Bava Batra 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, from what we learned: Three trees belonging to three people join together, and one may plow the entire

se'a for their sake.

If there are three trees within a beit se'a, distributed evenly along its length and width, even though they do not belong to one person but to three people, they nevertheless join together to be considered an orchard, and one may plow the entire beit se'a until Shavuot, as is the law with regard to an orchard. 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, mature trees nevertheless draw nourishment from more.

How much is that?

The area of the entire beit se'a?

Two thousand five hundred garmidei

two thousand five hundred square cubits.

How much does each one receive?

How much is apportioned to each of the three trees?

Eight hundred thirty-three and one-third,

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

But Ulla’s measure is still greater!

It is still difficult, as Ulla’s measure is greater than this: one thousand twenty-four cubits.

The Gemara answers:

He was not precise.

Ulla did not calculate the measure with exact precision, and stated a larger measure.

But the Gemara asks:

I can say that we say, “He was not precise,” when it results in stringency,

that is, when it is appropriate to say that he was not precise because the result is a stringency, requiring one to be more stringent than necessary;

but can we say, “He was not precise,” when it results in leniency?

When this results in a leniency, it is not appropriate to say that he was not precise, since people will rely on it and come to be more lenient than the law permits. Here, it results in a leniency, as one would not need to bring first fruits for Ulla’s measure, whereas in truth one would still need to bring them.

The Gemara answers:

Do you think 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 it all together, it comes to a square thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits, in which case the calculation is one thousand twenty-four cubits?

That is not so. Since the tree draws nourishment equally in every direction, it must be calculated as a circle: the tree stands in the center and draws nourishment sixteen cubits in all directions around it.

The Gemara calculates what this amounts to:

Now,

after all,

how much

is the area of the

square greater than

the circle

within it?

One-quarter.

Whenever there is an area in the form of a square, such as one measuring ten by ten, if one makes a circle within it whose diameter is ten, the area remaining within the circle is one-quarter less than the area of the square.

Accordingly, when we calculate Ulla’s case, since we previously calculated it as a square and are now calculating it as the circle contained within the square, how much remains in the circle?

Seven hundred sixty-eight remain.

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

But the Gemara asks:

Half a cubit still remains.

The calculation of the Mishna is still greater than Ulla’s calculation, because another half-cubit can be added on each side to Ulla’s measure.

For the calculation of the Mishna is eight hundred thirty-three and one-third, whereas Ulla’s calculation is seven hundred sixty-eight. It follows that the calculation of the Mishna is greater by sixty-five and one-third cubits. If you take the sixty-five cubits and enclose an area measuring thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits with them, it emerges 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 around the circle, it emerges 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—and he was not precise in the direction of stringency.

Ulla indeed was not precise in stating the measure exactly, since the result is a stringency: one must bring first fruits for anything that is more than sixteen cubits away, even though the tree still draws nourishment up to sixteen cubits and two-thirds of a cubit from his fellow’s field; by 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

first fruits

and recites.

If a person purchased one tree from another and the seller specified that he was also selling him the soil belonging to the tree, the purchaser brings first fruits from the tree’s produce and recites the passage of the declaration of first fruits, in which he blesses the Всевышний for the land that He gave him.

What, does this not mean: any amount?

Does the unqualified wording of the Mishna not indicate that it is sufficient even if he transfers to him only the soil beneath the tree, and any amount beyond the tree?

This is difficult for Ulla, who requires sixteen cubits.

The Gemara answers:

No; sixteen cubits.

The case is specifically one in which he transfers to him sixteen cubits of soil on every side around the tree.

Come and hear

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

purchases two trees within his fellow’s property brings but does not recite,

if he purchased two trees within his fellow’s field but the seller did not specify whether he was selling him the land as well, it is uncertain whether he sold him the land. Therefore, because of the uncertainty, he brings first fruits but does not recite, since it is not certain that the land belongs to him.

And it can be inferred from this:

yes,

if he sold him

three

trees,

he brings and recites,

because in that case it is certain that he also sold him the land between the trees.

What, does this not mean: any amount,

that he sells him only a small amount of land around the trees, and nevertheless he brings and recites?

The Gemara rejects this:

No; here too, sixteen cubits.

Since he sold him three trees, he sells him sixteen cubits on every side around the trees.

Come and hear

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

Rabbi Akiva says: Any amount of land is obligated in pe'a.

When one harvests his field, the Torah requires him to leave pe'a for the poor, so that he may not harvest it but must leave it for the poor. There is no minimum size for a field that is obligated in pe'a.

And

is

the owner of the land also obligated in first fruits,

as produce of the seven species that ripened before the other produce must be brought as first fruits. And even any amount of land is obligated in first fruits.

And one may write a prosbol on its account.

The seventh year releases loan debts at its conclusion. When Hillel saw that the people refrained from lending money as the Sabbatical Year approached, so that their debts would not be canceled, he arose and instituted the prosbol. 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 a place, every debt that I have, so that I may collect it whenever I wish.” He writes this down, and thereafter the seventh year does not cancel the debt. In tractate Gittin [36a] it is explained how the prosbol is effective.

And the Mishna in tractate Shevi'it says that one may write a prosbol only if the borrower owns land; but if the borrower does not own land, one may not write it. This is because such a loan is not a readily collectible loan, as presumably a person lends money to another only if he owns land from which the lender can collect his debt. But when the borrower owns no land and has only movable property, he can sell it or hide it. The Sages instituted the prosbol only for a readily collectible loan, when the borrower owns land.

And even any amount of land is sufficient for writing a prosbol 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.