Bava Batra 162

מאי טעמא דר"מ באילן אחד ומ"ט דרבנן בשני אילנות אמר לו דבר שהראשונים לא אמרו בו טעם תשאלני בבית המדרש כדי לביישני

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹</span> 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 doubtful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the ground also is acquired in the case of the purchase of one tree (A. Meir) or two trees (the Rabbis). ');">²</span> about one tree, and the Rabbis about two trees!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³</span>

אמר רבה מאי קושיא דלמא ר"מ באילן אחד ספוקי מספקא ליה ורבנן בשני אילנות ספוקי מספקא להו

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 <i>bikkurim</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [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. ');">⁴</span> and [consequently] one would bring into the Temple court unconsecrated [fruit]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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? ');">⁵</span> — He consecrates them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁶</span>

ומי מספקא ליה והא קתני לפי שלא קנה קרקע דברי ר"מ אימא שמא לא קנה קרקע

But must not [the priest] eat them [the <i>bikkurim</i>]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bikkurim must be eaten by the Priest, but consecrated objects, which are usually devoted to Temple repair, must not be eaten! ');">⁷</span> — He redeems them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After redemption anyone may eat them, the sanctity having passed from the fruit to the purchase money. ');">⁸</span> But perhaps they are not <i>bikkurim</i> and he thus excludes them from the heave-offering and tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁹</span>

וליחוש דדלמא לאו ביכורים נינהו וקא מעייל חולין לעזרה דמקדיש להו והא בעי מיכלינהו דפריק להו ודלמא לאו בכורים נינהו וקא מפקע להו מתרומה ומעשר דמפריש להו

— He does separate [the heave-offering and the tithes from] them. [In the case of] the <i>terumah</i> gedolah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'big or high heave offering'; the priestly portion of the produce. ');">¹⁰</span> this is correct, [for] he gives it to the priest. The second tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given in the first, second, fourth, and fifth year of the septennial cycle. ');">¹¹</span> also, he gives to a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner must not eat the fruit lest they are bikkurim. ');">¹²</span>

בשלמא תרומה גדולה יהיב לה לכהן מעשר שני נמי יהיב ליה לכהן מעשר עני נמי יהיב ליה לכהן עני אלא מעשר ראשון דלוי הוא למאן יהיב ליה

The poor man's tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹³</span> also, he gives to a poor priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No other poor may eat them lest they are bikkurim. (Cf. supra n. 9). ');">¹⁴</span> 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: <i>terumah</i> gedolah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 7, ');">¹⁵</span>

דיהיב ליה לכהן כר"א בן עזריה דתניא תרומה גדולה לכהן מעשר ראשון ללוי דברי רבי עקיבא רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מעשר ראשון אף לכהן ודלמא בכורים נינהו ובעו קרייה קרייה לא מעכבת

[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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 86a; Keth. 26a; Hul. 131b. ');">¹⁶</span> But perhaps they are <i>bikkurim</i> and [consequently] require recital [of the declaration]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then may anyone eat these fruit without such recital? ');">¹⁷</span> The recital is not indispensable. [Is it] not [indispensable]? Surely R. Zera said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 83b, Kid. 25a, Yeb. 104b, Nid. 66b. Men. 18b, Mak. 18b, Ned. 73a. ');">¹⁸</span>

ולא והאמר ר' זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו ושאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו

Wherever [proper] mingling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁹</span> is possible the mingling is not indispensable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the offering is acceptable even before the mingling of the flour with oil. ');">²⁰</span> but where [proper] mingling is not possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, e.g.. the vessel for the meal offering contains more than sixty 'esronim for the log of oil. ');">²¹</span>

דעביד להו כר' יוסי בר חנינא דאמר בצרן ושגרן ביד שליח ומת שליח בדרך מביא ואינו קורא מאי טעמא דכתיב (דברים כו, ב) ולקחת והבאת

the mingling is indispensable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²²</span> — He acts on the lines of [the teaching of] R. Jose b. Hanina who said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 47b. ');">²³</span> 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 take<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXVI, 2. ');">²⁴</span> … 'and thou shalt bring',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is implied in the text, which thou shalt bring (Ibid.). Cf. Ibid. v. 10. ');">²⁵</span>