Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

As explained in the concluding halachot of the previous chapter.

A person whose genital area is covered with a mass of flesh and whose gender is impossible to detect.

A person with male and female sexual characteristics.

With regard to an androgynus, the doubt concerns the individual’s halachic status. With regard to the tumtum, the doubt concerns the actual facts: Which gender is covered by the mass of flesh?

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:5), the Rambam explains that Eretz Yisrael was given as an ancestral heritage only to males who are free men. Thus this disqualifies all of those mentioned in this clause and also the servant mentioned in the following clause.

For the first fruits they are bringing are not from their own land. They are acting on behalf ofothers.

For he taught all mankind faith [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:4)].

I.e., all future converts are considered as Abraham’s seed and thus have a share in the land “that God swore to [give] to your ancestors.” Indeed, based on Ezekiel 47:22, Kapot Temarim states that in the Messianic era, convertswill be given a share of the Holy Land.

As related in Numbers, ch. 35, in addition to the six cities of refuge, the Levites were given 42 cities that were scattered throughout the entire land of Eretz Yisrael. Although the land was given them from the tribal inheritances of the other tribes, it is still appropriate for them to speak of the land which God gave them, because the gifts were given as a result of God's command (Radbaz). See also Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni 11:17.

He does not purchase the land. Nevertheless, since he purchased two trees, our Sages question whether he is given the right to the land around the trees. If, however, he purchases three trees, all agree that he has the right to the land.

Bava Batra 82a questions: Reciting the declaration is no more than reciting verses from the Torah. Even if he is not obligated to do so, what would be wrong with reciting these verses? In resolution, it explains that a) it appears that he. is lying (because he is praising God for giving him land which in fact may not be his); orb) by bringing them as first fruits, he will prevent the terumah and the tithes from being separated from them.

Le., before bringing them to the Temple Courtyard.

The consecration has a questionable status, because a person may not consecrate property that does not belong to him (Hilchot Arachin VaCharamim 6:16). And if the produce is first fruits, it does not belong to him.

For if the land docs not belong to him, they are not considered as first fruits.

This is a general principle. See Jlilchot Shechitah 2:3.

According to Scriptural Law, tithes must be given to the Levites. Nevertheless, when the Levites failed to return to Zion with Ezra in large numbers, he punished them and decreed that they should not be given the tithes. Afterwards, according to many views, it was possible to give the tithes either to the priests or the Levites. Nevertheless, in this instance, the tithes must be given to the priests for the reason stated by the Rambam.

For when an agent brings first fruits, a declaration should not be made, as stated in aHalachah 2.

Bava Batra, loc. cit., explains that when there would be no difficulty in making the declaration, the fact that it is not made does not disqualify the first fruits from being eaten. When, however, it is required to be made, but cannot be made foraparticular reason, the failure to make it disqualifies the offering.

Praising God for giving him the land.

And first fruits should be brought only once for each species. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1 :7, based on the Jerusalem Talmud), the Rambam states that this is derived from Deuteronomy 26:3 which states: “I am making a statement to God your Lord today,” implying that the statement can be made only once (see also Halachah 11).

For the concept derived above applies primarily to making the declaration and not at:tually bringing the first fruits.

Since they are being brought by two individuals, the fact that one species has been brought already does not disqualify the first fruits brought by the other person. If, however, they were being brought by the same person, he would not make the declaration again, as stated in Halachah 11.

And thus he cannot rightfully praise God for giving him the land.

This refers even to property which the husband receives as nichsei milog (see Hilchot!shut 16:1-2), i.e., the property itself belongs to the woman, but he is entitled to derive benefit from it.

“Your household” can be interpreted as referring to one’s wife. Thus even though the land belongs to his wife, he should make the declaration.

The husband inherits his wife’s property. Thus now he owns both the land and the produce.

And ancestral property is returned to its original owner. See Hilchot Shemitah VeYovel, ch. 11.

For he is the owner of the land and the produce. Although he is required to return the land in the Jubilee year, that is a result of the Torah’s decree and does not diminish the purchaser’s ownership of the land.

Since the owner does not have the experience of having his land returned to him, he does not consider it a surety that it will be returned to him. In his mind, it is sold (Radbaz).

And he knows that the land will be returned. Accordingly, it is as if he purchased only the produce and not the land.

As stated in Halachah 6.

This reflects the Rambam’s version of the Jerusalem Talmud (Bikkurim I :5). The version in the standard published text is slightly different (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

While the owner of the produce is alive, the person fit to inherit the estate is
considered as an agent, and hence may not make the declaration. Eventhough he was not explicitly appointed, we assume that this is the owner’s desire. According to the Rambam’s conception, if the owner is ill, but is not in mortal danger, another person cannot serve as his agent unless he is appointed as such.

In any manner, as indicated by Chapter 2, Halachah 20.

For he is required to replace them (ibid.).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim I :8). The Ra’avad maintains that the produce should be left in the Temple Courtyard until it rots. From Chapter 2, Halachah 19, some have inferred that according to the Rambam, the impure produce should be burnt. Kin ‘at Eliyahu maintains that this approach is far more appropriate than leaving it to rot in the Temple Courtyard.

For the declaration is made as a statement of thanks giving after the first fruits are successfully offered and that is not possible in the present situation.

The bracketed additions are based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim I :6).

In its present state, the land is not able to produce fruit. Hence, it is as if he no longer possesses it (ibid.; according to Rav Kappach’s text).

This is the harvest season when a person feels happy with the bounty God has granted him.

I.e., those mentioned from Halachah 5 and onward.

I.e., both “the great terumah” and terumat ma’aser.

I.e., when a non-priest partakes of any of the above mentioned substances, he is obligated to pay the principal and a fifth as restitution.

See Chapter 9.

Even a non-priest.

The Radbaz questions why a Torah scroll is mentioned. If he is allowed to purchase a non-kosher animal with these objects, seemingly, it is obvious that he should be able to use them to purchase a Torah scroll. He explains that one might think that it is preferable that a person write a Torah scroll himself than purchase one. The Ma ‘aseh Rokeach explains that in contrast to other types of property, a Torah scroll may never be sold. Hence, if he uses the money from these objects to purchases it, he will never be able to derive physical benefit from these substances.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Asuurot 15:3; Hilchot Terumot 15:20-21.

If, however, they become mixed with a substance of another species, the presence of the first fruits can be nullified. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:12.

See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 6:14-15.

This refers even to first fruits belonging to an Israelite. Hence, they are considered only “like an entity that could be permitted,” but are not actually in that category (Radbaz).

For the entire mixture could be eaten by priests in a state of ritual purity (See Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 15:10).

And thus the forbidden fruit itself no longer exists.

This is a penalty imposed upon him because the mixture could have been - and the produce that grows could..,.. be given to the priests. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 2:2).

6. Since the first fruits may not be eaten outside Jerusalem, the mixture is not judged with the severity that applies to a mixture containing a forbidden entity that could become permitted. Instead, it is considered as an ordinary mixture and the presence of the first fruits can be nullified.

See Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 6:1 for more particulars concerning the Hebrew term.

Thus coming as a group is a greater act of Divine glorification.

I.e., the first fruits must be brought in a state of ritual purity, and if a person bringing them enters a home, he may unknowingly contract ritual impurity, because he was under the same shelter as a corpse.

Cf. Jeremiah 31:5.

For of the seven species, olive branches are the most attractive [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:3)].

This would impress them and the inhabitants of the towns through which they passed with the importance of their pilgrimage. Also, it allowed for people of many regions to congregate and ascend to Jerusalem together.

See Chapter 3, Halachot 7 and 9.

Because fresh produce is more attractive.

The Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.).

Kiddushin 33a notes that this is a great mark of respect for those who bring the first fruits. After all, artisans are not required to stand before Torah scholars and yet they would stand before the people who brought the first fruits.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 12.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13.