Shulchan Aruch Siman 434: The Halachos That Apply Immediately After the Bedikah
"After the bedikah one must be careful with the chametz he leaves over for himself, so that he not be required to make another search." (Shulchan Aruch, se'if 1)
Guarding the Chametz He Left for Himself
"After the bedikah, and the same applies during the bedikah itself, he should put away the chametz that he intends to eat, since there is a concern that after he goes to search another corner, a mouse may come and take it in front of us and drag it into a corner he has already searched." (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 1)
The basis of the halachah: The chametz a person leaves over to eat must be put away in a safe place, so that it not be carried from spot to spot and create the need for a second bedikah.
The reality in the time of the Gemara: Mice and weasels moved about in the houses, and it was common for them to drag chametz from a room that had not yet been searched into a room that had already been checked.
The wording of the Gemara: The Mishnah Berurah here speaks of a "mouse," while the Gemara in Pesachim mentions both a mouse and a weasel.
A note on the language: The phrase "another bedikah" in the Shulchan Aruch means an additional search, not a different type of search. The wording was written as a continuation of the opening words, "after the bedikah."
Se'if 2: Bittul of the Chametz Immediately After the Bedikah
"After the bedikah, immediately that night, he should nullify it and say: 'All chametz that is in my possession that I have not seen and that I have not destroyed shall be nullified and shall be like the dust of the earth.' He should say the bittul in a language he understands. If he says it in Hebrew, the words 'kol chamira' include both chametz and sourdough; but in another language he must mention each one separately. And it is proper to nullify it again a second time on the fourteenth, at the end of the fifth hour, before the sixth hour arrives, because once the sixth hour arrives the chametz becomes forbidden and consequently he can no longer nullify it." (Shulchan Aruch, se'if 2)
Variations in the text: Some have the practice of saying "kol chamira va'chami'a," and some add "that I have not seen and that I have not noticed." The Shulchan Aruch here is precise and uses the shorter formula: "that I have not seen and that I have not destroyed."
Why Is Bittul Needed After He Has Already Searched and Is About to Destroy?
"Even though bedikah is required by rabbinic law, by Torah law it is enough to do one of the two, either biur or bittul, for even if chametz remains in the house he does not transgress on account of it as long as he is unaware of it, since he searched and did everything required of him. Nevertheless, the Chachamim were concerned that he might find a fine loaf, which does not become nullified on its own the way crumbs do, and he will delay a bit before burning it and will thereby transgress bal yera'eh. But if he nullified it, he no longer transgresses bal yera'eh in any case, since it is like ownerless property." (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 6)
The opening question: A person who has gathered all his chametz and is about to burn it the next morning would seem to have no need for bittul at all.
By Torah law one suffices: Either biur (destroying) or bittul (nullifying). One who searched properly and did what was required of him does not transgress on chametz that remains in a hidden place as long as he does not know about it, because to transgress he has to be aware that the chametz exists.
The concern of the Chachamim: He might find a whole, attractive baked item, which is not automatically insignificant the way crumbs are, and he will hesitate a moment before burning it (out of indecision, and even out of a desire to eat it), and in those moments he will transgress bal yera'eh.
The power of bittul: Once he has made bittul, even if chametz is found it is not considered his, just like chametz that others threw into his courtyard, for which the owner does not transgress.
Chametz found on Pesach: Even though he does not transgress on it, he is obligated to destroy it out of concern that it will cause a mishap and someone will come to eat it.
An additional safeguard nowadays: The sale of the chametz serves as a further backup to the bittul, since by virtue of the sale as well the chametz is not his.
"That I Have Not Seen and Have Not Destroyed": What Is Included in the Bittul
"But what he has seen and is going to destroy he does not nullify now, since he wants to eat more of what he left over, and also in order to fulfill the mitzvah of burning with chametz that is his own the next morning." (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 7)
The meaning of the formula: The bittul is directed at chametz he has not seen and is not going to destroy with his own hands, and not at the chametz he set aside to eat and to burn.
The first reason: He still intends to eat from the chametz he left over, at the evening meal and at breakfast the next morning.
The second reason: So that he will still have chametz of his own with which to fulfill the mitzvah of burning the next day.
The Language of Hefker and Saying It to Oneself
"It is proper that he use a formula of hefker (declaring it ownerless)... and this formula of hefker is effective even when he says it to himself and not in front of other people." (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 8)
The difficulty: A full hefker is normally made in the presence of three people.
The explanation: Here we are not dealing with a full hefker, since the person does in fact search and destroy, and the bittul comes only as an added measure of security for hidden chametz that may have remained. Therefore even a declaration made to oneself is effective.
Saying the Bittul in a Language One Understands
The reason: The bittul works on the basis of hefker, and if a person does not know what he is saying, his words accomplish nothing.
A practical directive: One should teach someone who does not understand Hebrew, and likewise a woman who is making the bittul, to say it in a language they understand. The Mishnah Berurah brings the formula in Yiddish in parentheses.
After the fact, in Hebrew: One who said it in Hebrew and knows at least the general point of the bittul, that he is declaring his chametz ownerless, has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, even though he does not understand every single word. There is an advantage to Hebrew, in that the declaration is effective even with partial understanding.
When he understands nothing at all: Someone who thinks he is reciting some sort of supplication or request has not fulfilled his obligation even after the fact.
Repeating the Bittul on the Fourteenth
"Because people commonly buy bread, or leave bread over on the fourteenth to eat, and the bread he left over at night to eat he did not intend to nullify, and even if he did intend to nullify it, he reacquires it. Therefore there is a concern that a kezayis of it may remain and he will come to transgress on it, and so he nullifies it again. Nevertheless, one may not rely on the daytime bittul alone and skip the bittul at night, for we are concerned that he may forget to nullify until the sixth hour arrives." (Mishnah Berurah)
The bread left over to eat: He did not nullify that bread at night, and even had he intended to nullify it, he reacquired it when he ate from it.
The practical concern: A piece the size of a kezayis from the bread he ate may have been left under the table or somewhere else, and he did not notice it at the time of the burning, so he ends up transgressing on it, since that piece was not included in the previous night's bittul.
Therefore he nullifies again: At the time he burns the chametz in his possession, he makes bittul a second time, including in it also the remnants he did not see.
The nighttime bittul cannot be dispensed with: One who relies on the daytime bittul alone may forget and end up nullifying only after the sixth hour.
The Time for Bittul: "It Is Not in His Possession, Yet the Torah Treated It as If It Were"
The time limit: Once the sixth hour arrives, the chametz becomes forbidden to derive benefit from and is no longer his, and one cannot nullify something that is not his. Therefore the bittul must be done before then.
The paradox of chametz: Even though the chametz is not in his possession after the sixth hour, if it is present in his house he transgresses on it. This is one of two things that are not in a person's possession yet the Torah treated them as though they were.
The second example: a pit. One who digs a pit in a public domain is liable for damages to someone who falls into it, even though the ground is not his.
The times of the day: The times mentioned in the shiur for the end of eating chametz and for burning it were given only approximately, and they must be verified each year according to the precise calendar (including the change to daylight saving time).
In passing · Practical Questions and Related Points
1. Chametz Found in the Garbage Room
The underlying premise: Chametz found in the house on Pesach must be destroyed out of concern for a mishap, even though it does not belong to the owner of the house.
The distinction regarding the garbage room: Chametz lying inside a garbage bin poses no concern of a mishap, since nobody is going to eat from it, and therefore its halachah is different.
A note on how times have changed: The concern that a person would pick chametz up off the floor and eat it was common in generations of severe poverty, and today it is far less likely.
2. Hagalah of Utensils in Our Times
The reality in the past: Entire simanim in the laws of Pesach deal with hagalah (koshering by immersion in boiling water), because most people could not afford an additional set of utensils for Pesach, beyond their milk and meat sets.
The reality today: The overwhelming majority keep a separate set of utensils for Pesach, and hagalah has become a rarity, sometimes done for a single utensil or when many guests are expected.
Hagalah at home versus a public hagalah station: One can kasher small items, such as cups, in a pot at home. In practice many prefer the public hagalah station so as not to make a mess in the kitchen, and that is purely a matter of convenience.
3. Pesach Products That Resemble Chametz
The requirement of a change: The Rabbanut requires that Pesach products resembling chametz products be made with a noticeable change of form, such as triangular burekas, round soup nuts, and Pesach wafers that are thicker and cut into larger squares.
The practical problem: There are products manufactured in a form completely identical to the year-round version, and according to the opinion presented in the shiur they should not have been permitted.
An incident with Rav Chaim Palagi: A rav in Izmir who himself related that his wife baked a cake from matzah meal. A neighbor came in, saw her baking a cake, and did not realize that the flour was matzah meal. The neighbor spread the word that the rav's wife was baking cakes on Pesach. When he heard of it, he decreed that no matzah meal be baked or sold in all of Izmir.
The conclusion drawn: A product that looks like an ordinary loaf or roll produces exactly the same kind of mishap, and therefore a clear distinction between Pesach products and chametz is necessary.
Two approaches: Some hold that the difference should be explained to the public, and some hold that where explanation is not sufficient, the products should be prohibited.
A passing note on the berachah: Mention was briefly made of the berachah on matzah meal and on matzah, that Ashkenazim do not recite a berachah, and even Sephardim do not recite one over matzah.
4. The Minchas Chinuch's Inquiry Into the Mitzvah of Burning Chametz
The wording of the Mishnah Berurah: "And also in order to fulfill the mitzvah of burning with chametz that is his own the next morning," which implies that there is a positive value in burning chametz.
The inquiry: If a person finished off all his chametz and has nothing left to burn, was he obligated to leave over chametz in order to fulfill the mitzvah of burning, or may he finish it all? The matter is disputed.
The connection to the ten pieces: Not all poskim require placing ten pieces of chametz out before the bedikah, and the Chazon Ish and the Gra did not have this practice. The berachah is on the searching, not on the finding, and one who searched and found nothing has fulfilled his obligation.
5. Erev Pesach That Falls on Shabbos
Burning the chametz: It is done on Friday, and that is when the mitzvah of burning is fulfilled; one does not leave chametz for Shabbos, when it could neither be eaten nor burned.
Eating chametz on Shabbos: One plans in advance a limited amount of bread for the meals, and burns the rest already on Friday.
The morning meal: Davening is moved earlier, so that there is time to eat bread at the morning meal while it is still permitted.
Seudah shelishis: This is the main difficulty, since Ashkenazim do not eat soaked matzah, and when there is no alternative they forgo bread altogether. Sephardim have no difficulty with this. The dispute between the Rema and the Ra'am regarding soaked matzah will be clarified in the coming simanim.
Davening earlier: It is proper to begin Shacharis early, for example at a quarter to seven, so as to finish in time and manage to eat chametz before the deadline.
6. Preparing for Pesach Throughout the Year
Planning ahead: In many homes in previous generations they began planning from Tu B'Shvat what to buy and what not to buy, because the Yom Tov arrives quickly.
Mishloach manos on Purim: They were careful not to send chametz items, such as wafers, so that they would not be left in the house so close to Pesach.