Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 010

Monday, April 10 2006

• idle thoughts
• Bracha over pizza (was Re: mezonos bread)
• Re: Corn - Is it Qitniyos?
• Re: Corn - Is it Qitniyos?
• Re: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• Miriam Cup or Miriam Fish?
• Halachic standing
• RE: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)
• RE: Bracha over pizza (was Re: mezonos bread)
• Peanuts
• Shemen Kitniyos
• Re: Corn - Is it Qitniyos?

The Rambam (Deoth 4:23 based on a gemara in Sanhedrin) rules that
a student of the sages may not live in a town whose beith din lacks
the authority to inflict corporal punishment. Why hasn't there been
a mass movement of talmidei hachamim to Iran (which, as far as I know,
is currently the only country which grants this authority to batei din),
or, alternatively, to places with fewer than 120 Jews?

David Riceman 

From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
> RGD:
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:11:36 -0400 Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>

>>> It is pretty clear that the Minhag ha'Olam is to make Mezonos on Pizza
>>> [If you doubt this for even a minute, go to any Kosher Pizza store
>>> and observe]

>> This is not a minhag that has any standing in halacha. It's also simply
>> not true to the extent you imply.

Except that many/most who write about it, say that one slice is mezonos,
while two or more are hamotzi. R' Lookstein wrote an article about
this in Jewish Action maybe 10-15 years ago. One is a snack, two are
koveia seuda. The Star-K Kashrus Kurrents holds that 3 are koveai seuda,
and 2 without a side dish are questionable, so one should order a side
dish to disambiguate.

<http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-issues-pashabah.htm>

Akiva's initial post only covered the Mishna Brura. It's interesting
to note that (from the Kashrus Kurrents article), it's mostly Ashkenazi
rishonim who say that it's pat haba'ah bekisnin if the pastry CONTAINS
sweetsy stuff, while the Sephardim (Rambam, Mechaber) hold that it's
PHB if the dough IS MADE FROM sweetsy stuff.

> I'm sorry that I failed to mention that Minhag Ha'Olam is to make
> a Mezonos on "one slice" of pizza. Anything more than one slice is
> potential Qevias Seuda territory, and even if only one slice can be QS,
> this seems not to be the case in practice.

> Why is the opinion of Taz dismissed to the extent that such a Minhag is
> considered not to have any standing in Halakhah?

It's not just the Taz. The Mechaber in 168:7 says explicitly that we
are meikil - any of the opinions he quotes (contained sweets, made from
sweets, made as dry crackers/wafers - remember, this is long before the
advent of crispy matza), are reason enough to declare it PHB.

Further on this subject:

RSC:
> RET:
>> 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). ...

>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.

I just read over that material (168:6-7), and it doesn't seem to be as
clear as you claim. Further, R' Kook's claim goes farther than the SA.

The question is what is "enough."

For the Mechaber, it seems to be community-dependent.

1) if it's what is normally koveia seuda, even if you're not soveia, 
   it requires hamotzi/benching.
2) if you start out eating as a snack, then later add enough so that
   it would ordinarily be considered koveia seuda, bench without hamotzi.
3) if you eat, intending to be koveia seuda, but it's not what is usually
   taken to be enough, then you say mezonos/al hamichya.

So your intentions aren't determinative, it's community standards.
Now, from what I've heard, one can be koveia seuda on cake, one just
has to eat a lot more. So it would seem, that if the airplane roll is
considered to be cake, it falls into PHB and would need a larger shiur
than just the little roll to be koveia seuda.

Magen Avraham, and later, Chayei Adam, are more stringent than the
halacha, and require hamotzi/benching if one eats enough, with assorted
dips/condi- ments, to be satisfied, even if others would not be satisfied
eating it alone. And that one should go back and say hamotzi, unlike
position (2) above - one is nimlach and doesn't go back, one just
benches afterwards.

This seems to be a pretty big chiddush, to bring subjectivity (gavra)
into something which is more objective (heftza). Also possibly becoming
a kula in Lo Tisa - saying the wrong bracha, which seems to be the
Taz's position.

Then 168:7 asks "what is pat haba'ah bekisnin"?

1) (Rashi, Tosfos (Ri), Tur, Aruch, R' Chananel, Rashba - mostly
   Ashkenazim): dough WRAPPED AROUND sweets or spices
2) (Rambam, Beis Yosef - Sephardim) - dough MADE WITH sweets or spices.
3) crackers.

So, as Micha says, it's a disagreement in the acharonim. For R' Kook to
say what he did, isn't necessarily what RSC would call "offene halacha
in 168:6" - if others think one should be more machmir. And it's MG"A
vs. Ta"z, so why, as RJF says, should the Taz be taken as beyond the
halachic pale? To resist a major chidush with a solid halachic argument?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

R' Mike Miller writes [from Ramat Bet Shemesh -mi]:
> Some of the Israeli mehadrin hashgachos  do not allow cottonseed oil,
> although the minhag hamakom in America seems to  be to allow it.

What is the reason not to allow it? And what do Israelis use instead?
Olive oil has too strong a flavor to be used in cakes.

 -Toby  Katz
=============
CKVS

On Apr 10, 2006, at 09:33:25 -0400GMT, R' Jacob Farkas wrote:
> Peanut oil is considered Qitniyos Shenishtanu, and the OU and other
> major Kosher agencies don't consider that to be within the realm of the
> Qitniyos.
> Why isn't high fructose corn syrup Qitniyos Shenishtanu [assuming corn
> to be Qitniyos, as it is in practice]? I'm sure there must be a good
> reason...

According to the hekhsher (R' Sheinkopf?) on the jelly rings, it is.
I don't have a box with me at the time or it'd quote it verbatim, but
if i remember correctly he references R' Yitzhhaq Elhhanan Spektor(?)...

Ahah, yaga`ti umatza'ti...

It's quoted and asked about over here, in the MJ archives:
<http://www.emax.ca/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i09.html>

 -Stephen 'Steg' Belsky
   "the main purpose of the pyramid is to say
    'my unique pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
     i do not share it with anyone'."
       ~ andrew nowicki

> On April 9, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> R' Gershon Dubin wrote:
>>> This is not a minhag that has any standing in halacha. It's also simply
>>> not true to the extent you imply.

>  JF wrote:
>> I'm sorry that I failed to mention that Minhag Ha'Olam is to make
>> a Mezonos on "one slice" of pizza. Anything more than one slice is
>> potential Qevias Seuda territory, and even if only one slice can be QS,
>> this seems not to be the case in practice.

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> I'm playing devils advocate here, but who says more than one slice is
> QS territory? According to the SA, hamotzee is made on PHBK based on a
> shiur that "acharim regilim l'kvoa alav" however there is a machlokes
> poskim what this shiur is. According to some it is 3-4 beitzim which
> seemingly is considerably more than one slice, perhaps two full slices
> whereas others, including the Gra, state that the shiur is the standard
> for aruchas erev or aruchas boker which is considerably more (apparently
> more than 6 beitzim according to the SA haRav). This would seem to include
> two slices too. So where do you draw the line? According to the Gra and
> many others, you shouldn't be making a haMotzee even on two slices, k'v
> on merely a bit more than one. Unless we are talking huge slices which
> brings up another sha'ala. What size slices are we talking about? Is
> their a specific shiur? Does it matter what the ratio of dough to toppings
> there is? Once one relies on the Taz in this area, eating pizza without
> making haMotzee on regular bread first is a risky business indeed.

Een Hakhi Nammi, more than one slice is not necessarily QS, and I tried
to infer as much, but the Velt does seem to unanimously consider [at
least in practice] one slice to be PHBK and does not wash.

Your question about ratio of dough to topping is very valid, but perhaps
only for QS reasons, but perhaps not for PHBK reasons.

>> Why is the opinion of Taz dismissed to the extent that such a Minhag is
>> considered not to have any standing in Halakhah?

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> Because rov acharonim don't pasken like him and therefore, *l'halacha*,
> you can't follow his shita. We had a similar discussion regarding
> hashkafic issues many times here on Avodah. I mentioned the CS regarding
> the shita of Hillel that mashiach is not a man. His shita was rejected
> by most amoraim and thus, *l'halacha*, it has no standing.

Your assumption is that the Taz is a Da'as Yahid, the MB is a Poseq
Aharon and that in the BH the MB successfully proved why many Aharonim,
who considered the Taz based on a Sefer haTanya, should have considered
that the Tanya was referring to Qinuah exclusively. Thus, all who follow
the Taz are following a one-off, non-authoritative P'saq.

1. Taz is not a Da'as Yahid. The fact is that there were Aharonim that
agreed with him is clear in BH. That the MB didn't agree that their
proof from the Tanya was sufficient is enough to justify his own P'saq,
but does not nullify those Aharonim and their position.

2. Assuming that the Taz is a Da'as Yahid, his P'saq, intentionally or
otherwise has near universal following. Unlike an individual who wishes
to accept minority opinions that have no Mesorah in practice (for Qulo
purposes), in this case the Minhag is widespread. Pizza is not a new
food that hit the market, and the test of time has seen Yidden accept
this Halakha (as Taz understood it). On paper, the text may point to
one possibility, but practice has and will continue to accept another.

3. About the MB being a Poseq Aharon. What does that even mean? Does it
imply that the Hazon Ish was unable to disagree, or that RMF could not
disagree, or that contemporary Rabbonim are bound to his P'saq? And if
the argument is that K'lal Yisrael accepted him to be Poseq Aharon, there
is practical evidence that in OH 168:17 they did not accept his ruling.

I do not see the value in promoting the Shitah of the Mishna B'rurah in
this Halakhah, as this would force nearly everyone to break precedent,
and would surely lead to Zilzul in NTY and Birkas haMazon by those who
won't wash and bench. V'Im Tomar (Only if it is impossible to conceive
that Taz is absolutely not Halakhah...), that that Zilzul is already
in place anyway, Yesh Lomar that Birkas haMazon D'oraysa is satisfied
b'diavad by reciting Al Hamikhyah, and that NTY is a D'rabannan, and
Mutav Sheyeehu Shogegin applies for D'rabbanan.

Jacob Farkas

See this piece: <http://www.edah.org/levine.cfm>
maybe we should have a Miriam Fish instead of a Miriam Cup (for those
who have a Miriam Cup)?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> On April 9, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:

Without reference to the specific case, I find RSC's statement astounding.

>> Why is the opinion of Taz dismissed to the extent that such a Minhag is
>> considered not to have any standing in Halakhah?

> Because rov acharonim don't pasken like him and therefore, *l'halacha*,
> you can't follow his shita. We had a similar discussion regarding

This is just amazing. I follow rabbeim who pasken that one slice is
mezonos, and two or more are hamotzi. Does this mean that my rabbeim
are without standing? Who is the judge, jury and executioner in this
kind of case?

Rov acharonim have no authority to determine halacha absolutely. They do
not consitute a sanhedrin. We are still in the age of acharonim, AFAIK,
so as long as some still rule the other way, it has halachic standing.

> hashkafic issues many times here on Avodah. I mentioned the CS regarding
> the shita of Hillel that mashiach is not a man. His shita was rejected
> by most amoraim and thus, *l'halacha*, it has no standing.

Only because no posek today rules that way. But if poskim still ruled
that way, certainly it would have halachic standing. Also, wasn't there
still a Sanhedrin in Hillel's day?

I'd like to see some kind of halachic justification of this kind of
stance: that "rov acharonim" have the Sanhedrinic lo-tasur authority to
declare a halachic position, adopted by many Rishonim and Acharonim,
not to have legal standing. Pashkevilim and political bans do not
have that kind of power, for those who don't regard the names on the
broadside to be their posek acharon. Halacha today is, due to our many
sins, decentralized.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On April 10, 2006, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
>> I'm playing devils advocate here, but who says more than one slice is
>> QS territory? According to the SA, hamotzee is made on PHBK based on a
>> shiur that "acharim regilim l'kvoa alav" however there is a machlokes
>> poskim what this shiur is...

> Een Hakhi Nammi, more than one slice is not necessarily QS, and I tried
> to infer as much, but the Velt does seem to unanimously consider [at
> least in practice] one slice to be PHBK and does not wash.

Then apparently you yourself seem to concede that one can not bring
a ra'aya from the olam golem. Why would you continue to attempt to
perpetuate a minhag that you are unable to explain halachically?

> Your question about ratio of dough to topping is very valid, but perhaps
> only for QS reasons, but perhaps not for PHBK reasons.

It's one and the same. PHBK requires a QS. Thus, regarding pizza and its
toppings, they are inextricably intertwined. One must understand both
sugyos clearly before being comfortable with a psak in one or the other.

...
> Your assumption is that the Taz is a Da'as Yahid, the MB is a Poseq
> Aharon and that in the BH the MB successfully proved why many Aharonim,
> who considered the Taz based on a Sefer haTanya, should have considered
> that the Tanya was referring to Qinuah exclusively. Thus, all who follow
> the Taz are following a one-off, non-authoritative P'saq.

> 1. Taz is not a Da'as Yahid. The fact is that there were Aharonim that
> agreed with him is clear in BH. That the MB didn't agree that their
> proof from the Tanya was sufficient is enough to justify his own P'saq,
> but does not nullify those Aharonim and their position.

Hapeh shassar hu hapeh shehitir. None of the standard nosey keilim (that
I am aware of) on Shulachan Aruch align themselves with the Taz and thus,
whatever acharonim the BH was referring to were probably contemporary
rabbonim. Since you are unable to point to any universally accepted
nossei keilim who align themselves with the Taz and I am able to point
to 6 or 7 that clearly align themselves with the shita off the MA,
the halacha seems to be clear.

> 2. Assuming that the Taz is a Da'as Yahid, his P'saq, intentionally or
> otherwise has near universal following. Unlike an individual who wishes
> to accept minority opinions that have no Mesorah in practice (for Qulo
> purposes), in this case the Minhag is widespread. Pizza is not a new
> food that hit the market, and the test of time has seen Yidden accept
> this Halakha (as Taz understood it). On paper, the text may point to
> one possibility, but practice has and will continue to accept another.

When the Gra was young, he began breaking minhagim left and right. He
found a Safra here, a Yerushalmi there and thus paskened that the accepted
minhag was shelo al pi halacha and broke the minhag. He was famous for
saying that minhag spelled backwards is Gehinom. Although the minhagim of
klal Yisrael are holy, this is only when they don't contradict halacha. In
the event that they do, they must be discontinued. Many similar stories
are circulated about the Shaagas Aryeh and others. The reason why mezonos
was "nispashet" as the minhag for pizza is obvious; it's the path of least
resistance. This is no reason to appeal to the valid parameters of minhag
in its support. I strongly doubt that the millions of people who make
mezonos on pizza do it out of a pre-considered estimation of the proper
halacha. When pizza first came out it probably was considered l'kinuach
and a mezonos was made. But now, it is definitely l'mazon. Habit set in
and we've been making a mezonos ever since. This doesn't make it right.

> 3. About the MB being a Poseq Aharon. What does that even mean?

It means that if there is a universally accepted talmid chacham who
has the benefit of seeing all of the pesakim before him regarding a
particular sugya and comes to a subsequent pesak regarding this sugya
which is uncontested by his peers or by subsequent poskim of his calibre,
it would be ill-advised to follow another course.

>                                                                  Does it
> imply that the Hazon Ish was unable to disagree, or that RMF could not
> disagree, or that contemporary Rabbonim are bound to his P'saq?

Of course not. But I made it clear that I am not aware of a Chazon Ish
or a R' Moshe that disagrees with the MB and thus one should follow the
MB's pesak. If one is part of a community where the LOR paskens like the
Taz, well and fine. But that doesn't mean that someone half way across
the world should search out *a* rabbi *somewhere* that disagrees with
the MB and follow that pesak. The MB was universally accepted as a posek
(although not everyone necessarily follows all of his pesakim) as was R'
Moshe and the CI. If you can find someone of that calibre who disagrees
with the MB, I'll back down.

>                                                                   And if
> the argument is that K'lal Yisrael accepted him to be Poseq Aharon, there
> is practical evidence that in OH 168:17 they did not accept his ruling.

I'm not sure what you mean.

> I do not see the value in promoting the Shitah of the Mishna B'rurah in
> this Halakhah, as this would force nearly everyone to break precedent,
> and would surely lead to Zilzul in NTY and Birkas haMazon by those who
> won't wash and bench. V'Im Tomar (Only if it is impossible to conceive
> that Taz is absolutely not Halakhah...), that that Zilzul is already
> in place anyway, Yesh Lomar that Birkas haMazon D'oraysa is satisfied
> b'diavad by reciting Al Hamikhyah, and that NTY is a D'rabannan, and
> Mutav Sheyeehu Shogegin applies for D'rabbanan.

The above presentation requires a lot of "pleitzus" to maintain
halachically and I would venture to say that only the gedoley haPoskim
of this generation would have the ability to pasken away a clear halacha
on the basis of mutav sheyihiyu shogegim, zilzul in NTY or some such
facility although your energetic attempt at defending klal Yisrael is
laudable and is reminiscent of a certain R' Levi Yitzchak of yore.

Simcha Coffer

On April 10, 2006, Jonathan Baker wrote:
> RSC:
>> RET:
>>> 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). ...

>>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.

> I just read over that material (168:6-7), and it doesn't seem to be as
> clear as you claim. Further, R' Kook's claim goes farther than the SA.

You read the wrong material. You need to read 168:17

> The question is what is "enough."

No it's not. That's 168:6-7 not 168:17

The preceding basically addresses the remainder of your email.

Simcha Coffer

I've been waiting for someone to bring this, but it seems that nobody
will. The Taz 453:1 says that the reason mustard is included in the
issur, even though none of the reasons seem to apply, is because it
grows in a pod, and therefore is forbidden as a member of that class.
It seems clear to me that the same applies to peanuts. They grow in
a pod, therefore they are by definition kitniyot, regardless of how
they're usually eaten, or how late they were discovered, because the
issur was made on the entire class of seeds-that-grow-in-a-pod.

As for the original reason for the issur on kitniyot, the SA Harav says
it's because these things are cooked in a porridge ("daisa" / "kashe")
just like barley or wheat, and if we eat them then amei ha'aretz will
think that all porridges are permitted on Pesach, and only bread is
forbidden.

BTW, I've noticed a linguistic shift - "kashe" means a porridge, any
cooked grain, e.g. rice, barley, etc. Cooked buckwheat is just one
kind of kashe, called "shvartze kashe". But in relatively recent times
(one or two generations), we have come to use "kashe" only for buckwheat,
and this leads to some confusion when reading earlier sources.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I don't understand why people think that this is allowed. It's pretty
clear from the Ramo in OC 453 that oil may not be eaten. He says that
it's permitted to burn kitniyos oil, even on the table, and we're not
concerned that some will accidentally get into the food, because even
if it does it will be batel. It's clear from this that if not for bitul
it *would* be a problem, because the oil itself may not be eaten.

It seems to me that if the Ramo had not mentioned the issue of kitniyos
none of us would keep it. So since *our* makor is the Ramo, his version
of the issur is the definitive one, and he says the oil is just as assur
as the seed.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On 4/10/06, T613K@aol.com <T613K@aol.com> wrote:
> R' Mike Miller writes:
>>Some of the Israeli mehadrin hashgachos do not allow cottonseed oil,

> What is the reason not to allow it?  And what do Israelis use instead?
> Olive oil has too strong a flavor to be used in cakes.

I'm not sure why one would think cotton or flax (as in flaxseed oil) is
kitniyos, but the interesting thing is that the oils are assur (according
to some), even though the source is not edible! One source is (IIRC)
the maharil, who implies that hemp oil is assur b'achila.

As far as substitutes... usually palm oil or nut oil for cooking.
Neither of them is particulary healthy, or tasty -- we try to do very
little baking for pesach.

 - Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

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


[ 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         ]