Rabbi Ovadia: No Kitniyot for Ashkenazim

It's that time of year again!

Rabbi Ovadia: No Kitniyot for Ashkenazim

(IsraelNN.com) Rishon L’Tzion, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef spilled the beans on kitniyot (legumes), reaffirming the ban of Ashkenazi Jews during Passover. The Sephardic spiritual leader at his weekly Saturday night lecture stated that it’s definitely kosher for a Sephardic Jew to eat kitniyot, which includes rice and beans. However, he admonished rabbis who claim that the Ashkenazic ban is no longer applicable. “The Ashkenazim have many more stringencies than the Sephardim, and everyone has to follow whatever his community does,” Rabbi Yosef stated.

Rabbi Yosef furthermore explained that the Ashkenazic ban on eating kitniyot on Passover stems from a once prevalent custom of packing legumes in sacks that used to contain flour. Ashkenazim decided not to eat these products on Passover out of concern that some of the flour might mix with water, becoming leavened.

(Also in Hebrew Ynet here.)

But the KLF was quick to condem the former Chief Rabbi as following a "not entirely accurate approach."

Wow! Talk about chutzpah! Was the approach of Rav Kook ZT"L "not entirely accurate?" Was the approach of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ZT"L "not entirely accurate?" To quote Gil Student "they knew everything contained in this ruling [which attempts to nullify the custom of refraining from Kitniyos along with all other family customs] and still kept their family customs."

Call For Submissions

This "sticky" post will remain on top. Please scroll down for new material.

This site is dedicated to defeating a very foolish movement that is trying to encourage Jews to abandon their holy customs for the sake of Jewish “Unity.” This movement calls Kitniyos “sthuth.” In fact it is not shtuss at all and is of a Goanic origin. Regarding avoiding kitiyos on Pesach the Aruch Hashulchan writes “those who question this practice and are lenient concerning it are demonstrating that they have neither fear of God nor fear of sin. They also display a flawed comprehension of the proper ways of Torah observance. Although there are some countries which have not followed this stringency, all of Germany, France, Russia, and Poland have accepted upon themselves and their descendants this wonderful stringency, which has a good reason, and one who deviates from it should be bitten by a snake.” (O”H 453:4-5)

With that in mind we ask you to submit articles relating to this matter or comments of support for publication. These can be published anonymously if requested. Let use keep our holy minhagim strong. Let those who “have neither fear of God nor fear of sin” not influence our practice.

Email us at Kitniyos @ gmail

בין תבין – Know thy Beans: Kitniyos in the Modern World

By Rabbi Zushe Yosef Blech

(This was originally printed in Kashrus Magazine, and is part of Rabbi Blech's book Kosher Food Production.)

Of the many Minhagim that we are privileged to enjoy on Pesach, the Halachic discussion surrounding the concept of Kitniyos is especially fascinating. In truth, the custom itself is somewhat enigmatic, and its application and permutations could fill volumes. The purpose of this article is to give the reader a basic understanding of the concept of Kitniyos, its historical and Halachic basis, as well as some interesting practical applications.

The basic rule is that on Pesach one must eat Matzah, and one may not eat (or own) Chometz. By definition, both of these products hail from the same raw material – the five major grains: wheat, rye, oats, barley and spelt. Chazal teach us that these – and only these – grains can become Chometz when they ferment. The fermentation of all other foods, whether we call them a “grain” or not, is considered a sirchon (rot) and not Chometz. Since Matzah must be made from a material that has the ability to become Chometz, the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 453:1) establishes the rule that Matzah may only be made out of the five grains and “not out of rice and other types of Kitniyos, and these will also not become Chometz.” The word “Kitniyos” is generally translated as “legumes” or “beans” but, alas, the use of a name is less than an exact science, as we can see from the language of the Mechaber, where he combines “rice and other types of Kitniyos” under one heading. In the context of Pesach, the definition of a legume has thus sprouted to encompass many more species and a good deal of controversy.

The real concern with Kitniyos on Pesach is not based upon their inability to make Matzah but rather on a custom discussed by some Rishonim regarding avoiding their use entirely on Pesach. While it would seem ideal to eat foods that cannot conceivably become Chometz, these authorities were concerned that Kitniyos might in some way become confused with true Chometz. First, cooked porridge and other cooked dishes made from grain and Kitniyos appear similar. Second, Kitniyos are often grown in fields adjacent to those in which Chometz is grown, and these grains tend to mix together. And third, Kitniyos are often ground into a type of flour that can easily be confused with Chometz. For these three reasons, these authorities suggested that by avoiding eating Kitniyos people would be better able to avoid Chometz. The Vilna Gaon (Hagaos HaGra, ibid.) indeed actually cites a novel source for this custom. The Gemorrah in Pesachim (40b) notes that Rava objected to the workers of the Raish Gelusa (the Exilarch) cooking a food called chasisi on Pesach, since it was wont to be confused with Chometz. The Tosefos (ibid.) explain that, according to the Aruch, chasisi are lentils and thus, argues the Gra, establishes the basis for the concern of Kitniyos.

Based upon these considerations, the custom of the Jews in Europe (Ashkenazim) developed to avoid eating Kitniyos, and this custom was codified by the Ramah (ibid.). The Jews of Spain and the Middle East (Sefardim), however, follow the opinion of Rav Yosef Karo, and never accepted this custom. [Many Sefardim from Morocco and Northern Africa, however, follow Ashkenazic customs regarding Kitniyos.] of To this day, most Sefardim partake of rice, beans, maize, and other forms of Kitniyos without compunction. It is critical to note, however, that while Kitniyos on Pesach may be an exclusively Ashkenazik concern, actual Chometz added to Kitniyos is not. For example, vitamins are often added to rice, some of which pose serious Chometz concerns. Even “corn” (glucose) syrup may contain enzymes that come from organisms that are grown on Chometz ingredients. Of even greater concern, glucose syrup from some parts of the world is actually made from wheat starch (see below for a full discussion of glucose), and some such Chometz glucose and malto-dextrins from such countries is actually being imported into the United States. Clearly, any Kitniyos eaten on Pesach is subject to standard Pesach concerns of Chometz.

It is very important to recognize, however, that even according to the Ashkenazim, Kitniyos itself is definitely not Chometz. The Ramah himself notes this distinction in several ways. One is allowed to own and derive benefit from Kitniyos, something that is prohibited with true Chometz. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid., 7) also notes that one who is ill may eat Kitniyos even if his illness is not life threatening, and therefore most medicines that contain only Kitniyos may be used on Pesach. One may also keep Kitniyos in his house on Pesach without concern that it may be inadvertently eaten, and one may use it for any purpose except eating. Furthermore, if Kitniyos becomes inadvertently mixed into a food it is Batul B’Rov (as opposed to real Chometz, which under certain conditions may never become Batul) and the food may be eaten.

Although this approach to the concept of Kitniyos is accepted by virtually all authorities as the normative Halachic basis for the custom, some authorities ascribe a more significant source to it. The Chok Yaakov (ibid., s.k. 4) quotes a Hasagos Ha’Ra’avad in the first chapter of Hilchos Chometz U’Matzah to the effect that although the Rambam rules that the “material” may not be true Chometz, it may nevertheless become Chometz Noksheh – “hard” Chometz, which is still prohibited as a Lo Sa’aseh (negative prohibition). Most editions of the Yad Hachazaka indicate the Ra’avad’s remarks as referring to the Rambam in Halacha 2, where he rules that flour mixed with fruit juice will never become Chometz, and the Ra’avad comments that it may nevertheless become Chometz Noksheh. The Chok Yaakov, however, notes that in some editions, this Ra’avad is actually referring to first Halacha in the Rambam, where the Rambam writes that rice and other Kitiniyos can never become Chometz. Were the Ra’avad to be referring to this part of the Rambam, he would seem to be indicating that Kitniyos may be indeed pose a concern of Chometz Noksheh and be prohibited M’Doroyssa! [One may actually bring a slight proof to this position, based upon Tosefos Pesachim 40b noted above, where they seems to say that Kitniyos tend not to become Chometz “as much” (as true Chometz). See Ma’Harsha, however, who dismisses this proof.] In any event, although he makes this observation, the Chok Yaakov himself seems to accept the position of virtually all other authorities and bases the concerns of Kitniyos upon other factors.

As we have noted before, however, the criteria for determining what is – and what is not – Kitniyos is less clear than the actual custom. Rice and beans are certainly included. However, the Poskim discuss several types of seeds (e.g. “anise” and “kimmel”) that it seems were prone to being contaminated with kernels of wheat, and for this reason their use was prohibited. Contemporary authorities question the exact translation of these items (again, the name is important), and for that reason many have the custom to avoid seeds such as caraway, cumin, or fennel that are similar to anise and kimmel. Similarly, authorities insist that coriander be carefully cleaned, since it is common to find grains of wheat or oats mixed into this spice. Mustard, according to the Ramah (O.C. 464:1), should also not be eaten on Pesach. The reason for this custom is a bit more obscure, but the Taz (453:1) explains that mustard is similar to beans in that they both grow in pods.

The cornucopia of new foods from the New World brought new items – such as maize and potatoes – to the fore. Both quickly became staple foodstuffs in the Old World, and although clearly not technically legumes, the question arose as to whether they should nevertheless be included in the category of Kitniyos. As it turns out, maize is generally considered to be Kitniyos whereas potatoes are not. Interestingly, the etymology of the names of these foods may give us some insight into this dichotomy. While the common name for maize (from the Tahino word “mahis”) is “corn” – and in the United States this usage is quite clear –the origin of the word “corn” is something quite different. The word “corn” can be traced back to the ancient Indo-European word “grn”, which literally meant a small nugget. In German, this word became “korn” and in Latin it became “grain”, both of which include any edible grass seed. In practice, these terms refer to whatever the predominant grain happens to be in a given country. In the Americas, it referred to maize. In Scotland, it referred to oats, and in Germany it referred to wheat or rye. Indeed, old English translations of Pharaoh’s insomniac premonitions refer to "seven sheaves of corn". Columbus had not yet discovered America during the time of Pharaoh, so Pharaoh was clearly not dreaming of corn on the cob. The "corn" to which he referred was rather one of the five grains. Yiddish speakers are similarly prone to this confusion, since they often use the term "Korn" to refer to grain. It seems, however, that the popularity of corn – and its resulting assumption of this sobriquet – was sufficient for the minhag of Kitniyos to extend to this new “grain”. Potatoes, on the other hand, were never regarded by people as a grain, and therefore generally considered to have escaped the Kitniyos categorization. [It is interesting to note that the Chaye Adam was of the opinion that potatoes should indeed be considered Kitniyos. Much to our general relief, however, this opinion was definitely not accepted.]

The status of certain types of beans – and the distinctions made between them – is not quite as clear. The general custom is to consider soybeans to be Kitniyos, and we therefore do not use soybean oil for Pesach (see below concerning oil). Peanuts, on the other hand, are a source of controversy that goes to the heart of the Kitniyos itself. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe, O.D. III:63) is of the opinion that peanuts are not Kitniyos. He reasons that Kitniyos is not a Halacha (official law) but a minhag (custom). While Minhagim often have the force of Halacha, Rav Moshe argues that the Minhag cannot be extended beyond what was actually included in the custom. Since peanuts were not in common use in Europe when the minhag of Kitniyos was instituted, there is no Halachic basis to extend it to new items, even if they are arguably identical to other Kitniyos in form and use. Indeed, there are communities that have a custom to eat peanuts (and Kosher l’Pesach peanut butter!) on Pesach. While this may not be the generally accepted approach of most people, there are certainly ample grounds on which to rely in this regard. Some contemporary authorities even carry this logic one step further. A type of grain called “quinoa” has recently become popular. It is peculiar to the Andes Mountains, and had certainly never been considered Kitniyos because it had never been used by Jews before! Following the concept that new types of Kitniyos cannot be created, these authorities permit all manner of baked goods to be made out of this exotic cereal. Others are less sanguine as to this point, however, and reason that since quinoa exhibits properties classic to Kitniyos, it should be so considered despite its novelty (as is the case with maize). Others have also pointed out that, notwithstanding any inherently “non-Kitniyos” status it may enjoy, it may nevertheless pose a concern in that it is often processed on equipment that is also used for wheat and other grains. A competent Halachic authority should therefore be consulted before using quinoa.

Concerns of Kitniyos are not limited to the grain itself. Many such plants, such as soy, peanut, and corn, are processed into oil, and there is much discussion amongst the poskim as to whether the Minhag of Kitniyos extended to its oil. For this reason, many who do not eat peanuts on Pesach will nevertheless use peanut oil, since there is an additional reason to be lenient. Some authorities also are of the opinion that rapeseed oil (also known as Canola oil) can similarly be permitted, since rapeseeds are far removed from conventional Kitniyos in that they are not eaten and were not generally available in previous generations. In addition, some have argued that since rapeseeds are not eaten as a food, they cannot be considered Kitniyos. On the other hand, others contend that since rapeseed is a member of the mustard family, it should be subject to the custom cited earlier concerning mustard. In addition, it has been determined that rapeseeds are commonly contaminated with wheat kernels, thus meeting one of the classic definitions of Kitniyos.

Some authorities carry concerns of Kitniyos oil to an even more stringent conclusion. The generally accepted custom in the United States (based upon a p’sak of the Tzelemer Rav) is to permit the use of cottonseed oil. In addition to the general leniencies relating to oil, cottonseeds are not even edible and thus arguably not subject to being considered Kitniyos in the first place. However, the Minchas Yitzchok (III:138) and others marshal proofs that neither of these arguments is correct, and for this reason many people have the custom to avoid using cottonseed oil and content themselves with olive, walnut or palm oil. [It should be noted that the Minhag of the Minchas Yitzchok, which is followed by his Talmidim and the B’datz Eida Hacharedis of Yerushalyim, is indeed to prohibit cottonseed oil. However, the Minchas Yitzchok himself, in a subsequent Teshuva (IV:114), seems to be less sanguine on the matter. He quotes the opinion of Rav Meir Arik in the Minchas Pitim (Introduction of O.C. 453) that would seem to permit this product, and therefore questions his original prohibition.]

Sunflowers are a common source of oil in Eastern European countries, and some authorities consider this species to be the type of Kitniyos referred to as “shumshmin” (see Marcheshes I:3, who makes the linguistic comparison between the name “sunflower” and the Hebrew word for the sun – “shemesh” – which he assumes to be the source of the name “shumshmin”). Other authorities, however, question this linguistic relationship (the correct pronunciation is “sumsimin”, which is unrelated to the word “shemesh”), and permit the use of sunflower oil on Passover. Safflower oil, on the other hand, is generally approved for Passover use.

Another common use of Kitniyos is in the manufacture of glucose from cornstarch, which we call corn syrup. A starch molecule consists of a long chain of glucose molecules linked together, and glucose is obtained by cleaving individual glucose molecules from the starch using acids or enzymes. Although we noted that some allow the use of oil from Kitniyos, most authorities agree that corn syrup has the same Halachic status as the Kitniyos cornstarch itself rather than that of the oil expressed from it. Corn syrup, and its specialized high fructose version, has long replaced sugar as the sweetener of choice for use in soda, which would pose a significant problem of Kitniyos on Pesach. Fortunately, this is the “Pesach generation”, and the major soft drink manufacturers make special productions of the world's favorite beverages for Pesach (the un-Kitniyos drink) the old fashioned way – they use liquid sugar (even though the label may state "Sugar and/or High Fructose Corn Syrup"). [Some soft drink aficionados seek out the Passover version of the “Real Thing”, since it follows the original formula by using sugar instead of corn syrup!]

One final point concerning the application of the rules of Kitniyos should be noted. Corn syrup and its derivatives are often used as the starting point for making other food chemicals. Citric acid is used as a flavoring agent in candies, jams, and many other foods. Erythrobic acid is used to maintain the red color in pickled and cured meats, and xanthan gum is used as a thickener. Aspartame is used as an artificial sweetener, and enzymes are used to make fruit juice and cheese. All of these products are routinely produced through the fermentation and corn glucose, and their Pesach status has been the subject of much Halachic discussion. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l indeed ruled that the Minhag of Kitniyos never extended to such distant relations of cornstarch, and thus permitted citric acid produced through the fermentation of corn glucose. Almost all Kashrus agencies rely on this approach to permit one or more of the above products, and it is the responsibility of the consumer to verify the standards of the certifying agency as regards these issues when purchasing products for Pesach.

As we have seen, issues relating to Kitniyos have burgeoned over the centuries. Foods unknown when the concept of Kitniyos was instituted have now become staples, and modern food science has found a myriad of ways to incorporate them into our foods in unforeseen ways. The Halachic underpinnings of such Kitniyos issues are indeed fascinating, and serve as interesting grist for the Pesach mill.

The Cry of the Hypocrites At KLF

It's easy to say that something is assor, but it takes a real talmid chacham to say it's mootar.
– KLF people explaining how a rabbi that permitted Kitniyos is a talmid chacham by doing so.

I do not know who your posek is, but I am sure that he cannot approach Rav AY Kook zt'l whom I quoted.
– KFL people to the KDL on why Jews visiting Eretz Yisrael should not keep two days.

Here's the kicker…

Rav Kook Z”TL did NOT eat Kitniyos on Pesach!

Let say that again… bold this time. Repeat it with me:

Rav Kook Z”TL did NOT eat Kitniyos on Pesach!

In fact he paskened k’halacha kitniyos are forbidden to Ashkenazi Jews – even those living in Eretz Yisrael! The most Rav Kook permitted was sesame seed oil that was processed in a very specific manner (R. Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, ZT"L objected to this psak creating a huge controversy on the matter.)

So either the KLF believes

A. C”V Rav Kook was not a talmid chachum since he could not find a way to permit Kitniyos.

Or…

B. The rabbi that permitted it is a greater posek than Rav AY Kook.

File both arguments under “Shtuth.”

Rav Winston on the Kabbilistic Reason for Vistors to Eretz Yisrael Keeping Two Days Yom Tov

In the book "Talking About Eretz Yisrael" (pages 50-52) Rabbi Pinchas Winston touches upon the kabbilistic reasons someone from Chutz L'Aretz must keep a second day of Yom Tov. No doubt Rav Yosef Karo was fully aware of this when he wrote his psak halachah.

Here is the quote (bold mine.):

Jewish souls are most directly aligned with their Soul-Roots in Eretz Yisroel. (29) When a Jew leaves the borders of Eretz Yisroel, it is as if he is stretching his spiritual umbilical cord further, lengthening the distance between himself and his Soul-Root. This obviously slows down the rate of tikun and lessens its impact, not to mention reduce one’s spiritual sensitivity altogether:

A person who ascends from Chutz L’Aretz to Eretz Yisroel with the intention of returning experiences the following spiritual change: upon reaching the outer side of “The Ladder”(30) he is divested of all his klipos. He only enters with his Nefesh of Asiyah and cannot receive a Nefesh from Yetzirah.(31) This is why he must observe all the holidays as they are kept abroad.(32) Rav Chaim Vital wrote that he who is born in Eretz Yisroel has his NR”N — Nefesh, Ruach, and Neshamah — from [the angel] Metatron.(33) Yet when they leave Eretz Yisroel they are enclothed by a garment of [the angel] Sandalfon. The [spiritual] shell that surrounds him is like that of an almond, the green soft layer representing Rahav(34) and the inner harder shell symbolizing Sama’el.(35) The wood-like substance inside the shell represents the shell of the Temuros.(36) The thin shell — the bran that is attached to the food — is pure; it is from Sandalfon. This is the garment that he is enclothed with upon leaving for Chutz L’Aretz . . . Only the thin bran is not removed upon his return. He who is born outside of Eretz Yisroel is given his NR”N from the realm of Sandalfon. If he subsequently comes to live in Eretz Yisroel then he is given a NR”N from the aspect of Metatron, though the NR”N from Sandalfon doesn’t leave him and remains a garment for his NR”N of Metatron. On the very evening of his arrival in Eretz Yisroel as he lays down to sleep, they (the angels) remove the NR”N that he brought with him and immerse it in the Dinor River.(37) When they return his Neshamah, he is given the new NR”N from Metatron that is enclothed in the NR”N of Sandalfon . . . Someone born abroad who ascends to live in Eretz Yisroel permanently and reaches the “The Ladder,” the previously mentioned Klipos are removed from him. He enters Eretz Yisroel with only his Nefesh from the world of Yetzirah. That Nefesh is enclothed with his newly cleansed Nefesh of Asiyah like a sword fitted into its sheath. If for some reason that person decides to leave Eretz Yisroel permanently he leaves behind his new soul from Yetzirah in Eretz Yisroel, taking with him only his old Nefesh of Asiyah, which becomes enclothed by the Klipos in the same manner mentioned above. (Tuv HaAretz, p. 80-82)


--- FOOTNOTES ---
29. The essence of Torah Sh’b’al Peh — Oral Law — is within Eretz Yisroel (Pri Tzaddik, Massey 4), and the goal of inheriting a portion of Eretz Yisroel is to help each Jew find his own portion within Torah Sh’b’al Peh. (Zohar Chadash 2:137b)

30. This refers to the air that surrounds Eretz Yisroel to prevent the Klipos from entering the land (Tuv HaAretz, p. 82).

31. There are five levels of spiritual consciousness (bottom to top): Asiyah, Yetzirah, Beriyah, Atzilus, and Adam Kadmon. In general, these correspond to the five parts of the human
soul: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chiyah, and Yechidah. However, individual souls are subsets of this general system and therefore they can be completely rooted in one particular level, which accounts for a person’s higher or lower level of spiritual potential. Even still, adjustments can be made depending upon where a Jew lives, in Eretz Yisroel or Chutz L’Aretz, either increasing or decreasing a person’s spiritual potential.

32. Two days of yomei tovim as opposed to one day only. The fact that he plans to return to Chutz L’Aretz makes it impossible for him to have a transformation to that of a Jew living in Eretz Yisroel on a permanent basis.

33. This is the name of the angel that oversees the level of Yetzirah. According to the Midrash, Chanoch mentioned in the Torah (Bereishis 5:21) ascended on a fiery horse and became the angel Metatron, the Sar HaPanim — Chief of the Interior. Sandalfon has the same position on the lower level of Asiyah.

34. A level of Klipos that refers to the ministering angel of the people of Yishmael — a shedemon.

35. The name of the Sitra Achra, the angel of Eisav.

36. Literally, “replacement,” but it refers to another level of the Klipos.

37. The river of Dinor, a river of fire, comes down from the sweat of the angels upon the heads of the wicked in Gihennom. (Chagigah 13b). As two of its letters — Dalet-Nun — suggest, it is a source of Divine judgment.

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).

In Pursuit of “Emeth”: The Second Day of Yom Tov for Visitors to Israel

Yonathan Ben Shimshon of the Kitniyot Liberation Front alleges that visitors to Eretz Yisrael that perform a second seder are making “huge chilul HaShem.” He further claims Rav Kook holds it is a huge chilul Hashem as well. The reality of course is that Rav Kook simply wants visitors to make Aliyah on the spot and therefore only keep one day. In keeping a second seder they are displaying a refusal to live in Eretz Yisrael and this would “violate the honor” of Eretz Yisrael. The proof that Rav Kook held this way is found in another story (from 'An Angel Among Men' by R. Simcha Raz, translated by R. Moshe Lichtman, pp. 257-259).

A Holocaust survivor from Poland relates:

'In the early 1920's, I was a big manufacturer in one of Poland's famous industrial cities. One day, I decided to take a trip to Eretz Yisrael and spend Passover there. Being a religious Jew, I visited Rav Kook zt"l immediately upon my arrival. He welcomed me warmly and encouraged me to seek out the good of the Land and consider settling there. After a few weeks of touring, I returned to the Rav and asked him, among other things, what I should do regarding the second day of yom-tov, seeing that I was a tourist. The Rav answered with a smile: Decide right now to bring your family here and to build a factory in the Land. Then, you can keep one day of yom-tov already this Passover, like all inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael.'

This would seem to indicate that Rav Kook held if the man did not make Aliyah on the spot he would need to keep two days Yom Tov. In any event from the complete story it is quite evident that Rav Kook clearly held this issue is best addressed by making Aliyah.

Regardless Rav Kook would never call it a “huge chilul HaShem.” And the reason is quite simple. The reason is because the vast majority of poskim do not hold like the Chacham Tzvi.

Yonathan Ben Shimshon should be advised that the true way to seek out Emes (or “Emeth”) is to present ALL torah opinions. Not just the one that meets your agenda (which one shouldn't have in any case if one is seeking Emes.) In this case those that hold visitors to Eretz Yisrael must keep two days begin with none other that Rav Yosef Karo zt”l himself, the author of the Shulchan Aruch. Virtually all Achorinim concur including the Chofetz Chaim zt”l in the Mishnah Berurah. Modern day poskim that side with Rav Karo include Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l. Notably siding with the Chacham Tzvi is the Shulchan Aruch Harav and hence this is the practice of Chabad. There is also a third “compromise” approach.

All these positions are well documented in Gray Matter (vol 1. 217-223) by Rabbi Chaim Jachter. I will quote the relevant portion here:

The Second Day of Yom Tov for Visitors to Israel

Diaspora Jews who visit Israel on Yom Tov often wonder what they should do on Yom Tov Sheini (the second day of Yom Tov, only observed by Diaspora Jews). We will review the three basic opinions regarding this issue.

Introduction - Observance of Yom Tov Sheini

Until the fourth century C.E., Sanhedrin declared a new Jewish month only after accepting the testimony of two people who witnessed the new moon. Consequently, it often took weeks to notify all of world Jewry of the day on which a new month had started. Jews who lived a great distance from the Sanhedrin frequently did not know precisely when the new month had begun in time for the celebration of holidays in that month. The practice thus evolved to observe two days of Yom Tov in the Diaspora, due to a doubt regarding which day was the true date of the holiday. However, during the Amoraic period, the Sanhedrin ceased to establish the Jewish calendar by testimony and instituted a fixed calendar system. Once the calendar was set, there was no longer a reason to observe Yom Tov Sheini, as even a Jew on the other side of the world from Israel could calculate the proper day for each holiday. Nonetheless, the Gemara (Beitzah 4b) rules that Yom Tov Sheini must continue to be observed in the Diaspora:

They sent from there [Eretz Yisraei]: Give heed to the custom of your fathers [to keep a second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora]. It might happen that a non- Jewish government will issue a decree [preventing knowledge of the Jewish calendar], and it will cause confusion regarding the dates of Yom Tov.

Rishonim debate whether observance of Yom Toy Sheini during “the period of the set calendar” is merely a custom or a full-fledged rabbinical enactment. For an analysis of this issue, see Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik’s Chidushei Hagriz (Hilchot Berachot 11:16).

The Foreigner Traveling to Israel

The Mishnah (Pesachim 50a-b) teaches us a key rule regarding one who travels to a Jewish community with customs different from his own, “We impose upon him the restrictions of the location from which he departed and the restrictions of the location where he has arrived.”

The Gemara (Pesachim 51a) comments that one remains bound by the restrictions of the place he left only when he intends to return there (da’ato lachazor). Assuming that Yom Tov Sheini has the same status as other customs, a Diaspora Jew visiting Israel must continue to observe two days of Yom Tov, provided that he intends to return to the Diaspora. The analogy between Yom Tov Sheini and other customs, however, is in dispute, so three major positions have developed regarding this issue.

Rav Yosef Karo

Rav Yosef Karo, in his Teshuvot Avkat Rocheil (26), rules that the Mishnah’s principle does indeed apply to Yom Tov Sheini. He also notes that this was the common practice among the travelers to Israel, “who publicly gather to form minyanim to recite the Yom Tov prayers on Yom Tov Sheini.” Later authorities confirm that this was the accepted practice in Israel (see Teshuvot Halachot Ketanot 4 and Birkei Yosef 496:7), and most authorities rule that a visitor from the Diaspora in Israel must keep two days of Yom Tov (Mishnah Berurah 496:13, Pe’at Hashulchan 2:15, and Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:74 and 4:108). The Avkat Rocheil and Pe’at Hashuichan both note the practice publicly conducting Yom Tov services on Yom Tov Sheini.

The Chacham Tzvi

Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi (Teshuvot Chacham Tzvi 167) disputes Ray Karo’s ruling. He argues that the Mishnah’s rule of maintaining the restrictions of the place that one left does not apply to the observance of Yom Tov Sheini by visitors to Israel. He explains that Yom Tov Sheini differs from regular customs, which theoretically apply anywhere, because it is geographically linked to the Diaspora. While the residents of a particular community normally develop its customs, Yom Tov Sheini was instituted for the physical area of the Diaspora. However, when one is in Israel, he is in a place where Yom Tov Sheini has no meaning, regardless of where he normally resides. Only other customs, which could theoretically exist even where they are not practiced, is it reasonable for someone who always did them in his own community to observe them while visiting elsewhere.(1) According to the Chacham Tzvi, a visitor in Israel is prohibited from observing Yom Tov Sheini, lest he violate the prohibition of bal tosif (adding to the Torah’s precepts). Although the Chacham Tzvi is definitely the minority view on this issue, his position has attracted some support from other authorities (Shulchan Aruch Harav 496:11 and Teshuvot Sho’eil Umeishiv 3:2:28). According to this view, it follows that an Israeli visitor to the Diaspora should fully observe Yom Tov Sheini as one’s permanent place of residence is irrelevant.(2)

The Compromise Approach - Rav Salant and Rav M. Soloveitchik

Some poskim are torn between the cogency of the Chacham Tzvi’s reasoning and the overwhelming majority of authorities, who side with Rav Yosef Karo, so they adopt a compromise approach.(3) In principle, they accept the view of the Chacham Tzvi, ruling that men should don tefilin and all should recite weekday prayers. However, they add that one should refrain from forbidden acts on Yom Tov Sheini in deference to the view of Rav Yosef Karo. Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (Ir Hakodesh V’hamikdash 19:11) records that Rav Shmuel Salant adopted such an approach. Similarly, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein recounts that when Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik visited Israel in 1935, he stayed there during Shavuot. He asked his eminent father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, what to do for Yom Toy Sheini. Rav Moshe Soloveitchik replied that he essentially concurred with the Chacham Tzvi’s view, but one should nonetheless avoid doing melachah to accommodate the ruling of Rav Yosef Karo.

Rav Tukachinsky provides several practical rules for one who wishes to adopt this approach:

1) After the first night of Yom Tov, one should hear havdalah from an Israeli and should not recite kiddush.
2) On the day after the Israeli Yom Tov, one should recite weekday prayers. Nevertheless, one should abstain from melachah, just as one would during Yom Tov Sheini in the Diaspora.
3) On Shmini Atzeret, one should not eat in the sukkah.(4)
4) For the seder on the second night of Pesach, one should eat matzah and maror without reciting the blessings, recite blessings on only the first and third cups of wine, and recite the Haggadah without the concluding blessing (asher ge’alanu). Ray Lichtenstein reports that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik counseled that one should attend a seder conducted by one who follows Rav Karo’s views and listen to the blessings recited by the host.
5) When Yom Tov falls out on a Thursday, the visitor from the Diaspora should avoid doing melachah on Friday. Consequently, he should make an eruv tavshilin to permit preparing food on Friday for Shabbat, but he should not recite a blessing over it.

[Here the author discusses determining Da’ato Lachazor. See the book for this discussion.]

Conclusion

One should try to spend Yom Tov in Israel. By visiting Israel for Yom Tov, one partially fulfills the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisraei according to some views (see Mishnah Berurah 248:28). In addition, one supports the Israeli economy and deepens his family’s connection to Eretz Yisrael. However, one must consult a rabbi for a ruling on which of the three views to follow. In addition, many very detailed questions often arise over the course of Yom Sheini in Israel, so one must be amply prepared to deal with them.(7) Of course, the best solution to this problem is to move to Israel permanently and avoid this debate altogether.

---FOOTNOTES---

1. For example, the Mishnah (Pesachim 50a-b) addresses the custom of not doing work on Erev Pesach. This custom only developed in certain communities, but it is theoretically reasonable to observe such a custom in any geographic location. Accordingly, it is by no means absurd to obligate someone whose community refrains from work on Erev Pesach to even refrain from it when visiting a community which does not share his custom. On the other hand, Yom Tov Sheini is only a logical custom for communities in the Diaspora.

2. Regarding the general issue of Yom Tov Sheini for Israeli visitors to the Diaspora, see Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, 496:3) and Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer (9:30).

3. These authorities are unable to simply adopt the seemingly stricter view and require the observance of two days of Yom Tov, for this seeming stringency is sometimes a leniency. For example, by treating the day as Yom Tov, men would not perform the mitzvah of tefilin. In addition, reciting the holiday prayers would mean losing the opportunity to recite weekday prayers. It is thus essential for these authorities to decide which view they fundamentally accept, despite the fact that they recommend adhering to certain stringent practices of the opposing view. By deciding in favor of the Chacham Tzvi, they are only able to accept stringent practices from Rav Karo’s view when those practices do not detract from the mitzvot of a weekday (such as donning tefilin and reciting weekday prayers).

4. See Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo (1:19), who rules that even those who follow Rav Yosef Karo’s approach should not sit in a sukkah on Shmini Atzeret. It should be noted that although Rav Shlomo Zalman follows Rav Karo’s ruling, he uses the Chacham Tzvi’s view as a consideration in his rulings regarding Yom Tov Sheini.

7. For practical examples, see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo (1:19 and 2:58:7-12).

Rejecting the Shtuth

Important: The KDL does not condone any form of violence whatsoever. We call for passively rejecting any notion of discarding our minhagim simply by not eating Kitniyos on Pesach. This is all that must be done and no more.

Head of Shilo Institute attacked for permitting 'kitniyot' on Pessah
Matthew Wagner, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 5, 2007

In recent weeks irate members of the Orthodox community have hurled threats and anathemas at Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, head of the Shilo Institute, his only crime apparently being an attempt to make the culinary lives of Ashkenazim living in Israel a little bit easier.

Bar-Hayim, together with four other rabbis, issued a halachic opinion two weeks ago that would permit Ashkenazi Jews to eat kitniyot (legumes.) If Bar-Haim has his way, no longer will foods such as rice, humous, peanut butter and tofu be permissible for Sephardim only. Rather, Jews of European descent would adopt "the custom of the Land of Israel" and partake of kitniyot, as well.

Bar-Hayim's detractors, however, do not want their lives to be made any easier if it means compromising tradition.
"Your place in Gehinom (hell) is assured" and "If you don't clarify your opinion, we will organize a worldwide campaign to blackball you" are just some of threats recorded on Bar-Hayim's answering machine and Internet inbox.

In the haredi Internet chat room Hadrei Haredim, Bar-Haim and his fellow rabbis were attacked as "spiritual midgets who have the audacity to take on the giants."

"I've received three types of responses," said Bar-Hayim, 47, an immigrant from Australia, told The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview.

"The happy ones call to thank me for doing something that should have been done a long time ago, but which no rabbi has had the courage or willingness to do.

"The curious ones call to get a copy of the halachic opinion. Then there are the angry ones." But Bar-Haim, who studied for a decade at Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, a bastion of religious Zionist spiritual leadership training, said he was neither surprised nor intimidated by the negative reaction which came "primarily from the haredi community."

His halachic opinion was written for "Torah Jews" who are interested in forging a new identity for themselves in the Land of Israel.

Bar-Haim, who is a researcher at the Jerusalem Talmud Institute, makes it clear that he is not looking for leniencies.

"I'm not a conservadox. I just want to reconstitute the Jewish people in the Land of Israel under a unifying custom. Sometimes, as in the case of legumes, there are leniencies," he explained.

Bar-Hayim and other rabbis at the Shilo Institute believe that the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel marks an historical change that has ramifications on religious practice. The ingathering in Israel of Jewish communities from all over the world, each with its own traditions, has created a cacophony of rites and customs, and sometimes perpetuates factions and splinter groups.

"I look into the future and I think, 'how can a people be so fractured and still manage to succeed as a nation?'" he says. For Bar-Hayim, kitniyot are just a symptom of deep national malaise - that after nearly 60 years with a sovereign state, Orthodox Jews still cling to a mentality of exile. They refuse to redefine themselves in a new image as citizens of the Land of Israel.

Bar-Hayim is reminiscent of early Zionist thinkers such as Yosef Haim Brenner, Judah Leib Gordon, and Mikha Yosef Berdyczewski who rejected exilic culture. But unlike these radically secular thinkers, he does not reject Jewish tradition. He just recommends returning to a pristine "Land of Israel custom," untainted by the long years of Diaspora wanderings.

However, not everyone identifies with Bar-Hayim's unifying message. Bar-Hayim's approach clashes with the haredi philosophy that pre-Holocaust Jewish culture must be preserved against attempts at reform.

Rabbi Benjamin-Salomon Hamburger, a haredi historian who heads the Ashkenaz Tradition Institute, represents the haredi approach that calls to preserve the customs of the exile. Hamburger, who defines himself as "super-conservative," has devoted his professional life to researching and maintaining Ashkenazi customs.

"Jewish customs are imbued with the holiness of those who adhered to them throughout the ages," says Hamburger, quoting from Rabbi Yechiel Weinberg, author of the halachic responsa entitled Sridei Eish (Remnants of Fire.)

"Secular Zionists had the tendency of skipping over or ignoring large chunks of Jewish history that did not fit in with their ideology," Hamburger said. He argues that the prohibition against kitniyot cannot simply be annulled, as the vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis throughout the ages accepted the decree.

Past attempts to revoke the prohibition were aggressively rebuffed, says Hamburger. During the creation of the Kingdom of Westphalia Jerome Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother, called on the Jews to permit kitniyot consumption. But the rabbis stubbornly resisted.

Hamburger also rejected Bar-Haim's claim that there was a "Land of Israel custom."

Throughout centuries of exile, different rabbis - including students of the Ba'al Shem Tov and the Vilna Gaon - arrived in the Land of Israel and continued to adhere to their masters' customs, said Hamburger.

However, even he rejects some of the more exotic traditions adopted over the past few centuries by certain Hassidic sects, certain of whom abstain from fish, carrots, tomatoes, peppers, and even garlic (see box.) But, Hamburger explains, these added prohibitions were products of the times.

"Jews of Galicia lived in horridly squalid living conditions," says Hamburger. "They lacked basic hygiene...Today there is no reason to cling to these stringencies."

What about kitniyot? Today, there is little danger that the same storage bags used for wheat or flour will be used for rice or other legumes, which was the concern of Ashkenazi rabbis 800 years ago.

Hamburger disagrees. "When I buy sunflower seeds at the local market, I often find kernels of other grains mixed in. Besides, the rabbis issued a decree on legumes. But no decree was made about tomatoes."

Hat Tip: KLF

Rav Herschel Schachter on the Second Day Yom Tov for Visitors in Eretz Yisroel

Rather than calling fellow Jews that disagree with you a chillul Hashem or the Sitra Achra we should learn to respect ALL Torah opinions. This is especially the case when we are dealing with the MAJORITY opinion as Rav Schachter explains.


Regarding the Second Day Yom Tov for Visitors in Eretz Yisroel
By Rabbi Herschel Schachter

In Eretz Yisroel the yomim tovim are observed for only one day as proscribed by the Torah. Outside of Eretz Yisroel the rabbis of the Talmud here instituted the second day yom tov, not withstanding the fact that we already have a fixed calendar, and there is no longer any doubt regarding the correct identity of the day of yom tov [1].

For one from chutz laaretz who is only visiting Eretz Yisroel for yom tov it is well known that there is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to how many days of yom tov one must observe. The majority opinion always was that visitors observe two days [2]. Even if one always visits Eretz Yisroel for Pesach and Succos, but not for Shavuos, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach pointed out, based on the gemara, that one must observe two days of yom tov even for Pesach and Succos. The minority view of the Chochom Tzvi (18th century) was that even the visitors in Eretz Yisroel only observe one day. In recent years, this opinion of the Chochom Tzvi has gained more popularity among the poskim [3].

Then there are compromise opinions. Many observe what has come to be known as "a day and a half." They basically follow the Chochom Tzvi: davening tefillat chol on the second day, putting on tefillin with a bracha, but by way of compromise, they do not do any melacha on the second day to be choshesh for the other opinions. This is what Rav Soloveichik used to advise talmidim. He mentioned that his family tradition was that basically the Chochom Tzvi's opinion was more correct. (On some occasions he would even suggest that the idea of observing issur melacha on the second day might not merely be by way of compromise, but possibly based on pure halacha).[4]

Others have adopted an opposite style of compromise which some humorously refer to as "two and a half days." They follow what was always the majority opinion and observe two days of yom tov, abstaining from melacha on the second day and davening tefillat yom tov including the reciting of kiddush and observing the second seder; but at the same time being choshesh for the opposing view and putting on tefillin the second day without a bracha and listening to havdalah in shul at the end of the first day. (On the several rare occasions that I was visiting in Eretz Yisroel for yom tov this was indeed my personal practice and that of my family.) The rationale behind this practice is not to always be on the lookout for every possible chumra under the sun as some unlearned individuals have incorrectly understood; but rather to follow the classical majority view that visitors must observe two days and at the same time be tolerant enough to show respect for the minority view [5].

If one is in the practice of always following the views of Rav Soloveitchik, then of course this issue should be no exception and one should observe the "one and a half" days. But, in all honesty there are not many people who actually follow all of the Rav's opinions- considering that he had many many unconventional chumros! If one is a "chochom shehigia lehoraah", then he is entitled and indeed obligated to research each and every halachic issue and to follow his own personal view on any matter. But, if one is not higia lehoraah (as the overwhelming majority of people who learned in yeshiva would be classified) then one may not pick and chose arbitrarily from amongst the various opinions of the poskim. One must either always follow one posek (as the mishna in Avos tells us) or follow the consensus from among the group of poskim he looks up to as his rebeim (because of the fact that that group left an impression on him).

Before this past Peach I was consulted regarding two interesting cases. In the first case, a family was visiting Eretz Yisroel for yom tov. The daughter, a student at Columbia, had previously studied in one of the seminaries in Eretz Yisroel after high school, and was taught there - in accordance with the classical traditional view - that one visiting Eretz Yisroel must observe two days of yom tov. Just a few months before Pesach the father had asked his local Orthodox musmach from down the block, to whom he asks all of his shailas as well, (who happens not to be a practicing pulpit rabbi) and was told that this family should only observe one day of yom tov. The question posed was, does it make sense that half of the family observe one day yom tov and the other half two days. My thoughts on the matter were as follows: the Talmud records that there were many disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. Whoever was a follower of Beis Shammai had to abide by their opinions, and whoever was a follower of Beis Hillel had to abide by their opinions. But this is only provided they are together with their own group. If one from Beis Hillel was with a group of followers of Beis Shammai, he was not allowed to follow the views of Beis Hillel, as this would be a violation of lo tisgodedu, causing it to appear in a very noticeable fashion as if the Torah has been split into two Torahs! [6] Since the family was spending the yom tov together, and the majority of the members of the family had accepted the psak of their local rabbi, even the daughter should follow that opinion on this occasion, and only keep one day. On some other occasion, if the daughter should happen to visit Eretz Yisroel again for a yom tov without the rest of the family, she ought to follow the psak of her rabbi.

The second case came two weeks later, when I was consulted by a rabbi who was going to Eretz Yisroel for yom tov with a group of baalei batim from his shul. They were all going to spend the yom tov together. The majority of his group was clearly going to observe only one day of yom tov, no matter what the rabbi would tell them. They knew that such an opinion is floating about, and were going to follow it this yom tov, as they had already done in the past. The question was whether it makes sense for some of the group to observe two days yom tov, when the majority of the group was not going to. Here again I thought that since the majority of the group planned to follow the one view, that it was not proper for the minority to follow the opposing view. In the event that the minority of the group should visit Eretz Yisroel on another occasion for a yom tov, they should ask again what to do. The reason for this psak was that the minority ought to follow the practice of the majority provided that the majority is following a valid halachik opinion.

Of course, it is self understood that in both cases, if the family (or the group of baalei batim) turns out to be staying in a hotel where the majority of the guests will be observing the second day of yom tov, then that majority ought to be followed.

___

[1] Gemara Beitza (4b)

[2] See Yom Tov Sheni Khilchaso (Fried, 1998) pg. 48, and pg. 215 (quoting Rav Auerbach).

[3] Rav A.Y. Hakohen Kook used to follow this view (see Sifrei Rav Neirah)

[4] See Nefesh Horav, pg. 84-85

[5] For a discussion of the halachik significance of the concept of "eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim Chayim" see Be'ikvei Hatzohn, pg. 259

[6] See Yevamos (13b - 14a), and Beitza (20a) quoting a Tosefta Chagiga

Pesach's Upside

Jameel emailed me one of his posts (Pesach's Downside) about how a downside to all the chumros frum Jews keep is that they can’t eat together. First of all, in many cases, there still are ways to eat together (of course it would mean adapting the highest chumros and willingness to do that might depend on how much you value the friendship.) Second of all, in those cases where it can’t be done – because of the chumra of simply not eating anywhere outside the house on pesach – you have to appreciate the upside. Namely playing it EXTRA safe not to get spiritually cut off from the Jewish People FOREVER which is a lot worse than getting physically cut off (if it’s that at all) for seven days.

The penalty for eating chametz on pesach is Kares (or Karet) which means being "spiritually cut off." There is no “batel b'shishim” (1 part in 60 nullifying it) when it comes to chametz. In other words Kares is the punishment for eating a crumb of chametz even if it’s mixed into – I don’t know – say a big pot of rice.

This is why even Sephardim are required to check rice three times for kernels of wheat.

The Arizal taught us that when in comes to Pesach one should be as strict as possible. In other words if you only keep chumras one time a year Pesach is the time to do it.

Jameel you are no doubt familiar with Chachum Yaakov Culi Z”TL author of the Holy MeAm Lo’ez. In his Haggada Rav Culi seems quite clear that it is praiseworthy to be strict on Pesach. He even goes as far as to write:

…a truly religious Jew does not depend on others. He brings the grain to the mill himself, and personally supervises its grinding. (p. 208 moznaim ed.).

Regarding eating rice on Pesach, Rav Culi, leader of all Sephardic Jewry in Constantinople 300 years ago, writes as follows:

Although rice is examined many times, it still can be found to contain wheat. A religious Jew should therefore not eat rice on Passover. (p. 227).

It must be pointed out for the sake of intellectual honestly that Rav Culi wrote this as an added praiseworthy stringency and not as a law for Sephardim. Nevertheless it says what it says.

Rav Culi based this opinion on the Pri Chadash 467. The Pri Chadash was a commentary on the Shuchan Aruch written by Chachum Chizkeya da Silva, another leader of Sephardic Jewry who moved to Jerusalem at age 20 (in 1679). Here was a great Sephardi leader living in Jerusalem advocating that Sephardi Jews refrain from eating rice on Pesach.

I’ll close with a story that Rav Avrohom Blumenkrantz ZT"L quotes in his Pesach digest regarding the chumra of not eating at other people’s houses.

There is a story about this custom involving Rav Chaim Soloveitchik and the Chofetz Chaim. Rav Chaim visited the Chofetz Chaim on Pesach, and the Chofetz 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.

Can you imagine? The Chofetz Chaim was known for not wanting to make anyone feel bad and here he is NOT offering Rav Chaim – even tea? Even water?

Think about it, Jameel.

Chag Kasher V'Sameach!

Wishing our friends everywhere including at the KLF a happy and kosher pesach! May Klal Yisrael be zoche to see the light of authentic Torah Judaism.

"Rabbi without a cause" on Kitniyos

Taken from Rabbi With Out A Cause.

I’m about to become very unpopular

Shabbos HaGadol derashah is almost done (and is very, very good, I might add), shiur for Shabbos haGadol afternoon is done. Shiurim and derashos for the first days of Pesach are complete. Shabbos Chol haMoed derashah is done. Derashos for the last days of Pesach are complete. Shiurim for Shabbos Chol haMoed and the last days of Pesach are still to come.

Time to wreak some havoc.

More havoc than my Trust the Gedolim post.

More havoc than Orthomom raised with Pamela Greenbaum.

More havoc than my previous post raised in the RWAC home.

It's time to talk Kitniyos.

Jameel, it was your mistake to invoke my name regarding Kitniyos and its potential revocation. I believe I may be the only Ashkenazi Jew in the world who will admit that the gezeirah against Kitniyos makes perfect sense.

A little background: At some point within the past millenium, the rabbis of various Jewish communities, mostly Ashkenazic, issued rulings prohibiting eating certain non-Chametz foods on Pesach, lest one accidentally eat Chametz. These rulings are titled the “kitniyos” rulings, for reasons beyond the scope of this post.

The rulings, by and large, prohibited foods that fit into three categories:
1. They were often used to make products that resembled chametz;
2. They were often ground into flour-like powders;
3. They often had chametz mixed in among them.
Foods commonly included in this prohibition are soy, rice, cumin and mustard, and many beans. American corn is usually on the list because of resemblances to European vegetation. Some wish to expand it to include New World items like quinoa and peanuts.

Today, it is fashionable among Ashkenazi Jews to moan about the tremendous hardship imposed by avoiding eating kitniyos, even as they pack their gullets with imitation pasta, imitation rolls, imitation pizza and imitation-just-about-every-delicacy-imaginable-to-mankind. Certainly, they declare, the Sanhedrin will eliminate this decree. It’s a hardship! And besides, we’re too smart to mix up those foods with chametz.

Don’t be absurd.

First, this is not a hardship. No one is starving due to the specific lack of rice, no one is missing any critical nutrients from their diets due to the absent soy (one might recommend that they replace all the chocolates and potato stuff with carrots and radishes), no one is being forced to fork over huge dollar amounts due to the kitniyos decree. Just the opposite - permitting kitniyos would mean more big-ticket delicacies on which people could waste their maos chittim (money contributed to help the poor afford basic Passover needs).

And second, who in the world can guarantee me that his rice doesn’t include wheat kernels, or that he could tell the difference between rice flour and wheat flour?

Let me tell you a story that happened to me several years ago. RWAC and RWAC were eating a salad made from Kosher l’Pesach Bodek vegetables, presumably bug-checked to the nth degree, when we found a kernel of corn. No, this wasn’t כשר לאוכלי קטניות; it was for good Ashkenazic boys and girls. They can find the leaf miners but they can’t find the corn, apparently. And I should trust that no wheat kernels make it into the rice flour?

Food manufacturing, packaging and distribution are all orders of magnitude more complex now than they were centuries ago. Mega-corporations prepare many different products in the same plant, cheap labor is untrained in anything beyond the mechanics of their specific jobs and quality control is often shoddy. How does this compare to the lone farmer who harvested his produce and brought it to the town mill six hundred years ago? I’d say the lone farmer had a better chance of keeping his produce separate.

In a day when every major kashrus organization has an absurd amount of egg on its face from one mistake or another, and every major food producer has mix-ups that involve serious allergenic issues, and the FDA itself acknowledges that its policies permit “acceptable” levels of all manner of contamination in foods, I can’t see the rationale for saying that kitniyos/chametz cross-contamination in foods is not a concern.

So I know it’s going to be unpopular, but that’s my stance.

Let me be clear: I would not expand Kitniyos, but I wouldn’t revoke it, either.

Jameel, I hope you’ll forgive me: No Rice on Pesach.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman on Kitniyos

"...even if the beis din of Shmuel HaRamasi or Eliyahu HaNavi were to reconvene, they would not have the ability to permit kitniyos." Teshuvah MeAhavah (No. 259)

Taken from the 5 Town Jewish Times.

Dean, Tiferet Chaya“The Carol Tepler High School for Girls"
By: Rabbi Yair Hoffman Published: Thursday, March 29, 2007

Kitniyos: A Brief Overview

It is known as the great Ashkenazic-Sephardic divide; the details are found in Chapter 423 of the Orach Chayim section of the Shulchan Aruch. We are, of course, referring to kitniyos.

The minhag to not eat kitniyos (often defined as “legumes”) on Pesach dates back to the times of the Geonim (see SMaK 222). During the time of the Gemara, the prohibition did not exist. Indeed, the Gemara tells us that Rabbah ate rice in front of Rav Huna (Pesachim 114b). Rav Ashi also rules that rice may be eaten on Pesach. But clearly, in the time of the Geonim things changed.

The reason why kitniyos were forbidden, of course, was as a protective measure. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 453:6, 464:5) provides a few explanations:

1) Kitniyos are harvested and processed in the same way that chametz is. The masses would confuse the two and come to permit grains for themselves. (2) Kitniyos can also be ground and baked, just like chametz, and people might come to permit chametz grains. (3) The Kitniyos themselves may have actual chametz mixed in. All three reasons are therefore protective in nature. The prohibition was strictly limited to consumption; one may own and derive benefit from kitniyos on Pesach.

Just what is included in kitniyos? The term “legumes” is a misnomer, as that word simply means a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or the edible fruit or seeds of such plants, such as beans and peas. The prohibition extended beyond just legumes, however. Rice, mustard, and corn (see M.B. 453:4) are also included. So are buckwheat, lentils, and sesame seeds. The TaZ writes that it is simply impossible to clearly define and quantify what is included in the category.

What about coffee? Is that a bean? The Shaarei Teshuvah forbids coffee as kitniyos. And what about peanuts? Some say yes, some say no.

And why are we so stringent regarding derivatives of kitniyos? This comes from a halachah found in the Rama: the Rama indicates that oil made from kitniyos is forbidden just like the kitniyos themselves. Cottonseed oil is perplexing, because some say yes and some say no. Canola oil is kitniyos, too.

When are kitniyos forbidden? The Sheivet HaLevi (Vol. III, No. 31) rules that the time we can no longer eat them is the same time as for chametz itself. The Maharsham (Daas Torah 453) permits it, until the evening of Pesach itself. The minhag is to be stringent, but for those direct descendents of the Maharsham (quite a few of whom live in Lawrence), it would be okay to eat kitniyos on erev Pesach.

There is also a leniency. Kitniyos is battul b’rov if mixed in accidentally with other (kosher l’Pesach) food (see Mishnah Berurah 453:9). In other words, even if the taste is distinguishable, as long as the kitniyos constitutes less than half of the final mixture and is not removable, the food remains kosher! The Rav Shulchan Aruch says that this doesn’t work if it is the main part of the dish, though—even when less than half.

Sick people may also eat kitniyos on Pesach, and it is permitted to feed kitniyos to infants or to animals. The Chasam Sofer writes (O.C. 122) not to let it cook a long time in the pot, but rather to heat up the water first and then put in the kitniyos (which is what we do anyway, except when using a rice cooker). Ideally, if one is feeding someone kitniyos, a separate pot should be kept for that use (P’ri Chadash 453). There is no need to kasher, though, if an error was made.

When a couple gets married, the wife follows the customs of the husband. So a Sephardic girl who marries an Ashkenazic boy cannot have kitniyos, while an Ashkenazic girl who marries a Sephardic boy may have kitniyos. This is true for a second marriage, as well.

Another question: Is the prohibition of kitniyos here to stay? The Teshuvah MeAhavah (No. 259) seems to indicate that it is. He writes that even if the beis din of Shmuel HaRamasi or Eliyahu HaNavi were to reconvene, they would not have the ability to permit kitniyos. And, at least according to some poskim, it is a pretty serious prohibition; the Maharil (Hilchos Pesach 25) writes that violating the minhag can cause one to be put to death!

But why all the stringencies? Why do we forbid so many things—and their derivatives, as well? Why on erev Pesach, too? Perhaps a philosophical approach to kitniyos can answer a lot of our questions. One reason, given by the father of Koznitz Hagaddah’s publisher (found in the Nuta Gavriel), is that the word alludes to a notion that means small, while Pesach is associated with things that are great.

To elaborate a bit, kitniyos represents something which is the antithesis of Pesach. Of all the holidays on the Jewish calendar, Pesach connotes greatness—a realization of who we are as a nation, and a concomitant recognition that Hashem had great purpose in redeeming us from the hand of Pharaoh. Within the small nation of Israel lies cosmic significance with a national spiritual destiny that can affect the world. Pesach connotes geulah, redemption, with all the overtones implied in the word.

Kitniyos, on the other hand, alludes to smallness The word conjures up thoughts of a myopic, small-mindedness of sorts, where the cosmic significance and the national destiny of the Jewish people is ignored. Everything that we do has import, even down to the foods we eat or the foods that we do not eat. Perhaps we are so stringent in avoiding kitniyos to help us dispose of the small-mindedness that can get us stuck into just looking at the trees without seeing the forest. For the same reason, the community of the town of Ostreich refrained from eating kitniyos on any day on which Tachanun is not recited (see Be’er Heitev O.C. 131, citing the Maharil). The reason? Also, to appeal to the inner voice within us to achieve our destiny, both as a people and as individuals.


The author can be reached at vze37jka@verizon.net.

Gil Student on Kitniyos

Taken from Hirhurim - Musings


Kitniyos

A rabbi* in Israel recently ruled that Ashkenazim who live in Israel do not need to maintain the Ashkenazi custom of refraining from eating kitniyos (e.g. peanuts, string beans, rice) (link - PDF).

My humble opinion on this matter is that there is nothing new in this ruling. It contains two main points:

1. There are opponents to the custom of refraining from eating kitniyos. The ruling quotes the Tur (a Sephardi), the Beis Yosef (a Sephardi) and R. Yaakov Emden (an Ashkenazi who grew up in the Sephardic community where his father was the rabbi). This is nothing new. You can see it in many different popular works, such as R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin's Ha-Mo'adim Ba-Halakhah. The ruling does not quote the many, many other sources who accept the practice, such as the Maharil, Rema, Gra, Chayei Adam, Mishnah Berurah, Arukh Ha-Shulchan, etc. etc.

2. Israel is a Sephardic country and therefore Ashkenazim are obligated to accept Sephardic customs when moving to Israel. This is an important question and I believe that the position advocated has merit except for one point -- timing. If this ruling had been issued 200 years ago, I think it would be valid. However, as Ashkenazim moved to Israel and established communities, their posekim ruled that they should not abandon their customs. The most famous such ruling is in the Pe'as Ha-Shulkhan (first section), in which R. Yisrael of Shklov argues that Ashkenazim have had a long, if limited, presence in Israel and therefore the country is like a city with two courts, in which each community follows its own court.

R. Nachum Rabinovitch put it well in his Melumedei Milchamah (no. 84):

One can question whether there is room for this custom [of refraining from eating kitniyos] in the land of Israel, since the ancient communities here did not practice as such and it is accepted among the decisors that the Rambam and the author [of the Shulchan Arukh] are the decisors for the land of Israel, and they explicitly permitted rice and certainly other kitniyos. However, from the time that other communities became established here, they retained their ancestral customs that they brought with them from various coutnries, and they have already practiced that the entire community follows its own customs. Therefore , there is no custom of the land of Israel that obligates them.

By now, the Ashkenazic community has been growing for over 200 years and has maintained its customs. Now, almost 60 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, we are hearing a call for Ashkenazim to adopt Sephardic customs??? Did R. Avraham Kook eat kitniyos? Did R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach eat kitniyos? They knew everything contained in this ruling and still kept their family customs.

In my opinion, the time for such a radical proposal is long gone. There are, I believe, more important windmills to charge against.

---

* If you'd like to get to know the rabbi who issued this ruling, see this video in which he launches what I consider to be a sarcastic and unfair attack on R. Shlomo Aviner - link. You can also see this essay by him on Jews and Gentiles, translated into English and posted on an anti-religious website - link.


UPDATE: See this article on Arutz Sheva of contemporary rabbinic authorities who disagree with this ruling.

Rabbi Michael Taubes on Kitniyos

Taken from Tzemach Dovid


Kitniyos On Pesach

by Rabbi Michael Taubes

The Mishnah in Pesachim (Daf 35) lists five types of grain with which one can manufacture the product needed to fulfill one's obligation on Pesach, meaning, as Rashi (Sham biDibor haMatchil "Eilu") explains, the obligation to eat Matzoh on the first night, when it is mandatory, as stipulated in the Torah (Shemos: 12:18) The five grains are wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats; the Gemara (Ibid.) notes that spelt is actually a type of wheat, while oats and rye are types of barley. The Gemara then states (Ibid.) that other species, such as rice and millet, cannot be used to produce Matzoh, and this is based on a Posuk later in the Torah (Dvarim 16:3) which establishes a connection between the prohibition to eat Chometz on Pesach and the obligation to eat Matzoh, indicating that one can use for the Mitzvah of Matzoh only the types of grain which could possibly become Chometz, which are the five types mentioned above, and no others. The Mishnah in Challah (1:2) states clearly that one who eats a Kezayis of Matzoh made from any of these five types of grain fulfills his obligation on Pesach night, while one who eats a Kezayis of Chometz made from one of these items is punished with Kareis, premature death, as the Torah states is the punishment for eating Chometz (Shemos: 12:15).

Although one authority in the Gemara in Pesachim (Ibid.) holds that rice is a type of grain as well, so that one who eats Chometz made of rice is punished with Kareis, and one who eats Matzoh made of rice fulfills his obligation, the Rambam (Hilchot Chametz uMatzoh, 6:4) rules that one does not fulfill the obligation to eat Matzoh unless it is made of one of the aforementioned five types of grain, because Matzoh must be made of something that can in fact become Chometz, while rice, millet, and "Kitniyos," meaning legumes, can not become Chometz and thus can not be an ingredient in the Matzoh used for the Mitzvah on Pesach night. The Rambam earlier (Ibid. 5:1) states similarly that the prohibition against eating Chometz on Pesach applies only to something made of the above five types of grain, but Kitniyos, such as rice, millet, beans, lentils and the like, are not Chometz, and, consequently, even if one kneads flour made of rice, for example, with hot water, and bakes it and processes it so that it rises and looks very much like regular dough, one may still eat this product because it is nevertheless not called Chometz. The Rosh in Pesachim (Perek 2, Siman 12) also writes that rice and millet and any other product which is not made from any one of the five aforementioned grains can not become Chometz, and it is thus permissible to cook such products for Pesach. The Korban Nesanel (Ibid., Os 70) notes that there is no need to outlaw these cooked products just because they may appear similar to other cooked products which are actually Chometz; he proves this point by referring to a comment of the Rosh later in Pesachim (Ibid. Siman 28), where he explains the implication of a Gemara there (Ibid. 40b and see Ibid.Tosfos s.v. Raba) that one may use a certain type of flour, made from lentils, because it can not become Chometz, and states that there is no need to worry that people will confuse it with other flour which is really Chometz. The Korban Nesanel (Ibid.) concludes, however, that Ashkenazic Jews have accepted a great stringency regarding these products; he is clearly referring to the practice of Ashkenazim to avoid eating any such Kitniyos products on Pesach, despite the fact that they are not Chometz, and despite the permissibility of these items documented by the above sources.

The earliest authority who records the practice not to eat Kitniyos on Pesach seems to be the Semak (Sefer Amudei Golah, Siman 222, He'arah in Os 12), who states, writing in the 1200's, that people have refrained from eating such food on Pesach since the days of the early Chachomim and Rabbonim. He then adds that the prohibition is not based on the fact that these products can become Chometz, because it is known that they can not, as explained above, since only something made of the five species of grain can become Chometz; rather, the reason for the prohibition is based on a Gezeirah, a preventative decree from the Rabbanan, instituted because people can too easily confuse a product cooked with Kitniyos, such as cereal, with a similar product cooked with one of the five grains, and if the Kitniyos product is allowed, one may come to allow a grain product, which is really Chometz, as well. Moreover, he adds, Kitniyos are similar to the five grains in other ways too, including the fact that some people make bread out of Kitniyos as they do from the five grains, and people who are not knowledgeable may end up making a mistake and eat real Chometz; he points out that Kitniyos are thus not like other vegetables which are allowed on Pesach because they will never get confused with the forbidden grains. He thus concludes that it is a proper custom to avoid eating Kitniyos, including, as he adds, mustard, and he notes that although the Gemara cited above (Ibid. 35) clearly allows eating rice on Pesach, that was only in those days when people knew all the Halachos properly, but today, one must not eat Kitniyos on Pesach. This position is cited in the Mordechai in Pesachim (in the Rif, Daf 31 to--32, Siman 588) as well. Rabbeinu Manoach, in his commentary on the aforementioned Rambam (brought down in Mahadorat haMishnah, Perek 5 Ibid., Torah sheNidpas Al Yidei R' Shabtai Frankel), quotes that some say that the custom is not to eat certain products with seeds on Pesach because they can become Chometz, but he rejects this because Kitniyos simply can not become Chometz; he suggests instead that the Torah's requirement to rejoice on Yom Tov (See Devarim Ibid., Pasuk 14) precludes eating food cooked out of Kitniyos (apparently because such food is of inferior quality) and it is from this idea that the custom developed. He then adds that there really can be no true prohibition at all on Pesach for one to eat Kitniyos if one wants to, but he concludes that he found an authority who explains that there are certain wheat crops which, when they don't grow properly due to certain agricultural factors, come out looking like Kitniyos crops, even though they are indeed from the wheat species, and the Rabbanan thus prohibited all Kitniyos crops in order to avoid confusion, and he believes that this is a solid basis for the custom to avoid eating Kitniyos on Pesach.

The Tur (Orach Chayim Siman 453) writes that rice and all types of Kitniyos can be cooked on Pesach because they can not become Chometz, but he adds that some forbid these products because sometimes certain types of wheat get mixed in with these items and it is presumably difficult to differentiate between the wheat and the Kitniyos; he concludes, though, that this is an excessive stringency and it is not customarily followed. The Beis Yosef (Ibid. s.v. viYesh) quotes others who question this custom as well, but then cites some of the above sources that prohibit eating Kitniyos on Pesach, presenting the aforementioned reasons for the prohibition; he concludes that only the Ashkenazim are concerned with this prohibition, and the Ramo, in his Darkei Moshe (Ibid. Os 2), asserts that the Ashkenazim are indeed stringent about this. The Bach (Ibid. s.v. uMah sheKatav) suggests that the true reason for this custom is that since it is possible to make dough out of Kitniyos products, there is concern that confusion will arise among uneducated people concerning dough made of grain which is truly Chometz. The Shulchan Aruch (Ibid. Si'if 1) rules that rice and other types of Kitniyos can not become Chometz, and one may thus cook these items on Pesach, but the Ramo (Ibid.) states that some forbid these items, and the Ashkenazic custom is to be stringent and should not be changed. The Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Si'if Katan 6), basing himself on the above cited sources, explains that this stringency is designed to prevent confusion between flour and bread made from Kitniyos products and flour and bread made from the five grains which are real Chometz; he also writes that the Chometz grains are sometimes mixed together with different types of Kitniyos, and if such a mixture is baked or cooked, it can indeed become real Chometz. He concludes (Ibid.), citing the Chayei Adam (127:1), that to cook even whole pieces of rice or Kitniyos (as opposed to pieces that have been made into flour or dough) is also prohibited in order to maintain consistency within this custom; in the Biur Halacha (Ibid. s.v. ViYesh), he quotes and explains the above cited opinion of Rabbeinu Manoach (Ibid.) to further justify this custom. The Aruch HaShulchan (Ibid Si'if 5) also presents a source which he believes is a basis for this custom.

Rav Yaakov Emden, an Ashkenazic authority, objects strongly to this custom, though (Sefer Mor uKitzi'ah al Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, Ibid.), complaining that because people don't eat Kitniyos, they have to bake that much more Matzoh, and people simply are not sufficiently careful when baking so much Matzoh; he notes that the Tur cited above (Ibid.) does not accept this practice although he is an Ashkenazic authority. He then adds that his own father, the Chacham Tzvi, also objected strongly to this custom, saying that he would abolish it if he would be able to, because it is a bad custom and a stringency which leads to unacceptable leniencies with real prohibitions involving Chometz; he thus expresses the desire to join someone who would be able to do away with this custom to refrain from eating Kitniyos on Pesach. The Kaf HaChaim (Ibid. Os 10) quotes others who agree that this is an improper custom, but he notes that even among Sephardim, who generally do not observe this custom, there are those in Yerushalayim who do not eat rice because it once happened that some wheat was found in a cooked rice product. This story is also found in the Pri Chodosh (Ibid. Si'if Katan 1), who finds a hint to the general custom of avoiding Kitniyos on Pesach in the aforementioned Gemara in Pesachim (Daf 40) which records that one of the Amoraim was concerned about using flour made from lentils, which are Kitniyos, in a place where the people are not careful or knowledgeable about Mitzvos, because of the possible confusion with flour made from real Chometz. He concludes that since people today are indeed less diligent about these matters, it is proper to avoid any products that are similar to grain, although he notes that the Sephardim generally do not follow this custom. The Kaf HaChaim (Ibid.) does quote some Sephardic Poskim who forbid Kitniyos as well, but he concludes that many Sephardim do not observe this practice at all.

The Maharatz Chayes, however, in an essay entitled "Minchas Kenaos" (Nidapes biSefer Kol Sifrei Maharatz Chayes, Chelek 2, biHe'arah bi'Amudim 1027-1030), quotes verbatim the words of Rav Yaakov Emden referred to above (Ibid.) in opposition to this custom, but he then defends the custom strongly against Rav Yaakov Emden's objections, stating that it is wide-spread in Ashkenazic communities, and that it can not and should not be undone, because a custom that has become accepted becomes like a law from the Torah. He thus concludes that there is no possibility of changing the practice and allowing Kitniyos to be eaten on Pesach. The Shaarei Teshuvah (Ibid. Si'if Katan 1) reports that there were those who attempted to do away with this practice, but were unsuccessful because the Gedolim among the Ashkenazic leaders maintained it strongly; he states that there is no room for leniency, and that anyone who is lenient is "breaking down the fence," meaning that he is violating the accepted norm. The Shaarei Teshuvah (Ibid.) also quotes from the Maharil (Sefer Maharil, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot baPesach, Daf 18) that one who eats Kitniyos on Pesach is violating the prohibition of Lo Tasur (See Devarim 16:11), which forbids one from disobeying the decisions of the Chachomim, as implied by the Gemara in Berachos (19), and he adds that anyone who goes against the rulings of the Rabbanan is deserving of death. The Chasam Sofer (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Chasam Sofer, Chelek Orach Chayim Siman 122), among others, also discusses this entire issue at some length, and decides that one can not change the practice of the greater community; he also suggests another source for this practice.

There is, however, some question as to exactly which products fit into the broad category called "Kitniyos;" Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Melamed LiHo'il, Chelek Orach Chayim Siman 87) states that the term "Kitniyos" is not really precisely defined by the Poskim. The Rambam cited above (Ibid.) mentions rice, millet, beans, and lentils as examples of Kitniyos, but there are other products which fall into this category as well, and the Rambam himself elsewhere (Perek 1 miHilchot Kila'yim, Halacha 8) adds another type of bean, along with sesame seeds and other types of seeds and beans to the list of products which are in the general category of Kitniyos, saying that any seed which people eat is in the category of Kitniyos. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah, Siman 297, Si'if 3) gives the same examples to define the term Kitniyos. It appears from the aforementioned Semak (Ibid.) that produce which grows in a manner similar to the way the five types of grain grow is also included in the prohibition against eating Kitniyos; the Taz (Orach Chayim Ibid., Si'if Katan 1) seems to agree, explaining that this is why mustard is considered Kitniyos, while the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Ibid. Si'if 4), who agrees regarding mustard, adds that certain caraway seeds are also considered Kitniyos for the same reason. The Pri Megadim (biMishbitzot Zahav Sham Si'if Katan 1) discusses the status of coffee, as does the aforementioned Shaarei Teshuvah (Ibid.), and both conclude that it is permissible and is not in the category of Kitniyos; in general, the Chok Yaakov (Ibid. Si'if Katan 9) implies that one should not add to the list of Kitniyos products prohibited by the Chachomim and by the force of custom, because the whole prohibition against eating Kitniyos is a stringency to begin with. Nevertheless, there are other products which are indeed considered Kitniyos as well; the Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Si'if Katan 3) mentions buckwheat and corn, for example, prohibiting their consumption on Pesach, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Igros Moshe Orach Chayim Chelek 3, Siman 63) discusses the status of peanuts, which some people avoid on Pesach, and the Sefer She'arim HaMetzuyanim BeHalacha, commenting on the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Siman 117, Si'if Katan 7 s.v. uPolin), mentions that green beans and, apparently, peas, may be considered Kitniyos as well. It is clear that the precise definition of Kitniyos relating to Pesach depends on customs which may vary from place to place.

The Sefer She'arim HaMetzuyanim BeHalacha (Ibid. s.v. viHatotzeret) also discusses the major question of whether liquid derivatives of Kitniyos products (from Kitniyot), such as oils or syrups, are included in the prohibition against consuming Kitniyos; the Chayei Adam, in his Nishmas Adam on Hilchos Pesach (She'eylah 33), seems to forbid these items as well, citing, among others, the Terumas HaDeshen (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Trumas HaDeshen Siman 113) who writes that one may use oil from Kitniyos for lighting candles, implying that one may not, however, consume it. The Avnei Neizer (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Avnei Nezer Chelek Orach Chayim Siman 373), among others, also assumes that the liquid products of Kitniyos are included in the prohibition. The Chok Yaakov (Ibid. Si'if Katan 6), however, appears to take the lenient view about this, as do Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Melamed LiHo'il Ibid. Siman 88), who quotes Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, and the Seridei Eish (Shaiy'lot uTeshuvot Seridei Eish, Chelek 2 Siman 37), and others; Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, in his Sefer Mikraei Kodesh on Pesach (Chelek 2, Siman 60, Os 2, and see Ibid. in Harirei Kodesh Ha'arot 5-7) discusses this question and notes that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik allowed the oil from a certain product to be eaten, but he implies that it may depend upon how similar the original Kitniyos product is to the five species of grain that can become Chometz. Rav Moshe Feinstein, in his aforementioned Teshuvah (Ibid.), writes, though, that in a place where there is no custom prohibiting a particular product, one should not be stringent and avoid it.

It must be pointed out that the entire restriction on Kitniyos on Pesach pertains to consuming such products, but one may have them in one's possession and even use them in other ways on Pesach, as the Ramo (Ibid.) states clearly, and one may also derive benefit from them, as the Magen Avraham (Ibid. Si'if Katan 3) writes. It should also be noted that although the Sdei Chemed (Asifat Dinim, Ma'arechet Chametz uMatzoh, Siman 6, Os 1) quotes some authorities who prohibit eating Kitniyos under all conditions, he also quotes some who are lenient in pressing situations; the Chayei Adam, in his Nishmas Adam (Ibid. She'eylah 20) leaves the question of such leniency in doubt, but in the Chayei Adam itself (Ibid. Si'if 6), he states clearly that in a case of even a mild illness, or for the sake of a baby, where there is a significant need, Kitniyos may be consumed. The Mishnah Berurah (Ibid. Si'if Katan 7) also rules that in a case of great need, one may consume Kitniyos products, although he notes that even in such a situation, there are some types of Kitniyos which should be preferred over others; it would appear to be advisable, moreover, to use separate utensils for these products.