## Gittin Daf 47b

###### Gittin 47b:1
[Gittin 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:1)

טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the produce grown in that field is considered to be **untithed produce and non-sacred** produce **mixed together;** this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The portion **of the gentile is exempt** from *terumot* and tithes, **and** the portion **of the Jew is obligated.**


###### Gittin 47b:2
[Gittin 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:2)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר ״יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה״. וּמַר סָבַר ״אֵין בְּרֵירָה״; אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the inference: **They disagree only with regard to** the following issue: **That** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that **there is** retroactive **clarification,** i.e., when they divide the produce, it will be clarified who owned what produce from the outset. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **there is no** retroactive **clarification,** and therefore, since it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. **However, everyone agrees** that **a gentile has** the capability of **acquisition** of land **in Eretz Yisrael to** cause the **abrogation** of the sanctity of the land, removing it **from** the obligation to **tithe** its produce, as the gentile’s portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.


###### Gittin 47b:3
[Gittin 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:3)

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּסוּרְיָא; וְקָסָבַר כִּיבּוּשׁ יָחִיד לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here, also,** it is referring to a case **in Syria, and he holds** that **the conquest of an individual is not called a conquest,** and a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Syria to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land.


###### Gittin 47b:4
[Gittin 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:4)

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְגוֹי – לוֹקֵחַ וּמֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם – אִין, מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: **One who sells his field to a gentile must purchase and bring** the **first fruits from** the field that he sold, **for the betterment of the world.** Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin infers: **For the betterment of the world, yes,** he must bring the first fruits; however, **by Torah law, no,** he is not required. This teaches that the acquisition of a gentile causes the abrogation of the sanctity of the land.


###### Gittin 47b:5
[Gittin 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:5)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁתֵּי תַּקָּנוֹת הֲווֹ – מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ מַיְיתִי מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא; כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא מִקְּרִי וּמְזַבְּנִי, דְּסָבְרִי בִּקְדוּשְׁתַּיְיהוּ קָיְימָן, תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ דְּלָא לַיְתוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances** concerning this issue. **Initially,** those who sold their fields to gentiles **would bring** first fruits **by Torah law,** as they held that the acquisition of a gentile does not abrogate the sanctity of the land. **Once** the Sages **saw that** the Jews **would sell their land** to gentiles **when they had the opportunity, because** these Jews thought that the fact that the Jew would still have to bring the first fruits indicates that the land **retains its sanctity,** and therefore there is no reason not to sell the land to gentiles, **they instituted for** those who sell land to gentiles **that they should not bring** the first fruits, to emphasize that the land should not be sold to gentiles. This was the first ordinance.


###### Gittin 47b:6
[Gittin 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:6)

כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּמַאן דְּלָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ – מְזַבֵּן, וְקָא מִשְׁתַּקְּעָן בְּיַד גּוֹיִם, הֲדַר תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ דְּלַיְתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Once** the Sages **saw that those who were not able** to subsist **would sell** their land despite this ordinance, **and** the fields **would remain in the possession of the gentiles** and would not be redeemed, **they went back and instituted that they should bring** the first fruits in order to penalize the seller, to encourage him to repurchase the field. This was the second ordinance. Therefore, one cannot prove from the mishna whether or not the acquisition of a gentile abrogates the sanctity of the land.


###### Gittin 47b:7
[Gittin 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:7)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְפֵירוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** With regard to **one who sells his field for** just its **produce,** meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The purchaser **brings** first fruits from this field to the Temple **and recites** the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: “The land which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). **Reish Lakish says:** Although the buyer **brings** the first fruits, **he does not recite** the verses, since it is not his field.


###### Gittin 47b:8
[Gittin 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:8)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says he brings** the first fruits **and recites** the verses because he maintains that the **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself.** Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. **Reish Lakish says** that **he brings** the first fruits **and does not recite** the verses **because** he holds that the **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is not considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself.**


###### Gittin 47b:9
[Gittin 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״וּלְבֵיתְךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְקוֹרֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish** from a *baraita* concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: “And you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you **and to your house”** (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase “your house” often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This **teaches that a man brings his wife’s first fruits, and he recites** the relevant verses. This is true despite the fact that a husband acquires the field of his wife only for the produce. It seems from this *baraita* that the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.


###### Gittin 47b:10
[Gittin 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to him: It is different there, as it is written** explicitly: **“And to your house,”** which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to one’s wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.


###### Gittin 47b:11
[Gittin 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:11)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְקוֹרֵא – הָתָם הוּא דִכְתִיב ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא – לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that they had a different exchange: **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan** from that *baraita*: It is written: **“And to your house,”** which **teaches that a man brings his wife’s first fruits, and he recites** the relevant verses. Reish Lakish infers from this: **There, it is** that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses despite having acquired only the rights to the produce from his wife’s field, **as it is written** explicitly: **“And to your house”; but generally, no,** one who acquired only a field’s produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: I also state my reason from here,** as I see the *halakha* of a man bringing the produce from his wife’s field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.


###### Gittin 47b:12
[Gittin 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:12)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבִיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ – מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. מֵתָה – אִין, לֹא מֵתָה – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **raised an objection to** Rabbi Yoḥanan based on a *baraita*: If **he was traveling on the road** to Jerusalem **and the first fruits of his wife’s** field **were in his possession, and he heard that his wife died,** then **he brings** the first fruits **and recites** the verses. One can infer: If **she died, yes,** he brings the fruits and recites the verses, as he has now inherited the field itself; but if **she did not die,** then **no,** he does not recite the verses, because acquisition of a field’s produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.


###### Gittin 47b:13
[Gittin 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:13)

הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא מֵתָה; וּמֵתָה אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לִיגְזוֹר מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The same is true** in that case, **that even though she did not die** he also brings the fruits and recites the verses, **but** it **was necessary for** the *baraita* to mention the possibility that **she died,** because **it might enter your mind to say that there should be** a rabbinic **decree** in this case **due to** the statement **of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina** concerning a similar *halakha*.


###### Gittin 47b:14
[Gittin 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:14)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּצָרָן, וְשִׁגְּרָן בְּיַד שָׁלִיחַ, וּמֵת שָׁלִיחַ בַּדֶּרֶךְ – מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״–״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה בְּאֶחָד; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:** If one **harvested** his first fruits **and sent them in the possession** of **an agent, and the agent died on the way,** then someone else **brings** the fruits **but does not recite** the verses, **as it is stated: “And you shall take…and you shall bring”** (see Deuteronomy 26:2–3), and this juxtaposition teaches that the verses are not recited **until the taking and bringing will be** accomplished **by one** person. One might have said that since the husband took the fruits as the owner of the fruits alone and not the field, as the field was owned by his wife, and then he became the owner of the field as well and is bringing the fruits as the full owner, he should not recite the verses. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that he is considered to be the full owner before his wife’s death, because the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.


###### Gittin 47b:15
[Gittin 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/47b:15)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish **follow their** standard line of **reasoning** with regard to the issue of the acquisition of a field’s produce. **As it was stated** that they had a dispute in the following case as well: **One who sells his field**