Rav Fink on Qitniyoth

This afternoon, we're speaking about the minhag of kitniyot, this afternoon.
And let me make an initial warning: Since I'm so accustomed to speaking about
halokhe, I might accidentally use phrases like "the halokhe of kitniyes", the "din of
kitniyes". That's just an accident. What I really mean is "the minhag of kitnyot".
Kitniyot is a minhag, beginning to end. And therefore you have two basic options.
Possibility number one would be at the conclusion of the presentation, you can do a
universal Find-and-Replace, in order to switch all the halakhot into minhagim.
Alternatively, if you have a more sophisticated word processor, you can set it for
Automatic Correction as we go along. OK? Let's begin.
First, I speak about the minhag of kitniyot from the Ashkenaz point of view,
since that's really the only point of view which is relevant here. And what we want to
begin with is understanding what kitniyot are, what is the minhag of what it is-- what
is it that we do not eat. So I have this lovely tshuve of the Igrot Moshe, a tshuve
be'inyan ha-peanut, a tshuve regarding the peanut. You all know what peanuts are-boobers? That's it. OK. Now in this tshuve, he says that he heard, shama*, he heard
she*osin mimmenu be'eize makom gam kemah, he heard that it's possible to make
flour out of the peanut. Not only that, nizra*in be-sadot kish'ar kitniyot. Not only is
it possible to make flour out of it, but peanuts are sown in the fields, just like any
other kind of kitniyot. That means they're used like kitniyot and they're grown like
kitniyot. But this is not necessarily relevant. She-kol ha-devarim ha*osim meihem
kemah ne'esru mi-minhag ze, de'ein l'kha davar ha'osin-- she'osin mimenu kemah
yoter mi-tapuhei adama. Just because something can be made into flour is not
necessarily a reason to include it in the minhag of kitniyot. After all, everyone knows
that potatoes can be made into flour, and that's not in the category of kitniyot. So just
because it's possible to make flour, or just because it's even common to make flour out
of a specific product, that is insufficient reason to include that food in the world of
kitniyot. Mei*olam lo chashu le'issur ze: No one ever thought that potatoes could be
kitniyot.
Now the truth is that although the Igrot Moshe might not have known of
anyone who thought that potatoes are kitniyot, the truth is there are people out there
who consider potatoes to be kitniyot. And indeed, in Yerushalayim today, where the
rules and regulations for pesah of the *Eida Hareidit in Me'a She'arim were written by
Rav Dayyan Veiss, who passed away recently, both Dayyan Veiss who was the head
of the Eida Hareidit for many years wrote the rules and regulations for pesah of the
*Eida, and they indeed prohibit potato starch for grown-ups. Oh, for little children it
might be OK, but for grown-ups, it surely falls under the category of kitniyot.
Is it well known that potatoes are a New-World vegetable, which in preColumbian times were unknown in Europe? Is that well known? This incidentally is
a very important fact to bear in mind when reading Rabbinic literature regarding
Pesah. And I will now present you with a footnote to illustrate the importance of this
historical fact. So now we bop down into footnote mode, the bottom of the screen.
Here's the footnote: The Maharil, who was one of the great poskim of Europe, upon
which much of Ashkenaz halokhe is based, writes in the back of his Sefer Minhagim,
he has minhagei pesah, and in the minhagei Pesah when he speaks about how to do
the seder of leil pesah, he says when you come to eat karpas in leil ha-seder, you

cannot use potatoes. The reason you cannot use potatoes in leil ha-seder for karpas,
the reason is not because it's a kitniyes problem; the reason is that the brokhe on
potatoes is she-hakol nihye bidvaro. And since the brokhe on potatoes is she-hakol
nihye bidvaro, you can't use them for karpas, because the iker din of karpas is it has to
be something which has the brokhe of borei pri ha'adama. Therefore, potatoes are
out. Now, the question remains, how does the Maharil know that the brokhe on
potatoes is she-hakol nihye bidvaro? This he knows because he learned it from the
Sefer Ha'Orukh. The Sefer Ha'Orukh, which is a very important dictionary of
Rabbinic language, says that the word tartoffel is a food-- tartoffel is a food which
has the brokhe of she-hakol niyhe bidvaro, and the reason the food tartoffel has that
brokhe according to the Orukh is because this food, tartoffel, mei'avira ka ravya,
grows from the air and not from the earth, does not draw its nutrition from the earth,
rather it draws its nutrition from the air; therefore, she-hakol nihye bidvaro, not borei
pri ha'adama, that's the correct brokhe on tartoffel. The Maharil says that our
kaartoffel, the ordinary Ashkenaz word for potato kaartoffel, our kaartoffel,
kaartushka, is nothing other than the Orukh's taartoffel, and, through dialectical
variants the same word, and therefore the same brokhe, and therefore posul for karpas.
Now, a few years ago, when I was visiting in the University Library of Heidelberg, in
the Necker Valley, in Germany-- lovely libraries, one of the few libraries which
survived World War II in Germany; neither the Nazis nor the allied bombing
destroyed this particular library-- I utilized the opportunity in that library to check out
some old German dictionaries, and I was able to verify that in point of fact the
Maharil was correct: kartoffel and tartoffel are indeed dialectical variants of the same
word: in Southern Europe, taartoffel; in Central and Northern Europe, kaartoffel. It's
really two variations of the same word. However, as we know, the potato came into
Europe only in post-Columbian times; therefore, it is impossible that the Orukh, in the
eleventh century, or the Maharil, could have been referring to potatoes. In point of
fact, the word taartofel and the word kaartofel, until the beginning of the eighteenth
century, was used throughout Europe to refer to mushrooms. Mushrooms, which do
not grow from the ground, but rather on the ground, do not have the brokhe of borei
pri ha'adama, rather the brokhe of she-hakol nihye bidvaro; therefore, the Orukh is
correct, the Maharil is correct, and none of them are referring to potatoes. That's the
end of the footnote; we now bop back up into the main text mode at the top of the
screen.
"Lakhein", the Igrot Moshe says, "ein lanu b'davar ela ma she-mefurash shenahagu le'esor, v'khein ma she-yadua u-mefursam." Some things, you can make flour
out of and they're kitniyes; other things, you can make flour out of and it's not
kitniyes. Some of the things, the minhag is to eat them; other things, the minhag is
not to eat them. We can only include in the minhag of isur-- we can only include
those things which are well established as being in the minhag of isur. Davar yadua
u-mefursam. Davar she-nahagu. "V'gam yesh liten ta'am de-din ze she-ne'esar beminhag, ha ein dovor ha-ne'esar be-kibutz chakhamim, ela she-hinhigu et ha'am lehachmir she-lo le'ekhol minim eilu, she-haya matzui le'okhlam, mipnei she-- mipnei
ha-te*amim, de-chashash minei dagan she-nit'arbu, she-kashe livdok, u-mipnei
she'osin kemahim." The only items, the only food items which are osur under the
rubric of the minhag of kitniyes are things which the Hakhamim got together and
assered under the rubric of kitniyes, and the reason Hakhamim got together and said

Note that even today, Italians refer to mushrooms as tartuffule.

not to eat these particular products is because these products are commonly mixed
together with chametz, and it's difficult to separate them, and the Hakhamim in
different generations, in different places, said: "Dont eat such-and-such a food
product, because it is frequently mixed with chametz." It's a difficult job to separate
the chametz from the kitniyes; therefore, Hakhamim saw fit to establish a minhag to
asser certain things.
"Aval keivan she-lo tiknu be-kibutz hakhamim le'ekhol devarim she-yesh
chashash she-yit'arev bahem minei dagan, u-devarim she'osin meihem kemaH, ela
she-hinhigu she-lo le'ekhol eize minim, lo ne'esru ela haminim she-hinhigu, ve-lo
she'ar minim she-lo hinhigu mipnei she-lo hayu metzuyin oz." It turns out, according
to Igrot Moshe, in order for there to be a minhag not to eat something, there must be a
specific takana, a specific decision of great Hakhamim in some generation, in some
place, instructing the people not to eat this specific item. There was never a decision
of Hakhamim assering anything that was like kemah. There was never a decision of
Hakhamim assering anything that is grown like chametz. There were never any such
generalized decisions. Rather, decisions, takanot, of Hakhamim in certain generations
and certain places assering specific foods for these reasons. Those foods are asur; any
other food remains muter. "She-lakhein, tapuchei adama, she-lo hayu metzuyin az,
ka-yadua, ve-lo hinhigu mimeila le'osram." Therefore, potatoes, which were not
around in the generation when the Hakhamim were assering kitniyes, potatoes could
not be included in that minhag. "Einam bikhlal ha'isur. De'eilu ha-minim shenahagu le'esor, af she-yesh oto ta'am mamash, de'ein le-meilaf mi-minhag le'esor gam
davar she-lo nahagu le'esor." Just because a new food is similar to something
regarding which there's a minhag to asser it, we cannot extend the minhag ourselves.
Only the things which the Hakhamim explicitly assered will remain osur.
At the end of the tshuve, he comes to the conclusion: "Be-makom she-leika
minhag, ein le'esor, ki bi-dvarim ke'eilu ein le-hachmir". If one lives in a place where
there exists a definitive minhag to asser something, well, of course one has to follow
the local minhag and not eat it. But if there is no local definitive minhag to asser
something, it must remain muter. "Le'eilu she-yesh lahem minhag be-yichud she-lo
le'ekhol peanut, osur." Only those individuals who have a specific minhag, family
tradition, local custom-- people who have that family tradition / local custom not to
eat peanuts, they shouldn't eat peanuts on Pesah. For anyone else, it's muter.
Let us understand the main points in the tshuve of the Igrot Moshe. Main
point number one: In order for a minhag to be a minhag, it must derive from the
guidance of Hakhamim; it must be something that was established by Hakhamim.
Therefore, as long as individuals are eating peanuts, as long as communities are eating
peanuts, and the Hakhamim of those communities never saw fit to instruct the people
not to eat peanuts, there's nothing wrong with eating peanuts. That's point number
one. Point number two: It's true that Hakhamim in certain places did asser kitniyes,
like rice, and corn, and other things like that, but there was never a general prohibition
on things which are similar to kitniyot, similar either in terms of the way they're
cooked or the way they're grown. There was never a general prohibition; only
specific food items were assered; peanuts did not fall under those categories. OK?
So that if we want to know what is kitniyot, what falls under the rubric of this
minhag, what we don't eat-- if that's what we want to know, then we ask the question

"What did you eat last year? What did you not eat last year?" If last year, you were
eating peanuts, that's a pretty good sign that you do not have a minhag to refrain from
peanuts. If, on the other hand, last year you were refraining from peanuts, that
indicates that you have such a minhag, and you shouldn't start eating peanuts this
year. If you don't know-- never thought about it, y'know, like: "Maybe there were
peanuts available, maybe there were no people available; I don't know whether I
consciously avoided eating peanuts in previous years, don't know whether I have a
ming"-- such a person cannot be said to have a minhag, because in order for a
minhag to be a minhag, it has to be a davar yadua u-mefursam. That is the approach
of the Igrot Moshe. OK? So, regarding the whole range of food products which some
people refrain from, and other people eat on Pesah, if you want to know whether it's
proper or improper for you to eat one of those food products, you must ask yourself
what your minhag is. If you don't know what your minhag is, mimeila it's muter.
Lecitin
Lecitin is a soy derivative, which is used in a wide variety of food products.
It's commonly used in chocolate, for example, in order to prevent the segregation of
the fat in the chocolate. Lecitin is a soybean derivative. I remember when I was
young, lecitin was commonly used in the kasher le-pesach chocolate. Around 15 [or]
20 years ago, they all of a sudden started deleting lecitin from the kasher le-pesach
chocolate. If you want to know whether or not you have a minhag to refrain from
lecitin, you want to ask yourself what you did last year. If in previous years you have
avoided food products on pesaH which contain lecitin, that indicates that you have a
minhag to refrain from it. If in previous years you ate lecitin, then you should have
no problem with it, and if you don't know whether you have a minhag, that means you
don't have a minhag. You can't have a minhag without knowing about it.
Lecitin, there's another problem with lecitin. Lecitin, even if one holds that
soybeans are kitniyes, even if one holds that, [it] does not necessarily mean that
chemical derivatives of soybeans have to be considered kitniyes, and that's going to
be the second issue that we'll come to in a moment.
Hozrim bitshuva and converts to Judaism have no minhagim, and therefore the
normal situation with converts and hozrim bitshuva-- the normal situation is they
become such-- they become gerim, or they become hozrim bitshuva, generally within
the context of some educational institution, or within the context of a group of friends,
within the social context that they are hozer bitshuva or within the context that they
become Jewish, there's normally a process of acculturation, by which various
minhagim are accepted in that process, and those become the minhagim of the convert
or of the hozer bitshuva. It is in theory possible that a convert or a hozer bitshuva
would become such without any such-- without a social context in which minhagim
get accepted, in which case we have an example of a Jew without any minhagim.
Such is conceivable, and might even have happened. I know of no specific cases.
OK, next issue. [A student raises his hand.] Yeah.
STUDENT (mostly incomprehensible): Just one quick question: if someone
becomes a chozer bitshuva, [and is descended from a family that] comes from a
particular [community], and then wants to reclaim his roots, say, [he comes from] an

Ashkenazi family, and wants to join a Sfardi shul, [should he] change his or her
minhag?
RABBI FINK: Uh, that's not the peshat. He didn't go back and become a Moslem,
even though he discovered that his ancestors in Nigeria were Moslems. Right? You
said we're talking about that book Roots.
STUDENT: Oh no, I'm talking about
RABBI FINK: Oh, different "roots".
STUDENT: one's own personal roots.
RABBI FINK: Ahhh. I thought you were speaking about Roots.
[Mild laughter in class.]
And when he went back and checked his family history in Nigeria, he discovered that
his ancestors were Moslems, but that didn't-- he did not become Moslem because of
that. Um-- the, um-- Ahhh. Aha. No. [Laughs.] That's a-- let me paint a more
Jewish picture.
[Laughter in the class.]
Pardon? Ah. Allora. Voyons. Let us say that we have a Moroccan grandfather, who
is shomer mitzvot. The Moroccan grandfather who is shomer mitzvot, let us imagine,
has ve-shalom, that he has a son who is hiloni, not Torah-observant at all, and that son
in turn has another son, grandson of that original grandfather. The grandson is hozer
bitshuva and becomes a Habad chosid. OK? Now, the question arises: is there any
particular reason for the grandson to revert to the minhag structure of the grandfather?
That's your question, right? According to just about all of the great poskim who've
written on this question, the fundamental governing principle in situations like this is:
"Minhag is as minhag does." Just remember that: "Minhag is as minhag does." That
means that your minhag is your minhag. That means [laughs, followed by laughter
throughout the class] that means that the grandson, who accepted upon himself
certain minhagim, those are the minhagim of the grandson, and there's no particular
reason why he has to go back and research the minhagim of his grandfather. He has
no minhag connection with his grandfather. In the normal course of events, most
people who grow up in a family of shomrei torah, in the normal course of events in
growing up, children naturally grow up in the household, and take upon themselves
the minhag of the family in the household. That, of course, is the normal way that
things happen, and statistically speaking, that must be-- might be the most common
way, but there's no halokhic reason why it has to be like that. If families where the
parents follow one particular minhag-- Chasidic, or Misnagdic, or Morrocan, or
Teimani, or whatever it is-- see fit to send their children to an educational institution
where they're going to be acculturated into a different minhag system, then the
minhag system of the children, as they grow up, will be different from that of the
parents-- which is plausible, and happens from time to time, and there's really
nothing essentially wrong with it.

Let me distinguish here between two kinds of minhagim. Up until this point,
I've been speaking about negative minhagim, things that y' don't do, things y' don't
eat, isurim. As far as positive minahgim are concerned, things y' do do, there's a great
problem in the poskim. The great problem in the poskim is enunciated in a tshuve of
Rav Shmuel di-Medina, who was one of the great poskim of Turkey in the generation
after Geirush Sfarad. He was one of the Sfaradim. And y' know, when the Sfaradim
came to Turkey after Geirush Sfarad-- Sfardim came to many places: they came to
Egypt, they came to Holland, they came to Hamburg, to England, to Greece, many
places the Sfaradim ended up. And the Sfaradim, in most places where they came
after the Geirush, the Sfaradim were a very powerful social force, and in many places
they more-or-less took over the Jewish society, totally overwhelming the original,
indigenous Jewish population. One place where that happened was in Turkey. And
Rav Shmuel di-Medina, who was a Sfardic Rav in Turkey, was frequently asked the
following question (siman lamed-alef in Cheilek Alef of his She'eilot U-tshuvot). He
was asked by descendants of the original, indigenous Jewish Turkish population, who
in those original shuls which existed before the Sfaradim arrived, used to davven
Nusach Turkiya-- y'know, they had their nusach ha-tefilla, they had their minhagim,
they had their way of doing things-- so they asked: "Is it mutar for us Turkish Jews
to davven in a Sfardic shul, where there are different minhagim?" That was the
question. So here we have the question of whether or not one is obligated to keep
one's positive minhagim. That one is obligated to keep one's negative minhagim is
clear; there are many sources for that. One is not allowed to violate a minhag of isur.
But what about the positive minhagim? In his tshuve, the Maharsham says like this.
He had great beki'ut in Chazal and the Rishonim, of course, and he said: 'Lo ra'inu
ve-lo matzinu shum makor, lo be-divrei Hazal, ve-lo be-divrei ha-rishonim", there's
absolutely no source, neither in Rabbinic literature nor in the whole of medieval
Jewish literature, "she'adam hayyav lishmor et minhag avotav hutz mi-minhagei isur".
There's no obligation whatsoever to maintain one's traditional minhagim, except in
negative minhagim of prohibitions. However, in positive minhagim, there's no
particular reason why one should be obligated to keep one's minhag, and therefore it's
perfectly acceptable for a Turkish Jew to davven Nusach Sfarad, and it's perfectly
permissible for a Sfardic Jew to davven Nusach Turkiya, and one can even bounce
back and forth, at one's leisure.
