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!

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.

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 11^th 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 18^th 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 16^th 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 13^th 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 12^th 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.

• Translations: Biblical sources, JPS Translation. Talmudic sources, Artscroll, Schottenstein Edition. Commentaries and responsa, my own translation.

  
  

  Addendum 2013: While this paper puts forth an argument about abolishing the entire minhag of kitniyot, there are three points which I feel didn't come through strongly enough.

  First: There is no need to do anything as radical as abolish kitniyot. What every family and community should do , however, is make an attempt to find out what their own minhagim were. There is no halakhich imperative to take on every minhag one hears of, only to continue your own minhagim.

  Second: Following the notion of establishing what your minhagim *were*, there is no reason to take on new minhagim of kitniyot. Rav Moshe is very clear about the kitniyot list being closed, and that everyone should hew to their own traditions.

  Third: If there are grains that rabbis of today find questionable, such as quinoa, the answer is not to ban them or deem them kitniyot. The answer is to teach people how to properly check grains. Let each individual decide if they are comfortable checking the grains or not. There's no need to cause more friction between people as some eat quinoa on Pesach and some think it's ahalakhic to eat quinoa on Pesach. Education is the answer, to this and many other halachic issues.

  
  

  
  

Rosh Chodesh Nissan 5773

In looking around for a good dvar Torah to give today, I found AMAZING resources at Hillel's web site. I cribbed together some separate thoughts from them (mostly following the dvar Torah they published at http://www.hillel.org/NR/rdonlyres/B08F7A68-37BD-40EA-BA08-90FC263E2381/0/serach_bat_asher.pdf).

This lunch is in honor of Rosh Chodesh, which is a holiday specifically for women. In that vein, we're going to talk about women and our role in the Pesach story.

When we talk about Pesach, we're alsways hearing about the men in the story - Moshe, Aharon, Paro. Little mention is made of the women who allowed the events of the story to unfold, specifically Yocheved, Miryam, and Serach.

Serach is first mentioned in Breishit, in the census taken as they went down to Mitzrayim

בראשית פרק מו  Genesis Chapter 46:

יז  וּבְנֵי אָשֵׁר, יִמְנָה וְיִשְׁוָה וְיִשְׁוִי וּבְרִיעָה--וְשֶׂרַח אֲחֹתָם; וּבְנֵי בְרִיעָה, חֶבֶר וּמַלְכִּיאֵל. 17 And the sons of Asher: Imnah, and Ishvah, and Ishvi, and Beriah, and Serah their sister; and the sons of Beriah: Heber, and Malchiel.

She is next mentioned in the census leaving Egypt, over 2 centuries later

במדבר פרק כו Numbers Chapter 26

מו  וְשֵׁם בַּת-אָשֵׁר, שָׂרַח. 46 And the name of the daughter of Asher was Serah.

If this is the same women, she is VERY old.

A Braisa in Seder Olam Rabba, Chapter 9, page 27 (accessed at http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hwmntd;num=31;seq=62;view=1up):

םרח בת אשר היתה מבאי מצרים ומיוצאיה ׳ מבאימצרים דכתיב (בראשית מו) וםרח אחותם • ומבאי הארץ שנאמר(במלבר כו) ושםבת אשר םרח • 

makes clear that the Serach mentioned in the first pasuk and the Serach mentioned in the 2nd pasuk are the same person - "Serach bat Asher came down to Miztrayim and was one of those who left Miztrayim."

Batei Midrsahot, volume 2, Eshet Chayil (which I have not seen myself):

Piha patcha b'chakhma, zo Serach bat Asher - shelo t'ama ta'am mita. 

Mishlei/Proverbs 31:26 

כו  פִּיהָ, פָּתְחָה בְחָכְמָה;    וְתוֹרַת חֶסֶד, עַל-לְשׁוֹנָהּ. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and the law of kindness is on her tongue.

"She openeth her mouth with wisdom" - this refers to Serach bat Asher, who never tasted death.

So - that's cool and all, but why did she merit never dying?

