Stolen leaven and the laws of the nomad
Hello Rabbi,
Regarding someone who stole chametz and passed over it for Passover. Does the owner of the chametz pass over it for Babylon Yareh? Or is it the thief? And can the owner abandon the chametz after it has been stolen (i.e., is it possible to abandon something that is not in your possession, just as you cannot sanctify it)
Best regards,
It is not possible to consecrate something that is not in one’s possession, just as it is not possible to consecrate it (Ketzoh 123-1 at the end). The reason for this is that consecration is not only the expropriation of ownership, but the application of the permission of consecration (Shiuri R. Shmuel Kiddushin, page 1). Although the Ketzoh (11-4) understood from the Bahá’í (in Teshuvot 124) that it is possible to consecrate something that is not in one’s possession, the Kontrasi Shiurim (Bava Kama 21-19, 45 and in Ketzoh) did not understand this from the Bahá’í.
From an explanation, I would say that it is possible to abandon it because it is not true that abandoning it is envy of the whole, but rather taking it out of its possession, but this needs to be looked at further.
But regarding the prohibition of chametz, it seems that because the usurper is obligated to pay the fine, he is the one who violates it. Rabbi Shachak wrote this in Noda in Yehuda Kama O’H 20, Peri Hadash O’H 1533, and others.
I also agree that it is possible to abandon something that is not in your possession. But how does this fit in with this gemara:
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Kama, page 71, page 1
And the Tsnouin place the Ma’ot, and say that whatever is gathered from it is defiled by these Ma’ot! And what about Tima, where did Tsnouin come from? Rashba”g, (and Rabbi Yochanan did not say it as a single person), and the speaker Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yochanan: Every place that Rashba”g taught in our Mishnah, the halakha is like it, except for the Arab and the Sidon and the last evidence! Say: Not Tima, not everything that is gathered from it, but Ima, everything that is gathered from it. And who is Ar Yochanan? And Ar Yochanan: Tsnouin and Rabbi Dosa said the same thing, and Rabbi Dosa said that it was gathered! Datania, Rabbi Yehuda says: In the morning the owner of the house stands and says, "Whatever the poor collect today will be the unclaimed," Rabbi Dosa says: "At evening times he says, whatever the poor collect will be the unclaimed."
That is, what is the one thing that Tsanoin and Rabbi Dosa said? Apparently, we must assume that they said that it is possible to abandon/desecrate/consecrate something that is not in your possession, right?
According to the halakha, it is clear and agreed that it is impossible to dedicate something that is in the hands of a usurper (one because it is not his and the other because it is not in his possession), and in this case, it seems that the desecration and desecration are similar to the desecration.
But this is exactly the discussion there, and the above-mentioned kitzvah touched on this. The question is whether it is possible to perform the desecration of fruits in the possession of another person or not. Alternatively, both of them speak of a choice and not of an act with fruits that are in the possession of another person. These are the two possibilities there in the Gemara. The question is what remains according to the halakha, and this was discussed in the sources I mentioned above.
Incidentally, when the fruits are in the hands of the poor, it seems reasonable to assume that some of the people in question have a say, since the poor themselves assume that the fruits are desecrated and are interested in desecrating them. Therefore, here there was room to say that even a beggar can do this. After all, both those who are his and those who are in his possession agree to this.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
