Siman 432, Se'if 1 · The text of the blessing - why "concerning the removal of chametz"

Shulchan Aruch, siman 432, containing two se'ifim.
Se'if 1: "Before he begins to search, he should recite the blessing: Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the removal of chametz."
(Shulchan Aruch)

The text of the blessing - why "concerning the removal of chametz"

• The question on the text: Seemingly, since the action being done now is checking (bedikah), it would be appropriate to bless "concerning the checking for chametz", and not "concerning the removal of chametz" (biur chametz).
• The explanation of the Mishnah Berurah (se'if katan 3): The bedikah is nothing but a means to reach the ultimate goal, which is the biur of the chametz. It is impossible to remove the chametz without first checking and knowing where the chametz is located. Therefore, we bless based on the future outcome, on the purpose towards which the bedikah is directed.
• Variations in text: The standard text is "al biur chametz", and even if one said "le'vaer chametz" (to remove chametz), he has fulfilled his obligation.
• The blessing of Shehecheyanu: The Ba'er Heitev has already explained why we do not recite Shehecheyanu on the bedikah.

The blessing prior to the action (Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 1)

"Before he begins to search - so that the blessing will be prior to its performance."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 1)

• Blessings over mitzvos: The blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the removal of chametz" is a blessing over a mitzvah. The rule is that all blessings over mitzvos are recited prior to their performance, meaning before fulfilling the mitzvah.
• The meaning of the word "over": The Gemara itself addresses this term ("over la'asiyasan") and explains that it denotes precedence, bringing verses where the word is used in this sense.

(In modern Hebrew, this usage has entered spoken language: "over la'pegisha" means prior to the meeting.)

Washing hands before the blessing (Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 2)

"He should recite the blessing - And some say that it is good to wash his hands beforehand, and this is only for the sake of cleanliness."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 2)

• This is not an obligation to wash: There is no mitzvah of washing hands here, but rather a stricture for cleanliness, so that one does not engage in a mitzvah and a blessing when his hands have touched something unclean.
• Comparison to washing before prayer: According to the strict letter of the law, one must wash hands before Shacharis and before Minchah. The morning washing is universally accepted, while washing before prayer later in the day is less common, because nowadays people are not accustomed to touching covered areas of the body.

One who started searching and did not bless

"If he began to search without a blessing, he should bless as long as he has not finished his search, for it is still considered prior to its performance. But if he has already finished the search, he should not bless now, but rather he should bless the next day at the time of the burning, as the blessing applies to the burning as well."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 4)

• As long as he is engaged in the bedikah: Every single moment of checking is a fulfillment of the mitzvah. Therefore, as long as he has not finished, it is still considered "prior to its performance", and he can recite the blessing.
• After he has finished: There is no point in blessing over an action that is already completed. Therefore, he should recite the blessing the next day at the time of burning the chametz, since the text of the blessing is "concerning the removal of chametz" (biur), and burning is included in biur.

A difficulty: But he has already nullified the chametz

• The difficulty: If he already nullified (bittul) the chametz at the time of the bedikah, it turns out that he is burning something the next day that does not belong to him. What place is there to bless over it?
• First resolution: Nevertheless, he is obligated to burn the chametz due to a rabbinic enactment, and he blesses over the fulfillment of this enactment.
• Another resolution: The text of the bittul at night is "Any chametz that I have not seen and have not removed", and it does not include the chametz that he sees.

The two texts of bittul, at night and in the morning

• The bittul of the night: We nullify only the chametz that is not visible, such as a crumb left behind the closet that cannot be reached. We do not nullify the visible chametz, since he still plans to eat from it in the evening and morning.
• The bittul of the morning: After he has finished eating and has burned the chametz, he nullifies both what he saw and what he did not see.
• The difficulty with the morning bittul: If he has already burned the chametz he saw, there is seemingly nothing left to nullify, and burning is better than bittul.
• The resolution: There is no certainty that all the chametz thrown into the fire actually burned properly. Therefore, he nullifies it as well, just to be safe.

The question of interruption between the night's blessing and the morning's burning

• The question: If the blessing recited before the bedikah counts for the burning the next day as well, how is there not a massive interruption between the blessing and the action?
• The core principle: The blessing takes effect on what is done at night, as the bedikah itself is part of the biur. It is impossible to remove without first checking and gathering the chametz. Once the blessing has taken hold of the act of bedikah, the burning is not a new action but a continuation of the same mitzvah.
• The analogy: One who eats an orange blesses over the first segment, and is allowed to talk between segments. Only a major interruption requires a new blessing.

The view of the Acharonim: The blessing was instituted only at the time of the bedikah

"And there are among the Acharonim who wrote that the blessing was instituted only at the time of the search. According to them, he should bless at the time of the burning without God's name or kingship. It seems that if one wishes to rely [on the former view] and bless, we do not protest against him."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 4)

• The reasoning of the Acharonim: The essence of the blessing was instituted on the beginning of the mitzvah at night. Therefore, one who forgot to bless at night does not bless again with God's name and kingship at the time of burning.
• Why then is the text "concerning removal": Even though the blessing was instituted at the time of the bedikah, the wording of the blessing hints at the ultimate goal, that he has not finished the mitzvah until he removes the chametz.
• In practice: If someone wants to rely on the opinion that the blessing covers the burning as well and bless in the morning, we do not protest against him.

The status of burning versus bittul

• The two things mentioned in the Gemara: Bedikah and bittul.
• From the Torah: One who nullified his chametz does not need to burn it.
• The reason for burning: As an extra precaution, lest he stumble upon chametz on Pesach and come to eat it out of forgetfulness.

The prohibition of interrupting with speech

1. Between the blessing and the beginning of the bedikah

"And he must be careful not to speak between the blessing and the beginning of the search."
(Shulchan Aruch)

"And after the fact, if he conversed about matters that are not necessary for the search, he must repeat the blessing, as it constitutes an interruption between the blessing and the mitzvah."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 5)

• The difference between before the mitzvah and during the mitzvah: One who speaks after he has already begun to check does not lose the blessing, as it has already taken effect on the mitzvah. But one who speaks before he begins, or even just pauses for a certain time, the blessing has not taken effect on any action at all, and therefore he must repeat the blessing.
• Speaking for the sake of the mitzvah: Speech that is a requirement of the mitzvah is not an interruption, just as after washing hands for a meal it is permitted to say "Bring salt." Similarly, if the candle blew out before he started to check, and he asks his son to bring matches, this is not an interruption, since it is impossible to check without a lit candle.

2. Speech during the bedikah

"And it is good that he should not speak of other matters until he finishes the entire search, so that he may set his heart to search in all the places where one brings in chametz."
(Shulchan Aruch)

"In this case, he does not need to repeat the blessing. And regarding matters that are necessary for the search, he may even speak initially (lechatchila), for this is not an interruption at all."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 6)

• It does not invalidate: If he spoke in the middle of the bedikah, he does not repeat the blessing, for the blessing already took effect with the start of the mitzvah.
• The reason for this conduct: The concern is that through speaking he will divert his attention and forget to check remaining rooms. Therefore, it is good not to turn to other matters until the bedikah is complete.

Se'if 2 - One blessing for several places and bedikah by others

"With one blessing he can search several houses. And if the homeowner wishes, he may stand members of his household beside him when he recites the blessing, and they shall scatter to search, each person in his place, based on the blessing the homeowner recited."
(Shulchan Aruch)

• The meaning of "houses": Sometimes the Sages' term "houses" refers to rooms, and sometimes to actual houses.
• How it is done: Everyone hears the homeowner's blessing and fulfills their obligation through it, and afterwards everyone checks their assigned area as the homeowner's agent.

Walking from place to place - is it an interruption? (Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 7)

"Several houses - And walking from house to house does not constitute an interruption."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 7)

• The view of the Chayei Adam: One who checks his house and his store, and the store is in a different courtyard, must repeat the blessing due to the length of time between the blessing and checking the store.
• The view of the Chok Yosef and Ma'amar Mordechai: The walking itself is part of the mitzvah, since he is obligated to go and check in all places that contain chametz, and it is inappropriate to call this walk an interruption.
• The reasoning: The walking is not a stroll but a requirement of the mitzvah. We do not distinguish between someone walking slowly or quickly, and even when walking to the store we do not obligate him to run.
• In practice nowadays: According to many poskim, even someone going down to the parking lot to check his car checks based on the blessing he recited in the house, since it too is his property requiring bedikah.

Standing household members and the rule of "a mitzvah is greater when done by oneself than by one's agent" (Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 8)

"He may stand members of his household - And the same applies to someone else who is not a member of his household, rather it spoke of the common case."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 8)

• Not necessarily his household: The text spoke of the common case, as it is typical for a homeowner to utilize his household members. We find places in the Gemara where people are hired to check, and someone who lacks the strength to check may hire others, recite the blessing, and they will check.
• Leaving some for himself: Nevertheless, it is fitting that he check a little bit himself, because a mitzvah is greater when done personally than through an agent ("mitzvah bo yoser mib'shlucho").
• What we learn from here: The intention is not that he must perform the entire mitzvah himself. The very fact that he started it personally counts as "doing it oneself", and the continuation is handed over to others.
• Regarding the rule "a mitzvah is only called by the name of the one who finishes it": This rule applies to someone who started and another came and completed it in his place. But when the checkers are the homeowner's agents, it is as if he did it himself.

Who is trusted and who is fit to check

• According to the strict law: One can rely for bedikah even on women and slaves, as well as on minors.
• The reason: Checking for chametz is a rabbinic obligation, and the Rabbis believed them in rabbinic matters. Even though a woman is invalid for testimony from the Torah, there is no impediment for credibility in rabbinic matters.
• A non-Jewish maidservant: We do not rely on our non-Jewish maidservants.
• Slaves: This refers to Canaanite slaves, whose status is equivalent to a woman's. A Hebrew slave is a full-fledged Jew in all respects.

"Nevertheless, ideally it is proper not to rely on anyone except free men who have reached the age of mitzvos, meaning from thirteen years and onwards, because a proper search involves great toil, and there is a concern that they might be lazy and not search thoroughly."
(Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 8)

• The comment of the Acharonim nowadays: Some Acharonim wrote that nowadays the tables have turned, and the concern is specifically that the men will be lazy. The woman, who prepares the whole house for Pesach and is more meticulous about it, checks properly, and she can be relied upon for the bedikah as well.

Standing at the time of the blessing, and a homeowner who does not check at all

• Why they should stand beside him: The checkers need to stand next to him when he recites the blessing so that they fulfill their obligation with his blessing. Based on this blessing, they scatter and check.
• A homeowner who does not check at all: If he does not check at all but commands another to check, that other person is the one who recites the blessing, since he has made him a complete agent.

In passing · Agency, strictures, and credibility nowadays

1. Appointing an agent for giving tzedakah

• The question asked: Can someone obligated in tzedakah (charity) appoint an agent to put the money in the charity box, or is this a flaw due to "a mitzvah is greater when done by oneself than by one's agent"?
• The source of the rule: Rava salted the shibuta fish, meaning he personally salted the fish in honor of Shabbos even though he had slaves, because a mitzvah is greater when done by oneself than by one's agent (Gemara Kiddushin).
• The rule does not depend on a blessing: From this halacha, it seems the concept is not related to making a blessing, but rather to the very fulfillment of the mitzvah.
• Reasoning to differentiate: It is possible that giving to a charity box is not similar to salting the fish. There, he is engaged in the body of the mitzvah itself, while one who gives to a box is not yet giving to the poor person himself, as the gabbaim distribute it as they see fit. Perhaps in such a case an agent can be appointed. These words were offered only as a theoretical logic.

2. Strictures and customs of the communities

• The question presented to Rav Ovadia Yosef: Why do Sephardim in the Land of Israel observe many strictures (chumros) that they did not observe in the Diaspora?
• His answer: Our Sephardi brothers are held captive by our Ashkenazi brothers, and our Ashkenazi brothers are held captive by our Ashkenazi sisters.

3. The credibility of a worker who is not observant

• The rule: A professional does not ruin his craft (uman lo meira umanuseih). A person entrusted with a specific role is afraid people will say he does not fulfill his duty and he will be fired, so he is actually exact in his work.
• Kashrus supervisors in the IDF: It is reported in the name of Rav Goren that he appointed even non-observant people for supervision, because the instructions in the military kitchen are orders: a pot labeled dairy stands on this side, a pot labeled meat on the other side, and a dairy knife is not used to cut meat. The supervisor's job is to ensure the orders are followed.
• Regarding checking for chametz: The Mishnah Berurah wrote that we do not rely on a non-Jewish maidservant. Some wanted to say that in certain cases the worker is meticulous out of fear of being fired. Nevertheless, with chametz we are more stringent and more sensitive about this matter, and one should not simply be lenient.