Now we'll come to the end, when we come to Rav Ovadya. Now, we have
this lovely tshuve of the Trumas Ha-Deshen, which deals with davar ha-yotzei min
ha-kitniyot, elements which are extracted from kitniyot, the specific example we're
dealing with here is oil, which is pressed from kitniyot, and the question arises: if one
is not going to eat corn, what about oil pressed from the corn, or other derivatives, for
example lecitin. Regarding this, he says: "Hitir le-hashhot", it is permissible to own
kitniyot during Pesah. What are we talking about? Someone has a lot of-- corn. And
let us imagine the worst happens: the corn gets wet. Now, if wheat, or one of the
chameishet ha-minim had gotten wet, it would really be chometz, and it would be osur
min ha-torah to own it during Pesah: bal yeira'e u-bal yimatzei. What about corn, or
rice, or any form of kitniyes, where we have a minhag among the Ashkenazim not to
eat it-- in a sense, we consider it chometz: the minhag is to consider it chometz-what if that gets wet? If it gets wet, he says: "hittir le-hashhot", one is allowed to
own it, to keep it in the house over pesah, "ho'il ve'eino me-chameishet ha-minim haba'im lidei chimutz." Since the rice, the corn, the kitniyot, cannot turn into chometz,
the fact that it became wet does not asser us from owning it on Pesah. We have a

ming not to eat it, but there's no problem of owning it. "Ve-lo chayshinan le-mar'it
ha'ayin", there's no problem with mar'it ha'ayin here, "pen yit'u mi-dagan ze le-dagan
mei-chameishet ha-minim, o ika le-meichash dilma i'arev be-hanhu kitniyes meichameishes minim, de-khol hanei chashashos lo chayshinan ela le'esor ba'akhila, aval
lo le-hashhot." There's no problem of mar'is ayin because everyone knows the
difference between corn and wheat, and we're not choshesh for the possibility of a
kernel of wheat being mixed into a bushel of corn. All of these chashashot are only
chashashot, only reasons which lead to the minhag not to eat corn, not to eat rice. But
to own it is surely no problem.
You notice that he has somewhat of a lenient approach to kitniyes. It says that
one is allowed to own it. There's no problem of bal yeira'e and bal yimatzei on
kitniyes; the only problem is eating it. But, if you think about it for a moment, you
realize that although the approach of the Trumas Ha-Deshen to kitniyes is somewhat
lenient, in another sense you realize that kitniye is even more chamur than chometz.
As the Chatam Sofer points out in his tshuve on the question, if one takes chameishet
ha-minim, for example wheat, which can very easily turn into chametz gamur, if one
takes wheat, one can ground it into flour, mix it with water, bake it in under eighteen
minutes, and you've got yourself matza, which is muter to eat on Pesah. But if ou
take corn, or rice, and gring it into flour, and mix it with water, and bake it in under
eighteen minutes, it's still kitniyes, and still osur. It turns out [laughs], that kitniyes is
more chamur, there's less hetter for kitniyes than for chometz, than for chitta. So,
although the conclusion from this point of the Trumas Ha-Deshen is that kitniyes is
more lenient, this conclusion does not necessarily have universal application.
Furthermore, he says, "mutar lei-hanot be-oto tevu'a be-pesach, ke-gon al
yedei hadlke mi-shemen zera ve-shumshumin, ve-zera kanabus, af al pi she-reglim
she-lotetin otan ha-zer'onim be-mayim kodem she-ya'asu meihem shemanim. Im kein,
karov le-vadai she-nitchamtsu; afilu hokhi shrei". Not only is one allowed to own
kitniyes on Pesah, but one is allowed to derive benefit from kitniyes on Pesah. For
example, if you take corn oil, you're allowed to burn it, and derive benefit from the
light. Those were the candles they used. Corn oil candles: muter. Although chometz
is osur min ha-tora to derive any benefit from chometz-- not allowed to sell it, not
allowed to use it, not allowed to burn it and derive benefit from the heat or light-since it's osur min ha-tora to dervie any benefit from chometz, you might think that
this same stricture, this same chumr, applies to kitniyes. The Trmas Ha-Dshen
says: No. You're allowed to derive benefit, han'o, from kitniyes. Sell it, if you
want. Burn it-- burn the oil from the kitniyes, and derive benefit from the heat and
light. It's muter. You see how innocent they were in those days. I mean, nowadays,
people can think of other ways to derive benefit from cannabis. But he wanted to
burn the oil for light.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is not only that kitniyes is more mekil
than chometz in the sense that you can derive benefit from it, but look at his example.
His example is: if you make oil, you squeeze oil, you press oil, from kitniyes.