The Torah commands in the Book of Shemot (12:19), “Shib’at Yamim Se’or Lo Yimaseh Be’batechem” – “Leaven shall not be present in your homes for seven days,” establishing the prohibition against having Hametz in one’s possession during Pesach. This prohibition commemorates the miraculous events of the Exodus from Egypt, when Beneh Yisrael were rushed out of Egypt and needed to leave so quickly that their dough did not have time to rise before their departure, resulting in their baking Masa. We refrain from leavened products during Pesach in commemoration of our ancestors’ hasty departure from Egypt. This prohibition applies to both and women, and is binding in all places and at all times. The command of “Lo Yimaseh” is a classic example of a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh” – a prohibition which one violates through inaction, and not by performing a forbidden action. One who leaves Hametz in his home without eliminating it before Pesach is in violation of this prohibition, and thus has committed a violation through inaction – by failing to do what he needed to do. Therefore, such a person would not be liable to Malkut (lashes), because Malkut are not administered in the case of a “Lav She’en Bo Ma’aseh.” However, as the Minhat Hinuch writes, there are two instances where one violates this prohibition through an action – by making leavened dough on Pesach, or by purchasing Hametz during Pesach. If one performs either of these actions on Pesach, he has actively transgressed the command of “Lo Yimaseh” and would thus be liable to Malkut. The Minhat Hinuch raises the question of whether one would be liable to Malkut if he purchases from a gentile Hametz for which he is already in violation of “Lo Yimaseh.” Whereas this prohibition is normally transgressed by owning Hametz on Pesach, it is possible to transgress this prohibition without owning Hametz, if one accepted responsibility for a gentile’s Hametz. This can happen in a case where a gentile gave someone Hametz to guard, or if someone received Hametz from a gentile as collateral for a loan. In these situations, the Jew does not own the Hametz, but he nevertheless transgresses the prohibition of “Lo Yimaseh” by virtue of the fact that he has in his possession on Pesach Hametz for which he had accepted responsibility. The Minhat Hinuch addresses the case of one who violated the prohibition in this fashion, by having in his possession a gentile’s Hametz for which he accepted responsibility, and then proceeded to purchase the Hametz from the gentile during Pesach. Would this individual now be liable to Malkut, as he had performed an act of acquiring Hametz on Pesach? On the one hand, we might assume that since he has performed an act of purchasing Hametz on Pesach, he is liable to Malkut. But on the other hand, one might argue that since this person had already violated “Lo Yimaseh” by having this Hametz in his possession, he has already transgressed the prohibition through inaction, and thus his act of purchasing the Hametz is of no consequence. It is possible that this question hinges on the issue of whether the prohibition of “Lo Yimaseh” is a recurring prohibition, which one transgresses every moment he has Hametz in his possession, or is violated just once, the first moment during Pesach when the Hametz is in a person’s possession. If it is a recurring violation, then it would seem that the moment one purchases the gentile’s Hametz in his possession, he is now guilty of violating “Lo Yimaseh” through an action. If, however, the prohibition is violated just once, the moment the Hametz is in one’s possession on Pesach, then it would seem that once the person has violated this prohibition passively, he cannot then transform the violation into one involving an action. In any event, the Minhat Hinuch writes that he is inclined to say that once a person has violated “Lo Yimaseh” by having a gentile’s Hametz in his possession, he would not be liable to “Malkut” by then purchasing the Hametz f