Separating Bikkurim

Bikurim (3:1) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

The third perek of Bikkurim discusses the mitzvah of bikkurim from its designation to its presentation in the Beit HaMikdash. When describing the separation, the Mishnah records a debate. The Chachamim maintain that once the first fruits are visible, one declares that they are bikkurim, and ties a reed around them. The Bartenura notes that the declaration can be made even if the fruit have not developed enough to be defined as fruit -- a pri. The reasons is that one declares "behold I have brought the first of my fruit" implying that the requirement that the bikkurim be fully developed fruit, is only from the time that they are brought and not when designated. R' Shimon however argues that "nonetheless, one must again declare that they are bikkurim after the fruit is detached from the tree." We shall try to understand the position of R' Shimon.

The Bartenura explains that since the Torah states that you should "take from the first of the fruits of your land", he understands that even at the time of designation it must be a fruit and detached, much like when it is brought.

The Tosfot Yom Tov however finds the Bartenura difficult. Why does the word "fruit" imply that it is detached? If the fruit has fully ripened, it is defined as a pri, even if it still attached.

The Tosfot Anshei Shem therefore understand that R' Shimon only requires that the fruit are defined as a pri but not that they also be detached. Why does the Mishnah write that R' Shimon requires the declaration after they are detached? That is simply because in general once the fruit has ripened, one picks them immediately.

The Tosfot Anshei Shem points to the Mishnah learnt in the previous perek as proof. The Mishnah (2:4) contrasted bikkurim with terumah and maaser. One difference was that the bikkurim could be designated whilst still attached to the ground. Importantly, neither the Mishnah nor the Gemara record that R' Yehuda disagrees. This then supports the Tosfot Anshei Shem's understanding the R' Shimon requires the fruit be a pri at the time of designation, but not that they be detatched.¹

The difficulty with this understanding is that the Yerushalmi explains that according to R' Shimon, if one did not designate the fruit as bikkurim after they were dettached then they are not bikkurim. If a non kohen consumes them, he is not liable to pay chomesh; if it is mixed with less than one hundred times chulin the mixture is not medumah; if they are consumed outside Yerushalmi one is not liable to lashes.

In R' Chaim's commentary on the Yerushalmi, he explains that this means that they are not bikkurim at all, if the designation was made whilst attached. This is despite the simple reading of the Mishnah implying that R' Shimon only requires an additional designation, not that the first whist attached was meaningless.

The Griz (Temurah 4a) however understand the Yerushalmi differently. Much like the Tosfot Anshei Shem explained above, everyone agrees that designating fruit as bikkurim whilst attached is significant. According to R' Shimon however that is only enough to satisfy the requirement of hafrasha. In other words, it is sufficient for the field to have satisfied the requirement of separating bikkurim even if they were attached at the time. Furthermore, since hafrasha has been performed, one will violate the prohibition of baal te'acher, if delaying in bringing the bikkurim. However, when detached, R' Shimon requires the declaration again for the laws of bikkurim to apply to that fruit. This understanding explains why the Yerushalmi enumerates the laws that do not apply to the fruit according to R' Shimon, if a second declaration was not made after the fruit was detached, rather than just stating that the original declaration was meaningles and the fruit is chulin. Again, the reason is that R' Shimon agrees that the first declaration was significant for hafrasha but not enough for all the laws of bikkurim to apply to the fruit.

¹ To understand the Bartenura the Tosfot Anshei Shem explains that he does not learn it from the word pri, but rather from the Torah connecting lekicha (that taking) and the havaah (bringing).

Download