Tameh Bikkurim

Bikurim (1:8) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

The Mishnah (1:8) teaches that if bikkurim was stolen, spoiled or became tameh prior to them reaching the Beit HaMikdash, the owner is responsible to bring a replacement. That replacement is halachically different to the original. If a non-kohen ate it, he would not be required to pay back the extra chomesh. Also, when bringing this replacement, the owner would not recite the mikra bikkurim.

The Mishnah continues that if however, the bikkurim became tameh in the azarah (Temple courtyard), then the owner simply scatters them there. The Mahara Fulda explains that this is to demonstrate that the kohanim are forbidden to consume these tameh bikkurim.

The Tosfot Yom Tov notes, that we learn in the next Mishnah that one does not need to bring a replacement if it reached Har HaBayit (Temple mount) before it became tameh. Why then does our Mishnah appear to suggest that it is only if it reached the azara, that he scatters the bikkurim there and he has satisfied his obligation? The Tosfot Yom Tov suggest that the Mishnah is stressing that even if the bikkurim reached the azara before becoming tameh, the owner is not able to recite the mikra bikkurim.

The Mishnah Achrona provides a different answer. He cites the Rambam who explains that placing the bikkurim in the azara is me'akev. In other words, it is a necessary step and if the kohen consumes the bikkurim prior to them being placed in the azara, he would be liable to lashes. The Mishnah is therefore teaching that if the bikkurim reached the azara before becoming tameh, then the mitzvah place them on the floor of the azara still exists. The Mishnah teaches that it is fulfilled by simply scattering them on the floor. If however they became tameh after reaching Har HaBayit prior to reaching the azara, then they could simply be taken home. That is because one would not be allowed to bring tameh bikkurim into the azarah to fulfill the mitzvah of hanacha.

What happens to the bikkurim after they are scattered on the floor? The Raavad (Bikkurim 4:10) explains that they are left there until the food spoils.

The Aruch HaShulchan (Bikkurim 141:13) however finds the Raavad difficult. Firstly, what is stopping the bikkurim for being burnt like all other kodshim that become tameh in the azara? Furthermore, why are they allowed to remain in the azara? Generally anything tameh must be removed.

The Aruch HaShulchan continues that if the tumah was rabbinic, then we could explain that the bikkurim are then removed and we wait for them to spoil. They cannot immediately be burnt since on a biblical level the bikkurim are tahor and are not allowed to be burnt. This suggestion however does not explain the Raavad.

The Derech Emunah (4:11, Biur Halacha) however explains that with the Raavad's position we can understand a Sifri. The Sifri (Ki Tavo) explains that since the Torah writes "vehinachto lifnei ha'mizbeach" -- [the bikkurim] are placed before the mizbeach -- we learn that the mitzvah of bikkurim is dependent on the existence of the mizbeach. Without the mizbeach, e.g. today, one cannot fulfil the mitzvah of bikkurim. The Sifri continues that "from here we learn" that if the bikkurim are stolen or lost one is obligated to bring a replacement. Also, that if they become tameh in the azara one scatters the bikkurim there. The mefarshim however grapple with the expression "from here we learn". What does our Mishnah have to do with the passuk with which the Sifra opens?

The Derech Emunah explains that according to the Raavad the Sifri is readily understood. The fact that the tameh bikkurim are scattered in the azara and must be left there is learnt from "ve'hinachto". In other words, there is a mitzvah to place the bikkurim in the azara until the kohen takes them. If however the kohan cannot, as in our case where they are tameh, they must continue to be there until they spoil.

Download