All right, yesterday we saw: “Ve-elu shemonah malbushim keneged shemonah begadim, she-ba-zeh she-nitpashet mi-bigdei chol me’al ha-nefesh (soul), ve-hi moshechet alav ruach (spirit), ma’alah ha-ruach, ve-khedei lehavi lah kapparah, ve-chamishah tikim.” Simlat Shabbat (Shabbat garment). There are five. Some have the custom to wear garments on Shabbat corresponding to three, and some have the custom to wear five corresponding to—. Three or five: nefesh, ruach, and neshamah (soul). There are five as well. It works. That’s what I do. That is why I had this in mind, because of—
So he says here, “mei peirot (regular fruit juice).” Yesterday we saw that the Rambam has a big chiddush (novel insight). The Rambam’s shitah (view) was that you could be yotze (fulfill the obligation) with matzah ashirah (egg matzah) for the Seder. He said that it is called matzah ashirah only if you kneaded it with wine, oil, milk, or devash (honey). Besides that, if you used regular fruit juice, it sounds like, according to the Rambam, that it is okay. That is a big chiddush.
We’re up to number tet: “Kol mei peirot, afilu peirot chamutzim, kemo tapuchim chamutzim, ve-rimonim, havyan mei peirot, ve-enam machmitzim.” Even if you have tart or sour juice, such as sour apples or pomegranates, it is still mei peirot and does not cause leavening. But if mei peirot are mixed with water, “memaharim lehachmitz yoter mi-she’ar issah”—they cause it to leaven faster than other dough. Once you put water in the mixture, it is a problem; it goes faster.
That is what the Bet Yosef said in se’if (paragraph) bet: “Da-lash mei peirot im mayim yofeh miyad,” meaning, bake it immediately. Don’t even wait 18 minutes; there should be no waiting at all. In the Gemara and among the poskim (halachic authorities), there is a pelugta (dispute) about this. The Bahag ruled, “De-tisaref miyad”—it should be burned immediately. What does “tisaref miyad” mean? Get rid of it? The Rosh disagreed and ruled like the Rosh. The Tur brought both opinions; see there.
It is not only when the fruit juices and water are kneaded together. It is also if the dough is first kneaded with fruit juices and then with water, or the other way around. A little mei peirot with a lot of water is not considered mei peirot mixed with water; it is considered just water. Interesting. A little mei peirot will not do it; there has to be a lot of mei peirot. It seems that the opposite is true as well: a little water and a lot of fruit juice is considered fruit juice on its own. That is another big chiddush. A little water will not bother you either. The same law applies to fulfilling the obligation of matzah (unleavened bread).
Some poskim say there must be shishim (sixty) times the amount of water compared with mei peirot, and then one fulfills the obligation of matzah, but not with less than that. So technically, you could add some mei peirot to this, as long as there is shishim and it is batel (nullified) in it. Wait: so you can add mei peirot to water, as long as there is shishim against it. But what about adding water to the fruit juice? “A little water won’t bother it either,” he’s saying. Either way? That is what it sounds like. That is a big chiddush. We’ll see what that means. David, please.
“U-da de-khevan she-nitba’er de-mei peirot im mayim havei chametz nuksheh (incompletely leavened dough), u-ve-siman tav-mem-zayin nitba’er de-chametz nuksheh batel (nullified) be-shishim.” It was explained in that siman that incompletely leavened dough is nullified in sixty. Therefore, someone wants to say that if a grain is found during Pesach (Passover) in chardal (mustard) or in the round dumplings called kneidlach (dumplings), which were kneaded with oil and eggs and then also with honey, one need not prohibit it in even the smallest amount, since this is mei peirot mixed with water and is nullified in sixty.
That is a big chiddush: they are saying that mei peirot is nullified in sixty even on Pesach. It is not prohibited by even the smallest amount. Therefore, if this mei peirot mixture is mixed with water, or if you find a chitah (wheat grain) in it, you can rely on shishim.
Some wanted to reject this, because it is explicit in the Shas, in the tractate Menachot, that one cannot say this. If chametz nuksheh (incompletely leavened dough) is deRabbanan (rabbinic), then mei peirot with water must be chametz gamur (chametz). Ah, they are saying it is not incompletely leavened dough; it is chametz gamur. And if it is chametz nuksheh, it must be de’Oraita (biblical) chametz nuksheh. But the Rosh and the Tur ruled in siman Tav-Samech-Bet that incompletely leavened dough is rabbinic. In this siman, they ruled that mei peirot with water is chametz nuksheh. So mei peirot with water is not chametz gamur. The halachah is going to say that mei peirot with water is incompletely leavened dough; it is chametz deRabbanan. Chametz deRabbanan, you can rely on shishim.
Furthermore, even if it is de’Oraita (biblical) chametz nuksheh, it is still nullified in sixty, since it does not carry karet (spiritual excision), as chametz on Erev Pesach does. In any case, it can be nullified.
However, a little fat should not be counted as fruit juice mixed with water. A little fat will not be considered mei peirot with water. But when there is fat and egg liquid, and actual honey, all the more so this chavitza (this ... thing) that also has honey in it can be treated leniently regarding mei peirot, especially in a case of hefsed merubah (substantial financial loss). And, to avoid interfering with the joy of Yom Tov (festival) over something rabbinic, one should not prohibit the cake or the chavitza, especially if there is another basis for leniency in the circumstances. The same applies if a grain is found in the turnip dish called tzimes: if there is fat and enough honey, there is a little water, since it is known that a lot of moisture comes out of the turnip.
Let’s really see what Maran is talking about. We’ll open up Maran and see what his shitah is regarding this whole subject of mei peirot. It’s dangerous, Rabbi, because the Gemara says it can leaven in the blink of an eye. If, at some point, you have the wrong ratio—“We’re not recommending it.”
Tav-Samech-Bet has seven se’ifim. Start with alef: “Mei peirot belo mayim, ein machmitzin kelal, u-mutar le’echol be-Pesach matzah she-nilshah be-mei peirot, afilu shahtah kol hayom.” There you go. But, “Ein yotzei bah yedei chovato, mipnei shehi matzah ashirah, u-fra ketiv, lechem oni.” So clearly Maran does not say this is only for elderly people or sick people. Maran clearly says that you are allowed to have egg matzah made with mei peirot. He says, “Ke-gon yayin ve-shemen u-devash ve-chalav ve-she’ar kol mashkin, belo mayim, hainu belo mayim kelal. Im yesh bahem mayim, afilu kol shehu, harei elu memaharim lehachmitz. Kelal, afilu hem peirot chamutzim.” It does not matter even if it is bitter or whatever, sour. “Kol hayom ve-nitpach ha-batzek”: even if you leave it and it rises all day, it is not chametz. But you are not yotze the obligation on the first night. That is Maran explicitly.
Look at bet: “Mei peirot im mayim, memaharim lehachmitz yoter mi-she’ar eisah.” Once you add water, it goes faster than regular dough. “Hilkach, ein lalush bahem, ve-im lash bahem, ye’afeh miyad.” Maran says, don’t knead with them; but if you did, bake it immediately.
Look at the Mishnah Berurah: “Im mayim, bein she-ha-mei peirot merubim ve-ha-mayim mu’atim”—even if there is a little water, it is still a problem, and the same applies the other way around. The later authorities wrote that there is no difference between first kneading with mei peirot and then adding water before it is baked, or letting the mei peirot dry on the loaf and then having water come onto it. It still leavens quickly. That means it could leaven in less than the time of a mil (18 minutes). Therefore, we are concerned that it might sit before it is baked, so bake it immediately. If it sat before baking, it is prohibited to eat, even if it did not sit for the time of a mil.
The Gra leans toward permitting it in a case of substantial financial loss, even for eating, as long as it did not sit for the time of a mil. That applies here too, as long as you do not see signs of leavening. Bedi'avad (after the fact), if this happened inadvertently, one can certainly rely on the lenient opinion.
So if they tell you to eat it, though. He said bake it right away. So what is the time limit? “U-da de-hiskimu ha-acharonim, de-af de-kaima lan de-im afah miyad mutar le’echol oto, mi-kol makom ein yotzin bo yedei chovat matzah.” Even if it was baked immediately and is permitted to eat, one does not fulfill the obligation of matzah with it, because anything that has mei peirot in it—even a little—if the taste of the mei peirot can be detected, “mikrei matzah ashirah,” and one does not fulfill the obligation with it.
“Ve-lo od ela afilu im lashah”—what does that say down here in the Mishnah Berurah? “Ve-lo od ela afilu im lashah.” What is that word, masa’of? Did you cook it? “Kitzur”—no, it says “ve-achar kach,” two words. “Afilu lashah be-mayim ve-achar kach”—oh, wow. “Kitfah mi-ma’al be-mei peirot”: even if you only sprinkled mei peirot on top, nevertheless, you do not fulfill the obligation with it, because it is not lechem oni. You don’t want any fruit juice on the bread. So you’re saying it is kosher, but not for lechem oni? “What time limit, though?” He says a mil is too much. Is it half a mil? “Even after the fact, if you waited a mil, it’s okay.” Maran is concerned that it be done immediately.
David, gimel: “Mutar lalush be-yayin (wine), af al pi she-i efshar belo tipat mayim she-nofelet bi-sh’at ha-batzir.” Oh! This is the Papouchado halachah. Let’s turn to the Aruch Hashulchan. We didn’t see this there—he doesn’t bring it in the Aruch Hashulchan. What is Papouchado? It’s the cookies, the Chacham Ovadia cookies they call—yes. Look at gimel. Let’s read Maran slowly, David. “Mutar lalush be-yayin.” Even though there is water in the wine, “af al pi she-i efshar belo tipat mayim she-nofelet bi-sh’at ha-batzir”—when they cut the grapes? There is water that falls into the grapes. “Ve-af lechatchilah regilim liten mayim bi-sh’at ha-batzir, kedei lehatir nitzok (electricity).” Whatever that means.
“Ve-af al pi chen ein lachush lahem, ho’il u-khevar nitbatlu ha-mayim ba-yayin kodem she-lashu ha-isah.” So the water has undergone bitul (nullification) in the wine. Look at “kedei lehatir ha-nitzok.” What does that mean? “De-legabei yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry), nitzok chibur.” With yayin nesech, nitzok creates a connection. For example, if a Jew pours wine from his keli (vessel) into a goy (non-Jew)’s keli, and there is moisture in the goy’s keli, the wine in the Jew’s keli becomes prohibited, because the nitzok connects the wine in the upper keli with the wine in the lower keli. Electricity! So, once there is a connection between my bottle and his bottle, his bottle makes my wine prohibited, even though they did not touch; it is as if the pouring streams connected the two bottles. “Ve-ro’im ke-ilu ha-yayin shel issur me’orav be-heter.”
But if there is also water in the Jew’s vessel, in an amount that can nullify the wine in the non-Jew’s vessel—shishim times its amount—then it is permitted. “De-chol mino u-mino, ve-she-eino mino amrinnan saleik et mino ke-mi she-eino, ve-she-eino mino de-valma mevatlo.” Exactly. Mino u-mino (the wine in the wine). Take mino u-mino away, and what are you left with? Water. That water can nullify the wine in the other vessel in a ratio of sixty to one. That is why they would put water in the wine, so they would not have this problem of nitzok. “But how do you know there will be enough water?” I’d say that is what they did. They put in enough water; they knew what they were doing when they poured. It was a process.
“So this is an amazing thing. Wait, so the water isn’t batel? The water would nullify the non-Jew’s wine, therefore preventing a problem of nitzok. He’s just saying why they would put water in it.” “But if there is enough water to change the status of the wine—” “Which there isn’t.” He is saying it is enough for the nitzok issue, but not enough to change the status of the wine. Right. That is the point. Why would they put water in it? To get rid of the problem of nitzok.
“Ve-ho’il u-khevar nitbatel, rov ha-acharonim hiskimu de-valma lo mahani bitul ba-mayim she-nit’arvu be-mei peirot.” This is a big chiddush. He is telling you that you can nullify water in fruit juice, as long as there is shishim against the water before Pesach. But then he says: “Rov ha-acharonim hiskimu de-valma lo mahani bitul ba-mayim she-nit’arvu be-mei peirot, ve-chol she-yesh ba-matzah afilu mashehu mayim, keivan she-nishtanah tiv’o ve-yachol lehachmitz issah ... le-hachmitzah tuva, ken tzarich lehachmir lechatchilah shelo lalush bahem. Ve-hacha shani, she-nit’arev ha-mayim ba-yayin ad she-lo nigmerah asiyatah.” Here, the water was added to the wine before the wine was made.
That is what I meant: tirosh (new wine). Then it ferments, and the water turns into wine. “Ve-hachi nami achshav, al pi zeh, im tit’arev ha-mayim ba-yayin achar tesisah, vadai ein od le-oto yayin din de-mei peirot.” So now the discussion is about when you add the water. If you add water when it is still grapes and it is fermenting, the water turns into wine; it is not considered water. But if you add the water later, it could be a problem. “Kodem she-lashu ha-isah.” He says that if any amount of water is mixed with fruit juice at the time of lishah (the time of the kneading), “le-kulei alma lo nitbatel ha-mayim.” Then he says, “U-leshon ha-mechaber eino medukdak kol kach,” according to the conclusion of most of the later authorities: even before kneading, it is not nullified. The only reason it is nullified is that it was mixed with the wine while it was fermenting. We’re back to the same point.
The later authorities wrote that raisin wine, or raisin honey, even though they are made with water, is considered pure fruit juice because its taste has completely changed. The water in which the raisins were soaked has changed its nature. The water put in the grapes becomes grape liquid; it becomes arak. And this is specifically after the fermentation has finished. The same law applies to grape wine.
“So our wines would be okay?” They put the water in while it is fermenting. This is an inyan (matter) of nitzok, but the point is that this is an inyan of fruit juices. Now I want to make matzot with wine. What about that? What about other things that do not ferment, like orange juice? You’re right: if it is from concentrate and they add water, it’s not a process, or it could be a problem. If there is a lot of water, probably. They say, “Freshly squeezed.” But you’re concerned there could be some water in it, I would imagine. Is there water in orange juice? Tropicana says, “Not from concentrate,” so there is no added water? It’s not allowed to say that. It says “100% Water, water.” It doesn’t taste exactly like freshly squeezed. Maybe that is the oranges they grow. Someone once explained how they remove the oxygen and store it; they have a whole system. Maybe they are not adding water. It says, “Never any water added.” The concentrate says “from concentrate.” Fine, this was the whole subject.
Chacham Ovadia was lenient regarding the Papouchado bakery because he said they were using wine to make the cookies. “With regular flour, right, Rabbi? They were using regular flour?” Flour for matzot, they were using flour with wine. The whole question was that people argued against them. He always said that the Papouchado product does not leaven; it is mei peirot, and mei peirot does not leaven.
Then Chacham Mordechai Eliyahu and all the other tzaddikim (righteous people) came against him. They said, “No, Chacham Ovadia didn’t check it properly. There was water in the wine.” There was water in the wine, but when was the water added? They put these tablets in the wine afterward, these water tablets, and therefore it was chametz or something. “But if you bake it straight away, it isn’t chametz?” They didn’t bake it straight away. The question was: what does “straight away” mean?
Look at Chacham Ovadia. Do we have any of his books to see if he discusses Papouchado? “But Rabbi, isn’t the whole question with mixing water and mei peirot about the metziut (the fact) that it will leaven faster?” Yes, the question is when you add the water. “Otherwise, who cares?” We care. “But if there’s—” It is not a metziut. It is not a metziut. Okay, then. It is not a metziut. The water turns into wine during fermentation. That water is wine. It is when the water stands alone.
This is a whole subject. I heard him mention Papouchado a hundred times. He made these guys famous. “Did he put his picture on the bag?” He put his picture on the bag, the whole thing. “Did the Rabbi eat it on Pesach?” You couldn’t get them then. Now you can get them here, but when he talked about it, it was an Israeli product. He made it so famous that it came to America. Everybody wanted to know, “What is this Papouchado?” A guy starts a business, they find a controversial item, and then he backs him and makes him famous. One hundred percent. Everybody listens to the Rav. They’ll buy that first.
So he says here: “Minhag ha-Sepharadim ve-edot ha-mizrach le’echol matzah ashirah be-Pesach.” That is what you see from Maran. Maran did not say there is an issur (prohibition). It is according to Maran’s ruling: “U-matzah ashirah, hainu she-na’aseit mi-kemach kasher le-Pesach, not like this here, friend, ve-niloshah be-mei peirot, ke-gon yayin, chalav, devash, le-lo ta’arovet mayim kelal.” But the Ashkenazim (Ashkenazim) have the custom to prohibit this, according to the ruling of the Rema, which we’ll see. Therefore, a shopkeeper selling these cakes on Pesach has to put up a notice in a visible place, telling people that this is mei peirot, so the Ashkenazim will know to be stringent.
Mem-alef: the responsum Yechaveh Da’at, and the responsum Yabia Omer, volume nine. Do we have it? Is it here? “Ve-ayein sham she-be’arnu she-af im notnim be-isah chomarim mesuyamim le-hatpichah, ein ba-zeh chashash chimutz.” Aha. This is volume Orach Chayim, siman mem-bet. This is the Papouchado case. Amazing—Yabia Omer. This is a major controversy.
“Ve-hineh be-voi le-chahen ke-rav be-ir Tel Aviv.” When I came to serve as rabbi in Tel Aviv, biscuit manufacturers approached me. They asked that they be allowed, throughout the year, to bake matzah ashirah for Pesach, and wanted a hechsher (a kosher certification) to keep their factories open. That means flour with fruit juice and no water mixed in. They would kasher the kitchen and machinery, and have a talmid chacham (Torah scholar) come to give them a kosher certificate. They wanted certification from the rabanut (Chief Rabbinate) saying it was okay to be lenient and eat matzah ashirah on Pesach according to Maran, because Maran was lenient.
The chief rabbi who preceded me, the Gaon Unterman, did not want to allow them to make matzah ashirah until now. He was the Ashkenaz rabbi, a great tzaddik, and followed the Rema. What do we want? We’re going to let them make cakes for cholim (ill people) and zekenim (elderly people)—what do you need it for? The Ashkenaz rabbis said, “No, we’re not giving you a kosher certification.” That is what the Rema wrote. But since the Sepharadim follow Maran, and there is a large Sephardic community in Tel Aviv that has always been lenient about this, I said I would look into whether I could give them a heter (permission) to bake cakes. Unbelievable. He comes to regular cake! Regular cake. That was his whole point.
He says: “Ve-hineh be-Masechet Pesachim amar Resh Lakish, isah she-niloshah be-yayin ve-shemen u-devash, en chayavim al chimutzo karet, mishum de-havei mei peirot, u-mei peirot en machmitzim.” And in Pesachim it is taught: “En lashin isah be-Pesach be-yayin ve-shemen, ve-im lash, Rabban Gamliel omer, tisaref miyad. Va-chachamim omrim, ye’achel.” Rabban Gamliel says to burn it, as if it were chametz, and the Sages say it may be eaten.
Rashi explained: “En lashin isah shel matzah be-yayin ve-shemen u-devash, mipenei she-kerovah u-memaheret le-hachmitz.” You cannot watch it properly, and even though Resh Lakish said fruit juices do not leaven, that is only in the sense that one is not liable for karet. Nevertheless, it is incompletely leavened dough. That was Rashi’s shitah. Rashi held that mei peirot leavens.
The author of HaHashlamah wrote the same. But Tosafot there disagree with Rashi and prove that anything kneaded with mei peirot, without water, is permitted from the outset, because mei peirot do not leaven. Why, then, does the Gemara say, “Tisaref miyad”? Tosafot say it is because water was put in. Once you put in water, the process accelerates, and you have to get rid of it.
The Rambam ruled similarly: “Chameshet minei dagan elu im lashan be-mei peirot bilvad belo shum mayim, le-olam enam ba’im lidei chimutz, ve-afilu hinicham kol hayom ad she-nitpach ha-batzek, mutar ba-achilah.” Unbelievable. You could leave it on the table for a hundred hours, and it would rise. That is not chametz; that is spoilage. “Ela masrichim.” He lists wine, milk, honey, olive oil, apple juice, and pomegranate juice. “Ve-hu she-lo yit’arev bahem mayim ba-olam.” No water. “Im nit’arev bahem mayim, harei elu machmitzim.” If water is mixed into them, they leaven.
The Ra'avad brings down Rashi’s shitah. The Ra’avad says it is not so simple: the Rambam says fruit juices do not leaven, but you have Rashi’s shitah that fruit juice does not cause liability for karet, while still being prohibited rabbinically. We do not have to be concerned about that view here. That is the Ra’avad. Maran did not accept it; you see that Maran followed the Rambam. Maran said mei peirot do not leaven.
Rav HaMagid wrote that Rashi’s opinion is indeed like that, as the Ra'avad says, but Tosafot and the Ittur already rejected it, and that is also the opinion of the Geonim and the primary ruling. The Peri Chadash wrote that the Ra'avad himself also permits using fruit juices from the outset. He only meant to point out that the matter is not agreed upon. He is saying, “That is not everyone’s opinion.” But even the Ra'avad did not adopt Rashi’s shitah. All he wanted to say is that it is not everyone’s opinion. I agree with you. He had to make that point too.
So what do you want from me? You have the Rambam, you have Maran, you have everyone. When the biscuit factory came to ask him, what was his problem? They were putting wine in it, and it is kosher for Pesach for Sepharadim. Put up a sign. “Maybe orange juice? Maybe they do—” What’s my problem, he’s saying. They’re putting wine in there, and it’s kosher for Pesach for Sepharadim (Sephardic Jews).
“Omnam ra’iti bi-Shut Kol Mevaser, she-nidrash la-zeh, ve-chatav she-eino yachol le-haskim.” He said he could not agree to this for the biscuit factory, because of the Rema and the Ra’avad. “Lachen tzerichim shimur be-yoter, u-mei peirot im mayim gam le-tzorech choleh asur.” He says it is difficult to ensure there is not even a moment’s delay in the kneading. It is difficult; there could be a drop of water. Kol Mevaser did not want to give a heter. It is too dangerous. He says that even though the Birkei Yosef writes that throughout the lands of the Sephardim, the custom is to permit kneading with fruit juice—Chida, clearly—perhaps that is talking about at home, not in a factory. “Is Kol Mevaser Sephardi or Ashkenazi?” Ashkenazi. He says, “Aval anu benei Ashkenaz,” we Ashkenazim accepted upon ourselves to be stringent like the Rema. So that is our custom. Okay, so therefore, mei peirot en machmitzim, and therefore he says we have no problem.
And here it is, everyone. It wasn’t Chacham Mordechai; it was Bakshi-Doron. Bakshi came after. There is no favoritism there. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. “Ve-hineih be-Pesach Tav-Shin-Samech.” How long ago, buddy? Tav-Shin-Samech. Fifteen years ago? The Ha-Rav Ha-Gaon Rishon LeTziyon Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, nero, challenged the Sephardic matzah ashirah. He spoke on the radio and issued rulings against it. He said, “ha-Melech Achashverosh, the ruling that mei peirot do not leaven is not sufficiently clear.”
“Ve-ani tameh alav. Mah ra’ah al kachah u-mah higi’a eilav, le-ar’er al minhag Yisrael kedoshim, ha-nish’an al piskeihem shel rabboteinu ve-al tzava’am Maran ha-Kadosh she-kiblu hora’otav be-chol tefutzot Yisrael, asher devarav ner le-ragleinu ve-or le-ntivotenu? Ve-chi ne’elam me-einav kol mah she-heveinu le-eil, she-haskamat kol gedolei Yisrael: Rav Nissim Gaon, Rabbeinu Tam, Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Ra’aviah, Or Zaru’a, Ba’al Ha-Ittur, Rokei’ach, Ramban, Me’iri, Ritva, Ran?” Furthermore, all of them hold that mei peirot without water do not leaven at all. Maran ruled that way, and that is the custom, as Maran the Chida wrote, based on his grandfather, Maran Azulai. The custom had already spread. So who is going to question a custom founded on sacred authorities? “Ve-ha-din barur ka-shemesh.” The law is as clear as the sun.
So what is Bakshi’s proof? What is he afraid of? He is afraid it is chametz; he does not want chametz on Pesach. Chacham Ovadia is not going to cheer him on: “Hey, don’t start with our egg matzot!” Anyway, Chacham Bakshi would say, “I didn’t mean that. I was talking about the water. That’s why I’m always to blame. I know there are no mei peirot; I’m worried about the water.”
“U-mah she-katav she-mi-keivan she-noda she-me’arvim be-isah chomer kimi le-hatfi’ach ha-batzek”—this is it, the chemical. They put some chemical in the dough to make it rise. What is its status? It is fruit juice; fruit juices do not leaven. But what about the chemical? “Harei zeh domeh le-shimrei yayin,” like wine sediments, which Tosafot wrote can leaven. So he came up with a chiddush: the chemical they put in is the problem.
“Ve-timhani alav, ki mi ha-navi she-amar lo, she-ha-chomer ha-kimi ha-zeh yesh lo eizeh shayachut kol-shehu le-shimrei yayin?” Which prophet told him that? He’s not happy. Who said this chemical has any connection to wine sediments? We don’t know what this is. Where did you get that from? “We don’t know the status of the chemical. Is it like sediments or not?” But if you’re saying it’s chametz, you need proof. He is asking, which prophet came to him in a dream and told him it is like wine sediments?
He says, “Uchvar ba’u lefanenu shenei anashim yerei Shamayim (Heaven) min ha-mumchim ha-beki’im ba-davar, ve-hisbiru be-verur gamur she-chomer zeh eino mashpi’a al ha-batzek le-hachmitzo kelal.” Two expert men who are yerei Shamayim came before us and explained clearly that this substance does not make the dough leaven at all. “Ve-eino ela ke-menapei’ach be-mash’avah mi-bachutz she-gormet nipu’ach.” It merely makes it puff up. It is not chametz; it is like putting gas in it to make it rise, with nothing to do with chametz. “Aval be-dido didan ha-hatfachah ein lah kol shayachut im chimutz kelal u-khelal.” It is a type of gas they put in there. “They use this today?” They use it today. So he says, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” The rising agent is nothing. Two witnesses told me this.
“U-vikashti mi-yedidi ha-Gaon Maharash Amar, de-mar Amar, she-ye’ayen be-he’arotav shel ha-Rav Bakshi, ve-yeshiveni davar.” I asked my friend Rabbi Amar to look at Rabbi Bakshi’s notes and give me an answer. He sent his next chief rabbi; he sent the henchman after Rabbi Bakshi. That’s right. After looking into it, he wrote a full responsum, at length and in detail, as God gave him the ability, and reached a lenient ruling, permitting it even from the outset. “Chazak u-varuch, Rabbi Amar! Yishar cheilo le-oraita!”
Could you imagine what was going on? There was a machloket (controversy) between the chief rabbis. Rabbi Ovadia had always given a heter in Tel Aviv for a hundred years, and then Rabbi Bakshi came along and said it was chametz, and the whole city went wild: “Did you hear that?” Chacham Ovadia called Rabbi Amar to look at Rabbi Bakshi’s responsum and refute it. He did, and then everybody went back to Ovadia. “What did Rabbi Bakshi say in response?” I don’t know. I don’t have his response in front of me. It is an amazing thing.
“Did the rabbis eat this on Pesach? They had no problem?” I wonder what the Chacham says. Bring the English Yalkut Yosef and see if he talks about it. These controversies make a nice note. It sounds like Rabbi Bakshi was even questioning the custom. “In all fairness, he didn’t say it was prohibited.” He said it had to be questioned—not so simple. So Chacham Ovadia says, “Why isn’t it simple? It’s very simple.” He brought the Chida and many Rishonim. “Did a prophet come to you and tell you it was chametz? Where did you get that from?” The chemicals, the sediments. Gary says this is a juicy piece. Who told you?
And let’s see here. I think at one of the Pesachim when the Rabbi wasn’t here—it was Erev Pesach—they brought it for breakfast. Look at that! They waited until I went away. It was Erev Pesach, and some guys were upset: “What are you doing? You can’t have this.” The Bakshi-Doron guys suddenly came out of the woodwork.
The Talmud teaches that after six hours there is no problem, but much more, you know. Maran Rishon LeTzion testified that the custom of Sephardic Jews is to be lenient according to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch. That is also the ruling of the Peri Chadash, the Shulchan Gavoah, Yachpeh Vechesef, and Rav Chida. The Kaf HaChaim wrote that some Sephardic Jews keep the stringency of kneading dough with fruit juices with the same care and speed as regular matzah. They do it within 18 minutes. That is the Kaf HaChaim’s chumrah (stringency). “Because in case there’s some water?” I don’t know if that is the reason. He says some people do it, but they eat it.
Maran Rishon LeTzion, in a responsum, commented that some authorities questioned the kosher status of matzah ashirah produced in our times, and he refuted their arguments. In that responsum, he proved that it is permissible to add an agent to the rich-matzah dough to make it rise. “What’s the matter?” No, I’m talking about rich matzah, not matzah meal. “Isn’t that flour with juice?” With juice, not regular matzah. You can make matzah meal out of it, but we’re talking about the prohibition of eating matzah on Erev Pesach. We said even matzah meal, even mevushal (cooked), but this is matzah ashirah. So it would be allowed to eat this on Erev Pesach if it was—
In that responsum, he proved that it is permissible to add an agent to the matzah ashirah dough to make it rise, and that this does not make it a leavened product. These agents do not leaven the dough; they only puff it up. There is a difference between puffing and leavening. Leavened grain is the result of a chemical process that takes place when the grain is moistened. The rising agent that puffs up the matzah ashirah does not cause leavening or affect the grain chemically at all. It simply causes gas bubbles to puff up the dough. These are the hard facts, attested to by God-fearing chemists. Wine cookies or cake using these rising agents are perfectly permissible on Pesach. Finish. There you go.
“Did he mention Rabbi Bakshi?” No, he doesn’t even mention him. That’s the whole controversy in a nutshell: the puffing agents. So Chacham Ovadia—“Okay, but Bakshi is telling me it’s a problem. Why go eat it?” Aseh lecha rav (Make for yourself a teacher). What do we need these things on Pesach? Aseh lecha rav. “No, it’s fine. Go eat it.” There are so many other products. Why get involved in a controversy? You have 99 rabbis telling you it’s okay and one rabbi saying it’s poison, cyanide. The Pele Yoetz discusses that. “No, I’d be scared.” You’d be scared? I’d be scared. I don’t need it. There’s no point. We’re relying on these two chemists who came to Chacham Ovadia? They were two God-fearing chemists. I’m not questioning Chacham Ovadia. The takalah (mishap) is not going to come through Chacham Ovadia; there’s no question. That is the reasoning.
All right, everyone. David, manah acharonah le-Pesach (dessert)? Wash down the afikoman (final piece of matzah) with Papouchado cookies? Sugar cookies. I’m not trying to be a wise guy. Maybe there’s another reason. “Chas ve-shalom,” I’m not trying to be a wise guy. Is David going to have some? If Bakshi says that it is chametz, he’ll call it chametz gamur. Then what? The Papouchado guy—no, there was also an article from Chacham Ovadia. Rabbi Bakshi’s yibadel le-chayim, no, but he knocked him out of the water, okay? “But it’s all based on these chemists, right?” If I’m not mistaken—I don’t know why I remember this—Chacham David was against it in his article. He wasn’t happy with the chemical they put in. If I remember, I think his problem was the baker. He didn’t think the baker was so yerei Shamayim (trustworthy). He didn’t trust the whole process; he went to the bakery and didn’t trust the mashgichim (kashrut supervisors), maybe. All right, we’ll have to ask Chacham David when he comes. We’ll stop here.
“Baruch Adonai le-olam (Blessed is Adonai forever),” amen ve-amen.