Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 016

Friday, April 6 2001

• RE: Seudah Sh'lishish
• Chumros on Pesach - Hotels
• cleaning house
• Who and What is a Rishon
• Re: Seudah Sh'lishish
• Who and What is a Rishon
• RE: cleaning house
• Re: cleaning house
• RE: Covering counter tops on Pesach
• RE: Seudah Sh'lishish
• RE: question marks
• RE: achilas pas on Shabbos
• matzo mehl rolls
• Achilas Kodshim
• RE: Achilas Kodshim
• Re: Achilas Kodshim
• Re: Some Questions About Havoroh
• RE: Chatzos at the Seder
• RE: matzo mehl rolls
• Chometz on E"P Afternoon
• Re: Roedelheim Haggadah
• R' A ibn Ezra and Tos
• Re: Who and What is a Rishon
• Re: Achilas Kodshim
• Re: Candles for the Seder night
• Re: Voss IZ Der Chilluk #7: MC vol. 2 p. 64

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> Rav Dovid Cohen said in his Shabbos Hagadol derasha that this means zeman
> mincha. (He did not reference the Rambam specifically.)  Once in the zman
> mincha, davening first is probably better than the reverse.

The Rambam says b'feirush: "Minhag hatzadikkim...v'yispallel mincha
v'achar kach yikvah seudah shlishis." Maybe Rav Dovid Cohen was saying
merely that it's not required, just preferable. And maybe the reason for
the Minhag Tzadikim is exactly as you said--that once zman mincha has
come, it's preferable to daven first. Query: if there's a minyan kavua,
does it really make a difference (and generally on Shabbos, most people
have a minyan kavua unless they live near a minyan factory).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> Maybe with R. Scheinberg's piece getting spread around, this minhag Yisrael
> will begin to change.    I am referring to his comment that with people
> having larger and larger houses, Pesach cleaning has gotten too onerous and
> reduces simchas Yom Tov and a woman's ability to participate properly in the
> Seder.  

> In connection with RS's argument, I note that recently, more and more people
> have started going to hotels for Pesach because of the difficulty of
> cleaning the entire house.  

One fellow tells me that he always makes it a point to be home on Pesach.
But Tradition tells me that be'etzem hayom hazeh that davka on Pesach we
left our homes and headed out of Egypt into the wilderness.  Certainly there
can be no greater Tradition than that! <smile> OK you can quibble that we
left Mitzrayim AFTER the Seder. Nu!

I would say going to a hotel all depends.  If by reducing the pre-Pesach
preparations it produces a more pleasant Pesach experience - why should that
be less Simchas YomTov than buying a new dress etc.?  OTOH, if the hotel
experience is "alienating" and thereby reduces the Simchas YomTov maybe it's
not such a good idea after all.

Here is a compromise.  Stay at home but engage a waiter/waitress to assist.
It seems that the concept of a shamash goes way in the Halachic literature.
My parents' best friends had a full-time housekeeper who worked the Seder
night.  The clean-up after a Seder is perhaps the most onerous task of all,
it's around 1:00 AM and everyone is exhausted, so who wants to clean then?

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com (at Information Builders)
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

> In connection with RS's argument, I note that recently, more and more people
> have started going to hotels for Pesach because of the difficulty of
> cleaning the entire house.  

I wasn't clear on the connection of going to hotels and cleaning.
I thought it was more to avoid making a seder.

At least one rabbi I know said that if one sells his entire home to
avoid bedkat chametz then he has to tovel all the dishes after Pesach.

Is that universally accepted?

Eli Turkel

> Look at how he is ridiculed by the Baalei Tosfot" Rosh Hashana 13a
> d"h d'akrivu; Taanit 20b d"h b'hachinto; Kiddushin 37b d"h Mi'mocharat
> hashabbat.

I don't see any ridicule there

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:05:24 -0400 "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
writes:
<<Maybe Rav Dovid Cohen was saying merely that it's not required, just
preferable. And maybe the reason for the MinhagTzadikim is exactly as
you said--that once zman mincha has come, it's preferable to daven first.>>

We agree? Maybe one of our Chassidic-leaning chaverim has another reason
for eating SS after mincha?

<<Query: if there's a minyan kavua, does it really make a difference
(and generally on Shabbos, most people have a minyan kavuaunless they
live near a minyan factory).>>

One could make the argument that living near a minyan factory (BTW the
one near me runs many fewer "production runs" on Shabbos than during the
week) is gufa the greatest minyan kavua, since you are always guaranteed
to get a minyan. If the concern is that you might not go at all, the
shul in question doesn't make a difference.

As a matter of practice, even people who frequent minyan factories rarely
flit from one to another; they usually settle on one minyan which fits
either their schedule or other preferences.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> Regarding the dismissal of Ibn Ezra's views by some, the same is done
> to the Ralbag and no one disputes his being a rishon. This dismissal is
> due to other, "frumkeit"-related reasons.

re: Ibn Ezra

Seem pashut that:
1) Virtually all Mikraos Gdolos include Ibn Ezra and Ralbag. Conclusion:
whatever criticism they may have endured, their works were not censored.

2) The Ramban seems deferential enough to Ibn Ezra to quote him even while
disputing him. 

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

re: End of Rishonic era in Ashkenaz.

There seems to have been a transition era circa Maharil, Trumas haDeshen
etc. 
It also seems pashut to me that anyone quoted in the Sefer Beis Yoseph is
treated as a defacto Rishon, because afaik he made no qualitative
distinctions between the authorities he quotes. 


Zissen Pesach,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Eli Turkel [mailto:Eli.Turkel@kvab.be]
> I wasn't clear on the connection of going to hotels and cleaning.
> I thought it was more to avoid making a seder.

If that were the case, people would just go away for the first days, or just
buy takeout (which we in fact are doing).

> At least one rabbi I know said that if one sells his entire home to
> avoid bedkat chametz then he has to tovel all the dishes after Pesach.
> Is that universally accepted?

AFAIK no one here accepts that.  People don't sell their kelim, just all the
chometz in the home and the *land* itself.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:43:02pm EST, Eli Turkel
<Eli.Turkel@kvab.be> writes:
> At least one rabbi I know said that if one sells his entire home to
> avoid bedkat chametz then he has to tovel all the dishes after Pesach.
> Is that universally accepted?

If you literally sell your house and all your belongings including your
dishes, I believe the answer is yes. If you only sell the chametz on or
in your dishes but not the dishes themselves, no.

CVT & KT
Joel


[R' Yitzchok Willroth answered similarly (3rd come, least served, sorry):
> If you include the contents in a mechira, I don't think 
> that you can get around it...
-mi]

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il]
> I don't see why you're not selling the chametz balua in the counters 
> the same way that you are selling the chametz balua in your pots. 

I don't understand why you should sell the chametz balua in the pots.
There is certainly no bal yeira'eh bal yimatzei WRT to chametz that's
so little. After all, WRT to chametz that is less than kzayis, the only
reason we clean it out is that we are afraid that you will gather many
pieces together to the size of a kzayis (see S"A dealing with chometz
b'sidkei areiva). In the case of pots, it is impossible to gather together
chametz balua.

Think about it. From a historical perspective, selling chometz is
relatively recent. Before people started selling chometz, did people
destroy their pots? I doubt it.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
>         One could make the argument that living near a minyan factory
> (         ...  ) is gufa the greatest minyan kavua, since you are
> always guaranteed to get a minyan. 
> If the concern is that you might not go at all, the shul in question
> doesn't make a difference.

I think that the concern is that you'll miss davening, not that you'll miss
minyan.  Therefore, when you have a minyan kavu'ah, it's likely that you'll
remember to go--it's not much different than if you asked someone to remind
you to daven (in that case, you are permitted to eat prior to davening).
But if you have a minyan factory, you'll likely to defer davening because
you can always daven later, and there would be the concern she'ma yimashech
achar seudoso.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Eli Turkel [mailto:Eli.Turkel@kvab.be]
>> I heard Nehama Leibowitz A"H quote the Abarbanel as inserting question
>> marks to explain Psukim that he found difficult....

> This can be quite dangerous.
> There are loads of jokes based on inserting question marks into Shulchan
> Arukh.
> Basically any halakhah can be negated by saying it was a question rather
> than a statement.

While your point is well-taken, there is a big difference between narrative
and a book of law.  A book of law (e.g., the Internal Revenue Code, which I
deal with daily) does not have questions, humor, etc.  Narrative does.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> 3) There is no chiyuv to eat pas on Shabbos only an issur to fast. (Issur
> aseh)

I know of at least one person who got an OK from his Rav to forego eating
bread completely on Shabbos while on the Atkins diet.

KT
Aryeh

Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote 
> Now that our attention is on Sh"A 168:10, please note that the MB there
> (#60) says explicitly that bread which has been crumbled "as finely as
> soless" has lost its Toar Lechem (but that since it is simply plain
> bread, it will remain a pile of Hamozti crumbs until and unless those
> crumbs are Mechubar to each other in some fashion).

After looking into the sugyah again I will be modeh that matzah meal cakes
should be allowed to be eaten. However, with one caveat. The Mishna Brerurah
quoted above (168:50) is not entirely accurate. The MB says that in regards
to bread crumbled and then stuck back together SEE THE MAGAN AVRAHAM.  Now
what does the Magan Avraham say? The Magan Avraham is mesupak what the
status of this mixture is. He is not sure if it is Hamotzi or Mezonos. There
is a whole long Machatzis Hashekel on this which I did not go through but
I'm sure goes through the whole sugyah. Becaus eof this safek that is why
the MB says in Hilchos Pesach 471:19 says the following A) You can not eat
this type of food on Erev Pesach and B) You also CAN NOT be yotzei mitzvas
matzah with this food. In explaining this all the MB says is look in MB
168:50. In 168:50 he says like I mentioned above-see the Magan Avraham (who
says he is mesupak).

However, the hetter to eat matzah meal cakes comes from the end of the MB
168:50 in which he says if there is a lot of honey and fats then everyone
would agree you make mezonos (because it has lost it's toar lechem) . That
being the case you would be allowed to eat such a food on Erev Pesach.
However, you could not use matzah meal cake for lechem mishna even if you
were koveia seudah on it. The MB in 168 says explicitly that for all these
food in which we pasken you make a mezonos, you make a mezonos even if you
are koveiah seudah on them.

One last point. It seems we can make a Brisker vort out of this. There are 2
dinim in matzah on Pesach. One is it needs a taam/shem matzah (which bishul
removes) and the  other is it needs a Toar Lechem. 

>permitted to avoid eating excessive amounts of kodshim for health
reasons?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Meseches Tamid relates there was a doctor in Mikdash because the cohanim ate
meat while serving barefoot on the cold floor causing stomach difficulties.
So we see achilas kodhim overrides standard health considerations.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>> permitted to avoid eating excessive amounts of kodshim for health reasons?

> Meseches Tamid relates there was a doctor in Mikdash because the cohanim ate
> meat while serving barefoot on the cold floor causing stomach difficulties.
> So we see achilas kodhim overrides standard health considerations.

Not necessarily:

1.  Clearly the kohanim had to eat meat and had to walk barefoot.  But OTOH
they were not required to eat an achilah gasah's worth of meat.  Perhaps
they also were not required to eat bal tashchis d'gufa's worth of meat.

2.  I don't have the gemara in front of me.  Is it clear that the kohanim
*had* to eat an unhealthy amount of meat?  Maybe their desire for meat got
the best of them (or maybe each one hoped that he would be able to eat a lot
of meat w/o problems) and that's why there was a doctor there.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:16:03AM +0300, S. Goldstein wrote:
: Meseches Tamid relates there was a doctor in Mikdash because the cohanim ate
: meat while serving barefoot on the cold floor causing stomach difficulties.
: So we see achilas kodhim overrides standard health considerations.

