are corals. Some say Aronim, 'Armonim, Almogim. 'Arinim are ore,1 'Armonim are plane trees, Almogim are corals. nbsp;
MISHNAH. ONE WHO BUYS TWO TREES IN ANOTHER MAN'S FIELD DOES NOT ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP OF THE GROUND.2 R. MEIR SAYS: HE DOES ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP OF THE GROUND. [IF THE TREES] GREW LARGE [THE LANDOWNER] MUST NOT CUT DOWN THEIR BRANCHES.3 WHATEVER GROWS FROM THE STEM IS HIS [THE BUYER'S],4 AND [WHATEVER GROWS] FROM THE ROOTS [BELONGS] TO THE LANDOWNER.5 IF [THE TREES] DIED [THE BUYER] HAS NO [CLAIM TO THE] GROUND.6 ONE WHO BOUGHT THREE [TREES] HAS [IMPLICITLY] ACQUIRED [OWNERSHIP OF THE] GROUND.7 [IF] THEY GREW LARGE,8 [THE LANDOWNER] MAY CUT DOWN THEIR BRANCHES.9 WHATEVER GROWS FROM THE STEM AND FROM THE ROOTS [BELONGS] TO HIM [THE BUYER]. IF [THE TREES] DIED [THE BUYER] HAS [A RIGHT TO THE] POSSESSION OF THE GROUND.
GEMARA. We learnt elsewhere: He who buys two trees in another man's [field], has to bring [the bikkurim]10 but is not to recite [the declaration].11 R. Meir Says: He has to bring and recite.12
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: R. Meir subjects to the obligation13 even him who bought fruit in the market. Whence is this to be inferred? From [the fact that] a superfluous Mishnah14 has been introduced. For, it should be observed that, [R. Meir] has already taught15 that he [who bought two trees] has [also] acquired the ground. [Is it not, then,] obvious that he has to bring and to recite?16 Hence it may be inferred from this [superfluous Mishnah] that R. Meir subjects to the obligation even him who buys fruit in the market.17 But is it not written: Which thou shalt bring in from thy land?18 — This is to exclude [the fruit grown] in Foreign Territory.19 But is it not written: [The choicest first fruit of] thy land [thou shalt bring]?20 — [This is] to exclude the land of a heathen.21 But is it not written: The first fruits of [the land] which thou … hast given me? — [This means: The fruits] for which thou hast given me money with which to buy [them].
Raba raised an objection: [It has been taught]: He who buys a tree in another man's [field] brings [the first ripe fruit] but does not recite [the declaration], because he has not acquired ownership of the ground,22 [these are] the words of R. Meir.23 — This is, indeed, a refutation.
R. Simeon b. Eliakim said to R. Eleazar:
Original footnotes renumbered.
- A species of cedar. Others, 'laurel trees'.
- Not even the ground under the trees. The purchase of a tree entitles the buyer only to its fruit, and to the tree itself for felling.
- Though their shadow may be injurious to the other plants in his field.
- Because they grow from his tree.
- Because the branches grew from under the ground which is his property.
- I.e., to plant another tree in place of the dead one.
- The Gemara explains to how much ground the buyer is entitled, and what, in this case, must be the disposition of the trees.
- And the branches protrude into the landowner's property.
- Having sold him the ground under and between the trees, he does not sell him any rights in the surrounding field. He has a right, therefore, to cut down any branches which may injuriously affect any of his other plants.
- V. Deut. XXVI, 2ff and glos.
- Given in Deut. XXVI, 5-10. The declaration contains the expression, the land which thou, O Lord, hast given me. Only those, therefore, who own land may recite it.
- Bik, I, 6; supra 27a; Git. 48a.
- To bring and recite.
- Of Bik. just quoted.
- In our Mishnah.
- For whosoever has land, can justly say in the declaration, the land which thou … hast given me.
- R. Meir thus said to the Rabbis: Even according to your opinion that the purchase of two trees does not give title to the ground, one must nevertheless bring and recite, for the possession of land is not indispensable for the bikkurim recital.
- Deut. XXVI, 2. Accordingly, if he has no land of his own, he is not subject to the law of bringing and reciting; how then can A. Meir subject such a case to this law?
- Heb. [H] lit., 'outside the land', viz., all countries outside Palestine.
- Ex. XXIII, 19; XXXIV, 26.
- I.e., land in Palestine belonging to a non Jew farmed out to a Jew.
- V. p. 238, n. 10.
- This statement of R. Meir is in direct contradiction to that made in his name by Samuel as reported by Rab Judah.
