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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 14, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 82

How does one determine if the branches grew out of the trunk or the ground? 聽If one purchases 3 trees, one acquires the land. 聽How much land does one acquire? 聽How much space needs to be in between the trees in order for them to be considered one field so that the purchaser can also acquire the land?


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

注讚 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讛讘讗讛 讻讗讞讚 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讻讚讬 驻住讜拽讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讬拽专讬

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 A岣, 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻拽讜注讬谞讛讜 诪转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专

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 岣yya, 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.

讛讙讚讬诇讜 诇讗 讬砖驻讛 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪谉 讛讙讝注 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖专讜讗讛 驻谞讬 讞诪讛 讝讛讜 诪谉 讛讙讝注 讜砖讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 驻谞讬 讞诪讛 讝讛讜 诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪住拽讗 讗专注讗 砖讬专讟讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诇转讗 讝讘讬谞转 诇讬 讜讗讬转 诇讬 讗专注讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬拽讜抓 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬拽讜抓

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鈥檚 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 Na岣an said: That which grows from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but he must cut it down. And Rabbi Yo岣nan himself likewise said: The owner of the tree must cut it down.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 讚拽诇 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讝注 住讘专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讝注 诇讘注诇 讚拽诇 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇诪讞驻专 讜诇砖专砖 拽讗讬 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 讚诇诪讞驻专 讜诇诪砖专砖 拽讬讬诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讚讬砖 诇讜 讙讝注 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讝注 诇讘注诇 讚拽诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 讙讝注

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 Na岣an 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.

讜诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Zevid, who maintains that Rav Na岣an 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.

拽谞讛 砖诇砖讛 拽谞讛 拽专拽注 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛谉

搂 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 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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,

讻诪诇讜讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛砖转讗 讚专讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 讬砖 诇讜 讚专讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 讬砖 诇讜

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讚 砖诇砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讚专讱 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗专注讗 讚讬讚讱 拽讬讬诪讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪转讜拽诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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 Yo岣nan is predicated on the fact that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬砖驻讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 讬砖驻讛 讛讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专

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鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva say that one who sells, sells generously?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讚诇讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讗专注讗 讙讘讬 讗讬诇谉 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?

诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 砖拽讜爪抓 诪诇讗 诪专讚注 诪注诇 讙讘讬 诪讞专讬砖讛

Doesn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛专讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛谉 讻诪诇讜讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜

The Gemara points out: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the statement of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讜转谉 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 诪讬 讝讜专注谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讝讜专注 讗转 讛讚专讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽诪讬讟谞驻讬 驻讬专讬

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.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇住讬驻讗 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讝讜专注讛

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛谉 讻诪诇讜讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讝讜专注讛

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.

讜讻诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 砖诪讜谞讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讜谞讛 讜注讚 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 转驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

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 Na岣an says that Shmuel says: It must be from eight cubits to sixteen cubits. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do not disagree with Rav Na岣an, as we learned in a mishna in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讟注 讗转 讻专诪讜 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 注诇 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪讜转专 诇讛讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘爪诇诪讜谉 讘讗讞讚 砖谞讟注 讗转 讻专诪讜 砖砖 注砖专讛 注诇 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜讛讬讛 讛讜驻讱 砖注专 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 诇爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛谞讬专 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 讛讬讛 讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛砖注专 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讝专注 讜讝专注 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗诇讗 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 82

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 82

注讚 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讛讘讗讛 讻讗讞讚 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讻讚讬 驻住讜拽讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讬拽专讬

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 A岣, 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻拽讜注讬谞讛讜 诪转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专

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 岣yya, 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.

讛讙讚讬诇讜 诇讗 讬砖驻讛 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪谉 讛讙讝注 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉

搂 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖专讜讗讛 驻谞讬 讞诪讛 讝讛讜 诪谉 讛讙讝注 讜砖讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 驻谞讬 讞诪讛 讝讛讜 诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪住拽讗 讗专注讗 砖讬专讟讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 转诇转讗 讝讘讬谞转 诇讬 讜讗讬转 诇讬 讗专注讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬拽讜抓 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬拽讜抓

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鈥檚 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 Na岣an said: That which grows from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, but he must cut it down. And Rabbi Yo岣nan himself likewise said: The owner of the tree must cut it down.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 讚拽诇 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讝注 住讘专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讝注 诇讘注诇 讚拽诇 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇诪讞驻专 讜诇砖专砖 拽讗讬 讗住讜讞讬 诪住讞 讚注转讬讛

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 拽讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讗讬诇谞讜转 讚诇诪讞驻专 讜诇诪砖专砖 拽讬讬诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讚讬砖 诇讜 讙讝注 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讝注 诇讘注诇 讚拽诇 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗 讙讝注

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 Na岣an 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.

讜诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rav Zevid, who maintains that Rav Na岣an 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.

拽谞讛 砖诇砖讛 拽谞讛 拽专拽注 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛谉

搂 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 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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,

讻诪诇讜讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛砖转讗 讚专讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 讬砖 诇讜 讚专讱 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 讬砖 诇讜

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讚 砖诇砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讚专讱 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗专注讗 讚讬讚讱 拽讬讬诪讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪转讜拽诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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 Yo岣nan is predicated on the fact that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讬砖驻讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 讬砖驻讛 讛讗诪专 诪讜讻专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪讜讻专

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鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva say that one who sells, sells generously?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讜讚讜转 讚诇讗 诪讻讞砖讬 讗专注讗 讙讘讬 讗讬诇谉 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?

诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 砖拽讜爪抓 诪诇讗 诪专讚注 诪注诇 讙讘讬 诪讞专讬砖讛

Doesn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛专讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛谉 讻诪诇讜讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜

The Gemara points out: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the statement of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讜转谉 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 诪讬 讝讜专注谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讝讜专注 讗转 讛讚专讱

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 诇诇讜拽讞 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽诪讬讟谞驻讬 驻讬专讬

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.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇住讬驻讗 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讝讜专注讛

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讝讛 拽谞讛 转讞转讬讛谉 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛谉 讻诪诇讜讗 讗讜专讛 讜住诇讜 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讝讜专注讛

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.

讜讻诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讬谞讬讛谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 砖诪讜谞讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讜谞讛 讜注讚 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 转驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

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 Na岣an says that Shmuel says: It must be from eight cubits to sixteen cubits. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do not disagree with Rav Na岣an, as we learned in a mishna in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讜讟注 讗转 讻专诪讜 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 注诇 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪讜转专 诇讛讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘爪诇诪讜谉 讘讗讞讚 砖谞讟注 讗转 讻专诪讜 砖砖 注砖专讛 注诇 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜讛讬讛 讛讜驻讱 砖注专 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 诇爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛谞讬专 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 讛讬讛 讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛砖注专 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讝专注 讜讝专注 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗诇讗 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛

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

Scroll To Top