The Minchas Chinuch makes a brief observation that one cannot be in violation of an issur chameitz (on a d’oarysa level) by owning wheat which is kilayim. Since kilayim must be burned, “kitusei michtases shiurah”, i.e. anything halachically must be burned is assumed to be non-existent and less than a shiur, so one does not really posses a shiur of chameitz.
I was wondering about this. All the cases I recall of “kitusei michtas shiurah” apply the principle l’chumra, e.g. if you have a lulav which is made from an asheira tree, it is disqualified because of kitusei michtas shiurah. Here, the principle works l’kula. Is it such a davar pashut that the principle can work l’kula as well? Are there any similar cases you can think of?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
of course you cannot use it" lekuleh"and the proof for this is simple,because then the question would be ,how could you trangress on the issur of klai kerem?,there always will be missing a shiur because of ketusai mechtas shiuray
ReplyDeletechaim
by the way where is this minchas chinuch?
End of Mitzvah #9.
ReplyDeleteI thought of your same logic - I said to my son while learning the piece that by the same token you never actually have to burn the asheira because kitusei michtas and there is nothing to burn. It's cute, but I think wrong because the torah commanded to burn the asheira and assered the kilayim even though and despite kitusei michtas. IOW, build into the tzivuy in these cases is that minei u'bei with respect to the issurim themselves you don't say kitusei michtases, only with respect to other things.
Rav Chaim anyway says that michtas shiur doesn't make it disappear - so it should at least have the status at least of a kol shehu of chometz.(R' Chaim Shabbos 17:12,13)
ReplyDeleteKol she'hu=pachos mk'shiur, no issur d'oraysa (and I only added the word 'doraysa' to the original post to escape notpicks. The M.C. sounds like he holds there is no issur at all, which makes sense if you hold no chatzi shiur by chameitz, as the sha'agas arye discusses).
ReplyDeleteWouldn't 'mona tevera tover' or 'gavra ketaila kotel' be examples of where this sevora is used l'kula?
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea... you are lumping a lot of sevaros from different contexts under one umbrella, which makes me a little skeptical. I asked a T'Ch and had my son ask someone else who is a T'Ch what they thought and both could not offhand think of a makor for k'tusei michtas shiurei working l'kula. The person my son asked was even surprised that the M.C. would say such a thing and said he has to see it inside and think about it.
ReplyDeletei just wanted to post and say that your blog is refreshingly hard-core torah :)
ReplyDelete