Kiddushin

both ‘coming’ and ‘dwelling’ are written!1 — It means thus: This is to teach that wherever ‘coming’ and ‘dwelling’ are stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down: that is R. Ishmael's opinion. If so, [when the Baraitha proceeds:] Said R. Akiba to him, ‘But the Sabbath, in connection with which dwellings is stated’ [etc.], and he answered him, ‘The Sabbath is inferred a minori’, he should have answered him, ‘I spoke of "coming" and "dwelling"’? — He gives him a twofold answer.2 Firstly, I refer to ‘coming’ and ‘dwelling’. Moreover, as to what you say: ‘Behold the Sabbath, in connection with which "dwellings" is stated’ — the Sabbath is inferred a minori. Wherein do they differ? — In whether they offered libations in the wilderness: R. Ishmael maintains that they did not offer libations in the wilderness, whereas R. Akiba holds that they did offer libations in the wilderness.3 Abaye said: This Tanna of the School of Ishmael contradicts4 another Tanna of the School of Ishmael. For the School of Ishmael taught: Since unspecified ‘comings’ are stated in the Torah, whilst the Writ explained in the case of one [that it means] after posses — sion and settling down,5 so all mean after possession and settling down.6 And the other?7 — Because [the appointment of a] king and [the offering of] first-fruits are two verses with the same teaching,8 and any two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [others]. And the other?9 — Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote the case of a king but not first-fruits, I would argue, Since there is enjoyment [of crops] in the case of first-fruits, [the obligation comes] immediately.10 And if the case of first-fruits were stated but not that of a king, I would reason, Since it is a king's way to conquer, [he must be appointed] immediately [on entering the land]. And the other? — Let the Divine Law state the case of a king, and then first-fruits become unnecessary, for I would reason: If a king, who is for conquest, [is appointed only] after possession and settling down, how much more so are first-fruits [obligatory only then]! And the other? — If it were thus written: I would say: It [first-fruits] is analogous to hallah;11 hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Now that you say that a personal duty must be practised both within the Land and without the Land, what is the purpose of ‘dwelling,’ which the Divine Law wrote in connection with the Sabbath?12 — It is necessary. I would say: Since it is written in the chapter on Festivals, it requires sanctification, like the Festivals;13 hence we are informed14 [that it is not so]. What is the purpose of ‘dwelling’ written by the Divine Law in connection with forbidden fat and blood?15 — It is necessary. I might say: Since it is written in the section on sacrifices, as long as sacrifices are practised, heleb16 and blood are forbidden, but not when they are no longer practised. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. What is the purpose of ‘dwelling’ written by the Divine Law in connection with unleavened bread and bitter herbs?17 — It is necessary. I might have thought, since it is written: They shall eat it [the Paschal lamb] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs:18 it holds good only when the Passover sacrifice is [offered], but not otherwise. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. What is the purpose of ‘coming’ which the Divine Law wrote in connection with phylacteries and the firstling of an ass?19 — That is needed for what the School of Ishmael taught: Perform this precept, for thou shalt enter the land on its account. Now, on the view that ‘dwelling’ implies wherever you live,20 it is well: hence it is written, and they did eat of the [new] produce of the land on the morrow after the passover:21 they ate on the morrow after the Passover, but not before, which shews limitation, because ‘coming’ too is mentioned. private bamoth were at that time forbidden), the verse under discussion cannot teach that libations would be required at the public bamoth when they entered Palestine, for they were already obligatory before them. Hence it can refer only to the private bamoth during the fourteen years of conquest and allotment (for thereafter private bamoth were illegal); and so dwelling must be an extension, implying wherever you dwell. According to R. Ishmael, however, the verse can teach that libations would be incumbent at the public bamoth, for hitherto, in the wilderness, they had been forbidden (and the fact that public bamoth are now referred to follows from the plural ‘you’, as stated on p. 182, n. 4); consequently ‘dwelling’ can only mean after settling down. giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein. unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein. offering! done only by the Sanhedrin in Judah. fat nor blood. generally go together with unleavened bread, but actually ‘dwelling’ is not found in connection therewith, and in fact the obligation nowadays (i.e., after the destruction of the Temple) to eat them is only Rabbinical; in Rashi's text ‘bitter herbs’ seem to have been absent (S. Strashun). settling down. new corn, for otherwise, on the morrow after the passover is pointless.