1)
We have already learned in our Mishnah that if Shimon purchases two trees in Reuven's field, he does not acquire the ground in which they are growing. What are the basic ramifications of this Halachah?
What does Rebbi Meir say?
What distinction does the Tana draw between what grows from the shoots and what grows from the roots (the exact definition of shoots and roots will be discussed later)?
1)
We have already learned in our Mishnah that if Shimon purchases two trees in Reuven's field, he does not acquire the ground in which they are growing. Consequently - when the trees die, he is not permitted to replace them.
According to Rebbi Meir, Shimon acquires the ground too, in which case he is permitted to replace them.
The Tana draws a distinction between what grows from the shoots - which belongs to Shimon, and what grows from the roots - which belongs to Reuven (the exact definition of shoots and roots will be discussed later).
2)
What is the basic difference between the previous case and one where the sale involves three trees?
In the latter case, will then own whatever grows from ...
... the shoots?
... the roots?
What is the one disadvantage that Shimon has when he purchases three trees in a Beis-ha'Shalachin (a field that is watered manually)?
Why is that?
Why will this not apply where he purchases only two trees?
2)
The basic difference between the previous case and one where the sale involves three trees is that - in the latter case, Shimon acquires the ground from which the trees are growing, even according to the Tana Kama.
Consequently, In the latter case, the owner of whatever grows from ...
... the shoots, as well as from ...
... the roots - is Shimon.
The one disadvantage that Shimon has when he purchases three trees in a Beis-ha'Shalachin (a field that is watered manually) is that - Reuven is permitted to cut down the branches that proliferate and hang over his field ...
... since the shade is harmful to his field.
This will not apply where Shimon only purchases two trees - because there, Reuven is Mashabed his field to Shimon's requirements vis-a-vis his trees.
3)
According to the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Bikurim, someone who purchases two trees in his friend's field, brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah. Why is that?
What does Rebbi Meir say?
What will Rebbi Meir hold with regard to someone who purchases one tree?
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav however, disagrees. What does Rav Yehudah say according to Rebbi Meir, about someone who purchases fruit from the market in this regard?
3)
The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Bikurim rules that someone who purchases two trees in his friend's field, brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah - because, as we just learned, he does not acquire the land, in which case, he cannot recite the words "P'ri ha'Adamah asher Nasata li, Hash-m".
Rebbi Meir holds - 'Meivi ve'Korei' (he reads the Parshah too (in keeping with his ruling in our Mishnah).
Rebbi Meir concedes however that if someone purchases one tree - Meivi ve'Eino Korei' (like the Rabbanan hold by two).
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav however, disagrees. He maintains that even if someone buys fruit in the market - Rebbi Meir obligates him to bring Bikurim and read the Parshah -.
4)
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav bases his previous statement on the Mishnah in Bikurim. How did he extrapolate it from Rebbi Meir's statement in the Mishnah in Bikurim that someone who purchases two trees is Chayav to read the Parshah?
How will Rebbi Meir then interpret the Pasuk ...
... in Ki Savo "asher Tavi me'Artz'cha'?
... in Mishpatim "Admascha"?
... in Ki Savo "asher Nasata li, Hash-m"?
In fact, the word "Admascha" appears a second time (in Ki Sisa) in connection with Bikurim. What do we learn from there?
What is then the Din regarding a Ger bringing Bikurim from fruit that grows in his field?
4)
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav extrapolate his previous statement on the Mishnah in Bikurim (that if he buys two trees he reads the Parshah) which in light of our Mishnah (someone who purchases two trees is Chayav to read the Parshah), which, in light of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah (that he acquires land) is otherwise obvious and therefore superfluous.
According to Rebbi Meir then, the Pasuk ...
... in Ki Savo "asher Tavi me'Artz'cha' - comes to preclude fruit that grows in Chutz la'Aretz from Bikurim.
... in Mishpatim "Admascha" - comes to preclude fruit that one purchases from a Nochri who owns land in Eretz Yisrael.
... in Ki Savo "asher Nasata li, Hash-m" - refers simply to the money that Hash-m gave the owner with which to buy the fruit.
In fact, the word "Admascha" appears (in Ki Sisa) too, in connection with Bikurim. From the second Pasuk - we preclude from Bikurim fruit that one buys from a Ger.
A Ger brings Bikurim from fruit that grows from his field, though he does not read the Parshah (since he is unable to say "asher Nishba la'Avoseinu Laseis lanu").
5)
Rabah queries Rav Yehudah Amar Rav from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa citing Rebbi Meir say about someone who purchases one tree?
How does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav deal with this Kashya?
5)
Rabah queries Rav Yehudah Amar Rav from a Beraisa, which, citing Rebbi Meir rules that if someone purchases one tree - 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'.
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - has no answer to this Kashya, and is therefore proved wrong.
81b----------------------------------------81b
6)
What did Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim ask Rebbi Elazar? What problem did he have concerning the Din of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'?
How does this problem concern both Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan?
What did Rebbi Elazar reply?
Rabah however, was not impressed by the Kashya? How did he explain the Din of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'?
6)
Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rebbi Elazar why the Tana rules 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei', since - seeing as this ruling is based in the Pasuk "asher Tavi me'Artz'cha", one ought not to bring Bikurim at all.
The problem concerns - Rebbi Meir in the case of one tree, and the Rabbanan in the case of two.
Rebbi Elazar replied that - such questions which even the earlier generations could not solve, only served to embarrass him, and were better left unasked.
Rabah however, was not impressed by the Kashya. Perhaps, he maintained - the Tana'im were not sure whether someone who acquires one or two trees (respectively) acquires the land or not. So the Tana'im go le'Chumra, as we will explain shortly.
7)
How will Rabah then amend Rebbi Meir's statement 'L'fi she'Lo Kanah Karka'?
We will also then need to establish the Din of 'Meivi' where the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh (in case it is not Bikurim). Why do we need to do that? Why can the owner not just give them to the Kohen anyway?
The Isur of Chulin ba'Azarah might be de'Rabbanan. How might we learn it from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with the concession of Shechting Chulin animals) "Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom ve'Zavachta"?
If, as we just explained, the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh, how will the Kohen be able to eat it?
7)
Rabah therefore amends Rebbi Meir's statement 'L'fi she'Lo Kanah Karka' to read - 'Shema Lo Kanah Karka'.
We will also then need to establish the Din of 'Meivi' where the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh (in case it is not Bikurim) because otherwise - since it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah, the owner would not be able to give it to the Kohen.
The Isur of Chulin ba'Azarah might be de'Rabbanan. Alternatively, we might learn it from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with the concession of Shechting Chulin animals) "Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom ... ve'Zavachta" from which we can extrapolate 'be'Richuk Makom Atah Zove'ach, ve'Lo be'Kiruv Makom' (prohibiting the Shechitah of Chulin close to Hash-m).
Even though, as we just explained, the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh, the Kohen will be able to eat it, because immediately after waving it and placing it beside the Mizbe'ach, the owner redeems it.
8)
On the other hand, the owner is obligated to give Ma'asros, in case the fruit is not Bikurim. So he separates Terumah Gedolah and gives it to the Kohen (who eats it whether it is Terumah or Bikurim [which is also called Terumah]). What does he do with ...
... the Ma'aser Sheini (in the first and second, fourth and fifth years of the cycle)?
... the Ma'aser Ani (if it is the third or sixth year)?
What problem remains?
We get round this problem by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say about Ma'aser Rishon in the time of the second Beis-Hamikdash?
How could Ezra issue an edict that contravenes the Torah, who instructed that Ma'aser be given to a Levi?
What does Rebbi Akiva say?
8)
On the other hand, the owner is obligated to give Ma'asros, in case the fruit is not Bikurim. So he separates Terumah Gedolah and gives it to the Kohen (who eats it whether it is Terumah or Bikurim, which is also called Terumah). And he gives ...
... the Ma'aser Sheini to a Kohen, too (see Hagahos ha'Bach), and ...
... the Ma'aser Ani (if it is the third or sixth year) to a poor Kohen.
The problem that remains is - what to do with the Ma'aser Rishon, which must be given to a Levi (whereas if it is Bikurim, it must be given to a Kohen).
We get round this problem by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who rules that in the time of the second Beis-Hamikdash, Ezra penalized the Levi'im (for not going up to Eretz Yisrael) by transferring Ma'aser Rishon to the Kohanim exclusively.
Ezra's edict did not contravene the Torah, who instructed that Ma'aser be given to a Levi - since the term Levi incorporates Levi'im, as we find in twenty-four places in Tanach.
According to Rebbi Akiva - Ezra did not issue such a decree, and Ma'aser Rishon is always given to the Levi'im.
9)
On what grounds do we query ...
... the current ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' on principle?
... the answer (that Keri'ah is not Me'akev [does not hold back the Mitzvah])?
What did Rebbi Zeira actually say?
A Ger also brings Bikurim without reading the Parshah, and so does someone who brings his Bikurim between Sukos and Chanukah. Why is that not also subject to Rebbi Zeira's principle?
9)
We query ...
... the current ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' on the grounds that if the fruit is Bikurim - it requires Keri'ah (reading the Parshah), so how is the Kohen permitted to eat it without Keri'ah having been performed.
... the answer (that Keri'ah is not Me'akev [is not crucial to the Mitzvah]) with the principle of Rebbi Zeira ' ... Kol she'Eino ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves bo', which teaches us that even though Keri'ah is not crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, the fruit must nevertheless be in a state where Keri'ah can at least be performed. Otherwise, it does indeed hold back the Mitzvah.
Rebbi Zeira said that - even though Lechatchilah the oil and the flour of a Minchah need to be mixed and the mixing is not crucial to the Mitzvah, nevertheless, if the large quantity of flour prevents a thorough mixing with the oil from taking place in one vessel, it renders the Mitzvah Pasul.
A Ger also brings Bikurim without reading the Parshah, and so does someone who brings his Bikurim between Sukos and Chanukah. Yet they are not subject to Rebbi Zeira's principle - because Lechatchilah, that is how the Torah requires the Bikurim to be brought.
10)
We resolve the current problem with a ruling of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He absolves two cases from reading the Parshah of Bikurim; one of them is when the owner appoints a Shali'ach to bring the Bikurim that he picked to the Beis Hamikdash. What is the other?
What does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lakachta ... ve'Heivesa"?
What is the basis for this Derashah?
So how do we now establish Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan's ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' to circumvent the problem of the obligation to read the Parshah?
10)
We resolve this problem with a ruling of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He absolves two cases from reading the Parshah of Bikurim; one of them is when the owner appoints a Shali'ach to bring the Bikurim that he picked to the Beis Hamikdash, the other - when the Shali'ach, who picked the Bikurim from the tree (and who is therefore eligible to bring it to the Beis Hamikdash), dies on the way, and another Shali'ach, or even the owner himself, takes the Bikurim to the Beis-Hamikdash.
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lakachta ... ve'Heivesa" that - the same person who picked the Bikurim from the tree, must bring it to the Beis-Hamikdash.
The basis for this D'rashah is - the fact that "ve'Lakachta" is superfluous.
To circumvent the problem of the obligation to read the Parshah, we now establish Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan's ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' - where the owner picked the fruit but appointed a Shali'ach to take it to the Beis Hamikdash, or vice-versa (where Keri'ah is anyway not required).