Oh. Oh, boy. Okay, here of פסחים דף ד עמוד א, still with the sugya of שוכר ומשכיר. Here we have the sugya of somebody rents a house. משכיר בית לחבירו בארבעה עשר, on ערב פסח. And the Gemara had a question, על מי לבדוק, who has to do the bedikah? And the maskana of the Gemara was תנינא, המשכיר בית לחבירו, that if you rent a house, אם עד שלא מסר לו מפתחות חל ארבעה עשר, If ארבעה עשר, which means ערב פסח came before he gave him the keys, על המשכיר לבדוק, and the משכיר has to do it. Which means that the keys were given after it started already. So, mimela, when the chiyuv started, it still belonged to the משכיר, so the משכיר has the obligation and stays with him. אם משמסר לו מפתחות חל ארבעה עשר, If ארבעה עשר came, ערב פסח came after he had given him the keys, so that means that when ארבעה עשר started the keys were already in the hands of the renter, the tenant, על השוכר לבדוק, and the שוכר, the tenant, had to do this bedikah. And as we

learned the other time, there's a machloket here, three-way machloket between Rashi, Tosafot, and the Ran. In Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe paskens like the Ran. And the Alter Rebbe comes out with the bottom פסק הלכה. What is lemaaseh then? So, this let's read the Alter Rebbe here, top מ\"ז, the top ל\"ז. Okay. המשכיר בית לחבירו קודם תחילת ליל י\"ד, וקנה השוכר באחד מדרכים שהשכירות הבית נקנית בהם, like the Ran what we said last week that this is after the kinyan, and it didn't depend on the keys. So, he says like this. If someone rents a house beginning of ערב פסח, the beginning of ליל י\"ד, and the שוכר, the tenant acquired it with one of the ways you could מקנה שכירות: כסף, שטר, וחזקה. Whether it's to money, as to שטר, חזקה, a קנין סודר. והמשכיר יצא מן הבית, the משכיר, the landlord, left the house, וסגרו, and he locked it, ולא מסר את המפתח ליד השוכר, and he didn't give the key to the tenant עד לאחר שכבר נכנס ליל י\"ד. He gave him the key after י\"ד started. So, if י\"ד started before he gave him the keys, so as the גמרא said, חייב המשכיר לבדוק את הבית שהשכיר. So, the משכיר, this landlord, has to be בודק. אף על פי שהוא לא יכנס בו כל ימי הפסח.

Even if he's not going to there's he rented it out, he's not going to be there פסח. ואם כן, לא יבוא לאכול מחמץ שבתוכו. The whole reason you have to be בודק חמץ is not to come to eat it. He will not come to eat it because he's not there. He he's rented out the house. וגם אינו עובר עליו בבל ימצא. And he's not עובר, why? לפי שבוודאי נתייאש הימנו והפכירו, because for sure he was מייאש and was מפקיר it כשיוצא מן הבית, when he left the house. ועוזב שם חמץ. He left חמץ. When a person leaves a house and does and rents it out, obviously, he gives it up. So, why should he have to be בודק? מכל מקום, כיוון שגוף הבית של המשכיר, the house belongs after all to his, ואינו קנוי לשוכר אלא לדור בתוכו, the שוכר only has it to live in, וגם החמץ היה שלו, ובתחילת ליל י\"ד שהוא עיקר זמן חיוב הבדיקה, and in the beginning when ערב פסח started, it still was his, היה הבית עדיין סגור ביד המשכיר, it was by him because he still had the keys, שלא היה השוכר יכול להכנס, he couldn't go because of the key. לפיכך, בשעה זו דהיינו תחילת כניסת הלילה, so when the beginning of the night starts, חל חיוב הבדיקה על המשכיר. So, the landlord has the חיוב when it started. Since he had the חיוב of בדיקה when it started, ושוב לא נפטר ממנו, doesn't leave him, אף לאחר שנכנס השוכר לתוכו, even though the שוכר went in later. Okay, so ממילא we פסקן that if the keys were given after י\"ד started, the משכיר has to be בודק. Now, he adds, Uh? No, you can sell it. If somebody's sell it, it's a selling thing. ולאחר שיגמור המשכיר מלבדו, then he

adds that, then he adds this, this the Gemara didn't say this, but the Alter Rebbe tells us the whole complete din, after the משכיר finishes the bedikah, יבטל כל החמץ שלא מצא בבדיקתו. He has to be mevatel the chametz. ואף על פי שכבר הפכירו בלבו כשיוצא מן הבית, even though when he left the house we said before he was mafkir the chametz, and bittul is that you're mafkir the chametz, so why does he have to do it now? אף על פי כן, חייב לחזור ולבטלו בפירוש אחר הבדיקה, כתיקון חכמים שתיקנו ליוצא ביטול בפיו, he has to do it again, because the chachamim made a takanah that you have to do bittul. So, this guy again, he's bodek chametz even though he's not going to come to eat it, but because when the time started he was still mechuyav to be bodek, and after he's bodek he has to be mevatel, even though in theory, not in theory, בפועל ממש he was mevatel before, he has to do it again. וגם השוכר חייב לבטל כל החמץ שבבית. The משכיר has and the שוכר, the tenant, tenant, also has to be mevatel. ואפילו אם אינו נכנס לתוכו עד לאחר הפסח, even if he plans to move in after Pesach, but he rented it. Why? What's the reason? לפי שמיד שקנה הבית באחד מהדרכים ששכירות קרקע נקנית בהם, because as soon as he was koneh the house for renting, זוכה גם כן בחמץ שעוזב שם המשכיר. He was zocheh the חמץ, שהרי כבר הפקירו המשכיר, because the משכיר gave up, וכל דבר הפקר המונח בבית בבית המושכר לשוכר, any hefker'dik thing that's in a house that's rented to a tenant, זוכה בו השוכר. The tenant is זוכה, כמו שכתוב בחושן משפט סימן רס. Wait, if you rent, do you get like a proper kinyan also? Yeah, yeah, I told you that before. ואם כן, listen to these words, מה שהמשכיר מבטל, what the משכיר did in his ביטול, אינו מועיל כלום, that didn't help anything, לצאת ידי חובת תקנת חכמים שתיקנו לבטל אחר הבדיקה. When the chachamim made a takanah that you have to be mevatel, it means who has to be mevatel? The one that the chametz is his has to be mevatel. So mimeila, we said like this, the משכיר has to be bodek, the משכיר has to be mevatel, but his bitul is worthless. But he has to do it. The שוכר, because you need a real bitul, who's going to be the real bitul now? The שוכר, because it's chametz is his. But the משכיר is nothing, שהרי אין החמץ שלו אלא של השוכר, the chametz is not his, לפיכך חייב השוכר לבטל, the שוכר has to be mevatel. Then he goes on, if he didn't give him the key, then that's a difference. Wait, why does the משכיר Now why does the משכיר... that's the the the question here. Not that I'm going to answer that question, I'm just going to bring out what he says here. Again, what was the Ran? Did you say, what's the Ran, but the The Ran said that this is after kinyan, you see, Tosafot learns that it's even if he wasn't koneh it. Rashi learns that it's only kinyan, nothing to do with the keys, the keys happened to be a form of kinyan. And the Ran holds there has to be say kinyan, say keys. So the Alter Rebbe paskent like that. But lefoal, he says that in this case, the משכיר has to do the bedikah because the chiyuv bedikah was chal when it still was in the משכיר's reshut, because he he gave him the keys ersht after י\"ד started. Wait, here here here is kinyan without keys. Ah no, the kinyan was before, right, but the keys weren't there, and that's not enough, it still stays in the משכיר, the chiyuv still stays in the משכיר. Since the משכיר did the bedikah, the משכיר has to do the bitul. The bitul is it doesn't do anything, so the real bitul is done by the שוכר, so the שוכר has to do bitul. When we say the שוכר does does does bitul because since the chametz chametz is his and he has to be mevatel, it's his. Because the chametz is his, because it's His, because it's Because the שוכר was hefker when he left. Was that, did that have to came, that had to came before? Where, it came before, this could have happened he maybe rented it a week before, what's the difference? That that the bitul made it hefker. No, no, no, no, so he hefker when he walked out, he made it hefker. The moment he made it hefker, this guy rented it, he's קונה, it becomes his, now it's his. If it's his chametz, it's his, he's stuck with it. He has to do the bitul. Bitul could only be done by a person who owns the chametz, you can't do bitul if it's not you, see bedikah can be done by anybody, you can tell the משכיר it's not your chametz, but for whatever reason, you have to do the bedikah, bedikah's a technical thing, bitul is only if it's your chametz, בדיקה, I could get rid of your chametz. What happens if he finds a the משכיר finds the chametz, doesn't belong to him anymore? Yeah, but they has to burn it. Burn somebody else's chametz? But the Torah says so, yeah, cause cause the שוכר has to burn it anyway. The Torah wanted the שוכר to burn it. So the משכיר will have to find it, and burn it, and then be mevatel, and then the שוכר has to be mevatel. משכיר needs permission from the שוכר? No, cuz if that's the din, then you don't need permission. Now,

what we see from here, a pele'dike zach, that besides the din of bitul that's there on the chametz, that the chametz has to be nitbatel, there is a din on the person, on the gavra, that the person who has the chiyuv of bedikah has a din of bitul. There is a din of ביטול אלס תקנת חכמים, even if the bitul doesn't help. It's exactly what he says here. He says the משכיר has to do the bitul, because he's the one that has the חיוב בדיקה, so he has to do the bitul, אף על פי that the bitul doesn't help לפועל, and the שוכר has to do, he says אינו מועיל, he says אינו מועיל כלום! You mean if you have a bitul without bedikah, you can't have, if you have a bedikah, you have to have a bitul? You have bedikah, you have to have bitul, that's for sure. Yeah. Derabbanan made. And if you have bitul, you have to have bedikah, also. But but the שוכר is not doing Yes, not to be bodek. There's no such There's no such thing as bedikah is a technical thing, if if it was bodek already, then there's no din of another bedikah. How can you be bodek a second time, what are you searching for? See, bitul is a din on the person, you have to be mevatel, so you have to be mevatel, and you have to be mevatel. But you don't say you have to be bodek, and you have to be bodek, there's no such thing, after you bodek, it's a מקום שאין מכניסין בו חמץ. So, there's no such thing as two bedikot. But in inyan, the socher has to do, but what we see from here, all I'm trying to bring out is from a din, a a a new concept that we see from this din. And basically, what I'm going to try to do is, based on this concept, without having the hasbara really, but we see a fact, we'll understand a different din. Is there anyone besides Alter Rebbe, Shulchan Aruch, are there other poskim like that? Yeah, he brings here Tur, Shulchan Aruch. But It's not Alter Rebbe's chiddush. No, but but it's, yes, not Alter Rebbe, he says Shulchan Aruch is, but it's to put it all together is the Alter Rebbe does it, because there in Shulchan Aruch could be that the socher the the maskir is not, is not, doesn't have to do it, it's not clear which cases fit all together, the Alter Rebbe puts it together like this. This din that a שוכר צריך לבטל גם כן, it's in the Tur, Shulchan Aruch. Oh, but they didn't have that the maskir has to be mevatel. And the maskir has to be mevatel? Yeah, it says in Shulchan Aruch, it says it, look, it says What, ודיו the socher doesn't have to? No, no, no, ודיו that he does does it bilebo, he doesn't have to do it befiv. It's a different leshonot. In Shulchan Aruch it's also you see this. דאס אלטער רבי, אז מען האט איינגעלערנט פשט in the Shulchan Aruch, but the Alter Rebbe you see it clear, exactly what he holds, that there is a geder of bitul besides the bitul that has to be done on the chametz, that the chametz has to become batal. What's bitul? צו מבטל חמץ. So obviously, the one that owns the chametz, he is supposed to be mevatel, it's not a question. But besides that, there is a דין ביטול on the person that does the bedikah. Since the chiyuv is chal on him, he has to do a דין ביטול. It's a מאדנע זאך, there is no musag of ביטול אחר, but you see that there's a דין ביטול on the gavra. There's a metziut of bitul besides the fact that this causes the chametz to become mevutal. This does not cause the chametz to become mevutal, because number one, this guy already was mevatel, was mafkir it when he left. Beside, and now he's not doing, it's not his, he can't be mevatel, there's no din such thing. The reason brought down when they when by the takanah, what the what kind of sevara? No, this this is a adrabah, because there was a takanah normally for every person who's bodek to be mevatel, so they left it already that there is a din that together with the bedikah goes together a din of bitul, there's a metziut of bitul. And memeila, even in a case where it turns out differently, the chachamim didn't change the takanah. So, a form that has to be followed. Followed, right. You see that this is a To the extreme. It's an extreme Ridiculous! It's ridiculous here! Exactly, it doesn't doesn't help klum. Does a klum! It's ridiculous, but that's the din like this. Okay. I'm talking about cleaning for Pesach, it doesn't make any sense. Okay, does that a מעשה ביטול? Yeah, as a מעשה ביטול. No matter how it is. You see, that's what we see here. We see here that chametz that is under his jurisdiction to be bodek, which means there is something there, he has a חיוב ביטול even though there is no bitul. If I stand and be mevatel someone else's chametz, a klap in kop. Take this, yeah, and we see this. We see from here this din, there is such a thing as a מעשה, you called it good, there's a מעשה ביטול even though the תועלת, the result doesn't help. There's no תועלת, and there's a מעשה ביטול. Because based on that, if we have that, we'll come try to explain a different סעיף in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, which needs a lot of ביאור. Okay. In תל\"ו, which is the סימן of הדין המפרש בים והיוצא בשיירא, someone leaves for Pesach, what is the din? So the Alter Rebbe tells us the דינים. Says like this: if a person leaves, he should be mevatel before he leaves. Okay. אבל, סעיף ב', אבל אם הוא מניח בביתו אשתו ובני ביתו, if they if he leaves the house, but he leaves his family, wife, his children, older children, שיש בהם דעת שיכולים לבדוק כדת, they know how to be בודק כדת, אין צריך לבדוק קודם יציאתו, you don't have to be בודק before you leave, אלא יצוה על אחד מהם, tell one of them, וימנה אותו, and appoint him, שיבדוק, he should be בודק, ויבטל החמץ כשיגיע הזמן, and he should be מבטל the חמץ when the time comes, כשלוחו של אדם כמותו. Make a shaliach. There's no problem, you can make a shaliach to be בודק and be מבטל. Now, next סעיף, סעיף ג', ואם שכח ויצא מביתו, what happens a guy forgot, left his house, ולא צוה לאחד מהם שיבדוק, and never didn't tell anybody to be בודק, forgot, אף על פי כן חייבים הם לבדוק, so the family has to be בודק, אפילו אותם החדרים שלא יכניסו בהם חמץ אחר יציאת בעל הבית מביתו, even those places that they did not bring in חמץ after he left, which means the חמץ there is certainly not theirs. If anything is there, it's בעל הבית's. ואפילו אותם החדרים שלא יהיה להם להיכנס בהם בפסח כלל, they don't plan to walk into that room at all, ולא יבואו לאכול מהחמץ שהניח בתוכם, and they won't come to eat from the חמץ, they should do בדיקה. דכיון שבעל הבית נתחייב בבדיקת כל החדרים שצריכים בדיקה, since the baal habayis came kachatzos, he has a chiyuv to be bodek all the rooms which you have to be בודק, חייבין הנשארים בביתו לפטרו מחיובו, so anybody who is there has obligation to help him fulfill his חיוב, שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה. So if you know there is another Yid in this house that's not here, and he has a chiyuv bedikah and they didn't do it, you have to do it. That would apply even if it wasn't family members, even if it was someone going away somewhere? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Then next se'if: ואחר הבדיקה טוב שיבטלו גם כן. After the bedikah, it's good that they should do bitul also. אף על פי שאין ביטולם מועיל כל כך, even though their bitul will not help so much. Why won't it help so much? כיון שאין החמץ שלהם, the chametz is not theirs, ובעל הבית לא צוה להם לבטל, the baal habayis never told them to be מבטל, ולא עשאם שלוחין לכך, didn't make them shluchin. So it won't help that much. מכל מקום יש לחוש, we might we're afraid, שמא ישכח בעל הבית לבטל במקום שהוא, maybe the baal habayis wherever he is now will forget to be mevatel. Why would we think he might forget. כיון שאינו עוסק שם בבדיקת חמץ וביעור, since he's not involved in bedikah, because he doesn't have a house there, so he's not bodek and meva'er. קרוב לשכחה, possible to forget. ולא יבוטל החמץ כלל, so if they don't do it, and he maybe forgot, the chametz won't be batel at all. ומוטב שיבטלו הם ממה שלא יבוטל החמץ כלל, better let them be mevatel than the chametz should not be batel at all. וראוי להזהירם על כך, it's good to warn them to tell them to do this, כדי לצאת ידי ספק, in order to go out of a safek. I'm just reading the words of the Alter Rebbe. In the הגהה here on the side, what the Alter Rebbe says, that even though their bitul will not really help much, because he never told them to be mevatel and didn't make them shluchim. So the Alter Rebbe says, ואף על גב דמסתמא ניחא ליה, even though probably he's happy, מכל מקום צריך הוא לגלות דעתו בפירוש, still he has to bifirush be megaleh da'at, bifirush has to say it. Ve'im lav, if he didn't say it, אין ביטול השליח מועיל כלום, the shaliach's bitul doesn't help at all. כמו שכתוב בסוף סימן תל\"ד עיין שם, it says בסוף סימן תל\"ד, I'll explain in a moment what it says there. So he says according to what it says in סוף סימן תל\"ד, if you don't make him a shaliach and you're not megaleh da'at, the bitul doesn't help. So that's why the Alter Rebbe is even though the bitul doesn't help, it's better that they should do it, better they should do it than nothing. Now let me just tell you what does it say in סוף תל\"ד. In סוף תל\"ד the Alter Rebbe brings two opinions whether you can make a shaliach for bitul. For bedikah you can make a shaliach, no question you can make a shaliach. Can you make a shaliach for bitul? So the Alter Rebbe says like this, סעיף ט\"ו: יש אומרים שבין בביטול הלילה ובין בביטול היום אינו יכול לעשות שליח. The first shittah which is the Ran, that you can't make a שליח שיבטל חמצו, to be מבטל, אלא יבטל בעצמו, have to do it yourself, but if you make a שליח it's worthless. שהרי האומר לחבירו צא והפקר נכסי אין בכך כלום עד שיפקירם הוא בעצמו. If a person says to somebody, go, I want making you a שליח to be מפקיר my property, it's nothing. Same thing here, you can't make a שליח to be מבטל. ויש אומרים, Baal HaIttur, לישנא בתרא כותב, that's what he says, שהביטול אין צריך להיות דמיון ממש להפקר, so bitul doesn't have to be like hefker, bitul is not exactly like hefker. שהרי חמץ בשעה שעובר עליו בבל יראה ובבל ימצא אינו שלו כלל, because be'emet chametz is be'emet not his. Even normally it's not his, because it's אסור בהנאה. אלא שהכתוב עשאו כאילו שלו, תורה made it כדי שיהא שמו נקרא עליו שיעבור עליו. לפיכך בגילוי דעת בלבד, he says, so therefore, just with גילוי דעת, שמגלה דעתו אפילו על ידי שליח, even if it's through a שליח, שאינו חפץ בו כלל, if you don't want it, די בכך, it's enough להפקיע שמו מעליו שלא יעבור עליו. וכן עיקר. So the ikar is the second opinion that you could make a shaliach. Why? Because since it's this type of chametz, so the גילוי דעת that you made when you made him into a shaliach is enough that the bitul should be a bitul. אף על פי כן טוב לחוש לכל הסברות. So what do we see here? That even the second opinion that holds that you could make, but you have to have at least גילוי דעת. That's what the Alter Rebbe says here, that in this case where he never told them to be mevatel, so l'chorah the bitul won't help, and there's no גילוי דעת, the bitul won't help. Still he says better they should do it. גילוי דעת here is different than any of the stam, any other time you make a shaliach. I'm going to Well, well, well, well, I'll try to explain this. What I'm going to try to explain is this se'if in Shulchan Aruch. To get to get to explain this, what I'm going to try to explain is מצד הדין this chametz doesn't belong to anyway because of the We need it's not That's why it's easy if a גילוי דעת help. But what's the גדר of a גילוי דעת? It has a reason why it helps. But let let

let's first see here, we'll get to that se'if in in a few moments. Now when we look at this se'if in Shulchan Aruch, סעיף ד', hey, it doesn't klap. It doesn't make sense. Number one, he says he never told them to do anything, so they should be בודק anyway. After the bedikah, it's good, right, they should be mevatel. Even though the bitul doesn't help כל כך. What does it mean it doesn't help כל כך? It doesn't help so much. It doesn't help at all! It doesn't help at all! And why doesn't it help at all? He says it shouldn't, because he never told them to make, and in the in the הגהה he says this לשון, that even though he he's happy for sure, if he'll do it he'll be happy, but it doesn't help, because there's no גילוי דעת. ואם לאו, if there's no, אין ביטול השליח מועיל כלום! At all! So what does the Alter Rebbe mean it doesn't help כל כך? Now this is a question on the lashon. Now a question on the תוכן. What is the purpose of this bitul? Yeah, there are mekorot for this. He brings a there's a whole Kuntres Acharon here. There is a whole Kuntres Acharon here, it's not The Alter Rebbe didn't make up this טוב שיבטלו. It's not his It is. It is. It is. In Kuntres Acharon he talks about the two shitos, the machloket. The The The Magen Avraham, the Chok Yaakov. It's a whole אריכות here, which anyway is the Alter Rebbe's thing that you have to be mevatel. But the question is, why takeh? First the kashya on the lashon: What does it mean it won't help kol kach? It won't help. But if it takeh won't help, then what is the purpose of the bitul? And if it helps, lichora, yeah, and if it helps, so it helps, so then do it, so it helps. Then And we see the leshonot here, he's, it was a longer lashon. Says, even though that he didn't tell him to be מבטל, ולא עשאום שלוחים לכך. So יש לחוש שמא ישכח and we're afraid he might forget, baal habayit might forget to be mevatel, because he's not עוסק בבדיקת חמץ, he's קרוב לשכחה, and לא יבוטל החמץ כלל, מוטב שיבטלו הם מאשר לא יבוטל החמץ כלל. Better let them do it and the chametz not to do at all, even though they don't do it, they're doing nothing. Then he said you should warn them כדי לצאת ידי ספק. To go out of a safek, warn them, which safek? What's the safek here? Mimah nafshach. If Normally you would learn the safek is, we don't know, maybe the guy was mevatel, the whole problem here is we don't know what happened over there. Bedikah he never told him to do, bitul also not. But bitul, maybe he'll do on the spot, he could do it over there, so it's a safek maybe he'll do it, maybe not. So in order to be to be sure, just in case he The safek is maybe he won't do it. So mimah nafshach, what do you mean latzet you're יוצא ידי ספק? If he was mevatel there, then you don't need it here, it's nothing. If he wasn't mevatel here, then it certainly doesn't help! And this is nothing! So what is this לצאת ידי ספק? Let's go back to the סעיף over there and try to understand over there, and we'll get into this together here. What what would happen if he was mevatel the chametz three days before Pesach? Let's say, what happens to the chametz in between that time, his family's all around there with the chametz. Let's say he was mevatel. Usually חמץ שאינו ידוע you're mevatel at that time. So you don't know, any chametz that's clear He's away, so he was mevatel a week before Pesach, and now they're still there with the chametz laying around. So the chametz is בטל. The chametz is בטל. But if they have if they would have a right for them to eat the chametz when he's not around anymore? No, anyone after bitul can't eat. But they don't know, so they're eating, so they're eating cookies, they're eating bateldike chametz. It's before Pesach yet, but he doesn't mind that they're eating it necessarily either. But claim he doesn't mind, it's hefker, hefker de'oraita. So they could be מן... it's a תנאי like that. Okay, then it becomes theirs, and it's a problem. I'm saying, so you have the act, so that's good, that's the שאלה on them, we're talking about doing it for the baal habayit. We're not saying here because maybe they're קונה, he says for clear, the chametz you wouldn't קונה though. Chametz you don't even plan to You're going to make them happy? You're going to make them happy? Mile, ober it won't do any good. In this הלכה, סעיף כ״ד, where the Alter Rebbe brings the two דעות whether you can make a shaliach on bitul. The first דעה holds you can't make a shaliach for bitul. Why? He said just like you can't make a shaliach for hefker. Second דעה says, nope, in this case, גילוי דעת is enough is enough. What's the פשט? You're megaleh, you reveal your mind. Show that this is what he's like, and when you show that, that's good enough. Show it to someone else? No, you don't show, nobody has to hear it. You show it for yourself, if you're showing it, you have to show it. What else, let's What is the pshat that why takeh can't you make a shaliach for hefker? Now, it says the reason you can't make a shaliach for hefker is you could only make a shaliach for a maaseh. You can't make a shaliach for a הרגש. You can make a shaliach to do something. Hefker is not no not doing anything. Hefker is an expression of one's feeling. So how can I make it's you have to feel, not me. It's על דרך like מצוה שבגופו, any mitzvah that your guf has to do, you can't make a shaliach. Can a shaliach put on tefillin for me? Because your guf has to put on tefillin. If I have to feel it, I can make a shaliach for the mitzvah of אהבת השם, you love Hashem for me? But you can think about it, the command is that you should think to bring yourself to it. That's yet, but you can't say that somebody else, let someone else think about it, let him bring himself to it, it's yotzei for me. There's no such thing as a shaliach for הרגש, and hefker is a הרגש. לפי זה, what does the second de'ah answer? The second Is it only הרגש? Yeah. Is it a מציאות? Is this a מציאות of you take out the feeling and there's also an inyan is of of, should we say, zechut for someone to be מזכה to be מזכה someone, is it only הרגש? You have to by the seichel, on the seichel you decided, you also make a You're talking about a person. But what is bitul? What is hefker? Hefker is the pshat, I feel that I don't want this. So how could you feel for me? I'm sorry, you're right. You're right. I know I'm right. It wasn't a question. You must be right, nevertheless, I agree with you that it's If you agree and I'm right, then good! No no no no, but, but... ואידך גיסא, no. No, a case is just a case, somebody is better than this. The ענין that you're saying has its counterpart. As much as in fact it's hergesh, and you can't be mechayev one hergesh on the other hergesh, or that it's an expression How is it not possible that that you could you can't, you're not allowing me to say, that's I came to a מסקנה שכלית, שאז מוז זיין... Okay, I think, I think, I think that your questions or whatever, it should wait until after, because maybe when I will explain it, you will have a you'll be understanding it all. It's very possible. No, I'm serious. I'm sorry for coming in, you could say, what are you coming in here, you don't know what you're talking about? Where were we? I'm sorry to hurt anyone. Ooh. Okay, where were we? Okay. So the reason for this first opinion why you can't make a shaliach for bitul is because you can't make a shaliach for hefker, which is because you can't make a shaliach for hergesh, you can't. Comes the second opinion, the second opinion says no. באוואוסט, because a חמץ מעיקרא דלכתחילה, what helps? The גילוי דעת that the person did when he made you a shaliach, since he made you a shaliach it's מגלה דעת, it helps. So let me just ask a she'eilah: The גילוי דעת, if the fact that he made you a shaliach is the גילוי דעת, isn't that itself the bitul? Because what's bitul? Just let Just No, listen listen. What's bitul? Bitul is the pshat that I express the feeling that I don't want the chametz. I'm telling you, make tomorrow be mevatel my chametz. I'm expressing, I have that expression. So then I wouldn't need anything more, you wouldn't have to do it bichlal. Then just the fact that I said it, I'm mevatel already. The answer is, I'm not asking a kushya, the answer is it's not enough. Why? Because that's only like a רצון לרצות. I'm telling you I would I want that tomorrow it should be batal, like I saw I would want something. But it's not the it's not the bitul itself. The bitul itself has to take place at the time, and that has to be the bitul. And that's why shaliach Otherwise you wouldn't even need the shaliach. The fact that you you made a shaliach and it helps, that tomorrow and whenever the guy will be mevatel it'll help, because my גילוי דעת now is not enough, it's the גילוי דעת It's the the thing the the bitul, the real bitul is when he's going to be mevatel. If that's the pshat, then we're back to the question. Then sof kol sof, how does his bitul help? How does his bitul help when there is no hergesh there? The hergesh See, the hergesh of now that the fact that you're now, מכוח the לשון you say, מגלה דעת with that you don't want it, now it doesn't help. Because if it would help, you could stay with it. That's it, the guy doesn't even need to do anything. He's a chasid and what you need is that the guy should do bitul. When the guy does bitul, how does it help? At that bitul there is no hergesh. I'm not asking a kushya, I'm just trying to reach a point. Ela mai, what is the pshat? How, takeh, does it help? קען מען זאגן אזוי, מען קען זיך דינגען אויף דעם, but I'll tell you the truth that, as much as מען קען זיך דינגען, it can't be out of the world completely, because I once wrote this that I'm saying now, and it went through the Rebbe, looked through the whole thing what this was written. The fact that he didn't make a comment doesn't mean anything, but he let let it go through, so it can't be. The רבי'ס ענינים? No, no, no, a nigun. A ניגון איז א זאך. Yagdil Torah, the Rebbe used to look through every Yagdil Torah. The Rebbe didn't correct at all? Well, once the Rebbe corrected in one of the things that I wrote. He didn't correct, he added a line. Something that that Proof. Approved. I had approved. I wrote a letter asking a she'eilah based on what the Rebbe writes, and when it came out printed, I saw that in my letter, so it was a letter that I wrote to the to the there was another line there. So I came to New York, I asked Rabbi Levin, \"Why why? Don't tamper with, you should have told me that you want to put something in.\" So he said, \"I'll tell you the truth, the Rebbe looked it through and the Rebbe put in the line.\" The Rebbe put in that there's another letter, he writes it as if I'm writing, but there's another letter from the Rebbe where he writes עיין שם ושם ושם. And if you read it now, the המשך doesn't fit! He didn't fix the whole thing, he just put in the line! And the whole, everything went to the Rebbe, the whole thing. So I wrote this once, and I can't say the Rebbe had an haskamah for it, but let's say he didn't cross it out. A lot of stuff was mailed later. Well, I can prove that the Rebbe went through it. Sevara. No, bichlal bichlal bichlal the Yagdil Torah that you wrote, that people wrote, wrote good. I mean, not everything is I didn't see it, no. Anyway, so No, no. So, lichorah, you could say Look at the baby yet. Looks like I'm sorry. עס שטייט אז מען וויל אז מילתא דבדיחותא פארלענגערן ניט פארלענגערן שטייט בפירוש פארקערט, נישט נאר מען דארף נישט שטייט פסק נישט קיין פסק יתיב באימתא ופתח בשמעתא. ס'איז געווען רבה. So the pshat you could say here in this Shulchan Aruch, like this, based on a din that we have spoken once before from, I brought it up from a different angle, but the This din that we find in the Gemara that אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, a person cannot oser something that's somebody else's. Lemashal, if a person takes somebody else's thing and bows down to it for Avodah Zarah, it doesn't become asur. And the reason is, as I explained last time, because we're dealing here with something that has to do with machshavah, not with maaseh. If he mixed בשר בחלב of somebody else, it becomes asur. But since the whole issur happens through my machshavah, my machshavah can't affect the object. If it's my object, my machshavah could affect. If it's my maaseh, I do