מַתְנִי׳ אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר.
MISHNA: On the evening [or] of the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, one searches for leavened bread in his home by candlelight. Any place into which one does not typically take leavened bread does not require a search, as it is unlikely that there is any leavened bread there. And with regard to what the Sages of previous generations meant when they said that one must search two rows of wine barrels in a cellar, i.e., a place into which one typically takes some leavened bread, the early tanna’im are in dispute. Beit Shammai say that this is referring to searching the first two rows across the entire cellar, and Beit Hillel say: There is no need to search that extensively, as it is sufficient to search the two external rows, which are the upper ones. This dispute will be explained and illustrated in the Gemara.
בודקין - שלא יעבור עליו בבל יראה ובבל ימצא:
The night of the 14th of Nissan
מתני' אור לארבעה עשר בודקין את החמץ - פ"ה שלא לעבור עליו בבל יראה ובל ימצא וקשה לר"י כיון דצריך ביטול כדאמר בגמ' (דף ו:) הבודק צריך שיבטל ומדאורייתא בביטול בעלמא סגי אמאי הצריכו חכמים בדיקה כלל ונראה לר"י דאע"ג דסגי בביטול בעלמא החמירו חכמים לבדוק חמץ ולבערו שלא יבא לאכלו...
Mishna - "On the night of the 14th, we search for hametz". Rashi explains the reason is so that one does not transgress the Torah prohibitions of seeing and finding hametz. This leads to a difficulty to the position of Rav Yitzchak the Elder - Since he requires "Bitul" (Annulment) as it mentions in the Talmud (Pesachim 6B) - "One who searches for hametz needs to annul." From the Torah, annulment is acceptable to avoid the Biblical transgression. Why did the Hachamim require searching at all? It seems to the opinion of Rav Yitzchak the Elder that even though annulment is sufficient, the Rabbis were stringent to require the searching of hametz and to destroy it so that no person should come to eat hametz on Passover. Another reason - The Torah was stringent on the finding or seeing hametz in your possession, therefore, the Hachamim were stringent on requiring the individual to search and destroy even if he annuled his possession of hametz because one may come to eat hametz.
ר״ן א. בדפי הרי״ף פסחים
אבל למי שמבטל סגי בהכי, אלא מפני שביטול זה תלוי במחשבתן של בני אדם ואין דעותיהן שוות ואפשר שיקלו בכך ולא יוציאוהו מלבן לגמרי ראו חכמים להחמיר שלא יספיק ביטולו הצריכוהו בדיקה וביעור שהוא מספיק ג״כ מן התורה
אבל למי שמבטל סגי בהכי, אלא מפני שביטול זה תלוי במחשבתן של בני אדם ואין דעותיהן שוות ואפשר שיקלו בכך ולא יוציאוהו מלבן לגמרי ראו חכמים להחמיר שלא יספיק ביטולו הצריכוהו בדיקה וביעור שהוא מספיק ג״כ מן התורה
(א) דין ערב פסח שחל להיות בשבת. ובו ח' סעיפים:
י"ד שחל להיות בשבת בודקין ליל י"ג ומבערים הכל לפני השבת ומשיירין מזון שני סעודות לצורך השבת דסעודה שלישית זמנה אחר המנחה ואז אינו יכול לעשותה לא במצה ולא בחמץ אלא במצה עשירה וצריך לעשותה קודם שעה עשירית: הגה ובמדינות אלו שאין נוהגין לאכול מצה עשירה כדלקמן סימן תס"ב סעיף ד' בהג"ה יקיים סעודה שלישית במיני פירות או בבשר ודגים כדלעיל סי' רצ"א סעיף ה' בהגה:
(א) (א) בודקין וכו' - וצריך לברך על הבדיקה וגם לבטל כמו בשאר שנים בליל י"ד [אחרונים]:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַמְפָרֵשׁ, וְהַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁיָירָא, קוֹדֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — אֵין זָקוּק לְבַעֵר, תּוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — זָקוּק לְבַעֵר..... הָנֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? כִּדְתַנְיָא: שׁוֹאֲלִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין בְּהִלְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח קוֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
That is the reason that it is necessary for the Torah to write: It shall not be found, to indicate that there is a halakha unique to leaven. In this case, it is considered as though it were in his possession. However, according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money, why do I need the phrase: It shall not be found? Obviously, the leaven is prohibited, as it is considered his property. The Gemara answers: It is nonetheless necessary, as it could enter your mind to say: Since when the leaven is intact it returns to the gentile in its pure, unadulterated form, it retroactively did not stand in the Jew’s possession and the Jew did not violate the prohibition against having leaven found on his property. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is considered as though the leaven belonged to the Jew. They raised a dilemma before Rava: Is the owner of an animal born into a herd from which the royal tax [arnona] is collected obligated in the mitzva to give the firstborn animal to a priest, as the animal still belongs to a Jew? Or perhaps he is not obligated to give the firstborn animal to the priest, as the obligation does not take effect on an animal partly owned by a gentile. The Gemara elaborates on the parameters of raising the dilemma: In any case where the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money in lieu of the animals, we do not raise the dilemma, as he is clearly obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn. The authorities own no part of the animal; the Jew merely owes them a monetary debt. Therefore, the animal is the property of the Jew exclusively. The situation when we do raise the dilemma is specifically where the Jew cannot dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. What is the halakha is this case? He said to them: The owner is exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. The Sages raised a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that he is obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn? He replied: There it is speaking of a case where the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. Some say that Rava said: The owner of an animal born into a herd from which the royal tax is collected is exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, even though the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. However, the owner of dough from which the royal tax is collected is obligated in ḥalla, despite the fact that the owner of dough partially owned by a gentile is generally not obligated. This is the halakha even though the Jew cannot dismiss the gentile tax collector by paying him the value of the dough. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between the halakha of a firstborn animal and the halakha of ḥalla? An animal generates publicity; as everyone knows that this Jew’s animal was confiscated by the authorities, no one will suspect him of intentionally refraining from fulfilling the mitzva. In contrast, dough does not generate publicity. Since not everyone knows that the dough is partially owned by a gentile, those who see a Jew failing to separate ḥalla will suspect him of neglecting the mitzva. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a gentile who enters the courtyard of a Jew with his dough in his hand, the Jew need not remove the leaven by evicting the gentile from his property. However, if the gentile deposited the leaven with him, and the Jew accepted responsibility, he must remove it. If he designated a room in his house for the gentile to place his leavened food, he need not remove it, as it is stated: “It shall not be found” (Exodus 12:19). The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying? How does the verse: It shall not be found, prove this halakha? Rav Pappa said: The verse cited is referring to the first clause of the baraita, and this is what the tanna is saying: If the gentile deposited the leavened dough with the Jew, he, i.e., the Jew, must remove the dough from his property, as it is stated: It shall not be found. Rav Ashi said: Actually, the verse cited is referring to the last clause of the baraita, and this is what the tanna is saying: If he designated a room in his house for the gentile to place the leavened dough, he need not remove it, as it is stated: It shall not be found in your houses, and that house is not his; since when the gentile brings the dough into the house, he brings it into his own house, as the space was designated for his use. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that rental denotes that the renter acquires the rented space as he would a full-fledged acquisition with regard to responsibility for that space? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: Even in a place with regard to which they said it is permitted for a Jew to rent houses to gentiles, e.g., in Syria, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring idolatry into it. And if it enters your mind to say that rental denotes that the renter acquires the rented space as he would a full-fledged acquisition, when the gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for the owner to rent it to a gentile? The Gemara answers: It is different here with regard to leaven, as the Merciful One expresses it using the language: It shall not be found, meaning, that which is found in your possession is prohibited, excluding this leaven, which is not found in your possession. However, with regard to other prohibitions, one who rents a place to others remains somewhat responsible for his property, despite the fact that he does not live there. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who finds leavened bread in his house on the Festival, i.e., the first day of Passover, covers it with a vessel and burns it at the conclusion of the Festival day. Rava said: If that leaven is consecrated, he need not cover it. What is the reason for this difference? The reason is that people distance themselves from consecrated food in any case, due to the severity of the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. Therefore, there is no concern that he will eat it. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If leavened bread belonging to a gentile is in a Jew’s house, he, i.e., the Jew, should erect a barrier ten handbreadths high around it on the fourteenth of Nisan, as a conspicuous marker, so that he will not mistakenly eat it. And if the leaven is consecrated, he need not do so. What is the reason for this halakha? Since people distance themselves from consecrated food, they will not mistakenly eat it. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to one who sets sail, or one who departs in a caravan traveling to a distant place; if he did so before it was thirty days prior to Passover, he need not remove the leaven from his possession. If he departs within thirty days of the Festival, he must remove the leaven. Abaye said: That which you said, that within thirty days one must remove the leaven, we only said this in a case where his intention is to return home adjacent to Passover (Ran). However, in a case where it is not his intention to return before Passover, he need not remove the leaven. Rava said to him: But if he intends to return home shortly before the Festival, even if he was gone from Rosh HaShana, shouldn’t he remove the leaven, as failure to do so will lead to his arriving home and discovering leaven in his house just before the Festival? Rather, Rava said: According to that which you said, i.e., that if he leaves before it was thirty days prior to Passover he need not remove the leaven, we said this halakha only if he does not intend to return before Passover. However, if he intends to return, even if he was gone from Rosh HaShana, he must remove the leaven. And Rava followed his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Rava maintains that one must remove all leaven from his possession within thirty days of Passover, even if he will not be there on the Festival itself. As Rava said: With regard to one who turns his house into a storehouse, and there is leaven beneath the stored grain, if he does so before it was thirty days prior to Passover, he need not remove the leaven. Since the leaven is concealed, it is considered removed after the fact. If it is within thirty days, he must remove the leaven, as it is not considered removed ab initio. And even if this occurred before it was thirty days prior to Passover, we only said that he is not obligated to remove the leaven if it is not his intention to clear away the stored grain before Passover. However, if his intention is to clear away the grain before Passover, he must remove the leaven even before it was thirty days prior to Passover, as perhaps he will not have time to remove the leaven before the Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of this period of thirty days that renders it significant? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: One asks about and teaches the halakhot of Passover thirty days before Passover. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One begins studying those halakhot two weeks before the Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna, that one begins studying the halakhot of Passover thirty days before the Festival?
קודם שלשים - לא חלה חובת ביעור עליו
(א) דין המפרש בים והיוצא בשיירא ובו ג סעיפים:
המפרש מיבשה לים או יוצא בשיירא ואינו מניח בביתו מי שיבדוק, תוך שלשים יום זקוק לבדוק: [ולא יברך אז על ביעור חמץ] (כל בו) (טור)
(ב) ולא יברך אז וכו' - עיין מ"ב הטעם וכן הוא דעת הלבוש וע"ש אמנם דעת הב"ח דבתוך ל' יום צריך לברך ורק היכי שצריך לבדוק קודם ל' יום א"צ לברך ודעת הפ"ח דלעולם צריך לברך כיון דחייבוהו חכמים לבדוק. ומסתימת המגן אברהם והט"ז וש"א משמע דתפסו כדעת הג"ה דלעולם א"צ לברך אכן מצאתי בחידושי הריטב"א וז"ל שם ודעת הרא"ה ז"ל דכל שזקוק לבער מברך על הביעור ונראין הדברים תוך ל' יום דוקא הרי דדעת הרא"ה כהפר"ח ודעת הריטב"א להכריע כהב"ח וצ"ע למעשה:
Q ומה אם נוסח הברכה??
Q האם הברכה על בדיקת חמץ ברכה לבטלה אם לא מצא בו שום חמץ?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַבּוֹדֵק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ. מַאי מְבָרֵךְ? רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״עַל בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ״
The Gemara asks: But let him render the leaven null and void during the sixth hour, when he burns it. The Gemara answers: Since there is a rabbinic prohibition that takes effect on the leaven, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it after the fifth hour, its legal status is like that of leaven prohibited by Torah law, and therefore it is not in his possession and he is unable to nullify it. The Gemara continues: There is proof that the Sages were stringent with regard to leaven prohibited by rabbinic law, as Rav Giddel said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said that Rav said: With regard to a man who betroths a woman on the fourteenth of Nisan from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward, even if he does so with wheat from the mountains [kurdanaita], which is particularly hard and there is no certainty that it will ferment even if water falls on it, nevertheless, as it is possible that the wheat leavened, its legal status is that of leaven. Consequently, it is prohibited to derive benefit from this wheat, which is legally worthless. Therefore, if a man gives the wheat to a woman for the purpose of betrothal, one need not be concerned that it is a betrothal. The reason is that a betrothal is effective only if the man gives the woman an object worth at least a peruta. In this case the Sages disqualify the betrothal and allow the woman to marry another man, despite the fact that by Torah law she is betrothed to the first man, as the leaven with which he betrothed her is prohibited only by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it indeed the case that after the leaven has become prohibited one is unable to render it null and void? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If one was sitting in the study hall and he remembered that there is leavened bread in his house, he should render it null and void in his heart, both on Shabbat and on the Festival? The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, on Shabbat you can find this case, as one can nullify the leaven before it becomes prohibited, in a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat and he remembers to nullify the leaven before the prohibition takes effect. However, if he remembered on the Festival itself, it is after the prohibition has taken effect, as the Festival has already begun, and yet the baraita says that one may render the leaven null and void. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Here we are dealing with a student sitting before his teacher, and he remembers that there is kneaded dough in his house, and he is afraid lest it leaven before he can return home to warn the members of his household. Since the dough has not yet leavened and is not yet prohibited, he can take earlier action and render it null and void before it becomes leavened. The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise in accordance with this explanation, as the baraita teaches: If one was sitting in the study hall. This indicates that the dough has not yet risen, and the problem is that he cannot arrive home in time to prevent it from rising. However, if it had already become leavened, rendering it null and void will not remedy the situation even if he were home. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this proof that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s interpretation is correct. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to a vessel that contains several loaves in which there was bread that became moldy, and it is not evident whether it is leaven or matza, once there was more matza than leaven in the vessel, it is permitted. The Gemara first analyzes the case itself: What are the circumstances? If you say that he knows that this loaf is leavened bread, even if there were more matza, what of it? What difference does it make that most of the food is matza, if it is clear that this loaf is leaven? Rather, Rav must be speaking of a case where we do not know whether it is leavened bread or whether it is matza. However, in that case, why discuss specifically a situation where there was more matza in the vessel? Even in a case where there was not more matza in the vessel as well, the questionable loaf is likely to be matza, as let us follow the last item placed in the vessel, which even on the first day of Passover would be matza. Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to coins that were found before animal merchants in Jerusalem, they are always assumed to be money of the second tithe, as most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem were bought with that money. This halakha applies both during a Festival and throughout the year, as people would purchase animals for meat with their second-tithe money, and it can therefore be assumed that these coins have the status of second tithe. However, if the money was found on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred money, even during a Festival. It can be assumed that one who enters the Temple Mount has already purchased all the animals that he required beforehand. Any coins in his possession are non-sacred money, not tithes. If the money was found elsewhere in Jerusalem during the Festival, when many people came to Jerusalem with their second-tithe money, the coins are presumed to be second-tithe money. However, if the coins were found during the rest of the year, it is non-sacred money. The Gemara explains the proof. And Rav Shemaya bar Zeira said: What is the reason that during the rest of the year the coins are considered non-sacred money, even on the day after the Festival? Since the markets of Jerusalem tend to be cleaned every day, any money left there would already have been found by the street cleaners. Consequently, any coins found there were left there recently. Apparently, we say that the first ones are gone and these objects are later ones. Here too, with regard to moldy bread, let us say: The first ones have been eaten and are gone, and this food is from now and is undoubtedly matza. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different here, as the mold proves about the loaf that it is leaven, as food does not become moldy unless it has been sitting for a long time. The Gemara retorts: If its mold proves about the loaf that it is leaven, if there was more matza in the vessel, what of it? Even in that case, the very fact that it is moldy proves that it is leaven. Rabba said: Do not say there was more matza than leaven in the vessel; rather, say that several days of eating matza have passed over the vessel. In other words, several days of the Festival, during which matza is consumed, have passed. Therefore, it is more likely that the moldy loaf is matza. The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that the moldy loaf is matza, not leaven. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a situation where its mold is extensive. Lest you say: Since its mold is extensive the matter is revealed that it is certainly leavened bread, therefore Rav teaches us that one cannot be entirely sure that this is the case. The Gemara explains the reason for the uncertainty. Since several days of eating matza have passed over the vessel, we say: Each and every day he baked warm loaves, which he placed upon the previous days’ matza, causing it to grow moldier. Therefore, it is possible that even though only a brief time has passed, the matza has grown very moldy, due to the moisture and heat inside the vessel. In regard to the aforementioned principle, the Gemara asks: And do we, in general, follow the last item in determining the identity of the item in question? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: With regard to a box that people used for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, if the majority of its use was for non-sacred money, the coins are considered non-sacred. If the majority of its use was for second-tithe coins, the coins are considered second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let us follow the last item placed in the box. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where people used the box for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, and he does not know which of the two kinds of money was placed there last.
Rav Zevid said: The baraita is referring to a case where he used one part of the box for piles of non-sacred coins and another part of the box for piles of second-tithe coins. In this case, there was no definitive most recent use of the box, as a coin may have moved from one side of the box to the other.
Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case where the coin was found in a hole in the box. The concern is that this coin might not be of the type last placed into the box. Instead, it is possible that this coin remained from a previous use and was not removed because it was obscured in the hole. Rav Yehuda said: One who searches for leaven must recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he recite, i.e., what is the correct formula of the blessing? Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava that one recites: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to remove leavened bread. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: One should recite: Concerning the removal of leavened bread. The Gemara comments: With regard to the formula: To remove, everyone agrees that it certainly refers to the future. This formulation undoubtedly indicates that the person reciting the blessing is about to begin fulfilling the mitzva of removing leaven, and it is therefore an appropriate blessing.
Rav Zevid said: The baraita is referring to a case where he used one part of the box for piles of non-sacred coins and another part of the box for piles of second-tithe coins. In this case, there was no definitive most recent use of the box, as a coin may have moved from one side of the box to the other.
Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case where the coin was found in a hole in the box. The concern is that this coin might not be of the type last placed into the box. Instead, it is possible that this coin remained from a previous use and was not removed because it was obscured in the hole. Rav Yehuda said: One who searches for leaven must recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he recite, i.e., what is the correct formula of the blessing? Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava that one recites: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to remove leavened bread. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: One should recite: Concerning the removal of leavened bread. The Gemara comments: With regard to the formula: To remove, everyone agrees that it certainly refers to the future. This formulation undoubtedly indicates that the person reciting the blessing is about to begin fulfilling the mitzva of removing leaven, and it is therefore an appropriate blessing.
(א)...וכבר אפשר להשוות תלמודא דידן ולומר דלבדיקה קרי ליה ביעור... ומברכין עליה על ביעור חמץ גם מלשון הרמב"ם והסמ"ג והסמ"ק ור' ירוחם שכתבו לשון בדיקה בדין זה משמע להדיא שמפרשין לשון לבער הנאמר בגמרתינו שהכוונה בו הבדיקה גם הכלבו כתב בפשיטות כדברי הירושלמי וכן עיקר:
ומן הראוי שיברך קודם בדיקה על בדיקת חמץ ותקנו לומר על ביעור חמץ לפי שלאחר הבדיקה מיד הוא מבטל והיינו ביעור לחמץ שאינו ידוע לו ומצניע את הידוע לו ואוכל ממנו עד שעה חמישית ואז מבערו מן הבית ועל עסק זה נגררה הברכה של בדיקה שהיא תחלת הביעור
(א) וקודם שיתחיל לבדוק יברך בא"י אמ"ה אקב"ו על ביעור חמץ שבדיקה זו תחלת ביעור
(ד) (ד) ולא יברך אז וכו' - דכשבודק בליל י"ד תקנו לברך על ביעור חמץ לפי שמה שהוא מוצא בבדיקתו הוא מצניעו כדי לבערו למחר נמצא דהבדיקה הוא התחלת הביעור משא"כ כאן שלא יבערו מן העולם וישתמש בו כשאר הימים אלא שהוא מפנהו מבית זה: