The Mishnah (back on page 21) states:
R. JUDAH SAID: THERE IS NO REMOVAL OF LEAVEN SAVE BY BURNING; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: HE ALSO CRUMBLES AND THROWS IT TO THE WIND OR CASTS IT INTO THE SEA.
So, how does R. Judah maintain that the hametz (leaven) must be burnt?
It was taught, R. Judah said: There is no removal of leaven save by burning, and logic impels this: if nothar, which is not subject to ‘there shall not be seen’ and ‘there shall not be found’, requires burning, then leaven, which is subject to ‘there shall not be seen’ and ‘there shall not be found’, how much the more does it require burning!
Nothar – which are portions of the sacrifices which are left over beyond their time limit, must be burned. But this requirement is not mentioned in the Torah. Yet for hametz the Torah states: neither shall there be leaven seen with you in all your quarters (Ex. 13:7) Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses (Ex. 12:19). If the law is stringent with nothar, it must be so with hametz!
Well, this is not universally accepted:
Said they to him: Every argument that you argue [which] in the first place is stringent yet in the end leads to leniency is not a [valid] argument: [for] if he did not find wood for burning, shall he sit and do nothing, whereas the Torah ordered, Ye shall put away leaven out of your houses, (Ex. 12:15) [which means] with anything wherewith you can put it away?
(PS not only does R. Judah fall to the logic of the Sages, they wind up using his own words against him. There follow on the next page a series of aphorisms from the time. For example: “When the arrow maker is slain by his own arrows, he is paid with the clue which his own hand wound” - which we might replace today with “hoisted on his own petard” [which needs it’s own updating – any suggestions?]).