Bava Batra 82a — the Talmud in English

Rather, it comes for a derivation, and to tell you:

until the taking and bringing are together

, the one who takes is the one who harvests the produce; he brings it. The harvesting and the bringing must be performed by one person specifically, until Jerusalem. Rashbam explained it thus. According to this, if he harvested them and sent them by the hand of an agent, he does not recite, even if the agent did not die. Therefore, Rashbam explained that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina spoke about two cases. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with Rashbam and explains that “taking” means taking from the house, and it makes no difference who harvested the produce. b. It is implied by Rashbam that from the time of harvesting until he brings it to Jerusalem [that is, the Temple—“Eilat HaShachar”] it must be with one person. Ramban wrote that only taking from the house and bringing to the Temple Mount are required, but midway along the route it makes no difference whether he brings it himself or through another; see also Rashba and Ritva. a. If the agent harvested them and brought them to Jerusalem, the owner may recite Mikra Bikkurim and say, “Behold, I have brought” and so forth, for a person’s agent is like himself. [But the agent himself cannot recite Mikra Bikkurim and say, “Which You, Hashem, have given me.”] Rashbam and Tosafot wrote, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, that if the agent brings them, the owner does not recite. c. Tosafot wrote: specifically, if he originally harvested them with the intention of sending them through an agent, he may bring them without recitation; but if he harvested them with the intention of bringing them himself, the obligation of recitation has already taken effect upon them. Since he cannot recite, for the taking and the bringing were not together, he should not bring these first fruits to the Temple courtyard, but should leave them until they rot. [From Rashbam’s words concerning a case where an agent harvested them and died on the way, it is implied that he may bring them without recitation, even though at the outset the produce had been designated for recitation. See also Ritva, Maimonides, Bikkurim 4:13, and Or Sameaḥ there.]

And

if he harvested them himself and sent them by the hand of an agent, or if an agent harvested them and led them on the road to Jerusalem, and the agent died on the way, and the owners bring them,

there is not

taking and bringing by one person. Therefore, he brings but does not recite.

He said

, he asked,

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi

: Why must the taking and the bringing be performed by two people in order for him to be exempt from recitation!?

Now

, Mikra Bikkurim

are verses

, so why can he not bring them in his usual manner, and, because of the doubt—perhaps they are first fruits—

let him recite

Mikra Bikkurim? What prohibition is there in reciting verses because of a doubt, like a person reading from the Torah!?

He said to him

Rav Ashi: It is impossible to permit him to recite the verses because of the doubt,

because it appears as falsehood

, for he recites them on account of bringing first fruits, yet perhaps the produce did not grow in his land, and he is therefore lying. And it is stated [Psalms 101:7]: “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before My eyes.”

Rav Mesharsheya, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said

: We do not permit him to recite the verses because of the doubt, for we are concerned

lest

someone who sees him reciting over them Mikra Bikkurim, as though they were certain first fruits,

come to exempt them from teruma and tithe

, because he will think that they are certainly exempt from terumot and tithes, like first fruits. Therefore, the Sages said: Because of the doubt, he may not recite Mikra Bikkurim, so that people should not come to exempt them from terumot and tithes.

Therefore, he cannot bring them to the Temple courtyard except by harvesting the first fruits himself and having his agent bring them to the Temple courtyard. Then he is certainly exempt from Mikra Bikkurim, and people will not mistake them for certain first fruits, and they will know that, because of the doubt, they are obligated in terumot and tithes.

We learned in the Mishna: One who purchases two trees within his fellow’s field has not acquired land.

If they grew larger, he may not cut them back,

and what grows from the trunk belongs to him, while what grows from the roots belongs to the owner of the land.

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

in which these branches that grow on the tree are considered to have grown

from the trunk

, and therefore belong to the purchaser, the owner of the tree;

and what are the circumstances of “from the roots,”

and therefore they belong to the seller, the owner of the land?

He said

, he explained,

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Every

growth from the tree, at the place

that

it

sees

the

face

of the

sun,

meaning that the place from which the branch emerged is outside the ground,

this is

the growth

from the trunk,

and it belongs to the owner of the tree.

And

every

that

branch that emerged beneath the surface of the ground, from a place that

does not see

the

face

of the

sun, this is

the growth

from the roots,

and it belongs to the owner of the land.

It might have entered our minds that the owner of the tree is permitted to leave the branch emerging from the tree, even if the branch emerged close to the ground, and he is not obligated to cut it.

And

we raise an objection:

Let us be concerned lest

, after two branches emerged from the tree close to the ground,

the land rise as silt,

the ground will become covered with earth, until even the place where the branches emerged from the tree will be covered, and when the branches grow they will appear to be three trees.

And he said to him

the purchaser said to the seller:

Three

trees

you sold to me, and I have land,

as we learned: One who acquires three acquires land.

And why did the Sages not say: The owner of the tree must cut the growth from the trunk, so that the purchaser will not be able to claim that the land too is his, if the land rises as silt and the tree and its branches appear to be three trees!?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rav Naḥman said

: The purchaser is not permitted to leave the branches to grow and develop; indeed,

he must cut

the growth from the trunk. And when they said that what grows from the trunk belongs to him, it was only with regard to his being able to use the branches for firewood.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said: He must cut

the growth from the trunk, and he may not leave it so that it will grow and develop.

Rav Naḥman said: We have received,

we have received from our teachers: One who purchases a

date palm

from his fellow

has no

ownership of the branches that emerge from the

trunk.

Rav Zevid thought

to say,

to explain what Rav Naḥman said,

he has no

claim to what emerges from the

trunk for the owner of the date palm,

for the reason for the matter is

since he stands to be dug up and uprooted

[the date palm is destined to be uprooted completely with its roots] when it dries, therefore

he diverts

the owner of the date palm

his mind

from what is destined to emerge from the trunk, for he thinks that perhaps the date palm will dry quickly and the trunk will not suffice to produce branches.

Rav Naḥman said that specifically in the case of a date palm the owner of the date palm has no claim to what emerges from the trunk; but with other trees, the branches belong to the owner of the date palm and not to the seller.

The reason for the distinction is: With other trees, even if their tops dry, he can cut them lower down, and they will grow again, for “their trunks regenerate”; but a date palm—once its top has dried, there is no remedy for it, for “its trunk does not regenerate.” Therefore, he despairs of what emerges from the trunk and did not intend to purchase it.

Rav Pappa challenged him: But one who purchases two trees, who

has no land, and when the trees dry

these trees stand to be dug up and uprooted,

these trees

and

nevertheless it

teaches

in the Mishna

that he has the trunk,

for we learned: What grows from the trunk belongs to him.

But our Mishna did not distinguish between a date palm and other trees. It follows that even one who purchases two date palms within his fellow’s field has the trunk, and we do not say that the purchaser diverted his mind from the branches that would emerge from the trunks of the date palms and did not intend to purchase them from the seller. This is a difficulty against Rav Naḥman, who says: A date palm has no trunk!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said

: The reason for Rav Naḥman’s statement that one who purchases a date palm from his fellow

has no trunk for the owner of the date palm

is

because

usually

it is not

the way of a date palm to

produce

anything from the

trunk

; rather, all its branches grow above its top.

Therefore, the purchaser diverted his mind from the branches, and even if it happens that a branch emerges from the trunk, it belongs to the owner of the land.

But our Mishna speaks of trees that commonly produce branches from the trunk, and not of a date palm, for with a date palm it is uncommon for branches to emerge from the trunk. Whatever the purchaser does not take into account, he does not acquire, and it remains with the seller.

And

we raise an objection:

According to

the understanding of

Rav Zevid

concerning Rav Naḥman’s words,

the Mishna is difficult

: How will the Mishna be interpreted according to him? The Mishna speaks about all trees whose way it is to produce branches, and also about one who purchases a date palm. Why, according to Rav Naḥman, does what grows from the trunk belong to him!?

And we answer: Rav Zevid will interpret the Mishna as referring to one who

purchases

the trees

for five years,

for then the land is bound to the purchaser throughout all five years, and even if the tree dries and dies, the purchaser is permitted to plant another in its place.

Therefore, the purchaser does not divert his mind from what emerges from the trunk, since the land is bound to him for a fixed period.

But one who purchases a date palm without specification certainly diverts his mind, for even if it dies after a day or two, the purchaser will be obligated to uproot his tree. Therefore, the purchaser’s mind is not directed toward branches that grow from the tree’s trunk. We learned in the Mishna:

One who acquires three

—

acquires land. And

the Gemara asks:

How much

land did the purchaser acquire?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He acquired this:

a. The land

beneath them,

beneath the bases of the trees and their branches. b. And between them: the exposed land that is between the branches of this tree and that tree.

and outside them -

around the trees, from the place where their branches end and outward.