Nu, so should we get back to the real stuff? In a previous post I mentioned the halacha of not reading viduy bikurim if you are bringing fruit from a tree which has been chopped down; you cannot refer to “adamah asher nasatah li” if you don’t have the tree any longer. The R"Sh learns this Mishna as referring to a case where the tree was chopped down before you harvested the fruit. However, if the tree was standing when you plucked the fruit and then it was chopped down, not only can you not read the parsha, but you can’t bring the bikurim either. His rule: if the fruit was originally unfit to have the parsha read, the reading is not m’akeiv, but if it was fit to have the parsha read and became nidche, the reading is m’akeiv. The Rambam quotes the Mishna k’peshuto, indicating that in either case the fruit can be brought. Apparently, the Rambam does not hold of this chiddush of ra’uy v’nidche disqualifying the fruit.
The issue comes up in other places l’shitasam. If someone sold land the fruit grew on, the Mishna says that the seller cannot read the parsha of bikurim because he cannot refer to “adamah asher nasatah li”. R”Sh learns that the sale had to have taken place before the fruit was harvested from the tree, otherwise the fruit was ra’uy v’nidche and would be disqualified. The Rambam (Bikurim 4:5) again quotes the Mishna as-is, rejecting the qualification of the R”Sh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not holding in the sugya (been years since I passed by the bikurim sugyos in the the 5th perek of BB) but not sure I get this -- the kriya clearly is not meakev so how can there be a nireh venidche concept on the havaas bikurim based on the kriya? It's one thing to say there is a kol ha-rayu le-bilah ein bilah meakeves vekol sheino rayu etc. --- but here the kriya is not meakev so even if there is nireh venidche on the kriya, how can that come into play on the havaah? Those are two separate mitzvos in the minyan ha-mitzvos and clearly not meakev each other. I know this is not the thrust of your piece but it bugged me.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pliya, isn't it? I have no explanation, but it's not only the R"Sh, it's mefurash in the Yeruslami. Look at Bikurim 4a, where the gemara asks that kriah is not m'akeiv so how can it disqualify the fruit (your kashe, no?) and simply answers that 'hara'uy l'keriah ain keriah m'akeves' (sounds like like R' Zeira's din). The Rambam rejects this Yerushalmi (I think the Minchas Chinuch points this out - need to check again).
ReplyDeleteActually, you don't need the Y-lmi for this, as the same approach is in the Bavli in B"b 81b.
ReplyDeleteThanks -- I'll chazer the gemara. I guess the pshat is the kriya for havaa has the din for blilah for a korban mincha that harayu etc. And what the Rash overlays on that is that the din of kriya is subject to the whole nireh venidche analysis. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the Rashbam on BB 81, I was able to put my finger on what bothered me about this. The gemara says straight out that kriya for bikurim is like bilah for menachos and you apply R'Zeira's din. The point that the Rashbam notes is that there are cases that lechatchilah are mevi ve-eino korei -- like a ger or from sukkos to chanuka. That is the difference -- it is not just that kriya is not meakev like bilah is not meakev. But with bilah, there is no such thing as a mincha where lechatchilah you dont have the din of bilah. Here you have cases where lechatchilah you dont have kriya and shouldnt that show you that bilah doesnt apply. The Rashbam answers that the rule applies in any case that there could have been kriya and then there cant be (like in the gemara there because of a safek) then we apply R'Zeira's rule. That seems kind of different. But now that I am thinking about it more, I guess with the menachos there would be no bilah where there is no oil like a minchas chotei or minchas sotah. Interesting.
ReplyDelete