Inference: From here R. Tam proves that Armonim are not what we call Kastanis (coral);

Source: In Sukah (32b) it says that "Anaf Etz Avos" means that its leaves cover its wood. What is this? It is myrtle;

It asks "we should say that it is olives!", and answers that we require Avos (the leaves overlap each other), and this is not fulfilled. It asks "we should say that it is Dulba"!

If Armon, which is Dulba, is coral, what was the question? It is not Etz Avos!

Question #1: The Seifa in Bikurim (1:11) teaches that one who acquires three trees in his friend's land, he brings [Bikurim from them] and recites. R. Meir says, even [if he bought] two;

Why do we need that Mishnah, since according to Rabanan he acquires land? If so, obviously he brings and recites!

Suggestion: Since it taught (the Mishnah cited here, 1:6) that R. Meir says that [if he bought] two, he brings and recites, it mentioned also three according to Rabanan, that he brings and recites.

Rejection: Why do we need R. Meir's words in the Seifa (1:11)? It teaches "R. Meir says, even two, he brings and recites."

Suggestion: Since [the Seifa] taught [the opinion of] Rabanan, it taught also R. Meir.

Rejection: If so, what was difficult here that the Mishnah is extra? Perhaps since it taught Rabanan, it taught also R. Meir!

According to Rabanan it needs to teach that he brings and does not recite, for below we ask what is Rabanan's reason regarding two trees.

Question #2 (Rashba): If R. Meir obligates one who buys Peros from the market, in the Seifa, when R. Meir says "even two [trees]", he should have said "even if he bought Peros from the market"!

Support: We expound like this in Chulin (136a). "Artzecha" excludes Chutz la'Aretz.

Question: Why do we need an exclusion? It says in Kidushin (36b) that any Mitzvah that depends on the land applies only in Eretz [Yisrael]!

Answer #1: Some say that it is because Bikurim are equated to meat and milk. It says "Reishis Bikurei Admascha... Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo", and the Mechilta explicitly equates them;

One might have thought that [Bikurim] apply in Chutz la'Aretz, just like meat and milk.

Answer #2 (Rashba): Bikurim are not considered a Mitzvah that depends on the land, because it is unlike Terumah, Ma'aser and Chalah;

There, the Peros themselves are obligated in Terumah, for they are Tevel, and it is forbidden to eat them. Therefore, it is considered that they depend on the land;

However, Bikurim, the obligation does not depend on the Peros, rather, on the person. It is not forbidden to eat the Peros, even if he did not separate Bikurim from them.

Also, since there is no obligation of Terumah and Ma'aser until Miru'ach of the stack (smoothing it out), it is proven this the obligation depends on the Peros, because the time of their obligation did not come yet;

However, surely Bikurim is an obligation on the person, like Avodah Zarah, for we learn from them\t ozc\ in Kidushin (37a) that the obligation does not depend on the Peros, rather, on the person.

Even when they are still on the tree, one is obligated, like it says in Bikurim (3:1) "how do we separate Bikurim? One descends to his field and sees a fig or cluster [of grapes] that developed early, he ties a reed around it and says "these are Bikurim."

Implied question: If he does not have [fruits of the seven species], he is not obligated to buy! (This connotes that Bikurim is not an obligation on the person.)

Answer: Even so, it is an obligation on the person, like the obligation of Tzitzis. Even though he is not obligated to buy a Talis, if he does not have one, it is considered an obligation on the person.

Version #1: The Rashbam's text says 'it says twice "Admascha".'

Objection #1: Because it is difficult for him the other "Admascha", why must he change the text of Seforim to say 'it says twice "Admascha". One excludes land of Nochrim, and one excludes land of a convert'?

There was no need [to change the text]. We expound one "Admascha" in Bikurim (1:2) [to teach that] one who plants in his own land, and was Mavrich (inserted a branch or vine) into land of his friend or of the Rabim, he does not bring, for it says "Admascha" - the entire growth must be from your land.

Only one who buys Peros brings and recites according to R. Meir, but not one who is Mavrich in another's land. Since he bought from his friend, it is considered "your land."

Objection #2: Also, we should not exclude one who buys from a convert, since the convert himself can bring, like the Mishnah (1:4) teaches "the following bring and do not recite. A convert brings and does not recite, for he cannot say "that You swore to our fathers to give to us."

Due to that Mishnah, R. Tam would not let converts bless Birkas ha'Zimun (say Birkas ha'Mazon to exempt others), because he cannot say "that You bequeathed to our fathers a good land."

It also teaches there that when [a convert] prays by himself, he says "Elokei Avos Yisrael." When he prays in the Beis ha'Keneses, he says "Elokei Avoseichem";

If his mother was from Yisrael, he [always] says "Elokei Avoseinu." (He is called a convert because his father was a Yisrael, so he is not part of any Shevet.)

Answer (to Objection #2 - Ri): He can properly say "to our fathers", for we do not hold like that Mishnah, rather, like R. Yehudah who argues with it, like it says in the Yerushalmi in Bikurim;

Citation (Yerushalmi): It was taught in the name of R. Yehudah that a convert himself brings and recites. What is the reason? It says "Ki Av Hamon Goyim Nesaticha." [Hash-m told Avraham] before, you were the father of Aram. From now and onwards [you are the father] of all nations.

Citation (cont. - R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The Halachah follows R. Yehudah. An episode occurred, and R. Avahu ruled like R. Yehudah.

Implied question - Citation (Makos 9a): Since there is a convert who needs to say "that You swore to our fathers", and he cannot say it...

Answer: That is properly like R. Yehudah. It relies on the end of the verse "to give to us."

Implied question: In the Yerushalmi, R. Yehudah said that a convert brings and recites!

Answer: That refers only to a convert descended from Kini (Yisro), Moshe's father-in-law. He can say "to give to us", for they received a portion in the land, like it says "v'Hayah ha'Tov ha'Hu Asher Yeitiv... v'Hetavnu Lach";

They gave to [Yisro's children] the area around Yericho, like it says in the Sifri, and the Tosefta in Bikurim "R. Yehudah says, all converts bring and do not recite, and the sons of Kini, Moshe's father-in-law, bring and recite.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): That Yerushalmi is mistaken. How can it say that a convert, even from the sons of Kini, recites "Arami Oved Avi", i.e. [Lavan tried to destroy] Yakov, "and he descended to Mitzrayim, and [the Mitzriyim] did evil to us, and [Hash-m] took us out"?!

We establish that Tosefta to discuss when his mother is a Yisrael, so he can so "to our fathers" and "to give to us", if he is from Bnei Kini;

It argues with our Mishnah in Bikurim, which teaches that [in every case] if his mother is a Yisrael, he brings and recites.

Defense (Ri): Also our Mishnah discusses Bnei Kini. It does not argue [with the Tosefta about this]. Having a mother from Yisrael does not help to say "to give to us", for his mother herself does not recite;

Note: Regarding saying "to our fathers", the Tosefta, which R. Yehudah taught, argues. It permits even if his mother is not from Yisrael, like the Ri said above, unlike our Mishnah (Maharsha).

A Mishnah (Bikurim 1:5) teaches that a woman, Shali'ach, slave, Tumtum and Androginus do not recite, for they did not receive a portion in the land;

The Sifri excludes them from "Ish l'Fi Pikudav", even though they had a portion through inheritance. All the more so he (the son of a Yisraelis from a convert not from Kini) does not recite, for he is no better than his mother!

Question (Rashba): Why is this needed? According to R. Meir, Yesh Kinyan l'Nochri (he can acquire land) in Eretz Yisrael to uproot it from Ma'aser [and all laws that depend on Kedushas ha'Aretz]!

Citation (Avodah Zarah 20b - Mishnah): We do not rent houses to Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael, and one need not even say fields (all the more so they are forbidden)!

The Gemara explains that one need not even teach fields, for [he gives the Nochri encampment in the land, which applies also to houses, and renting fields] also uproots them from Ma'aser.

Answer #1 (Ri): Perhaps we learn from here to everywhere that Yesh Kinyan.

Answer #2 (Rashba): We can say that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (21a) is even like the opinion that Ein Kinyan. There it is explained. (Renting fields to Nochrim uproots them from Ma'aser, even though the Kedushah is intact, for the Nochri will not separate Ma'aser from the Peros.)

Explanation: Whenever there is something like Hakravah (Avodah), like here, that there is Hagashah (bringing close to the Mizbe'ach) or Tenufah (waving), according to the opinion (that Tenufah applies to Bikurim)...

And similarly, in Chulin (130b) regarding Chazeh v'Shok, it says [that they could not apply to Chulin, for Tenufah] cannot be done outside [the Mikdash], for it says "Lifnei Hash-m"! If [he does Tenufah] inside, he brings Chulin b'Azarah, and Tenufah applies to them (this is like Avodah, so it is forbidden).

Distinction: However, something that we do not do with it Hakravah at all, there is no Isur to enter Chulin into the Azarah.

Source #1: If not, a Kohen would be forbidden to wear Chulin clothing and enter the Azarah. Also a Yisrael could not enter the Azarah!

Source #2: Also, it says in Menachos (21b) "Yochluha" - they eat [Kodshei Kodoshim, which may be eaten only in the Azarah] with Chulin and Terumah, so [Kodshim] will be eaten when satiated.

Implied question: One is not obligated to give [Ma'aser Rishon of] Demai amidst Safek, for he can say [to the Levi] "bring a proof that it was not already fixed, and then take"!

Answer #1 (Rashba): There is different. Here, the Kohen is not Muchzak more than the Levi. In any case it does not belong to the Yisrael;

If they are Bikurim, they are the Kohen's. If they are not Bikurim, [the Ma'aser Rishon] is [truly] Ma'aser Rishon, and it is the Levi's.

Answer #2: Demai is only a Safek mid'Rabanan, and one need not fulfill the Mitzvah of giving [the tithes to the recipients].

Question: In Menachos (80b), regarding a Todah that became mixed with a Temurah, we answer 'perhaps it is not a Todah, and the bread [that must be brought with a Todah] is Chulin b'Azarah';

Why don't we ask that he should be Makdish them on condition that if it is not a Todah, the bread has Kedushas Bedek ha'Bayis, or to buy Nesachim!

Answer: Regarding Todah, since he made 40 Chalos from four species, it is proven well that he brings them for the sake of Todah;

Therefore, even if he was Makdish them with a Tenai, it is considered Chulin b'Azarah, since it is not normal to do from other Hekdesh what he did to this;

However, here that he is Makdish Bikurim for their value, it does not look like Chulin b'Azarah, rather, like other Hekdesh;

It is normal to bring Hekdesh to the Azarah, like it says in Tamid (29a) that there was a golden vine, and anyone who volunteers a grape [of gold to Hekdesh] brings it and hangs it on the vine.

The only thing done with Bikurim is bringing them to the Mizbe'ach, according to Rabanan;

And even according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who obligates Tenufah (waving), there is not such a proof that he brings them for Bikurim;

And even reading the verses is not such a proof. Rather, he is like one who reads in the Torah, since he does not do anything to the Peros themselves.

Observation: This is unlike the Rashbam, who says that [the Tana'im] argue about after Ezra fined [the Leviyim]. Rather, they argue about Torah law;

It says so in Yevamos (86b). It derives the reason from verses, and R. Akiva says that [Ma'aser Rishon] is given only to a Levi, and R. Elazar says even to a Kohen;

However, after the fine, R. Akiva holds that it is even to a Kohen, and R. Elazar ben Azaryah says that it is only to a Kohen.

Observation: We could have answered here even according to R. Akiva, and after the fine;

Alternatively, we could have answered here that he separates from elsewhere on condition that if they are not Bikurim, these Peros [from elsewhere] are Ma'aser;

If they are not Bikurim, the Ma'aser on these [that he called Ma'aser on the Bikurim] are in their north or south, and he gives their Ma'aser Oni to a poor Levi, and if [it is a year of] Ma'aser Sheni, he brings them up to Yerushalayim and eats them there [in Taharah, or redeems them].

Remark: We must give one of these answers according to R. Meir. What is the reason that with one tree, he brings and does not recite?

According to [R. Meir], we cannot say like R. Eliezer ben Azaryah, for he explicitly argues with him there in Yevamos.

Reference: This was taught primarily in Menachos (103b) regarding "it is upon me to bring [a Minchah of] 61 [Esronim]", like the Rashbam explained.

Question: What was the question there "if he did not mix, so what? A Mishnah teaches that if he did not mix, it is Kosher!"?

Granted, mixing is not Me'akev. In any case, l'Chatchilah it is a Mitzvah to mix. It is good to bring [61] in two Kelim [so he can mix it], since one may bring [what he vowed] in one or two Kelim, like he wants, since he vowed Stam!

Only when he said "it is Alai to bring two Esronim in one Kli", the Mishnah there says that if he brought in two Kelim it is Pasul!

Answer (Ri): This teaching about 61 refers to the Reisha, that one may volunteer a Minchah of 60 Esronim and he brings them in one Kli;

If he said "it is Alai 61", i.e. a Minchah of 61 Esronim, for now he must bring in one Kli, for since he said "Minchah", he intends for [one] big Korban.

Explanation: The Lekichah (detaching, or taking out of the house) and bringing was not through the same person.

Question: What forced [the Tartzan] to say that he does like R. Yosi bar Chanina? He should say that he does like a Mishnah, that he totally sent them through a Shali'ach!

A Mishnah in Bikurim (1:5) says that a Shali'ach brings and does not recite!

Answer: R. Meir teaches that he brings and does not recite. This connotes that he himself brings, and he does not send them through a Shali'ach.