433 - תלג דיני בדיקת החמץ ובו מ"ג סעיפים

29. The Laws of Searching for Chametz, containing 43 sections:

1. The search must be done by the light of a candle, not by the light of the moon, and not by the light of the sun. For example, if one neglected to search on the night of the 14th and is required to search on the day of the 14th, as will be explained in section 435:1, one should not search by sunlight, but only by candlelight. For the light of a candle is effective for searching and examining hidden places, holes, and crevices.

2. When does this apply? In a roofed room with four walls, where sunlight enters only through holes and windows. But a room with only three walls, even if it is roofed—which is called an "exedra"—since it is very well lit, one may search it initially during the day without a candle, even on a cloudy day (see section 5).

3. Even in a room with four walls, if there is a skylight in its roof (meaning the roofs were level and there was no additional sloped roof above), and this skylight is completely open, without a glass partition, it is permitted to search the floor of the room directly beneath the skylight during the day without a candle, even on a cloudy day (see section 5). But the rest of the floor, not directly under the skylight, must be searched by candlelight.

4. Similarly, a window in the wall, if it does not have a glass partition, anything directly opposite it does not require searching by candlelight if one searches during the day, even on a cloudy day.

5. All this applies if one neglected or forgot to search on the night of the 14th. But initially, even an exedra, and areas opposite a skylight or window, should only be searched on the night of the 14th by candlelight. Even if one wishes to search them earlier, on the 13th by sunlight, it is not permitted. For this would nullify the enactment of the Sages, who instituted searching at night, when people are usually at home. [It appears that the enactment of the Sages is to search at night, but if one does not search on the night of the 13th, one does not nullify the enactment of the Sages, as will be explained in section 6; however, one does not recite a blessing, since it is not at the primary time established by the Sages, as will be explained in section 436:1.] Nevertheless, if one already searched the exedra during the day of the 13th, or during the rest of the year, and was careful not to bring chametz there afterward, one has fulfilled the obligation and does not need to search it again on the night of the 14th by candlelight.

6. But for all other rooms with four walls, if one searched them by candlelight during the day of the 13th, one must search them again on the night of the 14th. For candlelight does not shine well during the day. Even if one searched a dark room by candlelight during the day of the 13th, where it is equally dark by day and by night, nevertheless, one must search again on the night of the 14th. For the brightness of a candle during the day, even in a dark room, is not like its brightness at night.

7. However, if one wishes to search all one's rooms on the night of the 13th or on other nights of the year by candlelight, and is careful not to bring chametz there afterward, one is permitted to do so. However, one should not recite a blessing on this search, as will be explained in section 436:1. Therefore, it is proper to leave one room to be searched on the night of the 14th, and to recite the blessing on its search, so as not to forfeit the blessing unnecessarily. Nevertheless, even if one searched all one's rooms and left nothing, one must search again, at least one room, on the night of the 14th. Since on this night the obligation to search falls upon all Jews who have not yet searched, the obligation also falls upon one who has already searched, so as not to distinguish between him and the rest of Israel. There are those who disagree and say that one does not need to search again on the night of the 14th, since one has already searched all one's rooms properly at night by candlelight. One should take their opinion into account and not recite a blessing when searching one room again on the night of the 14th.

8. One does not search by the light of a torch, but only by the light of a small, single candle. For the light of a torch cannot be brought into holes and crevices, and one also fears burning the house, and will be distracted by this concern and not search properly. Ideally, one should be careful to search only with a wax candle, and not with a tallow candle, since one fears it may drip onto kosher utensils; nor with a fat candle, since one fears it may drip onto dairy utensils; nor with an oil candle, since one fears it may drip onto clothing and soil them. Also, it cannot be brought well into holes and crevices. However, if one already searched with one of these candles, one has fulfilled the obligation and does not need to search again with a wax candle. Similarly, in a pressing situation where one does not have a wax candle, it is considered as after the fact, and one may search initially with other candles. Nevertheless, if possible, one should use a fat candle rather than a tallow candle, since when searching with a fat candle, one only fears it may drip onto dairy utensils but not onto meat utensils, which is not the case with a tallow candle. If one does not have a fat candle but has a tallow candle, one should use it and not use an oil candle, since an oil candle cannot be brought into holes and crevices as well as a tallow candle.

9. If one searched by the light of a torch, one has not fulfilled the obligation and must search again by candlelight. There is an opinion that one does not need to search again, and one should take this into account and not recite a blessing when searching again.

10. An oil candle with two wicks burning in it is considered a torch, so that even if one already searched with it, one must search again. Similarly, if one lit two wax candles and held them together and searched with them, the search is not valid, even if one twisted them together or joined them so that they became like one candle. Nevertheless, since there are two burning wicks, it is considered a torch.

11. One does not search by the light of wood. A single piece of wood does not burn well, and two pieces, even if very thin, are considered a torch. Even a type of wood that burns well alone, called "kin" in Ashkenazic language, should not be used for searching initially (if one has a wax candle).

Since its odor is foul, and sparks fly from it when it is lit, there is concern that because of this, one will not check thoroughly.

12. As already explained in section 431, according to the Torah, if one nullifies the chametz and declares it ownerless before the time when it becomes forbidden, that is sufficient. But if he does not wish to nullify and declare it ownerless, he is obligated to search for it and seek it out according to the Torah, when the time of its prohibition arrives, and to remove it from the world entirely.

And when he does so, if during Pesach he finds a kezayis of chametz in his house that he did not find during his search, he has not transgressed retroactively the prohibitions of "bal yeira'eh" and "bal yimatzei," for he is considered an onus, since he checked according to the law.

And according to the Torah, one is only obligated to check in places where chametz is regularly used throughout the year, such as the house and its rooms where one regularly eats chametz all year, and it is impossible that crumbs of chametz the size of a kezayis have not fallen there, and he transgresses "bal yimatzei" according to the Torah, even if he does not see it (see section 480), throughout all the days of Pesach.

But other rooms where one does not regularly use chametz, and it is likely that no kezayis of chametz remains there, there is no need to check them according to the Torah, even if he did not nullify.

13. But by rabbinic decree, even if he nullified all his chametz, he is obligated to search and seek it out in all places where there is reason to be concerned or to suspect that perhaps chametz was brought there incidentally.

Therefore, all the rooms of the house and the attics, even those in which he is certain that he never ate chametz, must be checked properly at night by candlelight. For sometimes a person gets up from his meal with bread in his hand and enters his rooms to use them for some purpose. For example, a storeroom, where he might enter in the middle of a meal to take out a pledge to return it to its owner, and there is reason to be concerned that he forgot his bread there, or that some crumb of chametz fell from him.

14. But those rooms into which a person does not usually enter during a meal, such as wine and beer cellars from which he does not take drinks to drink or to sell, and likewise a hayloft, do not require checking, unless it is known that chametz was brought there at least once.

15. But wine and beer cellars from which he does take supplies do require checking. For sometimes, in the middle of a meal, the supplies on the table run out, and the attendant goes to bring more, with bread in his hand. Likewise, rooms where salt, cheese, pickled foods, or candles are kept require checking, for sometimes these run out in the middle of a meal, and the attendant goes to bring more, with bread in his hand.

16. But those rooms where items are kept in fixed quantities, meaning the attendant knows before the meal how much is needed for this meal and brings it, and there is no need to bring more in the middle of the meal—such as oil stores and the like, items not regularly used, and there is no practice to reconsider and bring more to the table during the meal—do not require checking. But if it is a place where oil lamps are regularly lit, it does require checking if it is customary to take oil from there for lamps.

17. Holes in the walls of the house, as well as ledges protruding from the walls, if they are not too high or too low, require checking, since they are used. (But very small holes, and small cracks in the walls that are not suitable for any use, do not require checking.) There is reason to be concerned that chametz was used there, and crumbs of chametz may have been left there. But if they are so high that a person cannot reach them, or if they are lower than three tefachim from the floor of the house, they do not require checking, since it is assumed they were not used. But if it is known that chametz was used there even once, they do require checking. And in a house where children are present, even those lower than three tefachim require checking, for perhaps the children hid some chametz there.

18. All this applies to holes in the walls. But holes and cracks in the floor of the house require checking, even if children are not present, for there is reason to be concerned that some chametz fell and rolled there.

19. If the floor of the house is covered with planks, and there are small, deep holes between them, and one cannot insert his hand into the hole to check, there is no need to remove the planks to check underneath them. Even if he saw chametz fall into this small hole, and if he does not remove it, it will remain there all of Pesach, nevertheless, he is not required to trouble himself to remove it, but rather he nullifies it, and that is sufficient. For the main reason for the decree of checking for chametz after it has been nullified is only because of a concern that one might come to eat it on Pesach, and this chametz, which is in a place where one cannot insert his hand, will certainly not be eaten on Pesach.

20. The same law applies to a hole that is wide enough for one to insert his hand, but it is very deep and a person’s hand cannot reach all the way in to check it, whether the hole is in the wall or in the floor of the house: he checks as far as his hand can reach, and for the rest, nullification is sufficient, even if there is definitely chametz there. See the end of section 438.

21. A very thick wall that serves as a partition between two houses belonging to two different people, and the hole passes through it from one side to the other…

If one person checks from one side as far as his hand can reach, and another checks from the other side as far as his hand can reach, the remaining length of the hole in the middle of the wall must be considered, for perhaps chametz rolled into it from this side, and perhaps chametz rolled into it from that side. Therefore, both are required to nullify any chametz that may be there, even if they do not know for certain that there is chametz there.

22. If this wall is a partition between the house of a Jew and the house of a non-Jew, the Jew should not check at all the holes in the wall that go through from one side to the other. Even if there is definitely chametz inside, he does not need to check and remove it on the night of the fourteenth, because of the concern for danger. For if the non-Jew sees the Jew feeling around in the hole by candlelight, he will say, "He is performing sorcery against me." Nevertheless, on the next day, the fourteenth, he should check there by daylight as far as his hand can reach, even if there is no definite chametz there. For when he feels around by daylight, there is no concern for danger, since he uses it that way all year by daylight. (Any hole that is not used at all does not require checking, as explained above.) For the rest, nullification is sufficient, even if there is definitely chametz there.

23. A sloped roof, like our roofs, does not require checking, because it is not fit for any use. (But a flat roof beneath the sloped roof, if it is used, requires checking, unless it is designated for a use that is not typical during a meal, such as if it is made into a storage for wine or beer and is not used at all for drinking or selling, and anything similar, as explained above.) Even a sloped roof that is very low, and even if it is inside the house, such as the roof of a tower (meaning, for example, an attic or loft, where vessels and food are stored), does not require checking. But inside the tower, and likewise inside chests, require checking, for sometimes chametz is used there.

24. A cattle barn does not require checking, for any chametz that fell there can be assumed to have been eaten by the animals. There is a double doubt: perhaps there was never chametz there, and if there was, perhaps the animals ate it. And the doubt of the animals eating it removes the doubt of chametz.

25. Likewise, a chicken coop does not require checking, for any chametz there can be assumed to have been eaten by the chickens. Likewise, a house where chickens are commonly found does not require checking its floor. When does this apply? When it is close to Pesach, meaning within thirty days before Pesach, when one is careful not to eat chametz in that house. But if one was not careful and ate chametz there within thirty days before Pesach, then its floor requires checking at night by candlelight, for since chametz was eaten there, it is impossible that no chametz fell on the floor, and there is definite chametz and a doubt whether the chickens ate it or not, and a doubt does not override a certainty. But any chametz that fell there long before Pesach, meaning before thirty days, there are two doubts to be lenient: perhaps the chickens ate it (or perhaps no chametz was ever brought in), and if not, perhaps it became moldy or spoiled over time and is no longer fit even for a dog, and it does not need to be removed at all, as stated in section 432.

[Even though a person is required to check all rooms where there is reason to suspect that chametz was ever brought in, even though there are several doubts to be lenient: perhaps chametz was never brought in, and if it was, perhaps it was all removed, and if some remained, perhaps it was a long time before Pesach and became moldy or spoiled and is no longer fit even for a dog—this is because the main enactment of the Sages to check and search for chametz was only for the doubt that there might be chametz. By Torah law, there is no need to be concerned for such a doubt, for the general rule in Torah is "we do not assume a deficiency," as explained in Yoreh Deah section 39. But the Sages, due to the severity of the prohibition of chametz, were stringent even for such a doubt, and therefore instituted the mitzvah of checking. If so, what difference is there between one doubt and several? However, a very common doubt, such as the regularity of chickens and the like eating whatever they find, which is close to certain, cannot by itself override a definite certainty, meaning the presumption of chametz, for a definite certainty is stronger than something close to certain. But if there is another doubt, such as perhaps it became unfit for a dog over time, even though this is not close to certain, nevertheless, with this additional doubt, the definite certainty is weakened. Since there is another doubt, it is no longer a definite certainty, but only close to certain, and the doubt of the chickens eating it, which is close to certain, can override something that is only close to certain. See section 434, that even a house whose floor requires checking, one only needs to check for somewhat large crumbs, but fine crumbs, even if one sees them on the floor, do not need to be picked up and removed if they are in a place where people walk, for they are destroyed by being stepped on. Unless one sees them there after the sixth hour, when one must remove them from the world as soon as they are seen. See there.]

26. The same law applies to all rooms that do not require checking at all, because chametz is never brought in, and one saw within thirty days before Pesach that a mouse brought in pieces of chametz—there is no need to check them on the night of the fourteenth, for the reason explained. But if one saw this within thirty days, one must check them on the night of the fourteenth, as will be explained in section 438. See also section 465.

27. Similarly, a cattle shed or a chicken coop—if it is known that there was definitely chametz there within thirty days before Pesach, but its exact location is unknown—one is obligated to search and look for the chametz there on the night of the fourteenth by candlelight and remove it from there.

If one wishes to give this chametz [which was removed on the night of the fourteenth by candlelight] or other chametz to the animals or chickens to eat on the morning of the fourteenth, as stated in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter “Kol Sha’ah,” since the chametz is still permitted for benefit, and as explained, one cannot rely on the animals to certainly eat it when it is known that definite chametz was placed there,

he must stand over them until they finish eating, and watch to ensure that they do not push or roll any of the chametz to another hidden place that is not visible.

For perhaps it will remain there until Pesach begins, and he will transgress “bal yimatzeh.”

If a little chametz remains after they have eaten, he must remove it from there and not leave it before them, lest it remain there until Pesach begins.

Even if he intends to go to them when the sixth hour arrives to see if any chametz remains so that he can destroy it,

nevertheless, there is concern that when the time for destroying chametz arrives, he may forget about the chametz he gave them.

For at that time, it will not occur to him to be concerned that perhaps a little chametz remained after they ate.

Therefore, when he gives them to eat, he must not leave until they have finished eating.

He should set aside what remains, as will be explained in section 434.

Then he will certainly not forget to destroy it at the time of destruction, just as he does not forget to destroy any chametz that he knows about.

28. The ground of the courtyard does not require checking, because crows and other birds are commonly found there, and they eat any chametz that falls.

Even if it is known that there is definitely chametz in the courtyard, one does not need to remove it during the search on the night of the fourteenth.

Even initially, one may throw chametz into the courtyard before the sixth hour arrives, and when the sixth hour arrives, he should go and see the chametz in the courtyard.

If it is still there, and the crows have not eaten it, he is obligated to destroy it completely as soon as he sees it, as will be explained in section 445.

There is no concern that he might forget to go and check when the sixth hour arrives.

For even if he forgets about it, there is no prohibition, for certainly the crows took it before the sixth hour arrived and brought it to the place from which they came.

Even though it was explained above, and will be explained in sections 438 and 439, that a doubt regarding whether it was eaten does not remove the status of definite chametz,

nevertheless, the taking by crows and similar animals, and dragging by weasels and mice and the like, is definite.

Only the eating is in doubt, for perhaps they were not hungry at that time.

Therefore, regarding mice and similar animals, from other types of creatures that live in the house, we are strict with definite chametz, for even if they dragged it, it remains hidden in the house or courtyard, and one transgresses “bal yimatzeh,” and there is no basis for leniency except to assume perhaps they ate it, and a doubt does not remove the status of definite chametz.

But crows and the like, which are not domesticated and come here from elsewhere, when they definitely take it, they certainly bring it to the place from which they came.

However, initially, one should not rely on this when the time for destroying chametz arrives, that is, at the beginning of the sixth hour, for since he could go to the courtyard and see if the chametz is still there, he should go and see it.

29. The holes in the walls of the courtyard, if they are not too high or too low, require checking if they are commonly used,

because crows are not commonly found in holes.

30. Chametz upon which a collapse has fallen (meaning a pile of stones and dirt)—

if a dog cannot smell it and search for it, meaning there is a height of three handbreadths over it, it is considered as if it has been destroyed from the world entirely, and one does not transgress “bal yira’eh” and “bal yimatzeh” from the Torah, even if he did not nullify it.

Even initially, one may cover it with a collapse according to Torah law, even after the time for destroying chametz has arrived, and in this way it is considered destroyed from the world.

After Pesach, he may uncover the pile and reclaim the chametz that was hidden.

But according to the Sages, even if the collapse happened on its own, he must nullify it before the sixth hour arrives.

This is a decree, lest the pile be uncovered during Pesach and the chametz be revealed, and he will transgress “bal yira’eh” and “bal yimatzeh” from the Torah if he did not nullify it before the sixth hour.

For from the sixth hour onward, he can no longer nullify it, for since he can no longer benefit from it due to the Sages’ decree forbidding benefit from the beginning of the sixth hour onward, he has no share or ownership in it, and it is not considered his so that he could nullify and renounce it.

If he did not nullify it before the sixth hour,

some say that even though he transgressed the Sages’ command, he is not penalized to uncover the pile and remove the chametz from there and destroy it completely.

Others disagree and say that even if a collapse of three handbreadths fell on it, it is not considered as destroyed from the world entirely, but rather like chametz hidden in pits, ditches, and caves, and one transgresses “bal yimatzeh” from the Torah, as will be explained in section 440.

Therefore, if he does not wish to uncover the pile and remove and destroy the chametz at the time of destruction, he is obligated by Torah law to nullify it before the sixth hour arrives.

With this nullification, he fulfills his obligation even according to the Sages.

For the main decree of the Sages, that nullification and renunciation do not help for chametz, is only so that one will not forget and come to eat from it on Pesach if he nullifies it and does not destroy it completely from the world.

If chametz was covered by a collapse at least three tefachim high, so that a dog cannot remove it and bring it to an exposed place, there is no concern that someone might come to eat from it on Pesach, since it will remain hidden and out of sight for the entire Pesach.

However, if he did not nullify it before the sixth hour, he is required by Torah law to clear away the pile, remove the chametz from there, and destroy it.

If there is a concern of danger in clearing the pile by hand, such as in a place where scorpions are commonly found—

(But a snake is not considered a definite danger; see Siman 104)—

in garbage heaps and piles, he is required to hire workers to clear the pile with a shovel, pickaxe, or similar tools, in a way that does not involve danger, until they remove the chametz from there.

Regarding the halachah, one should be stringent with Torah law according to the latter opinion.

Nevertheless, if a large pile fell on it, such that it is impossible to clear it even with a shovel and pickaxe, and the chametz is lost to its owner and to everyone else, then it is considered as if it has been completely destroyed from the world, according to all opinions.

Even initially, he does not need to nullify it at all.

For the Torah says, "Chametz shall not be seen by you"—that which is yours you may not see, and this chametz is not considered yours.

Since he cannot remove it from the pile, he has no rights to it.

If a small pile fell on it, such that a dog can smell it, search for it, and remove it—that is, it is not covered three tefachim high—even if he nullified and declared it ownerless, he is required to clear the pile and destroy the chametz at the time of destruction.

This is a decree lest, when the dog removes it to eat, it leaves some of it exposed, and when a person sees it, he may forget and eat it.

If there is a concern of danger in clearing the pile by hand, he is required to clear the pile with a shovel and pickaxe, in a way that does not involve danger.

All this applies when it is certain at the time of destruction that there is definitely chametz in the pile.

But if it is not certain at the time of destruction that there is definitely chametz in the pile—for example, holes in a wall where chametz was used, and then the wall fell and became a pile—

there is reason to doubt and say that perhaps the chametz was already removed from the holes before the wall fell, and nothing at all remains in the holes, so now at the time of destruction there is no chametz at all in the pile.

Therefore, if he already nullified this chametz, or can still nullify it—

for even if there is still chametz in the pile, he is not required by Torah law to remove and destroy it, only by rabbinic law—

the Sages did not require him to remove it from there with a shovel and pickaxe, since it is possible there is no chametz there at all.

Nor did they require him to search the pile by hand and rely on G‑d to protect him from a scorpion, since those engaged in a mitzvah are not harmed.

(Why are we concerned for danger regarding a hole between a Jew and a non-Jew? There, harm is common, and where harm is common, we do not rely on miracles, even when engaged in a mitzvah, as it says, "And Shmuel said, 'How can I go? Shaul will hear and kill me.' And Hashem said, 'Take a heifer with you…'" But here, harm is not common. Perhaps there is no scorpion at all in the pile. And if there is, perhaps he will not touch it when searching the pile. And if he does touch it, perhaps it will not harm him, since it is buried in the pile. This is only a remote concern, and we are not concerned for it except after the mitzvah is completed, as will be explained.)

The Sages were concerned that he might lose a needle in this pile before this search.

(At the time of the search, nothing will be lost due to his preoccupation with the search, since those engaged in a mitzvah are not harmed in body or property.)

He will not want to search for it before this search, since he fears the scorpions commonly found there, but during the search, when he is engaged in a mitzvah, he will also search for the needle.

There is concern that even after completing the search, he may also search for the needle, and then he is not engaged in a mitzvah at all, and may come to danger.*

*But during the search, even if he is also searching for the needle, he is considered engaged in a mitzvah. Just as one who says, "This coin is for charity so that my son will live, or so that I will merit the World to Come," is considered completely righteous in the mitzvah, even though he also intends for his own benefit. We do not say he is acting not for its own sake; rather, he fulfills his Creator's command to give charity, even as he intends for his own benefit, that his son should live or that he should merit the World to Come.

But if he did not nullify it, and the sixth hour has already arrived so that he can no longer nullify it, he is required to clear the pile with a shovel and pickaxe, and to search and check whether there is chametz there that was used in the holes within thirty days before Pesach.

But chametz that was used there more than thirty days before, there are several doubts to be lenient: perhaps it was all removed from the holes; perhaps it decayed over time; (and perhaps it is covered three tefachim high, which is considered destroyed by Torah law). He is only required to destroy it by rabbinic law, and the Sages did not require him to clear the pile with a shovel and pickaxe, since there is no definite chametz there.

All this is when there is reason to doubt whether there is chametz in the pile, and it is not covered three tefachim high. But if it is certain that if there is chametz in the pile, it is definitely covered three tefachim high, he does not need to trouble himself to clear the pile with a shovel and pickaxe, even if chametz was used in the holes within thirty days. Since there is doubt whether any chametz remains in the pile, as it may have all been removed from the holes before the wall fell, one may be lenient like those who say that chametz covered by a pile three tefachim high does not need to be cleared at all in order to destroy it, even if he did not nullify it and can no longer do so.

If chametz was covered by a pile three tefachim high and he nullified it before the sixth hour as required, and after Pesach the pile was cleared and the chametz was uncovered, it is permitted even for eating.

Chametz that remained during Pesach is prohibited only because of a penalty that the Sages imposed on one who transgressed the Torah prohibition of "bal yeira'eh" and "bal yimatzei," or the prohibition of the Sages, as will be explained in section 448. But this chametz, upon which a collapse fell, was not subject to any transgression, so there is no reason to penalize him.

(See section 436, that if, at the time the collapse fell on the chametz, he intended to clear away the rubble after Pesach and to acquire the chametz beneath it, then it is prohibited for benefit. See there for the reason.)

It is the practice of wine and oil storehouses to arrange their barrels in rows until the entire floor of the cellar is filled with rows of barrels, and then to place barrels upon barrels in the same arrangement as the lower rows, across the entire length and width of the cellar. This is repeated several times until the entire cellar is filled with barrels from its floor to its ceiling, across its entire length and width.

(The meaning is: from the wall where the entrance is, to the opposite wall, is called the length. [That is, if the entrance is on the east, from east to west is the length of the cellar.] From the wall on this side to the wall on the other side is called the width, [that is, from south to north.])

When one comes to check it for chametz, (and this is in a case where it is customary to take from it, so it requires checking, as explained above), he does not need to check the entire cellar. Rather, he checks between the barrels in the two upper rows adjacent to the wall where the entrance is. That is, one row across the entire width of the cellar, from the wall by the entrance to the wall opposite it. [In our example, the entrance is in the eastern wall, so he must check one row that runs along the eastern wall; this row begins at the southern wall, which is to the right of the entrance, and ends at the wall opposite, which is the northern wall, to the left of the door.] The length of this row [this row runs across the width of the cellar (as above, from south to north is the width), but it is called the length of the row, because when speaking of a row running from south to north, this is the length of the row], and its width [of this row] is the length [called "length" after the length of the cellar] of one barrel. This row is adjacent to the wall where the entrance is, and it is the uppermost of all the rows adjacent to this wall. He also checks the row beneath this row, and that is sufficient. For in these two rows, it is common for the attendant to place his bread when he draws wine from the barrels.

Synagogues and study halls require checking on the night of the fourteenth by candlelight, because children bring chametz into them throughout the year. The attendants are not careful to check at night, but rather sweep thoroughly during the day. This is not proper, and they must be warned to fulfill the mitzvah of our Sages as it was instituted. (And one may recite a blessing over this checking.) However, there is no need to nullify chametz after the checking, since they cannot nullify and declare ownerless chametz that is not theirs, for a person cannot declare ownerless something that is not his.

If one did not check synagogues and study halls on the night of the fourteenth, he may check them during the day of the fourteenth by daylight, and there is no need to check by candlelight. For it is customary to have many windows in them, and there is much light, and their law is like that of a portico, as explained above. The same applies to other houses and rooms that have many windows and much light; their law is like that of a portico.

Every room that requires checking must be swept before the checking, because before sweeping there is much dust, and one cannot check properly. Everyone should warn the members of his household to sweep also under the beds, lest a little chametz has rolled there.

After thoroughly sweeping all the places, one must go back and check all the places by candlelight, in the holes and crevices that require checking, lest there is a little chametz there. For sweeping does not help at all for what is in holes and crevices.

Even under the beds, one must check by candlelight after sweeping, unless there are chickens present there, in which case one may assume they have eaten all the chametz that rolled under the beds.

But under benches, one must check by candlelight, even if there are chickens present. For it is impossible that no chametz fell there, if it is a room where people eat, and there is certainly chametz under the benches, and the possibility that the chickens ate it does not remove the certainty of chametz.

Everyone should be careful to check and shake out the sleeves and pockets of garments, both his own and those of children, because sometimes chametz is placed in them. There is no need to check them on the night of the fourteenth, for the next day, when one eats chametz, he might put chametz in them again, so what benefit is there in checking them? Rather, he should check and shake them out the next day at the time of burning chametz. Even if one wishes to be stringent and check them on the night of the fourteenth, he must check them again the next day at the time of burning chametz, lest he put chametz in them after the checking.

All this applies to one who sometimes puts chametz into the sleeves and pockets of garments. But one who never does so does not need to check at all, neither on the night of the fourteenth nor at the time of burning chametz. Nevertheless, one who is stringent will be blessed.

(Achron Kuntres 1) Three partitions, etc., and this is called an achsadra, etc. See the dispute between the Magen Avraham and the Chok Yaakov, and on this matter Rashi and Tosafos also disagree at the end of the ninth chapter of Eruvin. And since there we follow the explanation of Tosafos, as this is the view of the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, and Rav Hai Gaon, as the Beis Yosef writes at the end of Siman 361, and so rules the Rema there*, therefore here too we rule like the Chok Yaakov. This is also clearly implied by what the Rema writes in Darkei Moshe in the name of the Mordechai. The Bach and Olas Shabbos also write that the synagogue and the study hall are checked by their light, see there, and certainly a room that is completely open on a fourth side.

*Except that he rules like Rabbeinu Tam, who holds that with two partitions it is also called an achsadra, but the standard achsadra is one that has three partitions.

(Achron Kuntres 2) Regarding one of these lamps, etc. The Magen Avraham wrote that an oil lamp is considered like a torch, but all the other later authorities disagree with this. See the Bach, Olas Shabbos, Eliyah Zuta, Pri Chadash, and Chok Yaakov, and their reasoning is logical, for this prohibition is not mentioned in the Gemara, and on the contrary, every standard lamp in the Mishnah and Gemara is an oil lamp. In any case, with rabbinic decrees, we follow the lenient opinion, all the more so since the lenient authorities are the majority, especially since the Taz is lenient even regarding a torch, that one does not need to check again, see there.

He is obligated, etc., by Torah law, etc., he does not transgress retroactively, etc. Even though the Pri Chadash wrote that the Rosh and the Tur hold that one who finds chametz during Pesach after having checked (for it) transgresses retroactively if he did not nullify it, and according to this, checking is of no benefit by Torah law without nullification—see there in Siman 431—and so wrote the Olas Shabbos in Siman 434, that according to the Tur, nullification after checking is a Torah obligation, nevertheless, regarding the halachic ruling, the Olas Shabbos there agreed with the opinion of Rashi and the Ran, who disagree with the Tur (and the Pri Chadash also agreed with this). The Taz in Siman 434, se’if katan 3, also agreed that even the Tur holds like Rashi, that one only transgresses from the time of discovery and onward, for before he finds it, he is considered an onus (coerced), as it says, “Who can discern errors?” See there, where he proves this from the words of the Rosh. This is also the intent of the Magen Avraham there, se’if katan 5, in the name of the Rosh, not like the Pri Chadash in the name of the Rosh. However, what is implied there from the Magen Avraham, according to the Rambam and the Rosh, is that even in a house that was not checked, one does not transgress retroactively on chametz found within it, and certainly, if he has not yet found it, he does not transgress even if it is there, since he does not know where it is, it is not called “it shall not be found,” as Tosafos writes at the beginning of Perek Kol Sha’ah. But the halachah does not follow this; rather, as the Ran and the Pri Chadash wrote, and so wrote the Olas Shabbos and Eliyah Zuta at the end of Siman 437, that after the time of its prohibition, women and minors are not believed to say, “We checked it,” since he cannot nullify it, it is a Torah matter. And so it is explicit in the Gemara—see there. And it is also explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and later authorities, Siman 439, regarding a pile of chametz and before it two houses, that if he did not nullify, it is a Torah doubt, even though he does not know its location. And even more is explained there regarding a double doubt, and likewise, if he left it in one corner and does not know from which loaves he left and finds (some) in another corner, that if he did not nullify, it is a Torah doubt and he must check again. All the more so, he must check the rooms in which he regularly used chametz throughout the year, for it is almost certain that there is chametz there, as the Taz wrote in Siman 435, and the Bach and Magen Avraham in Siman 433, se’if katan 10, and so it is explicit in the Magen Avraham, Taz, and Chok Yaakov in Siman 435, that they hold that even on Yom Tov one must check, and so we rule there, and even without nullification, as is explained there. And if one does not transgress by Torah law on chametz that is unknown to him, then in any case, why should he check on Yom Tov? If he finds nothing in his checking, he does not need to check, and if he finds, he will transgress by Torah law. And even according to what the Kesef Mishneh wrote at the end of chapter 3, that he does not transgress because he is an onus by rabbinic decree, nevertheless, initially, one should not bring himself to a situation of onus, and it is better not to check and not transgress at all by Torah law than to check, find, and transgress by Torah law, even though he is an onus by rabbinic decree. Furthermore, even during Chol HaMoed, there would be no need to require checking, for as soon as he finds it, if he delays a little before burning it, he transgresses by Torah law, according to the Rambam and most commentators, as the Pri Chadash wrote in Siman 431 and as will be explained in Siman 446*. And it is more likely that he will delay a little if he finds it than that he will eat it if he does not check at all. Rather, certainly, even if he has not found it, he transgresses if it is in his possession. And what the Rambam wrote in chapter 3, “if his mind was on it,” etc., is to exclude if he nullified it, that he removed his mind from it, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 2**, and so the Pri Chadash understood the Rambam’s opinion, and so all his commentators understood, since they did not explain from where he derived such a novel ruling.

[* And so it is explicit in the Gemara: “Perhaps he will find it after the prohibition,” etc.—see there. It implies that immediately before he burns it, if he delays a little, even though he intends to burn it afterward, he transgresses. And one cannot say that we are concerned he may have pity and not burn it, as Rashi explained, for according to Tosafos, the Gemara does not mention concern that he may have pity. ** And so it is implied from the end of his wording, for he neither burned nor nullified it.]

And even if he saw, etc., we do not trouble, etc. This is learned from a deep hole in the wall, that it is sufficient to nullify even if there is definitely chametz*. And one cannot say that a hole in the wall is different, for we should be concerned that perhaps a weasel or mice will drag the chametz during Pesach and place it in an exposed area, just as we are concerned in a collapse less than three tefachim high**, for if so, in a pit we should also be concerned about a weasel or marten, which are common in pits (as stated in the Gemara regarding the maidservant of Matzik, etc.) and at the edge of pits (as in the incident of the weasel and the pit), that perhaps they will drag it from there and place it in an exposed area, for even from city to city they are accustomed to drag, as stated in the Mishnah, and all the more so from the pit to its edge. Furthermore, chametz of a non-Jew deposited with a Jew would not be protected by a partition, for perhaps mice will drag it and place it outside the partition. Rather, certainly, we are not concerned about dragging, just as we are not concerned that it has already been dragged, to require checking in places where checking is not required, as explained in the Mishnah, for there is no end to the matter. So too, we are not concerned that it will be dragged during Pesach, for there is no end to the matter, since it is impossible to destroy all the chametz in the world, and the houses of non-Jews are full of chametz during Pesach, and perhaps it will be dragged from them. And since this is so, even in a place where it is possible to correct, we do not require correction, just as we are not concerned that it was dragged from one corner to another, for there is an end to the matter, for if so, from courtyard to courtyard, etc., and there is no end to the matter. Therefore, we do not assume a deficiency from one place to another, and since in this very place where the chametz is located at the time of destruction, it is impossible to come to a stumbling block, therefore, nullification is sufficient. But regarding a collapse less than three tefachim high, in that very place itself, one can come to a stumbling block, for the collapse is only a covering over the chametz from above, and if a dog digs there, it will remove the covering and the chametz will be exposed in its place.

[* And one should not distinguish that here we should be concerned that, by chance, he may need to search for some lost item that fell there, and he will remove the floor and see the chametz, for the case of a deep hole, where nullification is sufficient, is learned from chametz in a pit, as will be explained at the end of Siman 438, as Chok Yaakov wrote, and there too we should be concerned that, by chance, he may go down into the pit to search for something, as the Gemara says. ** According to the Semak and his followers, who hold that even if there is a height of three tefachim over it, it is not considered destroyed by Torah law, but only hidden and covered, and by Torah law, one must nullify, but nullification is effective even rabbinically if there are three tefachim over it, for a dog cannot search for it and it will remain covered and not be eaten. If so, the reason we are concerned when there are not three tefachim over it must be because the dog will uncover it when searching. But according to Rashi and the Ran, who hold that by Torah law it is considered destroyed if there are three tefachim over it, and rabbinically, nullification is required because the pile may be removed, the reason nullification does not help when there are not three tefachim over it is also because the pile may be removed. But if a weasel or mice drag it, they will eat it, and likewise, if a dog searches for it, it will eat it, and therefore, nullification would help if not for the concern that the pile may be removed (but without nullification, since by Torah law it is not considered destroyed, certainly the reason is that the dog can search for it, as is explicit in the Mishnah). And the reason they were not concerned even when there are three tefachim over it is because it is considered destroyed by Torah law, and for such a rare occurrence, the Sages did not decree that nullification should not be effective, so that it should not be considered destroyed due to a distant concern that the pile may be removed and he may forget and eat it. But when it is not destroyed by a collapse but only by nullification and making it ownerless, whenever it is possible to come to eat it, even through many concerns (and even according to the Semak, one must say so—consider this well), the Sages were concerned not to nullify their decree that nullification and making it ownerless are not effective, so that people would not leave their chametz in their houses all Pesach, and it is likely that they would come to a stumbling block. This is not the case with chametz in deep holes, where one cannot reach at all, or in a pit that is not used all year, for there is no ladder in it at all, as is implied in the Gemara, and certainly, even during Pesach, he will not go down into it.]

Similarly, a house with chickens, etc.—in what case does this apply, etc.? But if one was not careful, etc. This is also the opinion of the Bach and the Magen Avraham. Even Mahari”v holds that this is considered definite chametz, as later authorities have cited in his name. However, the Magen Avraham in subsection 9 cites in his name: “if there are no chickens, etc.” This is seemingly puzzling, for a doubt does not override a certainty, as the Bach wrote, and even the Magen Avraham himself agreed with this in subsection 10. Now, the Magen Avraham and Eliyah Zuta conclude with the wording of Mahari”v, that it is like chametz in a pit (unlike the Ba’er Heitev, who emended it to ‘definite chametz’). His intent is that chametz under benches is not a place where people usually check or examine, and certainly one will not see the chametz there on Pesach and will not come to eat it. However, there is concern that by chance one might bend down and look there and see the chametz. This is similar to chametz in a pit, where one would not come to eat it unless we are concerned that by chance he might descend into the pit on Pesach, see the chametz, and eat it, as stated in the Gemara. Mahari”v holds like the Tur in Siman 438, that a loaf in a pit must be removed even before the time of prohibition, and it does not suffice to nullify it afterward, as the Beis Yosef initially wrote, being precise in the Tur’s wording, and the Darkei Moshe there agreed. And since this is an unresolved question, therefore, if there is another doubt, such as being able to attribute it to the chickens having eaten it, it is possible to be lenient and say it is a double doubt. Therefore, Mahari”v wrote: “if there are no chickens,” for then it is impossible to find any basis for leniency according to his view, which rules like the Tur. But for us, since we rule in Siman 438 like the Rambam, that a loaf in a pit does not need to be removed, and the reason, as the Magen Avraham wrote in the name of the Maggid Mishneh, is that it is like chametz upon which a collapse has fallen, and nullification suffices, and regarding a collapse, a height of three tefachim is required so that a dog cannot search for it. Therefore, under benches, where a dog can remove it from there, it is not at all similar to a collapse or to chametz in a pit, and it must be removed from there, and the doubt of the chickens having eaten it does not override the certainty of chametz. Furthermore, since the later authorities agreed with Mahari”v, at least where there are no chickens, that checking is required under the benches, it follows that it is not at all similar to chametz in a pit, for which we rule in Siman 438 that nullification suffices. Therefore, even where there are chickens, checking is required, for a doubt does not override a certainty, as explained above at the end of the section.

But any chametz that fell into it a long time ago, etc., involves two doubts, etc. Even though the Magen Avraham in his commentary wrote "many doubts," his intention is not specifically three or four doubts, as is the view of the Shach in Yoreh Deah, siman 110 (in the rules of double doubt), that three doubts remove something from its status of prohibition. For the Magen Avraham himself wrote in siman 439, subsection 3, that "perhaps it was dragged from this house" and "perhaps it was eaten" are not considered two separate doubts, but rather one doubt. Therefore, a hole into which a mouse brought chametz before thirty days contains only two doubts to be lenient: namely, perhaps it was eaten or dragged away and removed from this house and there is no chametz here at all; and if you say it is still there, perhaps it became disgusting and unfit even for a dog to eat, as explained above. This is a complete double doubt, and nevertheless, it is permitted here. [And these are two doubts from one source; see the rules of double doubt in the Shach and the Pri Chadash. See also the Chayei Adam. The doubt of "perhaps it was swept away" does not apply to holes and crevices. Furthermore, "perhaps it was dragged"—see Magen Avraham, siman 439.]

And in subsection 16, the Magen Avraham wrote "there are many doubts," and even so, checking is required, if not for the concern of danger. It must therefore be said, as explained above, that the main institution of checking was established because of doubt, as the later authorities wrote in siman 439 in the name of the Maggid Mishneh. And the leniency there in the case of a double doubt is only regarding rechecking what has already been checked, but at the outset, since the checking was instituted because of doubt—and this is a doubt that is not a Torah concern, but the Sages were concerned for it—there is no difference between one doubt and several doubts, as is evident from the chamber of the Mishkan, and from Bei Tamri and Bei Tzivi, as explained above. See what is written in siman 439. [And similarly, Tosafos wrote regarding the doubt of impurity in a private domain.]

The leniency in the case of a doubt about eating is because it is a common doubt and close to certain, as Tosafos wrote, and as explained above. But the case of a dog digging in a pile is not a common doubt, and it is not close to certain that it will eat it by digging; rather, we are concerned that when it smells it, it will search for it and begin to dig until it uncovers it from above, but it will not necessarily finish digging and eat it. Furthermore, we only rely on the doubt of eating in siman 439 in the case of a small loaf, where it is possible to say it was eaten entirely, and mice and chickens are very common, which is not the case with a dog digging, as it may leave some of its food uneaten and another will not come to eat it all. We only say "certainly it was dragged" regarding holes, as Rashi explained, and similarly, ravens to their nests; but a dog, when it does not want to eat and wants to hide it, has no more concealed place than this pile. [And therefore, with the addition of one more doubt, it is effective even to remove something from its status of prohibition, as I wrote above, and three doubts are not required, even according to the Shach. And even the Taz and Pri Chadash, who hold that even many doubts do not remove something from its status of prohibition, nevertheless agree here in the case of a common doubt and one close to certain. And you can see that the Maggid Mishneh wrote that regarding checking, they were concerned for many doubts, and nevertheless, a common doubt is different. Furthermore, we only say "it was dragged" when only dragging is required, but here both digging and dragging are required.]

(Kuntres Acharon 7) A cattle barn, etc., must be checked and searched, etc., on the night of the 14th, etc. To reconcile the wording of the Semak, as quoted by the Shulchan Aruch here, with the wording of the Hagahos Maimoniyos quoted at the end of Siman 445, there are three approaches. The view of the Rema, as explained by the Magen Avraham, and likewise the view of the Levush and Chok Yaakov, is that the Semak refers to the time of destruction (biur), but before that it is permitted to throw [chametz there], as the Hagahos Maimoniyos writes, provided that one goes and checks it when the time of destruction arrives. The view of the Bach, Taz, and Pri Chadash is that the Semak also refers to before the time of destruction, that is, on the night of the 14th, the time of checking, and refers to one’s own courtyard, while the Hagahos Maimoniyos refers to a courtyard that is ownerless. The Magen Avraham distinguishes between ravens, which is the case of the Hagahos Maimoniyos, and other birds commonly found in the courtyard, which is the case of the Semak, and both refer to before the time of destruction, as the Bach holds.

Thus, according to the approach of the Bach, Magen Avraham, Taz, and Pri Chadash, birds commonly found in one’s courtyard, as well as cattle barns and chicken coops, must be checked on the night of the 14th if there is definitely chametz there, and one may not leave it there until the time of destruction. See Taz, Siman 445, where this is stated explicitly. The reason is that we are concerned one may forget at that time, for this is why the checking of all rooms was instituted on the night of the 14th, at a time when people are present in their homes. Why should a barn or coop be different from any other room? Even if there is definitely chametz there, and even if one knows its location, since one intends for the animals to eat it, it is forbidden to feed it to them unless one stands over them to ensure they do not hide it away, and to destroy what remains, as stated in Shulchan Aruch, Siman 443. It is forced to distinguish between feeding them and their eating on their own. And even though there it refers to the fifth hour, in this matter there is no reason to distinguish between the fifth hour and before. Furthermore, the Shulchan Aruch derives this from the Rosh at the beginning of Perek Kol Shaah, and in the Rosh it is explicit that from after the checking onward, this is the law. See there regarding the law derived from the Mishnah that states, “and what he leaves over, etc.,” and that an animal is similar to a wild animal. [And see there in the Gemara that with an animal, the concern is that it leaves over, and with a wild animal, the concern is that it hides it, and Tosafos and the Rosh wonder how it is permitted to feed a wild animal that hides, and the Rosh answers that one must stand and watch to ensure it does not hide it, and an animal is presumably similar to a wild animal, and one must also watch and destroy what is left over, for we are concerned one may forget later. Because of this concern, the Gemara initially thought it was forbidden to feed it even if one stands over it, according to the Rosh’s explanation. See there well.]

And even if we interpret the wording of the Hagahos Maimoniyos in Siman 445 as the Levush does, that it refers to one’s own courtyard, as the Magen Avraham writes in Siman 445 that this is implied in the Hagahos Maimoniyos, and even if we do not distinguish between ravens and other birds as the Magen Avraham does, nevertheless, we do not rule like the Hagahos Maimoniyos, because the Hagahos Maimoniyos follows Tosafos, as is his practice everywhere, as the Beis Yosef writes in his introduction, and Tosafos at the beginning of Perek Kol Shaah disagree with the Rosh. According to their view, it is permitted to feed a wild animal even if one does not stand over it, and all the more so an animal. But we hold like the Rosh, as the Shulchan Aruch rules in Siman 443.

(Kuntres Acharon 1) (8) The taking of ravens, etc., and the dragging of mice, etc. Even though from the words of the Bach, Taz, and Pri Chadash it does not appear so, nevertheless, one may rely here on the Magen Avraham, since in any case the Rema, Levush, Olas Shabbos, Eliyah Zuta, and Chok Yaakov are lenient when one intends to go and check it. Furthermore, this is stated explicitly in the Gemara in the second answer. And even though the first answer disagrees, and the Rambam rules like it in Hilchos Tum'as Meis 9:9, that is because in matters of Torah law we are stringent like the first answer, but here it is only a rabbinic concern that one may forget to go and check at the time of destruction, and in matters of rabbinic law we follow the lenient view, like the second answer, that certainly it was dragged away. And even though the Magen Avraham does not mention going and checking, it can be said that the Magen Avraham refers to a case where one nullified [the chametz] or still wishes to nullify it. However one understands the Magen Avraham, in practice the law is clear as stated above: [*Therefore I wrote above that one should go and check it, in order to rely on these authorities. It is possible that even the Magen Avraham agrees that initially one should not rely on a presumption when it is possible to clarify, as will be explained in Siman 437.]

(Kuntres Acharon 9) And even initially, one may cause a collapse over it, etc. So writes the Pri Chadash at the end of Siman 438, and this is also explicit in the Gemara regarding one who makes his house into a storehouse, that before thirty days it is permitted even initially. See Rashi and Ran there, and from the Torah there is no difference between before thirty days and within thirty days, as explained by the Bach and Magen Avraham in Siman 436, and this is obvious. However, from the words of the Taz at the end of this Siman, it does not appear so. According to his view, a storehouse is not considered intentionally hiding [chametz] by hand, since his intent is only to store the produce and not to hide the chametz beneath it. Nevertheless, if there is a concern of chametz in the storehouse itself, such as storing leavened wheat, even before thirty days it is forbidden because of “do not hide,” according to the Taz, since his intent is to hide the chametz. So writes the Taz in Siman 436, section 4, explicitly. Therefore, since we do not rule like the Taz there, but rather like the Rema, whom all the later authorities follow, here too the main view is like the Pri Chadash, for the two cases are dependent on each other, as explained by Rashi and Ran.

(10) He is required to hire workers to uncover, etc. This is what Tosafos wrote (as brought in the Beis Yosef) regarding a case where the covering is less than three tefachim, even if he nullified the chametz, and the same applies, for the same reason, when the covering is three tefachim and he did not nullify it. All the more so according to the Semak and his group, since there is a Torah obligation to destroy the chametz. However, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch omitted this obligation in the case where the covering is three tefachim and he did not nullify it, because they follow their reasoning, as in Siman 438 the Tur and Beis Yosef ruled leniently regarding the case of a loaf in the mouth of a snake if it was nullified. Therefore, according to the Tur, even if he did not yet nullify it, if he finds it before the time when chametz becomes forbidden, he may nullify it and that is sufficient. This is not comparable to chametz in a pit, as explained above in the name of the Tur, because the Sages did not require exertion regarding his property, as stated in the Gemara there, and as Tosafos wrote there, that one can assume the snake will eat it. Similarly, one can assume that a dog will eat it if the covering is less than three tefachim, and this is according to the Semak and his group, since the main concern is that the covering might be uncovered by a dog, which is very similar to the case of a loaf in the mouth of a snake. According to Rashi and the Ran, one can assume that the covering will not be uncovered, and therefore they did not require exertion regarding his property, just as with the snake. All the more so when the covering is three tefachim, for then, according to everyone, one can assume it will not be uncovered. For this reason, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch omitted this obligation. Tosafos holds that in a case of doubt regarding a prohibition, one must be stringent. [* See there in Rashi and Rambam, who do not have the version "and if you will say," and consider this carefully.] Alternatively, it can be said that according to Rashi and the Ran, it is likely that the covering will be uncovered, and therefore they required exertion regarding his property, just as with exposed chametz, as Tosafos wrote there. This is not the case according to the Semak and his group, who hold that it is likely the dog will eat it, as Tosafos wrote, that this is a common doubt, and even in a case of certainty, the Gemara considered that one would be exempt, and therefore they did not require exertion regarding his property, just as with the snake. Tosafos holds like Rashi, since they did not disagree with him, and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch hold like the Semak and his group, as will be explained in Siman 436. Regarding the practical halachah, it is clear that one may be lenient, as implied by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, for with rabbinic laws, one follows the lenient opinion, and this is when he nullified it. But if he did not nullify it, and there is a Torah prohibition according to the Semak and his group, it is clear that he is required to hire workers, for the Sages only did not require exertion regarding his property, but on a Torah level, there is no distinction between his person and his property. According to this, even according to the Chok Yaakov in subsection 19, there is a practical difference between the various opinions; consider this carefully.

(11) One should be stringent with Torah law, etc. The Chok Yaakov agreed with this for a different reason; see there. This is also the view of the Magen Avraham, who wrote here that the Mechaber's opinion is like the Semak, and his intent is as the Pri Chodosh explained in Siman 438 to clarify the Mechaber's words, and this is necessary; see there, as I mentioned above. And there at the end of Siman 438, the Magen Avraham quoted the Mechaber's wording, which shows that this is his opinion. See what is written in Siman 436, that this is also the view of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.

(12) He does not need to nullify it at all, etc. See Magen Avraham. Certainly, his intent is not that he does not need to uncover the covering, for that is obvious—what could he do, since he is unable to uncover it? Rather, his intent is that even initially, he does not need to nullify it. This is also clearly implied by the Chok Yaakov, who did not quote this law in subsection 19, where he ruled that one is required to uncover the covering, and he should have said that with a large covering, one is not required to uncover it. Instead, he quoted it at the end of subsection 20, after completing all the laws of a collapse, which shows that this is a separate matter and applies to all laws of a collapse that do not relate to a large covering. He mentioned "he did not nullify it" because this obligation is explicitly mentioned in the Gemara, and even so, this obligation does not apply to a large covering. One cannot say that the Chok Yaakov's intent is that with a large covering, it is permitted after Pesach, for if so, why did he write this law in the name of the Magen Avraham, when the Magen Avraham does not mention this? See there, for after this law, the Magen Avraham quoted the dispute among the poskim regarding after Pesach. Besides, the matter is simple: since it is not considered his, he cannot nullify it, so why should he nullify it for nothing? And even the nullification is only effective because, once he nullifies it, it is not considered his, as Tosafos, the Rosh, and the Ran wrote, and so is the consensus of the later authorities; see Pri Chodosh at the beginning of Siman 431.

(13) Lest when he takes it out, etc. He should leave over a little from his eating, etc. See Taz at the end of the siman. Also see what I wrote above regarding holes in the floor of the house.

(Final Notes 14) One is obligated to inspect the gallery, etc. The Chok Yaakov disagrees with the Olas Shabbos, because Rashi and the Ran explained that the reason nullification is required is due to a decree lest the pile be uncovered, and we do not issue decrees in cases of doubt, as explained there. According to this, one may be lenient only if there is a height of three tefachim over it, for in this case Rashi and the Ran explained that the reason for nullification is due to the decree. But if there are not three tefachim over it, then according to everyone, by Torah law, destruction or nullification is required, and in a case of doubt regarding chametz, it is a Torah-level doubt, as the Olas Shabbos wrote. According to the Semak and his group, even if there are three tefachim over it, if one did not nullify, it is considered a doubtful violation of "bal yimatze." However, this applies when definite chametz was used in the holes within thirty days, for then there is only one doubt to remove it from its status as presumed chametz in this pile, namely, perhaps it was taken by a person before the wall fell, or by dogs or the like after the wall fell, or perhaps it was eaten. All of these are considered one doubt (as explained above in the name of the Rema and the Magen Avraham): perhaps there is no chametz here at all, and this does not remove it from certainty, and therefore, by Torah law, nullification or destruction is required. But if it was used before thirty days, then there are two doubts, as explained above, and these remove it from certainty according to the Rema in Yoreh Deah, siman 110. However, by Rabbinic law, inspection is required even for several doubts, as explained above, and the Sages did not require removal with a pick and axe, as implied by the Olas Shabbos. But according to the later authorities who disagree with the Rema there, it is possible that one may be lenient only if there is a doubt whether there are three tefachim over it, for then there are three doubts, and these remove it from certainty according to the Shach there. And although some disagree with him, and even according to the Semak and his group, having three tefachim over it does not help at all by Torah law, nevertheless, since the Rambam, Raavad, and other leading early authorities hold that a Torah-level doubt is ruled leniently by Torah law, and even those who disagree may agree in a case of double doubt where there is a presumption of prohibition, for the second doubt may be lighter by Torah law than the first, where there is no presumption of prohibition, and the implication of the Chok Yaakov is that he disagrees entirely with the Olas Shabbos even when there are not three tefachim over it, even though his reasoning is not sufficient for this. Therefore, with all these differing opinions combined, one who sees fit may be lenient when it was used before thirty days, as explained in the main text.

(Final Notes 15) Even regarding eating, etc. This is explicit in the Yerushalmi, and so is the consensus of most later authorities; see Olas Shabbos and Eliyah Zuta, and so ruled the Pri Chadash and the author of Chok Yaakov in his work Toras HaShleimim, question 6, and this is also the intent of the Chok Yaakov. In matters of Rabbinic law, one follows the lenient opinion, especially when they are the majority. The distinction made by the Taz in this matter is similar to that made in the responsa of the Rashba, as brought by the Eliyah Zuta and the Magen Avraham in siman 436, and I have written it above in the main text.

(Final Notes 16) And even under the beds, etc. See Kesef Mishneh in the name of the Rambam. From the wording of the Tur, regarding wood and stones, etc., one only needs to inspect the outer side, and regarding a low bed, he wrote that one does not need to inspect its inner side, implying that under it, one does need to inspect. And even though the Tur later wrote "and perhaps," his doubt does not remove the certainty of the Kolbo, Olas Shabbos, and Magen Avraham. See Pri Chadash: [If there are arranged wood and stones under it, obviously inspection is not required, and if there are not, obviously it is required. And for a bed that does not reach from wall to wall, even if it is high, the same law applies.]

(Final Notes 17) But under the benches, etc. See what was written above.