|  |  | Previous Folio / Baba Bathra Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra ### Folio 80a MISHNAH. ONE WHO BUYS OF ANOTHER THE [ANNUAL] ISSUE OF A DOVE-COTE MUST ALLOW THE FIRST BROOD1 TO FLY [WITH THEIR DAM].2 [IF HE BUYS THE ANNUAL] ISSUE OF A BEEHIVE, HE TAKES [THE FIRST] THREE SWARMS; AND [THE SELLER MAY THEN] EMASCULATE [THOSE REMAINING].3 [IF HE BUYS] HONEY-COMBS, HE MUST LEAVE TWO COMBS.4 [IF HE BUYS] OLIVE-TREES FOR FELLING, HE MUST LEAVE TWO SHOOTS.5 GEMARA. Has it not been taught [that the buyer must leave the] first, and the second brood?6 — R. Kahana replied: One for itself [the first brood]. one for the dam.7 But if [it is assumed that the] mother dove will be attached to the daughter dove and to the mate left with it, [let it equally be assumed that] the daughter dove also will be attached to its mother dove and to the mate left with it!8 — A mother is [always] attached to a daughter, but not so a daughter to a mother. [IF HE BUYS] THE [ANNUAL] ISSUE OF A BEEHIVE, HE TAKES [THE FIRST] THREE SWARMS; AND [THE SELLER MAY THEN] EMASCULATE [THOSE REMAINING]. Wherewith does he emasculate them? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: With mustard. In Palestine it has been stated, in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina: It is not the mustard that emasculates them but the excessive quantities of honey, which the bitterness in their mouths [caused by the mustard], makes them consume.9 R. Johanan said: [The buyer] takes the three swarms alternately.10 In a Baraitha it has been taught: [The buyer] takes three swarms consecutively and after that he takes them alternately.11 [IF HE BUYS] HONEY-COMBS, HE MUST LEAVE TWO COMBS etc. R. Kahana said: Honey in a beehive never loses the designation of 'food'.12 This proves that he is of the opinion that no intention13 is required. An objection was raised: [It has been taught]: Honey in a beehive is neither [regarded14 as] 'food' nor [as] 'drink'! — Abaye replied: This15 referred only to those two combs.16 Raba said: This15 is [in accordance with] R. Eliezer. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The first pair of young doves born after the sale. I.e., to remain in the cote; because sellers do not include in sales the first brood which is required to serve as an attraction for their dam which, in the absence of its young, might altogether quit the cote. To prevent them from any further breeding, and thus to enable them to give themselves up entirely to the production of honey. To provide nourishment for the remaining bees during their hibernation. To provide for the future propagation of the olives. Why then is it stated in our Mishnah that the first brood only is to be left? The first brood is left as company for the dam. The second brood, viz. the first pair of young doves bred by the first brood, must be left as company for the first brood. R. Kahana explains that the Baraitha speaks of the two broods, the Mishnah of the first only. Why then is it required to leave a pair of the second issue as company for the first? The surfeit deprives them of the power of propagation and consequently their entire energies are centred on the production of honey. The first, third and fifth. The others belong to the seller. The yearly swarms deteriorate as the year advances and by this arrangement the respective shares of buyer and seller are equitably distributed. Lit., 'he takes one and leaves one'. As regards its subjection to the laws of Levitical defilement (v. Lev. XI, 34). The quantities equal to the contents of one and a half and one egg are Prescribed as minimums for 'food' and 'drink' respectively to transfer levitical impurity [v. Maim. Yad. Tum'ath Oklin, IV, 1-3]. I.e., whether the owner intended the honey to be used as food or has not thought about it at all, it is always regarded as 'food'. V. supra n. 2. The Baraitha. Which are left in the beehive to nourish the bees during the winter. They therefore are not considered human 'food'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Baba Bathra 80b nbsp; For we learnt: As to beehive, R. Eliezer said: It is regarded as landed property,1 a prosbul 2 may be written on the basis of it,3 and it is not subject to the laws of Levitical defilement, while in situ,4 and he who takes [honey] out of it on the Sabbath is under the obligation of [bringing] a sin-offering. But the Sages say: A prosbul may not be written on the basis of it, it is not regarded as landed property, it is subject to the laws of Levitical defilement in situ, and he who takes [honey] out of it on the Sabbath is absolved.5 R. Eleazar said: What is the reason of R. Eliezer? For it is written: And he dipped it in the honeycomb [Ya'rath];6 what is therein common between a forest and honey? But [the verse] tells you that, as [in the case of a] forest he who plucks from it on the Sabbath incurs the obligation of a sin-offering so, [in the case of] honey, he who takes some of it [from the beehive] on the Sabbath incurs the obligation of a sin offering. An objection was raised:7 [It has been taught:] Honey that flows from one's beehive is [as regards Levitical defilement] neither food nor drink. This is quite correct according to Abaye;8 but according to Raba there is a difficulty!9 — R. Zebid replied: [The Baraitha may speak of a case such as] for instance, when the [honey] flowed into an objectionable vessel.10 R. Aha b. Jacob said: [It may deal with such a case] as when [the honey] flowed upon chips.11 An objection was raised:12 [It has been taught]: Honey in one's beehive is neither food nor drink.13 [If, however, the owner] intended [to use] it as food, it is subject to [the laws of the Levitical] defilement of food; [if] as drink, it is subject to [the laws of Levitical] defilement of drink. This is quite correct according to Abaye.14 but according to Raba there is a difficulty!15 — Raba can tell you: Explain thus: [If] he intended [to use it] as food it does not become subject to [the laws of Levitical] defilement of food [and if] as drink, it does not become subject to [the laws of Levitical] defilement of drink.16 The following Baraitha is in agreement with R. Kahana's opinion: Honey in a beehive is subject to [the laws of Levitical] defilement [even if] there was no intention [to use it for human consumption].17 [IF HE BUYS] OLIVE TREES FOR FELLING, HE MUST LEAVE TWO SHOOTS. Our Rabbis have taught: He who buys a tree from his friend for felling, shall leave the height of a handbreadth from the ground,18 and cut it. [If] a virgin19 sycamore [the cut must be made at no less a height than] three handbreadths. If a sycamore trunk,20 two handbreadths. In [the case of] reeds and vines, [the cut is to be made] from the knot and above it. In [the case of] palm trees and cedars he may dig and take them out with the roots, because their stumps do not grow afresh.21 Does a virgin sycamore require [as high a stump as] three handbreadths? What about the contradiction [from the following]: A virgin sycamore must not be cut in the Sabbatical year, because [cutting] is work.22 R. Judah says: [To cut] in the usual manner is prohibited, but one may [either] leave a height of ten handbreadths and cut23 or raze [the tree] at ground level.24 [From this it follows that] only at ground level is [the cut] injurious, but at any other [point]25 it is beneficial!26 — Abaye replied: [At a height of] three handbreadths [the cut] is beneficial; at ground level it is certainly injurious; at any other point27 it is neither [definitely] injurious nor [definitely] beneficial. [Consequently] in the case of the Sabbatical year. [the cut made] must be one that is unquestionably injurious;28 in the case of commercial transactions [the cut made] must be one that is unquestionably beneficial.29 [It has been said that] 'in the case of] palm trees and cedars he may dig and take them out with the roots, because their stumps do not grow afresh again.' Does not the stump of a cedar grow afresh? Surely R. Hiyya b. Lulyani gave the following exposition: It is written: The righteous shall flourish like a palm-tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon;30 if palm-tree has been mentioned, why mention [also] the cedar, and if cedar has been mentioned, why mention [also] palm-tree? If cedar [only], had been mentioned and not palm-tree, it might have been implied that as the cedar produces no [edible] fruit, so will the righteous produce no fruit, therefore palm-tree has been mentioned. And if palm-tree had been mentioned but not cedar, it would have been implied that as the stump of the palm-tree does not grow afresh31 so the shoot32 of the righteous will not grow, therefore cedar is also mentioned!33 — The fact is that other kinds of cedar trees are spoken of; in accordance with [a statement made by] Rabah son of R. Huna who reported34 that at the college of Rab it had been stated [as follows]: There are ten kinds of cedar trees; for it is said: I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree and the myrtle. and the oil tree,' I will set etc.35 Erez36 means cedar, Shittah36 means pine, Hadas36 means myrtle, 'Ez Shemen36 means balsam tree, Berosh36 means cypress, Tidhar36 means teak, Uthe' ashur36 means shurbina.37 Are not these [only] seven [kinds of cedar]? — When R. Dimi came38 he said: The following were added to them: Alonim, Almonim, Almogim. Alonim are pistachio trees, Almonim are oaks, Almogim - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Since beehives were attached to the ground, they were regarded as the ground itself and were subject to the same laws. Hence the honey, being part of the beehive, is treated as real estate and cannot, therefore, be designated 'food' or 'drink'. Prosbul, [H] or [H] perhaps from [G] or [G] or an abbreviation of [G]. It is a form of declaration introduced by Hillel in connection with the Sabbatical year. A creditor making the declaration in writing before the judges in a court at the proper time and in the proper manner, becomes thereby exempt from the laws of release (cf. Deut. XV, 2) and retains his rights to the collection of his debts. A prosbul is granted by the court only when the borrower possesses some landed estate. Ownership of a beehive is regarded as ownership of landed, or immovable property. In accordance with the principle that whatever is attached to the ground [H] (in opposition to [H] detached') is not susceptible to the laws of levitical uncleanliness. V. supra 656. I Sam. XIV, 27, [H] is midrashically compared to [H] 'forest'. To R. Kahana's statement. For the present Baraitha may also be said to speak of the two combs left for the bees in the winter. Cf. p. 324, n. 5. Even if honey in the beehive is, according to R. Eliezer, regarded as earth (neither food nor drink), honey that flowed out of the hive cannot surely be so regarded. Since the honey, through its contact with the loathsome vessel, becomes unsuitable for human consumption, it cannot, according to R. Eliezer, be designated food or drink, even though it flowed out of the hive. From which the honey cannot be easily gathered, and if gathered would not be suitable for human consumption. Cf. previous note. Cf. supra n. 2. Cf. p. 324. n. 2. Cf. supra n. 2. This Baraitha states that the owner's intention brings the honey into the category of food or drink; but according to R. Eliezer, how could the mere thought of the owner make food or drink 'attached' to the ground (cf. p. 295, n. 7) to be regarded as if it were 'detached'? By this explanation, Raba does not alter the text of the Baraitha, but interprets it thus: Honey in a beehive is regarded neither as food nor as drink (with reference to the question whether) if intended to be used as food, it (should) be subject to the defilement of food (and whether), if intended for drink, it (should) be subject to the defilement of drink. (Cf. Tosaf. s.v. [H]). Ta'an. 25b. So that there remains a stump from which a new tree can grow. I.e., uncut, untrimmed. I.e., if the sycamore has been cut before and grew up again. Bek. 7b. The cutting causes new growth which is forbidden. (Cf. Lev. XXV, 4.) Above a height of ten handbreadths the cut is injurious. Sheb. IV, 5. Between the ground and a height of three handbreadths from the ground. Why, then, must the buyer of a tree leave a stump of three handbreadths? Between the ground and a height of three handbreadths, and between the latter point and a height of ten handbreadths. Since the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year are Pentateuchal, the strictest restrictions must be adopted, so as to avoid doing any work tending to benefit the tree. The seller must have the benefit of the doubt so that the life of his tree may not in any way be endangered. Ps. XCII, 13. After the main portion of the tree had been cut. I.e., his seed, or if he falls he will not rise again (Rashb.). Does not this then prove that the stump of a cedar does grow afresh? Ta'an. 25b. Isa. XLI, 19. The Hebrew words in lsa. are translated here by the Gemara. Shurbina, one of the species of cedar. I.e., from Palestine. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |