Pesach Products:

Do I Need to Use
Kosher L'Pesach
Shampoo?
By Rabbi Joshua Flug

For technical information regarding use of

this document, press ctrl and click here.
I. Intro- Every year, numerous organizations publish lists of which products contain
chametz and which don't. Depending on the organization, there are various
standards of what is required to be chametz free. In this shiur outline, we will
attempt to show the basis for the various positions.
II. Which Prohibitions are we dealing with?
a. In addition to the prohibition against eating chametz, the Torah prohibits
owning chametz. {1}
i. The Gemara shows why there is a need for two separate prohibitions:
{}
1. Bal Yei'ra'eh teaches that you can't see chametz that belongs to
you but you can see chametz of other people. I.e., there is no
prohibition of seeing chametz, only owning chametz.
2. Bal yimatzeh adds that owning it, or holding it as collateral is
also prohibited.
b. There is also a prohibition against benefitting from chametz. {}
III. Talmudic sources mention a number of cases of chametz that are not in their
original form:
a. Chametz Shecharacho- Burnt bread- The Gemara states that one is permitted
to benefit from bread that was burnt before Pesach. {}
b. Pas She'ifsha-The Gemara states that if bread is spoiled to the point that
people won't eat it, but it is still fit for a dog, it must be burned with the
chametz because it can still be used as yeast. {}
c. The Mishna lists a number of items that are not food items and yet one
violates the issur of chametz (we will see which one) with these items. {}
d. The Rishonim have similar approaches to explain the three different
situations:
i. Rabbeinu Asher (c.1250-1328) discusses the case of chametz
shecharacho. He notes that the difference between chametz
shecharacho and pas she'ifsha is that pas shecharacho is not fit for a
dog and pas she'ifsha is. He implies that the cases listed in the Mishna
are referring to the prohibition of eating chametz and not the
prohibition of owning it. He explains that even if the chametz
becomes unfit for a dog, it is still prohibited to eat it because by eating
 it you demonstrate that it is edible (this is the principle of ach'shevei).
{}
ii. Rambam (1135-1204) seems to subscribe to similar principles:
1. Rambam rules that if you burn chametz before Pesach, you can
benefit from the ashes on Pesach. {}
2. Rambam rules that spoiled bread that is not fit for a dog may
be owned over Pesach. He implies that one may not eat it. He
adds that anything that doesn't maintain "tzuras chametz" one
is not required to dispose of it before Pesach. {}
3. Rambam rules that if there is a mixture of chametz and other
items and the mixture is not intended for human consumption,
one may own it on Pesach but one may not eat it (even if there
is only a mashehu of chametz). {}
iii. R. Yisrael Isserlin (1390-1460) combines the opinions of Rabbeinu
Asher and Rambam in explaining why it is permissible to use ink that
has chametz ingredients: {}
1. According to Rabbeinu Asher, anything that is not fit for a dog
is permissible to use on Pesach as long as it became unfit
before Pesach.
2. According to Rambam, a mixture that contains chametz that is
not meant for human consumption is permissible for use on
Pesach.
3. This ruling is codified in Shulchan Aruch. {}
IV. If anything not fit for a dog is permissible, what are all of these stringencies based
on?
a. There are cases where the mixture is not currently edible, but by adding in
ingredients, one can "repair" it. R. Ya'akov of Lisa (1760-1832) writes that
one can only classify something as nifsal if it became inherently ruined.
However, if the mixture as a whole is not edible due to the other ingredients
that are in the mixture, it is not considered nifsal me'achila, and although
eating it would be considered shelo k'derech hana'aso, the prohibited item
retains its status. {}
i. This implies that if the chametz ingredient is not inherently nifsal,
there is a violation of bal yeira'eh because it is still considered
chametz.
ii. R. Moshe Feinstein assumes this approach regarding ethyl alcohol
(ethanol). He claims that since liquid alcohol can be converted to a
drink that at least some people will drink, it is considered chametz. {}
 iii. Nowadays, almost alcohol that is in cosmetic products is denatured
alcohol. This means that chemicals are added that either poison the
alcohol or render it undrinkable due to its bitterness. [The reason why
the alcohol is denatured is that alcohol that is convertible to drinking
alcohol is subject to certain taxes. By denaturing the alcohol and
rendering it unfit for human consumption, one can avoid the taxes.]
Should this make it fit for Pesach?
1. According to R. Ya'akov of Lisa, if the denaturant is a
chemical that makes the mixture bitter, that wouldn't render the
alcohol nifsal because it is not inherently spoiled, it just has
another chemical in it that makes the entire mixture
undrinkable.
2. If the denaturant is poisonous, there is a dispute among the
poskim:
a. R. Chaim Chezkiah Medini (1833-1904) quotes a
discussion from the Even Ya'akov regarding rat poison
that contains chametz. He concludes that placing
poison in a mixture is the greatest form of bitul chametz
and one would not violate bal yeira'eh for it. {}
b. R. Meir Simcha of D'vinsk (1843-1926) rules that it is
not considered nifsal because it is still fixable and
because other animals may be able to drink it (it is a
chiddush to say that even if other animals will drink it,
it is not considered nifsal) {}
b. Are the standards for nifsal different when the item was never meant to be
eaten?
i. R. Moshe Schick (1807-1879) has a novel idea regarding the standards
of nifsal. He suggests that if you take chametz and make a perfume
with it, even though it is no longer edible, it is not considered nifsal.
Nifsal means that the chametz is not usable. However, if you decide to
use the chametz for something other than eating, the chametz retains
its status. The only reason why ink containing chametz is permissible
is that the chametz in the ink is not significant within the ink mixture.
{}
ii. R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1808-1875) takes a similar approach
regarding a certain ethyl alcohol mixture used for lamps. He asserts
that if the purpose of the alcohol is to light a lamp, it doesn't matter
that it is not edible and it retains its chametz status. {}
iii. R. Medini quotes from the sefer Minchas Moshe who disagrees with
R. Nathanson and compares the mixture to burnt chametz and to ink.
{}
c. If the product is considered nifsal, does it make a difference if the product
goes into one's mouth (e.g. toothpaste)?
i. As we noted earlier, Rabbeinu Asher writes that even if chametz is
nifsal, it is nevertheless prohibited to eat it. Does that include placing
it in one's mouth and spitting out most of it?
ii. R. Dovid HaLevi Segal (1586-1667) discusses whether it is
permissible to taste something non-kosher without swallowing it. He
concludes that it is permissible to taste it. {}
iii. R. Avraham Tzvi Hersh Eisenstadt (1813-1868) quotes a number of
authorities who disagree and maintain that it is prohibited to taste
something non-kosher. {}
iv. R. Menachem Mendel Kruchmal (c. 1600-1661) notes that even if one
doesn't accept Taz's ruling, if the item is nifsal, there is no prohibition
to taste it because the only reason why one can't eat it is because of
ach'shevei and ach'shevei doesn't apply if one merely tastes it. {}
1. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (1878-1953) presents the same
idea regarding pills that contain chametz. The pill is nifsal and
the only prohibition is to eat because of ach'shevei. However,
if one's intent is not eating it, but rather to swallow it,
ach'shevei doesn't apply. {}
d. Is applying an oil or cream to one's body similar to eating it?
i. The Gemara states that there is a concept of sicha keshtiyah- anointing
oil is like drinking it. The Gemara mentions this concept regarding
Terumah. {}
ii. Tosafos note that this concept only applies to Terumah. Furthermore,
it only applies to oil and not to other creams and lotions. {}
iii. Nevertheless, the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) disagrees and shows that
other Rishonim are of the opinion that this concept applies to all areas
of Halacha and not only to oil, but to anything that gets applied to the
body. Therefore, the Vilna Gaon rules that one may not use non-
kosher soap. {}
iv. R. Ya'akov Chaim Sofer (1870-1939) notes that even if one accepts
the stringency of the Vilna Gaon, it would only apply to soap that is fit
for human consumption. If it is not edible, there is concern about
placing it on one's body. {}
e. Is something that is inedible because of its sharp taste considered nifsal?
 i. R. Malkiel Tannenbaum (19th century) rules that something is only
considered nifsal if it is spoiled. If the taste is too sharp or too strong,
it is not considered nifsal. {}
ii. Mishna Berurah seems to assume the same position. {}
iii. It is possible that mouthwash and toothpaste fit into this category.
However, these products also have poisonous chemicals in them, so
according to those poskim who consider poisonous (but good tasting)
food as nifsal, it would not be problematic.
V. The positions of the Kashrus Organizations- Recently, kashrus organizations have
taken a stance on these issues. They generally assume that creams, lotions and
other non-liquids are nifsal me'achilas hakelev and are permissible to use.
Liquids are more problematic. See:
a. http://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/passover/Medication%20Cosmetics
%20Policy2006.pdf
b. http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-medicine.htm
c. http://oukosher.org/index.php/passover/article/5708
 ‫משנה פסחים מב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬שמות יב‪:‬יט‪ ,‬יג‪:‬ז‬

‫רא"ש ב‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .2‬פסחים ה‪:‬‬

‫רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ג‪:‬יא‬

‫רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ד‪:‬יא‬

‫פסחים כא‪:‬‬

‫רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ד‪:‬יב‬

‫דבר שנתערב בו חמץ ואינו מאכל לאדם‬ ‫פסחים כא‪:‬‬
‫כלל או שאינו מאכל כל אדם כגון‬
‫התריא"ק וכיוצא בו אע"פ שמותר לקיימו‬
‫אסור לאכלו עד אחר הפסח ואע"פ שאין‬
‫בו מן החמץ אלא כל שהוא הרי זה אסור‬ ‫פסחים מה‪:‬‬
‫לאכלו‪.‬‬
 ‫שדי חמד מערכת חמץ ומצה ה‪:‬נג‬ ‫תרומת הדשן א‪:‬קכט‬

‫שלחן ערוך או"ח תמב‪:‬י‬

‫חוות דעת קג‪:‬א‬

‫שו"ת אור שמח ס' נה‬

‫נשאלתי על השפירעט שהלדליק שמערבין‬
‫בו סם ורעל מהממשלה‪ ,‬אם מותר להדליק‬
‫בפסח‪.‬‬
‫אגרות משה או"ח ג‪:‬סב‬

‫והשבתי לאסור‪ ,‬דכיון דהוא נפסל מאכילת‬

‫כלב רק משום הרעל המעורב בתוכו‪,‬‬
‫אימור ע"י תערובות דברים אחרים ראויים‬
‫לתקנן‪ ,‬וכמו דאשכחן לענין טומאת אוכלין‬
‫בפרק א' מהל' טו"א ברמב"ם הלכה כ"א‬
‫שאין המשקה יוצא לכלב לעולם כו' ואם כן‬
‫הא איתא ע"י תערובות רעל‪ ,‬וצ"ל דזה‬
‫אינו‪ ,‬והגמ' משוה דין טו"א לנפסל מאכילת‬
‫כלב וחרכו קודם זמנו דוקא שנפסל‬
‫מאכילת כלב‪ ,‬ועוד דאימור חזי לחתול‬
‫וכיו"ב‪ ,‬וכמו דפירש רש"י בדף קכ"ח פרק‬
‫מפנין דמים מגולים אין הארס נחש מזיק‬
‫לחתול ששותה שאוכל נחשים עצמן‪ ,‬אם‬
‫כן אולי יש מין שאין מזיק לו הרעל‪ ,‬ומפני‬
‫זה אסרתי‪ ,‬ודו"ק‪.‬‬
 ‫ט"ז יו"ד צח‪:‬ב‬ ‫שו"ת מהר"ם שיק או"ח ס' רמב‬

‫שואל ומשיב קמא א‪:‬קמא‬

‫פתחי תשובה יו"ד צח‪:‬א‬

‫צמח צדק ס' מז‬

‫שדי חמד חמץ ומצה א‪:‬יא‬

‫חזון איש או"ח קטז‪:‬ח‬

 ‫כף החיים שכו‪:‬מה‬ ‫נדה לב‪.‬‬

‫דברי מלכיאל ד‪:‬כד‪:‬מג‬

‫תוס' יומא עז‪ .‬ד"ה דתנן‬

‫ביאור הלכה תמב‪:‬ט ד"ה חמץ‬

‫ביאור הגר"א או"ח שכו‪:‬י‬

‫משמע מדבריו דבחול מותר וכ"כ תוס' בספ"ד‬
‫דנדה בשם ר"ת דמותר‪ .‬ודבריו דחוקין דא"כ‬
‫ביה"כ אין אסור אלא שמן דוקא אבל במרדכי‬
‫פ"ה דשבת ובסה"ת וש"פ אוסרין להדיא כמו‬
‫ביה"כ דאידי ואידי כרת וכן בתרומה ול"ת‬
‫דמשום עינוי הוא ביה"כ דמדקאמר בפ"ט‬
‫דשבת מנין לסיכה שהיא כשתיה ביה"כ‬
‫שנאמר כו' אלמא משום דדמי לשתיה וכן‬
‫ברפ"ד דנדה אלא שתוס' ומרדכי וסה"ת וש"פ‬
‫כתבו שאסמכת' הוא ואינו אלא מדרבנן עשו‬
‫אותו כשתיה ולפיכך במקום צערא התירו‬
‫כמש"ש בפ' בתרא דיומא מי שי"ל חטטין‬
‫בראשו סך כדרכו ביה"כ כו' אבל שלא במקום‬
‫צערא אסור ועתוס' שם ביומא וכן בחדש וכל‬
‫איסורין‬