Bava Batra 80b — the Talmud in English

For we learned [

Uktzin 3:11]:

A beehive,

attached to the ground with clay,

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is like the ground

for every matter.

Both with regard to acquisitions, for it is acquired with money, with a document, and with possession like land, and one can acquire other movable property along with the acquisition of the beehive, as with land.

And

likewise, it is like land with regard to

writing a prozbul upon it.

And

likewise, it is like land with regard to

not contracting impurity in its place.

And even the honey inside it does not contract impurity, since it is subordinate to the beehive.

And one who removes

honey

from it,

from the beehive, when it is in its place — the place of the honey’s growth and formation —

on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering

like one who detaches something that grows from the ground.

And the Sages

disagree and

say: One does not write upon it

a prozbul,

and it is not

considered

like land

with regard to acquisitions.

And it contracts

impurity

in its place

like all the other vessels.

And likewise, the honey in it is not considered attached, and it is fit to contract impurity.

And one who removes it

honey

on Shabbat,

is not considered one who detaches from the ground and

is exempt

from a sin-offering.

And

Rabbi Elazar said:

What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason

who says: The honey-beehive is considered attached to the ground?

For it is written [

I Samuel 14:25, 27]: “And all the land came into the forest, and there was honey upon the surface of the field. And Jonathan … extended the end of the staff that was in his hand

and dipped it into the honeycomb.”

And what connection

does

the forest have with

dipping the end of the staff in

honey!?

It should have said: “And he dipped it into a cake of honey”; and why did Scripture call it “the honeycomb”!?

Rather,

the verse comes

to tell you:

Honey is like a forest.

Just as one who detaches from a forest,

from its trees,

on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering,

because of reaping,

so too, one who removes honey from it on Shabbat

when it is in the place of the honey’s growth,

is liable to bring a sin-offering,

because the honey and its beehive have the status of something attached to the ground.

And the beraita above that says: Honey in a beehive is neither food nor drink, is according to Rabbi Eliezer.

For Rabbi Eliezer says: It is like the ground, and the honey in it is like the honeycomb, and it does not have the “status of food” to contract impurity.

He raises an objection

from a beraita against the words of Rav Kahana, who says that honey in a beehive has the status of food, according to Rava, who does not explain the beraita above as referring to those two honeycombs, but to all honey:

Honey that flows from its beehive is

not considered

neither

as

food nor

as

drink,

and it does not contract impurity.

And

granted according to

the words of

Abaye, it is satisfactory,

since this beraita too can be explained as referring to those two honeycombs that were designated for the bees’ food; therefore, even though this honey flowed from the beehive, it does not have the status of human food until he intends it for food or drink.

But according to Rava,

in his view, “ordinary honey” in the beraita cannot be explained as referring to those two honeycombs, but to all the honey in the beehive.

If so,

it is difficult:

Why does the honey not contract impurity after it has flowed from the beehive!?

Granted, while the honey is still in the beehive, one can say that it does not have the status of food according to Rabbi Eliezer, since we learned from the verse that honey is considered “attached” like a forest.

But when the honey flows from the beehive, it is no longer “attached,” even according to Rabbi Eliezer; why, then, does it not contract impurity!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Zevid:

What are we dealing with here?

For example, when

from the beehive

the honey flowed

honey

onto a repulsive vessel,

and it is not fit for human consumption because of the repulsiveness.

And this beraita is according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that honey in a beehive does not have the “status of food”; and since now too the honey is not fit for human consumption, because of the repulsiveness of the vessel, therefore the honey does not contract impurity.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said:

The beraita is not speaking of a case where it flowed onto a repulsive vessel, for honey that flowed onto a repulsive vessel is considered food.

Rather, what are we dealing with here?

For example, when it flowed onto

thin splinters,

thin sticks from which it is not possible to gather the honey; therefore it does not have the status of food and does not contract impurity.

He raises an objection

from a beraita against the words of Rav Kahana, who says that honey in a beehive has the status of food, according to Rava, who does not explain the beraita as referring to those two honeycombs, but to all honey:

Honey in its beehive is

not considered

neither

as

food nor

as

drink.

If he intended it for eating,

it

contracts the impurity of foods,

even while the honey is still in the beehive.

If he intended it

for drinks,

it

contracts the impurity of drinks,

even while the honey is still in the beehive.

And

granted according to Abaye, it is satisfactory

this beraita, for one can say: Indeed, honey in a beehive never ceases to be food, as Rav Kahana says, and what are we dealing with here? With those two honeycombs designated for the bees’ food.

Therefore, as long as these honeycombs remain designated for the bees’ food, they do not have the status of human food; but if he retracts and intends them for food or drink, the law of foods and drinks applies to them.

But according to Rava,

in his view, “ordinary honey” mentioned in the beraita cannot be explained as referring to those two honeycombs, but to all the honey in the beehive.

And whichever way you look at it,

it is difficult:

If this beraita is taught according to Rabbi Eliezer, how does intention for eating or drinking help to give the honey in the beehive the status of being able to contract impurity? For honey in its beehive is “attached,” and attached produce does not contract impurity even if he intended it for eating!?

And if this beraita is taught according to the Sages, then even without “intention” the honey has the status of food, according to Rav Kahana; why, then, did we learn that the honey in the beehive is neither food nor drink!?

He said,

he will answer you,

Rava:

This beraita is taught according to Rabbi Eliezer, and

explain it thus,

so explain the beraita:

Honey in its beehive is neither “food” nor “drink”; therefore,

if he intended it for eating —

it does not contract the impurity of foods,

and if he intended it

for drinks —

it does not contract the impurity of drinks.

And we conclude:

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with Rav Kahana: Honey in its beehive contracts the impurity of foods

even

without intention.

We learned in the Mishna: One who purchases from his fellow

olives in order to cut them leaves two branches.

The Sages taught: One who purchases a tree

from his fellow

with the intention

of cutting

it, and using what he cuts, is not permitted to uproot the tree, nor even to cut it close to the ground, because the seller’s intention was to retain the main part of the tree, so that it would grow anew.

Therefore, he

raises

the purchaser

one handbreadth from the ground, and

there

cuts

the tree.

And if he purchased from his fellow

a virgin sycamore,

a sycamore that had never been cut, he must raise it from the ground

three handbreadths,

and there the purchaser may cut this sycamore.

And if he purchased from another person

a trunk of a sycamore tree—

a sycamore tree that had already been cut once and had grown again, it is sufficient for him to leave it raised above the ground by

two handbreadths.

And likewise

with reeds and grapevines:

if he sold him reeds or grapevines, he may

cut from the joint

and above.

But

in the case of date palms and cedars, the purchaser digs

and

uproots them;

he removes them from the root,

because their trunks do not regenerate—

they do not grow again after being cut at their tops. Therefore, the seller certainly intended to sell him the entire tree.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

is it actually necessary, in order for

an untouched sycamore tree

to grow again,

to leave three handbreadths!?

And they pose a contradiction from another source:

the Mishna in tractate Shevi’it indicates that an untouched sycamore tree grows again even when less than three handbreadths are left!?

1. The Torah states [Leviticus 25:3–4]: “For six years you shall sow your land, and for six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather its produce. But in the seventh year there shall be a complete rest for the land, a Sabbath for the Lord; you shall not sow your land and you shall not prune your vineyard.”

The “pruning” prohibited by the Torah is the cutting of the dry branches of a grapevine. Its purpose is to enable the grapevine to grow more vigorously by removing these branches.

Just as pruning the dry branches of a grapevine is prohibited during the Sabbatical year, so too, in the case of every tree, it is prohibited to cut its branches in order to make it grow more.

2. During the Sabbatical year, only work that improves and strengthens the tree is prohibited. However, work that merely preserves the tree, so that it does not deteriorate from its present condition, is permitted.

We learned in tractate Shevi’it [chapter 4, Mishna 5]:

One may not cut an untouched sycamore tree during the Sabbatical year

in a manner that will make the sycamore grow more than it initially did,

because it is

this cutting

,

that is prohibited during the Sabbatical year.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the usual manner,

it is prohibited

to cut it, because this improves it.

Rather, he raises it ten handbreadths

above the ground

and cuts it,

because this cutting weakens and harms the tree.

Alternatively, he cuts

and trims the tree

from ground level,

close to the ground, because when he cuts it at ground level, this is difficult for the tree and does not improve it.

And the Gemara infers:

From ground level

specifically

is harmful

to the tree;

but the other case,

if he leaves it slightly above the ground and cuts it,

benefits it,

improving the tree.

Therefore Rabbi Yehuda said: During the Sabbatical year, it is prohibited to cut an untouched sycamore tree a small distance above the ground, because the cutting improves the tree, and this work is prohibited during the Sabbatical year.

Only from ground level may he cut and trim the sycamore, because this cutting damages the tree.

And the difficulty remains: Why is the purchaser required to raise it three handbreadths above the ground? Is it not sufficient to leave it a small distance above the ground for the sycamore to improve rather than deteriorate!?

He

explained:

Abaye:

If he raises it

three handbreadths

above the ground and cuts it, it will certainly

benefit it,

the sycamore.

But if he cuts it

from ground level

and close to the ground, it will

certainly be harmed.

From this point onward,

if he leaves it slightly above the ground but does not raise it three handbreadths,

it is not certainly harmful

;

nor is it certainly beneficial

to it. Rather, it is uncertain, because sometimes this cutting damages and harms the tree, and sometimes it benefits it.

Therefore,

regarding the Sabbatical year,

when it is prohibited to prune a tree in order to make it healthy and improve it,

we perform an act that is certainly harmful to it,

because we are certain that this pruning will not improve the tree, since we must be stringent in a case of possible violation of a prohibition from the Torah.

But

regarding a sale,

the seller intends to retain for himself what is certainly necessary for the tree’s continued existence, and therefore

we perform an act that is certainly beneficial to it—

he raises it three handbreadths above the ground and cuts it.

We learned in the beraita above:

In the case of date palms and cedars, he digs and uproots them, because their trunks do not regenerate,

even if he leaves part of them beneath the ground, since they were cut at their tops.

And we are astonished:

But

how can it be that

a cedar does not regenerate!?

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Lulייני expounded as follows:

A date palm is a fruit-bearing tree, and if it is cut at its top, its trunk does not regenerate.

A cedar is a non-fruit-bearing tree, but if it is cut at its top, its trunk does regenerate.

What is the meaning of that which is written [Psalms 92:13]:

“

“The righteous will flourish like a date palm; like a cedar in Lebanon he will grow tall”?

If you ask:

If it is stated

in the verse that the righteous is compared to a

date palm, why is a cedar stated

as well? How can the righteous be compared to a cedar?

And if a cedar is stated, why is a date palm stated

as well? They are not alike!?

The answer is:

If a cedar were stated and a date palm were not stated,

if the righteous person were compared to a cedar and not to a date palm,

I would say: Just as a cedar does not produce f

ruit,

so too

the

righteous person,

Heaven forbid,

does not produce fruit,

and he has no reward in the World to Come.

Therefore, “date palm” is stated,

to tell you: Just as a date palm produces fruit, so too the righteous person produces fruit.

And if a date palm were stated and a cedar were not stated,

if the righteous person were compared to a date palm and not to a cedar,

I would say: Just as a date palm does not regenerate its trunk, so too a righteous person

Heaven forbid

does not regenerate his trunk—

he will not have a son who fills his place after his death.

Therefore, “cedar” is stated,

to tell you: Just as a cedar regenerates its trunk, so too the righteous person will father a son like himself who fills his place.

We have thus learned from the statement of Rabbi Hiyya bar Lulייני that a cedar is a tree whose trunk regenerates. The difficulty therefore arises: Why did we learn, “In the case of cedars, he digs and uproots them, because their trunks do not regenerate”!?

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here?

Rabbi Hiyya’s exposition referred to

other types of cedars,

whose trunks regenerate, whereas the beraita above deals with an ordinary cedar whose trunk does not regenerate.

24

Rabba bar Rav Huna

said

that there are many different types of cedars.

As Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The scholars of Rav’s academy said:

There are ten types of cedars, as it is stated [Isaiah 41:19]:

I will place in the wilderness cedar, acacia, myrtle, and oil tree; I will set

“I will place in the desert cedar, acacia, myrtle, and oil tree; I will set

in the wilderness cypress, plane tree, and box tree together.” And he proceeds to explain it.

1.

“Cedar”

mentioned by the verse is the tree called in Aramaic

arza.

2.

“Acacia”

mentioned by the verse is called in Aramaic

tornita.

3.

“Myrtle”

mentioned by the verse is called

asa.

4.

“Oil tree”

mentioned by the verse is called

afarsema.

5.

“Cypress”

mentioned by the verse is called

bartei.

6.

“Plane tree”

mentioned by the verse is called

shaga.

7.

g.

And “box tree”

mentioned by the verse is what is called

shorvina.

And we are astonished:

These

mentioned by the verse

are seven,

whereas Rabba bar Rav Huna said that there are ten types of cedars!?

And we answer: This is not difficult, for

when Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel,

he said: The Sages added

to

them,

the trees listed in that verse, three types of cedars:

oaks, almond trees

and

coral trees.

8.

Oaks

are called

botnei.

9.

Almond trees

are called

belutei.

10.

Coral trees are

the tree called

kesita,

a tree that grows in the sea and is very valuable.