The verse (Exodus 13:3) states, "and chametz shall not be eaten." The passive phrasing — "shall not be eaten" rather than "you shall not eat" — caught the attention of Rabbi Yoshiyah, one of the Tannaitic sages whose interpretations fill the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael.
Why the unusual grammar? Rabbi Yoshiyah argued that the passive construction expands the prohibition beyond the person doing the eating. It equates the one who feeds chametz to others — particularly to minors who cannot make their own legal decisions — with the one who eats it. Both violate the commandment.
But a natural objection arises. Perhaps the passive phrasing means something else entirely — perhaps it means one may not even derive benefit from chametz during Passover? Not just eating, but any use at all?
Rabbi Yoshiyah addressed this by pointing to (Deuteronomy 16:3): "You shall not eat chametz upon it." The active phrasing "you shall not eat" restricts the prohibition to consumption. This means that benefit may still be derived from chametz in certain circumstances — it is not in the category of items forbidden for all use.
So how then should the passive phrase "shall not be eaten" be understood? Exactly as Rabbi Yoshiyah said from the start: it equates the feeder with the eater. A parent who gives chametz to a child on Passover bears the same responsibility as if they had eaten it themselves.