The EB set edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Kiddushin, has been sponsored by our good friend Mr. Chaimy Dana, Hashem yishmerehu veyechayehu, in honor of his wife Dina Bat Rivka, that she should have many years of Shalom Bayit, Masechet Kiddushin, and Hatzlacha, Parnasa, and all good things, health, happiness, Nachat from the children, and all the Berachot, Amen. Today's Daf Lamed Tet has been sponsored for the elevation of the soul of Mordechai Kenig, Yosef ben Sara, and Marat Zekentit Yafa bat Sara, and the soul of Avi Avraham ben Esther, Hashem yenachamem began eden, Amen. Today's Daf has also been sponsored for a Refuah Shlema for Moshe ben Dina, Sarah Hava bat Hava, Bat-Sheva bat Chana, and Chamsiyon ben Esther. May it be Your will that they have healing of the soul and healing of the body, and may they be close to recovery, and may it be Your will, and we say Amen.
We begin today's Daf on Lamed Tet Amud Rishon, starting five lines from the bottom, last word on the line. We are in the Sugia of Orlah. According to our previous discussion, we are dealing with Orlah in Chutz La'aretz, where we are lenient. This leniency extends to the extent that in cases of doubt regarding Orlah in Chutz La'aretz, since Orlah is only rabbinical, we apply the principle of Safek Derabbanan Lekula. Therefore, it is permissible, according to one opinion, to send someone down to pick Orlah for you, as long as you did not see it; it is acceptable for you. To you, it is a doubt, and therefore you are allowed to eat it; it is permitted. As we see, Levi tells Shmuel, “Go get some Orlah for me and make it a doubt; don’t tell me what you’re giving me, and I’ll eat it.” To him, it is a doubt, and therefore, Safek Orlah in Chutz La'aretz is muttar. They used to employ this trick: one would go down to the field, pick Orlah without informing the other, and each would give the other food without revealing what it was, maintaining that it was a Safek, and thus Orlah in Chutz La'aretz is muttar.
Rashi notes that this is a clever tactic. As long as the eater is in doubt, he is fine. The practice was common among the rabbis, where one rabbi would pick Orlah unbeknownst to the other, and vice versa. The sharp ones in Pumbedita, identified by Rashi as Eifa and Avimi, stated: “There is no Orlah in Chutz La'aretz.” This means that according to them, even Vadai Orlah in Chutz La'aretz is permissible. This position introduces a new Shita that we have not encountered yet. The Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda sent this halacha in front of Rabbi Yochanan, stating that he heard there is no Orlah in Chutz La'aretz. Rabbi Yochanan responded, “Setom Sefeka, and get rid of Vadai, and announce that their fruits require Geniza.” Rabbi Yochanan opposed this leniency regarding Orlah in Chutz La'aretz.
He instructed them not to publicize the halacha of Safek Orlah in Chutz La'aretz being muttar. He warned that publicizing such leniencies could lead to a Zilzul among the people, where they might come to eat Vadai Orlah under the pretense of Safek. Thus, he advised them to keep it quiet. Furthermore, he instructed them to eliminate any Vadai Orlah that they encountered, to prevent people from mistakenly consuming it while thinking it was permissible. He also declared that anyone who claims there is no Orlah in Chutz La'aretz shall have no descendants and will be cut off from the community of Hashem.
Now, regarding the lenient rabbis in Pumbedita, who maintained that there is no Orlah in Chutz La'aretz, the Gemara explores the source of their opinion. It refers to a Beraita where Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yossi states in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Dormaska, who cites Rabbi Yossi HaGlili, who cites Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who cites Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol, stating that there is no Orlah in Chutz La'aretz. However, this raises a contradiction because in our Mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer asserts that not only Orlah and Kilayim apply in Chutz La'aretz, but even Chadash applies. Thus, how can we reconcile this? This contradiction leads us to conclude that we must remove the word “Af” from Rabbi Eliezer’s statement. His only argument pertains to Chadash, asserting that only Chadash applies to Chutz La'aretz, while he agrees that Orlah does not apply.
Rabbi Assi states in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Orlah in Chutz La'aretz is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai. This indicates a strong position that Orlah is indeed a biblical prohibition. We see a spectrum of opinions on Orlah in Chutz La'aretz: on one side, it is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, while on the other, some claim there is no Orlah at all. Then there are opinions in the middle that consider it rabbinical. Rabbi Zera challenges Rabbi Assi, asking how if it is a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, can there be a case of Safek Orlah in Chutz La'aretz being muttar? If it were a biblical law, a doubt should be treated stringently.
Rabbi Assi, after a moment of contemplation, responds that the halacha states that Safek Orlah is muttar while Vadai Orlah is assur. This is an essential principle within the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai framework. Thus, if you have a Safek in Chutz La'aretz, you can be lenient and allow for consumption. Rabbi Assi reiterates that the halacha permits this leniency based on its origins.
Rabbi Yochanan further clarifies that one is liable for Kilayim according to Torah law. However, Rabbi Elazar argues that Kilayim in Chutz La'aretz is only rabbinical. The Gemara then distinguishes between Kilayim of the vineyard, which is prohibited in Chutz La'aretz, and the mixing of seeds, which is permissible. The distinction is vital, as it reveals that while grafting is a biblical prohibition, mixing seeds is rabbinically prohibited only in Eretz Yisrael.
As we continue, the Gemara recounts stories of Rav Chanan and Rav Anan walking along the road, observing a man mixing seeds together. They consider putting him in Nidui for transgressing the prohibition. However, one rabbi defends him, explaining that the mixing of seeds in Chutz La'aretz is permissible. Another incident involves a man planting wheat and barley in a vineyard, leading to a similar discussion about whether he should be penalized for Kilayim. The conclusion is that the rabbinical prohibition is not applicable in Chutz La'aretz.
Rav Yosef later experiments with mixing seeds, and Abaye questions him, reminding him of the rabbinical restrictions. Rav Yosef defends his actions, claiming that mixing seeds in Chutz La'aretz is permissible. However, he later retracts, acknowledging the potential issues with such mixing.
In summary, the Gemara concludes that grafting in Chutz La'aretz is prohibited by Torah law, while Kilayim of the vineyard is rabbinically enforced. However, mixing seeds is permissible. This leads us to a broader discussion about the implications of performing mitzvot and the rewards associated with them. The Mishna teaches that anyone who performs even one mitzvah will receive rewards, including long life and inheritance of the land. A contradiction arises with another Mishna, which states that only certain mitzvot provide benefits in this world while the principal remains for the next world. The Gemara reconciles these by suggesting that when one’s merits outweigh their sins, they may receive benefits in this world, while those with more sins face challenges.
Ultimately, the conversation revolves around the understanding that the rewards for mitzvot are primarily in the World to Come, while the conditions of this world serve as a means to facilitate the performance of mitzvot. The discussion highlights the delicate balance between halachic rulings and the spiritual implications of our actions, reminding us that while we navigate the complexities of Jewish law, our focus should remain on fulfilling mitzvot and striving for spiritual growth.