1. A BASKET OF BIKKURIM
Regarding the mitzvah of bikkurim, where “the bikkurim must {be brought in} a container,” Rambam states: “When a person brings the bikkurim in a metal container, the kohen takes them and returns the container to its owner. If he brings them in a willow or palm frond basket or the like, both the bikkurim and the basket belong to the kohanim.”
This requires clarification: The source for this halacha is (as commentators point out) the Mishnah in Bikkurim, which states: “The rich would bring their bikkurim in baskets made of silver or gold, while the poor used wicker-baskets of peeled willow-branches, and their baskets and bikkurim were given to the kohen.” The Gemara derives from this Mishnah: “From where {can we learn a source for} this proverb that people say: ‘Poverty follows the poor’? As we learned, ‘The rich..., while the poor... their baskets and bikkurim were given to the kohen.’”
Understood simply, this Mishnah implies that the difference between “baskets made of gold” and “wicker-baskets” depends on what the donor had in mind: Since the rich people would typically bring their bikkurim in expensive baskets “made of silver or gold,” they didn’t intend to give these precious baskets away. As Rashi states explicitly, “The rich would not give their baskets to the kohen” — simply because of their great value. Therefore, they would remain in their owner’s possession. The poor, on the other hand, would bring their bikkurim in containers made of “wicker” (because they couldn’t afford anything more expensive) and therefore intended to give the baskets away as well. Thus, the “baskets” would also belong to the kohanim. This also explains why the Gemara uses this Mishnah as proof for the principle that “people say: Poverty follows the poor.” Since the man is poor and brings his bikkurim in “wicker-baskets,” “poverty follows” — his basket is also given away to the kohen.
However, Rambam doesn’t mention this factor of rich versus poor when he lays out the difference between a “metal container” and a “willow basket.” This implies that he holds that this difference does not depend on the donor’s intention [which would vary depending on the value of the container — especially since some metal containers are not of great value]. Instead, this difference depends solely on the type of container being used: a “metal container” or a “willow or palm frond basket.”
1) {The “bikkurim,” first fruits, were brought by farmers in ancient Israel to be placed near the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.}
2) Rambam in Mishneh Torah, “Hilchos Bikkurim,” ch. 3, par. 7 — from Sifri on our parshah {Devarim} 26:2.
3) Mishneh Torah, “Hilchos Bikkurim,” ch. 3, par. 8.
4) Bikkurim 3:8.
5) Bava Kama 92a.
6) Rashi on Bava Kama 92a, s.v. “hasalin.”
In light of this explanation, it follows that according to Rambam, the Gemara uses the Mishnah in bikkurim, “The rich would bring...,” as proof for the principle that “people say: Poverty follows...” (not because the poor person intends to give his basket away to the kohen, but rather) simply because of the outcome of this halacha: A poor person generally brings a “willow basket,” and that kind of container is transferred to the kohen.
However, Rambam’s opinion must be further clarified.
2. POSSIBLE EXPLANATION
Sifri comments on the verse “The kohen shall take the basket from your hand”: “From here the Sages taught: The rich would bring their bikkurim in baskets made of silver or gold, while the poor used wicker-baskets of peeled willow-branches, and their baskets were given to the kohanim in order to grant a gift to the kohanim.”
Commentators explain Sifri’s explanation: The seemingly superfluous word, “the basket,” teaches us that the law that “the kohen shall take” (and gain ownership) only applies “when it is a ‘basket’ — i.e., a simple basket.” However, this would not apply if it was a “metal container” or the like.
The reason for this is “in order to grant a gift to the kohanim.” Tosafos Yom Tov explains: Since the poor person’s bikkurim fruits are “few,” it was instituted that he should give away the basket as well, so that “together with the basket, it will be considered a {substantial} gift.”
However, Rambam clearly wouldn’t agree with this explanation. According to this explanation, whether the basket is donated depends (not on the vessel in which the bikkurim are brought, but rather) on the amount of fruits being given, and thus would depend on whether the person is rich or poor. However, as discussed above, Rambam differentiates solely between the types of baskets and not the amount of fruits brought by the rich or poor person.
3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BASKET AND FRUIT
We can offer the following explanation:
The requirement to give the basket along with the bikkurim to the kohen can be understood in several ways:
- The basket and fruits are only connected in that they are brought together. However, the requirement to give the basket to the kohen is an independent obligation, completely unrelated to the obligation to bring the bikkurim fruits.
- The donation of the basket is related to the donation of the fruits. However, they are only connected in the obligation to give — the obligation to bring bikkurim to the kohen gives rise to the additional obligation to donate the basket. However, the actual act of giving the basket remains completely separate from giving the bikkurim.
- Going a step further: Not only do they share the same obligation to give, but they are also connected in the act of donating. The bikkurim and the basket must be given at the same moment, in a singular act of giving.
We can determine the practical halachic differences depending on these different approaches:
According to the first approach: The basket and bikkurim are only connected in being brought together to “the House of Hashem, your G-d,” but the basket doesn’t have any real connection to the obligation to give bikkurim. Thus, the basket can be given to any kohen the donor wants, possibly even to a kohen who is not part of that week’s watch.
According to the second approach: The requirement to donate the basket is an offshoot of the requirement to give bikkurim. Thus, it logically follows that the basket would need to be given to a kohen in that week’s watch, like the fruits. However, it doesn’t necessarily need to be given to the same kohen (or kohanim) who received the bikkurim.
According to the third approach, however, since they must be given together in the same act, clearly the basket must be given with the fruits to the same kohen (or kohanim).
4. THREE PERSPECTIVES
In light of this explanation, we can posit that these three approaches correspond to the different perspectives of the simple understanding of Sifri, the Gemara’s statement in Bava Kamma according to Rashi, and Tosafos Yom Tov’s explanation of Sifri:
- By deriving the obligation to donate the basket from the verse, “The kohen shall take the basket from your hand” — a specific rule applying to the “basket” — and stating “and their baskets were given to the kohanim” (rather than an expression that joins them together, “and their baskets and bikkurim were given to the kohen,” like in the Mishnah), Sifri indicates that the obligation to give the basket is an independent requirement, not connected to the obligation to bring bikkurim. This is also reflected in Sifri’s closing words — “in order to grant a gift to the kohanim” — implying that this constitutes a separate “gift to the kohanim” that the poor person provides by giving the kohen the “basket.”
- In the Gemara in Bava Kamma, where the Mishnah is brought as a source for the proverb “people say: Poverty follows the poor,” we can see from Rashi’s explanation there — “The rich would not give their baskets to the kohen” — that when the poor give their baskets to the kohen, this is connected to their “poor” donation of bikkurim. This shows that the baskets are given as a supplement to the bikkurim. On the other hand, there is nothing that indicates that the baskets have any real connection to the fruits such that they would have to be given together in one act. (Indeed: the expression “poverty follows” wouldn’t work as well if the baskets were part of one unified donation with the bikkurim.)
- According to Tosafos Yom Tov’s understanding of Sifri — “the poor bring few {fruits}, and together with the basket, it will be considered a {substantial} gift” — the basket (effectively) completes the bikkurim so that they can be “considered a gift.” Thus, it follows that the basket must be given in the same act (“gift”) as the bikkurim, so that the bikkurim will be “sufficient for giving.”
5. ONE UNIFIED OBJECT
We can posit that Rambam understands the connection {between the basket and bikkurim} in a fourth way, with an added novelty beyond the three approaches mentioned above:
Not only is the basket connected to the act of giving bikkurim — it becomes one with the bikkurim (and with the bringing of bikkurim). Bringing bikkurim and fulfilling the mitzvah of bikkurim is only complete when the fruits are brought in a basket that becomes part of the bikkurim. In other words: they are not only related in how the person brings them or in the act of giving them (as the second and third approaches maintain), but are also connected in outcome — they become one.
Rambam makes this clear by placing the halacha of “when a person brings the bikkurim in a metal container...” immediately after the halacha, “the bikkurim must {be brought in} a container” (unlike the Mishnah, where this is stated as an independent rule describing the differences between donations of the rich and poor). This means the basket (is connected to, and) becomes one with the bikkurim, and this rule does not change regardless of which kind of basket is used.
Rambam only differentiates between “metal containers” and “willow or palm frond baskets” because “metal containers” have their own unique rules, as Rambam specifically states, the kohen “returns the container to its owner.” Meaning, when fulfilling the mitzvah of bikkurim, any container, including metal ones, becomes one with the bikkurim, and thereby the “positive commandment to bring the bikkurim to the Temple” is fulfilled. However, {in the case of a metal container}, the kohen “returns the container to its owner” afterwards, and it does not become the kohen’s. But a “willow or palm frond basket or the like” is not returned, and the basket remains one with the bikkurim.
[We can suggest the following reason for this difference: Since metal containers are only connected to bikkurim due to the rule that “the bikkurim must {be brought in} a container,” they are therefore only bound together in terms of the fulfillment of the mitzvah — bringing the bikkurim to “the House of Hashem, your G-d.” However, willow or palm frond baskets are (naturally) made of materials similar in nature and certainly of similar importance (value) to bikkurim. This “enhances” their status as containers (“the bikkurim must {be brought in} a container”) and they become completely one with the fruits, like the peel of the bikkurim fruits themselves].
6. RAMBAM’S INFERENCES
In light of this explanation, we can now better understand and appreciate other differences and inferences in Rambam’s wording:
- He doesn’t focus on the person bringing the bikkurim — whether he’s rich or poor — and only discusses the act of bringing bikkurim in the context of the actual bikkurim, “When a person brings the bikkurim in a metal container... If he brings them in a willow or palm frond basket....” {The inference from this} framing can be easily understood, as discussed above.
- He alters (and omits) the Mishnah’s wording (and the wording of Sifri and the Gemara) “the baskets and the bikkurim were given to the kohen” and states, “both the bikkurim and the basket belong to the kohanim.” He thereby emphasizes that their relationship is not limited to (and caused by) being given together (to the kohen), but that they are considered one entity, “the bikkurim and the basket,” which together belong to the kohen.
- Rambam reverses the Mishnah’s order, “the baskets and the bikkurim,” and writes, “the bikkurim and the basket,” even though the novelty of this halacha concerns “the baskets.” He does this because the expression “the baskets and the bikkurim” could suggest that the baskets (which are mentioned first) are independent of the bikkurim. Therefore, Rambam writes, “the bikkurim and the basket,” which emphasizes that the baskets are an extension of and bound together with (as an element of) the bikkurim.
- Rambam concludes the halacha by saying, “If the bikkurim become impure, the baskets should not be given to the kohanim.” This aligns with and follows from the halacha’s teaching that “baskets” are one with the bikkurim. As a result, the bikkurim’s state directly affects the {donation of the} basket.
7. TWO OPPOSITES
However, we must further clarify (at least on a deeper level) the relationship between bikkurim and the container, and particularly “a willow or palm frond basket”:
Bikkurim symbolize the highest level of excellence and perfection. In a literal and physical sense. They must be “from the first {of all your fruits}” — “The bikkurim are brought only from the seven species which are mentioned when relating the praise of Eretz Yisrael... If one brought fruit from other species, it is not sanctified.” Similarly, in a more general and spiritual sense: “{The obligation of} bikkurim applies only while the Temple is standing, and only in the Land of Israel,” the “land that... the eyes of Hashem, your G-d, are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to year’s end.”
And as mentioned above, bikkurim must be from the finest of the choicest produce, “We do not bring {bikkurim} from the dates of the mountains, nor from the fruit from the valleys, nor from oil-producing olives that are not of the highest quality, but rather from dates from the valleys and fruit from the mountains, for they are of the highest quality. If a person brought {bikkurim of inferior quality}... they are not consecrated.”
At the same time, we are instructed that “the bikkurim must {be brought in} a container” and the sanctity of the bikkurim and fulfilling the mitzvah are tied to a container (and its limiting nature). Furthermore: Rambam’s conclusion, “If the bikkurim become impure (in which case the completion of the mitzvah is lacking since the bikkurim cannot be placed before the Altar), the baskets should not be given to the kohanim,” indicates that when the baskets do remain with the kohen, this brings a greater completion to the mitzvah of bikkurim. And this halacha applies specifically, as discussed above, to “a willow or palm frond basket,” something very basic (like chaff from the threshing floor and the winepress).
In short: How can it be that the finishing touch of bikkurim — literally the first and best produce of the land, which is brought to the House of Hashem and up to the Altar of Hashem, your G-d — is connected to a basket (and most clearly with a willow or palm frond basket)!?
8. THE DEEPER DIMENSION
We can offer the following explanation:
It is known that bikkurim symbolize the Jewish nation, as the verse states: “like a ripe fruit on a fig tree in its beginning did I view your fathers”; and as Tzemach Tzedek explains at length, bikkurim represent the souls of the Jewish nation as they exist in their source above, where “the thought of Israel preceded everything,” even (“preceded”) the Torah.
[For this reason, the halacha is that bikkurim precede even terumah: Although both terumah and bikkurim are called “first,” nevertheless, bikkurim take precedence because the “first” of terumah {תרומה} (composed of the letters “תורה מ {Torah mem}”) corresponds to the Torah (about which it states, “Hashem made me as the beginning of His way”) and the “first” of bikkurim corresponds to the Jewish nation (regarding which it states, “Israel is holy to Hashem, the first of His crop”). Just as “Israel precedes the Torah,” bikkurim similarly precede terumah.]
Now, even though the soul as it exists above “precedes everything,” and is in a state of complete connection with Hashem, as it states: “As Hashem... lives — before Whom I stand,” to the point that “it is pure,” nevertheless, the soul descends into a “container” — becoming invested in a body, which limits its revealed connection with Hashem. Moreover, this “container” conceals and hides the soul’s connection with G-dliness.
Yet, it is known that this great descent “from a high roof to a deep pit” is worthwhile, for it is a descent for the sake of a greater ascent. Only by descending below into the body can the soul ascend to far greater heights than it had reached in its original source. Through this descent, the true level of “bikkurim” is revealed within the soul — its unity, so to speak, with Hashem’s Essence: “Israel and the Holy One, Blessed be He, are entirely one.”
This is true not only of the general descent of the soul, but also of a person’s Divine service in this world: The ultimate goal of man’s service is not primarily expressed in spiritual service — the soul’s feelings of love and fear — but in performing action mitzvos. By actually performing these mitzvos using the most basic abilities of his body, thereby transforming his entire body into a vessel and part of his soul, he accomplishes the greatest elevation of his soul — so much so that Hashem’s revelation of His Essence in the Messianic era, during the Time of Resurrection (“the House of Hashem, your G-d”), will be experienced specifically by souls in bodies.
As Alter Rebbe explains in Tanya (regarding the worlds as a whole), the reason for this is: “The purpose of the progression of the worlds and of their descent from level to level is not for the sake of the higher worlds, since for them, this constitutes a descent from the light of His Countenance. Rather, the purpose is this lowest world,” which is “the lowest in degree; there is none lower than it.” This is because “the Holy One, Blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lowest realms.” Only through the lowly physical world becoming a dwelling place for Hashem — for His Essence — is an elevation brought to all of existence, even the most lofty of worlds.
The same is true of the soul, {which reaches its highest heights} specifically through descending into this physical world, into a body, and carrying out Hashem’s vision of transforming this lowly world into a dwelling place for Him. This is accomplished through engagement with this world, and specifically the “lowest” parts of it, by doing action mitzvos. Through these mitzvos, he brings the ultimate “purity” and “holiness” to the soul and the body — and both together. This constitutes the soul’s elevation, bringing it far higher than it was prior to its descent.
9. FROM STUDY TO PRACTICE
Just as this is the spiritual (and deeper) meaning behind bikkurim, it similarly plays out in the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah of bikkurim. The way that the bikkurim are brought into “the House of Hashem, your G-d,” “to the place that Hashem, your G-d, will choose, to make His Name rest there” — the ultimate level of sanctity — is through a container. Furthermore, the container that remains permanently bound to the fruits is specifically a container made of the most basic and inexpensive materials (“there is none lower than it”) — a willow or palm frond basket.
When we study the laws of bikkurim as they are recorded in the One Torah — the revealed and esoteric dimensions of Torah, and study them at the time when this subject is studied and read — corresponding to the optimal time to bring the bikkurim (when they are brought and {the accompanying Biblical passage is} recited), which is “during a time of happiness, between Shavuos and the end of Sukkos,” we hasten the fulfillment of the blessing (immediately — which automatically leads to) “you shall repeat next year,” to actually bring the bikkurim in the Third Temple.
May it be rebuilt speedily in our days by our righteous Mashiach, “and you shall rejoice with all the goodness,” “with joy of days of yore upon their heads.”
— From a talk delivered on Shabbos Parshas Ki Savo, 5744 (1984)
