Bedikat and Bi'ur Chametz
the laws of THE FESTIVALS
**************************************************************
In memory of Yakov Yehuda ben Pinchas Wallach
and Miriam Wallach bat
Tzvi Donner
**************************************************************
by
Rav David Brofsky
Last
week, we discussed the prohibition of owning chametz, bal yera'eh
u-val yimatzei, and the obligation to rid one's self of chametz
before Pesach. This week, we will discuss the search for chametz
(bedikat chametz), performed on the evening of the 14th
of Nissan, and its subsequent nullification (bittul).
Bedikat
Chametz
The
first mishna of Pesachim teaches that one should search one's
house for chametz on the night of the 14th of Nissan. The
Rishonim debate the origin of this halacha, whether it is
mi-de'oraita or mi-derabbanan, as well as its halachic
purpose.
The
gemara (Pesachim 4a) states that the obligation of bedikat
chametz must be mi-derabbanan since one fulfills his biblical
obligation through bittul. This passage implies that had one not
performed bittul chametz, there might be a biblical obligation to
search one's home, despite the fact that one would presumably be unaware of the
existence of chametz in his home until he searches. Therefore, before we
discuss the reasons for the enactment of bedikat chametz, we must
first ask the following question: if one did not nullify one's chametz,
would one still violate bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei if the
chametz's existence is unknown?
Tosafot
(21a, s.v. ve-i) assert that one does not violate bal yera'eh u-val
yimatzei for chametz she-eino yadu'a, that is, chametz
whose existence is unknown. Tosafot must understand that bedikat
chametz fulfills a different function aside from removing the prohibition
of bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei. Rashi (6a, s.v. afilu) apparently
agrees.
Other
Rishonim, however assume that one does violate bal yera'eh u-val
yimatzei for chametz she-einu yadu'a. However, they disagree
as to whether and how bedikat chametz helps.
The
Ran (Pesachim 1a, s.v. ela) explains that the Torah recognizes
probability ("samkha Torah al ha-chazakot"), and therefore only after one
has searched his house thoroughly can he safely assume that he does not own any
more chametz. Seemingly, if one missed some chametz during the
search, he would be considered a shogeg, one who inadvertently violates a
commandment.
Others
explain that bedikat chametz plays an even stronger role. Rabbeinu
David (2a, s.v. ela), for example, explains that "the Torah was not given
to angels," and therefore one is certainly not responsible for chametz
found after a thorough search.
The
Tur (433) disagrees and insists that if one finds chametz in one's home
after searching he retroactively violates bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei. The
Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav (433:12, and in his Kunteras Acharon 433:5) disagrees and
argues that after performing bedikat chametz, one no longer
violates bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei and is considered to be an
ones.
Reasons
for Bedikat Chametz
What
is the reason for bedikat chametz?
Rashi
(2a, s.v. bodkin) explains that one must perform bedikat
chametz in order to avoid violating the prohibition of owning
chametz, bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei. Many Rishonim find
this interpretation difficult because of the gemara cited above, which
explains that nullifying the chametz is sufficient. Assuming that one
already nullified his chametz, what purpose does the bedikah
fulfill?
The
Ran (1a, s.v. bodkin) explains that Rashi refers to the function of
bedikat chametz on a biblical level. Mi-de'oraita, he
explains, one can avoid the prohibition of bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei in
one of two ways: bittul or bedikah. Therefore, Rashi explains that
through searching one's house for chametz, one avoids,
mi-de'oraita, the prohibition of owning chametz on Pesach.
Mi-derabbanan, however, the Rabbis insisted that one perform both a
bedikah and bittul.
Others
suggest that although mi-deoraita one may avoid the prohibition of
bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei through bittul chametz, one is
still obligated to physically remove chametz from his home. This process,
known as bi'ur chametz, begins by searching ones home for
chametz. Indeed, the blessing recited on bedikat chametz is
not "al bedikat chametz," but rather, "al bi'ur chametz."
Rabbeinu David (3a, s.v. bodkin), for example, explains that although one
could fulfill the mitzva of tashbitu through bittul, as we
discussed previously, the Rabbis insisted that one should fulfill it through the
physical removal of chametz as well. The Maharam Chalava (3a, s.v.
or) also writes that one fulfills the biblical commandment of
tashbitu through bedikat chametz. In fact, he even
interprets the Targum's translation of "tashbitu," "tevatlun," as
referring to "bittul from one's house," and not, as Rashi explains, to
mental negation of the chametz.
Tosafot
(2a, s.v. or) offer a third explanation. He explains that although one
can avoid the prohibition of owning chametz through bittul, the
Rabbis insisted that one also search and remove chametz from his house in
order that he should not come to eat chametz on Pesach. Tosafot
question why chametz should be different from other prohibited foods,
which one is not obligation to remove from one's home lest one come to eat it.
They suggest that unlike other prohibited foods, one is accustomed to eating
chametz during the year, and therefore the chances of inadvertently
eating chametz on Pesach are higher. Tosafot add that the Torah
already demonstrates great stringency regarding chametz. The
Acharonim debate whether this comment is meant to explain why
chametz should be different from other prohibited foods or whether
Tosafot is offering another explanation for bedikat chametz: the Rabbis
followed the Torah's lead in demanding that one remove chametz from one's
house.
R.
David Ben Zimra (1479-1573) questions why one must search for and remove
chametz from one's home and provides and interesting explanation:
I
rely [in my explanation] on what the Rabbis taught in their teachings that
chametz on Pesach is an allusion to the yetzer ha-ra, and
that is the leavening in the dough, and therefore a person must be completely
rid themselves of it and search it out from all the recesses of his mind; even a
minute amount is not insignificant.
The
Radbaz concludes that the laws of chametz are similar to, and even
more severe than, the laws of avoda zara (relating to objects of pagan
worship). He therefore understands the laws of chametz in a broader
context: chametz represents the yetzer ha-ra, and therefore one
must relentlessly work to remove it from one's midst.
The
Extent and Manner of Bedikat Chametz
One of the most common questions regarding bedikat chametz
relates to the extent to which one must search for every bit of chametz.
The gemara (Pesachim 45b) states that one must be concerned with
dough in the cracks of a dough-trough, as the pieces may combine to the size of
a kezayit. This passage seemingly implies that one must search for even
the smallest pieces of chametz. However, the gemara earlier (6b),
questioning why even one who already did bedikat chametz must
recite the bittul, explains that the bittul is not recited for the
crumbs; one is not concerned about crumbs, since they are "lo chashivi,"
not important, and one does not even need to nullify them. This passage seems to
imply that crumbs are insignificant and one need not nullify, or possibly even
search, for them. The question thus remains: must one search for even the
smallest crumbs?
Some (see Maharam Chalava 6b, for example) claim that while small pieces
of dough in the dough-trough might stick together and combine to form a
kezayit of dough, crumbs cannot, and therefore one need not search for
crumbs. The Magen Avraham (460:1), as well as the Vilna Gaon (460:11),
concur.
Others
(Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav 442:28, Chayei Adam 119:6), however, write that although
one would not need to nullify these crumbs, one must search for and destroy
them, lest someone come to eat them.
The
Shulchan Arukh (442:6-7) writes:
The
custom is to scrape the walls and chairs with which chametz had come in
contact, and they [who follow this practice] have a basis on which to
rely.
The
Mishna Berura (Sha'ar Ha-Tziyun 52) cites the Shulchan Arukh Ha-Rav (442:30),
who writes that "the Jewish People are sacred and have the practice of
conducting themselves stringently even with regard to crumbs." The Shulchan
Arukh Ha-Rav, however, cited by the Mishna Berura (442:33), concludes that this
does not apply to crumbs which have become dirty (i.e., on the floor), as no one
will come to eat them.
In most homes, it is common to begin cleaning well before
Pesach and then to perform a superficial search on the night of
bedikat chametz, relying upon the earlier cleaning of the house.
The Mordekhai (Pesachim 535), based upon a Yerushalmi
(1:1), writes that even if one cleaned his home thoroughly before Pesach,
one should still perform a proper bedikat chametz in order not to
differentiate between one bedikat chametz and another. The Terumat
Ha-Deshen (133) cites this Mordekhai and concludes that those who hide pieces of
chametz before the search and end their bedikat chametz
upon finding the pieces are acting incorrectly, as they did not perform a
thorough search of the home.
The Shulchan Arukh (433:11) rules that even if one cleaned his house
thoroughly before Pesach, he should still perform the bedikat
chametz.
Interestingly, the Sha'arei Teshuva (433) cites the Maharish, who
describes how many people perform their bedikat
chametz::
Therefore, many people are lenient and check casually without
searching properly in holes and cracks, since first they sweep, wash, and scour
everything very well, and even if they wash and scour through a non-Jew, it
stands to reason that they are trusted, for they are meticulous regarding
cleanliness so as not to undermine themselves [their
reputation].
Although many are accustomed to rely upon this view, many
posekim still insist that one should carry out a proper and thorough
search of one's home on the night of the 14th of
Nissan.
The Traveler and One Who Sells One's Home Before
Pesach
There is a common question which arises regarding bedikat
chametz: Must someone who leaves his home before the evening of the
14th of Nissan, such as a student returning home for Pesach or
a family leaving their home for the festival, search his home for
chametz?
The Talmud discusses whether one who will not be in his house on the eve
of the 14th of Nissan must still perform bedikat
chametz. The gemara (4a) discusses one who rents his house to
another Jew on the morning of the 14th of Nissan, erev
Pesach.
R. Nahman b. Isaac was asked: If one rents a house to his neighbor
from the fourteenth, upon whom [rests the duty] to make the search? [Does it
rest] upon the landlord, because the leaven is his; or perhaps upon the tenant,
because the forbidden matter exists in his domain?
We learned it: If one rents
a house to his neighbor, if the fourteenth occurs before he delivers him the
keys, the landlord must make the search; while if the fourteenth occurs after he
delivers the keys, the tenant must make search.
According to this passage, the evening of the 14th of
Nissan determines who is responsible to perform bedikat chametz.
If the renter has already taken the key, then he must perform bedikat
chametz, and if not, the responsibility rests upon the owner.
Although one might infer from this gemara that one who is not
home at all on the night of the 14th is exempt from bedikat
chametz, the Talmud (6a) states otherwise:
One who embarks on a sea voyage or joins a departing caravan more
than thirty days before Pesach need not destroy the chametz [in
his house], but one who leaves less than thirty days before Pesach must
remove the chametz [in his house].
This passage states that one who leaves his home within thirty days
of Pesach must still search his home before he leaves. Seemingly, while
this gemara teaches that one becomes obligated in bedikat
chametz thirty days before Pesach, the direct responsibility for
each house is determined on the night of the 14th.
The Shulchan Arukh (436:1) rules that one who leaves his house within
thirty days of Pesach must still search his house for chametz. The
Acharonim debate whether one should recite the berakha upon this
search, and the Rama rules that one should not recite the blessing.
Bedikat
Chametz for One Who Sold His
Chametz
As discussed above, one who leaves his home within thirty days of
Pesach must perform bedikat chametz without a blessing the
night before leaving. Some question whether selling one's home before
Pesach with the chametz exempts him from the laborious task of
bedikat chametz.
The Tur (436) cites the Avi Ezri, who rules that if a Jew sells his
house to a non-Jew within thirty days of Pesach, even though the non-Jew
will bring chametz into the house, he must still perform bedikat
chametz before he leaves. The Tur disagrees, explaining that since the
non-Jew enters the home, the previous owner is not responsible to search, and he
certainly renounces ownership of any chametz he leaves behind in the
house.
The Avi Ezri apparently views bedikat chametz as a
"chovat gavra" a personal obligation to search his house, even
if he won't own it on erev Pesach. The Tur, however, understands
the obligation to be a "chovat bayit" - an obligation incumbent upon the
house, to be fulfilled by its owner, on erev Pesach. The Shulchan
Arukh (336) rules in accordance with the Avi Ezri, while the Rama rules like the
Tur. Thus, those who follow the Tur and sell their house before the
14th of Nissan do not have to perform the bedikat
chametz.
What about one who sells his house to a non-Jew on the morning of the
14th, on erev Pesach? The Mishna Berura writes
(436:32):
Regarding whether one must check the rooms which one intends to sell
the next day to a non-Jew with the chametz contained in them, there are
different opinions among the Acharonim. The opinion of the Mekor Chaim
and the Chayei Adam is that one must check these rooms, since they are currently
not sold and they are in the possession of a Jew. And even if they were sold,
they are still not in his possession, and the keys are still in the control of
the owner. The Binyan Olam (20), however, disagrees, and his view is that that
one does not require bedikah in this case, as the very fact that he is
selling the next day to a non-Jew is a fulfillment of tashbitu and
bi'ur, and it is no worse than chametz which he found after
searching the house, which he leaves for tomorrow and he need not destroy
Similarly, in the response of the Chatam Sofer (131) he is lenient if one
fulfills the mitzvah of bedikah in the other rooms
but one should
be careful when he sells to explain that he is also selling all of the
chametz in the rooms
Therefore even though who should not criticize one
who is lenient, one who sells his house on the 13th has done even
better
The Mishna Berura records a debate regarding whether one must check
those rooms which he intends to sell the next day to a non-Jew. Although
preferably one who wishes to be exempt from bedikat chametz should
sell one's home, or rooms, before the 14th, those who sell their home
(and its chametz) on the 14th of Nissan and do not perform
bedikat chametz the evening before may rely upon the view of the
Binyan Olam and Chatam Sofer. Preferably, one should leave at least one room
which is not sold or rented in order to fulfill the mitzvah of
bedikat chametz on that room, and then sell or rent the rest of
the home.
Bittul
Chametz
As
we explained previously, the gemara (4a) states that one fulfills his
obligation, mi-de'oraita, merely through reciting the bittul
chametz. The gemara adds, however, that even one who already
searched his home should still recite bittul, "lest he find a tasty loaf
and [set] his mind upon it." The gemara does not, however, specify which
specific obligation one fulfills through reciting bittul chametz.
Furthermore, the gemara never explains what the precise legal meaning of
the declaration of bittul is.
Tosafot
(4a, s.v. mi-de'oraita) explain that bittul is actually another
word for hefker, the renunciation of one's ownership. In other words, in
order to avoid violating bal yera'eh u-val yimatzei, own declares all
chametz in his possession as ownerless. The Rishonim, including
Tosafot, ask a number of questions on this interpretation. First, we don't find
anywhere that the term "bittul" refers to "hefker." Second, the
laws of bittul don't match up with the laws of hefker. For
example, hefker is usually performed in front of three (Nedarim
45a), and bittul is performed alone. Furthermore, hefker cannot be
performed on Shabbat, as it is a type of business transaction generally
prohibited on Shabbat, but when erev Pesach falls out on
Shabbat, bittul can be performed. Finally, hefker must be
said aloud, while bittul may be "said" in one's heart. While some (Ra'avia 417, for example)
explain each discrepancy and maintain that bittul can be understood as a
classic form of hefker, others (Ran 1a, s.v. u-mihu; Maharam
Chalava 6b, s.v. amar) note that in this case, merely withdrawing from
and renouncing the chametz is sufficient, and therefore its laws are
different.
Rashi
(4b, s.v. be-vittul) disagrees and explains that bittul, which is
accomplished mentally (hashbata de-lev - negation in one's heart), is a
fulfillment of the biblical commandment of tashbitu. Indeed, Targum
Onkelos translates "tashbitu" as "tevatlun." How is it possible
that one fulfills tashbitu through merely mentally negating
chametz?
The
Ramban (4b), as we noted previously, accepts the efficacy of bittul, but
he writes:
There
are three methods of disposing of chametz, as the Torah says that one
should not see chametz in our possession. Therefore, one should burn or
totally destroy chametz, and that is the best method
and if one performs
bittul through speech, one has also fulfilled the
commandment.
In
other words, according to the Ramban, while bittul may be a valid form of
tashbitu, physical destruction through burning or another method is
preferable. Furthermore, the Ramban notes that in general, the prohibition of
owning chametz on Pesach is difficult to understand, since
legally, once the chametz becomes assur be-hana'ah, it is no
longer considered to be in his possession. How can he then violate bal
yera'eh u-val yimatzei? He explains:
Bittul
works to remove it from the status of chametz and to consider it to be
dirt, which is not edible. This mechanism is effective, based upon the words of
R. Yishmael, who asserts (6b) that there are two things that, although they are
not in the ownership of a person, the Torah treats them as if they are owned
which means to say that the Torah considered it to be his in order to violate
these two prohibitions (i.e., bal yeira'eh u-val yimatzei) because his
mind is upon it and he is interested in its preservation. Therefore, the person
who aligns his thoughts with the Torah's intention and nullifies it in order
that it should not be considered to have value but should rather be taken out of
his possession completely, not longer violates these
prohibitions
By negating one's relationship to chametz, one avoids violating
bal yeira'eh u-val yimatzei and fulfills the mitzvah of
tashbitu.
Although the Ramban writes that one may fulfill tashbitu through
bittul, hefker, or physical destruction, with physical destruction
being the preferred method, the Rambam (Hilkhot Chametz U-Matza 2:
1-2), seems to differ. He writes:
There
is a positive commandment to destroy (le-hashbit) chametz before
the time in which it becomes prohibited to eat, as it says, "on the first day
you shall put away ("tashbitu") leaven out of your houses," and we have
learned that the "first" refers to the fourteenth
And what is the
"hashbata" described by to Torah? One should nullify chametz in
his heart and resolve in one's heart that he has no chametz in his
possession at all and that all chametz in his possession is like dirt and
is akin to something of no use
The
Rambam strongly implies two points. First, the manner of fulfilling
tashbitu is through psychological/spiritual negation. Second, he implies
that each person should actively fulfill this mitzva. If so, we might ask
how bittul prevents the prohibitions of bal yere'ah and bal
yimatzei. And what does this imply about the prohibitions of
chametz?
As
we explained in the last shiur, the Rambam apparently understands that
chametz, which transcends the rules of other prohibited foods, represents
a spiritual foe, and therefore must be battled through spiritual and mental
negation.
Practically,
bittul is recited at night, after the bedikat chametz, and
once again in the morning before the end of the fifth hour. At night, one only
nullifies chametz which one has not found, while in the morning, one
nullifies all chametz.
All adult men and women should recite the bittul chametz.
The Shulchan Arukh (334:4) rules that own may appoint a shaliach, an
agent, to nullify one's chametz. The Rema explains that the
shaliach would say: "Peloni's chametz should be batel
" The
Magen Avraham (9) notes that the Bach disagrees and does not permit one to
appoint a shaliach for bittul chametz.
Should married women recite the bittul chametz? The
Shulchan Arukh (434:4) implies that a wife only nullifies chametz when
her husband did not recite the bittul. Seemingly, this is based upon the
principle that "what a woman acquires automatically comes into the ownership of
her husband" (Gittin 77b). In other words, since legally a married
women's property is owned by her husband, he should be responsible to nullify
the chametz. One might question, however, whether this principle is
applicable nowadays, and therefore whether married women should recite their own
bittul chametz. This question, however, is beyond the scope of
this shiur (see R. Chaim Jachter's Gray Matter, vol. 3, p.
139).
In
the next shiur, we will discuss bi'ur chametz, mekhirat
chametz, and the laws of chametz she-avar alav
ha-Pesach.