Regarding reishit ha-gez, the first shearing of one’s sheep, the Tanna’im disagree whether the mitzva applies outside Eretz Yisrael. In practice, the halakha follows the view that one gives reishit ha-gez only in the Land, just as one separates terumot and ma’asrot only in the Land (Ḥullin 136b; SA, YD 333:1). Regarding reishit ha-gez in Eretz Yisrael today, authorities disagree whether one must give it by Torah law or only by rabbinic enactment, as with terumot and ma’asrot. [18]
Regarding the foreleg, cheeks, and maw, according to all authorities, in areas under Jewish sovereignty these gifts must be given by Torah law.
Outside the Land, however, authorities disagree. Many authorities maintain that the foreleg, cheeks, and maw follow the same model as reishit ha-gez and terumot and ma’asrot: since those mitzvot do not apply outside the Land, these gifts are not given there either (Rashi, Tosafot, Ha-ma’or, Rashba). Others maintain that only reishit ha-gez, which was compared to terumot and ma’asrot, does not apply outside the Land. The foreleg, cheeks, and maw, however, come from an animal and not from the soil, and therefore the mitzvot associated with them apply outside the Land as well (Rambam, MT, Laws of First Fruits 9:1). In practice, the custom outside the Land is not to give these gifts to a kohen, though some meticulous individuals made a point of doing so (SA, YD 61:21). [19]
[18]. As we learned in section 11, Rashi, Raavad, and Kaftor Va-feraḥ maintain that the second sanctification was never nullified; therefore, even after the destruction one must separate terumot and ma’asrot by Torah law. According to Rashba, Ritva, Ran, and Sefer ha-Teruma, however, the second sanctification was nullified with the destruction, and from then on one was obligated to separate terumot and ma’asrot only rabbinically. As explained below in note 20, even according to this view, the establishment of the State of Israel restored the sanctity needed for terumot and ma’asrot to apply by Torah law.
According to Rambam and Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, the second sanctification remained in force even during the period of destruction. Still, terumot and ma’asrot become Torah obligations only when the majority of the Jewish people are in the Land. In practice, this is the position accepted among the Aḥaronim. With respect to reishit ha-gez, however, Rambam and Sefer ha-Ḥinukh appear to disagree. According to Rambam, the obligation today is rabbinic, like teruma (Mahari Kurkus to MT, Laws of First Fruits 10:1; Peri Megadim; Minḥat Ḥinukh 506). From Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, by contrast, it appears that one must give reishit ha-gez today by Torah law, because reishit ha-gez was compared to teruma only with regard to its exemption outside the Land (Minḥat Ḥinukh 508).
[19]. As we learned regarding reishit ha-gez, according to all those who maintain that its law depends on the sanctity of the Land, it applies by Torah law within the territory of the State of Israel. Only according to Rambam is reishit ha-gez rabbinic in the Land today, since he compares it to terumot and ma’asrot, whose Torah obligation depends on the majority of Israel living in the Land. Rambam himself, however, maintains that the mitzva of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw applies by Torah law throughout the world and at all times. It follows that according to all opinions, the mitzva of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw applies by Torah law in the Land.
