## Gittin Daf 48a

###### Gittin 48a:1
[Gittin 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:1)

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in** the **time when the Jubilee** Year **is practiced,** and every sale of land is only for its produce, because the land returns to its original owners in the Jubilee Year, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The purchaser **brings** the first fruits **and recites** the verses. **Reish Lakish says:** The purchaser **brings** the first fruits **but** he **does not recite** the verses.


###### Gittin 48a:2
[Gittin 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:2)

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: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that the purchaser **brings** the first fruits **and recites** the verses, because he holds that the **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself.** Consequently, the one bringing the fruits can truthfully recite: “The land which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). **Reish Lakish says** that the purchaser **brings** the first fruits **but** he **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 48a:3
[Gittin 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:3)

וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָהִיא, בְּהָהִיא קָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּכִי קָא נָחֵית – אַדַּעְתָּא דְפֵירָא קָא נָחֵית; אֲבָל בְּהָךְ – דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְגוּפֵיהּ קָא נָחֵית, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** to state the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish in both cases. **Because if it was stated** only **in that** case, with regard to one who acquires a field for its produce, one might say that it is only **in that** case **that Reish Lakish says** that he does not recite the verses, **since** already **when** he **descended** to the field, i.e., took possession of the land, **he descended with the intention of** acquiring only **the produce,** as stipulated at the time of the sale; **but in this** case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, **when he descended** to the field **with the intention** of acquiring the land **itself, say** that **he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan** that he recites the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state explicitly that Reish Lakish holds that he does not recite the verses in this case as well.


###### Gittin 48a:4
[Gittin 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:4)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it was stated** only **in this** case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, one might say that it is only **in this** case that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that it is like the acquisition of the item itself and recites the verses, as he purchased the field to fully own it; **but in that** case, where the sale was only with regard to the produce, **say** that **he concedes to Reish Lakish** that he does not recite the verses. Therefore, it is **necessary** to state the dispute in both cases.


###### Gittin 48a:5
[Gittin 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַקּוֹנֶה אִילָן וְקַרְקָעוֹ – מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers a proof in support of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna (*Bikkurim* 1:11): **One who acquires a tree and its** surrounding **land brings** the first fruits of those trees **and recites** the verses, even though he is required to return the land in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara responds: **With what are we dealing here** according to the opinion of Reish Lakish? The mishna is referring to one who acquires a tree and its surrounding land **in** the **time when the Jubilee** Year **is not practiced,** so the acquisition is permanent.


###### Gittin 48a:6
[Gittin 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַקּוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא. הָא שְׁלֹשָׁה – מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא! הָכָא נָמֵי בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין הַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof in support of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna (*Bikkurim* 1:6): **One who acquires two trees in another’s field brings** the first fruits of those trees **but does not recite** the verses, as he acquires only the trees but not the land. **But** if one acquires **three** trees, he **brings** the first fruits of those trees **and recites** the verses, because he also acquires the land surrounding the trees, despite the fact that the land is returned in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara rejects this: **Here too,** Reish Lakish would explain that the mishna is referring to one who acquires three trees **in** the **time when the Jubilee** Year **is not practiced.**


###### Gittin 48a:7
[Gittin 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:7)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּיּוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי, אֲבָל בְּיּוֹבֵל רִאשׁוֹן – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא סְמַךְ דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ; לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּיוֹבֵל רִאשׁוֹן, הָא בְּיוֹבֵל שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And now that Rav Ḥisda said:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is with regard to land sold **during the second Jubilee,** after the Jewish people already practiced the Jubilee Year once and people could trust that the land would be returned in the Jubilee Year, **but** with regard to land sold **during the first Jubilee,** which was practiced by the Jews immediately following their entry into Eretz Yisrael, **everyone agrees** that **he brings** the first fruits **and recites** the verses, **as they did not yet rely** on the fact that the fields would be returned, there is no need to claim that according to Reish Lakish these *mishnayot* are referring to when the Jubilee Year was not practiced. Instead, one could answer that it is **not difficult: This,** the *mishnayot* that state that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, are referring to land sold **during the first Jubilee. That,** where Reish Lakish rules that he brings the first fruits but does not recite the verses, is referring to land sold **during the second Jubilee.**


###### Gittin 48a:8
[Gittin 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:8)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: מִנַּיִן לַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו, וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו – מִנַּיִין שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** The *halakha* is that if one consecrated but did not redeem his ancestral field, and the Temple treasury sold it to another Jew, it becomes the property of the priesthood in the Jubilee Year. However, if one purchases a field from another Jew and consecrates it, it reverts back to the original owner in the Jubilee Year. The *baraita* taught: **From where** is it derived **that one who purchases a field from his father** in the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced **and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where** is it derived **that it should be** considered **before him like an ancestral field,** and it does not revert to the son’s ownership in the Jubilee Year?


###### Gittin 48a:9
[Gittin 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:9)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״ – שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁרְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **The verse states:** “And **if** he sanctify to the Lord **a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral field”** (Leviticus 27:22). The addition of the phrase: “Which is not of the field of his ancestral field,” teaches that the *halakha* that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to **a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field,** meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. **This** field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, **is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field,** although the son had purchased it. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Gittin 48a:10
[Gittin 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:10)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין לַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו וּמֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ, מִנַּיִין שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״ – שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה. וְאִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ – לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Meir says: From where** is it derived **that one who purchases a field from his father** at the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced **and his father died, and afterward he consecrated it, from where** is it derived **that it should be** considered **before him like an ancestral field,** and does not revert to the son in the Jubilee Year? **The verse states:** “And **if** he sanctify to the Lord **a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral field.”** The addition of the phrase: “Which is not of the field of his ancestral field,” teaches that the *halakha* that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to **a field that is not an ancestral field,** meaning that he did not inherit it. **This** field, which the son inherited before he consecrated it, **is excluded, as it is an ancestral field, while according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required** to teach that in a case where **his father died, and he consecrated it afterward,** it is considered an ancestral field, as this is obvious. The Gemara explains why the other *tanna’im* do not require a verse to teach the *halakha* in the case discussed by Rabbi Meir:


###### Gittin 48a:11
[Gittin 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:11)

מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי? דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וּבְהָא – בְּמִיתַת אָבִיו הוּא דְּלָא יָרֵית וְלָא מִידֵּי, וְהִלְכָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ – צְרִיךְ קְרָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What, is it not** that **they disagree about this, as Rabbi Meir holds:** The **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself, and in this** case, when he purchased the field, i.e., the rights to the produce, from his father before his death, **it is** the case **that he inherits nothing when his father dies,** as he had already taken ownership of the field when he purchased it from his father, and nothing changed with his father’s death; **and therefore,** if **his father died and he consecrated it afterward,** then **a verse is necessary** to teach that it is treated like an ancestral field, as one might have thought that the field is his entirely as a result of the purchase, and not because of an ancestral inheritance.


###### Gittin 48a:12
[Gittin 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:12)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבְרִי: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וּבְהָא – בְּמִיתַת אָבִיו הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּקָא יָרֵית, וְהִלְכָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ – לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא; וְכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא – לְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו הוּא דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
While **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold** that the **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is not considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself, and in this** case, when he had purchased the field from his father before his father died, **with the death of his father he now inherits** the field as well, since until now he owned only the rights to the produce; **and therefore** if **his father died and he consecrated** the field **afterward, a verse is not necessary** to teach that it is an ancestral field, as it is obvious that he now owns it due to his inheritance. **And when a verse was necessary,** it is **for** a case where **he consecrated** the field **and his father died afterward that it was necessary.**


###### Gittin 48a:13
[Gittin 48a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:13)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ, בְּעָלְמָא קָסָבְרִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי. וְהָכָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קְרָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ וּדְרוּשׁ – לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״; מַאי ״מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ״? שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה – יָצְתָה זוֹ, שֶׁרְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation of the dispute. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Actually, I** could **say to you** that **in general Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold** that the **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself,** and they agree that the verse is necessary to teach the *halakha* concerning a case where he consecrated the field after his father’s death. **And here, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon found** another element of the **verse and** they **expounded** it. They maintain that if the verse is teaching the *halakha* only in the case where he consecrated the field after his father’s death, then **let the Merciful One write** in the Torah: And **if** he sanctify to the Lord **a field which he has bought, which is not his ancestral field. What** is the meaning of the expression: **“Of his ancestral field”** (Leviticus 27:22)? This emphasizes: **A field that is not fit to be an ancestral field,** meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. **This** field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, **is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field,** although the son had purchased it.


###### Gittin 48a:14
[Gittin 48a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:14)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, לֹא מָצָא יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ – לָקוֹחוֹת הֵן, וּמַחְזִירִין זֶה לָזֶה בְּיוֹבֵל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: If not** for the fact **that Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that the **acquisition of** an item for **its produce is considered** to be **like** the **acquisition of the item itself, he would not find his hands or his feet in the study hall,** i.e., there would be a contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements. **As Rav Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Brothers who divided** property received as an inheritance **are** considered to be **purchasers** from one another, **and** as purchasers of land **they must return** the portions **to each other in the Jubilee** Year, at which point they may redistribute the property.


###### Gittin 48a:15
[Gittin 48a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:15)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ דְּמַיְיתֵי בִּיכּוּרִים אֶלָּא חַד בַּר חַד עַד יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** to say that the legal status of the acquisition of an item for its produce **is not like** that of the **acquisition of the item itself,** then according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion **you will find that** one **brings first fruits** by Torah law **only** when he is **an only** child **the son of an only** child, and so forth, dating back **to** the time of **Joshua, son of Nun.** Only in such a case does the child fully inherit the land. In any other case, the children inherit only the rights to the produce, as they must return the actual land to each other in the Jubilee Year, and would not be able to recite the verses connected with the first fruits, since they could not refer to the land that the Lord has given them. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, anyone who inherits land may recite the verses.


###### Gittin 48a:16
[Gittin 48a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/48a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְּיעִי לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. קְרָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: A verse and a *baraita* support** the opinion of **Reish Lakish. A verse,** as it is written: