Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 4, 2017 | 讞壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Bava Batra 72

Study Guide Bava Batra 72. How can we reconcile Rav Huna with Rabbi Shimon? 聽The gemara suggests one possibility but it is rejected based on an understanding of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion elsewhere in a braita regarding one who consecrates a field. 聽Based on also a contradiction within Rabbi Shimon’s statement in our mishna and Rabbi Shimon in the braita, the gemara concludes that RAbbi Shimon in our mishna is not actually his own opinion but what he thinks the rabbis should hold according to their opinion. 聽The gemara then questions Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the braita聽with an opinion of Rabbi Shimon’s in another case.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛拽讚讬砖 砖诇砖讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪诪讟注 注砖专讛 诇讘讬转 住讗讛 讛专讬 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讘讬转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 砖拽诇 讻住祝

The Gemara asks: But can you establish that the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that one who sells or consecrates property does so generously? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one consecrates three trees in a field where ten trees are planted in an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃], he has consecrated not only those trees, but also the land and the young trees between them? Therefore, if this is an ancestral field of his, when he redeems them, he redeems the land and everything contained within it according to the standard rate established by the Torah, whereby an area fit for the sowing of a 岣mer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讬讜转专 注诇 讻谉 讗讜 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 诇讗 讛拽专拽注 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讜讜讬讛谉 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讞讝专 讜讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讜讜讬讛谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜驻讜讚讛 讘讬转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 砖拽诇 讻住祝

The baraita continues: If the ratio of land to trees was less than this, and the trees were planted more densely, or if the ratio of land to trees was more than this, and the trees were planted less densely, or if he consecrated each of the trees separately, one after the other, this person has consecrated neither the land nor the young trees between them. Therefore, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees in accordance with their worth. And moreover, even if one consecrates the trees where they are planted more densely, less densely, or one after the other, and then afterward he consecrates the land, so that everything belongs to the Temple treasury, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and then he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area fit for the sowing of a 岣mer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪拽讚讬砖 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion is expressed in the baraita? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn鈥檛 he say that one who sells, sells generously, and all the more so one who consecrates does so generously? This being the case, even if the trees were consecrated one after the other, some of the land should be consecrated along with them. And if the baraita reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 they say in the mishna that it is specifically the seller who sells sparingly, but one who consecrates, consecrates generously, and therefore the pit and the winepress are consecrated along with the field? Therefore, the halakha stated here is not in accordance with their opinion either. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna here, that even one who consecrates a field does not consecrate the cistern and the winepress along with it.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 诪拽讚讬砖 谞诪讬 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讜诪砖讬讬专 讗专注讗

And the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is in accordance with the opinion of whom? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn鈥檛 he say that one who sells, sells generously, and all the more so one who consecrates does so generously? Rather, it is obvious that his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and say that one who sells, sells sparingly. And Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis insofar as he himself holds that just as one who sells, sells sparingly, one who consecrates also consecrates sparingly and retains the land around the trees for himself.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜谞拽讬谉 诪砖讚讛 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara concludes stating the difficulty: But this is difficult, as Rabbi Shimon himself said that the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk are consecrated along with the field since they draw their nutrients from a consecrated field, indicating that one who consecrates acts generously and does not retain the land around the trees for himself.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 诪拽讚讬砖 谞诪讬 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讜砖讬讜专讬 诪砖讬讬专 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讚诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara explains: Rather, it must be understood that when Rabbi Shimon stated his ruling in the mishna, he was not expressing his own opinion. Rather, he was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, and he meant to say: According to my opinion, just as one who sells, sells sparingly, so too, one who consecrates, consecrates sparingly and retains for himself land to nurture the trees. Therefore, when one consecrates a field, even the sycamore and carob tree are not consecrated along with it. But according to your opinion, that one who consecrates does so generously, agree with me at least that one who consecrates a field has consecrated only the grafted carob and the sycamore trunk, because they draw nutrients from consecrated ground, but he has not consecrated the other items that are not integral parts of the field. And the Rabbis said to him: There is no difference between the two in this regard. Since one who consecrates an item does so generously, everything found in the field is consecrated.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讞讝专 讜讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讜讬讬讛谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜驻讜讚讛 讘讬转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 砖拽诇 讻住祝

The Gemara returns to the baraita that it had concluded was taught according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the baraita discussing consecrated property? It was interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But say the last clause: And moreover, even if one consecrates the trees and then afterward he consecrates the land, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and then he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area fit for the sowing of a 岣mer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉 讜谞讬驻专拽讜 讗讙讘 讗专注讬讬讛讜 讚讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉

And if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let him follow the character of the field at the time of its redemption, and so the trees should be redeemed along with their land, as at the time of the redemption both the trees and the land are consecrated. As we have already heard that Rabbi Shimon follows the time of the redemption, i.e., he determines the price at which a field is redeemed based on the time it is being redeemed.

讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讗转 砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to one who purchases a field from his father and consecrates it, and afterward his father dies, so the field would now be considered his as an inheritance, from where is it derived that with regard to its redemption it should be considered before him as an ancestral field and not a field that he purchased? The verse states about a field that was purchased: 鈥淎nd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fields鈥 (Leviticus 27:22). The verse speaks specifically of a field that is not fit at the time of its consecration to be an ancestral field, meaning that he never could have inherited it in the future. This specification excludes this field that was fit to be an ancestral field from this halakha, since eventually it would have become his through inheritance, even had he not purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讗转 砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讛讬讗 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir learns a different halakha from this verse, and he says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies, and afterward he consecrates the field, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fields.鈥 The verse refers specifically to a field that is not now an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This specification excludes this field, as after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗 讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜

But according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required to teach that, in a case where his father dies and afterward he consecrates the field, it is considered to be an ancestral field, as this is obvious. A verse is required only to teach the halakha in a case where he consecrates the field after having bought it, and afterward his father dies.

诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讻讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝诇讬 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉

The Gemara asks: From where do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon arrive at this conclusion? If they derive it only from this verse, you can say that the verse came to be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as opposed to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, as there is no clear proof from the verse to support either opinion. Rather, is it not due to the fact that they follow the time of the redemption, and at the time of the redemption the father is dead, and the field is the son鈥檚 ancestral field that is currently in the possession of the Temple treasury?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讗讝诇讬 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉 讜讛讻讗 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞讜 讜讚专讜砖 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讗转 砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讞讜讝转讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝转讜 诪讗讬 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Actually, I can say to you that generally speaking, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not follow the time of the redemption, and therefore their ruling here is not based on this premise. But here they found a verse and interpreted it, as, if the verse is to be understood as it was explained by Rabbi Meir, then let the verse write: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral estate, or let it write: Which is not his ancestral field. What is meant by the expression: 鈥淲hich is not of his ancestral fields鈥 (Leviticus 27:22)? It means that a field that is not fit to ever be an ancestral field is considered a purchased field. That excludes this field, as it is fit to be an ancestral field. Based on this explanation, the baraita that addresses one who consecrates trees can, in fact, be understood to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 转讜专转 讗讬诇谉 注诇讬讜 讜转讜专转 拽专拽注 注诇讬讜 转讜专转 讗讬诇谉 注诇讬讜 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讗讜 讝讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗讬 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 转讜专转 拽专拽注 注诇讬讜 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讗讙讘 讗专注讗

Rav Huna says: A grafted carob and a sycamore trunk have both the status of a tree and the status of land. Each of these has the status of a tree, so if one consecrates or buys two trees and this carob or sycamore, he has also consecrated or bought the land between them, as the sycamore or carob joins with the other two trees to form a unit of three trees that take their land with them. And each has the status of land, as it is not sold along with land, as explained in the mishna, that one who sells a field has not sold a grafted carob or a sycamore trunk that is in the field.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讜诪专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讗转讬诐 转讜专转 注讜诪专 注诇讬讜 讜转讜专转 讙讚讬砖 注诇讬讜 转讜专转 注讜诪专 注诇讬讜 讚砖谞讬 注讜诪专讬诐 砖讻讞讛 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞谉 砖讻讞讛

And Rav Huna says in a similar fashion: A large sheaf of grain that contains two se鈥檃 has both the status of a sheaf and the status of a heap with regard to the halakhot of forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor. It has the status of a sheaf, as the principle is that two sheaves that were inadvertently left in the field are considered forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor, whereas three sheaves need not be left for the poor, but rather the owner of the field may go back and take them for himself. In this regard a two-se鈥檃 sheaf is considered one sheaf, so if one forgot two sheaves and also this sheave that contains two se鈥檃, the three together are three sheaves and are not considered forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor.

转讜专转 讙讚讬砖 注诇讬讜 讚转谞谉 注讜诪专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讗转讬诐 砖讻讞讜 讗讬谉 砖讻讞讛

And it has the status of a heap, as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 6:6): In the case of a sheaf that contains two se鈥檃, if one forgets it in a field, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf that must be left for the poor, as its size and importance grant it the status of a heap, rather than a sheaf.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Reish Lakish says: With regard to whether a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk are consecrated along with a field that one has consecrated, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Mena岣m bar Yosei and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Mena岣m bar Yosei rules that they are not consecrated, whereas the Rabbis rule that they are.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 72

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛拽讚讬砖 砖诇砖讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 诪诪讟注 注砖专讛 诇讘讬转 住讗讛 讛专讬 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讘讬转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 砖拽诇 讻住祝

The Gemara asks: But can you establish that the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that one who sells or consecrates property does so generously? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one consecrates three trees in a field where ten trees are planted in an area required for sowing one se鈥檃 of seed [beit se鈥檃], he has consecrated not only those trees, but also the land and the young trees between them? Therefore, if this is an ancestral field of his, when he redeems them, he redeems the land and everything contained within it according to the standard rate established by the Torah, whereby an area fit for the sowing of a 岣mer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讬讜转专 注诇 讻谉 讗讜 砖讛拽讚讬砖谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 诇讗 讛拽专拽注 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 砖讘讬谞讬讛诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讜讜讬讛谉 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讞讝专 讜讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讜讜讬讛谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜驻讜讚讛 讘讬转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 砖拽诇 讻住祝

The baraita continues: If the ratio of land to trees was less than this, and the trees were planted more densely, or if the ratio of land to trees was more than this, and the trees were planted less densely, or if he consecrated each of the trees separately, one after the other, this person has consecrated neither the land nor the young trees between them. Therefore, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees in accordance with their worth. And moreover, even if one consecrates the trees where they are planted more densely, less densely, or one after the other, and then afterward he consecrates the land, so that everything belongs to the Temple treasury, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and then he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area fit for the sowing of a 岣mer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪拽讚讬砖 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 讗讘诇 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion is expressed in the baraita? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn鈥檛 he say that one who sells, sells generously, and all the more so one who consecrates does so generously? This being the case, even if the trees were consecrated one after the other, some of the land should be consecrated along with them. And if the baraita reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 they say in the mishna that it is specifically the seller who sells sparingly, but one who consecrates, consecrates generously, and therefore the pit and the winepress are consecrated along with the field? Therefore, the halakha stated here is not in accordance with their opinion either. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna here, that even one who consecrates a field does not consecrate the cistern and the winepress along with it.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 诪拽讚讬砖 谞诪讬 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讜诪砖讬讬专 讗专注讗

And the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is in accordance with the opinion of whom? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, doesn鈥檛 he say that one who sells, sells generously, and all the more so one who consecrates does so generously? Rather, it is obvious that his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and say that one who sells, sells sparingly. And Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis insofar as he himself holds that just as one who sells, sells sparingly, one who consecrates also consecrates sparingly and retains the land around the trees for himself.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜谞拽讬谉 诪砖讚讛 讛拽讚砖

The Gemara concludes stating the difficulty: But this is difficult, as Rabbi Shimon himself said that the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk are consecrated along with the field since they draw their nutrients from a consecrated field, indicating that one who consecrates acts generously and does not retain the land around the trees for himself.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪讜讻专 诪拽讚讬砖 谞诪讬 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讜砖讬讜专讬 诪砖讬讬专 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讚诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara explains: Rather, it must be understood that when Rabbi Shimon stated his ruling in the mishna, he was not expressing his own opinion. Rather, he was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, and he meant to say: According to my opinion, just as one who sells, sells sparingly, so too, one who consecrates, consecrates sparingly and retains for himself land to nurture the trees. Therefore, when one consecrates a field, even the sycamore and carob tree are not consecrated along with it. But according to your opinion, that one who consecrates does so generously, agree with me at least that one who consecrates a field has consecrated only the grafted carob and the sycamore trunk, because they draw nutrients from consecrated ground, but he has not consecrated the other items that are not integral parts of the field. And the Rabbis said to him: There is no difference between the two in this regard. Since one who consecrates an item does so generously, everything found in the field is consecrated.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讞讝专 讜讛拽讚讬砖 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讘砖讜讬讬讛谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜驻讜讚讛 讘讬转 讝专注 讞讜诪专 砖注讜专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 砖拽诇 讻住祝

The Gemara returns to the baraita that it had concluded was taught according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the baraita discussing consecrated property? It was interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But say the last clause: And moreover, even if one consecrates the trees and then afterward he consecrates the land, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and then he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area fit for the sowing of a 岣mer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.

讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉 讜谞讬驻专拽讜 讗讙讘 讗专注讬讬讛讜 讚讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉

And if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let him follow the character of the field at the time of its redemption, and so the trees should be redeemed along with their land, as at the time of the redemption both the trees and the land are consecrated. As we have already heard that Rabbi Shimon follows the time of the redemption, i.e., he determines the price at which a field is redeemed based on the time it is being redeemed.

讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讗转 砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to one who purchases a field from his father and consecrates it, and afterward his father dies, so the field would now be considered his as an inheritance, from where is it derived that with regard to its redemption it should be considered before him as an ancestral field and not a field that he purchased? The verse states about a field that was purchased: 鈥淎nd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fields鈥 (Leviticus 27:22). The verse speaks specifically of a field that is not fit at the time of its consecration to be an ancestral field, meaning that he never could have inherited it in the future. This specification excludes this field that was fit to be an ancestral field from this halakha, since eventually it would have become his through inheritance, even had he not purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖 诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讗转 砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 砖讚讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讛讬讗 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir learns a different halakha from this verse, and he says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies, and afterward he consecrates the field, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fields.鈥 The verse refers specifically to a field that is not now an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This specification excludes this field, as after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讻讗 讚诪转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗 讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讗讘讬讜

But according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required to teach that, in a case where his father dies and afterward he consecrates the field, it is considered to be an ancestral field, as this is obvious. A verse is required only to teach the halakha in a case where he consecrates the field after having bought it, and afterward his father dies.

诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讻讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讝诇讬 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉

The Gemara asks: From where do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon arrive at this conclusion? If they derive it only from this verse, you can say that the verse came to be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as opposed to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, as there is no clear proof from the verse to support either opinion. Rather, is it not due to the fact that they follow the time of the redemption, and at the time of the redemption the father is dead, and the field is the son鈥檚 ancestral field that is currently in the possession of the Temple treasury?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讗讝诇讬 讘转专 驻讚讬讜谉 讜讛讻讗 拽专讗 讗砖讻讞讜 讜讚专讜砖 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讗转 砖讚讛 诪拽谞转讜 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讞讜讝转讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝转讜 诪讗讬 讗砖专 诇讗 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讝转讜 讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讬讜转 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Actually, I can say to you that generally speaking, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not follow the time of the redemption, and therefore their ruling here is not based on this premise. But here they found a verse and interpreted it, as, if the verse is to be understood as it was explained by Rabbi Meir, then let the verse write: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral estate, or let it write: Which is not his ancestral field. What is meant by the expression: 鈥淲hich is not of his ancestral fields鈥 (Leviticus 27:22)? It means that a field that is not fit to ever be an ancestral field is considered a purchased field. That excludes this field, as it is fit to be an ancestral field. Based on this explanation, the baraita that addresses one who consecrates trees can, in fact, be understood to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 转讜专转 讗讬诇谉 注诇讬讜 讜转讜专转 拽专拽注 注诇讬讜 转讜专转 讗讬诇谉 注诇讬讜 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讗讜 讝讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讛讗讬 讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 转讜专转 拽专拽注 注诇讬讜 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讗讙讘 讗专注讗

Rav Huna says: A grafted carob and a sycamore trunk have both the status of a tree and the status of land. Each of these has the status of a tree, so if one consecrates or buys two trees and this carob or sycamore, he has also consecrated or bought the land between them, as the sycamore or carob joins with the other two trees to form a unit of three trees that take their land with them. And each has the status of land, as it is not sold along with land, as explained in the mishna, that one who sells a field has not sold a grafted carob or a sycamore trunk that is in the field.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讜诪专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讗转讬诐 转讜专转 注讜诪专 注诇讬讜 讜转讜专转 讙讚讬砖 注诇讬讜 转讜专转 注讜诪专 注诇讬讜 讚砖谞讬 注讜诪专讬诐 砖讻讞讛 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞谉 砖讻讞讛

And Rav Huna says in a similar fashion: A large sheaf of grain that contains two se鈥檃 has both the status of a sheaf and the status of a heap with regard to the halakhot of forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor. It has the status of a sheaf, as the principle is that two sheaves that were inadvertently left in the field are considered forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor, whereas three sheaves need not be left for the poor, but rather the owner of the field may go back and take them for himself. In this regard a two-se鈥檃 sheaf is considered one sheaf, so if one forgot two sheaves and also this sheave that contains two se鈥檃, the three together are three sheaves and are not considered forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor.

转讜专转 讙讚讬砖 注诇讬讜 讚转谞谉 注讜诪专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讗转讬诐 砖讻讞讜 讗讬谉 砖讻讞讛

And it has the status of a heap, as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 6:6): In the case of a sheaf that contains two se鈥檃, if one forgets it in a field, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf that must be left for the poor, as its size and importance grant it the status of a heap, rather than a sheaf.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞专讜讘 讛诪讜专讻讘 讜住讚谉 讛砖拽诪讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专 讬讜住讬 讜专讘谞谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Reish Lakish says: With regard to whether a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk are consecrated along with a field that one has consecrated, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Mena岣m bar Yosei and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Mena岣m bar Yosei rules that they are not consecrated, whereas the Rabbis rule that they are.

Scroll To Top