Legumes on Passover
Hello Rabbi Michael, a debate recently broke out regarding the issue of allowing legumes on Passover for Ashkenazim. I would love to know your opinion on the matter.
In my opinion, this is a very problematic custom. It's called "legume restriction," but there was no restriction, only a fear. Because sometimes wheat was mixed in there, they were afraid to eat legumes. So now that there's no fear, there's no reason to avoid legumes. It's like being told that there's an obstacle on the road and you shouldn't drive there. Will you continue not to drive there the next day when the obstacle is fixed because they used to not drive there? It seems absurd to me.
Still, personally, I'm a little hesitant to allow myself the matter completely. What I do is increase the level of overlap on this subject, and each year, elaborate and overlap more on the matter. For example, eating a mixture of legumes, or any new type of legumes that was not included in the original custom, or legume oil, etc. But from a legal perspective, in my opinion, this prohibition has no basis. It's just a conservative instinct that I can't overcome (for now).
What about soaked matzah and rich matzah? Are these also unnecessary concerns?
Yes, it is. Rich matzah, according to some opinions (the Rama), is complete leaven and not a concern.
I saw your response online in which you say there is no reasonable basis for prohibiting legumes.
Isn't this a case of "nullifying the reason does not nullify the regulation"?
First, the rule that taste does not nullify a regulation is not absolute in itself (see dozens of examples of the first to change regulations in the last chapter of Neriah Gotel's book The Variation of Nature). Second, this rule deals with regulations or decrees. A regulation or decree is the result of an explicit determination by an authorized Jewish court (for the whole of Israel, the Sanhedrin, or the Talmud itself, which is considered the Sanhedrin). This is not the case with legumes. There was never a Jewish court that established a prohibition on legumes. There was simply a situation where leavened grains were mixed with legumes, and therefore people avoided eating them.
In short, my argument is that, contrary to popular discourse, there is no regulation or decree here. Who regulated or decreed this? And was there a Sanhedrin? And even without a Sanhedrin, and did the sages of that generation regulate this? In a certain place, people simply avoided legumes because there was a concern that they were mixed with leaven. Now and in our places, there is no such concern and therefore there is no prohibition.
This is similar to someone who finds leaven in a room in their house and therefore is careful not to put kosher foods there for Passover. Now that he has cleaned the room, is he still forbidden to put leaven there? Alternatively, in a world without cars, is it still permissible to cross the road only at a crosswalk?
As mentioned, the situation would be different if a council of sages had met and decided to only cross at pedestrian crossings. In such a situation, another meeting would be needed to overturn the original regulation. But with regard to legumes, there is no indication that such a thing happened (and, as mentioned, certainly not the Sanhedrin), and therefore it was not something that required another council to permit.
The decree/regulation of legumes was born in the feverish minds of people who are afraid of change (the reform reflex). There is no such thing. Although there are variations in the first few words that imply that it is a decree, these are absurd words, as there is no basis for it, and so on.
For more information, see column number 2 on the website:
A. Based on this, what is the Rabbi's opinion on seven clean days? Is this a binding custom? And what about the 4-day wait before counting the clean days? Or the Ashkenazi addition of 5 days? B. How is this different from the Bnei Baishen in the Gemara on Pesachim, which required them to continue the custom of their ancestors to refrain from sailing on Fridays? Why is it binding there and not binding here? Many thanks.
Why should these customs be abolished? Their flavor still exists today. What is the point of these things, if we consider them to be a foolish and tasteless custom? The sons of Baishen used to not disembark on a ship before Shabbat, and it is a beautiful custom whose flavor is still valid.
Rabbi Michael, can you provide precedents of other customs that were abolished over the generations because their taste was null and void? (Apart from the translation of the Torah reading). The cornerstone of your statement is that a custom (-'fear') that has a null and void taste is automatically abolished, and in my opinion, this is really not simple.
First, I distinguished between custom and fear. Fear is not a custom but a behavior that came to prevent a local problem. There are many examples of fears that have been eliminated. Every pothole in the road near your house is an example of this. After the municipality has fixed it, drivers do not continue, and do not need to, bypass the place. I gave the example of washing hands over something that was touched in a drink, which is a real law (more severe than custom). The author refers to atonements as a foolish custom. There are many more examples. Search Google or the Responsa project for "foolish custom" and you will find many. But as mentioned, fear is easier than custom and certainly than law.
Hello Rabbi, I asked the question about legumes in one of the forums, and this is the answer I received. What do you think?
My explanation is not the same as the Rishonim, but the answer is simple. There was a great controversy during the Mishnah and Talmud, whether the grains were only the biblical grains, that is, a very rigid formalism, or whether it was grains in general. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri believed that all grains in general, and others believed that only five types of grain were actually our wheat and barley. Which means that wherever they did not use wheat and barley as grains, such as in Africa, the East, and parts of the West, they could not bake matzoh, and on the other hand there was no leaven. In Babylon, they ruled as the sages did, but in large parts of the Jewish world they ruled as Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri did and therefore continued to prohibit other grains. Remnants of this ruling remained in relation to the blessing of the Creator of all kinds of food for rice. So this is a system that is not at all puzzling. On the contrary. The system that excludes taaf, rice, millet, and other types of grain is puzzling.
Nonsense. Is the custom to rule as Rabbi Ben Nuri did? This is a spiral interpretation aimed at validating a pointless and invalid custom.
The end of his words is not correct according to the rabbinic tradition. In the blessings of the 37th, it is made clear that the blessing of various foods on rice does not stem from the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, because in his opinion the blessing of the rice is the one that is excluded. (Rice is a type of grain for all intents and purposes)
And I didn't understand why the method of the sages "was puzzling." Because they present a "rigid formalism"?
A.H., studies of this type do not build on the issues of the Gemara, but rather as a source for different opinions. The explanations that the Gemara brings or explains the opinions are its own business. He argues research-wise that the blessing on the rice is related to the fundamental view of Rabbi Ben Nuri, even if the Gemara offered a different explanation.
That one does not present himself as a researcher (willing to bring a different explanation than the first ones – that is, from the Greek no)
His words seem like unnecessary speculation. How does he know that the Rabbis forbid all legumes? In Pesachim 3. It seems that he only forbids rice and millet because they are close to leavening (this is not a Gemara but a baraita there) and in another baraita he says that rice is complete leaven. And for the Sages, rice only comes to a stench (a disagreement in reality). Nowhere does he say that all legumes are forbidden (except in Tosefta Challah 1:1 and Pesachim 2:2, where 'keramit' is obligatory for challah and is considered matzah. But it is clear that it is a type of bread made from rice. Isn't it strange that the Rabbis always mention rice in the context of the type of grain, and in the context of bread he consistently mentions keramit?).
The Gemara's view is actually much more logical. Rabbi Yochanan equates rice with the Lord of the Minims in every possible context – why in the blessings would he fold and agree on the BMM and not the Mitzira?
🙂 I didn't say that what he says makes sense, I said that what appears in the Gemara doesn't necessarily impress him in the way that studies (above) do. Many times what they say is unreasonable speculation. But unlike the first words, it is "research" and therefore it is of course reliable and logical.
Regarding the issue of legumes, it is very worthwhile to read the chapter on this subject in Rabbi Ta-Shema's book, Ancient Ashkenazi Customs. It shows that the reasons for prohibiting legumes are probably rationalizations of a custom that already existed, and is probably based on a dispute between the Babylonians and the Jerusalemites regarding the grinding of legumes on Yot (not only on Passover - and this is hinted at in some of the early Ashkenazi responsa on the subject), which at a later historical stage was also associated with the Spicot regarding "hard leaven". His book shows a number of illuminating matters on this subject, such as the acquisition of the R'Avad on the subject of kneading in fruit water (or perhaps legumes, which are mentioned immediately before), as well as the exchange of versions between the editor and the authors of the Tosafot who cite him and Akmal.
Does the rabbi know Rabbi David Bar Chaim and his opinion on the matter?
by no means.
So he allowed that too, a long time ago.
He says it could have a Karaite influence.
If the rabbi wants to see, he explains it here.
I of course agree in principle. Still, a few comments:
1. It does not address the difference between fear and custom.
2. His hypothesis about the Karaite origin sounds very speculative.
3. He refers to custom as a local custom, but I think that today this is an anachronistic interpretation. Once upon a time, when the world was static, custom was by place. Today, custom is by origin. This is the case with "do not crowd together," for example (which is also mentioned at the end of his remarks).
4. His words about unity are, of course, complete nonsense from beginning to end.
5. I completely agree with his conclusion, that today this foolish custom takes up the entire "screen" and overshadows the true content of Passover. Disrupting thought, wasting energy, etc.
This is the place to quote Toss in Bitzah 6:1, 25, and the Idna, who wrote that there is no need for a minyan in the cancellation of a concern:
By the way, I found a commentary on the book of Bitza 6a, namely, "Vahaidna", which wrote about the difference between fear and custom:
And indeed, here are my friends who are concerned – Pharisees who are forced by Israel to do work and when it is the 19th, they are placed there, and if they were to see that their dead are being buried, they are forced to do work and it is said that at this time, there is no friend who is permitted, and it cannot be said that there is a need for another reason to permit the practice. This reason is because of a fear and a transgression. The fear is a transgression of the reason, and the Lord said about the waters of the exiled people, lest a snake drink from them, and now that there are no snakes among us, it is clear that we drink from them even from the beginning, despite the fact that it is something that the Lord and the Prophets would have prohibited.
Just as I wrote in my column about legumes.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer