Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 011

Tuesday, April 11 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:29:35 -0400
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
Re: Corn - Is it Qitniyos?

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

> According to the hekhsher (R' Sheinkopf?) on the jelly rings, it is.
> I don't have a box with me at the time or it'd quote it verbatim, but
> if i remember correctly he references R' Yitzhhaq Elhhanan Spektor(?)...
> Ahah, yaga`ti umatza'ti...
> It's quoted and asked about over here, in the MJ archives:
> <http://www.emax.ca/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i09.html>

That is interesting, albeit not universally applied.

Having just read the Kashrus Kurrents article by Rabbi Tzvi Rosen, it 
appears that there are variances in Nishtanu and derivatives and oils 
and that HFCS may have non-Qitniyos issues as well, if the enzymes used 
in its conversion were derived from hametz.


Jacob Farkas

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:39:11 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Oseh Shalom

> The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that
> indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE.

Machzor Livorno has "oseh shalom bimromav, hu berachamav yaaseh shalom
alenu ve'al kol yisrael, amen".

Zev Sero

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:30:46 GMT
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Re: Devarim she-ein la-hem shiur - Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim?

> Has anyone seen a discussion on why sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim is
> not included in the Mishna in Peah with those things "she-ein la-hem
> shiur"? Could it be that it is subsumed under Talmud Torah?

I would assume it's because to be included, it requires that there be
neither maximum nor minimum. In the case of sippur, there is a minimum:
kol shelo amar shlosha d'varim eilu baPesach lo yatza y'dei chovaso.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:41:55 +0200
From: "Esther and Aryeh Frimer" <frimera@zahav.net.il>
Devarim she-ein la-hem shiur - Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim?

From: Elazar M. Teitz
> I would assume it's because to be included, it requires that there be
> neither maximum nor minimum. In the case of sippur, there is a minimum:
> kol shelo amar shlosha d'varim eilu baPesach lo yatza y'dei chovaso.

Reb Elazar's answer is found in the Mishna Rishona to Pe'ah 1:1. He notes
that all those listed in the Mishna do have a lower limit. according to
some view, but it is only mi-de-rabbanan. The shlosha devarim of Rabban
Gamliel is required to fulfil ones Biblical obligation.

However, the latter point is problematic. It depends how you interpret
"Lo yatsa yedei Hovato" - at all, or properly (ka-ra'uy) - see Tosfot
Yom Tov on Pesachim. Also, there is much Brisker lomdus regarding what
you were not Yotsei - sippur yetsi'at mitsrayim or Pesach, Matsa, maror...

The issue remains open, therefore. I look forward to additional answers

Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:24:36 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Devarim she-ein la-hem shiur - Sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim?

On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 06:30:46PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: I would assume it's because to be included, it requires that there be
: neither maximum nor minimum. In the case of sippur, there is a minimum:
: kol shelo amar shlosha d'varim eilu baPesach lo yatza y'dei chovaso.

According to Rabban Gamliel, yes. But I thought Rav and Shemu'el are

Here's how I understood their positions on Maggid.

Rav and Shemu'el both agree that Maggid is about maschilim begenus
umesaymim beshevach. Shemu'el says this is about physical shibud, Rav,
about spiritual. Rabban Gamliel seems to be choleiq, eather than giving
an unrelated chiyuv, when he says pesach, matzah umaror, as that doesn't
fit the genus to shevach pattern.

Lema'aseh we include all three haggados:
    Shemu'el: Avadim hayinu
    Rav: Beschilah ovdei AZ
    R' Gamliel: Pesach...

(BTW, I posted here a long while back the idea that perhaps Rav and
Shemu'el are leshitasam. Shemu'el is also the one who says "ein bein
olam hazeh liymos hamashiach ela shib'ud malchuyos bilvad". It would
seem that to him, ge'ulah is defined as a physical ge'ulah.)

It is also possible that Rav and Shemu'el are arguing about sippur
yetzi'as Mitzrayim, while R' Gamliel is giving a chiyuv in achliah --
that one isn't yotzei "al matzos umorerim yochluhu" without making
the statements. R' Chaim Brown gave this as "the more popular peshat"
in v5n23.

R' Chaim Markowitz in the same discussion (v5n20) cites the Or
Samei'ach. The Rambam writes about "kol hamarbeh harei zeh meshubach"
twice: in 7:2 about the mitzvah of haggadah, and in 7:6 about darshenining
"Arami oveid avi" in particular. Ayin sham.


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

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:45:43 -0400
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
RE: Bracha on Pizza (was: Mezonot Bread)

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

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

I was just suggesting that there are various Shittos for n+1 slices,
whether n=1 or n=2, but for 1 slice the Minhag is pretty straightforward,
the velt does not wash and bentch. Noting the possibility of QS is
different than your assumption that Pashtida is a haMotzee no matter
how large.

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

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

The ratio of topping to dough should have no effect in the consideration
of said pizza slice to be PHBK according to Shitas Taz. QS is thus
limited to amounts consumed, not recipe.

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

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

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

Hapeh SheHittir is the Taz. Contemporaries of the MB [in your view]
agreed with him, even though they knew of 6 or 7 who aligned themselves
with the MA and the ShLaH. Contemporary posqim today issue P'saq on the
number of slices are required before washing/benching, n+1, where n>1.
Gantz K'lal Yisrael practically makes Mezonos on 1 slice, like the
Taz (whether they have his Shitah in mind or otherwise). His P'saq is
followed, period. Whether you agree it should be, or otherwise, whether
you feel that the MA and MB should be followed, it is his P'saq that is
accepted and practiced. Da'as Yahid???

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

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

Pizza has always been a meal. Personal pies were actually standard,
only later were slices introduced. In effect, one could argue that it
went from being a meal to being a snack.

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

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

This should include all contemporary Posqim who don't require haMotzee
for one slice.

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

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

My question was in general, not in OH 168:17, if the MB authoratative and
allows for no further dispute, would you suggest that the aforementioned
Gedolim were wrong when they disagreed with him?

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

>> I'm not sure what you mean.

The practice to consider that Pashtida is PHBK unless one is QS, K'shitas
Taz, U'dlo K'shitas MB.

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

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

One doesn't need "brayte playtzes" to suggest that you could Yotze Birkas
Hamazon with Al Hamikhya. Muttav Sheyeehu Shogegin is a Rabbinic exercise
in restraint if they observe a gross violation [of a din d'rabbanan]
in progress, and they do not object because by objection they will
magnify the disobedience. In my eyes, this restraint is not necessary,
as shitas Taz and its wide acceptance is quite valid. In your eyes,
consider the fact that the Rabbonim have yet to issue a Maha'ah against
this widely accepted custom [kosher pizza has been available in the US
and Israel for more than a half century] as evidence that they would
rather Sheyeehu Shogegim.

Di heilige Barditchever would defend K'lal Yisrael, whether there was
Shitas Taz "oif zich tzi farlozen" or otherwise.

Jacob Farkas

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:12:25 -0400
From: Jacob Farkas <jfarkas@compufar.com>
Re: Peanuts

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

Actually, the Taz was explaining after the fact. After we already
established a list of Qitniyos, the Rema included mustard, and that seemed
out of place and should have been no different from other spices like
anise. Therefore he concluded that it was included in the Issur because
it grows like Qitniyos. Not that the issur Qitniyos is a blanket Issur
covering all future pod growing objects.

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

That may work for rice, buckwheat and millet. But not for all Qitniyos
items on the list. Others are Assur because they are grown in close
proximity to wheat, or because they can be turned into flour.

Jacob Farkas

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:42:36 +0200
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
Re: Shemen Kitniyos

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> I don't understand why people think that this is allowed. 

Well, apparently many Achronim don't agree with you. Here is an article
in HaTzofe, with Mar'eh Makom, so that you can check the sources.


An interesting issue here is the power to Assur things. Rav Ovadia,
in other psika, Rav Kook in this article and Rav Feinstein, in this
article all discuss this issue with regard to the fact that we are NOT
allowed to add Issurrim. Interesting.

Shoshana L. Boublil

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:37:56 +0200
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
shemen kitniot

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

Many poskim explain that this is because there is water mixed. Both
R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor and R. Kook have teshuvot allowing kitniot
oils that are made without any admixture of water. Since R. Yitzchak
Elchanan was considered the posek of his time I am not sure why this
was not more accepted.

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:39:34 +0200
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Re:Corn - Is it Qitniyos?

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

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

Although I do not know the answer to the first question, I will venture
to suggest that those who forbid cottonseed oil maintain that cotton
seeds are edible (although in reality no one eats them), and bear some
resemblance to legumes.

Easily available alternatives are walnut oil and date palm oil. I think
that there are others as well. This really isn't a problem. The available
oils work fine.

Chag kasher v'sameach.
Saul Mashbaum

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:33:26 +0200
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
kitniot oils and chumrot

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

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

Actually this year cottenseed oil is not available anywhere in Israel
with any hasgacha at least for the consumer. I understand some Israeli
companies have it.

R. Elyashiv has assured cottenseed oil based on dinim of kilyaim that
it is considered kitniyot. So RSYE disagrees with RMF and holds that
anything that is kitniot is under the ban even if it did not exist or
was not edible in previous generations.

There was a whole uproar many years ago because R. Landau (senior)
gave a hechsher to cottenseed oul (R Frank was also matir many years
ago). Then R. Schach gave a major ban and basically put into cherem anyone
who used cottenseed oil. There was a story with the Belze hasgacha that
also used cottenseed oil and had to issue a request not to use many of
their products right before Pesach.

As to what Israelis use my wife uses olive oil this year. There is also
available walnut oil which is very expensive and also palm oil which
also has problems.
Those with less qualms use Canola oil which is very available in all
supermarkets and is a borderline kitniot.

Again, kitniot is a minhag and kitniot derivatives seems to be a later
minhag. The psak of many poskim is that the derivatives of a definite
kitniot is also prohibited. Corn and Soy are considered definite kintiot
and so corn and soya are usually not used by ashkenazim. However, peanut
oil (not avialble in Israel), Canola, cottenseed, sunflower oil etc are
used by many ashkenazim. As stated RSYE and other poskim prohibit all
safek kitniot and their derivatives.

BTW R. Zevin in his sefer brings down several stories of chmrot of
kitniot that dont apply to Matzah. Why they are machmir in something
even less than a derabban I never really understood. In my days the
rule was safek derabban lekulah. In these days of looking for chumrot
that is out the window.

Our rabbi mentioned that a new chumrah is they sell pieces of chametz
to hide for the bedikah with a special hechsher. He was not quite sure
why you need a special hechsher to verify that it chametz and you can
then burn it.

I just got a desperate call from a friend who said a rabbi told him that
the shabbat hotplate had to be cleaned, then put on high for 2 hours
and then completely covered. I told him to get a new rabbi.

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:00:52 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Re: Amira L'Akum on Yom Tov

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:00:51 +0300 "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com>
> Where can I find the parameters of Amira L'Akum on Yom Tov? peferbaly
> in the Kitzur or the MB?

Not there.  Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa has a section on it.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:47:35 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
RE: the Torah's response to sex offenders

[R Simcha Coffer:]
> Yes, Rabbi A. Miller ztz'l. He claims that Sanhedrin had lockup
> facilities for people who were incorrigible, and in cases where they were
> convinced that he was a murderer, for instance, they locked him up and
> "forgot" he was there. RAM was a historian par excellence so I trust
> his presentation but I am not aware of his sources.

From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
> Are you sure he wasn't referring to the case of Sanhedrin 81b where
> they put him in the kippa and burst his belly through natural means -
> which really wasn't a long term jail situation?

R' Mordechai Cohen once quoted Nechama Leibowitz as saying that when
you have a question without an answer, put it in your pocket and 10
years later you may find an answer. In this case it's a bit shorter
-Psachim 91a mentions a beit haassurin shel yisrael which rashi posits
was used either for coercive reasons (divorce an inappropriate wife or
pay back a loan) or for someone who you injured to see if he recovers
or dies). Interesting that rashi gave 2 possibilities.

Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:20:28 -0400
From: Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@juno.com>
Re: Miriam Cup or Miriam Fish?

On Apr 10, 2006, at 11:28:13 -0400GMT, R' Jon Baker wrote:
> See this piece: <http://www.edah.org/levine.cfm>
> maybe we should have a Miriam Fish instead of a Miriam Cup (for those
> who have a Miriam Cup)?

Very interesting!

So now the question is, if the forgotten fish represents Miryam, who of 
Moshe and Aharon is the bone/meat, and who is the egg?  And why?

-Stephen (Steg) Belsky
   "Matters deteriorated even further during the reign of Alexander
Yannai, who used Greek soldiers against Jewish rebels, crucifying dozens
of them, and conducting a merciless war against the Pharisees. This
ruthless king became a subject for admiration only after his
death. Paradoxically, his widow Salome Alexandra would be remembered
for her close cooperation with the Pharisees. It would seem that in
rabbinical tradition no Jewish monarch could be considered good unless
dead or female."
      ~ 'a historical atlas of the jewish people'

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >