Bal Yeira'eh and Bal YiMatzei: The Nature of Bitul on Pesach

Full Summary

This shiur analyzes a difficult passage in Pesachim 6b that asks why the Gemara (גמרא) states 'haboidek tzerach shivato' (one who searches needs to nullify) if the reason for nullification is merely crumbs (perurin). The fundamental question is: if crumbs don't require searching because they aren't chashuv (significant), why should they require nullification? Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation is examined in detail, particularly his seemingly disorganized presentation that begins with nullification being 'belibo' (in the heart), shifts to timing ('samuch lebedeka miyad'), then returns to the verbal declaration required. The Rav questions this structure and seeks to understand the underlying logic. The Gemara's answer centers on the concept that perurin are considered hefker (ownerless) because 'ein hem mishum perurin alo hashivi' - they aren't chashuv, so people aren't makpid (particular) about them. This creates a complex halachic situation: if they're hefker, why would there be any obligation regarding them at all? The shiur explores different approaches to understanding this hefker status. One possibility is that this represents 'hefker rebi yose haglili' - a type of hefker where the item remains technically owned but the owner has no hakpada (concern) about others taking it. This differs from complete hefker where ownership is entirely transferred. The Ran's approach is extensively analyzed, suggesting that 'bitul mikan hefker' - nullification creates a form of hefker. According to this view, chametz becomes hefker because it's assur hana'ah (forbidden for benefit), and the Torah (תורה) would normally put it back in one's domain, but if one nullifies it, it doesn't revert to ownership. This explains why one isn't over on bal yeira'eh and bal yimatzei. A practical application is discussed through the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s case of someone who forgot about chametz they intended to dispose of. The person did proper bedika but forgot to burn or eat specific items they had set aside. The solution isn't to require better bedika (which would change the entire nature of the mitzvah (מצוה)) but rather to require bitul as a safeguard. The Chinuch's language is analyzed, where he describes the mitzvah as removing chametz 'mimishkenoseinu' (from our tabernacles) rather than the Torah's language of 'mibateichem' (from your houses). This suggests an emphasis on making one's home completely chametz-free beyond the basic Torah obligation, similar to the Rosh's principle that 'Yisrael kedoshim heim' (Jews are holy) and remove even less than a kazayis. The shiur concludes with a discussion of the Gemara's case where someone finds a 'gluska yafa' (nice roll) on yom tov. The question arises: why can't one nullify it when found? The answer relates to the principle that chametz on Pesach (פסח) is 'lo shelcha' (not yours) due to issur hana'ah, yet one remains liable for bal yeira'eh and bal yimatzei because the Torah puts it back in one's domain for purposes of this prohibition.