Daf Ditty Pesachim 35: Kitniyot

MISHNA: These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza
on the first night of Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [kusmin], with rye [shifon],
and with oats [shibbolet shu’al]. And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made
from properly tithed grains, but even with matza made from doubtfully tithed produce, and
matza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and
consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests may eat matza prepared from ḥalla, the
portion of dough that is given to priests, or with teruma, as priests are permitted to eat these
portions.

1
However, one may not fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor
with matza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor with matza
made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed. With
regard to one who prepared loaves of matza that are brought with a thanks-offering, or to the
wafers brought by a nazirite, the Sages drew the following distinction: If he prepared them for
himself, then he does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. However, if he prepared
them to sell them in the market to those who require these loaves or wafers, one fulfills the
obligation to eat matza with them.

GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the species mentioned in the mishna. One of the Sages taught
in the Tosefta: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats [shibbolet shu’al] and rye [shifon] are a type
of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is
called gulba; rye is dishra; and oats are shevilei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: These species, yes,
they may be used for matza; however, rice [orez] and millet [doḥan], no, they may not be used.

Chametz includes foods made with the five grains. See the Wheat and Grain Products page about
the precise definition of the five grains. The says that orez and dochen (Tosfot Brachot 37a
translates rice and millet) are not chametz since when used to produce bread doesn't ferment.

The Rambam (Chametz UMatzah 5:1) rules that there's no issue of chametz with grains other than
the five grains, such as rice, millet, or beans. Furthermore, says the Rambam, even if one were to
mix those grains with hot water and make dough that rises, it is permitted since that's considered
rotting and not positive fermentation.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that matza cannot be prepared from rice or
millet, derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi
Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught that

2
the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it
matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with substances
which will come to a state of leavening, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with them,
provided he prevents them from becoming leavened. This excludes these foods, i.e., rice, millet,
and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do
not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [siraḥon].

The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben
Nuri, who said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain, and one is liable to receive karet for eating
it in its leavened state, like other types of grain. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan
ben Nuri prohibits eating cooked rice and millet on Passover, due to the fact that they are close
to being leavened.

A dilemma was raised before the scholars who were studying this issue. What is the meaning of
the expression: That it is close to becoming leavened? Does this mean that it will be leavened
even quicker than wheat or barley? Or does it perhaps mean that it is only close to being
leavened, i.e., it resembles leavened bread, but it is not full-fledged leavened bread. In other
words, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri maintains that these grains cannot in fact become full-
fledged leavened bread, and one is not punished with karet for eating them on Passover. However,
he rules that one should nevertheless avoid eating them, due to their similarity to leavened bread.

The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it was taught in a baraita
that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain. Therefore, one is liable
to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat
matza with it on Passover. This baraita clearly indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi
Yoḥanan ben Nuri, rice becomes leavened like other grains, and the expression: It is close to
becoming leavened, means that it becomes leavened quicker than other grains.

3
And so too, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would say: One who has prepared bread from keramit, a
type of wild wheat, is obligated to separate ḥalla, just as he must separate ḥalla from dough
prepared of other types of grain. The Gemara asks: What is keramit? Abaye said: It is a plant
called shitzanita. Since this name was not widely known either, the Gemara asks: What is
shitzanita? Rav Pappa said: This is the wild grain that is found between papyrus reeds.

Jastrow

4
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to dough that was kneaded with
wine, oil, or honey, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, since these
liquids will not cause the dough to be leavened. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav
Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing
as his students conversed. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: What is the
reason of Reish Lakish, who maintains that one is not liable to receive karet for this type of
leavening?

Rav Pappa said to him: The verse states:

‫ ִשְׁבַﬠת‬,‫ת ֹאַכל ָﬠָליו ָחֵמץ‬-‫ג ל ֹא‬
‫ָﬠָליו ַמצּוֹת ֶלֶחם‬-‫ָיִמים תּ ֹאַכל‬
‫ ָיָצאָת ֵמֶאֶרץ‬,‫ ִכּי ְבִחָפּזוֹן‬:‫ֹע ִני‬
v‫יוֹם ֵצאְת‬-‫ְלַמַﬠן ִתְּזֹכּר ֶאת‬--‫ִמְצַר ִים‬
.v‫ ֹכּל ְיֵמי ַחֶיּי‬,‫ֵמֶאֶרץ ִמְצַר ִים‬
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou
eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for
in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou
mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land
of Egypt all the days of thy life.
Deut 16:3

“You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza”

In light of the juxtaposition of leavened bread and matza, Reish Lakish compares these two types
of bread: With regard to those substances through which a person fulfills his obligation to eat
matza, one is liable to receive karet for eating them in their leavened state. And with regard to
this dough, which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, since a person does not fulfill his

5
obligation to eat matza with it, as it is called rich, i.e., enhanced, matza, one is not liable to
receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover. Matza is called the bread of affliction,
or the poor man’s bread, a description that does not apply to dough prepared with wine, oil, or
honey.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

1. A person can only fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah on Pesach if the matzah is made out of
one of the five grains. The Mishna states that only the flour of five grains may be used to bake
matzah which can be used to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah on Pesach. They are: Wheat,
barley, oats, spelt and rye. The Gemora says that this is derived from the verse that states the
prohibition against eating chametz next to the mitzvah of eating matzah. This implies that only
grains which become chametz can be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah. The Gemora cites that
Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri argues that rice (flour) can also be used as the primary ingredient in the
matzah eaten to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah on Pesach (the law is unlike his opinion).

2. A dough made with only wine, oil, and honey (without adding any water) does not cause one to
be punished with kares for eating chametz. Although the Gemora debates the reason for this law,
it concludes that the reason is because fruit juice does not cause flour (even from the five grains
listed above) to become chametz, no matter how long it is given to sit or bake.2

3. A person can fulfill the mitzvah of matzah with matzah of d’mai (grain bought from a person
who is not clearly trustworthy about tithing). A regular person may not eat d’mai. The sages,
however, did permit one to feed d’mai to poor people. The Gemora says that even so, a regular
person who ate matzah made from d’mai still fulfills the mitzvah of matzah, as he has the ability
to declare his possessions ownerless and be poor. Rashi explains that as not eating d’mai is only a
Rabbinic stringency, they did not enforce it to the extent that one would not fulfill the mitzvah of
matzah.3

4. A person cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matzah with matzah made from tevel (untithed grain).
Unlike d’mai (which probably was tithed but came from a source that was not trustworthy), one
cannot fulfill his mitzvah of matzah from tevel. The Gemora says that this even includes grain that
only has a Rabbinical obligation to be tithed. This is different than d’mai, because d’mai is only a
Rabbinical stringency which the Rabbis often permitted (such as to the poor), while tevel is a
Rabbinical law.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Pesachim_35.pdf
2
However, see Remah in Orach Chaim 462:4 that the custom of Ashkenazim is not to eat such products on Pesach, unless one is
weak or sick.
3
This is indicated by the fact that they allowed it to be served to poor people, showing it is not forbidden by the letter of the law,
but rather an appropriate stringency.

6
5. One cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matzah using grain that was only partially tithed. The Gemora
quotes a braisa that derives this law from a verse. The verse states the prohibition against eating
chametz next to the mitzvah of eating matzah. This implies that only grains that are forbidden if
they would become chametz solely because of the prohibition of chametz, can be used to fulfill
the mitzvah of matzah. Grains that are forbidden to be eaten because they were not tithed properly
cannot be used to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah.

Egg Matzah

There are various customs regarding eating egg matzah (or any products made with the five grains
and fruit juices and the like, without water) on Pesach. These stem from how to understand our
Gemora (35a).

On the one hand, the Gemora concludes that fruit juices do not cause chametz. On the other hand,
if one analyzes the language of Rish Lakish, he said that one is not “punished with kares” for eating
something of this nature. This implies that while it is still forbidden, it is not punished with Kares.
These two opinions are presented in Tosfos (35b, DH “u’Mei Peiros”).

As noted above, the Remah (Orach Chaim 462:4) states that the custom of Ashkenazim is not to
eat such products on Pesach, unless one is weak or sick. The Mishnah Berurah (462:15) writes that
this is primarily because we are careful to abide by the stringent opinion that Rish Lakish only said
this is not punishable by kares, but it is still forbidden.

The Mishnah Berurah (ibid.) also notes that this is to ensure that we do not eat products that are
primarily mixed with fruit juice but also contain some water, as some say these products become
chametz quickly. However, it should be noted that the Shulchan Aruch (462) clearly permits
Sefardim to eat these products on Pesach.

Our Mishnah begins with a discussion regarding the wheat that may be used for making matzos
and concludes with halachos that relate to the unleavened loaves of the korbon todah and the wafers
of the nazir’s korbon.4

The five grains

A Baraisa teaches that spelt is a species of wheat and oats and rye are species of barley. The
Aramaic names of the grains are listed. Reish Lakish identifies the source in the Torah for the
implication of the Mishnah, that teaches that rice and millet may not be used for matzah. The
Mishnah’s ruling does not follow the opinion of R’ Yochanan ben Nuri who ruled that one may
not eat foods with rice and millet because they “are close to leavening.” The Gemara inquires
whether R’ Yochanan ben Nuri intends to state that rice and millet leaven quickly or perhaps he
means that they come close to leavening but never become fully leavened. A Baraisa is cited that
teaches that rice and millet can, in fact, become chometz. 4) Kneading dough with other liquids
Rabbah bar bar Chanah in the name of Reish Lakish teaches that one who consumes dough

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20035.pdf

7
kneaded with other liquids is not subject to the punishment of kareis. R’ Idi bar Avin explained:
There is no punishment of kareis because other liquids are treated as fruit juice which cannot cause
dough to leaven.

Clarifying the Mishnah

Our daf explains the novelty of a number of rulings recorded in the Mishnah. A Baraisa teaches
that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of matzah with tevel because the mitzvah can only be fulfilled
with dough that would only be subject to the prohibition against chometz and no other prohibitions.
The Gemara questions the implication of the Baraisa that if the grain is tevel it would not be subject
to the prohibition against chometz. R’ Sheishes explains that the Baraisa reflects the opinion of R’
Shimon who said that one prohibition cannot take effect on a pre-existing prohibition.

Fruit juices do not cause something to become chometz. [On the other hand, the Gemara on
the following amud brings an opinion] that something which is kneaded with fruit juice must
be burnt. [There are other such contradictions found in shas.1 ]

Rishonim argue how to understand this. Rashi (2) explains that our Gemara views such a mixture
as chometz nuksha (inedible3 or incomplete chometz) and not bona-fide chometz.

Tosafos (4), on the other hand, explains that something mixed with fruit juices (without water)
may even be eaten on Pesach. And that which the Gemara says, “it must be burnt” refers to a
mixture of water which will more readily turn into chometz.

The Shulchan Aruch (5) rules according to Tosafos. The Rema6 however adds that the custom is
not to mix dough with fruit juices, except in extenuating circumstances. Based on this Rema, the
Mishna Berura7 says that even a mixture of fruit juice which was already baked should be left
until after Pesach and not eaten on Pesach itself.

The aforementioned law applies only to the Ashkenazim (who generally follow the Rema). Many
Sefardim (8), however, are customarily lenient with mixtures of fruit juices (based on the decision
of the Shulchan Aruch above). The practical difference between these opinions emerges in the
question of using ‘egg matzos’ (9).

With regards to baked matzos which are subsequently fried in eggs, see the footnote below

8
Making Matza from That Which Can Become Leaven
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

When thinking about hametz, we usually associate it with a fermentation process (leavening) that
occurs when grain flour is mixed with water and baked. The Mishna on our daf enumerates the
types of grain that undergo this process – wheat, rye, oats, barley and spelt – but in a different
context. According to the Mishna, it is specifically these types of grains from which matza can be
made. The Gemara learns this from the passage (Devarim 16:3) that forbids the eating
of hametz in the same context as the command to eat matza, connecting the two to one-another.

The Gemara understands this to be a clear rejection of the position put forward by Rabbi Yohanan
ben Nuri, who rules that rice is also a type of grain for which one would be held liable for eating
if it became hametz, and that one could fulfill the mitzva by baking it into matza. The accepted
opinion understands that the process of mixing rice with water does not lead to himutz – leavening
– but to sirahon – decay. The Jerusalem Talmud explains that establishing which types of grains
are those that can become hametz and matza was based on extensive research done by the sages,
who experimented with the baking process to ascertain whether the leavening process takes place.

5
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim35/

9
With regard to a small number of grain-type products, there remained differences of opinions as
to whether the process that took place should be considered himutz.

Although the conclusion of our Gemara clearly rejects the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,
nevertheless over centuries of Jewish history traditions arose that limited the use
of kitniyot (pulses, or the grains of a legume) on Pesaḥ due to a concern that kernels of grain may
become mixed in with them. Generally speaking, Ashkenazi communities limit their use. Among
the traditions:

• Some make full use of kitniyot;

• Some forbid the use of rice, but permit other types of pulses;
• Some forbid the use of all kitniyot.

As a rule, people follow the traditions of their parents and communities.

Sleeping Through Class

Rabbi Jay Gelman writes:6

6
https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/pesachim-35-sleeping-through-class

10
I imagine I am not the only one who has dozed off during a lecture. While I might manage to pick
up a point or two, surely such dozing limits my ability to contribute to the discussion at hand. Yet
there are some who can sleep and learn at the same time; some whose minds are so full of learning
that even when they sleep, they learn.

Reish Lakish taught that dough that was mixed with wine, oil or honey and allowed to leaven
would not be considered chametz (Pesachim 35a). The Gemara recounts how "Rav Pappa and Rav
Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua were sitting in front of Rav Iddi, the son of Avin" who was "sitting
and dozing". Unfazed by this, Rav Huna and Rav Pappa were discussing the reasoning behind
Reish Lakish's teaching. Rav Pappa explained that it is based on the verse (that we will read this
Shabbat), "do not eat chametz seven days you shall eat lechem oni" (Devarim 16:3). By linking
the prohibition of chametz with the mitzvah of matza, the Torah teaches that only that which can
be used for matza can become chametz. With the Torah describing chametz as lechem oni, poor
man's bread, mixing in wine, oil or honey would convert the matza to bread for the rich, rendering
it invalid for the seder--and thus, unable to become chametz.

The above legal ruling has much broader application than law alone. Freedom is only meaningful
in the context of slavery. One who has never experienced slavery and suffering, persecution and
poverty cannot appreciate freedom and fun, relaxation and riches. Matza is only matza in the
context of chametz, as chametz is only so in relation to matza.

The disqualification of such "rich man's matza"--what today, we call egg matza--is such that
Rabbeinu Tam, the grandson of Rashi and perhaps the greatest of the Tosafists, used to eat it
on erev Pesach for lunch--a time when one is forbidden to eat both chametz and matza. Flour
mixed with wine, oil, or honey is neither.

However, the Talmud quotes a contrary ruling; that one who soaks matza in water and swallows
it whole would not fulfill the mitzvah of eating matza, this not being a the normal way of eating.
Yet, if such soaking caused leavening, one would be liable for eating chametz.
Apparently, chametz and matza have independent definitions.

I would have suggested that there is no contradiction. Matza and chametz define each other, in
terms of their baking. Eating them, however, is a separate matter--and eating abnormally only
means one did not fulfil the mitzvah to eat matza; however, it still retains the status of matza. But
that is not what Rav Iddi had to say.

While he may have been dozing, he was also listening closely. He awoke and said to them: "My
children, the reasoning behind Reish Lakish is that the matza is made with fruit juices, and fruit
juices cannot become chametz". Chametz means flour and water that is allowed to leaven, and
nothing else. Whether matza is only flour and water that has not leavened was not the issue at
hand. It could very well be that flour mixed with wine, oil, or honey that has not leavened is
perfectly fine for matza, a view we find on the following page in the name of the Sages. Such a

11
view would interpret the word oni to mean, "the bread on which many things are said"; i.e., we
have the matza before us as we recite the Haggadah and Hallel.

This debate is part of a broader debate as to whether we should interpret the Torah based on how
it is spelled or how it is pronounced. The spelling in this case is ANI, meaning poor; however, it is
pronounced ONI, meaning to answer. By differentiating between kri and ketiv, the oral and the
written word, the Torah teaches a dual meaning to matza. It reminds us how the slave could not
speak, but as freed Jews, we can and must sing the praises of God.

While some may marvel at Rav Iddi's sleep patterns, what I find even more remarkable is the fact
that Rav Huna and Rav Pappa dared not wake him--despite their assumption that he would miss
out on learning. If serious students of Torah are sleeping, it is because they need to, and we must
not deprive them of such. This is a concept; teachers of Torah would do well to remember. If a
student is sleeping in class, it is because he or she is very tired--or, possibly, because the class is
boring. If it is the latter, it is the teacher who needs to be "woken up".

The Laws of Pesach: Kitniyot

Rav David Brofsky writes:7

The laws of chametz are far stricter than the ordinary laws of kashrut. One may not
own chametz during Pesach, nor may one derive benefit from it. Furthermore, one who
eats chametz incurs the punishment of karet, and we are commanded to destroy chametz in
our possession before Pesach.

Many Rishonim, especially those from Ashkenaz (France and Germany), rule strictly on matters
relating to chametz. While all opinions agree that a mixture containing even the slightest amount
of chametz (a “mashehu”) is prohibited, the Rema cites additional stringencies. For example, he
applies the principle of chozer ve-nei’or to chametz, which means that even if chametz is mixed
into a mixture of permitted substances, it “wakes up” during Pesach and prohibits the entire
mixture.

However, he limits this to mixtures of dry ingredients, and does not extend it to a mixture of lach
be-lach (447:2). Similarly, he rules (447:10) that the principle of noten ta’am li-fgam does not
apply to chametz on Pesach.

7
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/laws-pesach-kitniyot-0

12
Furthermore, he does not permit eating matza ashira on Pesach (462:1), and even writes that one
should not eat food that was not watched to ensure that it did not come into contact
with chametz. (447:5). Of course, the custom of some Ashkenazim (usually of Chassidic descent)
not to eat “gebrukts,” matza that came into contact which water during Pesach, further
demonstrates the strict inclination of Ashkenzim on Pesach.

Another area in which we see this tendency towards stringency in the laws of Pesach – the
prohibition of kitniyot.

Kitniyot

Possibly the most well-known and certainly the most discussed stringency of Pesach is the
prohibition of kitniyot. Ashkenazi Jews refrain from eating kitniyot during the entire week
of Pesach. What is the source of this stringency?

Our Daf (Pesachim 35a) teaches that just as one can only fulfill the mitzva of
eating matza with matza made from one of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, or rye), only
these grains can become chametz when mixed with water. Although one of the Tana’im, R.
Yochanan ben Nuri, maintains that “rice is a species of corn and karet is incurred for [eating it
in] its leavened state, and a man discharges his obligation with it on Pesach,” this opinion is not
accepted as halakha.

In fact, the gemara (114b) reports that R. Huna, one of the Amoraim, did not accept the position
of R. Yochanan ben Nuri:

Rabba used to be particular for beet and rice, since it had [thus] issued from the mouth of
R. Huna. R. Ashi said: From R. Huna you may infer that none pay heed to the following
[ruling] of R. Yochanan ben Nuri. For it was taught - R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: Rice is a
species of corn and karet is incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state, and a man
discharges his duty with it on Pesach.

13
Indeed, the Rambam (Hilkhot Chametz U-Matza 5:1) writes:

The prohibition of chametz on Pesach only applies to the five types of grain: two types of
wheat, namely, wheat and spelt, and three types of barley, namely, barley, oats, and
rye. But kitniyot, such as rice, millet, beans, lentils, and the like are not subject to [the
prohibition of] chametz. Even if a person kneads rice flour or the like with boiling water
and covers it with a cloth until it rises like dough that ferments, it is permitted to be eaten,
for this is not fermentation, but rather decay.[1]

Despite these passages, some sources indicate concern that substances other than the five
grains can become “chametz nukshe” (partially leavened). The Ritva (35b), for example, cites
opinions that suggest that although rice and millet cannot become chametz gamur, they can
become chametz nukshe. Similarly, the Maharam Chalava explains that although rice and millet
cannot become chametz, some types of kitniyot can become partially leavened.

As we mentioned, almost all Rishonim, and well as the Shulchan Arukh, reject this view,
and rule that only the five grains listed in the mishna can become chametz.

However, during early 13th century, the custom to refrain from eating legumes (kitniyot)
developed in France and Provence (southern France).

R. Peretz ben R. Eliyahu (d. c. 1300), in his comments to the Smak (Sefer Mitzvot Katan), writes:

Regarding kitniyot, such as beans, lentils… and the like, our Rabbis practiced a prohibition
not to eat them on Pesach… They did not practice a prohibition because of the fermentation
itself, for they would not have erred in a matter that even school children know…

And therefore, it seems right to maintain the practice and forbid all kitniyot on Pesach -
not because of the fermentation itself, for it would be a mistake to say that, but rather
because of a decree. Since kitniyot are a cooked dish, and grain too is a cooked dish, were
we to permit kitniyot, people might come to mix them up… And it is also something that is

14
 piled up ("midi demidgan"), like the five species [of grain]. There are also places where
it customary to make bread from them as from the five species, and those who are not well-
versed in the Torah are therefore liable to mix them up. (Hagahot Rabbeinu Peretz 222)

Rabbeinu Peretz describes this custom as a “gezeira” (Rabbinic enactment), and not a result of
confusion regarding whether these foods leaven. He claims that people may confuse legumes with
grains since they are cooked in a similar fashion, they are both used to make bread, and they are
even gathered in a similar way.

The Tur (453) brings another reason for the prohibition of kitniyot:

Some authorities forbid the eating of rice and all other types of kitniyot in a cooked dish
because wheat might have become intermingled with them. This is an excessive stringency,
and it is not the customary practice.

The Tur cites those who express concern that wheat kernels may be mixed with other legumes in
storage.

The Tur, however, describes this custom as “an excessive stringency.” The Hagahot
Rabbeinu Peretz cited above also records opposition to this custom:

And my master R. Yechiel was accustomed to eat white beans… on Pesach, and he would
also say this in the name of great authorities… Nevertheless, it is very difficult to permit
something regarding which the world practices a prohibition from the time of the ancient
Sages…

15
Similarly, the Or Zaru’a (2:256) cites the custom to refrain from eating kitniyot, but then notes
that R. Yehuda of Paris would eat kitniyot on Pesach. Likewise, Rabbeinu Yerucham (Nativ 5,
3:41:1) cites this practice and rejects it, referring to it as “nonsense” (shetut).

R. Yaakov Moelin (Maharil;1365–1427) codifies this custom. He writes (Sefer

Maharil [Minhagim], Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot Be-Pesach, s.v. [16] kitnit):

As for all kinds of kitniyot – the Maharash said that it was decreed not to cook them
on Pesach. Even though it is only the five grains – wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye – that
ferment, nevertheless, because of them they decreed about all kinds of kitniyot. One must
not say that since no Torah prohibition is involved, there is nothing to be concerned about,
for anyone who transgresses a rabbinic decree is liable for the death penalty and violates
the prohibition, "You shall not deviate from what they tell you."

The Rema summarizes in his comments to the Shulchan Arukh (453:1):

And there are those who forbid this (Tur; Haggahot Maimoniyot, chap. 5; and Mordekhai,
chap. kol sha'a). And the customary practice in Ashkenaz is to be stringent, and one must
not deviate. It is obvious, however, that we don't forbid be-diavad if they [kitniyot] fell
into the pot. Similarly, it is permissible to light with oils made from them, and we do not
forbid if they fell into the pot. And similarly, it is permissible to keep kitniyot in the house
(Terumat Ha-Deshen, no. 113).

R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) laments that no one has abolished this custom. He writes (Mor
U-Ketzi'a 453):

I can testify about my father, the gaon, ztz"l, how distressed this righteous man was about
this… I, therefore, say that whoever abolishes this custom not to eat kitniyot – may my lot
be with him. I wish that the great authorities of the generation would agree with me….

16
 Despite this opposition, the custom of Ashkenazim is to refrain from
eating kitniyot on Pesach. Apparently, this custom became very entrenched in early Ashkenazi
practice. The Terumat Ha-Deshen (453) was even asked whether kitniyot that came into contact
with water must be destroyed. He responds that one may even keep kitniyot in one’s procession
over Pesach, as we shall discuss below.

Definition of Kitniyot

The Acharonim discuss the extent to which the definition of kitniyot is botanical or
functional. Furthermore, they debate whether we forbid items that technically fit the definition
of kitniyot but were not originally included in the enactment against kitniyot.

The Rambam (Hilkhot Kilayim 1:8), in defining kitniyot for the purposes of other
agricultural halakhot, distinguishes between grains (which include wheat, wild wheat, barley, oats,
and spelt), kitniyot (which include seeds that are eaten, such as beans, peas, lentils, millet, rice,
sesame seeds, poppy seeds, white peas, and the like), and garden seeds (onion seeds, garlic seeds,
leek seeds, ketzach seeds), cabbage seeds, and flax seeds), which are not fit for human
consumption.

Early authorities (Maharil, Minhagim, Ma’akhlot Assurot Be-Pesach 19), cited by the
Rema in his Darkhei Moshe andin his additions to the Shulchan Arukh (464), discuss whether
seeds that are not edible can be considered kitniyot. They include mustard in the category
of kitniyot in regard to Pesach, despite the fact that mustard, as described by the Rambam (ibid.,
ch. 2) is not kitniyot! The Taz (453:1) explains that since mustard grows in pods, in a similar
fashion to kitniyot, it is prohibited.

The Posekim disagree as to whether peanuts should be considered kitniyot. R. Tzvi Pesach
Frank (Mikra’ei Kodesh II:60), for example, notes that peanuts are not generally cooked or
gathered in a fashion similar to kitniyot, He concludes, however, that the common practice is not
to eat peanuts on Pesach. R. Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:63), however,
disagrees. He argues that we clearly do not refrain from foods from which one can in theory make
flour, as it is not customary to prohibit potatoes, a common source of flour,
on Pesach. Furthermore, he insists that we do not refrain from eating foods that are commonly
stored with wheat. Rather, he argues that we only forbid that which was prohibited explicitly. He
explains that the prohibition of kitniyot applies to those foods that people refrained from eating
either because they often mix with wheat or because they are commonly used to produce
flour. However, foods that did not exist at the time of the development of this custom, such as

17
potatoes, were not prohibited. Therefore, in areas in which people did not refrain from eating
peanuts, one may eat peanuts.

R. Feinstein’s rationale calls into question the common custom to refrain from eating soy
beans on Pesach.

Interestingly, the Chayye Adam (Nishmat Adam, Pesach, 20) records that some people
actually did not eat potatoes on Pesach because they are used to make flour. It is, however,
customary to eat potatoes on Pesach,

Shemen Kitniyot – Oil Derived from Kitniyot

The Acharonim disagree regarding whether one may eat kitniyot derivatives.

Some Acharonim (Nishmat Adam 33; Avnei Nezer, Orach Chaim 373) rule that one may not
consume oil produced from kitniyot. Others write that fundamentally, oils derived
from kitniyot are permitted. Therefore, the Terumat Ha-Deshen (113) implies that only oils
produce from kitniyot that are soaked in water before processing are prohibited. R. Yitzchak
Elchanan Spektor (1817-1896) is even more lenient (Be’er Yitzchak 11). He permits oil derived
from kitniyot as long as the kitniyot are carefully checked for grains of wheat before they are
processed. R.Chanoch Agus (Marcheshet, Orach Chaim 3) also rules that one may use shemen
kitniyot as long as the kitniyot are boiled before they come into contact with water and are carefully
checked for grains. The Rema cites the Terumat Ha-Deshen.

R. Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook (1865-1935) permitted sesame oil during his tenure as
Chief Rabbi of Yaffo (Orach Mishpat, 108-114). He argues that since the sesame seeds are not
exposed to water before processing, the oil is permitted. The Eida Ha-Chareidit forcefully
objected and prohibited this oil. R. Kook, in addition to his halakhic argument, writes:

18
 In truth, this way of my teachers, the wise and righteous men I merited to serve, their merit
should protect us and all of Israel, were not inclined to be stringent when there was room
to be lenient, especially regarding matters which do not have a strong foundation in the
words of our Sages in the Talmud. It is sufficient that we not stray from that which we are
accustomed to follow from our teachers, the posekim. However, regarding matters that
have not been decided, certainly one who inclined to be lenient is praiseworthy.

He also warns that being stringent regarding matters that can easily be permitted will cause a
great chillul HaShem.

Soy oil is produced in a manner similar to sesame oil; the soy beans are not exposed to
water before processing.

While some authorities permit using cottonseed oil (Mikra’ei Kodesh 2:60), as is the practice of
the Orthodox Union kashrut agency, for example, R. Yitzchak Weiss (Minchat Yitzchak 3:138)
rules stringently. In Israel, cottonseed oil is generally not used by those who do not use shemen
kitniyot.

As mentioned above, the Acharonim discuss whether peanuts are considered kitniyot. While R.
Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:63) doubts that they are considered kitniyot,
others (R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, Mikra’ei Kodesh 2:60; Chelkat Ya’akov 97, Seridei Eish 1:50)
prohibit eating peanuts, although they permit its oil.

Canola oil, produced from rapeseeds, was first approved for food use in the United States in
1985. In recent years, canola oil has become popular due to its low saturated fat and high
monounsaturated fat content. Many products, especially in Israel, are produced with lecithin, a
canola derivative. Is canola oil (or lecithin) considered kitniyot?

R. Avraham Bornstein (Avnei Nezer; 1838–1910) discusses oil produced from rapeseeds in two
separate responsa. In the first (533), he permits rapeseed oil as long as the seeds are processed dry
and the oil is boiled before it is mixed with water. In a responsa written four years later (373), he

19
prohibits using rapeseed, equating them with mustard seeds, which are prohibited. R. Shalom
Mordechai Shwadron (1835–1911), in his responsa (Maharsham, 1:183), permits using oil from
rapeseeds, as long as the process of production is dry.

While the Ashkenzi kashrut organizations in America and Israel generally consider canola to
be kitniyot, some are lenient and eat canola oil produced under Sephardic supervision. Under
supervision, the seeds are checked for wheat grains before processing and water does not come
into contact with the seeds before processing. Those who permit peanut oil, and certainly those
who permit all oils derived from kitniyot, would certainly permit canola oil.

Kitniyot for the Sick and Children

The Posekim question whether to permit kitniyot in times of great duress. The Chayye
Adam (127:1), for example, permits eating kitniyot when there is nothing else to eat. In
the Nishmat Adam, he relates that in 1771, there was a great famine and they convened a beit din in
order to permit cooking kitniyot on Pesach. Others, such as the Maharam Padua (48),
concur. Similarly, the Arukh Ha-Shulchan (453:5) suggests that the original custom to refrain
from eating kitniyot was conditional; in a year of famine, when the poor are hungry, the communal
leaders gather and permit eating kitniyot for that year. The Teshuva Me-Ahava (259), however,
rejects this notion, arguing that since this custom has been accepted by all of Ashkenazi Jewry,
“even Shmuel Ha-Ramati and Eliyahu and his court… cannot permit rice and
other kitniyot on Pesach.”

The Chayye Adam (7) adds that in times of great need, for a person who is sick or for a
child, one may permit kitniyot.

One who must eat kitniyot on Pesach should preferably use a separate pot and separate utensils
(Maharam Schick, Orach Chaim 241). One may use a pot that had been used to cook kitniyot if 24
hours have passed (Kaf Ha-Chaim 453:27).

20
Rabbi Tzvi Rosen writes:8

What are Kitniyos?

Kitniyos are popularly defined as legumes. But what are legumes? The Shulchan Aruch, Orach
Chaim 453, defines Kitniyos as those products that can be cooked and baked in a fashion similar
to chometz grains, yet are not halachically considered in the same category as chometz. Some
examples are rice, corn, peas, mustard seed, and all varieties of beans (i.e., kidney, lima, garbanzo,
etc.). The Torah term for the using or fermentation of barley, rye, oats, wheat, and spelt is
“chimutz;” the term given for of Kitniyos is “sirchan.”

The Bais Yosef permits Kitniyos on Pesach, while the Rema rules that Kitniyos are forbidden.
Hence, Sephardim consume Kitniyos on Pesach while Ashkenazim follow the Rema’s psak, which
does not permit the consumption of Kitniyos on Pesach.

The root and greens of these vegetables are not Kitniyos; Ashkenazim only avoid the seeds.

Reasons for Prohibition

Why are Kitniyos forbidden for consumption on Pesach? The Mishnah Brura enumerates a number
of reasons. One reason is that there is a possibility that chometz grains could be mixed amongst
the Kitniyos grains, creating an inadvertent yet real chometz problem when the grains are cooked
together. Another reason is that if Kitniyos products would be permitted, confusion within the
general public could result in mistaking permitted Kitniyos flour and forbidden chometz flour.
Although these might not be problems of epidemic proportions, the Rema considered them to be
real enough to forbid the eating of Kitniyos on Pesach. Sephardim check the Kitniyos grains three
times to make sure no chometz grains are intermixed within the Kitniyos and then permit their use
on Pesach.
The Kitniyos restriction is not as all-encompassing as chometz. One does not sell Kitniyos as he
would chometz. One may derive benefit from Kitniyos and may use them for non-eating purposes,
such as fuel for candle lighting and heating or pet food. It is important to note that in the case of
medications, Kitniyos restrictions are not applicable and pills that use corn starch as binders would
be permissible for medication.

Kitniyos Derivatives

There is a question amongst poskim as to whether Kitniyos derivatives, such as corn oil, would be
considered part of the ban and, thus, forbidden. Maybe these derivatives could be considered a
separate category, “Shemen Kitniyos,” exclusive of the Kitniyos restriction. There are additional
considerations linked to peanuts and peanut oil and whether peanuts are considered to be Kitniyos.
Subsequently, peanut oil would present less of a problem than other Kitniyos oils. Due to this sfek
sfeka, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt” l” l, permitted the use of peanut oil on Pesach. Nevertheless, most

8
https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/seasonal/355/now-you-see-it-now-you-dont-understanding-Kitniyos-Kitniyos-
shenishtanu/

21
reputable kashrus agencies (in the United States and Israel) do not permit the use of shemen
Kitniyos in their products, nor do they use peanut oil.

However, over the years, products bearing a Kosher for Passover certification have used Kitniyos-
derived ingredients in their Kosher for Passover products. A common example of a Kitniyos-
derived product is corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is one of the leading versatile sweeteners
in the food industry. It is produced through a conversion process whereby the white starch of the
corn kernel is converted into sugar. This is typically accomplished by using hydrochloric acid and
enzymes or hydrochloric acid alone, without the assistance of enzymes. In the corn sweetener
industry, enzymes are a key component in the conversion process and are commonly derived from
barley, which is chometz. Corn syrup converted by hydrochloric acid alone would not have this
chometz issue.

What is of great halachic consequence is the halachic perception of these “corn converted”
products. Since the final product is in liquid form, it was and still is considered to be shemen
Kitniyos by some authorities. Other poskim posit that there is an intrinsic difference between
classical shemen Kitniyos (i.e., oil that is pressed out of the kernel) and a liquid corn syrup
converted from the actual starch. The liquid is not shemen Kitniyos; it is actual Kitniyos.

Kitniyos Shenishtanu

Today, food science has found multiple applications for products derived from Kitniyos. These
Kitniyos conversions and fermentations have given rise to a new kashrus term, “Kitniyos
Shenishtanu”, Kitniyos that have been transformed into a new product. These converted food grade
ingredients include citric acid and ascorbic acid (that have wide food applications), NutraSweet
sweetener, MSG (a flavor agent in soups and spice blends), sodium citrate (found in processed
cheeses), sodium erythorbate (found in deli meats), and lactic acid that is used in olive production.
These corn or soy-based ingredients go through a multi-stage conversion process until the final
food grade material is produced.

There is a divergence of opinions amongst kashrus certification agencies as to whether we permit

or forbid Kitniyos Shenishtanu.

What is the reasoning for those who permit Kitniyos Shenishtanu? Interestingly, the reasoning
behind permitting Kitniyos Shenishtanu is based on a different halachic query regarding a serious
kashrus concern as to whether or not a product extracted and converted from a non-kosher source
could be considered kosher. The heter is based on the reasoning of the Chasam Sofer and the Chok
Yaakov permitting the consumption of grape seed oil that was extracted from non-kosher grape
seeds.1

The Shulchan Aruch discusses the two criteria for permitting products derived from non-kosher
grape seeds: tamdan, washing of the seeds, and yibush, drying of the seeds, to a point where the
seeds are dry.2 This is similar to the drying of the wine sediments on the side of the cask
(Weinstein)3, the basic ingredient of cream of tartar.4 In grape seed oil productions, the seeds are
washed and dried well to contain 6-8% moisture; a kernel of raw rice by comparison contains 11%
moisture. This is critical in the extraction of grape seed oil because a wet seed becomes moldy and

22
the oil cannot be extracted from a moist seed. The question remains: Does a seed that has originally
been soaked in non-kosher wine prior to washing and drying qualify for kosher grape seed oil
extraction?

The Shulchan Aruch clearly states that grape seeds are forbidden to be used within the first 12
months of their separation from the “must”. Furthermore, the halacha states that the seeds need to
be washed and free of any residual wine before the 12-month count can be successful. Also, does
the drying of the seeds equal a 12-month waiting period? A question was raised regarding the wine
sediment which is the main ingredient of cream of tartar. Does the drying of the wine lees, the
wine sediment, qualify for the 12-month waiting period? Many halachic authorities maintain that
it does and that the oil extracted from the clean, dry seed would be mutar.

Another opinion in favor of grape seed oil is that the oil bears no resemblance to the original grape
seed in smell, taste, color or texture.5 The Chasam Sofer and the Chok Yaakov rule that since there
is a complete transformation from grape seeds to oil the prohibition of disqualified grape seeds
does not apply. This is based upon the ruling of Rabbeinu Yona, who maintained that a forbidden
item that has undergone a complete transformation is permitted.6 The Chelkas Yaakov offers yet
another reason to permit grape seed oil. Oil is contained inside the seed, and the wine is not
converted into oil; therefore, it can be viewed as two separate entities.7

The fundamental reasoning of the Chasam Sofer and the Chok Yaakov permitting the newly
transformed grape seed oil provides the basis for permitting Kitniyos Shenishtanu.

The reasons for permitting Kitniyos Shenishtanu are very compelling. What are the counter
arguments in favor of prohibiting Kitniyos Shenishtanu? When Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, shlit”a,
Rabbinic Administrator of the STAR-K, discussed this issue with Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliyashiv,
zt”l, and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l, their position was to prohibit Kitniyos Shenishtanu
as a Chumra d’Pischa, a strict adherence to the minhag of prohibiting Kitniyos. For this reason, it
is STAR-K policy not to certify products containing Kitniyos Shenishtanu.

Today, with the emergence of dynamic Sephardic communities and a heightened demand for
kitniyot-based products, more and more of these types of products are appearing on the Kosher for
Passover shelves. These products declare “L’Ochlei Kitniyot – Kosher for Passover for those who
consume Kitniyot on Passover”. The STAR-K has developed a KFP program for the Sephardic
community and those products that may be consumed “L’Ochlei Kitniyot” bear a STAR-S P.

Quinoa

It was determined that quinoa is Kosher L’Pesach. It is not related to millet, rice or the Chameishis
Minei Dagan, five types of grain products. Quinoa is a member of the amaranth family. STAR-K
tested quinoa to see if it would rise. The result was sirchon, as termed by Chazal, which means the
quinoa decayed and did not rise. Furthermore, quinoa’s growth does not resemble Kitniyos and,
as cited in Igros Moshe O.C. (3:63), we do not consider additional products beyond what was
originally established. However, recent investigations have found that there is a possibility that
quinoa grows in proximity to certain grains and/or is processed in facilities that compromise

23
Kosher for Passover status. Therefore, quinoa may be used on Pesach only with reliable Kosher
for Passover approval.

Kitniyot List

The following are considered Kitniyot:9

• Beans
• Buckwheat
• Caraway
• Cardamom
• Corn
• Edamame
• Fennel Seeds
• Fenugreek
• Flaxseed (Linseed)
• Green Beans
• Hemp Seeds
• Lentils
• Millet
• Mustard
• Peas
• Poppy Seeds
• Rapeseed
• Rice
• Sesame Seeds
• Soybeans
• Sunflower Seeds
• Teff

The following are not considered Kitniyot, but may require special checking:

• Anise
• Carob
• Chia Seeds
• Coriander
• Cottonseed
• Cumin
• Guar Gum
• Locust Bean Gum
• Safflower

9
https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/food-items/kitniyot-list/

24
 • Saffron

The following may be Kitniyot and are therefore not used:

• Amaranth
• Peanuts

Why Sephardim eat Kitniyot, but Ashkenazim don’t

Elli Fischer writes:10

Each year, during the days and weeks leading up to Pesach, my Facebook feed inevitably fills up
with Ashkenazic gripes about the custom to refrain from kitniyot and calls for “liberation” from a
practice they deem nonsensical and outmoded. Even the popularization
of several moderate approaches to kitniyot has not stopped the clamoring for an end to it and even,
in the case of some people, the jettisoning of this venerable custom.

Several factors contribute to this recent intolerance. For one thing, it is a reaction against increased
stringency on the part of some rabbis and certification agencies. For another, the rationale behind
the forbidding of kitniyot is not clear. Several different explanations appear in the earliest sources,
from fear of admixture during the threshing process to fear of a stray grain stalk growing
amongst kitniyot crops to the grain-like appearance of kitniyot. In the general perception, none of
these rationales seems sufficient to further restrict an already limited Pesach menu. Finally, in
Israel especially, there is no longer any geographic separation between Ashkenazic and Sephardic
communities. Ashkenazim today shop in supermarkets filled with products that are “Kosher for
Passover—for those who eat kitniyot” and see observant and pious friends and neighbors
munching corn and rice products during the holiday. Sephardim have no trouble

10
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-sephardim-eat-kitniyot-but-ashkenazim-dont/

25
distinguishing kitniyot from chametz, thus undermining whatever rationale for
the kitniyot prohibition that one may choose.

Thus, many people conclude that there was never any real concern for accidental consumption of
real chametz, only Ashkenazic neurosis and propensity for wild stringency. After all, the thinking
goes, if there were a real concern, Sephardim would have developed the custom as well.

But there is a good reason for the emergence of this custom in specifically Ashkenazic lands.
Ashkenazic communities, and the custom of kitniyot, originated in the temperate regions of
northern France and the Rhineland. The climate there differed from the Mediterranean climate of
Sephardic communities in two key respects: its summers were far milder, and it rained all year
around. Each of these elements produced a change in agricultural practices. The milder summer
meant that one could harvest twice each year, once in the winter and once in the summer, thus
making the land more productive. Specifically, it was in the temperate regions of northern Europe
that the three-field system of crop rotation was developed. In fact, this was a major technological
breakthrough, with far-reaching implications for world history, not just for Ashkenazic palates
during the course of a week-long holiday.

Under this system, each year, one third of the land would be planted with a grain in the autumn,
and one third with legumes like peas, lentils, or beans, in the spring. (Legumes are known for their
soil-replenishing properties, as anyone who has read The Omnivore’s Dilemma knows; “legume”
is also the technical meaning of the term “kitniyot”, though there are non-legume species
of kitniyot, like rice). The final third would lay fallow. When the same field is used to plant a type
of grain one year and a type of legume the next year, there are inevitably stray stalks of grain
growing amongst the kitniyot. Under the two-field system of the Mediterranean and Middle East,
a field would be planted one year and left fallow the next. Thus, legumes were not planted as
frequently, and even if a particular field was changed from grain to legumes, there would be two

26
years’ separation between the crops. The admixture of standing crops would have only been an
issue in Ashkenazic lands.

This rationale was proposed by Prof. Simcha Emanuel in 2006. He notes that a sermon delivered
by Rabbi Eliezer of Worms in c. 1165 is the earliest reference to the Ashkenazic custom to refrain
from lentils and beans on Pesach. In his words, “That we do not eat beans and lentils is because
there is wheat in them.” On this, Prof. Emanuel notes11 “Perhaps this matter is connected to
agronomic changes occurring in the European economy. During the course of the early Middle
Ages, European farmers switched to the triennial planting cycle, in which each field was planted
alternately as follows: one year of grain, one year of a legume, and a third fallow year. As a result,
the legume yield grew dramatically, particularly from the year 950 on. This growing method
certainly resulted in the unplanned growth of some grain within fields of legumes, and perhaps
these stray sheaves are what caused the rabbis to forbid legumes on Pesach.

A second difference pertains to the sheaving of harvested grain. In semiarid lands, crops were
harvested in the early summer and gathered in the autumn, before the start of the rainy season.
Thus, Shavu’ot, in the early summer, is a harvest festival, while Sukkot, in the early autumn, is a
gathering festival. Because there was no rain expected during this interval, the harvested grain
could be left in sheaves or heaps out in the field where they grew; there was no concern that rainfall
would ruin them. This was not the case in Ashkenazic lands, where rain could fall any time
throughout the year. There, special structures had to be built for grain storage near the fields. Since
there was more than one harvest throughout the year, the same granaries were used for different
crops—grains during one harvest and legumes during the next. Thus, the very structure where
wheat had been heaped a few months earlier would be home to a heap of legumes just a few months
later. Once again, this concern was completely absent in Sephardic lands.

11
footnote 161 on p. 52 of his critical edition of R. Eliezer’s Pesach sermon, published in 2006

27
Most likely, this explanation will not help those who crave lentil soup or lupine beans during the
course of the holiday, and the gripes of Ashkenazim will surely continue. Nevertheless, this
rationale demonstrates that the prohibition emerged from real concerns—the very concerns
mentioned by the medieval rabbis—and should not be dismissed lightly. At the very least, during
a holiday whose goal is to preserve historical and collective memory about our past, it is worth
considering the circumstances that produced this custom and contemplating how we connect to a
particular chapter of our past by observing this venerable practice.

The Chemistry of Chametz12

‫ב‬,‫מנחות ע‬

‫ יט( והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ וכתיב התם‬,‫מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש אתיא לחם לחם ממצה כתיב הכא )במדבר טו‬
‫ ג( לחם עוני‬,‫)דברים טז‬

12
http://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2018/10/11/menachot-70b-the-chemistry-of-chametz

28
 ‫ ג( והתם גופה מנלן אמר ריש לקיש וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל וכן תנא דבי ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אמר קרא‬,‫)דברים טז‬
‫לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות לחם עוני דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו‬
‫בפסח יצאו אלו שאין באין לידי חימוץ אלא לידי סירחון‬

How do we know that matzah must be made from one of five species of grain [wheat, barley, oats
spelt and rye]? Reish Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,
and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught, that the verse states: “You
shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matzah, the bread of
affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with regard to substances that will
come to a state of leavening does a person fulfill his obligation to eat matzah by eating them on
Passover, provided that he prevents them from becoming leavened. This serves to exclude
these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and
water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [sirḥon].

The important question we need to answer here is whether there is something fundamentally
different about rice when compared to the five grain species that can become chametz. And is there
any scientific support to the claim that rice spoils sooner than it ferments?

The Chemistry of bread making

To get at the answers we need to remind ourselves how plants make and consume starch. They
take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water from the soil, and using the energy contained
in sunlight (and the magic of chlorophyll) convert the two into a large sugar molecule we call
starch. Plants use this starch to store and provide them with energy.

If you grind up wheat (or many other species of grain) you make flour which contains loads of
starch. In addition to starch, flour contains proteins and enzymes which become important when
the flour is mixed with water. Without going down a rabbit-hole of detail, here in general is what
happens. First, an enzyme called beta-amylase breaks the large starch molecule down into a
smaller molecule called maltose which is made up of two molecules of glucose. Another
enzyme, maltase, breaks down each molecule of maltose into two molecules of glucose which is
then broken down further to provide the plant with energy. Here is what it looks like:

29
From Lloyd, James R and Kötting, Oliver (July 2016) Starch Biosynthesis and Degradation in
Plants. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester.

If you add some yeast into that mix, a chemical reaction called fermentation occurs.

Yeast, which is a fungus, consumes glucose and turns it into carbon dioxide and ethanol, which is
an alcohol.

30
As the flour and water and yeast all mix together, two proteins in the flour called gliadin and
glutenin (which are glutens) give the dough mixture its characteristic body, which strengthens the
more it is mixed. The dough traps the carbon dioxide that is given off by the yeast cells, which
causes the bread to rise. And that gives us the leavened bread we call chametz.

Of course, when matzah is made, we do not add yeast to the dough. But there are yeast particles
in the air and these will inevitably land on the dough where they will act in the same way,
consuming glucose and creating carbon dioxide and alcohol.

This process is much slower than when yeast is added when bread is made, but the plain dough
will rise a little as a result.

31
The differences between grains and rice

Resh Lakish (together with those sages of the schools of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Eliezer ben
Ya’akov) claim that unlike grains, rice does not ferment when water is added to it. Instead it spoils.
That’s why it may be eaten on Passover (unless of course you are an Ashkenazi Jew, in which case
you still can’t eat it, but for another reason we’re not going to get into). Is this in fact the case?

I know next to nothing about plant biology. But Dr Angus Murphy does. He is Professor and Chair
of the Department of Plant Science at the University of Maryland, and wrote the textbook on plant
physiology.

Dr. Murphy was kind enough to have a long chat with me over the phone and he agreed with the
suggestion that grains and rice do very different things when mixed with water. The wheat seed is
surrounded by the endosperm, which is itself covered by the aluerone layer.

This aleurone is rich in amylase which as you recall is needed to breakdown starch into glucose
(which is eaten by yeast which releases carbon dioxide and alcohol which causes the dough to
rise…) However (most species of) rice do not contain this aleurone layer.

So, they have very little amylase, which means that it takes them a much longer time to convert
starch into glucose.

In fact, it takes so long that by the time there is enough yeast in the dough for it to start to rise,
bacteria in the air will have colonized the mixture and started breaking down the proteins in the
dough.

And that protein breakdown is what makes the mixture spoil, and which is what the Talmud calls
‫סירחון‬. To conclude, Professor Murphy thought that the Talmud’s description of the difference
between grain and rice was firmly based in plant biology.

32
The fine print and the final verdict

Distribution of various types of amylases in rice grains. (Beta-Amylase activity

was expressed in terms of maltose mg liberated in 3 min at 30°C by 1 g of
ground rice samples.) 13

Of course, things are a little more complicated than that. (They always are.) Different kinds of
wheat flour contain different amounts of amylase. Fine bleached white flour contains less amylase
than say whole wheat flour, because the aleurone layer in whole wheat flour has not been broken
down. Similarly, different species of rice contain different amounts of amylase, so that while
standard white rice has very little, brown rice has considerably more. During talmudic times, the
wheat flour would have been far less processed than any of the flour we would use today. As a
result, it would contain more amylase, and would have risen faster than would today’s four-water
mixtures.

But as a rule of thumb, the Talmud is, biochemically speaking, spot on. When mixed with water,
the five species of grain from which matzah may be made do undergo fermentation even without

13
From Ryu Shinke, Hiroshi Nishira & Narataro Mugibayashi. Types of Amylases in Rice Grains. Agricultural and Biological
Chemistry 1973; 37:10, 2437-2438

33
the addition of yeast, while rice will spoil long before the fermentation process becomes
noticeable.

34