Search

Bava Batra 82

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

Summary

This week’s learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z”l, on her 24th yahrzeit. “She had a “נותן בעין יפה” approach to her interactions with everyone she encountered. She was generous of heart, of mind and of spirit, and we miss her. Yehi zichra baruch.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David’s mother, Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, Adina bat Aryeh Leib, on her 20th yahrzeit. “She was devoted to her husband, family, and the Beth El Synagogue community in New Rochelle, NY. Her two sons made Aliyah and her daughter has lived a professional life of service to the American Jewish community.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ayala Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shulamit. 

How does one determine if the branches grew out of the trunk or the ground to determine whether the growths belong to the owner of the tree or the owner of the land?

Rav Nachman rules that a palm tree does not have laws of geza, the trunk. Rav Zevid and Rav Papa each understand this statement differently.

If one purchases three trees, one acquires land with the trees. How much land does one acquire? Rabbi Yochanan rules that they acquire the land beneath each tree, between each tree, and, in addition, the amount of space needed for a fig gatherer to walk around with a basket. Rabbi Elazar raises a question about the space for the fig gatherer – if one does not get an access route, as per the rabbis’ position that a seller sells sparingly (ayin ra’ah), how does the buyer get space for collecting?

The land underneath and in between the trees can be used by the tree’s owner for planting, but who has the right to plant in the area around the trees for the fig gatherer and basket?

How much space can/should there be between the trees to consider them a field so that the purchaser will acquire the land? Rav Yosef and Rava disagree. Abaye raises a difficulty from a Mishna against Rav Yosef’s position.

Bava Batra 82

עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה כְּאֶחָד; וְהָא לֵיכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִכְּדֵי פְּסוּקֵי נִינְהוּ, לִיקְרֵי!

The passage is not recited until the taking and the bringing of the first fruits are performed by one person, and that is not the case here. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Since the passage is composed of verses, let him read them. What is objectionable about reciting verses from the Torah?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִחֲזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא. רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא אָמַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפְקוּעִינְהוּ מִתְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר.

Rav Ashi said to him: The problem is due to the fact that this practice has the appearance of falsehood, because he issues a declaration before God that is possibly untrue, as he might not own the ground. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said: The declaration is not recited lest he come to remove the fruits from their obligation of teruma and tithes, if they are treated entirely as first fruits. For this reason one does not recite the passage, to ensure that their unique status is maintained.

הִגְדִּילוּ – לֹא יְשַׁפֶּה כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִן הַגֶּזַע, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין?

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, if the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches. The mishna further teaches: That which grows out of the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which something is considered to be growing out of the trunk, and what are the circumstances in which it is considered to be growing out of the roots?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁרוֹאֶה פְּנֵי חַמָּה – זֶהוּ מִן הַגֶּזַע, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה פְּנֵי חַמָּה – זֶהוּ מִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to anything that sees the face of the sun, i.e., which is visible and aboveground, this is considered to be growing out of the trunk. And with regard to that which does not see the face of the sun but is concealed in the earth, this is considered to be growing out of the roots.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מַסְּקָא אַרְעָא שִׂירְטוֹן, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: תְּלָתָא זַבֵּינְתְּ לִי, וְאִית לִי אַרְעָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: יָקוֹץ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָקוֹץ.

The Gemara asks: But if everything that is visible belongs to the owner of the tree, no matter how close it is to the ground, let us be concerned that perhaps the land is covered with sediment from flowing water, and some of the tree’s trunk will be covered, in which case the branches that grow from the trunk will appear as though they are separate trees; and the owner of the trees will say to the owner of the field: You actually sold me three trees and I therefore have ownership over the ground. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: That which grows from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but he must cut it down. And Rabbi Yoḥanan himself likewise said: The owner of the tree must cut it down.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נְקִיטִינַן, דֶּקֶל אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע. סָבַר רַב זְבִיד לְמֵימַר: אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע לְבַעַל דֶּקֶל, דְּכֵיוָן דִּלְמִחְפַּר וּלְשָׁרֵשׁ קָאֵי – אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

Rav Naḥman said: We hold by tradition that a palm tree bought from another has no trunk. Rav Zevid thought to say this means that the owner of the palm tree has no right to that which grows from the trunk. The reason is that since it stands ready to be dug up and uprooted, as when the tree dies its owner is not entitled to plant another in its place, he diverts his mind from that which grows from the trunk.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא קוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת – דִּלְמִחְפַּר וּלְמִשְׁרַשׁ קָיְימִי, וְקָתָנֵי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ גֶּזַע! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע לְבַעַל דֶּקֶל, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיא גֶּזַע.

Rav Pappa objects to this: But this is comparable to one who buys two trees in a field belonging to another, as the trees stand ready to be dug up and uprooted because their owner has no right to plant new trees in their place when they die; and yet it is taught in the mishna that he has the right to that which grows from the trunk. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The statement of Rav Naḥman means that the owner of a palm tree, in contrast to owners of other types of trees, has no right to that which grows from the trunk, since a palm tree does not produce branches from its trunk.

וּלְרַב זְבִיד, קַשְׁיָא מַתְנִיתִין! דְּזַבֵּין לַחֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין.

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Zevid, who maintains that Rav Naḥman is referring to all types of trees, the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid interprets the mishna as referring to a situation where the owner of the trees bought the trees for five years and stipulated that he may plant new trees in place of the original trees in the event the original ones are cut down.

קָנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה – קָנָה קַרְקַע. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן, וְחוּצָה לָהֶן

§ The mishna teaches: If one bought three trees he has acquired the ground along with them. The Gemara asks: And how much of the field does he acquire? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This buyer has acquired the ground that is located underneath the trees, and the area between them, and with regard to the space outside of the trees and their branches,

כִּמְלוֹא אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַשְׁתָּא דֶּרֶךְ אֵין לוֹ, אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ?! דֶּרֶךְ אֵין לוֹ – דְּאַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי הִיא; אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ – יֵשׁ לוֹ?!

he has acquired an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket in hand to stand close to the tree. Rabbi Elazar objects to this: Now that the halakha is that the buyer has no path and must purchase a path through the field to access his trees; if so, does he have possession of an area for the gatherer and his basket? The Gemara elaborates: He has no path, even though he has no other means of gaining access to the trees, as the ground he acquired along with the trees is considered another land and is not part of the rest of the field. Why, then, would he have possession of an area for a gatherer and his basket?

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מִדִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ נִלְמַד, שְׁלֹשָׁה – הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ, הָא שְׁנַיִם – יֵשׁ לוֹ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאַרְעָא דִּידָךְ קָיְימִי.

Rabbi Zeira says: From the statement, i.e., the objection, of our teacher, we learn that it is in the case of three trees that the owner of the trees has no path, as the buyer acquired a separate piece of land along with the trees. But in the case of two trees the buyer has a path, as he says to the owner of the field: My trees are standing on your land, and as I am allowed to use your field to tend to my trees I have the right to walk through your land to reach them.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: לֵימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לֵית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל רַבֵּיהּ – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Shall we say that Rabbi Elazar does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, who was his teacher? As Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously. According to Rabbi Akiva, one sells in a manner that is advantageous for the buyer, and is presumed to have included in the sale even items that were not explicitly specified. In this case, as he has sold a tree that remains on his property, the seller grants the buyer the right to access his tree.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִתּוֹקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

Rava said to him: Even if Rabbi Elazar himself agrees with Rabbi Akiva, the mishna cannot be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rather, the mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one who sells does so sparingly, and the difficulty that Rabbi Elazar raised against Rabbi Yoḥanan is predicated on the fact that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הִגְדִּילוּ – יְשַׁפֶּה, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, אַמַּאי יְשַׁפֶּה? הָאָמַר: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר!

From where does Rava derive that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? From the fact that the mishna teaches: If the three trees grew, the owner of the land may cut down the branches that extend into his field. And if it enters your mind that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, why may he cut them down? Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva say that one who sells, sells generously?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – גַּבֵּי בּוֹר וָדוּת, דְּלָא מַכְחֲשִׁי אַרְעָא; גַּבֵּי אִילָן מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: This does not prove that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. You can say that Rabbi Akiva stated his ruling in the case of a pit and a cistern that are situated in a field belonging to another, which one sells in a generous manner, as they do not weaken the land. But did you hear him say that the seller is generous toward the buyer with regard to a tree, which can weaken the land?

מִי לָא מוֹדֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּאִילָן הַנּוֹטֶה לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁקּוֹצֵץ מְלֹא מַרְדֵּעַ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי מַחֲרֵישָׁה?

Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede in the case of a tree that leans out into the field of another, in which the owner of the other field cuts down the branches until the full height of an ox-goad, the handle that protrudes over a plow? Since the extending branches impede his efforts to plow his field, it is permitted for him to cut them down. This indicates that even according to Rabbi Akiva one does not grant privileges that are detrimental to his own interests. If so, the mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, which indicates that Rabbi Elazar does not accept his ruling.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן, וְחוּצָה לָהֶן כִּמְלוֹא אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ.

The Gemara points out: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If one buys three trees in a field belonging to another, this buyer has acquired the ground that is found underneath the trees, and the area between them, and outside of the trees and their branches an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: אוֹתָן אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ, מִי זוֹרְעָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַחִיצוֹן זוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Those areas around the trees that are designated for a gatherer of figs and his basket are used for this purpose only at specific times. Who sows that land during the rest of the year, the owner of the trees or the owner of the field? Rav Yosef said to him: You learned the answer in a mishna (99b): If one owns a garden that is surrounded by the garden of another, the owner of the inner garden has a right to a path through the outer garden. Even so, the owner of the outer garden may sow the path.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם לֵית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא לְלוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל הָכָא – אִית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא לְלוֹקֵחַ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָמִיטַּנְּפִי פֵּירֵי.

Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? There, in the case of the outer and inner gardens, there is no loss suffered by the buyer when the owner of the outer garden sows the path, as he can still pass through it. But here, there is a loss for the buyer, as the one who bought the trees says to the owner of the field: The fruits that fall from the trees will become soiled by the plants.

הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְסֵיפָא: וְזֶה וָזֶה אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לְזוֹרְעָהּ.

This case is similar only to the last clause of that mishna, which states: If the owner of the inner garden is given a side path, so that he suffers a loss of some kind because he cannot take the shortest path to reach his garden, both this owner of the inner garden and that owner of the outer garden are not permitted to sow the path. Similarly, here too, neither the owner of the trees nor the owner of the field are permitted to sow the place designated for the gatherer of figs and his basket.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן, וְחוּצָה לָהֶן כִּמְלוֹא אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ; וְזֶה וָזֶה אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לְזוֹרְעָהּ.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This buyer has acquired the ground that is found underneath the trees, and the area between them, and outside of the trees and their branches an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket. And both this owner of the field and that owner of the trees are not permitted to sow it.

וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בֵּינֵיהֶן? רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמוֹנֶה. רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה וְעַד שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לָא תִּפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דִּתְנַן מַתְנִיתִין כְּווֹתֵיהּ –

The Gemara inquires: And how much space must there be between the three trees for them to be considered one unit, which means that the land is acquired by the owner of the trees? Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The distance between the trees must be from four cubits to eight cubits. Rava says that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: It must be from eight cubits to sixteen cubits. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do not disagree with Rav Naḥman, as we learned in a mishna in accordance with his opinion.

דִּתְנַן: הַנּוֹטֵעַ אֶת כַּרְמוֹ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, מוּתָּר לְהָבִיא זֶרַע לְשָׁם.

As we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 4:9): One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits by sixteen cubits, i.e., he leaves sixteen cubits between each row of vines, is permitted to bring other species of seeds to the empty spaces between the rows and sow them there. This is not considered a violation of the biblical prohibition with regard to sowing diverse crops in a vineyard, which is one of the prohibitions of diverse kinds.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַלְמוֹן, בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנָּטַע אֶת כַּרְמוֹ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, וְהָיָה הוֹפֵךְ שְׂעַר שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת לְצַד אֶחָד, וְזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַנִּיר; לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת הָיָה הוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר לִמְקוֹם הַזֶּרַע, וְזָרַע אֶת הַבּוּר; וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּהוּ.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in the city of Tzalmon, where one individual planted his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits. And he would turn the branches of two rows that were facing each other to one side, so that there was a space of sixteen cubits between the two rows, and sow the clearing. The following year he would turn the branches to the place that was sown the year before, and would sow the land that had been left uncultivated the previous year, as it had been filled with the branches from the vines. And the incident came before the Sages and they permitted it. This demonstrates that sixteen cubits between plants is required for them to be considered separate units.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא, אֶלָּא עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה

Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know about this, but there was a similar incident

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz

Bronx, United States

After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!

Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker

Modi’in, Israel

I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.

Karena Perry
Karena Perry

Los Angeles, United States

I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!

Rabbi Nicki Greninger
Rabbi Nicki Greninger

California, United States

I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.

Meira Shapiro
Meira Shapiro

NJ, United States

“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
Deborah Aschheim

New York, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.

Leeza Hirt Wilner
Leeza Hirt Wilner

New York, United States

My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.

Diana Bloom
Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.

Leah Goldford
Leah Goldford

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Sarene Shanus

Mamaroneck, NY, United States

After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.

Janine Rubens
Janine Rubens

Virginia, United States

In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.

Reena Slovin
Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.

Julie Mendelsohn
Julie Mendelsohn

Zichron Yakov, Israel

After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.

Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Caroline Graham-Ofstein

Bet Shemesh, Israel

Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.

Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.

Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal

Merion Station,  USA

Beit Shemesh, Israel

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach
Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.

Laura Warshawsky
Laura Warshawsky

Silver Spring, Maryland, United States

Jill Shames
Jill Shames

Jerusalem, Israel

It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.

Jeanne Yael Klempner
Jeanne Yael Klempner

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.

Shoshana Shinnar
Shoshana Shinnar

Jerusalem, Israel

Bava Batra 82

עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה כְּאֶחָד; וְהָא לֵיכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִכְּדֵי פְּסוּקֵי נִינְהוּ, לִיקְרֵי!

The passage is not recited until the taking and the bringing of the first fruits are performed by one person, and that is not the case here. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Since the passage is composed of verses, let him read them. What is objectionable about reciting verses from the Torah?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִחֲזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא. רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא אָמַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפְקוּעִינְהוּ מִתְּרוּמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר.

Rav Ashi said to him: The problem is due to the fact that this practice has the appearance of falsehood, because he issues a declaration before God that is possibly untrue, as he might not own the ground. Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said: The declaration is not recited lest he come to remove the fruits from their obligation of teruma and tithes, if they are treated entirely as first fruits. For this reason one does not recite the passage, to ensure that their unique status is maintained.

הִגְדִּילוּ – לֹא יְשַׁפֶּה כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִן הַגֶּזַע, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין?

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, if the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches. The mishna further teaches: That which grows out of the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which something is considered to be growing out of the trunk, and what are the circumstances in which it is considered to be growing out of the roots?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁרוֹאֶה פְּנֵי חַמָּה – זֶהוּ מִן הַגֶּזַע, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה פְּנֵי חַמָּה – זֶהוּ מִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to anything that sees the face of the sun, i.e., which is visible and aboveground, this is considered to be growing out of the trunk. And with regard to that which does not see the face of the sun but is concealed in the earth, this is considered to be growing out of the roots.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מַסְּקָא אַרְעָא שִׂירְטוֹן, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: תְּלָתָא זַבֵּינְתְּ לִי, וְאִית לִי אַרְעָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: יָקוֹץ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָקוֹץ.

The Gemara asks: But if everything that is visible belongs to the owner of the tree, no matter how close it is to the ground, let us be concerned that perhaps the land is covered with sediment from flowing water, and some of the tree’s trunk will be covered, in which case the branches that grow from the trunk will appear as though they are separate trees; and the owner of the trees will say to the owner of the field: You actually sold me three trees and I therefore have ownership over the ground. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: That which grows from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but he must cut it down. And Rabbi Yoḥanan himself likewise said: The owner of the tree must cut it down.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נְקִיטִינַן, דֶּקֶל אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע. סָבַר רַב זְבִיד לְמֵימַר: אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע לְבַעַל דֶּקֶל, דְּכֵיוָן דִּלְמִחְפַּר וּלְשָׁרֵשׁ קָאֵי – אַסּוֹחֵי מַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

Rav Naḥman said: We hold by tradition that a palm tree bought from another has no trunk. Rav Zevid thought to say this means that the owner of the palm tree has no right to that which grows from the trunk. The reason is that since it stands ready to be dug up and uprooted, as when the tree dies its owner is not entitled to plant another in its place, he diverts his mind from that which grows from the trunk.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא קוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת – דִּלְמִחְפַּר וּלְמִשְׁרַשׁ קָיְימִי, וְקָתָנֵי דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ גֶּזַע! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֵין לוֹ גֶּזַע לְבַעַל דֶּקֶל, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיא גֶּזַע.

Rav Pappa objects to this: But this is comparable to one who buys two trees in a field belonging to another, as the trees stand ready to be dug up and uprooted because their owner has no right to plant new trees in their place when they die; and yet it is taught in the mishna that he has the right to that which grows from the trunk. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The statement of Rav Naḥman means that the owner of a palm tree, in contrast to owners of other types of trees, has no right to that which grows from the trunk, since a palm tree does not produce branches from its trunk.

וּלְרַב זְבִיד, קַשְׁיָא מַתְנִיתִין! דְּזַבֵּין לַחֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין.

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Zevid, who maintains that Rav Naḥman is referring to all types of trees, the mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: Rav Zevid interprets the mishna as referring to a situation where the owner of the trees bought the trees for five years and stipulated that he may plant new trees in place of the original trees in the event the original ones are cut down.

קָנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה – קָנָה קַרְקַע. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן, וְחוּצָה לָהֶן

§ The mishna teaches: If one bought three trees he has acquired the ground along with them. The Gemara asks: And how much of the field does he acquire? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This buyer has acquired the ground that is located underneath the trees, and the area between them, and with regard to the space outside of the trees and their branches,

כִּמְלוֹא אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַשְׁתָּא דֶּרֶךְ אֵין לוֹ, אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ?! דֶּרֶךְ אֵין לוֹ – דְּאַרְעָא אַחֲרִיתִי הִיא; אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ – יֵשׁ לוֹ?!

he has acquired an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket in hand to stand close to the tree. Rabbi Elazar objects to this: Now that the halakha is that the buyer has no path and must purchase a path through the field to access his trees; if so, does he have possession of an area for the gatherer and his basket? The Gemara elaborates: He has no path, even though he has no other means of gaining access to the trees, as the ground he acquired along with the trees is considered another land and is not part of the rest of the field. Why, then, would he have possession of an area for a gatherer and his basket?

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מִדִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ נִלְמַד, שְׁלֹשָׁה – הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ, הָא שְׁנַיִם – יֵשׁ לוֹ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאַרְעָא דִּידָךְ קָיְימִי.

Rabbi Zeira says: From the statement, i.e., the objection, of our teacher, we learn that it is in the case of three trees that the owner of the trees has no path, as the buyer acquired a separate piece of land along with the trees. But in the case of two trees the buyer has a path, as he says to the owner of the field: My trees are standing on your land, and as I am allowed to use your field to tend to my trees I have the right to walk through your land to reach them.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: לֵימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לֵית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל רַבֵּיהּ – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Shall we say that Rabbi Elazar does not accept the opinion of Shmuel, who was his teacher? As Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously. According to Rabbi Akiva, one sells in a manner that is advantageous for the buyer, and is presumed to have included in the sale even items that were not explicitly specified. In this case, as he has sold a tree that remains on his property, the seller grants the buyer the right to access his tree.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִתּוֹקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

Rava said to him: Even if Rabbi Elazar himself agrees with Rabbi Akiva, the mishna cannot be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rather, the mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one who sells does so sparingly, and the difficulty that Rabbi Elazar raised against Rabbi Yoḥanan is predicated on the fact that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הִגְדִּילוּ – יְשַׁפֶּה, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, אַמַּאי יְשַׁפֶּה? הָאָמַר: מוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן יָפָה מוֹכֵר!

From where does Rava derive that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? From the fact that the mishna teaches: If the three trees grew, the owner of the land may cut down the branches that extend into his field. And if it enters your mind that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, why may he cut them down? Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva say that one who sells, sells generously?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – גַּבֵּי בּוֹר וָדוּת, דְּלָא מַכְחֲשִׁי אַרְעָא; גַּבֵּי אִילָן מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: This does not prove that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. You can say that Rabbi Akiva stated his ruling in the case of a pit and a cistern that are situated in a field belonging to another, which one sells in a generous manner, as they do not weaken the land. But did you hear him say that the seller is generous toward the buyer with regard to a tree, which can weaken the land?

מִי לָא מוֹדֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּאִילָן הַנּוֹטֶה לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁקּוֹצֵץ מְלֹא מַרְדֵּעַ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי מַחֲרֵישָׁה?

Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede in the case of a tree that leans out into the field of another, in which the owner of the other field cuts down the branches until the full height of an ox-goad, the handle that protrudes over a plow? Since the extending branches impede his efforts to plow his field, it is permitted for him to cut them down. This indicates that even according to Rabbi Akiva one does not grant privileges that are detrimental to his own interests. If so, the mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, which indicates that Rabbi Elazar does not accept his ruling.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן, וְחוּצָה לָהֶן כִּמְלוֹא אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ.

The Gemara points out: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If one buys three trees in a field belonging to another, this buyer has acquired the ground that is found underneath the trees, and the area between them, and outside of the trees and their branches an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: אוֹתָן אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ, מִי זוֹרְעָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַחִיצוֹן זוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Those areas around the trees that are designated for a gatherer of figs and his basket are used for this purpose only at specific times. Who sows that land during the rest of the year, the owner of the trees or the owner of the field? Rav Yosef said to him: You learned the answer in a mishna (99b): If one owns a garden that is surrounded by the garden of another, the owner of the inner garden has a right to a path through the outer garden. Even so, the owner of the outer garden may sow the path.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם לֵית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא לְלוֹקֵחַ, אֲבָל הָכָא – אִית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא לְלוֹקֵחַ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָמִיטַּנְּפִי פֵּירֵי.

Abaye said to him: Are the cases comparable? There, in the case of the outer and inner gardens, there is no loss suffered by the buyer when the owner of the outer garden sows the path, as he can still pass through it. But here, there is a loss for the buyer, as the one who bought the trees says to the owner of the field: The fruits that fall from the trees will become soiled by the plants.

הָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְסֵיפָא: וְזֶה וָזֶה אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לְזוֹרְעָהּ.

This case is similar only to the last clause of that mishna, which states: If the owner of the inner garden is given a side path, so that he suffers a loss of some kind because he cannot take the shortest path to reach his garden, both this owner of the inner garden and that owner of the outer garden are not permitted to sow the path. Similarly, here too, neither the owner of the trees nor the owner of the field are permitted to sow the place designated for the gatherer of figs and his basket.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי זֶה קָנָה תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּבֵינֵיהֶן, וְחוּצָה לָהֶן כִּמְלוֹא אוֹרֶה וְסַלּוֹ; וְזֶה וָזֶה אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לְזוֹרְעָהּ.

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This buyer has acquired the ground that is found underneath the trees, and the area between them, and outside of the trees and their branches an area sufficient for a gatherer of figs and his basket. And both this owner of the field and that owner of the trees are not permitted to sow it.

וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בֵּינֵיהֶן? רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמוֹנֶה. רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה וְעַד שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לָא תִּפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דִּתְנַן מַתְנִיתִין כְּווֹתֵיהּ –

The Gemara inquires: And how much space must there be between the three trees for them to be considered one unit, which means that the land is acquired by the owner of the trees? Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The distance between the trees must be from four cubits to eight cubits. Rava says that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: It must be from eight cubits to sixteen cubits. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do not disagree with Rav Naḥman, as we learned in a mishna in accordance with his opinion.

דִּתְנַן: הַנּוֹטֵעַ אֶת כַּרְמוֹ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, מוּתָּר לְהָבִיא זֶרַע לְשָׁם.

As we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 4:9): One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits by sixteen cubits, i.e., he leaves sixteen cubits between each row of vines, is permitted to bring other species of seeds to the empty spaces between the rows and sow them there. This is not considered a violation of the biblical prohibition with regard to sowing diverse crops in a vineyard, which is one of the prohibitions of diverse kinds.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַלְמוֹן, בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנָּטַע אֶת כַּרְמוֹ שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עַל שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, וְהָיָה הוֹפֵךְ שְׂעַר שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת לְצַד אֶחָד, וְזוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַנִּיר; לְשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת הָיָה הוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַשֵּׂעָר לִמְקוֹם הַזֶּרַע, וְזָרַע אֶת הַבּוּר; וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּהוּ.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in the city of Tzalmon, where one individual planted his vineyard sixteen by sixteen cubits. And he would turn the branches of two rows that were facing each other to one side, so that there was a space of sixteen cubits between the two rows, and sow the clearing. The following year he would turn the branches to the place that was sown the year before, and would sow the land that had been left uncultivated the previous year, as it had been filled with the branches from the vines. And the incident came before the Sages and they permitted it. This demonstrates that sixteen cubits between plants is required for them to be considered separate units.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא, אֶלָּא עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה

Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know about this, but there was a similar incident

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete