Q&A: Legumes
Legumes
Question
Hello,
Before the holiday celebrations fade from memory, I’d like to raise a topic that has already been ground and chewed over very thoroughly: legumes…
I heard that the Rabbi wrote that one should be very puzzled by the custom of being careful about legumes. My question is this: after I looked into the issue,
Before the holiday celebrations fade from memory, I’d like to raise a topic that has already been ground and chewed over very thoroughly: legumes…
I heard that the Rabbi wrote that one should be very puzzled by the custom of being careful about legumes. Now, after I examined the issue, I found five reasons cited by those who wrote that one should be stringent about this.
I would be glad if the Rabbi could write to me about each and every reason, explaining why it is not relevant today. And more than that: even if there is no obligation to be strict, why is someone who is strict about it just being foolish?
First reason: the reason of the author of Sefer HaManhigot, because of concern for leavening. It appears that he drew this from the Raavad, who wrote that legumes become hardened leaven. See also the Ritva and Maharam Halava on Pesachim 35a.
Second reason: the reason of the Rokeach, because of concern that wheat may get mixed in. And so too wrote the Tur (sec. 453), and many others.
Third reason: the reason of the Semak (sec. 222), because legume flour resembles wheat flour. He explicitly writes, “for it is a decree.” And in the Shulchan Arukh of the Baal HaTanya only this reason is brought in practice (ibid., sec. 3).
Fourth reason: the reason of Rabbeinu Manoach (on the words of Maimonides), because eating legumes does not involve the joy of a Jewish holiday.
Fifth reason: Rabbeinu Manoach gave another reason (on Maimonides), namely because of the growth of a species and produce similar to legumes.
Sorry for bothering you like this (and I’m surely not the first to ask), and thank you very much for everything!
Answer
First, I’ll begin with a general observation. I once heard from Rabbi Medan that he knows 22 explanations for why we read the Book of Ruth on Shavuot, but only one for why we read the Book of Esther on Purim. The number of strange explanations for the “decree” of legumes is matched by how little force they carry.
Second, decrees enacted after the Talmud and without a Sanhedrin have no binding force. So at most we may be dealing here with a concern or a custom. Therefore, all these reasons cannot serve as a basis for a decree.
As for the reasons themselves, I’m a bit embarrassed to have to address them, given how insubstantial most of them are, but since the question was asked, I’ll answer briefly.
Concern for leavening in legumes is completely unfounded, especially since even if it exists, that would apply at most to rice and the like (and the Talmud explicitly states that we do not follow Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri on this). And from where would one extend this to all legumes, including distinctions between what existed then and what did not, green legumes and others, products derived from legumes, and so on?
The same applies to wheat mixed in. If we are talking about actual wheat admixture, then that is a full-fledged law. Why then do Sephardim not worry about it? And what are the differences between the various kinds of legumes?
The resemblance of legume flour to wheat flour is indeed a magnificent Eastern-style resemblance. There are many things that are far more similar.
In my opinion, eating lettuce does not constitute the joy of a Jewish holiday, so lettuce should be forbidden. If the Semak didn’t like legumes (or only legumes that didn’t exist in his time, or green ones, and so on), that’s not my problem. To each his own taste.
And the same goes for Rabbeinu Manoach’s reason.
In general, I would say that at this level of ridiculous justification, there is no such thing in the world as a foolish custom. There is no custom in the world for which I could not find justifications at the level of such remote association.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand what is difficult for the Rabbi about why Sephardim were not concerned that wheat got mixed into legumes.
It’s just a remote concern that Sephardim did not worry about and Ashkenazim did worry about, no?
Boaz,
Our master has already taught us that a foolish custom is different from an ordinary custom. You could ask the same question about any foolish custom: how is it different from something permitted that people adopted as forbidden? A foolish custom is a custom devoid of sense, not merely one that people in a given place happened not to observe.
Esh,
This is not a remote concern but no concern at all. The concern here is not essentially different from the concern that leaven might get mixed into potato flour. And it certainly has nothing to do with which legumes existed in their day or not, or whether they were green legumes or not.
I heard from a Torah scholar of blessed memory who, during his lifetime, asked that these words not be said in his name, and so I respect his wish, that any decree that has become a laughingstock is automatically nullified. He brought proof from the prohibition of lending with interest to a non-Jew, where Tosafot wrote that it lapsed because it had become a laughingstock, though I don’t have the books in front of me right now.
He argued that nowadays, when there is potato flour and people make nice Passover cakes from it, the decree has become a laughingstock and is automatically nullified.
That person merited to arrive at the broader view I developed in my book Movements Among the Standing. I wrote exactly this there.
Teach us, our Rabbi.
How is the law of legumes different from cases of things that are permitted but others adopted the practice of treating them as forbidden, even though they knew they were permitted, such that the matter becomes forbidden to them by virtue of custom, as explained in Tosafot, Pesachim 51a, s.v. “i”? And according to several medieval authorities (Nachmanides, Rashba, brought in Beit Yosef sec. 214), annulment does not help for such a custom.
Rabbeinu Yerucham, who wrote that it is a foolish custom, said so because in his place they did not practice it, and it was foolish to adopt it there in the first place. But once they practiced it in Ashkenaz with the understanding that it was permitted, and they wished to treat it as forbidden, seemingly their custom is a valid custom.