Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 72

Mon, 28 Apr 2014

• 1. help with 2 sugyot (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: Israelis should keep two days of Yom Tov in Chutz L'Aretz (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: chumra correlation (Ben Waxman)
• 7. Re: Israelis should keep two days of Yom Tov in Chutz L'Aretz (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: Israelis should keep two days of Yom Tov in Chutz L'Aretz (Micha Berger)
• 9. The Connection Between Fearing Parents and Shabbos (David Riceman)
• 10. Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Prof. Levine)
• 11. obsession with kitniyot (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Ad Shetechpatz (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Marty Bluke)
• 16. Re: (no subject) (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: help with 2 sugyot (Saul Guberman)
• 18. Selling Chometz Gomer Before Pesach (Prof. Levine)

In a shiur I recently gave I received a great negative response (to put it
mildly) from the audience - mainly American olim. I mention this because
the halacha seems to go against the grain of American thought.

1 "Yored Le-toch Sadeh Chavero She-lo Be-reshut"
There are 2 situations
(a) someone plants something in my garden that I dont want or dyes my white
shirt blue while I wear white shirts - the gardener or dyer is entitled to
his expenses which according to some including his labor at some minimum
level

Why should he be entitled to anything? He comes into my property
illegall;y, does an activity that
increases the value in a way that I dont want and then has the cutzpah to
ask for expenses.
Throw the guy in jail.

(b) I am fully happy with what he did - he is entitled to complete payment
for his work -
Why? I have my own gardener or dyer who always does my work for job. Wjy
should a stranger be able to "steal" the work from him? Sounds like any
gardener who doesnt have enough jobs should just go into yards and cut mow
the lawn or remove the snow without permission and then demand full
compensation.

2. Ze Ne-heneh ve-ze lo chaser
I am away from home for the summer and obviously just leave it empty while
I am gone (ie I dont rent it)
Someone picks the lock and moves in for those months without causing any
damage and makes sure all bills are paid.  I am not entitled to any rent
and it seems not ethical to throw him out.
The commentaries on SA even ask why the owner cant be forced to let in
someone - kofim al midat sdom - and answer that since a person has a right
to demand rent then even when he doesnt rent it out he cant be forced to
rent it.

Again throw the intruder in jail

American feeling is that my home is my fiefdom and I can do whatever is
necessary to stop people from entering even though I dont live on the
premises. Even havent guns to shoot or trapdoors against possible
intruders. In a similar case R. Zilberstein (and seemingly Rav Chaim
Kanevsky) paskened that this is indeed allowed according to halacha. After
several attacks on their position they admitted that at the least one needs
to put up a sign stating that intruders are liable to be shot without
notice (originally Rav Zilberstein felt that the prohibition to steal is
enough of a sign). Again many others disagreed strongly including Rav
Bleich in Tradition.

Any explanations of the 2 sugyot are appreciated.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140428/d7fcc6b7/attachment-0001.htm>

On 28/04/2014 10:26 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> Life and halacha are not black and white. Many of those who don't
> sell real chometz hold that since there are acharonim who hold that
> you are not allowed to sell real chometz we should be machmir for
> that opinion.

Who are these acharonim, and what is their reasoning?

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

From http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Selling_Chametz#cite_note-1

    [1] The institution of Mechirat Chametz is based on a Tosefta
    (Pesachim 2:6) that says that a Jew on a boat with a non-Jew may sell
    his Chametz to the non-Jew and then buy it back after Pesach. This is
    codified by the Rambam (Pesach 4:6) and SA 448:3. The Beit Yosef 448:3
    writes that selling it before Pesach and buying it back is Haarama
    (a scheme to avoid a prohibition) and yet it is permitted. The Talmid
    Haritva printed at the end of the Chiddushei Haritva on Pesachim
    limits this permission to an incidental sale of the Chametz but
    doesn't allow the sale in an institutionalized manner.

    - Gemara Shabbat 139b says that a certain Rabbi slept on a non-Jews
      boat on Shabbat claiming that he intended to sleep, even though he
      knew the non-Jew would sail the boat across the river. The Gemara
      says that his claim was HaAramah, but is permitted since its only an
      isser derabbanan and he was a talmid chacham. Bechor Shor (Pesachim
      21a) learns from here that Haaramah is permitted only if the issue is
      derabbanan. He writes that after Bitul, the issue of owning Chametz
      is only derabbanan and Haaramah is acceptable. Bet Efraim 1:33 and
      Minchat Bikkurim (Tosefta 2:7) agree.

    - Mekor Chaim 448:11 rejects the Bechor Shor and explains that in
      Gemara Shabbat HaAramah was only permitted on an isser derabbanan
      because the Rabbi was actually violating an isser, however, by
      selling Chametz, one circumvents the issue altogether.

    - Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (quoted by Rav Hershel Schachter
      in Nefesh HaRav p. 177) held that one shouldnt sell Chametz
      BeEyn. [Halachos of Pesach (pg 32) defines Chametz BeEyn as mixtures
      which have a majority or equal amount of Chametz in comparison to
      the non-Chametz ingredients.] This opinion is based on the idea that
      Haaramah shouldnt be performed except for s.v. VeElu), who holds
      that mixtures of Chametz are only a derabbanan issue of Bal Yeiraeh.

    - Rav Schachter in BeIkvei HaTzon (siman 15) writes to defend the
      minhag that Haaramah is acceptable to avoid an isser, but not to
      exempt one from a mitzvah because at the end of the day, one didnt
      fulfill the mitzvah. Therefore, selling ones Chametz only avoids
      the isser, and one may still fulfill the mitzvah of Tashbitu with
      burning the last unsold kezayit.

    - Halachos of Pesach (p. 123) records the practice of Rav Aharon
      Kotler not to sell Chametz BeEyn. However, Halachos of Pesach quoting
      Rav Moshe Feinstein, Tzitz Eliezer 20:51(2), and Yalkut Yosef
      448:3(1) permit selling all forms of Chametz. Halachos of Pesach
      (p. 123) writes that most poskim allow the sale and that such is
      the minhag. See, however, Haggadah of the Roshei Yeshiva (pg 13)
      which writes that Rav Moshe's minhag was not to sell actual chametz
      but he did sell alcoholic beverages.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 13th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   necessary for a good relationship?

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Pasta.html

The pasta is placed in a drying tank in which heat, moisture, and drying 
time are strictly regulated. The drying period differs for the various 
types of pasta. It can range from three hours for elbow macaroni and egg 
noodles to as much as 12 hours for spaghetti. The drying time is 
critical because if the pasta is dried too quickly it will break and if 
it is dried too slowly, the chance for spoilage increases.

On 4/28/2014 9:21 AM, Dov Ber wrote:
> Why is pasta real chometz? Do they allow it to rise before baking?
>
> I would imagine that they are quick to dry out the pasta to prevent it from
> rising and deforming it's shape.
>
> Akiva

On 28/04/2014 6:30 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> I haven't seen anywhere that minyanim for tefilat chol are forbidden, but
>> the objection seems obvious enough.  The achronim probably never even
>> contemplated an entire minyan of Bnei EY in  the same place.

> However the reverse situation of chutz L'aRetz people in Israel is
> already discussed by Rav Yosef Karo. It seems to already have been
> common in his day to have a minyan for those from outside of Israel.
> He is not happy with the idea but nevertheless it remains common
> until today.
>
> Any reason that the 2 situations should be different?

Certainly.  There is no comparison.   Holding a minyan for tefilat chol in a
place where it is yomtov for the locals is zilzul yomtov.   Holding a minyan
for tefilat yomtov in a place where it is chol for the locals is...what?
Impolite.  That's about it.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

That sounds entirely reasonable. Kneidlelach are not chameitz and 
Cheerios are, so why not?

On 4/28/2014 4:41 PM, saul newman wrote:
> , were these community based and  therefore eg  one could eat 
> knaidlach but throw out the cereal....

The MB, RSZA were opposed to having 2nd day minyanim here.  Who is the 
mattir (besides common custom)?

Ben

On 4/28/2014 12:30 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> It seems to already have been common in his day to have a minyan for 
> those from outside of Israel. He is not happy with the idea but 
> nevertheless it remains common until today.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140428/66583744/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:30:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: However the reverse situation of chutz L'aRetz people in Israel is already
: discussed by Rav Yosef Karo....
: Any reason that the 2 situations should be different?

Either the chutznik in EY or the Israeli in chu"l who keeps one day might
be violating the derabbanan of YT sheini shel goliyos, depending on how
we understand its scope.

But, the chutznik in EY who keeps two days might be insulting qedushas
ha'aretz. If there a parallel argument against an Israeli in chu"l
keeping both days?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 13th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   necessary for a good relationship?

RYL:

<<one cannot truly understand what Yahadus is about unless one is 
familiar with the writings of RSRH>>

Are you saying that no one before 1850 understood Judaism? Any evidence?

David Riceman

At 03:27 PM 4/28/2014, R. Kenneth Miller wrote:

>R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
>
> > Well,  have a look at the list at
> > http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-chometzguideb4.htm
> > There you will see that flour is listed as not being real chometz ...
>
>This surprises me very much. Rav Shimon Eider 
>wrote, on page 214 of Halachos of Pesach: 
>"Since, nowadays, grain and flour are washed 
>during the manufacturing process, commercial 
>flour should be considered as actual chometz." 
>His sources are both Mishneh Brurah 453:24 and 
>*also* the local mumchim from whom he heard this.

I just had a look at R. Eider's books on Pesach 
and the copywrite dates are between 1977 and 
1981.  A  lot has changed when it comes to how 
food is processed since then. The MB is even 
older,  of course,  and grain is not processed as 
it was in his time.  From http://kosherpoint.com/pesach/480

However, other authorities argue that the 
tempering process used today is different from 
that used in past generations. The Shulchan Aruch 
and Mishnah Berura refer to wheat which was 
actually soaked in water for a short time. Today, 
the wheat is not soaked ? it is sprayed for a few 
seconds with just enough water to barely dampen 
the kernels. No water droplets are visible on 
them. The entire process is controlled so that 
the wheat generally does not crack. According to 
these authorities, such wheat is not real chametz 
and although it should not be used on Passover, 
one may be lenient and sell it to a non-Jew.

Technology has changed the world and continues 
to.  This is true in all areas of our lives and 
most certainly when it comes to food.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140428/583bb0ac/attachment.htm>

> There seems to be several groups pushing to kill the minhag:

> 1) People who claim (a la Machon Shilo) that there is a Minhag Eretz
> Yisrael and qitniyot goes against it. These people have their own nusach
> for Tefila.
> 2) People who marry sefardiot (dafka) and make some sort of compromise
> regarding the custom
> 3) BTs who decide that it isn't incumbent upon them to accept the custom.
> 4) FFBs who contend that the whole thing is a mistake.
> 5) Those (of various backgrounds) who can't stand not being able to eat
> what others can eat (I am not sure if this is really different from #4).

Another group that wishes to limit (not kill) the minhag simply feel
that we are dealing with chumrah on top of chumrah on something that is
only a minhag that we really dont know the origin of and was opposed by
promement rabbis from the beginning.

Thus for example Rav Melamed in his set of halachot allows lechitin
based on the fact that one needs to combine several chumrot in order to
prohibit it. He certainly doesnt kill the entire minhag for ashkenzaim.


[Email #2]

> AFAIK it started with Grushei Sfarad, who flooded the Mediterranean,
> including EY, and insisted on keeping their Sefaradi communities and minhagim
> instead of assimilating into the local communities.  That's how EY suddenly
> became Sefaradi.

Before that EY was pretty desolate with no real community. The community
in Akko of Baale haTosafot basically disappeared. When Ramban came
to Jerusalem there was basically no one there. There was also a tiny
community ion Hevron. I am not sure there was anything in Tzfat before
the gerushei sfarad came there.

-- 
Eli Turkel

RMG:

<<There?s a famous Vort attributed to Ramban on Shir HaShirim 8:4: 
???-????????? ?????-?????????? ???-?????????, ??? ???????????? When one 
has a His?orerus, they should do something physical ? Ad Shetechpatz ? 
to make it ?take.? I couldn?t find this Ramban ? can anyone lead me in 
the right direction? >>

   IIRC  it's cited by the Piasatzner Rebbe in Hovos Ha Talmidim, and he 
attributes it to Sefer HaEmunah V'HaBitachon, which was traditionally 
attributed to the Ramban but was not in fact written by him.

David Riceman

> <<Don't we learn the same thing from the story of David & Naval.  Naval
> had his own people to guard/herd/ranch his flocks.  David and his followers
> (the meforshim describes them as worse) guard his flock without  being
> hired and then confront Naval for payment that he is due. They were ready
> to kill Naval over this.>>
>
> The question wasnt the source of the gemara. This is also paskened in SA.
The question was that assuming that David and his gang were not performing
any services that Naval couldn't have arranged by himself
what is the moral justification for demanding payment from Naval.
As indciated this is not a question, that I am aware, that appears in
standard commentaries, It is a question based more on an American outlook
on rights
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140428/88a6193d/attachment.htm>

Someone??:

<<I fail to understand why people do not sell real chometz yet go out 
right after Pesach and buy real chometz from stores that did sell real 
chometz.>>

RCV is cited as having a tradition that there are two things Jews do in 
which we meticulously observe the d'rabbanan but just ignore the d'orayysa.

One of these is Tshuva: the d'orayysa is haratah and azivas hahet, and 
the d'rabbanan is tzom and tefillah.

The other is biur hametz: the d'oraysa is bitul b'lev, and the 
d'rabbanan is b'dikah sreifah and mechirah.

David Riceman

I left out the subject on my previous email.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Marty Bluke <marty.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' Zev Sero asked How is it a ha'arama?
>
> Of course it is a ha'arama. You have no real intention of selling the
> chometz to the Goy, you are only selling it to avoid the issur, the proof
> is that you get it back right after Pesach. That is the definition of
> ha'arama.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140428/9676cbe9/attachment.htm>

On 28/04/2014 4:06 PM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero asked How is it a ha'arama?
>
> Of course it is a ha'arama. You have no real intention of selling the
> chometz to the Goy,

Of course you do.

> you are only selling it to avoid the issur

So?  That is an excellent reason to sell it!  And the mishna explicitly
endorses this as a valid way to get rid of chametz.


> the proof is that you get it back right after Pesach.

*Everyone* buys chametz after Pesach, of course.  They want it then.
If someone sells shares when their price is going down, and then a week
later buys the same shares when they're going up, is he engaged in a
ha'arama?!



> That is the definition of ha'arama.

Nonsense.  It's no more the definition of ha'arama than it is the definition
of a giraffe.  A ha'arama is a sham.  A pretense.   Where's the pretense here?
What are we pretending?   On Erev Pesach we genuinely don't want the chametz,
so we sell it.  On Motzaei Pesach we genuinely do want it, so we buy it.  On
Erev Pesach the goy wants the chametz, because he knows he will soon be able
to resell it at a profit.  On Motzaei Pesach he wants to sell it, because he's
got a good offer for it and he knows he isn't likely to get a better one.  Both
transactions are 100% sincere on both sides.  So how can anyone call it a
ha'arama?  To do so is a lie, and a defamatory one at that.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

That is exactly what the story is telling us.  Naval could have arranged
this himself.  This is a standard business procedure in this locale.  If
you protect/enhance property, even if not engaged to do so, you are
entitled to be compensated. No, I do not understand when/how that works and
when/how it does not work.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> <<Don't we learn the same thing from the story of David & Naval.  Naval
>> had his own people to guard/herd/ranch his flocks.  David and his followers
>> (the meforshim describes them as worse) guard his flock without  being
>> hired and then confront Naval for payment that he is due. They were ready
>> to kill Naval over this.>>
>>
>> The question wasnt the source of the gemara. This is also paskened in SA.
> The question was that assuming that David and his gang were not performing
> any services that Naval couldn't have arranged by himself
> what is the moral justification for demanding payment from Naval.
> As indciated this is not a question, that I am aware, that appears in
> standard commentaries, It is a question based more on an American outlook
> on rights
> --
> Eli Turkel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140428/158b3de8/attachment.htm>

At 03:27 PM 4/28/2014, R. Kenneth Miller wrote:


>In my previous post, I should have pointed out that *both* of these 
>women were correct. Mrs. Levine is of course correct that if plain 
>flour were chometz, we could not make matza from it, and this is a 
>simple proof that plain flour is *not* chometz.
>
>The other woman is also correct, but I should have stressed that she 
>was not talking about plain flour. Rather she - and the MB 453:24 - 
>is talking about modern commercial flour, which is presumably washed 
>thoroughly before reaching the consumer.

As I pointed out just a few minutes ago,  modern commercial flour is 
not processed today as it was in the time of MB.  Again see 
http://kosherpoint.com/pesach/480

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140428/3d1171ac/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 72
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)