Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 005

Wednesday, April 5 2006

• RE: Mezonot Bread
• RE: Mezonot Bread
• mezonot bread
• RE: mezonot bread
• Mezonot Bread
• RE: Mezonot Bread
• Re: Mezonos Bread
• Re: Haaretz: Rabbinical Court allows cohen to marry daughter of non-Jew
• Re: Looking for a source
• RE: Looking for a source
• RE: Looking for a source
• Re: jewish identification
• R. Gustman
• Re: 3 Kedusha Questions
• Re: Looking for a source
• Re: Looking for a source
• Re: mezonot bread
• RE: Mezonos Bread
• Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• Re: Kashrut reliable enough
• Seder and Korban Pesach Issues

[RnTK:]
> Since my husband (and everybody else?) holds that all rolls are hamotzi
> if eaten as part of a meal, I'll tell you what I did with the mezonos
> roll in my airline meal. I put it aside to eat as a snack some time
> after I finished my meal.

When you did eat it, what bracha did you make?

SC

[RSBA:]
> Now that you're home, you can ask. So next trip you'll know what to
> do. [And you can tell us too.]

I was kidding - I've asked this one a long, long time ago (I think
originally in regard to American Pie:-)
The answer was a clear one - see 
<http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single/mezonos_rolls/>

I had never heard different and have heard a number of shiurim on this
issue.

KT
Joel Rich

> As I mentioned in my previous email, I am not paskening. I would like
> to hear from list-members who have experience with ho'ra'ah regarding
> this issue. Despite several attempts, I have not been able to illicit
> an unequivocal psak regarding this issue from a universally recognized
> posek despite the fact that I feel that the issue is cut and dry. Any
> assistance in this matter would be appreciated.

I have very explicitly from R. Kook of Rechovot that there is no such
thing as mezonot bread. If one eats enough of it including other food it
requires washing and hamotzi. He seemed to feel that the average airline
mean falls into that category

--
Eli Turkel

On April 4, 2006 Eli Turkel wrote:
> I have very explicitly from R. Kook of Rechovot that there is no such
> thing as mezonot bread. If one eats enough of it including other food
> it requires washing and hamotzi. He seemed to feel that the average
> airline mean falls into that category

I appreciate your email however, AFAIC, R' Kook is merely expressing
an offena halacha in SA (168:6). The point I was trying to make is that
consuming a roll baked from flour and water has no minimum shiur. HaMotzee
is a pre-requisite to any consumption whatsoever. Shiurim only come into
play regarding other halachos such as washing with a bracha (two kizeisim)
or benching (a ki'zayis) etc.

I mentioned in my previous email that I was not "paskening" however, upon
further reflection, I feel that this halacha is so clear there is no makom
to "dingzach". I hope I'm not ruffling any feathers with this statement.

Simcha Coffer

RSC:
> The Taz's heter (SA 168:17) only applies if the ma'achal is obviously
> li'kinuach (such as the "dogs in a blanket" that are commonly served at
> Schmorgesbords). Nobody eats pizza as desert or aperitif.

Actually, I have seen little tiny pizzas served at milchig events (where
everyone is standing around, no one is washing, and the waiters are
circulating with trays). Perhaps if there is a case where pizza would
be mezonot, this is it?

 - Ilana

On April 4, 2006, Ilana Sober wrote:
> Actually, I have seen little tiny pizzas served at milchig events (where
> everyone is standing around, no one is washing, and the waiters are
> circulating with trays). Perhaps if there is a case where pizza would be
> mezonot, this is it?

Agreed. I think I mentioned the "dogs in a blanket" scenario in a previous
email. Ilanas' heicha timtza would reflect the same halacha.

Simcha Coffer  

Here are some of the issues involved with mezonos bread and pizza.

I. Background
The gemara in Berachas (32a), states that you make a mezonos on pas
habaa b'kisnin, however if you are kovea seuda you make hamotzi. What
is pas habaa b'kisnin? There is a 3 way dispute in the rishonim. It
is either, dough filled with honey or fruit, dough made with honey or
fruit juice, or a very thin dough. All 3 opinions are brought down in
shulchan aruch. There is a big dispute in the acharonim whether these
opinions disagree lehalacha. Some say that they are just explaining the
gemara but in principle they all agree that the gemara is telling you
a principle that any bread that is not used as the principle food but
rather is used as a desert or something like that is not bread and you
make mezonos. Others argue that is these things specifically and only
these things and therefore any thing that doesn't meet the specific
criteria above is considered bread.

II. Pizza
Pizza today is eaten as the main food of a meal and you are certainly
kovea seuda on it. Therefore, even if the dough technically meets the
requirements of pas habaa b'kisnin it doesn't matter you still need to
say hamotzi and bench. I don't see how you can say that someone who eats
a meal of 2 or 3 slices of pizza doesn't have to bench and therefore
these signs in many of the pizza stores that the pizza is mezonos would
seem to be misleading.

"Re: Haaretz: Rabbinical Court allows cohen to marry daughter of non-Jew."

It should be noted that the issur for a Cohen to marry a woman who was
born Jewish but has a non-Jewish father is not so absolute m'ikar hadin,
as Halacha makes it clear that if a Cohen did marry such a woman, we do
not force him to divorce her. So clearly we have a L'Chatchila/B'dieved
divide here. And it is fairly standard in the olam hapsak to treat a
shaas had'chak situation with the standards of "b'dieved". So perhaps
the circumstances presented to the Israeli Beis-Din led them to the
conclusion that this was a shaas ha'dchak. The Haaretz article mentions
no relevant details, so it's impossible to know.

I am posting this to Avodah even though the thread started on Areivim
because it seems to be Torah centered enough to warrant inclusion
on Avodah.

Raffy

Michael Y. Kopinsky asked:
>I heard b'shem the Shus of some Rishon that was asked a shailah about
>establishing a beis zonah where the ladies would go to the mikvah etc.,
>so only issurei d'rabbanan would be involved.

It's not listed this way but reading through the lines check the She'eilat
Yaavetz II 15 toward the very end. It refers to the Pilegesh (which the
Tshuvot HaRashba ha'Meyuchasot l'Ramban 284 basically OK's but states
to Rabbeinu Yonah: "bimkomcha tazhiram min ha'pilegesh she'im yed'u
ha'heter, yiznu v'yifretzu v'yavo'u aleihen b'nidatan"). The Rema (Even
ha'Ezer 26:1) quoting the Raavad mentions (about the pilegesh) "b'vadai
busha hi m'litvol"). The She'eilat Yaavetz seems to be very lenient on
who can have a pilegesh. But I never heard of a mikva for "kurveh" !

But kids, don't do this at home :-)

KT
Josh

From: Dr. Josh Backon [mailto:backon@vms.huji.ac.il] 
> It's not listed this way but reading through the lines check the She'eilat
> Yaavetz II 15 toward the very end. It refers to the Pilegesh ...
>                The She'eilat Yaavetz seems to be very lenient on who
> can have a pilegesh. But I never heard of a mikva for "kurveh" !

This isn't quite what I was looking for. The shailah I heard about was
establishing an actual beis zonah, where the only problem would be pnuyos.
Pilegesh is a separate question.

Michael Y. Kopinsky
m1@kopinsky.com

At 05:40 PM 4/4/2006 -0400, Michael Y. Kopinsky wrote:
> This isn't... Pilegesh is a separate question.

No such animal exists. 

KT
Josh

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:34:06 -0400, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>Sorry for the bitul zeman. It's Yevamos 13a (2:6), "Vekhi ben Hamdasa
>hayah? Ela tzoreir ben tzoreir of hacha qotzeitz ben qotzeitz."

Except that the Pnei Moshe on that same page explains that what the
Gemara is saying is that Hamedata was the son of Agag, and the umpteenth
g'g'g'grandfather of Haman, rather than his father. So it argues pretty
strongly, again, in line with everything else our mesorah says about
Haman, that he was, indeed, a descendent of Agag.

I think what's puzzling me the most is sort of a cui bono thing.
What gain is there in rejecting what Chazal say on this issue and
supposing that Haman wasn't a descendent of Agag. I've though about
this over and over, and I can't see any reason to do so other than stam
rejectionism, and that doesn't seem likely. Am I missing something?
Is there some external historical issue that would be resolved by saying
that Haman wasn't descended from Agag?

>And a belated hat tip to RGS on talkreason.org.

All I saw there was some anti-Talmud article.

Lisa

There was a story brought down in a sefer about R. Gustman. To get further
information I checked with an important talmid of R. Gustman. This was
his response
-----------

Never heard of the Sefer, and would like to know more about it. In either
case, the details and conclusions of the story do not seem to be accurate,
but they have their basis in a true story.

Once the Rosh Yeshiva threw a boy out of the Yeshiva on Rosh Hashanah
(or Erev RH?) because he found him in the Yeshiva instead of at the
person who the yeshiva placed him by for the meals. (It could be that
the host sent to the RY to look for the Bachur they had expected but who
had never arrived. The Bachur was from Bnei Brak.) When the RY asked
him why he is not by the host who expected him, he explained that he
didn't trust the Kashrus. The RY told him to pack his bags and leave.

As I was led to understand, the RY was upset (a) because he should have
realized that the Yeshiva took into account the level of Kashrus that
he was used to, or he should have at least inquired about it, and (b)
even more important, the Bachur didn't have the Derech Eretz to tell the
Yeshiva openly in advance that he didn't want to go there (or at least
to beg out from the host openly). Derech Eretz Kadmah l'Torah.

BTW, he later took the Bachur, who learned his lesson, back into the
Yeshiva.

--
Eli Turkel

RSBA wrote:
> 3) Another Kedusha question.
> Does anyone know of a source for the minhag of many to 'bow' right and
> left when saying 'Vekoro zeh el zeh ve'omar'?

Seems obvious, people are imitating nagels by reciting the kedushah,
so they do one more step and also kara zeh el zeh, they turn to one
another to signal that now is the time to say kadosh 3x.

Arie Folger

Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
> At 05:40 PM 4/4/2006 -0400, Michael Y. Kopinsky wrote:
>> This isn't... Pilegesh is a separate question.

> No such animal exists. 

It's not in a teshuvah. It's in the Akeidas Yitzchak (who decries the 
practice). The only reference I found in a very cursory search on the 
web is to Rabbi Simcha Asaf's book, The Punishments After the Talmud Was 
Finalized: Materials for the History of Hebrew Law (Jerusalem, 1922) p. 
114, and to a dissertation (!) *Adinah Miller*, "Necessary Evils: Jews 
and Prostitutes in Early Modern Italy", Yale University, Religous 
Studies Department (The Joan and Richard Scheuer Fellowship).

YGB

Michael Y. Kopinsky wrote:
>I heard b'shem the Shus of some Rishon that was asked a shailah about
>establishing a beis zonah where the ladies would go to the mikvah etc.,
>so only issurei d'rabbanan would be involved.

I believe it is in the Akeidat Yitzhak, not a Rishon and not a Shut.  
See also Sheilat Yaavetz chelek bet siman tet-vav for a pro-pilegesh
position and Shut Rivash 425 for discussions of beilat pnuyah in general.

Dov A Bloom
dovb@netvision.net.il

The OU, being Litvish, paskens that anything used as bread is bread. The 
Badatz, being Hungarian, paskens that if it is heavily flavored it needs 
kevius seudah to be treated as bread. Thus, the same roll that is 
mezonos from NY to TLV (OU) is mezonos from TLV to NY (Badatz).

YGB

On April 5, 2006 Marty Bluke wrote:
> II. Pizza
> Pizza today is eaten as the main food of a meal and you are certainly
> kovea seuda on it. Therefore, even if the dough technically meets the
> requirements of pas habaa b'kisnin it doesn't matter you still need to
> say hamotzi and bench. I don't see how you can say that someone who eats
> a meal of 2 or 3 slices of pizza doesn't have to bench and therefore
> these signs in many of the pizza stores that the pizza is mezonos would
> seem to be misleading.

I'm being a touch repetitive here but why must we take a shiur of
kevias seuda into account when discussing the bracha on pizza? SA 168:17
states clearly that dough cooked together with meat, cheese or fish is
a hamotzee. MB adds that no minimum shiur is necessary, no standard
of kevias seuda need be implemented. Thus even one slice is enough for
a haMotzee; one bite is enough. It's no different than a slice of rye
bread. This type of dough simply does not meet the standards of PHB. Why
are people hesitant to accept this halacha?

Simcha Coffer

A very lively discussion of the bracha on pizza was held on Avodah's
predecessor, "Bais-Medrash", in the winter and spring of 97-98. I'm glad
it has come up again.

Many people presume that pizza is in the category of Pas Habaa b'Kisnin,
and I'd like to challenge that presumption. It seems to me that it is
clearly in the category of Pashtida, especially if it has a water-based
dough (and for all I know, maybe even if it has a fruit-juice dough). I
offer the following to the chevra as a starting point. I'd appreciate
if someone can point out why the below does not apply to pizza:

Mechaber 168:17 -- A pashtida which is baked in an oven with meat
or fish or cheese, one says on it HaMotzi and Birkas HaMazon. Mishne
Brurah 168:94 -- That's even if you're not making a meal of it. This is
different from Pas Habaa B'Kisnin (which is defined as bread filled with
fruit or spices as explained above in 168:7) which doesn't get HaMotzi
unless you're making a meal of it. That's different, because it is only
made as a sweet dessert, unlike a pashtida which is filled with meat,
which is normally eaten for hunger and satiety, so it's like any other
case where one eats bread and meat together...

To me, the halacha seems to be drawing a very clear line. On one side,
we have the fruit and spices (listed in MB 94), or honey, sugar, or nuts
(listed in Mechaber 7). On the other side, we have meat, fish or cheese
(MB 94). Isn't it clear that the first are snack foods, and the second
are meal foods, and this impacts directly on the bracha when it is
stuffed in a bread?

Some say that there are those who eat a slice of pizza as a snack. But my
guess is that if you ask such people, they'll have difficulty defining
the difference between a large snack and a small meal. In contrast,
here we have Chazal telling us that a bread stuffed with chesse is a
meal-food, not a snack-food. Who am I to argue?

Akiva Miller

> I sincerely doubt that today (in America for sure, in EY I cannot
> say for sure) that the average housewife knows how to soak/ salt meat
> properly, simply because all of the meat and chicken that we get is
> already kashered.

>>With this understanding, it is certainly not nearly as insulting not to
>>trust the same hechsheirim other people might trust, since this depends
>>on factors having nothing to do with the ne'emanus of the other balebos.

> It is this point that I made time and time again when this issue was
> discussed months ago, yet there were those who refused to accept it.
> Perhaps you will be more successful now than I was then. :-)

We have been over thsi point in the past (eg, avodah vol 5). There is
a problem about not trusting hechsherim (being motzi la'az) - that is
addressed by rav moshe in igrot moshe

One, in CM 2:40, he requires a second hashgacha to rely on a first
hashgach= a unless they go to a bet din and prove that there is a problem.
(this tshuv= a was addressed by rav bleich in an article in tradition,
where he finds it s= o against the current zeitgeist that he essentially
says that rav moshe couldn't have meant this as a general rule - but
there is nothing in the tshuva that suggests that)

The second is in yoreh deah 4:6 - where he asks how one can not rely on
a hechsher of a talmid chacham, and how it is a bizayon.

This position is clearly not followed by many - who even find this
formulation beyond understanding. However, it does show that being
machmir is not cost free, and yes, it does impact on the ne'emanut of
the other baalebos and of the rav hamachshir...

Meir Shinnar

Though I am not a great learner of the Rambam [my loss, I know], last
night for some reason I needed to look up Hilchos Chometz uMatzoh,
and found something which surprised me.
In Perek 8 [halochos 7 and 9] it seems quite clear that the Korban Pesach
was consumed twice at the seder.
Once during the meal and again at the end - 'al hasova'.

I asked around and found that this Rambam was a surprise to nearly all
I showed it to.

One of my friends then asked me something that has been worrying him.
When did Hillel have his famous 'sandwich'?
At the beginning of the seudeh - or at the end, when eating the kezayis
Korban Pesach - 'al hasova'?

Lechoyreh, if we have learned that Rambam correctly, [ie,that the KP was
eaten twice - just as we, these days, eat matzoh both at the beginning
and at the end (afikomen)], then I suppose we could say that Hillel's
Korech was at the beginning.
But we haven't yet resolved if that is indeed what the Rambam is saying...

The Mishna in Arvei Pesachim [114a] states- after the 1st Kos,
'...ubemikdash mevi'in lefonov gufo shel Pesach', which may or may not
mean that the KP was then [also] consumed. No one, not even the gemoro,
seems to comment on this part of the Mishna.

BTW, the Mishna seems to have a different 'order of the night' to what
we have.

2)
The Lechem Mishna [sk 11] discusses the view of Reb Eliezer ben Tzadok
[in the above Mishna] that Charoses is a Mitzva, and asks why - according
to REBT - there is no Brocho of 'Al achilas charoses' - just like we
make a brocho on another Mitzvah deRabonon - Maror]?
The Tur and Bach [in 475] also talk about this

What I don't quite understand here is that we do not actually eat Charoses -
but only dip the Maror into it [and must shake it off afterwards].
So what is the Hava Amina of a Brocho of 'al ACHILAS charoses'?
[I could understand 'al MITZVAS charoses' - but 'Achilas' !?]

3)
The Kesef Mishna [there 7:8] beshem Rabeinu Mono'ach. defines an 'Isha
Chashuva' [who IS 'Meisev'], as one of 3:

A) A woman who has no husband and is the 'geveres habayis'.

B) [I will quote it all, as I can't quite work out if it requires ALL
these conditions:
"Chashuvoh bipri yodeho bas gedolei hador eishes chayil yiras Hashem"

C) A woman who has servants - and does nothing towards cooking or other
'inyonei habayis'. [Does anyone know of such a woman?]

Anyway, I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation of # 2.

4)
Anyone know of the earliest mention of "Leshono Habo'o Beyerushalayim"?

SBA

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


[ 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         ]