Gittin 47b — the Talmud in English

Every fruit that grew in the same field,

tithe-produce and non-tithe produce are mixed with one another,

for every single fruit contains mixed within it the portion of the gentile, which is exempt from the tithe, and the portion of the Israelite, who is obligated in the tithe,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If the Israelite and the gentile divided the produce, then that produce

of the gentile

[which came to the gentile’s portion] is

exempt

from the tithe [and even if the Israelite purchased it from him before the smoothing, and the Israelite smoothed it], whereas that

of the Israelite,

[produce that came to the Israelite’s portion,] is

obligated

in the tithe, as he explains the reason and proceeds.

Only up to this point do they disagree—

Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

but:

One Master—

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

holds: there is retroactive clarification,

meaning: the matter is retroactively established, that the particular fruit that fell to each one’s portion was already his portion from the outset.

And the other Master—

Rabbi—

holds: there is no retroactive clarification.

But according to everyone, a gentile has acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of the tithe,

for according to everyone the gentile’s portion is exempt from the tithe; and this is difficult for Rabbah, who does not hold so!? And we answer:

here too, [the case is] in Syria, and he holds

that even the tanna of this beraita [holds]:

the conquest of an individual is not called a conquest.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin said: Come and hear

from our Mishna that a gentile has acquisition to remove [produce] from the obligation of the tithe and first fruits:

For we learned:

One who sells his field to a gentile,

the seller

purchases

[he is obligated to purchase] from the gentile the first fruits of his produce,

and brings

them

as first fruits

to Jerusalem,

because of the betterment of the world.

It follows:

because of the betterment of the world, there is no

indeed, he is obligated to purchase the first fruits from him and bring them to Jerusalem, but

by Torah law, there is not.

You have therefore learned that a gentile has acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of the tithe and first fruits, for if this were not so, the seller would by law be obligated to take the first fruits from the gentile and bring them to Jerusalem; whereas in our Mishna we learned that it is only because of the betterment of the world.

He said

he answered,

Rav Ashi: There were two enactments:

That is to say: Indeed, the essential obligation to bring the first fruits is not a mere enactment of the Sages and because of the betterment of the world, for by Torah law he is obligated in them; rather, at first the Sages removed the mitzva of first fruits from the field as a safeguard, and then they restored the matter to its original state because of the betterment of the world, as the Gemara explains and proceeds:

The first enactment, exempting them from first fruits:

At first they would bring [them] by Torah law

[at the beginning they would bring first fruits from such a field according to Torah law], since a gentile has no acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of the tithe and first fruits—

But

when they saw

the Sages

that he was happening

[the expression “happening”]

and selling

[the Israelites were lenient with themselves to sell their fields in the Land of Israel to a gentile, and to transgress “You shall not show them favor”],

and

because

they thought

the world: Behold,

they remain in their sanctity

[they remain in their sanctity], for they bring first fruits from it, and we are not punished for selling them to a gentile—

Therefore

they enacted for them

the Sages as a safeguard,

that they should not bring

[that they should not bring first fruits from such a field]; and this is the first enactment that exempted them from first fruits.

The second enactment, obligating them in first fruits:

When they saw

the Sages

that one for whom it is not sufficient sells

[he sells to a gentile],

and

in the end

the fields become sunk

the fields

in the possession of

the

gentiles—

They again enacted for them

the Sages, and restored the matter to its original state,

that they should bring

first fruits from it, so that he would trouble himself and redeem it from the gentile; and this is the second enactment that restored them to the Torah law, obligating them in first fruits.

It was stated:

One who sells his field for “

produce”

only, so that the purchaser may eat its produce until a certain time, and the land will return to its owners:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He brings

the purchaser brings first fruits from this field, which was acquired by him only for its produce,

and

also

recites

over them the “recitation of the first fruits.”

And because “

acquisition of produce”—

which he has in the field—“

is considered like acquisition of the body,”

and he can say in the recitation of the first fruits: “And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the soil that You, O Lord, have given me.”

Resh Lakish said: He brings

the purchaser brings first fruits,

and

however

he does not recite

over them the “recitation of the first fruits,” because since he has in the field only “acquisition of produce,” I do not call this field “which You, O Lord, have given me”—

And because “

acquisition of produce”—

which he has in it—“

is not considered like acquisition of the body.”

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish,

who holds: One who sells his field for produce brings but does not recite:

From that which was taught: It is written in the passage of first fruits: “And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord your God has given you and your household,” and therefore Scripture said: “

and your household,”

teaches: A person brings his wife’s first fruits,

first fruits from a field that his wife brought to him as “property of usufruct,” in which he has only acquisition of produce,

and recites “recitation of the first fruits.”

It follows that the “acquisition of produce” that the husband has in the field is sufficient for him to bring first fruits and recite!?

And we answer:

That case is different—

in the field of his wife—because

it is written: “

and your household,”

to include [it]; and, on the contrary, from the fact that Scripture needed to teach us that he brings first fruits from his wife’s field, we learn that “acquisition of produce is not considered like acquisition of the body.”

And some say: Resh Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds: One who sells his field for produce brings and recites:

For it was taught: It is written in the passage of first fruits: “

and your household,”

teaches: A person brings his wife’s first fruits, and recites!?

It follows:

There—

in the field of his wife—

he

brings and recites because

it is written, “and your household”,

but elsewhere,

in another field in which he has only [the right to] produce,

not

does he recite.

We have therefore learned that one who sells his field for produce brings but does not recite.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Resh Lakish:

My reason also

[the reason for my position, that one who sells his field for produce brings and recites,] is

from here—

from this verse it is that I

say

it [I learned it from here], for Scripture taught, in the case of his wife’s field, that his acquisition in it is considered like acquisition of the body, and the same applies to every other acquisition of produce.

He raised an objection

to Resh Lakish, who says: One who sells his field for produce brings but does not recite:

If he was coming on the way

to Jerusalem,

and his wife’s first fruits

[first fruits from usufruct property that his wife brought to him]

were in his hand, and he heard

on the way

that his wife had died,

then he

brings

those first fruits that were in his hand

and recites

over them, for he inherited the body of the land, and we read in that field at the time of the recitation: “the soil that You, O Lord, have given me.”

And it implies: If his wife

died

before he brought [them],

yes,

indeed he recites the “recitation of the first fruits,” but if she

did not die,

and he has in the field only acquisition of produce,

not

does he recite, and this is difficult for Resh Lakish!?

And we answer:

The same law applies: even though she did not die

his wife, he recites; and what is difficult for you—if so, why did we learn: “and he heard that his wife had died”? “

And she died”

was necessary for him

[there is a novelty in the matter], because

it might enter your mind to say: Let us decree—

in this situation, where at the time of taking the produce from the field the field belonged to his wife, and by the time of bringing it the field had become his—that he should not recite the recitation of the first fruits, as a decree

because of Rabbi Yose bar Hanina!

For Rabbi Yose bar Hanina said:

Rabbi Yose bar Hanina’s words are explained here as the Rashbam explained them in Bava Batra 81b.

If he harvested them

the first fruits of his field,

and sent them

to Jerusalem

by the hand of an agent.

Or the agent harvested them,

and the agent died on the way,

and the owner of the field himself came to bring them.

He

brings but does not recite, as it is stated: “

And you shall take, and you shall bring,”

that is, it is written: “And you shall take from the first of every fruit of the soil that you shall bring from your land,” and it should have said only: “And you shall bring from your land”; why did Scripture need to mention the taking?

Rather, to teach:

until the taking is

from the field, that is, harvesting,

and the bringing is by one

person.

Therefore, when he harvested them and the agent brought them, the owner of the house does not recite; and likewise, if the agent harvested them and died, and the owner of the house brings them, the owner of the house does not recite. But if the agent harvested them and the agent himself brought them, then the owner of the house recites, because the harvesting and the bringing were by one [person]. [But the agent never recites, even if he harvested them and brought them himself].

And here too, since at the time of harvesting the field belonged to the woman, and at the time of bringing it belonged to him, this is like a case in which the taking and the bringing were not by one [person], and I would have said that he should not recite.

It teaches us

the beraita that nevertheless he brings and recites; but the reason for the recitation is not “because” his wife died, but “even though” his wife died.

And they proceeded

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

according to their own positions

[Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish followed their positions in this disagreement, according to their dispute concerning a similar matter elsewhere].