Ashkenazim CAN Eat with Sephardim

There are those that argue kitniyos hinder achdus in Klal Yisrael since Sephardim and Ashkenazim can’t eat together on Pesach. This is a lie. First, a Sephardi can easily eat at an Ashkenazi and second as you can see below an Ashkenazi could even eat at a Sephardi. No one has to burn their holy minhagim with the Chametz on Erev Pesach. As to the ridiculous claim one goes hungry without kitniyos – I invite you to sample my Mom’s pesach cooking. I assure you, I gained quite a bit of weight this Chag.

Excerpt From Gray Matter (v. 1 pp.245-249)
The Minhag of Kitniyot Part II: Ashkenazim Eating with Sephardim

In this chapter, we focus on the issue of whether an Ashkenazic Jew may eat non-kitniyot products at a Sephardic Jew’s home on Pesach.

Rav Ovadia Yosef’s Responsum

Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 5:32) rules that an Ashkenazic Jew may eat non-kitniyot food at a Sephardic Jew’s home on Pesach. He does not require special utensils that have not been used for kitniyot for the Ashkenazic guest. He bases his opinion on a similar ruling of the Rama (Orach Chaim 453:1): “It is obvious that if kitniyot fell into food during Pesach, they do not render the food forbidden b’dieved (post facto).”

Accordingly, Rav Ovadia argues the following:

It is clear that the food particles of kitniyot absorbed into pots in Sephardic homes that are released into non-kitniyot food do not forbid the food to Ashkenazim. Even if the utensils have been used within the past twenty-four hours (and are thus emitting a good taste), it is still permissible for Ashkenazim to eat from them, because there is surely more permissible food than there are kitniyot that emerge from the walls of the pot.

Precedents for Rav Ovadia’s Ruling

Rav Ovadia cites several interesting precedents for his ruling. The first is a responsum of the Rama (1 32:15) regarding those who are strict about the issue of chadash (the prohibition against eating grain sown after Pesech, before the following year’s sixteenth of Nissan) in the Diaspora. Just as most observant Diaspora Jews today are lenient in this area, most observant Jews in pre-war Europe were lenient (see Mishnah Berurah 489:45). The Rama writes that those who adopt the strict position regarding chadash may nonetheless eat food that absorbed flavor from the utensils of those who are lenient about chadash. He reasons that, in his community, even those who are strict only treat chadash as a doubtful rabbinical prohibition (as opposed to the many authorities who consider chadash to be an absolute biblical prohibition even in the Diaspora). The Rama thus claims that the light nature of chadash facilitates eating food that may have absorbed its flavor from pots. The flavor of the chadash is nullified (bateil berov) by the non-chadash food.

Rav Ovadia equates kitniyot to the Rama’s case of chadash. Kitniyot are also an unusually light prohibition, so one may be lenient regarding the flavor in pots that cooked kitniyot.

A second precedent cited by Rav Ovadia is a ruling of the Radbaz (Teshuvot 4:496). His responsum discusses whether those who did not rely on a particular shochet may eat food cooked by those who did rely on him. The Radbaz rules leniently because he claims that the shochct in question was probably acceptable. Even those who do not rely on him for their actual meat could at least eat food cooked in utensils that absorbed the flavor of his meat. Again, writes Rav Ovadia, we see that certain prohibitions are treated unusually lightly, so their flavor is permitted. Kitniyot, a mere custom of Ashkenazic Jewry, should also be treated this way.(1)

Rav Ovadia’s third precedent is an important ruling of the Rama in his gloss to the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 64:9). The Rama addresses a type of fat whose permissibility depended upon varying customs among Ashkenazic communities of his time. He permits members of the communities that abide by the strict view to eat food cooked in utensils of people in the lenient communities The Rama reasons that the lenient communities were following a legitimate ruling of their halachic authorities. Even one who was strict about the actual fat did not need be strict about its flavor, because there is a valid opinion that permits the flavor.(2)

From all of the above precedents, Rav Ovadia concludes that there are certain light prohibitions where flavor is nullified when mixed with permissible food, and he asserts that kitniyot are one such prohibition.

Other Authorities

As was noted at the beginning of the chapter, the Rama (O.C. 453:1) writes that there need not be a 60:1 ratio of non-kitniyot to kitniyot in order to nullify any kitniyot that might have fallen into a pot of food. Rather, as long as a majority of non-kitniyot exists, one has not violated the minhag of not eating kitniyot. Later authorities appear to accept this view, including the Eliah Rabbah (453:4), Shulchan Aruch Harav (O.C. 453:5), Chok Yaakov (453:5), Chayei Adam (127:1), and Mishnah Berurah (453:9). The Chok Yaakov explains that, although it appears from the Terumat Hadeshen that a 60:1 ratio is necessary to nullify the kitniyot, the Halachah follows the Rama, who states that only a majority of the food must not be kitniyot. The reason for this Halachah is that refraining from kitniyot is merely a custom, so it is not treated with the same severity as biblical and rabbinical laws.

The flavor of food is no stricter than the food itself. Accordingly, if the aforementioned authorities rule that the non-kitniyot majority nullifies a minority of actual kitniyot food, undoubtedly they agree that the non-kitniyot food cooked in the pot nullifies the flavor of kitniyot that emerges from the pot.(3) Indeed, the Zera Emet (vol. 3, O.C. 48) rules that the minhag to refrain from kitniyot does not include refraining from their flavor. Rav Ovadia thus notes that all of these Ashkenazic authorities agree with his ruling and permit an Ashkenazic Jew to eat food cooked in a Sephardic Jew’s dishes on Pesach.

Limitations

When discussing pots in which kitniyot were cooked, the distinction between lechatchilah (ab initio, before the occurrence) and b’dieved (post facto, after the occurrence) must be stressed. The above-cited lenient rulings only permit a b’dieved situation, when food was already cooked in a pot that previously cooked kitniyot. However, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Daat 1:9) and Rav Yehoshua Neuwirth (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 40:80) rule that an Ashkenazic Jew who must cook kitniyot on Pesach (such as for a sick person) may not lechatchilah cook non-kitniyot food for healthy Ashkenazic Jews in the same pot. Similarly, Rav Efraim Greenblatt told this author that an Ashkenazic Jew who wishes to visit a Sephardic home on Pesach should arrange for food that was not cooked in a pot that previously cooked kitniyot.

Beyond the custom of kitniyot, some Ashkenazic Jews altogether avoid eating at other people’s homes during Pesach. Their concern is that different people observe divergent practices and customs regarding Pesach, so the guests might not be permitted to eat from the food cooked in the utensils of their hosts. Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz told this author that Rav Michel Feinstein told him that he heard a story about this practice involving Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and the Chafetz Chaim. Rav Chaim visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach, and the Chafetz Chaim, who was known for his warm hospitality, did not even offer his guest a cup of tea, due to this practice. Apparently, this stringency was very common in many European circles.

Conclusion

If an Ashkenazic Jew finds himself in a Sephardic Jew’s home on Pesach, he may eat food that was already cooked in pots that previously cooked kitniyot. However, an Ashkenazic Jew may not cook food for himself on dishes that were used to cook kitniyot. If an Ashkenazic Jew plans in advance to visit a Sephardic Jew on Pesach, Rav Ovadia Yosef indicates that he permits the Sephardic Jew to cook in his own pots for the visitor, while Rav Efraim Greenblatt requires the host and visitors to make alternative arrangements. In addition, some Ashkenazic Jews have the custom of not eating anything outside their own homes on Pesach.

---FOOTNOTES---

1. The Radbaz also mentions other factors in his lenient ruling, which run counter to normative practice today. Nevertheless, Rav Ovadia claims that kitniyot are a lighter prohibition than the meat which the Radbaz addresses, so the flavor of kitniyot is permitted even without the additional factors utilized by the Radbaz.

2. This leniency is quite surprising, as those who prohibit the fat in question treat it as a biblical prohibition. Accordingly, even if they think that the biblical prohibition is somewhat debatable (in deference to the lenient view), they should not go so far as to permit the fat’s flavor. (Flavor is ordinarily prohibited on a biblical level as long as one can detect it in the food; see Shulchan Arach, Yoreh De’ah 98:2; Shach, Y.D. 98:7; and Blur Hagra, Y.D. 98:10.) Rav Ovadia cites several authorities who address this problem.
They explain that not only is the fat’s prohibition doubtful (safeik), as there are those who permit it, but there is also another doubt involved (safeik s’feika). Flavor must enhance another food in order to prohibit it, and it is always doubtful if the flavor emerging from the utensils impacts positively or negatively on the food absorbing it. See Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 38b s.v. b), Rosh (Avodab Zarah 2:35), Teshuvot Harashba (497), and Sefer Issur V’heter (33:10). All of these Rishonim assert that it is always a safeik whether the flavor emerging from a pot imparts a good taste. Between these two doubts, the Rama believes that one may eat food that was cooked in the same pot that was used to cook the questionable fat. Similar doubt about the flavor’s impact might also explain the other lenient precedents that Rav Ovadia cites. Otherwise, it remains unclear why flavor is nullified so easily.

3. In this case, it might suffice to ascertain that the food’s volume is greater than that of the absorbed flavor, while the thickness of the walls containing the flavor might not matter (see the Radbaz’s responsum cited above).