Volume 39 Number 13
Produced: Tue May 6 4:43:11 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Passover corn syrup??? (2)
[Zev Sero, Yehonatan Chipman]
Repurchase of Chometz - Notification (3)
[Carl Singer, Ari Trachtenberg, Zev Sero]
Selling hametz when visiting Israel or abroad
[Haim Snyder]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <slipstick1@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Passover corn syrup???
David Charlap <shamino@...> wrote:
> On more occasions than I can remember, I was taught that derivatives of
> kitniyot fall under the ban that prohibits kitniyot themselves. Which
> is we we insist on buying (for instance) specially-formulated bottles of
> Coca Cola.
This is the clear ruling of the Rema (OC 453.1), who is the main
authority on the ban on kitniyot. He says explicitly that one may light
lamps with kitniyot oil, and need not worry that some oil will
accidentally spill into the food, as even if this happens it will be
batel, and the food will be permitted. It seems crystal clear from this
that the consumption of kitniyot oil, or the deliberate addition of it
to food, is prohibited. This ruling is repeated by the later
authorities. Those who permit it, in defiance of the Rema, have a
serious burden of proof.
> For those who hold by this opinion, does this mean that all products
> using kitniyot syrups can be considered kosher for Passover
> (assuming supervision to ensure that there isn't any chametz, of
> course)?
That is precisely what it means.
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:52:53 +0300
Subject: Re: Passover corn syrup???
In MJ v39n09, David Charlap <shamino@...> asked:
<<On the back of a box of Joyva candies (marked "kosher for passover"),
corn syrup is clearly listed among the ingredients.... On more
occasions than I can remember, I was taught that derivatives of kitniyot
fall under the ban that prohibits kitniyot themselves... How common is
the psak that permits kitniyot syrup? It's obviously not the majority
opinion, or I would expect to have heard of it by now.... For those who
hold by this opinion, does this mean that all products using kitniyot
syrups can be considered kosher for Passover (assuming supervision to
ensure that there isn't any chametz, of course)?...>>
Indeed, most Ashkenaizc rabbinic authorities today do not accept
this ruling. However, in previous generations there were many major
poskim who did allow oils from kitniyot (legumes) and its other
derivatives. In addition to R. Elhanan Spector of Kovna, mentioned on
the kashrut blurb you cited, there were the Natziv of Volozhin and (as
far as I remember) R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski; and possibly the Hafetz
Hayyim as well (although not R. Hayyim of Brisk). That is, an
impressive group of late-19th -- early-20th century Lithuanian sages.
The problem is that the original edict agaisnt kitniyot (legumes)
only appears quoted in later sources, like the Mordekhai, who mention it
as an already existing communal custom, is that its exact scope and
applicability is not altogether clear. Since one explanation of the
prohibition on kitniyot is that it might be ground into a kind of flour,
which could then be confused mixed up with forbidden grain flour, this
would obviously not apply to oils. I once heard Rav Soloveitchik ztz"l
discuss this at a shiur of the Hevra Shas of Boston, in response to a
question as to whether one could use peanut oil on Pesah -- which during
an earlier period of American Orthodox history was the Passover oil of
choice. The Rav said that, in light of the fact that there were two
separate uncertainties involved in this issue: an uncertainty as to
whether peanuts were considered kitniyot, and the dispute as to whether
the rule applied to oils altogether, a strong case could be made for
using peanut oil.
This problem assumes major practical and sociological dimensions in
Israel. As a large part of the population, and probably a majority of
the overall religiously observant population, consists of Sephardim, a
large number of the products sold in the supermarkets before Pesah are
marked as ksoher "for kitniyot eaters only," causing a lot of difficulty
for Ashkenazim who wish to be meticulous on this point. Some chocolates
are even mysteriously marked "for those who eat liftit." (liftit is the
oil of a flower which some consider kitniyot). The Passover oils
accepted by all Ashkenazim--walnut, coconut, hazelnut, and olive oil --
are two to three times more expensive than the others, including
borderline cases like safflower oil or canola (rapeseed) oil, and are
more viscuous and tend to have an unpleasant odor when used in frying.
Add to that the fact that there are increasing numbers of "mixed"
families, or in-laws of mixed families, one could argue that there are
several valid halakhic justifucations -- hefsed merubeh (finanacial
loss), tirha (practical difficulty), kevod haberiot (respect for other
people -- i.e., re not making a scene if invited to eat at the homes of
Sephardic relatives and friends), etc. -- justifying a lenient postion,
especially considering that, notwithstanding the strictness of Pesah
laws, the issue here is not hametz at all, but the much lighter issue of
a safek (doubt) of violating a communal minhag.
Nevertheless, anyone deciding to be lenient on this question should
probably make a hatarat neder, a formal release from the "vow" implied
by this custom, which was accepted by his ancestors.
Yehonatan Chipman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:17:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Repurchase of Chometz - Notification
From: Rachel Swirsky <swirskyr@...>
The Rabbi at our shul just announces after Maariv when the chametz
will be available. (i.e., give me 20 minutes, then start cleaning
up!)
The problem with this is that it presumes some future act will go off
without a hitch. What if, for example, the person who bought the
chometz finds that their car won't start and thus doesn't show up for
the repurchase. One can paint countless scenarios where seller and
buyer miss connections or are delayed.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:40:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Repurchase of Chometz - Notification
Raphi Cohen writes:
> As of my limited knowledge, the Rav does not physically sell the
> Chametz. He transfers ownership to the goy sometime on Erev Chag, but
> this ownership must be exercized by the goy, who must come during the
> Chag with a lot of money to physically pick up the chamtez. If he
> doesn't do so by the end of the Chag (and he never does), his option is
> not valid anymore and the ownership of the chametz is Jewish again. It
> is proper for Jewish consumption because its formal owner during Pessach
> was not Jewish.
This was my understanding as well, but it brings up an interesting
question... consider purchasing a house. The formula is very similar
... you sign a purchase and sale with a 5-10% deposit, and then pay the
rest at closing some time thereafter (or else the purchase and deposit
is forfeited). What happens then if this is done around Pesach? For
example, you sign a purchase and sale before pesach and intend to close
after Pesach. Who owns the chametz in the house?
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <slipstick1@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Repurchase of Chometz - Notification
Raphi Cohen <raphi@...> wrote:
> Carl Singer writes:
>> I was wondering how other communities / congregations deal with
>> determining that their shaliach (usually the Rabbi) has, indeed,
>> repurchased the chometz which they sold prior to Yom Tov?
> If I correctly understand the process, there is no need for such
> repurchase.
>
> As of my limited knowledge, the Rav does not physically sell the
> Chametz. He transfers ownership to the goy sometime on Erev Chag, but
> this ownership must be exercized by the goy, who must come during the
> Chag with a lot of money to physically pick up the chamtez. If he
> doesn't do so by the end of the Chag (and he never does), his option is
> not valid anymore and the ownership of the chametz is Jewish again. It
> is proper for Jewish consumption because its formal owner during Pessach
> was not Jewish. Thus no need to repurchase.
OK, after years of confusion and frustration, I think I've finally
worked out what's happening. Every time Mechirat Chametz is discussed,
there seem to be two fundamental divides.
First, what can be sold: on one hand we have those who insist that real
chametz may not be sold, because the sale isn't `really' serious, and
only things that aren't `really' chametz in the first place, and
mideoraita could probably be kept, can be sold. This is rejected out of
hand by those of us who've never heard of such a thing, and who are
first-hand witnesses to Jews whose learning and yirat shamayim are both
beyond question, and who sell pure chametz with no notion that there
might be something wrong with it.
Then, we get another divide, about what really happens with the sale.
We have descriptions like the one Rafi gives us here, which really don't
sound very valid. The goy only has an option over the chametz, and when
he fails to exercise it it reverts to Jewish hands? What sort of sale
is this? If I have an option to buy shares, then unless and until I
exercise it the shares belong to their current owner, not to me! In
fact, he may not even have them, and when I exercise my option he may
have to go out and buy them for me, and this is not considered a
dishonest or even an unusual arrangement; and if he doesn't own these
shares, then I certainly can't be said to own them. At most, in an
arrangement such as Rafi describes, the chametz can perhaps be said to
have belonged to the goy during Pesach, *if* he eventually pays the full
amount and takes possession; but if he defaults on his obligation, and
the chametz reverts to our ownership, then surely it does so
retroactively, and so retroactively we have been owning chametz all
along, chas veshalom.
This confusion has been going on for years, but on thinking about it
now, I suddenly realised that we've all been talking at cross-purposes.
My Theory, Which Is Mine, is that there are two very distinct customs.
There are those, such as my family, who sell our chametz with a true and
valid sale. The contract is binding, and even if for some reason a
seller's heart wasn't truly in it, the law is that devarim shebelev
einam devarim - mental reservations to a contract are legally null.
Once the chametz is sold, it is the goy's property for all purposes, and
if we take it for our own use we are transgressing, not on the
prohibition against owning chametz, but that on stealing. (It's not bal
yera'eh, which is an issur karet, but gezel hagoy, which is merely a
lav, and which can be corrected by paying for the stolen property, which
will indeed happen after Pesach.)
The form of contract with which I'm familiar states that the chametz is
sold for its fair market value, and both sides agree that after Pesach a
professional assessor will be hired to go around and work out how much
it's all worth, and the goy will then have a reasonable period in which
to pay that amount and pick up his merchandise. What's more, the
contract specifies that even if he defaults on the payment, the chametz
will still be his, and the sellers will sue him for the money. Under no
circumstances will the chametz revert to the sellers. Then, after
Pesach, a new contract is signed, saying that the goy is selling us all
the merchandise which he bought last week, for fair market value as
would be determined by an assessor, plus some fixed amount of profit.
There is no longer any need to hire the assessor, since the same
variable appears in both contracts, and the repurchase price minus the
original sale price is a fixed amount. So all that's required is to
give the goy his deposit back, plus his profit, and the chametz is now
once again ours.
With such a sale, there is no reason not to sell bread, whisky, yeast,
or any other kind of chametz, and so that is what we do, and it never
occurs to us that we shouldn't. What I have just realised is that there
are those who do a completely different kind of sale, one that is really
just a symbolic ceremony of dubious legality, and perhaps it is *those
very same people* who don't sell real chametz. Maybe it's because they
don't regard the sale as serious and permanent, that they don't take
full advantage of it, or maybe it's the other way around, that because
they don't sell real chametz they don't see the need for a real sale.
The test of this theory, of course, is to do a survey, and find out
whether the people who don't do a complete sale, and the people who
don't sell real chametz, are the same people.
> BTW, a point which needs to be reminded every year, is that Israelis
> spending Pessach in chu"l AND Jews from chu"l spending the Chag in
> Israel should sell their chametz in the country where their chametz is
> stored. This, in order to make sure that the return to Jewish ownership
> does not happen one day too early (in Israel) or one day too late (in
> chu"l).
On the contrary, the prohibition on owning chametz is on the person, not
the chametz, so it makes sense that it applies where the person is, not
where the chametz is, and so he should sell it where he is.
I live in NYC, and just spent Pesach in Israel, and I had occasion to
call my Rabbi about an hour before candlelighting in Israel, and I
happened to catch him in the middle of his negotiations with the goy!
The obligation to dispose of my chametz (tashbitu) had already been upon
me since noon Israeli time, and had I entrusted it to my Rabbi, it would
not yet have been sold, and I would have been in breach all afternoon.
Instead, I sold my chametz through a Rabbi in Israel, who, to be safe on
both sides, specified that when he would repurchase it after Pesach, it
would not pass back into my possession until I returned home. In the
meantime, I suppose it belonged to him; I don't really know.
But even granting your premise, what is the problem if an Israeli who is
in chu"l, and has chametz stored in Israel, sells it in chu"l? So it
will spend an extra day in the goy's hands - so what? Until he gets
back home, what difference does it make whose it is?
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Haim.Snyder@...> (Haim Snyder)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:57:35 +0300
Subject: Re: Selling hametz when visiting Israel or abroad
In Vol. 39 #12, Raphi Cohen wrote
"a point which needs to be reminded every year, is that Israelis spending
Pessach in chu"l AND Jews from chu"l spending the Chag in Israel should
sell their chametz in the country where their chametz is stored. This, in
order to make sure that the return to Jewish ownership does not happen one
day too early (in Israel) or one day too late (in chu"l)."
In point of fact, this is an oversimplification and the process requires
more than a regular sale. If an Israeli spending Pessah west of Israel
sells his hametz in Israel, then it reverts back to his possession while
it is still Pessach where he is and then it becomes "hametz she'avar
alav hapesah". Alternately, an American Jew spending Pesah in Israel
(or an Israeli spending Pesah east of Israel) whose hametz is sold where
he lives has his problem at the beginning of the holiday. His hametz
isn't sold until after the issur on owning hametz has already come into
effect in where he is.
In all cases, a special sale must be made to account for the entire
period when he is forbidden to own hametz. In Israel, there are rabbis
who are aware of the problem and have made the proper arrangements. I
would imagine that abroad, the extent of the problem is a function of
the particular community in which one finds oneself.
Haim Shalom Snyder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 39 Issue 13
