Bava Batra 82a (פב.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, it comes for the purpose of exposition, and to teach you:

until the taking and bringing are performed by one person:

the one who takes, namely, the one who harvests the produce, is the one who brings it; the harvesting and the bringing to Jerusalem must therefore be performed by one and the same person.

And

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

there is not

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

He said—

he asked—

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

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

Now,

the Mikra Bikkurim

consists of verses,

so why can he not bring them in the ordinary manner and, due to the uncertainty that perhaps they are first fruits,

recite

the Mikra Bikkurim? What prohibition is there in reciting verses when there is uncertainty, like a person reading from the Torah!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi: It is impossible to permit him to recite the verses due to the uncertainty,

because it appears to be falsehood,

since he recites them in connection with bringing first fruits, but 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 due to the uncertainty, because we are concerned

lest

someone who sees him reciting the Mikra Bikkurim over them treat them as definitely valid first fruits

and come to exempt them from teruma and tithe,

as he will think that they are certainly exempt from terumot and tithes, like first fruits. Therefore, the Sages said: In a case of uncertainty, he may not recite the Mikra Bikkurim, so that people will not come to exempt them from terumot and tithes.

Therefore, he can bring them to the Temple courtyard only if he himself harvests the first fruits and has his agent bring them to the courtyard. In that case he is certainly exempt from the Mikra Bikkurim, and people will not confuse them with definitely valid first fruits; they will know that, due to the uncertainty, they are obligated in terumot and tithes.

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

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

but 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 branches growing from 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 in which they grew from the roots,

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

He said,

he explained:

Rabbi Yoḥanan: Any

branch that grows from the tree in a place

where

it

sees

the

face of

the

sun,

meaning that the place from which the branch emerges is above the ground,

this is—

what grows

from the trunk,

and it belongs to the owner of the tree.

And

any

that

emerges from beneath the surface of the ground, from a place

that does not see

the

face of

the

sun, this is—

what grows

from the roots,

and it belongs to the owner of the land.

It might have been thought that the owner of the tree is permitted to leave the branch that emerges from the tree, even if it emerges close to the ground, and is not obligated to cut it.

And

we raise an objection:

Let us be concerned lest,

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

the land accumulates silt,

the ground will become covered with earth, until even the place where the branches emerge from the tree is 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 me, and I have land,

as we learned: If one acquires three, he acquires land.

And why did the Sages not say that the owner of the tree must cut off what grows from the trunk, so that the purchaser could not claim that the land also belongs to him if the land accumulates silt and the tree and its branches come to look like three trees!?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rav Naḥman said:

The purchaser is not permitted to allow the branches to grow and develop. Indeed,

the purchaser must cut

what grows from the trunk. When they said that what grows from the trunk belongs to him, this was only with regard to his being entitled to use the branches as firewood.

And so Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He must cut

what grows from the trunk, and he may not leave it to grow and develop.

Rav Naḥman said: We have accepted,

we have received from our teachers: The purchaser of a

date palm

from another

does not have

ownership of the branches that emerge from the

trunk.

Rav Zevid thought

to say,

to explain what Rav Naḥman said:

He does not have

anything that emerges from the

trunk belonging to the owner of the date palm,

and the reason for this is

that since it stands to be dug up and uprooted

[the date palm is destined to be entirely uprooted together with its roots] when it dries out,

he diverts

the owner of the date palm

his mind

from what is destined to emerge from the trunk, because he thinks that perhaps the date palm will dry out soon, before the trunk has time to produce branches.

Rav Naḥman said this specifically with regard to a date palm, that the owner of the date palm has no rights to what emerges from the trunk. But with regard to other trees, the branches belong to the owner of the tree and not to the seller.

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

Rav Pappa challenged this: But in the case of one who purchases two trees,

which do not include land, when the trees dry out

these trees stand to be dug up and uprooted,

and

yet

it

is taught

in our Mishna

that he has the trunk,

as 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 another’s field has the right to what grows from the trunk. We do not say that the purchaser diverted his mind from branches that might grow from the trunks of the date palms and did not intend to purchase them from the seller. This is therefore difficult for 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 another

does not have the trunk belonging to the owner of the date palm

is

because,

as a rule,

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 is speaking about trees that ordinarily produce branches from the trunk,

and not about a date palm. Since it is uncommon for branches to emerge from the trunk of a date palm, and whatever the purchaser does not anticipate is not included in his purchase, it remains with the seller. And

we raise an objection:

According to the understanding of

Rav Zevid

of Rav Naḥman’s words,

our Mishna is difficult:

How will he interpret the Mishna? It speaks about all trees whose usual manner is to produce shoots from the trunk, and therefore also about one who purchases a date palm. Why, according to Rav Naḥman, does what emerges from the trunk belong to him!?

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

purchases

the trees

for five years,

because during those five years the land is subordinated to the purchaser. Even if the tree dries out and dies, the purchaser is permitted to plant another in its place.

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

But one who purchases a date palm without specifying a term certainly diverts his mind from it, since even if it dies after a day or two, the purchaser will be obligated to uproot his tree. Therefore, the purchaser does not have in mind branches that grow from the tree’s trunk.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one acquires three— he acquires land. And

If he acquired three,

he acquired land.

the Gemara asks:

How much

land did the purchaser acquire?

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

a. The land

beneath them,

beneath the bases of the trees and their branches.

b. And the land between them, the exposed ground between the branches of this tree and those of that tree.

and beyond them -

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