Bittul Chametz

Rashi in Pesachim 4b and 6b says that the reason why ביטול חמץ  works is because the possuk says תשביתו, not תבערו indicating that its enough to do ביטול.  Tosfot argues that השבתה means destruction and instead understands that it is working because of the regular principle of hefker. 

The Hagot Maimoniut Ch. 3 #8 brings that the Ravyah based upon this opinion of Tosfos instituted in his text of the bittul להוי הפקר וכעפרא , he added the word hefker.  He brings that Rashi didn’t have the word הפקר and that would fit with his own opinion. 

The simple reading of Rashi would indicate that bittul functions as a fulfillment of תשביתו and that removes the lav of בל יראה from the person.

The Ran (3b Rif pages) cites the Baal Haetur that one can do bittul via an agent.  He brings some disagree because one can’t have an agent be mafkir their property.  According to Rashi, the Baal Haetur is understood. 

The Ran proves from the Gemorah on 6b that bittul is hefker.  On the other hand, the Ran brings many proofs that it can’t be a regular act of hefker.  Therefore, he concludes this kind of nullification works since chametz isn’t in the person’s jurisdiction anyway, it’s just placed in his jurisdiction to violate the issur, hence, it’s enough to merely acknowledge that you don’t want ownership of the chametz.  How does this fit with the beginning of the Ran that it is hefker?  Furthermore, the Ran (ibid) clearly states there is an element of hefker happening during bittul, so what is it?  We also need to understand why the Ran requires two derashos that bittul works.  He cites תשביתו and a Sifri that לא יראה לך בטל בלבך, why so we need two derashot and what is the derasha of the Sifri?    

In normal hefker one is mafkir his ownership on the object.  In regard to bittul chametz it isn’t an act of hefker to remove ownership, it’s a hefker to remove one’s zecut that the Torah gave him in the chametz.  The fact that a hefker of such a manner can work is learnt out from תשביתו.  It isn’t an act of removing ownership from an object, it’s a removal of the responsibility that the Torah gives him for the chametz.  It seems that the Ran holds that the quasi-hefker itself doesn’t remove the prohibition of לא יראה.   It is only because of the additional derash that tells us there is no בל יראה after bittul is done.  The derash is that since the person no longer views the chametz as being of significance it is not considered to be seen.  לא יראה  means it shall not be viewed as being חשיב to you (Gilyonai Hashas 5b.)

Because this isn’t a run-of-the-mill hefker, it is a hefker to remove responsibility, therefore the Rishonim debate can this kind of hefker be accomplished through an agent.  That is the debate the Ran brings on 3b.