Daf Ditty Pesachim 52: Hananya/Kfar Inan

Kfar Inan, was a Palestinian Arab village in the Acre Subdistrict around 33
kilometres east of Acre.

Until 1949, it was an Arab village built over the ruins of ancient Kefir
Hananya

1
Tangentially, it is reported that Rav Natan bar Asya relied upon his knowledge of the calendar
and traveled from Rav’s study hall to Pumbedita on the second day of the festival of Assembly,
i.e., Shavuot, and thereby desecrated the second day of the Festival by traveling beyond the town
limits. Rav Yosef excommunicated him as punishment for this act. Abaye said to Rav Yosef:
Let the Master flog Rav Natan bar Asya for this grave sin. Rav Yosef said to him: I punished
him more severely, as in Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar, but do not vote to
punish him with excommunication, in deference to the Torah. Apparently, excommunication is a
more severe punishment than lashes.

2
Some say: Rav Yosef ordered the court officer to flog him. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let the
Master excommunicate him, as it is Rav and Shmuel who both say that one excommunicates
for desecration of the second day of the Festival in the Diaspora. Rav Yosef said to him: That
applies to an ordinary person. Here, he is a Torah scholar. I did what was best for him, as in
Eretz Yisrael they vote to flog a Torah scholar but do not vote to punish him with
excommunication. Rav Yosef did not wish to sentence him to so severe a punishment.

3
We learned in the mishna: Similarly, one who transports Sabbatical Year produce from a place
where a crop has ceased in the fields to a place where it has not yet ceased, or from a place where
it has not yet ceased to a place where it has already ceased, is obligated to remove the produce
from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. Rabbi Yehuda says that
one need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: You too go out and bring this

4
produce from a place where it remains in the field. Therefore, he may partake of the produce that
he brought with him. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda not in agreement with that which
we learned in the mishna: The Sages impose upon him the stringencies of both the place from
which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went?

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Yehuda is stating a different matter, and this is
what the mishna is saying: Or if one went from a place where a crop has not ceased in the fields
to a place where it has also not ceased in the fields, and he heard that it now ceased in the
fields in his original location, he is then required to remove the fruits from his possession. Rabbi

5
Yehuda says: He need not remove it and can say to the people of his location of origin: You, too,
go out and bring these fruits from a place where they remain in the field, as they have not
ceased in the fields here, and I may continue eating this produce.

Since the Gemara discussed the point when Sabbatical Year produce must be removed in different
places, it cites a mishna from tractate Shevi’it that deals with a similar topic. We learned there in
a mishna: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to removal, Judea,
Transjordan, and the Galilee. And there are three lands in each and every one of them: The

6
valley, the mountains, and the plains, in which the halakhot of removal differ. And why did the
Sages say that there are three lands with regard to removal if those lands themselves are further
divided? It is so that people will eat in each and every one until a certain crop ceases from the
field in the last of the regions that comprise it. Therefore, even if a certain fruit is no longer
available in a particular region within the land, it may still be eaten there as long as it is available
in one of the other regions.

RASHI

7
The Sages taught: Sabbatical Year fruits that left Eretz Yisrael and went to the Diaspora must
be removed in any place that they are located. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: That is not so.
Rather, the fruits should return to their place of origin in Eretz Yisrael and be removed there.
According to his opinion, removal may not be performed outside Eretz Yisrael because it is
stated: “In your land,” indicating that this activity may be performed only in Eretz Yisrael. The
Gemara asks: Didn’t you derive from this verse that each of the three lands in Eretz Yisrael has a
different halakhic status?

Summary
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

1. A person who lives in Eretz Yisrael and travels temporarily outside of Eretz Yisrael cannot
perform melachah if he is there on the second day of Yom Tov. The Gemora discusses performing
melachah on the second day of Yom Tov. Being that we know that the first day of Yom Tov is the
proper day, and the second day is only a custom, one might think he does not have to keep this
custom if he is anyway from Eretz Yisrael (and people who live in Eretz Yisrael never had this
custom). Rabbi Ami stated that this is only correct if one is in a desert. If he is in a city outside of
Eretz Yisrael he must refrain from performing melachah. Tosfos explains that this is even if he is
in private (i.e., a closed room). This is because it is unlikely for someone to do melachah privately
without other people knowing (see Insight).

2. There is an argument regarding when a mixture of shemitah vegetables must be destroyed. Our
Mishna (50b) discusses the law of fruits of shemitah that must be destroyed. This is because the
Torah stated that they can only be eaten until they are no longer eaten by the animals in the field.
This obviously depends on the crop in each area (see 3. below).

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pesachim_52.pdf

8
What happens if there is a pickled mixture of shemitah fruit?

The Mishna in Shevi’is (9:5) quotes Rabbi Eliezer as saying that whenever one of the fruits must
be destroyed, the entire mixture must be destroyed. Rabbi Yehoshua says that the mixture can be
maintained until the latest “expiration date” of whatever is in the mixture. Rabban Gamliel says
that each type of fruit should be eaten until its own expiration date. When it must be burned then
it must be burned, but it does not affect the rest of the fruit in the barrel.

3. There are three sections of Eretz Yisrael which each have a different time when the
shemitah fruit must be burned. The Mishna in Shevi’is (9:2) records that there are three
different sections of lands which each have a different time for burning shemitah produce.
This means that each land looks at which crops are being eaten in its section of Eretz Yisrael,
not at the entirety of Eretz Yisrael, to decide whether or not to burn its shemitah crops.2

Tosafos

‫ת וס ' ד " ה ע ד ש י כ ל ה א ח ר ון ש ב ה‬

Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation that the three lands into which Yehudah, Eiver
ha'Yarden and the Galil are divided are all equal, and elaborates.

.‫ והשלש ארצות שבכל אחת שוות הן‬,‫ עד שתכלה האחרונה שבארצותיה‬,‫פ"ה‬

Rashi explains 'Until the last one of the lands is finished, and the three lands in each one are all the
same.

?‫ למה שונה שלש ארצות בכל אחת‬,‫ דאם אינם חלוקות‬,‫ואין נראה‬

But this does not seem correct, because if there is no difference between them, why does the Tana
list three lands in each one?

‫ ושלש ארצות בכל אחת; עד שיכלה‬,‫ דתנן בפ"ט דשביעית )מ"ב( 'שלש ארצות לביעור‬,‫ועוד קשה לר"י‬
.'‫האחרונה שבה‬

Moreover, asks the Ri, we learned in the Mishnah in the ninth Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 2) that
'There are three lands for Bi’ur', and that 'each one comprises three lands: until the last one inside
it.

.'‫ 'לא אמרו שלש ארצות אלא ביהודה‬,‫ר"ש אומר‬

Rebbi Shimon says that 'They only said three lands regarding Yehudah'.

?‫ שלש ארצות חלוקות שכל אחת חלוקה לביעור‬,‫ דלתנא קמא‬,‫מכלל‬

2
Each one of these three sections have three different parts as well (see Tosfos DH “ad she’Yichleh” to understand why this is
significant) below.

9
From which we can extrapolate that according to the Tana Kama, the three are three individual
lands regarding Bi’ur ...

?‫ור"ש נמי מודה להו ביהודה‬

And Rebbi agrees with that as far as Yehudah is concerned.

‫ עד שיכלה‬- ‫ עד שיכלה אחרון שבהר; ו'פירות שבעמקים‬- '‫ היינו 'פירות שבהר‬,'‫ ד''אחרון שבה‬,‫לכך י"ל‬
.‫ עד שיכלה אחרון שבשפילה‬- '‫ וכן 'שבשפילה‬.‫אחרון שבעמקים‬

It therefore seems that 'ha'Acharon she'bah' refers to the fruit that grows in the mountain - until the
last fruit in the mountains are finished; 'the fruit in the valley' - until the last fruit in the valley is
finished, and 'the fruit in the lowlands' - until the last fruit in the lowlands is finished.

,‫ 'אמר ר' חייא בר' עקיבא בשם ר' יוסי בר חנינא 'שיערו לומר אין חיה שבהר גדילה בעמק‬- ‫ובירושלמי יש‬
.'‫וחיה שבעמק אין גדילה בהר‬

And the Yerushalmi, citing Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Akiva in the name of Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi
Chanina, who says that the Chachamim assessed that the wild animals of the mountain do not feed
on the fruit of the valley, and those of the valley do not feed on the fruit of the mountain.

.‫ולפי זה משמע דהוי מדאורייתא‬

This implies that the current Halachah is d'Oraysa (See Maharsha).

...'‫ולא תיקשי הא דאמרינן בשמעתין ד'אין חיה שביהודה גדילה על של גליל‬

One cannot query this from the Gemara in our Sugya that 'A Chayah in Yehudah does not feed on
the produce in Galil'?

.‫דמיירי אפי' מהר להר‬

Since that is speaking even from one mountain to another.

‫ דנפקא מינה נמי לג' ארצות‬,' ... ‫ סימן להרים מילין‬,‫והיינו דמסקינן בשילהי שמעתין דתניא 'אמר רשב"ג‬
.‫שביהודה‬

Consequently, when we conclude in this Sugya (on the following Amud) in a Beraisa, quoting
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that 'Siman le'Harim Milin' (Gallnuts grow well in the mountains
[but that other fruit does not]), this has ramifications regarding 'Shalosh Artzos she'bi'Yehudah'
(See Rashi there).

?'‫ לביעור‬,‫והא דלא קאמר לקמן 'נפקא מינה‬

And the reason that the Gemara did not specifically say so ('Nafka Minah le'Biur')?

10
 .‫ כדקתני במסכת שביעית בהדיא‬,‫משום דחילוק הר ושפלה ועמק לא שייך אלא ביהודה גרידא‬

Is because the difference between a mountain, lowlands and a valley only apply to Yehudah, as
we specifically learned in Maseches Shevi'is.

.‫אבל ביכורים ונחל איתן שייכים בכל א"י‬

Whereas 'Bikurim' and 'Nachal Eisan' (which the Gemara there does specifically mention) apply
throughout Eretz Yisrael.

‫ "הדא‬- ‫ קאמר 'אית דבעי למימר למידק‬,'‫ובגמ' דירושלמי במסכת שביעית עלה דההיא 'סימן להרים מילין‬
.‫ פירוש לענין שלש ארצות נאמר אותו סימן‬,"‫איתמר‬

The Yerushalmi in Maseches Shevi'is (in connection with the statement 'Siman le'Harim Milin')
does in fact state that 'There are some who extrapolate that that Siman refers to the three lands'.

Based on the Gemora above in point 1., a person from Eretz Yisrael is not allowed to perform
melachah that is normally forbidden on Yom Tov if he is outside of Eretz Yisrael on a second day
of Yom Tov. This is because, as Tosfos states, people will realize that he is doing melachah even
if he is in private, because people generally find out about someone who is doing melachah.
Although one might claim that he can easily do a melachah such as cutting his nails without anyone
finding out about it if he does so in a close locked room, almost all commentators do not
differentiate between various types of melachah. This is also the ruling of the Mishna Berura
(468:17).

The Mishna Berura (496:11) mentions that there is an argument regarding the definition of a
settlement vs. a desert. Some opinions say that the term “settlement” applies in any settled area
outside of Eretz Yisrael. However, some are lenient that a “settlement” is only a place where there
are Jews settled there. According to the lenient opinion, if someone is stuck where there is no
Jewish community, he may be perform melachah.

An interesting question comes up regarding chametz. Can a person from Eretz Yisrael consume
chametz on the last day of Pesach for people from outside of Eretz Yisrael (assuming he could get
the chametz without performing melachah)? The Aruch Hashulchan (496:5) and Halichos Shlomo
(Yemei Ha’Pesach #19) say that he cannot, although for different reasons.

Consuming Fruit on the Sabbatical Year

11
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

As an example of the principle that a person should be careful to conform to the local custom and
avoid disagreements, the first Mishna in our perek (50b) brings a case of consuming fruit on
the Sabbatical year. The Mishna rules that if someone travels from a place where a certain type of
fruit is available to a place where it is no longer available (or vice versa), he should behave
according to the local custom.

Based on the passage in Lev 25:7, the Mishna in Massekhet Shevi’it rules that a person is allowed
to harvest and store fruits that grow on the Sabbatical year as long as similar fruits are available in
the fields for all. Once the season comes to an end and that type of fruit is no longer on the trees,
the person who is storing the fruit is obligated to perform bi’ur (removal).

There are two main positions in the rishonim with regard to defining bi’ur during
the Shemitah year. According to Rashi, the Rambam and the Ra’avad, once a certain type of fruit
is no longer readily available in the fields, all such fruit must be destroyed. The
Ramban and Tosafot rule that performing bi’ur means that someone who is storing such fruit must
remove it from his house and make it hefker, i.e. declare it ownerless and available to all (according
to some opinions only the poor would be permitted to make use of it).

In explanation of our Mishna, the Gemara on our daf quotes a Mishna from Massekhet
Shevi’it (9:2) which teaches that not all places in Israel will end their seasons at the same time,
thus someone could find himself traveling from Yehuda to the Galil, for example, and discover
that his fruit, which was totally permissible to eat back home needs bi’ur performed on it in the
new location.

According to the Mishna there were three distinct areas in Israel: Yehuda (Judea), the Galil
(Galilee) and Ever ha-Yarden (Transjordan). These places were established based on the
Jewish population centers in the time of the Mishna, and areas whose population was mainly
non-Jewish are not included. (see below).

A PERSON FROM ERETZ YISRAEL IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ FOR

YOM TOV

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Gemara establishes that one who normally observes only one day of Yom Tov (such as a
resident of Eretz Yisrael) must refrain from Melachah for two days of Yom Tov when he finds
himself outside of Eretz Yisrael in a Jewish community that observes two days of Yom Tov.
Why must he conduct himself like the residents of the place where he spends Yom Tov? Must he
conduct himself exactly like the local residents, or only to a certain degree?

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim52/
4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-052.htm

12
RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 8:20) does not distinguish between the requirement to refrain from
Melachah on the second day of Yom Tov outside of Eretz Yisrael and any other Minhag. He writes
with regard to all Minhagim that if a person intends to return to his original place, he may conduct
himself according to the Minhag of his original place. However, in order to avoid discord, he
should not do Melachah where others might see him, as the Mishnah teaches (50a-b). The
Rambam's words imply that a person from Eretz Yisrael who spends Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz
(and intends to return to Eretz Yisrael) is permitted to do Melachah on Yom Tov Sheni in private.
This indeed is the conclusion of a number of authorities.5

TOSFOS (52a, DH b'Yishuv, see also RAN) writes that the Minhag to refrain from Melachah on
Yom Tov Sheni is more stringent than other Minhagim, because it is not possible to do Melachah
in private without it becoming known that Melachah was done. (Even though there are some
Melachos that can be done quietly without becoming known, the Rabanan did not differentiate and
they prohibited all Melachos in private. See MACHATZIS HA'SHEKEL OC 496:4.) Therefore,
wherever Melachah is prohibited, it is prohibited even in private.

However, it is still not clear exactly what type of Melachah is prohibited in private. TOSFOS (51a,
DH Iy Ata) points out an apparent contradiction. The Mishnah states unequivocally that one must
conduct himself according to the strict practice (Chumra) of the place he visits, because he must
avoid discord. However, the Gemara says that the reason he must conduct himself according to
the Chumra of the place is because of the Kusim in that place, who will misunderstand his conduct
and will permit other things that really are forbidden. The Gemara seems to give a different reason
than the Mishnah.

Tosfos cites the RI who explains that the Mishnah refers to a "Minhag Chashuv," a Minhag with
a strong basis. One may not be lenient with regard to such a Minhag even in front of Talmidei
Chachamim who understand his reason for being lenient. On the other hand, one may be lenient
with regard to a Minhag which does not have a strong basis, and which became an accepted
practice only as a result of a mistake or which evolved without the consent of the Chachamim.
However, one may not act leniently with regard to even this type of Minhag in front of Kusim.

Tosfos cites the RASHBA (Rabeinu Shimshon mi'Shantz), who says that the Mishnah refers to a
person who does not have intention to return to his original place ("Ein Da'ato Lachzor"), in which
case he takes on the Minhag of the place at which he has arrived, whether its populace is learned
or ignorant, because he is considered as though he has already become a member of that
community. In contrast, when he has intention to return to his original place, he does not take on
the Minhag of the new place unless there are Kusim there. (This also appears to be the ruling of
the RAMBAN in Milchamos.)

The Minhag of Yom Tov Sheni fits the criterion of a Minhag with a strong basis (see Beitzah 4b).
Therefore, according to the RI, one who comes from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz la'Aretz should adopt
that Minhag in order to prevent discord, even if he intends to return to Eretz Yisrael.

5
TAZ OC 496:2, citing MAHARSHAL; RAV OVADYAH YOSEF in YECHAVEH DA'AS 3:35

13
The RASHBA, however, is more lenient. According to the Rashba, only one who does not intend
to return to Eretz Yisrael is required to observe the second day of Yom Tov in Chutz la'Aretz. If
he intends to return to Eretz Yisrael, he may perform Melachah on the second day of Yom Tov as
long as there are no Kusim in that place, but only Talmidei Chachamim.

As mentioned above, Tosfos maintains that whenever one is forbidden from performing Melachah
on the second day of Yom Tov, he may not perform Melachah even in private. Consequently,
according to the RI, one may not perform Melachah at all, even in private and even when there
are no Kusim present. According to the RASHBA, he may not perform Melachah in private only
in a place where there are Kusim.

BA'AL HA'ME'OR explains that when the Mishnah states that one must be stringent and follow
the Minhag of the place in order to prevent discord, it means that he must be stringent only in a
place where there are Kusim. Accordingly, one should be permitted to do Melachah on Yom Tov
Sheni in a place in which only Talmidei Chachamim reside.

However, the Ba'al ha'Me'or explains that the Minhag to refrain from Melachah on Yom Tov Sheni
is a stronger Minhag than any other, and therefore one must be stringent and refrain from Melachah
even in a place where there are only Talmidei Chachamim. (The Acharonim understand that the
Ba'al ha'Me'or means that even in private one may not do Melachah.) Consequently, not only is
Melachah prohibited in private on Yom Tov Sheni, but Yom Tov Sheni must be observed in all of
its aspects when a person is in Chutz l'Aretz, even in private.

RA'AVAD on the Rif writes that when a resident of Eretz Yisrael travels to Chutz la'Aretz, there
is no question which Minhag he should choose, whether to do Melachah on Yom Tov Sheni or not
to do Melachah on Yom Tov Sheni. There is no Minhag whatsoever for a resident of Eretz Yisrael
to do Melachah in Chutz la'Aretz on Yom Tov Sheni. A resident of Eretz Yisrael must observe
Yom Tov Sheni when he is in Chutz la'Aretz.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 468:4) rules like TOSFOS and the RI, that one
must be stringent even in the presence of Talmidei Chachamim, and in private (MISHNAH
BERURAH 468:14). One who is in a "Midbar," or outside the boundary (Techum) of the nearest
Jewish community, is permitted to do Melachah on Yom Tov Sheni, as long as he intends to return
to Eretz Yisrael. If he does not intend to return, then he must observe the Minhagim of Chutz
la'Aretz immediately, even while he is in a Midbar and has not yet reached the Jewish community
in Chutz la'Aretz. (See also SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 496:3.)

FOLLOWING THE CUSTOMS OF THE PLACE ONE VISITS

Our daf first understands that Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah (50b) maintains that one is not
required to perform Bi'ur with fruit of Shemitah that was brought to a place where that type of fruit
is no longer found in the fields, when that type of fruit has not yet disappeared from the fields in
the place where it originated. The Gemara challenges this interpretation of Rebbi Yehudah from
the beginning of the Mishnah, which states that one is required to observe the stringencies of the
place he visits.

14
RASHI (DH v'Leis Lei) addresses an obvious problem with the Gemara. The Mishnah says that
one must observe the stringencies of the place he visits in order to avoid dispute ("Mipnei
ha'Machlokes"). In this case, however, there is no potential for dispute; the person's conduct
depends simply on whether or not the fruit in his place of origin is still in the fields. "Mipnei
ha'Machlokes" applies only when one person or group does not accept the stringent practice of
another group. It does not apply to the case of Shemitah fruit, because the fruit that comes from
out of town has different properties than the local fruit.

Rashi explains that the Gemara infers from the Mishnah that there is another reason that requires
one to observe the stringencies of the place he visits, besides the concern for Machlokes: When a
person visits a certain place, he is bound by the Minhagim of that place simply by virtue of his
presence there.

Rashi proves this from the fact that one must observe the stringent practices of his place of origin.
Obviously, one will not incite Machlokes if he disregards the stringent practices of the place from
which he came when he is not there! Why must he observe the practices of his place of origin
when he is not there? It must be because those practices are considered to be his own Minhagim.
Similarly, one must observe the stringent practices of the place he visits simply because those
practices are binding on anyone in that place.

Rashi's words are not clear. The Mishnah explicitly states that the reason one observes the
Minhagim of the place he visits is in order to avoid discord (see also the statement of Abaye on
51b). Why does Rashi assert that there is a second reason?

SEFAS EMES writes that when the Mishnah says "Mipnei ha'Machlokes," it refers to one who
performs Melachah in public when he intends to return to his place of origin ("Da'ato Lachzor").
In contrast, the reason that Rashi adds applies to one who has no intention to return ("Ein Da'ato
Lachzor").

Perhaps Rashi understands that when the Mishnah says "Mipnei ha'Machlokes," it is giving
an additional reason for why one must conduct himself according to the Minhag of the place. The
Mishnah means that one must observe the Minhag of the place he visits for two reasons. First, that
place becomes his place of residence, and thus he becomes bound by all of its Minhagim. Second,
he must conduct himself in a way that will avoid Machlokes.

15
ONE DAY OF YOM TOV IN A PLACE WHERE THE PRACTICE
IS TO OBSERVE TWO DAYS

In yesterday’s Daf Rav Safra said that even though he was an expert in the calculation of the new
month ("Kevi'a d'Yarcha"), when he would go to a place where the practice was to observe two
days of Yom Tov, he would follow the practice of that place in order to avoid discord. He asked
Rebbi Aba how many days of Yom Tov should he keep when he goes to an uninhabited place.
Rebbi Aba answered in the name of Rav Ami that one does not need to observe the second day of
Yom Tov in such a place.

TOSFOS (DH Kegon) writes that when Rav Safra said that "we are experts in Kevi'a d'Yarcha,"
he did mean that because he knew how to calculate the new month, he was entitled to observe only
one day of Yom Tov. Everyone in Bavel knew how to calculate the new month, but a Gezeirah
required them to observe two days (Beitzah 4b). Tosfos explains instead that Rav Safra meant that
when he departed from a city where the practice was to observe only one day of Yom Tov, and he
arrived in a city where the practice was to observe two days of Yom Tov, he followed the practice
of the host city.

The explanation of Tosfos is difficult to understand. If, in the city in which Rav Safra arrived, the
residents observed two days of Yom Tov, then that city must have been beyond the range of the
Sheluchei Beis Din (the messengers of Beis Din who would bring word of the new month to all of
the outlying areas).

However, if Rav Safra came from a city that observed one day of Yom Tov, then his city must
have been within the range of the Sheluchei Beis Din. How, then, was it possible for Rav Safra to
arrive in a city that observed two days, if he came from a city that observed one day? If the second
city was close enough to his city that he could leave his city and arrive in the second city before
Yom Tov, then certainly the Sheluchei Beis Din could also travel to the second city before Yom
Tov. Consequently, the second city should also observe one day of Yom Tov!

It cannot be that he left his city before the Sheluchei Beis Din arrived there, because if that were
the case, he should have been obligated to observe two days of Yom Tov in the second city. Had
he left his city before the Sheluchei Beis Din arrived there, he would not have known when Beis
Din had established the new month (and he was not permitted to rely on his own knowledge of
how to calculate the new month, because the Rabanan decreed that outside of the range of the
Sheluchei Beis Din, one must observe two days regardless of whether one knows how to calculate
the new month). (MAHARSHA)

TOSFOS in Sukah (43a) answers that in Rav Safra's case, the second city is a city which the
Sheluchei Beis Din can reach during Nisan, but not during Tishrei. They can reach the second city
during Nisan, because they have fifteen days after the establishment of the new month during
which they can travel, before the arrival of Pesach. They cannot reach that city during Tishrei
before Sukos, because there are fewer days on which they may travel (due to the occurrence of
Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, days on which they may not travel). The Rabanan decreed that
such a city must observe two days of Yom Tov even in Nisan, and in Tishrei. Rav Safra came from

16
a city which the Sheluchei Beis Din were able to reach during both Nisan and Tishrei, and he
wanted to visit a city during Nisan which Sheluchei Beis Din could reach only in Nisan. We might
have thought that the decree to observe two days of Yom Tov in such a place did not apply to him.
Therefore, the Gemara teaches that he was obligated to observe two days of Yom Tov in that city,
even during Nisan when the Sheluchei Beis Din did reach that place, just as Rav Safra himself was
able to reach that place.6

PNEI YEHOSHUA suggests another answer. Perhaps Rav Safra left his town, which was in the
range of the Sheluchei Beis Din, and went to the second town before the Sheluchei Beis Din
reached his town. He had an extra few days to travel to the second town, which the Sheluchei Beis
Din did not have.

If he arrived in the second town before the Sheluchei Beis Din arrived in his hometown, how did
he know the day on which the new month was established? He knew when the new month was
established because, as Tosfos says, the people of Bavel were experts in the calculation of the new
month. Since he came from a city that observed only one day, we might have thought that he did
not have to observe a second day in the other city, because he was an expert and knew when the
new month was, and, moreover, he came from a city that observed one day of Yom Tov.7

DEVAR SHMUEL answers that Rav Safra traveled to the second city for the second Yom Tov,
after Chol ha'Mo'ed. The Sheluchei Beis Din do not continue to travel after the first Yom Tov
(because if they would continue to travel, some cities would observe two days of Yom Tov for the
first Yom Tov, and only one day for the second Yom Tov). Rav Safra observed two days of Yom
Tov in the second city in order to prevent discord. Had he traveled to a desert, however, he would
have been permitted to observe only one day, because the Sheluchei Beis Din do not go there.

RABEINU CHANANEL gives an entirely different explanation for Rav Safra's conduct. He
explains that Rav Safra lived in Bavel and would travel to Eretz Yisrael. When he said that he did
not do Melachah on the second day of Yom Tov while in the city, he was referring to his city in
Bavel. When he asked what he should do when he goes to the "Midbar," he meant the Midbar of
Eretz Yisrael -- that is, the uninhabited area that one traverses before he reaches the settled area.
In that part of Eretz Yisrael, does one conduct himself with the Minhag of those who live in Eretz
Yisrael or not?

6
This is also the approach suggested by the GILYON HA'SHAS and PNEI YEHOSHUA.
7
The difference between this answer and the answer of Tosfos is whether the decree to observe two days of Yom Tov despite the
fact that one knows the day of the Kevi'a d'Yarcha applies to everyone, or only to people who live outside the range of Sheluchin.
According to Tosfos, the decree of "Nisan Atu Tishrei" (to observe two days of Yom Tov during Nisan because of the requirement
to do so during Tishrei) applies only when one goes to a city that is within the range of the Sheluchei Beis Din of Nisan, but not
within the range of the Sheluchei Beis Din of Tishrei. If, however, one goes to a desert, the decree does not apply at all. In contrast,
the other decree -- that one must disregard his knowledge of the Kevi'a d'Yarcha -- applies even in the desert. According to the Pnei
Yehoshua, only one who lives outside the range of the Sheluchei Beis Din is bound by the second decree (to discount his knowledge
of the Kevi'a d'Yarcha). However, one who comes from within the range of the Sheluchei Beis Din who goes to a desert is required
to observe only one day of Yom Tov. Since there is no Minhag in the desert, one observes the Minhag of the place from which he
came.

17
Rabeinu Chananel's explanation entirely avoids the difficulty of Tosfos. (See also the BA'AL
HA'ME'OR who gives a similar explanation.).

Rachel Scheinerman writes:8

On today’s page, the rabbis continue to grapple with laws governing travelers as we turn from the
question of whether one may work on the eve of Passover to observing the laws of shmita, the
sabbatical year.

According to the Bible, just as Jews rest one in seven days on Shabbat, the land is entitled to rest
one in seven crop cycles. In a shmita year, the land is not farmed, though people may glean what
grows on its own.

Arguably, the sabbatical year is a test of faith, not dissimilar from the one performed each year on
Passover. Just as on Passover Jews destroy their hametz, including their sourdough starters, and
hold faith that God will restore their ability to bake beautiful fluffy loaves, in the sabbatical year
the land lies fallow and the people rely on God (and their storehouses) to provide sustenance.

Like most things in the Talmud, the laws of shmita become more complex in the hands of the
rabbis. For today, what you need to know is that one is allowed to glean food the land produces
spontaneously — grapes that grow on their own, for instance. But if you make wine from those
grapes, you can only own the wine so long as there are ripe grapes still on the vine in the field.
Once those grapes wither, you must declare the wine ownerless and make it publicly available.

On today’s page, the shmita produce (called shevi’it, from the Hebrew word for “seven”) goes
traveling. What if your shmita wine comes to a location where that particular grape species is no
longer available in the field, but you know it still is back home? Or conversely, you know it is no
longer available back home but it is still in the fields in your new location? When must you remove
it from your possession? Can you relocate so as to hold on to the shmita wine? When you travel
and the time comes to give up your shmita wine, must you go home to declare it ownerless or can
you do it where you are? The sages disagree on all of these matters, including the last, which is
the subject of a quick story:

Rav Safra is carrying some shmita wine out of the Land of Israel and the time has come for the
wine to leave his possession. But does he need to take it all the way back home to declare it
ownerless, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar maintains? He turns to his two companions for advice:
Rav Kahana says yes, while Rav Huna says no. Perhaps relieved there is an option that allows him
to stay put, Rav Kahana immediately accepts Rav Huna’s more lenient opinion. He’s so satisfied
with this answer that he perhaps lays it on a bit thick when he adds:

Take that principle of Rav Huna in your hand as he is scrupulous and he learned
the halakhah well from the mouth of its originator...

8
Myjewishlearning.com

18
Rav Safra’s (perhaps too) enthusiastic satisfaction with Rav Huna’s more lenient ruling does not
go without comment. The Talmud records this footnote:

Rav Yosef read the verse: My nation ask counsel of their stock, and its staff (maklo) tells to
them” (Hosea 4:12) with regard to Rav Safra: Anyone who is lenient (mekel) tells him the
halakhah.

Zing! In context, Hosea poetically describes the people taking direction from a staff or rod (maklo)
rather than God. (Rashi understands this to be some sort of idolatry.) But Rav Yosef wryly puns
on the verse, substituting the word for rod (maklo) with the word for leniency (mekel) to take a
snarky jab at Rav Safra, who too eagerly jumps at a lenient ruling.

But honestly, when it’s a matter of having to make an arduous trip just to give away some perfectly
good wine, who can blame him?

Three Regions of Bi’ur

Kfar Hananiah

Sources: Mishna Shevi’is 9:2

19
There are three territories in respect to the law of removal [of sheviit produce]: [these are]: Judea,
Transjordan, and Galilee, and there are three territories in each one. Upper Galilee, lower
Galilee, and the valley. From Kefar Hananiah upwards, the region where sycamores do not grow,
is Upper Galilee. From Kefar Hananiah downwards, where the sycamores do grow, is Lower
Galilee. The borders of Tiberias are the valley. Those of Judea are the mountain region, the plains
[of the south], and the valley. The plains of Lod are like the plains of the south, and its mountain
region is like the king's hill-country. From Bet Horon to the sea is considered as one land.

WHAT IS "BI'UR"?

Our daf quotes the Mishnah in Shevi'is (9:2) which teaches that Eretz Yisrael is divided into three
regions with regard to the requirement to perform Bi'ur with fruit of Shevi'is. Those three regions
are Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden, and the Galil. When a particular type of fruit is no longer found in
the fields in one region, the requirement of Bi'ur takes effect for that region. The laws of Bi'ur
require that in the Shemitah year, after the time that a fruit is no longer available in the field, one
must be Meva'er (destroy) that fruit.

What constitutes Bi'ur?

RAMBAM (Hilchos Shemitah 7:1-3) explains that Bi'ur means that the produce becomes
prohibited to be eaten and it must be burned or destroyed (or eaten before the time of Bi'ur arrives).
(The Rambam understands the meaning of "Bi'ur" in this context to be similar to the meaning of
"Bi'ur Chametz," the destruction of Chametz.)

This also seems to be the view of RASHI here (DH Mishum), who says that the fruit is destroyed
by being left out in an open area where it will be trampled by animals. Similarly, Rashi in Nidah
(51b, DH Kol she'Yesh Lo) says that Bi'ur means to remove the fruit from one's home. (See also
Rashi to Bava Kama 101b and Yevamos 122a.)

TOSFOS (DH Misba'arin), the RAMBAN (Vayikra 25:7), and the RASH (Shevi'is 9:8) explain
that there is no requirement to burn or destroy produce of Shemitah at the time of Bi'ur. Rather,
one must simply declare the produce ownerless (Hefker) so that anyone may take it. Once the
produce has been made Hefker, even the owner himself may reclaim it and eat it for as long as he
wants.

20
The Ramban proves this from the Tosefta (Shevi'is 8:4) that states that at the time of Bi'ur, a person
must take the Shevi'is fruit into the street and make it Hefker so that anyone may take it, and
afterwards he may bring it back into his home and eat it until it is finished. This implies that Bi'ur
involves simply taking the fruit out of one's home and making it Hefker (similar to "Bi'ur
Ma'aseros" that is performed in the fourth and seventh years of the Shemitah cycle). The Ramban
cites further support for this explanation from the fact that the Mishnah in Temurah (7:4-6) does
not mention produce of Shemitah in the list of Isurei Hana'ah (objects from which one may not
derive benefit) that must be either buried or burned.

RA'AVAD (Hilchos Shemitah 7:3) writes that Bi'ur involves elements of both of the
abovementioned opinions. There are two different types of Bi'ur that must be done with fruit of
Shevi'is. When fruit of Shevi'is is no longer available in a particular city or location, a person who
lives in that location must declare any fruit of Shevi'is in his possession to be ownerless, or bring
the fruit to Beis Din to distribute. However, when a particular fruit is no longer available in any
entire region (Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden, or Galil), the fruit in one's possession must be destroyed.

HALACHAH: The CHAZON ISH rules that today we may be lenient and conduct ourselves
according to the RAMBAN, because the laws of Shevi'is today are only mid'Rabanan.

Export of Shemitah Fruits to Chutz La-aretz

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:9

The mishna in Shevi’it (6:5) prohibits the export of shemitah fruits from Eretz Yisrael to chutz la-
aretz. Though the mishna does not describe the reason for this prohibition, a related gemara in
Pesachim might shed light on the issur. Our daf in Pesachim (52b) discusses the halakha of Biur
Shevi’it, that once a certain type of produce is no longer readily available in the fields it must be
removed from the silos.

What happens if shemitah fruit is transported to chutz la-aretz - how is Biur performed?

According to Rebbi Shimon Ben Elazar, the ceremony of Biur only can occur in Eretz
Yisrael. Therefore, the fruits must be returned to Eretz Yisrael for the performance of Biur. The
Tana Kama argues and allows Biur to be executed in chutz la-aretz; hence, the fruits need not be
returned. It is reasonable to suggest that the issur to remove these fruits from Eretz Yisrael, (cited
in our mishna in Shevi’it) to begin with relates to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's concern. Since Biur

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-18-export-shemitta-fruits-chutz-la-aretz

21
can be performed only in Eretz Yisrael the fruits should not be exported, as they may not be
returned for Biur. If, b’Di’eved, the fruits were removed, they should ideally be returned for Biur,
as Rebbi Shimon claims in the beraita in Pesachim. This position is adopted by the Rash and the
Rosh in their commentaries to the mishna in Shevi’it.

This approach – though logical – poses one very central question: why did Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar not quote the mishna in Shevi’it? If his halakha applies only in b’Di’eved situations,
in which the mishna in Shevi’it was violated, he should have begun by citing that mishna (the
primary issur) and subsequently describing the return of these fruits for Biur if they were
exported. Conceivably, the mishna and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar pose unrelated issues, and Rebbe
Shimon therefore did not invoke the mishna's halakha.

The Ra'avad, in his commentary to Torat Kohanim, offers an alternate understanding of

this export issur. He cites the Sifra which suggests that shemitah fruit may be eaten only in Eretz
Yisrael. The Ra'avad explains that eating outside of Israel might cause improper eating
behavior. As discussed in the previous shiurim, kedushat Shevi’it mandates certain forms of
uses. In Eretz Yisrael, where most fruit possesses kedushat Shevi’it, it is more likely that these
rules will be obeyed. In chutz la-aretz, however, exported Shevi’it fruit will likely become
confused with non-kedusha fruit and the laws of kedushat Shevi’it will be violated.

Thus, exporting fruits indirectly leads to the abuse of their kedusha status. Shiur #15 questioned
whether indirectly causing the loss of shemitah fruit is forbidden, and discussed the ramifications
of this question regarding the issue of throwing shemitah leftovers in the garbage can. From this
Ra'avad it appears that indeed this is forbidden, at least at a de-rabbanan level. Similar sentiments
are expressed by the Yerei'im in siman 155, who reads the aforementioned Sifra literally - Be-
artzecha: in your land you should eat but not outside your land. Evidently, he believes that there
exists an absolute prohibition to eat the fruit outside of Eretz Yisrael. Exporting these fruits would
then inhibit eating, and causing fruits not to be eaten is considered wasting them and forbidden.

A third approach toward this halakha is provided by Rabenu Shlomo Sirilio (one of the
Gedolim expelled from Spain during the Inquisition), who wrote a commentary on the Yerushalmi
to massekhet Shevi’it. There are certain materials which must be eaten in particular locations due
to their resident kedusha, korbanot being the most common example. In fact, even when kodshim
must be burnt (for example, if some disqualification occurred), it must be burnt in the area of the
Mikdash. Similarly, shemitah fruit due to their inherent kedusha - must be retained in Eretz Yisrael
where they are eaten or disposed of after the moment of Biur arrives. This explanation is a
powerful statement about the nature of kedushat Shevi’it. It would seem to be objective and
absolute (see shiur #14) in that it obligates halakhot which are in no way related to the manner of
use. They must be kept in Eretz Yisrael even though they will be benefited from in the exact same
manner if they are exported.

Tosafot in Pesachim imply an approach somewhat similar to Rebbi Shimon Sirilio's. They
question the gemara in Pesachim which describes Rav Safra carrying Shemitah wine with him to
chutz la-aretz. They answer that Rav Safra exported for business purposes (the type which are
permissible during Shemitah) and this is allowed.

22
The mishna in Shevi’it, which prohibited exporting, referred to removing shemitah fruit for
eating. Tosafot agree with Rebbi Shimon Sirilio that the source of the prohibition to export is that
the fruit must be eaten in Eretz Yisrael, the natural location of kedusha. Tosafot disagree, though,
by allowing the owner to define certain fruit as earmarked for business and hence excluded from
this prohibition.

Rabbi Moshe Bloom writes:10

One important law relating to the sacred Shemitah produce is bi’ur. It is permissible to
eat Shemitah produce as long as it is still growing in the field. After the season is over, one must
do bi’ur; that is, remove this produce found at home from one’s ownership (declare it hefker,
ownerless).

It is not sufficient that a specific fruit be available in some field somewhere in Israel; it has to be
available in the same region. For this purpose, the Mishnah, Shevi’it (9:2) divides the Land of
Israel into three regions: Judea (central and southern Israel), Transjordan, and the Galilee. That is,
when a certain fruit is no longer available on the trees in Judea, even if it is still growing in the
Galilee, Judeans need to do bi’ur on their fruit at home.

Each of these regions is divided into three sub-regions. For instance, the Galilee includes the upper
Galilee, lower Galilee, and Tiberius and environs. According to most, there aren’t major
differences between the sub-regions; that is, if a fruit is still available in the upper Galilee, lower
Galilee residents may still eat it. Conversely, a Tiberius resident can still eat apples when they are
available in local orchards in the upper Galilee, even if none are left in the lower Galilee. In
contrast, if all the apples are gone in the entire Galilee, but there still are some in in the Jerusalem
hills, Galileans need to do bi’ur on their apples at home.

Road Signs

Where is the boundary between the upper and lower Galilee? The Mishnah (ibid.) gives us signs,
both geographic and botanic. Kfar Hananya is the geographical marker; from there north is the
upper Galilee.

Also, from there and north sycamore trees do not grow, since the upper Galilee is colder and
sycamore does not thrive in cold climates.

From Kfar Hananya and south is the lower Galilee, which is also mountainous; however, the
mountains are low, so their climate is also warmer and conducive to sycamore tree cultivation.

10
http://www.5tjt.com/bloom-on-mishpatim-an-entire-year-of-shabbat/

23
The Hananya Valley is a branch of the Beit HaKerem Valley. An important road crosses through
these two valleys, from Akko on the Mediterranean Coast to Amiad Junction, near the Kinneret.
Roads running east to west in Israel are given odd numbers (like Road 1, from Jerusalem to Tel
Aviv), while even-number roads run from north to south (Road 2, Tel Aviv to Haifa). The road
through these two valleys is horizontal Road 85. Driving there, one can easily see that while
mountains are on either side, those on the southern side are moderately tall, while on the northern
side the mountains tower above. From here we can truly understand the words of
the Mishnah about the difference between the upper and lower Galilee.

24
 Schematic plan Ilan 1991: 153, courtesy of Almoga Ilan

Archaeological Evidence for Ancient Synagogue Kfar Hannanya

Period: Late Roman and/or Byzantine
Excavation: Unexcavated
Selected Surveyors: Joseph Braslavy (1933), Zvi Ilan (1979-1989)
Main Finds: Walls of public building. Architectural elements. Bronze lamp with inscription may
have come from synagogue (Ilan 1991: 154). Possibly another public structure on the southwest
of the village may be a synagogue.
Inscriptions: Aramaic (Naveh 1978: 34-36)

Ancient Kfar Hananya was a Jewish village during the period of Roman and Byzantine rule in the
Galilee. It was a center of pottery production in the Galilee and most of the cooking ware in the
Galilee between the 1st century BCE and the beginning of the 5th century CE was produced there.
It is mentioned for its pottery production in Rabbinic literature. Archaeological excavations
revealed shafts and bases of columns, caves, a pool, and a burial ground.
The village was mentioned in various accounts throughout the following centuries. A 12th century
Jewish visitor wrote of the ruins of a synagogue quarried into the hill. In 1522, the Jewish
traveler Moses ben Mordecai Bassola found about 30 families of Musta'arabi Jews living there,

25
most of them of priestly stock, making it the fifth-largest Jewish community in the country at the
time, out of eight places named by him. A 1525 Ottoman census recorded 14 Jewish families in
the village.
After the Ottoman Empire conquered Palestine, the village came to be known as Kafr 'Inan and
became an all-Muslim village. In Ottoman tax records from either 1549 or 1596 it was described
as a village with an entirely Muslim population estimated at 259. In 1881, the PEF Survey of
Palestine described it as a Muslim village of 150-200 residents.
During the British Mandate era, Kafr 'Inan was recorded as having an all-Muslim population of
360 in the 1945 Village Statistics. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Kafr 'Inan was captured by
the Golani Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces as part of Operation Hiram and the area was
subsequently incorporated into the State of Israel. The villagers were expelled.
Modern Kfar Hananya was founded in 1977 as a moshav of the movement Hapoel HaMizrachi for
members of nearby moshavim on land that belonged to Kafr 'Inan, about 1km south of the village
site. In 1992 it became a community settlement. A new neighborhood built in the 2000s is called
"Maale Hen" (‫)מעלה חן‬.

Old blocks of hewn-stones at the ruin of Kafr 'Inan

Kafr ʿInān (Arabic: ‫)ﻛﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﺎن‬, was a Palestinian Arab village in the Acre Subdistrict around 33
kilometres (21 mi) east of Acre. Until 1949, it was an Arab village built over the ruins of
ancient Kefar Hanania. Archaeological surveys indicate Kefar Hanania was founded in the Early
Roman period, and was inhabited through the Byzantine period. It was resettled in the Middle
Ages and the modern era.
Kafr ʿInān was captured by Israel during the 1948 Arab–Israeli war, when many of the villagers
fled the fighting. Those few hundred who managed to remain or to return were subsequently
transferred out of the village by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to the West Bank or to other Arab
towns in the newly established Israel on three separate occasions in January and February 1949.

26
A shrine for the Sheikh Abu Hajar Azraq and the remains of a small domed building are still
standing, along with the remains of various burial sites of rabbis. Archaeological remains include
cisterns and domestic wells which supplied the village with drinking water from nearby springs.
In 1989, the Israeli village of Kfar Hananya was established on Kafr ʿInān land on a hill adjacent
to the deserted Arab village.

Old ruin of Kefar Hanaiah (Kafr 'Inan)

Rabbinic literature mentions Kfar Hanania village in relation to the production of pottery; in
the Tosefta (Bava Metzia 6:3), there is a reference to, "those who make black clay, such as Kefar
Hananya and its neighbors."

Late Roman-era pottery types of the kind made in Kafr 'Inan have been found all throughout
the Galilee and the Golan.

Operation Hiram11

Operation Hiram

11
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

27
 Part of 1948 Arab–Israeli War

IDF soldiers in Sa'sa', 30 October 1948

Date October 29, 1948 – October 31,
1948
Location Upper
Galilee, Israel and Southern
Lebanon
Result Israel captures the Upper
Galilee and part of Southern
Lebanon
Belligerents

Israel
• 7th Armoured Brigade Arab Liberation Army
• Carmeli Brigade Syria
• Golani Brigade Lebanon
• Oded Brigade
• Circassian Unit
• Druze Unit
Commanders and leaders

Moshe Carmel
Fawzi al-Qawuqji
Strength
6,000 2,000–4,000[1][2]
Casualties and losses
Unknown, light[3] 400 killed
550 captured[4][5]
50,000 Palestinian refugees

28
Operation Hiram was a military operation conducted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during
the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was led by General Moshe Carmel, and aimed at capturing the Upper
Galilee region from the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) forces led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji and
a Syrian battalion. The operation, which lasted 60 hours (October 29–31), was marked by
heavy fighting between Arabs and Jews, and ended just before the ceasefire with the
neighboring Arab countries went into effect.

As a result of the operation, the Upper Galilee, originally slated by the United Nations partition
plan to be part of an Arab state, would be controlled by the newly formed state of Israel, and more
than 50,000 new Palestinian refugees were expelled from their homes.

Villages captured during Operation Hiram. Grid = 10km

On 18 July, the second truce of the conflict went into effect. On September 26, 1948, David Ben-
Gurion told his cabinet that if fighting should be renewed in the north, then the Galilee would
become "clean" [naki] and "empty" [reik] of Arabs, and implied that he had been assured of this
by his generals.

The operation was launched on the night of 28–29 October 1948, fielding four IDF brigades, the
Seventh, Carmeli Brigade, Golani, and the Oded Brigade. The operational order was "to destroy
the enemy in the central Galilee "pocket", to occupy the whole of the Galilee and to establish the
defense line on the country´s northern border." On October 29, Yosef Weitz, learning about the
start of the operation, sent Yigael Yadin a note urging that the army should expel the "refugees"
from the newly conquered areas.

29
The Ground offensive was preceded by bombing raid targeting Tarshiha, Jish and Sa'sa from the
22 October, using Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses and Douglas C-47 Skytrains (converted for
bombing role). The heaviest night of bombing was 29/30 October when 13 missions dropped 21
tons of bombs on the seven villages. The bombardment of Tarshiha triggered the mass flight after
24 of the inhabitants were killed and approximately 60 were buried under rubble.

The initial thrust was carried out by the Seventh Brigade advancing from Safad. The Seventh
Brigade occupied Qaddita on 29 October, Meirun and then Safsaf and Jish. In the 79th Battalion's
report, the battles for Safsaf and Jish were described as "difficult" and "cruel" (achzari). One IDF
report said "150–200" Arabs, "including a number of civilians" died in the battle for Jish. Other
accounts report that 200 bodies were found around Jish and 80 at Meirum. After Safsaf had been
captured the Israeli troops committed a massacre.

From Jish, the 72nd and 79th battalions then turned west to take Sa'sa. After taking Sa'sa the Israeli
forces then turned northwest taking Kfar Birem, Saliha and by the afternoon of the 30 October
were at al Malikiya.

Simultaneously, the Golani Brigade engaged in diversionary tactics in the direction of the village
of Illaboun. The Carmeli Brigade, which was assigned to counter attacks from Syria and Lebanon,
crossed the border into Lebanon, captured 15 villages, and reached the Litani River.

General Carmel had received direct permission from Prime Minister Ben Gurion to enter Lebanon,
but only as far as the river. In the final hours of the offensive Carmel's second-in-command,
General Makleff, met Ben Gurion in Tiberias and requested permission to advance and
occupy Beirut which he claimed could be reached in twelve hours. Fearing international
condemnation Ben Gurion refused.

Ceasefire was scheduled to commence at 11:00 hours, October 31, 1948. The same day, at 7:30 in
the morning, Major General Moshe Carmel ordered his brigades and district commanders "to
continue the clearing operations inside the Galilee". In a cable dated 10:00 hours the same day
Carmel ordered his brigades and district commanders: "Do all in your power for a quick and
immediate clearing [tihur] of the conquered areas of all the hostile elements in line with the orders
that have been issued. The inhabitants of the areas conquered should be assisted to leave." This
order was apparently issued after Carmel had met with Ben-Gurion the same day.

30
 Villagers fleeing Galilee towards Lebanon, October/November 1948

On 31 October and 1 November 1948 the Hula massacre took place at Hula (Hule). The village
had been captured on October 24 by the Carmeli Brigade without any resistance at all. Between
35 and 58 captured men were reportedly shot down in a house which was later blown up on top of
them.

At the end of this lightning attack, Israeli forces reached the Hiram Junction, north of Safed. The
siege of Manara was lifted, Qawuqji's army fled to Lebanon, and the roads crossing the Upper
Galilee were secured. With the Galilee under Israeli control, the IDF established a defensive line
along the Litani before withdrawing to the Lebanese border under the terms of the 1949 Armistice
Agreements.

The Israeli Air Force bombings caused considerable damage to the villages in the area. Ilan
Pappe gives the example of the four villages: Rama, Suhmata, Malkiyya and Kfar Bir'im. He states
that out of the four 'the only village to remain intact was Rama. The other three were occupied and
destroyed'. Very few villagers were allowed to stay in their homes, and many were imprisoned or
expelled to Lebanon and elsewhere. Ilan Pappe claims that the 'Hebrew noun tihur (cleansing)
assumed new meanings' during this time period. He argues that although 'it still described, as
before, the total expulsion and destruction of a village, it could now also represent other activities,
such as selective search and expulsion operations'.

One Israeli estimate gives a total of 400 Arabs killed during the offensive and 550 taken prisoner.

The name is a reference to Hiram I, the Biblical king of Tyre. He was instrumental in the
construction of the First Temple of Jerusalem.

31