On Pesach and Chumros

The "Chayei Adam" (Section 127, Clause 2) wrote that some have the custom during Pesach to eat only fruits and vegetables that can be peeled. The reason: to avoid the slightest suspicion of chametz residue that might have come into contact with the peel.

Seemingly, potatoes, since they are a type of vegetable and do not resemble grains, are not included in the decree against kitniyos. See the Pri Megadim (Section 453, Mishbetzot Zahav, Subsection 1), who wrote in Tosfot Davar: "The same applies to what they call ‘erd taplin’ or ‘erd epfel’ (potatoes)—they are permitted, unless there’s a local custom prohibiting them."

In "Chayei Adam" (Laws of Passover, Nishmat Adam, Section 20), it is written: I heard that in the Fürth community in 1770, there was a great famine, and a rabbinical court permitted eating potatoes, called "erd epfel," because in Ashkenaz, some places refrained from eating them since flour can be made from them. This is evidence that in certain places there was a custom to forbid potatoes, but this custom was not universally accepted, as the Pri Megadim noted.

And so it is written in the responsa "Sheilat Ya’avetz" (Volume 2, Section 147), where he recounts that when he was in Mannheim, some wanted to ban potatoes because flour can be made from them. He opposed them, knowing the public couldn’t manage without them since they’re a poor man’s food, and with the community’s help, he prevailed, instructing the teacher not to prohibit anything new that earlier rabbis hadn’t forbidden.

In the book "Ohel Shlomo," it is cited in the name of the holy Rabbi, author of "Tiferet Shlomo" zt"l, who said we should thank God that potatoes didn’t exist in the time of the Geonim, for if they had, they surely would have been banned on Passover under the kitniyot decree since flour can be made from them.

Some wanted to prohibit potato flour because it resembles flour from the five grain species and could lead to confusion. However, in the responsa "Arugat Habosem" and "Levushei Mordechai," it is written that since potatoes didn’t exist in the time of the early authorities who decreed against kitniyot, we should not impose such a decree today, nor add to the decrees of our predecessors. Later authorities elaborated on this issue.

Chumros and Vows on Pesach

1. If someone observed a specific chumra (stringency) on Pesach but encountered an obstacle preventing them from continuing: if they stipulated in advance that they accepted it without a vow, no annulment of vows is needed at all.

2. If they didn’t stipulate in advance, since they observed the stringency three times, or even once with intent to always do so, even without verbalizing it, it’s considered accepting a vow.

3. By law, one can rely on the custom of making a condition on the eve of Rosh Hashanah that any practice not explicitly accepted as a vow doesn’t constitute one. However, some initially took a stricter stance and didn’t rely solely on this, also performing vow annulment.

4. All this applies when they wish to permanently abandon the stringency. But if it’s a one-time case due to necessity or need, like illness or lack of substitute food, many authorities hold no annulment is required, as they don’t intend to abandon the custom.

5. Especially since one can add the reasoning that it wasn’t initially a vow, given the condition made on Rosh Hashanah eve can be relied upon.

6. If the stringency might lead to a risk of prohibition or significant burden to others, it’s clear one should be lenient, and no annulment is needed.

7. If someone observed a stringency out of error, thinking it was a legal prohibition or a major concern, and experts later clarified there’s no issue, it’s considered a mistaken vow, requiring no annulment.

8. A woman after marriage adopts her husband’s customs, whether lenient or strict. Some say she must annul vows for customs she followed before marriage if they have a halachic basis.

9. Some argue a husband can impose his customs on his wife, even to be lenient, but in practice, it’s proper to consult a Rabbi, as each case is judged individually.