Bava Batra 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses things that have “produce.” When the owner sells the produce, he wants the principal object to remain in his possession. Therefore, even though the seller did not stipulate this explicitly, the purchaser must leave part of the produce for the owner, as the Sages established, so that the seller will not lose the principal object by selling its produce.

a.

One who purchases the produce of a dovecote from another,

a person who purchased from another the pigeons that will be born in his dovecote for a certain period, may not take all the offspring from the dovecote, because if the original pigeons remain without their offspring, they will flee from the dovecote, and it will turn out that the seller loses his entire dovecote.

Therefore,

the purchaser releases

the

first brood,

the first pair of pigeons to be born. He does not take them for himself; rather, he 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 he “sterilizes” them. The Gemara will explain which swarms he takes and what “sterilizes” means.

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

in the hive may not take all the honeycombs. Rather, he

leaves

two honeycombs

to provide sustenance for the bees during the rainy season.

d. A person who purchased from another

olives

in order

to cut

the branches on which they have multiplied may not cut all the branches. Rather, he

leaves

two shoots,

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who purchases the produce of a dovecote from another releases 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 releases

the first and second broods!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Kahana: It is not difficult!

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

The daughter is not satisfied with the companionship of her mother; she needs her own daughter, the mother’s granddaughter, to serve as her companion.

This

is what the beraita teaches when it says that the purchaser leaves “the second brood”—the mother’s granddaughter—

for her,

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

And

this

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

for her mother,

for the sake of companionship and company for the mother.

In other words, one who sells the produce of a dovecote to another must have the purchaser release the first brood, so that it will remain as company for the mother, and he must also have him release the second brood, so that it will remain as company for the daughter.

The Mishna mentioned what must be left in the dovecote so that the parents—the first pair of pigeons in the dovecote—will have companionship; whereas the beraita adds to the Mishna and details what must also be left in the dovecote so that the first brood will have companionship. And we raise a difficulty: Why must the second brood also be left in the nest?!

Why is the mother different, such that companionship with her daughter and with the mate whom we leave for her is sufficient

[In what way 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 her mother and with the mate whom 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 her daughter,

the mother is satisfied with the companionship of her daughter, because a mother has compassion for her daughter. But

the daughter does not have companionship with her mother,

the daughter is not satisfied with the companionship of her mother; she needs the companionship of her own daughter—the second brood.

We learned in the Mishna:

The purchaser of the produce of a beehive takes three swarms and “sterilizes” them.

At first glance, this implies that the seller causes the bees to be unable to reproduce.

And the Gemara discusses this:

With what does he sterilize them?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

The seller sterilizes them

by

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 sterilizes them;

mustard does not impair the bees’ reproductive capacity, because if they were rendered completely sterile, they would be entirely lost to their owners,

rather,

because mustard is sharp,

from the fact that the mouths

of the bees

are sharp

[they feel bitterness in their mouths],

the bees return

and

eat their honey,

and because the bees are satiated with honey, they refrain from reproduction and continue to engage in producing honey instead of engaging in reproduction.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Mishna does not mean that after the purchaser takes three swarms, the seller sterilizes the bees so that they will not reproduce. Rather, this is what the Mishna says: The purchaser

takes

three swarms by skipping,

in alternate intervals.

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

The buyer then returns and takes the third swarm, and leaves the fourth for the seller.

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

for the seller.

In a baraita it was taught:

In a baraita 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 reproduction—that is, afterward he prevents reproduction and alternates.

We learned in the Mishna:

With regard to honeycombs, he leaves two honeycombs.

a. Human food and human drink can contract ritual impurity. If they came into contact with a primary source of ritual impurity and became a first degree of ritual impurity, they render other items impure, making them a second degree of ritual impurity.

b. Food intended for animals and other living creatures does not contract ritual impurity.

c. Human food contracts ritual impurity in any amount. And it renders others impure only if it contains the volume of an egg; human drink contracts ritual impurity in any amount, but renders others impure only if it contains a quarter-log.

Rav Kahana said: Honey

found

in the hive

has the status of food, and

never ceases to be considered food,

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

Apparently

it follows that Rav Kahana

holds:

Honey

does not require intention

to eat or drink it 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 ritual impurity touches it, the honey becomes impure.

The Gemara raises an objection

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

Honey in the hive is not

considered

either

as

food or

as

a liquid,

and it does not contract ritual impurity.

He said—

he answered:

Abaye said: It is necessary

for this baraita

only with regard to those two honeycombs

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

Rava said:

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

The reason that the honey does not contract ritual impurity is that this baraita follows the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer,

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