Q&A: Aaadsh”sh
Aaadsh”sh
Question
In the book La’asot Mitzvotecha on the Torah portion of Chukat, you proposed a distinction between consecrating and transferring ownership (which require, in order to carry them out, that the object be mine and in my possession) and prohibiting something (where it is enough that it be mine even if it is not in my possession). According to this, consecrating and transferring ownership are legal acts, and therefore require complete control over the object; by contrast, the inability to prohibit something stems from a halakhic prohibition derived from a verse, and therefore once the object is yours you can prohibit it even if it is not in your possession. See p. 301.
But I did not understand: one could say that this itself is the reason for the verse from which they derive the inability to prohibit something that is not mine—since I have no control over it, I cannot prohibit it; but if I do have control over it, then I can prohibit it, and control means: mine and in my possession.
Answer
It could be argued either way. Maybe that is indeed the reason for the verse. But I assume I brought sources there that learned otherwise (I no longer remember). My distinction is possible, but you are right that of course it is not necessary. Since it is possible, it serves as an explanation for the views that hold that way.
Discussion on Answer
First, this is a definition, not a reason. In many places we analyze the definition of the prohibition. In fact, we always do that; otherwise we would not have Jewish law. Second, it is neither clear nor agreed upon that the source from mixed species is the source for this rule throughout the rest of the Torah. And even if it is, that source is not an explicit verse. With laws learned from exegesis, one certainly does expound the reason for the verse.
I discussed all this at length in the article on the fifth root.
And when you write there that the conclusion is that according to all opinions there is no essential possibility of prohibiting something that is not his, and there you are basically investigating why that is (and you conclude that it is founded on territory, etc. etc.)—isn’t that basically expounding the reason for the verse? After all, this rule comes from a verse about mixed species, so when you look for the reason why, isn’t that expounding the reason for the verse?!