MISHNAH: Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration [The thanksgiving declaration Deut. 26:5–10. It is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple. If there is no obligation to bring First Fruits then there is a prohibition to bring. If there is an obligation, a dedication must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple offerings.] , some bring and do not make the declaration, and some do not bring. The following do not bring [The reason is explained in Mishnah 2.] : He who plants in his own but provines [He bends a branch of a vine down into the earth and has it reappear elsewhere; cf. Kilaim 7:1, Note 1.] into a private or a public plot; and so he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own. If someone plants in his own and provines into his own but a private or public road is in the middle he cannot bring; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings.
HALAKHAH: “Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration,” etc. He who plants in his own but provines into a private or a public plot cannot bring even from the old tree [The original one growing on his own property.] ; he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own cannot bring even from the new tree. That means that just as the new lives off the old [While the buried branch will grow new roots, as long as a connection exists between the original vine and its offshoot, the internal flow of sap cannot be controlled. Since First Fruits have to be brought “from your land” (Deut. 26:2), any roots of the tree have to be on the farmer’s own property.] , so the old lives off the new.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. Rebbi Yose said, that is what the Mishnah [Mishnah 1:2.] means: “Why can he not bring? Because it was said (Deut. 26:2): ‘the beginning of the First Fruits of your land.’ ”
It was stated: If he provined with permission [Of the owner of the lot on which the original vine stood or into which the new vine is drawn.] , he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following [Mishnah Baba Batra 2:12. If somebody digs a cistern on his own property and in digging he comes upon roots from a neighbor’s tree, he may cut off these roots and keep the wood of the roots. In the Yerushalmi, Baba Batra 2:12, R. Assi in the name of R. Joḥanan holds that (invisible) roots do not influence the rules of First Fruits.] : “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father [R. Jonah.] , as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber [First fruits can always be brought if the farmer does not make illegitimate use of public or other people’s private property.] .
Rebbi Zeriqan asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Is the Mishnah Rebbi’s since Rebbi said, all roots live off one another [‘Orlah 1:1, Note 39.] ? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. Here, the Torah said (Deut. 26:2): “the beginning of the First Fruits of your land,” that all growth be from your land.
In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into a private person’s and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a private road is in between [In the first case, R. Jehudah agrees that he cannot bring First Fruits but in the second case he permits bringing.] ? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha, when he provined through a gourd or a pipe [He tunnels under the ground which is not his and shields the branch there either by a clay or metal pipe or by threading it through a pumpkin serving as a pipe. Since no roots can grow there, he does not steal from the owner of the path and is not disqualified as a robber.] . If he provined through a gourd or a pipe he should bring and make the declaration! Even according to the rabbis he should bring and make the declaration [R. Aḥa’s solution is rejected.] ! Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah had a problem. If somebody sells a path to another person [But he retains ownership of the fields on both sides of the path.] , does he sell him the place where the foot treads or does he sell him down to the abyss? If you say, he sold the place where the foot treads, he brings and makes the declaration. If you say, he sold down to the abyss, he should not bring at all. Because of the doubt he brings but does not make the declaration [Since R. Jehudah mentions only bringing but not making the declaration.] . For the rabbis it is obvious that he sold down to the abyss. Where do they differ? When he sells a path to another person. But if he sold him a field and reserved a path for himself, everybody agrees that he reserved for himself down to the abyss [If he extends branches under the path, it is still in his property.] .
In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, what is the difference between him who plants on his own property and provines into the public domain and him who plants on his own and provines into his own and a public road is in between? Rebbi Ammi said, Rebbi Jehudah holds with Rebbi Eliezer [The teacher of his father R. Ilaï.] , as we have stated there [Mishnah Baba Batra 3:12.] : “One may not make a cavity under the public domain, cisterns, ditches, or caverns. Rebbi Eliezer permits it if a truck loaded with stones can pass over it.” As Rebbi Eliezer said there, under the public domain, it is his, so Rebbi Jehudah said here, under the public domain, it is his. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked, if it follows Rebbi Eliezer, he should bring and make the declaration. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac thought that Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that and it remains his permanent property, but Rebbi Eliezer permits to do that but anybody quick to acquire does acquire it [A cavity under the public domain cannot be appropriated for the exclusive use of a private person. Therefore, it may be legal to provine under the public domain but the provined plant is not exclusively in the vintner’s domain. The statement of R. Eliezer is not discussed in Yerushalmi Baba Batra. The Babli (Baba Batra 60a) holds that the anonymous Tanna would agree with R. Eliezer if the safety of the road could be guaranteed for all times without maintenance. This cannot be the opinion of the Yerushalmi.] .
MISHNAH: Why can he not bring? Because it was said (Deut. 26:2): “You shall bring the beginning of the First Fruits of your land,” that all the growth should be from your land. For the same reason sharecroppers, tenant farmers, sicarii [Knife-wielding robbers who take deeds of property as ransom for the lives of the property owners. The sicarii mentioned in this Mishnah obviously are Jews; in Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:6 the sicarii are Gentiles.] , and robbers cannot bring, since it is said: “The beginning of the First Fruits of your land.”
HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money [If the owners gave up hope to recover the robbed object, the robber becomes the legal owner. The transfer of ownership imposes on the robber the obligation to pay for it. Before giving up hope, the owners could have sued for the return of the stolen object; after they gave up hope but the circumstances changed and made a suit possible, they can only sue for damages. The next paragraph will make clear that this is the situation here.] ? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices [These rules are stricter than those governing other obligations.] or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring [Sifra Wayiqra Paršata 5(2), Babli Baba Qama 67b: Lev. 1:10, “If his sacrifice is from the flock” implies that robbed animals cannot become sacrifices.] ; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged [If one of the prior worshippers of the tree damages it in a manner inadmissible in pagan worship, the tree loses is idolatrous status and becomes profanely usable. But if at any time it was forbidden for the Jewish altar it remains forbidden since in Neh. 10:35 the supply of firewood for the altar is called a “sacrifice.”] one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav [The palm frond used on the Holiday of Tabernacles. In the Babli, Avodah Zarah 47a, this is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s question in the interpretation of Rav Dimi. In his interpretation, the rules of sacrifices require that anything inadmissible at some time is always inadmissible; clearly this is not the case for any non-sacrificial use.] from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it [The Babli (Mo‘ed Qaṭan 26b) makes a difference between things used for commandments (such as a lulav) and holy things (such as a Torah scroll). Things used for commandments may be discarded after use; holy things which can no longer be used must be buried just as damaged Temple stones must be buried. It is possible that the Yerushalmi agrees with this distinction.] and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah [The disagreement between R. Jehudah and the Sages is in Mishnah 3:10.] who compares them to country sacred food [Sacred food to be consumed by the Cohen in purity anywhere in the Land, i. e., heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah.] he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.
So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope [he hope to recover the real estate taken from them.] . Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following [Mishnah 2:2, which states among other rules that heave applies to sharecroppers, tenant farmers, buyers of expropriated property, and robbers.] : “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope [Most commentators want to switch the two cases, against all ms. evidence, misreading the rhetorical quality of the multiple negations.] ? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated [A similar text in Tosephta Terumot 1:6 and Babli Baba Qama 67a, 114a/b.] : “A strongman [His quality is not defined; he might be anything from a kidnapper to a corrupt politician.] , a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave [As the Babli explains, the robber cannot give because it is not his and the owners cannot give because it is not in their possession.] . Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes [The Mishnah does not state that Jewish robbers, etc., have to give heave but that the rules of heave and tithes apply to them. Since they cannot give heave, they never can eat the produce of the land they robbed. On the other hand, produce may be eaten of a crop from which First Fruits were not given.] ! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question [Whether First Fruits may be brought from this land.] .
MISHNAH: One does not bring First Fruits except from the Seven Kinds [The fruits enumerated in Deut. 8:8; cf. Berakhot 6, Notes 15, 151.] , nor from mountain dates, nor from valley fruits [Grapes, figs, pomegranates and olives. These grow better in the hills; dates grow best in the Jordan valley. The requirement of “best quality” applies to all First Fruits.] , nor from oil olives which are not best quality. One may not bring First Fruits before Pentecost. [The remainder of the Mishnah is also Mishnah Ḥallah 4:11; Notes 172,173.] The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: (Ex. 23:16) “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.”
HALAKHAH: [A similar text in Sifra Deut. 197(2), a third version in Babli Menaḥot 84b.] “One does not bring First Fruits”, etc. If it were written (Deut. 26:2): “You shall take the First Fruits of your land”, I would have said that all kinds should be obligated for First Fruits. The verse says,“from [As always, prefix מ is read as partitive.] the First Fruits”, not all firsts. If “from the first” and not all first, then you have only wheat and barley. The verse says “fruits of your land”; this is inclusive. Does it include everything? Here [Deut. 26:2.] “your land” has been said; at another place [Deut. 8:8.] “the Land of wheat and barley” has been said. Since “land” mentioned there deals with the Seven Kinds, so also “land” mentioned in this verse must deal with the Seven Kinds.
[This paragraph and the following explain expressions used in Deut. 8:8.] “Oil olives” that is agory [In the Gaonic commentary to Kelim 17:8, the reading is איגורי. The kind of olive, the main example of a mid-sized olive, is called after a place Egor as the suffix -y shows. The etymology, in the name of R. Abbahu, is also in Babli Berakhot 39a.] . Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is the Avaritic [Apparently after an Egyptian city Avaris, mentioned by Manetho. In Babli Berakhot, the readings are אברוסי, אברוסי, סמרוסי, סברוסי, סמדוסי Cf. I. Löw in Krauss Lehnwörter p. 7; S. Liebermann, Tosefta ki-Fshutah p. 332.] . Why is it called agory? Because it stores its oil inside. Do all other olives lose their oil? Rebbi Ḥanina said, all other olives will leach their oil if rains fall on them but this one stores its oil inside.
“And honey”. This refers to dates. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar: It is written (2Chr. 31:5) “When the thing expanded, the Children of Israel did increase the first gifts [Heave and tithes.] of grain, cider, oil, and honey.” Is honey subject to tithes? But this refers to dates which are subject to tithes [Date syrup. This argument would extend the biblical duty of tithes from grain, wine, and oil to all Seven Kinds.] .
Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Why is “Land, Land” written twice [Deut. 8:8: A Land of wheat and barley, and vine, and fig tree, and pomegranate, a Land of the oil-olive and honey.] ? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things [The necessities of life are wheat and olive oil.] . Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman, one says for benedictions [Explained Berakhot 6:4, Notes 150–151, where this opinion is labelled “Babylonian”.] , the other says for measures [In the Babli, Eruvin 4a/b, Sukkah 5b, this is reported in the name of the Babylonian Rav Ḥanin. The seven measures are: I. A person entering a leprous house is severely impure only if he remains long enough that he could have eaten a slice of wheat bread (Lev. 14:47). 2. A fragment of a human bone the size of a barley corn imparts impurity. 3. A quarter log of wine drunk by a nazir makes him subject to punishment. As a derivative, a quarter log of wine is the minimum for legal obligations. 4. Somebody carrying food in the volume of a dried fig from private to public domain on the Sabbath is guilty of desecrating the Sabbath. 5. A vessel having a pomegranate-sized hole is unusable and freed from the impurity of vessels. 6. The volume of an olive is the standard for most rules involving solid food. 7. Eating food in the volume of a dried date on the Day of Atonement is a desecration of the day.] . He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: “A shiny mark the size of half a bean [Lev. 13:1–8, Mishnah Nega‘im 6:1.. A smaller lesion does not make impure.] ”? That is not reliable [The size of the lesion does not mean anything in itself. Even if the lesion is larger, if it does not grow after being seen by the Cohen it does not make impure. If it is smaller but seen by the Cohen and then spreads, there is impurity. (Explanation of Pene Moshe). Another interpretation would be that this and the next measure are not standardized.] . “The size of a lentil from a crawling thing” [Mishnah Kelim 17:6. A fragment of a dead crawling animal (Lev. 11:29–31) in the size of a lentil makes impure.] ? That is not reliable [An integral limb makes impure even if it is smaller than a lentil.] .
The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified [The thanksgiving declaration Deut. 26:5–10. It is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple. If there is no obligation to bring First Fruits then there is a prohibition to bring. If there is an obligation, a dedication must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple offerings.] . Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave [Mishnah Terumot 2:6.] . Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? [The argument of R. Jonah is disproved.] A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris [On a hilltop.] and Bet Shean [In a deep valley. It is not specified why fruits from these two places are unacceptable as First Fruits.] , and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked [Cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it 2:2.] one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs [White figs, cf. Demay 1, Note 5. (L. Goldschmidt, in his notes to Levy’s dictionary, explains that in Babli Nedarim27a, bat šeba figs are a kind different from “white figs”. But “white figs” are really green ones, in contrast to “black” or purple ones.)] and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late [Tosephta 1:5.] .
It was stated [Tosephta 1:5.] : Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one brings dates only from Jericho and one makes the declaration only for dry ones [Arabic قسب.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one may bring valley pomegranates and make the declaration [He only excludes valley figs.] .
MISHNAH: [He only excludes valley figs.] The following bring but do not make the declaration. The proselyte brings but does not make the declaration since he cannot say (Deut. 26:3): “That the Eternal had sworn to our forefathers to give us.” But if his mother was Jewish [The child of a Jewish mother is automatically Jewish. But since Mishnah Qiddušin 3:12 states that “in all cases where marriage is possible and not sinful, the child is classified with the male”, the child is still classified as a proselyte.] he brings and makes the declaration. When he prays in private [In the first benediction of the ‘Amidah prayer.] , he says “God of the forefathers of Israel.” When he is in the synagogue, he says “God of your forefathers.” But if his mother was Jewish he says “God of our forefathers.”
HALAKHAH: [The different interpretations of this Halakhah are discussed in Tosefta ki-Fshutah Zeraïm pp. 823–825.] : “The following bring but do not make the declaration”. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Mishnah speaks of a proselyte of the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration, as it is written (Num. 10:29): “Go with us and we shall treat you well. [In Tosephta 1:2: “Rebbi Jehudah said, all proselytes bring but do not make the declaration, except that a Qenite proselyte brings and makes the declaration.” This contradicts the opinion given here that a Qenite proselyte can make the declaration only if he is the son of a Jewish mother. The problem is, why should the proselyte, son of a Jewish mother (Note 68), be able to make the declaration? He would not be able to declare “that the Eternal had sworn to our forefathers to give us” since the Land was distributed to males only. The daughters of Ẓelofḥad could inherit only as sole heirs of their father who was of those counted at the Exodus; the Land was never promised to the females. But since the family of Jithro were invited by Moses to join the Israelites and received part of the Land (Jud. 1:16), a Qenite can declare “that the Eternal had sworn to give us” from his father’s side and “to our forefathers’ from the mother’s. {The hypothesis that the Qenites were not considered as Israelites at the conquest is difficult to accept.}] ” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so [They do not disagree with the statement of R. Samuel ben Rav Isaac but with context and meaning. In the first version, only the sentence about the proselyte, son of a Jewish mother, refers to Qenites.] but: Why did they say [Mishnah 5. The first three are not owners, the last three are not male.] “the guardians, the slave, the agent, the woman, the sexless and the hermaphrodite can bring but do not make the declaration,” is not the proselyte mentioned here [Since the proselyte cannot say “that the Eternal had sworn to our forefathers to give us” but can make the declaration if his mother is Jewish, why cannot the persons mentioned in Mishnah 5 (with the exception of the slave) make the declaration since presumably they are children of a Jewish mother?] ? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, explain it by the proselyte mentioned here [Mishnah 5 in its entirety only deals with Qenites. This is difficult to accept since then the Mishnah would have become meaningless with the Babylonian exile.] , by the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, since the descendants of the Qenite, the relative of Moses by marriage, bring and make the declaration.
Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman [Since the Torah in many places requires that the proselyte and the natural born Jew be equal in rights and duties, the proselyte mentioned here cannot be the child of a proselyte who by converting became a 100% Jew. The solution given is difficult since by Mishnah Qiddušin 3:12 the child of an unconverted Gentile and a Jewish mother follows the mother only because there can be no marriage outside the faith in Jewish law. In similar situations, the Babli explains the rules to refer to a child of proselytes whose mother was pregnant when the parents converted. In that case, the child is Jewish but not the child of Jewish parents since at conception the parents were Gentile. E. g., if born on a Sabbath, if such a child is a male he cannot be circumcized on the Sabbath. Since a solution is chosen here which seems to contradict Mishnah Qiddušin 3:12, one might infer that the Yerushalmi determines the status of the baby not by the status of the parents at conception (whose time is impossible to determine exactly) but at birth.] . Rebbi Jonah did not say so, but: Rebbi [It seems that a name has disappeared here.] heard those of the family bar Astor, who were proselytes, children of proselytes [The child of a Jewish mother is automatically Jewish. But since Mishnah Qiddušin 3:12 states that “in all cases where marriage is possible and not sinful, the child is classified with the male”, the child is still classified as a proselyte.] , say “God of our forefathers.” But did we not state: “If his mother was Jewish he says ‘God of our forefathers’ ”? That means, not proselytes children of proselytes! Rebbi Yose said, Benjamin bar Astor explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Benjamin bar Astor explained it before us: The Mishnah deals with a Gentile who had forbidden intercourse with a Jewish woman.
Rebbi Zeriqan said, Rebbi Zeïra asked: Do they not refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob their forefathers? Did not the Holy One, praise to Him, swear to the males but not to the females [Since the females should not be important in this respect, the Mishnah is unexplainable.] ?
It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: The proselyte himself brings and makes the declaration [Since this contradicts the statements of R. Jehudah in Tosephta 1:2, it is clear that the Tosephta was not known to the editors of the Yerushalmi.] . What is the reason? (Gen. 17:5) “For I made you the father of the multitude of Gentiles.” In the past you were the father of Aram, from now onwards you will be father of all Gentiles. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. A case [About the prayers to be recited by proselytes. Since the Babli does not take up the problem, it agrees that the proselyte everywhere says “God of our forefathers.”] came before Rebbi Abbahu and he instructed following Rebbi Jehudah.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, a woman, daughter of proselytes, should not marry a Cohen unless her mother is from Israel [The dissenting opinions are in Mishnah Qiddušin 4:8. The discussion in the Halakhah is repeated in Qiddušin 4:6 (fol. 66a).] . There is no difference between proselytes and freedmen, even up to ten generations, unless their mothers be from Israel. The guardians [Administrators of orphans’ property; Greek ἐπίτροπος.] , the slave [A freed slave owning property.] , the agent [The possibility of agency for the presentation of First Fruits is discussed in Halakhah 6.] , the woman [Who brings First Fruits from her private property.] , the sexless, and the hermaphrodite [They possibly are female.] can bring but not make the declaration, since they cannot say (Deut.26:10): “Which You gave me, Eternal.”
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated [Mishnah Qiddušin 4:6.] : “Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one [The child of a Cohen and a woman forbidden by the rules Lev. 21:7 (a prostitute or a divorcee) cannot be married by a Cohen. Desecration is not removable and is inherited by his descendants..] .” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins [Since a widow is forbidden only to the High Priest, the verse describes a woman who was a virgin from the seed of Israel. Since verses in sources other than the Torah cannot be prescriptive, one speaks here about rules the Cohanim accepted over and above the ones spelled out in the Torah.] from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer [Ben Jacob.] says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel [Born after the mother became Jewish.] . Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen [It is generally accepted talmudic medical theory that a girl who was raped when she was less than three years of age will regrow her hymen.] in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon [Sifry Num. 157; Babli Yebamot60b, Qiddušin 76b, 78a.] : “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male [Being less than three years of age.] you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves [This word has slipped in as a routine expression.] and slave girls for yourselves.
Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Yose [In the Babli (Yebamot 60b): R. Jacob bar Idi said practice follows R. Simeon ben Ioḥai but … But the final decision is that practice follows R. Eliezer ben Jacob.] but Cohanim are used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. A Cohen married the daughtor of proselytes. The case came before Rebbi Abbahu who let him kneel before the low bench [Latin subsellium; to have him whipped.] . Rav Bevai said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us that practice follows Rebbi Yose? He answered, but are not Cohanim used to increase their dignity following Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob? He retorted, does one whip because of what one is used to do [Since there is no formal prohibition.] ? He said to him, if you look at it in such a way, you have appeased me and I shall let him get up. After he got up, he said to him, since the lash was withdrawn I am permitted to have her [Since the only restriction enforceable in court is R. Yose’s.] .
Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a family in the South was in bad reputation [That all their girls were forbidden to Cohanim.] . Rebbi sent Romanus to investigate them. He investigated and found that a grandmother had been converted at less than three years and a day of age, and he declared them fit for the priesthood. Rav Hoshaia said, he declared them fit following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Zeïra said, here it is everybody’s opinion since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Ada bar Ahava, Rebbi Judan brings it in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The child of an adult is fit since it is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment [A High Priest is directed to marry a woman “in her virginity”. This is interpreted to mean that the bride must be a virgin but not yet an adult since for adults the hymen may get soft by itself and therefore the fact of virginity cannot in all cases be established. But since the prohibition to marry an adult is only a logical consequence of the positive commandment to marry a virgin, it has no standing in penal law and, therefore, the child of woman marrying as an adult cannot be subject to any disability.] . (Lev. 21:13) “But he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment is a positive commandment [The Babli concurs (Yebamot 54b,68a; Pesaḥim 41b, Zebaḥim 36a, Ḥulin 81a.)] . Analogously, (Lev. 21:14) “only a virgin from amidst his people he shall take as wife,” not a proselyte [The Babli (Yebamot 77b) and Sifra Emor Pereq 2(6) conclude from the partitive מ in מעמיו that the daughter of a proselyte is acceptable.] . Is any prohibition deduced from a positive commandment a positive commandment? Rebbi Hoshaia objected: But the second generation of an Egyptian is a prohibition deduced from a positive commandment [The prohibition of the first two generations of descendants of an Egyptian proselyte is only inferred from the permission to the third generation to marry a Jewish partner, Deut. 23:9. If the previous argument is correct, only male Egyptians should be disabled in the second generation, not women. But the verse makes no gender distinction. The principle enunciated seems to contradict the Torah.] ! Rebbi Hoshaia turned around and said, a positive commandment for Israel cannot be compared to a positive commandment for Cohanim. A positive commandment for Israel implies a prohibition for everybody. A positive commandment for Cohanim implies a prohibition for Cohanim but a permission for Levites and Israel [Since it is special legislation it cannot imply anything not spelled out explicitly.] .
“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this [He did not explain the reason behind this ruling.] ; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration [In cases where the Mishnah requires making the declaration, First Fruits become permitted to Cohanim in the Temple only after the full biblical ceremony.] become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees [Mishnah 1:7. When he designated First Fruits he could make the declaration because the land was his; when he brings he cannot make the declaration since the land is no longer his. In this case the First Fruits should be permanently forbidden to everybody.] : “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell [He knew at the moment of designation that he would not be able to make the declaration; then the obligation to make the declaration never started.] . But did we not state [Mishnah 1:6; he brings but does not make the declaration.] : “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry [It is not necessary that at the moment of designation it was 100% clear that he could not make the declaration; it is enough if there was a likelihood that this would be the case.] . Does making the declaration prevent [Is the illiterate farmer precluded from ever bringing First Fruits? Cf. Halakhah 1:7 and Mishnah 3:7.] ? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent [In the Babli (Baba Batra 81b, Makkot 18b) this rule is attributed to R. Zeïra. In general, the omission of a required action does not prevent the validity of the act if it would have been possible to perform it (unless it is a requited חוק or תורה). But if it is impossible to perform then any omission of a required action does prevent.] . If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself [This is unreasonable; therefore, the First Fruits were gathered with the intention to deliver without making the declaration; the declaration was never required and cannot prevent.] ?
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The heir brings and does not make the declaration. How do we hold? If about an heir during his father’s lifetime, he is his agent [The Mishnah already states that he cannot make the declaration.] . But after his father’s death it is his own [He can make the declaration.] ! But we deal with the case that his father was seriously ill [The father had designated the First Fruits but he died before they were delivered. Then the son cannot make the declaration since he did not designate.] .
[Sifry Deut. #301. The verse is the last in the paragraph about First Fruits.] “It is written (Deut. 26:11): ‘You shall enjoy all the good things that the Eternal, your God, gave you and your house.’ This teaches that a person brings First Fruits from his wife’s property [Since a person called “a person’s house” is his wife. The property here is the wife’s separate property, not her dowry which becomes the husband’s property subject to the wife’s claim in case of dissolution of the marriage.] and makes the declaration.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, after her death but not during her lifetime. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, during her lifetime and after her death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person does not inherit from his wife as a biblical rule [For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the husband inherits from his wife by rabbinic institution, in exchange for the obligations which the husband takes upon himself in signing the ketubah. This opinion is not mentioned elsewhere; Sifry Num. 137 derives the husband’s inheritance from the verses of the law of inheritance, Num. 27:6–11. In the Babli, Giṭṭin 47b, the disagreement between R. Simeon ben Laqish and R. Joḥanan is reduced to the question whether buying usufruct, without buying the underlying real estate, transfers property rights since during the marriage the husband has the usufruct also of the wife’s separate property.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent [In the Babli, Makkot 17a, this is a statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of R. Joḥanan. The statement does not disqualify a person who cannot read the declaration; it only applies to persons required to read, cf. Note 113. An action “prevents” if the ceremony becomes invalid if it is omitted.] . But did we not state [Mishnah Makkot 3:3; discussed in Babli Makkot 18b. A Cohen who eats of First Fruits before the ceremony of dedication is whipped.] : “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s [In Makkot 13a, the attribution of Mishnah Makkot 3:3 is given in the name of R. Joḥanan.] . Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father [R. Jonah.] state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated [“Putting down” is mentioned both in Deut. 26:4, as an action of the Cohen, and 26:10, as an action of the farmer.] . Rebbi Abba Mari said both [R. Eleazar did not change his mind; he gave two different explanations for two different schools of thought.] , one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis [The ceremony is described in Mishnah 3:4. According to the anonymous Tanna, the farmer keeps his basket on his shoulder until he has read the entire declaration (and then hands the basket over to the Cohen who deposits it near the altar.) According to R. Jehudah, only the declaration in Deut. 26:3 is made with the basket on the farmer’s shoulder. Then the farmer holds the basket by its handles, the Cohen puts his hands under the basket and weaves it (as required by the anonymous Mishnah 2:4). Only after that, the declaration 26:5–10 is made and the basket deposited near the altar. For R. Jehudah, the first “putting down” is into the hands of the Cohen, the second on the floor. For him, both mentions are necessary. The other sources more or less follow R. Jehudah. Sifry Deut. #300 infers from 26:4, “you shall put it down before the altar of the Eternal, your God”, that in the absence of an altar there cannot be any obligation of First Fruits. In #301 it is inferred from the double mention of “putting down” that there are two, one for the declaration and one for the subsequent prostration. The late Targum Yerushalmi (Pseudo Jonathan) translates 26:4: “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand, move it forward and backward, upward and downward, and at the end put it down before the altar of the Eternal, your God.” The first inserted text describes the “weaving” required by R. Jehudah. Verse 10 is translated without addition: “… put it down before the Eternal, your God, and prostrate yourself before the Eternal, your God.”] . For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody [For R. Jehudah the two mentions of “putting down” are needed in the description of the ceremony. For him, accepting First Fruits from a person who cannot recite is a rabbinic interpretation, unsupported by the biblical text.] . For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated [Since for them there is only one “putting down”; the double mention is for emphasis.] .
MISHNAH: He who buys two trees on another’s property brings but does not make the declaration; Rebbi Meїr says he brings and makes the declaration [The standard contract (Mishnah Baba Batra 5:4) about buying trees implies that the ground on which the trees stand is sold with the trees only if the transaction involves at least three trees in one orchard. R. Meїr disagrees in that Mishnah; his standard contract implies the sale of the land also for two trees. It is clear that if the sale of the ground is expressly stipulated, the buyer can recite the declaration which is formulated for the owners of the land (Mishnah 11).] . If the spring dried up [If the field or orchard from which the First Fruits were taken cannot bear fruit the next year since there is no longer any possibility of irrigation, it is as if the owner no longer possessed the property as agricultural land.] or the tree [From which the First Fruits were taken.] was cut down, one brings but does not make the declaration; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings and makes the declaration [Since the farmer remains the owner of the property.] . From Pentecost to Tabernacles one brings and makes the declaration; from Tabernacles to Ḥanukkah one brings but does not make the declaration; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says he brings and makes the declaration [For the anonymous majority, after Tabernacles there no longer is any joy in the harvest. Everybody agrees that there is no harvest between Ḥanukkah and Pentecost; cf. Mishnah 3.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: If one bought a single tree he did not acquire the ground, two he did not acquire the ground. From one he does not bring at all, from two he brings and does not make the declaration [For real estate law, it makes no difference whether one or two trees are bought. Does one have to read the Mishnah as dealing with exactly two trees or is there no difference for the rabbis whether one buys one or two trees and the number 2 is mentioned only because of R. Meїr who will agree with the rabbis in the case of a single tree but disagrees about 2? In the latter case, the person acquiring a single fruit tree could bring but not make the declaration. In the Babli, Baba Batra 81a the matter is decided, that R. Meïr permits the buyer of a single tree to bring but not to make the declaration.] ? Rebbi Eleazar said to him, you are asking a question to which the rabbis in assembly have no answer.
[This is from Berakhot 6:2, Notes 117–118.] Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: “If he pronounced the benediction ‘Creator of the fruit of the soil’ on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.
Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: If somebody sold him a field with its standing crop, may the buyer bring First Fruits? He said to him, why not? That is, when it is moist; even when it is dry [If the grain is totally dry at the moment of sale and does not ripen in the possession of the buyer.] ? He said to him, even dry, even harvested. Then even wheat grain; do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits [There is no answer since the question is too stupid to merit one; the buyer of grain on the market does not buy the field; the only buyer who may bring First Fruits is the buyer of the field. In the Babli, Baba Batra 81a, the opinion that R. Meїr will allow First Fruits from grain bought on the market is shown to be impossible.] ?
The following is obvious: If somebody sold the harvest and retained the land for himself, the seller cannot bring since he has no harvest. If he bought it back? Let us hear from the following: “If he gave her dedicated things they are permitted; wines, oils, flour, or anything of a kind admissible near the altar, are prohibited [Similar statements, in different order, are Mishnah Temurah 6:4, Tosephta Temurah 4:7,9. The statements refer to the prohibition (Deut. 23:19) to bring a whore’s wages to the Temple in fulfillment of any vow. This implies that the prostitute was paid in kind; if she is paid in money then what she buys with that money is not prohibited. Since animals or produce dedicated to the Temple cannot become objects of a new vow, these are not under the prohibition of a whore’s wages.] . The latter adds only bundles [The root is פכר, to bundle, as pointed out by I. Löw. The Babli form is פרכילי with a change of liquids.] of vines and rings made of grain stalks [This sentence is a baraita not otherwise recorded. Since wine, olive oil, and flour are the only vegetal products used on the altar, the addition “or anything of a kind admissible near the altar” can only refer to First Fruits which are the only other vegetables admitted in the Temple.] .” Where do we hold? If he gave her [Fruits or grains admissible as First Fruits.] as whore’s wages, do we say that the buyer on the market brings First Fruits? But we must hold in case the vines were hers, she sold him the fruits, and he gave them back to her as whore’s wages. Because they are whore’s wages [This is the only reason they cannot be brought to the Temple.] . Therefore, if they were not whore’s wages she might bring. That means, if he bought back he may bring.
The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he dedicated them before Tabernacles and Tabernacles passed, he brings and does not make the declaration. If he dedicated them before Ḥanukkah and Ḥanukkah passed, they will rot [Since they must be brought to the Temple but would not be accepted, they are forbidden for any use.] . After Ḥanukkah they do not become holy. Rebbi Zeïra will not accept this of the colleagues; Rebbi Zeïra is of the opinion that all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration [This discusses the opinion of the colleagues that First Fruits dedicated before Tabernacles may still be brought after Tabernacles. This seems to contradict the opinion stated in Halakhah 6 (Note 108) without opposition that First Fruits under the obligation of declaration cannot become permitted to Cohanim except by the declaration by the farmer.] . Do the colleagues not accept this? They accept it; if he dedicated before Tabernacles intending to bring them after Tabernacles [In this case, there never was an obligation to recite the declaration.] . Did we not state [It seems that תנינן should be תני since the statement is not a Mishnah. This paragraph discusses the statement that First Fruits dedicated after Ḥanukkah do not acquire sanctity.] : One may not bring First Fruits from the new crop for the old, nor from the old for the new. Where do we hold? If about produce [In rabbinic Hebrew, פירות usually means grain but it also can be used in the Biblical sense of “fruit” in general. This ambiguity is expressed here; the first sentence speaks of grain, the second of fruits of a tree.] which was one third ripe before New Year’s Day for produce which was not one third ripe before New Year’s Day [Since First Fruits are called ראשית (Deut. 26:2) and heave is called ראשית (Deut. 18:4), the rules of heave apply to First Fruits; cf. Mishnah 2:1..] , since it was not one third ripe before New Year’s Day it is obvious that it did not form roots before the ‘omer and will be forbidden until the coming ‘omer permits it [Mishnah ‘Orlah 3:9, Note 155.] . But we must deal with fruits [from trees] which budded before the fifteenth of Šebaṭ [The New Year of fruit trees for tithing periods, cf. Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:1; Ševi‘it 5, Note 6.] for fruits which budded after the fifteenth of Šebaṭ; because that would be from new for old. Therefore, from new for new one may bring [Designating First Fruits after the 15th of Šebaṭ (which comes after Ḥanukkah) but before Pentecost. This is also implied by Mishnah 1:3.] . We thought to say that one speaks of the time after Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Ḥinena said, in its time [The baraita does not apply to the colleagues’ statement; it refers to the time between Pentecost and Tabernacles which is the actual time of First Fruits. One may not bring first fruit raisins and dried figs from former years; one may not let this year’s First Fruits count for former years in which one neglected the duty to bring First Fruits to the Temple.] .
MISHNAH: If he dedicated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration. The other person cannot bring from the same kind, but from another kind he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Jehudah says, he may bring and make the declaration from the same kind. If he dedicated his First Fruits and then they rotted, were robbed, stolen, lost, or became impure, he brings others in their stead. One is not liable for a fifth for the replacements [But the original First Fruits go under the rules of heave (Mishnah 2:1, Note 150) and the replacement has to be 125% of the original.] . If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration [Since delivering the basket of fruits to the Cohen to be set down near the altar is necessary; cf. Note 122.] . From where that he is responsible for them until he delivers them to the Temple Mount? Because it is said (Deut. 26:3): “The beginning of the First Fruits of your land you shall bring to the Temple of the Eternal, your God, etc.” This teaches that he is responsible for them until be delivers them to the Temple Mount. If he brought from one kind and made the declaration, when he comes back and brings from another kind he cannot make the declaration.
HALAKHAH: What is the reason of the rabbis [That the buyer cannot bring First Fruits. It is obvious that the seller cannot make the declaration since he has no land.] ? (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today”. He declares once [Today but not tomorrow.] but not twice. Does not Rebbi Jehudah hold so? He does, referring to one person [It is accepted without dissent that a farmer can bring First Fruits of different kinds at different times but he can read the declaration only once (Mishnah 9).] . But two persons can declare and declare again [Even for the same crop since First Fruits are an obligation of the farmer, not of the crop.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, I am stating this as the opinion of a single individuum [Mishnah 8, formulated anonymously, is the opinion only of R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai) as stated in Tosephta 1:5.] . It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon: For the replacement one is not obligated for a fifth.” Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Huna: The replacement one even buys on the market. How do you treat these? As addition of First Fruits or adornment of First Fruits [If one may buy on the market, the replacements are not really First Fruits. It is stated in Mishnah 3:10 that with First Fruits one brought additional fruits of the same kind as additions and fruits of other kinds as adornments.] ? If you treat them as addition to First Fruits they are not under the rules of demay. If you treat them as adornment of First Fruits they are under the rules of demay [Mishnah 3:10.] .
“If they became impure in the Temple court, he scatters them and cannot make the declaration.” Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If the First Fruits became impure [But not the baskets which cannot become impure in secondary or tertiary degree.] , the baskets are given to the priests [Since it was the original intent to give First Fruits in their baskets.] since it is said (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.”
For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Jehudah. Even though Rebbi Jehudah said, he declares and he [Another person; cf. Mishnah 7, Halakhah 9.] declares again, but if he brought from one kind and made the declaration, when he comes back and brings from another kind he cannot make the declaration. Rebbi Jonathan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated this: (Deut. 26:5) “You shall say”, (Deut. 26:11) “you shall enjoy”; you have to say it while you enjoy [And a repeat performance is not the same as the first. The Sifry (#301) concludes from Deut 26:11 that the (first) presentation of First Fruits requires a family sacrifice to provide a meat meal (cf. Mishnah 3:3).] .
MISHNAH: For the following one makes the declaration, one brings and makes the declaration between Pentecost and Tabernacles: From the Seven Kinds [Deut. 8:8–9; cf. Berakhot 6, Note 151. Only fruits mentioned in these verses qualify as First Fruits.] , from produce of the hills, from dates in the valleys [Only these produce date honey.] , from oil olives [These usually are larger than eating olives.] , and from Transjordan. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, one does not bring from Transjordan since it is not a Land flowing with milk and honey.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Sixteen mil in a circle around Sepphoris is the Land flowing with milk and honey [In the Babli (Ketubot 111b), a square of side 16 mil centered at Sepphoris (in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish). A phantastic tale of Rabba bar bar Ḥana puts the size of the country flowing with milk and honey at 22 parasangs (88 mil) square. The mil is 2000 average cubits; cf. Berakhot 3, Note 235.] . Rebbi Jonah said, if one measures as the crow flies [In Babylonian texts, this appears as מקדר. The root is קדד “to cut through”. The idea is that one is measuring as if tunneling through a mountain by lifting the measuring rod so that it is always horizontal (Babli Erubin 58b).] , the outskirts of Beth Shean belong to it. If one measures as the crow flies, the valley of Genezareth belongs to it. One objected to Rebbi Jonah: (Ex. 3:17) “I said, I shall lift you from the deprivation of Egypt” (Ex. 3:8) “into a good and wide land, [to] a land flowing with milk and honey”! [This seems to imply that the entire Land of Israel is flowing with milk and honey.] He said to them, which contains [stretches of] milk and honey.
It was stated: (Deut. 26:10) “Which You gave me”, not what I took by myself. [The Sifry (#301) takes this as basis to exclude guardians, etc. (Mishnah 5) from the right to declaration. For the Tanna here, the verse excludes produce from “Syria”, from territories conquered by David outside the boundaries of promise.] About what do they differ [The anonymous majority and R. Yose the Galilean.] ? Rebbi Abun said, half of the tribe of Manasse [The tribes of Reuben and Gad were sheep herders, not farmers.] . If one says, “which You gave me, not what I took by myself,” half the tribe of Manasse did not take by themselves. If one says, (Deut. 26:10) “a Land of milk and honey,” nevertheless it is not a land of milk and honey.
MISHNAH: He who buys three trees in another’s property, brings, and makes the declaration; Rebbi Meїr says even for two [Cf. Note 131.] . He who buys a tree and its ground [By a contract which explicitly states that the ground is sold with the tree. In the Babli, Baba Batra 27a, this is restricted to the case that he bought the tree with a circular domain of radius 16 cubits which can be assumed to contain all roots of the tree.] brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Jehudah says, even sharecroppers and tenant farmers bring and read [He disagrees with the anonymous Mishnah 2.] .
HALAKHAH: It was stated: Hereditary tenant farmers [They and their descendants have the permanent right to farm the property if they pay their rent on time.] do not bring; Rebbi Jehudah says, they themselves bring and make the declaration.
Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of hereditary tenant farmers [Even these may not bring First Fruits according to the rabbis.] . Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights [It is not clear at this moment whether the farming rights are permanent, and there is no difference in meaning between the statements of R. Zeïra and R. Hila, or whether the rights are limited in time but the contract cannot be terminated by the landlord before its expiration date. In the second interpretation, the rabbis might agree that hereditary tenants may bring First Fruits.] . They wanted to say, he who says the Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights, therefore not about simple sharecroppers or tenants [Who may be terminated at will by the landlord.] . About a temporary sharecropper or tenant farmer [In this interpretation, farming rights for a limited time are treated as nonexistent for the question of First Fruits.] ; therefore a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer might bring [Even according to the rabbis.] . Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even a permanent sharecropper or tenant farmer cannot bring. Why? The Mishnah speaks of owners of sharecropping or tenant farming rights [Of any kind.] .