Rashi writes in parshas Mishpatim (23:19) that even during a shemita year there is a chiyuv to bring bikurim:
ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן.
Gur Ayreh on the spot (see also Mizrachi, Sifsei Chachamim) comments that this has to be a scribal error in Rashi and cannot possibly be correct.
בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן ״ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי״ (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים:
How can there be a chiyuv to bring bikurim when the chiyuv bikurim applies only where you can bring fruits from "ha'adamah asher nasata li," your land. During shemita, the land is hefker, not yours!
The Ohr hachaim similarly comments in our parsha (26:2):
אשר ה׳ אלהיך נותן לך – פירוש לפי ששייר ה׳ לו חלק בארץ והוא שנת השמיטה (ויקרא כ״ה ד׳) דכתיב ובשנה השביעית וגו׳ שבת לה׳, לזה בא דברו הטוב שאינו מצוה אלא על זמן הנתינה לך שהם ו׳ שנים אבל שנת השמיטה אין בה הבאת ביכורים לפי שאינם שלו אלא מופקרת לכל.
Others are not so sure that we should be so quick to dismiss Rashi's comment as a scribal error. They are medayek that the Rambam may hold the same way. He writes in hil Matnos Aniyim (6:5):
שנת השמטה כולה הפקר ואין בה לא תרומה ולא מעשרות כלל לא ראשון ולא שני ולא מעשר עני
Rambam paskens that there is no chiyuv terumos, maaser rishon, maaser sheni, maaser ani during shemita, but noticably absent from his list is bikurim. Does he mean to say that there is a chiyuv of bikurim during shemita, or is this chapter devoted to the halachos of teru"m and therefore that's all that he mentions?
What do you do with the Gur Aryeh/Ohr haChaim argument if you read Rashi/Rambam k'peshuto?
Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 84) raises the question of whether there is a chovas ha'gavra to declare one's fields hefker during shemita, or whether the mitzvas haTorah means the cheftza of the land is automatically considered hefker:
ואני מסופק אי המצוה אקרקפתא דגברא הוא דרחמנא ציוהו להפקיר פירותיו בשביעית ומחויב לקיים להפקיר ואם מפקיר ה"ז הפקר אבל אם אינו מפקיר אינו מופקר ונהי דעובר על עשה מ"מ אינו הפקר רק עובר על גזירת השי"ת א"כ אין אחר רשאי ליטלו והרי הוא גזל ביד אחרים כ"ז שלא הפקיר.
See M.C. for many nafka minos.
If one takes the first tzad of the M.C.'s chakira maybe you could learn that Rashi is talking about a case where the farmer violated the issur shemita and was not mafkir his land, and therefore, since he owns the land, he has to bring bikurim.
Rav Mordechai Eliyahu in his sefer on chumash explains that the nekudas hamachlokes here is more fundamental -- how hefker during shemita works: is a person is still considered the owner of his property, just others have a right to enter and take whatever fruits they desire, or does shemita cause the land to become ownerless?
According to Rashi, anyone can take from the field, but the land retains its baalus. According to Ohr haChaim, the land itself is hefker.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why cant it be that just the produce is hefker during shemittah, not the land? If that was true I would still be able to bring bikkurim from my land?
ReplyDeleteThat is exactly what R' Mordechai Eliyahu is saying to explain Rashi.
Delete..."able to bring" because the receiving kohen [kohanim] on duty was himself eligible to take those very bikkurim directly from the field? (moreover Rashi, though he doesn't say at 23:19, would surely[?] omit the declaration from the [shemita year] procedure, Dev. 26:11a)
Delete"exactly what R' Mordechai Eliyahu is saying" -- the general term "property" confuses the issue...
if hefker fruits can make it to the Mikdash as bikurim in year 7, what of the inverse: can bikurim go public as peah, leket, or shich'chah, in years 1-6?
DeleteSo why can't it be that we are learning out the laws of hefker from the fruit of the land and not the land itself?
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I will take that out of the post. Thanks
Delete