Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 434 - The Laws Observed Directly After the Search [for Chametz]

SECTION 434 The Laws Observed Directly After the Search [for Chametz] (1-16)

1 When a person checks and searches for chametz on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan],1 he should remove [the chametz] from the holes, the cracks, the hidden places, and the corners [in his home], gathering [the chametz] all together and placing it in one place. [The person] should not obliterate [the chametz he finds] immediately. Instead, he must wait until the end of the fifth hour on the following day, for the reason to be explained in sec. 445[:7].2

[The person] must be careful to guard the chametz so that none of it will be dragged away by small children or by mice. A second search would be necessary,3 if it became apparent to [the person] that [some of the chametz collected had been] dragged away, e.g., [the person] did not find as many pieces [of chametz] as there were when he set them aside immediately after the search.4 [In such an instance,] certainly, some of [the chametz] was removed by children or mice who dragged it away, and there is concern that [rather than consuming it], they deposited [the chametz] in one of the holes in the house. Therefore, [the person] must go back and search for [chametz] again. Since it is possible that he will forget [to search again],5 or perhaps he is not well-versed in halachah and he will not know that [in such an instance] he is obligated to search again, our Sages therefore obligated every person to be careful regarding the chametz that he found in the search [and] to guard [this chametz] carefully from children and mice.6

How should [the person] guard [the chametz he found during the search] from [children and mice]? He should hide [the chametz] in a chest or the like, [i.e.,] in a place from where children and mice cannot take [it]. Alternatively, he should hang [the chametz] in the air, or cover it with a wide utensil7 and place it in a slightly high spot, so that the children cannot [reach it and] take it from there. He should not cover it with a small and narrow utensil, since mice could uncover it [in such an instance].

2 Similarly, the chametz that was prepared to be eaten that night or the next day until the fifth hour, and was set aside in buildings or other rooms that need to be searched, must be stored away in the manner described [in the previous subsection].8

When must [the chametz] be stored away? Before [the person] begins the search. For if he does not store [the chametz] away beforehand, there is room for concern that during the search itself, after he [concluded his] search in one corner and [then] went to another corner, he will see a mouse or a weasel take a small amount of the chametz [he had] set aside to eat.9 He will then have to go back and search the corner that he already searched a [second] time, lest [the animal] dragged away the chametz and placed it in the corner [that he had already searched].

For this same reason, [the person] should be vigilant while walking from corner to corner during [his] search, to carefully guard the chametz he found in the first corner and take it with him or store it away in the manner described.

3 People at large are only careful to store away the chametz found in the search. By contrast, they carry other chametz back and forth through the rooms that were already searched, and they are not careful [to ensure] that pieces [of chametz] are not dragged away from [the chametz they are carrying. These people] are not conducting themselves properly, and they must be instructed and warned not to act in this manner.

4 If one stored away the chametz in the manner described [in subsection 1], and afterwards found that some of [the chametz] was missing or that it was removed entirely, [the person] need not return and search the places he already searched. [The rationale is that] certainly an adult took [the chametz] from [where it had been stored],10 and [it was] not [taken by] children or mice.11

5 If [a person] transgressed and did not store away [the chametz] at all, but instead left it spread out and dispersed in the house, without being careful to guard it at all, and moreover, [the person] did not know how many pieces there were – and thus, it is possible that some [of the] pieces [he originally found] were missing, [because] children or mice dragged them away – [the person], nevertheless, is not required to return and search [the places he already searched a second time.12 The rationale is that] since he is not certain that any [chametz] was missing, he is not required to return and search again [the places that] he had already searched because of a mere suspicion that mice dragged away some of the chametz and left it in one of the holes in the house.

([Moreover, there would only be a difficulty if the mouse took] a large piece [of chametz] that it could not eat all [at once].13 If, however, [the mouse only] took a small piece, it can be assumed that it ate the entire [piece]. As explained in sec. 433[:24], the possibility that [the chametz had been] eaten offsets the possibility that the chametz [could have been left in a domain]. Consult that source.)

[Concern is not paid to the suspicion mentioned above,] because were one to be required to go back and search due to such a suspicion, there would be no end to the matter. For it is impossible that all the Jewish people [in his location] will complete their search for chametz at the [exact] same moment. Hence, when one person finished his search before another [person] completed searching all his rooms, there is room for concern that at this moment a mouse took chametz from one of the rooms of the other person whose rooms were not searched and that contained an ample amount of chametz, and brought it to one of the rooms that had already been searched, belonging to the person who completed his search, thus requiring him to search again. [Were one to show concern about such a suspicion and require the person to search again,] there would be no end to the matter.14

6 After the search, [the owner] should immediately nullify [his possession of] any chametz that exists in his domain that he did not find [during] his search.15 This nullification is an ordinance [instituted by] our Sages.

Why did the Sages ordain this?16 Seemingly, even if some crumbs of chametz that were not found in the search remained in corners, holes, and cracks, [these crumbs] would be considered as inherently insignificant. [Thus,] it is not necessary to nullify [one’s possession of these crumbs] and declare them ownerless, since they are inherently ownerless, because people regard them as valueless. [Indeed,] even if [the householder] had found [these crumbs] during his search, he would not have taken them to eat them. Instead, [the owner] would have cast [the crumbs] out in an ownerless place or burned them.17 If so, why did the Sages ordain [that these crumbs be nullified]?

[The Sages] were concerned that perhaps in one of the corners or in one of the holes there remained an attractive bun18 that is chametz, that was not found during the search. Were [the person] to have found [the bun], he would have considered it valuable, and would not have declared it ownerless. Therefore, unlike [mere] crumbs, [such chametz] is not inherently ownerless. [Accordingly,] there is reason for concern that [the householder] might discover [the bun] on Pesach and thus violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz].

(Before he discovers [the bun], however, he does not violate the prohibition against possessing [chametz] even though [the bun] was hidden in his house, as explained in sec. 433[:12]. See the rationale [explained] there.)19

Even though [the person] will obliterate [the bun] from existence entirely immediately upon discovering it, there is room for concern that he will delay slightly before he occupies himself with [obliterating the bun], and during this delay, he will be violating the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz].20When, by contrast, he nullifies [his possession of] any chametz that he did not find during the search– even if he will find a bun during Pesach, he will not have violated the prohibition against possessing [chametz] according to Scriptural Law, even if he does not obliterate [the bun] immediately. [By delaying the obliteration of the bun, the person would, however, violate] a Rabbinic prohibition.21

7 Fundamentally, nullifying [one’s possession of chametz] is [dependent on the sincere intention within one’s] heart,22 that [the person decides] within his heart that all the chametz he possesses is [considered by him] as if it does not exist and is of absolutely no value at all. [Instead, his chametz] is like dust, [i.e.] like something for which he has absolutely no use. When [a person] makes such a resolution in his heart, he has diverted his attention from all chametz located in his domain, causing it to be completely ownerless. Afterwards, [the person] does not violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz], as explained above in sec. 431[:2].

Despite [the fact that the nullification of one’s possession of chametz is dependent on his feelings], the Sages ordained that a person express this resolve verbally [as well,]23 saying: “May all chametz that exists in my domain,24 that I have not seen and have not destroyed, be considered nullified, like the dust of the earth.”25 (Since, as will be explained in Yoreh Deah 28,26 gold is also referred to as dust, as in the term,27 “it had gold dust,” [the person] must therefore specify “the dust of the earth.”)

Even though [when a person] desires to declare his property ownerless and says, “Behold, my property is as dust,” [his statements are] of no consequence,28 nevertheless, [an exception is made with regard to nullifying one’s possession of chametz. The rationale is that] at the time [a person] violates [the prohibitions against] having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz, the chametz] is not his at all. [The person] has no portion in it, nor any rights to it, for he is forbidden to benefit from it [in any way].29 It is only that Scripture deemed [the chametz] as his so that his name will be associated with [this chametz] with regard to the violation of the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz].30 Therefore, one need not nullify [his possession of his chametz] using the wording necessary to have it considered as ownerless in the complete sense. Rather, [even when the person’s wording] merely [indicates that] he is diverting his attention from [his chametz], nullifying [his possession of] it in his heart and mind, and [considering it] as dust, that is sufficient to disassociate his name from [the chametz], so that it not be considered as his and thus, prevent him from violating any prohibition because of it.

Nonetheless, anyone who is meticulous in his actions should explicitly [verbalize his disassociation and] utter nullification of his chametz using the Aramaic wording31 that connotes declaring property ownerless in a complete sense. [Thus,] he should say, “May [all my chametz] be ownerless, like the dust of the earth.”32

8 Why was the wording of the nullification [of the possession of chametz] ordained to be recited in Aramaic? Because of the unlettered people who do not understand the Holy Tongue,33 only Aramaic.34

Accordingly, in these lands where the unlettered people also do not understand Aramaic, they should be taught and cautioned to recite the wording of the nullification in a language that they understand. [The rationale is that] fundamentally, nullifying [one’s possession of chametz] is [dependent on the feelings of one’s] heart. Therefore, one’s heart must understand the words that one speaks.

If one did not heed [these instructions] and recited the [declaration of] nullification in a language that he did not understand at all, should he know the intent of the [declaration of] nullification – i.e., that its intent is to nullify [his possession of] chametz and declare it ownerless – he fulfills his obligation even if he does not understand the meaning of the words he is speaking. However, those unlettered men and women who do not at all understand the objective of the [declaration of] nullification and its intent, and think that they are reciting a prayer or supplication – even though they recited it in Aramaic or in the Holy Tongue – do not fulfill their obligation.35 [The reason is that] fundamentally, nullifying [one’s possession of chametz] and declaring it ownerless is [entirely dependent on the feelings of one’s] heart. If one does not consider [his chametz] ownerless in his heart,36 even though he says that he is declaring [his chametz] ownerless, [his statement] is of no consequence, because [any time a person declares something] ownerless, his verbal statements and his heart[’s intent] must be in [complete] accord.

9 When [a person] nullifies [his possession of] chametz in the Holy Tongue, he must mention both chametz (“leaven”) and s’or (“a leavening agent”), saying “May all chametz and s’or that exists in my domain….” [This is necessary] because one violates the prohibitions against having [these forbidden substances]seen [in his domain] and possessing [them] if he fails to nullify [his possession of both of] them, as it is written:37 “Chametz of yours and s’or of yours shall not be seen.”

The same law applies when one makes the [declaration of] nullification in other languages; both [types of substances] should be mentioned explicitly. When, however, one makes the declaration of nullification in Aramaic, it is not necessary to mention [both types individually], because the term chamira includes [both] chametz and s’or, because chametz is also called chamira at times.

Nevertheless, it is appropriate that anyone who is meticulous in his actions should not rely on this [factor], but [instead,] mention [each one] explicitly, even when making the [declaration of] nullification in Aramaic. [Thus, one] should say, “May all chamira and chamiya that is….”38

10 When [a person] nullifies [his possession of] chametz on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan], immediately after searching, he [should] only nullify [the possession of] chametz of which he is unaware,39 [i.e., the chametz] that he did not find during his search. By contrast, the chametz of which he is aware, that he intends to eat [that] night and on the next morning until the fifth hour, is not nullified even if he [declares] it nullified. [The rationale is that] fundamentally, nullifying [one’s possession of chametz] is [dependent on the feelings of one’s] heart, that [one totally] divert his attention from [his chametz. However, this person] has his heart and mind set on eating this chametz that he has left over to eat. [Hence,] he is not regarding it as ownerless.40

11 There is room for concern that an olive-sized portion of the chametz from which [the householder] ate before the fifth hour [of the day of the fourteenth of Nissan] may have rolled away and fallen into one of the holes [in the floor] or one of the corners [of the home].41 [After] Pesach commences, [the householder may] discover [this chametz] and violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz] (if he will delay slightly before occupying himself with its obliteration.42 An olive-sized portion is not comparable to crumbs, for [crumbs] are not important. An olive-sized portion, by contrast, is important and is not considered as inherently insignificant.)43

Accordingly, it is proper that at the time [the householder] obliterates from his home the [remainder of the] chametz that he left over to eat, he repeat [the declaration of nullification], nullifying [his possession of] all the chametz in his domain. In this manner, [his possession of] the chametz that rolled away from the chametz that he set aside to eat will also be nullified and [should] he discover [this chametz] on Pesach, he will not violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz] because of it.

12 Since a person must nullify [his possession of chametz] at the time he obliterates it (for the reason explained [in the preceding subsection]), he must be careful to destroy [his chametz] before the commencement of the sixth hour. [The rationale is that] he is no longer able to nullify [his possession of chametz] from the beginning of the sixth hour onward, as explained in sec. 433[:30].

In this [declaration of] nullification made at the time of the obliteration [of chametz, the person] should say, “May all chametz that exists in my domain – whether I have seen it or have not seen it, whether I have destroyed it or have not destroyed it….” [The rationale is that, at this time, the person] is nullifying [his possession of] all [his chametz]. He is not leaving over anything for himself, unlike [his declaration of] nullification on [the previous] night when he intended only to nullify [his possession of] the chametz that he did not see or find during the search. Therefore [in the evening] he says, “…which I have not seen and not destroyed.”44

13 A person should not rely [solely] on [his declaration of] nullification [made during the day] at the time of the obliteration alone, and not nullify [his possession of chametz] at night immediately after the search. [The rationale is that the declaration of] nullification [made] after the search is an ordinance of the Sages of the Talmud, who ordained that [it be recited] immediately after the search45 so that there will be a fixed time [for its recitation]. For were there not to be a fixed time [for its recitation], it would be forgotten from the hearts of people who have a tendency to forget.46

[On the other hand, the Sages] did not desire to establish the time [for reciting the declaration of nullification] at the time of the obliteration [of chametz], because fundamentally according to law, the time of the obliteration [of chametz] is at the beginning of the sixth hour, as will be explained in sec. 445[:1]. At that time, one can no longer nullify [his possession of chametz].47 Nor did [the Sages] desire to ordain [the time for reciting the declaration of nullification] on the day of the fourteenth [of Nissan], before the time of the obliteration [of chametz. The rationale is that] since a person is not involved with the obliteration of chametz at that time, nor in his search for [chametz], there is room for concern that [the person] will forget to nullify [it]. For what will serve as a reminder to him? At night, by contrast, since one is occupied in the search [for chametz], he will also remember to nullify [his possession of] it.

One fulfills his obligation48 solely with this [declaration of] nullification and, fundamentally, according to law, he need not nullify [his possession of chametz] again during the day. [The rationale is that] according to law, there is no concern that an olive-sized portion of chametz that [a person] left over to eat rolled away, since the chametz left over to be eaten is stored away in a place that is watched and [the owner] is careful that none of it will roll away, as explained above.49

At present, in these later generations, it has become customary to be stringent and to obliterate chametz at the end of the fifth hour and to nullify [one’s possession of] it at the time of its obliteration. [This custom was initiated solely] to add to the ordinance of our Sages50 and not to minimize its [application].51 For if one will not nullify [his possession of chametz] immediately after searching, there is room for concern that he will forget to obliterate the chametz until the sixth hour commences, and then he will no longer be able to nullify [his possession of] it.

14 On the day [of the fourteenth of Nissan], it is desirable [for householders] to be careful not to nullify [their possession of] chametz for the second time until one first obliterates from his home all the chametz that he knows [he possesses. Hence, the householder] is able to fulfill the mitzvah of obliterating chametz with chametz belonging to him.52 After he nullifies [his possession of the chametz], by contrast, the chametz ceases to belong to him, because he nullified [his possession of] it and declared it ownerless.

15 There are authorities who maintain that both for the nullification [of one’s possession of chametz] at night and for its nullification during the day, [a person] may not appoint an agent to nullify [his possession of chametz]. Instead, he must nullify [his chametz] himself. [The rationale is that when] one tells another person, “Go and declare my property ownerless,” [the agent’s statements] are of no consequence; [the owner] must [personally] declare [his property] ownerless [for the declaration to be effective].

Other authorities maintain that [the nullification of one’s possession of chametz] need not resemble [the declaration of property as] ownerless in this aspect. [The rationale is that] at the time one violates the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz], the chametz is not [actually] his at all. It is only that Scripture deemed [the chametz to be] his so that [the person’s] name be associated with it with regard to the violation [of these prohibitions].53 Therefore, it is sufficient merely [for the person] to make known his intent [to divest himself of possession of his chametz], i.e., he reveals his intention – and this may even be done via an agent – that he does not desire [the chametz] at all, [this] is sufficient to remove the association of his name from [the chametz]54 so that [the person] is not liable for transgressing [the prohibitions mentioned above].

Primarily, the halachah follows this view. Nevertheless, as an initial preference it is desirable to give weight to the first view.

16 A legal guardian of orphans is obligated to search for and nullify [the possession of] chametz belonging to the orphans, just like he is obligated to perform all the other mitzvos – both Scriptural and Rabbinic – on their behalf, as explained in Choshen Mishpat, sec. 290.55