📜 Kiddushin — 38a

they sacrificed the omer and only afterward did they eat. But according to the one who says that the term dwelling indicates that the prohibition of the new crop applies only after inheritance and settlement of Eretz Yisrael, let the Jews eat the produce of the land immediately. The Gemara answers: They did not need to eat the new produce, as they still had manna. Although they did not eat the new crop of Eretz Yisrael, the reason was not that it was prohibited. This is as it is written: “And the children of Israel ate the manna forty years until they came to a settled land; they ate the manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan” (Exodus 16:35). The Gemara analyzes this verse: One cannot say they ate “until they came to a settled land,” i.e., that they were still eating the manna when they entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is already stated: “To the borders of the land of Canaan,” which indicates that they stopped eating manna before entering Eretz Yisrael, on the plains of Moab. And one cannot say that they ate manna only until they reached “to the borders of the land of Canaan,” as it is already stated: “Until they came to a settled land.” How can these clauses be reconciled? Moses died on the seventh of Adar and the manna ceased falling, and they ate the manna that was left in their vessels until the sixteenth of Nisan, even after they entered Eretz Yisrael. It is taught in another baraita with regard to the verse: “And the children of Israel ate the manna forty years” (Exodus 16:35). But did they really eat it for forty years? But didn’t they eat it for forty years less thirty days? The manna began to fall on the sixteenth of Iyyar in the first year in the wilderness, and they stopped eating it on the sixteenth of Nisan in the fortieth year. Rather, this verse comes to tell you that they tasted the taste of manna in the unleavened cakes that they took out from Egypt on the fifteenth of Nisan in their first year, and this sustained them until the manna fell. It is taught in another baraita: Moses died on the seventh of Adar, and he was likewise born on the seventh of Adar. From where is it derived that Moses died on the seventh of Adar? As it is stated: “So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5), and it is written: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (Deuteronomy 34:8). And it is written: “Now it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord” (Joshua 1:1), and it is written: “Moses, My servant, is dead; now arise, cross this Jordan” (Joshua 1:2). The baraita continues: And it is written: “Pass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying: Prepare your victuals, for within three days you are to cross the Jordan” (Joshua 1:11). And it is written: “And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month” (Joshua 4:19). Subtract retroactively from that date, the tenth of Nisan, the last thirty-three days, i.e., the thirty days of mourning for Moses and the three days of preparation before crossing the Jordan, and you learn from here that Moses died on the seventh of Adar. The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that Moses was born on the seventh of Adar? It is as it is stated: “And he said to them, I am one hundred and twenty years old today; I can no more go out and come in” (Deuteronomy 31:2). As there is no need for the verse to state “today,” since Moses could have said simply: I am one hundred and twenty years old. What is the meaning when the verse states “today”? One can learn from it that Moses was born on that date, i.e., he was exactly one hundred and twenty years old. This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and completes the years of the righteous from day to day and from month to month, as it is stated: “The number of your days I will fulfill” (Exodus 23:26). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Jewish people were commanded to perform three mitzvot immediately upon entering Eretz Yisrael: The new crop, diverse kinds, and orla, and these apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. And it is logical, i.e., one can derive through an a fortiori argument that each of these mitzvot should apply everywhere. If the prohibition of the new crop, whose prohibition is not a permanent prohibition, as it does not apply to grain that grows after the omer has been sacrificed on the sixteenth of Nisan, and whose prohibition is not a prohibition against deriving benefit, since usages other than eating are permitted, and there is dissolution for its prohibition, i.e., grain that grew before the sixteenth of Nisan becomes permitted after the omer offering has been brought, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, the same halakha should certainly apply to diverse kinds. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai elaborates: With regard to diverse kinds, whose prohibition is a permanent prohibition, as it never expires, and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, since one may not benefit in any manner from diverse kinds of the vine, and there is no dissolution for its prohibition, is it not logical that it should apply both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael? And the same is true of orla with regard to two of those points. Orla is not a permanent prohibition, as it applies only for the first three years that a tree produces fruit, but one may not derive benefit from it, and produce from the first three years never becomes permitted. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: