[Avodah] Yeast isn't chameitz - But is Gluten?

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:30:13AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Could GLUTEN be the common denominator of the species that produce
: Chameitz?.

I replied that the 5 species appear to be defined by gezeiras hakasuv.
That really there are only 2 types of grain, chitah and se'orah, which
are named among the 7 minim of EY. However, these 2 types are broad,
and contain 5 actual species. The gemara makes it a gezeiras hakasuv
and that idea is carried forward by the Tur et al.

Given that, if oat isn't one of the 5, and isn't even wheat-like or
barley-like, how could it be included in the gezeiras hakasuv? And as
plants, wheat and barley are more similar to each other than they are
to oat. Both grow their seeds in rows at the end of the stalk, oats grow
in small bunches off little stems. Rashi says those little stems are
like fox tails -- thus "shibboles shu'al".

Also, oats are lower in gluten than wheat or barley -- that's the whole
reason they pose less of a problem for celiacs. Rice also is lower in
gluten. If your theory were to stand, having gluten isn't enough, there
is some minimum shiur of gluten that is above the amount contained in
rice. Even if we addressed the gezeiras hakasuv issue, do oats have
enough to qualify? (Does it even have more gluten than does rice?)


RMM asked about the Rambam. He defines "shibboles shu'al" as "se'orim
midbarim" (Kelayim 1:1). "Se'orim" is a given, since we're looking
for a species of the type "se'orah". Nothing about the number of rows,
unless wild barley is called "two rowed barley". The Bartenura, however,
calls shibboles shu'al both "se'orim midbarim" and "avena" -- he assumes
the Rambam also meant oats. Which even stands to reason -- oats were
originally a weed farmers would pull from their grain fields, until they
realized oats too were usable. They are plausibly "midbari". So it might
not even be a machloqes, and the mesorah is clearly that oats are one
of the 5.

I just don't know how to be meyasheiv that with the gezeiras hakasuv.
Clearly the kinds defined by chitah and se'orah can't be botonical
taxonomy for that to work. But as I noted above, even visually, it's
hard to see how se'orah was defined in a way that excludes chitah
yet includes oats.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
micha at aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous