Legumes on Passover

What about soaked matzah and rich matzah? Are these also unnecessary concerns?

Yes, it is. Rich matzah, according to some opinions (the Harama), is complete leaven and not a concern.

I saw your response online where you say there is no reasonable basis for banning legumes.
Isn't this a matter of "whatever the reason, does not invalidate 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 Gotal'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 rabbi (for the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin or the Talmud itself, which is considered a Sanhedrin). This is not the case with legumes. There was never a rabbi that established a prohibition on legumes. There was simply a situation in which leavened grains were mixed with legumes, and therefore people avoided eating them.
In short, my argument is that, contrary to popular discourse, there is neither a regulation nor a decree here. Who fixed or decreed this? And was there a Sanhedrin? And even without a Sanhedrin, and did the sages of that generation fix this? In a certain place, people simply avoided legumes because there was a fear that leavened grains were mixed with them. Now and in our places there is no such concern and therefore there is no prohibition.
This is similar to someone who finds chametz 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 chametz there? Alternatively, in a world without cars, is it still necessary to cross the road only at a crosswalk?
As mentioned, the situation would be different if the Council of Sages were to meet and decide to cross only at crosswalks. 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 a different minyan would need 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 verses from which it is clear that this is a decree, but these are strange words, since there is no basis for it, and so on.

For more information, see column number 2 on the website:

https://mikyab.net/%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%92%d7%96%d7%99%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%a7%d7%98%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%95%d7%97%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%9d-%d7%98%d7%95%d7%a8-2/

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 for other customs that have been abolished over the generations because their taste is invalid? (Apart from the translation of the Torah reading). The cornerstone of your statement is that a custom (-‘fear’) whose taste is invalid 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 serious than custom). The author refers to atonements as a foolish custom. There are many more examples. Search Google or Reproject for the term "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 explanation of the first, 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 kind of 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 matzah, 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 they 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 surprising. Quite the contrary. The method that excludes wheat, 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. In the blessings of the 7th. It is explicit that the blessing of various foods on rice does not stem from the method of R. Yochanan ben Nuri, because in his opinion the blessing of rice is the one that is the exception. (Rice is a type of grain for all intents and purposes)
And I did not understand why the method of the Sages is “puzzling”. Because they present a “rigid formalism”?

A”H, studies of this type do not build on the issues of the Gemara but 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 Riv”H ben Nuri, even if the Gemara offered a different explanation.

That one does not present himself as a scholar (willing to bring another explanation from the first ones - that is, from the Gemara - no). His words seem like unnecessary speculation. How does he know that according to the Rabbis all legumes are forbidden? In Pesach, it is. 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 completely leavened. And for the sages, rice only comes to the point of being a stench (a disagreement in reality). Nowhere does it 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 Rabbi always mentions 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 two kinds of meat in every possible context - why in the blessings would he fold and agree on the בממ and not the מוציא?

🙂 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, this 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 R. Ta-Shema's book, Ancient Ashkenazi Customs. There he 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 Passover (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 spiky regarding "hard leaven". His book shows a number of illuminating matters on this subject, such as the Rabba's finding on the subject of kneading in fruit water (or legumes, which are mentioned immediately before), as well as the exchange of versions between the editor and the authors of the Tosafot who quote 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. He does not refer to 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 nowadays 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 gather together” for example (which is also mentioned at the end of his speech).
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 occupies the entire ”screen” and overshadows the true contents of Passover. Disturbing thought, wasting energy, etc.

This is the place to bring a Toss in Bitzah and G.A., D.E. and the Idna, who wrote that there is no need for a minyan in canceling a concern:
By the way, I found a Toss in Bitzah and G.A., D.E. and the Idna, who wrote about the difference between concern and custom:

And the Idna, as my friends have said, The Pharisees who are forced to work for Israel and when it is night, they are placed there, and if they see that they are burying their dead, they are forced to do work and it is forbidden at this time that my friends are not allowed, and it cannot be said that there is a need for another reason to allow the sabbath. This reason is because of fear and transgression. The fear is transgression of reason, and we said that they were taken from the waters of the exiles from the land, 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, even though it is a thing that is in the number and the word of God would have prohibited it.

Just as I wrote in my column on legumes.