קידושין לז

קידושין לז

חוּץ מִן הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאַיִם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הֶחָדָשׁ.

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

גְּמָ׳ מַאי תְּלוּיָה וּמַאי שֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה? אִילֵימָא תְּלוּיָה – דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״בִּיאָה״, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה – דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״בִּיאָה״, וַהֲרֵי תְּפִילִּין וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, דִּכְתִיב בָּהֶן ״בִּיאָה״, וְנוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ!

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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹבַת הַגּוּף – נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ, חוֹבַת קַרְקַע – אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.

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

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים״ – אֵלּוּ הַמִּדְרָשׁוֹת. ״וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים״ – אֵלּוּ הַדִּינִים. ״אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּן״ – זוֹ מִשְׁנָה. ״לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – זוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה.

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

״בָּאָרֶץ״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת כּוּלָּן לֹא יְהוּ נוֹהֲגִים אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם חַיִּים עַל הָאֲדָמָה״. אִי כׇּל הַיָּמִים, יָכוֹל יְהוּ נוֹהֲגִים בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּאָרֶץ״.

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

אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט – צֵא וּלְמַד מִמַּה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן: ״אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם וְגוֹ׳״ – מָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְיוּחֶדֶת, שֶׁהִיא חוֹבַת הַגּוּף, וְנוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – אַף כֹּל שֶׁהִיא חוֹבַת הַגּוּף נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

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

חוּץ מִן הָעׇרְלָה וְהַכִּלְאַיִם. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְקוּלָּא פְּלִיג אוֹ לְחוּמְרָא פְּלִיג?

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

לְחוּמְרָא פְּלִיג, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: חוּץ מִן הָעׇרְלָה וּמִן הַכִּלְאַיִם, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר חוֹבַת קַרְקַע הִיא. אֲבָל חָדָשׁ, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא? ״מוֹשָׁב״ – לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה מַשְׁמַע.

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

וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמֵימַר: אַף חָדָשׁ נוֹהֵג בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״מוֹשָׁב״ – בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם יוֹשְׁבִים.

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

אוֹ דִלְמָא לְקוּלָּא פְּלִיג, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: חוּץ מִן הָעׇרְלָה וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן חָדָשׁ, דְּ״מוֹשָׁב״ – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם יוֹשְׁבִים מַשְׁמַע.

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

וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמֵימַר: חָדָשׁ אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ, דְּ״מוֹשָׁב״ – לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה מַשְׁמַע. וּמַאי ״אַף״ – אַקַּמַּיְיתָא.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מוֹשָׁב״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

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

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הֲרֵי שַׁבָּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״, וְנוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ! אָמַר לוֹ: שַׁבָּת קַל וָחוֹמֶר אָתְיָא, מָה מִצְוֹת קַלּוֹת נוֹהֲגוֹת בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – שַׁבָּת חֲמִירָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

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

מִדְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְחוּמְרָא פְּלִיג, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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

מִכְּדֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אַהֵיכָא קָאֵי? אַנְּסָכִים. בִּנְסָכִים

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

בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב כְּתִיב בְּהוּ?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

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

אִי הָכִי, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הֲרֵי שַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״, וְאָמַר לוֹ: שַׁבָּת קַל וָחוֹמֶר הִיא, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב קָאָמֵינָא! חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, חֲדָא – דַּאֲנָא בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב קָאָמֵינָא. וְעוֹד: דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ הֲרֵי שַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ – שַׁבָּת קַל וָחוֹמֶר הִיא.

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

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּקֵירְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: לָא קֵירְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: קֵירְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר.

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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַפֵּיק מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

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

דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ בִּיאוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, אַף כֹּל לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה.

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

וְאִידַּךְ, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה מֶלֶךְ וּבִיכּוּרִים שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

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

וְאִידַּךְ: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מֶלֶךְ וְלָא כְּתַב בִּיכּוּרִים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בִּיכּוּרִים, דְּקָא מִיתְהֲנֵי – לְאַלְתַּר. וְאִי כְּתַב בִּיכּוּרִים וְלָא כְּתַב מֶלֶךְ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מֶלֶךְ, דְּדַרְכּוֹ לְכַבֵּשׁ – לְאַלְתַּר.

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

וְאִידַּךְ: נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא מֶלֶךְ וְלָא בָּעֵי בִּיכּוּרִים, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה מֶלֶךְ, דִּלְכַבֵּשׁ לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, בִּיכּוּרִים – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

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

וְאִידַּךְ: אִי כְּתַב הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחַלָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ חוֹבַת הַגּוּף נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, ״מוֹשָׁב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְמוֹעֲדוֹת כְּתִיבָא, תִּיבְּעֵי קִידּוּשׁ כִּי מוֹעֲדוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

״מוֹשָׁב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חֵלֶב וָדָם, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְקׇרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיבִי, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא קׇרְבָּן, נִיתְּסַר חֵלֶב וָדָם, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא קׇרְבָּן – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

״מוֹשָׁב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ״, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא פֶּסַח – אִין, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא פֶּסַח – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

״בִּיאָה״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי תְּפִילִּין וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, לְמָה לִי? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה זוֹ, שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ תִּיכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ.

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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מוֹשָׁב״ – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם יוֹשְׁבִים מַשְׁמַע, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיֹּאכְלוּ מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ מִמׇּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח״ – מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח אֲכוּל, מֵעִיקָּרָא – לָא אֲכוּל. אַלְמָא

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