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, raised a difficulty regarding this against the Rosh, who forbade the dough if the wheat was found in the water, yet he himself ruled that cold does not forbid? And he answered that here we are dealing with before Pesach, and therefore it does not forbid in cold, see there. And they challenged him that certainly here too we are dealing with Pesach itself (Levush and Bach and Taz subsection 12). Rather, dough is different, for since he kneads and rolls and presses the dough and the wheat—it is pressed and crushed by his hands, and it is impossible that some minute taste was not squeezed from it when it was in the water and became softened (Taz ibid.). And according to this, both the Rosh and the Rashba do not forbid in cold, except that dough is different as I have written.

And according to this, that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12, that if a split wheat grain or leavened bread was found in a vessel of water, and there is not enough to impart flavor since the water is cold, and they cooked a dish with that water or kneaded dough—it is permitted. And there is one who forbids if it is during Pesach. Thus far his words. And this he wrote according to his resolution to distinguish between before Pesach and during Pesach. But according to how all the great Acharonim rejected his words—there is no distinction, and even during Pesach it is permitted in cold water.

And for the practical halacha, it appears in my humble opinion that even though there is one who forbids in cold, nevertheless, since the majority of our teachers, the Acharonim, agreed not to forbid in cold—one should not cause the loss of Jewish money over a prohibition of a mashehu, which is rabbinic. And there is one who wishes to forbid meat that was soaked with water in which there was a grain, because meat has fissures (Magen Avraham, subsection 19). And his words are astonishing, for since we say that in cold it does not impart flavor, if so, what do we care about the fissures (Chok Yaakov, subsection 31)? And only when the wheat was in dough is it to be forbidden for the reason we wrote, if this was on Pesach. But other cold items do not forbid, as with all prohibitions.

However, all of this is only when the grain did not remain in the water for a twenty-four hour period. But if it remained for a twenty-four hour period—it prohibits, for soaking is like boiling (Magen Avraham there, and Taz subsection 17, and Bach in the name of the Maharshal). And it appears to me that if there is a doubt whether it was in the water for a twenty-four hour period or not—it is permitted, for the prohibition of a minute amount is rabbinic, and a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. And according to this, if grains were found in water wells, even though it is clearly known that they drew from the well while the grains were inside it, nevertheless, if there is a doubt perhaps they did not remain for a twenty-four hour period—one should not prohibit. And all the more so if there is a doubt perhaps at the time of drawing this water the grains were not there, and a fortiori if the grains did not split, that one should not prohibit. And even in a doubt whether they split or did not split—it is a rabbinic doubt and ruled leniently. (And above in siman 462, section 10, it was explained that when a grain is found in kneidlach or chremslach, since there is fat and eggs there, it is considered fruit juice. And in chremslach there is also honey, so that in a case of great loss and the joy of the Yom Tov—one should be lenient so that it is not prohibited by a minute amount. And so too regarding a turnip, see there. And see section 47 regarding a doubt of soaking.)

And know that it appears in my humble opinion, that this which is found in the Mordechai and in other early authorities regarding the law of chametz that fell into a pit, whether the water is forbidden or not – this is all regarding a pit of gathered water, as is proven from the wording of the Tur, who wrote that the Avi HaEzri permitted wheat that fell into a pit…, the leavened water descended into the pit…, see there. But in a well that is a spring, it is a wonder to say that the water would become leavened, for they are always flowing and connected to the water beneath them, just as we would not forbid a river. And even though the water stands, nevertheless they are not at rest, and are connected through the veins of the earth to the water outside of them, as our sages, of blessed memory, said in Chagigah (22a) that the entire earth is perforated. And Rashi explained that the water flowing here comes from a great river, see there. (For only regarding a mikveh are they not a connection, but they do have a connection. And that which is found in some place the term "well" – they were not precise in this.)

The great authorities agreed that we presume a prohibition from time to time, but not from place to place. That is to say: for example, if one took cabbage from a barrel into a bowl, and afterwards chametz was found in the bowl – one does not prohibit the cabbage that is in the barrel. And we say "where it is found – there it was," that is to say: in the bowl it was found and in the bowl it was, and not in the barrel. For we do not presume a prohibition from this place to another place. But if chametz was found afterwards in the barrel – even what is in the bowl is prohibited. For even though we say "where it is found – there it was," nevertheless, the cabbage in the bowl was also there, and we do not say that the chametz fell into the barrel after they took the cabbage into the bowl. For from time to time we do presume a prohibition, and we say "just as the chametz is found there now, so too in the previous time" (Magen Avraham subsection 16 in the name of the Maharam). And in this manner regarding all things, for example, if one poured broth from the pot into several bowls, and a grain was found in one bowl – we only prohibit this bowl, and we do not presume a prohibition from the bowl to the pot. But if it was found in the pot – all the bowls are prohibited. And so too regarding anything similar to this.

And a law such as this is found explicitly in the Mishnah at the end of the ninth chapter of Taharot regarding olives, which they first place in a vat, and this is a type of vessel, and from the vat they bring them up to the roof. And we learned: If it was found on the roof – the vat is tahor. And we do not establish tumah from the location of the roof to the location of the vat, and we say that the sheretz fell on the roof and not in the vat. If it was found in the vat – the roof is tamei, and we do not say that the sheretz fell after they took the olives to the roof, for we establish it from time to time. (And the Tosafot Yom Tov there raised a difficulty: What is the difference that we should not say that after he brought the olives up to the roof the sheretz fell, see there. And according to the words of the Magen Avraham it is not a difficulty at all. And even though one could be precise regarding this in the Mishnah there, chapter four, Mishnah 4, regarding one who fills with ten buckets, yet there are different interpretations there, see there carefully. And also this is not relevant to all cases of "tumot are as the time they are found," for that is regarding living and dead. Furthermore: for the Tosafot in Eruvin 35b, the heading beginning "Kol," wrote that this is only for terumah and holy things like "from time to time" regarding a niddah, see there.)

This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: If one scalded a chicken, in that they placed it in boiling water to remove the feathers, and afterward they found a split wheat kernel in the water – the chicken is forbidden. Thus far his words. And we do not say that the wheat came after the scalding, because we maintain a presumption from time to time. And specifically when it is split, but if it is not split – it is permitted, as it is a double doubt: a doubt whether perhaps it did not become chametz, and if you should say it did become chametz – perhaps it fell in afterward (Taz, subsection 15). Therefore, even though our teacher, the Rema, was stringent even when it is not split, as I wrote in section 22, nevertheless here where there is an additional doubt – one should not be stringent (Chok Yaakov, subsection 34 and see Taz ibid.). Furthermore: for we have already written in section 23 that he did not state this as a law, but rather because of the custom, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: There is one who permits even in the scalding of a chicken, because we say perhaps it fell there afterward. And there is one who forbids in other meat, and permits in a chicken by force of a double doubt. Regarding the custom, it seems proper to forbid in other meat or in a whole wheat grain even in a chicken. And specifically if they were scalded, for the water was hot. But if they were cold and the chickens soaked there – one should not forbid out of doubt. And in a place where it can be said perhaps the wheat was digested in the chicken, such as if it is broken – even with scalding one should permit by force of a double doubt. However, if the mixtures were mixed, and there is a great loss and a prevention of the joy of the Yom Tov – one should be lenient in all this regarding a doubt of a rabbinic prohibition which is a minute amount. And one should permit other cooked foods that contain a mixture of that cooked meat dish that was soaked in water or scalded. So it appears to me. Thus far his words, and it requires explanation.

And this is its explanation: That there is one who permits, because he does not hold that we maintain a status of prohibition from one time to another, but rather we say: It fell just now. And even though in the Mishnah of Taharot it is not so, as I wrote in section 35—for if so, why when the sheretz is found in the vat is the roof tamei? Let us say it fell just now? For it can be said that in truth the Rambam in chapter seventeen of Avot HaTumot ruled so, that even if it is found in the vat, the roof is tahor, see there. For he wrote: If it is found in the vat, the vat is tamei. And it is explained that that which is on the roof is tahor, even though we do not know his source. And the Kesef Mishneh wrote that he ruled like the Sages of the Tosefta of Taharot (chapter eleven), for thus it is stated in the Tosefta: If one was cutting from the vat and bringing it up to the top of the roof, and a sheretz was found on the roof—the vat is tahor. If it was found in the vat—the roof is tamei, these are the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say: If it is found on the roof—only the roof is tamei. If it is found in the vat—only the vat is tamei. And although we maintain that where there is an anonymous Mishnah and a dispute in a Beraita the halacha follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yevamot 42b), nevertheless, in any event the Rambam ruled so. (And it can be said that he holds like several of the commentators wrote, that all the rules of the Shas only apply to the three orders practiced in this time. Furthermore: since Rabbi himself is the one who disagrees, perhaps we do not say this rule.)

And behold, according to this opinion, in all questions similar to this we say "it fell just now," just as with a presumptive status that has been impaired, where we say "it was impaired just now." And the third opinion, which distinguishes between meat and a chicken—is because it holds like the first opinion, that we maintain a status from time to time. However, regarding a chicken, an additional doubt is added: perhaps the wheat was in its entrails and was digested, as we say regarding matters of tumah. And the first opinion holds that we do not derive prohibitions from tumah, as the Tosafot wrote in Bekhorot (7b). And it can also be said that a doubt arising from a lack of knowledge is not considered a doubt (Bach); however, since it is impossible to know, it is a doubt (Taz, subsection 17). And he added to say "regarding the custom," meaning that he does not decide according to the law but according to the custom that they practiced to be stringent, and we maintain the prohibition from time to time. And also regarding a chicken, when there is no bit of evidence that it is digested, such as when it is broken—one should be stringent. And similarly, specifically when the scalding was in hot water one should be stringent, but not in cold water. That is to say: even for one who is stringent in cold water, nevertheless, regarding the matter of not maintaining a status from time to time—one should not be stringent in cold water, and we say "it fell just now."

And all this is regarding the matter itself. But regarding mixtures, such as when this was mixed into other cooked dishes—it is simple that one should be lenient with cold items, even when it is impossible to say "it fell just now." For example, where the wheat was certainly with the meat together in the water, or even with hot items and it is not certain—we say regarding the mixtures "it fell just now," and we permit it in a case of great loss and the prevention of the joy of Yom Tov. And according to this, this law that we stated, that we do not presume a prohibition from place to place but from time to time we do presume—there are those who disagree entirely, and say that even from time to time we do not presume. And the proof for this opinion is from the words of the Rambam that we brought in section 38. However, even according to the custom that they practiced to be stringent, nevertheless with cold items we certainly do not presume a prohibition from time to time. Therefore, if they took water from a vessel to a pot and cooked in it, and afterward chametz was found in the vessel—the cooked dish is permitted, and we say "it fell just now." And so too regarding mixtures even with hot items. (And the Bach went to extremes to be even more stringent in this, and the Magen Avraham in subsection 25, and the Taz in subsection 17, and the Chok Yaakov have already rejected his words. And regarding wheat that has not softened—even the Bach admits that one should not be stringent at all.)

An incident occurred where one took into his mouth a piece of matzah and a piece of chicken, and ate them both together. He felt in his mouth that there was wheat, and he spat the food from his mouth and the wheat was found. It is not known if it was inside the matzah, and it is only forbidden to the extent of a netilah from that matzah, for it was certainly inside the dough during the time of baking, because if not so, but rather it fell on the matzah while cold, it would have rolled and fallen off; but the chicken and the cooked food are permitted. Or perhaps it was in the chicken—one should permit the chicken on account of a sefek sefeika: a doubt whether it was in the matzah, and if you say it was in the chicken—perhaps it was parched or perhaps it fell into it while cold. For regarding a sefek sefeika we certainly say "it fell just now," and we do not establish a prohibition from one time to another. And even with meat it is permitted in such a case. And also even according to what they were accustomed to be stringent regarding from one time to another, nevertheless from one place to another we certainly do not establish a prohibition. Therefore, even if we attribute that it was in the meat or in the chicken—we say that it fell here, and not when they were in the pot or in the large bowl (see Magen Avraham subsection 25). And if wheat was found on the table and it was not known from where it came—we say that it fell on the table, and we do not establish a prohibition from one place to another (see Sha'arei Teshuvah subsection 33).

There was an incident involving a servant who brought a vessel with honey-water, which is called "mead," to drink, and a wheat grain was found in it. They said that in a cold state it does not forbid, even though it has leavened, as the Tur wrote that it does not forbid in a cold state. And perhaps you will say that it was present at the time they boiled the honey-water before Pesach, for if so, it was already nullified and does not "awaken" again. And even though the wheat grain is still inside it, nevertheless it is cold and does not forbid (Taz, subsection 18). And even according to the opinion of those who are stringent in a cold state, and also hold that it "awakens" again as I wrote in siman 447, nevertheless one should only forbid what is in the vessel and not the entire barrel, for we do not presume from place to place, and we say that it fell into the vessel and not into the barrel. (And one who relies on the Taz to be completely lenient has not lost out, for there are several doubts here. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: And if they purged a chametz vessel that was used within the day, and the chametz water descended into a pit during Pesach – it is forbidden to drink its water on Pesach because they became mixed. Thus far his words. And he was precise to say "during Pesach," for if it were before Pesach – it would have already been nullified, and it does not "awaken and return" as I wrote in siman 447. However, ab initio it is certainly forbidden, for he is able to take water from another pit (Taz subsection 18 and Magen Avraham subsection 27). And that which he was precise to say "because they became mixed," this is its explanation: that even according to the one who holds that it does not forbid in cold – that is regarding wheat or bread that fell into water. But water in water, they have surely become mixed, and it is forbidden when it occurred during Pesach (ibid.). And know that if the chametz is recognizable and stands on its own even while in the pit, such as if there is substance like rust and the like – they forbid even ex post facto even if they fell before Pesach, since the chametz is recognizable on its own it was never nullified (Taz ibid.). And because this law is not common at all – one should not elaborate upon it.

And regarding salting on Pesach, there are many opinions. The Tur, in the name of the Rokeach, wrote: A wheat grain found in a salted chicken, where others were salted with it, that [chicken] upon which the wheat was found is forbidden, for chametz on Pesach is [forbidden] in any amount. And the rest are permitted. And our teacher Eliezer of Metz ruled that even that chicken is not entirely forbidden, rather one removes the place of its absorption, and that is the thickness of a finger-breadth. And to this the Rosh and the Semak agreed. And both opinions hold that even though salted is like boiling, nevertheless it does not pass from piece to piece without liquid. And even though regarding a fatty forbidden substance we are stringent in Yoreh Deah siman 105, nevertheless, regarding chametz there is no fatty prohibition. And there are those who forbid all the pieces in salting (Bach in the name of Issur V'Heter and the Rashal). And one may say the reason: since there is fat in meat—the prohibition absorbs from piece to piece even without liquid, regarding chametz on Pesach which is in any amount. And there are those who require peeling the rest of the meat salted with it (Kol Bo in the name of the Ra'avad). And this is when it is found on the chicken, such that there is a doubt that perhaps it touched them all. But when it is found inside the chicken—the rest require nothing according to this opinion (Magen Avraham subsection 31). And there are those who are entirely lenient, that even that piece only requires peeling (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba).

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 14: If a split wheat grain is found in a chicken before salting – rinsing is sufficient. And if after salting – peeling is sufficient. And there are those who are stringent to say that one must deepen all around it, and cut and discard. And if other chickens were salted with it – one peels them all. And there are those who are stringent to forbid everything that was salted together. And the primary view is to forbid that entire piece upon which the wheat was found, and to permit the others by means of a slight peeling. And if he wishes, he may sell everything to a non-Jew as I wrote in siman 447, even though this is not the custom regarding other mixtures of chametz. So it appears to me. Thus far his words. And if the others were cooked without peeling – it is permitted, for it is merely a stringency as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 91 (Magen Avraham subsection 33). Nevertheless, even after cooking – one should peel, but the peeling does not forbid the rest of the piece (ibid.). And there is one who permits it ab initio even without peeling (ibid. in the name of the Maharam Lublin). And this is when there is no doubt whether it perhaps touched the other pieces (ibid.). And it appears in my humble opinion that even in a case of doubt, if only it certainly did not touch – one should be lenient for us, for the peeling is very difficult as is known. And behold, it is the opinion of several of our teachers that even this piece was not entirely forbidden, as I wrote. However, for the practical halacha regarding salting, one should not forbid more than that piece and no more.

And that which they wrote, that prior to salting rinsing is sufficient—it is simple that cold without liquid, according to everyone, does not forbid (Magen Avraham subsection 29). And so too if a wheat grain is found on the piece after salting and rinsing—it is also permitted for this reason, for it certainly was not there at the time of salting; for if it were, it would have fallen off at the time of rinsing. However, this is when it is found upon it, but if it is found inside the chicken—it certainly was there beforehand (ibid. subsection 30). And the women are accustomed that prior to soaking and salting—they check very, very well inside so that no grain remains within it. And it appears in my humble opinion that one may rely on this presumption, that if it is found afterward—to say that the wheat fell afterward, since they checked it beforehand (and there is proof from Pesachim 7a and from Niddah 4a, see there and examine carefully and you will find it easily). And if a wheat grain is found in the crop, even after salting—it is kosher, for the crop separates, and he discards the crop. And there is also a doubt that perhaps it was decomposed, and this is a likely matter, since it was found in the crop (so it appears to me, and see Shaarei Teshuva subsection 36). And if after salting and rinsing they placed the meat in a vessel, and afterward a grain was found there, if they did not salt the meat in the vessel—he discards it, and the meat is permitted. And if they salted a little there—he discards the piece upon which the grain was found, and the rest are permitted even without peeling. And even though in a complete salting we required peeling, here where it is only a minimal salting—it is enough to forbid only that piece. And if there was a tiny bit of salt—it is enough to forbid the amount of a finger's width even in that piece, because sometimes people put a tiny bit of salt. And so too if a grain is found in the soaking water prior to salting—one should permit the meat. For even according to those who forbid even in cold—that is when it stayed for a long time. But meat, which prior to salting is not kept in the soaking water for more than half an hour—one should not be stringent and forbid. And especially since the primary halacha is that cold does not forbid, as I have written. (And know that "cold" is called anything that is not yad soledet. And so too a third vessel does not forbid. And in a second vessel there are those who are stringent, as I wrote in siman 447, and this is when it is yad soledet.)

If a grain is found in a barrel of salted cabbage – all of the cabbage is forbidden, for soaking is like cooking. This is when the brine rises above it, but if the brine does not rise above it – its law is like salting, and one must dig out several fingers in depth and width and discard it, and the rest is kosher (see Magen Avraham, subsection 33). And so too if a grain is found in a vessel of burikes where there is much water, seemingly since there is not as much salt there as in cabbage – it depends on the opinions of whether it is forbidden in cold or not. But if it was there for twenty-four hours – it is obvious that soaking is like cooking. And in a case of doubt whether it remained for twenty-four hours, it appears that a doubt regarding soaking is permitted. And I have seen that great authorities disagreed on this, whether a doubt regarding soaking is permitted or not (see Sha’arei Teshuvah, subsection 34, that the B.Y.E. permits and the M.K.S. forbids). And it appears to me that it is permitted, for since the prohibition of a minute amount is rabbinic – a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. And as for our not permitting in scalding except by means of a double doubt, that is in a place where the prohibition is clear, such as in hot water, but you wish to permit it. But in cold – there is no prohibition before us unless it was soaked within it a full day, and it is permitted in doubt. And even though for those who forbid in cold it is a double doubt toward prohibition: a doubt lest cold forbids, and if you say it does not forbid – perhaps it was soaked within it a full day, and it is considered soaked. However, we have already explained that the primary ruling is that cold is permitted, for so agreed our teachers, the Rishonim. Therefore, in a case of great loss and the prevention of the joy of Yom Tov, such as a vessel of burikes which is the entire food of the poor on Pesach, and also for great householders most of their food is this as is known, if a grain is found in the vessel and it was not clarified that it was within it for twenty-four hours – one throws away the grain, and the burikes are permitted to be eaten on Pesach. And if a grain is found in a barrel of salted fish – one takes that row and eats the rest. And the fish upon which the grain was found – he shall throw it into a loathsome place, and that row he shall put away until after Pesach, and the rest are entirely permitted. (The Magen Avraham, subsection 33, cited in the name of the Gaon Rabbi B. of Pozna to throw the entire row into the river, see there. And I do not know why. And if because of the brine – if so we should forbid all of them. Therefore it appears in my humble opinion as I have written. And examine and you will find it simple.)

A chicken roasted over the fire on a spit in which a split wheat grain is found during Pesach, and it is clear that it was there at the time of its roasting, if it was a lean chicken – one cuts away the area of its absorption according to an estimation. And there are those who forbid the whole of it, because when they turn it on the spit in the manner of roasting – the flavor spreads throughout the entire chicken. And such is the primary ruling. And even though regarding all other prohibitions we do not state this reasoning, as is proven from Yoreh Deah siman 105, this is because the turning of the spit does not cause the imparting of flavor, and it is nullified in sixty. But regarding a prohibition of even a minute amount – it is obvious that the turning of the spit causes it. And there is one who went to great lengths to be stringent even to forbid all the chickens that were roasted with it if they touched it, for through the turning of the spit it spreads from this one to that one. But if they are not touching – they are permitted, and we do not say that the prohibition travels through the entire spit and they absorb from the spit. And we only say this when the chicken that the wheat was inside of was fat, for then the prohibition spreads through the entire spit (Magen Avraham subsection 36). And if the wheat is found in the chicken afterward and it is split, even though it has been explained that we establish a prohibition from one time to another and presumably it was also there at the time of the roasting, and this chicken is forbidden in any case – regarding the other chickens one should be lenient simply, just as we were lenient regarding mixtures in section 40, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 16: A wheat or barley grain found in the crop of a bird after that bird was singed—it is permitted. But the wheat and the barley—one must burn them, for they are not considered digested. Thus far his words. And the reason: for roasting does not forbid more than a peel’s thickness, and the crop itself is the peel. And even though according to our custom we forbid the entire chicken in roasting, nevertheless, singeing is not like roasting (Magen Avraham, subsection 37). And even with actual salting, it seems to my humble opinion to permit the chicken when the crop is found inside it with several grains, as I wrote in section 46. And it is true that according to the custom we forbid the entire piece in salting, as I wrote in section 45, nevertheless, regarding what is found in the crop where it is likely to say it was digested—one may rely on our teachers that a peel's thickness is sufficient in salting, and all the more so in singeing. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 37, who wrote that there are women who are accustomed to remove the gizzard before the singeing. We have not known of this custom. And what he wrote that all matters of Pesach should only be done by an Israelite—it is certainly correct, and such is the simple custom.)