16,374
edits
Bitul Chametz: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replace - "Mishna Berura " to "Mishna Brurah "
m (Text replace - "Nitai" to "Nitei") |
m (Text replace - "Mishna Berura " to "Mishna Brurah ") |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* The Ran (3b s.v. VeKatav) quotes the Baal HaItur, who says that one may appoint an agent to do Bitul Chametz according to the general principle of Shlucho Shel Adam K’moto (Kiddushin 42b). The Ran, however, quotes those who disagree because they understand Bitul to be based on Hefker, which cannot be done through an agent. The Beit Yosef 434:4 asserts that even if Bitul is based on Hefker, in reality it is more lenient than Hefker, because when the Chametz becomes forbidden one will not really own the Chametz. Thus, by declaring that one isn’t interested in the Chametz, one doesn’t violate owning Chametz on pesach (see Mekor Chaim 431 s.v. Lechen). | * The Ran (3b s.v. VeKatav) quotes the Baal HaItur, who says that one may appoint an agent to do Bitul Chametz according to the general principle of Shlucho Shel Adam K’moto (Kiddushin 42b). The Ran, however, quotes those who disagree because they understand Bitul to be based on Hefker, which cannot be done through an agent. The Beit Yosef 434:4 asserts that even if Bitul is based on Hefker, in reality it is more lenient than Hefker, because when the Chametz becomes forbidden one will not really own the Chametz. Thus, by declaring that one isn’t interested in the Chametz, one doesn’t violate owning Chametz on pesach (see Mekor Chaim 431 s.v. Lechen). | ||
* The Tur and S”A 434:6 rule that one may appoint an agent to do Bitul. Mishna Brurah 434:15 writes that in extenuating circumstances, one may rely on S”A. </ref> | * The Tur and S”A 434:6 rule that one may appoint an agent to do Bitul. Mishna Brurah 434:15 writes that in extenuating circumstances, one may rely on S”A. </ref> | ||
# Even if somebody appointed an agent to search for chametz for him, the owner should do the bitul for himself. But bidieved, if the agent did the bitul for him too, and said "all the chametz in the possession of so and so should be nullified," this works as well. <ref> Chazon Ovadia [[Pesach]] 5763 part 1 page 56. Tur 434 and Shulchan Aruch and Rama 434:4, Orchot Chaim Chametz U'Matza 22, Maharam Chalava Pesachim 6b. The Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 6b quotes the Ritva that even though bedika can be done through an agent, bitul can not. He also quotes the Baal Ha'Ittur 120b that an agent can do the bitul as well. The Tur 434 also say it is permissible. The Beit Yosef there defends this by saying that even though according to some bitul is hefker and you cannot make somebody else's things hefker, chametz is different because it's not really his anyway because it is forbidden to him, and this is brought down in the Mishna | # Even if somebody appointed an agent to search for chametz for him, the owner should do the bitul for himself. But bidieved, if the agent did the bitul for him too, and said "all the chametz in the possession of so and so should be nullified," this works as well. <ref> Chazon Ovadia [[Pesach]] 5763 part 1 page 56. Tur 434 and Shulchan Aruch and Rama 434:4, Orchot Chaim Chametz U'Matza 22, Maharam Chalava Pesachim 6b. The Nimukei Yosef Pesachim 6b quotes the Ritva that even though bedika can be done through an agent, bitul can not. He also quotes the Baal Ha'Ittur 120b that an agent can do the bitul as well. The Tur 434 also say it is permissible. The Beit Yosef there defends this by saying that even though according to some bitul is hefker and you cannot make somebody else's things hefker, chametz is different because it's not really his anyway because it is forbidden to him, and this is brought down in the Mishna Brurah 434:15. The Bach (434) offers another reason why one would not be able to appoint an agent to do Bitul; he explains that bitul is a mental decision which does not need to be expressed verbally, according to many opinions. Accordingly, one can not appoint an agent to fulfill a mental obligation. </ref> | ||
# If one recites the bitul, but doesn't understand what he is saying, that chametz has not been nullified. Rather, he should say it in a language that he understands. <ref> Rama 434:2, Mishna | # If one recites the bitul, but doesn't understand what he is saying, that chametz has not been nullified. Rather, he should say it in a language that he understands. <ref> Rama 434:2, Mishna Brurah 434:9, Chazon Ovadia 5763 part 1 page 54. Rama in Darchei Moshe 434:2 explains that this is why the kol chamira was written in aramaic and not hebrew, because aramaic was the spoken language of that time. Chazon Ovadyah (vol 1, pg 54) agrees. Magen Avraham 434:5, Baer Heitev 434:5, Kaf Hachayim 434:19 all write that preferably one should use use Aramaic so that other people and angels will not understand, because the bitul involves somewhat of degradation towards the bread. </ref> | ||
# One should speak out the bitul and not just think it. <ref> Shulchan aruch 434:2. The tur 436 says that thinking is enough but the beit Yosef 431 quotes the ran that it is not enough. </ref> | # One should speak out the bitul and not just think it. <ref> Shulchan aruch 434:2. The tur 436 says that thinking is enough but the beit Yosef 431 quotes the ran that it is not enough. </ref> | ||
# A good custom is to say the Bitul Chametz three times to strengthen the point.<ref>Chazon Ovadyah (vol 1, pg 54), Nitei Gavriel (vol 1, 34:8), Chida in Moreh Bi'etzba 203 </ref> | # A good custom is to say the Bitul Chametz three times to strengthen the point.<ref>Chazon Ovadyah (vol 1, pg 54), Nitei Gavriel (vol 1, 34:8), Chida in Moreh Bi'etzba 203 </ref> | ||
# If somebody is not home, he should do the bitul from wherever he is. <ref> Tur and Shulchan Aruch 434:4, Orchot Chaim Chametz U'Matza 22, Chazon Ovadia [[Pesach]] 5763 Part 1 page 56-57. Mishna | # If somebody is not home, he should do the bitul from wherever he is. <ref> Tur and Shulchan Aruch 434:4, Orchot Chaim Chametz U'Matza 22, Chazon Ovadia [[Pesach]] 5763 Part 1 page 56-57. Mishna Brurah 434:17 adds that this is true even if he appointed an agent to do the bitul for him </ref> If the husband is not home and they don't know if he did the bitul, his wife should do it, and say all the chametz that is in my husband's possession, even if he didn't tell her to do this. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 434:4, Mishna Brurah 434:19, Chazon Ovadia [[Pesach]] 5763 Page 57, Kaf Hachayim 434:60 </ref> | ||
# No bracha is made upon the bitul chametz.<ref>Bet Yosef 432:1 explains that there's no bracha for bitul chametz since according to many opinions it is a mental obligation and can be fulfilled without any verbal declaration. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_48825_245.pdf Hagadat Ohalei Shem p. 45] asks that according to the Gra, there is a bracha for Talmud Torah even if it is fulfilled mentally without any verbal expression (see Siman 47). He answers that bitul chametz can be fulfilled instantaneously in one's mind, however, thinking torah is a lengthy process and can endure for a long period of time. Additionally, he answers that primarily the bracha for torah is made for verbally learning torah, however, bitul is completely fulfilled in one's mind.</ref> | # No bracha is made upon the bitul chametz.<ref>Bet Yosef 432:1 explains that there's no bracha for bitul chametz since according to many opinions it is a mental obligation and can be fulfilled without any verbal declaration. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_48825_245.pdf Hagadat Ohalei Shem p. 45] asks that according to the Gra, there is a bracha for Talmud Torah even if it is fulfilled mentally without any verbal expression (see Siman 47). He answers that bitul chametz can be fulfilled instantaneously in one's mind, however, thinking torah is a lengthy process and can endure for a long period of time. Additionally, he answers that primarily the bracha for torah is made for verbally learning torah, however, bitul is completely fulfilled in one's mind.</ref> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
#The bitul at night should be done immediately following the Bedika. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 434:2, Chazon Ovadia 5763 Part 1 page 52 </ref> One should not talk about things other than the bedika from when he says the beracha until after the bitul, but if he did he need not repeat the beracha. <ref> Chazon Ovadia 5763 Part 1 page 44 </ref> | #The bitul at night should be done immediately following the Bedika. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 434:2, Chazon Ovadia 5763 Part 1 page 52 </ref> One should not talk about things other than the bedika from when he says the beracha until after the bitul, but if he did he need not repeat the beracha. <ref> Chazon Ovadia 5763 Part 1 page 44 </ref> | ||
# If someone scattered the ten pieces for the bedika in accordance with the custom <ref> Rama 432:2, Mishna Brurah 432:13 </ref> and really cannot find one of the pieces, he doesn't need to go crazy and he can just rely on the bitul that he does after the bedika. <ref> Chazon Ovadia 5763 part 1 page 38 </ref> | # If someone scattered the ten pieces for the bedika in accordance with the custom <ref> Rama 432:2, Mishna Brurah 432:13 </ref> and really cannot find one of the pieces, he doesn't need to go crazy and he can just rely on the bitul that he does after the bedika. <ref> Chazon Ovadia 5763 part 1 page 38 </ref> | ||
#According to Ashkenazim, the text of the bitul which is said after the [[Bedikat Chametz|Bedika]] is: "כל חמירא וחמיעא דאיכא ברשותי, דלא חזיתיה ודלא בערתיה, לבטיל ולהוי הפקר כעפרא דארעא" meaning, "All chametz or leaven in my possession that I have not seen, and have not destroyed, shall be nullified and become ownerless, like the dust of the earth." <ref> http://ph.yhb.org.il/en/04-05-01/. The Bach (434 s.v. Katuv BeHagahot) concludes that since many hold that Bitul is based on Hefker, one should mention it in one’s Kol Chamira. Mishna | #According to Ashkenazim, the text of the bitul which is said after the [[Bedikat Chametz|Bedika]] is: "כל חמירא וחמיעא דאיכא ברשותי, דלא חזיתיה ודלא בערתיה, לבטיל ולהוי הפקר כעפרא דארעא" meaning, "All chametz or leaven in my possession that I have not seen, and have not destroyed, shall be nullified and become ownerless, like the dust of the earth." <ref> http://ph.yhb.org.il/en/04-05-01/. The Bach (434 s.v. Katuv BeHagahot) concludes that since many hold that Bitul is based on Hefker, one should mention it in one’s Kol Chamira. Mishna Brurah 434:7 writes that this doesn't include chametz we know about because we still have chametz that we can eat the next morning and chametz that we find we burn. Shulchan Aruch 434:2 says this text without including the "vilihave hefker" but Mishna Brurah 434:8 based on the Bach says to add that in because of the opinion of Tosafot 4b. Nitei Gavriel (vol 1, 34:7) has a very similar text including the word Hefker. The Ravyah Pesachim 431 page 63 has the word hefker, and the peri chadash 434:2 doesn't. </ref> | ||
# The Sephardic text is: "כל חמירא דאיכא ברשותי, דלא חזיתיה ודלא בערתיה, לבטיל ולהוי כעפרא דארעא" meaning, "All Chametz in my possession that I have not seen, and have not destroyed, shall be nullified like the dust of the earth." <ref> Chazon Ovadia Part 1 page 52. </ref> However, it is preferable to insert הפקר meaning "become ownerless" as in the Ashkenazic text above, for at least one of three times one says the Bitul.<ref>Chazon Ovadyah (vol 1, pg 54-55)</ref> | # The Sephardic text is: "כל חמירא דאיכא ברשותי, דלא חזיתיה ודלא בערתיה, לבטיל ולהוי כעפרא דארעא" meaning, "All Chametz in my possession that I have not seen, and have not destroyed, shall be nullified like the dust of the earth." <ref> Chazon Ovadia Part 1 page 52. </ref> However, it is preferable to insert הפקר meaning "become ownerless" as in the Ashkenazic text above, for at least one of three times one says the Bitul.<ref>Chazon Ovadyah (vol 1, pg 54-55)</ref> | ||
