meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Halakhah/Peninei Halakhah/Peninei Halakhah, Pesach/English/Peninei Halakhah, English ed. Yeshivat Har Bracha.txt"}
text: Peninei Halakhah, Pesach
  פניני הלכה, פסח
  Peninei Halakhah, English ed. Yeshivat Har Bracha
  
  
  Peninei Halakhah, Pesach
  
  Introduction
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / The Festival of Matzot and the Festival of Pesaĥ
  The holiday of Pesaḥ has two different names in the Torah: Ḥag Ha-matzot (the Festival of Matzot)1<i class="footnote">Shemot 23:15 <em>et al.</em><em> </em></i> and Ḥag Ha-Pesaḥ (the Paschal festival, or Passover).2<i class="footnote">Shemot 34:25.</i> These two names express two different meanings of the holiday: Ḥag Ha-matzot represents the revelation of God’s providence, and Ḥag Ha-Pesaḥ represents Israel’s unique spiritual capacity.
  At the Exodus from Egypt, God’s sovereignty over the world was given its most apparent and concrete manifestation. Thus, our faith in God is fundamentally rooted in the Exodus. The matza symbolizes this aspect of our holiday, as we read in the Hagada: “This matza that we eat – what is the reason? Because our forefathers’ dough did not have time to rise before the holy Supreme King of kings revealed Himself to them and redeemed them.”
  The unique mission and destiny of the people of Israel was also revealed at the time of the Exodus. The distinction between the Egyptians and the Israelites was conspicuous in all of the plagues, as the Egyptians were struck and the Israelites were saved. This culminated with the Plague of the Firstborn, when the Destroyer struck every Egyptian household but passed over (pasaḥ) Israelite homes. Israel’s uniqueness is expressed through and symbolized by the Paschal sacrifice.
  These two fundamental principles – faith and Israel – are linked together and interdependent. Unlike the other nations, which are formed through human endeavor, the nation of Israel was forged through divine miracles and wonders at the time of the Exodus for the purpose of receiving God’s Torah. Israel’s status entirely depends on their connection with God: when Israel does God’s will and makes God’s name manifest in the world, they earn all the blessings promised in the Torah. But when they do not fulfill God’s will, all of the curses written in the Torah are visited upon them.
  The revelation of God’s name in the world, i.e., the manifestation of divine values on earth, depends upon Israel, as Scripture states: “I created this nation for My sake; they will tell My praise” (Yeshayahu 43:21). For this reason, the Sages stated (Bereishit Rabba 1:4) that the idea of Israel preceded the creation of the world, for it is through Israel that the purpose of the world is revealed. This is what the Sages meant when they said: “God set a condition with Creation: ‘If Israel accepts the Torah, you will continue to exist, but if not, then I will return you to being formless and void’” (Shabbat 88a). Israel’s unique capabilities were further made manifest in that God chose us to be His nation and children, in spite of the fact that we were lowly slaves, stuck in the morass of impurity in Egypt.
  Thus the two biblical names of the holiday express two aspects of one matter, namely, the revelation of God’s name in the world through Israel.
  
  Section 2
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / The Festival of Freedom – the Revelation of Morality
  Why did the people of Israel, before their appearance as a nation, first have to endure such terrible slavery in Egypt? The simple explanation is that Israel’s mission is to rectify the moral state of the world, and in order to do so, it must experience firsthand the suffering and the pain that human beings can cause to one another.
  Thus, we find several instances where the Torah invokes our experiences in Egypt when instructing us about interpersonal relationships. For example: “You shall not oppress a stranger – for you know the soul of a stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Shemot 23:9) and “If a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God” (Vayikra 19:33-34).
  Similarly, the Sages said that before God began to smite the Egyptians, He instructed Moshe to command Israel concerning the mitzva of releasing slaves. Thus, even before they gained their freedom from Egypt they resolved that once they become free and have slaves of their own, they would never torment them. On the contrary, after six years they would send slaves free and grant them generous gifts (y. RH 3:5).
  Indeed, an amazing thing happened at the Exodus. All other peoples who had overthrown their enslavers became haughty and enslaved their former masters. Israel, however, did not try to enslave the Egyptians, even after they had been completely defeated; they only sought their own freedom. This was the first time that freedom appeared in the world as a moral value.
  This is why Pesaḥ is called the Festival of Freedom, or, as the Sages termed it in the liturgy, “zman ḥerutenu,” “the season of our freedom.” It is no coincidence that Pesaḥ is the first of the pilgrimage festivals: it embodies the foundation of human freedom and consequently of moral responsibility for every individual and societal act. Perhaps this is also why the years of Israelite kings’ reigns were counted from the beginning the month of Nisan, so that the idea of freedom be fundamental to Israelite sovereignty.
  
  Section 3
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / Spiritual liberation from Material Enslavement
  Israel and Egypt are diametrically opposed. Egypt was an extremely materialistic society with a pagan worldview. The nation of Israel, on the other hand, is unique with its spiritual and abstract worldview. Thus, only Israel was able to accept the abstract belief in one incorporeal and non-physical God. Consequently, Israel’s relationship to the material world is also pure and refined, and Jews are thus naturally modest and circumscribed in their sexual mores. The Egyptians, on the other hand, due to their emphasis on the physical and their materialistic worldview, were strongly attracted to promiscuity and sexual transgression. Thus, the Torah commands: “You shall not do like the deeds of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt” (Vayikra 18:3). The Sages interpreted this to mean that no nation committed deeds more abominable than the Egyptians did (Torat Kohanim ad loc.), especially the last generation that enslaved Israel (based on Maharal’s Gevurot Hashem ch. 4).
  The Egyptians of that period indeed accomplished some amazing material and administrative feats by creating a stable regime, an advanced irrigation system, and a sophisticated economy (in part due to the help of Yosef, Yaakov’s son). However, these material accomplishments were disconnected from the spiritual world and even opposed to it. Their worldview was extremely idolatrous. They did not believe in the existence of an independent, spiritual soul, but thought that the soul is contingent on and subservient to the existence of the physical body. This is why the Egyptians went to such great lengths to embalm corpses; they thought that one’s existence hinges solely on his physical reality. Death, in their view, merely means that one is no longer able to move or speak, but is no different from life in every other respect. Accordingly, they also invested enormous effort in building the pyramids, which are glorified cemeteries for the body.
  To be sure, the material world has an important place in Judaism as well. However, a worldview based solely on physical existence will necessarily be idolatrous and amoral. This is because all of the paradigms provided by nature are amoral. There may be beauty and wisdom reflected in the amazing regularity of the laws of nature, but they do not possess morality. The strong prey on the weak just as the powerful enslave the poor. The pagan worldview, instead of striving toward a higher level, sanctifies material existence with all its brutality and injustice. In contrast, a faith-based and spiritual worldview is characterized by constant striving toward improving the world, fighting evil and empowering justice. This is how the prophet Yeshayahu described the ultimate redemption and the Mashi’aḥ’s leadership:
  But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the land; he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid… the cow and the bear shall graze, together their young shall lie down. The lion shall eat straw like cattle… They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. (Yeshayahu 11:4-9)
  Thus, the Exodus from Egypt was not merely the emancipation of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt. Rather, it was the liberation of all mankind from the chains of materialism. This is why it is so important to delve into the Exodus, to the extent that we are commanded to see ourselves, every year on the Seder night, as though we ourselves left Egypt. We have also been commanded to remember the Exodus every day and every night. To a certain extent, Shabbat and all holidays were established to commemorate the Exodus, for at the Exodus the spirit of man was freed from the bonds of material existence. Since we have not finished liberating ourselves from the bonds of the material world – the chains of the evil impulse and its lusts – from a spiritual perspective, we still need to continue leaving Egypt. Hence, it is a mitzva to delve into the Exodus.
  
  Section 4
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / At the Exodus, the Material World Became a Vehicle for God’s Shekhina
  The way this world is ordered, its material aspects gain prominence first and easily reach their complete, powerful expression. Spiritual elements, however, remain hidden; it takes a long time before their significance becomes discernible. It was thus natural that the Egyptians initially overpowered Israel, for Egyptian might had already come to full fruition, while Israel was still like an unborn embryo. Since Israel’s strength could not be yet expressed, the Egyptians exploited Israel’s weakness and enslaved them to fuel their glory and their lusts.
  But this was also for the best. Spirituality cannot be expressed in the world without a material basis, and this is exactly what we gained from being enslaved in Egypt. During the entire period that the Egyptians enslaved Israel and thought that they were overpowering us completely, in reality we were drawing and absorbing their power, as it is written: “The Israelites were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them” (Shemot 1:7). The more the Egyptians tried to enslave and subdue us, the more we increased, as it is written: “But the more they tormented them, the more they multiplied, and the more they proliferated” (Ibid. 12) until we numbered 600,000 adult men. Maharal explains (Gevurot Hashem chs. 4 and 12) that this was the number necessary for the establishment of the nation of Israel. Once we numbered 600,000, an aspect of the divine was revealed within us, the Egyptian empire collapsed, and we left Egypt to receive the Torah at Sinai.
  Not only were we blessed with fertility in Egypt, we also left Egypt with great wealth, compensation for many years of slavery. Thus, Israel began its course with a solid material foundation. This is the meaning of:
  When you go, you shall not go empty-handed; rather, every woman shall ask of her neighbor and of she who lives in her house silver and gold vessels and clothes; and you shall put them upon your sons and your daughters, and thus you shall despoil Egypt. (Shemot 3:21-22)
  The Egyptians got their just desserts; had they chosen to be righteous, they would have taken care of the Israelites and helped them multiply and prosper. They would have benefited from this doubly, as they did when Yosef contributed to Egypt’s success during the difficult years of famine. But they chose evil, cruelly enslaving Israel, and consequently they were punished with ten plagues. The name of God was thus sanctified in the world, for the wicked were brought to justice and Israel left to eternal freedom.
  
  Section 5
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / Pride in Relation to God
  The prohibition against ḥametz on Pesaḥ is especially stringent, for the Torah not only forbade eating it, but commanded that it not be seen nor found in our possession. Our Sages further forbade eating any food with even the slightest amount of ḥametz mixed in. Thus the avoidance of ḥametz on Pesaḥ is absolute. This is because ḥametz symbolizes evil, as it says in the Zohar (2:40b) that ḥametz is the evil impulse. Specifically, it alludes to the impulse of pride. Fermentation causes dough to rise – it looks as though the dough is inflating itself and puffing up with pride, as an arrogant person would. In contrast, matza, which remains in its original size, as it was when God created it, symbolizes the trait of humility.
  At first glance, this is difficult to understand. If ḥametz represents the evil inclination, then why is there no commandment or custom to avoid it throughout the year? On the contrary, man is praised for knowing how to make wheat into tasty ḥametz cakes (see Tanḥuma Tazri’a 5). This was the Creator’s purpose in endowing man with the wisdom and practical skills to engage in developing the world. God created an imperfect world intentionally, so that man could imitate His deeds and participate in improving the world through scientific and technological development.
  The answer is that there are two types of pride: One is that man exaggerates his own praiseworthiness and thinks he is wiser, stronger, and better than he really is. Any intelligent person understands that such pride harms one’s ability to actualize his potential for the betterment of the world. His ability to judge is completely impaired, and he cannot conduct his life properly. Clearly, such pride is inappropriate all year long and has nothing to do with the prohibition of ḥametz. On the contrary, such pride detracts from one’s good works and thus harms the good, year-round ḥametz.
  The second type of pride, which corresponds to ḥametz on Pesaḥ, is man’s pride vis-à-vis his Creator, his God. Jewish faith is predicated on the acknowledgment that God created the world and determined its destiny, and that the roots of all things depend on Him alone. Although God gave man the ability to improve and to develop the world, this is limited to manipulating and developing the outgrowths of the root elements of creation; man has no power over the root elements, which are divine creations. God created the world, chose the people of Israel to be His am segula, His treasured nation, and gave them the Torah. Man has no authority to call these fundamental principles into question. Therefore, when one stands before his Creator, he must envelop himself in humility and make every effort not mix his petty human thoughts with the fundamental principles of creation. Such confusion, like ḥametz on Pesaḥ, is forbidden.
  Pesaḥ, and especially the Seder, is designed to instill in us the fundamentals of faith: that the world has a Creator, that He watches over His creatures, and that He chose the people of Israel to reveal His name in the world. Whenever there is revelation of an aspect of the divine in the world, it appears in a completely miraculous fashion, to show that it is not a human endeavor. Thus, the Exodus was accompanied by signs and wonders, to make public that the election of Israel was a divine matter. Similarly, the Torah was given with obvious miracles, to a generation that lived miraculously for forty years in the desert, in order to make it known that this was an entirely divine matter. In other words, we receive the fundamental principles of faith from God – we do not invent them. Whoever mixes some human aspect into these basic principles of faith is guilty of idolatry. This is alluded to in Zohar’s statement that ḥametz on Pesaḥ is idolatry (2:182a).
  Therefore, on Pesaḥ, the holiday geared toward imparting the fundamentals of faith, we are commanded to be extremely cautious to avoid eating and possessing even a smidgen of ḥametz, which symbolizes our human aspects that must not get mixed in when we speak about the roots and foundations of faith. During the rest of the year, however, when we are involved with developing and improving the branches, ḥametz is allowed and even desirable.
  
  Section 6
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / The Meaning of Matza
  Matza, symbolizing our recognition that the spiritual roots of things are beyond our grasp even though God granted us the ability to operate within and improve the world, is the opposite of ḥametz. Therefore, on Pesaḥ, when we are engaged with the most fundamental elements of faith, we do not mix even one iota of ḥametz in our food. We eat only matza, which remains simple and thin throughout its baking, without going through any additional process of swelling.
  Through our humility before God, expressed in the matza, we internalize the faith, first revealed at the Exodus from Egypt, that God actively watches over the world and elected Israel. To be sure, there were elite individuals who believed in God even before the Exodus, but their connection with the divine was of a personal nature. The wholeness of faith was first revealed only at the Exodus, with the formation of a complete nation containing all strata of society destined to manifest God’s name in the world.
  Matza comes to remind us of faith and is therefore called the “food of faith” (meikhla de-mehemnuta) by the Zohar (2:183b). By eating matza on the Seder night with the proper intent, one achieves faith, and by eating matza all seven days of Pesaḥ, one implants that faith firmly in one’s heart (Pri Tzadik, Pesaḥ 9).
  Since matza signifies faith, it is understandable that its entire manufacturing process must be performed very meticulously, as we will learn below (ch. 12, p. 200 ff.). This is because the roots of all things depend on faith, and any small flaw in faith can cause tremendous destruction in the world.
  We can thus understand why the nation of Israel came into being as slaves in Egypt. All other nations develop naturally, from the ground up, from family to clan to tribe to nation. As they grow, they develop cultures that evolve out of the circumstances of their lives, the climate of their territories, and their conflicts with their neighbors. As part of the emergence of their culture, they develop some type of deistic belief. Since human beings are involved in their invention, such beliefs are idolatrous.
  In contrast, Israel became a nation as slaves, devoid of any culture. They could not develop their own culture while enslaved and lacking national self-esteem. At the same time, Egyptian culture was foreign to them and possibly despised by them, as it was associated with their tormentors. Israel was thus a tabula rasa, free of preconceived notions, and perfectly capable of absorbing the true faith based on divine revelation and accepting the Torah without introducing human considerations into its fundamental principles. The impoverished, unembellished matza alludes to the condition of the Israelites at that time.
  
  Section 7
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / One Who Demeans the Holy Days
  An important principle is articulated in Mishna Avot (3:11): “Rabbi Elazar Ha-Moda’i says: ‘One who desecrates holy foods, one who demeans the holy days … and one who expounds the Torah not in accordance with halakha, even if he has Torah study and good deeds to his credit, has no share in the World to Come.’”
  R. Zvi Yehuda Kook would ask how one with Torah study and good deeds to his credit could not have a share in the World to Come. Moreover, since the mishna does not specify how much Torah study and good deeds this person has to his credit, it is implied that even if the person is a great Torah scholar, highly scrupulous in his observance of mitzvot, and a doer of many good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come since he demeans the holy days and expounds the Torah not in accordance with the halakha.
  R. Zvi Yehuda went on to describe one who greatly respects tradition and is meticulous about fulfilling the halakhic requirements of the Seder, but considers it all the product of human intelligence. He explains that the importance of the Pesaḥ holiday and the Seder lies in the parents passing their traditions on to the next generations, imparting to them the moral principles of human liberty and a sense of mission to improve the world. The matza merely concretizes Israel’s historical consciousness, and the four cups of wine simply add a dimension of joy. Even though all of these lovely ideas are true, the central fundamental principle is missing: that God chose us from among all nations, gave us the Torah, and commanded us to celebrate Pesaḥ and eat matza on the Seder night.
  R. Zvi Yehuda’s hypothetical Jew similarly honors Shabbat as a day when the family spends time together and grows closer, and when hardworking people can rest and engage in spiritual pursuits. He even adds that “Shabbat kept the Jews more than the Jews kept Shabbat.” He forgets only one thing: that God commanded us to observe Shabbat, down to its finest detail.
  This is what the mishna meant by “one who expounds the Torah not in accordance with halakha.” Even though he studies it diligently, to him it is not God’s Torah but merely human wisdom, so he allows himself to interpret it any way that comes to mind. Thus he demeans the holy days; he thinks they are customs and traditions that human beings invented to give expression to all sorts of spiritual notions, thereby denying that they are God-given mitzvot of the Torah. Therefore, even though he may have studied much Torah and performed many good deeds, and he is thought of as a good, honorable man in this world – he has no connection with holiness. He has no share in the eternal historical mission of the Jewish people, and thus has no share in the World to Come.
  
  Section 8
  
  The Meaning of the Holiday / One Inquires about the Laws of Pesaĥ Beginning Thirty Days before Pesaĥ
  We inquire about and expound upon the laws of Pesaĥ beginning thirty days before Pesaĥ. We learn this from Moshe, who on Pesaĥ itself explained the matter of Pesaĥ Sheni, the make-up date for those unable to bring the Paschal offering, which takes place thirty days later. The main reason for this is that all of Israel had to prepare animal sacrifices as Pesaĥ approached, examining them to be certain that they were free of disqualifying blemishes (Pesaĥim 6a; AZ 5b).
  This enactment was not canceled even after the Temple was destroyed; one must study the laws of Pesaĥ thirty days before the holiday arrives. As is well known, Pesaĥ has very many laws, pertaining to preparing the home for Pesaĥ, seeking and destroying ĥametz, baking the matza, and the Seder. Some Rishonim maintained that the enactment applies specifically to Torah scholars, enjoining them to prioritize answering practical questions about the upcoming holiday. According to this view, there is no universal obligation to set a fixed time for studying the laws of Pesaĥ (Ran and Rashba). Nevertheless, since many Rishonim maintain that it is indeed obligatory to set a fixed time for studying the laws of Pesaĥ beginning thirty days before Pesaĥ, it is proper that every individual do so, beginning on the fourteenth of Adar (Purim). It is also proper for schools and yeshivot to set a fixed time for studying the laws of Pesaĥ during this period.
  There is a dispute amongst halakhic authorities on whether one is obliged to study the laws of the other holidays thirty days in advance. Some say that since this enactment was established primarily for preparing the animal sacrifices, and such sacrifices were in fact brought on the three pilgrimage festivals – the olat re’iya (pilgrimage burnt-offering), shalmei ĥagiga (pilgrimage peace offerings), and shalmei simĥa (festival peace offerings) – therefore it is proper to study the laws of each festival thirty days in advance. Others say that the practice today primarily concerns Pesaĥ, since its laws are so numerous and strict (MB 429:1).3<i class="footnote">Tosafot AZ 5b, s.v. “ve-hatnan” states that even after the destruction of the Temple this decree was not nullified. MB 429:1 (see also BHL ad loc.) reinforces the opinion that one must learn the laws of Pesaĥ thirty days before, and rejects Ran’s opinion since most Rishonim disagree with him. This is also the opinion of many Aĥaronim, including SAH 429:1-3, which explains the issue thoroughly and states that this is a rabbinic decree (as opposed to the opinion of Baĥ, which states that it is a Torah law). Conversely, see Yabi’a Omer 2:222, which explains that Ran and Rashba maintain that the essence of the decree is to first answer a person who asks about the laws of Pesaĥ, since he is asking about a pertinent issue, and that this is the opinion of most Rishonim. (There is also debate about the position of Shulĥan Arukh itself: some infer that it concurs with Ran from the fact that it only mentions the term “ask”; others reject this inference.) In practice, I used the terms “mitzva” and “proper” since not everyone agrees that this is an obligation. Moreover, even though according to Baĥ this is in fact a Torah obligation, most authorities view it only as a rabbinic decree.</i>
  It is also worth noting that there are authorities who maintain that the main obligation is for rabbis and Torah teachers to begin teaching the laws of Pesaĥ thirty days before the festival, but there is no obligation on each individual. This is what Ĥok Yaakov states in 429:1, 3, adding in the name of Rokei’aĥ, Raavan, and Kol Bo, that even the reading of Parshat Para right after Purim was established to remind the people to purify themselves for the upcoming Pesaĥ. Similarly, many Aĥaronim write that this is the reason for the establishment of the custom to teach the laws of Pesaĥ on Shabbat Ha-Gadol, as recorded in SAH and MB 429:2. Nevertheless, according to most authorities there is still a mitzva for every individual to delve into the laws of Pesaĥ during the thirty days prior to the festival. BHL rules accordingly. However, there is arguably a greater obligation for rabbis and teachers.
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / Four Mitzvot Concerning the Prohibition against Ĥametz
  Four Torah commandments deal with the prohibition against ḥametz on Pesaḥ: three negative and one positive.
  The first prohibition is to refrain from eating ḥametz, as it is written, “And ḥametz shall not be eaten” (Shemot 13:3). Our Sages taught that the prohibition against eating ḥametz on Pesaḥ includes not deriving any kind of benefit from the ḥametz. The Torah also says, “You shall not eat anything leavened; in all of your settlements you shall eat matzot” (Shemot 12:20). Our Sages concluded from this verse that not only something that had fermented on its own is prohibited, but even food that had been leavened by some external agent may not be eaten on Pesaḥ. It must be noted that the Torah was particularly stringent concerning the prohibition against eating ḥametz. Almost all of the Torah’s food prohibitions are punishable by lashes, while eating ḥametz on Pesaḥ is punishable by karet (extirpation), as it is written, “whoever eats ḥametz from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Shemot 12:15).
  The second prohibition is that no ḥametz may be found in our possession, as it is written, “Seven days there shall be no se’or found in your homes” (Shemot 12:19). Se’or is the leavening agent that one uses to make dough ferment. This verse means not only that se’or is forbidden, but also that no ḥametz may be found in our possession on Pesaḥ. This prohibition is often called bal yimatzei.
  The third prohibition is that no ḥametz may be seen in our possession, as it is written: “Matzot shall be eaten seven days; and no ḥametz of yours shall be seen, and no se’or of yours shall be seen within all your borders” (Shemot 13:7). One violates the second prohibition (bal yimatzei) and this third prohibition (called bal yera’eh) only if one has in his possession on Pesaḥ at least one olive’s bulk (kezayit) of ḥametz. If the volume of the ḥametz that remained in one’s possession was less than a kezayit, he does not violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei on account of that ḥametz.
  The fourth mitzva – a positive commandment – is to get rid of ḥametz and se’or in advance of Pesaḥ, as it is written, “Seven days you shall eat matzot; however, on the first day you shall remove the se’or from your houses” (Shemot 12:15).
  
  Section 2
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / The Times When Ĥametz Is Prohibited by Torah Law and by Rabbinic Law
  Although the prohibition against ḥametz applies primarily during the seven days of Ḥag Ha-matzot, from the fifteenth through the twenty-first of Nisan, nevertheless we were commanded to remove ḥametz from our homes at noon on the fourteenth of Nisan, Erev Pesaḥ.
  The prohibition against eating ḥametz also begins at noon on the fourteenth, as is written, “And you shall sacrifice the Pesaḥ [offering] to G-d … you shall not eat ḥametz with it” (Devarim 16:2-3). This prohibits the eating of ḥametz from the time fit for bringing the Pesaḥ sacrifice, i.e., at noon on the fourteenth of Nisan. This prohibition against eating ḥametz includes the prohibition against deriving any benefit from it.1<i class="footnote">he  mitzva of removing the <em>ḥametz</em> applies from noon on the fourteenth, as it is written, “However, on the first day you shall remove the <em>se’or</em> from your houses” (Shemot 12:15). The Sages demonstrated from other verses that “the first day” refers to Erev Pesaḥ. Since the <em>ḥametz</em> must already have been removed by the onset of the holiday itself so as not to violate<em> bal yera’eh </em>and <em>bal yimatzei </em>, the mitzva of removing the <em>ḥametz</em> must be in the middle of the day preceding Pesaḥ, that is, at noon (<em>Pesaḥim</em> 4b).The prohibition against eating ḥametz and obtaining any benefit from it applies from noon on the fourteenth, according to R. Yehuda, as explained in Pesaḥim 28a. Rambam, as well as R. Yitzḥak ibn Gi’at, Rosh, and most Rishonim, ruled in accordance with this view. R. Shimon’s view is that the prohibition against eating ḥametz begins with the holiday itself, and it is only the mitzva of removing the ḥametz that comes into effect at noon on the fourteenth. Some Rishonim rule in accordance with this view, although they disagreed about what the mitzva of getting rid of ḥametz entails according to R. Shimon. Let us mention two approaches. According to Ramban and Raavad, since one must get rid of the ḥametz, he is also not allowed to eat it; yet Torah law permits him to benefit from it in the course of its being burned. Only the Sages prohibited deriving any benefit from the ḥametz from the beginning of the sixth hour of the day. According to Ha-ma’or, the mitzva of disposing of the ḥametz does not imply a prohibition against eating it, since by eating it, one is, in fact, disposing of it (see Encyclopedia Talmudit, vol. 16, s.v. “ḥametz”, p. 66; Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag, p. 8, n. 3). Again, the view of most poskim is that the halakha follows R. Yehuda’s view that the prohibition against eating ḥametz and the prohibition against deriving any benefit from ḥametz are of Torah origin, and apply from noon. This is how the halakha is decided in SA (443:1).</i>
  In order to distance one further from possibly violating commandments, the Sages added to the prohibitions and forbade gaining benefit from ḥametz for an additional hour. They also forbade eating ḥametz for two extra hours, since on a cloudy day people are likely to err by as much as two hours.
  These times are calculated by dividing the day into twelve equal parts, each of which is called “a seasonal hour” (“sha’ah zmanit”). Thus, one may eat ḥametz for the first four seasonal hours of the fourteenth. During the fifth hour it is rabbinically forbidden to eat ḥametz, but it is permissible to derive benefit from it by, for example, feeding it to an animal or selling it to a gentile. When the sixth hour of the day begins, possession of ḥametz becomes prohibited rabbinically, and if one forgot to sell it to a gentile, it must be destroyed. When midday arrives, that is, after the sixth hour ends, ḥametz is forbidden by Torah law both for consumption and for deriving any benefit, and one must dispose of it as soon as possible. Every moment that one does not get rid of it, he violates the positive commandment to remove the ḥametz (see below 3:6 concerning the mitzva of removing the ḥametz).
  Once the holiday begins, two additional prohibitions apply: bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.2<i class="footnote">This is the opinion of most <em>poskim</em>, since for these prohibitions the term “seven days” is stated explicitly; see MB 443:1 in the name of MA and others. However, SHT<em> </em>443:2 states that not everyone agrees to this, and according to Rashi the prohibition starts on midday of the fourteenth. This also seems to be the opinion of Rabbeinu Ḥananel and <em>Itur</em>, namely, that according to R. Yehuda these prohibitions are like the prohibition of eating and begin at midday.</i> The prohibition against eating ḥametz also becomes more severe: one who willfully eats ḥametz after midday on the fourteenth is punishable by lashes only, whereas one who willfully eats ḥametz after the holiday begins is punishable by extirpation. This is based on the verse: “whoever eats ḥametz, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Shemot 12:15).
  Ḥametz becomes permissible once again after Pesaḥ, except that our Sages forbade ḥametz that belonged to a Jew during the holiday (“ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ”). Since by keeping the ḥametz on Pesaḥ he violated the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, the Sages prohibited eating or gaining benefit from that ḥametz even after Pesaḥ. Ḥametz that was in the possession of a gentile during Pesaḥ, however, is permissible; a Jew may buy it and eat it (SA 448:1-3).
  
  Section 3
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / What Is Ĥametz and What Is Se’or?
  The ḥametz that is prohibited by the Torah on Pesaḥ is any one of the five species of cereal grains that came into contact with water and fermented. The five species are wheat (ḥitta), barley (se’ora), oats (shibolet shu’al), rye (shifon), and spelt (kusmin). These species are used to make bread, the staple food of mankind. The Sages ordained a special blessing to be recited before eating bread – “Who brings forth bread from the earth” (“ha-motzi leḥem min ha-aretz”). After eating bread, the Torah commanded us to recite Birkat Ha-mazon. So that bread will be tasty and easy to digest, its dough is fermented and made to rise.
  There are two types of leaven products: ḥametz and se’or. Both are produced by mixing flour and water. Ḥametz is the regular leavening of dough to bake bread and cakes. The fermentation is accomplished by leaving the dough at rest without handling it. If one wants the leavening to be faster and of higher quality, one mixes se’or (sourdough) into the dough. Se’or is the second type of leavening. It is produced by leaving ḥametz for a long time, so that it continues to effervesce and ferment, until it tastes so sour that people cannot eat it. As noted, the purpose of se’or is to hasten and improve the quality of the leavening process of various types of dough, for the preparation of breads and cakes. More specifically, ḥametz is intended for eating while se’or is a leavening agent in preparing ḥametz foods. The Torah prohibited both, and the law is the same regarding both. One who leaves a kezayit of either of them in his possession during Pesaḥ violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei (Beitza 7b).
  But if flour of the five cereal grains is mixed with water, kneaded rapidly, and put it into an oven immediately, then the dough will not have enough time to rise. This is the matza that we are commanded to eat on the first night of Pesaḥ, as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, as is written, “And the people picked up their dough before it fermented” (Shemot 12:34). Thus, specifically those species of grain that may become ḥametz are the species from which one makes matza for the mitzva (Pesaḥim 35a).
  Although rice and millet are similar to the five species of cereal grain, and although they rise, they do not undergo a complete fermentation process as the five cereal species do. Therefore, the prohibition against ḥametz does not apply to them, and if one made matza out of one of them, one does not fulfill any mitzva with it on Pesaḥ.
  Note that kusmin (spelt) is not the same as kusemet (buckwheat). The former is one of the five species of cereal grain, whereas the latter is a type of legume and may be eaten on Pesaḥ by those who eat kitniyot; even among those who do not eat kitniyot, it is permitted for sick people (MB 453:4, 7. Note that some mix up the names and call spelt kusemet).
  
  Section 4
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / The Definition of Leavening Dough
  As we have learned, the difference between bread and matza is that the dough used for making bread has undergone a leavening process resulting from the fermentation of ingredients within the flour that have come into contact with water. In order to augment the leavening process, bakers customarily mix se’or into the dough, causing the dough to ferment more thoroughly and quickly. However, even without the leavening agent, if dough were left without kneading, it would ferment and rise. Therefore, when preparing matzot one must work quickly to ensure that the leavening process within the dough does not begin.
  As long as the dough is in motion, being kneaded, it does not become ḥametz. Even if the kneading were to continue an entire day, the dough would not become ḥametz, since kneading inhibits the leavening process. However, if the dough sat motionless for eighteen minutes, the leavening process has begun and all the prohibitions concerning ḥametz apply to it. 
  This applies to normal conditions, but where it is hotter, the leavening process is accelerated, and the dough becomes ḥametz in even less than eighteen minutes.
  Cracks appearing in the dough are a physical indication that the dough has become ḥametz. Even if eighteen minutes without kneading had not yet passed, since there are cracks in the dough, it has certainly become ḥametz; apparently conditions were warm and so it took less time to become ḥametz. Moreover, the kneading may have been inadequate, so that certain parts of the dough were neglected, causing those areas to become ḥametz. Even if there are only a few cracks, and they appeared only in part of the dough, the entire dough is ḥametz. If no cracks appeared but the dough blanched, it is ḥametz nuksheh (hardened ḥametz; see next section), which is rabbinically forbidden (SA 459:2).3<i class="footnote">The rising of the dough indicates that it has become <em>ḥametz</em> (Me’iri), and other symptoms, namely, cracks in the dough, a blanched appearance, and the time that has elapsed, are only relevant in a case where the dough did not begin to rise. However, there are situations in which the dough rises but this does not indicate that it has become <em>ḥametz</em>; rather, it has undergone what the Sages call “<em>sirḥon</em>” (spoilage). This applies to the case of rice, or of flour mixed with fruit juice, according to most <em>poskim</em>. However, when wheat flour mixes with water and begins to rise, this is in fact a sign that the mixture has become <em>ḥametz</em>. If the dough sat and was not kneaded for the time that it takes to walk one <em>mil</em>, it has become <em>ḥametz</em> even if there is no visible indication, as explained in the Mishna and Gemara in <em>Pesaḥim</em> 46a. SA 459:2 explains that this amount of time is eighteen minutes, although Rambam and R. Ovadia of Bertinoro maintain that it is twenty-four minutes. BHL <em>ad loc.</em> rules that these lenient positions may be relied upon to prevent a significant loss of money, and that the authorities rule according to the <em>Shulḥan Arukh</em> without even mentioning the more lenient opinion because of the strict nature of the prohibition of <em>ḥametz</em>.According to Rashi and Me’iri, however, one must check the amount of time that the dough has been sitting only when it is unclear whether or not the leavening process has begun: if more than the time it takes to walk one mil has elapsed, the dough is ḥametz, and vice versa. If one is certain that the dough is not ḥametz, even if it has been sitting for longer than the time that it takes to walk one mil, it is not considered ḥametz. Nonetheless, according to most Rishonim in any situation where the dough has sat for longer than it takes to walk one mil, the dough is ḥametz. See, for example, MT, Laws of Ḥametz and Matza 5:13; SA 459:2. Pri Megadim’s introduction to §467 contends that such dough is complete ḥametz; eating it on Pesaḥ incurs the punishment of karet. Rashbatz writes that one must suspect that such dough has become ḥametz. In a warm place, dough becomes ḥametz in less than the time it takes to walk a mil, as written in Aguda in the name of the Ge’onim. This is the halakhic consensus, as it is also the ruling of Yerei’im, Mordechai, and Hagahot Maimoniyot. Additionally, Rosh writes that even if the dough became warm in one’s hands, the dough will become ḥametz more quickly. This is cited in SA and Rema 459:2 (see also Birur Halakha 46a). Although there is dispute as to whether or not the “sitting times” of the dough are combined, Terumat Ha-deshen rules that a full kneading of the dough cancels the previous sitting time, though merely poking the dough would not be effective. This is cited in MB 459:16.Pesaḥim222222 48b states: “as long as the dough is being worked it cannot become ḥametz.” The vast majority of Rishonim, including Rambam in Laws of Ḥametz and Matza 5:3 and Tur and SA 459:2, explain that as long as one keeps kneading the dough it will not become ḥametz, even if he does so for the entire day. Yet it appears that the Yerushalmi disagrees with the Bavli and says that if one kneaded the dough for the amount of time that it takes to walk four mil, the dough is considered ḥametz. Baḥ cites Ri’az that ideally we should act in accordance with the Yerushalmi. There is an even more stringent opinion – Ritva’s – according to which as long as one kneads the dough at the appropriate pace so that he will complete the kneading in less time than it would take to walk one mil, the dough does not become ḥametz. However, if the kneading goes on for longer than this time, the dough is considered ḥametz (see Birur Halakha on Pesaḥim 48b; Encyclopedia Talmudit, s.v.“ḥametz,” §5, pp. 74-75). Even though the vast majority of poskim disagree with Ritva, they rule that it is still preferable to be stringent and complete the kneading process within eighteen minutes, as explained in AHS 459:7.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / Ĥametz Nuksheh (Hardened Ĥametz)
  The ḥametz that the Torah forbade is ḥametz gamur (absolute ḥametz), meaning that the leavening process has been completed, and the food has become edible. But if fermentation had begun but not concluded, and from the outset the food was barely edible, then it is called “ḥametz nuksheh.” According to most poskim, ḥametz nuksheh is not forbidden by Torah law, but the Sages prohibited it so that people would not err and come to eat or keep real ḥametz.
  An example of ḥametz nuksheh is the glue that scribes used to prepare from flour and water for gluing paper. Since its leavening process was never completed, and it is barely edible, it is ḥametz nuksheh, and the Sages forbade eating it or keeping it on Pesaḥ (MB 442:2). If its form was changed, as when the glue is used to stick papers together, then one is allowed to keep it. Others are more stringent and maintain that if the glue protrudes from between the pages, then it is considered as if it has maintained its same form, and it is forbidden to keep it on Pesaḥ (SA and Rema 242:3).
  Similarly, dough that began to ferment to the point that its surface blanched, but the surface was not cracked as with true leavening, is considered ḥametz nuksheh, and it is forbidden by rabbinic law to eat or keep it on Pesaḥ (SA 459:2).4<i class="footnote">The opinion of SA 447:12 is that <em>ḥametz</em><em> nuksheh</em> is only rabbinically forbidden, and therefore, <em>ḥametz</em><em> nuksheh</em> that existed over Pesaḥ is not forbidden after Pesaḥ. This is also the opinion of SAH 442:20-21 and MB<em> </em>442:2, based on the opinion of most Rishonim. However, several Rishonim are of the opinion that <em>ḥametz</em><em> nuksheh</em> is forbidden by Torah law. There are two related issues: the prohibition of eating <em>ḥametz</em><em> nuksheh</em> and the prohibition of keeping <em>ḥametz</em><em> nuksheh</em> (see <em>Birur Halakha </em>on <em>Pesaḥim</em> 48b regarding the issue of eating, and 42a regarding the issue of keeping it over Pesaḥ). See also the <em>Encyclopedia Talmudit</em> entry <em>“Ḥametz Nuksheh”</em> p. 108 (definition) and pp. 110-115 (extent of the prohibition). According to Rabbeinu Tam<em> </em>and many other <em>poskim</em>, flour that is mixed with fruit juice and a little bit of water is also considered <em>ḥametz</em><em> nuksheh</em>. See below (8:1) regarding <em>matza ashira</em></i>
  
  Section 6
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / Ĥametz So Spoiled That a Dog Would Not Eat It
  Ḥametz that was originally fit for eating, but that became moldy or spoiled to the point that it is not fit for human consumption, is still considered ḥametz gamur, since it can still be used as a leavening agent. In other words, even though, in general, all forbidden foods become no longer forbidden once they are no longer fit for human consumption, ḥametz is different. Since it can still help in the preparation of food, it is like se’or, which serves as a leavening agent and is therefore considered ḥametz. However, if it became so spoiled that it is not fit for consumption by a dog, then it is not considered food at all. Therefore, the law of ḥametz does not apply to it and it is permissible to keep it during Pesaḥ and to gain benefit from it (SA 442:2; MB ad loc. 10). By rabbinic decree, however, it is still forbidden to eat it on its own, for one who eats it – even though he is doing something very unusual – demonstrates that he still considers this ḥametz to be food (MB 442, 43).
  The yardstick of being fit for a dog’s consumption is relevant only for measuring the spoilage of ḥametz or se’or. But if se’or was not spoiled, but only became so sour that it is not fit even for a dog, since it is good se’or (that functions as a leavening agent and is usable like regular yeast), all the laws of ḥametz apply to it, and one is required by Torah law to destroy it (BHL 442:9).
  This law – that one does not have to burn ḥametz that was spoiled to the point of not being fit for a dog’s consumption – applies only if it became spoiled before the time that ḥametz becomes prohibited. But if it was fit to be eaten by a dog when the prohibition of ḥametz began, then even if it became spoiled later, to the point of not being fit for a dog’s consumption, one must burn it. Once the mitzva of eliminating the ḥametz is in effect, one does not discharge his obligation until he has destroyed the ḥametz completely (MB 442:9; see below, ch. 5, n. 5).5<i class="footnote">MB 442:44<em> </em>cites <em>Ḥok Yaakov</em>, which quotes <em>Terumat Ha-deshen</em> that if a gentile prepared <em>ḥametz</em> on Pesaḥ and then made it inedible even for dogs, it is prohibited for a Jew to gain any benefit from it, since it had been proper <em>ḥametz</em> during a time when <em>ḥametz</em> was forbidden. See also <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ  3:62, which is lenient in this matter. <em>Yeḥaveh Da’at</em> 2:60 summarizes the opinions regarding this issue. See also <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 2:27-32, which explains this topic at length, and in n. 87 explains that according to Rambam and Rosh<em>, ḥametz</em> that became inedible for humans and is still edible for dogs but would not cause any other dough to become <em>ḥametz</em> need not be burned; Raavad<em> </em>disagrees. See AHS<em> </em><em> </em>103:1-5<em> </em>regarding other forbidden foods that are no longer prohibited when they become unfit for human consumption.</i>
  Note that all of these laws are conditional on the ḥametz having initially been fit for human consumption, or for preparing food for humans as se’or. If, however, it was not fit for human consumption at all from the beginning, then even if it was fit to be eaten by a dog, no prohibition applies to it. If from the beginning it was not intended for consumption, but it was in fact barely fit for human consumption, then it is ḥametz nuksheh, as described above.
  
  Section 7
  
  General Rules of the Prohibition against Ĥametz / Ways in Which There Is No Leavening
  As noted, there are five types of grain that can become ḥametz after touching water. However, if they are roasted in fire, they can no longer become ḥametz, and in principle they may be mixed with water. Nevertheless, the Sages were concerned lest the roasting not be thorough, and thus the grain would become ḥametz when coming into contact with water. Therefore, one must treat them just as one treats regular cereal grains. If they became wet and eighteen minutes passed, we suspect they may have become ḥametz, and it is forbidden to gain any benefit from them, and one must destroy them (SA 463:3; MB ad loc 7).
  The above concerns kernels of grain that were roasted in fire, but if it was flour that was roasted, there are Rishonim who are lenient, maintaining that one need not suspect that the flour was not roasted well. Thus, it is permissible to mix such flour with water or in a cooked food without concern for ḥametz (Rashi, Rambam). However, many Rishonim hold that in the case of flour, as well, one must be concerned that it may have not been roasted thoroughly (Rabbeinu Yeruḥam, Hagahot Sefer Mitzvot Katan, Hagahot Maimoniyot, and others). The Aḥaronim rule that one must not mix roasted flour with water or in a cooked food, lest it become ḥametz. Nevertheless, if one did make such a mixture, even though it is forbidden to eat it, it is permissible to keep it until after Pesaḥ and to eat it then (MB 463:8; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 13).
  However, concerning matza that was properly baked, it is agreed that it cannot become leavened again. Accordingly, it is permissible to soak matza and matza meal in water, and, indeed, this is what most people do. Ḥasidim, however, customarily do not eat soaked matza (see below 8:2).
  Scalding the grains or the flour in boiling water also destroys the capacity for becoming ḥametz. However, the Ge’onim prohibited doing so, for today no one knows how to do this scalding, and if the boiling does not destroy the potential for becoming ḥametz, an opposite process of rapid fermentation may be generated, as heat may hasten fermentation. Therefore, scalded grains or flour are treated just like ḥametz: it is forbidden to gain any benefit from them and one must burn them (SA 454:3; MB 13).
  Flour on which water dripped, drop by drop, continuously, even all day long, does not become ḥametz, since the falling of the drops disturbs the flour and shakes it, and does not allow the leavening process to develop. Immediately upon cessation of the dripping, one should knead the dough and bake it. If there is doubt that some of the dripping may not have been continuous, then this is a doubt concerning a law of Torah, and one must relate to that flour as ḥametz and burn it (Pesaḥim 39b; SA 466:6).
  Another way to prevent the dough from fermenting is by soaking it in cold water (Pesaḥim 46a; SA 457:2). Preferably, one should not do so, lest the water not be cold enough, allowing the dough to ferment (Rosh, MB 454:18).6<i class="footnote">Does freezing the dough halt the leavening process? <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ  3:59 states that one may not assume that freezing halts the process, since perhaps the cold just slows down the leavening process but does not stop it completely. On the other hand, <em>Ḥelkat Yaakov</em> 3:166 and <em>Devar Yehoshua</em> 2:58 are lenient based on the fact that freezing the dough stops the leavening process completely. Nevertheless, one should not purposely prepare dough to freeze and bake on Pesaḥ, but if one prepared dough before Pesaḥ and did not have a chance to bake it before Pesaḥ, as long as the dough has not yet risen, he may freeze the dough and bake it after Pesaḥ.All of the processes that slow the leavening process are summarized in the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry “Ḥametz” pp. 83-89. And even though we generally are not lenient when it comes to scalding the dough, there are practical applications when dealing with a dangerously sick person, where it is better to minimize the number of prohibitions involved, as explained in MB 454:13.</i>
  Flour that was kneaded with fruit juice does not become leavened at all, but if even a little water was added to the mixture, then it will become leavened (matza ashira will be explained below [8:1]).
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / The Mitzvot Associated with Getting Rid of Ĥametz
  It is a positive Torah commandment to eliminate all ḥametz from our possession before Pesaḥ, as it is written, “Yet on the first day you must remove the se’or from your homes” (Shemot 12:15). The oral tradition teaches that we are to clear out the ḥametz by midday of the fourteenth of Nisan, Erev Pesaḥ. This ruling is supported by the verse, “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over ḥametz” (ibid. 34:25), which is interpreted to mean that one may not slaughter the Paschal sacrifice while there is still ḥametz in his possession, and the time for slaughtering the Paschal sacrifice begins at midday on the fourteenth of Nisan (see Pesaḥim 4b; MT, Laws of Ḥametz 2:1). Men and women are equally obligated in this mitzva, as they are concerning all of the mitzvot of Pesaḥ.
  Whoever did not remove the ḥametz from his home by midday of the fourteenth of Nisan is in violation – every single moment that he delays – of the positive commandment of removing the ḥametz (MB 443:1). Furthermore, from the moment the Pesaḥ holiday begins, he is in violation of two prohibitions: bal yimatzei, as it is written, “Seven days there shall be no se’or found in your homes” (Shemot 12:19), and bal yera’eh, as the Torah declares, “Matzot shall be eaten seven days; and no ḥametz of yours shall be seen, and no se’or of yours shall be seen within all your borders” (ibid. 13:7). Thus, by fulfilling the mitzva of getting rid of the ḥametz we are saved from two prohibitions: bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei – that ḥametz should be neither seen nor found in our possession.1<i class="footnote">Let us summarize the opinions regarding the times of the onset of the <em>ḥametz</em> prohibitions. The removal and destruction of the <em>ḥametz</em> must be done by midday of the fourteenth (perhaps according to <em>Ha-ma’or</em> the mitzva begins at midday, but according to the rest of the Rishonim, on the Torah level the removal and destruction of the <em>ḥametz</em> must be completed by midday). There is a dispute regarding the starting times of the other <em>mitzvot</em><em> </em>connected to <em>ḥametz</em>. Regarding the prohibition of eating <em>ḥametz</em>, R.<em> </em>Yehuda maintains that the prohibition begins at midday of the fourteenth, and R. Shimon<em> </em>maintains that the prohibition of eating <em>ḥametz</em>, on the biblical level, begins at the onset of the Pesaḥ festival. Most Rishonim adopt the view of R. Yehuda that the eating prohibition begins at midday of the fourteenth, but there are those who adopt the view of R. Shimon that the eating prohibition begins at the start of the holiday. Regarding the prohibitions of <em>bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei</em>, most Rishonim<em> </em>are of the opinion that these prohibitions begin at the onset of the Pesaḥ festival, while a minority hold that these prohibitions begin at midday of the fourteenth.Additionally, note that one who participated in the Paschal sacrifice (korban Pesaḥ) while he still had at least a kezayit of ḥametz in his possession, violated a Torah prohibition, as it says: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice over ḥametz” (Shemot 34:25). If he was warned about this and still did it on purpose, he incurs the penalty of lashes (MT, Laws of Korban Pesaḥ 1:5).</i>
  The mitzva of removing the ḥametz is the first in a series of mitzvot connected with Pesaḥ. As noted, ḥametz on Pesaḥ is a metaphor for the evil inclination, and one has to clear out the ḥametz from the house in order to experience the sanctity of the Pesaḥ sacrifice and the eating of the matza properly. Therefore, the first of the preparations for Pesaḥ is removal of the ḥametz.
  
  Section 2
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / The Prohibition against Ĥametz One Owns
  The prohibition against ḥametz on Pesaḥ is unique in that it is not only forbidden to eat it, but it is forbidden even to keep; whoever keeps it in his home violates the two prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.2<i class="footnote">R. Zevin explains in <em>Mo’adim Be-halakha</em> (chapter on <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>and<em> </em>matza) that there is a dispute about the parameters of these negative commandments. According to Rosh (<em>Pesaḥim </em>1:9), any <em>ḥametz</em> that can possibly be seen, even if in reality it is not seen, would cause a person to violate <em>bal yeira’eh</em>. It turns out then, that anyone who is in possession of at least an olive-sized piece of <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>violates two prohibitions: <em>bal yeira’eh </em>and<em> bal yimatzei</em>. However, according to <em>Kessef Mishneh</em> (on MT, Laws of <em>Ḥametz </em>and Matza 1:3), one who keeps any type of <em>ḥametz</em> in his possession violates <em>bal yimatzei</em>, but he would only violate <em>bal yeira’eh </em>if he actually sees the <em>ḥametz</em>. See also <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> ch. 1 n. 16.</i>
  The Torah’s language, “no ḥametz of yours shall be seen, and no se’or of yours shall be seen within all your borders” (Shemot 13:7), shows that there is no prohibition against a Jew having a gentile’s ḥametz or ownerless ḥametz in his domain. It says “of yours” – you are not allowed to see ḥametz that belongs to you specifically, implying that the ḥametz of gentiles and ḥametz that is ownerless are permissible.
  Therefore, if a gentile lives in a Jew’s courtyard, even if the Jew owns the courtyard and the gentile works for the Jew, the Jew does not have to clear out the gentile’s ḥametz. Similarly, if a gentile deposited ḥametz in a Jew’s house for safekeeping before Pesaḥ, the Jew need not clear it out, as long as he is not responsible for the ḥametz. However, he must erect a partition at least ten tefaḥim (handbreadths) high in front of the ḥametz, to make certain that he does not forget and eat of it (SA 440:2). Alternatively, he may lock it up and hide the key, or close it in a cabinet and tape the doors shut, so that if someone should come to open them, he will be reminded of the prohibition against ḥametz.
  Similarly, a Jew may let a gentile enter his home on Pesaḥ, carrying his ḥametz with him. It is forbidden, though, for the Jew to eat with the gentile at the same table, lest the Jew forget and eat of the gentile’s ḥametz. Even if he puts something on the table to remind himself not to take ḥametz from the gentile, there is still concern that a crumb of ḥametz may get mixed into the Jew’s food. However, if the gentile eats at the table first, a Jew may clean the table thoroughly of all the ḥametz crumbs and then eat matza there (SA 440:3; MB ad loc. 18).
  
  Section 3
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / Ĥametz That Has Been Guaranteed by a Jew and the Status of Stocks
  We have learned that one violates the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei only by possessing ĥametz that is the property of a Jew, as it is written, “no ĥametz of yours shall be seen” (Shemot 13:7). Yet, at first glance, there is a difficulty here, for it is written, “there shall be no se’or found in your homes” (ibid. 12:19), implying that it is forbidden to have ĥametz in a Jewish home under any circumstances. The Sages explained that, indeed, if the ĥametz belongs to a gentile, and the Jew has not undertaken the responsibility of its safekeeping and guaranteeing its return, then it is not forbidden to have it in the Jew’s domain, as it is written, “and no ĥametz of yours shall be seen.” If, however, the Jew accepted responsibility for the item, then it is considered like his own, and the prohibition applies. This is what the Torah intended when commanding: “there shall be no se’or found in your homes” (Pesaĥim 5b).
  Therefore, if a Jew guaranteed the return of ḥametz that was deposited with him, it becomes like his, and he is not allowed to keep it in his home or courtyard, but must return it to the gentile or clear it out. In a situation where he cannot return it to the gentile and clearing it out will cause him a loss, he should sell the ḥametz together with the place it is stored, to a different gentile (SA 440:1; MB ad loc. 4). However, if the Jew undertook the protection of a gentile’s ḥametz that remains in the gentile’s possession, then the Jew does not violate any prohibition (MB 440:7).3<i class="footnote">The Rishonim disagree about these laws. According to Ri,<em> </em>the <em>ḥametz</em> is considered to be in a person’s possession only if he accepted the responsibilities of a paid custodian. According to <em>Behag</em>, however, he is considered the owner of the <em>ḥametz</em> – and thus in violation of the <em>halakha</em> – even if he only accepted the responsibilities of an unpaid custodian. SA<em> </em>rules in accordance with Ri and cites <em>Behag </em>as “others say.” MB<em> </em>(8) states that it is preferable to follow the opinion of <em>Behag</em>. According to Rambam<em>, </em>even if one did not accept any responsibility for the <em>ḥametz</em>, if the gentile is powerful and will forcibly extract compensation for the Jew destroying the <em>ḥametz</em>, the <em>ḥametz</em> is considered owned by the Jew, and he would be considered in violation. According to Raavad, he is not in violation, but the predominant view is that of Rambam. In all these cases, if the <em>ḥametz</em> remained over Pesaḥ, one may eat it <em>be-di’avad</em>, since the prohibition of using <em>ḥametz</em> that existed on Pesaḥ is only rabbinic, and in an uncertain situation we are lenient.</i> Thus an insurance company owned by a Jew may insure gentiles’ ḥametz, because it remains in their possession (She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 114:29).
  Furthermore, if a Jew deposited ḥametz with a fellow Jew for safekeeping, each of them is under obligation to clear it out – the depositor, since he owns the ḥametz, and the recipient of the deposit, since by undertaking to safeguard it he becomes like an owner (SA 440:4). Even if he did not undertake its safekeeping, he is required to clear it out.4<i class="footnote">Regarding a Jew who deposited his <em>ḥametz</em> with another person, SA<em> </em>440:4 rules in accordance with R. Yona that even if the custodian accepts responsibility over the <em>ḥametz</em>, since the <em>ḥametz</em> still belongs to the owner, it is the owner’s responsibility to destroy it<em>.</em> This is the opinion of other <em>poskim</em> as well. According to Ramban<em> </em>and Ran<em>, </em>since the <em>ḥametz</em> is not in the owner’s possession and the custodian accepted responsibility for it, the owner of the <em>ḥametz</em> does not transgress any prohibition. As for the custodian, SA<em> </em>443:2 states that if the owner of the <em>ḥametz</em> did not come to collect it before Pesaḥ, the custodian should preferably sell the <em>ḥametz</em> to a gentile in order to preserve its value. If he did not do so, the custodian is obligated to destroy the <em>ḥametz</em>. MB<em> ad loc. </em>(14) explains that according to <em>Baḥ </em>and MA, the reason for this obligation is that every Jew is responsible for his fellow Jew (“<em>kol Yisrael areivim zeh la-zeh</em>”). Gra’s opinion on the matter is that even if the custodian did not accept responsibility for the <em>ḥametz</em>, he still has a Torah obligation to destroy it, as it is forbidden to harbor a Jew’s <em>ḥametz</em> in one’s home. This is also the opinion of <em>Tziyun Le-nefesh Ḥaya </em><em>Tzlaḥ</em>”) and <em>Beit Meir</em></i>
  If one bought stock in a company that owns ḥametz, and Pesaḥ arrived, if he has the authority to express his view about how to manage the company’s affairs – what to sell and what to buy – then it is considered as if he owns the ḥametz, and he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei on account of it. But if he is not authorized to express an opinion, then he is like everyone who invests in stocks – the company owes him a percentage of its value, but its property is not considered his, and he does not violate any prohibitions on account of its ḥametz holdings. Accordingly, those who invest money in mutual funds or pension funds do not violate any ḥametz prohibitions, even though the managers of the funds may invest part of the money in a company that owns ḥametz, since this ḥametz is not considered the property of the investor (She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 114:28).5<i class="footnote">There are those who are stringent in this matter and sell their shares of <em>ḥametz</em>-owning companies and companies that insure <em>ḥametz</em>, and many <em>ḥametz</em>-sale documents contain a clause that includes these types of situations (see <em>Piskei Teshuvot </em>440:1).</i>
  
  Section 4
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / How One Fulfills the Mitzva of Removing the Ĥametz
  We clear the ĥametz out of our homes in two ways: in thought and in deed, that is, spiritually and in practice. The removal in thought is done through nullification (bitul) of the ĥametz, declaring it ownerless and considered as mere dust. We do this nullification because we violate the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei only with ĥametz that belongs to us and that we consider valuable. One who nullifies his ĥametz and considers it to be as dust does not violate any prohibitions on its account. Similarly, if he declares it ownerless, he commits no violation on its account.
  In addition to bitul, we also get rid of our ĥametz in fact. The evening of the fourteenth, we search the entire house for ĥametz, and on the day of the fourteenth we eliminate it from our homes.
  Although each method independently is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of Torah law, the Sages required that we remove the ĥametz using both methods, to be on the safe side. Thus, we annul the ĥametz orally and physically clear it out of the house.6<i class="footnote">According to the majority of poskim, on the Torah level one method of destroying the ĥametz is sufficient: either by nullifying the ĥametz or by searching for and destroying the ĥametz. The Sages decreed that one must use both methods, as I wrote above (1:1), in the name of Ran and as cited in Beit Yosef §432. However, it seems that according to Tur, the Torah’s primary method is bitul, and the Sages added that one must also search for and destroy all ĥametz, because of the reasons presented above.</i>
  On the one hand, the Sages did not want to rely on the nullification alone, lest some Jews not annul the ĥametz wholeheartedly and subsequently keep it in their homes to eat after Pesaĥ. Since they had not annulled the ĥametz wholeheartedly, they would violate the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei by keeping it at home (Rashi, Pesaĥim 2a). Moreover, they were concerned lest, if ĥametz remained in the house, people might eat it by mistake. Therefore they also required removing it from the house physically (Tosafot ad loc.).
  Similarly, the Sages did not want to rely on the search alone, lest some Jews not succeed in finding all of the ĥametz in their homes, but then find it on Pesaĥ. In that event, there is a chance that they might wait briefly before burning it – because they would feel badly for a moment about losing their ĥametz – and, in that moment, they would violate the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. By nullifying the ĥametz before Pesaĥ, however, they would not violate the prohibitions, even if they hesitated a little before burning the ĥametz (MB 434:6).7<i class="footnote">To expand on this topic: According to Rema in 434:5 in the name of Tur, if one thoroughly checks his house and yet still an olive-sized piece of ĥametz remains, he violates the prohibition of bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. (This is why, according to Rema, the main and most important “removal” of ĥametz in the Torah’s eyes is mental nullification.) However, according to many other poskim, including Rambam and Rosh, anyone who checks his house properly, even if he does not succeed in finding every last bit of ĥametz, does not violate any prohibitions for unintentionally having ĥametz in his house, since he did a proper and thorough check. Only if one finds ĥametz in his house on Pesaĥ and intentionally leaves it in his house because he wants the ĥametz, would he violate any prohibition. Moreover, according to Taz, even Tur is of this opinion, as I have written above.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / The Essence of the Mitzva
  A fundamental question arose concerning the essence of the mitzva of removing the ḥametz: is the mitzva essentially to eliminate the ḥametz actively or is the main principle that no ḥametz remains in a Jew’s possession?
  According to the view accepted by most Rishonim (Maharik, Ramban, and others), the mitzva is primarily that one’s domain be free of ḥametz. One who has ḥametz must clear it out, and one who has no ḥametz in his domain has already fulfilled the mitzva.
  However, some Rishonim (Ran, Tosafot) imply that only someone who has ḥametz becomes obliged to fulfill the mitzva, and he fulfills it by clearing the ḥametz out of his house. One who has no ḥametz is exempt from the mitzva. Yet even according to this approach, we do not find that the Rishonim recommended acquiring ḥametz in order to fulfill the mitzva of removing the ḥametz. Nevertheless, there are Aḥaronim who wrote that it is appropriate for one who has no ḥametz in his possession before Pesaḥ to go beyond the letter of the law and buy some ḥametz, so that he may fulfill the mitzva of removing the ḥametz according to those who hold that one must actively remove ḥametz.8<i class="footnote"><em> Minḥat Ḥinukh</em> §9 discusses the different sides of the issue at length and notes that according to Rashi<em>, </em>Rambam<em>, </em>and <em>Sefer Ha-ḥinukh</em>, the mitzva is passive (this is also the opinion of Maharik in §174 and Ramban<em> </em>at the beginning of <em>Pesaḥim</em>). According to <em>Tosafot</em> and Ran, however, the mitzva<em> </em>is an active one, and so according to this opinion, one who has no <em>ḥametz</em> in his possession should purchase <em>ḥametz</em> in order to fulfill the mitzva of destroying it. R. Ḥayim Soloveitchik offered a novel interpretation, namely, that this dispute hinges upon the dispute between the Sages and R. Yehuda regarding the method of destroying the <em>ḥametz</em>: according to R. Yehuda, the mitzva is specifically to burn the <em>ḥametz</em>, whereas according to the Sages, any act of destruction works. Those who follow R. Yehuda<em>’s</em> opinion, therefore, would hold that one must do a positive action to fulfill the mitzva of destroying the <em>ḥametz</em>; and this needs further study. See also <em>Piskei Teshuvot</em> 445:6 which mentions several Aḥaronim, among them the authors of <em>Ḥelkat Yo’av </em>and<em> Mekor Ḥayim, </em>and Maharash Engel, who maintain that there is a mitzva for every person to own <em>ḥametz</em> in order to destroy it; conversely, SAH<em> </em>(436:21), <em>Divrei Ḥayim</em> (1:9), <em>Ḥavot Ya’ir</em> (§4), and <em>Avnei Nezer</em> (OḤ<em> </em>318) maintain that there is no mitzva to obtain <em>ḥametz</em> in order to destroy it. As mentioned, the custom is to actively destroy some <em>ḥametz</em> to fulfill this mitzva according to all opinions. Indeed, MB (445:10) states that it is proper to leave a <em>kezayit </em>of <em>ḥametz</em> in order to destroy it actively and fulfill the mitzva of destroying the <em>ḥametz</em>.The reason we have written that one needs a kezayit of ḥametz to fulfill this mitzva is that according to many poskim only an olive’s bulk must be destroyed (see MB 442:33). Even according to those who adopt the stringent view that less than a kezayit must be destroyed, this is probably because of the concern that one may come to eat it and violate the prohibition of eating ḥametz, which applies even to a piece smaller than an olive. According to the overwhelming majority of poskim, however, there is no Torah prohibition of bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei on a piece of ḥametz smaller than an olive (see Dagul Mei-rvava §442, Ḥakham Zvi §86, and Sha’agat Aryeh §81). This is significant since most authorities believe that the mitzva to destroy the ḥametz is connected to the prohibition of bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei, not the prohibition of eating the ḥametz. See also Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 15:4, which states that one should not pour lighter fluid on the ḥametz itself at the time of burning; rather, he should pour it onto the wood, so that the ḥametz is destroyed by fire itself and not ruined by the lighter fluid. Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 8:10 n. 17 explains that there is no reason to be stringent about this, since the main point of the burning is to turn the ḥametz into ashes, regardless of whether or not the taste of the ḥametz is ruined.</i>
  In practice, Jews are a holy people and strive to perform the mitzvot in the most praiseworthy fashion, including making sure that they have ḥametz on the fourteenth of Nisan, which they use to fulfill the mitzva of removing the ḥametz in a way that satisfies all views. Moreover, they are so scrupulous as to remove the ḥametz specifically by burning it, for, according to many poskim, burning is the preferred way to destroy the ḥametz (see below 5:4).
  
  Section 6
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / When the Prohibitions of Eating and Benefiting from Ĥametz Begin
  The mitzva of getting rid of the <i>ĥametz</i> must be carried out by midday of the fourteenth of Nisan<i>.</i> Every instant that a Jew keeps his <i>ĥametz</i> after that time he is in violation of the positive commandment to remove the <i>ĥametz</i>. Beginning at midday, the Torah prohibition against eating and gaining benefit from <i>ĥametz</i> begins as well (MT, Laws of <i>Ĥametz </i>and Matza 1:8; see also section 1 of the present chapter).
  As discussed above (2:2), in order to distance one further from possibly violating commandments, the Sages added to the prohibitions and forbade gaining benefit from <i>ĥametz</i> for an additional hour. They also forbade eating <i>ĥametz</i> for two extra hours, since on a cloudy day people are likely to err by as much as two hours.
  These times are calculated by dividing the day into twelve equal parts, each of which is called “a seasonal hour” (“<i>sha’ah zmanit</i>”). It is forbidden to eat <i>ĥametz</i> from the beginning of the fifth hour; it is forbidden to gain any benefit from the <i>ĥametz</i> from the beginning of the sixth hour; and the Torah prohibition against eating and benefiting from <i>ĥametz</i> begins from the beginning of the seventh hour.
  Thus, in practice, it is permissible to eat <i>ĥametz</i> throughout the first four hours of the fourteenth day of Nisan. During the fifth hour, it is forbidden to eat <i>ĥametz</i> by rabbinic decree, but it is still permissible to benefit from the <i>ĥametz</i> – for example, one may feed it to an animal or sell it to a gentile. From the beginning of the sixth hour of the day, it is forbidden by rabbinic decree to gain benefit from the <i>ĥametz</i>. From the time that it is forbidden for a Jew to gain benefit from the <i>ĥametz</i> it is considered as if it does not belong to him, so that he is no longer able to sell it to a gentile or to nullify it. The only way to get rid of it then is to burn it, crumble it and throw it into the sea, or scatter it to the wind (SA 443:1).
  However, the <i>poskim</i> disagree about when the day begins. <i>Magen Avraham </i>maintains that it begins at dawn, that is, from when the first light becomes visible in the east. The Vilna Gaon (Gra) maintains that it begins at sunrise, that is, from the time when the sun itself becomes visible in the east. The difference between dawn and sunrise is more than an hour; thus, for every <i>halakha</i> contingent on the hours of the day, calendars list two times. The earlier one in the morning is based on the approach of <i>Magen Avraham</i>, and the later one accords with the approach of Gra. This is true concerning the recitation of the morning <i>Shema</i>, which must be done by the end of the first three hours of the day, and it is also true of the <i>Shaĥarit</i> prayer, whose set time is until the end of the fourth hour (for more detail, see <i>Peninei Halakha: Prayer</i> 11:10 n. 14).
  In practice, since the final times for eating and benefiting from <i>ĥametz</i> are of rabbinic origin, as are the sale and <i>bitul</i> of <i>ĥametz</i>, the <i>halakha</i> follows the more lenient view, since in cases of doubt on matters of rabbinic origin the <i>halakha</i> follows the lenient view. Nevertheless, it is better to be stringent when possible (MB 443:8).9<i class="footnote">A question arises regarding one who is in Israel and owns <i>ĥametz</i> in America, and he wants to sell his <i>ĥametz</i>. The issue is whether the end of the fifth hour (until when the <i>ĥametz</i> can be sold) is determined according to the location of the person or the location of the <i>ĥametz</i>, a discrepancy in this case of around seven hours after the end of the time for nullification (and selling) in Israel. According to most <i>poskim</i>, we follow the location of the person, although there are some who maintain that one should follow the location of the <i>ĥametz</i>. Preferably, one should follow the earlier time, but if this is not possible, we follow the location of the person. This is the view of <i>Igrot Moshe </i>OĤ 4:94-95. See also the <i>Piskei Teshuvot</i> 443:1 which summarizes the opinions.The first opinion is quoted in the name of MA, even though the author himself was unsure. <i>Hilkhot Ĥag Be-ĥag</i> ch. 8 n. 4 summarizes the topic of the Jewish time calculations. See also Rema 443:1 and MB<i> ad loc.</i> 9, stating that according to <i>Terumat Ha-deshen</i> this particular issue is assessed using fixed hours, not seasonal hours, and in a situation of large losses, it is permissible to rely on this opinion. In <i>Hilkhot Ĥag Be-ĥag</i> 8:4 in the notes, the author explains what to do in extenuating circumstances where a person forgot to sell or nullify his <i>ĥametz </i>by the end of the fifth hour.</i>
  
  Section 7
  
  The Mitzva of Getting Rid of Ĥametz / The Procedure for Getting Rid of Ĥametz
  As we have learned, we clear the ḥametz out of our homes both in deed and in thought. The process of removal consists of four stages: search (bedika), nullification (bitul), elimination (bi’ur), and nullification once again. The process begins with the bedika on the evening of the fourteenth. The search is aimed at ensuring that we have no more ḥametz in our home other than the ḥametz that we are keeping to eat and to destroy. Immediately after the search, we nullify the ḥametz for the first time; this is the removal in thought. The next morning we physically destroy the remaining ḥametz in our possession in deed. It is customary to destroy it by burning it. After the burning, one again declares null any ḥametz in his possession.
  There are two more possible ways of disposing of ḥametz: selling it to a gentile and declaring it ownerless. As noted, one violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei only for ḥametz in his possession, and it is only ḥametz that is in his possession that he is commanded to eliminate. Thus, if he sells the ḥametz to a gentile or declares it ownerless, he does not violate any prohibition on its account.
  Thus, search, disposal, and nullification are actions directed against the ḥametz with the aim of eliminating it. In contrast, declaring the ḥametz ownerless and selling are not directed against the ḥametz to destroy it, but rather their aim is to remove the ḥametz from our possession so that we do not violate the ḥametz prohibitions. With the search, the disposal, and the nullification, we wage war against the ḥametz, whereas by selling it or declaring it ownerless, we evade the responsibility it places upon us. These are all ways to remove the ḥametz.
  Now that we have learned the principles of the mitzva of removing the ḥametz, in the coming halakhot we will explain the laws of removal of ḥametz in detail. We will begin with the halakhot of the search for ḥametz, with which we begin our campaign against ḥametz. We will then continue on to the halakhot of nullifying and destroying ḥametz. Then we will address the laws of selling ḥametz to a gentile for one who wishes to preserve the value of his ḥametz and free himself from the need to destroy it.
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / The Time for Bedikat Ĥametz
  As we learned in the previous chapter, one who possesses ḥametz on Pesaḥ transgresses two prohibitions: “no ḥametz of yours shall be seen” (Shemot 13:7), and “there shall be no se’or found in your homes” (ibid. 12:19). In order not to violate these Torah prohibitions, one must eliminate all ḥametz from his possession. According to the Torah, it is possible to dispose of the ḥametz by nullifying it verbally, because when one nullifies the ḥametz in his possession, it becomes like dust, no longer belonging to him, and consequently, it does not cause him to transgress the prohibition of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.
  Nonetheless, the Sages ruled that we must not rely on this nullification (bitul) alone; rather, one must also physically remove ḥametz from his possession. There are two reasons for this: firstly, they feared that people would nullify ḥametz insincerely, intending to benefit from it after Pesaḥ, and this would result in their transgressing the prohibition of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Secondly, they feared that after nullifying the ḥametz, one might see an enticing piece of pastry and eat it, forgetting that it is Pesaḥ. The Sages therefore ordained that, in addition to bitul ḥametz, one must search out ḥametz in order to eliminate it from his possession.
  At first glance, the appropriate time for bedikat ḥametz should be just before midday on the day of the fourteenth of Nisan, the deadline for removing ḥametz. However, the Sages ordained that we search for ḥametz at nightfall of the fourteenth, because during the day people are busy with their affairs, and if one waits until the day of the fourteenth to do bedikat ḥametz he is liable to forget it altogether. Furthermore, candlelight is especially effective for checking the cracks and crevices of the house. But during the day, candles do not illuminate well, since sunlight prevents the eye from focusing on the weaker light of the candle. Therefore, the Sages instituted bedikat ḥametz at nightfall of the fourteenth, because at night, people are usually at home and candlelight is effective at this time (SA Ha-Rav 431:5).
  Since people normally pray Ma’ariv at the beginning of the night, one should do so prior to the bedika, as a more frequent mitzva takes precedence. One should then proceed quickly to bedikat ḥametz (MB 431:8). One who is accustomed to praying with a minyan later in the evening should search for ḥametz at tzeit ha-kokhavim (the appearance of three distinct stars) and then pray at his usual hour.
  The obligation to search for ḥametz rests primarily upon the father. However, if he must return home late on this day, it is better that he appoint his wife or another adult family member to search in his stead at the appointed hour, when nighttime arrives. Regarding this mitzva there is no difference between men and women, and one should choose as a shali’aḥ (proxy) a person who can be trusted to carry out the search properly and responsibly (see AHS 437:7). If it is difficult to appoint a shali’aḥ, then be-di’avad one should perform the search himself later in the evening, when he gets home.1<i class="footnote">Some have suggested one who wishes to engage in the search himself should appoint one of his family members to search the house at the proper time and leave one room unchecked; when he returns later that night he can search the unchecked room. He should be sure to ask them to remind him to check the room when he returns, or if he does not return, to check the room themselves (<em>Teshuvot Ve-hanhagot</em> 2:214). However, it seems to me that if there is someone in the house who can perform the search instead, it is better to appoint this person as a <em>shali’aḥ </em>to conduct the search of the entire house at the appropriate time. This issue is dependent upon a fundamental question: did the Sages decree that the <em>bedika</em> should be conducted specifically at the beginning of the night, or is the entire night acceptable for <em>bedika</em> since the candlelight is more visible at night, but in order to prevent a person from forgetting to check, they forbade working and eating before the <em>bedika</em>? According to most <em>poskim</em>, the primary time for the <em>bedika</em> is at the beginning of the night. This is the opinion of <em>Taz, Pri Ḥadash, </em>Gra<em>, </em>and SAH in 431:5. Conversely, Rema and <em>Mekor Ḥayim</em> maintain that the <em>bedika</em> can be done throughout the entire night. Thus according to them, one may be more lenient about postponing the <em>bedika</em> as long as there is someone who will remind him to check later on. I have written in accordance with the view of most <em>poskim</em>, and in the next section,<em> </em>I have written that it is proper to refrain from eating even casually once the time for <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> has arrived, so as not to delay the <em>bedika</em>.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Activities Rabbinically Forbidden before Bedikat Ĥametz
  The Sages prohibited starting a task or a meal during the half hour before the time of bedikat ḥametz, out of concern that one might become caught up in these activities and forget to search for ḥametz. It is permitted, however, to snack on fruit or pastry, or to perform light work that can be finished quickly.
  Once the time for bedikat ḥametz arrives, it is improper to start any sort of work or eat fruit, even as a quick snack, for it might impede the fulfillment of the mitzva at its proper time (BHL §431).
  One should not even begin studying Torah once the time for bedikat ḥametz has arrived. If one began studying Torah beforehand, some poskim rule that he may continue studying (Beit Yosef). Nonetheless, according to many poskim, even in this situation it is best to stop studying at tzeit ha-kokhavim, in order to fulfill the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz at its proper time (MB 431:11; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 23).
  It is best not to cancel a regular, public Torah lecture at this time. Proceeding with the study will not cause participants to neglect the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz, for the search can be performed after the lesson, but canceling the lecture will result in the loss of group Torah study (SA Ha-Rav 431:9). However, the participants should remind each other after the lesson to be prompt about searching for ḥametz.
  
  Section 3
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / The Berakha
  Before beginning to search for ḥametz, one recites the berakha “Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us concerning bi’ur ḥametz” (“asher kideshanu be-mitzvotav ve-tzivanu al bi’ur ḥametz”). Though the actual bi’ur ḥametz will not take place until the following morning with the burning and nullification of ḥametz, we nonetheless recite “al bi’ur ḥametz” before the search on the night of the fourteenth, because bedikat ḥametz is the first step in the process of eliminating ḥametz from the home.2<i class="footnote">If one forgot to make the <em>berakha</em> before the <em>bedika</em> and remembered while in the middle, as long as he has other areas to check, he may still make the <em>berakha.</em> However, if he remembered after the completion of the <em>bedika</em>, the <em>poskim</em> disagree about whether he can make the <em>berakha</em> before burning the <em>ḥametz</em> the following day. According to MB 432:4, we do not prevent someone from making the <em>berakha</em> in this situation, since the <em>berakha</em> is on the burning of the <em>ḥametz</em>; thus, as long as he has not yet burned the <em>ḥametz</em>, he can make the <em>berakha.</em> On the other hand, there are those who hold that the Sages enacted the <em>berakha</em> on the <em>bedika</em> and not on the burning, and therefore if one forgot to make the <em>berakha </em>by the end of the <em>bedika</em>, he has lost his opportunity to do so. This is the opinion of <em>Baḥ</em>, SAH, and others. When in doubt about whether or not to make a <em>berakha</em>, we are lenient, and so one should not make the <em>berakha</em>. One should not make a <em>berakha</em> on <em>bitul ḥametz</em> alone, since we do not make <em>berakhot</em> on mere words or thoughts.</i>
  After the berakha, it is forbidden to talk before beginning the search. If at this point one talks about matters unrelated to bedikat ḥametz, he has abandoned that berakha and must recite another. If, however, one talks about unrelated matters after beginning the search, his berakha remains valid, for it applies to the portion of the search that was already carried out. One should preferably avoid talking about unrelated matters during the search, in order not to become distracted (SA 432:1; MB ad loc. 5, 6).
  One who owns several houses must search them all. He recites the berakha before searching in the first location. He recites it only once, even if the houses are located a distance from one another.3<i class="footnote">The authorities disagree about this, as noted in MB<em> </em>432:7. According to <em>Pri Ḥadash </em>and <em>Ḥayei Adam</em>, walking a far distance is considered a significant interruption, and he would have to make a new <em>berakha.</em> Conversely, according to <em>Ḥok Yaakov</em> and <em>Ma’amar Mordechai</em>, walking is not considered a significant interruption. This is also the opinion of <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 432:22. When in doubt about whether or not to make a <em>berakha</em>, we are lenient. The Aḥaronim also disagree about whether a <em>shali’aḥ </em>appointed to search part of a house who did not hear the owner’s <em>berakha </em>must make his own <em>berakha</em>; see SHT 432:9.</i>
  If one must travel, and therefore performed bedikat ḥametz before the fourteenth of Nisan, even though his search is valid, he does not recite the berakha. One only recites the berakha over a search performed from the night of the fourteenth onward, because such a search is adjacent to bi’ur ḥametz. Any ḥametz found on the evening of the fourteenth will be destroyed the next morning. If one was unable to search on the evening of the fourteenth, and instead searched the following day, or during Pesaḥ, he recites the berakha, because he will immediately destroy any ḥametz he finds, and it is appropriate to recite “al bi’ur ḥametz” over such a search. But if one searches before the fourteenth, he does not recite the berakha (Rema 436:1 and BHL ad loc.; MB 435:5).4<i class="footnote">Indeed according to Ra’ah and <em>Pri Ḥadash</em>, one who is halakhically required to check should make a <em>berakha</em>, since the purpose of the <em>bedika</em> is to ensure that he does not violate <em>bal yeira’eh/bal yimatzei</em> afterward; since the Sages decreed that one who leaves his house before the night of the fourteenth should check before he leaves, he should also make a <em>berakha</em>. According to Ritva and <em>Baḥ</em>, he should make the <em>berakha</em> as long as he checks within the thirty days before Pesaḥ. But, as noted, <em>Kol Bo</em> and Rema (436:1) are of the opinion that the <em>berakha</em> is also on the burning that takes place the following morning. This is also the opinion of Gra, and seems to be the conclusion of MA<em>, Taz, </em>and others. If one is uncertain about the <em>berakha</em>, we are lenient, and this seems to be the opinion of BHL <em>ad loc</em></i>
  
  Section 4
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Places That Must Be Searched
  Any property owned by a Jew that might contain a kezayit of ḥametz must be searched. Therefore, the kitchen and the dining room where people eat must be searched, and any room, storage space, or porch where people sometimes bring ḥametz must also be searched (SA 433:3-4).
  Clothing closets that are not generally used during the course of a meal need not be searched. However, if there are children in the house, closets must be searched, because the children may have opened them while handling ḥametz, or may have even hidden ḥametz in them. Closets that are too high for children to reach need not be searched.
  One must also search cars and carrying bags in which he sometimes puts food. Adults who generally do not put food in their pockets need not search them. However, the pockets of children must be searched. Garments that were washed and had their pockets emptied out beforehand need not be searched on the night of the fourteenth (see section 8 of the present chapter). One who does not have a home does not recite the berakha when searching his car or pockets, for the Sages instituted saying a berakha only when searching a house (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 433:91).
  The stairwell of an apartment building or condominium is shared by all of the building’s occupants, and therefore they have a collective obligation to search it. In such a case, one of the occupants should be given the responsibility of performing bedikat ḥametz. Open yards need not be searched because we can reasonably assume that animals ate any ḥametz that might have been there. However, if there are alcoves in the yard that might contain ḥametz, they must be searched, because animals may not have crawled into them to eat the ḥametz. Likewise, if one knows for certain that there was ḥametz in his yard on the night of the fourteenth, he must search it, because he cannot be certain that animals will eat it by noon of the fourteenth (MB 433:27, citing Mekor Ḥayim). An enclosed porch, even if it opens into a yard, must be searched.
  Ownerless public domains need not be searched, for even if they contain ḥametz, no violation has been committed. This is because such ḥametz is not in the possession of any particular Jew, and the ḥametz prohibition only applies where ḥametz is in the possession of a Jew, and not in an ownerless domain (SA 445:3; MB ad loc. 18. Garbage bins are discussed below, 5:5).
  
  Section 5
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / The Candle and the Flashlight
  The Sages ordained that bedikat ḥametz be performed by candlelight, because candlelight is focused and effective for searching. During the day, the light of the sun detracts from the brightness of the candle, and it is difficult for the eye to focus on its weak light. Therefore, the Sages ordained searching at night, because at night candlelight is more brilliant and does a good job of illuminating holes and crevices, where the essence of the search is carried out.
  One may not search for ḥametz by torchlight, i.e., with a candle that has two or more separate wicks. There are several reasons for this, the main one being that the large flame will cause the searcher to worry about burning something, and as a result not be able to concentrate on the search. If one erred and searched by torchlight, he did not fulfill his obligation. Additionally, one may not search by the light of an oil lamp, because the fear of spilling oil and staining his belongings will deter him from maneuvering the lamp into narrow spaces to get a good look at cracks and crevices. Likewise, one should not use a paraffin candle for bedikat ḥametz. Therefore, the widespread custom is to prefer wax candles, because they do not drip excessively (SA and MB 433:2).
  In principle, it is permissible to use a flashlight for bedikat ḥametz; the Sages ordained using a candle because its light is focused, and the light of a flashlight is focused. Moreover, a flashlight has an advantage in that one need not worry about burning things or spilling wax and oil, and if it is a good flashlight, its light is stronger and more focused than a candle’s. Nonetheless, some people are strict and do not search with a flashlight because the Sages derived from Scriptural verses that the search for ḥametz should be performed with a candle (Pesaḥim 7b). Yet a flashlight can also be considered a kind of candle, for the filament is like the flame and the battery is like the oil (She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 111:4).
  In practice, the prevailing custom is to search by candlelight, in keeping with the practice of the Sages. However, one who wishes to search with a flashlight may do so with a berakha, and in places where the searcher is concerned that the candle will cause a fire, it is preferable to search with a flashlight (see Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 13:10; Yeḥaveh Da’at 1:4).
  
  Section 6
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Must One Search for Less than a Kezayit of Ĥametz?
  The purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to find pieces of ḥametz that are a kezayit or larger, for one only violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei if there is a kezayit or more of ḥametz in one place in his home. Therefore, any part of the house into which people sometimes bring ḥametz must be searched. In a house where children are present, one must search all of the places that children enter; however, one need not search closets or shelves that are out of the reach of children.
  Some poskim take the stringent position that the purpose of the search is to ensure that not a single edible crumb of ḥametz remains in one’s possession, for if even one crumb remains, somebody might mistakenly eat it during Pesaḥ and thus transgress a Torah prohibition. Even though there is no punishment for eating less than a kezayit of ḥametz, the Torah nonetheless prohibits it. According to this position, one must search the entire house meticulously and keep an eye out for even small crumbs that might be ḥametz. Such a search in a normal house should take at least two hours. However, even according to stringent opinions, one need not search for crumbs so small that they are not recognizable as food. Likewise, there is no need to search for crumbs so filthy that they are inedible. For example, it is not necessary to inspect the cracks between floor tiles, because the crumbs there are repulsive and not fit to be eaten.
  In practice, one who chooses to be stringent and search for crumbs smaller than a kezayit is praiseworthy, but the halakha follows the lenient opinion. The reason is that the obligation to search for ḥametz is rabbinically ordained. According to the Torah, one who mentally nullifies his ḥametz has already avoided the prohibition of ḥametz and need not search his home. It is the Sages who ordained that, in addition to the bitul, we must seek and destroy ḥametz. Whenever there is a disagreement about a rabbinic enactment, the lenient opinion is generally preferred.
  All this applies to the house in general, but it goes without saying that any object that will come into contact with food during Pesaḥ must be thoroughly cleaned, for even the slightest amount of ḥametz renders food forbidden on Pesaḥ. Therefore, the dining table, countertops, and cabinets must all be cleaned so well that not a single crumb of ḥametz remains.5<i class="footnote">SAH<em> </em>explains in 446, <em>Kuntrus Aḥaron</em> 1, that according to most Rishonim, there is no need to burn a piece of <em>ḥametz</em> smaller than a <em>kezayit</em> (see <em>Birur Halakha</em> 45:1 on the topic of dough in the cracks of a kneading tub). MB 442:33 cites a dispute about whether one must destroy a piece of <em>ḥametz</em> smaller than a <em>kezayit</em>: some say that since one transgresses a prohibition by eating it on Pesaḥ, he must burn it beforehand; others are more lenient and would not require him to burn it.SHT ad loc. mentions that the practice is to be stringent and burn this ḥametz, but does not discuss whether one must search for crumbs smaller than a kezayit during bedikat ḥametz. However, it seems from the comments in 442:60 that the main point of the bedikat ḥametz is specifically to find ḥametz that is larger than a kezayit, and indeed this is the opinion of Pri Ḥadash and many other halakhic authorities. On the other hand, Ḥayei Adam (109:6) rules stringently that one must search even for small crumbs. This is also the view of Ḥazon Ish (OḤ  116:13, 17).Ostensibly, it is possible to connect this dispute to a disagreement about the purpose of bedikat ḥametz. According to Rashi, the purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to prevent one from transgressing the Torah prohibitions of bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei, which, according to almost all authorities, one does not violate with less than a kezayit of ḥametz. Sha’agat Aryeh explains that small amounts of ḥametz do not combine (“lo ḥazi le-itztarufei”) to cause one to transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, unlike small amounts of forbidden foods, which combine to the size of a kezayit (according to Ḥakham Zvi, since there is no action involved in the violation of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, the principle of “aḥshevei” does not apply).On the other hand, according to Tosafot, since the purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to prevent one from eating any ḥametz that remains in his house on Pesaḥ, one would thus be required to check for even small crumbs of edible ḥametz (and remove them from his home). Since we follow both Rashi’s and Tosafot’s reasons, as Ran records both, perhaps one must be stringent in this matter. However, it seems that even according to Tosafot, despite the fact that one would violate a Torah prohibition by eating less than a kezayit of ḥametz, the Sages did not require one to check for such crumbs, since eating a piece of ḥametz this size does not incur a penalty of karet. Additionally, Tosafot’s concern about one finding ḥametz in his house on Pesaḥ and eating it applies mainly to a nice, substantial piece of ḥametz; regarding a small crumb of ḥametz, the concern is not as severe. Even if one were to find, say, a small crouton somewhere in his house, it is not likely that he will eat it, since it was found where food is not normally stored. Furthermore, even if he does eat this small crouton, he arguably did not intend to eat it; rather, he was cleaning, and instead of throwing the crouton in the garbage, he put it in his mouth. Such an action is not a Torah prohibition, and not something for which the Sages would mandate bedikat ḥametz. Nevertheless, perhaps one who normally eats these types of crumbs should be stringent in accordance with the ruling of Ḥazon Ish.See also Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag ch. 6 n. 2, which discusses the two opinions in this matter and proves the lenient approach from the implication of Pesaḥim 4a that bedikat ḥametz lasts for less than an hour.See also Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato §13 n. 39, which rules according to the stringent opinion that one must check for crumbs, and Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 2:1, which is very strict about crumbs. However, since this is a dispute about a rabbinic injunction, practice follows the lenient approach. Nevertheless, one must differentiate between places to which he brings ḥametz and the rest of the house, similar to the distinction made regarding koshering utensils and bedikat ḥametz.</i>
  
  Section 7
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Do Books Require Bedikat Ĥametz?
  According to several Aḥaronim, one is required to search all of his books, page by page, because a crumb of ḥametz might have fallen into one of them. These authorities maintain that the objective of bedikat ḥametz is to remove every crumb of ḥametz from one’s possession, and this was the practice of Ḥazon Ish: he would check page by page the books he planned to read on Pesaḥ and then sell the rest of his books to a gentile and put a partition in front of them. In this manner, he exempted himself from the obligation to search them all.
  However, according to those poskim who maintain that the purpose of bedikat ḥametz is to find pieces of ḥametz the size of a kezayit, clearly there is no need for such a thorough search of books, for it is inconceivable that there could be a kezayit of ḥametz between the pages of a book. In fact, even some of the stringent poskim who say that all ḥametz must be sought out maintain that one is not required to search for the sort of tiny crumbs one is liable to find in books, because even if one sees them on Pesaḥ, there is little concern that one will want to eat them.
  Therefore, one should not search his books page by page, because this is overly stringent behavior and is even liable to result in a waste of Torah-study time. Indeed, the accepted practice is not to be stringent in this regard.
  Nevertheless, one should not put books on the dining table during Pesaḥ unless he was careful to distance them from ḥametz throughout the year. Such books might contain a crumb of ḥametz, which could fall into some food on Pesaḥ, and any amount of ḥametz on Pesaḥ is forbidden, even if it is mixed with a much greater quantity of other foodstuffs. It is permissible, though, to read such books on a table at which one does not eat.
  If during the year one places such books on the dining table between meals, he must be careful to clean the table well after eating, so that not a single crumb remains. Even the stringent poskim maintain that one who is careful all year long to distance his books from ḥametz, and when bringing them to the dining table is careful that no crumbs of ḥametz fall into them, is not required to search his books, because they are already considered ḥametz-free.6<i class="footnote">The opinion of Ḥazon Ish<em> </em>appears in <em>Ḥazon Ish </em>OḤ <em> </em>116:18. <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 2:1 is very strict about small crumbs, but regarding the issue of checking books, states in 3:24 that the custom is not to be strict like <em>Ḥazon Ish</em>, since the crumbs in books are extremely small and insignificant. <em>Responsa</em> <em>Or Le-Tziyon</em> 1:32 disagrees with <em>Ḥazon Ish</em> and proves from Rambam that one need not be concerned with <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>that is smaller than a <em>kezayit</em>. However, as noted in the previous section, whenever there is a concern that a small crumb might mix into food, one must be stringent, and as such, one should not bring books that may have crumbs in them into contact with food on Pesaḥ.</i>
  The status of the bookcase itself depends upon the household. If there are no children, and the adults are careful not to put any food on the bookshelves, no search is required. If there are children in the house who may have placed food there, one is required to search among the books and behind them. If the bookshelf was cleaned well beforehand, a casual search is sufficient.
  
  Section 8
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Do We Rely upon the Cleaning Done before Pesaĥ?
  Most Jewish families clean their homes thoroughly before Pesaḥ. Any part of the house that was cleaned well, and into which people were careful not to bring ḥametz afterward, does not require a thorough search (Sha’arei Teshuva 433:1; Da’at Torah 433:2).
  However, some poskim take a stringent position in this regard and assert that the cleaning does not change a thing, for the Sages ordained searching the cracks and crevices of one’s entire home on the night of the fourteenth. Other poskim are stringent on the grounds that one cannot rely upon previous cleaning unless it was carried out at night by the light of a candle. Only in this manner, they maintain, is it possible to discern the ḥametz in the cracks and crevices.
  In practice, though, the custom is to follow the lenient approach and to perform a relatively cursory search of all those places that were cleaned beforehand. This makes sense, for if a room has been cleaned well, and afterward, people were careful not to enter with ḥametz, it has the status of a place into which no ḥametz was ever brought, which in principle does not need to be searched. Although a search is not effective unless it was carried out at night by the light of a candle, a thorough cleaning is more effective than searching. For example, when one cleans a clothing closet, he takes out all of its contents and wipes off all of the shelves. After this, the chances of ḥametz remaining are less than the chances of finding ḥametz remaining there after a thorough search on the night of the fourteenth by candlelight.
  Nonetheless, even after such a thorough cleaning one must search for ḥametz with a berakha on the night of the fourteenth, because the dining area certainly needs to be searched. In addition, one may have forgotten to clean a closet, drawer, or corner. Thus, when performing bedikat ḥametz, one must search the entire house and confirm that everything has indeed been cleaned well. If the one performing the search did not participate in the cleaning, he must ask those who cleaned to search with him so that he may ask them if each part of the house he inspects was properly cleaned. Alternatively, they can mark all properly cleaned places with stickers, and all such places need only be given a cursory search.7<i class="footnote">See <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 13 (n. 1) which tends toward stringency, citing <em>Derekh Pekudekha</em> that those who do <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> superficially are in violation of the rabbinic enactment, and their <em>berakhot</em> may be considered in vain. See also <em>Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag</em> 2:5 and <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 3:16. However, as I have written, the custom is to be lenient in this matter, as <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 433:85 states. This is true even though <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> with a candle during the day is not effective, as per MB<em> </em>433:1, and even though a proper house cleaning does not exempt one from conducting <em>bedikat ḥametz</em>, as per SA<em> </em>433:11 and MA <em>ad loc. </em>20. There are two reasons mentioned (concerning the ineffectiveness of checking during the day): firstly, because only at night does the candle illuminate the small cracks and crevices properly, and secondly, because the Sages decreed that the <em>bedika</em> be done on the fourteenth of Nisan at night. Clearly, our customary checks fulfill both aspects: firstly, a full cleaning of the house accomplishes more than a daytime <em>bedikat ḥametz</em>, and since we check on the night of the fourteenth, we also fulfill the second aspect of the Sages’ decree. Accordingly, one may not claim that he is exempt from the <em>bedika</em> after cleaning his house, or that he cannot make a <em>berakha</em> on the <em>bedika</em>, for the reasons I have just mentioned. (Moreover, see the next section, which will explain that according to most authorities there is no need to place small pieces of bread around the house for the <em>bedika</em> even though it is clear that no <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>remains.) Since, as we have learned, <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> is a rabbinic decree and according to many authorities one must only search for pieces of <em>ḥametz</em> that are larger than a <em>kezayit</em>, it is certainly permissible to be lenient and rely on a cursory <em>bedika</em>, provided that one has already cleaned his house very well.</i>
  However, even when performing a casual search, one must check every corner of the room, along the walls, and between the furniture, and one must open every closet and drawer that could possibly contain ḥametz, in order to assure that they are indeed clean and remain so. Searching a room in this manner should take no more than a few minutes.
  
  Section 9
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Hiding Pieces of Bread and Receiving Help from Family Members
  It is customary hide pieces of bread before bedikat ḥametz, so that the person performing the search will have to discover them. Some maintain that this custom is meant to ensure that the searcher finds ḥametz, because if he does not his berakha may have been in vain. In truth, though, this is not the case, for even if no ḥametz was discovered, there is no berakha le-vatala, since the objective of the search is to ensure that there is no ḥametz in the house, and this objective is achieved even if no ḥametz is found. In addition, the berakha is not on the search alone; rather, it covers the entire process of ḥametz removal, which begins with the bedika and ends with the bi’ur and bitul of the ḥametz the following day. This is evident from the fact that the berakha is “al bi’ur ḥametz,” and not “al bedikat ḥametz.” Thus, even if one does not find ḥametz in his search, he continues the process of removing the ḥametz the next morning, and hence his berakha in not in vain (Rema 432:2; MB ad loc. 13).
  Nonetheless, this Jewish custom should not be discontinued. Arizal himself had a custom to scatter ten pieces of bread before his search. Some poskim explain that the reason for this practice is so that some ḥametz will remain after the search, and thus one will not forget to nullify his ḥametz. Another explanation is that these pieces will ensure that one is not negligent in his search (Ḥok Yaakov 432:14). Therefore, where the house has received a thorough cleaning, and in principle a casual search is sufficient, the pieces of bread should be put in places where they can be found without much trouble; but where the house has not been cleaned well, they should be hidden more carefully. At any rate, it is a good idea for the person who scatters them to make a list of where he hid them, so that if they are not found initially, it will still be possible to locate and remove them.
  After the search, one should nullify the ḥametz that he did not find and might remain in the house (as will be explained in 5:1). One must exercise extreme caution with the ḥametz that was found and the ḥametz that he plans to eat until the following morning, making sure that they not become scattered about the house.
  If it is difficult for one to search the entire house on his own, he may ask family members to help him. In this case, they should stand next to him while he recites the berakha and answer “amen.” Then they should spread out in the house to search it. If the homeowner is unable to perform the search, he should ask somebody else to search for him, and the searcher says the berakha (SA 432:2; MB ad loc. 10).
  
  Section 10
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / One Who Travels
  If one travels abroad before Pesaḥ and plans to return home after Pesaḥ, his performance of bedikat ḥametz depends on when he departs: if he departs within thirty days of Pesaḥ, i.e., from Purim onward, he must search his home for ḥametz before leaving. That he will certainly nullify his ḥametz has no bearing, because, as we have learned, the Sages ordained that in addition to bitul ḥametz, one must perform bedikat ḥametz, and since he is still at home within the thirty days before Pesaḥ, the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz already applies to him. Therefore, he must perform bedikat ḥametz on his last night at home. However, he does not say a berakha over this search because it is conducted before the time the Sages ordained for searching (as explained in 3:4 above).
  If one leaves home more than thirty days before Pesaḥ, i.e., before Purim, he need not perform a search before he leaves. Then, on Erev Pesaḥ, he must nullify all of the ḥametz in his possession so that he does not transgress by possessing ḥametz. When he returns home after Pesaḥ, he must physically dispose of all of the ḥametz in his home.
  However, if at the time of departure one intended to return to his home before Pesaḥ, the Sages ordained that he must perform bedikat ḥametz before leaving, even if he sets out at the beginning of the year. This is because something could go wrong on his journey, preventing him from returning in time for bedikat ḥametz (Pesaḥim 6a, according to Rambam). However, if one appoints a shali’aḥ to search on his behalf on the night of the fourteenth in case he is unable to return in time, he is not required to search before his departure. Nowadays, when one can make a phone call from anywhere in the world, one need not search before setting out on a trip because even if he is unable to return in time for bedikat ḥametz, he can ask a friend or relative to search on his behalf (see Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 12:13).
  The poskim differ over what should be done when one was supposed to perform bedikat ḥametz before traveling but forgot to do so. Some say he must return and others say he need not. Therefore, if it is very difficult for him to return, and he cannot find a shali’aḥ to perform bedikat ḥametz for him, he may rely upon his bitul ḥametz (BHL 436:1, s.v. “zakuk”). Then, after Pesaḥ, he must burn or destroy the ḥametz he nullified, because if he derives benefit from it after Pesaḥ, he demonstrates that his nullification was insincere. The same applies any time one nullifies ḥametz but does not remove it – the Sages forbid eating or deriving benefit from it after Pesaḥ (SA 448:5). 
  The best thing to do when one forgot to search his house before traveling is to rent it to a gentile and sell him all of the ḥametz.
  
  Section 11
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Does Renting One’s Entire House to a Gentile Exempt It from Bedikat Ĥametz?
  Some families leave home for the entire Pesaḥ holiday, and the question arises: Can these people exempt themselves from cleaning and searching for ḥametz by selling or renting their entire house to a gentile?
  The poskim differ on this issue. Some take the lenient position that since the house is not actually in the owner’s possession on Erev Pesaḥ, he is not obligated to search it (Ḥok Yaakov; Gra’s understanding of Tur and Rema). Many others, however, take the stringent position that since the owner lives in this house during the thirty days prior to Pesaḥ, it becomes incumbent upon him to perform bedikat ḥametz there. Only if he moves to another house in which he will become obligated to search for ḥametz will he be exempt from searching the house he rented or sold to the gentile (SA 436:3, MA ad loc., and SA Ha-Rav’s understanding of Tur and Rema). In addition, it is inappropriate for one to avoid performing the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz.
  In practice, in order to satisfy all opinions, one should sell or rent his entire house except for one room, and in it he fulfills the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz. Once one has fulfilled the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz in this room, all poskim agree that there is no need to search the rooms that have been sold or rented to a gentile.
  In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to sell a house to a gentile (SA YD 151:8), and it must therefore be made clear in the sale of ḥametz contract that a rental is being transacted. In addition, the homeowner must sell the ḥametz in all of the rented rooms, and by doing this, he becomes exempt from searching these rooms.8<i class="footnote">SA<em> </em>expresses the same opinion as <em>Avi Ezri</em>. The Aḥaronim disagreed regarding the opinion of <em>Tur</em> and Rema. According to MA (436:17) and SAH, one is only exempt from the <em>bedika</em> if the gentile will actually enter his house before Pesaḥ. According to <em>Ḥok Yaakov</em> and Gra, even if the gentile will not actually enter the house, since the Jewish owner declared the <em>ḥametz</em> in it ownerless, there is no need for <em>bedikat ḥametz</em>. MB 436:32 seems to lean toward a strict ruling (see SHT <em>ad loc. </em>31-32).</i>
  When possible, it is best to rent one’s house before the night of the fourteenth, because some poskim maintain that if, on the night of the fourteenth, the rooms are still in the homeowner’s possession, he becomes obligated to search them (Mekor Ḥayim and Ḥayei Adam). When it is difficult to rent out the house before the night of the fourteenth, as most rabbinical authorities execute the sale (and rental) on the morning of the fourteenth, one may rely on the lenient opinions. Since he intends to rent out these rooms, there is no longer a fear that he will violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei, and he therefore need not search them (Binyan Olam, Ḥatam Sofer, as cited in MB 436:2).
  The utensils and the stove should be cleaned of all substantial ḥametz before Pesaḥ, for if this is not done, it will be necessary to clean them after Pesaḥ in order to avoid eating ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ (ḥametz that remained in a Jew’s possession during Pesaḥ). However, it is not advisable to sell the utensils to a gentile, because this will necessitate immersing them in a mikveh after Pesaḥ, in keeping with the law regarding utensils bought from a gentile. To sell the ḥametz on them, or absorbed into them, makes no sense at all, as will be explained in 6:4 below.
  
  Section 12
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Bedikat Ĥametz after the Proper Time and the Status of One Who Rents a Hotel Room
  The Sages ordained searching for ḥametz on the night of the fourteenth of Nisan. If one did not search at this time, he is required to do so on the fourteenth by day, and to say a berakha over the search. If one did not search before Pesaḥ at all, he must search on Pesaḥ, with a berakha. The fact that he nullified his ḥametz before Pesaḥ does not change this, because he is still required to fulfill the Sages’ enactment, and secondly, because there is a possibility that he will come across some ḥametz during Pesaḥ and, forgetting the prohibition, eat it. If, after Pesaḥ, one suddenly realizes that he did not perform bedikat ḥametz, he must do so, in order not to violate the rabbinic prohibition of ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ. This search, however, requires no blessing (SA §435).
  One who rents a hotel room has the status of a tenant. This is because he pays for the room, it is at his disposal, he receives a key to lock and unlock it, and strangers and hotel personnel are only allowed to enter with his permission. Therefore, he is commanded to recite a berakha and search his room on the night of the fourteenth, and afterward he must nullify any ḥametz in his possession that may have gone undiscovered. One who checks into a hotel during Pesaḥ must inquire whether the rooms were searched for ḥametz. If they were not searched for ḥametz, but were merely cleaned in the routine manner, the guest himself is obligated to search. In this case, no berakha is required.
  A hospital patient is required to search his room and his closet on the night of the fourteenth. However, no berakha is said over this search, since the room is not at his disposal; at any time he can be moved to a different room, and other patients can be moved into his room.9<i class="footnote">This is what <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 12:8 states regarding a hotel, and this is what <em>Torat Ha-yoledet</em> 43:1 states regarding a hospital. See also <em>Piskei Teshuvot</em> 437:1-2, which brings other sources regarding this matter.</i>
  A hotel owner is required to perform bedikat ḥametz in every room of his hotel, and if it is difficult for him to do this himself, he can hire a shali’aḥ. Regarding rooms rented to gentiles, or to Jews who do not perform bedikat ḥametz on the night of the fourteenth, a problem arises. On the one hand, the rooms are rented to them, and the owner cannot force them to keep halakha and search for ḥametz. On the other hand, if they vacate during the holiday, he will have to search their rooms immediately and remove any ḥametz left behind, and he might not have time to do this. The solution, therefore, is to sell or rent all the hotel rooms to a gentile before Pesaḥ, and to have the hotel owner serve as an intermediary during Pesaḥ between the gentile and the guests.
  
  Section 13
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Synagogue, Dormitory, and Yeshiva
  Synagogues and batei midrash (Torah study halls) require bedikat ḥametz on the night of the fourteenth, because people sometimes eat ḥametz in them. This is true even of synagogues where people generally do not eat, for children sometimes enter them with ḥametz (SA 433:10). However, when it comes to saying a berakha over this search, there is some uncertainty. Therefore, it is best that the person responsible for searching the beit knesset first search his own home, and when saying the berakha there, intend to include the synagogue.10<i class="footnote">The opinion of most <em>poskim</em> is that he should recite the <em>berakha</em>, since it is a mitzva. See MB 433:43 in the name of SAH<em>.</em> But AHS 433:12 states that one of the reasons for <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> is to prevent violation of <em>bal yeira’eh</em>, and since a synagogue does not belong to any one individual, no one would violate <em>bal yeira’eh</em> on any <em>ḥametz</em> that remains there. Accordingly, there is no mitzva to check the synagogue, and thus no <em>berakha</em> should be recited. See Maharsham 5:49. Nonetheless, if the synagogue or <em>beit midrash</em> belongs to one particular individual or to several partners, according to all authorities he/they must check it with a <em>berakha</em>. However, if the synagogue owner had already recited the <em>berakha</em> in his house, he need not recite another <em>berakha</em> in the synagogue.</i>
  Boys or girls living in a dormitory and paying for this facility have the status of tenants, and if a kezayit of ḥametz remains in their room during Pesaḥ they violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Therefore, they are obligated to search their rooms before Pesaḥ, and if they will be staying there during Pesaḥ, they are required to search on the night of the fourteenth with a berakha. If they leave the dormitory a number of days before Pesaḥ, they are required to search on the night before they leave, without reciting a berakha.11<i class="footnote">em&gt;Ḥazon Ish states that even if yeshiva students will not be in their rooms over Pesaḥ, it is preferable for them to check their rooms on the night of the fourteenth with a <em>berakha</em>. This opinion is quoted in <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 12:9. Some authorities debate whether the yeshiva student is considered a renter, since the yeshiva administration can switch him to a new room at a whim (see <em>Piskei Teshuvot</em> 437:4). However, it appears that yeshiva administrations generally do not transfer older students to new rooms without prior agreement. Therefore, this is similar to a standard rental agreement where there are conditions that if breached result in the cancellation or abrogation of the rental agreement. Thus, older yeshiva students are considered renters of their rooms.</i>
  The responsibility for searching the rest of the rooms and halls in the yeshiva belongs to the yeshiva administration. It is also possible for them to sell the rooms to a gentile and thus exempt themselves from the obligation to search.
  One who buys or begins renting a home before Pesaḥ must search it even if he has not yet occupied it, because the previous resident may have left some ḥametz there. Since the house is in his possession, this ḥametz will cause him to violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. If he owns another house where he will be fulfilling the mitzva of bedikat ḥametz, he can sell or rent out the new home to a gentile and thus exempt himself from the obligation to search it (see section 11 of this chapter above).
  
  Section 14
  
  the Search for Ĥametz / Ĥametz Buried under a Pile of Dirt and the Question of Searching a Storeroom
  If ḥametz is buried under less than three tefaḥim (24 cm) of stones, dirt, and the like, it is not considered to have been disposed of, and it must be uncovered and disposed of before Pesaḥ. This is because it is possible for a dog to smell it and dig it up.
  However, if the ḥametz is covered by more than three tefaḥim, it is considered to have been disposed of and does not cause one to transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Therefore, it need not be dug up and disposed of. Bitul ḥametz is nonetheless required, because it is possible that some of the stones will be moved during Pesaḥ, and the ḥametz will no longer be covered by three tefaḥim, causing the person to violate bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.12<i class="footnote">I have written in accordance with the opinion of Rashi<em>, </em>Ran<em>, </em>and the majority of <em>poskim</em> that if the <em>ḥametz</em> is covered by more than three <em>tefaḥim</em> it is considered destroyed, and one would not violate <em>bal yimatzei</em> with this <em>ḥametz</em>. However, the opinion of <em>Sefer Mitzvot Katan</em> is that if it is covered by something that is generally moved, the <em>ḥametz</em> would indeed be considered in the owner’s possession and he would violate <em>bal yimatzei</em>. In such a case, he would only be exempt from destroying the <em>ḥametz</em> if he nullified it verbally.In a case where the ḥametz is covered by less than three tefaḥim, one would be required to remove the ḥametz, as I have written, but only if one is certain that there is ḥametz under this particular covering. Even if there is a danger of snakes and scorpions, he still must take a shovel and remove the covering to expose and destroy the ḥametz. However, if one merely suspects that there is ḥametz under the covering but is not certain, he is not required to check for the ḥametz if there is a danger of snakes and scorpions, and is only required to nullify the ḥametz verbally. If there is no danger, though, he is required to check (SA 433:8, MB ad loc. 35). In any situation where one is required to check, he can exempt himself from checking by selling the item to a gentile.</i> 
  Likewise, in a case where ḥametz falls into a pit in one’s yard, if it is the sort of pit one does not generally enter, one may nullify the ḥametz without extracting and disposing it.
  Accordingly, if ḥametz is stuck behind a wall cabinet and impossible to remove without first taking the cabinet apart or emptying it out and moving it, one need not remove the ḥametz. In this case, one may rely upon its bitul (SAH 333:19). If ḥametz is located where it can only be removed with some difficulty, one may pour bleach or soapy water on it until it is no longer fit for consumption, and hence no longer considered food (not even for an animal). Once this has been done, it need not be removed.
  A storage room where one keeps articles not in use or merchandise that he does not intend to use until after Pesaḥ need not be searched for ḥametz. It is sufficient to nullify any ḥametz that might be there. However, if one wishes to fill the storage room during the thirty days prior to Pesaḥ, he must search it first, because the obligation to prepare for Pesaḥ has already taken effect. If one did not search it beforehand, it must be thoroughly searched for ḥametz on the night of the fourteenth (SA 336:1). If it is difficult to move all of the storeroom’s contents in order to carry out the search, one may sell or rent it to a gentile and thus exempt oneself from the obligation to perform bedikat ḥametz there.
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  Bitul and Bi’ur Ĥametz / Bitul Ĥametz in the Evening and Morning
  As we learned (above 3:4), one fulfills the mitzva of bi’ur ḥametz (disposing of ḥametz) in two ways, in action and in thought. The process of bi’ur ḥametz involves four stages. The first two, bedika and the first bitul, are performed on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan. The second two stages, bi’ur and the second bitul, take place the following morning. Having discussed the laws relating to bedikat ḥametz in the previous chapter, we shall now address bitul ḥametz.
  After bedikat ḥametz, we immediately rid ourselves of the ḥametz by nullifying it mentally. To make this process easier, a formal declaration of nullification – bitul ḥametz – was composed. This declaration is in Aramaic, because, at the time of its formulation, most Jews understood only Aramaic. It reads (according to the Ashkenazic rite):
  Kol ḥamira ve-ḥami’a de-ika bi-rshuti, de-lo ḥazitei u-delo bi’artei, li-vtil u-lehavi hefker ke-afra de-ar’a.
  This declaration can also be said in Hebrew:
  Kol ḥametz u-se’or she-yesh bi-rshuti, she-lo re’itiv ve-shelo bi’artiv, yivatel ve-yehei hefker ke-afar ha-aretz.
  In English:
  All ḥametz and leaven in my possession that I have not seen and have not eliminated shall be nullified and become ownerless, like the dust of the earth.
  The Sephardic version mentions only ḥametz, which includes leaven, and only nullification, which includes renunciation of ownership (see Ḥazon Ovadia, p. 32).
  Following the actual bi’ur ḥametz on the morning of the fourteenth (see below, part 3 of this chapter), we perform a second bitul ḥametz. This is because the evening bitul ḥametz applies only to ḥametz we did not find in our search, and of which we remain unaware. It cannot, however, apply to the ḥametz we still intend to eat, since such ḥametz is important to us. We likewise cannot nullify the ḥametz we found in our search, because we intend to dispose of this by burning. Moreover, applying our evening bitul ḥametz to the ḥametz we still plan to eat would reveal the insincerity of our bitul and render it ineffective.
  Therefore, in the evening we nullify only the ḥametz we did not find in our search; we do not intend to include the ḥametz we set aside to be eaten or burned. The problem is that if we misplace or overlook some of this remaining ḥametz, we are liable to violate the law of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. To prevent this from happening, we nullify the ḥametz a second time. One must be careful to nullify the ḥametz by the end of the fifth seasonal hour of the day, for with the onset of the sixth seasonal hour it is forbidden to derive any benefit from ḥametz, and it can no longer be nullified (SA 434:2).
  The wording of the morning nullification is slightly different from that of the evening. In the evening we nullify only the ḥametz that was not found during the search, while in the morning we nullify the ḥametz in its entirety. It reads:
  Kol ḥamira ve-ḥami’a de-ika bi-rshuti, de-ḥazitei u-delo ḥazitei, de-bi’artei u-delo bi’artei, li-vtil u-lehavi hefker ke-afra de-ar’a.
  This declaration can also be said in Hebrew:
  Kol ḥametz u-se’or she-yesh bi-rshuti, she-re’itiv ve-shelo re’itiv, she-bi’artiv ve-shelo bi’artiv, yivatel ve-yehei hefker ke-afar ha-aretz.
  Or in English:
  All ḥametz and leaven in my possession that I have seen and that I have not seen, that I have destroyed and that I have not destroyed, shall be nullified and become ownerless, like the dust of the earth.
  
  Section 2
  
  Bitul and Bi’ur Ĥametz / The Significance of Bitul Ĥametz
  As noted, the wording of our bitul ḥametz is in Aramaic because it was composed in an era when this was the vernacular. Yet one is free to recite it in Hebrew or any language he understands. If one utters the declaration in Aramaic without understanding its general significance as an act of bitul, thinking instead that it is an Erev Pesaḥ prayer, he has not nullified his ḥametz (MB 434:9).
  The Rishonim explain the significance of the bitul (nullification) in two ways. Rashi and Ramban explain that man has the power to nullify ḥametz. This capacity is unique to the context of ḥametz, since according to the Torah ḥametz is entirely insignificant during Pesaḥ. It is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and consequently it is like the dust of the earth, lacking all importance. In one respect alone does ḥametz retain significance during Pesaḥ: if it remains in one’s house, he transgresses the law of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. However, if one nullifies his ḥametz before it becomes forbidden, he has fulfilled the intention of the Torah, and if such a person keeps ḥametz in his possession during Pesaḥ, he will not have violated bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei.
  Tosafot explain that the bitul is effective because it renders the ḥametz ownerless (hefker), and the Sages teach that bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei apply only to ḥametz one owns, not to ownerless ḥametz.
  Thus, according to the first explanation, the nullification focuses on the ḥametz itself, while according to the second explanation, the nullification is directed at the owner, who relinquishes his ownership over the ḥametz.
  The Ashkenazic version of the declaration takes both explanations into account, and therefore mentions both nullification and renunciation of ownership. The Sephardic version mentions only nullification, which includes renunciation, for if something is nullified it consequently becomes ownerless.
  
  Section 3
  
  Bitul and Bi’ur Ĥametz / Laws Regarding Bitul Ĥametz
  Most Rishonim agree that, in principle, it is not necessary to recite the bitul ḥametz aloud. It is possible to nullify the ḥametz “in one’s heart,” i.e., to mentally regard his ḥametz as null and consider it as the dust of the earth. Preferably, however, one should express the bitul verbally, because this makes it clear and explicit. Moreover, some Rishonim maintain that the bitul must indeed be pronounced aloud (see SAH 434:7). All poskim agree that it is not necessary to pronounce the bitul in the presence of others. Nonetheless, some people enhance the mitzva by reciting the bitul in the presence of their family, to remind them that there is such a mitzva.1<i class="footnote">. <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> (6:4) which cites <em>Tur</em> §436, Ramban<em>, </em>Ran<em>, </em>and<em> </em>Maharam Halawa that <em>bitul</em> in one’s mind is sufficient. SAH (434:7 and <em>Kuntrus Aḥaron</em>) explains that even though these authorities believe that nonverbal nullification suffices on a Torah level, they still maintain that on a rabbinic level preferably one should nullify the <em>ḥametz</em> verbally. According to Ritva and <em>Beit Yosef</em>,<em> </em>based on the Yerushalmi, one must verbalize the <em>bitul</em>. However, SA<em> </em>437:2 states: “He nullifies it in his heart and this is sufficient.” BHL<em> </em>437:2 states that there are two opinions in the matter, and Gra agreed that nullification in one’s mind is sufficient. Whatever one nullifies to himself is considered <em>hefker</em>, as per <em>Tosafot</em>’s explanation that the purpose of the nullification of <em>ḥametz</em> is to deem it ownerless. Even though generally if one wants to declare his property ownerless he must do so in front of three others, as per rabbinic injunction, in this case the Sages deferred to the Torah standards of <em>hefker</em> and allowed one to make the declaration to himself.</i>
  The bitul must be sincere. One must agree in his mind that the ḥametz is null and void forever, and that he will not use it even after Pesaḥ. If one intends to use the ḥametz after Pesaḥ, the bitul is not effective, and he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Likewise, even if one renounces ownership of his ḥametz and places it in a completely open domain, he must not intend to reclaim it after Pesaḥ, for if he does, his bitul is not wholehearted (MB 445:18).2<i class="footnote">See <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 6, n. 7, which cites <em>Responsa </em><em>R. Akiva Eger</em> that if one verbalized the declaration to make his <em>ḥametz</em> ownerless, it becomes ownerless, even if he did not make the declaration wholeheartedly. Thus, anyone can claim his <em>ḥametz</em>, and the former owner is not able to claim that he did not mean what he said. Perhaps, according to MB in the name of SAH, although legally another individual can acquire the <em>ḥametz</em>, if the original owner did not nullify his <em>ḥametz</em> wholeheartedly, the <em>ḥametz</em> remains in his possession until someone else actually claims it (as opposed to becoming ownerless right away).</i>
  As mentioned above (3:4), according to the Torah, one can dispose of his ḥametz by merely nullifying it, and even if one were to keep ḥametz of great value in his possession, he may nullify it and would not transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei as long as he makes a firm mental commitment that the bitul is absolute and that he will never again derive benefit from the ḥametz.
  However, the Sages ordained that we not rely upon the bitul alone. Rather, one must also physically remove the ḥametz from his possession. They did this because they feared that the bitul might not be performed wholeheartedly. However, if one forgets to eliminate his ḥametz, and when Erev Pesaḥ arrives he is far from his home, he may rely on the bitul alone – but as soon as he returns home he must destroy the ḥametz. Even if he returns after Pesaḥ, he must remove the ḥametz, for if he fails to remove it, he proves that his bitul was not wholehearted (SA 448:5; MB ad loc. 25).
  In principle, it is possible to nullify ḥametz through a shali’aḥs. However, preferably the owner of the ḥametz should perform the bitul himself, because some authorities maintain that only the owner of the ḥametz has the power to nullify his ḥametz (SA 434:4; MB ad loc. 15).
  
  Section 4
  
  Bitul and Bi’ur Ĥametz / The Custom of Bi’ur Ĥametz by Burning
  As we have learned, in addition to bitul ḥametz, the Sages ordained the active elimination of all ḥametz remaining after breakfast on the morning of the fourteenth, and any ḥametz that was found during bedikat ḥametz (including the ten pieces of bread that were hidden before the search). In principle, one may eliminate the ḥametz in various ways: by crumbling it and throwing it into the wind, the sea, or a river (SA 445:1); by pouring bleach or some other substance on it, rendering it unfit to be eaten by a dog, since if it is not considered ḥametz food, it need not be eliminated (SA 442:9); by placing it in an ownerless public domain before it becomes forbidden (MB 445:18); or by flushing it down the toilet, whereby it no longer remains in the house.
  Nonetheless, the holy people of Israel customarily enhance the mitzva of eliminating the ḥametz via burning it. Nothing eliminates ḥametz better than fire. Furthermore, there are poskim who maintain that the mitzva to dispose of ḥametz must be fulfilled by burning.
  Those who wish to enhance this mitzva further must make sure to nullify the ḥametz after burning it, since if they nullify it beforehand, the ḥametz will no longer be considered theirs, and they will lose the enhancement of bi’ur by burning. One must therefore be careful to leave enough time after burning the ḥametz to nullify it, for after the fifth hour of the day it is no longer possible to nullify ḥametz (as we learned above 3:6). Hence, as soon as a kezayit of ḥametz has been burned, the enhancement of bi’ur ḥametz by burning has been achieved, and the bitul can be recited.
  Some people, when using kerosene to light the fire, are careful not to pour it directly on the ḥametz. They do this so that the fire alone destroys the ḥametz, and the kerosene does not render it unfit for consumption by a dog before it is burned.3<i class="footnote">There is a dispute in <em>Pesaḥim</em> 27b regarding the mitzva of destroying the <em>ḥametz</em>: R. Yehuda says it must specifically be burned, and the Sages say it can be destroyed in any fashion. According to the majority of Rishonim, including Rambam<em>, </em>Rosh, Ritva, and Ran, the <em>halakha</em> follows the Sages; this is also the ruling of SA<em> </em>445:1. A minority of authorities, including <em>Tosafot</em> and <em>Sefer Mitzvot Katan</em>, follows R. Yehuda. <em>Baḥ </em>and Gra add that even the Sages believe that the preferred method is burning, just that it is also possible to destroy the <em>ḥametz</em> in other ways. Other Aḥaronim disagree and feel that according to the Sages there is nothing special or preferable about burning, and one may destroy his <em>ḥametz</em> in any way.Most Rishonim feel that even according to R. Yehuda, the mitzva to burn ḥametz only applies to ḥametz that is left over past midday of the fourteenth, when it becomes forbidden, similar to the law of notar (uneaten portions of a sacrifice left over until the morning), which must also be burned. However, before midday of the fourteenth, it is possible that even R. Yehuda would agree that one may destroy the ḥametz any way he wants; this is the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and Maharam Halawa. On the other hand, Rashi explains that according to R. Yehuda the mitzva is to burn the ḥametz before midday. According to Rosh’s understanding of Rashi, the mitzva to burn the ḥametz only applies during the sixth hour of the day, but according to Tur’s understanding of Rashi, the mitzva to burn the ḥametz applies even prior to the sixth hour. If this opinion is correct, the mitzva to destroy the ḥametz is specifically by burning it. See Birur Halakha Pesaḥim 27b for a summary of the topic. Even though it is clear according to almost all poskim that there is no mitzva to burn the ḥametz before it becomes forbidden, Rema 434:2 and 445:1 writes that the custom is to burn the ḥametz even earlier. See Or Le-Tziyon 2:33, which explains that the stringency of burning the ḥametz is dependent upon the combination of several opinions: firstly, the authorities who follow R. Yehuda; secondly, Tur’s understanding of Rashi that the mitzva to burn the ḥametz applies even before the ḥametz becomes forbidden; and thirdly, Tosafot’s opinion that the act of nullification renders the ḥametz ownerless, as opposed to Rashi’s understanding that nullification accomplishes the mitzva of destroying the ḥametz (and thus the only way to fulfill the mitzva of destroying the ḥametz according to Tosafot is by burning it). See also Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 7:5-7 and Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 8:7-8.It is also worth noting that, according to a simple reading, the mitzva of removing ḥametz (in Shemot 12:15) is to dispose of the ḥametz before it becomes forbidden, as most Rishonim write. Ran and Ritva also write that one fulfills this mitzva by conducting bedikat ḥametz. Rambam writes that the mitzva of removing ḥametz begins on the night of the fourteenth (MT, Laws of Ḥametz and Matza 3:1). However, Rosh maintains that the mitzva only begins once the ḥametz becomes forbidden. Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 8:8 summarizes this topic.Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 15:4 states that one should be careful not to pour lighter fluid on the ḥametz itself, and see Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 8:10 n. 17, which disagrees, since the main objective is to turn the ḥametz into ashes, regardless of whether or not its taste remains intact. See above ch. 3 n. 8.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  Bitul and Bi’ur Ĥametz / Ĥametz in the Garbage
  On the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan the question arises: Must ḥametz that has been placed in the garbage also be destroyed?
  If the garbage bin belongs to a Jew or is located on his property, he is obligated by rabbinical ordinance to remove the ḥametz before it becomes prohibited. The owner may pour bleach or some other foul substance on the ḥametz rendering it unfit for consumption by a dog.
  If the garbage container is the property of the local authority and is located in the public domain, one need not destroy the ḥametz he placed in it before the ḥametz becomes prohibited. The local authority is not obligated to destroy it because it was not interested in acquiring the ḥametz to begin with. Its only aim was to remove it to a garbage dump.4<i class="footnote"><em>Igrot Moshe</em> OḤ <em> </em>3:57 states that the mere act of placing the <em>ḥametz</em> in the trash clearly shows that one’s intentions were to rid himself of the <em>ḥametz</em>. However, if the trash can belongs to him, according to <em>Taz</em> and MA 445:3 he has a rabbinic obligation to burn the <em>ḥametz</em>. However, if the trash can is in the public domain, he does not have to burn any <em>ḥametz</em> he placed inside the trash can. <em>Bedikat</em><em> Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 3:45 adds that if the <em>ḥametz</em> is so filthy that clearly no person would use it for any purpose, it is considered destroyed. It also adds a novel idea in n. 130: <em>ḥametz</em> that is unfit for humans but suitable for dogs only must be destroyed if the <em>ḥametz</em> is able to cause other dough to become <em>ḥametz. </em>However, if the <em>ḥametz</em> is so filthy that it is no longer suitable to any person for any purpose, it is considered nullified and need not be destroyed (see also <em>Piskei Teshuvot</em> 445:7, which cites other opinions). Nevertheless, when one discards his trash into a bag, as is the modern custom, the <em>ḥametz</em> does not always become that dirty. Thus, if the trash can is in his domain, it is best to dispel all doubt and refrain from discarding <em>ḥametz</em> that is still suitable for dogs into that particular trash can in the days leading up to Pesaḥ.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  Bitul and Bi’ur Ĥametz / Ĥametz Found after the Onset of the Prohibition
  If one finds ḥametz in his possession after the sixth hour of the day, he must dispose of it immediately. After midday, if one forgot to nullify the ḥametz in his possession, he is obligated by Torah law to eliminate it. The most preferable form of the mitzva is to burn the ḥametz, but one may eliminate it in a number of ways, as we have learned. For example, one may crumble the ḥametz and cast it into the wind, or break up the ḥametz and flush it down the toilet.
  However, if one throws his ḥametz into an ownerless public domain, he has accomplished nothing. Although one may renounce ownership of his ḥametz before it becomes prohibited and thus avoid the obligation to remove it, if one still possesses ḥametz when the prohibition takes effect, the only way he can get rid of it is by destroying it completely.
  Similarly, once the prohibition has taken effect, it is no longer possible to remove ḥametz simply by pouring a foul substance like bleach on it to make it unfit to be eaten by a dog. Only before the ḥametz becomes prohibited is it possible to do so. If the ḥametz was fit for consumption when the prohibition took effect, one is obligated to dispose of it completely. Therefore, if one finds such ḥametz in his possession, he must burn it, scatter it in the wind, or crumble it into pieces and flush it down the toilet, in order to eliminate it. As stated, the best way to fulfill this mitzva is by burning the ḥametz. Moreover, even after the ḥametz has been burned, it is forbidden to derive benefit from its ashes.5<i class="footnote">See n. 3, where we learned that the main dispute between R. Yehuda and the Sages is about <em>ḥametz</em> that one finds after it has already become forbidden. According to the Rishonim who follow R. Yehuda, one has a mitzva<em> </em>to burn this <em>ḥametz</em>. Even though most <em>poskim</em> follow the Sages, as quoted in SA 445:1, burning the <em>ḥametz</em> is an acceptable method, especially according to R. Yoel Sirkis (<em>Baḥ</em>)<em> </em>and Gra, who maintain that the Sages agree that the preferable method to destroy the <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>is burning. This is what MB<em> </em>states in 445:6.Once the ḥametz becomes forbidden, there is an obligation to destroy the ḥametz completely, as cited in SA 442:9 and MB ad loc. 40. Even declaring the ḥametz ownerless does not work at this point; it only works before the ḥametz becomes forbidden, as explained in MB 445:18. Even after the ḥametz is burned, one is forbidden to benefit from the ashes, as explained in SA 445:2. MB 445:5 states that if one throws ḥametz into an outhouse, it is considered destroyed. However, the outhouses in the times of MB were exceptionally filthy, and anything that was thrown there became so repulsive that it would no longer be usable in any capacity. Conversely, bread that has been discarded in a modern toilet is likely to emerge intact from the drainpipes, and would likely be fit for a dog; therefore, if one were to discard bread this way, he should first break up the bread into smaller crumbs. See also Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 7:24 n. 56 for more on this topic, and see 7:1-2 and the corresponding footnotes. In n. 7, the author writes that if one finds ḥametz on Pesaḥ and spoils it so that it is no longer fit for a dog, he still violates bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei according to SAH, but according to Ḥazon Ish he is required to destroy the ḥametz, but does not violate bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei. According Pri Megadim, he only has a rabbinic obligation to destroy the ḥametz, since by not completely destroying the ḥametz before Pesaḥ he missed the Torah-level mitzva (the opinions of SAH and Pri Megadim are cited in SHT 442:19).Although in general any ḥametz found on Pesaḥ has already been nullified and would therefore only be rabbinically forbidden, the ḥametz must still be destroyed, as would any ḥametz that had not been nullified, since, as noted, the rabbis decreed that all ḥametz must be nullified and eliminated. SAH (435:4) adds that if one did not burn his ḥametz, he violates bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei on the rabbinic level and is subject to the rabbinic obligation of tashbitu. See also Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro 7 n. 40 for other sources. Additionally, see chapter 8, 24, which says that if one finds ḥametz on Pesaḥ, there are ways that he can avoid bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei, although he cannot fulfill the active mitzva of tashbitu. For example, he can heave the ḥametz into the sea in a manner that the ḥametz would be impossible to retrieve. The mitzva, however, which he cannot fulfill, is to burn the ḥametz.Regarding the time for burning the ḥametz: if one finds ḥametz in his possession after the beginning of the sixth hour of the day, he has a rabbinic obligation to burn it, and if he found ḥametz that he did not nullify, he has a biblical obligation to destroy it. If he does not, he violates bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei as soon as the festival begins. If he nullified his ḥametz, he does not violate bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei on the biblical level, but he still has a rabbinic obligation to burn it.</i>
  If one finds ḥametz on the first or last day(s) of Pesaḥ or on Shabbat of Ḥol Ha-mo’ed, he may not burn it or even carry it to the bathroom to flush it down the toilet, as ḥametz is muktzeh and may not be handled. Rather, one must cover it with a container so that nobody accidentally eats it, and it must be burned as soon as possible after the Shabbat or holiday. If the same person forgot to nullify his ḥametz before Pesaḥ, he violates two Torah prohibitions – bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei – every moment the ḥametz remains in his possession. In order for one to spare himself from these transgressions, according to many poskim he may pick up the ḥametz, break it up somewhat, and throw it into the toilet; these poskim permit violating the laws of muktzeh, which are of rabbinic origin, in order to avoid Torah prohibitions. Nonetheless, some poskim take the stringent position that he should wait until Shabbat is over before getting rid of the ḥametz (MB 446:6).
  Regarding the berakha, if one finds ḥametz during Pesaḥ, even though it is a mitzva to dispose of it, he does not recite a berakha before the bi’ur, because the blessing he said before bedikat ḥametz included all ḥametz in his possession that required removal. However, if one kneads dough during Pesaḥ and it becomes ḥametz, he must say the berakha over its disposal since this ḥametz was not in his possession before Pesaḥ, at the time of his bedika, and thus the berakha he said then did not apply to it (MB 435:5).
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  the Sale of Ĥametz / Sparing Ĥametz from Destruction by Selling It to a Gentile
  By midday of the fourteenth of Nisan, every Jew must have disposed of the ḥametz in his possession. In the past, Jews would plan their food purchases and their meals so that by Pesaḥ they would have finished consuming any ḥametz foods and thus not have to dispose of large quantities. They would leave only a small amount of ḥametz with which to fulfill the mitzva of bi’ur ḥametz in the best possible manner: by burning it.
  However, occasionally one’s plan would backfire and he would find himself possessing a large quantity of ḥametz when Pesaḥ arrived. In such a case, if he did not mind losing the ḥametz, he could burn it or give it as a gift to a decent and deserving gentile. If he did not want to lose the value of his ḥametz, he could sell it to a gentile before Pesaḥ, since, as long as the prohibition has not gone into effect, it is permissible to sell the ḥametz and receive its full value. The prohibition against deriving benefit from ḥametz goes into effect on the sixth hour on the day of the fourteenth of Nisan, and until that time it is permissible to sell the ḥametz.
  This was especially important for food merchants who would remain with large stocks of ḥametz before Pesaḥ and had no choice but to sell to a gentile, in order to avoid great financial loss. Even if a gentile could not be found who was sincerely interested in buying all of the ḥametz, the Sages teach that it is permissible for a Jew to say to a gentile, “Even though you do not need so much ḥametz, buy all of my ḥametz for the full price, and if you want, I will buy it back from you after Pesaḥ” (based on t. Pesaḥim 2:7).
  
  Section 2
  
  the Sale of Ĥametz / How the Practice of Selling Ĥametz Spread
  About 400 years ago, many Jews living in Europe began to support themselves through the production and sale of whiskey. This was because the barons, the landowners, would often contract Jews to manage their affairs, and it was common for them to lease their distilleries and inns to Jews in exchange for a fixed price and/or a percentage of sales. This whiskey, which was made from barley and wheat, is considered ḥametz gamur. To prevent the great financial loss that would come each year with its disposal before Pesaḥ, it became necessary to sell it to a gentile before Pesaḥ and buy it back again immediately thereafter, in order to continue selling the whiskey as usual.
  Over time, rabbinic leaders noticed that the sale was sometimes carried out improperly, leading to serious problems. If the sale is improper, the ḥametz remains in the possession of the Jew, and with every hour that passes he violates bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. Additionally, it is forbidden to derive benefit from such ḥametz after Pesaḥ, and it must all be completely destroyed. Therefore, rabbinic authorities began to oversee the sale of ḥametz, in order to ensure its proper sale. Seeing that the sale was being carried out in an orderly manner, other Jews began to participate in the transaction, in order to save their own ḥametz from being lost. This is how mekhirat ḥametz began to spread and become increasingly common.
  However, a number of prominent rabbis claimed that mekhirat ḥametz was not a real sale, but merely a fiction. In the first place, it is clear that after Pesaḥ the ḥametz will return to the Jew. Moreover, no sales tax is paid to the government on this sale. Thirdly, in a normal sale the buyer pays for all of the ḥametz and physically takes it into his possession, but here the gentile neither pays the full price, nor takes the ḥametz with him.1<i class="footnote">em&gt;Tevu’ot Shor, a commentary on <em>Pesaḥim</em><em> </em>is hesitant about the idea of selling <em>ḥametz</em>, since it might be considered a fiction. <em>Baḥ, Eliya Rabba, </em>and <em>Maḥatzit Ha-shekel</em> (§448) state that one should not rely on <em>mekhirat</em><em>ḥametz</em> except in extreme situations, to prevent a significant loss. In <em>Ma’aseh Rav</em> (a compendium of the Vilna Gaon’s customs) it is written that one should only sell <em>ḥametz</em><em>gamur</em> in an irrevocable sale, and after Pesaḥ one should not purchase <em>ḥametz</em> that had been sold in a standard <em>ḥametz</em> sale. This was also the practice of Rabbi Akiva Eger. See <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 11, n. 38 and <em>Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag</em> 10:14 and 11:31. Over time several of the concerns of those opposed to selling <em>ḥametz</em> have been allayed by the addition of specific clauses to the sale. For example, <em>Bekhor Shor</em> claimed that the gentile buying the <em>ḥametz</em> does not understand the details of a legal sale, but nowadays, we sell our <em>ḥametz</em> to knowledgeable Gentiles who certainly understand the legal ramifications of the sale. Another allegation was that the <em>ḥametz</em> was sold for a symbolic sum, as written in SA 448:3, and those opposed to the sale claimed that the seller in such a case does not have full intention to sell. The answer to this problem was that the Jewish seller would certainly agree to sell his <em>ḥametz</em> for a nominal fee in order to save himself from violating the prohibition of owning <em>ḥametz</em>, as is written in <em>Ḥok Yaakov</em>. Nowadays, however, our custom is to sell the <em>ḥametz</em> for its full value, as per MB<em> </em>and BHL 448:19, which effectively eliminates this issue.</i>
  Nevertheless, the opinion of the vast majority of poskim is that mekhirat ḥametz may be relied upon and is as valid as any sale. By law, the gentile can refuse to sell the ḥametz back to the Jew after Pesaḥ. It is a bona fide sale, not a fiction. Nevertheless, in order to avoid even the appearance of a fiction, the rabbis made a practice of being very meticulous about all details of the sale. Since there are different halakhic opinions regarding the proper mode of purchase when a gentile buys from a Jew, the rabbis are careful to execute the sale using all forms of acquisition, so that it is clear that the sale is effective according to all opinions. In addition, they make sure that the sale is effective according to state laws as well (see MB 448:17, 19, and BHL ad loc.).
  Regarding payment, a bill of sale is formulated to reflect the actual value of the ḥametz, and the gentile pays a cash deposit, as merchants are wont to do. The remainder of the sum is charged to him as a debt, but this does not prevent the completion of the purchase. After Pesaḥ, the gentile can decide: if he wants to keep the ḥametz, he must pay the debt; if he wants to sell the ḥametz back to the Jew, the Jew repays the cash deposit, and in return for the ḥametz, he pardons the gentile’s debt from before Pesaḥ. The reason no tax is paid on mekhirat ḥametz is that the king, or government, understands that this sale is carried out for religious, not commercial purposes, and therefore waives the tax.
  In order to reinforce the sale, so that it resembles any other sale in which the buyer takes the purchased item into his possession, the rabbis ordained that the Jew sell to the gentile the ground on which the ḥametz rests, thereby transferring the ḥametz into the gentile’s possession (MB 448:12). In Eretz Yisrael, where it is forbidden to sell land to a gentile, the area is rented, and some poskim say that even outside Eretz Yisrael it is best to rent the area instead of selling it.2<i class="footnote">It is impossible to list all of the <em>poskim</em> who permit the sale of <em>ḥametz</em>, since there are too many, but I will mention several of them: <em>Noda Bi-Yehuda </em>141:8<em>, Ḥatam Sofer </em>OḤ <em> </em>§62<em> </em>and<em> </em>§113<em>, Oneg Yom Tov 28, </em>and<em> Sdei Ḥemed </em>8:9, which discusses the opposition to the sale at length. See also R. Zevin’s <em>Ha-m</em><em>o’adim Be-halakha</em> in the chapter about selling <em>ḥametz</em> and its evolution. <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ <em> </em>2:95 states that the sale works even if the seller is not an observant Jew. MB<em> </em>448:12 discusses the optimal procedure of selling the area where the <em>ḥametz</em> sits as well<em>.</em> There are those who prefer to rent their rooms or houses that contain <em>ḥametz</em>, since they themselves are only renting and therefore cannot sell the house. Additionally, <em>Avnei Nezer </em>§345 states that renting is preferable, since it seems less fictitious, as one certainly does not really want to sell his house. See <em>Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag </em>11:10 in the notes.</i>
  
  Section 3
  
  the Sale of Ĥametz / For Whom Is the Ĥametz Sale Intended Today?
  In recent generations, new storage methods have been introduced that allow us to preserve food products for long periods of time. As a result, food manufacturers and dealers are in constant possession of large inventories of food, and they need to sell their ḥametz before Pesaḥ in order not to lose the value of their stock. Moreover, if food manufacturers were to make a point of exhausting their entire inventory before Pesaḥ, it would take days and even weeks to restock and market their products, and in the mean time, they would lose business. Even if no competitors were to seize the opportunity, it would cause a great inconvenience to buyers, who would be unable to purchase ḥametz foods during the weeks after Pesaḥ. Therefore, factory owners, food chains, and stores sell all of their ḥametz to a gentile before Pesaḥ, and as soon as Pesaḥ passes, they buy it back again and remarket it.
  In principle, anyone may sell his ḥametz to a gentile via the mekhirat ḥametz organized by his local rabbis. He may do so even if he only wishes to sell a small amount of ḥametz – for example, a package of pasta – because once it has been sold, the Jew no longer violates the prohibitions relating to ḥametz.
  Some are stringent and prefer not to rely on mekhirat ḥametz since it appears fictitious: the ḥametz remains in the Jew’s house, the gentile will almost certainly not come to take it, and the Jew resumes eating the very same ḥametz as soon as Pesaḥ is over. According to these poskim, it is only possible to sell ḥametz in order to prevent a great loss; concerning a small loss, one should not sell his ḥametz, in order to avoid possible transgression.
  Nowadays, all are advised to participate in mekhirat ḥametz, because some food products and flavored medicines may contain small amounts of ḥametz, and they should not be destroyed just because of this possibility. On the other hand, these must not be kept because they may actually contain ḥametz. Therefore, to avoid all doubt, the best thing to do is to sell them.3<i class="footnote"><em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 11:5 states that there are those who maintain that one who has money invested directly or indirectly in stock of companies that produce <em>ḥametz</em> must sell these shares before Pesaḥ. Consequently, all <em>ḥametz</em> sale documents include clauses regarding stocks and shares in these types of companies. However, according to the letter of the law, if one does not have any decision-making power in the company, he is considered a creditor, not a partner, and he would not be required to sell his shares, as explained above in 3:3. Thus, one who sells his shares in this particular company does so merely to satisfy all opinions. Above at 4:11 we cited a dispute between <em>poskim</em> regarding whether or not one can exempt himself from <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> by selling his home to a gentile. According to all opinions, however, if the Jewish owner leaves one room in the house for himself, he can perform <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> in that room and exempt himself from <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> in the rest of the house. <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 8:17 states that in addition to <em>bitul</em>, one should sell all of the <em>ḥametz</em> in his possession, since if he was unaware of a certain piece of <em>ḥametz</em> during the time of nullification and did not nullify it properly, the <em>ḥametz</em> sale will certainly protect him from violating any prohibition. Even though he sold his <em>ḥametz</em>, if he finds the <em>ḥametz</em> on Pesaḥ he is permitted to burn it. This is not considered stealing from the gentile, since he is not causing the gentile any monetary loss. However, it seems to me that it is better not to sell all the <em>ḥametz</em> that one has in his possession, since this makes the whole sale look fictitious, because every buyer wants to know where his purchase is without having to look for it all over the house. Therefore, one must decide where to place his <em>ḥametz</em>, and it is preferable to specify the location in the authorization contract. Regarding <em>ḥametz</em> that may have remained in the house, <em>bitul </em>is sufficient.</i>
  Concerning ḥametz gamur, people are advised not to sell insignificant amounts of ḥametz, so as not to use the mekhirat ḥametz for small needs. However, when a significant loss is involved, it is permitted, even le-khatḥila, to sell the ḥametz. Each individual should decide for himself what he considers a significant or small loss. Nonetheless, one is permitted to sell his ḥametz even if he only wants to prevent a small loss, for mekhirat ḥametz is fundamentally halakhically valid, and one may be confident that the rabbis conducting the sale do so in full compliance with halakha.4<i class="footnote"><em>Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag </em>10:14 and 11:9 and in the notes states that the sale of <em>ḥametz gamur</em> should be limited to owners of large businesses, but individuals must take care, as much as possible, to only sell uncertain <em>ḥametz</em>. So states <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 8:9.According to the letter of the law, every individual has the right to rely on the sale, since the sale is valid according to the majority of poskim. Even if the seller feels that the sale is somewhat fictitious, if the gentile wishes to do so, he could take the seller to court and legally claim the purchased ḥametz, which proves that the ḥametz indeed belongs to the gentile. Additionally, since every person nullifies his ḥametz, and subsequently there is no Torah prohibition on this ḥametz (there is only a rabbinic injunction that requires destroying or selling the ḥametz in addition to bitul), the ḥametz assumes the status of a safek de-rabanan (an uncertainly about a rabbinic prohibition). Thus, one may certainly rely on the lenient opinions that permit the sale.</i>
  Because the sold ḥametz remains in the Jew’s house, there is a risk that he will forget that it is prohibited and eat it during Pesaḥ. Therefore, one must set up a partition at least ten tefaḥim high (80 cm) to act as a barrier between himself and the ḥametz, or lock the ḥametz in a cupboard and hide the key. One may also tape up the cupboard. It is advisable to write “sold ḥametz” on it so that one does not accidentally open it on Pesaḥ (see SA 440:2).
  
  Section 4
  
  the Sale of Ĥametz / The Laws of the Sale
  Every Jew, before selling ḥametz, should read the authorization contract he will be signing, so that he understands that he is empowering the rabbi to sell his ḥametz, and that the sale is absolute. Nonetheless, if instead of reading the contract one simply relied on the rabbi, the sale is valid, for, if the gentile comes during Pesaḥ to take the ḥametz, and the rabbi tells the Jew that the ḥametz indeed belongs to the gentile, and that he must give it to him, the Jew will do so.
  The seller should write his name and address in clear script on the contract of sale so that the gentile knows who he is and where he lives. In this manner, the gentile buyer will be able, if he wants, to go to the seller’s house and take the ḥametz (see Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:7-8, and in the notes).
  It is most preferable to give the gentile the key to the place where the ḥametz is located so that he can enter and take it at any time. In practice, though, it is sufficient to give the gentile the seller’s phone number so that when the gentile wants the ḥametz, he can call to come and take it. The most important principle is that sellers of ḥametz should be aware that after the sale, the ḥametz indeed belongs to the gentile, and the seller must allow him to enter the house and take his ḥametz (MB 448:12).
  Ideally, the seller should indicate the various types of ḥametz, and their prices, on the contract the rabbi gives him to sign, and some people are meticulous about this. In practice, though, this is very difficult to carry out. Therefore, the custom is to write that all ḥametz in one’s possession is included in the sale, and that the price is in accordance with the accepted market price, as determined by appraisers (see BHL 448:3, s.v. “be-davar mu’at”).
  It is best to write in the contract where exactly the ḥametz is located, for example: “In the upper left kitchen cupboard,” or “in the room on the right, in the box so marked.” Several places may be listed. Even without this, the sale is still valid, though all ḥametz should be gathered to one place and labeled. Everything gathered to the place determined for the sale by two hours before the onset of the prohibition against deriving benefit from ḥametz is included in the sale. As noted, the preferred custom is to sell or rent to the gentile the place upon which the ḥametz rests, so that the ḥametz will be in the possession of the gentile, and the sale will appear to be like any other sale in which the buyer transfers possession.
  One may sell ḥametz through a proxy who writes all relevant details and signs on the owner’s behalf.  One may also sell ḥametz over the phone, by fax, or via the Internet. Usually, the person selling ḥametz signs and performs a kinyan (act of acquisition) in order to empower the rabbi as a shali’aḥ. Nonetheless, the kinyan is not crucial, as the most important thing is the transaction between the rabbi and the gentile, which is effective for everyone who has appointed the rabbi to sell his ḥametz (Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 19:4, 9-10).5<i class="footnote"><em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 11:12 states that one is permitted to enter into a <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>sale agreement with multiple rabbis. Even if each rabbi sells to a different gentile, the sale completed first takes effect. Preferably, one should not do this, since it seems deceitful, unless he is worried that one rabbi may not sell his <em>ḥametz</em>, and he wants to ensure that his <em>ḥametz</em> is sold one way or another.Additionally, Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:20 states that if one was unable to sell his ḥametz due to some unavoidable reason, his friend may sell the ḥametz for him even without permission, since it is beneficial to the owner of the ḥametz, and one may act to benefit another even without permission. This is the opinion of many poskim, as cited in Piskei Teshuvot 448:21.</i>
  In kitchens that belong to public institutions, the manager or his representative sells the ḥametz.
  One should not sell the ḥametz that is absorbed into utensils. Quite a few laws relating to mekhirat ḥametz were introduced in order to make it clear to all that it is an actual sale, but if one writes that he is selling the ḥametz absorbed in his utensils, the sale will appear to be lacking seriousness, since ḥametz absorbed in utensils has no value and nobody is interested in buying ḥametz absorbed in utensils. The same applies to ḥametz stuck to utensils. Therefore, one should not indicate this in the sale contract.6<i class="footnote">Selling the utensils themselves to a gentile is not worthwhile, since after Pesaḥ one would be required to immerse the utensils in a <em>mikveh</em>, like any eating implement bought from a gentile (<em>Ḥatam Sofer </em>OḤ <em> §</em>109 and most <em>poskim</em>; however, AHS<em> </em>YD 108:52, states that one may be lenient). Therefore, some <em>poskim</em> write that it is preferable to sell the <em>ḥametz</em> that is absorbed in or stuck to the utensils, as written in <em>Bedikat Ḥametz U-vi’uro</em> 8:18-21. It is also written that one should only sell the utensils that have small holes or grooves, which make them difficult to clean, and that some are careful to sell the <em>ḥametz</em> that is absorbed in these utensils. The truth is, though, that this is unnecessary, because the <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>was already nullified. Even if there is substance remaining on the utensils, as long as there is less than a <em>kezayit</em> cumulatively, according to the majority of <em>poskim</em> there is no need to burn it (SAH 446 and <em>Kuntrus Aḥaron </em>1). One must store these utensils in an enclosed area so that he does not accidentally use them on Pesaḥ, and after Pesaḥ one must remove any substance that remained on the utensils before using them, because of the rule that one may not benefit from <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>that he owned over Pesaḥ. Preferably, in order to satisfy those who maintain that one is required to burn even less than a <em>kezayit</em> of <em>ḥametz</em> (MA 442:12), one should remove any trace of <em>ḥametz</em> from the utensils before Pesaḥ, or ruin the residue with detergents until they are no longer fit for a dog’s consumption.If this is the case, even if there is more than a kezayit, there is no obligation to burn it. Therefore, there is no need to sell the ḥametz that is stuck to the utensils, and even more so one should not sell the ḥametz that is absorbed in the utensils.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  the Sale of Ĥametz / The Deadline for Selling Ĥametz and the Status of One Visiting Israel or Abroad
  The sale must take place while it is still permitted to derive benefit from ḥametz, for when the sixth hour of the day of the fourteenth of Nisan arrives, and it becomes forbidden to derive benefit from ḥametz, it likewise becomes forbidden to sell it. Instead, it must be destroyed. In order to allow people to sell their ḥametz until the very last minute, mekhirat ḥametz takes place on the fourteenth, just before the end of the time that it is permissible to derive benefit from ḥametz.
  The prohibition takes effect according to one’s location. In Israel, the sixth hour arrives approximately seven hours before the East Coast of the United States. Therefore, a U.S. resident who is in Israel must sell his ḥametz in Israel, because if he sells his ḥametz according to the deadline in the United States, the sale will take place after the onset of the prohibition incumbent upon him. The end of Pesaḥ also poses a problem for such a person, because he must observe yom tov sheni shel galuyot (the extra day of Yom Tov observed in the Diaspora), which means that the prohibition of ḥametz applies to him until the end of the eighth day, while in Israel the ḥametz is bought back from the gentile after the seventh day. However, in fact, it is not a problem for him to sell his ḥametz in Israel. Even though the gentile sells the ḥametz back at the end of seven days, since the U.S. resident is still observing Pesaḥ according to the custom of Jews in ḥutz la-aretz, and he is not yet interested in buying the ḥametz back, the ḥametz remains hefker or in the possession of the beit din (rabbinical court). Only after yom tov sheni shel galuyot has passed does the ḥametz return to his possession.
  If his family remains in the United States, and they plan to eat the ḥametz after the prohibition has commenced in Eretz Yisrael, he must renounce ownership of his portion in that ḥametz, and his family sells the ḥametz there (Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:14).
  A resident of Israel who travels to the U.S. may, in principle, sell his ḥametz in the United States, for, according to most poskim, the obligation to eliminate ḥametz depends on the owner’s location, not the location of the ḥametz. Nevertheless, one should preferably sell it in Eretz Yisrael, in order to satisfy the opinions of all poskim, for some maintain that one must eliminate ḥametz according to its location, and, if this is the case, one must sell the ḥametz before the onset of the prohibition in Eretz Yisrael.7<i class="footnote"><em>Oneg Yom Tov</em> (§36) states that we follow the location of the <em>ḥametz</em>. Many disagree with this ruling and maintain that the prohibition takes effect according to the location of the owner. This is the opinion of <em>Ḥessed Le-Avraham </em>141:35<em>, Eretz Zvi </em>1:83<em>, Mikra’ei Kodesh </em>Pesaḥ<em> </em>1:55, and other <em>poskim</em><em> </em>quoted in <em>Piskei Teshuva</em> 443:1. <em>Le-khatḥila</em>, we take both opinions into consideration and follow whichever time is earlier, as is written in <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ <em> </em>4:94-95.A Diaspora resident who is presently in Israel and sells his ḥametz in Israel should have in mind not to reacquire this ḥametz until after the festival ends in the Diaspora, as written above. Even if he did not have this intent, Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:35 states that presumably he does not want to reacquire the ḥametz before the festival ends, so he does not reacquire it until it becomes permissible. Mikra’ei Kodesh Pesaḥ 1:76 states that even if one acquired ḥametz on the eighth day of Pesaḥ in the Diaspora, the ḥametz may be eaten after Pesaḥ, since there are poskim who maintain that a Diaspora resident in Israel is not required to observe two days of yom tov. Therefore, since this is an uncertain situation on the rabbinic level, we are lenient.</i> Additionally, a resident of Israel who is visiting a Diaspora community should not eat ḥametz on the eighth day of Pesaḥ, just as he should not do any other activity forbidden on yom tov, even in private (AHS 596:5). If such a person has his own place of residence, he need not partake in a second Seder. However, if he is being hosted by people who live abroad, he should participate in the second Seder. He should not recite berakhot on mitzvot, but instead should answer “Amen” to the berakhot of others.8<i class="footnote">A thorough treatment of <em>yom tov sheini shel galuyot</em>, including the status of travelers and temporary residents, appears in <em>Peninei Halakha: Holidays</em> ch. 9.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  the Sale of Ĥametz / Its Status after Pesaĥ
  After Pesaḥ, it is best not to use the ḥametz that was sold until one can assume that the rabbi has bought it all back. When necessary, though, one may take out some ḥametz immediately after Pesaḥ with a willingness to pay the gentile for it were he to request this. It is best that the beit din make an explicit condition with the gentile that the Jew will be obligated to pay for any sold ḥametz he takes, if the gentile so desires. Thus, there will be no question about the Jew taking ḥametz immediately after Pesaḥ (see Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:22).
  Some people are strict and do not eat ḥametz that was sold because, according to stringent poskim, such a sale is not legitimate and this ḥametz has the status of ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ, which one may neither eat nor derive benefit from.
  In practice, however, one need not be concerned about complying with this stringency, because the prohibition of ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ is rabbinic, and whenever there is uncertainty about a rabbinic law, halakha follows the lenient opinion. This is all the more true where only a small number of poskim are strict, while the overwhelming majority permit. Indeed, there were great rabbis who, after Pesaḥ, would make a point of eating ḥametz that had been sold through mekhirat ḥametz, in order to demonstrate that the sale was done in keeping with halakha.9<i class="footnote">See n. 1 where we listed those who adopt stringent opinions, including Gra, who refrained from eating <em>ḥametz</em> that had been sold. In n. 2 we listed those who adopt lenient opinions (the majority of authorities).</i>
  When shopping for food after Pesaḥ, one must make sure that the seller has a certificate verifying that he sold his ḥametz in keeping with the halakha so that one does not buy ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ. Even more caution is needed if the seller is not religious, because if he did not understand the significance of the sale and continued to sell ḥametz in his store during Pesaḥ, a few poskim (Sde Ḥemed, Maharam Schick) maintain that the sale was not legitimate, and that it is forbidden to eat or derive benefit from any ḥametz in his store. In this case, one must preferably follow the stringent poskim and wait for goods produced after Pesaḥ to arrive. If, however, it is clear that the seller performed bedikat ḥametz in keeping with the halakha, and was careful not to let anybody go near the ḥametz that was sold, it is permissible to buy ḥametz from him as soon as Pesaḥ has ended (Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 11:13, 23).
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  Ĥametz Mixtures / Even a Drop of Ĥametz Renders Food Forbidden
  In general, when a forbidden food becomes mixed with a permitted food, it is batel be-shishim (rendered insignificant if the forbidden food constitutes less than one sixtieth of the mixture); in such small quantities, it does not contribute flavor. At the level of Torah law, ĥametz is also batel be-shishim. The Sages, however, ordained that even a drop of ĥametz render a permitted food forbidden when mixed with it. Even if the quantity of permitted food is a thousand or ten thousand times greater than the ĥametz, the entire mixture becomes forbidden.
  The Sages added this stringency because the Torah itself is more stringent about ḥametz than other forbidden foods. This is true in two respects: 1) generally, if one consumes a Torah-forbidden food, the punishment is malkot (lashes), but one who eats ḥametz incurs the more severe punishment of karet (extirpation); 2) whereas all other forbidden foods may be kept in one’s home, ḥametz can neither be seen nor be found in our homes throughout Pesaḥ. The Sages therefore continued in this direction by establishing a safeguard: even if a drop of ḥametz falls into a food, it is forbidden to consume or derive benefit from it. Another reason for this stringency is that all other forbidden foods are prohibited throughout the year, and we are therefore accustomed to distancing ourselves from them, but since we eat ḥametz all year long, we are liable to forget that it is forbidden on Pesaḥ. The Sages, therefore, are more stringent about ḥametz, so that everybody remembers to be careful about it.
  This law, that even a drop of ḥametz renders a mixture forbidden, goes into effect with the onset of Pesaḥ. Before Pesaḥ, ḥametz is batel be-shishim like all other forbidden foods. Although the prohibition against eating ḥametz and the mitzva to dispose of ḥametz go into effect at midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, the law that ḥametz is not batel be-shishim does not take effect until Pesaḥ begins. This is because one who consumes ḥametz incurs karet only once Pesaḥ has begun, when the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei take effect (SA 447:2).1<i class="footnote">According to <em>She’iltot, </em>Rabbeinu Tam<em>, </em>and Raz, <em>ḥametz</em> is similar to other forbidden foods and is <em>batel be-shishim</em>. All other <em>poskim</em> (including Rif, Rosh, and Rambam) maintain that <em>ḥametz</em> is not <em>batel </em>even in a thousand-to-one ratio, as per the opinion of Rava, following Rav, in <em>Pesaḥim</em> 30a. Even Rabbeinu Tam<em> </em>and Raz refrained from acting leniently (see <em>Birur Halakha ad loc.</em>). However, MB<em> </em>447:2 states, citing Aḥaronim, that in a case where there are other factors that support a lenient ruling, <em>She’iltot</em> and Rabbeinu Tam can also be taken into consideration.The aforementioned reasons for the strict nature of ḥametz are from Rashi, Rosh, Smak, Rabbeinu Yona, and many others. The first reason is the principal one, and therefore ḥametz becomes forbidden in the most minuscule quantities only once Pesaḥ begins. However, Rambam and Ramban explain that the reason a tiny amount of ḥametz is forbidden is that after Pesaḥ it will again become permitted, since on the Torah level ḥametz she-avar alav ha-Pesaḥ is permissible, and anything that will become permissible in the future (davar she-yesh lo matirin) is not batel in any mixture. According to this opinion, the tiniest amounts of ḥametz are forbidden as early as midday of the fourteenth, and this is indeed what Magid Mishneh claims is Rambam’s opinion. This is also the opinion of several Rishonim and Aḥaronim. It is possible, however, that according to this, ḥametz is not batel after midday on the fourteenth unless it is mixed with the same sort of food item (min be-mino). Kaf Ha-ḥayim 447:46 and Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 9:23 quote those who adopt this opinion. Nonetheless, even based on the rationale that we are used to eating ḥametz, there are still grounds to forbid even the tiniest amounts of ḥametz starting from midday of the fourteenth, as Ran writes.SA adopts the opinion that tiny amounts of ḥametz only become forbidden once Pesaḥ begins, and most Aḥaronim accept this view.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  Ĥametz Mixtures / Can a Mixture Containing a Drop of Ĥametz Be Salvaged?
  As we have learned, the laws of ḥametz are uniquely strict: even a miniscule amount of ḥametz mixed with a permitted food renders the entire mixture forbidden for consumption or benefit. However, most poskim maintain that if the ḥametz is less than one sixtieth of the mixture, one may salvage its monetary value by selling it to a gentile. For example, if a kilogram of ḥametz falls into a metric ton of another food, it is permitted to sell the mixture to a gentile as long as one first throws away a kilogram of the mixture in order to avoid benefiting from the added ḥametz. This is because when the Sages forbade benefiting from such mixtures, their intention was to forbid benefiting from the ḥametz as well. Thus, if one disposes of a quantity of the mixture equaling the amount of ḥametz that was added, he does not benefit from the ḥametz, and he can then sell the mixture to a gentile. If a single wheat grain of ḥametz fell into a large amount of cooked food, it all becomes forbidden to eat and benefit from as long as it remains in a Jew’s hands, but one may sell it to a gentile. It is not necessary to dispose of any of the mixture, because the wheat did not cause the price to rise (SA 467:10).
  Rema (447:1), however, rules stringently in accordance with the opinion of a few Rishonim who maintain that since it is forbidden to derive benefit from the mixture, it is likewise forbidden to sell it to a gentile. Instead, the entire mixture must be destroyed. This is the practice of Ashkenazic Jews. However, if this will result in a very great loss, even those who follow the Ashkenazic custom may rely upon the opinion of those who permit selling the mixture to a gentile (MB 447:3).2<i class="footnote">There is a dispute as to whether or not one is forbidden to derive benefit from a mixture of <em>ḥametz</em> and non<em>-ḥametz</em>. According to Rif, Rosh,<em> </em>and the majority of <em>poskim</em>, <em>ḥametz</em> causes the entire mixture to become forbidden, whereas Ramban and Raavad maintain that the mixture is only prohibited for eating, but it is permissible to derive benefit from it. SA 447:1 adopts the former view.However, according to Rif and Rosh, if one would discard the value of the ḥametz in the mixture, he would be permitted to sell the mixture to a gentile, since ultimately he obtains no benefit from the ḥametz; rather, he merely receives payment for the portion of the mixture that is not ḥametz. The overwhelming majority of poskim, including SA 467:10, agree with this. However, Rema writes in Darkhei Moshe 447:2 that Mordechai, Terumat Ha-deshen, and Mahari Brin all adopt a stringent approach – that the entire mixture must be burned. MB 447:3 states in the name of Aḥaronim that in a situation of potential severe monetary loss one may sell such a mixture to a gentile. Additionally, SHT 467:74 in the name of Beit Meir states that if one will suffer severe monetary losses despite selling the mixture to a gentile, he may even keep the mixture until after Pesaḥ, and then eat it or sell it to a Jew.</i>
  
  Section 3
  
  Ĥametz Mixtures / Can Ĥametz That Was Nullified before Pesaĥ Regain Its Status (“Ĥozer Ve-ne’or”) on Pesaĥ?
  The Rishonim disagree over this fundamental question: Is ḥametz that was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ ḥozer ve-ne’or (“reawakened.” i.e., its nullification is reversed) when Pesaḥ arrives, or does its bitul before Pesaḥ mean that it cannot be ḥozer ve-ne’or? If it is ḥozer ve-ne’or, the entire mixture is rendered forbidden, because during Pesaḥ even a drop of ḥametz is not nullified in any mixture. For example, a crumb of ḥametz that falls into a large dish of cooked meat before Pesaḥ is obviously batel, and this food may even be consumed after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan. The question is whether it is still permissible to eat it after Pesaḥ begins.
  Some poskim rule that if ḥametz was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ, it is considered completely eradicated, and it cannot be ḥozer ve-ne’or on Pesaḥ. Therefore, the entire mixture is permitted for consumption (Rosh, Smag, Tur, and others). Other poskim say that the annulment that takes place before Pesaḥ is not effective; as soon as Pesaḥ begins the ḥametz reawakens, and the entire mixture is rendered forbidden (Rambam, Rashba).
  This question has implications for the status of matzot. Occasionally, some water drips on a mound of wheat grains, causing a few of the grains to leaven. It is very difficult to find these grains and remove them from the pile, but it is clear that the kosher wheat grains that did not become ḥametz outnumber the leavened grains by more than sixty-to-one. According to the opinion that ḥametz is ḥozer ve-ne’or, if all the wheat is ground together and matzot are baked from its flour, it will be forbidden to eat them on Pesaḥ, because the drop of ḥametz in it renders all of the matzot forbidden. It is therefore important to make sure that there is not even a single leavened grain in the wheat from which matza is made. However, according to the opinion that ḥametz that is nullified before Pesaḥ is not ḥozer ve-ne’or, the matzot are kosher for Pesaḥ. There is no need to check the wheat kernels one by one in order to remove the leavened ones, because they were already batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ.
  
  Section 4
  
  Ĥametz Mixtures / Ĥozer Ve-ne’or in Practice
  SA 447:4 rules that when ḥametz is batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or, and therefore it is permissible to eat such a mixture on Pesaḥ. This is because, according to the Torah, ḥametz is batel be-shishim even during Pesaḥ. The Sages added the stringency of rendering a mixture forbidden because of even a drop of ḥametz. This means that the dispute about ḥozer ve-ne’or relates to a rabbinic prohibition, and when in doubt about a rabbinic dispute, the halakha follows the lenient opinion. This is the position adopted by most Sephardic Jews.
  Rema (ad loc.) rules in accordance with Terumat Ha-deshen (1:124), that if ḥametz that was batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ was a fluid mixture (laḥ), the halakha follows the lenient opinion, and the ḥametz is not ḥozer ve-ne’or. If, however, it was a solid (yavesh), the law follows the stringent opinion, and it is ḥozer ve-ne’or. For example, if a drop of beer falls into another beverage, it blends with the liquid and ceases to exist independently. As a result, after being nullified, it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or and does not render the mixture forbidden. However, if a crumb of ḥametz falls into a solid food, because it continues to exist independently and does not blend with the mixture, it has a degree of significance. Therefore, when Pesaḥ arrives it is ḥozer ve-ne’or and renders the entire mixture forbidden. This is the approach adopted by Ashkenazic Jews and some Sephardic Jews.3<i class="footnote">The custom of the Sephardim: <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 447:76-78 states that many Sephardim have the custom to be stringent about <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or</em>, and this is the opinion of <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> and Ḥida in <em>Birkei Yosef</em> 447:14. It seems that these authorities were also stringent about liquid mixtures. <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> adds that Sephardim have the custom to be as strict as Rema<em>, </em>but no more. This is similar to what <em>Zekhor Le-Avraham</em> states: Sephardim on Pesaḥ follow Rema. Nonetheless, SA cites the lenient position anonymously, which indicates that it is completely lenient in this matter. Additionally, <em>Yabi’a Omer</em> OḤ  2:23 expands on the topic and reinforces the lenient opinions, arguing that most Rishonim are lenient about <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or</em>. Moreover, according to <em>She’iltot</em> <em>ḥametz</em> is <em>batel be-shishim</em> even on Pesaḥ, and even those who are stringent maintain that this prohibition is rabbinic, and in a dispute about rabbinic law we are lenient.SA (442:4) cites Rambam that “tiryaka” (a type of edible medicine) is prohibited on Pesaḥ since it contains a drop of ḥametz that becomes reawakened once Pesaḥ begins, and renders the entire mixture forbidden. This seems to contradict what SA stated in 447:4. According to Rema, SA retracted what was written in §442 and permitted ḥozer ve-ne’or. Pri Ḥadash explains that ḥozer ve-ne’or applies in a case where one intentionally mixed ḥametz into the mixture. Taz states that tiryaka is forbidden because the ḥametz in it acts as a stabilizer (davar ha-ma’amid) in the mixture.It is also important to note that even according to the lenient opinions that ḥozer ve-ne’or is permitted (according to SA – in all cases; according to Rema – in liquid mixtures), it is forbidden to intentionally blend ḥametz into a mixture before Pesaḥ and annul it in a sixty-to-one ratio in order to eat the mixture on Pesaḥ (as per Pri Ḥadash’s explanation of SA and MB 447:102 at the end). The only time such a mixture is permissible is if the ḥametz was mixed in unintentionally. According to the stringent opinions, since the mixture may not be eaten, it also may not be kept in one’s house, though if one kept the mixture in his house over Pesaḥ anyway, he is permitted to eat it after Pesaḥ (MB 447:102).MB 453:32 states that according to Taz, if a bit of ḥametz was already mixed in before Pesaḥ and there are less than sixty parts of permissible food in the mixture to annul the ḥametz, one is permitted to add more permissible food to the mixture to nullify the ḥametz. However, MA and most poskim maintain that this is forbidden, since it appears that he is intentionally trying to nullify a forbidden food. In extreme situations one may rely on the lenient opinions.</i>
  Flour, because of its fineness, is considered a fluid mixture. This is because the distinction between fluid and solid depends principally upon whether or not the forbidden food blends completely with the permitted food. In a fluid mixture, the forbidden food blends completely with the permitted food, and in a solid mixture the forbidden food remains independent. Accordingly, there is no need to check the wheat grains before they are ground and baked into matzot, because after the wheat is ground, the flour produced from the leavened grains will be nullified and blend completely with the rest of the flour, and when Pesaḥ arrives it will not reawaken to render the mixture forbidden (SA and Rema 453:3).
  Based on this principle, some poskim say that it is best to bake matzot before Pesaḥ so that if some flour or dough becomes ḥametz during the kneading process, it will blend with the rest of the dough and be batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ. This assures that it will not reawaken and render the matzot forbidden during Pesaḥ. Sometimes, when machine matzot are being baked, particles of dough get stuck in the tines of the machine and remain there long enough to become ḥametz, whereupon they fall back into the dough. However, because the pieces of dough that became ḥametz blend completely with the rest of the dough, it is considered a fluid mixture, and since the ḥametz is batel be-shishim before Pesaḥ, it is not ḥozer ve-ne’or.
  All of this is be-di’avad, but one should preferably take care to bake matzot from wheat that certainly has not become ḥametz and guard against the smallest crumb of flour or dough becoming ḥametz.4<i class="footnote"><em>Terumat Ha-deshen</em> 1:114 states that flour is considered a fluid mixture, and this is the opinion of the majority of <em>poskim</em>, as MB<em> </em>states in 447:32. However, <em>Baḥ </em>states that according to <em>Smak</em> and Raavya, flour mixed with flour is considered a solid mixture; therefore, one should preferably take care that no leavened flour mixes with the matza<em> </em>flour. This is also the opinion cited in MB 453:17 and SHT 25. Additionally, it is clear that one should preferably take into consideration the opinions that all <em>ḥametz</em> reawakens on Pesaḥ, whether solid or liquid.Let us note three opinions regarding the rationale for the law of ḥozer ve-ne’or. According to the most stringent opinion, ḥozer ve-ne’or applies even in a fluid mixture, even if the ḥametz itself has been removed and only a minuscule amount of taste was absorbed into the mixture, and even though this taste is not discernible. The second opinion, cited in MB 453:17 in the name of Olat Shabbat and Eliya Rabba, is that ḥozer ve-ne’or only applies if one re-cooks the mixture, which would cause the ḥametz to add taste to the mixture. The third opinion is that of MA, quoted by MB ad loc., that ḥozer ve-ne’or applies only to solid foods and only when there is still actual ḥametz remaining in the mixture.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  Ĥametz Mixtures / Does Ĥametz That Imparts Foul Taste (“Noten Ta’am Li-fgam”) Render a Mixture Forbidden?
  There is a well-known rule that something that imparts foul taste (“noten ta’am li-fgam”) does not render a mixture forbidden. For example, if non-kosher meat falls into a pot of kosher food, and the quantity of kosher food is sixty times that of the non-kosher meat, the taste of the non-kosher meat is nullified, and it is permitted to eat the food. On the other hand, if the kosher food is not sixty times the quantity of the non-kosher meat, it is forbidden to eat the food, because the taste of the non-kosher meat is discernible in the mixture. If, however, the taste of the non-kosher meat is foul (“pagum”), since it spoils the cooked dish, it does not render it non-kosher. Therefore, as long as the kosher food constitutes the majority of the mixture, it is permitted to eat it (SA YD §103).
  What about a ḥametz mixture on Pesaḥ? Some poskim (Rashbam, Rashba) say that the fact that the Sages, due to the gravity of the ḥametz prohibition, ordained that even a drop of ḥametz renders any mixture forbidden indicates that the matter does not depend upon the taste it gives to the mixture. Therefore, even when it contributes a foul taste, it is no different than a drop of ḥametz that renders its entire mixture forbidden.
  The opinion of most Rishonim (Rabbeinu Tam, Ri, Rosh, and Mordechai) is that ḥametz is like other prohibited foods except with regard to bitul be-shishim. Where other forbidden foods do not render a mixture forbidden, however, like in cases of noten ta’am li-fgam, ḥametz also does not render a mixture forbidden.
  In practice, SA 447:10 rules leniently whereas Rema writes that in Ashkenazic communities the custom is to follow the stringent ruling that even a drop of foul-tasting ḥametz renders an entire mixture forbidden. Let us clarify this disagreement by way of an example: a pot in which non-kosher meat is cooked absorbs the taste of the non-kosher meat. If the same pot is then used to cook kosher food, the kosher food will absorb the taste of non-kosher meat exuded by the pot, rendering it forbidden. However, if more than twenty-four hours passed since the cooking of the non-kosher meat, the taste absorbed by the pot is pagum, and if some other food is cooked in it, it will not be rendered forbidden, because the pot is noten ta’am li-fgam. Similarly, if one inadvertently cooks in a ḥametz pot during Pesaḥ, according to Shulḥan Arukh and most poskim since more than twenty-four hours have passed since ḥametz was cooked in the pot, the food is kosher. However, according to Ashkenazic custom, although the taste of ḥametz absorbed into the pot is foul, it renders the food forbidden, because during Pesaḥ we take the stringent position that even noten ta’am li-fgam renders a food forbidden.5<i class="footnote">The custom of the Ashkenazic community is to be stringent, as we have said; however, MB 447:98 states (citing <em>Terumat Ha-deshen</em>)<em> </em>that where there is no established custom, one may act leniently, though one who acts stringently is commended. Sephardic custom follows SA, although some are stringent (<em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim </em>447:228). Rema 447:2 states that the custom to be stringent about <em>ḥametz pagum </em>only applies once Pesaḥ begins, but before the onset of the holiday, the <em>ḥametz</em> is nullified even in less than a sixty-to-one ratio, like the normal case of foods that spoil the taste of a mixture into which they fall.It is also important to stress that according to all opinions, one is not permitted to use a utensil that absorbed the taste of a forbidden food, even more than twenty-four hours after absorption. This is because the Sages were concerned that if they permitted the use of such utensils after twenty-four hours, people would make mistakes and use them even within twenty-four hours and would end up eating forbidden foods. Understandably, this is also the halakha on Pesaḥ. If one violated this prohibition and intentionally used a utensil that had absorbed forbidden foods more than twenty-four hours prior, most poskim maintain that he is not permitted to eat the food due to a rabbinic penalty imposed on him (MB 442:1; Knesset Ha-gedola YD §122, Hagahot Ha-Tur §26).</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  Ĥametz Mixtures / The Torah Law Concerning Ĥametz Mixtures
  The Torah law concerning a ḥametz mixture is complicated and subject to dispute among Tanna’im, Amora’im, Rishonim, and Aḥaronim. We shall summarize its laws here succinctly.
  The Torah declares that one who eats a kezayit of ḥametz on Pesaḥ incurs karet. 
  If the ḥametz is mixed with other foods and the mixture contains a kezayit of ḥametz in a shi’ur akhilat pras of kosher food (an olive’s bulk of ḥametz in three or four eggs’ bulk of kosher food), Ramban and other Rishonim rule that his punishment is karet, while Rif and Rambam maintain that his punishment is only malkot (lashes).
  If ḥametz mixes with the same type of food, for example, leavened flour with unleavened flour, most poskim maintain that since they taste the same, the ḥametz flour is nullified by the majority (batel be-rov) at the Torah level, though there is still a rabbinic prohibition against eating it.
  When it comes to the prohibition against keeping ḥametz on Pesaḥ, if a kezayit of ḥametz becomes mixed with permitted food, and the permitted food is less than sixty times the quantity of the ḥametz, one violates both bal yera’eh and bal yimatzei. According to Torah law, if the mixture is more than sixty times the quantity of the ḥametz, the ḥametz is batel. If the ḥametz becomes mixed with its own kind – for example, leavened flour with unleavened flour – and there is more of the kosher ingredient than the non-kosher, according to Torah law the ḥametz is batel and no prohibition is violated. Nevertheless, the Sages ordained that the mixture must be disposed of, lest one end up eating it on Pesaḥ.6<i class="footnote">If one did not dispose of it, since he did not violate <em>bal yeira’eh </em><em> bal yimatzei</em> he is permitted to benefit from the <em>ḥametz</em> after Pesaḥ. Regarding eating the <em>ḥametz</em> after Pesaḥ, <em>Eliya Rabba</em> claims that since he violated a rabbinic prohibition by keeping it over Pesaḥ, he may not eat it, although according to MA, cited in MB 447:102, he is allowed to eat it.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Matza Ashira (“Egg Matza”)
  The ḥametz that the Torah forbids is comprised of flour and water. If flour was kneaded with fruit juice – even if the dough sits a full day and rises – it is not considered ḥametz since rising of this kind is different from the type forbidden by the Torah. The category of “fruit juice” (“mei peirot”) includes wine, honey, milk, oil, and egg, in addition to all juices squeezed from a fruit, like apple or berry juice. Since fruit juice does not cause dough to become ḥametz, one may knead, bake, and eat such dough on Pesaḥ. Nevertheless, one would not fulfill the mitzva of matza on the first night of Pesaḥ with it, because the Torah calls matza “leḥem oni” (“poor man’s bread”), and matza made from fruit juice is “matza ashira” (“rich matza” – colloquially known in English as “egg matza”), since it possesses more than the taste of just flour and water.
  If a drop of water gets mixed in with the fruit juice, it can cause the dough to become ḥametz. Moreover, according to many poskim, the combination of water and fruit juice actually expedites the leavening process. Thus, in order to avoid such doubts, the Sages prohibited kneading dough with a mixture of fruit juice and water during Pesaḥ (SA 462:1-3).
  The Ashkenazic custom is to avoid eating anything made of dough kneaded with fruit juice out of concern that water mixed with the fruit juice causing the dough to become ḥametz. Furthermore, it takes into account the opinion of Rashi, who disagrees with most Rishonim and maintains that fruit juice alone can cause something to become ḥametz on the rabbinic level. Although in principle it is possible to follow the lenient ruling of the vast majority of poskim, Ashkenazic custom, which should not be altered, is nevertheless strict, except in the case of the elderly and ill, where the custom is to be lenient (Rema 462:4). Nowadays, many Sephardic poskim also rule stringently, because it is known that water and other ingredients are generally added to fruit juice, increasing the likelihood that the egg matza became ḥametz (R. Mordechai Eliyahu).1<i class="footnote">There are two issues here: The first is whether flour mixed with fruit juice can become <em>ḥametz</em>, and the second is whether, in a case where water was added to the dough, one may knead the dough while being careful that it does not become <em>ḥametz</em>.The first issue is summarized in Birur Halakha on Pesaḥim 35a, s.v. “mei peirot ein maḥmitzin.” According to Rashi and those who agree with him, a flour and fruit juice mixture can become ḥametz nuksheh (see above 2:5), which is rabbinically forbidden. Conversely, most Rishonim maintain that flour mixed with fruit juice alone never becomes ḥametz, but if any water got into the mixture, the mixture can become ḥametz. There is a dispute about the severity of this ḥametz: According to Rambam, it is ḥametz gamur, and according to Rabbeinu Tam it is ḥametz nuksheh. Pri Megadim states that all agree it becomes ḥametz gamur when the majority of liquid in the mixture is water (BHL 462:2 s.v. “memaharim”). See the book Matza Ashira 5:7-8.The second issue is explained in Birur Halakha on Pesaḥim 36a, which cites a tannaitic dispute about matza ashira on Pesaḥ. According to Rif and Rambam, the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva that one is permitted to knead flour in a mix of fruit juice and water provided that one takes caution to prevent the mixture from becoming ḥametz, just as one would with a standard flour-water mixture. This is also the opinion of R. Natronai Gaon and Me’iri. On the other hand, many Rishonim maintain that one should not knead flour with fruit juice and water, since it turns into ḥametz faster than does flour and water. There is a dispute about what to do be-di’avad. According to R. Hai Gaon and Behag, the halakha follows Rabban Gamliel that one is required to burn the kneaded dough. According to Rabbeinu Ḥananel, Ritz Gi’at, and Rosh, the halakha follows the Sages that if one bakes the dough very quickly, he is permitted to eat it. This is the opinion that SA accepts (462:2). The Ashkenazic custom is to be strict out of concern for Rashi’s opinion that flour and fruit juice alone can become ḥametz, or out of concern that some water will mix with the fruit juice.The parameters of what is considered water and what is considered fruit juice are discussed in SA 462:3 and 7 and §466. The entire topic is summarized in detail in Encyclopedia Talmudit entry “Ḥametz” pp. 89-99.Regarding the Sephardic custom, R. Mordechai Eliyahu had a long-standing opposition to certifying matza ashira as kosher for Pesaḥ out of concern that the fruit juice has been mixed with water or a leavening agent. (There are also grounds to forbid this because it generates activity that mimics the process of becoming ḥametz, as explained by Maharam Halawa on Pesaḥim 28a and Matza Ashira p. 178.) Over time, it became apparent that this concern was justified, and water and occasionally leavening agents are added to fruit juice. Nevertheless, some authorities rule leniently; according to them, these leavening agents do not cause the dough to become ḥametz. This ruling appears in Yabi’a Omer 9:42 and Shema Shlomo 4:13-17. However, according to many authorities these leavening agents are forbidden by the Torah, or at least rabbinically, and therefore they prohibit Sephardim from eating factory-produced matza ashira on Pesaḥ.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Becoming Ĥametz Once It Has Been Baked, and the Status of Matza Sheruya (Soaked Matza; “Gebrokts”)
  Once matza has been completely baked, the flour in it loses the capacity to become ḥametz, even if it is soaked in water for a long time. An indication that the matza is fully baked is that a crust has formed on its surface and that it breaks cleanly, with no threads of unbaked dough extending from it. Thus, it is permitted to soak matza in soup, and an elderly or sick person who cannot eat dry matza on the Seder night may soften matza by soaking it in water (SA 461:4 and below 16:29). Likewise, if the matza was ground into flour, it is permitted to knead it with water; one need not worry about it becoming ḥametz because, as mentioned, once it has been thoroughly baked, it cannot (SA 463:3). Therefore, one may bake cakes from the five species of grain during Pesaḥ, or cook various dishes – such as gefilte fish and matza balls – that contain matza meal.
  Yet there are some who avoid soaking fully-baked matza in water, lest some of the flour was not kneaded properly and remained unbaked, and soaking the matza will cause the unbaked dough to become ḥametz. They likewise fear that some flour may have stuck to the matza after the baking process, and if the matza is soaked in water, this flour will become ḥametz. There is yet another reason to be strict about matza meal: an unlearned person might confuse matza meal with real flour and end up violating the prohibition of ḥametz on Pesaḥ. Ḥasidim accept this stringency and refrain from eating matza that has been soaked, or “gebrokts.”
  The poskim, however, nearly unanimously agree that one need not be stringent, since it can be assumed that the kneading was thorough, leaving no flour unkneaded or unbaked. This is the custom of Sephardic and non-Ḥasidic Ashkenazic Jews. Today, even some Ḥasidic Jews are lenient because, due to the popular practice of baking thin matzot, there is no longer any concern that some of the flour was not properly baked. Likewise, there is no concern that flour may have gotten stuck to the matza, since matza bakeries are careful to separate the area where flour is handled from the area where the matza comes out of the oven. MB 458:4 states: “Although in principle there is no reason for concern about this, and it is permitted to eat soaked matza, one should not mock conscientious people who choose to be stringent.”2<i class="footnote"><em>Pesaḥim</em><em> </em>39b states: “These are the things that cannot become <em>ḥametz</em>: baked items….” Rambam rules accordingly in MT, Laws of <em>Ḥametz </em>and Matza<em> </em>5:5, and this is the consensus of the Rishonim<em>.</em> The sign that something is completely baked is that it has a crust on the outside and that it breaks cleanly, with no threads of dough extending (these two standards are identical, as per MB 461:15 and SHT 23 <em>ad loc</em>.). SAH 463:3 states that a baked item cannot become <em>ḥametz</em> and one may cook with matza meal. However, responsum §6 at the end of SAH<em> </em>states that matza meal is only permissible if one is absolutely certain that all of the flour was fully baked, and one should be concerned that perhaps not all of the flour was fully baked or that some flour stuck to the <em>matzot</em> after baking. SAH concludes that one should not reprimand the masses who are lenient since they have acceptable authorities on which to rely, but one who is stringent is commendable. Regarding matza meal, <em>Knesset Ha-gedola</em> §461 recounts that a woman once saw her neighbor, the rabbi’s wife, cooking and frying with matza meal and mistakenly assumed that it was permissible to use actual flour on Pesaḥ. When the town’s rabbis heard what had happened, they banned matza meal because of <em>marit ayin</em> (see <em>Tur</em> §463). <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> and many other Aḥaronim disagreed with this ban; see also <em>She’elat Yaavetz</em> 2:65 citing the author’s father (Ḥakham Zvi) and <em>Sha’arei Teshuva </em>§460, cited in MB 458:4. In <em>Ma’aseh Rav</em> §183 it is written that one is permitted to make <em>kufta’ot</em> (dumplings). See <em>Encyclopedia Talmudit </em>entry “<em>Ḥametz</em>” pp. 83-84. <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 461:31 mentions the different opinions of the Aḥaronim, and concludes: “Where the custom is to be lenient, one may be lenient, since there is basis for this opinion, but where there is no custom, one should be stringent.” It adds: “There is no concern about <em>rekikim</em> (“flatbreads”).” Our <em>matzot</em> are “<em>rekikim.</em>” <em>Yeḥaveh Da’at</em> 1:21 rules leniently <em>le-khatḥila </em>and states that one who was stringent because he thought that this is the <em>halakha</em> erred and may switch to the lenient practice without performing <em>hatarat nedarim</em> (the annulment of vows). However, one who accepted the stringency (without saying “<em>bli neder</em>”) because he wanted to go beyond the letter of the law and now wishes to be lenient should first perform <em>hatarat nedarim</em>.In practice, many people of Ḥasidic descent no longer observe the stringency of gebrokts. This is because contemporary matzot are very thin and our ovens are very strong. If one’s father was lenient in this matter, one need not perform hatarat nedarim, even if he is from a Ḥasidic family. However, if one’s father was stringent and he wants to be lenient, he should perform hatarat nedarim and make sure not to insult his father.The details of practicing the stringency of gebrokts: Those who do not eat gebrokts may be lenient when it comes to children or sick people, since soaking matza is not considered making ḥametz on Pesaḥ. Additionally, Jews in the Diaspora who keep gebrokts customarily make matza balls on the eighth day of Pesaḥ to show that matza sheruya is not fully prohibited. They prepare the matza balls on Ḥol Ha-mo’ed but do not otherwise eat off the dishes used to prepare the gebrokts. She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 113:7 allows using utensils in which matza was soaked. On the other hand, Responsa Kinyan Torah 2:87 states that one may not even soak matza for children or sick people.As far as soaking the matza in fruit juice, SAH (op cit.) states that one need not be stringent, and indeed the widespread custom is to soak matza in wine and spread various spreads on matza. Kinyan Torah 2:87 is stringent regarding this as well. See the extended discussion in Piskei Teshuvot 458:5-7.Sha’arei Teshuva 460:10 states that even according to those who keep gebrokts one may dip the matza in water and eat it immediately, before it could conceivably become ḥametz. Those who are stringent about dipping matza in fruit juice are stringent about this as well.</i>
  
  Section 3
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Sephardic and Ashkenazic Approaches to Keeping Kosher on Pesaĥ
  In general, there are two fundamental approaches to kashrut on Pesaḥ. According to most poskim, the laws of ḥametz on Pesaḥ are no different than the laws of all other forbidden foods, with one exception: all other forbidden foods are batel be-shishim (rendered insignificant when constituting less than one sixtieth of the volume of a mixture), whereas ḥametz is not. However, all other laws of mixtures apply to ḥametz on Pesaḥ. Therefore, when there is no halakhic reason to suspect that a food mixture has absorbed the taste of ḥametz, it is kosher for Pesaḥ. Likewise, where an individual posek is stringent and the great majority of poskim are lenient, halakha follows the lenient opinion.
  However, Ashkenazic Jews are customarily very strict about ḥametz, often showing concern for a stringent opinion even against the lenient majority and practicing caution where general halakhic principles indicate no reason to do so. Nevertheless, Ashkenazic custom also places a limit to its stringencies, and poskim are careful not to pile restrictions upon existing restrictions. The general tendency, though, is to show concern for every uncertainty. The basis for this approach is the Sages’ ruling that even a drop of ḥametz is forbidden; thus, if a mere crumb of ḥametz renders its entire mixture forbidden, so too individual halakhic opinions should be taken into account.
  This explains the consistent difference between the rulings of Shulḥan Arukh, which follow general halakhic principles, and those of Rema, which account, le-khatḥila, for the stringent opinions. Nonetheless, in cases of pressing need Rema adopts the lenient approach, since halakha fundamentally accords with most poskim.3<i class="footnote">Here is brief overview of the major disputes between SA and Rema: 1) In 447:4, regarding the dispute among the Rishonim about <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or</em> (see above 7:4), SA rules that the <em>ḥametz</em> does not “reawaken,” taking the lenient approach in the case of a rabbinic law, whereas Rema rules strictly that <em>ḥametz</em> in a dry mixture  “reawakens,” though not in a fluid mixture. 2) In 447:5, regarding a food that was not guarded for Pesaḥ but there is no indication that it may have become forbidden for Pesaḥ: according to SA it is kosher, and according to Rema it is not. 3) In 447:10, regarding <em>ḥametz</em> that is <em>noten ta’am li-fgam</em>: according to SA and most <em>poskim</em><em>,</em> it is kosher on Pesaḥ (especially since the uncertainty relates to a rabbinic law), and according to Rema it is prohibited. 4) In 451:6, regarding the proper method for koshering utensils: according to SA, we determine the method based on the main use of the utensil, and according to Rema<em> </em>we determine the method based on the most severe usage. 5) In 451:11, regarding koshering a frying pan: according to SA, it may be koshered in boiling water (<em>hagala</em>), and according to Rema, it is koshered in fire (light <em>libun</em>). 6) In 451:16 and 17, regarding koshering <em>ḥametz</em> pounding and kneading utensils: according to SA, they are koshered via <em>hagala</em>, and according to Rema, they are koshered via light <em>libun</em>. 7) In 453:1, the well-known custom of <em>kitniyot</em>. 8) In 462:1, regarding egg matza: according to SA, it is kosher, and according to Rema, we are concerned that perhaps a drop of water mixed in with the fruit juice, causing it to become <em>ḥametz</em>. Rema states in 462:4 that we are only lenient in extreme cases, for sick people. 9) In 467:9, regarding whole, uncracked kernels of wheat or barley that are found in a cooked dish: according to SA, the dish is permissible, and according to Rema, it is prohibited. 10) In 467:10 and 447:1, regarding a cracked kernel of wheat that is found in a cooked dish: according to SA, one may sell the dish to a gentile, excluding the value of the wheat kernel, and according to Rema, he must burn the entire dish. 11) The custom of the Ḥasidim is to prohibit <em>gebrokts</em></i>
  In general, Sephardim follow Shulḥan Arukh and Ashkenazim follow Rema. However, some Sephardic poskim tend to be stringent, and their rulings are accepted in some Sephardic communities.4<i class="footnote">Some Sephardic <em>poskim </em>are stringent like Rema, as <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> states in 447:86, 88, and 119. Also, <em>Zekhor Le-Avraham</em> states at the beginning of the laws of Pesaḥ that the Sephardim have the practice to be stringent like Rema “to the extent that when it comes to Pesaḥ, we are Ashkenazim.” This is echoed by additional Sephardic <em>poskim</em>. On the other hand, in extenuating circumstances even Rema rules to be lenient in accordance with SA (in most cases).</i>
  
  Section 4
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Principles of Kosher Supervision on Pesaĥ
  There is a fundamental question regarding the laws of kashrut on Pesaḥ: what is the status of foods that are not normally made with ḥametz all year round? Are they kosher for Pesaḥ as they are, without any special supervision, or must we consider the possibility that they were somehow mixed with ḥametz and should not be eaten on Pesaḥ?
  According to Shulḥan Arukh, as long as there is no real concern that some ḥametz fell into this food or that it has absorbed the taste of ḥametz by being cooked in a pot in which ḥametz was cooked recently, there is no need to suspect that the food contains ḥametz.
  However, Rema writes that Ashkenazic custom is preferably to avoid eating specific products without special supervision for Pesaḥ. This is because ḥametz is used throughout the year, and we are not generally cautious about it, so we suspect that some of it may have fallen unnoticed into these particular foods. We are also concerned that the foods may have been unwittingly cooked in ḥametz pots.
  In practice, all kashrut organizations today tend to follow the stringent ruling of Rema and do not certify foods for Pesaḥ unless due caution to avoid ḥametz was exercised during the food’s preparation. Perhaps this is the way one must act today even according to Shulḥan Arukh, because all industrially produced foods contain a variety of ingredients, and there is concern that one of them is not kosher for Pesaḥ. Therefore, during Pesaḥ, one must be careful not to eat any factory food products that are not certified kosher for Pesaḥ.
  Where the facts of a case are not in doubt, there are still often practical differences between the rulings of Shulḥan Arukh and Rema. Although fundamentally the law accords with Shulḥan Arukh, the tendency today is to be stringent so that food will be kosher for all communities. This is the appropriate practice when it is not overly difficult to be stringent. However, when stringency causes significant loss, there is room to support those who follow Shulḥan Arukh.5<i class="footnote">The issue of <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or </em>lies at the heart of this question. Those who are stringent are concerned that a crumb of <em>ḥametz</em> fell into a food before Pesaḥ, and that when Pesaḥ begins <em>ḥametz</em> “reawakens” and causes the entire mixture to become forbidden (Rema 447:4 based on several Ashkenazic Rishonim, and Radbaz 1:487). However, according to the opinion that <em>ḥametz </em>is not <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or</em>, even if a crumb had fallen into the mixture, it would have been <em>batel </em>before Pesaḥ and does not reawaken on Pesaḥ. Moreover, <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> states that even according to the opinion that <em>ḥametz </em>is <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or </em>there is room to be lenient in this case, since there is no reason to suspect that a crumb of <em>ḥametz</em> fell into the mixture. Furthermore, all agree that the prohibition of eating a food into which a drop of <em>ḥametz</em> fell is rabbinic, and according to <em>She’iltot</em>, even <em>ḥametz </em>is <em>batel be-shishim</em>.There is another concern that one cooked the food in ḥametz utensils, and the food absorbed some of the ḥametz taste from the utensils. However, those who are lenient hold that there is no reason to suspect this, since it is assumed that most utensils have not been used within twenty-four hours and would then not influence the taste of the dish in a positive way (and would not make the dish prohibited). Furthermore, even if the utensils had been used within twenty-four hours of cooking the dish, ḥametz before Pesaḥ is permissible, thus the cooked dish is a “nat bar nat” (the pot absorbed the taste of the ḥametz and in turn, passed the taste on to the cooked dish) of permissible food, which is permitted; and see Yeḥaveh Da’at 1, 11 and in the notes. This fundamental dispute is dependent on other issues, including ones that involve sharp foods (davar ḥarif) and their interaction with absorbed tastes; and see MB 447:5.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Milk from an Animal That Ate Ĥametz
  One issue that the foremost Aḥaronim dealt with is the status of milk which came from a cow that ate ḥametz. Clearly the milk itself does not contain ḥametz, for it was digested and completely transformed to the point that it is no longer considered ḥametz at all. However, the cow was able to produce milk by virtue of the ḥametz, and since it is forbidden to derive benefit from ḥametz, perhaps it is forbidden to benefit from milk produced by the virtue of ḥametz.
  The poskim agree that milk obtained from a cow before the onset of the prohibition of ḥametz is kosher for Pesaḥ, because one is allowed to derive benefit from ḥametz before Pesaḥ. Just as it is permissible to sell ḥametz before Pesaḥ and use the money to buy food for Pesaḥ, so too it is permissible to feed a cow ḥametz before Pesaḥ in order to produce milk that will be consumed on Pesaḥ.
  The disagreement concerns milk from a gentile’s cow that ate ḥametz after the onset of the prohibition. Some poskim take a lenient stance, contending that since the ḥametz prohibition does not apply to the animal of a gentile, its milk is not considered produced in a forbidden manner. Furthermore, ḥametz alone does not cause milk to be produced. Rather, it must be combined with other foods and processed by the animal’s body. Since the ḥametz is only one component, it is not prohibited. On the other hand, some poskim rule stringently that as long as ḥametz is a factor causing the production of the milk, the milk is forbidden. Others say that if twenty-four hours have passed since the cow ate ḥametz, the milk is kosher.
  If the animal owned by a Jew was fed ḥametz in violation of halakha, one may not drink its milk, firstly because it is forbidden for the animal’s owner to derive benefit from ḥametz, and secondly because one may not assist those who violate the Torah.6<i class="footnote">A cow’s milk is the product of two factors: the cow’s body and the food it eats. If the cow ate <em>ḥametz</em>, the status of the milk is subject to the tannaitic dispute (AZ 48b) about something that is produced by multiple factors (“<em>zeh ve-zeh gorem</em>”). One disputant forbids and the other permits. SA<em> </em>YD 142:11 states that something that is produced by a combination of two factors is permissible. Accordingly, the milk of a cow that ate <em>ḥametz</em> is permissible.However, MA 445:5 (as well as <em>Taz</em>)<em> </em>states that since we are stringent about <em>ḥametz</em>, maintaining that even a drop renders a mixture forbidden, it follows that something produced by a combination of two factors is forbidden if one of them is <em>ḥametz</em>. Most <em>poskim</em>, including SA<em>, Shakh, </em>and<em> </em>Gra<em>, </em>maintain even in the case of <em>ḥametz </em>“<em>zeh ve-zeh gorem</em>” is permitted. SAH (445:10 and <em>Kuntrus Aḥaron</em>) concludes that the consensus of most <em>poskim</em> is to be lenient, and one may certainly rely on this consensus in a situation of significant loss or an extenuating circumstance. This is also the view recorded in BHL<em> </em>445:2.Some, however, argue that regardless of one’s position on zeh ve-zeh gorem, milk from a gentile’s cow that ate ḥametz is permitted. As explained in Beit Ephraim §35 (cited in Sha’arei Teshuva at the end of §448), since ḥametz is permissible for a gentile on Pesaḥ, we do not view the milk from his cow as having been produced by something from which one is forbidden to benefit. Nishmat Adam §9 permits on different grounds: MA’s stringency only applies when the ḥametz is intact, unlike in the case of the milk. Responsa Mahari Aszod §127 and Responsa Maharam Schick §§212 and 222 echo the same idea and state that the milk of the gentile’s animal that ate ḥametz is kosher on Pesaḥ. Igrot Moshe OḤ  1:147 states at length that even if the gentile’s cow ate only ḥametz, its milk is permissible even according to the strict opinions.On the other hand, Pri Megadim (in Eshel Avraham on §448) is concerned about causing benefit that derives from ḥametz. Thus, there is still uncertainty if less than twenty-four hours passed between when the cow ate ḥametz and the milking (if more than twenty-four hours passed, the milk is permissible). Yeshu’ot Yaakov also states that one should preferably use milk that was extracted from the cow more than twenty-four hours after the cow ate ḥametz, but if less than twenty-four hours passed, the milk is still permissible as long as the cow ate permissible foods in addition to the ḥametz (because of zeh ve-zeh gorem; see MB 448:33). Some authorities ruled stringently: Kitzur SA 117:13 cites both opinions and concludes: “One who guards his soul should be strict, and especially in places where the prevalent custom is to be stringent, God forbid one should be lenient.” Arugot Ha-bosem §138 states that even according to those who permit the milk, a righteous person (“ba’al nefesh”) should refrain from drinking it, since it has negative spiritual effects. Ben Ish Ḥai (Year One, Tzav 42) states that one should not drink milk from a gentile’s cow out of concern that the gentile fed it ḥametz. R. Ḥayim Palachi writes similarly in Ru’aḥ Ḥayim 448:1.If the cow ate ḥametz before the ḥametz became prohibited and was milked after the ḥametz became prohibited, the vast majority of poskim maintain that the milk is kosher for Pesaḥ. Sdei Ḥemed mentions the opinion of Rinun Yitzḥak forbidding the milk of a cow that ate ḥametz before Pesaḥ and was milked after the ḥametz became forbidden, and states that this goes too far, since all other poskim say that this milk would be permissible. Nonetheless, because of this opinion some act stringently and only purchase dairy products before Pesaḥ. Sdei Ḥemed expands this topic in Ma’arekhet Ḥametz U-matza 2:4, and see Kaf Ha-ḥayim 448:113 as well.</i> The same applies to eggs and meat.
  During Pesaḥ, Tnuva, a major Israeli dairy producer (and perhaps others) only accepts milk from dairy farms that have been made kosher for Pesaḥ and whose cows are not fed ḥametz. In this case, it is unnecessary to be scrupulous and buy milk products before Pesaḥ, because even dairy products manufactured on Pesaḥ are completely kosher for the duration of the holiday.7<i class="footnote">According to <em>Nishmat Adam</em> and <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ  1:147, if a Jew feeds his animal <em>ḥametz</em> on Pesaḥ, the animal’s milk is kosher for Pesaḥ. Nonetheless, many others are stringent, not only because of <em>zeh ve-zeh gorem</em>, but because the Jew assists in the violation of a prohibition (“<em>mesayei’a</em>”). In fact, I heard from R. Weitman, the rabbi of Tnuva, that all dairy products produced on Pesaḥ are made from the milk of cows that did not eat <em>ḥametz</em>, so that the milk will be acceptable to everyone and can be bought on Pesaḥ. Another potential problem was that straw and possibly some grain might stick to the cows’ bodies as they wallow in mud, and these grains might accidentally get mixed into the milk. If the milk was produced before Pesaḥ, the taste of the grain is <em>batel be-shishim </em>even if it found its way into the milk, and since this is a liquid mixture even Rema (447:4) would agree that the taste of the <em>ḥametz</em> is not <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or</em>. If the grain fell into the milk on Pesaḥ, however, it is not <em>batel</em>. Although in the present case it is uncertain that any grain fell in, it would nevertheless be commendable to buy dairy products before Pesaḥ. However, I heard from R. Weitman that Tnuva recently introduced the practice of filtering all the milk very thoroughly right after the milking, so that no grain that falls in would have enough time to flavor the milk. Thus, one may purchase dairy products on Pesaḥ even according to the strictest opinions.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Meat and Eggs
  The status of beef and chicken in this regard is the same as that of milk. If the animal was slaughtered before Pesaḥ, there is no halakhic problem, even if it had eaten ḥametz. However, since the stomach may contain undigested leavened barley grains, its contents must be thrown out. If a gentile’s animal was fed ḥametz and slaughtered during Pesaḥ, some poskim forbid consuming its meat, while others are lenient. It is proper to be stringent and not buy the meat of a Jew’s animal that was fed ḥametz on Pesaḥ.
  In actuality, most meat is sold in packages, which thus must be labeled kosher for Pesaḥ. Even if the animal was slaughtered before Pesaḥ, when there is no problem if it was fed ḥametz, supervision is nevertheless required to ensure that no ḥametz fell into the meat between the slaughtering and the packaging.
  The same applies to eggs: as long as the eggs were bought before Pesaḥ, they are entirely kosher for Pesaḥ; that the hens were fed ḥametz makes no difference because it was not prohibited when eaten. The halakhic status of an egg that comes from a hen that ate ḥametz on Pesaḥ depends who the owner is. If the hen belongs to a gentile, the poskim disagree about the permissibility of the eggs. If the hen belongs to a Jew, even though some poskim are lenient, it is proper to be stringent and refrain from buying such eggs. In practice, there is no supervision on eggs laid during Pesaḥ, so it is best to buy eggs laid before Pesaḥ.8<i class="footnote">Nevertheless, those who are lenient and purchase eggs on Pesaḥ have committed no transgression, even if the eggs are not certified kosher for Pesaḥ. As noted, even though a Jew owns the chickens and fed them <em>ḥametz</em>, there are lenient authorities. Furthermore, most of the food chickens consume on Pesaḥ is not <em>ḥametz</em>, so even according to the stringent opinions it is unclear that these eggs are forbidden. Thus, there are two uncertainties (“<em>sfek sfeika</em>”) about a rabbinic prohibition.</i> Another problem that has arisen pertains to the markings stamped on each egg. There was some concern that these markings contain ḥametz and that a drop of it might fall into Pesaḥ food. However, I heard from Tnuva’s R. Ze’ev Weitman that all eggs brought to market via Israel’s Egg Production Council (which does not include the black market) are marked before Pesaḥ with a stamp that contains no ḥametz (the relevant mark is a series of stars).
  
