Vol.

18 Issue #22

Parshas Emor

3 Iyar 5774

The Mitzvah of Chadash

Rabbi Michael Taubes

The Torah tells us that on the second day of Pesach (the 16th of Nissan), a special offering had to be brought to Hashem consisting of the grain from the first harvest of that season (Vayikra 23: 10-11). Since the Torah specifies (ibid. Posuk 10) that the amount of grain brought was to be an Omers worth, meaning, as the Torah indicates earlier (Shemos 16: 36), one tenth of an Eiphah, the equivalent of about two quarts, this offering was known simply as Korban Omer. The Torah elsewhere (Vaykira 2: 14) indicates, as interpreted by the Gemara in Menachos (68b) based on another Posuk (Shemos 9: 31), that this first grain offering consisted specifically of barley; the barley was roasted and then ground into a kind of meal, as the Gemara earlier (ibid. 66b) states. The Rambam (Hilchos Tmidin UMusafin Perek 7, Hilchos 11-12) clearly details each step of this Korban from the preparations for the harvesting of the barley through the actual offering. The Torah then states (Vayikra 23: 14) that until this Korban Omer is brought, it is forbidden for one to eat bread or grain products. The Mishnah in Menachos (70a), after specifying that this injunction applies to the Chameshet Minei Dagan, - the five species of grain, namely wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye, explains that the prohibition is to eat any of these grains (or their derivatives) which had grown, or, more literally, took root, during the past year, since the Korban Omer was brought on the previous Pesach, until the current Korban Omer is brought. Any such grain which begins to take root after Pesach is called Chadash, meaning new by this Mishnah, and it is forbidden to eat Chadash or products made from Chadash until the Korban Omer is brought on the next Pesach. The Rambam (Hilchos Maachalos Asuros Perek 10, Halacha 4) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah Siman 293, Seif 3) rule accordingly.

An earlier Mishna in Menachos (68a) states that in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, when no Korban Omer is brought at all, Chadash becomes permissible to eat only following the day on which it would have been brought, that is, the 16th of Nissan. One may eat Chadash, then, starting on the evening of the 17th of Nissan, and, based on the Gemaras conclusion (ibid. 68b), on the evening of the 18th of Nissan if one lives outside of Eretz Yisrael, where an extra day of Yom Tov is observed because of a doubt (at one time) as to the true calendar date. The Rambam (ibid. Halacha 2) and the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. - Seif 1) again rule accordingly. It should be noted that there is a dispute as to how long it takes for these grains to take root after they are planted. The Shach (ibid. Seif Katan 2) quotes from the Terumas HaDeshen (Shaailos UTeshuvos Terumas HaDeshen Siman 191) that it takes three days, based on an opinion quoted in the Gemara in Pesachim (55a), but Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Chiddushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger - ibid. Hainu), among others, questions this, saying that opinion is not the accepted one, and that it rather takes two weeks. The Shach himself, in his Nekudos HaKessef (ibid. Kedemuchach), raises this question, noting that the Gemara in Yevamos (83a) seems to rule clearly that it takes two weeks. The Vilna Gaon (Beiur HaGRA ibid. end of Seif Katan 2) brings this up as well and tries to reconcile the problem, but leaves the matter in doubt. The Aruch HaShulchan (ibid. Seifim 7-9) summarizes the different positions, but concludes that the view of the Terumas HaDeshen (ibid.) that it takes three days is correct when discussing, as we are, plants, as opposed to trees. This dispute would obviously have great bearing on any grains planted in the springtime just before Pesach in determining whether or not they would be labeled as Chadash. In formulating this Mitzvah not to eat Chadash, the Torah (ibid.) specifies that it is to be observed BeChol

 Moshvotechem, - wherever you dwell. This would imply that this Mitzvah is not restricted to Eretz Yisrael or to its produce. Indeed, the Mishnah in Orlah (Perek 3: Mishnah 9) states plainly that the prohibition to eat Chadash applies everywhere according to the Torah. The Mishnah in Kiddushin (36b-37a), however, presents a dispute about this, implying that the majority of authorities hold that Chadash in fact applies only in Eretz Yisrael. In the ensuing discussion, the Gemara (ibid.) suggests that the Mitzvah applies outside of Eretz Yisrael, but that even in Eretz Yisrael it was not to be operative until the land had indeed become a dwelling place, that is, after the entire conquest and division of the land. The Yerushalmi in Kiddushin (Perek 1, Halacha 8: Daf 22a) suggests that although produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael is not subject to the laws of Chadash, the phrase: BeChol Moshvotechem teaches that Chadash produce from Eretz Yisrael which is brought outside the land may still not be eaten. The aforementioned Gemara in Menachos (68b) presents this dispute somewhat differently; some Amoraim learn that the Mitzvah of Chadash applies outside of Eretz Yisrael on a Torah level, while others hold that the Mitzvah is MideRabbanan anywhere outside the land; either way, though, the Mitzvah applies everywhere.
Page 2

Vol. 18 Issue #22 grains actually grew, one may be lenient and disregard the problem of Chadash outside of Eretz Yisrael, unless one is indeed sure when the grain grew. He then adds that even when it is proper to be stringent with this Mitzvah, one should not publicize this Halacha if people generally use Chadash products, because it is better for people to err unintentionally than to err intentionally.

The Rambam cited above (ibid. Halacha 2) rules clearly that the Mitzvah of Chadash applies on a Torah level everywhere, as do the Rif in Kiddushin (15b Bidapei HaRiF), the Rosh there (Perek 1, Siman 62), and others. Elsewhere, however, the Rosh (Shaailos UTesshuvos HaRosh Klal 2: Siman 1) quotes some Rishonim who hold that there is a doubt as to whether this Mitzvah applies outside of Eretz Yisrael, and others who hold that it applies only MideRabbanan outside the land, and still others who hold that even MideRabbanan it applies only to the lands immediately neighboring Eretz Yisrael. The Aruch HaShulchan (Yoreh Deah ibid. Seifim 2-6) presents a synopsis and a discussion of all of these views, and the basis for their positions. The Shulchan Aruch quoted above (Yoreh Deah ibid. Seif 2) rules that the Mitzvah of Chadash applies both to Eretz Yisrael and outside the land, adding that it doesnt matter whether the particular field is owned by a Jew or by a non-jew, the subject of a different dispute. The Ramo, however, (ibid. Seif 3), writes that because of certain doubts which generally prevail as to when most available

The long-standing practice in most communities, as already noted by the aforementioned Terumas HaDeshen (ibid.), has been to be lenient, permitting eating Chadash products grown outside of Eretz Yisrael; many Poskim have attempted to defend this leniency. The Taz (ibid. Seif Katan 4), for example, tries to explain why we may be lenient even if it means following the minority view. The Bach, in his commentary to the Tur (Yoreh Deah ibid. Kesiv), writes that in his country, the practice even among the Gedolei Torah and their students was to be lenient about this, and that it is not clear from the Gemara that Chadash applies anywhere but in Eretz yisrael. He thus concludes that no Torah authority should prohibit eating Chadash, ruling against the accepted leniency, and only one who is known as an exceptionally pious person who is strict about other things should accept this stringency upon himself as a Middas Chassidut, an act of extra piety. It must be stressed, however, that the Vilna Gaon (Beiur HaGRA - ibid. Seif Katan 2) disagrees strongly, and uncharacteristically attacks the lenient opinions sharply, writing forcefully that the sources indicate that Chadash applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Magen Avraham (Orech Chaim Siman 489, Seif 17), while defending the lenient position from a number of points of view, concludes that it is proper for one who wishes to be stricter to do so. The Mishnah Berurah (ibid. Seif Katan 45), after summarizing the different positions, likewise writes that while one shouldnt object to those who are lenient, one should personally try to take the stricter view and avoid eating Chadash products even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Post Mussar Shmuess Syndrome

Yehoshua Szafranski
And Hashem said to Moshe: Say (emor) to the Kohanim, the sons of Aharon, and say (vamarta) to them: No one may

Page 3 become contaminated to a [dead] person among his peo- in the same environment of spirituality and holiness forever ple (Vayikra, 21:1). - there will be ketanim moments too. There will be moments of doubt, confusion, and frustration. We must thereIf you found this passuk to be slightly confusing, fore try to enhance every spiritual experience we have and dont worry, youre not the only one. Why did the Torah make the most out of it, make it incredible; this way we can use the puzzling double language of emor and vamarta? tap into the energy and clarity which we built up previWho is talking to whom? What exactly is going on here? ously, for a constant state of dveikus and cognizance of In order to clarify this apparent redundancy, Rashi Hashem throughout our normal, everyday lives. brings down a gemara found in Yevamos (114a). The gemara As we see from Rashi and the Rambams interprestates that the reason for the double language is lhazhir tation, the obligation of chinuch, educating ones children, is gedolim al haketanim, to warn the adults regarding the chilboth a communal as well as individual commandment. It is dren. This implies that Moshe had to command all of the incumbent upon every Jew to teach the youth and to preKohanim, as a whole, to independently tell and teach their pare them for their adult lives. But here is the key: as the children (even the ones below the age of 13) the laws reNoam Elimelech explains, chinuch is not only an obligation garding purity. Paraphrased, the passuk according to Rashi to teach ones children, it is also an obligation to teach oneshould be read like this: And Hashem said to Moshe, you self. G-d has given us resources to help prepare for the fu(Moshe) should say to the Kohanim, and you (the Kohanim) ture; the eternal Torah serves as our guide, as our teacher, should say to your children as our life-coach. Through Torah we can achieve clarity and In a similar vein, the Rambam in Hilchos Avel (using closeness to the Divine. By harnessing onto the Torah and this gemara) explains that Kohanim have a dual obligation: all of its infinite wisdom, we can also be mechanech ourselves Not only must they not contaminate their own children, for what lies in store, olam habah. but they also have the obligation of chinuch, to teach them May we all be zoche to feel this intense connection how to actively avoid becoming impure. with G-d throughout our entire lives, from the highest of Reb Elimelech of Lizhensk explains in his magnum highs, to the lowest of lows. opus, the Noam Elimelech (Parshas Emor, sv. binyan acher) True Strength a more homiletic understanding of the gemara brought down Yehuda Karol by Rashi. When one hears a powerful mussar shmooz, shtaygs up a good shtikkel torah, has a really meaningful teffilah, or In Parshas Emor, the pasuk (21:10) states: the experiences anything inherently spiritual; you achieve a Kohen who is elevated above his brothersshall not leave form of high -gadlus, if you will- from feeling close to his hair uncut or tear his garments. The immediate quesHaKadosh Baruch Hu and gaining clarity. The reason why tion is in what way is this kohen is gadol meechav, greater this is considered to be a high (verses the other periods in than the others? Chazal answer that the Kohen Gadol is your life), is because unfortunately, you cant always be up greater than the other kohanim in five things, one of them in the clouds. Its hard to always feel like you are standing being strength. The Kohen Gadol is required to be a gibor in front of Hashem, because frankly, clarity is tremendously physically. Aharon HaKohen for example had to be strong difficult to access during the hustle and bustle of our daily enough to wave 22,000 leviim in one day, a miraculous accomplishment. Similarly, the gemara in Nedarim (38a) says lives that the Shechinah is only revealed to one who is a gibor, a The Noam Elimelech explains that that is precisely man of strength. what the gemara is trying to teach us. When we experience Why is this concept of strength so important to these moments of spiritual robustness- the gedolim moChazal? The Rambam, based on the aforementioned gemara ments that the gemara refers to, we must also be mazhir al haketanim; we must consciously realize that we may not be in Nedarim, explains that nevuah is only given to one who is

Vol. 18 Issue #22

 a gibor in middos, namely someone who constantly conquers his evil inclination (as is explained in the famous mishna in Avos). Both the Lechem Mishna and the Kesef Mishna challenge the Rambam because the pshat in the gemara (which is the source that the Rambam uses) is that the Navi has to be great in physical strength.
Page 4

Vol. 18 Issue #22 here that even the greatest among us can be affected by atzlus, and that we must realize its power and that we must remain vigilant.

Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz, author of the Sichos Mussar, provides an explanation that answers the challenge of the Lechem Mishna and the Kesef Mishna. Rav Shmuelevitz says that we must first understand what gevurah really means. Gevurah is the ability to overcome the negative trait of atzlus, laziness, whether it manifests itself physically or spiritually. Atzlus, if not properly contained, controls the entire human being, body, mind, and soul. If even the slightest amount of laziness is allowed to exist in a person, ones entire life becomes controlled by this trait. At first, atzlus affects only the slightest parts of ones daily routine, but eventually it mutates into something larger, and one will end up rationalizing his idleness. When one becomes lazy his overall output atrophies. In Mishlei (24:30-32), Shlomo HaMelekh walks by the fields of slackers and views their property. He notices that their lack of effort has caused the fields to become desolate, and from this he learns the trait of alacrity. He not only views the field with his eyes, but rather digs deeper; he investigates and invests effort in his viewing in order to learn important life lessons. Rav Shmuelevitz also gives the example of the Egyptians during the plagues, who, even though they saw that everything that Hashem did through Moshe was real and true, still left their animals and other possessions in the field where they would end up being destroyed. Even though they saw the amazing powers of Hashem, their atzlus got the better of them and they failed to internalize the importance of zerizus, alacrity, which is the one way to counteract laziness. Additionally, even David HaMelekh was susceptible to the dangers that are rooted in atzlus. When Nassam HaNavi related to him the mashal of the poor man who had just one sheep and the rich man stole the sheep from him, David ruled that the thief should be put to death, but he failed to recognize that the story was referring to the king himself who had stolen Batsheva from Uriah. We see from

In order to fight laziness, one must consistently act with zerizus. The gemara in Shabbos (88b) states that if you reach for Torah with the right hand, you will acquire the elixir of life, but if you reach with your left, you will only acquire a poison. Rashi (ibid) explains that this means that if you use your right hand, which is dominant, you are fully exerting yourself and you will reach your goal, but if you use your left hand and give a half-hearted effort, you have not overcome the atzlus, and therefore you will not succeed. Rav Shmuelevitz teaches that depending on how much effort is put into an action, Hashem will proportionately help you reach that goal, whether it is physical or spiritual. From this we can see that Aharon was able to wave all those leviim in one day, which was an amazing feat of strength, because he internalized the zerizus and gave as much effort as he humanly could, and Hashem helped him finish the job by adding a proportional amount of His own strength. Both the Kohen Gadol and the Navi must have strength. The question on the Rambam is reconciled because, although the pshat is that gevurah is physical strength, the utilization of both physical and spiritual strength are from one source they are both the exact opposite of atzlus.
Rosh Yeshiva: Rabbi Michael Taubes Rabbinic Advisor: Rabbi Baruch Pesach Mendelson Editors in Chief Emeritus: Philip Meyer and Ori Putterman Editors in Chief: Yehuda Tager and Yisrael Friedenberg Layout Editor: Yisroel Loewy Associate Editor: Asher Finkelstein Distribution Coordinator: Zev Markowitz