Does It Matter If Your Dog Eats Toothpaste?

Does It Matter If Your Dog Eats Toothpaste?

By Rabbi Noah Gradofsky

There is a famous story about whichever rabbi you want the story to be about being asked by a student, whether, apropos of Passover, toothpaste is fit for a dog’s consumption. The rabbi answers in the negative and the student says, “but Rabbi, I gave toothpaste to my dog and it ate it,” and the rabbi responds “Well, who are you going to pasken (decide Jewish law) by — me or your dumb dog?” In discussing the use of regular toothpaste on Passover, Rabbi Chaim Jachter reports a version of this story (perhaps more accurate, but, in my opinion, not quite as entertaining) in which Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik told his students that toothpaste is not fit for a dog’s consumption and, upon a student reporting on his experiment, the rabbi responded “Your dog is crazy.”

The story demonstrates the difference between “what a dog will eat” and “what is fit for a dog to eat.” Further, as Rabbi Jachter explains through this and other anecdotes, we see that assessing what is fit for consumption is both difficult and subjective.[1]

These stories, however, seem to miss the mark on one important point and to perpetuate a misunderstanding regarding the halakhah as to under what conditions items that contain some hametz cease to be forbidden on Passover (for purposes of this article I will presume that the glycerin that may be contained in toothpaste would be halakhically hametz).  In fact, it doesn’t matter if toothpaste were fit for a dog’s consumption.  Even if it were, it would still be permitted on Passover.

According to Rambam Mishneh Torah Hametz Umatzah (Rambam) 4:8-11 and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayyim (OCH) 442:1-2, one is permitted on Passover to own a ta’arovet hametz (an item into which hametz is mixed) as long as the item is not fit for human consumption, while one may only possess the remains of actual hametz if those remains are not fit for a dog’s consumption.

While neither Rambam nor Shulhan Arukh explicitly state how one distinguishes between actual hametz and a ta’arovet, it appears that the distinction turns on whether the hametz is recognizable as hametz or has been subsumed into another product (see e.g. Rambam 4:10-11, OCH 442:3, Rashi Pesahim 43a s.v. ma’an tana).

Although those items that are not fit for (the relevant creature’s) consumption may still not be eaten on Passover (Rambam 4:12, OCH 442:4, with Rama suggesting some leniency if the food became inedible before Passover), those items that are no longer fit for (the relevant creature’s) consumption may be used for other purposes on Passover.  This rule is established for hametz not fit for a dog’s consumption in Rambam 3:11 and OCH 445:2.  See further Magen Avraham 442:7 arguing, quite reasonably, that the rule for items with hametz mixed in but which are no longer fit for human consumption should be the same as the rule for hametz that is no longer fit for canine consumption.  See also Mishnah Berurah 442:22.

While I don’t have a good explanation for why the rabbis referenced by Rabbi Jachter did not clarify this point (perhaps they were more interested in other issues), it is important for us to keep in mind the actual standard of halakhah – items that have some hametz content but not the appearance of hametz may be kept over Passover, and one may derive benefit from them on Passover (other than by eating them), as long as they are not fit for human consumption.  Only actual hametz must be unfit for canine consumption in order to be kept and used over Passover

Should One Try To Get Kosher For Passover Toothpaste?

I also respectfully question the logic behind the idea that one should try to use kosher for Passover toothpaste if possible.  While there is something to be said for being halakhically careful, there is also a lot to be said against such an approach, including that it may violate the prohibition of straying from the law in either strict or lenient directions )Deut. 14:11).

Rambam 3:11 and OCH 445:2 permit using the charcoal from burned bread as kindling on Passover.  Neither suggest that such behavior is permitted only in absence of other available kindling.  While it might feel like putting toothpaste in one’s mouth is different from using kindling, there is no significant halakhic distinction between these two actions.

Rabbi Jachter suggests that the Rama in Yoreh De’ah 155:3 provides precedent.  There, Rama rules that no prohibition may be waived for a sick person if there is an available permitted substitute and no danger will arise from waiting for that substitute.  However, there Rama is addressing an action that is in fact forbidden, whereas, as we have established, the use of toothpaste with hametz ingredients is not forbidden.  Rabbi Jachter’s reference to davar sheyesh lo matirim[2] is similarly unconvincing, as it would swallow up the entire rule permitting one to benefit from inedible items that contain some hametz (though perhaps these rabbis intend to reject Magen Avraham and Misnhan Berurah’s very reasonable ruling on this matter).

 

Does This Analysis Have Implications For Pet Food[3]

Common practice is for people to seek pet foods that do not contain hametz.  See for example UTJ’s Passover FAQ (“Therefore, the foods we feed our pets may not contain meat and dairy mixtures nor may they contain Hametz.”)  However, the above analysis may create some limits on the need to seek Passover options for pet food.  If the pet food is not actual hametz but rather ta’arovet hametz and is not fit for human consumption, then the food should be permitted for pets.  This standard, of course, will beg the question of whether pet foods are in fact unfit for human consumption and bring us back to some of the ambiguities of subjective judgments that Rabbi Jachter noted.   For instance, although dog food is designed with certain features that are unpalatable to most humans, it seems one can subsist on dog food.  See “I DID IT: 6 DAYS OF EATING DOG FOOD.”

 

An interesting question would be whether one should rule strictly or leniently if there is a doubt as to whether a certain pet food is fit for human consumption.  If the food in question contains hametz that is more than k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras,[4] then the potential prohibition would almost certainly be a Torah prohibition, see BT Pesahim 44a and Rambam 1:6, in which case we should err on the side of caution.  Where the hametz is less than k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras, the question is more complicated, as the potential prohibition may be rabbinic, in which case we would err on the side of permission.[5]  An full analysis of whether there is a Torah prohibition of owning and deriving benefit from a ta’arovet hametz with less than k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras of hametz is beyond the scope of this article, as I have concentrated on issues where the halakhah is fairly clear based on Rambam and Shulchan Arukh.  As a final note, to the extent we are addressing only a rabbinic prohibition, the interest in avoiding harm to our pets (tsa’ar ba’alei hayyim) might advise against changing our pets’ diets over Passover (this latter statement requires further consultation with veterinarians).

 

[1] By saying that the story demonstrates that “the standards of edibility are not determined by aberrant behavior,” Rabbi Jachter may be suggesting that the question is whether the average dog would eat the item, whereas it seems to me the standard is based on whether we would see the item as fitting food for a dog to eat.  The differing versions of the “punch line” of this story might demonstrate those differing understandings of the standard.  However, if the average behavior of a dog were in question, then the student’s test should not have been rejected outright.  Rather, the rabbi should have required further empirical testing.

[2] The rule that if a food that is only temporarily forbidden has been mixed with a permitted food then the mixture is forbidden until the temporary prohibition ends, no matter how minute the quantity of the forbidden food.

[3] Thank you to my UTJ colleague Rabbi Shlomo Segal for raising this question.

[4] An olive’s volune within the volume of a half of loaf of bread, 3 eggs according to Rambam (see e.g. Rambam 1:6) and 4 eggs according to Rashi, (see e.g. Rashi Pesahim 44a s.v. pras).

[5] Although there is significant debate on this point, Rabbi Yoseph Kappach (note 11 on Rambam 4:8) argues that Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah clearly demonstrates that Rambam permits ownership of a fully edible ta’arovet hametz on Passover where the hametz is less than k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras.  Rabbi Yoseph Karo seems to indicate that the ownership of ta’arovet hametz with less than a k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras of hametz is still a Torah prohibition.  This is indicated in OCH 442:1 where R. Karo discusses the prohibition of owning an (edible) ta’arovet hametz on Passover and does not mention anything about k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras.  See further R. Karo’s Kesef Mishneh commentary on Rambam 4:8 and his Beth Yoseph commentary on Tur Orah Hayyim 442, including his argument (at s.v. ומה שכתב רבינו דלרבי אליעזר שהן בלאו אסור להשהותן ולרבנן דלית בהו לאו אלא איסורא בעלמא מותר להשהותן) that the Talmud’s use of the the phrase “בלא כלום” (meaning no punishment) regarding liability for chametz of less than k’zayit b’khdei akhilat pras rather than using the term מותר”” (meaning it is permitted) indicates a Torah prohibition.  See also Taz’s strong critique of R. Karo’s analysis at Taz 442:1, particularly starting with “כתב ב”י ומ”ש רבינו דלרבנן דלית בהו אלא איסורא בעלמא.”