[Avodah] If the rabbi did not actually sell the Chamets

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Meir Rabi asked:

> If the Kinyan was not completed correctly or the rabbi did not
> get to make the sale until past the time or whatever, would there
> be ANY real problem? After all, as far as the original owners of
> the Chamets are concerned, the rabbi's congregants, they are
> utterly divested from their Chamets interms of what the Torah
> demands that they deem it to be of no relevance to them and also
> as far as Takonas Chazal is concerned, they have been bodek and
> MeVaEr to meet all requirements.

What makes you say that they are divested from their Chamets? It seems to me that they *planned* to divest themselves of it, but never followed through on it. More accurately, it is the Rabbi who dropped the ball, but I don't know why that would make a difference. The bottom line as I see it is: (1) Regarding the fact that the owner did bedikah, I don't see much difference between a RMR's case, and a bagel which the owner saved to eat for breakfast on Erev Pesach and then forgot to eat. (2) Regarding the biur (meaning the bitul, I presume), I have always presumed that the bitul specifically excludes the chametz which is to be sold, because if it was included that would make a farce of the sale, and/or buying it back later would make a farce of the bitul.

My guess is that in RMR's case, the owner would be unquestionably guilty of owning the chametz on Pesach. However, if this was totally due to the rav's error, then I can easily imagine that the *penalty* of the chametz becoming forbidden *might* not apply, because he did make a good faith effort at getting rid of it -- and maybe that's what RMR meant to begin with.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon.com Official Site
1 huge daily deal on the best stuff to do in your city. Try it today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4dbcdf6f91ea61a6601st06vuc