Different opinions are offered regarding whether or not laws of orla apply outside of Israel and if they do apply, does it apply to produce that is safek orla? Rabbi Yochanan ruled strictly both about orla and diverse kinds (kelaim) outside of Israel to the extent that he said that one who transgresses the prohibition of diverse kinds receives lashes. How could this be if diverse kinds outside of Israel are only forbidden by rabbinic law? To resolve this, they distinguish between tree grafting and planting seeds of diverse kinds. Rav Yosef was mixing seeds together and planting them. They raise a difficulty against this from the Mishna that holds that diverse kinds are forbidden by rabbinic law outside of Israel. To resolve this, they distinguish between diverse kinds in a vineyard (forbidden) and diverse seeds planted together (permitted). The Mishna states that one who performs one mitzva is rewarded with good things, long life and inherits the land. One who does not perform one mitzva, does not receive these blessings and does not inherit the land. How is this Mishna reconciled with the Mishna in Peah 1:1 that there are specific mitzvot for which one receives reward in this world? There are several ways to understand our Mishna – is it referring to reward in this world or the next world? Rabbi Yaakov, after seeing a child fulfilling both the mitzva of honoring his father and sending off the mother bird, both of which promise long life, and falling and dying on his way down the tree, he concluded that righteous people suffer in this world in order to receive more reward in the World-to-Come. This same story caused Elisha ben Avuya to leave the religion. Some suggest it was a different incident – that he saw the tongue of Chutzpit the translator being dragged on the floor by a pig after he was killed by the Romans.
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Kiddushin
Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Kiddushin 39
נִיתְנֵי אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ״, אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט״! הָאָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב עָנָן: תְּנִי אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ״ אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט״. מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ לְקוּלָּא: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקוֹט בַּיָּד״.
let the mishna teach in the same manner in both cases, either by stating in both this case and that case that one may go down and purchase the produce, or by stating in both this case and that case that one may go down and gather the produce. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Anan that one should teach it either as stating in both this case and that case that one may go down and purchase the produce, or in both this case and that case that one may go down and gather the produce? Mar, son of Rabbana, taught this mishna according to the following lenient version: In both this case and that case one may go down and gather the produce, provided that he does not gather it with his own hand.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵוִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל: אַרְיוֹךְ, סַפֵּק לִי, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל. רַב אַוְיָא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן מְסַפְּקוּ סַפּוֹקֵי לַהֲדָדֵי. אָמְרִי חֲרִיפֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: אֵין עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
§ With regard to the prohibition of orla outside of Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara relates that Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh, Shmuel’s nickname, supply me with such food, as I will not pick it on my own, and if you do so I will eat it. There is no reason for concern with regard to orla outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Avya and Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan would supply produce whose orla status was uncertain for each other, as it is forbidden only if one takes the orla on his own. The sharp Sages of Pumbedita said: The prohibition of orla does not apply at all outside of Eretz Yisrael.
שַׁלְחַהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: סְתוֹם סְפֵיקָהּ, וְאַבֵּד וַדָּאַהּ, וְהַכְרֵז עַל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁטְּעוּנִים גְּנִיזָה. וְכׇל הָאוֹמֵר אֵין עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לֹא יְהֵא לוֹ נִין וָנֶכֶד, ״מַשְׁלִיךְ חֶבֶל בְּגוֹרָל בִּקְהַל ה׳״.
Rav Yehuda sent a question to Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning the halakha with regard to orla outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yoḥanan sent him the following response: Conceal, i.e., do not publicize, the halakha that produce whose orla status is uncertain is permitted; and destroy, i.e., prohibit entirely, produce whose orla status is certain; and with regard to the produce of those who are lenient in this halakha, declare that it requires interment, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from such produce. And whoever says that there is no prohibition of orla outside of Eretz Yisrael will have neither a child nor a grandchild “who shall cast the line by lot in the congregation of the Lord” (Micah 2:5).
וְאִינְהוּ כְּמַאן סַבְרוּהָ? כִּי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל: אֵין עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion do the sharp Sages of Pumbedita hold when they state this halakha? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaska, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the Great: The prohibition of orla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael.
וְלָא? וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הֶחָדָשׁ! תְּנִי: ״חָדָשׁ״.
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: But does it not apply? Does Rabbi Eliezer maintain that the prohibition of orla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even the new crop, which indicates that he agrees that orla and diverse kinds are forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers that one should not teach that Rabbi Eliezer said: Even the new crop, but rather teach only the words: The new crop, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer maintains that only this prohibition applies outside of Eretz Yisrael.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: וְהָתַנְיָא: סְפֵק עׇרְלָה בָּאָרֶץ – אָסוּר, בְּסוּרְיָא – מוּתָּר, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט! ״אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָה״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא כָּךְ נֶאֶמְרָה: סְפֵיקָהּ מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָהּ אָסוּר.
Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Orla is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to produce whose status concerning orla is uncertain, in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden, in Syria it is permitted, and outside of Eretz Yisrael one goes down and gathers it? And if orla is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why is produce whose status concerning orla is uncertain permitted in Syria? Rabbi Zeira “was dismayed for a while” (Daniel 4:16), and then Rabbi Asi said to him: Say that it is stated like this, i.e., explain that the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai was that outside of Eretz Yisrael produce whose status concerning orla is uncertain is permitted, and produce whose status concerning orla is certain is forbidden.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לוֹקִין עַל הַכִּלְאַיִם דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הַכִּלְאַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים! לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, כָּאן בְּהַרְכָּבַת הָאִילָן.
§ Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Offenders are flogged for transgressing the prohibition of diverse kinds outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Orla 3:9) that the prohibition of diverse kinds applies by rabbinic law outside of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The mishna here is referring to diverse kinds in a vineyard, which is prohibited outside of Eretz Yisrael by rabbinic law, whereas there, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is referring to the grafting of a tree onto a different species.
כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ״ – חוּקִּים שֶׁחָקַקְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר, ״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע״
The Gemara adds that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: The verse states: “You shall keep My statutes” (Leviticus 19:19), which means that one must keep even the statutes that I have already instituted for you when you were merely descendants of Noah, before the giving of the Torah. Shmuel elaborates: This is referring to the prohibitions stated in that same verse: “You shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19).
– מָה בְּהֶמְתְּךָ בְּהַרְבָּעָה, אַף שָׂדְךָ בְּהַרְכָּבָה. וּמָה בְּהֶמְתְּךָ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, אַף שָׂדְךָ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
Additionally, the juxtaposition of these prohibitions teaches that just as the prohibition of diverse kinds stated with regard to your animal applies only to mating one species with another, so too, the prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to your field is referring only to grafting one type of tree to another type, and it does not apply to planting two species together. Furthermore, just as the prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to your animal applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, as this prohibition does not relate to the land, so too, the prohibition against grafting your field applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.
וְאֶלָּא הָכְתִיב: ״שָׂדְךָ״! הָהוּא לְמַעוֹטֵי זְרָעִים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Your field,” which indicates that the field belongs to you in your portion of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: That verse serves to exclude the prohibition of diverse kinds of seeds, which does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael. Planting different types of seeds together is prohibited only in Eretz Yisrael.
רַב חָנָן וְרַב עָנָן הֲווֹ שָׁקְלִי וְאָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. חַזְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקָא זָרַע זְרָעִים בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיתֵי מָר נְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא חָוְורִיתוּ.
§ The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥanan and Rav Anan were once going together on a road outside of Eretz Yisrael and they saw a certain man planting seeds of diverse kinds together. One of them said to the other: Let the Master come and ostracize him, as he is performing a prohibited act. The other said to him: These halakhot are not understood by you.
וְתוּ, חַזְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקָא זָרַע חִטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי בֵּי גוּפְנֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיתֵי מָר נְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צָהֲרִיתוּ, לָא קַיְימָא לַן כְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד?!
And furthermore, they also saw a certain man who was planting wheat and barley between grapevines. One of them said to the other: Let the Master come and ostracize him. He again said to him: These halakhot are not clear to you. He explained: Don’t we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says: One who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat, and barley, and a grape seed with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously. Since this man was not planting in that manner, he should not be ostracized.
רַב יוֹסֵף מְעָרֵב בִּיזְרָנֵי וְזָרַע. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הַכִּלְאַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, כָּאן בְּכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים. כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דְּבָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נָמֵי גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים דְּבָאָרֶץ לָא אֲסִירִי בַּהֲנָאָה – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נָמֵי לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef was mixing diverse seeds and planting them. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that mixing diverse kinds is prohibited outside of Eretz Yisrael by rabbinic law? Rav Yosef said to him: This is not difficult, as here, the mishna is referring to diverse kinds in a vineyard, and there, I am planting legally because I am planting only diverse kinds of seeds. The reason for the difference between these two cases is as follows: With regard to planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, which in Eretz Yisrael is prohibited even with regard to deriving benefit, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting this mixture outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. Conversely, with regard to planting diverse kinds of seeds, which in Eretz Yisrael is not prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting them outside of Eretz Yisrael.
הֲדַר אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּרַב זָרַע גִּינְּתָא דְּבֵי רַב מְשָׁארֵי מְשָׁארֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא – לָאו מִשּׁוּם עֵירוּב עֵירוּבֵי כִלְאַיִם? אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן
Rav Yosef then said: The matter that I said, i.e., that diverse kinds of seeds are entirely permitted outside of Eretz Yisrael, is not so. The proof is that Rav planted the garden around the study hall in rows [mesharei] of different species. What is the reason that he did that rather than plant different species together? Is it not because he was concerned about mixtures of diverse kinds? Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Granted, if he taught us this halakha through his actions,
אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הָעֲרוּגָה וְאַחַת בָּאֶמְצַע – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם נוֹי. וְאִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם טִרְחָא דְּשַׁמָּעָא הִיא.
and he was careful to plant four different species along the four sides of the garden bed and one in the middle, so that there would be space between them, it works out well. This would show that Rav was cautious not to plant diverse kinds together. But here, where Rav actually planted each species in its own bed, he did so due to beautification, i.e., to improve the appearance of the garden in front of the study hall. Alternatively, the reason Rav planted this way is due to the trouble that would be caused to the attendant. When his attendant would be sent to fetch a certain type of vegetable from the garden he would not need to search for it, but would know where the different vegetables were planted. Therefore, this does not prove that Rav was concerned about diverse kinds outside of Eretz Yisrael.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וּמַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו, וְנוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – אֵין מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וְאֵין מַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.
MISHNA: Anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land, i.e., life in the World-to-Come. And anyone who does not perform one mitzva does not have goodness bestowed upon him, his life is not lengthened, and he does not inherit the land of the World-to-Come.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֵלּוּ הֵן: כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְהַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם.
GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, hospitality toward guests, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them. This indicates that one is rewarded in this world only for fulfilling these mitzvot, but not for fulfilling all mitzvot.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת יְתֵירָה עַל זְכִיּוֹתָיו מְטִיבִים לוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ. מִכְּלָל דְּהָנָךְ אֲפִילּוּ בַּחֲדָא נָמֵי? אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה שְׁקוּלָה – מַכְרַעַת.
Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits, and thereby tips the scale of all his deeds to the side of righteousness, has goodness bestowed upon him and is compared to one who fulfills the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: One can learn by inference from here that with regard to those mitzvot listed in the mishna in Pe’a one is rewarded even for one of them, notwithstanding the fact that overall his sins are more numerous. Rav Shemaya said: The other mishna serves to say that if one’s sins and merits were of equal balance, i.e., he has accrued an equal amount of merit and sin, one of these mitzvot tilts the scale in his favor.
וְכׇל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת יְתֵירָה עַל זְכִיּוֹתָיו מְטִיבִין לוֹ? וּרְמִינְהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁזְּכִיּוֹתָיו מְרוּבִּין מֵעֲוֹנוֹתָיו – מְרִיעִין לוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׂרַף כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא שִׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִילּוּ אוֹת אַחַת. וְכֹל שֶׁעֲוֹנוֹתָיו מְרוּבִּין מִזְּכִיּוֹתָיו – מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁקִּיֵּים כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא חִיסֵּר אוֹת אַחַת מִמֶּנָּה!
The Gemara further asks: And does anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits have goodness bestowed upon him in this world? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished with suffering in order to cleanse his sins in this world and enable him to merit full reward for his mitzvot in the World-to-Come. And due to this punishment he appears to observers like one who burned the entire Torah without leaving even one letter remaining of it. Conversely, anyone whose sins are greater than his merits has goodness bestowed upon him in this world, and he appears like one who has fulfilled the entire Torah without lacking the fulfillment of even one letter of it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַתְנִיתִין דְּעָבְדִין לֵיהּ יוֹם טָב וָיוֹם בִּישׁ. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׂכַר מִצְוָה בְּהַאי עָלְמָא לֵיכָּא.
Abaye said: When the mishna said that he is rewarded, it means that he has one good day and one bad day. He is rewarded for the mitzvot he performs; nevertheless, occasionally he also has bad days which cleanse him of his sins, and the baraita is referring to those days. Rava said that the mishna and this baraita represent two different opinions. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says: There is no reward for performance of a mitzva in this world, as one is rewarded for mitzvot only World-to-Come.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָךְ כׇּל מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁמַּתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ שֶׁאֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים תְּלוּיָה בָּהּ. בְּכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם כְּתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ״, בְּשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן כְּתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים״.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: There is not a single mitzva written in the Torah whose reward is stated alongside it, which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the reward is actually bestowed in the World-to-Come, after the resurrection of the dead. How so? With regard to honoring one’s father and mother it is written: “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). With regard to the dispatch of the mother bird from the nest it is written: “That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7).
הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו: עֲלֵה לַבִּירָה וְהָבֵא לִי גּוֹזָלוֹת, וְעָלָה לַבִּירָה וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְנָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וּבַחֲזִירָתוֹ נָפַל וָמֵת – הֵיכָן טוֹבַת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה, וְהֵיכָן אֲרִיכוּת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה? אֶלָּא: ״לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ״ – לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ טוֹב, ״וּלְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ״ – לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ אָרוֹךְ.
Despite this, it occurred that there was one whose father said to him: Climb to the top of the building and fetch me chicks. And he climbed to the top of the building and dispatched the mother bird and took the young, thereby simultaneously fulfilling the mitzva to dispatch the mother bird from the nest and the mitzva to honor one’s parents, but upon his return he fell and died. Where is the goodness of the days of this one, and where is the length of days of this one? Rather, the verse “that it may be well with you” means in the world where all is well, and “that your days may be long” is referring to the world that is entirely long.
וְדִלְמָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה? רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַעֲשֶׂה חֲזָא. וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבֵירָה הֲוָה? מַחְשָׁבָה רָעָה אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְצָרְפָהּ לְמַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps this incident never occurred? It is possible that everyone who performs these mitzvot is rewarded in this world, and the situation described by Rabbi Ya’akov never happened. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov himself saw an incident of this kind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps that man was contemplating sin at the time, and he was punished for his thoughts? The Gemara answers that there is a principle that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link a bad thought to an action, i.e., one is not punished for thoughts alone.
וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲוָה, וּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תְּפֹשׂ אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּלִבָּם״?! אִיהוּ נָמֵי הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׂכַר מִצְוָה בְּהַאי עָלְמָא, אַמַּאי לָא אַגִּין מִצְוֹת עֲלֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לֵיתֵי לִידֵי הִרְהוּר?
The Gemara asks: But perhaps he was contemplating idol worship at the time, and it is written with regard to idol worship: “So I may take the house of Israel in their own heart” (Ezekiel 14:5), which indicates that one is punished for idolatrous thoughts. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov was saying this as well: If it enters your mind that there is reward for performing a mitzva in this world, why didn’t these mitzvot protect him so that he should not come to contemplate idol worship? Since that man was not protected from thoughts of idol worship at the time, this indicates that the performance of mitzvot does not entitle one to merit reward in this world.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵין נִזּוֹקִין! הָתָם בַּהֲלִיכָתָן שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm? How is it possible that this individual, who was sent by his father to perform a mitzva, could have died? The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Elazar is referring those on their way to perform a mitzva, which is different, as one is not susceptible to harm when he is on his way to fulfill a mitzva. In this case the individual was harmed on his return, and one is not afforded protection after having performed a mitzva.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵינָן נִזּוֹקִין לֹא בַּהֲלִיכָתָן וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתָן! סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ הֲוָה, דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּיקָא, וְכׇל הֵיכָא דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּיקָא לָא סָמְכִינַן אַנִּיסָּא. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי״.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm, neither when they are on their way to perform the mitzva nor when they are returning from performing the mitzva? The Gemara answers: In that case it was a rickety ladder, and therefore the danger was established; and anywhere that the danger is established one may not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to sacrifice an offering to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Although God Himself issued the command, there was concern with regard to the established dangers.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִילְמָלֵי דַּרְשֵׁיהּ אַחֵר לְהַאי קְרָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר בְּרַתֵּיה – לָא חֲטָא. וְאַחֵר מַאי הוּא? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא חֲזָא.
Rav Yosef said: Had Aḥer, literally Other, the appellation of the former Sage Elisha ben Avuya, interpreted this aforementioned verse: “That it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16), homiletically, as referring to the World-to-Come, as did Rabbi Ya’akov, son of his daughter, he would not have sinned. The Gemara asks: And what caused Aḥer to sin? There are those who say he saw a case like this, where a son went up to the roof on his father’s command, dispatched the mother bird, and then died. It was witnessing this episode that led Elisha ben Avuya astray.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לִישָּׁנָא דְּחוּצְפִּית הַמְתוּרְגְּמָן חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה גָּרַיר לֵיהּ דָּבָר אַחֵר. אֲמַר: פֶּה שֶׁהֵפִיק מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת יְלַחֵךְ עָפָר?! נְפַק חֲטָא.
And there are those who say that he saw the tongue of Ḥutzpit the disseminator after the latter was executed by the government, thrown in the street, and dragged along by something else, a euphemism for a pig. He said: Shall a mouth that produced pearls lap up dirt? For this reason he went out and sinned.
רָמֵי רַב טוֹבִי בַּר רַב קִיסְנָא לְרָבָא: תְּנַן כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת מְטִיבִין לוֹ: עָשָׂה – אִין, לֹא עָשָׂה – לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: יָשַׁב וְלֹא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה – נוֹתְנִים לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא דְּבַר עֲבֵירָה לְיָדוֹ וְנִיצּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה.
§ Rav Tuvi bar Rav Kisna raises a contradiction to Rava and asked: We learned in the mishna that anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him. This indicates that if one actually performed the mitzva, yes, he is rewarded, but if he did not perform the mitzva, no, he does not receive a reward. He raises a contradiction based on the following statement: If one sits and does not transgress, he receives a reward as one who performs a mitzva, despite the fact that he does not actually perform a mitzva. Rava said to him: There, when it is referring to one who sits and does not transgress, it does not mean that he was merely sitting; rather, it is speaking of a case where an opportunity to commit a sinful act presents itself to him and he is saved from it.
כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפֵּי תְּבַעְתֵּיהּ הָהִיא מַטְרוֹנִיתָא. אֲמַר מִלְּתָא וּמַלִּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ שִׁיחְנָא וְכִיבָא, עֲבַדָה הִיא מִילְּתָא וְאִיתַּסִּי. עֲרַק, טְשָׁא בְּהָהוּא בֵּי בָנֵי דְּכִי הֲווֹ עָיְילִין בִּתְרֵין אֲפִילּוּ בִּימָמָא הֲווֹ מִיתַּזְּקִי. לִמְחַר אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: מַאן נַטְרָךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁנֵי
This is like an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, who was enticed by a certain noblewoman [matronita] to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said a formula of an incantation and was covered with boils and scabs so as to render himself unattractive to her. She performed an act of magic and he was healed. He fled and hid in a bathhouse that was so dangerous, due to the demons that frequented the place, that when two people entered together even during the day they would be harmed. The next day the Sages said to him: Who protected you in that dangerous place? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi said to them: There were angels who appeared like two
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
Berlin, Germany
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Los Angeles, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Kiddushin 39
נִיתְנֵי אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ״, אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט״! הָאָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב עָנָן: תְּנִי אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ״ אוֹ: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט״. מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ לְקוּלָּא: ״זֶה וָזֶה יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקוֹט בַּיָּד״.
let the mishna teach in the same manner in both cases, either by stating in both this case and that case that one may go down and purchase the produce, or by stating in both this case and that case that one may go down and gather the produce. The Gemara answers: Didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Anan that one should teach it either as stating in both this case and that case that one may go down and purchase the produce, or in both this case and that case that one may go down and gather the produce? Mar, son of Rabbana, taught this mishna according to the following lenient version: In both this case and that case one may go down and gather the produce, provided that he does not gather it with his own hand.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵוִי לִשְׁמוּאֵל: אַרְיוֹךְ, סַפֵּק לִי, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל. רַב אַוְיָא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן מְסַפְּקוּ סַפּוֹקֵי לַהֲדָדֵי. אָמְרִי חֲרִיפֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: אֵין עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
§ With regard to the prohibition of orla outside of Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara relates that Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh, Shmuel’s nickname, supply me with such food, as I will not pick it on my own, and if you do so I will eat it. There is no reason for concern with regard to orla outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Avya and Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan would supply produce whose orla status was uncertain for each other, as it is forbidden only if one takes the orla on his own. The sharp Sages of Pumbedita said: The prohibition of orla does not apply at all outside of Eretz Yisrael.
שַׁלְחַהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: סְתוֹם סְפֵיקָהּ, וְאַבֵּד וַדָּאַהּ, וְהַכְרֵז עַל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁטְּעוּנִים גְּנִיזָה. וְכׇל הָאוֹמֵר אֵין עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לֹא יְהֵא לוֹ נִין וָנֶכֶד, ״מַשְׁלִיךְ חֶבֶל בְּגוֹרָל בִּקְהַל ה׳״.
Rav Yehuda sent a question to Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning the halakha with regard to orla outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yoḥanan sent him the following response: Conceal, i.e., do not publicize, the halakha that produce whose orla status is uncertain is permitted; and destroy, i.e., prohibit entirely, produce whose orla status is certain; and with regard to the produce of those who are lenient in this halakha, declare that it requires interment, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from such produce. And whoever says that there is no prohibition of orla outside of Eretz Yisrael will have neither a child nor a grandchild “who shall cast the line by lot in the congregation of the Lord” (Micah 2:5).
וְאִינְהוּ כְּמַאן סַבְרוּהָ? כִּי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל: אֵין עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion do the sharp Sages of Pumbedita hold when they state this halakha? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaska, who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the Great: The prohibition of orla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael.
וְלָא? וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הֶחָדָשׁ! תְּנִי: ״חָדָשׁ״.
The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: But does it not apply? Does Rabbi Eliezer maintain that the prohibition of orla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even the new crop, which indicates that he agrees that orla and diverse kinds are forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers that one should not teach that Rabbi Eliezer said: Even the new crop, but rather teach only the words: The new crop, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer maintains that only this prohibition applies outside of Eretz Yisrael.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עׇרְלָה בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: וְהָתַנְיָא: סְפֵק עׇרְלָה בָּאָרֶץ – אָסוּר, בְּסוּרְיָא – מוּתָּר, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט! ״אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָה״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא כָּךְ נֶאֶמְרָה: סְפֵיקָהּ מוּתָּר, וַדָּאָהּ אָסוּר.
Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Orla is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to produce whose status concerning orla is uncertain, in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden, in Syria it is permitted, and outside of Eretz Yisrael one goes down and gathers it? And if orla is forbidden outside of Eretz Yisrael by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, why is produce whose status concerning orla is uncertain permitted in Syria? Rabbi Zeira “was dismayed for a while” (Daniel 4:16), and then Rabbi Asi said to him: Say that it is stated like this, i.e., explain that the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai was that outside of Eretz Yisrael produce whose status concerning orla is uncertain is permitted, and produce whose status concerning orla is certain is forbidden.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לוֹקִין עַל הַכִּלְאַיִם דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הַכִּלְאַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים! לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, כָּאן בְּהַרְכָּבַת הָאִילָן.
§ Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Offenders are flogged for transgressing the prohibition of diverse kinds outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Orla 3:9) that the prohibition of diverse kinds applies by rabbinic law outside of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The mishna here is referring to diverse kinds in a vineyard, which is prohibited outside of Eretz Yisrael by rabbinic law, whereas there, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is referring to the grafting of a tree onto a different species.
כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ״ – חוּקִּים שֶׁחָקַקְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר, ״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע״
The Gemara adds that this halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: The verse states: “You shall keep My statutes” (Leviticus 19:19), which means that one must keep even the statutes that I have already instituted for you when you were merely descendants of Noah, before the giving of the Torah. Shmuel elaborates: This is referring to the prohibitions stated in that same verse: “You shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19).
– מָה בְּהֶמְתְּךָ בְּהַרְבָּעָה, אַף שָׂדְךָ בְּהַרְכָּבָה. וּמָה בְּהֶמְתְּךָ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, אַף שָׂדְךָ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
Additionally, the juxtaposition of these prohibitions teaches that just as the prohibition of diverse kinds stated with regard to your animal applies only to mating one species with another, so too, the prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to your field is referring only to grafting one type of tree to another type, and it does not apply to planting two species together. Furthermore, just as the prohibition of diverse kinds with regard to your animal applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, as this prohibition does not relate to the land, so too, the prohibition against grafting your field applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael.
וְאֶלָּא הָכְתִיב: ״שָׂדְךָ״! הָהוּא לְמַעוֹטֵי זְרָעִים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Your field,” which indicates that the field belongs to you in your portion of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: That verse serves to exclude the prohibition of diverse kinds of seeds, which does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael. Planting different types of seeds together is prohibited only in Eretz Yisrael.
רַב חָנָן וְרַב עָנָן הֲווֹ שָׁקְלִי וְאָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. חַזְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקָא זָרַע זְרָעִים בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיתֵי מָר נְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא חָוְורִיתוּ.
§ The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥanan and Rav Anan were once going together on a road outside of Eretz Yisrael and they saw a certain man planting seeds of diverse kinds together. One of them said to the other: Let the Master come and ostracize him, as he is performing a prohibited act. The other said to him: These halakhot are not understood by you.
וְתוּ, חַזְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקָא זָרַע חִטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי בֵּי גוּפְנֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיתֵי מָר נְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צָהֲרִיתוּ, לָא קַיְימָא לַן כְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד?!
And furthermore, they also saw a certain man who was planting wheat and barley between grapevines. One of them said to the other: Let the Master come and ostracize him. He again said to him: These halakhot are not clear to you. He explained: Don’t we hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says: One who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat, and barley, and a grape seed with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously. Since this man was not planting in that manner, he should not be ostracized.
רַב יוֹסֵף מְעָרֵב בִּיזְרָנֵי וְזָרַע. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: הַכִּלְאַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, כָּאן בְּכִלְאֵי זְרָעִים. כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דְּבָאָרֶץ אֲסוּרִים בַּהֲנָאָה – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נָמֵי גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. כִּלְאֵי זְרָעִים דְּבָאָרֶץ לָא אֲסִירִי בַּהֲנָאָה – בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ נָמֵי לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef was mixing diverse seeds and planting them. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that mixing diverse kinds is prohibited outside of Eretz Yisrael by rabbinic law? Rav Yosef said to him: This is not difficult, as here, the mishna is referring to diverse kinds in a vineyard, and there, I am planting legally because I am planting only diverse kinds of seeds. The reason for the difference between these two cases is as follows: With regard to planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, which in Eretz Yisrael is prohibited even with regard to deriving benefit, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting this mixture outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. Conversely, with regard to planting diverse kinds of seeds, which in Eretz Yisrael is not prohibited with regard to deriving benefit, the Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting them outside of Eretz Yisrael.
הֲדַר אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּרַב זָרַע גִּינְּתָא דְּבֵי רַב מְשָׁארֵי מְשָׁארֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא – לָאו מִשּׁוּם עֵירוּב עֵירוּבֵי כִלְאַיִם? אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן
Rav Yosef then said: The matter that I said, i.e., that diverse kinds of seeds are entirely permitted outside of Eretz Yisrael, is not so. The proof is that Rav planted the garden around the study hall in rows [mesharei] of different species. What is the reason that he did that rather than plant different species together? Is it not because he was concerned about mixtures of diverse kinds? Abaye said to him: That is not proof. Granted, if he taught us this halakha through his actions,
אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הָעֲרוּגָה וְאַחַת בָּאֶמְצַע – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם נוֹי. וְאִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם טִרְחָא דְּשַׁמָּעָא הִיא.
and he was careful to plant four different species along the four sides of the garden bed and one in the middle, so that there would be space between them, it works out well. This would show that Rav was cautious not to plant diverse kinds together. But here, where Rav actually planted each species in its own bed, he did so due to beautification, i.e., to improve the appearance of the garden in front of the study hall. Alternatively, the reason Rav planted this way is due to the trouble that would be caused to the attendant. When his attendant would be sent to fetch a certain type of vegetable from the garden he would not need to search for it, but would know where the different vegetables were planted. Therefore, this does not prove that Rav was concerned about diverse kinds outside of Eretz Yisrael.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וּמַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו, וְנוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – אֵין מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וְאֵין מַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.
MISHNA: Anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land, i.e., life in the World-to-Come. And anyone who does not perform one mitzva does not have goodness bestowed upon him, his life is not lengthened, and he does not inherit the land of the World-to-Come.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֵלּוּ הֵן: כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְהַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם.
GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, hospitality toward guests, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them. This indicates that one is rewarded in this world only for fulfilling these mitzvot, but not for fulfilling all mitzvot.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת יְתֵירָה עַל זְכִיּוֹתָיו מְטִיבִים לוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ. מִכְּלָל דְּהָנָךְ אֲפִילּוּ בַּחֲדָא נָמֵי? אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה שְׁקוּלָה – מַכְרַעַת.
Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits, and thereby tips the scale of all his deeds to the side of righteousness, has goodness bestowed upon him and is compared to one who fulfills the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: One can learn by inference from here that with regard to those mitzvot listed in the mishna in Pe’a one is rewarded even for one of them, notwithstanding the fact that overall his sins are more numerous. Rav Shemaya said: The other mishna serves to say that if one’s sins and merits were of equal balance, i.e., he has accrued an equal amount of merit and sin, one of these mitzvot tilts the scale in his favor.
וְכׇל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת יְתֵירָה עַל זְכִיּוֹתָיו מְטִיבִין לוֹ? וּרְמִינְהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁזְּכִיּוֹתָיו מְרוּבִּין מֵעֲוֹנוֹתָיו – מְרִיעִין לוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׂרַף כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא שִׁיֵּיר מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִילּוּ אוֹת אַחַת. וְכֹל שֶׁעֲוֹנוֹתָיו מְרוּבִּין מִזְּכִיּוֹתָיו – מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וְדוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁקִּיֵּים כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ וְלֹא חִיסֵּר אוֹת אַחַת מִמֶּנָּה!
The Gemara further asks: And does anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits have goodness bestowed upon him in this world? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished with suffering in order to cleanse his sins in this world and enable him to merit full reward for his mitzvot in the World-to-Come. And due to this punishment he appears to observers like one who burned the entire Torah without leaving even one letter remaining of it. Conversely, anyone whose sins are greater than his merits has goodness bestowed upon him in this world, and he appears like one who has fulfilled the entire Torah without lacking the fulfillment of even one letter of it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַתְנִיתִין דְּעָבְדִין לֵיהּ יוֹם טָב וָיוֹם בִּישׁ. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׂכַר מִצְוָה בְּהַאי עָלְמָא לֵיכָּא.
Abaye said: When the mishna said that he is rewarded, it means that he has one good day and one bad day. He is rewarded for the mitzvot he performs; nevertheless, occasionally he also has bad days which cleanse him of his sins, and the baraita is referring to those days. Rava said that the mishna and this baraita represent two different opinions. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says: There is no reward for performance of a mitzva in this world, as one is rewarded for mitzvot only World-to-Come.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָךְ כׇּל מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁמַּתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ שֶׁאֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים תְּלוּיָה בָּהּ. בְּכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם כְּתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ״, בְּשִׁילּוּחַ הַקֵּן כְּתִיב: ״לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים״.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: There is not a single mitzva written in the Torah whose reward is stated alongside it, which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the reward is actually bestowed in the World-to-Come, after the resurrection of the dead. How so? With regard to honoring one’s father and mother it is written: “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). With regard to the dispatch of the mother bird from the nest it is written: “That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7).
הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו: עֲלֵה לַבִּירָה וְהָבֵא לִי גּוֹזָלוֹת, וְעָלָה לַבִּירָה וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְנָטַל אֶת הַבָּנִים וּבַחֲזִירָתוֹ נָפַל וָמֵת – הֵיכָן טוֹבַת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה, וְהֵיכָן אֲרִיכוּת יָמָיו שֶׁל זֶה? אֶלָּא: ״לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ״ – לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ טוֹב, ״וּלְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ״ – לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ אָרוֹךְ.
Despite this, it occurred that there was one whose father said to him: Climb to the top of the building and fetch me chicks. And he climbed to the top of the building and dispatched the mother bird and took the young, thereby simultaneously fulfilling the mitzva to dispatch the mother bird from the nest and the mitzva to honor one’s parents, but upon his return he fell and died. Where is the goodness of the days of this one, and where is the length of days of this one? Rather, the verse “that it may be well with you” means in the world where all is well, and “that your days may be long” is referring to the world that is entirely long.
וְדִלְמָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה? רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַעֲשֶׂה חֲזָא. וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבֵירָה הֲוָה? מַחְשָׁבָה רָעָה אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְצָרְפָהּ לְמַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps this incident never occurred? It is possible that everyone who performs these mitzvot is rewarded in this world, and the situation described by Rabbi Ya’akov never happened. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov himself saw an incident of this kind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps that man was contemplating sin at the time, and he was punished for his thoughts? The Gemara answers that there is a principle that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link a bad thought to an action, i.e., one is not punished for thoughts alone.
וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲוָה, וּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תְּפֹשׂ אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּלִבָּם״?! אִיהוּ נָמֵי הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׂכַר מִצְוָה בְּהַאי עָלְמָא, אַמַּאי לָא אַגִּין מִצְוֹת עֲלֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לֵיתֵי לִידֵי הִרְהוּר?
The Gemara asks: But perhaps he was contemplating idol worship at the time, and it is written with regard to idol worship: “So I may take the house of Israel in their own heart” (Ezekiel 14:5), which indicates that one is punished for idolatrous thoughts. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov was saying this as well: If it enters your mind that there is reward for performing a mitzva in this world, why didn’t these mitzvot protect him so that he should not come to contemplate idol worship? Since that man was not protected from thoughts of idol worship at the time, this indicates that the performance of mitzvot does not entitle one to merit reward in this world.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵין נִזּוֹקִין! הָתָם בַּהֲלִיכָתָן שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm? How is it possible that this individual, who was sent by his father to perform a mitzva, could have died? The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Elazar is referring those on their way to perform a mitzva, which is different, as one is not susceptible to harm when he is on his way to fulfill a mitzva. In this case the individual was harmed on his return, and one is not afforded protection after having performed a mitzva.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵינָן נִזּוֹקִין לֹא בַּהֲלִיכָתָן וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתָן! סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ הֲוָה, דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּיקָא, וְכׇל הֵיכָא דִּקְבִיעַ הֶיזֵּיקָא לָא סָמְכִינַן אַנִּיסָּא. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי״.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm, neither when they are on their way to perform the mitzva nor when they are returning from performing the mitzva? The Gemara answers: In that case it was a rickety ladder, and therefore the danger was established; and anywhere that the danger is established one may not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to sacrifice an offering to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Although God Himself issued the command, there was concern with regard to the established dangers.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִילְמָלֵי דַּרְשֵׁיהּ אַחֵר לְהַאי קְרָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר בְּרַתֵּיה – לָא חֲטָא. וְאַחֵר מַאי הוּא? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא חֲזָא.
Rav Yosef said: Had Aḥer, literally Other, the appellation of the former Sage Elisha ben Avuya, interpreted this aforementioned verse: “That it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16), homiletically, as referring to the World-to-Come, as did Rabbi Ya’akov, son of his daughter, he would not have sinned. The Gemara asks: And what caused Aḥer to sin? There are those who say he saw a case like this, where a son went up to the roof on his father’s command, dispatched the mother bird, and then died. It was witnessing this episode that led Elisha ben Avuya astray.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לִישָּׁנָא דְּחוּצְפִּית הַמְתוּרְגְּמָן חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה גָּרַיר לֵיהּ דָּבָר אַחֵר. אֲמַר: פֶּה שֶׁהֵפִיק מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת יְלַחֵךְ עָפָר?! נְפַק חֲטָא.
And there are those who say that he saw the tongue of Ḥutzpit the disseminator after the latter was executed by the government, thrown in the street, and dragged along by something else, a euphemism for a pig. He said: Shall a mouth that produced pearls lap up dirt? For this reason he went out and sinned.
רָמֵי רַב טוֹבִי בַּר רַב קִיסְנָא לְרָבָא: תְּנַן כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת מְטִיבִין לוֹ: עָשָׂה – אִין, לֹא עָשָׂה – לָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: יָשַׁב וְלֹא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה – נוֹתְנִים לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא דְּבַר עֲבֵירָה לְיָדוֹ וְנִיצּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה.
§ Rav Tuvi bar Rav Kisna raises a contradiction to Rava and asked: We learned in the mishna that anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him. This indicates that if one actually performed the mitzva, yes, he is rewarded, but if he did not perform the mitzva, no, he does not receive a reward. He raises a contradiction based on the following statement: If one sits and does not transgress, he receives a reward as one who performs a mitzva, despite the fact that he does not actually perform a mitzva. Rava said to him: There, when it is referring to one who sits and does not transgress, it does not mean that he was merely sitting; rather, it is speaking of a case where an opportunity to commit a sinful act presents itself to him and he is saved from it.
כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפֵּי תְּבַעְתֵּיהּ הָהִיא מַטְרוֹנִיתָא. אֲמַר מִלְּתָא וּמַלִּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ שִׁיחְנָא וְכִיבָא, עֲבַדָה הִיא מִילְּתָא וְאִיתַּסִּי. עֲרַק, טְשָׁא בְּהָהוּא בֵּי בָנֵי דְּכִי הֲווֹ עָיְילִין בִּתְרֵין אֲפִילּוּ בִּימָמָא הֲווֹ מִיתַּזְּקִי. לִמְחַר אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: מַאן נַטְרָךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁנֵי
This is like an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, who was enticed by a certain noblewoman [matronita] to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said a formula of an incantation and was covered with boils and scabs so as to render himself unattractive to her. She performed an act of magic and he was healed. He fled and hid in a bathhouse that was so dangerous, due to the demons that frequented the place, that when two people entered together even during the day they would be harmed. The next day the Sages said to him: Who protected you in that dangerous place? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi said to them: There were angels who appeared like two
