Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 433 - The Laws Pertaining to the Search for Chametz

SECTION 433 The Laws Pertaining to the Search for Chametz (1-43)

1 The search [for chametz] must be [conducted] by candlelight1 and not by the light of the moon or the light of the sun.2 For example, if one transgressed and did not search on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], he is obligated to search on the day of the fourteenth [of Nissan], as will be explained in sec. 435[:1. Should this occur, the person] should not search by the light of the sun, but rather by the light of a candle.3 [The rationale is that] the light of a candle is effective when searching4 and seeking [to find chametz] in hidden places, holes, and cracks.5

2 When does the above6 apply? To a room with a roof and four walls into which sunlight enters only through holes and windows. However, a room that has only three walls, even if it has a roof – which is called an exedra7 – may be searched during the day without a candle,8 even on a cloudy day, since [the room] is very well illuminated, [even] as an initial preference.9

3 Even a room that has four walls, but has a skylight (i.e., [in the Talmudic era,] the roofs [of the homes] were flat, and they did not have an additional slanted roof above [the room’s ceiling]),10 and this skylight is entirely open without a glass covering,11 it is permitted to check the floor of the room that is directly under the skylight during the day without candlelight, even on a cloudy day. However, the remainder of the room’s floor that is not directly under the skylight must be searched by candlelight.

4 Similarly, [when there is] a window in a wall, if [the window] does not have a glass covering,12 every [area] that is directly opposite [the window] need not be searched by candlelight if one searches during the day, even if it is a cloudy day.

5 All the above applies when one transgressed or forgot and did not search on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan]. As an initial preference, however, even an exedra, [the space] below a skylight, and [the space] opposite a window should be searched only on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] by candlelight. Even if one desires to search [these areas] earlier, on the day of the thirteenth [on Nissan] by sunlight, he does not have license to do so, for he is disregarding the ordinance of our Sages who ordained that [one conduct the] search at night,13 at the time people are found at home. Nevertheless, if [the person] transgressed and searched the exedra on the day of the thirteenth [of Nissan] or on any other day of the year, and was careful [from then on] not to bring chametz into that place, he has fulfilled [his obligation]; he need not search [that place] again on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] by candlelight.

6 In contrast, when one transgressed and searched other rooms that have four walls during the day of the thirteenth [of Nissan] by candlelight, he must search [these rooms] again on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], because the light of a candle does not illuminate well14 during the day.

Even when one searched a dark room during the day of the thirteenth of Nissan, [i.e., a room] that is equally dark during the day and the night, [the person] nevertheless must search [the room] again on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], because even in a dark room, candlelight does not shine during the day in the same manner as it shines at night.15

7 If, however, one desires to search all of his rooms on the night of the thirteenth [of Nissan] or on any other night during the year by candlelight, and then takes care not to bring chametz [into his rooms] again [after concluding his search], he has license to do so. [The person] should not, however, recite a blessing over this search, as will be explained in sec. 436[:1]. Accordingly, it is appropriate [for the person] to leave one room [unsearched, in order] to search it on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] and recite a blessing over his search, so that he will not have intentionally forfeited [the opportunity to recite] a blessing.

Nevertheless, even if [the person] searched all his rooms and did not leave any [room unsearched], he must search at least one room on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan].16 [The rationale is that] since on this night the obligation to search [for chametz] falls on the entire Jewish people who did not yet search [their rooms for chametz], the obligation [to search for chametz] also falls on this person who already searched [all of his rooms], so that no distinction be made between him and the rest of the Jewish people.17

There are authorities who differ with this [ruling] and maintain [such a person] need not search any [of his rooms] again on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], since he already searched all of his rooms as required at night, by candlelight. Weight should be given to their words [and such a person] should not recite a blessing when he searches one [or more] room[s] on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan].18

8 One may not search by the light of a torch,19 only by the light of one small candle.20 [The rationale is that] one cannot [direct] the light of a torch into holes and cracks.21 Moreover, [a person using a torch] will be afraid [to hold the torch too close to his possessions, so as] not to burn down the house.22 His heart will be preoccupied with this fear and he will not search thoroughly.

As an initial preference, one should be careful only to search with a beeswax candle,23 but not with a tallow candle24 because [the person will be] afraid lest [the tallow] drip on kosher utensils. [Similarly, one should not search] with a candle made from [kosher] animal fat, because he will be afraid lest [the fat] drip on dairyutensils, nor with an oil lamp because he will be afraid lest [the oil] drip on clothes and soil them. Also, one cannot focus [the light of such a lamp] into holes and cracks.

After the fact, however, [if a person] already searched with one of these candles [or lamps],25 he fulfilled his obligation and need not search again with a beeswax candle.26 Similarly, in a pressing situation [when one] does not have a beeswax candle, it is considered as after the fact, and, at the outset, he may search with other [types of] candles. Nevertheless, if it is possible for him [to search with] a candle of [kosher] animal fat, he should search [with that and] not with a candle [made from] tallow. [The rationale is that] when one searches with a candle [made] from [kosher] animal fat, he fears only that it might drip on dairy utensils, but not [that it might drip] on utensils used for meat. This would not apply regarding a tallow candle.27

If [the person] does not have [a candle made] from [the fat of a kosher] animal and he has a tallow candle, he should search with [the tallow candle] and not with an oil lamp, because he cannot [direct the light of the oil lamp] on the holes and cracks like he can with a tallow [candle].

9 If one transgressed and searched by the light of a torch, he did not fulfill his obligation, and [he] must search again by the light of a candle. There is an authority who maintains that [the person] does not have to repeat the search. Weight should be given to his words, [and in such a situation] one should not recite a blessing when he searches again.28

10 When an oil lamp has two wicks burning in it, it is governed by the same laws as a torch,29 i.e., even if one transgressed and searched with such a lamp, he must repeat his search.

Similarly, if one kindled two beeswax candles and held them together and searched with them, this search does not fulfill his obligation [to conduct a search. This ruling applies] even if [the person] braided [the two candles] together and made them [into] one candle (or stuck the two candles together, joining them until they became one candle). Nevertheless, since two wicks are burning, [this candle] is considered a torch.

11 One may not search [for chametz] by the light of [a stick of burning] wood. [The rationale is that] a solitary stick of wood does not burn effectively. [Were one to join] two pieces of wood, even if they were very thin, they would be governed by the laws of a torch. Even a type of wood that burns [effectively] alone (which is called kin in Yiddish) should not be used for the search as an initial preference (if one possesses a beeswax candle). [The rationale is that] since [that type of wood] has an unpleasant odor and moreover, sparks fly from it when it burns, there are grounds for concern that these factors will prevent [a person] from searching effectively.

12 It was already explained in sec. 431[:2] that according to Scriptural Law, when one nullifies his chametz and declares it ownerless before the time that it becomes forbidden, that is sufficient. If, [however, a person] does not desire to nullify [his chametz] and declare it ownerless, he is obligated to check and search for it according to Scriptural Law at the onset of the time of its prohibition, and obliterate it from the world entirely.

When [a person] conducts [himself in] this manner, should he find an olive-sized portion30 of chametz in his home during Pesach that he did not find in his [original] search, [the person] does not violate the prohibitions against having chametz seen [in his domain] and possessing chametz, for [his transgression] is due to factors beyond his control, since he searched as required by law.31

According to Scriptural Law, one is only obligated to search those places where he regularly uses chametz throughout the year on an ongoing basis,32 for example, [one is obligated to search] the building and the rooms in which he is accustomed to eat chametz throughout the year. [In those places,] it is impossible that [at some time] a piece of chametz the size of an olive33 did not crumble [from his food] and fall there.34 [Were he not to search these areas, the person] would be liable for [violating the prohibition against] possessing [chametz], even though [the chametz] is not visible (see sec. 440[:1])35 throughout all the days of Pesach. In contrast, even though [the person] did not nullify [his chametz], he is not obligated according to Scriptural Law to search the other rooms where he does not frequently use chametz on an ongoing basis, [for] it is very likely that an olive-sized portion of chametz does not remain in [these rooms].

13 Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, even if [a person] nullified all his chametz, he is obligated to check and search for it36 in all the places where there is concern or doubt that possibly he brought chametz there by happenstance. Therefore, it is necessary to search all the rooms of the house and its lofts – even those in which [the person] is certain that he never ate chametz there–[doing so] as required, at night by the light of a candle. [The rationale is that] at times a person rises in the midst of his meal with his bread in hand and enters a room to perform his tasks. [Take] for example, the room [where one keeps items entrusted to him as] security: At times, [the person] will enter [that room] in the midst of a meal to take out [an article deposited as] security to return it to its owner. There is room for concern [lest] he have forgotten his bread [in that room], or [lest] some [of the bread the person carried into that room] crumbled there.

14 By contrast, those rooms which a person is not wont to enter in the midst of a meal, e.g., storerooms for wine or beer from which he does not take [wine or beer] to drink or to sell, or a shed [where] straw [is stored],37 do not have to be searched unless [the person] knows that he once brought chametz there.

15 However, those storerooms for wine and beer from which a person takes [wine or beer] must be searched,38 for at times the attendant goes [to these storerooms] to bring [more wine or beer] while holding his bread in the midst of a meal, when there are no [longer any of] these [beverages left] on the table. Similarly, rooms where salt, cheese, pickled foods, or candles are stored must be searched, for at times [one’s supply of these items] runs out in the midst of a meal and the attendant goes [to these storerooms] while holding his bread.

16 In contrast, [there is no need to search] those rooms in which one keeps articles whose quantities to be used are well-defined, i.e., [articles] that an attendant will know how much will be needed for this meal before the meal. [The attendant] will go and bring [that amount of the item] before the meal, and the necessity to bring more during the meal will not arise – for example, storerooms for oil and the like, i.e., items that a person does not frequently use on an ongoing basis, and [thus] it is not common for one to change his mind and bring more of [these items] to the table in the midst of a meal. [Rooms containing such articles] need not be searched. If, however, the region is one where oil lamps are frequently kindled, [oil storerooms] must be searched if it is common to use oil for lamps [in those locations where one dines].

17 Holes in the wall of a home, or projections jutting out from the walls that are neither too high nor too low39 must be searched, for they are commonly used. [Hence,] there are grounds for concern that [these holes or projections] were used [to hold] chametz, and some crumbs of chametz remained there. (By contrast, very small holes and tiny cracks in the wall that are not fit for any purpose need not be searched.)40

If, however, [the holes] are so high that a person’s hand cannot reach them, or they are [very] low, less than three handbreadths above the floor of the home, they need not be searched, because it can be assumed that [these areas] were not used. If, however, one knows that [these holes] were used for chametz even once, they must be searched.41

In a home where young children are found, even [the holes] lower than three handbreadths [above the floor] must be searched, lest the children have hidden a bit of chametz there.

18 All [the above applies] to holes in the walls. By contrast, holes and cracks in the floor of the house must be searched even when there are no young children found [in that home], because there are grounds for concern that perhaps a small amount of chametz fell [on the floor] and rolled [into these holes and cracks].42

19 If the floor of the house is covered with boards and between [these boards] there are small, deep holes into which one cannot insert his hand to search, it is not necessary to remove the boards43 in order to search below them.44 Even if one saw that chametz fell into this small hole, and if he does not remove it from there, [the chametz] will remain [in the hole] throughout all the days of Pesach, [the person] nevertheless need not take the trouble to remove [the chametz] from there. Instead, [the person] should nullify [the chametz]; that is sufficient. [The rationale is that] fundamentally, the ordinance to search for [and destroy] chametz after one has nullified it is a decree, [instituted] lest one come and partake of [the chametz] on Pesach.45 [Since] this chametz is located in a place where [in any event] one cannot insert his hand, he will certainly not partake of [this chametz] on Pesach.46

20 A similar law applies with regard to a hole that is wide [enough for a person] to insert his hand, but which is very deep, and [the] person’s hand is not able to reach [low enough] to search the entire [hole]. Whether the hole is [located] in the walls of the home47 or in its floor, [the person] should search within [the hole] as far as his hand reaches. With regard to [the possibility that there is chametz in] the remainder [of the hole], the nullification [of the chametz] is sufficient.48 [This ruling applies] even if there is definitely chametz [deep within the hole].49 See the end of sec. 438.50

21 When there is a very thick wall that serves as a divider between two homes belonging to two people, and there is a hole that extends from one side [of the wall] to the other, each [owner] should search [his] side of the [hole for] as far as his hand can reach.

With regard to the remainder of the length of the hole that is in the middle of the wall, there is reason for concern that perhaps chametz rolled there from either side. Therefore, both [owners] must nullify all the chametz that [could possibly] be in that hole, even if they do not know for certain whether chametz is actually [found] there.

22 If this wall serves as a divider between the home of a Jew and the home of a non-Jew, the Jew should not check the holes in the wall that extend from one side to the other. [This ruling applies] even if there is definitely chametz in [the wall]. There is no need to search and remove [this chametz] on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], because there is concern that this might cause danger: When the non-Jew will see the Jew using the hole by candlelight he may suspect that [the Jew] is performing black magic against him.51

Nevertheless, on the following day, [i.e., on] the day of the fourteenth [of Nissan, the Jew] should search [the hole] by daylight as far as his hand reaches, even if it is not definite that chametz is found there. There is no concern about [the search endangering the Jew] when he uses [the hole] by daylight, for [the Jew] commonly uses the hole by daylight throughout the year. ([If the Jew does not commonly use the hole, there is no need to search it,] for any hole that is not commonly used need not be searched at all, as explained above.)52 It is sufficient for [the Jew] to nullify the remainder [of the chametz found in the hole], even if there is definitely chametz there.

23 Slanted roofs, like the roofs of our [homes],53 need not be searched, because they are not fit to be used at all. (However, [different rules apply with regard to] the level roofs that are below the slanted roofs.54 If one frequently uses [the space between the level roof and the slanted roof], it must be searched, unless it is designated for a purpose for which it is uncommon to access [this area] in the middle of one’s meal, e.g., [the person] designated [this area] as a storage space for wine or beer, and he never takes [wine or beer] from there, neither to drink or to sell, [during a meal], or [he used this area] for other similar purposes, as explained above).55

[Moreover,] even a slanted roof that is very low, and even one that is located in a house, e.g., the roof of a cabinet (i.e., a closet or a cupboard, in which utensils and food are stored), need not be searched. [The person] must, however, search in the cabinet and, similarly, inside a chest, since he sometimes uses them for chametz.

24 It is not necessary to search a barn [used] for cattle. [The rationale is that] it can be assumed that any chametz that fell there was eaten by the cattle. Thus, there is a compounded doubt;56 it is possible there was never chametz [in the barn], and even if one will posit that there was chametz [in the barn], maybe it was eaten by the animals. The possibility that the animals ate [any chametz in the barn] offsets the possibility that chametz [was located there].57

25 Similarly, there is no need to search a chicken coop, for it can be assumed that any chametz that was there was eaten by the chickens. Similarly, the floor of any house where chickens are found58 need not be searched.

When does the above apply? When close to Pesach, i.e., for the entire 30 days before the [holiday, one] was careful not to eat chametz in this home. If, however, one was not careful to [refrain from eating] chametz in [this home] for the 30 days before Pesach, its floor must be searched as required by law, at night by candlelight. [The rationale is that] since chametz was eaten there, it is impossible that some chametz did not fall on the floor.59 Thus, [it is assumed that] there is definitely chametz [in the home. Now,] it is possible that the chickens ate [the chametz], but it is [also] possible that [the chickens] did not eat it. The possibility [that the chickens ate the chametz] does not offset the established fact [that chametz had definitely been located there].60

In contrast, [with regard to] any chametz that fell [on the floor] a long time before Pesach – i.e., [at least] 30 days beforehand – there are two possibilities [that lead] to leniency:61 a) perhaps [the chametz] was eaten [by the chickens], and b)62 even if one postulates that [the chametz] was not eaten by chickens, maybe over the course of time, it became moldy or repulsive, to the extent that it was no longer fit to be eaten by dogs, in which instance it need not be obliterated at all, as will be explained in sec. 442[:21].

[The above rulings apply] even though [leniency is not granted in all instances of compounded doubt. Thus,] a person is obligated to search in all [of his] rooms where a concern exists that chametz was brought there even once,63 even though [in this instance as well] there are several [factors that raise a] doubt [as to whether the chametz is still present64 and on which basis, one might think that] there are grounds for leniency. [For example, since the person is not certain that he brought chametz into that place,] it is possible that he did not bring chametz there at all. [Even] if one will postulate that [the person] did bring [chametz] there, perhaps he returned and completely removed [the chametz] from [that room], and no [chametz] remained. [Even] if one will postulate that some [chametz] remained, perhaps, [the chametz was brought there] well before65 Pesach, and over the course of time, it became moldy or repulsive to the extent that it was no longer fit to be eaten by dogs. [The rationale for requiring a search in the face of all these doubts is that] the primary ordinance of the Sages who ordained that [one must] check and search for chametz was [instituted] only because of the doubt that maybe chametz was present. According to Scriptural Law, there is absolutely no need to be concerned about such a [doubtful situation], for it is a general and far-reaching Torah principle that we do not assume that a disqualifying factor exists,66 as stated in Yoreh Deah, sec. 39[:1]. Nevertheless, because of the severity of the prohibition against chametz, the Sages ruled stringently and were even concerned regarding a doubtful situation of this nature. They therefore [instituted] the mitzvah of searching [for chametz]. If so, what difference does it make whether there is but one factor raising a doubt [about the presence of chametz] or whether that doubt is compounded by several factors?

[When,] however, the [factor that raises a] doubt [concerning the presence of chametz] is very common, [for example a small bit of chametz was in a chicken coop, and] it is very common that chickens and [other animals] eat everything they find, it can almost be considered as a certainty [that the chametz does not exist]. Nevertheless, [even] a factor of this nature, that raises a doubt [concerning the presence of chametz], is not sufficient in itself to negate [the obligation to search for chametz] when it is a definitely established situation – [i.e.,] there is a prevailing assumption that chametz was located in that place. [The rationale is that] a definitely established situation outweighs [even] a factor that can almost be considered as a certainty.

When, however, there is also an additional factor that raises a doubt [concerning the presence of chametz], i.e., the possibility that over the course of time [the chametz became ruined to the extent] that a dog would not eat it, even though this [second] factor that raises a doubt is not [of the degree that it can] almost be considered as a certainty, it is nevertheless [significant. This second factor] detracts from the strength [of the prevailing assumption, and the presence of chametz is no longer considered as a] definitively established [fact. The rationale is that] since there is a factor that raises another doubt [concerning the presence of chametz, its presence] is no [longer considered as] a definitively established [fact. Instead,] the presence of chametz now [is considered merely a factor that] can almost be considered as a certainty. [Hence,] the possibility that the chickens ate [the chametz], which [also] can almost be considered as a certainty, offsets [the possibility that chametz is present], which [now] can [also only] be considered as almost a certainty.

See sec. 444[:9, which states] that even when it is necessary to search the floor of a home, it is only necessary to search for [bits of chametz] that are somewhat large. By contrast, extremely small crumbs, even when they are visibly lying on [the floor,] need not be [picked] up and obliterated if they are located where they will be tread upon by people’s feet, for [these small crumbs] will [certainly] be obliterated as a matter of course when people tread on them.67 However, [an exception to this rule is] when one sees [such crumbs on the floor] after the onset of the sixth hour of the day [on the fourteenth of Nissan]. At that time, [the person] is obligated to entirely obliterate [the crumbs] immediately upon seeing them. Consult that source.

26 Similar laws apply with regard to all rooms that need not be searched [for chametz] because it is not ordinary practice to ever bring chametz there: [If one] saw a mouse bring pieces of chametz into [these rooms] 30 days before [the holiday], it is not necessary to search [the rooms] on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] for the reason explained [above].68

If, by contrast, one saw [a mouse bring chametz into such a room] within 30 days [of the festival], it is necessary to search [the room for chametz] on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] for a reason similar to that which will be explained in sec. 438[:1ff.].69 See also sec. 465[:3].70

27 Similar [laws apply regarding] a cattle barn and a chicken coop:71 If one knows that there definitely was chametz in [these places] within 30 days of Pesach, but he does not know where [the chametz] is located, [the person] is obligated to check and search [these places] for chametz on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] by candlelight, and to remove [the chametz] from there.

If [the person] desires to feed the animals or the chickens this chametz or other chametz,72 he must stand over [the animals] until they finish eating [the chametz] and watch over [the animals to make sure that] they do not push [some of the chametz away], causing it to roll into a hidden place that is not visible, lest [the chametz] remain [hidden] there until the commencement of Pesach and thus, [the person] will violate the prohibition against possessing [chametz].73

If a small amount of chametz remains from their feeding, [the person] should take it away from there and not leave it in front of [the animals],74 lest [the chametz] remain there until the commencement of Pesach. [This stringency applies] even if [the person] intends to go [back] to [the animals] at the onset of the sixth hour and see if there is any small amount of chametz there, and [if there is any chametz, to] obliterate it. Even so, there is room for concern that at the onset of the time [to] obliterate chametz, [the person] will forget about the chametz he left for [the animals,] because he may not think at that time that perhaps some chametz remained [after the animals] ate from it.75 Therefore, when [the person] places the food before [the animals], he must not budge from there until [the animals] finish eating, after which he [must] store away the remainder [of the food] in the manner to be explained in sec. 434[:1]. In such an instance, [the person] will certainly not forget to obliterate [the remaining chametz] at the time [chametz] must be obliterated, just as [the person] will not forget to obliterate all the [other] chametz that he knows [he possesses].

28 The grounds of one’s courtyard76 need not be searched because ravens and other fowl are found there,77 and they [will] eat all the chametz that falls [there].78 Even if one knows that there is definitely chametz in the courtyard, there is no need for him to remove [the chametz] from [the courtyard] at the time of the search on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan. Indeed,] even as an initial preference, one may cast chametz into the courtyard before the sixth hour [of the day of the fourteenth of Nissan, provided] he goes to see [whether there is still] chametz in the courtyard at the onset of the sixth hour.79 If [the chametz] is still [in the courtyard, i.e.,] it was not eaten by the ravens, [the person] is obligated to obliterate [the chametz] from existence entirely, immediately upon seeing it, as will be explained in sec. 445[:3ff.].

There is no concern that [the person] may forget to go and see [whether the chametz was eaten] at the onset of the sixth hour. [The rationale is that] even if he does forget, there is no prohibition involved, since the ravens certainly took [the chametz]80 before the onset of the sixth hour, and brought it to the place from where they came.

True, it was explained above,81 and it will be explained in sec. 438[:1] and sec. 439[:1], that the possibility [that chametz was] eaten does not offset [the obligation to search] when it is definitely known that chametz [was present]. Nevertheless, [the fact that chametz] will be taken by ravens or [other similar birds], and [similarly, the fact that chametz] will be dragged away by weasels, mice, or [other similar animals is considered as something that will] definitely [occur]; it is only doubtful whether [or not the ravens] will eat [the chametz immediately],82 for it is possible that they will not be hungry at that time. Therefore, with regard to mice and other similar types of animals that live in a house, we rule stringently concerning chametz that was definitely present. [The rationale is that] even if [the mice] dragged [the chametz] away, it is [presently] hidden in the house or the courtyard, and one violates the prohibition against possessing [chametz] because of it. The only justification for leniency is that perhaps [the chametz] was eaten. [That, however, is only a possibility and] that possibility does not offset the definite fact [that chametz had been located there].

Ravens and [and other birds], by contrast, are not domesticated, and they generally come to [a person’s property] from another location. Accordingly, when [these fowl] take [the chametz], they will certainly bring it to the place where they come from. It is merely that initially, at the onset of the time for the obliteration [of chametz], i.e., the beginning of the sixth hour, one should not rely on this [presumption]. Since [the person] can go to the courtyard and see whether the chametz is still there, he should go and [check].83

29 If holes in the wall of a courtyard are not very high or very low,84 they must be searched if it is common to use them, because ravens are not found in holes.85

30 [The following laws apply when] a landslide (i.e., a mound of stones and earth) fell on chametz:86 If a dog cannot detect [the] smell [of the chametz], and [hence, will not] seek it, i.e., there are at least three handbreadths [of stones and earth] above [the chametz],87 it is considered as if [the chametz] was obliterated from existence entirely. [Its owner] does not violate the prohibitions against having chametz seen [in his domain] and possessing chametz according to Scriptural Law even if he did not nullify [his possession of this chametz]. Indeed, according to Scriptural Law, one may initially cause a landslide to fall upon [the chametz],88 even after the onset of the time for the obliteration [of chametz], and by doing so, [the chametz] is [considered as] obliterated from existence. After Pesach, [the person] may remove the landslide and retake possession of the chametz that had been buried.89

Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, even if a landslide fell [on chametz] due to [natural causes, the owner] must nullify [his possession of the chametz] before the onset of the sixth hour. [This is] a decree, [enacted as a safeguard] lest the landslide be cleared during Pesach, revealing the chametz, and [causing its owner] to violate the prohibitions against having chametz seen [in his domain] and possessing chametz according to Scriptural Law. If he did not nullify [his possession of the chametz buried under the landslide] before the sixth hour, from the sixth hour onward, he may no longer nullify [his possession of that chametz. The rationale is that] since he may no longer benefit from [the chametz] due to the decree of the Sages, who forbade benefiting from [chametz] from the beginning of the sixth hour onward, he no longer has any portion in [the chametz] nor [does he have any] rights to it. Thus, [the chametz] is not considered as his with regard to his being able to nullify [his possession of] it or declare it ownerless.90

There are authorities who maintain that even if [the person] did not nullify [his possession of the chametz] before the sixth hour [on the fourteenth of Nissan], he is not penalized [and required] to clear the landslide to remove the chametz from there and obliterate it from existence, even though he violated a Rabbinic command [by failing to nullify his possession of the chametz].

Other authorities differ with all of the above, maintaining that even when a landslide three-handbreadths high fell on [chametz, the chametz] is not considered as having been obliterated entirely from existence. Instead, [the situation] is comparable to [chametz] concealed in cisterns, trenches, or storage cavities, in which instance [its owner] violates the prohibitions against possessing [chametz] according to Scriptural Law, as will be explained in sec. 440[:1]. Therefore, if [the person] does not desire to clear the landslide to remove the chametz and obliterate it at the time when one must obliterate [his chametz], he is obligated by Scriptural Law to nullify [his possession of the chametz] before the onset of the sixth hour.

[The person] fulfills his obligation with this nullification even according to Rabbinic Law. [The rationale is that] fundamentally, the Sages’ decree – that nullifying one’s [possession of] chametz and declaring it ownerless is not [entirely] effective – was only instituted so that [a person would] not forget and come to eat from [this chametz] on Pesach. [The Sages feared that this might occur] if [one merely] nullifies [his possession of chametz] but does not entirely obliterate it from existence.91 [In this instance, however,] where a landslide three-handbreadths high fell on [the chametz, and] a dog cannot remove [the chametz] from [under the landslide] and leave it in an exposed area, there is no concern that a person will come and eat the chametz. [Instead,] throughout the days of Pesach, [this chametz] will be concealed and hidden from the eye.

If, however, [the owner] did not nullify [his possession of the chametz] before the sixth hour, he is obligated according to Scriptural Law to clear the landslide to remove the chametz and destroy it. If there is a concern for danger if he removes the landslide by hand, for example, scorpions are found in the garbage dumps and landslides in this place, he is obligated to hire workers to clear the landslide with shovels, axes, and the like so that there will be no concern for danger,92 [clearing the landslide] until they remove the chametz from there.

([If] snakes [are found in the landslide, they] do not constitute a definite source of danger; see sec. 104[:2. Although one is obligated to clear the landslide, he need not hire workers to do so with special tools].)

With regard to [actual practice, since the matter concerns] Scriptural Law, one should [follow] the stringency of the latter opinion.93 Nevertheless, if a large landslide that cannot even be cleared with a shovel and an axe fell [on chametz], that chametz is [deemed as] lost for its owners and for all other people. [Hence,] all authorities agree that it is as if [the chametz] was entirely obliterated from existence. Even as an initial preference, one need not nullify [his possession of this chametz] at all.94 [The rationale is that] the Torah declared,95 “Chametz of yours shall not be seen.” [The Sages understand96 the word “yours” as a limitation of the prohibition, i.e., it is only] “your chametz” that you are forbidden to see. This chametz [that is covered by a landslide] is not considered as “yours.” Since [the person] cannot remove [the chametz] from the landslide, he has no rights [of ownership] over it.97

31 If a small landslide – i.e., one less than three handbreadths high98 – fell on [chametz], and thus a dog could detect its smell and [hence, could] search for [the chametz] and take it from there, [the owner] is obligated to clear the landslide and obliterate the chametz at the time he [is obligated to] obliterate [chametz. This applies] even though he nullified [his possession of the chametz], and declared [the chametz] ownerless.

[This is] a decree [ordained as a safeguard] lest the dog leave over some [chametz] in open view when it removes [the chametz] to eat it.99 [It is then possible] that when a person sees [the chametz], he will forget [that it is Pesach] and eat it. If there is a concern for danger if [the owner] removes the landslide by hand,100 he is obligated to clear the landslide with shovels and axes in a manner that averts the danger.

32 When does [the obligation to remove the landslide] apply? When, at the time [when the obligation to] obliterate [chametz] takes effect, [the owner] is certain that there is definitely chametz under the landslide. [Different laws apply,] however, when, at the time [when the obligation to] obliterate [chametz] takes effect, [the owner] is not certain that there is definitely chametz under the landslide. For example, there were holes in a wall that were used for chametz.101Afterwards, the wall fell and created a landslide. There is room for doubt [whether chametz was present in those holes when the wall fell. It could be] said that the chametz was already taken away from the holes before the wall fell, and none remained in the holes. Thus, [it is possible that] at the time [when the obligation to] obliterate [chametz] takes effect, there is absolutely no chametz under the landslide. Therefore, [leniency may be granted] if [the owner] already nullified [his possession of] this chametz, or if he can still do so,102 in which instance, even if there would be [chametz] under the landslide, he is not obligated to remove [the chametz] from there and obliterate it according to Scriptural Law. [In this case, searching in the landslide for chametz] is only a Rabbinic obligation, [and] the Sages did not [obligate] him to remove [any chametz that might possibly be] there using a shovel and an axe, since it is possible that no chametz exists there at all. Nor did [the Sages] obligate him to check and search the landslide by hand, and trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, that he would not be harmed by a scorpion, [relying on the promise that] agents sent to perform a mitzvah will not be harmed.103

[Seemingly, such a search should have been required. Above, an exemption was granted from searching] a hole in a wall between the homes of a Jew and a non-Jew [at night, by candlelight].104 Concern was shown for [possible] danger, because [in that instance the] danger is highly likely, and whenever danger is highly likely, one should not rely on a miracle, even if he is involved in a mitzvah of the Omnipresent, as [evident from the narrative]:105 “And Shmuel said, ‘How can I go?! Shaul will hear and kill me.’ G‑d replied, ‘Take a calf….’”106 In this instance, however, harm is not likely, for it is entirely possible that there are no scorpions in the landslide at all. [Even] if one will say that [there] are [scorpions] present, maybe [the owner] will not touch one by hand when he checks and searches in the landslide. And even if one will say that he will touch [a scorpion], maybe [the scorpion] will not harm him because it is buried in the landslide. [Thus,] in this instance there is only a mere suspicion [of danger], and we are not concerned about [such a suspicion] until after the mitzvah is performed, as will be explained.)107

[Nevertheless,] the Sages [did not obligate the owner to search because] they were concerned that perhaps he might have lost a pin in this landslide before [undertaking] this search. ([The Sages were concerned only about a loss that took place before the search,] for during the search [the owner] will certainly not lose anything as result of being involved in the search, because agents sent to perform a mitzvah will not be harmed, neither physically nor financially.) He will not desire to search for [the pin] before searching for [the chametz] because he will be fearful of the scorpions found there. While he is searching [for chametz], however, when he is occupied with [the performance of] the mitzvah, he will also [look for] the pin. There is room for concern that even after [he concludes] the search [for chametz], he will [continue] searching for the pin. At that time, he is not at all involved in a mitzvah and [therefore, he] may be endangered.108

[At the time of the search [for chametz], by contrast, even if [the owner] also searches for a pin, he is considered as one occupied with [the performance of] a mitzvah, as [our Sages state,] “One who says, ‘This sela109 is given to tzedakah so that my son may live,’ or ‘… so that I will merit [a portion in] the World to Come,’ is a perfectly righteous man” with regard to [this] mitzvah, even though he also has his own benefit in mind. It is not said that he is not acting for [G‑d’s] sake. On the contrary, he fulfilled the mitzvah of his Creator Who commanded him to give tzedakah although he also has in mind his own benefit – [i.e.] that his son remain alive or that he merit the World to Come.]

If, however, [the owner] did not nullify [his possession of his chametz], and the sixth hour already commenced – in which instance, he no longer has the possibility of nullifying [his possession of the chametz] – he is obligated to clear the landslide using a shovel and an axe, and check and search if there exists any of the chametz110for which he used these holes during the 30 days before Pesach.

By contrast, [when] there are many factors that raise doubts [as to whether chametz actually exists in these holes], and hence [the combination of these factors] lead to a lenient ruling concerning the chametz for which [the person] used [these holes] before 30 days [before Pesach]: Perhaps all [the chametz] was taken from these holes; perhaps [the chametz] became moldy over the course of time; (perhaps there are three handbreadths of [earth and stone on top of the chametz], in which instance, it is considered as obliterated according to Scriptural Law).111 Thus, it is only necessary to obliterate [this chametz] according to Rabbinic Law.112 The Sages did not wish to trouble [the person and compel him] to clear the landslide using a shovel and an axe, since there is doubt whether there is [actual] chametz present.

33 All the above applies when [the owner] has grounds for doubt whether there is chametz under the landslide that is not covered by three handbreadths [of earth and stones]. If, however, [the owner] is certain that [even] if chametz was present,there are certainly three handbreadths [of earth and stones] above it, he need not trouble himself to clear the mound [with] a shovel and an axe, even though he used the holes for chametz within 30 days [of Pesach. The rationale is that] there is [room for] doubt [whether or] not any of the chametz which [was stored in] the holes remains in this landslide, for [it is possible that] all [the chametz] was taken from the holes before the wall fell. Therefore, one may rule leniently, relying on [the opinion of] the authorities who maintain that when a landslide three handbreadths high fell on chametz, it is not necessary at all to clear the landslide to obliterate the chametz,113 even though [its owner] did not nullify [his possession of] it, nor does he have the possibility of doing so.114

34 [When] a landslide three handbreadths high fell on chametz, and [its owner] nullified [his possession of the chametz] before the sixth hour as required, [if] the landslide was cleared after Pesach and the chametz uncovered, [the chametz] is permitted, even to be eaten.115 [The rationale is that] chametz that existed during Pesach is only forbidden [after Pesach] as a penalty imposed by our Sages on one who violated the prohibitions against having chametz seen [in his domain] and possessing chametz, [either] according to Scriptural Law or Rabbinic Law, as will be explained in sec. 448[:1, 29. Since the owner of] this chametz upon which a landslide fell did not violate any prohibition at all, there is no reason to penalize him.

(See, [however,] sec. 436[:18, which states that] if, at the time the landslide fell on the chametz, [the owner] intended to clear the landslide after Pesach and take possession of the chametz beneath it, it is forbidden to benefit from [the chametz]. Note the rationale stated there.)116

35 It is a common practice of those who store wine and oil to arrange the barrels [in the storehouses] row by row, until the entire floor of the cellar is filled with rows of barrels. They then place [another row of] barrels upon the lower row of barrels across the entire length and width of the cellar. [This pattern is] repeated many times until the entire cellar is filled with barrels from its floor to its ceiling across its entire length and its entire width, (i.e., [the area] from the wall where the entrance [of the cellar] is located to the wall opposite it is considered [the cellar’s] length and [the area] from the adjoining wall to the wall opposite it is considered its width). When [the owner] comes to search [the cellar] for chametz, (i.e., [in an instance] where he is required to search [the cellar], e.g., [it is a storeroom] from which he takes supplies [in the middle of a meal], as explained above,)117 he need not search the entire [storeroom]. Instead, he must search [only] between the barrels in the two highest rows next to the wall where the entrance is located,118 i.e., [he should search] the top row across the entire width of the cellar from the wall adjacent to the entrance to the wall opposite it. This constitutes the length of this row. [The] width [of this row] is the length of one barrel. This row is closest to the wall where the entrance is located and it is the highest row, above all the rows next to this wall. He must also search the row [of barrels] beneath this row; this is sufficient.119 [The rationale is that] the attendant is accustomed to placing his bread down on [the barrels in] these two rows when he draws wine from the barrels.

36 Synagogues and houses of study must be searched120 on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] by candlelight, because young children bring chametz into them throughout the year.121

[Generally,] the synagogue attendants are not careful to search [these structures] at night. Instead, they sweep them thoroughly during the day. This is not a proper practice, and [the synagogue attendants] should be admonished to fulfill the mitzvah of our Sages as ordained.122 ([The synagogue attendants] may recite a blessing over this search.)123 They need not, however, nullify [their possession of this chametz] after the search, because they cannot nullify the possession of and declare ownerless chametz that does not belong to them, for a person may not declare ownerless an object that does not belong to him.

37 If one transgressed and did not search a synagogue or a house of study on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], he may check [such a structure] during the day on the fourteenth [of Nissan] by daylight,124 even as an initial preference. It is not necessary to check [the structure] by candlelight. [The rationale is that] it is common practice to build [these structures] with many windows. Thus, they are well illuminated and hence, they are governed by the laws applying to an exedra, explained above.125 Similarly, other buildings and rooms that have many windows and are well lit are governed by the laws applying to an exedra.

38 All rooms that must be searched must be swept before they are searched. [The rationale is that] unless they are swept, [the rooms] are very dusty, and it is impossible to search them effectively. Every person should exhort the members of his household to also sweep under the beds, lest a small amount of chametz have rolled there.126

39 After all the places [that must be searched] were swept thoroughly, one must go back and search all the places by candlelight, [checking] in the holes and the cracks that must be searched, lest there be chametz there, for sweeping is not at all effective [in removing the chametz] from the holes and cracks.127

40 One must even search beneath the beds128 by candlelight after sweeping [there], unless there are chickens found [in the house]. In such an instance, one can rely [on the assumption] that [the chickens] ate all the chametz that rolled under the beds.

41 It is, however, necessary to search by candlelight beneath benches129 [in the room where one eats], even when chickens are found [in his house], since it is impossible that chametz did not fall there if it is a room where one eats. Thus, chametz is definitely [presumed to be] present under the benches, and the possibility that the chickens ate [the chametz] does not offset the fact that chametz is definitely present.130

42 Every person should be careful to check and shake out his gloves and clothes-pockets, and those of [his] children, because at times chametz is [placed] in them. [These garments] need not be searched on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan] because on the next day, when [the person] eats chametz, it is possible that he will [place] chametz there again. Thus, of what value will his search have been? Instead, he should search [these garments] and shake them out on the following day, at the time when he obliterates [his chametz].131

Even if one desires to be stringent with himself and check [his gloves and pockets] on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan, the person] must search [his gloves and pockets] again on the following day at the time when [he] obliterates [his chametz], lest he [placed chametz]in [his gloves and pockets] from the chametz that he ate after the search.

43 All the above132 [applies with regard] to one who is wont at times to [place] chametz in his gloves and clothes-pockets. By contrast, [a person] who is never wont to do this, need not search [his gloves and pockets] at all, not on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], nor at the time when he obliterates [his chametz]. Nevertheless, may blessings be bestowed upon one who is stringent [and searches these places].