Bava Batra 81a — the Talmud in English

Some say:

the three types of cedars 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

dolvei.

And

almogim

are those called

kasita.

Mishna:

One who purchases

from his fellow

two trees within his fellow’s field,

if he did not specify to him that he was selling him the land in which the trees grow,

he has not acquired land,

neither the land surrounding the trees nor even the place of the tree itself.

Therefore, he is like one who purchases a tree for its fruit: when the tree dries up, he has no right whatsoever to the land. Here too, when the tree dries up, the buyer uproots the tree and uses its wood, but regarding the land itself he has no right whatsoever.

Rabbi Meir says:

One who purchases two trees within his fellow’s field has

acquired land,

since two trees are considered “a tree-field,” to acquire the land in the place of the trees, and that between them and adjacent to them.

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

Therefore, if

the branches grew

and spread,

he shall not cut them back

he shall not cut them] the owner of the land, even though the shade of the tree’s branches harms the seller’s crops around the tree, because the buyer acquired the tree on the condition that the land be encumbered to the trees for all their needs.

But according to Rabbi Meir, the tree is planted in the buyer’s land, and the seller’s land is not encumbered to the buyer. Therefore, if the branches grew, and they are harming the seller, he cuts them back.

And

according to the Sages, that the tree is acquired by the buyer but not the land, a branch

that grows from the trunk

is

his,

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

And

one that grows

from the roots

is

the owner of the land’s,

because since this branch emerged beneath the ground, the matter is considered as though this branch grew from the ground and not from the tree.

And if they died,

that is, the trees dried up,

he has no land,

the buyer, so that he could plant another tree in their place; rather, he uproots it and goes away.

But according to Rabbi Meir, that the tree is planted in the buyer’s land, even what grows from the roots beneath the ground is his, because they grew in his land. And if the trees died, the land remains with the buyer, and he may return and plant another tree there. And even according to the Sages, if he

purchased three

trees, they are considered “a tree-field,” and he has

acquired land;

and the Gemara will explain how much land he has, and how the trees are planted when they are joined together so as to be considered “a tree-field.”

And since the land is his, if

they grew

the branches of the tree and entered the domain of the seller’s land,

he cuts them back,

the seller is permitted to cut these branches so that they should not harm him.

And

likewise, a branch

that grows

either

from the trunk or

either

from the roots

these are

his,

the buyer’s, since the land belongs to the buyer.

And if they died,

the trees, and dried up,

he has

the buyer

land,

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

Gemara:

It is stated in the Torah [Exodus 23:19]: “The first of 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]: “And you shall take from the first of every fruit of the ground that you shall bring from your land which the Lord your God gives you, and you shall place it in a basket, and you shall go to the place which the Lord your God will choose to cause His Name to dwell there.”

“And you shall come to the koen 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. And the koen shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of the Lord your God.”

“And 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 of the fruit of the ground which You gave me, O Lord, and you shall place it before the Lord your God, and you shall bow before the Lord your God.”

And from these verses the Sages learned that there is an obligation of first fruits only if the fruits grew in his possession. Not only that, but even if the tree is his, he does not bring first fruits if the land in which the tree is located does not belong to him, since it is stated: “The fruit of the ground which You gave me.”

And what is the mitzva of first fruits? A person enters his field and sees fruits that have ripened first; he ties them with straw as a sign and says: “These are first fruits,” and they become first fruits while attached once he has designated them by name.

The first fruits are brought to the Temple courtyard, and there they are waved before the Lord, and the owners place them beside the altar. Afterwards, the first fruits are given as a gift to the koen, like teruma.

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

We learned there [

First Fruits, chapter 1, Mishna 6]:

One who purchases two trees within

a

field of his fellow,

does not acquire land; therefore,

he brings

first fruits from these trees

but does not recite the “recitation over the first fruits,” because I cannot apply to these fruits “the fruit of the ground which You gave me.” And below it explains why he must bring the fruits, since there is an obligation of first fruits only from the fruit of his land.

«чтение о первых плодах», поскольку к этим плодам нельзя применить слова: «плод земли, которую Ты дал мне». Далее разъясняется, почему он всё же обязан принести плоды, ведь обязанность первых плодов существует только в отношении плодов его земли.

Rabbi Meir

disagrees and

says:

One who purchases two trees within his fellow’s field acquired the land of the trees, and I can apply to the fruits of these trees “the fruit of the ground which You gave me”; therefore,

he brings

these first fruits

and recites the “recitation over the first fruits.”

first fruits.”

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

bringing first fruits

even one who purchases fruits from the market,

where the land is not his.

And the reason that the tanna taught the dispute of the Sages and Rabbi Meir concerning one who purchases two trees is not that Rabbi Meir agrees that one who purchases one tree, and all the more so one who purchases only fruits, 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, but according to Rabbi Meir, even when he has no land, he brings and recites.

And

from where

did he learn that Shmuel should say this?

From the fact that an extra Mishna was taught,

from the fact that their dispute—the Sages and Rabbi Meir—was repeated both in tractate Bava Batra concerning buying and selling, and in tractate First Fruits concerning the obligation to bring first fruits.

For

since it was already taught to him

in Bava Batra

that

one who purchases two trees

has land

according to Rabbi Meir, if so,

it is obvious that

he

brings and recites; why did the tanna need to repeat and teach this matter in tractate First Fruits!?

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

Is it not clear that if he has no land he does not bring and recite, and if he has land he brings and recites? Why did the tanna need to return and say that if he purchased two trees, he brings and recites according to Rabbi Meir, after we learned in Bava Batra that he has land!?

Rather, infer from it:

the tanna of First Fruits teaches us this:

Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who purchases fruits 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 and recites over them the recitation of first fruits; it is not necessary that the land be his.

And we raise an objection:

But it is written

in the portion of first fruits [Deuteronomy 26:2]:

“Which you shall bring from your land”,

implying that if it is not his land and ground, he is exempt from bringing first fruits. Why, then, should one who purchases fruits be obligated in first fruits!?

And we answer:

That

verse comes

to exclude

fruits that grew in

outside the Land of Israel;

but fruits that grew in the Land of Israel, he is obligated to bring them even though the land is not his. And we raise an objection:

But it is written [

Exodus 23:19]: “The first fruits of your

land

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 land of a gentile,

for if a gentile owns land in the Land of Israel and an Israelite takes fruits from him, he does not bring first fruits from them. And we raise an objection:

But

it

is written [

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

which You gave me,”

implying that these fruits which he brings were given to him by the Lord. But if he took these fruits from the market, can I say concerning them: “Which You gave me”!?

One might have thought: Fruits outside the Land are obligated in first fruits, like meat with milk, which applies outside the Land. It teaches us: “From your land”—to exclude outside the Land. [And Tosafot of the Rosh wrote: Since it is written, “The first fruits of everything in their land,” one might have thought that this includes outside the Land, and therefore an exclusion was necessary.] They further wrote: And to the Rashba it appears that first fruits are not considered a mitzva dependent on the land, for they are unlike teruma, tithe, and hallah. There, the bodies of the fruits are obligated in teruma, since they are untithed produce and forbidden to eat, and therefore they are considered dependent on the land. But first fruits do not have the obligation dependent upon the fruits themselves, but upon the person, for they are not forbidden to eat even though he did not separate first fruits from them. And even while they are still on the tree he becomes obligated, as we learned in tractate First Fruits [chapter 3, Mishna 1]: How does one separate first fruits? A person descends into his field and sees a fig that has ripened first or a cluster that has ripened first; he ties it with straw and says: “These are first fruits.” Although if he has none he is not obligated to purchase them, nevertheless this is an obligation upon the person. In Torat Zeraim [First Fruits 1:6] he brought the dispute between Tosafot and Maimonides concerning one who purchases detached fruits and afterwards purchases the field: According to Maimonides, he brings first fruits, since he has the land and its fruits; according to Tosafot, he does not bring and recite, since at the time the fruits grew the field was not yet his. In Torat Zeraim he explained that Tosafot follow their own position, that first fruits are an obligation upon the person and not an obligation upon the fruits. Therefore, one who purchases detached fruits and afterwards also purchases the field does not bring first fruits, because now, at the time he purchases the field, it is not possible for the obligation of first fruits to take effect upon the buyer, since they are detached. Maimonides holds that first fruits are not merely an obligation upon the person, but are an obligation upon the fruits. For an obligation took effect upon the body of the fruits, to fulfill through them the mitzva of separating first fruits, [and see there where he brought several proofs to this]. Therefore, Maimonides obligates one who purchased detached fruits and afterwards purchased the land, because the obligation of first fruits already took effect upon the fruits when they grew in the seller’s land, and this obligation no longer departed from them. Therefore, since the buyer also purchased the land, he can properly say: “From the ground which You gave me.” [And see there what he wrote concerning first fruits in the seventh year.] And we answer: even what a person purchases with money is a gift of God, because

You gave me money and I bought with it,

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

He objects,

objected,

Rabbah

against Shmuel's words:

It was taught in a beraita:

the purchaser of one tree within

the field

of his fellow, brings

the fruits that ripened on this tree,

but does not recite "

the recitation of first fruits",

because

one who purchases one tree, presumptively,

did not acquire

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 fruits from the market. And this is difficult for Shmuel's words, who says: Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who purchases fruits from the market!?

And we conclude: indeed,

a tiyuvta

it is against Shmuel's words, and even according to Rabbi Meir's words, there is no obligation of first fruits unless he has land.

He said,

asked,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rabbi Elazar: