Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 72a

But [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 held¹²  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

1. In saying that the sanctifier sanctifies in a liberal spirit.
2. The regulation spacing. V. supra 26b.
3. Because three such trees constitute a field, and therefore he in effect sanctifies a field and its contents.
4. The standard rate for the redemption of land, as laid down in Lev. XXVII, 16.
5. Lit., 'less (openly) or more (openly)'; with more or less than ten to the beth se'ah. In the former case they constitute a wood, and in the latter they are not part and parcel of the field.
6. That is to say, the trees do not carry with them the ground.
7. Because the sanctification of the trees and the sanctifying of the ground are looked upon as two distinct actions.
8. And therefore the trees even when sanctified one after another should carry at least some ground with them.
9. Being compared not to a vendor but to a donor, as it says in the Mishnah, IF A MAN SANCTIFIES HIS FIELD, HE SANCTIFIES ALL THESE THINGS.
10. R. Simeon was a disciple of R. Akiba.
11. Those who in the discussion with R. Akiba said that the vendor sells in an illiberal spirit.
12. In opposition to the Rabbis of the Mishnah who intimate that the sanctifier sanctifies in a liberal spirit.
13. Which shows that R. Simeon could not concur with R. Akiba.

But 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 full-grown 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 full-grown carob and the cropped sycamore we find a difference of opinion between R. Menahem son of R. Jose and the Rabbis.²²

1. Which shows that R. Simeon holds that the sanctifier sanctifies in a liberal spirit, whereas now it is maintained that he said in an illiberal spirit.
2. And the carob is not sanctified because it neither sucks from the sanctified ground nor is it reckoned as part of the field.
3. Which though not part of the field suck from sanctified ground, but not the well etc. which are neither part of the field nor do they stick from the ground.
4. Between the carob and the well, etc., all being included in the sanctification.
5. I.e., according to the character of the article to be redeemed at the time of the redemption and not at the time of the sanctifying.
6. And not separately, at their own value, as they would be if we went by the time of sanctification.
7. Before the Jubilee, 'when the field would automatically revert to him.
8. And not of purchase, and it is therefore liable to be redeemed at the rate of 50 shekels for the sowing ground of a homer of barley.
9. Lev. XXVII, 22, 23. This means that such a field is to be redeemed at its actual value, not at a fixed rate.
10. E.g., one which he bought from any other man and which would have to be restored to him or his heirs at the Jubilee.
11. By inheritance.
12. But not one which is only capable of becoming such subsequently.
13. This is the reading of Tosaf. The ordinary texts read: 'But in the case where he sanctifies the field before his father dies, R. Judah and R. Simeon do not require a verse; where they require a verse is for the case where he sanctifies it and his father dies subsequently.' As Tosaf. points out, a text certainly was required by R. Judah and R. Simeon for the first statement. The ordinary reading seems to have come in by a copyist's error from Git. 48a.
14. Which is closer to the literal meaning of the verse.
15. And this being the case, they interpret the verse accordingly. This proves that R. Simeon decides according to the time of redemption.
16. The word 'of' is taken to imply 'which is not already a part of his possession, but will subsequently become such', e.g., one which will one day come to him by inheritance.
17. According to the rule that three trees carry with them the ground between.
18. Like other trees, if the vendor inserts the words, 'it and all its contents'.
19. The reference is to the rule in Deut. XXIV, 19: When thou reapest thine harvest in thy field and has forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it. This rule, according to the Rabbis, applied to one or two sheaves, but not to three.
20. That is to say, it is treated as a sheaf on a par with the other two sheaves, the three together forming one shock.
21. Because it is considered as being no longer a sheaf but a shock.
22. The former holding that they are not sanctified along with a field, the latter that they are.