THE WHOLE TIME THAT ONE IS
PERMITTED TO EAT [LEAVEN], ONE MAY FEED IT TO CATTLE, BEASTS, AND BIRDS, AND HE
MAY SELL IT TO A GENTILE, AND BENEFIT THEREOF IS PERMITTED. WHEN ITS PERIOD HAS
PASSED, BENEFIT THEREOF IS FORBIDDEN
In other words, not only can one not own leaven during
Passover, one cannot even gain benefit from it, for example selling it using it
as feed. Now this may be a bit obvious (how can you gain benefit from something
you don’t own?) but, the argument goes, it is necessary.
This, by the way, becomes the basis of the now common custom
to sell hametz to a non-Jew before Passover – at a time when benefit is
still allowed.
But let’s start with the animals. First some terms: “Cattle”
(behaymah) refers to domesticated animals. “Beasts” (chayya)
refers to wild or semi-domesticated.
For what purpose does he state, CATTLE
and for what purpose does he state BEASTS? They are necessary: for if he stated
CATTLE, [I might say] that is because if they leave over it is fit for them;
but [as for] BEASTS, which if they leave over hide it, I would say [that it is]
not [so].
Could the principle be stated using just one example? Maybe
not, because of their different habits. Whatever cattle don’t eat, they leave for
next time, but whatever beasts leave over they hide for the future. All that
hidden food is still in the owners possession even though he can’t see it. So
maybe it only needs to say “Beasts.”
While if he stated BEASTS, [I might
say] that is because if they leave over they at least hide it; but as for
cattle, sometimes they leave over and he [the owner] may not think about it,
and so transgress ‘it shall not be seen’ and ‘it shall not be found’
on its account,
So all that leaven for cattle feed is lying around but it is
still in the owner’s possession and he may forget about it once he’s fed the
cattle.
[and therefore] I might say [that
it is] not [so]: thus they [both] are necessary.
I guess they are! But, wait. Aren’t we forgetting something?
What is the purpose of [including] BIRDS?
Because he states CATTLE and
BEASTS, he also states BIRDS.
Oh, well. Less rhetorical logic there. But, fine. “Cattle” and
“Beasts” and “Birds” it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment