Gittin 47
פִּירְקַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לַגּוֹיִם – אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַבָּנִים – מִשּׁוּם קִלְקוּלָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא קְטָלָא.
Redeem me. Rabbi Ami said to him: We learned in a mishna: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed. However, his children are redeemed due to the harm of becoming assimilated among the gentiles, and all the more so here, where there is a concern that leaving him in bondage may lead to his death, he should be redeemed.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַאי יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר הוּא, דְּקָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ דְּקָאָכֵיל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת! אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֵימָא לְתֵיאָבוֹן הוּא דְּקָאָכֵיל.
The Sages said to Rabbi Ami: This man is a Jewish apostate, as they saw him when he was eating unslaughtered animal carcasses and animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. He said to them: Say that he was eating them due to his appetite, not because he is an apostate, but because he was overcome by temptation.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָא זִמְנִין דְּאִיכָּא הֶיתֵּירָא וְאִיסּוּרָא קַמֵּיהּ, וְשָׁבֵיק הֶיתֵּירָא וְאָכֵיל אִיסּוּרָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל, לָא קָא שָׁבְקִי לִי דְּאֶפְרְקִינָּךְ.
They said to him: But there are times when there are permitted and forbidden foods before him, and he sets aside the permitted food and eats the forbidden food, indicating that it is not temptation alone that causes him to transgress. Once he heard this, Rabbi Ami said to that man: Go, because they do not allow me to redeem you.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ זַבֵּין נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְלוּדָאֵי, שְׁקַל בַּהֲדֵיהּ חַיְיתָא וְגֻלְגֻּלְתָּא, אֲמַר: גְּמִירִי דְּיוֹמָא בָּתְרָא כֹּל דְּבָעֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עָבְדִי לֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵיחוּל אַדְּמֵיהּ.
The Gemara recounts a related incident: Reish Lakish sold himself to gladiators. He took a bag and a round stone inside of it with him. He said: There is a tradition that on the final day of a captive’s life, before his captors kill him, they do for him anything that he requests of them, so that he would forgive them for the spilling of his blood.
יוֹמָא בָּתְרָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי נִיחָא לָךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: בָּעֵינָא אֶקְמְטִינְכוּ וְאוֹתְבִינְכוּ, וְכֹל חַד מִינַּיְיכוּ אֶמְחְיֵהּ חַיְיתָא וּפַלְגָא. קַמְטִינְהוּ וְאוֹתְבִינְהוּ, כֹּל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ כַּד מַחְיֵיהּ חַד חַיְיתָא נְפַק נִשְׁמְתֵיהּ. חַרְקִינֵּיהּ לְשִׁינֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחוֹכֵי קָא מְחַיְּיכַתְּ בִּי? אַכַּתִּי פָּשׁ לָךְ גַּבַּי פַּלְגָא דְּחַיְיתָא. קַטְלִינְהוּ כּוּלְּהוּ.
On the final day before they were set to kill him they said to him: What is amenable to you? He said to them: I want to tie you up and have you sit, and I will strike each one of you one and a half times. He tied them up and had each one of them sit. When he struck each of them with one strike with the stone in the bag, the one whom he struck died, because Reish Lakish was of great strength. Reish Lakish gritted his teeth in anger, and said to the one whom he killed, in order to prevent the others from realizing what was happening: Are you laughing at me? You still have half of a strike remaining with me, as I struck you only once. He killed them all, and Reish Lakish escaped his captors.
נְפַק וַאֲתָא, יָתֵיב קָאָכֵיל וְשָׁתֵי. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ בְּרַתֵּיה: לָא בָּעֵית מִידֵּי לְמִזְגֵּא עֲלֵיהּ? אֲמַר לַהּ: בִּתִּי, כְּרֵיסִי כָּרִי. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ שְׁבַק קַבָּא דְמוֹרִיקָא, קְרָא אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״וְעָזְבוּ לַאֲחֵרִים חֵילָם״.
He left and came back home, and after some time had passed he was sitting, eating, and drinking, without concern for his livelihood. His daughter said to him: You don’t want something to lie upon? He said to her: My daughter, my belly is my pillow, and this is enough for me. When he died he left only a kav of saffron as an inheritance, and even so he recited this verse about himself: “And they leave their wealth for others” (Psalms 49:11), meaning that he was pained that he did not use all of his property. He exhibited his confidence that God would provide his needs by not saving money for the future.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ לְגוֹי – לוֹקֵחַ וּמֵבִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בִּכּוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.
MISHNA: One who sells his field to a gentile must purchase and bring the first fruits from the field that he sold, for the betterment of the world.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִידֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לִי הָאָרֶץ״ – לִי קְדוּשַּׁת הָאָרֶץ; אֲבָל יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״.
GEMARA: Rabba says: Even though a gentile has no capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce, as it is stated: “For the land is Mine” (Leviticus 25:23), which teaches: The sanctity of the land is Mine, and it is not abrogated when the land is sold to a gentile; a gentile does have, however, the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to allow him to dig pits, ditches, and caves in the land he has purchased, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth has He given to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16).
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִידֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – וְלֹא דְּגַן גּוֹי; אֲבָל אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Even though a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce, as it is stated with regard to tithes: “The tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17), which teaches that it is only the grain of a Jew that is obligated in tithes and not the grain of a gentile; a gentile does not have, however, the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to allow him to dig pits, ditches, and caves, in the land he has purchased, as it is stated: “The earth is the Lord’s” (Psalms 24:1).
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – וְלֹא דְּגַן גּוֹי, וּמָר סָבַר: דִּיגּוּנְךָ, וְלֹא דִּיגּוּן גּוֹי.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rabbi Elazar disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that “your grain” teaches that only grain grown in the field of a Jew is obligated in tithes, but not the grain grown in the field of a gentile. And one Sage, Rabba, holds that “your grain” is not referring to the produce itself, but rather to your accumulation of the produce into a pile, which obligates the produce in tithes, and not the accumulation of the produce into a pile by a gentile, as Rabba holds that if a gentile harvests and gathers grain, the grain is not obligated in tithes.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: הַלֶּקֶט וְהַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה שֶׁל גּוֹי – חַיָּיבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִפְקִיר.
Rabba said: From where do I say that a gentile’s acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael does not cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes? As we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 4:9): With regard to the gleanings left for the poor, and the forgotten sheaves left for the poor, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], of a gentile, one is obligated to tithe them unless the owner rendered them ownerless.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַיקְּטִינְהוּ גּוֹי – ״אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִפְקִיר״?! הָא מַפְקְרִי וְקָיְימִי! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּגוֹי – וְלַקְּטִינְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל;
The Gemara discusses: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a of a Jew, and a gentile collected them and sold them to a Jew, then how could the mishna write: Unless he rendered them ownerless? But they are already ownerless, since gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a are already ownerless, as anyone can take them. Rather, is it not the case that the mishna is referring to produce of a gentile, who then separated gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a, and declared them to be ownerless, and a Jew gathered them.
טַעְמָא דְּהִפְקִיר, הָא לֹא הִפְקִיר – חַיָּיב!
Rabba explains his inference: The reason that this produce is exempt from tithes is specifically because the gentile rendered it ownerless, but if he did not render it ownerless, then it would be obligated in tithes. One can infer from this mishna that the acquisition of land by a gentile does not cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes.
לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַקְּטִינְהוּ גּוֹי, וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ: הָא מַפְקְרִי וְקָיְימִי, נְהִי דְּמַפְקְרִי אַדַּעְתָּא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אַדַּעְתָּא דְגוֹי מִי מַפְקְרִי?!
The Gemara rejects this: No, actually it may be that these were gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a of a Jew, and a gentile collected them. And that which you said: But they are already ownerless, is incorrect. Let it be that he rendered them ownerless with the intent that a Jew would collect them, but did he render them ownerless with the intent that a gentile would collect them? He did not in fact render them ownerless, as he expected only a Jew to collect them. Therefore, if a gentile collects them and sells them to a Jew, the Jew is obligated to tithe them.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה מִגּוֹי עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ, וְחָזַר וּמְכָרָהּ לוֹ מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – חַיֶּיבֶת בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיְּיבָה. נִתְחַיְּיבָה – אִין, לֹא נִתְחַיְּיבָה – לָא!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: If there was a Jew who acquired a field from a gentile before its produce reached a third of its growth, at which point one is obligated to tithe the produce, and he then sold it to the gentile after its produce reached a third of its growth, then the owner is obligated to tithe the produce because the produce already became obligated in tithes when it reached a third of its growth while under Jewish ownership. The Gemara deduces from here: It is only when the produce became obligated in tithes while under Jewish ownership, that yes, the owner is obligated to tithe, but if the produce did not become obligated in tithes while under Jewish ownership, then no, the owner is not obligated to tithe. This teaches that produce that grows while the field is owned by a gentile is exempt from tithes, and a gentile’s acquisition in Eretz Yisrael abrogates the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּסוּרְיָא, וְקָסָבַר: כִּיבּוּשׁ יָחִיד לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּשׁ.
The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are not dealing with Eretz Yisrael proper, but with land in Syria, and this tanna holds that the conquest of an individual is not called a conquest. Since Syria was conquered in battle by King David, and not by the Jewish people as a whole, it is not bound by all the same halakhot that apply in Eretz Yisrael.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת –
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:10): If there were a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership,
טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב.
the produce grown in that field is considered to be untithed produce and non-sacred produce mixed together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The portion of the gentile is exempt from terumot and tithes, and the portion of the Jew is obligated.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר ״יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה״. וּמַר סָבַר ״אֵין בְּרֵירָה״; אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר!
The Gemara explains the inference: They disagree only with regard to the following issue: That one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that there is retroactive clarification, i.e., when they divide the produce, it will be clarified who owned what produce from the outset. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and therefore, since it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. However, everyone agrees that a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce, as the gentile’s portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.
הָכָא נָמֵי בְּסוּרְיָא; וְקָסָבַר כִּיבּוּשׁ יָחִיד לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּשׁ.
The Gemara answers: Here, also, it is referring to a case in Syria, and he holds that the conquest of an individual is not called a conquest, and a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Syria to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְגוֹי – לוֹקֵחַ וּמֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם – אִין, מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – לָא!
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: One who sells his field to a gentile must purchase and bring the first fruits from the field that he sold, for the betterment of the world. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin infers: For the betterment of the world, yes, he must bring the first fruits; however, by Torah law, no, he is not required. This teaches that the acquisition of a gentile causes the abrogation of the sanctity of the land.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁתֵּי תַּקָּנוֹת הֲווֹ – מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ מַיְיתִי מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא; כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מִקְּרִי וּמְזַבְּנִי, דְּסָבְרִי בִּקְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ קָיְימָן, תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ דְּלָא לַיְתוֹ;
Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances concerning this issue. Initially, those who sold their fields to gentiles would bring first fruits by Torah law, as they held that the acquisition of a gentile does not abrogate the sanctity of the land. Once the Sages saw that the Jews would sell their land to gentiles when they had the opportunity, because these Jews thought that the fact that the Jew would still have to bring the first fruits indicates that the land retains its sanctity, and therefore there is no reason not to sell the land to gentiles, they instituted for those who sell land to gentiles that they should not bring the first fruits, to emphasize that the land should not be sold to gentiles. This was the first ordinance.
כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּמַאן דְּלָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ – מְזַבֵּן, וְקָא מִשְׁתַּקְּעָן בְּיַד גּוֹיִם, הֲדַר תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ דְּלַיְתוֹ.
Once the Sages saw that those who were not able to subsist would sell their land despite this ordinance, and the fields would remain in the possession of the gentiles and would not be redeemed, they went back and instituted that they should bring the first fruits in order to penalize the seller, to encourage him to repurchase the field. This was the second ordinance. Therefore, one cannot prove from the mishna whether or not the acquisition of a gentile abrogates the sanctity of the land.
אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְפֵירוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא.
§ It was stated: With regard to one who sells his field for just its produce, meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser brings first fruits from this field to the Temple and recites the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: “The land which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Reish Lakish says: Although the buyer brings the first fruits, he does not recite the verses, since it is not his field.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.
The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he brings the first fruits and recites the verses because he maintains that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself. Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. Reish Lakish says that he brings the first fruits and does not recite the verses because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״וּלְבֵיתְךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְקוֹרֵא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: “And you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house” (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase “your house” often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This teaches that a man brings his wife’s first fruits, and he recites the relevant verses. This is true despite the fact that a husband acquires the field of his wife only for the produce. It seems from this baraita that the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״.
Reish Lakish said to him: It is different there, as it is written explicitly: “And to your house,” which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to one’s wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְקוֹרֵא – הָתָם הוּא דִכְתִיב ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא – לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא קָאָמֵינָא.
And there are those who say that they had a different exchange: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from that baraita: It is written: “And to your house,” which teaches that a man brings his wife’s first fruits, and he recites the relevant verses. Reish Lakish infers from this: There, it is that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses despite having acquired only the rights to the produce from his wife’s field, as it is written explicitly: “And to your house”; but generally, no, one who acquired only a field’s produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I also state my reason from here, as I see the halakha of a man bringing the produce from his wife’s field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבִיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ – מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. מֵתָה – אִין, לֹא מֵתָה – לָא!
Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan based on a baraita: If he was traveling on the road to Jerusalem and the first fruits of his wife’s field were in his possession, and he heard that his wife died, then he brings the first fruits and recites the verses. One can infer: If she died, yes, he brings the fruits and recites the verses, as he has now inherited the field itself; but if she did not die, then no, he does not recite the verses, because acquisition of a field’s produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.
הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא מֵתָה; וּמֵתָה אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לִיגְזוֹר מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא –
The Gemara answers: The same is true in that case, that even though she did not die he also brings the fruits and recites the verses, but it was necessary for the baraita to mention the possibility that she died, because it might enter your mind to say that there should be a rabbinic decree in this case due to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina concerning a similar halakha.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּצָרָן, וְשִׁגְּרָן בְּיַד שָׁלִיחַ, וּמֵת שָׁלִיחַ בַּדֶּרֶךְ – מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״–״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה בְּאֶחָד; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: If one harvested his first fruits and sent them in the possession of an agent, and the agent died on the way, then someone else brings the fruits but does not recite the verses, as it is stated: “And you shall take…and you shall bring” (see Deuteronomy 26:2–3), and this juxtaposition teaches that the verses are not recited until the taking and bringing will be accomplished by one person. One might have said that since the husband took the fruits as the owner of the fruits alone and not the field, as the field was owned by his wife, and then he became the owner of the field as well and is bringing the fruits as the full owner, he should not recite the verses. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that he is considered to be the full owner before his wife’s death, because the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.
וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ
The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish follow their standard line of reasoning with regard to the issue of the acquisition of a field’s produce. As it was stated that they had a dispute in the following case as well: One who sells his field
