- This topic has 38 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
There was a story I heard about in Eretz Yisroel of a worker in the Matza bakeries who wanted a pay rise. He went to the manager and told him “One box of Matzos in the storerooms was made without Lishmo. I know which number it is. If you want me to tell you, you need to give me a pay rise.”
What, according to Halocho, is the status of these Matzos and what should the manager do now?
Take the worker to a din torah. If according to you, he ruined all the matzah in storage, that is what they should sue him for.
I’m not sure why you thing Matzos are a davar sheb’minyan. They are sold by weight, so pashtus I don’t see why they won’t be batel b’rov. Bitul doesn’t have to make anything lishmah. Rov tells me that right now I am eating the one that was made lishmah. The only real shaylah would be if your k’zayis consisted of a small piece from every single box. I also don’t see any reason to think that the fact that this person claims to know should block bitul. At the end of the day, we have a safek, therefore at the end of the day, rov comes into effect.
The ones who knead, roll, and bake the matzoh are not the ones who box it, so how would he know?
Suspicious story with missing facts.
Does he claim he rolled the matzos shelo lishma?
That he replaced good matzos with non-leshmo matzos?
What about ain adam masim atzmo rasha?
If we believe that he put faulty matzos in a box, we certainly couldn’t trust him that this was the box, and no other box was tainted.
What about ain adam masim atzmo rasha?
L’chorah we’d say palginan dibura. Furthermore, it isn’t an act of rish’us to bake matzos shelo lishmah; only to sell them under false pretenses.
If he used deceit to get a pay raise it doesn’t seem that any of his matzos were lishma.
I think the story is contrived.
Tell him he is getting a raise and then when he tells you which box then fire him.
I agree with apushatayid.
Yitay: Is it a safek if the worker says vadai one is lo lishmah and he knows which one it is?
I agree that the story is fabricated (hand shnurah boxes are not numbered,etc…). Even if it is true, what the worker said means nothing. All the matzos are ok to be eaten. Furthermore, the lishmah is inherent in the baking process, a la machine matzah,and cannot be nullified by one nutcase chochmolog extorsionist.
I second that.
sam4321 – I would think so. The fact is it’s a safek to us and we have no easy way of finding out.
Whether it is true or not is irrelevant – change the title from “scandal” to “shaila”.
That’s a good point.
Old man: Furthermore, the lishmah is inherent in the baking process, a la machine matzah
What does that mean? There is a shailah about machine matzoh whether or not it’s lishmah, and as yekke2 wrote, the opinion that holds it’s okay assumes that turning on the machine is the act of baking which requires lishmah.
I think you just tried to wipe out the whole din of lishmah.
1. This so-called worker cannot pasul the company’s matzos on a whim. The mere fact (?) that he asked for a raise proves he’s an extorter and nothing more. I would kick him out the door on the spot. If someone needs support for this position, read some of the Chasam Sofer’s tshuvos on shochtim.
2. When and if he operated the machine, the end product was more than one box. He could not possibly remove lishmah from only one box , numbered or not. This is an automatic process, with hundreds if not thousands coming out after a few buttons are pushed.
3. In my opinion, the mere process of baking shmurah matzah automtically confers lishmah on it. Hundreds or thousands of years ago, the baking process was an everyday fact of life and the matzos needed to be singled out for Pesach. Nowadays, it is obvious what these matzos are for, and so they are lishmah automatically.You can disagree, but my opinion is perfectly logical.
4. I am aware that many gedolim do or did not not approve of machine matzos, especially the great Rav Chaim Tzanser. To each his own, no problem.
1. Technically, he can’t pasul baked matzos, but he can bake matzos shelo lishmah.
2. I agree that technically it’s next to impossible to pull it off, as I posted earlier. I’m looking at this from a theoretical perspective, as yekke2 suggested.
3. You might be right, b’dieved (l’chatchilah, the bakeries are makpid to constantly say “l’shem matzas mitzvah), but not if he had specific intention for it to be shelo lishmah.
4. I wasn’t disputing this point, but you seemed to be inferring that the acceptance of machine matzah, at least by some authorities, indicates that there’s no need for lishmah, which is not the case.
yekke2 –
When you go into the shop, do you ask for a kilo of matzos or a box of matzos?
It doesn’t matter; you are buying by weight. The idea of davar shb’minyan is that the individual thing has a chashivus that does not allow it to become batel. Since people don’t sell them individually, but rather by weight, they don’t have that chashivus.
That isn’t bitul b’rov, that is a different type of Rov where you are ???? ??? ????, where the ??? is ???? the ???. You probably have a problem of ???? on this.
Bitul would never take effect in a case where kavua was shayach. All dinim of rov are essentially the same. None are a birur, all are a din. Kavua would not take effect here because the issur and heter are completely indistinguishable one from another, just like three pieces of meat are.
Agav, the question of whether bitul changes the status of the thing being nisbatel is a machlokes Rashba and Rosh. The Rosh says this, the Rashba says no such thing. The Rosh isn’t saying that the rov is mevarer the safek, he is saying that the din of rov says that the mi’ut is nishapech in din. The Rashba doesn’t hold of this, but he hold you can eat each one because on each you can say “I am eating from the rov.” No din of birur.
I don’t mean to get all patronizing, but the essential reading material on rov and sfeikos is not first and foremost the Shmatsa and R’ Shimon. It’s the Rashba in Toras HaBayis in Sha’ar Hata’aruvos (and of course the relevant Gemaras in Zevachim, Chulin, Beitza et al with the basic rishonim). My point is that I do not think you would have made this point if you would have seen the Rashba.
Believability:
1) Is there a chiyuv here to believe the blackmailer’s claim that one box contains non-leshmo matza?
2) How about if the blackmailer claimed one box contained matza that was vadai chometz?
3) What if the blackmailer’s claim is that one box contained traif (or otherwise ossur all year around) matza?
Rov / Chazaka:
1) Do rov and/or chazaka come into play here?
When and if the blackmailer confesses:
1) Do we believe anything he says when and if he confesses as to which box is tainted?
2) Can we trust him that he hasn’t tainted more than one box, or actually traifed up some matzos?
yitayningwut–
The “masim atzmo rasha” I see here wouldn’t be baking shelo lishma, or even making it chometz – it would be sabotaging the goods he’s paid to produce in order to blackmail the owner.
A nafka mina (where I couldn’t claim “ain masim”) would be where he claims he b’shogeg forgot to have leshmo in mind, but now that the deed is done, he wants to blackmail the owner.
As far as palginan, that’s an interesting point. I’m not sure if this would be like the case of eidim who claim they were coerced monetarily (who we don’t believe, thereby showing that someone who claims they omitted an aveira just for monetary benefits isn’t believed), or other cased where we disregard the “passeling” portion of their testimony, and believe a part of it; hence the “palginan”.
ICOT –
The fact that you are willing to consider baking shelo lishmah b’shogeg not a ma’aseh rish’us shows that what you do consider the ma’aseh rish’us is baking shelo lishmah b’mezid (presumably with the intent to sell under false pretenses). My response to that is that since the action of baking shelo lishmah bemeizid does not inevitably lead to selling anything under false pretenses, it does not appear to me to be inherently an act of rish’us, since he can always decide not to do so.
Your response about palginan is a fair point. It would be worthwhile to be me’ayen in Tosafos in Kesubos 18a ?”? ???? to gain clarity about this.
I don’t believe the original story, but the topic is interesting.
I would like someone to explain this situation to me:
There is a special bakery set up, with carefully chosen wheat, water that has been left overnight, a special oven heated to extreme temperatures, and a timed work schedule that is digitally monitored. The cleanliness is impeccable, and there is a team of specially trained Orthodox Jews doing the work from start to finish.
Everything that exists in this process, physical, mechanical, by machine or human hands down to the minutest detail is for one purpose only; matzos for Pesach. That’s it, one purpose only. Everyone knows it, and it cannot be denied.
It seems obvious to me that the lishmah aspect is built in to the entire system. To belabor the point, the whole operation is screaming its purpose. How can anything come out of this lo lishmah?
If anyone on the matzo preparation team tells me he baked lo lishmah, I would send him for therapy and eat the matzos at the seder.
yitayningwut–
Upon further review, my point of “ain adam masim atzmoi rasha” is on shaky grounds here for the following reasons:
1) The original action probably doesn’t qualify as rishus. If anything, he would simply have to compensate the owner for the difference between leshmo and shelo leshmo matza. (If he claims that he actually switched the matza with outside matza, that may be more severe).
2) The “masim atzmo rasha” would be that he’s admitting that he is trying to steal. However, his attempted blackmail is (I’d think) g’zaila in itself, so you see he is a rasha as far as that goes.
I didn’t go thru the entire Tosfos yet, just the first couple of lines (where he distinguishes between aidus and shtar). B’n I will. I think I see where you’re going though – this case is aidus, not shtar.
Corrections:
1) “omitted” in the last paragraph of my previous post should be “committed” – although my point was probably understood, this changes the meaning 180 degrees.
2) The Tosafos in Kesubos ?”? ???? is on 18b. I looked at ?”? ??? on 18a for a couple of minutes before I thought to turn the page.
old man–
A possible answer to your question is that the blackmailer claimes he swapped out the leshmo matzos with non-leshmo matzos baked elsewhere.
Old man, I answered your question. If someone does an integral part of the process specifically shelo lishma, the matzos are not usable for the mitzvah. Whether he needs therapy or mussar is an interesting question, though.
Old man,
The ???? ???? is by adding the water to the flour. If the person specifically said/ or has in mind at that point that these should not be ??? ???? ????, the fact that you have a bakery for ????, would not cancel the negative intention.
As far as collecting damages, this would clearly be a case ???? ????? ????.
ICOT –
The Tosafos in Kesubos ?”? ???? is on 18b. I looked at ?”? ??? on 18a for a couple of minutes before I thought to turn the page.
My bad. Glad you found it in the end.
I’m not saying it is certainly different here, as Tosafos does present a number of possibilities. My time is a just a bit limited and I am not that confident about my knowledge of the sugya of palginan, but Tosafos seems like a good starting point if you wish to clarify pshat in the different dinim.
This is interesting.
First I was wondering how it could be not lishma, since, did he make the matza intending it for purim? No, he intended it to be sold to someone to eat on pesach while doing the mitzva. So that seems lishmah.
But the teretz is, that he expected them to fall for his extortion, so he was intending it to be thrown out after he told them which one it was.
yekke2 –
Isn’t one of the fundemental differences between ??? and ???? that ??? is a ????? and ???? is a ??? (many ??????? speak about it; I know at least the ???? ???? uses this to explain why ???? ????? ???? ????)?
It is true that rov is a birur and chazakah is not. But at the end of the day, rov and chazakah both work the same way. I’ll explain.
If you are holding three pieces of meat, two kosher and one non-kosher, and I pick one, it is probable that I picked the kosher one. That is very logical. This is what we mean by rov being a birur.
If yesterday my animal didn’t have a hole in its lung, it may have one today. Assuming things stay the way they are is not really a logical premise as much as it is a practical way to live. Meaning, it makes sense for us to establish a rule called “the assumption of status quo” because otherwise we’d be going crazy wondering which way to turn, but when it boils down to logic, the status quo is not actually any more likely than anything else. This is what we mean by chazakah not being a birur.
Even though rov tells us what is probable, there is still the chance that the less probable outcome occurred. In the above case the chance is 33%, which is quite significant. Who says that we have the right to disregard the other possibilities? Or as one might say in Aramaic, ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? The fact that it’s a birur doesn’t answer the question; birur just explains what rov is, it doesn’t say why we follow the rov.
The question is equally strong if not stronger when it comes to chazakah; ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????
The answer, without getting into details, is that the Torah tells us to follow the rov and to follow the chazakah. The Torah says that when there’s a majority to one side, don’t worry about the minority. It’s not your concern. Similarly, when there’s a chazakah, don’t worry about other possibilities. You can assume things didn’t change, because the Torah put its stamp of approval on chazakah.
In other words, at the end of the day the reason we follow both rov and chazakah is because of the din, not because of the birur. If it were the birur factor alone it wouldn’t suffice, because who says we don’t have to consider the minority?
When rov is pitted against chazakah we can still judge which is more likely and come up with a winner: rov, but the bottom line is the mechanism we use when we follow both rov and chazakah is not a likelihood or a probability; it’s a din.
If there is a ??? of ???? ??? ??? by ???????, then why do you need 1/60, 1/100 and all the different ????? of ?????, as long as there is a majority you can say “I am taking from the ???”?
Good question. You know who asks this? The rishonim! The Ra’avad, the Rashba! Seriously, you seem like a ba’al kishron (that’s an honest compliment), but you’re learning backwards. It’s not your fault, the whole system is messed up. You don’t learn sfeikos by learning R’ Shimon, you learn it by learning the Gemara with the rishonim. After all that’s how R’ Shimon himself did it too…
Anyway. The Ra’avad answers that ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????, ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????, ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???’, ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??, ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??, ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??. He is quoted by the Rashba in Chulin 99b ?”? ???.
The idea is that something which is nikar is obviously not batel b’rov. The fact that you can still taste it makes it considered nikar (to some mid’rabbanan and to some mid’oraisa). The same concept applies when the thing mixed in has a certain level of chashivus. This is where the halachos of 1/60 et al come from.
I don’t know whether bichlal it is shyich bittul here because there is no “issur” and “heter”, this is like ???? ????? which is a ?????? between the ????? ????? ??? ?”? and the ?? (I’m not sure exactly where, I think it is in ??”?).
The Ran you are looking for is in Nedarim 52a. If you’ll notice the oilam has discussed it here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/fish-and-meat/page/2#post-334691
Here you are making a good point. This should l’chorah qualify as heter b’heter in the Ran’s book. I hear. Efsher.
If you are saying that there is no ??? of ???? by ????? ????
I am not saying that; I am saying that bitul always comes into effect only because it has already passed the kavua test; i.e. there is nothing nikar about the minority that distinguishes it from the majority. That is the kavua test, and since the matzos pass that test, there will be bitul, and you won’t have to worry about kavua.
yekke2 –
I was talking about the ???? of the ????”?.
Even so, I would argue that there is no difference between the mechanism of rov and the mechanism of bitul. Both are dinim, and both are based on the concept that the probability is in the majority. (And while according to the Rosh there is the added din by bitul that the minority changes its din to be like the majority, that is a secondary halacha which takes place precisely because the classic din of rov took effect.)
Truth is when I learned Kesubos in yeshiva I had a whole bunch of ideas about sfeikos and rov too. But when I relearned it in the context of Yoreh Deah and after I’d become acquainted with the mehalech of being ???? ?????? ????? ??????, I laughed at my earlier self. If you don’t already, do yourself a favor and learn lots of bekius (Gemara+Rashi+the Tosafos that look interesting). It’ll do you a wealth of good.
Anyway, forgive me for getting on my soapbox and all. It’s not personal, this is just kind of my “thing.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.