This argues in favor of requiring someone to break the Atkin's diet for
mishneh lechem. Albeit, for the minimum kebei'ah.

-mi

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote in Avodah V7 #15:
>There is nothing wrong with davening in another language.

Come again?!?  I think the halakha here relates to someone who *cannot* 
daven in Hebrew and hence may daven in the vernacular, provided that the 
congregation understands.

>Quite the opposite, one should
>not publicly deviate from a shul's minhag. My case was a Syrian shul. He
>told me that if I were to get an aliyah I should say the berachos with
>a Syrian havarah (as best as I could)

The matter becomes more complex in a shul which has departed from its 
parents' minhag - say Ashkenazim who have begun to pray with havara 
Sefaradit.  I know at least one talmid hakham who, in such a shul, will 
pray from the amud with havara Ashkenazit, while from the amud in a 
Sefaradi shul he prays with havara Sefaradit (or his best approximation 
thereof).

>with the following exception.

>Names cannot be translated. Therefore, names like Hashem's name, Avrohom,
>Yitzchok, etc. should be pronounced in one's own nusach.

This is not clear to me at all.

>  The Chazon Ish
>held that no matter what Hashem's name should be pronounced in one's own
>nusach.

My understanding of what the Hazon Ish said was that even Sefaradim should 
pronounce shem Hashem as do the Ashkenazim.  Have you a source?

And Harav Ovadya Yosef likes to quote Harav AYH Kook that each Jew should 
continue to pray with the havara that his father used.

An interesting nafka mina would be how one whose father changed havara from 
HIS father should pray.

>That is why there are many Religous Zionist types who speak in
>Modern Hebrew but say Hashem's name in Ashkenazis. RYBS felt that all
>names should be pronounced like that.

Sush as Ahashpardana?  Haman?  Y'gar Sahaduta? (There's a name that has 
been translated, BTW.)  Esther

                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

From: Edward Weidberg [mailto:eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com]
>> [Moshe:] I've always wondered about this.  Is it clear that all gzeiros
>> m'drabbanan that were applied to Korban Pesach are automatically applied
>> to the afikoman?  And, to the extent that we have a safek l'halacha, would
>> we say sfeikah d'rabbanan l'kula?

> All this is only l'chetchila as the afikomen is zecher l'pesach.
> See MB 477:6, Biur Halacha D"H Vihay. It seems also from Sha'ar HaTziun
> 4 that l'chetchila we are chosheish for shitas Rashi and Rashbam that
> the afikomen is eaten for the Di'oraisa mitzva of matzoh.

It may be that we are eating the afikoman, rather than the motzi matzah, for
the d'oraissa mitzvah.  But I would think that you can make a t'nai (and
probably you don't even need to make one) that if you don't eat the afikoman
by chatzos, the motzi matzah will count for the d'oraissa.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Markowitz, Chaim [mailto:CMarkowitz@scor.com]
> However, the hetter to eat matzah meal cakes comes from the end of the MB
> 168:50 in which he says if there is a lot of honey and fats then everyone
> would agree you make mezonos (because it has lost it's toar lechem) . 

I don't think that losing toar lechem requires mixture with lots of honey &
fats.  The fact is that kichel & pretzels are mezonos, based on the view
that mezonos includes k'achin she'kos'sin oson b'vais hamishteh.  So if
matzo meal is used to make pretzels or kichel, the bracha would be mezonos.

> That being the case you would be allowed to eat such a food on Erev Pesach.
> However, you could not use matzah meal cake for lechem mishna even if you
> were koveia seudah on it. 

Here's a puzzle: how about baking matzo meal "bread"?  It would not have
toar matzah (compare to the case where matzah meal was made into
pretzels)--for example, you could not be yotzay matzos mitzvah with it.  But
it would be hamotzi--not because of the matzah that it once was, but because
of the "bread" that it is now.  Am I missing something?

> The MB in 168 says explicitly that for all these
> food in which we pasken you make a mezonos, you make a mezonos even if you
> are koveiah seudah on them.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

RYGB posts, for VIDC #7, <<< The Noda b'Yehuda MK OC 20  writes... if
someone who has neither sold nor been mevatel his chometz dies Erev
Pesach after Chatzos, ... that chometz is muttar after Pesach ... >>>

At the moment he died, the chometz was already assur b'hanaah d'Oraisa.
Does Chometz She'avar Alav Hapesach apply only to what was "owned" from
the night and onwards, but not to what was "owned" on Erev Pesach
afternoon?

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:15:07PM -0400, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: FWIW, the simanim in an old Roeldelhim Haggadah are as follows:
: Kadesh   uRchatz

Q, not just lishitas Roedelheim: Why is "urchatz" attached by vav hachibbur
to Kaddeish? Isn't it a preparation for karpas, not a coda for kiddush?

: Maggid   uRchatz (n.a. Rachzah)

I have a problem with a mnemonic that uses the same word twice. As I
mentioned on Areivim in our discussion of siddurim, I have a problem when
saying by heart a tefillah that has a phrase that appears elsewhere --
my memory sometimes "switches tracks" continuing with the phrase after
the other occurance. I would think that a repetition of the word "uRchatz"
would be similarly flawed. Whereas "Rachtzah" or "Rachatz" would not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Look at how he is ridiculed by the Baalei Tosfot"
> Rosh Hashana 13a d"h d'akrivu; Taanit 20b d"h b'hachinto; Kiddushin
> 37b d"h Mi'mocharat hashabbat

In R"H and Kiddushin, R' ibn Ezra is discussed with as much derech eretz as
Rashi.  In Taanis, he is an example of a sir-name, somethhing foreign to the
Tos.  There seems to be no disrepect there.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 02:08:23PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:            Thus, it is easier to disagree with the Meiri then with Rambam.

In Nefesh haRav, RYBS is cited as suggesting that the Me'iri doesn't
have the din of a rishon WRT defining halachah. That HKBH hid his
sefarim during most of the development of halachah, and that too is part of
the halachic process.

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:12:38AM -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
: However, the end of the period of rishonim in Sefarad seems to me to be
: at the time of the exile from Spain and its great upheaval...

I want to revive a suggestion I made in the past, primarily because no
one responded to it. I assume it doesn't make it into these conversations
because it's overly naive, in which case I invite people to educate me
as to why.

Li nir'eh there are two components to the change of halachic era: not only
an upheaval, but also the sense that some seifer recently before that
upheaval represents a different kind of hora'ah than anything possible
after the upheaval.

I suggested that this is why the end of the zuggos didn't represent
a different era than tannaim, or amoraim vs savoraim, or geonim vs
rishonim -- each of whom felt free to argue with their pre-rupture
counterparts. Whereas the end of the tannaim and amoraim/savoraim are
firmly identified with the mishnah and bavli, respectively.

(The suggestion that the Rambam treated the ammendments of the savoraim
to the gemara differently than the base text means that he treated the
acceptance of the base text to be the end of the era. Whereas others
feel it was the final version.)

I would therefore suggest that the Shulchan Aruch and the Mappa, each of
which are acknowledged as being the end of hora'ah (until the Bach and the
Taz which are also called the end of hora'ah) actually mark the end of the
era in each kehillah WRT the minhag or din of not arguing with rishonim.

(Whereas Teimani rishonim ended all the way back with the Rambam!)

I think R' Mechy Frankel's surprise that this is the opinion of the
hamon am, as opposed to the scholarly position of Ta-Shma, is because
of the difference between historical and halachic period. Even though
Ta-Shma was attempting to classify the latter, he can't possibly capture
the point by using historical methodology.

Instead, we should be looking for evidence to the contrary -- indication
that it's normal for Ashkeazi gedolim between the 13th century and the
Mappa to argue with those rishonim before the 13th century without al
mi lismoch. Or indication that Sepharadi gedolim between the late 15th
century and the Beis Yosef in the 16th commonly argued with those before
the S"A without al mi lismoch from that earlier period.

As to R' Mechy Frankel's ra'ayos that R' Yosef Karo wasn't a rishon, my
classification would make him a cusp figure -- not quite either.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>> So we see achilas kodhim overrides standard health considerations.

> Not necessarily:
> 1.  Clearly the kohanim had to eat meat and had to walk barefoot.  But OTOH
> they were not required to eat an achilah gasah's worth of meat.  Perhaps
> they also were not required to eat bal tashchis d'gufa's worth of meat.

> 2.  ...

My point, and I think you agree in #1, is that under non-mitzvah
circumstances, the cohen would skip such delicacies.  It seems that the
mitzva of eating, like other mitzvos (Minchas Chinuch on Milchemes Mitzva)
requires a certain physical stress on the body's systems.

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:52:53PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Gershon Dubin argued to me (offline) that the candles on the seder table
: must last until the beginning of the actual meal (Shulchan Orech)...

Why Shulachan Oreich? While we do link hadlakas neiros to eating the
se'udah (e.g. in terms of location), wouldn't having the neiros for
Kaddeish and Karpas be sufficient? Kiddush bimakom se'udah links kaddeish
to the se'udah, no? If not, then Motzi [and] Matzah start the se'udah.

Also, I think that the question of possible berachah levatalah may be
going too far. By similar reasoning, would you require not turning on the
dining room lights so that you really are eating le'or haneir?

In either case, it's a nice motivation to use less water in our oil
glasses on the seder night. It is very little effort that way to be
mekayeim this inyan.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:10:00AM -0500, RYGB <rygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
: The Noda b'Yehuda MK OC 20 writes that if someone who has neither sold nor
: been mevatel his chometz dies Erev Pesach after Chatzos, the heirs are not
: required to be meva'er that chometz, and that chometz is muttar after
: Pesach, as chometz achar Shesh is not mammon that can be bequeathed. See
: also MT 65.

This also suggests an answer to an earlier VIDC. If bittul chameitz
is midin hefker, we should notice that we're only being mevateil a
"ke'ilu hen birshuso" (KHB). The majority of the bittul is done without
the person's work. This already makes it different than bittul karim
u'kesasos.

: The Hararei Kodesh there 59:9 notes a contradiction, seemingly, between
: this NbY and the NbY MK #19 ...                             The question
: is, of course, that one cannot acquire Issurei Hano'oh. The NbY himself
: answers that since vis a vis Bal Yeiro'eh the Torah regards chometz as
: his as regards the issur, it is also mammon vis a vis zehiyah.

The only answer that hit me was the one I later saw in R' Gil Student's
post -- the difference between ba'alus and KHB. I want to cast this
answer into a more Telzer light by exploring the difference between
the two.

R' Dovid Lifshitz was once approached before shiur by somone who had
recently bought a co-op. The problem was that the co-op board didn't
allow him to change the appearance of the outside of his domicile
by hanging a mezuzah.

RDL suggested (warning: I can't recall if this was maskanah or hava
amina) that perhaps someone who doesn't have the authority to hang a
mezuzah lacks ba'alus, and therefore wouldn't be mechuyav to. (In
either case, he suggested moving to a friendlier venue.)

Note the implication, even if this was only a hava amina: A rentor who
can hang a mezuzah has more ba'alus than an owner who may not. Ba'alus
is not the same concept as that denoted by the English word "ownership".

"Ba'alus", and similarly "reshus", have to do with control over the
object. Note the literal translations of the words: one means "master"
and the other "has persmission".

Which is why an issur removes ba'alus. Becuase if hana'ah is assur,
then in what sense is one a ba'al, or does one have reshus to do with
it as he pleases?

Yerushah is of ba'alus, not ownership.

KHB is the statement that even though he can't control the object, it's
still assur for him to posess.

(Does the use of a statement about mezuzah to resolve a question about
chameitz make this a Poilisher teirutz?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]