Introduction to Tractate

The Tractate explains the obligation of presenting to the Temple, contained in Deut. 26:1-11. The first Chapter defines the obligation: who has to present his First Fruits and from where they can be presented. This leads to a discussion of the status of proselytes and the definition of the "Land flowing of milk and honey." Since there is a verse (Deut. 12:11) in which First Fruits are called "your hand's heave", the second Chapter is a general discussion of what is common to and what is different between First Fruits, heave, and second The chapter also contains discussions of death as divine punishment and of criminal responsibility of juveniles. The third Chapter discusses the details of the Temple ceremony of communal presentation of First Fruits and includes a section on the signs of respect due elders. jwipi ps prao w

ντ>·) ,ρ-|ίρ Ν'ϊη ρκ·>1>ρ ΡΎ>Ρ) ")VVD>3 ΥΡ :Ν n)Wtt (fol. 63c)

-jin:i In -τ>η> -jiri} ^η^ίη -jiria yoian pis^p y\?i3D :ρπ> ^inp iN "Τ'Π'Ιρψ rpnp ρ·) .οη^ψ

τη >ΊΓ) ysptfa cp^nn ΤΠ"! "ΡΓ^ΓΙ :Ι*ΠΊ ί^ψ ^ηιηι ί!?ψ rpn:i

,κ·>ΐ)ο -ΐΏίκ rmrp rn .unn

Mishnah 1: Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration1, some bring and do not make the declaration, and some do not bring. The following do not bring2: He who plants in his own but provines3 into a private or a public plot; and so he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own. If someone plants in his own and provines into his own but a private or public road is in the middle he cannot bring; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings.

1 The thanksgiving declaration offerings. Deut. 26:5-10. It is forbidden to bring 2 The reason is explained in profane food into the Temple. If there 2. is no obligation to bring First Fruits 3 He bends a branch of a vine then there is a prohibition to bring. If down into the earth and has it reappear there is an obligation, a dedication elsewhere; cf. Kilaim 7:1, Note 1. must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple

:pn:a inan") ί^ψ yoian ,'ino ρ-ήρ"! p-yD'a pwip Φ :n τχϊϊη

:pnp Tjnian .N>2>? ro^n ip cpai_>V> :yiri> w τ^η^ψ HALAKHAH 1 545

Ν7Γ1 .N>np ni>»ri i>? ι!?'??* o>ai!?V> ^ρη» ΊΝ *ΡΓΡ>Ψ

.n^n 1» γρπ ro>p^n in n>n ow? nnpN

Halakhah 1: "Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration," etc. He who plants in his own but provines into a private or a public plot cannot bring even from the old tree4; he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own cannot bring even from the new tree. That means that just as the new lives off the old5, so the old lives off the new.

4 The original one growing on his offshoot, the internal flow of sap own property. cannot be controlled. Since First Fruits 5 While the buried branch will have to be brought "from your land" grow new roots, as long as a connection (Deut. 26:2), any roots of the tree have exists between the original vine and its to be on the farmer's own property.

>pi> >3*1 -ION .I^!? VT-P i!?nan DWI? iritis ijnv '3-1 nm

.qjpniN n.133 ΓΡψΝΊ DWB Ν'ΙΟ O^O Π* 'NO ,p ΓΠ)?Ν

Rebbi Johanan said, in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers.

Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah6 means: "Why can he not bring? Because it was said {Deut. 26:2): 'the beginning of the First Fruits of your land.'"

6 Mishnah 1:2.

1£ΐ3ψ ΝΙΠ") >0'N '3") OW3 >Χ?ί> '11 .ίΟίρ"! Ν>30 nW")! rj>-pn ON

η^»η ,ny\yi? i^sn wh >a-i own ηίν >a-i .Nb nywb νπ .obiyb ττινη .... *τ τ : ...... τ . . *τ τ : τ τ ^ ·. o^yn·) inv"! ^ip rnjjpi η^νη -iia -i?in n>n ,Ν-τη ip nii> >a-n

o^iy!? T>DLI> ο>νηψ ,·>ρί> rn rb -ray no ηη ny\y> N'b onon

V^PO Ijnv 'a-fT iTri>'o Π30 >a*i -»ON .in o^iy> T>DLI> ΐ^-ιιψ ipso 546 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

Iva» INDI ."iD^ Ή*),? Ί^^Ο rn.in oivüö ")3nv -DSN·?

•l^ia τη ny\j>> mvn ib ιτυψ

It was stated: If he provined with permission7, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following8: "If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his." Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Johanan supports my father9, as Rebbi Johanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber10.

7 Of the owner of the lot on Batra 2:12, R. Assi in the name of R. which the original vine stood or into Johanan holds that (invisible) roots do which the new vine is drawn. not influence the rules of First Fruits. 8 Mishnah Baba Batra 2:12. If 9 R. Jonah. somebody digs a cistern on his own 10 First fruits can always be property and in digging he comes upon brought if the farmer does not make roots from a neighbor's tree, he may illegitimate use of public or other cut off these roots and keep the wood people's private property. of the roots. In the Yerushalmi, Baba

πϊ pn pvny ion ^-»l .vav? .rryv* ^an >»ip Nya ^n^ vr> nisa (foi. 63d) ΓΡψίο rn>?N rninn ion !?3n nrr .n$>?

.q^niNü D>!m>3in-i7D ιη'ψ ly ρρτΝ

Rebbi Zeriqan asked before Rebbi Zeüra: Is the Mishnah Rebbi's since Rebbi said, all roots live off one another11? He said to him, it is HALAKHAH 1 547 everybody's opinion. Here, the said (Deut. 26:2): "the beginning of the First Fruits of your land," that all growth be from your land.

11 1:1, Note 39.

•pi η>? ,T>n? -ρπ> tjn^ro toy rpn> ϋρύη pi no mv >ι-π γργιπ ty

η-ι own ΝΠΝ 'i-) τη»η tp/ii ί!?ψ tjiJi!? T-arn ί!?ψ :pn> ^υύπ lib^p? iN >N iN Jijtefa ronrinyi .Νψ»ο

,rm> >!*•)> ron* rov >51 -ION .Νΐτρη N>I> N>I>

VN οίπ^η ΊΧ IN "P? ΝΊΠ ηοητ οίρρ rvnrjb ϊ»ιψ -DIÖD

Ν>Ι> N'T? .-»DO DIRMN ΙΟ>ΓΙ Ν* ·Ν*ΙΊΡΐ N>I>? -DÖ NT»-N oipr?

η» .oin^n Ί?»ψ ή!? NO'vya piii ,ΝΊόρ ii'Ni N>in pat»«

ΝΏΫ-^? >ΙΨ IB -Ι»ΝΗ NI'W TO-D Ö ON INIS .I*VIRTO Ϊ^ΙΨ -PI»? .P>TOA

.•ini^n "TV to »-po

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into a private person's and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a private road is in between12? Rebbi Aha in the name of Rebbi Miasha, when he provined through a gourd or a pipe13. If he provined through a gourd or a pipe he should bring and make the declaration! Even according to the he should bring and make the declaration14! Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah had a problem. If somebody sells a path to another person15, does he sell him the place where the foot treads or does he sell him down to the abyss? If you say, he sold the place where the foot treads, he brings and makes the declaration. If you say, he sold down to the abyss, he should not bring at all. Because of the doubt he brings but does not make the declaration16. For the rabbis it is obvious that he sold down to the abyss. 548 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

Where do they differ? When he sells a path to another person. But if he sold him a field and reserved a path for himself, everybody agrees that he reserved for himself down to the abyss17.

12 In the first case, R. Jehudah owner of the path and is not agrees that he cannot bring First Fruits disqualified as a robber. but in the second case he permits 14 R. Aha's solution is rejected. bringing. 15 But he retains ownership of the 13 He tunnels under the ground fields on both sides of the path. which is not his and shields the branch 16 Since R. Jehudah mentions only there either by a clay or metal pipe or bringing but not making the by threading it through a pumpkin declaration. serving as a pipe. Since no roots can 17 If he extends branches under grow there, he does not steal from the the path, it is still in his property.

pi nn .o>:n>\j» :jiri> -ρΊΐίη Sty tjiri!? pi np mv rpriyi ty

>0>N .V^PJS? D>inn TH"! ^ o'lnn Tiwn nnri ϊϊη ρψίν "ρκ ιαπ ·)3>3Γΐ7 .iw1? ^-ρ πιν 'ii"! ν>·>γιν rmyoi rp>n>3 Nrupw η3 > 'an .imypi ni-iia rm> >2-1 tjs .ity ο>ιίπ nivi-j nnri ·))3γι ί^ν ^"Π nos .o^iiN

γπ in 11 !?Νΐηψ Sty o>inn nwn nnri Nin -»on pn^»> in ni iwioyj >in nay ->ιψ>)? >t>v >in don .Νηρη nVvy^b -vng Sty irr) i? nwyb -vn» nu»!?

.nor ιοί Diipn-^D·) ·)?

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer18, as we have stated there19: "One may not make a cavity under the public HALAKHAH 2 549 domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it." As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it20.

18 The teacher of his father R. Ilai. The statement of R. Eliezer is not 19 Mishnah Baba Batra 3:12. discussed in Yerushalmi Baba Batra. 20 A cavity under the public The Babli (Baba Batra 60a) holds that domain cannot be appropriated for the the anonymous Tanna would agree with exclusive use of a private person. R. Eliezer if the safety of the road Therefore, it may be legal to provine could be guaranteed for all times under the public domain but the without maintenance. This cannot be provined plant is not exclusively in the the opinion of the Yerushalmi. vintner's domain.

nm own ,n>iö ύ>Ν d^o wn :a r\iwe (foi. 63c) jiniDn^l ΓΡ'Ί^ίΐ .qjppiNio o>!m>jirr!7D in»^ "TV N>n:n qjpoiN

ΓΡψίΟ DITO iDWö VN'}»? PN Ι^Γη ΡΡ^^Ό"!

•WT* Mishnah 2: Why can he not bring? Because it was said (Deut. 26:2): "You shall bring the beginning of the First Fruits of your land," that all the 550 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE growth should be from your land. For the same reason sharecroppers, tenant farmers, sicarii21, and robbers cannot bring, since it is said: "The beginning of the First Fruits of your land."

21 Knife-wielding robbers who sicarii mentioned in this Mishnah take deeds of property as ransom for obviously are ; in Mishnah the lives of the property owners. The 5:6 the sicarii are Gentiles.

Nin tp>?-r n'^i njjoii im -Vi?lP irr? "TV :i fia^n (foi. 63d)

γι ρη iN ·)π niip nil*» N!?2S rn>\y>u V7in ϊϊΌ Otap ύ'Ν VN"! Ü'N in rnip ino νρρ1? ι? ήν>ρψ vtpj r\irpr? iPNW

ID ίηίηρ -to>ri pis ,ηίιρ ι^κ in in ηίαρ τιίίί» ,ι1?^ πίψρ wnw

VN^» i^to ηίφη win Νΐηψ nv»\y? .NU» niap ύ'Ν inrn ρκ .wn»

Imjin wj-pn ->m η rnv .oniD-a Ν>η»ψ inn ,πίαρ riii^Q

.win νπρη "»νίφ wppn ·)>*•>>? •pm'} V^in? .win

Halakhah 2: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money22? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices23 or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring24; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged25 one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav26 from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it27 and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah28 who compares them to HALAKHAH 2 551 country food29 he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.

22 If the owners gave up hope to called a "sacrifice." recover the robbed object, the robber 26 The palm frond used on the becomes the legal owner. The transfer Holiday of Tabernacles. In the Babli, of ownership imposes on the robber the 47a, this is R. Simeon obligation to pay for it. Before giving ben Laqish's question in the up hope, the owners could have sued interpretation of Rav . In his for the return of the stolen object; interpretation, the rules of sacrifices after they gave up hope but the require that anything inadmissible at circumstances changed and made a suit some time is always inadmissible; possible, they can only sue for clearly this is not the case for any non- damages. The next paragraph will sacrificial use. make clear that this is the situation 27 The Babli (Mo'ed Qatan 26b) here. makes a difference between things 23 These rules are stricter than used for commandments (such as a those governing other obligations. lulav) and holy things (such as a Torah 24 Sifra Wayiqra Parsata 5(2), scroll). Things used for commandments Babli Baba Qama 67b: Lev. 1:10, "If his may be discarded after use; holy things sacrifice is from the flock" implies that which can no longer be used must be robbed animals cannot become buried just as damaged Temple stones sacrifices. must be buried. It is possible that the 25 If one of the prior worshippers Yerushalmi agrees with this distinction. of the tree damages it in a manner 28 The disagreement between R. inadmissible in pagan worship, the tree Jehudah and the Sages is in Mishnah loses is idolatrous status and becomes 3:10. profanely usable. But if at any time it 29 Sacred food to be consumed by was forbidden for the Jewish altar it the Cohen in purity anywhere in the remains forbidden since in Neh. 10:35 Land, i. e., heave, heave of the tithe, the supply of firewood for the altar is and hallah. 552 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

WN^jpjyj I!?>3N .nap» κϊψ pts ποίηση ^·>κ nrj Nin yo η^ναΨ^ ΡΊΡΝ Ή}? π?»)? WN^jp? Ν ·>ψ tO rons oto? .onisna ρ ρΝψ πια .otos Twy ΪΟ ηρηηι liraif nap» Ϊ?ιν .τνηη 1>N iriniriN l^O! oaiNn >3717 Nin? pN DN .mpT) Ν'ίη nvyyo νηί-ιψνρ Ν in nj^nri ΐπρη^

iwHi?^"! "Vvyyp ΐπηψνηι nnn^ ΐπητ-m innoN i^sn ,·|3ην dw? >ön .Di.in n^ h1?} cniri n> /|3nv ovn VÖ^P lay: "P"P "ry rii -»ON .non^ ιπρηη pN

Πι) l?^ N1? ΝΊΡ^ Ο^ΙΠ ΗΪψ Π^η.ϊΐ •VTiaa N'ba ΠΝ?φ rti-vs^ ."inism 1? 1W nn "Vyyypi non^i WN"n3\y n!?>m !?IN .nii'vyvni nomn N'ia ΓΙΝ*!? ni-pa!? IWA^N -: τ : · ν τ τ : : - τ : ·· τ ·· - τ : .rons Ί)) Π3)3)3 So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope30. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following31: "This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits." For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope32? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated33: "A strongman34, a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications." Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Johanan: Neither of them can give heave35. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Johanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: "This applies to heave and HALAKHAH 3 553 tithe but not to First Fruits"? It is possible for fruits to be usable without

First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes36! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question37.

30 The hope to recover the real a corrupt politician. estate taken from them. 35 As the Babli explains, the 31 Mishnah 2:2, which states among robber cannot give because it is not his other rules that heave applies to and the owners cannot give because it sharecroppers, tenant farmers, buyers is not in their possession. of expropriated property, and robbers. 36 The Mishnah does not state that 32 Most commentators want to Jewish robbers, etc., have to give heave switch the two cases, against all ms. but that the rules of heave and tithes evidence, misreading the rhetorical apply to them. Since they cannot give quality of the multiple negations. heave, they never can eat the produce 33 A similar text in Tosephta of the land they robbed. On the other 1:6 and Babli Baba Qama 67a, hand, produce may be eaten of a crop 114a/b. from which First Fruits were not given. 34 His quality is not defined; he 37 Whether First Fruits may be might be anything from a kidnapper to brought from this land.

Ondrup ν> ,ο^ρη η^ηψρ γιη onis^a ·ρκ ruv» (foi. 63c)

VN .tnrnan ρ "ΐ^κψ 'πηη Ν'!?Ί ηί·ν?» Ν!?") οηηιψ

°"ΡΡ lD'TD^a wan ~»π ·>φη .ΠΊ^ ΕφΡ on^a vw?»?

ηψΝ. ΐρψν» ηι^ι -ρ^ρη >η") rnirmw mron ίο» τν^ν1? 554 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

Mishnah 3: One does not bring First Fruits except from the Seven Kinds38, nor from mountain dates, nor from valley fruits39, nor from oil which are not best quality. One may not bring First Fruits before Pentecost. 40The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) "The pilgrimage holiday of harvest, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field."

38 The fruits enumerated in Deut. The requirement of "best quality" 8:8; cf. 6, Notes 15, 151. applies to all First Fruits. 39 Grapes, figs, and 40 The remainder of the Mishnah olives. These grow better in the hills; is also Mishnah Hallah 4:11; Notes dates grow best in the Jordan valley. 172,173.

ΓΡψίΟ 330(3^1 l'Ji:? .'Ιτο θηΐ3>3 VN'1>? "|>N :> (fol. 63d)

-into -nn>ri .m^i? vi? -iniN w^n

D>\?n N^N tj!? ΪΙ'ψΝΊΓΝ'ΐη ΓΙ'ψΝΙ« DN .ΪΙ'ψΝΊΓ^? N^l Π'ψΝΙΏ

don? y^O ri^ ny-η .ran qapjpiK na igto .*τι>3 oniyvpi

V3>ön n^yj? ]!?n> ^ΊΝ nn .τηίνψι ηφ·>η ^ "INS inNtii

.*U7>? nron ν?>οη riyiw} IN? INnron 41"One does not bring First Fruits", etc. If it were written (Deut. 26:2): "You shall take the First Fruits of your land", I would have said that all kinds should be obligated for First Fruits. The verse says "from42 the First Fruits", not all firsts. If "from the first" and not all first, then you have only wheat and . The verse says "fruits of your land"; this is inclusive. Does it include everything? Here43 "your land" has been said; at another place44 "the Land of wheat and barley" has been said. Since "land" mentioned there deals with the Seven Kinds, so also "land" mentioned in this verse must deal with the Seven Kinds. HALAKHAH 3 555

41 A similar text in Sifra Deut. partitive. 197(2), a third version in Babli 43 Deut. 26:2. Menahot 84b. 44 Deut. 8:8. 42 As always, prefix a is read as

ίοψ rua^ ΛρίηηΝ τη ijnv >5*1 ow? >ON ran .'ΐύΝ π* nn nj^o 'i"! V11W? iDin> tipw Niny .nisN

V7"iv o'omn nr) lipw riis VV>>i3 in-) vnv o>»mri

,iDin> -mn Νίτη vby

45"Oil olives" that is agory46. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi

Johanan, that is the Avaritic47. Why is it called agoryl Because it stores its oil inside. Do all other olives lose their oil? Rebbi said, all other olives will leach their oil if rains fall on them but this one stores its oil inside.

45 This paragraph and the etymology, in the name of R. , following explain expressions used in is also in Babli Berakhot 39a. Deut. 8:8. 47 Apparently after an Egyptian 46 In the Gaonic commentary to city Avaris, mentioned by Manetho. In Kelim 17:8, the reading is 'm The Babli Berakhot, the readings are ,'ϋΐ-αΝ kind of , the main example of a 'onao, 'onae ,·όπ»ο ,·ό·π3κ Cf. I. Low mid-sized olive, is called after a place in Krauss Lehnwörter p. 7; S. Lieber- Egor as the suffix -y shows. The mann, ki-Fshutah p. 332.

>pa?l rra ovy? nnin?ri >37 .onoriri i^n .\y371 n»n vyati .\s»m *ιπϋ>·) wWji p^r rpv>io !?nV\!» m lain *mn τ - - τ : · ·τ τ τ : · · τ τ - .imwyo} Ρ3Γ0 ΙΤΊΨ ono^in tew tö^

"And honey". This refers to dates. Rebbi Tanhuma in the name of

Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It is written (2Chr. 31:5) "When the thing 556 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE expanded, the Children of Israel did increase the first gifts48 of grain, cider, oil, and honey." Is honey subject to tithes? But this refers to dates which are subject to tithes49.

48 Heave and tithes. from grain, , and oil to all Seven 49 Date syrup. This argument Kinds, would extend the biblical duty of tithes

.o'öya yw 2>TI? n»!?·) ·)»η? ->a oyn nrn? rn π^ι ,ι^η οηι-τ TY ΗΪΗ τηίν η>ιη

.lmy^ ion roim .nD-iab ίον -τη .pro -α !7Niövy ^am ma rmrp I· •: ~τ τττ: tt:· - τ - »τ:- ~ ·•: •·•.• τ Ν>π on?? nitia i^irini Ή^ψ!? "im IN» .Νηυ DD")?!? ->m ικη

Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Nahrnan: Why is

"Land, Land" written twice50? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things51. Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben

Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Nahrnan, one says for benedictions52, the other says for measures53. He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: "A shiny mark the size of half a bean54"? That is not reliable55. "The size of a lentil from a crawling thing"56? That is not reliable57.

50 Deut. 8:8: A Land of wheat and 150-151, where this opinion is labelled barley, and vine, and fig tree, and "Babylonian". , a Land of the oil-olive 53 In the Babli, 4a/b, and honey. 5b, this is reported in the name 51 The necessities of life are wheat of the Babylonian Rav Hanin. The and . seven measures are: 1. A person 52 Explained Berakhot 6:4, Notes entering a leprous house is severely HALAKHAH 3 557 impure only if he remains long enough 54 Lev. 13:1-8, Mishnah Nega'im that he could have eaten a slice of 6:1.. A smaller lesion does not make wheat bread (Lev. 14:47). 2. A impure. fragment of a human bone the size of a 55 The size of the lesion does not barley corn imparts impurity. 3. A mean anything in itself. Even if the quarter log of wine drunk by a lesion is larger, if it does not grow makes him subject to punishment. As a after being seen by the Cohen it does derivative, a quarter log of wine is the not make impure. If it is smaller but minimum for legal obligations. 4. seen by the Cohen and then spreads, Somebody carrying food in the volume there is impurity. (Explanation of Pene of a dried fig from private to public Moshe). Another interpretation would domain on the Sabbath is guilty of be that this and the next measure are desecrating the Sabbath. 5. A vessel not standardized. having a pomegranate-sized hole is 56 Mishnah Kelirn 17:6. A unusable and freed from the impurity fragment of a dead crawling animal of vessels. 6. The volume of an olive (Lev. 11:29-31) in the size of a lentil is the standard for most rules involving makes impure. solid food. 7. Eating food in the 57 An integral limb makes impure volume of a dried date on the Day of even if it is smaller than a lentil. Atonement is a desecration of the day.

π» .ivryg Kb "|>3>»ri rijiavy» γιη miD>:i wnpn .ΝΠ>>Ρ Ν^ΓΙ Ν\?>ψ3

own νϊρ >21 >a-) onraw onorn

ήνρψ "P^stpn W ran oy:i n^>n >51 .ηψ-fj? ity;?

>ΙΊ ηοκ 15 ήνρψ .wii? N't? *V?N ·)3ηί> ,w>p!? na>n by vin 1» Din·) -ay dn ρψ .\y>pb "py>?\y >3*17 N>?yo roi>

.Γή-Τψν»? o>yin rii-i>a ΐίνοψ >pi> rn i»n .rupvup ijuanjp

1>N ,>pi> >ai!p ny>>p>p Ν3Ί>3π)9 .D>-|i3>i3 ")>i>>n o>ynn rm>3 uypvy

>2") -löN .wii? N't> N>an ONI V3w>an pi ·ρ-ρ3>*η ρ pisup

.•)>N>i)p VN rmuhy)^ ^nipiiNjp D>iiy impup nioit? "|öri »irn 558 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

OD "miön in .nviibi^n cpijyn pi νιψ πύη ι» vwaja iaNi

in") -»win noiN 'η !72N -ιηνη

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified1. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zei'ra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Johanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Johanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave59. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits?60 A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: "One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris61 and Bet Shean62, and if he brought they are not sanctified." Rebbi Zei'ra said, but there it is stated: "Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked63 one does not bring. But one brings bat seba figs64 and white grapes." The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late65.

58 This is translated as if it were places are unacceptable as First Fruits. nipawa, see Note 63. 63 Cf. Mishnah Sevi'il 2:2. 59 Mishnah Terumot 2:6. 64 White figs, cf. Demay 1, Note 5. 60 The argument of R. Jonah is (L. Goldschmidt, in his notes to Levy's disproved. dictionary, explains that in Babli 61 On a hilltop. 27a, bat seba figs are a kind 62 In a deep valley. It is not different from "white figs". But "white specified why fruits from these two figs" are really green ones, in contrast HALAKHAH 4 559

to "black" or purple ones.) or grapes. 64 They ripen later than other figs

pnip ·)>ΝΙ inn*» onoj? VN>I>? γκ i»iN 'iw'pm "pypvy iri 'ari

•V^P"! VN^E O>p)pv >3iön ΊΏΪΝ H ήνρψ .riiniTbn ηϊη

It was stated65: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one brings dates only from Jericho and one makes the declaration only for dry ones66. Rebbi

Simeon ben Eleazar says, one may bring valley pomegranates and make the declaration67.

65 Tosephta 1:5. 67 He only excludes valley figs. 66 Arabic .

biDj ΊΡΝΨ Ν-iip WNI N>IÖ -AN .-p-yip NV) PWI)? I!?N :*T FLIV» (foi. 63c)

N>IN IW-IVY'» rm>n DNI .LIB NNB * YIVW IWN ... .. τ . . . τ : IT · : τ ·· τ ·· -: - ^ - : · ν Μπψοι .!?ϊα"ψ> niaif >n>Ni -ipiN insy pi!? tysm »on^rn .ιοίρ"!

-iniN biovp»» ION rm>n όη) .D?>riinN -IOIN nwsn n>ia

.wjiinis

Mishnah 4: 67The following bring but do not make the declaration.

The proselyte brings but does not make the declaration since he cannot say (Deut. 26:3): "That the Eternal had sworn to our forefathers to give us." But if his mother was Jewish68 he brings and makes the declaration.

When he prays in private69, he says "God of the forefathers of Israel."

When he is in the , he says "God of your forefathers." But if his mother was Jewish he says "God of our forefathers." 560 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

67 The entire Mishnah is not and not sinful, the child is classified practice, as explained in the Halakhah. with the male", the child is still 68 The child of a Jewish mother is classified as a proselyte. automatically Jewish. But since 69 In the first benediction of the Mishnah Qiddusin 3:12 states that "in 'Amidah prayer. all cases where marriage is possible

Ιίηηηιρ Npv rov .p-pp N'i?-! pwap te'Ni ί nrtn (foi. 64a)

>3(7 .Nrpjjpjo ν>π πψ» "|Γήη >3>i? 0:1a ρη^ρ an ia bwnvy >a*i owa ovn n»p\n >ai uaoni υηΝ dd> a>n?T .Vlip-! lwpja ri^b ")riin n>>wn"| "raym V£>i-i\p>3i*ri ^W no ID Ί»Ν N't? >ai

.nvnaa nr) .p-pp ν'!?·) i>N>a)p ούηί-φΝ·) mopwj nw»Nn"!

.nwb iriin >3>p >iaa ij inna -mfwi pns? ai ia iwoy >ai don

.piipl pwap ηψο i^in >:p >3ai

Halakhah 470: "The following bring but do not make the declaration". Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written {Num. 10:29): "Go with us and we shall treat you well.71" Rebbi Hizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so72 but: Why did they say73 "the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration," is not the proselyte mentioned here74? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here75, by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration. HALAKHAH 4 561

70 The different interpretations of his father's side and "to our forefathers' this Halakhah are discussed in Tosefta from the mother's. {The hypothesis ki-Fshutah Zeräim pp. 823-825. that the Qenites were not considered as 71 In Tosephta 1:2: "Rebbi Jehudah at the conquest is difficult to said, all proselytes bring but do not accept.) make the declaration, except that a 72 They do not disagree with the Qenite proselyte brings and makes the statement of R. Samuel ben Rav Isaac declaration." This contradicts the but with context and meaning. In the opinion given here that a Qenite first version, only the sentence about proselyte can make the declaration the proselyte, son of a Jewish mother, only if he is the son of a Jewish refers to Qenites. mother. 73 Mishnah 5. The f irst three are The problem is, why should the not owners, the last three are not male. proselyte, son of a Jewish mother (Note 74 Since the proselyte cannot say 68), be able to make the declaration? "that the Eternal had sworn to our He would not be able to declare "that forefathers to give us" but can make the Eternal had sworn to our the declaration if his mother is Jewish, forefathers to give us" since the Land why cannot the persons mentioned in was distributed to males only. The Mishnah 5 (with the exception of the daughters of Zelofhad could inherit slave) make the declaration since only as sole heirs of their father who presumably they are children of a was of those counted at the Exodus; the Jewish mother?

Land was never promised to the 75 Mishnah 5 in its entirety only females. But since the family of Jithro deals with Qenites. This is difficult to were invited by Moses to join the accept since then the Mishnah would Israelites and received part of the Land have become meaningless with the CJud. 1:16), a Qenite can declare "that Babylonian exile. the Eternal had sworn to give us" from

Νίψ .ία -a rv>n >2-» -nny^ 13 njp^j? >t>v rri

VOW >2"! NlW ρ Η1? rov >2*1 Ν>Π Π2 ^Τ^} 562 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

ΝΠ"! .wriiiN v*i>?iN on? ona IWN'T -ήηψν na .N't? on? >33 ona Nil .wrii:iN -)«iN !?Ν*νψ»» nri>n on ·)3>3γι

>2-) .Na na n»n ιίηψ^ -α VP?» ·>ΖΊ -Ι£Ν

Π")·>ΐν? Ο^Ε^Ρ Ί^ψϋ VP??? rl)?»p N1 Ί2 Γ)»η '31 Οψη

,ΝΓΙ>3η£ Κ>ΪΊ Π3 ^ Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi : The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman76. Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi77 heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes68, say "God of our forefathers." Bui: did we not state: "If his mother was Jewish he says 'God of our forefathers'"? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Hiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Hizqiah in the name of Rebbi Hiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.

76 Since the Torah in many places similar situations, the Babli explains requires that the proselyte and the the rules to refer to a child of natural born be equal in rights and proselytes whose mother was pregnant duties, the proselyte mentioned here when the parents converted. In that cannot be the child of a proselyte who case, the child is Jewish but not the by converting became a 100% Jew. child of Jewish parents since at The solution given is difficult since by conception the parents were Gentile. Mishnah Qiddusin 3:12 the child of an E. g., if born on a Sabbath, if such a unconverted Gentile and a Jewish child is a male he cannot be mother follows the mother only circumcized on the Sabbath. Since a because there can be no marriage solution is chosen here which seems to outside the faith in Jewish law. In contradict Mishnah Qiddusin 3:12, one HALAKHAH 4 563 might infer that the Yerushalmi determine exactly) but at birth, determines the status of the baby not 77 It seems that a name has by the status of the parents at disappeared here, conception (whose time is impossible to pn^> oii*UN> N> viDjpn Nin D^S ,>yi IP1")*

H1? ΝΊΠ :JM vmpn ΝΙΨ? .ΝΠ OI^RIIIIF apv?"! PNS> ΟΪΤΉΝ ΟΙ .ΙΡ^>>Ι

.nirpp^ NÖW onato Τ.. . - j .. · τ : - Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi asked: Do they not refer to Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob? Were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob their forefathers? Did not the Holy One, praise to Him, swear to the males but not to the females78?

78 Since the females should not be is unexplainable. important in this respect, the Mishnah

-por) IN >3 -Nnipi Νη» iosy na rmrp oyn >·>ΓΙ

IN DJW tj^rn T^djji IN TAB?

ΙΓΏΝ >317 'FTIP NIIIY NJIN ,rmn> RP!?R) ION Η> JJTFIN? ·>ΆΊ

.rmn? nirn

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: The proselyte himself brings and makes the declaration79. What is the reason? (Gen. 17:5) "For

I made you the father of the multitude of Gentiles." In the past you were the father of Aram, from now onwards you will be father of all Gentiles.

Rebbi said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. A case80 came before Rebbi Abbahu and he instructed following Rebbi Jehudah.

79 Since this contradicts the state- is clear that the Tosephta was not ment of R. Jehudah in Tosephta 1:2, it known to the editors of the Yeru 564 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE shalmi. take up the problem, it agrees that the 80 About the prayers to be recited proselyte everywhere says "God of our by proselytes. Since the Babli does not forefathers."

N't? ona τη dwn now ιρν? i? ri"! :fi niwe (foi. 63c)

omnw• τ : a om· τy τηκτ ν ι ona· ·• ΤΠτΝγ ,!?NNDJ·· τ : · · τ ·W· : ν ^ n-nro!τ : ?·

inib ·)3>Νψ ρ-ρρ Ν'!η νκ'ΐρ Όύ>ιί-ΐ7?κ·) οιορινη ηψ'κη-) n>>wni

>!? urτ - oτ ivν w Mishnah 5: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, a woman, daughter of proselytes, should not marry a Cohen unless her mother is from Israel81. There is no difference between proselytes and freedmen, even up to ten generations, unless their mothers be from Israel. The guardians82, the slave83, the agent84, the woman85, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite86 can bring but not make the declaration, since they cannot say (Deut. 26:10): "Which You gave me, Eternal."

80 The dissenting opinions are in 84 The possibility of agency for Mishnah Qiddusin 4:8. The discussion the presentation of Firsl Fruits is dis- in the Halakhah is repeated in Qid- cussed in Halakhah 6. dusin 4:6 (fol. 66a). 85 Who brings First Fruits from 82 Administrators of orphans' her private property. property; Greek επίτροπος. 86 They possibly are female. 83 A freed slave owning property.

ion rmn> >51 ·|3>3γι ιογι ."d ipiN ipy? 15. ·>άί -.η (foi. 64a) nibini oh ·>? .vvnn in *rni* »op» ήπ!?^ !Λη nis IJ na HAI.AKHAH 5 565

.biO'V»»? iölS ΝΠ'ψ Τϋ ΙΏίΜ ΓφΠ> '1") .biOT"\f» ΓΡ3

>51 .^NlV? πψπ^ι "U! 'pv ri>3is ίκ «TIN iN -iniN •|iy>?\y ^-i own ">333 nwnpa o^ni "ρνρψ -\»N3\y nJiriD!? tvpws rn^anavy *τγιν ovt o>iw v>!?\y mo nmns mva - vi ν ν τ : · τ ·• τ: - : • ν τ ν : · τ τ - · τ : ν Ρ31Ί-! οη»^ froai OD1? ^ηο ιν*!,? ^ o>wia Ί^Ό"^?'! .Γήη2ψ>Ί οηαν1? π?1? τηη

Halakhah 5: "Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says," etc. There, we have stated87: "Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one88." They all interpret the same verse (.Ez. 44:22): "Only virgins89 from the seed of the House of Israel." Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer90 says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel91. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen92 in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon93: "A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): 'All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male94 you shall let live for yourselves,' and Phineas was with them." But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves95 and slave girls for yourselves.

87 Mishnah Qiddusin 4:6. to the High Priest, the verse describes a 88 The child of a Cohen and a woman who was a virgin from the seed woman forbidden by the rules Lev. 21:7 of Israel. Since verses in sources other (a prostitute or a divorcee) cannot be than the Torah cannot be prescriptive, married by a Cohen. Desecration is not one speaks here about rules the removable and is inherited by his Cohanim accepted over and above the descendants.. ones spelled out in the Torah. 89 Since a widow is forbidden only 90 Ben Jacob. 566 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

91 Born after the mother became 93 Sifry Num. 157; Babli Yebamot Jewish. 60b, Qiddusin 76b, 78a. 92 It is generally accepted talmudic 94 Being less than three years of medical theory that a girl who was age. raped when she was less than three 95 This word has slipped in as a years of age will regrow her hymen. routine expression.

lo^g. urn D^rpD"! ,·>ρν ΓΟ!?Γ) ,^ηρ >a-> ovo ησ>

ιπιν ^ι Niiiv νγιν .ona na ito *τη .αρ^

,·>σν DDbr] 'in ή£)>Ν ρ Mb in nV? -ION γρ^ΊΝΊ in?» by-) W? iök ^D? Q^LP N^I

ΓΙ» N3N11 >> >ΟΓ) J^N tJ3 PN .ppib

.na -im» υκ «in nyiinn mmm twin -ιών τ τ · -: · - *τ :τ τ: ••-τ Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Johanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose96 but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench97. Rav Bevai said to him, did the not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do98? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her99.

96 In the Babli (Yebamot 60b): R. Eliezer ben Jacob. Jacob bar Idi said practice follows R. 97 Latin subsellium; to have him Simeon ben Iohai but . . . But the final whipped. decision is that practice follows R. 98 Since there is no formal pro HALAKHAH 5 567 hibition. forceable in court is R. Yose's. 99 Since the only restriction en- vnw οίττη ηη^ψηι ny^tt 100η> 15 jwirp ·>άί οψ} >*pn "13 npi>? rnT>>33p?v> pini ip*n!? owein rus rn η^ψι .*uny V"PP N>yvyin m .nairiDb m>viDm *τπν ovi d>3w vy^vy nan nnina nropt τ *s - - τ s · τ · s · : TV : · τ τ -· τ : τ τ ' ·· : ·>ΆΊ ϊοπ ,Ν>Γΐ ysn nrn N-vy^ '3"! ίτοη .rrp\y;>n "ρνρψ >3"!?

·>ΆΊ D\yi 1Π1Ν rll ·>ΌΚί >31 ΠΊΠΝ Ν "TN 11 DVJl iO>yt ... γ - . T .. - T . τ- - ττ ·- ·· : τ : nwN NID-! .rfyyy nwy na» ?οψ rityyri Νΐηψ iws rn.m "T^ i^nv

ON >3 finTPT) .Nin nwy nwy 03» ri^yri n'!?-!?3 .np?

.Kin nwy T\W Γόη κιψ ntyyri ν>-ϊο nwN np> pay» nbin? rp>? Ν3Ψ rwyri N'!?2 ΝΙΠ ηη nso "m nrj Njywin >31 mrin ny^b ^ΝΙ'Υ»! nwy >»7 ηϊ ΙΟΝ·; N>yvnn rai -κη ,νιπ nwy nvyy

-»ηΐηΐ "WN 0>3ΓΡ3ψ nVi»l -^3 Ϊ7Ν1ψ?3ψ T)W ·°>:)Γρ3ψ

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation101. Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeira said, here it is everybody's opinion since Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan:

The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment102. (Lev. 21:13) "But he shall take a wife in her virginity."

Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment103. Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) "only a virgin from amidst 568 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE his people he shall take as wife," not a proselyte104. Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment105! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for and Israel106.

100 Reading of the parallel in 54b,68a; Pesahim 41b, Zebahim 36a, Qiddusin. Ms. and print reading here: Hulin 81a.) Bar Oshaia. 104 The Babli (Yebamot 77b) and 101 That all their girls were forbid- Sifra Pereq 2(6) conclude from den to Cohanim. the partitive a in I1»»» that the 102 A High Priest is directed to daughter of a proselyte is acceptable. marry a woman "in her virginity". This 105 The prohibition of the first two is interpreted to mean that the bride generations of descendants of an must be a virgin but not yet an adult Egyptian proselyte is only inferred since for adults the hymen may get soft from the permission to the third by itself and therefore the fact of vir- generation to marry a Jewish partner, ginity cannot in all cases be estab- Deut. 23:9. If the previous argument is lished. But since the prohibition to correct, only male Egyptians should be marry an adult is only a logical conse- disabled in the second generation, not quence of the positive commandment women. But the verse makes no gender to marry a virgin, it has no standing in distinction. The principle enunciated penal law and, therefore, the child of seems to contradict the Torah. woman marrying as an adult cannot be 106 Since it is special legislation it subject to any disability. cannot imply anything not spelled out 103 The Babli concurs (Yebamot explicitly. HALAKHAH 6 569 ·)θ|?!ρψι .i3nv ·>*-) owa vy'pb 15 'a"! >pv >a*i :1 iis^n bpnp .inN *T?a on!?w> Nb Nin owarfc ON .ίπν *T?a 1 1 ·>άί ovn wp ? "la Ίίνρψ >a1 >an n*vy\ !?pn>p mi' >an .n ? Mb Nin iwatte ^ ,-ΙΠΝ "pa .rrnpa sby n>npa oni3>arrb2># .ΊΠΝ T>a -ion .ηπτοτ ηηκ κπ^η nid >a-i im ν in u by <1N hm >an *i»n -τ ττ:· -τ τ:· τ τ •• • τ : - - ' - τ τ -τ

>ai .rpywin Ν-τη jnmipN τ? "Vfl? κψτ 'a-i an imw oö to -ιπνι miaa wnan .NPbs NrpiJi» rwn >a*va • •• "τ - τ ι τ - ~ : τ τ τ · : ~ τ · \yaj ")5>3ririi .rowN-i nyw» nit>>?> inyi "Itiwa iWö^p .ίοίρ ύ'Ν"! >an ί»ν ,na?ü»? rpnp"! .rowNi nyw>? v>a>? Ν>η *Tiy "ι^νϊί ^p? ·£>νπ -r>a top!? .riasvp ·ρκ τνηρ> ρη:ρ an ~>a ^Νΐηψ •INnDb Ν1ΓΙ ΝΟψ 1ΠΝ T>a Dn>W> ΊΠΝ Halakhah 6: "The agent". Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Johanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this107; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeüra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration108 become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeira said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Hanina said that a Mishnah disagrees109: "If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration"! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell110. But did we not state111: "If 570 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE the tree dried up or was cut down"; that also if earlier it already was almost dry112. Does making the declaration prevent113? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent114. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself115?

107 He did not explain the reason moment of designation it was 100% behind this ruling. clear that he could not make the 108 In cases where the Mishnah declaration; it is enough if there was a requires making the declaration, First likelihood that this would be the case. Fruits become permitted to Cohanim in 113 Is the illiterate farmer the Temple only after the full biblical precluded from ever bringing First ceremony. Fruits? Cf. Halakhah 1:7 and Mishnah 109 Mishnah 1:7. When he 3:7. designated First Fruits he could make 114 In the Babli (Baba Batra 81b, the declaration because the land was 18b) this rule is attributed to R. his; when he brings he cannot make the Zeira. In general, the omission of a declaration since the land is no longer required action does not prevent the his. In this case the First Fruits should validity of the act if it would have be permanently forbidden to been possible to perform it (unless it is everybody. a requited pin or mm). But if it is 110 He knew at the moment of impossible to perform then any omis- designation that he would not be able sion of a required action does prevent. to make the declaration; then the 115 This is unreasonable; therefore, obligation to make the declaration the First Fruits were gathered with the never started. intention to deliver without making the 111 Mishnah 1:6; he brings but does declaration; the declaration was never not make the declaration. required and cannot prevent. 112 It is not necessary that at the HALAKHAH 6 571 dn .v>?»i? 1? η)? ,ΝΊίρ ύ>Ν·) Νηο γην>η ijnv rn ογ,α ιγών >2ΐ

VP^i? ^ -lri ί!?ψ viN nri>n "inN> ON"! .intow vin ηηι vnv?

•131W? iN n>in VIN

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Johanan: The heir brings and does not make the declaration. How do we hold? If about an heir during his father's lifetime, he is his agent116. But after his father's death it is his own117! But we deal with the case that his father was seriously ill118.

116 The Mishnah already states that First Fruits but he died before they he cannot make the declaration. were delivered. Then the son cannot 117 He can make the declaration. make the declaration since he did not 118 The father had designated the designate.

N>i)? cnNVi "Töbp .^i!?! tpD^fcf ">> "iro ηψ^ livsrrbD? Γΐθ»ψΊ ^πρ

Nn .rm>n -irw> -i»n \y>p!? ·)ΐ liypvy ^Ί .Niipl ίπψΝ ο>*νο>ι

,rm>» ->ηκ> wn ν^γι ηγιν νΊ7 ίρν ·)3πν .Nb

J12S \y-\V D7N VN 1ÖN Wfö ΐίνρψ ,ΓΡΓΟΠ? "ρνρψ

.rnin ίηψκ

119"It is written (Deut. 26:11): 'You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.' This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife's property120 and makes the declaration." Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Johanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule121. 572 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

119 Sifry Deut. #301. The verse is This opinion is not mentioned the last in the paragraph about First elsewhere; Sifry Num. 137 derives the

Fruits. husband's inheritance from the verses

120 Since a person called "a person's of the law of inheritance, Num. 27:6-11. house" is his wife. The property here In the Babli, Git tin 47b, the is the wife's separate property, not her disagreement between R. Simeon ben dowry which becomes the husband's Laqish and R. Johanan is reduced to the property subject to the wife's claim in question whether buying usufruct, case of dissolution of the marriage. without buying the underlying real

121 For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the estate, transfers property rights since husband inherits from his wife by during the marriage the husband has rabbinic institution, in exchange for the the usufruct also of the wife's separate obligations which the husband takes property. upon himself in signing the ketubah.

