0

When one is mevateil chameitz, does he have to have in mind the chameitz he intends to be mevatel? If not, how could there be anything found on Pesach that he would have to burn?

According to this text, it would appear not, as this text of Bitul Chameitz covers chameitz he doesn't even know about [I recognize that one answer could be that one might use a text which doesn't explicitly mention unknown chameitz, but I'm working within the consequences of using this text]: כל חמירא וחמיעא דאכא ברשותי דלא חמתה ודלא בערתה ודלא ידענא לה לבטל ולהוי הפקר כעפרא דארעא

(Translation included here.)

But the Dirshu Daf HaYomi B'Halacha Daily Email - 21 Cheshvan/Nov 19 that I received today makes the following statement:

"According to many Rishonim, chometz found on Yom Tov which a person had not been mevatel, should be disposed of without burning (i.e. flushed down the toilet, or crumbled and thrown to the wind). "

(bolding and italics, mine)

It would seem that anything someone found would either be in someone else's reshut (sold to a non-Jew or originally belonging to someone else) or would have continued to belong to the Jew but would have been nullified had it not been sold (or known about).

Does bitul require knowledge and intention? Can one retain something in his reshut and not have nullified it?

  • 2
    I'm not quite sure what the motivating problem is. Why can't it be that you can mevattel unknown chametz and that only chametz that wasn't mevuttal needs to be burned? Who said burning chametz on chol hamoed is a very common phenomenon? Maybe it only applies in the off chance someone forgot or neglected to mevattel their chametz? – Double AA Nov 19 '19 at 13:58
  • "Can one retain something in his reshut and not have nullified it?" - yes, if he was not mevatel. Otherwise, it is *batel(. – simyou Nov 19 '19 at 14:15
  • @simyou so the text of the Halacha could have read "According to many Rishonim, chometz found on Yom Tov after not having been mevatel anything should be disposed of without burning (i.e. flushed down the toilet, or crumbled and thrown to the wind). "? Is the case someone who simply did no biur, or bitul and a very limited mechira? – rosends Nov 19 '19 at 15:42
  • 1
    @rosends I guess that would be more accurate. I cannot think of any normal case where someone was mevatel only some of their chametz. – simyou Nov 19 '19 at 16:31
4

The whole point of nullifying chamets is to renounce ownership of chamets that you didn't find while you were checking for it (see Pesachim 6b), so it would have to work on unknown chamets. The case of "chometz found on Yom Tov which a person had not been mevatel" is if you didn't nullify it with כל חמירא or otherwise.

| improve this answer | |
  • So that proviso assumes NO bitul was done (which would also mean no biur was done and no mechira was done?) – rosends Nov 19 '19 at 15:38
  • 1
    @rosends Bi'ur, bittul and mechira are three separate things that can be done independently of each other. If you destroy all of your chamets, you still have to do bittul in addition to it in case you didn't find all of it. Selling your chamets isn't required, and it doesn't exempt you from searching, destroying and nullifying anything that might have remained in your property – b a Nov 19 '19 at 16:20
  • @b a but what we say by biur includes bitul so no bitul would indicate no biur. – rosends Nov 19 '19 at 16:45
  • @rosends If what you say by bi'ur includes bittul, then you have done bittul. If you don't say it, then you haven't – b a Nov 19 '19 at 16:57
  • @b a -- right, so that's why I said "no biur was done" (and I don't think one can say that biur can be done independently of bitul because it includes bitul). – rosends Nov 19 '19 at 17:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .