Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 030

Sunday, April 30 2000

• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• Request for your tefilot
• Re: Request for your tefilot
• Re: Request for your tefilot
• Re: Shaking Hands
• Re: Avodah V5 #29
• Re: Shinui makom beAveilut
• re: aniyei ircha
• Nolad?
• shaving on Yom haAtzmaut
• Re: Nolad?
• Re: Avodah V5 #29
• Re: Avodah V5 #29
• Shaving (was Re: Avodah V5 #29)
• Re: Arami Oved Avi
• Re: Aniyei Ircha Kodmim
• Aveilut
• Re: aniyei ircha

In message , Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>The Rambam apparently does not hold from any sort of "halfway" 
>category as you had posited in your earlier post. The Rambam in 
>Avodah Zara 10:6 writes: "Assur lanu le'haniach oved cochavim 
>beineinu, afilu yoshev yeshivas arai oi oiver mi'makom le'makom 
>b'schora, v'lo yaavor b'artzeinu ad she'yekabel alav sheva mitzvos 
>bnei Noach she'neemar 'lo yeishvu b'artzecha' v'afilu l'fi shaa. V'im 
>kibel alav sheva mitzvos harei zeh ger toshav; v'ein m'kablim ger 
>toshav ela b'zman she'hayovel noheg aval shelo b'zman ha'yovel ain 
>mekablim ela ger tzedek bilvad." 
>

Absolutely (didn't we go through this).  The Ra'avid there disagrees.
Rav Hertzog tries to justify the Kesef Mishna's view (also there) that
even the Rambam doesn't hold this in a case where we are dealing with
somebody who has taken on the sheva mitzvos bnei noach, but without
kabbala before beis din.  However he, like you, appears to founder on
the clear wording of the Rambam, and therefore concludes it is a
machlokes rishonim, Rambam versus Raavid and Kesef Mishna.

If you hold Rambam over the other two, then you would have to hold that
lo s'choneim applies b'zman hazeh.

>You had also argued that Rav Kook must have held from a 
>"halfway" category because he would have needed it for the heter 
>mechira. But Rav Kook did not hold that way either. Leaving aside 
>the question of the heter's general acceptability (as you know, 
>most of the Gdolim in Europe rejected the heter altogether), Rav 
>Kook himself held that to get around the problem of "lo s'choneim" 
>one had to sell the land to a non-Jew who *already* owned land in 
>Eretz Yisrael so that by selling him land you are not giving him 
>"chania" ba'karka. See Chapter 12 of the introduction to Shabbat 
>Ha'Aretz. 
>

I do not have a copy of Shabbat HaAretz, but Rav Kook deals with the
matter in Mishpat Cohen.  In particular he discusses what he calls this
"he'ara" which he ascribes to "echad m'bei dina" in hilchos shmita
v'yovel perek 68.  There he describes the idea as being that you should
sell to a goy who has karka m'kodem, on the grounds that the Rambam
explains the prohibition in hilchos Avodah Zara perek 10 halacha 4 as
being that it gives permanence, while without karka they would only have
a yeshivas aray and therefore one can deduce that if they already own
karka, then there is no longer an issur from the Torah.

However Rav Kook rejects this idea for a number of reasons, including
that it would nullify the whole prohibition even for the sheva amim that
remained in the land after the kibush, as they continued to hold land,
and this would mean that there would no longer be any Torah prohibition
vis a vis them.  He also says that with so narrow a distinction, it
would difficult to say when giving more land would and when it would not
make them more likely to have a permanent dwelling.

That is, this idea is not Rav Kook, although it seems to be from
somebody who supported the heter mechira.

Further to what Rav Kook said, I find this pshat in the Rambam difficult
for additional reasons.  The gemorra in Baba Kama 80b rules that one may
tell an akum to write a contract to sell land in Eretz Yisroel even on
Shabbas, because amira l'akum is only a shvus, and mishuv yeshivas
yisroel lo gazru bey rabbanan.  This is brought down by the Rambam in
hilchos shabbas, perek 6 halacha 11.  If the halacha of lo s'choneim
only applied before the akum owned land in eretz yisroel, why is there
is permission to tell the akum to write on shabbas, since by that time
he already owns land (and no distinction is made between him selling his
only piece of land, and him selling one of his many pieces of land).
Also, the language of the Rambam in hilchos avodah zara perek 10 halacha
6 prohibits us to allow them "l'haniach beinenu" - so it is hard to read
in a distinction between selling land to them and land remaining with
them.

>In fact, Rav Kook himself writes regarding the Rambam's shita in lo 
>s'choneim, "nireh d'svira lei d'af al gav d'bitla kdushas ha'aretz 
>l'trumos u'maaseros u'shmita v'yovlos, mikol makom le'din yeshivas 
>nochrim lo botlo v'yesh lomar d'hoo hadin le'inyan issur chaniya 
>ba'karka." 
>

Absolutely.  While he does discuss, at a fair amount of length over the
various teshuvas in Mishpat Kohen relating to shmita and yovel (most of
which deal with the heter mechira in one way or another), with the
suggestion that maybe the issur of lo s'choneim does not apply b'zman
hazeh, or only to the sheva amim, he himself holds that it does indeed
apply, and were any real ovdei avodah zara to present themselves, the
prohibition would apply in full force and min hatorah.

What he discusses (at greatest depth in the first teshuva in this
section, at perek 58), is, given this, why is it permissible to sell to
one of the Yishmaelim.

He goes through a number of reasons, most of which center on the idea
that either the Yishmaelim are indeed gerei toshav, or they have the din
like gerei toshav, or they are not quite gerei toshav but they have left
the category of ovdei avodah zara (ie the half way house).

He does bring one reason for permitting the sale even if you hold like
the Rambam.  This is based on a Ran in Gitten (perek hasholeach in the
section dealing with the freeing of an eved k'nani for a d'var mitzvah).
The idea is that lo s'choneim only applies if the sale is being done for
the benefit of the akum, but if it is actually being done for the
benefit of the Jew, then it is OK.  The argument then goes that, because
the heter mechira is done to take the land out of shmitta, and this is
being done for the benefit of the yishuv, it is not prohibited due to lo
s'choneim.  However, he makes it clear he has difficulty with this
pshat, because he believes it undermines the whole sale, ie the sale
then is clearly not a real sale, if it can only be legally done because
it is not a real sale.  He does, however, say, that given the arguments
he has presented before that as the yishmaelim are not ovdei avodah
zara, and hence it is permissible to sell to them, one can add this one
as a sort of addition (I guess as a way of being m'yashev the minority
opinion of the Rambam).

>In conclusion, the Rambam apparently does not hold from any sort 
>of intermediate category when it comes to lo s'choneim, and Rav 
>Kook did not hold from and did not need an intermediate category 
>in order to craft his heter mechira. I have not yet reached the 
>question of whether making a Jewish-only city which excludes a 
>ger toshav would be prohibited al pi haRambam, because given that 
>the Rambam holds out no possibility for a ger toshav or any sort of 
>intermediate category today that would allow giving chania ba'karka 
>to a non-Jew today, I don't need to reach that question. It is not 
>nogea until bias Mashiach (BBY"A). 

This is all assuming that you hold like the Rambam and against the
Ra'avid etc.  That, it seems to me, puts you in an interesting position.
Assuming you accept Rav Kook's rejection of the suggestion of the beis
din, then you pretty much have to hold that the heter mechira is based
on there being (at least) some sort of half way house. In which case,
you would have difficulty accepting the position quoted by you in the
name of your Roshei Yeshiva on mail jewish that one should not protest
if people rely on the heter mechira.  After all, if the heter mechira is
based on a violation of the d'orisa of lo s'choneim, then how could such
a position be tenable?  

And you would have a whole lot of fascinating mitzvah haba b'averah type
questions (brochas on the produce are they permissible etc). Perhaps you
can get around it with the last bit of Rav Kook I quoted - ie the idea
that since the sale is not for the benefit of the non Jew, then
therefore there is no breach of lo s'choneim, to at least avoid these
sorts of problems - but it doesn't seem a great basis to tell people not
to protest if their family is relying on the heter (especially as it
seems to undermine the whole credibility of the sale, meaning that in
fact shmitta may be applicable).

>
>The Supreme Court decision has no basis in current halacha.
>

No.  Even if you hold like the Rambam, the Supreme Court have Rav
Hertzog and Rav Kook to rely on.  That seems to me to be pretty weighty
in terms of current halacha.

This rather reminds me of the story of my husband and benching gomel.
Rav Ovadiah apparently says you should bench gomel whenever you go more
than 72 minutes away from a city, even by car.  So when my husband went
up to Cambridge for University, he used to try and bench gomel every
time he returned to London (which could be every week).  Now the shul he
grew up in is a shul of Bagdadi Jews from Calcutta, and it would
probably not be too unfair to say that the level of learning there is
not terribly high.  And they basically wouldn't let him do it.  Whatever
Rav Ovadiah said, they had never heard of any such thing in Calcutta and
they weren't about to allow it now.  And when Robert spoke to his posek
about it, the posek said to him that they were being somech on the Rema.
Robert's response to this was "but they've never heard of the Rema!" -
but the response to that was, that didn't matter, they had on whom to
rely, and that was enough. 

>- -- Carl
>

Shavuah tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Joelirich  wrote:                     Subject:  Request for your tefilot

>..I want to thank those of you who offered prayers for my father
HK"M....

>Does anyone know the basis of the seemingly prevalent minhag of
changing
>one's seat even on shabbat - why this does not constitute a public show
of aveilut?

The Nitei Gavriel - Hilchos Aveilus quotes (amongst others)
the Shach as saying that it is not considered "bifresia" because
people often change their place in Shul. However the NG also
quotes the Arizal as saying that indeed,
one does not change one's seat on Shabbos.

Hamokom Yenachem Eschem BSAZV

SBA

In a message dated 4/29/00 9:21:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sba@blaze.net.au 
writes:

<< 
 The Nitei Gavriel - Hilchos Aveilus quotes (amongst others)
 the Shach as saying that it is not considered "bifresia" because
 people often change their place in Shul. However the NG also
 quotes the Arizal as saying that indeed,
 one does not change one's seat on Shabbos.
  >>
Thanks, I did find this shach and of course it raises one of my favorite 
questions - if this indeed were the sole reason(it's probably not since I've 
seen others given as well), would this "halacha" change based on the 
sociology of the community(ie if people never change seats)? Did the shach 
receive a mesora of the halacha and the reason or just the halacha and supply 
his own reason?(BTW what about when the gemora answers a mina hanai milei - 
Is it a mesora they received or their best guess?)

Kol Tuv,
JoelRich

On 29 Apr 00, at 21:32, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 4/29/00 9:21:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sba@blaze.net.au 
> writes:
> 
> << 
>  The Nitei Gavriel - Hilchos Aveilus quotes (amongst others)
>  the Shach as saying that it is not considered "bifresia" because
>  people often change their place in Shul. However the NG also
>  quotes the Arizal as saying that indeed,
>  one does not change one's seat on Shabbos.
>   >>
> Thanks, I did find this shach and of course it raises one of my favorite 
> questions - if this indeed were the sole reason(it's probably not since I've 
> seen others given as well), would this "halacha" change based on the 
> sociology of the community(ie if people never change seats)? Did the shach 
> receive a mesora of the halacha and the reason or just the halacha and supply 
> his own reason?(BTW what about when the gemora answers a mina hanai milei - 
> Is it a mesora they received or their best guess?)

In Mourning in Halacha, Page 263, Note 13a, he brings the Even 
Yaakov (58:3) who writes that there is room to be lenient with 
respect to anyone who has a makom kavua where all members of 
the congregation know that he never sits anyplace else. This is 
based upon a Gilyon Maharsha who says that the Rabbi of the shul 
need not change his place (brought at note 12 there). He also 
leaves b'tzarich iyun a case where seats are sold, people's places 
are written down, and it is not usual to change one's seat.

HaMakom Yenachem Eschem b'Soch She'ar Avalei Tziyon 
v'Yerushalayim, v'Lo Sosifu le'Daava Od.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 28 Apr 00, at 13:49, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> Does anyone know if RYBS was lenient that shaking hands is not considered derech
> chibah?  Did you hear it first hand or from someone else (and from whom)?
> 
> Any other sources on the subject?

When I was a bochur, my chavrusa and I asked this question of 
Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, who at the time was the Chavrusa of Rav 
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Rav Nebenzahl told us that while it was 
assur to offer a woman your hand, if a woman held her hand out to 
shake yours, you were not required to embarass her by refusing.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Ben Waxman asks regarding written pskei halacha which mattir
shaving on Israel independence day?

About a 15 years ago I asked Rav Gershuni whether one could shave erev
Yom haAtzmaut in anticipation of the Hag or only on Yom haAtzmaut
proper. He wrote me that one should shave erev haHag so as not to enter
the Hag menuval.

			Aryeh Frimer

> Does anyone know the basis of the seemingly prevalent minhag of changing 
> one's seat even on shabbat - why this does not constitute a public show of 
> aveilut?
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich

I believe the Pnei Baruch discusses it and indicates that any change
which is for an extended period of time is not considered aveilut
beFarhesya. Interestingly, My brother Dov Showed me a teshuva from Rav
Zalman Druck indicating that Shinui makom in Shul does not apply to
women. (I'll try to check at home what the rationale is).

Regarding LO TECHANEM, see the Meiri Avoda Zara 20a quoting the Tosefta:
"aval im haya shecheno o chavero MUTAR  shehu k'mochran lo ha kol shehu
min ha'umot hagdurot bdarchai ...... ein safek she'af b'she'ein makiro
MUTAR V'RAUI..."

The Minchat Chinuch 94 "shelo leshachen" quotes the RAAVAD, the SEMAG and
other poskim (based on Rashi Gittin 45a d"h lo yeshvu) that the *lav*
refers only to the *sheva amim*. The RITVA AZ 20a curiously discusses the
spelling of TECHANEM (with or without a *yod) to show that it refers to
not giving *chen* (gifts) rather than referring to *chanaya* (permanent
dwelling).

The TUR Yoreh Deah 151 discusses "ein mochrin lahem batim" in conjunction
with the reason "mipnei shemachnis l'tocho elil".

Josh (who isn't about to sell his apartment to Achmad :-)

> If someone in E"Y faxes me something on Y"T sheini shel goliyos, isn't the
> fax nolad? (Assuming that we hold that a fax on Shabbos is nolad because of
> the shinui sheim from "paper" to "fax", or for another reason.)

The issur of nolad is that of muktzeh. Thus if an apple fell from a branch
on Shabbos/yom tov, it's ossur to hold it or eat it but stam looking or
gazing at it is mutter.

The fax paper and the ink existed before Shabbat. So presumably they are
mutter in handling. The nolad question would appear to be if one is
allowed to make use of the information on Shabbos the fax is imparting.

Daniel 
wells@mail.biu.ac.il

Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook, Rosh Yeshivat Mercaz haRav, permitted (perhaps even required) shaving on Yom haAtzmaut, as does his talmid Rav Shlomo Aviner, Rosh Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim.  See also the daily halachot section at the back of the Rinat Yisrael siddur.

I have a fax from Rav Aviner, by the way, in which he told me that in years when Yom haAtzmaut is pushed to Thursday, that day is Yom haAtzmaut for all of the heterim of joy on that day.  However, there is stil no tachanun on 5 Iyyar.

May our joy at reisheet tzmichat geulahteynu lead to geulah sheleymay.

Shmuel Jablon
------------------
Rabbi Shmuel Jablon
www.rabbijablon.com

On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:47:32PM +0300, Daniel M Wells wrote:
: The fax paper and the ink existed before Shabbat.

See Shabbos 28b. Date pits from dates that were eaten on Shabbos qualify
as nolad. For that matter, barring yeish mei'ayin, every case of nolad
is the combination or decomposition of pre-existing materials.

As I suggested in my earlier post, perhaps the shinui sheim from "toner
and paper" to "fax" would be sufficient to define this as a case of nolad.

I thank those who reminded me that this issue was raised in mail-jewish,
v21n10 <http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v21/mj_v21i10.html> and neighboring
issues.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Apr-00: Levi, Mos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 29b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 30 Apr 00, at 8:53, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:

> About a 15 years ago I asked Rav Gershuni whether one could shave erev
> Yom haAtzmaut in anticipation of the Hag or only on Yom haAtzmaut
> proper. He wrote me that one should shave erev haHag so as not to
> enter the Hag menuval.

If that's the case, did he allow shaving on Erev Shvii Shel Pesach, 
or Hoshana Rabba, and if not, why not?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On 30 Apr 00, at 8:53, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
:> About a 15 years ago I asked Rav Gershuni ...
:>         He wrote me that one should shave erev haHag so as not to
:> enter the Hag menuval.

On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 08:26:15PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: If that's the case, did he allow shaving on Erev Shvii Shel Pesach, 
: or Hoshana Rabba, and if not, why not?

FWIW, RYBS permitted someone who otherwise shaves daily to shave on
chol hamo'ed. He therefore did add that it would be a chiyuv to shave
for the kavod of chol hamo'ed, never mind shevi'i shel Peisach.

Caveat: RYBS's Tues night shiurim were not fora for teaching halachah
lima'aseh. He may have been speaking only theoretically.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Apr-00: Levi, Mos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 29b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 30 Apr 00, at 12:38, Micha Berger wrote:

> On 30 Apr 00, at 8:53, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> :> About a 15 years ago I asked Rav Gershuni ...
> :>         He wrote me that one should shave erev haHag so as not to
> :> enter the Hag menuval.
> 
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 08:26:15PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> : If that's the case, did he allow shaving on Erev Shvii Shel Pesach,
> : or Hoshana Rabba, and if not, why not?
> 
> FWIW, RYBS permitted someone who otherwise shaves daily to shave on
> chol hamo'ed. He therefore did add that it would be a chiyuv to shave
> for the kavod of chol hamo'ed, never mind shevi'i shel Peisach.
> 
> Caveat: RYBS's Tues night shiurim were not fora for teaching halachah
> lima'aseh. He may have been speaking only theoretically.

FWIW I know that R. Aaron Lichtenstein permits shaving every 
Friday during sfira le'chavod Shabbos, and I think that may well 
have been RYBS's shita as well. I suspect the two are connected 
somehow, and that RYBS may well have been speaking le'maaseh.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

One more note on the subject of Rav and Shimu'el viewing the nature of
Maggid lishitasam: Shimu'el (and subsequently the Rambam) views the
final ge'ulah as "shib'ud malichios bilvad" and defines Maggid as starting
with physical servitude and ending with political autonomy. Rav (and the
Ramban) give a more spiritual definition to ge'ulah both for the final ge'ulah
and for Maggid.

The Gra, in the bit I noted about yetzi'as mitzrayim (YM), the kirban todah,
Tehillim 107, and benching gomeil, seems to be saying YM was primarily the
physical redemption. And this to would be lishitaso, as the Gra quote
Shimu'el's "ein bein... ela shib'ud malchiyos bilvad".

Well I noted that the Ramban, who as I mentioned earlier, follows Rav WRT
the messianic ge'ulah, is also lishitaso in his overview of seifer Shimos.
He considers YM complete only after building the mishkan, which is why those
5 parshiyos are in the seifer. This probably also has much to do with his
shitah on the sequencing of the eigel, the command to build the mishkan, and
the actual buliding of it. IOW, until the eigel was overcome, there was no
ge'ulah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Apr-00: Cohen, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 32b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 3

On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 11:07:04PM +0100, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
: I think is has to be a question of balance and on which side of the
: golden mean one is erring.

This question was explored by R' Binyamin Hecht of Nishma (www.nishma.org).
(BTW, anyone interested in Avodah's core topics would probably find Nishma
to be very thought provoking. Highly recommended.)

He focusses on the question of why last week's parashah explains the issur
of relations between siblings as "ki chessed hu". He notes Rashi, Ramban,
RSRH and others ad loc.

Also, R' Hecht points out that lishitas haRambam, the tzaddik is someone who
follows the sh'vil hazahav, and that the sh'vil hazahav is the ideal. The
Rambam then says that the chassid goes beyond the shuras hadin, the sh'vil
hazahav. Is he describing a second kind of ideal, or is the implication that
being lifnim mishuras hadin is less than ideal?

R' Hecht suggests that perhaps the latter. With tzedek, each person has his
share. With chessed, the have offers the have-not. Someone who defines his
life in terms of chessed therefore requires the existance of have-nots.
While chessed is good on the personal level, it is non-ideal from an
extrinsic perspective.

Chessed can therefore take on derogatory connotations in that it creates
dependency. As in our parashah.

If you look at RSRH on the pasuk, you'll see this analysis of the Rambam
"shtims" with his explanation.

As i said, Nishma is thought provoking. I didn't say I always agree.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-Apr-00: Cohen, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 32b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 3

Joel Rich wrote: <
Does anyone know the basis of the seemingly prevalent minhag of changing 
one's seat even on shabbat - why this does not constitute a public show of 
aveilut?  >

Having recently been an aveil, I can tell you that the minhag of changing
seats on Shabbos is not held by all poskim (see the P'nei Baruch for a 
listing of the various opinions).    The rav in my shul paskened for
me that I could remain in my makom kavuah on Shabbos (but in my
case there was another reason to be meikil as well, and it appears 
that the generally accepted custom *is* to change one's seat even on
Shabbat).
 
Hamakom y'nacheim otcha b'toch sh'ar aveilei Tzion Vyrushalayim,
v'lo tosif l'daava od.

Shlomo Godick

In message , Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes


>> I must say, at the risk of sounding political, that the above would seem
>> to suggest that, at least on this, the Supreme Court may have been
>> right, and that, rather than the debate being religion versus democracy
>> (as the Financial Times recently portrayed it), it may even be the
>> Jewish Agency versus the halacha.
>
>Not if (a) you do not accept the heter mechira, or (b) you accept 
>the heter mechira, but you hold like Rav Kook did that the issur of 
>lo s'choneim is not violated when you sell land in Eretz Yisrael to a 
>non-Jew who already owns land here.
>

As indicated in my response to your earlier post, this is not, according
to Rav Kook in his teshuva 68 in Mishpat Cohen, the position of Rav
Kook, but a remark of one of the beis din, which he then rejects.

But all that was dealt with in my response to your post sent last night.
What you can perhaps help me with is by answering some of the questions
I have had for a while in relation to people who hold like (a).

As you mentioned in your earlier post, the gedolim in Europe generally
rejected the heter mechira.  And having spent time in Israel during
shmitta, I know that there are numbers of vegetable stores that claim to
carry only non shmitta produce, and the people who shop there claim not
to rely on the heter mechira.

However, I once asked somebody about how it was possible, living in
Israel to never rely on the heter - and did not get a satisfactory
answer (the answer was more of the nature, well to that extent we rely,
but maybe I did not ask the right person).

My problem is this.  Assuming you hold that the mechira is null and
void.  In that case, the produce supposedly the subject of the heter has
kedushas shvi'is.  That produce is then sold (mostly for export, in
violation of shmitta), and, as a necessary consequence of the rules of
kedushas shvi'is, the money for which it was sold obtains kedushas
shvi'is.  A goodly portion of that money is then paid to the Israeli
government in taxes, which is then redistributed to all and sundry by
way of child support and/or kollel stipend etc etc.  The bulk of the
rest will directly re-enter the Israeli economy, so that you as a lawyer
may well be paid by your clients with such money.  Even if all your
clients are those who do not receive such money directly, they have
business transactions with those who do.  And, as far as I am aware, it
is extremely difficult to get rid of kedushas shvi'is - so there may
well be money circulating with this kedusha from who knows how many
shmittas ago.

The easy answer to this problem, ie the one I was given, was that while
a person might choose to be machmir on himself/herself vis a vis the
produce he/she eats, but that there is a general reliance on the heter
mechira to avoid any of these sorts of problems.

However, that is not open to somebody who totally rejects the heter (as
you have indicated in (a) above).  I was wondering whether you could get
yourself out of the problem on the grounds that money today is not an
object like the kesef in the time of the gemorra (at least today, a fair
amount of the produce exported would be paid for by electronic transfer,
taxes may be paid by cheque, and your child support may well merely
appear in your bank account), so there is nothing to transfer the
kedusha on.  However I do not know enough about either how our modern
money is treated in halacha, nor about kedushas shvi'is (can you avoid
transferring kedushas shvi'is by giving an IOU instead of payment of
kesef?) to even be sure how to think through the problem - but have
rather assumed that somebody must deal with the question somewhere.


>Forgive me if this repeats ground that I covered this morning. I 
>could not find this post at home this morning.
>
>- -- Carl

Regards

Chana

>
>
>Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
>Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
>Telephone 972-2-625-7751
>Fax 972-2-625-0461
>mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
>mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
>
>Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
>Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
>Thank you very much.
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]