Laws of Pesach According to the Alter Rebbe's Approach - Rabbi Shaul Silam shlita

00:00 Speaker 1 All right, a class on the laws of Pesach. You could say the class is divided into seven topics. The first is searching for chametz, destroying it, and nullifying it—everything connected with the prohibitions of chametz being seen or found in your possession. The second is how to treat cosmetic products on Pesach. The third is Chabad stringencies on Pesach. The fourth is matters relating to matzah. The fifth is a few things connected with Seder night. The sixth is kashering utensils, and the seventh is selling chametz. Depending on the time we have, with Hashem’s help we’ll be able to go into more detail. In the Torah, in Parshas Bo, we have two similar verses: “For seven days, leaven shall not be found in your homes.” There’s “shall not be found,” and there’s “shall not be seen”: “No chametz shall be seen in your possession, and no leaven shall be seen in your possession throughout your borders.” The Gemara in Pesachim discusses this repetition: “shall not be seen,” “shall not be found,” leaven, chametz, “throughout your borders,” and “in your homes.” What exactly is the point? I’ll give you the bottom line. The bottom line is that one is liable for chametz one owns, or for chametz for which one has accepted responsibility. Say I have chametz belonging to a non-Jew in my house, but I’m responsible for it in such a way that if it’s stolen or... I’ll have to pay. The responsibility I’ve accepted already constitutes a certain kind of ownership. So either of those two things—owning chametz or being responsible for it—causes me to violate the prohibitions of chametz being seen and found in my possession. That is a Torah prohibition against a certain kind of possession of chametz. It makes no difference where the chametz is, anywhere within my borders, and it makes no difference whether it’s hidden or not. “Shall not be seen” doesn’t mean actually seeing it. The Rambam says that because of the severity of chametz, there are indeed two prohibitions,

02:12 Speaker 1 but when a person transgresses, it isn’t that he violates either the prohibition of it being seen or the prohibition of it being found. He either violates both or neither. The two prohibitions come together. In addition, the Torah gives us the positive mitzvah of “You shall remove leaven from your homes.” That positive mitzvah can actually be fulfilled in two ways. I’m not going into the disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and the Sages about how chametz must be destroyed. We are stringent, following Rabbi Yehudah, and destroy it specifically by fire, although strictly speaking it’s also possible to crumble it and... But what I want to say is that “you shall remove” can be fulfilled either by destroying the chametz or even just by nullifying it. I can nullify it too. More than that, according to Torah law, nullification even in one’s heart is enough. I have chametz at home, and I nullify it, mentally making it like the dust of the earth. That works too, and the chametz is no longer chametz. So we really have two ways. So much so that the Gemara asks—just a second—if I have two ways, why not make do with searching for and destroying the chametz? Why do I also need to nullify it? I’m asking you: What do you think? Why isn’t it enough for me to search for the chametz and destroy it? Why do I need nullification? I’ve fulfilled the mitzvah that way.

03:35 Speaker 2 Because of crumbs of chametz.

03:37 Speaker 1 Oh. So that’s what you’re saying. That’s what I wanted someone to say. You see, my questions usually look like simple questions, but all my questions are traps. Right? That’s the answer I wanted, but it isn’t correct. It’s a very good answer, though. At first glance, that’s what I would have answered too. You’re saying it isn’t enough because perhaps some chametz remains. But that isn’t the reason the Gemara gives. Even if some chametz remains, all right—if you don’t know about it, it’s beyond your control, and nothing has happened. If you find it, you’ll destroy it. And if you find it on Yom Tov or Shabbos, you’ll cover it with a vessel and destroy it after Yom Tov or Shabbos. We don’t nullify it because some chametz might remain. No, that’s not the point. The Gemara also suggests that perhaps it’s because of crumbs, since I can’t find everything. No. The Gemara says, “Crumbs are insignificant.” They don’t count. We’ll go into that statement more in a moment, but they’re insignificant. You don’t become liable for chametz being seen or found in your possession because of crumbs. So why, then? The Gemara says: perhaps you’ll find some chametz. It starts out as you said, but if you find it, you have to destroy it immediately—or, if it’s Shabbos, do as we said. But suppose a person finds it and says, “Oh! That’s a really good cookie. Maybe I’ll eat it later, perhaps even after Pesach.” If you leave it there—in the language of our Sages, “lest he find a beautiful loaf and set his mind on it”—you might come to want that chametz. Then you violate the prohibitions of chametz being seen and found in your possession if you don’t immediately want to nullify it. That’s the point.

05:19 Speaker 1 But once I’ve nullified it beforehand, that’s it. Even if I find it and want it, what I’m wanting is dust of the earth. Okay, so that’s why we also need nullification. But the Gemara doesn’t ask the opposite question. The Ran asks: Why not make do with nullification, if nullification is enough? The Ran gives two answers. First, the nullification has to be genuine, and it’s very hard for it to be genuine. It’s not as simple as saying, “That’s it, this bread has really become like the dust of the earth.” I have to genuinely want it to be like the dust of the earth. The Ran gives another reason too. Suppose I’ve nullified it, and the nullification is genuine. Still, if I have chametz in various places around the house, then even though it really has been nullified, there’s a concern that I might come to eat it. Chametz has an added severity. One reason chametz is more dangerous than other prohibited foods is that other prohibited foods are somewhat repulsive to us—non-kosher things. Even when you’re abroad and smell something delicious in the stairwell of a building where non-Jews live—anyone who lives abroad knows what I mean—you’re so repulsed because you know it’s non-kosher meat that you stop breathing altogether. But chametz is something you’re used to all year round, so you really might suddenly eat it without thinking. So that’s why we need both to search for and destroy chametz and to nullify it. That was just a sort of introduction to the subject. Now I want to spend a little more time

07:02 Speaker 1 on practical halacha. When we look for chametz, when we search for it, what exactly are we looking for? This is a question that really occupies the halachic authorities—and people. I know that people often don’t know what they’re looking for. What are you looking for? A kezayis? Crumbs? Bisli? What are you looking for?

07:25 Speaker 3 Whether anything’s left.

07:27 Speaker 1 What does “anything” mean? Do you need a microscope? A magnifying glass? Are you looking for crumbs or for a kezayis? What are you looking for?

07:35 Speaker 3 Whether there’s chametz left, even among the crumbs.

07:37 Speaker 1 What size chametz? A crumb or a kezayis?

07:40 Speaker 3 No, it could be—could be at least a kezayis.

07:44 Speaker 1 At least a kezayis. Oh. So on this, the early and later halachic authorities do indeed disagree. What you’re describing is the position of the Pri Chadash and of the Sephardic authorities; it is not the position of the Alter Rebbe or the Chayei Adam. This is a very, very significant disagreement. As we said earlier, the Gemara says, “Crumbs are not significant.” So the Pri Chadash says: crumbs are not significant; a crumb doesn’t count. I’m not looking for crumbs. That is also how Rabbi Ovadia rules. So among Sephardim, you look for something substantial: either a kezayis or something that stands on its own, like a whole piece of Bissli. That’s what Rabbi Shaul writes, for example. And that makes life much, much easier. Yes, if you’re looking for a kezayis, there really are people who finish the search in fifteen minutes. That is one approach among the halachic authorities; it isn’t our approach. The Alter Rebbe’s approach—there’s a Kuntres Acharon on this in section 442—is very interesting. The Alter Rebbe’s position is that no, I really am looking for crumbs. But we said crumbs are not significant. So what’s the point? The Chayei Adam goes into this at even greater length. It’s true that crumbs are not significant, and that you do not transgress bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei over a crumb. That is what the Gemara said. But when you search for chametz, the Chayei Adam explains at length that this is apparent from the plain meaning of the first Mishnah in Pesachim: “On the night of the fourteenth, we search for chametz by candlelight, in holes and crevices.” What, are you looking for a kezayis in holes and crevices? Some do hold that you are, as you said. But the approach here is no: you’re looking for crumbs. But we said they aren’t significant. Correct. You aren’t looking for crumbs to avoid transgressing bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. You’re looking for crumbs because you’re concerned that someone might come to eat a crumb. That’s the point,

09:25 Speaker 1 right? And that is why you need to check. It’s true that you don’t transgress bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei, but if there are crumbs around the house, bits of chametz here and there, you might end up eating a crumb, even while eating other foods, without noticing. So the position of the Alter Rebbe and the Chayei Adam is very stringent: you’re looking for crumbs. And that makes... It’s very difficult to give a class on the laws of Pesach for both Sephardim and Ashkenazim, or Chabad. With almost anything, you can explain the differences in the halachos. But here, just in this example of what to do during bedikas chametz, you see that these are two different worlds. Among Sephardim you’re looking for a kezayis; in Chabad you’re looking for a crumb. It’s a different world, right? And that’s true of almost everything we’ll see: there really are very substantial disagreements. Okay, so now we’ll focus more on our approach, the Alter Rebbe’s approach. The Kuntres Acharon I mentioned earlier, in section 442, is subsection 16, for anyone who wants to look it up. So I’ll continue along this line of the Alter Rebbe: we check for crumbs. Okay, so according to the Alter Rebbe, if I’m certain that crumbs never got into a particular place throughout the year, I certainly don’t need to check it. But in other places—when there are small children, there’s almost nowhere you can be certain about. Even on top of a cabinet, perhaps someone tossed a bag containing chametz up there, so you can’t really be at ease. But let’s take places where chametz may indeed have gotten in. Those still divide into two categories, and it’s very, very important, both for stringency and for leniency, to grasp what I’m about to

11:17 Speaker 1 say. There are places like the kitchen, where crumbs are commonly found, and there is a particular way to check them. And there are places like, say, the parents’ bedroom, where you don’t go with a sandwich, or the clothes closet in the parents’ bedroom. You certainly need to check there in some way as well, but you certainly aren’t going to go with a candle into the shelves of clothes in the parents’ bedroom on the night of the fourteenth to look for chametz there, because crumbs aren’t commonly found there. You can infer from the Alter Rebbe himself that, in those places, the cleaning the women do throughout the month before Pesach is enough. Through that, they already fulfill bedikas chametz. So let’s look at the stringent side of this distinction made by the Alter Rebbe, and then at the lenient side. The stringent side is that, where crumbs are commonly found—and this is where people often make a mistake—Chazal instituted that chametz be searched for by candlelight, in holes and crevices, on the night of the fourteenth. Yes, specifically on the night of the fourteenth, which calls for a bracha. But since our homes are very, very large, you can’t do everything on the night of the fourteenth. And while you’ve been sitting here learning, the women have certainly been at it for quite some time already. The mother is scrubbing and cleaning the kitchen, and she is fulfilling this mitzvah of bedikas chametz. But there is something we really need to remember. You certainly have to leave one area for the night of the fourteenth, so you can fulfill the mitzvah with a bracha as the Sages instructed us. But what about everything being done this week and next week? There are rules for that too. If it’s a place where crumbs are found—say the mother is now checking a kitchen cabinet where there certainly are crumbs,

13:19 Speaker 1 crumbs of flour and all sorts of things. So after she has cleaned everything, if there are shelves that can be pulled out, she washes the shelf, and that’s it. But the bottom shelf is fixed in place with nails, and you aren’t going to pull it out. So after the mother has cleaned there, she needs to come with a candle—or, as Chazal say, in pressing circumstances, and with all the flashlights everyone has we really are in pressing circumstances, direct sunlight can also be used. That means sunlight that does not pass through glass. If there is light from a window shining directly into the cabinet, that is also good. But if not, the mother should take a candle and really check the crevices around the shelf. Only then can it be lined; don’t line it beforehand. All right? Okay, that is the stringent side that follows from the Alter Rebbe. The lenient side is what we said: in places where you aren’t looking for crumbs—yes, perhaps a bag of Bamba or something ended up in a clothes closet—there you really don’t have to do it at night by candlelight and all that. The cleaning the mother does in the preceding days, in her usual way, is perfectly fine. Two more important points are brought in the Alter Rebbe. As for anything on the floor: near the wall it is more difficult, because people don’t tread there. But elsewhere on the floor, once we have walked over it, even if there was chametz there, that chametz is already considered destroyed. It’s so repulsive that it is no longer fit for a dog to eat. Something that is not fit for a dog to eat, you do not transgress

15:10 Speaker 1 You do not violate bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei over it. Yes, so that’s fine. In the middle of the living room, where people walk, you don’t need to search there. The same goes for a place where birds eat, because nothing remains. There’s another important point: sometimes there’s a crevice in a sofa, or someone has a piano, and crumbs can fall in. You don’t need to take apart the piano or the sofa. A place your hand can’t reach is also considered cleared of chametz. It’s similar to chametz that was covered by a collapse: it’s as though it’s buried. You’re not going to get to it. So in this case you can rely on bittul, and that’s enough. There’s no concern that you’ll come to eat it, either. As for places where using a candle is a bit dangerous, like a car—and it’s not very effective there, either—a flashlight is perfectly fine. Rabbi Braun’s grandfather, the author of She’arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah, actually discusses this at length and says that a flashlight is fine. You can do bedikas chametz with a flashlight. Of course, when you’re at home and have a candle, follow the custom and use it. But if you don’t have one, you can use a flashlight even at home; that’s fine. That concludes the first subject: bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei, searching for and disposing of chametz. There’s much more to say about it, but those are the main points. The second subject is cosmetics. People always ask about this, and it’s very important. What I’m telling you now is about things you will certainly be asked, so it’s important to know and to be able to answer people. I’ll go in order, from the simplest point to the most extreme stringency—

17:05 Speaker 1 the craziest one. A series of four or five stringencies, from the smallest to the greatest. In all these cases, you don’t actually violate bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei, and there are various products that, strictly speaking, you may use. That applies to everything I’m about to mention. But we’re also accustomed to being stringent about all of them, and I’ll explain why as we go along. The “craziness” will grow as the list goes on. And when I say “craziness,” I mean it in a particular sense. The Gemara in Sotah says, “A person does not sin unless a spirit of folly enters him.” Everyone knows this from Chassidus—the sotah, folly, and that whole subject. There is also a kind of holy folly that we need. So particularly on Pesach, a time of education when we begin everything anew, when we are a nation newly born, we too veer toward the side of holiness in this respect. There are many, many stringencies. Still, we’ll explain the reasoning behind them. First, as we said, the basic rule is that chametz unfit for a dog to eat is not considered chametz. You don’t violate bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei over it, and seemingly you would even be allowed to eat it under rabbinic law. But our Sages introduce a principle called achshevei, cited first by the Rosh and then by the halachic authorities. What does that mean? You’re going to eat something that isn’t fit for a dog to eat? The moment you eat it, you give it the status of food. So under rabbinic law it is indeed forbidden. In other words, if I have chametz that isn’t fit for a dog to eat, I don’t violate bal yeira’eh or bal yimatzei over it, but I can’t eat it. There is a prohibition here. Okay.

18:57 Speaker 1 So you might say: Suppose I have toothpaste made from chametz. It might even say that it’s made from wheat. Okay, perhaps I’ll swallow a little. We said that I can’t eat chametz that isn’t fit for a dog to eat. Toothpaste certainly isn’t fit for a dog to eat, but I might swallow a little of it. So perhaps it really is forbidden? We said you can’t eat chametz that isn’t fit for a dog to eat. The answer is that when I sometimes swallow a little toothpaste, I don’t intend to eat it—no one does. So it isn’t considered achshevei. Accidentally swallowing a little toothpaste with the water while brushing doesn’t mean I’m giving it the status of food. Therefore, strictly speaking, even toothpaste—the very thing everyone would object to, saying, “But it goes into your mouth! How can you put chametz in your mouth?”—doesn’t need Pesach certification. I’m telling you this to explain the halachah: strictly speaking, that really is the law. Toothpaste doesn’t need certification. But this is one of the stringencies that has become fairly common, not only in Chabad. After all, it goes into your mouth, and people aren’t comfortable with that. So people are accustomed to being stringent about toothpaste, and even about something more remote, such as Ama dishwashing liquid: perhaps a little gets into your mouth through the dishes because they weren’t rinsed thoroughly enough. People also try, ideally, to find kosher paper napkins. Perhaps they contain starch. It isn’t fit for a dog to eat; no one is eating the starch in a napkin, or the napkin itself. Still, as I said by way of introduction, there is no prohibition involved in anything I’m discussing

20:50 Speaker 1 in this part of the class. Nevertheless, these are the things to pay attention to: toothpaste, Ama dishwashing liquid, and napkins—to have kosher ones. Okay. Now we move on. There’s a well-known principle cited by the halachic authorities: anointing is like drinking. Where do we encounter that? On Yom Kippur. You’re not allowed to eat on Yom Kippur, right? Or drink, right? What about applying oil to your body—is that allowed on Yom Kippur? What do you say? No. Why is it forbidden? Because anointing is like drinking. When I apply oil, it enters my body through the skin and is considered like drinking, as our Sages say. Okay. Some halachic authorities hold that perhaps this principle applies not only to Yom Kippur but also to Pesach: anointing is like drinking. That, too, is a stringency, because not everyone agrees. But okay, if anointing is like drinking, I can’t apply chametz to my body. So creams and shampoo, and perhaps soap too, would count as anointing. Whether each of these actually counts as anointing is a separate question in halachah, but let’s assume they do. I’m moving further along here, and of course they’re also unfit for a dog to eat, and all the rest of it. Still, people are accustomed to being stringent about these too. But when I say “accustomed to being stringent,” suppose someone is stuck and has only the shampoo he uses all year. He might start saying, “Well, it has this certification”—and sometimes it even says “Kosher for Pesach”—“but it’s a certification I don’t usually rely on for food.” During the rest of the year, why would I care? I don’t need certification for shampoo. But fine: your shampoo has some certification you don’t usually rely on for food, and it says “Kosher for Pesach.” Requiring shampoo to be kosher for Pesach is already a stringency. So the fact that you don’t eat food with that certification—

22:43 Speaker 1 okay, ideally, look for shampoo certified by the Badatz of the Eidah Hachareidis. But if you don’t have it, that doesn’t mean you can’t wash your hair on Pesach. Fine. Now let’s move on. What do you say about perfume? You don’t drink perfume, and you don’t apply it as an anointing. It isn’t called anointing. So can you use perfume on Pesach? Seemingly, yes, certainly; there’s no problem with it. That’s what I thought for years, until about twenty years ago, when I once asked Rabbi Mordechai Ashkenazi. He said, “What do you mean? No, it has to be kosher for Pesach.” After looking into it, I did find the source. But I started with Rabbi Ashkenazi because, all right, you can find a source—but it isn’t a Chabad source. You could call it another crazy stringency. But Chabad chassidim find a stringency like that and adopt it. So you should know that Chabad rabbis have generally adopted this stringency too. Now, what is the stringency? What’s the idea? A new idea. We already have achshevei, then you add a concern even when achshevei doesn’t apply, and then anointing is like drinking. What’s the new idea now? There is a concept called “its intended purpose has been fulfilled.” It’s a term used by the halachic authorities. Two authorities bring up this stringency: the Mara MiSeir[?] and Rabbi Natanson in Shoel Umeishiv. What’s the idea? They say this: First of all, you know it’s forbidden to derive benefit from chametz on Pesach. But you might say, “Fine, this chametz—this perfume—isn’t fit for a dog to eat, so it’s all right.” Seemingly, yes. But they’ll tell you: “Listen, the prohibition against deriving benefit from chametz on Pesach doesn’t apply only to chametz fit for a dog to eat. For example, dog food—”

24:50 Speaker 1 So it has to be kosher for Pesach. And it’s not only for that reason. Why? Because when you say that chametz is no longer fit for a dog to eat, it is no longer chametz, you don’t violate bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei—the prohibitions against seeing or possessing chametz—and you can use it, too. That’s chametz whose purpose is to be food. So you say that once it is no longer fit for a dog to eat, it is no longer chametz. But something that was never meant to be food in the first place—I took the alcohol to make perfume. The fact that it isn’t fit for a dog to eat doesn’t matter to me. It was never meant for a dog. When I took that alcohol, which was fit for consumption, and turned it into perfume, its intended purpose was fulfilled. What I wanted is what I now have. It didn’t go through some process where a food suddenly ceased to be food because it was no longer fit for a dog to eat, and therefore ceased to be chametz. Its intended purpose was fulfilled. I never got out of the chametz problem. Again, I’m not saying this is necessarily so. Many disagree, but since there is also an opinion like this, add to it that some will tell you: No, there are guys from Russia who would take the perfume and pour it out to drink as alcohol. If they don’t have Smirnoff, maybe. I don’t know; I haven’t checked. That’s what they say. So those two things are enough for us to require perfumes to be kosher for Pesach as well. And that extends to various things women put on—lipstick, certainly lipstick. Let me go back: lipstick can reach the mouth. So that brings me back to what we said about Ama and all those things. Yes, this is already a less pronounced stringency, but the more extreme concern reaches this point. Still, even stringencies have—

26:37 Speaker 1 There are stringencies, but there are limits. Folks, even stringencies have limits. So, for example, requiring bleach for cleaning the floor to be kosher for Pesach. Say you have bleach that’s kosher for Pesach for 15.70, and one without certification for 15 shekels. Take the one for 15 shekels. Yes, because nobody asked you to do that. The same goes for the floor, or toilet paper, or things like that. Unless you use it again on the table, where you do cut food or put pots on it—that’s another matter. But otherwise, there really is no need. And with that we’ve finished the second part, on cosmetic products. I’m moving on now to the third part: Pesach stringencies according to Chabad custom. I want to begin with a very interesting point of study. It’s a very interesting point, though I’ll discuss a number of stringencies. The first stringency I want to discuss is why we’re strict about processed products, and why we also peel vegetables—even vegetables we’re going to cook before Pesach, which many people apparently think don’t need peeling. I want to show why there does seem to be reason to peel them. So I’ll start with an important introduction. I’ll start, perhaps, with something about Pesach itself, during Pesach: the matter of nullification. There are various rules of nullification, right? Nullification by a majority, nullification in sixty times the quantity. These are concepts we encounter in the laws of permitted and forbidden foods throughout the year. Now, before I get into all those rules of nullification, you need to know that our Sages established that during Pesach—and afterward I’ll move on to things prepared before Pesach—during Pesach, chametz is not nullified even in a thousand times its quantity. If a chametz mixture is formed, if some crumb

29:07 Speaker 1 falls into a huge pot, the entire pot is forbidden. This isn’t a Torah-level prohibition; it’s a decree of our Sages. Because otherwise, if it’s dry mixed with dry—that is, separate items—there is nullification by a majority. And if the mixture is homogeneous, then when it comes to imparting taste, there is nullification in sixty times the quantity even on a Torah level, even on Pesach. But why did our Sages establish that it isn’t nullified even in a thousand times its quantity? And “a thousand” is really just an expression, because even in two thousand times its quantity it wouldn’t be nullified. Why did they establish this? The Alter Rebbe gives three reasons. The first is that eating chametz carries the penalty of kareis. There aren’t many forbidden foods for which the penalty is kareis. There are some, yes—blood and... but not many. The second is that with chametz, beyond the prohibition against eating it, we find another prohibition: bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei. By the way, there are a number of commentators—you know, generally the Torah states a prohibition, and our Sages come and put safeguards around various prohibitions. Many commentators explain that bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei are a safeguard that the Torah itself put in place so that we won’t come to eat chametz. So our Sages saw that besides the penalty of kareis, chametz also has bal yeira’eh and bal yimatzei: the Torah itself addressed the concern that we might come to eat it. Our Sages understood that there was something very, very unusual and sensitive here. The third reason the Alter Rebbe gives is that there is a fundamental difference between other prohibitions and the prohibition of chametz: chametz isn’t forbidden all year. You’re used to eating it—we touched on this earlier—so you really might come to eat it on Pesach. For these three reasons, the Alter Rebbe says, our Sages established

