(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 72

BAVA BASRA 71-75 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) In a case where someone declares three trees in a Beis Sa'ah (out of ten) Hekdesh, the Beraisa rules - that the ground that surrounds them as well as the remaining trees, are all Hekdesh.

(b) In such a case, each tree will then require - two hundred and fifty square Amos (a tenth of two thousand, five hundred square Amos [fifty times fifty Amos]).

(c) The Tana must be speaking about saplings (and not fully-grown trees) - because we learned in 'Lo Yachpor' that fully-grown trees require a Sa'ah per *three* trees.

(d) The going rate for the redemption of one's inherited property is fifty Shekel per Chomer (which is synonumous with a Kur [thirty Sa'ah]). The Tana's ruling teaches us - that the redemption of the trees is included in that of the land.

(a) The Din will differ in three cases; either if the trees are planted in a smaller area ('Pachos mi'Ka'an'), or if they are planted in a larger area ('Yeser al Kein') - or if he declares the three trees Hekdesh one after the other (and not simultaneously) 'Hikdishan ba'Zeh Achar Zeh'.

(b) In these three cases - the owner will have to redeem the trees at their going price, over and above the redemption of the land.

(c) The Din must differ in the case of ...

1. ... 'Pachos mi'Ka'an' - because due to the trees growing too close together, they stand to be uprooted and re-planted.
2. ... 'Yeser al Kein' - it is as if the owner had planted one tree, which does not incorporate the field in the sale.
(d) When the Tana adds to the Seifa 've'Lo Od, Ela Afilu Hikdish es ha'Ilanos ve'Chazar ve'Hikdish es ha'Karka', he is referring to - the case of 'Hikdishan ba'Zeh Achar Zeh' (that we cited immediately prior to this).
(a) The author of this Beraisa (the case of two trees) cannot be ...
1. ... Rebbi Akiva - because if he holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Yafah Mocher', how much more so 'Makdish'.
2. ... the Rabbanan - because even they concede that 'Makdish be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (as they learned in our Mishnah 'ha'Makdish es ha'Sadeh, Hikdish es Kulah').
(b) The author of the Beraisa must therefore be - Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Tana Kama in our Mishnah is - whether the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Akiva by Mocher, concede by Hekdesh that 'be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(a) By establishing Rebbi Shimon like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva, the Kashya on Rav Huna ('Machar Karka ve'Shiyer Sh'nei Ilanos Lefanav, Yesh Lo Karka') is - how Rebbi Shimon can ascribe his ruling in the Mishnah (declaring the Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and the Sadan ha'Shikmah not to be Hekdesh) to the fact that they nurture from a field of Hekdesh, since, according to Rav Huna (in the Rabbanan), the field underneath them is not Hekdesh either.

(b) When we ask 've'Ela Kashya', we mean - that instead of asking on Rav Huna, we may as well ask on Rebbi Shimon himself, who now gives the Rabbanan's reason as 'Makdish be'Ayin Ra'ah Makdish, whereas earlier, he gave it as 'Ho'il ve'Yonkin mi'Sadesh Hekdesh'?

(a) What Rebbi Shimon is therefore saying to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah is - that even though, in his opinion, the Rabbanan concede to Rebbi Akiva that Hekdesh is different than Mocher (a fact with which he himself disagrees), he should at least confine that Chidush to Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah (for the reason that he [Rebbi Shimon] explained), but not to Bor, Dus and Shuvach.

(b) To which the Tana Kama replied - by insisting that 'Makdish, be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (even according to the Rabbanan).

(c) This answers adequately the contradiction in Rebbi Shimon - and the Kashya on Rav Huna too, since Rebbi Shimon and the Tana Kama in the Rabbanan are discussing the Din of Hekdesh) which they compare to Mocher according to Rebbi Akiva); whereas Rav Huna is referring to Mocher, even according to Rebbi Akiva (for the reason that we gave initially) and certainly according to the Rabbanan.




(a) When we say that Rebbi Shimon 'Azil Basar Pidyon', we mean - that when redeeming a field of Hekdesh, Rebbi Shimon determines its status (Sadeh Achuzah or Sadeh Mecher) by what it is at the time of redemption.

(b) The Kashya this poses on the Seifa of the previous Beraisa ('ve'Lo Od, Ela Afilu Hikdish es ha'Ilanos ve'Chazar ve'Hikdish es ha'Karka' [based on the fact that we just estabished him as the author]) - why he does then not follow the same principle there, to consider the trees that he is redeeming as part of the field (even though they were not at the time when he declared them Hekdesh)?

(a) The going rate for the redemption of a purchased field the buyer declared Hekdesh - is determined by its market value (see Maharsha).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im es S'deih Miknaso Asher Lo mi'S'deih Achuzaso Hu" - that if Reuven bought a field from his father Ya'akov and, after he declared it Hekdesh, his father died, since at the time that he declared the field Hekdesh, it was fit to become an inheritance, it is considered a S'deih Achuzah (which is redeemed for the fixed value of fifty Shekalim per Chomer of barley), and not a S'deih Mikneh.

(c) From the same Pasuk, Rebbi Meir learns - that only if Reuven declared the field Hekdesh *after his father died* is it considered a S'deih Achuzah (but not if he did so before). We initially think that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon do not require a Pasuk for Rebbi Meir's case - because, due to the S'vara of 'Azlinan Basar Pidyon', it is obvious that it is.

(d) This is the source of the problem (which we just posed) with establishing the previous Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon. The proof that 'Azlinan Basar Pidyon' must be a S'vara (according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon) is - because otherwise, we would have to use the Pasuk for Rebbi Meir's case (exclusively), which is a smaller Chidush.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers by Darshening two D'rashos from the Pasuk "ve'Im es S'deih Miknaso Asher Lo mi'Sdeih Achuzaso ... ". He learns (according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon) from ...
1. ... the superfluous phrase ("Asher Lo mi'Sdeih Achuzaso ... ") - that if Reuven declared the field Hekdesh after his father's death, it has the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah (like Rebbi Meir).
2. ... the word "mi'S'deih" (or from the 'Mem' alone) - that only if it is not even a little bit like a Sadeh Achuzah, is it considered a Sadeh Mikneh (precluding where Reuven declared it Hekdesh even before his father died from the Din of Sadeh Mikneh).
(b) This solves the current problem - inasmuch as going after the time of the Pidyon now becomes a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that applies in this case only, but that in general, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon go after the time of Hekdesh, and not of Pidyon.
(a) Rav Huna considers a Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and a Sadan ha'Shikmah as both a tree and a field. He considers them ...
1. ... a tree inasmuch as - if one someone sold or was Makdish two trees plus one of *them*, the purchaser or Hekdesh would receive the land in which they were growing (as if he had sold them three trees), because why should its importance detract from the fact that it is a tree?
2. ... a field - inasmuch as it is not sold together with the field in which it is growing (even though two other trees growing in the field, are).
(b) He also considers a haystack comprising two Sa'ah as both a sheaf and a haystack. It is considered ...
1. ... a sheaf - inasmuch as, whereas two sheaves are considered Shikchah, two sheaves plus it, are not.
2. ... a haystack - inasmuch as a haystack on its own is not subject to Shikchah.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Shachachta *Omer* ba'Sadeh" - "Omer", 've'Lo Gadish' (to preclude a haystack from Shikchah).
(a) When Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Resh Lakish says that 'Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah are subject to the Machlokes between Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan, he is referring - to the Machlokes of whether 'Makdish be'Ayin Yafah Makdish' (the Rabbanan) or 'be'Ayin Ra'ah ... ' (Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi).

(b) Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi rules in this connection - that if a Ch'ruv or a Sadan nurtures from a field that someone is Makdish, he retains the land in which they are growing.

(c) Resh Lakish cited Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi and the Rabbanan (rather than Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan) - to teach us that Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi holds like Rebbi Shimon.

***** Hadran Alach ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis *****

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,