kitnoyot

Avodah
1

from an OU bulletin

My grandparents, may they rest in peace, would be startled to discover that
I can purchase OUP kosher for Passover items such as breakfast cereals,
pizza, bread sticks, rolls, blintzes, waffles, pierogis and farfel.
OTOH the OU has many chumrot on what is kitniyot

I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on kitniyot
products but felt that many of the foods that the OU gives a hechsher like
farfel, bread sticks etc should be prohibited for the same reasons as
kitniyot ie they can easily be mixed up with chametz.

It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer
makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as
kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot.

To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and
bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original.

2

It's very simple: `al zeh gozru ve`al zeh lo gozru. We have no authority to make up our own gezeros, but we are bound by those our predecessors made. Thus the machlokes acharonim about newly discovered legumes and pseudo-grains: was the original gezera only on certain species, or was it on the entire class? Most acharonim seem to say it was on the entire class, but then argue about how to define that class, and thus how to decide what it includes. But very few if any say zil basar ta`ma to include new things that definitely don't fall in the original definition of the banned class.

3

I was under the impression that gezeirot weren't something that could be instituted after the Sanhedrin. Even Rabbenu Gershom only instituted his rules as chramim, rather than gezeirot. And the minhag (not gezeira by any stretch of the imagination) was made by local rabbis for local conditions and local situations. Conditions and situations change.

I realize that the reason we differentiate between d'Orayta and d'Rabbanan law is because there's a meforash commandment of bal tosif. But we can learn out from that on some level that we shouldn't be jumbling up gezeirot and takkanot and cheramim and minhagim and siyagim and treating them like they're all the same.

Lisa

4

: It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if no longer
: makes sense and not all in products that have the same rationale as
: kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot.
:
: To my mind it is difficult to prohibit canola oil and allow cereals and
: bread sticks that look and sometimes even taste like the original.

In this era of packaged foods and heksheirim, the whole minhag makes no
sense. People aren't deciding on their own whether quinoa is qitniyos.
Or whether some sack contains pure peas with no wheat from the bottom
of the silo. Or would eat a porridge based on a guess about whether it
was pea or oatmeal.

(The fact that I get my *unflavored* gourmet whole-leaf teas without
a KLP symbol -- something little different than buying any [other]
vegetable -- makes my wife nervous.)

The main reason for Ashekanzim to avoid qitniyos today is because if we
start second-guessing minhagim in this day and age, the mimetic system
will collapse and all of halakhah will fall apart.

5

Mehila, but aren't you being rather Chicken Little (or is your tongue
somewhere in the direction of your cheek?)

We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha
hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other
minhagim that people are so set against any change?

6

See my post a week ago in which I cited Rav Yoel Ben Nun and Rav Yosef Rimon as both taking the position that we need to ban flour substitutes and relax on kitniyot.

Ben

7

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

I just went to a shiur from R Aviner who was more mekil on
kitniyot products but felt that many of the foods that the OU
gives a hechsher like farfel, bread sticks etc should be
prohibited for the same reasons as kitniyot ie they can easily
be mixed up with chametz.

It seems the OU is more interested in literal kitniyot even if
no longer makes sense and not all in products that have the
same rationale as kitniyot but are not literally kiniyot.

I am both surprised and confused, by this post and almost all the ones that
followed.

It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and
gebroks.

Let's talk for a moment about communities that did refrain from gebroks in
recent centuries. Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for
cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained
from gebroks, right?

So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever
arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they
were rejected by communities that ate gebroks.

I am not surprised that amei haaretz like myself have trouble understanding
the definitions of kitniyos. But one thing is for sure: That our rabanim
ought to understand that kitniyos and gebroks are two different things.

Some might respond that today's "farfel, bread sticks etc" are being made
not of matza meal but of potato and tapioca. I don't see that as relevant.
*ANY* definition of kitniyos has to be one that doesn't include matza meal.
And if matza meal is excluded, then you can't include potatoes merely
because they are so useful.

Akiva Miller

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&gt;
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&gt;
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

8

: It seems to me that people are getting confused between kitniyos and
: gebroks.

I think the conversation works better as is.

Gebrochts is a minhag to avoid the possible manufacture of real chameitz
from any flour that happened to stay dry when the matzah was made.

Qitniyos is a minhag or multiple minhagim to avoid things that either:

1- are stored in the same silos as with chameitz, in which case it's much
like gebrochts in function. Or

2- are used in a manner similar to chameitz, and people might eat chameitz
thinking it's pea porridge or mustard seed or whatnot.

And these could indeed be divergant minhagim, where different explanations
became primary drivers in different areas, leading to difference in how
practice evolved.

But explanation #2 does open the door for the original question.

Pretzels made from oatmeal make it possible for someone to accidentally
eat real chameitz pretzels.

And if your ancestral version of qitniyos includes growing it to include
new items that make the same mistake possible, eg corn, then why not all
these gebrochts or potato / potato starch products -- not because they're
gebrochts (if they are), but because reason #2 applies.

: So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"? Whatever
: arguments you have against them today existed 200 years ago also, and they
: were rejected by communities that ate gebroks.

No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks that
seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.) This really
is a recent development.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

9

Does Rav Aviner think that they didn't use matza meal for cake? Anyone who refrained from making such cake are the ones who refrained from gebroks, right?

Did they use the chunky, roughly ground matza meal that is good for matza balls and that's about it or the finely ground stuff that you can get today which is no different than cake flour?

[Email #2. -micha]

We change minhagim all the time, for good and/or bad reasons and halacha hasn't fallen apart yet. Why is this minhag different from all other minhagim that people are so set against any change?

If this one is different it is because people have set out to take down this minhag. Whereas something like changing from an Ashkenazi white with black stripes tallit to a more Sefardi all white one wouldn't be such a big deal because no one is making an issue out of it.

In my community there is a back lash against the kitni-chumrot so I see
it changing, somewhat.

Ben

10

Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos
understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect
people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is
acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those
measures should be.

I wrote:
: So what new problem has arisen with "farfel, bread sticks etc"?
: Whatever arguments you have against them today existed 200
: years ago also, and they were rejected by communities that ate
: gebroks.

and R' Micha Berger responded:

No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks
that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.)
This really is a recent development.

Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in
the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my
mother made at home?

I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. It is true that today's factory kitchens
allow an amazing variety of technologies and abilities, including products
that are almost indistinguishable from regular bread. But I maintain that
this does NOT translate to an increased chance that someone will mix flour
and water in their home kitchen, precisely because the factory and home are
so far apart - both geographically and sociologically.

If someone is enticed by the quality of a store-bought breadstick or pizza
slice, I cannot imagine that they would attempt to duplicate it at home
nowadays without a recipe. Seeing a breaded chicken cutlet at one's
neighbor's home *IS* something that you might duplicate in your own home,
and there is great danger there. But I just don't see that happening with
factory-made goods. Anyone who is awed by the quality will read the box to
figure out how they managed such a feat, and they will immediately see the
potato and tapioca listed. (But I am willing to listen to other arguments.)

My suspicion is that the anti-potato sentiments may have originated in the
non-gebroks sectors. Pesach pizza and pancakes are very new to them, and I
suppose I can understand their concern. But among those who have been
eating gebroks for generations, I just don't understand why these new
products bother them.

Akiva Miller

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&gt;
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&gt;
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

11

: Let's begin with what we agree on: I think that every Shomer Mitzvos
: understands the need for gezeros and minhagim, such as those that protect
: people from accidentally using flour in a way that they mistakenly think is
: acceptable on Pesach. The disagreements will be over how restrictive those
: measures should be.

Actually, you and I agree on that too. I think that minhagim should be
mimetically defined, by definition, and therefore it's only a very
overwhelming sevara that says the minhag is damaging that should change
a minhag.

And if we were talking about gezeiros, then we'd need a Sanhedrin or
universal consensus to create one. ("Universal consensus", eg RSZA
on electricity.) But we would also need that level authority to modify
or repeal one. So there too there is a high barrier to change.

So in either case, while I could appreciate R' Aviner's reasoning, I
don't know if I would be comfortable applying it lemaaseh.

:> No, we didn't have factory kitchens making gebrochts bread sticks
:> that seem exactly like real ones. (If not of your favorite brand.)
:> This really is a recent development.

: Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in
: the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my
: mother made at home?

While, really I'm suggesting that an environment where -- even a bagel
or a loaf of bread -- could be a gebrochts or potato starch replacement
poses bigger problems than we faced 50 years ago.

Because a person can pick up anything and mistake it for a KLP alternative.

Much like one of the reasons given for qitniyos.

The same was not true when the only KLP pancakes were rare and homemade.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

12

Are you suggesting that the frozen non-gebroks pancakes that I can buy in the store today are a bigger problem than the matza meal pancakes that my mother made at home?

Matza meal pancakes, which I grew up with as well, are nothing at all like regular pancakes. The difference is clear and obvious. Ditto for cakes. We used to have sponge cake at Pesach. And we thought of it as a Pesach cake. It wasn't something we had all year.

I don't have a problem with fake treyf. So I don't really have a huge problem with fake chametz. But to pretend that there's no difference between what we used to have in the 60s, 70s, etc, and today is just silly. The difference is enormous. And while I don't have a huge problem with fake chametz, I see another distinction between fake chametz and fake treyf. You can't ever eat bacon. So making fake bacon is reasonable. But fake chametz? Really? We can't make it a week without waffles and pizza and pretzels?

[Email #2. -micha]

13

: WADR, while you're entitled, of course, to think this, the concept
: of mimetics does not exist in halakha, and cannot therefore be
: determinative.

Puq chazi mah ama devar. -Hillel

Al teshanu minhag avoseikhem. -Abayei

For that matter, the topic here is qitniyos -- which is itself a minhag
avos, not halakhah.

It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering
cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the
accepted ruling in practice.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

14

I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi
is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that
we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea
that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible.

Lisa

15

: >It's also impossible to learn much AhS (or even MB) without encoutnering
: >cases where the savara-ly weaker pesaq is supported because it's the
: >accepted ruling in practice.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's R' Yosei and not Abayei, but either way, puq chazi
: is only when there's a doubt about the halakha. Not a principle that
: we have to act on the basis of what other people are doing. An idea
: that would enshrine errors and make fixing errors virtually impossible.

You are only discussing the absolutes, the case where the halakhah isn't
known, and that where it is, but common practice differs.

But in the part I left above, I described the gray area. There are cases
where the logic for one position is more compelling than the other,
but not muchrach. In fact, this is more common than a case where two
rishonim or noted acharonim disagree and one opinion is found to be
outright wrong. Between the brilliance of the people involved and the
"peer review" as to which ideas reach us, it is very rare for us to find
a true incontrovertable mistake, and even harder to know if we really did,
or if it is our own assessment that's in error.

In that situation, where we have to choose between multiple viable shitos,
there are a number of things a poseiq would weigh. Different schools of
pesaq may give each different weights. This kind of comparison of apples
and oranges requires real shiqul hadaas, and is why pesaq is an art, not
an algorithm.

This is my usual list of categories of factors that go into pesaq.

1- Textualiam
    1a- Logicalness of the rationale
    1b- Authority of those who back each postion: majority, expertise
        (eg the Rambam and Rosh carry more weight than some other
        rishonim)

2- Mimeticism

3- Aggadic concerns -- whether it's chassidim not wearing tefillin on ch"m
   or some of RSRH's innovations.

My point in #2 is that there are many times that we continue following
what we do because it has a sound textual basis -- even though some
other shitah may have a stronger such basis.

And again, this is minhag, not halakhah. The whole topic of qitniyos
rests on mimeticism, not formal halachic reasoning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha