Question: They were proper for Keri'ah (reciting), and rejected. We should say that they must be left to rot, like R. Zeira said in Makos (18b)!

Citation (18b): If one separated Bikurim before Sukos, and Sukos passed (before they were brought), they are left to rot, because before Sukos, they were proper for Keri'ah, and after Sukos they are not proper;

Due to this, they are considered there Ein Ra'uy l'Bilah Bilah Me'akev! (Since Keri'ah cannot be done, they are disqualified due to not doing Keri'ah.)

Answer (R. Chayim): Here we discuss when he initially intended when harvesting them to send them through someone else. Then, he may send them through someone else, as if they were never proper for Keri'ah;

Source - Citation (Yerushalmi in Bikurim): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish in the name of R. Oshaya said that this is when he gathered them to send them with someone else;

Citation (cont.): However, if he took them to bring them himself, no (he may not make a Shali'ach), for any Bikurim that were proper for Keri'ah are permitted only through Keri'ah.

The Yerushalmi says after this "our Mishnah disagrees! If he separated his Bikurim and sold his field, he brings and does not recite. We establish it when he planned to sell from the beginning (when he separated Bikurim).

We learned that if the tree dried up or was cut, he brings and does not recite. This is when it was dry from the beginning.

Consequence: According to this, if he separated Bikurim before Sukos in order to bring them after Sukos, they need not rot. Rather, after Sukos he brings and does not recite.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): "Lekichah" is detaching.

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): "Lekichah" does not connote detaching, rather, taking out of the house.

Rebuttal #2: [R. Yosi bar Chanina] did not teach "or the Shali'ach died", rather, "and the Shali'ach died." This connotes that the Lekichah and the bringing were through two people.

Note: He said "he detached them and sent them through a Shali'ach, and the Shali'ach died..." The Rashbam explains that he detached them himself, and sent them through a Shali'ach [therefore he does not recite], or [even if the Shali'ach detached them and began bringing them, and] the Shali'ach died..." R. Tam objects that if so, he should have said "or the Shali'ach died..."

Rebuttal #3: [According to the Rashbam] it should have taught [even without the Shali'ach dying, i.e.] "he detached them and sent them through a Shali'ach, or the Shali'ach detached them and he brought them"!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Taking out of the house is called "Lekichah".

Implied question: [Why does it mention] "he detached them"? (It makes no difference who detached them!)

Answer: It discusses a common case. [The owner] normally gathers [as much as] what he deems proper, and not a Shali'ach, for there is no Shi'ur for Bikurim. (If he decides how many Bikurim to separate based on how the Peros appear to him, he cannot instruct a Shali'ach about this!)

Explanation (Rashbam): The Shali'ach harvested them and brought them to Yerushalayim. The owner recites, for a person's Shali'ach is like himself, so he can recite "I brought..."

Rebuttal: It seems that the owner does not recite (rather, the Shali'ach recites), like the Yerushalmi connotes.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): He asks because the Mishnah does not distinguish, and discusses even a date tree.

Objection #1: If so, what was Rav Papa's answer? Also for him it is difficult! The Rashbam's answer (normally, nothing grows from date stumps, so he does not intend to get anything that grows from them) is difficult.

Objection #2: [The Rashbam] explains that he sells to him for five years, that if it will die within this time, [the buyer] will plant another in place of it;

[The Mishnah] taught "if they died, he does not have land", i.e. he may not plant another in place of it!

Suggestion: Perhaps "if they died, he does not have land", i.e. to plant under them!

Rejection: This is obvious! Even when the trees are alive, it teaches that he did not acquire land [to plant under them]!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rav Zvid mentioned a date tree, and everything that resembles it, such as cedars and other trees that were already cut once. After this, if they dry, they do not regenerate.

Support: Now, Rav Papa asked properly. Presumably, our Mishnah discusses most trees. Date trees, cedars and other trees that were already cut, are the majority over other trees that were not cut!

[The Gemara] answers [for Rav Zvid] that our Mishnah discusses when he sold for five years. Presumably, [he sold for five years] because they are young trees and they do not normally die within five years, and [the buyer] did not divert his mind [from them];

However, if they died within five years, he may not plant others in place of them. If he bought three trees, he acquired land, so he may plant others in place of them.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam, according to R. Chananel): In Rav Zvid's teaching, the text does not say "the owner of the date tree does not get the stump." Rather, the text says "Rav Zvid thought to say "he has no stump", i.e. he does not have the law of the stump;

I.e. we do not say that what comes from the roots belongs to the owner of the land. Rather, the owner of the date tree gets everything, even what comes from the roots;

Since they are destined to be dug up and taken with the roots, i.e. when the tree dries, the owner of the tree takes the roots, and digs and uproots everything, the owner of the land diverts his mind (despairs, and forfeits all rights).

Explanation #3 (cont.): The law is not only for a date tree. The same applies to other trees. This was [Rav Zvid's] mistake. If so, why did Rav Nachman mention a date tree?

The Mishnah was not difficult, for we answer that he sold it for five years, and after five years, it returns to the seller, for it is no longer destined to be dug and uprooted.

Implied question: According to all explanations, since the buyer is removed from the trees after five years, how does he acquire what comes from the stump, i.e. it is his to cut, like Rav Nachman said to cut?

Even branches on the tree he may not cut, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (109a) that one who accepts to work a field from his friend for a small number of years, he has no rights to sycamore logs;

Abaye said that he does not have sycamore, but he has Shevach (improvements, i.e. compensation if it became thicker). Rava said that he does not have even Shevach of sycamore, i.e. branches that grew after he accepted the field. The Halachah follows Rava!

Answer: Here is different, for if he would not cut, he would take Peros that come from the stump. Therefore, when [the seller] tells him to cut, it is because he is concerned lest he say "you sold three to me." Therefore, [the stump] is of the buyer, in place of the Peros.

Explanation #4 (Ri): Rav Papa thought that Rav Zvid means that only for a date tree, the owner of the tree does not get the stump, because he diverts his mind;

This is because when it dries at the top and they cut it, it does not regenerate, he thinks that nothing will come from the stump before they dry;

However, other trees, which he can cut them when they dry at the top, and they regenerate, he does not divert his mind.

Explanation #4 (cont.): This is why Rav Papa challenged him from our Mishnah, that one who acquired two trees, he has a stump. It is destined to be dug and uprooted, even other trees, when their tops dry!

Even though it regenerates, this does not help him at all, for he cannot cut in order to regenerate, like is proven below (83a)!

A Beraisa about [one who bought] two trees teaches "therefore, if it dried or was cut, he has no land. This connotes that the case of when it was cut is even if it did not dry yet, and it is proper to regenerate;

If so, there is no difference between a date tree and other trees. This stands to be uprooted and dug out when it dries at the top, just like this.

Explanation #4 (cont.): At the end, Rav Zvid concludes that in our Mishnah, he sold for five years, that if it dries within five years, he will cut it to regenerate it. He sold the tree to him in its lifetime, therefore does not divert his mind.

Implied question: Why did Rav Zvid mention a date tree? The same applies to other trees!

Answer: The law of other trees is not uniform. Sometimes they have [the law of] a stump, when he sold them for five years to cut them, to regenerate;

However, a date tree, selling it for five years to cut it to regenerate does not apply, for it does not regenerate.

Question (against Explanation #4): When one bought three [trees], why does it teach "if they died, he has land, and he plants another in its place of it", since our Mishnah discusses one who sold for five years, that he stipulated with him to cut it so it will regenerate?

If so, surely he did not sell to him land to plant another in place of it!

Answer: With difficulty, we can say that the Reisha discusses one who sold for five years, but the Seifa does not.

Question: Here it connotes that other trees last longer than date trees;

In Kesuvos (79a), it says that [if a wife inherited money, and she and her husband disagree about how to invest it, if the options are] land or houses, [they buy] land; houses or date trees, [they buy] houses; trees or date trees, [they buy] date trees!

Answer: There, it is not because date trees last longer than other trees. Rather, they are more important than other trees, even though they do not last so long.

Implied question: It says there that [if the options are] date trees or vines, [they buy] date trees, even though vines are more important than date trees, like it says in Bava Kama (92a)!

Shmuel's sharecropper brought to him dates. He ate them, and tasted wine in them. He said "they are weakening my vines so much! Tomorrow, bring to me the roots of the date trees." The profits of date trees do not suffices to buy vines, but the profits of vines can buy date trees.

Answer: In any case, it is better to buy date trees, for there is great toil in vines, and one must spend great expenditures on them. There is no toil in vines, and the profit comes by itself.

Explanation: Amidst R. Elazar's words, we infer that there is more reason to say that they receive a path than room for a harvester and his basket;

From the Mishnah "[if one bought] two trees, if they grew, [the seller] may not cut the branches", we infer that [the buyer] gets room for a harvester and his basket, since [the seller] may not even cut the branches. Since he gets room for a harvester and his basket with two [trees], all the more so he gets a path.

Explanation: He distances the Zera'im (seeded crops) from the row only the amount [four Amos] needed to work the vineyard, for the two rows whose foliage is to one side, they are considered a vineyard.

Implied question: We measure 16 [Amos] from the root, and there are 16 Amos between the two rows. They are scattered, and [each] is a lone vine, and one needs to distance only three Tefachim!

Answer: In any case, between them and under the vine branches one may not seed mid'Rabanan, and they are considered a vineyard.