Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Zayin, Part 3
Introduction
Today s section begins to discuss the relationship between R. Elazar and the first opinion in the mishnah is R. Elazar more stringent or more lenient? For convenience sake I reproduce here the mishnah.
Every commandment which is dependent on the land is practiced only in the land [of Israel]; and every commandment which is not dependent on the land is practiced both in and outside the land, except orlah and kilayim.
Rabbi Elazar says: also [the prohibition of] new produce.
The section discusses the meaning of the last word in Leviticus 23:14, which prohibits eating new grain before the omer sacrifice is brought after Pesah. The verse reads:
Until that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears; it is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements.
חוץ מן הערלה והכלאים
איבעיא להו ר"א לקולא פליג או לחומרא פליג
לחומרא פליג וה"ק ת"ק חוץ מן הערלה ומן הכלאים דהלכתא גמירי לה אע"ג דאיכא למימר חובת קרקע היא אבל חדש בארץ אין בח"ל לא
מ"ט מושב לאחר ירושה וישיבה משמע
Except orlah and kilayim [etc.].
The question was asked: Does R. Elazar disagree in the direction of leniency or stringency?
In the direction of stringency he disagrees and this is what the tanna kamma says: except orlah and kilayim, concerning which there is a tradition [that it applies outside of the Land] even though one might argue that it is a duty connected with the soil, but hadash (the prohibition of new produce) is observed inside the Land, and not outside the land.
What is the reason? Settlement implies after taking possession and settling down.
The first possibility is that R. Elazar is stricter than the first opinion. The first opinion says that the prohibition of eating new grain is prohibited only in Israel. The word settlements implies that Israel has taken possession and settled the land. Thus the prohibition is only applicable in a place that Israel takes possession of and settles the Land of Israel. It is unlike orlah and kilayim which are obligatory everywhere.
ואתא ר"א למימר אף חדש נוהג בין בארץ בין בח"ל מ"ט מושב בכל מקום שאתם יושבים
And R. Elazar comes to say that hadash too applies both inside and outside the Land: What is the reason? Settlement implies wherever you may be living.
R. Elazar says that the prohibition of eating new produce applies everywhere, even outside the Land. The word settlement implies all settlements, wherever Jews may be living.
או דלמא לקולא פליג וה"ק ת"ק חוץ מן הערלה והכלאים דהלכתא גמירי לה וכ"ש חדש דמושב כ"מ שאתם יושבים משמע
ואתא ר"א למימר חדש אינו נוהג אלא בארץ דמושב לאחר ירושה וישיבה משמע ומאי אף אקמייתא
Or perhaps, he disagrees in the direction of leniency and this is how it reads: this is what the tanna kamma says: except orlah and kilayim, concerning which there is a tradition, and all the more so hadash, for settlement implies wherever you are living.
And R. Elazar comes to say that hadash is observed only in the land, for settlement implies after taking possession and settling down. And what does also refer to? To the first [clause].
According to this reading, the first opinion holds that the prohibition of hadash applies everywhere, like orlah and kilayim. R. Elazar would say that hadash is obligatory only inside the land. The word also in the phrase, also new produce refers back to the beginning of the first tanna s opinion—like most soil related prohibitions, new produce too is prohibited only in the Land. The word does not relate to its immediate antecedent, except orlah and kilayim for according to R. Elazar hadash differs from orlah and kilayim.