ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 38
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) 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
(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
(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 ...
(d) The Chumrah that applies to Kil'ayim, but not to Orlah, is - 'she'Isuro
Isur Olam' (that the Isur itself never becomes permitted).
2. ... whilst Orlah has two.
(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
(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)?
(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.
(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
(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.
(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.
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).
(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').