Bava Batra 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

But this is difficult for Rav Huna:

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

, since they draw nourishment from the consecrated field,

and we established that Rabbi Shimon follows the view of Rabbi Akiva, that one who consecrates his field consecrates it generously, and consecrates his entire field without leaving any area of ground for the carob tree and the sycamore stump to draw nourishment from; therefore, they are sacred by virtue of drawing nourishment from the consecrated field, whereas Rav Huna follows the view of the Rabbis.

But we have now proved that Rabbi Shimon does not follow the view of Rabbi Akiva!

The Gemara answers that what Rav Huna said—that even Rabbi Akiva said that one who sells does so generously—applies 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 their explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis,

said to them:

In my view, just as one who sells does so begrudgingly, so too one who consecrates does so begrudgingly,

and even Rabbi Akiva agrees with this,

and

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

leaves over

in the ground an area suitable for them to draw nourishment from; and the carob tree and the sycamore stump are therefore not sacred even according to Rabbi Akiva!

But

according to your view,

that one who consecrates consecrates more generously than necessary even according to the Rabbis, and consecrates even a pit and a cistern, which are not included in the field, it would suffice for you to equate one who consecrates with one who sells according to Rabbi Akiva, who sells generously. Yet Rabbi Akiva did not say that the generosity in a sale includes a pit and a cistern, which are not included in the field.

Therefore, even if you maintain that one who consecrates his field does not leave 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 sycamore stump

because, according to your view, they draw nourishment from the ground. But why do you maintain that one who consecrates acts more generously than one who sells according to Rabbi Akiva?!

The Rabbis said to him: It is no different,

because in the case of one who consecrates, as in the case of a gift, he consecrates generously every item that has even a slight connection to the ground, including a pit and a cistern located in it.

Accordingly, Rav Huna said correctly that even according to Rabbi Akiva, one who sells two trees does not sell the ground along with them,

but there is still a difficulty:

How did you establish it

this beraita concerning one who consecrates three trees

as the opinion of 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 bet-se'a of seed-producing land at fifty silver shekels.

And if

this beraita follows the method of

Rabbi Shimon,

it is difficult: Why does he redeem the ground separately and the trees separately, each at its value, and why can he not redeem the trees and the ground together for the price of the ground alone? For although he did not consecrate the field together with the trees, but rather one after the other,

let us follow the time of redemption,

and follow the time of redemption, when the trees are sacred together with the ground,

and let them be redeemed together with their ground,

and let the trees be redeemed as part of the redemption of the ground, as is the law regarding one who redeems a field containing trees that was consecrated all at once.

For we have heard Rabbi Shimon

in the following beraita

follow

the time of

redemption,

and not the time of consecration. If so, it does not matter to us that at the time of consecration the trees became sacred before the ground, because at the time of redemption they are sacred and can then be redeemed together.

The Gemara’s proof is from a beraita that discusses the distinction between the redemption of an “acquired field,” which is redeemed according to its value, and the redemption of a “field of ancestral possession,” for which the Torah established the rate of fifty silver shekels for a bet-se'a of land requiring a ḥomer of barley seed.

As it was taught: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father and consecrates it

solely as an “acquired field,” whose redemption at the time of consecration is according to its value,

and afterward his father dies,

and he inherits it from him, so that it is now “a field of ancestral possession,”

from where is it derived that it shall be regarded for him

with regard to the law of redemption

as a field of ancestral possession,

and he does not redeem it according to its value, but according to the rate of fifty silver shekels for a bet-se'a of land requiring a ḥomer of barley seed?

The verse states [Leviticus 27]

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

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

then “he shall give its valuation,” meaning that he redeems it as an acquired field, according to its value.

The verse teaches that only

a field that is not fit to be a field of ancestral possession,

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

This one is excluded,

the acquired field that he purchased from his father,

which is fit to become

his in the future, when his father dies,

a field of ancestral possession;

it is not redeemed according to its value if his father dies 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 something else:

From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies, and afterward he consecrates it, from where is it derived that it shall be regarded for him as “a field of ancestral possession,”

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

The verse states: “And if he consecrates a field that he purchased, which is not part of his field of ancestral possession,”

“and he shall give its valuation.”

Only

a field that is not a field of ancestral possession

at the time of consecration is redeemed according to its value.

This one is excluded,

for his father died before he consecrated it,

as it is a field of ancestral possession.

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 a field of ancestral possession. For all that he acquired from his father was only until the Jubilee year; had his father not died, it would have returned to him at the Jubilee. It follows that upon his father’s death, the field becomes a field of ancestral possession. But if he consecrated it and afterward his father died, Rabbi Meir maintains that it is not regarded as a field of ancestral possession, since he consecrated it when it was not a field of ancestral possession; and Rabbi Meir does not maintain that a field fit to become an ancestral possession has the status of a field of ancestral possession.

The Gemara analyzes this:

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir, maintain that

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

a verse

to teach that it has the status of a field of ancestral possession, because it is obvious that even after he purchased it from his father, he still inherits it, as he purchased it from his father only until the Jubilee, and it is truly a field of ancestral possession.

And

when the verse was necessary,

according to their view, it was to teach that a field fit to become an ancestral possession has the status of a field of ancestral possession

where he consecrated it and afterward his father died.

And now this must be considered:

From where do they derive it?

If it is from this verse

[“which is not part of his field of ancestral possession”], and as the wording of the beraita indicates,

it is difficult:

From where do they know that this is the purpose of the verse?

Say that it comes for the purpose of Rabbi Meir,

to refer to a field that is actually a field of ancestral possession, but not one that is merely fit to become such a field?!

Rather, is it not because they follow

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon

the time of redemption,

when it is a field of ancestral possession? If so, according to Rabbi Shimon, one should follow the time of redemption also when one consecrates trees and afterward the ground. If so, it is impossible for the beraita to follow Rabbi Shimon!

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

But here,

with regard to the redemption of a field of ancestral possession,

they found a verse

that expands the law of redemption for such a field, so that it must be redeemed as a field of ancestral possession and not as an acquired field. Nothing can be learned from here with regard to one who consecrates trees and afterward the ground.

And

so

interpret it: If so,

if you say according to Rabbi Meir, that the words of the verse “which is not part of his field of ancestral possession” 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 an acquired field that is not his ancestral possession”; alternatively,

the verse should have written, “And if he consecrates an acquired field that is not

a field of ancestral possession.” What

is the reason that the verse added the letter mem before “his field of ancestral possession” and said

“which is not from his field of ancestral possession”?

Rather, the addition of the letter mem to “his field of ancestral possession” necessarily indicates even “a part of” his field of ancestral possession, teaching the law stated by Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon: Only

the

field

that is not fit

at all

to become a field of ancestral possession

is redeemed according to its value;

this one is excluded,

the field

this one,

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

which is fit to become a field of ancestral possession,

and is therefore considered to have, to some extent, the status of a field of ancestral possession already at the time of consecration, since it could become a field of ancestral possession in a moment if his father were to die before the Jubilee and it were to return to him, and the son were to inherit it from him. But in all cases, Rabbi Shimon follows the time of consecration.

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

they also

have the status of a tree, and

they also

have the status of ground;

Rav Huna explains his statement:

They have the status of a tree, for when one consecrates or sells two trees

other trees,

and this one,

the carob tree or sycamore stump, together with them, it is considered as though he sold three trees, and

he has

the right to acquire with them also the

ground,

as is the law with one who acquires three trees; and we do not say that the sycamore stump and the carob tree are not considered trees.

On the other hand, they also

have the status of ground, for a sycamore stump

or a carob tree

is not sold along with

the sale of

land.

Therefore, we learned in the Mishna that if a person sells land, he does not sell the sycamore stump and the carob tree with it; and if there were two trees and a carob tree in it, only the two trees are sold along with the land, but not the carob tree.

The Torah states, with regard to the law of shikḥa [Deuteronomy 24:19]: “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not return to take it; it shall be for the convert, the orphan, and the widow.” The Sages expounded from the word “sheaf” that only when the forgotten produce is in one or two sheaves does it have the status of shikḥa, but not when the forgotten produce is in three sheaves, since when they are together they are called a “stack.”

Likewise, the law of shikḥa does not apply to a large sheaf containing two se’a, which cannot be picked up easily, because the Torah said “to take it”; the verse teaches that shikḥa applies only to an item that can be taken easily.

And Rav Huna said: A sheaf

that is large and heavy,

that contains two se’a—

has the status of a sheaf and the status of a stack:

Rav Huna explains his statement:

It has the status of a sheaf

with regard to the law

that

only

two sheaves

left in the field are

subject to the law of shikḥa,

but not three sheaves. If there were

two

small forgotten sheaves in the field,

and

also

it,

the large sheaf, was forgotten with them in the field, it is considered that there are three “sheaves” here together, which constitute a “stack.” Therefore, all three sheaves

are not subject to the law of shikḥa.

We do not say that the large sheaf is one matter by itself, while the two small sheaves are another matter by themselves and are subject to the law of shikḥa.

It has the status of a stack, as we learned: A sheaf

that is large

that contains two se’a, if he forgot it—

there is no shikḥa,

because due to its size it is considered as though it were a stack and not a sheaf, and therefore it is not subject to the law of shikḥa.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said:

I have received a tradition from my teachers that, with regard to

the grafted carob tree and the sycamore stump,

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

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

and Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei, follows the view of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that one who consecrates a field consecrates it so begrudgingly that he does not even consecrate the ground from which the carob tree draws nourishment; therefore, the carob tree and the sycamore stump are not sacred.