31:00 Speaker 1 that a mixture containing chametz on Pesach is not nullified even in a thousand times its quantity. Okay, keep that somewhere in mind. Okay. Now, what happens with something that was nullified before Pesach? With all prohibitions, as we said, dry mixed with dry is nullified by a majority. Say I have three pieces of meat: one is treif and two are kosher, with exactly the same taste, the same... Right. So strictly according to the law—I’m not talking about stringencies now—one may eat all three. Even though one is treif, the majority is kosher, so I can eat all three. Okay. The same thing if I have three matzos: one is chametz and two are not chametz. They got mixed up before Pesach: I had a matzah that became chametz during baking, but it was mixed in with two good matzos. So apparently it was nullified, since dry mixed with dry is nullified by a majority. Apparently, yes. And with liquid mixed with liquid—what does that mean? A homogeneous mixture. Some tiny crumb fell into a barrel of wine, crumbled there, and disappeared into it. It’s no longer a distinct crumb, right? Otherwise we would strain it out. It has become part of what was cooked together and mixed in. So apparently, a genuinely homogeneous mixture is nullified in sixty times its quantity. All this is before Pesach. Now what happens? First I’ll tell you our position according to the basic law, then I’ll tell you the Shulchan Aruch’s position—that is, for Sefardim who follow Maran—and afterward I’ll tell you what stringencies are available according to the Alter Rebbe for someone who wants to be stringent. The straightforward ruling of the Rema and the Alter Rebbe is that if I have chametz

33:09 Speaker 1 that was nullified before Pesach—dry mixed with dry—then on Pesach the prohibition becomes active again. In other words, with those three matzos, where one was chametz and two were matzah, I thought it had indeed been nullified. That won’t help you, because when Pesach arrives, you say: No, the nullification no longer holds. But when it’s a homogeneous mixture, the prohibition doesn’t become active again. A homogeneous mixture, okay, formed before Pesach. We said that if the mixture had formed on Pesach, even one part in a thousand would not have been nullified. But if it formed before Pesach, it was nullified, and genuinely so. The prohibition doesn’t become active again. That is the Rema’s position. Yes, there are two opinions, and they appear in the Shulchan Aruch as an unqualified ruling followed by “some say,” but the halachah follows the unqualified ruling. Rabbi Yitzchak ibn Giat, the Rambam according to some interpretations, and the Rashba are indeed stringent on this issue, but in practice we don’t rule stringently. So according to the Rema, dry mixed with dry won’t help you. But dry mixed with dry isn’t all that common. Homogeneous mixtures, though, are relevant. For example, milk: perhaps at the dairy before Pesach someone ate a sandwich, and likewise whoever made the wine or oil or whatever you like. Fine; it was nullified in sixty times its quantity before Pesach, and the prohibition doesn’t become active again. All is well. Okay. Although it isn’t stated explicitly in Maran’s Shulchan Aruch, both the Biur Halachah of the Mishnah Berurah and the Alter Rebbe understand the Shulchan Aruch’s position to be that even with dry mixed with dry, the prohibition doesn’t become active again. In other words, for Sefardim this results in a very, very significant leniency. Take a look at section 447, paragraph 18, in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. That’s how he understands the Shulchan Aruch, even though it isn’t stated explicitly. Okay, but let’s go back.

35:00 Speaker 1 According to our approach. According to our approach, with a liquid mixed into a liquid, okay, it’s nullified. So okay, I have no problem. But here’s the thing: in that same section, 447, the Alter Rebbe adds two stringencies. First of all—before the stringencies—the Magen Avraham explains why a dry mixture is so different from a liquid mixture. Why does the chametz in a dry mixture become significant again, while in a liquid mixture it doesn’t? He says that in a dry mixture, the chametz is still there as a distinct piece. You have one of the three matzos. You can understand why that’s more serious. Right. Okay. So in a liquid mixture, it would seem that the chametz does not become significant again. So what’s the problem? From a halachic standpoint, I want to understand where our “craziness” comes from—not eating in each other’s homes, not eating, for those who choose not to, commercially produced foods, and even peeling vegetables that you prepare before Pesach. Where does this craziness come from? Why do we peel vegetables? Because maybe a piece of chametz has stuck to them. And if, on Pesach, I take my cucumber and there really is a little chametz stuck to it, and I put it in the pot, the mixture will be made on Pesach. We said that on Pesach, chametz isn’t nullified even in a thousand parts, so we peel the vegetables. But what do you say?

36:21 Speaker 4 You wash the vegetables first.

36:23 Speaker 1 Yes, you’re right, you wash the vegetables. But how thoroughly do you wash them? Yes, yes, there’s a logic to that. You’re right. But I want to take the question even further. If that really is why we peel vegetables, then what about vegetables you cook a few days before Pesach? A mother cooks a dish for the Seder night. We said that before Pesach, chametz is nullified in sixty parts, and in a liquid mixture it doesn’t become significant again. Right? So why do you need to peel them? Do you understand? And I want to tell you something very interesting: this attempt to rely on that leniency and say, “We don’t peel vegetables that we prepare before Pesach”—that’s something from only the last twenty years. Before that, in Chabad, our elder Rebbes always peeled them, and chassidim in general were careful even with food prepared beforehand. I’ll explain why. After the Alter Rebbe brings the view that chametz in a liquid mixture does not become significant again, he brings two further stringencies. He says that some hold—the view of the Ri Giat, the Rambam according to certain understandings, and the Rashba, as we said—that even chametz in a liquid mixture becomes significant again. And the Alter Rebbe adds that some are even more stringent. This is the view of Rav Natronai Gaon, cited in the Pri Chadash: even if some chametz simply fell into a barrel and I removed it. Say a piece of Bisli falls into a barrel before Pesach. I take the Bisli out. What more do you want? Ah, but perhaps it imparted flavor—and that, too, becomes significant again. I mean, that’s an extraordinary stringency. This didn’t happen during Pesach; it happened before Pesach. So the Alter Rebbe

38:24 Speaker 1 brings these two stringencies, and then he says something very, very important. It’s important that you know this. He says: “One who wishes to be stringent may do so for himself, but he should not rule this way for others.” If you want to, be stringent for yourself. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t teach it. I’m teaching it to you now, and I’m even encouraging you toward this stringency. Yes, it should be learned. But if someone calls you and says, “Oh, I have something that was nullified beforehand”—don’t drive him crazy now. We said that the ruling is that chametz in a liquid mixture does not become significant again. Nullification in a liquid mixture is fine. But for yourself, know that there is a stringency according to which even chametz nullified in a liquid mixture becomes significant again. This helps us understand something. As [unclear] said a few years ago, people sometimes think that things the Arizal says are disconnected from halachah. The Arizal says that we must be careful to avoid every form of chametz, even things nullified beforehand. The Arizal’s words are not disconnected from halachah. On this point, they are essentially the view of the Ri Giat, the Rambam according to certain understandings, and the Rashba: even chametz in a liquid mixture becomes significant again. So now, if someone wants to say, “No, no, there are claims that the Rebbe ate chocolate on Pesach,” or that there’s some product in which any chametz was certainly nullified, or whatever else you want to say—if Sefer Haminhagim actually mentions that some are careful not to eat in a friend’s home, are you going to make a point of not eating in your friend’s home but then eat chocolate and factory-made foods? We explained that the Alter Rebbe does bring this view of the Ri Giat, according to which those things, too, become significant again. I just wanted to show that this stringency really does have a basis. So someone who wants to be lenient and...

40:27 Speaker 1 not peel vegetables prepared before Pesach doesn’t have much to rely on if he really wants to follow these stringencies brought by the Alter Rebbe. Again, we aren’t requiring anyone to do this, okay? Because that isn’t the ruling. But still, the Alter Rebbe says, “One who wishes to be stringent may do so for himself.” That’s enough of a hint for us to understand the point. That’s the first stringency I wanted us to understand a little, because people don’t always know why they do what they do. It really is important to understand. The second issue is gebrokts. I just want to ask you: who introduced this stringency about gebrokts? Do you know? Do you know where it began? It has always appeared in the halachic authorities, right? But do you know when people began to be stringent about it? The major figure who introduced this stringency was the Alter Rebbe. Yes. Like the salt in the field—that was the Alter Rebbe. There are quite a few things like that which come from the Alter Rebbe. But I want to tell you how this came about. It’s interesting. At the end of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, there are responsa of the Alter Rebbe. In responsum 6, the Alter Rebbe discusses a very interesting matter. Maybe I’ll go through that responsum in a different order. I’ll start in the middle. Let me ask you a question: according to halachah, what is the maximum amount of time for kneading the matzos? Again, I told you my questions are traps, so don’t try to answer unless you have explicit authorization. Now that I’ve said that, what is the maximum amount of time you can knead the matzos?

42:21 Speaker 5 There’s no time limit, no time limit. As long as you’re kneading, it doesn’t become chametz.

42:24 Speaker 1 Very good. Isn’t anyone brave enough to say eighteen minutes? You’re not brave, guys. So Rabbi Yosef is absolutely right: there’s no time limit. The Gemara says you can knead from morning until evening. There’s no problem with that. While you’re kneading, the dough doesn’t become chametz. So where did this idea of eighteen minutes come from? Well, if you stop kneading and say, “Come on, guys, how long can we keep working? Let’s take a break. I’ll come back in ten minutes”—if you come back after eighteen minutes, it’s already too late, right? Okay, it will already have risen. Arguably, that too is a certain stringency, but never mind. We won’t get into the question of relative time according to the Alter Rebbe. That’s a fascinating subject in its own right, particularly for the Seder night as well. But for our purposes, you can knead from morning until evening. So what happened? The Alter Rebbe says in that responsum, “For about twenty years or more,” they had established the practice of finishing the kneading within eighteen minutes. Why did they do that? Where did it come from? Yes, we have [unclear] from kneading, [unclear] from here and there. It began twenty or thirty years before that responsum of the Alter Rebbe. It didn’t originate with the Alter Rebbe; it came from other halachic authorities. Why did they establish that the kneading really had to be done so quickly? Because imagine—and there really is logic to it—you have dough and you’re kneading it. Sometimes, when you knead, not every bit stays together. Say you’re kneading and a piece of dough flies off a little farther away. You keep kneading for half an hour, but while you’re kneading, there’s that piece that broke away,

44:17 Speaker 1 that has meanwhile puffed up, and then suddenly you give it a whack with the rolling pin. You take it further, like someone who, you know, at hagbah has to show how strong he is and display nine columns, right? Against the Rebbe’s explicit words. So now the person really goes further, and suddenly he works over a piece of dough that hasn’t been kneaded for twenty minutes. That means there’s chametz here. So they were concerned about this and said, “Hey, everyone, no more than eighteen minutes. Fifteen minutes, sixteen minutes, seventeen minutes—we’ll do all the kneading within that time.” Now, the Alter Rebbe says there is a discussion among the halachic authorities about what happens with matzah. Imagine you have matzah with some flour still in it—some flour was left because it wasn’t kneaded properly. You put it in the oven. When you take it out, has the flour really remained flour, so that it could become chametz if it comes into contact with water, or not? The halachic authorities disagree about this. The Pri Chadash cites the Semag and Rabbeinu Yerucham, who hold that it has. If I put matzah with flour in it into the oven and take the matzah out, that flour can later become chametz on contact with water. Most authorities say it cannot, but the Pri Chadash cites the Semag and Rabbeinu Yerucham. Now, the Alter Rebbe says, it’s true that even the Pri Chadash, who cites them, is talking about a lot of flour, right? But there is the Maharashdam, who holds this applies even to a little flour, though the Pri Chadash disagrees with him. So the Alter Rebbe says: All right, this is a fairly remote concern, right? It goes against the position of virtually all the early authorities. We have the Semag and

46:12 Speaker 1 Rabbeinu Yerucham, and even with the Semag and Rabbeinu Yerucham, the Pri Chadash understands that they mean a lot of flour. Okay, but we have the Maharashdam, who understands that according to the Semag and Rabbeinu Yerucham, this applies even to a little flour. The Alter Rebbe says that perhaps we wouldn’t have taken this concern into account, but now there is the stringency requiring the dough to be kneaded quickly, so it’s common for a little flour to remain. If you knead for two hours, that won’t be common. But when you knead so very quickly, it really can happen. And then, because of the Maharashdam’s reading of the Semag and Rabbeinu Yerucham, perhaps that flour could indeed become chametz later. That’s how the stringency of avoiding gebrokts arose. It’s interesting, because people don’t really know that it came from that same responsum. But that’s how it came about, and for us it changes the whole of Pesach, right? Like peeling vegetables. Say we took away those two things—gebrokts and peeling vegetables—Pesach would be like the rest of the year for us, wouldn’t it? So that’s really how this stringency arose. Okay, so we should know about it. Let me just tell you something. My wife once—using a plastic bag wasn’t possible. Okay. Now, there’s a stringency not to use utensils that have touched the floor. Fine, okay. I’ll tell you the truth: we never managed to keep that stringency, because when you have children, that’s it. Within a day or two you have no cutlery left. But I’m not encouraging you to be lenient about it, right? This is a practice that really exists. Then there’s the matter of sugar. The issue with sugar is also an existing stringency. Is it really a directive for everyone? Not necessarily. There’s the well-known story about the Rebbe Rashab and the grain of wheat that was in

48:57 Speaker 1 the sugar, right? That doesn’t mean we have to say it’s a directive. Okay, so there are really three possibilities here. You can use sugar. You can be stringent and nullify any chametz that might be in the sugar by using it beforehand. But understand that when we do that, we are relying on the principle that with one liquid mixed into another, chametz does not become prohibited again on Pesach. And anyone who heard the class and knows about [unclear] will say, “But that won’t help—it becomes prohibited again.” Look, if you want to take the craziness as far as you like and not eat even that kind of sugar, you can. Everyone can do as they choose. There are no hard-and-fast rules. I’m telling you what practices exist and why, and then everyone chooses. But it isn’t worth fighting with your parents over some stringency you want to invent, everyone. It really isn’t worth it. Honor your parents. If they tell you to eat kitniyos, I’m not saying to do that—although I once did tell a few fellows to be lenient even about that. But let’s not get into it. With sugar, do what your parents do. Okay. As for garlic, there’s a rumor that Chabad doesn’t eat garlic on Pesach. It’s like the supposed law that mishloach manos must contain foods with two different brachos: one of those “laws” that circulate but aren’t correct, because they aren’t written anywhere. The same goes for garlic. But there is something reasonable behind it, let’s put it that way. There’s fresh garlic and there’s dried garlic. With dried garlic, you don’t really know how it was dried. When I was young, we would buy fresh garlic and hang it in the kitchen for a few months until it dried. Now, if it had been there all year and had absorbed all the steam from chametz and everything else, I wouldn’t use it on Pesach, right? Avoiding dried garlic makes sense, but fresh garlic—there’s no source for avoiding it. It isn’t written anywhere, okay?

50:46 Speaker 1 There’s something people think is a stringency, but it isn’t: it’s a halachah in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch that, ideally, for the Seder night we eat matzos baked on Erev Pesach after midday. Right? So it seems like a very great stringency and all that. True, it really is a very great stringency, but this very great stringency is written in the Shulchan Aruch. Ideally, that’s what one should do. It costs a fortune. Fine, but it is written in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch as the ideal practice. That concludes the third section, Chabad stringencies on Pesach. I’d like to speak about something else now. Perhaps about the... I won’t discuss kashering utensils or selling chametz. With your permission, the fourth and fifth topics are matters concerning matzah and the Seder night, and we... All right, this will take a little longer. We’ll go just slightly over time, but I’ll try to hurry. The fourth topic is matters concerning matzah. We don’t eat matzah before Pesach. The Jerusalem Talmud says this about Erev Pesach. It’s a serious matter, and our custom is to refrain from eating it for the entire thirty days before Pesach. We don’t even eat matzah meal, but there’s a distinction here: if you make cooked foods from matzah meal, you may eat them, but not baked foods. Now, on Pesach there are two different kinds of food that we don’t eat, and it’s important to know the difference between them. They’re two entirely different things. There are various cookies made from matzah meal, and there is what’s called matzah ashirah. Those are two different terms. Things made from matzah meal—after all, yes,

52:50 Speaker 1 Okay, matzah meal—matzah meal was matzah. It can’t become chametz. So why don’t we eat it? Because we don’t eat gebrokts, matzah that has been soaked. So of course we don’t eat matzah meal either. Okay. What about matzah ashirah? Matzah ashirah is a completely different story. It’s much, much more problematic than matzah meal, because what is matzah ashirah made from? You take flour intended for matzah—not matzah meal, flour for making matzah—flour that was carefully kept from contact with water. The wheat wasn’t washed. Right? It wasn’t in contact with water and... Okay, I have flour. But instead of kneading it with water, which could make it chametz, I knead it with fruit juice. Right? Now, some of the Rishonim prohibited this rabbinically. We won’t get into that whole issue, but we certainly are stringent about it. The Rema is stringent about matzah ashirah, and that’s why we don’t eat these things. But even for Sephardim—and this is a point I want to raise—who do permit it, right, they don’t rule like the Rishonim who prohibit it. On a Torah level, no one prohibits it. Right? Those who prohibit it say it can become chametz; they’re concerned that it might. But why, in practice, should we be stringent about matzah ashirah? Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu used to speak out very, very strongly against products like Papushado, which are exactly what we’re discussing. Because how can you say there isn’t a drop of water? The Talmud and the halachic authorities say that, yes, if you take flour and mix it with fruit juice, it won’t become chametz. But if you add a little water—and we don’t really know how much—not only can it become chametz, it becomes chametz even faster than with water alone. Right? So how can you be sure that wherever you make

54:40 Speaker 1 your Papushado with fruit juice, there isn’t a drop of water left over from the cleaning beforehand? That’s almost impossible, right? Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu once gave about ten reasons to be stringent about this: the eggs that were washed, and... even the unnatural way the fruit used for the juice had been watered beforehand. From every angle. It goes so far that some people won’t eat those cookies even after Pesach, because they say it’s chametz that was owned during Pesach. And I certainly wouldn’t instruct Sephardim to be lenient about it either. Yes, Rabbi Yosef?

55:18 Speaker 6 Uh, the first point, about washing the machines with water, isn’t quite right, because they show that they wash everything—even the workers’ hands—with grape juice.

55:33 Speaker 1 Good, excellent. Okay, Rabbi Yosef has given us a reason to judge them favorably. Excellent. It’s good to judge favorably. Okay, sorry to interrupt you, but what I said wasn’t quite right. Still, it’s good to judge favorably. Uh, one more thing. We were in the fourth section, dealing with matzah. I’d like to talk now about eating matzah at the Seder. Eating matzah at the Seder. You see, we need to understand that there are only two Torah commandments on Seder night, right? Eating matzah and Maggid. The other things—there are many mitzvos and many practices—are either customs or rabbinic commandments, like eating maror. And you know that with every mitzvah, whether rabbinic or from the Torah, you need to intend to fulfill a mitzvah. But with a Torah commandment, that intention is also indispensable. If I perform a Torah mitzvah without intending to fulfill a mitzvah, it doesn’t count. So certainly, with Maggid and matzah, I need to intend to fulfill a mitzvah right now. Now, when it comes to eating matzah, one kezayis is required by Torah law, and all the rest are rabbinic. I want to explain why we eat five kezaysim—or three, four, or five. You know what? I don’t want to overwhelm you. Maybe I won’t teach the laws of Seder night now after all. I’ll just explain the kezaysim, and then, with Hashem’s help, we’ll stop. There’s Motzi Matzah, Motzi Matzah. We eat two kezaysim. Why? Do you know why? It’s a trick question. Yes, I said that; that’s the definition. But come on, have a little courage. Why do we eat two kezaysim at Motzi Matzah?

57:10 Speaker 7 One corresponding to the Pesach offering and one to the matzah.

57:13 Speaker 1 No.

57:14 Speaker 7 We have a remembrance.

57:16 Speaker 1 Not that either. Some people think, “Well, one kezayis for Motzi and one for Matzah.” No, that’s not it. You don’t need a kezayis for Motzi. You’re eating matzah; that’s enough. Yes?

57:27 Speaker 8 A question, not an answer to what you just asked. Because you said earlier about the matzah, what if someone simply finds an afikoman?

57:36 Speaker 1 Okay.

57:36 Speaker 8 So I didn’t understand: if I find a bag of Bissli under the sofa, all covered in dirt and dust, am I going to eat it?

57:44 Speaker 1 Look, the fact that the Bissli is covered in dust and everything doesn’t, in itself, mean you wouldn’t transgress the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatze. Right? Because you could clean it, and there’s also a concern that you might come to eat it. Right? Just so you understand. But once you’ve nullified the chametz, you indeed won’t transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatze. Suppose, though, that you hadn’t nullified it, and you found the Bissli and said, “I’ll clean it and eat it.” Then you would transgress bal yera’eh and bal yimatze. But I—I’m going back to the subject, because I’m recording this and don’t want to bring Bissli into this discussion of matzah. Hashem help us. So, why do we eat two kezaysim for Motzi and Matzah? Yes?

58:27 Speaker 7 [unclear]

58:28 Speaker 1 A remembrance? No. So I’ll tell you, everyone: there’s a disagreement among the Rishonim. We have three matzos, right? The top matzah, the broken matzah, and the bottom matzah. Right. Where do I take the kezayis for the mitzvah of eating matzah at Motzi? You can also take all of it from the box, but here I’m fulfilling the Torah mitzvah of eating matzah at the Seder. Right? Which matzah should I take it from—the top matzah or the broken one? That’s a disagreement among the Rishonim, and that’s why it isn’t indispensable. All the Rishonim agree it isn’t indispensable, but what should we do ideally? That’s where the disagreement is. Because of this disagreement, the Shulchan Aruch rules that we should take a kezayis from the top matzah and a kezayis from the broken one. Okay. Now, if you have the three matzos in front of you, you can certainly follow that stringency. And afterward—most people from age thirteen onward who have their own three matzos—should be stringent and take a kezayis from here and a kezayis from there, following this practice to satisfy all the Rishonim in the ideal manner. But when you’re distributing matzah to everyone, say you want to give your wife a little from the top matzah and a little from the broken one as a remembrance of that practice, you still don’t have a kezayis from each for everyone seated there—all the women and children and so on. So you take matzah from the box to make up the amount. There’s no reason, no stringency, no logic in giving your wife two kezaysim now. Corresponding to what? The top matzah and the middle matzah, when the matzah is coming from the box? So those two kezaysim are for someone who has the three matzos in front of him. If not, one kezayis is enough. Then we have a kezayis for Korech and two kezaysim for the afikoman. And why is that? The Shulchan Aruch explains that there’s a disagreement among the Rishonim about why we eat the afikoman: is it a remembrance

1:00:18 Speaker 1 of the Pesach offering, or a remembrance of the matzah eaten with the Pesach offering? Since there are two opinions, you eat one kezayis for each. But in his Haggadah, the Rebbe says that if it’s difficult, you can make a stipulation. You can take one kezayis with the intention that, according to the opinions that the afikoman commemorates the Pesach offering, it should serve as a remembrance of the Pesach offering; and according to the Rishonim who say it commemorates the matzah eaten with the Pesach offering, it should serve as a remembrance of that matzah. Then you can make do with one kezayis, right? If it’s difficult—after Shulchan Orech, after all those potatoes, it really is a little difficult. We’ll stop here, and if you’d like, we’ll do another class sometime on the laws of Seder night. Have a kosher and joyous Pesach.