Kinyan Peiros for Bikkurim

By: Rabbi Avi Lebowitz

The Gemora cites the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish whether a kinyan peiros (acquiring the produce) qualifies as a kinyan ha’guf (an acquisition of the land). The Gemora has two applications of this argument. One is that if a father gifts the body of property to his son, retaining for himself the fruits for the duration of his lifetime, and the son would sell what he owns, if the father would outlive the son, then the question becomes whether the father’s retention of peiros would entitle him to take the property back from the buyer. The second application is in the context of bikkurim, whether one is able to read the parshah when they only have a kinyan peiros.

The Rashbam explains that according to Rish Lakish that kinyan peiros wouldn’t entitle someone to read the parshah is because they couldn’t say “the land which was given to me,” but they would be obligated to bring the fruits even biblically, because they are included in “that which is brought from the land.”

Tosfos rejects the Rashbam’s explanation because if they aren’t included in the verse of “the land which was given to me,” they shouldn’t be included in “that which is brought from the land” either? Tosfos concludes that the entire obligation to bring the fruits according to this opinion is only rabbinic.

The Ketzos HaChoshen (257:3) answers a major question and with it explains the Rashbam.

The Gemora in Yevamos says that unless we accept Rabbi Yochanan that kinyan peiros is like kinyan ha’guf, no one would ever be able to read the parshah of bikkurim unless they come from a chain of only sons (because if there are multiple sons, we view their inheritance as purchasing from one another so they only own kinyan peiros). How then can we hold like Rish Lakish?

Tosfos in Yevamos raises this question and says that we only hold like Rish Lakish in the context of the father gifting property to the son because a father will be mochel to the son and leave over a very weak share of kinyan peiros, but in general we follow Rabbi Yochanan that a standard kinyan peiros would be like a kinyan ha’guf.

The Ketzos offers another approach. Kinyan peiros can sometimes refer to a weak ownership, but sometimes can refer to a standard ownership which expires with time. A kinyan l’zman (for a limited time) is a very powerful kinyan peiros because the “owner” can do whatever he wants, even ruin the field; just that his ownership will expire, whereas a true kinyan peiros cannot ruin the field. One who owns a field until Yovel is considered to have a “kinyan peiros,” but it is a very strong kinyan peiros which would enable him to even read the bikkurim because it is like a kinyan ha’guf until it expires. But, when one only has a kinyan peiros, they cannot read the parshah of bikkurim.

The Rosh in a teshuvah quotes Rabbeinu Avigdor who says that one, who has a lulav for kinyan peiros, namely only to fulfill the mitzvah, cannot fulfill the mitzvah since it doesn’t qualify as “lachem” (being his). But if they have a gift which was given on the condition that it should be returned, it is like a kinyan ha’guf that expires and they can fulfill their obligation with it. Therefore, one who has a kinyan ha’guf on a field that will expire, such as a purchased field that will return with Yovel, qualifies as “that which is brought from the land” because for the time being, when he brings the bikkurim, he “owns” the land (similar to the requirement of “lechem,” which is fulfilled by a kinyan ha’guf that will expire). But, the requirement for reading the parshah is “the land which was given to me,” which means it is his forever, which is not the case, so he cannot read the parshah.

It seems based on the Ketzos that the distinction between the two verses is that one can consider a land which he is now an owner but his ownership will expire, to be “your land” since it is not his. But, from the perspective of the giver, it is not a “land that Hashem gave me,” because it was only given temporarily.

Read more!

Halachos regarding Bikkurim

Bringing Bikkurim and not Reciting

Bikkurim are the first fruits (of the seven species), which ripen. One brought to them to the Bais Hamikdash, and part of the procedure was to recite a few verses of thanksgiving (mentioned in Parshas Ki Savo). However in certain instances, one would bring the bikkurim, but not recite the verses, since there are parts of those verses which do not apply to him.

1) Women, tumtum and androiganus – for they can’t recite “I am bringing the first fruits of the land which you gave me”, since only men received the land.
2) One who buys two trees within another’s field – since we are unsure if the two trees entitle him to the ground as well, therefore, he brings bikkurim since it may well be that he has land, however he does not recite, because maybe he does not own land.
3) One who separated bikkurim and then sold his land – since he does not own land at the time of the recital. The buyer does not have to separate bikkurim again, however if he did, then he too, brings but does not recite. This only applies if he separated again from the same species, but if it was from a different species, then he does recite (because in regard to this species it’s the first fruits).
4) One who buys a field for its fruits, meaning he’s only entitled to the fruits, not the land – since he has does not own land.
5) One who separated bikkurim and then became dangerously ill, the one who will be his heir, brings and does not recite – since the one that separates must ideally bring it (V’lakachta Uvasa).
6) One who separated and then sent a shliach, even if the shliach dies and he himself ends up bringing it, he does not recite – since the one who separates it is supposed to bring it.
7) One who separated and then lost it before he reached Har Habayis, reseparates and does not recite – since it’s not the first fruits.
8) One who brought bikkurim to the Azarah, and then it became tamei, does not recite.
9) One who brought bikkurim twice, the second time he does not recite, even if it’s the first fruits of a different species.
10) One who brought bikkurim from Sukos to Chanukah, does not recite.

Read more!

WHERE TO STOP AND START

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Sotah 32a) lists statements that must be made in Hebrew. One of them is the bikkurim (the first ripe fruits which had to be brought to the Beis Hamikdosh in Yerushalayim) recitation. When he brings the fruits to the Beis Hamikdosh to be given to the Kohanim, he recites several verses from Devarim. Rashi writes that he says the verse beginning with Arami oved avi, An Aramean tried to destroy my father [Devarim 26:5], and he continues until the end of the passage.

In truth, however, he does not complete the entire passage. As a matter of fact, he stops in middle of verse 10, when he says asher nasatah li Hashem, that You have given me, Hashem. The Rambam in Hilchos Bikurim states this explicitly.

The commentators ask that the last words of this recital conclude in middle of a verse and this is against the dictum of stopping in a place that Moshe did not stop. The Gemora Brochos (12b) rules that any place in the Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu did not pause; we are forbidden to pause as well. How could they institute to stop the recital in middle of a verse?

Reb Yaakov Kaminetzky in his sefer Emes L’Yaakov in Parshas Ki Savo answers that this ruling does not apply by mitzvos, such as bikkurim. It is only a concern when verses are being recited because of Torah.

There are other examples where this principle may be applicable. The Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (31a) discusses the hymns that were recited by the Levites in the Beis Hamikdosh on Shabbos. The Gemora concludes that they would divide Parshas Haazinu into six segments, and one segment was recited each week by the korban mussaf.

The Turei Even asks from the aforementioned Gemora in Brochos. How were the Leviim permitted to stop in places that Moshe did not stop? He answers that since they intended to complete it the next week, it is not regarded as interrupting the portion (even though there will be different Leviim the next week). According to Reb Yaakov, we can suggest that the hymns of the Leviim were not being sung as Torah; but rather, as a part of the mitzvah of the bringing of korbanos. They therefore were permitted to stop and start in the Torah, even in the middle of a passage.

Magan Avrohom (O”C 282) asks this question as well, inquiring into different verses from the Torah that we recite during tefillah which are incomplete. He also answers that we only apply the principle that one cannot interrupt in middle of a verse when one is engaged in Torah study or reading from the Torah. If, however, one is reciting verses for the purpose of prayer or mitzvah observance, there is no prohibition of interrupting in middle of a verse.

Rav Nosson Grossman states that perhaps through this principle, we can answer the Turei Even’s question. The Leviim are not reciting these pesukim as Torah, rather they are being said on account of shirah, song, and therefore it will not be subject to the prohibition of stopping in an incorrect place. However, it would seem evident that the Magen Avrohom will not concur with this, since he states that principle, and nevertheless, does not apply it to the Leviim’s shirah.

It would seem that many other Acharonim do not agree with this qualification of that rule. The tefillah which is recited when the Sefer Torah is raised in shul is a combination of two different verses. There are those who stop after saying, “lifnei B’nei Yisroel,” for the next part (al pi Hashem b’yad Moshe) is not a complete verse. This reason is brought in the name of Reb Chaim Volozhiner. Once again, according to the qualification mentioned above, we could have explained that there is no concern during tefillah; it is only when we are reciting Torah for the sake of Torah where the dictum applies.

The Chasam Sofer in his Teshuvos (O”C 10) discusses why during kiddush, do we begin with the verse, Va’yehi erev va’yehi boker,” when that is the middle of a verse in the Torah. He explains that the first part of the verse has a reference to “death,” and we did not want that alluded to during kiddush. It is evident that the Chasam Sofer as well did not concur with this qualification.

Read more!

PRINTER’S MISTAKE IN RASHI - Yevamos 74 - Daf Yomi

The Gemora had stated that the mitzvah of terumah and bikkurim apply during all years of the Shemitah cycle, whereas maaser sheini is separated only in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the cycle.

It would seem from the language of Rashi that terumah and bikkurim operate only during the six years of the Shemitah cycle, but not during Shemitah itself. The Meiri explicitly states like this. The Commentators explain the reasoning for this: During Shemitah, the produce from the fields is regarded as ownerless; how can there be an obligation to bring your first fruits to the Beis Hamikdosh. Furthermore, you would not be able to recite the verses that you are thankful for the land which was given to me. The Avnei Neizer (Y”D 445) writes that perhaps it can be recited. Since presently, these fruits are his, he can say that the land is his as well.

Rashi, in his commentary to Chumash (23:19) writes: The choicest of the first fruits of your soil Even in the seventh year, the offering of bikkurim is obligatory. The Mizrachi, Maharal and Sifsei Chachamim all state that this must be a printers mistake.

I noticed the following discussion in the Meorot HaDaf Hayomi weekly newsletter.

The Torah commands us to take the first fruit of the seven species, and bring them to the Beis HaMikdash during the period between Shavuos and Sukkos: “And you will take of the first fruits of the earth, that you will bring from the land that Hashem your G-d has given you. You will put them in a basket and bring them to the place Hashem your G-d has chosen to rest His Name upon” (Devarim 26:2). May we merit that the Beis HaMikdash soon be rebuilt, enabling us to fulfill this mitzva this very year.

Your land: The commandment of bikkurim involves bringing the first fruit that grow from our own land - “From the land that Hashem your G-d has given you.” We need not bring bikkurim from ownerless trees. Th¬e Or HaChaim takes this one step further. On Shmitta year, we are commanded to disown our fields and their produce, allowing people and animals to enter freely and help themselves to the fruit. As such, he rules that there is no mitzva of bikkurim on Shmitta, since the produce of the land is not ours for that year.

Rashi’s opinion: ¬The Minchas Chinuch (91:2) cites the Or HaChaim, and notes that not only do the Rambam and Sefer HaChinuch imply that one must bring bikkurim on Shmitta, Rashi in his commentary to the Chumash rules explicitly so. On the words, “th¬e first fruit of the land” (Shemos 23:19), Rashi writes that even on the seventh year we must bring bikkurim. Although the Minchas Chinuch did not find a previous source, Rashi must have based himself on some ruling of the Sages (the Chazon Ish explains how Rashi learned this from the Mechilta).

However, the classic commentaries on Rashi insist that this version of Rashi must be a misprint. How could Rashi reconcile this, with the possuk that requires us to say when bringing bikkurim, “I have brought the first fruit of the land You have given me, Hashem” (Devarim 26:10)? If the land is not ours, how can we say this possuk? Furthermore, in our sugya Rashi seems to imply that we do not bring bikkurim on Shmitta (Rashi 74a, s.v. V’nohagin).

Despite these questions, the Tashbatz (II, 247) writes that there is no misprint in Rashi’s commentary to Chumash. According to him, Rashi indeed holds that we must bring bikkurim on Shmittta.

Fruit that matured before Shmitta: ¬The Chazon Ish (Orla 11, s.k. 18) explains that Rashi refers to fruit that had blossomed (chanata) in the sixth year, and were harvested in the seventh. Th¬ese fruit do not have the sanctity of Shmitta. They belong to the field’s owner, who is obligated to offer from them bikkurim. One might have thought that the mitzva of bikkurim is entirely suspended during Shmitta, even for those fruit that blossomed previously. ¬The Torah tells us that we bring the bikkurim in the season when we rejoice over the harvest (from Shavuos to Sukkos). In Shmitta there is no general harvest. Rashi comes to teach us that nonetheless, we still must bring bikkurim from the fruit that blossomed in the previous year (see also commentary on Minchas Chinuch, Machon Yerushalayim publication, note 3).

Read more!