1) SEEING "PNEI HA'BAYIS"

OPINIONS: The law states that a non-Kohen who eats fruits of Bikurim is punished with death. Rava bar Ada says in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak that this punishment is administered only if the person ate the Bikurim after the Bikurim had "seen the face of the house (Pnei ha'Bayis)." To what does Rava bar Ada refer when he says that the punishment for a non-Kohen who eats Bikurim applies only when the Bikurim has seen the "Pnei ha'Bayis"?

(a) The RASH (Bikurim 2:1) states that the "Pnei ha'Bayis" refers to the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash. This also seems to be the implication of TOSFOS (18b, DH Bikurim).

The CHAZON ISH explains the reasoning of Rava bar Ada according to this interpretation. He explains that Rebbi Yitzchak follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who says that even the act of placing the basket of Bikurim next to the Mizbe'ach is not imperative to the fulfillment of the Mitzvah (although it is certainly a Mitzvah to place the Bikurim there). The bringing of the Bikurim into the Azarah is the main fulfillment of the Mitzvah. This action makes the Bikurim fit to be eaten by a Kohen. Once it is fit to be eaten by a Kohen, the prohibition of wrongful eating by a non-Kohen takes effect. The Chazon Ish points out that, accordingly, this opinion is not the Halachah in practice, since the Halachah is that the placement of the basket is absolutely necessary for the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. However, according to the Halachah, the logic above would dictate that a non-Kohen who eats fruits of Bikurim would not be punished unless the basket was placed next to the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Bikurim 3:1 and 3:3) and SEMAG (Mitzvas Aseh #139) write that seeing the "Pnei ha'Bayis" refers to entering the walls of Yerushalayim. The KESEF MISHNEH explains that the Rambam translates "Pnei ha'Bayis" as the "face of the houses in Yerushalayim." The Kesef Mishneh says that this is the implication of the Gemara earlier (17a) in which Rebbi Shimon states that the verse cannot be teaching merely that one may not eat Bikurim outside of Yerushalayim, since this is already derived through a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser: if Ma'aser -- which is less stringent than Bikurim -- may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, then certainly Bikurim -- which is more stringent -- may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim.

The Kesef Mishneh points out that the Kal va'Chomer is not accurate unless the Gemara is interpreted in the way that the Rambam explains it. The MINCHAS YEHUDAH explains the Kesef Mishneh's proof. If the prohibition against eating Bikurim takes effect only when it enters the Azarah, then the Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser is not valid, since it emerges that Ma'aser is more stringent than Bikurim (since once Ma'aser enters Yerushalayim, one may not take it out, while Bikurim may be taken out of Yerushalayim as long as it has not entered the Beis ha'Mikdash). The fact that the Gemara does not ask this question on Rebbi Shimon's Kal va'Chomer shows that Bikurim is equal to Ma'aser in that its prohibition also takes effect as soon as it enters Yerushalayim.

The Chazon Ish learns the Rambam's definition of "Pnei ha'Bayis" differently. He learns that the Rambam explains that the "Pnei ha'Bayis" refers to the wall of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The fruits of Bikurim "see" the wall of the Beis ha'Mikdash once they have passed through the wall around Yerushalayim, at which point there is nothing that blocks the Bikurim from "seeing" the Beis ha'Mikdash.

(c) There is an argument among the Acharonim about the opinion of RASHI. Rashi explains that Rava bar Ada's Halachah of "Pnei ha'Bayis" refers to the prohibition for a non-Kohen to eat Bikurim. Why does Rashi not learn like Tosfos, who states that the Halachah applies to anyone, even a Kohen, who eats Bikurim outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash?

1. The PNEI YEHOSHUA infers from Rashi's words that Rashi learns like Tosfos and maintains that Rava bar Ada's Halachah applies also to Kohanim. Rashi mentions a non-Kohen only because he is explaining the language of Rava bar Ada. "When are they punished" is an inclusive phrase, and therefore it seems to refer to the larger group of non-Kohanim.

2. The ARUCH LA'NER argues that Rashi understands that Rava differentiates between the time at which the Isur for a non-Kohen to eat Bikurim takes effect, and the time at which the Isur for a Kohen to eat Bikurim (outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash) takes effect. This is because the verse refers to Bikurim as "Terumas Yadecha" (Devarim 12:17), or literally "the Terumah of your hand." Rashi in Yevamos (73b) explains that it is called "the Terumah of your hand" because of the requirement to place it into a basket and carry it in one's hand to Yerushalayim, "to the place that Hash-m will choose" (Devarim 12:11). Accordingly, it is at the time that the Bikurim enters Yerushalayim that it becomes like Terumah and is forbidden to be eaten by a non-Kohen.

This applies, however, only to a non-Kohen. The prohibition for a Kohen to eat Bikurim outside of Yerushalayim takes effect only once the Bikurim have become fit to eat -- that is, once they have been brought into the Beis ha'Mikdash (as mentioned in Devarim 12:11, and as Rashi himself mentions earlier).

3. The MINCHAS YEHUDAH argues that Rashi's intention is the exact opposite of the Aruch la'Ner's understanding. He writes that Rashi maintains that a non-Kohen is punished only when he eats Bikurim inside of the Azarah. He explains Rashi's logic in the same way that the Chazon Ish understands the Rash, as mentioned above. Bringing the Bikurim into the Azarah makes the Bikurim fit to be eaten by a Kohen. Once it is fit to be eaten by a Kohen, the prohibition of wrongful eating by a non-Kohen takes effect. In contrast, the prohibition of a Kohen eating Bikurim outside of Yerushalayim takes effect at an earlier moment. Since the Kohen is allowed to eat it in Yerushalayim, the prohibition to eat it outside of Yerushalayim takes effect once it arrives in Yerushalayim. Therefore, Rashi does not include the prohibition of a Kohen eating Bikurim outside of Yerushalayim in his explanation of Rava bar Ada's statement. (Y. MONTROSE)

2) THE PROHIBITION AGAINST EATING "MA'ASER SHENI" OUTSIDE OF YERUSHALAYIM

QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan states that a person transgresses the prohibition against eating Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim only after it was brought into Yerushalayim and then taken out again. His source is the verse that says that Ma'aser Sheni must be eaten "before Hash-m" (Devarim 12:18), and the verse that prohibits eating Ma'aser Sheni "in your settlements" (Devarim 12:17). Rebbi Yochanan explains that at the moment that "before Hash-m" applies (that is, when the fruit has been brought into Yerushalayim), the prohibition of "you may not eat in your settlements" applies. This means that one cannot transgress this prohibition unless the Ma'aser Sheni has already been brought into to Yerushalayim (and then was taken out).

The Gemara implies that this Derashah is based on the sequence of verses in the Torah: whenever the first verse applies, the second verse takes effect. However, the verse of "before Hash-m" appears *after* the verse of "you may not eat in your settlements"! What, then, is the logic behind this Derashah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHAFETZ CHAIM in EIN MISHPAT (in LIKUTEI HALACHOS) answers that the verse, "You may not eat in your settlements," must refer to when the Ma'aser Sheni was already brought into Yerushalayim. This is because of the wording the Torah uses for the commandment to eat the Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim. The verse (Devarim 12:18) does not say, "You shall bring it to the place Hash-m will choose and eat it there," but rather it says, "You shall eat it before Hash-m in the place that Hash-m will choose." If eating Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim is forbidden even before it was brought into Yerushalayim and taken out, then the verse should state that the Ma'aser Sheni must be brought into Yerushalayim and then eaten. The fact that the verse omits any mention of bringing it to Yerushalayim implies that the prohibition applies only when the Ma'aser Sheni was already brought into Yerushalayim.

(b) The ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN HA'ASID (119:13) explains that the verse of "before Hash-m" (Devarim 12:18) is seemingly extra. The previous verses already state that one must bring his Ma'aser Sheni "to the place that Hash-m will choose" and eat it there. Rebbi Yochanan understands, therefore, that this extra verse regarding Ma'aser Sheni teaches more information about the prohibition of eating Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim (since *where* it must be eaten is already known). It must be that the prohibition applies only once one has had the opportunity to eat the Ma'aser Sheni (that is, it was brought into Yerushalayim).

According to both explanations, Rebbi Yochanan clearly understands that the prohibition against eating Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim applies only when it has already reached Yerushalayim. TOSFOS, however, questions this. The Torah allows a person to redeem his produce of Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim by transferring the Kedushah of the produce onto money and bringing the money to Yerushalayim instead of bringing the produce. Why must one bother to redeem the fruits and bring the money to Yerushalayim? If there is no prohibition against eating the fruits of Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim (since they have not yet been brought into Yerushalayim), the person should simply eat the fruits at his home, outside of Yerushalayim, and he should not have to redeem them and bring the money to Yerushalayim! Tosfos answers that there still is a positive commandment to bring the produce or the money of Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim.

However, RASHI in Bava Metzia (54a, DH d'Kulei Alma Chomesh) discusses a case in which Ma'aser Sheni did not yet reach Yerushalayim. Rashi states that a person who eats that fruit is punished with Malkus for transgressing the prohibition of eating Ma'aser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim. Rashi's words there are difficult to understand, since the Gemara quotes no opinion that argues with Rebbi Yochanan. The ARUCH LA'NER here proves that Rav Papa, both later in the Gemara here and in Bava Metzia, indeed argues with Rebbi Yochanan and says that the prohibition applies even when the Ma'aser Sheni never entered Yerushalayim. (Y. MONTROSE)