Bava Batra 81b — the Talmud in English

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

who said

with

a purchaser

one tree:

he brings but does not recite—!?

And what is the reason of the Sages

who said

with

a purchaser

two trees:

he brings but does not recite—!?

For, in either event, if he does not recite 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? For from the very place from which you came to limit the recitation, you should also limit the basic obligation of bringing them—!?

Rabbi Eleazar said to him:

Rabbi Eleazar:

this

matter

that

the earlier authorities have already labored over

it

and

have not stated a reason for it

it is likely that I too will not know the reason for the matter; and will you

ask me in the beit-midrash,

a place where the many are present,

in order to embarrass me!?

?

Rabba said,

wondering,

Rabba:

and is

what difficulty

is it, and what wonder is there in the matter—!?

Perhaps, according to Rabbi Meir, with

a purchaser

one tree, it is uncertain to him,

whether he acquired land or not.

And according to the Sages, with

a purchaser

two trees,

it is uncertain to them,

whether he acquired land or not.

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

And we raise an objection:

And is it uncertain to him

to Rabbi Meir in this matter—!?

But was it not taught in a beraita:

in a beraita: One who purchases one tree within his fellow’s property brings but does not recite

because he did not acquire land; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

implying that Rabbi Meir holds with certainty that one who purchases one tree does not acquire land.

If so, it is difficult: why must he bring 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,

because perhaps he did not acquire land,

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

And although he must bring First Fruits, because perhaps one who purchases one tree within his fellow’s property did acquire land, nevertheless we teach that he did not acquire land, since because of the uncertainty we do not remove the land from the seller, and his hand is uppermost.

It is forbidden 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 will choose to place His Name there is far from you, then you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock which 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. But just as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so may you eat it; the impure and the pure together may eat it.” And we expound: “When the place is far from you—and you shall slaughter”: when the place is far, 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 was the slaughter of unconsecrated animals forbidden, but every bringing of unconsecrated property is forbidden.

And

we raise an objection: If they are indeed “doubtful First Fruits,” as Rabba said,

let us be concerned that perhaps they are not First Fruits,

and it follows that he

is bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard!?

And we answer:

He consecrates them

because of the doubt, and on condition that: if they are First Fruits, they come into the Temple courtyard according to their law; and if they are not First Fruits, they are sacred with “sanctity of value,” with which to purchase an offering.

And

we raise an objection: How can he consecrate them,

for he must eat them

because of the doubt, according to the law of First Fruits, which are eaten by a priest like teruma, and if they are not First Fruits, they are sacred 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 consecrated property, and the fruits are eaten by the priests.

And we raise an objection:

And perhaps they are not First Fruits, and

how

does he exempt them from teruma and tithes,

and will the priests eat them while they are tevel—!?

And we answer:

He separates them,

he takes the portion suitable for teruma and the tithe and says: If these fruits are not First Fruits, this is for teruma and this is for the tithe.

Grain and fruits that grow in the Land of Israel are obligated in terumot and tithes. "

Teruma” is given to a priest and the “First Tithe” to a Levite. In years 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Sabbatical cycle, the “Second Tithe” is separated, which is eaten in Jerusalem; and in years 3 and 6 the “Poor Man’s Tithe” is separated, which is given to the poor.

And we raise an objection: Is it not the priest who receives the fruits of the First Fruits, and

granted that

what he separates because of the doubt for

“the Great Teruma

he gives to the priest,

for in either event these fruits must be given to a priest, whether they are First Fruits or whether they are the Great Teruma.

And if he separated because of the doubt for

“the Second Tithe,” he likewise gives it to the priest,

so that he may eat it in Jerusalem, and although the “Second Tithe” is permitted to zarim, who are not priests, these are doubtful First Fruits, which are forbidden to zarim.

And if he separated because of the doubt for

“the Poor Man’s Tithe,” he likewise gives it to a poor priest

for he is fit to receive “the Poor Man’s Tithe.”

But

what he separated for

“the First Tithe,”

is not the “First Tithe”

the Levite’s, and to whom shall he give it,

if he gives it to a priest, as is the law of First Fruits, perhaps it is the “First Tithe,” which is given to a Levite; and if he gives it to a Levite, as is the law of the “First Tithe,” perhaps they are First Fruits, which are given to a priest, and the Levite is forbidden to eat them—!?

And we answer:

that he gives it to a priest,

since even the “first tithe” is given to a priest

in accordance with the

opinion of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

For it was taught

in a beraita:

“The great teruma”

is given

to a priest; “the first tithe”

is given

to a Levite;

these are

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

disagrees and

says:

Even

“the first tithe”

is given

to a priest.

And

we question: How does he bring these fruits and not recite “the declaration over the first fruits”?

Perhaps they are first fruits, and require recitation!?

And we answer:

Recitation,

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

does not invalidate,

and the first fruits are permitted for consumption by priests even if “the declaration over the first fruits” was not recited over them.

And we question:

Is it not so

that “recitation” indeed does not invalidate these fruits!?

A “meal-offering” brought upon the altar comes from fine flour, and oil is poured into it.

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

And

Rabbi Zeira

said:

With

every

meal-offering

that is fit

for

mixing,

for mixing the oil into the fine flour, which contains no more than sixty seahs of flour, since up to this measure it is fit to be mixed well in one 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 there is no possibility of mixing the meal-offering,

the mixing invalidates it,

and the meal-offering is invalid.

And likewise regarding the recitation of “the declaration over the first fruits”:

Indeed, this recitation does not invalidate the bringing of the first fruits or the permissibility of eating them. But these first fruits, which are brought because of a doubt, and concerning which it is impossible to recite “the declaration over the first fruits,” as he explains below, are not fit for recitation; and anything that is not fit for recitation—recitation invalidates it. And one may challenge: How can he bring these first fruits without reciting “the declaration over the first fruits” over them? Is it not the case that if they are not fit for recitation, recitation invalidates them!?

And we answer:

He performs them,

for these first fruits,

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina;

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

For

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina

said: First fruits that

the owner

cut

and sent

to Jerusalem by the hand of an agent,

he brings these fruits to the Temple courtyard and does not recite “the declaration over the first fruits” over them.

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

and the agent died in

the middle of the

way,

then the owner, or another agent of the owner,

brings

the first fruits to the Temple courtyard

and does not recite

over them “the declaration over the first fruits.”

And we explain:

What is the reason

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

For it is written [Deuteronomy 26:2]:

“

And you shall take

from the first of every fruit of the earth that you bring from your land, which 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 cause His Name to dwell there.”

But it should have said:

“And you shall bring

from your land” and why did the verse lengthen its wording and say: “And you shall take, etc., which you bring”!?