האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל. ואף על פי כן אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית. והאוכל פחות מכזית במזיד מכין אותו מכת מרדות:
Eating even the slightest amount of chametz itself on Pesach is forbidden by the Torah as [Exodus 13:3] states: "Do not eat [leaven]." Nevertheless, [a person who eats chametz] is not liable for כרת, nor must he bring a sacrifice for anything less than the specified measure, which is the size of an olive.
A person who intentionally violates the prohibition and eats less than an olive size of chametz is given "stripes for being rebellious."
It sounds like the Rambam is saying that eating even a small amount of chametz on Pesach is forbidden, based on the verse, "Lo Yeachel".
The problem everyone deals with is that the issue of eating less than a proper measure (a kezayit) of forbidden food, for example half a kazayit of pork, is forbidden based on other verses, as we see in several places in the Talmud. So why specify this truth when it comes to chametz?
Yoma 74a states that according to R’ Yochanan, having less than a full shiur of forbidden food (called "chatzi shiur") is prohibited on a Torah level, based on a verse, "kol chelev." The context of that Gemara is the issue of eating less than a kezayit on Yom Kippur. There is also a sevara provided, that of "chazi le'etzrufei" - it's fit to combine. This ambiguous sevara is explained by Rabbi Daniel Z Feldman thus:
- Potato chip sevara - you wont stop with one, a fence. This sounds like a d’rabbanan, but it can fit in the d’oriata if you believe Rav Engel that there are fences in the Torah
- Marijuana sevara - there’s a certain amount prosecutable, but the President couldn’t come out and smoke less, we would find it inappropriate despite the fact he won’t be arrested. So the fact that its assur at some amount can mean that less than that, though no onesh, can be bad as well.
So we know this globally, yet Rambam makes a new source and specifies this for chametz especially, when its known for all forbidden foods. The way the Kesef Mishnah puts it as this, and he leaves it as a question:
- קשיא לי למה לי קרא בחמץ בפסח הא בכל איסורין שבתורה קי"ל חצי שיעור אסור מה"ת. ועוד קשה דאי מקרא איפכא ה"ל למילף מיניה דלא יאכל שיעור אכילה משמע וצ"ע.
First, why give us a new source for chatzi shiur as applied to chametz? Second, doesn't "don't eat" as a source imply exactly the opposite, that it has to be a kezayit shiur or more to violate, since that's the definition of eating? He leaves it as a mystery, "tzarich iyyun."
(Interestingly, the Ralbag in his Toalot on Exodus 13:3 states the same derasha that "lo yeachel" means that one cannot have less than a kezayit of chametz on Pesach. Does he get this from the Rambam, or do they get it from a common source?)
(Interestingly, the Ralbag in his Toalot on Exodus 13:3 states the same derasha that "lo yeachel" means that one cannot have less than a kezayit of chametz on Pesach. Does he get this from the Rambam, or do they get it from a common source?)
The following is a listing of the different answers to this question:
- Mishneh Lamelech quotes the Maharlenach who says (in his teshuvah which I looked up he calls this an "umad", a guess) that Chametz is different than regular forbidden foods since Chametz is only forbidden during Pesach but not before or after.
The big question on the Maharlenach is why this should matter for the Rambam - what about only being forbidden temporarily, makes it more necessary to have its own unique source that less than a kezayit is forbidden? Maybe one way to put this is whether there is an isser gavra or isser cheftza. When it comes to pork, that's an isser cheftza. The thing itself is assur, always. But chametz is assur only for seven days - it's an isser gravra, on people for seven days. Because this is a different type of isser, the Rambam needed a different verse.
The way the Meharlenach puts it is that one might think we can be more lenient on chametz, since its temporary, than on other always-forbidden items. Why this should be so, he doesn't say. I guess the sevara might be that if we consider something permitted year-round, it can't be that bad.
Everyone asks on the Meharlenach, that the gemara talks about chatzi shiur for Yom Kippur - and that's just one day! This would mean that the isser cheftza / isser gavra distinction also falls away there.
- - Mishnah Lamelech quotes the Re'em that the Torah says "lo ye'achel", means that even less than a kazayit of chametz would get karet, and the halacha is upending this by saying it has to be a kazayit. This is only so for chametz. Chatzi shiur works the other way for other forbidden foods, where the Torah says a kazayit is bad and the derasha makes it that less than a kazayit is bad. When the gemara on Chatzi shiur provides the sevara of chazi le'etzrufei, it can be combined, that is to say that the gemara needs a sevara why we are making a derasha at all that is more machmir than the Torah itself about what is problematic.
- - The Ohr Sameach (Meshech Chochma) has an interesting answer. The command of not eating chametz was while the people were still in Egypt, and applied only to them, for just the one day of eating the paschal offering. This was eventually transferred to the future of not having chametz the whole Pesach. However, the Rambam's opinion is well-known that Bnei Noach have no shiurim like kezayit or beitzah, it is any amount of ever min hachai, etc, that they sin by. If so, chametz is special in that we were commanded any amount to begin with, so there is no need for the derasha. He raises the question, then shouldn't one violate eating the Pesach incorrectly even with any amount? He says the paschal offering is different, since we have a derasha that it can't be slaughtered in the first place until it is assured that the person eating it will have a kazayit, so the measurement is built in.
- - The Adnei Yad Hachazakah answers by providing a girsa he found in the Munich manuscript - "האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא ה"ז אסור מה"ת, ואעפ"כ אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית, שנאמר לא יאכל. לפי גירסא זו המעתיקים טעו והביאו את הפסוק לא יאכל במקומו הלא נכון. לפי"ז אין כל קושיא על רבנו.", which takes the "lo yeachel" and puts it onto the end about karet requiring a kezayit. Although I think this doesn't answer the question, what made the Rambam write it here when it is well-known for all forbidden foods?
- - Ohr Hayashar answers that the Rambam is not talking about chatzi shiur, or isser achilah. He is talking about the isser hanaah on Pesach - even a little bit is getting some hanaah from the food. He says this works especially because the Rambam in Halacha 2 uses this exact pasuk to refer to hanaah. He says this is a great flow - Firstly, even a little is violating the isser of hanaa. Next step is that if you have more you are getting karet and korban. Next step after that is that the punishment of the isser of hanaa that you violate is makat mardut since there is no action with hanaah. (The Beer Eliezer almost comes onto this answer, but fumbles with this realization. He points out that the Rambam indeed paskens in Berachot 1:2 that one need to make a beracha even on the smallest amount, since you have gained hanaah in eating even a small amount.)
The Derech Hamelech suggests similarly. The gemara Pesachim 21 states that Chizkiya learns out the prohibition of hanaah from "lo yeachel." Rashi comments that the pasuk means to say, in this interpretation, that one shouldn't do things that might lead to eating, including buying etc. If so, this can happen less than a kazayit, even though eating itself is only a kazayit and above.
- - The Orah Vesimcha says (and I've seen this around elsewhere) that the derasha of "kol chelev" that chatzi shiur is asser from the Torah is a revelation that the Torah considers any amount of eating prohibited. The pasuk of "kol chelev" is therefore telling you that the concept of a kezayit is for punishment, but not for the actual isser itself. What this means is that "kol chelev" reveals to us that every prohibited "achilah" in the Torah is teaching us that it is forbidden even chatzi shiur. Thus, when the Rambam says that the Torah says "lo yeachel" to tell us chatzi shiur for chametz, this is in fact exactly what the gemara was saying, and all is good.
- - The Binyan Yehoshua asks a great question. He asks, what is the point of the machloket of Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel in Beitza (first mishnah), which is explained on 7b to be a machloket whether you violate bal yeraeh with a kezayit or a date size. I.e., what is the amount to violate the lav. The question is, we know that you don't get whipped for bal yeraeh, since its a lav that is nitak le'aseh, (Pesachim 95a). And if we take chatzi shiur seriously from the Torah, as the Rambam apparently does based on the gemara, and we know that you already violate bal yeraeh with chatzi shiur, what is the nafka mina here? You violate with a lot or a little, with a kezayit or even more. Three answers present themselves to me. One is that chatzi shiur only applies to food and the eating of it. This answer enters into the machloket if there is chatzi shiur in issurim in general. The second answer is that though there is no nafka mina in this machloket, it is something we would like to know if you violate two issurim, both chatzi shiur, and then when you have the rest, bal yiraeh, or only one chatzi shiur. This is relevant to korbanot, etc. The last answer is that the Aruch Hashulchan, based on rishonim, argues vigorously that you do indeed get malkut for bal yeraeh in certain cases.
- - The Shaar Hamelech asks how the Rambam could look to "lo yeachel" as a source, when the Yerushalmi Orla explores "lo yeachel" and offers different limmudim for it, but not one of them is chatzi shiur. One of them is the isser to feed it to someone else. This leads the Binyan Shlomo to find this as the source, by trying to fit the sevaras together. It is true that "achilah" is only with a kezayit. But "feeding someone" can be with even less than that. And so the Rambam wanted to relate that within the din of "maachil", there is an isser, which isn't so for other maachalos asuros.
- - The Radvaz says that the Rambam needed another source for chatzi shir here, because the original source for chatzi shiur is only when it is the thing completely (ba'ein), but the Rambam wanted to include if its a taaruvot or somesuch.
- - Yismach Yisrael suggests that perhaps the Rambam holds that when it comes to mitzvot, one cannot accomplish anything by doing chatzi shiur. So, for example, one accomplishes nothing by eating less than a kezayit of matza on the seder night. And since we know that the mitzvah of matzah and the isser of chametz are learned out from each other, one might think that since there is no chatzi shiur for the mitzvah, there is no chatzi shiur for the aveira, and so the Rambam provided a source to show this isn't so.
- - Rav Feldman suggested (probably from a source, but don't remember) that maybe for the Rambam, chatzi shiur of pork isn't pork, but it is forbidden nonetheless. But when it comes to chametz chatzi shiur of chametz retains its identity of chametz, and the Rambam wanted to demonstrate that fact. Rav Feldman says there's a nafka mina. We know, the Mishna discusses, that if we have to allow someone to violate because of some necessity, we want them to do the least issur possible. So someone who has to eat something because they are sick should seek the less-assur thing. So Ramban says we allow people to do chatzi shiur if they are sick on Yom Kippur. Why then do we care what level isser it is? It should be as if it doesn’t exist! They’re called chatzi shiur, not a connection to pork or chelev or whatever. The Ramban has two answers. First, he says it could be the premise is wrong, and they retain their identities. The second answer is that his premise is correct, and the Mishna talks about someone who is so sick they can’t have those waiting periods of chatzi shiur, and therefore the full amount should have the lesser isser sought. So whether it retains the same assur identity matters
- - Avnei Nezer suggests that "chatzi shiur" literally means “half” for some rishonim, such as the Rambam. Therefore the Rambam needed a special limmud to show its a fraction for chametz.
- - My friend and colleague, Tuvy Miller, suggests roughly that Chametz is different than other issurei achilah, in that Chametz has additional aspects - don't own, don't gain hanaa, destroy it. It could be that the category Chametz is in should not fully be a "maachalot assurot" category, but something more akin to "avoda zara", which has these aspects as well. If so, there needs to be a different limud for something not really in the category of the gemara's limud.
- - The Aruch Hashulchan, and other acharonim (Tzlach, Chatam Sofer), suggest that the sevara for general "chatzi shiur" is the concept of "chazi le'etzrufei" - it can combine to form the isser. So the Aruch Hashulchan says the Rambam is concerned that this sevara can't be used for Pesach because there is a moment in Pesach when "chazi le'etzrufei" won't work as a sevara. That is, the last second before Pesach is over. If you take a bite of less than a kazayit right before the end of Pesach, there is no chance for chazi le'etzrufei. Since there is a moment when chazi le'etzrufei is inapplicable, the Rambam had to come up with a different source for chametz and Pesach. This could be understood two ways. 1) Either the sevara itself is inapplicable for chametz, and has to be a different source, or 2) that one might think that the last second is permitted to eat less than a kazayit, and this derasha covers even that last second.
The issue with this answer is that this should be so for Yom Kippur - the last second of Yom Kippur would also have this issue - yet the gemara says chazi le'etzrufei exactly in this context!
So I have a hard time with this answer. Especially given that the Aruch Hashulchan criticizes the Meharlnach for exactly this issue - that he had suggested chametz is temporary while pork is always, and the Aruch Hashulchan had said that Yom Kippur is temporary too, yet chatzi shiur applies anyway in the gemara!
The only answer I can come up with is that there is a concept of mosif Yom Kippur. So if you eat something the last second of Yom Kippur, you're in essence saying that you want to violate Yom Kippur, and therefore Yom Kippur is "mosif" to allow you to do so.
The Node B'Yehuda actually asks a similar question. We know that chatzi shiur applies to Nazirut. So at the end of 30 days, he could also have wine the last moment of the 30 days and Chazi Le'etzrufei shouldn't apply as well? The Noda B'yehuda answers that since he could extend his nazirut immediately, by declaring it, the concept of chazi le'etzrufei still applies. So maybe we could apply this to being mosif Yom Kippur.
Perhaps we'll say that the issur of chametz can't be extended past Pesach (even while the isser melacha could, possibly).
- - Leshed Hashemen says that the Rambam likes giving pesukim that support his statement, even if they aren't the actual source.
No comments:
Post a Comment