Bava Batra 80a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses things that have “produce,” and when the owner sells the produce, he wishes that the principal object should remain with him. Therefore, even though the seller did not stipulate explicitly, the buyer is obligated to leave the owner part of the produce, as the Sages established, so that the seller should not lose the principal thing by having sold its produce.

a.

One who purchases the produce of a dovecote from another,

a person who purchased from another the doves that will be born in his dovecote for a certain period, is not permitted to take all the offspring from the dovecote, for if the first doves remain without their young, they will flee from the dovecote, and it will turn out that the seller loses his entire dovecote.

Therefore,

the buyer lets fly

the

the first brood,

the first pair of doves that will be born, which he does not take for himself, but allows them to fly from the nest with their parents.

b. A person who purchased from another

the produce of a beehive,

the bees that will be born in the hive during one year, does not

take

except

three swarms,

three groups of new bees,

and renders sterile.

And the Gemara will explain which swarms he takes, and what “renders sterile” means.

c. A person who purchased from another

the honeycombs

of

honey

that are in the hive is not permitted to take all the combs; rather,

he leaves

он

two combs

for the bees’ sustenance during the rainy season.

d. A person who purchased from another

olives

in order

to cut

the branches on which they have multiplied is not permitted to cut all the branches; rather,

he leaves

он

two stumps,

branches, on each tree, from which the olives will return and grow.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who purchases the produce of a dovecote from another lets fly the first brood.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught

in a beraita: One who purchases the produce of a dovecote from another lets fly

the first and second brood!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Kahana: It is not difficult!

In order for a dove to remain in the nest, it requires companionship and company; the companionship of its mate is not sufficient for it, and it also requires its daughter to be with it.

The daughter is not satisfied with the companionship of her mother, and she requires her daughter, the mother’s granddaughter, to be with her as company.

This

that is taught in the beraita, that the buyer leaves “the second brood”—the daughter of the mother,

for her,

for the sake of the daughter, so that she should not fly from the nest.

And

this, “the first brood”—the daughter of the mother, which was mentioned in the Mishna and in the beraita,

is the “first brood”—the daughter of the mother, mentioned in the Mishna and in the beraita—

for its mother,

for the sake of companionship and company for the mother.

That is, one who sells the produce of a dovecote to another must have the buyer let fly the first brood, so that it will remain to be company for the mother; and he must also let fly the second brood, so that it will remain to be company for the daughter.

The Mishna mentioned what is necessary to leave in the dovecote so that there will be companionship for the parents—the first pair of doves in the dovecote; whereas the beraita added to the Mishna and specified also what is necessary to leave in the dovecote so that there will be companionship for the first brood. And we raise a difficulty: Why is it necessary to leave the second brood in the nest as well!?

What is different about the mother, that companionship with the daughter and with the mate that we leave for her is sufficient [

how is the mother different from the daughter!? Just as the mother is satisfied with the companionship of her daughter and her mate who remains with her]

She too, should have companionship with the mother and with the mate that we leave for her [

so too the daughter should be satisfied with the companionship of her mother and her mate who remains with her]!?

And we answer: The daughter cannot be compared to her mother; indeed,

the mother has companionship with the daughter,

the mother is satisfied with the companionship of her daughter, since the mother’s compassion is upon the daughter, but

the daughter does not have companionship with the mother,

the companionship of her mother is not sufficient for her, and she requires the companionship of her daughter—the second brood.

We learned in the Mishna:

The produce of a beehive: he takes three swarms and renders sterile.

Plainly, it implies that the seller causes the bees to be unable to give birth.

And the Gemara discusses:

With what does he render them sterile?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The seller renders them sterile

with

what he feeds them,

mustard.

They said,

they explained,

in the West in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: It is not mustard that renders them sterile,

for mustard does not impair the reproductive power of the bees, since if they were rendered completely sterile, they would be entirely ruined for their owner,

rather,

since mustard is pungent,

from the fact that the mouths

of the bees

are sharp [

they feel bitterness in their mouths],

they return

the bees

and eat their honey,

and through the bees’ becoming satiated from the honey, they desist from reproduction, and continue to engage in the production of honey instead of engaging in reproduction.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The intention of the Mishna is not that after the buyer takes three swarms, the seller renders the bees sterile so that they should not give birth; rather, this is what the Mishna said: The buyer

takes three swarms by skipping,

at intervals.

How so? The buyer takes the first swarm, and the buyer leaves the second swarm for the seller.

And the buyer returns and takes the third swarm, and he leaves the fourth for the seller.

The buyer takes the fifth swarm, and the sixth \-

is for the seller.

In the beraita it was taught,

in a beraita we learned:

He takes

three swarms one after another; from this point onward he takes one and leaves one.

And this is what we learned: He takes three swarms and prevents breeding—that is, afterward he prevents breeding and skips.

We learned in the Mishna:

As for honeycombs, he leaves two honeycombs.

a. Human food and human drink contract impurity, and if they touched a “source of impurity” and became a “first degree of impurity,” they render others impure, making them a “second degree of impurity.”

b. Animal food and [food of] other living creatures does not contract impurity.

c. Human food contracts impurity in any quantity. And it renders others impure only if there is an egg-bulk of it; human drink contracts impurity in any quantity, and it renders others impure only if there is a quarter-[log] of it.

Rav Kahana said: Honey

that is found

in the hive

has the status of food, and

it never leaves the status of food,

even when the bees eat their honey, because honey is human food, and it does not acquire the designation “animal food” until he explicitly sets it aside for the bees.

Evidently,

it follows that Rav Kahana

holds:

Honey

does not require intention,

explicitly, for eating or for drinking, in order for the designation of food to take effect upon it; rather, from the outset it has the designation of “human food,” and if impurity touches it, the honey becomes impure.

He raised an objection

from a beraita, from which it follows that without explicit intention the honey in the hive does not have the status of human food and does not contract impurity:

Honey in the hive is not

considered

either

as

food or

as

a liquid,

and it does not contract impurity.

He said,

he answered,

Abaye: It is necessary

for this beraita

only for those two honeycombs

that are designated for the bees’ sustenance during the winter, and since this honey is designated as their food, it is “animal food” and does not contract impurity.

Rava said:

The beraita is speaking about all the honey in the hive, and not specifically about those two honeycombs; nevertheless, the beraita maintains that the honey in it does not contract impurity.

The reason that the honey does not contract impurity is that this beraita is according to the words of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who says: Honey in its hive has the status of “attached to the ground,” and any food that is “attached to the ground” does not have the status of food and does not contract impurity.