Daf Ditty 44:from and Murri to Kamach

1 2

3 After discussing leaven in a mixture, the Gemara states a more general principle. Rabbi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to all prohibitions of the Torah, a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance. If one eats a permitted food with a prohibited food, and together they constitute the minimum prohibited measure, he is exempt from punishment for this act of consumption. This principle applies to all halakhot except for the prohibitions of a , who is liable for eating a mixture of that kind, as the Torah said with regard to a nazirite: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, nor shall he drink anything soaked in grapes” (Numbers 6:3). This verse indicates that a nazirite is prohibited from consuming not only wine and vinegar, but also any food that was soaked in these liquids.

And Ze’eiri said: Permitted and prohibited substances also combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as it states: “For no [kol] leaven and no [kol] honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is also liable for sacrificing leaven in a mixture (Tosafot) in addition to the liability for sacrificing pure leaven.

4

Rav sat and stated this that a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance to constitute the requisite measure, except in the case of a nazirite.

5 said to Rav Dimi: And is it true that with regard to all other prohibitions in the Torah, a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance?

But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to thick soup prepared with teruma produce whose garlic and oil are of non-sacred produce, and one who immersed himself during that day touched some of the ingredients, he disqualified all the contents of the pot, as they are subsumed within the teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was prepared with non-sacred produce and the garlic and the oil were of teruma, and one who immersed himself during that day touched some of them, he disqualifies only the ingredients in the place that he touched.

6

Abaye continues. And we discussed this issue: Why are the ingredients in the place that he touched disqualified? The spices, i.e., the garlic or oil, are nullified by the majority. Since the major portion of the dish is composed of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself during that day. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in reply: What is the reason that it becomes disqualified? It is since a non-priest is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of the soup, as anything into which teruma is mixed is considered teruma by Torah law. What are the circumstances of this ruling that a non-priest is flogged? Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance joins together with the prohibited substance?

Rav Dimi said: Rather, what conclusion must be drawn; the reason that a non-priest is flogged for eating the teruma soup is due to the fact that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance? If so, ultimately, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ? Rather, leave Babylonian kutaḥ, as in eating that mixture there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, all the more so, for him to eat it so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips other food into the kutaḥ and eats it, he will not consume an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one needs to add only a small portion to his food.

7

Summary

Rav Avraham Adler writes:1

Permitted foods combining with prohibited food

Rabbi Avahu says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that if permitted food mixed with prohibited food does not combine, except for the foods prohibited to a , as the verse states that the nazir may not eat mishras – soaking, which refers to bread soaked in wine.

Zeiri says that another exception is sourdough which one may not sacrifice, according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the word kol – all teaches us something extra. Since the verse prohibiting one from sacrificing sourdough uses the word kol, it teaches that permitted foods can combine with the prohibited sourdough to make on liable for sacrificing.

The Gemora says that it should also follow that permitted foods can combine with chametz on Pesach, as the verse uses the word kol in the prohibition of chametz. The Gemora says that chametz is included, but highlighted sourdough to teach that one is only liable if he sacrificed at least a kazayis, which is in contrast to Abaye’s position that one is liable for any amount sacrificed.

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Pesachim_44.pdf

8 Touching teruma spices Rav Dimi was sitting and teaching Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that permitted foods don’t combine with prohibited ones.

Abaye challenged it from a Mishna about a – one who immersed in the the same day who touched porridge with spices (e.g., oil, garlic) in it. If the porridge was teruma and the spices are chulin, and he touched the teruma, it is all invalid, as the oil and garlic are considered part of the porridge.

If the porridge is chulin, and the spices are teruma, and he touched the teruma, only what he touched is invalid. The scholars asked why anything is invalid in the second case, as the spices should be considered nullified relevant to the chulin porridge. Rabba bar bar Chana answered that it is invalid, as a non-kohen who eats a kazayis from this porridge would be liable for lashes. Presumably, he would be liable since we consider the whole porridge to be teruma, indicating that the permitted porridge combines with the teruma to be prohibited.

Rav Dimi deflected this by saying that he is liable if he eats a kazayis of the teruma, as long as it is in a mixture that is a pras - half a loaf of bread or smaller, as such a ratio is considered eating a full kazayis in one eating.

Abaye asked Rav Dimi whether this type of mixture is prohibited from the Torah, and he said it is. Abaye said that if this is so, why do the Sages dispute Rabbi Eliezer about kutach – milk and bread dip, and say that one is not liable for eating it on Pesach? Rav Dimi responded that if we accept Abaye’s proof, which would establish that permitted food combines with prohibited food, we would have the same question, as the Sages should say that the whole mixture is prohibited.

Rather, Rav Dimi answers that the composition of kutach makes it impossible for one to be liable for eating a kazayis. If one eats it in the normal way of dipping food in it, he will not have eaten a kazayis in the time it would take to eat half a bread, while if he ate is quickly, it is an abnormal way of eating, for which one isn’t liable.

Kazayis in the span of a pras

Abaye challenged the principle of a kazayis in the span of a pras from a braisa which says that if two mortars, one with teruma spices and one with chulin spices fell into two pots, one of chulin and one of teruma, the chulin pot remains permitted, as we assume that each mortar fell into the matching pot. If a kazayis mixed in a pras is prohibited from the Torah, how can we be so lenient with such a doubt? The Gemora answers that teruma of spices is itself only Rabbinic, and we therefore can be lenient with a doubt.

Abaye challenged this principle from a braisa which says that if two boxes of grain, one of teruma and one of chulin, fell into two bins of grain, one of chulin and one of teruma, the chulin is permitted, as we assume that each box fell into the matching bin. If such a mixture is prohibited from the Torah, why are we lenient with this doubt? The Gemora answers that although teruma of grains is from the Torah, teruma nowadays is all Rabbinic, and we therefore are lenient with a doubt.

9 Taste is like substance

The Gemora challenges Rabbi Yochanan’s use of the word mishras to teach that permitted foods combine with the prohibited nazir foods from a braisa that learns from this word that the taste of a prohibited food is tantamount to its substance. The braisa says that therefore if one soaked grapes in water, giving the water their taste, a nazir is liable for drinking such wine.

We can extrapolate from nazir to all other prohibitions, since nazir has the following lenient aspects, and yet makes anything with its taste prohibited:

1. It is not forever 2. It is not a prohibition on benefit 3. There is a way for it to become permitted

We can certainly apply this to the prohibition of hybrid seeds planted in a vineyard, which is stricter than nazir in all three ways, and to the prohibition of orla – the fruits from the first years of a new tree, which is stricter in two ways, as its fruit is permitted after the third year.

The Gemora answers that this braisa follows the Sages, while Rabbi Yochanan was explaining ’s position.

The Gemora explains that we see Rabbi Akiva’s position in a braisa in which he says that the word mishras teaches that if a nazir soaked bread in wine and ate a kazayis between the bread and wine, he is liable.

Nosein Ta’am L’fgam

The rule regarding “nosein ta’am l’fgam” is a rule that constantly comes up when dealing with questions in the kosher kitchen.

If a person has cooked either milchig or fleishig in a pot, the pot is considered to have a physical presence of whatever was cooked in it for the next twenty-four hours. This is known as a pot that is “ben yomo” – “within its day.”

What exactly does “ben yomo” mean? Does it mean twenty-four hours, or does it possibly mean something else? and Tosfos in (76a, DH “Bas ”) indeed say that it means something else.

They say that it could also be that one full night has passed. This means that if the cooking happened slightly before nightfall, the next morning it is already not a ben yomo. However, many others such as the Aruch quoted by the Rema in Yoreh Dei’ah (94:1), hold that twenty-four hours is required.

This is the opinion that is commonly followed. However, the opinion of Rashi and Tosfos is an opinion that some poskim will use to help form a lenient answer.

10 Therefore, if a kashrus question involves a vessel that did not have twenty-four hours pass, but did pass through the night before the cooking in question, one should mention this to the posek he is consulting.

Mark Kerzner writes:2

In discussing infusions, Abaye asked the following question, "Is it true that eating chametz mixed with other foods is forbidden by the Torah?" Rav Dimi answered him, "Yes." Abaye started attacking this statement.

Take, for example, Babylonian sour dip we had above, which was not prohibited by the Torah and was only removed as a precaution? Rav Dimi answered, "Forget Babylonian sour dip, where the concentration of bread is not sufficient to reach an olive's bulk in normal eating."

This dip is meant to be eaten as a . When one eats it in this way, he does not reach the olive's bulk of bread in the normal period of eating, and so he is not liable from the Torah point of view. Now, if he decides to gulp the dip, then he is not eating like people normally eat, and this is not considered an act of eating - and Torah only prohibits eating chametz, not swallowing it in an abnormal way.

Abaye asked more questions, comparing this to the laws of a nazirite who decides to soak his bread in wine, to meat cooked in milk, and to milk in which meat was cooked, but Rav Dimi was able to answer all of them, so in the end one cannot mix bread into his food and eat it on Passover.

