[Avodah] otzar bet din

[Eli Turkel]

Before giving some details of the otzar bet din some general remarks

1. Both Rav Kook and CI stress their concern for the Jewish farmers and the
continuation of agriculture run by Jews in EY.
Hence both of them included numerous kulot to enable the various kibbutzim
to survive the shemitta year. In a letter from CI he mentions three agudak
kibbutzim:
Kfar Saba, Gedera and Machane Yisrael.

Thus although CI fought against the heter mechira he introduced other kulot
that
R. Kook was machmir. Hence it is certainly NOT true that R. Kook was the
mekil
and CI the machmir but each had their issues of chumra and kulah.

The yishuv hayashan especially Maharil Diskin also strongly opposed the
heter mechirah.
Nevertheless their were years when the situation was extremely bad that they
allowed it.
In those days if a field was left fallow their was a danger that the Turkish
government would confiscate the field or else Arabs would come in and take
over.
Hence completely not working the field might lead to a total loss of the
property.

The modern Badatz does not use neither heter mechirah nor otzar bet din and
only
nonJewish produce. They (unlike R. Salant) are not interested in the future
of Jewish agriculture in Israel (also not worried about dealing with the
enemy but that is a different matter). The one exception (that I know!) is
etrogim where Badatz does use otzar bet din for the succot after shemitta.
Then
etrogim are sold in sealed boxes.

For reasons not entirely clear this has become a limus test of one's
affiliation
even though technically this is a pure halachic question which as I have
indicated
is not even one of chumrot versus kulot

2. A basic argument is whether vegetables grown by non-Jews in EY is subject
to
kedushat sheviit. The Mabit says it is subject while R. Yosef Karo says not.
The Chida brings down that minhag yerushalayim was not to treat Arab produce
with Kedushat Sheviit. The entire basis of heter mechirah is the assumption
that we pasken like R. Yosef Karo. CI disagreed and pasked that Arab produce
has
kedushat sheviit. Since the badatz is based on minhag yeruslayim they
accepted the
"kulah" that Arab produce has no kedushat sheviit. Hence, any produce under
the
hechser of the Badatz they they say has no kedushat sheviit according to CI
does have.
Gaza has the additional question of the borders of EY.

As far as I know the "agudah rabanum" like R. N. Karelitz, R. Elyasiv , RSZA
all
accept the opinion of CI. R. Karelitz has had an otzar bet din in the past
and
I assume will have one this coming year. Rumor has it that many in BB rely
on the
badatz to avoid kedushat sheviit. However according to CI this doesnt help.
As far as I know there is no way to tell whether a Badatz product came from
Arabas in EY or in Gaza or imported from abroad. Since they claim it makes
no
difference they dont let the consumer know.

3. The concept of the Bet din doing work in the fields is brought down in
Tosefta
Sheviit 8:1 (see also Rash perek 9 mishna 8 and Ramban Vayikra 25:7). They
allow the
bet din to harvest wheat and collect fruits and vegetables which have
kedushat
sheviit and distribute them to the public.
Rambam does not bring this as halacha seemingly  he feels it was a one time
takanah (Radvaz)
Rav Shmuel Salant interpreted this as referring to the 6th year and not the
7th.
The main source is Ramban but even he learns that the purpose of the otzar
bet din
is to prevent farmers from cheating. No one interprets this in the modern
sense as
a way of "getting around" some of the problems with shemitta.

Nevetheless the idea of using an otzar bet din was already raised in 1910 by
Rav Kook in a series of letters to R. Chaim Berlin.
There is even a heter from the Badatz to an individual farmer (from
Rechovot) to use the Otzar
bet din. However, it was quite stringent compared to modern day uses. It
required
hefker of the produce and then allowed minimal payment (schar tirchah) for
their
work stressing that this was not the full price of the produce and did not
include
work down before the collection (betzirah) . Olives and almonds
should not be sold at all but brought to Jerusalem to be distributed to the
poor.

4. Rav Kook used the Otzar Bet din as an added stringency to the heter
mechirah. CI did
not accept the heter mechirah and instead expanded the concept of Otzar bet
din
as a general solution not just to individual farmers but to the entire
religious
farming community with additional kulot.

Part of the difficulty is the produce in the Otzar Bet din are hefker. In
the days
of Rav Kook individuals could go to the fields and collect the produce.
However
when shomre shemitta yishuvim were established it was necessary to have a
procedure
to deal with large scale picking and delivery to the cities. Here CI relied
on
the precedent of the Ramban (who as we said viewed as a check on the farmers
rather
then helping them) to allow picking vegetables and delivery under the bet
din with
everyone getting paid


5. Some piskei halachot from CI:

A bet din is any 3 people together with representatives of the farmers
One can give a proper wage to the supervisors
The bet din can package the produce according to size
The bet din can do business (sechora) even though it is prohibited from the
Torah
The fruit remains hefker and so their is no 'demei sheviit"
The dayanim can NOT collect money for their efforts
The workers should be paid reasonably
CI also allowed pruning of trees which R. Kook did not

6. A personal remark: Given the stress that everyone is paid "minimum wage"
and
there are no profits I have no undertood why produce in the "shemitta
stores"
are usually of inferior quality and much more expensive than other vegetable
stores.

7. According to many forecasts in another 7 years a majority of the Jews
will
live in EY will according to more opinions will make shemitta from the Torah
and destroy the heter mechira and possibly parts of the otzar bet din.

chag sameach

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070522/276c6bf5/attachment-0002.htm>