It is a positive commandment to bring the first fruits to the Temple.¹ (positive commandment 125) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 91) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [The obligation of] the first fruits applies only while the Temple is standing, and only in Eretz Yisrael, as [implied by Exodus 23:19]: 'Bring of the first ripened fruit of your land². to the house of God your Lord.'³ According to Rabbinic decree, one should bring first fruits even from the cities of Sichon and Og⁴, where he writes that according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah of the first fruits applies in these lands. Similarly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:10), he states that the mitzvah applies in these lands according to Scriptural Law. and from Syria.⁵. These lands are not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael according to Scriptural Law. See Hilchot Terumah 1:9. For a person who purchases land in Syria is like one who purchases in Jerusalem. We do not bring the first fruits from the lands of Ammon and Moab⁶ which were not conquered by the Jews upon their initial conquest of the land. and Babylon, even though they are liable for terumah and tithes according to Rabbinic decree.⁷ 1:1. If one brings the first fruits from the Diaspora, they are not considered as first fruits.⁸

footnotes: ¹ Sefer HaMitzvot ² I.e., from the land given specifically to you, Eretz Yisrael ³ I.e., only when the House of God, the Temple, is standing. ⁴ I.e., the lands on the eastern side of the Jordan that were captured from these kings by Moses as he led our people to the promised land. These territories were not part of the land flowing with milk and honey promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.The Rambam's position here represents a reversal from his position in Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit. ⁵ Lands to the north of Eretz Yisrael ⁶ Lands to the southeast of Eretz Yisrael ⁷ See Hilchot Terumah ⁸ And instead are considered as ordinary produce. The rationale is that the first fruits must be ritually pure and all produce coming from the Diaspora is ritually impure by Rabbinic decree.

The first fruits are brought only from the seven species which are mentioned when relating the praise of Eretz Yisrael.⁹ They are: wheat, barley,¹⁰ grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. If one brought fruit from other species, it is not sanctifted.¹¹ 1:3) derives this from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 26:2: 'And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the land. 'Take of" implies an exclusion. Not all of the fruit may be brought as first fruits.

footnotes: ⁹ Deuteronomy 8:8. ¹⁰ See the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger which states that rye, oats, and spelt, although considered as subspecies of wheat and barley in other contexts, should not be brought as the first fruits. ¹¹ The Jerusalem Talmud (Bikkurim

We do not bring [first fruits] from the dates in the mountains, nor from the fruit from the valleys, not from oil-producing olives that are not of the highest quality, but rather from dates from the valleys and fruit from the mountains, for they are of the highest quality. If a person brought first fruits of inferior quality, e.g., dates from the mountains, figs that were perforated and had oil applied to them,¹² 2:5), these techniques are used to hurry the ripening of figs. Although they are effective, they reduce the quality of the figs. dusty and smoked grapes,¹³ they are not consecrated.

footnotes: ¹² As the Rambam explains in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sh'vi'it ¹³ I.e., at times, fires were lit under grape vines to kill worms and insects in the vine. This, however, reduced the quality of the fruit.

We may not bring liquids as the first fruits¹⁴ with the exception of [oil from] olives and [wine from] grapes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 26:2 which speaks of]: 'the fruit of the land,' i.e., [the fruit and] not a beverage. If one brought beverages, they are not accepted.¹⁵, it would appear that it is not acceptable to bring wine or oil either. Nevertheless, the Rambam does not accept that teaching, favoring instead Terumah 11:3 which deems them acceptable. See the explanation in the Kessef Mishneh.

footnotes: ¹⁴ I.e., one may not bring juice from pomegranates, dates, and figs. ¹⁵ From the conclusion of the tractate of Challah

People who are close to Jerusalem should bring fresh figs and grapes.¹⁶ People who are distant should bring dried figs and raisins.¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁶ For it is preferable that fresh fruits should be brought. ¹⁷ For if they bring fresh fruit, it will spoil.

The first fruits should not be brought before Shavuot, for that holiday is referred to as 'the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work.' If one brings [them at that time], we do not accept them from him. Instead, they should be left there¹⁸ until Shavuot, at which time, he should make the declaration concerning them. Similarly, the first fruits should not be brought after Chanukah.¹⁹ supports the Rambam, maintaining that since the crops have generally been harvested, any produce that does grow is considered as belonging to the coming year. The Radbaz emphasizes that here too, we are speaking of produce that will not spoil. Otherwise, it is not consecrated. For first fruits that ripen after Chanukah are considered as being of the coming year. They should be left until Shavuot.

footnotes: ¹⁸ I.e., in the Temple courtyard. The Radbaz states that this applies only to fruit that will not spoil. Otherwise, the fruit brought prematurely is like all the other fruit mentioned in the previous halachot and its consecration is not effective. ¹⁹ After Chanaukah, it is not appropriate to bring the first fruits, because they are to be brought at the time of the harvest and the harvest is concluded by Sukkot. Moreover, if one brings the first fruits between Sukkot and Chanukah, he cannot make the declaration concerning them (Chapter 4, Halachah 13).The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's words for their implication is that the first fruit brought after Chanukah becomes consecrated. The Ra'avad maintains that since the fruit did not ripen until then, the first fruits are considered as of low quality and do not become consecrated. Nor, the Ra'avad maintains, can they be considered as being from the following year, as the Rambam states, because until the 15th of Shvat, they are considered as from the crops of the previous year. The Kessef Mishneh

The first fruits may not be brought from produce of the present harvest for produce of the previous harvest or from produce of the previous harvest for produce of the present harvest.²⁰ 73b states that there is an equation between the tithes and the first fruits. Hence, just as the tithes may not be brought from one harvest for another (Hilchot Terumah 5:11; Hilchot Ma'aser 1:7), so too, the law applies with regard to the first fruits. What is implied? One should not bring produce that budded before the 15th of Shvat²¹ as first fruits for produce that budded after the 15th of Shvat. [This applies] both to produce that is planted and produce that grows on its own, as [implied by Numbers 18: 13]: 'The first fruits of everything in their land.'²² 84b and Radbaz).

footnotes: ²⁰ Yevamot ²¹ This refers to the first fruits brought from fruit. With regard to wheat and barley, the date when a change is made is Rosh HaShanah. ²² I.e., the prooftext implies that the obligation applies to any and all situations where these species grow (see Menachot

The obligation of the first fruits applies to the produce of partners, [implied by]: 'The first fruits of everything in their land.'²³ 136a).

footnotes: ²³ The plural form of the verb "that they bring" used by the prooftext indicates that the obligation applies even when the produce is owned by two people jointly (Chullin

When produce grows in a flower pot, even if it has a hole or it grows in a ship, one should not bring first fruits from them at all. [for the prooftext] speaks of 'their land.'²⁴ One should, however, bring from produce that grows on a roof or in a ruin.

footnotes: ²⁴ Produce that grows in such a situation is considered as growing from the earth in certain contexts. Nevertheless, the prooftext indicates that the first fruits are an exception.

[In all the following situations,] a person should not bring the first fruits from the produce that grows in one domain or the produce that grows in another domain. [These situations include] one who plants a tree in his field and extends²⁵ 1:1)]. it into his colleague's field²⁶ or into the public domain, or the trunk of the tree was in his field and he extended its end in his field but there was a public road or a private path interrupting between the trunk and the end which was extended. [This is derived from Exodus 23:19]: "the first fruits of your land.' [Implied is that] all the growth [of the tree] must be from your land.'²⁷

footnotes: ²⁵ 'Extending' refers to planting a bough from a tree or a vine in the ground, so that an extension can grow from it [the Rambam' s Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim ²⁶ Without his colleague's permission as obvious from the following halachah. ²⁷ And even the fruit that grow from the trunk are nurtured to a certain extent from the end that was implanted.

If his colleague gave him permission²⁸ [to implant the end] in his property even for a brief time, he may bring the first fruits. If the tree was close to his colleague's boundary or leaned into his colleague's field²⁹10:8. [and he planted there], even though he was obligated to distance [his planting], he may bring [the first fruits]³⁰ and recite the declaration, for Joshua gave the land [to our people] as an inheritance with that intent.³¹ 10:8 mentions the ten conditions on which basis Joshua gave the land to the people as an inheritance, this condition is not included among them. Among the resolutions given is that the conditions mentioned there apply also in the Diaspora, while this condition applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

footnotes: ²⁸ There is, however, no way one can be granted permission to use the public domain in this manner. ²⁹ See Hilchot Shechenim ³⁰ This applies even to the fruit which grew in his colleague's domain. Since his colleague gave him permission to grow the produce there, it can be considered as his land. ³¹ The commentaries note that when Hilchot Nizkei Mammon

Sharecroppers, tenant farmers,³² 6:13; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:2). men of force who compel the owners [to sell] their land and purchase it for a low price,³³ during the Roman era, when the gentiles and their Jewish comrades would threaten a person until he was forced to sell his land for far below its worth. and robbers³⁴ may not bring first fruits, because [the prooftext] states: 'the first fruits of your land.'³⁵ [This applies] even when the owners despair [of recovering their land].³⁶ 8:14).

footnotes: ³² The former give the owners a share of the crops; the latter rent the fields for money. See Hilchot Ma'aser ³³ This was, unfortunately, a common practice in Eretz Yisrael ³⁴ One who takes land without paying at all. ³⁵ And none of the above are rightful owners of the land. ³⁶ For land can never be stolen and always remains the property of its rightful owners (see Hilchot Gezeilah

When a person purchases a tree in a field belonging to a friend, he may not bring [the first fruits], because he does not own land. [If he purchases] three [trees], he does own land. Even if he formally acquired only the trees, it is as if he owns land.³⁷ 24:1-2. The rationale is that since he purchased this amount of trees, he also receives the land necessary to tend to them. Although he is not the legal owner of the land and has only the right to use it, that right is sufficient for the land to be called his own. If he purchased one tree and the land around it, he should bring [the first fruits].³⁸

footnotes: ³⁷ See Hilchot Mechirah ³⁸ Because he is the owner of both the land and the tree (Our bracketed additions are based on the gloss of the Radbaz. We are forced to accept this interpretation, since, as stated above, the first fruits must come from "your land."

When a person purchases fruit that has been harvested and purchases the land [on which they grew],³⁹ he should bring the first fruits, because he possesses both land and the fruits. When one sells a colleague fruit, but not the land, even when the fruit is still attached to the land, [neither the seller, nor the purchaser may bring the first fruits]. The seller may not bring them, because he does not own the fruits. The purchaser may not bring them, because he does not own the land. If the seller buys the fruit back from the purchaser, he may bring [the first fruits], because he [now] owns [both] the land and its produce.

footnotes: ³⁹ I.e., even if he does not purchase the fruit and the land at the same time, as long as he owns both at the time appropriate to bring the first fruits, he should bring them (Radbaz).

When a person sells his property to a gentile and later purchases it back from him, he must bring the first fruits from it according to Scriptural Law.⁴⁰ 4:9); note the differences between his initial version and his final version. There is a debate among the commentaries if the obligation to bring the first fruits is Rabbinic in origin (as was the Rambam's initial view) or Scriptural in origin (as is his view here). [The rationale is that] it is not absolved from the mitzvah because of the gentile's purchase,⁴¹ as we explained.⁴² 1:10.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Gittin ⁴¹ The Ra'avad comments that this applies even though the produce reached maturity while in the possession of the gentile. The commentaries state that the Rambam would accept this ruling. ⁴² Hilchot Terumah

[Although] one nullified an asherah,⁴³ 8:8-11. the first fruits should not be brought from its produce. For the first fruits are like the sacrifices of the Temple.⁴⁴ 3:6, if an animal was once associated with the worship of false deities, it may no longer be used as a sacrifice in the Temple.

footnotes: ⁴³ A tree that was worshiped. as was the practice of both the Canaanites and the Greeks.When a gentile owns an entity that is worshiped, he can nullify its connection with idolatrous worship and from that time onward, it may be used for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, it is not fit to be used for an offering on the Altar, because of its previous connection with idolatry. An entity owned by a Jew that was worshiped can never be nullified. See Hilchot Avodat Kochavim ⁴⁴ As stated in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach

There is no set measure for the first fruits according to Scriptural Law. According to Rabbinic Law, one should give one sixtieth of the crop. If one desires to set aside his entire crop as first fruits, he may.

When a person separated his first fruits and afterwards added to them or adorned them, the addition is also considered as the first fruits.⁴⁵ When does the above apply? When he brought [the first fruits] from Eretz Yisrael. If, however, he brought them from Transjordan or Syria, they are not as the first fruits.⁴⁶ Even though they are not considered as the first fruits, they should only be eaten in a state of ritual purity.⁴⁷ No matter where it is from,⁴⁸ the first fruits should only be adorned with fruit from the seven species [mentioned in the praise of Eretz Yisrael].⁴⁹ 3:10).

footnotes: ⁴⁵ And the stringencies applied to the first fruits, e.g., that they be eaten in a state of ritual purity, are also applied to them. ⁴⁶ The rationale is that, as stated in Halachah 1, the obligation to bring first fruits from these lands is Rabbinic in origin. Hence, it is not powerful enough to convey that status on the additions as well. ⁴⁷ As the first fruits themselves. ⁴⁸ I.e., even from Transjordan and Syria (Radbaz). ⁴⁹ One may, however, adorn figs with grapes and grapes with dates (Bikkurim

How should one separate the first fruits? A person descends to his field, sees a fig tree, a cluster [of grapes], and/or a pomegranate tree that has budded, and ties them with a reed.⁵⁰ 3:1)] . He should say: "These are the first fruits.' They become designated as first fruits even though they are attached to the ground after they have been given that title, even though they have not ripened entirely.⁵¹ When they ripen and are reaped from the ground, it is not necessary to designate them again. If he did not designate them while attached or call them first fruits and then he reaped them, he should designate them after he reaps them.⁵² If his entire harvest becomes impure, he should not designate the impure produce as first fruits. Instead, as an initial preference, he should set aside other produce as first fruits for the impure produce. It appears to me that if he does not have other produce, to separate [as first fruits], he should not set them aside to be destroyed.⁵³ 3:9; Hilchot Meilah 4:7. Terumah and the second tithe, by contrast, should be set aside even if the produce is impure, for they will not be wasted. Similarly, it appears to me⁵⁴ questions whether that expression is appropriate in the present instance since this point is stated in Yevamot 73a,b. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that perhaps 'It appears to me' refers only to the rationale the Rambam states here, for that concept is not stated in Yevamot, loc. cit. that if the first fruits become impure, he should not use them as kindling for a furnace, because they are like objects consecrated for the Temple.⁵⁵ and impure terumah may be kindled.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ As a sign, so that he will recognize them later. There is no obligation to use a reed for this purpose. Another sign is also acceptable. The Rambam, quoting the mishnah, was merely stating a common practice [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bikkurim ⁵¹ Although they must reach a complete stage of development by the time they are brought to the Temple, it is not necessary that they reach this stage at the time of their designation. ⁵² Unless he designates them, the fact that they are set aside is not sufficient for them to be considered as first fruits. ⁵³ See parallels in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni ⁵⁴ The expression 'It appears to me' refers to a conclusion derived by the Rambam through deduction without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. The Kessef Mishneh ⁵⁵ And consecrated articles may not be destroyed. It is necessary for the Rambam to give this explanation, because the Torah refers to the first fruits as terumah

When a person set aside his first fruits and they rotted away,⁵⁶ were taken by others, lost, stolen, or became impure,⁵⁷ he is obligated to set aside others in place of them,⁵⁸ as [Exodus 23:19] states: '...bring to the house of God your Lord.' This teaches that one is liable to replace them until he brings them to the Temple Mount.⁵⁹

footnotes: ⁵⁶ See Halachah 3 which states that spoiled produce is unacceptable. ⁵⁷ For then, they are no longer fit to be offered. ⁵⁸ He does not, however, make the declaration for the first fruits when bringing these fruits, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 9. ⁵⁹ Once he brings them to the Temple Courtyard, he is not liable to replace even if they become impure (Radbaz).

If a person set aside his first fruits to bring them to Jerusalem himself, he should not send them with an agent⁶⁰ If, however, he initially harvested them with the intent of sending them [to the Temple] with an agent, it is permitted for him to do so.⁶¹

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The rationale for this ruling can be explained as follows: When a person sends his first fruits to the Temple via an agent, the agent does not make the declaration (Chapter 4, Halachah 2). Since they were harvested in a manner that allows that declaration to be made, it is improper for them to be sent in a manner that prevents it from being made. ⁶¹ For in this instance, they were harvested with the intent that the declaration not be made.