Avodah Mailing List

Volume 40: Number 25

Fri, 08 Apr 2022

• 1. Chamets - Whiskey & Vinegar (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 2. Re: Rabbi not answering a question (Micha Berger)
• 3. Chamets - Whiskey & Vinegar (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. Re: Chamets - Whiskey & Vinegar (Zev Sero)
• 5. ?Chamets - Whiskey & Vinegar? - Correction to my maths and a problem for the OU (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 6. What is Chamets? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Rabbis uphold woman?s divorce, but deem her ex still married (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: "Libi Omer Li". (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rabbis uphold woman's divorce, but deem her ex still married (Micha Berger)
• 10. Maharsha - YeGiAh KaPeCha Ki Tov - The Superior System by which to Serve HKBH (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)

re R' Zev S observation that "steps A and B" have not been taken into
account -

Perhaps I ought to have been clearer when I wrote, "If only half of the
Kezayis of vinegar is Chamets ..." made by design to accommodate steps A
and B.

[Email #2. -mb]

I apologise for not providing the source referred to - 2 articles on the OU
site; presented now

https://oukosher.org/passover/articles/which-foods-are-chametz-2/ .
https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/may-i-purchase-vinegar-based-products-e-g-pickles-mustard-salad-dressing-horseradish-after-pesach-from-a-jewish-store-that-did-not-sell-its-chametz/

The article is my own and it seems to me that the OU is mistaken in its
assertion that vinegar might possibly be Chamets and requires KLP.

The main issue is the halacha YD 92:8 in which the steam rising from the
milk and enveloping the meat is of absolutely no concern to the halacha -
it is deemed to be water DESPITE the fact that we know that all sorts of
solids ascend in that steam which we can see with our eyes as it
accumulates on the surfaces above the stove.

In that case the steam distilled from Chamets is also not Chamets, nor Stam
Yayin if distilled from NK wine.
So all vinegar is accordingly Kosher and KLP no matter the source of the
alcohol.

Since halacha permits hanging meat to dry in the warm zone above a stove
even when it is enveloped by steam of milk cooking on the stove below [YD
92:8 - the only restriction being that the steam be less that Yad Soledes
when it contacts the meat] it is reasonable to assert that alcohol
distilled from Chamets is not Chamets just as the steam is not dairy. The
Poskim however maintain that it is Chamets. [Mishneh Berurah [442:4] - ?the
consensus of the Poskim is that ?Yayin Saraf? - the drink that burns
[because of its high alcohol content, or perhaps that is processed with
heat i.e. distillation] - when produced from one of the 5 grains is more
intensely Chamets than diluted Chamets?]  This is probably due to the
impurity of whiskey as it was in years gone-by when as a crude process it
provided between 40% and 50% alcohol. The finished product retained the
taste and flavour of the Chamets it was distilled from.

As to R' Arie F's observations re flavour from the fermented mash; I have
tasted the pure distillate and perhaps the great connoisseurs can detect
variations, I certainly could not. Also the blender who guided me admitted
he could only detect 'hints' of flavour variations.

It is true as R' A states that "a bunch of other fragrant, tasty molecules"
emerge with the distillate but a bunch of those highly fractionated
molecules do not accurately represent or portray the Chamets flavour. In
the food flavour arena there are so many natural flavours that are
extracted from the malting process - grains are malted, made wet and
begin to germinate, they sprout. The chemical processes in malting are
vast, and are still not fully understood or identified. Hundreds of
flavours that are as different to one another as day is to night, are
developed from this malting process. Are they Chamets?

In support of the distillate not having Chamets flavour, here is a quote of
a self proclaimed expert, see below for fuller quote - in his entire rant,
not one word, not one reflection about the source from which the drinks are
derived. There is APPLE there is TOFFEE TOBACCO [for heaven's sake]
and the reference to malt is a SAFEK and not MALT but HONEYED CHARACTER -
"Some of that honeyed character may also be from the malt, too. It is hard
to know for certain" and this "conservative estimates would be that whisky
gets upwards of 60% of its flavour from oak"

and this gem "sherry American oak casks can give a whisky a more fruit cake
and chocolaty flavour profile with peel and spice ... might offer nuts,
prune, cherries, Christmas cake, raisins, sultana or dried fruit"

= = = =
Let's explore three magnificent expressions -- one from Glenfiddich, one
from Glengoyne and one from Bruichladdich -- to make some more sense of how
oak infuses new make with oak flavours.

1. GLENFIDDICH 12 YEAR OLD
In my review of Glenfiddich 12 year old it is evident that my nose and
taste buds could detect lots of apple. When pouring Glenfiddich 12 year old
into a glass, I could smell the lovely apple from arms length away. That
apple, clearly, is from the distillate. There was also spice, vanilla and
toffee alongside faint sherry in the background, suggesting American oak
and sherry wood was used to mature the whisky and add more layers to
Glenfiddich's apple rich core. Vanilla, for example, is a classic sign of
American oak. Some of that honeyed character may also be from the malt,
too. It is hard to know for certain, but we can roughly break down the
flavours and take a good guess where they have come from.

2. GLENGOYNE CASK STRENGTH
In my review of Glengoyne Cask Strength it is clear that I detected in the
whisky creamy crushed biscuits and wholemeal notes with cooked apple/pear
and sweet ethanol, hints of spice, English style overproof rum, sweet mint,
raisin/fruit cake, chocolate and cocoa, and, sherry. It seems likely that
the cereal, and obviously the sweet honeyed ethanol as well as the fruity
apple and pear, would probably be remnants of the distillate after maturing
in the oak. Those sugary notes, and that lovely spice along with the
raisin/fruit cake, are typical of sherry wood. There may be a fusion of
character from the distillate and the oak that gave off the rummy notes; as
opposed to stronger sugary sherry notes mainly from the cask.

3. BRUICHLADDICH OCTOMORE 7.3 ISLAY BARLEY
I describe this whisky as a ?peaty sea monster?, and give it descriptors
such as toffee apple, fudge, vanilla, tobacco etc. We know that the whisky
is made from Islay barley that has been dried using peat smoke. That is
where it gets its smoky peat flavours, and, probably, also its sea spray
and salt notes. The Glenfiddich and Glengoyne expressions just mentioned,
in contrast, offer no peat smoke. There is also that apple, which probably
comes from the distillate. Then we have flavours that tend to be associated
more with American oak, so on top of those peaty maritime flavours we get
vanillas, tobacco, toffee etc. Obviously, it is hard to know with absolute
certainty what flavours would come from where, but this may be a decent
guess.

To summarise, we can see that whisky is a muddled mix of flavours from the
distillate (i.e: apple in the Glenfiddich, peat and sea spray in the
Octomore), the oak (i.e: vanilla from American oak, raisin/fruit cake from
sherry wood), and the marriage of distillate and oak.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:52:47PM -0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> There are at least three  halachic concepts that directly relate to this:

I am not sure these are three concepts, rather than three different
idioms for variants of the same motive.

> a) mutav sheyihu shogegain v'al heyhyu mezidin (see Beitza 30a)...

The pesaq is for someone who the rav cannot expect to do the right thing,
or a community where far more people will not do the right thing, so he
allows the lesser evil outcome.

> b) Halacha v'ain morin ken - a concept that is used at least seven times in
> the Talmud (see Shabbat 12b, Eruvin 7a, Beitza 28b, Baba Kama 30b, Avodah
> Zara 37b and  Menachot 37b).  Over simplistically - the concept of halacha
> v'ain morin ken is used in circumstances where there are significant risks
> of misunderstanding whether wilful or otherwise, with, usually, the
> potential consequence of more significant breach of the halacha...

The rav needs to give the lesser evil outcome pesaq, but if he pasqens
that in public, the pesaq may be turned in a norm even in situations
where otherwise the right thing might have been done.

Here is is even possible the rav will privately pasqen for the sho'el,
but not take a public stance. Depending on how well they know the sho'el,
the community, and the odds of any pesaq remaining private.

E.g. If the single woman asking about going to the miqvah is embarassed
enough that she lacks the restraint and is in this situation, the rav
might tell her better the miqvah. But, if he doesn't know her, or knows
there is a good chance it will be passed by word of mouth as premarital
relations are "not so assur" this way, he has a harder decision. When
this kind of decision was published, though, the vast majority of posqim
thought the rav was guillty of increasing peritzus in kelal Yisrael.

> c) that the particular person is not able to handle the answer.  While this
> comes up mostly in relation to women (the Torah will be turned to tiflut)
> there is also a concept of a (male) student who is not hegon and should not
> be taught Torah until he returns to good...

Again the poseiq is choosing between lesser evils. Here it's a bit
different that (a) in that the sin to be avoided is in the sho'el's
(or their circle of contacts') attitude toward Torah, which need not be
the mitzvah under discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 When a king dies, his power ends,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
Author: Widen Your Tent      beginning.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                  - Soren Kierkegaard

re R' Zev S observation that "steps A and B" have not been taken into
account -

Perhaps I ought to have been clearer when I wrote, "If only half of the
Kezayis of vinegar is Chamets ..." made by design to accommodate steps A
and B.

[Email #2. -mb]

I apologise for not providing the source referred to - 2 articles on the OU
site; presented now

https://oukosher.org/passover/articles/which-foods-are-chametz-2/ .
https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/may-i-purchase-vinegar-based-products-e-g-pickles-mustard-salad-dressing-horseradish-after-pesach-from-a-jewish-store-that-did-not-sell-its-chametz/

The article is my own and it seems to me that the OU is mistaken in its
assertion that vinegar might possibly be Chamets and requires KLP.

The main issue is the halacha YD 92:8 in which the steam rising from the
milk and enveloping the meat is of absolutely no concern to the halacha -
it is deemed to be water DESPITE the fact that we know that all sorts of
solids ascend in that steam which we can see with our eyes as it
accumulates on the surfaces above the stove.

In that case the steam distilled from Chamets is also not Chamets, nor Stam
Yayin if distilled from NK wine.
So all vinegar is accordingly Kosher and KLP no matter the source of the
alcohol.

Since halacha permits hanging meat to dry in the warm zone above a stove
even when it is enveloped by steam of milk cooking on the stove below [YD
92:8 - the only restriction being that the steam be less that Yad Soledes
when it contacts the meat] it is reasonable to assert that alcohol
distilled from Chamets is not Chamets just as the steam is not dairy. The
Poskim however maintain that it is Chamets. [Mishneh Berurah [442:4] - ?the
consensus of the Poskim is that ?Yayin Saraf? - the drink that burns
[because of its high alcohol content, or perhaps that is processed with
heat i.e. distillation] - when produced from one of the 5 grains is more
intensely Chamets than diluted Chamets?]  This is probably due to the
impurity of whiskey as it was in years gone-by when as a crude process it
provided between 40% and 50% alcohol. The finished product retained the
taste and flavour of the Chamets it was distilled from.

As to R' Arie F's observations re flavour from the fermented mash; I have
tasted the pure distillate and perhaps the great connoisseurs can detect
variations, I certainly could not. Also the blender who guided me admitted
he could only detect 'hints' of flavour variations.

It is true as R' A states that "a bunch of other fragrant, tasty molecules"
emerge with the distillate but a bunch of those highly fractionated
molecules do not accurately represent or portray the Chamets flavour. In
the food flavour arena there are so many natural flavours that are
extracted from the malting process - grains are malted, made wet and
begin to germinate, they sprout. The chemical processes in malting are
vast, and are still not fully understood or identified. Hundreds of
flavours that are as different to one another as day is to night, are
developed from this malting process. Are they Chamets?

In support of the distillate not having Chamets flavour, here is a quote of
a self proclaimed expert, see below for fuller quote - in his entire rant,
not one word, not one reflection about the source from which the drinks are
derived. There is APPLE there is TOFFEE TOBACCO [for heaven's sake]
and the reference to malt is a SAFEK and not MALT but HONEYED CHARACTER -
"Some of that honeyed character may also be from the malt, too. It is hard
to know for certain" and this "conservative estimates would be that whisky
gets upwards of 60% of its flavour from oak"

and this gem "sherry American oak casks can give a whisky a more fruit cake
and chocolaty flavour profile with peel and spice ... might offer nuts,
prune, cherries, Christmas cake, raisins, sultana or dried fruit"

= = = =
Let's explore three magnificent expressions -- one from Glenfiddich, one
from Glengoyne and one from Bruichladdich -- to make some more sense of how
oak infuses new make with oak flavours.

1. GLENFIDDICH 12 YEAR OLD
In my review of Glenfiddich 12 year old it is evident that my nose and
taste buds could detect lots of apple. When pouring Glenfiddich 12 year old
into a glass, I could smell the lovely apple from arms length away. That
apple, clearly, is from the distillate. There was also spice, vanilla and
toffee alongside faint sherry in the background, suggesting American oak
and sherry wood was used to mature the whisky and add more layers to
Glenfiddich's apple rich core. Vanilla, for example, is a classic sign of
American oak. Some of that honeyed character may also be from the malt,
too. It is hard to know for certain, but we can roughly break down the
flavours and take a good guess where they have come from.

2. GLENGOYNE CASK STRENGTH
In my review of Glengoyne Cask Strength it is clear that I detected in the
whisky creamy crushed biscuits and wholemeal notes with cooked apple/pear
and sweet ethanol, hints of spice, English style overproof rum, sweet mint,
raisin/fruit cake, chocolate and cocoa, and, sherry. It seems likely that
the cereal, and obviously the sweet honeyed ethanol as well as the fruity
apple and pear, would probably be remnants of the distillate after maturing
in the oak. Those sugary notes, and that lovely spice along with the
raisin/fruit cake, are typical of sherry wood. There may be a fusion of
character from the distillate and the oak that gave off the rummy notes; as
opposed to stronger sugary sherry notes mainly from the cask.

3. BRUICHLADDICH OCTOMORE 7.3 ISLAY BARLEY
I describe this whisky as a ?peaty sea monster?, and give it descriptors
such as toffee apple, fudge, vanilla, tobacco etc. We know that the whisky
is made from Islay barley that has been dried using peat smoke. That is
where it gets its smoky peat flavours, and, probably, also its sea spray
and salt notes. The Glenfiddich and Glengoyne expressions just mentioned,
in contrast, offer no peat smoke. There is also that apple, which probably
comes from the distillate. Then we have flavours that tend to be associated
more with American oak, so on top of those peaty maritime flavours we get
vanillas, tobacco, toffee etc. Obviously, it is hard to know with absolute
certainty what flavours would come from where, but this may be a decent
guess.

To summarise, we can see that whisky is a muddled mix of flavours from the
distillate (i.e: apple in the Glenfiddich, peat and sea spray in the
Octomore), the oak (i.e: vanilla from American oak, raisin/fruit cake from
sherry wood), and the marriage of distillate and oak.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837

On 5/4/22 09:58, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> re R' Zev S observation that "steps A and B" have not been taken into
> account -
> 
> Perhaps I ought to have been clearer when I wrote, "If only half of the
> Kezayis of vinegar is Chamets ..." made by design to accommodate steps A
> and B.

What is the basis for that "if only half"?   I can't see any basis for 
it.  That is not called "taking it into account".  It's just what people 
vulgarly call a WAG.  Steps A and B make it more likely that it is not 
half but zero.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing you a happy and kosher Pesach, and a
z...@sero.name       healthy season appropriate to your hemisphere

The prohibition of owning Chamets applies if within any container there is
a Kezayis of Chamets. In the case of a dilution of 95%, there will be a
Kezayis [let?s say 200ml] of vinegar in a container larger than 2,600ml.
I believe it ought to be 4 litres - 95% is 1:20 = 200:4000

If only half of the Kezayis of vinegar is Chamets, there will be a Kezayis
in a container of more than 8,000ml.

And we should note that the smallest commercial containers are 25 litres.
The larger are 1000 litres and tankers or shipping containers far larger.

According to the OU's argument, these large containers, if owned by Yidden,
are Assur.
We could probably trace them if we wanted to.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220407/8aa76d4f/attachment-0001.html>

Both cows and yeast are living organisms. They produce milk and alcohol,
respectively, as a metabolic process.
We may therefore ask, if cows produce KLP milk even when they eat Chamets,
should not the alcohol produced by yeast also be KLP? Should not the
alcohol they produce from non Kosher wine also be Kosher?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220407/fbbf1cf7/attachment-0001.html>

We recently discussed a case where a mother was believed regarding her
child's Jewishness, but not about her own. Or maybe it was the other way
around, I don't remember.

I just now saw an article at
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-rare-ruling-rabbinic-court-grants-woman-divorce-but-deems-her-ex-still-married/
 according to which a couple got divored, after which they were obviously
free to marry other people. But then the ex-husband claimed that "he
deliberately botched" it, "in an attempt to nullify it", and thus keep the
wife married and chained. According to the article, the beis din rules that
the get was still valid for his ex-wife, but not for himself.

When I read the article, the case seemed to be similar to the conversion I
mentioned in my first paragraph: We'll believe what the guy says about
himself, but he is powerless to change someone else's status. According to
the article, the principle used by the beis din was actually "Shavyeh
Anafsheh Haticha D?Issura", which might be slightly different in theory,
but (I think) has the same effect in this case.

Normally, and in this case too, I am very hesitant to believe that the
press got all their facts straight. But even if it did not happen exactly
as reported, I imagine that it *might* have happened that way, and
therefore could provide an interesting case for discussion here, if anyone
wants to.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220405/dbf6c45b/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:32:16AM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> Rabbi Asher Weiss often uses the phrase when describing a position which
> is not based on concrete sources, especially when it's due to new
> technology or circumstances. I've usually heard it referred to as halachic
> intuition.
...
> The bottom line is intuition may be simply the subconscious accumulation of
> a lifetime's worth of experiences

I think this is the whole reason why we need shimush talmidei chakhamim.
To jump-start halachic intution by immersion, mimetically picking it up
by apprenticing under someone whose example will get internalized.

To quote R Meir (Berekhos 47b):
   Acheirim omerim:
   Afilu qara veshanah velo shimeish TC,
   harei hu am ha'aretz.

To which R Hunah adds:
   Halakhah keAcheirim.

On Sukkah 22a it's a machloqes what the guy is:
   R Eliezer: am ha'aretz
   R Shmuel bar Nachmeini: bur
   R Yanai: Kuti
   R Acha bar Yaaqov: a magician (Rashi: achizas einayim)

The Maharal (Nesiv haTorah #15) specifically relates this to pesaq
and the dangers of pasqening from book knowledge alone.

The need for picking up this intution from your predecessor may also be
why sichas TC requires limud.

Which is a different focus than RJR's on how to develop it once a poseiq
has that starter seed. But they dovetail well together.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   And the Torah, its light.
Author: Widen Your Tent                      - based on Mishlei 6:2
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 12:56:46PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Normally, and in this case too, I am very hesitant to believe that the
> press got all their facts straight. But even if it did not happen exactly
> as reported, I imagine that it *might* have happened that way, and
> therefore could provide an interesting case for discussion here, if anyone
> wants to.

I don't understand the case well enough, nor trust that newspapers
would, to know whether we are talking about "palginan dibura" or "shavia
anafsheih chatikhah de'issura".

Maybe they don't even partially accept his taanah, and just let him
stand in the issur he is claming for himself.

As I said, I can't tell from the reporting.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

We all take risks. Even getting in the car for a drive to the shops or
walking along the street carries some risk. So risks fall into a spectrum
and we all choose the level of risk we consider acceptable or not. We?ll
walk about in the street but perhaps not in the dark of night or in certain
areas. Some will make their investment of time or money based upon research
they have performed. Others may prefer to avoid the risk.

The degree of risk one accepts and the extent of research one performs,
says much about the person including the confidence they have in themselves.

When acting on behalf of others, the calculation becomes a little more
complicated because we need to know how much risk those we represent are
willing to accept.

As loyal Yidden, we do not act on behalf of HKBH, nor are we His employees.
Rather, we are free agents who are commanded to live our lives according to
HKBH?s guidelines as we understand them.

Accordingly, we must ask, is it better as Gd fearing Yidden to ensure we
avoid as much risk as tolerable and live by the motto: ?What?s the big deal
if we don?t eat these foods, do you realise they might not be kosher or
Kosher LePesach?  What?s the big deal if we don?t wear these clothes, do
you realise they may be sha?atnez? There is plenty of 100% Kosher food to
eat, we can easily manage without cola drinks during Pesach, and there are
plenty of clothes that are free of the risk of sha?atnerz.?

Or is it superior to take the approach that we research, examine and
analyse every detail attempting to determine if this is in fact prohibited
or permitted.

Which is the greater?

The Maharsha [Chullin 44:] explains that as great as is he who fears HKBH,
and errs on the side of caution to scrupulously avoid any risk of violating
the Divine Will, he who undertakes to study, research and analyse in order
to determine the Divine Will, to see if it is permitted or not, and accept
that determination, is superior to the former.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20220408/b5c99caf/attachment.html>

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



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


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


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

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

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)