Q&A: Do Not Let It Be Seen and Do Not Let It Be Found Regarding Other People’s Leaven
Do Not Let It Be Seen and Do Not Let It Be Found Regarding Other People’s Leaven
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In Pesachim 5b it is brought:
Our Rabbis taught: “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses” — what does this come to teach? Has it not already been said, “No leaven shall be seen with you, nor shall leaven be seen with you in all your borders”? Since it says, “No leaven shall be seen with you,” that implies: your own you may not see, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High.
Rashi explained: “Since it says, ‘shall not be seen with you’ — because it wrote ‘with you,’ it implies that your own you may not see, but you may see within your borders that of others, such as a gentile, and that of the Most High, if they consecrated it for Temple maintenance.”
The question is whether “others” includes only a gentile and consecrated property, or perhaps it also includes the leaven of another Jew, except that Rashi chose a common example (the leaven of a gentile).
Best regards,
Answer
Also that of another Jew. This is explicit regarding a custodian: he does not violate “it shall not be seen” unless he is a paid custodian or higher (the passage beginning with “If one designated…” on page 31). And there it is because the leaven is under his responsibility (and some say to some extent in his ownership), not because it is physically in his possession — otherwise even an unpaid custodian would violate it.
Discussion on Answer
That is only because the custodian bears responsibility. But without responsibility, one does not violate the prohibition because of someone else’s leaven, even if it belongs to another Jew. And so it is in the Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 448:2, which makes it depend on responsibility; and the fact that one must destroy a Jew’s leaven even without responsibility is only because of separating someone from prohibition, not because he himself violates “it shall not be seen.”
See, for example, a discussion here:
https://www.toraland.org.il/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92-%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91/%D7%91%D7%90%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%91/%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%A0%D7%96-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%A5-%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95/
Although there in chapter 2 he really does cite the Vilna Gaon in line with what you wrote, and his proof is from the Rashi you cited. But that is not the straightforward reading of the halakhic authorities. And see there that he concludes that it still depends on responsibility, and nowadays this does not apply.
Following up on this point, I came across a strong proof for the Vilna Gaon’s view from the Gemara on page 5b:
Since it says, “No leaven shall be seen with you” — your own you may not see, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High. One might think he may hide it and accept deposits from a gentile — therefore Scripture says, “It shall not be found.” I have this only for a gentile whom you have not conquered and who does not dwell with you in your courtyard. From where do I know it also regarding a gentile whom you have conquered and who dwells with you in your courtyard? Scripture says, “It shall not be found in your houses.”
Once the Gemara understands that my own I may not see, but I may see that of others and that of the Most High, why would it matter to ask what kind of gentile the leaven belongs to — whether it is a gentile I conquered or not? In any case it is not my leaven, so why should it matter whom it does belong to, as long as it does not belong to me? From here we see that the exclusion from the word “with you” is not for every leaven that does not belong to me, but only for leaven that belongs to a gentile. At first the Gemara thinks the exclusion is relevant only to a certain kind of gentile, and then it asks whether it also includes another kind of gentile. From here one can infer that the exclusion is only for a gentile and not for the leaven of another Jew.
The discussion is about someone accepting deposits from a gentile, and here he is guarding the gentile’s leaven. Therefore it is obvious to the Gemara that in the case of a Jew he would violate it, because if a Jew deposited it, one certainly would violate it. The question is about leaven that is not deposited with him under his responsibility and belongs to another Jew — whether that falls under “it shall not be seen.”
Later on the page, according to Rava, the discussion is not about accepting deposits from a gentile, but about who is included in the term “others”:
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Pesachim 5b
The Master said: I have this only for a gentile whom you have not conquered and who does not dwell with you in your courtyard. From where do I know it also regarding a gentile whom you have conquered and who dwells with you in your courtyard? Scripture says, “It shall not be found.” — Quite the opposite! Abaye said: reverse it. Rava said: actually, do not reverse it, and it refers back to the first clause: your own you may not see, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High. I have this only for a gentile whom you have not conquered and who does not dwell with you in your courtyard. From where do I know it also regarding a gentile whom you have conquered and who dwells with you in your courtyard? Scripture says, “It shall not be found.”
Indeed, that is how it appears from the plain reading of the Gemara. And that is also implied by Maimonides at the beginning of chapter 4 of the laws of leaven. But see the Mishnah Berurah, siman 440, subsections 19–20, and the commentaries there. I have not gone into this passage right now, and it requires further analysis for the time being — how those who hold that one does not violate it read this text.
If someone wants to be stringent in accordance with the Vilna Gaon, how should he conduct himself in an apartment that he rents out to a secular Jew? After all, rental does not effect acquisition, and the secular tenant brings leaven into the landlord’s domain on Passover. Is it possible to do a renunciation of domain like in the laws of eruvin?
Also, how should someone act if he lives in a shared building with secular residents and they bring leaven into the common areas like the lobby, elevator, and parking lot? Would it be possible to renounce the domain like in eruvin?
It seems to me that renunciation of domain helps only in the laws of eruvin. There we are dealing with a rabbinic prohibition, and the Rabbis instituted a legal fiction that allows carrying, like an eruv itself (which does not help in a public domain on a Torah level). Beyond that, renunciation of domain applies between two separate domains, each belonging to a different owner (two houses opening into one courtyard). Here we are dealing with shared ownership of a single property. I do not know whether renunciation of domain is relevant there (I haven’t checked).
But in my opinion, regarding the tenant’s leaven, the landlord does not violate “it shall not be seen.” That is the tenant’s domain. And indeed in Pesachim 4a the Gemara discusses only the landlord’s leaven in the tenant’s house, and the Gemara says that only because it is the landlord’s leaven do they require him to inspect and destroy it.
See, for example, a discussion by Rabbi Lichtenstein here.
If so, as the homeowner you need not be concerned about the tenant’s leaven that is in the house.
As for “rental does not effect acquisition,” that is a dispute among the medieval authorities. The Gemara in the chapter HaZahav says that rental is like a sale for that day. True, that contradicts the passage in Avodah Zarah 15, and the medieval authorities disagreed about how to reconcile the passages. Tosafot holds that rental does not acquire (it is only a right of use), but the Ritva, the Ra’ah, and the Spanish medieval authorities disagree and maintain that it does.
As for a shared building, it is still a Torah prohibition, and I think renunciation of domain does not help. But I do not think one needs renunciation of domain there for two reasons:
A. You can declare your share in the common property ownerless (I’ve heard that some are careful to do this).
B. I am inclined to think it is unnecessary, because just as a person cannot prohibit something that is not his, so too a person cannot make me violate “it shall not be seen” against my will when I have no control over the matter. If someone were to throw leaven into my house, then even according to the Vilna Gaon, in my opinion I would not violate “it shall not be seen” (not even under coercion).
There is something similar in a shared building during the Sabbatical year, where the secular residents violate Sabbatical-year prohibitions in the garden. According to what you’re saying, it would come out that I wouldn’t need to declare my share in the communal garden ownerless, because a person cannot make me violate prohibitions against my will?
And another question: also with regard to land rented to a secular Jew during the Sabbatical year, where he works the land — would the landlord also not be considered to be violating Sabbatical-year prohibitions, because just as the land belongs to the secular tenant for the purpose of “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found,” so too it belongs to him with respect to Sabbatical-year prohibitions?
If someone violates Sabbatical-year prohibitions, that is his transgression even if the land is mine. I do not violate anything when people work my land, at least if it is not for me. Therefore both questions seem irrelevant to me.
I have now found this here: https://www.toraland.org.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%92%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94/%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%98%D7%94-8/
On page 46a it says:
The Mishnah: How does one separate challah in impurity on a holiday? Rabbi Eliezer says: one should not designate it until it is baked. Ben Beteira says: put it in cold water. Rabbi Yehoshua said: this is not the kind of leaven about which one is warned under “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found”; rather, one separates it and leaves it until evening, and if it becomes leavened, it becomes leavened.
Rashi explains on the words “this is not the kind of leaven about which one is warned”:
As is explained in the Gemara, it is not his once he has designated it, and Scripture says: your own you may not see, and this is neither yours nor your fellow’s, since it has not yet reached the priest’s hand.
It seems from this that your own leaven and your fellow’s leaven are one and the same for Rashi with respect to “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found.”
As for the proof from page 31, you can’t bring proof from there for our issue, because there the discussion is about a gentile’s leaven, and therefore an unpaid custodian does not violate it (because a gentile’s leaven is not subject to destruction, whereas everyone is commanded to destroy a Jew’s leaven, according to Bava Kamma 98). In other words, it is forbidden for a Jew’s leaven to be found with you, and it is permitted for a gentile’s leaven to be found with you.