Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Zayin, Part 4

 

Introduction

In yesterday s section, the Talmud debated the relationship between R. Elazar and the tanna kamma was R. Elazar more lenient or stringent vis a vis the prohibition of new produce outside the land of Israel. Today s section determines an answer to the question.

 

ת"ש דאמר אביי מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר"א ר’ ישמעאל היא דתניא ללמדך שכל מקום שנאמר בו מושב אינו אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה דברי רבי ישמעאל

אמר לו ר"ע הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות ונוהגת בין בארץ בין בח"ל

א"ל שבת ק"ו אתיא מה מצות קלות נוהגות בין בארץ בין בח"ל שבת חמירא לא כ"ש 

מדאמר אביי מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר"א רבי ישמעאל ש"מ רבי אליעזר לחומרא פליג שמע מינה 

 

Come and hear: For Abaye said: Which tanna disagrees with R. Elazar [in our Mishnah]? R. Ishmael. For it was taught: This is to teach you that wherever settlement is stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down, the words of R. Yishmael.

R. Akiva said to him: But what about Shabbat, in connection with which settlements is stated, and yet it is practiced both inside and outside the land?

He replied he to him: Shabbat is inferred from a kal vehomer argument: if light commandments are practiced both inside and outside the land, Shabbat, which is more stringent, all the more so!

Since Abaye said: Which tanna disagrees with R. Elazar? R. Ishmael, it follows that R. Elazar differs in the direction of [greater] stringency. This proves it.

 

To prove that R. Elazar is more stringent than the first opinion, and holds that new produce is prohibited everywhere, the Talmud cites a statement made by Abaye. Abaye said that R. Yishmael disagrees with R. Elazar. R. Yishmael holds that wherever settlement is stated it means that the mitzvah is obligatory in the land, after Israel has conquered it and settled it. R. Yishmael is therefore lenient he would rule that the prohibition of new produce is practiced only in the land. If R. Elazar disagrees, that means that he holds that new produce is prohibited everywhere.

Within the baraita, R. Akiva argues that settlement is not a sign that the mitzvah is observed only in the land. After all, in Leviticus 23:3, the word is used in reference to Shabbat, and Shabbat is observed everywhere. R. Yishmael seems to think that Shabbat is an exception to the rule because it can be derived through a kal vehomer.

In any case, this proves that R. Elazar holds that new produce is prohibited everywhere. The first opinion holds that it is observed only in the land.

 

מכדי רבי ישמעאל אהיכא קאי אנסכים בנסכים ביאה ומושב כתיב בהו ה"ק ללמד שכל מקום שנאמר ביאה ומושב אינו אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה דברי ר’ ישמעאל 

 

Now to what does R. Yishmael refer? To libations. But in the case of libations both entrance and settlement are written! This is what it means: This is to teach that wherever entrance and settlement are stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down, the words of R. Yishmael.

 

In the baraita, R. Yishmael was referring to the libations brought with offerings (Numbers 15:2). But in this verse two words are used to indicate that the obligation occurs only in the land תבואו, which means enter and מושבותיכם your settlements. For the rule to apply both of these words need to be used. If only settlements is used, then the mitzvah might apply outside the land.

 

אי הכי אמר לו ר"ע הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות וא"ל שבת ק"ו היא נימא ליה אנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא

 

If so, R. Akiva said to him, But what about Shabbat, in connection with which settlements is stated and he answered him, Shabbat is inferred from a kal vehomer, he should have answered him, I spoke of entering and settlement ?

 

If R. Yishmael requires both the words entering and settlement, why didn t he respond to R. Akiva that Shabbat is obligatory everywhere because only the word settlements is used and not the word enter.

 

חדא ועוד קאמר ליה חדא דאנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא ועוד דקא אמרת הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות שבת ק"ו היא

 

He said to him one reason, but there is yet another. Firstly, I refer to entering and settlement. Moreover, when you say: Behold Shabbat, in connection with which dwellings is stated, Shabbat is inferred from a kal vehomer.

 

Indeed, R. Yishmael could have made two responses against R. Akiva.

 

במאי קמיפלגי בקירבו נסכים במדבר קא מיפלגי ר’ ישמעאל סבר לא קירבו נסכים במדבר ור"ע סבר קירבו נסכים במדבר 

 

What are they arguing about? Over whether they offered libations in the wilderness: R. Yishmael maintains that they did not offer libations in the wilderness, whereas R. Akiva holds that they did offer libations in the wilderness.

 

The direct subject of the dispute between R. Akiva and R. Yishmael is whether they offered libations with the sacrifices offered in the Mishkan while still in the wilderness. R. Akiva holds that they did not, R. Yishmael holds that they did.