THEN THOU SHALT TAKE OF THE FIRST OF ALL THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND, WHICH THOU SHALT BRING IN FROM THY LAND. [The meaning thereof is] that you shall take of the first of all the fruit which you will bring into the house from your Land, which the Eternal your G-d gives you. He commands that one should set aside that fruit in the field and designate it as first-fruit and then bring it into his house and put it in a vessel fit to be taken to the Sanctuary [in Jerusalem].¹ Now, Scripture did not prescribe an amount for the first-fruits, instead, even one grain [or berry] of that species exempts the entire field, similar to the law of terumah (the heave-offering) where one grain exempts the whole pile of grain.²

footnotes: ¹ Literally: “the Chosen House.” See Vol. IV, p. 178, Note 120. — “Fit to be taken to the Sanctuary,” this is undoubtedly a reference to what is stated in the Mishnah, that those who could afford it, “brought their first-fruits in baskets overlaid with silver and gold, while poor people brought them in wicker baskets of peeled willow-branches” (Bikurim 3:8). ² This is the law of the Torah. The Rabbis however, established a minimum amount for the heave-offering to the priest. A liberal person should give one fortieth of his crop, a moderate person, one fiftieth; and a niggardly person, one sixtieth. In the case of first-fruits, the measure is one sixtieth of the produce, this law applying equally to all people (Chullin 137b).

AND THOU SHALT GO UNTO THE PLACE WHICH THE ETERNAL THY G-D SHALL CHOOSE. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture he admonishes against bringing first-fruit in [any] one of the cities [except for Jerusalem] after the Sanctuary was chosen [i.e., after Jerusalem was designated by the prophets and the ark of G-d was brought there], for just as He warned against slaughtering offerings outside [of the Sanctuary Court], so he warned with reference to the first-fruits. But the obligation of bringing first-fruits became binding immediately after they conquered and divided the Land,³ (above 12:9), because the structure of the House of G-d was not of stone as it had been at Shiloh; instead, it was made of the boards and curtains from the Tabernacle in the wilderness. Therefore during the fifty-seven years when the ark of G-d was first in Nob and later in Gibeon, it was permissible to bring offerings to G-d on the bamoth, “high places,” or private altars. See also further, Note 6. in accordance with the words of Rashi.⁴ And in the Sifre it is stated:⁵ 298. “And thou shalt go unto the place which the Eternal thy G-d shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there — this refers to Shiloh and ‘the Eternal House’⁶ were permitted after its destruction. [in Jerusalem].” Perhaps the Rabbis [in the Sifre] meant to say that the bamoth (“high places”) were forbidden during both periods [i.e., Shiloh and Jerusalem]. However, during [the periods of] Nob and Gibeon [when high places were permitted] first-fruits could also be brought [only there in Nob and Gibeon], but they could not be offered at a private bamah, for Scripture refers [here in the chapter on first-fruits] to the altar [and he shall set it down before ‘the altar’ of the Eternal thy G-d indicating that only the public altar is suitable for first-fruits].⁷. See further Vol. III, p. 123, Note 122 and Vol. IV, p. 180, Note 138. But since it is written, The choisest first-fruit of thy Land thou shalt bring into the House of the Eternal thy G-d,⁸ they perhaps did not bring first-fruits when it [the House of G-d] was in a tent and in a tabernacle⁹ but only in Shiloh where there was a stone building and in the Eternal House,⁶ were permitted after its destruction. [thus excluding the period of Nob and Gibeon].

footnotes: ³ This was after the fourteen years of the conquest and division of the Land, during which the ark of G-d was in Gilgal. Immediately thereafter they brought the ark to Shiloh where the House of G-d existed for a period of three hundred and sixty nine years. When the Philistines destroyed the Sanctuary in the days of Eli, the ark was moved to Nob and Gibeon, where it remained for a period of fifty seven years. From there it was moved by David to Jerusalem, and when Solomon completed the Sanctuary, it was placed in its final resting-place, the Holy of Holies. The period of Nob and Gibeon was not considered of the status of Israel having been brought to the rest and to the inheritance ⁴ On this verse here. ⁵ Sifre, Ki Thavo ⁶ Or “the Permanent House.” The Sanctuary in Jerusalem is so called in contrast to the Tabernacle, which was portable. Also, because once the Sanctuary was built in Jerusalem, the place retains its sanctity forever, to the extent that even after its destruction, offerings may no longer be brought anywhere else. In the case of the Sanctuary in Shiloh, however, bamoth ⁷ Verse 4. And “the altar” was only in the central place of worship — including Nob or Gibeon — but not at a private bamah ⁸ Exodus 23:19. ⁹ II Samuel 7:6. ⁶ Or “the Permanent House.” The Sanctuary in Jerusalem is so called in contrast to the Tabernacle, which was portable. Also, because once the Sanctuary was built in Jerusalem, the place retains its sanctity forever, to the extent that even after its destruction, offerings may no longer be brought anywhere else. In the case of the Sanctuary in Shiloh, however, bamoth

AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIEST THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS — to the priest that shall be there in those days, for first-fruits, like all offerings, are given to the men of the [priestly] Division [who are assigned to the Sanctuary for a week at a time],¹⁰ but he may not bring along a priest from his city in order to offer him his first-fruits. Now, Rashi wrote: “You have none else than the priest who lives in your days as he is.” But I have not understood this, for in the case of an elder [of the Sanhedrin] it is proper to say [and thou shalt come …] unto the judge that shall be in those days,¹¹ meaning that even though he is not as great and wise as the early judges in the ages which were before us,¹² still he [the elder] is obligated to hearken to him [the judge], for “Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation.”¹³ But when bringing first-fruits, to whom shall he bring them if not to the priest that shall be in his days? Now, I have also seen the following text in the Sifre:⁵ 298. “And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days. This is what Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, And would it occur to you to come to the priest that is not in your days? Rather, [I must say that the verse requires one to come to] the priest who is considered by you to be established and fit in those days. Kinsmen who have ceased to be kinsmen are qualified.¹⁴ And so it is also said, Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ ”¹⁵ thus refers to “the judges of the former days.” Do not say that the judges of the former generations were better than those of the present, and therefore I would not listen to them. Instead you are to listen to them, for you are only concerned with them (Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 25b). It appears that the Sages interpreted in this connection that if one brought first-fruits or a burnt-offering to a priest who was presumed to be qualified and afterwards it was discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman, [a defiled priest not entitled to perform the Divine Service, nor to receive the priestly gifts] the offerings are nevertheless valid, as is mentioned in the last chapter¹⁶ of Tractate Kiddushin. Also included in this principle is [the rule] that a kinsman who has ceased to be a kinsman is qualified, this applying to an elder who may not be judged by a relative,¹⁷ but it is not relevant to first-fruits.

footnotes: ¹⁰ See Vol. IV, p. 17, Note 92. ¹¹ Above, 17:9. ¹² Ecclesiastes 1:10. ¹³ Rosh Hashanah 25b. The prophet Samuel is cited by Scripture as being equal to Moses and Aaron (Psalms 99:6). Elsewhere Jephthah is mentioned together with Samuel (I Samuel 12:11), thus teaching us that Jephthah in his generation was entitled to obedience just as was Samuel in his generation. ⁵ Sifre, Ki Thavo ¹⁴ This statement will be explained further on by Ramban as applying to a judge who was disqualified from rendering judgment involving a member of his family. This stricture does not apply to the bringing of first-fruits to a kindred priest who is ministering in the Sanctuary. ¹⁵ Ecclesiastes 7:10. The word days ¹⁶ In our text of the Gemara it is found in the third chapter of Kiddushin 66b. The tractate contains four chapters. ¹⁷ But if he ceased to be his kinsman — for example, a son-in-law [of the elder] whose wife died — he becomes qualified to judge.

HIGAD’TI’ (I PROFESS) THIS DAY. “Through this fruit which I have brought I profess and give thanks to the Eternal your G-d Who brought me into the Land which He swore unto our fathers to give us. Thus G-d fulfilled His words, and I give thanks and praise to His Name.” The meaning of the word higad’ti is like “I have told.” So also ‘vayageid Mosheh’ (and Moses told) the words of the people unto the Eternal,¹⁸ which is in the past, when he has not made yet his declaration. Therefore Ramban writes that the very act of bringing the first-fruits into the Sanctuary Court constitutes a form of professing the omnipotence of G-d and an expression of thanksgiving to Him. In this sense the form of the word higad’ti is properly in the past, since the act of bringing the first-fruits has formed the way of communicating these thoughts. Such a usage is seen in the verse vayegeid Mosheh, which means that Moses “communicated” the words of the people to the Eternal. which means communicating. Or the interpretation thereof may be as follows: “I declare to you, O priest, and to all who stand by, and this declaration is unto the Eternal thy G-d, that is to say, to His Name, that I am come into the Land which He swore unto our fathers, for it is He Who brought me [near] to Him to serve Him in the Land.”

footnotes: ¹⁸ Exodus 19:9. — The difficulty in the verse here is the word higad’ti

I HAVE NOT EATEN THEREOF IN MY MOURNING. Even though the avowal¹⁹ included all tithes, as the Rabbis interpreted:²⁰ “I have also given it unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow²¹ etc.,”²², this is the tithe of the Levite [i.e., the First Tithe]. I have ‘also’ given it, this is the terumah (the heave-offering), [given by the Israelite to the priest] and the heave-offering of the tithe [given by the Levite to the priest]. And unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, this refers to the Poorman’s Tithe, gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field” (Maaseir Sheini 5:10). — the statement I have not eaten thereof in my mourning refers only to the hallowed things [mentioned at the beginning of the preceding Verse 13: I have put away ‘the hallowed things’ out of my house] which refers to the Second Tithe and fourth-year’s plantings which may not be eaten in mourning and in a state of impurity.²³

footnotes: ¹⁹ The “avowal was recited at the time of the Afternoon Offering on the last day of Passover, in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle. The avowal [recited in any language] could be made only by one who observed all laws affecting tithes and heave-offerings. See further “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 139. ²⁰ Maaseir Sheini 5:10. ²¹ Verse 13. ²² “I have also given it to the Levite ²³ The heave-offering on the other hand may be eaten by the priest in mourning, but not when he is impure. The First Tithe [after the heave-offering thereof has been removed], the Poorman’s Tithe, gleanings, etc. may be eaten in mourning as well as in impurity. The Second Tithe, eaten by the owner, his family and guests in Jerusalem, is thus the only tithe that may not be eaten in mourning. Like the heave-offering and the heave-offering of the tithe, the Second Tithe may not be eaten in impurity.

NOR HAVE I GIVEN THEREOF FOR THE DEAD — “to prepare a coffin and shrouds for it.” This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood this, for Scripture explicitly states that we are not to exchange the fruits of the Second Tithe outside Jerusalem except for coined silver.²⁴ In Jerusalem we are to spend the money on edible things, for any of the herd, or any of the flock, or for wine, or for strong drink²⁵, Verse 26. and eat them before the Eternal. [It is, therefore, clear that it is forbidden to use the money to purchase a garment even for the living — hence it is pointless to make such an avowal with respect to the dead!] Now, Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] wrote in his work²⁶ “The Second Tithe is designated for use as food and drink, for it is said, and thou shalt eat there before the Eternal thy G-d.²⁵, Verse 26. Anointing is like drinking. It is forbidden to spend it on his remaining necessities, such as buying vessels, clothes and servants, for it is said, nor have I given thereof for the dead, that is to say, I have not spent it on anything which does not sustain the body.” [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] thus interpreted the phrase for the dead here as being an expression for any thing through which a person does not live. But these are words of mere exaggeration.²⁷ Other scholars²⁸ have explained that the avowal is that he did not spend therefrom for a coffin and shrouds even for the dead — which [spending] is a religious duty — and certainly not for the living for a cloak or shirt. And in the Sifre it is stated:²⁹ 303. “Nor have I given thereof for the dead — to prepare a coffin and shrouds for it. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiba said to him: If it is forbidden for the dead, it is likewise forbidden for the living. Why then is it stated nor have I given thereof [‘for the dead’]? It means that I have not exchanged the Second Tithe even for something which is clean.” Thus Rabbi Akiba interprets the expression neither have I given thereof, as meaning that “I have not even used it in exchange for clean, edible things.” This is similar to what we have been taught in a Mishnah:³⁰ “Second Tithes may not be sold or bartered. Nor may a man say to his fellow in Jerusalem, ‘Here is wine, and give me oil [in exchange].’” In the opinion of Rabbi Akiba, the expression for the dead is thus connected with the above statement, ‘I have not eaten thereof in my mourning — for the dead,’ for the term “mourning” applies only to the dead. [And the expression nor have I given thereof thus stands as a complete independent statement, meaning “I have not sold it or bartered it even for clean food fit to be eaten.”] Now, I have seen the following text in the Yerushalmi:³¹, V, 5. “Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Simaie: Nor have I given thereof for the dead. How are we to interpret this? Shall we say that it forbids the bringing of a coffin and shrouds for the corpse — if something like this for the living [e.g., a cloak or shirt] is forbidden, need we be told that something which is prohibited for the living may not be done for the dead? What then is there that is permissible for the living [with the Second Tithe] and is forbidden for the dead? It is anointing.” But I do not understand this text either, for if he anointed a corpse with the oil of the Second Tithe, he has consumed it in impurity, and he has already confessed that, neither have I consumed any thereof unclean! And in the Gemara of Tractate Yebamoth, Chapter He’arel,³² we find: “Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Simaie, Whence do we know that, if the oil of Second Tithe was rendered impure, we may use it for anointing?³³ Because it is stated, nor have I given thereof for the dead — ‘I have not given it for the dead,’ but for the living akin to the dead I may give it. What use is there for the living and the dead alike? I must say this is anointing.” [The verse thus teaches us that if the oil of the Second Tithe has been rendered impure, it may still be used to anoint the living.] There [the Sages of the Gemara] have asked, “Perhaps I should say that this verse is an avowal that he did not buy a coffin and shrouds [for the dead],” meaning it would be permissible for a living [person] to buy himself a shirt if the Second Tithe was rendered impure, because then, [since it may not be eaten] we cannot apply the verse, and thou shalt eat there before the Eternal thy G-d!³⁴ To this the Rabbis replied, “The verse states thereof [nor have I given ‘thereof’ for the dead] — from the very oil itself” [i.e., I have not used the Second Tithe oil itself to anoint the dead, thus signifying that if that oil becomes impure I may still use it to anoint myself]. It now remains that the avowal, nor have I given thereof for the dead is attached to the statement neither have I consumed any thereof unclean, the person avowing that he did not eat from it in impurity, and did not use the impure [oil of the Second Tithe] for a corpse, to anoint it. However, in a Mishnah we have been taught in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer [mentioned above in the Sifre²⁹ 303. that nor have I given thereof for the dead means to prepare a coffin and shrouds for a corpse]:³⁵ “Nor have I given thereof for the dead — I have not bought a coffin and shrouds for the dead with it, nor have I given it to other mourners.” This interpretation which the Rabbis [here in the Mishnah] deduced, that he did not give it for the dead — neither for the corpse itself such as for a coffin and shrouds, nor for his mourners [to eat while in mourning] — includes his own mourning as well as that of others. And because of the mourning of others, he avows already about the coffin and shrouds, although such uses [as buying a cloak or shirt] are forbidden even for the living.

footnotes: ²⁴ Above, 14:25. ²⁵ Ibid. ²⁶ Hilchoth Maaseir Sheini 3:10. ²⁵ Ibid. ²⁷ See my Hebrew commentary p. 468 for a defense of Rambam by Rabbi Yoseph Karo in his “Keseph Mishneh.” ²⁸ I have not been able to identify them. ²⁹ Sifre, Ki Thavo ³⁰ Maaseir Sheini 1:1. ³¹ Yerushalmi ibid. ³² Yebamoth 74a. ³³ Since anointing is like drinking, and drinking impure Second Tithe is forbidden, one would think that anointing oneself with such oil is forbidden. And so, whence do we know that it is permissible? ³⁴ Above, 14:26. ²⁹ Sifre, Ki Thavo ³⁵ Maaseir Sheini 5:12.

WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN US, AS THOU DIDST SWEAR UNTO OUR FATHERS — “to give it³⁶] lack a connecting word or phrase. Ramban will point out that “giving” is implicit in “swearing.” to us and Thou hast fulfilled [Thy promise by] giving us A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY.” This is Rashi’s language. If so, the order of the verse is [to be inverted as follows]: “and the Land which Thou hast given us, a Land flowing with milk and honey, as Thou didst swear unto our father.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the meaning thereof is, may it always be so, that is to say, “and bless the Land which You have given us to be [always] a Land flowing with milk and honey.” But there is no need for all this, for included in the term “speaking” or “swearing” is the act of “giving.” Thus a man may say to his fellow, “You have sworn me your field” [which means: “you have sworn to give me your field”], or “You have told me a hundred” [which means “you have sworn to give me a hundred dinars”]. Similarly, as the Eternal, the G-d of thy fathers, hath spoken unto thee — a Land flowing with milk and honey³⁷ [the term “hath spoken” means “hath spoken that He would give thee”]. We have already explained it [there].³⁷ So also, and he gave him a house, and food he told him, and gave him land³⁸ [which means “and food he promised to give him”]. Now, do not find it difficult here that in the oaths made to the patriarchs “a Land flowing with milk and honey” is not mentioned. Since at that time the Land was a Land flowing with milk and honey, [it would have been redundant to describe it explicitly. Therefore it was as if] He swore to them by a Land flowing with milk and honey. Or it may be that unto our fathers [here does not mean the patriarchs] but those who came forth from Egypt, for it was to them that it was said, unto a Land flowing with milk and honey,³⁹ similar to the expression, and the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and our fathers⁴⁰ [which refers to “our fathers” who came forth from Egypt].

footnotes: ³⁶ Rashi adds the phrase “to give it,” for otherwise the two phrases [as Thou didst swear unto our father — a Land flowing with milk and honey ³⁷ Above, 6:3. ³⁷ Above, 6:3. ³⁸ I Kings 11:18. ³⁹ Exodus 3:8. ⁴⁰ Numbers 20:15.

THIS DAY THE ETERNAL THY G-D COMMANDETH THEE TO DO THESE STATUTES AND ORDINANCES. Now Moses finished explaining the Torah to them and issuing all the new commandments which G-d commanded him to declare to them. Therefore he said, “This day the Eternal thy G-d commandeth thee to do these statutes and ordinances, for I have already completed everything for you.” He mentioned, and thou shalt observe and do them with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.⁴¹ I have already explained the terms “heart” and “soul.”⁴²

footnotes: ⁴¹ In Verse 16 before us. ⁴² Above, 6:5.

THOU HAST AVOUCHED THE ETERNAL THIS DAY. The meaning thereof is: “Since you have accepted the entire Torah upon yourselves with all its interpretations, details, and new promulgations, you have thus magnified G-d and exalted Him, that He alone will be your G-d; you will in no way avow another god.”

AND THAT THOU WOULDEST WALK IN HIS WAYS — to do the good and the right, and do kindness one to another. And keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His ordinances. He [Moses] singles out the statutes and ordinances [for the reason] I have explained,⁴² and he includes in the expression and His commandments all the commandments — positive and negative. And hearken unto His voice — this refers to whatever He will command you concerning other deeds through me or through the rest of the prophets, as I have explained.⁴³, 13:5. It is possible that the expression His commandments refers to the positive commandments, and hearken unto His voice means the avoidances, that is to say, the negative commandments.

footnotes: ⁴² Above, 6:5. ⁴³ Ibid.

AND THE ETERNAL HATH AVOUCHED THEE. For this day is to you as the day of [the Revelation on] Sinai, and G-d exalted and magnified you by your acceptance of the Torah in order that you be His own treasure from among all peoples,⁴⁴ and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments,⁴⁵ for, to you alone He gave His Torah and commanded you with all the commandments that are desireable before Him and to no other nation. It is similar to what is written, He declareth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation.⁴⁶

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Exodus 19:5. ⁴⁵ In Verse 18 before us. ⁴⁶ Psalms 147:19-20.

AND TO MAKE THEE HIGH ABOVE ALL NATIONS THAT HE HATH MADE, IN PRAISE — that all the peoples of the earth should praise you for the fact that G-d will be near whenever you call upon Him.⁴⁷

footnotes: ⁴⁷ See above, 4:7.

AND IN NAME — that thy renown will go forth among the nations for His splendor which He had placed upon thee,⁴⁸ for you are exalted above all.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Ezekiel 16:14.

AND IN GLORY — for you will be glorified over them by being able to do with them whatever you will desire; thou shalt decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee,⁴⁹ similar to what is stated, lest Israel vaunt themselves against Me, saying: Mine own hand hath saved me.⁵⁰

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Job 22:28. ⁵⁰ Judges 7:2.

AND THAT THOU MAYEST BE A HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE ETERNAL — to cleave to Him ultimately.⁵¹ And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], in praise suggests that the G-d of Israel is thy praise,⁵², 10:21. and His Great Name is thy G-d,⁵², 10:21. and this is your Glory, similar to what is written, *For Thou art the Glory of their strength;*⁵³ the Glory of Israel.⁵⁴

footnotes: ⁵¹ See above, 11:22. ⁵² Ibid. ⁵² Ibid. ⁵³ Psalms 89:18. ⁵⁴ Lamentations 2:1.