  Section 7
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Medicines on Pesaĥ
  Medicines are the subject of some of the most common questions on Pesaḥ. There is concern that pills contain wheat-based starch. The purpose of the starch is to solidify and harden the pills. Had the starch been produced from potatoes or kitniyot, there would be no problem even for Ashkenazim, as for medicinal purposes one may swallow pills containing kitniyot. But what about starch extracted from a type of grain that can become ḥametz? It must be emphasized that a dangerously ill person whose treatment requires eating ḥametz has a mitzva to eat ḥametz. Saving a life overrides the prohibition against eating ḥametz. The question applies to an ill person whose life is not at risk.
  The answer depends on the taste of the medicine: if it is flavored, like syrup, lozenges, or chewables, then one must ascertain that it is kosher for Pesaḥ. In case of doubt, its use is forbidden. 
  However, if the medicine is bitter or tasteless to the point that it is not fit as food, it may be swallowed on Pesaḥ. Even if the starch was derived from wheat, since it has been mixed with various bitter substances it is inedible and has lost its status as ḥametz. As we have seen, ḥametz that was rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption before Pesaḥ is no longer considered ḥametz and may be kept on Pesaḥ. The fact that one wants to swallow the medicine does not demonstrate that the ḥametz in the medicine is important to him, since the medicine, not the ḥametz, is significant for him, and the ḥametz itself is bitter and unfit for consumption. The ḥametz in it is thus batel and not prohibited (Ḥazon Ish, Mo’ed 116:8; Igrot Moshe, OḤ  2:92).
  Some meticulously observant people try to avoid even bitter medicines that contain ḥametz. They show concern for the opinion of the few poskim who maintain that medicine is not considered unfit for animal consumption since we deem it significant, and it is thus rabbinically prohibited. Other poskim permit bitter medicines that contain ḥametz starch for one who is bedridden or whose entire body is in pain, but rule stringently for one suffering from mild aches and pains.
  However, most poskim maintain that bitter medicines containing ḥametz may be taken by any ill person, even only to reduce mild pain, as a prophylactic, or to fortify the body.
  Practically speaking, if one is uncertain whether certain bitter or tasteless medicines contain wheat starch, he may swallow them without ensuring that they are free of wheat starch. As we have seen, most poskim maintain that medicines rendered unfit for animal consumption before Pesaḥ may be consumed during Pesaḥ even if they are known to contain ḥametz. Even one who prefers to comply with the stringent opinion on this issue need not be strict if he is uncertain whether the medicine contains ḥametz. This is especially true nowadays, when we know that potato and corn starch are used more widely than wheat starch. Thus, in practice, one may consume bitter or tasteless medicines on Pesaḥ without ascertaining whether they contain ḥametz. When one knows for certain that a particular medicine contains ḥametz starch, he may choose to rely on the lenient opinion of most poskim or the stringent minority.9<i class="footnote"><em>Ḥametz</em><em> </em>that was rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption prior to Pesaḥ is no longer considered <em>ḥametz</em>, and according to <em>Ha-m</em><em>a’or</em>, Ran, and other Rishonim it may even be eaten on Pesaḥ. Conversely, Rosh<em>,</em> Rabbeinu Yeruḥam, and other Rishonim maintain that this type of <em>ḥametz</em> is rabbinically prohibited, since by eating it the person assigns importance (“<em>aḥshevei</em>”)<em> </em>to it and shows that, for him, the food is still edible. Accordingly, SA 442:9 and MB 43 <em>ad loc</em>. rule that one may keep such an item over Pesaḥ since it is unfit for a dog’s consumption and thus not considered <em>ḥametz</em>. However, he may not eat it, since by eating it he assigns significance to it. Thus, according to <em>Ha-ma’or</em> and Ran one would certainly be permitted to swallow bitter <em>ḥametz</em>-containing<em> </em>pills on Pesaḥ, and even according to Rosh and those who agree with him it may be permissible, since the Aḥaronim debate whether swallowing <em>ḥametz</em> that is unfit for a dog’s consumption for medicinal purposes assigns significance to the <em>ḥametz</em>. <em>Sha’agat Aryeh</em> §75 states this indeed assigns significance to the <em>ḥametz</em>, whereas <em>Ktav Sofer </em>OḤ <em> </em>§111 states that it does not impart significance. If the <em>ḥametz</em> is not the main ingredient in the pill, most Aḥaronim maintain that even Rosh would concede that swallowing a bitter pill does not impart significance to the <em>ḥametz</em>. See <em>Ḥavalim Ba-ne’imim</em> 5:4; <em>Ḥazon Ish, </em>Mo’ed 116:8; <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ  2:92; <em>Yeḥaveh Da’at</em> 2:60; SSK 40:74; and many others.However, it seems that SAH 442:22 derives from the case of tiryaka, an edible type of medicine, that Rosh would prohibit swallowing a pill as well. Most authorities, who are lenient, would differentiate between tiryaka, which is eaten by the ill, and medicines that are swallowed but not eaten. Moreover, even when the starch is from wheat flour, it generally did not have time to rise, and at worst would be classified as ḥametz nuksheh, which did not undergo a complete leavening and is only rabbinically prohibited. Since this ḥametz nuksheh is part of a mixture within a bitter pill, there is no reason to be stringent. Nevertheless, some incline toward stringency (Arugot Ha-bosem §99, and Atzei Ha-Levanon §19). As stated, some have written that these pills are permissible according to the letter of the law, but the holy people of Israel are customarily strict even about avoiding ḥametz mixed into a bitter pill (Tzitz Eliezer 10:25:20). On the other hand, Nishmat Avraham OḤ  1:466:1 states that most pills do not contain ḥametz at all. It is further stated there in the name of R. Ovadia Yosef that even though he writes in Yeḥaveh Da’at 2:60 that only a genuinely sick person may be lenient, if it is uncertain whether or not the pill contains ḥametz, there is no need to ascertain. As noted, the vast majority of poskim maintain that it is not at all prohibited to swallow a bitter pill, and even one with a minor ailment may take a pill that contains ḥametz rendered unfit for a dog before Pesaḥ started.</i>
  
  Section 8
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Citric Acid
  Citric acid is used to flavor juices, jams, candies, and various food items. In the past it was produced from lemons and other fruit, but nowadays it is produced industrially from wheat flour.
  Although during the production process the flour is initially mixed with water and may become ḥametz, at a later stage it loses its taste and appearance, is rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption, and thus loses its status as ḥametz. Some poskim therefore permit eating products containing citric acid on Pesaḥ (Yeḥaveh Da’at 2:62).
  However, many poskim are stringent in this case. In their opinion, ḥametz only loses its status if it becomes unfit for a dog’s consumption due to spoilage. If it is intentionally rendered inedible so that it may be used to flavor foods, it is not nullified and is considered ḥametz for all purposes (Minḥat Yitzḥak 7:27; Or Le-Tziyon 1:34; Shevet Ha-Levi 4:47).
  Rabbi She’ar Yashuv Cohen, the municipal rabbi of Haifa, investigated and found that there is no concern that citric acid is ḥametz. To begin with, the flour that starts the process does not become ḥametz since it sits in water for only six minutes – not enough time to become ḥametz. At this point, the starch is extracted from the mixture, and starch alone cannot become ḥametz. Moreover, citric acid is not produced from the wheat starch itself, but from molds that feed off a substance whose ingredients include a material extracted from the unleavened starch.10<i class="footnote">This debate is very extensive, and the key questions are: is something that was <em>batel be-shishim </em>before Pesaḥ <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or</em> once Pesaḥ begins? Even if not, would a stabilizing agent (“<em>davar ha-ma’amid</em>”) be any different? And what if it is not the sole agent? See <em>Yalkut Yosef, </em>Mo’adim p. 358 which responds to <em>Minḥat Yitzḥak</em>’s criticism of R. Ovadia Yosef. Badatz and many other kosher-certification agencies are very strict about citric acid and similar products. Nevertheless, according to R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen’s long essay in <em>Teḥumin</em> vol. 1, it seems clear that there is no reason for concern that citric acid contains <em>ḥametz</em>. More precisely: the starch is first separated from the gluten by spinning the wheat flour in water for six minutes. As we know, it takes eighteen minutes for flour and water to become <em>ḥametz</em>, so the flour could not have become <em>ḥametz</em> in those six minutes. By then the starch has already been separated from the gluten, and it is well known that the leavening process takes place in the gluten. Thus once the starch has been isolated from the gluten, it can no longer become <em>ḥametz</em>. The starch is then heated to 140º Celsius until it liquefies as dextrose (also known as glucose). This heating process destroys the existing molecules and changes their composition. To dispel any doubt, an attempt was made to leaven this substance, but it was unsuccessful.R. Halperin writes that at worst this substance can be considered ḥametz nuksheh, which is rabbinically prohibited, becomes batel in any mixture prior to Pesaḥ, and would be ḥozer ve-ne’or on Pesaḥ. According to R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen, this substance is not even considered ḥametz nuksheh, which is dough whose leavening process was halted after it began; the substance in question never even began the leavening process.The liquid dextrose is then mixed with sulfur to destroy the enzymes in the glucose and render it inert and unable to ferment. Since it never had the chance to become ḥametz, it certainly will not become ḥametz in the future. This is the first stage of the process, which shows that the extracted starch does not become ḥametz. The next step is to place the liquid into large vats, to feed the molds. It is left until the mold has finished digesting all of the dextrose and excreted another substance: citric acid. Thus, citric acid is not a product of the starch, but a product of the mold. Just as if one used organic fertilizer that contained remnants of bread to fertilize vegetables, the vegetables would undoubtedly be kosher for Pesaḥ, certainly citric acid excreted by molds that digested a liquid that never became ḥametz in the first place would be kosher for Pesaḥ. This conclusion has major implications for other industrial ingredients that use wheat starch that never became ḥametz and that undergoes fundamental alterations before being reintegrated into food.</i>
  
  Section 9
  
  Pesaĥ Kashrut / Soaps and Cosmetics
  Poskim disagree whether body ointments that contain ḥametz may be used on Pesaḥ. While soaps, shampoos, and creams are not made from ḥametz, they sometimes contain grain alcohol or other ḥametz derivatives, leading to queries about their status on Pesaḥ.
  Some say that applying an ointment is equivalent, by rabbinic enactment, to drinking. Consequently, even if the ḥametz in these products is not fit for a dog’s consumption, it retains the status of ḥametz because it is suitable for anointing, and thus it is forbidden to use them on Pesaḥ. Accordingly, one must use soaps, shampoos, and creams that are kosher for Pesaḥ.
  Others maintain that the Sages only equated the application of ointment to drinking with regard to Yom Kippur and anointing with oil consecrated as teruma (priestly gift). All other Torah prohibitions relate to eating alone, not anointing. Although it is forbidden to derive benefit from ḥametz, the ḥametz in these products was rendered unfit for a dog’s consumption even before Pesaḥ began and thus lost the status of ḥametz. It is therefore permissible to derive benefit from them and apply them to the body during Pesaḥ.
  Since this dispute relates to rabbinic law, the halakha accords with the lenient opinion, and meticulously observant individuals act stringently. Distinctions must be made between four gradations of products containing ḥametz, of which the middle two are subject to dispute:
  1. Toothpastes must be certified kosher for Pesaĥ because they are flavored and thus like any other food product.
  2. Creams that are absorbed into the skin, flavorless lipstick, and perfumes that contain alcohol need not be certified kosher for Pesaĥ, in keeping with the lenient opinion, since they are not fit for consumption and generally do not contain ĥametz ingredients. Nonetheless, many choose to be stringent and buy creams and perfumes that are certified kosher for Pesaĥ.
  3. Soaps and shampoos warrant even more room for leniency because they are designed to clean, not to be absorbed into the skin. Nevertheless, some are stringent.
  4. Detergents, shoe polish, and the like do not require any kosher certification. Even dishwashing detergents need no certification because their taste is foul. Even if these substances were mixed with ĥametz, its taste was befouled before Pesaĥ and it is no longer considered ĥametz.11<i class="footnote">The Rishonim disagree about the principle that equates anointing with drinking: some apply it only to Yom Kippur and teruma oil, while others hold that it applies to other prohibitions, though only on the rabbinic level. The question  arises with regard to soap made of lard, and many Aĥaronim tend toward stringency if the item is for enjoyment and leniently if it is needed for health reasons (see Yeĥaveh Da’at 4:53). They incline toward leniency if the lard’s taste has been befouled (AHS YD 117:29). Regarding Pesaĥ, there is a more stringent aspect, namely, that one is forbidden to derive any benefit from ĥametz, but there is also a more lenient aspect, namely, that the ĥametz lost its status when it became inedible before Pesaĥ, making it less strict than something that had been forbidden from the outset. In practice, Responsa Sho’el U-meishiv 3:2:146 states that one may keep soap that contains ĥametz over Pesaĥ since its taste has been befouled. It does not address whether or not the soap may be used on Pesaĥ. Responsa Divrei Malkiel 4:24:43 states that one may not use cosmetics that contain wheat-derived alcohol, since the alcohol helps spread their scent and is thus significant. The alcohol is not batel since it can be isolated from the rest of the mixture. Responsa Divrei Naĥum §56 states that the law follows the current situation, namely, that the taste of the ĥametz has been befouled, and the mixture is thus permissible. Ĥazon Ish, Demai 15:1 suggests that only something edible may not be used as an ointment. Igrot Moshe OĤ  3:62 rules leniently in the case of an ointment that contains ĥametz that is used for health purposes. Bedikat Ĥametz U-vi’uro 2:43 summarizes the topic and rules stringently unless it is uncertain whether a product contains ĥametz, in which case one may be lenient. It seems to me that even those who rule stringently should distinguish between fat-based soap and contemporary soaps: fat-based soaps are absorbed in the skin and may be considered ointments, whereas contemporary soaps merely clean and remove dirt from the body, but are not absorbed into it. I have thus distinguished between ointments and creams, which are absorbed into the body, and soaps and shampoos, which are not (though hair conditioner may be more akin to an ointment). In practice, I heard from R. Nachum Rabinovitch that he rules leniently regarding all products unfit for a dog’s consumption, as did his mentor, R. Pinchas Hirschprung. This is the opinion of R. Dov Lior as well.In reality, the vast majority of cosmetic products produced in Israel do not contain wheat-derived alcohol. Even the majority of products produced abroad do not contain wheat-derived alcohol, since it is more expensive than potato-derived alcohol. However, a few products in fact contain wheat-derived alcohol, and according to the stringent views one should not use them on Pesaĥ. Still, when one has a product and is not sure whether it contains wheat-derived alcohol, even if he is normally stringent he may be lenient, based on a combination of several uncertainties and doubts.Another issue arises regarding the use of products that contain wheat germ oil, which is a source of Vitamin E, since it is unclear whether liquids exuded by wheat are considered ĥametz. According to Rav Kook (Oraĥ Mishpat p. 129), even if these liquids are forbidden, they were already batel be-shishim before Pesaĥ and are not ĥozer ve-ne’or on Pesaĥ. Moreover, many authorities maintain that even if this liquid was considered ĥametz, since it is not fit for consumption it loses its status as ĥametz. Another issue arises regarding lotions, although it is not certain that wheat starch-based lotions are considered ĥametz, and moreover they are inedible. Therefore, in practice, one may be lenient and use any cosmetic product not fit for consumption.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  Kitniyot / The Origins of the Ashkenazic Custom
  The ḥametz prohibited by the Torah is produced from one of the five types of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye. Other species such as rice and millet, even if they rise, do not undergo the same fermentation process as the five cereal grains, and they may be eaten on Pesaḥ. Although one Tanna, R. Yoḥanan b. Nuri, maintains that rice is also a cereal grain and forbidden by the Torah in its leavened state, the rest of the Sages maintain that even if rice rises, it may be eaten on Pesaḥ (Pesaḥim 35a). This was the practice of all the great Tanna’im and Amora’im. In fact, Rava ate rice at the Seder (ibid. 114b).
  During the medieval era of the Rishonim (c. seven centuries ago), the Jews of Ashkenaz (Germany, especially the Rhineland) began to refrain from eating kitniyot1<i class="footnote">Editor’s note: we have refrained from translating the term “<em>kitniyot</em>” since there is no precise equivalent in English, and an imprecise translation would be misleading. In earlier contexts (such as the laws of <em>kilayim</em>, which prohibit cultivating dissimilar species in close proximity), <em>kitniyot </em>referred specifically to members of the legume family. As currently used, the category of <em>kitniyot </em>includes species that are not legumes, and not every member of the legume family is considered <em>kitniyot</em></i> on Pesaḥ. Initially, only some communities observed this stringency, but within a few generations the custom had spread to all Ashkenazic communities.
  Three principal reasons for this custom have been offered: A) Since kitniyot are cooked in the same manner as grains, in a pot, there is concern that if people cook rice on Pesaḥ they will end up mistakenly cooking forbidden types of grain. B) Since kitniyot, like cereal grains, are often made into flour, if the unlearned masses see pious Jews cooking and baking foods with kitniyot flour without concern for it becoming ḥametz, they are liable to do the same with grain flour as well. The rabbis of the Talmud were not concerned about this because, in their day, Jewish tradition was clear and established. However, the tribulations of the exile and the scattering of Jewish communities gave rise to a fear that some Jews would be cut off from tradition and come to forget what is forbidden and what is permitted. Eating kitniyot on Pesaḥ would cause them to err and eat forbidden cereal grains without taking care that they do not become ḥametz. C) Grain and kitniyot kernels are similar in appearance and are kept in the same storehouses for relatively long periods. It is therefore eminently possible that wheat or barley kernels would find their way into kitniyot, and when the kitniyot are cooked the grain will become ḥametz. This concern persists today, and indeed it is possible to find kernels of grain when checking kitniyot.
  Another reason why kernels of kitniyot and cereal grain got mixed together was the common practice of crop rotation. Farmers often grow legumes for a year to replenish the soil of a field that had been used for growing grain for many years. However, kernels of the previous crop inevitably remain in the field. Thus, if a coriander or fenugreek crop is grown after a wheat crop, wheat will sprout among the coriander or fenugreek, and some kernels of wheat or barley will be found in the harvested crop of legumes. Experience shows that sometimes the quantity of cereal kernels in the kitniyot exceeds one sixtieth of the entire quantity. This problem applies to those species of kitniyot that physically resemble cereal grain.
  
  Section 2
  
  Kitniyot / The Sephardic Custom
  During the era of the Rishonim, all Sephardic communities ate kitniyot and rice during Pesaḥ, though they were careful to pick out forbidden grains. Indeed, R. Yosef Karo writes (Beit Yosef §453) that nobody worries about “such things except for Ashkenazim.”
  However, some leading Sephardic Aḥaronim have written that many pious Jews refrain from eating rice during Pesaḥ because of a case in which some wheat was discovered in rice even after it had been checked several times (Pri Ḥadash, Ḥida). The Jews of Izmir have a custom not to eat rice on Pesaḥ (Lev Ḥayim 2:94), and the Jews of Morocco refrain from eating rice and other types of dry kitniyot on Pesaḥ. Ben Ish Ḥai (Year One, Tzav 41) states that in Baghdad many laypeople do not eat rice on Pesaḥ, and those who do must first check it two or three times. Each person should perpetuate his ancestral custom. Where there is doubt or difficulty in doing so, it is best to consult a rabbinic authority.
  Certain spices such as cumin, turmeric, and fenugreek often have grains mixed in and should not be eaten without a prior meticulous inspection.
  Nowadays rice is stored in the same packing-houses as flours and semolina. Therefore, those who eat rice on Pesaḥ must buy packages that are certified kosher for Pesaḥ and then check the rice thoroughly three times (Ama Devar 1:62) .
  
  Section 3
  
  Kitniyot / Spouses from Different Communities
  The following question arises frequently nowadays: what should a married couple do when one spouse comes from a family that refrains from kitniyot and the other from a family that eats kitniyot? A similar matter was addressed by one of the great Rishonim, R. Shimon b. Tzemaḥ Duran (Tashbetz 3:179), who writes that they obviously cannot eat together at the same table while food permissible to one is forbidden to the other. Therefore, the wife must adopt her husband’s customs, for “a man’s wife is like his own body.” If the husband dies, it depends: if she has a child from him, she keeps his custom; otherwise, she reverts to her family’s custom.
  R. Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe OḤ  1:158) adds that the wife’s status is similar to that of one who moves to a place where the accepted custom is different from his own. If he intends to settle there, he relinquishes his previous custom and accepts the custom of his new home (based on SA YD 214:2, OḤ  468:4, and MB 14 ad loc.). When a woman marries, it is as if she moves permanently into her husband’s house, and she must therefore adopt his customs.
  Accordingly, if an Ashkenazic woman marries a Sephardic man, she may eat kitniyot during Pesaḥ and need not perform hatarat nedarim (annulment of vows) because she is acting in accordance with the law that a woman adopts the customs of her husband. Nevertheless, some poskim recommend that she perform hatarat nedarim.2<i class="footnote"><em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ 1:158 proves that this is a Torah law from the fact that the Torah exempts a married woman from the obligation to honor her parents, since this mitzva would require her to actively clothe and feed her parents if necessary, and her obligations to her household take priority (SA<em> </em>YD 240:17; obviously if there is no clash between the two obligations, she is commanded to honor her parents). Thus, according to the Torah, a woman’s place is in her husband’s home.Igrot Moshe also asserts that she need not perform hatarat nedarim. MB 468:14 states that one who moves from one locale to another must behave according to the custom of the new place. It is implied that since this is the halakha, there is no need for hatarat nedarim. This is also the opinion of Kaf Ha-ḥayim 468:43. Additionally, in extenuating circumstances even Ashkenazic communities did not accept the custom of refraining from kitniyot and can therefore be lenient in situations of famine or sickness (MB 453:7). Similarly, two different customs in one household would certainly cause tension, and thus she changes her custom without performing hatarat nedarim. Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 16:13 states that she must perform hatarat nedarim, and Ḥazon Ovadia (p. 56 and n. 10) states that it is better to perform hatarat nedarim.May Ashkenazim perform hatarat nedarim and eat kitniyot? Kaf Ha-ḥayim 453:15 states that according to Mahari Levi (§38), one who refrained from eating kitniyot because he thought they are ḥametz may perform hatarat nedarim, but one who knew, or whose ancestors knew, that kitniyot is merely a stringent custom may not perform hatarat nedarim. Thus, Ashkenazim may not perform hatarat nedarim and eat kitniyot. According to Pri Ḥadash §468, one need not perform hatarat nedarim to annul a custom that originated in a mistake, so even one who knew that kitniyot is just a stringent custom may annul his vow and eat kitniyot. However, we need to examine whether he would apply this reasoning to a custom accepted by an entire community; perhaps even according to Pri Ḥadash hatarat nedarim would not be effective in such a case. Ḥatam Sofer OḤ  §122 upholds the opinion of Mahari Levi. This is in fact the customary practice: we find that Ashkenazim do not perform hatarat nedarim and eat kitniyot except in the case of a sick person. Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 16 n. 47 and in the addenda quotes some who believe that kitniyot originated as an enactment (“gezeira”). According to this, even an Ashkenazic woman who marries a Sephardic man would not be permitted to eat kitniyot. Nevertheless, we do not follow this opinion, and an Ashkenazic woman should follow her husband’s customs.</i>
  
  Section 4
  
  Kitniyot / Prohibited Species
  The familiar foods included in this custom are: rice, alfalfa, peas, millet, sorghum, chickpeas, fenugreek seeds, sunflower seeds, mustard, buckwheat (kusemet, not to be confused with kusmin – spelt – which is a forbidden cereal grain), cumin, vetch, black-eyed peas, arum, soy, mung beans, lentils, fava beans, lupin beans, poppy seeds, flaxseed, pulse, caraway, hemp seeds, common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), sesame seeds, lupine seeds, corn, clover seed, and tamarind fruit. Products made from kitniyot – corn flakes, corn flour, and rice cakes, for example – are also included in the custom. 
  Saffron was originally called “karkom” in Hebrew and is included in the prohibition. Turmeric, the Modern Hebrew karkom, is permitted. 
  Mustard and flaxseed are not kitniyot, but the custom is to forbid them because they grow in pods like kitniyot.
  Rema writes that it is permitted to eat dill and coriander because they are not kitniyot. Nonetheless, Aḥaronim write that they must be examined well because they often contain wheat (MA, MB 453:13).
  There are differing customs regarding peanuts. In Jerusalem and many other places people refrain from eating them (Mikra’ei Kodesh 2:60), but in Greater Lithuania they were customarily eaten. One who does not know whether his family was stringent in this regard may eat them (Igrot Moshe OḤ  3:63).
  Potato flour is permitted on Pesaḥ. There is no contention that based on the customary prohibition of kitniyot anything from which flour can be made should be forbidden. Rather, the custom only includes what the great Ashkenazic Rishonim forbade. Since potatoes had not yet arrived in Europe then, they are not included in the prohibition (ibid.).
  
  Section 5
  
  Kitniyot / Rules Governing This Custom
  People who adhere to the custom of not eating kitniyot may keep them in the house during Pesaḥ and derive benefit from them, for example, by lighting a lamp with kitniyot oil (Rema 453:1).
  One who does not eat kitniyot on Pesaḥ may cook them for somebody who does, but it is recommended that he use some sort of reminder that he is not cooking for himself (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 453:17; Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 16:8). It is likewise permissible for a storeowner to sell kitniyot during Pesaḥ; however, if there could be wheat grains among the kitniyot that make up more than one sixtieth of the mixture, the storeowner may not sell the kitniyot, because this could cause customers to transgress the ḥametz prohibition. It would be better to sell such kitniyot along with the ḥametz.
  If kitniyot fall into a cooked food, they should be removed, and whatever cannot be removed is batel in the majority of the dish. If, however, such a large amount of kitniyot falls in that they become the majority, the dish is considered a kitniyot dish and its consumption is forbidden (Rema 453:1; MB 8-9 ad loc.).
  It is permissible for one who does not eat kitniyot on Pesaḥ to eat from and cook with utensils that belong to one who does eat kitniyot, provided that 24 hours have elapsed since kitniyot were last cooked in them. If food was cooked in such a utensil before 24 hours elapsed, the food remains kosher.3<i class="footnote"><em>Kitniyot</em> in a mixture are <em>batel </em>in a simple majority (<em>batel be-rov</em>). Although the implication of <em>Terumat Ha-deshen</em> is that it is only <em>batel be-shishim</em>, the Aḥaronim rule that it is <em>batel be-rov</em> (SAH 453:5; <em>Ḥayei Adam</em> 127:1; <em>Ḥavot Ya’ir</em> §6; <em>Eliya Rabba</em> §4; and <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim </em>453:25, which also adds more sources). All of this only applies when one found that <em>kitniyot </em>had been mixed with permissible food, but it is forbidden to mix <em>kitniyot</em> with permissible food intentionally, contrary to the opinion of the <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> that one may intentionally add <em>kitniyot</em> to a mixture as long as they do not become the majority of the mixture. If one who does not eat <em>kitniyot</em> visits one who does eat <em>kitniyot</em> and there is nothing else for the guest to eat, he may, if absolutely necessary, eat the non-<em>kitniyot</em> food from a mixture containing <em>kitniyot</em>. For example, he may eat potatoes and zucchini from a dish containing <em>kitniyot</em>, even though the food he is eating absorbed some flavor from the <em>kitniyot.</em>Even those who abstain from kitniyot are permitted to eat food cooked in a pot in which kitniyot had been cooked within the prior 24 hours, since the taste of the kitniyot is a very small minority. If 24 hours elapsed since the cooking of the kitniyot, one may cook food in the pot even le-khatḥila, since the taste of the kitniyot in the pot has already turned foul, and kitniyot are technically kosher for Pesaḥ anyway (Pri Ḥadash 496:24 and Responsa Maharalbaḥ §121). If one is in doubt whether or not 24 hours passed since the cooking of the kitniyot, he may still use the pot le-khatḥila because of the principle that most pots have not been used in the past 24 hours. See also Kaf Ha-ḥayim 453:27, which lists additional sources.Some maintain that the prohibition of kitniyot begins at the onset of Pesaḥ (Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 16:10 n. 42), and in time of pressing need one can rely on this opinion. In practice, however, the mainstream opinion is that the custom of kitniyot corresponds to the prohibition of ḥametz. Thus, kitniyot are forbidden from the time that ḥametz is prohibited (Ḥok Yaakov 471:2; Responsa Maharsham 1:183; Shevet Ha-Levi 3, 31).</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  Kitniyot / Kitniyot That Never Touched Water and Kitniyot Oils
  We are not stricter with kitniyot than we are with the five cereal grains, so whatever is acceptable regarding these grains is kosher for kitniyot, too. Thus, kitniyot that have not come into contact with water, or that have come into contact with water but were not left for more than 18 minutes before being cooked (like matza), may be eaten. Some poskim are stringent in this respect, but most are lenient.4<i class="footnote">Most authorities are not stricter about <em>kitniyot</em> than about the cereal grains (SAH 453:5; <em>Ḥayei Adam</em> 127:1; <em>Responsa Maharsham </em>1:183; <em>Be’er Yitzḥak</em> §11; <em>Responsa </em><em>Marḥeshet</em> §3; and Rav Kook’s <em>Oraḥ Mishpat</em> §111). Some, however, are more stringent (<em>Sho’el U-meishiv</em> 1:1:175 and <em>Ma’amar Mordechai</em> §32). Their rationale is that no one would understand these distinctions since <em>kitniyot</em> do not become <em>ḥametz</em>. Additionally, they were concerned that making the <em>kitniyot</em> exactly like the cereal grains would mislead people to think they could use <em>kitniyot </em>to fulfill the mitzva of matza. As noted, though, most <em>poskim</em> are lenient, and in any dispute about a custom the <em>halakha</em> follows the lenient opinion.</i>
  The poskim disagree about oils and whiskeys made from kitniyot. Those who rule leniently contend that the kitniyot prohibition does not apply to oil extracted from them, while those who rule stringently maintain that kitniyot oil has the same status as the kitniyot themselves. There is a middle position that asserts that if the kitniyot had been rinsed in water (for example, as part of the malting process) they become forbidden, and the oil extracted from them is prohibited. However, if they are ground and made into oil without having been moistened, they do not have the status of kitniyot.5<i class="footnote"><em>Terumat Ha-deshen</em> §113 explains that oil extracted from <em>kitniyot</em> is prohibited because the <em>kitniyot</em> are first malted. This is also the opinion of Rema 453:1. The implication of <em>Terumat Ha-deshen </em>is that if the <em>kitniyot</em> were not malted, their oil would be permitted. R. Yitzḥak Elḥanan Spektor in <em>Responsa</em> <em>Be’er Yitzḥak</em> §11 rules even more leniently, explaining that if the <em>kitniyot </em>were checked to ensure that no grain seeds were mixed in, the oil extracted from them is permitted, since the act of checking proves that the person is familiar with the prohibition. Similarly, <em>Responsa</em> <em>Emek Halakha</em> §134 permits whiskey distilled from <em>kitniyot</em>, as the prohibition applies to <em>kitniyot</em> themselves, not the liquid extracted from them.Conversely, other Aḥaronim maintain that oil extracted from <em>kitniyot </em>is prohibited even when the <em>kitniyot </em>are not malted (<em>Nishmat Adam</em> §33 and <em>Avnei Nezer </em>OḤ  §373). However, <em>Terumat Ha-deshen</em> and Rema imply that such oil is permissible. This raises an apparent difficulty, since the oil will eventually be mixed with water, a process that would be forbidden to apply to grain. Thus, according to these authorities, the custom is to prohibit <em>kitniyot </em>in their seed and flour state, but not in their oil state. One need not be concerned that grain kernels got mixed in with the <em>kitniyot</em>, which would turn to <em>ḥametz</em> when the extracted oil is mixed with water, since any oil extracted from the grain is <em>batel be-shishim </em>and is not <em>ḥozer ve-ne’or </em>on Pesaḥ (SA<em> </em>447:4). Additionally, it appears that even liquid that is exuded by grain does not become <em>ḥametz</em>, as explained in <em>Oraḥ Mishpat</em> §§111-112 and <em>Responsa </em><em>Marḥeshet</em> §3. <em>Tzemaḥ Tzedek</em> permits this for poor people, provided that the <em>kitniyot</em> did not come into contact with water while in seed form.Rav Kook has a well-known ruling (Oraḥ Mishpat 108-114) in which he broadly permitted sesame oil since not only are the seeds not malted, but the oil is also fried, which would prevent cereal grain from becoming ḥametz and is certainly enough to alleviate the problem of kitniyot. This idea is echoed by Avnei Nezer OḤ  §533 with regard to rapeseed oil (this responsum appeared in 5458, 11 years before Rav Kook’s responsum). The Hasidic-Ashkenazic rabbinical court in Jerusalem vociferously opposed Rav Kook without any regard for the honor of Torah or of all of the poskim who had previously ruled even more leniently than Rav Kook on this matter. Rav Kook responded to them sharply, with erudition, and with strong proofs. As part of his response, he wrote (p. 123): “In truth, the path of my righteous and ingenious mentors, may their merit protect us and all of Israel, whom I merited to serve, was not to incline toward stringency when it was possible to be lenient, especially regarding issues without a strong basis in the words of the talmudic Sages. It is sufficient that we do not budge, God forbid, from the customs we accepted at the guidance of our rabbis, the poskim. But as for the details that can be argued one way or the other, certainly one who inclines toward a lenient ruling in an effort to be wise and benevolent is praiseworthy, as long as his words are based on the profundity of halakha and sound reasoning…” Furthermore, one who adds prohibitions to a prohibition that is not rooted in the law may violate a prohibition implied by a positive commandment (“lav ha-ba mi-khlal aseh”) according to Rashi’s comments in the first chapter of Beitza. As Rav Kook wrote (p. 126): “That which the Talmud often states, that we do not make decrees on top of other decrees, is derived from the following verse: ‘You shall safeguard my observances’ [‘u-shmartem et mishmarti’ – Vayikra 18:30]: make safeguards, i.e., enact decrees, for my observances, that is, for the Torah. But do not make safeguards for safeguards; do not make decrees upon decrees.” Against the claim that we must be increasingly stringent nowadays, Rav Kook writes: “I know the character of our contemporaries well: it is precisely when they see that everything that can be permitted based on the profundity of halakha is permitted, they will understand that when we do not permit it is based on the truth of Torah law. Consequently, many people will adhere to the Torah and heed the words of the Sages, God willing. On the other hand, when they discover that there are things that can be permitted according to the letter of the law, but the rabbis were not sensitive to the travails and hardships of the Jewish people and leave these matters in their prohibited state, it will cause a terrible desecration of God’s name, Heaven forbid. Ultimately, there will be an increase of outbursts saying about core elements of the Torah that if the rabbis want to permit it, they can; thus, the law will be perverted” (p. 126).</i>
  Soybean, cottonseed, and canola (rapeseed) oils are not included in the prohibition. Many are stringent about soybean and canola oils, but whoever wishes to be lenient may be so. The widespread custom regarding cottonseed oil is to be lenient.6<i class="footnote">Soybean oil is produced without moistening the soybeans, so according to Rav Kook and most <em>poskim</em> it is not forbidden. Furthermore, it is questionable whether soybeans were even included in the prohibition of <em>kitniyot</em>, since they did not arrive in Europe until about 100 years ago. <em>Igrot Moshe</em> OḤ  3:63 writes that only what has customarily been accepted as prohibited is included in the custom. This is also the opinion of R. Dov Lior, the rabbi and head of the rabbinical court in Kiryat Arba.Regarding cottonseed oil, <em>Mikra’ei Kodesh </em>2:60 is lenient, citing a ruling attributed to R. Ḥayim Soloveitchik of Brisk. <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> (16:4) rules leniently in the name of R. Moshe Feinstein. However, <em>Minḥat Ḥinukh</em> 3:138 is stringent.Peanut Oil: We learned in section 4 above that in Greater Lithuania the custom was to eat peanuts, as per Igrot Moshe OḤ  3:63, since only items that are known not to have been eaten because of kitniyot are prohibited. Peanuts, which were discovered later on, were not included in the original prohibition. On the other hand, Mikra’ei Kodesh 2:60 and Ḥelkat Yaakov §97 prohibit peanuts but permit peanut oil. This is also the opinion of Melamed Le-ho’il OḤ  §88. Seridei Esh 2:37 also echoes this idea, and quotes that Avnei Nezer OḤ  §383 prohibited peanut oil, as did Minḥat Elazar. Practically, if one is unaware of a family custom to be stringent, he may be lenient, since this is an unclear custom.</i>
  Lecithin extracted from rapeseed and added to chocolate is not included in the kitniyot prohibition, though some are stringent.7<i class="footnote">The Badatz is strict about lecithin derived from rapeseed. Halakhically there is nothing wrong with this substance; however, there are many uncertainties that mitigate toward leniency. Firstly, rapeseed is not a legume (the technical meaning of <em>kitniyot</em>), but a member of the <em>Brassicaceae</em> family of crucifers, whose fruit grips the stalk and whose seeds grow in pods, much like the mustard plant. Oil is extracted from these seeds. According to <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ  3:63, we do not forbid anything that was not explicitly prohibited by custom. Additionally, it is debatable whether the status of <em>kitniyot</em> can be applied to the seeds of a plant when it is clear that the plant itself is not <em>kitniyot</em>. However, according to <em>Avnei Nezer </em>OḤ  §373, rapeseed oil is considered <em>kitniyot</em>, just like mustard (although even according to <em>Avnei Nezer</em>, if one boiled the seeds they would be permissible, as explained in §533). Moreover, we already saw that there are opinions that permit oil produced from any type of <em>kitniyot</em>. According to <em>Maharsham</em> 1:183, rapeseed oil is kosher for Pesaḥ since the oil is extracted without malting the seeds, and we have seen that most <em>poskim</em> are lenient in these situations, akin to the case of sesame oil. Finally, the oil is <em>batel be-rov </em>before Pesaḥ. According to <em>Be’er Yitzḥak</em>, any oil that was added to a mixture before Pesaḥ is <em>batel</em>. Ultimately, when there are so many uncertainties regarding a custom, we rule leniently. This is the ruling of R. Mordechai Eliyahu, as cited in <em>Responsa </em><em>Ama Devar</em> 1:62.</i>
  Chocolate and candy labeled “Kosher for Pesaḥ only for those who eat kitniyot” are technically permissible even for those who do not eat kitniyot, because the kitniyot in these products are added before Pesaḥ and are batel be-rov. In addition, these products generally contain kitniyot oils, which, according to several leading poskim, are not included in the custom to prohibit kitniyot. In practice, however, many people are stringent in this respect, and kosher certification agencies therefore label them as kosher for Pesaḥ only for those who eat kitniyot.8<i class="footnote">According to Rema 453:1 and MB<em> </em>9 <em>ad loc.</em>, even if <em>kitniyot</em> were mixed in on Pesaḥ, they are <em>batel be-rov</em>, although clearly one may not do so <em>le-khatḥila</em>. In this case, the mixing took place before Pesaḥ, and not for the purpose of nullifying the prohibited ingredients in the majority of permissible ingredients, since they may be eaten according to Sephardic custom. Therefore, since they were <em>batel be-rov </em>before Pesaḥ, the mixture may be eaten on Pesaḥ. Additionally, R. Yitzḥak Elḥanan Spektor writes in <em>Be’er Yitzḥak</em> §11 (quoted in n. 4 above) that the prohibition of <em>kitniyot</em> does not apply to <em>kitniyot </em>oil that was checked before Pesaḥ. This is the opinion of R. Lior and R. Rabinovitch.R. Lior also rules that string beans and fava beans in their pods are kosher for Pesaḥ, since in this state they are considered vegetables and not kitniyot. They were never included in the original prohibition since all of the concerns that were mentioned as the reason for the custom of kitniyot never applied to them.</i>
  
  Section 7
  
  Kitniyot / Extenuating Circumstances, the Sick, and Babies
  Clearly, the Ashkenazic custom to refrain from kitniyot cannot be stricter than the prohibition against ḥametz itself. Therefore, in extenuating circumstances like drought or famine, leading halakhic authorities permitted eating kitniyot. In actuality, rabbis have often disagreed whether the need was pressing enough to permit eating kitniyot. Some rabbis were inclined to be lenient, others to be stringent, and still others to permit kitniyot to the poor alone, requiring the wealthy to buy other types of foods. On such matters, one must follow the ruling of the accepted local rabbinic authorities.
  Some Aḥaronim write that when applying these leniencies to kitniyot, it is better first to permit kitniyot that do not resemble cereal grain, and only permit rice, millet, and buckwheat when there is no choice (Nishmat Adam). Additionally, some Aḥaronim state that when applying these leniencies, one should first scald the kitniyot in boiling water, since scalding prevents even cereal grains from becoming ḥametz. Even though in practice we do not permit scalding cereal grains on Pesaḥ, when it is necessary to be lenient with kitniyot, it is best to take precautions as much as possible (Ḥatam Sofer OḤ  §122; MB 453:7).9<i class="footnote"><em>Ḥayei Adam </em>(127:1) permits eating <em>kitniyot</em> in truly extenuating circumstances, like if one has nothing else to eat. See also <em>Nishmat Adam</em> §20 and <em>Mor U-ketzi’a</em> (which assert that ideally the custom of <em>kitniyot</em> should be abolished altogether). <em>Ha-m</em><em>o’adim Be-halakha</em>’s chapter on <em>kitniyot </em>states that <em>Teshuva Me-ahava, Ma’amar Mordechai, </em>and Mahariz Enzil maintain that one may not eat <em>kitniyot</em> even in an extreme situation. Conversely, Maharam Padua<em> </em>of Brisk (§48) permits <em>kitniyot</em> in extenuating circumstances. <em>Divrei Malkiel</em> 1:28 and <em>Sho’el U-meishiv </em>2:4:158 rule leniently for poor people only. <em>Ḥatam Sofer </em>OḤ <em> </em>§122 does not oppose the lenient authorities but notes that they should require scalding the <em>kitniyot</em> before eating. <em>Nishmat Adam</em> §20 states that one should first permit <em>kitniyot</em> that do not resemble cereal grain, and only as a last option permit those that resemble grain. MB states that one may certainly be lenient in extenuating circumstances and cites <em>Ḥatam Sofer</em> and <em>Ḥayei Adam</em> that scalding is required before eating. AHS 453:5 states: “They explicitly accepted that if there would be famine and the poor would be starving for food, all of the local sages, led by the chief rabbi, would permit <em>kitniyot</em> on that Pesaḥ.”</i>
  One who is ill and needs to eat kitniyot may do so, even if he is not dangerously ill. For example, one may swallow flaxseed with water as a laxative. One may likewise feed rice to children who need it (Ḥayei Adam 127:6), though special utensils should be set aside for this. Anytime one acts leniently, the kitniyot should be thoroughly inspected to ensure that they contain no cereal grains.
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / When Does Taste Absorbed into Utensils Render Their Contents Forbidden?
  Though the walls of pots and other vessels appear solid and impervious, they actually absorb the taste of food cooked in them. Thus, if one cooks non-kosher meat in a pot, its flavor gets absorbed into the pot’s walls, and kosher meat subsequently cooked in the same pot becomes forbidden, as the non-kosher taste absorbed in the walls is released and absorbed by the meat.1<i class="footnote">It is impossible to measure how much taste the walls of a pot absorb and how much they release back into the food; some vessels absorb more than others do, and some tastes are more easily absorbed than others. Since this is a persistent uncertainty with no means of resolution, the Sages determined that one should consider the entire wall of the pot to be completely filled with the taste of whatever is cooked inside of it. Thus, if one cooked non-kosher meat in a pot and then cooked kosher meat in the same pot, we assume that the walls of the pot absorbed taste from the non-kosher meat and subsequently discharged the taste back into the kosher meat. And since our pots and utensils do not hold sixty times the amount that can be absorbed into the walls of the pot, anything that was cooked in a pot that had previously absorbed the taste of a prohibited food becomes prohibited. Even if one cooked another piece of kosher meat afterward, it too would become prohibited, since perhaps not all of the absorbed forbidden taste was released during the first usage and was released during the second usage. In sum: in the case of a perpetual uncertainty where it is impossible to determine absolutely how much taste was absorbed and how much was released, we are stringent.</i>
  However, there is a principle that anything which contributes foul taste (”noten ta’am li-fgam”) does not cause other foods to become forbidden. For example, if a bit of foul-tasting non-kosher meat falls into some kosher meat, the meat may be eaten since the non-kosher taste is foul. The same applies to tastes absorbed by vessels. Moreover, the rule is that any taste absorbed by a vessel becomes foul after twenty-four hours. Therefore, if non-kosher meat is cooked in a pot, and twenty-four hours later kosher food is cooked in the same pot, the latter dish remains kosher because the taste in the pot is foul, and foul taste does not render food forbidden (SA YD 103:5).
  However, it is forbidden le-khatḥila to use a pot that has absorbed non-kosher taste, even after twenty-four hours have elapsed, because the Sages were concerned that one would forget and inadvertently cook in it before twenty-four hours have elapsed. They therefore ruled that since such a pot is forbidden to begin with, it may not be used until koshered (SA 122:2). Be-di’avad, if one forgot that the pot absorbed the taste of forbidden food and cooked another food in it, if twenty-four hours passed from the time the non-kosher food was cooked, the food in question remains kosher. But if one knows that a pot had absorbed a non-kosher taste, but cooks kosher food in it anyway, the Sages penalized him by prohibiting this dish for him and his family, even though the non-kosher taste in it had already turned foul.2<i class="footnote">Most <em>poskim </em>maintain that if one intentionally cooked in a pot that required <em>hagala</em>, the Sages penalize him by forbidding the food for him and those for whom he cooked it (<em>Knesset Ha-gedola </em>YD §122; <em>Hagahot Ha-Tur</em> §26; <em>Darkhei Teshuva </em><em> </em>122:5; <em>Yabi’a Omer</em> YD 8:14; and <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim Le-Pesaḥ</em>, second introduction, p. 17).</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Hagala and Heavy Libun
  The most basic principle of koshering cooking utensils is that forbidden taste is released from the vessel in the same manner that it was absorbed: “ke-bole’o kakh polto.” There are two principal media through which utensils absorb taste: boiling liquid and direct flame. If a pot absorbs a forbidden food through a process of boiling – for example, if it was used to cook ḥametz food like pasta or porridge – the pot is made kosher for Pesaḥ by immersing it in boiling water, which causes the ḥametz taste to be released. The same applies to ladles and serving spoons: when used with ḥametz foods hotter than yad soledet bo (hot enough to cause the hand to recoil), they absorb the taste of the ḥametz and must be koshered through immersion in boiling water.
  However, if a vessel absorbs ḥametz through direct heat of fire, without a liquid medium – such as in the case of a cake baked on a tray, dough baked on skewers, or jachnun or kugel baked in a pot – it is koshered by means of heavy libun, that is, heating the vessel by fire until it gives off sparks or becomes red hot.
  Absorption through a liquid medium is relatively mild, so boiling hot water is sufficient to extract the taste of the ḥametz from the utensil. Absorption into a tray or skewer is more intense, as the heat of the fire causes the taste of the food to be absorbed deep into the very particles of the utensil. Boiling water is insufficient to remove all of the absorbed taste, and such utensils must be koshered by the same means that they absorbed – by fire. This is “heavy libun,” in which the fire incinerates the taste that had been absorbed in the utensil. To highlight the difference – hagala extracts the taste absorbed in the vessel, while libun incinerates it in situ.
  Therefore, before undergoing hagala, a vessel must be cleaned of any residual food, because hagala releases the taste absorbed into a utensil but does not destroy the residual food stuck to it.  There is no need, however, to clean a utensil before libun, because any food that remains will be completely incinerated in the libun process.
  
  Section 3
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Koshering Vessels That Absorbed Ĥametz Prior to the Onset of the Prohibition
  We have learned that if a utensil absorbs a forbidden food by means of fire, it must be koshered by fire. It is important to note that this principle applies only when non-kosher food has been absorbed. For example, if one roasts non-kosher meat on a skewer, the skewer must be koshered through libun, because the non-kosher food was absorbed by means of fire. However, if at the time of absorption the meat was kosher, and only later became non-kosher, the utensil may be koshered through hagala. To use a classic example, if a korban (Temple offering) was roasted on a skewer, and the meat of the korban later becomes notar (the sacrificial meat left over when the time to eat the korban ends, which must be incinerated and not eaten), the taste absorbed by the skewer is also notar and thus forbidden. The skewer may not be used until it has been koshered, but it is not necessary to perform libun. Hagala is sufficient because the skewer absorbed the taste of the meat while it was still permitted for consumption.6<i class="footnote">The basis for the distinction between utensils that absorbed permissible matter (<em>heteira bala</em>) and those that absorbed forbidden matter (<em>isura bala</em>) is explained in AZ 86a. The idea is that <em>hagala</em> releases most of the taste that is absorbed in the utensil. Thus, if the utensil absorbed forbidden taste, all of the taste must be eliminated from the utensil since the utensil became subject to a presumption (<em>ḥazaka</em>) of being forbidden. On the other hand, when the taste absorbed in the utensil was permitted at the time of absorption, there is no need to extract the weakened taste that remains after <em>hagala</em>. This distinction was subject to the discretion of the Sages since, after twenty-four hours, the taste absorbed in the walls of the utensil befouls the food instead of improving it and must only be extracted due to rabbinic injunction. Therefore, the Sages did not require this extraction when permissible taste was absorbed. According to this, we may only be lenient in a case of <em>heteira bala </em>once twenty-four hours have elapsed since the utensil absorbed the permitted taste. See also R. Pfeiffer’s <em>Kitzur </em><em>, Basar Be-ḥalav</em> vol. 2 explanation 9 for an examination of other explanations.</i>
  Accordingly, if one mistakenly baked meat and then dairy (or vice versa) in the same tray, the status of the tray depends on whether twenty-four hours elapsed between the baking of meat and dairy. If less than twenty-four hours elapsed, the baked food is forbidden because the flavor of meat mixed with the dairy food. The tray also absorbed forbidden taste, and thus heavy libun is required to kosher it. But if twenty-four hours elapsed, the taste of the meat became foul, and thus the dairy food may be eaten. Moreover, although the Sages rule that the tray must be koshered, hagala is sufficient, because it did not absorb any forbidden taste. In practice, since people are accustomed to putting such trays in the oven, the best thing is to kosher it through light libun, i.e., by putting it in the oven at the highest temperature for half an hour, for we have already seen that light libun is more effective than hagala.7<i class="footnote">This law is explained very well in R. Pfeiffer’s <em>Kitzur </em><em>, Basar Be-ḥalav</em> vol. 2, ch. 2, based on <em>Responsa Rama Mi-Fano</em> §96 and <em>Ḥatam Sofer </em>YD §110. See also <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 451:70, which lists the opinions and tended toward requiring light <em>libun </em>if it would not ruin the utensil, even though many authorities rule leniently that <em>hagala</em> is sufficient. See <em>Kitzur </em><em> </em><em>op. cit. </em>ch. 12 nn. 7 and 10) for a discussion of the possibility of performing light <em>libun</em> in a pastry oven. It also seems that we can be lenient and allow light <em>libun</em> in an oven by factoring in the opinion that <em>ke-bole’o kakh polto </em>is a function of temperature, and the fact that the oven becomes an uncertainty about a rabbinic law after twenty-four hours. Thus, light <em>libun </em>koshers an oven even <em>le-khatḥila</em></i>
  The leading Rishonim disagree about whether the absorption of ḥametz during the year is considered the absorption of permissible matter, in which case baking trays can be koshered for Pesaḥ by means of hagala, or the absorption of forbidden matter. According to most poskim and SA 551:4, ḥametz has the status of forbidden food even though it is completely permissible throughout the year, since vis-à-vis Pesaḥ ḥametz is always considered forbidden and even before Pesaḥ it bears the name “ḥametz.” According to this opinion, baking trays must be koshered via heavy libun. However, in extenuating circumstances and where there are other reasons to be lenient, the lenient position is occasionally relied upon (MB 451:28).8<i class="footnote">See <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim</em>, 7th introduction, which lists the opinions of the Rishonim in detail. Among the stringent opinions are: Rif, Rosh, Ran, and Rashba<em>.</em> Among the lenient opinions: Rambam<em>, </em>Rabbeinu Tam<em>, </em>and<em> Or Zaru’a</em></i>
  
  Section 4
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Defining the Difference between Absorption through Liquid and Absorption through Fire: the Status of a Frying Pan
  Even when a baking tray is coated with oil to prevent sticking, the absorption that occurs during the cooking process is considered to be by means of fire, thus requiring heavy libun to render it kosher. Only when the oil at the bottom of the vessel sizzles and bubbles is the absorption considered to be by means of a liquid.3<i class="footnote">This is according to <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> 451:1, quoted by SAH 451:36 as saying: “Since the dough is not sizzling with oil or fat, it means that fire alone causes the <em>ḥametz</em> to be absorbed.” <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> <em>ad loc. </em>139 cites them, and this is the ruling of <em>Yeḥaveh Da’at</em> 1:7 (although <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 451:76 states that if there was enough liquid present in the pot to wet something that touched something that was in the pot (“<em>tofei’aḥ al menat le-hatfi’aḥ</em>”),<em> </em>the pot can be koshered by <em>hagala</em>; this requires further investigation). Accordingly, a utensil used to cook jachnun or kugel is considered to have absorbed by means of fire, since there is no sizzling liquid (see <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim Le-Pesaḥ</em> 5:23 and the supplementary material <em>ad loc.</em>). If a pot is generally used to cook through a liquid medium but less frequently used to make jachnun or kugel, it may be koshered by <em>hagala </em>in extenuating circumstances, as will be explained below in section<em> </em>9.</i>
  In light of this, most Rishonim maintain that a frying pan can be koshered through hagala (Rosh, Raavya). Even if the oil is used up and the food burns, hagala is sufficient since there was oil present at the beginning of the frying process, and the taste of the food absorbed into the pan was by means of the oil, i.e., the milder form of absorption. The same applies to a pot in which a non-kosher food was cooked: the pot can be koshered by hagala even if the food dries up and burns (MB 451:63; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 137).
  However, several leading Rishonim maintain that a frying pan has the status of a baking tray and must be koshered via heavy libun, because people often fry with small amounts of oil, and the oil is often used up, causing the taste of the food to be absorbed via fire (Rashba). Although there is agreement that a pot can be koshered through hagala even if the food dries up and burns, there is reason to be more stringent about frying pans because only a small amount of oil is used from the outset, and it often gets used up.
  In practice, frying pans should ideally be koshered via light libun (as will be explained in the next section), although if twenty-four hours have passed since the frying of the forbidden food, hagala is sufficient be-di’avad.4<i class="footnote">BHL<em> </em>451:11 concludes that most <em>poskim</em> maintain that one may kosher a frying pan via <em>hagala</em>, and I have already mentioned the leading Rishonim on this topic. SA YD<em> </em>121:4 rules that a frying pan generally requires <em>libun </em>to be koshered from forbidden foods, but for Pesaḥ <em>hagala </em>is sufficient. Many Aḥaronim (Gra and <em>Shakh ad loc.</em>)<em> </em>explain that regarding Pesaḥ R. Karo combines the opinion that <em>hagala </em>is sufficient with the view that <em>ḥametz</em> before Pesaḥ is considered permissible, and thus rules leniently that one may kosher a frying pan for Pesaḥ via <em>hagala</em>. Rema agrees in principle but states that light <em>libun </em>is the proper method <em>le-khatḥila</em>. Later Aḥaronim also disagree about this issue: <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> and R. Ḥayim ibn Attar require <em>libun </em>since <em>ḥametz </em>is considered a forbidden substance even before Pesaḥ, while SAH permits using <em>hagala </em>even <em>le-khatḥila</em>. See <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim Le-Pesaḥ</em> 13:202.I have written that the preferable method for koshering a frying pan is light libun, and although apparently light libun is ineffective according to those who require heavy libun, there are in fact those who maintain that light libun is as effective as heavy libun (this may be the opinion of R. Avigdor, quoted in the Hagahot Maimoniyot). Additionally, some authorities explain that the principle of ke-bole’o kakh polto also applies to the temperature of the libun, as will be explained in the next section. Consequently, light libun is sufficient, since it takes place at least at the same temperature as the initial absorption. On the other hand, it is better to use light libun since sometimes there are small grooves or cracks in the pan which are difficult to clean, in which case even those who maintain that hagala is enough to kosher a frying pan would require libun to eradicate the residue in the cracks. However, one may rely, be-di’avad, on the majority of poskim who maintain that one may kosher a frying pan via hagala, especially since once twenty-four hours have elapsed since its last use, any uncertainty pertains to a rabbinic prohibition.</i>
  A Teflon or “non-stick” frying pan, in which food is fried without oil, cannot be koshered for Pesaḥ. In theory it is possible to kosher it via heavy libun like a baking tray, but as a practical matter this will damage the pan (as will be explained below, section 7). A frying pan used primarily for making malawach, which is baked and heated without sizzling oil, must be koshered by heavy libun since the absorption takes place via fire. But a pan generally used for other things and infrequently used for malawach may, in extenuating circumstances, be koshered via hagala, in accordance with its primary usage (as will be explained below, section 9).
  
  Section 5
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Does Temperature Affect Absorption?
  Heavy libun means heating a utensil by fire until any ḥametz taste in it is incinerated. One indication that libun has taken place is that the utensil undergoing libun becomes so hot that sparks fly from it when it is brought into contact with iron. Another indication is that its outer layer peels off, or that it becomes red hot.
  Light libun means heating a utensil by fire to the point that a piece of straw or thread placed on the opposite side of the utensil becomes blackened from the heat. For example, to kosher a frying pan through light libun one must place the pan over fire and then put a piece of paper on the frying surface. When the paper starts to become scorched, the pan has been koshered.
  Light libun is not effective where heavy libun is required, because the objective of libun is to incinerate any taste absorbed into the utensil, and this is only achieved through heavy libun. However, light libun is more effective than hagala because it is more capable than hagala at extracting the taste of ḥametz from the utensil, and apparently it can also incinerate some of the absorbed taste. Sometimes, when it is uncertain if libun is necessary, one may suffice with light libun. Light libun has another advantage as well: if a utensil has crevices that are difficult to clean, hagala cannot kosher it, since hagala removes the taste absorbed into a utensil but cannot render kosher the residual food stuck in its grooves. However, if one performs light libun and aims the fire at the grooves, the residual food will be incinerated, and the utensil will be rendered kosher. Light libun can be performed by putting a utensil in an oven and heating it at the highest temperature for about half an hour.
  It is worth noting, however, that some poskim rule leniently that a utensil that has absorbed ḥametz via fire does not necessarily require heavy libun. In their opinion, the principle of ke-bole’o kakh polto applies to the temperature at the time of absorption. Thus, if a utensil absorbed the taste of forbidden food at a temperature of 300ºC, it can be koshered at the same temperature, and if the absorption occurred at 200ºC, it can be koshered at 200ºC, even though it does not become red hot or give off sparks at this temperature. According to these authorities, a cooking tray that absorbed a forbidden taste in an oven can be koshered in that oven at the same temperature as the absorption. The practical halakha follows the majority opinion, namely, that a vessel that absorbed taste via fire and reached a temperature beyond yad soledet must be koshered by heavy libun. However, in extenuating circumstances and when there are other reasons to be lenient, we take the lenient opinion into consideration.5<i class="footnote">The laws of light and heavy <em>libun</em> are discussed in SA<em> </em>and Rema 451:4 and in MB <em>ad loc</em>. (see R. Pfeiffer’s <em>Kitzur </em>SA, <em>Basar Be-ḥalav</em> vol. 2 ch. 12, and explanation 3 regarding the laws of light <em>libun</em>). However, it seems that according to R. Avigdor, cited in <em>Hagahot Maimoniyot</em> on MT, Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:5, light <em>libun</em> works just as well as heavy <em>libun</em>, but other <em>poskim </em>disagree. See <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim </em>ch. 5 n. 3 that according to the accurate version of <em>Hagahot Maimoniyot</em>, even R. Avigdor agrees that light <em>libun</em> does not work like<em> </em>heavy <em>libun</em><em>.</em>SAH 451:16 and 19 states that in order to render the crevices in the frying pan kosher, one must aim the flame at them. See also <em>Taz</em> 451:8, which states that light <em>libun</em> causes the other side of the pan to reach the temperature of <em>yad soledet bo</em>, and see <em>Piskei Teshuvot</em> 451:18. The <em>halakha</em> does not follow this view; rather, light <em>libun</em> is when the pan reaches the temperature that would scorch a piece of straw on the other side of the pan, as Rema 451:4, MB<em> </em>31 <em>ad loc.</em>, and other Aḥaronim explain.According to most poskim, a utensil that absorbed taste by fire requires heavy libun, even if the utensil itself only reached yad soledet bo. However, there are authorities who are lenient, as noted above. See Arugot Ha-bosem §119 and Minḥat Yitzḥak 3:66. See also Kitzur SA op. cit. explanation 5 and Piskei Teshuvot 451:17.</i> It should be emphasized that absorption through fire can only happen while the food is being cooked by the fire on the flame. For example, if one cuts a baked good while it is on the burner, the knife absorbs the taste of the food through fire. However, if the baked goods were first taken off the fire and then cut, even if the baked goods are dry, the absorption is considered mild, and the knife may be koshered through hagala.
  
  Section 6
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / The Principles of Hagala
  As we have learned, a pot absorbs the taste of the foods cooked in it. Cooking has the capacity to mix the tastes of different foods with one another, and just as cooking can cause the taste of meat to be absorbed by potatoes cooked with it, so too it can cause the taste of a food to be absorbed in the walls of the pot in which it is cooked. There are, however, different levels of intensity in cooking, and the operative principle is ke-bole’o kakh polto. Thus, if the absorption is caused by intense cooking, the koshering process must be equally intense. However, if the cooked food never reaches the temperature of yad soledet (45ºC according to the opinion that sets yad soledet at the lowest temperature), there is no reason to be concerned about absorption, and it is not necessary to perform hagala to kosher the utensil. The levels of koshering are as follows:
  A kli rishon on the flame: The most intense form of cooking is that of a kli rishon (the vessel in which the food is cooked) on a flame, where the fire heats the mixture of food continuously, causing its different tastes to be absorbed into each other and by the walls of the pot. Ke-bole’o kakh polto: In order to kosher such a vessel, one must immerse it into the boiling water of a kli rishon on a flame. It must be emphasized that even if the water in the pot was not boiling when the non-kosher food or ḥametz was absorbed, it must boil during hagala, because the principle of ke-bole’o kakh polto relates only to the type of absorption – kli rishon or kli sheni – but whenever dealing with absorption in a kli rishon on the burner, the koshering must be carried out with boiling water.
  A kli rishon removed from the flame: This refers to a vessel that was heated over a flame and then removed, or the flame was extinguished. Such a vessel still has the capacity to cook, and food placed in it will become slightly cooked from the lingering heat from the fire. Nevertheless, the heat continuously dissipates, as does its capacity to cook.  Therefore, it need not be koshered in a pot of boiling water on a flame; it is sufficient to place it in a kli rishon that is no longer on a flame.
  Liquid poured (“irui”) from a kli rishon: This has the capacity to cook the surface layer (“kedei klipa”) of a food item. For example, if ḥametz soup was poured into a bowl from a kli rishon, the taste of ḥametz will be absorbed by the surface layer of the bowl but will not penetrate its entire width. To kosher such a bowl, it is sufficient to pour boiling water over it from a kli rishon.
  A kli sheni: This refers to hot food that was first cooked in a vessel over fire and then transferred to a different one. The poskim disagree about whether such a food can cause its taste to be absorbed into the surface layer of other foods or utensils. For example, if one places a spoon in a kli sheni, some poskim say it will not absorb the taste of the food in the vessel, and others say it will. Regarding all other forbidden foods, SA (YD 105:2) rules that although, according to the prevailing opinion, hagala is not required, it is nonetheless proper to do so le-khatḥila. Regarding Pesaḥ, however, SA (451:5) rules that hagala is required. Due to the severity of the ḥametz prohibition, the lenient position is not even mentioned (Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 20).
  Some are even stringent regarding a kli shlishi and beyond, that is, utensils at least twice removed from the vessel in which the food was cooked, maintaining that as long as a food remains at the temperature of yad soledet, a vessel will absorb its taste and must be koshered – ke-bole’o kakh polto. However, most poskim are lenient in this respect. Nevertheless, because of the gravity of the ḥametz prohibition, it is customarily preferable to be strict about koshering any vessel that contained ḥametz at the temperature of yad soledet.10<i class="footnote">A <em>kli rishon </em>on the flame must always be koshered in boiling water. Whether its temperature was just barely <em>yad soledet </em>or beyond the boiling point at the time of the absorption, all absorption in a utensil on the fire is treated uniformly and the utensil must always be koshered in boiling water. This principle is explained beautifully in R. Pfeiffer’s <em>Kitzur </em>SA<em>, Basar Be-ḥalav</em> vol. 2. However, some authorities maintain that even a utensil sitting on the fire is subject to the standard principle of <em>ke-bole’o kakh polto</em>, meaning that if it absorbed taste at 80ºC it releases the taste at the same temperature. See <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 1:4, SAH 451, and <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> <em>ad loc. </em>82.Regarding a kli rishon not on the flame, most poskim agree that the koshering process must be done at a temperature of yad soledet bo, as stated in MA OḤ  451:7, Pri Ḥadash 452:3, and Pri Megadim 451 (Mishbetzot Zahav 9). However, Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 1:4 mentions opinions that the koshering temperature must be the same as the absorption temperature, so to avoid uncertainty it is best to kosher such a utensil in boiling water. The temperature of yad soledet is uncertain, somewhere between 45ºC and 71ºC (see Peninei Halakha: Shabbat 1:10:7), so to kosher a utensil, the water must be at least 71ºC. On the other hand, if the utensil was used at a temperature of at least 45ºC, there is concern that absorption took place and therefore one should be stringent.Most poskim maintain that a kli sheini does not absorb, but due to the stringent nature of the prohibition of ḥametz, they mandated hagala. Be-di’avad, if the utensil was not koshered and was later inserted into hot food, the food is not forbidden (MB 451:11). The vast majority of poskim maintain that a kli shlishi does not absorb at all. Even so, several authorities insist that every utensil, even ten times removed from the fire, must be koshered if its contents reached the temperature of yad soledet (Pri Ḥadash). See Hagalat Kelim 5:52. This is the le-khatḥila practice.We should also note that the poskim disagree about the status of a solid food (“davar gush”) at the temperature of yad soledet: According to Rabbeinu Yona, Me’iri, Maharshal, Shakh, and MA, even if it is in a kli shlishi, the food has the status of a kli rishon removed from the flame, since it retains its heat. Conversely, according to Tosafot, Ran, Rema, and Gra, the food assumes the status of the utensil that contains it. Regarding hagala, the custom is to kosher such utensils in boiling water on the fire.</i>
  
  Section 7
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Main Use or Most Intense Absorption?
  According to SA (451:6), if a utensil was sometimes used as a kli rishon and other times as kli sheni it is koshered based on majority usage. Thus, if it was used primarily as a kli sheni, it can be koshered like a kli sheni. Likewise, if it was sometimes used in fire, but primarily used as a kli rishon, it may be koshered in a kli rishon. And if it was sometimes used as a kli rishon, but primarily used cold, it can be koshered in cold water. According to Rema, on the other hand, the utensil must be koshered based upon its most intense usage, not according to its predominant use.
  To illustrate, if a particular spoon is usually used to eat soup from a kli sheni, and occasionally used to stir food in a pot on the fire, Shulḥan Arukh maintains that it is koshered based on its primary usage, which in this case would mean hagala in a kli sheni, whereas according to Rema it must be koshered via hagala in a kli rishon, in keeping with its more intense form of absorption. Rema’s rationale is that once the utensil has absorbed the taste of foods in a more intense fashion, the only way to remove what has been absorbed is by koshering the utensil with the same intensity. Shulḥan Arukh’s opinion is based upon the presumption that the koshering of the utensil takes place more than twenty-four hours after its last use, at which point the absorbed taste is foul. According to the Torah, such a utensil does not require hagala. The Sages, however, required that any utensil that has absorbed the taste of forbidden food be koshered, out of concern that if they were to permit the use of such utensils after twenty-four hours had elapsed, people might misjudge the time and inadvertently treat leniently utensils that had been used in the past twenty-four hours. But the Sages required that such utensils be koshered according to their common use, and not their most intense use.
  In practice, the custom le-khatḥila is to be stringent and to kosher every utensil according to its most intense usage. Furthermore, even if a utensil’s most intense usage was irui, the custom today is to kosher all utensils in a kli rishon on a flame, in order to avoid a situation in which one has forgotten that a utensil was in fact used as a kli rishon on a flame. However, in extenuating circumstances, one may be lenient and kosher a utensil according to its primary use (MB 451:47; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 100). If a utensil was used primarily as a kli rishon and occasionally on the fire, even Rema allows koshering via light libun (MB ad loc. 48). If there is a concern that even light libun will damage the utensil, it is considered a be-di’avad situation, and one may kosher it in a kli rishon, in accordance with its primary use (Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 108).11<i class="footnote">Among the authorities who rule leniently and allow one to kosher utensils based on main usage: Rif<em>, </em>Rambam<em>, </em>Ran<em>, </em>and Rashba. The authorities who require koshering based on the most intense usage are: <em>She’iltot, </em>Rashi<em>, Tosafot, </em>and Raavya. These groups disagree about <em>ḥametz</em> as well as other prohibitions. There is another reason to be stringent regarding <em>ḥametz</em> alone: According to Rema 447:10, even <em>ḥametz</em> that contributes foul taste (<em>noten ta’am li-fgam</em><em> </em>renders other foods forbidden; therefore, one must perform the most intense form of <em>hagala </em>on such a pot. On the other hand, regarding absorption that takes place due to fire, there is a reason to be lenient, namely, there is an opinion that a pot that absorbs <em>ḥametz</em> before Pesaḥ is considered to have absorbed permissible matter (<em>heteira bala</em>). We calculate majority and minority usage based on use with <em>ḥametz </em>that requires koshering; in other words, a utensil that is primarily used for cold permitted food and was used once for hot <em>ḥametz </em>must undergo <em>hagala </em>in boiling water. However, if most of the <em>ḥametz </em>usage was cold, as in the case of a table or countertop, it can be cleaned with cold water according to SA, even though it was occasionally used with hot <em>ḥametz</em><em>Ḥazon Ish </em>OḤ <em> </em>119:15; and see <em>Hagalat Kelim</em> 4:8-17). Since we know that <em>Kaf</em><em> Ha-ḥayim</em> (451:100 and 107) states that the preferable custom is to be stringent and kosher the utensil according to its minority usage, and Rema and MB<em> </em>also state that one may only rely on the lenient opinion <em>be-di’avad </em>(see SHT <em>ad loc. </em>144 and <em>Hagalat Kelim </em>4 n. 18, against the implication of SAH 451:28 and 33, that this leniency is only <em>be-di’avad</em><em> </em>I have written that preferably one should be stringent and follow the minority usage, but in extenuating circumstances one may be lenient. This is true according to all customs. Regarding forks that are sometimes used in fire, there is an additional reason to be lenient and require only <em>hagala </em>– the fork that was used in the fire is <em>batel </em>in the majority of forks that were not.</i>
  
  Section 8
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Ĥametz Utensils on Pesaĥ
  Vessels used throughout the year with hot ḥametz foods cannot be used during Pesaḥ since heat causes vessels to absorb the taste of ḥametz. In order to use such utensils during Pesaḥ, one must first remove the taste of the ḥametz through hagala or libun. What if one errs and cooks in a pot that was not koshered for Pesaḥ? According to Shulḥan Arukh, if twenty-four hours have elapsed since the ḥametz was cooked in the pot, the food may be eaten on Pesaḥ, because the taste of the released ḥametz is foul. According to Rema, the food is forbidden even though the ḥametz is foul because the prohibition of ḥametz is especially severe, for even a drop of ḥametz causes a food to be forbidden (SA 447:10; see above 7:5).
  If one cooks in such a pot on Pesaḥ knowing that it had not been koshered, even if twenty-four hours have passed and the taste of the ḥametz has been befouled, the cooked food is forbidden. As we have learned, the Sages forbade such food in order to penalize people who deliberately cook in vessels that have absorbed ḥametz and have not been koshered.
  Ḥametz utensils that one does not wish to make kosher for Pesaḥ must be cleansed of any residual ḥametz and put away in a closed place so that nobody inadvertently uses them during Pesaḥ (SA 451:1; see also above 6:4, where we learned that such utensils should not be sold).
  
  Section 9
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Cleaning and Preparing Utensils for Hagala
  A utensil must be cleaned properly before undergoing hagala, for although boiling water extracts the taste absorbed in the utensil, it does not clean the utensil of residual food stuck to its walls. If hagala is performed without first removing food residue, it is completely ineffective; the utensil must be cleaned, and hagala must be redone.
  If the utensil has crevices containing food particles that cannot be removed, the residue can be incinerated via light libun. It is best to do so before performing hagala, but the utensil becomes kosher even if it the libun is done afterward (MB 451:25; see Kaf Ha-ḥayim 160). If it is impractical to incinerate the food particles in these areas because it will damage the utensil, one may soak the utensil in a mixture of water and bleach or soap for a short while (thus rendering the food foul and inedible), and then perform hagala.12<i class="footnote">Obviously, once the food residue in the crevices absorbs the taste of the soap, it is no longer edible and thus no longer forbidden (see also <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim</em> 6:4). This seems problematic, though, as MA 451:5, <em>Taz</em>, and many other Aḥaronim state that knives comprised of two pieces cannot be koshered due to the food residue that is stuck in the groove between the pieces. They did not raise the option of simply befouling the taste of the food stuck in between. Perhaps a distinction can be drawn between the crevices that are near the food and grooves that are further away, like where the handle connects with the utensil (see SAH 451:21, which makes this distinction when <em>be-di’avad </em>one forgot to kosher the handle of a utensil). In truth, even the case of the knife needs further examination, since the reason for the rabbinic prohibition against using a utensil even twenty-four hours after absorbing prohibited matter is so that one will not mistakenly use a utensil within twenty-four hours of the absorption. However, the Sages did not include the food stuck in the grooves in this prohibition, and if this food is not fit for a dog’s consumption, it is no longer considered <em>ḥametz</em>. Perhaps one need not take the words of the Aḥaronim literally; rather, they just meant to teach that when the utensil has nicks and grooves that may have trapped <em>ḥametz</em>, simply performing <em>hagala </em>is insufficient. This matter requires further examination.</i>
  Pot and pan handles must also be koshered because when metal vessels are heated during cooking, the heat spreads to the handles, and if they reach the temperature of yad soledet, the taste might be transferred to them. The handles of wooden pots must also be koshered, even though they do not become very hot, because hot food often spills over or splashes onto them, and they absorb the taste. Therefore, both the utensil and its handles must undergo hagala (SA 451:12; MB ad loc. 68). However, even if the pot itself absorbs at a heat of a kli rishon over fire, its handles can be koshered through irui from a kli rishon, because they do not absorb with the same intensity as a kli rishon over fire (Rema 451:12). Many pots have handles that are attached with small screws, and food particles get stuck in their grooves. Therefore, before performing hagala the bolts must be taken off so that all of these particles can be removed. If this is difficult to do, one may soak this area of the pot in a mixture of water and bleach or some other harsh liquid cleanser in order to render the food particles completely befouled.13<i class="footnote">Regarding a pot in which one cooked prohibited food, if it is known that the pot did not boil over and its handles did not become hot, there is no need to kosher the handles. It is sufficient to boil water inside the pot, as will be explained below (section 13). Additionally, if the handles got hot but are attached to the pot with screws, they do not have to be koshered, since taste does not transfer from metal to metal. Similarly, if one accidentally put a dairy spoon into a meat pot, one must only kosher the section of the spoon that was submerged in the pot and the section that got hot, but not the rest. However, one must kosher the handles of a <em>ḥametz</em> pot, since there is a concern that perhaps during the year some <em>ḥametz</em> splattered onto the handles. Similarly, if one wants to kosher a <em>ḥametz</em> spoon, he must perform <em>hagala </em>on the entire thing; see MB<em> </em>451:68.</i>
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Utensils Likely to Be Damaged by Libun; Baking Trays As we have learned, the objective of libun is to incinerate all taste absorbed into a utensil. To that end, the utensil must be heated to a very high temperature (more than 300ºC). There are two ways to tell that a vessel has reached such a temperature. One is that the utensil undergoing libun becomes so hot that sparks fly from it when it is brought into contact with iron. The other indication is that its outer layer peels off, or that it reddens completely. However, some utensils are likely to be damaged by this process. It is forbidden to kosher such utensils through libun because we are concerned that, in an attempt to protect his utensil from damage, the owner will not perform libun properly. For example, it is forbidden to kosher an earthenware vessel that has absorbed non-kosher food or ḥametz, because libun is liable to crack the vessel. Nor is hagala effective on earthenware vessels because their unique composition causes them to absorb taste but not sufficiently release it. The only way to kosher an earthenware vessel is to return it to the kiln, where it is impossible to protect it from the full force of the kiln’s furnace. As a result, the vessel will either break and be lost or survive and be kosher (SA 451:1; MB ad loc. 13, 14). Wonder Pots (an Israeli invention used for baking on stovetops) absorb taste though fire and therefore require heavy libun. However, since they are made of aluminum they cannot endure the libun process, and hence there is no way to kosher them for Pesaḥ (although if it was used to bake only simple cakes, one may be lenient and kosher it by means of hagala, as explained above in section 4). Baking trays designed for domestic ovens become severely damaged by heavy libun. They lose their pleasant appearance and become warped to the extent that most people would no longer consider them usable. Therefore, they cannot be koshered through libun. There are, however, industrial baking trays that do not become seriously damaged by fire, and it is permissible to perform libun on such trays for Pesaḥ.
  It is possible that one who knows that he will not care if his tray becomes warped and unattractive would be permitted, in time of need, to perform libun on such a tray. After all, every time libun is performed there is a risk of some damage, and the Sages only forbade libun where there is concern that the utensil will be completely ruined. When one will not be distraught if his baking tray is damaged, he may kosher it via libun. In practice, though, one should ask a competent authority what to do in this case.9<i class="footnote">em&gt;Pri Megadim explains (<em>Mishbetzot Zahav</em> §452) that one may perform <em>libun</em> on a utensil that might become partially damaged. <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 8:40 and <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim</em> 5:6 and 13:315 state that one should not kosher baking trays using <em>libun</em>. Although it is possible to use baking trays that have undergone <em>libun</em><em>, </em>most people nowadays prefer to throw them out. The question is whether the law is different for one who is unfazed by a warped baking tray (as per <em>Pri Megadim</em>). Perhaps someone whose baking tray became non-kosher – meaning that unless he koshers it he will have to throw it out anyway – may perform <em>libun </em>on it, for if he does not like the way it looks afterward he will simply throw it out. Some authorities rule leniently in this regard, but I am inclined to be stringent unless it is absolutely necessary. In extenuating circumstances, perhaps one may rely on <em>Arugot Ha-bosem</em>, cited in n. 5.</i>
  
  Section 10
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / The Reason to Wait Twenty-Four Hours before Hagala
  It is customary not to perform hagala on a utensil until twenty-four hours have elapsed (and it is no longer “ben yomo”) since the last time it absorbed a forbidden food. This is because the absorbed taste remains flavorful during these twenty-four hours, and if the boiling water is not sixty times the volume of the utensil, the water will absorb the forbidden taste and transfer it back into the walls of the utensil, rendering the hagala ineffective. But if twenty-four hours have elapsed, the taste in the utensil becomes foul, and the utensil can be koshered even if the water is not sixty times its volume. This is because the utensil releases a foul taste into the water, and such a taste will not render the utensil un-kosher, even if it is reabsorbed. The utensil is only rendered un-kosher if it absorbed positive flavor, in which case it remains un-kosher even once the flavor has become foul. However, if at the time of its absorption the taste was foul to begin with, the utensil is kosher.
  Another reason for this twenty-four hour delay is our concern that meat and dairy utensils will undergo hagala in the same water. In such a case, the positive flavors of meat and milk will be released into the water, and if the water is not sixty times the volume of either the meat or the dairy, they will not be batel. Rather, these flavors mingle and then render all of the water forbidden. Consequently, any utensil that undergoes hagala in this water will absorb basar be-ḥalav (the forbidden mixture of milk and meat) and become forbidden. However, once the utensil is not ben yomo, the tastes of milk and of meat in the utensils is foul, and even if the tastes mingle within the water, they do not become forbidden, since noten ta’am li-fgam is permitted (SA 452:2; MB ad loc.). Accordingly, one must ensure that a large pot in which other utensils undergo hagala did not absorb the ben yomo taste of meat, milk, or ḥametz.
  The common practice at public hagala stations is to presume that at least some of the utensils brought are not ben yomo. In order to avoid problems, a strong cleanser such as bleach or liquid soap is added to the water, thereby immediately rendering any taste released by the utensils foul. Consequently, there is no concern that meat and dairy flavors will mix or that the tastes released will be reabsorbed by the utensils, because once a taste has become foul, it cannot render utensils forbidden.14<i class="footnote">These principles are explained in SA<em> </em>453:1-2 and in MB 1 <em>ad loc</em>. One who wishes to perform <em>hagala </em>must ensure that one of two conditions is met: 1) the utensil is not <em>ben yomo</em>, rendering any absorbed taste foul and thus incapable of rendering the utensil forbidden, even if reabsorbed; 2) the boiling water is sixty times the volume of the utensil’s walls, so that any taste released into the water is <em>batel be-shishim</em>. If many utensils are undergoing <em>hagala</em>, clearly the water will not have sixty times the volume of all the utensils collectively, so the custom is to kosher only utensils that are not <em>ben yomo</em>, lest the water have less than sixty times the volume of the utensils’ walls (Rema 452:2 and MB<em> </em>20 <em>ad loc.</em>). These rules pertain to any forbidden food absorbed into a utensil, except for <em>ḥametz</em>. Regarding <em>ḥametz</em>, SA<em> </em>452:1 states that if one boils a <em>ḥametz</em> utensil before the <em>ḥametz</em> actually becomes forbidden, <em>hagala</em> is effective even if the utensil is <em>ben yomo</em>, and even if the quantity of boiled water is less than sixty times that of the utensil walls, since the <em>ḥametz</em> was permitted at the time of its absorption. The only reason the utensil needs to be koshered is that it contains the taste of <em>ḥametz</em><em> </em>in its walls, and taste that is released into boiling water and then reabsorbed into the utensil is not sufficient reason to require the utensil to undergo <em>hagala </em>again, as the reabsorbed taste is already twice removed from the original food (<em>noten ta’am bar noten ta’am</em>, or <em>nat bar nat</em>). One need only take care not to kosher <em>ben yomo </em>meat and dairy utensils together. Many questioned this ruling of SA, since in 451:4 it states that one must kosher utensils using <em>libun</em> if they absorbed <em>ḥametz</em> by fire, which means that SA follows those who maintain that <em>ḥametz</em> before Pesaḥ is considered “<em>isura bala.</em>” How, then, can it state in 452:4 that <em>ḥametz</em> before Pesaḥ is considered “<em>heteira bala</em>”? Indeed, <em>Olat Shabbat, Pri Ḥadash</em>, and <em>Bi’ur Ha-Gra</em> maintain that even when koshering a <em>ḥametz</em> utensil before the onset of the prohibition of <em>ḥametz</em>, one must ensure either that the utensil is not <em>ben yomo </em>or that there is enough water that anything absorbed in the walls of the utensil is <em>batel be-shishim</em>. This is the custom that is followed. (Perhaps, though, we can solve SA’s apparent contradiction as follows: <em>Hagala</em> addresses a situation of <em>nat bar nat bar nat</em>, in which the taste is thrice removed from its origins. Thus, SA<em> </em>felt it was appropriate to rely on the lenient opinion. But in the <em>libun</em><em> </em>case, the taste is only once removed from its origins, so SA<em> </em>ruled stringently.)Regarding whether one may perform <em>hagala</em> on Pesaḥ: According to SA, it is permissible as long as the utensil is not <em>ben yomo</em>; merely having enough water is insufficient, since on Pesaḥ <em>ḥametz</em> is not <em>batel be-shishim</em>. According to Rema (447:10), even a drop of foul-tasting <em>ḥametz </em>renders forbidden whatever absorbs it on Pesaḥ. Thus, there is no permissible method of <em>hagala</em> on Pesaḥ. Only <em>libun</em>, which incinerates the taste absorbed in the utensil, is permitted on Pesaḥ<em>.</em></i>
  Le-khatḥila, no other substance is mixed with the water used for hagala, as explained in Rema 452:5. Be-di’avad, hagala is effective in any liquid. MB ad loc. 26 states in the name of Pri Megadim that if Pesaḥ had not yet begun, one should re-kosher the utensil in boiling water alone. Nevertheless, in communal hagala it is difficult to ensure that everyone’s utensils are not ben yomo, and since we want to avoid any problems that could arise from mixing meat and dairy utensils, the custom is to add soap or bleach to the boiling water. See Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 7:20, which states that the validity of the hagala only comes into question if the water becomes thickened from the added substances. In n. 7 ad loc. it states in the name of Ḥazon Ish that it is preferable to use cleaning fluids to avoid the potential problem of mixing milk and meat and to avoid relying on the opinion that ḥametz before Pesaḥ is considered “isura bala.”
  
  Section 11
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Hagala in Practice
  The hagala water must actually be boiling, and this is a sine qua non with regard to utensils that have absorbed ḥametz as a kli rishon on the fire. As we have learned, the practice, le-khatḥila, is to perform hagala on all utensils in a kli rishon over fire.
  The entire utensil must be submerged in the water for a few seconds.15<i class="footnote">See SA 452:1 and MB <em>ad loc.</em> 4, which state that one should not leave the utensils in the water for too long, so that they do not reabsorb what they released. On the other hand, too short a time in the water will not give the utensils enough time to release. MB states that it is difficult to ascertain the precise amount of time that is neither too quick nor too long. However, it states: “If one performs <em>hagala </em>before the time that [<em>ḥametz</em>] becomes forbidden, there is no need to be so precise, and one may leave [the utensils] in the water longer,” since at that point <em>noten ta’am li-fgam </em>is permitted and the <em>ḥametz </em>is <em>batel be-shishim</em>. See <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em> 452:2 which states that some Rishonim<em> </em>maintain that one should leave the utensils in the water until they have released what they absorbed, while other Rishonim<em> </em>maintain that one should insert the utensils in the water and then remove them immediately. Common practice follows the latter opinion, and <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> states, regarding this practice, that Jewish custom has attained the status of law (see <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 7:17 and n. 67). The prevalent custom is to leave the utensils in the boiling water for about three seconds.</i> Sometimes the immersion of utensils cools the water to the point that it stops boiling. In this case, the utensils should be left in the water until it returns to a boil.
  If a utensil cannot be immersed in its entirety into the water, it can be immersed one half at a time (SA 451:11).
  Furthermore, when immersing two utensils into the boiling water at one time, one should shake the utensils to ensure that the boiling water circulates between them (based on SA 452:3-4).
  Common practice, le-khatḥila, is to rinse the utensils with cold water after hagala, so that the hot water does not remain on them and cause them to reabsorb the taste released during hagala. This is not essential, however, since hagala is normally performed when the utensil is not ben yomo or in water that has a foul taste, so that even if the utensil reabsorbs the taste of the water, it will not be rendered un-kosher (SA 452:7; MB ad loc. 34). Therefore, one should not rinse utensils with cold water if this is liable to damage them. Likewise, if for some reason it is difficult to rinse a utensil with cold water, one need not make an effort to do so.
  Though some people have reservations about performing hagala on their utensils, the procedure is actually quite simple. In brief: First, one cleans the utensil and waits twenty-four hours after it absorbed forbidden food. Next, one immerses the utensil in boiling water. If it is possible to take it out and rinse it immediately in cold water, this should be done, but if it is difficult, one may extinguish the fire under the pot of boiling water, wait for the pot to cool down somewhat, and then pour out the hot water, and rinse the utensil a bit in cold water. One may use any pot in the kitchen for hagala, provided that it has not been used for cooking in the previous twenty-four hours.16<i class="footnote">The custom of Ashkenazic communities and some Sephardic communities is to avoid using <em>hagala</em> to switch utensils from meat to dairy and vice versa, so that one does not forget which utensils are meat and which are dairy. However, if a utensil became non-kosher and one koshered it through <em>hagala</em>, he may use it for whatever he wants (if it was meat before, he may use it for dairy and vice versa). Similarly, <em>Ḥatam Sofer</em> §101 states that following the <em>hagala</em> for Pesaḥ, one may change the status of his utensils. One who receives a utensil as a gift may change its status through <em>hagala</em><em>Darkhei Teshuva</em> YD 121:59). One may also sell the utensil to a friend, reacquire it, and then change its status through <em>hagala.</em><em>Pri Megadim</em><em>Eshel Avraham</em>] 452:13, states that in extenuating circumstances one may change the status of his utensils through <em>hagala</em></i>
  
  Section 12
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Koshering Pots via Hagala
  We have seen that in order to kosher a pot used to cook ḥametz (barley soup, for instance), it must be immersed in boiling water. When the boiling water inundates the vessel on all sides, it extracts the taste of the ḥametz from it. Based on the principle of ke-bole’o kakh polto, it ought to be possible to kosher such a pot by simply boiling water in it, and the pot will expel the taste just as it absorbed it. However, during the course of the year some cooked foods certainly boiled over the sides of the pot, causing the absorption of taste along the pot’s rim. The taste would not be released by water boiled inside the pot. Thus, in order to kosher such a pot for Pesaḥ, it must be completely immersed in a large vat of boiling water.
  If one cannot find a vat large enough for immersing the pot one wishes to kosher, the poskim suggest the following: fill the pot you wish to kosher with water and bring it to a boil. At the same time, heat a stone so that it becomes scorching hot. When the water boils, insert the scorching hot stone into the pot. This will cause a lot of water to spill over the sides of the pot, koshering its rim and its outer walls. This method is effective where a vessel has absorbed ḥametz through overflow, but if a pot was inserted into another pot and absorbed taste, it has absorbed in a kli rishon, and hagala by the overflow method is not effective. Instead, it must be koshered through complete immersion in boiling water (SA 452:6; MB ad loc. 31). It is difficult, however, to heat stones in this manner in domestic kitchens. Therefore, a possible alternative is to boil water in a small vessel, and when the water in the large vessel begins to boil, insert the small vessel into the center of the larger vessel. This will cause the water in the larger vessel to overflow and kosher its rim and outer walls.
  If the pots have removable handles, it is proper to remove them and perform hagala on them. However, if the handles were not removed, and one cleaned around them with plenty of soap and then performed hagala on them, the pot is kosher.
  Another problem is that many pots have a lip along the rim and on the edges of the cover where food sometimes gets stuck. The preferred practice is to heat these areas with a blowtorch in order to incinerate the residue found there. However, one need not be meticulous about this, because the pot goes through enough rinsing and cleaning with detergents to render the taste of any residual food foul and unfit for a dog’s consumption, so that it does not even have the status of ḥametz. Therefore, if a blowtorch is used, its flame should not be directed at one place for too long, because doing so might damage the pot’s nice appearance. When necessary, one who cannot perform light libun on this lip may suffice with hagala.17<i class="footnote">We once examined the lip of a pot, and the substance contained in it was black, ugly, and extremely foul-tasting. Therefore, even without <em>libun</em> it is not forbidden. Similarly, whatever builds up around the pot handles is exceedingly foul, so even if one did not remove the handles, the <em>hagala</em> is valid. Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, one should rinse that area with a lot of soap. Regarding <em>hagala </em>on a large pot that does not fit inside an even larger pot, I have seen it suggested that one cause the water to overflow by pouring boiling water into it from an electric kettle that is still connected to a power source. My solution is better, though, since with the pouring method, the water cools down slightly, whereas in my method, the whole pot boils and becomes a <em>kli rishon</em> without cooling down at all.Regarding milk and meat: Sometimes some liquid from a boiling dairy pot splashes onto a cold meat pot, and we consider the outer layer of the meat pot to have absorbed some dairy taste at the spot that was hit by the liquid. The way to kosher the meat pot is by pouring boiling water on it, and since we are dealing with a very small absorption, one need not even wait twenty-four hours, since it is possible to pour sixty times the amount absorbed on the spot. If one is concerned that there is not sixty times the absorbed amount, he may mix soap into the boiling water, which will befoul the absorbed taste. On the other hand, if the meat pot contained hot food when it was splashed by the dairy liquid, the pot needs to be koshered in boiling water. One should consult with a halakhic authority about the status of the food in the meat pot, since sometimes it is sufficient to have sixty times the amount of dairy liquid, while other times there needs to be 3,600 (sixty times sixty) times the amount of splashed liquid.</i>
  
  Section 13
  
  The Principles of Hagalat Kelim / Absorption through Pickling (“Kvisha”) and Its Koshering
  Utensils into which cold ḥametz has been placed do not require hagala in boiling water; a thorough washing is sufficient to kosher them for Pesaḥ. For example, beer mugs become kosher for Pesaḥ by means of a thorough washing, even though beer is ḥametz gamur, because as long as the ḥametz in a utensil has not reached the temperature of yad soledet, the utensil does not absorb the taste of its contents. Certainly, then, a cake plate used for ḥametz can be koshered for Pesaḥ with a thorough washing, because in addition to the fact that cookies never reach yad soledet, they are dry, and taste does not transfer to a utensil without a liquid medium.
  But if beer is left in a mug for more than twenty-four hours, kvisha (“pickling,” or the absorption of taste through prolonged soaking) occurs, and the taste of the ḥametz gets absorbed into the glass based on the Sages’ rule: “kavush ke-mevushal” (pickling is akin to cooking). Therefore, it is forbidden to use such a utensil on Pesaḥ unless it has been koshered.
  Utensils that have absorbed taste via kvisha can certainly be koshered through hagala in boiling water; if hagala is effective on utensils that absorbed via cooking, it certainly works on utensils that absorbed via kvisha. Moreover, since kvisha is a milder form of absorption, one may kosher such a utensil by soaking it in water for three twenty-four hour periods: First, one places the utensil in water and leaves it there for twenty-four hours. Second, the water is changed and the utensil is left there for another twenty-four hours. Then the water is changed once again, and the utensil soaks for a final twenty-four-hour period. Nevertheless, this method of koshering is generally not helpful because it is faster and easier to perform hagala with boiling water. But when dealing with utensils that are liable to be damaged by boiling water, soaking in water for three twenty-four-hour periods can be a very useful solution.
  It is also worth mentioning that when it comes to alcoholic beverages such as whiskey, some poskim are of the opinion that the taste of the ḥametz is absorbed by the glass in a mere eighteen minutes. Thus, if one wishes to use such a glass on Pesaḥ, it must first be koshered using one of the aforementioned methods.18<i class="footnote">See <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim </em>YD 105:1 on the dispute among the <em>poskim</em> regarding the degree to which, vis-à-vis prohibitions other than <em>ḥametz</em>, utensils absorb taste via the pickling process. Some <em>poskim</em> maintain that utensils absorb taste via pickling to the same degree that they do via cooking, while others maintain that pickling causes utensils to absorb taste only in their outermost layers. <em>Kaf</em><em> Ha-ḥayim</em> concludes that one may rely on the lenient opinions to prevent a significant financial loss. For example, if one cooked in a pot that had previously contained prohibited liquids for a period of twenty-four hours, one may rely on the lenient opinions that permit the food, since the amount absorbed in the outermost layer of the pot is not sufficient to prohibit the food. On the other hand, when not dealing with a significant loss, one should be stringent, following the many authorities that consider the food forbidden. It is clear that one preferably should not use utensils that have had prohibited liquid in them for more than twenty-four hours. Regarding the pickling time for a sharp food, <em>Darkhei Teshuva</em> 105:42 states that there is a dispute: some say it takes ten minutes (<em>Yad Yehuda</em>) and others say eighteen minutes (<em>Tiferet Yisrael</em>). It is also uncertain whether these times apply to absorption into a utensil as well. <em>Nishmat Adam</em> 57:10 and <em>Binat Adam</em> §59 state that, according to <em>Shakh</em>, even the taste of a sharp food is only absorbed into a utensil after twenty-four hours, while according to MA the taste of sharp foods is absorbed more quickly. Preferably, one should be stringent. See <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 6:5.Even though an earthenware utensil that absorbed ḥametz during the cooking process cannot be koshered through hagala, if such a utensil absorbed the taste through the pickling process, it can be koshered through hagala or through soaking for three days, as per SA 451:21. See also MB ad loc. 118 and Kaf Ha-ḥayim 242, which state in the name of Shakh YD 135:33 that the leniency of permitting one to kosher an earthenware vessel that absorbed forbidden taste via pickling applies only to ḥametz and not to other forbidden foods.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Countertops and Sinks
  Kitchen countertops are generally cold, but sometimes hot ḥametz foods or boiling pots from the stove are placed on them, and if some sauce spills on the countertop, it is absorbed at the level of a “kli rishon removed from the flame” (see 10:8 above).
  In order to kosher a countertop, one must first clean it well, paying special attention to crevices and making sure that no food remains stuck in them.
  Marble countertops should ideally be koshered by pouring boiling water over them while placing a scalding hot stone or piece of metal on them. By doing so, the water is brought to a boil and reaches a koshering level of a kli rishon removed from the flame. However, it is difficult to bring metal to such a heat in private homes, and doing so could damage the countertop. Therefore, the general practice is to suffice with pouring boiling water on the countertop. In this case, one should make sure not to use the countertop for Pesaḥ foods until twenty-four hours have elapsed since the last time hot ḥametz foods were on the countertops. Instead of pouring hot water, one may also cover the countertops entirely with oilcloth or thick foil in order to separate between the countertops and the Pesaḥ utensils.
  Those who are stringent do both – they pour boiling water on the countertop and then cover it with linoleum or thick foil. Fragile countertops, on which boiling pots are never placed, can be koshered by merely cleaning and pouring boiling water on them. Some think that it is possible to kosher marble countertops by burning alcohol on them, but the koshering strength of alcoholic spirits is less than that of boiling water, and therefore boiling water should be poured on the countertop. Cleaning countertops with a steam cleaner is as effective as pouring boiling water on them, but where hagala in a kli rishon is required, it is ineffective.1<i class="footnote">SA<em> </em>451:20 states that one can kosher the tables on which pots are placed by pouring boiling water on them (and does not rule leniently based on the principle that koshering method is determined by main usage, which in this case is with cold food). MB 114 <em>ad loc. </em>cites Rabbeinu Yeruḥam that one must kosher such a table according to its most intense usage, i.e., a <em>kli rishon </em>removed from the flame. Therefore, one must pour boiling water over a scorching stone on the table, effectively koshering it on the level of a <em>kli rishon </em>removed from the flame. However, as we saw in 10:9 above, in extenuating circumstances one may kosher a utensil based on its main usage; in this case merely washing the table would suffice.Practically, even one relying on the lenient opinions should at least pour boiling water on the countertop or cover it with an oilcloth. Those who act stringently both pour boiling water and cover the table, preferring not to rely solely on a covering that may slide around. It is worth mentioning the concern raised by some that cheaper countertops made of compressed stone have the status of earthenware, on which hagala is ineffective. However, even earthenware can be koshered by merely washing it, as long as the majority of its usage is with cold items. Additionally, it seems more likely that compressed stone countertops do not have the same status as earthenware vessels; see Hagalat Kelim 13:1. Nevertheless, there are better grounds for covering this type of countertop. See also Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 8:2 and Piskei Teshuvot 451:44.See Hagalat Kelim 13:433 regarding koshering a countertop with alcohol. We do not condemn one who uses this method, as long as he cleaned the countertop well, since be-di’avad cleaning a countertop, whose primary usage is cold, with cold water is effective. Cleaning with the alcohol alone, however, is ineffective.</i>
  In general, the status of a sink is similar to that of a countertop, though in one respect it is less strict because it usually contains soap, which befouls the tastes of foods, and in another respect, it is more strict (if made of porcelain), because many poskim say that porcelain has the status of earthenware, which does not release tastes through hagala.
  There are two accepted practices for koshering sinks. Those who are lenient clean the sink well and then pour boiling water all over it. Before pouring boiling water on a sink or countertop, it must be dried well, so that the boiling water touches it directly and is not cooled by any cold water on its surface. For this reason, one must first pour the boiling water on the sink and then on the countertop, starting with the areas closest to the sink and moving further away. Those who are stringent, in addition to pouring boiling water on the sink, put a plastic insert in it or line it with thick aluminum foil in order to separate between the sink, which has absorbed ḥametz, and the Pesaḥ utensils. These people are also careful not to use boiling water in the sink during Pesaḥ.2<i class="footnote">Its most intense form of absorption is as a <em>kli rishon </em>removed from the flame, since sometimes one places pots of boiling-hot <em>ḥametz</em> in it. One who wants to kosher it based on its most serious usage must place a scalding stone in boiling water and pour the water onto the sink. However, according to many <em>poskim</em>, a porcelain sink has the status of earthenware and cannot be koshered via <em>hagala</em>. In such a case, one must cover the walls of the sink with a plastic insert or aluminum foil. They are also careful not to fill the sink with boiling water, lest the taste absorbed in the walls of the sink become absorbed in the Pesaḥ utensils. Even if the sink is not <em>ben yomo</em> and tastes absorbed in it are thus foul, according to Rema 447:10 even this is forbidden on Pesaḥ.Those who are lenient rely on SA 451:6 that we follow the main usage, which in the case of a sink is with cold foods. This method is thus effective even if the sink is made of earthenware. Additionally, according to Knesset Ha-gedola, porcelain is akin to glass, which does not absorb at all, and not earthenware. Moreover, since there is usually residual dish soap in the sink, any ḥametz taste absorbed into the sink would have been foul from the outset, so the sink would not need to be koshered. And even if we assume that the sink absorbed flavorful ḥametz, it would turn foul once twenty-four hours had elapsed. Even though according to Rema foul-tasting ḥametz is forbidden on Pesaḥ, the present case involved absorption that is, at worst, third degree (nat bar nat bar nat), and, as we have seen, MB 447:98 states that one may be lenient about foul tastes where there is no existing custom, and there is no existing custom about nat bar nat bar nat. Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 8:1 and Hagalat Kelim 124-127 write more about koshering sinks.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Grates, Burners, and Stovetops
  Throughout the year, people usually use the same stovetop grates for both meat and milk, because even if some meat or dairy food spills onto them, the flame incinerates and befouls whatever has spilled. However, people customarily perform light libun on such grates for Pesaḥ, because of the seriousness of the ḥametz prohibition (Rema 451:4; MB ad loc. 34). Alternatively, one may wrap thick aluminum foil around the bars on which pots sit, so that there is a barrier between the Pesaḥ pots and the parts of the grates that came into contact with ḥametz. Be-di’avad, the food remains kosher even if cooked on grates that did not undergo libun.
  The areas of the grates that do not come into contact with the pots, the enamel cook top beneath the grates, and the burners must be cleaned well of all residual food. Since none of these parts come into contact with the pots, they need not undergo libun or be covered with foil. Generally, people turn on all the flames for half an hour.3<i class="footnote">Throughout the year, we cook both meat and dairy pots atop the grate because taste is not transferred through dry metal. For example, if a hot meat pot touched a hot dairy pot, as long as both pots were dry in the spot that they touched, both pots are kosher. Similarly, even if the grate absorbed the taste of meat, once it dries the taste does not transfer to a dairy pot. Even if a drop of dairy spilled onto the grate in the same spot that meat liquid had previously spilled, the pot remains kosher, since the flame is constantly heating the grate, and whatever liquid had previously spilled on it has already been incinerated. Due to the stringent nature of the <em>ḥametz</em> prohibition, light <em>libun </em>is required but not heavy <em>libun</em>, since technically the grates need not be koshered at all. <em>Kaf</em><em> Ha-ḥayim</em> 451:82 (citing <em>Ma’amar Mordechai</em>) concurs that <em>le-khatḥila </em>grates should undergo <em>libun</em>, but <em>be-di’avad </em>they are not prohibited. <em>Ḥazon Ovadia</em> p. 75 states that <em>hagala</em> is sufficient to kosher grates, but SAH<em> </em>maintains that light <em>libun</em> is necessary. I believe that covering the grates with aluminum foil is as effective as light <em>libun</em> and perhaps even heavy <em>libun</em>, since it completely separates the grate from the pots, so that even if some liquid spills, it would not connect the grate and the pot.</i>
  It is also important to know that throughout the year one should be stringent and refrain from eating food that has fallen onto the enamel cook top under the grates, because meat and dairy foods spill there, and the enamel becomes not kosher. If one knows that the enamel has been cleaned thoroughly and that no meat and dairy foods have spilled on it in the past twenty-four hours, one may eat what falls there. But when these two conditions have not been met, one should be stringent and refrain from eating whatever comes into contact with this enamel, because it might have absorbed the taste of meat and milk. If a thick piece of food falls there, one may cut off the side that has come into contact with the enamel and eat the rest.
  Electric ranges: Clean thoroughly and run on the highest setting for half an hour.
  Ceramic burners: These look like smooth and unbroken glass surfaces on which pots are placed directly. They are koshered by cleaning and then heating on the highest setting for half an hour, based on the principle of ke-bole’o kakh polto.
  
  Section 3
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Ovens
  To kosher an oven, clean it thoroughly and run it at its highest setting for half an hour.
  It is difficult to kosher baking trays. Because they absorb through fire, they require heavy libun, but since heavy libun will cause them serious damage, they may not be koshered (see above 9:7). One must therefore buy special baking trays for Pesaḥ, while the ḥametz trays must be cleaned and put away like all other ḥametz utensils. If one does not have Pesaḥ trays, he may use disposable trays. However, he must also kosher the racks along with the oven and cover them with aluminum foil, and only then he may place the disposable trays on the racks. Ovens that self-clean at a temperature of 500ºC need not be cleaned before koshering because such intense heat is considered heavy libun and is sufficient to kosher the oven for Pesaḥ.4<i class="footnote">Some are stringent and insist that ovens cannot be koshered for Pesaḥ, due to a concern (present in older ovens) that crumbs would fall into the door of the oven before Pesaḥ and mix into the Pesaḥ food. The solution to this problem is to clean the door of the oven with a lot of soap, thereby befouling the taste of any crumbs stuck there and rendering them unfit for a dog’s consumption. Others are stringent out of concern that perhaps food touched the walls of the oven, which would mean the oven would need to be koshered with heavy <em>libun</em> – impossible without damaging the oven. But most <em>poskim</em> rule that ovens can be koshered since the oven itself rarely comes into contact with food and only absorbs steam from the food. Light <em>libun</em> at the oven’s highest temperature would certainly kosher it. Even if some <em>ḥametz</em> spilled and its taste was absorbed in the walls of the oven, we have seen that SA (451:6) permits koshering utensils (and ovens) based on the main usage. Even MB (451:48) is lenient in such a case, provided that one performs light <em>libun</em>. We can also add the opinion that the absorption of <em>ḥametz</em> before Pesaḥ is considered <em>heteira bala</em>, for which light <em>libun</em> is effective even <em>le-khatḥila </em>(see above 10:6). Finally, we may factor in the opinion that <em>ke-bole’o kakh polto </em>applies to the temperature of the <em>libun</em> (see above 10:5), so heating the oven at its highest setting is effective.With regard to baking trays, however, we are stringent and require heavy libun. However, if one conducts light libun on a tray, he may place a disposable tray inside of the multi-use tray, and certainly atop the racks. It is best to cover the racks with aluminum foil, so that if something spills onto them it will not connect the Pesaḥ tray to the insufficiently koshered racks. One need not wait twenty-four hours before koshering them, since light libun releases and incinerates the taste absorbed in the utensil. See Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 8:3, which treats this issue at length and explains the entire process of koshering an oven.For ovens that self-clean at 500ºC and incinerate all dirt, since they heat to a temperature that certainly would cause obsolete alloys to spark or redden (see above 10:5), this self-cleaning qualifies as heavy libun and koshers the oven. Baking trays may also be koshered at this heat, but manufacturers’ instructions caution that leaving trays in such heat can ruin them. Consequently, they cannot be koshered by this method (see above 10:7).</i>
  
  Section 4
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Warming Trays (Shabbat “Plata”s)
  Sauce from ḥametz food occasionally spills from pots onto the warming tray (“plata”), and since the plata is a heat source, the ḥametz is absorbed with the intensity of a kli rishon on the flame. On other occasions, dry ḥametz dishes (such as porridges, kugels, and quiches) fall onto the plata, which constitutes absorption through fire and must be koshered through libun.
  A blekh (a metal sheet that is placed atop a gas range on Shabbat) can be koshered through libun if there is no alternative, even though it will warp and become damaged. But when it comes to an electric warming tray, libun is liable to melt the electrical wires and ruin it. Therefore, one must clean it, heat it for an hour, and then cover it with aluminum foil to separate the plata from the Pesaḥ pots.5<i class="footnote">em&gt;Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 8:5 states that one should heat up the <em>plata</em> for an hour and then pour boiling water on it, since it has the status of a <em>kli rishon </em>on the flame. It is also good to cover it with aluminum foil. <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim</em> 13:381 states that one may heat it up or cover it with aluminum foil. I believe that the primary solution is to cover the <em>plata</em> with aluminum foil, since it absorbs like a <em>kli rishon </em>on a flame and possibly even like a direct flame, whereas it is doubtful that the standard heat of a <em>plata </em>would reach the boiling point. R. Mordechai Eliyahu also writes that a <em>plata </em>must be covered with aluminum foil.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Microwave Ovens and  Dishwashers
  The common practice is to kosher a microwave oven in four steps: 1) cleaning it thoroughly of any residual food resulting from spillage or vaporization; 2) waiting twenty-four hours so that the absorbed taste becomes foul; 3) heating a container of water in it for three minutes (since microwave ovens absorb ḥametz via vapor that rises from food as it is heated); 4) placing something as a barrier between the turntable and the food that will be heated in the microwave, because ḥametz may have spilled onto the turntable.6<i class="footnote">I have written in accordance with the currently accepted ruling. R. Mordechai Eliyahu rules that one must also take care to cover any food that he heats up on Pesaḥ. Conversely, R. Nachum Rabinovitch writes that it is sufficient to simply clean the microwave and place a barrier between the turntable and the food. R. Henkin also agreed with R. Rabinovitch.(The accepted practice for switching between meat and dairy use is as written above. Alternatively, one may hermetically seal all food, or at least one of the types [meat or dairy]. One may also use perforated covers, one designated for meat and one for dairy, every time he heats food in the microwave, which allows steam to escape but prevents it from going into the food. In either of these last two options, one must place a barrier between the food and the turntable. According to R. Rabinovitch, simply cleaning the microwave suffices, even if one did not cover the food.)</i>
  Dishwashers: The filter, where residual food often gets stuck, must be cleaned thoroughly. Then the dishwasher should be run at its hottest setting, so that any absorbed ḥametz is released, ke-bole’o kakh polto. Regarding the racks, le-khatḥila they should undergo hagala or irui with boiling water or be replaced. If it is difficult to kosher them through hagala or to replace them, one may perform hagala by running them through the dishwasher’s longest and hottest setting. In any event, one must wait twenty-four hours after the last load of ḥametz utensils before using the machine with Pesaḥ utensils. Some take a stringent approach to dishwashers and consider them to have the status of a kli rishon on a flame. This means that to kosher a dishwasher one must put a white-hot piece of metal in it in order to boil the water. However, those who follow the lenient approach have authorities on whom to rely.7<i class="footnote">The highest temperature of the water in the dishwasher is c. 80ºC. A dishwasher absorbs at the level of <em>irui </em>from a <em>kli rishon </em>(see above 10:8), since the water is heated by an element (the <em>kli rishon</em>) and then sprayed at the dishes. Thus, <em>ke-bole’o kakh polto </em>applies. Nevertheless, the custom is to kosher all utensils in a <em>kli rishon </em>on a flame; thus, <em>Igrot Moshe </em>OḤ  3:58 states that one should place a scorching hot stone in the dishwasher. When this is difficult, one may perform <em>hagala </em>using the mechanism of absorption, because most <em>poskim</em> maintain that one must perform <em>hagala </em>using boiling water only when koshering a <em>kli rishon </em>used on the flame; when koshering a utensil that absorbed via <em>irui </em>from a<em> kli rishon</em>, the <em>hagala </em>water only needs to reach <em>yad soledet </em>(see above ch. 10, n. 10). This is certainly the case vis-à-vis the dishwasher, which is koshered at least at the same temperature at which it absorbed. Technically, the racks may be koshered in this manner, but since they actually came into contact with food, some authorities ruled that they must be koshered via <em>hagala </em>in boiling water, or at least via pouring boiling water on them (<em>Igrot Moshe</em>). Additionally, some authorities consider the dishwasher to be akin to a <em>kli rishon </em>on the flame; according to these authorities, one must kosher the dishwasher at the intensity of a <em>kli rishon </em>on the flame. According to these authorities, one may only be lenient vis-à-vis the walls of the dishwasher, which do not usually come into contact with food, but not vis-à-vis the racks (R. Pfeiffer’s <em>Kitzur </em>SA<em>, Basar Be-ḥalav</em> vol. 2, explanations 6 and 7). Notwithstanding this stringent view, the mainstream opinion is that the absorption was at the level of <em>irui</em>; therefore, when alternatives are difficult, one may kosher the racks inside the dishwasher. This is the opinion in <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim</em> 13:225-228. Additionally, several authorities maintain that the principle of <em>ke-bole’o kakh polto</em> applies to the temperature of the absorption in a <em>kli rishon</em>, so certainly the dishwasher’s highest setting is sufficient to kosher the trays (see SAH<em> </em>451:25 and <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato </em>1:4).Igrot Moshe maintains that if the body of the dishwasher is made of porcelain, it cannot be koshered (this is very uncommon; see also below n. 11 that there are those who are lenient, especially since the food does not touch the walls and it is likely that the dishwashing detergent ruined any taste even before it was absorbed. Thus, there is room to be lenient, as with a sink). See also Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato 8:32, which rules stringently and requires one to use a white-hot stone to kosher a dishwasher. Piskei Teshuvot 451:25 states that there is concern about koshering plastic, as some poskim maintain that it is impossible to kosher plastic (ibid. 53). However, the mainstream opinion and the view of most poskim is that plastic can be koshered via hagala, plus this is a situation of uncertainty regarding a rabbinic prohibition, as twenty-four hours have elapsed since the dishwasher’s last use. Hagalat Kelim 13:91 concludes that poskim maintain that plastic utensils can be koshered. R. Dov Lior is lenient regarding all types, as I have written.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / The Dining Table
  In the past, people would kosher their tables by pouring boiling water over them, and some took the stringent approach of pouring boiling water onto a white-hot stone on the table, so that the koshering would be at the level of kli rishon. However, today’s tables are more delicate and fragile, and would be damaged, warped, or defaced by boiling hot water.
  Therefore, the mainstream approach is to clean the table well and affix nylon or paper to it, creating a set barrier between the table and Pesaḥ utensils and foods. In addition, a tablecloth should be spread over the nylon or paper, and it is a good idea to avoid placing boiling hot pots directly on the table.
  One may kosher a tablecloth used for ḥametz by laundering it in a washing machine.
  Those who wish to knead dough for Pesaḥ must prepare a different surface, because it is difficult to kosher tables for kneading dough.
  A table on which no hot ḥametz foods were placed throughout the year must be cleaned well, but there is no need to cover it.8<i class="footnote">SA<em> </em>451:20 states that the custom is to pour boiling water on the tables, since <em>ḥametz</em> soup would sometimes spill onto the table. MB 114 adds in the name of <em>Responsa Mahari Weil</em> §193 that since sometimes hot quiches are placed on the table, it absorbs taste on the level of <em>kli rishon</em>, so one would need to kosher it with a white-hot stone. Additionally, it states in par. 17 that one must perform <em>hagala</em> on kneading tablets since dough is routinely left on the tables until it turns into <em>ḥametz</em>, making them comparable to a container for storing sourdough (“<em>beit se’or</em>”). Rema states that the custom is to avoid Pesaḥ use of tables that were used for kneading <em>ḥametz</em>, since they would need to be koshered via light <em>libun</em>. Rema<em> </em>also states in par. 16 that the custom is to kosher a <em>beit se’or</em> via light <em>libun</em><em>.</em>It is clear that there is a difference between their tables, made of thick, strong wood that could withstand a koshering process involving boiling water and white-hot stones, and our tables, made of fiber board or plywood covered in Formica, wood veneer, or an alternative. Technically, when necessary one may follow the main use of the table, which is with cold items; therefore, SA states, “the general practice is to pour boiling water on the tables,” implying that this is not an absolute requirement. Even according to Rema, who says that the koshering method follows the most severe usage, if the table is separated from the Pesaḥ food by a nylon or paper covering, there is no concern that the food absorbed in the table will pass through the barrier, especially if one is careful not to place boiling hot pots directly on the table, only atop a plate or trivet. Moreover, since our tables are more fragile, people rarely place boiling hot pots directly on the table, so the concern that the table will absorb ḥametz on the level of a kli rishon is more implausible.</i>
  
  Section 7
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / The Refrigerator and Kitchen Cabinets
  Because they are used with cold food, the only concern is that some ḥametz crumbs might remain there. Therefore, cleaning them is what koshers them. In hard to reach places where ḥametz crumbs may have gotten stuck, one must pour soapy water or some other substance that will befoul the crumbs and render them unfit for animal consumption.
  When kitchen cupboards were made of natural wood, they often had cracks that were difficult to clean completely from ḥametz that got stuck there. Aḥaronim therefore ruled that the shelves should be covered with paper or cloth (MB 451:115). However, there is no concern that ḥametz remained in smooth shelves like those used today. Therefore, once they have been cleaned properly, they need not be covered with paper or cloth.
  
  Section 8
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Pots, Skillets, Silverware, and (Non-Earthenware) Bowls
  We detailed the laws relating to hagala of pots in the previous chapter. The principle is that intensity of koshering must match the intensity of absorption (see above 10:8), but the custom, le-khatḥila, is to kosher everything through hagala in a kli rishon (ibid. 9). Before koshering a pot one must clean it (ibid. 10). We have already learned how to perform hagala in practice (ibid. 12), and how to kosher a large pot that cannot be inserted into another pot (ibid. 13).
  According to Shulḥan Arukh, skillets are koshered for Pesaḥ through hagala, and during the rest of the year they are koshered through libun. According to Rema, they are koshered through light libun for Pesaḥ as well (ibid. 4). Non-stick or Teflon frying pans cannot be koshered, since people fry in them without using oil that has been brought to a sizzle, which means that such pans require heavy libun. Since this procedure ruins them, they cannot be koshered.
  Though eating utensils absorb principally as a kli sheni, the custom is to kosher them through hagala in a kli rishon on the flame. This is because the custom, le-khatḥila, is to kosher all utensils in a kli rishon on a flame. Even if one sometimes uses a fork in a pot on the flame, it may be koshered through hagala because it will be damaged by libun and is batel be-rov (as explained above 10:9 n. 11).
  
  Section 9
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Blenders and Mixers
  Electrical appliances such as blenders and mixers are occasionally used to mince and mix hot and sometimes sharp foods. Regarding such appliances, one must follow the established principles and always relate to two problems: 1) ḥametz may have gotten stuck in crevices and holes; 2) the taste of ḥametz may have been absorbed into the walls of the appliance. If such an appliance was used with cold, non-sharp foods only, there is no problem of absorption, but there is still concern that food particles got stuck in its crevices. It must therefore be cleaned thoroughly. If there are grooves in which food particles remain, the appliance may not be koshered; alternatively, it may be soaked in soapy water or in some other agent that renders the residual food unfit for canine consumption.
  Mixers have holes designed to provide ventilation for the motor, so that it does not overheat. Flour and pieces of dough splatter into these holes, and there is concern that, when used with Pesaḥ foods, pieces of ḥametz will fall into the food. In order to kosher a mixer, one must open the motor compartment and clean it thoroughly, or plug up the holes completely. This rule applies to any appliance about which there are similar concerns. If such an appliance was used with hot foods, and one was not cautious about ḥametz throughout the year, there is concern that it has absorbed the taste of ḥametz. Therefore, one must perform hagala on all parts that came into contact with hot food. And if such an appliance was used with sharp foods, and one was not cautious about ḥametz throughout the year, even if the foods were always cold, there is concern that contact with the strong sharpness caused the taste of ḥametz to be absorbed by the appliance. One must therefore perform hagala on all parts that came into contact with food (see SA YD 96:1; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 1). If the appliance was used for kneading dough, according to the Sephardic custom hagala is necessary, and according to Ashkenazic custom light libun is needed (based on SA 451:17).
  
  Section 10
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Other Utensils
  Silver goblets: It is proper, le-khatḥila, to perform hagala on silver goblets used for kiddush wine and other hard drinks, because crumbs sometimes fall into the goblet along with these strong drinks, which, according to some poskim, causes their taste to be absorbed into the goblet after eighteen minutes (as explained above 10:14). Plastic baby bottles: It is better to replace them because they absorb tastes at a level of irui from a kli rishon. When necessary, one may clean them and perform hagala.
  Electric water heaters, urns, samovars, and hot water kettles must undergo hagala, because ḥametz crumbs may have fallen into them, causing their taste to be absorbed. Hagala in this case means filling the device to the top with water, boiling it, and then pouring it out through the opening generally used to dispense the water. Before hagala, it is good to clean out the stone deposits that accumulated inside. If one puts challah loaves on the lid of the urn to warm them before the Shabbat meal, hagala should be performed on the kettle and its lid.9<i class="footnote">This matter is unclear. Since there is no liquid present and the challah reached the temperature of <em>yad soledet</em>, perhaps it should be considered to have absorbed the taste of challah as though by means of direct fire, meaning that the lid would need heavy <em>libun</em> – a process that it certainly will not be able to withstand. On the other hand, since there is no liquid present the taste of the challah may not become absorbed into the lid at all, just as taste does not pass between two dry pieces of metal. The custom is to be lenient, especially once factoring in the opinion that <em>ḥametz</em> throughout the year has the status of “<em>heteira,</em>” and thus <em>hagala</em> is effective where normally <em>libun</em> would be (see above 10:6) and that once twenty-four hours passed since its use, it becomes a doubt relating to a rabbinic law. However, since there was definitely <em>ḥametz </em>on the urn, the lid should undergo <em>hagala </em>in boiling water.</i>
  Thermos: After cleaning it properly, hagala should be performed on it. If this is difficult, pouring boiling water into it and around its opening is sufficient.
  Toaster: This requires heavy libun, and since it is liable to be damaged in the process, it should not be koshered.
  Kneading Utensils: Rema maintains that such utensils le-khatḥila require light libun, but since they are likely to be damaged, they should not be koshered (451:16, 17). According to Shulḥan Arukh, it is possible to kosher them via hagala. Le-khatḥila, the custom is to be stringent, in keeping with Rema’s ruling (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 451:196, 263).
  False Teeth: These should be cleaned thoroughly before the onset of the ḥametz prohibition. They need not undergo hagala, because people do not normally put boiling foods or liquids in their mouths; just as they are used for both meat and dairy when cleaned in between, so can they be used on Pesaḥ. Some believe that due to the gravity of the ḥametz prohibition, they must be koshered in a kli rishon or kli sheni10<i class="footnote">Among the lenient opinions are: <em>Responsa</em><em>Beit Yitzḥak </em>YD 1:43:12, <em>Melamed Le-ho’il </em>OḤ  93, R. Zvi Pesaḥ Frank, and <em>Yabi’a Omer</em> 3:24. <em>Responsa </em><em>Maharsham</em> 1:192 is lenient regarding meat and dairy but is stringent vis-à-vis Pesaḥ, insisting that they be koshered by <em>irui </em>of boiling water. <em>Tzitz Eliezer</em> 9:25 states that technically one need only scrub them well, but there are stringent opinions that insist on performing <em>hagala</em> in either a <em>kli rishon</em> or <em>kli sheini</em></i>.
  
  Section 11
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Earthenware and Porcelain Utensils
  If earthenware absorbs ḥametz hot, even via a kli sheni, hagala is not effective. Although libun would effectively burn the taste absorbed in the utensil, the Sages forbid koshering earthenware utensils through libun because there is concern that they will crack (see above 10:7). If used cold, however, one may kosher them by washing them thoroughly. If a ḥametz beverage was allowed to sit in such a vessel for twenty-four hours, one may kosher it by soaking it in water for three consecutive days (ibid. 14).
  China, clay, and ceramic utensils are considered earthenware.
  Regarding porcelain which, though made like earthenware, has a smooth surface like glass, most poskim maintain that it has the status of earthenware, and there is no way to kosher it. This is the halakha (MB 451:163; Kaf Ha-ḥayim ibid. 305). However, some poskim believe that since the surface of porcelain is smooth like glass, it does not absorb at all. When there are additional doubts, their lenient opinion is taken into account.11<i class="footnote"><em>Shiyarei Knesset Ha-gedola </em>OḤ  451, <em>Hagahot Beit Yosef</em> 30 states that the universal custom is to use porcelain on Pesaḥ even if it was used for <em>ḥametz</em> throughout the year, since porcelain is like glass which does not absorb. He was stringent for himself, as per the opinion of Radbaz, but did not rule stringently for others. <em>She’elat Yaavetz</em> 1:67 also permits it. <em>Pri Ḥadash</em> states that one may only be lenient if he has authentic porcelain, but nowadays, since there is much counterfeit porcelain, all agree that one must be stringent. This is also the opinion of <em>Maḥzik Berakha</em> 451:10, as quoted in <em>Kaf</em><em> Ha-ḥayim</em> 451:305, and <em>Kol Mevasser</em> 1:80. This is the accepted custom. However, one may be lenient if there are other doubts, as explained by the Aḥaronim cited in <em>Hagalat Kelim</em> 13:368 and <em>Yabi’a Omer </em>YD 1:6 and 7:10.When porcelain breaks, one can see that its inner texture is coarse, like earthenware, and its outer texture is smooth. There are also porcelain utensils that are smooth on the inside and coarse on the outside. It seems that if a utensil like this absorbed in its coarse area, everyone would agree that it has the status of earthenware. Nowadays, most dishes are made of tempered glass, which is sand-based and has a hard texture like glass, even though it is not always smooth as glass. I am often asked whether such dishes can be koshered via hagala if they were used for non-kosher or for milk and meat. In my humble opinion, these dishes should be considered like glass, since when they break one can see that they are made of dense material – like glass, not like porcelain. They thus have the status of quality glass utensils that can withstand the hagala process, as will be explained in the next section. Even the Ashkenazic custom is to be lenient when necessary to kosher such a utensil from forbidden taste it absorbed. To dispel all doubt, one should kosher the utensil with hagala three times (it is not necessary to use three separate refills of water), since according to Itur this would even work for earthenware. It seems that even according to the custom of SA glassware does not need to be koshered, since today’s dishes are not so smooth that they should undergo triple hagala. (I have not mentioned any particular brand names since companies constantly change the composition of their products; I have referred specifically to utensils whose hard texture is similar to that of glass.)</i>
  
  Section 12
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Glassware
  Leading Rishonim take diametrically opposed positions regarding the status of glass utensils.
  According to Rabbeinu Tam, Rosh, Rashba, Ran, and many others, glass is smooth and hard, and even if it had been used to hold boiling hot foods, it does not absorb their tastes. Therefore, even if glass utensils were used with boiling-hot ḥametz throughout the year, they may be rinsed thoroughly and used on Pesaḥ. This is the position adopted in SA 451:26. Similarly, glass utensils may be used alternately for hot meat and hot dairy foods, as long as they are cleaned well in between.
  According to Smag, Smak, Mordechai, Agur, and Terumat Ha-deshen, glass, because it is made of sand, has the status of earthenware, which is also made of sand and which absorbs tastes but does not release them. Therefore, if one uses glass utensils with hot ḥametz foods, there is no way to kosher them for Pesaḥ. This is the position adopted by Rema.
  There is also a third position, which maintains that glass utensils have the same status as metal utensils, which can absorb and release when boiling hot. However, since glass utensils are fragile and liable to break during hagala, there is no way to kosher them for Pesaḥ (Or Zaru’a, Shibolei Ha-leket).
  In practice, many Sephardim follow Shulḥan Arukh’s opinion that glass utensils do not absorb and thus may be rinsed thoroughly and used on Pesaḥ. However, there are important Sephardic authorities who are stringent in this regard, Ben Ish Ḥai among them (Year One, Tzav 14). In Ashkenazic communities, some follow Rema’s stringent ruling while others adopt the middle opinion, allowing glass to be koshered via hagala on the grounds that today’s glass is stronger than in the past and capable of enduring hagala. There is even more of a tendency to be lenient with tempered glass cookware (like Pyrex), which is fire resistant. Some rule that hagala should be performed three times on glassware. In practice, Ashkenazic Jews do not kosher glass utensils for Pesaḥ through hagala, in keeping with Rema, and only under pressing circumstances rely upon the lenient position. With regard to prohibitions other than ḥametz, the tendency is to rely upon the lenient poskim, waiting twenty-four hours from when the utensil last contained hot food and performing hagala three times.12<i class="footnote">Among Ashkenazic <em>poskim</em> who permit <em>hagala</em> on glassware if there is no concern that it will break are: R. Shlomo Kluger in <em>Responsa Tuv Ta’am Va-da’at</em>, third edition 2:25 and <em>Responsa </em><em>Maharam Schick </em>YD 141. <em>Tzitz Eliezer</em> 9:26 leans toward permitting one to kosher glassware via <em>hagala</em> and quotes R. Zvi Pesaḥ Frank that one may kosher tempered glass cookware for Pesaḥ, but should do so via triple <em>hagala</em>, since according to <em>Itur</em> triple <em>hagala</em> works even for earthenware vessels if twenty-four hours have elapsed since their last use. According to these <em>poskim</em>, even those who adopt SA’s lenient ruling vis-à-vis glassware would agree that any glassware strong enough to withstand the heat of a <em>kli rishon</em> must be koshered via <em>hagala</em>, out of concern that these utensils may have absorbed taste at such high temperatures. This is the opinion of <em>Responsa </em><em>Yaskil Avdi</em> 4:14. See also <em>Hagala</em><em>t Kelim</em> 13:59 for a detailed list of the opinions regarding glassware and 13:375 for the opinions about tempered glass cookware.</i>
  
  Section 13
  
  Koshering the Kitchen / Enamel and Plastic Utensils
  Enamel utensils are made of metal and coated with a thin layer of enamel for aesthetic reasons. The inside of the pot is usually colored white, while the outside is decorated with different colors. Enamel is made of sand like glassware, but it is processed differently. Great uncertainty arose regarding such utensils. At first, poskim were uncertain because the craftsmen kept enamel’s composition secret. Then, when it became known that enamel is made of sand, uncertainly arose again as to whether such utensils have the status of earthenware.
  In practice, the poskim rule that one may perform hagala on enamel utensils like all other metal utensils, and some recommend performing hagala three times. Yet regarding Pesaḥ, some instruct not to perform hagala on enamel utensils in light of the severity of the ḥametz prohibition.13<i class="footnote">em&gt;Responsa <em>Ḥatam Sofer </em><em> </em>113 states that enamel is koshered via light <em>libun</em>. R. Shlomo Kluger rules stringently that one may not kosher enamel even via <em>libun</em>, since it might get damaged in the process (<em>Tuv Ta’am Va-da’at</em>, first edition §183). <em>Ktav Sofer</em> YD 78 permits koshering enamel via triple <em>hagala</em>. SHT 451:191 quotes <em>Ḥatam Sofer</em> and then states that many great authorities were more stringent in this matter when it came to Pesaḥ. This is also the view of <em>Maharsham </em>1:53. <em>Aderet</em> rules that one may kosher such utensils via <em>hagala</em>, but out of respect for <em>Ḥatam Sofer</em> states that one should use triple <em>hagala</em> (which according to <em>Itur</em> works even for earthenware vessels once twenty-four hours have elapsed since they were last used). This is also the opinion of AHS YD<em> </em>121:27. R. Mordechai Eliyahu states that one may kosher these utensils for Pesaḥ via <em>hagala</em>, and preferably triple <em>hagala</em></i>
  Plastic utensils that have absorbed the taste of boiling hot food are koshered via hagala with boiling water, like all other utensils. This is true of all types of metal, such as silver, copper, iron, aluminum, etc., as well as utensils of leather, wood, and bone. It is earthenware alone that the poskim say cannot be koshered, because, due to its unique composition, it is very absorbent, but does not release all that it absorbs. And some poskim say that glassware has the same status as earthenware. However, Igrot Moshe (OḤ  1:92) states that one should not perform hagala on utensils made of plastic or other synthetic materials not mentioned by the Rishonim, since such materials might be like earthenware, which does not release what it has absorbed. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of Aḥaronim agree that hagala is effective on plastic utensils, and this is the halakha. Utensils made of hard plastic are koshered through hagala in a kli rishon on the flame, whereas plastic utensils that are liable to be damaged in a kli rishon on the burner can be koshered at the same level they absorbed the ḥametz.14<i class="footnote">Those who ruled leniently are: <em>Responsa</em><em>Ḥelkat Yaakov</em> 2:163, <em>Seridei Esh</em> 2:160, <em>Tzitz Eliezer</em> 4:6, and many others. This is also what <em>Hagalat Kelim</em><em> </em>states in 13:91. <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 9:25 assigns greater weight to the stringent opinions, and states that triple <em>hagala</em> seemingly works according to everyone (based on the opinion of <em>Itur</em> that triple <em>hagala</em><em> </em>is effective even on earthenware vessels once twenty-four hours have elapsed since their last use, although it seems that one needs to change the water between each stage of <em>hagala</em>; see <em>Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato</em> 9:25 n. 10). It seems proper to wait twenty-four hours, ensuring that any absorbed taste is foul, in which case <em>hagala</em> is only rabbinically required, and one may be lenient in a case of uncertainty about a rabbinic law.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  The Laws of Matza / The Mitzva of Eating Matza
  It is a Torah commandment to eat matza on the night of the fifteenth of the month of Nisan, as it says, “In the evening, you shall eat matzot” (Shemot 12:18). Even though the Torah also says, “you shall eat matzot for seven days” (Shemot 12:15), the Sages inferred, based on the rules for interpreting the Torah, that the Torah does not mean to command us to eat matzot all seven days, but rather that matza is the staple food that we eat on Pesaḥ instead of bread. However, one who wants to live off of fruits, vegetables, meat, and dairy products may do so.
  The simple meaning of this is that one who eats matzot all seven days of Pesaḥ does not thereby fulfill a mitzva. This is what the Sages meant when they said (Pesaḥim 120a) that eating matza during the seven days is “voluntary” (“reshut”). Yet many leading halakhic authorities have written that although eating matza is obligatory only at the Seder, and indeed that is why the Sages instituted the special blessing over the eating of matza at the Seder only, nevertheless one who eats matza on the other days of Pesaḥ still fulfills a mitzva, even if it is not obligatory. In this view, the Sages referred to eating matza on the remaining days of Pesaḥ as a “reshut” only by way of contrast with the obligation to eat matza on the night of the fifteenth. According to this view, the verse “you shall eat matzot for seven days” retains its simple meaning. This is how Ibn Ezra and Ḥizkuni explained the verse, this is implied by a statement by Rosh, and this was the practice of the Vilna Gaon. However, even they maintained that the mitzva consists of eating a kezayit (olive’s bulk) of matza at each meal, and that eating more does not add to the mitzva.1<i class="footnote"><em>Pesaḥim</em><em> </em>120a explains this based on one of the rules for interpreting the Torah, namely, that any item singled out from a class of items did not leave the class to teach a new idea only about itself, but to apply the new teaching to the entire class. In this case, the “class” is “you shall eat matza for seven days.” However, the Torah says later on, “for six days you shall eat matza, and the seventh day will be a festival for the Lord, your God” (Devarim 16:8). Clearly, the “seventh day” was excluded from the general class in that there is no mitzva to eat matza on that day. This in turn teaches about the entire class – all seven days – that there is no mitzva to eat matza. Only on the night of the fifteenth, the Seder night, is there such a mitzva, based on the verse “in the evening you shall eat matzot” (Shemot 12:18).Most Rishonim and Aḥaronim do not mention any mitzva associated with eating matza during the seven days of Pesaḥ, implying that there is in fact no such mitzva. However, many Rishonim and Aḥaronim do actually mention such a mitzva, including: Ibn Ezra on Shemot 23:15, Ḥizkuni on Shemot 12:15, and Responsa Rosh 3:23 citing the Ge’onim that one does not wear tefillin on Ḥol Ha-mo’ed Pesaḥ, since there is already a “sign” on Pesaḥ, namely, eating matza. So states MB 475:45 in the name of Gra (Ma’aseh Rav §185). See Ha-Seder He-arukh I:78:7-14.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  The Laws of Matza / Shmura Matza
  The Torah states, “And you shall observe (u-shemartem) the matzot” (Shemot 12:17). The Sages interpreted this to mean that the matza must be guarded from becoming ḥametz. This refers specifically to the matzot eaten on the Seder night in fulfillment of the mitzva, for the very next verse states, “in the evening you shall eat matzot.” The other matzot one eats on Pesaḥ are like any other food: they may be eaten as long as there is no concern that they may have become ḥametz. However, we have been commanded to guard carefully the matza used for the mitzva on Seder night from becoming ḥametz. Such matza is called “shmura” matza.
  Ideally, the wheat that will be used for the matzot should be guarded from when it is harvested. It is customary to harvest the wheat while it is still a bit moist, for if it were to dry out completely and then get drenched by rain, it would become ḥametz. Similarly, later on the grains must be stored where they will not come into contact with water.
  One may also fulfill the mitzva of eating shmura matza with matzot that were guarded from the time the wheat was ground into flour. As long as the wheat kernels showed no signs of becoming ḥametz and nothing has happened that would undermine the presumption that they are not ḥametz, one need not be concerned that they had become wet and became ḥametz. However, this is not the best kind of shmura matza since it was guarded only from the time of grinding.
  In extenuating circumstances, when flour that has been guarded from the time of grinding is also not available, one may buy regular flour and fulfill the mitzva by guarding the dough from the time of kneading (SA 453:4). Even where it is customary to rinse grains of wheat lightly before grinding them, it is still permissible in extenuating circumstances to buy regular flour in the market, since a brief rinse is presumed not to be enough to cause the grains to become ḥametz. However, where it is customary to briefly soak the grains in water, one may not buy flour for matza in the market, since it is presumed to be ḥametz (MB 451:24). Therefore, in practice, one should not buy flour that is not certified kosher for Pesaḥ since the wheat is often soaked in water and may have become ḥametz.2<i class="footnote">According to Rif<em>, </em>Rambam, and other Rishonim, the wheat needs to be guarded from the time it is harvested; according to Rosh, from the time that it is ground, since the mitzva only begins when the wheat encounters water, and the wheat was usually ground in water mills. The implication of Rosh’s opinion is that as long as one grinds the wheat without using water, the mitzva of guarding the wheat begins at the time of kneading (MA<em> </em>453:7). However, several Rishonim write that the wheat needs supervision from the time of grinding regardless of whether a water mill is used; among them are Rashi<em>, Shibolei Ha-leket</em>, and <em>Smak</em>.According to geonic responsa cited by many Rishonim, if one neglected to guard the wheat from the time of the grinding, he may purchase flour from the market be-di’avad. According to Birur Halakha 40a, one may certainly recite the berakha over matza if it was guarded from the time of grinding (BHL 453:4), because according to Ran and many other Rishonim, the position of Rif and those who agree with him is that guarding matza from the time of harvesting is merely the best way to fulfill the mitzva. According to Kaf Ha-ḥayim 482:1, in an extreme situation one may even use matza that was only supervised from the time of kneading and recite a berakha on it. It seems that most poskim concur that be-di’avad one may use matza that was guarded only from the time of kneading.Tur and Beit Yosef state that according to Rif, Rabbeinu Yeruḥam, Ran, and Magid Mishneh, the need to guard the matza pertains only to the matza used to fulfill the mitzva on the first night of Pesaḥ. All other matza eaten on Pesaḥ need not be guarded (MB 453:21). (Others maintain that one must use shmura matza for the entire holiday, either out of concern that non-shmura matza will become ḥametz or because they believe that there is a mitzva to eat shmura matza all Pesaḥ; see below, section 5.) According to Baḥ and those who agree with him, the need to guard the matza is rabbinic in origin, and the rabbis merely supported their enactment using a verse from the Torah. However, according to most poskim, this mitzva is from the Torah (BHL 460:1 s.v. “ein”, citing Rashba, Pri Ḥadash, and other Rishonim and Aḥaronim).</i>
  In practice, today’s custom is to be scrupulous about shmura matza; matzot that have been guarded from the time of harvest are used to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza on the Seder night. This practice has taken root so thoroughly that people have come to call matza that has been guarded only from the time of grinding “non-shmura matza,” even though it is considered shmura halakhically, and one may use it to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza.
  
  Section 3
  
  The Laws of Matza / Does the Guarding Have to Be with the Intent to Fulfill a Mitzva?
  Guarding the matzot to be used for fulfilling the mitzva of eating matza on the Seder night has two implications: being extra vigilant to prevent it from becoming ḥametz and having the intention that the matza is to be used for the mitzva (“le-shem matzat mitzva”). It is therefore necessary that the matza be kneaded and baked by Jews who are halakhic adults, who can be relied upon both to guard against fermentation and to keep in mind that their actions are for the sake of matzat mitzva. One may not employ gentiles, minors, or mentally unfit workers to knead or bake matza, since they cannot be relied upon to have the proper intent (She’iltot, Rashba).
  Some dispute the second implication above. In their opinion, the mitzva of guarding the matza requires extra vigilance to prevent the matzat mitzva from becoming ḥametz, but requires no special intent while doing it. Thus, gentiles and minors are fit to bake matzat mitzva, as long as an adult Jew supervises their work, ensuring that they work with alacrity and that the dough does not become ḥametz (Ra’ah).
  In practice, at the time of kneading one should take care to fulfill both meanings of “guarding.” Thus, one must insist that Jews knead and bake the matzat mitzva, taking care that the dough does not become ḥametz and intending that the matza be for the sake of the mitzva. However, at the time of harvesting and grinding, the first meaning is sufficient. Thus, the wheat may be harvested and ground by gentiles as long as a Jew stands nearby and supervises their work, ensuring that it does not become ḥametz (SA 460:1; MB and SHT 4 ad loc.).3<i class="footnote">According to most <em>poskim</em>, there are two implications of guarding the wheat: ensuring that it does not become <em>ḥametz</em> and intending that it is for <em>matzat mitzva</em><em>.</em> According to Ra’ah, there is only one purpose: ensuring that it does not become <em>ḥametz</em>. According to R. Hai Gaon and others, it is indeed necessary to intend to use the wheat for the mitzva, but if a Jew supervises a gentile or child and instructs him to knead the dough specifically <em>le-shem matzat mitzva</em>, we may rely on this for proper intent. SA 460:1 follows the view of most <em>poskim</em> that the mitzva of guarding the wheat requires both aspects. Therefore, one may not use matza that was kneaded or baked by a gentile (MB 460:3, SHT <em>ad loc.</em>).According to Baḥ and Eliya Rabba, those who believe that the guarding must begin at the time of the harvest (see the previous section) also require a Jew to harvest and grind the wheat le-shem matzat mitzva. Some are meticulous about this in practice. (According to those who maintain that turning on a machine does not constitute proper intent – see the next section – the harvesting and grinding must be done by hand, not with agricultural machinery; very few people insist on this.)Taz explains that the harvesting and grinding need not be done with the intention to use the wheat for a mitzva; therefore, one may have a gentile harvest and grind the wheat, provided that a Jew supervises and ensures that the wheat does not become ḥametz. Intentions to use the wheat for the mitzva are only necessary from the time of kneading; therefore, a Jew must be the one to knead and bake the matza (according to most poskim). Consequently, SA 460:1 rules that gentiles may not perform the kneading or baking of the matza. BHL 460:1 s.v. “ein” states that the universal custom is to be lenient in accordance with Taz to allow gentiles to harvest and grind the wheat under the supervision of a Jew. This is also the opinion of Ḥok Yaakov and SAH 453:16. Matza that is made this way is called “shmura mi-she’at ketzira” – supervised from the time of the harvest. See Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag 16 n. 19, which beautifully explains Taz to mean that there are two types of guarding.</i>
  Le-khatḥila, one should say out loud, when starting to work on matzot, that all the work is being done for the sake of producing matzat mitzva; be-di’avad, it is sufficient that he thought it (BHL 460:1, based on Pri Megadim). He should also have in mind that it is for the matzat mitzva that one eats on Seder night, but if he had in mind that it is for matza for Pesaḥ, he has fulfilled the obligation (SAH 453:14).
  
  Section 4
  
  The Laws of Matza / Made Matza at the Seder
  A great dispute has raged among poskim ever since the invention of matza-baking machines. The dispute centers on two principal questions: 1) Is there indeed no concern that machine-made matzot may become ḥametz? 2) Can one use them to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza on the Seder night?
  Concerning the question of ḥametz, it is agreed that everything depends on the nature of the machine and on its supervision. As long as there are kashrut supervisors who ensure that there is no risk of ḥametz, the matzot are kosher for Pesaḥ. Thus even the most pious and God-fearing Jews eat machine-made matzot on Pesaḥ.
  The second question, however, is still debated. Some say that the mitzva of guarding the matza requires that the entire process of kneading and baking be done with explicit intent that they are le-shem matzat mitzva, and since a machine cannot have intentions, one would not fulfill the mitzva of eating matza on the Seder night with machine-made matza.
  Most poskim maintain that one can fulfill the mitzva by eating machine-made matzot, for several reasons. Firstly, some explain that the mitzva of guarding the matza only requires one to ensure that it does not become ḥametz, and it is irrelevant whether this is done while making the matza by hand or by supervising the activity of a machine. Furthermore, a human being operates the machine, and if he operates it with the intent of making matzat mitzva, then automatically all of the machine’s operations are considered to have been done for the sake of the mitzva.
  In practice, machine-made matza may be used to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza on the Seder night. Many are scrupulous about fulfilling the mitzva with handmade matzot that were baked under proper supervision, although even they concede that it is not necessary to eat handmade matzot throughout the Seder meal. Rather, they beautify the mitzva by eating handmade matza for those kezayit quantities that constitute the mitzva (see below 16:22-25).4<i class="footnote">See R. Harari’s <em>Mikra’ei Kodesh</em> pp. 326-335 for a summary of the opinions. Originally, the machines were operated with more human input, which caused concerns of <em>ḥametz</em> and of breaking from tradition. After the machines were enhanced and improved, these concerns abated, but the concern that operating the machine does not constitute intent remained and was even magnified. Among those who prohibit machine matza are: R.<em> </em>Shlomo Kluger, R. Ḥayim Halberstam (the Sanzer Rebbe, author of <em>Divrei Ḥayim</em>), R. Yitzḥak Meir Alter (the Gerrer Rebbe, author of <em>Ḥidushei Ha-Rim</em>)<em>, </em>R. Avraham Bornstein of Sochatchov (author of <em>Avnei Nezer</em>), and most of the great Ḥasidic leaders. Even today, most Ḥasidic <em>poskim</em> tend to dismiss machine-made matza. Among those who permit are: the authors of <em>Sho’el U-meishiv</em>, <em>Tiferet Yisrael</em>, <em>Ktav Sofer</em>, and <em>Arukh Le-ner</em>. Some <em>poskim</em> even prefer machine matza to handmade matza, since there is less of a chance of the machine matza becoming <em>ḥametz</em>. This is the opinion of R. Meir Simḥa of Dvinsk (author of <em>Or Same’aḥ</em>) and R. Shmuel Salant, the head of the Jerusalem rabbinical court<em>, </em>who personally ate machine matza as did the Lithuanian community in old Jerusalem. The main reason for preferring machine matza is that the most important dimension of guarding the matza is to ensure that it does not become <em>ḥametz</em>, and based on what they saw, machine matza was less likely to become <em>ḥametz</em>. R. Zvi Pesaḥ Frank, cited in <em>Mikra’ei Kodesh</em> 2:3, states that since gentiles and children are intelligent, a supervising Jew cannot supply proper intent on their behalf while they knead. A machine, on the other hand, has no intelligence, so the intent of the Jew operating the machine is effective. Thus, my teacher R. Zvi Yehuda Kook would eat machine-made matza at the Seder. R. Min-Hahar and R. Messas also preferred machine-made matza. R. Shaul Yisraeli stated that there is no preference for handmade matza<em> </em>over machine-made matza. According to R. Mordechai Eliyahu, even though one may recite the <em>berakha </em>over machine-made matza, handmade matza is preferable. (<em>Responsa</em> <em>Oneg Yom Tov </em>OḤ  42 explains that even though the mitzva to guard the matza is from the Torah, if for some reason one does not have matza that was guarded for the sake of the mitzva, he still has a Torah obligation to eat matza<em> </em>on the Seder night, presumably with a <em>berakha</em>, even though he has not fulfilled the mitzva of guarding the matza.)I have written that using handmade matza enhances the mitzva based on my father’s reasoning. He explained that many things changed over the past few decades: the machines are more automated than ever, and it is thus questionable whether there is proper intent. Perhaps in the past, when more human input was necessary to operate the machinery, this problem was less of a concern, but today the machines operate at the touch of a button. Moreover, when all of the matza was handmade, there was a concern that the pressure to supply matza to the entire nation meant that matza bakers would not be sufficiently meticulous in their efforts to keep the matza from becoming ḥametz. The machines were a great solution to that issue. Nowadays, on the other hand, most handmade matza factories are extraordinarily scrupulous, to the point that the situation may have been reversed, and handmade matza is actually less likely to become ḥametz than is machine-made matza. Even though there is a consensus that the intent of the machine operator or the kashrut supervisor is sufficient, having the proper intent throughout the process (as is the case with handmade matza) enhances the mitzva. This is especially true if one bakes his own matza, since it is always better for one to fulfill a mitzva on his own rather than through an agent (this is indeed my father’s custom – to bake his own matzot mitzva).</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  The Laws of Matza / Is There Value in Eating Handmade Matzot All Pesaĥ?
  The mitzva of guarding the matzot was stated about the matzat mitzva we are commanded to eat on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan. The idea is to honor the mitzva by guarding them especially carefully. In other words, matzot that were not guarded but about which there is no concern that they may have become ḥametz may be eaten on Pesaḥ. They are just not fit for use as matzot mitzva since they were not guarded specifically for that purpose. Thus, throughout Pesaḥ, it is permissible to eat matza that is kosher for Pesaḥ, even if it is not shmura.
  Nevertheless, some are meticulous about eating shmura matza throughout Pesaḥ. There are two reasons for this: one is that some poskim maintain that while there is no duty to eat matzot throughout Pesaḥ, one who does so fulfills a mitzva; therefore, one should eat shmura matza. According to this, it is sufficient to eat a kezayit of shmura matza at every meal. Similarly, it is sufficient to use our regular matzot (not labeled as shmura), which have been guarded from the time of grinding, because, as we have learned, one can fulfill the requirement for matzat mitzva with matza that has been guarded from the time of grinding.
  The second reason for eating shmura matza is concern about ḥametz. Out of all the foods we eat on Pesaḥ, matza is the likeliest to become ḥametz. Therefore, if the wheat grains are not guarded from harvest time, there is concern that they may have become ḥametz. Thus, there is good reason to be stringent and to eat only matza that has been guarded from harvest time.
  Today, the advantage of matzot that have been guarded from harvest time is not only in their having been protected from contact with water since the grain was harvested. In general, much more care is taken throughout their entire manufacturing process. For example, the baking machines are stopped every eighteen minutes for a thorough cleaning. Thus these matzot benefit from a whole series of enhancements.
  In sum, regular matzot, which have been guarded from the time of the grinding, are kosher for all of Pesaḥ, le-khatḥila. Even those who maintain that there is a mitzva to eat matza throughout the seven days of Pesaḥ agree that one fulfills the mitzva with such matzot. Those who are more scrupulous eat matzot that have been guarded from harvest time, primarily because these matzot are more carefully guarded against becoming ḥametz.5<i class="footnote">The custom of the Vilna Gaon was to eat <em>shmura</em> matza the entire Pesaḥ for two reasons. Firstly, he maintained that there is a mitzva to eat <em>shmura </em>matza all seven days, but in this regard he reasoned that it only needs to be supervised from the time of kneading. Secondly, he was concerned about <em>ḥametz</em>, and, accordingly, supervision would be necessary from the time of harvesting. This is quoted in BHL<em> </em>453:4<em>. </em>AHS 453:20-23 states that according to Rif<em> </em>and Rambam, there is a rabbinic mitzva to guard the matza<em> </em>from the time of harvesting to prevent it from becoming <em>ḥametz</em>; accordingly, this applies to all matza<em> </em>that one eats over Pesaḥ. However, according to most <em>poskim</em> one need not eat matza that was supervised from the time of harvesting, and this is the implication of SA<em> </em>453:4 and MB <em>ad loc.</em>It thus emerges that the primary enhancement of the mitzva is to guard the wheat against becoming ḥametz from the time of harvesting. Thus, the kernels are harvested before they dry out to prevent any concerns of rainwater potentially making them ḥametz. The kernels are then stored in a dry place, preventing any kernels from puffing up or splitting, which would indicate that they have started to become ḥametz. On the other hand, wheat imported from abroad, from which all other matza is made, sometimes contains kernels that have already become ḥametz. Even though matza bakers are careful to purchase clean shipments, there is still a concern that some ḥametz kernels mixed in. And even though these kernels are batel be-shishim (because the matza is baked before Pesaḥ, the ḥametz is not ḥozer ve-ne’or on Pesaḥ according to most poskim; see above 7:3-4), this matza is as ideal as that which is supervised from the time of harvesting. Since matza that was guarded from the time of harvesting is the best and most special, bakers are careful to perform all of the other steps in the most meticulous way possible: during baking, they stop the machines every eighteen minutes and clean them thoroughly; they constantly declare that they are working le-shem matzat mitzva; and they are more careful to supervise the entire process. Conversely, the trend with regard to non-shmura matza is to produce and sell it as cheaply as possible, so that the general public will be able to afford it. Therefore, only the mixers used for kneading are changed every eighteen minutes, but the rollers are cleaned while they are running. Although they are cleaned in a way that ensures that every part is cleaned every eighteen minutes, since the cleaning is done while the machines are running, it is more difficult to clean the machines thoroughly.Yet shmura matza is far more expensive than the regular matza (even if it is only guarded from the time of grinding the wheat, and can thus be used to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza according to those who maintain that there is a mitzva for the entire holiday). Some say that it is preferable to give charity to the poor or to support Torah study than to buy shmura matza. On the other hand, why shouldn’t one who spends lavishly on furniture, clothing, and other luxuries spend extra money to fulfill mitzvot in the best possible way? Ultimately, in practice, regular matza is kosher, and one may rely on the fact that the kashrut supervisors do their jobs properly. When it comes to fulfilling higher standards of mitzvot, one must decide if and how he wishes to go beyond the letter of the law.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  The Laws of Matza / Water That Has Stayed Overnight
  The Sages prohibited kneading the dough for Pesaḥ matzot with lukewarm water. Warmth accelerates the leavening process, increasing the risk of the dough becoming ḥametz if the workers are not especially quick in kneading and baking it. The Sages forbade kneading the dough even with regular cold water found in cisterns and in springs, lest the surrounding ground, which had absorbed the heat of the sun, in turn warmed the water. Therefore, they required that the water be drawn before nightfall and kept overnight in a cool place. Such water is called mayim she-lanu. This water is used to prepare matzot for Pesaḥ (SA 495:1 and 3).6<i class="footnote">One who did not prepare <em>mayim she-lanu</em> should not bake matza using regular water. Rather, he should suffice with fruits, vegetables, and other foods for the rest of the holiday. However, if he otherwise will not have a <em>kezayit </em>of matza with which to fulfill the Torah commandment on the Seder night<em>, </em>he may bake matza using regular cold water, so that he does not neglect this mitzva (MB 455:36).</i>
  However, a problem arose in countries with warm climates. No matter where the water was kept overnight, it would warm up a bit. On the contrary, had the water been left in the springs, it would have stayed cooler! Nevertheless, the halakha is that the water must be left out, as the Sages enacted. If, as a result, the water warms up a bit, it must be refrigerated (Mikra’ei Kodesh 2:7).
  Some maintain that one should leave tap water overnight for baking the matzot, since the water might be from an open reservoir and may have been warmed by the sun. Furthermore, there is concern that the chlorine mixed into the water will accelerate the leavening process (She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha 109:3). In practice, this possibility is of no concern, and only a few meticulous people who make handmade matzot are scrupulous about drawing the water from wells or springs. In machine-matza factories, they take regular tap water from the municipal system, filter it thoroughly, and leave it in a cool place all night (R. Zvi Yehuda Kook similarly would prepare mayim she-lanu from tap water).
  
  Section 7
  
  The Laws of Matza / Preventing Leavening during Kneading
  The flour for matzot is ground at least one day before it is kneaded into dough, since the grinding heats the flour slightly, increasing the risk that the dough will become ḥametz (SA 453:9).
  No salt or pepper is added to the dough, since they might warm the dough, increasing the risk that it will become ḥametz (SA 455:5-6).
  Le-khatḥila, one should not make matza dough with more than c. 1.5kg (c. 3.3 lbs.) of flour (the shi’ur for having to separate ḥalla from the dough with a berakha). It is hard for one person to knead such a large piece of dough thoroughly and quickly, and there is concern that parts of the dough may become ḥametz. Be-di’avad, if one kneaded a larger quantity, the matza is kosher as long as the dough did not rest for eighteen minutes and no signs of leavening appeared (SA 456:1-2).
  When there are several people engaged in kneading, flattening, and rolling out the dough, some poskim maintain that it is permissible to knead larger quantities, and indeed many do so. Even so, initially it is proper to be stringent and not to knead more than the measure that the Sages fixed (MB 456:7).
  When the kneading is done by machine, it is customary, even le-khatḥila, to permit kneading large volumes of dough.
  One may not knead the dough in a hot place, since heat accelerates the leavening process. Therefore, one should not knead in a sunny place. Sometimes it is hot even on a cloudy day, so even if the sun is not shining, one should not knead the dough outside, nor inside next to windows, lest the heat radiate through them. Obviously one should not knead in a place warmed by an oven (SA 459:1). One authority put a number on this: one should not knead where the temperature is 30ºC or higher (Sefer Matzot Mitzva, ch. 7, n. 29). Be-di’avad, if one kneaded dough in a hot place but did not see any signs of leavening in the dough or the matza, the matza is kosher for Pesaḥ (SA 459:5).
  Le-khatḥila, one may not stop working the dough for even a moment (SA 459:2). If the hands of the person kneading the dough heat up, he should cool them in cold water. Some are scrupulous to cool their hands in water occasionally while they are kneading (MB 459:27).
  
  Section 8
  
  The Laws of Matza / More Laws about Matza
  The oven should be heated thoroughly, so that the dough begins to bake immediately. If the heat is low, the dough might begin to become ḥametz before it bakes. Clearly one may not bake matza in the heat of the sun, and if he did so, then even if the heat was very strong and it is obvious that the dough did not leaven, one does not fulfill the mitzva of eating matza with it, as the Torah calls matza the “bread of affliction,” and something sun-baked is not properly called bread (SAH 461:6).
  It is not necessary, however, to bake the bread specifically in the flames of the fire. Rather, even if the flames burn under a metal or earthenware plate, as long as the plate is burning hot, one may bake on it (SA 461:2).
  Similarly, one may bake in an electric oven whose heating elements glow hot, for that is considered like fire. Matza baked in a microwave oven is disqualified from being used in the mitzva of eating matza, since it was not baked by fire. Some say it is kosher, for no early source indicates that the matzot must be baked specifically with fire (see Mikra’ei Kodesh p. 335 – R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disqualified such matzot, and R. Shaul Yisraeli held them to be kosher).
  One may not decorate matza with pictures, as it may become ḥametz during the delay caused by drawing. One may not make a thick matza (thicker than 7.6 cm) on Pesaḥ, out of concern that the fire will not reach the center and it will become ḥametz (SA 460:4-5). However, one may bake a matza that is a bit thinner than a tefaḥ.
  The Ashkenazic custom is to make the matzot thin and hard, so that the heat goes through them thoroughly and there is hardly any concern that the matza will become ḥametz (Rema 460:4). Some Sephardim bake matza that is about as thick as a finger, while others make them thin like wafers, as Ashkenazim do, since they usually bake them before Pesaḥ, and if they were not wafer-life, they would not last long (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 460:44).
  One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen matza (SA 454:4). Sometimes a purchaser takes the matzot into his possession without paying immediately. If the seller indicates that he wants to receive payment immediately, the purchaser must be careful to pay as the seller requested. If the seller seeks the buyer out, demanding payment for the matzot, and the purchaser dismisses him by saying “come back later,” then the purchaser does not fulfill his obligation with those matzot, because they do not belong to him (MB 454:15).
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / The Prohibition against Work (Melakha) on Erev Pesaĥ
  When the Temple stood, one who offered a sacrifice was prohibited from performing melakha (doing productive work) that day, as it was like a holiday for him, and it is inappropriate to perform melakha while one’s sacrifice is being offered up on the altar. The same applies to Erev Pesaḥ, a day on which Israel is obligated to offer the korban Pesaḥ (Paschal sacrifice), and which is consequently like a holiday for everyone. But since the time for offering the korban Pesaḥ does not begin until midday, the prohibition against melakha also does not begin until midday. In some places, people adopted the stringent practice of refraining from melakha from the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan, and in such places this custom was binding. Even now, after the destruction of the Temple, this prohibition remains in effect, and it is forbidden do perform significant melakha after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan. This custom also prevents one from becoming preoccupied with work and forgetting to destroy his ḥametz and prepare matza, wine, and other necessities for the Seder night.
  Indeed, the Sages instituted a ban on significant melakha every Erev Shabbat so that people would be free to prepare for Shabbat. However, the prohibition on Erev Pesaḥ is more severe, for while the Sages taught that whoever performs melakha on Erev Shabbat will see no sign of blessing from it, those who performed melakha on Erev Pesaḥ were actually excommunicated.
  In practice, the halakha is that melakha is forbidden on Erev Shabbat from the time of minḥa ketana (two and a half seasonal hours before sunset), while the prohibition on Erev Pesaḥ begins at midday.1<i class="footnote">The “<em>korban”</em> reason is explained in <em>y. Pesaḥim </em>4:1 and is the opinion of <em>Tosafot, </em>Rambam<em>, </em>and most <em>poskim</em>. <em>Tosafot </em>implies that this prohibition is biblical in nature, but according to Rambam and many other <em>poskim</em>, the prohibition is rabbinic. All agree that after the destruction of the Temple the prohibition is only rabbinic. The first reason is the primary one; therefore, if the first night of Pesaḥ coincides with <em>Motza’ei </em>Shabbat, one may work until <em>minḥa ketana</em> on Friday just like on a regular week, even though he burns the <em>ḥametz</em> and takes care of other Pesaḥ preparations on Friday (BHL<em> </em>468:1; see also <em>Ḥazon Ovadia</em> vol. 2 p. 82 and <em>Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag</em> 14:8). The prohibition against work on Friday afternoon<em> </em>is explained in <em>Pesaḥim</em> 50b, and the Rishonim are divided as to whether the prohibition refers to <em>minḥa gedola</em> (5.5 seasonal hours before sunset) or <em>minḥa ketana</em> (2.5 seasonal hours before sunset). Because this constitutes a doubt about a rabbinic law, <em>halakha</em> follows the lenient opinion (see SA 251:1 and MB <em>ad loc.</em>;<em> Peninei Halakha: Shabbat</em> 2:8).See MB 468:12 and Kaf Ha-ḥayim 32 ad loc. regarding the modern day custom regarding Erev Pesaḥ before midday. The fact that they wonder about the custom in Jerusalem makes it clear that there is no fixed custom to prohibit work, since where work is prohibited, it is also prohibited for guests, and certainly for the residents of the community. There are no communities nowadays that prohibit work on Erev Pesaḥ before midday.However, according to SA 468:5 in the name of Rambam, even where there is no custom to prohibit work, only three types of craftsmen are permitted to begin working before midday: tailors, barbers, and launderers, since their work is done expressly for the holiday. For everyone else, if one began a task before the morning of the fourteenth and the work is necessary for Pesaḥ, he may work until midday, but if he did not begin before the morning of the fourteenth, he may not start. According to Rema, based on the opinion of most Rishonim, including Rashi, Raavad, Rosh, Ran, and others, the aforementioned distinction only applies where the custom is to refrain from work (like in Rema’s community), but where the custom is to permit work until midday (like in our communities), everything is permissible. This is the custom of the Ashkenazic communities. Even some Sephardic communities follow Rema; see Kaf Ha-ḥayim ad loc. 32. In any event, we follow the lenient view when there is uncertainty regarding a rabbinic law.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / Which Melakhot Are Forbidden?
  The ban on melakha after midday on Erev Pesaḥ applies to full-fledged work that people typically do for a living, such as sewing, building furniture, and gardening. However, one may cook, clean the house, or travel before the holiday. As a rule, the ban on melakha on Erev Pesaḥ is similar to the ban on melakha during Ḥol Ha-mo’ed, and in certain cases is even slightly more lenient. Therefore, everything the Sages permit on Ḥol Ha-mo’ed is also permitted on Erev Pesaḥ.
  There are three types of melakha: melakha gemura (full-fledged work), professional repair work, and the simple work of a non-professional. Melakha gemura like sewing garments, building furniture, and cutting hair, is always forbidden, even if it is done for free. However, mending clothes, even if it demands professional expertise, is not considered melakha gemura. Therefore, if the mender receives payment, it is forbidden, but if he works for free and the mending is needed for the festival, it is permitted. Simple work like sewing a button, if needed for the festival, is permitted even for pay on a temporary basis. It is likewise permissible for one to summarize his ideas in writing as he studies, but if he earns a living from typing or copying, it is a melakha gemura and thus forbidden (SA 468:1, 2).2<i class="footnote">SHT 468:10 and <em>Kaf Ha-ḥayim</em><em>ad loc. </em>24 explain that a non-professional may accept temporary work and even receive payment for it. In this regard, Erev Pesaḥ is less strict than <em>Ḥol Ha-mo’ed</em>, since according to SHT 541:21 this type of work is prohibited on <em>Ḥol Ha-mo’ed</em> but permitted on Erev Pesaḥ as it is on Friday after <em>minḥa ketana</em>. However, SAH rules stringently on this matter vis-à-vis Erev Pesaḥ as well.I did not mention laundering even though it is listed as a <em>melakha gemura </em>in SA, since nowadays laundry is done by machine and might be considered non-professional work done for the sake of the holiday, as stated in SSK ch. 42 n. 139. Laundering is permitted on Friday after <em>minḥa.</em></i>
  Though it is forbidden to have one’s hair cut after midday on Erev Pesaḥ, it is permitted to shave with one’s own shaver, because this is non-professional work. It is likewise permitted to iron clothes, shine shoes, and cut fingernails after midday in preparation for the festival. However, some are stringent to shave and cut fingernails before midday.3<i class="footnote">MB<em> </em>468:5 states that preferably one should cut his nails before midday, although many permit one to cut his nails even on <em>Ḥol Ha-mo’ed </em>(SA<em> </em>§532 and <em>Ḥazon Ovadia</em> vol. 2 pp. 89-91). <em>She’arim Metzuyanim Be-halakha</em> 113:6 also permits polishing shoes. According to R. Mordechai Eliyahu (<em>Kitzur </em>SA 113:5), one may shave even after midday, although it is better to shave before midday.If one forgot to get a haircut before midday and his appearance is not appropriate for the holiday, he may get his hair cut by a gentile, since the ban on work applies only to Jews. Even though the Jew getting his hair cut helps the gentile do his job, it is permissible so that he will have his hair cut for the festival.</i>
  As noted, all melakhot permitted by the Sages on Ḥol Ha-mo’ed are also permitted after midday on Erev Pesaḥ. This, in short, includes five types of melakhot: 1) melakha to prepare food for the festival; 2) non-professional work for pay and impromptu skilled labor for free; 3) melakha to prevent substantial loss; 4) melakha done for public benefit or for the sake of a mitzva; 5) melakha performed by a poor person who lacks the money to buy festival necessities.
  
  Section 3
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / Ta’anit Bekhorot – the Fast of the Firstborns
  Firstborn males have a custom to fast on Erev Pesaḥ to commemorate the miracle performed for them: all Egyptian firstborn males died while firstborn Israelites were saved.
  In order to give some sense of the significance of Makat Bekhorot (the Plague of the Firstborn), we must first note that besides being the eldest male child, the firstborn embodies something primal, for with his birth the new life of the next generation begins to unfold. The firstborn thus bears great responsibility. If he chooses the path of virtue, he will express that primal root – faith in the Creator of the universe – and the rest of the children in the family will follow in his path. But if he chooses the path of evil, denying God and viewing himself as great and significant, he will always be striving to enhance his own glory and satisfy his appetites. This was the sin of the Egyptians, who considered themselves the lords of the earth and denied God’s existence. When they were commanded to send Israel away to worship God, they stubbornly refused to let them go. Pharaoh, himself a firstborn, led them in their pride and heresy.
  The first day of Pesaḥ is itself a kind of “firstborn”: it is the first day on which God began to reveal Himself in the world. Until this time, individual miracles were performed for special people, but not on a national level, via an entire people, the people of Israel. When the great day arrived, the day designated for the revelation of the root of faith in the world, a severe accusation against the firstborns of Egypt, who denied God’s existence, was aroused. Upon God’s revelation at midnight, they were all broken and slain. In contrast, the bekhorim of Israel, who expressed their faith in God by obeying His commandment, on the eve of the Exodus, to slaughter a lamb, which was an Egyptian god, risking their lives by smearing its blood on the doorposts, were saved and sanctified.
  Each year, we relive the special time of Seder night, when the source of our faith was revealed. However, as this holy night approaches, the accusation against the bekhorim is reawakened: are they as committed to the Torah and the mitzvot as they should be? Are they expressing God’s name in the world as they should? Firstborns therefore have a custom to fast and repent on Erev Pesaḥ.
  This fast is less strict than other fasts. All of the other fasts were instituted by the Sages, but Ta’anit Bekhorot, a custom adopted by many bekhorim, was never instituted as a binding obligation by the Sages. It is therefore customary to be lenient. For example, if one suffers from a headache, or from a pain in his eye, he is exempt from Ta’anit Bekhorot, even though he is not considered sick and would not be exempt from other fasts. Likewise, if one thinks that by fasting he will not be able to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza and recount the story of the Exodus, it is better that he not fast. Furthermore, the custom is that whoever participates in a se’udat mitzva is exempt from Ta’anit Bekhorot (Birkei Yosef §470; MB 470:2, 10).4<i class="footnote">em&gt;Y. Pesaḥim 10:1 has two versions of this. According to one version, the custom of the firstborns is to fast on Erev Pesaḥ; this also appears in <em>Sofrim</em> 21:3 (compiled at the end of the savoraic period in Eretz Yisrael). This is also the version quoted by Ramban<em> </em>and<em> </em>Ran<em>.</em> According to the second version of the Yerushalmi, they did not have the custom to fast; this is the version quoted by Raavya and is also the opinion of the Vilna Gaon<em>.</em> Me’iri states that the custom in Germany and France was to fast, although the fast was not mandatory, and <em>Birkei Yosef</em> quotes Rishonim who echo this idea. Therefore, one may be lenient about this fast and rely on a <em>siyum</em> in order to eat. <em>Mordechai</em> states in the name of Rabbeinu Yeḥiel that the custom of the firstborns is only to refrain from eating bread and other baked goods, but meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, and the like are permissible. Practically, SA<em> </em>470:1 states that the custom is to fast. However, MB<em> </em>2, SHT<em> </em><em>ad loc. </em>state that when necessary, such as if the firstborn has great difficulty fasting, one may rely on Rabbeinu Yeḥiel. The book <em>Ta’anit Bekhorot</em> discusses all of the opinions and laws in this matter; see <em>Yabi’a Omer</em> 1:25 for a shorter summary.</i>
  
  Section 4
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / Who Is Included in the Custom to Fast?
  There are two types of bekhorim, and both are included in this custom, because both types of bekhorim died in Egypt. The first type is a bekhor to one’s father, the bekhor who inherits a double portion of his father’s estate. Even if his mother bore children from a previous husband, or had an earlier miscarriage (and he is therefore not considered his mother’s firstborn and need not be redeemed by pidyon ha-ben), the custom of fasting applies to him, because he is a bekhor to his father with regard to the law of inheritance.
  The second type is a bekhor to one’s mother, the bekhor to whom pidyon ha-ben applies. Customarily, he too observes Ta’anit Bekhorot, even if his father already had children with another woman and he will not inherit the double portion. He has the status of “petter reḥem” (the first to emerge from his mother’s womb). The firstborn to a mother who was born via Caesarean section lacks the status of bekhor both with regard to inheritance and with regard to pidyon ha-ben, and therefore need not fast on Erev Pesaḥ (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 470:3; however, some are scrupulous about participating in a siyum).
  Firstborn Kohanim and Levi’im also observe the custom of fasting. Although the Torah exempts them from pidyon ha-ben, they are nonetheless bekhorim (MB 470:2).
  A firstborn female need not fast. While it is true that some authorities maintain that female bekhorot also died in Egypt, the prevailing custom is that they do not fast (Rema, Ḥida, Baḥ, and Kaf Ha-ḥayim 470:17).
  Customarily the father of a bekhor, even if he himself is not a bekhor, fasts instead of his son until the boy grows up (Rema 470:2). If the father is also a bekhor, his own fast counts for his son, and if he participates in a se’udat mitzva, he is exempt from fasting for his son as well. This is the custom according to many poskim, but Rema takes a more stringent position.
  When Pesaḥ falls on Shabbat, the custom is to move Ta’anit Bekhorot up two days, to Thursday.
  
  Section 5
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / The Custom to Rely on a Siyum Masekhet
  Bekhorim customarily participate in a siyum masekhet (a festive ceremonial meal occasioned by the completion of a tractate of the Talmud) on Erev Pesaḥ after Shaḥarit. Afterward, refreshments are served to everyone in attendance, and the bekhorim present are permitted to partake, sharing in the joy of a se’udat mitzva and celebrating the mitzva of Torah study and the completion of the tractate. Having already broken their fast with the se’udat mitzva, bekhorim are no longer obligated to fast.
  However, poskim of past generations were divided over this custom. Some took a stringent position, ruling that only a bekhor who himself completed a tractate may partake of the se’udat mitzva, while other firstborns, who are not so connected to the joy of the siyum, may not break the fast by partaking in someone else’s se’uda. This is especially true when those completing the tractate do not hold a se’udat mitzva on such occasions during the course of the year, and the bekhorim as well do not generally attend their friends’ siyumim. By arranging a siyum for firstborns once a year on Erev Pesaḥ, it appears as though they are coming not to celebrate the mitzva, but to exempt themselves from the fast. Moreover, often the person making the siyum completed the tractate a week or two earlier and postponed the siyum until Erev Pesaḥ in order to exempt himself from fasting. According to the stringent opinion, it is improper to act in this manner, because the real joy is felt when one completes his study, not when he recites the last few lines so that he can make a siyum on Erev Pesaḥ (Teshuva Me-ahava vol. 2 p. 261; Noda Bi-Yehuda).
  Nevertheless, the custom nowadays is to rely on the lenient poskim who rule that anyone who participates in the se’udat mitzva is exempt from fasting, even if he does not usually make or attend siyumim during the course of the year, and even if the siyum was delayed until Erev Pesaḥ. The simple reason for this is that when a masekhet is completed, it is fitting to celebrate, and this is therefore a se’udat mitzva. Moreover, Ta’anit Bekhorot is predicated entirely on custom, not on a binding enactment, and is not mentioned at all in the Bavli or by Rambam. Furthermore, some leading Rishonim were of the opinion that bekhorim are not obligated to fast on Erev Pesaḥ. This being the case, whenever there is a halakhic disagreement, the lenient poskim have the upper hand. What is more, in recent generations we no longer fast often, and if the bekhorim fast, their preparations for Pesaḥ will most likely suffer from the weakness it induces; they will even want to rush through the Hagada in order to get to the meal. Therefore, many leading rabbis would exempt themselves from the fast via a siyum. Only one who knows that the fast will not impair his preparations for Pesaḥ or his fulfillment of the mitzvot of Seder night may act stringently and fast on Erev Pesaḥ. Indeed, Rav Kook and his son R.  Zvi Yehuda, both of whom were firstborns, customarily fasted on Erev Pesaḥ.
  The type of siyum that exempts its participants from fasting is one that marks the completion of a tractate of the Bavli or Yerushalmi, or an entire seder of Mishna. The study must involve understanding and not mere rote reading.5<i class="footnote">As mentioned in the previous note, this custom is universally accepted. Even according to the opinions that this is a binding custom, it is still of rabbinic origin, so one may be lenient. This is especially true since there are authorities, Gra among them, who maintain that this custom is not binding at all. There is certainly room to be lenient when observing this custom conflicts with fulfilling the <em>mitzvot</em><em> </em>of the Seder, as is the case nowadays when most people are not accustomed to fasting (<em>Responsa</em> <em>Olat Shmuel</em> §28). Therefore, our custom is to rely on a <em>siyum</em>, which in turn reminds firstborns that they are inherently holy and have great responsibilities. <em>Arugot Ha-bosem</em> has a similar opinion in §139.A siyum on a book of Nevi’im is a se’udat mitzva (Igrot Moshe OḤ  1:157). It seems that anyone who finishes one of the four sections of Shulḥan Arukh or an important book can also make a se’udat mitzva, since making a siyum was never essentially limited just to a tractate of the Bavli; see Ḥavot Ya’ir §70. Someone who completes one tractate of Mishna with commentaries can make a siyum for himself, but it would not exempt others (Yabi’a Omer OḤ  26; see also Piskei Teshuvot 470:9).In sum, a siyum on a significant work exempts all participants from fasting. When the siyum is on a work that is significant to the one who studied it but not so significant in the eyes of the public, the one who makes the siyum can make a se’udat mitzva and exempt himself from fasting. Thus, one who is just beginning to study Torah and has difficulty learning a tractate of Mishna in depth may make a siyum on completing a superficial study of a tractate of Mishna or a book from Tanakh, but others are not exempted from fasting by his siyum and se’uda.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / The Prohibition on Eating Matza on Erev Pesaĥ
  The Sages forbade eating matza on Erev Pesaḥ, in order to increase our desire to eat it during the Seder and in order to distinguish between matza eaten before Pesaḥ and the matza eaten as a mitzva during the Seder. This prohibition applies even to children who understand the idea that the matza commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. It is permissible to feed matza on Erev Pesaḥ to small children who do not understand this.
  The prohibition begins at dawn on the fourteenth of Nisan, though some choose to be stringent and refrain from eating matza from the beginning of Nisan. Others refrain from eating matza thirty days before Pesaḥ. However, the letter of the law only requires one to refrain from eating matza on the fourteenth of Nisan (MB 471:12).6<i class="footnote">Let us briefly summarize the opinions: According to Rosh and <em>Ha-ma’or</em><em>, </em>the prohibition begins at midday. According to Maharam Halawa,<em> Tashbetz, </em>and Rambam in <em>Magid Mishneh</em>’s reading,<em> </em>the prohibition begins at dawn<em>.</em> According to <em>Orḥot Ḥayim</em>, the prohibition begins at from the time of <em>bedikat ḥametz</em> on the night of the fourteenth. Rema rules that the prohibition begins at dawn, and this is the opinion of most Aḥaronim. However, <em>Ben Ish Ḥai</em> (Tzav 26) states that the prohibition begins on the night of the fourteenth (see <em>Birur Halakha </em>99b).</i>
  Israeli hospitals and army bases ordinarily destroy ḥametz several days before Pesaḥ, because otherwise there is concern that ḥametz will remain in the kitchens and camps during Pesaḥ. Matza is served so that the soldiers and patients have what to eat, so they should refrain from eating such matzot on Erev Pesaḥ.
  The prohibition against eating matza on Erev Pesaḥ includes even small pieces of matza that have been kneaded with wine or oil. Even if such a mixture is baked, as long as the pieces are identifiable as matza, the blessing before eating them is “ha-motzi” and it is forbidden to eat them on Erev Pesaḥ. However, if after being kneaded and baked the pieces are no longer identifiable as matza, their berakha is “mezonot” and they may be eaten on Erev Pesaḥ (implied in Rema 461:2 and MB ad loc. 19-20). Some poskim are more stringent, maintaining that even if the matza is crumbled like matza meal, kneaded with oil or wine, and baked into cake or cookies so that they are no longer identifiable as matza, it is forbidden to eat them. This is because one who eats enough of them to constitute a meal (“kevi’at se’uda”) still must recite the berakha of “ha-motzi.” Thus, it is apparent that they have not yet lost the status of matza, and consequently the prohibition applies to pastries made of matza meal (Gra, Rav Kook, and Ḥazon Ish).7<i class="footnote">Some authorities maintain that any matza that is not fit for the mitzva is permissible on Erev Pesaḥ; this is the opinion of Me’iri<em>, </em>R. Yeshaya di Trani (Rid), and Rivash. Others maintain that anything that has the taste of matza is forbidden on Erev Pesaḥ, even if it is unfit for the mitzva. This position can be imputed to several Rishonim who permitted only egg matza (Rabbeinu Tam in <em>Tosafot</em> on <em>Pesaḥim</em><em> </em>99b, Rosh<em>, Mordechai, Tashbetz, </em>and Maharsha). In practice, however, the custom is to follow Rema and refrain from eating <em>matza ashira</em><em>.</em> If one crumbles the matza and kneads it with oil or something sweet, whether he bakes it or not, there are some who maintain that as long as the <em>berakha</em> is “<em>ha-motzi,</em>” the mixture is forbidden, but if the <em>berakha </em>becomes “<em>mezonot”</em> it is permissible (SA<em> </em>168:10). According to the stringent opinions, including <em>Olat Re’iyah</em> (vol. 2 p. 243 §22), any baked matza meal is forbidden on Erev Pesaḥ, since any products made from matza meal would still require the <em>berakha</em> of <em>ha-motzi</em> if eaten in the requisite quantities (they have the status of “<em>pat ha-ba’ah be-kisnin</em>”). If one cooked the matza meal, even if the cooked dish still requires <em>berakha</em> of <em>ha-motzi</em> if eaten in the requisite quantities, he may eat in on Erev Pesaḥ since its taste has changed. This is the opinion of MB 471:20 and SHT 19 <em>ad loc</em>. Some authorities are stringent; see below 14:1 and <em>Yeḥaveh Da’at</em> 1:91, n. 10. Nonetheless, all agree that one may eat less than a <em>kezayit</em> of cooked matza, as I wrote above. See <em>Yeḥaveh Da’at</em> 3:26, which allows hospitals to serve non-<em>shmura </em>matza on Erev Pesaḥ in extenuating circumstances, since in these types of situations we can rely on the Rishonim who maintain that only matza that is fit for the mitzva is forbidden on Erev Pesaḥ. Practically, however, this does not apply, since all <em>matzot</em> nowadays are guarded at least from the time of grinding, are made for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva, and are thus acceptable to fulfill the mitzva (SA 453:4).</i>
  However, all poskim agree that it is permissible to eat matza balls on Erev Pesaḥ, because after being cooked they no longer carry the status of matza. Even if one eats enough of them to constitute a meal, their berakha is “mezonot,” because they are a cooked food, not a baked good (MB ad loc. 20). Moreover, even if one cooks a whole piece of matza the size of a kezayit or more, most poskim maintain that although its berakha is “ha-motzi,” one may eat it on Erev Pesaḥ (as explained below 14:1).
  
  Section 7
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / What Can Be Eaten on Erev Pesaĥ
  As we have learned, the Torah prohibits eating ḥametz after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the Sages extended the prohibition by two hours as a safeguard. Hence, one may eat ḥametz on Erev Pesaḥ until the end of the fourth seasonal hour (i.e., the first third of the day). There are, as is evident from Jewish calendars, two approaches to calculating these hours. According to Magen Avraham, we begin calculating them from dawn; according to the Vilna Gaon, from sunrise. Ideally, one should be stringent and calculate the onset of the prohibition according to Magen Avraham. However, when necessary, since the prohibition against eating ḥametz after the fourth hour is rabbinic, one may be lenient and finish one’s ḥametz meal by the end of the fourth hour according to Gra’s calculation (see above 3:6).8<i class="footnote">The end of the fourth hour according to MA<em>’s </em>calculation is c. twenty-four minutes before that of Gra. Many people make mistakes in this area.</i>
  After four hours, a problem arises for those who customarily refrain from eating kitniyot on Pesaḥ: what can one eat to satisfy his hunger? Ḥametz and kitniyot are forbidden, and even matza is rabbinically forbidden on the fourteenth of Nisan. We have seen that even matza meal-based cakes and cookies are subject to dispute among poskim. In practice, since this disagreement pertains to a rabbinic prohibition, one may be lenient, though stringency is commendable. According to all opinions, one may eat matza balls.
  Egg matza (or matza ashira, which includes matza kneaded with oil, wine, or any other fruit juice) may be eaten on Erev Pesaḥ and Pesaḥ according to Shulḥan Arukh, but according to the custom of Rema it is forbidden (SA 461:1-4). Nowadays, serious concerns have arisen about the way matza ashira is produced, and according to most poskim, even Sephardic Jews must refrain from matza ashira, even on Erev Pesaḥ after midday (see above 8:1).
  Even those whose custom it is to eat matza ashira (when produced in a completely halakhic way) may eat it only until the end of the ninth seasonal hour of the day. With the onset of the tenth hour, three hours before the beginning of the holiday, the Sages forbid eating any sort of baked goods, so that one’s appetite is whet for the matza and festive meal of the Seder. If one is hungry during these hours, he may eat fruit, vegetables, meat, or fish, as long as he is careful to eat a small amount so that he will be hungry in the evening. If one is so sensitive that if he eats meat or some other food in the afternoon he will not be hungry at night, he must plan his meals on Erev Pesaḥ so that he has an appetite when he eats the matza that evening (SA 471:1-2).
  
  Section 8
  
  The Laws and Customs of Erev Pesaĥ / Baking Matza and Reciting Seder Korban Pesaĥ
  Some practice the enhancement of baking the matzot to be used for the Seder night mitzva after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, at the time of day when the Paschal sacrifice would be offered (SA 458:1). Many do not do so because it is labor intensive and this is the time when people are usually busy preparing the house for the Seder. Some poskim say that the possibility of the dough becoming ḥametz also makes it preferable to bake the matza beforehand, because some authorities are of the opinion that, at this time of day, even a drop of ḥametz renders everything forbidden, whereas if a drop of dough becomes ḥametz before midday, it is batel be-shishim and it will not “reawaken” later with the onset of Pesaḥ (MB 458:3; see above ch. 7 n. 1). Indeed, Rav Kook’s custom was not to bake matza on Erev Pesaḥ after midday (Mo’adei Ha-Re’aya p. 284).
  After the minḥa prayer on Erev Pesaḥ, people customarily recite the seder korban Pesaḥ, a description of the procedure of offering the Paschal sacrifice, including relevant biblical verses. The Sages teach (Megilla 31b) that after the destruction of the Temple, reciting and studying the sacrificial procedures are considered a substitute for the korban itself.
  Maharal of Prague (Gevurot Hashem chs. 36, 37) explains that the significance of the Paschal sacrifice lies in the expression it gives to the unity of the Creator, and consequently the unity of Israel, whose purpose it is to reveal His name in the world. It is therefore eaten in groups, whose membership is predetermined, so that the korban is offered by a group of people who have united for this purpose. It is also forbidden to go from one group to another during the Seder, because this would disrupt the unity of the group. The offering is eaten with matza and maror in order to express the inner unity of all of the values alluded to by Paschal sacrifice, matza, and maror. We are commanded to roast the Paschal sacrifice because roasting solidifies and unifies the meat. It is forbidden to break any of its bones, because breaking is an expression of division.
  When the Paschal sacrifice cannot be offered, the unity of the Creator is not revealed in the world, and the people of Israel are scattered and divided. May it be God’s will that the Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days, and that we merit to offer the Paschal sacrifice together, as in the days of yore.
  O Purest One, Who dwells on high
  Raise up the uncountable assembly of Your community
  Soon guide the saplings You planted
  Redeemed, to Zion in joy!
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  When Erev Pesaĥ Falls on Shabbat / Bi’ur Ĥametz and Shabbat Meals
  When the fourteenth of Nisan coincides with Shabbat, bedikat ḥametz is performed with a berakha on the night of the thirteenth, Thursday night, because it is impossible to seek and eliminate ḥametz on Shabbat. After the search, the ḥametz is nullified like in any other year, and on the following day, Friday, it is burned. It is best to burn it by the sixth seasonal hour of the day, like in any other year (SA 444:1-2). Ḥametz that will be eaten during the first two Shabbat meals is carefully set aside.
  If it were permissible, we would certainly eat matza with the Shabbat meals in order to avoid the problem of ḥametz. However, it is forbidden to eat matza on Erev Pesaḥ so that it is appetizing to us at the Seder (see above 13:6). Therefore, we must save ḥametz for the first two Shabbat meals. In order to avoid problems with ḥametz foods, many people cook kosher-for-Pesaḥ foods for that Shabbat. They make kiddush and eat bread with spreads or salads in a room where people will not eat during Pesaḥ. After eating bread, they clean their hands and brush off their clothes, then eat the rest of the meal in the kosher-for-Pesaḥ dining room.
  The second Shabbat meal must be completed by the end of the fourth seasonal hour of the day, at which time ḥametz becomes forbidden. Shabbat morning prayers must begin and end early so that the meal can be completed in time (see above 3:6).
  After the morning meal, all remaining ḥametz must be gathered from the plates and tablecloth. Since it may not be burned on Shabbat, it is a good idea to flush it down the toilet and thus completely destroy it. People generally plan their Shabbat meals wisely, so that it will be easy to gather up the leftover ḥametz and dispose of it. After this, the ḥametz must be nullified; the bitul must be recited by the end of the fifth hour of the day.
  Those who customarily perform hagala on their false teeth should do so on Friday and not eat any hot ḥametz food with them on Shabbat. Those who suffice with brushing their teeth should brush them thoroughly after the second meal (see above 11:12).
  Se’uda shlishit, the third Shabbat meal, presents a problem: it is forbidden to eat ḥametz after the fourth hour of the day, and matza is forbidden the entire day. As a result, the obligation to eat a third meal is met by eating meat and fish or various fruits (SA 444:1). One may also eat matza balls, and according to many authorities, one may eat matza that has been thoroughly cooked, though some have a custom not to eat gebrokts on Pesaḥ (see above 8:2). One must avoid eating excessively during the third meal so that the matza of Seder night remains appetizing. Those who wish to destroy all of their ḥametz before Shabbat have options, explained in the notes.1<i class="footnote">strong&gt;Eggmatza or <em>matza ashira </em>is made out of flour that was kneaded with fruit juice, which does not become <em>ḥametz</em>. The Sephardic custom is to permit eating it on Pesaḥ, while the Ashkenazic custom is to forbid (see above 8:1). According to all customs, <em>matza ashira </em>can be used for the first two Shabbat meals, but in such a case one must be <em>kovei’a se’uda </em>(“establish a meal”) by eating four egg-volumes (<em>ke-beitzim</em>) of egg matza and by eating a fully satisfying meal. This will change the <em>berakhot </em>on egg matza from “<em>mezonot</em>” and “<em>Al Ha-miḥya</em><em> </em>to “<em>ha-motzi</em>” and “<em>Birkat Ha-mazon</em>” (see <em>Peninei Halakha:</em><em>Berakhot</em> 6:4). If <em>matza ashira</em> was baked with a reliable process (see above 13:7), Sephardim may use it for <em>se’uda shlishit</em><em> </em>but it should be eaten before <em>plag ha-minḥa </em>(c. three seasonal hours before sunset). According to Ashkenazic<em> </em>custom, <em>matza ashira </em>may not be eaten after the fourth hour of the day (SHT and <em>Igrot Moshe</em>, in contrast to AHS, which permits eating it on Erev Pesaḥ, until the beginning of the holiday).Cooked matza: Another option is to cook a whole matza. According to most opinions, one may eat cooked matza on Erev Pesaḥ, since it has been fundamentally altered and one would not fulfill the mitzva of eating matza on Seder night with such matza. Because it constitutes at least a kezayit, its berakhot are still “ha-motzi” and “Birkat Ha-mazon” and consequently one may use it to fulfill the obligation to eat three Shabbat meals. This is the ruling of MB 471:20 and SHT 19 ad loc., AHS 444:5, and Yeḥaveh Da’at 1:91 n. 10. SHT 471:20 mentions in the name of SAH and Ḥayei Adam that frying is the same as cooking, and that Pri Megadim equivocates. On the other hand, MA 444:2 asserts, citing Maharil,  never having seen anyone adopt the practice of eating cooked matza at se’uda shlishit, and Gra implies that it may not be eaten on Erev Pesaḥ. Those who wish to follow the majority ruling and fulfill their obligation with cooked matza may do so (see SHT 444:1 and above 13:7). MB 444:8 raises the idea of splitting the second meal into two, but this is not ideal, as se’uda shlishit should be eaten after midday.</i>
  
  Section 2
  
  When Erev Pesaĥ Falls on Shabbat / Additional Laws
  Ta’anit Bekhorot is moved forward to Thursday, the twelfth of Nisan (SA and Rema 470:2). As mentioned, the custom nowadays is to arrange a siyum instead of fasting (see above 13:5). 
  One should prepare the needs of the Seder – such as cooking the meal, preparing the ĥaroset, maror, and shank bone, and then freezing or refrigerating them – on Friday. They should not be taken out of the refrigerator until after Shabbat, as it is forbidden to prepare on Shabbat for Yom Tov. If preparations were not made before Shabbat, they must be prepared after Shabbat. However, this is less than ideal, as it may delay the Seder. Similarly, one may not set the Seder table on Shabbat. Rather, it should be set immediately upon the conclusion of Shabbat.
  Two sets of candles should be set up before Shabbat: one for Shabbat and one for Yom Tov, as it is forbidden to stick candles on candlesticks with melted wax on Yom Tov. If one did not prepare them in advance, he may wedge them into the candlesticks without melting them in place.
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  The Hagada / “Tell your Child”
  There is a positive mitzva to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan. The more one embellishes the telling, elucidates the great kindness God showed us by saving us from the Egyptians and avenging us upon them, interprets the signs and wonders that God performed at that time and place for our sake, delves into the laws of Pesaḥ, and gives expansive gratitude to God – the more commendable it is. The essence of the mitzva is to tell the children, as it is stated: “Tell your child on that day:  ‘It is because of this that God did for me when I left Egypt’” (Shemot 13:8). Even one who is childless is commanded by the Torah to recall the Exodus on Pesaḥ night, as it states: “Remember this day on which you came out of Egypt, of the house of bondage; how, with a mighty hand, God took you out of there” (ibid. 3).
  Note that two mitzvot require us to educate our children: the first is to teach them the written and oral Torah, so they understand the world properly and may live their lives according to divine guidance. Part of this mitzva is to habituate and familiarize children with the observance of mitzvot; it is impossible to teach about Shabbat or kashrut without training for their observance. The second mitzva is to tell our children about the Exodus from Egypt on the Seder night.
  At first glance, this is puzzling. Is narrating the Exodus not part of the general mitzva of teaching Torah? In that case, what is different about the Seder night? The purpose of the stories told to the children on Seder night is to convey the fundamentals of faith that logically precede Torah study: they must know how the nation of Israel was formed, that God chose Israel to be His special nation, and that He gave them a special duty to receive the Torah and rectify the world. Parents, of course, do not live forever. The next generation will have to bear the torch of tradition, the great and awesome task that God intended for Israel, until the world has been fully repaired. This is the lesson of the Seder night. All of its mitzvot lead to that end.
  Note that the obligation to study Torah is derived from the verse: “Teach them to your children, to speak of them” (Devarim 11:19). The Sages explain that one who must teach his son Torah must himself study Torah (Kiddushin 29b). The fundamental goal of the Torah is to positively influence others and add life to the world, not just to elevate the individual Jew. Therefore, the Torah emphasizes in this commandment the obligation to teach the children, for the essential goal of the Torah is to influence the entire people of Israel in every generation. Clearly, then, every individual is likewise commanded to study Torah as much as he is able. What is more, when one studies in order to teach others, his study is more thorough and profound. Similarly, the primary emphasis of the mitzva to tell the story of the Exodus is to pass the tradition on to the children, but it follows that the parents should also attempt to understand it more profoundly, so that they are worthy of Israel’s great destiny.
  
  Section 2
  
  The Hagada / The Mitzva to Tell the Exodus Story on Pesaĥ Night
  The Torah commands us to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on the very night we left Egypt for freedom. Actually, we are commanded to remember the Exodus every day of the year, as it states: “So that you remember the day you left Egypt every day of your life” (Devarim 16:3). Ben Zoma infers from an apparent superfluity in this verse (“kol yemei” instead of “yemei”) that we must invoke the Exodus not only every day, but also even every night (Berakhot 12b). To fulfill the obligation to invoke the Exodus every day and night, we recite the third paragraph of Shema each morning and evening, as this paragraph states: “I am the Lord your God Who has taken you out of Egypt to be your God: I am the Lord your God” (Bamidbar 15:41).
  Yet there are several differences between the daily mitzva and the mitzva on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan. Firstly, in order to fulfill the daily mitzva, it is sufficient to mention the Exodus, whereas the mitzva on Pesaḥ night is to narrate broadly the events of the Exodus from Egypt. In addition, the mitzva on Pesaḥ night is to relate the story while the matza and maror are set out in front of us. Another difference is that on Pesaḥ night we tell the story by way of questions and answers. Women are exempt from the daily mitzva to commemorate the Exodus, but are obligated to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan.1<i class="footnote">SA<em> </em>472:14. The <em>poskim</em> disagree whether women are obligated in the mitzva of telling the story on a Torah level or a rabbinic level. <em>Sefer Ha-ḥinukh</em> §21 infers from the fact that women are obligated in matza and the Paschal offering on the Torah level that they are obligated by the Torah to tell the Exodus story, which is linked to the matza, <em>maror</em>, and Paschal offering, as well. Other <em>poskim</em> maintain that since the mitzva of telling the story is a time-bound positive mitzva, women are exempt according to the Torah, but the Sages obligated them in the <em>mitzvot</em><em> </em>of the Seder night, since women also experienced the miracles of the Exodus. This is the view implied by <em>Tosafot</em> on <em>Pesaḥim</em> 108b.</i>
  The Exodus from Egypt is the basis of Jewish faith, for it was the first time that God’s providence was revealed in the world to an entire nation with great signs and wonders. With the Exodus, it became clear that God had chosen Israel to be His nation and to reveal His word in the world. For this reason, every Shabbat and Yom Tov commemorates the Exodus from Egypt, especially in prayers and kiddush. By virtue of the unique mitzva to tell the story of the Exodus in depth on the Seder night, our faith becomes more firmly established, and added meaning is given to all the brief remembrances of the Exodus throughout the year.
  
  Section 3
  
  The Hagada / The Mitzva to Begin the Seder with a Question
  There is a mitzva to tell the story of the Exodus by way of question and answer, as it is stated: “When in the future your child asks you… say to your child, ‘We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt…’” (Devarim 6:20-22). It is likewise stated: “When your children ask you, ‘What is this service to you?’ say, ‘It is a Paschal sacrifice to God’” (Shemot 12:26-27). And: “When in the future your child asks: ‘What is this?’ Say to him, ‘With a mighty hand God took us out of Egypt’” (ibid. 13:14).
  Questions open the heart and mind to accept answers. The message we need to convey on the Seder night is so important and fundamental that we are commanded to do it in the most effective way – by way of question and answer.
  This is the main reason for the unique mitzvot of the Seder night: eating matza, the Paschal sacrifice, and maror. They cause the children to ask “Ma nishtana?” “Why is this night different?” and helps them understand that this is a special night whose essence must be understood. As a result, the Sages instituted several unusual practices in order to inspire children to wonder and enquire further. We begin by giving the children nuts and roasted grain, through which they realize that this is a special, festive night. The Sages instituted washing hands and eating karpas dipped in a liquid after kiddush, something we never do throughout the year. Furthermore, instead of starting the meal at this point, we pour the second cup of wine and remove the Seder plate and the matzot from the table, all to cause the children to realize that this is a very special night. They will thus truly be interested in its meaning, and they will sincerely ask: “Why is this night different?”
  It can be said that this question, “Ma nishtana?” embodies a bigger and deeper question about the Jewish people: Why are we different from all other nations – in our faith, in our mitzvot, in our suffering, in our spiritual achievements, in our exile, and in our redemption? There is no complete answer to this question. Only by contemplating the Exodus from Egypt and the election of Israel can we understand that this is a divine matter; we are capable of understanding part of it, but we will never understand it all. This same question spurs us on, toward infinitely deeper and more sublime understanding. Perhaps this is why the Torah instructs us to tell the story of the Exodus and of Israel’s singularity using questions and answers: the ideological basis of Jewish peoplehood lies in a question that opens us to an endless profusion of ideas. If we do not impart the Torah and the story of the Exodus to the children, no new questions would be asked and we would be unable to continue rising higher.
  
  Section 4
  
  The Hagada / The Text of “Ma Nishtana”
  In order to give this seminal question a structured framework, the Sages formulated the “Ma nishtana” text, through which the children express their surprise at how different this night is, paving the way for the telling of the Exodus story. The text contains questions about all of the Seder night mitzvot related to eating: matza, maror, the Paschal sacrifice, and the two dippings. After the destruction of the Temple, we no longer ask about the Paschal sacrifice and instead ask about reclining at the Seder.
  If there are no children present to ask “Ma nishtana?” the youngest participant asks. Even if all the participants are Torah scholars well versed in the story of the Exodus, one of them must ask “Ma nishtana?” Even an individual performing the Seder alone must begin with “Ma nishtana?” This is how the Seder is arranged; we begin with a question because it makes the explanation more complete. Once a child or someone else has asked “Ma nishtana?” the other participants need not repeat the question and may proceed immediately to “Avadim Hayinu” (SA and Rema 473:7).2<i class="footnote">According to several Rishonim, including <em>Rokei’aḥ</em> and Maharil, if a child asks any question about the Seder, the obligation to ask questions has been fulfilled, and there is no need to recite the “<em>Ma nishtana</em>” formula specifically. However, according to most Rishonim<em>,</em> including <em>Tosafot</em> and Rambam, even if a child autonomously asks a question relating to the Seder, the entire “<em>Ma nishtana</em>” formula must be recited. The <em>halakha</em> follows this opinion. See <em>Birur Halakha </em>on <em>Pesaḥim </em>115b (p. 134) for a summary of opinions. This ruling notwithstanding, one should encourage his children to ask their own questions, to fulfill the verse “when your child asks…”One authority writes that the mitzva de-Oraita to tell the Exodus story only applies when a child actually asks a question, but if the child does not inquire, the  biblical mitzva is only to commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, though one is still rabbinically required to tell the story. This is the implication of Responsa Rosh 24:2, but the majority of poskim maintain that anyone who has a child is obligated by the Torah to tell him the story, as the Torah states regarding the son who does not know how to ask, “Tell your child on this day:  ‘It is because of this that God did for me when I left Egypt’” (Shemot 13:8). So states SAH 473:42. (R. Yeruḥam Fishel Perla, in his commentary on R. Saadia Gaon’s Sefer Ha-mitzvot §32, states that according to Ramban and other Rishonim, one who does not have matza is exempt from the mitzva of telling the story of the Exodus, based on the phrase “because of this” [“ba-avur zeh” – the Hebrew uses the demonstrative pronoun “zeh” instead of the expected indefinite relative pronoun, indicating that it refers to an object that is present, i.e., the matza]. Additionally, see Sidur Pesaḥ Ke-hilkhato ch. 6 n. 2 which mentions a distinction between a child who asks his father a question, which obligates his father to tell the story in detail, and a child who does not ask, which only obligates the father to tell the story briefly. We can explain that if the son asks, the father must embellish his response based on the question, but if the child does not ask, the father need only tell the story briefly. Embellishment depends on the child’s desire to listen and obtain answers.) In any event, it is clear that at least on the rabbinic level one must recite the entire Hagada as formulated. Even if he is alone, he asks himself the questions (Pesaḥim 116a) and thus extends to himself the obligation to answer.</i>
  
  Section 5
  
  The Hagada / The Torah Speaks of Four Children
  On four occasions the Torah states that one must tell his child about the Exodus from Egypt, and each time it uses a different formulation. This teaches us that one must tailor his storytelling to the abilities and personality of each child.
  In one place it states: “When in the future your child asks you, ‘What are these testimonies, laws, and principles that the Lord our God commanded you?’” (Devarim 6:20). The fact that he asks in a detailed manner – “What are these testimonies, laws, and principles” – implies that we are dealing with a wise child, and the verses that follow teach us that the answer we give must be detailed. We must clarify at length the whole matter of the Exodus from Egypt, the mitzvot of Pesaḥ, and the destiny of the Jewish people. Therefore, the answer for the wise child is the longest and most detailed (as shown in the next section).
  Elsewhere it states: “When your children ask you, ‘What is this service to you?,’ say, ‘It is a Paschal sacrifice to God, Who passed over (‘pasaḥ’) the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when He smote Egypt and spared our homes’ ” (Shemot 12:26-27). Since the child calls the mitzvot “service” (“avoda”), which connotes “work,” and since he excludes himself from the mitzvot, saying, “What is this service to you?,” it is clear that he does not feel like a participant in the mitzvot. Nevertheless, the Torah commands us to address him and explain to him Israel’s uniqueness, as expressed in the Paschal sacrifice.
  It also states: “When in the future your child asks: ‘What is this?,’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand God took us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. When Pharaoh refused to free us, God killed every firstborn in Egypt, human and beast alike’” (Shemot 13:14-15). The question “What is this?” indicates that the asker is simple and does not know how to sharpen his question. The Torah commands us to explain to him, according to his abilities, the impressive events that took place during the Exodus from Egypt, the mighty plagues that struck the Egyptians, and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, which was finally softened by the Plague of the Firstborn. These are things the simple child absorbs and finds most impressive.
  Even if the child is not moved to ask at all, one must tell him about the Exodus, as it states: ““Matzot are to be eaten… Tell your child on that day:  ‘It is because of this that God did for me when I left Egypt’” (Shemot 13:7-8). Since he does not ask any questions, his interest must be aroused with tangible objects. We therefore say to him, “It is because of this” – by virtue of the matzot, maror, and Paschal sacrifice God performed miracles for us and took us out of Egypt. Thus, we put the Seder plate on the table so that each food on it can illustrate one of the ideas that find expression at the Seder.3<i class="footnote">It is interesting to note that the answer given to the wicked child is taken from Shemot 12, in the context of the mitzva of the Pesaḥ sacrifice both in Egypt and for future generations. Sacrificing an animal and sprinkling its blood raise the biggest questions for him. Nevertheless, the answer to his question is not evasive. It addresses the uniqueness of the Jewish people, a topic whose roots are beyond human comprehension and whose branches appear throughout the course of history. The response to the child who does not know how to ask comes from Shemot<em> </em>13:8 following the commandment to eat the Pesaḥ sacrifice. While partaking in actual eating of the matza, one can try to connect him to the memory of the Exodus until he develops greater understanding (the child who does not know how to ask is not stupid, merely uninterested). The response to the simple son is written in the context of the sanctity of firstborns. Because he is not very intelligent, his father must teach him fear of heaven and respect for sanctity. This is accomplished by contemplating God’s power and the Plague of the Firstborn. As a result, this child will accept the <em>mitzvot</em>, whose goal is to sanctify us and distinguish us from all other nations. The question of the wise son is not mentioned specifically in the context of Pesaḥ; rather, it is mentioned in Devarim 6 regarding the foundations of belief and the destiny of the Jewish people. Since everything stems from the Exodus, the Sages understood that the wise child’s question is related to the <em>mitzvot</em> of Pesaḥ. Through that we explain to the wise son all the basic principles of faith.</i>
  
  Section 6
  
  The Hagada / The Main Message of the Hagada
  In order to understand fully the goal of the Hagada and the story of the Exodus from Egypt, we must consider the question of the wise child and the answer he receives, for he is the preferred child, and we pray that all our children develop and succeed in becoming wise.
  The wise child poses a detailed question, as it is stated: “When in the future your child asks you, ‘What are these testimonies, laws, and principles that the Lord our God commanded you?’” (Devarim 6:20). The answer initially addresses the Exodus from Egypt but then broadens to include the overall purpose of the Jewish people: to come to Eretz Yisrael, to adhere to God, to fulfill all of His mitzvot, and to earn His benevolence:
  Say to your child, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but God took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. God brought great and terrible miracles and demonstrations upon Egypt, Pharaoh, and his entire household before our very eyes. He brought us out of there in order to bring us to, and give us, the land He promised to our forebears. God commanded us to keep all of these laws, to fear the Lord our God, for the sake of our everlasting benefit, so that He might sustains us as we are today. And it shall be considered our virtue to observe and perform all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He commanded us. (ibid. 6:21-25)
  We see, then, that the aim of the Seder is to impart to our children, by telling the story of the Exodus, the desire to belong to the people of Israel, to inherit the Promised Land, to adhere to God, and to perform all of His mitzvot.
  To enable us to tell the story of the Exodus to the wise child without leaving out any of its essential components, the Men of the Great Assembly, who lived at the beginning of the Second Temple period, composed the text of the Hagada. Over time, the leading Tanna’im, Amora ’im, and Ge’onim added passages containing important elements related to the mitzvot of the Hagada. Finally, about 800 years ago, a consensus version was accepted by all Jewish communities, based on the text of R. Amram Gaon.
  The text of the Hagada is thus the complete story, and whoever recites it covers all aspects of the Exodus from Egypt. Nonetheless, the more one explains the Hagada and expands upon it with illuminating ideas, stories, and laws related to Pesaḥ and the Exodus, the more commendable it is.4<i class="footnote">In this sense, the entire text of the Hagada is the complete answer to the wise child. However, in the Hagada itself the wise child is answered simply: “after the Paschal sacrifice, we do not conclude with dessert (<em>afikoman</em>)<em>.</em>” The Hagada means to say that we teach the wise son all of the laws of Pesaḥ until the very last one, namely, that we do not eat anything after the consumption of the <em>afikoman. </em>(Originally, the sacrifice was the last thing eaten at the Seder; we now eat matza – the <em>afikoman </em>– instead.) This law highlights how beloved the Seder is: we do not want to eat anything after the <em>afikoman</em>, so that the taste of the mitzva remains in our mouths. It also seems that the wise child has a tendency to discuss and attend to peripheral issues. On the Seder night, the goal is to understand the larger principles in all their profound simplicity. Thus, we say to him: “Do not go for dessert after eating the Paschal sacrifice. Focus on the main thing, without going off on tangents.”Some had the custom of reciting the berakha “al sipur yetzi’at Mitzrayim” (“regarding the telling of the Exodus from Egypt”) before reciting the Hagada. This is not our practice, for several possible reasons: According to Me’iri, the berakha of “emet ve-emuna,” recited following the recitation of the nighttime Shema, counts as the berakha on the Hagada. According to Rabbeinu Yeruḥam, kiddush at the beginning of the Seder counts as the berakha on the Hagada. According to Responsa Rosh 24:2, it is not necessary to recite a berakha on the Hagada, since the main aspect of the mitzva is to eat the matza and maror while also telling the story. Berakhot are in fact recited on the matza and maror. According to Maharal (Gevurot Hashem 5:62), the key aspect of the mitzva is to understand, and we do not recite berakhot on thoughts. According to Shibolei Ha-leket, the berakha recited at the end, “asher ga’alanu” (“Who has redeemed us”), is a berakha on the Hagada. Ma’aseh Nisim adds that since we recite “asher ga’alanu” as part of the Hagada, we should not recite a berakha beforehand just as one does not recite a berakha on the mitzva of reciting Birkat Ha-mazon. See Ha-Seder He-arukh ch. 59 for more explanations.</i>
  
  Section 7
  
  The Hagada / From Indignity to Praise
  The Sages state that one must begin the story of the Exodus with indignity (“genut”) and end it with praise (“shevaḥ”). To what sort of “indignity” does this refer, physical or spiritual? According to one talmudic sage (Shmuel), it refers to physical indignity – the fact that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, that the Egyptians embittered our lives with all manner of hard labor, until God redeemed us from their oppression. Another sage (Rav) maintains that this refers to spiritual indignity – the fact that our distant ancestors, Teraḥ and Lavan, were pagans, and through a long process of refinement we became an entire nation of monotheists. In practice, we follow both approaches, recounting in the Hagada the process of our emergence from enslavement to freedom as well as the process that took us from idolatry to the point when God revealed Himself to us, and we achieved complete faith (Pesaḥim 116a).
  At first glance, it might seem preferable to tell only the pleasant and agreeable stories. A deeper second glance, however, makes it clear that the more we contemplate the hardships of the enslavement and the ignominy of the paganism practiced by our forefathers, the better we can grasp the enormity of our redemption. Light is more discernible in the midst of darkness.
  In addition, discussing our undignified beginnings allows us to better understand that Israel’s uniqueness is not contingent upon our success or good deeds, but is rooted in divine election that lies beyond all human comprehension. f Though we lacked all dignity as contemptible slaves, God chose us from all other nations and took us out of Egypt with signs and demonstrations. Despite the fact that our forefathers were idolaters, God chose to reveal Himself to us and give us the Torah. Thus, Israel’s special status is not contingent on anything of this world, but on Divine fiat.
  This can also teach us about Israel’s unique ability to bring redemption to the world, to turn darkness into light and evil into good. We start the story by emphasizing our former indignity, to show that from the ignorance of paganism and servitude we rose up and achieved great things. This is an encouraging and comforting message: as then, so too now – our redemption will emerge from the suffering and travails of recent generations.
  Additionally, discussing the fact that we were ignoble slaves awakens our sensitivity and consideration for strangers and for the unfortunate who suffer and need help, as it is stated: “Do not oppress the stranger, for you know how it feels to be a stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Shemot 23:9).
  
  Section 8
  
  The Hagada / The Meaning of the Ten Plagues
  The Torah describes the ten plagues at length and in great detail, without omitting a single plague. There are many things we can learn from this. The most obvious is that there is a Judge and there is justice, and the wicked eventually will be punished. Those who are especially wicked, like the Egyptians, who enslaved an entire nation, imposed backbreaking labor, and drowned their male children in the Nile, deserved to receive their full punishment, so that all generations might learn this lesson.
  There is also a profound allusion here. As we know, the world was created with ten divine utterances (Rosh Hashana 32a). Kabbala interprets these as ten sefirot, or “emanations,” with which God created the world and continues to maintain and sustain it. However, until the nation of Israel emerged, these sefirot were concealed and hidden. Just as these ten spiritual elements were hidden, so too the Israelites, before they matured enough to emerge as a nation, were enslaved in Egypt.
  When Israel finally reached maturity, numbering 600,000 (see above 1:4), the time had come for them to go free. It was then that God commanded Moshe to go to Pharaoh and order him to “free My people so they may make a pilgrimage to Me in the wilderness.” Moshe did so, but Pharaoh refused to free them, saying, “Who is God that I should heed His call to free Israel. I do not know God and I will not free Israel” (Shemot 5:1-2). Pharaoh stubbornly refused God’s command many times. But God’s will prevails and no man can stand up to God’s word, not even the leader of the strongest empire in the world. Using the same elements He used to create the world, God rocked the Egyptian empire with plague after plague, so that the ten utterances of Creation took the form of ten plagues, until the Egyptians were completely broken, and Israel went free.
  When we arrived at Mount Sinai, God revealed the meaning of those same ten utterances in the Ten Commandments, the Torah’s foundation.
  
  Section 9
  
  The Hagada / Pesaĥ, Matza, and Maror
  The Mishna teaches: “Rabban Gamliel would say: ‘Whoever does not say these three things on Pesaḥ has not fulfilled his obligation, and they are: Pesaḥ, matza, and maror‘” (Pesaḥim 126a).
  This means that even one who cannot recite the entire Hagada must at least delve into the three food-related mitzvot of the Seder night. The Torah thus states regarding the mitzva to teach the child who does not know how to ask: “Tell your child on that day:  ‘It is because of this that God did for me when I left Egypt’” (Shemot 13:8), and the Sages teach: “‘because of this’ means when matza and maror are before you on your table” (Mekhilta Bo 17). This teaches that one must at least reflect upon the reasons for the three foods we have been commanded to eat on the Seder night. Even though we are unable to offer the Paschal sacrifice nowadays, we are nonetheless commanded to recall its meaning.5<i class="footnote">According to Ran and<em> </em>Ramban<em>, </em>one who recites the entire Hagada except for the sections about Pesaḥ<em>, </em>matza, and <em>maror</em> fulfills his obligation, albeit not in the optimal fashion. Some explain that according to Rambam (MT Laws of <em>Ḥametz</em><em> </em>and Matza 8:4) and <em>Tosafot</em>, if one neglects to invoke Pesaḥ<em>, </em>matza, and <em>maror</em> he does not fulfill his obligation to tell the story of the Exodus; see <em>Hilkhot Ḥag Be-ḥag </em>16. However, a literal reading of their words is not compelling, for it is possible they referred to one who did not tell the story of the Exodus at all. If such a person mentions Pesaḥ<em>, </em>matza, and <em>maror</em> he fulfills his obligation, and if not, he does not. See <em>Birur Halakha</em> on <em>Pesaḥim</em><em> </em>116b which explains that the <em>poskim</em> debate the reason for mentioning Pesaḥ<em>, </em>matza, and <em>maror</em>. Some maintain that invoking them is necessary for the proper fulfillment of eating Pesaḥ<em>, </em>matza, and <em>maror</em>. Without explaining their meanings, one does not properly fulfill the <em>mitzvot</em> of eating them. Others maintain that invoking Pesaḥ<em>, </em>matza, and <em>maror</em> is needed to properly perform the telling of the Exodus. <em>Binyan Tziyon</em> §30 suggests that <em>Pesaḥ Sheini</em>, the make-up date for those who were unable to offer the Paschal sacrifice at its proper time,<em> </em>constitutes a practical difference between these two approaches: if invoking these elements is connected to the eating, one would still need to invoke them, but if it is connected to the telling of the story, one need not invoke them.</i>
  Because, as we have seen, the Seder is conducted in question and answer form, we recite: “The Pesaḥ [sacrifice] that our ancestors would eat when the Temple still stood, what is it for?”; “This matza that we eat, what is it for?”; and “This maror that we eat, what is it for?”
  The Paschal offering expresses Israel’s special relationship with God, matza expresses freedom, and maror expresses the significance of the enslavement.
  The Paschal offering expresses Israel’s special relationship with God because it recalls God’s miraculous differentiation between Israel and other nations, slaying the Egyptian firstborn while “passing over” the homes of the Israelites. One might say that Israel’s special status is not obvious to all as long as the Temple lies in ruins, and so we cannot offer the Paschal sacrifice nowadays.
  The matza, though, which expresses our redemption from Egypt, is a perpetual mitzva, as we have never lost the freedom we obtained when we left Egypt and became wholly attached to God. This is true freedom, because only one who occupies himself with Torah is truly free. Even when we are enslaved among the nations, our spirit remains free, for the Torah allows us to transcend material enslavement.
  Maror is a mitzva of rabbinic origin during periods when the Temple is in ruins and the Paschal sacrifice cannot be offered. Perhaps this is because maror alludes to the pain and bitterness of the enslavement, and we cannot yet fully grasp the meaning of our suffering. Only when we are able to offer the Paschal sacrifice will we grasp the full meaning of our suffering; only when we can see how it refines and purifies us and understand how our salvation sprouted from within all the difficult times does the mitzva to eat maror become de-Oraita. Until then, we have faith that everything is for the best.