Close To Torah

Chodosh In Chu”l

Nu, so, what is new?

By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Question #1:

“When I was young, I do not think I ever heard about a prohibition called chodosh, or that something was yoshon. Now I am constantly hearing these terms. Do we now have a new mitzvah?”

Question #2:

“We have decided to stay permanently in Eretz Yisrael, but we visit the United States a few times a year. Do we need to be concerned about chodosh when we visit?”

The Basics

Around this time of the year, those concerned about chodosh begin checking packing dates on packaging. Before addressing the issue underlying the above questions, which is whether the prohibition of chodosh applies outside Eretz Yisrael, we must first study some essential details of the mitzvah. The Torah teaches:

“Bread, sweet flour made from toasted kernels, or the toasted kernels themselves, may not be eaten until that very day – until you bring the offering to your G-d. This is a law that you must always observe throughout your generations in all your dwelling places” (Vayikra 23:14). “That very day” refers to the second day of Pesach, the day that the korban omer, the “offering” mentioned in the pasuk, is brought. (This is the same day that we begin counting the omer, a practice we continue until Shavuos.)

The Mishnah (Menachos 70a) explains that this mitzvah applies only to the five species that we usually categorize as grain, which Rashi (Pesachim 35a) defines as wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. The Gemara (Menachos 70b) demonstrates that the laws of chodosh apply to the same varieties of grain that can become chometz.

What permits the new grain?

We should note that the Torah mentions two different factors that permit the new grain – it “may not be eaten until that very day – until you bring the offering to your G-d.” This seems to be a bit contradictory. What permits the new grain, the day or the offering that transpires in the course of the day?

The New Korban

The Gemara (Menachos 68a) concludes that it depends on whether a korban omer will be offered that particular year. Until the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, a korban omer was brought annually, and offering this korban permitted the new grain, thereby fulfilling “may not be eaten… until you bring the offering to your G-d.” After the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, it is the day that permits the new grain.

There is a further question, when the day is what permits the new grain, is it the beginning of the day or its end?

The Gemara quotes a dispute about this fact, but concludes that even those who permit the new grain at the beginning of the day, this is only min haTorah, but they agree that miderabbanan the new grain is not permitted until the day ends (Sukkah 41b).

“New” Grain versus “Old” Grain

This new grain is called chodosh, literally, new. Once Pesach passes, the grain is called yoshon, old, even though it may have been planted only a few days before. The promotion from chodosh to yoshon transpires automatically on the second day of Pesach – all the existing chodosh becomes yoshon grain on that day, even that which is still growing. The only requirement is that by then the grain has taken root. Thus, designating the grain as “old” does not mean that it is either wizened or rancid. Grain planted in the late winter or early spring often becomes permitted well before it even completed growing. On the other hand, grain that took root after the second day of Pesach is categorized as “new” grain that may not be eaten until the second day of the next Pesach.

How do we know that it is newly rooted?

Since most of us spend little time subterraneanly, how are we to know when the newly planted seeds decided to take root? This question is already debated by the Tannayim. The halachic authorities dispute whether we assume that seeds take root three days after planting or not until fourteen days after planting. If we assume that they take root in only three days, then grain planted on the thirteenth of Nisan is permitted, whereas that planted on the fourteenth, Erev Pesach, is forbidden. This is because the remaining part of the thirteenth day counts as the first day, and the fifteenth day of Nisan (the first day of Pesach) is the third day and we therefore assume that the new grain rooted early enough to become permitted (Terumas Hadeshen #151; Pischei Teshuvah, Yoreh Deah 293:4, 5; Aruch Hashulchan).

According to those who conclude that it takes fourteen days to take root, this grain does not become permitted until the next year. In addition, any grain planted on the third of Nisan or afterwards will not be permitted until the coming year, whereas that planted on the second of Nisan becomes permitted. We count the second of Nisan as the first day, which makes the fifteenth of Nisan the fourteenth day, and the grain took root early enough so that the sixteenth of Nisan permits it (Nekudos Hakesef; Dagul Meirevavah; Shu”t Noda Biyehudah 2:Orach Chayim:84).

What’s New in Chutz La’aretz?

Now that we understand some basic information about chodosh, we can discuss whether this mitzvah applies to grain growing outside Eretz Yisrael. Following the general rule that agricultural mitzvos, mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz, apply only in Eretz Yisrael, we should assume that this mitzvah does not apply to grain that grew in chutz la’aretz. Indeed, this is the position of the Tanna Rabbi Yishmael (Kiddushin 37a). However, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, contending that the mitzvah applies also in chutz la’aretz.

This dispute is based on differing interpretations of an unusual verse. When closing its instructions concerning the mitzvah of chodosh, the Torah concludes: “This is a law that you must always observe throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.” Why did the Torah add the last words, “in all your dwelling places”? Would we think that a mitzvah applies only in some dwellings and not in others?

The Tannayim mentioned above dispute how we are to understand these unusual words. Rabbi Eliezer explains that “in all your dwelling places” teaches that this prohibition, chodosh, is an exception to the rule of mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz and applies to all your dwelling places – even those outside Eretz Yisrael. Thus, although we have a usual rule that mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz apply only in Eretz Yisrael, the Torah itself taught that chodosh is an exception and applies even in chutz la’aretz.

Rabbi Yishmael explains the words “in all your dwelling places” in a different way and as a result, he contends that chodosh indeed follows the general rule of agricultural mitzvos and applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

The New Planting

When a farmer plants his crops depends on many factors, including what variety or strain he is planting, climate and weather conditions, and even perhaps his own personal schedule. At times in history, even non-Jewish religious observances were considerations, as we see from the following incident:

The Rosh reports that, in his day, whether most of the new grain was chodosh or yoshon depended on when the gentiles’ religious seasons fell out. Apparently in his day the gentiles did not plant crops during Lent. In some years the gentiles planted well before Pesach, and in those years there was no chodosh concern, since the new grain became permitted while it was still growing. However, there were years in which the gentiles refrained from planting until much later and in those years the new grain was chodosh (Shu”t HaRosh 2:1). We therefore find the rather anomalous situation in which the Rosh needed to find out exactly when the gentiles observed Lent in order to ascertain whether the grain was chodosh or yoshon.

What is New in Agriculture?

But one minute — the Rosh lived in Europe, first in Germany and then in Spain. Why was he concerned about chodosh? Should this not be an agricultural mitzvah that does not apply to produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael? From the case above, we see that the Rosh ruled that chodosh is prohibited even in chutz la’aretz. The Rosh is not alone. Indeed, most, but not all, of the Rishonim and poskim conclude that chodosh applies to all grain regardless of where it grows, since we see from the Gemara that chodosh was practiced in Bavel, even though it is outside Eretz Yisrael (Menachos 68b). However, notwithstanding that the Rosh, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch all prohibit chodosh grown in chutz la’aretz, the traditional approach among Ashkenazic Jewry was to permit the use of new grain. Why were they lenient when most authorities rule like Rabbi Eliezer that chodosh is prohibited even outside Eretz Yisrael?

Later authorities suggest several reasons to permit consuming the new grain.

Doubly Doubtful

Many authorities permitted the new grain because the new crop may have been planted early enough to be permitted, and, in addition, the possibility exists that the available grain is from a previous crop year, which is certainly permitted. This approach accepts that chodosh applies equally in chutz la’aretz as it does in Eretz Yisrael, but contends that when one is uncertain whether the grain available is chodosh or yoshon, one can rely that it is yoshon and consume it. Because of this double doubt, called a sefek sefeika, many major authorities permitted people to consume the available grain (Rama, Yoreh Deah 293). However, we should note that this heter is dependent on available information, and these authorities agree that when one knows that the grain being used is chodosh one may not consume it.

The Rosh accepted this approach, and was careful to monitor the planting seasons so as to ascertain each year whether it was true. In years that there was a chodosh problem, he refrained from eating the new grain – however, it is interesting to note, that he was extremely careful not to point out his concerns to others. He further notes that his rebbe, the Maharam, followed the same practice, but said nothing about this to others. Thus, we see that some early gedolim were strict about observing chodosh but said nothing to others out of concern that they would be unable to observe chodosh. This practice was followed in the contemporary world by such great luminaries as Rav Yaakov Kaminetzsky, who was personally stringent not to eat chodosh, but was careful not to tell anyone who followed the lenient approaches that I will soon share.

Another Heter

Other authorities permitted the chutz la’aretz grain, relying on the minority of early poskim who treat chodosh as a mitzvah that applies only in Eretz Yisrael (Taz; Aruch Hashulchan). This is based on a Gemara that states that when something has not been ruled definitively, one may rely on a minority opinion under extenuating circumstances (Niddah 9b).

This dispute then embroils one in a different issue: When the Gemara rules that under extenuating circumstances one may rely on a minority opinion, is this true only when dealing with a rabbinic prohibition, or may one do so even when dealing with a potential Torah prohibition. The Taz and Aruch Hashulchan who permitted chodosh for this reason conclude that one may follow a minority opinion even when dealing with a potential Torah prohibition. The Shach rejects this approach, and concludes that one must be stringent when one knows that the grain is chodosh (Nekudos Hakesef. See also his Pilpul Behanhagos Horaah, located after Yoreh Deah 242; cf. the Bach’s essay on the same topic, published in the back of the Tur Yoreh Deah, where he rules leniently on this issue.)

The Bach’s Heter

Another halachic basis to permit use of the new grain is that chodosh applies only to grain that grows in a field owned by a Jew, and not to grain grown in a field owned by a non-Jew. Since most fields are owned by gentiles, one can be lenient when one does not know the origin of the grain and assume that it was grown in a gentile’s field, and it is therefore exempt from chodosh laws. This last approach, often referred to simply as “the Bach’s heter,” is the basis upon which most Ashkenazic Jewry relied.

We may note that the Rosh, quoted above, rejected this heter, and that Tosafos (Kiddushin 37a end of s.v. kol), the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch also reject this approach. Similarly, the above-quoted responsum from the Rosh explicitly rejects this logic and contends that chodosh applies to grain grown in a gentile’s field.

Nevertheless, common custom accepted this as the main opinion in observing chodosh, even by many gedolei Yisroel. The Bach notes that many of the greatest luminaries of early Ashkenazic Jewry, including Rav Shachna and the Maharshal, were lenient regarding chodosh use in their native Europe. He shares that as a young man he advanced his theory that chodosh does not exist in a field owned by a gentile to the greatest scholars of that generation, all of whom accepted it.

The Bach himself further contends that although the Rosh in his responsum rejected this approach, the Rosh subsequently changed his mind and in his halachic code, which was written after his responsa (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat, end of Chapter (72, he omits mention that the prohibition of chodosh applies to gentile-grown grain.

Thus, those residing in chutz la’aretz have a right to follow the accepted practice, as indeed many, if not most, of the gedolei Yisrael practiced. However, others, such as the Mishnah Berurah, ruled strictly about this issue (see also Beis Hillel, Yoreh Deah).

Until fairly recently, many rabbonim felt that those who are strict about the prohibition should observe the law very discreetly. Some contended that one should do so because they feel that observing chodosh has the status of chumrah, and the underlying principle when observing any chumrah is hatznei’ah leches – they should be observed modestly. (See Michtav Mei’eliyahu Volume 3, page 294.) Others feel that the practice of being lenient was based on an extenuating circumstance that is no longer valid since yoshon is fairly available in most large Jewish communities, and that, on the contrary, we should let people be aware how easy the mitzvah is to observe.

North American Hechsherim

The assumption of virtually all hechsherim is that unless mentioned otherwise, they rely on the halachic opinion of the Bach. Many decades ago, Rav Aharon Soloveichek pioneered his own personal hechsher that did not follow either the heter of the Bach or that of the Taz and Aruch Hashulchan. He further insisted that the yeshivos that he served as Rosh Yeshivah serve exclusively food that did not rely on these heterim. Today, there are a few other hechsherim that follow this approach, whereas the majority of hechsherim accept the heter of the Bach.

With this background, we can now address the first question that began our article. “When I was young, I do not think I ever heard about a prohibition called chodosh, or that something was yoshon. Now I am constantly hearing the term. Do we now have a new mitzvah?”

The answer is that the mitzvah is not new. When you were young, most halachic authorities either felt that one could rely on the opinion of the Bach, or felt that one should keep the topic quiet. Today many feel that one may advertise the availability of yoshon products.

In addition, there is interesting agricultural background to this question. At one point in history, the flour commonly sold in the United States was from the previous year’s crop and always yoshon. Rav Yaakov used to monitor the situation and when the United States no longer followed this practice, he began to freeze flour so that he would have a supply during the winter and spring months when chodosh is a concern. Usually, the earliest chodosh products begin coming to market midsummer, and some products do not appear until the fall.

Visitors from Abroad

At this point, we can begin to answer the last question: “We have decided to stay permanently in Eretz Yisrael, but we visit the States a few times a year. Do we need to be concerned about chodosh when we visit?”

As I mentioned above, someone who lives in chutz la’aretz has the halachic right not to be concerned about observing chodosh on grain that grows in chutz la’aretz. The question is whether someone who has moved to Eretz Yisrael where the prevailing custom it to be stringent, and is now visiting chutz la’aretz has the same right. This matter is disputed, and I refer an individual to ask his rav what to do.

In Conclusion

In explaining the reason for this mitzvah, Rav Hirsch notes that one of man’s greatest enemies is success, for at that moment man easily forgets his Creator and views himself as master of his own success and his own destiny. For this reason, the Torah created several mitzvos whose goal is to remind and discipline us to always recognize Hashem’s role. Among these is the mitzvah of chodosh, wherein we are forbidden from consuming the new grain until the offering of the korban omer, which thereby reminds us that this year’s crop is all only because of Hashem (Horeb, Section 2 Chapter 42). Whether one follows the Bach’s approach to the chodosh laws or not, one should make note every time he sees a reference to yoshon and chodosh to recognize that success is our enemy, and humility is our savior.

———————————————————————————————————-

Editor’s note by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz: As with many cases in halacha, there are a few more complicated issues involved in the chodosh hetter in Chutz l’aretz.

First of all, the Rema’s hetter (quoting the Rosh) of safek sfeika (compounded doubt), is not a davar pashut to rely upon; for Rabbi Akiva Eiger (in his glosses Y”D 293, 3, quoting the Shu”t Mutzal Ma’eish – 50) maintains that the safekos of when the grain rooted are all really one safek, and since we hold chodosh is a din deoraysa, we hold safek deoraysa l’chumra. Although the Aruch Hashulchan (ibid. 16) tries to answer up (dochek terutz) how we can still call it a safek sfeika, still Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s kushyos are not to be taken lightly.

About the hetter of the Taz (ibid. 4), that bshaa’s hadchak one may rely on a minority opinion, the Shach (quoted) rejects this opinion. But it’s not only the Shach; The Ba’er Heitiv (ibid. 4) as well as the Beis Hillel (ibid.) likewise voice their rejection of this hetter, in the strongest of terms – that there are “clear proofs” against this logic, and all poskim (Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Tur, Shulchan Aruch) effectively paskened against it – that chodosh in Chu”l is deoraysa, period.

There is also the hetter of the Magen Avraham (O.C. 489, 17), that it is not so pashut that the halacha follows Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna, and therefore, “in order to answer up for the minhag of the world, we must say that we follow Rabbeinu Baruch – that chodosh in Chutz l’aretz is a gezeira d’rabbanan, and Chazal only made the gezaira on countries nearby to Eretz Yisrael, and therefore would not apply to countries further away. He concludes saying that a “ba’al nefesh” should still be machmir as much as it is possible.

The Aruch Hashulchan (Y”D 293, 19), although disagreeing with the Magen Avrahem’s proof (like the Machatzis HaShekel there – A”H ibid.end 2), still paskens l’maaseh like him: That in Russia where (he lived and) the land was frozen until past Pesach, there is no hetter of safek or sfeik sfeika to rely upon, for we know that the farmers were unable to plant until after Pesach. Rather, we rely on that the issur of chodosh is dependant the Korban Omer, and therefore only applies to places where said Korban could be brought from; ergo, Chazal were not gozer on lands far away from Eretz Yisrael, for there would be no reason to do so, as the grains won’t even reach Eretz Yisrael. [It can be debated that the Aruch Hashulchan’s hetter would no longer apply nowadays, when chodosh Cheerios are easily purchasable in Israel – for more on this topic of Chodosh grain used in E”Y see Shu”t Achiezer (vol 2,39), Shu”t Chelkas Yoav (Y”D 33), and Shu”t Har Tzvi (Y”D 239 -240)]. He adds that since if one would not partake of the chodosh grains, he would be unable to eat any grain product for at least six months of the year, Chazal would not have made a gezeira that the tzibbur would not be able to withstand, and especially about grain which is “chayei nefesh mamash”.

Another hetter is that of the Lechem Mishna (end of Terumos –  brought by the Shach (ibid. 6), and Pnei Yehoshua (end of Kiddushin, Kuntress Acharon 51, s.v. din hashlishi) that drinks that are made of derivatives of chodosh grain (such as beer) should be permitted, as they are not the actual grain itself. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (shu”t 20) and the Beis Lechem Yehuda -Y”D end 293) seem to accept this logic, in a case of whiskey that was derived from a mixture (ta’aruvos) of different grains – including chodosh grains, but not if the drink was made exclusively from chodosh grain (Shulchan Aruch HaRav O.C.489, end 30).[On the other hand, the Chochmas Adam (Binas Adam 54 (73) maintains that even by a ta’aruvos, in order for this to apply, there would need to be present at least 60 times the yoshon grain against the amount of chodosh grain.]

However, The Shach himself seems uneasy about using this leniency, as the Rosh implies that it should also be prohibited. The Chacham Tzvi (Shu”t 80) as well as the Aruch Hashulchan (ibid. 23) rule that one may not rely on this l’maaseh. The Gr”a (Ma’aseh Rav 89) was so stringent on this that it is reported that he called someone who buys beer made from chodosh grain for someone else – transgressing on lifnei Iver. The Mishkenos Yaakov (Shu”t Y”D end 68), although disagreeing with the Chacham Tzvi, nevertheless rules  that only for a tzorech gadol and shaas hadchak may one rely on beer and other drinks derived from chososh grain. Similarly, The Beis Hillel (above) also disagrees with this hetter, but adds that if someone is weak and sickly, and it would be a sakana for him not to drink it, he may rely on this hetter for the Torah says “V’Chai Bahem”, v’lo Sheyamus bahem.

As for the Bach’s hetter of relying on that chodosh that’s from a non-Jew’s grain is really muttar: Even though there are a few poskim who hold like him, including the Ba’er Hagolah (Y”D 293, 7), the Knesses Yechezkel (Shut 41) the Shev Yaakov (Shu”t 61) and the Makneh (Kiddushin 38- who qualifies his hetter that in E”Y the prohibition would apply by grain owned by a non-Jew); and there are others who try to answer up for his shitta, through sevara, and not psak lmaaseh – including the Avnei Nezer (Shu”t Y”D 386), who wrote a teshuva on this topic when he was16,  where, although not writing anything for psak lmaaseh, still brings sevaros to be maykel like Rabbenu Baruch; but he does note that the Rambam l’shitaso would not hold of them, and Rav Meshulam Igra (Shu”t vol. 1, O.C. 40) where, while not paskening, similarly answers up for the sevara of Rabbenu Baruch to say chodosh in Chu”l could be derabbanan, but also disproves that it is dependant on the Korban Omer; nevertheless, the vast majority of poskim categorically already ruled against this including the Rosh, Rambam, Rashba, Ran, Tosafos, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch; as did many later poskim, including the Shach (ibid. 6), Taz (ibid. 2), Gr”a (ibid. 2 – who writes that the Ba’er Hagolah made such a mistake by paskening like the Bach, that it’s not worth even addressing the issue; see also Ma’aseh Rav 89 – 90 and Sheiltos 82 on how strict the Gr”a was with this halacha), The Pnei Yehoshua (Shu”t Y”D 34 – the grandfather of the Pnei Yehoshua on Shas who was more lenient – see below; who writes extremely strongly against the Bach – calling his hetter “worthless”), the Sha’agas Ayreh (Shu”t haChadashos – Dinei Chodosh Ch. 1 – 2 – who was even makpid on all the dinim of Ta’am K’ikar – for chodosh grain) and the Aruch Hashulchan (ibid. 12). See also Shu”t Shoel U’Meishiv (vol.6, 38), who wrote a pilpul (only sevarah and not psak) proving that chodosh should apply by grain owned by a non-Jew. Additionally, although some like to quote the Ba’al Shem Tov (Ba’al Shem Tov al HaTorah Parshas Emor, 6) as their source for relying on the Bach [where it is quoted he had a dream that when the Bach died, Gehhinom was cooled down for 40 days in his honor; when the Besh"t woke up he exclaimed that he did not realize the greatness of the Bach, and it is therefore worthwhile to rely on his opinion regarding chodosh], they don’t realize that later on in his life, the Besh”t retracted his opinion and he himself became stringent after he found out that a certain Gadol in his time (Rabbeinu Yechiel) was machmir (Ba’al Shem Tov al HaTorah Parshas Emor, 7).

It should be further noted that even those who allowed consumption of chodosh based on the Bach’s hetter, the vast majority said that only since it  was Sha’as hadchak (extenuating circumstances) one may rely, but one should not do so: including the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (O.C. 489, 30) who calls it a “melamed zchus” and that every ba’al nefesh should be as machmir as possible – since that is the ikar halacha, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (172, 3), The Pri Megadim (O.C. 489, A.A. end 17) – “B’avonoseinu harabbim hadoros chalushim, v’ee efsher lizaher kol kach bzeh”, the Mishna Berurah (O.C. 489, 45, Biur Halacha s.v. v’af) who uses very strong words against it  and also calls the hetter a “melamed zchus”, since it’s a “davar kasha” to be vigilant from eating chodosh, and maintains that everyone should try to keep as much as they could [It is said that Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l - in line with the reasoning of Mishna Berura, was very scrupulous about this and made sure to have at least yoshon oats and barley - since it was much easier to observe yoshon with them] – he furthermore comments that with the advent of the train (iron chariot), the grain might be coming from faraway lands such as Russia, where it’s vaday chodosh (like the Aruch Hashulchan observed), and the Kaf HaChaim (end O.C. 489) who tries to find hetterim for why the “oilum is maykel”. This is similar to the the Magen Avraham and Aruch Hashulchan’s approach (above) of finding a hetter, in order that  klal yisrael will be “clean of sin” for their actions.

Even the Ohr Zarua (vol. 1, 328) himself, one of the early proponents of paskening that chodosh in Chu”l is only derabbanan, (and whom the Maharil and Terumas Hadeshen base their lenient psak on) qualifies his psak, that his hetter only applies in a case of safek when the grain was planted (and therefore safek drabbanan l’kula), and only since it’s shaas hadchak, for it is impossible not to buy grain and bread, therefore kdai l’smoch bshaas hadchak.

It is known that in the shul of the Chasam Sofer only a person meticulous in the fulfillment of this mitzva was eligible to be called up to the Torah when the pesukim relating to chodosh were read – (from Rabbi Moshe Heinemann.

 It is important to note that many Gedolim through the ages worked tirelessly to find hetterim for the hamon am to find a limud zechus for those who were maykil. A prime example is the Mishkenos Yaakov, who upon hearing from Rav Chaim Volozhner to be melamed zchus on klal Yisrael for eating chodosh, wrote a twenty-five page responsa (Shu”t Y”D 67) – point by point, sevara by sevara – in order to answer up for the “minhag ha’olam” to be lenient about chodosh in Chu”l, and “in order so Hashem should judge them l’zchus, and not chas v’shalom as nichshalim in an issur deoraysa”. However, he writes many times throughout this teshuva, that the hetterim are all only regarding extenuating circumstances, for in many countries it was extremely difficult to obtain yoshon grain. The Pnei Yehoshua (Kuntress Acharon on Kiddushin, 51) writes similarly, after finding sources for hetterim to be lenient and rely that chodosh in Chu”l is derabbanan, that Chas v’shalom that he would argue on all the poskim who hold it is deoraysa, rather he is coming to find a hetter for those who are lenient since it’s shaas hadchak. The Tzemach Tzedek (Y”D 218), as well, after bringing sevaros to hold like the Bach and Pnei Yehoshua (only grain from a non-Jew in Chutz Laaretz – not near Eretz Yisrael and only with another safek), and even so writes that “anyone with fear of Heaven should be stringent – like the Rif, Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch that chodosh in chutz l’aretz is deoraysa, and that the iker is that there is no difference whether the grain was owned by a Jew or non- Jew.” The Magen Ha’elef (O.C. 489, Kuntress Shaim Chodosh) similarly writes extensively, bringing  sniffim and sevaros to be “melamed zchus on the Nation of Hashem”, and even so holds that a “ba’al nefesh yachmir”.[Although, in an interesting footnote to his responsa about if a son who eats chodosh grain in Chutz l’aretz is required to keep yoshon because of “kibbud av v’aim” – Shu”t Meshivas Nafesh (vol. 1, end 16, s.v. v’yadaati) – he writes that even though no one is as great as the Gr”a, still Chalila to make the whole world into Resha’im by transgressing an aveira deoraysa, and therefore we can not bring a proof based on his greatness (similar to Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai – whom the halacha does not always follow, despite his greatness).

There are also Gedolim who took the melamed zchus a step further. The Sdei Chemed (vol. 8, Kuntress Haklalim, Asifas Dinim, Maareches Chodosh B’zman Hazeh), after citing many poskim and sevaros on both sides of the issue, ends off with the words of the Teshuos Chain (Shu”t 25) – “that since Klal Yisrael generally has been lenient in the issue of chodosh in Chutz l’aretz for many generations due to the various hetterim and extenuating circumstances, it has developed into a “minhag hakadmonim”, and even though it is against the standard halacha, one may not question those who keep it, for they have what to rely upon. Rav Yitzchak Shlomo Yoel – Av Beis din of Rovna (in the second half of the Sdei Chemed’s kuntress on chodosh) – also writes extensively – “for it is a mitzvah to be melamed zchus where the majority of the population will be unable to eat grain for three quarters of the year. And if we are machmir, then we will have effectively passuled up every get from Chutz L’aretz, (for all the witnesses would be considered unfit if they publicly transgress a Biblical Commandment). The Butchacher Rav (Eishel Avraham O.C. 489. s.v. Ode Matzas – see also Shearim Metzuyanim B’Halacha (172, 3 who cites different sevaros and shittos to be lenient) similarly defends the “minhag to be maykel” as a limud zchus – since “kol tefutzos hagolah” were lenient it became a “minhag l’halacha amitis”, even though it’s against the standard halacha, since “if Bnei Yisrael are not prophets – they are the sons of prophets”.

However, it appears that it would not be a davar pashut to rely on this, as historically this would not seem quite correct, for there never was any prevalent “universal minhag”. The reason why people in Russia were lenient is not the same reason why others were lenient in Poland. For example, the Aruch Hashulchan and Mishna Berura (cited above) both stated that there is no safek sfeka to rely upon in Russia where the farmers were unable to plant grain before Pesach due to the frozen ground, and had to rely on an alternative hetter; whereas poskim from Eastern Europe felt that in their periphery there was always a safek as to the grain’s status. Some places held of the Bach’s hetter, others relied on the Taz’s and others on the Magen Avraham’s. So even though many were lenient in this manner, it does not seem conclusive that all came from the same source, to say everyone relied on the same “minhag”. Indeed, even the Sdei Chemed himself concludes that “Anyone who fears Hashem should be machmir like the Rif, Rambam, Rosh, and the Baalei Tosafos”.

 Recently, I’ve seen that Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a (Shu”t Teshuvos v’Hanhagos vol. 1, 655) writes that in our times where there is no great difficulty to obtain yoshon flour, it is a srong issur to be mezalzel in the psak of the Shulchan Aruch and Gedolei Haposkim that assur chodosh; and since it is easily obtainable – how can one rely on the Poskim who were moser nefesh to be melamed zchus on Klal Yisrael in times of “dchak gadol? He maintains that it is “Pashut that one should not come into the chashash of maachalos asuros by eating chadash.”

In the final analysis, what remains to be seen is the reason for the widespread use of eating chodosh products in chutz laretz l’chatchila nowadays. For even with the many reasons and sevaros given to be melamud zchus, it must be noted that each and every one of them – most poskim disagree with, notwithstanding the prevalent rationale in our time, which seems to fall in the category of “mutav shyehyu shogegim v’al thyu mezidim”.

 For the History buffs

My father, a talmid of Rav Aharon Solovetchik zt”l, related to me that the real starting point in America for wheat was the Russian Wheat Act of 1972. Until then, the United States had major surplus of wheat, and therefore all flour used was older flour and thereby yoshon. But then they sent the surplus (yoshon) to the U.S.S.R., and used the more recent wheat (chodosh) for themselves. That’s when it became a real sheilah in America.

However, despite this, it is known that the world renowned gaon – Rav Lazer Silver zt”l of Cincinnati, OH, who was niftar in 1966, would never eat out, and instead carried a sandwich in his top hat. One of the reasons he did so was because he was makpid on vaday yoshon in Chutz l’aretz (and kept the minhagei haGr”a – who, as previously noted, was very makpid on it.

In Israel, however, it was never a sheilah for since everyone holds its d’eoraysa here, with none of the hetterim of Chu“l to rely upon, every hashgacha is makpid. In fact, there was no real issue with chodosh from Chutz l’aretz in Israel until they started importing Cheerios and other assorted nosh a few years back.

By the way, For those of us living in Israel, this year’s cut off date for certain types of Cheerios is Aug 16, 2011 (stamped on the box). Any box of Multi -Grain Cheerios that has a package date after that is presumed chodosh. Honey – Nut And Regular Cheerios cutoff date is Oct 22, 2011. Thank you to Rabbi Yosef Herman of the Chodosh Guide for providing that information.

Here is a link to the information: http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com/2010/11/chodosh-corrections/#more-3709\

Chodosh Trivia: Which bakery was the first one in Chicago (and possibly America) to become makpid on Yoshon?

 A: Tel Aviv Bakery, which at the time was known as Ta’am Tov Bakery

————————————————————-

Copied with permission from http://www.rabbikaganoff.com.

Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff, a prolific Halacha writer, and former Rav and Dayan in Buffalo and Baltimore, currently serves as a Morah Hora’ah in Neve Yaakov in Yerushalayim. Rabbi Kaganoff, a renowned posek who answers shaylos from around the world, is the author of seven books on Rabbinic scholarship, both in English and Hebrew. He and his Rebbitzin are extraordinarily dedicated to the Jewish people, and work tirelessly to assist, support and teach. They have touched countless lives and earned the respect of thousands. He can be reached at ymkaganoff@gmail.com.

Rabbi Kaganoff also runs a Tzedaka Organization – Nimla Tal. To learn more about it or to donate, please click here: http://rabbikaganoff.com/about-nimla-tal.

.

 Print

Categories: Halacha, Halacha For the Layman Tags: