טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה—Tevel and Chulin are intermingled

OVERVIEW The ברייתא stated that if a ישראל and a נכרי bought a field in partnership the produce is an admixture of טבל and חולין according to רבי.¹ There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the exact status of this produce and how it can be מתוקן.

פירש בקונטרס² אין לך כל חטה וחטה שאין חציה טבל וחציה חולין – רש"י explained that there is no single wheat that is not half טבל and half חולין – וצריך לעשר מיניה וביה³ ולא ממנו על טבל גמור ולא מטבל גמור עליו – And so it is necessary to tithe from this mixture itself, and not to tithe from this mixture on ‘regular’ טבל, and not from טבל גמור on this mixture; the reason for this restriction – מפני שמפריש מן החיוב על הפטור⁴ ומן הפטור על החיוב⁵ – Since he is separating from grain which requires מעשר to grain which is exempt from מעשר, or from the פטור on the חיוב – אבל כי מפריש מיניה וביה⁶ מעשר מן החיוב שבו על החיוב שבו – However if he is מפריש from this mixture itself he is tithing from the חיוב on the חיוב contained therein – ומן הפטור שבו על הפטור שבו – And from the פטור on the פטור therein – ואפילו חלקו בספקן הן עומדים דאין ברירה⁷ – And this rule applies even after the ישראל ונכרי divided the grain, their doubtful status still remains since we maintain אין ברירה – In summation; according to רש"י whenever a division takes place we do not assume that each party received the half initially designated as his share, but rather each item in the inheritance (each grain, for instance) belongs half to one party and half to the other party [it is only that each party agrees to relinquish his rights in the half that the other party took]. תוספות disagrees with פרש"י: וקשה דאמר לקמן⁸ דאי קנין פירות⁹ לאו כקנין הגוף¹⁰ דמי והאחים שחלקו לקוחות הן¹¹ – And there is a difficulty with פרש"י, for the גמרא states later, that if קנין פירות is not like קנין הגוף, and the brothers who divided the estate are buyers from each other; if we make these two assumptions – לא משכחת דמייתי בכורים¹² אלא חד בר חד¹³ – We cannot find a case that one brings ביכורים, unless he is a single son, the son of a single son until יהושע; this is what the גמרא states, and תוספות asks – הא אפילו למאן דאמר אין ברירה יש לו בודאי חלק בו דמחייב בבכורים¹⁴ – However even according to the one who maintains אין ברירה, nevertheless he certainly has a portion which is obligated in ביכורים – והמותר¹⁵ שהוא חולין מצי מקדיש ליה כדאמרינן בפרק הספינה (בבא בתרא דף פא,ב) – And the remainder which is חולין he can be מקדיש it, as the גמרא states¹⁶ in פרק הספינה – תוספות rejects a possible resolution according to רש"י: ודוחק לומר דלא משכחת דמייתי בכורים כהלכתן שלא יצטרך להקדיש קאמר – And it is difficult to say that the גמרא means that we cannot find a case that one brings ביכורים properly, without needing to be מקדיש part of it – דלישנא משמע דלא מייתי כלל קאמר¹⁷ – For the expression לא משכחת indicates that the גמרא means that he cannot bring it at all (even with מקדיש); the question is why not according to רש"י – תוספות has an additional question on פרש"י: ועוד בפרק יש בכור¹⁸ (בכורות דף מח,ב) גבי¹⁹ חמש סלעים ולא חצי חמש – And furthermore in פרק יש בכור regarding the discussion of ‘five סלעים but not half of five סלעים’ – קאמר דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב אסי דאמר האחין שחלקו מחצה יורשין ומחצה לקוחות²⁰ – The גמרא there states that all agree with ר"א who maintains, the brothers who divided the estate are considered as half inheritors and half buyers. This concludes the citation from the גמרא there. תוספות continues – משמע אבל אי לקוחות הן פטורין אפילו למאן דאמר חמש ואפילו חצי חמש²¹ – This implies that if they are considered לקוחות they would be exempt even according to ר"י who maintains חמש ואפילו חצי חמש; the reason is – דאפילו חצי חמש ליכא²² – For there is even no חצי חמש – תוספות offers his view: לכך נראה דאין תקנה לטבל זה דכיון דאין ברירה שמא הגיע לו כל חלקו של עובד כוכבים²³- Therefore it appears to תוספות that there is no way to rectify this טבל, for since we maintain אין ברירה, perhaps the ישראל received the entire portion of the עכו"ם – או חציו ולא ידעינן כמה – Of half his portion, but we do not know how much of the sנכרי' portion the ישראל received – ואי מעשר מיניה וביה שמא מעשר מחלקו²⁴ והשאר חלקו של עובד כוכבים²⁵ – So if he will be מעשר from the produce itself, perhaps the מעשר is from his share but the rest is the sנכרי' share – או איפכא²⁶ או מקצתו – Or the opposite, or partially his and partially the sנכרי'. Therefore one cannot be מפריש מיניה וביה – ומיהו יכול לתקנן שיפריש עליו ממקום אחר ויפריש גם עליו ממקום אחר²⁷ – However he can rectify the produce by separating מעשר for it from another place – ואחרון אחרון מקולקל עד שלא ישאר כי אם מעט – And each last מעשר in this progression is questionable, until there will remain only a small amount which is questionable –

And all the מעשרות and תרומות he should give to the כהן and לוי.

SUMMARY According to רש"י when dividing a partnership each party owns a half of each piece (grain), while according to תוספות it is indeterminable (if we maintain אין ברירה).

THINKING IT OVER

1. If we assume that if one has a קנין פירות he is מביא ואינו קורא,²⁹ why does תוספות write that והמותר שהוא חולין מצי מקדיש ליה, why is there any מותיר,³⁰ since he is obligated to bring even the fruits where he only has a קנין פירות?!³¹
2. תוספות writes at the very end 'וכל המעשרות וכו' יתנם לכהן וללוי'.³² Seemingly part of this מעשר was separated מספק, why is he required to give it to the לוי, the owner should say המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה; prove that these crops where actually טבל?!³³

footnotes: ¹ The half which belong to the ישראל is טבל, but the half which belongs to the נכרי is חולין (since there is no obligation on the נכרי to separate תרומות ומעשרות). ² בד"ה טבל. ³ The ten percent מעשר for this mixture must be taken from this mixture, but not from other produce (which is טבל גמור). He may also not be מפריש from this mixture on other טבל גמור. Normally one may be מפריש from different harvests (from the same year) on one another since they are all טבל גמור, but not in this case. ⁴ If he is separating from other טבל גמור he is being מפריש מן החיוב on the פטור, for part of this mixture is חולין and not obligated in הפרשת תו"מ. See רש"ש who asks; he could be מפריש half the amount, since (according to רש"י) half is טבל and half is חולין. See נחלת משה. ⁵ If he is separating from the mixture on טבל גמור he is מפריש מן הפטור על החיוב. ⁶ Let us assume that his share the harvest was a hundred grains; each grain is half טבל and half חולין. He separates ten grains as מעשר, so ten half grains of טבל גמור will be מתקן the remaining ninety half grains which were טבל גמור. ⁷ If they divided and the ישראל took his hundred grains, he still cannot be מעשר from טבל גמור, for his hundred grains remain in the same status as they were before, namely חצי טבל וחצי חולין, we cannot say that now that the ישראל took half, these are his half of טבל, for we maintain אין ברירה, meaning that what happens later cannot clarify the initial ספק, and since initially each grain is half טבל and half חולין, this ספק remains throughout, and the only option is to be מעשר the ten percent from this very same mixture. ⁸ מח,א on the very bottom. ⁹ קנין פירות means that the buyer only bought the rights for the produce of the land (for a certain extent of time), but he does not own the actual land. ¹⁰ קנין הגוף means that one actually owns the item (in our case the land). In the times of the ביהמ"ק one could buy a field only up to יובל; when יובל arrived all the fields reverted back to the original owners. It therefore follows that the buyers only had a קנין פירות (up until יובל), but not a קנין הגוף. ¹¹ When two brothers inherit their father’s estate and then divide it we can either assume that they are יורשים and each son took his share which rightfully belongs to him (this will be called יש ברירה), or we can say we are not sure which share belongs to which son (אין ברירה), rather when dividing the estate the two brothers agree that whichever portion falls to each one, they agree to relinquish their right in the part which the other brother took, in exchange that the other brother will relinquish his part in which he took. In short they are bartering or exchanging their portions which is the equivalent of buying and selling. If we make this assumption they will need to return the fields to each other on יובל (since they ‘bought it’ from each other) and make a new division. None of the brothers who inherit are considered true owners of the fields since they only have a קנין פירות in it. ¹² Regarding מצות ביכורים the תורה writes (דברים [תבא] כו,י) that the one who bring the ביכורים states, ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי; however since the heirs only have קנין פירות they cannot say אשר נתת לי (it does not truly belong to them). ¹³ If the person, who received the field in the times of יהושע, had only one son, who inherits the property completely (קנין הגוף) and he in turn had only one son, and this continued till the present time, this single son can bring ביכורים and state אשר נתת לי; however in any other case they cannot. ¹⁴ רש"י maintains that regarding the produce which belongs to the ישראל and נכרי; in each kernel of wheat, half belongs to the ישראל and half to the נכרי. We need to assume the same by an inheritance that each piece of property belongs half to one brother and half to the other. So whatever either brother took, half of that actually belongs to him (as a קנין הגוף) it is only the other half which belonged to his brother that he is buying it off him and in that half he only has קנין פירות. Therefore even though we do not know which half is קנין הגוף and which half is קנין פירות, nevertheless since a part of his field belongs to him, he must bring those fruits as ביכורים. ¹⁵ This refers to the produce that grew on his ‘bought’ part of the field, which he did not inherit. תוספות is addressing the issue that since half of the produce that he is bringing as ביכורים is חולין, he is therefore bringing חולין לעזרה which is prohibited. ¹⁶ See the גמרא there that he is מקדיש it קדושת דמים and then he redeems it. In any event why does the גמרא say that the only way to bring ביכורים is by חד בר חד, when we have this option of being מקדיש it, according to רש"י who maintains that half of the inheritance is indeed his. ¹⁷ See מהר"ם שי"ף that even if someone bought the field לפירות he brings ביכורים, however he does not ‘read’ the פרשה of ביכורים; he is מביא ואינו קורא. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁸ The case there in the משנה (on the עמוד א') is when a woman gave birth to her firstborn twins and the father died before he performed a פדיון הבן. There is a dispute between ר"מ (who maintains that the sons are not obligated in פדה"ב), and ר"י (who maintains that they are obligated). ¹⁹ The גמרא there establishes the מחלוקת in a case where the entire inheritance was exactly five סלעים. We assume that both ר"מ ור"י agree with רב אסי that the inheritance is considered half ירושה and half a purchase (see footnote # 19). We also agree that an oral loan (like the obligation of a פדה"ב) can be collected from the יורשין but not the לקוחות. Since their inheritance is מחצה יורשים ומחצה לקוחות, therefore only two and a half סלעים (or חצי חמש סלעים) is collectible. ר"מ maintains חמש ולא חצי חמש (therefore they are פטור), while ר"י maintains חמש ואפילו חצי חמש (therefore they are חייב). See there for more details. ²⁰ If we maintain יש ברירה then the sons are considered יורשין, each one received the proper parcel that was destined for him as his inheritance. If we maintain אין ברירה then the sons are bartering their respective share in the inheritance and so are considered לקוחות (see footnote # 11). רב אסי was in doubt whether יש ברירה or אין ברירה, therefore he said we will consider the sons as מחצה יורשין (for perhaps יש ברירה) and מחצה לקוחות (for perhaps אין ברירה). ²¹ The only reason why they pay חמש חצי סלעים is with the understanding that they are מחצה יורשים, but if they would be לקוחות, they would owe nothing. ²² However according to רש"י who says that in every partnership each partner owns half of each part of the partnership, so even if they are לקוחות, but that is just regarding half, but one half is certainly his, so why are they פטור from פדה"ב even if we maintains לקוחות הן?! ²³ תוספות disagrees with רש"י that it is half and half, but rather we have no way to ascertain which part each partner or heir received; perhaps he received his designated parcel completely or he did not receive anything from his designated parcel, or he received a certain percentage of his designated parcel. ²⁴ He received a hundred bushels as his share perhaps only ten of them is his real inheritance (and is טבל) and the other ninety really belong to the נכרי (and is חולין) and he merely bartered it from him. ²⁵ In this case he is being מעשר from the חיוב (his share) on the פטור (the sנכרי' share), in which case it is not מעשר and this מעשר is still טבל. ²⁶ The מעשר belongs to the נכרי (so it is really חולין) and the rest belongs to him (טבל), and one cannot be מפריש from חולין on טבל ²⁷ Let us assume that the ישראל received five-hundred bushels as his share; at most he is required to give fifty bushels as מעשר. H therefore finds fifty [five] bushels of unquestionable טבל and makes them מעשר for his five hundred bushels. Now his share is no longer טבל in any case. However it is possible that his entre share of five hundred was חולין (for it belonged to the נכרי), so therefore the fifty five bushels of טבל, which he used as מעשר, are still טבל (since he was מפריש מן החיוב על הפטור). He therefore takes a different six bushels of ודאי טבל and is מפריש them for the fifty bushels. So now the fifty five bushels are certainly מתוקן, the problem is only with the six bushels so he takes 2/3 bushel, and is מפריש it as מעשר for the six bushels and so he continues until the questionable מעשר is a very minuscule amount. ²⁸ The means the fifty five bushels and the six and the 2/3, etc. (see footnote # 27). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ²⁹ See footnote # 17. ³⁰ See footnote # 15. ³¹ See מהר"ם שי"ף והביאור and נחלת משה. ³² See footnote # 28. ³³ See רש"ש and מהר"ם שי"ף ונחלת משה.

ולביתך¹ מלמד שאדם מביא בכורי אשתו—And to your household; this teaches that a person brings his wife’s ביכורים

OVERVIEW ריש לקיש maintains that if one buys a field only for the produce (קנין פירות) he is not obligated to being ביכורים.² ר' יוחנן asked on ר"ל that the ברייתא states that a man can bring his wife’s ביכורים (since the תורה writes ולביתך). A husband only has קנין פירות in his wife’s property, so how can he bring her fruits as ביכורים? Our תוספות clarifies this question.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא מן התורה אין לבעל פירות בנכסי אשתו³ אלא תקנתא דרבנן בעלמא היא – And if you will say; but מה"ת the husband has no rights to the פירות of his wife’s assets, rather it is a Rabbinic enactment that he ‘eats’ the פירות – אם כן על כרחך גזירת הכתוב הוא⁴ – Therefore perforce we must say that it is a special decree of the תורה, that he can bring his wife’s ביכורים, so what is the question on ר"ל?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרך נשים שנותנות פירות⁵ לבעליהן⁶ וכי האי גוונא איירי קרא⁷ – And one can say; that it is common among women to give their fruits (of their assets) to their husbands, and the פסוק of ולביתך is discussing such a case – וכענין זה אמרינן בריש קידושין (דף ד,א) אי כתב רחמנא מעשה ידיה לאביה דקא מיתזנא מיניה – And the גמרא says a similar thing in the beginning of מסכת קידושין;⁸ ‘if the תורה would have just written that her handiwork belongs to the father, I would say that this is because she is fed by him’ this concludes the citation from that גמרא –

But even though that מה"ת a father is not obligated to feed his daughter, nevertheless since the usual manner is that he feeds her, therefore we can assume that is the reason the תורה granted him מעשה ידיה.¹⁰

SUMMARY The תורה may incorporate the customs of the people as a basis for certain תורה rules even though the custom is not obligatory עפ"י תורה.

THINKING IT OVER It appears from תוספות that a husband may bring his wife’s ביכורים only if she gives him her פירות.¹¹ However by מעשה ידיה it seems that in all cases the father receives מעשה ידיה, even in cases where he is not feeding her. Why the difference?

footnotes: ¹ דברים תבא כו,יא states, regarding מצות ביכורים that ושָׂמַחְתָּ בְכָל הַטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּלְבֵיתֶךָ אַתָּה וְהַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבֶּךָ. ² See previous תוס' ד"ה טבל [TIE footnote # 12]. ³ The fruits of the woman’s assets (נכסי מלוג) belong to her מה"ת. How can he bring her ביכורים; they are not his at all מה"ת?! ⁴ The תורה is giving special dispensation to a husband that even though generally one can only bring his own fruits as ביכורים, however the husband may bring his wife’s פירות as ביכורים, so this has nothing to do with קנין פירות! What is ר"י asking on ר"ל from this ruling?! ⁵ This [seemingly] means that she committed herself to him that he may take (all) the פירות from her assets (but not merely that she actually gives him some פירות [occasionally]). This may explain why it is called קנין פירות. ⁶ The פירות therefore belong to the husband (they are not his wife’s פירות) since she gave him the rights to them (see footnote # 5). This would seemingly prove that קנין פירות is sufficient to be considered as a קנין הגוף. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ The גמרא there is explaining why it was necessary for the תורה to teach us that the קידושין of a נערה belong to the father and also that the מעשה ידיה of a נערה belong to her father; why cannot we derive one from the other? ⁹ How can we say (that we would have thought) that when the תורה gave her father her מעשה ידיה it is (only) because she is מיתזנא מיניה, when מה"ת he is not obligated to feed her?! ¹⁰ We say the the תורה assumes that he is feeding her (even though he is not obligated), therefore the תורה granted him her מעשה ידיה. Similarly here the תורה states that when she gives him her פירות (which is [very] common) he may bring her ביכורים from these פירות. ¹¹ See (text by) footnote # 7.

