Gemara

Question: How does the Tana of Beraisa #1 expound "Tisa u'Vasa"?

Answer: It teaches that one must bring Vlad and Temurah Shelamim even mi'Mir'aihu.

Pesachim 4b - Question: If one rented out his house on the 14th on the pretense that it was checked, and it was found to be unchecked, what is the law?

Is this a Mekach Ta'os (a mistaken rental, and the tenant may retract)?

Answer: Abaye taught that even in a place where people hire others to check for Chametz, the rental is valid, because people like to do Mitzvos with their own money.

10b - Question #1 (Rava): If a loaf is on the ceiling rafters, must one bring a ladder to get it down?

Perhaps Chachamim did not exert someone so much. Since (normally) it will not fall by itself, we are not concerned lest he eat it;

Or, since it could fall by itself, we are concerned lest he eat it!

Question #2 (Rava): If you will say that we are concerned lest it fall, if a loaf is in a pit, must one bring a ladder to bring it up?

Since it cannot come up by itself, we are not concerned;

Or, perhaps he will descend to do his needs in the pit and will (forget and) eat it!

Question #3 (Rava): (If you will say that we are concerned - Rashi deletes this from the text,) if a loaf is in a snake's mouth, must one bring a Chaver (snake charmer) to remove it?

Perhaps Chachamim make a person exert himself, but they do not require him to spend money (for what he himself cannot do). Or, perhaps he must even spend money!

These questions are not resolved.

Rishonim

Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 2:13): If a snake entered one's house with bread in its mouth, one need not hire a Chaver to remove it.

Rambam (14): If a k'Zayis of Chametz is on the ceiling rafters, one must bring a ladder to get it down, for sometimes it falls down. If Chametz was in a pit, we do not obligate him to bring it up. It suffices to be Mevatel it in his heart.

Rebuttal (Ra'avad): This is like the Rambam wrote, that whenever the Gemara says 'if you will say that..', this is the Halachah. However, he erred. He thought that Rava asked about l'Chatchilah. This is wrong, for we learned that one may not hide Chametz in pits (5b)! Rather, Rava asked about one who checked and was Mevatel, and after Chametz is forbidden, he found Chametz.

Rosh (Pesachim 1:10): If the Ba'al ha'Bayis cannot exert himself to check everywhere in the house, he arranges that members of his household be near him when he blesses, and they spread out and each checks his area.

Ba'al ha'Ma'or (Pesachim 4b): We are stringent about all of the questions. One must take down the loaf from the rafters, since it might fall and he will eat it. One must remove the Chametz from the pit and get a Chaver to remove the snake holding a loaf. The Rif omitted all of these.

Rosh (14): The Rif omitted them because they are not common.

Tosfos (10b DH b'Mamonei): Only here (perhaps) Chachamim do not require a person to spend money (to hire a snake charmer), for perhaps the snake will remove the loaf or eat it. In other cases, we say that a person is happy to do Mitzvos with his money!

Chachmas Shlomo: We say that a person is happy to do Mitzvos with his money only when he could do the Mitzvah himself, but he does not want to exert himself. Here, he cannot do the Mitzvah himself, so he does not want to spend money for it.

Aruch ha'Shulchan (OC 438:7): The Rambam exempts from hiring a Chaver, for Rabanan did not exert a person. For Bedikah we say that a person is happy to do Mitzvos with his money. That is for Vadai Chametz. Here it is a Safek. Perhaps the snake will take the Chametz out, or perhaps it will eat it. Also, this question was not settled. We must say that the case is that he was Mevatel it, so it is a Safek mid'Rabanan and we are lenient.

Rashi (18a DH Tisa): Even if Kodshim are in the pasture and it is an exertion to get them to bring them when he ascends for the festival, he must take them.

B'Tzel ha'Chachmah (5:101:3): If not for the verse, one would not need to exert himself. The Torah exempts from Hashavas Aveidah and unloading when it is an exertion, i.e. he is more than about 260 Amos away, and one need not prod the animal along more than a Parshah, which is a 10th of the amount a person can walk in a day (about three kilometers) (Bava Metzi'a 33a). After helping load an animal, he accompanies it a Mil. However, we do not find that exertion exempts from other Mitzvos. One need not spend more than a fifth of his wealth for a Mitzvah, even if it will pass. This is why Chachamim were often lenient when it is an exertion or financial loss. Tevu'os Shor (1:3) equates bodily exertion and monetary loss. In any case bodily exertion is no less than monetary loss. Even though the Gemara suggested that Chachamim exerted a person only bodily, but not financially, there it is also an exertion to find a Chaver.

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (OC 432:2): If the Ba'al ha'Bayis wants, he brings members of his household near him when he blesses, and they spread out and each checks his area.

Magen Avraham (5): In any case also he should check, for it is a greater Mitzvah to do so himself than through his Shali'ach (Kidushin 41a). The Gemara connotes that there are places in which the custom is to hire people to check.

Mishnah Berurah (6): Also one who is not part of the household can be a Shali'ach. The Shulchan Aruch discusses a typical case. Letter of the law one may rely even on women slaves (Kena'anim, not our Nochri slaves) and children. In any case l'Chatchilah, it is proper to rely only on free adult men.

Va'Ya'an Yosef (OC 262): The Minchas Chinuch (Reish Mitzvah 9) says that one fulfills Bi'ur Chametz passively if he has no Chametz. He brings Rishonim who connote like this. If one rented out 'a checked house', and it was found to be unchecked, even in a place where people hire others to check, it is not a Mekach Ta'os, for people like to do Mitzvos with their own money. Rashi says that even though it costs money, had he known he would have rented it anyway for this reason. The Ran (2a, Dibur Rishon) says that the tenant cannot demand back what he paid someone to check it, even though the Mitzvah is incumbent on the landlord. If the tenant fulfills the Mitzvah through not having Chametz, this is even if the landlord checks. He does not gain through the landlord's failure to check. Why can't he demand the money?! Sefer Charedim, Tanayim l'Kiyum ha'Mitzvos (17) brings from the Zohar (Terumah 128a) that one should not do Mitzvos for free. Rather, he should pay the full amount, and not be particular, to remove the spirit of Tum'ah. Therefore, the tenant prefers to pay to fulfill the Mitzvah. This answers Tosfos' question (what was Rava's Safek). There, the person spends his money to do Bedikah on his other Chametz, and this suffices to remove the Tum'ah. Therefore (perhaps) Chachamim did not obligate him to spend more for a Chaver.

Kol Bo (146 DH u'Netilas): Normally, we bless 'Al' on a Mitzvah that can be done through a Shali'ach. We bless Lehadlik Ner on Shabbos and Chanukah, and Lehafrish Terumos and Ma'aseros, even though a Shali'ach can do them, because these are not exertions and most people do them by themselves. Bedikas Chametz is a great exertion and people often command others to do it, therefore we bless Al. If one makes a Shali'ach to light or tithe, he blesses Al.

Aruch ha'Shulchan (434:10): The Magen Avraham says that a Shali'ach to check for Chametz cannot be Mevatel it. However, nowadays when people say 'check', this includes Bitul. Some say that the owner must stand nears the Shali'ach. This is unreasonable. The stringent opinion holds that a Mitzvah incumbent on a person's body, he cannot make a Shali'ach for it. This is even if he stands there!

Shulchan Aruch (438:2): If a k'Zayis of Chametz is on the ceiling rafters, one must bring a ladder to get it down, for sometimes it falls down.

Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chasav Rabeinu): The Tur says that if one was Mevatel, he need not check. If he was not Mevatel, he must check. This is imprecise, for checking is for unknown Chametz. Here we discuss known Chametz!

Mishnah Berurah (12): This connotes that for less than a k'Zayis, one need not get a ladder. Some question this.

Mishnah Berurah (13): Even if he saw it before it is forbidden, and he can be Mevatel it, he must remove it, lest it fall and he will eat it. All the more so one must remove it if he found it after it is forbidden, and he cannot be Mevatel it.

Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): If Chametz was in a pit, we do not obligate him to bring it up. It suffices to be Mevatel it in his heart

Beis Yosef (DH Aval): The Ra'avad said so only regarding Chametz in a pit. The Magid Mishneh says so. The Tur assumed that all of the questions are similar, so he said that the question is only if one checked and was Mevatel (and found Chametz later). He said that this is unlike hiding in a pit, for after Bi'ur it is not his! He argues with the Rambam for a different reason, i.e. it is a Torah Safek. He holds that if one found Chametz before it is forbidden, it suffices to be Mevatel it. After it is forbidden, one cannot be Mevatel it, so he must destroy it. The Ra'avad holds that if one found Chametz before it is forbidden, it is in his Reshus, so surely he must get rid of it. If not, this is like hiding it in a pit! However, the Tur connotes that it is a Torah Safek, so Bitul is not enough. However, if he found it before it is forbidden and was Mevatel it before he knew about it, this suffices mid'Oraisa, and Rava asked whether mid'Rabanan one must remove it. Perhaps Chachamim allow one to rely on Bitul mid'Oraisa when it is an exertion. He similarly explains the questions (10b) about a mouse that entered a checked house with a loaf, for it is an exertion to check the house again. After Bitul it is a Safek mid'Rabanan, and we are lenient. The Ra'avad holds that if he knew before it is forbidden, even if he was Mevatel, mid'Rabanan this is forbidden like (the Torah forbids) hiding in a pit (without Bitul).

Chok Yakov (8): The Roke'ach cites a Tosefta that says that if Chametz fell in a well, it is as if Bi'ur was done. We must distinguish between a well and an empty pit without water.

Mishbetzos Zahav (4): I.e. we are concerned lest he descend in a pit to use it, but we are not concerned about a well. This is according to the opinion that forbids using the water. According to the opinion that permits using the water within 24 hours, when it fell into cold water, there is more concern for a well than for an empty pit! Casting to the sea is a different matter.

Magen Avraham (4): This is like Chametz on which a house collapsed. However, one may not overly hide Chametz.

Mishnah Berurah (14): If he normally uses the pit the entire year, he must remove it.

Mishnah Berurah (16): If he found it after it is forbidden and he cannot be Mevatel it, he must remove it.

Kaf ha'Chayim (21): This is if he put Chametz there with intent to remove it before Pesach, or it fell in. One may not put Chametz there with intent to leave it there during Pesach. Even if he did so more than 30 days before Pesach, and he was Mevatel it, he must remove and destroy it.

Kaf ha'Chayim (23): We are not concerned lest he do two actions, i.e. take it out and eat it. Beforehand, he will remember that it is forbidden! We are not concerned lest he descend and eat it there, for it is not common to eat in pits.

Kaf ha'Chayim (24): If he found it after it is forbidden he must remove it, unless he did Bitul beforehand and did not knew about this Chametz.