Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 84

Tue, 23 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: popcorn/kytnyot. (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. popcorn (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: popcorn (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Ben Waxman)
• 6. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: popcorn/kytnyot. (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: popcorn/kytnyot. (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Democracy and the Beit Din (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Ben Waxman)
• 12. Re: popcorn (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: kitniyot (Simon Montagu)
• 16. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Simon Montagu)
• 17. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Ben Waxman)
• 18. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)

RZS:
> 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.

As per shaarei tshuva quoting hacham Zvi 20- and many others

WATERING DOWN alcohol is NOT a taaroves - if it's to make it palatable!
It's like watering down concentrate - or like cookng sour apples to make
them edible or like M'ziga used to be when raw wine was unpalatable.

Note: Adding juices that have their own ta'am might be very different

But dilluting 190 proof down to EG 86 proof is still construed as
"B'ayin," halachically speaking.

I cited the sources iin an earlier post

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RZS
>  Look at what you just wrote: "unless it forms a majority".  In other
> words if it's not batel berov it remains assur, even though the issur
> is only because of mar'is ho'ayin.  The same thing applies here.

Actually Hoq Yaakov here and IIRC Aruch haShulchan there say once it's
a majority IT'S NO LONGER A TAAROVES

Making a chashash into issur is mamash what Havva did with etz hada'as!
We are warned by Hazal NOT to conflate harchaqos with issurim!

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

<<Rice is not a species of the kitniyos family. But rice is banned as
part of the kitniyos minhag.>>

Within the sefardi community there are many different minhagim with
some allowing everything
some not eating rice and many other combinations.

Perhaps some of our sefardi members (or their wives) can give us more details.
In any case for sefardim it certainly is not one global gezera
including everything

-- 
Eli Turkel

RAM wrote:
> To get back to RDR's question, when one says that
> Ashkenazim don't eat Kitniyos, I don't take the word
> "Kitniyos" to be an exhaustive list of what it avoided.
> Rather, it is the name of the minhag. Perhaps there
> was a time when it was said that Ashkenazim avoid
> all sorts of grains. But when the ban was expanded
> to include legumes, that's when the minhag became
> referred to as "Kitniyos" -- not because it describes
> what is banned, but because it describes the *least*
> *obvious* of the things which are banned.

You seem to think that Kitniot translates as "legumes." That, however,
is AFAIK not correct. Kitniot is millet. It is in Ashkenazi Pessa'h
parlance that they took on the meaning of legumes, too.

Thus, when we speak of the prohibition on K, we do not particularly
mention what "describes the *least* *obvious* of the things which are
banned," but "what is banned."

However, we should consider the possibility (which I consider
unlikely) that a legume was the first to be prohibited: chick peas.
Tunisians eat rice but not chick peas, because they are called
'hoummous, which is very similar to 'hammess. It could be that they
were first, and that other legumes were subsequently frowned upon,
too, by people who no longer called the 'hoummous that way, i.e.,
Europeans who stopped using Hebrew as a vernacular. To them, there was
no more logic to prohibiting chick peas than kidney beans, and so
since one was prohibited, the other was, too.

The last paragraph above is pure conjecture and needs some historical
support before it is worth anything, KNLAD.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously
* 25 Jahre zu lebenslang fuer den Moerder des Herrn Gerstle
* From Skinhead to Orthodox Jew

Like I said, he read the patents, which are probably a lot more technical.

How are noodles made? Are they grains themselves boiled and then processed?
Or are they made into  a dough and then baked or dried? That is the
difference.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> 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.

Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.
>   
Noodles aren't boiled at the beginning of the process.  They're made 
into a dough (with water or egg), then they rest, then they're shaped, 
then they are or aren't dried, and only then are they boiled.  It's the 
resting that produces hametz.

David Riceman

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Look at what you just wrote: "unless it forms a majority".  In other
words if it's not batel berov it remains assur, even though the issur
is only because of mar'is ho'ayin.  The same thing applies here.
Kitniyos is assur because people might confuse one "daysa" with another.
Now that it's assur it can only become mutar by being batel berov.
The bean that you see floating in the soup is not batel; you can see it!
Therefore it's obvious that you can't eat it.  But the taam of the bean
that went into the soup, or the kitniyos oil that fell in, can't be seen
so it's batel.   Fish blood is a liquid, like kitniyos oil, so it's not
shayach to remove it from a mixture once it's in.



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

I decided lich'vod RZS to consult SA Harav

First SA Harav see 442

6 Taaroves - an incidental mixture with Hametz

However: anything whose derech is to. be made as a mixture as MURYAS
...v'eino bateil

9.  zei'ah emanating from hametz "hareihu k'atzmo shell haemtz"

12.  "shimrei sheichar" is midivrei sofrim"

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


Mursan [p'sachim 2:7]will prevent hametz and is completely muttar
l'chatchillah. Such scalded mursan were used to feed poultry.

However the g'onim were "gozeir" against this. And Rambam states these
2 levels.

So I'm not sure how this pre-distilled "whiskey" mash works

NB: Cooking is NOT scalding. So putting raw grains in water and then
bringing it to a boil would be Hametz mamash because ein shorin!

Zissen Pesach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Re: Qitniyos
SA Harav 453

4. Onle those minnim of qitniyos which are made into a tavshil are assur

NB: SA Harav is NOT saying they are muttar whilst RAW! Rather - except
for hardal - the criteria for being the min to which the g'zeira of
qitniyos applies are those that are customarily made into a Tavshil

5 Even qitniyyos we wre not noheig issur even when water falls upon
them...

A careful read here does NOT indicate they are muttar whilst dry -
Rather that they are still mutar b'HANA'AH even after they become wet!

"Aval Muttar l'hanos meheim b'Fesach...

Shemen Qitniyyos is b'di'avad nisbateil berov..."keivan sheminhag issur
zeh eino ela humra b'alma..."

Mashma not mamash issur...

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 04:55:51PM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
: A taqana or gezera is valid only if the people accept it and turn it
: into minhag ha-maqom, and so no dayan or beit din has the power to
: foist unpopular laws on the people. Also, if a layman promulgates a
: new minhag and the people accept it, then it is a binding minhag
: ha-maqom, even though no dayan promulgated it...

Although the Rambam in Mamrim 2 says that beis din hagadol creates
minhagim. I suggested that the rabbinate needs to ratify a grass roots
hanhagah in order for it to become a full minhag.

...
: A beit din is a community institution, and presumably, just as the
: parnasim are appointed by the people, so too the dayanim...

Presumably, HQBH and Moshe chose the 70 Zeqeinim, and the court once
established selected their own new members.

This avoids RRW's concern about the masses running away with a Reform
Judaism. I've phrased this concern in terms of Schechter's "Catholic
Israel". It leaves to a pair of circularly defined terms.

Halakhah: that which is accepted by Catholic Israel Catholic Israel:
the community of Jews that observes halakhah

To show the absurdity, post that R Jewish worship should be considered
"halachic".

To support this assumption, note that it is the form of worship accepted
by a large number of Catholic Israel. What makes them part of Catholic
Israel? Well, notice they're following this ersatz "halakhah"!

Schechter's formulation doesn't allow for a "constitutional law",
matters that aren't up to democratic vote.

We need a body that is capable of determining with some reliability what
is and what isn't divrei E-lokim Chaim. The masses have some say in
which becomes halakhah, but even that is limited. But without divorcing
the two, the court would have a conflict of interest between appealing
to their constituents and an pure pursuit of the legal system.

In the US, the Supreme Court is appointed, not elected. I wonder if
there was a similar line of reasoning.

...
: If this is not federal ( = Latin for "covenant") Locke-ian democracy,
: then there is no such thing as democracy on earth.

Latin aside, Locke didn't posit a partnership that has its own goals. A
federation is not a beris. His legal philosophy is contractual, the goals
to be met are those of the people who enter the federation. I give up
things that mean less to me in order to get your cooperation in things
that are more important. Rather than let's join together to accomplish
something new.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Rav Rappaport's point is that pre-boiling, even though we are not experts in
halita, removes the whiskey from the category of hametz gamur and puts it
into the category of safek hametz (at most).

What this meant for me (ie the nafka mina) was that since I don't sell
hametz gamur, I can sell my Crown Royal.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
>
> ------------------------
>
> Also note that midina d'mishnah halita - scalding or blanching -
> Mursan [p'sachim 2:7]will prevent hametz and is completely muttar
> l'chatchillah. Such scalded mursan were used to feed poultry.
>
> However the g'onim were "gozeir" against this. And Rambam states these
> 2 levels.
>
> So I'm not sure how this pre-distilled "whiskey" mash works

Arie Folger wrote:

> You seem to think that Kitniot translates as "legumes." That, however,
> is AFAIK not correct. Kitniot is millet. It is in Ashkenazi Pessa'h
> parlance that they took on the meaning of legumes, too.

No, dochan (or orez) is millet.  Throughout mishnayot, kitniyot means
a large family of plants, including "ful, she'u'it, sapir, afunin,
purkedan, karshinin, and others that are like them from the class of
seed-plants" (PHM Kil'ayim 2:2)

 

-- 
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 07:08:48PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: What this meant for me (ie the nafka mina) was that since I don't sell
: hametz gamur, I can sell my Crown Royal.

Star K has a list of what kinds of things are chametz gamur for the
benefit of those who don't sell items for which bal yeira'eh applies
mideOraisa. http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-chometzguideb4.htm

To quote the relevent entry:
    ...
    Whiskey     Follow Family Custom[1]

    [1] Some individuals sell this chometz, others do not. One should
    follow his family custom.

Back in 2001, RRW wrote on mail-jewish
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch//v34/mj_v34i34.html#CKD
> From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@...>
>> What about whiskey? I assume that whiskey is real chametz (chametz gamur)
>> and yet almost everyone sells the liquors they have for Pesach.

> Rabbi Zecharya Gelley of KAJ discussed this last year... and he
> mentioned that there are three variations of a term... 
> According to the most likely version
> Beer is PURE Chametz- 
> While whiskey is NOT  pure Chametz because it is distilled and is
> therefore an INDIRECT product of Chametz. 

This I can understand, rather than the rationale we were discussing
until now. The whisky was distilled out from any chameitz!

Personally, I don't get the whole minhag of not selling chameitz gamur,
but shopping after Pesach at a store that did. What, it's less ha'aramah
to rely on his sale than on my own? Or do most of us not have stocked
pantries for which switching to and from Pesach isn't a hefsed meruba?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:13:36PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: I've heard two ideas in regard to this:
: 1) In practical terms telling people to buy only in stores which don't sell
: hametz, which only sell hametz productst that were produced after Pesach
: etc, is a gezira which the zibbur can not handle (in Israel anyway).

I think you took my argument backwards. I'm not arguing in favor of
bannig the sale of real chameitz by stores. I'm saying that the fact
that ein hatzibur yakhol laamod bah (in chu"l either) WRT store shows
the minhag as a whole is not teneble -- and shouldn't apply to baalei
bayis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:20 AM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>
>
Similarly many North African Jews, who in general eat kitniyot on Pesach,
don't eat chick peas/garbanzo beans, because hummus sounds like hametz.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100323/0589587c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:42am Pacific ("besof maarav"?) time, R Simon
>
> Montagu wrote:

Irrelevant aside: I am in fact in EY, but I keep my laptop clock on
Pacific time for convenience of reference because I work remotely with
a company in California, so don't be alarmed if messages appear me
from with a datestamp that seems to imply they were sent on Shabbat.

Back in the day when I was living and working in CA, I had "libi
bemizrah va'ani besof ma`arav pinned up in my cube.

>
> : 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.

I don't follow this at all. Which "two" are done years apart and why
should that make a difference? As long as the taarovet itself is made
before Pesach, who cares how many years the chametz existed as chametz
before that (assuming that it wasn't owned by a Jew during Pesach in
the years when it was in the cask).

The peas case is completely different because there you have discrete
solids floating around in water. My question is only about adding
water to chametz when *the chametz itself* is in liquid form.
Personally I doubt that water alone makes a taarovet, but what about
other liquids with a noticable taste? (I'm thinking of things like
Bailey's Irish Cream, if there are any kosher versions of that)

I've heard two ideas in regard to this:

1) In practical terms telling people to buy only in stores which don't sell
hametz, which only sell hametz productst that were produced after Pesach
etc, is a gezira which the zibbur can not handle (in Israel anyway).

2) You can't tell someone in one sentence to rely on the heter and then in
the next sentence tell him that having done that, he is on his own, the
community is not going to buy from him.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> Personally, I don't get the whole minhag of not selling chameitz gamur,
> but shopping after Pesach at a store that did. What, it's less ha'aramah
> to rely on his sale than on my own? Or do most of us not have stocked
> pantries for which switching to and from Pesach isn't a hefsed meruba?

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:01:06PM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
: > 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.
: 
: I don't follow this at all. Which "two" are done years apart and why
: should that make a difference? As long as the taarovet itself is made
: before Pesach, who cares how many years the chametz existed as chametz
: before that (assuming that it wasn't owned by a Jew during Pesach in
: the years when it was in the cask).

The mash was made before aging, I presume years before the water was
added a second time.

The question is whether it's taaroves at all, not whether the taaroves
needs to be before or even during Pesach.

: The peas case is completely different because there you have discrete
: solids floating around in water...

To make whisky, you take barley, let it sprout a little (1mm or 2 of
rootlets) in water, kiln-dry it to stop the malting. This is "malted
barley". You then crush the malted barley into grist, which is like
a course flour, and mixed with hot water. The grist steeps until it
becomes a mash. This is quite probably halachic dough. The starch in the
mash decomposes into sugar, and the result is wort. Wort is mixed with
yeast, so that the yeast can process all that sugar to make the alcohol.
The result is called "wash", and is basically a pretty bad primitive
version of beer.

Notice that at this point, you have course flour, water and yeast floating
around together. How this isn't chameitz gamur is beyond me.

At this point it's distilled (usually twice), which is when R' Galley
says it stops being chameitz since distilling by definition separates
out the alcohol.

To finish the story:
Then they put it in oak casks. (RMF allows the use of sherry, port and
casks, despite later chumeros some want to start.) And there it ages.

There is no mention on any of the half-dozen web sites I went to of
boiling the mash, nor do I know why boiling mash is better than boiling
noodles at not producing chameitz.

I wonder if the "boiling" you heard was the same distillation (which
boils out the alcohol, leaving the water et al below) that RRW mentioned
besheim R' Galley.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 84
**************************************

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..."