Previous daf

1)

(a) We know that, when the Tana of our Mishnah speaks about 'Teluyah ba'Aretz' and 'Einah Teluyah ba'Aretz', he is not making a distinction between Mitzvos by which the Torah uses an expression of Bi'ah (such as "Ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz"), and by which it does not, because the Torah writes 'Bi'ah' by Tefilin and by Peter Chamor (the redemption of a first born donkey, yet they apply in Chutz la'Aretz - which we know from many incidents throughout Shas, where the Amora'im, who lived in Bavel, wore Tefilin and kept the Mitzvah of Pidyon Peter Chamor (see Tosfos).

(b) Rav Yehudah therefore explains - that 'Teluyah ba'Aretz' refers to Mitzvos connected with the land, and 'Einah Teluyah ba'Aretz' with Mitzvos that have to do with the person himself.

(c) In the Pasuk "Eileh ha'Chukim ve'ha'Mishpatim, Asher Tishmerun La'asos, ba'Aretz ... Kol ha'Yamim Asher Atem Chayim al ha'Adamah", The Beraisa interprets ...

1. ... "ha'Chukim" - to mean the Medrashim.
2. ... "ve'ha'Mishpatim" - the Halachos.
3. ... "Asher Tishmerun" - the Mishnah.
4. ... "La'asos" - the performance of Mitzvos.

(a) We reconcile the apparent contradiction between "ba'Aretz" and "Kol ha'Yamim Asher Atem Chayim al ha'Adamah", which implies even Chutz la'Aretz - by establishing the former by Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz, and the latter by Mitzvos she'Einan Teluyos ba'Aretz.

(b) And we learn from the Pasuk that follows "Abeid Te'abdun es Kol ha'Mekomos ... " (which speaks about Avodah-Zarah, a Mitzvah that belongs in the latter group) - that it is Mitzvos she'Einan Teluyos ba'Aretz which apply even in Chutz la'Aretz, whereas Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz are confined to Eretz Yisrael, and not vice-versa.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, says 'Af ha'Chadash', which is open to two interpretations. If he is coming to be ...

1. ... strict - then he will be referring to the Reisha of the Tana Kama's words, which incorporates Chadash in the general rule of Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz, which are confined to Eretz Yisrael; whereas he incorporates it with the exceptions, Orlah and Kil'ayim, obligating it even in Chutz la'Aretz.
2. ... lenient - then he will be referring to the Seifa, where the Tana Kama incorporates Chadash together with the exceptions; whereas he incorporates it with the regular Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz.

(b) Assuming that Rebbi Eliezer comes to be ...

1. ... strict, the basis of the Machlokes will be - whether "Moshvoseichem" implies only after the fourteen years that Yisrael inherited the land and distributed it (the Tana Kama), or whether it comes to incorporate Chutz la'Aretz (Rebbi Eliezer).
2. ... lenient, the Tana Kama is strict by Chadash, despite the fact that only Orlah and Kil'ayim was included in the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - because "Moshvoseichem" incorporates Chutz la'Aretz (in which case it is more obviously forbidden than the they are.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer is lenient - because, in his opinion, "Moshvoseichem" implies only after the fourteen years that Yisrael inherited the land and distributed it (but not Chutz la'Aretz).

(a) We resolve the above She'eilah (whether Rebbi Eliezer comes to be stringent or lenient) through a statement by Abaye, naming the Ba'al P'lugta of Rebbi Eliezer as Rebbi Yishmael, who said - 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Bo Moshvos', the Torah means after the inheritance and the distribution, in which case Rebbi Eliezer clearly holds that "Moshvos" comes to incorporate even Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael is referring to the Mitzvah of Niskei Yachid (the drink-offering that accompanied most private Korbanos), and he learns from "Moshvos" that they only became mandatory after the fourteen years of inheritance and distribution, on a Bamas Tzibur.

(c) According to him, there was ...

1. ... no obligation to bring Nesachim on a Bamas Yachid.
2. ... an obligation to bring Nesachim on the Bamas Tzibur in Nov and Giv'on

(a) Rebbi Akiva queries Rebbi Yishmael from Shabbos - where thr Torah writes in Vayakhel "be'Chol Moshvoseichem", it extends to Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) According to him therefore - "Moshvos" obviously means even in Chutz la'Aretz (like his Rebbe, Rebbi Eliezer). With regard to Nesachim, it comes to include a Bamah that is eligible everywhere (i.e. a Bamas Yachid).

(c) Rebbi Yishmael refutes Rebbi Akiva's Kashya. Shabbos is different (to apply in Chutz la'Aretz, even though "Moshvos" that is written by it, does not come to incorporate Chutz la'Aretz) - on account of a 'Kal va'Chomer, from Mitzvos she'Einan Teluyos ba'Aretz and whose punishment is less stringent than Shabbos.

6)

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yishmael learning his Din from Nesachim is - that by Nesachim, the Torah writes not only "Moshvos", but "Bi'ah" and "Moshvos", so how can he derive from there Mitzvos by which the Torah writes "Moshvos" alone?

(b) We answer that Rebbi Yishmael is indeed only concerned with those Mitzvos where the Torah writes "Bi'ah" and "Moshvos". The problem with that from his reply to Rebbi Akiva, who queried him from Shabbos is - that, by Shabbos the Torah writes "Moshvos", but not "Bi'ah". In which case, rather than citing the 'Kal va'Chomer' he should have retorted that Shabbos is different, because the Torah does not mention "Bi'ah".

(c) And we reply - that, besides the obvious answer (that the Torah does not mention "Bi'ah" by Shabbos, it is also different on account of the 'Kal va'Chomer?

(d) Rebbi Akiva does not want to learn like Rebbi Yishmael (that "Bi'ah" and "Moshav" come to delay the Din of Niskei Yachid until after the inheritance and the distribution) - because, in his opinion, Niskei Yachid, like Niskei Tzibur, were already mandatory in the desert (and it is only according to Rebbi Yishmael, in whose opinion they were not, that it is possible to delay their insertion into the routine until later.

(a) Abaye points out that Rebbi Yishmael clashes with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says - that the one case where the Torah uses the expression of "Bi'ah" and only obligates it after the inheritance and the distribution, is a Binyan Av for all other cases where the Torah uses the expression "Bi'ah".

(b) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael is referring to the Halachah of appointing a king.

(c) He clashes with Rebbi Yishmael - inasmuch as he learns the 'Binyan Av' re. wherever the Torah writes "Bi'ah" alone, whereas Rebbi Yishmael learns it with re. to where the Torah writes Bi'ah and Moshav.

(d) Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael because he considers it a case of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'. The other Halachah that follows the same pattern as that of Melech is - that of Bikurim.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael does not consider them to be 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' because both are necessary. Had the Torah written only ...

1. ... Melech, we would not have known Bikurim from it - because since one derives pleasure from Bikurim, one may have thought that it should take effect immediately.
2. ... Bikurim, we would not have known Melech from it - because we would have thought that, since the king is instrumental in conquering the land, it should take effect immediately.

(b) Rebbi Yishmael himself argues with this S'vara on the grounds that he disagrees with the S'vara that benefiting from the Bikurim is a reason for it to take effect any earlier (Tosfos DH 'Bikurim'). In that case, if the Mitzvah of Melech (who is instrumental in conquering the land) takes effect only later, then that will certainly be the case by Bikurim. Consequently, it remains a case of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad'.

(c) In fact, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael concedes this point, but he argues that, even if the Torah had not written this Din by Bikurim, we would have learned from Chalah that Bikurim takes effect immediately. Consequently, it cannot be considered 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', in which case they fall under the category of 'Binyan Av mi'Sh'nei Kesuvim' (that wherever the Torah writes "Bi'ah", the Mitzvah takes effect only after the inheritance and the distribution).

(d) Everyone concedes that Chalah does in fact, take effect immediately - because the Torah changes from the regular Lashon of "Ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz" to "be'Vo'achem el ha'Aretz".

(a) In spite of the Halachah that Mitzvos that are not connected with the ground apply even in Chutz la'Aretz, the Torah finds it necessary to write "Moshvos" ...

1. ... by Shabbos - to preclude from the suggestion that, since Shabbos is written in Emor in the Parshah of Yamim-Tovim, it should require Kidush Beis-Din (in Yehudah) like Kidush Yom-Tov.
2. ... by Cheilev and blood - to preclude from the notion that, since they are written in connection with Korbanos, other Cheilev and blood are permitted.
3. ... by Matzah and Maror - to teach us that one is obligated to eat them even nowadays when there is no Korban Pesach (even though they are written together with the Pesach in the Torah).

(b) And the Torah writes "Bi'ah" by Tefilin and by Pidyon ha'Ben - to teach us that these Mitzvos are worthwhile fulfilling, since on account of them, Yisrael conquered Eretz Yisrael.

(c) Yisrael ate the fresh corn of Eretz Yisrael for the first time - on the sixteenth of Nisan (which it refers to as "mi'Mocharas ha'Pesach")?

(d) According to those who learn that "Moshvos" implies after the inheritance and the distribution, Yisrael did not eat Chadash as soon as they entered the land - simply because they did not need to, seeing as they had sufficient food to eat, as we shall now see.