## Kiddushin Daf 37b

###### Kiddushin 37b:1
[Kiddushin 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:1)

בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב כְּתִיב בְּהוּ?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
both the term: **Coming, and** the term: **Dwelling, are written:** “When you come into the land of your dwellings” (Numbers 15:2). How, then, can Rabbi Yishmael cite this example to teach about cases where only the term dwelling is written? The Gemara answers that **this is what** the *baraita* **is saying: This teaches that wherever** both **coming and dwelling are stated,** it applies **only after inheritance and settlement** of Eretz Yisrael; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.**


###### Kiddushin 37b:2
[Kiddushin 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:2)

אִי הָכִי, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הֲרֵי שַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״, וְאָמַר לוֹ: שַׁבָּת קַל וָחוֹמֶר הִיא, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב קָאָמֵינָא! חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, חֲדָא – דַּאֲנָא בִּיאָה וּמוֹשָׁב קָאָמֵינָא. וְעוֹד: דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ הֲרֵי שַׁבָּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ – שַׁבָּת קַל וָחוֹמֶר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** consider that **Rabbi Akiva said to him:** But there is the verse stated with regard to **Shabbat** (Leviticus 23:3), **in which it is stated “dwellings,” and** Rabbi Yishmael **said to him: Shabbat is derived through an *a fortiori*** inference. But **let** Rabbi Yishmael **say to** Rabbi Akiva instead: **I say** my principle only when **coming and dwelling** are both written, and in the case of Shabbat the verse states only the term dwelling. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael **states one** reason **and** adds **another** reason. **One** reason is **that I say** my principle only when **coming and dwelling** are written together. **And another** reason: With regard to **that which you say** that there is the case of **Shabbat, in which it is stated “dwellings,” Shabbat is derived through an *a fortiori*** inference.


###### Kiddushin 37b:3
[Kiddushin 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:3)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּקֵירְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: לָא קֵירְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: קֵירְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva **disagree?** The Gemara answers: **They disagree** with regard to whether the Jews **sacrificed libations in the wilderness. Rabbi Yishmael maintains: They did not sacrifice libations in the wilderness,** as the obligation to sacrifice libations came into effect only once they were living in Eretz Yisrael. **And Rabbi Akiva maintains: They did sacrifice libations in the wilderness.** Rabbi Akiva derives a different *halakha* from the term dwelling.


###### Kiddushin 37b:4
[Kiddushin 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַפֵּיק מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: This** statement of the ***tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael,** that only when the terms coming and dwelling are both written does the mitzva takes effect after settling Eretz Yisrael, **diverges from another** statement of the ***tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.**


###### Kiddushin 37b:5
[Kiddushin 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:5)

דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ בִּיאוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, אַף כֹּל לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as** the ***tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since** instances of **coming** to Eretz Yisrael **are mentioned in the Torah** in connection to several mitzvot, **without specifying** precisely when the Jewish people are considered to have arrived there, **and the verse specified in one of** its references that it applies only **after inheritance and settlement** of Eretz Yisrael, in the mitzva of appointing a king: “When you come to the land…and you inherit it and settle it” (Deuteronomy 17:14), **so too, wherever** coming to the land is mentioned without qualification, it means **after inheritance and settlement.** According to this opinion, there is no need for the verse to also mention the term dwelling.


###### Kiddushin 37b:6
[Kiddushin 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:6)

וְאִידַּךְ, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה מֶלֶךְ וּבִיכּוּרִים שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the **other** *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, cited in the dispute with Rabbi Akiva, would say that this is no proof, **because there is** not only the case of **a king** but also the mitzva of **first fruits,** where the verse also uses the terms of coming, inheriting, and dwelling (see Deuteronomy 26:1). Consequently, these are **two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same matter. **And any two verses that come as one do not teach** a precedent that applies to other cases.


###### Kiddushin 37b:7
[Kiddushin 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:7)

וְאִידַּךְ: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא מֶלֶךְ וְלָא כְּתַב בִּיכּוּרִים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בִּיכּוּרִים, דְּקָא מִיתְהֲנֵי – לְאַלְתַּר. וְאִי כְּתַב בִּיכּוּרִים וְלָא כְּתַב מֶלֶךְ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מֶלֶךְ, דְּדַרְכּוֹ לְכַבֵּשׁ – לְאַלְתַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** *tanna*, i.e., the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael cited by Abaye, would answer: Both these cases **are necessary,** as one cannot be derived from the other. **As, if the Merciful One** had **written** this matter only with regard to **a king, and had not written** it concerning **first fruits, I would say:** This delay applies only to the mitzva of appointing a king, whereas with regard to the mitzva of **first fruits, since one benefits** from eating the fruit he should have to bring it **immediately** and not wait until the land has been inherited and settled. **And** conversely, **had** the Merciful One **written** this matter only with regard to **first fruits and had not written** it in the case of **a king, I would say** that as it is **the manner of a king to conquer,** one must be appointed **immediately,** even before entering Eretz Yisrael.


###### Kiddushin 37b:8
[Kiddushin 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:8)

וְאִידַּךְ: נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא מֶלֶךְ וְלָא בָּעֵי בִּיכּוּרִים, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה מֶלֶךְ, דִּלְכַבֵּשׁ לְאַחַר יְרוּשָּׁה וִישִׁיבָה, בִּיכּוּרִים – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other,** the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, cited in the dispute with Rabbi Akiva, would respond: **Let the Merciful One write** this with regard to **a king, and it would not be required** to write it in the case of **first fruits,** as **I would say: And if a king, whose** task is **to conquer** Eretz Yisrael, nevertheless is appointed only **after inheritance and settlement,** with regard to **first fruits** is it **not all the more so** reasonable that a similar *halakha* apply to them? If so, these are two verses that come as one, which do not teach a precedent.


###### Kiddushin 37b:9
[Kiddushin 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:9)

וְאִידַּךְ: אִי כְּתַב הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחַלָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other,** i.e., the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael cited by Abaye, would say: **If** the Merciful One had **written this** only with regard to a king, **I would say** that the Jews should be obligated in the mitzva of first fruits immediately upon entering Eretz Yisrael, and I would not derive the *halakha* of first fruits from that of appointing a king, **just as it is with regard to** the separation of ***ḥalla*,** another priestly gift from one’s produce, which applied immediately upon the entrance to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore the verse is necessary, as it **teaches us** that this is not so.


###### Kiddushin 37b:10
[Kiddushin 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:10)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ חוֹבַת הַגּוּף נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, ״מוֹשָׁב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְמוֹעֲדוֹת כְּתִיבָא, תִּיבְּעֵי קִידּוּשׁ כִּי מוֹעֲדוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **And now that you said** that **an obligation of the body applies both in Eretz** Yisrael **and outside of Eretz** Yisrael, **why do I** need the term **“dwelling” that the Merciful One writes with regard to Shabbat** (Leviticus 23:3)? The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to say this, as **it might enter your mind to say: Since** the mitzva of Shabbat **was written in the context of the Festivals, it should require sanctification** by the court, **like the Festivals,** which rely on the sanctification of the New Moon by the court. Therefore the verse **teaches us** that this is not required.


###### Kiddushin 37b:11
[Kiddushin 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:11)

״מוֹשָׁב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חֵלֶב וָדָם, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָנָא דְקׇרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיבִי, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא קׇרְבָּן, נִיתְּסַר חֵלֶב וָדָם, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא קׇרְבָּן – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **Why do I** need the term **dwelling, which the Merciful One writes with regard to** the consumption of forbidden **fat and blood** in the verse: “A perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither forbidden fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17)? The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to state this, as **it might enter your mind to say: Since** these prohibitions **are written in the context of the offerings,** then **when there is an offering** and the priests sacrifice fat and blood upon the altar, i.e., when the Temple is standing, that is when forbidden **fat and blood are forbidden** for consumption. But **when there is no offering,** forbidden fat and blood are **not** forbidden. The verse therefore **teaches us** that they are always forbidden.


###### Kiddushin 37b:12
[Kiddushin 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:12)

״מוֹשָׁב״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ״, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא פֶּסַח – אִין, בִּזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא פֶּסַח – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, the Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the term **dwelling, which the Merciful One writes with regard to *matza* and bitter herbs,** in the verse: “In all your dwellings you shall eat *matza*” (Exodus 12:20)? The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to state this, as **it might enter your mind to say** that **since it is written: “They shall eat** the Paschal offering **with *matza* and bitter herbs”** (Numbers 9:11), **when there is a Paschal offering, yes,** one must eat it with *matza* and bitter herbs, but **when there is no Paschal offering,** i.e., when the Temple is not standing, there is **no** obligation to eat *matza* and bitter herbs. The verse therefore **teaches us** that these mitzvot apply every Passover, whether or not the Temple is standing.


###### Kiddushin 37b:13
[Kiddushin 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:13)

״בִּיאָה״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי תְּפִילִּין וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, לְמָה לִי? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה זוֹ, שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ תִּיכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **Why do I** need the term **coming, which the Merciful One writes with regard to phylacteries and the firstborn donkey,** at the start of the Torah passage which discusses these mitzvot: “And it shall be when the Lord will bring you into the land of the Canaanite” (Exodus 13:11)? The Gemara answers: **That verse is necessary for that which** the *tanna* of **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Perform this mitzva** of donning phylacteries, **on account of which** you shall be rewarded and **enter Eretz** Yisrael.


###### Kiddushin 37b:14
[Kiddushin 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/37b:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מוֹשָׁב״ – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם יוֹשְׁבִים מַשְׁמַע, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיֹּאכְלוּ מֵעֲבוּר הָאָרֶץ מִמׇּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח״ – מִמָּחֳרַת הַפֶּסַח אֲכוּל, מֵעִיקָּרָא – לָא אֲכוּל. אַלְמָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks about the term dwelling, written in connection to the prohibition of the new crop. **Granted, according to the one who says** that the term **dwelling indicates wherever you dwell, this** explains the fact **that it is written** with regard to the Jewish people immediately after they entered Eretz Yisrael: **“And they ate the produce of the land on the morrow after the Passover”** (Joshua 5:11). This means that **on the day after the Passover** they **ate** the produce of Eretz Yisrael, but **initially,** before that date, they **did not eat** it. **Apparently,**