Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 017

Wednesday, April 17 2002

• aveilut of sefirat haomer
• every soldier
• Re: every soldier
• Re: every soldier
• Pidyon haBen through a shaliach
• Re: Oat & spelt in 5 minim?
• Re: Avodah V9 #16
• Re: Inyanei Aveilus
• RE: Inyanei Aveilus
• Re: Hallel on Yom ha-Atzma'ut
• Re: Oat & spelt in 5 minim?
• Minhag, oats, kitniyos, and haircuts during omer
• RE: Inyanei Aveilus
• Re: segulot
• R' Hutner on Nissim
• YKK
• Re: YKK
• items incorporating crosses in their design
• Re: segulot
• Oats and beans and barley grow

Is there a connection between aveilut of sefirat haomer and the gezeirot
of tach v'tat?
Where is this discussed?

Reuven

[Now that I'm back from Chicago, I have time to bounce this discussion
from Areivim. -mi]

Our rabbi told us a story that he had a "sheilah" last week at the 
pidyon ha-ben of his nephew becuase the father could not make it 
because he was in Jenin and how to do the pidyon ha-ben.
In the end the father showed up half an hour before the pidyon and 
left immediately afterwards without waiting for the meal.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 14/04/2002

On 14 Apr 2002 at 10:42, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Our rabbi told us a story that he had a "sheilah" last week at the 
> pidyon ha-ben of his nephew becuase the father could not make it 
> because he was in Jenin and how to do the pidyon ha-ben. ...

So what was the psak? If the father had not been able to make it, 
would it have been better to postpone the pidyon or for him to 
appoint a shaliach to do it? 

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:58:19 +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>So what was the psak? If the father had not been able to make it,
>would it have been better to postpone the pidyon or for him to
>appoint a shaliach to do it?

Since the pidyon ha ben had been scheduled in any case I assume that 
a shialiach is preferable but will ask our rabbi.

[... deletia; see original on Areivim. -mi]

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/14/2002

Regarding the recent discussion, the Rema in YD 305:10 states, "V'ein
ha'av yachol lifdos al y'dei shaliach." The Shach and Taz both take
strong exception to this psak, which is based on a Rivash from which it
is far from obvious that such is his opinion.

A reason given for pidyon being an exception to the rule of sh'lucho
shel adam k'moso is that since pidyon haben is a consequence of b'chorei
Yisrael being spared during Makkas B'choros, just as the Makkah was
"lo al y'dei shaliach," so too is the mitzvah commemorating it.

Elazar M. Teitz

I wrote:
>> Huh?! I had heard it the other way around, that out is preferable to
>> splet because spelt may not be one of the 5 grains. I'll ask [Hershel
>> Shachter] next Tuesday (Monday is for the rally, BEH)

RRW replied:
> This kinds of puts any presumptive Masorah into question. How can we EVER
> know for sure that what we call Wheat is Wheat, what we call Wool is Wool
> and what we call Lettuce is lettuce?

AFAIK, indeed we are talking about the Massorah being put in question,
because of - heaven! - unusually strong archaeological proof. I will,
BEH, ask RHS or RJW this week about it.

Arie

Avraham Cohen wrote:
> Was this a professor Felicks? (spelling?) I remember hearing that name
> associated with the oats issue back when I was in yeshiva. Have any
> other poskim written about this?

That's it. R' HS  seems to think that this is something to take seriously. I
will try to see who else says so.

JH

Jacob Ginsberg ZL, my father in law, was niftar this past Shabbos. I would
like to dedicate this posy lzecher nishmaso and pose some questions and
observations re dinei aveilus:

1) next year is a shnas mubar. How does that effect the 12 months?

2) We all know that there is a strong preference for kvurah to be within
24 hours of misah. Has anyone any encountered a lack of understanding
about this out of town?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From:	Zeliglaw@aol.com [SMTP:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
> 2) We all know that there is a strong preference for kvurah to be within
> 24 hours of misah....

24 hours? IIRC the inyan is to bury as soon as possible, period.  

I don't want to get into an argument about this now, but I would
refer chaveirim to my translation of the teshuvah of my grandfather,
R. Akiva Glasner, son and successor of the Dor Revi'i in Klausenburg,
on the subject. Go to the Dor Revi'i website, www.dorrevii.org, and
follow the link.

I had hoped to have completed my translation of the Dor Revi'i's essay
on Zionism to be posted on the Dor Revi'i website in time for Yom
ha-Atzma'ut, but, alas, though I have completed a first draft of the
translation, it is not yet ready for posting. I now hope to have it on
the website at least in time for Yom Yerushalayim.

I also hope to translate my grandfather's essay on Shabbat Shirah and the
transcendant significance of Shirat Moshe from his book Iqvei ha-Tzon,
to which he refers in his teshuvah on Yom ha-Atzma'ut and post it on
the website as well.

u-z'khutam yagein al kol beit yisrael, amein.
 
David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Jordan Hirsch wrote:
>Apparently, there was a recent research article that effectively questions 
>whether Oat is really one of the 5 Minim. I cannot remember the name of the 
>author, but I know that R' Hershel Shachter is taking it very seriously... 

Avraham Cohen wrote:
>as this a professor Felicks? (spelling?) I remember hearing that name 
>associated with the oats issue back when I was in yeshiva. Have any other 
>poskim written about this?

Yes.  Professor Yehuda Feliks (of Bar Ilan)'s Chai VeTzomeach BaTorah (1981, 
not so recent).  RHS says in shiur that there is a safek beracha on oats and 
one should therefore not eat it.  When I was in yeshiva someonw checked with 
his son who said that lema'aseh they eat Cheerios in their home.  I've never 
heard of any other posek take this approach.

Gil Student

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 03:16:30PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: This kinds of puts any presumptive Masorah into question. How can we EVER 
: know for sure that what we call Wheat is Wheat, what we call Wool is Wool and 
: what we call Lettuce is lettuce?  

Or that turkey is a kind of tarnigol?

I would think that anything for which we had a continuous practical
mesorah, we can assume we didn't switch identities. However, for things
like a species of grain that wasn't farmed in Israel, we shouldn't make
such assumptions.

: The reason not to use Kitniyos might have been based in a bad experience 
: wherein some confusion happened and therefore Ashkenazim decided to not take 
: any chances any longer....

: Look if it is logical to prohibit clapping on Shabbas because you MIGHT tune 
: an insturment...

It's a good question: bad experience vs preemptive gezeirah.

I would prefer to believe that gezeiros are reactive. It provides a
blanket answer to why something less likely is prohibited by gezeirah,
while something more likely is not: The former was a mistake that actually
occured, the latter happened to never had occured.

: Despite the fact that I consider myself an advocate for minhaggim, I fail to 
: see the need or logic for expanding or embelishing these minhaggim with 
: additional Chumras.   The original Chumra is good enough for me :-}

Then why accept the first embellishment either? The only difference
between qitniyos and mei qitniyos is that the latter wasn't nispasheit
until much later. If you accept the process WRT 1,100 years ago, why not
WRT 120? (After all, people 880 yrs ago were in your shoes WRT qitniyos.)

On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 04:01:08PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: FWIW, I recently saw a really neat Dvar Torah showing Kol Nidre night as 
: connecte to the Pizmon - Hinei kachomer .. labris habeit v'al tefien 
: layezter.

: Problem:  The German custom is NOT to say this pizmon on Kol Nidre night even 
: though this pizmon exists elsewhere in Slichos. 
[2nd example deleted.]

Interestingly, it shows it all coheres. The system is consistant enough
that approaching the problem from two different ends can get you to the
same point.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             withdrawal and submission

From:	Zeliglaw@aol.com [SMTP:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
>> 2) We all know that there is a strong preference for kvurah to be within
>> 24 hours of misah....

On 16 Apr 2002 at 11:43, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
> 24 hours? IIRC the inyan is to bury as soon as possible, period.  

Actually, in Yerushalayim and other cities in Israel that follow 
minhag Yerushalayim, there is an inyan not to leave a meis overnight, 
and levayas here start as late as 1:00 A.M.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:53:35PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:> As you write, transistors are consistant with the laws of nature. Those
:> same laws necessary for effects that /do/ occur in nature. Therefore,
:> the possibility for us to create transistors is a necessary consequence
:> of having the laws around for other reasons.

: How is this different from kishuf? It certainly fits the Ramban's description.

Are you actually suggesting that the Ramban would assur using the computer
in front of me? Or water-wheels, which also do not occur in teva? Or even
wagons? Kishuf is clearly treated by halahah differently than teva-based
technology.

:> Most definitions of teva would not include sheidim.

: This is, to put it bluntly, false. Every medieval or ancient source
: I know who believed in sheidim believed them to be natural phenomena...

Proof by assertion? I thought that was my job!

: This is another basic dispute. In the premodern world no one (known to
: Jewish thinkers) denied the existence of God or of the human soul...

And yet we are told that every cheit shows a chisaron emunah. There is
a difference between cerebrally knowing there is a G-d and the feeling
it in your bones that makes that knowledge a motivator.

And if the psychology is true for the belief in the existance of G-d,
it is true for the belief in the existance of soul.

:> Current physical theory says they're unnatural.

: That's also false. Current physical theory says they don't exist (again
: I welcome you to cite a source).

Different ways of interpretting the absence of sheidim in contemporary
physics: You take it to be an assertaion that they don't exist. I'm
making the more limited claim that it indicates they're not inside the
feild of study. Either non-existant, or non-natural. Since the former
option conflicts with emunas chachamim, I assumed the latter.

In any case, you're answering my original question by denying the
problem. I asked what the point of segulah would be given that physics
addresses the needs of bechirah. You're answering that the shitos are:

1- Segulah isn't a different subject, and therefore there is no need for
a second mechanism; or
2- Segulah doesn't exist.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 04:04:56PM -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
: Either a segulah is a suspected causal relationship that is not well
: understood... 

This too denies the objective existance of segulos.

: ...                                        or
: A segulah is a magical device that depends not only on proper formula,
: but is also dependent on proper kavvanah, in a way that precludes a
: deterministic mechanism. The 'wonder' tefillot would fall under this
: category.

If it depends on proper kavanah, then it falls under sechar va'onesh, no?

I'm talking about things like the power of putting Seifer Razi'el
haMal'ach in a baby's crib. (Regardless of my personal skepticism on
the subject, I can not pretend that there is no derech in Torah that
asserts these things.) Or reading Zohar even if you don't know the
words. Kemei'os that are never read. The link between particular kibbudim
and specific forms of sechar: pesicha and easy childbirth, maftir Yonah
and parnasah (which don't even seem thematically connected), etc...

: The second category should be a threat to be'hirah unless kishuf is
: widely available or success far, far from assured (as in, it helps only
: a tzaddik gamur)...
: IOW, methinks that the discussion WRT 4 wolrds or a continuum is not
: really relevant if one doesn't belive in black magic, and is not a
: 'hiddush if one does believe in black magic.

On these points, we agree.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             withdrawal and submission

(Somewhat connected to the "segulah" thread.)

The following is based on a shi'ur given by (a different) R' Y Kaganoff,
which in turn was based on R' Hutner (started in ma'amar 24, but really
developed in 40). The shiur was given on the 7th day of Pesach, but I
didn't have time to summarize it here until now.

Berachos 12b: R' Elazar b Azarya says there's a chiyuv of mentioning
(as per shema, not the seder) yetzi'as Mitzrayim at night. (Like Ben
Zoma as quoted in the haggadah. He also says (based on Yirmiyahu 16:14)
that there will be no such mitzvah in yemos hamashiach. The mitzvah of
remembering will be of the next and final ge'ulah, BBA.

The chachamim say that there is no chiyuv at ngiht, but the (daytime)
mitzvah will continue even after the final ge'ulah. This second part
is also mentioned in the haggadah, and since it's competing usage
of the same derashah, the first part is implied.

Rambam, Hil Shema 1:3 holds like REBA and BZ. As does Maharal (Gevuros
H' 53).

However, the Rambam Sefer haMitzvos counts sippur (as in the seder night)
yetzi'as Mitzrayim amongst the 613 (as do most counts), which means he
holds it's ledoros.

VIDC? Why does Yirmiyahu apply to one and not the other?

Second question: How is the answer we give the chacham, the halachos of
the qorban Pesach, a qiyum of sippur? Wer'e not telling anything about
the story of the ge'ulah?

Chulin 7a: The river splits for Pinchas ben Ya'ir, leading the gemara
to conclude that he was greater than Mosheh and the 600,000 families
of his dor. Greater than av hanevi'im plus people who saw more than
Yechezqel ben Buzi? Hayitachein?

The answer begins by making a chaqirah between two types of nissim:
1- those that are superficial, that allow teva to be suspended so as to
accomodate the needs of a tzaddik, and to teach about hashgachah by
example;
2- those that are actually changes in the underlying physics, which then
has physical consequences.

Rashi says the cheit by mei merivah was that Mosheh was supposed to
speak to the rock and instead he hit it. The Ramban challenges this:
does the difference mean anything to the rock? Is one more natural
than the other? Why would this change qualify as significant?

The Maharal's answer is that talking to the rock would be a lesson in
emunah -- listing to devar Hashem (as taught by our rabbanim). Hitting
the rock is a message of self-survival -- avoid pain.

RYH explains the answer azoi: Yes, both break the natural order, and
both have the same "wow" factor. However, speaking to the rock would
have changed the upper olamos and thereby caused the rock to behave
uniquely. It would have made emunah inherently more available. Instead,
it was a superficial neis to accomodate Mosheh Rabbeinu and the needs
of the people.

Another example: Makas bechoros wasn't "merely" the death of the Egyptian
firstborn. Rather, HQBH lifted us to the level of "beni bechori Yisrael"
which then caused their death. But the essence of the neis was in the
shift in the metaphysical reality.

Which brings us to PBY vs those who crossed the Yam Suf. The Yam Suf
split due to a change in the underlying metaphysics. Which is why
they saw so much of the merkavah -- they saw that change! PBY's neis
was in response to PBY. It therefore showed his personal greatness.

Also, it's why only the Ginai split for him, but all water split for BY --
even though they didn't need it.

The night of the yetzi'ah we bacame beni bechori, at Yam Suf we were
raised to the level of being self-aware of that status. Vaya'aminu
Bashem uvMosheh avdo.

The 7 days of Pesach are linked because they represent two steps
in the acheivement. 

The night of makas bechoros, the night we became HQBH's bechor, the
world changed. However, histakeil be'Oraisa uvorei alma -- a change in
the world means a corresponding change in din. Thus, the giving of the
mitzvah korban Pesach.

The mitzvah of sippur (bringing us to our 2nd question) is not in
retelling the superficial effect, but in telling about the change in
the ruchniyus of existance. Therefore, hilchos haPesach is included.

Finally, for the difference le'asid lavo between zechirah and sippur.
Since sippur is about the underlying change, it's ledoros. Zechirah
is about remembering that there is a Yad Hashem in history. Therefore,
after a greater and more recent proof of that Yad Hashem, we would use
that instead.

Note that this makes the Rambam leshitaso. He holds (like Shemu'el)
that the final ge'ulah is mishib'ud malchiyos bilvad. IOW, it's
not a change in the mechanics of creation. Therefore, it's different
in kind than the nissim of yetzi'as Mitzrayim.


I had a question on all of this: Note that RYH is positing that this is
the Maharal's shitah in his answer defending shitas Rashi WRT hitting
the stone. However, R' Hutner uses a model of neis that contradicts
the Maharal's.

This idea of changes happening on different levels of reality that
then impact the physical world is from Nefesh haChaim (sha'ar 1). In
that framework we (except for RDR, apparantly) can distinguish between
nissim that are interventions on this level vs those that are effects
of changes on higher ones.

However, the 2nd intro to the very same Gevuros H' defines nissim quite
differently. The Maharal holds that nissim are always occuring. The
question is "where" is the observer (shades of modern physics! <grin>).
If one raises himself above teva then one is in a position to experience
the non-teva. And so the Mitzri lived in a world so low that the
water turned to blood. The same liquid was simultaneously water for
the Jew. A difference in "where" the person was.

To the Maharal, nissim require a change in the observer; the change
is subjective. RYH describes nissim that are changes in the totality
of existance; objective changes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             withdrawal and submission

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
>> Just last Shabbas someone told me YKK is not done 3 times in a row
lest one get a Hazzakah! <<<<<

Huh? What about Sivan, Tammuz, Ov, and Ellul?

>> I never heard THAT. What I did hearis that YKK is omitted when
Tachnanun is omitted - E.G. end of Tishrei, <<<<<

AFAIK only (certain) chassidim don't say Tachnun after Sukkos...

>> end of Kislevc and end of Nissan. Lmai nafkah mina? E.G. Erev Rosh
Chodesh Av.<<<

Lo zochisi lehovin.

SBA

On 17 Apr 2002 at 11:07, SBA wrote:
> AFAIK only (certain) chassidim don't say Tachnun after Sukkos...

That's actually a fairly common minhag here (and not just in 
Chassidic circles).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

A while ago, I needed a lock, so I bought one at a local establishment.
Later, I disovered that both the lock and the keys to it had crosses
(of sort) on them (above a crown).

I assume that that is just the motto of the company or something else,
but that the crosses are not meant to serve a religious purpose (at
least overtly).

My question is, is there any problem halachically with such a lock
and keys?

This could be analogous to other similar things, such as flags of certain
countries that contain crosses in them. Can Jews in such countries fly
the flag on a national day?

Also, the crosses don't seem to have equal length vertical and horizontal
segments - but I don't think that would make much of a difference here,
if anywhere, as there are many various types of crosses of different
dimensions / proportions and designs.

Being uncomfortable with a cross out in the open on the lock, I placed
a small piece of tape over it, to cover it. Would that alleviate any
possible problem?

Comments?

Mordechai

> Are you actually suggesting that the Ramban would assur using the computer
> in front of me? Or water-wheels, which also do not occur in teva? Or even
> wagons? Kishuf is clearly treated by halahah differently than teva-based
> technology.

This is the thread that RAM tried to get started. Not everything
unnatural is classified as kishuf, but some things are. For the Rambam
it's kishuf if it was historically associated with idolatry (which might
include water clocks, though not water wheels). I don't know that the
Ramban ever specified a general paradigm. RAF seems to be reviewing
Yoreh Deiah, perhaps he has some ideas.

> And yet we are told that every cheit shows a chisaron emunah.

Really? I thought chazal attributed it to a ruach shtus (which I would
render as folly). Perhaps you should remind me who told us that.

> Different ways of interpreting the absence of sheidim in contemporary
> physics: You take it to be an assertion that they don't exist. I'm
> making the more limited claim that it indicates they're not inside the
> field of study.

Take, for example, the amora whose water was drawn by a sheid.
Don't physicists study movement of water?

> Either non-existant, or non-natural. Since the former
> option conflicts with emunas chachamim, I assumed the latter.

But remember when you chided RAF for taking sides in the machloketh
rishonim about the existence of sheidim. Aren't you doing the same
thing by redefining sheidim in a way they didn't imagine?

> In any case, you're answering my original question by denying the
> problem. I asked what the point of segulah would be given that physics
> addresses the needs of bechirah.

Yes; I am saying that you misunderstand the concepts of segulah and
bechirah.

Notice that you are even contradicting yourself on this point: compare
your list of segulos (commented on below) with your ancient definition
(which seems to exclude sechar mitzva):
> I'm talking about things like the power of putting Seifer Razi'el
> haMal'ach in a baby's crib.

Doesn't the Rambam say that a person who does that (admittedly with a
sefer from tanach, not sefer raziel) is a kofer "sheoseh divrei HKBH
rofei haguf v'einam ela rofei hanefesh" (I'm citing by heart, so it may
not be precise)?

> Or reading Zohar even if you don't know the
> words.

Isn't the claim here that this is still considered a form of talmud torah?

> Kemei'os that are never read.

The shulhan aruch (citing the Rambam) says they work as placebos.

> The link between particular kibbudim
> and specific forms of sechar: pesicha and easy childbirth, maftir Yonah
> and parnasah (which don't even seem thematically connected), etc...

None of these fit your previous definition of segulah, because they are
all kiyum mitzvos.

David Riceman

R. Jordan Hirsch: <With regards to Oat Matzah, which in America is
imported from England, I have been made aware of the reluctance
of some Gedolim to allow its use on Pesach, at least for Matzas
Mitzvah. Apparently, there was a recent research article that effectively
questions whether Oat is really one of the 5 Minim. I cannot remember the
name of the author, but I know that R' Hershel Shachter is taking it very
seriously, and has been shying away from the use of Oats in this context.>

R. Arie Folger : <Huh?! I had heard it the other way around, that oat
is preferable to spelt because spelt may not be one of the 5 grains....>

This actually is an old story. Being always out-of-date, I do not know
what recent research article is being referred to, but the inyan is not
a recent discovery, nor were any more proofs needed.

 From a halakhic point of view, the Rambam in Kil'ayim I:1 translates
shibbolet shu'al as "sunbul al-tha'lab, w'huwwa al-sha'iir al-bari"
(lit. " 'fox grain,' i.e. wild barley"). Of course, the Rambam himself is
over 800 years old, but I will just refer to R. Qaafih's edition of Perush
haMishnayos with the original Arabic, published in 1963 (I refer to that,
because if anyone had had a question about what the Rambam really meant,
after the publication of that edition he could look it up himself in
the original). The Rambam is quite definite: oats are not one of the
five grains at all; oats are not a kind of barley according to anyone,
and look nothing at all like either wheat or barley or spelt, or even rye
(which itself is probably not one of the 5 grains).

To be sure, Rashi is equally definite, translating on P'sahim 35a
shibbolet shu'al as "aveine," which is the French word for Avena sativa,
or oats in English. But at the very most, then, we have a mahloqet
rishonim about its identity, and, as R. Jordan says, certainly for matzas
mitzva one should be careful. In terms of the accepted Ashk'naz psaq,
I will assert that there is a question as well. Although all Ashk'nazim
accepted Rashi's interpretation in terms of identifying shibbolet
shu'al when translating the g'moro, I do not know of any who paskened
l'ma'aseh to eat oats. Every European Jew I have questioned told me
that hober ("huber" to you, R. Arie) was not even a shayle for people,
since they were not considered human food in Europe; you fed them tzu dem
ferd. Eating them would be akin to eating dog food: would it kill you? no,
but no sane person ever even thought of eating them. I therefore question
whether one can claim that oats were identified as one of the five grains
l'ma'aseh, since no rov in Europe paskened that one could make matzo
out of them, or even that you said m'zonos over them. The whole idea of
humans eating oats was an invention of those indefatigable health nuts
of the end of the 19th century, including W.C. Post and Walter Kellogg,
who came up with the previously unheard of notions of eating cold cereals
and other grain products to cure asthma, arthritis, baldness, and bad
breath, as well as TB and most other ailments, including old age. (BTW,
that's how oats ended up with the name Kvaker in Israel: no Jew from
Europe had ever eaten this food, and the first they saw of it were the
boxes of Quaker oatmeal shipped there to feed the hungry.

The unknown food substance, which they were assured was nutritious, was
then called Quaker as an Israeli might pronounce the name on the box,
not shibbolet shu'al or hober or oats).

 From a scholarly point of view, R. Yehudah Feliks spent years researching
the flora and fauna mentioned in the Mishna and G'moro, and he had
published several books about his results in the 70's. His book
"haTzomeah v'ha'Hai beMishna"is still in print, and is basic reading
for identifying plants and fruits mentioned, as well as debunking some
popular misidentifications. He identifies shibbolet shu'al as hordeum
distichum, "two rowed barley." The identification with oats he says
is mistaken because 1) oats were not grown in Israel during the time
of Hazal in all probability; 2) more importantly, the aforementioned
Mishna in Kil'ayim says s'orim and shibbolet shu'al are kil'ayim with
each other, which implies a high level of similarity (unlike oats, which
look totally different; and 3) a Yerushalmi that says shibbolet shu'al
is "'asuya k'shura," i.e. the grain in straight rows, like barley and
two-rowed barley, but completely unlike oats.

So the information necessary to raise serious questions about oats being
one of the five grains has been out for 30 years, and I have been telling
people for the past 20 that oat matzo is not a good idea.

Seth Mandel

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]