Previous daf

1)

(a) Yisrael ate from the new crops of Eretz Yisrael for the first time - on the sixteenth of Nisan (of the fortieth year after leaving Egypt).

(b) When the Torah records that Yisrael ate the Manna until they reached *the edge of Eretz Cana'an* - it refers to Arvos Mo'av (precluding Eretz Yisrael).

(c) We reconcile this Pasuk with the Pasuk which says that they ate the Manna until they reached "the inhabited land" - by differentiating between the last fall of Manna (which took place when Moshe died on the seventh of Adar), and the last time they ate (because the Manna that they had lasted for forty days).

(a) The problem with the Pasuk which states that they ate the Manna for forty years is - that seeing as it only began falling thirty days after they left Egypt (on the sixteenth of Iyar), it seems that they only ate it for forty years minus thirty days.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa resolves the problem however, by pointing out - that the Matzah cakes which they took out of Egypt tasted like Manna, in which case it can truly be said that they ate it for a full forty years.

(a) Given that Yisrael crossed the Jordan River on the tenth of Nisan, we can prove that Moshe died on the seventh of Adar - because the Navi records how Yisrael wept for him for thirty days, and how three days later they crossed the Yarden. Now if one counts, working backwards from the tenth of Nisan, one arrives at the seventh of Adar.

(b) And we know that he was also born on the seventh of Adar - because the Pasuk writes in Vayeilech "ben Me'ah ve'Esrim Shanah Anochi *ha'Yom*", from which we extrapolate that Hashem fills the days of Tzadikim, to ensure that they live full lives (to die on the same day that they were born).

(c) The other Pasuk teaches us the same thing is the Pasuk in Mishpatim - "es Mispar Yamecha Amalei"?

(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa lists three Mitzvos that came into existence when Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael - Chadash, Kil'ayim and Orlah.

(b) They were not applicable earlier - because Yisrael did not grow crops in the desert.

(c) If *Chadash* came into existence then, then it is obvious that the remaining two should come into existence too - because ...

1. ... Kil'ayim has three stringencies over Chadash ...
2. ... whilst Orlah has two.

(d) The Chumrah that applies to Kil'ayim, but not to Orlah, is - 'she'Isuro Isur Olam' (that the Isur itself never becomes permitted).

(a) The two Chumros that are common to both Kil'ayim and Orlah over Chadash - are 1. that they are both Asur be'Hana'ah, and 2. the forbidden fruit never becomes permitted.

(b) The distinction that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon makes between Mitzvos that Yisrael were commanded to observe even before they arrived in Eretz Yisrael and those that were commanded to observe only afterwards is - that whereas the former extended to the fruit Chutz la'Aretz, the former was confined to that of Eretz Yisrael.

(c) The only two Mitzvos, according to him, that apply even in Chutz la'Aretz, even though they were commanded to observe them only after they entered Eretz Yisrael - are the cancelation of debts at the end of the Sh'mitah-year and the sending away of Jewish servants at the beginning of the Yovel.

(d) The problem that we have with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's classification of the cancelation of debts is - that seeing as it is a personal Mitzvah that has nothing to do with the land, it was commanded before they entered Eretz Yisrael (so how can he classify it otherwise)?

6)

(a) We establish Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon, who classifies the cancelation of debts together with the Mitzvos that were commanded after they entered the Land, like Rebbi, who learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah, Shamot" - that the Torah compares Sh'mitas Kesafim (the cancelation of debts) to Sh'mitas Karka, teaching us that when the latter applies, the former applies too, but not when it doesn't (i.e. nowadays).

(b) This explains - why Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon refers to Sh'mitas Kesafim as having been commanded after they entered Eretz Yisrael.

(c) Rebbi learns from the extra phrase there "Ki Kara Sh'mitah la'Hashem" - that the comparison of Sh'mitas Kesafim to Sh'mitas Karka does not extend to location (because we extrapolate from this Pasuk that Sh'mitas Kesafim applies in Chutz la'Aretz, too.

(a) The releasing of Jewish servants, like the cancellation of debts, is a personal obligation, which has nothing to do with land. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon nevertheless classifies it together with the Mitzvos that were commanded after they entered the Land - because the Torah writes "u'Kerasem D'ror *ba'Aretz*" - implying that it has the Din of a Mitzvah that is connected with the land.

(b) In fact, he learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Yovel Hi" - that it applies everywhere, even in Chutz la'Aretz.
2. ... "u'Kerasem D'ror *ba'Aretz*" - that it only applies in Chutz la'Aretz when it applies in Eretz Yisrael, but not nowadays.

(a) The Mishnah in Orlah writes 'ha'Chadash Asur min ha'Torah be'Chol Makom, Orlah Halachah, ve'ha'Kil'ayim mi'Divrei Sofrim'. This Tana interprets "Moshvos" - to include Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel interprets 'Orlah Halachah' as 'Halachos Medinah' - meaning that the people themselves adopted this as a Chumra.

(c) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan interprets it as - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(a) The Tana in Orlah forbids Safek Orlah in Eretz Yisrael. Besides a Safek whether a particular is three years old or more, Safek Orlah might also mean - fruit that was picked from a field in which young trees and old ones were growing, and one does not know from which of the trees the fruit in question was picked.

(b) Safek Orlah in Syria, he says, is permitted. In spite of the fact that David ha'Melech captured Syria, it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael - because, for one of a number of possible reasons, his capture of Syria had the Din of a private conquest, which does not become part of Eretz Yisrael automatically.

(c) The Tana say that - one is permitted to purchase Safek Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz from someone who is selling fruit outside the field, provided he does not see him actually picking fruit from that field.

(a) The Tana there forbids buying from someone who is selling vegetables outside a vineyard in Eretz Yisrael, if vegetables are growing in the vineyard (contravening the laws of Kil'ayim). In the same case in ...

1. ... Syria, he permits him to buy.
2. ... Chutz la'Aretz - he may even purchase from the Nochri who picked the Kil'ayim in front of him (provided he does not pick the fruit himself).

(b) Ula asked Rav Yehudah, that, according to his opinion (that Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan), why is the Tana in Orlah more stringent re. Orlah (forbidding him to buy from a Nochri who picked the Kil'ayim in front of him) than he is re. Kil'ayim (where he permits it). This is not a problem according to Ula himself - since he considers Orlah to be a Halachah, which is obviously more stringent than Kil'ayim, which is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) Rav Yehudah replied - that the Mishnah does indeed need to be amended; either one must learn in both cases 'Zeh va'Zeh Yored ve'Loke'ach' or 'Zeh va'Zeh Yored ve'Lokeit'.

(d) Mar B'rei de'Ravana adopted - the lenient approach, so that both sections read 'Zeh ve'Zeh Yored ve'Lokeit (u'Vil'vad she'Lo Yilkpt be'Yad').