I've long looked upon the face as an art piece. It can say so many things to different people. Faces are fascinating to me. I could spend hours gazing at people. The longer you look at someone, the more you see. There's a moment where a face clicks differently - I've looked at the whole face, the features, seen the angles from which they may not work well together, seen the beauty, and then suddenly, it's all there, layered together, each version hovering over the other.
I love when it clicks. I love when I can see the beauty and the strangeness concurrently. It's like knowing your friends well enough that you can love them yet also not like things about them; it just comes together - it finally make sense. After I had my first daughter, I would look at her face, seeing her as an infant, as a grandmother, as a young woman - all of those faces there, together, melding into one Gus truth, of which I was only literally witnessing the infancy.
When I was in high school, someone tried to put me down by telling me I was on the pretty sign of plain. Little did she know I'm a head case, and I went home that day and sat in front of the mirror, inspecting my face for angles and expressions that would be not pretty, not ugly, but literally plain. I found them, then looked for the ugly, looked for the beauty. And once I found them, I could see it all together, and I started to search for that level of intimate familiarity in others.
In a way I've always been both insecure and very sure about my face. For a long time I was ready to take any criticism of myself and make it my perspective. That exercise, where I found the flaws for myself and learned how they were also points of beauty, made me more resilient. Yes, I was raised to be strong in the face of people questioning my birthmark. But if not for that awful girl, I'd never have been prepared for the boyfriend who took issue with the creases in my lips, who only told me about the ugly and the plain he saw within me.
I'm always interested to hear what people think when they see, what they see when they look. Today I posted a shot where it's all in the eye of the beholder - do you focus on the eyes (the source of beauty in most faces, to me), or do you see the frizzy hair, chubby cheeks, the dark smudges under my eyes? Is the birthmark complimentary color, or a horrid disfigurement? It's all in where you put the focus, and I thank that stupid girl for teaching me a wonderful life lesson.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Rosh Chodesh Tammuz 5773
This marks our fourth Rosh Chodesh gathering. I coordinate the gatherings specifically for women because Rosh Chodesh is designated a women's holiday. It got me thinking this month - what is it about women that we get a monthly holiday set aside just for us when there are no holidays that are designated just for men?
For my bat mitzva, I studied women in Jewish history. As I was thinking about the women yesterday, it occurred to me that while the main characters in our stories, books, and Tanach tend to be men, there is a constant theme of women moving the plot ahead. The women who came immediately to mind were Rivka, who ensured Yaakov got the birthright, Rachael who is considered mother to us all (and I will delve in to Rachael's contribution a little more in the dvar Torah itself), Serach bat Asher, who told her grandfather that her uncle Yosef was still alive, Yocheved, Miriam, Batya, Serach again upon leaving Egypt, Tziporah who had the faith to give her son the brit mila Moshe couldn't and all the way through to our more recent history where pregnant women his their pregnancies during the Holocaust, and found ways to give their sons a brit mila even in the worst circumstances. Our men are wonderful, but it's the women who determine what the lives of the family and the future of Am Yisrael will be. And we recognize that each month, that this often hidden part of Judaism is actually the root of the living tree.
The only 'holiday' in תמוז is שבעה עשר בתמוז - a fast day that commemorates the walls of Jerusalem being breached by the Romans before the destruction of the 2nd בית המקדש.
שבעה עשר בתמוז starts a 3-week mourning period which deepens on ראש חודש אב culminates in the major fast of תשעה באב.
שבעה עשר בתמוז is historically a sad day for משנה תענית .עם ישראל 4:6 cites 5 calamities on this day:
1. It is 40 days from the day Moshe ascended to הר סיני. That makes it the day that he returned, the day he saw the golden calf, חטא העגל. And hence, it is the day that the לוחות were broken.
2. During the siege of Jerusalem in the era of the 1st בית המקדש, in 423 BCE it was the date that the daily burnt offering ceased to be brought in the Temple as life had been so thoroughly disrupted, a short 3 weeks before the destruction of the בית המקדש.
3. The walls of Jerusalem were breached by the Romans in 70 CE.
4. Apostomus, a Roman general, burnt a תורה scroll shortly before בר כוכבא's revolt, about 132 CE.
5. At about the same time, an idol was placed in the בית המקדש either by Apostomus or by King Menashe.
We've been in a long-term low-grade suspended state of mourning for the בית המקדש ever since. We daven to return not just to Jerusalem and the בית המקדש, but to re-establish a monarchy there.
This month we will be reading about בנות צלפחד, whose father died either due to collecting wood on שבת, for which he was executed, or in an attempt to get to ארץ ישראל. A group of men couldn't bear the thought of waiting 40 year to get to Israel and headed out on their own to get to the land and were all sadly killed. Either way, צלפחד left behind 5 daughters and no sons - Machla, Noa, Chagla, Milka, and Tirtza.
These women approached משה to ensure they could inherit their father's plot of land in Israel, as they were preparing by allocating land to every family. At the time, the הלכה was that only sons could inherit, but these 5 sisters so badly wanted inherit that they asked for special counsel. משה took the question straight to 'ה, and 'ה affirmed that the sisters were correct - they could inherit.
The timing of the request is strange. צלפחד had died in the 2nd year in the desert. משה was dealing with a nation that didn't want to go to Israel because they were fearful of being killed, a nation that had started to romanticize life in Egypt. Egypt! We just had a holiday a few months ago about how hard life was as slaves, and yet they were asking to go back. And even so, here came these 5 sisters demanding their portion of the land.
Were they after money? If they were, why would they have waited 38 years? They would have asked for his cattle immediately. They would have collected his his possessions and money long before if that was what they were after. They were there for the love of the land.
The woman most closely aligned with this 3-week period of mourning is רחל אמנו. Our tradition holds that of all the people advocating for us, it is רחל who truly speaks on our behalf ('ירמהיו ל'א: יד'-טו)
First, note that while Leah in her life was marked by eyes reddened from shedding tears, it is רחל אמנו who we picture crying for eternity. הבל היופי - beauty is fleeting.
Jewish tradition holds that these פסוקים in ירמיהו are THE source for our belief that there will be an eventual geulah, that God will bring us back from the exile He imposed upon us. A promise made to a woman, to a mother, crying on behalf of her children - and all of עם ישראל.
The תורה introduces the sisters with a listing of their lineage ('במדבר כ'ז: א):
Why bother giving us a lineage? It could have simply said בנות צלפחד of the tribe of מנשה. And why emphasize מנשה בן יוסף? We know who מנשה is!
As anyone in attendance at our first ראש חודש gathering will remember, יוסף so loved the Israel that he made עם ישראל promise to take his bones and bury him there. The notion of Egypt as his final resting place was painful for him. Before the Jews could leave Egypt, משה wandered for 3 days, looking for Yosef's bones. And Serach bat Asher, the only person still living who had come down to Egypt in the original group with יעקב walked him to the Nile. The Egyptians knew that the slaves would not leave without Yosef, so they coated his casket and sank it to the bottom of the river. Serach helped Moshe locate Yosef, and Moshe carried his bones through the desert because Yosef so loved the land. Yosef ben Rachael.
The daughters of צלפחד, descendants of יוסף and רחל אמנו - they are the ones who point us towards the path of fulfilling the promise 'ה made to Rachael. With love for the land guiding us, we will return.
For my bat mitzva, I studied women in Jewish history. As I was thinking about the women yesterday, it occurred to me that while the main characters in our stories, books, and Tanach tend to be men, there is a constant theme of women moving the plot ahead. The women who came immediately to mind were Rivka, who ensured Yaakov got the birthright, Rachael who is considered mother to us all (and I will delve in to Rachael's contribution a little more in the dvar Torah itself), Serach bat Asher, who told her grandfather that her uncle Yosef was still alive, Yocheved, Miriam, Batya, Serach again upon leaving Egypt, Tziporah who had the faith to give her son the brit mila Moshe couldn't and all the way through to our more recent history where pregnant women his their pregnancies during the Holocaust, and found ways to give their sons a brit mila even in the worst circumstances. Our men are wonderful, but it's the women who determine what the lives of the family and the future of Am Yisrael will be. And we recognize that each month, that this often hidden part of Judaism is actually the root of the living tree.
Rosh Chodesh Tammuz - Mourning and Salvation
The only 'holiday' in תמוז is שבעה עשר בתמוז - a fast day that commemorates the walls of Jerusalem being breached by the Romans before the destruction of the 2nd בית המקדש.
שבעה עשר בתמוז starts a 3-week mourning period which deepens on ראש חודש אב culminates in the major fast of תשעה באב.
שבעה עשר בתמוז is historically a sad day for משנה תענית .עם ישראל 4:6 cites 5 calamities on this day:
1. It is 40 days from the day Moshe ascended to הר סיני. That makes it the day that he returned, the day he saw the golden calf, חטא העגל. And hence, it is the day that the לוחות were broken.
2. During the siege of Jerusalem in the era of the 1st בית המקדש, in 423 BCE it was the date that the daily burnt offering ceased to be brought in the Temple as life had been so thoroughly disrupted, a short 3 weeks before the destruction of the בית המקדש.
3. The walls of Jerusalem were breached by the Romans in 70 CE.
4. Apostomus, a Roman general, burnt a תורה scroll shortly before בר כוכבא's revolt, about 132 CE.
5. At about the same time, an idol was placed in the בית המקדש either by Apostomus or by King Menashe.
We've been in a long-term low-grade suspended state of mourning for the בית המקדש ever since. We daven to return not just to Jerusalem and the בית המקדש, but to re-establish a monarchy there.
This month we will be reading about בנות צלפחד, whose father died either due to collecting wood on שבת, for which he was executed, or in an attempt to get to ארץ ישראל. A group of men couldn't bear the thought of waiting 40 year to get to Israel and headed out on their own to get to the land and were all sadly killed. Either way, צלפחד left behind 5 daughters and no sons - Machla, Noa, Chagla, Milka, and Tirtza.
These women approached משה to ensure they could inherit their father's plot of land in Israel, as they were preparing by allocating land to every family. At the time, the הלכה was that only sons could inherit, but these 5 sisters so badly wanted inherit that they asked for special counsel. משה took the question straight to 'ה, and 'ה affirmed that the sisters were correct - they could inherit.
The timing of the request is strange. צלפחד had died in the 2nd year in the desert. משה was dealing with a nation that didn't want to go to Israel because they were fearful of being killed, a nation that had started to romanticize life in Egypt. Egypt! We just had a holiday a few months ago about how hard life was as slaves, and yet they were asking to go back. And even so, here came these 5 sisters demanding their portion of the land.
Were they after money? If they were, why would they have waited 38 years? They would have asked for his cattle immediately. They would have collected his his possessions and money long before if that was what they were after. They were there for the love of the land.
The woman most closely aligned with this 3-week period of mourning is רחל אמנו. Our tradition holds that of all the people advocating for us, it is רחל who truly speaks on our behalf ('ירמהיו ל'א: יד'-טו)
First, note that while Leah in her life was marked by eyes reddened from shedding tears, it is רחל אמנו who we picture crying for eternity. הבל היופי - beauty is fleeting.
Jewish tradition holds that these פסוקים in ירמיהו are THE source for our belief that there will be an eventual geulah, that God will bring us back from the exile He imposed upon us. A promise made to a woman, to a mother, crying on behalf of her children - and all of עם ישראל.
The תורה introduces the sisters with a listing of their lineage ('במדבר כ'ז: א):
Why bother giving us a lineage? It could have simply said בנות צלפחד of the tribe of מנשה. And why emphasize מנשה בן יוסף? We know who מנשה is!
As anyone in attendance at our first ראש חודש gathering will remember, יוסף so loved the Israel that he made עם ישראל promise to take his bones and bury him there. The notion of Egypt as his final resting place was painful for him. Before the Jews could leave Egypt, משה wandered for 3 days, looking for Yosef's bones. And Serach bat Asher, the only person still living who had come down to Egypt in the original group with יעקב walked him to the Nile. The Egyptians knew that the slaves would not leave without Yosef, so they coated his casket and sank it to the bottom of the river. Serach helped Moshe locate Yosef, and Moshe carried his bones through the desert because Yosef so loved the land. Yosef ben Rachael.
The daughters of צלפחד, descendants of יוסף and רחל אמנו - they are the ones who point us towards the path of fulfilling the promise 'ה made to Rachael. With love for the land guiding us, we will return.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Rosh Chodesh Sivan, 5773 - T'filat HaShlah
כי על כן באתי לבקש ולחנן מלפניך שיהא זרעי וזרע זרעי זרע כשר. ואל תמצא בזרעי ובזרע זרעי עד עולם שום פסול ושמץ.
It is for this reason that I come to ask and plead before you that my children and the children of my children should be kosher (upright) offspring, that no blemish or imperfection be found in my children or grandchildren...
This month is Sivan, month of שבועות, the time in which we received the תורה, and the חג in which we read מגילת רות.
Sivan's sign is twins, which we call Gemini in English. One way of understanding twinness is by looking ar duality, which we experience daily living in a physical world as a spiritual being.
Rut's most famous descendant was בועז .דוד המלך, her 2nd husband, was descended from פרץ, one of the twins born to תמר via her secret pregnancy with בועז .יהודה and רות had a son עובד, father of ישי, father of דוד.
רות is portrayed as an ideal heroine - inspired by her mother-in-law נעמי, she ;eaves behind her position as princess with the wealth, protection, and opportunity that it afforded her, and followed נעמי back to a Jewish life of poverty and uncertainty in a land full of turmoil. What's not to like? She's quite impressive - even with the awkward seduction at the threshing floor. But I have never related to רות on a deep level.
Instead it is her great-grandson (my ancestor) דוד המלך to whom I relate. דוד was the youngest of his family and it seems that he wasn't taken seriously by many. Even after he was chosen as king, his own family had a low opinion of him and didn't want him around (Shmuel A, chapter 17):
דוד was, even in this short account, a little difficult. He is not simply like רות, willing to let go of a former self and life to dedicate himself to God - he is a fiery daring boy who challenges his eldest brother and even the sitting king.
And he wins.
דוד continues to be a flawed character. In his excitement at recovering the ark he danced in the street, scantily dressed, setting off a quarrel with his beloved מיכל who felt he made a fool of his station. When she confronted him, he responded with angry prideful words.
דוד lied to his friend אחימלך about being an emissary from שאול, acquiring food and weapons. אחימלך and 85 other כהנים were killed in retribution.
דוד was so angered by נבל's refusal to help him while on the run from שאול that he was going to attack - until נבל ,אביגיל's beautiful wife, rode to him and made peace. When נבל learned of what had happened, he had a stroke, dying 10 days later. דוד then married אביגיל.
And of course - דוד & בתשבע, an episode that included possible adultery and the death of בתשבע ,אוריה's husband.
So... why am I listing off so many of דוד's infamous exploits?
Because even with that, we have a duality in דוד. He was a poet, a seeker of God, whose kingdom we pray to reestablish.
In times of trouble, torment, and joy we sing and recite his poems, our תהלים.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever says that David sinned is merely erring, for it is said, And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways: and the Lord was with him. Is it possible that sin came to his hand, yet the Divine Presence was with him? Then how do I interpret, Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in his sight? He wished to do [evil], but did not. (translation via http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_56.html).
What was דוד's sin then?
Nathan the prophet approached דוד with a story of two men with sheep, rich and poor, in which the rich man took the poor man's sheep.
דוד was outraged - righteous indignation! Shmuel B, chapter 12
| ה וַיִּחַר-אַף דָּוִד בָּאִישׁ, מְאֹד; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-נָתָן, חַי-יְהוָה, כִּי בֶן-מָוֶת הָאִישׁ הָעֹשֶׂה זֹאת. | 5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan: 'As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this deserveth to die; |
| וַיֹּאמֶר נָתָן אֶל-דָּוִד, אַתָּה הָאִישׁ. | 7 And Nathan said to David: 'Thou art the man. |
When we die, each of us will be given a hypothetical situation to judge. When we show righteous indignation and proclaim a fate, that will become our fate.
To go off on one more tangent before I bring this all together: A few years ago I was in the car with my parents. While we were talking, I asked my father what my one major, over-riding flaw was; what was the one big thing that needed to change? I waited to hear the wisdom that would come from his mouth, unlocking my entire future, giving me a goal to work towards, a trait to overcome. My father sat silently, chewing his lip for a good 5 minutes. With each passing second, my anticipation grew. Finally, he turned and looked at me and said "Nothing. Don't change a thing. Not you, and not your siblings." I was gob-smacked.
When we daven that our offspring should have no flaws, we're really davening that their flaws shouldn't be judged!
In this month where we became HaShem's children, we remember דוד's anger and the תפילה of the של''ה הקודש. We teach our children to judge one another favorably, so God will ultimately judge them as they have judged others; that God see our children as His children, with no blemish or imperfection.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Most Influential
I hate this trend of most influential lists and 36 Under 36. First off, and not to knock anyone on the list, some of the people singled out by the Jewish Week don't seem to be doing anything particularly unique. I'm a bit confused about why their profiles were listed for all to see and I kind of want my time back after reading them.
Influence and success, like beauty, are very much in the eye of the beholder. Influence in particular is a question of happenstance - did you talk to one of the thousands of people who follow someone's Twitter feed? Did you hear about someone from their proud grandmother? It's a little unclear how these lists are assessed.
I keep joking about making my own list, but in all seriousness, I have some really awesome friends (and one awesome spouse-friend, as well). Some have been honored publicly, some haven't, but many are deserving of recognition. In fact, the one thing that's held me back from creating a list is how absurdly long it would be - my feminist friends kicking down doors in the dati world, my inventive husband who dared to include UN ambassadors at Friday night dinners in the Hamptons, my friend Josh who tweets his very absolutist take on life and Judaism, the VERY MANY mothers and fathers out there critically thinking and introducing fantastic bits of life to their offspring (and sharing it with the rest of us), the friends who have gone for graduate degrees and beyond, building careers I'm frankly envious of...
So, yes - single out Jason Lieberman. He was dealt a hand I would not have handled with such grace and humor, and he is dedicated to raising awareness of disabilities in communities across the country. He stands head and shoulders above most (although not literally, even with his crutches). He does what few out there can or would do, and I know that to Jason the great benefit of being singled out is not what it will do to his Klout number, but that it fits with his ultimate goal of raising awareness.
Congratulation to Jason on his honor - he is representative of the many amazing friends I have accumulated over the years, and I'm glad the larger world now knows about his life's work.
Influence and success, like beauty, are very much in the eye of the beholder. Influence in particular is a question of happenstance - did you talk to one of the thousands of people who follow someone's Twitter feed? Did you hear about someone from their proud grandmother? It's a little unclear how these lists are assessed.
I keep joking about making my own list, but in all seriousness, I have some really awesome friends (and one awesome spouse-friend, as well). Some have been honored publicly, some haven't, but many are deserving of recognition. In fact, the one thing that's held me back from creating a list is how absurdly long it would be - my feminist friends kicking down doors in the dati world, my inventive husband who dared to include UN ambassadors at Friday night dinners in the Hamptons, my friend Josh who tweets his very absolutist take on life and Judaism, the VERY MANY mothers and fathers out there critically thinking and introducing fantastic bits of life to their offspring (and sharing it with the rest of us), the friends who have gone for graduate degrees and beyond, building careers I'm frankly envious of...
So, yes - single out Jason Lieberman. He was dealt a hand I would not have handled with such grace and humor, and he is dedicated to raising awareness of disabilities in communities across the country. He stands head and shoulders above most (although not literally, even with his crutches). He does what few out there can or would do, and I know that to Jason the great benefit of being singled out is not what it will do to his Klout number, but that it fits with his ultimate goal of raising awareness.
Congratulation to Jason on his honor - he is representative of the many amazing friends I have accumulated over the years, and I'm glad the larger world now knows about his life's work.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Rosh Chodesh Iyar 5773 Dvar Torah
I had the honor of learning much of VaYikra in depth while at Drisha under the tutelage of Tammy Jacobowitz. That year I was pregnant with Gus, learning about marriage (and breastfeeding) in Ktuvot, and learning about the midrashim on Tazria with Tammy. Sefer VaYikra will now always have a special place in my heart.
For Rosh Chodesh Iyar, I'm going to share this thought inspired by Parshat Tazria, which is the first Parsha of the month:
Tazria starts with the following 5 psukim -
א וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ, וְיָלְדָה זָכָר--וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא.
ג וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.
ד וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, תֵּשֵׁב בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָה; בְּכָל-קֹדֶשׁ לֹא-תִגָּע, וְאֶל-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא, עַד-מְלֹאת, יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ.
ה וְאִם-נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד, וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ; וְשִׁשִּׁים יוֹם וְשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים, תֵּשֵׁב עַל-דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה.
1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a woman be inseminated, and bear a male, then she shall be tamei seven days; as in the days of the ilness of her niddah shall she be tamei.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall continue in the tahor blood thirty-three days; she shall touch no kadosh thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a female, then she shall be tamei two weeks, as in her niddah state; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days.
There's a lot to unpack here. Unfortunately we don't have time for it all. We're going to look at one spcific point - Why does childbirth render a woman טָמְאָה?
It's important to note that Biblically speaking, after the initial 7/14 days, a woman would go to the מקוה and no longer be in the state of niddah. In modern times we are in a niddah state until the postpartum bleeding stops, which is usually 6 weeks after birth, but biblically that state was only for the first 7 or 14 days while the bleeding after was some form of טָהֳרָה. The קֹדֶשׁ she couldn't touch was only in the בית המקדש. The רמב''ם actually suggests (Moreh Nevuchim, 3:47) that the system of people becoming טמא was a method of crowd control for the בית המקדש.
Blood itself does not render a person טמא. There was blood all around the sactrificial area of the בית המקדש , and there was no admonition regarding people who were bleeding from a wound.
So, to go back to Pasuk ג - after 7 days of altered status, a woman was טהור, able to join her husband fully. And on the next day, after the completion of 7 days, there was a public שמחה.
But why was she טמא in the first place? We know that death, or - if you prefer - the negation of life, can create a state of טומאה; hence being טמא after attending a funeral or when we have our period. The negation of life, of potential, of connection to God, changes our status momentarily.
The overly pat answer I received in high school and have heard many times since is that the טומאה comes upon giving birth because a woman can't get pregnant right then and is therefore in an altered state. I hate this answer. It's ridiculous. If that were the calculus, we'd be a niddah most of our cycle and טהור only the few days during which we can get pregnant. And then post-menopausal women would be in a permanent state of טומאה, yet the opposite is true.
In his book 'New Interpretations on the Parsha', R' Yehuda Henkin suggests an alternative that I greatly appreciate (page 94):
The rock on which this explanation founders, however, is childbirth. Why is a woman impure after childbirth? Nothing seems further from death and decay than bringing a child into the world. Even if birth involves an element of illness for the mother, why should that outweigh the emergence of a new being?
The answer, it seems to me, is that not only death and decay are opposed to the idea of God, but birth as well. HaShem does not die, but neither is be born. The flux of human life, birth and death together, is antithetical to God's immutable and eternal nature. Tum'ah represents the waxing as well of the waning of life and has no place in the Sanctuary, the abode of the Eternal. For that reason a woman in childbirth is impure, for nothing is less God-like than the cycle of generation (Dani's note - this would also explain why a man is tamei after sex).
This can explain several of the laws of purity and sacrifices. Why is a woman impure for one week if a boy is born, but two weeks if she gives birth to a girl? Because the female is the more visible link in the reproductive chain.
So... how does this relate to the meaning of Iyar?
Just 2 days ago we commemorated יום השואה, and in 5 days time, we'll be moving from יום הזיכרון to יום העצמות.
Nothing sums up the cycle of modern Jewry's death and birth quite like this one week. It is a week of remembrance, mourning, and distance from daily life. After 7 days, the week culminates in a joyous celebration of our newly reborn land - a public שמחה.
There is no better cycle for this month than אייר. During אייר we count ספירה, which brings with it laws of mourning - we don't cut our hair, we don't listen to live music, we don't go to movies. And then we suspend it all for one day - the 33rd day. And we celebrate.
אייר's duality reflects back the cycle of Jewish loss and Jewish triumph. In this month we embrace our humanity, our very mortality. Our lives cycle up and down, but God is constant - as we experience אייר, we prepare for סיון and the end of the 7-week cycle - we have a public שבועות ,שמחה, in which we can fully embrace life and קדשים again.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
ABC Dinners - 'C' Night
After the massive success of our 2nd dinner, I really wanted to knock it out of the park for the 3rd.
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on what worked for 'B' night, I decided to push it and challenge the kids.
So brilliant me came up with chowder and cornbread for dinner.
Now, I should back up and explain how much I hate fish. Hate, despise, avoid... I can sometimes eat tuna, sometimes eat gefilte fish, and sometimes tolerate sushi. I've eaten actual salmon 3 times in my life. Mostly, the smell throws me. And if it's at all over-cooked, the taste and texture make me gag.
So, brilliant! Why not make a fish soup!? Yes, yes, so smart - not just a fish soup, but one with an onion base, because there's nothing my daughter hates more than fish, besides onions.
Spectacular planning on the Momma front.
I will point out that the issue is not with the recipe. It's with the audience I chose to serve it to.
http://www.koshereye.com/soups/467-new-england-style-kosher-qclamq-chowder-.html
My local store didn't have halibut, so I picked another white fish that was reasonably not insanely expensive. I see all the qualifiers I used in the sentence, and I meant every one of them.
Cod? I have no clue.
Side note - if I had chopped the onions a lot more finely, there's a distinct possibility that the soup would have been more palatable to child #1. As it was, the onions and potatoes both were cooked, but not as soft as they should have been.
I cut the fish pretty finely, but the textures in the soup DID NOT meld. I admit - I was rushing it a little. Totally my mistake.
And I didn't use generous amounts of white pepper because I was scared of over-seasoning for the kids' palettes.
So, that was a disaster. Of such proportions that I believe I skipped photographing the results. I ate the soup, and it was okay, but as I mentioned, the textures were off because the fish was soft and the potatoes and onions were nowhere near as soft. So I was able to eat it, but didn't exactly rush to get a 2nd bowl. The kids cried during dinner.
I also made some super awesome yummy cheesey cauliflower
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ina-garten/cauliflower-gratin-recipe/index.html
that the kids hated. I couldn't stop eating it.
The saving grace?
CORNBREAD!
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/bakingdesserts/r/cornbread.htm
I have now made this recipe about 40 times since we had our 'C' dinner, and it's been wildly successful each time. And it's so quick, and so easy! We make it in an 8x8 pan or in a muffin pan, and either way, it's gone pretty quickly. I have to consciously hold myself back from over-mixing the wet into the dry - it's really good. If you're looking for a sweeter corn muffin, add some agave to the mix. I haven't yet, but it should give you a lot of sweet for not much more liquid. You could also drizzle honey over the muffins right after you take them out of the oven.
WAIT. It gets better.
The night had gone so badly that I decided a repeat was in order.
I made Cheesey Cauliflower SOUP, thinking it would go over better than the cheesey cauliflower had. I was so wrong!
So
Predictably
Wrong.
But I made cornbread again.
Anyhow, I made this soup:
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/recipefinder/wisconsin-cauliflower-cheddar-soup-984
It was awesome. Amazing. SO GOOD. Kids hated it, wouldn't touch it, and had butter on cornbread for dinner.
I decided to move on. You can read about our 'D' adventures soon!
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on what worked for 'B' night, I decided to push it and challenge the kids.
So brilliant me came up with chowder and cornbread for dinner.
Now, I should back up and explain how much I hate fish. Hate, despise, avoid... I can sometimes eat tuna, sometimes eat gefilte fish, and sometimes tolerate sushi. I've eaten actual salmon 3 times in my life. Mostly, the smell throws me. And if it's at all over-cooked, the taste and texture make me gag.
So, brilliant! Why not make a fish soup!? Yes, yes, so smart - not just a fish soup, but one with an onion base, because there's nothing my daughter hates more than fish, besides onions.
Spectacular planning on the Momma front.
I will point out that the issue is not with the recipe. It's with the audience I chose to serve it to.
http://www.koshereye.com/soups/467-new-england-style-kosher-qclamq-chowder-.html
My local store didn't have halibut, so I picked another white fish that was reasonably not insanely expensive. I see all the qualifiers I used in the sentence, and I meant every one of them.
Cod? I have no clue.
Side note - if I had chopped the onions a lot more finely, there's a distinct possibility that the soup would have been more palatable to child #1. As it was, the onions and potatoes both were cooked, but not as soft as they should have been.
I cut the fish pretty finely, but the textures in the soup DID NOT meld. I admit - I was rushing it a little. Totally my mistake.
And I didn't use generous amounts of white pepper because I was scared of over-seasoning for the kids' palettes.
So, that was a disaster. Of such proportions that I believe I skipped photographing the results. I ate the soup, and it was okay, but as I mentioned, the textures were off because the fish was soft and the potatoes and onions were nowhere near as soft. So I was able to eat it, but didn't exactly rush to get a 2nd bowl. The kids cried during dinner.
I also made some super awesome yummy cheesey cauliflower
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ina-garten/cauliflower-gratin-recipe/index.html
that the kids hated. I couldn't stop eating it.
The saving grace?
CORNBREAD!
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/bakingdesserts/r/cornbread.htm
I have now made this recipe about 40 times since we had our 'C' dinner, and it's been wildly successful each time. And it's so quick, and so easy! We make it in an 8x8 pan or in a muffin pan, and either way, it's gone pretty quickly. I have to consciously hold myself back from over-mixing the wet into the dry - it's really good. If you're looking for a sweeter corn muffin, add some agave to the mix. I haven't yet, but it should give you a lot of sweet for not much more liquid. You could also drizzle honey over the muffins right after you take them out of the oven.
WAIT. It gets better.
The night had gone so badly that I decided a repeat was in order.
I made Cheesey Cauliflower SOUP, thinking it would go over better than the cheesey cauliflower had. I was so wrong!
So
Predictably
Wrong.
But I made cornbread again.
Anyhow, I made this soup:
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/recipefinder/wisconsin-cauliflower-cheddar-soup-984
It was awesome. Amazing. SO GOOD. Kids hated it, wouldn't touch it, and had butter on cornbread for dinner.
I decided to move on. You can read about our 'D' adventures soon!
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Kitniyot - Modern US Custom (2009)
Kitniyot - Modern US Custom (2009)
The Kosher world in the United States is very different than that of a hundred years ago, or ever known previously in history. As food production moved from the home to the factories, the intricacies of Kashruth interfered with the ability of a Kosher-observant person to purchase certain processed items. An organization called the Orthodox Union, or the OU, a non-profit group that represented centrist American Jewry, was the first to act as a non-profit in the world of Kosher certification, and held themselves to strict standards. Today the OU is the largest and most well-known Kosher certifying agency, with companies across the world. I spent almost two years working there, in the Kashruth devision, answering consumer questions about Kashruth and OU-Specific Kashruth policies.
In an ideal world, each individual Kosher consumer would be personally familiar with the provenance of every food item in his or her home. In today's world of processed foods and foods shipped across the country and world, that is an impossibility. A Kosher certifying agency takes the place of the individual consumer, checking the ingredients, facility, and equipment to make sure it's up to Kosher par. The basic system of marking items is divided into Kosher Parve, Kosher Dairy, Kosher Meat, Kosher Fish, Kosher Dairy Equipment, Kosher Meat Equipment, and Kosher for Passover (which will be listed with appropriately designated Dairy, Meat, etc markings).
The mashgiach, or Kosher inspector, must not only know that the ingredients themselves are Kosher, he or she must know specifically how they are made. For example, some foods that are calcium-enriched have a form of calcium which was derived from dairy substances. If there is enough of a proportion of this ingredient to the final product, the product will be marked Dairy. The mashgiach is in regular contact with the companies he or she supervises, and has the full cooperation of the company, factory supervisor, and workers.
While the OU is the most well-known Kosher supervising agency, there are 4 others that are nationally known and accepted in the Orthodox community: the OK, the Star-K, and the Kaf-K, and the CRC. While they all rely on the OU for its in-depth information, the actual policies of the various agencies do differ slightly, and this is seen mostly in the local communities of the agencies. For the duration of this paper, we will be comparing the agencies' policies regarding both Kitniyot in general, and quinoa specifically.
The OU is based in Manhattan, but is the primary agency that most American communities rely on, as it is affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America, which is a large association for American Orthodox Rabbis. The Kof-K is based in Teaneck, NJ, and some of the New Jersey community rely on the Kof-K more than the OU, although they work closely together. In fact, when I called the Kof-K to ask about their Kitniyot list, the person I spoke to told me that they use the list they get from the OU (this turned out to not be 100% true). The Star-K is a Baltimore-based agency, and has gained some footholds in the right-wing spectrum, as the Baltimore community is generally a right-wing one. The CRC is based in Chicago, and is also closely aligned with the OU. The OK declined to send their list of Kitniyot.
Following is a chart of the different products I have found each organization to list as either Kitniyot, not Kitniyot, or something to be avoided. While some items were not addressed by all agencies, I included as much as I could find to give a sense of how central this minhag has become to Passover observance. Note specifically the items that are listed as Kitniyot by some agencies, and not as Kitniyot by others. Also note the degree to which some of the agencies warn their consumers away from specific ingredients:
As one can imagine, this causes quite the headache for consumers who are trying to be careful regarding the minhag of Kitniyot. Even worse, agencies contradict themselves within their own literature in regards to quinoa, a more recently discovered grain that has become popular for use on Passover.
As seen in the chart above, the OU has published the information that quinoa is questionable and should be avoided. However, when I worked at the OU, I was instructed in a different manner. The response I wrote is still on their online FAQ page, and I quote:
Quinoa is not one of the five grains that can create chametz (wheat, oat, barley, spelt and rye). Nonetheless, there is a difference of opinion among Rabbinic decisors (machloketh haposkim) as to whether quinoa is considered kitniyoth (Ashkenazic custom is not to eat kitniyoth on Pesach). We suggest asking your local Orthodox Rabbi if it is or is not kitniyoth.
It should be noted that although Quinoa is not grown in the same vicinity as the five chometz grains mentioned above, the processing of Quinoa is often done at the same facility where they process wheat. Therefore, if you rely on the lenient opinion and treat quinoa as non-kitniyoth, we suggest that you sift through the quinoa to make sure that there are no other grains mixed in. (http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/learn/faq)
Quinoa is allowed by the Star-K, and they indeed have a full article on their website proclaiming the wonders of this “Grain That's Not” (http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-passover-quinoa.htm). The Star-K even includes instructions on how to prepare the delicate grain. The Kof-K states that the custom is not to use it.
In my position at the OU, I was sent to the offices of the two head decisors for the OU with a question about hemp seeds. Upon asking them about yet another product and its inclusion on the ever-growing Kitniyot list, one of the Rabbis turned to the other and said “When will they stop adding things to the list? First they want to add quinoa, now this?” He then turned to me and said “Tell them it's fine, but they have to check it by hand before Passover to be sure no other grains are mixed in.” (Note - in the last 8 years their opinions have changed. This is not intended to ridicule those rabbis, but to point out how clear cut the initial approach was to quinoa)
It seems that even the head Rabbis, who have never publicly said a word against the minhag of Kitniyot, are feeling the stress from this ever-burgeoning list. While there is no official compendium of modern Halachic reponsa that breaks down the exact numbers of those who allow quinoa and those who don't, my experience has been that those who know of it use it. Quinoa is used as a side in place of rice, in chulent in place of barley and beans, and with melted cheese on top in place of pasta.
As a side note, there are items that are considered Kitniyot in the US which are not technically edible, such as rapeseed. The Kosher-certifying agencies in Israel have taken precautions against people refusing to use canola oil on Passover by re-naming the product. The authorities were aware that it was easier to call the product by a different name and label it 'Kosher for Passover' than to try to convince those who keep Kitniyot that they could use canola oil on Passover. It's a sad, if funny, state of affairs.
While I can't envision the American Rabbinic leadership ever abolishing Kitniyot, I do have high hopes that with time and ever-growing knowledge, the list will cease to grow, and perhaps some items, such as rapeseed, peanuts, and green beans will even be removed from it. The job of the certifying agencies will be easier, the preparations for the holiday will be easier, and there will be more food to enjoy in what is generally regarded as a tortuous holiday by observant Jews.
Kitniyot – A Minhag for the Ages?
In this paper written 4 years ago for a college class, I explored the issue of minhag as it related to kitniyot. The list of foods considered kitniyot seems to get passed from community to community, unlike most forms of minhag, generating an ever-expanding list of what used to be local customs. My father recalls peanut oil not only being used in his home, but marketed as the primary oil for Pesach when he was a child; I have had people inform me that foods such as green beans and garlic are kitniyot and therefore forbidden to me even though I grew up eating them in my parents' home on Pesach. I have not touched upon mei kitniyot, which I htink is worthy of its own separate conversation.
This paper was not originally intended for a public audience and is not meant as a final say on the issue. Rather, I'd like to start a conversation about kitniyot, sharing minhagim, and whether anyone can decide for anyone else whether quinoa and other new foods are kitniyot.
I am sharing additional material, including a chart I created of kitniyot information from various websites and publications as well as the translations I used for my paper.
I'd like to thank my husband, Rabbi Avraham Bronstein, and my teacher Susan Hollis for their input as I wrote the original paper. I'd also like to thank the various friends who have looked at it since: Yona Baer, Motti Schleider, Ben Franz, Avi Kessner, and Noah Roth.
This paper was not originally intended for a public audience and is not meant as a final say on the issue. Rather, I'd like to start a conversation about kitniyot, sharing minhagim, and whether anyone can decide for anyone else whether quinoa and other new foods are kitniyot.
I am sharing additional material, including a chart I created of kitniyot information from various websites and publications as well as the translations I used for my paper.
I'd like to thank my husband, Rabbi Avraham Bronstein, and my teacher Susan Hollis for their input as I wrote the original paper. I'd also like to thank the various friends who have looked at it since: Yona Baer, Motti Schleider, Ben Franz, Avi Kessner, and Noah Roth.
Kitniyot
– A Minhag for the Ages?
Daniela
Weiss-Bronstein
July
1, 2009
The Jewish principle Minhag
k'Halakha Hu means that that one's customs take on the status of law (Tosafot,
Menahot 20B). Practically that means that a valid minhag can
determine actual practice, both in cases where Rabbinic authorities disagree
and for different communities. Minhag
does not have the power to override Biblical or Talmudic law, and any minhag
that involves violation of halakha is invalid and may not be upheld (Or
Zarua, 1:7). Additionally, there are differing opinions regarding the
validity of a minhag created by someone not well-educated in halakha
who settled upon the minhag through erroneous understanding of the laws
(Makom Shenahagu, 3; Bach, Yoreh Deah, 214; Bet Yosef,
Yoreh Deah, 214; Shach, 214:7).
A valid minhag that has been accepted by previous generations of
a family or community takes on this status of Minhag k'Halakha Hu for
future generations (Pesachim, 50).
As we will see, one of the defining characteristics of a minhag
versus an actual Biblical or Talmudic law is that there are no factual sources
for it. Instead, suppositions have been
put forward regarding both why the minhag started and its purpose or usefulness
to the community. This principle of minhag
is so powerful that it has enacted and upheld some of the hallmarks of modern
Orthodox Judaism, such as the kippah, monogamy, and the use of a bridal
veil during a wedding ceremony. While
wearing a kippah and using a bridal veil are universally accepted in
Judaism, we will see that monogamy is actually only a minhag for the Ashkenazi
community.
The kippah, also known as yarmulke,
koppel, or head-covering, is probably the most well-known custom
practiced by religious Jews today. The
kippah originated with the idea that a man should cover his head while praying
(Hilkhot Tefilah, 5:5). It is also
considered an act of Kiddush haShem, honoring God's name. The minhag can be traced to the following
statements regarding covering one's head, “Rabbi Honah ben Joshua never walked
4 cubits with his head uncovered. He explained “Because the Divine Presence is
over my head, (Kiddushin, 31:A)” and “Cover your head in order that the
fear of Heaven may be upon you (Shabbat, 156:B).” While tzitzit, ritual
fringes, are supposed to be a reminder of God and his commandments, one can envision
that having additional reminders to be pious and aware of God was a custom that
quickly spread to the nearly universal visual marker it is today of a religious
Jew. This minhag is valid in that
it's not based in a misunderstanding, the source for the custom is a Jewish
sage, and it does not interfere with halakha.
Monogamy is a more recent
custom. Jewish society and law allowed
for polygyny, as shown by the marriage of Jacob to multiple wives, the marriage
of Solomon to multiple wives, and a myriad of other sources. After the return from the Babylonian Exile,
monogamy became the standard for practical reasons such as affordability and
avoiding strife in the marriage and home.
By the Middle Ages monogamy was still allowed but not often
practiced. This was formalized with the
enactment (takana) of Rabbi Gershom in the early 11th
century, forbidding polygyny for Ashkenazim. In Sephardic and Arabic Jewish
communities, the monogamy enactment is not valid, but it is still general
practice. The takana was
proclaimed for 1000 years and recently expired, but is still held to. This is a special case, where a takana
has now become minhag, but minhag that is considered halakha
in most cases. This minhag is valid
because polygyny is allowed, but not required, it was enacted by a great
scholar, and is not based on erroneous interpretations of halakha.
The bridal veil is a custom with
Biblical reference, but is not cited as law.
When Rebecca saw her groom, Isaac, approaching, she used her veil to
cover herself. This action has taken on
symbolism of Jewish modesty. The bride
herself is said to be moving into a realm of greater modesty, as expressed
through covering her hair after marriage.
She is also covering her face to hide from licentious thoughts of those
witnessing the ceremony. The groom is
supposed to use this opportunity to focus on his love for the bride's character
rather than her beauty. The veiling of
the bride is a central part of the wedding ceremony, as the groom comes forward
to see his bride for the first time, and lowers the veil before all the
attendees of the wedding. Many Sephardim
and Hassidim take this minhag very seriously and use an extremely
thick and opaque cloth to cover the bride's face. This minhag is valid because it is not
based in error (indeed, it is rooted in Hebraic custom), and it does not
interfere with halakha.
Validity and non-interference with halakha
are the two underlying necessities for a minhag to be upheld. Each of the previously referenced minhagim
works in concert with, or in addition to, the principles of halakha. None of them override halakha, and
none of them are erroneous interpretations or protections of halakha. Some, such as the kippah and the
bridal veil are practiced universally in Jewish circles (sects that do not wear
kippot regularly do still wear them for prayer service), and while
monogamy is not forced upon the Sephardic community, there are no
mainstream Rabbis who would allow polygynous marriage today.
To fully understand the argument
regarding Kitniyot, we must delve briefly into the history of Chametz
and Matzah. The Biblical sources
for chametz and matzah are as follows:
Seven
days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the very first day you shall remove
leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to
the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel (Exodus, 12:15).
In the
first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat
unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. No leaven shall be found in your houses for
seven days. For whoever eats what is
leavened, that person shall be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he
is a stranger or a citizen of the country.
You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your settlements you shall eat
unleavened food (Exodus, 12:18-20).
Throughout
the seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten; no leavened bread shall be
found with you, and no leaven shall be found in all your territory (Exodus,
13:7).
Exodus
12:15 tells us that we must eat matzah on Passover. Exodus 12:19 tells us that we may not have chametz
in our homes or for consumption. Exodus
13:7 further tells us that we may not have chametz within our property.
The
Rabbis extrapolate law from the verses, looking at where words repeat, how
phrases are put together, and which clauses about each other. Through these and
other methods, the basic laws of Passover are fleshed out. We will focus for the moment on Tractate Pesachim,
page 35:A.
Mishnah: There is a Biblical requirement to eat matzah
on the first night of Pesach (derived from Exodus 12:18, “In the first month,
from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread”). The Mishnah defines what type of matzah must be eaten to
fulfill this obligation:
These are the species of grain with which a person fulfills
his obligation to eat matzah on the first night of Pesach: He fulfills the
obligation with wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats.
We have
now identified the five grains that can make valid matzah, through which
one may fulfill the Biblical obligation to eat matzah on the first night
of Pesach. This of course leaves
open the possibility of making matzah from other substances, which would not
fulfill the obligation of the first night.
The Mishnah stated that one fulfills his obligation on the
first night of Pesach only with matzah made of one of the above five
grains. The Gemara now seeks the
Scriptural source for this:
From the Mishnah we see that the flour of these five grains
indeed produces valid matzah (this phrase will denote matzah with which one may fulfill
their obligation on the first night of Pesach),
whereas flour made from other grains, such as rice or millet (this is the translation
of Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 208:21. Rashi renders millet as buckwheat), does not. From where is this derived?
The Gemara replies:
R' Shimon ben Lakish said, and so it was taught in the
academy of R' Yishmael, and so it was taught in the academy of R' Eliezer ben
Yaakov: The verse states (Deuteronomy 16:3): You shall
not eat chametz with it (the pesach offering); for seven days you shall eat
matzos with it. Now, from the juxtaposition of the command to eat matzos with
the prohibition against eating chametz, we derive that it is only with things
that come to leaven when left to rise that a person fulfills his obligation to
eat matzah (i.e.
only a dough having the potential to leaven qualifies as valid matzah when
baked before it leavens). Excluded from this
category, then, are these types of flours [i.e. rice flour and millet flour],
which do not come to leaven, but, on the contrary, come to spoil (i.e. although these
doughs may appear to rise when left to sit for a time, this phenomenon is not
due to a process of leavening but to a process of spoilage).
It would
then seem, from this passage, that one could make matzah from these
other substances on Pesach and consume them, but may not use them as
valid matzah for the fulfillment of the first night obligation.
R' Shimon ben Lakish further notes that the Mishnah's
teaching in this regard is disputed by at least one Tanna:
Our Mishnah, which by implication disqualifies rice of
millet flour as sources for valid matzah, does not reflect the view of R'
Yochanan ben Nuri, who said that rice is a species of grain, and that one
liable kares for consuming its leavened form on Pesach (R' Yochanan would
evidently sanction the eating of matzah made from rice or millet on the first night
of Pesach, since, in his view, even those flours have the capacity to leaven).
R'
Yochanan is the only sage to implicate rice as a grain that could create a
valid matzah. Since any grain
that can make valid matzah is also capable of becoming chametz,
R' Yochanan is saying here that rice products have the ability to become chametz,
and therefore need to be treated with the same care as grain products on
Passover.
A Baraisa confirms the assertion that R' Yochanan ben Nuri
indeed considers rice and millet subject to leavening:
For it was taught in a Baraisa: R' YOCHANAN BEN NURI
FORBIDS one to eat a dish cooked WITH RICE OR MILLET during Pesach, BECAUSE such
grains are CLOSE
TO LEAVENING (i.e. the leaven quickly).
On
Passover, we don't cook any of the five grains unless they are in a form in
which they will not come to leaven. This
means that one would not take a wheatberry, for example, and boil it on
Passover. So too, R' Yochanan rules that
one may not boil rice as it would be chametz.
R' Shimon ben Lakish appears to understand R' Yochanan ben
Nuri as saying that rice and millet “leaven quickly.” Other Amoraim, however,
question whether this is really the meaning of his words:
They inquire: when R' Yochanan ben Nuri states that these
grains are CLOSE
TO LEAVENING, what does he mean? That they
leaven quickly, or, perhaps, he means that they come “close to leavening,” but
do not ever become fully leavened (If R' Yochanan ben Nuri means that rice and
millet leaven quickly, there is every reason to assume that these grains can
achieve the same level of chametz classification as do the other five grains.
If so, one who eats a rice or millet product that has been left to rise would
be liable to kares if he did so deliberately or a chatas if he did so inadvertently;
and one would be able to fulfill his obligation to eat matzah with matzah made
from grains. If, however, he means that
these grains do not leaven as completely as do the other five grains, it would
follow that the consumption of rice or millet products that have risen does not
carry the kares penalty). -?-
Part of
the debate occurring here is a debate over whether rice and millet leaven, or
spoil, if left to rise. While dough goes
from flour to bread to sourbread to being able to work as a leavening agent,
most authorities agree that anything other than the five grains listed in the
Talmud cannot leaven.
The Gemara decides the question:
Come, learn a proof that he means “they leaven quickly”.
For it was taught in a Baraisa: R' Yochanan ben Nuri said: RICE IS A SPECIES OF
GRAIN, AND ONE IS LIABLE TO KARES FOR
consuming ITS
LEAVENED FORM, AND ONE FULFILLS HIS OBLIGATION ON PESACH BY eating matzah made from IT. AND LIKEWISE, R' YOCHANAN BEN NURI
SAID: KERAMIS IS SUBJECT TO THE CHALLAH TITHE, for it, too, is a kind of grain valid for use as flour in
matzah.
The Gemara inquires:
What is keramis? Abaye said: It is shitzanisa.
And what is shitzanisa? Rav Pappa said: Shitzanisa is that which
is found growing among poppy (Rashi renders shitzanisa as nigella, or the
fennel flower. The seeds of this plant,
which can be ground into flour, are black in color but otherwise bear some
resemblance to millet. There are other
explanations of shitzanisa. Aruch
seems to explain it as a plant whose seeds resemble cumin, while others
classify it as a caraway seed). At any rate, it is evident that according to
R' Yochanan ben Nuri, dough made from rice or millet leavens completely (As a practical matter,
the halakha does not follow R' Yochanan ben Nuri. Although some commentators
consider that rice may give rise to chametz noksheh [7:A, note 4], most
accord with the view of Rambam [Chametz and Matzah 5:1] who
states that rice products are completely permitted for consumption on Pesach,
for they cannot become chametz at all.
In keeping with this view, rice is indeed used on Pesach among
Sepharadim. Ashkenazim, however,
although subscribing to Rambam's view in principle, nevertheless avoid
the use of rice products because of their similarity in appearance to wheat
products [see Ritva and Chayei Adam 127:1, for other reasons see Meiri,
Maharam Chalavah, and Mishnah Berurah 453:6]).
R'
Yochanan's position is rejected, and this is the last that the Talmud
has to say about small grains that could be like chametz.
Before we
look at the beginnings of Kitniyot in Rabbinic literature, an
explanation of what Kitniyot actually is is in order. The Passover-bound minhag of
refraining from eating Kitniyot or things derived from Kitniyot
is a custom found in the Ashkenazi community.
Kitniyot are, loosely, items that do not leaven but may somehow
be confused with items that do leaven.
The first
source to comment on the minhag of Kitniyot is the Tor. He says:
These are the items through which you fulfill the
obligation of Matzah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye. But not with
rice and the other species – and they also do not become leavened (chametz),
and you can use them as ingredients. And so it is with every species of Kitniyot.
And there are those who forbid the eating of rice and all
species of Kitniyot as ingredients because bits of wheat could be mixed
in with them – it is an extra stringency/restriction, and it was not followed
(Siman 453).
The Orach Hayyim is a section of the Arba'ah Turim,
the model for the Shulchan Aruch, written by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher. His father, Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, also
known as the Rosh, was the head Rabbi of Worms, a major Jewish center in
Germany, and then in France and Toledo, Spain, where he was once again
appointed the chief Rabbi. To see that
one of the major Ashkenazi Rabbis of the time felt that Kitniyot was an
extra restriction points to the fact that Kitniyot was not yet a
full-fledged minhag, nor was it being put forward as one to be adopted.
Rabbi Yosef Caro, the major codifier of Sephardic law,
comments on Kitniyot in his follow-up to the Orach Hayyim, Bet
Yosef Orach Hayyim:
“And there are those who forbid the eating of rice, etc”
Rabbi Yeruchum wrote that those whose practice it was not to eat rice and
species of Kitniyot on Pesach, it is nonsense – unless they are
doing it to be stringent, and I don't know why.
Because Rabbi Yosef Caro was a codifier of Sephardic law,
Sepharadi communities do not follow the Kitniyot stringency. Let's compare this opinion to that of a more
modern Rabbinic authority, this time an Ashkenazi Rabbi from Amsterdam, Rabbi
Yaakov Emden (Mor u'Ketziya l'Yaabetz, Siman 453):
And in a time of emergency of course you would permit all Kitniyot...
even the Baal HaTurim, who was Ashkenazi – this tradition had started
when he was alive – he didn't follow it, and wrote “it's an extra
stringency/restriction and it was not followed” - clearly the Ashkenazi Rabbis
of his day did not accept this practice... and how many decisors think it is
nonsense and a mistaken tradition for an object that doesn't require Charata
vHatara, regret and a nullification of vow (which is to say, there is no
halakhic repercussion for the eating of Kitniyot on Pesach).
Note the specific points made here. Rabbi Yaakov Emden is making the point that
this custom was based in error, was not adopted by the learned people of the
time, and is an invalid minhag.
And from what I saw with my father (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch),
blessed be his memory, how much they troubled him; every Feast of the Matzahs
he would thunder and say “What disgraceful and wasteful legal attestation is
there for this terrible tradition that creates a stringency from a leniency?
It's an injurious confusion of ideas and is a hindrance on the prohibition of
actual chametz! Because when you don't have Kitniyot to eat and get
satisfied from, you must bake an excessive amount of Matzah, which all
has to be visually examined (for leavening). If you have a large household you
need make enough to feed and satisfy them all – so they are not as careful with
the dough as you should and must be. They make a lot at once, and they
equivocate – they come close to stumbling into a prohibition that carries the
penalty of Karet, being cut out of the nation of Israel, God forbid.
The most damning aspect of this responsa is that fact that
Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch found that following this minhag interferes with one's
ability to follow the halakha of chametz and matzah. Between the need for more matzah, with
the need for constant checking, and the inability to sate the family with
cheaper and more easily afforded foods, Rabi Tzvi feared that the focus on Kitniyot
could bring people to eat actual chametz.
Also, the Matzah is expensive and not everyone can
make enough. Kitniyot can be found for cheap, without working hard, and
are halakhically permissible. And you lose some of the joy of the festival for
a stringency that has no basis.
So I say, of course, whoever nullifies this tradition of
refusing to eat Kitniyot (and other similar terrible traditions), I will
be on his side – and all my life I will stand firm and look forward to the day
when someone will come to my side, and I will publicize God's knowledge (this
gospel truth, as it were) to release these dangerous stringencies that the
majority of the community cannot abide by.
Rabbi Yaakov Emden lived in the 18th century,
and was the son of the Chacham Tzvi, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov
Ashkenazi. Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch was the
chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, and wielded influence in large Ashkenazi communities
such as England.
For a more modern American responsa, we will turn to Rav
Moshe Feinstein. Rav Moshe is generally
considered to have been the chief halakhic decisor for American Jewry
from the 1950s through the 1980s. He was
born in Russia, and was educated there.
He was the president of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United
States and Canada, which was affiliated closely with the Orthodox Union, the
largest Kosher certifying agency in the world.
He also chaired the Rabbinic policy-making council in America for the
AIA, Agudath Israel of America, the Haredi Jewish communal
organization. Rav Moshe published his responsa
in a set called Igrot Moshe. We
will look at his response to a question about whether peanuts should be added
to the list of Kitniyot items.
Igrot Moshe, Orach Hayyim, 3:63
Regarding Peanuts: Whether there is a concern of Kitnit
24 Adar 5726
In response to my friend Rabbi Yakov Goldman
Regarding peanuts, as I've written previously they were
consumed in many places during Pesach. The [author of the] Terumat haDeshen
wondered about this issue, as he heard that peanuts are sometimes ground into a
flour, and he also heard that they're grown in fields [near species of grain]
like other Kitniyot. But the Terumat haDeshen knew that it wasn't a matter
of principle that any food item that can be ground to flour is Kitniyot. There is no non-grain used to make flour as
often as the potato, not just in this country but in Europe as well, in current
times and in previous generations, and they never thought to forbid it for
Pesach consumption. And so too, the reasoning that different types of grain may
have mixed in with it, the reason suggested by the Tur, is not applied
universally as a matter of principle. We know that not all species that could
have wheat and barley mixed in with them are forbidden, as proven by our eating
anise and kimmel. Wheat and barley mix in with them, and the Taz
mentions that it is difficult to check. Nonetheless, they were never
prohibited, as is explicitly clear from the Rama. Additionally, the Rama forbids mustard
as Kitniyot even though it doesn't qualify for either of these two reasons.
Therefore we only include in this list items that are known far and wide to be
forbidden as Kitniyot. We try to create reasons to explain why things were
forbidden, but this category wasn't decided by a council of Rabbis – rather
they separately advised their communities to be strict, not to eat those
species that were fit to eat because of the possibility that grains could be
mixed in and hard to check, and because they could be made into flour. However, since they did not decree in council
to not eat things that could have grains mixed in and the foods that could be
made into flour, and rather there was a custom not to eat some species, only
those specific species are forbidden. They only forbade the species that they
were accustomed to, and not the rest of the species that they were not
accustomed to, because they were not known then. Or else potatoes, which were
not known then, and there was no custom to forbid them, they do not carry the
forbidden status of the species that were customarily forbidden, even though
the same criteria applies to them. Even though the same reason applies, we do
not expand from a custom of forbidding to include something that we did not
have the custom of forbidding. And as potatoes became common in Jewish
communities, the Rabbis did not want to forbid it because it was so necessary,
and also because the reasons themselves are somewhat weak. You can see where Bet Yosef cites RI
who called this a foolish custom. It's also known that Rabbi Yechiel and many
other great ones did permit them, even in places where the custom was to forbid
them, because he [Bet Yosef] writes that it is difficult to allow this
because others practiced a custom of forbidding it. Therefore the later Rabbis
did not want to continue to forbid items that were added later, although it
remains impossible to permit what was already forbidden. And so anise and
kimmel, it's possible that they weren't originally grown in an area where they
grew species of grain, so there was no reason to enact a prohibition. And
therefore even after they began to grow them near species of grain, they needed
to be checked, but were not forbidden. And therefore the peanut [which is not a
grain at all] was, all the more so, not forbidden in many places. And anywhere that there isn't a custom, you
should not forbid, because with these things you should not be stringent. And
anyone who has the specific custom not to eat peanuts, it's forbidden, but if
there's a doubt, do not forbid it. And so it is fitting that a
peanut-containing food can be certified kosher in that it doesn’t have any
chametz mixed in with it, and anyone who didn't have the custom that it was
forbidden should eat it. And so I've seen that they give kosher certification
to peanut oil for this reason.
Rav Moshe
makes a few points here. One point is
that because Kitniyot is a minhag, we retroactively are trying to
define how different items came to be labeled Kitniyot. He provides two main reasons – you can grind
the foods into a flour, or they are grown near fields of grain. Yet he says that there are items that are on
the list which meet neither of these criteria, and some items that are universally
accepted that meet both criteria. This
responsa is generally understood as Rav Moshe's determining that the list of Kitniyot
items must be closed, for reasons similar to those expressed by Rav Tzvi Hirsch
– the community must be left with what to eat on Pesach! He explicitly states that if we were to add anything
to the list of prohibited Kitniyot foods, we would need to add
potatoes. As any shopper in the store
during Passover can attest to, potatoes are a staple of Passover food. Some families even use them during the seder.
To
conclude, the most damning evidence to me is the fact that in my research I
could not find a validating source from the time the custom first arose. In fact the first sources to comment on the minhag
were very clear in their condemnation of the practice. Later sources can be found which try to
substantiate the premise of the minhag. These sources take 2 tacks:
post-created rules, which upon scrutiny do not apply to all products (both on
and off the list of prohibited foods), and the halakhic idea that we
continue to do what our ancestors have done.
Based on my understanding of the requirements for a valid minhag,
Kitniyot does not seem to be a minhag that should be followed or
allowed to evolve because it is unsubstantiated as a true minhag. However, I do not envision that Kitniyot
observance will be abolished in a wide-spread manner, although it will be
interesting to see what people who move to Israel choose to do in the coming
years given the responsa on the matter.
Works Cited:
Babylonian
Talmud, Masechta Menachot
Babylonian
Talmud, Masechta Pesachim
Babylonian
Talmud, Masechta Shabbat
Babylonian
Talmud, Masechta Kiddushin
Or Zarua
Makom
Shenahagu
Yoreh
Deah
Shach
Mishnah
Torah, Ahavah, Hilkhot Tefilah
Tor Orach
Hayyim
Translation
and Explanation of terms:
Minhag – custom; root word N.H.G., related to ways of conducting
oneself
Halakha – Biblical- or Talmudic-sourced law; root word H.L.KH.,
related to path or way
Chametz – leavened foods forbidden on Passover; literal chametz
is leavened foods made of one of the five grains that can make Matzah
Matzah – unleavened bread made from one of the five grains that
can become chametz if leavened
The five
grains – Chita, Seora, Kusemes, Shipun, Shibboles
Shual; wheat, barley, spelt, rye, oats
Kitniyot – literally small things; general term for foods that do
not become Chametz but are forbidden to consume on Passover in the
larger Ashkenazic community
Ashkenaz – literally Germany; general term for Jewish communities
from Central Europe, more specifically the communities that follow the psak
of the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch.
Psak – Halakhic decision
Shulchan
Aruch – literally prepared table; Coda of
Jewish law, written for Sephardi law by Rabbi Yosef Caro in the 16th
century
Bet
Yosef – both the name of Rabbi Yosef
Caro's first work and the name by which he is referred to
Rema – Rabbi Moshe Isserles, author of the Mappah, a
commentary on the Shulchan Aruch written to give a definitive listing of
Ashkenazi law. This commentary
is so thoroughly accepted by the Ashkenazi community that when they
refer to the Shulchan Aruch they not only include the Rema, but
hold it to be the greater authority.
Sepharad – literally Spain; general term for Jewish communities
from Spain, Portugal, and the Middle East (the Arabic communities are also
called Edot haMizrach, the Eastern communities); these communities
follow the psak of Rabbi Yosef Caro.
Yoreh
Deah – section of the Arba'ah Turim (written
by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher), which was the model for Caro's Shulchan Aruch. Because this section is the most
wide-ranging, it is the section studied for basic Rabbinic ordination.
Or
Zaruah – written in the 13th
century by Rabbi Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (Riaz). The Or Zaruah follows the arrangements
of the Talmudic tractates and functions as both commentary and ritual
coda.
Mishneh Torah – written by
Maimonides in the 12th century, the Mishneh Torah compiles
all Jewish law. Both Arba'ah Turim
and the Shulchan Aruch quote from the Mishneh Torah, and
Sephardic communities follow the rulings of Maimonides more closely than do
Ashkenazic.
Mishnah – the first major
written work of Rabbinic Judaism, redacted by Yehudah haNasi, collecting the
existing tradition of Jewish law. It
lists the debates of the Tanaim between 70 and 200 CE.
Gemara – Rabbinic (Amoraim)
commentaries on the Mishnah; there are two versions. The Jerusalem Talmud is a collection
of the Mishnah with the Gemara of Israel's scholars, completed
between 350 and 400 CE. The Babylonian Talmud
is a collection of the Mishnah with the Gemara of the scholars of
Babylonia, completed around 500 CE. The
Babylonian Talmud is generally held to be the greater authority due to
the greater stability of Jewish life outside of Israel.
Baraisa – Baraisas
are traditions in Oral law not included in the Mishnah. A Baraisa can bring greater
understanding of a Mishnah, but is generally less authoritative than the
Mishnah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)