Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 006

Monday, October 17 2005

• RE: Lulavim
• RE: Shofar on Shabbos
• Shofar on Shabbos
• Re: shofar on shabbos
• Otzar Beit Din
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Re: Torah and Evolution
• Re: Torah & Evolution
• Ha'azinu Hosafos
• Re: s'chach
• Re: statistics
• Re: Morbidity statistics for charedim in Jerusalem
• RE: Shofar on Shabbos
• RE: Shofar on Shabbos
• RE: shofar on shabbos
• Re: shofar on shabbos
• Re: statistics
• Re:Laws of the Sukka according to Dr. Suess
• illegal succah
• modern explanations of Mishna
• RE: Lulavim
• RE: Lulavim

Mike Wiesenberg <torahmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>There have been reports of many lulav sellers adding a surcharge to their
>pre-ordered sets.
>Is this considered being Mechusar Amanah? Or does that not apply since the
>cost went up?

It would depend if there was a kinyan or not. The surcharges this year
were very out of the ordinary, so I would think that it could not be
considered part of the equation when the deal was made (whereas normal
market fluctuation can be expected, and may be part of the original deal.

However I have not had time to doublecheck the sources, so please ask
someone who has time to. (B"H I just made a bris today an still must build
my Succah. If you're interested, I could try to look into it over YomTov.)

Dov

On October 16, 2005 Shaya Potter wrote:
> What about Shofer on YK? Isn't YK "Shabbos", could one have the same
> worry on YK that one would have on RH? Or is it the fact that YK ALWAYS
> has the status of shabbos different from RH that can fall out on shabbos?

There is no chiyuv of tekias shofar on YK. It is merely a minhag. Tosfos
explains that the reason for tekias shofar is to inform everyone that
it is a mini-yom tov (now that our sins have been forgivien) and we
should go home and be marbeh b'seuda and wish each other a good yom tov
etc. Others say the reason is to indicate the siluk shechina back to the
elyonim after Neilah is over. Whatever the case, it is clear that the
minhag is to blow shofar *after* YK is over, not during. On YK itself,
it is assur to blow the shofar.

Simcha Coffer

Shaya Potter wrote: 
> Kindly illustrate. A dozen is not necessary. One or two will do the
> trick. And they can't be Lulav or Megilah and they have to be chilul
> Shabbos related in order to fit the parameters of the Gemara's concern.

The above was in regard to my posting regarding shofar on Shabbos in
which I said:
"However, I cannot accept that. I believe his insight is AFTER the
fact and if that were the real case: "to avoid such an unlikely event,"
then I can think of a dozen other halachot and/or minhagim that should
be different too."

O.K. You want one or two which have to be chilul Shabbos related. Here
are two:
Given the line of reasoning which I feel I couldn't accept for the
reasons I gave, then why didn't the rabbis have a bris where the 8th day
was Shabbos Yom Kippur moved to Sunday, lest the Mohel be in a weakened
state and the baby's safety and health would be at stake?

A second scenario: Why didn't the rabbis not allow a bris at all on
Shabbos lest the Mohel would have to carry his equipment?

Shaya also wrote (which I found quite interesting):
What about Shofer on YK? Isn't YK "Shabbos", could one have the same
worry on YK that one would have on RH? Or is it the fact that YK ALWAYS
has the status of shabbos different from RH that can fall out on shabbos?

I'm not quite sure what he meant by this but what it made me wonder is
something else. If Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, then why wasn't the
tekia g'dola forbidden at the end because the baal tokia might forget
and carry the shofar to shul on Shabbos in order to sound the tekia
g'dola at the very end?

It occurs to me that unlike all other yomtovim, Rosh Hashana is celebrated
for two days even IN Eretz Yisrael because of the inevitable sefeika
deyoma of its being on Rosh Chodesh but how could you know -- when it's
time to light candles and make kiddush -- whether or not it's rosh
chodesh yet? So IIRC Chazal made it always two days and called it "one
long day" -- therefore they knew, obviously, that at least one day of RH
(or one half of the yama arichta) would always be a non-Shabbos, so if
they stopped people from blowing shofar on Shabbos to prevent possible
chillul Shabbos, there would still always be shofar-blowing on every
Rosh Hashana. It's not as if there was ever only a one-day Rosh Hashana,
and if it fell on Shabbos, they just didn't blow shofar that year.

