Kiddushin 74

Chapter 74

א ביאה ומושב כתיב בהו ה"ק ללמד שכל מקום שנאמר ביאה ומושב אינו אלא לאחר ירושה וישיבה דברי ר' ישמעאל

1 both 'coming' and 'dwelling' are written!1 - It means thus: This is to teach that wherever 'coming' and 'dwelling' are stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down: that is R'Ishmael's opinion.

ב אי הכי אמר לו ר"ע הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות וא"ל שבת ק"ו היא נימא ליה אנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא חדא ועוד קאמר ליה חדא דאנא ביאה ומושב קאמינא ועוד דקא אמרת הרי שבת שנאמר בו מושבות שבת ק"ו היא

2 If so, [when the Baraitha proceeds:] Said R'Akiba to him, 'But the Sabbath, in connection with which dwellings is stated' [etc.], and he answered him, 'The Sabbath is inferred a minori', he should have answered him, 'I spoke of "coming" and "dwelling"'? - He gives him a twofold answer.2 Firstly, I refer to 'coming' and 'dwelling'.

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

3 Moreover, as to what you say: 'Behold the Sabbath, in connection with which "dwellings" is stated' - the Sabbath is inferred a minori. Wherein do they differ? - In whether they offered libations in the wilderness: R'Ishmael maintains that they did not offer libations in the wilderness, whereas R'Akiba holds that they did offer libations in the wilderness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: (explaining R. Akiba first:) since libations were offered in the wilderness (naturally at the public bamah, for private bamoth were at that time forbidden) , the verse under discussion cannot teach that libations would be required at the public bamoth when they entered Palestine, for they were already obligatory before them. Hence it can refer only to the private bamoth during the fourteen years of conquest and allotment (for thereafter private bamoth were illegal) ; and so dwelling must be an extension, implying wherever you dwell. According to R. Ishmael, however, the verse can teach that libations would be incumbent at the public bamoth, for hitherto, in the wilderness, they had been forbidden (and the fact that public bamoth are now referred to follows from the plural 'you', as stated on p. 182, n. 4) ; consequently 'dwelling' can only mean after settling down.');">3

ד אמר אביי האי תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל מפיק מאידך תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

4 Abaye said: This Tanna of the School of Ishmael contradicts4 another Tanna of the School of Ishmael.

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

5 For the School of Ishmael taught: Since unspecified 'comings' are stated in the Torah, whilst the Writ explained in the case of one [that it means] after posses - sion and settling down,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to the appointment of a king, Deut. XVII, 14: When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein.');">5 so all mean after possession and settling down.6

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

6 And the other?7 - Because [the appointment of a] king and [the offering of] first-fruits are two verses with the same teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fuller definition is also stated with respect to first-fruits, ibid, XXVI, 1: And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein.');">8

ז 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

7 and any two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [others]. And the other?9

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

8 - Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote the case of a king but not first-fruits, I would argue, Since there is enjoyment [of crops] in the case of first-fruits, [the obligation comes] immediately.10

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

9 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;11

י והשתא דאמרת חובת הגוף נוהגת בין בא"י בין בח"ל מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי שבת ל"ל איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל ובענינא דמועדות כתיבא תיבעי קידוש כי מועדות קמ"ל

10 hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Now that you say that a personal duty must be practised both within the Land and without the Land, what is the purpose of 'dwelling,' which the Divine Law wrote in connection with the Sabbath?12

יא מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי חלב ודם למה לי איצטריך סד"א הואיל ובענינא דקרבנות כתיבי בזמן דאיכא קרבן ניתסר חלב ודם בזמן דליכא קרבן לא קמ"ל

11 - It is necessary. I would say: Since it is written in the chapter on Festivals, it requires sanctification, like the Festivals;13

יב מושב דכתב רחמנא גבי מצה ומרור למה לי איצטריך סד"א הואיל וכתיב (במדבר ט, יא) על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו בזמן דאיכא פסח אין בזמן דליכא פסח לא קמ"ל

12 hence we are informed14 [that it is not so].

יג ביאה דכתב רחמנא גבי תפילין ופטר חמור למה לי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל עשה מצוה זו שבשבילה תיכנס לארץ

13 What is the purpose of 'dwelling' written by the Divine Law in connection with forbidden fat and blood?15 - It is necessary.

יד בשלמא למ"ד מושב כל מקום שאתם יושבים משמע היינו דכתיב (יהושע ה, יא) ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ממחרת הפסח ממחרת הפסח אכול מעיקרא לא אכול אלמא

14 I might say: Since it is written the section on sacrifices, as long as sacrifices are practised, heleb16 and blood are forbidden, but not when they are no longer practised. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. What is the purpose of 'dwelling' written by the Divine Law in connection with unleavened bread and bitter herbs?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 20: In all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread. - Bitter herbs are mentioned because they generally go together with unleavened bread, but actually 'dwelling' is not found in connection therewith, and in fact the obligation nowadays (i.e., after the destruction of the Temple) to eat them is only Rabbinical; in Rashi's text 'bitter herbs' seem to have been absent (S. Strashun) .');">17 - It is necessary. I might have thought, since it is written: They shall eat it [the Paschal lam with unleavened bread and bitter herbs:18 it holds good only when the Passover sacrifice is [offered], but not otherwise. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. What is the purpose of 'coming' which the Divine Law wrote in connection with phylacteries and the firstling of an ass?19 - That is needed for what the School of Ishmael taught: Perform this precept, for thou shalt enter the land on its account. Now, on the view that 'dwelling' implies wherever you live,20 it is well: hence it is written, and they di eat of the [new] produce of the land on the morrow after the passover:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. V, 11. E.V. translates 'old corn'; 'old' is not in the text, and the Gemara assumes that the reference is to the new corn, for otherwise, on the morrow after the passover is pointless.');">21 they ate on the morrow after the Passover, but not before, which shews

Previous Chapter Next Chapter