פירוש על ברכות 69:3

REDEEM IT AND THEN EAT IT. The Gemara initially said that the meaning of the double praise is that one must recite two b’rochos, one before and one after drinking wine. The Gemara rejected this, because the word הלול is needed to teach us that one must first redeem the fruit and only then is he allowed to eat them. It appears from the Gemara that the use of the word הלול for this purpose is a given and there is no alternative way of knowing this rule. The Gemara never challenges this question. Tosfos wonders why? This is bewildering. Why do we need this verse הלול, at all? For in the second perek of Kidushin (54b) we derive that an additional fifth must be added when redeeming fruits of the fourth year and that the fruit must be removed from one’s possession during the third and sixth years of the sh’meetoh cycle, via the method of a common word, from the word קדש¹בשנה הרביעת יהיה כל פריו קדש הילולים ליהוה: that appears in reference to the fruits of the fourth year and the word קדש that appears in reference to מעשר שני,²וכל מעשר הארץ מזרע הארץ מפרי העץ ליהוה הוא קדש ליהוה: the second tithe.
If so, this rule as well, that one must redeem fruits of the fourth year before eating them should be derived from מעשר שני via the same common word system. Why do we need the word הלולים at all to teach us that fruits of the fourth year must be redeemed? And we can answer: if not for the verse הלולים, I would say that the reverse is true, we should derive a stringency via the system of a common word, the word קדש that appears in reference to the fruits of the fourth year from the word קדש³כי יובל הוא קדש תהיה לכם מן הדשה תאכלו את תבואתה: that appears in reference to shmeetoh, and there should be no redemption allowed for the fruits of the fourth year. Just as there is no possible redemption of the fruits of sh’meetoh, so too, there should be no redemption of the fourth year fruits and they must be brought to Jerusalem to be eaten. It is because we have the word הלולים that we know to make the more lenient derivation from מעשר שני.
Tosfos suggests another way of answering his original question. Why is the word הלולים needed, when we have the common word קדש that can be used as a source that fourth year fruit needs to be redeemed?⁴In order to avoid confusion we must keep in mind that the term fourth year fruit means that it is the fourth year since they were planted. The nuber of the year has nothing to do with the shmeetoh cycle. Thus fourth year fruit can happen at any time of the shmeetoh cycle. It should not happen on the third year, since that would mean that it was planted during the shmeetoh year which is forbidden. Alternatively, Rabainu Chaim Kohain Said that if the source would be the redemption of מעשר שני, I would say that it is totally like מעשר שני. And only at such time that מעשר שני is in effect such as in the first, second, third and fourth years of the shmeetoh cycle is the redemption of fourth year fruits in effect. However, during the third and sixth years when there is only מעשר עני I might say that fourth year fruits cannot be redeemed, therefore the Torah taught us the word חלולים that teaches us that during all years of the shmeetoh cycle one may redeem fourth year fruits.

ONE ONLY RECITES A SONG [OF PRAISE] OVER WINE. This statement seems to be saying that there never is an instance when song is recited without wine. Tosfos shows that this is clearly untrue. We must therefore find some other possible meaning for the Gemara’s statement. What is meant is that we do not recite a song for any consumption¹מזבח אכילת literally means the eating of the altar as if the altar is capable of eating. Chazal use this metaphor because it is used in Scripture as well. What is meant is the items that are consumed by the altar. of the altar, for example, sprinkling blood or pouring water on the Sucos holiday, but certainly we find song without wine that does not involve consumption on the altar. For example, the Halel that is recited during the slaughtering of the Pesach sacrifice (Tomid Nishchat 64a) that is certainly a case of song without wine, but it does not represent a contradiction to our Gemara, because our Gemara is discussing song that is sung while something is being offered on the altar.

The fruit grown in the fourth year, of which Lev. xix. 24 speaks. That fruit is declared to be "holy" and may not be eaten, unless previously redeemed.

This will be explained as referring only to the fruit of the vineyard. Since these two teachings are drawn from the use of the plural hillullm, it cannot mean that a benediction is necessary before and after partaking of fruits.

Only when a drink-offering was brought did the choir of the Levites sing in the Temple ; and in this way the wine "cheered" God.