 |
|
|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Halakha: A
Weekly Shiur In Halakhic Topics Based on a
Shiur by HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein
Any discussion concerning ta'arovet chametz (chametz
mixtures) divides into two levels: the level of Torah law and the level of
rabbinic law. In this shiur, we will deal exclusively with the level of
Torah law. Owing to the nature of the issue, the discussion will deal with two
realms of Halakha that merge on this issue the laws of chametz and
matza and the laws of ta'arovet. Ta'arovet
chametz and
Chametz nukshe
The Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter of Pesachim
states: Elu overim
be-Pesach [according to one
understanding: "With these
one transgresses on Pesach"; alternatively: "These are removed on
Pesach" see below]: Babylonian kutach, Median beer, Edomite
vinegar, Egyptian beer, dyer's broth, cook's dough, and scribes glue. Rabbi
Eliezer says: Also women's toiletries. This is the rule: With anything that is
of a species of grain, one transgresses on Pesach. They are governed by a
negative precept, but they do not carry [the punishment of] excision
[karet].
The seven items
mentioned in the Mishna divide into two groups. The first group is comprised of
foodstuffs made up of full-fledged chametz intermingled in a food that is
not chametz, whereas the second group is comprised of items that are
exclusively chametz, but chametz of a lower level, namely
chametz nukshe. Chametz nukshe itself is divided into two types:
1) items that underwent the full chimutz (fermentation) process, but do
not fall into the category of okhel "food"; 2) se'or items
that underwent only a partial chimutz process.
In the aforementioned Mishna, the law is brought without any explanation
and without sources. Moreover, the meaning of the words "Elu overin
be-Pesach" are not clear. The Gemara on p. 43a clarifies the source of this
law: Who has taught that
full-fledged chametz in a mixture and chametz nukshe on its own
are prohibited by a negative precept? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is
Rabbi Meir, for it was taught: Se'or must be burned, and he gives it to
his dog, and one who eats it is liable to forty [lashes].
According to Rav, Rabbi Meir is the Tanna of our Mishna, for it is he who
maintains that the eating of se'or is forbidden by Torah law. At this
stage, the Gemara is clearly working on the assumption that the law governing a
mixture containing full-fledged chametz is more stringent than the law
concerning chametz nukshe. Later in the passage, the Gemara brings the
position of Rav Nachman: Rav Nachman said: It is
Rabbi Eliezer, for it was taught: For full-fledged chametz, one is
punished with karet; for its mixture, with a negative prohibition; these
are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say: For full-fledged
chametz, one is punished with karet; for its mixture, there is no
punishment. And we have heard that according to Rabbi Eliezer who said that
full-fledged chametz that is in a mixture is forbidden by a negative
prohibition all the more so, chametz nukshe on its
own.
Both opinions assume that one may infer from the law governing one group
about the law governing the other group. According to the first opinion, we can
infer from the law governing chametz nukshe to a chametz mixture,
whereas according to the second opinion, we can infer from the law governing a
chametz mixture to chametz nukshe. The conflicting rationales are
recorded in the Gemara: Rav Nachman why did he
not say like Rav Yehuda? He can say to you: Perhaps Rabbi Meir only said [his
law] there concerning chametz nukshe on its own, but concerning
full-fledged chametz in a mixture not. And Rav Yehuda, why did
he not say like Rav Nachman? He can say to you? [Perhaps] Rabbi Eliezer only
said [his law] there concerning full-fledged chametz in a mixture, but
concerning chametz nukshe on its own not.
On the one hand, a chametz mixture is more stringent because it
contains full-fledged chametz; on the other hand, chametz nukshe
is more stringent because it stands on its own and is not intermingled in
another food. In any event, the Gemara in the continuation establishes that we
cannot infer anything from one realm to the next. We shall therefore focus on
the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages whether or not one who eats
a chametz mixture is liable for lashes. The Position of Rabbi
Eliezer
What is the source for the view of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara in the
continuation discusses this issue: And Rabbi Eliezer, from
where does he know that a [chametz] mixture is governed by a
negative prohibition? For it is written: "You shall eat nothing leavened (kol
machmetzet)" (Shemot 12:20). The derivation stems
from the word "kol." The Gemara immediately asks: If so, he should also be
liable for karet, for surely it is written: "For all who eat that which
is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off" (ibid., v. 19). That is required
for that which was taught: "That which is leavened" I only know that which
becomes fermented by itself; from where [do I know that which becomes fermented]
by something else? Therefore, the verse states: "All
that which is leavened,
even that soul shall be cut off."
