The Five Grains

The dominant halachic view concerning the identity of the five grains is they are wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and finally oats. I have written this article for the purposes of refuting this suggestion. I will first start by establishing that despite the opinion of Rashi who I only dispute from the shadow just as long as his, it is good to be machmir in every practical case. The identity of the five grains is for the most part, without a machlokes amongst the rishonim, though I have read convincing but ultimately halachically irrelevant opinions re identifying two of them along with oats, however, the Aruch writes our first record of the machlokes rishonim as to the identity of the fifth grain, that of the shevolos shuel. He quotes two views. The first is shevolos shuel is a type of barley named segala. The second and the view which has become the dominant opinion is shevolos shuel is oats. In this article, I will seek to present enough of a case that one should say hadamah on oats like one would on millet.

To begin with we must categorize and form the set that is the set of five grains. Like all sets within shas, this set is defined through as few members as possible however it seems to me that we can apply the rule of sets here. The undisputed members of the five grains as per the translation of Artscroll on the first mishnah of masechtes Challah are, according to Rashi, wheat, rye, spelt, and barley. This represents three species of wheat as taxonomically all three belong to the genus Triticum. We could thus by utilizing the principle of set creation presume all members of this genus should belong to the set of the five grains.

There is however an issue with this assertion, namely, that if all three of these along with durum are the same kind then they should not be kilayim. The chachumim certainly knew about durum as the Talmud Yerushalmi in Beitziah 1:9 presents the oldest undebatable mention of modern noodles and durum is the type of wheat that would have been utilized for the creation of Italian pasta. There is therefore no reason why chazal could not have denied durum as a member of the five grains. However, Masechtes Kilayim when it lists in the first mishnah the five grains it goes as follows. The wheat and the darnel are not kilayim together. Barley and rye are also not kilayim with each other. And finally, spelt and shevolos shuel are not kilayim. This presents three major difficulties to the previous established set. First of all, every single one of the three members of genus Triticum are kilayim with each other. This presents the quandary about durum and Polish wheat amongst other members of the genus. One can presume that durum as it was known to chazal would if it does not fall under one of these three be mentioned separately. I can make the tentative presumption that durum is considered a subset of wheat, however, much more study of this subject is required.

This is complicated further by Masechtes Menachos 70a which identifies spelt as a type of wheat and rye and shevolos shuel as types of barley. This both saves and destroys an assumption from earlier. It saves the principle of sets that the five grains are the identifying members of the set of five grains. For, we are still left with two members of wheat and three members of barley. This means we can safely apply the law of sets to both the wheat and the barley. However, we are no longer safe to presume every member of the genus Triticum are part of the set of the five grains, rather, each must be paskened and proved by itself.

The case of durum is easily solved and serves to conclusively prove that the principle of sets applies to the five grains, for in Berachos 37b a pasta dish with honey is identified as having the brachah of mezonos which places it amongst the five grains. As such we can safely presume that durum falls under wheat, as for if they are kilayim I have not heard the law. One snag in this kilayim as a whole. For, spelt should not be kilayim with wheat and wheat should be kilayim with darnel. Wheat and darnel are easily excused as the origin of darnel is in a neis during the time before the mabul according to the Bartenura where the people sowed wheat and darnel grew. This therefore has nothing to say on the question at hand. This is a proof that the set of five grains has absolutely no relevance to the issue of kilayim as Menachos and Kilayim are in direct contradiction with each other. Even according to the scholarship of Dr. Felix, the taxonomic theory established above must be dismissed as he re-identified what we called spelt as emmer wheat and what we called rye as spelt. As spelt is part of genus Triticum, we must according to all opinions dismiss the significance of modern taxonomic theory towards the establishment of the set of the five grains.

It should be noted that even if we hold by the research of Dr. Felix, we do not need to alter any rulings for if the two other grains are spelt and rye, al pi Rashi, or emmer wheat and spelt al pi Dr. Felix. One would still make the brachah of mezonos on emmer wheat and rye at any rate. Ergo the more practical question is concerning oats which we will now turn to.

As we have now established the four certain candidates that are parts of the five grains which are wheat, rye, spelt, and barley. We can also identify the following three grains that are certainly not part of the five grains in order to aid our search for the characteristics of the set. These are, as identified by Yerushalmi Challah, millet and rice. In addition, I would like to humbly add corn as a grain that rather belongs in the category of almost mezonos or even fake mezonos as the Mishneh Berurah remarks it really should be the law of rice. Fortunately for us, we do not need to speculate, the five grains become chametz as said by the Yerushalmi as well as Menachos. Millet and rice merely ferment. We must therefore discuss briefly the science of chametz. Chametz is formed through the chemical reaction of glucose through the yeast fermenting the glucose into carbon dioxide and ethanol. The gluten is then required to trap the carbon dioxide. This is why it is a requirement to knead the dough which releases the carbon dioxide. However, one could say, what about 18 minutes? The answer is the ethanol itself in the cooking process will serve to inflate the bread which means 18 minutes approximately is how long it takes to accumulate enough ethanol to puff up the bread thus making it chametz. Thus, the five grains must be every grain that ferments and contains gluten. We can further prove this by the fact that millet, rice, and corn are all gluten-free. Therefore, taking into account both the gemara as well as set reasoning, we can conclude that any member of the five grains must contain glucose and gluten. This neatly dodges the dispute as to the identity of spelt and rye as at any rate spelt is included and rye contains both gluten and glucose meaning that it can become chametz and should thus be hamotzi.

We are however left with a serious issue as if we go according to Rashi and other rishonim oats simply does not fit within the set that we have established. The set of the five grains is defined as any grain with glucose and gluten. Oats are gluten-free and thus do not fit the set. Oats simply cannot rise and indeed this is a known issue as oat matzah will naturally go rancid within 90 days. This should be combined as a proof for the Rambam so as to press down the scales so to speak, as alone science cannot overrule mesorah however it can tip the scales between a machlokes. And additional feature of oats which was brought to my attention by a freind is that oats are commonly in some cultures eaten raw. On the other hand, wheat and barley along with their set members cannot be eaten raw and must be at minimum cooked into a porrige.

Practically, this line of reasoning has two ramifications. We shall discuss the more easily resolved ramification first. As only the five grains, and somewhat rice, are classified as mezonos only these receive that brachah. Indeed, the proof for durum being part of the five grains is that a food made from durum is ascribed as having the brachah of mezonos. As such, if oats is not one of the five grains, then it should not have the brachah of mezonos. Brachos are especially nogiah as if oats is not mezonos this means there are thousands if not more of brachos levatillah being uttered daily. Fortunately brachos are easily resolved as if one says a more broad brachah then the brachah still applies and it is not considered in vain. As such we can see that by all opinions if one says hadamah on oats then he is yotzeh while if one says mezonos according to the Rambam and the reasoning that has been presented above one has committed the sin of saying the name of the Almighty in vain. As such, one should certainly say hadamah over oats and say a borei nepheshos.

An additional ramification is that of oat matzah. I am not a rav and thus cannot speak on this matter and as the issue is not clear to me and involves many issues such as celiacs I will not comment and advise that someone consults their local orthodox Rabbi.

We can therefore see from the reasoning elaborated above that oats is not part of the five grains, rather, the identity of shevolos shuel is that of the other opinion of the Aruch which is segala. As such, one should certainly if possible avoid oat matzah and should say hadamah upon oats. It should be noted that oat bread is an issue as birkas hamazon is a dorisa and as such, even though we are in doubt about the status of oats, while the initial brachah is in doubt, the brachah achrona is not in doubt presuming that enough oats is consumed. As such, because mezonos is bdieved still a good brachah upon oats and because if one eats enough mezonos one is chayiv for birkas hamazon, it seems to me that one could make mezonos on oat bread and then consume enough for birkas hamazon thus managing every opinion. This is only for the gluten intolerant however. Someone who is gluten tolerant should therefore mix into the oat bread or cake enough wheat flour in order to affect the taste which I have read in one of the sources below is approximately ten percent. In doing this, one enables himself to make a hamatzi and say birkas hamazon without any doubts. For cooked oats not in bread, as al hamichya is a drabba, the suffeik still applies and therefore as stated above, one should make hadamah and a borei nepheshos.