Kiddushin 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

And raise an objection: But

with regard to libations

“entry”

and

“settlements”

are written concerning them.

For it is stated concerning them both “entry into the Land” and “your settlements,” as it is written: “When you enter the land of your settlements.” If so, how does Rabbi Yishmael learn from here that even where only “settlement” is written, it means after inheritance and settlement? Perhaps only when entry into the Land is also written is it impossible to interpret the reference as every place where you settle, even outside Eretz Yisrael; but when only “settlement” is written, perhaps its meaning is every settlement, even outside Eretz Yisrael?

And we answer:

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

“entry”

and

“settlement”

are stated refers only to after inheritance and settlement; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

That is, in truth, Rabbi Yishmael derives from the passage concerning libations only with regard to a place where entry into the Land is also stated—such as the new grain offering, concerning which both “when you enter the land” and “your settlements” are written—that its meaning is not “in every place,” but only after inheritance and settlement.

And we inquire:

If so,

regarding that which

Rabbi Akiva said to

Rabbi Yishmael:

“But Shabbat, concerning which

‘settlements’

is stated,”

and Rabbi Yishmael responded:

“Shabbat follows by means of a kal va-chomer.”

Let him say to him,

Rabbi Yishmael should respond:

“I

am speaking of

‘entry’

and

‘settlement’!

But with regard to Shabbat, only “settlements” is stated, and therefore it applies also outside Eretz Yisrael”!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yishmael

“was stating one reason, and another.”

He gave him two answers—

One:

“I

am speaking of

‘entry’

and

‘settlement,’ whereas with regard to Shabbat only “settlements” is stated.

And further, as for what you said,

what you asked:

“But Shabbat, concerning which

‘settlements’

is stated,”

it is not difficult, because Shabbat follows by means of a kal va-chomer.

And we inquire:

In what do

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree?

That is, why did Rabbi Akiva not derive as Rabbi Yishmael did, that where “entry” and “settlement” are written, the reference is certainly specifically to Eretz Yisrael, and consequently “settlement” means after inheritance and settlement?

And we answer:

They disagree concerning whether libations were offered in the wilderness:

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

they disagree—

Rabbi Yishmael holds: Libations were not offered in the wilderness.

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

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

Therefore, he cannot interpret the verse as teaching that in Eretz Yisrael libations would be offered only on the communal altar, since they were already obligated to offer libations on the communal altar in the wilderness, where the Tabernacle was located; so what was newly introduced in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, certainly the verse comes to teach that although at present, in the wilderness, private altars are entirely prohibited, when you enter the Land and are permitted to offer sacrifices on a private altar, during the period when the Tabernacle is at Gilgal, you will also offer libation offerings together with the sacrifices.

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

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

excludes,

disagrees with and excludes

another tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

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

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since

“entries”

are stated in the Torah without qualification,

many mitzvot are stated with regard to which they would become obligated only upon entering the Land,

and the verse specified with regard to one of them

in the appointment of a king, that it applies only

after inheritance and settlement,

as it is stated: “When you enter the land that the Lord your God gives you, and you inherit it and settle in it, and you say, ‘I will appoint a king over me.’”

So too, every

place where entry into the Land is stated refers only to

after inheritance and settlement.

But the other one,

the tanna cited by us, who holds that “entry” alone does not mean only after inheritance and settlement, does not derive this from the mitzva of appointing a king,

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

For with regard to first fruits as well, inheritance and settlement are stated: “And it will be, when you enter the land that the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and you inherit it and settle in it.”

And two passages that come as one do not teach

anything beyond themselves. Therefore, he holds that only when both “entry” and “settlement” are written does it refer only to after inheritance and settlement.

But the other one,

that tanna, who derives it from the law of a king, holds that the rule that two passages that come as one do not teach does not apply here, because the two passages

are necessary,

and one cannot be derived from the other.

For if the Torah had written “king” but had not written “first fruits,” I would have said

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

first fruits, since one benefits from them,

as a person enjoys the produce,

immediately,

would become obligatory in bringing first fruits immediately upon entering the Land. Therefore, the Torah had to write with regard to first fruits as well that it applies only after inheritance and settlement.

And if it had written “first fruits” but 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

would be appointed over them, so that he could lead them in conquering the Land. Therefore, the Torah had to write both.

But the other one,

our tanna, who holds that one cannot derive from king and first fruits because they are two passages that come as one, holds that the Torah did not need to write both. Rather,

let the Torah write “king”

alone,

and it need not write

also

“first fruits.”

And I would say

that first fruits could be derived by means of a kal va-chomer from a king:

And just as a king, whose

way it is

to conquer,

nevertheless is appointed only

after inheritance and settlement,

first fruits—surely

they too apply only after inheritance and settlement.

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

But the other one,

that tanna holds that

if the Torah had written

only

this,

if only the law of a king had been written,

I would have said

that the law of first fruits applies immediately,

just as is the case with ḥalla,

for everyone agrees that the mitzva of separating ḥalla applies immediately upon entering the Land, and I would have said that first fruits too are like ḥalla; therefore,

it teaches us

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

And we inquire:

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,”

which the Torah wrote with regard to Shabbat—why do I need it?

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 Shabbat is written in the section concerning the Festivals,

Shabbat, which is stated in the section of the Festivals in Parashat Emor,

it should require sanctification

by the court

like the Festivals,

just as the Festivals are sanctified by the court, which sanctifies the new moon, so too the court would have to sanctify the first day of the week so that the seventh day would be Shabbat.

It teaches us

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

And further we inquire:

“Settlement,”

which the Torah wrote with regard to forbidden fat and blood,

as it is stated: “An eternal statute throughout your generations in all your settlements: You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood,”

why do I need it?

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 section concerning sacrifices,

for the preceding verse concerning forbidden fat and blood is stated adjacent to the laws of sacrifices in Leviticus, therefore only

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

but

when there is no sacrifice, they are not

prohibited. Therefore,

it teaches us

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

And further we inquire:

“Settlement,”

which the Torah wrote with regard to matza and maror,

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

why do I need it?

For they are obligations of the body!?

And we answer:

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

“They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,”

referring to the Paschal offering, therefore only

when there is

a

Paschal offering, yes,

are they obligated to eat matza and maror. But

when there is no

Paschal

offering, no,

they would not be obligated to eat matza and maror. Therefore,

it teaches us

that they are always obligated to eat matza and maror.

And further we inquire:

“Entry,”

which the Torah wrote with regard to phylacteries and the firstborn donkey,

in the passage “And it will be when He brings you” concerning phylacteries,

why do I need it?

For they are obligations of the body and apply even outside Eretz Yisrael.

And we answer:

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

Yishmael

explained, interpreting the verse as a promise to Israel while they were still in the wilderness:

Perform this mitzva

of phylacteries and the firstborn donkey

for whose sake you will enter the Land.

And we inquire:

Granted, according to the one who says

“settlement”

means every place where you settle,

and does not specifically mean after inheritance and settlement, in which case the prohibition of new grain, despite the fact that “your settlements” is stated with regard to it, applies immediately upon entering the Land,

this is what is written

when they entered Eretz Yisrael [Joshua 5:11]:

“And they ate from the produce

of the

land on the day after Passover,”

indicating that specifically

on the day after

Passover,

which is the time of the offering of the Omer,

eat

[they ate the new grain], but

originally,

before then,

do not eat.