Tag: chometz

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #178

1.    Question: Why do the poskim say you are allowed to sell chometz with just money even though there is an argument whether you can even use money as a means of acquisition with a non-Jew or do you need to actually have him pick it up or push it, and since this is a money question and there is a question if money even works then chazaka should say that the food still belongs to the Jew and he is definitely violating owning chometz on Pesach?

Background:

A. The question of whether acquisition with money works with a non-Jew can be treated leniently in this case since the whole question is whether the food can be used after Pesach which is only a rabbinic issue since chometz left over Pesach is only prohibited after Pesach as a rabbinic fine. The problem is that this might not even be a question is the chezkas mamon can answer the question.

B. The gemara in the beginning of Pesachim says there are two things which don’t belong to a person but the Torah makes it as if it’s in your possession: Chometz found in your place on Pesach though the Torah nullifies it and a pit in the street if you undug it or opened it. The Torah just makes chometz in your possession yours in order to give you a prohibition of chometz on Pesach but you don’t actually own it.

C. The Pnei Yehoshua views the assumption of ownership for the original owner (chezkas Marie kamma) similar to the original assumed state of prohibition (chazaka dimi’ikara).

Answer: Chazaka dimi’ikara wouldn’t apply in this case because because the chometz is really taken out of your possession by the Torah on Pesach and the question is if it is put back in your possession as a new status, not as the original status or not, therefore we can be lenient and say it was in fact validly sold to the non-Jew and never went into your possession over Pesach. 

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #24

Question: Explain the argument between Rebbe Akiva Aiger and the Ra”n on whether nullifying chometz within a majority of non-chometz is different from nullifying sheep wool in a majority of camel wool to combine it with linen and not transgress shaatnez?

Background:

A. The Teshuvas HaRan (64) says that chometz before the time of being forbidden to own is nullified in non-chometz even though it is permitted food being mixed with permitted food. It is just like a Mishna in Kilayim 9:1 which says that sheep wool and camel mixed together, if the majority is camel wool than it can be interwoven into linen and it is not shaatnez because only wool from a sheep is forbidden to be mixed with linen and camels aren’t sheep and the sheep wool is nullified to the majority of camel wool, even if it is permissible wool being mixed with permissible wool since the sheep wool isn’t intertwined with the linen yet.

B. Rebbe Akiva Aiger says the cases are incomparable because the sheep wool has a forbidden name to it to be mixed with linen so it can be nullified in the camel wool as if it is forbidden stuff being nullified in permitted stuff. Whereas chometz has no connection to prohibition whatsoever before the forbidden time on the eve of Passover.

C. What is the reason for prohibition?

Answer: Rebbe Akiva Aiger holds the reason for prohibition by chometz is time so that is why it is different from shaatnez but the Ra”n holds the reason for prohibition is the item i.e. the chometz it is just restricted by time meaning it is only prohibited on Pesach just like shaatnez where the reason for prohibition is the sheep wool but only when mixed with linen.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #23

Question:Why does the Rambam poskin you get makkos (lashes) if your flour ferments on Pesach or if you buy chometz on Pesach because it is a prohibition done through an action but the mitzvah of don’t covet, even if it leads to convincing the other to buy the object he covets is still not considered a prohibition done through an action and hence does not receive makkos?

Background:

A. The real prohibition by chometz is owning it which is not an action (it is a state of being) and lashes are only a punishment for prohibitive actions. However since the ownership comes through an action of baking or buying then the prohibition is considered an action (Rambam first chapter of halachic Chometz u’Matza)

B. The Rambam (Hilchos gezeila vi’aveida 1:10) poskins If a person forces someone to sell him something even if he paid a lot of money for it he still transgresses the sin of “Don’t covet” but does not receive lashes because it is a sin which is not done through an action, rather it is an emotion manifested in an action of a forced sale.

Answer: The forced sale only reveals how much one covets the other person’s object so the sin really is only the emotion but by chometz the sale or baking is the actual means to be in a state of ownership of chometz therefore the sin is a direct result of the action and punishable with lashes.