Shiur on the laws of Mezuzah and the laws of Pesach by Rabbi Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi

00:06 Speaker 1 Maybe we’ll start with—otherwise we keep coming back to the same halachos. Nowadays, from year to year, baruch Hashem, everyone already has a Pesach kitchen, and many of the questions about that have fallen away. But perhaps we’ll talk about mezuzos. I was asked about Chabad customs. We always tend to talk here about the siddur. Let’s discuss two Chabad customs. In the last few days, there have been many questions about mezuzos, so I want to explain our custom concerning them. Perhaps it’s connected to Pesach night too: when people clean the house, they also notice the mezuzos, and questions come up about whether to give the mezuzos to another Jew to put up, whether to make a bracha or not. As I went over the subject, I came upon a custom of ours that is very puzzling. Everyone knows that the Chabad custom is to put up a mezuzah according to the way the door hinges. What does that mean? It doesn’t mean what some people take it to mean—there are misunderstandings about this. It doesn’t mean which side the hinges are on, right or left. It means which way the door opens. If the door opens inward, then the entrance is inward. If it opens outward, then the entrance is outward. But where is there such a thing as an entrance outward? Who ever heard of that? An entrance is inward.

01:42 Speaker 1 So the Chabad custom is to put the mezuzah according to the direction the door swings, despite all the fuss about it. In other words, if the door opens inward, it goes on the right side as you enter; if the door opens outward, then as you enter the room it’s on your left. Why? Because that is the right side as you leave. In any case, if the door of a shul opens outward, you put the mezuzah on the left as you enter, which is the right as you leave. And that is very puzzling. Besides, there is a disagreement between the Rambam and the Rosh about whether an opening without a door requires a mezuzah. That’s why the note says that, in fact, we take both opinions into account. If an opening has no door, we put up a mezuzah without a bracha. We have a mezuzah, so we put it up without a bracha. Why? Because the Rambam and the Rosh disagree about whether an opening without a door requires a mezuzah. And so [unclear]. Chabad comes along and shows [unclear] that the door determines the entrance. That too is very, very puzzling. And what about a doorway with two doors? Besides, there’s this disagreement between the Rambam and the Rosh, so [unclear]. It can feel as though we have to do the opposite of everyone else and put the mezuzah specifically on the opposite side, as though we understand the whole matter better than anyone. But sometimes rabbis and people familiar with halacha open the door and look for the mezuzah. It isn’t there on the right. Especially in rooms in schools and yeshivos, where, under the fire-safety regulations, doors in public buildings must always open outward, so that if [unclear],

04:22 Speaker 1 people can push the door open and escape. So the door always opens outward, and there’s no mezuzah on the right as you enter the room. They look for the mezuzah: “What’s this? Wasn’t it worth putting up a mezuzah?” No—it’s on the left. So what do you say? That’s how it is. But tell me, must we be particular about this even in places that aren’t Chabad? How should we handle it? What should we do? I wanted to ask the rabbi: What, in my view, is the source of this custom? There is a disagreement between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam about the halachos of mezuzah: how should it be placed, and how should we understand the issue? The Gemara in Menachos says that a mezuzah should be like a bolt. What kind of bolt? There are two kinds. One slides down to secure the door to the floor; the other slides across from the door to its frame. You don’t see these much today, but everyone knows them from old doors. So Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam disagree about the statement that a mezuzah should be like a bolt. Which bolt? Rashi interprets it one way, and Rabbeinu Tam another. According to Rashi, the mezuzah should lie horizontally, and according to Rabbeinu Tam, it should stand upright. The disagreement isn’t only about mezuzah. It also concerns sacred articles, including tefillin. It’s the same question again: should the passages in the tefillin be upright or lying down? Our custom is to put them in upright, but according to the other opinion they should lie down. I remember that many, many years ago—fifty years ago—there was a professor, Yigael Yadin, who studied the tefillin found at Masada. I saw an article of his at the time. He didn’t know much about the halachos, and he drew his conclusions from the shape of the tefillin.

06:29 Speaker 1 But from the pictures I saw—I didn’t see the tefillin themselves—it seemed to me that the passages were lying flat, not upright. Apparently they followed the opinion that they should lie flat. As for our custom—how do we do it in shul? The same question applies to a Torah scroll: how should it stand in the aron kodesh, upright or lying down? Those who say it should be upright hold that it must stand upright; those who say it should lie down hold otherwise. There is a disagreement about it. That’s why the reading surfaces we see in shul are slanted. Why make them slanted? The later authorities write that it isn’t because that makes reading more convenient, but simply to accommodate both opinions. One says it must lie flat; the other says it must stand upright. Put it at a slant, and you’ve accommodated both opinions. I remember seeing people, when they brought a Torah scroll to the aron kodesh, try to set it at a slight angle—the same idea as with the bimah. Earlier authorities say that the practice is to make a compromise between the opinions regarding mezuzah as well. We can’t really do both, but we can put the mezuzah at an angle, as we mentioned. It’s neither fully one way nor the other; the angle makes it, in a sense, both horizontal and upright. When you think about this custom, you can tell who lives in a house by looking at its mezuzah. Among Sephardim the mezuzah is upright; among Ashkenazim it is at an angle. If you want to know whether a Sephardi or an Ashkenazi Jew lives there, you can tell from the mezuzah. If it’s upright, the residents follow

08:50 Speaker 1 the Sephardi custom of placing the mezuzah upright. Those who follow the Rema place it at an angle. What’s the difference between the two? At first glance, they’re the same thing. When a mezuzah is upright, it doesn’t point in either direction; it stands straight. When it’s angled, it has a top and a bottom that point in a particular direction. It seems to indicate a direction. Besides the passage inside the mezuzah, there is also the name Shaddai on the outside. The Rambam writes that this is an ancient custom, and the Arizal also discusses it in his siddur. According to the Zohar, the mezuzah’s protection is not only through the passage itself; the name Shaddai also protects the home. Why was this particular name chosen? The Rema, in Darkei Moshe, and the Arizal, in the Arizal’s siddur, differ on this. It says that Shaddai is an acronym for “Guardian of the dwellings of Israel”: He guards Jewish homes. In the Arizal’s siddur it says that the acronym means not “Guardian of the dwellings of Israel,” but “Guardian of the doors of Israel.” He guards a Jew’s door. So we have two explanations for why this name, Shaddai, appears on the mezuzah: is it “Guardian of the doors of Israel” or “Guardian of the dwellings of Israel”? Now let’s think about it. You say Shaddai means “Guardian of the doors of Israel.” If the door opens inward and you put the mezuzah... In other words, a Jew who follows the Rema and the Arizal, as we do in our practice and also regarding the bracha, puts the mezuzah at an angle. When he puts it at an angle,

11:08 Speaker 1 The name Shaddai is in the upper third, closer to the end. It faces a particular direction: its top is on one side and its bottom on the other. And one interpretation of Shaddai is “Guardian of the Doors of Israel.” So the top of Shaddai should always face toward the door. If the door opens inward, it makes sense that Shaddai faces the door. But if the door opens outward and you put up the mezuzah with its top facing inward, it isn’t guarding the door; it’s guarding the room, not the door. So what do we do? The mezuzah should always be... If you follow this approach, that the mezuzah is placed diagonally, and you also follow the custom of the Arizal, that Shaddai means “Guardian of the Doors of Israel,” then Shaddai must always face the door. So if the door opens outward, Shaddai should face outward. Why, then, do we not place the mezuzah on the front door facing the door, but instead face it toward the house? Because we follow... The Chabad custom is always to reconcile the two opinions rather than rule according to just one, to try to accommodate both. So at the front door, we follow the Rema’s interpretation: “Guardian of the Dwelling of Israel.” If it guards the dwelling, Shaddai should face the dwelling. It guards the entire house. With the other mezuzahs, it means “Guardian of the Doors of Israel,” so Shaddai should face the door. That, apparently, is the reason—perhaps that is the reason for our custom, which differs from everyone else’s: we follow both interpretations. Now we can understand why the Chabad practice is not connected to the disagreement between the Rambam and the Rosh. There are many disagreements between the Rambam and the Rosh. Here there is a fundamental question. We follow the Rema, and we follow the Rosh. So how can we

13:10 Speaker 1 reconcile the two? On the one hand, if you say... If the mezuzah is upright, fine; however it hangs is fine. But if you follow the Rema and say the mezuzah is diagonal, its top will face a particular direction, and you say it means “Guardian of the Doors of Israel,” then if the door opens outward, the bottom of the mezuzah is near the door while its top faces inward. So that may well be why Chabad follows this practice: it is “Guardian of the Doors of Israel,” and not... That is, it faces the direction indicated by the hinges, and not... Incidentally, this subject came to mind because there were several questions about it in recent days. There is another point I wanted to raise, also about a Chabad custom—a very puzzling custom. I’ve spoken several times about bedikas chametz. The Rebbe begins by describing the customs of the Rebbe’s household. He writes: “The custom of the Rebbe’s household: How is the chametz search conducted? Ten pieces of chametz are distributed, each wrapped in a piece of paper.” You take ten pieces, each wrapped in paper. And after searching and finding the chametz, the Rebbe writes: “The person conducting the search places the chametz he finds in a small paper bag.” He puts the chametz in a small paper bag. “At the end of the search, he places this bag, the feather, and the remains of the candle, if any, in the hollow of a wooden spoon. He wraps it all in paper, but not the handle of the spoon, which remains unwrapped.” I once asked someone: What does this mean? What is being described here? You take two paper bags. In one bag you collect the pieces of chametz. You put those pieces in the bowl of the... For the search you also take a spoon. You put them in the spoon, wrap it all there with that bag, and put the spoon, with those pieces inside the bag, into another bag, and put this chametz

15:50 Speaker 1 inside a paper spoon, leaving the handle outside. What? What is going on here? What is this? I think—the handle? How...? I wanted to offer an explanation of something very puzzling here. The Rebbe introduces a new point. He asks: Why do we put out ten pieces? Why do we put out ten pieces? The halachah is that a person must recite the blessing “al biur chametz” before the search, and even if he finds nothing in the house because the house was clean, the blessing was not in vain. That is the Alter Rebbe’s ruling: it is not a blessing in vain. Even if the house was completely clean, he still recites the blessing “al biur chametz.” Why isn’t it a blessing in vain? Because he has to search. He searched, so that’s fine. Why, then, do we put out the ten pieces? The Raavad does cite [unclear] about the search, but the Rebbe says there is also a deeper reason. He brings several reasons and then offers a novel explanation. He says: We must pay attention to this. Why do we put out the ten pieces? So that the declaration of nullification, “Any chametz that there is,” will be precise. Fine, perhaps we’ll explain that later. He also says: “So that he will not have to burn the utensil he took for the search”—so that he will not have to burn the utensil used for bedikas chametz. Before the search, we put out ten pieces and prepare a bag for them. We take that, and also a spoon. Why do we take the spoon? What is it for? The Rema writes that one should take a utensil for bedikas chametz. Why? Because if he searches and finds nothing, he can burn the spoon the next morning, in the tenth hour.

18:14 Speaker 1 He should burn the spoon. Why? So that he won’t forget the obligation to dispose of the chametz. When a Jew searches his home for chametz on the night of bedikas chametz, he usually finds nothing, because, thank G-d, the house has been cleaned. Then the next morning he has nothing to do, and he may forget altogether that he needs to burn the chametz. He may also fail to nullify it, since in the morning we both burn and nullify the chametz. To prevent him from forgetting, they told him: Take a spoon, and if you find no chametz, at least burn the spoon. Once he burns the spoon, he remembers that he needs to burn the chametz. He also remembers that he must nullify it, and won’t forget the nullification. That, the Rebbe says, is the reason. So what follows? If the point is that he shouldn’t have to burn the spoon, what did we say to do? Put out ten pieces. With ten pieces, he will always find chametz. If he finds chametz, he has something to burn, so he won’t need to burn the spoon. But if you think about what the Rebbe is saying, it’s completely incomprehensible. Why, then, does he need to take a spoon in the first place? If you put out ten pieces, you already have something to burn. And besides, what is our practice? We always burn the spoon. I generally haven’t seen... Wait, wait. The question is: Why burn the spoon? After all, there is a prohibition against waste. Just taking a spoon and burning it is wasteful. So why burn a spoon? You could put out ten pieces and burn them the next morning. What do we do? We burn both the chametz and the spoon. So don’t tell me

19:56 Speaker 1 that the Rebbe didn’t do that. I saw the Rebbe’s burning of the chametz several times. The Rebbe burned the spoon. He writes in the Haggadah that one should not have to burn the spoon, yet the Rebbe took it and burned it. So what is going on here? What is the deeper meaning? In my humble opinion, perhaps we can explain it this way: We put out the ten pieces. Shaarei Teshuvah says that one should make sure each piece is less than a kezayis. Why? Because someone might put the chametz around the house and then find only nine pieces, even though he put out ten. If each piece is less than a kezayis, the halachah says he does not transgress bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei—the prohibitions against possessing visible or discoverable chametz—over less than a kezayis. So it is preferable that no single piece be a kezayis. Then, even if one of the pieces is lost, he will not transgress bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. But on the other hand, the mitzvah to dispose of chametz requires a kezayis. If someone takes less than a kezayis of chametz and disposes of it, he does not fulfill the mitzvah of “You shall remove leaven.” That mitzvah requires a kezayis; bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei also require a kezayis. So on the one hand, we say that each piece should be less than a kezayis. But then what is he disposing of the next morning? How does he fulfill the mitzvah of removing leaven? After all, “You shall remove leaven from your homes” means disposing of chametz of a quantity that would be subject to bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. So what is he disposing of? The practice is this: Although no individual piece contains a kezayis, all the pieces together amount to a kezayis. On the one hand, if he loses one, he will not transgress bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. On the other hand, when he finds all

22:14 Speaker 1 ten pieces together, they amount to a kezayis, and he fulfills the mitzvah of removing leaven.

22:20 Speaker 2 If he loses all of them.

22:21 Speaker 1 What?

22:21 Speaker 2 If he loses a few, then there won’t be a kezayis.

22:23 Speaker 1 So what?

22:24 Speaker 2 If he loses a few.

22:25 Speaker 1 Wait, wait, wait. Even if he loses a few of them, he still won’t transgress. Why? Because the halachah says in the Gemara—it’s a discussion in Pesachim, and the Rebbe brings it in the Shulchan Aruch—that a house does not combine them. Even if he loses a few, one crumb here, one crumb there, another crumb somewhere else, the house does not combine them, so he does not transgress bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. But here there’s an even bigger problem. If you take ten pieces of bread, and the Rebbe writes that each piece should be wrapped in paper, then even if you bring them all together, they still do not combine. That’s what the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch write, right? Even with a large pile of wheat, if there is no water joining it into dough. The water binds the dough together, and it all becomes a kezayis or a kebeitzah. But pieces of bread, even if they are lying on top of each other, according to many opinions do not combine into a kezayis, because it has to be one piece. Just as we said that the house does not combine them, a pile does not combine them either. So when, the next morning, he takes those ten pieces and puts them together, he still does not fulfill the mitzvah of tashbisu, because there is no kezayis. There may be a kezayis in all of them together, but each one is in its own wrapping. What did the Rebbe do? He gave us a solution: take the pieces and put them in a bag. The bag does not combine them, because each one is separately wrapped in paper. The Rebbe says: a spoon, a wooden spoon. Put them in the bowl of a wooden spoon. In other words, it is as though they are inside the bowl. So what does the bowl do? There is a Yerushalmi cited in the kuntres: if you take the ten pieces from the search and put them in the bowl, tie them up, and lift them with the spoon,

24:43 Speaker 1 the spoon combines them. That is how it works with sacred vessels and with offerings, and that is how it works here with chametz as well. This is the meaning of the Rebbe’s words when he says to leave the handle outside. Once the handle is outside and you hold the ten pieces by means of the handle, that means you have them there in the bowl—and you press the pieces firmly into the bowl—so the result is that you have a kezayis.

25:13 Speaker 4 They’re not actually inside the bowl.

25:14 Speaker 1 It doesn’t matter. They are pressed firmly into the bowl, and the main thing is that you can lift them with the spoon. So that is what the halachah says: they are considered to be in the vessel, and the vessel combines them.

25:27 Speaker 4 Combines what?

25:28 Speaker 1 How?

25:28 Speaker 4 No, that is how it combines them.

25:30 Speaker 1 How? How? Take them out of the paper? Take them out of the paper. Apparently, they did not want to risk taking them out of the paper, because perhaps—why do we put them in paper? So they won’t crumble. If you now start taking them out, they’ll crumble. Perhaps crumbs will fall in the house. So they said: the Rebbe is precise in saying that one puts out pieces of chametz and wraps each one in paper, because the concern throughout is that even a single crumb might fall. This is the meaning of the custom of the Rebbe’s household: how to fulfill the mitzvah of tashbisu properly, how to destroy a kezayis of chametz. On the one hand, none of the individual pieces is a kezayis, and each is wrapped in paper. On the other hand, you lift them by means of the vessel. Now we can understand what the Rebbe said here: Why do we need to put out pieces of bread? So that we won’t have to burn a utensil? But what do we do? We take the utensil and burn it. Certainly—the Rebbe cited what the Raavad says, that you need to put out pieces of bread, because if you don’t and you find no chametz, you’ll have to take a utensil and burn it for no purpose. Here, when we burn the utensil, it’s not, not because... because... so you won’t forget. The utensil here makes the whole mitzvah of tashbisu possible. The utensil combines all the pieces into a kezayis, enabling us to fulfill the mitzvah of destroying chametz properly. There is no issue here of bal tashchis. That is because the whole manner of destroying the chametz is through the utensil. Burning a utensil on its own, without pieces of chametz, is certainly bal tashchis. But when you take this utensil and use it to combine them all, that issue does not arise. In any event, these are a few points that one could expand on further.

27:35 Speaker 1 But no, no. I’ve received quite a few questions on this subject. If anyone wants to comment, there’s room for questions here. But there’s something we already need to know: next year will be a Shemitah year, if Hashem wills. In any event, the Shemitah year only begins on Rosh Hashanah, if Hashem wills. But there are things we already need to know this summer. Those who want to plant trees or grapevines need to plant them before 15 Shvat. What? 15 Menachem Av. Before 15 Menachem Av, because afterward there will be a problem counting this year toward them. They should get everything planted in the ground before 15 Menachem Av. As for Shemitah itself, we’ll deal with that when the time comes. This year is also a year of maaser ani. So those who have their own wine should remember to separate terumos and maasros, including maaser ani. It is also worthwhile to separate maaser sheini because of the doubt: the grapes are from the previous year, and there is also the question of when they began to ferment—before 15 Shvat or after 15 Shvat. So because of the doubt, it is worthwhile to separate both maasros, maaser sheini and maaser ani. Those who have produce that is definitely tevel should make an effort—since this is wine from Eretz Yisroel—to avoid a problem with setting aside the tenth and giving it to a poor person before Pesach. You do not have to give the wine itself; you can also redeem it and give its value in money, if it is definitely tevel. If it is not definitely tevel, then there is a doubt concerning... We always remind those who travel before Pesach and will be away for all of Pesach: try, more or less, to clean one room and perform bedikas chametz on the night before you leave. If you leave before

30:11 Speaker 1 the night of the 14th, you need to check the house—that room—without a brachah, and take along the chametz you find and destroy it on the morning of Erev Pesach. It is worthwhile, wherever you are staying, to be present when the head of the household—the father or father-in-law—checks for chametz. Have in mind to fulfill your obligation through the brachah he makes over removing chametz, and help him with the search as well. That way you fulfill your obligation regarding the brachah too. Then, when you destroy your own chametz in the morning, you won’t have to get into the question of whether you should make a brachah over its removal, whether you should make a brachah over the removal or not—huh?

30:58 Speaker 5 Let’s say I’m going alone to the house. Does he check with you, or does he—

31:03 Speaker 1 Why?

31:04 Speaker 5 Do you only have to check a particular area of the room?

31:06 Speaker 1 You need to take a room and check it. That’s what—

31:08 Speaker 6 No, not a room.

31:11 Speaker 1 People who leave their home and let someone else use it—someone takes over their home for a gathering, or they bring in a guest, or someone comes to stay there for Pesach—then it is also worthwhile... In that case, the whole house needs to be checked. Even if the owner leaves before Pesach and the guest arrives on Erev Pesach, there will be a problem because the house has not been checked. The question is how the guest can stay there on Pesach. So either the owner should check it, or the guest should come and check it on the night of bedikas chametz. I wanted to... Every year people are careful, but especially for Pesach, people observe great hiddurim. One of the greatest hiddurim is not to use hot water in the sink on Pesach, even for those who have a Pesach kitchen. If you use a hot-water tank during Pesach, there is a serious problem with the tank: if it is considered chametz on Pesach, it is considered a chametz utensil on Pesach. It isn’t treated like an ordinary utensil during the year. Boiling water is poured over chametz with it. So it may well be that during Pesach itself you cannot use that hot water. You can use cold water; and after Pesach you can use hot water to wash the dishes, or even before Pesach to wash the dishes. But using the hot water during Pesach is not just a matter of hiddur; it raises real questions. First of all, there is a question beyond hiddur concerning this use of hot water. I’m speaking, of course, only about hot water in the kitchen, not for bathing. There is no problem bathing in such hot water, but there is with using it for dishes or food. What? What?

33:18 Speaker 7 A Pesach kitchen?

33:19 Speaker 1 That’s what I’m saying: even in a Pesach kitchen, the hot-water boiler is a separate issue. The advantage of a Pesach kitchen is this: suppose you have boiling-hot food. If it isn’t a Pesach kitchen and you’ve only put a basin inside the sink, you may not even pour from the hot pot into that sink, despite the basin, because the sink underneath is a chametz sink. When you pour from the pot into it, the pot itself may absorb something. That’s the advantage of a Pesach kitchen: if the kitchen is designated for Pesach, you can pour even hot food into the sink. But using the hot-water boiler is another question, another problem.

34:16 Speaker 7 Not the worm.

34:17 Speaker 1 What?

34:17 Speaker 7 They don’t feed...

34:18 Speaker 1 On Pesach, [unclear].

34:19 Speaker 7 You can see a worm.

34:20 Speaker 1 You can’t see a worm. Even [unclear], even a separate rope now has some sort of [unclear], because on Pesach [unclear].

34:29 Speaker 7 What does that have to do with the boiler?

34:31 Speaker 1 What?

34:31 Speaker 7 What does that have to do with the boiler?

34:32 Speaker 1 What?

34:33 Speaker 7 What does that have to do with the boiler?

34:35 Speaker 1 With the boiler, the question is that its water has been poured over chametz.

34:43 Speaker 7 That’s...

34:44 Speaker 1 So the... The Shulchan Aruch says in siman 451 that the custom is not to use utensils over which hot water was poured during the year in connection with chametz. That is the prevailing custom, and [unclear].

35:05 Speaker 7 But where was anything poured onto the boiler?

35:07 Speaker 1 From the boiler. You opened the hot-water tap and poured hot water into pots, or into a pot there.

35:18 Speaker 7 [unclear].

35:19 Speaker 1 What?

35:19 Speaker 7 And now [unclear].

35:21 Speaker 1 Well, what am I...

35:22 Speaker 7 So perhaps even the water from the Kinneret [unclear].

35:26 Speaker 1 [unclear] the clear water, and really—what?

35:32 Speaker 7 In the room.

35:32 Speaker 1 No, I’m talking about what happened throughout the year. What about on Pesach? If we’ve reached the issue of [unclear], then on Pesach you cannot use it. What could you use it for? In fact, abroad, in America or Russia, the question is even greater, because there it happens during Pesach itself. It’s a municipal water system, and at the same time people are pouring water over chametz in non-Jewish homes. That isn’t like the practice here. There, the concern is for even a minute amount. Imagine there’s a huge boiler, yes? And at that very moment a non-Jew pours water over chametz. On Pesach, even a minute amount from a great sea can prohibit it.

36:37 Speaker 8 What about [unclear]? Not just chametz.

36:39 Speaker 1 What?

36:40 Speaker 8 Abroad.

36:41 Speaker 1 On Pesach, there’s normally the rule of nullification in sixty. So what is the stringency on Pesach? Even a minute amount: if there were a sack of bread in the Kinneret, you couldn’t drink water from the Kinneret throughout Pesach. After Pesach you may, and before Pesach you may; it doesn’t prohibit it then. But during Pesach you may not drink it. The basis for permitting it here, thank G-d—and I hope this will be broadcast—is that for Pesach we receive water from the cisterns, from the wells. And even if it isn’t well water, some cities receive water from the National Water Carrier, but they aren’t directly connected to it. The water passes through reservoirs, from one reservoir to another, so it’s quite possible that during Pesach that water is not connected to the Kinneret. But if it is connected, there really is a problem. There were also several questions here about babies. Yes, there was a question about babies. I’ve spoken about this several times, after someone challenged me on it, but I’ll say what I know. For babies, which is preferable: to give them kitniyos or to give them gebrokts? I think kitniyos are preferable to gebrokts. Of course, I mean kitniyos with a good hechsher, where there is no concern about chametz. That would seem to follow, because according to halachah the concern with gebrokts is an actual concern about chametz. That is what the Alter Rebbe writes in his responsum: in later generations, once people began hurrying the baking of matzos and working the dough as quickly as possible, they no longer

40:08 Speaker 1 spent much time rolling out the dough. Flour could therefore remain in the dough. If flour remains in the dough and then comes into contact with water, there is a dispute between the Taz and the Magen Avraham: can flour that has passed through the oven become chametz or not? The Alter Rebbe is stringent and holds that it can. Some say that once flour has passed through the oven, it has been roasted, and even if it is subsequently mixed with water, it can never become chametz. But the Alter Rebbe says that even roasted flour can present a concern of chametz. If there is a concern of chametz, then when it comes into contact with water there is a concern that it will leaven. That is the basis of our stringency regarding gebrokts. Besides, matzos were generally made with the dough worked properly, but since this is a matter involving a concern of leavening, people were careful about it until the very end. So I think that with kneidlach, the stringency is a decree lest people come to use [unclear]: if matzah meal for kneidlach were permitted, people would come to make other things with matzah meal as well. But here there is already a concern of leavening. Others said it is worse. In any event, that is what I know. Any questions?

41:31 Speaker 9 Questions.

41:34 Speaker 1 What?

41:35 Speaker 10 Why do they do it that way in Kfar Chabad?

41:38 Speaker 1 What I’m saying is that they roll it out with the metal rollers—

41:40 Speaker 10 They roll it out too much.

41:41 Speaker 1 So what?

41:42 Speaker 10 They roll it out too much.

41:44 Speaker 1 I’m not here to advertise the matzos from Kfar Chabad. I’m only saying that if there is...

41:53 Speaker 9 Regarding machine-made matzos, what exactly is the truth? Is there a real concern of chametz because the dough gets caught around the pins? Is that chametz?

42:04 Speaker 1 There can be a situation—

42:04 Speaker 9 —where it is chametz. I don’t mean to defend the machine, but the halachic question is whether there is actual chametz in the matzos.

42:12 Speaker 1 Of course, today’s machines are not the machines of the past. In the past there was a greater concern about chametz, because they couldn’t be cleaned as thoroughly as they can today. But machine-made matzah has the problem of being made lishmah, for the sake of the mitzvah, so you cannot fulfill your obligation with it as matzas mitzvah, though some are lenient even on that point. Beyond that, our custom is to insist specifically on hand work—and hand work means from beginning to end. Now that all sorts of tools have been invented to help work the dough more efficiently, that is not the hand work handed down through the generations.

42:55 Speaker 9 Until what age does one need to be careful?

42:57 Speaker 1 Huh? A child who can’t eat matzah, who eats [unclear]. If a child needs to eat [unclear], you take care.

43:05 Speaker 9 What does “needs to” mean? If he’s used to eating it?

43:08 Speaker 1 All right. What did you ask?

43:10 Speaker 9 Fixed braces in the mouth.

43:13 Speaker 1 What?

43:13 Speaker 9 Fixed braces in the mouth—what should one do?

43:16 Speaker 1 Fixed braces in the mouth. Here’s the answer: if they are completely fixed and are never removed, thoroughly cleaning them with water before Pesach is enough. Still, there is an opinion that one should be stringent. So the advice is not to eat hot chametz for twenty-four hours before Pesach, and to clean the teeth well on the morning of Erev Pesach. Then any absorbed taste becomes impaired. Although many are stringent on Pesach even about an impaired taste, we rely on the opinion that the braces absorb nothing at all, because they are attached to the body. But removable dental appliances do need to be kashered. And the twenty-four hours before Pesach mean before the Seder night; it isn’t enough to start counting from the sixth hour on Erev Pesach. You have to begin beforehand—that is, from Monday afternoon, don’t eat hot chametz. Afterward, kasher them; you can even kasher them on Pesach itself, after six. [unclear] When do they begin the... Huh? Sorry, Sunday.

44:26 Speaker 9 Why doesn’t something attached to the body absorb?

44:27 Speaker 1 What?

44:28 Speaker 9 When it’s attached to the body, it doesn’t absorb.

44:30 Speaker 1 The principle is that something attached to a living body does not absorb. There was an incident in which a raven fell into a boiling pot, raising a question about the pot. Rabbi Chatzroni ruled that it was kosher and there was no problem, because a living creature doesn’t absorb. How it stayed alive in there, I don’t know, but anyway.

44:58 Speaker 9 A marble countertop, a boiling pot.

44:59 Speaker 1 Huh?

44:59 Speaker 9 The marble countertop—with a barrier, with partitions—the countertop.

45:02 Speaker 1 The marble countertop: if you cover it thoroughly. But the main thing is to make sure that if something spills on Pesach onto the wall or the countertop, it won’t seep between the—

45:14 Speaker 9 Regarding paper.

45:14 Speaker 1 Yes, but if you cover it well, why worry that moisture will get through? Because the countertop itself has absorbed chametz, and sometimes you put a hot dish on it. As we said earlier, on Pesach even a second vessel, even pouring from a second vessel, even pouring from a fifth vessel, can cause absorbed taste to come out and be absorbed. What’s the reason? Why are we so strict on Pesach? Because the Sages were strict about even the slightest amount of chametz. Throughout the rest of the year, we have a rule that it is nullified in sixty times its volume. We also have rules: pouring from a first vessel causes taste to come out and be absorbed; with a second vessel, there’s a disagreement about whether it does. But all that is when the slightest amount is not an issue. When even the slightest amount is a concern, as we said earlier, if even a tiny bit of a loaf of bread were in the Kinneret, you couldn’t drink water from the entire Kinneret on Pesach. Why? Because there’s no minimum measure for “the slightest amount,” as the Alter Rebbe says. That is why we’re also so strict about pouring and about a second vessel and pouring from a second vessel during Pesach. Listen, “during Pesach” means from nightfall, when the stars come out—not from the sixth hour. From the sixth hour it is already forbidden to eat chametz, but all these stringencies concerning the slightest amount begin only at night, not at the sixth hour. At the sixth hour, there are rules about sixty times the volume, about a taste that imparts a bad flavor, and other rules about when something does or doesn’t render food forbidden. But during Pesach, everything is forbidden. A taste that imparts a bad flavor: throughout the year, we know that a vessel that hasn’t been used that day does not render food forbidden. Why? Because it imparts a bad flavor. On Pesach, Rav Huna comes and says that the custom is to be strict even about a taste that imparts a bad flavor. Why? Because of the concern over the slightest amount. It could be that, within the taste that imparts a bad flavor, some tiny amount does not impart a bad flavor.

47:09 Speaker 11 Do chametz utensils need to be sold?

47:11 Speaker 1 What?

47:13 Speaker 11 Chametz utensils used throughout the year.

47:14 Speaker 1 Chametz utensils don’t need to be sold. There’s an explicit discussion of this in the Shulchan Aruch, but as far as I know, chametz utensils are not sold. Why? If a person is already accustomed to scraping, washing, and scrubbing the utensils thoroughly, we can certainly see that they’re clean. There’s nothing there. The rule that utensils are not sold applies only when they are clean. Once the utensils aren’t clean, they can be sold. That is how it appears from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch: they are sold. When a utensil isn’t clean, the chametz on it is sold along with the utensil. Chametz absorbed in a utensil doesn’t need to be sold. Absorbed chametz does not violate the prohibitions of owning chametz on Pesach. Why do we sell chametz? So that we won’t violate those prohibitions. They apply to actual chametz, not to taste absorbed in a utensil. But if there is chametz stuck to the utensil, then one does violate the prohibition, so it is sold. But once you sell it, that raises another issue.

48:22 Speaker 11 Actual chametz.

48:23 Speaker 1 Huh?

48:23 Speaker 11 You don’t violate the prohibition of owning chametz.

48:25 Speaker 1 You don’t violate it on a Torah level. But you do violate a rabbinic prohibition, so it also needs to be removed. So it’s covered up now for the seven days, and you don’t eat it. But they also said to sell it. So how do you sell the—the thing? It sounds as though the chametz utensils have chametz in them that is subject to the prohibition of owning chametz. From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, it sounds as though they are sold. So why do we clean the utensil? Because if you sell it, there’s the issue of immersing it after Pesach. So you have to put it away, and that’s why we clean it. You don’t need to sell the utensils. What do you need to do? Put them away. They need to be shut in a separate cabinet so that no one comes to use them, as the Gemara in Pesachim says. Go back over section 451: they need to be kept separate so no one comes to use them. But they don’t need to be sold. They certainly aren’t sold.

49:25 Speaker 11 What about cookies that were made seven days after Pesach?

49:32 Speaker 1 Well, what about them?

49:33 Speaker 11 Well, then you can’t—

49:36 Speaker 1 If they were sitting there, that’s what you’re asking about.

49:39 Speaker 3 What about stocks?

49:41 Speaker 1 Huh?

49:42 Speaker 3 Stocks.

49:43 Speaker 1 Stocks, um… Some people include them in the sale document. That is, the sale document I write also mentions stocks. But as for the people who authorize me to sell for them, I don’t know what they wrote. I don’t go through every single note. Of course, it’s advisable to specify them.

50:04 Speaker 11 What?

50:09 Speaker 1 What?

50:10 Speaker 11 What?

50:10 Speaker 1 I can’t hear you.

50:11 Speaker 11 What?

50:12 Speaker 1 [unclear]

50:14 Speaker 11 Until when?

50:18 Speaker 1 What?

50:18 Speaker 11 When?

50:18 Speaker 1 Usually it’s up to thirty days. That’s what the law says—that after thirty days, you already can. Maybe we’ve heard that it’s even less than that. So after thirty days, it isn’t months; it’s already been replaced. It’s a new medication by then.

50:30 Speaker 11 Everyone has prescription medications.

50:32 Speaker 1 Right, so you need to specify that.

50:37 Speaker 11 There was also a patient with liver disease who was waiting, perhaps…

50:39 Speaker 1 [unclear]

50:40 Speaker 11 [unclear]

50:45 Speaker 1 You need to open the cabinet.

50:48 Speaker 11 An exceptional sale. I sold it; it’s all right. It has to be.