The laws of Pesach-Summary & Review-Part 8 Bittul Chametz 2

Bittul Chametz-Nullifying the Chametz-Part 2:

B. Repeating the nullification the next day:[1]

It is proper[2] that before the 6th hour on Erev Pesach, one repeat the bittul and nullify once again all the Chametz which he has in his possession.[3]

When-Delaying the Bittul until after the Biur: This Bittul is to be said only after performing Biur Chametz to all the Chametz, [and at the very least after burning at least a Kezayis of Chametz[4]].[5] For this reason, the Biur is to be done some time prior to the 6th hour of the day, as the Bittul can no longer be performed once the 6th hour has arrived.[6]

The Nussach: The following is the wording of the second nullification:[7]Kol Chamirah Vechamia Deikah Berishusi Dichaziseiy[8] Udilo Chaziseiy Dechamisei Udelo Chamisei Diviartei[9] Udilo Biarteiy Livatel Ulihavei Hefker Kiafra Diara/All the Chametz [and yeast] which I have in my property which I saw or did not see, which I destroyed and which I did not destroy etc….”

C. Appointing others to nullify the Chametz on one’s behalf:[10]

It is disputed if one may appoint another person to nullify one’s Chametz on his behalf. Some Poskim[11] rule one cannot appoint an emissary to nullify the Chametz for him, and rather he must nullify it himself.[12] Other Poskim[13], however, rule that the nullification may be done through an emissary.[14] [The appointee should say “All the Chametz that so-in-so has, is nullified like the…”[15]] Practically, the main Halachic opinion follows the lenient approach, however it is proper Lechatchilah to suspect for the former opinion, [and thus do the nullification oneself, even if one had appointed an emissary to do so for him]. Accordingly, when one is traveling away for Pesach and is leaving family members at home, he may then to do the search and nullify the Chametz when the time comes, and he too should nullify his Chametz when the time of nullification arrives.[16] Furthermore, if one left his household members in his house and forgot to command them to nullify the Chametz after their search, they are nevertheless to do so.[17]

Who is responsible to nullify the Chametz of orphans?[18] The caretaker of orphans is obligated to nullify the Chametz of the orphans just as he is obligated to do for them all the other Biblical and Rabbinical commands.



Immediately after completing the Bedika, one is to nullify all the Chametz which one has in his property which he did not find during the search. One is to verbalize that he disowns the Chametz, and it is like the dust of the earth. One must verbally disown the Chametz in a language that he understands.



[1] Admur 434:11

[2] Admur ibid; However, see 434:12 and 444:14 Admur writes that he “needs” to nullify the Chametz. To also not that the Rama 434 uses the term “Tov” while Admur changes and uses the word “Nachon”.

Is the second nullification said by day required from the letter of law or is it a mere stringency? From the letter of the law one fulfils his obligation with the 1st nullification said at night, and he does not need to repeat the nullification again the next day. The reason for this is because from the letter of the law we do not suspect that perhaps a kezayis of the Chametz which was set aside to be eaten [and was not included in the previous nights nullification] has rolled away [somewhere inside the house], as the Chametz which one sets aside to eat is hidden in a guarded area, and one is careful that none of it role off [into the house] The reason for why the nullification is repeated despite not being required is because in the later generations the custom became to be stringent [and suspect for that some Chametz has rolled off] and thus nullify the Chametz again. [Admur 434:13]

[3] The reason: The reason for why one should say a second nullification is because [the Chametz which one intended to eat at the time of the previous Bittul was not included in it, as explained above and] there is thus suspicion that perhaps a Kezayis of this Chametz which he ate from until the 5th hour has rolled and fell in one of the holes or corners. Now, when Pesach arrives, one may find it and delay destroying it and will then transgress a Biblical Baal Yiraeh and Baal Yimatzeh, as a kezayis of Chametz is significant and is thus not nullified on its own. However, Chametz crumbs less than a Kezayis are insignificant and thus are anyways nullified. [Admur ibid]

[4] M”B 445:10 in name of Beis Meir, Chayeh Adam, Chemed Moshe; See Halacha 5E that the Biblical owning prohibition only applies to a Kezayis; See Kaf Hachaim 445:18; However see Admur 434:14 [brought in next footnote] “It is proper to be careful to only nullify the Chametz the second time, during the day, after one has destroyed from ones property all the Chametz which is known to him.”

[5] Admur 434:14

The reason: It is proper to be careful to only nullify the Chametz the second time, during the day, after one has destroyed from ones property all the Chametz which is known to him. The reason for why one should only nullify after destroying, is in order for one to be able to fulfill the mitzvah of destroying Chametz, with his own Chametz, as once the second bittul has been done the Chametz is no longer his, being that he has already nullified and disowned it. [Admur ibid]

[6] Admur 434:12; See Chapter 2 Halacha 8

[7] Admur 434:12

[8] The reason for why by the day nullification we include in the bittul all the Chametz that we own “that we see…”, is because we intend to nullify all Chametz and leave no Chametz over for ourselves, as opposed to the nights bittul in which one only intends to nullify the Chametz which he has not seen and found during the search, therefore [by the night bittul] he only mentions the Chametz “which I have not found and not destroyed” in his nullification. [Admur 434:12]

[9] This is said as perhaps there is some Chametz which he threw in the fire which is not completely burned, and thus needs nullification. Alternatively, this refers to Chametz which one plans to sell, and he thus is saying that if the sale does not work out, then the Chametz is nullified. [Daas Torah 434, brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 434; To note however from Admur in Siddur, that bittul does not include any Chametz that one plans to sell. Vetzaruch Iyun]

[10] Admur 434:15

[11] 1st opinion in Admur ibid; M”A 434:9 in name of Ritva and Bach

[12] The reason: The reason for their opinion is because the law states that one who tells his friend do go and disown my property, the disowning is invalid until the owner himself disowns it. [Admur ibid]

[13] 2nd opinion in Admur ibid; Michaber 434:4; Baal Haittur

[14] The reason: As the nullification does not need to be identical to the laws of hefker/disowning regarding this aspect. The reason for this is because [after the 6th hour] the Chametz that one transgresses Baal Yiraeh and Baal Yimatzeh, is anyways not considered his at all, and one thus only transgresses Baal Yiraeh and Baal Yimatzeh [when he has not disowned it] because the Torah considered the Chametz like it is his, in order for him to be associated with it so he transgress the above prohibition. Therefore, even a mere revelation of one’s opinion, that he reveals even through a messenger that he has no desire at all for the Chametz, suffices to remove himself from having his name associated with it, and he will thus not transgress anything. [Admur ibid]

[15] Michaber ibid

[16] Admur 446:2; Admur in gloss ibid “As well as explained in 434 it is proper for him in whichever place he is to also nullify his Chametz when the time of nullification arrives” [However, one may not Lechatchilah rely on his own nullification and thus not appoint his emissary to do so, as since one will not be doing a Bedika he may come to forget to do a nullification, as explained in 434 regarding the reason for why the nullification was instituted to be done after the Bedika and not the next day.]

[17] Admur 436:4 “After the household members search for Chametz it is proper for them to also nullify the Chametz, and they should be warned to do so, despite the fact that their nullification does not help much being that the Chametz is not theirs and the owner never commanded them to nullify it, and did not make them emissaries [to nullify it or] to check for it.”; Kuntrus Acharon 436:4; Michaber 434:4; This is unlike Magen Avraham in 434:10 who rules their nullification is worthless

The reason: The reason why their nullification does not help much even though one can assume that the owner desires that those remaining in his home nullify the Chametz for him, is because [in order for an emissary to be able to nullify] the owner must explicitly reveal that he wants it to be done, and if not then the nullification of the emissary is meaningless, as explained in chapter 434. The reason for why they should nullify it despite the fact that their nullification does not help much  is because we suspect that perhaps the owner will forget to nullify the Chametz in the place that he is in, as since he is not dealing with searching for Chametz and destroying it, it is probable that he will come to forget to do so, and then the Chametz will not be nullified at all. It is thus better for the household members to nullify the Chametz then it not being nullified at all. It is therefore proper to warn them to nullify it in order to remove oneself from doubt. [Admur 436:4]

[18] Admur 434:16

Leave A Comment?

You must be logged in to post a comment.