[Avodah] Selling whiskey/bourbon

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: 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 don't get from your reply whether you currently believe that whiskey
is chameitz itself, or taaroves. Let's not bring other spirits into it
-- things are confusing enough without widening scope.

...
: >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?

Since the Y-mi. There is a machloqes as to whether one says "borei peri
hagafen" (or maybe the word is "hagefen" in their nusach) or is allowed
to make qiddush on undiluted wine. So the definition of yayin includes
the need for dilution to be drinkable.

The definition of chameitz is ra'ui la'akhilas kelev. Except according
to an LOR whose Shabbos haGadol shir I once attended, R' Menachem
Zupnik. He suggested that chameitz, like all food, is defined by regular
ra'ui la'akhilah. It's the inclusion of machmetzes, which would mean
sourdough as well, that broadens it to akhilas kelev. But in any case,
the definition doesn't revolve around adding water.

RAF noted off-list that they aren't talking about modern wines, which
are drinkable as is. Unless Shapiro's wine really is "So thick you can
cut it with a knife!" -- as their slogan once said.

My point is not that wine is necessarily different than whisky. Just
that since chazal to deal with adding water to wine explicitly and in
light of something specific to wine, I'm not sure one can extrapolate
from it to other drinks. I'm ruling out ra'ayos from it, not saying that
wine and whisky MUST be different.


Now, moving from whisky as taaroves to the question of selling chameitz
gamur...

Let me explain my vested interest. As far back as we can trace Berger
custom, which admittedly isn't that far, we didn't sell chameitz gamur.
If the star-K says I'm stuck with all the peratim of a minhag avos, I'd
like to understand the how and why.

...
: >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.

It doesn't make sense in a post-refrigerator, post-trucking economy.
Not back when people couldn't possibly keep a supermarket with huge
stock.

: >: 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.

Who do you think immigrated to the US after the war, set up shlacht-hoizen
free from the mafia infiltration that plagued the older ones, and thereby
made glatt the norm here in the US?

: >: 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?

Selling requires knowledge that you are selling. Definition of qinyan.

...
: >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.

That's not a minhag, it's a minhag chassidus, a personal chumerah,
a hanhagah tovah, but it's not a minhag. Less binding. I wouldn't have
to keep it just because my father did, and certainly not to the extent
of asking whether or not we sell whisky.

Minhag requires nispasheit, by definition. As do gezeiros, although
gezeiros require formal repeal and the lack of semichas Moshe rules
that out.

...
: 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.

The *shevus* of amira le'aqum excludes tzarikh rabim.

If you were saying that the minhag, which is no derabbanan, of not
selling chameitz gamur, was written to exclude hefsed meruba, then it
should not apply to the modern homeowner, who owns a pantry and
refrigerator and more food for the next day or two.

...
: 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.

When you place a chumerah in BALM ahead of basic making sure no one
suffers economically BALC, you are sinning.

I can find limudei zekhus.

For example, we know from numerous RYSalanter stories, that this problem
dates back to the mid-19th cent CE. The people who are avoiding a store
because the proprietor doesn't share their chumerah are arguably tinoqos
shenishbe'u.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
micha at aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch