Siman 434, Se'if 1 · Why one must be careful with the chametz he leaves over

Shulchan Aruch, Siman 434, se'if 1

"After the bedikah one must be careful with the chametz he leaves over for himself, so that he not be forced to make another bedikah."

(Shulchan Aruch)

Why one must be careful with the chametz he leaves over

• Why chametz is still needed after the bedikah: One may not eat before the bedikah, and we do not expect a person to fast the whole night. So he eats his meal after the bedikah, and that food is chametz.
• Putting the chametz away: The chametz being kept for eating has to be placed somewhere safe, where a baby, a child or a mouse will not pick it up and carry it into a room that has already been checked.
• Where it is left: In a place that has not yet been checked, the kitchen for example. All of this is so that he will not have to do another bedikah.

The concern that chametz will be carried into a checked area

"After the bedikah: The same applies during the bedikah itself, that he should put away the chametz he wants to eat, since there is reason to be concerned that after he has checked one corner and moves on to check another corner, a mouse will take it right in front of us and drag it into the corner he has already checked."

(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 1)

• Already during the bedikah: The obligation to put the chametz away applies from the moment the bedikah begins, not only once it is finished.
• Not specifically a mouse: The identical concern exists with small children and the like. It is all one issue.

Chametz found during the bedikah, and setting aside one place to eat

"And the same applies to the chametz he finds in his bedikah: he puts it away in order to burn it tomorrow."

(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 2)

• What he leaves for eating: The chametz he still intends to eat is also put away in a secure spot, so that nobody picks it up by mistake and brings it into a room that has already been checked.
• Designating one corner: Once the house is clean and checked, the practice is to designate a single place for eating (supper and breakfast). Some people even use the stairwell for this, so that no chametz travels into a checked area.
• The rest of the chametz: Only the chametz actually being used around the time of the bedikah is put away, and one should not be carrying chametz here and there around the house.

A mouse that took chametz, and a loaf that is missing

• A mouse that took it in front of him: If he saw the mouse take chametz and bring it into a room that was already checked, he checks that room again. If he did not see it, there is no concern that would obligate a new bedikah.
• Ten loaves and nine found: If he put down ten loaves and found nine, he does not need to check again, because he does not know that one disappeared. We do not invent concerns that have no basis.
• The repeat bedikah: When he goes back and checks the room again, he does not make a new berachah.
• He checked and found nothing: If he checked and did not find the chametz, he needs to be mevatel (nullify) again, because chametz that a mouse dragged in after the bedikah was not included in the night's bittul, since that chametz had been left over either for eating or to be burned the next day.
• A reason for the second bittul: This is one of the reasons that we anyway make a second bittul at the time of the burning, as an added measure of security.

Se'if 2 - Bittul of the chametz on the night of the fourteenth

"Right after the bedikah, at night, he should be mevatel it, and say: All chametz that is in my possession that I have not seen and have not destroyed shall be nullified and be like the dust of the earth."

(Shulchan Aruch)

Understanding the wording of the night's bittul

• "That I have not seen": He is not nullifying all his chametz, because he still has chametz in hand that he can see and wants to eat. If he nullified everything he could no longer eat it. That is why he specifies that he is nullifying the chametz he did not see.
• What is actually being nullified: A crumb left under a bed, or in any hidden spot that the bedikah did not reach. The person did his part, he checked to the best of his ability, and the remainder he nullifies.
• "And have not destroyed": Whatever he did not see he obviously also did not destroy, so this phrase follows automatically. Even so the text is preserved as it stands, and it parallels the morning's bittul, where we mention both what he saw and what he destroyed.

The effect of the bittul

• He does not transgress bal yeraeh and bal yimatzei: If a person finds chametz in his house on Pesach after having made bittul, he does not transgress, because the Torah said "no chametz of yours shall be seen," and chametz that has been declared ownerless and nullified is not his.
• And still he must burn it: It is not appropriate for chametz to remain in the house on Pesach, since a child might come and eat it, and he himself is forbidden to eat it. So he burns it, even though its mere presence is no longer a transgression.

Why bittul is needed alongside the bedikah (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 6)

"Right away at night: to nullify it now, for even though by Torah law the bedikah alone would suffice, since from the Torah either one of them is enough."

(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 6)

• The question: By Torah law one of the two approaches is enough, either biur (destroying) or bittul. So if a person gathers all the chametz in his house and burns it the next morning, why does he need bittul at all?
• The underlying assumption: Even if chametz remains in the house, a person does not transgress over it as long as he is unaware of it, since he searched properly in the cracks and crevices as far as his hand reaches.

"Nevertheless the Sages were concerned that he might find a nice roll, which does not become nullified on its own the way crumbs do, and that he might find it before he burns it and thereby transgress bal yeraeh. But if he nullifies it, he no longer transgresses bal yeraeh under any circumstances, since he has renounced ownership of it and it is not his."

(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 6)

• Crumbs as opposed to a whole loaf: Crumbs are nullified by themselves, but a nice loaf is not, and if he finds it before the burning he transgresses over it.
• The stricter opinion: There are those who hold that even when he does not see the chametz he transgresses over it, because it is present in his domain. But once he has made bittul he does not transgress in any case, since he has renounced it and it is not his.

Why he does not nullify the chametz he saw (Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 7)

• Chametz he saw and has not yet destroyed: He does not nullify it at night, because he still wants to eat from what he left over for himself.
• Fulfilling the mitzvah of burning: And also so that tomorrow he can fulfill the mitzvah of burning chametz with chametz that is actually his.
• When it is nullified: Therefore he nullifies this chametz only the next morning, after the chametz meal and after the burning.

"And let it be ownerless like the dust of the earth"

• Adding the word "hefker": It is correct to say "let it be nullified and become ownerless like the dust of the earth," because chametz does not turn into dust by itself. Only once he has renounced ownership of it and it is no longer his does it have no value at all.
• Declaring hefker with nobody present: Normally hefker (renunciation of ownership) has to be declared in front of people, yet here a man stands entirely by himself, declares it ownerless, and nobody hears.
• Chametz was treated leniently: Since the bittul is only an added security measure, given that he is anyway taking all the chametz and burning it, a light rabbinic hefker is sufficient, and simply saying it is enough. His family is around him, but he is not required to say it in their presence.
• Compared to shevi'is: Declaring shevi'is produce ownerless is a Torah obligation and is more stringent, and there people do need to hear the declaration.

The Rema: in which language the bittul is said

"And he should say the bittul in any language that he understands."

(Rema)

• Lashon hakodesh and other languages: One who says it in lashon hakodesh says the standard text; in other languages he must mention each of the types separately.
• "Chamira vachami'a": In most siddurim the text reads "kol chamira vachami'a," corresponding to the Torah's phrase "all chametz and all se'or": chamira is chametz and chami'a is se'or (leaven).
• The difference between chametz and se'or: Both are chametz, but se'or is something that has the power to leaven another substance and speed up the process, similar to the yeast we use today, which accelerates the rising and the fermentation. Since the Torah used two terms, the Aramaic text also mentions two types.

The Rema: a second bittul on the fourteenth

"And it is good to go back and nullify it another time on the fourteenth, at the end of the fifth hour before the sixth hour arrives, for then it becomes forbidden. And one should not make the daytime bittul until after he has burned the chametz, so that he can fulfill the mitzvah of burning with chametz that is his."

(Rema)

• "Another time": The meaning is on another occasion. One occasion was at night, and this is a second occasion; in today's language, one more time.
• The time: Before the sixth hour arrives, close to midday. This does not depend on the clock but on sunrise and sunset, so the time changes from year to year and from day to day. Today the times are printed precisely; in earlier generations a person could easily become confused about them.
• Why specifically before the sixth hour: From that point on the chametz becomes forbidden, it is no longer in his possession, and he can no longer sell it to a non-Jew, nor can he nullify it, since a person cannot nullify something that is not his.
• The order during the day: First he burns his chametz, so as to fulfill the mitzvah of burning with it, and only afterwards does he make the bittul.

What "the end of the time for burning chametz" means

• One may burn afterwards as well: Someone who finds chametz in his house at two in the afternoon burns it, and the same is true throughout the days of the holiday.
• On Yom Tov: On Yom Tov itself the chametz is muktzeh and cannot be burned.
• What ends at that hour: The time for fulfilling the mitzvah. One who burns later has not transgressed, and it is indeed proper for him not to leave chametz in his house, but he is no longer fulfilling the mitzvah of biur chametz in its proper time.
• A parallel from Krias Shema: A person who says Krias Shema at twelve o'clock has not transgressed, since he has recited verses of Torah and learned Torah, but he has not fulfilled the obligation of Krias Shema, whose time has passed. The berachos are a separate matter, and they should not be said after the time.
• A berachah on the burning: No berachah at all is made on burning the chametz; the berachah is said at night, on the bedikah.

Chametz whose time has passed: not in his possession and yet he transgresses over it

• The analogy: A man dug a pit in the middle of a public thoroughfare, and a box containing twenty five thousand dollars fell into it. He cannot say "the pit is mine and the money is mine," since the pit is not his at all; it is in the public domain and does not belong to him. Yet if the next day a person falls in there and breaks his leg, we hold him liable to pay.
• The Gemara's explanation: A pit in the public domain is not in a person's possession, and nevertheless the Torah treated it as though it were in his possession, as far as liability for damages is concerned.
• The application to chametz: After midday the chametz is not in his possession, which is why he cannot sell it and cannot nullify it. Even so, if he did not nullify it beforehand and the chametz is in his house, he transgresses over it, and one who eats it commits a transgression.

The text of the daytime bittul

"All chametz... that I have seen and that I have not seen, that I have destroyed and that I have not destroyed."

(The text of the bittul of the fourteenth)

• The question: A person took all the chametz out of his house, put it in a barrel and burned everything, and whatever he did not see he already nullified at night. What is left for him to nullify?
• The concern: There is no certainty that his chametz actually burned. The burning is done publicly, everyone throws in their wafers and biscuits, and perhaps his particular chametz was not consumed.
• The result: If it did not burn, he did not fulfill the mitzvah of burning with it, and he is left holding chametz of his own that was never nullified, because at night he nullified only what he had not seen, while the chametz he set aside for eating was not included in that bittul.
• Hence the addition: In the daytime text he includes both "that I have seen" and "that I have destroyed," so that even if it was not actually destroyed, it is nullified as an added measure of security.
• After midday: This text no longer helps, since the chametz is already not his and the bittul does not take effect on it, much like Krias Shema after its time has passed.

In passing · Practical questions

1. Bedikas chametz in a hotel

• Ownership of the room: Someone who rents a hotel room receives a key, and nobody else may enter without his permission; even the cleaning lady does not come in when the sign is hanging on the door. So the room is his.
• Who is obligated in the bedikah: If he received the room at twelve noon on erev Pesach, then on the night of the fourteenth the room belonged to the hotel owner, and the obligation to check was his.
• The practical concern: There is no certainty that the hotel owner checked properly, and therefore a guest arriving during the day is obligated to check.
• Without a berachah: Because this is not the time the Sages set for the bedikah, and because of the doubt that it may already have been checked. If it is clear to him that it was not checked at all, there is room to make a berachah.
• Cleaning is not bedikah: Some are lenient on the grounds that the room was thoroughly cleaned, but one has to distinguish between cleaning and bedikah.
• What is actually checked: There is a strong likelihood that the room is clean, so it is enough to check the refrigerator and a few drawers, ten minutes of work. People often forget things in the refrigerator, a bottle of a drink for instance. There is no need to crawl under the bed.
• Declaring the room's chametz ownerless: This is not necessary, since the chametz is not his and he did not bring it there.
• A practical piece of advice: Some have said: do not go to a hotel, go to your children.

2. One who leaves his house before Pesach

"One who sets sail or departs with a caravan within thirty days must check."

(Shulchan Aruch)

• Traveling a few days earlier: Someone whose Seder night falls on Monday night and who is already traveling on Shabbos must check his house before he leaves, on Thursday.
• The reason: He may return home for some reason, and then there would be unchecked chametz in his house.
• Without a berachah: Because a berachah is made only at the time the Sages set for the bedikah.
• More than thirty days: One who leaves his house more than thirty days before Pesach was not burdened by the Sages with a bedikah.
• Staying in a hotel on erev Pesach: Someone who is already living in the hotel on the night of the fourteenth is certainly obligated to check, since the place is his at that time.

(Additional topics were mentioned in the shiur and deferred to a later session: one who did not check on the night of the fourteenth, one who rents out a house to another, a mouse that entered a checked area, and the laws of mixtures containing chametz.)