QUESTION: The Gemara earlier (end of 84a) cites a Mishnah which states that the obligation to bring Bikurim applies only to the seven species of produce for which Eretz Yisrael is praised. The Mishnah adds that one may not bring Bikurim from dates which grew in the mountains or in the valleys. RASHI (84b, DH mi'Temarim) explains that dates and other fruits that grow in the mountains and valleys are not choice fruits, because only weak produce grows in those regions.

Ula says (84b) that even if one brings Bikurim from fruit that grew in the mountains or valleys, that fruit does not acquire the sanctity of Bikurim. Rav Acha bar Huna (see SHITAH MEKUBETZES #2) disagrees and maintains that if one brings such Bikurim, the fruit does acquire the sanctity of Bikurim, b'Di'eved.

The Gemara later says that the dispute between Ula and Rav Acha bar Huna is reflected in a dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish; Rebbi Yochanan expresses the view of Ula, and Reish Lakish expresses the view of Rav Acha.

The Gemara later cites two Beraisos from which it questions the view of Rebbi Yochanan. The first Beraisa states that fruit that grows on a roof, in a ruin, in a pot, or in a ship may be brought as Bikurim, and the Parshah of Bikurim is recited. The second Beraisa states that in all of these cases one brings the fruit to the Beis ha'Mikdash but does not recite the Parshah of Bikurim ("Mevi v'Eino Korei"). The Gemara (85a) asks that these Beraisos present a difficulty to Rebbi Yochanan, since both Beraisos agree that one at least may bring the Bikurim. This contradicts Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that even if one brings Bikurim, the fruit does not become sanctified.

The Gemara answers that this issue is subject to a dispute among Tana'im, and Rebbi Yochanan follows the view of a third Beraisa. The third Beraisa says that one may not bring Bikurim at all from produce grown in a pot or ship.

Rashi (DH Tenai) explains that the Tana of the third Beraisa similarly maintains that one may not bring Bikurim from fruit that grew in the mountains or valleys. This Tana is the opinion which Rebbi Yochanan follows.

TOSFOS (DH Tenai) asks that Rebbi Yochanan's position still does not seem to be resolved. The third Beraisa states that one may bring Bikurim from fruit grown on a roof and in a ruin. According to Rebbi Yochanan, what is the difference between fruit that grew in the mountains and valleys, which does not become sanctified, and between fruit that grew on a roof or in a ruin, which is obligated in Bikurim according to all three Beraisos?

ANSWER: The MAHARI KURKUS (Hilchos Bikurim 2:9) answers this question based on the words of the RAMBAM. The Rambam (Hilchos Bikurim ibid.) writes that one may not bring Bikurim from fruit that grew in a pot or on a ship, because the verse says that Bikurim is brought only from what grows "in their land" (Bamidbar 18:13). A potted plant or ship is not considered "land." The Rambam, however, rules that one does bring Bikurim from fruit that grows on a roof or in a ruin.

The Mahari Kurkus explains that when the Gemara says that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with the Beraisa that one may not bring Bikurim from produce grown in a pot or ship, it means that whether or not the pot or ship has a hole, one may not bring Bikurim from there. Also, whether the pot and ship are made of wood or earthenware, the fruit that grows there is not subject to the obligation of Bikurim. This is because the fruit grown in the pot or ship is similar to dates from the mountains and fruit from the valleys, which are not subject to the obligation of Bikurim at all, according to Rebbi Yochanan who derives from the words "from your land" that only choice fruits may be brought as Bikurim.

In contrast, fruit grown on a roof or in a ruin is considered "from your land" and therefore are subject to the obligation of Bikurim. The Gemara's question is not from the case of fruit grown on a roof or a ruin, since such fruit is of much higher quality than fruit grown in a pot or ship. The Gemara discusses fruit grown on a roof or a ruin because those cases are discussed together with the cases of fruit grown in a pot or ship (and one Beraisa indeed states that they share the same law).

Accordingly, the Mahari Kurkus refutes the proof of Tosfos (85a, DH Tana) that a roof and ruin have the same law as a pot and ship. Tosfos' proof is from the Gemara (84b) that challenges the view of Ula, who says that fruit brought as Bikurim from the mountains or valleys does not become sanctified. The Gemara questions Ula's opinion from a Beraisa which derives from the verse, "The Bikurim of everything which is in their land" (Bamidbar 18:13), that fruit from a roof, ruin, pot, or ship is valid for Bikurim. According to the Beraisa, they all have the same law. However, the Mahari Kurkus asserts that here, too, the Gemara's question on Ula is only from the case of the roof and the ruin, and not from the case of the pot and the ship. Therefore, there is no proof that the Gemara was not aware from the outset that the law is different from fruit from a roof or ruin, as such fruit is of higher quality. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Midos (2:5) that states that any piece of wood in which a worm is found may not be burned on the Mizbe'ach. Shmuel says that the Mishnah refers only to moist wood. If the wood is dry, one may scrape away the affected area, and the wood may be used. RASHI (DH Ela) explains that when the wood is moist, it is not possible to scrape away the wormy area the same way in which dry wood can be scraped.

Why is scraping ineffective for moist wood? After all, once one has scraped away the wormy area, the blemish is no longer present, in precisely the same way that it is no longer present when one scrapes it away from the dry wood.

ANSWER: The CHAZON ISH (Menachos 42:25) answers that the statement of the Gemara here is comparable to the statement of Rebbi Elazar ben Shamu'a earlier (22a), who says that wood which has been used by an individual may not be brought upon the Mizbe'ach. Just as used wood is invalid, wood that became unfit because of worm infestation, and a significant amount of work was necessary in order to remove the wormy area, remains invalid from use on the Mizbe'ach.

However, the Chazon Ish asks another question based on the fact that wood which had worms when it was moist remains invalid even when it becomes dry. Every piece of wood that needed to have worms removed from it may have been, at one point in time, a moist piece of wood with worms, and thus it should never be able to become fit for the Mizbe'ach. Every dry, wormy piece of wood should be disqualified from use, even if the worms are removed, because of the possibility that this dry piece of wood was, at some earlier time, a moist piece of wormy wood!

The Chazon Ish answers this question based on the words of the Gemara in Bava Basra (121a). The Gemara there cites the Mishnah that states that "there were no days more festive for Yisrael than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur." Rabah and Rav Yosef explain that the reason why the fifteenth of Av is such a happy day is that it was on that day that they finished cutting wood for the Mizbe'ach. The RASHBAM there (DH mi'Nisan) explains that from Nisan until the fifteenth of Av they used to cut wood for the Mizbe'ach to last the whole year. After the fifteenth of Av, the heat of the sun was not as powerful as it had been during the summer months, and dampness remained in the wood causing the development of worms, which would result in wood that produces too much smoke when burned on the Mizbe'ach. This is why they did not cut the wood after the fifteenth of Av.

The Rashbam cites the Midrash (Eichah Rabah #33) which teaches that since any log that contains a worm is invalid for the Mizbe'ach, the period between Nisan and the fifteenth of Av was the best time to cut the wood. The Midrash implies that wood cut during this period does not develop worms.

The Chazon Ish explains that since all of the wood is cut in the hot summer season, one may assume that the wood that is cut is dry. Before the fifteenth of Av, the wood is not expected to develop worms. Nevertheless, if one does find worms in the wood that was cut before the fifteenth of Av, one may assume that the worms developed in the wood during the summer season, in which case the wood is assumed to have been dry when it become wormy. (D. BLOOM)