Bava Basra - Daf 81

• Audio Timestamps

0:00 - The 3 Sugyos

2:47 - Review of 3 Sugyos

5:30- Siman

7:30 - 4 Blatt Back Chazarah

14:52 - Pop Quiz (Last 7 blatt)

For access to all Zichru resources including PDFs, and illustrations CLICK HERE

• Machlokes if one who buys two trees acquires land, and if he is מביא וקורא by ביכורים

The next Mishnah states: הקונה שני אילנות בתוך שדה חבירו – If one acquires two trees in his friend’s field, הרי זה לא קנה קרקע – he has not acquired land. Rebbe Meir says: קנה קרקע – he has acquired land under and around the trees. If one buys three trees, he does acquire land. In a Mishnah in Bikkurim, the Tanna Kamma says that if one purchases two trees in someone’s field, מביא ואינו קורא – he brings ביכורים from its fruit, but does not recite the ביכורים pesukim, because he does not own the land. Rebbe Meir says: מביא וקורא – he brings ביכורים and recites the pesukim, because he does own the land. A Baraisa teaches that Rebbe Meir agrees that one who acquires a single tree does not recite the ביכורים pesukim, because he does not acquire any land.

• The reason for being מביא ואינו קורא is based on a ספק

Rebbe Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rebbe Elazar about one who purchased one tree according to Rebbe Meir, or two according to the Rabbonon: why does he bring ביכורים at all, since he is excluded from ביכורים by not owning land (which is why he does not recite the pesukim)!? Rebbe Elazar responded: דבר שהראשונים לא אמרו בו טעם – “Something which the earlier ones (i.e., the Tannaim) did not say a reason; תשאלני בבית המדרש כדי לביישני – you ask me in the Beis Medrash to embarrass me?!” Rabbah suggested that perhaps each Tanna was uncertain if one acquires land when purchasing one or two trees (respectively). Because of the uncertainty, the buyer cannot demand any land from the seller. Still, he must bring ביכורים, because he might own land. On the next Daf, Rav Ashi was asked why he cannot simply recite the pesukim like any pesukim of the Torah, and he answered: משום דמחזי כשיקרא – because it appears like falsehood (since it includes “the land which You gave me”). Another explanation is given there.

• Challenges to explaining ביכורים based on ספק

The Gemara asks that if ביכורים is brought only out of doubt, as Rabbah explained, we should be concerned they are not truly ביכורים, וקא מעייל חולין לעזרה – and [the owner] is thus bringing chullin into the עזרה, which is prohibited!? It answers that the owner is makdish them conditionally (i.e., if they are not ביכורים), and redeems them afterwards so the Kohen can eat them. Since the fruits would be subject to terumah and maaser obligations if they are not ביכורים, the owner separates these and gives them to a Kohen (following the opinion that maaser may be given to a Kohen). The Gemara asks that perhaps these fruits are ביכורים, and require קריאה of the ביכורים pesukim. Although קרייה לא מעכבת – reciting is not critical to bringing ביכורים, the application here is questioned from Rebbe Zeira’s principle, that a minchah which is אינו ראוי לבילה – not fit for mixing, בילה מעכבת בו – the mixing is critical to it and invalidates the minchah. Here, too, since קריאה may be required, and cannot be done out of doubt, the ביכורים should be invalid!? The Gemara answers that he sends the fruits with a שליח, which is exempt from קריאה.

Siman – Grandpa

The Grandpa who bought two trees in a field and was on his way to bring  ביכורים knowing he wouldn’t recite the pesukim, told his grandson that he was bringing  ביכורים based on the  ספק that he might own the land, as he was about to hand them over to a shaliach who is exempt from קריאה.