Kedushas Sheviyis and Biur

The Rambam understands the second mishnah in the seventh perek of Sheviyis as follows:

Any plant that is fit neither for human consumption nor for animal consumption, nor for use as a dye, has kedushas sheviyis. Further, even though such produce is not found in the field the whole year around, it nevertheless does not require biur.

According to the Rambam then, this mishnah contains two chiddushim:

1. Even plants that are not fit for any use may still have kedushas sheviyis. (Note, that the Rambam adds in his Mishnah Torah, that this halachah refers to plants that are not burnt for fuel)
   
   
2. Even though these plants are not found the whole year round in the field, they still do not require biur. (This is in contrast to the principle stated in Mishnah 1, regarding plants that are either, human food, animal food, or dyes)

The Ra'avad disagrees with the above conclusions of the Rambam. In fact, many other Rishonim have a completely different version of the mishnah to that of the Rambam. In this other version, the mishnah states that plants that are fit for consumption and are found in the field the whole year round, do not require biur.

The Rambam's understanding of the mishnah requires explanation. Why should produce that is not fit for any use have kedushos sheviyis?

Rav Wosner, shlita, explains that, according to the Rambam, the mishnah is referring to plants that are, in fact, fit for some use, but are not usually used for that use. Based on this understanding of the Rambam, Rav Wosner concludes that orange peels, which are fit for animals, have kedushos sheviyis even though people usually discard them. Similarly, Rav Wosner writes, pomegranate peels, which are mentioned in the mishnah as being used to make paints or dyes, still have kedushos sheviyis nowadays, even though they are not any longer used for those purposes, since the ruling of the Mishnah is eternal.

The Chazon Ish (14:10), understands the Rambam differently. He cites the Rambam in Hilchos Kelayim(5:18), which states that only a plant eaten by the majority of people in a particular place is subject to the halachos of kelayim. Rav Webber, shlita, suggested a further proof that such plants would not be subject to kedushas shviyis: The Yerushalmi, quoted by the Rash, states that ulshin that grows wildly in the field was no longer subject to kedushos sheviyis after Rebi Yehudah Hannasi lifted the ban on importing a higher quality garden grown variety from outside Israel. Even though the wild ulshin could, in theory, be eaten, nevertheless they are not subject to kedushas sheviyis, as they are not generally used. This appears to be a complete contradiction to Rav Wosner's understanding of the Mishnah.

The Chazon Ish understands that the mishna is referring to plants that are eaten only in difficult times, when no other food is available. Since they are occasionally used for food, they therefore have kedushas sheviyis. But since these plants are consumed by animals only if no other food is available, they do not require Biur -- even when they are used for human consumption. According to the Chazon Ish then, orange peels do not have kedushas sheviyis.

Rav Webber, shlita, suggested an original explanation for the Rambam. According to the Rambam, the mishna is referring to types of plants which are in fact used for either human food, animal food, or dyes, but are not limited to any one of these usages -- rather they are used for one or all of the above. According to this explanation, the fact that such plants have kedushas sheviyis follows on from the rule stated in the previous mishnah. (According to our earlier understanding of the Rambam, this rule appeared to contradict the rules stated in the previous mishnah.)

The reason that such plants do not require biur, is due to the fact that they may be used for all three categories. Each of the three categories requires biur at a different time of the year. It would thus be impossible to set a specific time for biur for these plants, therefore they do not require biur at all.

A further proof for this explanation can be found in the words of the Rambam in his Mishnah Torah (5:11). There he refers to plants whose use is "non specific," as not requiring biur and uses the same terminology as in this halacha.

With Rav Webbers explantion, the question of the Vilna Gaon is also answered. The Vilna Gaon asks why this Mishnah only cites one example, as apposed to the previous mishnah which cites separate examples for each of the three categories. According to our understanding of the Rambam, the mishnah is discussing only one category -- plants that are used for all three uses.

The articles on this website are not not intended as halachic rulings.
Where necessary, one should consult a competent halachic authority.