The bochurim are by now all back in Yeshiva, deeply immersed in their gemoros and their maamorim. Those of you who have already left your Yeshiva days behind (perhaps you already have children (grandchildren?) who are practically at that stage) may be thinking back wistfully to that uplifting era in your life, when your entire focus was on understanding חכמתו ורצונו של ה"הקב that’s in Torah, when your biggest concern was the magid shiur going too fast or too slow. Well, I have some good news for you. There’s no reason to think back wistfully, you can go back there right now, and join in with them. Dust off your gemoro, your samech vov and your derech chaim, and rejoin the seder. Perhaps in kamus, the amount of time will be significantly less. But the eichus, the quality, can be exactly the same.
In fact, to help you out, I am going to share with you a vort in Pesachim, the mesechta that is being learned in the Yeshivos this year (it’s really quite simple, so – even you feel you became rusty – please don’t get scared off, read it until the end):
In the first Mishna in Pesachim we learn אור לארבעה עשר בודקים את החמץ. The rishonim all raise a question: We learn in the gemoro (6B) that הבודק צריך שיבטל, even if one performed bedikas chometz, he still needs to do biul on all of his chometz. And, once someone does biul, he can no longer be oiver on bal yeiro’eh and bal yeimotzei. In that case, what is the purpose of doing a bedika as well, let us do only biul?
There are a number of answers, in both rishonim and achronim. One of the answers is found in the pirush of Rabbenu Ovadiah miBartenura (the Rav) on the Mishna. He writes that the reason for bedika is because if one would only do biul, we are afraid he might find a tasty morsel of chometz on Pesach (a slice of pizza that got inadvertently left in the closet before Yom Tov), and – as a result – regret the biul that he had made earlier, which would retroactively disqualify the biul.
The Tosefos Yom Tov explains the reasoning for this: The biul can be performed merely in thought, ביטול בלב סגי, and we know that מחשבה מבטל מחשבה, one thought can undo another thought, thus, a later contradictory thought (that of regretting the biul) can have the power to reverse the effect of the original thought.
Besides the obvious question (about the fact that the Rav seems to take the reason that the gemoro uses for biul and use that as a reason or bedika) – there is a question raised in meforshim (in אור חדש and others): if that is our concern, why did the chachomim have to require a bedikas chometz (which, as the gemoro says, requires great effort), they could have merely required that the biul be expressed verbally, thus eliminating the possibility that it will be subsequently “undone” by a mere machshovo? The question is stronger: In fact, the biul is also said verbally, - we say כל חמירא וחמירא etc. - and this was a takono of the chachomim (as the Beis Yosef brings from the Yerushalmi), so the question returns (according to the Rav), what was the need for bedika (ועי בזה אור חדש, בפתיחה אות, ח ועוד)?
Another question: The Tur writes that the reason that we don’t make a brocho on biul chometz is because the biul is done by thought, and we don’t find that there should be a brocho on a mitzvah that is performed by machshovo. Reb Yeshaya Pik (the mechutan of R’ Akiva Eiger) asked on this – we find that Teruma can be separated in thought (as Chazal learn from the Possuk ונחשב לכם תרומתכם), and nonetheless there is a brocho made when separating Teruma (ועי בזה ת"שו א"רע 'סי ט"כ בסוף, התשובה ועוד)?
[This question is only a question according to the understanding of the Rebbe in the above din, but not according to the understanding of the Rebbe’s father, R’ Levi’k (עי בזה בלקוטי צ"לו אגרות 'ע ש"ד ואילך ומה, נ"שש ק"ובאג הרבי א"ח 'ע ט"רל בהערה נ"וש)].
Another question: The Ran says, as the reason for bedikas chometz (even though one is already doing biul), that it is because we are concerned שמא לא יבטל בלב שלם – he may not do the biul wholeheartedly. Asks on this R’ Akiva Eiger, so what? We know that דברים שבלב אינם דברים, if he articulates the biul properly, how can what he is or isn’t thinking disqualify it (עי בזה בחידושי א"רע ריש המס)?
The answer to all of these questions: There is a difference between the halocho that biul can be done through machshovo and the halocho that Teruma can be separated with machshovo. With regards to Teruma, the separating of the Teruma accomplishes something very specific in the grain; - it causes part of it to become holy, and part of it to be changed from tevel to chulin. The machshovo or dibbur or maaseh are merely the tools that the Torah teaches us can be used to enact this change in something outside of the person.
In contrast, with biul, the machshovo is not a tool that is used to enact a change in something else, rather, the machshovo – what the person is thinking - is the entire biul. The rationale for this (as explained in the Ran and other Rishonim): When we think about it, the entire aveira of בל יראה ובל ימצא is a paradox. On the one hand the Torah says לא יראה לך – שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה, - the aveirah is owning chometz, it is only on chometz that belongs to you. At the same time, chometz on Pesach, as we know, is ossur bahano’h, thus it is not ownable, because one cannot own something that is אסור בהנאה, so it is an impossible aveira?
True, Chazal say שני דברים אינם ברשותו של אדם ועשאן הכתוב כאילו הם ברשותו ... בור ר"ברה וחמץ משש שעות ולמעלה, but, when we consider it, there seems to be a great difference between a bor and the chometz: When someone creates a menace in reshus horabim, he is doing something wrong; - he is putting the public at risk. That act is the aveirah, the inappropriate behavior. There is a technical difficulty, that the chiyuv for nezikin is tied to being the owner of the object that caused the damage (as the Rambam writes "שהרי ממונם הזיק"), so the Torah says “baal habor yeshalem” and makes him responsible for the consequence of his actions as if he would be its’ owner. In other words, because he started off by doing something wrong, the Torah “waives” a condition for his being held responsible, and requires him to pay for the results of his actions as if he were an owner.
However, with regards to chometz, the person didn’t do anything wrong to begin with, since the aveira is owning chometz (which is an impossibility), why, then, should Torah put it in his reshus, and what should he be getting a consequence for?
From this Chazal derive that – although it is not possible to be an owner of chometz on Pesach – what the Torah is demanding (by saying לא יראה לך) is that a person should not desire to possess chometz on Pesach. If he desires to own it, if he doesn’t view it as insignificant (as the mitzvah requires), then with that desire he is doing something wrong and going against the demand of Torah. As a consequence, the Torah considers him as if he is indeed an owner, and to be in violation of this issur.
It follows that the עשאן הכתוב כאילו הוא ברשותו is directly dependent on his wanting to own the chometz (and attaching value to it), - that is his initial “aveirah”. If, instead, he considers the chometz worthless, like עפרא דארעא, like dust, then in fact he is doing nothing wrong, and the Torah doesn’t consider him an owner, so there will in fact be no sin committed. And this is what biul is.
Thus, the essence of biul is in the mind; - it consists of having the mindset that the Torah wants him to have, to not attach any importance to (the ownership of) the chometz and not feel any interest in it. Having that feeling and that mindset (הסכימה דעתו לדעת התורה) results in the Torah not considering it as if it is his, and – thus – him not committing any aveiro. From this we can understand that even if one is to articulate the biul verbally, it doesn’t change the fact that the biul consists of what he is thinking and his state of mind, and anything he says is merely expressing verbally what is in his thoughts.
So, biul is not something that is accomplished through one’s machshovoh, rather, the biul is (what is in) one’s machshovo, it is altering one’s state of mind to no longer think of the chometz as something of value.
It can now become clear that: a) there is no brocho on biul, because biul is in the mind (even when the person actually says it), - unlike Teruma that can be done verbally as well, and when it is done verbally it is the words that are said that bring about the effect (the חלות of the Terumah), and therefore warrants a brocho, b) since the essence of the biul always results from the machshovo, - it is all about his state of mind, therefore, if he doesn’t mean it, regardless of how unambiguous his words are, it will be worthless, and c) a later machshovo can disqualify the biul, even if the original biul was verbalized, because in essence it is never more than machshovo, and מחשבה מבטל מחשבה.
