Gittin 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: It is valid

because

he takes it

along with the entire flowerpot

and gives it to her.

Rava said: It is invalid, as a decree lest he cut off

the leaf and give it to her; and it is therefore invalid, since it lacks cutting off something attached to the ground between the writing and the giving.

Since the Gemara has brought one matter concerning a flowerpot, it brings additional matters concerning a flowerpot:

Two people were partners in a perforated flowerpot in which plants were growing. The

flowerpot belonged to

one

person, and the

seeds

inside it

belonged to

another

person.

Now, if

the owner of the flowerpot sold

the flowerpot

to the owner of the seeds, once

the owner of the seeds pulled the flowerpot and performed an act of acquisition by pulling

he acquired

it, because the flowerpot itself is considered movable property, which is acquired by pulling.

However, if

the owner of the seeds sold

the seeds

to the owner of

the

flowerpot, he did not acquire

the seeds

until he takes possession of the seeds,

performing an act of acquisition through possession—by tilling them or weeding them—because the seeds in the flowerpot are considered attached to the ground and have the status of land, which is acquired only through possession and not through pulling. [ And this is referring to a case in which he did not pay for them, because otherwise he would acquire them through acquisition by payment].

If the

flowerpot and

the

seeds

were both

of

one

person, and he sold them to

another

person, once

the

buyer took possession

of the

seeds,

even though he performed no act of acquisition concerning the flowerpot, nevertheless

he acquired

the

flowerpot

along with the seeds.

And this is what we learned

in tractate Kiddushin:

Movable property,

movable property [which the creditor does not rely upon as something from which he will be able to collect his debt when the debtor has nothing with which to pay, and therefore it is called “property without guarantee”; whereas land is called “property with guarantee,” because the creditor relies upon it, since it exists and endures forever]

is acquired together with property with guarantee,

land, through acquisition by “along with.” When one purchases movable property and land from another together, and performs on the land one of the acts of acquisition applicable to it, namely

payment

or

a document

or

possession,

he thereby also acquires the movable property along with the land.

Here too, he acquires the flowerpot along with the seeds.

If the buyer took possession

of the

flowerpot,

performing some act of labor in it for the purpose of acquisition through possession, without moving it from its place, and no pulling was performed, then not only did he not acquire the seeds, since he did not perform an act of possession concerning them, but

even

the

flowerpot

also

he did not acquire.

Because the flowerpot is movable property, and movable property is not acquired through possession.

Until he takes possession of the seeds,

at which point he acquires both of them, as stated above.

A perforated flowerpot standing at the border of Eretz Yisrael, whose

perforation is in Eretz Yisrael, while its foliage is outside Eretz Yisrael,

meaning that its leaves extend outside the flowerpot and reach outside Eretz Yisrael—what is its status with regard to tithe? Is it obligated or exempt?

Abaye said: We follow the perforation,

since that is from where it draws nourishment, and it is considered as though it is in Eretz Yisrael; therefore, it is obligated in tithe.

Rava said: We follow its foliage,

which is outside Eretz Yisrael, and it is exempt from tithe.

And we explain:

When it took root,

meaning that the flowerpot took root outside the perforation, within the soil of Eretz Yisrael,

everyone

agrees

that we follow the perforation, since it is actually attached to Eretz Yisrael.

They disagree

Abaye and Rava

when it did not take root

outside the perforation.

We raised an objection:

But

if

when it took root they do not disagree?!

Yet we find a tanna who maintains that even when it took root, we follow the foliage!

And we learned

in tractate Bava Metzia:

Two gardens

belonging to two people that are adjacent,

one above the other,

with one higher than the other,

and a vegetable

grows

in between,

between the two gardens, with its roots emerging from the upright wall of the upper garden and its foliage leaning into the airspace of the lower garden.

Rabbi Meir says:

The vegetable belongs

to the upper

garden, the owner of the upper garden.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The vegetable belongs

to the lower

garden, because we follow the foliage.

It follows that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, we follow the foliage even when it took root in the upper garden!

And we answer:

There

Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is not that we follow the foliage, but rather

as its reason is explicitly stated,

since the Mishna there explains the reasons of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda:

Rabbi Meir said: What if

the

upper owner wishes to remove his soil,

and level his garden until it is even with the lower garden? Then

there is no vegetable here!

Therefore, it belongs to him.

Rabbi Yehuda said: What if the lower owner wishes to fill his garden with soil,

until it reaches the height of the upper garden? Then

there is no vegetable here!

Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is that, since the lower owner can prevent the vegetable from growing, he is considered the cause of its growth and therefore acquires it—not because of the direction in which the foliage leans.

We raised an objection:

But still, do they not disagree when it took root?

Was it not taught in a beraita: A tree

that stands

partly in Eretz Yisrael

and

partly outside Eretz Yisrael,

then, with regard to every fruit of the tree,

produce subject to tithe and non-sacred produce are intermingled in it.

For every fruit contains nourishment from both lands: it contains some element from Eretz Yisrael, which is produce subject to tithe, and some element from outside Eretz Yisrael, which is non-sacred produce.

Therefore, one may not separate from completely tithed produce on its behalf, since that would be separating from produce subject to the obligation on behalf of exempt produce; nor may one separate from it on behalf of completely tithed produce, since that would be separating from exempt produce on behalf of produce subject to the obligation,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which grows in the place of obligation

within Eretz Yisrael

is obligated

in tithe.

And that which grows in the place of exemption,

outside Eretz Yisrael,

is exempt

from tithe.

Is it not

what we said, “partly in Eretz Yisrael and partly outside Eretz Yisrael,” referring to

part of its foliage in Eretz Yisrael and part of its foliage outside Eretz Yisrael,

while as for the roots, it makes no difference where they are, whether they are all in Eretz Yisrael or outside Eretz Yisrael?

It follows that we follow the foliage even when it took root in another place! And we answer:

No!

Rather, there were

some roots in Eretz Yisrael and some roots outside Eretz Yisrael.

For we follow the roots and not the foliage.

We raised an objection: If so,

what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel?

What does it mean to say, “That which grows in the place of obligation is obligated, and that which grows in the place of exemption is exempt”? For every fruit draws nourishment and receives sap both from the roots on this side and from the roots on the other side!

And we answer:

A rocky layer interrupts,

a rock ledge separates the roots in the middle, up to the trunk, and each side of the roots sends sap only to the fruits opposite it.

And

what is the reason of Rabbi?

Because the branches reunite,

for above the trunk the tree is whole, and the nourishment from the two sides mingles.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

One master,

Rabbi,

maintains: The air confuses them.

Although the roots beneath the ground are separated, when the tree emerges into the air above the ground, it is mixed and intermingled; therefore, the fruits once again draw nourishment from every side.

And the other master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel,

maintains: This one stands by itself, and that one stands by itself.

Since the roots are separated within the ground by a rock that does not produce growth, the sap rising from the roots does not mingle; rather, this rises opposite this side, and that rises opposite that side.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says

that one may not write, and so forth, on diftera.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Asi said in the name of Ulla: There are three types of leather,

there are three stages in the process of preparing leather.

Matzah, haifa, and diftera.

1.

Matzah—

as its name indicates: neither salted, nor treated with flour, nor treated with gallnut.

The leather was treated neither with salt, nor with flour [and water], nor with astringents [which grow on trees and are used in processing leather]. That is, it was not processed at all; it is like matzah, which has not fermented and has not been prepared like bread.

For what halakhic purpose?

With regard to which law is there a distinction between the types of leather, and what significance is there to leather that is like “matzah”?

With regard to carrying on Shabbat,

for each type has a different measure with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering for carrying it from one domain to another on Shabbat: the more important it is, the smaller its measure, and “matzah” leather is the least important.

And what is its measure

for matzah leather with regard to carrying on Shabbat?

As Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught: Enough to wrap

and cover

a small weight with it.

Merchants would wrap a leaden weight in a leather covering so that it would not wear down and lose some of its weight.

And how much

is the size of “a small weight”?

Abaye said: One quarter of a quarter,

like one quarter of a quarter-pound [Rashi in tractate Shabbat]

of Pumbedita,

which was the smallest weight they had.

2.

Haifa—

it is leather

that was salted but not treated with flour and not treated with gallnut,

and it is a more advanced stage than matzah.

For what halakhic purpose?—

With regard to carrying on Shabbat.

And what is its measure?

As we learned

in tractate Shabbat:

Leather,

its measure for carrying is

enough to make

from it a case for a

talisman,

and this is less than enough to wrap a small weight.

3.

Diftera—

it was salted and treated with flour but not treated with gallnut.

For what halakhic purpose?—

With regard to carrying on Shabbat.

And what is its measure?—

Enough to write a bill of divorce on it,

in accordance with the opinion of the Sages in our Mishna, who deem valid a bill of divorce written on diftera. This measure is the smallest of all.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages deem valid

a bill of divorce written on erased paper or on diftera.

We raised an objection:

Who are the Sages?

Who are they, and why do they deem valid a bill of divorce that can be forged?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said

[ben Pedat, the amora]: