What are the implications of "me'Reishis Kol Pri ha'Adamah"?
Rashi: It implies that one marks the first fruit that ripens (even whilst it is still on the tree 1 - Rashi).
Seforno: It implies the choicest species of fruit - with reference to the seven species. 2
Why does the Torah add a 'Mem' at the beginning of the word "me'Reishis Kol P'ri ha'Adamah"?
Rashi: To indicate that it is only some fruits 1 - namely, the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised 2 - that are subject to Bikurim. 3
Moshav Zekenim: To teach us that someone who does not possess all seven species brings from those that he has. 4
Riva (citing the SeMaG - based on Chalah 1:6): Just as "me'Reishis Arisoseichem" - Korach Bamidbar, 15:21 - teaches us that if one declared the entire dough Chalah, or his entire granary Terumah, his declaration does not take effect, so too can we explain here that, if one declares one's entire orchard Bikurim, it does not take effect). 5
Sifri: To teach us that even one bunch of grapes and one dried fig is subject to Bikurim. 6
Rashi: As listed in Eikev, 8:8 - and which we learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Artz'cha" "Eretz" from there. Refer to 26:2:153:3. See also Torah Temimah, note 4, who elaborates, and who explains why we do not learn from "me'Reishis" that one is not permitted to declare one's field Bikurim. See also Torah Temimah, note 9.
Moshav Zekenim: How can we Darshen the 'Mem', seeing as the Torah could not have written 'Tavi Artzecha' without it? Perhaps the Torah could have written 'Tavi Peiros Artz'cha' ? without the 'Mem' PF).
Moshav Zekenim: Otherwise, based on the Gezeirah Shavah "Artz'cha" "Eretz". we would have exempted him from bringing Bikurim unless he owns all seven species.
Midrashim argue over this point. Refer to Bamidbar 18:13:152:1-6 & 18:13:153:1-2 and notes. See also Torah Temimah, note 4.
See Torah Temimah, note 5.
What is the minimum Shi'ur of Bikurim min ha'Torah?
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) words "asher Tavi"
Chulin, 102b: To teach us that, even though one is obigated to bring the fruit as it is and not liquified, if one brought grapes to the Beis-Hamikdash and made them into wine, they do not lose their status of Bikurim. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 6, that in fact, as opposed to other fruit, one may bring wine and oil as Bikurim Lechatchilah
Why does the Torah repeat the phrase "asher Hashem Alokecha Nosein lach"?
What is the significance of the basket?
Sifri: It teaches us that one is obligated to bring one's BIkurim to the Beis-Hamikdash in a receptacle. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 11.
What is the definition of "Zeis Shemen" and "D'vash" mentioned in the Pasuk in Eikev that lists the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, and which are subject to Bikurim?
Rashi: They are olives whose oil is stored up inside them, 1 and date-honey.
Moshav Zekenim, citing the Yerushalmi: Other olives emit their oil when it rains, whereas Aguri olives retain their oil [even] in the rain. See Sifsei Chachamim.
What is the significance of "Vehalachta el ha'Makom asher Yivchar Hashem ... "?
Ramban #1: It teaches us that, even though the Mitzvah of Bikurim comes into effect before the Beis-Hamikdash is built, 1 once it has been built, it is confined to the Beis-Hamikdash, and they may not be brought anywhere else. 2
Ramban #2 (citing the Sifri): " ... asher Yivchar Hashem ... " 3 comes to confine Bikurim to the Beis-Hamikdash and Mishkan Shiloh, where there was a house made of stone, but precludes Nov and Giv'on, even though a Bamah Gedolah was there, and the Torah writes in Pasuk 4, "Lifnei Mizbach Hashem ... ". 4
Sifra: The Torah inserts "Vehalachta el ha'Makom ... ' to teach us that, unil he reaches the Azarah, the owner is liable for the Bikurim, in the event that they get stolen or lost, and that he is obligated to replace them. 5
Why does at are the implications of the word "asher Tavi me'Artz'cha"?
Rashi. Refer to 26:2:2:1*, and via the same Gezeirah Shavah "me'Artz'cha" "Eretz", that only good quality fruit is subject to Bikurim - to preclude dates in the mountains, and fruit in the valley from the Din of Bikurim - since they are of inferior quality. 1
Chulin, 136a: It implies that the fruit of Chutz la'Aretz is not subject to Bikurim. 2 .
Sifri: It implies that the Mitzvah of Bikurim applies only as long as there is fruit 'on the surface of the ground' - between Shevu'os and Chanukah. 3
Refer to 26:2:154:2 and note and see Torah Temimah, note 10. See also Torah Temimah, note 9.
See Torah Temimah, note 10. Moshav Zekenim: How can the Gemara Darshen the 'Mem', seeing as the Torah could not have written 'Tavi Artzecha' without it? Perhaps the Torah could have written 'Tavi Peiros Artz'cha' ? without the 'Mem' PF).
See Torah Temimah, note 7, who elaborates.
Why do we not already know to preclude fruit of Chutz la'Aretz based on the Gemara in Kidushin 36b - that Mitzvos that are connected with the land are confined to Eretz Yisrael?
Moshav Zekenim #1: Because we might have otherwise thought that "Kol asher be'Artzam" - in Korach Bamidbar, 18:13 comes to include it.
Moshav Zekenim #2: Because we might have otherwise thought to compare the Mitzvah of Bikurim to the Isur of Basar be'Chalav, which applies even in Chutz la'Aretz - since both appear in the same Pasuk in Sh'mos, Mishpatim, 23:19, and Ki Sissa 34:26. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 10.
Why does the Torah need to write both "Reishis Bikurei Admasecha" (Sh'mos23:19, and 34:26) and [here] "me'Reishis [Kol Pri ha'Adamah]"?
Moshav Zekenim: Because had it written only "Reishis", we would have thought that only when all the first fruits ripen does he declare them Bikurim; And had it written only "me'Reishis", we would have thought that if he has fields and gardens, he brings only from the first. 1
If the latter garden has species not found in the first. Surely, one does not bring from the same species more than twice in one year (PF). In similar fashion, we Darshen "Reishis Arisoseichem" and "me'Reishis Arisoseichem". Refer to Bamidbar 15:20:154:1.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that the 'Mem' in "me'Reishis" limits Bikurim to the seven species. But he also writes that we learn it from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Artz'cha" "Eretz"?
Riva (citing R. Tam of Orleans): If not for the 'Mem', we would have thought that one must bring from all seven species. 1 whereas now, he brings only from the first species to ripen. 2
If not for the 'Mem' of "me'Reishis", we would have applied Bikurim to all species of fruit - as implied by "Kol P'ri ha'Adamah", and Darshened the Gezeirah Shavah with regard to the quality of fruit - Refer to 25:2:153:1. 3
Refer to 26:2:152:1*. Refer also to 26:3:3:2 - that 'only once a year' refers, not to the field, but to each species.
And if you will ask that, since barley is always the first species to ripen (around) Pesach, Bikurim will never apply to any of the other species? Each species will apply to people who do not grow any species that ripen earlier.
This is not correct however, since the same Gemara in Menachos, 84b, learns the Din regarding the quality of fruit from the 'Mem' of "me'Reishis".
Rashi writes that the seven species are subject to Bikurim. If so, [since they ripen at different times during the summer,] someone who grows all seven species [and lives far from the Beis- Mikdash] will not be in his house the entire summer, but in Yerushalayim (or on the road there or back)!
Riva (citing R. Aharon): One needs to bring only one of each species. 1
The Tosefta in Bikurim 2:8 and Yerushalmi (3:5) explain that the Mitzvah Lechatchilah, is to bring the seven species in seven vessels (each species in its own K'li). This proves that one may bring them all at once! Also, the Mishnah (3:3) states that people far from Yerushalayim bring dried figs and raisins. Surely one can delay bringing wheat and barley (or he can bring them when he comes for Shavu'os) and dates without concern for spoiling. Even if you will say that the first olives will not last until the first pomegranates ripen (or vice-versa), and neither will last until Sukos, is it so unreasonable that one must bring Bikurim twice in the summer? (PF) Pesikta de'Rav Kahana (28) says that Hashem thought to give to Yisrael a Regel in every month of summer 2 , only we lost this B'rachah due to our sins! 3
Refer to 26:2:151:1. This concurs with Rashi in Pasuk 3 - that [one only brings] once a year, but clashes with the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi. Refer to 26:2:152:2. Perhaps he holds that mi'de'Rabanan, one brings all seven species. However, if it is unreasonable for the Torah to obligate this, why would the Chachamim obligate it? Perhaps it is a mere Hidur Mitzvah and Midas Chasidus for one who lives closes to Yerushalayim. This requires investigation (PF).
Presumably, He intended only for the summer months, since it is difficult to travel to the Mikdash in winter. However, to compensate for the three Regalim lost, we have an extra three Yamim Tovim in Tishrei; there is no Chiyuv to come to Yerushalayim for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur, nor for the Regel of Iyar (Pesach Sheini, unless one did not offer Pesach Rishon! ? PF)
Perhaps the Riva (who asked this question) holds that one must bring Bikurim immediately once they ripen, although the Tosefta and Yerushalmi also imply otherwise. Also, entire regions gathered to bring Bikurim together (Bikurim 3:2). Surely not everyone's Bikurim ripen at the same time, due to differences in when they planted, watering, shade, the quality of land and the trees?! (PF)
