Bava Batra 81

כסיתא איכא דאמרי ערונים ערמונים אלמוגים ערונים ערי ערמונים דולבי אלמוגים כסיתא:

refers to coral trees [kasita]. There are those who say that the other three are as follows: Aronim, armonim, and almugim. Aronim refers to laurel trees [arei], armonim to plane trees [dulevei], and almugim to coral trees [kasita].

מתני׳ הקונה שני אילנות בתוך שדה חבירו הרי זה לא קנה קרקע רבי מאיר אומר קנה קרקע הגדילו לא ישפה והעולה מן הגזע שלו ומן השרשים של בעל הקרקע ואם מתו אין לו קרקע

MISHNA: With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, this one has not acquired any ground, but only the trees. Rabbi Meir says: He has acquired the ground under them. The mishna states a halakha in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna: If the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches, despite the fact that their shade damages his field. And that which grows out of the trunk is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. And if the trees died, their owner has no rights to the ground where the trees had stood.

קנה שלשה קנה קרקע הגדילו ישפה והעולה מן הגזע ומן השרשין שלו ואם מתו יש לו קרקע:

If one bought three trees, he has acquired the ground along with them. If they grew, the owner of the field may cut down their branches, as he sold a specific piece of land along with the trees, not his entire field. And that which grows out of the trunk and out of the roots is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the trees. And if the trees died, the owner of the trees still has possession of the ground, as it was sold along with the trees.

גמ׳ תנן התם הקונה שני אילנות בתוך של חבירו מביא ואינו קורא רבי מאיר אומר מביא וקורא

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bikkurim 1:6): With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, he brings the first fruits but does not recite the passages of thanks to God that appear in the Torah (Deuteronomy 26:1–11), as the land does not belong to him and therefore he cannot state: “I have brought the first of the fruit of the land, which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Rabbi Meir says: He brings the first fruits and also recites the passage.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחייב היה רבי מאיר אף בלוקח פירות מן השוק ממאי מדקתני משנה יתירא מכדי תנא ליה דיש לו קרקע פשיטא דמביא וקורא

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who buys fruit from the marketplace to bring first fruits, not only one who grew the fruits on his own tree. From where did he derive this halakha? From the fact that the tanna teaches an apparently superfluous mishna. Since Rabbi Meir already taught in the mishna here that the owner of two trees has possession of the ground, isn’t it obvious that he brings first fruits and recites the passage? What is added by his statement in the mishna in Bikkurim?

אלא שמע מינה מחייב היה רבי מאיר אף בלוקח פירות מן השוק

Rather, learn from the mishna in Bikkurim that Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who buys fruit from the marketplace to bring first fruits to the Temple. Rabbi Meir is saying that even if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one who buys two trees does not own the ground between them, he still must bring the first fruits and recite the passage of thanks.

והא כתיב אשר תביא מארצך ההוא למעוטי חוצה לארץ

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Which you shall bring in from your land” (Deuteronomy 26:2)? This verse indicates that the fruit must be the produce of your land, not land that belongs to another. The Gemara answers: That verse serves to exclude land that is outside of Eretz Yisrael, which is not the land of the Jewish people. It does not exclude land that does not belong to that specific individual.

והא כתיב אדמתך למעוטי אדמת גוי והכתיב אשר נתתה לי דיהבת לי זוזי וזבני בהו

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “The choicest first fruits of your land you shall bring” (Exodus 23:19)? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude fruit bought by a Jew that was grown on the land of a gentile in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “I have brought the first of the fruit of the land, which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10)? If he purchased the fruit, then the land on which it grew was not given to him by God. The Gemara answers that the phrase “which You have given me” can mean that You have given me money, and with that money I bought this fruit.

מתיב רבה הקונה אילן אחד בתוך של חבירו מביא ואינו קורא לפי שלא קנה קרקע דברי רבי מאיר תיובתא

Rabba raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: One who buys one tree in the field of another brings first fruits but does not recite the passage, as he did not acquire any land; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel’s opinion, as he said that according to Rabbi Meir even one who simply purchases fruit is obligated to bring first fruits to the Temple.

אמר לו רבי שמעון בן אליקים לרבי אלעזר

Apropos the discussion of the obligation to bring first fruits of one who buys a tree in the field of another, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to Rabbi Elazar:

מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר באילן אחד ומאי טעמא דרבנן בשני אילנות אמר לו דבר שהראשונים לא אמרו בו טעם תשאלני בבית המדרש כדי לביישני

What is the rationale of Rabbi Meir that in the case of one tree, an individual is obligated to bring first fruits but does not recite the passage, and what is the rationale of the Rabbis that in the case of two trees, an individual is obligated to bring the first fruits but does not recite the passage? If one owns the ground and is obligated to bring the first fruits to the Temple, he should also recite the passage of thanks. If he does not own the ground and therefore is not obligated to recite the passage, why does he bring the first fruits to the Temple? Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim: Do you ask me publicly, in the study hall, about a matter for which the early Sages did not give a reason, in order to embarrass me? In other words, I do not know the reason, as not even the early Sages explained this matter.

אמר רבה מאי קושיא דלמא רבי מאיר באילן אחד ספוקי מספקא ליה ורבנן בשני אילנות ספוקי מספקא להו

Rabba said: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir is uncertain, in the case of an individual who purchases one tree, whether or not the buyer owns the ground, and the Rabbis are uncertain, in the case of an individual who purchases two trees, whether or not the buyer owns the ground. Due to this uncertainty, the owner of the tree must bring the first fruits to the Temple, as he might be obligated in this mitzva. He does not recite the passage of thanks because it is not definitely established that he is obligated to bring the fruits.

ומי מספקא ליה והא קתני לפי שלא קנה קרקע דברי רבי מאיר אימא שמא לא קנה קרקע

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Meir really uncertain whether the buyer owns the ground? But it teaches: Since he did not acquire any land; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir states definitively that the owner of the tree does not own the ground. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should be emended as follows: Perhaps he did not acquire any land.

וליחוש דדלמא לאו ביכורים נינהו וקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמקדיש להו והא בעי מיכלינהו דפריק להו ודלמא לאו בכורים נינהו וקא מפקע להו מתרומה ומעשר דמפריש להו

The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps these fruits are not first fruits, and he is bringing non-sacred fruit to the Temple courtyard, which is prohibited. The Gemara answers: The case is where he consecrates them. The Gemara asks: But the priest is required to eat first fruits, and he cannot do so if they are consecrated. The Gemara answers: The case is where the priest redeems them. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they are not first fruits, and thereby he removes them from the obligation of teruma and tithes, as one does not separate teruma and tithes from first fruits. The Gemara answers: The case is where he separates teruma and tithes from the fruits, due to the uncertainty over their status.

בשלמא תרומה גדולה יהיב לה לכהן מעשר שני נמי יהיב ליה לכהן מעשר עני נמי יהיב ליה לכהן עני אלא מעשר ראשון דלוי הוא למאן יהיב ליה

The Gemara asks: Granted, the teruma gedola that he separates from these fruits he gives to a priest, and the priest may partake of it, as it has the halakhic status of either first fruits or teruma gedola, both of which are eaten by a priest. It is understood with regard to the second tithe as well; he gives it to a priest, who eats it in Jerusalem, either as first fruits or as second tithe. If it is the third or the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, when instead of second tithe one is obligated to give the poor man’s tithe, here too, he gives it to a poor priest, who eats it as either first fruits or poor man’s tithe. But with regard to first tithe, which is given to a Levite, to whom can he give it? A Levite may not eat first fruits.

דיהיב ליה לכהן כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דתניא תרומה גדולה לכהן מעשר ראשון ללוי דברי רבי עקיבא רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מעשר ראשון אף לכהן ודלמא בכורים נינהו ובעו קרייה קרייה לא מעכבת

The Gemara answers: The case is where he gives it to a priest, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. As it is taught in a baraita: Teruma gedola is given only to a priest, and first tithe is given only to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: First tithe may also be given to a priest. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they are in fact first fruits and require recitation of the passage of thanks, and yet the owner does not recite it due to the uncertainty. The Gemara answers: The recitation is not indispensable, i.e., one can perform the mitzva of bringing first fruits without the recitation.

ולא והאמר רבי זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו ושאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו

The Gemara asks: And is the recitation not indispensable? But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say in the context of offerings: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal-offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal-offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal-offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal-offering. The principle is: Ab initio requirements prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva in situations where they are not merely absent but impossible. Accordingly, first fruits that are unfit for recitation should not be brought to the Temple.

דעביד להו כרבי יוסי בר חנינא דאמר בצרן ושגרן ביד שליח ומת שליח בדרך מביא ואינו קורא מאי טעמא דכתיב ולקחת והבאת

The Gemara answers: The case is where he renders them exempt from the obligation of recitation, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, who says: If one harvested the fruits and sent them in the possession of an agent, and the agent died on the way, the owner or any other person brings the first fruits but does not recite the passage of thanks. What is the reason? As it is written: And you shall take, and you shall bring. The Gemara is citing from the following verse with a slight variation: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land that the Lord your God gives you” (Deuteronomy 26:2).