ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 81
BAVA BASRA 81 (28 Sivan) - dedicated by Rav Mordechai Rabin
(Manchester/London/Yerushalayim), in honor of the Yahrzeit of his mother.
(a) We have already discussed the Din in our Mishnah, that if Shimon
purchases two trees in Reuven's field, he does not acquire the ground in
which they are growing. The basic ramifications of this Halachah are - that
when the trees die, he does not have the right to replace them.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir - Shimon acquires the ground, too.
(c) The Tana draws a distinction between what grows from the shoots - which
belongs to Shimon, and what grows from the roots - which belongs to Reuven
(though the exact definition of shoots and roots will be discussed later).
(a) The basic difference between the previous case and one where the sale
involves three trees is - that, in the latter case, Shimon acquires the
ground from which the trees are growing.
(b) The owner of whatever grows from ...
1. ... the shoots will then be - Shimon.
(c) When Shimon buys three trees, Reuven is permitted to cut down the
branches that proliferate and hang over his field, since the shade is
harmful to the field (assuming that it is a Beis ha'Shalachin, that is
watered manually). He may not however, do so, if Shimon only acquired two
trees, since there, he is Mashabed his field towards Shimon's requirements
vis-a-vis his trees.
2. ... the roots will be - Shimon, too.
(d) Shimon's major advantage in buying three trees is - the fact that if any
of his trees die, he is permitted to replace them.
(a) The Tana Kama says in the Mishnah in Bikurim, that someone who purchases
two trees in his friend's field, brings Bikurim but does not read the
Parshah - because the Torah writes in Ki Savo "P'ri ha'Adamah Asher Nasata
(b) Rebbi Meir holds - 'Mien ve'Korei' (he reads the Parshah too (in keeping
with his ruling in our Mishnah).
(c) With regard to someone who purchases one tree, Rebbi Meir will hold -
Meivi ve'Eino Korei' (like the Rabbanan hold by two).
(d) This is not however, what Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says. In his opinion -
Rebbi Meir obligates even someone who buys fruit in the market to bring
Bikurim and read the Parshah.
(a) Rav bases his previous statement on the Mishnah in Bikurim - which in
light of our Mishnah, is obvious and therefore superfluous.
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - is proved wrong from the Beraisa cited by Rabah,
where Rebbi Meir specifically rules that in the case of someone who
purchases one tree 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir then, the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Asher Tavi me'Artz'cha' - comes to preclude fruit that grows in
Chutz la'Aretz from Bikurim.
(c) In fact, the word "Admascha" appears in Mishpatim too, in connection
with Bikurim. From the second Pasuk - we preclude from Bikurim fruit that
one buys from a Ger.
2. ... "Admascha" - comes to preclude fruit that one purchased from a Nochri
who owns land in Eretz Yisrael.
3. ... "Asher Nasata Li, Hashem" - refers simply to the money that Hashem
gave the reciter with which to buy the fruit.
(d) A Ger - brings Bikurim from fruit that grows from his field, though he
does not read the Parshah (since he is unable to say "Asher Nishba
la'Avoseinu La'ses Lanu").
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rebbi Elazar - why the Tana ruled
'*Meivi* ve'Eino Korei'. Since this ruling is based in the Pasuk "Asher
Tavi me'Artz'cha", why does this not preclude the Bikurim from even being
(b) The problem - concerns Rebbi Meir in the case of one tree, and the
Rabbanan in the case of two.
(c) Rebbi Elazar replied - that such questions (which even the earlier
generations could not solve, only served to embarrass him, and were better
(d) Rabah however, was not impressed by the Kashya. Perhaps, he maintained -
the Tana'im were not sure whether someone who acquires one or two trees
(respectively) acquired the land or not, So the Tana'im go le'Chumra, as we
will explain shortly.
(a) Rabah therefore amends Rebbi Meir's statement 'L'fi she'Lo Kanah Karka'
to read - 'Shema Lo Kanah Karka'.
(b) We will also then need to establish the Din of Meivi when the owner
declares the fruit Hekdesh (in case it is not Bikurim) - because otherwise,
since it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah, the owner would not
be able to give it to the Kohen.
(c) The Isur of Chulin ba'Azarah might be de'Rabbanan. Alternatively, we
might also learn it from the Pasuk (in connection with the concession of
Shechting Chulin animals) "Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom ... ve'Zavachta" -
from which we would Darshen 'be'Richuk Makom Atah Zove'ach, ve'Lo be'Kiruv
Makom' (prohibiting the Shechitah of Chulin close to Hashem).
(d) Even though, as we just explained, the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh,
the Kohen will be able to eat it - because the moment the fruit leaves the
Azarah, the owner becomes obligated to redeem it again (and to give it to
the Kohen in case it is Bikurim).
(a) On the other hand, the owner is obligated to give Ma'asros, in case the
fruit is not Bikurim. So he separates Terumah Gedolah and gives it to the
Kohen (who eats it either way [bearing in mind that Bikurim is also called
Terumah). He gives ...
1. ... the Ma'aser Sheini to a Kohen, too (see Hagahos ha'Bach), and ...
(b) There is however, a problem with Ma'aser Rishon, which must be given to
a Levi. We get round this problem by establishing Rebbi and the Rabbanan
respectively, like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who rules - that in the time of
the second Beis-Hamikdash, Ezra penalized the Levi'im, by transferring
Ma'aser Rishon to the Kohanim exclusively.
2. ... the Ma'aser Ani - to a poor Kohen.
(c) Ezra's edict did not contravene the Torah, who instructed that Ma'aser
be given to the Levi - since the term Levi incorporates Levi'im, as we find
in twenty-four places in T'nach.
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - Ezra did not issue such a decree, and Ma'aser
Rishon was given even then, to the Levi'im.
(a) We query ...
1. ... the current ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' - on the grounds that if
the fruit is Bikurim, it requires K'riyah, so how is the Kohen permitted to
eat it without K'riyah having been done.
(b) In the case of Rebbi Zeira too - Lechatchilah a Minchah requires the oil
and the flour to be mixed, though the mixing is not crucial to the Mitzvah.
Nevertheless, if the large quantity of flour prevents a thorough mixing with
the oil from taking place in one vessel, it does indeed become crucial to
2. ... the answer (that K'riyah is not Me'akev [is not crucial to the
Mitzvah]) - with the principle of Rebbi Zeira ' ... Kol she'Eino ha'Ra'uy
le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo', which teaches us that even though K'riyah is
not crucial to the Mitzvah of Bikurim, the fruit must nevertheless be in a
state where K'riy'ah could at least be performed. Otherwise, it does indeed
hold back the Mitzvah.
(c) A Ger also brings Bikurim without reading the Parshah, and so does
someone who brings his Bikurim between Succos and Chanukah. Yet they are not
subject to Rebbi Zeira's principle - because Lechatchilah, that is how the
Torah requires the Bikurim to be brought.
(a) We resolve this problem with a ruling of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He
absolves two cases from reading the Parshah of Bikurim; one of them is when
the owner appoints a Sheli'ach to bring the Bikurim that he picked to the
Beis Hamikdash, the other - when the Sheli'ach, who picked the Bikurim from
the tree (and who is therefore eligible to bring it to the Beis Hamikdash),
died on the way, and another Sheli'ach, or even the owner himself takes the
Bikurim to the Beis-Hamikdash.
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lakachta ...
ve'Heivesa" - that the same person who picked the Bikurim from the tree,
must bring it to the Beis Hamikdash.
(c) The basis for this D'rashah is - the fact that "ve'Lakachta" is
(d) To circumvent the problem of the obligation to read the Parshah, we will
establish Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan's ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' -
when the owner picked the fruit but appointed a Sheli'ach to take it to the
Beis Hamikdash, or vice-versa.