The derivation regarding a chametz mixture is not from the verse
that establishes the punishment of karet, but from the verse dealing with
the prohibition of eating. If we carefully examine
the wording of the Gemara's question, we will see that the Gemara is working on
an assumption that is very important for our purposes. Since Rabbi Eliezer
learns from the words "kol machmetzet" that one who eats a chametz
mixture on Pesach is liable for lashes, the question arises why
should the law governing one who eats a chametz mixture be different from
the law applying to one who eats chametz, the latter being liable to the
punishment of karet. On the other hand, the Gemara does not object to
Rabbi Eliezer on logical grounds, but rather from the verse from which he
derives his law. In other words, the Gemara's question implies that Rabbi
Eliezer never intended to say that a chametz mixture is regarded as a
type of chametz, in which case all of their laws should be identical. All
he meant to do was to learn the prohibition of eating a chametz mixture
from a special derivation. For this reason, the Gemara understands that Rabbi
Eliezer needs one derivation for the prohibition itself and another derivation
for the punishment. The prohibition applying to a chametz mixture is not
part of the general prohibition of chametz, but rather a separate
prohibition. One question that
remains open concerns the status of this prohibition. In various places in the
Torah we find prohibitions that include several levels of prohibition. Thus, for
example, the Gemara in Keritut 21-22 implies that the eating of certain
types of blood is punishable by karet, whereas the eating of other types
of blood does not carry that punishment, but both prohibitions are included in
the prohibition to eat blood. Is this also the relationship between the eating
of chametz and the eating of a chametz mixture? Does the prohibition of
eating a chametz mixture fall under the prohibition of eating
chametz, as a lower-level prohibition which also carries a less stringent
punishment? Or perhaps these are two separate prohibitions?
Different Types of
Mixtures
With what kind of
mixture is the Gemara dealing? We know from the laws of ta'arovet that
mixtures are classified according to two variables: 1)
the nature of the mixture
liquids (lach be-lach) or solids (yavesh
be-yavesh). 2)
the components of the mixture the same
species (min be-mino) or different species (min be-she'eino
mino). A mixture of two solids
constitutes a situation of objective uncertainty, which stems from an inability
to identify which food is the forbidden one and which food is the permitted one
(for example, two pieces of meat, one forbidden fat [chelev] and
the other permitted fat [shuman]). In our case, we are clearly dealing
with mixtures of liquids, and not mixtures of solids. So too the prevalent
opinion among the Rishonim is that we are dealing with a mixture of
different species, and not a mixture of the same species. It should be noted
that the Halakha is that in a mixture of min be-mino, the forbidden food
is nullified by a majority of permitted food, whereas in a mixture of min
be-she-eino mino, the mixture is forbidden as long as the taste of the
forbidden element is perceptible in the mixture. Another variable
regarding mixtures is the concentration of the mixture. In the framework of a
discussion of the position according to which a chametz mixture is
forbidden by Torah law, the Gemara on p. 44a establishes that one who eats a
concentrated mixture - where a quantity equal to the size of an olive of the
forbidden element is mixed with a quantity of permitted element equal to half a
loaf - transgresses a Torah law. Such a mixture is mentioned in another talmudic
passage, in Avoda Zara, end of p. 67a: Rabbi Yochanan said:
Whenever the taste and substance [of the prohibited element in a mixture are
perceptible] it is prohibited [and one who eats it] is liable to the punishment
of lashes; and that is a quantity equal to the size of an olive [of the
prohibited element mixed] with a quantity equal to half a loaf. If the taste [is
perceptible] but not the substance, it is prohibited but he is not punished with
lashes.
How are we to understand the difference between a mixture of an
olive-sized quantity of forbidden element in a half loaf of permitted element
and a mixture of less than an olive-sized quantity of forbidden element in that
same quantity of permitted element? The measures of kezayit, the size of
an olive, and peras, half a loaf, are familiar to us from the laws
governing forbidden foods: a person is only liable for eating a forbidden food
if he eats a quantity equal to the size of an olive in the time that it takes to
eat half a loaf (kedei akhilat peras). It is possible to connect these
two ideas: If one is forbidden to eat a mixture containing a forbidden food,
then one who eats a quantity equal to the size of an olive in the time that it
takes to eat half a loaf, violates this prohibition. However, even one who
maintains that there is no independent prohibition regarding the eating of a
mixture containing forbidden food, agrees that one who eats of a concentrated
mixture, which has a quantity of forbidden food equal to the size of an olive
mixed in half a loaf of permitted food, violates the prohibition, because such a
person eats a quantity equal in size to an olive of the forbidden food in the
time that it takes to eat half a loaf.
It should be noted that there are two ways to understand the status of a
diluted mixture, which does not have a quantity equal to the size of an olive of
the forbidden element mixed with a quantity of permitted element equal to half a
loaf. On the one hand, it is possible that the forbidden element in such a
mixture is nullified by Torah law, and therefore a person who eats it does not
violate a Torah prohibition. On the other hand, it is possible that the
forbidden element is not nullified by Torah law, but since there is an
insufficient quantity of the forbidden element, a person who eats of the mixture
eats only half of the measure (chatzi shi'ur) of the forbidden element
that entails liability. According to this second understanding, the law in such
a case depends on the dispute whether or not half a measure is forbidden by
Torah law, but clearly the person is not liable to lashes. Bal
Yera'e and
Bal Yimatze
In addition to the
prohibition against eating chametz, the Torah imposed two additional
prohibitions in connection with chametz: bal yera'e and bal yimatze
the prohibitions to have chametz in one's possession during
Pesach. Do these prohibitions apply to chametz mixtures? Of
course, this question must be considered separately according to the two
opinions - according to Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that eating a chametz
mixture is forbidden by Torah law, and according to the Sages, who maintain
that this is forbidden only by rabbinic decree. The Position of Rabbi
Eliezer
According to Rabbi
Eliezer, parallel to the prohibition of eating a chametz mixture, do the
Torah prohibitions of bal yera'e and bal yimatz apply to such a
mixture? As we saw at the
beginning of this shiur, Rabbi Eliezer does not argue that a
chametz mixture is a type of chametz, but rather he maintains that
there is a separate prohibition against eating a chametz mixture,
parallel to the prohibition against eating chametz. Thus, it stands to
reason, according to him, that the additional chametz prohibitions
bal yera'e and bal yimatze apply only to actual chametz,
and not to a chametz mixture. Another reason why the
prohibitions of bal yera'e and bal yimatze should not apply to a
chametz mixture, according to Rabbi Eliezer, is the view found in the
Rishonim that these prohibitions stem from the concern that a person will
come to eat of the chametz. Thus, some Rishonim argue that these
prohibitions apply only to actual chametz, the eating of which is
punishable by karet, but not to a chametz mixture, the eating of
which is not punishable by karet. In fact, the question
whether Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the prohibitions of bal yera'e and
bal yimatze apply to a chametz mixture is debated by the
Rishonim, in the context of a disagreement as to the meaning of the
expression found in the Mishna cited above: "Ve-eilu overin be-Pesach."
Rashi explains: Ve-eilu
overin
[= over these one transgresses] bal yera'e and bal
yimatze.
According to Rashi, despite the fact that the eating of the items
mentioned in the Mishna is not punishable by karet, nevertheless they are
governed by the prohibitions of bal yera'e and bal yimatze.
Rabbenu Tam disagrees with Rashi, and says: And it seems to Rabbenu
Tam that "eilu overin" refers to the foods, and "overin"
means that they are removed from the table, because they may not be eaten,
but there is no bal yera'e.
According to Rabbenu Tam, these items are not subject to the prohibitions
of bal yera'e and bal yimatze. Other Rishonim understand
the expression "overin" to mean "are removed from the world," but the
source of the law is a rabbinic decree. The Position of the
Sages
According to the Sages,
there is no Torah prohibition to eat a chametz mixture. Is it possible
for them to maintain that such a mixture is subject to the prohibitions of
bal yera'e and bal yimatze? The simple understanding is that the
Sages do not distinguish between the prohibition against eating and the other
prohibitions of chametz; just as the prohibition against eating does not
apply to a chametz mixture, so too the prohibitions of bal yera'e
and bal yimatze.
On the other hand, it is
possible that, according to the Sages, it is only the prohibition against eating
that does not apply to a chametz mixture. As may be recalled, we saw that
even the Sages agree that one is forbidden to eat of a chametz mixture
that contains a quantity equal to the size of an olive of chametz mixed
with a quantity of non-chametz equal to half a loaf, and the entire
disagreement between them and Rabbi Eliezer is limited to a more diluted
mixture, which does not contain such a high concentration of chametz.
Thus, it is possible that the Sages maintain that eating of such a mixture
is not forbidden by Torah law, only because the person is not eating a quantity
equal to the size of an olive of chametz in the time that it takes to eat
half a loaf, and thus he does not "manage" to violate the prohibition in the
prescribed time. If this analysis is correct, then the problem focuses on the
eating, but as for the prohibitions of bal yera'e and bal yimatze
a chametz mixture is treated like ordinary
chametz.
Such a possibility emerges from the words of the Ravya in
Pesachim. According to him, one who eats a chametz mixture on
Pesach is not liable to lashes, but since the eating of the mixture is
forbidden by Torah law he is liable to lashes for violating the prohibitions
of bal yera'e and bal yimatze. The assertion that the eating of a
chametz mixture is forbidden by Torah law implies that the prohibited
element is not nullified, and therefore one who retains possession of such a
mixture over Pesach violates the prohibitions of bal yera'e and
bal yimatze.
As we have seen, the
prohibition to eat a chametz mixture, according to Rabbi Eliezer, is a
special prohibition that stands apart from the general prohibition to eat
chametz. Regarding mixtures in general, the Rishonim disagree on
the question how much one must eat of the mixture in order to be liable: an
amount of the mixture equal in size to an olive, or an amount of the
forbidden element equal in size to an olive. The Rosh in Chullin
cites the position of Rabbi Chayyim ha-Kohen, according to which it depends
on the concentration of the mixture: In the case of a mixture which does not
contain a quantity equal to the size of an olive of the forbidden element mixed
with a quantity of permitted element equal to half a loaf a person is only
liable if he ate a quantity equal to the size of an olive of the forbidden
element. But in the case of a mixture containing a quantity equal to the size of
an olive of the forbidden element mixed with a quantity of permitted element
equal to half a loaf, he is liable even if he only eats a quantity equal to the
size of an olive of the mixture. This implies that there is a qualitative
difference between a concentrated mixture and one that is more diluted. When
there is a quantity equal to the size of an olive of the forbidden element mixed
with a quantity equal to the size of half a loaf of the permitted element the
prohibition "spreads" and imposes itself on the entire mixture. If we adopt this
position, it is possible that even according to Rabbi Eliezer, a distinction
should be made between the two types of mixtures: When a quantity equal to the
size of an olive of chametz is mixed with a quantity equal to half a loaf
of non-chametz the entire mixture is regarded as chametz, and
thus it is governed by the prohibitions of bal yera'e and bal
yimatze. But when a quantity equal in size to an olive of chametz is
not found in half a loaf of non-chametz the mixture is not
regarded as chametz. While there is a special prohibition against eating
it, apart from the prohibition against eating chametz, a special
derivation would be necessary in order to infer that the mixture is governed by
the prohibitions of bal yera'e and bal
yimatze. The Final
Law
How has the law been
decided regarding the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages? The
Even though the Sages
said, "For its mixture, there is no punishment" there are no lashes, but there
is a prohibition.
The
The Rambam in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot (commandment no. 198)
says: We are warned against
eating items that contain a mixture of chametz, even if they are not
bread, e.g., muryas, kutach, beer, and the like. And this is what
they stated: "You shall eat nothing leavened" (Shemot 12:20) to include
Babylonian kutach, Median beer, and Edomite vinegar. You might say that
he should be liable for karet. Therefore, the verse states: "For all who
eat that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off" (ibid., v. 19)
just as chametz is distinct in that it is full-fledged chametz, to
the exclusion of those items that are not full-fledged chametz. And what
do they come for? To be liable for the violation of a negative commandment. And
their prohibition has already been explained in Pesachim there is
liability for lashes only if there was a quantity equal in size to an olive of
chametz mixed in a quantity equal to half a loaf [of non-chametz].
However, regarding a chametz mixture of a lower concentration, one who
eats it is not liable for lashes.
The Rambam rules in accordance with the view of Rabbi Eliezer that a
chametz mixture is forbidden by way of a separate prohibition. In
addition, as opposed to the Gemara on p. 44, the Rambam maintains that Rabbi
Eliezer and the Sages disagree about a mixture containing chametz in an
amount equal in size to an olive mixed with non-chametz in an amount
equal to half a loaf. Even in such a case the Sages maintain that one who eats
of the mixture is not liable by Torah law.
The Ramban (ad loc.) disagrees with the Rambam, and raises two
objections. First, why do the Sages maintain that there is no Torah prohibition
in the case of a mixture that has an amount equal in size to an olive of
chametz mixed with half a loaf of non-chametz? And second,
according to Rabbi Eliezer, why in such a case is the person who eats of the
mixture liable for lashes, and not karet?
It should be noted that
a similar difficulty arises from the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot
Ma'akhalot Assurot (chap. 15), and not only regarding
chametz: A forbidden item that
became mixed with a permitted item - if of different species, [it is forbidden]
if its taste is perceptible; and if of the same species, where the taste is not
perceptible, it is nullified by a majority [of the permitted
item]. How so? If chelev
(fat) of the kidneys fell into barley and melted the barley is tasted. If
the taste of the fat is not perceptible, it is permitted. And if the taste of
the fat is perceptible, and its substance is also perceptible, it is forbidden
by Torah law. If the taste is perceptible, but not its substance, it is
forbidden by rabbinic enactment. How so its substance? If
there was an amount equal in size to an olive of chelev for every three
eggs' worth of mixture if he ate three eggs worth of the barley, since they
contain a quantity equal in size to an olive of chelev, he is liable to
lashes, for its taste and substance are perceptible. But [if he ate] less than
three eggs' worth, he is liable to lashes by rabbinic enactment. And similarly
if the mixture did not have an amount equal in size to an olive of the forbidden
item in every three eggs' worth [of the mixture], even if the taste of the
chelev is perceptible, and he ate the entire pot he is only liable to
lashes by rabbinic enactment. As is well-known, one
who eats chelev is liable to the punishment of karet. Why, then,
is one who eats of a mixture that contains an amount equal in size to an olive
of chelev in three eggs' worth of the mixture, only liable to lashes, and
not to karet? The Rambam's distinction between a mixture and a
full-fledged prohibition might relate to the intensity of the prohibition
(cheftza) or else to the person's act (gavra). It is possible that
the prohibition applying to a mixture is weaker in intensity than the
prohibition applying to the forbidden item itself, and it is possible that one
who eats of a mixture is not regarded as "eating a prohibited item" in the same
way as is one who eats of the forbidden item itself. The Mirkevet
ha-Mishne answers the other objections raised by the Ramban. He explains
that the Rambam understood that the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the
Sages relates to a mixture of identical species, rather than a mixture of
different species. In general, a forbidden item that became mixed with its own
species is nullified by the majority of the permitted item. Rabbi Eliezer
requires a special derivation in order to prove that chametz that became
mixed with its own species is not nullified by a majority of the permitted item,
and it is about this derivation that the Sages disagree. (Translated by David
Strauss) |