מתה אין לא מתה לא—She died, yes; she did not die, no

OVERVIEW Previously ר' יוחנן brought a ברייתא (based on the פסוק of ולביתך), which indicated that קנין פירות is כקנין הגוף.¹ Subsequently ר"ל asked a question on ר"י from the ברייתא of מתה אשתו which indicates that קנין פירות is לאו כקנין הגוף. Our תוספות explains the nature of this latter question.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי קושיא דרבי יוחנן דאמר כתנא דלביתך² דמה נפשך פליג³ – And if you will say; what is the question of ר"ל, since ר"י can follow the תנא of the ברייתא of לביתך, for in any event the two ברייתות of לביתך and מתה argue with each other?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר⁴ דאיכא לאוקמה במתה כי הך – And one can say that we can establish the ברייתא of לביתך (which seemingly indicates כקנין הגוף דמי) in a case of מתה like this ברייתא of מתה, so the ברייתות do not necessarily conflict, which makes ר"ל question understandable. תוספות has an additional question: ואם תאמר ולישני דהך דמתה בשלא זכתה האשה פירות נכסיה לבעל – And if you will say; so let ר"י answer that this ברייתא of מתה is in a case where the woman did not transfer the פירות of her assets to her husband in which case he does not even have קנין פירות, therefore he cannot bring them as ביכורים – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דברייתא קתני אף בתר דתקון רבנן פירות לבעל – And one can say; that the ברייתא of מתה was taught even after the רבנן enacted that the פירות of the wife belong to the husband so he has a קנין פירות and nevertheless he can only be מביא וקורא if she died, but not when she is alive – תוספות offers another answer to his question why we cannot establish the ברייתא where she was not מזכה to him her פירות: ועוד דהוה ליה כקונה פירות בשוק ואחר כך קנה שדה דאינו קורא⁵ – And additionally if she was not מזכה her פירות to him, he merely took them and then she died, it is like one who buys fruit in the market and then he bought the field where these fruits grew, where the rule is that he cannot be קורא – כדאמרינן במסכת בכורים⁶ (פ"א) – As the גמרא [in תלמוד ירושלמי] states in מסכת בכורים – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:⁷ אבל לריש לקיש שהיו לו פירות תחילה אתי שפיר – However according to ר"ל that he had the פירות initially it is properly understood – דבמתה מביא וקורא כיון דמעיקרא אגיד בה⁸ לפירות: That when she died he is מביא וקורא since initially he was attached to the field through the פירות.

SUMMARY The two ברייתות do not necessarily conflict. The ברייתא of מתה is after the רבנן gave him her פירות. If the woman was not מזכה her פירות, the husband cannot be קורא even after she dies. Even according to ר"ל, if she was מזכה the פירות then he may be מביא וקורא after she dies. It is not like קונה פירות ואח"כ שדה. Since he had a vested interest.

THINKING IT OVER In the first question תוספות writes, 'ומאי קושיא' (but not 'ולישני'); however in the second question תוספות writes 'ולישני' (but not 'ומאי קושיא'); why the different expressions?!

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד"ה ולביתך (in the ‘Overview’). ² ר"י inferred from that ברייתא that קנין פירות is כקנין הגוף. ³ See ‘Overview’; the two ברייתות seemingly conflict with each other. ⁴ תוספות question was that since the two ברייתות obviously conflict, how can we ask a question on ר"י from one ברייתא, since he maintains like the other ברייתא. The answer is that they do not necessarily conflict, therefore ר"ל has a valid question if we presume that the first ברייתא also maintains לאו כקנין הגוף דמי for it is in a case of מתה. ⁵ Therefore if the wife was not מזכה the פירות to her husband, he cannot be קורא even after she died, because it is just like the case of קנה פירות בשוק וכו'. ⁶ The הגהות מהר"ב רנשבורג amends this to read בירושלמי. ⁷ תוספות just finished saying that if she was not מזכה the פירות to the בעל, even if she died he is not קורא. Why therefore according to ר"ל is he מביא וקורא even after she died and even if she gave him the פירות. According to ר"ל קנין פירות is not כקנין הגוף דמי, so the fact the he owns the פירות does not permit him to be מביא וקורא his wife’s ביכורים, so even though she died and he inherits the field it is still the same problem at it is according to ר"י, namely it is like he bought the פירות and later bought the field! ⁸ According to ר"ל if she granted him the פירות it is not similar to the case of קנה פירות ואח"כ קנה שדה, for in that case when he bought the פירות he had no connection at all to the field, however here when she granted him the פירות of the field so even though it is only קנין פירות, but she granted him the פירות of her field, so he has some connection to the field (a קנין פירות), therefore when she dies and he inherits the field it (sort of) completes his קנין הגוף in the field.

בצרן ושיגרן ביד שליח—He harvested them and sent them in the hand of an agent

OVERVIEW ר' יוסי בר חנינא stated in a ברייתא that if he harvested the produce and sent it for ביכורים through a שליח and the שליח died on the way to ירושלים, the rule is that the master may bring these ביכורים to ירושלים but he does not read פרשת ביכורים, because the תורה writes¹ ולקחת והבאת that the taking and the bringing must be as one.

פירוש רבינו שמואל בהספינה (בבא בתרא פא,ב) בצרן הבעל ושגרן ביד שליח – The רשב"ם explains in פרק הספינה; the owner harvested them and sent it through a שליח – דאם בצרן שליח והביאן השליח בירושלים שליח ודאי אין יכול לקרות – For if the שליח harvested it and the שליח brought it to ירושלים, the שליח certainly cannot read פרשת ביכורים – כדתנן במסכת בכורים (פרק א' משנה ה') – As the משנה teaches in מסכת בכורים, for he cannot say² אשר נתת לי ה' – אבל הבעלים קורין³ דיכולין לומר הנה הבאתי⁴ דשלוחו של אדם כמותו⁵ – However if the שליח both harvested and brought the ביכורים, the owners could read, for they can say, ‘behold I brought’ since one’s agent is considered as himself – תוספות disagrees with the רשב"ם: וקשה לרבינו תם למאי דחשיב לבצירה לקיחה⁶ למה ליה למימר ומת שליח⁷ – And the ר"ת has a difficulty with this רשב"ם, for according to the רשב"ם who considers the בצירה to be the לקיחה, why did ריב"ח need to say, ‘and the שליח died’ – הוה ליה למתני בצרן הוא ושגרן ביד השליח או שבצרן שליח והביאן הוא – He could have said, ‘and the owner harvested them and sent them with the שליח’, or he could have said, ‘the שליח harvested them and he brought it’; in these two cases he is מביא ואינו קורא since we require לקיחה והבאה כאחד – תוספות answers (according to שיטת הרשב"ם): ויש לומר דאשמועינן רבותא דאף על גב דמת שליח וגמרו הבעלים הבאה – And one can say; that ריב"ח is informing us of a novelty that even though the שליח died and the owner completed the הבאה – דאיכא לקיחה⁸ ומקצת הבאה בבעלים אפילו הכי אינו קורא דבעינן לקיחה וכל הבאה באחד – So there is לקיחה בבעלים, and a partial הבאה בבעלים, and nevertheless he is not קורא, for we require the לקיחה and the entire הבאה כאחד, but here part of the הבאה (which the שליח brought) was not כאחד – תוספות offers another answer for the רשב"ם – ואי גרסינן או מת אתי נמי שפיר⁹ וזו¹⁰ אף זו¹¹ קתני – And if the text reads 'או מת' (instead of ומת) it will also be understood, and the ברייתא is teaching us in a manner of this (without מת) and even this (when מת) – תוספות offers an alternate explanation as to the nature of לקיחה: ורבינו תם מפרש דבצירה לאו היינו לקיחה ובצרן אורחא דמילתא נקט – And the ר"ת )who asked on the רשב"ם) explains that בצירה is not the same as לקיחה, and ריב"ח mentioned ‘ובצרן’, as an aside – שבעלים בוצרים כדי לעשות בעין יפה לפי שאין שיעור לבכורים – Since the owners harvest the ביכורים in order to give the ביכורים with a ‘good eye’, since there is no requisite amount for ביכורים, so to ensure that it is a fitting amount the owners do not trust their workers but rather do it themselves, but it is not לקיחה – ולקיחה היינו לקיחה מתוך הבית – And the 'לקיחה' of ריב"ח that refers to taking the ביכורים out from the house – וחדא קתני בצרן ושגרן ביד השליח ומת שליח בדרך דאז הוא רגילות¹² שמביאן אחר – And the ברייתא is teaching one case; ‘**he harvested it (**not relevant) and sent it with the שליח (at this point the לקיחה and the [partial] הבאה was כאחד [by the שליח]) and the שליח died on the way’, in which case it is usual that another person (שליח) brings it – ולא הוי לקיחה והבאה באחד: So therefore it is not לקיחה והבאה כאחד (since two שלוחים were involved in the הבאה).

SUMMARY According to the רשב"ם the לקיחה is the בצירה, while according to the ר"ת the לקיחה is taking it out from the house.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to the רשב"ם that we say שלוחו של אדם כמותו,¹³ so even if the לקיחה was done by the בעלים (בצרן), and the הבאה by the שליח, it should be considered לקיחה והבאה כאחד, since שלוחו של אדם כמותו?!¹⁴
2. According to the ר"ת, can the בעלים be קורא, when there is only one שליח (since שליח של אדם כמותו); two שלוחים?

footnotes: ¹ דברים (תבא) כו,ב reads, וְלָקַחְתָּ מֵרֵאשִׁית כָּל פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר תָּבִיא מֵאַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וְשַׂמְתָּ בַטֶּנֶא וְהָלַכְתָּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם. Seemingly the 'והבאת' of the גמרא is referring to 'תביא' in the פסוק, and so it seems from the פי' רשב"ם in ב"ב פא,ב ד"ה ולקחת. ² See (the פסוק in) footnote # 4. ³ The רשב"ם considers the בצירה as the לקיחה, therefore the לקיחה and הבאה were done כאחד, since they were done by this one שליח (and it is considered as if the בעלים did it since שלוחו של אדם כמותו). See text by footnote # 6. ⁴ דברים (תבא) כו,י reads, וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה הֵבֵאתִי אֶת רֵאשִׁית פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לִּי יְהוָה. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁶ See footnote # 3. ⁷ The intent of ריב"ח is to teach us that we require לקיחה והבאה כאחד; to show this, it was not necessary to give a case where the שליח died (an unusual and uncomfortable situation), but rather a case where one did the harvesting (the לקיחה; which according to the רשב"ם is the בצירה) and the other did the bringing (the הבאה) and since it is not כאחד, the rule is מביא ואינו קורא. ⁸ According to the רשב"ם the בצירה is the לקיחה, and here the בעלים made the בצירה. ⁹ The ברייתא will then be giving us two cases; one where the בעלים made the לקיחה and the שליח made the הבאה, and two where the בעלים made the לקיחה and מקצת הבאה. The ברייתא then incorporates the case which תוספות asked that the ברייתא should state, and the additional חידוש of תוספות answer. ¹⁰ תוספות is responding to the question since there is a greater חידוש by מת (as תוספות stated previously), why mention at all the first case (in footnote # 9) when we can derive it (with a כ"ש) from the second case. ¹¹ תוספות response is that we find many times that first we are told a minor חידוש and then a major חידוש; לא זו אף זו. ¹² According to the ר"ת we cannot ask the same question why mention מת השליח; for it is say that one person made the לקיחה (from the house) and another made the הבאה, since it is highly unusual that the one who made the לקיחה should not make the הבאה; after all he was appointed to take the ביכורים from the house and bring it to ירושלים. Therefore the ברייתא stated that the שליח died, so we needed to find another שליח to bring it to ירושלים; in this case the לקיחה והבאה was not כאחד. ¹³ See footnote # 5. ¹⁴ See נחלת משה.

מביא ואינו קורא—He brings, but does not read

Overview¹ ריב"ח taught that we require לקיחה והבאה כאחד, and if it is not כאחד the rule is מביא ואינו קורא. Our תוספות has some difficulty with this ruling.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ונימא ירקבו כדאמרינן בפרק בתרא דמכות (דף יח,ב) – And if you will say; but let us say that the ביכורים should rot, as ר' אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא says in the last פרק of מסכת מכות – הפריש בכורים קודם החג² ועבר עליהן החג ירקבו משום דנראו³ לקריאה ונדחו – ‘He separated ביכורים before the holiday of סוכות, and the holiday passed, they should rot’, since initially these ביכורים were fit for ‘reading’ and were pushed away. The גמרא there continues – וכל⁴ שאין ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו⁵ והכא נמי⁶ כשבצרן נראו לקריאה⁷ וכששיגרן נדחו⁸ – For anything which is not fit for mixing, the lack of mixing prevents it from being acceptable’, so, תוספות asks, here too when he harvested them they were fit for קריאה and when he sent them with the שליח they were pushed aside – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאמר בירושלמי דמסכת בכורים (פרק א' הלכה ה') – And one can say; that it says in תלמוד ירושלמי on מסכת בכורים – רבי אסי אמר ריש לקיש בשם רבי אושעיא כשליקטן לשלחן ביד אחר – ר"א said that ר"ל said in the name of ר"א; when he gathered the produce for ביכורים with the intent to send them with someone else,⁹ only then can he send them with a שליח (an it will be מביא ואינו קורא) – אבל אם לקטן להביאן הוא לא ישלחם ביד אחר¹⁰ – However if he gathered them with the intent that he will bring them to ירושלים, he should not send them with someone else – שכל הבכורים שנראו לקריאה¹¹ אין ניתרין אלא בקריאה – For all ביכורים which were fit for קריאה cannot be ‘permitted’ (to be eaten by the כהן) only with קריאה – ואמרינן התם מתניתין¹² פליגא הפריש בכורים¹³ ומכר שדהו¹⁴ מביא ואינו קורא¹⁵ – And the ירושלמי asks there; it seems that our משנה argues with ר"א, for the משנה states; ‘he separated ביכורים and sold his field, he brings but does not read’ – קיימנוה כשנתן דעתו למכור משעה ראשונה¹⁶ – The ירושלמי answers; we have established that משנה that he intended to sell his field from the first hour (before he harvested), therefore it was never נראה – ולפי זה אם הפריש בכורים קודם החג על מנת להביאן אחר החג לא ירקבו – So according to this (regarding the rule of ר"א) if he separated ביכורים before סוכות with the intention to bring them after סוכות (so it was never נראה), they are not left to rot – אלא אחר החג מביא ואינו קורא: Rather after סוכות he is מביא ואינו קורא.

SUMMARY ביכורים which were fit to be מביא וקורא and then they were not fit to be קורא, they are left to rot; however if they were never fit to be קורא (either because he planned to send them with a שליח, or he intended to bring them after סוכות) the rule is מביא ואינו קורא.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes )from the ירושלמי) that if at time of the לקיטה he intends to send it with a שליח the rule is מביא ואינו קורא, since it was never נראה.¹⁷ However previously¹⁸ תוספות said that if the שליח brought it, the בעלים can be מביא וקורא (and it is considered לקיחה והבאה כאחד), since שלוחו של אדם כמותו. Why therefore does the ירושלמי state that he is מביא וקורא, seemingly it was נראה ונדחה?!¹⁹

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous תוס' ד"ה בצרן. ² The rule regarding ביכורים is that they should be brought from שבועות until סוכות in which case he is מביא וקורא, however after סוכות he is מביא ואינו קורא (see רש"י there ד"ה בכורים) and the lack of קריאה is not מעכב. ³ These words משום וכו' ונדחו, do not appear in our גמרות, these seem to be תוספות explanation, that even though if one separates and brings the ביכורים after סוכות he is מביא ואינו קורא however if he was מפריש לפני החג so it was נראה for קריאה, and he wants to being it אחר החג, where it is not נראה לקריאה, in such a case of נראה ונדחה we say that the קריאה is מעכב since it is אינו ראוי לקריאה. ⁴ The rule generally is that קריאה is not מעכבת by ביכורים, so why is there a problem that אינו קורא; the גמרא continues… ⁵ The תורה writes regarding מנחות that it needs to be בלולה בשמן (the flour is mixed with oil); however if one merely added the oil without mixing it, the מנחה is כשר. This is referred to as כל הראוי לבילה (if it can be mixed properly) אין בילה מעכבת בו (it does not matter whether it was mixed or not). However if there is so much flour (more than sixty עשרון in one כלי) that it cannot be mixed properly, it is אינו ראוי לבילה, the rule is that בילה מעכבת בו, and the מנחה is פסול. ⁶ Even though that קריאה is not מעכב by ביכורים, but since here it is not ראוי לקריאה (for we require לקיחה והבאה כאחד and here it is not כאחד), the קריאה should be מעכב, and just as there (when עבר עליהם החג) we say ירקבו, since they were נראו ונדחו, here too since they were נראו ונדחו the rule should be ירקבו. ⁷ He could have taken them to ירושלים and be מביא וקורא. ⁸ תוספות is showing the similarity between the two cases that in both they were נראו ונדחו, so just as there the rule is ירקבו the same should apply her by בצרן. ⁹ In this case they were never ראוי לקריאה, since he was intending to send them with a שליח who cannot say אשר נתת לי. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁰ This means that the שליח cannot even be מביא (even if he is not קורא). ¹¹ This is the case where לקטן להביאן הוא, where he would be קורא. ¹² ביכורים פ"א מ"ז. ¹³ At that point it was ראוי לקריאה. ¹⁴ At this point it is not ראוי לקריאה for he cannot say [פרי] האדמה אשר נתת לי, since he does not own the אדמה (the field). ¹⁵ We see from that משנה that even if it was נראה ונדחה, nevertheless one is מביא וקורא, not like ר"א ruled. ¹⁶ The same is regarding the גמרא here that sריב"ח' ruling is in a case where initially when he harvested the ביכורים, he intended to send it with a שליח, so it was never נראה. Therefore one may be מביא ואינו קורא. ¹⁷ See footnote # 9. ¹⁸ ד"ה בצרן [TIE footnote # 5]. ¹⁹ See נחלת משה.