web analytics
April 19, 2015 / 30 Nisan, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

The Mitzvah Of Destroying Chametz


Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

This column is dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

There is a mitzvah to remove and destroy the chametz from one’s possession before Pesach. This is derived from the pasuk in Parshas Bo, “tashbisu se’or mibateichem(Shemos 12:15). There are also two lavim associated with owning chametz on Pesach: bal yiraeh and bal yimatzei.

The Minchas Chinuch discusses the following question regarding the mitzvah of tashbisu (to remove and destroy the chametz from one’s possession): is the mitzvah accomplished only by actively owning chametz and destroying it, or can one fulfill the mitzvah by not owning any chametz to begin with? In other words, does one have to actively destroy the chametz or may one fulfill the mitzvah by not ever owning chametz and not lifting a finger (sheiv v’al ta’aseh) to destroy it?

We find that there are mitzvos that one can fulfill without actively performing an action. On Shabbos there is a mitzvah of shabbason, which is a mitzvas assei that one must rest and, by definition, not perform any melachos. If one performs a melachah on Shabbos, aside from the lo sa’assei he has transgressed the assei of shabbason. If one does not perform any melachos on Shabbos, he has fulfilled the assei of shabbason. Perhaps the assei of tashbisu is the same, and if one did not own any chametz before Pesach he will have fulfilled the mitzvah of tashbisu.

The other option is that the mitzvah of tashbisu is similar to that of tzitzis, whereby if one does not have a four-cornered garment with tzitzis on it he has not fulfilled the mitzvah. If one does not own a four-cornered garment with tzitzis he has not transgressed the mitzvah of tzitzis; however, he also has not fulfilled it.

There are several differences between these two options. If there is a requirement to actively destroy the chametz before Pesach, obviously one only fulfills the mitzvah if he has chametz, finds it, and destroys it. This is why we hide bread before bedikas chametz: to ensure that we will have bread to destroy the next day. If there is no need to actively destroy the chametz and one can fulfill the mitzvah if he simply does not own chametz, one would not have to ensure that he has chametz to burn the next day.

Here’s another difference: someone else grabs one’s chametz and destroys it before the owner had a chance to do so. Generally, when one steals a mitzvah from another person he must pay him ten zehuvim. If the mitzvah is to actively destroy the chametz, the person who grabbed and burned the chametz would be required to pay the owner ten zehuvim. If the mitzvah is fulfilled by merely not owning chametz without actively destroying it, the person would not have to pay the owner ten zehuvim since the owner fulfilled the mitzvah – as if he had burned it himself.

The Minchas Chinuch mentions that another difference between these two options is in a scenario whereby one has chametz on Pesach. The mitzvah applies even on Pesach, and one must destroy his chametz on Pesach as well. There is a machlokes about how one must fulfill the mitzvah of tashbisu if one has chametz. The rabbanan say that it can be performed by any means of destruction, even by eating. Rabbi Yehuda says that it must be done by burning the chametz. According to the rabbanan, it would constitute a means of destruction if one ate his chametz on Pesach. However, if the mitzvah is only fulfilled by actively destroying the chametz, this action will be considered a mitzvah haba b’aveirah since eating chametz on Pesach is forbidden. According to the Minchas Chinuch, when one performs a mitzvah haba b’aveirah he has not fulfilled the mitzvah. But if the mitzvah is fulfilled by simply not owning chametz, then eating it on Pesach would not constitute a mitzvah haba b’aveirah and one will have fulfilled the mitzvah of tashbisu.

The Minchas Chinuch says that it is indicative from the Chinuch that he is of the opinion that the mitzvah is fulfilled simply by not owning chametz. This is because the Chinuch says that someone who is traveling before Pesach is obligated in the mitzvah of tashbisu. The Minchas Chinuch says that if the mitzvah required an active destruction, one who would be traveling before Pesach would not be obligated in it.

Another indication that the Chinuch is of the opinion that the mitzvah of tashbisu does not require active destruction is from the fact that he says that women are obligated in the mitzvah. If the mitzvah required an active destruction, women would be exempt since it is a mitzvas assei she’hazman gramma (time-sensitive mitzvah). However, if it is not an active requirement, women would be obligated even though it is a mitzvas assei she’hazman gramma.

One final difference is whether one is required to have kavanah while destroying his chametz. If the mitzvah requires an active destruction, one would be required to have kavanah when destroying it. If the mitzvah is fulfilled by simply not owning chametz, one would not need to have kavanah when destroying his chamtetz.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “The Mitzvah Of Destroying Chametz”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reviews details of a "bad deal" with Iran.
Netanyahu Warns of Increased Iran Aggression in Middle East
Latest Judaism Stories
Hertzberg-041715

Lincoln was not a perfect man. But he rose above his imperfections to do what he thought was right not matter the obstacles.

Arch of Titus

Adon Olam: An Erev Shabbat Musical Interlude Courtesy of David Herman

Daf-Yomi-logo

Oh My, It’s Copper!
‘…And One Who Is A Coppersmith’
(Kethubboth 77a)

Grunfeld-Raphael-logo

The omer sacrifice of loose barley flour was more fitting for animal consumption than human consumption and symbolizes the depths to which the Jewish slaves had sunk.

Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.

M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)

When Chazal call not eating treif food a chok, that refers to how it functions.

His mother called “Yoni, Yoni!” Her eyes, a moment earlier dark with pain, shone with joy and hope

Kashrut reminds us that in the end, God is the arbiter of right and wrong.

In a cab with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach & Rav Elayshiv discussing if/when to say tefillas haderech

The successful student listens more than speaks out; wants his ideas critiqued, not just appreciated

Why would it not be sufficient to simply state lehoros from which we derive that in such a state one may not issue any psak?

What do we learn about overcoming loss from the argument between Moses and Aaron’s remaining 2 sons?

Each of the unique roles attributed to Moshe share the common theme that they require of and grant higher sanctity to the individual filling the role.

Because of the way the piece of my finger had been severed, the doctors at the hospital were not able to reattach it. They told me I’d have to see a specialist.

“The problem is that the sum total is listed is $17,000. However, when you add the sums mentioned, it is clear that the total of $17,000 is an error. Thus, Mr. Broyer owes me $18,000, not $17,000.”

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Why would it not be sufficient to simply state lehoros from which we derive that in such a state one may not issue any psak?

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

The Netziv answered that there is a difference between a piece of bread that was cut already in front of you, and one that was cut from beforehand.

Why is it necessary to invite people to eat from the korban Pesach?

The Ran asks why the Gemara concludes that since we are unsure which two of the four we must recline for, that we must recline for all four.

The Chasam Sofer answers that one of only prohibited from wearing a garment that contains shatnez if he does so while wearing the garment for pleasure purposes.

The Aruch Laner asks: How can Rashi say that the third Beis Hamikdash will descend as fire from heaven when every Jew prays several times a day for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash?

The Ohr Hachayim rules that one may not manipulate the system; rather he must state his opinion as he see the ruling in the case; not as he would like the outcome of the verdict to become.

He suggests that the general admonition only dictates that a father may not actively enable his son to perform an aveirah.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/the-mitzvah-of-destroying-chametz/2013/03/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: