The examples I gave differ fundamentally from the suggested theory. Analyse them and you will see. That is why I gave them. Of course, ultimately everyone comes from EY, but the Ashkenazi community had the tradition, recorded in Rokeach, that they hailed from Southern Italy, after some time spent in Northern Italy (Lucca). There is also some evidence, that some founding members of the communities came from Southern France. It was an ancient settlement and that also makes sense. But I've never come across records of direct migration from EY to Germany. There is a madcap theory that purports a mass hegira from Babylon to Germany, but apart from a few individual scholars, we have no evidence of this. BTW, Glatt meat is not a leniency; it is the reverse! You may be mixing that term with the ashkenazi leniency with regard to "sircha". This was hotly disputed when it appeared and for generations thereafter, and is not accepted at all by sefardim today.

I think Torah pBeh is a false loophole that allows Rabbis to act like prophets and add to Torah. "A fish cannot get the evil eye" - Moses must be flored at that one - some judges should be demoted. I get the feeling they do what I see as defamation to avoid being called on this key issue. Are they acting as Judges of the law or as a corrupt religion and false prophets? I see the use of Karties as escape goats in part of an ongoing program of defaming and severe ridicule of anyone that doesn't support their cult additions. Including converts whom we are obligated to love by Torah. In additions they use tragedies that some would say witness that God is not please with Rabbinic teachings to scare people that somehow they will lose identity or be attacked if Rabbinic additions are criticized. I think it works well for friars but clearly the Karaties have nothing to do with limitless additions to Torah against Devarim 4 God given law. I challenge the Rabbis to put a fence around that law. Spaghetti referenced answers don’t cut it either – it is just information overload techniques. Karites should not be mentioned in this article and clearly are bigger persons than the Rabbi’s behavior. I think the Rabbis would be better served getting rid of the Hamsah (Chakra) from Jainism in Jewsish homes the way they would it's brother the Jainism swastika (once used in synagogues in Israel) and leave followers of Moses alone. Not saying the Karites are correct - but the Rabbis are not better.

I've just had time to revise the section dealing with kitniyos (I studied it 25 years ago) and find some of Ba-Hayim's citations misleading, apart from a few mistakes in the article itself. The full quotation from R Yerucham for example, reads: Those who have the custom not to eat etc is a stupid custom - unless they do so as a stringency, but I still don't know why [they should]. In other words he accepts that as a personal stringency it may come into consideration although he can't figure out the circumstances that may have given rise to this. Bar-Hayim also claims that the original reason was because kitniyos was thought to leaven. Well, the Talmud uses the expression 'goes off'. This repeated by Rashi, Semag and others of that era. Bar-Hayim writes that two prominent Tosefists ignored the custom. True, but the source is in the Semak, who immediately adds: 'However it is difficult to permit [following their example] since others forbid it.' He then adds: 'It appears that they do not forbid them because of leavening, because no one would make such an elementary mistake contradicting a Talmudic passage.' He then offers an alternative reason. The article suggests that the first reported source is the Orchos Chayim. This is actually one of the later sources and actually misquotes (by omitting a word) the Semag, giving Bar-Hayim his pretext for the fallacious argument about leavening. The Orchos Chayim then goes on to quote Provencal scholars who mentioned this custom as dating back generations, and give the same reasoning as the Semak - that kitniyos can be cooked in manner that resembles chametz eg porridge, and that some even bake them to resemble bread, and could be confused with it. In short Bar-Hayim has given a very partisan description of the facts in order to arrive at his hare-brained conclusion.

The example regarding sircha came from EY. They did not realize it back then. But now we know. It is not accepted by spharadim because it does not follow the Bavli. But the minhag existed in EY as is documented in writting of geonim recorded in the Cairo gniza. There are many minhagim that came from EY to ashkenaz. This is a complex topic and not as black and white as you make it seem.

Take a look at the sources yourself and stop listening to whatever anyone tells you. Obviously it could not come from Sinai when there are opposing views. The RAMBAM clearly says it in the introduction to the Mishna he wrote. Most people think that the Mishna /Gmara Shulchan Aruch all came from Sinai. They DID NOT. The Chazal never claimed they did. Study the sources and then maybe you will put your karites believes aside.

I have ner heard such engaging shiurim as I heard now on www.machonshilo.org

I fully support Rabbi David Bar-Hayim's call for Jewish unity!

Please have Rav David Bar-Hayim write more excellent articles!

Those who follow the Torah (The Written Law which is the one and only Perfect Law) are the only ones who act Jewish. I follow YHWH. You follow men who have perverted The Law and caused all Jewry to be scattered to the wind. With that said those Jews like myself who follow the plain meaning of the text only retrict the 5 grains "when leavened". Even the addition of water "law" is a perversion of The Law. Thanks

The dating of the innovation to permit radical methods of removing sircha is known and if I recall, even the name and location of the person who started it. It was strongly opposed by many at the time. According to your claim, how is it possible that he didn't refer his opposition back to the texts of the geniza, or how come they didn't know of them themselves? The reason is simply because no one knew of them. Customs do not jump centuries and continents like that. Innovation is almost a dirty word in this context and usually faces extreme opposition, so anyone trying to introduce a new practice will, if he's aware of it, cite an earlier source. The reason for both the references in the geniza (I'm relying on what you write) and the ashkenazi innovations derive from a common source: (i) a restricted model of practice (eg halacha) (ii) external pressures (eg poverty) (iii) human originality and innovation. These factors can create parallel but not connected results anywhere. Your comment mirrors Bar-Hayim's theory, and neither have documentary support. My understanding follows well-documented examples that have occurred in different locations. WRT kitniyos, a custom arose to avoid rice because after discovering wheat mixed in to it, not only in Baghdad as I cited in an earlier post, but also in Jerusalem. A similar custom existed in Ismir and the environs, although I haven't yet found a reason for it. When R Yerucham states that he can't fathom why someone would avoid kitniyos, he mirrors R Meir Rothenburg who laughed at not eating meat after cheese. Had R Yerucham come across a similar problem with kitniyos, he would quite plausibly have reacted in the same way, and in fact alludes to it in his comment. In short, after reviewing the material, I cannot believe that anyone with a modicum of talmudic training could come to the conclusion bar-Hayim reached, let alone his theory. I believe that he concocted it simply to provide a smart retort for those who break with custom to throw back at their critics. For ignorant people this may work, but it is simply risible to anyone who studies the subject. Moreover, bar-Hayim's reply that assumes that the custom of EY does not avoid kitniyos is patently false, because the Hidda (c.1800) mentions the custom in Jerusalem to avoid rice, and the Pekudath Elazar (c.1900) states that in his time sefardim in Jerusalem avoided all kitniyos. Thus even if other EY communities did not follow this custom, the fact that the scholastic centre in Jerusalem did, negates any claim to a uniform custom, and practice depends on the origin of each individual community and its members.

Tell that to the Karaite army officer I dated when I was in college!

Karaites were the majority of Am Yisrael at one time in history going back to 3500 years. Rabbinical judaism is of relatively recent development just before the last temple time 2000 years ago. "Thus says the Lord" is what counts not what a bunch of rabbis say, especially if they contradict the one and only Torah given to Moshe. Where is it written that Moshe received TWO Torahs?

I have another possible explanation for the adoption of the kitniyot prohibition. It is rather "far out", so please bear with me. It is well documented that from about the mid 1200's until the mid-1800's, the northern hemisphere experienced the "little ice age (LIA)" -- think Global Warming" in reverse. Some scholars show French documents as early as 1049 referencing the extremely cold climate. There is no doubt that food production and distribution was severely disrupted. This was especially true in France, where grain substitutes were shunned, It would explain the kityiyot prohibition and its reasoning. It also explains why the prohibition was not adopted by Sephardim-- the "LIA" didn't extend down that far. Furthermore, as the LIA continued, it became increasingly blamed on the devil, and those who ate grain substitutes were considered devil's aides (witches?). It is documented that between about 1200 and 1800, some 50,000 people were killed as being witches. The most famous incident in the Americas was the Salem Witch Trials. Therefore, is it possible that as the devil mania spread, the Rabbis forbade the use of kitniyot in order to avoid anti-Jewish accusations. After all, didn't we have enough of a problem with blood libels? This would explain why European communities that previously ridiculed the Kitniyot ban eventually adopted it-- not for halachic reasons, but as a defense measure. Also, the Sephardim lived under Muslim rule, so didn't have the same witch pressure.

A person stated the Karaites are Turkish, Do you know the History of the Israelites? All of Israel was scattered in 729 BC and 539 BC, only a small remnant from Babylon came back, so How can you say who Is Jewish and Who isn't?