Kiddushin

EXCEPT ‘ORLAH1 AND KILAYIM.2 R. ELEAZAR SAID: HADASH3 TOO.4 GEMARA. What is the meaning of ‘DEPENDENT’ and ‘NOT DEPENDENT’? Shall we say: ‘DEPENDENT’ refers to those [precepts] where ‘coming’ is written, and ‘NOT DEPENDENT’ to those where ‘coming’ is not stated?5 But phylacteries and the [redemption of] the firstling of an ass are practised both within and without the land, though ‘coming’ is written in connection with them?6 — Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: every precept which is a personal obligation7 is practised both within and without the Land; but what is an obligation of the soil8 has force only within the Land. How do we know these things? — For our Rabbis taught: These are the statutes9 — this refers to the [Rabbinic] interpretations;10 and the judgments — to civil law; which ye shall observe — to [the study of the] Mishnah; to do — to actual practice; in the land: I might think that all precepts are binding in the Land only — therefore it is stated, all the days that ye live upon the earth. If ‘all the days’, I might think that [all precepts] must be practised both within and without the Land — therefore it is taught: ‘in the land’. Now, since the Writ extends and limits [the duration of the precepts], go forth and learn from what is stated in that passage: Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations served their God:11 just as [the destruction of] idolatry is singled out as being a personal duty, and is obligatory both within and without the land,12 so everything which is a personal duty is incumbent both within and without the land. EXCEPTING ORLAH AND KIL'AYIM [etc.]. The scholars propounded: Does R. Eleazar disagree in the direction of leniency or [greater] stringency? ‘In the direction of stringency,’ the first Tanna stating thus: EXCEPTING ‘ORLAH AND KIL’ AYIM, concerning which there is a traditional law, though one might argue that it is a duty connected with the soil, but hadash is practised only in the Land, but not without. What is the reason? ‘Dwelling’ implies after taking possession and settling down.13 Whereon R. Eleazar comes to say that hadash too applies both within and without the Land: What is the reason? ‘Dwelling’ implies wherever you may be living.14 Or perhaps, he differs in the direction of leniency, the first Tanna stating thus: EXCEPTING ‘ORLAH AND KIL'AYIM, concerning which there is a traditional law,15 and all the more so hadash, for ‘dwelling’ implies wherever you are living.16 Whereon R. Eleazar comes to say that hadash is practised only in the land, for ‘dwelling’ implies after taking possession and settling down. While to what does TOO refer? To the first [clause].17 Come and hear: For Abaye said: which Tanna disagrees with R. Eleazar [in our Mishnah]? R. Ishmael. For it was taught: This is to teach you that wherever ‘dwelling’ is stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down:18 this is R. Ishmael's opinion. Said R. Akiba to him: But the Sabbath, in connection with which ‘dwellings’ is stated,19 is yet binding both within and without the land?20 The Sabbath, replied he to him, is inferred a minori: if light precepts must be practised both within and without the land, surely the Sabbath, which is more stringent! Since Abaye said: ‘Which Tanna disagrees with R. Eleazar? R. Ishmael,’ it follows that R. Eleazar differs in the direction of [greater] stringency.21 This proves it. Now consider: to what does R. Ishmael refer? To libations. But in the case of libations Palestine; e.g., Lev. XIX, 23: And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted etc. thee come’) into the land . . . then every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb . . . and it shall be for a sign upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes (i.e., phylacteries). your dwellings (Lev. XXIII, 14). Now, it might be held that ‘in all your dwellings’ implies that hadash is binding even without Palestine. This Tanna, however, on the present hypothesis, maintains that on the contrary it teaches that even in Palestine it came into force only after the Israelites had conquered the land and settled down in dwellings, but not while they were fighting and dividing up the country. plural), and will make an offering burnt by fire unto the Lord . . . then shall he that offereth ... offer a meal-offering . . . and wine for the drink-offering (libations). Before the erection of the Temple, sacrifices might be offered at either private or public bamoth (high places), one of which was at Gilgal. Now, R. Ishmael deduces from the phrase ‘unto you’, which is in the plural, that the reference is to a public bamah (sing. of bamoth), and only there were libations required. Consequently, ‘dwellings’ cannot mean wherever you dwell, since the public bamah was in one place only, but as stated in the text, and it teaches that though there was a public bamah at Gilgal during the fourteen years of conquest and division, libations were to be brought only after that, when all had settled down in dwellings. Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. — Lev. XXIII, 3. (Heb. moshaboth is variously translated dwellings or habitations in the E.V.) offered at private bamoth too. Hence the passage is thus interpreted: Now that you are in the wilderness and have a tabernacle, private bamoth are altogether forbidden. But when ye come unto the land of your habitations, before a tabernacle is erected (as it was subsequently at Shiloah), private bamoth for sacrifice will be permitted, and there too libations will be required.