[Avodah] 10 pieces of Chometz

[MPoppers at kayescholer.com]

In Avodah Digest V23#77, RnTK replied to me:
>> OK, so let's say the reason for this minhag isn't related to the 
chashash of a b'rachah l'vatalah. <<
> But it is.  Why waste time thinking about a counterfactual hypothesis? <
Forgive me for not quoting RAM's Avodah Digest V23#75 words, i.e. "My 
practice is to put out the ten pieces, but not because of any sort of 
chashash regarding the bracha," when responding to him and you (in the 
post which entered Avodah Digest V23#76) with a "fine, let's take that as 
a 'given'" theoretical position.  Those who are blinded by "but the reason 
*is* to prevent a b'rachah l'vatalah!" from understanding what I 
subsequently wrote in that response may want to ignore the remainder of 
this post ;-), but I would ask them to, again, review the sources noted in 
http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5758/pesach.html and also to 
consider that the parameters of the custom (specifically 10 pieces, etc.) 
strongly imply that they may be missing the forest for the tree.

Later in Avodah Digest V23#76, RMK replied to me:
>> Can someone tell me re what other mitzvah we're chosheish that the 
person performing the mitzvah may not perform it as well as possible, such 
that we challenge him by deliberately making it harder and/or more 
involved? IMHO, this smacks of lifnei eeveir, even if the person hiding 
the pieces is 101% sure that s/he will be able to find any which the 
searcher cannot find. (NB: I'm merely trying to understand this minhag, 
not to question the sincerity or commitment of its practicioners.) Thanks. 
<<
> The purpose is not to make the mitzvah harder and more involved, but 
make it
more effective.  As RAM wrote, it does actually make you search more 
thoroughly,
which is the whole point of bedikas chametz.  You should be
looking that thoroughly in any case.  The 10 pieces is just an extra 
incentive to make sure. <
At the least, RMK is begging my question, so I'll rephrase it in terms of 
his response.  Re what other mitzvah incumbent upon an individual is there 
a custom for someone else to provide extra incentive in an effort to force 
said individual to perform the mitzva properly?

So far, I can think of two possible answers.  The first one is based on 
private conversations I've had with RAM, while the other one just popped 
(no pun intended :-)) into my head while reading RaMBaM Hilchos Chameitz 
uMatzah 2.
(1) While this mitzvah of "tashbisu" is unquestionably not a communal 
mitzvah, it's the type of individual-level mitzvah which actually is 
incumbent upon a ba'al habayis, so "extra incentive" provided by one's 
bayis (i.e. unlike by the case of the wedding singer, we really have here 
a case of ishto k'gufo :-)) is not being provided by an outsider but 
rather by the entity upon whom the proper performance of the mitzvah 
devolves.  As such, just as it would be OK if the bodeiq himself had 
previously hid some chameitz in an effort to ensure that he properly 
performed the mitzvah, so too it's OK if his wife/family hide some 
chameitz ahead of the z'man b'diqah, and this activity doesn't smack of 
"lifnei eeveir" because LI doesn't apply to what one's bayis does to 
oneself any more than it applies to what an individual does to himself. 
(That said, part of me still would like to see the minhag formulated more 
in terms of "if you think you need to do this, you may, and there is no 
concern that, e.g., you are improperly adding to what CHaZaL formulated" 
rather than "this is the way to do a b'diqah, and while it may not rise to 
the level of y'hareig v'al ya'avor, anything less is not a proper b'diqah"
!)
(2) The language of RaMBaM Hilchos Chameitz uMatzah 2:7 implies that the 
custom of hiding 10 pieces is part&parcel of the mitzvah and not some 
external aspect.

A guten Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070413/b85288c6/attachment-0002.htm>