Kiddushin 37

חוץ מן הערלה וכלאים רבי אליעזר אומר אף החדש

This is apart from the mitzvot of orla and diverse kinds, which apply even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Eliezer says: This is the halakha even with regard to the prohibition to eat from the new crop before the omer offering has been brought on the sixteenth of Nisan.

גמ׳ מאי תלויה ומאי שאינה תלויה אילימא תלויה דכתיב בה ביאה ושאינה תלויה דלא כתיב בה ביאה והרי תפילין ופטר חמור דכתיב בהן ביאה ונוהגין בין בארץ בין בחוץ לארץ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is meant by mitzvot that are dependent on the land, and what is meant by mitzvot that are not dependent on the land? If we say that a mitzva is called dependent in a case where it is written in a verse with regard to it: Coming to Eretz Yisrael, and a mitzva that is not dependent on the land is one concerning which the verb: Coming, or the verb: Bringing, is not written in a verse with regard to it, that would lead to a difficulty: But aren’t there the mitzvot of donning phylacteries and the redemption of the firstborn donkey, in which the verse states: Bringing, in the passage: “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you to the land of the Canaanite…And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb…And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for frontlets between your eyes” (Exodus 13:11–16), and yet those mitzvot apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כל מצוה שהיא חובת הגוף נוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוץ לארץ חובת קרקע אינה נוהגת אלא בארץ

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Any mitzva that is an obligation of the body, i.e., an obligation upon the person, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. Conversely, an obligation of the land, that is, a mitzva that applies specifically to the earth and its growths, applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן אלה החקים אלו המדרשות והמשפטים אלו הדינים אשר תשמרון זו משנה לעשות זו מעשה

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “These are the statutes and the ordinances that you shall observe to do in the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess it, all the days that you live upon the earth” (Deuteronomy 12:1). This verse is interpreted as follows: The phrase “these are the statutes” means that these are the expositions that the Sages learn from verses. With regard to the phrase “and the ordinances,” these are monetary laws. With regard to “that you shall observe,” this is referring to the study of matters that must be observed for one to perform them. And as for the phrase “to do,” this is referring to action, the actual performance of mitzvot.

בארץ יכול כל המצות כולן לא יהו נוהגים אלא בארץ תלמוד לומר כל הימים אשר אתם חיים על האדמה אי כל הימים יכול יהו נוהגים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ תלמוד לומר בארץ

The baraita continues: From the phrase “in the land [ba’aretz],” one might have thought that all mitzvot apply only in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the verse also states “all the days that you live upon the earth,” i.e., wherever you live. Furthermore, if the Merciful One had written only the phrase “all the days,” one might have thought that all mitzvot should apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the verse also states “in the land.”

אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט צא ולמד ממה שאמור בענין אבד תאבדון את כל המקמות אשר עבדו שם וגו׳ מה עבודה זרה מיוחדת שהיא חובת הגוף ונוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ אף כל שהיא חובת הגוף נוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ

The baraita continues: Once the verse includes areas outside of Eretz Yisrael and also excludes areas outside of Eretz Yisrael, how is it determined which mitzvot apply outside the land and which do not? The baraita answers: Go and learn from what is stated with regard to a different issue that appears in the next verse: “You shall destroy all the places where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2). Just as the prohibition of idol worship is distinct in that it is an obligation of the body, and it applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, so too, any mitzva that is an obligation of the body applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. Conversely, mitzvot that are an obligation connected to the land apply only in Eretz Yisrael.

חוץ מן הערלה והכלאים איבעיא להו רבי אליעזר לקולא פליג או לחומרא פליג

§ The mishna teaches that all mitzvot that are dependent on the land apply only in Eretz Yisrael, apart from orla and the prohibition of diverse kinds. Rabbi Eliezer says: This is the halakha even with regard to the prohibition to eat from the new crop. A dilemma was raised before them: Does Rabbi Eliezer disagree with the first tanna with the intent to rule more leniently or does he disagree with the first tanna with the intent to rule more stringently?

לחומרא פליג והכי קאמר תנא קמא חוץ מן הערלה ומן הכלאים דהלכתא גמירי לה אף על גב דאיכא למימר חובת קרקע היא אבל חדש בארץ אין בחוצה לארץ לא

The Gemara elaborates: It is possible that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first tanna with the intent to rule more stringently, and this is what the first tanna is saying: All mitzvot that are dependent on the land apply only in Eretz Yisrael, apart from orla and diverse kinds, as we learned this halakha through a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Although one could say that each of them is an obligation of the land and should apply only in Eretz Yisrael, nevertheless they are obligatory outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. But the prohibition of the new crop, which is an obligation of the land, yes, it applies in Eretz Yisrael, but outside of Eretz Yisrael, no, it does not apply.

מאי טעמא מושב לאחר ירושה וישיבה משמע

What is the reason of the first tanna? In the verse that states with regard to the new crop: “In all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:14), the term dwelling does not mean that this halakha applies wherever Jews live. Rather, it means that the mitzva is applicable only in Eretz Yisrael, as this phrase indicates a time after inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael by the Jewish people, when they are actually dwelling in the land, not when they are in the process of conquering it. This is the opinion of the first tanna.

ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר אף חדש נוהג בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ מאי טעמא מושב בכל מקום שאתם יושבים

And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say: Even the prohibition with regard to the new crop applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. What is the reason for his opinion? He explains that the term dwelling means wherever you dwell. This is one possible way to understand the dispute, according to which the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent than that of the first tanna.

או דלמא לקולא פליג והכי קאמר תנא קמא חוץ מן הערלה והכלאים דהלכתא גמירי לה וכל שכן חדש דמושב כל מקום שאתם יושבים משמע

Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first tanna with the intent to rule more leniently, and this is what the first tanna is saying: All mitzvot that are dependent on the land apply only in Eretz Yisrael, apart from orla and diverse kinds, as we learned this halakha through tradition, and all the more so apart from the new crop, which applies outside of Eretz Yisrael, as the term dwelling indicates wherever you dwell. This is the opinion of the first tanna.

ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר חדש אינו נוהג אלא בארץ דמושב לאחר ירושה וישיבה משמע ומאי אף אקמייתא

And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say: The prohibition of the new crop applies only in Eretz Yisrael, as the term dwelling indicates a time after inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael by the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: And accordingly, what is the meaning of the word: Even, with which Rabbi Eliezer begins his statement? It is not referring to orla and diverse kinds, which apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, but to the first clause, which states that a mitzva that is dependent on the land applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Eliezer adds that this principle includes the new crop as well.

תא שמע דאמר אביי מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי אליעזר רבי ישמעאל היא דתניא ללמדך שכל מקום שנאמר בו מושב אינו אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה דברי רבי ישמעאל

Having presented the two ways in which one can explain the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara attempts to prove which is correct and suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Abaye said: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer? It is Rabbi Yishmael. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the mitzva of bringing libations with offerings: This serves to teach you that wherever the term dwelling is stated, the mitzva in question applies only after the inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

אמר לו רבי עקיבא הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות ונוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ אמר לו שבת קל וחומר אתיא מה מצות קלות נוהגות בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ שבת חמירא לא כל שכן

Rabbi Akiva said to him: But there is the case of Shabbat, in which it is stated: “It is a Shabbat to the Lord in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:3), and this mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Akiva: Shabbat is derived through the following a fortiori inference: If less stringent mitzvot apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, is it not all the more so reasonable that Shabbat, which is a stringent mitzva, should apply everywhere?

מדאמר אביי מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי אליעזר רבי ישמעאל שמע מינה רבי אליעזר לחומרא פליג שמע מינה

The Gemara explains the proof. From the fact that Abaye said: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, it is Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Yishmael says that the term dwelling means that the mitzva applies after Eretz Yisrael has been entirely settled, one can conclude from it that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first tanna with the intent to rule more stringently, as he evidently maintains that the term dwelling means wherever Jews are located. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from that baraita that it is so.

מכדי רבי ישמעאל אהיכא קאי אנסכים בנסכים

The Gemara asks an incidental question with regard to Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion. Now, where does Rabbi Yishmael stand, i.e., to which specific mitzva is he referring? He is referring to the obligation to bring libations, from which he learns that all mitzvot that feature the term dwelling apply only after Eretz Yisrael had been conquered and settled. With regard to libations

ביאה ומושב כתיב בהו הכי קאמר ללמד שכל מקום שנאמר ביאה ומושב אינו אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה דברי רבי ישמעאל

both the term: Coming, and the term: Dwelling, are written: “When you come into the land of your dwellings” (Numbers 15:2). How, then, can Rabbi Yishmael cite this example to teach about cases where only the term dwelling is written? The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: This teaches that wherever both coming and dwelling are stated, it applies only after inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

אי הכי אמר לו רבי עקיבא הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות ואמר לו שבת קל וחומר היא נימא ליה אנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא חדא ועוד קאמר ליה חדא דאנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא ועוד דקא אמרת הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות שבת קל וחומר היא

The Gemara asks: If so, consider that Rabbi Akiva said to him: But there is the verse stated with regard to Shabbat (Leviticus 23:3), in which it is stated “dwellings,” and Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Shabbat is derived through an a fortiori inference. But let Rabbi Yishmael say to Rabbi Akiva instead: I say my principle only when coming and dwelling are both written, and in the case of Shabbat the verse states only the term dwelling. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael states one reason and adds another reason. One reason is that I say my principle only when coming and dwelling are written together. And another reason: With regard to that which you say that there is the case of Shabbat, in which it is stated “dwellings,” Shabbat is derived through an a fortiori inference.

במאי קמיפלגי בקירבו נסכים במדבר קא מיפלגי רבי ישמעאל סבר לא קירבו נסכים במדבר ורבי עקיבא סבר קירבו נסכים במדבר

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to whether the Jews sacrificed libations in the wilderness. Rabbi Yishmael maintains: They did not sacrifice libations in the wilderness, as the obligation to sacrifice libations came into effect only once they were living in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Akiva maintains: They did sacrifice libations in the wilderness. Rabbi Akiva derives a different halakha from the term dwelling.

אמר אביי האי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל

Abaye said: This statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that only when the terms coming and dwelling are both written does the mitzva takes effect after settling Eretz Yisrael, diverges from another statement of the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל ונאמרו ביאות בתורה סתם ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן לאחר ירושה וישיבה אף כל לאחר ירושה וישיבה

This is as the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since instances of coming to Eretz Yisrael are mentioned in the Torah in connection to several mitzvot, without specifying precisely when the Jewish people are considered to have arrived there, and the verse specified in one of its references that it applies only after inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael, in the mitzva of appointing a king: “When you come to the land…and you inherit it and settle it” (Deuteronomy 17:14), so too, wherever coming to the land is mentioned without qualification, it means after inheritance and settlement. According to this opinion, there is no need for the verse to also mention the term dwelling.

ואידך משום דהוה מלך וביכורים שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

And the other tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, cited in the dispute with Rabbi Akiva, would say that this is no proof, because there is not only the case of a king but also the mitzva of first fruits, where the verse also uses the terms of coming, inheriting, and dwelling (see Deuteronomy 26:1). Consequently, these are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter. And any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent that applies to other cases.

ואידך צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא מלך ולא כתב ביכורים הוה אמינא ביכורים דקא מיתהני לאלתר ואי כתב ביכורים ולא כתב מלך הוה אמינא מלך דדרכו לכבש לאלתר

And the other tanna, i.e., the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael cited by Abaye, would answer: Both these cases are necessary, as one cannot be derived from the other. As, if the Merciful One had written this matter only with regard to a king, and had not written it concerning first fruits, I would say: This delay applies only to the mitzva of appointing a king, whereas with regard to the mitzva of first fruits, since one benefits from eating the fruit he should have to bring it immediately and not wait until the land has been inherited and settled. And conversely, had the Merciful One written this matter only with regard to first fruits and had not written it in the case of a king, I would say that as it is the manner of a king to conquer, one must be appointed immediately, even before entering Eretz Yisrael.

ואידך נכתוב רחמנא מלך ולא בעי ביכורים ואנא אמינא ומה מלך דלכבש לאחר ירושה וישיבה ביכורים לא כל שכן

And the other, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, cited in the dispute with Rabbi Akiva, would respond: Let the Merciful One write this with regard to a king, and it would not be required to write it in the case of first fruits, as I would say: And if a king, whose task is to conquer Eretz Yisrael, nevertheless is appointed only after inheritance and settlement, with regard to first fruits is it not all the more so reasonable that a similar halakha apply to them? If so, these are two verses that come as one, which do not teach a precedent.

ואידך אי כתב הכי הוה אמינא מידי דהוה אחלה קא משמע לן

And the other, i.e., the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael cited by Abaye, would say: If the Merciful One had written this only with regard to a king, I would say that the Jews should be obligated in the mitzva of first fruits immediately upon entering Eretz Yisrael, and I would not derive the halakha of first fruits from that of appointing a king, just as it is with regard to the separation of ḥalla, another priestly gift from one’s produce, which applied immediately upon the entrance to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore the verse is necessary, as it teaches us that this is not so.

והשתא דאמרת חובת הגוף נוהגת בין בארץ ישראל בין בחוצה לארץ מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי שבת למה לי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובענינא דמועדות כתיבא תיבעי קידוש כי מועדות קא משמע לן

§ The Gemara asks: And now that you said that an obligation of the body applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, why do I need the term “dwelling” that the Merciful One writes with regard to Shabbat (Leviticus 23:3)? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to say this, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the mitzva of Shabbat was written in the context of the Festivals, it should require sanctification by the court, like the Festivals, which rely on the sanctification of the New Moon by the court. Therefore the verse teaches us that this is not required.

מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי חלב ודם למה לי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובענינא דקרבנות כתיבי בזמן דאיכא קרבן ניתסר חלב ודם בזמן דליכא קרבן לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the term dwelling, which the Merciful One writes with regard to the consumption of forbidden fat and blood in the verse: “A perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither forbidden fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17)? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this, as it might enter your mind to say: Since these prohibitions are written in the context of the offerings, then when there is an offering and the priests sacrifice fat and blood upon the altar, i.e., when the Temple is standing, that is when forbidden fat and blood are forbidden for consumption. But when there is no offering, forbidden fat and blood are not forbidden. The verse therefore teaches us that they are always forbidden.

מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי מצה ומרור למה לי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב על מצות ומררים יאכלהו בזמן דאיכא פסח אין בזמן דליכא פסח לא קא משמע לן

Additionally, the Gemara asks: Why do I need the term dwelling, which the Merciful One writes with regard to matza and bitter herbs, in the verse: “In all your dwellings you shall eat matza” (Exodus 12:20)? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “They shall eat the Paschal offering with matza and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), when there is a Paschal offering, yes, one must eat it with matza and bitter herbs, but when there is no Paschal offering, i.e., when the Temple is not standing, there is no obligation to eat matza and bitter herbs. The verse therefore teaches us that these mitzvot apply every Passover, whether or not the Temple is standing.

ביאה דכתב רחמנא גבי תפילין ופטר חמור למה לי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עשה מצוה זו שבשבילה תיכנס לארץ

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the term coming, which the Merciful One writes with regard to phylacteries and the firstborn donkey, at the start of the Torah passage which discusses these mitzvot: “And it shall be when the Lord will bring you into the land of the Canaanite” (Exodus 13:11)? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for that which the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Perform this mitzva of donning phylacteries, on account of which you shall be rewarded and enter Eretz Yisrael.

בשלמא למאן דאמר מושב כל מקום שאתם יושבים משמע היינו דכתיב ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ממחרת הפסח ממחרת הפסח אכול מעיקרא לא אכול אלמא

The Gemara asks about the term dwelling, written in connection to the prohibition of the new crop. Granted, according to the one who says that the term dwelling indicates wherever you dwell, this explains the fact that it is written with regard to the Jewish people immediately after they entered Eretz Yisrael: “And they ate the produce of the land on the morrow after the Passover” (Joshua 5:11). This means that on the day after the Passover they ate the produce of Eretz Yisrael, but initially, before that date, they did not eat it. Apparently,