Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 432 - The Laws Pertaining to the Blessing [Recited Over] the Search For Chametz

Pesachim 7a-b.

See sec. 158:16, where this rule is discussed with regard to the blessing for washing hands. In that source, the Alter Rebbe explains why it is fit to praise G‑d as the Giver of the Rabbinic commandments:

Where were we commanded [by G‑d concerning this washing? In the command (Devarim17:11):] “Do not swerve from the matter that they will tell you, right or left.” Thus, when we heed the words of the Sages, we are fulfilling G‑d’s commandment to obey them. This is the rationale for all the blessings we recite when fulfilling Rabbinic commandments.

See sec. 434:6, where this point is discussed in greater detail.

See sec. 434:1.

See sec. 445:3, where this matter is also mentioned.

See subsection , below, which elaborates further concerning this issue.

As the Alter Rebbe states, the search and the nullification of the chametz are considered as two stages in a single process that fulfills the mitzvah to obliterate of the chametz. Therefore, separate blessings are not recited over the search and the nullification.

See sec. 19:1 and sec. 641:1, where the Alter Rebbe clearly states that a separate blessing is not recited when performing the preliminary stage of a mitzvah.

See sec. 446:1, where this principle is restated.

According to Rabbinic Law, both the search and the nullification are required elements of the mitzvah to obliterate one’s chametz. Neither act alone is sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah.

See Eruvin 40b, which states that the blessing Shehechiyanu should be recited before observing mitzvos that one does not observe frequently. See also sec. 585:5, sec. 619:7, and sec. 641:1, where the Alter Rebbe mentions the obligation to recite this blessing.

See sec. 473:2, where the Alter Rebbe discusses the recitation of the blessing of Shehechiyanu in Kiddush. See also sec. 641:1, which makes similar statements with regard to why the blessing Shehechiyanu isnot recited when building a sukkah or preparing a lulav. See Likkutei Sichos (Vol. 22, p. 128), which discusses the wording the Alter Rebbe uses in this subsection.

I.e., the person alters the wording our Sages ordained for this blessing slightly, without significantly changing the meaning of the blessing.

See sec. 475:5 regarding the wording for the blessing recited over matzah. See sec. 475:12 regarding the wording for the blessing recited over maror.

See, for example, Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 11:15). See also the gloss of Rabbeinu Asher, Pesachim 1:10.

Pesachim 2a. See also sec. 433:13. As stated in these sources, one is only obligated to search those places that may possibly contain chametz.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe rules that a blessing should be recited over the obliteration of chametz only when there is at least an olive-sized portion that must be destroyed. See footnote 30 to sec. 433:12 with regard to the size of this measure. See also Shiurei Torah 3:9.

See sec. 6:5, sec. 25:17, sec. 46:3, and sec. 60:2, et al., where this principle is mentioned.

See sec. 263:11, where the Alter Rebbe describes another situation where this principle is relevant.

The Alter Rebbe discusses this opinion in his Kuntreis Acharon (note 1), citing the views of Turei Zahav 432:2 and Magen Avraham 432:2, both of whom rule in this manner. Nevertheless, the Alter Rebbe substantiates his ruling in the main text, explaining that the prevailing custom mandates that chametz be obliterated before the end of the fifth hour. However, the mitzvah to obliterate one’s chametz only takes effect at the beginning of the sixth hour. As such, it would be improper to recite a blessing before the end of the fifth hour (when people customarily burn their chametz), for then there is no Scriptural or Rabbinic command to obliterate chametz.

To cite a somewhat similar situation: A person who travels from his home within 30 days of Pesach, and who will not return to his home by the fourteenth of Nissan, is obligated to search for chametz before leaving on his trip. Nevertheless, the person should not recite a blessing before conducting his search for chametz because he is not searching at the time when the Sages ordained that a search be conducted, as stated in in sec. 436:1.

If, however, one who did not recite a blessing before his search obliterates his chametz after the beginning of the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nissan, a blessing should be recited, for then, he is obligated to obliterate his chametz according to Rabbinic Law. Further support for this ruling can be derived from sec. 446:1, where the Alter Rebbe rules that one who finds chametz during Pesach must obliterate it, and must recite a blessing when doing so even if he recited a blessing before the search for chametz on the fourteenth of Nissan. How much more so, then, should someone who did not recite a blessing before conducting the search, recite a blessing when obliterating chametz after the sixth hour of the fourteenth of Nissan?!

See sec. 445:4-7.

As stated in subsection 1.

The implication is that although there is validity to this approach, nevertheless, since people customarily obliterate their chametz before the sixth hour – when there is no halachic obligation to obliterate chametz, – reciting the blessing with G‑d’s name and sovereignty would involve taking G‑d’s name in vain (see sec. 215:3). Therefore, the Alter Rebbe rules that in this instance, G‑d’s name and sovereignty should not be mentioned. See sec. 46:10, where the Alter Rebbe uses similar reasoning in a different situation.

The Alter Rebbe mentions this concept in many contexts, including sec. 8:22 with regard to tzitzis, sec. 25:18 with regard to tefillin, and sec. 592:7 with regard to shofar.

See sec. 167:9, where the Alter Rebbe rules similarly regarding speaking between reciting the blessing HaMotzi and eating bread.

Since the search cannot be conducted without attending to this matter, speaking about it is not considered an interruption. See sec. 167:9, with regard to speaking about matters necessary for the meal between reciting the blessing HaMotzi and eating bread. In that source, the Alter Rebbe states: “Since it is impossible for him to eat in another manner, it is considered as if it was after the fact (בדיעבד).”

See sec. 457:4, where the Alter Rebbe makes a similar statement regarding making an interruption by speaking while separating challah.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe states that one should not speak between the blessings recited before the first sounding of the shofar and the conclusion of the sounding of the shofar during the repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh. Nevertheless, if one does speak after the sounding of the shofar, and before the final sounding of the shofar during the repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh, it is not necessary for him to recite a second blessing for the later shofar blasts.

See sec. 589:2, which makes a similar statement regarding the sounding of the shofar. See also sec. 104:2, which states: “In no context do we find that walking is considered an interruption while one is performing a mitzvah.”

A manuscript note appended to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch cites sec. 639. It has been suggested that the intent is 639:13, which speaks about related concepts.

See sec. 592:7, which discusses similar points with regard to speaking in the midst of the sounding of the shofar.

A manuscript note appended to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch differentiates between speaking in the midst of the search for chametz and the interim between the search for chametz at night and burning the chametz the next morning. On the surface, burning the chametz, like completing the search, is a continuation of the original mitzvah. Hence, if speaking during the search constitutes an interruption that warrants a blessing before the person continues the search, then speaking between the end of the search and obliterating the chametz should also be considered an interruption that warrants a blessing to be recited before the person burns the chametz.

A distinction is, however, made between the two, for burning the chametz was included in the blessing the person recited before beginning the search. Thus, searching for chametz and burning the chametz that was found are two stages of the same mitzvah, and it is permitted to speak between the different stages of the mitzvah. In contrast, when the person spoke in the middle of his search, it is as if he concluded the original search. When he begins to search for chametz again, it is seen as a new activity rather than as a different stage of the original mitzvah.

By contrast, a guest who brings his chametz into someone else’s home is obligated to search for his own chametz. However, the owner of the house may fulfill the obligation on behalf of his guest. See sec. 336:20.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe rules that the members of his household should conduct the search on behalf of the owner of the home, because the owner has an obligation to search and, based on the principle of areivus, mutual responsibility, that obligation then devolves on the members of his household.

From sec. 213:7, it appears that one person should recite the blessing on behalf of all the others.

Kiddushin 41a. The Alter Rebbe also discusses this principle in sec. 250:4 and the Kuntreis Acharon (note 2) to that section. He also mentions it later with regard to the laws of Pesach in sec. 453:33 and sec. 460:3.

In his Piskei HaSiddur, the Alter Rebbe does not mention this condition. Instead, he merely states: “He should have the members of his household stand near him.” In one of his letters (the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh (Vol. 15, Letter no. 5472), the Rebbe offers two explanations for the difference between the wording in that text and here:

a) since the Siddur is not primarily a text of halachah, it does not mention all the particulars of the law;

b) the Alter Rebbe’s intent was to have the members of the household participate, so that they have an active share in the mitzvah.

As stated in sec. 213:4, one who listens to a blessing is obligated to answer Amen. However, a person listening to a blessing can fulfill his obligation even though he does not answer Amen, provided the criteria listed in the next footnote are met.

See sec. 213:4, where the Alter Rebbe writes:

A person does not fulfill his obligation by listening to a blessing, even if he responded Amen,unless: a) he heard the [entire] blessing, from its beginning to its end, b) he intended to fulfill his obligation by listening, and c) the person who recited the blessing intended to fulfill the other person’s obligation.

See sec. 167:10, which mentions the obligation of the listener to perform the act associated with the blessing that he heard without any interruption between the blessing and the performance of the mitzvah.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe discusses whether going from one place to another between putting on a tallis katan and a tallis gadol is considered an interruption, stating:

If, however, he did not go out beyond the entrance to his home, even if he recited the blessing over the tallis katanin one room and then walked to another room within the same home to put on the tallis gadol,he is not required to recite a [second] blessing. Since the two rooms are located in the same home, going from one room to another is not considered an interposition, provided one does not interrupt through speech or another activity.

In subsection 7, the Alter Rebbe rules that going from building to building in the middle of the search for chametz is not considered an interruption. Since the person had already begun searching, and is obligated to search the other building as well, going there is not considered an interruption. In the instance mentioned here, by contrast, the person has not begun his search. In such a situation, going to another building before beginning the search would be considered an interruption between reciting the blessing and performing the associated mitzvah. See the Kuntreis Acharon (note 5) to sec. 8, which discusses these issues.

I.e., the people conducting the search violated our Sages’ instructions.

A manuscript note attached to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch later in this subsection notes that the people conducting the search could be considered as obligated because of the principle of mutual responsibility. See sec. 197:6 where this principle is discussed.

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 2), the Alter Rebbe supports his ruling in the main text, i.e., that since the householder himself would not be required to recite an additional blessing when searching these areas, the members of his household who act as his agents should a) listen to his blessing, for they should not perform a mitzvah without first reciting a blessing, but b) not recite a blessing themselves, even if they did not hear the blessing recited by the householder.

As proof, the Alter Rebbe cites the following ruling (sec. 585:8-9): When the person who recited the blessings over sounding the shofar is unable to sound all the shofar blasts and another person replaces him, if the person replacing him has already fulfilled his own obligation to hear the shofar blasts, he should not recite a blessing before sounding the shofar blasts that fulfill the obligation of the listeners.

The Alter Rebbe notes that in Hilchos Shabbos, sec. 263:15, he cites the opinion that a woman who is a guest may kindle a Shabbos light with a blessing even though the woman of the house has already recited a blessing over her own Shabbos lights, and concludes: “In these countries, it has become the widespread custom [to follow this latter view].”

In his Kuntreis Acharon (note 5) to that section, the Alter Rebbe explains that even though they are guests, the visiting women have an obligation to kindle Shabbos lights, i.e., because of the principle of areivus, mutual responsibility, the guests are obligated to ensure that Shabbos lights are kindled in their hosts’ home. Hence, the women who are visiting may recite a blessing upon kindling their Shabbos lights. The Alter Rebbe notes that the ruling runs contrary to his ruling in this section and in Hilchos Shofar.

The Alter Rebbe concludes the Kuntreis Acharon to sec. 263:15 by stating that since it has become a widespread custom for guests to kindle Shabbos lights with a blessing even when they are eating at the table of the master of the house, they may continue to follow this custom because, as explained, based on the principle of areivus, there is a halachic basis for their practice. Concerning the parallels mentioned with regard to searching for chametz and the sounding of the shofar, however, the Alter Rebbe concludes that since there is no widespread custom to the contrary, the agents searching for chametz and the second person sounding the shofar should not recite an independent blessing.

See sec. 437:5, where this ruling is repeated in a slightly different context.

Pesachim 4a.

Ibid. 4b. See also sec. 437:5-6.

It can be concluded that in an instance where a person did not nullify his chametz and thus, the search for chametz is a Scriptural obligation, the word of such individuals is not accepted. See sec. 437:6.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the gloss of Rama (Yoreh Deah 127:3), which states that our Sages accepted the word of a minor with regard to the search for chametz, because it has not been established that there is chametz in the home. Magen Avraham 437:8 differs with Rama and maintains that, as stated in the main text here, it is considered as established fact that there is chametz in the home. Nevertheless, as stated in the main text, our Sages accepted the word of a minor since he has the capacity to correct the matter. The Alter Rebbe also refers to this matter in his Yoreh Deah (Hilchos Shechitah 1:42).

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro (Yoreh Deah 120:14), which rules that a minor’s word is not accepted with regard to the immersion of vessels. In his Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah 120), Rav Yosef Caro explains that this ruling is based on the opinion that immersing vessels is a Scriptural requirement. Magen Avraham 437:8 expands on Beis Yosef, and states that according to the authorities who maintain that immersing vessels is a Rabbinic requirement, a minor’s word is accepted even though it has been established that the vessels must be immersed. The reason Magen Avraham gives for this leniency is that it is within the minor’s capacity to adequately perform this immersion.

See also sec. 399:15, where the Alter Rebbe rules that a minor’s word is not accepted with regard to where the Shabbos limits of a city end, even though the prohibition against going beyond the Shabbos limits is of Rabbinic origin. Magen Avraham 399:7 differentiates between the two instances, explaining that the minor’s word is accepted with regard to the search for chametz because he has the potential to correct the matter. Note, however, Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 399:7), which explains the gloss of Rama (Yoreh Deah, sec. 127:3), as implying that a minor’s word is accepted regarding Rabbinic prohibitions even when he does not have the potential to correct the matter.

See sec. 437:6, where the Alter Rebbe elaborates concerning this point.

It is desirable that these pieces be less than the size of an olive. (See Shiurei Torah 3:9, regarding the size of such a piece of chametz.) The rationale is that, in such an instance, even if one of the pieces becomes lost, there would not be an obligation to re-search the house (Kaf HaChayim 423:30). For as stated in subsection 5 and sec. 446:3, one is not required to search for a piece of chametz that is smaller than the size of an olive. See sec. 439:7, which states that if one placed ten pieces of chametz around the house and found only nine, he is obligated to search the house again.

The Lubavitch custom is to place ten pieces of chametz around the house before commencing the search. These pieces are then burned with any other chametz that is found or that remained after being set aside to be eaten in the morning, as stated in the Alter Rebbe’s Piskei HaSiddur. In that source, the Alter Rebbe writes that the custom of hiding ten pieces is rooted in the Kabbalah. As evident from the beginning of subsection 5 and sec. 446:3, the aggregate of these ten pieces should be at least the size of an olive.

The Lubavitch custom is to wrap these pieces of chametz in paper (Hagadah im Likkutei Taamim UMinhagim). The pieces should not be wrapped in aluminum foil, for then, the chametz wrapped in the foil will not burn properly. See sec. 445:4, 7.

See sec. 180:6, sec. 452:4, and sec. 494:16, where this concept is also mentioned.

See Chulin 106a. This concept is also mentioned in sec. 158:11.

See subsection 3, above.