(18) On that day ה׳ made a covenant with Abram: “To your offspring I assign this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates—

(7) I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come. (8) I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God.”

(19) (The [original] Canaanite territory extended from Sidon as far as Gerar, near Gaza, and as far as Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, near Lasha.)

(4) I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners.

(14) When Abram heard that his kinsman’s [household] had been taken captive, he mustered his retainers, born into his household, numbering three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Instruct the Israelite people and say to them: When you enter the land of Canaan, this is the land that shall fall to you as your portion, the land of Canaan with its various boundaries: 3 Your southern sector shall extend from the wilderness of Zin alongside Edom. Your southern boundary shall start on the east from the tip of the Dead Sea. 4 Your boundary shall then turn to pass south of the ascent of Akrabbim and continue to Zin, and its limits shall be south of Kadesh-barnea, reaching Hazar-addar and continuing to Azmon. 5 From Azmon the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt and terminate at the Sea. 6 For the western boundary you shall have the coast of the Great Sea; that shall serve as your western boundary. 7 This shall be your northern boundary: Draw a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor; 8 from Mount Hor draw a line to Lebo-hamath, and let the boundary reach Zedad. 9 The boundary shall then run to Ziphron and terminate at Hazar-enan. That shall be your northern boundary. 10 For your eastern boundary you shall draw a line from Hazar-enan to Shepham. 11 From Shepham the boundary shall descend to Riblah on the east side of Ain; from there the boundary shall continue downward and abut on the eastern slopes of the Sea of Chinnereth. 12 The boundary shall then descend along the Jordan and terminate at the Dead Sea. That shall be your land as defined by its boundaries on all sides. 13 Moses instructed the Israelites, saying: This is the land you are to receive by lot as your hereditary portion, which the LORD has commanded to be given to the nine and a half tribes. 14 For the Reubenite tribe by its ancestral houses, the Gadite tribe by its ancestral houses, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have already received their portions: 15 those two and a half tribes have received their portions across the Jordan, opposite Jericho, on the east, the orient side.

(7) Start out and make your way to the hill country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors in the Arabah, the hill country, the Shephelah, the Negeb, the seacoast, the land of the Canaanites, and the Lebanon, as far as the Great River, the river Euphrates.

(24) Every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River—the Euphrates—to the Western Sea.

(27) "a land flowing with milk and honey": It is written here "a land flowing with milk and honey," and elsewhere (Shemoth 13:1) "a land flowing with milk and honey." Just as there, the land of the five nations (is being referred to), so, here. From here R. Yossi Haglili ruled: Bikkurim are not brought from across the Jordan, it not flowing with milk and honey.

(2) Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the borders of Eretz Yisrael, from Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., it is outside of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. Likewise, from Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce.

ואשקלון כדרום—And the city of אשקלון is considered to be south of ארץ ישראל.OVERVIEWThe משנה mentions three cities – רקם (וחגר), אשקלון and עכו - which are considered מדינת הים, indicating (seemingly) that they are in חו"ל. Our תוספות will prove that all these three cities are in א"י. Why then does our משנה consider them מדה"י -חו"ל? תוספות will give two general explanations. The first one will explain why these three cities mentioned in the משנה are not א"י, despite תוספות original proofs. The second one will maintain that even if they are part of א"י, nevertheless they are considered מדה"י as far as בפ"נ ובפ"נ is concerned.-------------------------תוספות asks:הקשה רבינו תם דאשקלון מארץ ישראל היא –The ר"ת asked; אשקלון is part of א"י, so how does ר' יהודה of our משנה state that אשקלון is south of א"י and considered חו"ל.The ר"ת goes on to prove that אשקלון is part of א"י:דכתיב ביהושע (יג) זאת הארץ הנשארת וגומר האשדודי והאשקלוני –For it is written in the נביא יהושע (that ה׳ said to יהושע); “this is the remaining land (that was not conquered yet by the בני ישראל) etc. (and the פסוק enumerates and mentions) the cities of אשדוד and אשקלון” –וכתיב הפילה לישראל נחלה כאשר צויתיך –And the פסוק states: “divide this unconquered land amongst the בנ"י for an inheritance as I commanded you” –ואחר כך לכדוהו כדכתיב בשופטים (א) וילכוד יהודה את עזה ואת אשקלון ואת גבולה –And indeed afterwards the בנ"י conquered these lands as it is written in the נביא שופטים: “and שבט יהודה conquered עזה and אשקלון and their surrounding areas”. From all this it is obvious that אשקלון is part of א"י, why then does the משנה consider אשקלון to be מדה"י.תוספות answers:ואומר רבינו תם דעולי בבל לא כבשוה כדאמר בפרק קמא דחולין (ז,א) גבי בית שאן –The ר"ת says that the בנ"י who went up to א"י from בבל to build the second ביהמ"ק did not conquer אשקלון, as the גמרא says in the first פרק of חולין, concerning the city of בית שאן –הרבה כרכים כבשוה עולי מצרים ולא כבשום עולי בבל –There are many cities which the בנ"י, who came up from מצרים to א"י in the time of יהושע, conquered, but the עולי בבל did not conquer (some of) these very same cities –ולכך אין תלמידי חכמים מצויין שם ואין בתי דינים קבועין שם –And therefore since they were not conquered and settled by the עולי בבל, so in the time of the משנה, it is not frequented by תלמידי חכמים and there are no established בתי דינים in these cities.תוספות has another question:אבל קשה דרקם וחגר משמע הכא דהוו חוצה לארץ –However, there is another difficulty, for it seems here in the משנה that רקם וחגר are part of חו"לוכתיב ביהושע (כ) ויקדשו את קדש בהר נפתלי –But in the נביא יהושע it is written: ‘and they set aside the city of קדש in הר נפתלי’ to be one of the ערי מקלט (in the גליל). This teaches us that קדש which seemingly is רקם, is part of א"י.תוספות responds to an anticipated resolution:וליכא למימר דלא כבשוה עולי בבל –And we cannot say that the עולי בבל did not conquer רקם, as we previously stated concerning אשקלון –דבספרי בפרשת והיה עקב חשיב רקם וחגר בהדי כרכים שכבשו עולי בבל –For in ספרי in פרשת עקב he includes רקם וחגר amongst those cities which were conquered by the עולי בבל. The question is; why do we say in our משנה that רקם וחגר are considered חו"ל?תוספות answers:ויש לומר דתרי רקם וחגר הוו –And one can say that there were two pairs of cities that were named רקם וחגר. One pair was in א"י (the one referred to in the ספרי), and one pair was in חו"ל (the one referred to in our משנה). תוספות continues to elaborate on the necessity to say that there were two רקם וחגר, even without תוספות original question.ואותו רקם וחגר דכתיב גבי אברהם וישב בין קדש ובין שור (בראשית כ) –The רקם וחגר that is written in the תורה concerning אברהם אבינו, where the תורה writes “and אברהם settled between קדש and שור” –מתרגמינן בין רקם ובין חגרא בארצו של אבימלך מלך פלשתים –which the תרגום translates as ‘between רקם and חגרא’ that was in the land of אבימלך the king of פלשתים –ואותו היה בארץ ישראל דמסתמא דאברהם ויצחק היו דרין בארץ ישראל –And that רקם וחגר was in א"י for it is assumable that אברהם and יצחק lived in א"י –וביהושע נמי משמע דפלשתים מארץ ישראל –And in the נביא יהושע it is also indicated that פלשתים is part of א"י –ואתו רקם וחגר היה במערבה של ארץ ישראל דפלשתים במערבו –And this רקם וחגר was in the western part of א"י, for פלשתים is in the west of א"י –דים פלשתים הוא גבול מערב של ארץ ישראל –For the sea of פלשתים is the western border of א"י. Therefore this רקם וחגר that is part of א"י and was part of פלשתים, which is the western part of א"י, is certainly not the רקם וחגר which our משנה discusses, for –ורקם וחגר דמתניתין היה במזרח כדאמרינן רקם כמזרח –The רקם וחגר of our משנה was in the easterly direction from א"י as we say in our משנה that רקם is considered east of א"י. Obviously it is not the same רקם וחגר of אברהם ויצחק in ארץ פלשתים. Therefore we can easily say that the רקם of the ספרי is the רקם of פלשתים, while the רקם of our משנה is a different city, to the east of א"י.תוספות concludes at present his discussion of רקם and addresses the status of עכו.ועכו אף על גב דכבשוהו עולי בבל –And concerning עכו, even though the עולי בבל conquered it, giving it therefore the status of א"י, why then does our משנה consider עכו as חו"ל? תוספות goes on to show that עכו (was conquered by עולי בבל and) is considered part of א"י.כדאמר בסוף כתובות (דף קיב,א) רבי אבא היה מנשק כיפי דעכו –As the גמרא says in the end of מסכת כתובות, that רבי אבא would kiss the stones of עכו, because of קדושת א"י.תוספות offers another proof that עכו is part of א"יובפרק מי שאחזו (לקמן דף עו,ב) פריך למימרא דעכו לאו מארץ ישראל הוה –And in פרק מי שאחזו, the גמרא asks: ‘do you mean to say that עכו is not part of א"י?! –הא כי הוו מפטרי רבנן מהדדי בעכו הוה מפטרי מהדדי –But when the רבנן would take leave from one another, i.e., the רבנן from א"י and the רבנן from חו"ל they would take leave from one another in עכו’. This was because –לפי שאסור לצאת מארץ ישראל לחוץ לארץ –For it is forbidden for one to leave from א"י to go to חו"ל, therefore they said their good-byes in עכו, which was still in א"י. The question is; why does our משנה consider עכו as חו"ל?תוספות answers:אמר רבינו תם דלא קשה מידי דעכו היתה חציה בארץ וחציה בחוץ לארץ –The ר"ת said that there is no difficulty at all, for עכו was situated half in א"י and half in חו"ל –כדמוכח בירושלמי –as is evident from the ירושלמי. This will therefore resolve the difficulty –והכא מיירי באותו צד שבחוצה לארץ –For here in our משנה where עכו is considered חו"ל, that is because we are discussing the northern part of עכו that was in חו"ל. The other places which indicate that עכו is part of א"י were discussing the southern half of עכו.תוספות digresses and asks:והא דלא משני נמי במי שאחזו (שם) מתניתין –Why then did not the גמרא also use this same answer to explain the משנה in פרק מי שאחזו; in the case where a man (who was preparing to go on a trip to חו"ל) gave a גט to his wife and made the following stipulation –דאם לא באתי מכאן ועד שלשים יום והגיע לעכו וחזר ביטל תנאו –that if I do not come back from חו"ל, starting now and up to thirty days, then the גט will be valid, If however I will return (from חו"ל) before the thirty days are up the גט is בטל, and the person reached עכו (on his way to חו"ל), and immediately returned home; the משנה rules that he nullified his תנאי and the גט is בטל. Concerning this דין, the גמרא asked (quoted previously in this תוספות) this seems to say that עכו is in חו"ל, for if עכו were in א"י, then he did not invalidate his תנאי because he never really left (א"י), for his תנאי was, that if I come back from חו"ל (within thirty days) then the גט is בטל, but not if I come back from taking a short trip in א"י. The גמרא there offers an explanation to resolve the difficulty. However תוספות question here is; that since we are now saying that half of עכו is indeed in חו"ל, the גמרא could have simply answered that when the משנה said he reached עכו –היינו לאותו צד שבחוצה לארץ –That means that part of עכו that is in חו"ל, and therefore if he returned within thirty days from the part of עכו that is in חו"ל, it is understood why the גט is בטל, since he reached חו"ל and returned before the expiration of the thirty days.תוספות explains that the reason the גמרא did not give this answer is because –היינו משום דביוצא מארץ ישראל פוגע תחילה באותו צד של ארץ ישראל –That when one leaves from א"י to go to חו"ל via עכו, he is traveling in a northerly direction and he first reaches the southern part of עכו, which is the א"י side –והגיע לעכו משמע לתחילת עכו –And the expression that the משנה used: “and he reached עכו”, indicates that he approached the beginning of עכו, and then without continuing further north inside עכו towards the חו"ל side he returned, in that case he never left א"י. Therefore the גמרא cannot say that the משנה is discussing a case where he went until the northern part of עכו which is חו"ל, because the phrase והגיע לעכו וחזר, indicates that he just reached the southern part of עכו (which is still in א"י), and immediately returned back home. That is not sufficient reason that the גט should be בטל, since he never reached חו"ל.תוספות asks another question:אך קשה לרבינו יצחק דאמר לקמן (דף ו,ב) נכנס לפניו רבי אלעא –However the ר"י has another question; the גמרא says later on, concerning a person who brought a גט from כפר סיסאי, and רבי ישמעאל ruled that he has to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ, the גמרא continues; רבי אלעאי entered to speak to ר' ישמעאל, and question his ruling –אמר ליה הלא כפר סיסאי מובלע בתחום ארץ ישראל וקרובה לצפורי יותר מעכו –ר"א said to ר"י, is not כפר סיסאי surrounded by the borders of א"י, and כפר סיסאי is closer to צפורי, more than עכו is close to צפורי. And if concerning עכו, the view of ר"מ is that it has a דין of א"י, then certainly כפר סיסאי should have a דין of א"י even according to the תנא קמא.תוספות now asks:ומה בכך מכל מקום עכו עדיפא –But what of it, that כפר סיסאי is closer to צפורי than עכו is; nevertheless עכו is more preferable to be considered part of א"י, regarding בפ"נ than כפר סיסאי –אף על פי שהיא רחוקה מציפורי שהיא עצמה חציה מארץ ישראל –Even though עכו is further from צפורי than כפר סיסאי, still it is preferable because half of עכו itself is part of א"י. However כפר סיסאי is completely outside א"י, so how can we understand sר' אלעאי' question?!תוספות continues with another question in the same vein:ועוד היכי דייק לקמן (דף ח,א) דמוכר עבדו לסוריא יצא לחירות –And furthermore how does the גמרא later on, infer that if someone (who lives in א"י) sells his עבד כנעני to someone who lives in סוריא, the עבד becomes automatically free. This דין is derived from our משנה –מדתנן עכו כארץ ישראל לגיטין לגיטין אין לעבדים לא –since it is written in our משנה, that ר"מ says, that עכו is considered part of א"י in regards to גיטין, we may infer since the משנה adds the word גיטין, this teaches us that regarding גיטין, עכו is considered part of א"י, however regarding the rule of selling slaves to חו"ל, עכו is not regarded as א"י, but rather like חו"ל, and if someone (who lives in א"י) would sell his עבד to an owner in עכו, the עבד would be freed –וכל שכן סוריא דמרחקא טובא –And certainly if one sells his עבד into סוריא, the עבד will be free, since סוריא is much further from א"י than עכו. This is the sגמרא' inference. תוספות now poses his question:אדרבה סוריא עדיפא כיון דמתניתין איירי בצד של חוצה לארץ –On the contrary! סוריא is preferable to be considered א"י more than עכו. תוספות goes on to explain why סוריא is preferable since in our משנה, we are discussing the חוץ לארץ side of עכו, therefore it is self-evident that סוריא is preferable to be considered part of א"י –דקסבר כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש והויא היא עצמה ארץ ישראל –For the one who asked; what is the דין if someone sells his עבד into סוריא, is of the opinion that the conquest of an individual such as דוד המלך, is considered a valid conquest and therefore סוריא itself is part of א"י –דלהכי מיבעיא ליה אי הוי כמוכר עבדו לארץ ישראל כיון דשמיה כיבוש –for that was the basis of his query if selling a slave into סוריא would be as if he sold his עבד in א"י; the reason for this is since the questioner was of the opinion that כיבוש יחיד is considered a proper כיבוש, and סוריא is part of א"י and an עבד sold there is not freed –או דלמא כיון דעפרה טמא כחוצה לארץ דמי –Or perhaps (the other side of the issue), since the earth of סוריא is טמא as in all of חו"ל therefore סוריא would be considered as חו"ל, and the slave would be freed.To summarize these last two questions: If we are to assume; a) that the entire basis of saying בפ"נ is based on whether the city is within the borders of א"י, and therefore we are also forced to assume b) that עכו is half in א"י and half in חו"ל and in our משנה we are discussing the half that is in חו"ל, then we have the following two problems.1. Why would ר' אלעאי insist that one does not have to say בפ"נ from כפר סוסאי because it is closer to צפורי than עכו is, but כפר סיסאי is in חו"ל and half of עכו is in א"י. This runs contrary to both assumptions mentioned.2. How can the גמרא infer from ר"מ than since עכו is considered חו"ל regarding עבדים, so certainly סוריא should be regarded as חו"ל; however since סוריא is כיבוש יחיד which we assume is שמיה כיבוש so סוריא is at least ‘technically’ א"י, while as we said in assumption b) that we are discussing the part of עכו which is חו"ל, how can we derive סוריא which is א"י from עכו which is חו"ל.תוספות will now retract these two assumption, thereby not only answering these last two questions, but all the questions that were posed in this תוספותואמר רבינו יצחק דאפילו בצד של ארץ ישראל צריך לומר בפני נכתב וכולי –And the ר"י said that even in the א"י side of עכו one is required to say בפ"נ etc. (this is the retraction of the two previously mentioned assumptions) – the reason for having to say בפ"נ even from the א"י side of עכו is –לפי שהוא בסוף הגבול ורחוק מעיקר ישוב ארץ ישראל –For עכו is at the extreme border of א"י and it is far from the main settlement of א"י –ומופלג מן הישיבות ובתי דינים –And it is removed a great distance from the ישיבות and בתי דינים.The last question concerning סוריא is now answered, because the משנה is now discussing also the part of עכו that is א"י, and therefore we can derive from ר"מ that if even the א"י part of עכו is considered חו"ל in regard to עבדים, then certainly סוריא which has a lesser status of א"י will be considered חו"ל regarding עבדים.וכן יש לתרץ גבי אשקלון ורקם וחגר –And we can give the same answer concerning אשקלון, and רקם וחגר; that even though they may be ‘technically’ part of א"י, nevertheless since they are רחוק מעיקר ישוב א"י like עכו, one must say בפ"נ if a גט is brought from these cities. It is not necessary to give the answers that תוספות gave above; i.e. that the עולי בבל were not כובש אשקלון; or that there were two רקם וחגר.תוספות will now answer the question regarding כפר סוסאי.והשתא פריך שפיר –And now we understand that ר' אילעאי asked a valid question to ר' ישמעאל –כפר סוסאי דקרוב לצפורי שהיתה עיקר ישוב ארץ ישראל טפי מעכו –That since כפר סוסאי is close to צפורי, which צפורי was the main settlement in א"י, and כפר סוסאי was closer to צפורי, more than עכו was close to צפורי –דרחוק מעיקר ישוב ארץ ישראל –For עכו was far from the עיקר ישוב א"י, so therefore –אף על גב דעכו היא עצמה בארץ ישראל וכפר סוסאי הוא חוצה לארץ –Even though עכו itself was part of א"י and כפר סוסאי is חו"ל –מכל מקום פשיט שפיר כיון דקים ליה דמובלעת –Nevertheless ר' אלעאי derived the הלכה properly that כפר סוסאי should not say בפ"נ since ר' אילעאי was aware that כפר סוסאי was מובלע within the boundaries of א"ימהני כאילו היא ממש מארץ ישראל כרבן גמליאל דאמר מובלעות שכיחי וגמירי –that is sufficient not to say בפ"נ, as if it were actually part of א"י, like ר"ג of our משנה, who maintains that from כפר לודים which is מובלע, one does not have to say בפ"נ, because in cities that are מובלעות in the boundaries of א"י, there are frequent travelers who recognize the signatures, and they are versed in the laws of לשמה.תוספות poses a new question:ואם תאמר דאמר בירושלמי המוכר עבדו לעכו יצא לחירות –If you will ask; it says in ירושלמי if one sells his עבד כנעני into עכו, the slave is freed automaticallyרבי שמעון אביו דרבי יודן אומר אפילו מעכו לעכו –ר"ש the father of ר' יודן says that even if the slave was sold from the part of עכו that is in א"י to the part of עכו that is in חו"ל, the slave is also freed.תוספות asks:וכיון דאפילו באותו צד של ארץ ישראל יצא לחירות –and since even if the slave was sold into the part of עכו that is in א"י the slave is freed; indicating that as far as selling slaves are concerned we consider the entire עכו as if it is חו"לאם כן מעכו לעכו אמאי יצא לחירות כיון דחשיב כחוצה לארץ –if so, why is it that if the slave was sold from the א"י part of עכו to the חו"ל side of עכו he is freed, since we are considering the א"י part of עכו as חו"ל, as witnessed by the fact that a slave sold (even) to the א"י part of עכו is freed. Therefore if one sells his slave from one part of עכו to the other it is as if one sells his slave from one part of חו"ל to another, in which case the slave is not freed.תופות responds:ויש לומר דנהי דחשיב כחוצה לארץ לגבי עיקר ישוב ארץ ישראל –And one can say; granted that (even) the part of עכו in א"י is considered חו"ל in relation to the עיקר ישוב א"י, so regarding the selling of slaves מא"י לעכו he is freed –לגבי חוצה לארץ מיהא חשיב כארץ ישראל –Nevertheless, in relation to חו"ל, it is considered א"י; therefore regarding selling a slave from one part of עכו to the other, the slave is (also) freed.SUMMARYThe three cities of אשקלון, רקם (וחגר) and עכו were part of א"י. Regarding אשקלון, it is written in יהושע that וילכוד יהודה וגו' את אשקלון. Concerning רקם it says in ספרי that it is among the cities that כבשוה עולי בבל. Concerning עכו we find that the גמרא refers to עכו as a part of א"י then, saying that ר' אבא kissed the כיפי of עכו, and also that the רבנן took leave of each other in עכו. Nevertheless one is obligated to say בפ"נ if he brings a גט from any of these cities. There is a difference of opinion between the ר"ת and the ר"י why this is so.The ר"ת maintains that any city within the borders of א"י that כבשוה עולי בבל is not required to say בפ"נ. Otherwise one is required to say בפ"נ. Therefore: אשקלון which the עולי בבל were not כובש, is required to say בפ"נ. רקם (וחגר) in our משנה is referring to the רקם וחגר east of א"י which is not part of א"י, as opposed to the רקם וחגר that is in the western part of א"י, also known as ארץ פלשתים. Concerning עכו it was divided into two parts, one in א"י and the other in חו"ל and our משנה is discussing the חו"ל part of עכו, therefore he is required to say בפ"נ.The ר"י argues that if we maintain that the משנה is discussing the חו"ל section of עכו, then we will have difficulty understanding two גמרות; the case of כפר סיסאי and the case of המוכר עבדו לסוריא, which the גמרות there derive the respective rulings, from עכו.Therefore the ר"י maintains that saying בפ"נ is not solely dependent on whether the city is actually inside or outside the boundaries of א"י; rather it depends on the proximity of that location to עיקר ישוב א"י, for that alone will decide if 'שכיחי וגמירי'. According to the ר"י it is possible that אשקלון was כבשוהו עולי בבל, and רקם is part of א"י, nevertheless they say בפ"נ since they are far מעיקר ישוב א"י. Pertaining to עכו, the ר"י maintains that the entire עכו, including the א"י side must say בפ"נ, again because it is רחוק מעיקר ישוב א"י, and therefore the people there are not שכיחי וגמירי.However even though the entire עכו is deemed like חו"ל (including regarding the sale of slaves), nevertheless, a slave which is sold from the א"י side of עכו to the חו"ל side is יוצא לחירות.THINKING IT OVER1. The order of the cities as they are enumerated in our משנה is רקם (וחגר), אשקלון and lastly עכו. Why does תוספות ask first about אשקלון and only later about רקם?2. It would appear that the two קשיות of the ר"י regarding כפר סיסאי and סוריא, are contradictory. In the קשיא concerning כפר סיסאי, the ר"י maintains that since עכו is half in א"י it should be considered א"י more than כפר סיסאי; and in the קשיא from סוריא, the ר"י maintains that since עכו is half in חו"ל, it should be considered חו"ל more than סוריא! How can we reconcile this? כלפי לייא!3. When the ר"י explains the question of ר' אילעאי, he states that כיון דקים ליה דמובלעות וכו' therefore one does not say בפ"נ; and תוס' concludes "כר"ג דאמר מובלעות שכיחי וגמירי"; why mention ר"ג at all, the ת"ק also agrees that מובלעות do not say בפ"נ?4. According to תוס', that even if one sells his עבד to the א"י side of עכו he is יוצא לחירות, because we consider it חו"ל and it is forbidden to go from א"י to חו"ל, then how come the רבנן departed from each other in עכו, it should be considered חו"ל, where one is forbidden to go?AppendixIt is not clear as to what is the status of קדש (רקם), mentioned in יהושע, which תוספות quoted previously. Some commentaries say that it is the same רקם וחגר of אברהם in ארץ פלשתים. Even though the land of נפתלי was bordering the ירדן, which is more east than פלשתים (and in addition the קדש in יהושע was in the גליל (the northeast part of א"י), which is seemingly very far from פלשתים), nevertheless they maintain that while פלשתים was at the western part of א"י, a swath of land extended eastward towards the ירדן which was still part of פלשתים, and that is where רקם וחגר or קדש וברד were.Alternatively one may say as follows: That in the הו"א when תוספות assumed there was only one רקם (קדש), he assumed that the קדש in יהושע is the same קדש as by אברהם and the משנה, even though the word קדש in יהושע is vocalized differently (two סגולים) than the קדש by אברהם (קמץ and צירי), nevertheless תוספות felt that this should be overlooked, rather than saying that there are two cities called קדש. However once תוספות establishes that there are two רקם (קדש), one then may consider that the קדש in יהושע is an entirely (third) different city, not connected with either רקם being discussed. Supporting this idea is the fact that the תרגום of the קדש quoted here in יהושע (כ,ז) is (not רקם but) קדש, as opposed to the תרגום of קדש everywhere else (including in יהושע טו ג where it states לקדש ברנע) where the תרגום is רקם.Or one may say that indeed the קדש of יהושע is the same as the רקם of our משנה, which is in the eastern part of א"י, however this קדש - רקם, לא כבשוהו עולי בבל, Therefore it is now חו"ל, as opposed to the רקם in ספרי, which is in ארץ פלשתים as תוספות states, and that is in the (south) western part of א"י, which כבשוהו עולי בבל.

(1) According to Scriptural Law, [the obligation to separate] the terumot and the tithes applies only in Eretz Yisrael. [It applies] whether the Temple is standing or not. The prophets ordained that these obligations should be observed in Babylon as well, because it is adjacent to Eretz Yisrael and the majority of the Jewish people journey to and from there. The Sages of the early generations ordained that they also be observed in the lands of Egypt and the lands of Ammon and Moab, because they are on the peripheries of Eretz Yisrael.

(2) Whenever Eretz Yisrael is mentioned, the intent is the lands conquered by the King of Israel or a prophet with the consent of the entire Jewish people. This is called "a conquest of the community." If, however, an individual Jew, a family, or a tribe go and conquer a place for themselves - even in the land given to Abraham - it is not considered as Eretz Yisrael in the sense that one is obligated to observe all the mitzvot there. For this reason, Joshua and his court divided the entire Land of Israel into tribal portions even though it was not conquered [entirely] at that time. In this way, when every tribe would ascend and conquer its portion, it would not be considered as merely an individual conquest.