Siman 434

After the search, one must be careful with the chametz that he leaves over to eat at night and tomorrow in the morning; to hide it away so that he will not require another search, such as if a mouse takes it in his presence. And such as if his bread is missing, where he leaves ten and finds nine. But when he hides it away—he will not come to a mishap. And it is not specifically another search that he would require, for he would also require another bitul when it is missing. For when he performed bitul after the search—his intention was not for the chametz that he left over to eat (Chayei Adam). And if so, automatically when he is forced to perform a search upon it, he is forced to perform bitul as well. Only he should not make a blessing another time (ibid.).

It is not specifically after the search that one must hide it, but rather at the time of the search and before the start of the search—one must hide the chametz, because perhaps in the middle of the search some of what he left over will be missing, and he will need to search once more what he already searched (Magen Avraham and Chayei Adam, and see Taz). Therefore, the custom is that before the search, they place the chametz they are leaving over into a single vessel, and they place it in a specific location to be hidden. (And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 1, that the world does not hide anything except the chametz they find at the time of the search, and the rest of the chametz they carry here and there, and they do not act properly. Thus far his words—we have not known of this custom.)

And specifically when they know that some of the chametz that was left over is missing—another bedikah is required. But in an ordinary case—we do not fear that perhaps a marten dragged chametz from place to place, and perhaps after we searched this room—it dragged it from another place to this room. For if we were to fear this—there would be no end to the matter. Furthermore: even if there is a fear that the marten dragged it, one may also say that it dragged it and ate it. This is not the case if it certainly dragged it—it is impossible to permit it based on the reasoning that perhaps it ate it, for a doubt does not override a certainty (see in the Gemara 9a).

The Tur wrote: And if he inverted a vessel over it, and did not find it—he does not require another bedikah; since it is impossible for a marten or a mouse to take it—we certainly hang the matter on the assumption that a person took it. But if he did not invert a vessel over it, and did not find it—he requires another bedikah. Therefore, it is good to hang it in the air, or to place it in a chest, a place where a mouse cannot enter. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: Behold, we have said that he must sequester the chametz, and one must know the method of sequestering. For what shall we do if we sequester it and it is missing? He explains that there are three levels in this: The first is the best sequestering: to hang it in the air or to place it in a chest, a place where a mouse cannot enter. For in this, it is impossible for there to be any mishap at all. The second: to invert a vessel over it. And even though in this the matter is still not secure, for perhaps a person will come and take the vessel, and afterwards a marten or a mouse will come and drag the chametz away. Nevertheless, we do not concern ourselves with this. And even if chametz is missing—we hang the matter on the assumption that a person took and ate it. And the third: when he places it in one spot, and without a cover—certainly when it is missing he requires another bedikah. Therefore, the Tur did not write the remedy of covering ab initio, because this is not a fine guarding except ex post facto, as I have written. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 wrote: Therefore he should invert a vessel over it, or hang it in the air etc.—for he holds that covering with a vessel is a fine guarding even ab initio. And we do not fear uncovering, because it is not the way of a person to uncover, but rather to cover, as is explained in Tractate Parah chapter eleven, see there. And even though in siman 446, regarding one who finds chametz on Yom Tov—inverting a vessel does not suffice, as will be explained there—this is due to the fear that perhaps he will come to eat it (Magen Avraham subsection 4), and not because of a fear of uncovering. And specifically a wide vessel, which it is impossible for a marten or mouse to uncover. But a covering of a cloth or the like—is not effective, for it is their way to uncover, as is found in Chullin (10a ibid.).

And after he has finished the search at night – he shall immediately nullify the chametz. And the reason: so that now, even if there remains chametz in the house that he did not find, he will not violate "it shall not be seen," since he nullified it. And he shall nullify the chametz that he did not see, for it is impossible to also nullify the chametz that he sees and leaves over to eat at night and the next day. For how could he nullify it while he is putting it away to eat? And he only nullifies the chametz that he does not see, so that he will not violate "it shall not be seen" if chametz is found later in some place. And he says: "All chametz that is in my possession, which I have not seen and which I have not destroyed – let it be nullified and be like the dust of the earth." And it was established in the Aramaic language because that was their language, and it is also close to the holy tongue. And he may nullify in any language he desires. And on the contrary: if he is an am ha'aretz, or a woman who is nullifying – it is better to say it in a language they understand. And they must specify "chametz" and "se'or," and the term "chamira" includes both of them. And in our version in the prayer books it is: "All chamira and chami'a," and likewise at its end: "and let it be ownerless like the dust of the earth." And there is no practical difference in this, but the main thing is that they understand what they are saying, for if they do not understand – this is not a nullification, and it is nothing (Magen Avraham, subsection 6).

And it is good to return and nullify it the next day a second time, at the sixth hour during the time of the burning of the chametz. And the reason: for the nullification of the night does not include the chametz that he set aside to eat, as we have explained. And if so, there is a concern lest some of that chametz remain, and he will violate "it shall not be seen," since it was not included in the nullification. And in the second nullification, he can nullify even the chametz that he sees. For granted at night, when he set it aside to eat—it was not possible to nullify it, as I have written. But the next day at the sixth hour, when it is forbidden for eating and for benefit—he can nullify everything. And we say: All chametz that is in my possession, whether I have seen it or whether I have not seen it, whether I have destroyed it or whether I have not destroyed it, shall be nullified... And the nullification is before the sixth hour, for at the sixth hour it is forbidden for benefit by rabbinic decree, and it is not in his power to nullify it. And he should perform the nullification after the burning of the chametz, for if he performs it before—behold, the chametz that he wishes to burn will be nullified, and he will not fulfill the mitzvah of burning with his own chametz. However, if he performed the nullification before the burning—what he has done is done. And one should not say that since he nullifies during the day—if so, why is the nullification of the night at the time of the search necessary? For it is not so, for what shall we do if he forgets to nullify during the day, and he will violate "it shall not be seen" if he finds chametz? But at night he will not forget, for he has a specific time during the search for chametz. And even though during the day there is also a specific time, during the burning of the chametz, it is not so: for perhaps he will forget to burn until after the time of its prohibition, and then it is not in his power to nullify (Magen Avraham, subsection 7).

And know: that which we wrote regarding the reason for the bitul after the bedikah, that it is so that one does not violate "bal yera'eh" if any chametz remains, so wrote the Tur, and this is his wording: And after the bedikah he shall nullify it... for now, even if there remains chametz in the house that he did not find – he does not violate the prohibition regarding it... Thus far his words. But it is not understood, for how could he violate "bal yera'eh" after he searched to the best of his ability? For the Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and he is completely under duress! And there is one who wrote in this wording: That if he did not nullify it, he violates the prohibition, even though he did not know, just as it is with one who ate chelev inadvertently (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And I wonder: for it is certain that he violates it even though he does not know of the chametz, but that is when he did not search! But when he did what the Torah commanded him and searched – this is not inadvertent but rather duress. And in the Gemara (6b) which said: One who searches must nullify – it did not say so for the reason that perhaps there is chametz that he does not know of and he will violate the prohibition regarding it, but rather perhaps he will find a fine loaf and he will have pity on it instead of destroying it, and then he will violate "bal yera'eh," see there. But if he does not find it – he will not violate the prohibition. (And even according to the explanation of the Tosafot there, that it is not nullified on its own – this is all when he finds the chametz. And it is a strained interpretation to say that this was also the intention of the Tur, that chametz will remain and he will find it, for if so, the essence of his words is missing. And the Bach also wondered about this, and they are also against the words of the Rosh, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

It appears to me that the intent of the Tur is like that which the Rambam wrote in the third chapter, law 7, and this is his wording: And when he finishes searching… he must nullify… Therefore, if he did not nullify before six hours, and from six hours and onward he found chametz that he had in mind, and it was in his heart, and he forgot it at the time of removal and did not remove it—behold, he has transgressed "it shall not be seen"… Thus far his words. And he was precise to say "chametz that he had in mind… and forgot it," for in this case it is simple that he transgresses regarding it, since he saw it and had it in mind, and it is close to being intentional. And there is one who explained the intent of the Rambam that regarding any chametz that he did not know about from the beginning—he does not transgress regarding it at all. And he created a dispute between the Rambam and the Tur (Magen Avraham ibid.). But it is not so, for certainly in a place where one brings in chametz, and chametz is found there—he transgresses "it shall not be seen," even though he did not know of it at all. However, this is when he did not search, and did not do what the Torah commanded him. But when he searched, and did not find this chametz, and did not know of it at all—certainly he does not transgress, for he is completely under duress. And this is also the intent of the Tur, who wrote: if there remained in the house chametz that he did not find… and that is the chametz that he saw at the time he began to search, and he had it in mind… (And the Rambam explains in the Gemara: lest he find a fine loaf and his mind is upon it, meaning: lest he find that chametz that he had in mind previously. And not like the explanation of Rashi and Tosafot. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled that one may appoint an agent to nullify his chametz. And several of the poskim ruled likewise. Just as one appoints an agent for the search, so too for the nullification. And even though it is mere speech, this is not a case of "matters that cannot be transmitted to an agent." For that applies when one appoints an agent to transmit the matters to another agent. But to the agent himself—one may appoint even for matters of speech (see Gittin 29a). According to this, to tell Reuven that he should appoint Shimon as an agent on his behalf to nullify—is not possible, for this is "matters that cannot be transmitted to an agent."

And specifically when he explicitly appoints him to nullify. However, if he appoints him as an agent for the search – he cannot nullify (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). Nevertheless, it seems to me that nowadays when one asks another to search for chametz – the intention is also for the nullification. For the entire matter of the search and the nullification – we call by the name "bedikat chametz," as is known. And there is one who says that he must stand next to the agent (ibid. in the name of the Maharil). And it is not understood. For the reason of the one who is stringent in this is because he holds that a mitzvah incumbent upon the person's body cannot be performed by an agent (as the Machatzit HaShekel and the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 676). And if so, what benefit is there that he stands next to him? Furthermore, the custom is not so.

And when the agent annuls, he must say: "The chametz of so-and-so shall be annulled." And he may annul the chametz in the place where it is. And if he is not accustomed to this, his wife may annul the chametz. And even though it is without his knowledge, nevertheless it is certainly pleasing to him, and it is a merit for him, so that he does not transgress "it shall not be seen." And the custom is now widespread when the master of the house is not in his home – the wife requests some man to perform the bedikat chametz. And the intention is for the search and the annulment according to the law, for we are witnesses that it is pleasing to the owner. And one should not hesitate regarding this, only he must say: "All chametz that is in the domain of so-and-so." (And what the Atzeret Zvi wrote regarding this, they are puzzling words.)

And there are those among the early authorities who completely forbade nullification through a messenger, for the reason that since nullification is based on the principle of hefker, and just as another cannot declare this person's property hefker, so too he cannot nullify (Ran, first chapter, in the name of "there are those who say"). But this is not a valid comparison, for behold, chametz is anyway not in a person's possession. It is only regarding the matter of "it shall not be seen" that the Torah established it as being in his possession. Therefore, a revelation of intent is sufficient (Beit Yosef), and as I wrote this reasoning regarding the essence of nullification in siman 431, section 13, see there. And such is the primary ruling. And a guardian of orphans—he must search and nullify the chametz of the orphans (Chok Yaakov).