Bava Batra 27a — the Talmud in English

Rather, [derive it] from what we learned: Three trees belonging to three people—these join together, and one plows the entire ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the amud")

field of a beit se'a on their account.

If there are three trees within the beit se'a that are evenly distributed along its length and width, even though they do not belong to one person but to three people, nevertheless they join together to be considered an orchard, and one plows the entire beit se'a until Atzeret, according to the law of an orchard. And this is because the plowing is necessary for the trees for the sake of the fruit of the sixth year; it follows that each tree draws nourishment from one-third of the beit se'a. And although young trees draw nourishment from only one-tenth of a beit se'a, nevertheless mature trees draw nourishment from more.

How much do they amount to?

The area of the entire beit se'a?

Two thousand five hundred garmidei,

two thousand five hundred square cubits.

For each one, how much reaches him?

How much reaches each of the three trees?

Eight hundred and thirty-three and one-third,

eight hundred and thirty-three cubits and one-third of a cubit, which is one-third of the entire beit se'a.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It is still more than Ulla’s [measure]!

It is still difficult, for Ulla’s measure is greater than this, namely, one thousand and twenty-four cubits.

And the Gemara answers:

He was not precise.

Ulla was not precise in limiting the measure exactly, and stated a larger measure.

But the Gemara asks:

You may say that we say, “He was not precise,” stringently;

when is it appropriate to say “he was not precise”? When this results in stringency, so that they will be more stringent than necessary,

but leniently, “he was not precise”—do we say this!?

When this results in leniency, it is not appropriate to say that he was not precise, since people will rely upon it and come to be more lenient than the law. And here this results in leniency, for it is unnecessary to bring bikkurim according to Ulla’s measure, whereas in truth it is still necessary to bring them.

And the Gemara answers:

Do you maintain that we are speaking of a square? We are speaking of a circle!

Do you think that Ulla said that the measure of nourishment is sixteen cubits on each side, and therefore, when you calculate them together, it comes out to thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits in a square, in which case the calculation comes to one thousand and twenty-four cubits?

That is not so. Since the tree draws nourishment equally from every side, one must calculate it as a circle: the tree stands in the middle and draws nourishment sixteen cubits from all around it.

And the Gemara calculates how much this comes to:

Since,

after all,

how much

is the area of the

square greater than

the circle

within it?

One-quarter.

Anywhere that there is the area of a square, such as ten by ten, if you make a circle within it whose diameter is ten, the area remaining within the circle is one-quarter less than the area of the square.

And accordingly, when we come to calculate in Ulla’s case, since previously we made the calculation as a square, and now we are making it as a circle located within the square, how much remains in the circle?

Seven hundred and sixty-eight remain.

Seven hundred and sixty-eight cubits remain, which is one-quarter less than one thousand and twenty-four.

But the Gemara asks:

Half a cubit still remains.

The calculation of the Mishna is still greater than Ulla’s calculation, for it is possible to add another half-cubit on each side to Ulla’s measure.

For the calculation of the Mishna is eight hundred and thirty-three and one-third, and Ulla’s calculation is seven hundred and sixty-eight. It follows that the calculation of the Mishna is greater by sixty-five and one-third cubits. And if you take the sixty-five cubits and surround with them an area of thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, it comes out that you are adding another half-cubit on each side, and the total will be thirty-three cubits by thirty-three cubits.

And according to the conclusion, that Ulla’s calculation is thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits in a circle, when we take the sixty-five and one-third cubits and add them on each side in a circle, it comes out that we have added two-thirds of a cubit on each side, and the total will be thirty-three and one-third cubits by thirty-three and one-third cubits.

The Gemara answers:

This is what “he was not precise” means: he was not precise stringently.

Ulla truly was not precise in stating the measure exactly, since this results in stringency: one must bring bikkurim for anything that is distant sixteen cubits, even though it still draws nourishment up to sixteen cubits and two-thirds of a cubit from his fellow’s field, and according to the law he is exempt, because he is still a robber.

Come and hear

a proof against Ulla, from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Bikkurim:

One who purchases a tree and its soil brings

bikkurim,

and recites.

If a person purchases one tree from another person, and the seller specifies that he is also selling him the land belonging to the tree, the buyer brings first fruits from the tree’s produce and recites the passage of the declaration of first fruits, in which he blesses the Almighty for the land that He gave him.

What, is it not [even] any amount?

The unqualified wording of the Mishna indicates that it suffices even if he transfers to him the soil beneath the tree, and anything beyond the tree—even any amount.

And this is difficult for Ulla, who requires sixteen cubits.

And the Gemara answers:

No. Sixteen cubits.

It is speaking specifically when he transfers to him soil extending sixteen cubits on every side around the tree.

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in the Mishna there: One who

purchased two trees within his fellow’s [field] brings and does not recite,

if he purchased two trees within his fellow’s field, but he did not specify to him whether he was selling him the soil or not, it is uncertain whether he sold him the soil or not. Therefore, because of the doubt, he brings bikkurim but does not recite, since it is not certain that the soil belongs to him.

And it follows from this:

Indeed,

if he sold him

three

trees,

he brings and recites,

because then it is certain that he also sold him the soil between the trees.

What, is it not any amount,

that he sells him only a little soil around the trees, and nevertheless he brings and recites!?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No. Here too, sixteen cubits.

Because he sold him three trees, he sells him soil extending sixteen cubits on every side around the trees.

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in tractate Peah [3:6]:

Rabbi Akiva says: Any amount of land is liable for peah.

When he harvests his field, the Torah requires him to leave peah for the poor, that he should not harvest it but leave it for the poor. And there is no measure for the size of the field that makes it liable for peah.

And

he is liable,

the owner of the land also for bikkurim,

the fruits of the seven species that ripened before the other fruits—he must bring bikkurim from them. And any amount of land is also liable for bikkurim.

And they write a prozbul on its account.

The seventh year cancels loan debts at its end, and when Hillel saw that the people refrained from lending near the Sabbatical Year so that their debts would not be canceled, he arose and instituted a “prozbul,” in which the lender comes to the court and says to them: “I transfer to you so-and-so and so-and-so, the judges in such-and-such place, so that I may collect any debt that I have whenever I wish.” And he writes this, and thereafter the seventh year does not cancel [the debt]. And in tractate Gittin [36a] it is explained how the prozbul is effective.

And the Mishna in tractate Sheviit says that they write a prozbul only if the borrower has land, but if the borrower has no land, they do not write [one], since this is not an ordinary loan. For presumably, a person lends to his fellow only if he has land from which he can collect his debt. But when the borrower has no land, only movable property, he can sell it or hide it. And the Sages instituted a prozbul only for an ordinary loan, when the borrower has land.

And any amount of land is also sufficient for writing a prozbul on its account, since the lender can collect his debt from it, and afterward, if the borrower redeems it from him, that lender can collect from the borrower again.