Kiddushin, Daf Lammed Zayin, Part 5

 

Introduction

This section deals with R. Yishmael s understanding of the phrases used in the Torah for entering and settling the land. Do they always mean that the mitzvah is obligatory only in the land? For ease of reference, here again is R. Yishmael s statement:

 

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.

 

According to the Talmud, R. Yishmael requires both the words entrance and settlement must be used.

 

אמר אביי האי תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל 

דתנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל הואיל ונאמרו ביאות בתורה סתם ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן לאחר ירושה וישיבה אף כל לאחר ירושה וישיבה

 

Abaye said: This tanna of the School of R. Yshmael contradicts another tanna of the School of R. Yishmael. For the School of R. Yishmael taught: Since there are many cases of unspecified entrances in the Torah, and the verse explained in one of them [that it means] after possession and settling down, so all instances mean after possession and settling down.  

 

According to the earlier baraita from the School of R. Yishmael, when it says entrance and settling down the mitzvah takes effect only when the land has been settled. If both words are not used, then the mitzvah takes effect before Israel settles down (and outside the Land). But according to this baraita, also attributed to the School of R. Yishmael, whenever the Torah uses the word entrance (ביאה) we apply the rule that the mitzvah takes effect only after possession and settling down. The verse that uses both verbs is Deuteronomy 17:14, in reference to appointing a king, When you come to the land and you inherit it and settle it.

 

ואידך משום דהוה מלך וביכורים שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין

 

And the other? Because [the appointment of a] king and [the offering of] first-fruits are two verses that comes as one, and any two verses that come as one, do not teach.

 

The other baraita holds that the appointment of a king is not a paradigm because there is another verse that also uses both verbs Deuteronomy 26:1 about first fruits. Since there are two verses that use these verbs, it is a case of two verses that come as one and in any such case they do not serve as paradigms for other cases.  

 

ואידך צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא מלך ולא כתב ביכורים הוה אמינא ביכורים דקא מיתהני לאלתר

ואי כתב ביכורים ולא כתב מלך הוה אמינא מלך דדרכו לכבש לאלתר

 

And the other? Both are necessary. For if the Torah had written the case of the king but not first-fruits, I would have said, [the mitzvah] of first fruits [is effective immediately] for he enjoys them immediately.

And if the case of first-fruits were stated but not that of a king, I would have said, [the mitzvah to appoint a king is effective] immediately since it is the way of the king to conquer.

 

To counter the two verses that come as one argument, the opposing view must argue that both verses are necessary. If the Torah had only used these verbs in connection with the king, I would have thought that the obligation to bring first fruits is immediate, since they would have benefited from first fruits immediately. And if the Torah had not used these verses in connection with the king, I would have thought that the law to appoint a king is immediately effective since a king is needed to conquer the Land.

 

ואידך נכתוב רחמנא מלך ולא בעי ביכורים ואנא אמינא ומה מלך דלכבש לאחר ירושה וישיבה ביכורים לא כל שכן 

 

And the other? Let the Torah state the case of a king, and then first-fruits become unnecessary, for I would state: If a king, who is for conquest, [is appointed only] after possession and settling down, how much more so are first-fruits [obligatory only then]!

 

The other voice argues that both are not really necessary. The Torah could have written the verbs only in connection with the king and we could have said that if the mitzvah to appoint a king does not go in effect until possession and settling down, all the more so the mitzvah to bring first fruits does not.

 

ואידך אי כתב הכי הוה אמינא מידי דהוה אחלה קמ"ל 

 

And the other? If it were thus written: I would have that [first-fruits] is analogous to hallah; hence it teaches us [that it is not so].

 

The other voice argues that the Torah had to state this explicitly with regard to first-fruits, for if not we would have analogized it with hallah, which is obligatory even outside the Land. Therefore, we needed the verse to teach that both with regard to the appointment of the king and first fruits, the mitzvah does not take effect until the land is settled. But only for these two mitzvoth and not for others.