Suggestion for marking first fruit to demonstrate that we are anticipating using them as bikkurim with the imminent rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash, without sanctifying them as bikkurim.

Rabbi Araleh Harel, 5763

Introduction

The mitzvah of bringing bikkurim to the Beit Hamikdash only applies in the presence of the Beit Hamikdash, as it is written, "The first of the first fruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God" (Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim).The Rambam (Hilchot Bikkurim 2:1)¹ states: "It is a positive commandment to bring bikkurim to the Beit Hamikdash, and bikkurim apply only in the presence of the Beit Hamikdash, as it is written, 'The first of the first fruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the L-rd your G-d.'" Thus, it seems that the mitzvah of bikkurim cannot be fulfilled when the Beit Hamikdash is destroyed, and only when it is rebuilt will we encounter this mitzvah once again. However, in my humble opinion, there may still be a way to continue to stoke the coals of this mitzvah and keep it alive.

The Designation Process

The usual method of designating bikkurim is described by the Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:1): "How does one set aside bikkurim? A person goes down to his field, sees a fig that ripened, or a cluster of grapes that ripened, or a pomegranate that ripened, ties a reed-rope around it and says, 'Let these be bikkurim...'"

There are two ways to understand this mishnah: (1) the mishnah suggests a possible way to fulfill the mitzvah; (2) Alternatively, the mishnah recommends an ideal way to fulfill the mitzvah.

The Acharonim understood the mishnah in the second way. Rabbi David Pardo writes in his commentary Chasdei David on the Tosefta (2:7): "Perhaps this redundant mishnah implies that it is a mitzvah to do so, for otherwise one might think it is only possible to do so, unlike terumah, where if one declares it terumah while attached [to the ground], it accomplishes nothing. It teaches here that regarding bikkurim, one can, and it is an ideal mitzvah to sanctify them while attached, as implied by the verse "The first fruit of all that is in their land" (Bamidbar 18:13)'"² It seems that he is referring to the Sifri (Bamidbar 10:117, 18:13): "'The first fruit of all that is in their land' – the text indicates that the sanctity of the bikkurim applies even when connected to the land."

Similarly, Rabbi Moshe Margaliot explains in his commentary Mareh Hapanim (Bikkurim 3:1, Peah 1:1, s.v. hifrish): "How does one separate? Ideally, separate while attached, and if not while attached, then after they are harvested." Both interpretations are based on Rambam (2:19), who writes: "How are bikkurim separated? A person goes down ... if they were not separated while attached and the fruits were picked, they are separated after being picked." From this, it is clear that lechatchilah, bikkurim are designated while attached, but if not, bediavad they can be designated after being harvested.

Reason for Separation While Attached

We can suggest two possible rationales behind this halachah: either this is part of the mitzvah of setting aside bikkurim – to designate them at the time the first fruit ripens; or it is to know which fruit ripened first. The Rishonim cite both possibilities. This issue was already addressed by my elder uncle, Rabbi Moshe Kliers, in his book Torat Ha'aretz (I 1:64–65, 70). His conclusion is that there are indeed two approaches. One approach is followed by Rash and Rashi (as explained by Re'em): "According to Re'em's words that 'from the first fruits' is derived even if it is not yet fruit, it seems the mitzvah is to separate them at the time they begin to ripen." (ibid., 65).

The second approach is followed by Rashba and Ra'avad: "In any event, regarding the matter that one should separate those fruits that ripened first, several Rishonim hold this way. -According to this view, the Torah does not obligate us to designate the fruit when they begin to ripen, but rather since it is necessary to bring fruit that ripened first, it is necessary to mark them so one will be able to identify them and designate them as bikkurim later on."

Based on the above, we see that there are two approaches to the need for separation while the fruit is attached to the tree:

1. An essential approach, viewing the marking and separation while attached as an integral part of the mitzvah of bikkurim.

2. An instrumental approach, viewing the marking as a tool for later identification, since the first ripened fruit must be separated.

Marking Bikkurim Today

Sometimes, questions from children can be more insightful than the Torah teachings of adults. Some time ago, my daughter asked me innocently, "Why don't we mark the first-ripened fruits? After all, the Beit Hamikdash will be rebuilt soon, and when it is rebuilt, we will need to bring our bikkurim to the Beit Hamikdash. How will we know which fruits ripened first?"

Reflecting on her question and in light of our discussion above, I concluded that she was correct, at least according to the second approach. Let me explain: According to the first approach, which views marking as part of the mitzvah, one could argue that today, when there is no obligation to bring bikkurim, the mitzvah of bikkurim, and consequently the obligation to mark the fruit, ceases entirely.³ However, according to the second approach, which sees the marking as a tool for later identification, it is logical to assume that this obligation still applies today, because when my fruits ripen, I do not know whether or not I will soon be obligated to bring them to the Beit Hamikdash as bikkurim. Our hearts are filled with a strong hope that the fig of our redemption will ripen and the immature fruit will become a full fruit of redemption. Therefore, we should mark the first-ripened fruits, so we can separate them if needed.

Consecration

However, this could raise a halachic risk. It is possible that the Beit Hamikdash will not be rebuilt by the time bikkurim will be offered, and the fruit that was marked will not fulfill its intended purpose as bikkurim. Instead, it will be consumed as regular fruit. It is thus possible that the act of marking the fruits will sanctify them, designating them as bikkurim, which are prohibited to eat by non-kohanim in a state of ritual impurity and before being placed in the Azara (courtyard). Thus, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages!

Three Solutions

1. Can we consecrate bikkurim today?

The Mishnah (Shekalim 8:8) seems to address this exact question: "He who consecrates shekalim and bikkurim (first fruits) – they are consecrated. Rabbi Shimon says, one who declares first fruits to be consecrated, they are not consecrated." The Rishonim disagreed on the topic of this mishnah:

• Rambam explained: "He who sanctifies shekalim and bikkurim – that is, he designates them for the Beit Hamikdash's maintenance fund" (Meiri also interprets this like Rambam). This interpretation maintains that the mishnah refers to one who dedicates the monetary value of his bikkurim for the Beit Hamikdash, and the Tanaim disagree whether this designation is effective (since someone cannot designate something that does not belong to him, and the bikkurim fruit belong to the Kohen; see Tosafot Yom Tov, ibid.; Rambam, Hilchot Arachin veHaramin 6:16; and Chidushei Rabbi Chaim HaLevy on Rambam, ibid.).

• In contrast, Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura (as explained by the Mahara Fulda on the Yerushalmi, ibid., Rabbi Yisrael of Tzfat, author of Pe'at Hashulchan in his commentary Taklin Chadatin, ibid.; Tiferet Yisrael §48–50 ; see also Tosafot, Makkot 19a, s.v. mah, who all maintain the it is not possible to consecrate bikkurim today.)⁴ explains the disagreement between the Tana Kama and Rabbi Shimon regarding the sanctification of bikkurim today:

"One who consecrates shekalim and bikkurim (according to the Tana Kama) – because they apply only in the presence of the Beit Hamikdash, if separated not in the presence of the Beit Hamikdash, fruit are consecrated as bikkurim. the bikkurim do not become sanctified (according to Rabbi Shimon) – because it is explicitly written 'you shall bring to the house of the L-rd your G-d,' even if separated after the fact, they are not holy, because fruit cannot be called bikkurim not in the presence of the Beit Hamikdash."

According to Rambam's interpretation, this mishnah does not apply to our discussion. However, according to Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, the Tanaim disagree whether one can sanctify bikkurim today – the Sages say it is possible, and Rabbi Shimon says it is not. The Jerusalem Talmud here concludes: "Rabbi Hamnuna and Rabbi Ada bar Ahava in the name of Rav – the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon." This means that according to the Jerusalem Talmud, bikkurim cannot be consecrated today.

Implications:

• According to the Rambam, this mishnah does not address our question.

• According to Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, Rabbi Shimon holds that one cannot sanctify bikkurim today, and this is the halachah. Therefore, today there is no concern of eating sanctified bikkurim.

However, practically, it does not seem appropriate to rely on this alone. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook was asked a similar question in Mishpat Kohen (§57), and he does not rely on this. He writes:

But according to this view (Rambam's), we have no source that the name of bikkurim does not apply today, and from a logical perspective, we must say that the name (of holy bikkurim) applies to stringency regarding prohibition, and there is a stumbling block of prohibition of eating... However, it might be that even initially there is no concern, especially since according to Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura we rule according to Rabbi Shimon, and according to his interpretation, the sanctity of bikkurim does not apply at all today, due to the scriptural decree "you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God...".

Therefore, in my humble opinion, it seems difficult to rely on this alone.⁵

2. She'ilah: annulling sacred bikkurim status

Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 91:4) posited that it is permissible annul the sacred status of bikkurim through she'ilah (i.e. asking a rabbi to annul its sacred status, such as in hatarat nedarim) just as this is allowed for terumot and ma'aserot. - He states:

And it seems simple that even after bringing first fruits to Jerusalem, which become forbidden to non-kohanim, it is still certainly permissible to [annul their sanctity] through she'ilah , since they were consecrated verbally, just like for terumot, ma'aserot and consecrated items (hekdesh), where she'ilah is effective [in annulling sacred status] … in any event, it is clear that she'ilah is effective [in annulling the sacred status of first fruits. -

However, my uncle, Rabbi Moshe Kleirs expressed doubt about this (I §6 n. 1), citing several Acharonim who agree with the Minchat Chinuch, but remained somewhat uncertain (see his words, ibid.), and he did not mention a clear opinion from the words of the Rosh in his glosses to Kiddushin (38a, s.v. vehu hadin le'orlah), which states: "And if you ask, 'But isn't tevel, terumah, and bikkurim derived from a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) from chadash (new grain), which applies abroad, and for which there is no way to permit the prohibited [new grain]?! Rather, it is possible to explain why [tevel, terumah and bikkurim] are less severe than chadash, since for the latter she'ilah can be employed, while this does not hold true for chadash. We see here that it is clearly permissible to employ she'ilah to annul the sanctity of bikkurim.

Similarly, the Hafla'ah (in his innovations on Ketubot 105b, s.v. vechi) wrote: Indeed, bikkurim status may be annulled through sh'ilah, just like terumot, since they are sanctified by verbal consecration, like terumah

Therefore, after seeing that the Rishonim and Acharonim assumed simply that it is permissible to against bikkurim, we can rely on this in our discussion, and in a case where the Beit Hamikdash will not be built until the first fruits ripen, its owner can approach a sage to annul their sacred status and then eat them in a permissible manner.

3. Marking and Not Consecration

However, it seems to me that the simplest solution is to refrain from consecrating the fruit. If we pay attention to the Mishnaic language with which we began, there are two actions: a. Tying it with a reed; b. And saying, "These are bikkurim."

The first action is intended for marking only, and the utterance afterwards is what consecrates the fruit. Therefore, it is simply possible to refrain from this utterance and suffice with the tying. It is also possible to explicitly state: "I am designating these fruits, that if the Beit Hamikdash is built, they will be first fruits," and then there is no concern.

From a utilitarian perspective, surely this is sufficient, either way we look at it: According to the essential approach, which views marking as part of the mitzvah, we will not fully perform it; however, it seems that this view maintains that it is unnecessary to mark first fruits not during the Beit Hamikdash period. In contrast, for the instrumental method, there is no need for consecration, yet marking alone would be helpful as it will allow us in the future (after the Beit Hamikdash is built) to know which fruits to separate.

Summary

From the obligation to perform a mitzvah, and perhaps even from the fulfillment of its requirement in a more beautiful manner, it is fitting that every owner of fruit trees of one of the seven species should follow the custom of our ancestors in the time of the Beit Hamikdash, and when he sees the first fruit on his tree, he should mark it in some way, but refrain from consecrating it—neither in thought nor in speech—so that he will recognize it when the Beit Hamikdash is rebuilt, speedily and in our days.⁶ This action, beyond its intrinsic value, has immense educational value, in educating our children to a true and pure faith in the fulfillment of the vision of the prophets in its entirety, quickly in our days. And even though it may delay, I will wait for it every day!

See response to this article: On marking first fruits today / Rabbi Yehuda Zoldan