Mishneh Torah — Leavened & Unleavened Bread (Chametz u-Matzah) הלכות חמץ ומצה, Chapter 4

כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות יג ז) "לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ". יָכוֹל אִם טָמַן אוֹתוֹ אוֹ הִפְקִיד אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם לֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹבֵר תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות יב יט) "שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם" אֲפִלּוּ הִפְקִידוֹ אוֹ הִטְמִינוֹ. יָכוֹל לֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה הֶחָמֵץ בְּבֵיתוֹ אֲבָל אִם הָיָה רָחוֹק מִבֵּיתוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה אוֹ בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת לֹא יִהְיֶה עוֹבֵר תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות יג ז) (דברים טז ד) "בְּכָל גְּבֻלֶךָ" בְּכָל רְשׁוּתְךָ. יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּב לְבַעֵר מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ חָמֵץ שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם אוֹ שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות יג ז) (דברים טז ד) "לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ" שֶׁלְּךָ אִי אַתָּה רוֹאֶה אֲבָל אַתָּה רוֹאֶה שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁל גָּבוֹהַּ:

The Torah (Exodus 13:7) states: "No chametz shall be seen for you." Perhaps, if it were buried or entrusted to a gentile, he would not transgress the commandment? The Torah (Exodus 12:19) states: "leaven should not be found in your homes," [implying] even if it is buried or entrusted. of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.In his commentary on the Torah (Exodus 12:19), the Ramban differs with the concept in its entirety and states that a person does not transgress the prohibition against possessing chametz when it is entrusted to a gentile. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:4) accepts the Rambam's opinion. No later halachic authorities question the matter.Perhaps he would only transgress [the commandment] when chametz is [found] in his house, but if it were outside his house, in a field or in another city, he would not violate [the commandment]? The Torah states (Exodus 13:7): "[No leaven shall be seen for you] in all your territory" - i.e., in all your possessions.Perhaps a person will be obligated to remove from his property chametz that belongs to a gentile or that was consecrated? The Torah states (ibid.): "No [leaven] shall be seen for you." [We may infer]: You may not see your own [leaven]. However, you may see [leaven] belonging to others or which was consecrated.

הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהֶחָמֵץ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם הֱנִיחוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ טָמוּן וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ מֻפְקָד בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם (שמות יג ז) (דברים טז ד) "לֹא יֵרָאֶה" וְ(שמות יב יט) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא". חָמֵץ שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם שֶׁהָיָה אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שֶׁל גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁיַּד יִשְׂרָאֵל שׁוֹלֶטֶת עָלָיו אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא הֶחָמֵץ מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּפֶסַח. אֲבָל צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְחִצָּה גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בִּפְנֵי חֲמֵצוֹ שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לְהִסְתַּפֵּק מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבָל שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכּל פּוֹרְשִׁין מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי מְעִילָה:

[From the above,] you can learn that chametz belonging to a Jew which was left in his possession, even though it is buried, is located in another city, or is entrusted to a gentile, causes him to violate [the commandments]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."Chametz that either was consecrated or belongs to a gentile, and is located within a Jew's property, even if it was with him at home—behold, this is permitted, for [the chametz] is not his. Even if it belonged to a resident alien 8:10 and Hilchot Avodah Zarah 10:6 define this term as referring to a gentile who keeps the seven universal laws given to Noah's descendants. A gentile who accepts these rules of behavior may be granted the privilege of living in Eretz Yisrael. under the authority of the Jewish people, 5b emphasizes that even a gentile who lives in a Jew's home may keep chametz during Pesach. we need not force him to remove the chametz from his property on Pesach. state: "We need not force him (i.e., the gentile) to remove his chametz from our property."Nevertheless, it is necessary to construct a partition at least ten handbreadths high in front of chametz belonging to a gentile, lest one come to use it. notes that in Halachah 3:8, the Rambam considers covering the chametz with a utensil as a sufficient measure to prevent the use of the chametz. Two explanations are offered why, in the present instance, a more stringent measure is required:a) the amount of chametz the gentile entrusted for safekeeping is probably too large to be covered by utensils;b) covering the chametz with a utensil is only a temporary measure, intended to be effective only until the end of the day of the festival. Once that day is concluded, the chametz must be destroyed. In contrast, in this instance the chametz will remain in the Jew's possession throughout the entire holiday. Hence, more severe measures must be taken.The Ramban and the Ba'al HaItur do not accept this requirement and maintain that if a Jew does not accept responsibility for the chametz, he is not obligated to construct a partition. All that is necessary is that the chametz be placed out of the way. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:2) and the later halachic authorities all follow the Rambam's opinion. [With regard to chametz] that has been consecrated, this is unnecessary; everyone shies away from consecrated property, lest they infringe on [the prohibition of] מעילה.

עַכּוּ"ם שֶׁהִפְקִיד חֲמֵצוֹ אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרָיוּת שֶׁאִם אָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב יְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ דָּמָיו הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְבָעֲרוֹ הוֹאִיל וְקִבֵּל עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת נַעֲשָׂה כְּשֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ אֶצְלוֹ וּמֻתָּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ"ם הוּא:

A gentile who entrusted his chametz to a Jew: Should the Jew accept the responsibility of paying for the worth of the chametz if it is lost or (Orach Chayim 440:13,16) and the Mishnah Berurah advise following the latter opinion. stolen—behold, he is obligated to destroy it. Since he accepted responsibility for it, 5b offer two possible explanations why the chametz is considered as if it belongs to the Jew. One opinion maintains that throughout the Torah, an article that causes financial liability is considered as one's responsibility.Another opinion maintains that in this instance, since the Torah adds a special commandment "leaven should not be found," extra stringency must be taken. From this discussion, we see that the responsibility to destroy this chametz stems from the Torah itself, and is not merely a matter of Rabbinic decree. it is considered as though it were his. 6a maintains that if a Jew designates a specific place within his home for the gentile and tells him to place his chametz there, he is not obligated to destroy it even though he accepted responsibility for it. Rashi does not accept this position. From the Rambam's omission of the matter, we may assume he also follows Rashi's view (Lechem Mishnah).The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 440:1) quotes the Rambam and hence, requires the acceptance of the more stringent position. However, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (440:16) and the Mishnah Berurah (440:3) mention certain leniencies based on Tosefot's position.If he did not accept responsibility for it, he may keep it in his domain and may eat from it after Pesach, for it was in the gentile's possession. 6a mentions a situation where a gentile brings chametz that he wishes to entrust to a Jew, and the latter designates a particular portion of the house for him to put the chametz. Under such circumstances, there is no need to destroy the chametz.There are some authorities who explain that the Talmud is speaking about a situation in which the Jew accepted responsibility for the chametz. Nevertheless, since he told the gentile to put it in one specific place, it is considered as if that place belongs to the gentile, and thus the chametz is not found in the Jew's possession.The Rambam does not accept this interpretation and requires the gentile's chametz to be destroyed whenever a Jew accepts responsibility for it. Though the Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Mishnah Berurah mention the more lenient opinion, they require that the more stringent approach be followed.

עַכּוּ"ם אַנָּס שֶׁהִפְקִיד חֲמֵצוֹ אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם יוֹדֵעַ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם אָבַד אוֹ נִגְנַב מְחַיְּבוֹ לְשַׁלְּמוֹ וְכוֹפֵהוּ וְאוֹנְסוֹ לְשַׁלֵּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִבֵּל אַחֲרָיוּת הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְבַעֲרוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶחְשָׁב כְּאִלּוּ הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּחַיְּבוֹ הָאַנָּס בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ:

Should a gentile who forces his way upon people use the expression אלם instead. However, the intention remains the same, regardless of which term is used. entrust his chametz to a Jew: If the Jew knows that if it is lost or stolen, [the gentile] will obligate him to pay for 5b): Ravvah told the inhabitants of Mechuzah: "Destroy the chametz belonging to the king's soldiers." Since the army would hold the Jews responsible if it were stolen, it was considered their property. it—forcing and compelling him to pay even though he did not accept responsibility—he is obligated to destroy it. It is considered as though it were his, for the gentile holds him responsible for it., and not when a private individual takes the law into his own hands (Maggid Mishneh). Nevertheless, this differentiation is not accepted by most halachic authorities.

יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִרְהִין חֲמֵצוֹ אֵצֶל הָעַכּוּ"ם אִם אָמַר לוֹ אִם לֹא הֵבֵאתִי לְךָ מָעוֹת מִכָּאן וְעַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי קְנֵה חָמֵץ זֶה מֵעַכְשָׁו הֲרֵי זֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הָעַכּוּ"ם וְאוֹתוֹ הֶחָמֵץ מֻתָּר לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אוֹתוֹ זְמַן שֶׁקָּבַע לוֹ קֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח. וְאִם לֹא אָמַר לוֹ קְנֵה מֵעַכְשָׁו נִמְצָא אוֹתוֹ הֶחָמֵץ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא פִּקָּדוֹן אֵצֶל הָעַכּוּ"ם וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח:

A Jew who gives his chametz to a gentile as security relates that the word רהן means security in Arabic. for a loan and tells him: "If I do not bring the money between today and such and such a date, you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," 31b, Maggid Mishneh). the chametz is considered as in the gentile's possession and is permitted to be used after Pesach. This applies if the date specified was before Pesach. (Orach Chayim 441:1) accepts the Ra'avad's view.Nevertheless, this leniency applies only when the Jew willingly foregoes any right to the chametz and considers to have repaid his loan with it. Should the Jew decide to redeem his chametz after Pesach, he is retroactively considered the owner and is liable for possessing chametz throughout the holiday.However, if he did not tell him: "you acquire the chametz [retroactively] from the present moment," that chametz is considered as an article entrusted to the gentile, and it is forbidden to benefit from it after Pesach., an agreement which was never intended to be fulfilled. The Ra'avad maintains that, generally, the fact that a borrower does not specify that the security would retroactively become the lender's property implies that he never really intended to sell it to him and always considers it as his own. Thus, were such a transaction to be carried out between Jews, the Ra'avad maintains that the security would never become the lender's property. However, he explains that this law applies only regarding business dealings carried out between Jews, and not to those involving gentiles. Therefore, in this instance, the chametz given as security becomes the gentile's property.In contrast, the Rambam does not consider such an agreement an Asmachtah. However, he does not accept a gentile's right to an article given as security. Hence, though the date for repayment passes before Pesach, he still considers the article as belonging to its original Jewish owner.In this matter, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav follows the more stringent view if the chametz is worth more than the loan, and forbids its use after Pesach. However, if it is not worth more than the loan, that text and, similarly, the Mishnah Berurah, require the Jewish borrower to redeem his chametz before Pesach. However, if he fails to so, they allow people to rely on the Ra'avad's opinion and benefit from the chametz.Different laws apply to chametz given to a Jew as security by a gentile or by another Jew. In the former instance, a Jew is considered the owner of the chametz if the agreement included the clause specifying retroactive ownership, even though the time for payment is not fixed until after Pesach. If the agreement lacked that clause, and the Jew is not held responsible for the chametz (see Halachah 3 above), the Jew is not liable for that chametz (Shulchan Aruch). Nevertheless, other authorities do not accept this decision.

יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִין בִּסְפִינָה וְהָיָה חָמֵץ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִגִּיעָה שָׁעָה חֲמִישִׁית הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹכְרוֹ לְעַכּוּ"ם אוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקְחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתְּנֶנּוּ לוֹ מַתָּנָה גְּמוּרָה:

A Jew and a gentile are traveling together in a ship, 2:6. Nevertheless, it is worthy of question why the Rambam quotes that source verbatim. Often, when mentioning such a law, the Rambam will eliminate particulars that are extraneous to the principle he wishes to communicate. and the Jew possesses chametz. When the fifth hour [on the fourteenth of Nisan] arrives—behold, he should sell it to the gentile or give it to him as a present. 10:4 states that we should not give presents to gentiles. However, in this instance, giving such a gift will prevent a Jew from violating a Torah prohibition. Hence, there is no objection.The halachic authorities emphasize that the sale or gift of chametz to the gentile must be formalized by a kinyan (legal transaction) recognized by both Torah and secular law. Thus, the gentile becomes its legal owner. He may return and buy it back from him after Pesach, (Orach Chayim 448:3) states: "Even though the Jew who sells it to the gentile knows that he will not touch it at all, but will watch it for him until after Pesach and then return it to him, it is permitted." as long as he gives it to him as an outright present.

אוֹמֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעַכּוּ"ם עַד שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ בְּמָנֶה בּוֹא וְקַח בְּמָאתַיִם. עַד שֶׁאַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ מֵעַכּוּ"ם בּוֹא וְקַח מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּא אֶצְטָרֵךְ וְאֶקַּח מִמְּךָ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. אֲבָל לֹא יִמְכֹּר וְלֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ עַל תְּנַאי. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר עַל בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא:

The Jew may tell the gentile:, ibid. 2:7. "Rather than buy a manah's worth [of chametz], come and buy two hundred [dinars'] worth [of chametz]..., and explain that the gentile was buying provisions for the journey for himself. The Jew tells him: "Don't buy enough only for yourself; buy for me as well." Rather than buy from a gentile, come and buy from a Jew. Perhaps I will need [chametz] and will buy from you after Pesach."However, he cannot sell or give [chametz] to him on condition. If he does so—behold, he transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found."

תַּעֲרֹבֶת חָמֵץ עוֹבְרִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. כְּגוֹן הַמּוּרְיָס וְכוּתָח הַבַּבְלִי וְשֵׁכָר הַמָּדִי שֶׁעוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִן הַקֶּמַח. וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ מִדְּבָרִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִים. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ תַּעֲרֹבֶת חָמֵץ וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ בְּפֶסַח:

[A person] who possesses a mixture of chametz transgresses [the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found" because of it; explains that the possession of these mixtures only violates the prohibitions against possessing chametz when they contain a substantial amount of chametz (at least the size of an olive in a quantity to be eaten בכדי אכילת פרס).Rav Moshe HaCohen maintains that even the possession of a smaller amount violates these prohibitions. Rav Yosef Caro supports this view in the Kessef Mishneh. Although he does not explicitly state so in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 442:1) when discussing this law, the later authorities (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Mishnah Berurah) accept this opinion as binding. for example: pickle-brine, Babylonian kotach, and Median beer, which are made from flour. [The same applies] to other similar substances which are eaten. However, a substance which contains a mixture of chametz, but is not fit to be eaten, may be kept on Pesach. (Orach Chayim 447:12). See the following halachot. However, if the substance is originally intended for human consumption and then becomes spoiled, one is considered to have violated the prohibitions against possessing chametz until it becomes spoiled to the extent that it will not be eaten by a dog. (See Halachah 11.)

כֵּיצַד. עֲרֵבַת הָעַבְּדָנִין שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָהּ קֶמַח וְעוֹרוֹת אֲפִלּוּ נְתָנוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת קֹדֶם הַבִּעוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן הָעוֹרוֹת וְנָתַן הַקֶּמַח קֹדֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים לִשְׁעַת הַבִּעוּר מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי נִפְסַד וְהִבְאִישׁ. תּוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים חַיָּב לְבָעֵר:

How is [the latter principle] applied? A tanner's trough into which one placed flour and animal hides: 79a ("There are three hides"). Even if this was done one hour before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it. If one placed flour [in the trough] without animal hides three days before [the time chametz must be] destroyed, one may keep it, for the [chametz] has surely become spoiled and rotten. Within three days, one is obligated to destroy it.

וְכֵן הַקִּילוֹר וְהָרְטִיָּה וְהָאִסְפְּלָנִית וְהַתְּרִיאַ"ק שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכָן חָמֵץ מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמָן בְּפֶסַח שֶׁהֲרֵי נִפְסְדָה צוּרַת הֶחָמֵץ:

Similarly, an eye salve, a compress, a plaster, or Tiriac into which chametz was placed may be kept on Pesach, for the nature of the chametz is spoiled.

הַפַּת עַצְמָהּ שֶׁעִפְּשָׁה וְנִפְסְלָה מִלֶּאֱכל הַכֶּלֶב ומְלוּגְמָא שֶׁנִּסְרְחָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. בְּגָדִים שֶׁכִּבְּסוּ אוֹתָן בְּחֵלֶב חִטָּה וְכֵן נְיָרוֹת שֶׁדִּבְּקוּ אוֹתָן בְּחָמֵץ וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מֻתָּר לְקַיְּמָן בְּפֶסַח וְאֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם (שמות יג ז) (דברים טז ד) "לֹא יֵרָאֶה" וְ(שמות יב יט) "לֹא יִמָּצֵא" שֶׁאֵין צוּרַת הֶחָמֵץ עוֹמֶדֶת:

Bread itself which has become moldy and is no longer fit for consumption by a dog, 15:1) differentiates between the two cases as follows. Chametz itself is a forbidden substance. Hence, it must be spoiled to the point that a dog cannot benefit from it. In contrast, the other substances are merely mixtures of chametz. They are only forbidden because they contain the taste of chametz. Hence, once that taste is no longer suitable for human consumption, there is no reason why they should remain forbidden.He continues relating that, as stated in Halachot 11 and 12, chametz that is obviously designated for purposes other than food can be used even though it has not become spoiled. Thus, one could explain that once the chametz in the above mixtures becomes unfit for human consumption, it is clearly not food. In contrast, bread which is originally made for that intent must spoil more. or a compress 102a.) It is not mixed with bitter medications, and hence is generally fit to be eaten before it becomes spoiled. that has become spoiled, need not be destroyed.Clothes which were washed with starch and, similarly, papers which were stuck together with chametz, and other like cases, may be kept on Pesach.. However, the Ramah (Orach Chayim 442:3) states that if the chametz is visible as a separate entity, it must be destroyed. Their [possession] does not constitute a [violation of the prohibitions]: "[leaven] shall not be seen" and "[leaven] shall not be found," for they no longer have the form of chametz.

דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בּוֹ חָמֵץ וְאֵינוֹ מַאֲכָל לְאָדָם כְּלָל. אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲכַל כָּל אָדָם כְּגוֹן הַתְּרִיאַ"ק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְקַיְּמוֹ אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ עַד אַחַר הַפֶּסַח. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִן הֶחָמֵץ אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ:

A substance which is not eaten by people or one which is generally not eaten by people, with which chametz has become mixed— e.g., Tiriac and the like, though one may keep it [during Pesach], eating it is prohibited until after Pesach. 442:24, Mishnah Berurah). Even though it contains only the smallest amount of chametz, eating it is forbidden. 466:5, Mishnah Berurah).