Bava Batra 72b — the Talmud in English

But it is difficult for Rav Huna: what Rabbi Shimon said—that one who consecrates a field also consecrates the grafted carob tree and the trunk of the sycamore

what Rabbi Shimon said—that one who consecrates a field also consecrates the grafted carob tree and the trunk of the sycamore

since they draw nourishment from the consecrated field—we established that Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who consecrates his field consecrates it with a generous eye, and he consecrated his entire field without leaving any place in the ground for the carob and the trunk to draw nourishment; therefore they are consecrated by virtue of their drawing nourishment from the consecrated field, whereas Rav Huna holds like the Rabbis.

we explained that Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who consecrates his field does so generously: he consecrates the entire field, without leaving any part of the ground for the carob tree and the sycamore trunk to draw nourishment from. Therefore, they are consecrated because they draw nourishment from the consecrated field. Rav Huna, however, follows the opinion of the Rabbis.

And now we have proved that Rabbi Shimon does not hold like Rabbi Akiva!

And the Gemara answers that what Rav Huna said is not difficult: even Rabbi Akiva said that one sells with a generous eye only with regard to a pit and a cistern, but not with regard to trees.

Rather, Rabbi Shimon, according to the words of the Rabbis, the Sages who disagree with him in explaining the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis,

the Sages who disagree with him in explaining the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis,

said to them:

According to my view, just as one who sells sells with a begrudging eye, so too one who consecrates consecrates with a begrudging eye,

and even Rabbi Akiva holds this way,

and

one who consecrates his field, just as he did not consecrate the carob and the sycamore, so too he

leaves over

an area in the ground suitable for their drawing nourishment, and the carob and the sycamore are not consecrated even according to Rabbi Akiva!

But

according to your view,

since you hold that one who consecrates consecrates with an excessively generous eye, even according to the Rabbis, and consecrates even a pit and a cistern, which are not included in the field, it is enough for you to make the one who consecrates like the seller according to Rabbi Akiva, who sells with a generous eye; but Rabbi Akiva did not say that, as part of the generous eye in a sale, a pit and a cistern that are not included in the field are also included.

And therefore, even if you hold that one who consecrates his field does not leave over any ground for himself at all,

at least concede to me that,

according to your view,

he consecrated only the grafted carob tree and the trunk of the sycamore

because according to your view they draw nourishment from the ground; but why do you hold that the one who consecrates has a more generous eye than the seller according to Rabbi Akiva!?

And the Rabbis said to him: It is no different,

for with one who consecrates, just as with a gift, he consecrates with a generous eye every thing that is slightly connected to the ground, even a pit and a cistern that are in it.

And accordingly Rav Huna said properly that even according to Rabbi Akiva, one who sells two trees does not sell the ground with them,

but it is still difficult:

According to whom did you establish

this beraita concerning one who consecrates three trees?

As Rabbi Shimon.

If so,

say the latter clause

of that same beraita:

And furthermore, even if he consecrated the trees and then consecrated the ground, when he redeems them—

he redeems the trees at their value, and then redeems a place of seed of a homer of barley with fifty silver shekels.

And if

this beraita is according to

Rabbi Shimon, it is difficult: why does he redeem the ground separately and the trees separately, at their value, and cannot redeem the trees and the ground together at the price of the ground alone? For although he consecrated the field together with the trees not at one time, but one after the other,

there should be a difficulty: Why does he redeem the ground separately and the trees separately, each at its value? Why can he not redeem the trees and the ground together for only the price of the ground? Although he consecrated the field together with the trees one after the other,

let us follow the time of redemption,

let us follow the time of redemption, when the trees are then consecrated together with the ground,

and let them be redeemed along with their ground,

and let us redeem the trees through the redemption of the ground, as is the law of one who redeems a field of trees that was consecrated as one.

For we have heard Rabbi Shimon

in the following beraita,

that he follows the

time of

redemption,

and not the time of consecration; and if so, it does not matter to us that at the time of consecration the trees were consecrated before the ground, since at the time of redemption they are consecrated and can then be redeemed as one.

And the Gemara’s proof is from a beraita dealing with the distinction between the redemption of a “field of acquisition,” which is redeemed according to its value, and the redemption of an “ancestral field,” for which the Torah established the measure of fifty silver [shekels] for a place of seed of a homer of barley.

For it was taught: From where [do we know] with regard to one who purchases a field from his father and consecrates it

merely as a “field of acquisition,” so that at the time of consecration its law is to be redeemed according to its value,

and afterward his father dies,

and he inherits it from him, and now it is “an ancestral field,”

from where [do we know] that it shall be for him

with regard to the law of redemption

like an ancestral field,

and he shall not redeem it according to its value, but according to fifty silver [shekels] for a place of a homer of barley?

The verse says [ויקרא כז]

“And if he consecrates a field that he purchased, which is not part of his ancestral field,”

“And if he consecrates the field of his acquisition, which is not from his ancestral field

he shall consecrate,” then, “he shall give the valuation,” that he should redeem the field of acquisition according to its value.

And the verse teaches that only

a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field,

neither now nor in the future, since he purchased it from a stranger who is not destined to bequeath it to him—that one is redeemed according to its value.

This one is excluded,

a field of acquisition that he purchased from his father,

which is fit to become

for him in the future, when his father dies,

an ancestral field,

is not redeemed according to its value if his father died before the redemption,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Meir

disagrees and

says that the verse was not stated for this purpose, but comes to teach another matter:

that the verse was not stated for this purpose, but comes to teach a different matter:

from where [do we know] with regard to one who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies, and afterward he consecrates it—from where [do we know] that it shall be for him like “an ancestral field,”

despite the fact that he purchased it from his father before his father died?

The verse says: “And if he consecrates the field of his acquisition, which is not from his ancestral field

he shall consecrate, and he shall give the valuation.”

Only

a field that is not an ancestral field

at the time of consecration is the one that is redeemed according to its value,

this one is excluded,

whose father died before he consecrated it,

for it is an ancestral field.

For although he purchased it from his father before his father’s death, now that his father has died he inherits it and it becomes an ancestral field, since all his acquisition from his father was only until the Jubilee year; and had his father not died, it would have returned to him at the Jubilee, and it follows that with his father’s death the field becomes an ancestral field. But if he consecrated it and afterward his father died, Rabbi Meir holds that it is not like an ancestral field, since he consecrated it when it was not an ancestral field; and Rabbi Meir does not hold that a field fit to be an ancestral field has the law of an ancestral field.

And the Gemara infers:

whereas Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir, hold that

where his father died and afterward he consecrated it, they do not need

a verse

to teach that its law is like an ancestral field, since it is obvious that even after he purchased it from his father he still inherits it, for he purchased it from his father only until the Jubilee, and it is truly an ancestral field.

And

when the verse is needed,

according to their words, it is to teach that the law of a field fit to be an ancestral field is like that of an ancestral field,

where he consecrated it and afterward his father died.

And from now it is necessary to consider:

From where do they derive it?

If [they derive it] from this verse [“אשר לא משדה אחוזתו,”]

“which is not from his ancestral field,” and as the plain wording of the beraita states,

it is difficult,

from where do they know that the verse comes for this purpose?

Say that it comes for the teaching of Rabbi Meir,

for a field that is truly an ancestral field, and not one that is fit to be an ancestral field!?

Rather, is it not because they follow

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

after the redemption,

when it is an ancestral field. And if so, according to Rabbi Shimon one should follow the time of redemption also in the case of one who consecrates trees and afterward the ground; and if so, it is impossible that the beraita follows Rabbi Shimon!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In general, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not follow the time of redemption.

But here,

with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field,

they found a verse,

which includes such a field in the redemption, so that it is to be redeemed like an ancestral field and not like a field of acquisition. And one cannot learn from here with regard to one who consecrates trees and afterward the ground.

And

thus

expound: if so,

if you say according to the words of Rabbi Meir, that the words of the verse “which is not from his ancestral field” refer only to the case where he purchased a field from his father, his father died, and afterward he consecrated it,

the verse should have written, “And if he consecrates the field of his acquisition, which is not his ancestral field”; alternatively,

the verse should have written, “And if he consecrates the field of his acquisition which is not

his ancestral field.” What [is the reason]

why did the verse add the letter mem before “his ancestral field,” and say

“which is not from his ancestral field”?

Rather, necessarily the addition of the letter mem to “his ancestral field” comes to mean even “part” of his ancestral field, to teach you the law stated by Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon: only

the

field

that is not fit

at all

to be an ancestral field

is to be redeemed according to its value,

this is excluded,

the field

this one,

which he consecrated after purchasing it from his father, and afterward his father died,

which is fit to be an ancestral field,

since it is considered to some extent already at the time of consecration an ancestral field, for it can become in an instant an ancestral field, if his father dies before the Jubilee, and it returns to him, and the son inherits it from him. But in every case, Rabbi Shimon follows the time after the consecration.

Rav Huna said: The grafted carob tree and the trunk of the sycamore—

also

the law of a tree applies to it, and

also

the law of ground applies to it;

And Rav Huna explains his words:

The law of a tree applies to it, for where he consecrated or sold two trees

other

and this one,

a carob or a trunk, together with them, the matter is considered as though he sold three trees, and

he has

the purchaser of them also has the

ground,

as is the law of one who purchases three trees, and we do not say that a trunk and a carob are not considered a tree.

But, on the other hand, also

the law of ground applies to it, for it is not sold

the trunk or the carob

along with

the sale of the

ground.

And therefore we learned in the Mishna that if a person sold ground, he did not sell the trunk and the carob with it; and if there were two trees and a carob in it, only the two trees are sold along with the ground, but not the carob.

It is stated in the Torah, concerning the law of “forgotten produce” [Deuteronomy 24:19]: “When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not return to take it; it shall be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow.” And the Sages expounded from the word “sheaf” that only when the forgotten produce was in one or two sheaves do they have the law of forgotten produce, but not when the forgotten produce was in three sheaves, since when they are together they are called a “stack.”

And likewise, the law of forgotten produce does not apply to a large sheaf containing two seahs that is not easily taken, since the Torah said “to take it”; the verse teaches that forgotten produce applies only to something that is easily taken.

And Rav Huna said: A sheaf

large and heavy,

that contains two seahs—

the law of a sheaf applies to it, and the law of a stack applies to it:

And Rav Huna explains his words:

The law of a sheaf applies to it,

with regard to the law

that

only

two sheaves

that remain in the field are

forgotten produce,

and not three sheaves. And if there were in the field

two

small forgotten sheaves,

and

also

it,

the large sheaf, was forgotten with them in the field, the matter is considered to be that there are here together three “sheaves,” which are a “stack.” And therefore all three sheaves

are not forgotten produce.

And we do not say that the large sheaf is one thing by itself, and the two small sheaves are another thing by themselves, and that they are forgotten produce.

The law of a stack applies to it, as we learned in the Mishna: A sheaf

large

that contains two seahs, if it was forgotten—

there is no forgotten produce,

for because of its size it is considered as though it were a stack and not a sheaf, and therefore it is not forgotten produce.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Reish Lakish:

I have received from my teachers that

the grafted carob tree and the trunk of the sycamore,

whether they are consecrated as part of the field that he consecrated or not,

we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Menaḥem bar Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis,

and Rabbi Menaḥem bar Rabbi Yosei holds like Rabbi Shimon, that one who consecrates a field consecrates it with such a begrudging eye that he does not even consecrate the ground from which the carob draws nourishment; therefore the carob and the sycamore are not consecrated.