Bedikas Chametz After Cleaning: Crumbs, Ten Pieces, and Dormitory Rooms

Topics

• Bedikas Chametz After Cleaning: Crumbs, Ten Pieces, and Dormitory Rooms
• Does Bedikas Chametz Still Have a Purpose After Cleaning?
• Pachos Mikezayis and the Concern of Chatzi Shiur
• Crumbs, Dust, and a Home Already Thoroughly Cleaned
• Ten Pieces of Chametz and the Berachah on Bedikah
• Does Cleaning Before Pesach Count as Bedikah?
• Yeshivah and Seminary Dormitories: Whose Obligation?

Transcript

# Bedikas Chametz After Cleaning: Crumbs, Ten Pieces, and Dormitory Rooms

## Does Bedikas Chametz Still Have a Purpose After Cleaning?

I asked **Reb Reuven** a *kashya*. You want to hear it? I said, "There is no mitzvah of *bedikas chametz* anymore. We don't need it!"

Of course, *rabosai*, I'm putting it sharply because I want us to think. We all make *bedikas chametz*. The question is what remains to check after the thorough Pesach cleaning we do nowadays.

Let's learn the *sugya*, not merely trade stories about different *minhagim*. Take out the **Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 442:33**. I want to understand what he says about **pirurim**, crumbs, and *chametz pachos mikezayis*, pieces containing less than a *kezayis*.

Is there an obligation to look for every microscopic crumb, including the dust-like bits in corners and crevices? Does every speck that once came from bread still have the *din* of edible *chametz*? And does the requirement of *bedikah* extend to searching for speculative bits that might not exist?

There are homes where *bedikas chametz* becomes hours and hours of searching. We hear about the care of the **Steipler** and other *gedolim*. But I grew up seeing a simpler *bedikah*, and I heard accounts of other *rabbanim* whose homes did not treat every small crumb as a separate undertaking.

I have heard reports about the way **Rav Dovid Feinstein** remembered his father's home, and someone here mentions a Brisker practice. I want the **makor** before we use any oral memory as a *psak*. Such stories might describe different household conditions or additional *chumros*, not contradictory rules.

The first question, then, is this: **what exactly are we required to search for?** A *kezayis* of chametz? Less than a *kezayis*? Dirt that has become inedible? And which concerns are *de'oraisa* and which are *derabbanan*?

The *Mishnah Berurah* discusses an actual disagreement among *poskim* regarding small pieces. Don't flatten **pachos mikezayis** into "every atom must be hunted down." On the other hand, we cannot assume small pieces are automatically irrelevant, especially where they could combine or be eaten. There are distinctions.

The reason I am raising the whole question is not to abolish *bedikas chametz*, *chas veshalom*. I want us to understand the relationship between **thorough cleaning** and **the mitzvah of searching** on the night of the fourteenth.

So, *rabosai*, let us begin with the crumbs. Open the *Mishnah Berurah* inside.

## Pachos Mikezayis and the Concern of Chatzi Shiur

What does it mean when the *poskim* say **pachos mikezayis**, less than a *kezayis*? Do they mean pieces of substantial size, only below the *shiur*, or even dust-like crumbs in the cracks?

The **Chazon Ish**, in Orach Chaim **siman 116**, discusses small amounts of chametz and whether crumbs that cannot combine present the same problem as larger pieces. We need to examine his exact wording; not every report of "less than a *kezayis*" is a ruling about every possible particle.

And here's a fundamental *shaylah*. If an individual piece contains less than the Torah measure, is its removal a **din de'oraisa** or a **din derabbanan**? The ordinary discussion of **chatzi shiur** may matter. But the *Minchas Chinuch* and other *Acharonim* distinguish the laws of eating from **bal yera'eh** and the laws of destroying chametz.

We also have to discuss **hitzta'refus**—combining pieces into a *kezayis*. If several small pieces are in one place or one vessel, their combined quantity may be significant. That is very different from isolated, dirty particles scattered in unrelated corners of a house.

So don't say to me, "Even less than a *kezayis* is prohibited," and assume you've answered every case. **How much less? Where? Can it join with another piece? Is it still edible?**

Now there is another point I find important. **The mitzvah of bedikah is a rabbinic institution**. The Torah prohibition against possessing chametz is one thing; Chazal's enactment to search is another. We have to understand how the rabbinic *bedikah* deals with a **safek**, a possibility that chametz remains.

When a place was used for chametz and might still contain a significant amount, the reason for *bedikah* is clear. But imagine a house that was cleaned thoroughly. Now a person proposes hours of searching for crumbs that might be there, might be less than a *shiur*, and might not even remain edible.

Is every layer of that possibility part of the enactment? That's the question I asked Reb Reuven. But don't hear my rhetorical question as permission to omit the *bedikah* Chazal required.

The original **Mishnah Berurah 442:33** discusses slightly soiled crumbs smaller than a *kezayis*, and there are different views about their status. Some explanations also distinguish crumbs that are trodden on or rendered unfit for consumption.

We must read the **Chazon Ish** as well. And we have to separate the question **what chametz needs removal** from the question **what bedikah Chazal required**, because they are not identical.

That leads to a fascinating practical matter: today, when people scrub their homes before Pesach, what is still left to be done when the night of *bedikas chametz* arrives?

## Crumbs, Dust, and a Home Already Thoroughly Cleaned

Let us consider a tiny crumb that has become dirty, crushed, or mixed with dust. What is its *status*? We must not confuse a clean, edible piece of bread with something a person would not consider food at all.

I once discussed this with **Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg**, and as I recall he was very concerned that people understand the difference between **crumbs that require attention** and ordinary **dirt**. I remember him emphasizing that women who do the Pesach cleaning shouldn't be taught that every particle of household dust is chametz requiring extraordinary efforts. This is my oral recollection; the precise limits of his guidance need checking.

The **Mishnah Berurah**, the **Chazon Ish**, and other *poskim* discuss these distinctions. We should learn the sources instead of repeating either the slogan "crumbs are chametz" or the slogan "crumbs are dirt" without qualification.

Now I want to take this one step further. Suppose the home has been **cleaned thoroughly before the fourteenth of Nisan**. The shelves, cupboards, floors and corners were examined and cleaned. The places where chametz was used have been addressed.

Is the work of **bedikah** already substantially accomplished? Is the search on the night of the fourteenth still a full separate obligation? And what happens to the **berachah** when there is nothing left to find?

There are important discussions in the **Aruch HaShulchan**, Orach Chaim 433, and in the **Shaarei Teshuvah** about cleaning before the appointed night. I am making a *dikduk* from the way those sources consider the value of earlier cleaning, not claiming every house becomes exempt from *bedikah* automatically.

Some authorities are concerned that where everything is already known to be clean, the search may have little actual object. Others emphasize that **the mitzvah is searching even if no chametz is found**, so the berachah is valid because the act of *bedikah* is still a mitzvah.

Listen carefully. **Cleaning** and **bedikah** must not be spoken of as though they are always one undifferentiated act. Often we prepare and clean the home first, and then perform *bedikas chametz* at the appointed time to examine the places that require it.

Here is the practical *shakla vetarya*: perhaps when a home was thoroughly examined, the search will be relatively brief; but perhaps the *takkanah* still requires a specific bedikah in proper time and manner. The *halachah* is not determined just by whether a person thinks the house looks spotless.

And how does this relate to the well-known **minhag of placing ten pieces of chametz** for the search?

Let's read the **Rema** and **Shaarei Teshuvah** on that custom. It may illuminate the exact problem I've been raising.

## Ten Pieces of Chametz and the Berachah on Bedikah

The **Rema, Orach Chaim 432:2**, writes: **"ונוהגים להניח פתיתי חמץ במקום שימצאם הבודק כדי שלא יהא ברכה לבטלה."** There is a custom to place pieces of chametz for the person searching to find, in order to avoid concern that the blessing was unnecessary.

Let me ask you: why would there be such a concern? A person has cleaned the house thoroughly. He takes his candle, searches the rooms, and finds nothing. Did he fail to fulfill the mitzvah? Was his *berachah* made in vain?

This is a *machlokes* in how we understand the mitzvah. Some earlier authorities attach importance to having actual chametz that will be found and burned, especially in a home already cleaned before the night of the fourteenth. The **Shaarei Teshuvah** discusses this issue in connection with the custom of placing pieces. Others explain that the mitzvah is **to search**, and a search is valid even when the result is that no chametz is discovered.

The **Mishnah Berurah**, **Shaar HaTziyun**, **Chok Yaakov**, and other *poskim* discuss these views. The custom of **ten pieces** is also linked in later writings to an explanation attributed to the **Arizal**, but its exact *kabbalistic* source needs to be checked separately.

I once wondered about the Gemara in Pesachim describing **ten pieces** that were placed and only **nine** found. Maybe this bears some relationship to the later custom. But I am raising it only as a possible *remez*, not as proof that the Gemara instituted our practice.

Now another question. If the house is already spotless, do the ten pieces make a search meaningful that otherwise would not have been necessary? Or are they a *minhag* that adds to the search, while the original obligation still exists independently?

The **Rema** acknowledges the custom, but the sources explain that it is not a condition without which every bedikah becomes invalid. And those pieces must be put where they can be found, counted carefully, and kept from crumbling or getting lost. Otherwise the custom creates a new chametz concern!

What I want to understand is the **reason for the minhag**, not just the number. If we understand the relationship between prior cleaning, the actual search, and the berachah, we will begin to understand why a person should or should not be worried when no chametz is found.

Let's take the **Shaarei Teshuvah** inside and compare the other side of the *machlokes*.

## Does Cleaning Before Pesach Count as Bedikah?

A person tells me, "The entire house has already been cleaned." Fine. Then **what are we checking** on the night of the fourteenth? That is my question.

The **Shaarei Teshuvah**, as we are reading him, gives significance to the fact that people prepare and examine their houses so carefully in advance. This helps explain why some authorities worried about the *berachah* and favored placing known chametz for the person doing *bedikah* to find.

But other authorities insist that **the mitzvah of bedikah is to search at its proper time**. Even if the rooms were cleaned, a person may still be obligated to examine the areas in which chametz was brought. If he searches and finds nothing, he has still performed the *bedikah*.

We have to look at the **Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 433**, and **Mishnah Berurah and Shaar HaTziyun on Orach Chaim 432** very carefully. Don't convert a statement about thorough cleaning into a blanket *psak* that the mitzvah of bedikah no longer exists.

Some students are pointing to *gedolim* who spent hours checking after extensive cleaning. Others know very careful households whose actual night search is much shorter. There may be differences in *chumrah*, circumstances, and what has already been examined; the fact that practices differ doesn't settle the *din*.

Now let us ask **who did the cleaning**. Did the homeowner clean? Did his wife or children? Did a hired worker? How thoroughly were the places that contained chametz actually examined?

The **Mishnah Berurah 432:8** discusses appointing family members or others to help with bedikah. He states that the *ikar hadin* allows reliance on women under the relevant conditions, while citing a *lechatchilah* preference of some authorities for adult men because checking carefully can require considerable effort. Other *poskim* explicitly note women's very careful home cleaning.

So we cannot simply say that **a woman cannot conduct a valid bedikah**. That would misrepresent the *halachic discussion*. And we must distinguish housecleaning by someone hired to clean from formally undertaking the mitzvah on behalf of the responsible party.

This is not a casual question. The person who performed the cleaning may know the actual condition of every corner better than somebody who walks in for ten minutes with a candle. But we need the correct **halachic rules of neemanus and shelichus** to decide who can carry out an obligation.

And now let me raise a modern case with all these issues: a student living in a **dormitory** who leaves for Pesach.

## Yeshivah and Seminary Dormitories: Whose Obligation?

A *bachur* lives in a yeshivah dormitory. He leaves for Pesach before the fourteenth of Nisan. Does he have to return to the room and perform **bedikas chametz**? And if he does check it, **does he make a berachah**?

A fundamental question is **who is responsible for that room**. The building belongs to the yeshivah, but perhaps the student has a right of occupancy that makes the room his *bayis* for purposes of *bedikah*. On the other hand, perhaps the institutional management retains primary responsibility.

We must distinguish ownership of the building from a student's actual possession and use of the room. A person need not own a building outright for halachic obligations to arise, and the terms of a dormitory arrangement can matter.

The *shiur* mentions positions attributed to **Rav Elyashiv** and **Rav Shteinman** and a remembered exchange with **Rav Yisrael Belsky**. I remember discussing the possibility that, if the student bears the obligation, he checks his room directly, and if the yeshivah has the obligation, he may be able to act as its **shaliach**. But these are distinct cases, and the exact printed responsa and conditions need verification.

What happens when the student has already traveled away? Can the yeshivah appoint someone to search? Who makes a *berachah*? What if the place was professionally cleaned? We cannot answer these questions merely by saying the student didn't pay rent, or that the yeshivah owns the walls.

The same issue arises in a **seminary dormitory**. The women who live in those rooms may have a connection to them similar to the connection a *bachur* has to his room. Who is obligated? Who is available to check? Is there a *shaliach*?

And don't confuse this with the separate question of **who is halachically capable of performing bedikah**. As we saw, the *Mishnah Berurah* discusses women's reliability and a *lechatchilah* preference in certain contexts; he does not issue a universal invalidation of a woman's search.

The recording ends during the *shakla vetarya*. We have not finished the sources, and I am not going to make up a final *psak* regarding dormitories or seminaries.

But you see the great *yesod* of our *shiur*. We started by asking a sharp question: after all the cleaning we do today, what remains of **bedikas chametz**? Then we learned about small crumbs, *chatzi shiur*, the purpose of the search, ten pieces, and the people on whom we may rely.

The opening declaration that there is no longer a mitzvah of bedikah was a **kashya** to stimulate learning, not my final ruling. The task is to examine the sources carefully so that every home and dormitory is checked according to its actual **halachic obligation**.