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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2023 | 讛壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Kiddushin 38

Today’s daf is sponsored by Prof. Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of Dr. Robin Zeiger, for completing half of Shas together today!! “To my better half, I am looking forward to completing the other half of our journey together. Also thank you to Rabbanit Michelle.”

When the Jews entered the land of Israel after being in the desert, they stopped eating the manna on the 16th of Nisan and began eating from the new grains. Can this offer proof that when the Torah states “in your dwelling places” as it is mentioned regarding the prohibition to eat from the new grains, it is not referring to after having conquered and settled in the land? A number of braitot are brought regarding the manna and the date of Moshe’s birth and death. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai offers his own explanation chadash, orla and kelaim are applicable also outside of Israel – chadash, based on the word “in your dwelling places,” and the others by logical inference (kal vachomer) from chadash. His son, Rabbi Elazar, disagrees with the three exceptions and offers two different exceptions instead – cancellations of loans in the shmita year and release of slaves in the Jubilee year. Why are each of those cases considered part of the category of land-related commandments? A Mishna in Orla 3:9 explains that each of the three laws that are exceptions and apply outside of Israel are derived in different manners – one from the Torah, one halakha and one by the rabbis. What is meant by ‘halakha‘? Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel says it means the people took it upon themselves, while Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yochanan says it is ‘halakha l’Moshe miSinai.’ Ulla raises a difficulty on Rav Yehuda from the previous part of the Mishna in Orla 3:9.

讗拽专讜讘 注讜诪专 讜讛讚专 讗讻讜诇


they sacrificed the omer and only afterward did they eat.


讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 谞讬讻讜诇 诇讗诇转专 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪专讬讻讬


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.


讚讻转讬讘 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛诪谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 讗专抓 谞讜砖讘转 讗转 讛诪谉 讗讻诇讜 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 拽爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 讗专抓 谞讜砖讘转 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇 拽爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讗诇 拽爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 讗专抓 谞讜砖讘转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 诪砖讛 讜驻住拽 诪谉 诪诇讬专讚 讜讛讬讜 诪住转驻拽讬谉 诪诪谉 砖讘讻诇讬讛诐 注讚 砖砖讛 注砖专 讘谞讬住谉


This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Exodus 16:35). The Gemara analyzes this verse: One cannot say they ate 鈥渦ntil they came to a settled land,鈥 i.e., that they were still eating the manna when they entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is already stated: 鈥淭o the borders of the land of Canaan,鈥 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 鈥渢o the borders of the land of Canaan,鈥 as it is already stated: 鈥淯ntil they came to a settled land.鈥 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.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛诪谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讻讬 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讗讻诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讞住专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 注讜讙讜转 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪诪爪专讬诐 讟注诪讜 讘讛诐 讟注诐 诪谉


It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel ate the manna forty years鈥 (Exodus 16:35). But did they really eat it for forty years? But didn鈥檛 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.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 诪砖讛 讜讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 谞讜诇讚 诪谞讬谉 砖讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬诪转 砖诐 诪砖讛 注讘讚 讛壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讻讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 诪砖讛 讘注专讘转 诪讜讗讘 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讗讞专讬 诪讜转 诪砖讛 注讘讚 讛壮 讜讻转讬讘 诪砖讛 注讘讚讬 诪转 讜注转讛 拽讜诐 注讘专


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: 鈥淪o Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there鈥 (Deuteronomy 34:5), and it is written: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days鈥 (Deuteronomy 34:8). And it is written: 鈥淣ow it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord鈥 (Joshua 1:1), and it is written: 鈥淢oses, My servant, is dead; now arise, cross this Jordan鈥 (Joshua 1:2).


讜讻转讬讘 注讘专讜 讘拽专讘 讛诪讞谞讛 讜爪讜讜 讗转 讛注诐 诇讗诪专 讛讻讬谞讜 诇讻诐 爪讚讛 讻讬 讘注讜讚 砖诇砖转 讬诪讬诐 转注讘专讜 讗转 讛讬专讚谉 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛注诐 注诇讜 诪谉 讛讬专讚谉 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 诪砖讛


The baraita continues: And it is written: 鈥淧ass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying: Prepare your victuals, for within three days you are to cross the Jordan鈥 (Joshua 1:11). And it is written: 鈥淎nd the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month鈥 (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.


讜诪谞讬谉 砖讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 谞讜诇讚 诪砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讛诐 讘谉 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 砖谞讛 讗谞讻讬 讛讬讜诐 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注讜讚 诇爪讗转 讜诇讘讜讗 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬讜诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬讜诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讬讜砖讘 讜诪诪诇讗 砖谞讜转讬讛诐 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜诪讞讚砖 诇讞讚砖 砖谞讗诪专 讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗


The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that Moses was born on the seventh of Adar? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he said to them, I am one hundred and twenty years old today; I can no more go out and come in鈥 (Deuteronomy 31:2). As there is no need for the verse to state 鈥渢oday,鈥 since Moses could have said simply: I am one hundred and twenty years old. What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢oday鈥? 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: 鈥淭he number of your days I will fulfill鈥 (Exodus 23:26).


