Q&A: A Jew’s Leavened Food
A Jew’s Leavened Food
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi. In the Talmud in Pesachim (9a) it says: “We are not concerned lest a weasel dragged it from house to house and from place to place, for if so, then from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city there would be no end to the matter.” It is explained that the concern is from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city, and at first glance one could ask: why is there any reason to be concerned at all? After all, a person is not liable for someone else’s leavened food. And it does not seem that this itself is what the Mishnah is saying. For the Talmud there (5b) says: “Your own you may not see, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High,” and it is explained that the prohibition of “it shall not be seen” applies only to your own leavened food, not to that of others. And Rashi wrote there (s.v. “since it is stated”): “For from the fact that it says ‘for you,’ it implies: 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 were consecrated for Temple maintenance.” Now from his words it is clear that the whole statement of the Talmud — that “your own you may not see, but you may see that of others” — refers only to the leavened food of gentiles, not to the leavened food of Jews. And in fact, this is how the Pnei Yehoshua wanted to answer the difficulty we asked at the outset: that the concern is about a Jew’s leavened food.
And I was left with one question: what is the difference between a Jew’s leavened food and a gentile’s leavened food? Why is there any difference at all?
Answer
Rashi’s view is that there is a difference between the prohibitions of “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found.” The first also applies to the leavened food of others, while the second applies only to my own, which is found in my possession. But presumably this means a Jew’s leavened food, since a gentile’s leavened food is not really considered leavened food. But as is well known, this is a minority view. Plainly speaking, there is no difference between “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found.”
Indeed, in Pesachim 9 the Talmud really does imply that there is concern even about someone else’s leavened food. But there it is speaking about the search for leaven, meaning before the time when it becomes prohibited. In such a situation, if the weasel dragged someone else’s leavened food, it is now in my possession, and of course its owner has despaired of recovering it, so it is ownerless and becomes mine — and then on Passover I would be in violation because it is my own leavened food.
Discussion on Answer
I suggested an explanation of his view, according to which a Jew’s leavened food has the status-name of leavened food, whereas a gentile’s does not. Just as leavened food before Passover does not yet have the status-name of leavened food. See this from an interesting angle in my article on the ukimtas in the third example.
The Rabbi wrote that according to Rashi, a gentile’s leavened food is not considered leavened food. Could you elaborate? Meaning, is this a rule about their ownership? A rule in the Jewish laws of Passover?