"

'"

The Great Kitniyot Rebellion:

Searching for Modern Halakhic Authenticity1
jrosenfeld@lss.org

1. b. Pesachim 35a

Mishna: These are the items with which a person may fulfill his obligation during Pesach - wheats,
spelt, oats, barley, and rye
Gemara: ...these, yes, but rice and millet no. From where do we know these words? R. Shimon b.
Lakish said the verse states - do not eat upon it Chametz, all seven days you shall eat [upon it]
Matzot, [meaning] things which can become Chametz, a person may fulfill with them his
obligations for Matzah, excluding those things which do not become Chametz but rather decay.
[This proves] our Mishna is not like R. Yochanan b. Nuri, for he stated that rice is a type of grain,
and one is liable for Karet on [eating] its Chametz and one may fulfill his obligation for Matzah
through it.

2. Maimonides, Hil.
Chametz uMatzah
5:1

,,

,.,,
1

Iamindebtedtothefollowingtwoarticles,whichhelpedformthebackboneandthefoundationofthis
Shiurmaterial:R.DavidBrofsky,
HilkotMoadim:UnderstandingtheLawsoftheFestivals
[Maggid:2013],
ch.45R.ShlomoYosefZevin,
haMoadimbHalakha
[Heb.,TelAviv:5748]pp.255262


,,.
A Karet prohibition is only incurred with one of the five types of grains but Kitniyot, like rice,
millet, beans, and lentils, etc. -- they do not become Chametz; even flour derived from rice or
something like that which is boiled in water, covered, and allowed to rise like any other Chametz
batter, is permissible to eat,
as this is not Chametz process, rather just decay
.

3.
R. Peretz b. R. Eliyahu (Corbeil, d. 1300), Commentary to
Sefer Mitzvot
Katan
; 222:10
"""
,'''

,,
,
"

"'
,,
,
,,

',
',
,
,
.
And regarding Kitniyot our Rabbis have established a custom to forbid eating them at all on
Pesach and my Rabbi, Rabbeinu Yechiel did indeed have the custom to eat white beans on
Pesach and he would cite the Gedolim
but it is still difficult to permit something which the
world has already accepted as prohibited, since the days of the earliest authorities.
And of
course, it seems that the prohibition was not established because of any concerns about Chametz
itself, because people did not err in something that even schoolchildren who have learned Halacha
know and therefore it seems correct to uphold the custom and to forbid all Kitniyot on
Pesach because both these and those are like porridge, and are piled up and stored in a similar
manner [as grain]... and
there are places in which they are even made into a type of bread
like the five grains, and those who are not learned might make a mistake and confuse
them
this even applies to mustard, for it is stored as grain as well...2
2','"",)"(
.

 4. R. Yaakov b. R Asher (Toledo, 1270-1830),

Arbah Turim
; OC #453

...but not with rice and other species, as they also do not become Chametz and it is permissible to
make a cooked dish from them, the same as with all other types of Kitniyot; and there are those
who forbid eating rice and all other types of Kitniyot as a cooked item, because types of grain may
become mixed into them,
and this is an excessive/superfluous stringency, and we have not
practiced this custom
.

5. R. Isaac b. Moshe of Vienna (Vienna, 1200-1270),

Ohr Zarua
; 2:256

"

.
"
'
'

'.
And so with Kitniyot, the custom is to be strict to not eat them and afterward I heard that my
teacher R. Yehuda himself would eat them, and many followed him in practice to be lenient, and
God forbid a stumbling block would issue from him...

;)6. R. Yerucham b. Meshullam (Toledo, 1290-1350

Rabbeinu Yerucham
,
Nativ 5, 3:41:1

.
...the custom of those who do not eat rice or types of cooked Kitniyot on Pesach is
a foolish
Minhag
, unless they are somehow doing it to be strict upon themselves for some hidden reason.

7.R.Yaakovb.R.MosheLeviMolein(Mainz,13651427
SeferMaharil
,Minhagim,
HilchotMaachalotAssurotbPesach
,s.v.[16]
kitnit

"
][,"

,,,,,,.

,
3.,

3"",
)"""'
RITUALINSTINCT(,"""
"".

".
.
,
.
,,,
.
Kitniyot we have decreed that it is forbidden to cook them on Pesach even though they do not
become Chametz like the five grains
and one should not say that since there is no biblical
prohibition involved here, one neednt worry too much, because anything that the Rabbis
decreed - one who violates it is liable for the death penalty
, having violated the dictum of
thou shall not depart from their words that they teach you...

8. R. Yosef Karo (Safed, 1542-1620) & R. Moshe Isserles (Krakow,

1520-1572),
Shulchan Aruch
w/glosses of
Rema
; 453:1

()

,,
()

*
:
.
()
,
[]

()

.
()
,.('")
<>

()

()
.
()
,

()
.
()

()

("')"

Mechaber: ...they do not become Chametz and it is permitted to eat them cooked.
Rema:
And there are those who forbid, and the custom in Ashkenaz is to be strict on this,
and we mustn't change that
. It is obvious that we do not forbid as dish in which they fell in, and
it is permitted to use their oil to light with, and it is permitted to leave Kitniyot in this house...

9. R. Yaakov. b. R. Tzvi Emden (Altona, 1697-1776),

Mor uKetzia
#453

And in a time of need, for sure we may permit all Kitnityot to be eaten, for even our Rabbi the
Baal ha-Turim, who was an Ashkenazi, and the strict custom had already taken root in his days
did not pay serious attention to it, writing that it is a superfluous Chumrah and that he did not
practice it. It seems that our fathers did not fully accept the custom even in his days, and that it
hadnt yet fully spread, and
many authorities considered it foolish, a mistake that doesnt
even require regret or annulment, as is clear from open Talmudic passages all
4

stringencies with Kitniyot were expansions upon rice, and once we uproot that, the rest of
the plant dries out on its own. I can testify about my own sainted father, how much that
holy man would be annoyed and bothered by this custom
- every Pesach he would sigh and
say if only I had enough power to cancel out this custom...

11. R. Moshe Feinstein (New York City, 1895-1986), Resp.

Iggerot Moshe
;
OC 3:63

...but you know, that this is not a matter at all, that all things from which flour may be derived are
forbidden due to this custom, as there is nothing from which you can make flour from like
potatoes and they never worried about them.
And therefore, we only include in this matter things that were explicitly forbidden, that
which is known and publicized. And we might also explain the foundations behind this rule
5

- that which was forbidden through Minhag, it was not done so through a gathering of
Rabbis, but rather through the custom of the people who were led to be strict in this
area
but because it was not decided upon formally in a Rabbinic convocation, we only forbade
those types of foods which were initially singled out and did not expand the prohibition to others
which were not around at the time, like potatoes, for example, which were not known at the time,
and therefore could not have been included in the prohibition, even though the exact reasoning
which does apply to all other items included in the prohibition equally applies to potatoes;
we do
not learn from that which was customary to forbid to things which we were not
accustomed to forbid
.
And so, in regard to peanuts, they were not forbidden in many places and in the place where
there is no pre-existing custom, they should not be forbidden,
because in these matters
[i.e., the
custom itself. JR]
there is no reason to be strict

...

12. R. Avraham b. Yechiel Michel Danzig (Vilna, 1748-1820),

Nishmat
Adam
; Pesach,
klal
#129
"""...
,
'''"'

""
,
""
"
,
.
"
'
,'.,'.,,
'"""",

And based on this, one neednt ask about the custom for Kitniyot that is practiced by us - Bnei
Ashkenaz - whether or not it was made through a communal agreement or by the great Rabbis of
the land in those days, because [in any event] it is simply forbidden; in fact, even if it hadnt been
made through an agreement, since [the Minhag] had already spread out, no less than that of
Jewish women being stringent upon themselves
it is impossible to permit,
unless everyone regrets [the Minhag], and this is to say that we
need all of the countries of Ashkenaz to regret it, and if so, [still] all agree that the
annulment would not work, and it would still remain forbidden unless it was a case where
there was nothing else to eat and it was a case of preserving life
, but if there was what to eat
than it would be impossible to permit it.

13. ibid.,
Chayyei Adam
, 127:14

,[]""[]""[]""
,',
.,
',
,,
,
...[,],,

5
,
And since our fathers custom was such, it is prohibited for us to change it, because of [the verse]
do not stray from the Torah of your mother and so too with all customs of Israel that were
enacted with a specific matter, even though they didnt formally institute it, but rather acted as
such on their own initiative; therefore in a time of need, when a person can only procure what to
eat with great effort, it is then permitted to cook Kitniyot and other things...

On Potatoes as a staple food in European Jewish life, see Philologos Blog, 3/2/11 (Jewish Daily
Forward),
ATruffle,and10WordsforPotato
:
AhumorousYiddishsongabout
bulbes
tellsusjusthowbasicastapleofthe
EasternEuropeandiettheywere.Itsfirststanzagoes:
Zuntikbulbes,montik
bulbes,/Dinstikunmitvokhbulbes,/Donershtikunfraytikbulbes,/Obershabbes
inanovenehabulbekugele./Zuntikvayterbulbes.
Thatis,OnSunday
potatoes,onMondaypotatoes,/onTuesdayandWednesdaypotatoes,/on
ThursdayandFridaypotatoes,/ButonShabbes,forachange,potatokugel./
OnSunday,potatoesagain.
:"""" 5
."

14. R. Avraham Yitzchak ha-Kohen Kook (Jerusalem, 1865-1935), Resp.

Orach Mishpat
; no. 108-1096

Let the self-restricting eat, be satisfied and rejoice in the great holiday which is upon is [Pesach] in
the produce of of beloved land, and in the handiwork of our brothers, who make it fittingly
[=Kosher] in good spirit and mindset
Dont rely on those who say it is not Kitniyot but rather all this is dealing with Kitniyot that have
been soaked in liquid but
God forbid that we prohibit the permitted, that is, the sesame oil
made with great circumspection without any moisture
, and it is obvious that there is no
suspicion that water is mixed in afterward, because the custom does not deal with this in any
6

SeeBezalelNaor,
Haggadah:SpringtimeoftheWorld
[Orot:2004]pp.155157,n.325forfurther
discussionandsourcesregardingthecontroversythatensuedfollowingR.Kookslenientruling.

event therefore,
there are no grounds to be strict regarding sesame oil produced under
complete supervision for Pesach

PS -
and it is also simple that it is forbidden to prohibit that which is permitted
...

15. Tomer Persico, Interview with R. Yuval Sherlo,

Lulaot ha-El
[blog
posting, 3/10/14]

TP:
More than a decade ago, you wrote an article in Akdamot (vol. 12, 5762) in which you
pointed to the understanding of the tension that exists between the nature of western, modern
society and the tradition of Halakha. You wrote:
the emergence and growth of the subjective, existential experience of the modern and
postmodern world, brings the objective nature and the patterns of its codification into
an awkward, strange light. The great importance placed in our world on authenticity
and independence, to internal/personal freedom of choice - stands in direct
contradiction to the edifice of Halakha.

TP:
So, explicitly - in direct contradiction to the edifice of Halakha. How do you think we can
reconcile the fact that most of us live in the same world in which we assign great value to
authenticity, internal freedom and choice, and how that changes Halakha specifically, and the
religious world of those who keep Mitzvot in our days in general?
9

RYS:
There is in the Halakha a solid, consistent foundation. Anyone who learns Torah is able to
recognize this ethos of consistency, the dynamics of Halakha, the subservience to previous
generations - these things are all very, very present in the world of Halakhic decision making. In
our reality, there is a great movement for change, of subjectivity, of narratives and personal
viewpoints, renewal. So both of these cultures stand in opposition.
In the place where the contradiction stands - and, as mentioned, regarding the issue we are
talking about stands a conflict between the surrounding culture and the common nature of
Halakha - there stand two possible basic moves: one of them is to specifically/consciously go and
accentuate the contradiction, to cry out like Eliyahu ha-Navi, until when will you dance at two
weddings!?, to force a choice between one of these two approaches: complete fealty to the
framework of Halakha or absolute loyalty to the values of freedom and freedom of choice.

The second movement, to which I am much closer, is a soft movement it reveals that the
distinctions/gulf between the two [approaches] are much less stark, softer on one hand, this
new movement reveals the failures and the problematics that are inherent with trying to situate
everything in the lens of authenticity and independence, freedom and choice. It reveals the
ethical-moral issue in a world which creates its frameworks based on narrative alone, the
low-key revolution in a world where ideologies have died; and
it learns that even in such a
world, there is a pressing need for a language that speaks also in objective terms, with
strong foundations of fundamental morals and the stability of tradition

On the other hand, the movement that stands

at the other pole reveals that many things said
in the name of Halakha - are in actuality not truly Halakhic in any sense. It reveals
though, that the framework of Halakha has much more space for freedom and choice
[within it]
... 7
,- " : " " " 7
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD8su0m04lA : .2014 , 26-

The Pursuit of

- ' 52-74 ' ,PEOPLE OF THE BOOK , '

the Countertext: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model in Contemporary American Legal Theory
, 106 Harv.
L. Rev. 813

10

11