Reference for Kiddushin 74:9
ואידך אי כתב הכי הוה אמינא מידי דהוה אחלה קמ"ל
And if the case of first-fruits were stated but not that of a king, I would reason, Since it is king's way to conquer, [he must be appointed] immediately [on entering the land]. And the other? - Let the Divine Law state the case of a king, and then first-fruits become unnecessary, for I would reason: If a king, who is for conquest, [is appointed only] after possession and settling down, how much more so are first-fruits [obligatory only then]! And the other? - If it were thus written: I would say: It [first-fruits] is analogous to hallah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. All admit that this became incumbent immediately they entered the land, cf. Num. XV, 18 and Sifre a.l.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Explore reference for Kiddushin 74:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.