Ordering Chametz Online Before or During Pesach for Delivery After Pesach

Question:
I use an automated online grocery account that places a weekly order on my behalf. I disabled it for the week of Pesach itself, but it remains active for the week following Pesach. The way the system works is that my credit card is charged in advance, during Pesach, even though the groceries—including Chametz items—will only be delivered after Pesach. In practice, this means that I am being charged for and ostensibly purchasing Chametz during Pesach, while only receiving it afterward. Is there any halachic issue with this arrangement?

Answer:
Ideally, this arrangement should be avoided, as at the very least it does not align with the spirit of Pesach and creates the appearance of purchasing Chametz during the festival, even if structured in a technically permissible manner. That said, whether it is strictly prohibited is subject to significant halachic debate. Nonetheless, if one already placed such an order, the Chametz that arrives after Pesach remains permitted for benefit.

Explanation:
Ordering Chametz before or during Pesach for delivery after Pesach raises the question of ownership as well as Rotzeh Bekiyumo—the prohibition, according to some poskim, not only of benefiting from Chametz on Pesach but even of desiring that it exist.

Ownership

The central halachic consideration, however, is whether one is deemed to have actually acquired the Chametz on Pesach. In contemporary online commerce, an order is generally not considered a completed purchase until the items are shipped. Until that point, the goods remain under the seller’s ownership and responsibility, and the seller retains the right to cancel the order unilaterally, even after charging the customer’s card—a mechanism intentionally structured for both legal and commercial reasons. Accordingly, even if payment is processed during Pesach, this does not necessarily constitute acquisition, as the charge can be reversed and the transaction voided. Many websites explicitly frame orders as offers to purchase rather than finalized sales.

A further point to disqualify any ownership of Chametz by online purchases, when delivery is delayed until after Pesach: Online stores maintain goods as part of a general inventory, and at the time a purchase is made, no specific item is yet designated as belonging to the purchaser. Ownership of a particular unit is effected only once the item is selected, packaged, and allocated for delivery to that individual. Until that stage, no definitive acquisition has taken place, and therefore no transfer of ownership can be said to have occurred. On the above basis, there is no issue of ownership of Chametz on Pesach itself, however, a secondary issue of Harotzeh Bekiyumo may be present, as we will now address.

The Concept of Rotzeh Be‑Kiyumo and Its Application to Forbidden Foods

The concept of rotzeh be‑kiyumo—desiring the continued existence of a prohibited entity—originates in the context of idolatry. With regard to avodah zarah and Yayin Nesech, the Torah not only forbids eating or deriving benefit from it, but Chazal went further and prohibited even desiring its continued existence. Since there is a mitzvah to eradicate idolatry from the world, one may not simultaneously benefit from or even wish for its presence.

A fundamental question is whether this prohibition extends beyond idolatry to other items from which benefit is forbidden, such as chametz on Pesach or mixtures of meat and milk. Some poskim maintain that the principle of rotzeh be‑kiyumo applies to all issurei hana’ah. According to this approach, just as the Torah forbids benefit from these items, the Sages extended the prohibition to include desiring their existence as well.

Accordingly, it can be argued that placing an online order for chametz during Pesach, even if the goods will not be delivered until after Pesach, may violate rotzeh be‑kiyumo. The reasoning is that by initiating the purchase, one is expressing a desire that the chametz exist during Pesach so that it may later be delivered and benefited from. This would be so even though no specific item has yet been designated to the purchaser. [On the other hand, it may be argued that since all actual benefit from the chametz occurs only after Pesach, when the Chametz will become permitted in benefit, the prohibition is not transgressed even according to the stringent opinion. The purchaser does not eat, possess, or derive benefit from the chametz during Pesach itself, and therefore the act may fall outside the scope of rotzeh be‑kiyumo. However, given this uncertainty, those who follow this approach may rule that one should act stringently.]

However, other poskim, including the Alter Rebbe, disagree entirely with extending rotzeh be‑kiyumo beyond idolatry. They argue that this restriction is unique to avodah zarah and wine used for idolatrous purposes (yayin nesech), because the Torah commands the destruction of idolatry. Since one is obligated to eradicate it, desiring its existence is fundamentally contradictory. By contrast, prohibited foods such as chametz are not subject to a universal obligation of eradication—they simply may not be owned or benefited from during the prohibited time. As a result, these authorities maintain that rotzeh be‑kiyumo does not apply to chametz at all. According to this position, placing an order during Pesach for chametz that will only be delivered afterward is entirely permitted, and no prohibition is violated.

An Additional Consideration: Instructing a Gentile on One’s Behalf

A further issue that may be raised—one that could be relevant according to all opinions, irrespective of questions of ownership or rotzeh be‑kiyumo—is the prohibition recorded in the Poskim against instructing a gentile to acquire chametz on one’s behalf during Pesach, or to even provide him with money for him to purchase himself Chametz with on Pesach. Prima facie, placing an online order during Pesach might be viewed as violating this prohibition, since the gentile seller appears to be acting as the purchaser’s agent to purchase Chametz on his behalf, and hence it is at least Maras Ayin of ownership, if not actual ownership according who those who hold of Shlichus even by a gentile.

However, one may argue that this concern applies only in cases where the gentile actually purchases the chametz on Pesach. In the case of standard online commerce, the chametz is typically already owned by the gentile seller, having been purchased in advance for general inventory. The seller does not acquire the chametz on Pesach for a specific customer, but merely selects, packages, and ships an item from existing stock. Since the final designation and transfer of the goods to the purchaser occurs only after Pesach, and the seller’s actions during Pesach pertain solely to his own merchandise, one could argue that even according to the above prohibition of asking a gentile to purchase Chametz, there is no prohibition involved in this case.

Practical Conclusion

Practically speaking, based on all of the above considerations, one should initially avoid purchasing chametz during Pesach, including placing online orders, even if one assumes that none of the halakhic concerns discussed above would apply. This is certainly the case when some of these issues may apply—at least according to certain opinions—and where a possible prohibition could be involved.

Nonetheless, after the fact, if such an order was already placed during Pesach, the chametz is not considered to have been owned by the Jew over Pesach, and it is therefore permitted to derive benefit from it after Pesach. This ruling applies even if the purchaser’s credit card was charged during Pesach, provided that the actual delivery—and thus the completion of the transaction—took place only after Pesach.

I am aware that some authorities have written that whenever payment has already been made, the chametz is forbidden even after Pesach, on the grounds that it is considered to have been owned by a Jew during Pesach. However, in my opinion, this position rests on a fundamental error regarding the nature of ownership in modern online commerce. In standard online purchasing models, payment alone does not confer ownership of a specific item. Rather, ownership transfers only at the time of delivery (or, at the earliest, at the time the item is designated and processed for the specific customer). Until that point, the chametz remains part of the seller’s general inventory and is fully owned by the gentile seller. Taking this into account, the chametz was never owned by the Jew during Pesach. Accordingly, the above‑mentioned stringency does not withstand scrutiny in this context. Therefore, even if payment was already processed, so long as the order was not fulfilled and ownership did not transfer until after Pesach, the chametz remains permitted for use and benefit after Pesach. If no payment, however, has taken place, such as the credit card has yet to be charged, then even the above Poskim would agree that the Chametz is permitted after Pesach.

Sources:

See Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 450:6 in name of P”M; M”B 450:23; Ateres Moshe 2:146; Beis Shlomo 82-83; Maharshag 1:13 and 2:69; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:216; 3:135; Chevel Nachalaso 20:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:10; Derech Ha’atarim p. 40; Neos Mordechai Pesach p. 394; Chukas Hapesach 1 40:21-24

Poskim who rule the Chametz is Assur after Pesach if already paid: Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:10 and Chukas Hapesach 1 40:21-24 based on M”B, P”M, and Rav Akiva Eiger ibid

Poskim who rule the Chametz is Mutar after Pesach even if already paid: Maharshag ibid; Derech Ha’atarim p. 40;

See regarding Rotzeh Bekiyumo – The Prohibition of Desiring the Continued Existence of Chametz: Michaber 450:7; Tur 450:7; Avoda Zara 32a and 63b; Rashi Avoda Zara 64a; M”A 450:11; Taz 450:6; Peri Chadash 450:7; Radbaz 1:240; Chasam Sofer 116 in end; 119 in beginning; Makor Chaim 450:7; Nishmas Adam Pesach 6; Avnei Zikaron 2; Sdei Chemed Mareches Chametz Umatzah 8:25; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 2 P. 95; Vol. 24 p. 296; Vol. 47 P. 617

Poskim who apply Rotzeh Bekiyumo to Chametz: Tur 450:7, brought in M”A 450:11 and Taz 450:6 [however, the M”A himself redefines this concept in Tur to refer to actual benefit and not regular Rotzeh Bekiyumo, as explains Admur 450:12. However, perhaps the M”A (in contrast to Admur) is simply explaining that the Issur of Rotzeh Bekiyumo applies only when there is some benefit, even by Yayin Nesech, and hence the M”A himself does agree with the application of Rotzeh Bekiyumo by Chametz. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Likkutei Sichos 16:130 footnote 13]; Minchas Yaakov 85:15, brought and negated in Admur Kuntrus Achron 446:2; Yeshuos Yaakov 448:5; Chasam Sofer 116 in end; 119 in beginning; Arugas Habosem 112; Maharam Shick O.C. 225; M”B 450:24-25; Avnei Tzedek 53; Igros Moshe 3:60; Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:7; Mentioned, and negated, in Likkutei Sichos 16:130; So rule regarding Basar Bechaalv, and the same should apply to Chametz: Radbaz 4:24; Rashal Chulin 8:46

Poskim who do not apply Rotzeh Bekiyumo to Chametz: Setimas Admur 450:12 who omits this Issur from his Shulchan Aruch; Admur in Kuntrus Achron 446:2; Implication of M”A ibid who redefines meaning of words of Tur [However, perhaps the M”A (in contrast to Admur) is simply explaining that the Issur of Rotzeh Bekiyumo applies only when there is some benefit, even by Yayin Nesech, and hence the M”A himself does agree with the application of Rotzeh Bekiyumo by Chametz. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Likkutei Sichos 16:130 footnote 13]; Peri Chadash 450:7; Radbaz 1:240; Mishpitei Uziel 3:61; Nishmas Adam 124:6; Mishneh Halachos 4:64; Likkutei Sichos 16:129 based on that Admur omits this ruling from his Shulchan Aruch; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 2 p. 96 footnote 121

See regarding the prohibition against giving money to a gentile to purchase Chametz on behalf of a Jew: Admur 450:20 [applies even if tells gentile to purchase for himself]; Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 450:6 in name of P”M; M”B 450:23; Ateres Moshe 2:146; Beis Shlomo 82-83; Maharshag 1:13 and 2:69; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:216; 3:135; Chevel Nachalaso 20:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:10; Derech Ha’atarim p. 40; Neos Mordechai Pesach p. 394; Chukas Hapesach 1 40:21-24