Kiddushin 38

אקרוב עומר והדר אכול

they sacrificed the omer and only afterward did they eat.

אלא למאן דאמר לאחר ירושה וישיבה ניכול לאלתר לא הוו צריכי

But according to the one who says that the term dwelling indicates that the prohibition of the new crop applies only after inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael, let the Jews eat the produce of the land immediately. The Gemara answers: They did not need to eat the new produce, as they still had manna. Although they did not eat the new crop of Eretz Yisrael, the reason was not that it was prohibited.

דכתיב ובני ישראל אכלו את המן ארבעים שנה עד באם אל ארץ נושבת את המן אכלו עד באם אל קצה ארץ כנען אי אפשר לומר עד באם אל ארץ נושבת שכבר נאמר אל קצה ארץ כנען ואי אפשר לומר אל קצה ארץ כנען שהרי כבר נאמר עד באם אל ארץ נושבת הא כיצד בשבעה באדר מת משה ופסק מן מלירד והיו מסתפקין ממן שבכליהם עד ששה עשר בניסן

This is as it is written: “And the children of Israel ate the manna forty years until they came to a settled land; they ate the manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan” (Exodus 16:35). The Gemara analyzes this verse: One cannot say they ate “until they came to a settled land,” i.e., that they were still eating the manna when they entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is already stated: “To the borders of the land of Canaan,” which indicates that they stopped eating manna before entering Eretz Yisrael, on the plains of Moab. And one cannot say that they ate manna only until they reached “to the borders of the land of Canaan,” as it is already stated: “Until they came to a settled land.” How can these clauses be reconciled? Moses died on the seventh of Adar and the manna ceased falling, and they ate the manna that was left in their vessels until the sixteenth of Nisan, even after they entered Eretz Yisrael.

תניא אידך ובני ישראל אכלו את המן ארבעים שנה וכי ארבעים שנה אכלו והלא ארבעים שנה חסר שלשים יום אכלו אלא לומר לך עוגות שהוציאו ממצרים טעמו בהם טעם מן

It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: “And the children of Israel ate the manna forty years” (Exodus 16:35). But did they really eat it for forty years? But didn’t they eat it for forty years less thirty days? The manna began to fall on the sixteenth of Iyyar in the first year in the wilderness, and they stopped eating it on the sixteenth of Nisan in the fortieth year. Rather, this verse comes to tell you that they tasted the taste of manna in the unleavened cakes that they took out from Egypt on the fifteenth of Nisan in their first year, and this sustained them until the manna fell.

תניא אידך בשבעה באדר מת משה ובשבעה באדר נולד מנין שבשבעה באדר מת שנאמר וימת שם משה עבד ה׳ וכתיב ויבכו בני ישראל את משה בערבת מואב שלשים יום וכתיב ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד ה׳ וכתיב משה עבדי מת ועתה קום עבר

It is taught in another baraita: Moses died on the seventh of Adar, and he was likewise born on the seventh of Adar. From where is it derived that Moses died on the seventh of Adar? As it is stated: “So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5), and it is written: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (Deuteronomy 34:8). And it is written: “Now it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord” (Joshua 1:1), and it is written: “Moses, My servant, is dead; now arise, cross this Jordan” (Joshua 1:2).

וכתיב עברו בקרב המחנה וצוו את העם לאמר הכינו לכם צדה כי בעוד שלשת ימים תעברו את הירדן וכתיב והעם עלו מן הירדן בעשור לחדש הראשון צא מהן שלשים ושלשה ימים למפרע הא למדת שבשבעה באדר מת משה

The baraita continues: And it is written: “Pass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying: Prepare your victuals, for within three days you are to cross the Jordan” (Joshua 1:11). And it is written: “And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month” (Joshua 4:19). Subtract retroactively from that date, the tenth of Nisan, the last thirty-three days, i.e., the thirty days of mourning for Moses and the three days of preparation before crossing the Jordan, and you learn from here that Moses died on the seventh of Adar.

