Orach Chaim 439 I put Ten Pieces of Chametz Out and Only Found Nine!

You've got nine piles of matzah and one of chometz.

V'bo achbor, and achbor comes along, v'notl, and takes one.

V'lo yodanu imnotl chometz, imnotl chometzah.

We don't know whether it's the chometz one or the matzah one.

V'nichnes lebayis boduk, and then he takes this piece of food.

unsure if it's Chometz or Matzah, into a house, which is Boduk for Chometz.

You've got to check again.

Because the rule is, and therefore we're Choshesh.

However...

And we can be so sure that the thing that the animal took was actually matzah, because there were nine matzahs and only one chometz, and therefore that would...

That would take away the need for Eid B'dika.

This applies when the Achbor took it in front of us from the Kvirs.

Because if the Achbor took it not in front of us, then it's got a din of Perish.

Remember Perish? Then we would apply it called the Perish.

and therefore you wouldn't need to do a Bidikah.

But in our case, it says, the implication is, even if he already did Bidil, because that is, therefore, a Bidikah Drabonon, and therefore the Bidikah is only a Drabonon, still, we would require him to do the Bidikah again, even though it's only a Bidikah Drabonon, because he already did Bidil, and the reason is, Because originally, when Chazal instituted B'dikas Chometz, it was only because of a suffix.

And therefore, that is the nature of B'dikas Chometz.

And therefore, with more Machme, even for a Sufeket D'Rabbonon, we still require it.

However, in other words, there are more added.

If the kicker is a cotton, where the animal could have eaten it, says Nishabur, why? To have a fake speaker.

Maybe what he took was matzah.

And if you're going to tell me what he took was chomet, maybe the akhbar ate it.

You don't need to check the house again.

Even if you didn't do bittl.

But there is an explanation for Akhrenim, and the Akhrenim have different explanations.