(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 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.
What are the basic ramifications of this Halachah?

(b) What does Rebbi Meir say?

(c) What distinction does the Tana make between what grows from the shoots and what grows from the roots (though the exact definition of shoots and roots will be discussed later)?

(a) What is the basic difference between the previous case and one where the sale involves three trees?

(b) Who will then own whatever grows from ...

  1. ... the shoots?
  2. ... the roots?
(c) What does Shimon gain when he buys two trees, but loses when he buys three? Why is that?

(d) And what is his major advantage in buying three trees?

(a) According to the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Bikurim, someone who purchases two trees in his friend's field, brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi Meir say?

(c) What will Rebbi Meir hold with regard to someone who purchases one tree?

(d) This is not however, what Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says.
What does Rav Yehudah say in connection with Rebbi Meir, that clashes with that?

(a) Rav bases his previous statement on the Mishnah in Bikurim.
What did he find superfluous there that gave rise to his radical interpretation of Rebbi Meir's opinion?

(b) How will Rebbi Meir then interpret the Pasuk ...

  1. ... in Ki Savo "Asher Tavi me'Artz'cha'?
  2. ... in Mishpatim "Admascha"?
  3. ... in Ki Savo "Asher Nasata Li, Hashem"?
(c) In fact, the word "Admascha" appears a second time (in Ki Sisa) in connection with Bikurim.
What do we learn from the second Pasuk?

(d) Does a Ger bring Bikurim from fruit that grows from his field?

5) How does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav deal with the Beraisa cited by Rabah, where Rebbi Meir specifically rules that in the case of someone who purchases one tree 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'?

Answers to questions



(a) What problem did Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim present Rebbi Elazar concerning the Din of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'?

(b) Whom does the problem concern, Rebbi Meir or the Rabbanan?

(c) What was Rebbi Elazar's reply?

(d) Rabah however, was not impressed by the Kashya? How does he explain the Din of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'?

(a) How will Rabah then amend Rebbi Meir's statement 'L'fi she'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).
Why do we need to do that? Why can the owner not just give them to the Kohen anyway?

(c) The Isur of Chulin ba'Azarah might be de'Rabbanan.
How might we also learn it from the Pasuk (in connection with the concession of Shechting Chulin animals) in Re'ei "Ki Yirchak mi'Mecha ha'Makom ve'Zavachta"?

(d) If, as we just explained, the owner declares the fruit Hekdesh, how will the Kohen be able to eat it?

(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).
What does he do with ...
  1. ... the Ma'aser Sheini?
  2. ... the Ma'aser Ani?
(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.
What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say about Ma'aser Rishon in the time of the second Beis-Hamikdash?

(c) How could Ezra issue an edict that contravened the Torah, who instructed that Ma'aser be given to the Levi?

(d) What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(a) On what grounds do we query ...
  1. ... the current ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' on principle?
  2. ... the answer (that K'riyah is not Me'akev [does not hold back the Mitzvah])?
(b) What is the gist of Rebbi Zeira's case?

(c) A Ger also brings Bikurim without reading the Parshah, and so does someone who brings his Bikurim between Succos and Chanukah.
Why is that not also subject to Rebbi Zeira's principle?

(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.
What is the other?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lakachta ... ve'Heivesa"?

(c) What is the basis for this D'rashah?

(d) So how will we now establish Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan's ruling of 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei' to circumvent the problem of the obligation to read the Parshah?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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