Midrash HaGadol Genesis 45:26 (accessed here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nc01.ark%3A%2F13960%2Ft4pk19d5v;page=root;seq=370;view=image;size=100;orient=0):

יגדו לו לאמר 'עוד יוסף חי'" (בר' מה:כו) רבנן אמרו אם אנו אומרים לו תחלה יוסף קים שמא תפרח נשמתו. מה עשו? אמרו לשרח בת אשר, "אמרי לאבינו יעקב שיוסף קים והוא במצרים. מה עשתה? המתינה לא עד שהוא עומד בתפלה ואמרה בלשון תימה:יוסף במצרים/ יולדו לו על ברכים/ מנשה ואפרים. פג לבו כשהוא עומד בתפלה. כיון שהשלים ראה העגלות, מיד "ותחי רוח יעקב אבינו"

[The brothers said:]If we tell him right away, "Joseph is alive!" perhaps he will have a stroke [lit., his soul will fly away].  What did they do?  They said to Serah, daughter of Asher, "Tell our father Jacob that Joseph is alive, and he is in Egypt."  What did she do?  She waited till he was standing in prayer, and then said in a tone of wonder, "Joseph is in Egypt/ There have been born on his knees/ Menasseh and Ephraim" [three rhyming lines: Yosef be-mizrayim / Yuldu lo al birkayim / Menasheh ve-Ephrayim].  His heart failed, while he was standing in prayer.  When he finished his prayer, he saw the wagons: immediately the spirit of Jacob came back to life.(Translated by Avivah Zornberg in Genesis, the Beginning of Desire, p.281).

What does telling Yaakov that Yosef was alive have to do with death?

Otzer HaMidrashim, Eisenstein, page 35 (which I have not seen myself):

אמר לו ''מפני מה מלאך המוות שולט בכל הבריאות חוץ מדורו של מלחס העוף''. אמר לו ''ולא דורו של מלחס העוף בלבד... יש אומרים אנשים מבני אדם נכנסו בחיים בגן עדן. חנוך, סרח בת אשר...'' סרח בת אשר בעבור שאמרה לעקב ''יוסף חי.'' אמר לה יעקב ''זה הפה שבשרני על יוסף שהוא חי לא יטעום טעם מוות.''

There are those who say that some people who are children of Adam entered Gan Eden alive. Hanoch, Serach bat Asher... Serach bat Asher in return for telling Yaakov that Yosef was alive. Yaakov said to her "This mouth that tod me that Yosef ia alive will never taste death."

So - Serach is alive from the time that Yaakov went down tot Mitzrayim until his offspring were liberated. As the only one who was there to give testimony from the beginning of their time in Egypt, she was in a unique position to help when Moshe came forward as a self-described leader to salvation:

Yalkut Shimoni, Genesis, Chapter 12, Remez 64:

 ואשר בן יעקב מסר סוד גאולה לסרח בתו וכשבאו משה ואהרן אל זקני ישראל ועשו אותות לעיניהם הלכו זקני ישראל אצל סרח בת אשר אמרו לה בא אדם אחד ועשה אותות לעינינו כך וכך א"ל אין באותות הללו ממש א"ל והלא אמר פקד פקדתי א"ל הוא האיש לגאול את ישראל בא שכך שמעתי מאבא ף"ף מיד ויאמן העם:

And Asher son of Yaakov gave the secret of redemption to Serach, his daughter. And when Moshe and Aharon cam to the elders of Israel and did signs before their eyes, the elders of Israel went to Serach bat Asher. They said to her "Someone can and did the following signs before us." She said to them "Those signs have no meaning in them." They said to her "And he said Pekod Pikadti." SHe said to them "He is the man who will liberate Israel, because I heard from my father that the sign is פ"פ - PP." And the nation trusted him.

Serach knows the sign given to her by her father of the person who will be sent to take them out of Egypt,and verifies for the elders that Moshe fulfilled the secret.

Yalkut Shimoni, Deuteronomy, Chapter 34, Remez 965:

 אחר שנתיגע הרבה פגעה בו סרח בת אשר אמרה לו רבינו משה למה אתה יגע כל כך, אמר לה [שלשה ימים ושלשה לילות סבבתי את העיר] לבקש ארונו של יוסף ואיני מוצאו, אמרה לו בוא עמי הוליכו לנהר נילוס, אמרה לו במקום הזה עשו ארון של עופרת של חמש מאות ככרים ונתנוהו בתוכו וחתומוהו והשליכוהו בתוך הנחל, שהחרטומים אמרו לפרעה רצונך שלא תצא אומה זו מתחת ידיך עשה שלא ימצאו עצמות יוסף ולא יצאו מכאן לעולם שכך השביען, מיד עמד משה על הנחל ואמר יוסף יוסף אתה ידעת היאך השבעת את ישראל פקד .יפקד תן כבוד לאלקי ישראל ואל תעכב גאולתן של ישראל

מיד התחיל ארונו לפעפע ועולה מן התהום כקנה אחד, נטלו על כתפו וסבלו וכל ישראל אחריו מסובלים כספם וזהבם

After he (Moshe) was very troubled, he met Serach bat Asher who said to him "Rabbeinu Moshe, why are you so upset?" He said to her "3 days and 3 nights I have circled the city to find Yosef's casket, and I can't find it." She said to him "Come with me!" and led him to the Nile. She said to him "In this spot, they made a coffin for Yosef that weighs 500 kikarim, placed him inside it, and dropped it in the river because Paroh's magicians told him that if he wanted this nation to stay, make sure they can't find Yosef's bones and they will never leave, because so they swore in an oath." Moshe immeediately stood at the river and said "Yosef, Yosef, you know that you made Israel take an oath Pekod Yifkod. Give honor to the God of Israel and don't delay the redemption of Israel." Immediately the coffin began to rise; he took it on his shoulder and carried it, and all of Israel followed, carrying their silver and gold.

Serach now adds to his list finding her uncle's bones, both fulfilling the oath that was made to him and allowing her people to leave Egypt. Moshe's diligance in caring for Yosef's remains, according to the Yalkut Shimoni, was rewarded by God personally burying Moshe after his death.

It should be clear at this point that the journey to and from Egypt, allowing our people to flourish, grow, and establish a homeland, would not have been possible without women: Miryam, who convined her parents to get back together and procreate and then stood watch over her baby brother; Yocheved, who bore Moshe and wrenchingly placed him in the river in hopes he would survive; Serach, who told Yaakov that Yosef was alive, leading her family to go to Egypt to weather the famine, then identified Moshe as our leader, and finally found Yosef's remains, which enabled us to leave Egypt having fulfilled our promise to him.

So... how do we remmeber these women at the seder?

Excuse me as I tangent wildly for a moment:

Charoset. Charoset is not mentioned in the Torah. Or even the text of the haggadah. So why does everyone have charoset on their seder plate?

A mishnah in Pesachim (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Moed/Tractate_Pesachim/Chapter_10/3) 

הביאו לפניו.

מטבל בחזרת, עד שמגיע לפרפרת הפת.

הביאו לפניו מצה וחזרת וחרסת ושני תבשילין,אף על פי שאין חרסת מצוה.

רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק אומר:מצוה.

ובמקדש היו מביאים לפניו גופו של פסח.

They brought it before him. He dips the lettuce before he reached the bread (matza). They set before him matzah, lettuce, and charoset and 2 dishes, even though charoset isn't a mitzva. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: It is a mitzva.

The gemara asks - if charoset is not a mitzva, why bring it? To neutralize the poisonous effects of the maror.

So then why charoset?

Charoset symbolizes the bricks we made as slaves.

Okay - so, we've all heard this before. But here's a quick question - why does everyone make their charoset from apples? We all have slightly varying recipes, but they all are apple-based.

It alludes to Shir HaShirim, 8:5: 

ה  מִי זֹאת, עֹלָה מִן-הַמִּדְבָּר, מִתְרַפֶּקֶת, עַל-דּוֹדָהּ; תַּחַת הַתַּפּוּחַ, עוֹרַרְתִּיךָ--שָׁמָּה חִבְּלַתְךָ אִמֶּךָ, שָׁמָּה חִבְּלָה יְלָדַתְךָ. 5 Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? Under the apple-tree I awakened thee; there thy mother was in travail with thee; there was she in travail and brought thee forth.

The women of Israel would meet their husbands in the orchard tree after a long day of work. They would return to the orchards to give birth:

"What is this tapuach we are remembering? Rashi says it is based on Shir Hashirim (8:5) and refers us to Sota 11b: "R. `Avira expounded: It was because of the merit of the righteous women of that generation that the Jews were redeemed from Egypt...." He goes on to recount how the women would go to their working husbands and bathe and feed them, then would conceive children between the fields. When the women were ready to give birth, they'd leave their houses out of fear of the Egyptians. There they would lie underneath the apple trees and give birth. Here he quotes from Shir Hashirim: "Underneath the apple tree I aroused you." Rashi's explains: God aroused the Jewish children to come out of their mother's wombs. He continues to develop how God acted as the midwife and how the children were miraculously protected from the Egyptians." (http://www.vbm-torah.org/pesach/charoset.htm)

R' Eliezer ben Tzadok believes every ingredient has symbolic meaning, and as such the charoset symbolizes an aspect of our story that would otherwise be absent from the seder - the story of the women who enabled our survival.

As we enter the month of Nissan, the month of Miryam's yarzheit (the tenth of Nissan), we bring with us a new appreciation for the mighty charoset, and the mighty women who allowed our nation to flourish and multiply.

Rosh Chodesh Sameach!