(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 37

KIDUSHIN 36-40 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


QUESTION: The Gemara says that any Mitzvah which is a "Chovas Karka," an "obligation of the land," is considered a "Mitzvah ha'Teluyah ba'Aretz" which is observed only in Eretz Yisrael. RASHI (DH Chovas Karka) lists examples of Chovas Karka, Mitzvos related to the land, that apply only in Eretz Yisrael. Rashi provides a comprehensive list of all the Mitzvos, but with one prominent omission -- the Mitzvah of Bikurim! Why does he leave out Bikurim?

ANSWER: HA'GAON RAV YISRAEL ZEV GUSTMAN zt'l inferred from the words of Rashi that Rashi follows the opinion of TOSFOS in Bava Basra. Tosfos there (81a, DH ha'Hu, quoting Rashba) points out that the Gemara cites a special verse to teach that Bikurim is practiced only in Eretz Yisrael and not in Chutz la'Aretz. Tosfos asks why Bikurim needs its own verse, when it is a "Mitzvah ha'Teluyah ba'Aretz." Tosfos answers in the name of the Rashba (the Rash mi'Shantz) that the Mitzvah of Bikurim is an obligation on the person who owns the fruit to bring it to the Mizbe'ach, and it is not a Mitzvah on the produce of Eretz Yisrael requiring that a certain act be done with the produce before it is permitted to be eaten. He proves this from the fact that the rest of the fruit in the field is not prohibited from being eaten (like Tevel) before Bikurim are separated, and from the fact that Bikurim can be separated even before the fruit is harvested.

This might be the intention of Rashi. Rashi might hold that the reason Bikurim is practiced in Eretz Yisrael is *not* because it is a "Mitzvah ha'Teluyah ba'Aretz," but rather for a different reason.

The Mishnah in Kelim (1:6) states that Eretz Yisrael has more Kedushah than all other lands. "In what way is it holier," asks the Mishnah, "because we bring from there the Korban ha'Omer, Bikurim, and Shtei ha'Lechem" which cannot be brought from any land outside of Eretz Yisrael.

Why does the Mishnah not mention that Eretz Yisrael is also holier because of the obligation to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros from produce that grows in Eretz Yisrael? (See Insights to Nedarim 22:1.)

According to Rashi, the reason the Mishnah does not mention the other "Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz" is because those Mitzvos are not an indication of the Kedushah of the land; rather, they are obligations that are incumbent upon the produce of Eretz Yisrael. That is, there is an Isur to eat fruit grown in Eretz Yisrael before separating Terumos and Ma'aseros, but the fact that Terumos and Ma'aseros must be separated is not a manifestation of the Kedushah of the land. The reason the Mishnah lists the Korban ha'Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem is because the fact that these items may be brought to the Beis ha'Mikdash only if they grew in Eretz Yisrael demonstrates the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael. The Mitzvah of Bikurim, too, is practiced in Eretz Yisrael *not* because it is a "Mitzvah ha'Teluyah ba'Aretz," but rather because of the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael. This is why Rashi here omits Bikurim from the list of "Mitzvos ha'Teluyos ba'Aretz."

(This also answers the question of the VILNA GA'ON in ELIYAHU RABAH there in Kelim.)


QUESTION: Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue whether Nesachim (wine libations) could be brought only after the Jewish people settled the land (Rebbi Yishmael), or even before they settled the land (Rebbi Akiva). RASHI (end of 37a) explains why, according to Rebbi Akiva, the verse mentions "Bi'ah" ("Ki Savo'u" (Bamidbar 15:2), referring to entry into Eretz Yisrael), with regard to Nesachim, if Nesachim could be brought even in Chutz la'Aretz.

We know that the verse also mentions "Bi'ah" ("Ki Savo'u") with regard to Chadash (Vayikra 23:10), and Rebbi Eliezer says that the Mitzvah of Chadash applies in Chutz la'Aretz, but neither the Gemara nor Rashi explain why the Torah mentions "Bi'ah" there. Why, then, does the Torah mention "Bi'ah" with regard to Chadash?

ANSWER: The answer is that while the Jewish people sojourned in the Midbar, they ate the Man, which does not have an Isur of Chadash. Only when they entered Eretz Yisrael did they begin to eat grain products. That is why the Torah says that "when you come to the land" the Mitzvah of Chadash will then apply.

This is also what the Gemara (38a) means when it says that there are three Mitzvos (Chadash, Orlah, and Kela'im) which -- when they entered Eretz Yisrael -- the Jewish people were commanded to observe, but which apply in Chutz la'Aretz as well. Rashi writes that these Mitzvos were commanded only when the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael because in the Midbar they did not sew, plant, or harvest crops to which these Mitzvos would have applied. We may ask, however, that although Kela'im did not apply in the Midbar, why should Chadash and Orlah not apply there? The Gemara in Yoma (75b) teaches that the Jewish people in the Midbar bought food from the merchants of the foreign nations. The Halachah is that the prohibitions of Orlah and Chadash apply even to produce of Nochrim, so why did these Mitzvos need to wait to be commanded until the people's entry into Eretz Yisrael?

The Gemara must mean that these were not common Mitzvos, since most of the Jewish people's food was Man, and only on occasion did they supplement their diet with other food. Therefore, there was no need to command these Mitzvos until the people entered Eretz Yisrael (but there were, nevertheless, observed before that time).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,