Question: The Yerushalmi asks why they did not eat Matzah from the new crops ...

Reason: ... why did the Asei of "ba'Erev Tochlu Matzos" not override the Lo Sa'aseh of Chadash?

Answer #1: An Asei that was given before Matan Torah does not override an Asei that was given after Matan Torah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Chachamim decreed the first k'Zayis on account of the second one (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: Why does the Gemara not learn it all from the Pasuk in Yehoshua (5) "And the Manna stopped the day after Pesach, and the B'nei Yisrael no longer had Manna" ...

Question (cont.): ... from which we see that up to then they had Manna?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara prefers to learn it from the words of the Torah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to the other side of the Yarden (the West Bank), which is more Chashuv than the land of Sichon and Og ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... "Ad Bo'am el Ketzei Eretz Cana'an" - the edge of the Yarden, which is the edge of Eretz Cana'an, which, in turn, is the Land of Sichon and Og.

Explanation #2: Other commentaries however, learn the other way round - that "Eretz Nosheves" refers to the Land of Sichon and Og, which it calls "inhabited" because it is next to the desert ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... where it leaves the desert and becomes inhabited.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... whereas "u'Ketzei Eretz Cana'an" refers to the end of Eretz Cana'an.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they stood at Arvos Mo'av thirty days to weep, and when Yehoshua was commanded to order Yisrael to travel, they spent three days preparing provisions for the journey, as the Pasuk writes "In another three days you will cross the Yarden" ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): It transpires that the thirty days of the Aveilus of Moshe ended on the seventh of Nisan, and on the following day, the eighth, Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu spoke with Yehoshua ...

Reason: ... not before that, since the Shechinah does not rest on a person who is sad (Shabbos 20b) ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Hence the Pasuk writes there "And the people came up from the Yarden on the tenth of the month".

Question: The Ri queries this however, from another Pasuk there, which states "And it was at the end of three days that Yehoshua said to the people 'Get ready, for tomorrow Hash-m will perform wonders in your midst!' " ...

Question (cont.): "At the end of three days" refers to the tenth, and he said to them "tomorrow" - so we see that they only crossed on the eleventh, so how can the Pasuk say "on the tenth of the month"?

Explanation #2: Some commentaries therefore explains that Hash-m spoke with Yehoshua on the thirtieth day of the mourning of Moshe, which was the seventh of Nisan ...

Implied Question: ... and although the Shechinah does not rest on a person who is sad ...

Answer: ... nevertheless 'A part of the day is considered like the whole day - So when He said to them "In another three days you will cross the Yarden" - he meant besides the day on which he was speaking ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas when Yehoshua told them "At the end of three days", it was including the day on which Hash-m spoke to him - on the thirty-second day "Tomorrow Hash-m will do with you wonders" - on the thirty-third day, which was the tenth of the month.

Question #1: It is a Dochek however, to say that the 'three' in "In another three days" of Hash-m is different than the 'three days' in "at the end of three days" of Yehoshua?

Question #2: Moreover, it is not the same as the 'three' in "In another three days" in Bereishis (40) which is inclusive? ...

Proof: As it says there "And it was on the third day, the day of Par'oh's birthday".

Re'establishing the first Explanation: One can therefore re'establish the first explanation in that, to be sure, Hash-m spoke with him on the thirty-first day of the Aveilus of Mosheh, which was the eighth of Nisan, when Hakadosh-Baruch said to him 'In another three days, including the day on which he was speaking to him - on the tenth of Nisan "You will cross" ...

Re'establishing the first Explanation (cont.): ... and when Yehoshua said to the people "at the end of three days" he meant the end of the second day- which is close to the third day, which is at the end of the thirty-second day, immediately preceding the thirty-third day ...

Support: ... like the Gemara in Pesachim (Daf 11b) 'When the second hour goes out and the third hour comes in'.

Precedent: Similarly we find in Yirmiyah (34) where it says 'At the end of seven years each of you shall send away his servant!" ...

Precedent (cont.): ... and the Gemara in Erchin (Daf 33a), in answer to the Kashya 'What does that mean? Does a servant not go out after six years? ...

Precedent (cont.): ... and it answers 'Six for the one who was sold, seven for the one whose ears were pierced' - meaning that if the Yovel occurred in the seventh year after he has been pierced or after his sale, send him away.

Precedent (concl.): So we see that even though the Yovel cancels the sale from the beginning of the year, the Torah refers to it as "the end of seven years".

Conclusion: In our case too, it refers to the beginning of the third day as "The end of three days".

Clarification: Rashi explains - Only on the sixteenth; "And its prohibition has a Heter' - since its Isur becomes permitted even on the sixteenth, in the event that the Omer has been brought.

Establishing the Author: According to that, the Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos, Daf 68a) that the prohibition applies on the entire sixteenth day when there is no Omer ...

Conclusion: ... because there is an opinion there that holds that sunrise permits it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that although its Isur is not permanent - since it is permitted in the fourth year, nevertheless, it is Asur be'Hana'ah and does not have a Heter during the time that it is prohibited.

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, in that the fruit that grows during the years of Orlah, is forbidden forever and has no Heter?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'Orlah' here refers to the fourth year; And 'Its Isur has a Heter' - via redemption.

Explanation #3): ha'Rav R. Yom-Tov explains that it refers to the actual Orlah, 'Whose Isur has a Heter' - meaning that one is permitted to cause the Isur by planting them (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), whereas it is forbidden to grow and to plant Kil'ayim.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam queried him from the Sifri, which states that 'There is a Heter after it has become Asur', implying that the Isur itself becomes permitted?

Explanation #4: Rebbi Moshe from Pontaiza explains that the Isur of Orlah has a Heter, through Beis-Din, seeing as the fruit of Orlah is forbidden until the fifteenth of Sh'vat; and if Beis-Din shorten Kislev, they hasten the day that it will become permitted ...

Explanation #4 (cont.): ... and so it is with Chadash which is Asur until the seventeenth of Nisan; and if Beis-Din shorten Adar, it turns out that they will be hastening the day that it becomes permitted.

Explanation #4 (concl.): ... which is not the case by Kil'ayim, which Beis-Din cannot permit under any circumstances.

Explanation #5: Furthermore the Ri explains that it is referring to the tree - that the Isur pertaining to the fruit that grows on it has a Heter, in that what grows after three years is no longer Asur ...

Explanation #5 (cont.): ... and by the same token, the corn that grows on the stalk after the Omer, is not Asur if it took root before the Omer (Menachos, 70a).

Conclusion: According to this explanation, it can go even according to the opinion that 'Sunrise permits Chadash' (See also Tosfos, Pesachim, 44b, DH 'Hu ha'Din').

Question: Why can we not learn from Chadash that Tevel, Terumah and Ma'aser should apply in Chutz la'Aretz, with a Kal va'Chomer or with a Mah Matzinu, seeing as their Isur is a permanent one and there is no Heter for their Isur as long as they are Tevel and T'erumah?

Answer #1: Because one can ask 'Whereas Chadash is not subject to a She'eilah, they are (One can ask a Chacham in order to retract from the Terumah and Ma'aser that one separated) ...

Implied Question: And regarding Tevel, even though it is not subject to She'eilah, and it will always remain Tevel until one rectifies it ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, since its Isur is only because of Terumah and Ma'aser, it cannot be more stringent than them.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one could ask that they are not comparable to Chadash, whose Isur comes automatically, and not through man's actions, unlike Tevel and T;rumah whose Isur comes through Miru'ach (flattening the pile after winnowing), which is an act of man.

Refutation: Perhaps one can refute this answer however, inasmuch as Chadash too, comes about through an act of man - plowing and planting.

Explanation #1: So why, Rashi explains, do you say that it is a Mitzvah that they were commanded only after they entered Eretz Yisrael; because, since it is a personal obligation, they were commanded on it already in the desert? ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and the Gemara answers 'At a time that you do not leave the land fallow - such as in the desert, where no plowing or planting took place, you don't need ... ' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And on the question 'Perhaps in the location that you leave the land fallow ... ' - in which case even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is standing, releasing debts should only take place in Eretz Yisrael ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): ... and it answers 'Here the Pasuk includes it - when it writes "Ki Kara Sh'mitah la'Hashem", implying in all cases.

Question #1: In that case, the Gemara ought not to have said 'When it writes "Ki Kara Sh'mitah ... ", since that is the answer - but 'The Pasuk says "Ki Kara Sh'mitah ... "?

Question #2: Moreover, how can the Gemara initially say that Sh'mitas Kesafim applies in the desert - bearing in mind that the Din of Sh'mitah only came into effect after the inheritance and the settling

Source: ... as the Gemara says at the end of the Perek (on Daf 40b) 'How great is Torah-study, that it preceded Sh'mitah by sixty-one years!'?

Explanation #2: Therefore it seems that we must explain that the releasing of debts is a personal obligation? - and it is therefore obvious that it applies even in Chutz la'Aretz; so what is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon coming to teach us?

Explanation #2: And it answers 'We need it to teach us the Din of Rebbi' - on account of the Hekesh of money to Karka ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the text reads 'We would have thought that wherever one is Meshamet Karka' - in Eretz Yisrael, since it is an obligation that pertains to the land, 'one is also Meshamet money, and wherever one is not Meshamet the one, one is not Meshamet the other.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, since there is no Sh'mitas Karka in Chutz la'Aretz, Sh'mitas Kesafim will not apply there either; therefore the Torah writes "Ki Kara Sh'mitah la'Hashem" - in all circumstances. And from this Pasuk Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns that it applies in Chutz la'Aretz as well.

Conclusion: According to Tosfos' text, 've'Eima be'Makom she'Atah Meshamet ... ' is the conclusion of the answer, not part of the Kashya, as it is according to Rashi's explanation.

Conclusion (cont.): Some Sefarim have the text 've'Eima Nami be'Makom ... ' (See Maharsha).

Explanation #2 (cont.): Similarly when the Gemara asks shortly 'Shilu'ach Avadim Chovas ha'Guf hi?' ... , as Tosfos explained by Hashmatas Kesafim, so we need to explain by Shilu'ach Avadim ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... and not like Rashi explained by Hashmatas Kesafim.

Explanation #1 of Sugya in Gitin: Rashi explains, in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 36a) in connection with the statement of Abaye, that Hillel is speaking 'about Shevi'is nowadays, when is is not Meshamet min ha'Torah, and it goes according to Rebbi, who, based on the Pasuk "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah, Shamot" ...

Explanation #1 of Sugya in Gitin (cont.): ... that Karka only needs to lie fallow from plowing and planting when the Beis ha'Mikdash is standing from this same Pasuk ...

Explanation #1 of Sugya in Gitin (cont.): ... and he explains that both Sh'mitas Karka and Sh'mitas Kesafim of plowing and sowing and Sh'mitas Kesafim of releasing a debt are talking about when the Yovel doesn't apply, because then Sh'mitah doesn't apply either ...

Source: ... as the Yerushalmi explains (See Masores ha'Shas) - "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Shemitah, Shamot", 'the Pasuk is talking about two Sh'mitos; the Sh'mitah of Yovel, the other, the Sh'mitah of Shevi'is; When the former applies, the latter applies as well; and when it doesn't ... ' ...

Source (cont.): And nowadays, the Yovel does not apply - because by the Yovel, the Torah writes "ba'Aretz le'Chol Yoshvehah" - when all its inhabitants are living on it, Yovel applies ... '; and nowadays, when its inhabitants are not there ... ; And since Yovel doesn't apply, Sh'mitah doesn't apply either.

Question: Rashi's explanation that 'Sh'mitas Karka refers to plowing and sowing in the Sh'mitah, for which he had to cite the D'rashah of the Yerushalmi is problematic ...

Question (cont.): ... because if that is what it means, Abaye ought to have cited it, seeing as it the basic D'rashah, because the fact that Sh'mitah does not apply we extrapolate from there, since without it, we would not know anything?

Explanation #2 of Sugya in Gitin: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the D'rashah in our Sugya is the same as that of the Yerushalmi ...

Proof: Since there too, Rebbi says it ...

Explanation #2 of Sugya in Gitin (cont.): ... and it calls Sh'mitas Karka 'Yovel' - because it reverts to its owner in the Yovel, but not in the Sh'mitah; And Sh'mitas Kesafim 'Sh'mitah' - because it does not occur in the Yovel ...

Source: ... as we Darshen in the Sifri in Parshas Re'ei (Si'man 112) "And this is the word of the Sh'mitah", 'Sh'mitah is Meshamet Kesafim, but not Yovel'.

Explanation #2 of Sugya in Gitin (cont.): And what the Gemara now means is - 'At the time that one is Meshamet Karka - when it reverts to the owner, one is Meshamet Kesafim - Sh'mitah, when Sh'mitas Kesafim applies ...

Explanation #2 of Sugya in Gitin (concl.): ... though it also refers to the Sh'mitah of plowing and sowing, since we learn the Sh'mitah of Shevi'is completely from that of the Yovel ...

Implied Question: And the reason that it mentions 'Sh'mitas Kesafim' is ...

Answer #1: ... due to the fact that it mentions 'Karka;, since it wants to define the Sh'mitah of Yovel, so it mentions 'Sh'mitas Kesafim, which is similar to it ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... inasmuch as by Sh'mitas Yovel the fields go back from the purchaser to the seller, and similarly, by Sh'mitas Kesafim the money goes from the creditor to the debtor.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is because Sh'mitas Kesafim applies exclusively to the Sh'mitah and not to the Yovel.

Question: Why does the Gemara not learn via a Kal va'Chomer from Chadash that Kil'ayim applies even in Chutz la'Aretz mi'd'Oraysa? ...

Question (cont.): ... 'If already Chadash which is not a permanent Isur ... ' ...

Answer: This Tana holds that the Torah writes "Sad'cha" by Kil'ayim (in Vayikra 20), to preclude seeds in Chutz la'Areta, as the Gemara will say later (on Daf 39a).

Refuted Question: Nor can it say that we can at least learn Orlah with a Kal va'Chomer from Chadash ...

Refutation: Because it can then counter that Kil'ayim proves otherwise.