[Avodah] Chometz: Less than a kezayis

[Akiva Miller via Avodah]

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> See siman 442

Thank you. This is exactly what I've been looking for. I'm a bit surprised
that this is in the siman about taaroves chometz, rather than biur or
bedikah, but oh well.

The parts that made the biggest impression on me were Mechaber 442:7 and
especially MB 442:33, which explicitly mentions the case of chometz which
is both smaller than a kezayis and is also dirty.

The topic of whether several small pieces combine to make a kezayis, is
dealt with in Mechaber 442:8.

The compromise that a piece of chometz does *not* require bedika/biur but
*does* require bitul appears at the end of Mechaber 442:8, and MB 442:38.

It has been my understanding throughout whatever little bits of Torah that
I've been privileged to learn, that if a kezayis of something is a shiur
d'Oriasa for whatever halacha, then a partial kezayis would be a chetzi
shiur d'Oraisa, or at least a d'rabanan, for that same halacha. I am
surprised that chometz (which is generally so very severe!) is an exception
to this, and becomes mutar when less than a kezayis. The reasoning does
seem to be that a partial kezayis is not chashuv -- but can't that be said
about ANY partial shiur? [sarcasm on:] A half-kezayis of chazir is not
chashuv, so why not eat just a nibble? [sarcasm off] What makes chometz
different?

Here's my guess at the answer: We often put eating chometz and owning
chometz into the same category, but that's a mistake. Eating chometz is a
very severe issur, but owning chometz is more like a "gezera d'Oraisa" to
insure that we don't go so far as to eat chometz. (Practical example: the
fifth hour on Erev Pesach, where we are machmir on the ikar (eating) but
not on the gezera (owning).) Perhaps this is why we are machmir on other
halachos for a partial kezayis, but lenient for OWNING a partial kezayis of
chometz.

Akiva Miller

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:

> On 20/02/17 18:52, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
>>
>> I would think that "automatically batel" ("batel me'elav") and "nice
>> roll" ("gluska yafeh") result from the condition of the chometz, such as
>> it's cleanliness and freshness. I have no idea why the size would be
>> relevant.
>>
>
> Size is relevant because a kezayis is chashuv, and therefore not
> automatically batel, whereas a crumb smaller than that has no value, and is
> thus as if it doesn't exist, unless one specifically values it.  Even a
> "nice roll" is batel unless one finds it and thinks about keeping it, which
> gives it value and thus takes it out of that category.
>
> We see this not only on Pesach but also with regard to the respect one
> must give bread; crumbs under a kezayis don't count, and one may throw them
> away, needn't pick them up off the ground, etc.
>
>
> We are told many times how very thorough the bedikah must be: Cracks
>> and crevices. Holes in a wall. And so on.
>>
>
> But only for crumbs bigger than a kezayis.
>
>
> Note that what I'm actually looking for is a source that if the
>> chometz is less than a kezayis, then there's not even a d'rabanan of
>> Bal Yiraeh.
>>
>
> See siman 442
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
> zev at sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170221/c05ca855/attachment-0008.html>