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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 29, 2016 | ื™ืดื˜ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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. ย 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. ย ย 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? ย 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"

ืคื™ืจืงืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ืœื’ื•ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืื‘ืœ ืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื‘ื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ืงืœืงื•ืœื ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืงื˜ืœื

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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื”ืื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื—ื–ื• ืœื™ื” ื“ืงืื›ื™ืœ ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื˜ืจื™ืคื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืžื ืœืชื™ืื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืื›ื™ืœ

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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ื•ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงืžื™ื” ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืง ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ื•ืื›ื™ืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืœื ืงื ืฉื‘ืงื™ ืœื™ ื“ืืคืจืงื™ื ืš

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.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืœืœื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืงืœ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื•ื’ืœื’ืœืชื ืืžืจ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืชืจื ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ื—ื•ืœ ืื“ืžื™ื”

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 captiveโ€™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.

ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืชืจื ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืืงืžื˜ื™ื ื›ื• ื•ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื›ื• ื•ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื›ื• ืืžื—ื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืงืžื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื“ ืžื—ื™ื™ื” ื—ื“ ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื ืคืง ื ืฉืžืชื™ื” ื—ืจืงื™ื ื™ื” ืœืฉื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื—ื•ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื›ืช ื‘ื™ ืื›ืชื™ ืคืฉ ืœืš ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืœื’ื ื“ื—ื™ื™ืชื ืงื˜ืœื™ื ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœื”ื•

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.

ื ืคืง ื•ืืชื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืงืื›ื™ืœ ื•ืฉืชื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืช ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœืžื–ื’ื ืขืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืชื™ ื›ืจื™ืกื™ ื›ืจื™ ื›ื™ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืฉื‘ืง ืงื‘ื ื“ืžื•ืจื™ืงื ืงืจื ืื ืคืฉื™ื” ื•ืขื–ื‘ื• ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื—ื™ืœื

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 donโ€™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: โ€œAnd they leave their wealth for othersโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœื’ื•ื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืžืžื ื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืคืงื™ืข ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืœื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ืืจืฅ ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื—ืคื•ืจ ื‘ื” ื‘ื•ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขืจื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ื•ื”ืืจืฅ ื ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

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: โ€œFor the land is Mineโ€ (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: โ€œThe heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth has He given to the children of menโ€ (Psalms 115:16).

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืคืงื™ืข ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื“ื’ื ืš ื•ืœื ื“ื’ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื—ืคื•ืจ ื‘ื” ื‘ื•ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขืจื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืณ ื”ืืจืฅ

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: โ€œThe tithe of your grainโ€ (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: โ€œThe earth is the Lordโ€™sโ€ (Psalms 24:1).

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื’ื ืš ื•ืœื ื“ื’ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื™ื’ื•ื ืš ื•ืœื ื“ื™ื’ื•ืŸ ื’ื•ื™

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rabbi Elazar disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that โ€œyour grainโ€ 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 โ€œyour grainโ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืœื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœืงื˜ ื•ื”ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื”ืคืื” ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืคืงื™ืจ

Rabba said: From where do I say that a gentileโ€™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 (Peโ€™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 [peโ€™a], of a gentile, one is obligated to tithe them unless the owner rendered them ownerless.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื•ื™ ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ื”ื ืžืคืงืจื™ ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ

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

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ื”ื ืœื ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื“ืงื ืืžืจืช ื”ื ืžืคืงืจื™ ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืคืงืจื™ ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื’ื•ื™ ืžื™ ืžืคืงืจื™

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually it may be that these were gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peโ€™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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืœืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžื’ื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืžื›ืจื” ืœื• ืžืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื” ืœื

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 gentileโ€™s acquisition in Eretz Yisrael abrogates the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืจื™ื ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืœืงื—ื• ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช

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,

ื˜ื‘ืœ ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื™ืฉ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืคืงื™ืข ืžื™ื“ ืžืขืฉืจ

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 gentileโ€™s portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืกื•ืจื™ื ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœื’ื•ื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื

Rav แธคiyya 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 แธคiyya 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืชื™ ืชืงื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื• ื“ืงื ืžืงืจื™ ื•ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ื“ืกื‘ืจื™ ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื ืœื™ืชื•

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.

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื• ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ื•ืงื ืžืฉืชืงืขืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื™ืชื•

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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœืคื™ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื

ยง 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 Yoแธฅanan 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: โ€œThe land which You, Lord, have given meโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™

The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ื•ืงื•ืจื

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: โ€œAnd you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase โ€œyour houseโ€ often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This teaches that a man brings his wifeโ€™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 fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš

Reish Lakish said to him: It is different there, as it is written explicitly: โ€œAnd to your house,โ€ which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to oneโ€™s wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ื•ืงื•ืจื ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื”ื›ื ืงืืžื™ื ื

And there are those who say that they had a different exchange: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from that baraita: It is written: โ€œAnd to your house,โ€ which teaches that a man brings his wifeโ€™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 wifeโ€™s field, as it is written explicitly: โ€œAnd to your houseโ€; but generally, no, one who acquired only a fieldโ€™s produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: I also state my reason from here, as I see the halakha of a man bringing the produce from his wifeโ€™s field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื“ืจืš ื•ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืฉืžืข ืฉืžืชื” ืืฉืชื• ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืžืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืชื” ืœื

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan based on a baraita: If he was traveling on the road to Jerusalem and the first fruits of his wifeโ€™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 fieldโ€™s produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืžืชื” ื•ืžืชื” ืืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื

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 แธคanina concerning a similar halakha.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืฆืจืŸ ื•ืฉื’ืจืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืžืช ืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื“ืจืš ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืงื™ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

As Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina 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: โ€œAnd you shall takeโ€ฆand you shall bringโ€ (see Deuteronomy 26:2โ€“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 wifeโ€™s death, because the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ื•ืื–ื“ื• ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื•

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish follow their standard line of reasoning with regard to the issue of the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s 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 sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ืคื™ืจืงืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ืœื’ื•ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืื‘ืœ ืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื‘ื ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ืงืœืงื•ืœื ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืงื˜ืœื

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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื”ืื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื—ื–ื• ืœื™ื” ื“ืงืื›ื™ืœ ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ื•ื˜ืจื™ืคื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ืžื ืœืชื™ืื‘ื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืื›ื™ืœ

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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ื–ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ื•ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงืžื™ื” ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืง ื”ื™ืชื™ืจื ื•ืื›ื™ืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื–ื™ืœ ืœื ืงื ืฉื‘ืงื™ ืœื™ ื“ืืคืจืงื™ื ืš

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.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืœืœื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืงืœ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื•ื’ืœื’ืœืชื ืืžืจ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ื“ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืชืจื ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ื—ื•ืœ ืื“ืžื™ื”

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 captiveโ€™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.

ื™ื•ืžื ื‘ืชืจื ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืืงืžื˜ื™ื ื›ื• ื•ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื›ื• ื•ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื›ื• ืืžื—ื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื•ืคืœื’ื ืงืžื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื“ ืžื—ื™ื™ื” ื—ื“ ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื ืคืง ื ืฉืžืชื™ื” ื—ืจืงื™ื ื™ื” ืœืฉื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื—ื•ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื—ื™ื™ื›ืช ื‘ื™ ืื›ืชื™ ืคืฉ ืœืš ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืœื’ื ื“ื—ื™ื™ืชื ืงื˜ืœื™ื ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœื”ื•

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.

ื ืคืง ื•ืืชื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืงืื›ื™ืœ ื•ืฉืชื™ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ืช ืžื™ื“ื™ ืœืžื–ื’ื ืขืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ื‘ืชื™ ื›ืจื™ืกื™ ื›ืจื™ ื›ื™ ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืฉื‘ืง ืงื‘ื ื“ืžื•ืจื™ืงื ืงืจื ืื ืคืฉื™ื” ื•ืขื–ื‘ื• ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื—ื™ืœื

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 donโ€™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: โ€œAnd they leave their wealth for othersโ€ (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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœื’ื•ื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืžืžื ื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืคืงื™ืข ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืœื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื”ืืจืฅ ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื—ืคื•ืจ ื‘ื” ื‘ื•ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขืจื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉืžื™ื ืœื”ืณ ื•ื”ืืจืฅ ื ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

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: โ€œFor the land is Mineโ€ (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: โ€œThe heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth has He given to the children of menโ€ (Psalms 115:16).

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืคืงื™ืข ืžื™ื“ื™ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื“ื’ื ืš ื•ืœื ื“ื’ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื—ืคื•ืจ ื‘ื” ื‘ื•ืจื•ืช ืฉื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืขืจื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืณ ื”ืืจืฅ

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: โ€œThe tithe of your grainโ€ (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: โ€œThe earth is the Lordโ€™sโ€ (Psalms 24:1).

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื’ื ืš ื•ืœื ื“ื’ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื™ื’ื•ื ืš ื•ืœื ื“ื™ื’ื•ืŸ ื’ื•ื™

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rabbi Elazar disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that โ€œyour grainโ€ 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 โ€œyour grainโ€ 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืœื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœืงื˜ ื•ื”ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ื”ืคืื” ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืคืงื™ืจ

Rabba said: From where do I say that a gentileโ€™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 (Peโ€™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 [peโ€™a], of a gentile, one is obligated to tithe them unless the owner rendered them ownerless.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื•ื™ ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ื”ื ืžืคืงืจื™ ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ

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

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ื”ื ืœื ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืœื™ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื“ืงื ืืžืจืช ื”ื ืžืคืงืจื™ ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื ื”ื™ ื“ืžืคืงืจื™ ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื’ื•ื™ ืžื™ ืžืคืงืจื™

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually it may be that these were gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peโ€™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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืœืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžื’ื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืžื›ืจื” ืœื• ืžืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื” ืœื

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 gentileโ€™s acquisition in Eretz Yisrael abrogates the sanctity of the land with regard to tithes.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ืจื™ื ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ื•ื™ ืฉืœืงื—ื• ืฉื“ื” ื‘ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช

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,

ื˜ื‘ืœ ื•ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘

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.

ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื™ืฉ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื”ืคืงื™ืข ืžื™ื“ ืžืขืฉืจ

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 gentileโ€™s portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืกื•ืจื™ื ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื ืฉืžื™ื” ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœื’ื•ื™ ืœื•ืงื— ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื

Rav แธคiyya 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 แธคiyya 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืฉืชื™ ืชืงื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื• ื“ืงื ืžืงืจื™ ื•ืžื–ื‘ื ื™ ื“ืกื‘ืจื™ ื‘ืงื“ื•ืฉืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื ืœื™ืชื•

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.

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื• ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžื–ื‘ืŸ ื•ืงื ืžืฉืชืงืขืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื”ื• ื“ืœื™ืชื•

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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืœืคื™ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื

ยง 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 Yoแธฅanan 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: โ€œThe land which You, Lord, have given meโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™

The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ื•ืงื•ืจื

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: โ€œAnd you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase โ€œyour houseโ€ often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This teaches that a man brings his wifeโ€™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 fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš

Reish Lakish said to him: It is different there, as it is written explicitly: โ€œAnd to your house,โ€ which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to oneโ€™s wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื“ื ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ื•ืงื•ืจื ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื”ื›ื ืงืืžื™ื ื

And there are those who say that they had a different exchange: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan from that baraita: It is written: โ€œAnd to your house,โ€ which teaches that a man brings his wifeโ€™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 wifeโ€™s field, as it is written explicitly: โ€œAnd to your houseโ€; but generally, no, one who acquired only a fieldโ€™s produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: I also state my reason from here, as I see the halakha of a man bringing the produce from his wifeโ€™s field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื™ื” ื‘ื ื‘ื“ืจืš ื•ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื•ืฉืžืข ืฉืžืชื” ืืฉืชื• ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืžืชื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืชื” ืœื

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan based on a baraita: If he was traveling on the road to Jerusalem and the first fruits of his wifeโ€™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 fieldโ€™s produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืžืชื” ื•ืžืชื” ืืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืœื™ื’ื–ื•ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื

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 แธคanina concerning a similar halakha.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืฆืจืŸ ื•ืฉื’ืจืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืžืช ืฉืœื™ื— ื‘ื“ืจืš ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืขื“ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืงื™ื—ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

As Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina 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: โ€œAnd you shall takeโ€ฆand you shall bringโ€ (see Deuteronomy 26:2โ€“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 wifeโ€™s death, because the acquisition of a fieldโ€™s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

ื•ืื–ื“ื• ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื•

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

Scroll To Top