Legumes
peace,
Before the celebrations are forgotten, I will begin my remarks with a topic that has already been thoroughly discussed and chewed: legumes.
I heard that the rabbi wrote to Tamva Tuba about the custom of being careful with legumes. And I asked: After I looked into the matter
Before the festivities are forgotten, I will begin my remarks on a topic that has already been thoroughly discussed and chewed: legumes…
I heard that the rabbi wrote to Tamva Tuba about the custom of being careful with legumes. And now, after researching the subject, I found five reasons for those who wrote to be careful with it.
I would be happy if the rabbi could write to me about every reason why it does not belong today. Furthermore: What is it that is not obligatory to be careful, why would those who are careful just say nonsense:
First reason: The reason of the author of the traditions, due to the fear of souring. It seems that he drew his words from the Rabbinical Council, who wrote that small pieces of meat become hard leaven. See also the Ritva and the Maharam Halava in Pesachim 33, 1.
Second taste: The pharmacist’s taste, due to fear of wheat interference. The column (Si Thang) also wrote the same thing, and so on and so forth.
Third reason: The reason for the Smak (Si Rechba), due to the similarity of legume flour to wheat flour. And he writes in the commentary, “It is a degzirah.” In the Shulchan Ar-Rahman, the author of the Tanya only brought this reason to the halakhah (ibid., section 3).
Fourth opinion: The opinion of our Rabbanu Manoah (based on the words of Maimonides), because eating legumes does not constitute the joy of Yom Tov.
Fifth reason: Another reason Rabbeinu Manoah wrote (on Maimonides), which is because of the growth of a species of plant similar to legumes.
Sorry to bother you (I’m sure I’m not the first to ask), and thank you very much for everything!
First, I will start with a general overview. I once heard from Rabbi Midan that he knows of 22 excuses for reading the Book of Ruth on Shavuot but only one for reading the Book of Esther on Purim. As the number of different excuses for “cutting” legumes decreases, so do their validity.
Secondly, decrees that came after the Talmud and without the Sanhedrin have no validity. Therefore, at most, there can be a concern or a custom here. Therefore, all of these reasons cannot form the basis for a decree.
As for the flavors themselves, I’m a little embarrassed to need them due to their blandness, but since the question was asked, I’ll answer briefly.
The fear of souring in legumes is a completely unfounded matter, especially since even if it exists, it is at most present in rice and the like (and it is explained in the Gemarat that there is no fear of it, according to the Rabbi Ben Nuri). And the minyan includes all legumes, including the divisions between what was then and what was not then, green and other legumes, what comes from legumes, and the like.
The same applies to the interference of chili. If it is interference of chili, then it is a complete law. Why are the Sephardim not afraid of it? What are the differences between the types of legumes?
The similarity between legume flour and wheat flour is indeed a magnificent oriental similarity. There are things that are much more similar.
In my opinion, there is no joy in eating lettuce on Yom Tov, and therefore lettuce should be banned. The fact that the SMAK did not like legumes (but only legumes that were not available at the time/green, etc.) is not my fault. Each to his own taste.
And the same is true for our Rabbi Manoah.
In general, I would say that at this level of ridiculous reasoning, there is no nonsense custom in the world at all. There is no custom in the world for which I cannot find reasons at this level of distant association.
May our Rabbeinu teach us.
What is the difference between the law of legume and things that are permitted, and others practiced a prohibition against them despite their knowledge that it is permitted, that the matter is forbidden to them from the Torah of custom, as explained in Tos’ Pesachim na a d”h a. And according to some Rishonim (Ramban”a Rashba quoted in B”i Si” Reed) there is no benefit to such a custom, a permit.
Rabbeinu Yeruham wrote that it is a foolish custom because in its place they did not practice it and it is foolish to practice it in the first place, but after they practiced it in Ashkenaz knowing that it is permitted and wanting to practice it, their seemingly forbidden custom is a custom.
I didn't understand what was so difficult for the rabbi, why the Sephardim weren't worried about mixing wheat with legumes.
Is this just a distant concern that the Sephardim weren't worried about, but the Ashkenazim were?
Boaz,
Our rabbis have already taught that a foolish custom is different from a regular custom. After all, you could ask about any foolish custom how it differs from the rest that was forbidden. A foolish custom is a baseless custom and not just a custom that was simply not practiced in that place.
Ash,
This is not a distant concern, but no concern at all. The concern in this is not fundamentally different from the concern that leaven would be mixed with potato flour. And it is certainly not related to whether legumes were in their day or not, or green legumes or not.
I heard from a man who during his lifetime asked not to say the things in his name, and therefore I respect his wish, that any decree that has become a law is automatically null and void. And he brought evidence from the prohibition of lending at interest to a Gentile, which the Tosafot wrote was invalid because it became a law, and I do not have the books at hand now.
He argued that today there is potato flour and they make proper cakes for Passover, the decree has become a law and automatically null and void.
The above-mentioned direction, in my opinion, was expanded upon in my book, Moves Among the Standing. There I wrote exactly like this.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
