Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 83

Tue, 23 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: popcorn (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: re,popcorn/kytnyot. (martin brody)
• 3. Re: re,popcorn/kytnyot. (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: kitniyot (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: kitniyot (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Rav Ammi, Rav Assi and their baldness (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 7. torah u-madda (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: kitniyot (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. popcorn/kytnyot. (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: popcorn/kytnyot. (Micha Berger)
• 14. Korban Pesach biZman haZeh (Micha Berger)

I wrote
RRW:
> See Hoq Yaakov 453:6

> The ThD is Takka machmir to require shishim...

> OTOH the HY states all you need is Rove -sorry Beatles!

> Clearly if the pieces had to be picked out Rove [lich'ora] would not be
> a prerequisite at all, just pick out the Rov of Qitniyyos and all that's
> left is taamo v'lo mamasho. [IOW you can make it a Rove.]

Based upon some offline dialogues I want to clarify some positions.

1. Disclaimer: I'm not pasqening WHAT to do. Rather I'm being masbir
the sheetas Rema - and AIUI the Hoq Yaaqov first suggested this Hesber.

2. The Chayei Adam 127:1 DOES require removing any qitniyyos that are
recognizable "Im yeish rov bheter... u'mah mah sheu niccar - yizroq"

3. The fact is that Rema did NOT state this clause and therefore AISI
Rema did not hold as Ch"A because if Rema did hold that way then "iqqar
haseir min hasefer"

4. AISI Rema holds it's not issur mamash because if Rema pasqened
it really was issur he would have held like ThD that shishim would
be required.

5. Since this is based upon a ch'shash and not on issur, there is no
issue of ta'am, and even b'diavad what's the big deal of the mamash? After
all we're NOT permitting to combine qiitniyyos l'chatchilah. It's an
additional humra to see that eating an already bateil piece of qitniyyos
as a new l'chatchilah instead of already as a simple b'di'avad.

6. If indeed Chayei Adam is chosheish for some kind of ha'arama, that
would not apply to an ahkenazi guest at a s'phardic meal. And so picking
out a minority of qitniyyos from a greater tavshil could be different
in that case as opposed to the case of one's OWN tavshil.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> martin brody wrote:
>>  Try getting somebody to say that a product with sugar and corn syrup is
>> OK, for example.

> This becomes the same machlokes about bittul issur lechatchila by a goy
> that exists all year long.  According to the Rashba, at least, products
> which have corn syrup deliberately added are not OK.  If the syrup fell
> in by accident, then everyone would agree it is OK.

I find it hard to accept that the Rashba would have included this in his
restrictions. A big difference in treif and an after the event (banning
kitnyot) custom of some, and a derivative to boot. Do you know if he
discussed kitnyot at all? Or did he precede the custom?
Martin Brody

-

martin brody wrote:
> I find it hard to accept that the Rashba would have included this in his 
> restrictions. A big difference in treif and an after the event (banning 
> kitnyot) custom of some, and a derivative to boot. Do you know if he 
> discussed kitnyot at all? Or did he precede the custom?

He was Spanish, so it's irrelevant.  But an issur is an issur.  The same
principle applies, that one can't deliberately be mevatel it, and having
a goy do so for one doesn't help.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

I see in Wiki that quinoa is biologically classified as a chenopod. "As a
chenopod, quinoa is closely related to species such as beets, spinach, and
tumbleweeds."

I hope that we don't ban tumbleweed on Pesach.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
> By the way, try coming up with a logical distinction between quinoa and
> buckwheat (which is lechol hade'os forbidden), and which also explains
> the universally accepted issur on corn.

>
> Cottonseed is completely out of the question, because it grows on a
> tree, and everyone agrees that tree fruit are not included.

R Elyashiv prohibits cottenseed based on some gemara that cotten was
labeled as kitniyot

?And on
> peanuts RMF's opinion is not universally accepted, because it has a
> big flaw: corn, which *all* the poskim (including him) accept is
> included even though it wasn't known at the time of the original
> gezera.

RMF says explicitly that things depend on the minhag. As Zev states corn was
accepted by everyone. RMF would agree that if today peanuts are not
accepted that it is prohibited. His main point is that there is no
rule as everything
has an exception and so it boils down to what was accewpted in
individual communities


> Rapeseed was certainly a known crop, although inedible to humans.
> The original gezera did *not* ban individual species, but rather whole
> classes of species; mustard is explicitly included only because it
> grows in a pod, rather than for its own properties. ?Nobody cooks
> mustard as a porridge, and yet it's forbidden because of how it grows.
> Therefore the gezera was against: 1) anything that is cooked as a
> porridge; and 2) anything in the same families even if it isn't used
> that way. ?If you'd asked a Jewish rapeseed farmer 500 years ago whether
> his crop was kitniyos he'd have agreed that it was, and so would his rov,
> even though it was only a theoretical question.

Again, R Elyashiv agrees with you and states that we prohibit anything with the
name of kitniyot and so he prohibits cottenseed oil. RMF and others disagree and
say that only those kitniyot used by humans at the time  are included.
Anything not used by for human food is not included except if it was accepted
by communities. Hence, corn and soya were accepted by at least the vast
majority of Ashkenazim. Peanuts, cottenseed, canola was not accepted by many
communities. Again, it is a function of time and perhaps he would have changed
his mind about peanuts in todays society.


>
> On the contrary, the poskim all assume that there must have been an
> actual gezera at some point, even though we don't know when. ?R Yechiel
> either disagreed with it or was unaware of it.

source? When the semak quotes R. Yechiel of Paris he does not say he knows
of a gezera which R. Yechiel didn't know. They were basically contemporaries
and so highly unlikely that the Semak knew of something that R. Yechiel didn't.
Also the language of the Semak is one of minhag.
>
>
> By the way, try coming up with a logical distinction between quinoa and
> buckwheat (which is lechol hade'os forbidden), and which also explains
> the universally accepted issur on corn.

again, precisely RMF point and so he concludes that the only thing
that counts is minhag



-- 
Eli Turkel

I'm a bit stuck on a Midrash in Berachot 44a, where it speaks of the fruits
of Genosar. It is apparent to me that it is speaking of the fruits of Torah
learning in Tiberias, established by Rabbi Yochanan, who was able to consume
all that was brought to him in tremendous amounts, being insatiable. And the
modest and ego-less persona of Rabbi Abahu is said to consume so much that a
fly fell from his head (as related a few pages later, 61, a fly is
considered to be the Yetzer Hara, which would fit within the personality of
Rabbi Abahu.) It the speaks of Rav Assi and Ammi (I'll skip for the moment),
and the Reish Lakish, who ate so much that he went away until his brother
in-law (R. Yochanan) contacted the teacher of Reish Lakish to get him back,
which he did, and it seems to refer to an actual event in his life when he
was overwhelmed with his learning and life around him. 

 

Now it also mentions Rav Ammi and Assi. Keeping in mind that all of these
personages were together and had close ties to the Tiberias community (Rav
Avahu intervened on Assi/Ammi behalf, R. Yochanan as the brother-in law of
one, but felt like the father to another, and so on). From what I have
learned, Rav Ammi and Assi were part of a 3-person bet din (with R. Chayya),
and would study Torah together, but interrupt it for judging as well as for
ensuring that there was adequate schooling in the land. In this particular
Midrash it says that they (R. Assi and Ammi) ."would learn until their hair
fell out." ("Ahd" or "until" seems to be used, not as a terminator, but as a
measuring point that is crossed and returned to).

 

That (the loss of hair) is the part that stumps me. Now, I did find another
Midrash where it has R. Ammi and Assi asking R. Yitzchak to tell them
something. One wants a halacha and the other an aggadah. When he tries to
tell one, the other interrupts and he says that it is like a man with 2
wives, where the older one pulls out the black hairs, and the younger one
pulls out the white hairs. (This also feels like a message on how to be a
judge - 2 people with opposing agendas will not both be satisfied).

 

So could their loss of hair in the Midrash in Berachot relate to their
actions as judges? Or has someone on this list encountered another item that
would fill in the missing piece of this puzzle?

 

As a side note, it's my viewpoint that this discussion in the Gemara began
from Rav Ashi who had become a force of learning in Bavel and was praising
the learning in Eretz Yisrael, in Tiberias, and that the Midrash was then
brought forth to speak of the Torah giants there and the sweetness of their
Torah.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Eliyahu Grossman 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100323/3d3ef69e/attachment-0001.htm>

I attended yesterdat the annual torah u-madda conference
some partial notes

First talk was from Rabbi Vitman rav hamachshir of Tnuva. He discussed
how todays food business is heavily dependent on using bacteria for
many processes.
These bacteria are isolated and then grown on various cultures and
their status is not clear.

mekil - R. Wosner says the bacteria are halachically neutral. In
personal conversation of
R. Vitman with R. Elyashiv he concurred. The main argument is that the
culture is just a food
and it is not fit to be eaten and so is prohibited only when the
culture is issur hanaah

RHS (and OU) are machmir that the bacteria has the halacha of the
culture be in milk/meat, treif or chametz.
He gave an example where cheese was processed by an enzyme fed on
glucose  - no problem.
However, the glucose came from another procedure that use something
that was a safek wheat
before Pesach. So it was doubly removed and a safek all before Pesach
and RHS prohibited it

The third talk was from R. Rabinowitz RY of Maale Adumim. He strated
with the machloket where
Magen Avraham states that a melacha is prohibited from the Torah only
if done the same was
as in the Mishkan. Even HaOzer is more expansive. Thus, if wheat was
grinded by a water mill
rather by hand as was done in the Mishkan then according to MA it is
not a Torah prohibition
while Even HaOzer says it is.

He then discussed modern devices - examples a bionic hand - is it
considered part of the body
or a external device. There are now devices driven by electric
currents in the brain. There is even
a game from Mattel where one can make a ball go up in the air by concentrating.
Thus, one cac cause a computer to turn on or cause a robot to move by thinking.
A practical application to to moving a prosthesis by thought waves.
Is this a melacha or not? There was another talk in the afternoon Dr.
Orah Grepstein in
which discussed CBI (computer-brain interface) and showed demonstrations on
both monkeys and humans how thoughts could be translated into actions.
She stressed that
no one is capable of reading the thoughts it is the electrical
impulses that are measured through
either MEG, PET or f MRI. She also discussed various halachot where
machshava has a part.

A similar problem arises where one moves a magnet which then turns on
a current without
any direct connection and is invisible

Rabbi Rabinowitz's personal conclusion was that anything attached to
the body is considered part of
the body even though it is artificial and so would be allowed on shabbat.

One talk in the afternoon discussed the shafan and arnevet and came up
with new animals
chevrotain Porte muse and the mouse deer from
the far east and Africa who are maale gerah but dont have split hooves
while the rabbit and hare
are not maale gerah in the usual sense (He even waved Slifkin's book on
the camel, hare and hyrax)

other talks were on elevators on shabbat, bowing down to dust, the
tzavua changing species after 7 years,
reading megilla on the 14th or 15th based on archaeology etc.

The symposium at the end was on intelligent design with all the
speakers coming out against it
as not being scientific


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
>
>> I may have misunderstood but I think the issue here is that what we have
>> is a taaruvos chametz - a mixture of chametz and other ingredients
>>
>
> But whiskey is *not* a taaroves, it's chametz itself.
>
>

Does adding water to liquid chametz make it a taaroves?  Scotch whisky has
water added when it's bottled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky#Bottling says that cask strength
is 50%-60% alcohol while bottled whisky is normally 40%-46%. If my math is
right, that would mean that anything between 8% and 33% of the bottle would
be water.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100323/44953243/attachment-0001.htm>

Simon Montagu wrote:

>>     But whiskey is *not* a taaroves, it's chametz itself.

> Does adding water to liquid chametz make it a taaroves?  Scotch whisky 
> has water added when it's bottled. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky#Bottling says that cask 
> strength is 50%-60% alcohol while bottled whisky is normally 40%-46%. If 
> my math is right, that would mean that anything between 8% and 33% of 
> the bottle would be water.

Taaroves means less than half.  In this case the minority of water is
batel to the majority of chametz, not the other way around.  Now vodka,
on the other hand, and other clear spirits, is a different story; they're
usually distilled to 96% purity and then watered down to 40%, so the
chametz would indeed seem to be in a taaroves.

Of course a taaroves chametz which is edible is still assur.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:14am EY time, R Ben Waxman wrote:
: What Rav Rappaport found was that today, the first thing the manufacturers
: do is to boil the wheat/barley. Only after this step do they begin the
: traditional process described below...

Guides to whisky and whiskey don't mention this. They discuss making the
mash (which would halachically be dough, even though the pieces of grain
aren't flour-sized) and fermenting it.

But in any case, noodles are also boiled and they're chameitz gamur,
no? I'm missing the piece why this would make a difference.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:42am Pacific ("besof maarav"?) time, R Simon
Montagu wrote:
: Does adding water to liquid chametz make it a taaroves?  Scotch whisky has
: water added when it's bottled.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky#Bottling says that cask strength
: is 50%-60% alcohol while bottled whisky is normally 40%-46%. If my math is
: right, that would mean that anything between 8% and 33% of the bottle would
: be water.

Im kein ein ladavar sof: Those two are done years apart. But what if they
were minutes apart? Simple solution to making peas for Ashkenazim. Put
up the peas, and some point during cooking, add more water.

There has to be something wrong with this. I presume it's because adding
water to a mixture that contains water, even 12 years later, does /not/
make a taaroves. But that's merely guesswork on my part.

I just moderated for a moment, and approved RZS's post (the one right
above this one) even though it didn't reach me as email yet.

FWIW, I don't know where we say that taaroves implies mi'ut. Bitul berov
assumes a taaroves in which the issur is a mi'ut. Are we saying here
bitul berov, or taaroves in general?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

elitur...@gmail.com
> R Elyashiv prohibits cottenseed based on some gemara that cotten was
> labeled as kitniyot

I have a havrussa "Avi" who lived in EY

We talked last Shabbos about cottonseed oil

Avi: how do you say "cotton" in Hebrew
RRW: Tzemer Geffen.
Avi: that's classical Hebrew I mean Modern Hebrew
RRW: ????
Avi: "Kutna!" That's why it's kitniyos - because it SOUNDS like kitniyos!

I would probably not believe this except that Zli keidar sounds like
Zli.... Hmmm ;-)

Note: when Avi made aliya peanut oil was readily available in the USA

When he came back he was told there was no such thing [anymore]
"Sh'al avicha v'yageidcha.."


Zissen Pesach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RZS:
> But an issur is an issur

It's not an issur it's a cheshash! rules rre completey different for a
ch'shash and are being misapplied

EG See YD 89 re: fish blood and mother's milk where there is a Maris ayin
issue. Once it falls in a tavshil it's completely muttar nless/until it
forms a majority.

This is the zelbe zach with the majority issue of kitniyos in a tavshil.

Of course if you want to say that kitniyyos WAS a ch'shash and is NOW
an issur mamash I would ask:
"Who first said qitniyos became an issur and is no longer a simple
g'zeira/ch'shash?"

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:26:13PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: It's not an issur it's a cheshash! rules rre completey different for a
: ch'shash and are being misapplied
...
: "Who first said qitniyos became an issur and is no longer a simple
: g'zeira/ch'shash?"

I would have phrased it differently: It's not even a "real" gezeira, ie
a gezeira in the limited sense of Hil' Mamrim 2:2 set up by beis din
hagadol. It's a minhag ratified by non-musmachim (semichas Moshe).

We bend or even break it for tinoqos and cholim, for example.

Lo kol shekein!

BTW, about "g'zeira/ch'shash". When looking up
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/02/types-of-halachic-rulings.shtml>
(and in the Avodah discussion that led to my refining what I wrote for
the scj FAQ to produce that post) I concluded that most use the words
gezeira and seyag interchangably -- literally, they both mean "fence"
in their respective languages.

However, the Tif'eres Yisrael on Edios divides gezeira into two
subtypes. Quoting that blog entry:

    1. Siyag. Fence ... Something that will lead to a future violation
       to do an error in understanding the law. Such as the ban on
       mixing poultry and milk, lest people become lenient in mixing
       meat and milk.

    2. Cheshash. Concern. Cases where the threat of violation is in
       the current situation, because one is in a circumstance where
       habit taking over or other accident is likely.

    The Tif'eres Yisrael says that a cheshash can be deemed inapplicable
    if the norms change such that the threat no longer exists. It does
    not require a beis din that is greater in number or wisdom as the
    law is not lifted, just that the current situation is deemed to be
    outside the limits the law addressed.

Leshitaso, this is what RRW would call a "siyag" and I would prefer to
term a "minhag in the shadow of a siyag", not a cheshash.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

*Perhaps* I thought of a way we can fulfill some part of the mitzvah of
Qorban Pesach.

The qorban must be eaten by a chaburah (or some hold it can also be
chaburos eating in multiple locations, see Pesachim 86a) whose members
were pre-assigned to that qorban.

This means that some time before shechitah, one MUST engage in minui,
assigning people to the chaburah.

Minui can be done before the animal is identified.

Meaning, it can be done bizman hazeh, without waiting to see if HQBH
will be allowing us to complete the mitzvah, and without the risk of
being maqdish a lamb as pesach without a BHMQ in which to shecht it.

No?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: In case you're wondering about the "korban" in the subject line...
If some future person searches the topic index for this post, is he
likely to think to look under "q"?

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 83
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."