Owning Chametz on Pesach: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Pet Food
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
# Chametz which the owner doesn't know about in his possession, some say that the owner doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh, while others hold that one does violate Baal Yiraeh.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 21a s.v. viy holds that chametz that a person who owns and doesn't know about chametz doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh. However, the Rosh Pesachim 1:9 disagrees.</ref> Many hold that if one did do bedika then if there's still chametz that one missed one doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh either because he doesn't know about it or because it is like an extenuating circumstance that he missed it.<ref>Ran Pesachim 1a s.v. elah, Maharam Chalavah. Ran explains that the Gemara Pesachim 6b is evidence that one who finds chametz on pesach doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh retroactively; he only violates Baal Yiraeh going forward if he continues to hold onto it. This is also the opinion of Rashi 6b s.v. vdayto. The Ran explains that one doesn't violate anything in the past because one doesn't violate anything for not checking places that one doesn't have to and one doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz one doesn't know about. Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 6b s.v. gezerah says that the reason one doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh for having chametz after doing bedika is because one is only obligated to do bedika according to his abilities and afterwards if he finds something it is considered ''ones''. Maharam Chalavah 2a s.v. bodkin agrees.</ref> If he didn't do bedika then owning chametz that he doesn't know about is a violation of Baal Yiraeh on a biblical level.<ref> Pri Chadash 431:1 s.v. vshuv says that Rosh thinks that you do violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you didn’t know about, though he doesn’t hold like the Rosh. Taz 434:3 thinks that the Tur and Rosh could hold like Tosfot. Magen Avraham 434:5 thinks that the Tur holds that you do violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you didn’t know about and the Rosh holds you only violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you forgot about but once knew about. Shaar Hatziyun 434:10 cites the Magen Avraham. Shulchan Aruch Harav (Kuntres Acharon 433:3) clearly holds that if you did bitul then you don't violate Baal Yiraeh because of ''ones'' or you didn't know about that chametz. If you didn’t do bedika then you violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you didn’t know about like the Rosh unlike the Magen Avraham. Tosfot Harosh Pesachim 6b is evident that he meant like the Pri Chadash and not like the Taz or Magen Avraham. See also Ish Matzliach on Mishna Brurah who supports this contention within the Rosh.</ref> | # Chametz which the owner doesn't know about in his possession, some say that the owner doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh, while others hold that one does violate Baal Yiraeh.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 21a s.v. viy holds that chametz that a person who owns and doesn't know about chametz doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh. However, the Rosh Pesachim 1:9 disagrees.</ref> Many hold that if one did do bedika then if there's still chametz that one missed one doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh either because he doesn't know about it or because it is like an extenuating circumstance that he missed it.<ref>Ran Pesachim 1a s.v. elah, Maharam Chalavah. Ran explains that the Gemara Pesachim 6b is evidence that one who finds chametz on pesach doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh retroactively; he only violates Baal Yiraeh going forward if he continues to hold onto it. This is also the opinion of Rashi 6b s.v. vdayto. The Ran explains that one doesn't violate anything in the past because one doesn't violate anything for not checking places that one doesn't have to and one doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz one doesn't know about. Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 6b s.v. gezerah says that the reason one doesn't violate Baal Yiraeh for having chametz after doing bedika is because one is only obligated to do bedika according to his abilities and afterwards if he finds something it is considered ''ones''. Maharam Chalavah 2a s.v. bodkin agrees.</ref> If he didn't do bedika then owning chametz that he doesn't know about is a violation of Baal Yiraeh on a biblical level.<ref> Pri Chadash 431:1 s.v. vshuv says that Rosh thinks that you do violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you didn’t know about, though he doesn’t hold like the Rosh. Taz 434:3 thinks that the Tur and Rosh could hold like Tosfot. Magen Avraham 434:5 thinks that the Tur holds that you do violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you didn’t know about and the Rosh holds you only violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you forgot about but once knew about. Shaar Hatziyun 434:10 cites the Magen Avraham. Shulchan Aruch Harav (Kuntres Acharon 433:3) clearly holds that if you did bitul then you don't violate Baal Yiraeh because of ''ones'' or you didn't know about that chametz. If you didn’t do bedika then you violate Baal Yiraeh on chametz you didn’t know about like the Rosh unlike the Magen Avraham. Tosfot Harosh Pesachim 6b is evident that he meant like the Pri Chadash and not like the Taz or Magen Avraham. See also Ish Matzliach on Mishna Brurah who supports this contention within the Rosh.</ref> | ||
==Pet Food== | ==Pet Food== | ||
# Bread which spoiled and is still edible to dogs is forbidden to eat, benefit from, and may not be owned on Pesach since it could be used to leaven other doughs.<Ref>Pesachim 45b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:9. Ran explains that just like the Torah forbids sourdough (Heb. שאור; trans. se'or) since it is a leavening agent even though it isn't edible, so too spoiled bread is forbidden even though it is inedible since it is a leavening agent. Nonetheless, if the spoiled bread is so spoiled that it isn't even edible to dogs it is permitted since it is like dust as the Rif 14a writes.</ref> | # Bread which spoiled and is still edible to dogs is forbidden to eat, benefit from, and may not be owned on Pesach since it could be used to leaven other doughs.<Ref>Pesachim 45b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:9. Ran Pesachim 13b s.v. vnisrefet explains that just like the Torah forbids sourdough (Heb. שאור; trans. se'or) since it is a leavening agent even though it isn't edible, so too spoiled bread is forbidden even though it is inedible since it is a leavening agent. Nonetheless, if the spoiled bread is so spoiled that it isn't even edible to dogs it is permitted since it is like dust as the Rif 14a writes.</ref> | ||
# A chametz mixture which do not have the ability to leaven other foods and is inedible to people is permitted to own and benefit from on Pesach.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:4 clarifies that a chametz mixture is permitted if it isn't human edible and can't be used to leaven other foods. Chazon Ish OC 116:7 notes that the Rambam clearly holds that the standard that chametz is forbidden unless it is inedible to dogs only applies to foods which are used to leaven other foods such as spoiled bread. However, other medicines or tanner's liquids which aren't used to leaven other foods are permitted as long as they human inedible. Mishna Brurah 442:12 seems not to distinguish. Dirshu 442:20 explains that the Mishna Brurah fundamentally agrees with the Chazon Ish and is only strict on something that can be used to leaven other foods and people wouldn't do it because it is disgusting.</ref> Therefore, using tropical fish food that has chametz as an ingredient may be owned on Pesach and may be fed to fish on Pesach since it is edible to people.<ref>[http://halachayomit.co.il/en/default.aspx?HalachaID=2470 Rav Yaakov Sasson on halachayomit.co.il] quotes Rav Ovadia Yosef and Or Letzion v. 3 p. 92 that it is permissible to have and use tropical fish food which chametz in it since it is human inedible.</ref> However, other pet foods such as dog, cat, and bird food potentially could be edible to people and therefore are forbidden if they contain chametz.<ref>[http://halachayomit.co.il/en/default.aspx?HalachaID=2470 Rav Yaakov Sasson on halachayomit.co.il] writes that dog, cat, and bird foods which chametz are forbidden since they could be human edible. Even though generally people would never eat them that is only because of convention and the fact that better foods are available. For example, Minchat Shlomo 1:17 proves that the standard of human edible doesn't depend on what most people would want to eat as the gemara considered urine to be human edible. [https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/chametz-mixtures-and-pet-food-a-bold-and-controversial-approach-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter Rabbi Chaim Jachter] quotes Rabbi Avihud Schwartz (Techumin v. 35 pp. 47-54) who in discussing the Israeli army dogs that the dog food is not human edible and would be permitted if it isn't majority chametz or used to leaven other foods. Rabbi Jachter concludes that the standard Orthodox halacha pronounced by the OU, Star-K, and CRC is that pet foods with chametz are an issue and should be replaced with kosher for passover alternatives.</ref> | # A chametz mixture which do not have the ability to leaven other foods and is inedible to people is permitted to own and benefit from on Pesach.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:4 clarifies that a chametz mixture is permitted if it isn't human edible and can't be used to leaven other foods. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&pgnum=342 Chazon Ish OC 116:7] notes that the Rambam Chametz Umazah 4:12 clearly holds that the standard that chametz is forbidden unless it is inedible to dogs only applies to foods which are used to leaven other foods such as spoiled bread. However, other medicines or tanner's liquids which aren't used to leaven other foods are permitted as long as they human inedible. Mishna Brurah 442:12 seems not to distinguish. Dirshu 442:20 explains that the Mishna Brurah fundamentally agrees with the Chazon Ish and is only strict on something that can be used to leaven other foods and people wouldn't do it because it is disgusting.</ref> Therefore, using tropical fish food that has chametz as an ingredient may be owned on Pesach and may be fed to fish on Pesach since it is edible to people.<ref>[http://halachayomit.co.il/en/default.aspx?HalachaID=2470 Rav Yaakov Sasson on halachayomit.co.il] quotes Rav Ovadia Yosef and Or Letzion v. 3 p. 92 that it is permissible to have and use tropical fish food which chametz in it since it is human inedible.</ref> However, other pet foods such as dog, cat, and bird food potentially could be edible to people and therefore are forbidden if they contain chametz.<ref>[http://halachayomit.co.il/en/default.aspx?HalachaID=2470 Rav Yaakov Sasson on halachayomit.co.il] writes that dog, cat, and bird foods which chametz are forbidden since they could be human edible. Even though generally people would never eat them that is only because of convention and the fact that better foods are available. For example, Minchat Shlomo 1:17 proves that the standard of human edible doesn't depend on what most people would want to eat as the gemara considered urine to be human edible. [https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/chametz-mixtures-and-pet-food-a-bold-and-controversial-approach-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter Rabbi Chaim Jachter] quotes Rabbi Avihud Schwartz (Techumin v. 35 pp. 47-54) who in discussing the Israeli army dogs that the dog food is not human edible and would be permitted if it isn't majority chametz or used to leaven other foods. Rabbi Jachter concludes that the standard Orthodox halacha pronounced by the OU, Star-K, and CRC is that pet foods with chametz are an issue and should be replaced with kosher for passover alternatives.</ref> | ||
==Less than a Kezayit== | ==Less than a Kezayit== | ||
#Is there is baal yiraeh on less than a kezayit? Maharam Chalavah 45a s.v. amar and Rabbenu Dovid 6b s.v. iylayma explicitly hold that there is a biblical violation of baal yiraeh on less than a kezayit like every other prohibition that is prohibited with less than the requisite measure (Yoma 74a). It is possible to argue that based on Rashi, Tosfot, and other rishonim on 45a baal yiraeh biblically does not apply to less than a kezayit though it isn't explicit in their conclusions. Taz 442:5, Magen Avraham 442:10 in understanding Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:11 and Smak, Shagat Aryeh 81 hold that there's no biblical violation of baal yiraeh on less than a kezayit. See [[Bedikat_Chametz#What]]. | #Is there is baal yiraeh on less than a kezayit? Maharam Chalavah 45a s.v. amar and Rabbenu Dovid 6b s.v. iylayma explicitly hold that there is a biblical violation of baal yiraeh on less than a kezayit like every other prohibition that is prohibited with less than the requisite measure (Yoma 74a). It is possible to argue that based on Rashi, Tosfot, and other rishonim on 45a baal yiraeh biblically does not apply to less than a kezayit though it isn't explicit in their conclusions. Taz 442:5, Magen Avraham 442:10 in understanding Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:11 and Smak, Shagat Aryeh 81 hold that there's no biblical violation of baal yiraeh on less than a kezayit. See [[Bedikat_Chametz#What]]. | ||
