Tazria-Metzora Part I - courtesy of Rav Amital zt"l

B"H

For various reasons, this week's offering is coming in two parts. The first is courtesy of Rav Yehuda Amital zt"l, and explores parshat Tazria's juxtaposition of the halacha regarding purification after childbirth and the command to circumcise one's son on the eighth day through a midrash which appears in Chapter 5 of the relevant Midrash Tanchuma, and can be found here:

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot/vayikra/27-63tazria.htm

Part II is taking a little longer to write, due both to the subject matter and my travelling back from Scotland for much of tomorrow. However, I hope to have this up later this week, after which iy"h I will be back on track.

Shavua tov!

RPT

Shemini - The Sound of Silence

B"H

Full text here

Sorry for the delay, am still catching up post-Pesach and also had to go home to Scotland this week. The next post on Tazria-Metzora may also be a little delayed, but pg I hope to be back to normal afterwards.

Also, in case you are wondering the post title is only indirectly related to the blog itself (as a Simon & Garfunkel fan I couldn't resist...;-)

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Shemini, Chapter 1

סימן א
זה שאמר הכתוב, שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע (קהלת ח ה). מי היה. זה אהרן שנאמר, ומפתח אהל מועד לא תצאו שבעת ימים, ופתח אהל מועד תשבו יומם ולילה. אמר להם משה לאהרן ולבניו, שמרו אבלות שבעת ימים עד שלא יגיע בכם. ושמרתם את משמרת ה', שכך שמר הקדוש ברוך הוא שבעת ימי אבילות עד שלא הביא את המבול, כביכול. ומנין שנתאבל, שנאמר, וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם ויתעצב אל לבו (בר' ו ו). ואין עציבה אלא אבל, שנאמר, ותהי התשועה ביום ההוא לאבל על ישראל כי אמר העם כי נעצב המלך על בנו (ש"ב יט ג). וכן עזרא אמר לישראל בשעה שהיו בוכין איש אל אחיו ואיש אל בנו, לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו וגו' ואל תעצבו כי חדות ה' היא מעזכם (נחמיה ח י). באותה שעה שמר הקדוש ברוך הוא שבעת ימי האבל עד שלא הביא את המבול, שנאמר, ויהי לשבעת הימים ומי המבול היו על הארץ (בר' ז י). וכן הוא אומר לאהרן ולבניו, כשם שנתאבל הקדוש ברוך הוא על עולמו עד שלא הביא את המבול, אף אתם שמרו את ימי האבל עד שלא יגיע בכם. היו משמרים ולא היו יודעים על מה משמרים. כמה שנאמר, שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע. ועת ומשפט יודע לב חכם (קהלת ח ה), זה משה, שכבר אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא, ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי (שמו' כט מג), מתקדש אני שם במכבדי. והיה משה משמש כל שבעת ימי המלואים. והיה מתירא לומר שמא מדת הדין פוגעת בו, שנאמר, ונקדש בכבודי. ולא עשה, אלא אמר לאהרן, שמרו אבל שבעת ימים. אמר לו, למה. אמר לו, כך אמר לי הקדוש ברוך הוא, כי כן צויתי. כיון ששמרו שבעת ימי האבל ובא יום השמיני, נכנסו נדב ואביהוא להקריב, פגעה בהן מדת הדין ונשרפו, שנאמר, ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם וימותו לפני ה'. בא משה ואמר לאהרן, הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמר בקרובי אקדש. והיכן דבר. במדבר סיני, ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי. וכן אמר משה לאהרן, העת שאמר לי בקרובי אקדש, חשבתי כי בי או בך יפגע, ועכשיו אני יודע כי הם גדולים ממני וממך. וידום אהרן, היה לו הדבר לנחמה. לכך נאמר, שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע:

2) Vayikra 8:35 - 36


.  לה וּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד תֵּשְׁבוּ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת-מִשְׁמֶרֶת יְהוָה וְלֹא תָמוּתוּ  כִּי-כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי.  לו וַיַּעַשׂ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה
3) Kohelet 8:1-5

 מִי כְּהֶחָכָם וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ פֵּשֶׁר דָּבָר חָכְמַת אָדָם תָּאִיר פָּנָיו וְעֹז פָּנָיו יְשֻׁנֶּא.  ב אֲנִי פִּי-מֶלֶךְ שְׁמֹר וְעַל דִּבְרַת שְׁבוּעַת אֱלֹהִים.  ג אַל-תִּבָּהֵל מִפָּנָיו תֵּלֵךְ אַל-תַּעֲמֹד בְּדָבָר רָע  כִּי כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יַחְפֹּץ יַעֲשֶׂה.  ד בַּאֲשֶׁר דְּבַר-מֶלֶךְ שִׁלְטוֹן וּמִי יֹאמַר-לוֹ מַה-תַּעֲשֶׂה.  ה שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע וְעֵת וּמִשְׁפָּט יֵדַע לֵב חָכָם.


4) Vayikra 10:1 - 11

א וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ קְטֹרֶת וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֵשׁ זָרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם.  ב וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה.  ג וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן הוּא אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר יְהוָה לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ וְעַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָעָם אֶכָּבֵד וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן....    ו וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן וּלְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר בָּנָיו רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל-תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא-תִפְרֹמוּ וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה יִקְצֹף וַאֲחֵיכֶם כָּל-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל יִבְכּוּ אֶת-הַשְּׂרֵפָה אֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף יְהוָה.  ז וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ פֶּן-תָּמֻתוּ כִּי-שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כִּדְבַר מֹשֶׁה 
{פ}
ח וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר.  ט יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל-תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ  חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם.  י וּלְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל וּבֵין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהוֹר.  יא וּלְהוֹרֹת אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֲלֵיהֶם בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה. 

Shomer mitzvah lo yeda d'var ra; v'et u'mishpat ye'da lev hacham - He who guards the commandment[s] will not know evil; and time and justice is known by the heart of the wise man (Kohelet 8:5)

Out of all the events recorded during the long journey from Mitzraim to Eretz Yisrael, the deaths of Nadav and Avihu are one of the most emotionally difficult to deal with, particularly from the perspective of Aharon as the Kohen Gadol. Picture the scene: it is the climax of the inauguration of both the Mishkan itself and of Aharon and his sons as the kohanim; G-d’s Presence has finally returned to the midst of B’nei Israel for the first time since the Chet Ha-Egel/Golden Calf incident; and suddenly tragedy strikes as Aharon’s two eldest sons are struck down by the same heavenly fire that has just been a cause for celebration. The hardest part of this is that Aharon and his two remaining sons are forbidden to mourn their own flesh and blood, and must instead continue with their services as the kohanim as if nothing untoward has occurred. Poignantly, in the face of Nadav and Avihu’s death Aharon’s only reaction is therefore his silence.*

The Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Shemini (source 1) attempts to provide some consolation by recasting the seven days which Aharon and his sons waited at the entrance of the Mishkan before the inauguration ceremonies of the eighth day (see source 2) as a ‘shiva’ period of mourning, which was undertaken for Nadav and Avihu before their deaths even took place. According to this midrash, back in parshat Noach G-d Himself mourned for a seven-day period before bringing the destructive waters of the mabul (Flood) upon the earth –so, too, Aharon and his sons mourned for Nadav and Avihu before their deaths. 

We might be tempted to see this as a comfort for Aharon and his remaining sons – after all, even though they were unable to mourn for Nadav and Avihu at the time of their deaths, at least they were able to go through some period of mourning before the deaths themselves. Surely that must be better than nothing, right? Well, not quite - after all, when G-d was mourning before the mabul. He was obviously fully aware of what was about to happen. The same cannot be said of Aharon and his sons (including Nadav and Avihu themselves), who would have had no idea of who or what they were mourning for at the time of their 'shiva' period at the entrance of the Mishkan. How then could this be a meaningful form of consolation for Aharon?

However, while the midrash does conclude by interpreting Aharon's silence as a sign that he has been provided with some 'nechama' or consolation for the deaths of his sons, the mere fact of his following G-d's precedent of sitting shiva in advance of their deaths is not actually the reason for his subsequent consolation. Instead, the midrash bases itself upon the opening verses above from sefer Kohelet as its foundation, arguing that Aharon's (and his sons') exemplify the subject of the adage because 'hayu m'shamrim v'lo yodim al mah m'shamrim' (they kept [G-d's commandment regarding mourning for seven days - derived from 'm'shmeret HaShem' at source 2) above], and did not know what they were keeping). The midrash implies therefore that Aharon, Eliezer and Ithamar should 'know no evil' as a result of their obedience of G-d's commandment.

One might argue that this is not a sufficent explanation - after all, Nadav and Avihu presumably also kept the seven days of mourning for (as it turns out) their own deaths, so why doesn't this obedience-without-understanding also act as a source of protection for them?

In fact we can see this as the key to Nadav and Avihu's deaths and what distinguishes them from the other kohanim. It is true that, when it came to the seven-day period of waiting at the entrance of the Mishkan before the inauguration rituals of the eigth day, all of the kohanim faithfully kept G-d's commandment - 'v'ya'as Aharon u'banav et kol ha'devarim asher tzivah HaShem b'yad Moshe' (see underlined at source 2 above). Furthermore, following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu this obedience on the part of the remaining kohanim continues regarding not leaving the Mishkan to follow the normal mourning rites - v'ya'asu k'dvar Moshe (see underlined at source 4 above). Fatefully, it is precisely when Nadav and Avihu break this pattern of obedience by bringing a fire-offering which they had not been commanded ('asher lo tzivah otam' - also underlined at source 4) that their deaths occur. This therefore accounts for Nadav and Avihu themselves not being 'protected' from G-d's midat ha-din (attribute of strict justice) - this protection ceased the moment they ceased to do exactly as G-d had commanded of them (regardless of whether or not they understood the reason for the command). 

Following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, G-d Himself speaks directly to Aharon to give him the injunction against the kohanim drinking alcohol before they enter the Mishkan, together with a 'mission statement' for the kohanim which includes teaching the B'nei Israel 'kol hachukim asher diber HaShem aleihem b'yad Moshe' (all the laws [specifically, those for which there is no 'rational' explanation]** which G-d has told to them through Moshe). Given the deaths of Nadav and Avihu for deviating - despite their best intentions - from the strict letter of what they had been commanded regarding the inauguration of the Mishkan, we can perhaps see this 'mission statement' of teaching the people the chukim as both the reason for the kohanim being set the high standards of obedience which Nadav and Avihu failed to reach, and the reward for Aharon and his remaining sons' continuing to obey G-d's command despite witnessing the deaths of their immediate family through divine means.

Shavua tov, v'Yom Ha'atzmaut sameach

RPT

PS I am aware that this is by no means a neat explanation for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu and how Aharon could be said to be consoled for them. While I have not gone into this part of the midrash in great detail, the latter part of the midrash refers to Moshe's misapprehension regarding G-d being 'sanctified' by the death(s) of someone 'close' to Him, and his subsequent comment to Aharon that Nadav and Avihu showed through their deaths that they were 'gedolim' in comparison to Moshe or Aharon themselves - which, the midrash implies, is the direct source of Aharon's comfort. However, given the both above regarding the shomer mitzvah and the implication of the full passage from Kohelet cited at source 3) (that G-d's ultimate power may mean that His decrees could appear to be a source of danger/evil to man) ultimately the justice of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu is something we may never be able to understand unless we are truly the chacham (wise one) referred to in Kohelet...

* Shortly afterwards we do see an oblique reference by Aharon to what has happened in the exhange between Moshe and Aharon over the chatat offering, which Aharon's remaining sons have burnt rather than eaten (thereby apparently going against Moshe's instructions) - see Vayikra 10:16-20. While the midrash doesn't directly address this, I have my own thoughts about what is going on here which iy"h will be returned to on another occasion...

**The Torah and subsequent Rabbinic literature generally uses 'mishpatim' to refer to those laws which could have been arrived at rationally, and which reflect those laws used in non-Jewish jurisdictions for society to be able to function. 'Chukim', by contrast, refers to laws such as kashrut for which there is no apparent rational explanation (and which at times even seem to defy logic), and therefore for which the sole justification is their divine source.

 

Tzav - Happiness is...

B"H

Full source text here

Welcome back! I will try and focus on some relatively short midrashim for the next few weeks while catching up post-Pesach (with apologies to any Israeli readers for being even further behind). Hopefully, Shemini will be up motsei Shabbat, after which things will be back to normal.

Also, thanks to D.S. for his assistance with Hebrew grammar (although the blame is mine if I've still got anything wrong ;-)

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Tzav, Chapter 8

וידבר ה' אל משה קח את אהרן ואת בניו ואת הבגדים. זה שאמר הכתוב, אשרי תבחר ותקרב ישכן חצרך (תהל' סה ה). אשרי מי שבחרו הקדוש ברוך הוא, אף על פי שלא קרבו. ואשרי מי שקרבו, אף על פי שלא בחרו. ואיזהו שבחרו. זה אברהם, אבל לא קרבו, אבל הוא קרב את עצמו, שנאמר, אתה הוא ה' האלהים אשר בחרת באברם וגו' (נחמ' ט ז). יעקב בחרו הקדוש ברוך הוא, שנאמר, יעקב אשר בחרתיך (ישע' מא ח). וכן הוא אומר, כי יעקב בחר לו יה, ישראל לסגולתו (תהל' קלה ד), אבל לא קרבו. אבל הוא קרב את עצמו, שנאמר, ויעקב איש תם יושב אהלים (ברא' כה כז). משה בחרו, אבל לא קרבו, שנאמר, לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ (תהל' קכו כג). דוד בחרו, אבל לא קרבו, שנאמר, ויבחר בדוד עבדו (שם עח ע). והוא קרב את עצמו, שנאמר, חבר אני לכל אשר יראוך (שם קיט סג). אשריהם אלו שבחרן הקדוש ברוך הוא, אף על פי שלא קרבן. בא וראה, יתרו קרבו הקדוש ברוך הוא, ולא בחרו. רחב הזונה קרבה הקדוש ברוך הוא, אבל לא בחרה. אשרי אהרן בכפלים, שבחרו הקדוש ברוך הוא וקרבו. ומנין שבחרו, שנאמר, ויבא איש (ה) אלהים אל עלי ויאמר אליו כה אמר ה' הנגלה נגלית אל בית אביך, ובחר אותו מכל שבטי ישראל לכהן לי (ש"א ב כז-כח). ומנין שקרבו, שנאמר, ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרן אחיך (שמו' כח א). לכך דוד משבחו ואמר, אשרי תבחר ותקרב ישכון חצרך (תהלים סה ה: 

2) Shemot 28:1-2

א וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ אֶת-אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכַהֲנוֹ-לִי  אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן.  ב וְעָשִׂיתָ בִגְדֵי-קֹדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת.

"'Ashrei tivhar ut'karev yishkon ha'tzereicha....' Ashrei mi sheb'haru haKadosh Baruch Hu af al pi shelo kervo, v'ashrei mi shekervo af al pi shelo v'haru" 

"'Happy is he who you choose and draw near to dwell in your courts' (Tehillim 65:5). Happy is the one whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, chose even though He did not draw him near, and happy is he whom He drew near even though He did not choose him" (underlined from source 1 above).

At first glance, this week's midrash looks deceptively simple. Having taken as its premise the equality of being 'chosen' (niv'har)and being 'drawn near' (mekorav) by G-d, the midrash cites Avraham, Ya'akov/Yisrael, Moshe and David as examples of those who are 'chosen' while Yitro and Rachav are examples of those who are 'drawn near'. The midrash then goes on to demonstrate that Aharon as the Kohen Gadol was the most fortunate of all due to combining both traits of chosenness and closeness to G-d. 

However, if we look more closely there are several 'oddities' about this midrash which can help us understand it at a deeper level. In no particular order:

1) While the midrash may open with a pasuk from parshat Tzav, it is actually based on an earlier instance back in parshat Tetzaveh (source 2) above) of Moshe being instructed regarding Aharon, his sons, and the special b'gdei kehuna (priestly garb) referred to in the opening pasuk. This only becomes obvious at the end* - while the opening pasuk uses the term 'kach' to describe Moshe's assembling Aharon and his sons for their inauguration as kohanim, the pasuk from Tetzaveh at source 2 uses the term 'hak'rev' regarding Aharon et. al. As both p'sukim refer to Aharon in conjunction with the b'gdei kehuna, the pasuk from Tetzaveh therefore becomes both a proof-text for the midrash's assertion that Aharon was 'drawn near' by G-d and a thematic link back to the pasuk from Tzav.

2) While the midrash argues that Avraham, Ya'akov, Moshe and David were 'chosen' but not 'drawn near' by G-d, it also mentions concerning three out of these four that they nevertheless 'drew themselves near' to G-d. If, as the midrash asserts at the opening, those who are merely chosen are still considered fortunate, what does it add to mention that these three also 'drew themselves near' to G-d?**


3) The midrash fails to provide any proof-texts whatsoever for its argument that Yitro and Rachav were 'drawn near' to G-d without being chosen. Nor does it mention Yitro or Rachav making any efforts to 'choose' G-d (which one might expect as a parallel to Avraham, Ya'akov and David above).


The key to unpacking this midrash (and for me, what first caught my interest) is who these figures are in terms of their Jewish status. In fact, the midrash differentiates between being 'chosen' and 'drawn near' on the basis of who is considered part of the familial B'nei Israel (Avraham/Ya'akov/Moshe/David) and who is traditionally considered an 'outsider' coming into the Israelite fold through gerut (Yitro, frequently considered a ger in Rabbinic literature, and Rachav, the zonah who sheltered the spies in Yericho and whom is traditionally considered to have subsequently converted and married Yehoshua.)*** In the latter case, the above lack of any proof-texts may therefore be because the midrash assumes the reader is instantly familiar with these traditional identifications of Yitro and Rachav as gerim.


If we return to the second 'oddity' above regarding those who are 'chosen' only, we can see a two-way process going on. G-d is reaching out to Avraham et. al. by choosing them as ancestors/leaders of the Jewish people and distinguishing them from the other nations of the world. At the same time Avraham/Ya'akov/David also actively reach out to G-d by 'drawing themselves' close to him of their own accord through observance of the mitzvot/specific commands by G-d. However, while it may be tempting to say that those in the 'chosen' camp are therefore on a higher level by also 'drawing themselves near' to G-d, the midrash's opening lines are at pains to stress the equality of those who are 'chosen' and those who are 'drawn near'.

How can we square this? Well, just as Yitro and Rachav's status as gerim is left unstated, so too it may be considered an implicit part of Yitro and Rachav's becoming gerim that they were in their own way reaching out and 'choosing' G-d, thereby paralleling the two-way relationship between G-d and Avraham/Ya'akov/David.

What of Aharon, then? The answer, it seems,  lies partially in the true 'source' pasuk from Tetzaveh (source 2) and partially in the raison d'etre of the kohanim in terms of the korbanot (offerings) brought in the Mishkan and later in the Beit HaMikdash itself. According to the midrash, as kohanim Aharon and his sons are both 'chosen' from all of B'nei Israel to serve G-d in the Mishkan and 'drawn near' as per G-d's command to Moshe in Tetzaveh. As many commentators hold, the purpose of the korbanot is ultimately to draw oneself closer to G-d (as seen from the common root K-R-V on which 'korban' and 'mekorav' are based). Perhaps, by being both 'chosen by' and 'drawn near' to G-d to serve in the 'courts' of the Mishkan, Aharon and his descendants become the ideal instrument by which the 'chosen' B'nei Israel can follow the example of Avraham, Ya'akov and David and 'draw near' to G-d through the korbanot.


Shabbat shalom!


RPT

*While it is quite common for midrashim to start with a pasuk/idea that seems completely disconnected from the 'source' pasuk of the relevant parsha and then meander its way back to this source, this is the first time I have come across one which meanders back to a pasuk from another parsha altogether, from which the reader has to make the mental leap him/herself to the source pasuk...

** It is also worth asking why Moshe - the most significant Navi who was uniquely privileged to have G-d speak with him 'peh el peh' (mouth to mouth) - is the only person who is not mentioned here as 'drawing himself near' to G-d. It could be that the proof-text used to show Moshe's 'chosenness' in itself also points to his closeness to G-d, as it describes Moshe standing 'in the breach' between G-d and a rebellious Israel. However, I'm not entirely convinced...
***see earlier post on parshat Yitro for more on the connotations of ger as both 'stranger' and 'convert'.

Interlude - Kitniyot Kontroversy

B"H

Due to the upcoming Pesach festivities, midrashic musings are taking a break until at least Chol Hamo'ed (when I hope to catch up with Parshat Tzav before the usual weekly readings resume). In the meantime, I am pleased to welcome this guest post by Aviva Dagim, which some of you may remember from three years ago when the infamous 'Potatoes are Kitniyot' rulings of Rabbis Karpas and Kartoffelman were first published.*

Chag kasher v'sameach!

RPT

*We since understand that Yishuv correspondent Yossi Ben-Ze'ev cited in the original piece has just gotten engaged. Mazal tov :-) 

********************************************************

Latest Rabbinical Upset - Potatoes blacklisted as 'Kitniyot'
by Aviva Dagim - first published on www.ynet.com/010409

Israelis and Ashkenazim worldwide were stunned today by the ruling that potatoes are from now on to be classified as 'kitniyot'. The psak, published by Rav Pesach Karpas and Rav Yoni 'Iain' Kartoffelman (original of Giffnock, Glasgow), states that there has been widespread anxiety for several years over the large number of Passover 'cakes', 'biscuits', 'cereals' and even 'vodka' made with potato derivatives such as potato 'flour', which could confuse the unwary into thinking these products were made with real chametz. The Rabbis cited Osem's range of microwavable cakes as one example of this worrying trend, pointing out that 'in practice, there is very little difference taste-wise between Osem's year-round chametzdig cakes and their potato-and-matza meal range manufactured for Passover'.

Rav Karpas also highlighted concerns that potatoes could become cross-contaminated with chametz, due to the latest trend for re-usable multipurpose flour and potato sacks out of respect for the environment. Rav Kartoffelman, meantime, cited earlier sources such as the Chaye Adam in support of their decision to add potatoes to the list of 'kitniyot', prohibited for consumption by all Ashkenazim (and certain Sephardic communities to varying degrees).

As Sephardic dating agencies reported seeing a sudden surge in applications by ladies of Ashkenazic ancestry, the Jewish Vegetarian League were vociferous in their response to the ruling, complaining that this placed an unacceptable further restriction on Ashkenazi vegetarians over Passover 'at a time when they should be celebrating their freedom, not suffering under ever-heavier chains of oppression'.

The League also protested over health concerns for their representatives, particularly those for whom gluten intolerance already means matza-meal products are off the menu. However, Israeli responses to the League's concerns have been mixed. P.D. Terry Chumberg welcomed the ruling by Rabbis Karpas and Kartofellman, saying that this was 'the latest step towards recognition that, over this Festival of our Freedom, we can only truly relive the desert experience by eating a diet of pure matzah in memory of the manna on which we lived for forty years'.

Chumberg also referred to those who indulged in delicacies such as fish and cucumbers at Passover as 'apikorsim'. On the other hand, Yishuv commentator Yossi Ben-Ze'ev (originally of London, UK) had a more bracing message for Jewish vegetarians: 'Get over it, just eat lots of meat and you'll be fine.'
 

 The UK Office of the Chief Rabbi was unavailable for comment.

********************************************************