The mishnah in kidushin says all mitzvos that are tului baaretz we keep only in eretz yisroel, all mitzvos that are not tului baaretz we keep in eretz yisroel and oytside eretz yisroel. The chinuch quotes the ramban that the ramban holds that it is a mitzvah for beis din to do the 4 types of misas beis din and we only do it in eretz yisroel. Isnt this against the mishnah in kidushin? Misas beis din is not tului baaretz so we should do it both in eretz yisroel and in chutz laaretz? I think there might be other examples of mitzvas that are not tului baaretz that we only keep in eretz yisroel. (eg [I think] shor haniskal, eglah erufah,daled minim after first day). Thank you veery much for answering my question.
Ahron Fishman, queens
Can you please tell me where the Chinuch is that you are referring to, because it does not seem to be consistent with the Mishnah in Makos 7a which states that Sanhedrin applies both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz l'Aretz? This certainly seems to means capital punishment, and this is what the Rambam Hilchos Sanhedrin 14:14 writes that "at a time when capital punishments are judged in Eretz Yisrael they are also judged in Chutz l'Aretz."
Your example about Daled Minim after the first day is not specifically related to the whole of Eretz Yisrael but rather is a Din dependent on the Beis Hamikdash, because Vayikra 23:40 states "And you shall rejoice before Hash-m your Elokim for 7 days". "Before Hash-m" means in the Beis Hamikdash. Rashi Sukah DH B'Medinah writes that even in the rest of Yerushalayim, Lulav is only taken for one day mid'Oraisa. So Lulav is different because there is an explicit Pasuk which distinguishes between different parts of Eretz Yisrael itself.
Chodesh Tov
Dovid Bloom
The Rambam lists mitzvos beis din leharog bichenek hamichiav (chinuch parshas mishpatim mitzvah 47) so its a kasha on the rambam who says there that the mitzvah only applies in eretz yisroel. The chinuch also lists kenas (mitzvah 49) as a mitzvah and a kenas only apply in eretz Yisroel but not chutz laaretz. Thank you very much for answering my question.
(1) A big Yeyasher Koach for showing me where this is in the Sefer HaChinuch.
"Boruch Shekivanti!" - I was very happy to see that the question I asked last time is in fact asked by the Minchas Chinuch 47:3: the Chinuch appears to be contradicted by an explicit Gemara in Makos 7a that Sanhedrin applied both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz l'Aretz?! The Minchas Chinuch does not answer this question.
However it seems that the Sefer HaChinuch answers the question himself in Mitzvah 491 (Parshas Shoftim), which is the Mitzvah of appointing judges and policemen. There the Chinuch writes that the Mitzvah of the Great Sanhedrin and Lesser Sanhedrin only applies in Eretz Yisrael, because Semichah only exists there. However anyone who received Semichah in Eretz Yisrael is qualified to judge even in Chutz la'Aretz. The Chinuch writes that this is the meaning of the Gemara in Makos (that I cited above) that Sanhedrin applies both inside and outside Eretz Yisrael.
According to this, one can say that Chinuch Mitzvah 47, when he writes that capital punishment only applies in Eretz Yisrael, also means that only a person who received Semichah in Eretz Yisrael, can judge these cases. However someone who received Semicha in Eretz Yisrael can judge capital cases even outside Eretz Israel.
(2) However I think your question on this from Kidushin 36b can be answered. This is because the reason that Semichah is only given in Eretz Yisrael is not necessarily something inherent to the land of Yisrael. Rather it is because it was only in Eretz Yisrael that there were ever sages of sufficient caliber to grant Semichah, but this is a secondary consideration. The definition of "Teluyah ba'Aretz", is whether or not it is an obligation of the land, as the Gemara in Kidushin 37a states, so according to this Semichah is not Teluyah ba'Aretz.
(3) The Ramban on the Chumash, at the beginning of Parshas Shoftim, cites the Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:2) that in Chutz la'Aretz one does not have to appoint judges in every city. He then cites the Gemara Makos that Sanhedrin applies in Chutz la'Aretz and the Ramban reconciles that in Chutz la'Aretz one does not have to appoint Sanhedrin in every town, but it is sufficient to do so in every district. So there is no question on the Rambam because he does say one has to appoint Sanhedrin in Chutz la'Aretz, but the only difference is how many Batei Dinim one must set up there.
(4) If you look carefully at Chinuch Mitzvah 49 you will notice he never actually writes that it does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz. However in Mitzvah 524 he does write that Eidim Zomemim only apply in Chutz la"aretz because this is a fine. (See the Minchas Chinuch who also finds this difficult).
Again, according to what I wrote above in (2) we can see that the Gemara in Kidushin does not present a problem to what the Chinuch writes about Knas, because the reason one does not collect Knas in Bavel is because there is no Semichah in Bavel. However, Semichah does not depend on the "land" of Yisrael but rather there is a secondary reason why it does not apply outside Eretz Yisrael, so according to this the fact that there is no Knas in Bavel is not contradicted by Kidushin 36b.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom