Gittin 22a — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: It is valid,

because

he removes it

the entire flowerpot

and gives it to her.

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

the leaf and give it to her; and behold, it is invalid, since it is lacking cutting from what is attached between the writing and the giving.

And since the Gemara brought one matter concerning a flowerpot, it brings additional matters concerning a flowerpot:

Two people who were partners in a perforated flowerpot, in which plants were growing, and the

flowerpot belonged to

one

person, and the

seeds

inside it

belonged to

another

person.

Behold, if

the owner of the flowerpot sold

the flowerpot

to the owner of the seeds, once he pulled

the flowerpot, and performed an acquisition by pulling

he acquired

it, because the flowerpot itself has the status of movable property, which is acquired by pulling.

But 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,

that he performs an acquisition of possession with them, that he digs or weeds them, because the seeds in the flowerpot are considered attached to the ground, and their status is that of land, which is acquired only by possession and not by pulling. [ And this is speaking of a case where he did not pay for them, for then he would acquire them through acquisition with money].

If the

flowerpot and

the

seeds

both

belonged to

one

person, and he sold them to

a

different person,

once

the buyer took possession

of

the seeds,

even though he did not perform any act of acquisition with the flowerpot, nevertheless he

acquired

also the

flowerpot

by virtue of the seeds.

And this is what we learned

in tractate Kiddushin:

Movable property,

movables [which the creditor does not rely upon, that he will be able to collect his debt from them when the debtor has nothing with which to pay, and therefore they are called “property without guarantee.” Whereas land is called “property with guarantee,” because the creditor relies upon it, since it exists and remains forever]

is acquired together with property with guarantee,

land, through an acquisition of “by virtue.” For when one acquires movable property and land from his fellow together, and performs upon the land one of the acts of acquisition applicable to it, namely

with money

or

with a document

or

with possession,

he thereby also acquires the movable property by virtue of the land.

And here too, he acquires the flowerpot by virtue of the seeds.

The buyer took possession

of the

flowerpot,

that he performed in it some labor for the purpose of acquisition by possession, without moving it from its place, and no pulling was performed with it; behold, not only did he not acquire the seeds, because he did not perform possession with them, but

even

the

flowerpot

also

he did not acquire.

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

Until he takes possession of the seeds,

and then he will acquire both of them, as stated above.

A perforated flowerpot standing at the boundary of the Land of Israel, and

its perforation is in the Land of Israel, while its foliage is outside the Land of Israel,

that its leaves lean outside the flowerpot and reach outside the Land of Israel—what is its status with regard to tithe? Is it obligated or exempt?

Abaye said: We follow its perforation,

for from there it draws nourishment, and it is as though it were in the Land of Israel, and it is obligated in tithe.

Rava said: We follow its foliage,

for it is outside the Land of Israel, and it is exempt from tithe.

And we explain:

When it has taken root,

when the flowerpot took root outside the perforation within the soil of the Land of Israel,

everyone

agrees

that we follow the perforation, for it is actually attached in the Land of Israel.

They disagree

Abaye and Rava

when it has not taken root

outside the perforation.

We raised an objection:

And

when

it has taken root, they do not disagree!?

For we find a tanna who holds that even when it has taken root, we follow the foliage!

And we learned

in tractate Bava Metzia:

Two gardens

adjacent, belonging to two people,

one above the other,

where one is 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 one,

the owner of the upper garden.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The vegetable belongs

to the lower one,

because we follow the foliage.

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

And we answer:

There

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

as its reason is taught,

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

Rabbi Meir said: What if the

upper one wishes

to remove his soil,

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

there is no vegetable here!

And therefore it belongs to him.

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

until the height of the upper one’s garden? Behold,

there is no vegetable here!

And the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is: since it is in the power of the lower one to prevent the vegetable from growing, it is found that he causes its growth, and therefore he acquires it—not because of the leaning of the foliage.

We raised an objection:

And still, when it has taken root, do they not disagree?

But it was taught in a beraita: A tree

that stands

partly in the Land

of

Israel and partly outside the Land,

then with regard to every fruit and fruit of the tree,

produce subject to tithes and untithed produce are mixed together.

For every fruit contains nourishment from both lands, and it has some part from the Land of Israel, which is produce subject to tithes, and some part from outside the Land, which is untithed produce.

And therefore, one may not separate from fully untithed produce for it, for that would be separating from the obligated for the exempt, nor from it for fully untithed produce, for that would be separating from the exempt for the obligated,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which grows in the obligated

within the Land of Israel

is obligated

in tithe.

And that which grows in the exempt,

outside the Land

is exempt

from tithe.

Is it not

that what we said, “partly in the Land and partly outside the Land,” means

part of its foliage is in the Land, and part of its foliage is outside the Land,

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

It follows that we follow the foliage even when it has taken root in a different place! And we answer:

No!

Rather, there were

some of the roots in the Land, and some of the roots outside the Land.

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 obligated is obligated, and that which grows in the exempt 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:

For a rock interrupts,

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

And

what is the reason of Rabbi?

For the branches reunite,

for from the trunk and upward, the tree is whole, and the nourishment from the two sides mixes.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

One master,

Rabbi,

holds: The air confuses.

Even though the roots beneath the ground are separated, when the tree emerges into the air above the ground it is mixed and confused, and therefore the fruits again draw nourishment from every side.

And one master,

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel,

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

Since the roots within the ground are separated by a rock that does not cause growth, the sap rising from the roots does not again mix; rather, this one rises opposite it, and that one rises opposite it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says

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

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

there are three stages in the process of processing hide.

Unprocessed, hifa, and diftera.

a.

Unprocessed—

as its meaning, neither salted, nor floured, nor treated with gall.

They did not place the hide in salt, nor in flour [and water], nor process it with gallnuts [which grow on trees and are used for processing hide]. That is, it was not processed at all, like this unprocessed state, which has not been fermented and has not been prepared like bread dough.

For what halakhic purpose?

With regard to what law is there a difference between the types of skins, and is there significance to a skin that is like “unprocessed”?

For carrying on Shabbat,

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

And how much is its measure,

of the unprocessed skin with regard to carrying on Shabbat?

As Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught: Enough to wrap

around

it a small weight.

For it was the practice of merchants to wrap the lead weight in a leather covering, so that the measure would not wear away and its weight decrease.

And how much

is the size of a “small weight”?

Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter,

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

of Pumbedita,

which was the smallest weight they had.

b.

Hifa—

it is skin

that is salted, but not floured and not treated with gall,

and it is a stage more advanced than the unprocessed state.

For what halakhic purpose?—

For carrying on Shabbat.

And how much is its measure?

As we learned

in tractate Shabbat:

Skin,

its measure for carrying is

enough to make

from it a pouch for a

amulet,

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

c.

Diftera—

salted and floured but not treated with gall.

For what halakhic purpose?—

For carrying on Shabbat.

And how much is its measure?—

Enough to write a get upon it,

in accordance with the opinion of the Sages in our Mishna, who validate a get written on diftera. And this measure is the smallest of them all.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages validate

a get written on erased paper and on diftera.

We raised an objection:

Who are the Sages?

Who are they, and why do they validate a get that can be forged?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said [

ben Pedat, the amora]: