Gittin 43

דשקיל ליה ויהיב ליה ניהלה רבא אמר פסול גזרה שמא יקטום:

because he can take the whole pot and give it to her. Raba says it is not valid, because [if we declare it so], there is a danger lest he should pluck the leaf [and give it to her].

עציץ של אחד וזרעים של אחר מכר בעל עציץ לבעל זרעים כיון שמשך קנה מכר בעל זרעים לבעל עציץ לא קנה עד שיחזיק בזרעים

If a flowerpot belongs to one person and the seeds in it to another, then if the owner of the pot sells the pot to the owner of the seeds, as soon as the latter pulls it into his possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The recognised form of transfer of movable articles, y. Glos. s.v. meshikah. ');">¹</span>

עציץ וזרעים של אחד ומכרן לאחר החזיק בזרעים קנה עציץ וזו היא ששנינו נכסים שאין להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להן אחריות בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה

he becomes the legal owner. If, however, the owner of the seeds sells [the seeds] to the owner of the pot, [the latter] does not acquire possession [of them] till he performs some act of <i>hazakah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As for immovable property. V. Glos. ');">²</span>

החזיק בעציץ אף עציץ לא קנה עד שיחזיק בזרעים

If the pot and the seeds both belong to the same man and he sells them to another, [the latter,] as soon as he has performed <i>hazakah</i> on the seeds, [ipso facto] acquires possession of the pot. This accords with the rule which we have learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 26a. ');">³</span>

נקבו בארץ ונופו בחוצה לארץ אביי אמר בתר נקבו אזלינן רבא אמר בתר נופו אזלינן

Movable property is transferred along with immovable property through money payment, through deed of assignment, and through <i>hazakah</i>. If he performs <i>hazakah</i> on the pot, he does not acquire possession even of the pot:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because hazakah does not effect transfer of movable articles. ');">⁴</span>

בדאשרוש כ"ע לא פליגי כי פליגי בדלא אשרוש

<i>hazakah</i> must be performed if at all on the seeds. If the inside of the pot is in Eretz Yisrael but the leaves of the plant extend outside of Eretz Yisrael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The pot being exactly on the border. ');">⁵</span>

ובדאשרוש לא פליגי והתנן שתי גנות זו על גב זו וירק בינתים ר"מ אומר של עליון ר' יהודה אומר של תחתון

Abaye says that we go by the inside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In determining whether it is subject to tithe. ');">⁶</span>

התם כדקתני טעמא א"ר מאיר מה אם ירצה עליון ליטול את עפרו אין כאן ירק

and Raba says that we go by the leaves. If the plant has taken root, all authorities agree [that it is subject to tithe]. Where they differ is when the plant has not taken root. But is there no difference in the case where it has taken root? Have we not learnt: 'If two gardens adjoin, one being higher than the other, and vegetables grow on the slope between,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being thus rooted in the soil of the upper garden while the leaves spread out into the air space of the lower. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבי יהודה מה אם ירצה התחתון למלאות את גנתו עפר אין כאן ירק

R. Meir says they belong to the upper garden and R. Judah to the lower'? — The reason for the difference in that case is stated [in the Mishnah itself]: 'Said R. Meir: If the owner of the upper garden wants to take away his earth, there will be no vegetables. To which R. Judah rejoined: If the owner of the lower one wants to fill in his garden [to the level of the higher], there would be no vegetables there.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But they agree that in ordinary cases we go by the root, v. B.M. 118b. ');">⁸</span>

ואכתי בדאשרוש לא פליגי והא תניא אילן מקצתו בארץ ומקצתו בחוצה לארץ טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה דברי רבי רשב"ג אומר הגדל בחיוב חייב והגדל בפטור פטור

But we may still [question whether] there is not a difference in the case where [the plant] has taken root, seeing that it has been taught: 'If part of a tree is in Eretz Yisrael and part of it outside, then titheable and non-titheable produce are mixed up in it. This is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, holds that that part of its fruit which grows in the place liable to tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in Eretz Yisrael. ');">⁹</span>

מאי לאו מקצת נופו בארץ ומקצת נופו בחוצה לארץ

is titheable, and that part which grows in the place not liable to tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., outside Eretz Yisrael. ');">¹⁰</span>

לא מקצת שרשין בארץ ומקצת שרשין בחוצה לארץ ומאי טעמא דרשב"ג דמפסיק צונמא

is non-titheable.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 27b. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי דהדרי ערבי

Now here we speak, [do we not], of a tree of which part of the branches are in Eretz Yisrael and part outside?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the whole of the roots are either on one side or the other, and yet they differ, ');">¹²</span>

במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר אוירא מבלבל ומ"ס האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי:

— No: [we speak of one of which] some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some outside. What then is the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? — [He speaks of a case] where a piece of hard stone separates [the roots inside and outside]. What is the reason of Rabbi? — He holds that in spite of this the saps mix again [higher up]. What is their difference in principle? — One holds that the air mingles the saps, and the other holds that each side remains separate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where however, the entire roots are in Eretz Yisrael all agree that the position of the branches is of no consequences. ');">¹³</span>

ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר כו': א"ר חייא בר אסי משמיה דעולא ג' עורות הן מצה חיפה ודיפתרא

R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS etc. R. Hiyya b. Assi said in the name of 'Ulla: There are three kinds of skins, mazzah, hifa, and diftera. Mazzah, as its name implies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'unleavened bread'. ');">¹⁴</span>

מצה כמשמעו דלא מליח ודלא קמיח ודלא אפיץ למאי הלכתא להוצאת שבת וכמה שיעורו כדקתני רב שמואל בר יהודה כדי לצור משקל קטנה וכמה אמר אביי כי ריבעא דריבעא דפומבדיתא

[is a skin] that has been neither salted nor treated with flour nor with gall-nut. What bearing has this distinction upon the <i>halachah</i>? — In respect of carrying on Sabbath — How much of it may be carried? As learnt by R. Samuel b. Judah: Enough to wrap a small weight [of lead] in.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To save it from wearing away. ');">¹⁵</span>

חיפה דמליח ולא קמיח ולא אפיץ למאי הילכתא להוצאת שבת וכמה שיעורו כדתנן עור כדי לעשות קמיע

How much is that? — Abaye answered: About a 'fourth of a fourth' of Pumbeditha. Hifa [is skin] that is salted but not treated with flour or gall-nut. What bearing has this upon the <i>halachah</i>? — In respect of carrying on Sabbath. How much of it may be carried? — Even as we have learnt: '[The permitted quantity of skin] is enough to make an amulet<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small ornament used as a charm. ');">¹⁶</span>

דיפתרא דמליח וקמיח ולא אפיץ למאי הילכתא להוצאת שבת וכמה שיעורו כדי לכתוב עליו את הגט:

out of.' Diftera [is skin] which is salted and treated with flour but not with gall-nut.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Cf. [G]. The list includes only hides that are partly prepared for writing, and therefore omits [H] which has gone through the whole process and hence is no longer regarded as hide, but as parchment. (Rashi)]. ');">¹⁷</span>

וחכמים מכשירין: מאן חכמים אמר רבי אלעזר

What bearing has this upon the <i>halachah</i>? — In respect of carrying on Sabbath. How much of it may be carried? — Enough for writing a Get upon. BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT VALID. Who are 'THE SAGES'? — Rab Eleazar [the Amora] said: