Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 17, 2016 | 讟壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 37

Which mitzvot are only to be done in Israel and which ones also outside of Israel?聽 Since there are many mitzvot in the Torah that say “when you come into the land” and yet some of them are not dependent on whether or not one is living in Israel, there are varying opinions on how to understand these verses and what was the determining factor for the categorization.聽 As in the previous pages, the halacha and categorizations were known to the rabbis – what is happening on these pages is the rabbis attempt to correlate between the halacha and the verses in the Torah.

Study Guide Kiddushin 37

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讞讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转诇讜讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转诇讜讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘讬讗讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘讬讗讛 讜讛专讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉 讘讬讗讛 讜谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓

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鈥檛 there the mitzvot of donning phylacteries and the redemption of the firstborn donkey, in which the verse states: Bringing, in the passage: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord shall bring you to the land of the Canaanite鈥nd every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb鈥nd it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Exodus 13:11鈥16), and yet those mitzvot apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 讞讜讘转 拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讛 讛讞拽讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪讚专砖讜转 讜讛诪砖驻讟讬诐 讗诇讜 讛讚讬谞讬诐 讗砖专 转砖诪专讜谉 讝讜 诪砖谞讛 诇注砖讜转 讝讜 诪注砖讛

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hese 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:1). This verse is interpreted as follows: The phrase 鈥渢hese are the statutes鈥 means that these are the expositions that the Sages learn from verses. With regard to the phrase 鈥渁nd the ordinances,鈥 these are monetary laws. With regard to 鈥渢hat you shall observe,鈥 this is referring to the study of matters that must be observed for one to perform them. And as for the phrase 鈥渢o do,鈥 this is referring to action, the actual performance of mitzvot.

讘讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬诪讬诐 讗砖专 讗转诐 讞讬讬诐 注诇 讛讗讚诪讛 讗讬 讻诇 讛讬诪讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗专抓

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

讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪诪讛 砖讗诪讜专 讘注谞讬谉 讗讘讚 转讗讘讚讜谉 讗转 讻诇 讛诪拽诪讜转 讗砖专 注讘讚讜 砖诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讛讬讗 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

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: 鈥淵ou shall destroy all the places where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods鈥 (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.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙

搂 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?

诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讗讬诐 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讜讘转 拽专拽注 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讞讚砖 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜砖讘 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 诪砖诪注

What is the reason of the first tanna? In the verse that states with regard to the new crop: 鈥淚n all your dwellings鈥 (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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗祝 讞讚砖 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜砖讘 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬诐

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讚砖 讚诪讜砖讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬诐 诪砖诪注

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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讚诪讜砖讘 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 诪砖诪注 讜诪讗讬 讗祝 讗拽诪讬讬转讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘讜转 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗转讬讗 诪讛 诪爪讜转 拽诇讜转 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 砖讘转 讞诪讬专讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Akiva said to him: But there is the case of Shabbat, in which it is stated: 鈥淚t is a Shabbat to the Lord in all your dwellings鈥 (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?

诪讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪讻讚讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讛讬讻讗 拽讗讬 讗谞住讻讬诐 讘谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks an incidental question with regard to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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

讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诇诪讚 砖讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

both the term: Coming, and the term: Dwelling, are written: 鈥淲hen you come into the land of your dwellings鈥 (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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘讜转 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讬讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讚讗谞讗 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讜注讜讚 讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛专讬 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘讜转 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讬讗

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 鈥渄wellings,鈥 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 鈥渄wellings,鈥 Shabbat is derived through an a fortiori inference.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘拽讬专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讗 拽讬专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 拽讬专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻讬拽 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘讬讗讜转 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛

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: 鈥淲hen you come to the land鈥nd you inherit it and settle it鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诪诇讱 讜讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讱 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讚拽讗 诪讬转讛谞讬 诇讗诇转专 讜讗讬 讻转讘 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪诇讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇讱 讚讚专讻讜 诇讻讘砖 诇讗诇转专

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讱 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 诪诇讱 讚诇讻讘砖 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 讻转讘 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 岣lla, another priestly gift from one鈥檚 produce, which applied immediately upon the entrance to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore the verse is necessary, as it teaches us that this is not so.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪讜砖讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 砖讘转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注谞讬谞讗 讚诪讜注讚讜转 讻转讬讘讗 转讬讘注讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讻讬 诪讜注讚讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 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 鈥渄welling鈥 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.

诪讜砖讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讘谞讜转 讻转讬讘讬 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 拽专讘谉 谞讬转住专 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讘讝诪谉 讚诇讬讻讗 拽专讘谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淎 perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither forbidden fat nor blood鈥 (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.

诪讜砖讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讛讜 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讞 讗讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讞 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淚n all your dwellings you shall eat matza鈥 (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: 鈥淭hey shall eat the Paschal offering with matza and bitter herbs鈥 (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.

讘讬讗讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讝讜 砖讘砖讘讬诇讛 转讬讻谞住 诇讗专抓

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord will bring you into the land of the Canaanite鈥 (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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜砖讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬诐 诪砖诪注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗讻诇讜 诪注讘讜专 讛讗专抓 诪诪讞专转 讛驻住讞 诪诪讞专转 讛驻住讞 讗讻讜诇 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讗诇诪讗

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: 鈥淎nd they ate the produce of the land on the morrow after the Passover鈥 (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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 37

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讞讚砖

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转诇讜讬讛 讜诪讗讬 砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转诇讜讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘讬讗讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 讘讬讗讛 讜讛专讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛谉 讘讬讗讛 讜谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓

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鈥檛 there the mitzvot of donning phylacteries and the redemption of the firstborn donkey, in which the verse states: Bringing, in the passage: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord shall bring you to the land of the Canaanite鈥nd every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb鈥nd it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Exodus 13:11鈥16), and yet those mitzvot apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 讞讜讘转 拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇讛 讛讞拽讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪讚专砖讜转 讜讛诪砖驻讟讬诐 讗诇讜 讛讚讬谞讬诐 讗砖专 转砖诪专讜谉 讝讜 诪砖谞讛 诇注砖讜转 讝讜 诪注砖讛

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hese 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:1). This verse is interpreted as follows: The phrase 鈥渢hese are the statutes鈥 means that these are the expositions that the Sages learn from verses. With regard to the phrase 鈥渁nd the ordinances,鈥 these are monetary laws. With regard to 鈥渢hat you shall observe,鈥 this is referring to the study of matters that must be observed for one to perform them. And as for the phrase 鈥渢o do,鈥 this is referring to action, the actual performance of mitzvot.

讘讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬讛讜 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬诪讬诐 讗砖专 讗转诐 讞讬讬诐 注诇 讛讗讚诪讛 讗讬 讻诇 讛讬诪讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗专抓

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

讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 爪讗 讜诇诪讚 诪诪讛 砖讗诪讜专 讘注谞讬谉 讗讘讚 转讗讘讚讜谉 讗转 讻诇 讛诪拽诪讜转 讗砖专 注讘讚讜 砖诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讛讬讗 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

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: 鈥淵ou shall destroy all the places where the nations that you are to dispossess served their gods鈥 (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.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讗讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙

搂 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?

诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讗讬诐 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讜讘转 拽专拽注 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讞讚砖 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜砖讘 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 诪砖诪注

What is the reason of the first tanna? In the verse that states with regard to the new crop: 鈥淚n all your dwellings鈥 (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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗祝 讞讚砖 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜砖讘 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬诐

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讞讚砖 讚诪讜砖讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬诐 诪砖诪注

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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讚诪讜砖讘 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 诪砖诪注 讜诪讗讬 讗祝 讗拽诪讬讬转讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘讜转 讜谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗转讬讗 诪讛 诪爪讜转 拽诇讜转 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 砖讘转 讞诪讬专讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Akiva said to him: But there is the case of Shabbat, in which it is stated: 鈥淚t is a Shabbat to the Lord in all your dwellings鈥 (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?

诪讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讜诪专讗 驻诇讬讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪讻讚讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讛讬讻讗 拽讗讬 讗谞住讻讬诐 讘谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks an incidental question with regard to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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

讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诇诪讚 砖讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

both the term: Coming, and the term: Dwelling, are written: 鈥淲hen you come into the land of your dwellings鈥 (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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛专讬 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘讜转 讜讗诪专 诇讜 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讬讗 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讚讗谞讗 讘讬讗讛 讜诪讜砖讘 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讜注讜讚 讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛专讬 砖讘转 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 诪讜砖讘讜转 砖讘转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讬讗

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 鈥渄wellings,鈥 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 鈥渄wellings,鈥 Shabbat is derived through an a fortiori inference.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘拽讬专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 诇讗 拽讬专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 拽讬专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻讬拽 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讘讬讗讜转 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讜驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讗祝 讻诇 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛

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: 鈥淲hen you come to the land鈥nd you inherit it and settle it鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诪诇讱 讜讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讱 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讚拽讗 诪讬转讛谞讬 诇讗诇转专 讜讗讬 讻转讘 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪诇讱 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇讱 讚讚专讻讜 诇讻讘砖 诇讗诇转专

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讱 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 诪诇讱 讚诇讻讘砖 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬 讻转讘 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 岣lla, another priestly gift from one鈥檚 produce, which applied immediately upon the entrance to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore the verse is necessary, as it teaches us that this is not so.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪讜砖讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 砖讘转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注谞讬谞讗 讚诪讜注讚讜转 讻转讬讘讗 转讬讘注讬 拽讬讚讜砖 讻讬 诪讜注讚讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

搂 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 鈥渄welling鈥 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.

诪讜砖讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讘谞讜转 讻转讬讘讬 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 拽专讘谉 谞讬转住专 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讘讝诪谉 讚诇讬讻讗 拽专讘谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淎 perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither forbidden fat nor blood鈥 (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.

诪讜砖讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讛讜 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讞 讗讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讞 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淚n all your dwellings you shall eat matza鈥 (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: 鈥淭hey shall eat the Paschal offering with matza and bitter herbs鈥 (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.

讘讬讗讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讝讜 砖讘砖讘讬诇讛 转讬讻谞住 诇讗专抓

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be when the Lord will bring you into the land of the Canaanite鈥 (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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜砖讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬诐 诪砖诪注 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗讻诇讜 诪注讘讜专 讛讗专抓 诪诪讞专转 讛驻住讞 诪诪讞专转 讛驻住讞 讗讻讜诇 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讗诇诪讗

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: 鈥淎nd they ate the produce of the land on the morrow after the Passover鈥 (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,

Scroll To Top