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

סימן תלח עַכְבָּר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְמָקוֹם בָּדוּק וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו וּבוֹ י"ב סְעִיפִים:

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

א עַכְבָּר1 שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבַיִת2 בָּדוּק וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו וְנִכְנַס אַחֲרָיו וּמָצָא פֵּרוּרִיןא (וְאִם מָצָא כִּכָּר שָׁלֵם יִתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תל"טב), אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא כְּדֵי כָּל הַכִּכָּר – צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּק כָּל הַבַּיִת, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּמְצָא אוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר שֶׁהִכְנִיס הָעַכְבָּרג (פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁמַּכִּיר בִּטְבִיעוּת עַיִן שֶׁזֶּהוּ הַכִּכָּר שֶׁהִכְנִיסד),3 לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל עַכְבָּר לְפָרֵר, וְאֵלּוּ פֵּרוּרִין בְּוַדַּאי הָיוּ שָׁם מִתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא מֵאוֹתוֹ כִּכָּר הֵן.ה

וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הַכִּכָּר שֶׁהִכְנִיס הָיָה קָטָן מְאֹד, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִתְלוֹת וְלוֹמַר שֶׁהָעַכְבָּר אֲכָלוֹ, וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר בִּטֵּל חֲמֵצוֹ שֶׁאֵין כָּאן אֶלָּא סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים,ו,4 אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵין סְפֵק אֲכִילַת הָעַכְבָּרז מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי חָמֵץ שֶׁרָאִינוּ שֶׁהִכְנִיס לְשָׁם:ח

Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Sichos In English)

The new layout – with the original text and the facing translation – provides a unique user-friendly approach to studying the Alter Rebbe’s work. An inclusive commentary provides insightful explanations and guidelines for actual practice.

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

ב (א) וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר שֶׁרָאִינוּ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְשָׁם, אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַחֲדָרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפְּתוּחִים לְאוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר אֵינָם צְרִיכִים בְּדִיקָה אִם כְּבָר בִּטֵּל כָּל חֲמֵצוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הִגִּיעָה שָׁעָה שִׁשִּׁית וְרוֹצֶה עֲדַיִן לְבַטֵּל,ט,6 שֶׁאָז הַבְּדִיקָה אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וּסְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְהָקֵל, וְתוֹלִין לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנַס הָעַכְבָּר עִם הַכִּכָּר אֶלָּא לְאוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר שֶׁרָאִינוּ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְשָׁם.י,7

וְאִם בָּדַק כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַחֶדֶר וְלֹא מָצָא הַכִּכָּר – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גְּרָרוֹ לִשְׁאָר חֲדָרִים הַבְּדוּקִים, אֶלָּא תּוֹלִין לוֹמַר שֶׁגְּרָרוֹ מִשָּׁם לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים,יא אוֹ לֶחָצֵר,8 אוֹ לִשְׁאָר מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בְּדוּקִין כְּלָל הַסְּמוּכִים לְאוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר,יב אוֹ שֶׁגְּרָרוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר עַצְמוֹ לְחוֹר עָמֹק שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְגַּלּוֹת מִשָּׁם וְלֹא יָבֹא לְאָכְלוֹ בְּפֶסַח:יג,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

ג וְאִם הַכִּכָּר הָיָה קָטָן בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִתְלוֹת שֶׁמָּא אֲכָלוֹ הָעַכְבָּר כֻּלּוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא בִּטְּלוֹ וּכְבָר הִגִּיעָה שָׁעָה שִׁשִּׁית שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל עוֹד לְבַטְּלוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק שְׁאָר הַחֲדָרִים,10 מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן ב' סְפֵקוֹת לְהָקֵל, שֶׁמָּא לֹא הִכְנִיס הָעַכְבָּר מֵעוֹלָם אֶת הַכִּכָּר לִשְׁאָר הַחֲדָרִים, וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הִכְנִיס שֶׁמָּא אֲכָלוֹ כֻּלּוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם,יד וְכָל ב' סְפֵקוֹת הוֹלְכִין בָּהֶם לְהָקֵל אַף בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה:טו,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.

ד וְאִם נִכְנַס אַחֲרָיו (לְאוֹתוֹ חֶדֶר) וּמָצָא כִּכָּר וּמַכִּיר בִּטְבִיעַת עַיִןטז שֶׁזֶּהוּ הַכִּכָּר שֶׁנָּטַל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחֱסַר מִמֶּנּוּ קְצָת אָנוּ תּוֹלִין שֶׁהָעַכְבָּר אָכַל קְצָתוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּקיז,12 אֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא בִּטֵּל:יח

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].

ה כֶּלֶב וְתַרְנְגוֹל דִּינָם שָׁוֶה לְעַכְבָּר, שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּם לְפָרֵר.יט

אֲבָל אִם תִּינוֹק13 נִכְנַס לְבַיִת2 בָּדוּק וְכִכָּר בְּיָדוֹ וְנִכְנַס אַחֲרָיו וּמָצָא פֵּרוּרִיןכ,14 – אֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּק15 אֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא בִּטֵּל,כא דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁמִּיָּד נִכְנַס אַחֲרָיו וּמָצָא פֵּרוּרִין, הֲרֵי רַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָרכב שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ הַתִּינוֹקכג וְאֵלּוּ הַפֵּרוּרִין הֵן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינוֹק לְפָרֵר.

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםכד שֶׁאִם אֵין בַּפֵּרוּרִין כְּדֵי כָּל הַכִּכָּר צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּק אִם הוּא תִּינוֹק שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת,כה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינוֹק לֶאֱכֹל אֶלָּא לְפָרֵר (אֲבָל אִם הוּא תִּינוֹק שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת יִשְׁאָלֶנּוּ, וְאִם אוֹמֵר שֶׁאָכַל – נֶאֱמָן,כו וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תל"זכז).

וְיֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּדִבְרֵיהֶם אִם לֹא בִּטֵּל, שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן סְפֵק אִסּוּר שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם כְּבָר בִּטֵּל, אוֹ שֶׁעֲדַיִן יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל17 – יֵשׁ לִסְמֹךְ עַל סְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁהִיא עִקָּר:כח

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

ו אִם נִכְנַס עַכְבָּר לְבַיִת18 בָּדוּק וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו וְיָצָא עַכְבָּר מִשָּׁם וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו – אֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּקכט אֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא בִּטֵּל וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל עוֹד לְבַטֵּל,ל,19 דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאִינוּ עַכְבָּר נִכְנַס עִם כִּכָּר וְעַכְבָּר יָצָא עִם כִּכָּר – הֲרֵי רַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר20 שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנַס הוּא הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא:לא,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.

ז אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שָׁחֹר וְהָאַחֲרוֹן לָבָן – צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּקלב אֲפִלּוּ כְּבָר בִּטְּלוֹ,לג,21 וְאֵין תּוֹלִין לוֹמַר שֶׁהָאַחֲרוֹן חָטַף הַכִּכָּר מִפִּי הָרִאשׁוֹן וְיָצָא, שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָעַכְבָּרִים לִטֹּל זֶה מִזֶּה כְּלוּם:לד

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

ח וְכֵן אִם עַכְבָּר נִכְנַס לְבַיִת בָּדוּק וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו וְיָצָאת מִשָּׁם חֻלְדָּה וְכִכָּר בְּפִיהָ – צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּקלה אֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר בִּטְּלוֹלו,21 וְאֵין תּוֹלִין לוֹמַר שֶׁהַחֻלְדָּה חָטְפָה הַכִּכָּר מִפִּי הָעַכְבָּר, שֶׁאִם הָיָה הַדָּבָר כֵּן גַּם הָעַכְבָּר עַצְמוֹ הָיָה נִמְצָא בְּפִי הַחֻלְדָּה:לז,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

ט וְאִם יָצָאת מִשָּׁם חֻלְדָּה וּבְפִיהָ כִּכָּר מִכָּאן וְעַכְבָּר מִכָּאן – הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר סָפֵק,23 שֶׁיֵּשׁ סְבָרָא לוֹמַר שֶׁזֶּהוּ כִּכָּר אַחֵר, שֶׁאִם הָיָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בְּפִי הָעַכְבָּר שֶׁנְּטָלַתּוּ חֻלְדָּה עִם הַכִּכָּר שֶׁבְּפִיהָ – הָיָה לוֹ לְהַכִּכָּר לְהִמָּצֵא בְּפִי הָעַכְבָּר וְהָעַכְבָּר בְּפִי הַחֻלְדָּה.24 אוֹ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁזֶּהוּ כִּכָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בְּפִי הָעַכְבָּר, וּמַה שֶּׁלֹּא נִמְצָא עַכְשָׁו בְּפִי הָעַכְבָּר הוּא מֵחֲמַת אֵימַת הַחֻלְדָּה עַל הָעַכְבָּר נָפַל הַכִּכָּר מִפִּיו וּנְטָלַתּוּ הַחֻלְדָּה עִם גּוּף הָעַכְבָּר.לח לְפִיכָךְ, אִם כְּבָר בִּטְּלוֹלט אוֹ שֶׁיָּכוֹל עֲדַיִן לְבַטְּלוֹמ – אֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּק, שֶׁכָּל סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לְהָקֵל.24 אֲבָל אִם לֹא בִּטְּלוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל עוֹד לְבַטְּלוֹ – צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּק.

אֲפִלּוּ אִם הָיָה כִּכָּר קָטָן מְאֹד – אֵין תּוֹלִין לוֹמַר שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ עַכְבָּר,מא לְפִי שֶׁכָּל סָפֵק שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הוֹלְכִין בּוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר. וְאֵין כָּאן ב' סְפֵקוֹת לְהָקֵל,26 שֶׁסָּפֵק הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא שֶׁמָּא זֶה הַכִּכָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיאָה הַחֻלְדָּה הוּא כִּכָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִכְנִיס הָעַכְבָּר וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין כָּאן עוֹד חָמֵץ בְּבַיִת זֶה, וְסָפֵק הַשֵּׁנִי הוּא שֶׁמָּא אָכַל הָעַכְבָּר אֶת כִּכָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁאֵין כָּאן עוֹד חָמֵץ בְּבַיִת זֶה, וַהֲרֵי ב' הַסְּפֵקוֹת הֵן שֵׁם אֶחָד,מב שֶׁמָּא אֵין כָּאן עוֹד חָמֵץ בְּבַיִת זֶה, וְאֵין סָפֵק אֶחָד מוֹסִיף עַל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּלוּם,27 וּלְכָךְ אֵינָם נִדּוֹנִים כִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא.

וְלֹא אָמְרוּ שֶׁסְּפֵק אֲכִילַת הָעַכְבָּר נֶחְשָׁב לְסָפֵק שֵׁנִי לִהְיוֹת נִדּוֹן כִּסְפֵק סְפֵקָא,28 אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁסָּפֵק הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִכְנַס מֵעוֹלָם חָמֵץ לְחֶדֶר זֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּבְדַּק,29 וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר נִכְנַס שֶׁמָּא נֶאֱכַל כֻּלּוֹ וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם, שֶׁב' סְפֵקוֹת הַלָּלוּ הֵן שֵׁמוֹת מְחֻלָּקִים, סָפֵק אֶחָד שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִכְנַס חָמֵץ לְכָאן, וְסָפֵק שֵׁנִי שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִשְׁאַר כָּאן חָמֵץ.

מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁבְּוַדַּאי נִכְנַס לְכָאן חָמֵץ אַחַר הַבְּדִיקָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ ב' סְפֵקוֹת בְּהוֹצָאַת הֶחָמֵץ מִכָּאן – אֵינָן נֶחְשָׁבִים אֶלָּא לְסָפֵק אֶחָד, דְּמַה לִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱכַל הֶחָמֵץ וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם בְּבַיִת זֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאַתּוּ הַחֻלְדָּה וְלֹא נִשְׁאַר מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלוּם בְּבַיִת זֶה, הֲרֵי הַכֹּל סָפֵק אֶחָד,מג וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תל"ט:מד,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.

י נָחָשׁ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבַיִת בָּדוּק וְכִכָּר בְּפִיומה – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׂכֹּר חָבֵר לְהוֹצִיא הַכִּכָּר מִפִּיומו,31 אִם כְּבָר בִּטְּלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁיָּכוֹל עֲדַיִן לְבַטְּלוֹ,מז,32 שֶׁאָז אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַעֲרוֹ אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, וְלֹא הִטְרִיחוּהוּ חֲכָמִים לְהוֹצִיא מָמוֹן עַל כָּךְ,מח,33 כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַנָּחָשׁ אֶת כָּל הַכִּכָּר אוֹ שֶׁיּוֹצִיאֶנּוּ מִבַּיִת זֶה:מט

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

יא (ב) כְּזַיִתנ חָמֵץ34 שֶׁהוּא מֻנָּח בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת לְמַעְלָה עַל הַקּוֹרָה,נא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר בִּטְּלוֹנב,36 – מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא סֻלָּם לְהוֹרִידוֹ בְּלֵיל י"ד,35 מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּפְעָמִים יִפֹּל מֵהַקּוֹרָה וְשֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֹאכְלֶנּוּ.נג,37

אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חָמֵץ בַּבּוֹר,נד בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַיִם וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ,נה אִם אֵין דֶּרֶךְ לֵירֵד בְּתוֹכוֹנו לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּל הַשָּׁנָה – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יֵרֵד לְתוֹכוֹ בְּפֶסַח וְיֹאכַל מֵהֶחָמֵץ, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מַטְרִיחִין אוֹתוֹ לְהָבִיא סֻלָּם לְהַעֲלוֹת הֶחָמֵץ מִשָּׁם,38 אֶלָּא מְבַטְּלוֹ וְדַיּוֹ:נז,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

יב בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ חָמֵץ בַּבּוֹר עַל דַּעַת לְפַנּוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל מֵאֵלָיו, אֲבָל אָסוּר לְהַטְמִין שָׁם חָמֵץ עַל דַּעַת שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר שָׁם עַד אַחַר הַפֶּסַחנח אֲפִלּוּ בִּטְּלוֹ.40

וְאִם הִטְמִינוֹ שָׁם – אֵין מוֹעִיל לוֹ כְּלוּם, וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וּלְבַעֲרוֹ בְּי"ד אֲפִלּוּ אִם הִטְמִינוֹ שָׁם (ג) קֹדֶם ל' יוֹם לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח, עַיֵּן סִימָן תל"ו:נט,41