<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>RYL wrote on Areivim:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I believe I recall learning a Tosafos years ago that said that women</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>cannot be relied upon to clean properly for Pesach. If I am<br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>correct, then how come in most families the majority of the cleaning</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>for Pesach is left up to women and gentile cleaning ladies?<br><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And RTK replied:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>the answer is the women clean but the men do bedikas chometz<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>ps I don't think it's that the women can't be relied on to wield mop and broom, but that they can't be relied on to know the complicated halachos well enough -- but that would vary acc to the </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>woman. Gemara talks about the usual case<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>cc to Chana Luntz for obvious reasons<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Sorry, I saw RYL’s original statement and wanted to reply, but was too busy over pesach.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>RYL has it a little backwards – the gemora (Pesachim 4a-b) says that women (and slaves and minors) *<b>are</b>* believed regarding biur chametz – but that this is only because biur chametz is a d’rabbanan, since d’orisa bittel works and the rabbis believed these in relation to rabbinic matters – the implication being that was biur chametz to be d’orisa (ie there was no bittel) then women would not be believed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Tosphos there on 4b d”h “hemenuhu” – asks on this why would women not be believed if biur chametz was d’orisa – we believe women on lots of d’orisas such as chala and ma’asering crops and nikur. Their answer is that bedikas chametz requires tircha gedola and, as the Yerushalmi states, women are lazy, and hence, were it to be a d’orisa, for something that requires tircha gedola women would not be believed, but since it is only d’rabbanan, women are believed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I do sometimes wonder if the real reason women go so mad pre Pesach (and appear to have a different Shulchan Aruch as per RZS) is that they are actually trying to disprove this Yerushalmi (see the Aruch HaShulchan in Orech HaShulchan </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Siman 437 si’if 7</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> who states that “</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>today our women check more carefully and scratch after a tiny piece of chametz and wash and clean all places and are more medakdek than the men”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Two slightly different alternative answers to Tosphos’ question are given by the Ran and the Aruch (and as quoted in the Rema in Yoreh Deah siman 127 si’if 3). The Aruch says that a woman is believed for d’orisas where there is something definitely assur there – such as meat without nikur, or dough without chala, but where there is a safek if there is something assur there or not, d’orisa a woman is not believed, which is why for bedikas chametz, where there might be chametz there, but there might not, then women would not have been believed, had it not in fact been a d’rabbanan requirement. And the Ran somewhat similarly says (among the other reasons he brings, including Tosphos’) that if it is certain that there is an issur, and it needs fixing she is believed to fix it, but if there is a side to be lenient, then a woman might go too easily towards the leniency, and would not have been believed were it not merely a rabbinic requirement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Note by the way that the Meiri has a long discussion on this in Pesachim 4a, and brings various other opinions, including that indeed women are believed on all Torah issurim, and this language regarding the rabbis believing in rabbinic matters was for minors and slaves, as well as various other attempts at reconciliation (eg women are believed regarding their own, but not troubling themselves for others, a position he rejects etc).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In any event, the results of all of this are that women are believed regarding bedikas and biur chametz.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However, the Magen Avraham in Orech Chaim Siman 437 si’if katan 8 and 437 si’if katan 14 says that l’chatchila one should not rely on women. And it is after the Aruch HaShulchan in </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Orech Chaim Siman 437 si’if 7, brings this Magen Avraham that he states, as I mentioned above, that “today our women check more carefully and scratch after a tiny piece of chametz and wash and clean all places and are more medakdek than the men”, the implication being that the fundamental thrust of the Magen Avraham is related to this (but that the metzius is, at least today, no longer true).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However there is also another factor involved, which the Mishna Brura raises (and he would seem to be explaining the Magen Avraham like this). In the vast majority of cases, in households where standard halachic relationships apply, the chametz in the house is owned, halachically, by the man and not the woman – ie she is searching for chametz which is not in fact hers. And given that there is a machlokus as to whether in fact one can make a shaliach to do bittel on one’s property – because it is a bit odd to appoint somebody to declare one’s property hefker and dust of the earth, and while the majority view is that indeed a person can make a shaliach to do their bittel, it is better not to, and it is better not to appoint a shaliach to do their bedika, even though b’dieved they can. And hence for a man to have his wife do the bedika, effectively he is making her a shaliach for his chametz, which is not ideal. And this understanding of what the Magen Avraham is getting at makes sense given that he goes on to </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>say and “</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>like in the Meharil and in Tosphos in Eruvin who writes that in their houses they are believed but to send them [ie as a shaliach] to do a thing they are not believed even d’rabbanan”. (Note by the way that the Meiri here in Pesachim does not like this argument regarding shlichus and eidus, based on the fact that a woman loses her kesuba if she says that some cohen fixed the kor for her, and if a man is not entitled to rely on his wife on this, then how can she justifiably lose her ketuba, he ought never to have relied on her in the first place). And while t</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>he</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> Shulchan Aruch does rule that if a man is not able to be home, and even if he did not command his wife to do the bedika and bittel, and she does it anyway, that is acceptable, and the Mishna Brura explains this as being based on ishto k’gufo, nobody appears desperately keen on relying on this except in extremis. So it certainly sounds from the Mishna Brura (</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Siman 434 si’if katan 19) where he concludes that a widow, since her chametz is fully within her ownership, is just like a man, is understanding the whole sugya in this manner, ie the reason not to rely l’chatchila on women and particularly one’s wife as per the Magen Avraham is because the chametz is fundamentally not hers, and that just as it is not ideal to rely on a shaliach, it is not ideal to rely on ones’ wife, despite ishto k’gufo and the ability to create shlichus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Chana</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>