Rotzeh Bekiyumo – The Prohibition of Desiring the Continued Existence of Chametz:[1]
Introduction:
The Talmud and the Poskim introduce a concept whereby, beyond the formal prohibitions of engaging in or benefiting from certain forbidden entities, there exists an additional prohibition against even desiring their continued existence. This idea appears most clearly in the context of idolatry and Yayin Nesech, where the Talmud[2] and Poskim[3] rule that just as one may not worship or benefit from idols or drink or benefit from Yayin Nesech, so too it is Rabbinically[4] forbidden for one to wish for their establishment or preservation, as there is a Mitzvah to destroy idols and all their accessories.[5] The Acharonim debate whether this principle extends as well to Chametz on Pesach: do we say that just as there is a prohibition against desiring the continued existence of Avodah Zarah or Yayin Nesech, there is likewise a prohibition against desiring the existence of Chametz, given the obligation of Tashbisu and the prohibitions of Bal Yera’eh and Bal Yimatze, or do we limit this concept uniquely to idolatry? Furthermore, even if one adopts the stringent view that extends this prohibition to Chametz, an additional question arises regarding its scope and context, as it is evident that there is no prohibition against a person merely wishing that a store containing bottles of Yayin Nesech not be destroyed or that Chametz found somewhere in the world not be destroyed. This article will therefore examine, first, whether the prohibition of desiring the continued existence of a forbidden object applies to Chametz at all, and second, according to the stringent approach, in which contexts such a prohibition would practically apply.
There are a number of practical halachic questions that arise from this concept of the prohibition against desiring the continued existence of a forbidden object, particularly as it relates to Chametz. For example, may one rely on the standard practice of Mechirat Chametz and sell one’s Chametz to a gentile even though one desires that it remain in existence over Pesach so that one may benefit from it after Pesach? Additionally, is it permitted to sell an animal to a gentile for the duration of Pesach in order that the gentile feed it Chametz, even though one genuinely desires that the Chametz exist during Pesach for this purpose? Finally, is it permitted to place an order for Chametz on Pesach when the delivery and acquisition will only take place after Pesach, such that no ownership is effected during Pesach itself, but where one nonetheless already desires, during Pesach, the establishment and continued existence of that Chametz?
- The Dispute:
A fundamental dispute exists among the Poskim regarding whether the Issur of Rotzeh Bekiyumo applies on Pesach. Some Poskim[6] rule that the prohibition against desiring the continued existence of a forbidden object applies not only to Yayin Nesech but to any food item from which benefit is prohibited, which would include Chametz. According to this view, it would be forbidden to desire the existence of Chametz over Pesach in any manner analogous to the prohibition of desiring the existence of Yayin Nesech, as will be explained in C in which we will examine the precise parameters and contexts in which this prohibition applies. Other Poskim[7], however, rule that the Issur of Rotzeh Bekiyumo does not exist with respect to Chametz.[8] Practically, the ruling of the Alter Rebbe follows the lenient position, not extending this prohibition to Chametz, and accordingly permitting leniency in the various scenarios that will be discussed in Section C.
- The Cases of stringency:
- A Tangible benefit: Even according to the stringent approach that applies the prohibition of desiring the continued existence of a forbidden object (Rotzeh Bekiyumo) to Chametz, this prohibition does not apply in all circumstances. As is the case with Rotzeh Bekiyumo in general, it applies only where the individual will ultimately derive some tangible benefit. Accordingly, if a person merely derives satisfaction from the fact that Chametz is sold in gentile stores over Pesach, without any resulting benefit to himself, this would certainly not constitute a transgression according to any opinion. Furthermore, some Poskim[9] maintain that the prohibition of Rotzeh Bekiyumo is violated only when one desires the continued existence of the forbidden item in order to generate a profit; however, if one wishes for it to exist merely in order to prevent a loss, then even though this may be considered a form of benefit, it would not fall under the prohibition of ratzon. Other Poskim[10], however, disagree and hold that the prohibition applies even when the benefit consists solely of avoiding a loss.
- Reliance on Mechiras Chametz When One Desires Post‑Pesach Benefit:[11] According to those Poskim who are stringent regarding the prohibition of desiring the continued existence of a forbidden object (ratzon she‑yihyeh kayam), it would be forbidden to rely on Mechirat Chametz to sell one’s Chametz when one desires that it remain in existence over Pesach in order to benefit from it after Pesach, since such desire itself would constitute a violation of this prohibition. Practically, we do not rule this way.[12]
- Renting Utensils to a Gentile for Use With Chametz on Pesach: The Poskim[13] rule that it is forbidden to rent a pot or other utensil to a gentile over Pesach when one knows that it will be used for cooking Chametz over Pesach. According to the stringent approach which applies the classic prohibition of Rotzeh Bekiyumo also towards Chametz, the reason that it is forbidden to do so is because one desires the Chametz in the pot to exist, as if the pot were to remain on the fire empty of Chametz, the utensil could get damaged.[14] However, other Poskim[15] explain that this prohibition is not due to the classic prohibition of Rotzeh Bekiyumo but rather because it constitutes deriving benefit (hana’ah) from Chametz as one benefits from the Chametz inside the pot which prevents the pot from breaking. Alternatively, the pot itself is forbidden in benefit due to it containing Chametz, and hence one cannot benefit from the rent money.[16]
- Ordering Chametz on Pesach for Delivery After Pesach:[17] According to the stringent view, it would be forbidden to order Chametz before or even during Pesach for the purpose of receiving it after Pesach, since even though no acquisition takes place until after Pesach, one already desires during Pesach the establishment and continued existence of the Chametz. However, according to the lenient opinion, there is no prohibition of Rotzeh Bekiyumo with respect to Chametz, though such conduct may nonetheless be prohibited for other reasons, such as Shlichus and mar’it ayin or additional halachic considerations.
- Selling an Animal to a Gentile to Be Fed Chametz on Pesach: Those Poskim[18] who are stringent regarding Rotzeh Bekiyumo would most certainly forbid selling an animal to a gentile over Pesach for the purpose of having it fed Chametz, viewing this as a desire for the continued existence of the Chametz itself, whereas according to the lenient opinion, such an arrangement may be permitted, provided that certain halachic guidelines are followed.
[1] See Michaber 450:7; Tur 450:7; M”A 450:11; Taz 450:6; Peri Chadash 450:7; Radbaz 1:240; Chasam Sofer 116 in end; 119 in beginning; Makor Chaim 450:7; Nishmas Adam Pesach 6; Avnei Zikaron 2; Sdei Chemed Mareches Chametz Umatzah 8:25; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 2 P. 95; Vol. 24 p. 296; Vol. 47 P. 617
[2] Avoda Zara 32a and 63b; Rashi Avoda Zara 64a; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 24 p. 296
[3] See Michaber Y.D. 132:7; 133:6; Tur Y.D. 133:6; Rambam Machalos Assuros 13:21
[4] Ritva Avoda Zara 62a; Bava Metzia 32b; Peri Chadash 450:7; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 24 p. 296 footnote 140
[5] The reason: There is an underlying dispute among the Poskim regarding the rationale of this prohibition. Some explain that it stems from the obligation to destroy idolatry: since the Torah commands that idolatry be eradicated, one who desires its continued existence, even without taking action, effectively undermines this obligation and thereby transgresses a rabbinic extension of the duty to destroy it. [Rashi ibid] According to this understanding, the prohibition of desiring its existence is directly linked to the mitzvah of elimination. Others, however, understand the prohibition differently, maintaining that it is rooted in the laws of benefit (hana’ah), namely that anything from which benefit is prohibited may not only be avoided in practice but may not even be desired, and that desiring the establishment or continued existence of such an item itself constitutes a prohibited form of benefit.
[6] Tur 450:7, brought in M”A 450:11 and Taz 450:6 [however, the M”A himself redefines this concept in Tur to refer to actual benefit and not regular Rotzeh Bekiyumo, as explains Admur 450:12. However, perhaps the M”A (in contrast to Admur) is simply explaining that the Issur of Rotzeh Bekiyumo applies only when there is some benefit, even by Yayin Nesech, and hence the M”A himself does agree with the application of Rotzeh Bekiyumo by Chametz. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Likkutei Sichos 16:130 footnote 13]; Minchas Yaakov 85:15, brought and negated in Admur Kuntrus Achron 446:2; Yeshuos Yaakov 448:5; Chasam Sofer 116 in end; 119 in beginning; Arugas Habosem 112; Maharam Shick O.C. 225; M”B 450:24-25; Avnei Tzedek 53; Igros Moshe 3:60; Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:7; Mentioned, and negated, in Likkutei Sichos 16:130; So rule regarding Basar Bechaalv, and the same should apply to Chametz: Radbaz 4:24; Rashal Chulin 8:46
[7] Setimas Admur 450:12 who omits this Issur from his Shulchan Aruch; Admur in Kuntrus Achron 446:2; Implication of M”A ibid who redefines meaning of words of Tur [However, perhaps the M”A (in contrast to Admur) is simply explaining that the Issur of Rotzeh Bekiyumo applies only when there is some benefit, even by Yayin Nesech, and hence the M”A himself does agree with the application of Rotzeh Bekiyumo by Chametz. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Likkutei Sichos 16:130 footnote 13]; Peri Chadash 450:7; Radbaz 1:240; Mishpitei Uziel 3:61; Nishmas Adam 124:6; Mishneh Halachos 4:64; Likkutei Sichos 16:129 based on that Admur omits this ruling from his Shulchan Aruch; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 2 p. 96 footnote 121
[8] The reason: They hold that this concept is unique to idolatry and Yayin Nesech, since the Torah explicitly commands that they be destroyed and not allowed to exist at all, regardless of ownership, whereas with Chametz the obligation of destruction applies only to one’s own Chametz, and Chametz that is not owned by a Jew is of no concern to the Torah. As a result, they argue that the prohibition against desiring its continued existence does not apply on Pesach.
[9] Chasam Sofer O.C. 116 and 119; Makor Chaim 450
[10] See M”A 450:11; Chok Yaakov 450
[11] See Arugas Habosem 112; Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:7; Likkutei Sichos 16:129 Footnote 8
[12] Chasam Sofer 119; Likkutei Sichos 16:129 based on that Admur omits this ruling from his Shulchan Aruch; See Peri Chadash 450:7
[13] Admur 450:12; Michaber 450:7; Tur 450:7
[14] Tur 450:7, brought in M”A 250:11 and Taz 450:6
[15] Admur 450:12 [completely omits concept of Rotzeh Bekiyumo, and records only explanation of M”A]; M”A ibid in his explanation of Tur; See Likkutei Sichos 16:130
[16] 2nd reason in Taz ibid, M”A ibid, and Tur ibid
[17] See Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 450:6 in name of P”M; M”B 450:23; Ateres Moshe 2:146; Beis Shlomo 82-83; Maharshag 1:13 and 2:69; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:216; 3:135; Chevel Nachalaso 20:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 450:10; Derech Ha’atarim p. 40; Neos Mordechai Pesach p. 394; Chukas Hapesach 1 40:21-24
[18] See Tevuas Shur in Bechor Shur Pesachim 2 P. 1141; Birkeiy Yosef 448:7; Makor Chaim 16; Divrei Chaim 1:18; Shaareiy Teshuvah 448:17; Beis Efarim O.C. 33; See Koveitz Birurim Shevivei Eish 22 Os 11 for an article of Rav Shmuel Eliezer Shtern of how the Mechira can be done so it does not seem like Ha’arama even according to the Tevuas Shur
