Gluten free oats

Avodah
1

Thank you for your post.

from https://www.shop.gfoats.com.au/pages/frequently-asked-questions
Q. So why aren’t they labelled gluten free?
A. Due to restrictions in the current Australian labelling laws, we are
unable to make a claim on packaging that any product containing oats are
gluten free. However we have our latest Gluten Free Test results displayed
under the compliance tab with corresponding batch numbers to show you that
these oats are tested to <3ppm.

The Elisa Testing Equipment for the detection of gluten cannot evaluate
less than 3ppm. All products on the market that are labelled gluten-free in
Australia will test to <3ppm which equates to ‘0’ or nil detected.

Oats are naturally GF becoming contaminated at the farm if grown close to,
or from being processed in facilities with gluten grains.

Oats are sourced from GF Harvest in Wyoming, USA. No gluten has been grown
on their land for at least 2 years. All machinery and storage are
exclusively non-gluten. Each field is thoroughly inspected, at least six
times during the growing season to ensure no stray glutinous species are
growing in the field.

which rekindles the Q = are oats one of the five grains?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837

2

To me the question is multi-part:

1- Does "chameishes minim" and the idea that all 5 are subtypes of chitah
& se'orah have anything to do with biology? If so, Rashi's identification
of shibboles shu'al is a non-starter. Biologically, oats are an entirely
different thing.

2- Does the difference between chameitz and sircha really boil down to
gluten? If chameitz had a scientific definition similar to "leavened",
then why the limitation on which liquids are in the dough? Again, if it
is, oats cannot be one of the 5 grains, as they have no "gluten"; the
topic of this discussion until this hijacking post.

(Tangent: Dew and other water are considered different liquids, e.g. in
makhshirei tum'ah. Would dough made with dew only be assur derabbanan?)

3- If the answer to both of those questions is no, minim and chameitz are
both based on sociology and how humans relate to the kind of grain and the
kind of leavening, or anything else but biology and chemistry... Then and
only then can we can ask whether oats qualify.

I hear that oats and barley are often grown together. Maybe that's the
basis of Rashi's position. In people's minds, they are parts of a single
crop.

Or maybe the majority of rishonim are correct.

Tangent: BTW, often with a third partner -- beans. Thus the English
children's song about "Oats and Beans and Barley grow". Which changes
the whole way I would look at qitniyos. If oats are a min of barley
by farming association, why are beans only assur by minhag and not as
deOraisa as oats? Or, because it is a less common member of the crop,
at least derabbanan!)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

3

.
R' Micha Berger wrote:

1- Does "chameishes minim" and the idea that all 5 are subtypes
of chitah & se'orah have anything to do with biology? ...

2- Does the difference between chameitz and sircha really boil
down to gluten? If chameitz had a scientific definition similar
to "leavened", then why the limitation on which liquids are in
the dough? ...

I won't pretend to have *learned* it, but I did *read* the first few pages
of the Yerushalmi on Challah, and I'm fascinated by it. I recommend it to
anyone who has access to the ArtScroll, especially English page 1b1.

If I'm understanding it correctly, while it is true that chitah and se'orah
are mentioned in the Torah by name, the other three grains aren't, and
Chazal had no problem conducting experiments, to find empirical evidence
about which grains produce chimutz and which produce sirchon. These
experiments were so extensive that the Yerushalmi mentions some grains
about which the evidence was inconclusive and/or debated. It even talks
about whether a chopped apple in dough can develop chimutz.

Why is this discussion in Challah instead of Pesachim? The Mishna Challah
opens with the assertion that only doughs of the Five Minim are obligated
in challah, and that this is learned from a connection of "lechem-lechem",
teaching us that only the sort of lechem that is relevant to Pesach (i.e.,
can become chametz or matzah) is the sort of lechem that is relevant to
challah.

So my answer to RMB's first question is that the difference between the
Five Grains and All Other Grains has nothing to do with Torah, and
everything to do with Science.

There is no Mesorah, or Halacha LMoshe Misinai, or anything like that,
which instructs us about the difference between chametz and matzah. Rather,
Chazal knew chimutz when they saw it, and they knew sirchon when they saw
it, and (despite some inconclusive or arguable datapoints) that is the sum
total of what we have to go by. Their peer-reviewed findings were published
in the Yerushalmi, subject to the interpretations of sages through the
centuries. Tze Ul'mad about the five grains, and about other grains, and
about mei peiros, etc etc etc.

And my answer to RMB's second question is: Your very question illustrates
how little we know about this stuff. To the best of our knowledge, mei
peiros are mostly water and should therefore cause chimutz, but in fact
they cause sirchon (Rambam as cited by MB 462:4 and Shaar Hatziyun 462:3).
Maybe we have been fooled and gluten has nothing to do with chimutz; or
maybe gluten does cause chimutz but the sugar content inhibits it. Who
knows? Who even has a way of figuring it out?

To figure it out, we would have to find someone who can tell the difference
between chimutz and sirchon by looking at it. And they died ages ago. I am
reminded of a conversation we had here a few years ago, regarding whether
modern kitchen utensils absorb flavors like Chazal's utensils did. It is
very tempting to say that ours are much smoother and cleaner, but without a
proper Control Group it is all just conjecture.

Akiva Miller

PS: RMB also asked:

(Tangent: Dew and other water are considered different liquids,
e.g. in makhshirei tum'ah. Would dough made with dew only be
assur derabbanan?)

Mechaber 466:5 says that dew *IS* machmitz. See there for several other
water-based liquids which are or are not machmitz. (BTW, I'm no expert in
this. I simply googled "chametz dew", and the sixth hit was exactly what I
was looking for.)

4

I disagree. This is how I understood the gemara. (Which I did learn,
but only at daf yomi pace and 2 cycles ago.)

The burden of proof is on the one who says there was a machloqes in
metzi'us. So let's see if that is really the most compelling read of
the Y-mi.

The Yerushalmi (Challah 1b; Pesachim 17a) records a dispute between
the Chakhamim, who said that chameitz cannot be made from rice flour,
and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri who said that it could. So, the gemara
suggests, "So check it!" A scientific determination! But it turns out
they did check it, but the two sides disputed about "iqar bediqasah --
the essence of the check." I took this to mean the argument was over
how to explain the result.

It is science's job to define the possible physical states reality
could be in. It is the poseiq's job to tell us which of those states
are included in a halachic statement, and which not.

To the Rabanan, the physical state they saw when they looked at
what happened to rice dough was in the halachic set of states we call
"sirchon", to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, the result is "chimutz". Knowing
the science is not enough to know how to categorize it halachically.
We can have a machloqes about how far from wheat flour and water the
"chameitz" line goes, while still knowing exactly how far from it rice
flour and water is.

Besides, if chameitz were experimentally defined, wouldn't wheat with 100%
apple juice also be chameitz deOraisa?

(BTW, I apply similar reasoning to "death". Science can define and
show us how to determine brain death, brain stem death, cessation of
signals from the brain to the lungs and or heart, end of breath, final
heartbeat... But it cannot tell a poseiq when someone is halachically a
"meis", which of those states qualify.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

5

.
R' Micha Berger wrote:

The Yerushalmi (Challah 1b; Pesachim 17a) records a dispute
between the Chakhamim, who said that chameitz cannot be made
from rice flour, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri who said that it
could. So, the gemara suggests, "So check it!" A scientific
determination! ...
...
To the Rabanan, the physical state they saw when they looked at
what happened to rice dough was in the halachic set of states
we call "sirchon", to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, the result is
"chimutz". Knowing the science is not enough to know how to
categorize it halachically. ...

RMB is presuming that chimutz and sirchon are halachic categories. That
idea had not occurred to me; from the context of the story, I had presumed
that they are scientific (linguistic, culinary) categories. But now that I
am thinking about it, I don't think there is any real evidence to support
either view. All we really know from the Gemara is that they disagreed
about what conclusions can be drawn from the experiment, even though they
both saw the results with their own eyes. This does not prove that
chimutz/sirchon don't have objective scientific definitions - It is an
everyday occurrence that scientists disagree about how to interpret the
results of their own experiments!

To what may the matter be compared? Let's take an example of dam nida. Two
qualified people look at the same stain, and one feels the color is tamei
while the other feels that the color is tahor. One possibility is that they
would both describe that color the exact same way, but one understands that
particular shade to be tamei while the other holds that shade to be tahor.
There is no disagreement about the facts, only about what RMB might call
"the halachic set of states we call 'tamei'".

But there is another reason they might disagree. It could be that they
perceive the color itself differently. One looks at it and feels that the
particular shade of red is in the tamei category, but the other looks at
the same stain and feels that it isn't really red at all, but that it looks
more like another color. If that sounds crazy, look again at "The dress". (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress)

Besides, if chameitz were experimentally defined, wouldn't
wheat with 100% apple juice also be chameitz deOraisa?

Logically, you're making a good point. Logically, apple juice (with its
high water content) ought to cause chimutz just like water does. But it
seems to me that our culinary experience has proven to all of us that it
doesn't.

It seems to me that some defining characteristics of leavened bread is its
fluffiness and stringiness. Can you explain to me why mei peiros fails to
put those qualities into the dough? The overwhelming majority of breads
contain significant amounts of water, and the overwhelming majority of
cakes and cookies contain no water at all -- except for the water that's in
the eggs, and the juice, and the milk. Why don't these other ingredients
give cake batter properties similar to bread dough?

(I still remember when I first learned about Pas Habaa B'kisnin, and the
differences between Hamotzi and Mezonos. One day I spent about an hour or
two in the supermarket, looking at the ingredients of almost every package
of bread, cake, and cookie in the store (both kosher and not). I was amazed
at how almost every single bread had significant amounts of water, while
only a few cakes and cookies had even small amounts.)

Akiva Miller