Hot answers tagged

6

As with many questions of this type, the answer is "it is a machlokes" You would have to consult your specific Rav. The OU actually goes into some details on this. What’s the Truth about . . . the Sale of Chametz on Pesach? The utensils themselves present more of a challenge. The question of what to do with chametzdik, non-kasherable dishes is ...


4

If you simply read the "pshat" as recorded, it seems to work quite nicely (partly taken from Rav Menachem Leibtag). The brothers see Yishmaelim and therefore decide to sell Yosef. Before they get to it, Midyanim come and take him out of the bor (i.e. the pit) and sell him to the Yishmaelim (to bring to Egypt). Since the Midyanim, in effect, did the ...


4

Hazaka only works with the original owner's consent. Rambam, Laws of Sales Chapter 1: א,ז [ח] כיצד בחזקה: מכר לו בית או שדה, או נתן אותן מתנה--כיון שנעל או גדר או פרץ כל שהוא, והוא שיועיל במעשיו--הרי זה קנה. א,ח במה דברים אמורים, בשהחזיק בפני המוכר. אבל שלא בפני המוכר או הנותן, צריך שיאמר לו לך חזק וקנה; ואחר כך אם החזיק--קנה, אף על פי שאינו ...


4

The lubovitcher rebbe discussed this and made a chiddush that tevilah is only required where the non jew had access to the utensils. He also suggested that because of today's manufacturing processes this may not be fufilled and possibly today's utensils do not require tevillah hence some chabad do not make a brachah because of a safek brachah. Likutei ...


3

Qiẓur Shulḥan 'Arukh - Yalqut Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 120:24) states (my translation): כלים של חמץ שנכללו בשטר המכירה של מכירת החמץ, ראוי להחמיר הטבילם בלי ברכה For Ḥameẓ utensils included in one's Sale of Ḥameẓ contract, it is proper to be stringent and to immerse them [once they return to one's possession] without a blessing.


3

The Rebbe gave the dollars to people to give to charity. People usually substituted it for another dollar, to keep the one from the Rebbe. Nevertheless, if one did give it to charity, of course that's alright. In this case, the dollar was given to you. If it was given to you to keep; then halachikly they'd be no problem, unless it was given to you on ...


3

There is a health food store in Maryland owned by the 7th Day Adventists Church; many of their canned products are certified kosher by well-respected kashrut organizations. Nevertheless, Rabbi Hillel Klavan, shlita, who is also the son of the great rabbi of the early 20th Century, Rabbi Joshua Klavan, zt'l, emphatically told my wife and I that we should not ...


2

Yosef's brothers pulled him up from the ditch and sold him to the Yishme'elim who sold him to the Midyanim who sold him to the Medanim who sold him to Potiphar (Sifte'i Hakhamim). To answer the second question: no (see above).


2

In 1980 I published an article in the Baltimore Jewish Times called, "What the Matchmaker Did and Didn't Do for Me." I interviewed many matchmakers and their clients and made myself (then single, of course) a guinea pig for a Boro Park matchmaker. The matchmakers make it pretty clear, that they take the time to find someone who is appropriate for you, and ...


2

The Gemara considers it praiseworthy to make good on one's mental commitments, as Rav Safra did. However that's not required by the letter of the law. If someone said "I will sell" but took no action on it, then we conclude "it is appropriate to follow through, and failing to do so disappoints our Sages." (But the counterparty has no legal recourse.)


1

I will tray to give a different response (see my 2 comments above). A first step is to talk about the topic with a minimum of technical terms. A deed of acquisition is generally a symbolic act, a speaking act. When mister A acquires an object Ob. from Mister B, there is a kind of scenography: from the hand of mister B to the hand of mister A, from his ...


1

"that if you publicly use property long enough without anybody objecting, it's yours even if you can't show proof of a transaction." There actually is such a concept in Halacha. It's also called "Chazaka", here in its common meaning of "legal presumption". That is, if you can prove that you used the land for three years in a row, you do not need to prove ...


1

This is a complex question and you need to ask a rav if this had practical implications. If this is a theoretical questions, one might learn from the laws of lost objects (asheivat aveida), second chapter of Bava Metsia (21a and ff), based on Devarim 22:1-3 If you see your brother's animal, you shall not hide from it; you must return it to the owner. ...


1

R' Lebovitz's words In a 5775 issue of Halachically Speaking, R' Moishe Dovid Lebovitz of Kof-K Kosher Supervision writes: Practically speaking, we do business with non-Jews every business day of the year, even on their holidays. Many heterim are offered for this practice. [See: R' Ari Wasserman. Higyonei Haparsha: Shemos. Pages 276-278.] Some ...


1

I asked these questions to one of the rabbis who worked for a local synagogue. He's a charedi Ashkenazi rabbi. He said the following: I shouldn't shop at a church-owned thrift store — that it's supporting idol worship. The only exception would be if it's one of the few denominations which treats Yoshke as a prophet, not as a god. Even if I would have to ...


1

In addition to what @Isaac Moses says above, the Midrash Esther Rabbah, Petihta Guimel also brings: ר' יצחק אמר: לעבדים ולשפחות אי אתם נקנין, אבל אתם נקנין להשמיד להרוג ולאבד, שכן אסתר אומרת לאחשורוש: "וְאִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת נִמְכַּרְנוּ הֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי" שכן כתב לנו משה רבינו בתורה "וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאוֹיְבֵיכֶם לַעֲבָדִים ...


1

The halachah is that they may take only one can, as the other can does not belong to them. Taking an extra can is a violation of three mitzvos—the positive and negative commandments of hashavas aveidah, returning lost objects, as well as the negative commandment of “Do not steal.” The person should call the owner of the machine and inquire how to return the ...


1

The primary source would be the Mishnayot in the 8th chapter of Kesuboth and the related Gemara. The Shulchan Aruch codes this in Even Ha'Ezer 84-85


1

It's not that horses were exclusive to Egypt. Rather, Egypt was the source of the best and most sophisticatedly bred horses and would constantly look towards egypt to maintain his menagerie. A king with many horses make himself dependent on Egypt just as a country with many cars would be dependent on Saudi Arabia or Iran vayimach shemam. Sources: Little ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible