Kiddushin 37b — the Talmud in English

And you may object: But

with libations

exact page location

“entry

and

“settlement

are written concerning them.”

For it is stated concerning them both “entry into the land” and “your settlements,” as it is written: “When you come into the land of your settlements.” If so, how does Rabbi Ishmael learn from here that even where only “settlement” is written, by itself, it means after inheritance and settlement? But perhaps it is only when “entry into the land” is also written that it is impossible to interpret it as referring to every place where you dwell, even outside the Land of Israel; whereas when only “settlement” is written, it is possible that its meaning is in all settlements, even outside the Land of Israel?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: To teach that every place where it is stated

“entry

and

“settlement”

is only after inheritance and settlement—these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

That is to say, in truth Rabbi Ishmael learns from libations only concerning a place where entry into the land is also stated—for example, the new grain, concerning which “when you come into the land” and also “your settlements” are written—that its meaning is not “in every place,” but only after inheritance and settlement.

And we inquire about it:

If so, concerning what

did

Rabbi Akiva say to

Rabbi Ishmael:

“But Shabbat, concerning which it is stated

‘settlements’”?

And Rabbi Ishmael said to him

in reply:

“Shabbat is a kal va-chomer.”

Let him say to him,

let Rabbi Ishmael answer him:

“I

‘entry

and

‘settlement’

am speaking of!”

Whereas with regard to Shabbat, only “settlements” is stated, and therefore it applies also outside the Land of Israel!?

And we answer: Rabbi Ishmael

said one thing, and another thing.

He gave him two answers—

One: “I

‘entry

and

‘settlement’

am speaking of,”

whereas with regard to Shabbat only “settlements” is stated.

And another: As for what you said,

what you are asking,

“But Shabbat, concerning which it is stated

‘settlements’”?

That is not difficult, because

“Shabbat is a kal va-chomer.”

And we inquire about it:

In what do

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael disagree?

That is to say, why did Rabbi Akiva not learn like Rabbi Ishmael, that where “entry” and “settlement” are written, the reference is certainly specifically to the Land of Israel, and consequently “settlement” means after inheritance and settlement?

And we answer:

They disagree concerning whether libations were brought in the wilderness,

whether they brought libations together with the sacrifices while they were still in the wilderness,

—

Rabbi Ishmael holds: Libations were not brought in the wilderness.

Therefore he can interpret the verse as saying that only when they entered the land and after inheritance and settlement did they become obligated in libations.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: Libations were brought in the wilderness.

Therefore he cannot interpret the verse as coming to say that in the Land of Israel they would bring libations only on the great bama, for they were already obligated in libations in the wilderness on the great bama, which was there at the Tabernacle; and what was newly stated concerning the Land of Israel? Rather, certainly the verse comes to say that although now, in the wilderness, private altars are altogether forbidden, when you come into the land and are permitted to bring sacrifices on a private bama, at the time when the Tabernacle will be at Gilgal, you shall also bring a meal offering of libations together with the sacrifices.

Abaye said: This tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael,

who says in our discussion that only where both “entry” and “settlement” are written does the reference mean after inheritance and settlement,

removes,

he differs with and excludes

the other tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael.

That is to say, our tanna disagrees with another tanna, who says in the name of Rabbi Ishmael that even when only “entry” is written, it means only after inheritance and settlement.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael says: Since

“entries”

are stated in the Torah without qualification,

many mitzvot are stated concerning which they become obligated only when they come into the land,

and the verse specified for you in one of them,

in the appointment of a king, that it is only

“after inheritance and settlement,”

as it is written: “When you come into the land that the Lord your God gives you, and you inherit it and settle in it, and you say, ‘I shall set a king over me.’”

So too, every

place where entry into the land is stated is only

“after inheritance and settlement.”

And the other one,

the tanna of our discussion, who holds that “entry” by itself does not mean only after inheritance and settlement, does not learn from the mitzva of appointing a king,

because “king” and “first fruits” are two verses that come as one.

For inheritance and settlement are also stated concerning first fruits: “And it shall be, when you come into the land that the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and you inherit it and settle in it.”

And any two verses that come as one do not teach.

Therefore he holds that only when both “entry” and “settlement” are written does it mean only after inheritance and settlement.

And the other one,

that other tanna, who learns from the king, holds that here there is no rule that two verses that come as one do not teach, because the two verses

are necessary,

and it is impossible to learn one from the other.

For if the Merciful One had written “king” and had not written “first fruits,” I would have said

that specifically the appointment of a king is only after inheritance and settlement, but

first fruits, from which one derives benefit,

for a person benefits from the fruits,

immediately,

he would become obligated to bring first fruits as soon as they entered the land. Therefore the Torah had to write concerning first fruits as well that it applies only after inheritance and settlement.

And if it had written “first fruits” and had not written “king,” I would have said

that only the law of first fruits applies only after inheritance and settlement. But

a king, whose way is to conquer, immediately

they would appoint over them, so that he would go before them in the conquest of the land. Therefore the Torah had to write both of them.

And the other one,

our tanna, who holds that one cannot learn from king and first fruits because they are two verses that come as one, holds that the Torah does not need to write both of them. Rather,

let the Merciful One write “king”

alone,

and there is no need

to write also

“first fruits.”

And I can say

that first fruits can be learned by a kal va-chomer from a king:

And just as a king, whose

way

is to conquer,

nevertheless his appointment applies only

“after inheritance and settlement,”

first fruits, all the more so

should they apply only after inheritance and settlement.

And since the Torah also wrote first fruits, it is two verses that come as one, and they do not teach.

And the other one,

that other tanna holds that

if it had written

the Merciful One

this way,

if it had written only concerning the king,

I would have said

that the law of first fruits applies immediately,

just as is the case with ḥalla,

for all agree that the mitzva of separating ḥalla applies immediately upon their entering the land, and I would say that first fruits too have the same law as ḥalla. Therefore

it informs us

the verse that the law of first fruits too applies only after inheritance and settlement.

And we inquire about it:

And now that you have said

that every mitzva that is

an obligation of the body applies both in the Land and outside the Land,

if so,

“settlement”

that the Merciful One wrote concerning Shabbat, what do I need it for?

Since Shabbat is an obligation of the body, it is obvious that it applies everywhere; why, then, did the Torah need to write, “You shall not kindle fire in all your settlements”? And we answer:

It was necessary

to write “in all your settlements,” because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written in the passage concerning the appointed times

Shabbat, which is stated in the section of the appointed times in the section of Emor,

it should require sanctification

by the court

like the appointed times,

just as the appointed times are sanctified through the court, which sanctifies the beginning of the month, so the court would need to sanctify the first day of the week, so that the seventh day would be Shabbat.

It informs us

the verse “in all your settlements” that sanctification by the court is not needed with regard to Shabbat, for the court is not present in every place where Shabbat applies.

And again we inquire about it:

“Settlement,”

that the Merciful One wrote concerning forbidden fat and blood,

as it is written: “An eternal statute throughout your generations, in all your settlements: You shall not eat any fat or any blood,”

what do I need it for?

For forbidden fat and blood are obligations of the body, and it is obvious that they apply everywhere?

And we answer:

It was necessary; it might enter your mind to say: Since they are written in the passage concerning sacrifices,

for the verse cited above concerning forbidden fat and blood is stated adjacent to the matters of sacrifices in the section of Leviticus, therefore only

when there is a sacrifice are forbidden fat and blood prohibited,

but

when there is no sacrifice, they are not

forbidden. Therefore

it informs us “in all your settlements,” that forbidden fat and blood are always prohibited.

And again we inquire about it:

“Settlement”

that the Merciful One wrote concerning matza and maror,

as it is written: “In all your settlements you shall eat matza,”

what do I need it for?

For they are obligations of the body!?

And we answer:

It was necessary; it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

“Upon matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it,”

the Passover sacrifice, therefore only

when there is a

sacrifice

of Passover, there is

an obligation to eat matza and maror. But

when there is no

sacrifice

of Passover,

there is not

an obligation to eat matza and maror. Therefore

it informs us

that there is always an obligation to eat matza and maror.

And again we inquire about it:

“Entry”

that the Merciful One wrote concerning phylacteries and the firstborn donkey,

in the section “And it shall be when He brings you” concerning phylacteries,

what do I need it for?

For they are obligations of the body and apply also outside the Land of Israel?

And we answer:

That is needed for what the tanna of the school of Rabbi

Ishmael

explains the verse as a promise to the people of Israel while they were still in the wilderness:

Perform this mitzva

of phylacteries and the firstborn donkey,

for its sake you will enter the land.

And we inquire about it:

Granted, according to the one who says

“settlement”

means every place where you dwell,

and it does not specifically mean after inheritance and settlement; if so, the prohibition of new grain, even though “your settlements” is stated concerning it, applies immediately upon their entering the land.

This is why it is written when they entered the Land of Israel [Joshua 5:11]:

“And they ate of the produce

of the land

on the day after the Passover,”

and it implies that specifically

“on the day after

the Passover,”

which is the time of the offering of the omer,

eat

the new produce, but

from the outset,

before then,

do not eat.

do not eat.