Previous daf

1)

(a) We have already discussed the Din in our Mishnah, that if Shimon purchases two trees in Reuven's field, he does not acquire the ground in which they are growing. The basic ramifications of this Halachah are - that when the trees die, he does not have the right to replace them.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir - Shimon acquires the ground, too.

(c) The Tana draws a distinction between what grows from the shoots - which belongs to Shimon, and what grows from the roots - which belongs to Reuven (though the exact definition of shoots and roots will be discussed later).

(a) The basic difference between the previous case and one where the sale involves three trees is - that, in the latter case, Shimon acquires the ground from which the trees are growing.

(b) The owner of whatever grows from ...

1. ... the shoots will then be - Shimon.
2. ... the roots will be - Shimon, too.

(c) When Shimon buys three trees, Reuven is permitted to cut down the branches that proliferate and hang over his field, since the shade is harmful to the field (assuming that it is a Beis ha'Shalachin, that is watered manually). He may not however, do so, if Shimon only acquired two trees, since there, he is Mashabed his field towards Shimon's requirements vis-a-vis his trees.

(d) Shimon's major advantage in buying three trees is - the fact that if any of his trees die, he is permitted to replace them.

(a) The Tana Kama says in the Mishnah in Bikurim, that someone who purchases two trees in his friend's field, brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah - because the Torah writes in Ki Savo "P'ri ha'Adamah Asher Nasata Li, Hashem"?

(b) Rebbi Meir holds - 'Mien ve'Korei' (he reads the Parshah too (in keeping with his ruling in our Mishnah).

(c) With regard to someone who purchases one tree, Rebbi Meir will hold - Meivi ve'Eino Korei' (like the Rabbanan hold by two).

(d) This is not however, what Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says. In his opinion - Rebbi Meir obligates even someone who buys fruit in the market to bring Bikurim and read the Parshah.

(a) Rav bases his previous statement on the Mishnah in Bikurim - which in light of our Mishnah, is obvious and therefore superfluous.

(b) According to Rebbi Meir then, the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asher Tavi me'Artz'cha' - comes to preclude fruit that grows in Chutz la'Aretz from Bikurim.
2. ... "Admascha" - comes to preclude fruit that one purchased from a Nochri who owns land in Eretz Yisrael.
3. ... "Asher Nasata Li, Hashem" - refers simply to the money that Hashem gave the reciter with which to buy the fruit.

(c) In fact, the word "Admascha" appears in Mishpatim too, in connection with Bikurim. From the second Pasuk - we preclude from Bikurim fruit that one buys from a Ger.

(d) A Ger - brings Bikurim from fruit that grows from his field, though he does not read the Parshah (since he is unable to say "Asher Nishba la'Avoseinu La'ses Lanu").

6)

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rebbi Elazar - why the Tana ruled '*Meivi* ve'Eino Korei'. Since this ruling is based in the Pasuk "Asher Tavi me'Artz'cha", why does this not preclude the Bikurim from even being brought?

(b) The problem - concerns Rebbi Meir in the case of one tree, and the Rabbanan in the case of two.

(c) Rebbi Elazar replied - that such questions (which even the earlier generations could not solve, only served to embarrass him, and were better left unasked.

(d) Rabah however, was not impressed by the Kashya. Perhaps, he maintained - the Tana'im were not sure whether someone who acquires one or two trees (respectively) acquired the land or not, So the Tana'im go le'Chumra, as we will explain shortly.

(a) Rabah therefore amends Rebbi Meir's statement 'L'fi she'Lo Kanah Karka' to read - 'Shema Lo Kanah Karka'.

(b) We will also then need to establish the Din of Meivi when the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh (in case it is not Bikurim) - because otherwise, since it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah, the owner would not be able to give it to the Kohen.

(c) The Isur of Chulin ba'Azarah might be de'Rabbanan. Alternatively, we might also learn it from the Pasuk (in connection with the concession of Shechting Chulin animals) "Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom ... ve'Zavachta" - from which we would Darshen 'be'Richuk Makom Atah Zove'ach, ve'Lo be'Kiruv Makom' (prohibiting the Shechitah of Chulin close to Hashem).

(d) Even though, as we just explained, the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh, the Kohen will be able to eat it - because the moment the fruit leaves the Azarah, the owner becomes obligated to redeem it again (and to give it to the Kohen in case it is Bikurim).

(a) On the other hand, the owner is obligated to give Ma'asros, in case the fruit is not Bikurim. So he separates Terumah Gedolah and gives it to the Kohen (who eats it either way [bearing in mind that Bikurim is also called Terumah). He gives ...

1. ... the Ma'aser Sheini to a Kohen, too (see Hagahos ha'Bach), and ...
2. ... the Ma'aser Ani - to a poor Kohen.

(b) There is however, a problem with Ma'aser Rishon, which must be given to a Levi. We get round this problem by establishing Rebbi and the Rabbanan respectively, like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who rules - that in the time of the second Beis-Hamikdash, Ezra penalized the Levi'im, by transferring Ma'aser Rishon to the Kohanim exclusively.

(c) Ezra's edict did not contravene the Torah, who instructed that Ma'aser be given to the Levi - since the term Levi incorporates Levi'im, as we find in twenty-four places in T'nach.

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - Ezra did not issue such a decree, and Ma'aser Rishon was given even then, to the Levi'im.

(a) We query ...

1. ... the current ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' - on the grounds that if the fruit is Bikurim, it requires K'riyah, so how is the Kohen permitted to eat it without K'riyah having been done.
2. ... the answer (that K'riyah is not Me'akev [is not crucial to the Mitzvah]) - with the principle of Rebbi Zeira ' ... Kol she'Eino ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo', which teaches us that even though K'riyah is not crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, the fruit must nevertheless be in a state where K'riy'ah could at least be performed. Otherwise, it does indeed hold back the Mitzvah.

(b) In the case of Rebbi Zeira too - Lechatchilah a Minchah requires the oil and the flour to be mixed, though the mixing is not crucial to the Mitzvah. Nevertheless, if the large quantity of flour prevents a thorough mixing with the oil from taking place in one vessel, it does indeed become crucial to the Mitzvah.

(c) A Ger also brings Bikurim without reading the Parshah, and so does someone who brings his Bikurim between Succos and Chanukah. Yet they are not subject to Rebbi Zeira's principle - because Lechatchilah, that is how the Torah requires the Bikurim to be brought.

(a) We resolve this problem with a ruling of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He absolves two cases from reading the Parshah of Bikurim; one of them is when the owner appoints a Sheli'ach to bring the Bikurim that he picked to the Beis Hamikdash, the other - when the Sheli'ach, who picked the Bikurim from the tree (and who is therefore eligible to bring it to the Beis Hamikdash), died on the way, and another Sheli'ach, or even the owner himself takes the Bikurim to the Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lakachta ... ve'Heivesa" - that the same person who picked the Bikurim from the tree, must bring it to the Beis Hamikdash.

(c) The basis for this D'rashah is - the fact that "ve'Lakachta" is superfluous?

(d) To circumvent the problem of the obligation to read the Parshah, we will establish Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan's ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' - when the owner picked the fruit but appointed a Sheli'ach to take it to the Beis Hamikdash, or vice-versa.