--Toby  Katz
=============

This shabbos I saw a bottle of Israeli wine. The label says "Kadosh
bikdushat shevi'it / Otzar Beit Din / Zeman biur: Erev Pesach 5762".
The wine was shipped by an Israeli wine merchant to a customer in the USA.

1. AFAIK, it's forbidden to export perot shevi'it from EY. So this bottle
should never have come to the USA in the first place. Now it's here,
though - the avera has been done; is it permitted to consume it in chu"l?
If not, what should be done with it?

2. Again, AFAIK, the wine merchant, like everyone else in the supply chain
before him, may not make a profit from this wine, but must pass it on at
cost (including a reasonable proportion of his overhead, but no more).
Since this was sold at the normal price for wine of its quality, I assume
that this law has been blatantly violated, both by the merchant and by
his suppliers. Does that affect the kashrut of the wine?

3. The wine is 2001 vintage (shemita year), and according to the label
it spent 14 months in French oak barrels before being bottled. It seems
to me, therefore, that it must have been bottled well after the zeman
biur. I will assume for the moment that the vintner did perform biur,
by wheeling the barrels out on to the road and leaving them there for
the required time (how long?), and only after nobody showed up to take
them did the vintner reclaim them from hefker, and put them back in
the cellar to finish aging and be bottled, cased, and "sold" at cost,
all with the approval of the beit din. But I'm still puzzled; if, as
seems likely, the wine was bottled, and the label affixed, after the
zeman biur, why does the label mention the zeman? What is the ultimate
owner supposed to do about it?

4. I had been under the impression that at the zeman biur not only do
you had to put the stuff out, but if nobody takes it, and you reclaim it
from hefker, you still have to either consume it promptly or destroy it.
Is that not the case? Once you have taken it from hefker can you keep
it for as long as you like?

5. What exactly does kedushat shevi'it involve? I know it means you have
to consume it in the usual fashion, and not do strange things with it
(does that mean no cooking with it?). I understand it also means you
can't destroy it while it's still drinkable, which with wine means it
can sit for decades. (How does that mesh with my prior understanding of
biur? Was I wrong about having to destroy it, or does it mean that you
may not destroy it until the zeman, and then you suddenly *have* to?)

6. I thought that, in general, sefichei shemitah, including Otzar BD,
is not to be sold through the usual channels of commerce; that the Otzar
has its own distribution points, where you go and pick up whatever they
happen to have in stock. So how does a bottle like this end up in a wine
shop in the first place? And if it is allowed to get into shops, isn't it
the BD's responsibility to make sure that the merchant knows the rules,
and that he passes them on to whoever takes custody of the wine after him?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On October 16, 2005 Yisrael Medad wrote:
> Last week, I was filmed in Jerusalem for a documentary produced for
> showing in England in January, I think, on the issue of the Temple Mount
> and how religion can "interfere", so to say, with what secular people
> would consider a very straightforward political question.

> The interviewer, who filmed the Mufti of Jerusalem the day
> previously, and was off to Lourdes and other sites where religion
> has "interfered", was Richard Dawkins. He seems to be, unbeknowest
> to me previously to the invitation to be interviewed, one of the
> world's outstanding pro-evolution and anti-religious interpretation
> academics (see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins> and
> <http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml>)
...

As an anti-evolutionist (dare I use the dirty word creationist?) I am
very familiar with Richard Dawkins and his writings. He is probably
the most influential evolutionist alive today and is most assuredly
an unmitigated atheist whose entire Weltanschauung is predicated on
rejecting the presence of a creator. It is typical for the liberal press
of England to send someone like him to cover what is ostensibly supposed
to be an unbiased report on religiosity and its affect on politics. His
conclusions are virtually guaranteed from the start and any material
you send him will invariably be used against you.

Simcha Coffer

Try some of RYBS's writings like Lonely Man of Faith and The Emergence
of Ethical Man.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In  Avodah V16 #5 dated 10/16/2005 Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@gmail.com> 
writes:
> Last week, I was filmed in Jerusalem for a documentary produced for
> showing in England in January...
> The interviewer, who filmed the Mufti of Jerusalem the day previously,
> and was off to Lourdes and other sites where religion has "interfered",
> was Richard Dawkins. ....Well, since the interview, I have been sending
> him material (better late than never).
> Any suggestions from the list as to the best article they would use?

If the interviewer was Richard Dawkins, you may be sure that he played
you for a fool. Every religious person plays the clown to Dawkins'
straight man, in the *World According to Richard Dawkins.* It doesn't
matter what you said, when they see you on TV in England you will look
like a blithering idiot.

As for sending him articles to inform him or change his mind about
anything, you might as well send them straight to the Ohel where they
immediately shred all incoming mail. Or just pre-shred your own paper
and save on postage.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

The gabbai in my shul came over to the Rav before laining and asked if he
could have the baal koreh make a hosafa this week. The Ezras Torah luach
says "korin shiva v'ain mosifin" without any further elaboration. Based
on the gemara's statement of "Haziv lach" as a siman for where the aliyos
should start/end, I would have thought that one could not make hosafos in
the shira itself, but in shvi'i, one could make a hosafa (at the start
of maftir, 4 psukim into shvi'i), but because of the psak of R' Henkin
zt'l as quoted in the luach, we did not make any hosafos (Baruch Hashem!).

My question is, why does R' Henkin say "ain mosifin"? The Shaarei Ephraim
does discuss this sha'alo and says that one could make hosafos from
"vayavo Moshe" to the end of the parsho. Someone proposed that mishum
kvodo shel Moshe v'Aharon we do not repeat the psukim that talk about
the reason why they didn't enter Eretz Yisroel, but I find this difficult
to accept as R' Henkin's reason is not printed in the luach and I would
think that this ta'am would have been printed if it had been the true
explanation.

Any other explanations>
Kol tuv and Good Yom Tov!
Ari

I wrote about shade coming from the s'chach alone, and not from an
adjoining building (or tree) :
"This is stated explicitly in the very first Beur Halacha in Hilchot
Succah (OC 426:1)."

I wrote the siman incorrectly (twice). It is OC 626. I regret this error.

Chag sameach.
Saul Mashbaum

On 10/16/05, Leonid Portnoy <leonid.portnoy@verizon.net> wrote:
> I think the answer that Chana Luntz gave would apply to this question too.
> As I understand it, she said that life/death determination is made on Rosh
> Hashanah only for tzadikim or reshoim, however for benonim it is made to
> depend on the level of nes that is required to keep them alive. In other
> words, whether a benoni lives or dies is a function of external factors
> (state of medicine, safety measures, etc.) because these factors determine
> the level of nes required to avoid death. It's possible to apply the same
> reasoning to one's income - if one is truly deserving (a tzadik) then his
> level of income is fixed, to a high amount, at Rosh Hashanah, and conversely
> for a rasha. If one is a benoni, however, then whether or not his financial
> needs are met might depend on the level of nes required for that to occur.

I agree completely with the answers. My point was that even though there
are many sources in our tradition that the benoni is left to the whims of
nature this is not the "popular" picture painted by contemporary rabbis
who follow the the shitah that absolutely nothing in the world is left
to chance.

Certainly the prayer "be-rosh hashana yechatevu ..." implies that on Rosh
Hashana our fortune for the year is determined both in terms of life,
health and financially.

Chag Sameach,
Eli
--
Eli Turkel

In  Avodah V16 #5 dated 10/16/2005  Dr. JB writes:
>>Way back in 1986, I came across a paper in the Intl J Cardiology
written by members of our hospital's lipid unit on the very unexpected
finding of a relative risk of coronary heart disease in the Jerusalem
charedi population that was ONE FOURTH that of the secular or "dati"
communities even though the population violated every rule in the book:
overweight, chain-smokers, zero exercise [shukling wasn't included
:-)], junk food, Type-A behavior. [The team had worked with a number of
chassidic groups]<<

This could possibly provide evidence that teshuva, tefilla and tzedaka
ma'avirin es roa hagezeirah, but then RJB provides something of a
naturalistic explanation for his data:
>> Our preventive cardiology unit suggested (and this was published in
the journal) that the mechanism could be daily (multiple) immersion in
a hot Mikva [head out water immersion].<<

But -- "head out water immersion"?! Do men who use the mikva daily
typically leave their heads out of the water? And if they do immerse
their heads, how does that affect your theory?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 00:55 -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
>> What about Shofer on YK? Isn't YK "Shabbos", could one have the same
>> worry on YK that one would have on RH? Or is it the fact that YK ALWAYS
>> has the status of shabbos different from RH that can fall out on shabbos?

> There is no chiyuv of tekias shofar on YK. It is merely a minhag. Tosfos
> explains that the reason for tekias shofar is to inform everyone that
> it is a mini-yom tov (now that our sins have been forgivien) and we
> should go home and be marbeh b'seuda and wish each other a good yom tov
> etc. Others say the reason is to indicate the siluk shechina back to the
> elyonim after Neilah is over. Whatever the case, it is clear that the
> minhag is to blow shofar *after* YK is over, not during. On YK itself,
> it is assur to blow the shofar.

You sort of avoided my question. If the issue is that you might do
something "bad" with the shofer on shabbos RH (whatever that "bad"
thing is), couldn't the same issue apply to doing something with the
shofer on YK as you'll be using it right after YK ends.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 10:48 -0400, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> Shaya Potter wrote: 
>> Kindly illustrate. A dozen is not necessary. One or two will do the
>> trick. And they can't be Lulav or Megilah and they have to be chilul
>> Shabbos related in order to fit the parameters of the Gemara's concern.

> The above was in regard to my posting regarding shofar on Shabbos in
> which I said:
...

I didn't write the above.

> Shaya also wrote (which I found quite interesting):
> What about Shofer on YK? Isn't YK "Shabbos", could one have the same
> worry on YK that one would have on RH? Or is it the fact that YK ALWAYS
> has the status of shabbos different from RH that can fall out on shabbos?

> I'm not quite sure what he meant by this but what it made me wonder is
> something else. If Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, then why wasn't the
> tekia g'dola forbidden at the end because the baal tokia might forget
> and carry the shofar to shul on Shabbos in order to sound the tekia
> g'dola at the very end?

It shouldn't matter if YK is on shabbos or not. YK IS shabbos, not chag.
(at least thats what I was always taught). Hence my Q. Same Q as yours.

On October 17, 2005 Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> Shaya Potter wrote:
>> Kindly illustrate. A dozen is not necessary. One or two will do the
>> trick. And they can't be Lulav or Megilah and they have to be chilul
>> Shabbos related in order to fit the parameters of the Gemara's concern.

Actually, I was the one who requested the above. Shaya tried to defend you
by bringing up the issue of shofar on YK to which I responded that tekias
shofar is indeed assur on YK.

> The above was in regard to my posting regarding shofar on Shabbos in
> which I said:
> "However, I cannot accept that. I believe his insight is AFTER the
> fact and if that were the real case: "to avoid such an unlikely event,"
> then I can think of a dozen other halachot and/or minhagim that should
> be different too."

> O.K. You want one or two which have to be chilul Shabbos related. Here
> are two:
> Given the line of reasoning which I feel I couldn't accept for the
> reasons I gave, then why didn't the rabbis have a bris where the 8th day
> was Shabbos Yom Kippur moved to Sunday, lest the Mohel be in a weakened
> state and the baby's safety and health would be at stake?

Two things. First of all, your case has nothing to do with the issue at
hand. Health and safety is one issue, chilul Shabbos is another. However,
just to address your question, I don't remember a bris where the mohel
already ate breakfast before he preformed the mila, do you? There are
occasionally afternoon bris'in (I understand that this occurs more
often in Israel) but I can't imagine that we would have a problem with
a mohel performing a mila because he skipped a meal that day. People
are a little more resilient than that. I think that invoking a "baby's
safety and health" under these circumstances is a bit much.

> A second scenario: Why didn't the rabbis not allow a bris at all on
> Shabbos lest the Mohel would have to carry his equipment?

Well, first of all, I'm sure you are aware that not all the Rabbis are
of the opinion that it is assur to carry equipment related to a bris
on Shabbos. R' Eliezer holds that machsheeray mitzvah are dochin ess
haSahbbos. And although we pasken like R' Akiva, that only items that
cannot be prepared in advance are docheh ess haShabbos, your question
can easily be answered. You see, in the case of shofar, the entire
klal yisrael is simultaneously obligated to blow the shofar on RH thus
dramatically increasing the chances that some people will be michalel
Shabbos. However, by mila, we are discussing one person, and if he will
be performing the mila he is probably a baki anyway so the chances of
chilul Shabbos are slim to none. As I mentioned in my first email, if
you feel you cannot "accept" the Gemara's reason, you must illustrate
your problem with a situation that is similar to the Gemara's concern.

> Shaya also wrote (which I found quite interesting):
> What about Shofer on YK? Isn't YK "Shabbos", could one have the same
> worry on YK that one would have on RH? Or is it the fact that YK ALWAYS
> has the status of shabbos different from RH that can fall out on shabbos?

> I'm not quite sure what he meant by this

He meant to defend you by illustrating a case where shofar was mutar to
blow on Shabbos despite the fact that one might carry. He then questioned
his own reasoning by proposing that since Yom Kippur always has the
din of Shabbos (except that it is chayvei krisus rather than sekila),
perhaps it should differ from RH. I responded to him there is no chiyuv
of tekias shofar on Yom Kippur and that the whole inyan of tekias shofar
on mozay YK is a minhag.

> but what it made me wonder is
> something else. If Yom Kippur falls on Shabbos, then why wasn't the
> tekia g'dola forbidden at the end because the baal tokia might forget
> and carry the shofar to shul on Shabbos in order to sound the tekia
> g'dola at the very end?

Once again, you are asking from a dissimilar case. The case of RH is
referring to millions of private citizens spread out across the entire
country, some of whom are am aratzim and due to the fact that they
don't know how to blow the shofar, they might take it to a baki. On YK,
there is no private chiyuv to hear tekias shofar and thus no one will
be carrying their shofaros from home to a baki to have them blow. Tekias
shofar after YK is only a minhag tzibur so if you happened to be in shul
after YK is over, you will hear a blast. Also, in view of the fact that
the baal-tokeah is blowing the shofar, he is probably a baki. We are
not choshesh bekeeim of carrying on Shabbos just am aratzim. Besides,
even if the baal-tokeah was an am haAretz, YK doesn't have nearly the
same statistical probability of chilul Shabbos as RH does (due to its
tzibbur centerd nature) and thus a gezeira was not necessary.

Simcha Coffer

On October 17, 2005 T613K@aol.com wrote:
> It occurs to me that unlike all other yomtovim, Rosh Hashana is celebrated
> for two days even IN Eretz Yisrael because of the inevitable sefeika
> deyoma of its being on Rosh Chodesh but how could you know -- when it's
> time to light candles and make kiddush -- whether or not it's rosh
> chodesh yet?

What's the problem? Light candles and make Kiddush in anticipation of
the eidim coming tomorrow.

> So IIRC Chazal made it always two days and called it "one
> long day" -- therefore they knew, obviously, that at least one day of RH
> (or one half of the yama arichta) would always be a non-Shabbos, so if
> they stopped people from blowing shofar on Shabbos to prevent possible
> chillul Shabbos, there would still always be shofar-blowing on every
> Rosh Hashana.

Your recollection is faulty. The yoma arichta business was only
permanently established after the Beis haMikdash was charev. Before that,
most of the time RH was only one day in Israel (in places where they
were close enough to the Sanhedrin to find out on that day). See Rosh
Hashana daf 31: and Beitza daf 4:

> It's not as if there was ever only a one-day Rosh Hashana,
> and if it fell on Shabbos, they just didn't blow shofar that year.

Well, I'll grant that the above was probably true 99 percent of the
time but only because the sanhederin was generally stationed in the Bais
haMikdash and the halachah is "ein shvus baMikdash" so they always blew
in the Bais haMikdash. But what will you say during the time when the
Sanhedrin was exiled to yavneh?

Simcha Coffer

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> It occurs to me that unlike all other yomtovim, Rosh Hashana is celebrated
> for two days even IN Eretz Yisrael
<snip>
> therefore they knew, obviously, that <snip> if
> they stopped people from blowing shofar on Shabbos to prevent possible
> chillul Shabbos, there would still always be shofar-blowing on every
> Rosh Hashana.

What about lulav on Sukkos (only the first day is d'orayysa)?

David Riceman 

In message , Leonid Portnoy <leonid.portnoy@verizon.net> writes
>Let's consider the decline in mortality rates compared to 200 years
>ago, due to the use of modern technology (antibiotics, medical imaging,
>surgical procedures, and so on).

I've very much enjoyed the discussion surrounding Leonid Portnoy's
above comment, but the original comment is not entirely correct. Modern
technology has very little to do with the decline in mortality compared
to previous generations. Most of the mortality decline can be attributed
to improvements in diet and hygiene. A famous epidemiology bon mot (due
to whom, I forget) says that the mortality rate of a given city has very
little to do with the number of doctors who practice there.

Zackary Sholem Berger

On Areivim, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> the author of "The Laws of the Sukka according to Dr. Suess"
> cites the Shuchan Arukh twice in the footnotes, I believe correctly.

Nope. He claims that "You cannot build it in the month of June", and
references OC 636:1 about Succah Yeshana, but he either forgot or never
realised that the law of Succah Yeshana applies only to a structure
that was not built for a succah, but just happens by chance to comply
with the definition. An actual succah, built for that purpose, can be
built at any time, including June.

> RJoseph Lauer noted that the comment in the footnotes about the shade
> not coming from the walls is incorrect

The author actually makes this mistake twice. He says "You shouldn't
build it in a valley", and in a footnote says. "There is a location
referred to in the Talmud called Ashtarot Karnayim. According to the
discussion there are two hills, with a valley in between where the Sun
does not reach. Therefore it is impossible to sit in the shade of the
roof of the Sukkah. I can't find the reference...hopefully next year."

The reference is on the first amud of Masechet Succah, and it's presented
(by Abaye) as a ridiculous idea that nobody could believe. R Zeira
suggests that the reason why a succah can't be taller than 20 amot is
that you would be sitting in the shade of the walls, and Abaye tries
to refute this by saying that if so it would be impossible to build a
succah in Ashterot Karnayim, and therefore R Zeira must be wrong.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[Please stick to anhswering the opening question. -mi]

What is the law of a succah built against city regulations?
Just read an article of succot built in Bnei Brak on stilts. It seems
it is popular because they dont have balconies and the car spots on
the ground are taken by others.
It is banned by the city because it is very dangerous and could
collapse easily especially since they use the cheapest
contractor is frequently not licensed.
The city condemns the projects but doesnt enforve the law.
The rabbis also issue condemnations but not more than that.

Chag sameach
--
Eli Turkel

I just read the survey article by Aumann (recently nobel prize winner)
on the mishna in ketubot 93a. His explanation makes much more sense than
the struggle the gemara and rishonim to explain the mishna.
(In a longer article in Moriah which I have not read he discusses the
gemara).
While he is a professor of economics it is more prevalant more people
ion talmud departments to come up with more reasonable perushim than
was discovered by the rishonim.

What credence to we give to these perushim ASSUMING we are NOT talking
halacha le-maaseh.

BTW Aumann in his survey refers to this and says that he arrived at
his explanation thrpugh modern game theory that was not available to
the rishonim. However, his final explanation of the rules of the mishna
are straightforward and require no special mathematical talent and in
retrospect are quite reasonable and extend the mishna to the general case.

Chag sameach
--
Eli Turkel

[I should have pointed out that R' Dov Kramer is my chavrusah for a
seder in inyaniom bein adam lachaveiro. Mar'eh meqomos provided by
Linas haTzedeq <http://jewishvalues.us/>. As we learned the subject
of meshuserei emanah and change in sha'ar around Shavu'os time, I
forwarded him the email. RDK does not subscribe. In the future, kindly
CC <DovGoldie@cs.com> to include him in the conversation. -mi]

Mike Wiesenberg <torahmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>There have been reports of many lulav sellers adding a surcharge to their
>>pre-ordered sets.
>>Is this considered being Mechusar Amanah? Or does that not apply since the
>>cost went up?

I would say the latter. Mechusar Amanah does not apply when the moocher is
taking an obvious loss due to circumstances. Everyone knows that lulavim
are scarce this year and supply and demand has driven the prices up. My
moocher told me, before he handed me my esrog, that he would be charging
me more because of the lack of Egyptian lulavim. I was maskim in advance
so in my case, for sure he was not a mechusar amanah.

On October 16, 2005 DovGoldie@cs.com wrote:
> It would depend if there was a kinyan or not.

Not true. Mechusar amanah applies even on a mi shepara without a
kinyan. In fact, it can even apply if you promise to give a matana in
a case where it is a matana muetess.

Simcha Coffer

"S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On October 16, 2005 DovGoldie@cs.com wrote:
>> It would depend if there was a kinyan or not.

>Not true. Mechusar amanah applies even on a mi shepara without a
>kinyan. In fact, it can even apply if you promise to give a matana in
>a case where it is a matana muetess.

There is a machlokes rishonim whether a change in market value (shaar) is
considered a "matana mu-etes" or not. The tzad that it is seems to be based
on the notion that market fluctuations are normal, and can be expected. If
lulavim have never been held up in Egypt before, I don't know that it could
be considered as such.

Dov

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


[ 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         ]