Commentary for Bava Batra 162:2

אמר רבה מאי קושיא דלמא ר"מ באילן אחד ספוקי מספקא ליה ורבנן בשני אילנות ספוקי מספקא להו

But was [R. Meir] in doubt? Surely it is stated [distinctly]: 'Because he has not acquired ownership of the ground. [these are] the words of R. Meir! — This should read: 'Perhaps he has not acquired ownership of the ground!' But ought we not to apprehend lest these are not <i>bikkurim</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'first ripe fruits', which are subject to the precept of bringing them to the Temple. If the ground is not acquired by the purchase of a tree or two trees, according to R. Meir and the Rabbis respectively, this fruit cannot be regarded as bikkurim in the ritual sense. ');">⁴</span> and [consequently] one would bring into the Temple court unconsecrated [fruit]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unconsecrated fruit must not be offered in the Temple court. (v. Kid. 57b.) How then can it be suggested that the bringing of the firstfruits is to give the Temple the benefit of the doubt? ');">⁵</span> — He consecrates them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he stipulates that if they are not already bikkurim they shall be consecrated for the purpose of purchasing with their proceeds Temple sacrifices. ');">⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 162:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.