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

[Meir Rabi]

R' Danny Schoemann asked - What makes you say that they are divested from
their Chamets?

MR - I chose to use the word DIVEST since I thought it reflects better the
requirement that OWNERSHIP is NOT the Halachic concern but that we deem the
Chamets to be of no significance. Perhaps it might be compared to one who
OWNS skiing equipment but has not used it for a number of years. It sits in
the garage or the basement without any real likelihood of ever being used
again. Perhaps it will be sold at a trash sale, or given to a friend or just
eventually just put out as trash to be taken by whoever pleases. For the
time being the equipment still belongs to the owner but it has no
significance. I suggest that by Halachic standards this mindset is what is
required in regards to Chamets.

DS - It seems to me that they *planned* to divest themselves of it, but
never followed through on it.

MR - Indeed, they planned and they succeeded as far as they thought and
therefore have satisfied the Halachic requirements.

DS - 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.

MR - According to what I proposed earlier there is no farce. It will be like
one who has valuable Chamets under a collapsed shed which although the owner
certainly intends to salvage at the conclusion of Pesach, need not be sold
and according to some does not even require Bittul since it is already
Battel and of no significance for the duration of the Chag

DS - 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.

MR - I do not disagree with your thoughts but that is not what I had in
mind. You are suggesting he does not deserve to be penalised and I am
proposing that he has satisfied whatever Halacha requires him to do
If I am corRect then the next question is - DOES THE RABBI NEED TO BOTHER
SELLING THE CHAMETS AT ALL?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110502/db5ee8da/attachment-0002.htm>