Baba Bathra 81b
What reason is there for R. Meir's opinion in [the case of] one tree, and for that of the Rabbis in [the case of] two trees?1 He replied: Do you interrogate me in the house of study on a matter about which the ancients gave no reason, in order to shame me? Rabbah said: What is the difficulty? It is possible that R. Meir was doubtful2 about one tree, and the Rabbis about two trees!3 But was [R. Meir] in doubt? Surely it is stated [distinctly]: 'Because he has not acquired ownership of the ground. [these are] the words of R. Meir! — This should read: 'Perhaps he has not acquired ownership of the ground!' But ought we not to apprehend lest these are not bikkurim4 and [consequently] one would bring into the Temple court unconsecrated [fruit]?5 — He consecrates them.6 But must not [the priest] eat them [the bikkurim]?7 — He redeems them.8 But perhaps they are not bikkurim and he thus excludes them from the heave-offering and tithe?9 — He does separate [the heave-offering and the tithes from] them. [In the case of] the terumah gedolah10 this is correct, [for] he gives it to the priest. The second tithe,11 also, he gives to a priest.12 The poor man's tithe,13 also, he gives to a poor priest,14 but to whom does he give the first tithe which belongs to the Levite? — He gives it to a priest in accordance with [the decision of] R. Eleazar b. Azariah. For it has been taught: terumah gedolah15 [belongs] to the priest; the first tithe [belongs] to the Levite; these are the words of R. Akiba. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: The first tithe also [belongs] to the priest.16 But perhaps they are bikkurim and [consequently] require recital [of the declaration]?17 The recital is not indispensable. [Is it] not [indispensable]? Surely R. Zera said:18 Wherever [proper] mingling19 is possible the mingling is not indispensable;20 but where [proper] mingling is not possible21 the mingling is indispensable!22 — He acts on the lines of [the teaching of] R. Jose b. Hanina who said:23 He who cut [the first ripe fruit] and sent them [to Jerusalem] with a messenger; or [if the] messenger [cut them] and died on the way- [the owner] brings [the fruit] and does not recite [the declaration], for it is written: And thou shalt take24 … 'and thou shalt bring',25
Original footnotes renumbered.
- If on account of the Biblical expression, which thou shalt bring in from thy land, a person possessing no land cannot make the declaration, he should also be exempt from bringing at all.
- Whether the ground also is acquired in the case of the purchase of one tree (A. Meir) or two trees (the Rabbis).
- Hence, in the case of a sale, the seller, who is the legal possessor of the land, is given the benefit of the doubt, while in the case of the first fruit, the buyer of the tree must give the benefit of the doubt to the Temple, though he cannot recite.
- [H] 'first ripe fruits', which are subject to the precept of bringing them to the Temple. If the ground is not acquired by the purchase of a tree or two trees, according to R. Meir and the Rabbis respectively, this fruit cannot be regarded as bikkurim in the ritual sense.
- Unconsecrated fruit must not be offered in the Temple court. (v. Kid. 57b.) How then can it be suggested that the bringing of the firstfruits is to give the Temple the benefit of the doubt?
- I.e., he stipulates that if they are not already bikkurim they shall be consecrated for the purpose of purchasing with their proceeds Temple sacrifices.
- Bikkurim must be eaten by the Priest, but consecrated objects, which are usually devoted to Temple repair, must not be eaten!
- After redemption anyone may eat them, the sanctity having passed from the fruit to the purchase money.
- Bikkurim are exempt from heave-offerings of produce. the Terumah given to the priest, and tithes, but other land and garden produce is subject to them.
- [H] lit., 'big or high heave offering'; the priestly portion of the produce.
- Given in the first, second, fourth, and fifth year of the septennial cycle.
- The owner must not eat the fruit lest they are bikkurim.
- Poor man's tithe is given in place of the second tithe (v. supra n. 8.) in the third, and sixth year of the septennial period.
- No other poor may eat them lest they are bikkurim. (Cf. supra n. 9).
- V. supra n. 7,
- Yeb. 86a; Keth. 26a; Hul. 131b.
- How then may anyone eat these fruit without such recital?
- Hul. 83b, Kid. 25a, Yeb. 104b, Nid. 66b. Men. 18b, Mak. 18b, Ned. 73a.
- I.e., of the flour with the oil of a meal-offering. One log of oil for sixty 'esronim ('issaron = tenth) is considered sufficient for proper mingling.
- And the offering is acceptable even before the mingling of the flour with oil.
- If, e.g.. the vessel for the meal offering contains more than sixty 'esronim for the log of oil.
- And the offering is, therefore, not acceptable. Now, in the case of bikkurim also, on this analogy, since the doubt as to whether they are bikkurim makes the declaration impossible, the recital should be indispensable.
- Git. 47b.
- Deut. XXVI, 2.
- This is implied in the text, which thou shalt bring (Ibid.). Cf. Ibid. v. 10.