{"id":12197,"date":"2008-11-13T21:40:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-13T21:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_kiddushin_3743\/"},"modified":"2016-11-28T04:31:17","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T09:31:17","slug":"masechet_kiddushin_3743","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_kiddushin_3743\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Kiddushin 37a-43b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Kiddushin 37a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> introduces the idea that some mitzvot<\/a><\/em> are obligatory only in the Land of Israel. According to the Mishnah, with minor exceptions, those mitzvot<\/em> that are dependent on the land – teluyot ba’aretz<\/em> – only apply in Israel, while those that are not dependent on the land apply both in Israel and in the Diaspora.<\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a>‘s first suggestion of how to define the concept of mitzvot ha-teluyot ba’aretz <\/em>is that it is based on whether or not the Torah<\/a> discusses the mitzvot<\/em> in the context of biah<\/em> – of coming into the land. This suggestion is rejected because of two mitzvot<\/em> – the commandments of Tefillin<\/a><\/em> and peter chamor<\/em> (phylacteries and redeeming a first-born donkey) – about which the Torah says ve-hayah ki yevi’aha<\/em>, indicating that they become obligatory after God brings the Jewish people into the land of Israel (see Shemot<\/a> 13:11<\/a>), yet we know that these commandments apply in all places. The Gemara concludes that agricultural mitzvot<\/em> apply only in Israel, while personal mitzvot<\/em> apply in all places.<\/p>\n

While the Gemara takes for granted that Tefillin<\/em> and peter chamor<\/em> apply even in the Diaspora, it does not supply any proofs that this is the case. Rashi<\/a> says simply that we know that Babylonian Talmud scholars wore Tefillin<\/em>, although Tosafot<\/a> argue that this does not prove that there is a true obligation to wear Tefillin<\/em> in the Diaspora, since they may have done so on a rabbinic level. The Ramban<\/a> at first echoes Rashi’s approach, but eventually concludes like the Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em> that the mitzvah<\/em> of u-keshartam le’ot al yedkhem<\/em>, commanding us to wear Tefillin<\/em>, appears immediately after the threat of exile (va-avadetem mehera me’al ha-aretz ha-tovah<\/em> – see Devarim<\/a> 11:18<\/a>), implying that the mitzvah<\/em> of Tefillin<\/em> remains in effect even when the Jewish people are living in exile.<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 38a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em> (page)<\/a> as a rule, agricultural mitzvot<\/a><\/em> apply only in Israel. Our Gemara<\/a> brings a number of exceptions to this rule.<\/p>\n