Chometz Now – Where May We Buy it?

They are very different. A company is a corporate entity. It doesn’t matter whether there are many shareholders or only a few, or even only one, it has it’s own existence, and when it is sold it is sold.

A private business means there is no corporate entity, there is only the Jewish proprietor doing business in his own name. Before Pesach he sold not the business but only the chometz inventory. Therefore if you think his continuing to sell that same inventory invalidates the sale, then you would be machmir.

But if he sold the whole business then he was not selling the inventory on Pesach, the business was, and it was always clear that that was going to happen. There was no pretense that it wouldn’t, nobody even asked him that it shouldn’t. Even if he personally stood behind the counter selling the business’s chometz, he was doing so as the company’s employee, which is perfectly muttar even lechatchila. So there’s no reason to raise any concerns about the sale.

Joseph, the difference between a corporation and a private person doing business is that when a private person sells, he generally doesn’t sell the business, because there is no “business” to sell. The business is him. Rather, he sells the inventory. Whereas if it’s a corporation he sells the shares, and the corporation can go on doing business as before.

And yes, as far as I know dina demalchusa, just like minhag hatagorim, almost always overrides Choshen Mishpat. (Indeed the whole koach of dina demalchusa seems to be because it is a strong minhag hatagorim.)

Charliehall, as far as I know it is never formally defined, it is just assumed as a given. See in particular the halachos on the ownership of shuls.

1. If there’s no corporation then what is the “business” that he is selling? That is the distinction I was making in the original comment. Even if there’s no corporation on paper, he may be treating it as if it were a corporation, in which case it would be the same thing. But generally if it is set up that way then he will have a corporation; if he doesn’t then he isn’t running it that way.

2. Yerusha is different, because it’s not really momonos. There’s a specific mitzvah involved. Still, even there I believe that if a person left no will and dina demalchusa now says so much of the estate belongs to Reuven and so much to Sarah, then that is dina. We can say that after the yerusha al pi torah was chal, then the dina malchusa rearranged it and that is the final disposition.

But certainly in other financial topics, yes, a beis din must determine what the dina demalchusa is, and pasken accordingly, unless the parties specifically agree to be judged by Choshen Mishpot instead, which dina demalchusa allows.

On the “tzibur of one” you just agreed with me. When a second Jew moves into town he is automatically a 50% owner of everything that belongs to the tzibur. That proves that the tzibur has its own existence, and is not simply its current members. Because if it were simply its members then when it was down to one he inherited everything, so how could the new person be entitled to anything? How can the first person suddenly lose half of the assets without his consent? That proves that the assets were never his, they were the tzibur’s, i.e. the tzibur, even with only one member, remained a corporate entity and was not subsumed into his personal rechush. A privately held corporation would therefore have the same din. It’s a separate entity from its sole shareholder, and when he sells the shares it is now the new owner’s.

Joseph, I don’t see how CM 26:1 is relevant. It says nothing about which laws a beis din should apply. It’s entirely about who should judge cases between Jews. A Jew seeking justice from another Jew must go to Beis Din. But I believe the Beis Din must rule according to local law, and if they don’t know what that is they must take advice or hear expert testimony, just as they do to determine any fact. See Shach 165:8. And there’s another long Shach somewhere on this, but I couldn’t find it at the moment.

However I’m curious. If this is not your understanding, then what do you think “Dina Demalchusa Dina” means? It doesn’t mean, as many mistakenly think, that one must obey the law. If you look at every instance where this memra of Shmuel is cited in the gemara, you will see that it is always talking, not about what one may or may not do, but about the ownership of property. And the very word “Dina” doesn’t mean “halacha”, it means “judgement”, as in “Psak Din”.

It seems clear to me that Dina Demalchusa Dina means that when the state’s laws say Reuven owns this piece of property and Shimon doesn’t, then that is the correct judgment, and a Beis Din must rule accordingly. And the reason it is so is because that is the basis on which people transact business. For instance when one lends to a limited liability corporation one knows that one cannot recover from the shareholders. And Minhag Hatagorim is another example of the same thing; it’s binding because it’s the basis on which one does business. It’s a tnai, and the rule is Kol Tnai Shebemomon Kayom.

n0m, ownership is exactly what Dina Demalchusa does define. Every single time this memra is cited, it is for that exact purpose. If you disagree then tell me what you think Dina Demalchusa Dina does mean, and what makes you think so.

A corporation is an abstraction of its shareholders. And a corporation has officers who are entitled to make kinyanim on its behalf. Who do you think makes kinyanim for any tzibur, or for a kupas tzedaka, or for a hekdesh? Bizman Habayis, who made kinyanim for the Beis Hamikdosh?