[Avodah] [Areivim] kosher cabbage

[Chana Luntz]

Sorry, been meaning to get into this discussion but been busy:

> I fail to see the relevance.  What difference does it make whether it's
> tevel de'oraisa or derabbanan?  The fact remains that it's vadai (or
> almost vadai) tevel.

The bit of my post that RYL quoted is not relevant, the relevant sources are
as follows:

 The mishna in Chala (perek 2, mishna 1) has a machlokus [dispute] between
R' Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer which states that "peros chutz l'aretz shenichnas
l'aretz chayavin b'chala yezei m'kan l'sham Rabbi Eliezer mechayav u'Rabbi
Akiva patur" [the fruits of outside of Israel which enter into Israel are
obligated in the taking of chala, those that go out from here [ie Israel] to
there [outside Israel]  Rabbi Eliezer obligates and Rabbi Akiva does not
obligate] and the Kesef Mishna brings that the Yerushalmi gives the reason
of Rabbi Akiva as being because the Torah says "ha'aretz asher ani meyvi
eschem shama" [the land to which I will bring you there] "shama atem chayvin
be'en peros ha'aretz be'en peros chutz l'aretz" "shamaya atem chayavin v'ei
atem chavyin b'chutz l'aretz",[there you are obligated whether the fruits
come from Israel or not from Israel, there you are obligated, but you are
not obligated outside of Israel] and it is clear from everybody that we
posken in such a debate like R' Akiva.

Hence the Rambam in Hilchos Terumos perek 1 halacha 22 states:

"Peros eretz yisroel shyetze hutza l'aretz pturin min hachala, u'min
haterumos u'min hama'asros shenemar asher ani mevi eeschem shama.  V'im
yezei l'suriya chayvin m'divrehem" [the fruit of Eretz Yisroel that goes
outside of Israel are exempt from chala, and from teruma and from masros, as
it says, that which I will bring you there.  And if they go out to Suria
they are obligated rabbinically]

and very similar language is used in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, siman
331, si'if 12, without any dissent from the Rema.

The Shach there si'if katan 20 states that this is "afilu m'peros shel eretz
yisroel d'i m'peros shel chutz l'aretz pshita d'ha chova karka he". [even
from fruit of eretz yisroel because in regard to fruit of outside Israel it
is obvious that this is an obligation of the earth]

So far it would seem, so clear.

BUT, it turns out there is a Mishna L'Melech, on this Rambam (ie hilchos
terumos perek 1 halacha 22) which states that the mishna in chala and the
Rambam are only talking about a case where the produce is exported before it
reached the status of being chayav [obligated] in terumos and ma'asros
(hamachlokus zeh haya davka kshehitchayev b'chutz l'aretz").  But that if
exported afterwards it indeed does have the status of tevel, and is chayav
in trumos and ma'asros.

And Rav Moshe (Iggeros Moshe Yoreh Deah chelek 3 siman 127) after bringing
the mishna in chala, the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam on peros in chutz
l'aretz concludes "l'dina harei kol ha'achronim sovrim k'chiddush ha Mishna
L'Melech she'byezei l'chutz l'aretz achar m'revach v'chen kol pri acher
shenitchayav b'trumos u'masros chayavin b'chutz l'aretz v'cha issur tevel"
[the law is that all the achronim hold like the chiddush of the Mishna
L'melech that if they go out to chutz l'aretz after the status of revach and
so for all other fruit that enter into trumos and ma'asros they are
obligated in chutz l'aretz and have the issur of tevel]

Unfortunately however, Rav Moshe does not say who "kol ha'achronim" are.

The only person on the page of the Shulchan Aruch who appears to even bring
the position of the Mishna L'melech is the Tzvi L'tzadok (although he does
not quote him explicitly). As mentioned the Shach does not bring this
position (and surely if he held by it he would have brought it in the si'if
katan referred to above), nor can I see it in the Gra (who does not appear
to comment on this portion of the si'if at all).  

The Sde Chemed in his index headings under Teruma only discusses "tevel
b'eretz yisroel b'zman hazeh u'bchutz l'aretz b'zman habayis" [tevel in
Eretz Yisroel today and in chutz l'aretz in the time of the beis hamikdash]-
which is interesting because the implication is that there is nothing to
discuss in chutz l'aretz b'zman hazeh [today], although I may be reading too
much into it.  I could not find anything in Mishpat Cohen on topic, or in
Minchas Shlomo (he does not appear to refer to this si'if of the Shulchan
Aruch).  And again I could find nothing in Yachave Daat or Yabiat Omer (I
was hoping the latter would give me an insight into whether or not "kol
haachronim" included Sephardi achronim - and in any event, the usual
exhaustive citations that are ROY's trademark).  

Certainly if you read the Kesef Mishna on the Rambam there in hilchos
ma'asros perek 1, (which for some reason in my edition is labelled as si'if
katan 23, even though it is clearly on halacha 22), at least by implication
he seems to reject the chiddush of the Mishna L'melech (he discusses the
position of the Ra'avad, there who clearly argues on the Rambam and is not
that different in this regard) which leads me to speculate that Sephardi
achronim might not be so tempted to follow the Mishna L'Melech - especially
if they take a ROY like, "we always follow Maran" approach.

And a local Sephardi rav told me that it was the accepted position in the
Sephardi world (I don't know if this means universal, or just where he came
from) to say that produce from Eretz Yisroel was not obligated in trumos and
ma'sros once it was chutz l'aretz (I imagine this was a halacha l'ma'ase
question for far more Sephardim than it was for Ashkenazim - given that
exporting produce as far as Ashkenaz in days gone by was probably pretty
rare, while to the lands inhabited by Sephardim was probably reasonable
common).  Unfortunately I do not have anything in writing though, it is just
the word of somebody I know.

Have people traditionally been doing some poskening on the basis of safek
d'rabbanan l'kula and sfeik sfeikos where the situation is unclear (eg maybe
the produce was exported before it was chayav in trumos u'masros and maybe
the Rabbanut took (although that you should be able to establish) and maybe
the halacha is not like the Mishna L'melech and maybe if terumos and
ma'asros in eretz yisroel are only d'rabbanan [another aspect that seems to
be the subject of a machlokus and which I can dwell on if there is interest]
then the rabbis were not metaken such on produce exported to chutz l'aretz
into the hands of a non Jew)?

When I asked this question on Mail Jewish (some time after I asked it on
Avodah as per the post that RYL referred to, so this is the more updated
version - ie with the reference to a local Sephardi Rav), R' Saul Mashbaum
replied to me as follows:

>For a basic discussion of this subject, I recommend Derech Emunah by R.
Chaim Kanyevsky, Trumot 1,22. He cites the Bach at the end of Tur YD 321,
who >disagrees with the M'lM. The Minchat Chinuch mitzva 284 also explicitly
disagrees, ayni sham. OTHO, he quotes the Radva"z, the Mabit, and the Aruch
>HaShulchan as acccepting the M"lM. (the AHS is in AHS l'Atid, I think siman
57). DE also says that the Chazon Ish accepts the Mishna l'Melech see
>Shviit 2:1 and Dmai 5:3-4.
>An excellent resource on this subject is R. Isser Zalman Meltzer in Kerem
Zion volume 13, who notes as you do that the pashtut of the SA and its nosei
>keilim, including the Gra, is that we do not accept the chidush of the
Mishna l"Melech. L'maase, he says, as you indicate, the we have a sfeika
d'dina, >multiple sfeikot b'mtziut (was truma taken? Was the fruit grown by
a non-Jew?)  and several  d'rabbanan's (trumat peirot hailan b'zman hazeh),
and thus >someone in chu"l can be meikil not to take truma from oranges from
Israel.

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards 

Chana