Chodosh / Yoshon

Published: August 13, 2026 Reading time: 10 minutes

The Mishnah in Kiddushin¹ records a fundamental
machlokes regarding the meaning of these words. The Tanna Kama understands it to refer only to Eretz Yisroel. According to this view, the prohibition of chodosh does not apply at all in chu”l. Rabbi Eliezer, however, maintains that the prohibition applies everywhere, including outside Eretz Yisroel.

A third view appears in the Gemara², where Rav Pappa and Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua maintain that chodosh is prohibited min haTorah in Eretz Yisroel, but only mi’d’rabbonon in chu”l.

The Rif, Rambam³ and Rosh rule that the prohibition applies mi’d’oraisa even in chu”l, following the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Their primary proof is that the Mishnah at the end of Orlah⁴ presents Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion anonymously (stam mishnah), and the general rule is that the halachah follows the stam mishna.

The Taz⁵ however writes that it remains a safeik whether chodosh is prohibited mi’d’oraisa in chu”l. Part of his reasoning is that it is unclear whether the stam mishnah in Orlah was compiled before or after the machlokes recorded in Kiddushin. If it preceded the dispute, the principle that the halachah follows a stam mishnah would not necessarily apply⁶.

The Or Zarua⁷ rules that chodosh is prohibited in chu”l only mi’d’drabonon. Their ruling is based on a Mishnah in Menachos⁸, which states that the korbon omer may be brought only from grain grown in Eretz Yisroel. Since the Torah links the prohibition of chodosh to the korbon omer, they reason that the Torah prohibition applies only in places from which the omer may be brought.

Rabbeinu Baruch⁹ takes this a step further. He maintains that even the Rabbinic prohibition applies only in countries bordering Eretz Yisroel. His reasoning is
that whenever Chazal extended agricultural laws beyond Eretz Yisroel, they generally limited those enactments to neighboring lands.

The Shulchan Oruch¹⁰ rules unequivocally that the
prohibition of chodosh applies in chu”l too. Although his language strongly suggests that he considers it an issur d’oraisa, his precise position is not explicitly stated. And yet, historically, the widespread custom, even among exceptionally G-d-fearing Jews, was to be lenient about yoshon.

How could such a practice develop?

Several Rishonim¹¹ explain that in medieval Western
Europe, where most Jews lived during that time, the vast majority of grain available on the market, whether locally grown or imported, was yoshon. Even if some grain was chodosh, one could assume that grain purchased in the marketplace came from the majority, which was yoshon.

This explanation, however, has two important limitations. First, as some of these very Rishonim themselves note, it is far from ideal to rely on such a presumption when it is possible to avoid doing so. More importantly, this reasoning applies only in countries where, because of the climate or the source of imported grain, most grain was in fact yoshon. Once the center of Jewish life shifted eastward to Poland and Ukraine, this assumption was no longer valid. There, much of the grain on the market was likely chodosh, and this justification would no longer apply. Yet, despite this, the prevailing custom remained not to be stringent.

The Magen Avraham¹² explains that those who were not careful with chodosh relied on the opinions of the Rishonim who held that the prohibition does not fully apply in chu”l. Specifically, they relied on the views that the Torah prohibition is limited to Eretz Yisroel and that any Rabbinic prohibition applies only to countries bordering Eretz Yisroel (the fourth opinion discussed above).

The Bach¹³ takes a different approach. He agrees that the prohibition of chodosh applies in chu”l, in accordance with the ruling of the Shulchan Oruch. However, he argues that the prohibition applies only to grain that was owned by a Jew. Grain owned by a non-Jew is not subject to the prohibition of chodosh.

Many Rishonim and Acharonim disagree with this position. Most notably, the Shulchan Oruch¹⁴ explicitly rules that the prohibition applies even to grain owned by a non-Jew. Nevertheless, the Bach vigorously defends his position, and a number of prominent Acharonim accepted his reasoning. Since most of the grain sold in the Diaspora historically belonged to non-Jews, those who followed the Bach had a substantial basis for the widespread custom to be lenient about chodosh.

A common thread running through many of these explanations is that they were intended to justify the practice only in a שעת הדחק , a situation of necessity. In many places and times, Jews simply had no practical alternative. Yoshon grain was either unavailable or extremely difficult to obtain, forcing them to rely on minority opinions or other halachic justifications despite the straightforward ruling of the Shulchan Oruch, which clearly states that the prohibition of chodosh applies in chu”l, and even to grain owned by a non-Jew.

Over the past several decades, however, circumstances have changed dramatically. It has become relatively easy to determine whether a particular grain product is yoshon or chodosh, and there is generally no shortage of yoshon products available. As a result, many communities and individuals have adopted the practice to be meticulous about eating only yoshon.

It is noteworthy that when the Shulchan Oruch Harav (SO”H)¹⁵ and the Mishnah Berurah¹⁶ summarize the halacha, they conclude that the primary ruling is that chodosh is prohibited mi’d’oraisa in all cases, including in chu”l. The Gr”a¹⁷ likewise argues forcefully that the prohibition is biblical under all circumstances. Accordingly, they write that a baal nefesh should not rely on the lenient opinions and should be careful to eat only yoshon.

And yet even nowadays, many communities, particularly among Chassidim, continue to follow the longstanding custom to be lenient about chodosh.

The great posek, the Avnei Nezer, writes in a teshuva¹⁸ that he heard from reliable sources that the reason the Chassidim of Poland were not particular about chodosh was because chodosh was served at the table of the Chozeh of Lublin. The Chozeh reportedly remarked that “once our grandfather, the Bach, had ruled leniently, there was no reason to be concerned.”

Similarly, Darkei Chaim V’Shalom¹⁹, which records the teachings and customs of the Munkatcher Rebbe, relates that the Munkatcher Rav held that there was no reason nowadays to be stringent regarding chodosh. He further cites testimony from his father, who heard directly from the Divrei Chaim of Sanz, that he strongly disagreed with those who argued that one should now adopt the
stringency of yoshon.

A similar approach is reflected in a story involving the Tzemach Tzedek²⁰. He instructed that a Jewish-owned field be sold to a non-Jew before the grain took root in
order to avoid the prohibition of chodosh. He was asked how this could help, since the Bach’s distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish ownership is only a minority opinion. The Tzemach Tzedek simply replied that it does indeed work.

Likewise, the Divrei Nechemiah²¹, one of the foremost disciples of the SO”H, writes that the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to be stringent regarding chodosh in contemporary times.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe²² also indicated on several occasions that the longstanding and well-established minhag was not to be stringent regarding the prohibition of chodosh.

From these and other sources²³, it is evident that the Chassidic custom was to remain lenient even when yoshon grain was available. This appears difficult to reconcile with those poskim who explain the historical leniencies only as accommodations for a שעת הדחק . What, then, is the halachic basis for the continued practice among Chassidim to be lenient regarding chodosh?

Several explanations have been offered. We will focus on two of the primary ones.

Although the SO”H writes that a baal nefesh should not rely on the lenient opinions and should be careful to eat only yoshon, there is evidence that later in life he may have reconsidered his position. In a teshuva, the Tzemach Tzedek²⁴ relates that he heard from his great-uncle the
Maharil, who in turn heard from his brother the SO”H, that he had discovered a new explanation justifying the widespread custom to be lenient. The explanation was based on the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiah concerning kilayim. Although the Maharil did not hear the full explanation directly, the Tzemach Tzedek reconstructs what the SO”H likely intended.

The Gemara in Kiddushin discusses whether the prohibitions of kilayim, orlah, and chodosh apply in chu”l. It treats kilayim and orlah as established, while presenting chodosh as the subject of a machlokes. The Tzemach Tzedek explains that just as the accepted halacha ultimately does not follow that Mishnah regarding kilayim (for reasons he explains at length), so too it does not follow that Mishnah regarding chodosh. On this basis, the accepted custom can be defended.

The Eshel Avraham²⁵ offers a broader principle. He writes that once Klal Yisroel has accepted a particular halachic practice based on the rulings of recognized gedolei haposkim, that practice acquires binding force. Even if those rulings rely on a minority opinion, once they have been accepted by the Jewish people, they become an established minhag and need not be abandoned. There is therefore no concern in continuing to rely on that practice.

A closely related idea appears in the Magen Avraham (Hilchos Purim). The Rema writes²⁶ that the custom of making noise when Haman’s name is read during Megillas Esther should neither be ridiculed nor abolished, for Jewish customs possess profound significance.

The Magen Avraham²⁷ cites a teshuva of the Rema explaining that when a minhag is founded upon the ruling of a recognized posek, it should not be overturned, even if one believes the practice is difficult to reconcile with the Gemara or even if the majority of authorities disagree. As long as reputable poskim established the practice based on sound halachic reasoning appropriate for their time, it remains valid. This, explains the Magen Avraham, is the meaning of the expression “minhag oker halacha”. This is essentially the same point made by the Eshel Avraham.

Conclusion

While many communities today are careful to eat only yoshon, others continue to follow the longstanding custom of relying on the Bach and other related lenient opinions.

Did You Know?

MANY POSKIM²⁸ WRITE that chodosh is never botul because it is considered a davar she’yesh lo matirin—an item that will eventually become permitted. Therefore, if even a small amount of chodosh grain or flour becomes mixed into a much larger quantity of yoshon, even at a ratio of 1:1000, the entire mixture is prohibited.

The Shulchan Oruch Harav, however, offers a fascinating
insight in one of his teshuvos²⁹. He writes that chodosh used in a production of chometz loses its status as a davar she’yesh lo matirin. Since chodosh does not become permitted until the second day of Pesach, while chometz must be destroyed before Pesach begins, there is never a point at which that particular chometz can become permitted. As a result, it no longer qualifies as a davar she’yesh lo matirin. Since most uses of chodosh flour involve baking it into products that become chometz, this ruling has broad practical implications. ³⁰

1 36b – 37a
2 Menachos 68b

3 Maacholos Assuros 10:2
4 Perek 3:8
5 Y”D 293:4
6 See Encyclopedia Talmudis vol 9 page 353
7 Siman 328. See Aruch hashulchan Y”D 293.
8 8:1
9 Quoted in Shu”t Ha’Rosh Klal Beis Siman Alef
10 O”C 489:10, Y”D 293:2

11 Sma”g mitzvos loi saase 142. Hagahos Maimoniyos Maacholos
Asuros 10:3. Shu”t Terumas Hadeshen 191. See also Rama Y”D 293:3
12 O”C 489:17
13 O”C end of siman 489, Y”D siman 293. Shu”t Bach Hachadoshos 48

14 Y”D 293:2

15 O”C 489:30
16 O”C 489:45 and biur halacha there
17 Biurei Hagr”a O”C 489:23, Y”D 293:2
18 C”M 115
19 # 873

20 Reshimos Devorim, Tzemach tedek # 31
21 O”C 33
22 Sichos Kodesh, Achron Shel Pesach 5740. Recently published
letter found in Igros Kodesh.
23 See heichal haBesh”t vol 7 p 67 and on
24 Y”D 218.

25 Butchatch, O”C 489
26 O”C 690:17
27 O”C 690:22
28 Ta”z YD 293:1
29 Shu”t siman 20