(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 68


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.

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.

(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.

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)


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. (Y. Montrose)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,