Kiddushin 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

Except for orla,

that is, the prohibition against eating or deriving benefit from the fruits of a tree during its first three years,

and diverse kinds,

the prohibition against diverse kinds in a vineyard: it is forbidden to sow two different species of seeds together with a grape seed, and if one transgressed, sowed them, and crops grew, they are forbidden for benefit.

These two halakhot, although they are mitzvot dependent on the Land, nevertheless apply even outside Eretz Yisrael.

Orla is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai that applies even outside Eretz Yisrael. Diverse kinds are forbidden outside Eretz Yisrael by rabbinic ordinance.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Also new grain,

the prohibition against eating from the new grain before the sacrifice of the omer is offered also applies outside Eretz Yisrael, despite its being a mitzva dependent on the Land.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

What

is the mitzva

dependent

on the Land,

and what

is the mitzva

not dependent

on the Land, mentioned in our Mishna?

If you say

that the mitzva

dependent

on the Land is a mitzva

in which

“entering”

is written—that is, it says with regard to it, “When you enter the Land,” or, “And it shall be when the Lord brings you,” so that Scripture made the obligation to perform this mitzva dependent on entering the Land, and therefore it applies only in Eretz Yisrael—

and

the mitzva

not dependent

on the Land is a mitzva

in which

“entering”

is not written, meaning that the Torah did not make it dependent on entering the Land, and therefore it applies even outside Eretz Yisrael.

This cannot be said, because:

But

the mitzvot of

tefillin and

the mitzva of

the firstborn of a donkey, concerning which

“entering”

is written—they are both stated in the passage “And it shall be when He brings you,” which concerns tefillin—

yet they apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

Thus, the matter does not depend on this!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what the tanna meant

in the Mishna:

Every mitzva

that is not dependent on the Land, that is not imposed in relation to the soil or its produce, but

is an obligation of the body,

an obligation imposed on the person’s body, such as Shabbat, tefillin, the firstborn of a donkey, and the like,

applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

And a mitzva dependent on the Land that is

an obligation of the soil,

an obligation imposed in relation to the soil or its produce, such as the Sabbatical Year, terumot and tithes, orla, and diverse kinds,

does not apply

by Torah law

except in Eretz Yisrael.

And we raise a difficulty:

From where are these matters derived

that an obligation of the body applies even outside Eretz Yisrael, whereas an obligation of the soil applies only in Eretz Yisrael?

And we answer:

As the Sages taught:

It is stated: “These are the statutes and the ordinances that you shall observe to perform, in the Land that the Lord, God of your fathers, gives you to possess, all the days that you live upon the soil.”

And we expound:

“These are the statutes”—

these are the expositions.

Laws that are not explicit in the Torah, but are derived through an omission or an addition in the text.

“And the ordinances”—

these are the laws

explicit in the Torah.

“That you shall observe”—

this is Mishna.

The study of the statutes and ordinances.

“To perform”—

this is action,

the fulfillment of the statutes and ordinances.

“In the Land”—

could it be that all the mitzvot apply only in the Land?

The verse states:

“All the days that you live upon the soil.”

This indicates both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

If

the verse

“all the days”

stood alone,

I could

have learned that all the mitzvot

apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

The verse therefore states

“in the Land,”

indicating only in the Land.

Once Scripture has increased

“all the days,” indicating that the mitzvot apply even outside Eretz Yisrael,

and reduced

through the word “in the Land,” indicating that the mitzvot apply only in the Land, from now we do not know which mitzvot apply only in the Land and which apply even outside Eretz Yisrael.

Go and learn from what is stated in the context,

as it is stated later in the passage:

“You shall utterly destroy all the places where

the gentiles served,” that is, idolatry. And concerning this prohibition it is stated, “all the days that you live upon the soil,” to say that it applies even outside Eretz Yisrael.

One of the thirteen hermeneutical principles through which the Torah is expounded is the principle of “a matter learned from its context”; therefore, we learn from the prohibition of idolatry stated in the context, in every case—

Just as

the transgression of

idolatry,

which is

distinctive

in that

it is an obligation of the body and applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, so too every

mitzva

that is an obligation of the body applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

We learned in the Mishna:

Except for orla and diverse kinds,

Rabbi Eliezer says: Also new grain.

They raised a dilemma before them:

They were uncertain in the house of study:

Does Rabbi Eliezer disagree leniently,

meaning that he comes to disagree with the first tanna and say that new grain does not apply outside Eretz Yisrael,

or does he disagree stringently,

meaning that he comes to say that the prohibition of “new grain” applies even outside Eretz Yisrael?

The Gemara explains both sides of the dilemma:

He disagrees stringently—

and this is what the first tanna meant

in the Mishna:

Except for orla and diverse kinds, for it is a halakha that we have received,

a halakha given to Moses from Sinai that they apply even outside Eretz Yisrael, and

even though it could have been said

that they should apply only in the Land, since

it is an obligation of the soil.

But

the prohibition of

“new grain,”

in the Land, yes,

it applies only in the Land, but

outside the Land,

it

does not

apply, like all mitzvot dependent on the Land.

What is the reason?

The reason is that although concerning the prohibition of “new grain” it is stated, “an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your settlements,” seemingly indicating that it applies also outside Eretz Yisrael [“in all your settlements”], this is not the intent of the verse. Rather, the verse

“settlement” [

that is, “in all your settlements”]

indicates after inheritance and settlement.

The verse comes to say that even in Eretz Yisrael the prohibition of “new grain” did not apply immediately upon their entering the Land, even during the fourteen years of conquering and dividing the Land, but only afterward, when they had settled it and each person knew his portion. But outside Eretz Yisrael it does not apply.

And Rabbi Eliezer came

and came

Rabbi Eliezer

to disagree and

to say

that

also

the prohibition of

“new grain”

applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

What is the reason?

Because

“settlement”

means

in every place where you dwell,

even outside Eretz Yisrael.

Or perhaps

Rabbi Eliezer

disagrees leniently—

And this is what the first tanna meant: Except for orla and diverse kinds, for it is a halakha that we have received,

that they apply even outside Eretz Yisrael,

and all the more so

“new grain”

which applies even outside Eretz Yisrael, because

“

settlement”—

in

every place where you dwell, is the meaning.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: “

New grain”

applies only in the Land,

because

“

settlement”

indicates after inheritance and settlement,

but not outside Eretz Yisrael.

And what does

“also

new grain,” as Rabbi Eliezer said, mean—does it not apparently indicate that even “new grain” applies outside Eretz Yisrael?—

With regard to the first clause.

That is, “also new grain” does not refer to the latter clause of the Mishna, “except for orla and diverse kinds,” to say that new grain too has the status of orla and diverse kinds and applies outside Eretz Yisrael. Rather, it refers to the first clause, which says, “Every mitzva that is dependent on the Land applies only in the Land,” and Rabbi Eliezer comes to say that “new grain” too is among the mitzvot dependent on the Land and applies only in the Land.

Come and hear

to resolve the dilemma concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s position, from that which

Abaye said: Who is the tanna

of the first clause of the Mishna

who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer?—

It is Rabbi Yishmael!

When Israel crossed the Jordan and entered the Land, they initially established the Tabernacle at Gilgal, where it stood during the fourteen years of conquering and dividing the Land. During that period there was permission for private altars: each individual was permitted to establish an altar [a private altar] anywhere and offer his sacrifices upon it, alongside the great altar [the communal altar] that was in the Tabernacle at Gilgal.

Afterward, they established the Tabernacle at Shiloh, and private altars were then prohibited.

When Shiloh was destroyed, they established the Tabernacle at Nob and afterward at Gibeon. During those periods private altars were again permitted, until the Temple was built in Jerusalem, at which point private altars were prohibited forever.

All burnt offerings and peace offerings must be brought together with a meal offering of libations. The tannaim disagreed concerning the status of a private altar with regard to libations: Were the sacrifices offered there also required to have libations?

The dispute depends on the interpretation of the verse stated at the beginning of the passage concerning libations: “When you enter the land of your settlements that I give you.”

Rabbi Akiva interprets “your settlements” as meaning that wherever you dwell and offer sacrifices, even on a private altar, you are required to bring libations.

Rabbi Yishmael, however, expounds from “that I give you” that only at an altar applicable to everyone, that is, at a communal altar, are libations required. He interprets “your settlements” to mean only after inheritance and settlement, when the Tabernacle was established at Shiloh; only then did they become obligated in libations. During the first fourteen years, while they were at Gilgal, they did not offer libations, even at the communal altar that was there.

As it was taught:

Since it is stated concerning libations, “that I give you,” from which we learn that the verse speaks only of a communal altar, it necessarily follows that “settlement” stated there does not mean in every place where you dwell, since the communal altar was present in only one place. Rather, it refers to after inheritance and settlement:

to teach you that wherever

“settlement”

is stated, it means only after inheritance and settlement; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva said to him: But Shabbat, concerning which

“settlements”

is stated—“You shall not kindle fire in all your settlements on the day of Shabbat”—

and

nevertheless it

applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

It follows from here that “settlements” means in every place where you dwell; if so, with regard to libations too we should interpret it in this manner, so that libations would be required everywhere, including at a private altar.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Akiva: There is no proof from Shabbat, because

Shabbat is derived by means of a kal va-homer

that it applies also outside Eretz Yisrael—

If lenient mitzvot

[that are not dependent on the Land]

apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, then Shabbat, which is stringent, all the more so

applies both in

Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara concludes by resolving the dilemma whether Rabbi Eliezer disagrees leniently or stringently:

From the fact that Abaye said, “Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer?”—

“Rabbi Yishmael!”

The first tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that “settlement” means after inheritance and settlement, and therefore holds that “new grain” applies only in Eretz Yisrael. It follows that Rabbi Eliezer comes to disagree with him and say that “new grain” applies also outside Eretz Yisrael.

Conclude from this: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees stringently.

And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from this!

And we raise a difficulty:

Now,

for

Rabbi Yishmael—upon what

does he stand?

From where did he learn that “settlement” means after inheritance and settlement?

From

libations—he learned it from the passage concerning libations.