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 讜谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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.


讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 砖讬谞讛讙讜 讜诪讛 讞讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讬砖 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


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.


讻诇讗讬诐 砖讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬谞讛讙讜 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇注专诇讛 讘砖转讬诐


Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专


Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:


讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖谞爪讟讜讜 讬砖专讗诇 拽讜讚诐 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗讞专 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖诪讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讜砖讬诇讜讞 注讘讚讬诐 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞爪讟讜讜 注诇讬讛诐 诇讗讞专 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


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鈥2), and the emancipation of slaves in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:39鈥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.


讛砖诪讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗


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?


诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛 砖诪讜讟 讘砖转讬 砖诪讬讟讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 拽专拽注 讜讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐


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: 鈥淎nd this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate鈥 (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.


讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 拽专讗 砖诪讟讛 诇讛壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


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: 鈥淏ecause the Lord鈥檚 abrogation has been proclaimed鈥 (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.


砖讬诇讜讞 注讘讚讬诐 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜拽专讗转诐 讚专讜专 讘讗专抓 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


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: 鈥淎nd proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof鈥 (Leviticus 25:10), one could say: 鈥淭hroughout the land,鈥 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: 鈥淚t shall be a Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:10), to indicate that it applies in any case, in all places.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗专抓 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讚专讜专 谞讜讛讙 讘讗专抓 谞讜讛讙 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬谉 讚专讜专 谞讜讛讙 讘讗专抓 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hroughout the land鈥? 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.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讞讚砖 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 注专诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 诪讚讬谞讛 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


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 Yo岣nan says: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 住驻拽 注专诇讛 诇住驻拽 讻诇讗讬诐


Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讚转谞谉 住驻拽 注专诇讛 讘讗专抓 讗住讜专 讘住讜专讬讗 诪讜转专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬讜专讚 讜诇讜拽讞 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬专讗谞讜 诇讜拽讟


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鈥檚 field and purchase fruit that is orla from the gentile, provided that the Jew does not see him gather it.


讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讻诇讗讬诐 转谞谉 讻专诐 讛谞讟讜注 讬专拽 讜讬专拽 谞诪讻专 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讘讗专抓 讗住讜专 讘住讜专讬讗 诪讜转专


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.


讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬讜专讚 讜诇讜拽讟 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讜讟 讘讬讚


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.


讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱


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


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

On Second Thought (2)

Respect & Honor – On Second Thought

Masechet Kiddushin 30-39   On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer   On Second Thought Kiddushin...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddusin: 32 – 38 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the commandment to honor and fear one鈥檚 parents. We will also learn that...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 38: The Birthdays of the Righteous

The Children of Israel were given several mitzvot at the time they entered the land, so the Gemara focuses on...
ramban seal

Lover of Zion

If you keep kosher and live in the Diaspora, especially in an area without many observant Jews, coming to Israel...

Kiddushin 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 38

讗拽专讜讘 注讜诪专 讜讛讚专 讗讻讜诇


they sacrificed the omer and only afterward did they eat.


讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讞专 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬砖讬讘讛 谞讬讻讜诇 诇讗诇转专 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪专讬讻讬


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.


讚讻转讬讘 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛诪谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 讗专抓 谞讜砖讘转 讗转 讛诪谉 讗讻诇讜 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 拽爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 讗专抓 谞讜砖讘转 砖讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇 拽爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讗诇 拽爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注讚 讘讗诐 讗诇 讗专抓 谞讜砖讘转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 诪砖讛 讜驻住拽 诪谉 诪诇讬专讚 讜讛讬讜 诪住转驻拽讬谉 诪诪谉 砖讘讻诇讬讛诐 注讚 砖砖讛 注砖专 讘谞讬住谉


This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Exodus 16:35). The Gemara analyzes this verse: One cannot say they ate 鈥渦ntil they came to a settled land,鈥 i.e., that they were still eating the manna when they entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is already stated: 鈥淭o the borders of the land of Canaan,鈥 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 鈥渢o the borders of the land of Canaan,鈥 as it is already stated: 鈥淯ntil they came to a settled land.鈥 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.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛诪谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讻讬 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讗讻诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讞住专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讜诪专 诇讱 注讜讙讜转 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪诪爪专讬诐 讟注诪讜 讘讛诐 讟注诐 诪谉


It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel ate the manna forty years鈥 (Exodus 16:35). But did they really eat it for forty years? But didn鈥檛 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.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 诪砖讛 讜讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 谞讜诇讚 诪谞讬谉 砖讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬诪转 砖诐 诪砖讛 注讘讚 讛壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讻讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 诪砖讛 讘注专讘转 诪讜讗讘 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讗讞专讬 诪讜转 诪砖讛 注讘讚 讛壮 讜讻转讬讘 诪砖讛 注讘讚讬 诪转 讜注转讛 拽讜诐 注讘专


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: 鈥淪o Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there鈥 (Deuteronomy 34:5), and it is written: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days鈥 (Deuteronomy 34:8). And it is written: 鈥淣ow it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord鈥 (Joshua 1:1), and it is written: 鈥淢oses, My servant, is dead; now arise, cross this Jordan鈥 (Joshua 1:2).


讜讻转讬讘 注讘专讜 讘拽专讘 讛诪讞谞讛 讜爪讜讜 讗转 讛注诐 诇讗诪专 讛讻讬谞讜 诇讻诐 爪讚讛 讻讬 讘注讜讚 砖诇砖转 讬诪讬诐 转注讘专讜 讗转 讛讬专讚谉 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛注诐 注诇讜 诪谉 讛讬专讚谉 讘注砖讜专 诇讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 诪转 诪砖讛


The baraita continues: And it is written: 鈥淧ass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying: Prepare your victuals, for within three days you are to cross the Jordan鈥 (Joshua 1:11). And it is written: 鈥淎nd the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month鈥 (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.


讜诪谞讬谉 砖讘砖讘注讛 讘讗讚专 谞讜诇讚 诪砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讛诐 讘谉 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 砖谞讛 讗谞讻讬 讛讬讜诐 诇讗 讗讜讻诇 注讜讚 诇爪讗转 讜诇讘讜讗 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬讜诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛讬讜诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讬讜砖讘 讜诪诪诇讗 砖谞讜转讬讛诐 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜诪讞讚砖 诇讞讚砖 砖谞讗诪专 讗转 诪住驻专 讬诪讬讱 讗诪诇讗


The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that Moses was born on the seventh of Adar? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he said to them, I am one hundred and twenty years old today; I can no more go out and come in鈥 (Deuteronomy 31:2). As there is no need for the verse to state 鈥渢oday,鈥 since Moses could have said simply: I am one hundred and twenty years old. What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢oday鈥? 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: 鈥淭he number of your days I will fulfill鈥 (Exodus 23:26).


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 讜谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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.


讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 砖讬谞讛讙讜 讜诪讛 讞讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讬砖 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


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.


讻诇讗讬诐 砖讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬谞讛讙讜 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇注专诇讛 讘砖转讬诐


Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i 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.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专


Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:


讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖谞爪讟讜讜 讬砖专讗诇 拽讜讚诐 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗讞专 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖诪讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讜砖讬诇讜讞 注讘讚讬诐 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞爪讟讜讜 注诇讬讛诐 诇讗讞专 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讗专抓 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


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鈥2), and the emancipation of slaves in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:39鈥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.


讛砖诪讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗


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?


诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讟讛 砖诪讜讟 讘砖转讬 砖诪讬讟讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 拽专拽注 讜讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐


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: 鈥淎nd this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate鈥 (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.


讜讗讬诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 拽专讗 砖诪讟讛 诇讛壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


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: 鈥淏ecause the Lord鈥檚 abrogation has been proclaimed鈥 (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.


砖讬诇讜讞 注讘讚讬诐 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜拽专讗转诐 讚专讜专 讘讗专抓 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


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: 鈥淎nd proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof鈥 (Leviticus 25:10), one could say: 鈥淭hroughout the land,鈥 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: 鈥淚t shall be a Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:10), to indicate that it applies in any case, in all places.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗专抓 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讚专讜专 谞讜讛讙 讘讗专抓 谞讜讛讙 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬谉 讚专讜专 谞讜讛讙 讘讗专抓 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hroughout the land鈥? 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.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讞讚砖 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 注专诇讛 讛诇讻讛 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 诪讚讬谞讛 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


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 Yo岣nan says: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 住驻拽 注专诇讛 诇住驻拽 讻诇讗讬诐


Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讚转谞谉 住驻拽 注专诇讛 讘讗专抓 讗住讜专 讘住讜专讬讗 诪讜转专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬讜专讚 讜诇讜拽讞 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬专讗谞讜 诇讜拽讟


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鈥檚 field and purchase fruit that is orla from the gentile, provided that the Jew does not see him gather it.


讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讻诇讗讬诐 转谞谉 讻专诐 讛谞讟讜注 讬专拽 讜讬专拽 谞诪讻专 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讘讗专抓 讗住讜专 讘住讜专讬讗 诪讜转专


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.


讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬讜专讚 讜诇讜拽讟 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讜讟 讘讬讚


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.


讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱


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


Scroll To Top