ומנין שבשבעה באדר נולד משה שנאמר ויאמר אלהם בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבוא שאין תלמוד לומר היום מה תלמוד לומר היום מלמד שהקדוש ברוך הוא יושב וממלא שנותיהם של צדיקים מיום ליום ומחדש לחדש שנאמר את מספר ימיך אמלא

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that Moses was born on the seventh of Adar? It is as it is stated: “And he said to them, I am one hundred and twenty years old today; I can no more go out and come in” (Deuteronomy 31:2). As there is no need for the verse to state “today,” since Moses could have said simply: I am one hundred and twenty years old. What is the meaning when the verse states “today”? One can learn from it that Moses was born on that date, i.e., he was exactly one hundred and twenty years old. This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and completes the years of the righteous from day to day and from month to month, as it is stated: “The number of your days I will fulfill” (Exodus 23:26).

תניא רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ ונוהגות בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Jewish people were commanded to perform three mitzvot immediately upon entering Eretz Yisrael: The new crop, diverse kinds, and orla, and these apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

והוא הדין שינהגו ומה חדש שאין איסורו איסור עולם ואין איסורו איסור הנאה ויש היתר לאיסורו נוהג בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ

And it is logical, i.e., one can derive through an a fortiori argument that each of these mitzvot should apply everywhere. If the prohibition of the new crop, whose prohibition is not a permanent prohibition, as it does not apply to grain that grows after the omer has been sacrificed on the sixteenth of Nisan, and whose prohibition is not a prohibition against deriving benefit, since usages other than eating are permitted, and there is dissolution for its prohibition, i.e., grain that grew before the sixteenth of Nisan becomes permitted after the omer offering has been brought, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, the same halakha should certainly apply to diverse kinds.

כלאים שאיסורן איסור עולם ואיסורן איסור הנאה ואין היתר לאיסורן אינו דין שינהגו בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ והוא הדין לערלה בשתים

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai elaborates: With regard to diverse kinds, whose prohibition is a permanent prohibition, as it never expires, and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, since one may not benefit in any manner from diverse kinds of the vine, and there is no dissolution for its prohibition, is it not logical that it should apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael? And the same is true of orla with regard to two of those points. Orla is not a permanent prohibition, as it applies only for the first three years that a tree produces fruit, but one may not derive benefit from it, and produce from the first three years never becomes permitted.

רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

כל מצוה שנצטוו ישראל קודם כניסתן לארץ נוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ לאחר כניסתן לארץ אינה נוהגת אלא בארץ חוץ מן השמטת כספים ושילוח עבדים שאף על פי שנצטוו עליהם לאחר כניסתן לארץ נוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ

Any mitzva that the Jewish people were commanded to perform before entering Eretz Yisrael, i.e., it was not linked to entry into the land, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. Conversely, any mitzva that they were commanded to perform after they entered Eretz Yisrael applies only in Eretz Yisrael, except for the abrogation of monetary debts in the Sabbatical Year (see Deuteronomy 15:1–2), and the emancipation of slaves in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:39–41). Even though the Jews were commanded with regard to these mitzvot that they were to perform them only after their entry into Eretz Yisrael, these mitzvot apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.

השמטת כספים חובת הגוף היא

The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: The abrogation of monetary debts is an obligation of the body. Since this mitzva is not referring to the land, what is the novelty of the ruling that it applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael?

לא נצרכא אלא לכדתניא דתניא רבי אומר וזה דבר השמטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to mention the cancellation of debts only for that which is taught in a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are juxtaposed, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts.

ואימא במקום שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים ובמקום שאין אתה משמט קרקע אין אתה משמט כספים תלמוד לומר כי קרא שמטה לה׳ מכל מקום

The Gemara asks: But why not say that one can learn the following from this juxtaposition: In a place where you release land, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael, you abrogate monetary debts, and in a place where you do not release land, you do not abrogate monetary debts. If so, the abrogation of debts would apply only in Eretz Yisrael, despite the fact that this obligation is not related to the land. Therefore, the verse states: “Because the Lord’s abrogation has been proclaimed” (Deuteronomy 15:2), to indicate that this obligation applies in any case, even outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is the novelty of the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

שילוח עבדים חובת הגוף היא סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב וקראתם דרור בארץ בארץ אין בחוצה לארץ לא תלמוד לומר יובל היא מכל מקום

The Gemara questions the need for the second ruling of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The emancipation of slaves is also an obligation of the body, not one that applies to the land. What is novel about this ruling? The Gemara answers that it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written: “And proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10), one could say: “Throughout the land,” yes, this mitzva applies, but outside of Eretz Yisrael, no, the emancipation does not take effect. Therefore the same verse also states the seemingly superfluous phrase: “It shall be a Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:10), to indicate that it applies in any case, in all places.

אם כן מה תלמוד לומר בארץ בזמן שהדרור נוהג בארץ נוהג בחוצה לארץ אין דרור נוהג בארץ אינו נוהג בחוצה לארץ

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Throughout the land”? The Gemara answers that this phrase teaches: When the liberty of slaves applies in Eretz Yisrael, it also applies outside of Eretz Yisrael, and when the liberty of slaves does not apply in Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael. The mitzva depends on whether the Jubilee Year is in effect, not on the place in question.

תנן התם החדש אסור מן התורה בכל מקום ערלה הלכה והכלאים מדברי סופרים מאי הלכה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכתא מדינה עולא אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה למשה מסיני

We learned in a mishna there (Orla 3:9): The new crop is forbidden by Torah law everywhere; orla is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael according to a halakha, as the Gemara will immediately explain; and diverse kinds are forbidden outside the land by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: What is this halakha, mentioned with regard to orla? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is the local halakha, i.e., this was the practice of Jews in places where they settled. Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

אמר ליה עולא לרב יהודה בשלמא לדידי דאמינא הלכה למשה מסיני היינו דשני לן בין ספק ערלה לספק כלאים

Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the mishna means that this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, this is the reason why we distinguish between fruit whose status as orla is uncertain, which is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael according to the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and produce whose status as diverse kinds is uncertain, which is permitted outside of Eretz Yisrael, as the prohibition of diverse kinds applies outside of Eretz Yisrael only by rabbinic law.

דתנן ספק ערלה בארץ אסור בסוריא מותר בחוצה לארץ יורד ולוקח ובלבד שלא יראנו לוקט

This is as we learned in a mishna (Orla 3:9): Fruit whose status as orla is uncertain is forbidden in Eretz Yisrael, and it is permitted in Syria with no concern about its uncertain status. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, a Jew may go down into the gentile’s field and purchase fruit that is orla from the gentile, provided that the Jew does not see him gather it.

ואילו גבי כלאים תנן כרם הנטוע ירק וירק נמכר חוצה לו בארץ אסור בסוריא מותר

Nevertheless, we learned in a mishna with regard to the halakhot of diverse kinds (Orla 3:9): If a vineyard has vegetables planted in it, and there are vegetables being sold outside the vineyard, but there is no proof that these vegetables came from the vineyard, in Eretz Yisrael they are forbidden. The reason is that as it is possible that the vegetables came from the vineyard, the halakha is stringent in a case involving a prohibition by Torah law. In Syria these vegetables are permitted.

בחוצה לארץ יורד ולוקט ובלבד שלא ילקוט ביד

Outside of Eretz Yisrael, if the gentile owner of a field containing diverse kinds goes down into his field and gathers produce, then, provided that the Jew does not gather it by hand, he may purchase the produce from the gentile. This indicates that outside of Eretz Yisrael there is a difference between orla of uncertain status and diverse kinds of uncertain status. This is understandable if orla is forbidden by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, while diverse kinds are forbidden by rabbinic law.

אלא לדידך

But according to your opinion, that neither orla nor diverse kinds is forbidden by Torah law,