The verse (Shemos 16:35) lists two time periods at which the Jewish people stopped eating the Man: when "they came to Eretz Noshaves" and when "they came to the edge of Eretz Kena'an." RASHI explains that the Jewish people arrived at the edge of Eretz Kena'an, a reference to Ever ha'Yarden (Transjordan), on the seventh of Adar, the day on which Moshe Rabeinu passed away and the Man stopped falling. They nevertheless continued to eat the Man which they had collected and stored earlier until they arrived at "Eretz Noshaves," a reference to Eretz Yisrael proper, where they ate from the new produce on the sixteenth of Nisan.
Based on this Gemara, the verse may allude not only to the miracle of the Man which the Jewish people ate, but to the miracle of Haman whom the Jewish people overcame ("ate") on Purim.
The verse says, "u'Vnei Yisrael Achlu Es ha'Man" -- "the Jewish people ate ha'Man." The Midrash (Esther Rabah) relates that when Haman conducted his lottery to determine the most favorable time for the execution of his evil plot to destroy the Jewish people, his lottery chose the month of Adar. Haman rejoiced because the Mazal of Adar is "Dagim," and it is common for big fish to swallow little fish. Haman understood this as a sign that he would swallow the small nation of the Jews. Hash-m replied, "You evil one! Sometimes fish swallow other fish, and sometimes they are swallowed by other fish. You are going to be swallowed!"
"Swallowing" or "eating" refers to a situation in which the evil person intends to destroy others but his plan backfires and he is destroyed. Haman first experienced this reversal of his plan when Hash-m responded to his lottery's choice of the seventh of Adar, as the Midrash describes. The second time Haman experienced this reversal of his plan was on the sixteenth of Nisan, when Haman came to the king's court to have Mordechai hanged, and instead he suffered the humiliating experience of having to lead Mordechai on the royal mount through the streets of the city, and eventually he was hanged on the gallows he had prepared for Mordechai. The Gemara teaches that it was in the merit of the Mitzvah of the Korban ha'Omer (which is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan) that Mordechai and the entire Jewish people were saved (Megilah 16a; see RASHI there, DH Hilchos Kemitzah). Accordingly, the verse hints to the two times the Jewish people "ate ha'Man" (i.e. they triumphed over Haman) -- on the seventh of Adar and the sixteenth of Nisan.
In what way is the Jewish people's consumption of the Man related to the victory over Haman? The Gemara in Chulin (139b) asks, "Where in the Torah is [there an allusion to] Haman?" The Gemara answers that the Torah alludes to Haman in the verse which describes Hash-m's response when Adam ha'Rishon sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge: "ha'Min (spelled H-M-N) ha'Etz..." -- "Did you eat from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?" (Bereishis 3:11). Before Adam ha'Rishon ate from the tree, Hash-m's providence was perfectly clear to him, to the extent that he could even see Hash-m's presence in the Garden. After the sin, Hash-m's providence became clouded in the natural order of the world (Hash-m's conduct of "Haster Astir Panai" -- "I will hide My face," Devarim 31:18). Hash-m told Adam ha'Rishon that as a result of his sin, he will have bread only after strenuous labor. This labor will cause man to think that it is his own effort that brings about his sustenance, as opposed to the Hashgachah (providence) of Hash-m.
The Hashgachah of Hash-m is perceived most tangibly in Eretz Yisrael. Despite the efforts which a person invests into growing his crops, he inevitably must rely on Hash-m to send the rain to enable his crops to grow (see Devarim 11:12). Before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, they needed to internalize the awareness that Hash-m gives them their sustenance directly and that it is not their efforts or any other forces that grant them their livelihood. In order to fully internalize the awareness of this reality prior to their entry into Eretz Yisrael, Hash-m kept them in the desert for forty years where they had nothing to eat but the Man which He sent them.
In the times of Ezra, before the Jewish people returned to Eretz Yisrael from the exile of Bavel, they needed to re-learn this lesson (see Berachos 4a). Therefore, they again needed to struggle with and overcome the influence brought into existence by eating from the Tree of Knowledge and they needed to witness the hand of Hash-m in the context of "Hester Panim." Accordingly, the lesson of Purim is the same lesson as that of the Man. That is why Haman's downfall is hinted to in the verse which discusses the Man.
(The Midrash teaches that Haman's decree lasted a total of seventy days, from 16 Nisan (the day it was issued) until 23 Sivan (the day it was repealed, as described in Esther 8:9). (In the eleventh cycle of Dafyomi, this Daf was studied on 23 Sivan, the day on which Haman's decree to destroy the Jews was overturned.) Perhaps these seventy days correspond to the seventy days out of the forty years during which the Jewish people sojourned in the desert without the Man: the final forty days of their sojourn, from the seventh of Adar until they entered Eretz Yisrael, and the first thirty days of their sojourn, when they left Mitzrayim, before the Man began to fall.)
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai who derives from a Kal va'Chomer that the prohibitions of Orlah and Kil'ayim apply in Chutz la'Aretz. If the prohibition of Chadash applies in Chutz la'Aretz even though it has three leniencies -- the prohibition is not permanent ("Ein Isuro Isur Olam"), the grain is not Asur b'Hana'ah (although one may not eat the grain, he may derive benefit from it), and there is a way to permit the grain ("Yesh Heter l'Isuro") -- certainly the prohibition of Kil'ayim should apply in Chutz la'Aretz because the prohibition of Kil'ayim is permanent ("Isuro Isur Olam"), the fruits are Asur b'Hana'ah, and there is no way to permit fruits of Kil'ayim. The Kal va'Chomer also teaches that Orlah applies in Chutz la'Aretz because it has two of the three stringencies of Kil'ayim. (The Gemara in Pesachim 44b and Nazir 37a mentions that the prohibition of Nazir has the same three leniencies that Chadash has.)
What is the difference between "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" (the prohibition is not permanent) and "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" (there is a way to permit the prohibition)? Both qualities mean that the item eventually becomes permitted.
The Gemara, however, clearly understands that these two qualities are independent when it says that Orlah has only two of the stringencies of Kil'ayim (it is Asur b'Hana'ah, and it is either an Isur Olam or its prohibition has no Heter). It does not have both of the latter two stringencies.
What is the difference between "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" and "Yesh Heter l'Isuro"?
(a) RASHI (DH v'Hu) explains that "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" means that there is a time at which the prohibition will be removed from the item automatically. "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means that even before that time comes there is another way to remove the prohibition. In the case of Chadash, the prohibition is removed automatically at the end of the day of the sixteenth of Nisan. If, however, the Korban ha'Omer is offered before the end of the day, the prohibition is removed at the time the Korban is offered. (Similarly, in the case of a Nazir, the prohibition is removed automatically after thirty days, but if the Nazir has a Chacham annul his Nezirus (with "She'eilah"), the prohibition is removed before thirty days. See Rashi to Pesachim 44b, DH v'Yesh.)
This is the second stringency of Orlah. It does not have a "Heter l'Isuro" since fruit of Orlah cannot become permitted within the three-year period of Isur.
The TOSFOS TUCH asks that a Chacham's annulment of a Nazir's Nezirus before thirty days pass should not be considered a way of permitting the prohibition, because the Chacham removes the Nezirus retroactively. The Chacham annuls the prohibition so that it never existed in the first place. Why is this called "Yesh Heter l'Isuro"?
Perhaps Rashi understands that the Chacham's annulment functions in the way described by the ROSH in Nedarim (52a). The Rosh cites the Yerushalmi and writes that a Chacham's annulment does not uproot the Neder absolutely retroactively, but rather it uproots the Neder "mi'Kan ul'Haba l'Mafrei'a." This means that when the Chacham annuls the Neder of Nezirus, the Neder becomes annulled only from that point onward (and it indeed was in effect until that point), but from that point onward it is viewed as though it never existed. Until the time of the annulment the prohibition of Nezirus certainly was in force. The Chacham removes the prohibition from now on as though it never existed.
TOSFOS (DH v'Hu ha'Din) objects to Rashi's explanation for another reason. Fruit of Orlah does not become permitted automatically after the third year. Rather, only the new fruit which grows from the tree after three years have passed is permitted, and that fruit was never prohibited in the first place. (The RAMBAN comments that "this is not a question" but does not explain why.)
(b) The RAMBAN in the name of RABEINU CHANANEL (see ARUCH, Erech "Chadash," and Rabeinu Chananel to Pesachim 44b) explains that "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" means that the prohibition is removed automatically after a certain amount of time has passed (as Rashi explains); Chadash becomes permitted on the sixteenth of Nisan and the fruit of a tree of Orlah after the third year. "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means that even the actual object that was once prohibited can become permitted. This is the second stringency of Orlah since, as Tosfos points out, the fruit of Orlah remains prohibited forever.
According to this explanation, the application of these two leniencies to Chadash is unclear. The present year's Korban ha'Omer does not permit the grain which takes root in the ground after the Korban ha'Omer has been offered; that grain becomes permitted only when the following year's Korban ha'Omer is offered. The Korban ha'Omer permits only the grain which was prohibited until now, but not what grows later. Since only the grain that was prohibited becomes permitted with the offering of the Korban ha'Omer, "Ein Isuro Isur Olam" and "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" apparently mean the same thing in the case of Chadash.
(c) The RI cited by Tosfos explains that "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" is a leniency in the case of Orlah, because the prohibited fruit which the tree produces can cease to be produced. After the third year, the tree stops producing fruits of Orlah and starts producing permitted fruits. "Isuro Isur Olam" refers to the fruit itself which became forbidden; that fruit remains forbidden forever, and therefore the stringency of "Isuro Isur Olam" applies to Orlah.
(d) RABEINU MOSHE of Pontoise explains that "Isuro Isur Olam" means that the object remains forbidden forever. This is the second stringency of Orlah, as the Ri explains. "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means, as Rashi explains, that the prohibition can become permitted before its designated time arrives. However, he differs from Rashi about the way it can become permitted earlier. He explains that if Beis Din declares Rosh Chodesh one day earlier, the sixteenth of Nisan arrives one day earlier and consequently Chadash becomes permitted one day earlier.
This applies to Orlah as well. The Isur of Orlah applies to fruit which blossoms before the fifteenth of Shevat (Tu b'Shevat) of the third year. If Beis Din declares Rosh Chodesh one day earlier, fruit which blossoms on the fifteenth of Shevat becomes permitted, when otherwise it would have been forbidden. (Had Beis Din not established Rosh Chodesh a day earlier, the day on which the fruit blossomed would have been the fourteenth of Shevat, which would have been within the three years of the Isur of Orlah.)
(e) RABEINU YOM TOV cited by Tosfos suggests that "Yesh Heter l'Isuro" means that one is permitted to create this prohibition. One is permitted to sow seeds of grain in the ground and to plant fruit-bearing trees, even though doing so produces objects that are forbidden (Chadash and Orlah). Similarly, a person is permitted to accept an oath of Nezirus, even though he thereby creates prohibitions upon himself. (RABEINU TAM rejects this explanation based on the Sifri which calls this leniency "Yesh Heter l'Achar Isuro.")
(f) The ME'IRI cites others who explain that "Isuro Isur Olam" means that the prohibition applies to the entire world, even to Bnei Noach. Orlah and Chadash do not apply to Bnei Noach, and thus they are not "Isuro Isur Olam" and do not share this stringency. Kil'ayim, on the other hand, applies even to Bnei Noach in the case of Harkavas ha'Ilan, as the Gemara says later (39a).