Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 38

1) THE JEWISH PEOPLE'S CONSUMPTION OF "HA'MAN"

AGADAH: The verse (Shemos 16:35) lists two time periods at which the Jewish people stopped eating the Man -- when "they came to Eretz Noshaves," and when "they came to the edge of Eretz Kena'an." RASHI explains that the Jewish people arrived at the edge of Eretz Kena'an, referring to Ever ha'Yarden (Transjordan), on the seventh of Adar, the day on which Moshe Rabeinu passed away and the Man stopped falling. They nevertheless continued to eat the Man that they had collected and stored earlier, until they arrived at "Eretz Noshaves," referring to Eretz Yisrael proper, where they ate from the new produce on the sixteenth of Nisan.

According to this Gemara, we might find an allusion in the verse not only to the miracle of the *Man* that the Jewish people ate, but to the miracle of *Haman* whom the Jewish people overcame ("ate") on Purim. When the verse says, "u'Vnei Yisrael Achlu Es ha'Man" -- "the Jewish people ate ha'Man," it might be hinting to what Hashem told Haman when Haman made his lottery to find out when would be the best time to carry out his evil plan. When his lottery fell on Adar as the month to destroy the Jewish people, Haman rejoiced, because the Mazal of Adar is "Dagim," and it is common for big fish to swallow little fish. Haman understood this to be a sign that he would swallow the small nation of the Jews. Hashem replied, "You evil one! Sometimes fish swallow other fish, and sometimes they are swallowed by other fish! You are going to be swallowed!" (Midrash Esther Rabah). "Swallowing," or "eating," refers to a situation in which the evil one intended to destroy, and his plans backfired and he was destroyed. The first time this happened was with regard to the date of the Seventh of Adar, as the Midrash above describes. The second time this happened was when Haman came to the king's court on the sixteenth of Nisan to have Mordechai hanged, and instead he himself suffered the degrading experience of leading Mordechai on a horse through the streets of the city, and eventually he was hanged on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordechai. This occurred on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the Gemara teaches that it was in the merit of the Mitzvah of the Korban ha'Omer (which is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan) -- that Mordechai, together with the entire Jewish people, was saved (Megilah 16a; RASHI there, DH Hilchos Kemitzah). The verse, then, is hinting to the two times that the Jewish people "ate" "ha'Man (Haman)" -- on the seventh of Adar, and on the sixteenth of Nisan!

The reason why this verse hints to the salvation from and victory over Haman might be related to the Gemara in Chulin (139b) that asks, "Where in the Torah is [there an allusion to] Haman?" The Gemara teaches that Haman is hinted to in the Torah in the verse that describes Hashem's reaction, as it were, to sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge: "ha'Min (spelled the same as 'Haman') ha'Etz..." -- "Did you eat from the tree which I commanded you not to eat?" (Bereishis 3:11). Before Adam ha'Rishon ate from the Tree, Hashem's providence was perfectly clear to him to the extent that he could even see Hashem's presence in the Garden. After the sin, Hashem's providence became clouded in the natural order of the world (Hashem's conduct of "Haster Astir Panai" -- "I will hide My face" (Devarim 31:18)). Hashem told Adam ha'Rishon that, as a result of his sin, he will be able to eat bread only after much strenuous labor. This labor will cause man to think that it is his own efforts that bring about his sustenance, as opposed to the Hashgachah, the providence, of Hashem.

We know that Eretz Yisrael is the place where the Hashgachah of Hashem is most clearly felt. Despite the labor that a person puts into his crops, he must end up relying on the rain that Hashem sends to help his crops grow (see Devarim 11:12, and see Parsha Page, Parshas Ekev). Before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, it was necessary for them to internalize the fact that Hashem gives them their sustenance directly and that it is not their efforts or any other factors that grant them their livelihood. That is why the Jewish people had to survive on the Man for forty years in the Midbar -- in order to fully internalize this lesson prior to entering Eretz Yisrael.

In the times of Ezra, before the Jewish people returned to Eretz Yisrael, it was necessary for them to re-learn this lesson (see Berachos 4a). Therefore, they again needed to struggle and overcome the influence brought about by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, and they needed to see the hand of Hashem underneath the "Hester Panim." Hence, the lesson of Purim is the same lesson as that of the Man. That is why Haman's downfall is hinted to in this verse that discusses the Man.

[Today, the twenty-third of Sivan, marks the day that Haman's decree to destroy the Jews was overturned (Esther 8:9). The Midrash teaches that Haman's decree lasted altogether seventy days -- from the day that it was issued, the sixteenth of Nisan, until the day that it was repealed, the twenty-third of Sivan. It could be that these seventy days correspond to the seventy days out of the forty years that the Jewish people sojourned in the Midbar without the Man -- the last forty days of their sojourn, from the seventh of Adar until they entered Eretz Yisrael, and the first thirty days of their sojourn, when they left Mitzrayim, before the Man began to fall.

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai who makes a Kal v'Chomer to teach that the Mitzvos of Orlah and Kela'im apply in Chutz la'Aretz: If the Isur of Chadash applies in Chutz la'Aretz even though it has three leniencies in that its Isur is not a permanent Isur -- "Ein Isuro Isur Olam," it is not Asur b'Hana'ah (it is only prohibited to eat the grain, but not to derive benefit from it), and it can become permitted -- "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" (the Gemara in Pesachim 44b teaches that the Isur of Nazir also has these three leniencies), then certainly Kela'im should apply in Chutz la'Aretz, because the Isur of fruits of Kela'im *is* permanent -- "Isuro Isur Olam," the fruits are Asur b'Hana'ah, and there is no Heter to the Isur. The Kal v'Chomer also teaches that Orlah applies in Chutz la'Aretz, because it has two of the stringencies that Kela'im has.

What is the difference between "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" (the Isur is not permanent) and "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" (the Isur can become permitted)? Both seem to mean the same thing -- the Isur is eventually removed and does not remain on the item forever!

The Gemara, though, makes it clear that Orlah has only *two* of the Chumros of Kela'im -- it is Asur b'Hana'ah, and it is either an Isur Olam, *or* it has no Heter to its Isur. It does not have *both* of these latter two Chumros. What is the difference between "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" and "Yesh Heter l'Isuro?"

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH v'Hu) explains that "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" means that there is a time at which the Isur will be removed from the item automatically. "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means that even before that time comes, there is another way to remove the Isur. In the case of Chadash, the Isur is removed automatically at the end of the day (of the sixteenth of Nisan). If, however, the Korban ha'Omer is brought before the end of the day, then the Isur is removed when the Korban is brought. Similarly, in the case of Nazir, the Isur is removed automatically after thirty days, but if the Nazir is Sho'el on his Nezirus and has a Chacham annul it, then the Isur is removed before thirty days (Rashi, Pesachim 44b, DH v'Yesh).

This is the second Chumra of Orlah. It does not have a "Heter l'Isuro," since fruit of Orlah cannot be permitted within the three-year period at all.

TOSFOS TUCH asks that when a Chacham annuls the Nezirus before thirty days have passed, he removes the Nezirus retroactively. How, then, can that be called a way of permitting the Isur, "Yesh Heter l'Isuro?" He is not permitted an Isur that existed until now, until the time that he permits it; if he annuls the Isur, he annuls it so that the Isur was never there in the first place!

Rashi might be learning like the ROSH in Nedarim (52a) in the name of the Yerushalmi, who writes that when a Chacham is Matir a Neder, his Hatarah does not uproot the Neder absolutely retroactively, but rather his Hatarah uproots the Neder "mi'Kan u'l'ha'Ba l'Mafrei'a." This means that at the time that the Chacham is Matir the Neder, the Neder becomes annulled from then on, and although until that point it was indeed Asur, it is viewed from now on as if there never was a Neder. Until the time of the Hatarah, the Isur of Nezirus was certainly in force. The Chacham, by being Matir it, removes the Isur from now on *as if* it was never there before.

However, TOSFOS (DH v'Hu ha'Din) objects to Rashi's explanation for another reason. Fruit of Orlah does not become permitted automatically after the third year. Only the new fruit that grows from the tree after three years has passed is permitted, and that fruit was never Asur in the first place! (The RAMBAN comments that "this is not a question," but does not explain why.)

(b) The RAMBAN in the name of RABEINU CHANANEL (see ARUCH, Erech "Chadash," and Rabeinu Chananel in Pesachim 44b) explains that "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" means that the Isur is removed automatically after a certain amount of time has passed (as Rashi explains) -- Chadash by the sixteenth of Nisan and the fruit of a tree of Orlah after the third year. "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means that even the very fruit that was once Asur can become Mutar. This is the second Chumra of Orlah, since, as Tosfos points out, the fruit of Orlah remains prohibited forever.

The application of these two leniencies to Chadash is not so clear according to this explanation, because the grain that takes root in the ground *after* the Korban ha'Omer is brought is not permitted by the Korban ha'Omer until the following year's Korban ha'Omer. The Korban only permits what was Asur until now and does not permit what grows later. Thus, with regard to Chadash, "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" seems to mean the exact same thing as "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" -- since only the fruit that was Asur becomes permitted with the Omer!

(c) The RI cited by Tosfos explains that "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" is a Kula of Orlah and not a Chumra. It means that the Isur which the tree produces can cease to be produced, since after the third year the tree stops producing fruits of Orlah, but rather it produces permitted fruits. "Isuro Isur Olam" refers to the fruit itself that became Asur; that fruit remains Asur forever, and therefore this Chumra does apply to Orlah.

(d) RAV MOSHE of PONTOISE explains that "Isuro Isur Olam" means that it remains Asur forever. This is the second Chumra of Orlah, as the Ri explains. "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means, like Rashi says, that the Isur can be permitted earlier than the given time. However, he explains that the way it can be permitted earlier is if Beis Din declares Rosh Chodesh to be one day earlier; they can thereby make the sixteenth of Nisan occur one day earlier, causing Chadash to become permitted one day earlier.

This is true of Orlah as well. The Isur of Orlah applies to fruit that blossoms before the fifteenth of Shevat (Tu b'Shevat) of the third year. If Beis Din declares Rosh Chodesh one day earlier, then Beis Din can permit fruit that blossoms on the fifteenth of Shevat which would otherwise have been Asur (because had they not made Rosh Chodesh a day earlier, the day on which the fruit blossomed would have been the fourteenth day of Shevat, which would be within the three years of the Isur of Orlah).

(e) RABEINU YOM TOV cited by Tosfos suggests that "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means that it is permitted *to create* this product which is prohibited to be eaten. It is permitted to sew seeds of grain in the ground, and to plant fruit-bearing trees, even though doing so will cause an item that is Asur to be created (Chadash and Orlah). (RABEINU TAM rejects this explanation based on a Sifri, which calls this Kula "Yesh Heter *l'Achar* Isuro.")

(f) The ME'IRI cites others who explain that "Isuro Isur Olam" means that the Isur applies *to the whole world,* even to Bnei Noach. Orlah and Chadash do not apply to Bnei Noach, and thus they are not "Isuro Isur Olam" -- they do not have this Chumra. Kela'im, on the other hand, applies even to Bnei Noach, with regard to Harkavas ha'Ilan, as the Gemara says later (39a).

38b