SECTION 466 Whether Spittle, Urine, and the like Cause [Grain or Flour] to Become Chametz (1-16)

סימן תסו אִם הָרֹק וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם וְדוֹמָיו מַחְמִיצִין וּבוֹ ט"ז סְעִיפִים:

1 It was already explained in sec. 462[:1-2] that only water or the derivatives of water can cause grain or flour to become chametz. The following are the derivatives of water: [fluid] secreted from the eye, the ear, the nose, or the mouth,1 whether from a human or from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or fowl, and waste water excreted by man, whether urine or fluid discharged from the anus.2

By contrast, feces,3 whether from a human or from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or fowl, urine from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or fowl,4 human sweat5 ([the laws applying to the sweat] of an animal are explained in sec. 453[:27]),6 milk, kosher fat,7 non-kosher fat, and gall-bladder secretions are governed by the laws pertaining to mei peiros, [i.e.,] they do not cause [grain or flour] to become chametz.

An exception applies only when [even] the slightest amount of water becomes mixed with these substances. In such an instance, [these substances] cause [grain or flour] to become chametz more rapidly than does water alone. Therefore, [if any of these substances] fell into a dough that was kneaded with water, [that dough] must be baked immediately,8 as explained in sec. 462[:3]. If, however, [any of these substances] fell on flour, and the flour became moistened from it, it is permitted to knead the flour with water once [the flour] dries. It is not necessary to bake [the resulting dough] immediately (after one completed kneading [it]).

[The rationale is that] since [the substance that came in contact with the flour] already dried out and was absorbed by the flour before [the flour] came in contact with water, [the substance] no longer has the power to hasten the leavening process when [the flour] is mixed with water.

א כְּבָר נִתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תס"בא שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אֶת הַדָּגָן אוֹ אֶת הַקֶּמַח לִידֵי חִמּוּץ אֶלָּא מַיִם אוֹ תּוֹלְדוֹת מַיִם.ב וְאֵלּוּ הֵן תּוֹלְדוֹת הַמַּיִם: הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעַיִן, מִן הָאֹזֶן, מִן הַחֹטֶם, מִן הַפֶּה,ג,1 בֵּין שֶׁל אָדָם בֵּין שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף,ד וּמֵי רַגְלַיִםה שֶׁל אָדָם,ו בֵּין קְטַנִּים בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים,ז דְּהַיְנוּ מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִפִּי הַטַּבַּעַת.ח,2

אֲבָל הַצּוֹאָה,ט,3 בֵּין שֶׁל אָדָם בֵּין שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף,י וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף,יא,4 וְזֵעַת אָדָםיב,5 (אֲבָל שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה נִתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תנ"גיג,6), וְהֶחָלָב,יד וְהַשֻּׁמָּן,טו,7 וְהַחֵלֶב,טז וּמֵי הַמָּרָהיז – דִּינָם כְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵין מַחְמִיצִין.

אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִתְעָרֵב בָּהֶם מַיִם כָּל שֶׁהוּא, וְאָז הֵן מְמַהֲרִין לְהַחְמִיץ יוֹתֵר מִמַּיִם בִּלְבַד.יח לְפִיכָךְ, אִם נָפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִסָּה שֶׁנִּלּוֹשָׁה בְּמַיִם – צָרִיךְ לֶאֱפוֹתָהּ מִיָּד,8 כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תס"ב.יט

אֲבָל אִם נָפְלוּ עַל הַקֶּמַח וְנִתְלַחְלֵחַ הַקֶּמַח מֵהֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְנַגֵּב – מֻתָּר לָלוּשׁ אוֹתָהּ בְּמַיִם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לֶאֱפוֹתָהּ מִיָּד (אַחַר גְּמַר הַלִּישָׁה), דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְנַגְּבוּ וְנִבְלְעוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַקֶּמַח קֹדֶם שֶׁבָּאוּ עָלָיו מַיִם – שׁוּב אֵין בָּהֶם כֹּחַ לְמַהֵר הַחִמּוּץ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ עָלָיו מַיִם:כ

2 Dew is governed by the laws that govern water.9

Blood is governed by the laws [that govern] mei peiros.10 If grain fell into [blood] and [the grain] did not remain in [the blood] for [an entire] 24-hour hour period,11 even though [the grain] softened [in the blood], there is no concern that it became chametz. [However, the grain must first be] washed thoroughly12 and [then, once the grain has dried,] it is permitted [to be used]. Even if the grain cracked open, it should be permitted, as explained in sec. 462[:9] with regard to [a kernel of] wheat discovered in mei peiros.13 Consult that text.

If, however, [a person] spat out blood that he sucked out [between] his teeth,14 as those who spit do, [the mixture] causes [grain or flour] to become chametz, for it is impossible that it will not contain some drops of spittle.15

ב הַטַּל דִּינוֹ כְּמַיִם.כא,9 וְהַדָּם דִּינוֹ כְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת.כב,10 וְאִם נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ דָּגָן וְלֹא שָׁהָה בְּתוֹכוֹ מֵעֵת לְעֵת,כג אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְרַכְּכָה בְּתוֹכָהּ – אֵין בּוֹ חֲשַׁשׁ חִמּוּץ,11 וּמְדִיחוֹ12 וּמֻתָּר. אֲפִלּוּ אִם נִתְבַּקֵּעַ הַדָּגָן – יֵשׁ לְהַתִּיר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תס"בכד לְעִנְיַן חִטָּה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּתוֹךְ מֵי פֵּרוֹת,13 עַיֵּן שָׁם.

אֲבָל מִי שֶׁרָקַק דָּם, אִם מְצָצוֹ בְּשִׁנָּיו14 כְּדֶרֶךְ הָרוֹקְקִים – הֲרֵי זֶה מַחְמִיץ,כה לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ בְּלֹא צִחְצוּחֵי רֹק:כו,15

3 Since spittle causes [grain or flour] to become chametz,16a person should not chew [kernels of] wheat and place them on his wound.17 [The rationale is that these kernels] will become chametz because of the spittle in his mouth when they remain on the wound for the amount of time [it takes to walk] a mil.18[Hence, the person] will violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz] because of [these kernels. Accordingly,] even if [the person] chewed [the kernels] and placed them on his wound before Pesach, he must remove them at the onset of the sixth hour on the day before Pesach, unless they have already become spoiled to the extent that they are unfit for a dog to eat, as explained in sec. 442[:21].19

ג וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהָרֹק מַחְמִיץ,16 לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִלְעֹס אָדָם חִטִּים וְיַנִּיחַ עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ,17 מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִתְחַמְּצוֹתכז עַל יְדֵי הָרֹק שֶׁבְּפִיו כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹהִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּכָּה שִׁעוּר מִיל,כח,18 וְעוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן בְּ"בַל יֵרָאֶה" וּ"בַל יִמָּצֵא".כט

וַאֲפִלּוּ לְעָסָן וְהִנִּיחַ עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח – צָרִיךְ לַהֲסִירָן כְּשֶׁתַּגִּיעַ שָׁעָה שִׁשִּׁית בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח,ל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כְּבָר נִסְרְחָה עַד שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה מֵאֲכִילַת כֶּלֶב,לא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תמ"ב:לב,19

4 When does the above [law] apply? When [the kernels of] wheat belonged to a Jew. [A different law applies] if, by contrast, [the kernels of] wheat belonged to a non-Jew and the non-Jew chewed them and lent them to the Jew to place upon his wound during Pesach.20 It is permitted [for the Jew to place these softened kernels on his wound] as long as the Jew is not [financially] responsible for [the kernels.21 The rationale for the leniency is that the Jew] does not intend to acquire [the kernels] as his own, but rather to have them remain in the possession of the non-Jew. Therefore, [the Jew] does not violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz] because of them.

If the non-Jew does not own [kernels of] wheat, the Jew may transfer the ownership of [his unleavened kernels of] wheat to [the non-Jew].22 The non-Jew may then chew [these kernels of wheat] and lend them to the Jew.

True, [the Jew] is benefitting from chametz on Pesach23 and becoming healed by it. Nevertheless, this is not of [halachic] consequence. [The rationale is that] since [the Jew] is not benefitting from [the chametz] in the ordinary manner, [such benefit] is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law.24 And the Sages did not impose their decree in an instance where healing is involved.

ד בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּחִטִּים שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל חִטִּים שֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁלְּעָסָן הַנָּכְרִילג וְהִשְׁאִילָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַנִּיחָן עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ בְּפֶסַח20 – הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר אִם אֵין אַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל,21 כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לִזְכּוֹת בָּהֶם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שֶׁלּוֹ, אֶלָּא עֲדַיִן הֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנָּכְרִי, וּלְכָךְ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּ"בַל יֵרָאֶה" וּ"בַל יִמָּצֵא". וְאִם אֵין לַנָּכְרִי חִטִּים – יָכוֹל הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְנוֹת לוֹ חִטִּים וְיִלְעֲסֵן הַנָּכְרִי וְיַשְׁאִילֵן לְהַיִּשְׂרָאֵל.לד,22

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נֶהֱנֶה וּמִתְרַפֵּא מֵחָמֵץ בְּפֶסַחלה,23 – אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲנָאָתוֹלו אֵין בּוֹ אִסּוּר אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים,לז,24 וּבִמְקוֹם רְפוּאָה לֹא גָּזְרוּ חֲכָמִים:לח

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.

5 All the above applies regarding a wound that is not life-threatening. If, however, there is concern [that the wound involves a] life-threatening concern, a Jew may make chametz from his [own property] for the sake of a remedy,25 provided the remedy is well known or [the person] is instructed by an expert [doctor to use this remedy], as explained in Yoreh Deah, sec. 155.26

[The following laws apply to] a person who has an abdominal ailment (referred to as a heib-mutter),27 which is remedied by cooking barley or oats and placing them on his stomach: If this condition occurs during Pesach and becomes life-threatening, water should be boiled thoroughly and then the barley should be blanched in it. Afterwards, [the barley] will not become chametz.28

[Although if there were no alternative, the therapy could even have been performed with chametz, since this option exists, this measure is taken] because whatever is possible to do in a permitted manner should be done.

Similarly, if it is possible to blanch the barley in mei peiros, it should not be blanched in water, since the Geonim forbade all types of blanching in water as explained in sec. 454[:7].29

ה וְכָל זֶה בְּמַכָּה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם חֲשַׁשׁ סַכָּנָה – מֻתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת הֶחָמֵץ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ לִרְפוּאָה,לט,25 וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָרְפוּאָה יָדוּעַמ אוֹ עַל פִּי מֻמְחֶה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּיוֹרֶה דֵּעָה סִימָן קנ"ה.מא,26

וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֹלִי בְּבִטְנוֹ (שֶׁקּוֹרִין היי"ב מוט"ר27) שֶׁרְפוּאָתוֹ שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלִין שְׂעוֹרִין אוֹ שִׁבֹּלֶת שׁוּעָל וּמַנִּיחִין עַל גַּבֵּי בִּטְנוֹ, אִם אֵרַע חֹלִי זֶה בְּפֶסַח וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה – מַרְתִּיחִין הַמַּיִם הֵיטֵב וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹלְטִין הַשְּׂעוֹרִין בְּתוֹכָן,מב וְשׁוּב אֵינָן בָּאִים לִידֵי חִמּוּץ,מג,28 לְפִי שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּהֶתֵּר צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת.מד וְכֵן אִם אֶפְשָׁר לַחְלֹט הַשְּׂעוֹרִים בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת – לֹא יַחְלִיטֵם בְּמַיִם,מה שֶׁהֲרֵי הַגְּאוֹנִים אָסְרוּ כָּל מִינֵי חֲלִיטָה בְּמַיִם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תנ"ד:מו

6 When a person places barley [kernels] before his animal [as fodder] on Pesach and discovers [traces of] the animal’s spittle in [the kernels that remain afterwards], he must obliterate [those kernels] lest they already have become chametz.30 [This ruling applies] even if [the barley kernels] had not remained [where the owner placed them] for the amount of time [it takes to walk] a mil18[from the time the animal partook of them. The rationale is that] if [the person] does not obliterate [the kernels], they will become chametz when they remain for the amount of time [it takes to walk] a mil, and he will [then] violate the prohibitions against having [chametz]seen [in his domain] and possessing [chametz. Moreover,] if [the person’s] animal will eat [these kernels, the person] will have benefitted from chametz on Pesach.31 However, [if the person] does not know whether there are traces of spittle among [the kernels] or not, he does not have to obliterate them, for we do not presume that a prohibition exists merely because there is such a possibility.32

When does the above apply? With regard to [all] livestock other than cattle. Cattle, [by contrast,] generally drool when they are eating,33 and it can [therefore] be assumed that spittle is found in [the fodder] that remains after they eat. Therefore, [when feeding cattle on Pesach,] one must be careful to feed them a little at a time, so that nothing will remain from what they eat. There are authorities who rule stringently [and also require] that other livestock be fed a little at a time. It is desirable to give weight to their words.

ו הַנּוֹתֵן שְׂעוֹרִים לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּפֶסַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָצָא בָּהֶם רִיר שֶׁיָּצָא מִפִּי הַבְּהֵמָה – צָרִיךְ לְבַעֲרָםמז שֶׁמָּא כְּבָר הֶחְמִיצוּ.30 וְאַף אִם לֹא שָׁהָה שִׁעוּר מִיל,18 מִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם לֹא יְבַעֲרֵם יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי חִמּוּץ כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁהוּ שִׁעוּר מִיל וְיַעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּ"בַל יֵרָאֶה" וּ"בַל יִמָּצֵא", וְאִם תֹּאכְלֵם בְּהֶמְתּוֹ – נִמְצָא נֶהֱנֶה מֵחָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח.מח,31 אֲבָל מִן הַסְּתָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם רִיר אִם לָאו – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַעֲרָם,מט שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין אִסּוּר מִסָּפֵק.נ,32

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּשְׁאָר מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה, חוּץ מִן הַבָּקָר, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַבָּקָר לְהוֹצִיא רִיר בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה,נא,33 וּמִן הַסְּתָם יֵשׁ רִיר בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּר מֵאֲכִילָתוֹ,נב לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵרנג לִתֵּן לוֹ לֶאֱכֹל מְעַט מְעַטנד בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּיֵּר כְּלוּם מֵאֲכִילָתוֹ.

וְיֵשׁ מַחֲמִירִין גַּם בִּשְׁאָר מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה לִתֵּן לִפְנֵיהֶם מְעַט מְעַט.נה וְטוֹב לָחֹשׁ לְדִבְרֵיהֶם:נו

7 Moisture released by [stone] walls is governed by the laws governing water, for the wall releases moisture because of the water it [previously] absorbed. Even moisture released by a wooden wall is governed by the laws governing water. [The rationale is that] the wood releases moisture from the water it absorbed while it was still attached [to the ground]. Similarly, moisture released by dried meat34 that releases moisture in the rainy season is governed by the laws governing water. [The rationale is that the meat] releases moisture from the water [it absorbed] when it was washed before it was salted.35

There are authorities who differ with the above and maintain that the moisture released by a [stone] wall and dried meat – even though it originates from water – is not governed by the laws governing water, but rather by those governing mei peiros.36 By contrast, moisture that stems from water itself, for example, the moisture [that collects on the walls of] a bathhouse which comes from the vapor of the hot water there, is governed by the laws governing water. If, however, [the walls] release moisture because of the heat of fire,37 [according to these authorities, that moisture] is governed by the laws governing mei peiros.38

With regard to the actual halachah regarding partaking of [products made with grain or flour and] such moisture on Pesach, one should apply the stringencies resulting from both perspectives. On one hand, one should apply the stringency [of considering these liquids] to be water, that [– even though another liquid is not added to them –] they alone could cause [grain or flour] to become chametz. [Conversely, one should apply] the stringency of mei peiros [to these liquids, i.e.], that when [they are] mixed with even the slightest amount of water, [the mixture] will cause [grain or flour] to become chametz faster than would water alone. [Accordingly, if even just a drop of such moisture] fell into a dough [kneaded with water, the dough] must be baked immediately.39

Nevertheless, with regard to maintaining possession of [products made with grain or flour and such moisture] until after Pesach, one may follow the leniencies of both approaches. [Thus,] if such moisture alone fell on flour, one may maintain possession of [the flour] until after Pesach.40 Similarly, if [some of this moisture] fell into a dough kneaded with water and [the dough] was not baked immediately, [but was baked within the time it takes to walk a mil from when water was added to the flour,] one may maintain possession of the dough until after Pesach.

ז זֵעַת הַחוֹמָה – דִּינָהּ כְּמַיִם,נז כִּי הַחוֹמָה מַזִּיעָה מִכֹּחַ הַמַּיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ. וְאַף זֵעַת כֹּתֶל שֶׁל עֵץ – דִּינָהּ כְּמַיִם, כִּי הָעֵץ מַזִּיעַ מִכֹּחַ הַמַּיִם שֶׁקִּבֵּל בְּעוֹדוֹ בִּמְחֻבָּר.נח וְכֵן זֵעַת בָּשָׂר יָבֵשׁ34 שֶׁמַּזִּיעַ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – דִּינָהּ כְּמַיִם, כִּי הוּא מַזִּיעַ מִכֹּחַ הַמַּיִם שֶׁהוּדַח בָּהֶן קֹדֶם מְלִיחָתוֹ.נט,35

וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִיןס עַל זֶה וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁזֵּעַת הַחוֹמָה וּבָשָׂר יָבֵשׁסא אַף שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה מִכֹּחַ הַמַּיִם – אֵין דִּינָהּ כְּמַיִם, אֶלָּא כְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת.36 אֲבָל זֵעָה מִמַּיִם עַצְמָן, כְּגוֹן זֵעַת הַמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁהוּא מַזִּיעַ מֵהֶבֶל הַמַּיִם חַמִּין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ – דִּינָהּ כְּמַיִם. אֲבָל אִם מַזִּיעַ מֵחֹם הָאוּר37 – דִּינָהּ כְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת.סב,38

וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה – יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּחֻמְרֵי שְׁתֵּי הַסְּבָרוֹת לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה בְּפֶסַח, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִתֵּן עַל זֵעָה זוֹ חֻמְרֵי מַיִם שֶׁהֵם בִּלְבַדָּן יְכוֹלִין לְהָבִיא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ, וְחֻמְרֵי מֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁהֵם מְמַהֲרִין לְהַחְמִיץ עִם תַּעֲרֹבֶת מַיִם כָּל שֶׁהוּא יוֹתֵר מִמַּיִם בִּלְבַדָּן,סג וְאִם נָפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִסָּה – צָרִיךְ לֶאֱפוֹתָהּ מִיָּד.39

אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן לְהַשְׁהוֹת עַד לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח – יֵשׁ לְהָקֵלסד כְּקֻלֵּי ב' הַסְּבָרוֹת, שֶׁאִם נָפְלָה זֵעָה זוֹ בִּלְבַדָּהּ עַל הַקֶּמַח – יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ עַד לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח.40 וְכֵן אִם נָפְלָה לְתוֹךְ עִסָּה שֶׁנִּלּוֹשָׁה בְּמַיִם וְלֹא אֲפָאָהּ מִיָּד – יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁהוֹתָהּ עַד לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח:

8 If water fell on flour, one should remove the portion that became wet, and the remainder [of the flour] is permitted. [This ruling applies] even if the water fell [on the flour] during Pesach. It is desirable41 to sift [the remaining flour].42 Similarly, if a portion of a sack filled with flour became damp from water, [the owner] should pour out all the flour in the sack while holding the portion of the sack that became damp and the flour near it in his hands.43 Afterwards, he should44 sift [the flour that was poured out].

If it is impossible [for the person] to follow this course of action – for example, the side [of the sack] was moistened in several places – he should sift all the flour [in the sack]. Any flour that became moist and [caked together] like dough will remain [in the sifter]. The remainder is permitted. [This law applies] even during Pesach.

[The following directives should be adhered to] if [such a situation occurs] on [one of the] festive days. In that instance, it is forbidden to sift all of the flour [in the sack] if [the person] does not need it all on [that festive day]45 since [then it would be as if] he was [sifting it for the sake of a weekday:46 [The Jewish owner] should have a non-Jew sift [the flour. The rationale for permitting the owner to instruct a non-Jew to perform this act47 is that] the flour was already sifted once before the festival, and all the bran was removed from it. It is being sifted again solely to remove the chametz from it. Accordingly, [this sifting] does not constitute the performance of a melachah in a complete sense.48 Instead, it is a shvus49[instituted] by Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in sec. 506[:3].50 Instructing a non-Jew [to perform this activity] is thus a shvus d’shvus.51 [In such a situation, instructing the non-Jew to sift the flour] is permitted for the sake of [observing] the mitzvah of obliterating chametz,52 for when [the non-Jew] removes the moist flourfrom the other flour and casts it to the ground, it will be obliterated as a matter of course by [people] treading on it.53

[Alternatively,] should he so desire [the person] may give all the flour in the sack as an outright present to a non-Jew immediately after it became moist,54 before it remained for the amount of time [it takes to walk] a mil.18In such an instance, [the owner] will not have to sift [the flour] at all.55

ח אִם נָפְלוּ מַיִם עַל קֶמַח – יָסִיר מְקוֹם הַמְלֻחְלָח וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר,סה אֲפִלּוּ נָפְלוּ הַמַּיִם בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח.סו וְטוֹב41 לְרַקְּדוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ.סז,41 וְכֵן אִם שַׂק מָלֵא קֶמַח נִתְלַחְלֵחַ מִקְצָתוֹ מִמַּיִם – יֶאֱחֹז בְּיָדוֹ אֶת מְקוֹם הַמְלֻחְלָח עִם הַקֶּמַח שֶׁאֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּרִיק כָּל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּשַּׂקסח,42 וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְרַקְּדֶנּוּ.44

וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן,סט כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְלַחְלֵחַ בְּצִדּוֹ בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹתע – יְרַקֵּד כָּל הַקֶּמַח, וְכָל קֶמַח שֶׁנִּתְלַחְלֵחַ וְהָיָה כְּמוֹ עִסָּה יִשָּׁאֵר לְמַעְלָה, וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּרעא אֲפִלּוּ הוּא בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח.

וְאִם הוּא יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁאָסוּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְרַקֵּד כָּל הַקֶּמַח אִם אֵין צָרִיךְ לְכֻלּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב45 שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא טוֹרֵחַ לְצֹרֶךְ הַחֹל46 – יְרַקְּדֶנּוּ עַל יְדֵי נָכְרִי, דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר נִרְקַד הַקֶּמַח פַּעַם אַחַת קֹדֶם יוֹם טוֹב וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַסֻּבִּין וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְרוֹקְדוֹ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְבַעֵר הֶחָמֵץ מִתּוֹכוֹ,47 אִם כֵּן אֵין כָּאן מְלָאכָה גְּמוּרָהעב,48 אֶלָּא שְׁבוּת49 מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תק"ו,עג,50 וְהָאֲמִירָה לְנָכְרִי הוּא שְׁבוּת דִּשְׁבוּת,51 וְהִתִּירוּהוּ לְצֹרֶךְ מִצְוַת בִּעוּר חָמֵץ,עד,52 שֶׁכְּשֶׁמֵּסִיר קֶמַח הַמְלֻחְלָח מִשְּׁאָר הַקֶּמַח וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ אַרְצָה הוּא מִתְבַּעֵר מֵאֵלָיו עַל יְדֵי דְּרִיסַת הָרַגְלַיִם.עה,53

וְאִם הוּא רוֹצֶה יָכוֹל הוּא לִתֵּן כָּל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּשַּׂק בְּמַתָּנָה גְּמוּרָה לְנָכְרִי מִיָּד שֶׁנִּתְלַחְלֵחַ54 קֹדֶם שֶׁשָּׁהָה שִׁעוּר מִיל,עו,18 וְאָז לֹא יִצְטָרֵךְ לְרַקְּדוֹ כְּלָל:55

9 When is the sifting mentioned above effective? When the flour is still moist. If, however, the moistness [of the flour] has dried in many places, sifting is not effective at all. [The rationale is that] there are grounds for concern that [after] the flour dried, it crumbled into fine crumbs, and [these fine crumbs] will pass through the holes of the sifter and become mixed with the remainder of the flour. Their presence in the flour [will] not be nullified [even when the flour contains] 60 times [their volume. The rationale is that] this instance is comparable to a mixture of a solid in a liquid. [It is classified as such because] the flour is governed by the laws applying to a liquid;56 since it is soft, it spreads [out] and mixes seamlessly with other flour [as liquids mix with each other. By contrast,] the crumbs [that formed when the flour came in contact with water], although they are fine like flour, are governed by the laws applying to solids, because they are [each] a single lump that does not dissolve nor spread [out].57 Therefore, [these crumbs] do not mix together with the flour. Instead, they remain as a distinct entity. This is not considered a [liquid] mixture. Accordingly, [the presence of the crumbs] is not nullified [in the flour].

True, there are authorities who maintain (see Yoreh Deah, sec. 104)58 that when a solid becomes mixed with a liquid in an instance where it is impossible to remove it – for example, a crumb that became mixed in a thick sauce which could not be filtered out – [the presence of the solid] can be nullified in 60 [times its volume of liquid. These authorities maintain that] even though [the crumb] is not mixed with the sauce but rather exists as a separate entity within it, since a person cannot separate the crumb from the sauce, [the two are] considered a mixture. Nevertheless, [even these authorities would agree that] it is impossible [to permit] partaking of this flour that has a crumb of chametz59 in it. Although [according to these authorities, the presence of this crumb] was nullified before Pesach, when Pesach commences, [the crumb’s presence] becomes significant again because even the slightest trace of chametz on Pesach [is significant].60

[Such a mixture] does not resemble a mixture of two liquids. [In that instance, if the presence of a forbidden liquid] was nullified in 60 times [its volume of a permitted liquid] before Pesach, [the forbidden liquid] does not become significant again on Pesach. [The rationale for the distinction is that] a mixture of two liquids mixes seamlessly and actually becomes one single entity. Therefore, [the presence of the substance that was] nullified does not become significant again, because it has already become a single entity with [the substance in which its presence] was nullified. By contrast, the crumb does not mix with the flour. Instead, it remains a distinct entity. Therefore, it becomes significant again [on Pesach].

ט בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמּוֹעִיל רִקּוּד? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַקֶּמַח מְלֻחְלָח, אֲבָל אִם נִתְיַבֵּשׁ הַלַּחְלוּחִית בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה – אֵין רִקּוּד מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחֹשׁ עַל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁנִּתְיַבֵּשׁ שֶׁמָּא נִפְרַךְעז וְנַעֲשָׂה מִמֶּנּוּ פֵּרוּרִין דַּקִּים וְהֵן יוֹצְאִין דֶּרֶךְ נִקְבֵי הַנָּפָהעח וּמִתְעָרְבִין בִּשְׁאָר הַקֶּמַח.

וְאֵינָן בְּטֵלִים בְּתוֹכָהּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים, לְפִי שֶׁזֶּהוּ דּוֹמֶה לְתַעֲרֹבֶת יָבֵשׁ בְּלַח,עט שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקֶּמַח דִּינוֹ כְּלַח,פ,56 לְפִי שֶׁהוּא נִמּוֹחַ וּמִתְפַּשֵּׁט וְנִבְלָל יָפֶה, וְהַפֵּרוּר אַף שֶׁהוּא דַּק כְּקֶמַח דִּינוֹ כְּיָבֵשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא גּוּשׁ אֶחָד וְאֵינוֹ נִמּוֹחַ וּמִתְפַּשֵּׁט,57 וּלְכָךְ אֵינוֹ נִבְלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַקֶּמַח אֶלָּא הוּא עוֹמֵד שָׁם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין זֶה נִקְרָא תַּעֲרֹבֶת, וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּטֵּל שָׁם.

וְאַף לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמְרִים (בְּיוֹרֶה דֵּעָה סִימָן ק"דפא,58) שֶׁהַיָּבֵשׁ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּלַח בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַהֲסִירוֹ מִשָּׁם, כְּגוֹן פֵּרוּר שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ רֹטֶב עָבֶה שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְסַנְּנָהּ, הֲרֵי הוּא מִתְבַּטֵּל בְּשִׁשִּׁים,פב דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאָדָם לְהַפְרִיד הַפֵּרוּר מֵהָרֹטֶב, אַף שֶׁאֵינָן נִבְלָלִין זֶה בָּזֶה אֶלָּא הוּא עוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָרֹטֶב, הֲרֵי זֶה נִקְרָא תַּעֲרֹבֶת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם קֶמַח זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ פֵּרוּר חָמֵץ59 בְּתוֹכוֹ – אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאָכְלוֹ בְּפֶסַח אַף שֶׁנִּתְבַּטֵּל בְּתוֹכוֹ קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח, לְפִי שֶׁהַפֵּרוּר חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹרפג כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁחָמֵץ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ,60 שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְתַעֲרֹבֶת לַח בְּלַח שֶׁנִּתְבַּטֵּל בְּשִׁשִּׁים קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר בְּפֶסַח,פד לְפִי שֶׁלַח בְּלַח נִבְלָלִין זֶה בָּזֶה יָפֶה וְנַעֲשִׂין גּוּף אֶחָד מַמָּשׁ, וּלְכָךְ אֵין הַמִּתְבַּטֵּל חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר כֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר נַעֲשָׂה גּוּף אֶחָד עִם הַמְבַטֵּל, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן הַפֵּרוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִבְלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַקֶּמַח אֶלָּא הוּא עוֹמֵד שָׁם בְּעֵינוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא חוֹזֵר וְנֵעוֹר:פה

10 [The stringency called for in the previous subsection applies] even if one desires to bake matzos from this flour before Pesach. [In such an instance,] the crumbs would have become a single entity with the flour by being baked [together] before Pesach. Afterwards, [the crumbs] will not become significant again during Pesach, as explained in sec. 453[:9].61 Nevertheless, weight should be given to the opinion that the presence of a dry entity within a liquid is never nullified.62 According to [this view], the crumb which is a dry entity and [chametz] nukshah63will not be nullified in the flour even after [the dough] is kneaded and baked. [The rationale is that] the dough [intended for the matzah] does not contain [any] dry crumbs [that are not chametz] that will nullify [the presence of] the crumbs of chametz via a simple majority, as is the law regarding a dry mixture.64

There are authorities who differ and permit [a person who] desires to bake matzos from this flour before Pesach [to do so. These authorities maintain that once the matzah has been baked,] the crumbs [that came into contact with the water] became a single entity [with the flour] and [hence, their presence] was nullified before Pesach. [Therefore, the crumbs] do not become significant again [when Pesach arrives].

[These authorities maintain that the mixture of flour and crumbs] does not resemble a mixture of a solid in a liquid. [It is not classified in this manner] because the crumb is fine like flour is. [Instead, these authorities maintain that stringency is required] because weight is given to the authorities who maintain that a mixture of flour [that is kosher-for-Pesach] with flour [that is not kosher-for-Pesach] is governed by the laws applying to dry mixtures, in which instance, [the forbidden substance] becomes significant again on Pesach, as stated in sec. 447[:1]. There are authorities who rule in this manner. Therefore, [these authorities65 maintain] that [as long as] one baked [a dough made from the mixture] before Pesach, all authorities agree that it is permitted.66

One may rely on the words of these authorities in a pressing situation when there is no other flour available to purchase, nor is grinding other wheat feasible. Nevertheless, [when relying on this view,] one should act stringently and take some of the flour [and cook it] and partake of it before Pesach. [In this way,] one could postulate that the [chametz] crumbs were present in the portion that [the person] already ate. See sec. 429[:19].67

י וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם רוֹצֶה לֶאֱפוֹת הַמַּצּוֹת מִקֶּמַח זֶה קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח,פו וְנִמְצָא שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ הַפֵּרוּרִין עִם הַקֶּמַח גּוּף אֶחָד מַמָּשׁ עַל יְדֵי הָאֲפִיָּה קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח, וְשׁוּב אֵין חוֹזֵר וְנֵעֹר בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תנ"ג,פז,61 מִכָּל מָקוֹם יֵשׁ לָחֹשׁ לְהָאוֹמְרִים שֶׁיָּבֵשׁ בְּלַח אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּטֵּל כְּלָל,62 וְאִם כֵּן הַפֵּרוּר שֶׁהוּא יָבֵשׁ נֻקְשֶׁה63 אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּטֵּל בַּקֶּמַח אַף לְאַחַר הַלִּישָׁה וְהָאֲפִיָּה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בְּעִסַּת הַמַּצָּה פֵּרוּרִין יְבֵשִׁים שֶׁיִּתְבַּטְּלוּ פֵּרוּרֵי הֶחָמֵץ בְּתוֹכָם בְּרֹב כְּדִין תַּעֲרֹבֶת יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ.64

וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִיןפח וּמַתִּירִין אִם רוֹצֶה לֶאֱפוֹת מַצּוֹת מִקֶּמַח זֶה קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁכְּבָר נַעֲשׂוּ אֵלּוּ הַפֵּרוּרִין גּוּף אֶחָד וְנִתְבַּטְּלוּ קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח וְשׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְנֵעֹר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לְתַעֲרֹבֶת יָבֵשׁ בְּלַח, מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַפֵּרוּר הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה דַּק כְּקֶמַח, אֶלָּא שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְהָאוֹמְרִים דְּקֶמַח שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקֶמַח יֵשׁ לוֹ דִּין יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ שֶׁחוֹזֵר וְנֵעֹר בְּפֶסַח, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תמ"זפט שֶׁיֵּשׁ אוֹמְרִים65 כֵּן, וּלְפִיכָךְ אִם אָפָה קֹדֶם פֶּסַח – מֻתָּר לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.צ,66

וְיֵשׁ לִסְמֹךְ עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶם בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לִקְנוֹת קֶמַח אַחֵר אוֹ לִטְחֹן חִטִּים אֲחֵרִים.צא וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר לִטֹּל מֵהַקֶּמַח וְלֶאֱכֹל קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח, כְּדֵי לִתְלוֹת הַפֵּרוּרִין בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל כְּבָר,צב עַיֵּן סִימָן תכ"ט:צג,67

11 Nevertheless, all authorities68 agree that after sifting the flour, it is permitted to maintain possession of it until after Pesach. [True, there are] authorities who maintain that when [the presence of a forbidden substance] is nullified in a liquid mixture ]comprising] 60 [times its volume of permitted substances] before Pesach, [the forbidden substance] becomes significant again on Pesach and, [hence,] it is forbidden to partake of the mixture [on Pesach]. Nevertheless, [even these authorities] permit maintaining possession of [such a mixture on Pesach], as explained in sec. 447[:22].

True, there are grounds to rule stringently, following [the position of] the authorities who maintain that the presence of a solid is never nullified in a liquid.69 As such, [the presence of] the crumbs [found] in the flour was never nullified.70 Thus, it would be appropriate to forbid one to maintain possession on Pesach of the flour which [contained] the crumbs. Nevertheless, [there is room for leniency,] since the prohibition against maintaining possession [of these crumbs] is only Rabbinic in origin (for [the mixture does not contain] any crumb larger than an olive-sized portion).71 Moreover, it is not certain that chametz is present at all, [rather,] there is only a suspicion that perhaps a crumb of chametz slipped through the holes of the sifter. Therefore, one may rely on [the authorities] who maintain that the presence of a solid may be nullified in a liquid. [Thus, the presence of] the crumbs was nullified in the flour before Pesach. Therefore, it is permitted to maintain possession [of the mixture over Pesach].72

יא וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל68 מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁהוֹת הַקֶּמַח לְאַחַר שֶׁרִקְּדוֹ עַד לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח,צד שֶׁהֲרֵי אַף לְהָאוֹמְרִים שֶׁתַּעֲרֹבֶת לַח בְּלַח שֶׁנִּתְבַּטֵּל בְּשִׁשִּׁים קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח חוֹזֵר וְנֵעֹר בְּפֶסַח וְאָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ,צה כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּסִימָן תמ"ז.צו

וְאַף שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּהָאוֹמְרִיםצז שֶׁיָּבֵשׁ בְּלַח אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּטֵּל,69 וְאִם כֵּן פֵּרוּרִין שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקֶּמַח לֹא נִתְבַּטֵּל מֵעוֹלָם,70 וְהָיָה רָאוּי לֶאֱסֹר לְהַשְׁהוֹת הַקֶּמַח בְּפֶסַח שֶׁהַפֵּרוּרִים הֵם בְּתוֹכוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁאִסּוּר שְׁהִיָּה זוֹ אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים (שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם פֵּרוּר כְּזַיִתצח),71 וְגַם אֵין כָּאן חָמֵץ וַדַּאי אֶלָּא סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא יָצָא פֵּרוּר דֶּרֶךְ נִקְבֵי הַנָּפָה, לְכָךְ יֵשׁ לִסְמֹךְ עַל הָאוֹמְרִים שֶׁיָּבֵשׁ בְּלַח מִתְבַּטֵּל, וּכְבָר נִתְבַּטְּלוּ הַפֵּרוּרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַקֶּמַח קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח, וּלְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ:צט,72

12 When does [the leniency mentioned above] apply? When the moisture in the flour dried before Pesach, even though it was sifted during Pesach. If, by contrast, [the flour] dried during Pesach, it is forbidden to maintain possession of it even after it was sifted. [The rationale is that] there is concern that perhaps some fine crumbs [of flour that became chametz] crumbled into [the remainder of the flour]. Thus, the mixture will have been made during Pesach,73 because the moisture did not dry before Pesach, and [the flour that was moistened] was then like a dough, and had never mixed with the other flour.

יב בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁנִּתְיַבֵּשׁ לַחְלוּחִית הַקֶּמַח קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח אַף שֶׁרִקְּדוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח, אֲבָל אִם נִתְיַבֵּשׁ בְּפֶסַח – אָסוּר לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹק אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁיְּרַקְּדֶנּוּ, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחֹשׁ שֶׁמָּא נִתְפָּרֵר לְתוֹכוֹ פֵּרוּרִים דַּקִּים, וַהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה תַּעֲרֹבֶת זֶה בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח,73 שֶׁהֲרֵי קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח עֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְיַבֵּשׁ הַלַּחְלוּחִית, וְהָיָה אָז כְּמוֹ עִסָּה וְלֹא הָיָה מְעֹרָב כְּלָל בִּשְׁאָר הַקֶּמַח:קא

13 All the above74 applies when the moisture dries in several places. If, however, it only dried on one of the sides of the sack – even if it becomes dry on Pesach – [the owner] should hold in his hand the portion of the sack that became moist and dried together with the flour near it, until he empties all the flour in the sack. Afterwards, he should sift [the dry flour].75 [However,] even if he does not sift [the flour, the flour] is permitted since he removed [the flour that was in] the place where water fell.

יג וְכָל זֶה74 כְּשֶׁנִּתְיַבֵּשׁ הַלַּחְלוּחִית בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה, אֲבָל אִם נִתְיַבֵּשׁ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מִצִּדֵּי הַשַּׂק, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְיַבֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח – יֶאֱחֹז בְּיָדוֹ אֶת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְלַחְלֵחַ וְנִתְיַבֵּשׁ בַּשַּׂק עִם הַקֶּמַח שֶׁאֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹרִיק כָּל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּשַּׂק,קב וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְרַקְּדֶנּוּ.75 וְאִם לֹא רִקְּדוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁכְּבָר הֵסִיר אֶת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עָלָיו מַיִם:קג

14 All the above74 applies when one knows that [the sack of flour] became moist from water. If, however, there are grounds to suspect that [the sack] became moist from mei peiros76 that do not cause [flour] to become chametz, [the flour] can even be permitted to be eaten once it is sifted.

[This license applies] even if the moisture dried up during Pesach. [The rationale is that the situation] involves a compounded doubt [i.e., a sefek-sefeika]: Perhaps [the flour] became moist with mei peiros that do not cause [flour] to become chametz, and [even] if one will assert that [the flour became moist] from water, perhaps none of the flour that became moist and dried became mixed with the other flour.

Nevertheless, if [the person] can easily find other flour that is [kosher]-for-Pesach, he should not rely on the compounded doubt to partake of this flour on Pesach. Instead, he should store it away until after Pesach.77

יד וְכָל זֶה74 כְּשֶׁיָּדוּעַ שֶׁנִּתְלַחְלֵחַ מִמַּיִם, אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּקקד שֶׁמָּא בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת76 שֶׁאֵינָן מְבִיאִין לִידֵי חִמּוּץ – יֵשׁ לְהַתִּיר עַל יְדֵי רִקּוּד אֲפִלּוּ בַּאֲכִילָה, אַף אִם נִתְיַבֵּשׁ הַלַּחְלוּחִית בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח, כִּי יֵשׁ כָּאן סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא: שֶׁמָּא נִתְלַחְלֵחַ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן מְבִיאִין לִידֵי חִמּוּץ, וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מִמַּיִם, שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִתְעָרֵב כְּלוּם בְּהַקֶּמַח מִלַּחְלוּחִית שֶׁנִּתְיַבֵּשׁ לְתוֹךְ שְׁאָר הַקֶּמַח.קה

וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם, אִם אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ בְּקַל לִמְצֹא קֶמַח אַחֵר לְפֶסַחקו – אֵין לִסְמֹךְ עַל הַסְּפֵק סְפֵיקָא לֶאֱכֹל קֶמַח זֶה בְּפֶסַח, אֶלָּא יַצְנִיעֶנּוּ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח:קז,77

15 [The following guidelines should be adhered to when one discovers] a sack full of flour that mice nibbled at. Even when [the person] sees moisture on the flour at the place where [the mice] nibbled because [the flour] became moist due to the saliva in the mice’s mouths78 – [and] even when the moisture dried during Pesach79 – [all that is necessary is for the person] to hold the place of the sack where [the mice] nibbled with the flour near it in his hand and tie [the sack in that place] until he empties all the flour in the sack. Afterwards, he should sift [the flour].

It is not suspected that the mice went through all the flour in the sack, eating [as they went], and [that the flour thus] became chametz from the saliva released from their mouths. [The rationale is that] even if they ate [some of the flour further in the sack], it is almost certain that saliva was not released from their mouths, because mice do not usually release saliva while eating. The flour from the place where [the mice] bit the sack, by contrast, should be forbidden even if there is no sign of moisture on [the flour] or on the sack.

[The following laws apply] if one shook the sack so that the flour from the portion [where the mice] bit [the sack] became mixed with the remainder of the flour in the sack: If [this occurred] before Pesach, one should sift all the flour [in the sack] and leave it until after Pesach. If [however this occurred] during Pesach, it is forbidden to maintain possession of [the flour].80

When does the above apply? When it is apparent that the mice ate some of the flour in the place [where the sack was] nibbled. However, if only the sack was nibbled and there is room for doubt [as to] whether or not [the mice] ate any of the flour, it is permitted to maintain possession [of the flour. This license applies] even if the sack was nibbled and [then] one shook it during Pesach. There is no need to sift [the flour] at all. [The rationale is that] a disqualifying factor did not arise concerning the flour itself, but only concerning the sack.

Nevertheless, if one shook the sack,[the flour] should not be eaten during Pesach, even when it is sifted. [This restriction applies] even if one shook [the sack] before Pesach.81 ([The rationale is that] there is a [genuine] concern that the flour in the place where [the mice] nibbled [the sack] became chametz in a complete sense because it is almost certain that through the pressure of the mice biting the sack, saliva was released from their mouths due to the pressure of biting. It is possible [the saliva] fell on the nearby flour and caused it to become chametz.)

טו שַׂק מָלֵא קֶמַח שֶׁנָּשְׁכוּ בּוֹ הָעַכְבָּרִים, אֲפִלּוּ רוֹאֶה לַחְלוּחִית עַל הַקֶּמַח בַּמָּקוֹם הַנָּשׁוּךְ שֶׁנִּתְלַחְלֵחַ מֵרֹק שֶׁבְּפִי הָעַכְבָּר,78 וַאֲפִלּוּ נִתְיַבֵּשׁ הַלַּחְלוּחִית בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח79 – יֶאֱחֹז בְּיָדוֹ אֶת מְקוֹם הַנָּשׁוּךְ בַּשַּׂק עִם הַקֶּמַח שֶׁאֶצְלוֹ וְיִקְשֹׁר שָׁם עַד שֶׁיָּרִיק כָּל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּשַּׂק, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְרַקְּדֶנּוּ.קח

וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁים שֶׁמָּא הָלְכוּ הָעַכְבָּרִים בְּכָל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּשַּׂק וְאָכְלוּ שָׁם וְנִתְחַמֵּץ מֵהָרִיר שֶׁיָּצָא מִפִּיהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁאַף אִם אָכְלוּ שָׁם הַדָּבָר קָרוֹב לְוַדַּאי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא רִיר מִפִּיהֶם, שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָעַכְבָּר לְהוֹצִיא רִיר מִפִּיו בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָתוֹ.קט

אֲבָל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּמָּקוֹם הַנָּשׁוּךְ – יֵשׁ לְאָסְרוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל הַשַּׂק שׁוּם לַחְלוּחִית.

וְאִם נִעֲנַע אֶת הַשַּׂק עַד שֶׁהַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּמָּקוֹם הַנָּשׁוּךְ נִתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁאָר הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּשַּׂק, אִם הוּא קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח – יְרַקֵּד כָּל הַקֶּמַח וְיַשְׁהֶנָּה עַד לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח. וְאִם הוּא בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח – אָסוּר לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ.קי,80

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁנִּרְאֶה לָעַיִן שֶׁאָכַל הָעַכְבָּר קְצָת מִן הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּמָּקוֹם הַנָּשׁוּךְ, אֲבָל אִם נָשַׁךְ רַק הַשַּׂק וְיֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק שֶׁמָּא לֹא אָכַל כְּלוּם מִן הַקֶּמַח – מֻתָּר לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נָשַׁךְ הַשַּׂק וְנִעֲנַע אוֹתוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח.

וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְרַקְּדוֹ כְּלָל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נוֹלַד רֵעוּתָא בַּקֶּמַח עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא בַּשַּׂק. אֲבָל אֵין לְאָכְלוֹ בְּפֶסַח אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי רִקּוּד אִם נִעֲנַע אֶת הַשַּׂק,81 אֲפִלּוּ נִעֲנַע אוֹתוֹ קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַחקיא,82 (כִּי הַקֶּמַח שֶׁבַּמָּקוֹם הַנָּשׁוּךְ יֵשׁ בּוֹ חֲשַׁשׁ חִמּוּץ גָּמוּר, שֶׁהַדָּבָר קָרוֹב לְוַדַּאי שֶׁעַל יְדֵי דֹּחַק נְשִׁיכַת הָעַכְבָּר בַּשַּׂק יָצָא רֹק מִפִּיו עַל יְדֵי דֹּחַק הַנְּשִׁיכָה, וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁנָּפַל עַל הַקֶּמַח שֶׁאֶצְלוֹ וְנִתְחַמֵּץ):

16 When [rain-]drops descend on flour from a roof – even [if this continues for] the entire day – [the flour] will not become chametz.82[The rationale is that] the [continuous] dripping agitates the flour resting in the dripping water and prevents it from becoming chametz.83 [The above rule applies] provided the drops descend one drop immediately after another without any interruption at all between them.82

If one is in doubt whether the drippings [sufficiently] agitated [the flour] or not, it is forbidden to even maintain possession [of the flour] because the possibility of [violating] a Scriptural [prohibition] is involved. [Even when the dripping continued incessantly,] as soon as the dripping ceases, one must immediately knead the flour and bake it. If [the wet flour] was left for the amount of time [it takes to walk] a mil,18it is forbidden.

Similarly, [kernels of] grain on which water dripped – even [if this continues for] the entire day – will not become chametz. When the dripping ceases, one must immediately grind [the kernel of grain].

טז קֶמַח שֶׁנָּפַל עָלָיו דֶּלֶףקיב הַיּוֹרֵד מִן הַגַּגקיג אֲפִלּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ – אֵינוֹ בָּא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ,83 שֶׁטִּרְדַּת הַדֶּלֶף מוֹנֵעַ מִלְּהַחְמִיץקיד אֶת הַקֶּמַח הַשָּׁרוּי בְּמֵי הַדֶּלֶף.קטו, וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה הַדֶּלֶף טוֹרֵד טִפָּה אַחַר טִפָּה מִיָּד בְּלִי הֶפְסֵק כְּלָל בֵּינְתַיִם.קטז,83 וְאִם הוּא מְסֻפָּק אִם הַדֶּלֶף טוֹרֵד אִם לָאו – אָסוּרקיז אֲפִלּוּ לְהַשְׁהוֹתָן,קיח מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, וּכְשֶׁיִּפְסֹק טִרְדַּת הַדֶּלֶף – צָרִיךְ לְלוּשׁוֹ מִיָּד וְלֶאֱפוֹתוֹ,קיט וְאִם שָׁהָא שִׁעוּר מִיל18 – הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר.קכ

וְכֵן דָּגָן שֶׁהַדֶּלֶף טוֹרֵד עָלָיו אֲפִלּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ בָּא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ,קכא וּכְשֶׁיִּפְסֹק טִרְדַּת הַדֶּלֶף – צָרִיךְ לְטָחֳנוֹ מִיָּד: