Gittin 95

בזמן שהיובל נוהג ר' יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא ר"ל אמר מביא ואינו קורא

in the period when the law of the Jubilee is in force,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is no question that the purchaser does not become owner of the soil, as he has to return the land at the Jubilee. ');">¹</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר מביא וקורא קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי ר"ל אמר מביא ואינו קורא קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי

R. Johanan says that he brings the firstfruits and makes the recital, while Resh Lakish says that he brings them without making the recital. R. Johanan who says that he brings them and makes the recital takes the view that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, while Resh Lakish, who says that he brings without making the recital, takes the view that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body. It was necessary [to state the difference between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish] in both cases. For if it had been stated only in the latter case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the land is purchased in the epoch of the Jubilee. ');">²</span>

וצריכא דאי איתמר בההיא בההיא קאמר ריש לקיש דכי קא נחית אדעתא דפירא קא נחית אבל בהך דאדעתא דגופיה קא נחית אימא מודי ליה לר' יוחנן

I might have said that Resh Lakish rules as he does there because when the purchaser buys<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he descends into'. ');">³</span>

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהך אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש צריכא

[the field] he actually has in mind only the produce,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he never for a moment imagines himself to be the owner of the land. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש הקונה אילן וקרקעו מביא וקורא הכא במאי עסקינן בזמן שאין היובל נוהג

but in the other case, where he has in mind the land itself, I might think that he agrees with R. Johanan. if again I had only the other case I might think that there [only] R. Johanan rules in this way, but in this case he agrees with Resh Lakish. Hence [both] had to be [stated].

ת"ש הקונה שני אילנות בתוך שדהו של חבירו מביא ואינו קורא הא שלשה מביא וקורא ה"נ בזמן שאין היובל נוהג

Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An argument against Resh Lakish. ');">⁵</span>

והשתא דאמר רב חסדא מחלוקת ביובל שני אבל ביובל ראשון דברי הכל מביא וקורא דאכתי לא סמך דעתייהו ל"ק הא ביובל ראשון הא ביובל שני

If a man buys a tree and the soil under it, he brings the firstfruits from it and makes the recital!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. I, 11. Although the land is returnable at the Jubilee. ');">⁶</span>

לימא כתנאי מנין ללוקח שדה מאביו והקדישה ואח"כ מת אביו מניין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה

— We are speaking here of the period when the Jubilee is not observed. Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An argument against Resh Lakish. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כב) אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה דברי ר' יהודה ור"ש

'If a man buys two trees in another man's field, he brings the firstfruits but does not make the recital,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 6. ');">⁷</span>

ר"מ אומר מניין ללוקח שדה מאביו ומת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה מניין שתהא לפניו כשדה אחוזה ת"ל אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שהיא שדה אחוזה ואילו לרבי יהודה ור"ש מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה לא צריכא קרא

which implies that if he buys three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he automatically acquires the land under and between the trees, v. B.B. 81a. ');">⁸</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דר"מ סבר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי ובהא במיתת אביו הוא דלא ירית ולא מידי והלכך מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה צריך קרא

he does make the recital? — There too we speak of the period when the Jubilee is not observed. Now, however, that R. Hisda has stated that the controversy [between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish] refers only to the period of the second Jubilee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the period of the Second Temple, when the Jews observed the law of the Jubilee strictly. ');">⁹</span>

רבי יהודה ור"ש סברי קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי ובהא במיתת אביו השתא הוא דקא ירית והלכך מת אביו ואח"כ הקדישה לא צריכא קרא וכי איצטריך קרא להקדישה ואח"כ מת אביו הוא דאיצטריך

but In the period of the first Jubilee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., of the first Temple, where it was not strictly observed (Rashi). Maim., Yad Bikkurim IV, 6. takes the first and second Jubilee in a literal sense — the first and second Jubilee cycles observed by the Jews]. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם אימא לך בעלמא קסברי ר' יהודה ור"ש קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי והכא רבי יהודה ור"ש קרא אשכחו ודרוש לכתוב רחמנא אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא אחוזתו מאי משדה אחוזתו שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה

both agree that he [the purchaser] had to bring and recite, since they still could not rely on the fields being returned, there is no difficulty: the one [R. Johanan] speaks of the first Jubilee and the other of the second Jubilee. Shall we say that we find in the following passage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 72b. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יוסף אי לאו דא"ר יוחנן קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי לא מצא ידיו ורגליו בבית המדרש דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן האחין שחלקו לקוחות הן ומחזירין זה לזה ביובל

the same difference between Tannaim: '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. ');">¹²</span>

ואי ס"ד לאו כקנין הגוף דמי לא משכחת דמייתי ביכורים אלא חד בר חד עד יהושע בן נון

it is reckoned as "a field of possession"?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not one of 'purchase', and therefore liable to be redeemed at a lower rate. V. Lev. XXVII, 16-23. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא קרא ומתניתא מסייעי ליה לר"ל קרא

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. ');">¹⁴</span> [This signifies] a field which is not capable of becoming a "field of possession,"15 [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. ');">¹⁶</span> 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 [now] a field of his possession.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not one which is only capable of becoming such subsequently. ');">¹⁷</span> Now R. Judah and R. Simeon, [while agreeing that in the case] where his father died and then he sanctified the field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case put by R. Meir. ');">¹⁸</span> [it is reckoned a 'field of possession'], do not require a text to indicate this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While R. Meir does. ');">¹⁹</span> Is not then the point at issue between them this: R. Meir held that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, and in this case therefore on the death of his father he does not inherit anything, and therefore if his father died and he sanctified it subsequently a text is necessary to indicate [that it is 'a field of his possession'],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not a field of purchase, in spite of the fact that he originally purchased it from his father. ');">²⁰</span> whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon held that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, and in this case on the death of his father he does inherit the field, and therefore if he sanctifies it after the death of his father no text is necessary [to indicate that it is 'a field of his possession'], and where a text is required is to indicate [that it is 'a field of his possession' even] when he sanctified it before the death of his father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that he purchased it from his father. ');">²¹</span> — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: All the same I may still maintain that in general R. Judah and R. Simeon held that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the parent body, but in this case R. Judah and R. Simeon found a text which they interpreted [to the contrary effect]: The Divine Law [they said,] might have written, 'If he sanctifies a field which he has bought, which is not his possession.' What is the force of the words, 'Which is not of the field of his possession'? [It signifies], one which 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 possesslon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fuller notes on the whole of this passage, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 285ff. ');">²²</span> R. Joseph said: Had R. Johanan not maintained that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, he would not have had a leg to stand on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he would not have found his hands and feet.' ');">²³</span> in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. For R. Assi said in the name of R. Jonathan that if brothers divide an inheritance they stand to one another in the relation of purchasers and have to restore their shares to one another at the Jubilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 69b and supra 25a. ');">²⁴</span> Now [this being so], should you assume [that the possession of the increment is] not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, then you would not find anyone qualified to bring firstfruits save an only son who had inherited from an only son up to the days of Joshua son of Nun.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the property had never been divided, for as soon as it was divided it was in effect sold, and had no owner capable of bringing firstfruits. ');">²⁵</span> Raba said: Both Scripture and a Baraitha support Resh Lakish. Scripture,