ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 39
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.
(a) When Levi said to Aryoch (alias Shmuel), 'Safek Li va'Ana Eichol', he
meant - that Shmuel should go and pick the Orlah fruit not in his presence,
so that, as far as he was concerned, it would be a Safek Orlah, which he
would subsequently be permitted to eat.
(b) Rav Ivya and Rabah bar Rav Chanan used to go one stage further and pick
for each other, each one not in the other's presence.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan was most unhappy about a statement made by Charifi
de'Pumbedisa (Eifah and Avimi, sons of Rachbah of Pumbedisa), who said -
that Orlah does not apply at all in Chutz la'Aretz.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan said to Rav Yehudah that ...
1. ... Safek Orlah - should be concealed.
2. ... Vaday Orlah - must be destroyed.
3. ... anyone who declares that there is no Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz - will
not have heirs who will inherit his portion in Eretz Yisrael.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan told Rav Yehudah that ...
1. ... Vaday Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz - must be destroyed.
(b) The Chirifi of Pumbedisa based their opinion on a quotation by Rebbi
Eliezer, who says - 'Ein Orlah be'Chutz la'Aretz'.
2. ... Safek Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz - should be kept quiet (even though
strictly speaking, it is permitted, the Poskim should issue this ruling
(c) The problem with this from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who said 'Af
ha'Kil'ayim' - is that 'Af ha'Kil'ayim' indicates that Rebbi Eliezer
certainly agrees with the Tana Kama, who forbids *Orlah* and Kil'ayim, and
only comes to add Chadash (see also Tosfos DH 'T'ni').
(d) We amend Rebbi Eliezer's statement to read - just 'Chadash'.
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with the Chirifi of Pumbedisa.
He says that Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(b) Rebbi Zeira's problem with this from the Mishnah in Orlah 'Safek Orlah
... be'Surya Mutar' is - that if Orlah were really 'Halachah ... ', then how
could the Tana be so lenient with Safek Orlah (since when do we go le'Kula
by Safek Halachah?)
(c) Rebbi Asi reconciles Rebbi Yochanan with the Mishnah in Orlah - by
establishing the wording of the actual Halachah as 'S'feika Mutar, Vada'ah
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan also stated 'Lokin al ha'Kil'ayim Divrei
Torah'. Rebbi Elazar asked him from the Mishnah in Orlah, which presents
Kil'ayim as 'mi'Divrei Sofrim' - to which he replied that Rebbi Yochanan was
speaking about the Kil'ayim of grafting, whereas the Mishnah in Orlah refers
to K'lai ha'Kerem.
(b) And Rebbi Asi connects this with a statement of Shmuel, who learns a
Hekesh from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "es Chukosai Tishmoru; Behemtecha Lo
Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim". The two regards which Shmuel
learns Sadeh from Beheimah - are 1. that we are speaking about an
identifiable object (a tree) just like an animal (and not just seeds); 2.
that grafting a tree, like K'lai Beheimah, extends to Chutz la'Aretz.
(c) And he learns from "es Chukosai Tishmoru" - that the Torah is talking
about laws that were commanded a long time ago ('Chukim she'Chakakti Lecha
K'var'), to teach us that the B'nei No'ach were already commanded these
(d) The word "Sadcha" (implying specifically Eretz Yisrael) then comes to
preclude - K'lai Zera'im in a vineyard (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Hu').
(a) Rav Chanan (or Rav Nachman) and Rav Anan were traveling together when
they saw a man sowing K'lai Zera'im. Rav Chanan (Rav Nachman) declined ...
1. ... to put him in Cherem, at Rav Anan's suggestion - because the local
people, he maintained, were not expert in these Halachos (transgressing out
of ignorance rather than out of wickedness).
(b) Based on Rebbi Yashiyah, Rav Yosef used to - used to mix seeds and sow
2. ... to place in Cherem someone who was sowing wheat and barley in a
vineyard - because of Rebbi Yoshiyah, who confined the La'av of Kil'ayim (in
Chutz la'Aretz, see Tosfos DH 'Lo Kayma-Lan") to sowing wheat, barley and
grape-seeds in one throw.
(c) Abaye queried him however - from the Mishnah in Orlah 'ha'Kil'ayim
mi'Divrei Sofrim', in which case Rav Yosef had contravened an Isur
(d) Rav Yosef established the Mishnah in Orlah by K'lai ha'Kerem, whereas he
had planted K'lai Zera'im. The basis for such a distinction is - the fact
that whereas the former is Asur be'Hana'ah in Eretz Yisrael, the latter is
(a) Rav used to plant rows of vegetables - for the benefit of his Talmidim.
(b) Rav Yosef subsequently cited this to try and prove - that K'lai Zera'im
does apply in Chutz la'Aretz, too.
(c) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's proof however. It could not have been because
of Kil'ayim that Rav planted the vegetables in this way, he maintained -
because then he would have planted them all in one row, leaving a space
between one species and another, as prescribed by the Mishnah in Kil'ayim.
(d) He may therefore have planted them like that for aesthetic reasons - or
it may have been to make it easier for the Shamash to cut them later.
(a) According to the initial interpretation of our Mishnah, a person who
performs a Mitzvah - receives good, lives a long time and inherits the World
(b) Someone who does not perform a Mitzvah, according to the Tana - loses
(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah says that for the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Eim,
Gemilus Chasadim, Hachnasas Orchim and Hava'as Shalom Bein Adam
la'Chaveiro - one receives the fruits in this world, though the principle is
put away for the World to Come.
(b) The Tana also includes Torah-study in this list - which is nevertheless
different than all the others - inasmuch as it is equal to them all.
(c) The Mishnah in Pe'ah poses a problem on our Mishnah - since it confines
reward in this world to the few Mitzvos that it enumerates, whereas our
Mishnah extends it to all Mitzvos.
(d) According to Rav Yehudah, our Mishnah is speaking when a person
performed one Mitzvah more than his sins. This does not mean that the
Mishnah in Pe'ah speaks when one of the Mitzvos listed is the only Mitzvah
that he ever performed - but as Rav Shmayah explains, when his Mitzvos and
his sins are exactly equal.
(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says about someone who has more Mitzvos
than Aveiros 'Meri'in Lo, ve'Domeh K'mi she'Saraf Kol ha'Torah Kulah ... '
and vice-versa - he means that a Tzadik will be paid for his Aveiros in this
world, in order to receive the reward for his Mitzvos in the World to Come,
whereas a Rasha will be paid for his Mitzvos in this world, in order to
deprive him of his portion in the World to Come.
(b) When, in order to reconcile this with our Mishnah, Abaye explains our
Mishnah 'de'Mesaknin Lo Yom-Tov ve'Yom Bish', he means - that 'the good' in
our Mishnah refers to the punishment he will receive here for his Aveiros,
which is good for him in the long term; and that 'the bad' refers to the
reward for his Mitzvos, which in the long term, will be detrimental.
(c) Rava understands our Mishnah as we did originally. But he establishes
the Mishnah in Pe'ah like Rebbi Ya'akov, who says - 'S'char Mitzvah be'Hai
Alma Leika' ('There is no reward for Mitzvos in this world!').
(d) Rebbi Ya'akov bases his theory - on the fact that a person can go up to
the attic to fetch some baby birds for his father, entailing two Mitzvos for
which the Torah prescribes long life, and on the way down, he slips and
breaks his neck. Where is his reward in this world?
(a) Rebbi Ya'akov knows that this can happen, because he actually witnessed
such an incident. He knew that the son did not fall off the ladder on
account of ...
1. ... sinful thoughts - because Hashem does not punish for sinful thoughts
that are not brought to fruition.
(b) The Mitzvah did not shield the son from harm at least as long as he was
performing it - because the ladder that he was climbing was rickety, and in
such cases (where a person enters a place of danger in order to perform a
Mitzvah), Hashem will not perform a miracle to save him.
2. ... idolatrous thoughts (for which one is punishable) - because, if there
is reward for Mitzvos in this world, then the Mitzvah that the son was
performing ought to have shielded over him, and protected him from having
such thoughts (see Agados Maharsha).
(c) Neither can we answer this by establishing the case when he fell as he
was descending the ladder, having already concluded the Mitzvah, because of
Rebbi Elazar, who taught us the principle 'Sheluchei Mitzvah Einan Nizokin,
Lo ba'Halichasan *ve'Lo ba'Chazirasan*'.
(d) We learn the principle 'Sheluchei Mitzvah Einan Nizokin' - from Shmuel
ha'Navi, who queried Hashem's orders to go and crown David ha'Melech,
because of the fear that Shaul would find out about it and kill him.
(a) Some say that Acher (Elisha ben Avuyah) left the path of Torah because
of a similar incident to the one that Rebbi Ya'akov witnessed (and due to
the Kashya that Rebbi Ya'akov comes to answer). Others say - that he saw the
tongue of Chutzpis ha'Meturgeman (one of the ten martyrs) being dragged
around by a pig. If that could happen to a tongue that spoke such pearls of
wisdom, then there is no Divine Justice, he figured.
(b) Rav Yosef commented - that, had Acher expounded the Pasuk ("Lema'an
Yitav Lach ve'Ha'arachta Yamim") like his grandson Rebbi Ya'akov, he would
never have left the fold.
(a) When Rav Tuni bar Rav Kisna pointed out the discrepancy, between our
Mishnah which requires a positive act ('Kol ha'Oseh Mitzvah ... ') and the
Mishnah in Makos, which prescribes reward for every sin that a person does
not perform, Rava reconciled the two - by establishing the Mishnah in Makos
when one was actually confronted by a Yetzer ha'Ra to perform an Aveirah,
and overcame it (which is considered an act).
(b) When ...
1. ... an aristocratic Roman woman accosted Rebbi Chanina bar Papi - he
recited an incantation and became covered in boils.
(c) He managed to survive the night there - because two of the king's men
miraculously arrived to guard him (and the demons did not threaten three
2. ... she followed suite by curing him - he ran to hide in a bathhouse
which was known to be dangerous, due to the demons that resided there, who
would harm even two people who entered their domain, and even in daytime.
(d) When Rebbi Chanina bar Papi told them this - the Rabbanan commented that
he must have been confronted with an immoral act, and overcame the
temptation (as will now be explained).