Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 438 - [The Laws that Apply when] a Mouse Enters a Place that was Previously Searched with a Loaf in Its Mouth

SECTION 438 [The Laws that Apply when] a Mouse Enters a Place that was Previously Searched with a Loaf in Its Mouth (1-12)

1 When a mouse1 enters a room2 that was [already] searched [for chametz] with a loaf in its mouth, and [a person] entered after it and found crumbs, [the person] must search the entire room again, or [at least continue to search] until he finds the loaf that the mouse brought in (i.e., [the person] is able to recognize that [the loaf he found] is the loaf that the mouse brought in). [This rule applies] even if [the person] found [sufficient crumbs] to constitute the [entire] loaf.3 [An additional search is required] because a mouse does not usually crumble [bread. Hence, it can be assumed that] the crumbs were certainly there beforehand and did not come from the loaf [the mouse brought in]. ([The laws that apply] if [the person] finds an entire loaf will be explained in sec. 439[:6].)

Even if the loaf that [the mouse] brought in was very small and thus, it is possible to say that the mouse ate it – and even if [the householder] nullified [his possession of] his chametz and thus, the doubt4 involves merely a Rabbinic [prohibition] – nevertheless, the [mere] possibility that the mouse ate [the entire loaf] does not outweigh the certain [fact] that chametz was seen being brought in [by the mouse].5

2 Nevertheless, it is only necessary to search the room that [the mouse] was seen entering. The other rooms [of the home], however, even those that open to the room [the mouse entered], need not be searched if [the householder] already nullified [his possession of] all his chametz,6 or the sixth hour [on the fourteenth of Nissan] had yet to arrive and [the householder] still desires to nullify [his possession of his chametz]. In [such an instance, the obligation to] search is only Rabbinic [in origin, and we follow the principle: When] a doubt [arises regarding] a Rabbinic [obligation, one may] adopt a lenient stance. [Hence,] it is assumed that the mouse with the loaf only entered the room that it was seen entering.7

[Accordingly,] if one searched that room entirely and did not find the loaf, it is not suspected that [the mouse] dragged [the loaf] to [one of] the other rooms that were [already] searched. Instead, it is assumed that [the mouse] took [the loaf] from there to the public domain, a courtyard,8 or to other places that need not be searched at all, that are near that room. [Alternatively, we assume the mouse] dragged [the loaf] into a deep hole in that room and [that the hole was so deep that the loaf] will not [come] to be revealed. Thus, no one will come to eat [the loaf] on Pesach.9

3 If the loaf [the mouse brought in] was small and thus it could be postulated that the mouse ate the entire [loaf], it is not necessary to search the other rooms.10 [This rule applies] even if [the householder] did not nullify [his possession of his chametz] and the sixth hour already commenced and [consequently, the householder] will no longer be able be nullify [his possession of the chametz. The rationale is that] there are two possibilities leading to this leniency: [a)] perhaps the mouse never brought the loaf into the other rooms, and [b)] even if one were to say that [the mouse] did bring [the loaf there], perhaps [the mouse] ate the entire [loaf], and nothing of it was left over [in those rooms]. Whenever there are two factors that raise doubt, a lenient ruling may be followed even in [matters involving] Scriptural Law.11

4 If [the householder] entered (that room) [directly] after [the mouse] and found a loaf, and he recognized that it was the loaf that [the mouse] brought in, [the householder] is not required to search again,12 even if he did not [yet] nullify his chametz. [This leniency applies] even when a small portion [of the loaf was] missing, for [we] assume that the mouse ate that [small] portion.

5 The laws that apply [when either] a dog or a rooster [brought in a loaf] are the same as those [that apply when] a mouse [brought in the loaf. The rationale is that] these [creatures also] do not commonly crumble [bread].

In contrast, when a baby13 enters a room that has been searched while holding a loaf and [a person] entered [that room] immediately after [the baby] and found crumbs,14 it is not necessary to search [the room] again.15 [This rule applies] even if [the householder] did not nullify [his possession of chametz. The rationale is that] since [the householder] entered [the room] immediately after [the baby] and found crumbs, there are [sufficient] grounds to conclude16 that the baby ate [from the loaf] and that these are the crumbs that fell from [the loaf while he was eating], since it is common for a baby to crumble bread [while eating].

There are authorities who maintain that if the crumbs [the person found] are not equivalent [to the size of] the entire loaf, one must search again if the baby is one who is not [sufficiently] mature [to answer questions], because a baby [of that age and temperament] will generally crumble [a loaf], but not eat [it]. (If, however, the baby is [sufficiently] mature, he should be asked [what he did with the loaf]. If the baby says that he ate [the loaf], his word may be relied upon, as explained in sec. 437[:5].) The stringency [required by these authorities] should be followed if [the householder] did not nullify [his possession of his chametz], because [then] there is a question whether a Scriptural prohibition is involved. If, however, [the person] nullified [his possession of his chametz] or it is still possible for him to do so,17 one may rely on the first opinion, because fundamentally, [it is this opinion that] is accepted [as halachah].

6 When a mouse entered a room18 that was already searched with a loaf in its mouth, and a mouse left [the room with] a loaf in its mouth, it is not necessary to search [the room] again, even if [the householder] did not nullify [his possession of chametz] and he can no longer do so.19 [The rationale is that] since a mouse was seen entering [the room] with a loaf and a mouse [was seen] departing [the room] with a loaf, there are [sufficient] grounds to conclude20 that [the mouse] that entered is the one that departed.21

7 If, however, the first [mouse] was black and the second [mouse was] white, one must search again even if he already nullified [his possession of his chametz]. We do not postulate that the [second mouse] snatched the loaf from the mouth of the first [mouse] and departed [with it], because it is not common for mice to snatch anything from each other.

8 Similarly, if a mouse entered a room that was searched with a loaf in its mouth and a weasel departed from the room with a loaf in its mouth, [the householder] must search again even if he already nullified [his possession of his chametz].We do not postulate that theweasel snatched the loaf from the mouse’s mouth, for were that to have happened, [not only the loaf, but] the mouse itself would also have been in the weasel’s mouth.22

9 If, [however,] the weasel departed from [the room] with a loaf in one side [of its mouth] and a mouse in the other side [of its mouth], there is a doubt [regarding] the matter.23 There are grounds to say that this is another loaf, for if it was the [original loaf] that was in the mouse’s mouth and the weasel took [the mouse] with the loaf in its mouth, the loaf should then have been found in the mouse’s mouth, and the mouse should have been in the weasel’s mouth.24 However, it could also be [said] that [the weasel was holding] the [original] loaf that was [previously] in the mouse’s mouth. The reason [the loaf] is not in the mouse’s mouth at this time is because the mouse dropped it out of fear of the weasel. [Subsequently,] the weasel took [the loaf] together with the body of the mouse [in his mouth].

Accordingly, if [the householder] already nullified [his possession of chametz] or he still has the opportunity to do so, he is not required to search [the room] again. [The rationale is that] whenever there is a question concerning a matter of Rabbinic Law, leniency is granted.25

If, however, [the householder] did not nullify [his possession of chametz] and can no longer do so [because it is after the onset of the sixth hour], he must search again. Even if the loaf was very small, we do not postulate that the mouse ate it. [The rationale is that] whenever there is a doubt concerning a matter of Scriptural Law, the stringent ruling is followed. [We do not say that] there are two factors that raise doubt [and thus lead] to leniency,26 for the first factor that raises doubt is that perhaps the loaf that the weasel took out [of the room] was the same loaf that the mouse brought in; thus, there is no more chametz in this room. The second factor that raises doubt is that perhaps the mouse ate the first loaf and nothing remained from it; thus, no more chametz remained in this room. Thus, both factors [focus on the same point] – that there is no more chametz in this room. The second factor that raises doubt does not add anything to [the first factor].27 Therefore, [these factors] are not considered a compounded doubt.28

The possibility that the mouse ate [the loaf] is only said to be considered a second factor that raises doubt, [thus bringing about a situation of] compounded doubt, when the first factor that raises doubt is [of a different nature, i.e.,] perhaps chametz was never brought into this room after it was checked.29[Thus, it could be said:] If you postulate that [a mouse] did enter [the room with a loaf of chametz], perhaps [the loaf it was carrying] was eaten entirely and nothing remained of it. [In this instance,] these two factors raising doubt are of an entirely different nature. One factor raising doubt is that perhaps chametz [was] never [brought into] this place, and the second is, [even if there was chametz in this place,] maybe none of the chametz remained.

In contrast, when chametz [was] definitely [brought into] this place after the search, but there are two factors that raise doubt as to whether the chametz was removed [from the room, halachically, these two factors] are only considered as one factor. For what difference does it make whether the chametz was eaten and [as a result], none of it remained in this room, or it was taken out by a weasel and [as a result], no [chametz] remained in this room? [Ultimately, both factors] raise [the same] doubt, [that perhaps no chametz remained in the house]. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations, as will be explained in sec. 439[:6].30

10 When a snake enters a room that has been checked with a loaf in its mouth, there is no need to hire a snake-charmer to remove the loaf from its mouth31 if [the householder] already nullified [his possession of chametz] or still has the opportunity to do so.32 [In such an instance,] the obligation to obliterate [chametz] is merely Rabbinic in origin, and the Sages did not trouble [the householder] to undertake a financial expense.33 [The rationale is that] it is possible that the snake will eat the entire loaf, or that it will remove [the entire loaf] from this house.

11 When an olive-sized [piece34 of] chametz is [positioned] high up in a house on a rafter, [the householder] is obligated to bring a ladder to take [the chametz] down from there on the night of the fourteenth [of Nissan],35 even if he has already nullified [his possession of his chametz.36 The rationale is that] at times [the chametz] will fall off the beam and [the person] may forget [that it is forbidden] and partake of it.37

[A different rule applies,] by contrast, if there is chametz in a cistern – regardless of whether or not there is water in [the cistern]. If [the householder] does not usually descend into [the cistern] to use it throughout the year, we do not suspect that he will descend into it on Pesach and eat from the chametz. Therefore, [the Sages] did not trouble [the householder] to bring a ladder and [remove] the chametz from there.38 Instead, it is sufficient for [the householder] to nullify [his possession of the chametz].39

12 When does the above apply? When [the person] placed the chametz in the cistern with the intent to remove it from there before Pesach, or [chametz] fell [into the cistern] on its own accord. It is, however, forbidden to hide chametz in [a cistern] with the intent that it will remain there until after Pesach, even when [the person] nullifies [his possession of] it.40

If [the person] hid [the chametz in the cistern], it is not at all effective and he must remove it from there and obliterate it on the fourteenth [of Nissan. This applies] even if [the person] hid [the chametz in the cistern] before 30 days before Pesach. See sec. 436[:15].41