A new concern abroad

I am surprised by your answer.

I expected the answer to be that it was a "grain that the Torah did not recognize" or that "the Halacha does not recognize this grain."

Certainly, according to the "simplicity" of dry halacha study, there is no side to the permit and certainly it should be made stricter.

It seems very puzzling that the permission that developed in Europe in the more distant past, and from the close recognition of American and Western European Jewry in the last 100 years, the vast majority of the religious and ultra-Orthodox public in the United States has practiced complete permission, and so has many products sold on shelves in Israel today. As the Aruch Shulchan wrote regarding the unclear voices on the subject of mixing, "As if a bat kol had come out - the law is as this method." And this, until a certain renaissance in awareness of a new matter that has occurred in the last 20 years in the "strictness" and "severity" of this matter.

However, the simple explanation is that most of the problems with the new moon abroad today stem from winter crops, which are different varieties of grain grown in Northern Europe and America, with different annual/periodic cycles. Not grains with a cycle that ends near the time of Nissan/the offering of the sacrifice that the Torah speaks of, which is relevant to the climate/geography of the Middle East.

For the record, the Torah did not speak about this grain. Therefore, it should be permitted based on this reason. Personally, this reason occurred to me, and I decided to ease up after years of aggravating the issue.

I would love to hear your opinion.

Nathan Shalom. We probably agree that the accepted permission does not have a simple explanation. Your proposal seems very interesting, but as far as I remember, this is not the explanation that appears in the poskim that refer to the permission, and therefore their words are still inconclusive.
Regarding your suggestion, perhaps it has a place (I have not checked the reality regarding the new varieties and their cyclicality). The question of whether a different cyclicality, even if it is indeed such, is a sufficient reason to permit. Of course, you are actually demanding a reason for reading here, but I do not find even that in your words. Why do you assume that cyclicality is important for the purpose of a new prohibition? Why is a different cyclicality a different grain for this purpose? These changes in the grain define a grain as new that was not discussed. This requires a need for a reason for a new prohibition (and again, even assuming that we are demanding a reason for reading here).
Do you assume a particular reason for the ban, and within that, can periodicity be seen as an essential characteristic? Can you elaborate?
In other words: If they had not practiced the permit, would you still have taught yourself and on your own initiative an explanation for the permit?
And maybe you mean that because of the change in the cycle, there is simply no room at all to talk about the grain of this or that year?

Thank you for your response.

Regarding cycles – it seems to me that the Sages' regulations in determining halacha are adapted (and can only adapt) to the only reality they knew – which is one cycle of one grain per year that is sown in late summer/early fall and harvested in spring. Period.

A geographical/climatic/varietal cycle of sowing in the spring, and harvesting beginning in the summer certainly did not exist and is not possible/existent even today in our geographical area. And it certainly would not have been known to the Sages during this period. Moreover, a two-cycle cycle of grain (one harvested in the spring and one harvested in the fall), certainly does not exist or is mentioned anywhere, I know "harvest" not "harvests".

In terms of the Temah of D'Kra, you are using a new term "prohibition" - but it is a statement that the importance here is the prohibition and not the commandment to sacrifice a sacrifice from which the prohibition is derived, perhaps semantics, but if a Temah is at play here, it seems to me that in the second situation the Temah of D'Kra is clearer (however, one can also argue my argument as a completely technical Halacha without any reason). It is difficult for the rabbinic community to separate the cyclical nature in my opinion and the details of most of these commandments of thanks/recognition/remembrance to God for the new harvest, from the time of the clearing to the tithe of livestock, the time of the harvest, etc. "The Feast of Harvest is the firstfruits of your labors... and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year in your ingathering..." The Halacha's statement is not arbitrary in the matter and is directly related to reality and the meaning, but rather, it referred to the only reality that it recognized in order to fulfill "And you brought the Omer, the firstfruits of your harvest...", the time is the days of Nissan, the Halacha did not recognize any other reality or type that should be referred to. (Moreover, regarding the original time of the Omer and the Feast of Shavuot, it is well known in the Kuzari that there was no fixed time and it depended on the harvest/grain itself until a precise time was determined/established (and the Ramban was puzzled by his words) – Rav Samet has a beautiful and interesting article on the subject in one of his books on the parasha and his explanation in “Lerzonchem”… “and on the morrow of the Sabbath” – but then one can still exaggerate and cynically wonder whether in a situation of two harvests there is a need for two Omer… ).

If there were no teachers, would I be teaching myself about this? Good question, it is easier to make a decision where there is one (or two) who permit and the majority of the people have taken it upon themselves to permit (and it does not matter at the moment whether it is based on a mistake or a realistic necessity that existed in any case, it can be argued that this creates some kind of halakhic legitimacy).

In any case, certainly if there was a reality (and I estimate that it was in Europe at some point) that the halakha created a real difficulty in being able to eat a food (and drink) product at its most basic - I would hope that the posk would find a reason as I suggest (in your language, a first-order ruling that is innovative and in line with reality, and not a search for unanimous opinions, doubts, and somehow forcing an exception under great duress without a logical reason).

As I wrote, this is a completely possible consideration, and I hadn't thought about it. But I don't think I would have allowed it on its own, and since the accepted permits seem to me to be baseless and certainly not the basis for them, it was still difficult for me to allow it on this basis. What's more, I don't see any particular difficulty abroad beyond what exists in Israel, and therefore the difficulty does not require adopting such a renewed permit.

thanks.

One last note.

In terms of the reality that you write, "that you do not see any special difficulty abroad beyond what exists in Israel," here I will have to disagree with you, although "special difficulty" is completely subjective.

About 30/40 years ago in the US – anyone who was strict about the new was considered truly self-sacrificing. I grew up with "mor"kim parents who were strict about it and had to freeze challah and store flour for months so that there would be "old" challah at home on Shabbat. If every "very large" city had maybe one bakery that strictly followed the old, the situation would be good. The person who brought the issue to awareness almost single-handedly was Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik of Chicago, who was almost a Yaddaei who promoted the issue in the US. Rabbi Moshe permitted, and on his basis the OU permits a completely new one.

Today, the situation is much more reasonable, but still very difficult for those who do not fake it, meaning that those who are strict about eating (and even most of them view and behave as a nice treat and not necessarily as a prohibition) are prohibited for half a year from eating in most kosher bakeries in some cities and almost all in other cities (and any baked product without a certificate that is considered kosher to a person with sound halachic logic, except for the issue of new/old), most pizzerias, and the like, most of the kosher restaurants. Of course, without precise knowledge, even beers, snacks, etc. that are not from "religious" companies and that do not scrupulously write "Yoshon" are impossible.

Eating Shabbat meal or at Kiddush or Simcha with someone who is not strict (the majority of the public in most communities)… So challah/bread/crackers is a problem (I would sometimes bring my own), but also soup because of the powders, chorizo because of the grits, chicken because of the coating, etc. etc. Today, you can count by number on any product… And the problem is from breakfast cereals to tuna salad, crackers, soup powders, sauces, meats/sausages, granola and grains… Wheat, barley, oats and their derivatives are only water, sugar and salt as ingredients… In the end, you can write a whole “bunch” about a new “zea” from barley to beer, it is from the Torah or from the Rabbis… And if a friend tells you not to eat with the help of the doubt of the “zea” and the B.A.H. and the Haril, with the addition that you do not like the food at all and invalidate it in the majority and does not give a taste, whether it is permissible or not. At least it is also a way to learn Torah.

Even in Israel, many products are sold that have new ingredients, and the Rabbinate (which you love so much) tries to write or not write "new" without any concern, or if there is concern... and even that is relatively new, (about 15/20 years ago I remember a friend's store in Jerusalem that did not receive "Mehadrin" or "Badatz" because it contained "Akom" milk, but the fact that the food was "new" did not bother them at all and did not appear anywhere as a warning). And some (or all) of the Badatzim today, I understand, are very careful and do not give kosher if they know that it is new, but even so they do not give kosher to many products from abroad at all - but there are still many products that do not say on them and that have new ingredients, and without knowing how to think and check, it is everywhere in Israel at certain times. So those who are not aware, know, know and search, and do not only eat from Badatzim of this or that kind, eat new foods from abroad in Israel, a fact.

I still don't see the problem. You understand that if they had left the prohibition in place, they would have found a solution. They would have supervised agriculture and bakeries and made sure that there wouldn't be a problem with new. The fact that it's hard to find grain that isn't new is only because they don't take care of it. After all, there's no problem in principle there in making sure it's old. I don't see what the difference is between the US and Israel, except that there they've gotten used to giving in and permitting and not dealing with it. And if it's difficult to supervise meat, should we allow the eating of pork? Then supervision should be increased and that's it. With all due respect, this is not about distressed Judaism.