Babylonian sour dip, because it had sour milk and moldy breadcrumbs - ingredients about which people tended to forget; beer from Media - because it had some barley added to it, while most beer brands at the time were made from dates; and wine vinegar from Edom - because it, too, had barley.

Rav Nachman explained: originally wine from Judea would not sour, due to the merit of its being used in the Temple, and to convert it to vinegar one had to add barley. The standard "vinegar" of this time was the one made from Judean wine. However, now it is the wine of Edom that does not sour, so they have to add barley to it, and it is called "Idumean vinegar." Eating a Forbidden Food in an Abnormal Way

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

One of the examples of food mentioned in the first Mishna in our perek, which includes a mixture of hametz and is forbidden to eat on the level of a lav – a simple negative prohibition – rather than

2 http://talmudilluminated.com/pesachim/pesachim44.html 3 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim44/

11 the more severe hiyyuv karet, is Babylonian kutah. This pungent dip made of whey, fermented bread and was used as a condiment, and was not normally eaten by itself.

The Gemara explains that Babylonian kutah does not contain the requisite ka-zayit (olive-sized amount) of hametz eaten tokh k’dei akhilat pras – within the amount of time that it takes to eat half a loaf – since it is not normally eaten on its own. Were someone to try to eat a significant amount of it by itself, it would not be considered a normal way of eating, since no one eats it in such a manner – batla da’atei etzel kol adam – his intent is nullified when compared with normative behavior.

The rishonim differ as to how to approach a forbidden activity done in an abnormal way. According to Rashi, the concept of batla da’atei etzel kol adam indicates that this behavior is so strange that halakha does not view it as “eating” in the normal sense. Therefore, the person doing it will not be held liable at all. Tosafot argue that even someone who behaves in an abnormal manner will be held liable for forbidden acts that he does. By pointing out that such behavior is abnormal and saying batlah da’atei etzel kol adam, the Gemara is merely arguing that such a case is not considered a serious one by the author of the Mishna, and therefore cannot be included as the basis for interpreting disagreements between opinions of the tanna’im that appear there.

In any case, Rabbi Eliezer considered Babylonian kutah to be prohibited on Pesah by the Torah, on the level of a lav; the hakhamim considered it to be forbidden only by rabbinic decree.

12 Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Rebbi Eliezer states that a mixture that contains Chametz (such as the "Kutach ha'Bavli" dish) is forbidden as a Lav by the Torah and one who eats it on Pesach is punished with Malkus. The Gemara says that it is clear that Rebbi Eliezer applies the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" to the Isur of Chametz. Since Rebbi Eliezer says that a mixture that contains Chametz is forbidden, it must be that the permissible part of the mixture combines with the small amount of Chametz to make a full Shi'ur, for which Malkus may be administered. Consequently, in order to be liable for Malkus, one does not have to eat a k'Zayis of the taste of Chametz itself, but merely a k'Zayis of the entire mixture.

Where in the words of Rebbi Eliezer is this implied? Perhaps Rebbi Eliezer does not mean that one is liable because of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." Rather, he means that Kutach ha'Bavli is forbidden because the entire mixture has the taste of Chametz in it ("Ta'am k'Ikar"). (see yesterday’s Daf Ditty) If one does not eat a k'Zayis of the Isur itself, he is not liable; it does not suffice to eat a k'Zayis of the Isur and the Heter together.

Moreover, why do the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer and say that one who eats a mixture that contains Chametz (such as Kutach ha'Bavli) on Pesach is exempt? The Kutach ha'Bavli is a classic case of "Ta'am k'Ikar" in which the taste of the Isur forbids the entire mixture. In such a case, even the Rabanan agree that one is liable! However, when the Gemara challenges the opinion of the Rabanan, it asks only that one should be liable because he ate a k'Zayis of Isur within the time span of "Kedei Achilas Peras." Why does the Gemara not ask that he should be liable even when he eats less than a k'Zayis of Isur within "Kedei Achilas Peras," because of the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar"?

RA'AVAD explains that indeed there is no proof from the that Rebbi Eliezer maintains "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." Rather, the Gemara infers that Rebbi Eliezer maintains "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" from the fact that he expounds the phrase "Kol Machmetzes" (Shemos 12:20) to teach that a mixture that contains Chametz is also Asur mid'Oraisa. It is logical to assume that he also derives from that verse that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" -- "Kol" means anything (even less than a k'Zayis of Isur). (The Ra'avad concludes, however, with a question on this approach. He asks that the verse says "Kol" with regard to many prohibitions, and yet the Gemara does not say that in all of those cases, Rebbi Eliezer maintains "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur."

The Rabanan argue that one is not liable for eating such a mixture with Chametz, even though the Isur (Chametz) gives its taste to the Heter and the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" should apply. The Rabanan maintain that, in this case, Malkus is not administered to one who eats the taste of Isur, because he does not eat a k'Zayis of the taste of Isur within Kedei Achilas Peras.5

Alternatively, the Rabanan maintain that the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" is derived from a Kal v'Chomer (from "Mishras," written with regard to a Nazir who eats bread dipped in wine). Although a prohibition may be derived through a Kal v'Chomer, its punishment may not ("Ein Onshin Min ha'Din"). Therefore, one is not liable for Malkus if he eats a mixture that contains Chametz.

4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-044.htm 5 as the RAMBAN in Milchamos explains, this means that the taste of the Isur is not as strong as it is when there is a k'Zayis of Isur in the mixture

13

RAMBAN, BA'AL HA'ME'OR

A third way to understand the opinion of the Rabanan is that they maintain that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is only a Mitzvas Aseh (according to the opinion that derives it from Gi'ulei Midyan). Therefore, a mixture that is prohibited because of "Ta'am k'Ikar" is not punishable with Malkus.6

BA'AL HA'ME'OR explains that this case is not considered a case of "Nosen Ta'am" (an Isur that gives its taste to a Heter). "Nosen Ta'am" applies only when the taste of the Isur is actually palpable in the mixture. Here, though, the taste of the Chametz is not discernible in the mixture. Rather, the Chametz chemically reacts with the Heter to produce an entirely new taste. Even though the Chametz was added to the mixture in order to contribute to the new taste, the taste of the Chametz itself is not discernible in the mixture and thus it is not called "Nosen Ta'am."

Why, then, does Rebbi Eliezer forbid the mixture? It must be that he forbids it because of the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." (Even though the taste of the Chametz itself is not discernible, the taste of the Chametz is significant because it contributes to the formation of the new taste.) The Rabanan argue and do not derive from the verse that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." Since there is no such principle, and the taste of the Chametz itself is not discernible in the mixture (i.e., there is no "Nosen Ta'am"), such a mixture is not forbidden mid'Oraisa.

RASHI does not seem to follow either of the abovementioned approaches. Rashi writes later (45a, DH Rebbi Akiva) that Kutach ha'Bavli is forbidden because of "Ta'am k'Ikar," and that the reason why the Rabanan exempt a person who eats it is because they maintain that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is mid'Rabanan.

According to Rashi's words, the original question returns. How does the Gemara know that Rebbi Eliezer maintains "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur"? Perhaps his reason for ruling that one who eats Kutach ha'Bavli is liable is because he maintains that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is mid'Oraisa!

NACHALAS DAVID suggests an answer based on an inference from the words of TOSFOS in Nazir (36a). He says that Rashi understands that at this point in the Gemara, Abaye did not know that there is a concept of "Ta'am k'Ikar" mid'Oraisa; he assumed that the prohibition of "Ta'am k'Ikar" is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, his only possible explanation for why Rebbi Eliezer says that one is Chayav mid'Oraisa for eating a mixture that contains Chametz is that he maintains "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." The Gemara concludes that the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" is mid'Oraisa.

However, according to the Gemara's conclusion, why do the Rabanan exempt one who eats Kutach ha'Bavli? Rashi (45a, DH v'Rebbi Akiva) explains that the Rabanan, even in the Gemara's conclusion, maintain that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is not mid'Oraisa but only mid'Rabanan.

Alternatively, it is possible that Rashi maintains that the inference that Rebbi Eliezer maintains "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" is not from the fact that he says that one is liable for eating Kutach ha'Bavli, because the person's liability could be simply because of the law of "Ta'am k'Ikar." Rather, the Gemara's

6 See TOSFOS to Chulin 99a, in the name of RABEINU YOSEF of Orleans.

14 inference is from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer needs a new verse to teach that a mixture that contains Chametz is forbidden. Why does he need a new verse for this if "Ta'am k'Ikar" is derived from other verses?

It must be that the new verse teaches a new principle -- "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur," and it teaches that even if one eats a mixture in which the taste of Isur is not dispersed throughout the entire mixture, one is still liable.

These must be removed on Pesah: Babylonian kutah, Medean beer, Idumean vinegar, Egyptian zitom, The dyer’s pulp, cook’s dough, and the scribes’ paste. Rabbi Eliezer says: women’s ornaments too. This is the general rule: whatever is of a species of grain must be removed on Pesah. These are subject to a warning, but they do not involve karet.

Mishna Pesachim 3:1

15

The Rabbis taught - three things are said about Babylonian kutah it confounds the heart, blinds the eyes, and weakens the body it confounds the heart because of the milk whey, it blinds the eyes because of the salt, and it weakens the body because of the kumnita de-uma

Pesachim 42

A woman who dances to ensure that the kutaḥ, a spice made from whey salt and bread, that she is preparing will be successful, and a woman who silences bystanders to ensure that the lentils will cook properly, and a woman who screams to ensure that the pearl barley will cook properly; all these contain an element of the ways of the Amorite.

16

Shabbat 67b

RASHI

Dances for kutah - when she makes kutah she dances in front of it - a charm that it stronger. Silences for lentils - when she puts them in the pot, she silences all those around so that they will cook, and for barley, she screams.

17

Rav Kook: Ein Ayah, 6:109/ 67b

"One who dances for kutah... - these are Amorite ways."

." תדקרמה ל כ ו חת . . . - שי וב םושמ יכרד ירומאה יכרד םושמ וב שי

םשכ העשרהש ו יטנ התי איה ועמ תתו יכרד םדאה הטמו ותוא יכרדמ יח םי יכרדל ,התימ ךכ איה תנטקמ תא תא תנטקמ איה ךכ ,התימ יכרדל םי יח יכרדמ ותוא הטמו םדאה יכרד תתו ועמ איה התי יטנ ו העשרהש םשכ ירואמ ו הלידגמו תא לכ םירבדה יה רתו ,םינטק ב יע נ י ו , דע אוהש אלממ םהמ תא ושפנ אליממו שי וע יע נ י ו אלו אלו ו י נ יע וע לכוי טיבהל םירבדל םילודג ,םילענו םהש ןוקית םלוע םורב ,ןבומה לדגתמו לע ידי הז חכ ןוימדה לכב ואולימ דע דע ואולימ לכב ןוימדה חכ הז ידי לע לדגתמו ,ןבומה םורב םלוע ןוקית םהש ,םילענו םילודג םירבדל טיבהל לכוי . ןיאש םוקמ לכשל בוט העדלו הרשי רודחל םדאהו ךלוה םיכשח ןיאו נ הגו ול הגו נ ןיאו םיכשח ךלוה םדאהו רודחל הרשי העדלו בוט לכשל םוקמ ןיאש

ואר הי איה החמשה טלבתהל תעב י הלג פל ונינ ןוקית רבדל רבכש דספנ .לקלקתנו תבהא בוטה היואר איה לועפל לועפל איה היואר בוטה תבהא .לקלקתנו דספנ רבכש רבדל ןוקית ונינ נלצא ו תא ,התלועפ נררועל ו חל הוד לכב בוט .חצנמש לבא ,תונטקה איהש דוסי ,העשרה אצמת הל תא םוקמ םוקמ תא הל אצמת ,העשרה דוסי איהש ,תונטקה לבא .חצנמש בוט לכב הוד תולגתה תולעפתה ז ו , רבדב ןטק נטקבש .םי חתוכה אוה דחא ירישכממ לכואה השענש אקוד אמהנמ אשופיעד אשופיעד אמהנמ אקוד השענש לכואה ירישכממ דחא אוה חתוכה .םי נטקבש ןטק רבדב , ו ז תולעפתה תולגתה רחא רבכש א י נ ו אר ו י מצע ו הלכאל - בלחמו ,לקלקתנש יסנ אבו אבלחד - ,רמולכ זמ ןו םילודגה םינטקהו םינטקהו םילודגה ןו זמ ,רמולכ . ולקלקתנש , רזוח ןוקיתל הזיאב ןפוא הזיאב ןוקיתל רזוח , ולקלקתנש

18 תודליה נאה תישו האצומ הל תא םוקמ ,התולעפתה - ומטה הנ הברקב ךרוצל תחמש וקת םנ לש םירבד םילודג םילודג םירבד לש םנ וקת תחמש ךרוצל הברקב הנ ומטה ולקלקתנש םרזחב הבוטל יב םו שובח 'ד תא רבש ומע ומלועו . ו רד יכ ירומאה םיררועמ ךימנהל וכת הנ ז ו יהל תו תו יהל ו ז הנ וכת ךימנהל םיררועמ ירומאה יכ . תדקרמ כל ו חתוכ דר

Just as evil and the inclination towards it twists a person's paths and guides him from the ways of life to the ways of death, so too it reduces his light and aggrandizes all of the smallest things in his eyes, until his soul and his concept of redemption is filled with them, and he's not able to look towards those things that are great and exalted, namely the repair of the world, understood in its greatest way, and through this, the full power of fantasy grows, until there is no room for good discernment or proper consciousness to dwell, and the person walks in darkness, and there is no light for him.

It is fitting for joy to arise when a person sees in front of him the repair of something that was already lost and ruined. It's fitting for the love of good to work its way, to awaken us to joy with every good that triumphs. But small-mindedness, which is the foundation of evil, will find the place of this expression in the smallest of the small. Kutah is a condiment made from moldy bread that is no longer fit to be eaten and from rotten milk - adult food and child food that have spoiled and that have returned to usability in some way.

Child-like-ness finds its place of expression in joy in the repair of great things that have been spoiled, when they return to good - on the day that God binds up the brokenness of his people and his world.

It is an Amorite way to diminish this capacity - to dance (merely sic) for kutah.

RASHI

Dances for kutah - when she makes kutah she dances in front of it - a charm that it get stronger.

19

Drawing from Abu Muhammad al-Muzaffar ibn Sayyar - Kitab al-Tabikh

(The Book of Recipes) 10th Century

Charles Perry7 - "Cooking with the Caliphs"8

The most unexpected flavoring is murri. This was made by wrapping lumps of barley dough in fig leaves so that they would be attacked by mold, then mixing the moldy barley with flour, salt and water and allowing it to ferment for another month or more. The rotted barley paste would then be

7 Written by Charles Perry Illustrated by Linda Sawaya,

8 http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200604/cooking.with.the.caliphs.htm

20 pressed to yield a dark-brown liquid which turns out to taste just like . This whiff of soy ran through the food of the caliphs. The Arab sauce was not borrowed from China, however: Murri was never made from beans and it was always a liquid sauce, while the Chinese product was used as a paste until the 16th century.

For bread, there was a whole range of or dips called kemach. In modern Arabic, this word is sometimes used for vinegar pickles, but the main ninth-century condiment, al-kaamakh al-ahmar, was made by mixing fermented barley —the same material that murri was made of— with milk and salt. The mold quickly gives the milk the flavor of a blue . In fact, blue cheese is made much the same way, by mixing moldy bread with fresh cheese curd.

The difference between blue cheese and al-kaamakh al-ahmar (apart from color: al-kaamakh al- ahmar is a dark reddish brown) is that the Arab condiment wasn’t curdled and pressed to remove moisture, which is what allows cheese to resist spoilage. Al-kaamakh al-ahmar was preserved by its salt. It smelled and tasted like a pungent, salty blue cheese and had a spreadable consistency.

A little over a thousand years ago, an Arab scribe wrote a book he titled Kitab al-Tabikh (The Book of Recipes). It was a collection of recipes from the court of ninth-century Baghdad, for the scribe’s unnamed patron—probably Saif al-Dawlah Al-Hamdani, the culture-minded prince of 10th-century Aleppo—had specifically asked him for the recipes of “kings and caliphs and lords and leaders.” The scribe, Abu Muhammad al-Muzaffar ibn Sayyar, was in a position to oblige, being descended from the old Muslim aristocracy himself.

The most unexpected flavoring is murri. This was made by wrapping lumps of barley dough in fig leaves so that they would be attacked by mold, then mixing the moldy barley with flour, salt and water and allowing it to ferment for another month or more. The rotted barley paste would then be pressed to yield a dark-brown liquid which turns out to taste just like soy sauce. This whiff of soy ran through the food of the caliphs. The Arab sauce was not borrowed from China, however: Murri was never made from beans and it was always a liquid sauce, while the Chinese product was used as a paste until the 16th century.

There are two types of murri known from historical recipes that have survived into the present day. The Iraqi style murri from the 10th century Kitab al-Tabikh by Ibn Sayyar al-Warraq and the 13th century Kitab Wasf al-Atima al-Mutada was made by wetting a combination of ground , barley flour (budhaj flour) and salt and allowing it to ferment. The Maghrebi style of murri described in detail in Kitab Wasf is made only with barley flour, and flavored with carob, stems, citron, pine nuts, mixed spices and bitter orange wood. The consistency is similar to treacle. Kitab Wasf also describes a "Byzantine murri", but it is made with toasted bread instead of spoiled bread and includes caramelized honey. The authors of some Arabic lexicographical wrote that murri may be a word of foreign origin, and based on this some modern scholars have speculated that the word could be derived from the Greek halmyris ('a salty thing' and source for the Latin word for brine, salmuria) and related to the Ancient Roman condiment (or garos in Greek). Although murri is not made with fish, the Arabic translation of Artemidorus' Oneirocritica uses garos for murri. While calling this "a

21 translator's 'bright idea'", Charles Perry, an expert in medieval Arab cuisine, notes that both condiments do share the traits of being fermented, salty liquid seasonings, but it is unknown whether the technique or culinary use of a fermented sauce is of Greek origin. Perry writes that murri may represent "the Greek idea of a salty liquid seasoning as interpreted in the basically Persianized—and fish poor—Near Eastern environment," but cautions that this interpretation has some problems, including recorded recipes of a distinct "Byzantine murri". David Waines, a British scholar of Islamic history, has written that there are two types of murri, "the more usual made from barley flour, and the other from fish." He further explains: There has been much confusion over the exact nature of murri, the prevalent view being that it derived from the roman garum, a fish preparation. In fact, the most common form to which the recipes refer is murri naqi made from cereal grain. The recipe for murri was mistranscribed with the fermenting stage omitted, in a 13th-century text Liber de Ferculis et Condimenti, where it was described as "salty water" elsewhere in the translation.

Traditionally, murri production was undertaken annually in households at the end of March and continued over a period of 90 days.[4] Barley-based murri entails the wrapping of raw barley dough in fig leaves which are left to sit for 40 days. The dough is then ground and mixed with water, salt, and usually additional flour. It is then left to ferment for another 40 days in a warm place. The resulting dark mahogany brown paste, mixed with water to form a liquid, is murri. A fast method for preparing murri is to mix 2 parts barley flour to one part salt and make a loaf that is baked in the oven until hard and then pounded into crumbs to soak in water for a day and a night. This mixture, known as the first murri, is then strained and set aside. Then, raisins, carob, , fennel, nigella, , anis, mace, citron leaf, and pine seed milk are boiled with water and strained. The second murri is then added to the first, and boiled until thickened. Murri mixed with milk was known as kamakh.

Connecting kamach and kutach we return to RASHI

The baraita said: She may not eat together with him things that are bad for her milk. The Gemara asks: What are these foods that are detrimental for milk? Rav Kahana said: For example, hops; and young, green grain sprouts; small fish; and soil. Abaye said: Even pumpkin and quince.

22 said: Even pumpkin and palm branches with small, unripe dates. said: Even kutaḥ [kamka] and small fried fish. All these items are bad, as some cause milk to dry up and some cause milk to spoil.

Rashi 67b

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:9

Mishna Shabbat (6:10, 67a) lists a number of curious objects which Rabbi Meir allows to be the“ – כרד י ומאה ר י carried on Shabbat and which the Sages forbid because they constitute ways of the Emorites”, and the subsequent Gemara then proceeds to discuss a variety of other This . כרד י ומאה ר י items while considering whether their usage falls into the category of discussion then concludes (Shabbat 67b) by informing us that offering a toast with the words wine and life to the mouth of the Rabbis!” does not contravene the“ – ארמח יחו י פל םו בר נ ןנב the ways of the Emorites”, and the Gemara then supports this“ – כרד י מאה ו ר י prohibition of position on the basis of Rabbi Akiva’s actions who, during a feast that he prepared for his son, offered almost the same toast (although in a slightly different order) over each cup of wine that was drunk.

On first glance this ruling seems to be out of place because, while all the previous cases leanings, why would we think that כרד י אה ירומ listed seemed to at least have questionable to כרד י מאה ו ר י would even possibly constitute ארמח יחו י פל םו בר נ ן offering a toast such as require the Gemara to teach us otherwise?

This specific question was raised by Guetta (1777-1857) who answers by referring to a different Gemara ( 70a) which informs us that ‘wine was only created to comfort mourners and to reward the wicked in this word alone as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul” (Mishlei 31:6)’.

wine and life to the“ – ארמח יחו י פל םו בר נ ן Based on this, Rabbi Guetta suggests that the toast mouth of the Rabbis!” is a form of prayer offered by those drinking wine that they do not experience a bereavement, and our Gemara thus comes to inform us such drinking and such . כרד י מאה ו ר י prayers do not contravene

9 https://rabbijohnnysolomon.com/shabbat-67/

23

24 The Soy Sauce That Wasn’t

CHARLES PERRY writes10

In the early Middle Ages, they were making a sort of soy sauce in the Middle East. And amazingly, a recipe for it got translated into Latin.

Or maybe not so amazingly; medieval Europe was curious about the luxuries of the East. So Jambobinus (or maybe Jamboninus) of Cremona, a Spaniard living in 13th century Venice, translated 82 Arabic recipes and made them available to his fellow Europeans as “ Liber de Ferculis et Condimentis " (“The Book of Dishes and Seasonings”). One of those recipes was for murri , the barley soy sauce.

Let us stop and marvel at this idea: soy sauce in medieval Europe. Soy sauce stains on damask robes, a jug of soy in the knight’s saddlebag, barrels of soy aging in the old monastery cellar!

Unfortunately, it was not to be, because Jambobinus blew the translation. The recipe says to wrap loaves of raw barley dough with leaves to infect them with mold and then to let them rot for several weeks--typically in closed containers, so they’d stay damp as long as possible. Then, and only then, would the barley be mixed with water and salt to undergo more microbial action.

But Jambobinus skipped the whole mold-rotting phase of the recipe. He just said to let the barley dough dry out and mix it with water and salt. Anybody who followed his recipe would wind up with a ghastly sort of salty glue. No wonder that elsewhere in the manuscript he explained murri as “salty water.”

So, Europeans never took to adding soy sauce to their pate or sauerbraten or minestrone. And by the 15th century, murri had died out in the Arab countries themselves, no one knows why. End of story, until world trade reintroduced the soy sauce idea to the West centuries later.

A Brief History of Barley11

10 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-oct-31-fo-63688-story.html 11 https://web.archive.org/web/20071016062213/http://www.aaccnet.org/cerealfoodsworld/samplepdfs/CFW-51-0004.pdf

25

26

kasha, kishke and kutach

David Curwin writes:12

For today's post, I'd like to quote from a fascinating book -the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food by Gil Marks. Gil was a brilliant food writer, who sadly passed away last month. His book is full of interesting information about the history of food - as well as great recipes - and I hope to refer to it frequently in the future. May his memory be a blessing.

In an earlier post, I wrote extensively about the etymologies of both the English word "buckwheat" and the Hebrew kusemet. Many of us know the term for cooked buckwheat by the Slavic or Yiddish form of "kasha". Here's a part of the entry for "kasha" in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food:

Cooked cereals subsumed under the term kasha were once served at all Slavic feasts and important occasions ... By the second century CE, a standard Persian dish was kashk (kutach in the and later kishk in Arabic), originally denoting a porridge made from cracked grains fermented with whey, then dried. Later, some Middle Easterners began using keshek or kishk to denote any type of cooked cereal. The Persian name eventually travelled to eastern Europe, becoming the Slavic kasha and encompassing all grain porridges - fine and coarse, thick and thin, sweet and savory. Incidentally, when leftover kashk was stuffed into animal intestines, the dish became kishke (stuffed derma). .... The Slavic word for buckwheat became grechka or grecha ... Consequently, buckwheat porridge is grechnevaya kasha.... Among eastern Ashkenazim, who were not prone to making hot cooked cereals, kashe or kasha in Yiddish took on the meaning of "husked and toasted buckwheat groats."

For those who can't imagine kasha without noodles - kasha varniskhes - Marks provides a brief origin of that term as well. He begins by describing a Russian and Ukrainian dish from the 16th century of meat or cheese filled pasta.

Ukrainians took to calling these filled pasta vareniki (little boiled things), from the Slavic var meaning "to boil" ... Pasta stuffed with this [buckwheat] filling was known as kasha vareniki. Eventually, cooks figured out that it was easier to simply mix the kasha with some cooked noodles than to go through the tedious process of filling the pasta; the resulting dish was called kasha varnishkes.

12 http://www.balashon.com/2015/01/kasha-kishke-and-kutach.html

27 As I've written frequently in the past, food etymologies are among my favorites. Culinary terms are easily borrowed between cultures and lead to stories that are both fascinating and relatively many times in the Talmud but would never have חתוכ easy to trace. I had read the word kutach guessed it was related to kasha or kishke.

In his entry for kashk/kutach (now that is a comprehensive dictionary!), Marks defines it as "dried balls of fermented cracked wheat or barley and yogurt whey that are usually simmered with water into a thick soup", and points out that "Kutach ha'Bavli is among the most commonly mentioned foods in the Talmud", and the fact that the "citation of kutach in the Mishnah, at least four centuries before the earliest record of kashk in a non-Jewish source, reveals that it was well established by 200 CE."

While kutach was loved by the in Central Asia, Marks writes that it "merited extreme scorn among the residents of ." I've personally never tried it - but it does sound interesting. Kasha, on the other hand, is one of my family's favorite comfort foods.

28