OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a contradiction between two statements of Rebbi Yehudah. With regard to 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 there is no concern that one might eat the new grain before it becomes 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 there is a concern that he might eat the Chametz 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? Among the answers that the Gemara gives to this answer, the Gemara quotes Rav Ashi who answers that the Mishnah refers to "Kemach Kali."

What is Rav Ashi's answer? The Mishnah itself says "Kemach Kali," and yet the Gemara still understands that the Mishnah contradicts 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). When the Mishnah says "Kemach Kali," it is as if it says "Kemach v'Kali." In fact, Rashi on 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, though, does reading the Mishnah as "Kemach v'Kali" explain why these items are inedible?

1. The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#5) adds the word "Kali" into the text of 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" into the text of Rashi. Accordingly, Rashi is explaining that "Kali" is grain that is not yet threshed 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, cites 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 Kali -- oven-dried (parched) grain -- indeed is 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.

What, then, is the intent of 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 the Gemara here is a grain rendered 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 there is a similar argument about the meaning of the word "Kali" as it appears in the verse which expresses the prohibition against 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 the consumption of roasted grains before they are made into flour. RASHI on the verse there argues and says that "Kali" refers to 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 understands that this kind of flour indeed is edible and is included in the prohibition of Chadash. Since the Gemara is discussing things which are not edible, it is obvious that Rashi learns the Gemara as though it reads, "Kemach v'Kali," as the text in Pesachim reads. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah teaches that the Korban ha'Omer permits Chadash to be eaten, and the Shtei ha'Lechem permits new grain to be brought as a Minchah offering upon the Mizbe'ach. Before the Shtei ha'Lechem is offered, one may not 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 in Chutz la'Aretz the prohibition of Chadash applies mid'Oraisa or whether it applies only mid'Rabanan. The MINCHAS CHINUCH (302:2) records an opinion that Chadash is not forbidden at all in Chutz la'Aretz. According to this opinion, an interesting question arises on the Gemara here. Since Chadash would not be forbidden at all in Chutz la'Aretz, does the prohibition against bringing a Minchah from new grain (before the Shtei ha'Lechem is offered) apply only to new grain from in Eretz Yisrael, but not to new grain that grew in Chutz la'Aretz?

(a) The Minchas Chinuch writes that the prohibition against bringing a Minchah from new grain does not apply to new grain of Chutz la'Aretz. This opinion maintains 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 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. This suggestion is based on the reason for why Chadash applies in Chutz la'Aretz. The Gemara later (84a) explains that the opinion that Chadash is Asur mid'Oraisa in Chutz la'Aretz derives 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 against bringing a Minchah from new grain. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the prohibition applies only to new grain from Eretz Yisrael, and not to new grain from Chutz la'Aretz.

The Minchas Chinuch is uncertain about this matter, though. He says that perhaps we should learn from the prohibition of Chadash that one may not 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, one 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 is saying that Chadash does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz at all. The Tana specifically lists "Chadash" since there indeed are situations in which one may bring a Minchah made from new grain (Chadash), such as when it is new grain from 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 still may not bring a Minchah made of new grain from 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 first Minchah from the new grain of all the grain in the world, and not just of the grain of Eretz Yisrael. (Y. MONTROSE)