Rashi in Mishpatim (23:19) says that shemittah has an obligation of bikkurim. The Mizrach notes that in some texts the Rashi does not appear. The Maharal there also says it must be incorrect for the land is hefker in a shemmitah year. The Minchas Chinuch (91:1) asks that just as the Gemorah Bechorot (12b) says an animal of kedushat shemittah is not obligated in bechor because parts of it must be offered on the mizbaoch and things with kedushat shemittah must be eaten. Similarly, terumah will be burnt if it becomes tamah so it should not be obligated in bikkurim?
The Torat Zeraim brings from the Briskor Rav that there are two components to the obligation of bikkurim. One is that it is bikkurim. He says it is also obligated because it is ראשית like terumah is called ראשית and he brings proofs to this idea. Says the Torat Zeraiaim, bikkurim that become tamah are burnt because of the terumah aspect of the bikkurim. However, bikkurim themselves would not require burning. Therefore, the kedusha of shemittah and bikkurim are not contradictory and there can be bikkurim in shemittah.
We see that the being the first, the beginning is מחייב kedusha. All beginnings must be solidified with kedusha in order to get things off on the right foot.
See more about this here.
No comments:
Post a Comment