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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 29, 2016 | 讬状讟 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • 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.

Gittin 47

One who sells himself a few times to a non- Jew should not be redeemed in order to discourage him from selling himself so others will bail him out. 聽One who sells his field to a non Jew is responsible to bring buy back the bikurim from the non Jew – in order to prevent people from selling their land to non Jews. 聽聽If one sells a field to a non Jew, and then a Jew buys fruits from that field, it one obligated to tithe the fruits? 聽There is an argument between Rabba and Rabbi Elazar and the gemara attempts to bring proofs for each opinion.


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

驻讬专拽谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟诇讗

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讚拽讗讻讬诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇转讬讗讘讜谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗讻讬诇

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转讬专讗 讜讗讬住讜专讗 拽诪讬讛 讜砖讘讬拽 讛讬转讬专讗 讜讗讻讬诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 拽讗 砖讘拽讬 诇讬 讚讗驻专拽讬谞讱

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.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讘讬谉 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诇讜讚讗讬 砖拽诇 讘讛讚讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讜讙诇讙诇转讗 讗诪专 讙诪讬专讬 讚讬讜诪讗 讘转专讗 讻诇 讚讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讜诇 讗讚诪讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讬讜诪讗 讘转专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘注讬谞讗 讗拽诪讟讬谞讻讜 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讻讜 讜讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讗诪讞讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 拽诪讟讬谞讛讜 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讚 诪讞讬讬讛 讞讚 讞讬讬转讗 谞驻拽 谞砖诪转讬讛 讞专拽讬谞讬讛 诇砖讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讻讬 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讻转 讘讬 讗讻转讬 驻砖 诇讱 讙讘讬 驻诇讙讗 讚讞讬讬转讗 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜

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.

谞驻拽 讜讗转讗 讬转讬讘 拽讗讻讬诇 讜砖转讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讘专转讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬转 诪讬讚讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转讬 讻专讬住讬 讻专讬 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 砖讘拽 拽讘讗 讚诪讜专讬拽讗 拽专讗 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜注讝讘讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讞讬诇诐

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鈥檛 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: 鈥淎nd they leave their wealth for others鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讛讜 诇讙讜讬 诇讜拽讞 讜诪讘讬讗 诪诪谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讬 讛讗专抓 诇讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞驻讜专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪讬诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜讛讗专抓 谞转谉 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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: 鈥淔or the land is Mine鈥 (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: 鈥淭he heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth has He given to the children of men鈥 (Psalms 115:16).

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讗诪专 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 讚讙谉 讙讜讬 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞驻讜专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓

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: 鈥淭he tithe of your grain鈥 (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: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Psalms 24:1).

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 讚讙谉 讙讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讚讬讙讜谞讱 讜诇讗 讚讬讙讜谉 讙讜讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rabbi Elazar disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that 鈥測our grain鈥 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 鈥測our grain鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛诇拽讟 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛驻拽讬专

Rabba said: From where do I say that a gentile鈥檚 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鈥檃 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鈥檃], of a gentile, one is obligated to tithe them unless the owner rendered them ownerless.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讬拽讟讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛驻拽讬专 讛讗 诪驻拽专讬 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讙讜讬 讜诇讬拽讟讬谞讛讜 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara discusses: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 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鈥檃 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鈥檃, and declared them to be ownerless, and a Jew gathered them.

讟注诪讗 讚讛驻拽讬专 讛讗 诇讗 讛驻拽讬专 讞讬讬讘

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.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讬拽讟讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛讗 诪驻拽专讬 讜拽讬讬诪讬 谞讛讬 讚诪驻拽专讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗讚注转讗 讚讙讜讬 诪讬 诪驻拽专讬

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually it may be that these were gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讙讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 讜讞讝专 讜诪讻专讛 诇讜 诪砖讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘讛 谞转讞讬讬讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讛 诇讗

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鈥檚 acquisition in Eretz Yisrael abrogates the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘住讜专讬讗 讜拽住讘专 讻讬讘讜砖 讬讞讬讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜砖

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖诇拽讞讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

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,

讟讘诇 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘

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.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专

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鈥檚 portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘住讜专讬讗 讜拽住讘专 讻讬讘讜砖 讬讞讬讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诇讙讜讬 诇讜拽讞 讜诪讘讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

Rav 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖转讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 诪讬讬转讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 诪拽专讬 讜诪讝讘谞讬 讚住讘专讬 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 讚诇讗 诇讬转讜

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.

讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚诪讗谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 诪讝讘谉 讜拽讗 诪砖转拽注谉 讘讬讚 讙讜讬诐 讛讚专 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 讚诇讬转讜

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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诇驻讬专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗

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 Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭he land which You, Lord, have given me鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讗讜 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜诇讘讬转讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬 讗砖转讜 讜拽讜专讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase 鈥測our house鈥 often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This teaches that a man brings his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讘讬转讱

Reish Lakish said to him: It is different there, as it is written explicitly: 鈥淎nd to your house,鈥 which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to one鈥檚 wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讘讬转讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬 讗砖转讜 讜拽讜专讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讘讬转讱 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讻讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

And there are those who say that they had a different exchange: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from that baraita: It is written: 鈥淎nd to your house,鈥 which teaches that a man brings his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 field, as it is written explicitly: 鈥淎nd to your house鈥; but generally, no, one who acquired only a field鈥檚 produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: I also state my reason from here, as I see the halakha of a man bringing the produce from his wife鈥檚 field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讘讬讻讜专讬 讗砖转讜 讘讬讚讜 讜砖诪注 砖诪转讛 讗砖转讜 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 诪转讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 诪转讛 诇讗

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan based on a baraita: If he was traveling on the road to Jerusalem and the first fruits of his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪转讛 讜诪转讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗

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 岣nina concerning a similar halakha.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘爪专谉 讜砖讙专谉 讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讜诪转 砖诇讬讞 讘讚专讱 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇拽讞转 讜讛讘讗转 注讚 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讛讘讗讛 讘讗讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

As Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina 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: 鈥淎nd you shall take鈥nd you shall bring鈥 (see Deuteronomy 26:2鈥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鈥檚 death, because the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish follow their standard line of reasoning with regard to the issue of the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce. As it was stated that they had a dispute in the following case as well: One who sells his field

  • 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!

Gittin 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 47

驻讬专拽谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讟诇讗

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讚拽讗讻讬诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇转讬讗讘讜谉 讛讜讗 讚拽讗讻讬诇

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讬转讬专讗 讜讗讬住讜专讗 拽诪讬讛 讜砖讘讬拽 讛讬转讬专讗 讜讗讻讬诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 诇讗 拽讗 砖讘拽讬 诇讬 讚讗驻专拽讬谞讱

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.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讘讬谉 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诇讜讚讗讬 砖拽诇 讘讛讚讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讜讙诇讙诇转讗 讗诪专 讙诪讬专讬 讚讬讜诪讗 讘转专讗 讻诇 讚讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讜诇 讗讚诪讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讬讜诪讗 讘转专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讘注讬谞讗 讗拽诪讟讬谞讻讜 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讻讜 讜讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讗诪讞讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讜驻诇讙讗 拽诪讟讬谞讛讜 讜讗讜转讘讬谞讛讜 讻诇 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讚 诪讞讬讬讛 讞讚 讞讬讬转讗 谞驻拽 谞砖诪转讬讛 讞专拽讬谞讬讛 诇砖讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讻讬 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讻转 讘讬 讗讻转讬 驻砖 诇讱 讙讘讬 驻诇讙讗 讚讞讬讬转讗 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜

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.

谞驻拽 讜讗转讗 讬转讬讘 拽讗讻讬诇 讜砖转讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讘专转讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬转 诪讬讚讬 诇诪讝讙讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讘转讬 讻专讬住讬 讻专讬 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 砖讘拽 拽讘讗 讚诪讜专讬拽讗 拽专讗 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜注讝讘讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讞讬诇诐

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鈥檛 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: 鈥淎nd they leave their wealth for others鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讛讜 诇讙讜讬 诇讜拽讞 讜诪讘讬讗 诪诪谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讬 讛讗专抓 诇讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞驻讜专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖诪讬诐 砖诪讬诐 诇讛壮 讜讛讗专抓 谞转谉 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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: 鈥淔or the land is Mine鈥 (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: 鈥淭he heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth has He given to the children of men鈥 (Psalms 115:16).

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讗诪专 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 讚讙谉 讙讜讬 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞驻讜专 讘讛 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛壮 讛讗专抓

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: 鈥淭he tithe of your grain鈥 (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: 鈥淭he earth is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Psalms 24:1).

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 讚讙谉 讙讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讚讬讙讜谞讱 讜诇讗 讚讬讙讜谉 讙讜讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rabbi Elazar disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that 鈥測our grain鈥 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 鈥測our grain鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛诇拽讟 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 砖诇 讙讜讬 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛驻拽讬专

Rabba said: From where do I say that a gentile鈥檚 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鈥檃 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鈥檃], of a gentile, one is obligated to tithe them unless the owner rendered them ownerless.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讬拽讟讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛驻拽讬专 讛讗 诪驻拽专讬 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讙讜讬 讜诇讬拽讟讬谞讛讜 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara discusses: What are the circumstances? If we say that this is referring to the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 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鈥檃 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鈥檃, and declared them to be ownerless, and a Jew gathered them.

讟注诪讗 讚讛驻拽讬专 讛讗 诇讗 讛驻拽讬专 讞讬讬讘

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.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讬拽讟讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛讗 诪驻拽专讬 讜拽讬讬诪讬 谞讛讬 讚诪驻拽专讬 讗讚注转讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗讚注转讗 讚讙讜讬 诪讬 诪驻拽专讬

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually it may be that these were gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讙讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 讜讞讝专 讜诪讻专讛 诇讜 诪砖讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘讛 谞转讞讬讬讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讛 诇讗

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鈥檚 acquisition in Eretz Yisrael abrogates the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘住讜专讬讗 讜拽住讘专 讻讬讘讜砖 讬讞讬讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜砖

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖诇拽讞讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

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,

讟讘诇 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘

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.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讗讘诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 拽谞讬谉 诇讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛驻拽讬注 诪讬讚 诪注砖专

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鈥檚 portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘住讜专讬讗 讜拽住讘专 讻讬讘讜砖 讬讞讬讚 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诇讙讜讬 诇讜拽讞 讜诪讘讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗

Rav 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖转讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讜 诪讬讬转讬 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 诪拽专讬 讜诪讝讘谞讬 讚住讘专讬 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪谉 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 讚诇讗 诇讬转讜

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.

讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚诪讗谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 诪讝讘谉 讜拽讗 诪砖转拽注谉 讘讬讚 讙讜讬诐 讛讚专 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 讚诇讬转讜

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.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诇驻讬专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗

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 Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淭he land which You, Lord, have given me鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 拽谞讬谉 驻讬专讜转 诇讗讜 讻拽谞讬谉 讛讙讜祝 讚诪讬

The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜诇讘讬转讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬 讗砖转讜 讜拽讜专讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase 鈥測our house鈥 often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This teaches that a man brings his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讘讬转讱

Reish Lakish said to him: It is different there, as it is written explicitly: 鈥淎nd to your house,鈥 which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to one鈥檚 wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讘讬转讱 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬 讗砖转讜 讜拽讜专讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讘讬转讱 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讻讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

And there are those who say that they had a different exchange: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from that baraita: It is written: 鈥淎nd to your house,鈥 which teaches that a man brings his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 field, as it is written explicitly: 鈥淎nd to your house鈥; but generally, no, one who acquired only a field鈥檚 produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: I also state my reason from here, as I see the halakha of a man bringing the produce from his wife鈥檚 field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讘讬讻讜专讬 讗砖转讜 讘讬讚讜 讜砖诪注 砖诪转讛 讗砖转讜 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 诪转讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 诪转讛 诇讗

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan based on a baraita: If he was traveling on the road to Jerusalem and the first fruits of his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪转讛 讜诪转讛 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗

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 岣nina concerning a similar halakha.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘爪专谉 讜砖讙专谉 讘讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讜诪转 砖诇讬讞 讘讚专讱 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇拽讞转 讜讛讘讗转 注讚 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讛讘讗讛 讘讗讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

As Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina 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: 鈥淎nd you shall take鈥nd you shall bring鈥 (see Deuteronomy 26:2鈥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鈥檚 death, because the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish follow their standard line of reasoning with regard to the issue of the acquisition of a field鈥檚 produce. As it was stated that they had a dispute in the following case as well: One who sells his field

Scroll To Top