Kiddushin 38b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

Every mitzva concerning which

they were commanded

Israel

to fulfill it

before their entry into the Land,

that is, it is an obligation of the person and is not dependent upon the land, and it can be fulfilled even before their entry into the Land,

applies both in the Land and outside the Land.

But every mitzva concerning which they were commanded to fulfill it only

after their entry into the Land,

which is an obligation dependent upon the land,

applies only in the Land.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disputes his father [Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai], and holds that hadash, since it is an obligation dependent upon the land, applies only in the Land; and consequently the prohibitions of orlah and kilayim are not learned by means of a kal va-chomer from hadash, but rather they are mitzvot that apply outside the Land by virtue of a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, or by rabbinic enactment, as will be explained below in the discussion.

Except for the remission of debts

in the Sabbatical year

and the emancipation of slaves

in the Jubilee year,

which, even though they were commanded concerning them after their entry into the Land, apply both in the Land and outside the Land.

And the Gemara immediately asks:

The remission of debts,

is it not

an obligation of the person

and is not dependent upon the land, and certainly they were commanded concerning it before their entry into the Land? And why does Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon say, “Except for the remission of debts”?

And we answer:

It was necessary

for Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon to teach us this

but because of that which was taught

in a beraita: They were commanded concerning the remission of debts only after their entry into the Land, despite the fact that it is an obligation of the person; and nevertheless, from that time it applies also outside the Land.

For it was taught: Rabbi says:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 15:2]: “

And this is the matter of the remission: Release

every owner of a loan from his hand that he has lent to his fellow,” and we infer from the repetition of the wording “the remission” and “release” that

the verse speaks of two remissions:

one, the remission of land, and one, the remission of debts.

And therefore,

at the time when you remit land,

that is, after their entry into the Land,

you remit debts [and even outside the Land]. And

[и даже за пределами Земли Израиля]. И

at the time when you do not remit land,

such as in the wilderness, or after they were exiled from the Land of Israel,

you do not remit debts.

And we object:

Let us say

that the remission of debts is entirely similar to the remission of land, and does not apply outside the Land, even during the time of the Temple, and let us expound as follows:

In the place where you remit land,

in the Land of Israel,

you remit debts;

but

in the place where you do not remit land,

outside the Land, where the remission of land does not apply because it is a mitzva dependent upon the land,

you do not remit debts!?

And we answer:

The verse says

at the end of the verse “And this is the matter of the remission,” which speaks of the remission of debts: “

For he has proclaimed a remission to the Lord,”

and it indicates that it applies

in any event,

even outside the Land.

The Gemara still raises a difficulty concerning

the emancipation of slaves:

Is it not

an obligation of the person,

and it is obvious that it applies even outside the Land? And why did Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon need to say, “Except for the emancipation of slaves”?

And we answer:

It might enter your mind to say, since it is written

concerning the emancipation of slaves in the Jubilee [Leviticus 25:10]: “

And you shall proclaim freedom throughout the Land to all

its inhabitants,” and it indicates:

In the Land, yes,

the emancipation of slaves applies only in the Land of Israel, but

outside the Land, no.

Therefore,

the verse says,

in the continuation of the verse,

“It is a Jubilee,”

and it indicates that it applies

in any event,

even outside the Land.

And we inquire concerning this:

If so, what does the verse intend to teach by stating

“in the Land”?

And we answer: To tell you that only

at the time when freedom applies in the Land

it

applies

also

outside the Land.

But

at the time when freedom does not apply in the Land,

such as at a time when the Jubilee does not apply because “not all its inhabitants are upon it,”

it does not apply outside the Land.

We learned there

in tractate Orlah [3:10]:

“The

new grain” —

”

is prohibited by Torah law everywhere,

even outside the Land [according to the view of those who say that “your dwelling places” means everywhere that you dwell].

Orlah

is likewise prohibited everywhere —

by a halakha

[as will be explained below].

And kilayim

are also prohibited everywhere

by rabbinic enactment.

And we inquire concerning this:

What

is the meaning of the

“halakha”

mentioned in the Mishna concerning orlah?

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is the halakha of the country.

The custom of the country. That is, the inhabitants of outside the Land imposed upon themselves the prohibition of orlah, and its prohibition is rabbinic.

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai,

that orlah is prohibited outside the Land.

Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to me, since I say

that orlah outside the Land is

a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, this is why there is a distinction for us

there is a difference

between a doubt concerning

the orlah and a doubt concerning kilayim,

so that a doubt concerning orlah is more stringent than a doubt concerning kilayim —

For we learned

in tractate Orlah [there]:

A doubt concerning orlah,

such as when they do not know whether three years have already passed, or a garden in which there are orlah saplings and permitted saplings, and a gentile gathered the fruit, and the Israelite did not know from where he gathered it,

in the Land

of Israel

is prohibited,

as the law of every doubt concerning a Torah prohibition, in which one rules stringently.

In Syria,

whose law is like outside the Land,

it is permitted,

because a doubt concerning orlah outside the Land is permitted.

[And even according to the one who says that orlah outside the Land is prohibited by Torah law by virtue of a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, as will be explained below in the Gemara].

Outside the Land,

which is farther from the Land of Israel, and there is no concern that people will come to be lenient also in the Land of Israel, they were more lenient there: The Israelite

goes down

to the gentile who has a garden in which orlah trees and permitted trees grow,

and takes

fruit from him; and even if the gentile has not yet gathered it, it is permitted to say to him, “Go and bring me fruit,” even though it is possible that he will bring orlah fruit,

provided that he does not see him

the Israelite while he is

gathering

from the orlah trees.

But in Syria, which is close to the Land of Israel, they were not so lenient as to say to the gentile initially, “Go and gather”; rather, only if the gentile had already gathered it is it permitted to purchase from him fruit that is doubtfully orlah.

Whereas concerning kilayim we learned

there:

A vineyard in which vegetables were planted,

for one sowed vegetables among the vines and the vegetables became prohibited because of vineyard kilayim,

and vegetables are sold outside it

outside the vineyard, and there is concern that the vegetables being sold are from what grew in the vineyard —

In the Land, it is prohibited.

For it is a doubt concerning a Torah prohibition, and one rules stringently.

In Syria, it is permitted.

Because kilayim outside the Land is prohibited only rabbinically, and in a rabbinic doubt one rules leniently.

But

outside the Land,

they were even more lenient: The gentile

goes down and gathers

from the actual kilayim, and it is permitted for the Israelite to purchase from him,

provided that he does not gather

the Israelite himself

by hand

the kilayim.

For the Sages prohibited kilayim outside the Land only when the Israelite sows or gathers the kilayim himself.

It follows that outside the Land orlah is more stringent than kilayim: With orlah, only doubtful orlah is permitted, whereas kilayim is permitted even when it is definite kilayim.

And according to me, it is understandable, since orlah outside the Land is prohibited by Torah law by virtue of a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, whereas kilayim is prohibited only by rabbinic enactment.

But according to you,

who also say that orlah outside the Land is prohibited only rabbinically, why did the Mishna distinguish between orlah and kilayim?