Bava Batra 80b (פ:) — the Talmud in English

As we learned

Uktzin 3:11]:

A beehive

that is attached to the ground with clay,

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is considered like ground

for every matter.

This applies both to transactions, for it is acquired with money, a document, or possession, like land, and one can acquire other movable property along with the acquisition of the beehive, as with land.

And

likewise, it is considered like land with regard to

writing a prozbul on it.

And

likewise, it is considered like land with regard to

not becoming impure in its place.

And even the honey inside it does not become impure, 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 where the honey grows and is formed —

on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering,

like one who detaches something growing from the ground.

But the Sages

disagree and

say: One may not write a

prozbul on it,

and it does not

count

as land

with regard to transactions.

And it does

become impure in its place

like all other vessels.

Likewise, the honey in it is not considered attached, and it is fit to become impure.

And one who removes honey from it

on Shabbat,

is not considered to be detaching something from the ground and

is exempt

from a sin-offering.

And

Rabbi Elazar said:

What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that a honeycomb is considered attached to the ground?

As it is written [Samuel I 14:25, 27]: “And all the land came into the forest, and there was honey on 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 into

honey!?

The verse should have said: “And he dipped it into the honey wafer.” Why, then, did the verse 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 harvesting,

so too, one who removes honey from it on Shabbat,

when it is in the place where the honey grows,

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 cited above, which says that honey in a beehive is neither food nor drink, is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

For Rabbi Eliezer says: It is considered like land, and the honey within it is like “the honeycomb,” and it does not possess the “status of food” to become impure.

Meytivi

from a beraita, challenging the statement of Rav Kahana, who says that honey in a beehive has the status of food, according to Rava, who does not interpret the beraita cited 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 become impure.

And

according to

the words of

Abaye, this is understandable,

for this beraita too can be interpreted as referring to those two honeycombs designated as food for the bees. Therefore, although this honey has flowed from the beehive, it does not have the status of human food until one intends it for food or drink.

But according to Rava,

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

If so,

it is difficult:

Why does the honey not become impure after it has flowed from the beehive!?

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

But once the honey has flowed from the beehive, it is no longer “attached,” even according to Rabbi Eliezer. Why, then, does it not become impure!?

He said,

he answered,

Rav Zevid:

What are we dealing with here?

For example, when

from the beehive

the honey flowed

onto an unclean vessel,

and it is unfit for human consumption because of the revulsion caused by the vessel.

And this beraita is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says that honey in a beehive does not possess the “status of food.” Since now too the honey is unfit for human consumption because the vessel is repulsive, the honey does not become impure.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

The beraita is not referring to a case in which it flowed onto a repulsive vessel, because honey that flowed onto a repulsive vessel is considered food.

Rather, what are we dealing with here?

For example, when it flowed onto

splinters,

thin sticks from which the honey cannot be suitably collected. Therefore, it does not possess the status of food and does not become impure.

Meytivi

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

Honey in its beehive is

not considered

neither

as

food nor

as

drink.

If one designated it for eating,

it

renders impure with food impurity,

even while the honey is still in the beehive.

If one designated it

for liquids,

it

renders impure with liquid impurity,

even while the honey is still in the beehive.

And

according to Abaye, this beraita is understandable,

for one can say that, indeed, honey in a beehive never loses its status as food, in accordance with Rav Kahana, and here we are dealing with those two honeycombs designated as food for the bees.

Therefore, as long as these honeycombs remain designated as food for the bees, they do not possess the status of human food; but if one changes his mind and designates them for food or drink, the laws of food and liquids take effect upon them.

But according to Rava,

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

And in either case,

it is difficult:

If this beraita is stated in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, how can designation for eating or drinking make the honey in the beehive capable of becoming impure? Honey in its beehive is “attached,” and attached fruit does not become impure even if one intended it for eating!?

And if this beraita is stated in accordance with the Sages, then even without “designation,” the honey possesses the status of food, according to Rav Kahana. Why, then, did we learn that honey in the beehive is neither food nor drink!?

He said,

he will answer

you, Rava:

This beraita is stated in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, and

interpret it in this manner,

as follows:

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

if one designated it for eating —

it does not render impure with food impurity,

and if one designated it

for liquids —

it does not render impure with liquid impurity.

And we conclude:

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with Rav Kahana: Honey in its beehive renders impure with food impurity,

even

without designation.

We learned in the Mishna: One who purchases olives from another

for cutting them leaves two branches.

The Sages taught: One who purchases a tree

from another

in order

to cut

it down and use what he cuts may not uproot the tree, nor may he cut it close to the ground, because the seller intended to retain the main part of the tree so that it could grow anew.

Therefore,

the purchaser raises

the tree

one handbreadth above the ground, and

there

cuts

the tree.

And if he purchased from another

a virgin sycamore,

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

three handbreadths,

and there the purchaser may cut this sycamore.

And if he purchased from another,

a pollarded sycamore,

a sycamore that had already been cut once and grown anew, it is sufficient for him to leave two handbreadths above the ground

and cut.

And likewise

with reeds and vines:

if he sold him reeds or vines, he may

cut from the knot

and above.

The Rambam wrote [Mekhirah 23:15]: the one who takes olives from his fellow to prune places from the tree, near the ground, two little bunches and prunes; he took a betulat ha-shikma — he raises three tefachim and prunes; the sadan of a shikma two tefachim, etc. And he wrote in Kesef Mishneh: "two little bunches" means two fists, and he did not mix olives with that sadan which also is of tefachim because regarding the shikma there is room to dispute between betula and sadan. “A pekak is a knot” — Rashi, Bava Kama 82a. [From it grow amirim and nitzrim — according to Rabbeinu Channanel’s commentary on Pesachim, ad locum.] And the Tosafot objected: behold, any person is permitted to lop branches from the tree in order to plant a sapling or to graft the branch, and this is from the pekak and above [in the vine] as we say in Bava Kama 82a; and what special additional right has the buyer of a vine so as to prune its branches!? And they answered: any person is not permitted to prune except for the purpose of planting [and not every branch one may prune as discussed in Bava Kama], but the taker (the buyer) is permitted to prune all the branches, and even if he wishes to prune them gratis, the seller cannot prevent him. And furthermore, how many pekakim are there in a vine

But

with date palms and cedars, the purchaser digs

and

up by the roots,

uprooting them from the root,

because their trunks do not regenerate,

that is, they do not grow again after being cut at the top; therefore, the seller certainly intended to sell him the entire tree.

And we raise an objection:

But

is it actually necessary, in order for

a young sycamore

to grow again,

to require three handbreadths?!

And we juxtapose a contradiction,

for the Mishna in Shevi'it indicates that a young sycamore grows again even when less than three handbreadths remain?!

a. It is stated in the Torah [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 Shabbat for the Lord; your land you shall not sow and your vineyard you shall not prune.”

The “pruning” prohibited by the Torah is the cutting of the dry branches of the vine, whose purpose is to cause the vine to grow more vigorously by removing those branches.

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

b. During the Sabbatical year, only work that improves the tree and strengthens it is prohibited. But work that merely maintains the tree, preventing it from deteriorating from its present state, is permitted.

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

One may not cut a young sycamore during the Sabbatical year,

in a manner that causes the sycamore to grow more than it had initially,

because it is

this cutting,

work

that is prohibited during the Sabbatical year.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the usual manner,

it is prohibited

to cut it, because this improves the tree.

Rather, he leaves ten handbreadths

above the ground

and cuts,

because this cutting weakens the tree and harms it.

Alternatively, he cuts,

cutting the tree

close to the ground,

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

And the Gemara infers:

close to the ground

specifically

is harmful,

causing damage to the tree;

but the other,

if he leaves a small distance from the ground and cuts,

it benefits it,

improving the tree.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda said: During the Sabbatical year, it is prohibited to cut a young sycamore at a small distance from the ground, because the cutting improves the tree, and this work is prohibited during the Sabbatical year.

Only close to the ground may he cut and sever the sycamore, because this cutting damages the tree.

But a difficulty remains: Why is the purchaser required to leave three handbreadths above the ground? A small distance is sufficient for the sycamore to improve rather than deteriorate?!

He said,

he answered,

Abaye:

One who leaves

three handbreadths

above the ground and cuts certainly

benefits it,

the sycamore.

And if he cuts

close to the ground

and adjacent to the ground, it is

certainly harmful to it.

From this point onward,

if he leaves a small distance from the ground but does not leave three handbreadths,

it is not certainly harmful to it

with certainty,

nor is it certainly beneficial to it

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

Therefore,

with regard to the Sabbatical year,

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

we do something that certainly harms it,

as we are certain that the tree will not improve through this pruning, since we must be stringent in a case of uncertainty involving a Torah prohibition.

But

with regard to a sale,

the seller intends to retain for himself enough to ensure the tree’s continued existence, therefore

we do something that certainly benefits it—

he leaves three handbreadths above the ground and cuts.

We learned in the beraita above:

With regard to date palms and cedars, he digs and uproots them, because their trunks do not regenerate,

even if he leaves some of them above the ground, since they have been cut at their tops.

And we are astonished:

But

why—

does a cedar not regenerate?!

But Rabbi Hiyya bar Lulייני expounded:

A date palm is a tree that produces fruit, but if it is cut at its top, its trunk no longer regenerates.

A cedar is a tree that does not produce fruit, but if it is cut at its top, its trunk regenerates.

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

“

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

If you ask:

If it is said

in the verse that the righteous is compared to a

date palm, why is a cedar mentioned—

how can the righteous be compared to a cedar—

and if a cedar is mentioned, why is a date palm mentioned?

After all, they are not alike?!

The answer is:

Had a cedar been mentioned and a date palm not been mentioned,

if the righteous had been compared to a cedar and not to a date palm,

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

r

uit, so too

the

righteous,

God forbid,

does not produce fruit,

and he has no reward in the World to Come.

Therefore, a date palm is mentioned,

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

And had a date palm been mentioned and a cedar not been mentioned,

if the righteous had been compared to a date palm and not to a cedar,

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

God forbid

does not regenerate,

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

Therefore, a cedar is mentioned,

to tell you: Just as a cedar’s trunk regenerates, so too the righteous will beget a son like himself who will fill his place.

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

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing?

What Rabbi Hiyya expounded refers to

other species of cedars

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

As

Rabba bar Rav Huna

said

that there are many different species of cedars.

For Rabba bar Rav Huna said: They said in the house of Rav:

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

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

in the desert cypress, plane tree, and box tree

together.” And he proceeds to interpret it.

a.

“Cedar”

mentioned by the verse is the tree called in Aramaic

arza.

b.

“Acacia”

mentioned by the verse is called in Aramaic

tur-nita.

c.

“Myrtle”

mentioned by the verse is what is called

asa.

d.

“Oil tree”

mentioned by the verse is what is called

afarsama.

e.

“Cypress”

mentioned by the verse is what is called

bartei.

f.

“Plane tree”

mentioned by the verse is what is called

shaga.

7.

g.

And “box tree”

mentioned by the verse is what is called

shorvina.

Jonathan translated: “taashur — ashkaru'in,” and so wrote Rambam, R. Shmuel and Ra’ash [Nega'im ch. 2, mishnah 1] that the ashkaru’a mentioned in the sages is “taashur” in Scripture. However Rashi in Yoma 37a wrote: ashkaru’a — cypress [and so in La’azei Rishbam’s gloss, and taashur is a fir]. See also Radak on Isaiah.

And we are astonished:

These

mentioned by the verse

are seven,

whereas Rabba bar Rav Huna said: There are ten species of cedars?!

And we answer: This is not difficult, for

when Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said: The Sages added

to

them,

to those in that verse, three species of cedars:

oaks and almumim,

and

corals.

h.

Oaks

are what are called

butnei.

Rishbam’s version is “botmi” which is the terebinth tree mentioned in Genesis 35:4. It is a species of non-fruit-bearing tree—Rashi there.

i.

Almumim

are what are called

belutei.

According to “La’azei Rashi,” here and in Rosh Hashanah “almonim” is an oak tree that bears acorns; see the above note on what they explained about “erez — arza.”

j.

Corals are

what is called

kesita,

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