Kneidlach - what the ShA HaRav actually says

Avodah
1

This year's incarnation of the Gebrochts discussion attempts to discuss the
Halacha and I think traverses territory not clearly enunciated in the past.

Also I would not characterise this as Gebrochts-bashing; I dont believe
anyone is troubled by those who say, "My Rebbe/My tradition is not to eat
whatever it may be" the issue is that Gebrochts is promoted as Halachically
legitimate and therefore preferred if not mandated.

The ShA HaRav declares firstly, that as far as the Halachah is concerned,
there is no concern with Kneidlach during Pesach, see the link -
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&st=&pgnum=486

He does however advise that it is a valid stringency
his first observation/proof however is that flour can be found on the
surface of the Matzos
and later on says this is quite common

However,
A] we have not been able to verify this in all our years
B] no other Posek ever verified this claim
this claim supports the proposition that there remains flour within the
finished Matza - but
C] there has never been a Posek who suggested that dough is not thoroughly
kneaded leaving flour in the finished product
the only concern was that flour not be added AFTER the dough had already
been made
D] even the published Teshuvah admits this, look at note 33 on the link
provided -

It is universally accepted these days that flour is not added to a dough
already made
and there is no Matza baking program that permits adding flour to the
already made dough

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837

2

A] we have not been able to verify this in all our years

Who is "we"?

B] no other Posek ever verified this claim
this claim supports the proposition that there remains flour within the finished Matza - but

>

C] there has never been a Posek who suggested that dough is not thoroughly kneaded leaving flour in the finished product
the only concern was that flour not be added AFTER the dough had already been made

Perhaps you mean no *other* posek, because this one clearly says it. It's no surprise that nobody before him mentions it, because he says it's a recent phenomenon.

D] even the published Teshuvah admits this, look at note 33 on the link provided -

This is a bizarre claim. The teshuvah "admits" no such thing. First of all, the footnote is obviously not part of the teshuvah, not by its author, and thus completely irrelevant to anything. Second, the footnote does not "admit" such a thing either. It brings to the reader's attention, for his better understanding, a similar concern that is recorded in earlier times, in specific circumstances, from which one can easily understand why this current concern should lead to these conclusions.

3

The ShA HaRav does not initiate this ban on Gebrochts as his own,
rather he bases himself upon the propositions of Poskim which we are now
exploring, and it seems that they actually do not support the proposition
to create a ban against Gebrochts.

A] The observation made by the ShA HaRav, which is central to his
anti-Gebrochts argument - is un-supported.
Our Poskim and our personal experience, has verified that there is no such
thing as flour being found on the surface of baked Matza.

B] The ShA HaRav does not issue his own assessment [other than observing
flour on the surface of baked Matza] but relies upon other Poskim to
support the proposition that flour remains within the finished Matza.
However, no such thing is found in the Poskim, other than in situations
where flour is added to a dough which is ALREADY formed. No Posek ever
suggested that a normal dough may not be thoroughly kneaded leaving flour
in the finished product. And the ShA HaRav admits this by saying that
nowadays the dough is made very hard, dry, with very little water i.e. it
is not surprising that Poskim have not discussed this as it is a concern
that is due only to this recent change. But no other Poskim from his time
endorsed the reasoning that flour is found on the surface of baked Matza
etc.

C] it is surprising to hear a devoted Chabadnik suggesting that the
footnotes found in the KeHos, the official Chabad publishers' publication
- are completely irrelevant to the Teshuvah.

There are 2 versions to understanding note 33 on the link provided
= here is the gobbledigook version - "it brings to the reader's attention,
for his better understanding, a similar concern that is recorded in earlier
times, in specific circumstances, from which one can easily understand why
this current concern should lead to these conclusions"
= here is the plain speak version - "this is the best we can find to
support the proposition" which is, however which way you turn it, no
support at all for this new concern of flour remaining within the baked
Matza.

One can hardly but suspect that the footnote was added because the Taz and
MaAv that the ShA HaRav next refers to, is no support at all for banning
Gebrochts, because their observations are exclusively applicable to thick
soft Matzos that were under suspicion of having had flour added to the
dough during its kneading - and as we mentioned - this had already been
comprehensively stamped out by the times of the ShA HaRav. Remember, they
were kneading soft dough for soft Matza and it was quite likely that the
dough may have been a little too loose and one would be tempted to add more
flour to it.

So there we have it - if you dont wish to eat Gebrochts because your
parents etc did not - then enjoy Pesach [if Pesach can be enjoyed w/o
Kneidlach] but if you are concerned about Halacha - then eat Kneidlach and
enjoy Pesach

4

Is RMG Rabi's post on Gebrokts consonant with the comment of the Mishna
Brura. The Chafetz Chaim stated that even though one may have doubts as
to the Halachic imperative of being careful (yes, perhaps needlessly)
about Matza Shruya, nevertheless,

"one should not be MAZNIACH [translate as you will] those who have
this Chumra"

In particular, it seems to me that the practice of actually keeping
Shruya is very much in line with many other Chumras that people have.
Consider Garlic on Pesach, for example. I would posit that today the
chance of garlic inducing Chametz is akin to itinerant matza flour being
present on a baked Matza. Nonetheless, those who have this Chumra, keep
it. They keep it because of the Minhag to be Machmir on Pesach! That
Minhag, by its nature is concerned with the infinitessimal.
There are many other examples. The Belzer don't eat carrots because of
a Chametz incident. They were Machmir from then on. Lubavitchers has an
incident with sugar and were Machmir from then on to pre-cook it.

Halacha on Pesach does admit the concept of remote Chumras! Yes, for
those who look at things from a non Pesach purist halachic view, may
well scratch their heads. Nonetheless, the Chafets Chaim taught us that
we should not be Mazniach.

The idea that Pesach cannot be enjoyed without Kneidlach is fanciful,
and not directly born out by plain Halacha. The Halacha specifies
Meat and Wine as primary inputs from Gashmiyus food that give rise to
happiness. Yes, B'Sar Shlomim (not chicken) and wine (good enough for
Nisuch Hamizbeach?)

To state "if you are CONCERNED about Halacha... eat Kneidlach" is perhaps
a worse actualisation than "Mazniach" as it implies that such people
are acting in perhaps some antinomian-like chassidic voodoo practice. [
One can argue quite cogently, for example, that wearing a Gartel today
is also "not in line with the Halacha". (We wear underpants!) We do not,
however, dismiss such practices.

[On Shruya see also Gilyoney Hashas from Rav Yosef Engel Psachim 40b]]

The Ari z'l stated that he would never 'talk against' a minhag
yisrael/chumra on Pesach.

In summary, and I've felt that RMG Rabi, Halacha is not a pure science
which leads to a true/false conclusion for every question that is
investigated using the rules of the Halacha.

Admission: My father a'h had the Minhag from his family (likely via
Amshinover fealty) not to eat Gebrokts. This is Toras Imecha for me,
especially on Pesach, and whilst I know that in general this practice is
unique to families who follow the minhogim of the Talmidei HaBaal Shem,
and is most minor, I state quite openly that deciding NOT to follow a
family minhag/chumra on Pesach would be FAR more upsetting and disturbing
to me than not eating Kneidlach. I'm happy to wait for the last day,
and for the record, I am not a fan of them, despite my wife being a
superlative cook.

Postscript: Is anyone concerned about the Kulos in our day, where they
essentially dismiss the Maaris Ayin concern, and make pseudo bread and
pseudo bread products? The fashionable Pesach retreats and cruises are
quite good (I'm told) at serving up 'eggs on toast' in the morning, or a
"hot dog roll".

"It is only the anticipation of redemption that preserves Judaism in
Exile, while Judaism in the Land of Israel is the redemption itself."
Rabbi A.I. Hacohen Kook

5

Rabbis Ben Nun, Sherlo, and Rimon have come out strongly against the wheat substitutes and feel that they should be banned. In their opinion, the primary reason for the kitniyot minhag is to prevent mixing up the various grains. Eating these types of products will lead to the same confusion.

Ben

6

: Postscript: Is anyone concerned about the Kulos in our day, where they
: essentially dismiss the Maaris Ayin concern, and make pseudo bread and
: pseudo bread products? The fashionable Pesach retreats and cruises are
: quite good (I'm told) at serving up 'eggs on toast' in the morning, or a
: "hot dog roll".

It's not a qulah, it's a reluctance to extend a minhag our ancestors made,
even though one of the reasons suggested post-facto for it would apply.
There is no special pesaq by which this is the only way Pesachdik beigels
would be muttar. Rather the lack of invention of a new issur.

Like not declaring quinoa to be qitniyos.

And unlike declating peanuts to be. (Which some of Eastern Europe did,
and as RMF attests, some didn't.) For that matter, is there anyone whose
ancestors had the minhag of qitniyos but didn't include corn when it
was brought over from the New World?

Since minhag is by definition informal and mimetic, what happens to
catch on or not doesn't trouble me. Boils down to a qasheh oif a masseh.
(You can't ask a "question on a story"; how it happened is how it
happened, unreasonalbe or not.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

7

It's arguable. The counter argument is they *are* being Meikel on the
Rabbinc Issur to use things which 'compete' with bread. For want of
another term.

8

: It's arguable. The counter argument is they *are* being Meikel on the
: Rabbinc Issur to use things which 'compete' with bread. For want of
: another term.

The only thing we know for sure is that it included some subset of
grain-like foods and of legumes. Any reason as to why is a post-facto
theory. Multiple exist.

In principle, pasqaning one such shitah is right, and therefore the
rabbanim who made a din must have intended to include the new case is
possible. But not compelled. We often leave a gezeira off where it
originally ended because it's not for us to ban more things than
Chazal did.

All the more so in a case like qitniyos, when it's not a rabbinic issur
but a minhag.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha