David Bar-Hayim

Bar-Hayim is an immigrant from Australia. A 2007 report described him as 47 years old at the time and said he had studied for a decade at Mercaz Harav Yeshiva.[3] He graduated from Mercaz Harav and Hakotel yeshivas and has been described as an Ashkenazi, strict Orthodox Jew.[2]

Bar-Hayim heads Machon Shilo and its religious court; the institute seeks to revive Jewish practice as practiced in Eretz Yisrael.[2][1] He also conducts research on the Jerusalem Talmud.[4] He has said he does not identify with a particular religious stream, explaining that he follows Torah, study, and halakhic decision-making rather than a religious philosophy.[2]

His public arguments emphasize the relationship between Jewish practice and place. In a discussion of Ashkenazi customs, he put the principle plainly: “When a person moves to a different place his old customs become invalid, and he accepts the customs of his new place.”[2] He has framed this approach as a means of bringing Jews in Israel together under a shared custom, rather than preserving separate practices associated with communities’ places of origin.[2]

In 2007, Bar-Hayim and other rabbis associated with Machon Shilo issued a ruling that Ashkenazi Jews living in Israel may eat kitniyot on Passover. The ruling treated Israeli Jews as “Jews of Eretz Yisrael,” rather than defining their religious practice by Ashkenazi or Sephardi identity. It held that Jews in Israel should follow the custom of the land, while allowing individuals who wished to continue avoiding kitniyot to do so, provided they did not impose that custom on others.[2] The ruling also cited medieval authorities who criticized the custom and connected its identity argument to the paschal sacrifice and rebuilding the Temple.[2]

Bar-Hayim argued that the custom of avoiding kitniyot was associated with Ashkenazi countries and should not automatically bind Jews who had moved to Israel. In his account, customs depend on where people live, not on ancestry. He said he had eaten kitniyot for several years and described the ruling as part of a broader effort to reconstitute Jewish life in Israel under a unifying custom, rather than to seek leniency merely for its own sake.[2] He put the point more bluntly: “The custom became invalid with the immigrations to Israel, they simply forgot to tell the Ashkenazim.”[2]

The ruling connected food customs to wider questions of Jewish society and national religious life. Bar-Hayim argued that retaining distinct diaspora customs could perpetuate divisions among Jews living in a sovereign Jewish state. In a separate article, he maintained that Jewish food is defined by conformity with Jewish dietary law, not by resemblance to a particular ethnic cuisine; he challenged the idea that shtetl food is inherently more Jewish and urged attention to broader questions, including the Temple and the renewal of Land of Israel customs.[4]

Bar-Hayim has also argued for restoring one-day Rosh Hashana observance in Israel. He said that after the fixed Hebrew calendar was introduced in the second half of the fourth century, Jews in Eretz Yisrael observed festivals for one day while Jews outside the Land observed two, and that the local one-day practice continued for more than eight centuries. He cited a letter from Rav Nissim Gaon to Rav Hai Gaon concerning the difference in practice, and attributed the adoption of two-day observance in Israel to rabbis arriving from Provence in the twelfth century.[1]

In explaining that historical interpretation, Bar-Hayim said that practice before the fixed calendar had varied according to communities’ access to the Sanhedrin: those close enough to receive its decision could observe one day, while more distant communities observed two. To support returning to one day, he invoked the local practice he described and interpretations of Maimonides and medieval authorities, including Rabbi Zerahyah HaLevi, Rabbenu Ephraim, and Rabbenu Nissim. He also questioned whether observing a second day was necessary when it was not the Torah’s first-of-the-month “Yom Tru’ah.”[1]

Bar-Hayim has said he believes a Sanhedrin can be re-established, following Maimonides’ example, and called on knowledgeable Torah scholars to consider restoring a High Court of Torah Law.[1]

Bar-Hayim’s public profile has centered on the idea that Jewish religious practice in Israel should reflect the Land of Israel rather than preserve every custom brought from the diaspora. The kitniyot ruling made that principle concrete in a widely discussed Passover question, while his arguments about Rosh Hashana and the Sanhedrin extend it to the calendar and institutions of Jewish law.[2][1]

In 2010, Bar-Hayim said that increasing numbers of people contacted him each year to say they had stopped abstaining from kitniyot and to thank him for the permission and its halakhic reasoning. This was his report of responses to the ruling; it did not establish that the practice had become universal.[5]

The kitniyot ruling drew objections from rabbis who rejected overturning the Ashkenazi custom or questioned the ruling’s authority and reach. Rabbi Yuval Sherlo opposed overturning the prohibition while acknowledging that divisions between Jewish groups required careful attention. Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu characterized the ruling as having limited significance, noting that many Ashkenazim continued to avoid kitniyot and offering a different account of earlier Ashkenazi practice in Jerusalem.[2] A 2024 report likewise said that the permissive position had not become prevailing practice.[6] The ruling also prompted hostile messages and threats directed at Bar-Hayim.[3]

Bar-Hayim’s account of historical practice is presented as his interpretation, not as an independently adjudicated conclusion. That qualification applies both to his claim that eating kitniyot was longstanding practice in the Land of Israel and to his account of one-day Rosh Hashana observance, the role of Provence rabbis in its change, and the case for returning to one day.[5][1]