.naaj»)? rvnp i>n nnir) .rpywin 'an owa ·)3ην :t nsbti dw? rmrp a*i π>νψίη in OD^V vna'a ϊηίκη i^arim

N3)p >a-t 1ÖN .na>pv 'an 17 »n >ya >a*i .N>n na'pv >5*17 .^Νΐηψ n>np na^pv >a-i naayp n>ni? rimri .>3ri NaN rpyovy jmjjp nron mm oyo no .-ity!? >a*i ow? νπν ia apy> 'a-i .naayp

,-irv!? ^a-» oyn Niin >a-i (foi. 64b) Nöinpri >a-i .!?aa η^ύ >?ar?

."I^a-o NTm mi' >a-o Ntn »rnn no kin 'an -ion .n^y nww ' · τ - : ττ: τ τ τ ·· : - · τ τ - - τ τ ν τ τ ·

.^aa N>n\ä> 'pan rpjvö -tpN ΠΤΡ >377 .rm* 'ana Nin

πίψψ ττρψ? Ν^ψ ρηΏ ι^ηι p^a-p

Halakhah 7: Rebbi Johanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent122. But did we not state123: "He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them"? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba's124. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? HALAKHAH 7 573

Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father125 state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aha in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanhuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated126. Rebbi Abba Mari said both127, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis128. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody129. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated130.

122 In the Babli, Makkot 17a, this is farmer. a statement of Rabba bar bar Hana in 127 R. Eleazar did not change his the name of R. Johanan. The statement mind; he gave two different explan- does not disqualify a person who ations for two different schools of cannot read the declaration; it only thought. applies to persons required to read, cf. 128 The ceremony is described in Note 113. An action "prevents" if the Mishnah 3:4. According to the anon- ceremony becomes invalid if it is ymous Tanna, the farmer keeps his omitted. basket on his shoulder until he has read 123 Mishnah Makkot 3:3; discussed the entire declaration (and then hands in Babli Makkot 18b. A Cohen who the basket over to the Cohen who eats of First Fruits before the deposits it near the altar.) According ceremony of dedication is whipped. to R. Jehudah, only the declaration in 124 In Makkot 13a, the attribution Deut. 26:3 is made with the basket on of Mishnah Makkot 3:3 is given in the the farmer's shoulder. Then the farmer name of R. Johanan. holds the basket by its handles, the 125 R. Jonah. Cohen puts his hands under the basket 126 "Putting down" is mentioned and weaves it (as required by the both in Deut. 26:4, as an action of the anonymous Mishnah 2:4). Only after Cohen, and 26:10, as an action of the that, the declaration 26:5-10 is made 574 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE and the basket deposited near the altar. and downward, and at the end put it For R. Jehudah, the first "putting down" down before the altar of the Eternal, is into the hands of the Cohen, the your God." The first inserted text second on the floor. For him, both describes the "weaving" required by R. mentions are necessary. Jehudah. Verse 10 is translated The other sources more or less without addition: "... put it down follow R. Jehudah. Sifry Deut. #300 before the Eternal, your God, and infers from 26:4, "you shall put it down prostrate yourself before the Eternal, before the altar of the Eternal, your your God." God", that in the absence of an altar 129 For R. Jehudah the two mentions there cannot be any obligation of First of "putting down" are needed in the Fruits. In #301 it is inferred from the description of the ceremony. For him, double mention of "putting down" that accepting First Fruits from a person there are two, one for the declaration who cannot recite is a rabbinic and one for the subsequent prostration. interpretation, unsupported by the The late Yerushalmi (Pseudo biblical text. Jonathan) translates 26:4: "The Cohen 130 Since for them there is only one shall take the basket from your hand, "putting down"; the double mention is move it forward and backward, upward for emphasis.

'an .N-iip muö i-ριπ ty tpn? rmb'N niipri nsw» (foi. 63c)

.Niip N'ijp ·|!?>ΝΓΙ ^p) l^yen vyi? .Nnip·) N>IÖ

*Ty) ant)")» .Klip"! Ν>α» sn^i *un rnsvn in .ioipi κηη -win rmn> .ΝΊόρ-) wiö -ittiN τννπι la rmn> >5*1 ,κγιρ iy>K] κηη rounn Mishnah 6: He who buys two trees on another's property brings but does not make the declaration; Rebbi Me'ir says he brings and makes the declaration131. If the spring dried up132 or the tree133 was cut down, one brings but does not make the declaration; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings HALAKHAH 8 575 and makes the declaration134. From Pentecost to Tabernacles one brings and makes the declaration; from Tabernacles to Hanukkah one brings but does not make the declaration; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says he brings and makes the declaration135.

131 The standard contract (Mishnah cannot bear fruit the next year since Baba Batra 5:4) about buying trees there is no longer any possibility of implies that the ground on which the irrigation, it is as if the owner no trees stand is sold with the trees only if longer possessed the property as the transaction involves at least three agricultural land. trees in one orchard. R. Meir disagrees 133 From which the First Fruits in that Mishnah; his standard contract were taken. implies the sale of the land also for 134 Since the farmer remains the two trees. It is clear that if the sale of owner of the property. the ground is expressly stipulated, the 135 For the anonymous majority, buyer can recite the declaration which after Tabernacles there no longer is is formulated for the owners of the any joy in the harvest. Everybody land (Mishnah 11). agrees that there is no harvest between 132 If the field or orchard from Hanukkah and Pentecost; cf. Mishnah 3. which the First Fruits were taken

roj? inis i^n rof? ri^iQ 15 n&n (foi. 64b)

.N-lip ύ'ΝΊ Ν'ΐρ ϋυψ N'lO ύ'Ν "TIW Πίβ Ν'ϊ>

>Νψ ^N um Vpaib vpn^n γΥ>ϊ? »an ΓΡ> ION Halakhah 8: Rebbi Yose ben Hanina asked: If one bought a single tree he did not acquire the ground, two he did not acquire the ground. From one he does not bring at all, from two he brings and does not make the declaration136? Rebbi Eleazar said to him, you are asking a question to which the rabbis in assembly have no answer. 576 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

136 For real estate law, it makes no tree but disagrees about 2? In the difference whether one or two trees latter case, the person acquiring a are bought. Does one have to read the single fruit tree could bring but not Mishnah as dealing with exactly two make the declaration. In the Babli, trees or is there no difference for the Baba Batra 81a the matter is decided, rabbis whether one buys one or two that R. Meir permits the buyer of a trees and the number 2 is mentioned single tree to bring but not to make the only because of R. Meir who will agree declaration. with the rabbis in the case of a single

na N*m ι^νγι nvva ϊχ -p_>a ^>3371 ion .o'vypD rizs 'ny rnv >2-1

πτρ .N">n mv ΝΠΝ Ii ipi)> Dwa njp\n ΉΊ .ηψτ

Ί^ΝΙΊ nii'a ban n:n >2*1 ion .o»wp3 Ι^ΝΪΊ ri2* ιαν ION

•Ι^νπ ni-pa ^di ποινιπ Jiii>? vn] ,ποΐΝη rii-i>a

137Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: "If he pronounced the benediction 'Creator of the fruit of the soil' on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation." Rebbi Hizqiah in the name of

Rebbi Jacob bar Aha: This is Rebbi Yehuda's since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody's opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.

137 This is from Berakhot 6:2, Notes 117-118.

ino npibn rn"\y ib -do .n!?>ν vr» >oip iorj? -ο -pa 'ιί

.n\y>i> .nnb ·)ίτ3 τν .wb nob n>b ίον .cp-vd^i roon N>i»\y τ · -: χ - I τ ττ ·· - τ · τ ν · · τ ν onpiN ΌΝ ·)? ,·ρ\?>η ib>3Ni rmyo .rmsp to^Ni ion

.ρ-ι^νι N>io Ρ^Ό 1» npibn HALAKHAH 8 577

Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: If somebody sold

him a field with its standing crop, may the buyer bring First Fruits? He

said to him, why not? That is, when it is moist; even when it is dry138?

He said to him, even dry, even harvested. Then even wheat grain; do we

say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits139?

138 If the grain is totally dry at the buy the field; the only buyer who may moment of sale and does not ripen in bring First Fruits is the buyer of the the possession of the buyer. field. In the Babli, Baba Batra 81a, the 139 There is no answer since the opinion that R. Meir will allow First question is too stupid to merit one; the Fruits from grain bought on the market buyer of grain on the market does not is shown to be impossible.

Nurto ύ>Ν -Dien νρηρ to *vmh rirva to -do ,νγι^ο ν*τπ ΗΦ>νε> • τ : τ - ^ ι- ·?- - τ τ : τ τ τ . . nrj ο'νπβ rto iro .Νΐη ι» ri3>yovp3 .13)90 ·|ηρ>ι -κη .rivva to ρκψ na^on >33!? in? ii nsv:?^ ii"}"!?? riiitotn ρροψ nip? .mnio tons on ."po»p no ."|toa>vy!?\y niioyi n>?"l9 ΗΪΚ ρκ ."»ION

nIpjs .on^a n'iö pwn ι» npton onoiN wn rya ros^isa ;to ^riwa

rto D3n3i -nrr) lipni-pa to -doi η!?ψο o>33?n 13

13)?)? ΐηρ!?! ->?n γπτον Nin .N>a*? i^is n>n νπ η>ηψ >3?o

wao

The following is obvious: If somebody sold the harvest and retained the land for himself, the seller cannot bring since he has no harvest. If he bought it back? Let us hear from the following: "If he gave her dedicated things they are permitted; , oils, flour, or anything of a kind admissible near the altar, are prohibited140. The latter adds only bundles142 of vines and rings made of grain stalks141." Where do we hold?

If he gave her143 as whore's wages, do we say that the buyer on the 578 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE market brings First Fruits? But we must hold in case the vines were hers, she sold him the fruits, and he gave them back to her as whore's wages. Because they are whore's wages144. Therefore, if they were not whore's wages she might bring. That means, if he bought back he may bring.

140 Similar statements, in different otherwise recorded. Since wine, olive order, are Mishnah 6:4, To- oil, and flour are the only vegetal sephta Temurah 4:7,9. The statements products used on the altar, the addition refer to the prohibition (Deut. 23:19) to "or anything of a kind admissible near bring a whore's wages to the Temple in the altar" can only refer to First Fruits fulfillment of any vow. This implies which are the only other vegetables that the prostitute was paid in kind; if admitted in the Temple. she is paid in money then what she 142 The root is Ί3Β, to bundle, as buys with that money is not prohibited. pointed out by I. Low. The Babli form Since animals or produce dedicated to is '^sib with a change of liquids. the Temple cannot become objects of a 143 Fruits or grains admissible as new vow, these are not under the First Fruits. prohibition of a whore's wages. 144 This is the only reason they 141 This sentence is a baraita not cannot be brought to the Temple.

>nt> lD^V oiip Ήί? cm?

ίπν> .np-pl Π3ΐ3ρ "ID^V '"'"W! trjip .ΝΊίρ

N-pyt no ,N>mn*T ions ktji? >:n!7 τνϊη />νπρ ιΌ roun r . . - τ τ ...... _ τ τ : τ ~ : ·· ·· : ·· : πτ τ -:

ΓΡ>") .η>ηρΐ mw? ^ΊΝΙ "ΠΓΡ>

VN 1?>3γιγιί ιπΝ η-ρρ ήη!ρ γρν .·)?

ν>?ΓΡ "I? η>? νϋτηη ^ ·)ψ>η ι» Ν>) -)\y»n ϊχ νπηη ιρ ηϊ onm PNU>?

~ιηΝ> ικηηψ rii-van ^ rown ν>ίά ΊΠΝ> \ϋ>>ψ winw xii"V£m ON n^w ma in rown wnt oal? wnrw κϊν ypsn .rovyn w>0 τ τ τ τ τ ~ ..... ρ τ . . τ τ -

•)3 ·>? Ν^ ">)?ίνη init»^ in") "ipiy1? ο"ΡΡ wnwn

,οιψι iö -inN ιν>?ηψ nvva ϊχ νηψ? "»ό ofip ιο^ηψ rn-paa ν»?>ρ HALAKHAH 8 579

-ig>ö νπη ϊχ win ρ νίγι ,·|ψ»π ^ Ρ IV?1?

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If tie dedicated them before Tabernacles and Tabernacles passed, he brings and does not make the declaration. If he dedicated them before Hanukkah and Hanukkah passed, they will rot145. After Hanukkah they do not become holy.

Rebbi Zeira will not accept this of the colleagues; Rebbi Zcira is of the opinion that all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration146. Do the colleagues not accept this? They accept it; if he dedicated before Tabernacles intending to bring them after Tabernacles147.

Did we not state148: One may not bring First Fruits from the new crop for the old, nor from the old for the new. Where do we hold? If about produce149 which was one third ripe before New Year's Day for produce which was not one third ripe before New Year's Day150, since it was not one third ripe before New Year's Day it is obvious that it did not form roots before the 'omer and will be forbidden until the coming 'omer permits it151. But we must deal with fruits [from trees] which budded before the fifteenth of Sebat152 for fruits which budded after the fifteenth of Sebat; because that would be from new for old. Therefore, from new for new one may bring153. We thought to say that one speaks of the time after Hanukkah. Rebbi Hinena said, in its time154.

145 Since they must be brought to 146 This discusses the opinion of the the Temple but would not be accepted, colleagues that First Fruits dedicated they are forbidden for any use. before Tabernacles may still be 580 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE brought after Tabernacles. This seems rp©m (Deut. 26:2) and heave is called to contradict the opinion stated in rpwxi (Deut. 18:4), the rules of heave Halakhah 6 (Note 108) without apply to First Fruits; cf. Mishnah 2:1.. opposition that First Fruits under the 151 Mishnah 'Orlah 3:9, Note 155. obligation of declaration cannot 152 The New Year of fruit trees for become permitted to Cohanim except tithing periods, cf. Mishnah Ros by the declaration by the farmer. Hassanah 1:1; Sevi'it 5, Note 6. 147 In this case, there never was an 153 Designating First Fruits after obligation to recite the declaration. the 15th of Sebat (which comes after 148 It seems that Iran should be 'an Hanukkah) but before Pentecost. This since the statement is not a Mishnah. is also implied by Mishnah 1:3. This paragraph discusses the statement 154 The baraita does not apply to that First Fruits dedicated after the colleagues' statement; it refers to Hanukkah do not acquire sanctity. the time between Pentecost and 149 In rabbinic Hebrew, rn-pB Tabernacles which is the actual time of usually means grain but it also can be First Fruits. One may riot bring first used in the Biblical sense of "fruit" in fruit raisins and dried figs from former general. This ambiguity is expressed years; one may not let this year's First here; the first sentence speaks of grain, Fruits count for former years in which the second of fruits of a tree. one neglected the duty to bring First 150 Since First Fruits are called Fruits to the Temple.

>i>wn·) ,ΝΊίρ ύ^) n>ίο iniw -ddi v*yD>i vynan mve (foi. 63c) iriiNQ in -ioiN rrpn> ,ΝΊίρ·) win ίπν "pnn win ύ'κ pan ίηίκη

.ίοίρ·; p«n

Mishnah 7: If he dedicated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration. The other person cannot bring from the same kind, but from another kind he brings and makes the Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 10 581 declaration. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may bring and make the declaration from the same kind.

τ>3ιο κιπ ππν oj>a ,ονη >γι7ϊπ v??Tf "P»v\? nip x> nabn (foi. 64b)

>31 1?1N .-ΤΠΝ DTN3 rPb ΓΡΝ .p DTP Jl^l OV3 "PS» .... τ τν τ τ : ·· · ' ·· τ • : •· : τ · : - - • -

.-Ρ3|)?Ί "inn"! Τ>*Ϊ1 DIN

Halakhah 9: What is the reason of the rabbis155? (Deut. 26:3) "I am declaring today". He declares once156 but not twice. Does not Rebbi Jehudah hold so? He does, referring to one person157. But two persons can declare and declare again158.

155 That the buyer cannot bring different kinds at different times but First Fruits. It is obvious that the seller he can read the declaration only once cannot make the declaration since he (Mishnah 9). has no land. 158 Even for the same crop since 156 Today but not tomorrow. First Fruits are an obligation of the 157 It is accepted without dissent farmer, not of the crop. that a farmer can bring First Fruits of

ι«\?>3ψ iN in w iwi3 ipm vvdi jus \yn3n :n nwa (foi. 63 c) rn^i i»vp>? .vi^in to^V VN WNI oi}>riort onnNi

,ΝΊΐρ ύ>ί·ο

Mishnah 8: If he dedicated his First Fruits and then they rotted, were robbed, stolen, lost, or became impure, he brings others in their stead. One is not liable for a fifth for the replacements159. If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration160. 582 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE imaw .rpin ιπ> οίοΐ'ψ "ΐπιηηκι ι»η Νΐηψ p^pi Ν ηιν»

"ΙΓπηπΝΐ n»n Νΐηψ ΤΏ^Ρ "Μ τρο^ * η1? TO*!* nisa rpyjio

•ΠΉΓΙ ON>:P\J> Ί)>

Mishnah 9: From where that he is responsible for them until he delivers them to the ? Because it is said (Deut. 26:3): "The beginning of the First Fruits of your land you shall bring to the Temple of the Eternal, your God, etc." This teaches that he is responsible for them until be delivers them to the Temple Mount.

159 But the original First Fruits go 160 Since delivering the basket of under the rules of heave (Mishnah 2:1, fruits to the Cohen to be set down near

Note 150) and the replacement has to the altar is necessary; cf. Note 122. be 125% of the original.

>51 p •»ari'} .nriiN niiw n>n> own tjnv >5-1 -iön :» na^fl (foi. 64b)

>51 .\ypin ·ρι»η ν* σοψ .ήνρψ own iioiN rmn> γι ήνρψ

DD .pwn ρ vnpib .join 11 own pns? :n i? ί?ϊοηψ

"p^i^ri VN .onwafi nw^D iN οηο>3η .ή!? iiv

Vi^n oni3>an "p^iyri ν* •'N^'TD IP Viw? onis^n

Halakhah 10: Rebbi Johanan said, I am stating this as the opinion of a single individuum161. It was stated thus: "Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For the replacement one is not obligated for a fifth." Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of : The replacement one even buys on the market. How do you treat these? As addition of First Fruits or adornment of First Fruits162? If you treat them as addition to First Fruits they are not under the rules of demay. If you treat them as adornment of First Fruits they are under the rules of demay163. HALAKHAH 11 583

161 Mishnah 8, formulated anon- Fruits. It is stated in Mishnah 3:10 that ymously, is the opinion only of R. with First Fruits one brought additional Simeon (ben Iohai) as stated in fruits of the same kind as additions and Tosephta 1:5. fruits of other kinds as adornments. 162 If one may buy on the market, 163 Mishnah 3:10. the replacements are not really First

-13 ·>υν o\i>3 N3piv N»n >3"! .Nnip rntjn INJOÜ?

irpri ηρ^ι .o>:>rp£ v?3V3 v>t»n onmn wpvp?

•ΤΠΟ " If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration." Rebbi Hama bar Uqba in ihe name of Rebbi Yose bar Hanina: If the First Fruits became impure164, the baskets are given to the priests165 since it is said (Deut. 26:4): "The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand."

164 But not the baskets which 165 Since it was the original intent cannot become impure in secondary or to give First Fruits in their baskets. tertiary degree.

-ΙΠΝ VÖÖ N>3rV) ">tC0 Nip"! "TIW Ν>3Πψ η.Γ) :U TlJVtt (fol. 63c)

.iOip

Mishnah 9: If he brought from one kind and made the declaration, when he comes back and brings from another kind he cannot make the declaration. 584 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

*τη» ion τττν ty ηκ .rnv >a*i!p :n> fiabn (foi. 64b) nt nrj ">08 N^Oi im·» VPP N^tw no ."T^ei

>).rj .ποΏ^ι rnoN-; .ρ >Nnv i? "pypw ^π »an -ιι?κ .Νΐ.ίρ ύ^κ

.nnpwn Ίκ>ίκ

Halakhah 11: For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Jehudah. Even though Rebbi Jehudah said, he declares and he166 declares again, but if he brought from one kind and made the declaration, when he comes back and brings from another kind he cannot make the declaration. Rebbi

Jonathan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai stated this: (Deut. 26:5) "You shall say", (Deut. 26:11) "you shall enjoy"; you have to say it while you enjoy167.

166 Another person; cf. Mishnah 7, concludes from Deut 26:11 that the

Halakhah 9. (first) presentation of First Fruits

167 And a repeat performance is not requires a family sacrifice to provide a the same as the first. The Sifry (#301) meat meal (cf. Mishnah 3:3).

ny:^« ,λπο "TV"! rn^n 1» V"PP1 VN>i>pi p-pp tern :» njwa (foi. 63c) iiyoi >JiHP!» niionn ι» οηηιψ ni*van ·)» o^'ön

ΓΟ'Νψ τη»!? -ayo onm pis>n>? vi< 'Pi' ^Ί

.yyin i!?n mt Τ TT - τ Mishnah 10: For the following one makes the declaration, one brings and makes the declaration between Pentecost and Tabernacles: From the

Seven Kinds168, from produce of the hills, from dates in the valleys169, from oil olives170, and from Transjordan. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not bring from Transjordan since it is not a Land f lowing with milk and honey. Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 12 585

168 Deut. 8:8-9; cf. Berakhot 6, Note 169 Only these produce date honey. 151. Only fruits mentioned in these 170 These usually are larger than verses qualify as First Fruits. eating olives.

>a-) rov >ai "|a ήν>?Ψ 'an 'Pi''51 ^frn (foi. 64b) a!?n rm in in l'-ps'*!? -ήρη -m'n b'ö ivyy nww .ni>?D 'an cwa 1N)o .·ρπ3>η rp'ii-ηψ ·)'>'* ΉβΡΙ IN» roi' 'an .vmi DoiNi a'jp ΝΠ"! .nop 'a-i> va'r»? ."pn?'» nie?'? ri^a Νίπ ττρ>?ϊ -im .«mi a!?n rm nan-p naio yw on^o '3^» dd^n n>jiN .\ya71 a!?n na* na yw

Halakhah 12: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeira in the name of Rebbi Hanina: Sixteen mil in a circle around is the Land flowing with milk and honey171. Rebbi Jonah said, if one measures as the crow flies172, the outskirts of Beth Shean belong to it. If one measures as the crow flies, the valley of Genezareth belongs to it. One objected to Rebbi Jonah: (Ex. 3:17) "I said, I shall lift you from the deprivation of Egypt" (Ex. 3:8) "into a good and wide land, [to] a land flowing with milk and honey"!173 He said to them, which contains [stretches of] milk and honey.

171 In the Babli ( 111b), a as πρ». The root is "πρ "to cut square of side 16 mil centered at through". The idea is that one is Sepphoris (in the name of R. Simeon measuring as if tunneling through a ben Laqish). A phantastic tale of mountain by lifting the measuring rod Rabba bar bar Hana puts the size of so that it is always horizontal (Babli the country flowing with milk and Erubin 58b). honey at 22 parasangs (88 mil) square. 173 This seems to imply that the The mil is 2000 average cubits; cf. entire is flowing with Berakhot 3, Note 235. milk and honey. 172 In Babylonian texts, this appears 586 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE

^n piN >1*1 -ιρκ ."prp;)>3 ^ Ν!? .>> >riro Ί^Ν: "»ari

wxyn y03$ Mi»! >> "»3ΊΤΊ3 ΊψΝΙ ΊΝ0 ."prPiri Πψ3>? O^W

π3·>Ν ρ vmi a^n nit ιηκτ IN»

.will ^ γικ

It was stated: (Deut. 26:10) "Which You gave me", not what I took by myself.174 About what do they differ175? Rebbi Abun said, half of the tribe of Manasse176. If one says, "which You gave me, not what I took by myself," half the tribe of Manasse did not take by themselves. If one says,

(Deut. 26:10) "a Land of milk and honey," nevertheless it is not a land of milk and honey.

174 The Sifry (#301) takes this as boundaries of promise. basis to exclude guardians, etc. (Mish- 175 The anonymous majority and R. nah 5) from the right to declaration. Yose the Galilean.

For the Tanna here, the verse excludes 176 The tribes of Reuben and Gad produce from "Syria", from territories were sheep herders, not farmers. conquered by David outside the

ran .Kiip·) N>in i*v:in>y" rprii rml?>N πν^ψ niipn :h> nwa (foi. 63c)

-iniN rmn> >2*1 .κιίρ") n'm ivp"!pi "i^n rop .ουψ iöin

•V"PP! PNU»? imiDn) rwnyi ηκ

Mishnah 11: He who buys three trees in another's property, brings, and makes the declaration; Rebbi Mei'r says even for two177. He who buys a tree and its ground178 brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Jehudah says, even sharecroppers and tenant farmers bring and read179. Η AL ΑΚΗ AH 13 587

177 Cf. Note 131. the tree with a circular domain of 178 By a contract which explicitly radius 16 cubits which can be assumed states that the ground is sold with the to contain all roots of the tree. tree. In the Babli, Baba Batra 27a, this 179 He disagrees with the anon- is restricted to the case that he bought ymous Mishnah 2.

in rnv .p^up I^n niiN ^ria nton :»» na^ti (foi. 64b)

Halakhah 13: It was stated: Hereditary tenant farmers180 do not bring; Rebbi Jehudah says, they themselves bring and make the declaration.

180 They and their descendants property if they pay their rent on time, have the permanent right to farm the

ν>π riiiN niom ,^ην own n»n >ξπ ττννΐ >5*1

ήΐΓ) .rm^n Ν>Π ni-iiDm ητρηκ 130^ ^ 'P?

PIN? κη Ν>Π jivrtam m»pnNi ")N>? »V? oinyi? -lioni obiy!? onio nd .nyvy!? -liDm nyvyb cnio .ν'!? -liDni τ τ: τ : ·τ: τ "τ τ : τ : ^ τ : ·τ: τ ν

-liDmτ ! ol?iy!τ ?; trni• τ o: · -: pn'τ τ v >· n ow·· n: ri"τ n ί· ι νιτ m νγιτ ντ ,ν>ι• ·»• .nrpDrw ν τι rrniDni m»t»-iN ,πβ!? .νίο wn o!?iy!? τ · : - τ : .._... »E. - . τ τ ... .. τ . Rebbi Zeira, Rebbi Hiyya, in the name of Rebbi Johanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers181. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Johanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights182. They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants183. About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer184; therefore a permanent sharecropper or 588 BIKKURIM CHAPTER ONE tenant farmer might bring185. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Hiyya came in the name of Rebbi Johanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights186.

181 Even these may not bring First might agree that hereditary tenants Fruits according to the rabbis. may bring First Fruits. 182 It is not clear at this moment 183 Who may be terminated at will whether the farming rights are by the landlord. permanent, and there is no difference 184 In this interpretation, farming in meaning between the statements of rights for a limited time are treated as R. Ze'ira and R. Hila, or whether the nonexistent for the question of First rights are limited in time but the Fruits. contract cannot be terminated by the 185 Even according to the rabbis. landlord before its expiration date. In 186 Of any kind. the second interpretation, the rabbis