Sotah 86

Chapter 86

א מעבירות שבידו
1 because of the transgressions he had committed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently a robber may return home. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אפילו תימא רבי יוסי הגלילי כגון דעבד תשובה ויהב דמי אי הכי הוה ליה לוקח וליהדר כיון דמעיקרא בתורת גזילה אתא לידיה לא
2 — You may even say that it agrees with R. Jose the Galilean, as, e.g., when the man had repented and restored the monetary value. But in that event he becomes the purchaser, and as such returns home! — Since it originally came into his possession as the result of robbery, he does not [return home].
ג (דברים כ, ו) ומי האיש אשר נטע כרם כו' תנו רבנן אשר נטע אין לי אלא נטע לקח וירש וניתן לו במתנה מנין תלמוד לומר ומי האיש אשר נטע
3 AND WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH PLANTED A VINEYARD? etc. Our Rabbis taught: 'That hath planted' — I have here only the case where he planted; whence is it [that the law applies also to a case where] he purchased, inherited or somebody gave it to him as a present? There is a text to state, And what man is there that hath planted a vineyard. I have here only the case of a vineyard; whence is it that it includes five fruit-trees and even of other kinds [of plantings]? There is a text to state 'that hath planted'. It is possible to think that I am also to include one who planted four fruit-trees or five trees which are not fruit-bearing; therefore there is a text to state 'a vineyard'. R. Eliezer says: [The word] 'vineyard' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition; [and the fact that Scripture does not read] 'one hath not used the fruit' but 'and hath not used the fruit thereof is to exclude one who bends or grafts [the vine]. But we have the teaching: IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HE PLANTED, BENT OR GRAFTED IT! — R. Zera said in the name of R. Hisda: There is no contradiction, the latter referring to a permitted grafting and the former to a prohibited grafting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two different species. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד כרם אין לי אלא כרם מנין לרבות חמשה אילני מאכל ואפילו משאר מינין תלמוד לומר אשר נטע יכול שאני מרבה הנוטע ארבעה אילני מאכל וחמשה אילני סרק תלמוד לומר כרם
4 What is an instance of this permitted grafting? If I say a young shoot on a young shoot, it follows that he ought to return home on account of [planting] the first young shoot! It must therefore be [grafting] a young shoot on an old stem. But R. Abbahu has said: If he grafted a young shoot on an old stem, the young shoot is annulled by the old stem and the law of <i>'orlah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'circumcision', the Law of Lev. XIX, 23 forbidding the enjoyment of the fruit of a tree during the first three years of growth. Since this regulation does not apply to a young shoot grafted on an old stem, it is not regarded as a new planting. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כרם כמשמעו לא חילל ולא חיללו פרט למבריך ולמרכיב והא אנן תנן אחד הנוטע ואחד המבריך ואחד המרכיב אמר רבי זירא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא כאן בהרכבת איסור כאן בהרכבת היתר
5 does not apply to it! — R. Jeremiah said: It certainly refers to a young shoot on a young shoot, and [the case of a permitted grafting is where], e.g., he planted the first [stem] for a hedge or for timber; as we have learnt: He who plants for a hedge or for timber is exempt from the law of <i>'orlah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly he would not have to return on account of it. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו האי הרכבת היתר היכי דמי אילימא ילדה בילדה תיפוק לי' דבעי מיהדר משום ילדה ראשונה אלא ילדה בזקינה והאמר רבי אבהו ילדה שסיבכה בזקינה בטלה ילדה בזקינה ואין בה דין ערלה
6 What is the distinction that a young shoot is annulled [when grafted] on an old stem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And its fruit is not subject to 'orlah. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז אמר רבי ירמיה לעולם ילדה בילדה וכגון דנטע להך קמייתא לסייג ולקורות דתנן הנוטע לסייג ולקורות פטור מן הערלה
7 but not [when grafted] on a young shoot?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since it has been stated that one returns on account of a young shoot grafted on to another which has been planted for timber.] ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח ומאי שנא ילדה בזקינה דבטלה ומאי שנא ילדה בילדה דלא בטלה
8 — In the former case if he reconsiders his intention with regard to it, it is incapable of retraction;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An old stem can never become young again, consequently the young shoot grafted to it becomes annulled. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט התם אי מימליך עלה לאו בת מיהדר היא הכא אי מימליך עלה בת מיהדר היא [דהא מעיקרא לפירי קיימא] מידי דהוה אעלו מאיליהן דתנן עלו מאיליהן חייבין בערלה
9 but in the latter case if he reconsiders his intention with regard to it, it is capable of retraction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The planter can change his mind within the first three years, and determine the purpose of the young shoot, originally grafted for timber, to be for fruit, so that it becomes itself subject to 'orlah. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י ולוקמה בכרם של שני שותפין דהאי הדר אדידיה והאי הדר אדידיה אמר רב פפא זאת אומרת כרם של שני שותפין אין חוזרין עליו מערכי המלחמה
10 since it is then analogous to [plants which] grow of themselves;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And at the time of their plantation there was no definite purpose in the mind of the planter whether it was for fruit or timber. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא ומאי שנא מחמשה אחין ומת אחד מהן במלחמה דכולן חוזרין התם כל חד וחד קרינא ביה אשתו הכא כל חד וחד לא קרינא ביה כרמו
11 for we have learnt: When they grow of themselves they are liable to <i>'orlah</i>. But let him explain [the Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which rules that one returns on account of grafting. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר במבריך אילן בירק והאי תנא הוא דתניא המבריך אילן בירק רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מתיר משום רבי יהודה בן גמדא איש כפר עכו וחכמים אוסרין
12 as dealing with] the case of a vineyard belonging to two partners, where each returns home on account of his own [grafting]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Instead of the far-fetched circumstance where the first young shoot was planted for timber.] ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן הא מני רבי אליעזר בן יעקב היא לא אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב התם כרם כמשמעו הכא נמי נטע כמשמעו נוטע אין מבריך ומרכיב לא
13 — R. Papa declared: This is to say that in the case of a vineyard belonging to two partners, the war-regulations do not apply to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they do not return on account of it from the army'. The partners do not have exemption for a new planting or grafting which belongs to them jointly, so that the Mishnah cannot deal with such a case. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב ילדה פחותה מטפח חייבת בערלה כל שנותיה דמתחזיא כבת שתא והני מילי שתים כנגד שתים ואחת יוצאה זנב אבל כוליה כרם קלא אית ליה
14 Why, then, is it different with five brothers, one of whom dies in battle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leaving no offspring so that his wife is due to marry one of his brothers. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב מת תופס ארבע אמות לק"ש דכתיב (משלי יז, ה) לועג לרש חרף עושהו
15 that they all return home? — In the latter illustration we apply the words 'his wife' to each one of them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not determined which one will marry her. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב חורגתא הגדילה בין האחין אסורה לינשא לאחין דמתחזיא כי אחתייהו ולא היא קלא אית ליה למילתא
16 but in the other we cannot apply the words 'his vineyard' to each one of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it belongs to them jointly. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יז ואמר רבי יצחק אמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' אליעזר בן יעקב לקט שכחה ופאה שעשאן בגורן הוקבעו למעשר אמר עולא לא אמרן אלא בשדה אבל בעיר קלא אית ליה למלתא
17 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [The Mishnah deals with the] case where he grafted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Rashi. Rabina is answering the question in the Mishnah exempting one who grafts, cur. edd: 'bent'.] ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יח ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר' אליעזר בן יעקב ילדה הפחותה מטפח אינה מקדשת את הזרעים והני מילי שתים כנגד שתים ואחת יוצאה זנב אבל כולי כרם מקדיש
18 a tree into vegetables, and this accords with the view of the teacher responsible for the following teaching: If one bends<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosef. Kil. I, has 'grafts'.] ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יט ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב
19 a tree into vegetables — Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel allows it in the name of R. Judah b. Gamda of Kefar Acco,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Being a permissible grafting it exempts the owner.] ');"><sup>18</sup></span> but the Sages forbid it. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine to Babylon] he reported in the name of R. Johanan, Whose teaching is it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the statement above: is to exclude one who bends or grafts (the vine). ');"><sup>19</sup></span> It is that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Did not R. Eliezer b. Jacob declare above, The word 'vineyard' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition? So here also 'planted' [is to be interpreted] according to its usual definition; hence if he planted he does [return home], but if he bends or grafts he does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Even in a permissible case of bending or grafting.] ');"><sup>20</sup></span> When R. Dimi came he reported that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A young shoot less than a handbreadth in height is liable for <i>'orlah</i> so long as it appears to be a year old;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if he uses its fruit, it might seem to others that he was doing what was forbidden. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> but this only applies where there are two plants with two other plants parallel to them and one in front.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Five plants so arranged are considered a vineyard, to which all agree that the law of 'orlah applies, v. Ber. 35a. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Should, however, the entire vineyard [consist of such shoots], then it is talked about.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is generally known that the vineyard has this peculiarity, and he may use the fruit. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> When R. Dimi came he reported that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A dead body affects four cubits with respect to the recital of the <i>shema'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may not be recited within the four cubits. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> as it is said: Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XVII, 5. To perform a precept near a corpse is to deride it, since it is denied the privilege. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> R. Isaac declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A step-daughter reared with her [step-] brothers is forbidden to marry one of them because she appears to be their sister. But this is not so since the relationship is generally known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they have neither father or mother in common. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> R. Isaac also declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: If gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the corner of the field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIX, 9f. and Deut. XXIV, 19. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> are gathered into a barn, they become subject to the tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because people may think that it is the produce of the man's field. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> 'Ulla said: He only intended this to refer to a rural district, but in the city the fact [that the owner is a poor man who collected the produce from the fields of others] is generally known. R. Isaac also declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: A shoot which is less than a handbreadth in height does not make the seeds forfeit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under the law forbidding mixture; v. Deut. XXII, 9. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> but this only applies when there are two plants with two other plants parallel to them and one in front. Should, however, the entire vineyard [consist of such shoots] it does make [the seeds] forfeit. R. Isaac also declared that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: