Q&A: Disposal of Leaven
Disposal of Leaven
Question
Rabbi Chaim investigates whether leaven is a prohibition on the person (the obligation is on the person that there should not be leaven in his possession) or on the object (it itself is an intrinsically prohibited item), and says that a practical difference in this inquiry would be the law of disposing of leaven: is this a negative requirement, such that if I already have no leaven I am not obligated to buy some again and dispose of it (if leaven is a prohibition on the person), or is it a positive requirement to perform the act of disposing of leaven (if it is a prohibition on the object)?
But it seems to me that this is a weak practical distinction. That is, even if we say that leaven is a prohibition on the object, if in actual reality I have had no leaven for a week already before Passover, then I do not have the prohibition. In other words, even if leaven is prohibited as an object, still its disposal is accomplished by my not having it, and this too can be fulfilled in a negative/passive way.
What do you think?
Answer
I am not familiar with such an inquiry from Rabbi Chaim. His discussion is about the nature of the commandment "you shall eliminate," not about the nature of the prohibition of leaven. I have a series of lectures on the subject in my Passover tractate lectures here on the site. There I discussed this at great length.
Discussion on Answer
Correction: let’s say that I presented …
What I answered also was not about who said it, but about the question itself. There is no connection at all between the inquiry and the practical difference. That is why Rabbi Chaim did not make that distinction either.
I’ll look into it. But the question was not about who said this inquiry, but about the inquiry itself.
If, say, I were to present you with the above inquiry and with the rejection of its practical distinction, which side would you agree with—the practical distinction or its rejection?