Commentary for Kiddushin 74:8
ואידך נכתוב רחמנא מלך ולא בעי ביכורים ואנא אמינא ומה מלך דלכבש לאחר ירושה וישיבה ביכורים לא כל שכן
- Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote the case of a king but not first-fruits, I would argue, Since there is enjoyment [of crops] in the case of first-fruits, [the obligation comes] immediately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For what does it matter whether one is settled or not? If one enjoys a harvest, the first to ripen should be an offering!');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The other voice argues that both are not really necessary. The Torah could have written the verbs only in connection with the king and we could have said that if the mitzvah to appoint a king does not go in effect until possession and settling down, all the more so the mitzvah to bring first fruits does not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy