THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) SELLING "KEMACH KALI" IN THE MARKETPLACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER OFFERING THE
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a contradiction between two statements of
Rebbi Yehudah. Regarding the Isur of Chadash, Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah
(67b) states that the Chachamim were in favor of having "Kemach Kali" in the
marketplace right after the Korban ha'Omer was offered, even though such
flour was processed before Chadash became permitted. Rebbi Yehudah maintains
that we are not concerned that one might eat the new grain before it is
permitted. However, with regard to searching for Chametz after the sixth
hour on Erev Pesach, Rebbi Yehudah (Pesachim 10b) states that one who did
not search for and burn his Chametz on Erev Pesach before the sixth hour may
no longer do so, since we are concerned that he might eat the Chametz that
he finds, and eating Chametz after the sixth hour on Erev Pesach is
forbidden. Why is Rebbi Yehudah concerned that one will eat Chametz when it
is forbidden, but he is not concerned that one will eat Chadash when it is
forbidden? A number of answers are given. Rav Ashi answers that the Mishnah
is referring to "Kemach Kali."
What is Rav Ashi's answer? The Mishnah itself says "Kemach Kali," and yet
the Gemara still understands it to be contradicting the Beraisa in Pesachim!
(a) RASHI (DH Kemach Kali) explains that "Kemach Kali" refers to "things
that are not fit to be eaten." It is apparent that Rashi understands that
the words "Kemach Kali" refer to *two* types of grain products (Kemach and
Kali), and is not merely one type of grain product (Kemach) with an
adjective (Kali), and when the Mishnah says "Kemach Kali," it is as if it
says "Kemach *v'Kali*." In fact, we find that Rashi in the Mishnah (67b, DH
mishe'Karav) writes "Kemach v'Kali," and when this Sugya is repeated in
Pesachim (11a), the text there reads "Kemach v'Kali." How does reading the
Mishnah as "Kemach v'Kali" explain why these items are inedible?
1. The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#5) adds the word "Kali" into Rashi, and explains
that Kemach refers to regular flour, and Kali refers to flour that comes
from grain that was dried in an oven. Obviously, both types are inedible in
their present form as flour.
(b) RAV BETZALEL ASHKENAZI (in MAR'EH KOHEN) in Pesachim changes the text of
the Gemara there to read "Kemach Kali," like the text of the Gemara here,
and not "Kemach v'Kali." He explains that Rav Ashi is referring to only one
thing when he says "Kemach Kali" -- flour which is made from oven-dried
grain. His brother, the CHESHEK SHLOMO, brings support for this from the
TOSFOS RID in Pesachim.
RABEINU GERSHOM records both texts. He explains that those who say that the
text should read "Kemach Kali" maintain that the text *cannot* be "Kemach
v'Kali," since we find that Kali -- oven-dried (parched) grain -- is indeed
edible (see, for example, Pesachim 109a). This is also the reasoning behind
the statement of the Tosfos Rid in Pesachim when he says that the text of
"Kemach Kali" is the proper text.
2. The TZON KODASHIM agrees that Kemach is regular flour (as Rashi himself
says in the first part of his comment), but he adds the words "v'Kali" and
"Tevu'ah" to the text of Rashi. Accordingly, Rashi is explaining "Kali" to
be grain that is not yet thrashed and that is dried in an oven.
How, then, are we to understand the opinion that maintains that the correct
text is "Kemach v'Kali"?
The YAD BINYAMIN explains that it must be that there are two different types
of parched grain ("Kelayos"). The type mentioned in our Gemara must be a
grain that is made hard and inedible by the fire for the sake of extracting
the flour. The type of parched grain that was used as a snack food must have
been either slightly baked or fried in a frying pan.
It is interesting to note that we find a similar argument with regard to the
meaning of the word "Kali" in the verse discussing the prohibition of eating
Chadash. The verse states, "v'Lechem v'Kali v'Charmel Lo Sochlu Ad Etzem
ha'Yom ha'Zeh" -- "and bread, Kali, and soft grain you shall not eat until
this very day" (Vayikra 23:14). What does "Kali" mean in the verse?
The SEFER HA'CHINUCH (#304) says that the verse is prohibiting eating
roasted grains before they are made into flour. RASHI on the verse there
argues and says that "Kali" refers flour made from soft grains that are
oven-dried. It is clear from Rashi's explanation there that Rashi's text in
the Gemara here could not have been "Kemach Kali," since Rashi held that
this kind of flour was indeed edible and prohibited under the prohibition of
Chadash. Our Gemara is discussing things which are not edible. It is
obvious that Rashi learns our Gemara as though it reads, "Kemach v'Kali," as
the text in Pesachim reads. (Y. Montrose)
2) "CHADASH" OF "CHUTZ L'ARETZ"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that the Korban ha'Omer permitted Chadash to be
eaten, and the Shtei ha'Lechem permitted new grain to be brought as a
Minchah offering upon the Mizbe'ach. Before the Shtei ha'Lechem was offered,
it was prohibited to bring a Minchah from new grain. RASHI (DH Kodem) writes
that the Gemara later (83b) derives this from the fact that the Torah calls
the Shtei ha'Lechem a "Minchah Chadashah" -- "a new Minchah" (Vayikra
23:16). What makes it "new"? It must be that it is "new" because it is the
first Minchah brought from the new grain.
The Gemara earlier discusses whether the prohibition of Chadash applies in
Chutz la'Aretz from Torah law, or whether it applies only mid'Rabanan. The
MINCHAS CHINUCH (302:2) records an opinion that maintains that Chadash is
not forbidden *at all* in Chutz la'Aretz. According to this opinion, an
interesting question arises regarding our Gemara. Since Chadash would not be
forbidden at all in Chutz la'Aretz, does the prohibition not to bring a
Minchah from new grain (before the Shtei ha'Lechem is brought) apply to new
grain that grew in Chutz la'Aretz?
(a) The Minchas Chinuch says that the prohibition against bringing a Minchah
made of new grain would *not* apply to new grain of Chutz la'Aretz. This
opinion holds that the prohibition is a "Chovas Karka" -- an obligation
dependent on the land of Eretz Yisrael. When the verse says "Minchah
Chadashah," it means a new Minchah made from the new grain of Eretz Yisrael.
The Minchas Chinuch adds that even according to the opinion that maintains
that Chadash is Asur mid'Oraisa in Chutz la'Aretz, it is *possible* that the
prohibition against bringing a Minchah made of new grain applies only to new
grain grown in Eretz Yisrael. He says that this is based on the reasoning
why Chadash applies in Chutz la'Aretz. The Gemara later (84a) explains that
the opinion that maintains that Chadash is Asur mid'Oraisa in Chutz la'Aretz
learns this from the fact that the Torah prohibits Chadash "b'Chol
Moshvoseichem" -- "in all of your dwelling places" (Vayikra 23:14), implying
that it is forbidden even in Chutz la'Aretz. However, no such verse is
written with regard to the prohibition of bringing a Minchah from new grain!
Therefore, it is logical to say that the prohibition applies only to new
grain of Eretz Yisrael, and not to new grain from Chutz la'Aretz.
The Minchas Chinuch is not certain about this matter, though. He states that
perhaps we should learn from the prohibition of Chadash that one cannot
bring any new grain before the Shtei ha'Lechem, even new grain from Chutz
la'Aretz. However, he concludes that according to the opinion that Chadash
does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz at all, it is permitted to bring a Minchah
made of new grain from Chutz la'Aretz before the Shtei ha'Lechem is offered.
The Minchas Chinuch suggests that this opinion is actually expressed by the
Mishnah later (83b). The Mishnah says that "all Korbanos... come from
Chadash or Yashan (old grain), from Eretz Yisrael and from Chutz la'Aretz,
besides for the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem that come only from Chadash and
from Eretz Yisrael."
What is the Mishnah saying? It is forbidden to bring a Minchah from new
grain before the bringing of the Shtei ha'Lechem! The simple explanation
seems to be that the Tana of the Mishnah refers to grain that was grown that
year as Chadash even *after* the bringing of the Shtei ha'Lechem. However,
this is unclear, and also unnecessary. The Mishnah should state simply that
all Menachos come from Yashan, which is a concise and true statement! The
Minchas Chinuch explains that the Tana holds that Chadash does not apply in
Chutz la'Aretz at all. The Tana specifically lists "Chadash" since there are
indeed situations in which one may bring a Minchah made from new grain
(Chadash), such as when it is new grain of Chutz la'Aretz.
(b) The TIFERES YAKOV (10:6) argues that even according to the opinion that
Chadash of Chutz la'Aretz is not forbidden at all, one may still *not* bring
a Minchah made of new grain of Chutz la'Aretz. He explains that, according
to this opinion, it is true that the prohibition of Chadash is a "Chovas
Karka." However, the verse which says that the Shtei ha'Lechem should be a
"Minchah Chadashah" means that it should be the first Minchah brought in the
Beis ha'Mikdash from the new grain of that year. This means that it should
be the new grain of all grain and not just of the grain of Eretz Yisrael.