And it will be when you come into the land that Hashem, your Lord, gives you as an inheritence….You should take from the first of all fruit of the ground… and you should put it in a basket and go the place that Hashem, your Lord, will choose to have His name dwell there. (ax Devarim 26/2)
Rashi explains: From the first fruit- But not all first fruits, because you are not obligated to bring bikkurim from all types of fruits, only from the seven species. (We learn this from a gezierah shava– comparison based on two similar words in two pessukim) The word ” eretz” is written in our possuk and the word “eretz” is written when the Torah speaks of the seven species. (Therefore,) just like Eretz Yisroel is blessed with seven species so too there is only an obligation to bring bikkurim from the seven species.
Zera Shimshon asks in the name of the Mizrachi that if we learn from the gezeirah shava of “eretz” “eretz” that we bring bikkurim only from the seven species, then why did the Torah write the word FROM in the phrase “from the land” to learn the same halacha?
He asks a second question. This is not the only place in chumash where Chazal learn a halacha from the word “FROM”. When the Torah speaks of the mitzva to separate challah from dough it says (Bamidbar 15/21), “From the first of your dough…”. From that word “from”, however Chazal derive a different halacha: “from the first of your dough – but not your whole dough”. Meaning one can not make the whole dough challah but he must leave at least a small amount of dough for the owner to eat.
Zera Shimshon asks, why didn’t Chazal also learn concerning bikkurim, “from the first fruit but not all of your fruits” to prohibit making the whole field bikkurim?
He answers the first question by first answering the second question.
He points out that there is a difference between the pessukim that speak of bikkurim and the pessukim that speaks of challah. On the one hand they are similar in that in both places it is written “from” which implies to exclude something; either different species or “from… and not the whole”. However on the other hand they are different in that in the pessukim speaking of bikkurim it also says “all”, “from ALL your fruit”, which implies to include something, seemingly either all species or “even the whole”.
He also posits that the word “from” really implies “from the first fruit” and not the whole field bikkurim, like we learnt concerning challah.
Therefore, concerning bikkurim it isn’t possible to learn from the word “all”, all species, because of the gezara shava that bikkurim only applies to the seven species. Therefore we must conclude, by process of elimination, that it teaches that one can make a whole field bikkurim. After we learn that we can make the whole field bikkurim obviously we can’t learn from that the word “FROM” that you can’t (like we learnt concerning the mitzvah of separating challah).
According to this we can now understand why it is not enough for the Torah to just write “From all of your first fruits” without the gezeirah shava. If that would have been the case then we would have explained it like we did concerning Challah.
However it still has to be answered why isn’t it enough to just write the gezeirah shava without “from”.
The answer to this is that it teaches us that even the fruit that is brought with the bikkurim to adorn them also has to be of the seven species and not some other fruits.
To have new D’vrei Torah sent directly to your inbox fill in boxes below: