[Halacha] About rice, beans, and corn on Pesach
Sugapabl...@stargate.net
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
> 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
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
<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
: 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
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
>Yes stupidity and the will to control by coming out with new edicts of
>tabu's.
Any intelligent answers?
Sugapabl...@stargate.net
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
: 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
:>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
>>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
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$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Micha Berger
: So Micha, if Yossi Sarid decides to become observant, and invites Rav Ovadia
: Yosef for a Pesach meal, is he allowed to serve, and furthermore, himself
: eat rice, beans, and corn mipnei kavod habriot (since kitniyot is forbidden
: to Askenazim, only as a lo taaseh midrabanan of lo tasur)?
"Kavod habriot?" How does serving someone rice beans and corn represent
preserving "human dignity"?
I'm pretty sure R' Ovadia would not be offended by an Ashkenazi keeping his
own customs. And even if not, it wouldn't be a kavod habrios issue like
being able to obtain toilet paper is.
abe kohen
As a Kohen, I'm allowed to step over a casket to greet a King,
even if he is Aku"m, because of kavod habriot.
Surely you don't suggest making Rav Ovadia suffer over potatoes
and {fish/meat/chicken} during Pesach, when he can eat better.
For all I know, you probably don't even eat "gebrochts."
Is this a holiday? Or do Asheknazim know how to punish themselves?
;-)
Abe
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:8cd9at$al1$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Micha Berger
: 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
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
>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
> 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.
>
>
> 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
> C'mon Micha, toilet paper? Is that the only example of kavod habriot?
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
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
>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
> 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
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
: 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
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
> 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
>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
> 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
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
:>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
:>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
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.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.
This I, as a serious Reform Jew, am not willing to accept. The
rabbis were trying to understand the Torah; we should accept this,
and use our knowledge to extend the rational approach.
>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.
This is a point with which I disagree. That they thought that
water was needed is not the point.
There is an opposite situation; they declare whole grains to
become Chametz if two grains touched in water. But whole
grains do not permit leavening under any such action.
>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.
This is the difference between attempting to understand Torah
and to come up with a mystical explanation. We should use the
power to reason to attempt to decide what God wants, not the
writings of those uninformed about the laws which we cannot
break, the laws of nature.
Binyamin Dissen
:>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.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.
:>This I, as a serious Reform Jew, am not willing to accept. The
:>rabbis were trying to understand the Torah; we should accept this,
:>and use our knowledge to extend the rational approach.
A basic difference between Judaism and reformed.
Judaism follows Mesora, the teachings passed on through the generations.
Reformed attempts to fit "halacha" into their lifestyle.
:>>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.
:>This is a point with which I disagree. That they thought that
:>water was needed is not the point.
The issue is "exactly what is Chametz"?
I accept the Mesoratic definition.
You feel the need to make the definition fit your desires.
:>There is an opposite situation; they declare whole grains to
:>become Chametz if two grains touched in water. But whole
:>grains do not permit leavening under any such action.
But you are the one claiming the equivalence!
:>>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.
:>This is the difference between attempting to understand Torah
:>and to come up with a mystical explanation. We should use the
:>power to reason to attempt to decide what God wants, not the
:>writings of those uninformed about the laws which we cannot
:>break, the laws of nature.
You are the one choosing to define "Chametz" to fit your preconceived view.
I am using the Mesoratic definition.
I repeat, the basic difference between Judaism and reformed.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Herman Rubin
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 7 Apr 2000 16:40:20 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>:>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.net>,
>:>>:>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>:>>:>>On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
.................
>:>>That these five grains, if they leaven, become Chametz.
>:>>Something else, even if it leavens, does not[1] become Chametz.
>:>This I, as a serious Reform Jew, am not willing to accept. The
>:>rabbis were trying to understand the Torah; we should accept this,
>:>and use our knowledge to extend the rational approach.
>A basic difference between Judaism and reformed.
It is a basic difference between superstition and reason.
The Talmudic rabbis applied reason; we need not make it
superstition.
>Judaism follows Mesora, the teachings passed on through the generations.
This is superstition. What is from God, and what is from
man?
Maimonides discarded Talmudic medicine when it disagreed
with his knowledge. This is why I say we should regard the
reasoning of the rabbis as pertinent, but not necessarily
correct, and definitely not their conclusions.
>Reformed attempts to fit "halacha" into their lifestyle.
It is Reform Judaism, not reformed.
>:>>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.
>:>This is a point with which I disagree. That they thought that
>:>water was needed is not the point.
>The issue is "exactly what is Chametz"?
>I accept the Mesoratic definition.
>You feel the need to make the definition fit your desires.
No; I approached the problem with trying to find out what
is, and what is not, leavened. The rabbis did the same.
I have knowledge which they did not have.
They knew that there was something which was, at that time,
in practice found in air or in materials which already had
it, which fermented both grain and fruit, and which would
make dough rise under certain conditions. They tried to
deduce what was involved. Because of their ignorance, they
were unable to do it correctly. We should not follow their
mistakes.
>:>There is an opposite situation; they declare whole grains to
>:>become Chametz if two grains touched in water. But whole
>:>grains do not permit leavening under any such action.
>But you are the one claiming the equivalence!
>:>>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.
There is nothing in the Tractate which even hints that the
ability to become leavened is anything but physical, or more
properly, biochemical.
>:>This is the difference between attempting to understand Torah
>:>and to come up with a mystical explanation. We should use the
>:>power to reason to attempt to decide what God wants, not the
>:>writings of those uninformed about the laws which we cannot
>:>break, the laws of nature.
>You are the one choosing to define "Chametz" to fit your preconceived view.
I had no preconceived views when I read the Tractate. I
was trying to understand.
>I am using the Mesoratic definition.
Mesora did not start until the end of the Tannaic period.
It should never have started.
j e rosenbaum
>They knew that there was something which was, at that time,
>in practice found in air or in materials which already had
>it, which fermented both grain and fruit, and which would
>make dough rise under certain conditions. They tried to
>deduce what was involved.
If they were looking for something which fermented fruit, why would they
not only allow but require wine on pesach?
Further, they had rice available, and certainly it is possible to
ferment rice and create a risen rice bread, but they did not forbid
this. Why not?
Janet
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article <727vessgmrvamc618...@4ax.com>,
:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On 7 Apr 2000 16:40:20 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
:>>:>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.net>,
:>>:>>:>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:>>:>>:>>On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
:> .................
:>>:>>That these five grains, if they leaven, become Chametz.
:>>:>>Something else, even if it leavens, does not[1] become Chametz.
:>>:>This I, as a serious Reform Jew, am not willing to accept. The
:>>:>rabbis were trying to understand the Torah; we should accept this,
:>>:>and use our knowledge to extend the rational approach.
:>>A basic difference between Judaism and reformed.
:>It is a basic difference between superstition and reason.
:>The Talmudic rabbis applied reason; we need not make it
:>superstition.
No, they were told via the Oral Law, i.e., Mesorah.
:>>Judaism follows Mesora, the teachings passed on through the generations.
:>This is superstition. What is from God, and what is from
:>man?
Mesorah is superstition?
Moshe Keebel Torah ....
Refer to Pirkay Avot.
:>Maimonides discarded Talmudic medicine when it disagreed
:>with his knowledge. This is why I say we should regard the
:>reasoning of the rabbis as pertinent, but not necessarily
:>correct, and definitely not their conclusions.
1. Has nothing to do with Mesorah.
2. The Rishonim have explained that people are different now than they were
then.
:>>Reformed attempts to fit "halacha" into their lifestyle.
:>It is Reform Judaism, not reformed.
You use those terms because you are trying to portray it as a living thing. I
use my term to indicate that it is dead - perhaps moving around a bit like a
chicken without a head, but it is dead.
:>>:>>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.
:>>:>This is a point with which I disagree. That they thought that
:>>:>water was needed is not the point.
:>>The issue is "exactly what is Chametz"?
:>>I accept the Mesoratic definition.
:>>You feel the need to make the definition fit your desires.
:>No; I approached the problem with trying to find out what
:>is, and what is not, leavened. The rabbis did the same.
:>I have knowledge which they did not have.
But you have made the initial determination in that Chametz == Leavened
(exactly equals) while the Mesorah shows that there are some things are both
Chometz and leavened, some are one but not the other, and some are neither.
:>They knew that there was something which was, at that time,
:>in practice found in air or in materials which already had
:>it, which fermented both grain and fruit, and which would
:>make dough rise under certain conditions. They tried to
:>deduce what was involved. Because of their ignorance, they
:>were unable to do it correctly. We should not follow their
:>mistakes.
Interesting.
So according to your definition wine (fermented grapes, a subset of fruit) is
Chometz.
Interesting.
Do you drink four cups of Yoohoo?
:>>:>There is an opposite situation; they declare whole grains to
:>>:>become Chametz if two grains touched in water. But whole
:>>:>grains do not permit leavening under any such action.
:>>But you are the one claiming the equivalence!
:>>:>>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.
:>There is nothing in the Tractate which even hints that the
:>ability to become leavened is anything but physical, or more
:>properly, biochemical.
The opposite.
The Tractate specifies that certain grains do not become Chometz at all, and
among those that are eligible for Matza and are thus potentially Chometz, the
Chometz designation only comes if water is involved.
You are arguing that both sides of the issue.
:>>:>This is the difference between attempting to understand Torah
:>>:>and to come up with a mystical explanation. We should use the
:>>:>power to reason to attempt to decide what God wants, not the
:>>:>writings of those uninformed about the laws which we cannot
:>>:>break, the laws of nature.
:>>You are the one choosing to define "Chametz" to fit your preconceived view.
:>I had no preconceived views when I read the Tractate. I
:>was trying to understand.
No, you are trying to extrapolate.
:>>I am using the Mesoratic definition.
:>Mesora did not start until the end of the Tannaic period.
:>It should never have started.
Refer to Pirkey Avot.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Matthew Lybanon <lyb...@cypress.nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
> 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.
And all this differs from potatoes how?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
So many problems are solved simply by knowing enough verbs.
--Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Elizabeth Levin
>> 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.
> And all this differs from potatoes how?
Potatoes are a new world veggie, and not in use by Jews during the period
that this ruling solidified.
--
Elizabeth Levin
Talqcom
>From: hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>Date: 04/09/2000 3:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Maimonides discarded Talmudic medicine when it disagreed
>with his knowledge. This is why I say we should regard the
>reasoning of the rabbis as pertinent, but not necessarily
>correct, and definitely not their conclusions.
Then you simply do not know the difference between law and medicine.
The Rabbis transmitted a body of law. There is no "reason" behind ritual laws,
only operational definitions of performance.
>Mesora did not start until the end of the Tannaic period.
>It should never have started.
Says a very uninformed, yet eager to assert the contrary, you. Again you give
nothing but your own conclusions. Why is it you never disclose the method
behind the mastery?
Fluent in Aramaic? Read Ge'onic literature? Did you read all of this and
sincerely "try to understand"? What are your sources?
More hoo-ha.
Ray
Jonathan J. Baker
>Matthew Lybanon <lyb...@cypress.nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
>> This is similar to the explanation in _To Be a Jew_. The logic goes:
>>
>> It is possible to make flour from legumes.
>> 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.
>And all this differs from potatoes how?
Because if they legislated against potatoes, we wouldn't have
anything to eat. The rabbis can't legislate something which
the people won't hold by - consent of the governed exists even
in traditional halacha.
--
Jonathan Baker | What is the 7th verse of the piut Shir haChodoshim?
jjb...@panix.com | The Nissan Stanza. [1st verse in the orig. ms.]
Herman Rubin
j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>They knew that there was something which was, at that time,
>>in practice found in air or in materials which already had
>>it, which fermented both grain and fruit, and which would
>>make dough rise under certain conditions. They tried to
>>deduce what was involved.
>If they were looking for something which fermented fruit, why would they
>not only allow but require wine on pesach?
They concluded that the prohibition of leaven was only if
the active ingredient caused the type of fermentation which
could cause dough to rise on what could be used for dough.
It may well have been pushed by the desire to allow wine.
>Further, they had rice available, and certainly it is possible to
>ferment rice and create a risen rice bread, but they did not forbid
>this. Why not?
IF you use a lot of yeast, and are very careful, and do not
allow too much rising, it CAN be done. What allows bread
to rise is that the kneading causes the gluten to form long
elastic strands which hold in the carbon dioxide. If the
gluten is not present, the dough will not become elastic,
and the gas will escape, so the bread will not rise.
Quick breads are not handled much so the cohesion due to
starch strands holds, but it is not strong enough to hold
for the hours of normal rising. Egg protein can help hold
them together, and these were known. From the Talmud, it
seems that cakes (explicitly permitted) made from wheat
flour and other ingredients, such as eggs, were known, but
ground matzos comes later, so no use of matzo meal. This
was known by the time of Maimonides.
Herman Rubin
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2000 14:22:02 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>:>In article <727vessgmrvamc618...@4ax.com>,
>:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>:>>On 7 Apr 2000 16:40:20 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>:>>:>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.net>,
>:>>:>>:>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>:>>:>>:>>On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
.................
>:>>:>>That these five grains, if they leaven, become Chametz.
>:>>:>>Something else, even if it leavens, does not[1] become Chametz.
Something else does not leaven. This is the difference.
>:>>:>This I, as a serious Reform Jew, am not willing to accept. The
>:>>:>rabbis were trying to understand the Torah; we should accept this,
>:>>:>and use our knowledge to extend the rational approach.
>:>>A basic difference between Judaism and reformed.
>:>It is a basic difference between superstition and reason.
>:>The Talmudic rabbis applied reason; we need not make it
>:>superstition.
>No, they were told via the Oral Law, i.e., Mesorah.
>:>>Judaism follows Mesora, the teachings passed on through the generations.
>:>This is superstition. What is from God, and what is from
>:>man?
>Mesorah is superstition?
Mesorah is literally tradition. If the basis of the
tradition is wrong, it is superstition only.
>Moshe Keebel Torah ....
>Refer to Pirkay Avot.
Most Jews do not even believe that the Written Torah goes
back to Moses. That an oral tradition could have been
accurately transmitted for 1500 years, through a rather odd
line of transmission, is a little strong. The case would
be far stronger if the transmission had been through the
Kohanim, but even that would not be too strong.
>:>Maimonides discarded Talmudic medicine when it disagreed
>:>with his knowledge. This is why I say we should regard the
>:>reasoning of the rabbis as pertinent, but not necessarily
>:>correct, and definitely not their conclusions.
>1. Has nothing to do with Mesorah.
>2. The Rishonim have explained that people are different now than they were
>then.
That much difference in a few thousand years?
>:>>Reformed attempts to fit "halacha" into their lifestyle.
>:>It is Reform Judaism, not reformed.
>You use those terms because you are trying to portray it as a living thing. I
>use my term to indicate that it is dead - perhaps moving around a bit like a
>chicken without a head, but it is dead.
Should I use similar terminology in describing the Orthodox?
>:>>:>>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.
>:>>:>This is a point with which I disagree. That they thought that
>:>>:>water was needed is not the point.
>:>>The issue is "exactly what is Chametz"?
>:>>I accept the Mesoratic definition.
>:>>You feel the need to make the definition fit your desires.
>:>No; I approached the problem with trying to find out what
>:>is, and what is not, leavened. The rabbis did the same.
>:>I have knowledge which they did not have.
>But you have made the initial determination in that Chametz == Leavened
>(exactly equals) while the Mesorah shows that there are some things are both
>Chometz and leavened, some are one but not the other, and some are neither.
The discussion in the Tractate makes no such distinction.
It is the reasoning which I consider relevant; the
rabbis were limited by their secular knowledge.
>:>They knew that there was something which was, at that time,
>:>in practice found in air or in materials which already had
>:>it, which fermented both grain and fruit, and which would
>:>make dough rise under certain conditions. They tried to
>:>deduce what was involved. Because of their ignorance, they
>:>were unable to do it correctly. We should not follow their
>:>mistakes.
>Interesting.
>So according to your definition wine (fermented grapes, a subset of fruit) is
>Chometz.
No. THEIR interpretation of the situation was that only
those things which COULD rise from the type of contact
which they were familiar with became Khametz, or contaminated
with leaven.
>Interesting.
>Do you drink four cups of Yoohoo?
Read the above.
>:>>:>There is an opposite situation; they declare whole grains to
>:>>:>become Chametz if two grains touched in water. But whole
>:>>:>grains do not permit leavening under any such action.
>:>>But you are the one claiming the equivalence!
They were trying to understand leaven. I read the Tractate
with this in mind. They used their SECULAR knowledge to help
interpret Torah; what I was doing was attempting to follow
the same procedure. It was not until the 19th century that
the cause of fermentation and rising was known.
It is you who have elevated the reasoning of people with
imperfect scientific knowledge, and we are still in this
situation, and will remain thus, to the level of being the
expressed orally transmitted word of God.
Herman Rubin
Elizabeth Levin <le...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@starship.dnrc.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> And all this differs from potatoes how?
>Potatoes are a new world veggie, and not in use by Jews during the period
>that this ruling solidified.
Legumes and non-leavenable grains were made into flour
BEFORE the Talmudic discussion was written, and this
was well known at the time. Yet the Talmud specifically
permitted them.
Elizabeth Levin
> In article <xwbI4.806$D8....@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,
> Elizabeth Levin <le...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>>Potatoes are a new world veggie, and not in use by Jews during the period
>>that this ruling solidified.
> Legumes and non-leavenable grains were made into flour
> BEFORE the Talmudic discussion was written, and this
> was well known at the time. Yet the Talmud specifically
> permitted them.
Right. But the custom of kitniot developed during the middle ages. Since
then, there have been rulings deeming them impermissible for Ashkenazim.
The people making this custom (which was called a stupid custom when it
was first arising, showing little changes) had never seen a potato, never
mind K for P brownie mix (Complete! Add only water. Pan included).
If one were to look in my Pesach cupboard, one would note the lack of
pancake mix, brownie mix, breakfast cereal, pizza mix, bagel mix, pasta,
spongecake mix, etc. Above and beyond the fact that they are nasty tasting
imitations, there is the fact that I don't eat "bready" things over
Pesach.
However, because the custom survived, I also do not eat rice. (I do eat
tomatoes, though. I know of a guy who hated tomatoes, so he convinced his
wife that new-world foods shouldn't be eaten during Pesach.)
--
Elizabeth Levin
Micha Berger
: Right. But the custom of kitniot developed during the middle ages.
And, as I pointed out, had to do with which things one makes a porridge from.
(I suggested that perhaps the custom coincided with central and eastern
Europe's embarassing period when most people didn't know how to make bread.
Therefore, "wheatlike" meant "something one eats in a porridge".) This excludes
potatos.
: However, because the custom survived, I also do not eat rice. (I do eat
: tomatoes...
And corn?
The oddest extension of an odd minhag is corn syrup. It was debated as to
whether mei kitniyos (liquids made from legumes) was included in the original
custom. Not only do we rule that it does (despite the Orech haShulchan),
and not only did we add corn to the custom, we added liquids made from corn.
Of course, consistancy requires both or neither, but it's still weird.
Even weirder, those of us who don't eat kitniyos, but do eat gebrochts. After
all, one makes a porridge from wheat. Wheat is therefore wheat-like, no less
so than peas.
OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
and k'neidlach onto my table?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 22a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 25
Elizabeth Levin
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:17:41 GMT, Elizabeth Levin <le...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
> : Right. But the custom of kitniot developed during the middle ages.
> And, as I pointed out, had to do with which things one makes a porridge from.
> (I suggested that perhaps the custom coincided with central and eastern
> Europe's embarassing period when most people didn't know how to make bread.
> Therefore, "wheatlike" meant "something one eats in a porridge".) This excludes
> potatos.
Your posting is the first time I have heard of it being because you can
make porridge out of it- I'd always been told it was because you can make
bread-like substances out of them. BTW: ever try a lentil-rice loaf? I'd
have to be on something considerably stronger than the alcohol available
at the time (heat distillation wasn't invented, yet) to confuse one of
those things with real bread. (Don't even get me started on mustard.) I
also note that even in the middle ages, this was referred to as a stupid
custom. Until it wasn't, anymore, and we were stuck with it.
> : However, because the custom survived, I also do not eat rice. (I do eat
> : tomatoes...
> And corn?
Corn at this time of the year is lousy. I abhor canned corn. Corn meal
falls under the "bread-y" prohibition, as the two things I like from it
are fried corn pancakes, and cornbread (which needs flour and leavening
anyway). Oh, yeah, and corn tortillas- again, covered elsewhere. As for
oil, I prefer olive oil for most savory stuff, and almond oil for sweet.
> The oddest extension of an odd minhag is corn syrup. It was debated as to
> whether mei kitniyos (liquids made from legumes) was included in the original
> custom. Not only do we rule that it does (despite the Orech haShulchan),
> and not only did we add corn to the custom, we added liquids made from corn.
> Of course, consistancy requires both or neither, but it's still weird.
I must admit that I don't object to this one. Real soda is a bonus, as is
being popular with non-Jewish friends for knowing when the real stuff is
available. (Though I actually prefer to have drink syrups with soda water,
which I typically dilute more than the bottle calls for.)
> Even weirder, those of us who don't eat kitniyos, but do eat gebrochts. After
> all, one makes a porridge from wheat. Wheat is therefore wheat-like, no less
> so than peas.
Ah, now there's my peeve. Peas. Right when they're good straight from the
garden.
> OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
> and k'neidlach onto my table?
Heh. I'm not going to argue with a custom that means once a year I get
certain foods with better ingredients. Pass the mock bourekas. I'd like
seconds on the charoset, please. Matzo brushed with garlic butter, served
with hot artichoke dip, anyone?
--
Elizabeth Levin
Richard Schultz
: Even weirder, those of us who don't eat kitniyos, but do eat gebrochts.
That's not weird. Kitniyot was a chumrah accepted at a very early
stage by the Ashkenazim. Not eating "gebrochts" was a late invention
(IIRC, of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe) and was never accepted by the
Ashkenazic community as a whole. Plus the fact that it makes even
less sense than not eating kitniyot. What's weird is the number of
things that are not in any sense kitniyot (e.g. rapeseed = canola oil)
that get marked "kasher l'Pesach l'ochlei kitniyot" (kosher for Passover
for people who eat kitniyot).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"I wonder," said Ada, "I wonder if the attempt to discover those things
is worth the stained glass. We can know the time, we can know a time.
We can never know Time. Our senses are simply not meant to perceive
it. It is like -- "
Micha Berger
: Kitniyot was a chumrah accepted at a very early
: stage by the Ashkenazim. Not eating "gebrochts" was a late invention
: (IIRC, of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe) and was never accepted by the
: Ashkenazic community as a whole.
It's a Hungarian minhag. I therefore doubt your recollection about the
originator. Unless you mean the person who brought it to Lubavitch.
Either way, the results are still ironic. I can't eat lentils because they're
too similar to wheat, but I can have a cake that even requires a mezonos. All
the reasons aside, there's a major oddity there.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>In article <8v62fs8mau31180es...@4ax.com>,
:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>On 9 Apr 2000 14:22:02 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
:>>:>In article <727vessgmrvamc618...@4ax.com>,
:>>:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>:>>On 7 Apr 2000 16:40:20 -0500 hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
:>>:>>:>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.net>,
:>>:>>:>>:>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:>>:>>:>>:>>On 5 Apr 2000 09:10:38 -0500, Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
:> .................
:>>:>>:>>That these five grains, if they leaven, become Chametz.
:>>:>>:>>Something else, even if it leavens, does not[1] become Chametz.
:>Something else does not leaven. This is the difference.
Depends on the definition.
One could certainly argue that rice leavens.
:>>:>>:>This I, as a serious Reform Jew, am not willing to accept. The
:>>:>>:>rabbis were trying to understand the Torah; we should accept this,
:>>:>>:>and use our knowledge to extend the rational approach.
:>>:>>A basic difference between Judaism and reformed.
:>>:>It is a basic difference between superstition and reason.
:>>:>The Talmudic rabbis applied reason; we need not make it
:>>:>superstition.
:>>No, they were told via the Oral Law, i.e., Mesorah.
:>>:>>Judaism follows Mesora, the teachings passed on through the generations.
:>>:>This is superstition. What is from God, and what is from
:>>:>man?
:>>Mesorah is superstition?
:>Mesorah is literally tradition. If the basis of the
:>tradition is wrong, it is superstition only.
What is the root form of the word?
How do you get such a translation?
:>>Moshe Keebel Torah ....
:>>Refer to Pirkay Avot.
:>Most Jews do not even believe that the Written Torah goes
:>back to Moses. That an oral tradition could have been
:>accurately transmitted for 1500 years, through a rather odd
:>line of transmission, is a little strong. The case would
:>be far stronger if the transmission had been through the
:>Kohanim, but even that would not be too strong.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Most humans do not believe that Judaism is correct.
Is the majority always correct?
:>>:>Maimonides discarded Talmudic medicine when it disagreed
:>>:>with his knowledge. This is why I say we should regard the
:>>:>reasoning of the rabbis as pertinent, but not necessarily
:>>:>correct, and definitely not their conclusions.
:>>1. Has nothing to do with Mesorah.
:>>2. The Rishonim have explained that people are different now than they were
:>>then.
:>That much difference in a few thousand years?
Do you have records showing otherwise?
A thousand years is quite a long time, some 40 generations.
:>>:>>Reformed attempts to fit "halacha" into their lifestyle.
:>>:>It is Reform Judaism, not reformed.
:>>You use those terms because you are trying to portray it as a living thing. I
:>>use my term to indicate that it is dead - perhaps moving around a bit like a
:>>chicken without a head, but it is dead.
:>Should I use similar terminology in describing the Orthodox?
I have no problem.
WHat would you like to use?
Halachic?
"Believers that the Torah came from G-d"?
The term "Orthodox" was coined by the reformed, wasn't it?
:>>:>>:>>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.
:>>:>>:>This is a point with which I disagree. That they thought that
:>>:>>:>water was needed is not the point.
:>>:>>The issue is "exactly what is Chametz"?
:>>:>>I accept the Mesoratic definition.
:>>:>>You feel the need to make the definition fit your desires.
:>>:>No; I approached the problem with trying to find out what
:>>:>is, and what is not, leavened. The rabbis did the same.
:>>:>I have knowledge which they did not have.
:>>But you have made the initial determination in that Chametz == Leavened
:>>(exactly equals) while the Mesorah shows that there are some things are both
:>>Chometz and leavened, some are one but not the other, and some are neither.
:>The discussion in the Tractate makes no such distinction.
:>It is the reasoning which I consider relevant; the
:>rabbis were limited by their secular knowledge.
Yes it does.
Take another look.
:>>:>They knew that there was something which was, at that time,
:>>:>in practice found in air or in materials which already had
:>>:>it, which fermented both grain and fruit, and which would
:>>:>make dough rise under certain conditions. They tried to
:>>:>deduce what was involved. Because of their ignorance, they
:>>:>were unable to do it correctly. We should not follow their
:>>:>mistakes.
:>>Interesting.
:>>So according to your definition wine (fermented grapes, a subset of fruit) is
:>>Chometz.
:>No. THEIR interpretation of the situation was that only
:>those things which COULD rise from the type of contact
:>which they were familiar with became Khametz, or contaminated
:>with leaven.
But you are arguing against that position!!!
:>>Interesting.
:>>Do you drink four cups of Yoohoo?
:>Read the above.
Exactly why I raised the question.
:>>:>>:>There is an opposite situation; they declare whole grains to
:>>:>>:>become Chametz if two grains touched in water. But whole
:>>:>>:>grains do not permit leavening under any such action.
:>>:>>But you are the one claiming the equivalence!
:>They were trying to understand leaven. I read the Tractate
:>with this in mind. They used their SECULAR knowledge to help
:>interpret Torah; what I was doing was attempting to follow
:>the same procedure. It was not until the 19th century that
:>the cause of fermentation and rising was known.
:>It is you who have elevated the reasoning of people with
:>imperfect scientific knowledge, and we are still in this
:>situation, and will remain thus, to the level of being the
:>expressed orally transmitted word of God.
It is YOUR argument for the scientific position.
The Mesorah shows otherwise.
abe kohen
Oiberlanders certainly eat gebrochts. There is nothing better than a good
kneidli soup at the Seder.
Unterlanders apparently imported this minhag (shtut) from Galicia or Poland.
You might take away my kitniot, but not my kneidli (gomboc in Magyar-speak)
(kuftaot in 'brewski).
Moadim l'simcha
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:8ctd1n$srm$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Harry Weiss
Organization:
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: On 10 Apr 2000 17:53:50 GMT, Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
: : Kitniyot was a chumrah accepted at a very early
: : stage by the Ashkenazim. Not eating "gebrochts" was a late invention
: : (IIRC, of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe) and was never accepted by the
: : Ashkenazic community as a whole.
: It's a Hungarian minhag. I therefore doubt your recollection about the
: originator. Unless you mean the person who brought it to Lubavitch.
Hungarian Chassidishe. My father's family is non Chassidshe (Pressburg
bacground) and they (and we) eat Gebrochts. My mother family is
Chassidishe and do not eat Gebrochts.
: Either way, the results are still ironic. I can't eat lentils because they're
: too similar to wheat, but I can have a cake that even requires a mezonos. All
: the reasons aside, there's a major oddity there.
: -mi
: --
: Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
: mi...@aishdas.org A"H
: http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 22a
: For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 25
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger (mi...@aishdas.org) wrote:
>
> : Even weirder, those of us who don't eat kitniyos, but do eat gebrochts.
>
> stage by the Ashkenazim. Not eating "gebrochts" was a late invention
> (IIRC, of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe) and was never accepted by the
> less sense than not eating kitniyot. What's weird is the number of
> things that are not in any sense kitniyot (e.g. rapeseed = canola oil)
> that get marked "kasher l'Pesach l'ochlei kitniyot" (kosher for Passover
> for people who eat kitniyot).
The gemara in Pesachim 41a discusses the *machloket* between R. Meir and
R. Yossi whether one fulfils the mitzva of matza (Seder) if the matza
is soaked in water. The RIF there rules like R. Yossi (that one can't use
boiled matza) since the boiling detracts from the taste of the matza
but he permits matza soaked in water.
Rabbenu Manoach (on Rambam Hilchot Chametz U'Matza 6:6) agrees with the
RIF that one cannot soak matza in wine (but does permit water) since it would
overpower the taste of the mazta.
The Maharil (brought in the BACH on the TUR Orach Chaim 461) agrees (soaked
in water OK, but not in soup that would overpower the taste). The Magen
Avraham there (OC 461) even feels that the Mechaber would even allow
matza soaked in wine ! the TUR OC 461 and Mechaber OC 461 agree with
the RIF and Rambam (that matza soaked in water is OK).
Then how did this minhag ta'ut originate ?? The RAAVAN (Pesachin 39a)
mentions a 12th century custom where people would refrain (rightfully)
from soaking the matza (for the seder) in wine or soup. But this was
NOT because it would become chametz but because one couldn't fulfil
one's obligation with soaked matza. Only these ignorami thought it was
because soaking matza would make it chametz !
It was only much later (Shulchan Aruch Harav) who thought that perhaps
the reason would have been because matza made then was MUCH thicker
than it is today and perhaps some unbaked dough would become chametz
if mixed with water. But this reasoning was knocked down by the Shaarei
Tshuva (Orach Chaim 460:10) since in the past 150 years, matza is made
thin.
Translation: it's typical chassidishe amaratzut (ignorance) :-)
Josh
Richard Schultz
: On 10 Apr 2000 17:53:50 GMT, Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
: : stage by the Ashkenazim. Not eating "gebrochts" was a late invention
: : (IIRC, of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe) and was never accepted by the
: : Ashkenazic community as a whole.
: It's a Hungarian minhag. I therefore doubt your recollection about the
: originator. Unless you mean the person who brought it to Lubavitch.
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but if you have a source earlier
than Shulchan Arukh HaRav, I'd be interested in knowing what it was.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
Benjamin Hurwitz
> In article <38EA08...@cypress.nrlssc.navy.mil>,
> Matthew Lybanon <lyb...@cypress.nrlssc.navy.mil> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> And all this differs from potatoes how?
I missed the previous posts on this thread but I can answer this one from
the Aruch Hashulchan. In the times of Chazal, Potatoes were unknown in
Europe and therefore the Rabbis did not make an edict regarding them. (But
if they had, they probably would have).
I guess later generations of Rabbis either didn't see the necessity or
didn't have the power to add it to the list.
Regards
BH.
Benjamin Hurwitz
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:17:41 GMT, Elizabeth Levin <le...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
> : Right. But the custom of kitniot developed during the middle ages.
>
> And, as I pointed out, had to do with which things one makes a porridge from.
> (I suggested that perhaps the custom coincided with central and eastern
> Europe's embarassing period when most people didn't know how to make bread
a) Interesting... care to elaborate? What's so difficult about making bread?
> .
> Therefore, "wheatlike" meant "something one eats in a porridge".) This excludes
> potatos.
I've seen a source that says, from memory, that it's anything that could be made into
flour and that we should be grateful that Chazal didn't know about potatoes in their
day. (Aruch HaShulchan, I think)
>
> : However, because the custom survived, I also do not eat rice. (I do eat
> : tomatoes...
>
> And corn?
>
> The oddest extension of an odd minhag is corn syrup. It was debated as to
> whether mei kitniyos (liquids made from legumes) was included in the original
> custom. Not only do we rule that it does (despite the Orech haShulchan),
> and not only did we add corn to the custom, we added liquids made from corn.
> Of course, consistancy requires both or neither, but it's still weird.
>
> Even weirder, those of us who don't eat kitniyos, but do eat gebrochts. After
> all, one makes a porridge from wheat. Wheat is therefore wheat-like, no less
> so than peas.
Isn't gebrochs made from Matza meal?
> OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
> and k'neidlach onto my table?
I can see you grinning as you type! ;-)
Regards
BH.
Micha Berger
: a) Interesting... care to elaborate? What's so difficult about making bread?
I dunno. History isn't my strong suit. It was given to me in a totally
different context as an example of just how dark the Dark Ages were.
It's my idea to connect that with the mention of porridges WRT kitniyos.
:> Even weirder, those of us who don't eat kitniyos, but do eat gebrochts. After
:> all, one makes a porridge from wheat. Wheat is therefore wheat-like, no less
:> so than peas.
: Isn't gebrochs made from Matza meal?
Or matza farfel (broken pieces), such as matza brei (fried matzah and egg),
crumbling matzah into one's soup, etc... For Lubavitchers, even putting butter
or jam on one's matzah qualifies.
Either way, one can make something very like Farina from matzah meal.
:> OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
:> and k'neidlach onto my table?
: I can see you grinning as you type! ;-)
Actually, I've been drinking Diet Coke so long, the regular stuff tastes too
sweet to me. But why ruin a joke with facts?
Micha Berger
: I missed the previous posts on this thread but I can answer this one from
: the Aruch Hashulchan. In the times of Chazal, Potatoes were unknown in
: Europe and therefore the Rabbis did not make an edict regarding them. (But
: if they had, they probably would have).
It's later than Chazal, unless you meant the term loosely.
But no, they probably couldn't have. As others have noted, people would not
have accepted a custom in which there is little affordable to eat. Even if
gebrochts were not a custom, but a Rabbinic enactment, there is no authority
to an enactment that the masses can't live by. IOW, CI has final veto power
on new legislation.
Elizabeth Levin
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:10:38 +1000, Benjamin Hurwitz <hur...@blaze.net.au> wrote:
> : a) Interesting... care to elaborate? What's so difficult about making bread?
> I dunno. History isn't my strong suit. It was given to me in a totally
> different context as an example of just how dark the Dark Ages were.
Any idea of _when_ these Dark Ages were? Even after the fall of western
Rome, with Angles, and Saxons, and Jutes! Oh my! (along with Viking
Northmen, Magyars, and Huns, etc.) a knowlege of basic brewing was
preserved. With brewing, there is bread, typically. My specialty is
history of the middle ages, admittedly most of my studies were toward the
"high" middle ages, etc. but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered something
like this. Do you have any kind of source you could point me in the vague
direction of?
> It's my idea to connect that with the mention of porridges WRT kitniyos.
Interesting, but I'm not sure the timeline holds. I think kitniot is
rather later than what is typically referred to as the "Dark Ages". Given
that people calling it a "stupid custom" are rather solidly in the time
about which there is no question of whether or not there is bread...
Also, bread is fairly central to christianity. I can't imagine the
monasteries allowing knowlege of how it's made to die out, even among the
non-religious.
> Or matza farfel (broken pieces), such as matza brei (fried matzah and egg),
> crumbling matzah into one's soup, etc... For Lubavitchers, even putting butter
> or jam on one's matzah qualifies.
Matza granola. Wonderful way to get rid of leftover farfel, even after
Pesach.
> Either way, one can make something very like Farina from matzah meal.
--
Elizabeth Levin
j e rosenbaum
how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
why is it not allowed?
janet
R
1) It is not only the thickness of the matzah, but the whole
procedure of matzah baking that is different today. In the old
days they took their time and made the dough carefully; today we
do it rush-rush, and so there is a much greater chance today that
there might be some _unkneaded flour_ (NOT "unbaked dough," which
would be genuine chametz, not merely gebrokts) caught up inside
the matzah. Upon contact with water, this would then become
chametz during Pesach.
Thus, interestingly, the Rebbeim of Chabad would not eat matzah
with soup or with water, but the DID eat it with wine (having
taken care that their wine was made with no water added).
2) You mention "typical chassidishe amaratzut." Are you asserting
that "amaratzut" is "typical" of chassidim as a group, and/or to
a greater extent than any other observant group of Jews?
3) Are you asserting that R. Schneor Zalman, author of the Tanya
and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, was an "am haaretz?"
Micha Berger
: With brewing, there is bread, typically.
Actually, brewing predates bread. Also, the lecturer who used the example
mentioned that brewing probably preserved the presence of wheat in Europe
during this time. In particular, he said that milling to the extent of
being able to make flour wasn't available to most people in central and
eastern Europe.
Admittedly, I can't find anything of the sort on http://www.britannica.com.
: history of the middle ages, admittedly most of my studies were toward the
: "high" middle ages, etc. but I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered something
: like this. Do you have any kind of source you could point me in the vague
: direction of?
:> It's my idea to connect that with the mention of porridges WRT kitniyos.
: Interesting, but I'm not sure the timeline holds. I think kitniot is
: rather later than what is typically referred to as the "Dark Ages". Given
: that people calling it a "stupid custom" are rather solidly in the time
: about which there is no question of whether or not there is bread...
: Also, bread is fairly central to christianity. I can't imagine the
: monasteries allowing knowlege of how it's made to die out, even among the
: non-religious.
:> Or matza farfel (broken pieces), such as matza brei (fried matzah and egg),
:> crumbling matzah into one's soup, etc... For Lubavitchers, even putting butter
:> or jam on one's matzah qualifies.
: Matza granola. Wonderful way to get rid of leftover farfel, even after
: Pesach.
:> Either way, one can make something very like Farina from matzah meal.
: --
: Elizabeth Levin
-mi
Simcha Streltsov
: Rabbenu Manoach (on Rambam Hilchot Chametz U'Matza 6:6) agrees with the
: RIF that one cannot soak matza in wine (but does permit water) since it would
: overpower the taste of the mazta.
for practical purposes, is it OK, esp. for elderly to soak
matzah at the seder in the water?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Simcha Streltsov
: : the Aruch Hashulchan. In the times of Chazal, Potatoes were unknown in
: : Europe and therefore the Rabbis did not make an edict regarding them. (But
: : if they had, they probably would have).
...
: But no, they probably couldn't have. As others have noted, people would not
: have accepted a custom in which there is little affordable to eat. Even if
I don;t understand the logic: if there is nothing to eat without potatoes,
then what did they do after the edict and before discovering potatoes?
or did people use other vegies before potatoes?
or did Hashem have rahmanut on Holy Jews and brought potatoes in? then,
this edict seems to be the reason America was discovered!
Herman Rubin
j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>janet
It is allowed, according to the Talmud. Egg matzah
can be found in most Passover displays.
It is suggested that those who can tolerate "plain"
matzah not use egg or whole grain matza, but they
are not prohibited.
R
>
> In article <8cvj8u$6bm$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
> >pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
> >why is it not allowed?
>
> >janet
>
> It is allowed, according to the Talmud. Egg matzah
> can be found in most Passover displays.
>
> It is suggested that those who can tolerate "plain"
> matzah not use egg or whole grain matza, but they
> are not prohibited.
Actually, the Rama does prohibit the use of egg matzah for
Ashkenazic Jews unless they are unable to eat "plain" matzah.
As for whole grain matzah, I have never heard of any prohibition,
or even of any custom to avoid this. On the contrary -- the
Rebbeim of Chabad would alway insist on using whole-wheat flour
exclusively for baking their matzah.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
> In article <8cvj8u$6bm$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> >how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
> >pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
> >why is it not allowed?
>
> >janet
>
> It is allowed, according to the Talmud. Egg matzah
> can be found in most Passover displays.
This, of course, doesn't indicate its halachic status.
I see a lot of marshmallows also, and my understanding is that *their*
status is questionable as well.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
So many problems are solved simply by knowing enough verbs.
--Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Harry Weiss
: Herman Rubin wrote:
:>
:> In article <8cvj8u$6bm$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
:> j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
:>
:> >how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
:> >pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
:> >why is it not allowed?
:>
:> >janet
:>
:> It is allowed, according to the Talmud. Egg matzah
:> can be found in most Passover displays.
:> It is suggested that those who can tolerate "plain"
:> matzah not use egg or whole grain matza, but they
:> are not prohibited.
: Actually, the Rama does prohibit the use of egg matzah for
: Ashkenazic Jews unless they are unable to eat "plain" matzah.
The Tradition is that flour hwen mixed with juice will not rise, but if
mixed with a combination of juice and water will rise instantly . That
is the reason for the Askenazic prohibition for "matza Ashirah" or egg
matzah.
: As for whole grain matzah, I have never heard of any prohibition,
: or even of any custom to avoid this. On the contrary -- the
: Rebbeim of Chabad would alway insist on using whole-wheat flour
: exclusively for baking their matzah.
There is no prhoibition against whole grain matzah, and now days even the
packaged whole wheat matza is okay. For a number of years Manishewitz
(which also owns Goodmans and Horowitz Margaretten) made a product called
whole wheat Matza which was made using fruit juice e.g. similar to egg
matazah as discussed above.
Micha Berger
: The Tradition is that flour hwen mixed with juice will not rise, but if
: is the reason for the Askenazic prohibition for "matza Ashirah" or egg
: matzah.
I didn't think it was "instantly" but "we don't know -- maybe faster than
it was baked". If we were certain it had risen instantly, you wouldn't be
allowed to own egg matzah, and we wouldn't be leniant for people who can't
eat regular matzha.
My son refused to use this science fair experiment, perhaps one of your kids
would like it.
Mix flour with various different liquids at measure the volume of the dough
at regular intervals afterward. How much faster do various kinds of egg
matzah actually rise?
Harry Weiss
Organization:
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: On 11 Apr 2000 20:59:08 GMT, Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com> wrote:
: : The Tradition is that flour hwen mixed with juice will not rise, but if
: : mixed with a combination of juice and water will rise instantly . That
: : is the reason for the Askenazic prohibition for "matza Ashirah" or egg
: : matzah.
: I didn't think it was "instantly" but "we don't know -- maybe faster than
: it was baked". If we were certain it had risen instantly, you wouldn't be
: allowed to own egg matzah, and we wouldn't be leniant for people who can't
: eat regular matzha.
Since Egg Matza is made without water we can be lenient in not allowing
for the chance that some water may have gotten in.
: My son refused to use this science fair experiment, perhaps one of your kids
: would like it.
: Mix flour with various different liquids at measure the volume of the dough
: at regular intervals afterward. How much faster do various kinds of egg
: matzah actually rise?
How would you test that?
: -mi
: --
: Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Apr-00: Cohen, Metzora
: mi...@aishdas.org A"H
: http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 22a
: For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 25
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
> pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
> why is it not allowed?
This topic is discussed in the Talmud (Pesachim 35b) on flour kneaded
with fruit juice (for matza). According to most commentators (Tosafot,
RIF, Rambam, Rosh) fruit juice *with* water would make the matza into
what's called *chametz nuksheh". Rashi is of the opinion that pure
fruit juice (without water) would also make the matza into chametz nuksheh.
Furthermore, the Yerushalmi actually rules that fruit juice by itself
would make the matza *chametz nuksheh*.
The Ashkenazi custom is not to eat *mazta ashira* [rich matza] made with
fruit juice or for that matter with eggs, which is in the same category.
The only ones permitted to eat egg matza or matza ashira (made with
fruit juice) are the ill or elderly (e.g. no teeth) (see Shulchan
Aruch ORACH CHAIM 462:4 in the Rema). The reason for the custom is
stated by the Aruch Hashulchan (462 # 4) in that it is very difficult
to prevent any admixture of water with the pure fruit juice.
Josh
>
> janet
mei...@qqqerols.com
<mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
>and k'neidlach onto my table?
>
Yes, I believe even savvy gentiles stock up on Coca Cola this week,
because the sugar version is the original and considered better than
with corn syrup. Perhaps they stock up on kneidlach too?
>-mi
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
mei...@qqqerols.com
<mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>
>
>My son refused to use this science fair experiment, perhaps one of your kids
>would like it.
>
>Mix flour with various different liquids at measure the volume of the dough
>at regular intervals afterward. How much faster do various kinds of egg
>matzah actually rise?
I think Steve McQueen almost got killed this way. It sounds dangerous
to me!
mei...@qqqerols.com
ele...@starship.dnrc.bell-labs.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) posted:
>In article <8d01vr$15...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
>Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> In article <8cvj8u$6bm$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>> j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
>> >pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
>> >why is it not allowed?
>>
>> >janet
>>
>> It is allowed, according to the Talmud. Egg matzah
>> can be found in most Passover displays.
>
>This, of course, doesn't indicate its halachic status.
>
>I see a lot of marshmallows also, and my understanding is that *their*
>status is questionable as well.
For Pesach or year-round? I've been serving them at my pre YK
campfire. They taste great even if they look squashed.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> : Rabbenu Manoach (on Rambam Hilchot Chametz U'Matza 6:6) agrees with the
> : RIF that one cannot soak matza in wine (but does permit water) since it would
> : overpower the taste of the mazta.
>
> for practical purposes, is it OK, esp. for elderly to soak
> matzah at the seder in the water?
Yes. One fulfils one's obligation with matza *sheruya* (Orach Chaim 461:4).
Josh
JADUITCH
>because the sugar version is the original and considered better than
>with corn syrup. Perhaps they stock up on kneidlach too?
In one of our Hy-Vee grocery stores in Des Moines, there is a huge supply of
large bottles of Kosher L'Pesach Pepsi (the only differences between that and
the year-round version is that there is no corn sweeteners in the kosher
l'pesach one and there is a CRC heksher on the bottle cap) in the large kosher
L'Pesach section.
As much as I do know about Judaism and as much as I try my best to be a
practiciing observant Jew daily, there are still quite a few things I don't
know. For instance, what is k'neidlach?
Jeff
Benjamin Hurwitz
> how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
> pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
> why is it not allowed?
Who says it isn't?
BH.
>
>
> janet
Harry Weiss
:>Yes, I believe even savvy gentiles stock up on Coca Cola this week,
Matzah Balls
: Jeff
Benjamin Hurwitz
> Micha Berger (mi...@aishdas.org) wrote:
>
> : : the Aruch Hashulchan. In the times of Chazal, Potatoes were unknown in
> : : Europe and therefore the Rabbis did not make an edict regarding them. (But
> : : if they had, they probably would have).
> ...
> : But no, they probably couldn't have. As others have noted, people would not
> : have accepted a custom in which there is little affordable to eat. Even if
Drats, yet again I only see a reply on the rebound!
Perhaps yes and perhaps no, certainly the Aruch Hashulchan (from memory) thought
that they would have, and by inference that the people would have accepted it.
> I don;t understand the logic: if there is nothing to eat without potatoes,
> then what did they do after the edict and before discovering potatoes?
People in Europe did have other vegetables besides potatoes. For instance various
turnips.
> or did people use other vegies before potatoes?
Yep!
>
>
> or did Hashem have rahmanut on Holy Jews and brought potatoes in? then,
> this edict seems to be the reason America was discovered!
Or perhaps he also had mercy on all the university students so that they could
have a job while studying... "You want fries with that?"
Regards
BH.
Benjamin Hurwitz
Matza Balls! (as in the stuff that makes a chicken soup complete)
Like I tell all my Chassidishe Friends. Sorry on Pesach I only eat Gebrochs. ;-)
BH.
>
>
> Jeff
Elizabeth Levin
> In soc.culture.jewish on 10 Apr 2000 16:44:32 GMT Micha Berger
> <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>>OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
>>and k'neidlach onto my table?
>>
> Yes, I believe even savvy gentiles stock up on Coca Cola this week,
> because the sugar version is the original and considered better than
> with corn syrup. Perhaps they stock up on kneidlach too?
My friends often ask if it's time for "real Coke" yet. The most
recent request, however, Believe It Or Not: matzoh. I've had a request
that when my husband and I go through the estimated box and a half that
gets us through the week, we send the leftovers to a friend who won't eat
an entire box, but enjoys the flavor.
I asked her if she'd also take the gefilte fish, but apparantly, she does
have standards.
I also know someone who is allergic to soy, and stocks up on _everything_
at the local kosher supermarket. Also, all the local kids know that at
Pesach, I can be counted on to have candy with me. They may not know
exactly when it begins ahead of time, but I'm certain they scent out the
marzipan the minute it appears. :-)
--
Elizabeth Levin
Elizabeth Levin
> Or perhaps he also had mercy on all the university students so that they could
> have a job while studying... "You want fries with that?"
:-) Seriously, ever try fries made from beets? Pretty good, IMHO. Not as
good as the ones made with sweet potatoes, but good. (You squeeze a little
lime juice on them, and it's wonderful.)
--
Elizabeth Levin, who's seriously considering buying one of those miniature
deep fat fryers for Pesach.
Evelyn C. Leeper
<mei...@QQQerols.com> wrote:
> In soc.culture.jewish on 11 Apr 2000 20:43:48 GMT
> ele...@starship.dnrc.bell-labs.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) posted:
>
> >In article <8d01vr$15...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
> >Herman Rubin <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >> In article <8cvj8u$6bm$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
> >>
> >> >how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten during
> >> >pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of matza, but
> >> >why is it not allowed?
> >>
> >> can be found in most Passover displays.
> >
> >This, of course, doesn't indicate its halachic status.
> >
> >I see a lot of marshmallows also, and my understanding is that *their*
> >status is questionable as well.
>
> For Pesach or year-round? I've been serving them at my pre YK
> campfire. They taste great even if they look squashed.
For Pesach.
Micha Berger
: As much as I do know about Judaism and as much as I try my best to be a
: practiciing observant Jew daily, there are still quite a few things I don't
: know. For instance, what is k'neidlach?
Your question isn't about Judaism, but about Ashkenazi culture.
K'neidl is Yiddish for "matzah ball".
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 11-Apr-00: Shelishi, Metzora
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 23a
Jonathan J. Baker
>>Yes, I believe even savvy gentiles stock up on Coca Cola this week,
>>because the sugar version is the original and considered better than
>>with corn syrup. Perhaps they stock up on kneidlach too?
>In one of our Hy-Vee grocery stores in Des Moines, there is a huge supply of
>large bottles of Kosher L'Pesach Pepsi (the only differences between that and
>the year-round version is that there is no corn sweeteners in the kosher
>l'pesach one and there is a CRC heksher on the bottle cap) in the large kosher
>L'Pesach section.
>As much as I do know about Judaism and as much as I try my best to be a
>practiciing observant Jew daily, there are still quite a few things I don't
>know. For instance, what is k'neidlach?
Matzoh balls.
--
Jonathan Baker | What is the 7th verse of the piut Shir haChodoshim?
jjb...@panix.com | The Nissan Stanza. [1st verse in the orig. ms.]
Web page update: Teachings of the Rav http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>>Yes, I believe even savvy gentiles stock up on Coca Cola this week,
>>because the sugar version is the original and considered better than
>>with corn syrup. Perhaps they stock up on kneidlach too?
>
> In one of our Hy-Vee grocery stores in Des Moines, there is a huge supply of
> large bottles of Kosher L'Pesach Pepsi (the only differences between that and
> the year-round version is that there is no corn sweeteners in the kosher
> l'pesach one and there is a CRC heksher on the bottle cap) in the large kosher
> L'Pesach section.
>
> As much as I do know about Judaism and as much as I try my best to be a
> practiciing observant Jew daily, there are still quite a few things I don't
> know. For instance, what is k'neidlach?
Matza balls (placed in chicken soup). Most are soft; the ones that aren't
are used as Israel's new secret weapon dropped from F-16 jet fighters :-)
Josh
>
> Jeff
Micha Berger
: Matza balls (placed in chicken soup). Most are soft; the ones that aren't
: are used as Israel's new secret weapon dropped from F-16 jet fighters :-)
Odd cultural tidbit: while the epicurean and the Yekke claim the ideal kneidl
is fluffy, most Jewish men I've asked prefer real clunkers that require biting.
-mi (married to an understanding Yekke)
Yekke: from the same root as "jacket", a Jew from Germany or whose customs are
from the German community. (Or in my wife's case, from Autria, but
not far from Germany and having similar customs to German Jews.) They
went from frocks to jackets well before East European Jews did. So,
those from the east called them "Yekkes".
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 12-Apr-00: Revi'i, Metzora
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Rosh-Hashanah 23b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 25
Ravchaz
>>practiciing observant Jew daily, there are still quite a few things I don't
>>know. For instance, what is k'neidlach?
>
A Texan gentile has lunch in a Jewish deli. After the soup course he calls the
water over and says to him:
"That matzoh ball soup was pretty good. Tell me, are there any other parts of
the matzoh which are edible?"
Charles Arian
York, PA
abe kohen
prefer the ideal fluffy and soft kind.
Abe (married to a non-Hungarian)
PS With no offense intended, I believe the correct term is Yekke Putz.
(Its the opposite of an oxymoron; it's when two words amplify each other.)
;-)
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:8d2j06$pdu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
R
>
> Well us Oiberlander Hungarians - who do it kneidlech on Pesach -
> prefer the ideal fluffy and soft kind.
>
> Abe (married to a non-Hungarian)
And we Galitzianers, who eat them only on the last (8th) day,
prefer the more solid, chewy kind.
>
> PS With no offense intended, I believe the correct term is Yekke Putz.
> (Its the opposite of an oxymoron; it's when two words amplify each other.)
You mean like "Gut Yom Tov" and "mayim acharonim vasser"?
Harry Weiss
: Well us Oiberlander Hungarians - who do it kneidlech on Pesach -
: prefer the ideal fluffy and soft kind.
: Abe (married to a non-Hungarian)
: PS With no offense intended, I believe the correct term is Yekke Putz.
: (Its the opposite of an oxymoron; it's when two words amplify each other.)
Well this Hungarian (who eats gebrochts and married to non Hungarian)
likes the hard type:
;-)
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
JADUITCH
Yiddish as I am with Hebrew. (or English).
Jeff
abe kohen
that they like the hard type for reasons of shalom bayit.
;-)
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@netcom14.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8d2o0a$u8b$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Adelle Stavis
any of the KP syrup. Don't think they requested it. Can't bring myself to
buy the Pepsi as it lacks some of that battery-acid tang Coke is known for.
Sigh.
If I don't post during Pesach, assume I'm in detox dealing with Coca Cola
withdrawal.
Adelle Stavis
<mei...@QQQerols.com> wrote in message
news:6fj7fs4r876l0cruk...@4ax.com...
> In soc.culture.jewish on 10 Apr 2000 16:44:32 GMT Micha Berger
> <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>
> >OTOH, who am I to argue with a custom that gets Coca Cola with cane sugar
> >and k'neidlach onto my table?
> >
> Yes, I believe even savvy gentiles stock up on Coca Cola this week,
> because the sugar version is the original and considered better than
> with corn syrup. Perhaps they stock up on kneidlach too?
>
> >-mi
Adelle Stavis
"Elizabeth Levin" <le...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:UA_I4.962$D8....@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
> mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> > In soc.culture.jewish on 10 Apr 2000 16:44:32 GMT Micha Berger
> > <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
(snip)
> I asked her if she'd also take the gefilte fish, but apparantly, she does
> have standards.
I though gefilte fish existed as a vehicle for horseradish?
Adelle Stavis
(more snippage)
> Elizabeth Levin
Richard Schultz
: Tried to get KP Coca Cola in MA. Local bottling plant said they didn't get
: any of the KP syrup. Don't think they requested it. Can't bring myself to
: buy the Pepsi as it lacks some of that battery-acid tang Coke is known for.
: Sigh.
I don't want to appear to be telling anyone else what to do, but I will
point out that in Israel, Coca-Cola is kosher for passover even if it's
been manufactured in July. That's because sugar is cheaper here than
corn syrup is.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
mei...@qqqerols.com
<mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>On 12 Apr 2000 12:39:13 GMT, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>: Matza balls (placed in chicken soup). Most are soft; the ones that aren't
>: are used as Israel's new secret weapon dropped from F-16 jet fighters :-)
>
>Odd cultural tidbit: while the epicurean and the Yekke claim the ideal kneidl
>is fluffy, most Jewish men I've asked prefer real clunkers that require biting.
About kneidlach I know not much, but my mother got up early one Sunday
early in my parents' marriage and was very proud of how her light
delicate blintzes. My father however announced that he preferred the
heavy ones his mother made!
>
>-mi (married to an understanding Yekke)
>
>Yekke: from the same root as "jacket", a Jew from Germany or whose customs are
> from the German community. (Or in my wife's case, from Autria, but
> not far from Germany and having similar customs to German Jews.) They
> went from frocks to jackets well before East European Jews did. So,
> those from the east called them "Yekkes".
Never knew that. thanks.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> how come matza made with juice or eggs isn't allowed to be eaten
> during pesach? i understand why it doesn't satisfy the mitzvah of
> matza, but why is it not allowed?
flour and water takes 18 minutes to begin becoming chametz that gives
plenty of time to bake. Dough made from flour and fruit juice never
become chametz. _But_, if there's a bit of water in the dough, _then_
it becomes chametz immediately. Since it's very hard to insure that
absolutely no water will get into the dough, the custom is to forbid
"egg matzot" except for the elderly who can't eat regular matzot.
As always, CYLOR.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)