[Avodah] popcorn

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

I wrote
RRW:
> See Hoq Yaakov 453:6

> The ThD is Takka machmir to require shishim...

> OTOH the HY states all you need is Rove -sorry Beatles!

> Clearly if the pieces had to be picked out Rove [lich'ora] would not be
> a prerequisite at all, just pick out the Rov of Qitniyyos and all that's
> left is taamo v'lo mamasho. [IOW you can make it a Rove.]

Based upon some offline dialogues I want to clarify some positions.

1. Disclaimer: I'm not pasqening WHAT to do. Rather I'm being masbir
the sheetas Rema - and AIUI the Hoq Yaaqov first suggested this Hesber.

2. The Chayei Adam 127:1 DOES require removing any qitniyyos that are
recognizable "Im yeish rov bheter... u'mah mah sheu niccar - yizroq"

3. The fact is that Rema did NOT state this clause and therefore AISI
Rema did not hold as Ch"A because if Rema did hold that way then "iqqar
haseir min hasefer"

4. AISI Rema holds it's not issur mamash because if Rema pasqened
it really was issur he would have held like ThD that shishim would
be required.

5. Since this is based upon a ch'shash and not on issur, there is no
issue of ta'am, and even b'diavad what's the big deal of the mamash? After
all we're NOT permitting to combine qiitniyyos l'chatchilah. It's an
additional humra to see that eating an already bateil piece of qitniyyos
as a new l'chatchilah instead of already as a simple b'di'avad.

6. If indeed Chayei Adam is chosheish for some kind of ha'arama, that
would not apply to an ahkenazi guest at a s'phardic meal. And so picking
out a minority of qitniyyos from a greater tavshil could be different
in that case as opposed to the case of one's OWN tavshil.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile