Daf Ditty: Beitzah 34: Artichoke Wars

1
2
MISHNA: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated the following leniency: A person may stand over
objects in storage, such as produce that he has for some reason previously set aside from use,

on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year, during which no tithes are separated, which means
one may take fruit on the following day without the need for any corrective measure, and say:
From here, from these fruits, I will eat tomorrow. And the Rabbis say: He may not eat unless
he marks the pile of fruit the day before and explicitly says: From here to there I will take.

3
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: (Ma'asrot 4:2) Children who hid figs for themselves
in a field on Shabbat eve in order to eat them on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not separate
tithes, not only are they prohibited from eating them on Shabbat, for eating on Shabbat is always
considered a fixed meal that obligates the produce in tithes, but even after the conclusion of
Shabbat, they may not eat until they have separated tithes. And we also learned in a mishna:
One who transfers figs in his courtyard in order to make them into dry figs, his children and
the members of his household may in the meantime partake of them in a casual manner, and
they are exempt from tithes. The fact that the fruit has reached his courtyard, as opposed to his
house, is not enough to cause it to be liable for tithing.

4
Based on these two sources, Rava inquired of Rav Naḥman: With regard to Shabbat, what is
the halakha in terms of whether it establishes an obligation to tithe food that has been muktze
on Shabbat? Specifically, in the case of an item whose labor has not been completed,does the
fact that the food is muktze on Shabbat give it the status of completely prepared food, or not? Do
we say that since it is written:

,a‫ִמַשָּׁבּת ַרְגֶל‬ ‫ָתִּשׁיב‬-‫יג ִאם‬ 13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from
‫ ְבּיוֹם ָקְדִשׁי; ְוָק ָראָת‬a‫ֲﬠשׂוֹת ֲחָפֶצ‬ pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath
,‫ ִלְקדוֹשׁ ְיהָוה ְמֻכָבּד‬,‫שָּׁבּת ֹעֶנג‬ ַ ‫ַל‬ a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt
‫ ִמְמּצוֹא‬,a‫ְוִכַבְּדתּוֹ ֵמֲﬠשׂוֹת ְדּ ָרֶכי‬ honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy
.‫ ְוַדֵבּר ָדָּבר‬a‫ֶחְפְצ‬ business, nor speaking thereof;
Isa 58:13

“And call Shabbat a delight” this implies that any food one eats on Shabbat is considered a
delight and not a casual meal, and therefore Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe, as if the
food were fully completed and fit to be eaten as a fixed meal, even for an item that has not had
its labor completed?

Or perhaps Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe an item whose labor is completed, but
regarding an item whose labor is not completed it does not establish an obligation to tithe?

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: We, too, have learned in the mishna: And Rabbi Eliezer
further stated that a person may stand over objects in the storage area on Shabbat eve during
the Sabbatical Year and say: I will eat from here and here. The reason is that it is fruit of the

5
Sabbatical Year, with regard to which one is not obligated to separate tithes. However, if it
occurred in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, so too, you will say that it is prohibited to
eat them without separating tithes. What is the reason for this? Is it not because Shabbat
establishes them with regard to tithes, and consequently they not be eaten until tithes have been
separated?

6
Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Shabbat establishes the obligation for tithes, both with regard to an
item whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed. Rava said to Rav
Naḥman and challenged: But say that the law of Shabbat should be similar to that of a courtyard:
Just as a courtyard establishes food placed inside it as a fixed meal with regard to tithes only
when the work on an item is completed, so too, Shabbat should establish only an item whose
work is completed as liable for tithing. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: I did not say this based on my
own logic, which can be countered by logic of your own. Rather, we have it as an ordered
teaching that Shabbat establishes both things whose work is completed and things whose
work is not completed.

Summary

Rabbi Eliezer further said: A man may stand near his “muktzeh” on the eve of Shabbat in the
sabbatical year and say: “From here I will eat tomorrow.” But the sages say: [This doesn’t work]
unless he marks it out and says, “From here to there.” 1

These words of Rabbi Eliezer are a continuation of his words above in mishnah six, which dealt
with muktzeh. The word “muktzeh” here refers, according to its accepted interpretation, to a place
1
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Beitzah.4.7?lang=bi&with=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mishnah&lang2=en

7
where a person has set his fruit to dry out (dates, figs and grapes). In order for these fruits to be
available for use on Yom Tov, in other words in order for the things in the “muktzeh” to not be
“muktzeh”, one must designate them for use before Yom Tov.

Furthermore, this can only happen on the Sabbatical year during which one doesn’t have to
separate tithes. During the other years because the fruit in the muktzeh has not generally been
tithed, and it is forbidden to tithe on Yom Tov, one cannot eat them on Yom Tov even if he had
designated them for use. He could only eat them if they had already been tithed.

The mishnah now brings a debate concerning how one designates drying fruit for use. According
to Rabbi Eliezer all one needs to do is say “From here I will eat.” The rabbis are stricter and rule
that he must point specifically to the area of fruit from which he will eat. Just as Rabbi Eliezer was
more lenient in mishnah six, so too he is more lenient than the other sages here.

HEATING AN EMPTY POT

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that every participant is liable in a case in which, on
Shabbos, one person brings the fire, another person brings the wood, another places the pot on the
fire, another brings the water to put in the pot, another places the spices into the pot, and another
person mixes it all. The Gemara asks why the person who places the pot on the fire is liable if the
pot is empty and he cooks nothing. The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that he brought a
new pot and placed it on the fire, thereby making it stronger and completing the utensil.

RASHI (DH u'Mishum) explains that the Gemara means that the person who places the empty pot
on the fire transgresses an Isur d'Rabanan -- the Gezeirah not to heat a shingle. Rashi apparently
understands that the act of placing a pot on a fire constitutes an Isur d'Rabanan. The Beraisa,
however, states that one is Chayav for the act. This clearly implies that the act of placing the empty
pot on the fire constitutes an Isur d'Oraisa. Although the word "Chayav" in the Beraisa can be
interpreted to mean that one is Chayav for Malkus mid'Rabanan (as the Gemara says in Shabbos
40b), this is not the simple meaning of "Chayav." For what reason does Rashi interpret the Beraisa
in a manner different from its simple meaning? (ROSH YOSEF, BIGDEI YOM TOV)

The Gemara earlier records a dispute concerning the reason for why the Mishnah prohibits heating
shingles on Yom Tov in order to roast meat on them. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah refers
to new shingles. One opinion says that heating new shingles is prohibited because the heating
process reinforces them, and it is considered as though one thereby completes the formation of the
item (Tikun Kli). Another opinion says that it is prohibited because the heating process tends to

2
https://dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-034.htm

8
cause the shingles to crack (and become unusable), and one will have performed a "Tircha she'Lo
l'Tzorech," an unnecessary act of exertion on Yom Tov.

Both opinions agree that the shingles which the Mishnah prohibits one from heating are new. If
the act of heating a new clay object completes it and constitutes an Isur d'Oraisa (Libun Re'afim),
then why does the other opinion find it necessary to explain that the prohibition of heating shingles
is not because of Libun Re'afim, but because of an Isur d'Rabanan that the shingles might crack?
Certainly the two opinions do not argue over why one heats shingles, for such a question could be
easily resolved by asking a potter. Moreover, it is obvious that an earthenware shingle (or pot) is
useless before it is fired, and that firing it renders it a usable utensil (see 32a).

To answer this question, Rashi explains that the "new" shingles to which the Gemara refers are not
shingles which have not yet been fired. Rather, they are shingles which have been fired but are
still new. The prohibition of heating these shingles is only an Isur d'Rabanan. They are certainly
fit to be used without further heating, and therefore they are considered to be finished already and
one does not "complete" them when he heats them. Rather, the only problem with re-firing new
shingles is "Tikun Kli d'Rabanan" (like the cases in the Mishnah on 32b), as re-firing the shingles
strengthens them more to some degree. The other opinion, that re-firing the shingles is prohibited
because the shingles might break, maintains that there is no problem of "Tikun Kli d'Rabanan"
because no physical change in the shingle is evident after it is re-fired. Since the Gemara compares
heating a new pot to heating shingles, Rashi finds it necessary to explain that heating the new pot
is also prohibited only d'Rabanan.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 3:11) and RIF were apparently bothered by Rashi's question
of how the Amora'im could argue about whether or not there is an Isur against heating new, unfired
shingles on Yom Tov. To resolve this question, they explained that according to the opinion that
the Mishnah's Isur against heating shingles is because it reinforces them, the Mishnah is not
discussing new shingles at all (for it would be unnecessary for the Mishnah to teach that firing not-
yet-fired shingles is prohibited mid'Oraisa). Rather, the Mishnah is discussing old shingles
(MAGID MISHNEH, based on an inference from the fact that the Rambam and Rif do not
mention that the Mishnah is discussing new shingles). When the Gemara says that one may not
heat a new pot because of Libun Re'afim, it refers to the Isur of "Tzarich l'Badkan," i.e., that the
pot may crack from the heat and one will have performed a "Tircha she'Lo l'Tzorech" (LECHEM
MISHNEH ibid.). According to the Rambam and Rif, the Beraisa prescribes Malkus d'Rabanan
for the one who heats the pot, and not Malkus d'Oraisa, as Rashi explains.

TEARING A CLOTH INADVERTENTLY ON YOM TOV

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that one may shatter a nut inside of a cloth on Yom Tov,
and there is no concern that the cloth will tear. RASHI (DH v'Ein Chosheshin) explains that there
is no concern that the cloth will tear because even if it does tear one has not performed an Isur
d'Oraisa. (In order to be an Isur d'Oraisa, one must perform an act of "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor."
Here, he does not tear it in order to sew it up again differently, and therefore he is permitted
l'Chatchilah to shatter the nut inside the cloth.

9
Why does Rashi explain that the reason why one may shatter the nut inside the cloth is because
even if the cloth tears he has not performed an act of "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor"? Rashi should give
a much more basic reason for why there is no concern that the cloth will tear: the act is a "Davar
she'Eino Miskaven" (he has no intent to tear the cloth, and it is not a Pesik Reshei, an unavoidable
outcome, that the cloth will tear), and therefore the act is permitted l'Chatchilah, as Rashi himself
writes earlier (33a, DH v'Hilchasa), in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. The
exemption of "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" applies to all Melachos and not just to Kore'a, while the
reason of "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor" applies only to the Melachah of Kore'a. Why does Rashi
mention the unique exemption in the laws of Kore'a, and not the general exemption of "Davar
she'Eino Miskaven"? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER in GILYON HA'SHAS)

The CHILUFEI GIRSA'OS (in the back of the Vilna edition of the Gemara) answers that Rashi's
explanation here is consistent with his opinion elsewhere. In Yoma (34b, DH b'Chol ha'Torah),
Rashi writes that even according to Rebbi Yehudah who prohibits a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven,"
the act is prohibited only in the case of an Isur d'Oraisa. Rebbi Yehudah permits one to do an Isur
d'Rabanan in a manner that is "Eino Miskaven" (see Tosfos there who argues).

Rashi here says that one may shatter the nut even according to Rebbi Yehudah because there is no
Isur d'Oraisa involved. That is, Rashi indeed permits one to shatter the nut because, as Rebbi Akiva
Eiger says, the act is a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven." Rashi mentions that the act is not "Kore'a Al
Menas Litfor" merely to show that even Rebbi Yehudah permits this case of "Davar she'Eino
Miskaven" because it is an Isur d'Rabanan. (See also the SHA'AR HA'TZIYUN to OC 508:8.)

Why, though, does Rashi find it necessary to explain the Beraisa according to the opinion of Rebbi
Yehudah?

The Chilufei Girsa'os suggests that Rashi is bothered by the fact that the Beraisa specifically
permits one to tear a cloth in a manner that is "Eino Miskaven," which is an Isur d'Rabanan since
it is not done "Al Menas Litfor." However, if the Beraisa's intention is to teach that one is permitted
to do a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven," then it should have discussed a case in which the act is an
Isur d'Oraisa! It must be that the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who maintains
that a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" is prohibited, and in this case it is permitted only because the
act involved is an Isur d'Rabanan. Rashi is saying that the act is permitted because, as Rebbi Akiva
Eiger asks, it is a "Davar she'Eino Miskaven." Rashi adds that it is not "Kore'a Al Menas Litfor"
merely to show that even Rebbi Yehudah permits this case of "Davar she'Eino Miskaven" because
it is an Isur d'Rabanan.

RAV YEHUDAH LANDY suggests an even simpler reason for why Rashi wants the Beraisa to
conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, even though the Halachah does not follow his
opinion. This Beraisa is actually a Tosefta. It is the conclusion of the Tosefta cited a line earlier
which prohibits fixing a broken skewer. Rashi (DH v'Ein Metaknin) is bothered by the fact that
the Halachah is that one is permitted to fix a broken skewer, in accordance with the view of Rebbi
Yehudah who permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (on 28b). Why, then, does the Beraisa prohibit
fixing a skewer on Yom Tov? Rashi offers two solutions: First, the Tosefta is expressing the
opinion of the Chachamim who disagree with Rebbi Yehudah and prohibit Machshirei Ochel

10
Nefesh on Yom Tov. Alternatively, it is expressing the Halachic opinion, that of Rebbi Yehudah
who permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh on Yom Tov, but it is discussing a skewer that was
broken before Yom Tov. Machshirei Ochel Nefesh that could have been done before Yom Tov are
not permitted on Yom Tov.

Rashi wants the beginning of the Tosefta to comply with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah with regard
to Machshirei Ochel Nefesh, since his opinion is the Halachic opinion in this regard. However,
Rashi cannot explain that the beginning of the Tosefta follows Rebbi Yehudah's opinion if the end
of the Tosefta does not. Therefore, when he comments on the end of the Tosefta (which discusses
shattering a nut inside a cloth), Rashi explains it according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah with
regard to "Davar she'Eino Miskaven," even though his opinion is not the Halachic opinion in that
regard.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

In preparing food to eat on Yom Tov, we must be sensitive to the fact that some foods involve so
much hard work which can be done prior to the holiday that it is recommended they not be bothered
with on Yom Tov or done only in an unusual manner.

An example of this is cutting off excess leaves from vegetables, which cannot be done with
the scissors that are normally used for this purpose. Even so, foods whose preparation is
complicated can be cooked and eaten on Yom Tov. Kundas (artichokes) and akaviyot (cardoon) are
examples of such foods. The kundas is identified as Cynara scolymus – the Globe artichoke – a
perennial, thistle-like plant that grows to a height of one meter. Akaviyot are identified as Cynara
cardunculus – cardoon – which is a member of the thistle family and related to the Globe artichoke.

Whole Globe artichokes are prepared for cooking by removing all but approximately 5-10 mm of
the stem and (optionally) cutting away about a quarter of each scale with scissors, which removes
the thorns that can interfere with the handling of the leaves while eating. And while the flower
buds of the cardoon can be eaten much like the artichoke, the stems are generally made edible by
blanching, when they are tied together and stored for some time.

Another type of food that cannot be eaten without effort is nuts. The Gemara quotes
a baraita which permits wrapping nuts in cloth and cracking them, even if the cloth will tear.
The Ran presents this as a case where several nuts are placed in a covering and broken all at once
with a hammer. There is no concern that the cloth will tear, either because there is no intention to
tear the cloth, or, as Rashi suggests, this is at worst a case of mekalkel – a destructive activity –
which is not forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov.

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_2834/

11
Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 498:8) rules that it is permitted to slaughter a chicken that has been
trampled, and we are not concerned that an inspection of the animal will reveal it as a tereifa. ‫יעקב‬
‫ ישועות‬notes an inconsistency with this ruling from a parallel case.4

In Hilchos Shabbos, the ‫ מחבר‬writes (331:10) that a mohel who has never performed a milah
before may not perform his first milah on Shabbos, as we are afraid that he might err and not
succeed in doing the milah properly this first time. This would result in a violation of Shabbos
without the justification of having done the mitzvah. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion
of the ‫ מרדכי‬Chullin #958.

Why does the halacha not express caution regarding possible violation of Yom Tov in the case of
slaughter of a possible tereifa bird (which must be inspected after ‫ ) שחיטה‬yet we prevent a mohel
from doing a milah on Shabbos due to our initial concern of possible chillul Shabbos in case he is
unsuccessful? ‫ יעקב ישועות‬answers that our Mishnah disallows heating of new tiles.

One opinion in the Gemara explains that heating tiles is only prohibited because it definitely cures
the ceramic (‫( לחסמן‬Accordingly, if the tile must simply be checked (‫ )לבדקן‬heating it would be
allowed, and even if the tile would break and the heating of the oven would be end up being for
naught, it is permitted due to the doubt.

Accordingly, we allow slaughter of a trampled chicken because the act of ‫ שחיטה‬is essentially
permitted for the sake of food preparation. Even if the bird is damaged, slaughtering it is a
permitted act. However, in regard to milah, causing an injury is not allowed on Shabbos. The only
reason the mohel can justify his act is if he is performing a kosher milah, and until such time the
act of cutting is in violation of Shabbos. 1:23 (‫ )יעקב שבות‬answers that the Torah only allows milah
on Shabbos when it is relatively certain that the mitzvah will be fulfilled, and not when there is a
doubt whether the act will be complete (a first-time mohel).

This is as opposed to food preparation on Yom Tov which may be done even if it is uncertain if
the food will be eaten (the possibility that guests might come is enough of a reason to allow cooking
on Yom Tov).

It was taught in a Beraisa: If one brings a fire … and one brings the water … they are all liable
[i.e. they are in violation of a Biblical prohibition.]

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20034.pdf

12
The Radvaz (1) writes that cooking a food that is edible raw does not violate the Biblical
prohibition against cooking. As proof he cites the halacha of cooking a food that already reached
the minimal stage of edibility ‫ דרוסאי בן כמאכל‬.Just like one is not liable for cooking a food that was
already cooked to a stage of minimal edibility, so too cooking a food that can be eaten raw does
not violate the Biblical prohibition.

Rambam (2), on the other hand, rules that one is liable for cooking water, even though water does
not require cooking to be drinkable. Seemingly, Rambam is consistent on this matter because he
rules (3) that one is exempt for cooking a fully cooked food, thus implying that if the food is not
fully cooked one is liable even though it is minimally edible. In summary, according to Radvaz
there is no Biblical liability for cooking foods that do not require cooking, whether because they
are edible without cooking or whether they are edible because they have already been partially
cooked. According to Rambam there is Biblical liability.

The Pri Chadash (4) cites our Beraisa as support for Rambam. Our Beraisa states that one who
brings water and puts it in the pot on the fire is liable, which clearly indicates that there is Biblical
liability for cooking water. Mishnah Berurah (5) cites both opinions on this matter and concludes
that the strict ruling of Shulchan Aruch should be practiced and one should treat cooking water as
a Biblical prohibition. B’dieved, however, the food would not be prohibited (6) .

On our daf, we find a reference to a Beraisa regarding partial acts of cooking on Shabbos. It says,
“If one person lights the flame, another places the wood, yet another places the pot on the stove,
a fourth pours in the water, another adds spices, and still another stirs…all of them are liable.”
These partial acts of cooking all contribute to a whole prohibition.

As we see from the following story, some would even consider failure of a bystander to protest
such an act as tantamount to abetting the crime.

13
Once, Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, zt”l, was informed that an ostensibly observant Jew had been
seen violating the Shabbos by lighting a fire. The Rav rushed to the home of the perpetrator and,
indeed, spied a column of smoke rising from the man’s chimney.

Without even so much as knocking, the Rav burst in the house and exclaimed, “Could it be that
you profaned the holy Shabbos and lit a fire? It’s an act that is liable for ‫ !“ כרת‬The homeowner
remained absolutely calm. With aplomb, he retorted with a question of his own. “How can you
burst into my house without even knocking?” the man fired back. “Is this proper etiquette—to
barge into another man’s domicile without even asking his permission?

Have you no respect for the rights of a man over his own private space?” Rav Sonnenfeld shot
back vehemently, “Rules of etiquette hardly apply when there is clear and present danger to life
and limb! I heard that there was a fire in your house— naturally, I burst in to try and avert the
catastrophe!”

Ben Harris writes:5

If you took the SAT prior to 2005, you’re familiar with the analogy section. These were questions
designed to test your ability to identify the relationship between two concepts, an ability long
considered key to making viable logical inferences. Their removal was bemoaned in some quarters
as the harbinger of a society unable to distinguish true analogies from false ones and thus
susceptible to all sorts of overheated comparisons.

The rabbis of the Talmud may well have agreed. On today’s daf, the Gemara cites a teaching that,
on first glance, bears no connection to the larger topic under discussion in this tractate.

Jewish law states that if an animal is to be slaughtered for food, it cannot have certain defects or
serious injuries. Such an animal is known as a tereifa. But a mishnah in Chullin 52a states that if
a person trampled a bird, or threw it against a wall, or crushed it so that it cannot stand, the bird
can still be slaughtered for food if it survives for 24 hours. A second opinion, attributed to Rabbi
Elazar bar Yannai in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Antigonus, says the bird is only kosher if it is
also inspected after the slaughter to ensure it has no further defects.

The Gemara then records a question that brings this teaching home for the purposes of the larger
topic addressed in our tractate:

Rabbi Yirmeya inquired of Rabbi Zeira: What is the halakhah with regard to slaughtering it on
a festival? Do we assume on a festival that it has a flaw or not?

Rabbi Yirmeya wants to know what happens if the 24-hour waiting period expires on a festival.
Can one assume, as the first opinion suggests, that a bird that survives that long after suffering one
of those three injuries is fit to eat? If so, there should be no issue slaughtering it on a festival. But
if there’s concern the bird might be discovered to have a defect after the fact, then maybe

5
Myjewishlearning.com

14
slaughtering it on a festival should be prohibited, since slaughtering a bird that cannot be eaten
would constitute an act of forbidden labor.

To answer this question, the Gemara tries to make an analogy between the suspect bird and a
teaching in the last mishnah that barred the “whitening” — i.e. heating with white-hot heat — of
tiles on a festival. On first glance, this law doesn’t make sense. Cooking is permitted on a festival,
so what’s the problem with heating tiles that would then be used as a cooking surface?

On yesterday’s daf, the rabbis gave the answer: The mishnah is referring only to new tiles. What’s
the issue with new tiles? There are two possibilities. One is that new tiles haven’t been tested yet
and we don’t know if they’re sturdy enough to withstand the heat. If they’re not, and they break, a
prohibited action was performed. Alternatively, new tiles have to be hardened at high heat before
use, and that act of preparing a vessel for use on a festival isn’t allowed.

In attempting to answer Rabbi Yirmeya’s query, Rabbi Zeira makes an analogy between the
suspect tiles and the suspect bird. Since we don’t allow burning of new tiles on a festival because
we’re unsure if they are going to break, we also shouldn’t take a chance and slaughter an injured
bird on a festival that might turn out to be unkosher.

Sounds like some sound logic. Except Rabbi Zeira’s position is only viable if we follow the first
reason for why whitening tiles is barred on a festival. If it’s because they have to be hardened first,
then there’s no basis from that teaching to prohibit slaughtering the suspected tereifa on a festival.

We’ve seen digressions of this sort again and again in the Talmud — and in secular law too, for
that matter. Analogizing between different bits of law isn't a simple matter, and often involves
answering a host of possible objections to ensure the comparison is a valid one.

The rabbis are masters at this type of thinking, even if their logic and finely grained distinctions
can be dizzying at times. (There’s a reason “talmudic” has a dictionary entry.) Their commitment
to deriving the proper conclusions, as we know, ran deep. And getting their conclusions right
required, among other logical tools, making finely tuned analogies. Without that, the whole
talmudic enterprise collapses.

Critics of the SAT change made much the same argument about societal discourse. They would
likely have found a receptive audience for their claims among the ancient rabbis — if not among
SAT test takers of the future.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

On our daf (Beitzah 34a) we are taught a Beraita which describes an unusual situation where a
number of people play a role in the forbidden act of cooking on Shabbat: ‘If one brings the fire,
and one brings the wood, and one places the pot in position, and one brings the water, and one
adds spices, and one stirs, all are liable’.

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

15
As the Rambam (Shabbat 9:4) explains, this is because ‘anyone who performs an activity that is
necessary for cooking is considered as [having performed that forbidden labour]’.

However, the Rambam then proceeds to add that: ‘if, by contrast, one put down the pot, another
came and added water, another came and added meat, another came and added spices, another
came and brought fire, another came and placed wood on the fire, and another came and stirred,
it is only the latter two who are liable for cooking.’

What we see from here is that while many people can be involved in a particular activity, there is
a marked difference between active participants in an activity, and critical participants who enable
that activity. And in the second case, though it may be true that everyone plays a role, it seems
clear that some roles are more fundamental than others, and consequently, some roles carry more
responsibility than others.

Given this, what is the difference between the first case where everyone is responsible, and the
second when only some are? Clearly order is a factor - in terms of which action is performed first.
However, there a second factor, as noted by the Kesef Mishne (in his commentary to the Rambam)
while quoting his teacher Rav Ya'akov bei Rav, which is that the first case involves a group of
individuals who, aside from performing their actions virtually simultaneously, they also do so with
a shared intent. And in such a situation, all are considered responsible for the action.

Ultimately, timing – in terms of what is done and when it is performed – is a factor in the role that
an individual plays in an activity. But so too is intent. And if a team is made up of individuals with
shared intentions, they are then considered to have performed the task together.

Roasting after Cooking

Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon writes:7

Mishna Berura

As we may recall, according to the Yere’im, one should be stringent not only
about bishul after afiya or tzeliya (cooking after baking or roasting), but the reverse as well. In
light of this, the Mishna Berura (318:41) writes:

Therefore, it is forbidden to put a cooked item next to the fire without sauce. In fact, this
is not limited to placing it by the fire, for the same applies in every case that it may end
up roasted by the heat of the oven, and therefore one must be careful not to put cooked

7
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox

16
 meat without sauce in the oven in a place that is yad soledet bo (scalding), even if one
places a pot in between.

In other words, when one heats up cooked meat without sauce, one violates the prohibition
of tzeliya achar bishul. This is also how Rav Neuwirth rules (Shemirat Shabbat Ke-
hilkhata 1:60):

One may not put cooked meat on a pot lid standing on a flame, because the cooked meat
becomes roasted in the heat.

As a result, we have a great stringency: we learned in previous weeks that one may heat
food on Shabbat itself, as long as one removes the sauce from it, so that one will not cook a cooled
liquid. However, according to what we saw now from the Mishna Berura and Rav Neuwirth, one
cannot heat food on Shabbat even in this way, because of tzeliya achar bishul. In their view, it
turns out that there is no way to heat cooked food on Shabbat; one may only heat baked items that
were initially heated without sauce, such as bourekas and the like.

Justifying the Custom

However, it seems that we may justify the common custom (as long as it does not
violate mechzi ke-mevashel, having the appearance of bishul, a topic we will discuss more in future
weeks). The various allowances for this come from the Acharonim, who struggle with
the Shulchan Arukh’s ruling (318:15):

Whatever is fully cooked and is solid — i.e., there is no soup [or gravy] in it — may be
put next to the flame, even in a place that is yad soledet bo.

The Shulchan Arukh allows putting a dry cooked food by the fire, even though this causes
it to be roasted, and this would indicate that there is no problem
of tzeliya achar bishul. The Bei’ur Halakha (ad loc., s.v. Ve-hu yavesh) challenges this in the
name of the Beit Meir:

This requires analysis, for above in paragraph 5 he cites the view of the Yere’im (that
there is a prohibition of bishul achar tzeliya). See also the Magen Avraham there, who
holds the converse (tzeliya achar bishul) applies, so how can he allow this unreservedly?

In other words, the Shulchan Arukh originally cites both views about bishul achar
afiya or tzeliya, which makes it sound like he is careful to follow the view of the Yere’im as
well. However, here he explicitly writes against his view that there is no problem of tzeliya achar
bishul!

The simple answer to this question is that the Shulchan Arukh cites both views in paragraph
5; however, he rules like the lenient view (as his language indicates): there is no problem
of bishul achar afiya, and therefore in paragraph 15 he continues with this line of thinking and

17
rules that there is no problem of tzeliya achar bishul. This is how Rav Ovadya Yosef rules
(Yechaveh Daat, Vol. II, ch. 44; Livyat Chen, no. 49).

However, there are Acharonim who set out other answers to this question, and their
words provide other reasons to be lenient about heating cooked food, even according to those
who are concerned about bishul achar afiya. We will analyze for of those explanations now.

Minchat Kohen: No Prohibition of Afiya or Tzeliya achar Bishul

The Minchat Kohen (II, ch. 4) explains that the Shulchan Arukh forbids bishul achar
afiya or tzeliya, but he does not forbid afiya or tzeliya achar bishul. While, the Yere’im explicitly
forbids both of these, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh only cite his words in part.

Know, in the view of the Yere’im, tzeliya and afiya apply (are forbidden) after bishul,
and it is forbidden by the Torah to put cooked meat near the fire in a place that is yad
soledet bo, even though there is no soup in it, because it will become roasted there…
However, I see that there is no one who is concerned about this matter at all, and also
the Tur does not cite the law in the name of the Yere’im — namely, that there is [a
prohibition of] tzeliya achar bishul. The Beit Yosef allows it clearly, and writes at the
end of ch. 318 that according to everyone, something that is fully cooked and dry, which
has no soup in it, may be put by the fire even in a spot that is yad soledet bo; this is what
he wrote as well in Shulchan Arukh, paragraph 15…

Behold, the master [Yere’im] equates the law of tzeliya achar bishul to the law of bishul
achar tzeliya… Now, in the first part, the Tur and Rav Karo follow the master’s view,
but in the second part they do not pay attention to his words at all; on the contrary, they
clearly allow it…

It may be that the logic behind this ruling is that there is nothing stronger than cooking,
and therefore after baking or roasting, cooking still has significance; however after cooking, there
is no meaning to baking or roasting.

Eglei Tal: He Merely Intends to Heat and Not to Cook

2) Eglei Tal (Ofeh, 18) explains otherwise:

18
 Since originally it was cooked and now one roasts it, which is also considered bishul,
one is not considered to be performing labor unless one makes it better than it was
before. For issues of Shabbat, the Torah forbids melekhet machshevet (thoughtful
labor), and when it is roasted and one wants to make it cooked, since according to his
thought, cooking is better than roasting, one is liable… However, one who puts cooked
food near the flame in order to heat it does not seek to dry it out, but only to warm it;
thus, one is not considered to have performed the labor of bishul.

According to this, once a food has been baked or cooked, there is no liability for a further
act of cooking or baking, unless this improves the food somehow (comparable to writing on top of
existing letters, for which one is not liable unless the second writing is somehow better). The
relevant question is one of intent: does the person aim to prepare the food with a different
technique or merely to warm it up? The former is forbidden, while the latter is allowed.

Chazon Ish: It Won’t End Up Roasted

3) The Chazon Ish (37:14) explains differently:

You must say that for anything that will not acquire the true taste of roasting but merely
dry up a bit, this is not bishul achar bishul.

In his view, since the food will not acquire the taste of roasting but instead will only dry
out a bit, this is not considered roasting. According to the Chazon Ish, it appears that this is not
dependent on the person’s intent, as the Eglei Tal posits; rather, objectively, an act such as this is
not considered roasting but heating. It appears that in his view, the prohibition is violated
only when one puts new flavor in the food, but if one only heats the food, and the food does not
have the status of a roasted dish, there is no prohibition in this.

Heating Food in a Pot is Cooking, Not Roasting

4) The Chazon Ish offers another answer:

It is possible that pot roast has the status of “cooked” for this issue, and specifically
roasting over coals or a spit constitutes tzeliya achar bishul.

His intent is that since we do not heat the meat on the fire itself, but in a pot, this is not
roasting. In Pesachim 41a, “pot roast” is defined as cooking in a vessel with no other liquids than
its own gravy, and for the paschal offering, it is considered bishul rather than tzeliya. The Chazon
Ish suggests applying those rules for issues of Shabbat as well, and thus only roasting over coals
or a spit and the like is forbidden after bishul, while making a pot roast is the same as bishul and
is not forbidden after bishul.

19
Halakha

Whether according to Minchat Kohen, Eglei Tal or Chazon Ish, there is no prohibition to
heat dry cooked food on Shabbat, even according to the stringent view
forbidding bishul achar afiya, when there is no intent to roast the food and it will not acquire the
taste of a roast, particularly when it situated in a pot. To these Acharonim, we may add the view
of Rishonim who believe that there is no prohibition of bishul after afiya or tzeliya and vice versa.

It appears, if so, that one may be lenient and heat a cooked, dry food as a matter of
practical halakha, particularly if it is situated in a pot.[1]

Stirring

Is one allowed to stir food in a pot on the fire?

May one stir a pot after it has been removed from the fire?
May one remove food from a pot on the fire with a spoon?

Biblical Prohibition

Our Daf Beitza (34a) quotes a beraita:

It was taught: “If one brings the fire, and another brings the wood, and another puts the
pot on the fire, and another brings the water, and other puts in the spices, and another
stirs, they are all liable.”

This beraita explains that hagasa (stirring) of a pot on Shabbat is a Biblical

prohibition. However, some questions remain:

A) The beraita discusses a pot on the fire — what about a pot that has been removed from
the fire?
B) Does this prohibition apply to food that has already been cooked?

Pot Removed from the Fire

The mishna (17b) deals with the dyer’s cauldron. The Gemara (18b) says that the mishna
is discussing a case of a pot removed from the fire. Nonetheless the Gemara asks: “Should we not
be concerned that he will stir it (meigis)?” From the words of the Gemara it turns out that even
after removing the pot from the fire hagasa is forbidden.

The Rishonim disagree as to which prohibition is being violated. Rashi (s.v. Meigis)
explains:

20
 “Meigis” — turning it over; because it cooks as a result, this is [a violation of] bishul.

In other words, in the action of hagasa, one violates the prohibition of cooking.[2] This is how the
Ramban explains as well. In a similar vein, the Rashba (ad loc.) explains:

From this that we say, “This refers to a kettle removed and sealed,” this implies that even
if it is removed, meigis still applies, for hagasa in a keli rishon (primary vessel) is
like bishul.

On the other hand, Tosafot (s.v. Dilma) explain that the prohibition is “because of dyeing
(tzove’a),” another one of the forbidden labors of Shabbat. It may be that they write this because,
in their view, there is no way to speak of the prohibition of cooking when stirring a pot does not
sit on the fire. This is how the Maharsha explains: “Since this [pot] is removed [from the fire], it
appears that cooking is not applicable, but only dyeing.”

The view of the Rambam is also that the prohibition of bishul can only apply when the pot
is on the fire. The Rambam (3:11) writes:

It is forbidden to insert a ladle into a pot to remove food while it is on a fire on Shabbat,

because while doing so, one stirs it, which is one of the activities necessary for

cooking. Thus, it is considered like cooking on Shabbat.

This indicates that meigis is a problem only if the pot is sitting on the flame.[3]

Basis of the Dispute

The simple approach would suggest that hagasa is forbidden because it accelerates the

cooking. Those who allow hagasa of a vessel removed from the fire believe, apparently,

that hagasa accelerates the bishul by bringing part of the food closer to the fire. Therefore, if the

pot is not on the fire, there is no prohibition of meigis. On the other hand, those who

forbid meigis even in a pot off the fire apparently believe that the acceleration of bishul occurs by

the very mixing (perhaps the upper parts are heated by the lower parts), and therefore the

prohibition is applicable even when the pot is not on the fire.

Fully-Cooked Dish

21
 The Ramban and Rashba (18b) ask how one may take the food out of the pot after it has

been removed from the fire — why would this not violate the prohibition of meigis? One of the

answers that they suggest is that the dish has already been adequately cooked. (See note 8 of our

first shiur, where we explain that for these Rishonim the level need only be that of ma’akhal ben

Derusai (minimally cooked). Halakhically this only applies to foods fully cooked).

The Rashba writes:

Moreover, I would say that anything cooked to the level of ma’akhal ben Derusai has no

issue of meigis, because meigis renders one liable because of bishul, and once it has

reached the level of ma’akhal ben Derusai, there is no longer an issue of bishul.

The Rashba explains simply that meigis is prohibited because it accelerates the cooking,

and naturally if bishul no longer applies, there is no prohibition of meigis. Therefore, since

once a food is fully cooked, we apply the rule of ein bishul achar bishul, the prohibition

of meigis is no longer applicable to it.

Kol Bo

On the other hand, the Kol Bo (ch. 31, 32a, cited by Beit Yosef, ch. 253, s.v. Katuv Be-

Nimukei Yosef) believes that even if the food is fully cooked, hagasa is forbidden as long as the

pot is on the fire:

It is the common custom for women to put boiling water in hot food… but they must be

careful not to put the water in while the pot is still on the fire, because they mix and they

stir the pot in order to blend it well, and we have established that meigis is liable because

of bishul even for a cooked dish, as long as it is on the fire.

Mahari Weil

22
 The Mahari Weil (Dinin Ve-halakhot, no. 30, cited in Darkei Moshe, end ch. 318)

expresses a more extreme view that forbids meigis even in a fully cooked pot that has been

removed from the fire:

When the pot is removed from the fire, and one wants to take the food out, one must not

stir it with a spoon, because this is bishul… This is what I have found to be the custom

in the house of the Mahari of blessed memory.

These approaches are quite perplexing, as the food has been fully cooked and no longer

has a prohibition of bishul. Why then is there a prohibition of meigis? This is the question we

find in Shaar Ha-tziyun (318:148):

I do not know the reason for this. How could meigis be more efficacious than

actual bishul? All of the authorities concede that once a food is fully cooked, [the

prohibition of] bishul no longer applies…

Rav Moshe Feinstein (OC, Part 4, ch. 74, bishul, 9) explains the Kol Bo:

I find some logic in this, in my humble opinion, because even though the pot is fully

cooked, he believes that it often happens that there are bits not adequately cooked, albeit

edible; this is only because the overwhelming majority of the pot is fully cooked,

and hagasa while on the fire causes these bits to become cooked as well.

Root of the Prohibition

We may take a different tack, explaining that we have a consistent argument about the

basis of the prohibition of meigis. One may understand the fundamental prohibition in one of

two ways:

23
 A) Accelerating cooking — hagasa accelerates the completion of cooking. This is what

the Me’iri writes (73a, s.v. Ha-zoreia), that “whatever hastens baking or cooking, such as mixing

and stirring in a pot… makes one liable for bishul.”

B) New facet of cooking — hagasa adds to food an unprecedented new facet and quality.[4]

According to the former view, it is clear that the prohibition is only applicable if the
cooking process has not been completed. According to the latter, one should forbid hagasa of
fully-cooked dishes as well, since the hagasa adds another facet to the bishul.[5]

To summarize: most authorities (Ramban, Rashba, et al.) believe that there is no

prohibition of hagasa of an item that has been fully cooked. On the other hand, some (Kol Bo,
Mahari Weil) believe that there is a problem of hagasa even for fully-cooked dishes, and in their
view, it appears that this action adds a new facet beyond the result of regular bishul.[6]
REMOVING WITH A SPOON

Before we see the halakhic ruling concerning meigis, we must address an additional
question: is it only actual mixing of the dish that is forbidden, or is it even forbidden to remove
food with a spoon, as this causes a certain agitation of the food as a byproduct?

Rambam

This is what the Rambam (3:11) states:

It is forbidden to insert a ladle into a pot to remove food while it is on a fire on Shabbat,

because while doing so, one stirs it, which is one of the activities necessary for

cooking. Thus, it is considered like cooking on Shabbat…

Thus, the Rambam seems to indicate that removing with a spoon is forbidden, but only

rabbinically (“like cooking”[7]), as the Maggid Mishneh writes:

It appears to me that our master is not speaking of a fully-cooked dish, because there

certainly even if it is returned to the fire and cooked, one is not liable… Since this is

true, one should not decree against putting in the spoon, but if it is not cooked, one must

be concerned about his view… As long as one is not liable for the stirring, putting in

the spoon is allowed, but if one is liable, it is forbidden to insert it.

24
 In other words, in a case in which stirring is biblically prohibited, the Sages ban removing

with a spoon; when stirring is not biblically prohibited, removing with a spoon is totally

permissible. Therefore, if the food is not fully cooked, there is a rabbinical ban of removing with

the spoon (while if it is fully cooked, there is no biblical prohibition of meigis, so one may take

out food with a spoon).

Beit Yosef

A more stringent view is expressed by the Beit Yosef (end ch. 318, s.v. Katav Ha-Ran) in

the words of the Ran (6b, Rif, s.v. U-mide’amar):

The Ran writes in the first chapter of Shabbat… from here we see that if a boiling pot

was removed from the fire, if the food inside is not yet ma’akhal ben Derusai it is

forbidden to remove food from it with a spoon, one will end up being meigis and there is

an issue of bishul, but a vessel that has been cooked to the point of ma’akhal ben

Derusai there is no need to be concerned [about meigis].

In his view, if one removes food from a dish that has not been fully cooked, “one will end up

being meigis and there is an issue of bishul,” which implies that removing food with the spoon

is meigis and Biblically prohibited.

This is also what the Rosh implies (1:34):

Even though it was removed from the fire, as long as it is seething, stirring it is cooking

it, and all the more so it is forbidden to put a spoon in a pot when it still on the stove.

This is also indicated by the Radbaz (Responsa, Vol. III, ch. 411).

Raavad

The third view comes from the Raavad, who comments on the Rambam’s ruling (ad loc.):

He has gone too far, forbidding even removing from the pot with a ladle.

25
 The Raavad believes, apparently, that there is no prohibition to remove food with a spoon.

The Dispute

We may explain this as follows: if stirring adds a new facet to the food, this applies only

when the food is mixed, since this adds another quality to the food;[8] however

if hagasa accelerates the cooking, there is reason to make one liable for removal of the spoon,

because one thereby brings part of the food close to the fire, and causes it to cook more quickly.8

[1]
As we have said, this is only allowed if one manages to overcome the rabbinical prohibition of mechzi ke-mevashel, as we
shall discuss in the future.
[2]
This is how the Rosh (3:11) explains Rashi’s words, but some understand Rashi’s words differently
(see Maharshal, Chokhmat Shelomo ad loc.).
[3]
This is how the Lechem Mishneh understands the view of the Rambam, while the Kesef Mishneh understands that being “on
a fire” is not integral.
[4]
This is implied by what the Rambam (9:11) writes, ruling that one who wrings out a garment from the water in it is liable for
laundering and he explains that “Wringing out a garment is one of the activities necessary for laundering, as stirring is one of the
activities necessary for cooking.” In wringing, it is clear that there is a new act: soaking and scrubbing remove the dirt from the
garment, and the wringing removes the water from it, thus adding a new facet to it. We may thus understand that the stirring gives
the food something that it did not have previously.
Moreover, we may understand that the basis of the prohibition is that stirring is an integral technique — this is the way of the cooks,
as it were. See Ran 6b, Rif, s.v. U-mide’amar, concerning the statement “it is the way of the dyers to constantly stir it.” However,
this is not the place to elaborate.
[5]
The Rambam’s language (3:11) indicates that there is a prohibition of meigis also for a fully-cooked food, and this dovetails
with what we have derived from his words (see previous note) that the stirring adds another facet to the bishul. However,
the Maggid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh understand that the Rambam considers one liable only when the food has not yet been
fully cooked.
[6]
The Ritva (18b) writes that to be meigis something sitting on the fire that is fully cooked is rabbinically prohibited, as
the Maggid Mishneh explains in the view of the Rambam (9:4; 3:11). According to this view, it may be that we are talking about
a decree lest someone stir that which is not yet fully cooked. The Tiferet Shemuel (Rosh 3:16) writes the following: the Sages
forbid being meigis even a cooked dish, lest one come to regard a dish as fully cooked mistakenly, incurring a capital liability. On
other hand, it may be that to be meigis a cooked dish on the fire is a problem of mechzi ke-mevashel, as the Eglei Tal (Ofeh 17)
indicates.
[7]
Aside from this, the Rambam uses the language of “forbidden,” which usually indicates a rabbinical prohibition, unlike his
words in the context of actual meigis (9:4), where he uses the term “liable” (“and another stirs, they are all liable for cooking”),
which relates to a biblical prohibition.
[8]
This is the case unless we say that there is a pesik reisha (an inevitable result): one will certainly stir a bit when one removes
food with a spoon.

8
Translated by Rav Yosef Bloch

26
 Artichoke head with flower in bloom

The globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus),[1] also known by the names French
artichoke and green artichoke in the U.S.,[2] is a variety of a species of thistle cultivated as a
food.9
The edible portion of the plant consists of the flower buds before the flowers come into bloom.
The budding artichoke flower-head is a cluster of many budding small flowers (an inflorescence),
together with many bracts, on an edible base. Once the buds bloom, the structure changes to a
coarse, barely edible form. Another variety of the same species is the cardoon, a perennial
plant native to the Mediterranean region. Both wild forms and cultivated varieties (cultivars) exist.

Description
This vegetable grows to 1.4–2 m (4 ft 7 in–6 ft 7 in) tall, with arching, deeply lobed, silvery,
glaucous-green leaves 50–83 cm (19+1⁄2–32+1⁄2 in) long. The flowers develop in a large head from
an edible bud about 8–15 cm (3–6 in) diameter with numerous triangular scales; the individual
florets are purple. The edible portions of the buds consist primarily of the fleshy lower portions of
the involucral bracts and the base, known as the heart; the mass of immature florets in the center
of the bud is called the choke or beard. These are inedible in older, larger flowers.

Etymology
The English word artichoke was borrowed in the sixteenth century from the northern Italian
word articiocco (the standard modern Italian being carciofo). The Italian term was itself borrowed
either from Spanish alcarchofa (today usually alcachofa) or directly from the source of the
Spanish word—medieval Andalusi Arabic ‫(اﻟﺨﺮﺷﻮﻓﺔ‬al-kharshūfa, including the Arabic definite
article al). The Arabic form kharshūfa is still used in Maghrebi Arabic today, while other variants
in Arabic include kharshafa, and Modern Standard Arabic khurshūfa. These Arabic forms
9
wikipedia

27
themselves derive from classical Arabic ‫(ﺣﺮﺷﻔﺔ‬ḥarshafa), but the origins of that word are not
clear.[5][6] Other languages which derive their word for the artichoke from Arabic include Israeli
Hebrew, which has the word ‫(ֻח ְרָשׁף‬khursháf).
Despite being borrowed from Arabic, European terms for the artichoke have in turn influenced
Arabic in their own right. For example, the modern Levantine Arabic term for artichoke is ‫أرﺿﻲ‬
‫(ﺷﻮﻛﻲ‬ʔarḍī shawkī). This literally means 'earthy thorny', and is an Arabicisation (through phono-
semantic matching) of the English word artichoke or other European terms like it.[7][8]: 213–214 
As in the case of Levantine Arabic ʔarḍī shawkī, names for the artichoke have frequently changed
form due to folk etymology and phono-semantic matching. The Italian form articiocco seems to
have been adapted to correspond to Italian arci- ('arch-, chief') and ciocco ('stump'). Forms of the
French word artichaut (which also derives from Arabic, possibly via Spanish) have over the years
included artichaud (corresponding to chaud, 'warm') and artihault (corresponding to haut,
'height'). Forms found in English have included hartichoak, corresponding to heart and choke,
provoking elaborate explanations about the power of the vegetable to choke its eaters or to take
over a garden, choking out other plants.[5][7]

Early history of use

The artichoke is a domesticated variety of the wild cardoon (Cynara cardunculus),[9] which is
native to the Mediterranean area.[1] There was debate over whether the artichoke was a food among
the ancient Greeks and Romans, or whether that cultivar was developed later, with Classical
sources preferring instead to the wild cardoon.[10][11]
The cardoon is mentioned as a garden plant in the 8th century BCE by Homer and Hesiod. Pliny
the Elder mentioned growing of 'carduus' in Carthage and Cordoba.[12] In North Africa, where it is
still found in the wild state, the seeds of artichokes, probably cultivated, were found during the
excavation of Roman-period Mons Claudianus in Egypt.[13] Varieties of artichokes were cultivated
in Sicily beginning in the classical period of the ancient Greeks; the Greeks calling them kaktos.
In that period, the Greeks ate the leaves and flower heads, which cultivation had already improved
from the wild form.
The Romans called the vegetable carduus (hence the name cardoon). Further improvement in the
cultivated form appears to have taken place in the medieval period in Muslim Spain and
the Maghreb, although the evidence is inferential only.[14] By the twelfth century, it was being
mentioned in the compendious guide to farming composed by Ibn al-'Awwam in Seville (though
it does not appear in earlier major Andalusian Arabic works on agriculture), and in Germany
by Hildegard von Bingen.[15]
Le Roy Ladurie, in his book Les Paysans de Languedoc, has documented the spread of artichoke
cultivation in Italy and southern France in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, when the artichoke
appeared as a new arrival with a new name, which may be taken to indicate an arrival of an
improved cultivated variety:
The blossom of the thistle, improved by the Arabs, passed from Naples to Florence in 1466, carried
by Philippo Strozzi. Towards 1480 it is noticed in Venice, as a curiosity. But very soon veers
towards the northwest ... Artichoke beds are mentioned in Avignon by the notaries from 1532
onward; from the principal towns they spread into the hinterlands ... appearing
as carchofas at Cavaillon in 1541, at Chateauneuf du Pape in 1553, at Orange in 1554. The local

28
name remains carchofas, from the Italian carciofo ... They are very small, the size of a hen's egg
... and are still considered a luxury, a vaguely aphrodisiac tidbit that one preserved in sugar
syrup.[16]
The Dutch introduced artichokes to England, where they grew in Henry VIII's garden at Newhall
in 1530. They were taken to the United States in the 19th century—to Louisiana by French
immigrants and to California by Spanish immigrants.
Artichokes can be produced from seeds or from vegetative means such as division, root cuttings,
or micropropagation. Although technically perennials that normally produce the edible flower
during only the second and subsequent years, certain varieties of artichokes can be grown from
seed as annuals, producing a limited harvest at the end of the first growing season, even in regions
where the plants are not normally winter-hardy. This means home gardeners in northern regions
can attempt to produce a crop without the need to overwinter plants with special treatment or
protection. The seed cultivar 'Imperial Star' has been bred to produce in the first year without such
measures. An even newer cultivar, 'Northern Star', is said to be able to overwinter in more northerly
climates, and readily survives subzero temperatures.[18]
Commercial culture is limited to warm areas in USDA hardiness zone 7 and above. It requires
good soil, regular watering and feeding, and frost protection in winter. Rooted suckers can be
planted each year, so mature specimens can be disposed of after a few years, as each individual
plant lives only a few years. The peak season for artichoke harvesting is the spring, but they can
continue to be harvested throughout the summer, with another peak period in mid-autumn. When
harvested, they are cut from the plant so as to leave an inch or two of stem. Artichokes possess
good keeping qualities, frequently remaining quite fresh for two weeks or longer under average
retail conditions.
Apart from culinary applications, the globe artichoke is also an attractive plant for its bright floral
display, sometimes grown in herbaceous borders for its bold foliage and large, purple flower heads.

Uses

Globe artichokes being cooked

Nutrition

29
Cooked unsalted artichoke is 82% water, 12% carbohydrates, 3% protein, and 3% fat (table). In a
100 gram reference serving, cooked artichoke supplies 74 calories, is a rich source (20% or more
of the Daily Value, DV) of folate, and is a moderate source (10-19% DV) of vitamin K (16%
DV), magnesium, sodium, and phosphorus (10-12% DV).
As food
Large globe artichokes are frequently prepared by removing all but 5–10 mm (3⁄16–3⁄8 in) or so of
the stem. To remove thorns, which may interfere with eating, around a quarter of each scale can
be cut off. To cook, the artichoke is simmered for 15 to 30 minutes, or steamed for 30–40 minutes
(less for small ones).[20] A cooked, unseasoned artichoke has a delicate flavor.
Salt may be added to the water if boiling artichokes. Covered artichokes, in particular those that
have been cut, can turn brown due to the enzymatic browning and chlorophyll oxidation. Placing
them in water slightly acidified with vinegar or lemon juice can prevent the discoloration.
Leaves are often removed one at a time, and the fleshy base eaten,
with vinaigrette, hollandaise, vinegar, butter, mayonnaise, aioli, lemon juice, or other sauces. The
fibrous upper part of each leaf is usually discarded. The heart is eaten when the inedible choke has
been peeled away from the base and discarded. The thin leaves covering the choke are also edible.

Artichokes alla romana

In Italy, artichoke hearts in oil are the usual vegetable for the "spring" section of the "Four
Seasons" pizza (alongside olives for summer, mushrooms for autumn, and prosciutto for
winter).[21] A recipe well known in Rome is Jewish-style artichokes, which are deep-fried
whole.[22] The softer parts of artichokes are also eaten raw, one leaf at the time dipped in vinegar
and olive oil, or thinly sliced and dressed with lemon and olive oil.
There are many stuffed artichoke recipes. A common Italian stuffing uses a mixture of
breadcrumbs, garlic, oregano, parsley, grated cheese, and prosciutto or sausage. A bit of the
mixture is then pushed into the spaces at the base of each leaf and into the center before boiling or
steaming.[23]

30
In Spain, younger, smaller, and more tender artichokes are used. They can be sprinkled with olive
oil and left in hot ashes in a barbecue, sautéed in olive oil with garlic, with rice as a paella, or
sautéed and combined with eggs in a tortilla (frittata).
Often cited is the Greek anginares alla Polita ("artichokes city-styled", referring to the city
of Constantinople), a hearty, savory stew made with artichoke hearts, potatoes, and carrots, and
flavored with onion, lemon, and dill.[24][25] The island of Tinos, or the villages of Iria and Kantia
in the Peloponnese, still very much celebrate their local production, including with a day of the
artichoke or an artichoke festival.[26][27]
Another way to use artichokes is to completely break off all of the leaves, leaving the bare heart.
The leaves are steamed to soften the fleshy base part of each leaf to be used as the basis for any
number of side dishes or appetizing dips, or the fleshy part is left attached to the heart, while the
upper parts of the leaves are discarded. The remaining concave-shaped heart is often filled with
meat, then fried or baked in a savory sauce. Frozen artichoke hearts are a time-saving substitute,
though the consistency and stronger flavor of fresh hearts when available is preferred.
Throughout North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, and Armenia, ground lamb is a favorite filling
for stuffed artichoke hearts. Spices reflect the local cuisine of each country. In Lebanon, for
example, the typical filling would include lamb, onion, tomato, pinenuts, raisins, parsley, dill,
mint, black pepper, and allspice. A popular Turkish vegetarian variety uses only onion, carrot,
green peas, and salt. Artichokes are often prepared with white sauces or other kinds of sauces.[28]

Genome

The globe artichoke genome has been sequenced.[31][32] The genome assembly covers 725 of the
1,084 Mb genome and the sequence codes for about 27,000 genes. An understanding of the
genome structure is an important step in understanding traits of the globe artichoke, which may
aid in the identification of economically important genes from related species.

References
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Rottenberg, A., and D. Zohary, 1996: "The wild ancestry of the cultivated artichoke." Genet.
Res. Crop Evol. 43, 53–58.
2. ^ "Artichokes History". /What's Cooking America. Retrieved 2019-02-08.
3. ^ Cesar G. Fraga. Plant Phenolics and Human Health– Biochemistry, Nutrition and Pharmacology. Wiley. p.9
4. ^ Ceccarelli N., Curadi M., Picciarelli P., Martelloni L., Sbrana C., Giovannetti M. "Globe artichoke as a
functional food" Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism 2010 3:3 (197–201)
5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Artichoke, n.", Oxford English Dictionary Online, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2020), accessed 16 April 2020.
6. ^ "Artichoke" at American Heritage Dictionary
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Rosenhouse, Judith; Kowner, Rotem (2008). Globally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English
Vocabulary in Other Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 35–36. ISBN 9781783091539.
8. ^ Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2003), Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Palgrave
Macmillan. ISBN 9781403917232 / ISBN 9781403938695 [1]
9. ^ Gabreilla Sonnante, Domenico Pignone and Karl Hammer, 'The Domestication of Artichoke and Cardoon:
From Roman Times to the Genomic Age', Annals of Botany, 100 (2007), 1095-
1100; doi:10.1093/aob/mcm127.
10. ^ Clifford A. Wright, 'Did the Ancients Know the Artichoke?', Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and
Culture, 9.4 (2009), 21-28 doi:10.1525/GFC.2009.9.4.21.

31
11. ^ Susan Weingarten, ‘[The Rabbi and the Emperors: Artichokes and Cucumbers as Symbols of Status in
Talmudic Literature’, in When West Met East: The Encounter of Greece and Rome with the Jews, Egyptians,
and Others. Studies Presented to Ranon Katzoff in Honor of his 75th Birthday, ed. by David M. Schaps, Uri
Yiftach and Daniela Dueck, Graeca Tergestina. Storia e civiltà, 3 (Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste,
2016), pp. 51-65.
12. ^ Bulit, Jean-Marc. "Vegetables in Medieval Europe" (in French). oldcook.com. Retrieved 29 May 2017.
13. ^ Vartavan, C. (de) and Asensi Amoros, V. 1997 Codex of Ancient Egyptian Plant Remains. London, Triade
Exploration. Page 91
14. ^ Watson, Andrew. Agricultural innovation in the early Islamic world. Cambridge University Press. p.64
15. ^ John H. Harvey, 'Garden Plants of Moorish Spain: A Fresh Look', Garden History, 20.1 (Spring, 1992), 71-
82 (pp. 75 and 78).
16. ^ Quoted in Wheaton, Barbara Ketcham, Savoring the Past, (Touchstone Books, 1983) pages 66–67.
17. ^ "Major Food And Agricultural Commodities And Producers – Countries By Commodity". Fao.org.
Retrieved Dec 1, 2019.
18. ^ Peters Seed and ResearchArchived December 7, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
19. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f "Alcachofa". nunhems.es. Retrieved 10 January2019.
20. ^ Holliday, Graham. "How to cook artichokes". BBC Good Food. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
21. ^ "Four Seasons Pizza". Cooking.com. Archived from the original on 2011-05-16. Retrieved 2011-01-17.
22. ^ "Jewish Artichokes". Cooking.com. Archived from the original on 2011-09-27. Retrieved 2011-01-17.
23. ^ "Stuffed Artichokes". Epicurious. 2007-10-15. Retrieved 2011-01-17.
24. ^ "Artichokes "City-Style"". About.com. Retrieved 2011-01-17.
25. ^ "Artichokes a la polita". greek-recipe.com. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010.
Retrieved 2011-01-17.
26. ^ "Iria – Candia – Karnazaiika". www.nafplio.gr. Municipality of Nafplio. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
27. ^ "The Artichoke in Tinos". www.tinos.biz. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
28. ^ Diderot, Denis (April 2006). "Artichokes". Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert - Collaborative
Translation Project. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
29. ^ Proprietatile ceaiului de anghinare, www.frunza-verde.ro/ceai-de-anghinare
30. ^ "Cynar". Campari Group. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
31. ^ Scaglione, Davide; Reyes-Chin-Wo, Sebastian; Acquadro, Alberto; Froenicke, Lutz; Portis, Ezio; Beitel,
Christopher; Tirone, Matteo; Mauro, Rosario; Lo Monaco, Antonino; Mauromicale, Giovanni; Faccioli,
Primetta; Cattivelli, Luigi; Rieseberg, Loren; Michelmore, Richard; Lanteri, Sergio (2016). "The genome
sequence of the outbreeding globe artichoke constructed de novo incorporating a phase-aware low-pass
sequencing strategy of F1 progeny". Scientific Reports. 6 (1):
19427. Bibcode:2016NatSR...619427S. doi:10.1038/srep19427. ISSN 2045-
2322. PMC 4726258. PMID 26786968.
32. ^ "Home Page". Globe Artichoke Genome Database. Retrieved 16 May 2018.

32
 Artichokes History10

The globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus), also called “French artichoke” and “green artichoke,”
derives its common name from the northern Italian words articiocco and articoclos. This latter
term is supposed to come from the Ligurian word cocali, meaning a pine cone.

10
https://whatscookingamerica.net/history/artichokehistory.htm

33
The artichoke is a perennial in the thistle group of the sunflower family and is believed to be a
native of the Mediterranean and the Canary Islands. In full growth, the plant spreads to cover an
area with about six feet in diameter and reaches a height of three to four feet. The “vegetable” that
we eat is actually the plant’s flower bud. If allowed to flower, the blossoms measure up to seven
inches in diameter and are a beautiful violet-blue color.
They are available twelve months a year with the peak season in the spring and fall. There are
more than 140 artichoke varieties but less than 40 are grown commercially. Today most artichokes
grown worldwide are cultivated in France, Italy, and Spain, while California provides nearly 100
percent of the United States crop. One hundred percent of all artichokes grown commercially in
the United States are grown in California. Artichoke fields are maintained in perennial culture for
five to ten years. Each cropping cycle is initiated by “cutting back” the tops of the plants several
inches below the soil surface to stimulate development of new shoots. The operation called
“stumping,” is timed to regulate the new harvest season.
Baby artichokes are not a separate variety but merely smaller versions of larger artichokes. Their
size comes from their location on the artichoke plant. They are picked from the lower parts of the
artichoke plant where the plant fronds protect them from sun, in effect stunting their growth.

History and Legends of Artichokes:

According to an Aegean legend and praised in song by the poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus, the first
artichoke was a lovely young girl who lived on the island of Zinari. The god, Zeus was visiting
his brother Poseidon one day when, as he emerged from the sea, he spied a beautiful young mortal

34
woman. She did not seem frightened by the presence of a god, and Zeus seized the opportunity to
seduce her. He was so pleased with the girl, whose name was Cynara, that he decided to make her
a goddess, so that she could be nearer to his home in Olympia. Cynara agreed to the promotion,
and Zeus anticipated the trysts to come, whenever his wife Hera was away. However, Cynara soon
missed her mother and grew homesick. She snuck back to the world of mortals for a brief
visit. After she returned, Zeus discovered this un-goddess-like behavior. Enraged, he hurled her
back to earth and transformed her into the plant we know as the artichoke.
Artichoke origins dates back to the time of the Greek philosopher and naturalist, Theophrastus
(371-287 B.C.), who wrote of them being grown in Italy and Sicily.
Pedanius Dioscorides (40-90 A.D.), a 1st century A.D. Greek physician of Anazarbus, Cilicia,
wrote about artichokes at the time of Christ. While traveling as a surgeon with the Roman army
of Emperor Nero, he collected information on the remedies of the period and wrote a work on The
Greek Herbal of Dioscorides. Originally written in Greek, Dioscorides’ herbal was later translated
into Latin as De Materia Medica. It remained the authority in medicinal plants for over 1500 years.
Ancient Greeks and Romans considered artichokes a delicacy and an aphrodisiac. In Ancient
Greece, the artichoke was attributed to being effective in securing the birth of boys.
In 77 A.D., the Roman naturalist Caius Plinius Secundus, called Pliny the Elder (23–79 A.D.),
called the choke “one of the earth’s monstrosities.” Evidently he and his colleagues continued to
enjoy eating them. Wealthy Romans enjoyed artichokes prepared in honey and vinegar, seasoned
with cumin, so that the treat would be available year round.
Beginning about 800 A.D., North African Moors begin cultivating artichokes in the area of
Granada, Spain, and another Arab group, the Saracens, became identified with chokes in
Sicily. This may explain why the English word artichoke is derived from the Arab, “al’qarshuf”
rather than from the Latin, “cynara.” Between 800 and 1500, it’s probable that the artichoke was
improved and transformed, perhaps in monastery gardens, into the plant we would recognize
today.
Artichokes were first cultivated at Naples around the middle of the 15th century and gradually
spread to other sections of Europe. After Rome fell, artichokes became scarce but re-emerged
during the Renaissance in 1466 when the Strozzi family brought them from Florence to Naples.

1500s – In the 16th century, Catherine de Medici (1519-1589), married to King Henry II (1519-
1559), of France at the age of 14, is credited with making artichokes famous. She is said to have
introduced them to France when she married King Henry II in the mid 16th century. She was
quoted as sayig, “If one of us had eaten artichokes, we would have been pointed out on the
street. Today young women are more forward than pages at the court.”
The chronicler, Pierre de L’Estoile, in his Journal of June 19, 1576 talks about the occasion of the
wedding of Marquis de Lomenie and Mlle de Martigues, “The Queen Mother ate so much she
thought she would die, and was very ill with diarrhoea. They said it was from eating too many
artichoke bottoms and the combs and kidney of cockerels, of which she was very fond.”

35
From the “Book of Nature,” by Dr. Bartolomeo Boldo in 1576, “it has the virtue of . . . provoking
Venus for both men and women; for women making them more desirable, and helping the men
who are in these matters rather tardy.”
1600s – Martha Washington’s Booke of Cookery contains a 17th-century recipe entitled “To Make
Hartichoak Pie.”

1800s – French immigrants brought artichokes to the United States in 1806 when they settled in
the Louisiana Territory. But though the first commercial artichoke fields were developed in
Louisiana, by 1940 they had mysteriously disappeared. They were later established in Louisiana
by French colonists and in California in the Monterey area by the Spaniards during the later 1800s.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832), poet and dramatist, shunned the artichoke. In his
book Travels Through Italy, Goethe says, “the peasants eat thistles,” a practice he could never
adopt.

20th century – In 1922 Andrew Molera, a landowner in the Salinas Valley of Monterey County,
California, just south of San Francisco, decided to lease his land previously dedicated to the
growing of sugar beets to Italian farmers that he encouraged to try growing the “new”
vegetable. His reasons were economic as artichokes were fetching high prices and farmers could
pay Molera triple what the sugar company did for the same land.
By the early 20th century, Fannie Farmer noted in her ninth edition of her cookbook that California
artichokes were selling in Boston for 30 to 40 cents each.
In the 1920s, Ciro Terranova “Whitey” (1889-1938), a member of the mafia and known as the
“Artichoke King,” began his monopoly of the artichoke market by purchasing all the produce
shipped to New York from California at $6 a crate. He created a produce company and resold the
artichokes at 30 to 40 percent profit. Not only did he terrorize distributors and produce merchants,
but he also even launched an attack on the artichoke fields from Montara to Pescadero, hacking
down the plants with machetes in the dead of night. These “artichoke wars” led the Mayor or New
York, Fiorello La Guardia, to declare “the sale, display, and possession” of artichokes in New
York illegal. Mayor La Guardia publicly admitted that he himself loved the vegetable and after
only one week he lifted the ban.

36
 Globe Artichokes
The Artichoke King & the Mafia11

11
https://www.rjmazza.net.au/artichoke%20king.htm

37
It seems that this humble-looking vegetable was once the centre of attention in the black market
and the criminal world. Known for its notorious involvement with the Mafia, its infamy began in
the 1920’s with gangster Ciro Terranova “Whitey” also known as the Artichoke King.

In Sicily in the 1870’s, Ciro’s mother Angelina Piazza married Calogero Morello and produced
two children, Giuseppe (born 1867 and later known as Peter or ‘The Clutch Hand’) and a daughter
Maria. Calogero Morello died in 1872. A year later Angelina married Bernardo Terranova, a
member of the Corleone Mafia in Sicily, Italy. Angelina had 6 children to Bernardo; Vincenzo,
Nicolo, Rosalie, Ciro, Salvatrice and Lucia.

Ciro Terranova

Ciro Terranova was born in July 1888 in the town of Corleone, Sicily. In 1893, at the age of 5 he
moved to New York with his parents, four sisters and two brothers to meet his half-brother
Giuseppe Morello, in East Harlem, Manhattan. Giuseppe Morello had arrived six months earlier.
Apparently, Giuseppe escaped Sicily due to a murder suspicion in 1889 for the killing of police
official Giovanni Vella. As a young man Giuseppe became a member of the Corleone Mafia
commanded by Paolino Streva. By 1889, Morello became Streva’s right-hand man. At the time,
local police official Giovanni Vella was preparing to prosecute Streva but was shot down in the
street before he could do so.

38
Witness Anna Di Puma reported seeing Morello in the area when Vella was murdered. Di Puma
was also shot down to avoid her testifying in court. Fearing prosecution, Morello left for the United
States. His associates in Corleone ‘fixed things’ so a Vella political opponent Francesco Ortonello
was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of Vella.

Giuseppe Morello

Not long after arriving in New York, Ciro’s family travelled to Louisiana where his father worked
on a sugar cane plantation.

Ciro formed relationships with corrupt law enforcers, bankers, judges and politicians and proved
to them that there was an advantage in teaming up with the underworld. He was also one of the
first gangsters to get involved with the trade unions, being influential in choosing the presidents
and secretaries. Ciro also trafficked in narcotics, and was credited by the authorities with giving
cocaine the nickname ‘the white stuff’.

In 1922 Andrew Molera, a landowner in the Salinas Valley, California realised that he could get
triple rental money for his land if he encouraged the farmers to grow artichokes instead of sugar
beets. He knew the area’s loamy, well-drained soil and ideal weather conditions would allow the
globe artichoke to thrive in this environment. He encouraged Italian farmers to grow globe
artichokes which were then transported to eager New Yorkers.

Ciro & Saietta worked out of an office near a wholesale meat and produce market. In their
hometown in Sicily globe artichokes were considered a delicacy and were highly prized by the
locals. Consumers were so enthusiastic to purchase the artichokes that the New York gangsters
wanted a piece of the profits.

Ciro earned his nickname ‘The Artichoke King’ when he began his monopoly on the artichoke
trade by buying artichokes at $6.00 per crate from California and selling them in New York at 30-
40% profit. Ciro’s violent reputation frightened the vegetable sellers from finding alternative
buyers. His gang terrorised distributors and producers. They also attacked the artichoke fields
hacking down the plants with machetes in the dead of the night to bring fear to uncooperating
farmers.

On 18th February 1938 at the age of 49, Ciro Terranova suffered a severe stroke. He died two days
later at the Columbus Hospital paralysed and impoverished. Although Ciro was the only of the
four brothers to die in a bed, he died in underworld obscurity.The brothers all lie in bare graves in
the Queens cemetery in New York.

39
 Mayor Fiorello La Guardia

In 1903, Giuseppe was charged with the barrel murders but was released due to lack of evidence.
This involved murdering and dumping dismembered corpses into large wooden barrels which were
either thrown into the sea, left in a random street or back alley, or shipped to a non-existent address
in another city.

Ciro had now lost his means of making money. In 1937 he lost his luxurious home and entered
receivership. He was impoverished and living on borrowed money.

The following year they moved to Bryan, Texas where they worked picking cotton. Two years
later in 1896, malaria struck the family so they moved back to New York. Ciro was only 8 years
old. Years later they would form the ‘107th Street Mob’ (also known as the powerful Morello
Gang).

40
On 8th May, 1922 Vincent Terranova was gunned down and killed on East 116th Street in
Manhattan His brother Giuseppe, Peter ‘the Clutching Hand’ Morello was murdered in his office
in August 1930.

1935 would be a turning point in Terranova’s prosperity. He was replaced with other gangsters
and his power nearly stripped. His only source of income remaining was the globe artichoke
business which would soon be ruined, not by other gangsters, but from the mayor himself! These
‘artichoke wars’ escalated to such a degree that it compelled the New York Mayor Fiorello La
Guardia to take action. He led a successful effort to decriminalise the artichoke trade, attempting
to destroy Terranova’s power base.

On 21st December, 1935 La Guardia arrived at the Bronx Terminal Market at the crack of dawn
and with a fanfare of trumpets he declared them illegal and implemented a ban on the sale, display
or possession of artichokes. The mayor’s announcement was printed in the newspaper the
following day. Later when the prices decreased the mayor lifted and ban and admitted that he
himself loved the vegetable!

41
Ciro and his brother Vincent went to school and worked at the family business (a plastering store)
in the evenings and weekends. Ciro later worked as a waiter in a restaurant for his half-brother
Giuseppe. Their family business also included underworld rackets, such as extortion, loan
sharking, Italian lottery, robbery and counterfeiting.

The illegally earned money was then legitimised by their legal businesses; stores or restaurants
owned by the family. By 1905, Morello had created the largest, most influential Sicilian crime
family in New York and was recognised as capo di tutti capi (boss of all bosses) by U.S. Mafia
leaders.

42
 The Morello Mob - NY Evening World, April 16 1903

Ignazio Lupo also known as Ignazio Saietta (his mother’s maiden name), but better known as
‘Lupo the Wolf’ began the city’s most successful counterfeiting ring with the powerful Sicilian
Mafioso Don Vito Cascio Ferro. They had $5 U.S. bills printed in Sicily and then smuggled them
into the country in empty oil cans. He was suspected of at least 60 murders, but he could not be
arrested due to lack of proof. Ciro became friends with Saietta then persuaded his sister to marry
Saietta. Once Saietta united with the Terranova/Morello clan, they became a threatening
underworld power in New York.

In 1909, Morello was finally found guilty of counterfeiting and was sentenced to 20 years
imprisonment. Typically, when a mafia boss is sick, killed or imprisoned, a family member will
take over the family ‘affairs’. So, when Saietta and Ciro’s brother Giuseppe were sent to prison on
counterfeiting charges in 1910, naturally brothers Ciro, Vincent and Nick stood in for them to
maintain order in the underworld. They soon rose to be the top gangsters in the Italian Harlem
hierarchy running the Morello family.

43
 Artichokes have come a long way since their mobster days

Mike Hale writes:12

One of the world’s oldest foods, the artichoke has long endured an image problem. As early as 77
A.D., Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder described it as “one of the earth’s monstrosities.”

How do you convince people to eat this prickly, armored thistle whose very name warns of an
obstructed airway?

Well, you could label it an aphrodisiac, tout its health benefits, hint that eating it will secure the birth
of boys — all popular myths during the Middle Ages.

If you were a member of the mafia in the 1920s, you could create a monopoly in the market, terrorize
distributors and produce merchants, jack up prices and create lurid, captivating headlines that
romanticized the American “artichoke wars.”

You could throw a sash on burgeoning starlet Marilyn Monroe and dub her Artichoke Queen, as
Castroville did in 1949. Or you could turn a modest pancake breakfast into a giant artichoke
celebration, solidifying your city as the “Artichoke Center of the World.”

Indeed, tiny Castroville grows nearly three-fourths of our nation’s artichokes. And on June 1-2, the
Artichoke Festival celebrates 60 years promoting this perennial thistle, the official state vegetable of
California that is actually a member of the sunflower family.

12
https://www.montereyherald.com/2019/05/07/the-grub-hunter-artichokes-have-come-a-long-way-since-their-mobster-days/

44
 Marilyn Monroe was named the first Artichoke Queen in 1949 to help
publicize artichokes.

The festival spends a great deal of time and effort informing attendees about the unique properties
of artichokes, showcasing dozens of dishes, hosting cooking demonstrations and leading field tours.
The event includes a wine and beer garden, live entertainment, arts and crafts booths, artichoke eating
contests and even a Marilyn Monroe Lookalike Contest.

One of the festival’s participating chefs, Tony Baker from Montrio Bistro in Monterey, will “review
the anatomy of an artichoke, and demonstrate the diversity of the vegetable.” Baker, who worked as
a consulting chef for Ocean Mist Farms for nearly 20 years, will use many sizes of ’chokes, and even
the stem, “an extension of the heart that can be delicious when peeled and braised,” he said.

Baker will also demo his “simple and delicious” artichoke-sourdough bisque with truffle foam. “It’s
a dish that the home cook can whip up that is vegetarian, healthful and bloody tasty,” said the British
expat.

45
Joining Baker on stage will be local chefs Giuseppe Panzuto (Il Tegamino, Carmel), Dan Elinan
(Hyatt Regency Monterey), Chris Vacca (California Market at Pacific’s Edge) and Luz Cedillo
(Main Street Bakery & Catering, Salinas).

California’s artichoke history began in 1922 when landowner Andrew Molera gave up on sugar beets
and decided to lease his land to Italian farmers who would grow a strange new vegetable wildly
popular in Sicily. It proved profitable as farmers paid Molera triple what the sugar company paid for
the same land.

Greed almost toppled the industry. East Harlem mob chieftain Ciro “Whitey” Terranova seized
control of the west-to-east traffic in artichokes, building a monopoly by threatening all the purveyors.
Those who didn’t fall in line saw Whitey and his gang hack down their plants with machetes in the
dead of night. This led New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia to declare the sale, display and
possession of artichokes illegal.

On Dec. 21, 1935, La Guardia read his own proclamation in public, declaring a “serious and
threatening” crisis. The obscure artichoke had brought The Big Apple to its knees. The New York
Herald Tribune called out the mayor for his stance. “It is impossible not to conclude the world today
is a bit mad,” the paper wrote.

The city’s large Italian community adored artichokes, of course, and applauded the mayor’s actions.
Critics accused La Guardia (of Italian descent) of grandstanding to please his base, but eventually,
the public saw the larger picture. The mayor had broken up a violent gang of racketeers — and as a
result, put the lowly artichoke square in the media spotlight.

Breaking up the monopoly lowered prices. Sales skyrocketed, and artichoke recipes appeared in
newspapers and magazines across the country.

Back home in Castroville, violence abated and planting increased. In 1949, an aspiring actress, singer
and model born Norma Jeane Mortenson arrived in Salinas for a job modeling jewelry for a shop
called Carlyle’s. Representatives from CalChoke (later the California Artichoke Association)
capitalized on her availability. Photos of the soon-to-be-famous Marilyn Monroe holding a basket
of artichokes and wearing an Artichoke Queen sash were used in advertisements throughout the
produce industry.

Two stars were born.

The first Artichoke Festival was held 10 years later under the sponsorship of the Marinovich
Marching Units, with the assistance of the Castroville Rod and Gun Club.

Today it’s a massive nonprofit held at the Monterey Fair & Event Center, having outgrown bucolic
Castroville. There have been some missteps, including crowning Internet singing sensation William
Hung (“She Bangs”) as Artichoke King in 2006.

46
But the artichoke has survived worse.

These days, the thorny thistle has been largely demystified. The biggest question surrounding it these
days is what to drink with it. It’s notoriously difficult to pair artichokes with wine, due to a chemical
element called Cynarin.

“It has a tendency to make wines taste riper (sweeter), and it demolishes the acidity in the wine,”
said restaurateur and sommelier Thamin Saleh.

The owner of Mediteranean-inspired restaurant jeninni kitchen + wine bar in Pacific Grove serves
many artichokes, and loves their “mild and elegant flavors of nuttiness, herbaceousness and green
vegetable.”

To counter the Cynarin effect, Saleh likes to pair simply prepared artichokes with high-acid, unoaked
wines that are fresh and crisp, such as Verdicchio from the Marche region of Central Italy or no-
skin-contact Pinot Grigio from Alto Adige in Northern Italy.

“Savignon Blanc could a great pairing with a preparation that includes citrus,” he said. “Bubbles
with high acid such as (Spanish) Cava will work well, too.”

And for those famous fried artichoke hearts with a rich dip? He recommends Gruner Veltliner from
Austria, or Albariño from Spain.

There’s a way around anything, it seems, and Saleh’s approach typifies an attitude seen throughout
history when it comes to artichokes. When you work your way through all those menacing layers,
you finally get to the heart of the matter — deliciousness.

47