Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 70

Thu, 23 Apr 2009

• 1. Re: Where Bread Comes From (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Where Bread Comes From (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Women at Duchenen (Ari Zivotofsky)
• 4. Re: Where Bread Comes From (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Where Bread Comes From (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Where Bread Comes From (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Selling Open Boxes (Arie Folger)
• 8. Kinyan on Shabbas? (Har Sinai) (harveyben...@yahoo.com)
• 9. Re: Kinyan on Shabbas? (Har Sinai) (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Selling Open Boxes (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Where Bread Comes From (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Where Bread Comes From (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 13. Re: Kinyan on Shabbas? (Har Sinai) (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Selling Open Boxes (Zev Sero)
• 15. length of solar year (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: Where Bread Comes From (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Kinyan on Shabbas? (Har Sinai) (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Qinyan on Shabbath? (Jay F Shachter)
• 19. Coincidences? You Decide. (Cantor Wolberg)
• 20. Re: Selling open boxes (Chana Luntz)

> I'd suggest reading the Rambam at the beginning of hilchot avodah Zara
> as to how avodah Zara was started by some well meaning folks.

> To  paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's famous insight (Any sufficiently
> advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic),Any sufficiently
> advanced mnemonic for bitachon is indistinguishable from superstition

> Joel Rich

Perhaps that's why yekkes and other misnagdim pushed qabbalah and
qabbalistic practices underground.

Not that they were intrinsically wrong for the sophisticate; but a mar'is
ayyin issue for the "amcha"

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> But to object to someone adopting a practice that serves as a mnemonic
:> for bitachon? As I said, that's simply not how Judaism was ever done.
:> (To equivicate: Except, perhaps, among followers of the Rambam.)

: I'd suggest reading the Rambam at the beginning of hilchot avodah Zara
: as to how avodah Zara was started by some well meaning folks.

You (nor RRW) don't address what I tried to make my basic premise. You
can't rail against people who like the notion of shlissel challah, and
not rail against the first of your ancestors to wash neigl vasr three
times on each hand (or 4) in a particular sequence. Or one of any of
hundreds of other practices that someone did because it inspired him
and since got enshrined as minhag.

Also, this person (e.g. Mrs B) may be doing something that their ancestors
did not, but the practice itself withstood "peer review" and made it into
Taamei haMinhagim and numerous chassidishe sefarim of that genre. It's
a little late to worry about Dor Enosh issues on this one.

BTW, the Oheiv Yisrael gives a more elaborate reason for the minhag
than I do. He invokes Yehoshua 5:11-12, when the BY ate old grain the
day after Pesach because the mun stopped. Same mafteiach shel geshamim,
but a different reason for the timing; and one that works for EY (when
geshamim would be ending just around now).

Nor do I see applicability. No one is turning the mafteiach for geshamim
into a subject rather than an object, or even into something to venerate.
RRW, implicitly raises the problems that Sabbateanism demonstrated when
he mentioned those communities that avoid Zoharic practices. Or at least,
new ones. AFAIK, Yekkes too wash neigl vasr as I do.

But the example, shlissel challah, isn't Zoharic; it leverages Nakh and
gemara only.

And what about singing "Keil Adon"? How does that differ? Once you get
started, the number of extrahalachic practices seems endless.

To get back to my thesis, I'll summarize it again (as it exists in my head
right now): I think you can't both lament the dry passionless observance
of halakhah and insist that no one embellish their practice with other
inspiring practices. What other pragmatic route would you give people
to inspire themselves? Historically speaking, this was always part of
the toolkit, and the source of numerous minhagim.

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?

the strange practice described in the email to Professor Levine about 
women not looking during duchening is not unique to Zurich and is 
discussed in this article:
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5762fall/Legal-ease.pdf

Micha Berger wrote:

> You (nor RRW) don't address what I tried to make my basic premise. You
> can't rail against people who like the notion of shlissel challah, and
> not rail against the first of your ancestors to wash neigl vasr three
> times on each hand (or 4) in a particular sequence. Or one of any of
> hundreds of other practices that someone did because it inspired him
> and since got enshrined as minhag.

Who says that's to inspire anyone?  The gemara says explicitly that
it's because only this sequence will induce the Ruach Ra'ah to go away.
The gemara assumes that the Ruach Ra'ah is a real thing, and has a
will of its own, and is a "princess" who must have things exactly her
way and won't leave without this specific ritual.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:32:31AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Who says that's to inspire anyone?  The gemara says explicitly that
: it's because only this sequence will induce the Ruach Ra'ah to go away.

I recall an article in Gesher (a YU journal), from the mid-80s, in which
the author contrasts neigl vasr al pi halakhah with al pi nistar.

The gemara requires washing bekoach gavra before eating or doing mitzvos.

It is qabbalah, not halakhah (except the halakhos that require respecting
minhag, at this point) that requires a specific pattern. The author
also noted that nigleh seems to treat taharah as a precondition for
certain activities, whereas nistar treats it as a state that is wrong
and should be corrected as soon as possible.

Following the qabbalah-derived version that is extrahalachic is about
being inspired by ideas of aggadita. No?

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?

 


To get back to my thesis, I'll summarize it again (as it exists in my
head right now): I think you can't both lament the dry passionless
observance of halakhah and insist that no one embellish their practice
with other inspiring practices. What other pragmatic route would you
give people to inspire themselves? Historically speaking, this was
always part of the toolkit, and the source of numerous minhagim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
IMHO it's not an either or, I have no problem with it as long as it's
recognized as an embellishment and thought about in terms of ROI (e.g.
baking 100 challah's versus going through your list of single friends)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

RMB wrote:
> When a non-Jew is buying a collection of open edibles handled by a bunch
> of strangers in a kitchen of unknown hygeine, I wonder how that line
> isn't crossed.

Your objection to selling only or mostly open boxes of chametz is well
taken. However, in the shtarot I used, property was invariably rented
out and the chamez sold agav qarqa', too. The property deal is sound.
I am told by one guy who sold his chametz to a non Jewish friend
(warning: don't do this without guidance by your LOR; shtarei mekhirat
'hametz are complex and can easily be inval?id or insufficient); the
NJ saw he was renting space, so he went and stored some equipment
there for a few days, which he had nowhere else to store. Obviously
the deal is attractive.

But, I agree that selling open boxes should be discouraged, even as it
should work.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

R. Micha Berger's response to my initial question re the validity of
accepting the Torah on Shabbas (being that the acceptance might be
considered a kinyan) mostly discussed the inyanim of accepting gifts on
Shabbas.
HB response:
1. I did not know that the Torah is/was considered a gift. I was taught,
that, among other things the Torah was not given to us to derive pleasure
from (as a gift does), but rather as a yoke upon our necks.
2. Kinyan Questions: 
A.? Did Hashem make us his nation at Har Sinai (or at Yetzias Mitzrayim?). If at Har Sinai, isn't that considered a Kinyan on the part of Hashem??
B. Didn't WE agree to accept the Torah at Har Sinai and follow its dictates (under pain of death acc: to chazal); Is that not to be considered a Kinyan?
C.?
Can we make a valid distinction between being commanded to do something
on Shabbas (as is the case with Har Sinai) as a ONE TIME commandment,
versus being commanded to do something Forever, as is the case with
Accepting the Torah?? Would the latter case not be akin (at the
minimum) to being a Kinyan?
D. Can one acquire an eved, get married,
or enter into any (lasting) legal obligations whatsoever on Shabbas
(accetping a neder on oneself?) ?? If not, why is Kabbalas Ol Malchut
Shamayim or Kabbas HaTorah (forever), any different if it was entered into on
Shabbas Kodesh?? (We are considered variously as "brides" of Hashem,
"Ovdei" Hashem, etc., )
E.
Perhaps Shabbas was not something that was binding on the Jews at the
Time of Har Sinai (as it preceded the kabbalah of Aseres Hadibros?) and
therefore all of these questions of mine are mute.... ???
Thanks much, HB


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090422/e61e72d4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:15:29AM -0700, harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:
: 1. I did not know that the Torah is/was considered a gift. I was taught,
: that, among other things the Torah was not given to us to derive pleasure
: from (as a gift does), but rather as a yoke upon our necks.

That's not what's relevent. The problem with qinyan is that it looks
like doing business, a shevus. With all the questions of how much of
shevus is deOraisa. I believe the particlar acts prohibited were left
to the rabbanan, even if one says the basic concept is deOraisa.

: 2. Kinyan Questions: 
: A Did Hashem make us his nation at Har Sinai (or at Yetzias
: Mitzrayim?). If at Har Sinai, isn't that considered a Kinyan on the part
: of Hashem??

He gave us the role of bechor. But we and every other nation are and
always were His.

Besides, He blows things around with wind in a reshus harabbim, causes
death, etc... Who ever said Hashem observes hilkhos Shabbos?

: B. Didn't WE agree to accept the Torah at Har Sinai and follow
: its dictates (under pain of death acc: to chazal); Is that not to be
: considered a Kinyan?

Isn't that the whole question -- given that there was a qinyan, how
could it be done on Shabbos? No one is saying it's not a qinyan; rather,
that like a gift that doesn't mean it's prohibited. Tzorekh mitzvah
or tzorekh Shabbos could override.

: C Can we make a valid distinction between being commanded to do something
: on Shabbas (as is the case with Har Sinai) as a ONE TIME commandment,
: versus being commanded to do something Forever, as is the case with
: Accepting the Torah?? Would the latter case not be akin (at the
: minimum) to being a Kinyan?

Certainly. That's why I mentioend horaas shaah. Accepting the Torah,
even if it otherwise would be assur, was within a navi's authority
to relay simply because it's one-time. Eliyahu beHar haCarmel.

: D. Can one acquire an eved, get married,
: or enter into any (lasting) legal obligations whatsoever on Shabbas
: (accetping a neder on oneself?) ?? If not, why is Kabbalas Ol Malchut
: Shamayim or Kabbas HaTorah (forever), any different if it was entered into on
: Shabbas Kodesh?? (We are considered variously as "brides" of Hashem,
: "Ovdei" Hashem, etc., )

There was a time when weddings were usually on Friday, so that the
seudah can overlap with seduas Shabbos. People were really really poor,
so saving the cost of a Shabbos meal was enough to suggest a time for
the wedding. So the question of weddings on Shabbos came up every time
the waited for a family member or otherwise ran into sheqi'ah.

The Semag permits, if the man hasn't yet fulfilled piryah verivyah.

The Rama was mesader qiddushin such a wedding (shu"t #125, sec 8) in the
case of a girl whose first enagement was broken off by the chasan when
her father died leaving them without a dowery. and this was her second
fiance. His main concern was a gezeirah maybe they'll write the kesuvah
on Shabbos, but I couldn't find this gezeirah when I looked through
Chazal. Not that my research failure should be taken to mean much. He
permits on the grounds of kavod haberi'os (not to further embarass her),
concern that the shiduch might be called off too (and she could remain
alone permanently). See also what he writes on OC 229:4.

From what I understand, this was the end of Friday weddings in Krakov,
so that further delays wouldn't cause a reoccurance of the problem.

(This was discussed in one of RaRakefetR's recorded shiurim on shu"t,
the year he focussed on the evolution of the current wedding ceremony.
I vaguely recall RAZZ having a column on the topic in Jewish Action.)

And the big problem discussed is the be'ilas mitzvah because gezeira shema
yishchot ben owf (Kesuvos 4a). See Tosafos (Kesuvos 7a "dehilkhasa")
who show that the gemara concludes be'ilah rishonah is permitted. The
Rif skips that beraisa, so I guess he agrees.

Enough to say that this metaphoric "wedding" would be fine.

: E. Perhaps Shabbas was not something that was binding on the Jews at the
: Time of Har Sinai (as it preceded the kabbalah of Aseres Hadibros?) and
: therefore all of these questions of mine are mute.... ???

I already mentioned that Shabbos was first given at Marah. I argued
that since the current chiyuv dates to Shavuos, not Marah, one could
argue that Matan Torah was letzorekh Shabbos, sufficient grounds for
accepting a gift on Shabbos -- and therefore it would seem sufficient
for other non-sales qinyanim as well.

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?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 06:10:05PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: (warning: don't do this without guidance by your LOR; shtarei mekhirat
: 'hametz are complex and can easily be inval??id or insufficient)...

Or the person who sold his pots and dishes, and then was told by his
LOR that he needed to toveil everything after Pesach. (We discussed this
in Apr 2001.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:32:31AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Who says that's to inspire anyone?  The gemara says explicitly that
> : it's because only this sequence will induce the Ruach Ra'ah to go away.

> I recall an article in Gesher (a YU journal), from the mid-80s, in which
> the author contrasts neigl vasr al pi halakhah with al pi nistar. 
> The gemara requires washing bekoach gavra before eating or doing mitzvos.
> It is qabbalah, not halakhah (except the halakhos that require respecting
> minhag, at this point) that requires a specific pattern.

We're not talking about washing for bread, or for davening, but about
negel vasser, which is in the morning.  Washing for bread does *not*
require a particular pattern - we wash each hand some number of times
and we do all the washings for each hand together simply because that
makes sense, but there's nothing wrong with varying it if one likes.

The only washing that requires a pattern is negel vasser, and that
pattern is required by halacha.  It's right in the gemara, so how can
you say that it's qabalah?


> Following the qabbalah-derived version that is extrahalachic is about
> being inspired by ideas of aggadita. No?

No, it's a practical matter of getting rid of the Ruach Ra'ah.  If
you wash in the prescribed pattern it will leave, and if not then
it won't.  It doesn't matter what kavanot you have, just that you
do the ritual correctly.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

R' Joel Rich wrote:
> To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke's famous insight (Any
> sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic), Any sufficiently advanced mnemonic for bitachon is
> indistinguishable from superstition.

A brilliant analogy!

And I'd suggest the following insight into both of them: In both cases, it
is critical to distinguish between the performer and the observer. The
observer merely sees the external trappings, and (especially if he is
reltively uneducated) will consider the actions to be magic and
superstition. But the performer is in a very different situation: if he
understands what he is doing, and how it works, even on a most rudimentary
level, then it is technology and bitachon.

But how basic can this rudimentary understanding be, and still be valid? My
guess is that if someone blindly feels that a schlissel challah (in and of
itself) will somehow bring parnasa, that is superstition. But if he says
something even so minor as, "I'm doing a minhag. I don't know the reason
for this minhag. I just do it because my parents did it. And that brings me
closer to HaShem. And in zechus of THAT, I may get a good parnasa." --
that's not superstition, that's a reasonable cause-and-effect.

(Disclaimer: In my mind, I'm still not sure what the difference is between
"I don't really understand how this 'computer' works, but the experts have
a very good understanding, and that's good enough", and "I don't really
understand how this 'eye of newt and toe of frog' works, but the experts
have a very good understanding, and that's good enough.")

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by filing for bankruptcy.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsKB0EG4OLO888etqyElvc1w6h6JdW7maiyGIPXGj01Rm7XLWbLuvO/

harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:

> D. Can one acquire an eved, get married, or enter into any (lasting) 
> legal obligations whatsoever on Shabbas (accetping a neder on oneself?)

One *can*.  One *may* not, because of a gezera lest one write a shtar.
Obviously gezerot don't apply to Hashem.

> E. Perhaps Shabbas was not something that was binding on the Jews at the 
> Time of Har Sinai (as it preceded the kabbalah of Aseres Hadibros?) and 

That won't work.  Shabbos was binding from Marah.


> therefore all of these questions of mine are mute.... ???

Moot.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Arie Folger wrote:

> But, I agree that selling open boxes should be discouraged, even as it
> should work.

So why should it be discouraged?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

<<I also don't understand Rabbi Bleich's assertion that Shmuel's and Rav
: Adda's calendars were given to Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai, and that
: therefore any claim that they were not aware of the true length of the
: solar year is kefirah. While it is true that the Gemara says that some
: shiurim were given at Sinai, there is no reason to include these and
: every reason to believe that Shmuel believed his calendar to be accurate.>>
:
It is actually the CI who first made the statement that they are from Sinai
and that not believeing it is kefirah.
:
: However, I agree that it is strange. Shmuel 365 1/4 is obviously based
: on rounding to make nice numbers and is identical with the Julian calendar.
R. Ada (not mentioned in the gemara) is based to guarantee a 19 year cycle.
Neither are accurate.
Why would Sinai give us 2 distinct shiurim for the same event neither correct.
It seems to be an attitude that anything in the Gemara is true whether it
agrees with science or not

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:55:38PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: The only washing that requires a pattern is negel vasser, and that
: pattern is required by halacha.  It's right in the gemara, so how can
: you say that it's qabalah?

Earliest mention of three times is SA OC 4:2. Not in any of
his triumverate of codes. And the SA doesn't mention a particular
pattern. That the Shaar haTziyon traces back only to the MA, Chayei Adam
and Derekh Chaim. It's nowhere near as old as the gemara.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Some side notes...

The comparison of matan Torah to a qinyan, a wedding or avdus isn't
necessarily halachic. Mistabeir it's on an aggadic level, and this whole
question doesn't really begin.

Also, given my attitude toward the historical accuracy of aggadita,
I wouldn't assume that placing Matan Torah on Shabbos is a historical
claim. Nor would I assume it isn't. The point is the nimshal, not a
study of history. History and legend were blindly mixed because the
question is just off topic to talmud Torah.

The notion that the avos kept kol haTorah kulah, even deRabbanans, is
also an aggadic story, and is as likely or not to be historical. But
it's not made about BY.

All that said, it seems to be the rules of aggadic stories, even the ones
that aren't historical, that they do not have any of the "good guys"
doing something we wouldn't. And so we still find peirushim trying to
justify things on a halachic basis.

Which was the thing I was trying to do here. I don't think there is
any reason to believe there actually was a qinyan of any sort done on
Shabbos as part of Matan Torah. Still, because Chazal use that metaphoric
language, it must be able to work halachically -- or else they would
have chosen different metaphors.

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?

Centuries ago, Nostradamus predicted that harveyben...@yahoo.com would write on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT):

>
> Subject: [Avodah] Kinyan on Shabbas??
> To: "avo...@lists.aishdas.org" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Cc: "adrenaldoc...@gmail.com" <adrenaldoc...@gmail.com>,
>    "a...@asktheRabbi.org" <a...@asktheRabbi.org>,
>    "simchab...@sbcglobal.net" <simchab...@sbcglobal.net>,
>    "saul.z.new...@kp.org" <saul.z.new...@kp.org>
> 
> All agree that Har Sinai occurred on Shabbas (whether on 6 or 7 of
> Sivan).  Can one make a valid Kinyan on Shabbas as was done btwn.
> Bnei Yisrael and Hashem that day on Har Sinai???
> 

Of course you can make a qinyan on Shabbath, even post-Marah, and even
post-Sinai.  Qiddushin, for example, involves a qinyan; are you
forgetting the ReMA's famous teshuvah about the wedding that he
performed on a Friday night?  Now, there is a Rabbinic prohibition
against making a qinyan on Shabbath, barring exceptional
circumstances, but that does not mean that a qinyan would be
ineffective, if performed in defiance of the Rabbis.  Anyway, there
were no Rabbinic prohibitions at the time of Mattan Torah.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

Please note on my posting there were a bunch of question marks.
When I sent it out, there was a superscript of 2 above where you see  
the question marks.
For some reason when it goes out from Avodah, it turns certain  
punctuation marks, etc. into question marks.
For every question mark below, please substitute "SQUARED."

I'm reminded of the fascinating gematria of the ages of the ovos and
Yosef hatzaddik and Moshe Rabbeinu:

Avraham died at 175 which is equivalent to 7x5?
Yitzchok  died at 180 which is equivalent to 5x6?
Yaakov    died at 147 which is equivalent to 3x7?
As if this weren't coincidental enough, Yosef died at 110 which is
equivalent to 1x5?+6?+7?.
Yosef is the successor in the pattern and the sum of his predecessors
(5?+6?+7?).

As if all of the above isn't impressive, Moshe Rabbeinu lived to the
proverbial and legendary age of 120.
This is equivalent to 2? +4? +6? +8?.

> Micha Berger wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:04:11PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> 
> >> We are not mindreaders, and it's no concern of ours *why* he wants
> >> the chametz, just that he does...
> 
> > If this were true in general, asmachta and haaramah wouldn't be halachic
> > topics. At times we are mindreaders, and say that the contract isn't
> > being taken seriously.

And RZS replied

> Devarim shebelev einam devarim.  It doesn't matter how seriously he
> takes it, or doesn't.  Asmachta is irrelevant;

Well the thing that I find a bit tricky about this is that these are all
halachic concepts, but for the sale to be a sale the sale to the non Jew has
to be done, by definition, under local law - which for most of us is some
form of common law contract law.  Of course the precise nature of these laws
differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so what is applicable in England
is not necessarily applicable in the US, or Canada, or Australia, or Israel,
but:

a) Is it in fact legal in the local jurisdiction to sell open boxes - for
health and safety reasons?  I don't know the answer to this, and there are
clearly jurisdictions that are more and less concerned about health and
safety - but is anybody doing these sales keeping an eye on the modern
legislation?

b) are people checking the use-by-dates on the packages - again depending on
the local jurisdiction, it is most likely that the buyer has a right to
rescind the sale if the packages are past the use-by-dates and it therefore
may be OK if he does not choose to exercise such a right, but it is also
possible that the sale is technically void.

c) the assumption that a sale is a sale if it is valid on the face of the
contract, regardless of the intentions of the parties is a principle
strictly of law, but equity has increasingly, in most common law
jurisdictions, been looking behind such legal principles (acting as a sword
and not a shield), and thus the question, it seems to me, is not (or not
just) is it a harama according to the halacha, but is it a harama according
to the common law of the local jurisdiction, and would the courts of the
local jurisdiction enforce such a contract if it was clear that the
intention of the parties was not as on the face of the contract.  In Israel,
because of their understanding of the interplay of halacha and the nature of
this contract, they might well be prepared to enforce it (on the other hand
think of the heter iska etc judgments) - in other jurisdictions, I think it
must be seriously open to question - and, I cannot see how we can rely on
the fact that the legal system of 18th century Lithuania, or wherever, would
necessarily allow for such a sale to determine that such a sale is therefore
valid in the context of modern legal systems.

d) there may be other consumer protection legislation to consider aside from
the ones that I have mentioned above.  Note that this is one reason why a
sale of a business of all its chametz is far more likely to be valid than
the sale of individual households.  A business sale of its chametz can much
more easily be seen as the sale of an aspect of a business as a going
concern - which would not necessarily trigger the same level of scrutiny as
a domestic sale.

e) the classic questions as to who bears the loss if the chametz is damaged
(eg by fire or flood or even the freezer breaking down) would also
presumably need to be fundamentally dealt with under local law.  This is
likely to be complicated by the existence of house and contents insurance.
Technically would the non Jew have the right to claim on the house and
contents insurance?  Would the insurance company be able to say that since
at the time the chametz was not owned by the person taking out the
insurance, there is no possibility of claim?  How does the non Jew ensure
that all the domestic parties have taken out adequate insurance (or does
whoever enables the sale to the non Jew ensure that insurance for damage or
loss is provided)?  Again in the Israeli business context I would imagine
this is easier to deal with - an insurance company insuring a baker such as
Angel will know, or a good lawyer will have drafted into the contract, that
the chametz will be sold every pesach, and ideally that the purchaser will
be covered by the insurance policy for the duration of the sale (but query
if the insurance company is Jewishly owned ....).  Or is the assumption that
the original owner of the chametz will bear the loss if the chametz is
damaged during pesach (which by the way may be a reasonable risk for
householders to take, but probably not for business)?  This is presumably a
question that has been dealt with in the past, although absent the existence
of insurance companies.

 there is no future
> commitment to do anything.  I don't know what ha'arama has to do with
> it, maybe you meant ona'ah, which is only relevant if there was a
> misrepresentation of the market price.  Since the mechira is at the
> market price, whatever it should turn out to be, there can be no
> ona'ah.

To what extent do questions of ona'ah apply to any transaction with a non
Jew under the law of the local land?

> --
> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 70
**************************************

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..."