[Halacha] About rice, beans, and corn on Pesach

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Sugapabl...@stargate.net

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
When did rice, beans, and corn become un-kosher for pesach?

More importantly, why? They are not forbidden by the Torah, only five
grains were: wheat, rye, barley, spelt, and oats.

________________________________________________________
Sugapabl...@stargate.net
http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
(To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)


bac...@vms.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
In article <38eac788...@news.sgi.net>, Sugapabl...@stargate.net writes:
> When did rice, beans, and corn become un-kosher for pesach?
>
> More importantly, why? They are not forbidden by the Torah, only five
> grains were: wheat, rye, barley, spelt, and oats.


Pay a visit to a wholesale market where grain and rice are packaged
in 200 pound burlap bags. These bags are *reused* and are interchanged:
bags with wheat kernels will hold rice a few months later.

I have seen this firsthand at the national commodity market in Israel
(Rechov Piccioto in Tel Aviv).

Josh

Sugapabl...@stargate.net

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
So this is the reason?

If so, then rice would be KP if it were known to have come straight
from the fields in a sack that never touched another food?

I find this explanation a bit inadequate (yet understandable in modern
times).

Does anyone else have an answer?

Albert Reingewirtz

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
In article <38ebd8ac...@news.sgi.net>,
<Sugapabl...@stargate.net> wrote:

> So this is the reason?
>
> If so, then rice would be KP if it were known to have come straight
> from the fields in a sack that never touched another food?
>
> I find this explanation a bit inadequate (yet understandable in modern
> times).
>
> Does anyone else have an answer?

Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
tabu's.

Micha Berger

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
On 4 Apr 2000 13:25:55 GMT, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
: Pay a visit to a wholesale market where grain and rice are packaged

: in 200 pound burlap bags. These bags are *reused* and are interchanged:
: bags with wheat kernels will hold rice a few months later.

This, while true, is not the reason normally cited. It is the reason why
Sepharadim check their rice by laying it out one grain deep and looking
it over carefully for color.

Legumes, like wheat, are used to make porridge. Therefore, there was a fear
that someone would eat a wheat meal based food thinking it was legume
based.

Why porridge? I don't know for sure, but I have a guess. There was a period
of time in the darkest of the dark ages when much of Europe didn't know how
to make bread. Therefore wheat, grains and legumes were all seen as
interchangeable sources of porridge. Perhaps this is what is reflected in
the Ashkenazic custom.

-mi

--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 31-Mar-00: Shishi, Shmini
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 17b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah

Matthew Lybanon

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
This is similar to the explanation in _To Be a Jew_. The logic goes:

It is possible to make flour from legumes.

One might mistakenly connsume flour made from one of the five grains,
thinking that it is made from legumes.

Therefore, it is not permissible to consume whole beans (for example).
Not beans made into flour--whole beans.

There is a kind of logic behind this.

Sugapabl...@stargate.net

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to

>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>tabu's.

Any intelligent answers?

Sugapabl...@stargate.net

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
So basically, these haven't been explicitly prohibited by Torah. These
would be examples of "the fence around the Torah"?

This is what I'm trying to determine. If you haven't guessed by some
of my other posts, I'm truly interested in a clear understanding of
the differences.

Micha Berger

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:03:25 GMT, Sugapabl...@stargate.net wrote:
: So basically, these haven't been explicitly prohibited by Torah. These

: would be examples of "the fence around the Torah"?

Yes, and one specific to Ashkenazim. I'm not sure if you're Ashkenazic, your
user name leaves it open to question.

: This is what I'm trying to determine. If you haven't guessed by some


: of my other posts, I'm truly interested in a clear understanding of
: the differences.

I'd write my explanation, but Daniel Faigin already included it in the
FAQ, sec 4:2 <http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/04-02.html>.
(I thank him for his editorial work as well.)

-mi

--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 19b

Binyamin Dissen

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:46:13 GMT Sugapabl...@stargate.net wrote:

:>When did rice, beans, and corn become un-kosher for pesach?

Never.

They are not used by Ashkenazim, but they may be owned.

:>More importantly, why? They are not forbidden by the Torah, only five


:>grains were: wheat, rye, barley, spelt, and oats.

Perhaps because it was hard to keep grains of the five species out?

The five grains are only forbidden if leavened.

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>

Warning, I AM NOT A POSEK. This is not a PSAK.

Jonathan J. Baker

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
In <38ea11b...@news.sgi.net> Sugapabl...@stargate.net writes:

>>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>>tabu's.

>Any intelligent answers?

It's not that far off. It suddenly appears in the 14th century. Tosfos
never heard of it, suddenly in the Mordechai it's a universal custom
in northern Europe. No reason, it just happened.

--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
Web page update: Teachings of the Rav http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/


abe kohen

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
So Micha, if Yossi Sarid decides to become observant, and invites Rav Ovadia
Yosef for a Pesach meal, is he allowed to serve, and furthermore, himself
eat rice, beans, and corn mipnei kavod habriot (since kitniyot is forbidden
to Askenazim, only as a lo taaseh midrabanan of lo tasur)?

Abe


"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:8cd6lk$s4a$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...

Micha Berger

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:32:19 -0400, abe kohen <abek...@cloud9.net> wrote:
: So Micha, if Yossi Sarid decides to become observant, and invites Rav Ovadia

: Yosef for a Pesach meal, is he allowed to serve, and furthermore, himself
: eat rice, beans, and corn mipnei kavod habriot (since kitniyot is forbidden
: to Askenazim, only as a lo taaseh midrabanan of lo tasur)?

"Kavod habriot?" How does serving someone rice beans and corn represent
preserving "human dignity"?

I'm pretty sure R' Ovadia would not be offended by an Ashkenazi keeping his
own customs. And even if not, it wouldn't be a kavod habrios issue like
being able to obtain toilet paper is.

abe kohen

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
C'mon Micha, toilet paper? Is that the only example of kavod habriot?
As a Kohen, I'm allowed to step over a casket to greet a King,
even if he is Aku"m, because of kavod habriot.
Surely you don't suggest making Rav Ovadia suffer over potatoes
and {fish/meat/chicken} during Pesach, when he can eat better.
For all I know, you probably don't even eat "gebrochts."
Is this a holiday? Or do Asheknazim know how to punish themselves?

;-)
Abe

"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message

news:8cd9at$al1$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...

Micha Berger

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:17:06 -0400, abe kohen <abek...@cloud9.net> wrote:
: C'mon Micha, toilet paper?

I'm sure someone more imaginative could do better.

: As a Kohen, I'm allowed to step over a casket to greet a King,


: even if he is Aku"m, because of kavod habriot.

I hadn't realized that was kabod habrios. Kavod (respect) yes. And the king
is a bri'ah. But I didn't realize the expression included showing kavod
to a king. I really thought it was limited to protection of basic human
dignity. (Like prohibiting hospital gowns. <grin>)

: Surely you don't suggest making Rav Ovadia suffer over potatoes


: and {fish/meat/chicken} during Pesach, when he can eat better.

Why? Would he take offence?

: For all I know, you probably don't even eat "gebrochts."

Well, now you know I do.

: Is this a holiday? Or do Asheknazim know how to punish themselves?

Actually, Pesach is once of my worst diet violations. There is much to
enjoy even without gebrachts.

: ;-)

In tone with your smiley, I must admit that I too sometimes wonder how much
self-flagelation we assimilated from the Christians.

OTOH, perhaps it's worth giving up kitniyos in exchange for sleeping late
during most of Ellul. <grin>

Herman Rubin

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
In article <040420000544529034%alb...@nethere.com>,

Albert Reingewirtz <alb...@nethere.com> wrote:
>In article <38ebd8ac...@news.sgi.net>,
><Sugapabl...@stargate.net> wrote:

>> So this is the reason?

>> If so, then rice would be KP if it were known to have come straight
>> from the fields in a sack that never touched another food?

>> I find this explanation a bit inadequate (yet understandable in modern
>> times).

>> Does anyone else have an answer?

>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>tabu's.

When the Ashkenazim adopted this CUSTOM in the middle ages,
many called it then a foolish custom. One is allowed to
own kitnioth and derive benefit from them, and even to have
them in one's home, just not to eat them, according to this
custom.

There are permitted amounts of accidental contamination,
the strongest being 1 in 3600, specifically listed for
flour to be used for Passover. And dry kernels of wheat
are permitted; the Talmud recommends "parched corn", corn
being any kind of grain, for children to keep them from
misbehaving during the first part of the Seder. Roasted
ears of grain are permitted, even on the night of the
Seder.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

rkaiser1

unread,
Apr 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/4/00
to
Sugapabl...@stargate.net wrote :
>When did rice, beans, and corn become un-kosher for pesach?
>More importantly, why? They are not forbidden by the Torah, only five
>grains were: wheat, rye, barley, spelt, and oats.


I think you'll find all the info you need here.
http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/Special_Topics/kitniot


Note that Conservative movement in Israel has ruled that these particular
chumrot (stringincies) are no longer necessary. See their teshuva to see
why:
http://www.masorti.org/responsa/kitniyot.html


Shalom,

Robert Kaiser
(posted and mailed)


bac...@vms.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In article <8cd8lq$qpr$1...@panix6.panix.com>, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:

> In <38ea11b...@news.sgi.net> Sugapabl...@stargate.net writes:
>
>>>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>>>tabu's.
>
>>Any intelligent answers?
>
> It's not that far off. It suddenly appears in the 14th century. Tosfos
> never heard of it, suddenly in the Mordechai it's a universal custom
> in northern Europe. No reason, it just happened.


Actually, the SEMAK (Sefer Mitzvot Kattan) mentions that the prohibition of
*kitniyot* was well-established from the time of the "chachamim kadmonim"
[very early scholars].

BAALEI TOSAFOT: there were 700 of them over 4-5 generations in France
[Rabbenu Tam, his chief disciple RI Hazaken, his chief disciple R. Yehuda
Sir Leone, his chief disciple R. Yechiel of Paris, and his chief disciple,
R. Yitzchak of Corbeil the author of the SEMAK], in Germany [the RIVA, his
chief disciple the RAAVAN, his chief disciple R. Yoel Halevi, his chief
disciple the RAAVIA (R. Eliezer b"r Yoel), his chief disciples the ROKEACH
(R. Elazar b"r Yehuda miGarmeiza) and the OR ZARUA, and the OR ZARUA's
chief disciple, Maharam Rottenburg the teacher of the ROSH, the Mordechai, the
TASHBETZ, the Shaarei Dura and the Haga'oht Maimoniot].

So the SEMAK *was* one of the Baalei HaTosaphot and the Mordechai was a
disciple of the last of the Baalei haTosaphot.


Josh

bac...@vms.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In article <sekcd3...@corp.supernews.com>, "abe kohen" <abek...@cloud9.net> writes:
> C'mon Micha, toilet paper? Is that the only example of kavod habriot?
> As a Kohen, I'm allowed to step over a casket to greet a King,
> even if he is Aku"m, because of kavod habriot.


Almost :-) See Shulchan Aruch YOREH DEAH 372:1. You can but not because
of Kavod Ha'Briyot. Curiously, in thesame passage (in the Rema) it
does mention kavod habriyot: informing a kohen who isn't exactly dressed
that there is a dead body in his house.

Other examples of Kavod haBriyot also deal with preventing embarrassment
(e.g. someone who on shabbat walking in a *karmelit* finds out he's wear
invalid *tzitzit*, doesn't have to remove them until he gets home; certain
extremely rare instances of wedding on shabbat; covering outdoor latrine
door on shabbat when door fell off; tearing off *kilayim* clothes of someone
who unwittingly is wearing them.


> Surely you don't suggest making Rav Ovadia suffer over potatoes
> and {fish/meat/chicken} during Pesach, when he can eat better.


You remind me of Raanan *gefilte fish* Cohen, Iraqi-born Secretary
of the Israeli Labor Party who can't STAND the sight of gefillte fish
(as he publicly stated a few years ago).

> For all I know, you probably don't even eat "gebrochts."

> Is this a holiday? Or do Asheknazim know how to punish themselves?
>

> ;-)
> Abe

Josh


>
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:8cd9at$al1$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 13:32:19 -0400, abe kohen <abek...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>> : So Micha, if Yossi Sarid decides to become observant, and invites Rav
> Ovadia
>> : Yosef for a Pesach meal, is he allowed to serve, and furthermore,
> himself
>> : eat rice, beans, and corn mipnei kavod habriot (since kitniyot is
> forbidden
>> : to Askenazim, only as a lo taaseh midrabanan of lo tasur)?
>>
>> "Kavod habriot?" How does serving someone rice beans and corn represent
>> preserving "human dignity"?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure R' Ovadia would not be offended by an Ashkenazi keeping
> his
>> own customs. And even if not, it wouldn't be a kavod habrios issue like
>> being able to obtain toilet paper is.
>>

Garry

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
Thank you. These are excellent sources.

The shamash site mentions "corn" in passing, but I don't know if this
means the american "corn" (aka maize) or grain in general. What is
the halacha as to american corn?


On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 22:08:58 -0400, "rkaiser1" <rkai...@msn.com>
wrote:

____________

A Hagodoh that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed. The entire $6 purchase price goes to charity. http://haggadah.freeservers.com/

mos...@mm.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
Sugapabl...@stargate.net writes:
> So basically, these haven't been explicitly prohibited by Torah. These
> would be examples of "the fence around the Torah"?

Oh it's a "fence" for sure.

> This is what I'm trying to determine. If you haven't guessed by
> some of my other posts, I'm truly interested in a clear
> understanding of the differences.

A very important endeaver.

A dvar Torah I thought of yesterday.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos Capter 1:1 tells us "Set up a fence
around the Torah". In that same chapter mishna 17 says "Whoever adds
words, brings sin". The commentator, Rav Ovadiah miBartenura gives
the example of Eve _adding_ the words "...and do not touch it..." to
the prohibition of eating from the Tree of Knowlege. The serpent
pushed her until she touched the tree. When she didn't die, he said,
"Just as there is no death from touching it, so to there is no death
from eating from it".

This struck me as an apparent contradiction. Eve set up a "fence".
Isn't that what the Mishna tells us to do?

The answer I came up with is as follows. The verse (Gen. 3:3 records
Eve's words as follows. "But of the tree... G-d said 'Do not eat from
it and do not touch it'...". IOW, she made the "fence" part of the
commandment. _That_ was her mistake. And that's why I commended you
for trying to clarrify the difference.

Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)

mos...@mm.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
"abe kohen" <abek...@cloud9.net> writes:

> So Micha, if Yossi Sarid decides to become observant, and invites
> Rav Ovadia Yosef for a Pesach meal,

Abe, are you talking about a Pesach meal or a Purim shpiel?

Jay Lapidus

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
There is a teshuva from Rabbi David Golinkin of the RA Israel
Vaad Hahalakha (Masorti-Conservative law committee) that covers
this subject. However, the leniency of this responsum applies
only to Israel.

Jay Lapidus ICQ #2083554 http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is
a very important science." -- Prof. Saul Lieberman
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Eliot Shimoff

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In article <2000Apr5.010450@hujicc>, <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>In article <sekcd3...@corp.supernews.com>, "abe kohen" <abek...@cloud9.net> writes:
>> C'mon Micha, toilet paper? Is that the only example of kavod habriot?
>> As a Kohen, I'm allowed to step over a casket to greet a King,
>> even if he is Aku"m, because of kavod habriot.
>
>
>Almost :-) See Shulchan Aruch YOREH DEAH 372:1. You can but not because
>of Kavod Ha'Briyot. Curiously, in thesame passage (in the Rema) it
>does mention kavod habriyot: informing a kohen who isn't exactly dressed
>that there is a dead body in his house.
>
>Other examples of Kavod haBriyot also deal with preventing embarrassment
>(e.g. someone who on shabbat walking in a *karmelit* finds out he's wear
>invalid *tzitzit*, doesn't have to remove them until he gets home; certain
>extremely rare instances of wedding on shabbat; covering outdoor latrine
>door on shabbat when door fell off; tearing off *kilayim* clothes of someone
>who unwittingly is wearing them.

Curiously, it is also kavod ha'bri'ot which is invoked to allow
the use of hearing aids on Shabbat.


--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, Moshe, | by email?
Hillel,Tsivia, Chani & | Visit my website ...
Yosef Ephraim | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff

bac...@vms.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In article <8cfcnc$2n09b$1...@umbc7.umbc.edu>, shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
> In article <2000Apr5.010450@hujicc>, <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>In article <sekcd3...@corp.supernews.com>, "abe kohen" <abek...@cloud9.net> writes:
>>> C'mon Micha, toilet paper? Is that the only example of kavod habriot?
>>> As a Kohen, I'm allowed to step over a casket to greet a King,
>>> even if he is Aku"m, because of kavod habriot.
>>
>>
>>Almost :-) See Shulchan Aruch YOREH DEAH 372:1. You can but not because
>>of Kavod Ha'Briyot. Curiously, in thesame passage (in the Rema) it
>>does mention kavod habriyot: informing a kohen who isn't exactly dressed
>>that there is a dead body in his house.
>>
>>Other examples of Kavod haBriyot also deal with preventing embarrassment
>>(e.g. someone who on shabbat walking in a *karmelit* finds out he's wear
>>invalid *tzitzit*, doesn't have to remove them until he gets home; certain
>>extremely rare instances of wedding on shabbat; covering outdoor latrine
>>door on shabbat when door fell off; tearing off *kilayim* clothes of someone
>>who unwittingly is wearing them.
>
> Curiously, it is also kavod ha'bri'ot which is invoked to allow
> the use of hearing aids on Shabbat.


Actually, it has nothing to do with *kavod ha'briyot*. It has to do with
the question (Orach Chaim 301:7) if the object is worn as clothes or
jewelry (which is permitted to carry if they're worn). A hearing aid (turned on
from before shabbat) can be worn since it is similar to the situation
in 301:17 (cane). See: Yabia Omer I 19; Minchat Shlomo 9 p.64b; Tzitz
Eliezer VI 6 # 4 and VII 11; Minchat Yitzchak I 37 and II 17 #4;
Chelkat Yaakov II 41.

Josh

Herman Rubin

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In article <ubsjesc3c51vdrup2...@4ax.com>,
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:46:13 GMT Sugapabl...@stargate.net wrote:

>:>When did rice, beans, and corn become un-kosher for pesach?

>Never.

>They are not used by Ashkenazim, but they may be owned.

>:>More importantly, why? They are not forbidden by the Torah, only five


>:>grains were: wheat, rye, barley, spelt, and oats.

>Perhaps because it was hard to keep grains of the five species out?

>The five grains are only forbidden if leavened.

One would be likely to conclude from the statements in the
Talmud that these were the leavenable grains known to the
people at the time of its writing. Millet and rice were
the known non-leavenable grains. My reading of Tractate
P'sakhim did not lead me to believe that other grains could
not be assigned to the appropriate category when they
became known.

It was known that these non-leavenable grains and legumes
would swell when mixed with water, and could ferment. This
was distinguished from the rising which takes place in the
leavening process.

As a serious Reform Jew, I essentially use the Talmudic
reasoning, but differ in a few conclusions, based on
knowledge of the process. I consider whole grains not
leavened even if they touch while cooking, and I consider
dough to become leavened even if only liquids other than
water are used, or if there is a long kneading time.

Micha Berger

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
: One would be likely to conclude from the statements in the

: Talmud that these were the leavenable grains known to the
: people at the time of its writing.

Only if one forgot that the authors of those statements were commenting on
a list of grains they believed was listed by an Omniscient Deity. They said
that siad Deity only included 5 of all known grains, wheat, barley, and
three relatives of

Aside from that, I mentioned that I was so wrong that not only is it possible
they knew what oats were, they CERTAINLY did. So, when the people said that
they come from these two families, they knew of at least another one other
genus.

Eliot Shimoff

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
Mailed and posted:

In article <2000Apr5.160946@hujicc>, <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:

Eliot:


>> Curiously, it is also kavod ha'bri'ot which is invoked to allow
>> the use of hearing aids on Shabbat.

Josh:


>Actually, it has nothing to do with *kavod ha'briyot*. It has to do with
>the question (Orach Chaim 301:7) if the object is worn as clothes or
>jewelry (which is permitted to carry if they're worn). A hearing aid (turned on
>from before shabbat) can be worn since it is similar to the situation
>in 301:17 (cane). See: Yabia Omer I 19; Minchat Shlomo 9 p.64b; Tzitz
>Eliezer VI 6 # 4 and VII 11; Minchat Yitzchak I 37 and II 17 #4;
>Chelkat Yaakov II 41.

Tzitz Eliezer 6:6:3 addresses the question of whether a hearing aid
should be prohibited on the basis on muktza (items that can't
be moved even within one's own home). He cites OH 312:1 which permits
carrying stones, which are muktza, for personal sanitary reasons, on
the basis of kavod ha'bri'ot. And the Tzitz Eliezer then goes on
to extend this to wearing a hearing aid on Shabbat -- the issue not
being carrying, but muktza.

bac...@vms.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In article <8cfqkc$33gms$1...@umbc7.umbc.edu>, shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
> Mailed and posted:
>
> In article <2000Apr5.160946@hujicc>, <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> Eliot:
>>> Curiously, it is also kavod ha'bri'ot which is invoked to allow
>>> the use of hearing aids on Shabbat.
>
> Josh:
>>Actually, it has nothing to do with *kavod ha'briyot*. It has to do with
>>the question (Orach Chaim 301:7) if the object is worn as clothes or
>>jewelry (which is permitted to carry if they're worn). A hearing aid (turned on
>>from before shabbat) can be worn since it is similar to the situation
>>in 301:17 (cane). See: Yabia Omer I 19; Minchat Shlomo 9 p.64b; Tzitz
>>Eliezer VI 6 # 4 and VII 11; Minchat Yitzchak I 37 and II 17 #4;
>>Chelkat Yaakov II 41.
>
> Tzitz Eliezer 6:6:3 addresses the question of whether a hearing aid
> should be prohibited on the basis on muktza (items that can't


Aha ! I was looking at Tzitz Eliezer Chelek Vav 6 # 4. In 6 #3 he does
bring mention *kavod habriyot*.

Geferlech :-)

Josh

Jonathan J. Baker

unread,
Apr 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/5/00
to
In <2000Apr5.003657@hujicc> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>In article <>, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>> In <> Sugapabl...@stargate.net writes:

>>>>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>>>>tabu's.

>>>Any intelligent answers?

>> It's not that far off. It suddenly appears in the 14th century. Tosfos
>> never heard of it, suddenly in the Mordechai it's a universal custom
>> in northern Europe. No reason, it just happened.

>Actually, the SEMAK (Sefer Mitzvot Kattan) mentions that the prohibition of
>*kitniyot* was well-established from the time of the "chachamim kadmonim"
>[very early scholars].

Actually, it seems it goes even farther back than the Smak. In the
unknown-in-the-original Sefer haMinhagot of R' Asher b. Shaul of
Lunel in Provence, who died in 1215, cited in Rabbenu Manoach to Rambam
Hil. Hametz uMatza 5:1, it is brought as something which was known in
Provence in his time, not as any relationship to chometz, or as a decree,
but rather because of rejoicing on the Festival: rejoicing requires meat
rather than lentil stew. This opinion is also attested in Machzor Vitry
p. 584, in a piut about Purim: one shouldn't eat lentils on Purim or
festivals or rosh chodesh, or beans on them. (I.M. Ta-Shma, Minhag
Ashkenaz haQadmon, pp. 274-275, paraphrased) Later sources, such as
the Or Zarua and the Smak, cite similarities to chometzdig flour, but
it seems to have been a general pro-meat thing that got limited to
Pesach and switched into an anti-legumes thing.

OTOH, explicit heterim for kitniot on pesach appear in Halachot Ketzuvot
of R' Yehudai Gaon in Italy in the 9th-10th century, repeated verbatim
in Sefer haPardes of the students of Rashi. Of course, I haven't finished
the chapter yet, so he could say something completely unexpected.

>So the SEMAK *was* one of the Baalei HaTosaphot and the Mordechai was a
>disciple of the last of the Baalei haTosaphot.

--

bac...@vms.huji.ac.il

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to
In article <8cgiub$9pq$1...@panix6.panix.com>, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
> In <2000Apr5.003657@hujicc> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>In article <>, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>>> In <> Sugapabl...@stargate.net writes:
>
>>>>>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>>>>>tabu's.
>
>>>>Any intelligent answers?
>
>>> It's not that far off. It suddenly appears in the 14th century. Tosfos
>>> never heard of it, suddenly in the Mordechai it's a universal custom
>>> in northern Europe. No reason, it just happened.
>
>>Actually, the SEMAK (Sefer Mitzvot Kattan) mentions that the prohibition of
>>*kitniyot* was well-established from the time of the "chachamim kadmonim"
>>[very early scholars].
>
> Actually, it seems it goes even farther back than the Smak. In the
> unknown-in-the-original Sefer haMinhagot of R' Asher b. Shaul of


Are you confusing this with the SEFER HA'MANHIG (I have seen a copy of this
early 13th century work) ??? ^^^^^^^^^


Josh

Herman Rubin

unread,
Apr 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/6/00
to
In article <8cflqd$3fv$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>,

Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>: One would be likely to conclude from the statements in the
>: Talmud that these were the leavenable grains known to the
>: people at the time of its writing.

>Only if one forgot that the authors of those statements were commenting on
>a list of grains they believed was listed by an Omniscient Deity. They said
>that siad Deity only included 5 of all known grains, wheat, barley, and
>three relatives of

I see no evidence of that. They only mention as a fact,
not a revelation, that those 5 grains are leavenable and
that the other 2 mentioned are not leavenable. The source
of the information is not given; must we conclude that they
did not use empirical observation? Bakers must have been
experimenting with this since some Egyptians observed two
millennia or more earlier that some dough left alone for
some hours in the hot weather rose and produced lighter and
tastier bread.

Micha Berger

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
On 6 Apr 2000 13:23:35 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
:>Only if one forgot that the authors of those statements were commenting on

:>a list of grains they believed was listed by an Omniscient Deity. They said
:>that siad Deity only included 5 of all known grains, wheat, barley, and
:>three relatives of

: I see no evidence of that....

Then look in the Jerusalem Talmud, Tr. Challah 1:1 (pages 1b-2a). They
start with hermeneutics on Numbers 15. Using a "mi'ut viribui" they
first establish from the "mi'ut" (limiting term) that not all breads qualify,
only those from wheat and barley (the two grains mentioned in Deut 8:8). Then
using the ribui (the [subsequent] generalizing term) that it is not only
those two grains, but also other grains of the same family.

The second argument is the one you refer to. Shemu'el argues that only these
5 grains can rise. They then ask about rice. And yet, they still limit to
the five grains.

In response to the question about other things that can leaven, Shemu'el's
opinion is rejected. They conclude with an analysis of a list of 5 grains in
Isaiah 25, which they conclude is evidence of the hermeneutical conclusion
they reached to begin with.

Binyamin Dissen

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
On 6 Apr 2000 13:23:35 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:

:>In article <8cflqd$3fv$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
:>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

:>>On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
:>>: One would be likely to conclude from the statements in the


:>>: Talmud that these were the leavenable grains known to the
:>>: people at the time of its writing.

:>>Only if one forgot that the authors of those statements were commenting on


:>>a list of grains they believed was listed by an Omniscient Deity. They said
:>>that siad Deity only included 5 of all known grains, wheat, barley, and
:>>three relatives of

:>I see no evidence of that. They only mention as a fact,


:>not a revelation, that those 5 grains are leavenable and
:>that the other 2 mentioned are not leavenable.

No.

That these five grains, if they leaven, become Chametz.

Something else, even if it leavens, does not[1] become Chametz.

And these five grains require water to become Chametz. If only fruit juice is
mixed with the flour, even though it rises, it is not Chametz.

The quality of the grain, whether that be spiritual or a mixture of spiritual
and physical, that allows it to be used for Matza is the same quality that
causes it to become Chametz. A grain which does not have this quality to
become Matza also does not have the quality to become Chametz.

:> The source


:>of the information is not given; must we conclude that they
:>did not use empirical observation? Bakers must have been
:>experimenting with this since some Egyptians observed two
:>millennia or more earlier that some dough left alone for
:>some hours in the hot weather rose and produced lighter and
:>tastier bread.

No, the source was the transmission.

Refer to Pirkay Avote.


[1] By no means do I suggest the practical use of these Halachot. Most of the
things I refer to are prohibited Rabbinically. Consult your local Rav for
further details.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Apr 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/7/00
to
In article <h59ressha30fkmp0j...@4ax.com>,

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2000 13:23:35 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:

>:>In article <8cflqd$3fv$2...@bob.news.rcn.