Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 87

Wed, 24 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Selling Whiskey/Bourbon (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 7. Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger) (Zev Kleiner)
• 9. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 10. ksav she'i efshar l'hizdayyef (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: torah u-madda (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 12. Re: selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger) (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: ksav she'i efshar l'hizdayyef (Zev Sero)

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:59:14PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Actually my gripe is the opposite. In Bnei Brak many places do in fact
: not buy from stores that sold their chametz before Pesach.

Are there pesaqim to this effect? Or are you citing people who are
simply violating halakhah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Me:
> : Not all minhagim fit this paradigm.  Take glatt, back in the day when 
> : Jewish butchers sold mainly to Jewish consumers, so that every treifah 
> : was a monetary loss, and back in small towns where they slaughtered one 
> : or  two cows a week.  As I understand it, those are the conditions under 
> : which the custom originated, and when the meat wasn't glatt the people 
> : who were makpid simply didn't eat meat that Shabbos.  But extend the 
> : custom to an entire kehillah and the economics fails.
>   
RMB:
> Umm, that was an entire kehillah. As you write, the loss was absorbed so
> it seems they could manage. The fact that 100 mi away in some other town
> someone else would have eaten the meat doesn't change the feasability of
> the minhag. It's not today, when economic and social groups span large
> swaths of a continent.
>   
Well, no, it wasn't an entire kehillah.  The people I've asked about 
this who actually lived in small towns in Europe have always told me 
that just a couple of families in whatever town they lived in were 
makpid on glatt, and that the meat was always sold to Jews unless it was 
definitively treif.

David Riceman

RET wrote:
> A friend of mine (in humor) said he would have a party right
> before Pesach to get rid of all his scotch.

It was reported to me that in the London East End, it was (is?)
customary to have Pre Pessach Bottle Night, which is what your friend
jokingly imagined. They do / did it.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously
* 25 Jahre zu lebenslang fuer den Moerder des Herrn Gerstle
* From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> This would justify a hanhagah tovah, a chumerah, whatever you
> want to call it. But a minhag has to be "shehatzibbur yakhol
> laamod ba" -- not viewed only in terms of personal considerations.

and

> This started when I looked up what the star-K said about selling
> whisk[e]y. They refer you to footnote 1, which reads, "Some
> individuals sell this chometz, others do not. One should follow
> his family custom."
> That's when I asked how this works as a minhag. If it were stam
> a personal chumrah, that's a different story.

OHHH! NOW I understand your problem. Your problem (I suspect) is that you
are being too medayek on the use of the word "minhag". What they really
meant was to call it a "practice". But they chose to use the word "minhag",
which you are now taking too literally.

> If you show any reluctance WRT selling chameitz on Pesach,
> what's the quality of your intent when selling taaroves? If you
> carry around fears that the sale isn't real, that it's haaramah,
> is the qinyan really chal or did you create problems of asmachta
> the moment you chose to be choseish?

This is a whole 'nother question, which has bothered me also. If anyone one list avoids selling chametz gamur, but does sell taaruvos, I hope they'll respond.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Reduce your business expense.  Click here to find products for your small business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=H_RbGRjA_94GMqozXUCE7gAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:36:25PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Similarly, it stands to reason that water added to grain before it ferments
> : becomes part of the fermented product and therefore itself chametz, and
> : can't be counted as something that dilutes the chametz.
> 
> This seems to contradict what you said earlier. The water added after
> decasking is after fermentation. Would that not make it a second
> ingredient from the mash, and thus taaroves?

Indeed it would.  How does that contradict what I said earlier.

 
> I wish to remove wine from the conversation, because mezigas hakos means
> that wine *requires* dilution to be yayin, and thus the whole question
> is different than for adding water to other substances.

No it's not.  For most people Seks-un-naintziger needs to be diluted
too.   But the water that is added is still water; if you mixed flour
with yayin mazug it would become chametz in a short time.

 
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:12:28AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> : But instead, frame the question in terms of "what problem do I run
> : into when selling my chometz before Pesach", and "what problem do I run
> : into when purchasing his chometz after Pesach"...
> 
> This would justify a hanhagah tovah, a chumerah, whatever you want to
> call it. But a minhag has to be "shehatzibbur yakhol laamod ba" -- not
> viewed only in terms of personal considerations.

I dispute this.  A minhag can be private to one person *or family*.
R Gamliel's family was "machmirin al atzman umekilin al kol yisrael".


> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 08:20:12AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> : Not all minhagim fit this paradigm.  Take glatt, back in the day when 
> : Jewish butchers sold mainly to Jewish consumers, so that every treifah 
> : was a monetary loss, and back in small towns where they slaughtered one 
> : or  two cows a week.  As I understand it, those are the conditions under 
> : which the custom originated, and when the meat wasn't glatt the people 
> : who were makpid simply didn't eat meat that Shabbos.  But extend the 
> : custom to an entire kehillah and the economics fails.
> 
> Umm, that was an entire kehillah. As you write, the loss was absorbed so
> it seems they could manage. The fact that 100 mi away in some other town
> someone else would have eaten the meat doesn't change the feasability of
> the minhag. It's not today, when economic and social groups span large
> swaths of a continent.

When was there ever a kehillah that were all makpid on glatt, despite
holding that non-glatt was kosher al pi din?  AFAIK there was never any
such kehillah in Ashkenazi lands; there were individuals or families who
were machmir on themselves, but there were enough who did eat it that
the butcher could make a living.  Of course in those areas where they
paskened like the Mechaber a non-glatt animal was treif, and the butcher
had to absorb the loss just as he did with completely treif animals.

 
> : My suspicion is that there is no such "minhag". Some/many individuals
> : may follow such a practice, but I don't think there's any community
> : composed of people, all of whom follow the practice you've
> : described...
> 
> This started when I looked up what the star-K said about selling
> whisk[e]y. They refer you to footnote 1, which reads, "Some individuals
> sell this chometz, others do not. One should follow his family custom."
> 
> That's when I asked how this works as a minhag. If it were stam a
> personal chumrah, that's a different story.

A family can have chumros.  Descendants of the Shaloh don't eat turkey.
It doesn't mean a whole kehillah has to keep it, so that the shopkeeper
is some kind of oisvorf.

 
> ALTHOUGH, I have a different problem there...
> If you show any reluctance WRT selling chameitz on Pesach, what's the
> quality of your intent when selling taaroves? If you carry around fears
> that the sale isn't real, that it's haaramah, is the qinyan really chal
> or did you create problems of asmachta the moment you chose to be
> choseish?

You certainly *intend* the sale to be valid.  But if you're worried that
according to some opinion somewhere there may be some technical flaw
-- perhaps you're worried that dina demalchusa voids a sale without
stamp duty, or a sale of alcohol without a license, or some other
pitfall that no rov ever thought of -- then it makes sense to play it
safe and not sell chametz gamur, just in case.  You still intend your
sale of the ta'aroves to be as valid as it can be.

In any event, devarim shebelev einam devarim.  If the sale *is* valid,
as it almost certainly is, then what you're thinking doesn't matter.


> If it's your *minhag* then doesn't it have to fit the rules for minhag?
> Such as being viable for a community to follow

I don't see why this must be so.


> Here the "minhag" only works for me because I know the storeowner is
> relying on a loophole (hefsed meruba) 

No, he's not relying on hefsef meruba, he's relying on ikkar hadin.
You're the one staying lifnim mishuras hadin; he's entitled not to.


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

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:59:14PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : Actually my gripe is the opposite. In Bnei Brak many places do in fact
> : not buy from stores that sold their chametz before Pesach.
> 
> Are there pesaqim to this effect? Or are you citing people who are
> simply violating halakhah?

How are they violating halacha?  They're not *obligated* to buy from
someone.  They may be foolish and have no idea what they're doing, and
the shopkeeper may be suffering because of their foolishness, but I
don't see how they're violating halacha.  A shopkeeper's parnassah
depends on his customers' goodwill, including their whims and fancies.
Perhaps such shopkeepers might find it in their interest to pay for a
public education campaign, to open people's eyes to how foolish they're
being.  Or it may be in their interest to just fall in with the public
and adopt their chumros; that will cost them, but it may be cheaper than
the alternatives.  As the gemara says, if someone opens across from you
and gives the children candy so they'll shlep their parents into the
shop, you are free to do the same, and if you don't and lose business
then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

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

Micha
> I wish to remove wine from the conversation, because mezigas hakos means
> that wine *requires* dilution to be yayin, and thus the whole question
> is different than for adding water to other substances.

AISI watering down whiskey is halchically precisely the same thing.

It is to make an alcoholic beverage palatable

Source Hacham Zvi 20 quoted by Shaarei Teshuva. SA Harav is similar

Zp
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Seems to me that not selling chametz gamur is a straightforward and
satisfying way of being mekayem "Tashbisu". If it involves hefsed
meruba, than one should take advantage of  mechira since you get
involved in avoidable baal tashchis which you may want to offset against
the mitzvah of Tashbisu. But if doesn't involve hesfsed meruba, why not
simply "get rid of it"-Tashbisu? I don't see it as being a judgment on
the efficacy of the mechira. It's simply a clean, straightforward option
to the fulfillment of this mitzvah, as valid as the mechira option.

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



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100324/7a814e18/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:42:16AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >This seems to contradict what you said earlier. The water added after
: >decasking is after fermentation. Would that not make it a second
: >ingredient from the mash, and thus taaroves?

: Indeed it would.  How does that contradict what I said earlier.

Your first words in this thread, posted Mar 22 6:41am PDT:
: But whiskey is *not* a taaroves, it's chametz itself.

: >I wish to remove wine from the conversation, because mezigas hakos means
: >that wine *requires* dilution to be yayin, and thus the whole question
: >is different than for adding water to other substances.

: No it's not.  For most people Seks-un-naintziger needs to be diluted
: too....

Needing dilution to be drinkable means needing dilution to be within the
halachic category? RRW brings sources to say "yes", but I haven't seen
them inside yet.

Wine that needs dilution isn't yayin. In that case, the word "yayin"
refers to the "taaroves". Chameitz that needs dilution isn't chameitz?
Are you invoking undiluted whisky as being einu ra'ui la'akhilas kelev,
and thus it's not chameitz, the diluted stuff is?

From straight sevara, which I now need to suspend judgment about until
seeing RRW's meqoros, I would think that's enough difference between
wine-as-yayin and whisky-as-taaroves to question whether you can prove
something by analogy from one to the other.

(RRW will confirm that I'm very picky with my analogies.)

...
: >This would justify a hanhagah tovah, a chumerah, whatever you want to
: >call it. But a minhag has to be "shehatzibbur yakhol laamod ba" -- not
: >viewed only in terms of personal considerations.

: I dispute this.  A minhag can be private to one person *or family*.
: R Gamliel's family was "machmirin al atzman umekilin al kol yisrael".

This distinction is messy nowadays, as we haven't congeled into
post-WWII minhagei hamaqom. Most of our minhagei avos are minhagei
hamaqom of the 19th cent meqomos of our avos.

...
: >Umm, that was an entire kehillah. As you write, the loss was absorbed so
: >it seems they could manage. The fact that 100 mi away in some other town
: >someone else would have eaten the meat doesn't change the feasability of
: >the minhag. It's not today, when economic and social groups span large
: >swaths of a continent.

: When was there ever a kehillah that were all makpid on glatt, despite
: holding that non-glatt was kosher al pi din? ...

Chassidus down near Hungary and Romania had many such qehillos, no?

...
: >ALTHOUGH, I have a different problem there...
: >If you show any reluctance WRT selling chameitz on Pesach, what's the
: >quality of your intent when selling taaroves? If you carry around fears
: >that the sale isn't real, that it's haaramah, is the qinyan really chal
: >or did you create problems of asmachta the moment you chose to be
: >choseish?

: You certainly *intend* the sale to be valid.  But if you're worried that
: according to some opinion somewhere there may be some technical flaw...

IOW, you aren't sure the sale is real. That's imperfect intent, no?

...
: In any event, devarim shebelev einam devarim.  If the sale *is* valid,
: as it almost certainly is, then what you're thinking doesn't matter.

If this were true, then no shtar could be an asmachta. I don't know
the subject, but this /has/ to be an oversimplification.

Nor is this devarim shebeleiv. You demonstrated your doubt in the reality
of the sale by not selling your chameitz gamur.

: >If it's your *minhag* then doesn't it have to fit the rules for minhag?
: >Such as being viable for a community to follow

: I don't see why this must be so.

There is no such animal as a minhag she'ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bo.

You can have a "minhag chassidus", but not something inheritable, as
implied by the star-K.

: >Here the "minhag" only works for me because I know the storeowner is
: >relying on a loophole (hefsed meruba) 

: No, he's not relying on hefsef meruba, he's relying on ikkar hadin.
: You're the one staying lifnim mishuras hadin; he's entitled not to.

Logistically, the minhag only works for me because he isn't following
it. If he did, my supply system would fail.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

We went off to visit a sofer the other day to chat about getting 
tefillin for my son's forthcoming bar mitzva.  While talking about the 
chemical properties of parchment he mentioned how easy it is to erase 
letters (via razor blade), and I added that that's why one shouldn't 
write a kesuva on parchment (see HM 42:1).  The sofer then told me that 
he had arranged to find parchment for a prominent person's son's 
kesuva.  Neither of us knew an obvious reason to permit it, but we both 
agreed that one might exist.  What could it be?

David Riceman

On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 23:22 -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:

> Sounds like a fascinating and thought-provoking symposium.
>  
> Right at the end there, though, you have a good example of what's
> wrong with TuM.  They care way too much about what is and isn't
> "science" and they believe that science has an exclusive claim on
> "truth."
>  
> [A] It may be that the universe is the product of Intelligent Design
> -- that the Creator set it up to develop along certain lines.  
>  
> Two other possibilities are:  [B] Bereishis is literally true and
> there is no "design" -- just instantaneous creation.  The world was
> created in seven days, evolution is a totol hoax, the universe is only
> 5000 years old, the scientists are wrong about everything and don't
> know what they're talking about.

There are two variations on B. [B1] Bereishit is literally true and
there is instantaneous creation. The world was created in 7 days, but
the end product is something that could reasonably be interpreted the
way the scientists do (i.e. God created a mature world.) I've heard it
attributed to the LR that God created the world this way as a test of
our faith in what the Torah says. In this worldview, the scientists
aren't being unreasonable. The world was actually designed for the
assumptions that scientists use to advance their knowledge of the
physical world, and therefore there is in fact quite solid basis for
using science as the bedrock for engineering and technological progress.

Science can't prove that God created the world under view [B1] because
[B1] depends on the idea of an undetectable change in the laws of
physics, and a fundamental assumption of science is that there's we
cannot account for an undetectable change in the laws of physics.

[B2] Bereishit is literally true and there is instantaneous creation.
The world was created in 7 days, and the scientists are wrong when they
say they see a 15 billion year old universe and evolution. 
In this worldview, it's hard to be a scientist, because you'd have to
say the world was not designed for the assumptions that scientists use
to advance their knowledge of the physical world, so there is no solid
basis for using science as the bedrock for engineering and technological
progress.

> [C] There was no Creator and no Creation, the universe just "is."
> This is what Science believes.  Is this also what TuM believes?

There are several camps in what science believes. You could read "A
Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking to understand these views. A
summary (focused on physics/cosmology rather than biology) is here:

[C1] There is no Creator and no Creation -- the entire theory of physics
fits together logically without anything arbitrary to it. All of the
physical constants can be predicted from some more fundamental theory.
The Big Bang was the result of initial conditions from a universe that
collapsed before us.

[C2] There's no creator and no creation. The universe that we see is one
of many (each with somewhat different values of the physical constants)
and it's tautological that we live in a universe where the values of the
fundamental physical constants can support life, because we couldn't
live in a universe where they didn't support life.

[C3] There's only one universe. God caused the big bang and created
exactly one universe with the right values of the physical constants to
support life.

If you add certain beliefs about evolution to position [C3], then you
have position [A].

All of these three views are just hypotheses at this point. There isn't
enough scientific evidence yet to select between these views, and it may
not be scientifically possible to select between C2 and C3 at all.

> I think that MO try to distance themselves from Intelligent Design
> because they know that ID is viewed with utter disdain by the
> scientific community.  Well I have bad news for them.  Es vet zey
> gornisht helfen.  The Scientists whose approval they crave view them
> as one of the lowest forms of life, barely above the worms known as
> Charedim.

I find the idea difficult in position [B1] that God created a world
designed to deceive us. To believe this, I would expect to see Torah
sources supporting the idea that God created a world whose physical laws
and physical history are designed to deceive us.

There are people in camp [B2] who are eager to disprove science by
showing gaps or inconsistencies in scientific reasoning, yet these
people are totally ignorant of conclusions within science that are
beyond the scope of the narrow point they are arguing, which would
refute their disproofs if these people knew them. This bothers me. There
is a similar problem with people who believe [A] trying to prove it with
arguments that show their ignorance of how science explains things (the
claim of irreducible complexity commonly used by the proponents of [A]
tends to show such ignorance).
>         
--Ken

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:48:50AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: How are they violating halacha?  They're not *obligated* to buy from
: someone.  They may be foolish and have no idea what they're doing, and
: the shopkeeper may be suffering because of their foolishness...

"The shopkeeper may be suffering" without a good reason IS a violation
of halakhah!

(Frankly, I would think that's self-evident.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Seems to me that not selling chametz gamur is a straightforward and
satisfying way of being mekayem "Tashbisu". If it involves hefsed meruba,
than one should take advantage of  mechira since you get involved in
avoidable baal tashchis which you may want to offset against the mitzvah of
Tashbisu. But if doesn't involve hesfsed meruba, why not simply "get rid of
it"-Tashbisu? I don't see it as being a judgment on the efficacy of the
mechira. It's simply a clean, straightforward option to the fulfillment of
this mitzvah, as valid as the mechira option.
--------------------------------------------------------
Zev Kleiner

=======================================================================
Is there a greater kiyum of the mitzvah of tashbitu the more you destroy?
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100324/dd8f03fe/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:42:16AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>: >This seems to contradict what you said earlier. The water added after
>: >decasking is after fermentation. Would that not make it a second
>: >ingredient from the mash, and thus taaroves?

>: Indeed it would.  How does that contradict what I said earlier.

> Your first words in this thread, posted Mar 22 6:41am PDT:
>: But whiskey is *not* a taaroves, it's chametz itself.

That's because whiskey is < 50% water. I haven't expressed a firm opinion
about vodka and other clear spirits. *Perhaps* they can be considered
taaroves (though that would still make them assur).

>: >I wish to remove wine from the conversation, because mezigas hakos means
>: >that wine *requires* dilution to be yayin, and thus the whole question
>: >is different than for adding water to other substances.

>: No it's not.  For most people Seks-un-naintziger needs to be diluted
>: too....

> Needing dilution to be drinkable means needing dilution to be within the
> halachic category? RRW brings sources to say "yes", but I haven't seen
> them inside yet.   Wine that needs dilution isn't yayin.

Since when?  Why the distinction between unwatered wine and unwatered
alcohol?

> Chameitz that needs dilution isn't chameitz?
> Are you invoking undiluted whisky as being einu ra'ui la'akhilas kelev,
> and thus it's not chameitz, the diluted stuff is?

No, I'm just saying I don't see why it would be different from wine.

>: >This would justify a hanhagah tovah, a chumerah, whatever you want to
>: >call it. But a minhag has to be "shehatzibbur yakhol laamod ba" -- not
>: >viewed only in terms of personal considerations.

>: I dispute this.  A minhag can be private to one person *or family*.
>: R Gamliel's family was "machmirin al atzman umekilin al kol yisrael".

> This distinction is messy nowadays, as we haven't congeled into
> post-WWII minhagei hamaqom. Most of our minhagei avos are minhagei
> hamaqom of the 19th cent meqomos of our avos.

Most != All. You're setting up an assumption that there was ever a
place where minhag hamakom was not to sell chametz gamur, but to buy
from shopkeepers who did, and then wondering how this makes sense.
If it doesn't make sense, perhaps there never was such a place.

>: When was there ever a kehillah that were all makpid on glatt, despite
>: holding that non-glatt was kosher al pi din? ...

> Chassidus down near Hungary and Romania had many such qehillos, no?

Maybe, but not that I've ever heard.

>: You certainly *intend* the sale to be valid.  But if you're worried that
>: according to some opinion somewhere there may be some technical flaw...

> IOW, you aren't sure the sale is real. That's imperfect intent, no?

No. Your intention is to sell; you *want* to sell. You're just not
sure that you *are* selling. Such an uncertainty has no similarity at
all to asmachta, so why would it matter, even in theory?

>: In any event, devarim shebelev einam devarim.  If the sale *is* valid,
>: as it almost certainly is, then what you're thinking doesn't matter.

> If this were true, then no shtar could be an asmachta. I don't know
> the subject, but this /has/ to be an oversimplification.

Asmachta is when you make a condition that you believe will not be
fulfilled. "When the sun rises in the west" is a colloquial way of
saying "never". If you thought that "when a man walks on the moon"
means the same thing, and you turned out to be wrong, you're still not
bound to do all the things you promised you'd do at that time.

> There is no such animal as a minhag she'ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bo.

I don't see why not, so long as it isn't the minhag of the whole tzibbur.

> Logistically, the minhag only works for me because he isn't following
> it. If he did, my supply system would fail.

So?  Why is this a problem?

Consider this: Jews couldn't have lived in Northern Europe without
shabbos goyim. Clearly the wider "tzibbur", so to speak, i.e. the whole
population of the village, couldn't live by the laws that most of the
village did live by. Does that violate the categorical imperative?
Then let it be violated.

[Email #2. -micha]

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:48:50AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>: How are they violating halacha?  They're not *obligated* to buy from
>: someone.  They may be foolish and have no idea what they're doing, and
>: the shopkeeper may be suffering because of their foolishness...

> "The shopkeeper may be suffering" without a good reason IS a violation
> of halakhah!

No, it isn't.  If it were, then it would equally be a violation if they
chose to patronise a different shop just because it was painted a
prettier colour, or because their kids whinge if they go to the shop
that doesn't give lollipops.   The shop exists to serve the customers,
the customers do not exist to patronise the shop.  They're not avadim
kenaanim, and may withhold their custom for any reason or no reason.
So the fact that the reason they have is foolish doesn't make it a breach
of halacha.

[EMail #3. -micha]

I wrote:
> The shop exists to serve the customers,
> the customers do not exist to patronise the shop.  They're not avadim
> kenaanim, and may withhold their custom for any reason or no reason.
> So the fact that the reason they have is foolish doesn't make it a breach
> of halacha.

Clarification: if the reason they boycott a shop is expressly to harm
the owner, and he doesn't deserve such harm, then it's a breach of "lo
tisna et achicha" and "vachei achicha imach".  But where they don't wish
him any harm, but merely prefer to shop elsewhere, there's no breach.

Now if they understood that the entire reason for the issur on chametz
she'avar alav hapesach is to punish those who keep chametz over pesach,
and therefore that by not buying this chametz they are punishing
someone who doesn't deserve punishment, and they *still* continued
their boycott, saying "let him come to harm, we don't care", *then*
they'd be in halachic hot water.

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

David Riceman wrote:
> We went off to visit a sofer the other day to chat about getting 
> tefillin for my son's forthcoming bar mitzva.  While talking about the 
> chemical properties of parchment he mentioned how easy it is to erase 
> letters (via razor blade), and I added that that's why one shouldn't 
> write a kesuva on parchment (see HM 42:1).  The sofer then told me that 
> he had arranged to find parchment for a prominent person's son's 
> kesuva.  Neither of us knew an obvious reason to permit it, but we both 
> agreed that one might exist.  What could it be?

What did Chazal write their shtoros on?  Papyrus?

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 87
**************************************

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..."