Bitul Chametz: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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 | # Even if somebody appointed an agent to search for chametz for him, the owner should do the bitul for himself. But after the fact, if the agent did the bitul for him, 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 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> | # 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> | ||
