Q&A: Disposal of Leaven Less Than an Olive-Bulk
Disposal of Leaven Less Than an Olive-Bulk
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I came across a passage in Maimonides from which it seems that there is an obligation to dispose of leaven even when it is less than an olive-bulk (Laws of Leaven and Matzah, chapter 2, halakhah 15):
Dough in the cracks of a kneading bowl—if there is an olive-bulk in one place, one is obligated to dispose of it. But if not—if it was put there to strengthen broken parts of the bowl, or to seal a hole—it is nullified by its smallness; but if not, one is obligated to dispose of it.
On the other hand, later in the same halakhah it seems that there is no obligation to dispose of less than an olive-bulk:
If there were two half-olive portions in two places, with a strand of dough between them—we consider the following: whenever, if the strand were removed, they would come away with it, one is obligated to dispose of it; but if not, one is not obligated to dispose of it. In what case is this said? In a kneading bowl. But in a house—even though, if the strand were removed, they would not come away with it—one is obligated to dispose of it, because sometimes one gathers them together.
This implies that for a half-olive amount where there is no concern that it will be gathered together with another half-olive amount, there is no obligation to dispose of it, neither in a house nor in a kneading bowl.
How, in your opinion, can this contradiction be resolved?
Best regards,
Answer
This “contradiction” also appears in the Shulchan Arukh, but there is no contradiction here at all. For less than an olive-bulk there is no obligation of disposal—except perhaps rabbinically, out of concern that one might come to eat it. That is the basis of the law of searching, which Maimonides discusses in the second part of chapter 2, and only that is relevant for less than an olive-bulk. That is also implied in chapter 1, halakhah 7, where he speaks of less than an olive-bulk only with respect to eating and not with respect to “it shall not be seen” (and even that is from a special source, not from the law of a partial measure). See also the halakhah immediately before the one you cited, which explicitly speaks only about an olive-bulk, and throughout the chapter the same idea appears: for less than an olive-bulk, if there is no concern that one might come to eat it, there is no obligation of disposal, because it is not due to the prohibition of “it shall not be seen”; otherwise, plainly, it would not depend on concern about eating.
In the halakhah you cited, the issue is not leaven of less than an olive-bulk, but less than an olive-bulk in one place—that is, pieces of an olive-bulk that combine together into an olive-bulk. In a kneading bowl, the bowl may combine them into an olive-bulk, and in a house there is a concern that one may actually gather them together.
Discussion on Answer
That is the Talmud itself, but only when the dough is meant to support / stick together the bowl. We’re talking about a case where it is not.
I meant that even if it is not meant to stick or support, still it does not stand on its own. That also seems to follow from Maimonides’ wording there in halakhah 16, where he wrote: since these half-olive portions are stuck to walls or beams or floors, one is not obligated to dispose of them, but rather nullifies them in his heart and that is enough. It sounds like the whole discussion is when the half-olive portions are nullified to something.
I’m writing off the top of my head and from half-memory.
By the way, I’m curious whether you’ve expressed your view anywhere on the issue of the measurement standards of the Hazon Ish and Rabbi Chaim Naeh.
In response to column 211 I thanked you for your enlightening books and articles; I hope you saw it.
I don’t agree. In the comment above I explained why, in my view, according to Maimonides there is no obligation of disposal for a partial measure, and that is also what seems implied here. According to your approach, it is not clear why he writes qualifications for when there is no law of a partial measure regarding “it shall not be seen” (specifically in a kneading bowl), rather than writing the law of a partial measure itself.
I haven’t written about the issue of the measurements. I don’t have a position on it. The calculations of the Noda B’Yehuda do indeed reflect a problem, and the tradition is of course in accordance with Rabbi Chaim Naeh. Several approaches have been suggested to explain the matter, but I am not familiar with a really good approach, though I haven’t had the chance to study it in depth.
I saw your thanks. Much appreciated.
In practice, there is room to assume that even less than an olive-bulk requires disposal, and that dough in the cracks of a kneading bowl is different because it is not significant and is nullified to the vessel. As I recall, the later authorities discussed this.