Bava Basra 81 is one of those dapim of gemara that come as a breath of fresh air in the middle of monotonous, hyper technical sugyos. The daf begins by quoting a mishna about whether the person who buys two trees in a field has purchased the field, or just the trees themselves. As explained by the Rashbam, the Tanna Kamma holds that the purchaser merely has bought the two trees and it is as if once the trees have borne their fruits for the year the buyer can cut them down and take them away. Meanwhile, Rav Meir holds that the buyer has purchased the land under the trees as well.
This is familiar territory as the sugya itself has made its appearance numerous times in the mesechta. But then the gemara in interpreting the mishna opens up the once monotonous fact pattern by seeking to compare the mishna to the law of bikkurim. The gemara quotes a mishna in Bikkurim wherein the Tanna Kamma states that the purchaser brings the fruit of the two trees up to Yerushalaim to be brought as bikkurim, but does not read the vidui bikkurim. R' Meir (who consistently follows his line of reasoning from our mishna) states that he does read the vidui bikkurim. Shmuel then says that according to R' Meir anyone who purchases fruit in the marketplace can use them for bikkurim as one does not need to own land to bring bikkurim.
The gemara then begins to bring pesukim dealing with bikkurim in an attempt to disprove Shmuel. One of these attempts asks the question - well what about the pasuk in Ki Savo which states that the bikkurim are brought from your land ("asher tavi me'artzecha"). The gemara answers that this is meant to exclude fruits from land outside of Israel as not falling within the law of bikkurim.
Tosafos d'h Hahu (one of the many fascinating Tosafosim on today's daf) asks why we need a pasuk to teach this - don't we already know from a gemara in Kiddushin that all mitzvos which are connected to the land of Israel are only kept in Israel? The gemara answers that bikkurim are mentioned in the pasuk in conjunction with the law of meat and milk (Shemos 23 - Reishis Bikurei Admasecha Tavi Beis Hashem Elokecha Lo Sivashel G'di BaChalev Imo) and there was a thought that people will believe that just like the people keep the separation of meat and milk outside Israel, so too would the laws of bikkurim apply there.
This is familiar territory as the sugya itself has made its appearance numerous times in the mesechta. But then the gemara in interpreting the mishna opens up the once monotonous fact pattern by seeking to compare the mishna to the law of bikkurim. The gemara quotes a mishna in Bikkurim wherein the Tanna Kamma states that the purchaser brings the fruit of the two trees up to Yerushalaim to be brought as bikkurim, but does not read the vidui bikkurim. R' Meir (who consistently follows his line of reasoning from our mishna) states that he does read the vidui bikkurim. Shmuel then says that according to R' Meir anyone who purchases fruit in the marketplace can use them for bikkurim as one does not need to own land to bring bikkurim.
The gemara then begins to bring pesukim dealing with bikkurim in an attempt to disprove Shmuel. One of these attempts asks the question - well what about the pasuk in Ki Savo which states that the bikkurim are brought from your land ("asher tavi me'artzecha"). The gemara answers that this is meant to exclude fruits from land outside of Israel as not falling within the law of bikkurim.
Tosafos d'h Hahu (one of the many fascinating Tosafosim on today's daf) asks why we need a pasuk to teach this - don't we already know from a gemara in Kiddushin that all mitzvos which are connected to the land of Israel are only kept in Israel? The gemara answers that bikkurim are mentioned in the pasuk in conjunction with the law of meat and milk (Shemos 23 - Reishis Bikurei Admasecha Tavi Beis Hashem Elokecha Lo Sivashel G'di BaChalev Imo) and there was a thought that people will believe that just like the people keep the separation of meat and milk outside Israel, so too would the laws of bikkurim apply there.
Tosafos also brings the opinion of the Rashba that bikkurim is not a mitzva which is unique to the land of Israel since the mitzva of bikkurim falls on the person, not the fruit. He explains that by teruma, ma'aser and challah, the unapportioned fruit is tevel and cannot be eaten until the portions are taken off. However, the law of bikkurim only applies to the person as he can eat any other fruit from the land prior to bringing the bikkurim up to the Beis Hamikdash.
If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!
No comments:
Post a Comment