Bava Batra 27b — the Talmud in English

And with it are acquired movable property that has no guarantee.

The rule is that if one sells another person land together with movable property, and he performs an effective act of acquisition for the land—for example, he gives money, writes a deed, or takes possession of the land—the movable property is acquired along with it, and no separate act of acquisition is required for the movable property. It is sufficient for this purpose even when he sells him any amount of land.

It is evident here from the Mishna that even any amount of land is subject to the mitzva of first fruits. This is difficult according to Ulla, who requires a plot measuring thirty-two cubits by thirty-two cubits.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? With wheat.

Here we are dealing with wheat, which is also subject to the mitzva of first fruits, since it is one of the seven species. For wheat, any amount of land is sufficient, since wheat draws its primary nourishment only directly opposite the land. But a tree, whose roots draw nourishment sixteen cubits in every direction, is not subject to the mitzva of first fruits when planted in any amount of land.

This is also precise, as it teaches: “any amount.”

One can infer from the Mishna that it is speaking about wheat, since it says “any amount.” The expression “any amount” cannot apply to a tree, because a tree cannot stand on any amount of land; but wheat, which is a seed, can grow on any amount of land.

Learn from this.

This inference is conclusive.

Come and hear a proof

from what we have learned:

If a tree is partly in Eretz Yisrael and partly outside Eretz Yisrael,

with some of its roots in Eretz Yisrael and some outside Eretz Yisrael,

produce subject to tithes and produce exempt from tithes are mixed together.

Each fruit contains a mixture of produce subject to tithes and produce exempt from tithes. Produce subject to tithes is produce from which tithes must be separated, while produce exempt from tithes is produce from which tithes need not be separated, because the fruits grow through the force of the roots both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: What grows in the area subject to the obligation is subject to the obligation; what grows in the area exempt from the obligation is exempt.

A fruit that grows on a branch on the Eretz Yisrael side is subject to the obligation, while what grows on a branch on the side outside Eretz Yisrael is exempt.

They disagree only about this: One Sage holds that there is retroactive clarification, while the other holds that there is no retroactive clarification.

Their entire disagreement concerns only the following: Rabban Shimon holds that there is retroactive clarification—that is, it is as though it has become clear that a fruit growing on the Eretz Yisrael side derives all its growth only from the roots in Eretz Yisrael, while what grows outside Eretz Yisrael derives all its growth only from the roots outside Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi, however, holds that there is no retroactive clarification. We do not say that the matter is considered to have been clarified in this way. Rather, a fruit growing in Eretz Yisrael also grows through the force of the roots outside Eretz Yisrael, and a fruit growing outside Eretz Yisrael also grows through the force of the roots in Eretz Yisrael. It follows that each fruit contains a mixture of produce subject to the obligation and produce exempt from it; therefore, produce subject to tithes and produce exempt from tithes are mixed together.

But with regard to what grows in the exempt area, everyone agrees that it is exempt.

What grows from the roots outside Eretz Yisrael is exempt according to both opinions, even if it is within sixteen cubits of Eretz Yisrael.

This is difficult according to Ulla. According to his statement, if a tree is within sixteen cubits of the boundary near another person’s field, since it draws nourishment from that person’s field, it is considered to have grown from that person’s field and is therefore exempt from the mitzva of first fruits, since this is not called “the produce of your land.” If so, here too, although the fruit grows from roots outside Eretz Yisrael, if the tree is within sixteen cubits of Eretz Yisrael, it draws nourishment from the land of Eretz Yisrael and the fruit should be considered to have grown also from the land of Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, produce subject to tithes and produce exempt from tithes should be mixed together.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? With a rock intervening.

Here we are dealing with a rock that separates the roots in Eretz Yisrael from the roots outside Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, according to both opinions, what grows from the roots outside Eretz Yisrael is exempt, since those roots do not draw nourishment from the land: the rock separates them from the land of Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

If so, what is the reason for Rabbi’s opinion?

If so, since the roots are separated below, why should it be said that the fruits growing on one side draw nourishment from the roots on the other side?

The Gemara answers:

They become intermingled again,

for although they are separated below, they become intermingled above. Since above ground, in the thickness of the tree, the tree becomes one organism, the nourishment drawn through its roots becomes intermingled.

And with regard to what do they disagree?

What is the basis of their disagreement?

One Sage holds that the air confuses them,

Rabbi holds that although the roots are separated from one another underground, since above, in the air of the world, the tree becomes one, the nourishment drawn through its roots becomes intermingled.

And the other Sage holds: This one stands independently, and that one stands independently.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that since the roots are separated from one another below, even though the tree becomes one above, the nourishment does not become intermingled. Each side on which fruits grow draws nourishment from the roots on its own side.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Ulla:

And sixteen cubits, and no more!?

Is it possible that a tree draws nourishment only up to sixteen cubits, and no farther?

But we learned:

we learned above:

One must keep a tree twenty-five cubits away from a pit,

because the roots spread that far. This proves that they extend as far as twenty-five cubits.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: They extend a great distance, but they weaken the land only up to sixteen cubits. Beyond that, they do not weaken it.

The roots extend as far as twenty-five cubits, but their primary drawing of nourishment from the ground, weakening its strength, reaches only sixteen cubits. Therefore, regarding the requirement to keep a tree away from a pit, it must be kept twenty-five cubits away, because the roots extend that far and damage the walls of the pit. But regarding the bringing of first fruits, only up to sixteen cubits is the tree considered to draw its nourishment from another person’s field, and its produce is called the produce of that person’s field. Beyond sixteen cubits, since it does not weaken the other person’s field, its produce is not called the produce of that person’s field; therefore, one brings first fruits from it.

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of a tree adjacent to the boundary

of another person’s field

within sixteen cubits, what is the law?

Does one bring first fruits from it or not?

He said to him: It is a robber, and one does not bring first fruits from it,

in accordance with Ulla’s opinion.

When Ravin came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Both a tree adjacent to the boundary and a leaning tree,

whose roots are in its owner’s field while its foliage—that is, its branches—leans into another person’s field,

one brings

first fruits

and recites

the declaration over the first fruits,

because Joshua distributed the Land to the Jewish people on this condition:

that they would not object to one another concerning the nourishment each tree draws from the other’s land, and that the produce would be considered to have grown from its owner’s land,

and Joshua distributed the Land to the Jewish people.

Mishna:

In the case of a tree that leans into another person’s field,

so that its branches extend into the other person’s field,

the owner of the field may cut it back to the height of a full goad above the plow.

The owner of the field into which the branches extend may cut the branches so that a clear space the height of a full goad remains, without branches. A goad is a wooden implement with two pieces of metal at its end, used to guide cattle while plowing. It is placed on the plow, which is an implement with an iron peg at its front. The reason he may cut the branches to this height is so that they will not prevent him from guiding his plow or raising the goad to strike the cattle.

And in the case of a carob tree or a sycamore tree,

whose shade is extensive and harmful to the field,

he may cut it back flush with the plumb line.

He may cut all the branches that stand opposite his field. Anything that a person carefully measures so that it forms a straight line is called a plumb line, because craftsmen would use a cord with a lead weight to establish a precise straight line. Here too, he makes a straight line and cuts every branch opposite his field.

In the case of an irrigated field,

which is a dry field requiring extensive irrigation and which is harmed by shade,

the entire tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line.

Any tree may be cut so that no branches remain opposite his field.

Abba Shaul says: In the case of any barren tree, it may be cut back flush with the plumb line.

The Gemara explains his statement.

Gemara:

The Sages raised a question: Does Abba Shaul refer to the first clause,

that is, does Abba Shaul refer to the first statement, in which the first anonymous tanna—a sage of the Mishnaic era—says that with regard to every tree one may cut it back to the height of a full goad? Does Abba Shaul come to disagree and say that, in the case of a barren tree, one may cut all its branches back flush with the plumb line, since cutting the branches of a tree that produces no fruit causes little loss?

Or does he refer to the latter clause?

Alternatively, does he refer to the latter statement, concerning an irrigated field, in which the first anonymous tanna says that the entire tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line? Does Abba Shaul come to disagree and say that only a barren tree may be cut back in this manner?

Come and hear a proof

from a source:

As it was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: Regarding an irrigated field, Abba Shaul says: The entire tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line, because shade is harmful to an irrigated field.

Learn from this that he refers to the first clause.

It is evident from here that Abba Shaul disagrees with the first clause. It is impossible to say that he disagrees with the latter clause, since he himself said in the beraita that in the case of an irrigated field one may cut back any tree completely.

The conclusion of the Gemara is: Indeed,

learn from this.

This is an answer that cannot be refuted.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna itself also supports this inference, as it teaches: “Any barren tree,”

one can infer this from the Mishna itself, since it says “any barren tree.”

Granted, if you say that he refers to the first clause, this is why it teaches: “any tree.”

If you say that he refers to the first clause, it is understandable why he says “any tree”: he disagrees with the first anonymous tanna, who said that only a carob tree or a sycamore tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line, and he holds that the same law applies to every tree.

But if you say that he refers to the latter clause, “a barren tree”

alone

should have been required.

If you say that he refers to the latter clause, concerning an irrigated field, and holds that only a barren tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line, he should have said “a barren tree,” not “any barren tree.”

Rather, is it not that we learn

from this that he refers to the first clause?

Learn from this.

It is certainly proven that he refers to the first clause, and this proof therefore stands.

Mishna:

In the case of a tree that leans into the public domain,

so that its branches extend into the public domain,

one may cut it back enough to allow a camel and its rider to pass.

One may cut the branches so that enough room remains in the public domain for a camel and a person riding it to pass without branches obstructing them.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Enough for a camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.

The measure is not merely enough for a camel and its rider to pass, but enough for a camel laden with flax or bundles of branches to pass. The Gemara explains whether he comes to add to the measure of the first anonymous tanna or to reduce it.

Rabbi Shimon says: The entire tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line

so that no branches remain opposite the public domain,

because of ritual impurity.

The Gemara explains this statement.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses the matter:

Who is the tanna who holds that, in matters of damage, we follow the assessment of the present situation,

rather than what will happen in the future? This is like the case here, where one cuts the branches only enough to allow a camel and its rider to pass, and does not cut them farther, even though the branches will eventually grow again.

Reish Lakish said: It is stated as a dispute,

that is, it depends on a dispute between tannaitic authorities,

and it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

The tanna of our Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

As we learned

in a Mishna below [60a]:

One may not make beneath the public domain a hollow containing pits, ditches, or caves,

meaning that it is prohibited to create a hollow beneath the ground of the public domain and dig pits, ditches, or caves there, because there is concern that the ground of the public domain might collapse, since there is a hollow beneath it.

Rabbi Eliezer permits it provided that a wagon laden with stones can pass over it.

Rabbi Eliezer permits this if the roof of the hollow is strong enough that a wagon laden with stones can pass over it without falling through. In that case, there is no concern that it will collapse.

The first anonymous tanna, who disagrees and prohibits it even in this situation, does so because he is concerned that although the roof is strong now, over time it might decay, weaken, and collapse.

It is evident from here that they disagree about whether, in matters of damage, one follows the present condition or is concerned about what may happen. Accordingly, the ruling in our Mishna likewise depends on this dispute.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You may even say that it is in accordance with the Rabbis,

and that our Mishna can also follow the opinion of the Rabbis.

There, it is possible that it will weaken without his noticing,

as there is concern that the roof will weaken over time without anyone noticing, and will suddenly collapse.

But here, each branch is cut as soon as it grows.

Here, every branch that grows is seen and is cut.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Enough for a camel laden with flax or bundles of branches.

The Sages raised a question:

The members of the academy were uncertain:

Is Rabbi Yehuda’s measure greater,

that is, is Rabbi Yehuda’s measure greater than the measure of the Rabbis,

or

perhaps the measure of the Rabbis is greater?

Alternatively, is the measure of the Rabbis greater than Rabbi Yehuda’s measure?

It is obvious that the measure of the Rabbis is greater.

It can be resolved that the measure of the Rabbis is greater,

for if it entered your mind that Rabbi Yehuda’s measure is greater, how could the Rabbis act when a camel laden with flax passes according to Rabbi Yehuda’s measure?

If you say that the measure allowing a camel laden with flax to pass is greater than the measure allowing a camel and its rider to pass, what would the Rabbis do when a camel laden with flax passes? The branches would obstruct it.

The Gemara asks:

But then what can you say? The measure of the Rabbis is greater.

If so,

what would Rabbi Yehuda do when a camel and its rider pass according to the measure of the Rabbis!?

If you say that the Rabbis’ measure is greater, what would Rabbi Yehuda do when a camel and its rider pass? The branches would obstruct them.

The Gemara answers:

It is possible that the rider bends down and passes beneath it.

When the rider sees the branches in his way, he can bend down and pass beneath them.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The entire tree may be cut back flush with the plumb line because of ritual impurity.

It was taught

in a beraita:

because of a tent of ritual impurity.

The explanation of the Mishna’s phrase “because of ritual impurity” is that there is concern that an olive-bulk of a corpse may be beneath the tree, and the many branches will form a tent over the corpse and over people who pass beneath them, transmitting ritual impurity to them.

The Gemara asks:

It is obvious! We learned: “because of ritual impurity.”

What does the beraita teach us, given that this is already written in the Mishna?

The Gemara answers:

If we had only the Mishna, I would have said that perhaps a raven brings ritual impurity and places it there,

meaning that we would have interpreted the Mishna’s phrase “because of ritual impurity” as referring to the concern that a raven might come there with an olive-bulk of a corpse in its beak and place it on top of the branches. The corpse would then form a tent over travelers passing beneath it. If that were the only concern,

it would be sufficient merely to create gaps,

meaning that one could cut away one branch out of every pair of branches, thereby creating an open space between the branches in which the raven could not place the olive-bulk. When the raven saw that it could not place it there, it would put it somewhere else.

It teaches us

that the concern is that an olive-bulk of a corpse may already be beneath the branches. Therefore, all the branches must be cut, so that no branch remains forming a tent over the olive-bulk of the corpse and over travelers.

We have completed the study of you, chapter “One Must Not Dig Beneath.”