[Avodah] kitniyot

[Zev Sero]

On 8/03/2013 1:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:48:48AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 8/03/2013 10:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> but on shemen qitniyos (which some who don't use mei qitniyos permit, since
>>> it won't mix with water)!
>>
>> How is that relevant? ...
>
> Because the Melamed leHo'il OC 1:87 discusses those who disagree with
> the Rama (OC 453; and the SA haRav also only permits hadlaqah, BTW).

How does that answer my question?  How is oil's not mixing with water
at all relevant to its kitniyos status?

Also, where does the MlH discuss those who disagree with this?  I don't
see it in that teshuvah, or even in the next one (in which he agrees to
permit peanut oil -- but not peanuts themselves -- if the rabbis of
Hamburg and Posen will join him).


> The MlH cites the Taz, who limits qitniyos to things that grow in pods
> and therefore wouldn't consider sesames themselves to be a problem.

The Taz does no such thing.  And the Melamed Leho'il explicitly notes this!
You're quoting the MlH exactly backwards.  The Taz includes things that do
grow in pods; he doesn't exclude things that don't, e.g. rice and buckwheat!


> So much for questions about quinoa, potatos, coffee, etc...

There is not the slightest possibility that buckwheat is not kitniyos.
Clearly any theory that not growing in a pod is enough to exempt something
is false.

Oh, and by the way, contrary to the MlH's information, sesame does grow
in pods.


> See also the Minchas Yitzchaq (3:138 os 2) on cottonseed and canabis oils.

What are you pointing to there?  I don't see any kind of leniency there.
He takes it for granted that shemen kitniyos is assur, and concludes that
since "kanbus" or whatever the correct spelling is (as elaborated on at
length in ois 3) is kitniyos, cotton must be kitniyos too.


>  Minchas Yitzchok (III:138:2)
>  suggests that cottonseed oil is kitnios, but in a subsequent teshuvah
> (IV:114:3) he reconsiders this position

He raises it again, but doesn't reverse himself; he merely cites the
Minchas Pitim who permits it, and concludes "tzarich iyun lahalacha".


> Ad kan on the new topic... Now again, note what they summarize about
> new crops:
>
>      Canola oil was first approved for food use in the United States in
>      1985 and there are those who therefore suggested that it is a "new"
>      item which shouldn't be included in the minhag, as per Iggeros Moshe
>      cited above.

Yes, note that they are citing RMF, *not* a supposed "traditional" view.


>>> How did that ever get accepted as assur.
>
>> It's an explicit Rama. He permits lighting kitniyos oil, not eating it,
>> and his reason is that if it should happen to fall into the food it will
>> be batel....

> But add to the fact that there are cholqim on mei qitniyos, shemen
> qitniyos in particular, and on adding things to the list of what crops
> are qitniyos, and you're really piling on the chumeros in something that
> is just minhag.
> Thus my rhetorical (and mispunctuated) question.

You asked how did it get accepted as assur, and the clear answer is
that on the contrary that is the traditional and default position,
and it's these new svaros that come to permit it.  You can agree with
the new svaros or not, but you can't ask how it ever got forbidden;
the daas ha'osrim is the more obvious one, and doesn't need to be
justified.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
zev at sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan