Bava Batra 81b (פא:) — the Talmud in English

What is the reason for Rabbi Meir

who said

with regard to

one who purchases

one tree:

He brings the first fruits but does not recite the declaration

? And what is the reason for the Rabbis

who said

with regard to

one who purchases

two trees:

He brings the first fruits but does not recite the declaration

? In any event, this is difficult: If he does not recite the declaration because I do not recite over these fruits, “which you shall bring from your land,” then why must he bring them to the Temple courtyard? From the same basis that you exclude the recitation, you should also exclude the very obligation to bring them ?

Rabbi Elazar said to him:

Rabbi Eleazar:

This

matter

that

the earlier authorities have already labored over

and did not state a reason for it,

have already struggled with

the

matter is likely such that I too will not know its reason. And would you

ask me in the study hall,

where many people are present,

in order to embarrass me

?

He said,

wondering,

Rabba:

But

what difficulty

is this? What astonishment is there in the matter

?

Perhaps, with regard to one who purchases

one tree, he is uncertain,

whether he acquired the land or not.

And with regard to the Rabbis, with regard to

one who purchases

two trees,

they are uncertain,

whether he acquired the land or not.

Because of the uncertainty, the Sages said: A doubt concerning a Torah matter is treated stringently, and he must bring the fruits to the Temple courtyard, but he does not recite the “Declaration over the First Fruits,” as the Gemara explains at the end of the sugya.

And we raise an objection:

Is he indeed uncertain

about this matter, according to Rabbi Meir

?

But isn’t it taught in a beraita: “One who purchases one tree within another’s property brings but does not recite,

because he did not acquire the land; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir,”

which implies that Rabbi Meir held with certainty that one who purchases one tree does not acquire the land

?

If so, the difficulty remains: Why must he bring the first fruits when I do not recite over these fruits, “which you shall bring from your land” ? And we answer:

Say:

He brings but does not recite,

lest he did not acquire the land,

and because of the uncertainty he cannot recite the “Declaration over the First Fruits.”

And although he must bring the first fruits because perhaps one who purchases one tree within another’s property did acquire the land, nevertheless, we state that he did not acquire the land, since because of the uncertainty we do not remove the land from the seller, and his legal standing is superior.

It is prohibited to slaughter an unconsecrated animal in the Temple courtyard, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:21–22): “When the place that the Lord your God shall choose to place His Name is far from you, you may slaughter of your herd and of your flock that the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your gates according to all the desire of your soul. Just as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so may you eat of it; the impure and the pure may eat of it together.” And we derive: “When the place is far from you — and you shall slaughter”: When the place is distant, outside the Temple courtyard, you may slaughter your unconsecrated animals; but you may not slaughter unconsecrated animals when the place is near, in the Temple courtyard.

Not only is the slaughter of unconsecrated animals prohibited; any bringing of unconsecrated animals is prohibited as well.

And

we raise an objection: If, as Rabba says, they are indeed “doubtful first fruits,”

let us be concerned that perhaps they are not first fruits,

and it turns out that he

is bringing unconsecrated produce into the Temple courtyard

?

And we answer: He consecrates them

because of the uncertainty, and on condition: If they are first fruits, they enter the Temple courtyard in accordance with their law; and if they are not first fruits, they are consecrated with “sanctity of value,” to purchase a sacrifice with them.

And

we raise an objection: How can he consecrate them,

when he must eat them

because of the uncertainty, according to the law of first fruits, which are eaten by a priest like teruma, whereas if they are not first fruits, they are consecrated to Heaven, and one who eats them derives benefit from consecrated property and commits misuse ? And we answer:

He redeems them,

after he has placed them before the altar and waved them, he redeems the fruits; the money goes to the Temple treasury, and the fruits are eaten by the priests.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps they are not first fruits, and

how then

does he exempt them from teruma and tithes,

so that the priests would eat them while they are “untithed”

? And we answer:

He separates them;

he takes the portion appropriate for teruma and the tithe and says: If these fruits are not first fruits, this portion is teruma and that portion is the tithe.

Grain and fruits that grow in the Land of Israel are subject to terumot and tithes. “

Teruma” is given to a priest, and the “first tithe” to a Levite. In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, the “second tithe,” which is eaten in Jerusalem, is separated; and in the third and sixth years, the “poor tithe,” which is given to the poor, is separated.

And we raise an objection: The priest receives the first fruits, and

granted

that what he separates because of the uncertainty as

“great teruma”

he gives to the priest,

because in either case these fruits must be given to a priest: whether they are first fruits or whether they are great teruma.

And if he separated because of the uncertainty for the

“second tithe,” he likewise gives it to the priest

to eat it in Jerusalem, and although “second tithe” is permitted to “non-priests,” who are not priests, these are doubtful first fruits, which are prohibited to non-priests.

And if he separated because of the uncertainty for the

“poor tithe,” he likewise gives it to a poor priest

who is fit to receive the “poor tithe.”

But

as for what he separated for the

“first tithe,”

the “first tithe”

belongs to a Levite, and to whom does he give it

? If he gives it to a priest, as the law of first fruits requires, perhaps it is “first tithe,” which is given to a Levite; and if he gives it to a Levite, as the law of “first tithe” requires, perhaps they are first fruits, which are given to a priest, and a Levite is prohibited from eating them

? And we answer:

that he gives it to a kohen,

since even a “first tithe” is given to a kohen,

in accordance with

the view of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

As it was taught

in a beraita:

“Teruma Gedola”

is given

to a kohen; “first tithe”

is given

to a Levite;

these are

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

disagrees and

says:

Even

“first tithe”

is given

to a kohen.

And

we ask: How can he bring these fruits without reciting “the declaration over the first fruits”?

Perhaps they are bikkurim, and require recitation!?

And we answer:

Recitation,

the saying of “the declaration over the first fruits,”

does not invalidate

the offering, and the bikkurim may be eaten by kohanim even if “the declaration over the first fruits” was not recited over them.

And we ask:

Is it not so

—is it indeed the case that “recitation” does not invalidate these fruits!?

A “meal-offering” brought on the altar consists of fine flour, into which oil is poured.

Ideally, it is a mitzva to mix the oil into the fine flour of the meal-offering, but this mixing does not invalidate the offering.

And

Rabbi

Zeira said:

With

every

meal-offering

that is fit

for

mixing,

that is, for mixing the oil into the fine flour, one whose quantity is no more than sixty se’a of flour, since up to this measure it can be mixed היטב in a single vessel,

the mixing does not invalidate it;

even if he did not mix the meal-offering, it is fit to be offered.

But one that is not fit for mixing,

when it is impossible to mix the meal-offering,

the mixing invalidates it,

and the meal-offering is invalid.

And similarly with regard to reciting “the declaration over the first fruits”:

Although this recitation does not invalidate the bringing of the bikkurim or their being permitted for consumption, these bikkurim, which are brought because of a doubt and over which it is impossible to recite “the declaration over the first fruits,” as will be explained below, are not fit for recitation; and with regard to anything that is not fit for recitation, recitation invalidates it. The difficulty is: How can he bring these bikkurim without reciting “the declaration over the first fruits” over them? If they are not fit for recitation, does recitation not invalidate them!?

And we answer:

He should perform them

for these bikkurim

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina;

the owner should cut and collect the fruits from the tree, and his agent should bring them to Jerusalem. The fruits will then certainly be exempt from “the declaration over the first fruits.”

For

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Bikkurim that

the owner cut

and

sent

to Jerusalem

by the hand of an agent,

the agent brings these fruits to the Temple courtyard, but does not recite “the declaration over the first fruits” over them.

And likewise, if the agent cut them and that agent led them to Jerusalem

and the agent died in the

middle of the

way,

the owner or another agent of the owner

brings

the bikkurim to the Temple courtyard

but does not recite

“the declaration over the first fruits” over them.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that these fruits are exempt from “the declaration over the first fruits”!?

As it is written [Deuteronomy 26:2]: “

“

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 put it in a basket and go to the place that the Lord your God will choose to establish His name there.”

But it should have said: “

And you shall bring

from your land” Why did the verse use such lengthy wording and say: “And you shall take … that you shall bring”!?