Bava Batra 144

ואלא קשיא הואיל ויונקין משדה הקדש

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹</span>

אלא רבי שמעון לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי כי היכי דמוכר בעין רעה מוכר מקדיש נמי בעין רעה מקדיש ושיורי משייר לדידכו אודו לי מיהא דלא הקדיש אלא חרוב המורכב וסדן השקמה ואמרי ליה רבנן לא שנא

— 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the carob is not sanctified because it neither sucks from the sanctified ground nor is it reckoned as part of the field. ');">²</span>

במאי אוקימתא לה כרבי שמעון אימא סיפא ולא עוד אלא אפילו הקדיש את האילנות וחזר והקדיש את הקרקע כשהוא פודה פודה את האילנות בשוייהן וחוזר ופודה בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³</span>

ואי ר' שמעון ליזיל בתר פדיון וניפרקו אגב ארעייהו דהא שמעינן ליה לר"ש דאזיל בתר פדיון

To which the Rabbis would answer that no distinction is to be made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the carob and the well, etc., all being included in the sanctification. ');">⁴</span>

דתניא מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו והקדישה ואחר כך מת אביו מנין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, כב) ואם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאין ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון

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 <i>shekels</i> for the sowing place of a <i>homer</i> of barley.' Now if [this Baraitha is following] R. Simeon, it should determine the valuation according to [the time of] the redemption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁵</span>

רבי מאיר אומר מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו ואח"כ הקדיש מנין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה תלמוד לומר ואם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שהיא שדה אחוזה

so that the trees should be redeemed as part of the field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not separately, at their own value, as they would be if we went by the time of sanctification. ');">⁶</span>

ואילו רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון היכא דמת אביו ואחר כך הקדישה לא צריכי קרא כי אצטריך קרא היכא דהקדישה ואחר כך מת אביו

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the Jubilee, 'when the field would automatically revert to him. ');">⁷</span>

מנא להו אי מהאי קרא אימא לכדרבי מאיר הוא דאתא אלא לאו משום דאזלי בתר פדיון

it is reckoned as a "field of possession"?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם בעלמא רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון לא אזלי בתר פדיון והכא קרא אשכחו ודרוש א"כ לכתוב קרא ואם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא אחוזתו אי נמי שדה אחוזתו מאי אשר לא משדה אחוזתו את שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה

Because Scripture says, And if he sanctifies&nbsp;… a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession [he shall give thine estimation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 22, 23. This means that such a field is to be redeemed at its actual value, not at a fixed rate. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב הונא חרוב המורכב וסדן השקמה תורת אילן עליו ותורת קרקע עליו תורת אילן עליו דהיכא דאקדיש או זבין שני אילנות והאי יש לו קרקע תורת קרקע עליו דלא מזדבן אגב ארעא

[This signifies] a field which is not capable of becoming a "field of possession",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמר רב הונא עומר שיש בו סאתים תורת עומר עליו ותורת גדיש עליו תורת עומר עליו דשני עומרים שכחה שנים והוא אינן שכחה

[and we therefore] except [from this rule] such a one as this which is capable of becoming "a field of his possession".<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By inheritance. ');">¹¹</span>

תורת גדיש עליו דתנן עומר שיש בו סאתים שכחו אין שכחה

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.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not one which is only capable of becoming such subsequently. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ריש לקיש חרוב המורכב וסדן השקמה באנו למחלוקת רבי מנחם (בר) יוסי ורבנן

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹³</span> Whence do they derive this? If from the verse just quoted, I might rejoin that this justifies only the lesson drawn by R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is closer to the literal meaning of the verse. ');">¹⁴</span> We must therefore say that [they rule thus] because they go according to the [time of] redemption?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this being the case, they interpret the verse accordingly. This proves that R. Simeon decides according to the time of redemption. ');">¹⁵</span> — 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, <i>Which is not of the field of his possession</i>? [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.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the rule that three trees carry with them the ground between. ');">¹⁷</span> They rank as land to the extent that they are not included in the transfer of land sold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like other trees, if the vendor inserts the words, 'it and all its contents'. ');">¹⁸</span> 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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁹</span> while two with this one are not regarded as 'forgotten'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, it is treated as a sheaf on a par with the other two sheaves, the three together forming one shock. ');">²⁰</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is considered as being no longer a sheaf but a shock. ');">²¹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former holding that they are not sanctified along with a field, the latter that they are. ');">²²</span>