Kiddushin 37bקידושין ל״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Kiddushin 37b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
37bל״ז ב

ביאה ומושב כתיב בהו ה"ק ללמד שכל מקום שנאמר ביאה ומושב אינו אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה דברי ר' ישמעאל

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.

אי הכי אמר לו ר"ע הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות וא"ל שבת ק"ו היא נימא ליה אנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא חדא ועוד קאמר ליה חדא דאנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא ועוד דקא אמרת הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות שבת ק"ו היא

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.

במאי קמיפלגי בקירבו נסכים במדבר קא מיפלגי ר' ישמעאל סבר לא קירבו נסכים במדבר ור"ע סבר קירבו נסכים במדבר

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.

אמר אביי האי תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

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.

דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל הואיל ונאמרו ביאות בתורה סתם ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן לאחר ירושה וישיבה אף כל לאחר ירושה וישיבה

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.

ואידך משום דהוה מלך וביכורים שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

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.

ואידך צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא מלך ולא כתב ביכורים הוה אמינא ביכורים דקא מיתהני לאלתר ואי כתב ביכורים ולא כתב מלך הוה אמינא מלך דדרכו לכבש לאלתר

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.

ואידך נכתוב רחמנא מלך ולא בעי ביכורים ואנא אמינא ומה מלך דלכבש לאחר ירושה וישיבה ביכורים לא כל שכן

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.

ואידך אי כתב הכי הוה אמינא מידי דהוה אחלה קמ"ל

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.

והשתא דאמרת חובת הגוף נוהגת בין בא"י בין בח"ל מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי שבת ל"ל איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל ובענינא דמועדות כתיבא תיבעי קידוש כי מועדות קמ"ל

§ 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.

מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי חלב ודם למה לי איצטריך סד"א הואיל ובענינא דקרבנות כתיבי בזמן דאיכא קרבן ניתסר חלב ודם בזמן דליכא קרבן לא קמ"ל

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.

מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי מצה ומרור למה לי איצטריך סד"א הואיל וכתיב (במדבר ט, יא) על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו בזמן דאיכא פסח אין בזמן דליכא פסח לא קמ"ל

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.

ביאה דכתב רחמנא גבי תפילין ופטר חמור למה לי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל עשה מצוה זו שבשבילה תיכנס לארץ

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.

בשלמא למ"ד מושב כל מקום שאתם יושבים משמע היינו דכתיב (יהושע ה, יא) ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ממחרת הפסח ממחרת הפסח אכול מעיקרא לא אכול אלמא

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,