More clarification is needed. In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, Siman 434, Seif 2) it is written: "After checking, immediately at night, one should nullify the chametz and say: 'Any leaven that is in my possession, that I have not seen and have not removed, shall be nullified and be considered as the dust of the earth.'" On this, the Mishnah Berurah (sk 8) wrote: "It is correct to say 'and be considered ownerless like the dust of the earth', and this language of ownerless is effective for everyone, even though he said this language to himself and not in the presence of others." This is also the wording used in our customs and printed in our prayer books. At first glance, the wording consists of two approaches, Rashi's approach and the Tosafot's approach, as explained by the Magen Avraham in his words, that they nullify the value of the chametz like the dust of the earth, and the Tosafot's approach, that nullification is based on ownerless and removal from his possession. It is important to clarify the meaning of the language of the Ran, who wrote: "Therefore, with general understanding, it is not appropriate for him to have any merit at all, enough and effective." The inclination of the language seems to be towards the Tosafot's approach. It is impossible to say that it is decided according to the Tosafot's approach because the wording is that it should be null and ownerless like the dust of the earth, and when something is ownerless, there is no need to add the words 'like the dust of the earth', it is enough to say that it is ownerless, and it is reasonable to us that the approaches agree that nullification is the loss of the value of the chametz.

It is also difficult from the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim, Siman 434, Seif 4) which states: "His messenger can nullify [and when nullifying, he must say: 'The leaven of so-and-so shall be nullified etc.']." The Mishnah Berurah explained (sk 15): "Even though the nullification is based on being ownerless, and one who tells his friend 'go and make my property ownerless' has not done anything until he makes it ownerless himself, here regarding chametz, there is room for leniency, because the chametz, at the moment when it is transgressed upon, is not seen and is not found, it is not his, as it is forbidden to benefit from it, but the Torah established it in his possession for the purpose of transgressing upon it, therefore, only with the revelation of intent, revealing his intent that he does not want to have any merit at all, is enough. And some are strict about this, and in times of distress, there is room for leniency, as most of the decisors agreed with the opinion of the author." And it is mentioned in the Sha'ar HaTziyun (sk 21): "The Be'er Hagolah, and it is mentioned in the Magen Avraham and in the Eliyah Rabbah, held the view of others that was brought in the Ran." It is explicitly clear that it is appropriate to use the language of ownerless, and the source for this is from the words of the Ran, and there is room for further inquiry.