The Talmud records a dispute between R. Yehudah and the Chachamim as to the proper method of destroying chametz. According to R. Yehudah, only burning is an acceptable method, while the Chachamim allow any method of destruction. R. Chaim Soloveitchik (Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim HaLevi al HaRambam, Hil. Chametz U’Matzah, 1:3) notes a fundamental difference between the two opinions in understanding the obligation of Tashbitu (destroying chametz). According to chachamim, the purpose of Tashbitu is the absence of chametz. As long as that is accomplished, any method is acceptable. By contrast, R. Yehudah perceives Tashbitu as a specific active obligation with set rules and requirements, separate from the functional desire to be free of chametz. (See, at length, the critique of this position in R. Shlomo Schneider, Divrei Shlomo, II, 192.) Accordingly, explains R. Chaim, the Rambam believes that it is possible to receive lashes for the prohibition of “bal yeraeh/bal yematze” (if chametz is obtained on Pesach itself). One might have thought that in that there is an affirmative corrective to the prohibition, i.e., Tashbitu, it would have been classified as a “Lav HaNitak L’Aseh” and thus been exempt from lashes. However, within R. Yehudah’s view, it may be understood that Tashbitu exists not as a corrective to the prohibition of “bal yeraeh/bal yematze” but as an independent obligation (on this question, see also Resp. Avnei Cheifetz, I, 8; Resp. Siftei Ani, I, 47; Resp. Maharam Brisk, I, 110; Resp. D’var Yehoshua, II, 41:10). In a similar manner (although not exactly parallel) the Minchat Chinukh (#9) inquires as to the nature of the mitzvah of Tashbitu. On the one hand, it can be understood that Tashbitu is fulfilled even passively, when one is simply not in possession of chametz. The root of the word “Tashbitu” would then be understood as comparable to the usage in “Shabbat/Shabbaton”; one is in compliance as long as one is abstaining from forbidden melakhah. Alternatively, it may be that the mitzvah is only relevant when one actively destroys chametz; and one who has no chametz would have no imperative to fulfill Tashbitu, just as one who is not wearing a four cornered garment is not obligated in tzitzit (See Resp. Avnei Nezer, O.C. 318). The Minchat Chinukh, as well as others who expanded on his analysis, noted many possible ramifications of this question, including: a) if one destroys the chametz of another, is he considered to have “stolen” the other’s mitzvah, and thus liable the penalty of ten zehuvim; b) if one eats the chametz, is he in fulfillment of Tashbitu, or is the rule of “mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah” (a mitzvah fulfilled through a transgression, which is invalid) applied; c) is Tashbitu fulfilled when chametz is destroyed before the time of chatzot (see Tosafot, Pesachim 4b, s.v. m’d’orayta, and 108a, s.v. neima, with Resp. Maharash Engel, VIII, 196); d) whether Tashbitu can be considered a “mitzvat aseh shehazman grama” (see Sha’agat Aryeh, 82; Pri Megadim, Petichah Kollelet to Pesach, I, 7; Resp. Avnei Tziyon, II, 44); e) whether one can fulfill the commandment through the agency of a non-Jew (see Magen Avraham, O.C. 446, with R. Akiva Eiger, and Resp. Minchat Elazar II, 10: Zera Avraham, II, 88; Resp. B’er Sarim, I, 63; Resp. Maharash Engel, I, 11); f) the view of the Rambam (Hil. Chametz U’Matzah 3:6) that one recites a berakhah on Yomtov over bedikah/bittul (see Resp. Noda B’Yehudha II, O.C. 61), among other issues.