Folio 72aBut [on the other hand] can you make R. Simeon concur with R. Akiba,^{1} seeing that it has been taught, 'If a man sanctifies three trees in a field where ten are planted to a beth se'ah,^{2} then he [automatically] sanctifies in addition the soil and the [young] trees between them.^{3} Therefore if he wants to redeem them he has to do so at the rate of fifty shekels of silver for the sowing ground of a homer of barley.^{4} If they are planted more thickly or less thickly than this,^{5} or if he sanctifies them one after another, he does not thereby sanctify the soil and the trees between them.^{6} Therefore if he wants to redeem them, he redeems the trees according to their value. What is more, even if he first sanctifies the trees [one after another] and then sanctifies the ground, when he comes to redeem them he must redeem the trees at their actual value and then redeem [the ground] at the rate of fifty shekels for the sowing ground of a homer of barley.'^{7} Who is the authority for these rules? If R. Akiba, surely he says that the vendor sells in a liberal spirit; all the more so then the sanctifier.^{8} If the Rabbis, surely according to them it is the vendor who sells in an illiberal spirit, but the sanctifier sanctifies in a liberal spirit.^{9} Obviously then it must be R. Simeon. Whom then does R. Simeon follow?^{10} It cannot be R. Akiba, because he says that the vendor sells in a liberal spirit, all the more so then the sanctifier. Obviously then he follows the Rabbis,^{11} and R. Simeon further held^{12} that just as the vendor sells in an illiberal spirit so the sanctifier sanctifies in an illiberal spirit, and he [therefore] reserves the ground to himself.^{13}
Baba Bathra 72bBut then this would conflict [with what R. Simeon said above, that the carob and sycamore are sanctified] because they suck from the sanctified field?^{1} — We must say therefore that R. Simeon was arguing from the premises of the Rabbis [of the Mishnah], thus: According to my view, just as the vendor sells in an illiberal spirit so the sanctifier sanctifies in an illiberal spirit, and he reserves some ground for himself.^{2} But even from your own standpoint [that he sanctifies in a liberal spirit], grant me at least that he sanctifies no more than the carob and sycamore.^{3} To which the Rabbis would answer that no distinction is to be made.^{4} To what authority then have you ascribed this clause [in the Baraitha quoted]? To R. Simeon. Look now at the next clause: 'What is more, even if he first sanctifies the trees [one after another] and then sanctifies the ground, if he wants to redeem them he has to redeem the trees at their actual value and the ground at the rate of fifty shekels for the sowing place of a homer of barley.' Now if [this Baraitha is following] R. Simeon, it should determine the valuation according to [the time of] the redemption,^{5} so that the trees should be redeemed as part of the field.^{6} For we know that R. Simeon decides according to the time of redemption from what has been taught: 'How do we know that if a man buys a field from his father and then sanctifies it and his father subsequently dies,^{7} it is reckoned as a "field of possession"?^{8} Because Scripture says, And if he sanctifies … a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession [he shall give thine estimation].^{9} [This signifies] a field which is not capable of becoming a "field of possession",^{10} [and we therefore] except [from this rule] such a one as this which is capable of becoming "a field of his possession".^{11} This is the opinion of R. Judah and R. Simeon. R. Meir says: From where do we know that if a man buys a field from his father and his father dies and he then subsequently sanctifies the field, it is reckoned as a field of his possession? Because it says, If he sanctifies a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession. [This signifies] a field which is not "a field of possession", [and we therefore except] from this rule such a one as this which is a field of his possession.'^{12} In contrast to this, R. Judah and R. Simeon compare a field which he sanctifies 'before his father dies to a field of his possession.^{13} Whence do they derive this? If from the verse just quoted, I might rejoin that this justifies only the lesson drawn by R. Meir.^{14} We must therefore say that [they rule thus] because they go according to the [time of] redemption?^{15} — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: As a general rule R. Judah and R. Simeon do not go according to the time of redemption, but in this case they do so because they found a verse which they interpreted [to this effect]. 'If so' [they said to R. Meir], 'it should say, "If he sanctifies a field which he has bought which is not his possession," or even "the field of his possession". What is the force of the words, Which is not of the field of his possession? [It signifies] one that is not capable of becoming the field of his possession, [and we] except from the rule one that is capable of becoming the field of his possession.'^{16} R. Huna said that the fullgrown carob and the cropped sycamore partly come under the law of trees and partly under the law of land. They rank as trees [to the extent] that if a man sanctifies or buys two trees and one of these, the soil in between is reckoned with.^{17} They rank as land to the extent that they are not included in the transfer of land sold.^{18} R. Huna further said that a sheaf of two se'ahs partly comes under the law of a sheaf and partly under that of a shock. It ranks as a sheaf [to the extent] that while two sheaves can be regarded as 'forgotten',^{19} while two with this one are not regarded as 'forgotten'.^{20} It ranks as a shock as we have learnt: [If a reaper forgets] a sheaf of two se'ahs, it is not regarded as forgotten.^{21} Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of Resh Lakish: In regard to the fullgrown carob and the cropped sycamore we find a difference of opinion between R. Menahem son of R. Jose and the Rabbis.^{22}  To Next Folio 
