Bedikas chametz
[א] (Halacha 1049)
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'And now that we have established that, according to all, "or" means the evening [nightfall]. Now, both according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Meir, chametz is forbidden only from the sixth hour and onward — so let us search at the sixth hour! And if you say: the zealous perform mitzvos early, let us search from the morning! — as it is written: וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו ("And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised"), and it was taught: The entire day is fit for circumcision, except that the zealous perform mitzvos early, as it says: וישכם אברהם בבקר ("And Avraham rose early in the morning") — Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: At the time when people are found in their homes, and the light of the candle is good for searching. Abaye said: Therefore, this Torah scholar should not begin his set study session in the evening of the thirteenth leading into the fourteenth, lest his study draw him on and he come to be prevented from the mitzvah.'
> In the words of the Gemara we see two principles for setting the time of bedikas chametz on the night of the 14th: a) A time when people are found in their homes. b) The light of the candle is good for searching. However, it was not clarified whether the enactment was that they should search specifically at the beginning of the night, or whether the main point is that the search be carried out during the hours of the night2.
The Raavad wrote3: 'The clear reason [that the Mishnah used the expression "or on the fourteenth we search"] is that in all cases where one must act at the beginning of the night, such as bedikas chametz and lighting the signal-torches4, it teaches "or" (light), because there is still daylight there and it is not [yet] dark, as it is written5 ולחשך קרא לילה ("and the darkness He called night"); and "one who miscarries — 'or' [on] the eighty-first day," and "it may be eaten — 'or' [on] the third [day]" — all were taught for a purpose, so that you should not say that as long as there is daylight it is judged as the day before; therefore they taught "or" regarding them. And so you will find that every place that taught "or" taught it for a purpose. And likewise "or [on] Yom Kippur one prays seven [blessings] and confesses"6 — this too was taught for a purpose, that one should not delay confessing, so that the entire day should be for him a time of appeasement before the Creator.'
It is clear from his words that the search was enacted specifically for the beginning of the night, and the reason for this is explained in the Ran7: 'And the Raavad wrote that for this reason it says "or," to say that at the beginning of the night, when there is still light, it is fit to search so that one not be lax or forget .. and from here you learn that (the biur) must be done early with the daylight, so that one not be lax. These are his words.'
> Thus we have seen that the Raavad wrote that the enactment of the Sages is to search at the beginning of the night, and the Ran explained that the reason is so that one not be lax8.
And the Bach wrote9: 'Regarding that which Rav Nachman said, "at the time when people are found in their homes and the light of the candle is good for searching," Abaye said "therefore this Torah scholar should not begin, etc." — it is somewhat difficult: why did Abaye not state his ruling on the plain meaning of the Mishnah, which taught "or on the fourteenth we search, etc.," and say "therefore this Torah scholar, etc."? And one may answer that the plain meaning of the Mishnah can be explained to mean that the entire night is the time of the search, but from the words of Rav Nachman it is proven that the essence of the mitzvah is specifically at the beginning of the night, as [Rav Nachman] wrote just afterward — for this reason he also stated the reason "at the time when people are found in their homes," and therefore Abaye said "therefore this Torah scholar, etc.," since the essence of the mitzvah is at the beginning of the night. And also Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Ran in the name of the Raavad proved from another proof that the essence of the mitzvah is at the beginning of the night, when there is still light. And although in the Maharil, in the law of the fast of the firstborn, and likewise in the Minhagim of Maharah Tirna, it is written that the mitzvah of the search is at actual night but not before — nevertheless it appears that the essence is like the words of the Raavad, and there is no doubt that they did not see the words of the Raavad on this.'
And the Taz10 wrote: 'In the Gemara we ask: now, chametz is forbidden from the sixth hour — let them search at the sixth hour! And if you say the zealous perform mitzvos early, let them search from the morning, as it says "And Avraham rose early in the morning" — Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: at the time when people are found in their homes and the light of the candle is good for searching. Rashi explained: but during the day it darkens [the search]. And if you say to search by daylight — we derive later that the search is [specifically] by candlelight. The Tur too copied these two reasons, and it appears that both are needed, for in any case we require a well-defined hour in which to fix the search — that is, that there be a change at that hour and that it have a distinguishing mark. Therefore the Gemara asked "let them search at the sixth hour," when there is a mark and a change in the Torah-level prohibition of chametz; and in the morning there is a change on account of the early rising of the zealous who are accustomed at that time, as with Avraham; but at night there is no change except at its beginning, when it is the way of a person to come to his home from outside — except that a person's arrival is usually at bein hashmashos, while there is still a bit of day, and he must wait until the candle shines; therefore he waits from the time of his arrival, when there is a change, until the shining of the candle, which is actual night, and that hour that he waits will be entirely free, so that the neglect of the search not be drawn out from the fixed time — that is, they have a change, namely that it is immediately adjacent to his arrival specifically; and thus we indeed need both these reasons.
> Thus the poskim wrote two proofs that the search must be at the beginning of the night: a) From the language of the Mishnah "or on the fourteenth," which implies at a time when there is still light. b) Because the search must be close to a specific time [a time when a person is found in his home to search (Bach) or a time in which there is some change, such as his arriving home (Taz)]
And the Alter Rebbe wrote11: 'And the time of this search would by law have been fitting to fix on the fourteenth day at the beginning of the sixth hour, so that each person complete his search by the end of the sixth hour and remove the chametz at the beginning of the seventh hour, as is the rule stated in the Torah .. but since during the day most people are not found in their homes but are busy with their affairs in the markets and streets, and when the sixth hour arrives it is likely that they will forget the obligation of the search, therefore the Sages fixed the time of the search on the night of the fourteenth, for at night every person is found within his home. But even while he is within his home there is concern lest he occupy himself with eating and drinking and sleeping, or with work, or with Torah if he is a Torah scholar, and thereby forget the obligation of the search; therefore it would have been fitting to enact and fix the time of the search immediately upon the person's entry into his home near evening, for at that moment he is free of all affairs — except that he must search after it in the holes and crevices, and this search is possible only by candlelight, as it says at that time, אחפש את ירושלים בנרות וגו' ("I will search Jerusalem with lamps, etc."). From here the Sages relied [on the teaching] that the light of the candle is good for bedikas chametz, and the candle does not illuminate and shine well by day but only at night; therefore they delayed the time of the search until the time of the shining of the candle, namely nightfall [when there is still a bit of daylight].'
And he explained in the Kuntres Acharon: 'And although Chazal only fixed the beginning of the night so that one not be lax, as the Raavad wrote, nevertheless this is comparable to one who recites krias Shema after midnight, who is called a transgressor, even though it is only on account of a safeguard .. and so it is implied in the Gemara, where we say "and if you say the zealous perform mitzvos early, etc." — and it is difficult: why did Chazal enact for all Israel that they search "or on the fourteenth" and make them all zealous, which they did not do for all the mitzvos? .. Rather, certainly, all the mitzvos that have a fixed time set for them by the Torah or by the Sages — such as tefillah corresponding to the daily offerings — since there is a fixed time for the end of their performance (such as midday for Shacharis, nightfall for Mincha), there is no need to fix a time for the beginning of their performance requiring that they be done specifically at the beginning of their time, for since the end of their performance has a fixed time, they will not come to be negligent. But bedikas chametz, for which it is impossible to fix a time for its end — since one is obligated to search until the end of Pesach, as will be explained in siman 435 — therefore they had to fix a set time for its beginning, namely that all Israel are obligated to begin the search at a known time; and since the search has no time of its own, as with tefillah and krias Shema, the Sages fixed a time for it, which is the early time of the zealous according to the initial reasoning. And since they fixed a time, then one who does not search at the beginning of this time is not called lazy but is called a transgressor who has transgressed the decree of the Sages — and the same law and the same reason apply according to the conclusion.'
> Thus we have seen that the time of bedikas chametz is at the beginning of the night, and the reasons for this were presented; and in the next halacha we will see what is considered the beginning of the night for this purpose.
Notes:
1 4a ↩
2 And also according to this it is possible that one must act early because the zealous perform mitzvos early, or on account of a safeguard and the like ↩
3 Katuv Sham 1a ↩
4 Rosh Hashanah 22b ↩
5 Bereishis 1:5 ↩
6 Yoma 87b ↩
7 Pesachim 1a in the Rif's pagination ↩
8 However the Tur disagreed with the Raavad and holds that the time of the search is fundamentally the entire night, as the Alter Rebbe wrote in siman 431, Kuntres Acharon s.k. 1, in a gloss: 'And it is true that the Tur has a different approach, for he does not hold like the Raavad and those who concur with him .. and even once its time has arrived it is forbidden only because he may come to be drawn on, but the essence of its time is the entire night, as with krias Shema' ↩
9 OC siman 431 os 4 ↩
10 OC there s.k. 1 ↩
11 Shulchan Aruch there se'if 5 ↩
[ב] (Halacha 1050)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Raavad, cited as the ruling, that the time of bedikas chametz is at the beginning of the night.
Question: What is the time of the beginning of the night for the purpose of bedikas chametz?
Answer: It is written in Chiddushei Talmid HaRamban1: 'And the Raavad wrote .. rather to teach that it must be done with the daylight, or that even though there is still daylight it is judged as night. Here he meant to say: at sunset he should search, so that he not be lazy or begin some other work .. and from here you learn that the biur must be done early with the daylight, so that he not be lax or forget.'
And so wrote Sefer HaManhig2: 'And to inform that at the onset of the night one should search at sunset, so that he not be lazy in the matter.'
And Rabbeinu Manoach3 wrote in the name of the Raavad: 'The essential reason is that one must begin with the daylight, immediately after sunset, so that he not be lax, and that he not begin some other work.'
> Thus, according to them, the time of the search is from sunset onward4.
On the other hand, there are Rishonim in whom it is emphasized that the time of the search is at night, as the Ran5 cited the Raavad, and so the Rosh6 wrote: 'And after drawing the water, immediately at the beginning of the night he should search the chametz and not do anything else until he searches.'
The Maharil7 cited the Rosh, and further on8, regarding the firstborn who fast before bedikas chametz, wrote: 'And he said that they may not dine at night before bedikas chametz. And so, when this occurs [i.e., Erev Pesach falling on Shabbos], there are firstborn who must search many rooms and upper chambers in a large mansion and who suffer from the fast, since they must also search the chametz on that night. And Mahar"i [Segal] said that his opinion somewhat inclines that one should eat at bein hashmashos .. and it is preferable for him to eat at bein hashmashos, when the time of bedikas chametz has not yet begun, than to eat after dark and transgress the enactment of the Sages; so it appeared ..'.
> Thus it is clear from their words that the time of the search is at the emergence of the stars and not at bein hashmashos. And so it is written in Minhagei Tirna, Erev Pesach: 'Or on the fourteenth we search the chametz .. and specifically at actual night.'
The Bach9 challenged the Maharil and Minhagei Tirna: 'The essence of the mitzvah is at the beginning of the night, when there is still light; and although in the Maharil, in the law of the fast of the firstborn, and likewise in the Minhagim of Maharah Tirna, it is written that the mitzvah of the search is at actual night but not before, nevertheless it appears that the essence is like the words of the Raavad10 and there is no doubt that they did not see the words of the Raavad on this'.
And so ruled the Magen Avraham11: 'At the beginning. This means close to the onset of the night (Rabbeinu Yerucham, Ran)'12. And further on he wrote13: 'And here [regarding bedikas chametz] it appears to me that the time of the search is before the emergence of the stars, as [written] at the beginning of the siman, and then he should search and afterward pray after the emergence of the stars.'
However, the Eliyah Zuta14 rejected the words of the Bach: 'In the Minhagim and in the Maharil .. that the mitzvah of the search is at actual night — and its meaning, it appears to me, is to exclude bein hashmashos; but in truth the mitzvah is immediately at the beginning of the night, after the emergence of the stars, even though there is still a bit of daylight, and so it is proven in the Maharil .. and the responsum of Mahari"v siman 193, so it appears to me, unlike the Bach who challenged the Maharil and the Minhagim and wrote that they did not see the words of the Raavad in the Beis Yosef. It also appears to me that the Bach understood the words of the Raavad to require searching at bein hashmashos, and in my humble opinion it is impossible to say so; for although in the Mishnah it taught "or on the fourteenth," nevertheless Shmuel taught on daf 3, "on the night of the fourteenth," and he certainly means actual night. And to me it is satisfactory, for one may say that Shmuel relied on "the zealous perform mitzvos early" and they would search at the beginning of the night, while the Tanna of the Mishnah taught the refined expression "or on the fourteenth," and also hinted "close to daylight" — study this well .. The conclusion in practice is to be stringent not to study from bein hashmashos and not to search the chametz until after the emergence of the stars, and then he should search, and let him not delay.'
And his brother-in-law, the author of the Chok Yaakov15, agreed with him: 'The words of the Rosh .. "And after drawing water, immediately at the beginning of the night he should search the chametz, and not eat and not do anything else until he searches" — end quote. And so wrote the Maharil. And it implies that the search must be at actual night and not at bein hashmashos, only after the emergence of the stars, even though there is still a bit of daylight; and so wrote my brother-in-law the Rav in his work Eliyah Zuta — unlike the Bach, after whom the other Acharonim were drawn. And his words are correct, sound in their reasoning, and compelled by the language of the poskim; also the words of the Raavad in the Beis Yosef may be explained thus, and so it is explicitly clear in his words in the Sefer Tamim De'im in his glosses at the beginning of Pesachim on the Baal HaMaor, and so is the opinion of the Ran.'
And so ruled the Alter Rebbe16: 'Therefore they delayed the time of the search until the time of the shining of the candle, namely the emergence of the stars [when there is still a bit of daylight].'
And in the Kuntres Acharon17 he wrote: 'And this is immediately after the emergence of the stars, as is the implication of the Gemara and Rashi and the Rambam and Tur and Shulchan Aruch and all the other poskim, and so it is explicitly in the Taz and Pri Chadash and Chok Yaakov, unlike the Bach and Magen Avraham.'
> Thus, in practice, the time of bedikas chametz is at the emergence of the stars. In the coming halachos we will see which matters are permitted and forbidden before bedikas chametz
--------------
Notes:
1 Pesachim 3a ↩
2 vol. 2 p. 436 ↩
3 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 2:3 ↩
4 In what follows we will not discuss what constitutes sunset and the emergence of the stars according to the various opinions and its ramification for our case (and see what is written on this in Dover Shalom on the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, siman 431 os 62); we will discuss only the essential halachic time of the search — whether it is at sunset, at bein hashmashos, or at the emergence of the stars. [And for each approach this will be according to its own view in defining sunset] ↩
5 Cited in the previous halacha ↩
6 Responsa, klal 14 siman 3 ↩
7 Minhagim, Hilchos Bedikas Chametz os 1 ↩
8 Hilchos Erev Pesach os [5] ↩
9 OC siman 431 ↩
10 But see below that this is not compelled by the words of the Raavad ↩
11 siman 431 s.k. 1 ↩
12 And the Machatzis HaShekel explained [and see also the Pri Megadim in the Eshel Avraham]: 'For the Ran, in the name of the Raavad, inferred it from the fact that we learned "or on the fourteenth we search, etc.," and the Gemara asks: let it teach "the night of the fourteenth," and it answers: on account of a refined expression. And it was difficult for the Raavad: on account of a refined expression it is not fitting for the Tanna to call darkness "light"; rather, perforce, at the beginning of the night, when there is still light, it is fit to search, etc. And [the Ran] concluded, his words being: and from here you learn [that the search] must be done early [with] the daylight, so that one not be lax — end quote. *And this means before the emergence of the stars, at any rate at bein hashmashos, when there is still a bit of light'* ↩
13 s.k. 5 ↩
14 siman 431 s.k. 3 ↩
15 there s.k. 1 ↩
16 Shulchan Aruch OC there se'if 5 ↩
17 s.k. 1 ↩
[ג] (Halacha 1051)
Question: May a person study Torah at the time of the search, and delay the search?
Answer: In halacha number 1049 we brought the words of the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1: 'Abaye said: therefore, this Torah scholar should not begin his set study session [i.e., he should not begin studying; if he had fixed a time for Torah at night, he should not begin to occupy himself with the sugya. Rashi], in the evening of the thirteenth leading into the fourteenth [the night of the departure of the thirteenth, which is the entry of the fourteenth, and it is the night of bedikas chametz. Rashi]. Lest his study draw him on and he come to be prevented from the mitzvah.'
And in halacha 1050 we saw the words of the Raavad and those who concur with him, [and as ruled in halacha] that the obligation of the search is immediately at the beginning of the time; and according to their view it is certainly forbidden for a person to begin studying at the time when he must go to search, and the words of Abaye are that there is a prohibition to study before the time of the search, so that one not forget to search, as the Alter Rebbe wrote2: 'And so it is perforce the opinion of the Raavad and Ran and Rabbeinu Yerucham, who hold that the time of the search is when there is still a bit of daylight, and the Bach and Magen Avraham ruled like their words .. and therefore, that which we say in the Gemara "lest his study draw him on and he come to be prevented from the mitzvah" means to say that even before its time has arrived it is forbidden to begin, lest it draw him on and he come to be prevented from the mitzvah — that is, that he would be prevented at the beginning of its time, as the Rambam and Pri Chadash wrote; for if [it referred to] after its time has arrived, then even if it does not draw him on, he is already doing something forbidden by studying at the beginning of its time and deferring the mitzvah to afterward, according to the opinion of the Raavad and those who concur with him.'
And the text of the Rambam3 [cited by the Semag4]: 'And one does not establish a study session at the end of the thirteenth day, and likewise the scholar should not begin to read at this time, lest he be drawn on and be prevented from bedikas chametz at the beginning of its time.'
And the Kesef Mishneh wrote: 'And if you ask: why did he write "at the end of the thirteenth" and not "at the beginning of the night of the fourteenth," as at the beginning of the wording? One may answer that he teaches us that from the end of the thirteenth day it is forbidden to begin studying, and he derives this from Abaye's statement "this Torah scholar should not begin his study session in the evening of the thirteenth leading into the fourteenth," whereas "leading into the fourteenth" would have sufficed, as we learned in the Mishnah "or on the fourteenth" — rather, to teach5 that from the end of the thirteenth it is forbidden'.
However the Tur6 disagrees and holds that there is no prohibition to study before the time, and Abaye's words are [about the time] once the time of the search has arrived, as the Alter Rebbe wrote7: 'And it is true that the Tur has a different approach, for he does not hold like the Raavad and those who concur with him, but rather holds that it is permitted to eat and study before its time, as with krias Shema according to his approach in siman 235.'
In practice most of the Acharonim adopted the view of the Rambam and the Raavad, that the prohibition to study begins before the time, as the Taz8 wrote: 'Except that a person's arrival is usually at bein hashmashos, while there is still a bit of day, and he must wait until the candle shines; therefore he waits from the time of his arrival, when there is a change, until the shining of the candle, which is actual night, and that hour that he waits will be entirely free, so that the neglect of the search not be drawn out from the fixed time'.
And the Magen Avraham9 wrote: 'Should not begin. At the end of the thirteenth day [Rambam], and it appears to me that a half hour before night it is forbidden, as [written] in siman 232 and 235.'
However, the Chok Yaakov10 disagreed with them and wrote: 'And see the Bach, who asks: on the contrary, we say at the beginning of Brachos that a person comes from the field in the evening, enters the synagogue, and if he is accustomed to read he reads, and if accustomed to learn he learns, and recites krias Shema and prays — thus it is permitted to study, and they were not concerned about negligence regarding study; so why here were they concerned even with study? .. But the main point appears to me that there is no difficulty at all, for it is specifically with work and eating and the like that it is forbidden a half hour before the search or [before] prayer, on account of "lest he be drawn on"; whereas with study — so that he not sit idle every single day before prayer, and it has already been said11, והגית בו יומם ולילה ("and you shall meditate on it day and night"), and several Tannaim and Amoraim who annulled prayer entirely when their Torah was their occupation12, until they had to say13 "the time for Torah is distinct and the time for prayer is distinct"; but before the time of prayer one should not annul him from Torah study, and on the contrary they said14 "one does not stand to pray except out of a matter of halacha." And that [teaching] "a person comes from the field in the evening, etc., if accustomed to read" also deals with before the time of prayer, and like the view of the students of Rabbeinu Yonah15 .. And so, the same law applies here regarding the search: one should not annul him from Torah study before the beginning of the time of the search, as is implied in the Mahar"i Weil, that they are equivalent, and so it is explicitly implied from the Gemara and the commentary of Rashi at the beginning of Pesachim16, see there. And such is the view and implication of the other poskim. (But the language of the Rambam, chapter 2 of Hilchos Chametz halacha 3, and the Semak at the beginning of siman 98, somewhat implies that before the time it is also forbidden; but upon reflection it is also possible to explain it in this way, study this well.) And so it appears to me to be the essential ruling, unlike the opinion of the Acharonim on this. And see what I wrote in s.k. 8, that such is the view of the Beis Yosef.'
But his brother-in-law the Eliyah Rabbah17 rejected his words: 'And the opinion of the Chok Yaakov not to forbid before its time — and his proof from what the Bach and Magen Avraham wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah, that what is said in the Gemara "a person reads and learns and afterward recites [krias Shema]" deals with before the time of krias Shema — to my humble opinion this is no proof, for the Bach wrote two other answers: one, that it deals with one who reads in the beis midrash; two, that this is only in order to stand in prayer out of words of Torah, but actual study is forbidden. And so too in Rabbeinu Yonah himself, in the laws of Brachos, it is implied thus. Moreover, at the end of this siman I wrote that here they were more stringent. Also, that which he wrote that upon reflection one can also explain the Rambam as permitting before its time — the answer to his words is [available] to one who examines the Maggid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh, and also from what he wrote "lest he be drawn on, etc."'18.
And so the Alter Rebbe19 ruled in practice: 'And during that time between the person's entry into his home and the time of the search, namely the emergence of the stars — and the measure of that time between them is about a half hour — they forbade him to eat and to study even a single chapter,20 even though he could finish the chapter before the emergence of the stars; nevertheless there is concern lest, through his engrossment in his study, he forget the obligation of the search and study more, or lest a new point of study occur to him and he tarry in his analysis until some time after the emergence of the stars ..'.
> Thus we have seen that it is forbidden to begin studying in the half hour before bedikas chametz. In the coming halacha we will see the law regarding other matters, and the law regarding one who began permissibly before the time.
Notes:
1 4a ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 431 Kuntres Acharon 1 ↩
3 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 2:3 ↩
4 Asin 39 ↩
5 And see also the Maggid Mishneh: *'And* Rabbeinu *explained* [it as] at the end of the thirteenth day' ↩
6 OC siman 431 ↩
7 OC there s.k. 1 ↩
8 there s.k. 3 ↩
9 there s.k. 5 ↩
10 Yehoshua 1:8 ↩
11 Shabbos 11a ↩
12 there 10a ↩
13 Brachos 31a ↩
14 there 1a s.v. v'Chachamim ↩
15 4a s.v. b'urta ↩
16 there s.k. 7 ↩
17 And so the Alter Rebbe wrote there in the Kuntres Acharon: 'And the Chok Yaakov wrote that the view of the Rambam and Semag can also be explained as not forbidding before the time, but the words of the Maggid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh escaped him' ↩
18 Shulchan Aruch there se'if 5 ↩
19 And the Alter Rebbe wrote in the Kuntres Acharon there: 'So wrote the Taz, and such is the view of the Rambam and Semag and Maggid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh and Magen Avraham and Pri Chadash, that even before the time of the search it is forbidden to study; and see the Eliyah Zuta' ↩
[ד] (Halacha 1052)
In the previous halacha we saw that it is forbidden to study Torah [already from a half hour] before the time of bedikas chametz.
Question: What is the law of eating and doing work before the search?
Answer: Eating: It is written in Tosafos Rabbeinu Peretz1 [cited by the Mordechai2]: 'From here it appears that it is forbidden to eat on the night of the fourteenth before the search, as a decree lest he come to be drawn on.'
And so wrote the Semak3: 'And likewise it is forbidden to eat from the beginning of the night until after the search.'
And the Maggid Mishneh4 wrote: 'And Tosafos wrote: from here it appears that it is forbidden to eat on the night of the fourteenth before the search, lest he come to be drawn on — end quote. And their words appear correct, for it is all the more so.'
And so wrote the Riaz5: 'And it appears in my eyes that it is forbidden for him to eat and drink [in the evening] until he searches his chametz, for if we forbid him Torah study, all the more so eating and drinking.'
And the Agudah6 wrote: 'Abaye said: a Torah scholar should not begin his study session. And the Geonim wrote: all the more so that he should not sit to eat before he searches.'
And in the Maharil7 it is written: 'And it is forbidden to study, all the more so not to dine, until he completes the search, lest he come to be prevented from the mitzvah of the search.'
And the Beis Yosef8 wrote: 'And that which he wrote "and he should not eat" — so wrote the Rav HaMaggid in the name of Tosafos, and so too the Hagahos wrote in the name of the Semak, and it is obvious, for it comes all the more so from the law of "he should not begin his study session"'9.
Work: Rabbeinu Manoach10 wrote: 'And not specifically Torah study, but even Scripture and other matters of wisdom are forbidden, as the Rav wrote regarding reading, for the scholar, in the depth of his understanding and the profundity of his analysis, may be drawn on even in Scripture. And needless to say, one who is a craftsman may not begin his work until the completion of the mitzvah; for if now, regarding a Torah scholar whose mind and thought are always on the mitzvos of Hashem, we are concerned lest he be negligent, then other people all the more so.'
And the Michtam11 wrote: 'And one may say that they said this only so that a person should derive an a fortiori inference for other optional matters, which he should not begin.'
And in the Shibolei HaLeket12 he wrote: 'Abaye said: therefore a Torah scholar should not begin his study session in the evening of the thirteenth leading into the fourteenth, lest his study draw him on and he come to be prevented from the mitzvah — all the more so for common labor.'
Eating and work: The Ritva13 wrote: 'And since we forbid his study session, which is a mitzvah, all the more so eating and the bathhouse and their like, which are forbidden.'
And in the Orchos Chaim14 he wrote: 'And likewise the scholar should not begin to study at such a time until he searches, all the more so that he should not occupy himself with other work. And Rabbeinu Peretz wrote that it is forbidden to eat on the night of the fourteenth before bedikas chametz, lest he come to be drawn on — end quote.'
And so wrote the Tur15: 'And therefore every person should be careful not to begin any work and not to eat until he searches.'
In practice the Mechaber16 wrote: 'Every person should be careful not to begin any work and not to eat until he searches'17.
And the Magen Avraham18 wrote: 'And it is forbidden to enter the bathhouse, and [likewise] all the matters mentioned in siman 232'.
But the Pri Megadim19 wrote: 'That which he wrote that it is forbidden regarding the matters mentioned in siman 232 — there he enumerated fixed forms of work that lead to delay and negligence; but other forms of work are implied there to be permitted. And here one should not study a fixed shiur of a single chapter, all the more so eating, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote in chapter 2 of Chametz U'Matzah halacha 3, see the Beis Yosef, [this] implies that even other forms of work are forbidden, that one should not begin any work even a half hour before ..'.
And the text of the Alter Rebbe20: 'And during that time between the person's entry into his home and the time of the search, namely the emergence of the stars — and the measure of that time between them is about a half hour — they forbade him to eat .. and likewise they forbade during this half hour to do all the things that are forbidden to do before the tefillah of Mincha or the tefillah of Maariv, as explained in siman 232 and 235'21.
> Thus, in practice, we have seen that just as it is forbidden to study, all the more so it is forbidden to eat and to do work before bedikas chametz. In the coming halacha we will see what the prohibition of eating includes
Notes:
1 Pesachim 4a s.v. lo niftach inish ↩
2 Pesachim remez 532 ↩
3 mitzvah 98 ↩
4 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 2:3 ↩
5 Piskei Pesachim 1:1 ↩
6 Pesachim 1:3 ↩
7 Hilchos Bedikas Chametz [2] ↩
8 OC siman 431 ↩
9 And the text of the Alter Rebbe, Shulchan Aruch OC there, Kuntres Acharon s.k. 1: 'If so, how did the Maggid Mishneh and the Beis Yosef write that the prohibition of eating comes all the more so from study — see there' ↩
10 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah 2:3 ↩
11 Pesachim 4a ↩
12 Seder Pesach siman 209 ↩
13 Pesachim 4a ↩
14 vol. 1 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah os 4 ↩
15 OC siman 431 ↩
16 Shulchan Aruch OC there se'if 2 ↩
17 The Pri Megadim wrote, Eshel Avraham there s.k. 6: And, God willing, in os 8 it will be explained what the Mechaber wrote in the order of "any work" and eating and study, for seemingly eating and study are a case of "not only this but even this," and "any" work, even though it is not among the four mentioned in siman 232, and eating is a case of "this, and needless to say this," see there on this ↩
18 there s.k. 5 ↩
19 Eshel Avraham s.k. 5 ↩
20 Shulchan Aruch there se'if 5 ↩
21 The Alter Rebbe did not mention in his words the "work" that the Mechaber wrote, but only referred to siman 232 and 235, which the Magen Avraham cited; and we saw that the Pri Megadim was in doubt regarding the parameters of forbidden work. [To note that the Alter Rebbe at the beginning of the se'if wrote: 'Except that even while he is within his home there is concern lest he occupy himself with eating and drinking and sleeping, *or with work*, or with Torah if he is a Torah scholar, and thereby forget the obligation of the search'] ↩
[ה] (Halacha 1053)
In the previous halacha we saw that there is a prohibition to eat before bedikas chametz.
Question: Is tasting permitted?
Answer: It is written in the Maharil1 regarding Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos, when bedikas chametz then occurs at the conclusion of the fast of the firstborn: 'And so, when this occurs, there are firstborn who must search many rooms and upper chambers in a large mansion and who suffer from the fast, since they must also search the chametz on that night. And Mahar"i [Segal] said that his opinion somewhat inclines that one should eat at bein hashmashos .. but he concluded his words and said "I do not rely on myself"; but if it is difficult for him, he provides someone else to search on his behalf, or he may taste a mere tasting, in which "being drawn on" does not apply.'
And the Bach2 cited it: 'In the Maharil it is written that specifically a meal is forbidden to eat before the search, but a mere tasting is permitted, since "being drawn on" does not apply to it — end quote; and see above, siman 232.'
And so wrote the Taz3: 'And it is written in the Maharil that a mere tasting is permitted at that time, and they forbade only a meal.'
And the Magen Avraham4 wrote: 'And he should not eat. But a mere tasting is permitted (Bach, Maharil). Tasting means fruit, or bread up to the size of an egg, as [written] at the end of siman 232'.
And the Pri Megadim5 wrote: 'And it implies that of the five species of grain, more than an egg's size is forbidden, like bread, and specifically fruit is permitted. And see siman 232 os 17: likewise, to drink more than an egg's size is forbidden, and see the Eliyah Rabbah there os 7.'
> Thus we have seen that the poskim wrote that tasting is permitted before bedikas chametz, namely fruit, or bread and mezonos up to an egg's size.
Regarding the view of the Alter Rebbe in the laws of bedikas chametz6 he wrote: 'They forbade him to eat', and did not mention the leniency of tasting that was cited by all the Acharonim.
And some have written to infer from his language7 that in his view tasting too is forbidden.
However, in a handwritten gloss on the Shulchan Aruch8 it is added: 'even a small meal (but a mere tasting is permitted, as [written] in siman 232)'9.
And later, in the laws of Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos10, he cited the words of the aforementioned Maharil: 'If Erev Pesach falls on Erev Shabbos, the firstborn fast on that day; but if it falls on Shabbos it is deferred to the Thursday before it, and if the fast on Thursday is difficult for them — since at night they search the chametz and may not dine before the search, and they have many rooms to search — they may taste a little before the search, for they forbade only a meal (and for the measure of tasting see siman 232) ..'.
> Thus, in practice it appears11 that even according to the Alter Rebbe the tasting itself is permitted, since they forbade only a meal, and with tasting there is no concern that he will be drawn on, [and therefore he equated the laws of bedikas chametz with the tefillah of Mincha and Maariv, as cited in the handwritten gloss, and therefore he also cited the words of the Maharil in siman 470].
But the poskim wrote that all that we said, that tasting is permitted, is in the half hour before the emergence of the stars; however, once the time of the search has arrived, one should not delay even for tasting, as the Mishnah Berurah12 wrote: 'And see in the Biur Halacha that abundant fruit is permitted only in the half hour before the search, but once the time of the search has arrived, even by means of fruit it is not proper to tarry much'.
And he explained in the Biur Halacha13: 'See the Mishnah Berurah that fruit is permitted even in abundance, and this is proven from the words of the Magen Avraham, who compared it to that of siman 232, and seemingly it implies that even once the time of the search has arrived, namely the emergence of the stars, it is likewise permitted to eat fruit even in abundance, for only a fixed meal in which one may be drawn on and forget the search is forbidden. But to me it requires study, for this is not comparable to the other matters — krias Shema and tefillah — whose mitzvah is not specifically at the beginning of the time, and therefore they decreed only regarding a fixed meal in which one may be drawn on and forget entirely; whereas here, where the Sages fixed the time initially, immediately at the beginning of the night, as many poskim wrote — accordingly, the tarrying itself, even without eating, is forbidden once the time arrives; and therefore it appears that in the half hour adjacent to the emergence of the stars it is permitted to eat as much fruit as he wishes, but once the time has arrived one should not be lenient with much tarrying even by means of fruit, and so it is implied in the Derech HaChaim, that only in the half hour are we lenient about this'.
> Thus, in practice, in the half hour before the search it is forbidden to eat but permitted to taste; but when the time of the search arrives [although in principle there is no prohibition in tasting, yet not without a special need] one should not delay the search even for tasting, since he must search immediately.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Erev Pesach [5] ↩
2 OC at the end of siman 431 ↩
3 OC there s.k. 4 ↩
4 there s.k. 4 ↩
5 Eshel Avraham there s.k. 4 ↩
6 siman 431 se'if 5 ↩
7 See the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch with Dover Shalom (Levin) os 65. [And seemingly they would say that what he wrote in siman 470 is only a leniency in a situation of difficulty on account of the fast, and not initially.] And to note that Rabbi M.S. Ashkenazi in the Marei Mekomos V'Tziyunim remarked that it is possible the omission is based on what is explained in siman 271 se'if 9 regarding Kiddush, that tasting too is forbidden, because that is the essential time, and if so the same applies to bedikas chametz; except that, if so, since ultimately here he equates the law of bedikas chametz with the law of the tefillah of Mincha and Maariv, in which tasting is indeed permitted, then he should have written explicitly that here, regarding bedikas chametz, tasting is forbidden ↩
8 Cited in Shulchan Aruch (new edition) note 60 ↩
9 In Ta'amei HaShulchan (Ashkenazi) p. 122 note 110 he discusses whether this passage was omitted by error or whether it is an intentional omission, see there ↩
10 siman 470 se'if 7 ↩
11 And so ruled Rabbi M.S. Ashkenazi in Sho'alin V'Dorshin 5774 p. 3. And see also Luach Halachos Minhogim V'Hanhagos (Leib), laws of bedikas chametz p. 252 note 13 ↩
12 siman 431 s.k. 6 ↩
13 there s.v. v'lo yochal ↩
[ו] (Halacha 1054)
In the previous halachos we saw that it is forbidden to study Torah, or to eat and to do work, before bedikas chametz
Question: Do krias Shema and the tefillah of Maariv take precedence over bedikas chametz? (1)
Answer: It is written in Machzor Maaglei Tzedek1: 'And the Raavad wrote that one must search at the beginning of the night, when there is still light, and I found in a gloss that even the tefillah of Maariv — if he has not prayed by the beginning of the night, he should search first and afterward pray'.
And the Olas Shabbos2 wrote: 'And regarding whether he should pray the tefillah of Maariv first or search first — behold, from the words of the Raavad .. who infers from the fact that it taught "or on the fourteenth" that one must search close to the onset of the night — behold, he must perforce hold that one searches first; for otherwise it would be impossible for him to search close to the onset of the night, since he must pray the tefillah of Maariv first. And so wrote the Bach in the name of the Machzorim, and so it appears essential'.
And so ruled the Pri Chadash3: 'And likewise, if he was preoccupied and did not pray the tefillah of Maariv with the congregation, he should search and afterward pray, for the reason I have written. All this appears to me according to the approach of the Rambam, and it is correct, and so we adopt'.
> Thus, according to the approach of the gloss, bedikas chametz takes precedence over the tefillah of Maariv4.
However, we find several Acharonim who, although they agreed with the essential law, wrote that in any case one should give precedence to Maariv in certain situations: a) When there is concern that he will forget to pray Maariv. b) Or when there is trouble in gathering the minyan after the search. c) But there are those who disagreed with the essential law and held that one must always give precedence to Maariv over the search, since Maariv is more frequent and takes precedence over bedikas chametz. As follows:
a) The Bach5 wrote: 'However it appears to me that he should pray first and afterward search, for with prayer, which is fixed and ordered, there is no concern lest he be preoccupied, as I explained; unlike if he searches first, where it is possible that he will be preoccupied with his search until he forgets to pray. This, however, applies specifically to one who is accustomed to pray with the congregation but it now happened that he did not pray with them; but one who is accustomed to pray at home every night should search first, and we are not concerned regarding one who is accustomed lest he forget to pray — end of the ruling'.
> That is, the Bach agreed that in principle the search takes precedence, except that in situations where, if he searches first, he might forget to pray Maariv, he should give precedence to the tefillah of Maariv; and therefore one who always prays Maariv at home, where there is no concern that he will forget, should search first.
b) The Magen Avraham6 wrote: 'And if he did not search until after the emergence of the stars, he should give it to another to search while he prays, as [written] in siman 470. And if there is no other [available], he should do as the Bach wrote: and those who are accustomed to pray Maariv with ten [men] should pray first in the synagogue, since it is trouble to gather them afterward, as the Tur wrote in siman 235, and as [stated] above regarding the recitation of the shiur.'
c) But the Chok Yaakov7 disagreed with the essential law and wrote: 'Since the essential time of the search is at night after the emergence of the stars, then one who is accustomed to pray and recite krias Shema in its time should not change, for "the frequent and the non-frequent — the frequent takes precedence"8, so it appears to me. Although from the language of the Rosh9 and the Maharil10 it is somewhat implied that one should do nothing before the search, one must say that they did not mean this specifically and did not discuss this matter — understand this.'
And so ruled the Eliyah Rabbah11: 'One who has not prayed Maariv should pray before the search, and there is no difference between whether he is able to pray with a congregation or not'.
And so wrote the Chida12: 'And the view of the Maharish13 mentioned in the responsum, siman 2, is that he should pray Maariv first, and if there is another [person] there, he should tell him to remind him to search immediately after his prayer, for as much as it is possible to set matters right, we set them right.'
And so wrote the Mekor Chaim (by R' Yaakov of Lisa)14: 'And the Chok Yaakov wrote that he should always pray first, since it is the more frequent, and so it is essential'.
> Thus we have seen that in practice there is a dispute whether in principle one should give precedence to the search or to the tefillah of Maariv; and in the coming halacha we will see the words of the Alter Rebbe, and the practice of Chabad in actuality.
Notes:
1 vol. 1 126b, laws of Erev Pesach ↩
2 OC siman 431 s.k. 2 ↩
3 there se'if 2 ↩
4 The novelty in this applies even according to the opinions that the time of the search is at the emergence of the stars, and not only according to the opinions that bedikas chametz is before the emergence of the stars, along the lines of what the Magen Avraham wrote: 'Here it appears to me that the time of the search is before the emergence of the stars, as I wrote at the beginning of the siman (s.k. 1), and then he should search and afterward pray after the emergence of the stars', and the Machatzis HaShekel explained: 'Even though the search continues after the emergence of the stars, nevertheless, since the mitzvah of the search takes effect before the obligation of krias Shema, and he must begin the search, he should complete it and afterward recite krias Shema and pray'. And see below what the Chok Yaakov wrote ↩
5 OC there se'if 4 ↩
6 there s.k. 5 ↩
7 there s.k. 7 ↩
8 But see what the Alter Rebbe wrote to respond to this in the Kuntres Acharon, siman 431 s.k. 1: 'And that which the Chok Yaakov wrote, that the frequent takes precedence — this is not so, for we say this only when the two mitzvos are both not "passing"; in which case it is a mitzvah to give precedence to the frequent; and likewise, if both are passing, the non-frequent is deferred; but if the non-frequent is a passing mitzvah and the frequent is not passing, it is obvious that he is obligated to fulfill both, and the mitzvah of giving precedence to the frequent does not set aside the non-frequent entirely .. Here, if he does not search at the beginning of the night, it is fitting to call him a transgressor who has transgressed the enactment of Chazal according to the words of the aforementioned poskim, as the Taz and the Pri Chadash wrote .. and this is like a passing mitzvah, as the Pri Chadash wrote' ↩
9 Responsa klal 14 siman 3 ↩
10 Hilchos Bedikas Chametz ↩
11 there s.k. 8 ↩
12 Machzik Bracha there s.k. 3 ↩
13 It was mentioned there earlier: 'And the Gaon Moreinu HaRav Rav Yehoshua Shapira, in his commentary on Pesachim called Chiddushei Maharish, in the responsa at its end' ↩
14 OC there s.k. 6 ↩
[ז] (Halacha 1055)
In the previous halacha we saw that the Acharonim disagree whether bedikas chametz takes precedence over krias Shema and tefillah.
Question: What is the opinion of the Alter Rebbe? (2)
Answer: The Alter Rebbe wrote in siman 431 se'if 6: 'And even though he has not yet recited krias Shema of Maariv, and krias Shema is a positive commandment of the Torah and is also frequent every single day, twice, and whatever is more frequent than its fellow takes precedence over its fellow — nevertheless one must give precedence to the search over krias Shema and tefillah, since it is a passing mitzvah, for if he does not search immediately at the emergence of the stars he is called one who transgresses the enactment of the Sages; but with krias Shema, even though it is a choicest mitzvah to recite it at the beginning of the night, nevertheless one is not called a transgressor of the enactment of the Sages unless he recites it after midnight, as explained in siman 235'1.
And in se'if 7 he wrote: 'This applies to one who is accustomed to pray krias Shema and the tefillah of Maariv the whole year within his home; but one who is accustomed the whole year to pray with the congregation while it is still day2 and now did not pray with them, should recite krias Shema and pray immediately at the emergence of the stars3 and afterward search; for since he is not accustomed the whole year to pray Maariv at home, there is concern lest, through his preoccupation and his effort in bedikas chametz, he forget krias Shema and tefillah'4.
And in se'if 8 he wrote: 'And all this is regarding an individual's prayer; but if there are ten who pray Maariv in its time, namely the emergence of the stars, they should pray immediately at the emergence of the stars and afterward go to their homes to search the chametz. For if they go to search before the tefillah of Maariv, it will be trouble to gather them afterward to pray with ten, and the mitzvah of communal prayer will be entirely nullified5 on account of giving precedence to the search; but if they pray with ten before the search, the mitzvah of the search will not be entirely nullified.'
> Thus we have seen in the words of the Alter Rebbe that when he has the possibility to search on time, in principle one must give precedence to the search over krias Shema and tefillah; however, in situations where there is concern that he will forget (since he is accustomed to pray with a minyan, and now does not intend to), or for the sake of a minyan, he should pray before the search6.
Question: What is the practice of Chabad in actuality?
Answer: The Rebbe Rayatz7 relates about the conduct of his father, the Rebbe Rashab: 'At dusk of the thirteenth of Nissan .. he entered the apartment of my honored grandmother, the righteous Rebbetzin, of blessed memory, may her merit protect us, and sat in the room that opens onto the courtyard, not far from the window (to wait for the arrival of the Rav to arrange the sale of the chametz, to pray Maariv, and to begin bedikas chametz)'8.
And regarding the conduct of the Rebbe Rayatz, the Rebbe wrote9: 'In reply to his letter of Monday, in which he asks about the custom of Anash regarding the time of bedikas chametz when praying Maariv individually — I saw the custom of my father-in-law, the Rebbe, of blessed memory, may his merit protect us, that he would search between Mincha and Maariv, and pray Maariv after the search'.
However, in the Hayom Yom10, cited in Sefer HaMinhagim11, he writes: 'Bedikas chametz after the tefillah of Maariv'.
And he explained in a letter12: 'I copied in the "Hayom Yom" p. 45 that bedikas chametz is after the tefillah of Maariv — plainly. And he asks that in the Shulchan Aruch there are distinctions in this. Behold, as written in the introduction to the Hayom Yom, I brought there not laws but the customs of the Chassidim founded on the customs of the Rebbeim or on their directives. And the accepted custom is as above — always after the tefillah of Maariv. And one may say several reasons for this. And the clearest in my eyes is that according to his own approach there is also [a basis] here. For our custom is to prolong bedikas chametz greatly13 — and I did not copy this either in the Hayom Yom, for I did not hear a specific measure regarding it. And see the Sdei Chemed, Ma'areches Chametz U'Matzah os 5, s.k. 16, who cited from the Magen HaElef, laws of Pesach siman 432, that he discusses the words of the Alter Rebbe on the above in the Kuntres Acharon to OC siman 431.'
> Thus, in practice, the custom of Chabad is to recite krias Shema and pray Maariv, and only afterward to search the chametz. But a person who is delayed for the sake of prayer in a later minyan and the like, when there is no concern that he will forget, should search immediately, on time, at the beginning of the night.
--------------
Notes:
1 He elaborated in explaining this principle in the Kuntres Acharon there s.k. 1 ↩
2 Some have written (see Darkei HaShulchan (Blinov) simanim 2–4; Agurah B'Ohalcha (Farkash) vol. 1 siman 14) that the Alter Rebbe's words apply only when he is accustomed to pray while it is still day, but one who is accustomed to pray at night, even if he did not pray, should search first. But seemingly their words are not reasonable: first, because it is difficult to infer a halacha when the essential concern still exists, that 'there is concern lest, through his preoccupation and his effort in bedikas chametz, he forget krias Shema and tefillah'; and plainly, the reason he wrote "while it is still day" is because he comes to teach a novelty: that even though one is accustomed to pray while it is still day, so that for him the concern of forgetting krias Shema is smaller (as explained in siman 267 in the Kuntres Acharon s.k. 1, and see also siman 489 se'if 17), since 'he is always accustomed to intend to fulfill [the obligation] with the krias Shema at his bedside' — nevertheless, here, on account of his preoccupation and his effort in bedikas chametz, he will forget krias Shema *and tefillah.* But certainly one who is accustomed to pray on time, and now does not intend to pray with them, certainly must give precedence and recite krias Shema first. (And only when there are ten who are praying and the mitzvah of communal prayer will be nullified does he give precedence to the tefillah, as explained below) ↩
3 Since he prays individually, he may not recite krias Shema and pray before the emergence of the stars, as explained in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch siman 90 se'if 10 ↩
4 The Tzemach Tzedek, in Responsa OC siman 116, discusses whether, when he has recited krias Shema, he must also give precedence to the tefillah ↩
5 Seemingly one could understand from the implication of the words that this refers only to when communal prayer will be entirely nullified and there will be no minyan at all; however, from the plain meaning of the Alter Rebbe's words in OC siman 90 it appears that joining a minyan is also a great mitzvah (and see this discussion in halacha number 970), and seemingly this is how the words of the Alter Rebbe here should be explained ↩
6 Except that according to this, if there is a fixed minyan of a later Maariv (and particularly one who is accustomed to pray in this minyan), he must search at the very beginning of the night — and see below ↩
7 Igros Kodesh vol. 14 p. 126 ↩
8 And to note from the notes of R' Yaakov Landau, Otzar Minhagei Chabad, Nissan p. 83: '[After the sale of chametz in Rostov, which extended into the onset of the night] [the Rebbe Rashab] saw fit to say: it seems that they should have prayed Maariv first and afterward searched. And I asked: could it be otherwise? And the Rebbe answered: אלע מאל איז מען בודק פאר מעריב, אבער אז עס שוין געווארן צייט מעריב וועט מען דארפן דאוונען מעריב פריער'. [One always searches before Maariv, but when the time of the tefillah of Maariv has already arrived, one will have to pray Maariv first.] And the intent of the matter requires clarification, and perhaps the intent is that the time of the beginning of the night had passed, and therefore one must already give precedence to Maariv. And see what is written in Agurah B'Ohalcha there p. 47 ↩
9 Likkutei Sichos vol. 17 p. 434 ↩
10 14 Nissan ↩
11 p. 37 ↩
12 Igros Kodesh vol. 2 p. 344 ↩
13 See the Haggadah shel Pesach with Likkutei Ta'amim U'Minhogim p. 2, the passage s.v. bedikas chametz; Sefer HaSichos 5698 p. 265; Toras Menachem 5749 vol. 1 p. 247 ↩
[ח] (Halacha 1056)
Question: Is a fixed shiur permitted before bedikas chametz? (1)
Answer: Rabbi Eliyahu ben Chaim [the Ranach] wrote in the Responsa Mayim Amukim1: 'I was further asked .. whether one should say, also regarding a scholar who teaches the public a settled ruling evening and morning, that on this night he should not establish study. It appears that they said this only regarding one who sits and studies in his home, who is not compelled to rise from his place, for we are concerned lest his study draw him on, etc.; but with such study, which he studies in the synagogue and where his intent is to return to his home, there is no concern that he will be drawn on, etc. Similar to this, Rabbeinu Yonah wrote on the words of Rashi, who wrote that it is forbidden to study in the morning before prayer, and Rabbeinu Yonah wrote on him: one may say that Rashi said this only regarding one who prays in his beis midrash, but one who goes to the synagogue to study — no. Furthermore, for another reason that Rabbeinu Yonah wrote regarding morning study: he said this only regarding study for oneself, since he can fulfill the mitzvah and afterward study, but with study for the public — no; and here too it is similar to this. But one cannot say that they said "he should not begin his study session" only regarding a Torah scholar who sits and analyzes, for whom we are concerned lest his study draw him on, but regarding one who teaches others settled halachos that are revealed and known before him we are not concerned, and all the more so with the public, that we are not concerned they will all be drawn after the study and forget the mitzvah as with individuals; for behold, in that [case] of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who would teach his students before prayer, Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos found no way to permit it except on account of its being a mitzvah of the public and a passing mitzvah — even though there too these reasons applied, [i.e.] in teaching the settled ruling to the community.'
> Thus, according to the Ranach, a scholar who teaches a shiur of settled halacha in the synagogue may teach even on the eve of bedikas chametz, and he grounded his leniency in: a) that the study is in the synagogue and not at home, there is no concern that he will be drawn on since his intent is to return to his home; b) that the prohibition is regarding one who studies for himself, who can study also after the search, whereas here the study would be nullified entirely.
The Knesses HaGedolah2 cited his words and remarked: 'And Rabbeinu the Beis Yosef, in the Kesef Mishneh, chapter 2 of Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah, wrote that the view of the Rambam is that even establishing a study session for the public is forbidden to begin. And it is possible that they do not disagree, for Rabbeinu [the Beis Yosef] speaks of establishing a study session for which there is no fixed time to study, while the Ranach speaks of a scholar who studies a settled ruling with the community evening and morning, who has a fixed time for his study and there is a fixed [time] for his reading. And so I acted in practice here in Tiria, may God protect it, and I directed the one who teaches Ein Yaakov to the community every night to study on the night of Erev Pesach as on other nights, in accordance with the ruling of the Ranach. And furthermore I say that Rabbeinu [the Beis Yosef] forbade establishing a study session for the public only regarding a scholar who studies in his home for the public, for the people of his neighborhood, or who studies with the community and both his home and the home of the public who hear him are in the neighborhood of the community, and when they go to their homes no public thoroughfare intervenes. But regarding one who studies with the community and whose home is far from the community, so that it is impossible to tarry there a long time, out of fear of those who patrol the city to seize whoever leaves the entrance of his home after the fixed time, it is permitted to begin, for we are not concerned lest the study draw on, since he must rise to go to his home before the time of fear. And the same law applies too if the listeners' home is far from the synagogue, for even though the scholar might be drawn on in the halacha, the listeners who wish to go to their homes will remind him and tell him to stop.'
> Thus, according to the Kenesses HaGedolah, the Ra'anach's ruling of leniency is also based on the fact that the scholar's shiur is a fixed shiur, and on this basis he permitted learning a fixed shiur of Ein Yaakov. He further wrote to permit a shiur in a place and in a manner where they will certainly need to conclude the shiur (due to the distance or the fear).
The Magen Avraham3 cited the words of the Ra'anach and wrote: 'It appears to me that this applies specifically to one who states a matter of halacha without pilpul, but it is forbidden to engage in pilpul even if he is not in his home, for in this case there is certainly room to decree, lest the subject matter draw him on and he come to be prevented from a mitzvah, in that he will afterward forget to check.'
However, the Pri Chadash4 disagreed with the Ra'anach's ruling of leniency: 'Nevertheless, it appears to me that for a different reason it is proper to protest against a scholar who teaches a ruling, because it appears to me from the words of the Rambam that when we say in the Gemara "lest he come to be prevented from a mitzvah," this is not to say that we are concerned lest he forget and not check — for since he has the entire night, we are not concerned about this — but rather it means that he will be prevented from the essence of the mitzvah, to check at the beginning of the night when there is some light, in accordance with the explanation of the Ra'avad. And therefore he explained that this young Torah scholar's "let him not begin" refers to the end of the thirteenth day, for if [it referred to] the beginning of the night of the fourteenth, it is obvious that it is forbidden, since he is [thereby] preventing himself from a mitzvah; and what would be the meaning of what he says, "lest the subject matter draw him on," since in any case he is [already] forfeiting the essence of the mitzvah, which is the checking while there is daylight. And this is what the Rav, of blessed memory, was precise about in his language, in that he wrote "and he will be prevented from bedikas chametz at the beginning of its time," and did not write that he will be prevented from the checking by candlelight, or that he will be entirely prevented from the mitzvah — rather, it is certainly as we have said. And accordingly, it is better understood why here, regarding study, we are concerned lest he be drawn on, whereas elsewhere we are not concerned: because during such a short time, which is the essence of the mitzvah — namely, the beginning of the night — we are concerned.'
> That is, according to the Pri Chadash, the main problem is not the concern that he will become engrossed in his study and forget to check for chametz, but rather that he will forfeit the essence of the mitzvah, which is [to check] immediately at the beginning of the night while there is still some light.
And so too wrote other Acharonim5 in [explaining] the view of the Taz, as the Machatzis HaShekel6 wrote: 'But from the words of the Taz, s.k. 2, it is implied that even in such a case there is a prohibition, for one must not let the beginning of the time for checking pass, and see the Pri Chadash.'
And so too wrote R' Yaakov of Lissa in Mekor Chaim7: 'Indeed, regarding that which the Magen Avraham was lenient about — one who states a matter of halacha in the shul — according to the view of the Taz, that [the mitzvah] was instituted [to be performed] at the beginning, one should be stringent.'
> Thus, we have seen that the Acharonim disagreed as to whether it is permitted to learn in a shul a fixed halacha shiur without pilpul — on the grounds that there is no concern that the study will be prolonged and he will forget the checking — or whether all study is forbidden, since one is obligated to check immediately at the beginning of the time. In the next halacha we will see the ruling of the Alter Rebbe
הערות:
1 Vol. 2, siman 79 ↩
2 Hagahos HaTur, OC siman 431, os 2 ↩
3 Ibid., s.k. 5. Cited in Chok Yaakov, s.k. 6, and so too wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, s.k. 8 ↩
4 Ibid., se'if 2 ↩
5 See Mishnah Berurah, Sha'ar HaTziyun, s.k. 7: 'And the Pri Chadash casts doubt on him — see there — on account of "lo plug," and also because in any event he is distancing [himself] from the beginning of the time, which is at the start of the night; and so it appears from the Rambam, and so is proven from the Taz and the Beis Meir. Nevertheless, one may be lenient during the half hour preceding the time' ↩
6 Ibid., s.k. 5 ↩
7 Ibid., Biurim, s.k. 2 ↩
[ט] (Halacha 1057)
Question: Is a fixed shiur permitted before bedikas chametz? (2)
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the Acharonim disagreed as to whether it is permitted to learn in a shul a fixed halacha shiur without pilpul — on the grounds that there is no concern that the study will be prolonged and he will forget the checking — or whether all study is forbidden, since one is obligated to check immediately at the beginning of the time.
The Alter Rebbe wrote1: 'And likewise, in places where there are groups that have a fixed shiur to learn practical halachos in the shul after tefillah, they should not cancel their study on this night on account of bedikas chametz, since it is possible to check afterward and the mitzvah of checking will not be entirely nullified; and there is no concern lest they be drawn on in their study until they forget the obligation of checking, for they are bound to come to their homes to sleep — for they will certainly not sleep in the shul — and when each of them comes to his home he will remember the obligation of checking. When do these words apply? When they are engaged in a matter of halacha without pilpul; but it is forbidden to engage in pilpul even in the shul, for there is concern lest he be drawn on so much in the pilpul that his mind will be preoccupied with that pilpul and he will forget the obligation of checking even when he comes to his home.'
> Thus, the Alter Rebbe ruled in halacha in accordance with the words of the Ra'anach and the Magen Avraham.
However, the Acharonim discussed that there appears to be a contradiction in his words, in that he permitted the halacha shiur in accordance with the words of the Ra'anach and the Magen Avraham, even though he ruled2 like the Pri Chadash that the time for checking is immediately at the beginning of the night while there is some light?
In Shu"t Elef HaMagen (Rubinstein)3 he wrote: 'On the contrary, in my humble and limited opinion there is wonder at the aforementioned Gaon, of blessed memory: after he expounded at length there to strengthen the foundation of the explanation of the Taz and the aforementioned Pri Chadash — that the essence of the Rabbinic enactment is at the time of the onset of night, and that once its time has passed and he has not checked, he has transgressed the enactment of our Sages, of blessed memory, and one may call him a transgressor (see there thoroughly) — now, according to this reasoning the Pri Chadash himself wrote that the ruling of the aforementioned Ra'anach does not hold, as I cited above with the help of Heaven, and that the Machatzis HaShekel and the aforementioned Mekor Chaim concurred; and so the Gaon, of blessed memory, in the Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 9, transcribed as halacha the ruling of the Ra'anach — and if so, he seemingly contradicts his own words, one against the other. And even though he added in his language, of blessed memory, that the reason is that study would be entirely nullified, whereas the checking would not be entirely nullified, for [the obligation] will in any event cling [to him] when each of them comes to his home (see there) — nevertheless, this is still not sufficient, for in truth the Magen Avraham wrote this reason at the end of s.k. 7; yet it is no proof from the Magen Avraham that he holds like the explanation of the aforementioned Taz and Pri Chadash in what they wrote, that the essence of the enactment was specifically at the beginning of the night. For with regard to the Magen Avraham, one may say that he holds that the checking is like the Krias Shema of Maariv and other mitzvos, where the choicest performance of the mitzvah is at the beginning of tzeis hakochavim, and after the fact its time is all night — but not that one would be entitled to call him a transgressor if he did not check specifically at the onset of tzeis hakochavim, on account of transgressing the enactment of Chazal. And indeed you will see that the Pri Chadash himself did not agree to this distinction in order to reconcile the view of the Ra'anach, because according to his reasoning — that the essence of the Rabbinic enactment was specifically at the onset of night — then every bitul Torah is a complete nullification, for each and every moment is an individual and specific obligation for this; and even so Chazal uprooted [it] for the sake of their enactment for Torah study. If so, the same applies to communal Torah study, [where] it is proper to cancel [it], as the Acharonim, of blessed memory, agreed. And this is clear, in my humble opinion.'
However, in Shu"t Beis Av (Yudelevitz)4 he justified the ruling of the Alter Rebbe, and wrote: 'Also, regarding the ruling of the Ra'anach — that in places where there are groups that have a fixed shiur to learn practical halachos in the shul after tefillah, he ruled that it is permitted to learn — while the Pri Chadash wrote that according to the Ra'avad and the Rambam, that the checking is at the beginning of the night, it is forbidden even in such a case, contrary to the Ra'anach. And one should wonder at the Rashaz, who upheld this approach and ruled like the Ra'anach. However, in my humble opinion, the ruling of the Rashaz, of blessed memory, is correct in this: for although the essence of the time for checking is at the beginning of the night, and it is a passing mitzvah, nevertheless, since if they do not learn now the shiur will be cancelled — for it is troublesome to gather them afterward, as [the Sages] said regarding communal tefillah — then the study too is a passing mitzvah; and where the two are equal, we say "the more frequent takes precedence," and it is proper not to cancel the shiur. And for an individual, even though he has a fixed shiur, it is forbidden to learn, since he can learn afterward — unlike [study] in a congregation, in the shul. And [regarding] the Rambam, who forbids [study in] the beis midrash, one may say that he is speaking of a case where one learns with others in his home and they will always sleep at the scholar's [home], and the like, where the shiur will not be cancelled since it is possible to learn afterward. And [this is] according to the first answer in the Kesef Mishneh, that the beis midrash teaches us [a novelty]: that one might have thought they did not decree because the multitude remind one another — and not according to the second answer in the Kesef Mishneh; and if so, the Rambam and the Ra'anach do not contradict one another, and it is well.'
And so it is explained in Tehillah LeDovid5, who wrote to explain the words of the Magen Avraham: 'And one may say that the Magen Avraham too holds that the checking is like a passing mitzvah, and therefore, when there is no other [person], the checking precedes tefillah — even though he holds that it is forbidden to learn once the time of Krias Shema has arrived. And that which he permitted the stating of halacha [is] because the stating of halacha too is a passing mitzvah, and it is comparable to those who pray with the congregation, as the Magen Avraham wrote at the end of this s.k.; and so the Rav, of blessed memory, concurred — it is all of one view.'
That is, although the time for the checking is passing, nevertheless the study of the many is also a passing mitzvah, and its law is like the Maariv tefillah of the congregation, which precedes the checking6.
> Thus, in practice, it is permitted to learn — even after tefillah — a shiur that is fixed, in practical halachos [and not in pilpul], even if the checking will be delayed.
--------------
הערות:
1 OC siman 431, se'ifim 9–10 ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch, ibid., se'if 5. [See halacha number 1050] ↩
3 Vol. 1, siman 15 ↩
4 Kama, siman 63, p. 173, s.v. gam ↩
5 Hilchos Pesach, siman 6 ↩
6 In Ta'amei HaShulchan (Ashkenazi), p. 154, he wrote to explain that the leniency to deliver the halacha shiur is on account of two factors: (a) that the study is communal, akin to tefillah with a congregation, and (b) that it is fixed every night; and because of the two reasons together he wrote that they should not cancel the study, since ultimately bedikas chametz will not be entirely nullified, unlike the study ↩
[י] (Halacha 1058)
We have learned in the previous halachos that it is forbidden to learn or to eat and the like before bedikas chametz.
Question: What is the law in a case where one began to do these things before the time — must he stop? (1)
Answer: The Tur wrote1: 'And Rabbeinu Yonah wrote that if one began to learn while it was still day, he need not stop2; but it appears to me that since the reason is so that he not become preoccupied in his study and forget to check, there is no distinction, and even if he already began, he stops.'3
And in explanation of the words of Rabbeinu Yonah, the Beis Yosef wrote: 'It appears that he derived this from the language of Abaye, who said "let him not begin" — implying that it is only forbidden that he not begin once it becomes dark, but if he began while it was still day, he is not obligated to stop once it becomes dark; for if not, [the passage] should have read thus: "this young Torah scholar who is studying, and the night of the fourteenth fell — he stops." And regarding what Rabbeinu challenged, that since the reason is so that he not become preoccupied in his study, etc. — one may say that since this matter is Rabbinic, it suffices for them to decree that he not begin at its time, but not to be stringent upon him to say that he should stop from words of Torah when it becomes dark, since he already began in a permitted manner.'
And the Bach4 wrote: 'And regarding what Rabbeinu challenged on this, one may answer5 that R' Yonah holds that if one began in a permitted manner, even regarding a Biblical [obligation] one does not stop .. and the same applies to bedikas chametz. And accordingly, the same applies to eating as well — one need not stop; and he mentioned study only because he followed the language of Abaye, who mentioned nothing but study. Nevertheless, according to what is written nearby — that regarding bedikas chametz there is greater concern lest he forget — it is possible that also regarding the matter of stopping, our teachers permitted [continuing after] beginning in a permitted manner only regarding Krias Shema, tefillah, and Kiddush, which are frequent, unlike bedikas chametz, where it is nearly certain that he will forget to check; and therefore one should stop even from study, as Rabbeinu wrote, and all the more so regarding eating. And although by strict law it appears [to be] like the words of Rabbeinu Yonah, it is proper to be concerned for the words of Rabbeinu, who is stringent; and so it is written in the gloss of the Shulchan Aruch, not like the Beis Yosef.'
> Thus, the Rishonim disagreed regarding one who began to learn before the half hour — whether he must stop or not.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote6 in accordance with the words of Rabbeinu Yonah: 'And if he began to learn while it was still day, he need not stop'.
And the Rema, in the gloss, wrote in accordance with the words of the Tur: 'And some say that he must stop, and so it appears to me to be the primary [view]'. And the Levush explained7: 'For Chazal made a reinforcement for their words'8.
However, regarding the view of Rabbeinu Yonah and the Mechaber, the Taz wrote9: 'And it appears to me that Rabbeinu Yonah too permitted in this case only where he has a fixed shiur, since there is at least a set limit, but there is [only] a concern of being distant from his coming [home] — [in such a case] the Sages did not decree, so long as he began in a permitted manner before the time for a person to come to his home; but without a fixed shiur, he concedes to the Tur that he must stop, as [I] wrote regarding the Maariv tefillah nearby. But regarding eating, it is obvious that he must stop even according to this view, for the reason we mentioned, that eating has no fixed [limit].'10.
And the Magen Avraham11 wrote: '"And if he began to learn" — this implies that regarding an optional matter, all agree that he stops.'12.
However, the Chok Yaakov13 disagreed and wrote: 'For specifically regarding study is there greater concern, since there is no end or conclusion to the study of our Torah, and it is fitting to fulfill "והגית בו יומם ולילה" ("and you shall meditate upon it day and night"); therefore it is fitting to be more concerned lest he be drawn on for a long time, and even if he began, he stops according to the view of the Tur — for after all, he will ultimately interrupt his study so as not to let the time of tefillah or his checking pass. This is unlike labor and the like: since there is an end and conclusion to all [such] matters, even if it takes some time, the Sages did not burden him to stop in the middle on account of the concern lest he be drawn on, for perhaps he will finish and afterward pray, since there is time to pray, as is explained above, siman 232.'
And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote14: 'The view of all the Acharonim is that the same applies [if] he began to eat or [do] labor. And the Chok Yaakov expounded at length and distinguished [that this applies] specifically regarding study — since there is no end to Torah, we are concerned lest he be drawn on — but regarding labor and eating one does not stop. And in my humble opinion, one should be stringent like the aforementioned Acharonim. Moreover, it is a wonder, for in the Talmud only the prohibition of study is mentioned. And the Agudah15, the Maggid16, the Kolbo17, and other poskim wrote that we derive the prohibition of eating and other matters a fortiori from study. And it is possible that they hold that le'chatchilah study takes precedence, but for stopping, eating and labor take precedence — and this is forced. And it is still difficult: from where do we derive one from the other?'
However, regarding one who began studying or [doing] labor after tzeis hakochavim arrived, the Magen Avraham wrote18: 'This implies that if he began at night in a prohibited [time], all agree that he stops, for bedikas chametz is Biblical as long as he has not performed bitul19, and it is established that regarding a Biblical matter one stops, as written in siman 235; see the Ra'anach, vol. 1, siman 48.'
However, the Pri Chadash20 wrote: 'And accordingly it appears that even if he began during the prohibited [time], he need not stop, and that which Rabbeinu Yonah stated "that he began to learn while it was still day" — which implies that if he began to learn once it became dark, he stops — is not [so]; for the same applies even if he began during the prohibited [time], and he spoke of the usual case, for it is not the way of a young Torah scholar to begin during a prohibited [time]. Alternatively, it is possible that Rabbeinu Yonah holds as written above in the name of the Ra'avad, that the essence of the checking must be done with daylight, and if so, study is forbidden even a little while it is still day ..'.
> Thus, we have seen that the Rishonim and the authors of the Shulchan Aruch disagreed as to whether a person who began in a permitted manner must stop. The Taz wrote that even according to the view of Rabbeinu Yonah and the Mechaber, who wrote that he need not stop, this is only regarding a fixed shiur; and the Magen Avraham wrote that even according to their approach, regarding an optional matter he must stop. And according to the view of the Chok Yaakov, even according to the view of the Tur and the Rema, he stops only from study, but from other matters he need not stop. The Magen Avraham further wrote that one who began one of these activities after tzeis hakochavim — all agree that he stops, and the Pri Chadash disagrees. In the next halacha we will see further details on this and the approach of the Alter Rebbe
--------------
הערות:
1 OC siman 431 ↩
2 And see the Kenesses HaGedolah, Hagahos HaTur, OC siman 431, os 3, who cited from the Ra'anach, vol. 1, siman 48, who was in doubt: 'It is possible that even [if] he began during the prohibited [time], after the time for checking, he need not stop; and it is possible that, because bedikas chametz is a mitzvah, [then] if he began during the prohibited [time], he stops' ↩
3 And see what the Derishah wrote there, os 3; and the Taz there, s.k. 4 ↩
4 Ibid., os 5 ↩
5 And see the Magen Avraham there, s.k. 8 ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch, OC siman 431, se'if 2 ↩
7 Ibid., se'if 2 ↩
8 See the Eliyah Rabbah there, s.k. 9 ↩
9 Ibid., s.k. 3 ↩
10 But in Nahar Shalom (there, s.k. 4) he wrote: 'And in my humble opinion it appears that although the language of the Tur is "and even if he has a fixed time to learn, he should not learn," and upon this he wrote the view of Rabbeinu Yonah that if he began to learn while it was still day he need not stop — nevertheless, the view of Rabbeinu Yonah is not to stop even if he is engaged in something for which he has no fixed shiur, and so it is implied from the language of the Shulchan Aruch' ↩
11 Ibid., s.k. 6 ↩
12 See the wonder raised by the Bigdei Yesha there. But the Machatzis HaShekel wrote to explain: 'Since he opened with labor, eating, and study — all of which are forbidden — and concluded with study alone, in that it teaches "and if he began to learn, etc.," and left out eating and labor, [it must be] that perforce, regarding an optional matter he stops' ↩
13 Ibid., s.k. 8 ↩
14 Ibid., s.k. 9 ↩
15 Pesachim, siman 3 ↩
16 Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah, ch. 2, halacha 3 ↩
17 Siman 48 ↩
18 Ibid., s.k. 7 ↩
19 See what is written in Mor U'Ketziah. And see the doubt raised by the Machatzis HaShekel ↩
20 OC, ibid., se'if 2 ↩
[יא] (Halacha 1059)
The law regarding one who began in a permitted manner (2)
We saw in the previous halacha that the Rishonim and the authors of the Shulchan Aruch disagreed as to the law regarding one who began in a permitted manner, as well as the dispute of the poskim as to whether, according to the poskim who [hold] one must stop, this applies only to study or also to other matters.
Question: According to the poskim who [hold] that even when one began to learn before the time he must stop — does this also apply in a case where he began before the half hour preceding the time for checking?
Answer: The Magen Avraham wrote1: 'And to me it appears that what is written, "and if he began while it was still day," refers to the half hour close to evening, where he began during the prohibited [time], and therefore he must stop; but the Rav Beis Yosef holds that he need not stop, for he holds that it is not Biblical, since the time for biur chametz has not yet arrived.'
But the Chok Yaakov2 disagreed with him and wrote: '"To learn while it is still day" — that is, he began in a permitted manner, as the Beis Yosef wrote (and not like the Magen Avraham, s.k. 8, who wrote that it refers to beginning during the prohibited [time], that is, the half hour before night; and these words are rejected, as written above, s.k. 5 — see there).'
And as halacha the Alter Rebbe wrote3: 'And even if he was engaged in one of all these matters4 before the time for checking arrived, he is obligated to stop when its time arrives — even if he was engaged in a permitted manner, that is, that he began to be engaged before the half hour preceding tzeis hakochavim, and even if he is engaged in Torah study; for if he does not stop to check immediately at the onset of the night, even though he will check afterward, he thereby nullifies the enactment of the Sages, who enacted to check at tzeis hakochavim immediately, while there is still a little daylight.'
And in the Kuntres Acharon5 the Alter Rebbe explained these matters:
(a) The basis of the law — why in truth, even in a case where he began in a permitted manner, he must stop, whether [it is] Torah study or optional matters [and not like the words of the Chok Yaakov, who wrote that regarding optional matters he need not stop]: 'Rather, it is certain that all the mitzvos which have a set time according to the Torah or according to the Sages — such as tefillah, corresponding to the tamid offerings — since the end of the time for their performance has a fixed time, such as midday for the morning tefillah [and] tzeis hakochavim for the Minchah tefillah, there is no need to set a time for the beginning of their performance, that they be performed specifically at the beginning of their time; for since the end of their performance has a fixed time, they will not come to be negligent. But bedikas chametz, for which it is impossible to set a time for its end — since one is obligated to check until the end of Pesach, as will be explained in siman 435 — therefore they needed to institute a fixed time for its beginning, that is, that all of Israel are obligated to begin the checking at a known time. And since the checking has no time of its own, as [there is] with tefillah and Krias Shema, the Sages instituted a time for it, namely, advancing [it to] the time of the zealous, according to the initial reasoning. And since they set a time, then one who does not check at the beginning of this time is not called lazy, but is called a transgressor who has transgressed the decree of the Sages; and this is the law and this is the reason according to the conclusion. And for this reason, if he began in a permitted manner he also stops, as the Pri Chadash wrote. And there is no distinction between study and other matters, and so is the view of the Bach, the Magen Avraham, and the Olas Shabbos, not to distinguish between them; and so it is explicitly in the Taz, not like the Chok Yaakov. And according to his words, it would not have been proper to forbid one who has a shiur and a set limit from learning one chapter, since it is comparable to labor and other matters that have an end, and [regarding which] they did not burden him to stop in the middle, for perhaps he will finish and afterward check, as explained in his words — see there; but this is an individual opinion, and the opposite of this is explained in all the Acharonim. And in the Gemara, where we say "lest it draw him on," etc., it implies that he has a fixed shiur and we are concerned "lest," etc., as Rashi explained. And one cannot say that we are concerned about being drawn on specifically regarding study — [for] if so, how did the Maggid Mishneh and the Beis Yosef write that the prohibition of eating comes a fortiori from study? See there.'
(b) Later in the Kuntres Acharon, the Alter Rebbe explains his ruling here in the halacha regarding the additional dispute between the Magen Avraham and the Chok Yaakov, and this is his language: 'And see the Magen Avraham, who distinguishes between before the half hour, etc.; and the Chok Yaakov disagrees with him, and so is implied [by] the language of the Tur6, the Shulchan Aruch, the Rema, the Levush, the Bach, the Olas Shabbos, the Pri Chadash, and the Taz — look carefully in their words and you will find it explained as the Chok Yaakov wrote, and so it is explicitly in the Taz at the end of siman 652 — see there (and further, that in siman 235, se'if 2, it is implied that within the half hour it is called "he began in a permitted manner," not like the implication of the Ran there) and so is the primary [ruling]'.
> Thus, according to the approach of the Alter Rebbe, even one who began to study Torah or [do] other matters even before the half hour preceding tzeis hakochavim must stop when the time for checking arrives.
הערות:
1 Siman 431, s.k. 8 ↩
2 Ibid., s.k. 8 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch, siman 431, se'if 6 ↩
4 In the manuscript of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch it is written: 'And all the more so regarding other matters that the Sages forbade — if he began, even in a permitted manner, he stops' ↩
5 S.k. 1 ↩
6 And see what is written there in the gloss regarding the view of the Tur ↩
[יב] (Halacha 1060)
Question: Is it effective to appoint a watcher in order to study Torah?
Answer: In Nachalas Tzvi he wrote1: 'And it appears to me, in my humble opinion, that if one told his fellow to remind him of the checking when it becomes dark, he is permitted to learn, just as the Sages permitted learning on Shabbos night beside a candle if one says to his fellow, "Pay attention to me, that I not tilt [it]," as above, siman 275.'
And the Ateres Zekeinim cited it2: 'And in any event it appears to me that if one told his fellow to remind him of the checking when it becomes dark, he is permitted to learn, just as the Sages permitted learning on Shabbos night beside the candle if one says to his fellow, "Pay attention to me, that I not tilt [it]"; and so wrote [the Nachalas Tzvi].'
And so too wrote the Eliyah Rabbah3: 'The Nachalas Tzvi wrote: it appears to me that if one told his fellow to remind him of the checking when it becomes dark, he is permitted to learn.'
And the Alter Rebbe wrote4: 'If he is sitting and learning before tzeis hakochavim and tells his fellow who is not learning5 that when the time for checking arrives he should remind him and stop him from his study6, this is permitted even if it is within the half hour before tzeis hakochavim.'
> Thus, in practice, it is permitted to appoint a watcher for the sake of study until tzeis hakochavim, on the condition that his fellow is not himself learning
Question: Is it effective to appoint a watcher for the sake of eating or labor?
Answer: The Alter Rebbe wrote in the Kuntres Acharon7: 'In the Eliyah Zuta he transcribed "it is permitted to learn," implying that for an optional matter it is not effective, and so it is in the Magen Avraham, siman 2758, according to one answer. And see there in the Taz9, and one must distinguish10 between this and that which we say in the second chapter of Sukkah11, that it is not effective [for] one to entrust his sleep to others, because "your surety needs a surety."'
> From the plain meaning of the Alter Rebbe's words here, it appears at first glance that he ruled stringently, that one should not permit a watcher for the sake of an optional matter12
However, the Acharonim discussed that, if so, this contradicts the words of the Alter Rebbe in Hilchos Shabbos13, where he ruled like the Taz that a watcher is effective even for an optional matter: 'And likewise, if he is delousing his garments and she watches him so that he will not tilt [the candle], this is permitted; but if she, or another, is also delousing along with him, it is forbidden — for each one is examining in a different place, and each one is preoccupied with his examination and does not pay attention to his fellow's action.'
Therefore, some have written14 to explain that the intent of the Alter Rebbe as well, in the second part of the Kuntres Acharon, when he wrote 'and see there in the Taz,' is to indicate that although the Magen Avraham was stringent, the Taz is lenient, and that the Alter Rebbe himself ruled thus; and if so, the primary [ruling] is to be lenient, that even for an optional matter a watcher is effective.
[And some have written15 that this is also proven from the words of the Tzemach Tzedek16, who was asked regarding a person who plans to sell his house on the fourteenth of Nissan to a non-Jew — whether he must check on the night of the thirteenth lest he forget to sell — and who wrote there, in the course of his words: '.. all the more so here, since the matter of the sale has already begun from the thirteenth, [in] speaking with the non-Jew; if so, this non-Jew will remind him, for his own benefit, in order to profit, etc. And regarding two, we are not concerned about forgetting, as my grandfather, of blessed memory, wrote at the end of siman 431 ..'].
> Thus, in practice — le'chatchilah one should not rely on a watcher regarding eating, labor, and other matters17, unless in a case of need, in which case he may rely on those who hold that according to the view of the Alter Rebbe a watcher is permitted even for optional matters during the half hour preceding tzeis hakochavim.
--------------
הערות:
1 Shulchan Aruch, OC siman 431, s.k. 1 ↩
2 Ibid., s.k. 1 ↩
3 Ibid., s.k. 8, and in the Eliyah Zuta, s.k. 5 ↩
4 Ibid., se'if 11 ↩
5 In the source references it is written: 'See siman 275,' and there in se'if 4 the Alter Rebbe wrote: 'One who wishes to read and says to another who is with him, who is not reading, "Pay attention to me, that I not tilt the candle" — this is permitted to read ..' ↩
6 See Darkei HaShulchan (Blinov), siman 5 (and Pa'amei Yaakov 4, p. 13), and Ta'amei HaShulchan, p. 156, note 184, os 2, who discussed whether what is written, 'and stop him from his study,' is [merely] giving a reason why a watcher is effective, or whether there is a condition here that the watcher must actually approach him and stop him — and accordingly it is possible that an alarm clock would not help; but many wrote that an alarm clock too constitutes a watcher, and in Yeshuos Chochmah, siman 70, se'if 2, he wrote that, on the contrary, there is an advantage in this, that there is no concern of forgetting in it) ↩
7 S.k. 2 ↩
8 For the Mechaber, OC siman 275, se'ifim 1–2, wrote: 'One does not delouse (that is, to remove the lice from the garments; the Targum of "בערתי הקדש" is "פליתי"), and one does not read from a book by candlelight .. lest he tilt [it] — and [this is] specifically [when] alone; but two who read together [are permitted], for if the one comes to tilt [it], his fellow will remind him.' And the Magen Avraham, s.k. 5, wrote: 'The Maharil challenged: if so, two should be permitted to ride upon an animal, for if one comes to cut a branch the other will remind him .. But according to what is written in the name of the Bach, there is no difficulty at all, for [the Sages] permitted him specifically regarding reading, *but not regarding optional matters.'* And the Pri Megadim wrote: 'See the Magen Avraham, that [regarding] optional matters even two are forbidden; and it is possible that even [if] one stands and says "pay attention," they permitted [it] only regarding reading' ↩
9 For the Taz, OC siman 275, s.k. 3, wrote: 'It implies that regarding delousing there is no distinction, for even [with] two it is forbidden — for each one who is delousing and examining for lice is examining in a different place, and it is like reading two [different] matters, unless one is delousing and the other watches him, which is certainly permitted.' And the Pri Megadim wrote: 'And see the Magen Avraham, [s.k.] 4, in the name of the Bach; one may say that they permitted [it] with two specifically for a matter of mitzvah, not for an optional [matter]. And according to the Taz, for an optional [matter] it is also permitted, only one does not delouse, since each one is examining his own.' That is, according to the view of the Taz, for an optional matter a watcher is effective, unless the two of them together are engaged in the optional matter ↩
10 Since in practice they rule there like the Taz to permit, that it is likewise permitted for an optional matter, therefore one must distinguish, etc. And see what is written to explain all this in Ta'amei HaShulchan, p. 156 onward. (And see Shu"t Beis Shlomo, OC siman 48, in the gloss from the author's son) ↩
11 26a ↩
12 And so too wrote the Yeshuos Chochmah, siman 70, se'if 2. Otzar HaHalachos, siman 431, s.k. 24 ↩
13 Siman 275, se'if 4 ↩
14 See Mishnah Shleimah (Gross), siman 30, os 3. He'oros U'Biurim Kollel Tzemach Tzedek 11, p. 54. Agurah B'Oholcha (Farkash), vol. 1, siman 15. Machon L'Shivtecha, vol. 2, siman 275, in Hilchesa Gevirta on halacha 2 (and even more than that, they wrote in the commentaries on se'if 2 that it is possible that according to the view of the Alter Rebbe in the conclusion, the Magen Avraham too held the primary [ruling] to be lenient) ↩
15 See the He'oros U'Biurim Kollel Tzemach Tzedek, and in Agurah B'Oholcha above, and in Darkei HaShulchan (Blinov), siman 6 ↩
16 OC siman 47 ↩
17 And see also in Darkei HaShulchan there, who wrote that although the primary [ruling] is like the Taz to be lenient regarding optional matters, as the Alter Rebbe ruled in Hilchos Shabbos, nevertheless the Alter Rebbe was somewhat stringent regarding bedikas chametz ↩
[יג] (Halacha 1061)
Question: What is the law regarding one who did not check for chametz on the night of bedikas chametz, with respect to Torah study and other matters?
Answer: The Magen Avraham wrote1: 'And one who did not check at night is forbidden during the day until he checks'.
However, the Pri Megadim wrote: 'And that which he wrote, "one who did not check at night is forbidden during the day" — this implies that even [if] he came from the road, and [has] a fixed shiur of one chapter, it is forbidden. But according to the Taz, [s.k.] 1 [and] 2, one may permit this, and see the Magen Avraham, os 8.'
But the Acharonim ruled like the Magen Avraham, as written in Derech HaChaim2 [and in the Mishnah Berurah3]: 'One who forgot to check at night is forbidden during the day regarding all the matters mentioned above until he checks (Magen Avraham there, s.k. 3).'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe4: 'And one who forgot and did not check on the night of the fourteenth, and remembered on the day of the fourteenth — he is forbidden regarding all these matters until he checks'5.
> Thus, the prohibition to study, to eat, or to perform labor before bedikas chametz applies also to one who did not check at all on the night of bedikas chametz, since the obligation of checking rests upon him throughout the entire festival.
Question: Do all these prohibitions apply also to the rest of the members of the household?
Answer: In Olas Shabbos he wrote6: '"And if the head of the household," etc. This too the Rosh wrote7, and it is implied from his language that if the members of the household are not standing beside him at the time he recites the bracha, he cannot send them to the rooms to check. And I do not know his reason, since this mitzvah is incumbent upon the head of the household'.
And the Alter Rebbe wrote8: 'The obligation of checking is upon the head of the household; but the members of his household who eat from what is his — the obligation of checking does not apply to them at all (unless the man is not in his home, as written in siman 436) — since the chametz is not theirs'9.
> Thus, all the safeguards we have seen that are forbidden to be done before bedikas chametz apply only to one upon whom the obligation of checking rests, and not to the rest of the members of the household.
Question: A person who appointed an agent to check on his behalf — do the restrictions still apply to him?
Answer: It is written in the Maharil10 [cited in Mateh Moshe11]: 'And he said that one is not permitted to dine on the night before bedikas chametz. And thus, when it occurs so, there are firstborns who must check many rooms and upper chambers in a large mansion, and they are distressed on account of the fast, for they must check the chametz that same night. And Mahar"i [Segal] said .. however, he concluded his words and said that he does not rely upon himself [in this], but if it is distressing to him, he provides someone to check on his behalf, or he may taste a mere tasting, in which "being drawn on" is not applicable.'
And so too wrote the Magen Avraham12: 'And if the fast is difficult for them, they may taste before they check, or they may instruct another to check (Mateh Moshe, Maharil).'
And this is the language of the Alter Rebbe13: 'If erev Pesach falls on erev Shabbos, the firstborns fast on that very day; but if it falls on Shabbos, it is deferred to the Thursday before it. And if the fast is difficult for them on Thursday — since at night one checks the chametz and one is not permitted to dine before the checking, and they have many rooms to check .. — they may instruct another to check, and they will eat'.
> Thus, one who appointed an agent to check on his behalf is permitted to study, or to eat and perform labor. In the next halacha we will see whether it is proper le'chatchilah to appoint an agent for bedikas chametz
הערות:
1 Siman 431, s.k. 3 ↩
2 Siman 115, se'if 3 ↩
3 Siman 431, s.k. 5 ↩
4 Ibid., se'if 5 ↩
5 As explained in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, siman 435, se'ifim 1–2: 'One who forgot or willfully [neglected] and did not check on the night of the fourteenth should check on the day of the fourteenth by candlelight, and recite the bracha "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the removal of chametz," and after the checking he should nullify [it] if the sixth hour has not yet arrived. [If] the entire day of the fourteenth passed and he did not check, he should check during Pesach by candlelight — that is, from the beginning of the night of the fifteenth until the end of the last Yom Tov, which is one day in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora two days — he is obligated to check (immediately at the time he remembers; see siman 431) according to all the laws of checking that were explained in siman 433' ↩
6 Siman 432, s.k. 2 ↩
7 Pesachim, ch. 1, siman 10 ↩
8 Siman 432, se'if 8 ↩
9 In the source references of the first edition it is written that the source of this law is the implication of the Rosh [there: 'And if the head of the household cannot exert himself to check all the places in the house, he should station some of the members of his household beside him at the time he recites the bracha, to check'] ↩
10 Hilchos Erev Pesach [5] ↩
11 Siman 560 ↩
12 Siman 470, s.k. 1 ↩
13 Shulchan Aruch, siman 470, se'if 7 ↩
[יד] (Halacha 1062)
In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim cited the possibility of bedikas chametz through an agent.
Question: Is it possible le'chatchilah to appoint an agent, or is this a solution only in a case of need?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1: 'And if the head of the household wishes, he should station some of the members of his household beside him at the time he recites the bracha, and they should disperse to check, each one in his place, relying on the bracha that the head of the household recited'.
And the Olas Shabbos wrote2: 'This too the Rosh wrote3, and it is implied from his language that if the members of the household are not standing beside him at the time he recites the bracha, he cannot send them to the rooms to check. And I do not know his reason, since this mitzvah is incumbent upon the head of the household — and if he has already recited the bracha, why should he not appoint an agent for the checking, for what difference is it to me whether he himself checks or his agent [does], since everywhere it is established for us that "a person's agent is like himself". And it is possible that he said [this] as [a matter of] the choicest performance of the mitzvah, but not to invalidate — for it is a mitzvah that they stand beside him and answer "amen" after his bracha; and so it is written in the Maharil'4.
It is explained from his words that regarding bedikas chametz we say "a person's agent is like himself," as with all the laws of the Torah. However, the Magen Avraham wrote5: 'And in any event, he too should check, for it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent, as stated at the beginning of the second chapter of Kiddushin; and see what is written [in] siman 431 and siman 470. And in the Gemara it is implied that there are places where they were accustomed to hire someone to check.'
And the Chok Yaakov6 wrote: '"He should station some of the members of his household" — [this] speaks of the usual case, and the same applies to another who is not of the members of his household, as stated in the Talmud that there are places where they hire someone to check. And in any event, he should assist in the matter, for it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent'.
And on this basis the Machatzis HaShekel wrote7 that this is the reason the Maharil [cited in the previous halacha] mentioned the possibility of appointing an agent only with regard to erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos — when the firstborns come to bedikas chametz after a fast and the checking is difficult for them — that is, [that] this is a leniency for a case of need: 'Even though it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent, as the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 432, s.k. 5, for firstborns they were lenient'.
> Thus, we have seen that although by strict law it is possible to appoint an agent for bedikas chametz, nevertheless, since it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent, therefore le'chatchilah he too must check, and assist'.
Question: With respect to the law of "a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself," must one endeavor to do the entire mitzvah, or does part of the mitzvah suffice?
Answer: The Pri Megadim wrote8: 'This [principle] that "it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself" means to do part of the mitzvah. And so it is implied in the Gemara, Pesachim, folio 4b, "in a place where they give wages," etc.; and [since] "a person prefers to fulfill it himself" — infer from this that once he has checked a bit, there is no longer [any application of] "it is a greater mitzvah through oneself than through one's agent," etc., as stated.'
But the Alter Rebbe9 wrote: 'But if the head of the household wishes to make the members of his household agents for a matter of mitzvah, that they should check — the option is his, and they should recite the bracha "concerning the removal of chametz." Nevertheless, it is correct that he himself should check, for so it is with all mitzvos, [that] it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent. And if he cannot exert himself to check all the rooms and all the places, he should check one room or one corner, and station some of the members of his household beside him at the time he recites the bracha over his checking, and have in mind to include them through his bracha, and they should answer "amen" after his bracha and intend to fulfill [their obligation] through his bracha, and disperse to check, each one to his place.'
From his words it is explained that le'chatchilah a person must check the entire house, and not merely participate a little as [per] the words of the Pri Megadim above; and only when he cannot exert himself may he check at least a little, and his agents will do the rest. And so it is written in Mishnas Avraham10: 'But in the Shulchan Aruch d'Bei Rav he transcribed the words of the Magen Avraham, "and if he cannot exert himself to check all the rooms" — implying somewhat that even [if] one does part of the mitzvah it is not effective, and it is a mitzvah [to do] the entire mitzvah [oneself], only [when] he cannot exert himself, etc. And accordingly, this law too depends on the dispute between the Cha"m and the Pri Megadim, on the one hand, and the Shulchan Aruch d'Bei Rav, on the other, regarding bedikas chametz.'
And in Shu"t Mor V'Oholos (Posek)111 he wrote: 'And I saw in the Pri Megadim, in the Eshel Avraham, siman 432, s.k. 5, that he brought a proof that it suffices [to perform] part of the mitzvah that one fulfills oneself, from the one who holds in Pesachim that "in a place where they pay wages" [one may hire someone] to check the chametz; and see in the Shulchan Aruch of the Gaon Maharshaz there, that [it is] only [permitted] when he cannot exert himself'12.
However, in the Alter Rebbe's Siddur he wrote: 'And he should station some of the members of his household beside him to hear the bracha, so that they may check, each one in his place; and they should not converse in the meantime, and they should be careful to check first in the room adjacent to the place where they heard the bracha, and not go to check in another room immediately after the bracha.' And he did not mention in his words the condition: 'and if he cannot exert himself'.
And the Rebbe wrote13: 'In his precision in the language of the Alter Rebbe (regarding bedikas chametz) in his Siddur: "and he should station some of the members of his household," etc. — without a condition (and see his language in the Shulchan Aruch, siman 432, se'if 8). And [the Alter Rebbe] explains that if only he checks, he will grow weary and his checking will be diminished. Now: (a) only regarding women was it said that "they are lazy"; (b) accordingly, it specifically depends on a condition — the size of the house, etc. And if you will say that the precision in the Siddur is correct (and that the language was not [merely] copied from the Shulchan Aruch, and that he did not undertake in the Siddur to copy the details of the laws), one may say the reason [is] that he holds that it is a mitzvah to grant the members of the household [a share] in this mitzvah as well, for by their checking they perform a mitzvah (see the Shulchan Aruch there, end of se'if 9), even though the obligation is not upon them. That is to say, not only oneself, but also others it is a mitzvah to grant [merit], even in the fulfillment of a mitzvah that is not an obligation of the individual. And furthermore it teaches us that since he too himself checks a little, there is in this no [application of] the matter of "it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent" (and not like the implication of the language in his Shulchan Aruch). And one may learn from this for several matters, and it teaches us much. And this is not the place [to elaborate].'14.
> Thus, in practice, although it is a greater mitzvah [to perform] through oneself than through one's agent, a person may check part [of the house] and grant the rest of the members of the household [a share] in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of checking in the rest of the house.
--------------
הערות:
1 Shulchan Aruch, OC siman 432, se'if 2 ↩
2 Ibid., s.k. 2 ↩
3 Pesachim, ch. 1, siman 10 ↩
4 And see what the Chok Yaakov wrote there, s.k. 11 ↩
5 Ibid., s.k. 5 ↩
6 Ibid., s.k. 10 ↩
7 OC siman 470, s.k. 1 ↩
8 Eshel Avraham there, s.k. 5 ↩
9 Ibid., se'if 8 ↩
10 Sha'ar Kesivas Sefer Torah, se'if 28, os 34 (cited in Sdei Chemed, Klalim, Ma'areches HaMem, os 56, s.v. mitzvah; Shu"t Divrei Chachamim, siman 44 (Sdei Chemed, Kehos edition, vol. 9, p. 1852)) ↩
11 Folio 32c ↩
12 And see what is written there to discuss the proof of the Pri Megadim, and he also distinguishes between a paid agent and an agent [acting] for free — see there ↩
13 Igros Kodesh, vol. 15, p. 157 ↩
14 For an explanation of the letter, see Shulchan HaMelech, vol. 2, pp. 38–40. And see Agurah B'Oholcha (Farkash), vol. 1, siman 15 ↩
From the project 'Shoneh Halacha' — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group