[Avodah] Selling whiskey/bourbon

[Zev Sero]

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
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                    - Margaret Thatcher