Commentary for Kiddushin 74:9

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

And if the case of first-fruits were stated but not that of a king, I would reason, Since it is king's way to conquer, [he must be appointed] immediately [on entering the land]. And the other? - Let the Divine Law state the case of a king, and then first-fruits become unnecessary, for I would reason: 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]! And the other? - If it were thus written: I would say: It [first-fruits] is analogous to hallah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. All admit that this became incumbent immediately they entered the land, cf. Num. XV, 18 and Sifre a.l.');"><sup>11</sup></span>

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

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.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse