Bava Batra 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

Some say:

the three types of cedar that the Sages added to the seven enumerated in the verse are:

aronim, armonim

and

almogim.

Aronim

are those called

arei.

Armonim

are those called

dulvei.

And

almogim

are those called

kasita.

Mishna:

One who purchases

from another

two trees within another’s field,

if he did not explicitly state that he was selling him the land in which the trees grow,

has not acquired the land,

neither the land surrounding the trees nor even the place occupied by the trees themselves.

Consequently, he is like one who purchases a tree for its fruit: when the tree dries up, he has no rights whatsoever in the land. Here too, when the tree dries up, the purchaser uproots it and uses its wood, but he has no rights in the land itself.

Rabbi Meir says:

One who purchases two trees within another’s field

has acquired land,

because two trees are considered “an orchard” and therefore he acquires the land beneath the trees, the land between them, and the land adjacent to them.

According to the Sages, the land is not acquired by the purchaser, but it is encumbered to him for all the needs of the tree.

Therefore, if

the branches grow

and spread,

he may not trim them [that is, the owner of the land may not cut them], even though the shade of the branches harms the seller’s crops growing around the tree,

because the purchaser acquired the tree on the condition that the land would be encumbered to the trees for all their needs.

But according to Rabbi Meir, the tree is planted in the purchaser’s land, and the seller’s land is not encumbered to the purchaser. Therefore, if the branches grow and harm the seller, he may trim them.

And

according to the Sages, who hold that the purchaser acquires the tree but not the land, a branch

that grows from the trunk

is

his,

the purchaser’s, because this branch emerges from the body of the tree.

And

a branch that grows

from the roots

is

the owner of the land’s,

because since this branch emerged beneath the ground, it is considered to have grown from the land and not from the tree.

And if they die,

that is, if the trees dry up,

he has no land,

the purchaser has no land on which to plant another tree in their place; rather, he uproots it and leaves.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that the tree is planted in the purchaser’s land, even what grows from the roots beneath the ground belongs to him, because it grew in his land. And if the trees die, the land remains with the purchaser, and he may return and plant another tree there. And even according to the Sages, if

he purchased three

trees, they are considered “an orchard,” and he

has acquired land.

The Gemara will explain how much land he has and how the trees must be planted when they are joined together so that they will be considered “an orchard.”

And since the land is his, if

the branches grow

and enter the area of the seller’s land,

he may trim them,

as the seller is entitled to cut these branches so that they will not harm him.

And

likewise, a branch

that grows

whether

from the trunk or

whether

from the roots

belongs

to him,

the purchaser, since the land belongs to the purchaser.

And if they die,

the trees dry up,

he

the purchaser

has

the land, and he may plant other trees in the place of the first ones that dried up.

Gemara:

It is stated in the Torah [Exodus 23:19]: “The first fruits of your land you shall bring to the House of the Lord your God.”

And it is stated [Deuteronomy 26:2–10]: “You shall take of the first of every fruit of the land that you shall bring from your land that the Lord your God gives you, and you shall place it in a basket and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose to establish His Name there.”

“You shall come to the priest who will be in those days, and you shall say to him: I declare today to the Lord your God that I have come to the land, and so on. The priest shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God.”

“You shall respond and say before the Lord your God: An Aramean sought to destroy my father, and so on. And now, behold, I have brought the first fruit of the land that You have given me, O Lord, and you shall place it before the Lord your God, and you shall bow before the Lord your God.”

From these verses the Sages learned that there is no obligation of first fruits unless the fruits grew in his domain. Not only that, but even if the tree is his, he does not bring first fruits if the land in which the tree stands does not belong to him, as it is stated: “The fruit of the land that You have given me.”

What is the mitzva of first fruits? A person enters his field and sees fruit that has ripened. He ties it with straw as a sign and says: “These are first fruits.” They become first fruits while still attached once he has designated them by name.

The first fruits are brought to the Temple courtyard, where they are waved before the Lord. The owner then places them beside the altar, after which the first fruits are given to a priest as a gift, like teruma.

The passage stated in the Torah, “I declare today to the Lord your God that I have come to the land,” and so on, and “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” and so on, is the recitation over the first fruits. At the time the first fruits are brought, those who bring them are required to recite these verses as praise and thanksgiving for the kindnesses of the Omnipresent.

We learned there [

Bikkurim, chapter 1, Mishna 6]:

One who purchases two trees within

a

fellow’s

field has not acquired land. Therefore,

he brings

first fruits from these trees

but does not recite the “recitation over the first fruits,” because with regard to these fruits I cannot apply the phrase “the fruit of the land that You have given me.” The Gemara below explains why he must bring the fruits, since there is no obligation of first fruits except from the fruit of his land.

Rabbi Meir

disagrees and

says:

One who purchases two trees within his fellow’s field has acquired the land of the trees, and I can apply to the fruit of these trees the phrase “the fruit of the land that You have given me.” Therefore,

he brings

these first fruits

and recites the “recitation over the

first fruits.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Meir would obligate him

to bring first fruits

even when he purchases fruit from the market,

where the land does not belong to him.

The reason the tanna taught the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir with regard to one who purchases two trees is not that Rabbi Meir concedes that one who purchases a single tree—and certainly one who purchases only fruit—does not bring and recite.

Rather, the tanna wished to teach us that according to the Sages, even one who purchases two trees does not recite, whereas according to Rabbi Meir, even when he has no land, he brings and recites.

And

from what

did he learn that Shmuel would say this?

From the fact that an unnecessary Mishna was taught,

since their dispute was repeated both in tractate Bava Batra, with regard to buying and selling, and in tractate Bikkurim, with regard to the obligation to bring first fruits.

For

once he had taught it

already in Bava Batra

that

one who purchases two trees

has land

according to Rabbi Meir,

it is obvious that

he

brings and recites.

Why, then, did the tanna need to repeat and teach this matter in tractate Bikkurim?!

Surely it is obvious that if he has no land he does not bring and recite, whereas if he has land he brings and recites. Why did the tanna need to repeat that if one purchased two trees, he brings and recites according to Rabbi Meir, after we had already learned in Bava Batra that he has land?!

Rather, learn from it:

The tanna of Bikkurim teaches us this:

Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who purchases fruit from the market.

And this is what Rabbi Meir said to the Sages: Even if it is as you say, that one who purchases two trees has no land, nevertheless he brings first fruits from them and recites the recitation over the first fruits; it is not necessary that the land belong to him.

We raise an objection:

But is it not written

in the section concerning first fruits [Deuteronomy 26:2]:

“That you shall bring from your land”?

This indicates that if it is not his land and soil, he is exempt from bringing first fruits. Why, then, should one who purchases fruit be obligated to bring first fruits?!

We answer:

That

verse comes

to exclude

fruit that grew

outside Eretz Yisrael.

But fruit that grew in Eretz Yisrael must be brought, even though the land does not belong to him. We raise an objection:

But is it not written [

Exodus 23:19]: “The first fruits of

your soil you shall bring”? This indicates that if it is not his soil and land, he is exempt! We answer: That verse comes

you shall bring,” implying that if it is not his land and country, he is exempt!? And we answer: That verse comes

to exclude the soil of a gentile: if a gentile owns land in Eretz Yisrael and a Jew purchases fruit from him, he does not bring first fruits from it.

We raise an objection:

But

is it not

written [

Deuteronomy 26:10]: “And now, behold, I have brought the first fruit of the land

that You have given me”? This indicates that the fruit he brings was given to him by God. But if he purchased this fruit from the market, how can I recite concerning it: “That You have given me”?!

And we answer: Even what a person purchases with money is a gift from God, because

“You gave me money, and I purchased with it”,

God gave him the money with which he purchased the produce.

He challenged,

challenging

Rabba

on Shmuel’s statement:

It was taught in a beraita:

One who purchases one tree within

the

field of another brings

the fruit that ripened on this tree,

but does not recite “

the recitation of the first fruits,”

because

one who purchases one tree, presumably,

does not purchase

the

land,

and I do not recite over these fruits, “The fruit of the land that You have given me,” these are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

It is explicit in this beraita that even one who purchases one tree does not bring and recite; all the more so, one who purchases produce in the marketplace. This is therefore difficult for Shmuel’s statement, who says: Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who purchases produce in the marketplace!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

this is a tiyuvta

against Shmuel’s statement; and even according to Rabbi Meir, there is no obligation to bring first fruits unless he possesses land.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim

asked

Rabbi Elazar: