Pesachim 52b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

They eat

the dates that are in the house

on

the basis of the dates that are found in the field

of the house of the beams

[that are found on the date-palm fronds] available to the animal in the field.

But,

they do not eat

the dates that are in the house

on

the basis of the dates

of the house of the thorns

[that are found among the thorns at the bottom of the palm], since the animal cannot take them from there because of the thorns.

And in this also they disagree in the Mishna.

The first tanna holds that only if they have been exhausted even from among the thorns is one obligated to remove them. But as long as they are found there, even if they have been exhausted from the house of the beams, one is not obligated to remove them.

And Rabbi Judah holds that we require them to be found in the house of the beams, but when they are found in the house of the thorns, we do not apply to it “as long as an animal eats from the field,” because of the thorns. And this is what Rabbi Judah says: Go out and bring for yourself also from a place suitable for taking them, and you will not find them in the house of the thorns, from which it is impossible to take them.

We learned there: There are three lands

in the Land of Israel, which are divided

with regard to

the time of

removal

of Sabbatical-year produce. And these are:

The land of

Judea. And

the land of

the Transjordan and

the land of

the Galilee.

And there are three lands

имеются

in each and every one

of these lands.

For each of them is composed of three lands, whose time of exhaustion for the animal from the field differs from one to the other.

And since there are three lands for each one, there are here nine lands.

If so,

why did they say

that there are

three lands for removal

and no more?

Because the time of removal in the three lands within that land is one.

For

still

they will eat in each and every one

of them, even after it has already been exhausted there for the animal from the field,

until it is exhausted

from the

last place in it,

of its three lands.

And this means that they treated all three lands as one land with regard to removal. But Judea, the Galilee, and the Transjordan are three divided lands. And if the produce has been exhausted in one, they are obligated in it in removal, even though it has not yet been exhausted in the other.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where are these words

that one eats in Judea until it is exhausted in the last place in it, but one does not eat in Judea on the basis of the produce of the Galilee when it has not yet been exhausted?

Rav Hama bar Ukva said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina: The verse says, “And for your animal and for the animal that is in your land

all its produce shall be for eating” —

as long as an animal eats from the field,

you too

feed the animal

from the produce

that is in the house.

But if already

the produce has been exhausted

для

for the animal that is in the field,

you too

exhaust

the produce intended to be fed

to your animal from the house.

And we have received as tradition

a tradition from our fathers,

that an animal that is in Judea does not subsist on produce that is in the Galilee.

Because it does not move so far from its place to seek its food.

And

so too

an animal that is in the Galilee does not subsist on produce that is in Judea.

Therefore, once it has been exhausted in Judea, we no longer apply to it “and for the animal that is in your land,” even though there is still [produce] in the Galilee. And likewise the opposite.

But in Judea itself, even though the produce has been exhausted from this place, produce is still found in another place. For the animals wander from land to land within that land, to seek food for themselves.

The Sages taught: Produce

of the Sabbatical year

that went out from the Land of

Israel to outside the Land,

and its time of removal arrived, behold, it is

removed wherever it is.

And it is not necessary to return it to the Land of Israel in order to remove it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: They shall return to their place and be removed. Because it is stated

in connection with removal, “for the animal that is

in your land”!

And infer from this that the removal is only in your land.

[And concerning the manner of removal, the early authorities disagreed. See in the supplements: there are those who say that one should declare them ownerless for all, or in a place where animals and livestock tread, and there are those who say that one should eat them beforehand, and if one did not eat them, they become forbidden.]

And we inquire concerning it:

Did you not already derive it

for it? For we already brought out and used this verse of “in your land” to expound from it that one does not rely in Judea on produce that is in the Galilee, as stated above. And furthermore, it is not left over to expound also that they should be removed in their place.

And we answer: We properly learn both laws from this verse together.

Read in it, “in the land,”

for Scripture could have said merely “in the land.”

And now that it added one letter and wrote

“in your land,”

it indicates that Scripture came to teach us an additional exposition.

Alternatively: “from which is in your land”

is written. Therefore, one of the expositions is learned from “in your land,” and the second exposition is learned from “which is.”

Rav Safra went out from the Land of Israel to outside the Land.

He had with him a jug of Sabbatical-year wine

[a certain quantity of wine that possessed the sanctity of the Sabbatical year] whose time of removal had already arrived.

They joined him

[they joined him as a group]

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, and Rav Kahana

who were students of Rabbi Abbahu.

He said to them

Rav Safra: Is there

anyone

among you

who heard it from Rabbi Abbahu

your teacher, whether

the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

who says, “They shall return to their place and be removed,”

or not?

Rather, [is the halakha] like the first tanna, who says, “They are removed wherever they are”?

Rav Kahana said to him: This is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Therefore, you must trouble yourself to return the wine to the Land of Israel and remove it there.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, said to him

to Rav Safra: He did not say so.

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar!

And you may properly remove the wine here, and you do not need to return it to its place.

Rav Safra said: Take this principle of Rav Huna

son of Rav Ika

in your hand

that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Because

he

точно

was precise and learned the teaching from the mouth of his teacher, like Rahava of Pumbedita,

who was precise about his tradition, to know from whom he had received it.

For Rahava said, Rav Judah said: The Temple Mount —

a colonnade

[a platform]

was double

around it.

A colonnade within a colonnade!

And although the Mishna teaches the wording “platform,” Rahava used “colonnade,” in accordance with the wording of his teacher.

Rav Yosef applied to him

to Rav Safra the verse:

“My people asks of its wood, and its staff tells it.”

And he expounded “its staff” in the sense of leniency: that

everyone

who is

lenient for him

is the one he asks to be

telling him!

For Rav Safra relied upon Rav Huna, son of Rav Ika, who was lenient for him in this matter by not making him trouble himself to return the produce to the Land of Israel and remove it there.

Rav Ila'i cut

[cut off]

immature dates

[a palm tree bearing “immature dates,” which are small dates whose ripening has not been completed],

of the Sabbatical year,

for the purpose of wood.

And we wonder:

How did he do this?

But it is written, “And the Sabbath of the land shall be yours for eating.” And we exclude: specifically,

“For eating” the Merciful One said

that the produce shall be yours. But

not for loss.

From here [it follows] that it is forbidden to cause Sabbatical-year produce to be lost. And how did Rabbi Ila'i cut down the palm tree? For by doing so he caused the immature dates upon it to be lost, since from now on they would not reach completion of their ripening.

And if you would say

to answer:

This matter

that it is forbidden to cause them to be lost and to cut them off before their time applies specifically

where

already

the fruit stage has begun,

and they already have the status of fruit.

But where

they still

have not entered

into

the

status of fruit, for their ripening has not yet been completed [such as immature dates],

not

is their cutting forbidden.

There is no possibility of answering in this way.

For did Rav Nahman not say in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: These coverings

[something resembling a shell that grows around the date fruit and protects it]

of orla

are forbidden

in benefit. And even though they are not part of the fruit itself, and the Torah forbade on account of orla only the fruit, nevertheless they are forbidden

since they became a protector for the fruit,

and the protector of the fruit is judged like the fruit itself.

And we conclude the objection:

And when did they become a protector for the fruit

these “coverings”? For they surround the dates only

when

they are still

small fruits

[small, and these are the immature dates], and afterward they fall away.

And

nevertheless

he calls them fruits.

Apparently, even immature dates are considered fruits.

And if so, how did Rabbi Ila'i cut down these palms? For he caused the immature dates to be lost. And it follows that he caused Sabbatical-year produce to be lost.

And we answer:

Rav Nahman,

who considers small fruits to be fruit, held

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

For we learned: Rabbi Yosei says: The nascent grape cluster is forbidden

on account of orla,

because it is

already considered

fruit!

And once the flower of the vine has fallen and the shape of the grape is already visible, it is called a nascent grape cluster. And this is the measure of growth of immature dates on date palms, which are likewise forbidden on account of orla.

So held Rabbi Yosei. But

the Rabbis disagree with him.

And they hold that a nascent grape cluster is not considered fruit. And the same is true of immature dates. And Rabbi Ila'i, who cut down in the Sabbatical year palms that had immature dates and did not fear causing Sabbatical-year produce to be lost, held in accordance with the Rabbis.

Rav Shimi of Nehardea raised an objection to this: And

is it so that

the Rabbis disagree with him

with Rabbi Yosei even

with regard to other trees? For they disagreed only with regard to a vine.

And this is so, for we learned: They disagree only with regard to a vine.

For we learned: From when is one not to cut down trees in the Sabbatical year,

because of causing the produce to be lost —

The House of Shammai say: All the trees

are forbidden to be cut,

once they produce

the beginning of their budding on their leaves during the month of Nisan.

And the House of Hillel say: The carob trees

are forbidden to be cut,

once they form chains

[once something resembling chains of carobs is visible on them].