Why is afrazta here treated as something that an animal would not eat? In Bava Kamma 47b Rashi explains that although poison, afrazta is something that an animal would eat.
Steven Friedell, Camden, NJ
The question here is not whether the animal would eat it, but rather whether the owner would feed it to the animal. The Gemara requires a case where the owner is Mevatel what is growing in the space in the wall in order for that space to be considered to have been diminished. As long as the owner is not apt to remove it, we can consider it Batel in the window space.
A Rosh Yeshiva told me he thinks that the criterion of 'eino raui le-achilas kelev' in reference to the issur of chameitz means something a person would not feed his dog. rather than something that a dog would not eat. Any information on that?
The first thing that comes to mind is that according to this definition there should never be any argument regarding Kosher l'Pesach soaps, shampoos, and the like, which is definitely not Rauy l'Achilas Kelev if that means that no one would ever feed it to their dogs. This would mean everyone who ever entertained that this would be chametz did not agree with this definition of "Rauy l'Achilas Kelev." Secondly, I recall hearing more than once that Rav Elyashiv shlit"a, who says people can be lenient (mei'Ikar ha'din) about soap etc., was asked that there was a dog who apparently had been eating some sort of soap. This should show that it is fit for a dog's consumption, and therefore forbidden on Pesach. R' Elyashiv responded, "It must be a "Kelev Shoteh" -- "crazy dog." If the definition is something a person would feed to his dog, it shouldn't matter even if it was a sane dog.
All the best,