Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 85

Wed, 24 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 6. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: torah u-madda (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: torah u-madda (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Sifsei Chaim: How to fulfill sipur yetzias Mitzrayim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Selling whiskey/bourbon (Shalom Berger)
• 11. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Simon Montagu)
• 16. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Democracy and the Beit Din (Michael Makovi)
• 18. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (Zev Sero)
• 19. Re: Selling whiskey/bourbon (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

Simon Montagu wrote:
> (I'm thinking of things like
> Bailey's Irish Cream, if there are any kosher versions of that)

According to the LBD, Baileys is kosher (chalav hacompanies).


Micha Berger wrote:

> 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?

It's simple: chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a knass.  You have the
right to be machmir on yourself and not rely on the sale; but why should
the shopkeeper be punished for not being machmir?  He had the right to
rely on it, so you have no reason or right to punish him.

BTW I assume that the minhag of not selling chametz gamur comes from a
time and place when the sale wasn't 100% valid lechol hade'os, and care
wasn't taken to make it completely binding.  In such a situation one might
choose to rely on it only for things whose issur of keeping is only
midrabanan.  And in the presence of such a minhag, the rov may feel
no need to strengthen the sale, because nobody's relying on it for chametz
gamur anyway.  So it may feed back on itself. But with industrial-strength
sales such as are customary today I don't see the point in not relying on
them for everything.

-- 
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 04:39:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >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?
: 
: It's simple: chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a knass...

You're answering the opposite question. I'm not asking why you can buy
it from the store. I'm asking why, once you're relying on the sale of
chameitz gamur, you can't sell your own?

We don't tell the store owner to sell all but an affordable amount of
chameitz, as that remaining amount wouldn't be a hefsed merubah. Is that
hypothetical remaining amount any different to you than the chameitz in
your own home?

I would think that once we have to matir my buying his chameitz gamur by
relying on his selling it for the duration of Pesach, the entire minhag
should fall away under it being -- as a whole -- a hefsed meruba or ein
hatzibur yakhol laamod bah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

If I understand correctly, it is not the mash that is boiled, but the grains
themselve, before they are turned into mash.

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> You're answering the opposite question. I'm not asking why you can buy
> it from the store. I'm asking why, once you're relying on the sale of
> chameitz gamur, you can't sell your own?

I don't understand the question.  Those who have this minhag are choosing
to be machmir.  They don't claim -- do they? -- that everyone *must* be
machmir like them, or else they deserve to be punished.  Even leshitasam
the shopkeeper acted beheter, he had the right to rely on what he was
told was a good sale, even if they have their doubts.  So why would they
punish him by not buying his goods?  At the same time, why would that
stop them from being machmir on themselves?  "Machmirim al atzman
umekilin al kol yisrael."

It's not as if there's some inherent issur in chametz she'avar alav
hapesach, even if it was done in good faith. 

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

<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?>  
     If I sell chameitz gamur, I may be violating an issur d'oraisa of bal
     yeira'e.  If I buy chameitz gamur from  a store that utilized m'chiras
     chameitz, at worst I may be violating an issur d'rabanan of chameitz
     she'avar alav haPesach.  
EMT
 
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=gfIsZBabcB2rBFSNlotWXwAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100323/278f2dbe/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 05:36:48PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: I don't understand the question.  Those who have this minhag are choosing
: to be machmir.  They don't claim -- do they? -- that everyone *must* be
: machmir like them, or else they deserve to be punished...

I'm saying that those who have this minhag who then routinely rely on
those who aren't machmir like them aren't avoiding the sale of chameitz
gamur anyway, so why bother?

It's like the hypothetical storeowner who sells all but an affordable
amount of his stock, since hefseid meruba doesn't apply to that
remaining amount.

Once you're relying on the qulah, what's the point?

I think REMT's email better addresses this issue. On Tue, Mar 23,
2010 at 09:40:15PM +0000, R Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: If I sell chameitz gamur, I may be violating an issur d'oraisa of bal
: yeira'e. If I buy chameitz gamur from a store that utilized m'chiras
: chameitz, at worst I may be violating an issur d'rabanan of chameitz
: she'avar alav haPesach.

I hear you as positing that the minhag not to sell chameitz gamur only
applies to issurim deOraisa. Which makes sense, since I'm selling the
stuff that is only bal yeira'eh deRabbanan. Therefore, if I rely on it
for the derabbanan, the "kenas" as RZS puts it, I'm not saying anything
about the basic minhag.

That's why I phrased it in terms of ein hatzibur yachol laamod bo. The
minhag as a whole doesn't work in the current economy. Why are we still
applying parts of it? Why am I "yakhol laamod bah" because I'm relying
on the big players not keeping the same minhag?

I would also argue that for many people with this minhag, having to ramp
down from their usual stocking up whenever there is a sale at CostCo
and then throwing out what remains does end up a hefsed meruba.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:44:54AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The symposium at the end was on intelligent design with all the
: speakers coming out against it
: as not being scientific

Umm.. What did they say ID was?

AFAIK, ID is saying that one can show there is design in the resulting
universe. ID would include a G-d guided big bang, geology, evolution,
etc... and therefore makes no claims at odds with science.

I would think that ID is thus the default position for many O
scientists.

Unless they felt there was no way to rigoroously define design, and thus
design couldn't in principle be scientifically measured.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:44:54AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The symposium at the end was on intelligent design with all the
: speakers coming out against it
: as not being scientific

Umm.. What did they say ID was?

AFAIK, ID is saying that one can show there is design in the resulting
universe. ID would include a G-d guided big bang, geology, evolution,
etc... and therefore makes no claims at odds with science.

I would think that ID is thus the default position for many O
scientists.

Unless they felt there was no way to rigoroously define design, and thus
design couldn't in principle be scientifically measured.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:12:07AM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
: How to fulfill the mitzvah of Sipur Yetzi'as Mitzrayim
: Rabbi Chaim Friedlander
: Published in Sifsei Chaim, Mo???adim, vol. 2
: Translated by Yitzchak Schaffer

As a point of comparison, not that I consider myself a bar pelugta, I
recently wrote on the subject.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/03/structure-of-maggid.shtm

I took the mishnah, and suggested that a literal read says that
three chiyuvim go into maggid:

1- Sipur, in Q&A form, where the answer has to be maschilin begenus
umesaymim beshevach.
This then has two variants:
1a- Shemu'el: Hashem provides physical redemption, and we respond with
    talmud Torah (Four sons, Yachol meiRC, etc...)
1b- Rav: Hashem provides spiritual redemption, which (Vehi sheAmedah)
    anchors our physical existence

2- Derashah - Arami oveid avi, counting maalos tovos, makos, etc..

3- R' Gamliel - linking to mitzvos halaylah and thus "lir'os/lehar'os
    atzmo", from which (lefikhakh) we get a chiyuv to say Hallel at night.

BTW, the way I analyzed the seder, Ha Lachma Anya is part of Yachatz,
not Maggid. It explains the broken matzah.

Maggid is what we do when the 2nd cup is before us, and starts with the
child's questions. (Or his father's fill-in.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

Someone who doesn't sell hametz gamur is being mahmir on the biblical
prohibition of bal yeraeh/bal yematze on Pesach.
Someone who, after Pesach, purchases hametz gamur that was sold, is
being mekel on the rabbinic prohibition of hametz she-avar alav
ha-pesach.

Makes sense to me.

Shalom

Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D.
The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education
Bar-Ilan University
http://www.lookstein.org
Blogging at http://jjffeducators.blogspot.com/
Follow me on Twitter: szberger

NETWORK*LEARN*GROW

----- 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?

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 05:36:48PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : I don't understand the question.  Those who have this minhag are choosing
> : to be machmir.  They don't claim -- do they? -- that everyone *must* be
> : machmir like them, or else they deserve to be punished...
> 
> I'm saying that those who have this minhag who then routinely rely on
> those who aren't machmir like them aren't avoiding the sale of chameitz
> gamur anyway, so why bother?

Because they *are* avoiding it.  And they hold that it's better to do so,
presumably because there is some flaw in the sale.  Or just in case there
is such a flaw.  But -- leshitasam -- why should they punish the shopkeeper
who wasn't machmir?  Did he have some kind of obligation to do so?

That's why it's important to remember that ChShAhP is a knass, not an
inherent issur.  It applies to the person, not to the chametz itself.
A shopkeeper who didn't get rid of his chametz is punished by not being
able to sell the stock he illegally kept.  Next time he'll know that it
pays to obey the law.  But in this case, he did obey the law; he just
didn't add an extra chumra that nobody claims he must.  So there's no
reason to punish him.

-- 
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 05:58:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >I'm saying that those who have this minhag who then routinely rely on
: >those who aren't machmir like them aren't avoiding the sale of chameitz
: >gamur anyway, so why bother?

: Because they *are* avoiding it...

I'll try one more time, and then give up.

If the minhag were economically viable, the storeowner would be able to
keep it.

And if it's not economically viable, the minhag doesn't stick. Hefsed
meruba was already built into it as a heter, aside from the general "ein
hatzibur yekholim laamod bah".

My not selling my own chameitz gamor therefore serves no purpose, once my
world HAS TO contain people who do not do the same.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 05:58:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >I'm saying that those who have this minhag who then routinely rely on
> : >those who aren't machmir like them aren't avoiding the sale of chameitz
> : >gamur anyway, so why bother?
> 
> : Because they *are* avoiding it...
> 
> I'll try one more time, and then give up.
> 
> If the minhag were economically viable, the storeowner would be able to
> keep it.

But why should he?

 
> And if it's not economically viable, the minhag doesn't stick. Hefsed
> meruba was already built into it as a heter, aside from the general "ein
> hatzibur yekholim laamod bah".

Where are either of those terms coming from?  


> My not selling my own chameitz gamor therefore serves no purpose, once my
> world HAS TO contain people who do not do the same.

Huh?  Surely the purpose of your not selling the chametz is the same
as that of any chumra: although you have the right to rely on the sale,
you choose not to because you're worried that there might be something
wrong with it, or that the halacha might be like some strict opinion,
and if so you don't want to be nichshal in lo yeraeh velo yimatzei.
It has nothing to do with creating a world in which everyone is
similarly machmir.   So how is that purpose foiled by someone else
choosing (as you surely acknowledge is his right) not to be machmir?

Your point would only be valid if you were to hold that *nobody* may
sell chametz gamur, and that one who does deserves to be punished.


-- 
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 06:43:42PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >If the minhag were economically viable, the storeowner would be able to
: >keep it.

: But why should he?

Did I say "should" or "would be able"?

: >And if it's not economically viable, the minhag doesn't stick. Hefsed
: >meruba was already built into it as a heter, aside from the general "ein
: >hatzibur yekholim laamod bah".

: Where are either of those terms coming from?  

Which term? You never heard of hefsed meruba, or ein hatzibur yecholim
laamod?

Selling chameitz altogether started with barkeeps who sought a way to
avoid hefsed meruba.

: 
: >My not selling my own chameitz gamor therefore serves no purpose, once my
: >world HAS TO contain people who do not do the same.

: Huh?  Surely the purpose of your not selling the chametz is the same
: as that of any chumra: although you have the right to rely on the sale,
: you choose not to because you're worried that there might be something
: wrong with it, or that the halacha might be like some strict opinion,
: and if so you don't want to be nichshal in lo yeraeh velo yimatzei.

The way you phrase the chumerah, you are pretty much declaring "I think
the sale may be a haaramah", and you shouldn't be allowed to rely on it
even for a derabbanan -- taaroves etc...

I also have a problem with someone not taking a stand as to whether a
qinyan is real or not. That sounds like the machmir is *creating* the
haaramah problem, or even worse, an asmachta. A safeiq qinyan, where
qinyan relies on intent of the party?

But that aside...

It is impossible for the minhag to work as a minhag. The economy doesn't
work. It fails as a Categorical Imperative.

You're describing my doing a hanagah tovah, a minhag chassidus. But if
it doesn't work for everyone, then as a minhag hamaqom or minhag avos,
it fails.

: It has nothing to do with creating a world in which everyone is
: similarly machmir..

Actually, minhagim do. A minhag requires that the whole locale are doing
it. Recall the star-K page, telling you to ask other family members what
your minhag is. This isn't hanagah tovah / personal chumerah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, I understand the confusion: you're conflating two questions into
one. I completely agree with you that any water added before the
fermentation and distillation is not going to make a taarovet.
Certainly im ken ein ladavar sof: even bread is made by mixing water,
flour and yeast together so there would be no such thing in the world
as chametz gamur!

My question was intended as completely separate: assuming that the
distilled whisky is still chametz gamur, would the water added during
bottling make it a taarovet from that point onwards? As I said in my
last message, I expect the answer is still "no".

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:51:26PM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
: My question was intended as completely separate: assuming that the
: distilled whisky is still chametz gamur, would the water added during
: bottling make it a taarovet from that point onwards? As I said in my
: last message, I expect the answer is still "no".

Understood. My question was how one separates putting water into dough to
make a dough-water taaroves and adding water to dough to make thinner
dough. If whisky after decasking but before the water added is raw
chameitz, isn't the dilution more like adding water to dough?

(As I wrote earlier: The 12 years in the cask shouldn't change that.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> This certainly gives license for l'mashal BD X to retroactively reject
> conversions of BD Y - if/when BD X deems BD Y's methods as inauthentic.
>
> RRW

Indeed. If one BD determines that the eidim of another BD were invalid
eidim, or that the mikvah was not kosher, or that the milah was not
kosher, etc. etc., then indeed, the giyur may be revoked. But if the
second BD is basing itself on fallacious readings of the Gemara, such
as by ignoring the sugya (or baraita? - I forget) about the ger who
rises from the mikvah and immediately joins a passing troupe of
idolaters, and yet whose giyur is valid - then this second BD's
revocation is valueless and irrelevant. If the second BD is ignoring
how many poseqim were willing to convert the non-observant (Rabbi
Benzion Uziel, Rabbi D. Z. Hoffman, Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman), and
pretending that these poseqim didn't exist, then that second BD's
revocation is nothing. Or as Rabbi Henkin's article in Hakirah showed,
the laws of Hoshen Mishpat do not in any way permit Rabbi Sherman's
conclusion that Rabbi Drukman is an invalid dayan; IIRC, Rabbi Henkin
concluded that even if Rabbi Drukman's opinions are all wrong, he
would still be a valid dayan according to Hoshen Mishpat. But if the
second BD has real basis for annulling the conversion, such as by
saying that the eidim were not shomrei shabbat, then this revocation
is valid.

> Suppose a community wants to DEFY the Torah and - as a result - the
> Beth Din then imposes tyrannical methods to enforce the Torah - Who
>wins? Who trumps?
>
> RRW

Indeed, to enforce the Torah against one's will is perfectly valid,
just as one may enforce the prohibition against murder, no matter how
much the murderer protests. This is logical; why on earth should the
protests of the sinner mean anything? Of course the sinner protests!!!

Then again, none other than Hazal were willing to use creative methods
to effectively nullify the laws of mamzerut and the death penalty. Lo
bashamayim hi, and if G-d wants the Torah's penalties upheld, then let
Him enforce them. If G-d wants sinners dead, then let Him kill them.
Also, all punishments require warnings by eidim, which means the
sinner must be b'meizid. If, however, the sinner is a tinoq
she-nishba, then he is b'shogeg, and he cannot be punished for his
violation of Shabbat or kashrut, etc. The Torah itself is aware that
coercion is valid only when the basic fabric of society takes
observance for granted, or when the sinner himself is aware of his
sin. But when the society does not take this for granted (cf. the
Hazon Ish on tinoq she-nishba), or when the sinner in question is
unaware of his sin (cf. Rambam on Karaites), the the Torah itself
realizes we cannot exercise coercion.

A Torah-based theocracy in Israel today would NOT entail coercion or
punishment of the non-observant, because the Torah itself commands us
not to exercise such coercion. If any frum Jew (or sect of frum Jews)
advocates coercion of the non-observant, perhaps he isn't really frum.

> Given Any BD that fails to follow Torah has gone beyond its mandate.
> Just who is the arbiter that a given BD has failed to live up to Torah's
> dictates? [As with the giyyur controversy above]
>
> RRW

Every Jew who has learned the Torah is an arbiter. Unfortunately,
machlokets have proliferated, and we have two batei din in one city,
as it were, etc. This is a tragedy, and there's little we can do about
it, until we somehow reunify the Jewish people. But the principle
remains that (to borrow the title of the book by Scottish Calvinist
preacher Samuel Rutherford) lex rex ("The law is king"), and not rex
lex ("The king is law"). Or as Thomas Paine says in "Common Sense",
"But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he
reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of
Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly
honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter;
let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let
a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as
we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in
absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law
ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use
should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the
ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it
is."

Michael Makovi

Note: Water added before fermentation doesn't count at all.  For instance,
you can add water to grape juice before it ferments, and then after it
becomes wine you can use it to make matza ashira, and it doesn't become
chametz; but if a drop of water falls into the wine *after* fermentation
it suddenly becomes capable of making chametz in less than 18 minutes.
Indeed, I believe this applies even to raisin wine, which is water in which
raisins have been soaked!  Once it ferments it's no longer water but wine.

Similarly, it stands to reason that water added to grain before it ferments
becomes part of the fermented product and therefore itself chametz, and
can't be counted as something that dilutes the chametz.



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

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:

> 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.

I don't know if it is still made, but when I was in Eretz Yisrael, there
was a product sold called "mitz anavim meshuchzar" - reconstituted grape
juice, made from grape juice concentrate which was then watered down to
normal strength. As I recall, there was a machlokes on the bracha, whether
it should be hagafen (which would seem to follow what RRW wrote here), or
whether the abundance of water would make it shehakol.

I don't know which poskim held which way, or what sources they used to bolster their views. I'm just suggesting that it might be relevant to the current issue.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=UZgtuNDPKTq7ISZ5t8K3UQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 85
**************************************

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..."