What are the implications of "Kol Tahor be'Veischa Yochlenu"?
Yerushalmi Yevamos, 9:5: It implies that only members of the Kohen's household are permitted to eat Bikurim, but not a woman to whom he is betrothed - who has not yet 'entered his house' 1 - from eating Terumah.
See Torah Temimah, note 45, who cites others - such as a Shomeres Yavam of a Kohen, who canot eat Bikurim, and elaborates.
Why does the Torah not oincorporate this Din together with with the Moram min ha'Todah, Shelamim and Eil Nazir in Pasuk 11?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because of the one difference between them - a Bas Kohen whose Yisrael husband dies leaving her without children, who returns to her father's house to eat Terumah, but not Chazeh ve'Shok.
The Sifri includes the betrothed of a Kohen from "Kol Tahor be'Veischa." Why in Kidushin 5a, does Ula learn it from "Kinyan Kaspo" (Vayikra 22:11)?
Refer to Vayikra 22:11:151:1 and notes.
What are the connotations of "Bikurei Kol asher be'Artzam"?
Moshav Zekenim (in Devarim 26:2, citing Sifri Zuta): It teaches us that one is permitted to declare one's entire field Bikurim, even though the Torah wrote "Reishis Bikurei Admascha."
Ibn Ezra: It includes Bikurim of everything that grows from the ground. 1
B'chor Shor and Da'as Zekenim: "Kol" refers to Bikurim from all seven species.
Sifri 117 and Yerushalmi Bikurim, 2:3: It teaches us that Bikurim take effect whilst the fruit is attached. 2
Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that the fruit of all fruit-trees is subject to Bikurim.
Menachos 84b #2: It teaches us via a Gezeirah Shavah "Bikurei" "Bikurei" from "ve'Chag Shavu'os Ta'aseh l'cha Bikurei K'tzir Chitim" in Ki Sissa Sh'mos, 34:22 that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem must precede Menachos brought from any new grain, even what grew on a roof, in a ruin ? . 3
Menachos 84b #1: It includes things that grow on the roof, in a ruin or a flowerpot, or on a boat. 4 .
Chulin, 136a: "be'Artzam" teaches us that a field belonging to partners is subject to Bikurim. 5
As opposed to Chazal, who learn that it is only from the seven species! The Ibn Ezra said in his introduction that the simple meaning does not depart due to Midrashim and that both of them are correct. See also Targum Yonasan and Na'ar Yonasan.
See Torah Temimah, note 42.
See Torah Temimah, note 41.
This follows the opinion that Bikurim may be brought from inferior produce.
See Torah Temimah, note 44.
Sifri Zuta extrapolates from here that one may make his entire field Bikurim. Why is this different than Terumah, where if one makes his entire granary Terumah, it does not take effect (since "Reishis" implies that its remainder is Discernable - Chulin 136b?
Refer to 18:13:152:1. 1
Moshav Zekenim (Devarim 26:2): We expound regarding Terumah, for even without Reishis there was no Havah Amina that one must give the entire crop to the Kohen. If so, from what will he separate Ma'aser?! However, one might have thought that all the first fruits to ripen, he must make them Bikurim.
At one point, Moshav Zekenim left this difficult, even though he said previously that we learn from "Kol"! Perhaps he asks why we do not learn Terumah from Bikurim. Indeed, some say that we learn Terumah from Chalah (refer to 15:21:151:1,2 and the note there); why do they learn from Chalah, and not from Bikurim? ? PF)
