Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Bikkurim - Chapter 3
Bikkurim - Chapter 3
The priests were divided into 24 watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week at a time.
See Hilchot Ma ‘aseh Korbanot IO: 15.
Hilchot Terumah 15:20, Chapter 2, above, et al.
I.e., within Jerusalem or outside the city.
It is forbidden to partake of the first fruits in all situations. One does not, however, become liable for this severe penalty unless they first entered the holy city. The rationale is that since a priest may not partake of them until they are brought to Jerusalem, the prohibition against a non-priest partaking of them does not apply until then.
The Aruch LeNer states that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if this law applies when the produce is carried in a single container or only when it is carried in two containers.
I.e., in cities outside of Jerusalem.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 149) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 449) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 149) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 449) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Nevertheless, as indicated by the following halachah, the person bringing the first fruits need not make the declaration for them to be permitted.
I.e., this is included in the same negative commandment.
I.e., Jerusalem, the place where they may be eaten.
See the following halachah.
See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:1.
Although a priest is not allowed to partake of impure terumah, such a transgression is not punishable by lashes. It· is only a prohibition that results from a positive
commandment (Hilchot Terumah 7:3).
Aninut refers to the state of severe mourning experienced on the day of the death of one's relative. See Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 3:6.
From this phrase, it is derived (Halachah 13) that it is necessary to bring peace offerings together with the first fruits. However, the two teachings are not exclusive.
Since the prohibition is not stated as a negative commandment in the Torah, one is not liable for lashes as prescribed by Scriptural Law. The Radbazand others question this ruling, because, as Yevamot 73b teaches, an association is established between the first fruits and the second tithe. Hence just as one is liable for lashes for partaking of the second tithe in a state of acute mourning, so too, one should be liable for partaking of the first fruits.
This order is prescribed by the 2:8. The commentaries explain that the rationale for this order is that the produce that is most perishable is placed on top and that which is preserved best on bottom.
Bikkurim 3:8 relates that the rich would bring their first fruits in gold and silver containers, while the poor would bring them in wicker baskets. The rich would thus be allowed to keep their containers, while the poor would have to give them to the priests. The rationale is that the metal containers are significant and thus cannot be considered to be ancillary to the fruits. Hence they must be returned to their owners. The wicker baskets, by contrast, are not significant and thus are considered to be ancillary to the fruits. Therefore they may be kept by the priests. In this regard, Bava Kama 91 b states, “Poverty pursues the poor,” i.e., because they were too poor to afford expensive containers, they were required to forfeit even their simple baskets.
Since the first fruits themselves are not given to the priests (see Chapter 4, Halachah 10), they do not acquire the containers either.
They were not placed on the baskets themselves, lest they soil the fruit [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:5)].
For fowl that were given as a free-will offering were sacrificed only as burnt offerings.
The Ra’avad offers a different interpretation of the above mishnah, · explaining that only the first fruits were given to the. priests, the fowl would be offered as burnt offerings. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh support the Rambam’s interpretation. Ne. vertheless, Rashi (Menachot 58a) and Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura follow the Ra’avad’s understanding.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive comm;mdment 132) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 606) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Sotah 32a understands this phrase as indicating that the passage should be recited exactly as it is written in the Torah.
I.e., the fact that they did not know the Holy Tongue would be an embarrassment for them. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:7), the Rambam explains that this practice was instituted in the early portion of the Second Temple era when many of those who returned to Zion did not know the Holy Tongue, as indicated by Nechemiah 13:24.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that there is a support for this in the Biblical verse cited above: “And you shall respond and say.” Anita, translated as “respond,” has the connotation of repeating what someone else says.
As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 21, a person should not send his first fruits to Jerusalem via an agent and if he does so, he may not make the declaration (Chapter 4, Halachah 8). Nevertheless, if he himself is bringing them, he may lighten his burden by having another person carry them. All of this applies before he reaches the Temple Mount At that point, he must carry them himself.
The Mishnah (Bikkurim 3 :4) cites as an example, the conduct of King Aggripas.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam states that the Torah explicitly requires the person to bring the first fruits to the priest by hand.
This practice, referred to as tenufah, is required when bringing the peace offerings and other sacrifices.
The side which is before the entrance to the Sanctuary, for the first fruits must be placed down “before God” (Radbaz).
As required by Deuteronomy 26: IO.
After the fact, the first fruits are acceptable even if the sacrifices were not brought. The rationale is that the offering is not explicitly mentioned in the Biblical passage (Radbaz to Halachah 14). This concept also applies with regard to the song that should accompany them.
See Chapter 4, Halachah 17.
This psalm relates to the theme of thanksgiving, and was also recited over the thanksgiving offering (Sh ‘vuot 15b).
The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh clarify that even if the person does not bring a sacrifice, he is still required to stay in Jerusalem overnight because of the first fruits.
Which speaks about the pilgrimage festivals, not bringing first fruits.
The commentaries question why, since, this is a general theme, the Rambam mentions it only here and not in other places.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
