Q&A: Bringing First-Fruits for a Resident of Jerusalem
Bringing First-Fruits for a Resident of Jerusalem
Question
Hello Rabbi,
A question came up for me that I haven’t found any discussion of. Do residents of Jerusalem bring first-fruits? The reason not to bring them would be that Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes, and according to some views that has implications regarding ownership of the land, in which case this would not be “the first-fruits of your land.” There are also arguments in the other direction, but I’d be glad to know whether I’m talking nonsense (or alternatively, whether the Rabbi knows of any explicit discussion of this). Thanks,
Answer
In a quick search I also didn’t find anything. A few comments should be made. First, even if Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes, simply speaking there is still private ownership of land there. The discussion is only whether there is tribal sovereignty there (on top of the private ownership). And there are views that according to everyone it was apportioned to the tribes, except that all Israel has rights to the produce for use (see Chazon Ish, Orach Chayim 126:8). See a survey in Chevel Nachalato here:
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%91%D7%9C_%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%95_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%A0%D7%93
But beyond that, Maimonides rules in Laws of the Chosen House 7:14 that Jerusalem may not be sown or plowed, and trees may not be maintained there; see there. According to this, the question is only theoretical, since in practice there were no fruits grown in Jerusalem.
Indeed, it is true that we do not find in the lists (see Maimonides there and the parallel sources) among the things they did not do in Jerusalem that they did not bring first-fruits from there, and this requires further investigation. Perhaps that is because in principle they do bring from there, but in practice it did not apply because they did not grow fruit there, as noted above.
Discussion on Answer
Those later authorities apparently did not agree with it, but I’m not sure they are right. As I wrote, I did not check the suggestion I raised.
By the way, this explanation is very puzzling regardless of my comments.
After all, there is no inherent problem with a sukkah in the public domain aside from theft. There in the Shulchan Arukh it is explained explicitly that permission helps (there is no rule of “it must be yours” with a sukkah). So even if Jerusalem is a public domain, it would have been possible and necessary for the public to permit building sukkot. The Rema was speaking under non-Jewish rule. It is not plausible that they refrained for 1,000 years from the commandment of sukkah just like that when it could have been solved. This seems to me mere pilpul.
I’m copying from Wikisource on Nehemiah 8:17:
“Why did the Children of Israel not fulfill the commandment of Sukkot from the days of Joshua son of Nun until the days of Nehemiah, for almost 1,000 years?…
The verse can be explained according to the laws of building a sukkah:
The Rema writes in Orach Chayim, siman 637, that one should not build a sukkah in the public domain. And since Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes but rather belonged to all the Jewish people, they never fulfilled the commandment of sukkah in Jerusalem. And when Ezra came up to the Land, he reconsecrated the Land and made a stipulation of the religious court that they would be able to build sukkot in the public domain (Tosefta, tractate Bava Kamma, chapter 6), which includes all of Jerusalem, which belonged to everyone, and every public domain anywhere in the Land.
And what is written, ‘For since the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Children of Israel had not done so,’ means that they had not made sukkot in the public domain (= Jerusalem and the public domain in all the cities of Israel) from the time of Joshua son of Nun.
— according to Malbim. And this was also written independently by the author of the responsa Shoel U’Meishiv. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook would regularly repeat this explanation — see Moadei HaRe’iyah p. 97.”
End of the holy words of Wikisource.
So if, as the Rabbi says, even though ‘Jerusalem was not apportioned among the tribes’ there is still private ownership, I don’t understand what the problem would be with putting up sukkot there?