## Bava Batra Daf 80b

###### Bava Batra 80b:1
[Bava Batra 80b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:1)

דִּתְנַן: כַּוֶּורֶת דְּבוֹרִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הִיא כַּקַּרְקַע, וְכוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוּל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 10:7): Concerning **a beehive, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is** considered **like land** with regard to the manner in which one purchases it and with regard to other matters, **and** therefore **one writes a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from canceling an outstanding debt [*prosbol*]** based **on it,** as a *prosbol* can be written only if the debtor possesses land of some sort.


###### Bava Batra 80b:2
[Bava Batra 80b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:2)

וְאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** a beehive **is not susceptible to ritual impurity,** provided that it is **in its place** and attached to the ground, as it is considered equivalent to the ground itself, which is not susceptible to impurity. **And one who takes** honey **out of it on Shabbat** is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering,** like one who uproots something from the ground. According to this opinion, honey in a beehive is not considered to have the status of either food or liquid with regard to ritual impurity, as it is attached to the ground.


###### Bava Batra 80b:3
[Bava Batra 80b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:3)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוּל, וְאֵינָהּ כַּקַּרְקַע, וּמְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And the Rabbis say:** A beehive has the status of movable property; **one may not write a *prosbol*** based **on it, and it is not** considered **like land** with regard to its sale but is instead sold in the manner of movable property. **And it is susceptible to ritual impurity** even when it is **in its place, and one who takes** honey **out of it on Shabbat is exempt** from bringing a sin-offering. According to this opinion, the honey contained within the beehive is considered detached from the ground and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity, as stated by Rav Kahana.


###### Bava Batra 80b:4
[Bava Batra 80b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטְבֹּל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעְרַת הַדְּבָשׁ״ – וְכִי מָה עִנְיַן יַעַר אֵצֶל דְּבַשׁ? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ, מָה יַעַר – הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, אַף דְּבַשׁ – הָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written** with regard to Jonathan: “He put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, **and dipped it in the honeycomb [*ya’arat hadevash*]”** (I Samuel 14:27). **Now, what does a forest [*ya’ar*] have to do with honey [*devash*]?** Why is the honeycomb called a forest of honey [*ya’arat hadevash*]? **Rather,** this serves **to tell you: Just as** with regard to **a forest, one who picks** fruit **from** a tree **on Shabbat is liable** to bring **a sin-offering, so too,** with regard to **honey, one who removes** honey **from** a beehive **on Shabbat is liable** to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Bava Batra 80b:5
[Bava Batra 80b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:5)

מֵיתִיבִי: דְּבַשׁ הַזָּב מִכַּוַּורְתּוֹ – אֵינוֹ לֹא אוֹכֶל, וְלֹא מַשְׁקֶה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי, נִיחָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **Honey that flows from one’s beehive is not** considered **either food or liquid. Granted, according to** the reasoning of **Abaye** this **works out well,** since he would explain here, as in the previous case, that this is referring to the two combs in the beehive designated for the sustenance of the bees, and is not intended for human consumption.


###### Bava Batra 80b:6
[Bava Batra 80b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:6)

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: כְּגוֹן שֶׁזָּב עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי מָאוּס. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁזָּב עַל גַּבֵּי קַשְׁקַשִּׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **Rava,** who says that the *baraita* is in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, this presents **a difficulty,** as even according to Rabbi Eliezer the honey is not considered attached to the ground once it leaves the beehive. **Rav Zevid said:** The *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the honey **flowed onto a repulsive vessel** and therefore is unfit for human consumption. **Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:** It is referring to a case **where it flowed onto straw [*kashkashin*]** and weeds, which renders it inedible.


###### Bava Batra 80b:7
[Bava Batra 80b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: דְּבַשׁ בְּכַוַּורְתּוֹ – אֵינוֹ לֹא אוֹכֶל וְלֹא מַשְׁקֶה. חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לַאֲכִילָה – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין. לְמַשְׁקִין – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי, נִיחָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises** another **objection** from a *baraita*: **Honey in one’s beehive is not** considered **either food or liquid.** If **one intended to** use **it** as **food, it** is susceptible to **ritual impurity** as **food,** and if one intended **to** use it as **liquid, it is susceptible to ritual impurity as liquid. Granted, according to** the reasoning of **Abaye,** this **works out well,** as he can explain that this too is referring to the two combs of honey left for the bees, and that if one reconsidered and decided to eat the honey, it is once again considered fit for human consumption.


###### Bava Batra 80b:8
[Bava Batra 80b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:8)

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rava,** who said that the ruling of the *baraita* that honey in a beehive does not have the status of food or liquid is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this poses **a difficulty.** This *baraita* does not accord with the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, as he maintains that one’s intention is not enough for honey attached to the ground to be considered as though it were detached. Therefore, the *baraita* must be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and yet it contradicts Rav Kahana’s statement that intention is not required for honey to be susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Bava Batra 80b:9
[Bava Batra 80b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:9)

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא, תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לַאֲכִילָה – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, לְמַשְׁקִין – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּבַשׁ בְּכַוַּורְתּוֹ – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava** could have **said to you** that the *baraita* is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and you should resolve the difficulty **and answer like this:** If **one intended to** use the honey as **food, it** is **not** susceptible to **ritual impurity** as **food,** and if one intended **to** use it as **liquid, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity** as **liquid.** The Gemara notes: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Kahana: Honey in one’s beehive is susceptible to ritual impurity** as **food** even if there was **no intention** to use it as food, as it has an innate status of food.


###### Bava Batra 80b:10
[Bava Batra 80b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:10)

זֵיתִים לָקוֹץ – מַנִּיחַ שְׁתֵּי גְרוֹפִיּוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ אִילָן מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לָקוֹץ – מַגְבִּיהַּ מִן הַקַּרְקַע טֶפַח, וְקוֹצֵץ. בְּתוּלַת הַשִּׁקְמָה – שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. סַדַּן הַשִּׁקְמָה – שְׁנֵי טְפָחִים. בְּקָנִים וּבִגְפָנִים – מִן הַפְּקָק וּלְמַעְלָה. בִּדְקָלִים וּבַאֲרָזִים – חוֹפֵר וּמְשָׁרֵשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גִּזְעָן מַחְלִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one buys **olive** trees **for felling, he must leave two shoots** from the tree. **The Sages taught: One who buys a tree from another for felling must cut** the tree **one handbreadth above the ground,** to allow the tree to grow again. In the case of **an untrimmed sycamore,** he must cut the tree a minimum of **three handbreadths** above the ground, and with regard to **a large sycamore,** which has strong roots because the sycamore has been cut down once already, he must cut the tree a minimum of **two handbreadths** above the ground. **In** the case **of reeds or of vines,** he may cut only **from the knot and above,** so that they will grow back. **In** the cases **of palm and of cedar** trees, **he may dig down and uproot** them, **because their trunks do not replenish** themselves after they are cut down, and therefore there is no reason to leave anything behind.


###### Bava Batra 80b:11
[Bava Batra 80b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:11)

וּבְתוּלַת הַשִּׁקְמָה שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים בָּעֵינַן?! וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵין קוֹצְצִין בְּתוּלַת הַשִּׁקְמָה בִּשְׁבִיעִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא עֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do we require an untrimmed sycamore** to be cut a minimum of **three handbreadths** above the ground for it to grow back? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Shevi’it* 4:5): **One may not fell an untrimmed sycamore during the Sabbatical** Year **because it is** considered **work,** as it promotes the growth of the tree.


###### Bava Batra 80b:12
[Bava Batra 80b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:12)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדַרְכּוֹ – אָסוּר; אֶלָּא מַגְבִּיהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְקוֹצֵץ, אוֹ גוֹמֵם מֵעִם הָאָרֶץ. מֵעִם הָאָרֶץ הוּא דְּקָשֵׁי, הָא אִידַּךְ מְעַלֵּי לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** It is **prohibited** for one to fell the tree during the Sabbatical Year **in its** usual **manner; rather, he must cut** the tree **ten handbreadths** above the ground, **or raze** the tree until it is **even with the ground.** Neither of these methods promote the growth of the tree; in fact, they damage it. It can be inferred from here that it is only cutting the sycamore until it is **even with the ground that is harmful** for it, and it does not grow again. Cutting in **another** manner **is beneficial for it,** even if it is cut less than three handbreadths from the ground.


###### Bava Batra 80b:13
[Bava Batra 80b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:13)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים מְעַלֵּי לַהּ, מֵעִם הָאָרֶץ וַדַּאי קָשֵׁי לַהּ; מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – לָא מִקְשֵׁי קָשֵׁי לַהּ, וְלָאו עַלּוֹיֵי מְעַלֵּי לַהּ. גַּבֵּי שְׁבִיעִית – עָבְדִינַן מִידֵּי דְּוַדַּאי קָשֵׁי לָהּ, גַּבֵּי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר – עָבְדִינַן מִידֵּי דְּוַדַּאי מְעַלֵּי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that the mishna should be understood as follows: Cutting down a sycamore from a height of **three handbreadths is beneficial for it,** whereas cutting it so that it is **even with the ground is certainly harmful for it** and is permitted during the Sabbatical Year. Cutting it down **from this** point **onward,** i.e., between the ground and three handbreadths, is **neither** very **harmful for it nor** particularly **beneficial for it. With regard to the Sabbatical** Year, **we perform** only **a matter that is certainly harmful to it,** so as to avoid enhancing it. **With regard to buying and selling, we perform** only **a matter that is certainly beneficial for it,** as the seller intended to sell the sycamore in such a manner that the tree would grow again.


###### Bava Batra 80b:14
[Bava Batra 80b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:14)

בִּדְקָלִים וּבַאֲרָזִים – חוֹפֵר וּמְשָׁרֵשׁ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גִּזְעָן מַחְלִיף. וְאֶרֶז אֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף?! וְהָא דְּרֵישׁ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר לוּלְיָינִי, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״צַדִּיק כַּתָּמָר יִפְרָח, כְּאֶרֶז בַּלְּבָנוֹן יִשְׂגֶּה״? אִם נֶאֱמַר תָּמָר לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אֶרֶז, וְאִם נֶאֱמַר אֶרֶז לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר תָּמָר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: In the case **of palm and cedar trees,** a buyer may **dig down and uproot** them, **because their trunks do not replenish** themselves after being cut down. The Gemara asks: **And** is it correct with regard to **a cedar** that **its trunk does not replenish** itself? **But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Lulyani teach: What** is the meaning of that **which is written: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon”** (Psalms 92:13)? **If “palm tree” is stated, why is “cedar” stated? And if “cedar” is stated, why is “palm tree” stated?** What is added by this double comparison?


###### Bava Batra 80b:15
[Bava Batra 80b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:15)

אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר אֶרֶז וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר תָּמָר – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה אֶרֶז אֵין עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת, אַף צַדִּיק אֵין עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת; לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר תָּמָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Lulyani explains: **Had** the verse **stated** only **“cedar” and had not stated “palm tree,” I would have said** that **just as a cedar does not produce fruit, so too, a righteous person does not produce fruit,** i.e., he will have no reward in the World-to-Come. **Therefore, it is stated: “Palm tree,”** which is a fruit-bearing tree.


###### Bava Batra 80b:16
[Bava Batra 80b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:16)

וְאִם נֶאֱמַר תָּמָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶרֶז, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה תָּמָר אֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף, אַף צַדִּיק אֵין גִּזְעוֹ מַחְלִיף; לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר אֶרֶז!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the verse **stated** only **“palm tree” and had not stated “cedar,” I would have said** that **just as** with regard to **a palm tree its trunk does not replenish** itself after being cut down, **so too,** in the case of **a righteous person, his trunk does not replenish** itself, i.e., he will be unable to recover from misfortune. **Therefore, it is stated: “Cedar,”** to indicate that just as the trunk of the cedar replenishes itself, so too, the righteous will thrive again. This demonstrates that the trunk of a cedar does grow again.


###### Bava Batra 80b:17
[Bava Batra 80b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:17)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּשְׁאָר מִינֵי אֲרָזִים, כִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא; דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב: עֲשָׂרָה מִינֵי אֲרָזִים הֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶתֵּן בַּמִּדְבָּר אֶרֶז, שִׁטָּה, וַהֲדַס; וְעֵץ שָׁמֶן אָשִׂים וְגוֹ׳״. ״אֶרֶז״ – אַרְזָא. ״שִׁיטָּה״ – תּוּרְנִיתָא. ״הֲדַס״ – אַסָּא. ״עֵץ שֶׁמֶן״ – אֲפַרְסְמָא. ״בְּרוֹשׁ״ – בְּרָתֵי. ״תִּדְהָר״ – שָׁאגָא. ״וּתְאַשּׁוּר״ – שׁוּרְבִּינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, with what are we are dealing here?** We are dealing **with other types of cedars,** as the trunks of certain species do not grow back after the tree is felled. This is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabba bar Rav Huna. As Rabba bar Rav Huna says** that **they say** in **the school of Rav: There are ten types of cedars; as it is stated: “I will place in the wilderness the cedar [*erez*], the acacia tree [*shitta*], and the myrtle [*hadas*] and the pine tree [*etz shemen*]; I will set** in the desert the juniper [*berosh*], the teak [*tidhar*], and the cypress [*te’ashur*] all together” (Isaiah 41:19). The Gemara elaborates: ***Erez*** means **cedar; *shitta*** means **acacia tree [*tornita*]; *hadas*** is the **myrtle; *etz shemen*** is the **balsam tree; *berosh*** means **juniper [*berati*]; *tidhar*** is the **teak [*shaga*]; and *te’ashur*** is the **cypress [*shurbina*].**


###### Bava Batra 80b:18
[Bava Batra 80b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/80b:18)

הָנֵי שִׁבְעָה הָוֵי! כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר, הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן: אַלּוֹנִים, אַלְמוֹנִים, אַלְמוּגִּים. אַלּוֹנִים – בּוּטְנֵי, אַלְמוֹנִים – בָּלוּטֵי, אַלְמוּגִּים –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **these are seven** species of cedar, not ten. **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia **he said: They added to** the list of cedars ***allonim*, *almonim*,** and ***almugim*. *Allonim*** refers to **pistachio trees [*butnei*], *almonim*** are **oaks [*balutei*],** and ***almugim***