משנה: הָאֲרִיסִין וְהֶחָכוֹרוֹת וְהַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן וְהַגַּזְלָן אֵין מְבִיאִין מֵאוֹתוֹ הַטַּעַם מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר רֵאשִׁית בִּיכּוּרֵי אַדְמָֽתְךָ. MISHNAH: Why can he not bring? Because it was said (Deuteronomy.26.2">Deut. 26:2): “You shall bring the beginning of the First Fruits of your land,” that all the growth should be from your land. For the same reason sharecroppers, tenant farmers, sicarii21Knife-wielding robbers who take deeds of property as ransom for the lives of the property owners. The sicarii mentioned in this Mishnah obviously are Jews; in Gittin 5:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.5.7.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:6 the sicarii are Gentiles., and robbers cannot bring, since it is said: “The beginning of the First Fruits of your land.”
הלכה: עַד כְדוֹן בְּשֶׁגָּזַל קַרְקַע. גָּזַל זְמוֹרָה וּנְטָעָהּ וְלֹא דָמִים הוּא חַייָב לוֹ. אֶלָּא צְרִיכָא לְרַבָּנִין. מִצְווֹת כִּגְבוֹהַּ הֵן אוֹ אֵינָן כִּגְבוֹהַּ. הִין תִּימַר כִּגְבוֹהַּ הֵן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. וְאִין תֵּימַר אֵינוֹ כִגְבוֹהַּ מֵבִיא. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בָּאֲשֵׁירָה שֶׁבִּיטְּלָהּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא מִמֶּנָּה גֵיזִירִין לְמַעֲרָכָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. מָהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא מִמֶּנָּה לוּלָב. מִצְוֹות כִּגְבוֹהַּ הֵן אוֹ אֵינָן כִּגְבוֹהַּ. אִין תֵּימַר כִּגְבוֹהַּ הֵן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. אִין תֵּימַר אֵינוֹ כִּגְבוֹהַּ מֵבִיא. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא מִמֶּנָּה לוּלָב שֶׁאֵין מִצְווֹת כִּגְבוֹהַּ. מָהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים. כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה דּוּ אָמַר הוּקְּשׁוּ לְקָדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל מֵבִיא. כְּרַבָּנִין דְּאִינּוּן מָרִין הוּקְּשׁוּ לְקָדְשֵׁי מִקְדָּשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. HALAKHAH: So far if he robbed the real estate. If he robbed a vine and planted it, does he not owe money22If the owners gave up hope to recover the robbed object, the robber becomes the legal owner. The transfer of ownership imposes on the robber the obligation to pay for it. Before giving up hope, the owners could have sued for the return of the stolen object; after they gave up hope but the circumstances changed and made a suit possible, they can only sue for damages. The next paragraph will make clear that this is the situation here.? But the rabbis have a problem: do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices23These rules are stricter than those governing other obligations. or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not bring24Sifra Wayiqra Paršata 5(2), Babli Baba Qama 67b: Leviticus.1.10">Lev. 1:10, “If his sacrifice is from the flock” implies that robbed animals cannot become sacrifices.; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may bring. Everybody agrees that from a worshipped tree which was damaged25If one of the prior worshippers of the tree damages it in a manner inadmissible in pagan worship, the tree loses is idolatrous status and becomes profanely usable. But if at any time it was forbidden for the Jewish altar it remains forbidden since in Nehemiah.10.35">Neh. 10:35 the supply of firewood for the altar is called a “sacrifice.” one cannot bring logs for the altar fire. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, may he take a lulav26The palm frond used on the Holiday of Tabernacles. In the Babli, Avodah Zarah 47a, this is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s question in the interpretation of Rav Dimi. In his interpretation, the rules of sacrifices require that anything inadmissible at some time is always inadmissible; clearly this is not the case for any non-sacrificial use. from it? Do commandments follow the rules of Temple sacrifices or not? If you say they are like Temple sacrifices he may not take; if you say they are not like Temple sacrifices he may take. It is obvious that he may take a lulav from it27The Babli (Mo‘ed Qaṭan 26b) makes a difference between things used for commandments (such as a lulav) and holy things (such as a Torah scroll). Things used for commandments may be discarded after use; holy things which can no longer be used must be buried just as damaged Temple stones must be buried. It is possible that the Yerushalmi agrees with this distinction. and commandments are not like Temple sacrifices. May he bring First Fruits? According to Rebbi Jehudah28The disagreement between R. Jehudah and the Sages is in Bikkurim 3:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.3.6.1">Mishnah 3:10. who compares them to country sacred food29Sacred food to be consumed by the Cohen in purity anywhere in the Land, i. e., heave, heave of the tithe, and ḥallah. he may bring; according to the rabbis who compare them to Temple sacrifices he may not bring.
עַד כְּדוֹן בִּגְזֵילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְייָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִּמֶּנָּה. אֲפִילוּ בִגְזֵילָה שֶׁנִּתְייָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִמֶּנָּה. סָֽבְרִין אָֽמְרִין נִיִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בִתְרוּמָה וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר מָה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּבִיכּוּרִים. כְּלוּם צְרִיכָה לֹא בִגְזֵילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְייָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִּמֶּנָּה. אֲבָל בִּגְזֵילָה שֶׁנִּתְייָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִמֶּנָּה אֲפִילוּ בִתְרוּמָה לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי הָאוֹנֵס וְהַגַּנָּב וְהַגַּזְלָן. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מְרַדְּפִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה וְלֹא מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא הֶקְדֵּישָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אִם אֵין הַבְּעָלִין מְרַדְּפִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה וְמַעְשְׂרוֹתָן מַעֲשֵׂר וְהֶקְדֵּישָׁן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא זֶה תוֹרֵם וְלֹא זֶה תוֹרֵם. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲפִילוּ הַבְּעָלִין שֶׁתָּֽרְמוּ אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עַד כְּדוֹן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בִּגְזֵילָה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְייָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִּמֶּנָּה. וּלְייֵדָא מִי לָּא אֲנָן תַנִּינָן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּבִיכּוֹרִין. אֶיפְשָׁר לַפֵּירוֹת לָצֵאת בְּלֹא בִכּוּרִין. אֵיפְשָׁר לַפֵּירוֹת לָצֵאת בְּלֹא תְרוּמָה וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת. אֲבָל בִּגְזֵילָה שֶׁנִּתְייָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים מִּמֶּנָּה עַד כְּדוֹן צְרִיכָה. So far about a robbery when the owners did not give up hope30he hope to recover the real estate taken from them.. Even about a robbery when the owners did give up hope? They thought to say that we can hear it from the following31Bikkurim 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.2.2.1">Mishnah 2:2, which states among other rules that heave applies to sharecroppers, tenant farmers, buyers of expropriated property, and robbers.: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits.” For what is this needed? Not for a robbery when the owners did not give up hope, but for a robbery when the owners did give up hope32Most commentators want to switch the two cases, against all ms. evidence, misreading the rhetorical quality of the multiple negations.? Even for heave he did not do anything, as we stated33A similar text in Tosephta Terumot 1:6 and Babli Baba Qama 67a, 114a/b.: “A strongman34His quality is not defined; he might be anything from a kidnapper to a corrupt politician., a thief, or a robber, as long as the owners pursue them, their heave is no heave, his tithes no tithes, and their dedications no dedications. If the owners do not pursue them, their heave is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications dedications.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither of them can give heave35As the Babli explains, the robber cannot give because it is not his and the owners cannot give because it is not in their possession.. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if the owners declare heave, it is no heave. Rebbi Yose said, so far we deal with a robbery when the owners did not give up hope. Then why did we state: “This applies to heave and tithe but not to First Fruits”? It is possible for fruits to be usable without First Fruits. It is impossible for fruits to be usable without heave and tithes36The Mishnah does not state that Jewish robbers, etc., have to give heave but that the rules of heave and tithes apply to them. Since they cannot give heave, they never can eat the produce of the land they robbed. On the other hand, produce may be eaten of a crop from which First Fruits were not given.! But a robbery when the owners did give up hope remains a question37Whether First Fruits may be brought from this land..