עד דאמרי ליה הא דאמר רב יהודה מיצר שהחזיקו כולי—Until I said to him this which Rav Yehudoh said, ‘a border¹ which was possessed, etc.’

OVERVIEW The גמרא related that רב פפא had date palms on the border that he shared with רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע. ר"פ noticed that ר"ה was digging (in his own property) and cutting off the roots of the trees. ר"פ asked him why he is cutting of the roots, etc. so ר"ה answered him that he is digging a pit, and the משנה rules that he may chop down the roots and keep them. ר"פ recounted that he tried to bring all types of proofs against ר"ה to no avail until he told him the ruling of רב יהודה that a מיצר which the public took possession of, it is forbidden to ruin it. תוספות discusses the issues in this controversy.

תוספות asks: תימה מאי מייתי מרב יהודה דרבים שאני – It is astounding! what proof does רב פפא bring from the ruling of ר"י, that a מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו; since it is understood that by a רבים (the public) it is different; we cannot derive a יחיד (the case of ר"פ) from a רבים (the ruling of ר"י). We are more concerned for the needs of a רבים than of a יחיד תוספות proves this point that a יחיד ורבים are different – דאי לאו הכי קשיא מתניתין² דקתני קוצץ ויורד – For if it is not so (but rather a יחיד ורבים are the same), there will be a difficulty from our משנה which states, he may chop off the roots as he digs down – תוספות answers: ופירש רבינו חננאל ורבינו יצחק בן מאיר דרבים החזיקו במצריה דרב הונא³ וברשותו – And the ר"ח and the ריב"ם explained that here too it was many people who were מחזיק on the border of ר"ה, and they were מחזיק with his consent. We must assume that it was with the consent of ר"ה – דאי לאו הכי אין חזקתו⁴ מועלת כדמשמע בהמניח (בבא קמא דף כח,א ושם) – For otherwise (if the חזקה was made without his consent) their חזקה would not be effective, as it seems⁵ from the גמרא in פרק המניח – תוספות continues with his explanation: ואתא רב הונא וקא חפר ברשות הרבים⁶ וקצץ שרשים דרב פפא – And ר"ה came and was digging in this public domain (the pathway which he allowed for the public), and was cutting the roots of sר"פ' trees which extended into sר"ה' property underneath this public pathway – ומשום הכי פריך מדרב יהודה⁷ דכיון שהחזיקו בו רבים אינו רשאי לחפור⁸ – So therefore ר"פ challenged ר"ה from the ruling of ר"י, that since the public took possession of this pathway, ר"ה is not permitted to dig there – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דקאמר אמאי לא אמרי ליה כאן בתוך שש עשרה אמה וכולי⁹ – And regarding this which ר"ה stated, ‘why did I not say to ר"פ, here it is within sixteen אמה, etc.’ How are we to understand this according¹⁰ to the פר"ח וריב"ם?! תוספות responds: הכי פירושו כלומר כי קאמר רב יהודה מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו – This is its explanation; ר"ה meant to say, when did ר"י rule that a מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו – הני מילי תוך ט"ז אמה¹¹ אבל חוץ לט"ז אמה מותר לקלקלו – That is only within sixteen אמות, however outside the sixteen אמות he is permitted to ruin it – כיון שמניח ט"ז אמה כדין רשות הרבים¹² – Since he leaves a pathway of sixteen אמות as is required for a רה"ר. תוספות anticipates a difficulty on פר"ח וריב"ם that one may be מקלקל a מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים as long as there remains ט"ז אמה: ובסוף חזקת הבתים¹³ (לקמן דף ס,ב) דאסר רבי יוחנן לאדם שכנס תוך שלו להחזיר כתלים במקומן – And in the end of פרק חזקת הבתים where ר"י prohibited a person, who receded into his own property and built a wall there, to return the walls to their place at the border of his property – אף על גב דאיכא רווחא כדמשמע¹⁴ התם אליבא דריש לקיש¹⁵ הכא איכא רווחא – Even though there is space as (it appears) [the גמרא answers] there according to ר"ל; ‘here there is space’ – תוספות responds: רווחא דקאמר התם¹⁶ שאינו סותם כל רשות הרבים אבל ליכא רווחא ט"ז אמה¹⁷ – The רווחא, which ר"ל stated there, means that by returning the wall he will not close up the entire רה"ר, there will still be place to walk, however there is no space of ט"ז אמה – אבל אי איכא רווחא ט"ז אמה – However if there is a width of sixteen אמה in the רה"ר – מודה רבי יוחנן דמותר לקלקלו ומחזיר כתלים למקומן כדאמר הכא – ר"י would admit that we can ruin the excess of ט"ז אמה and he can return the walls to their place on the border of the רה"ר as ר"ה stated here. In summation; according to the ר"ח וריב"ם, the claim ר"פ had against ר"ה was not based on his rights of his tree, but rather the place where ר"ה was digging was used by the public as a pathway, and so he had no right to ruin their pathway. ר"ה could have responded that even after his digging there still remained a pathway of sixteen אמות, which is sufficient for a public pathway. תוספות asks (a general question, not related the פר"ח וריב"ם). ומיהו קשה מאי קאמר רב פפא אמרי ליה מכולהי מאי כולהי – However there is a difficulty; what did ר"פ mean when he said, I asked him from ‘all of these’; what are ‘all of these’? What proof did ר"פ bring against ר"ה? תוספות answers: ומפרש הרב רבינו מנחם דמכולהי היינו מכל הני דתנן¹⁸ אם האילן קדם לא יקוץ¹⁹ ספק כולי – And ה"ר מנחם explained that 'מכולהי' means from all these which the משנה taught; i.e., ‘if the tree was first, he should not chop it down, and if it is in doubt, etc. he should not chop it down – ולא יכלי ליה שהיה דוחה אותו דמיירי באילן עצמו אבל השרשים יקוץ – However, I could not overcome him, for ר"ה deflected those proofs saying that the משנה**** which prevents the chopping is discussing the actual tree, however one may chop off the roots. תוספות offers an alternate explanation for the entire סוגיא:** ורבינו תם מפרש דרב הונא היה קוצץ ולוקח השרשים לעצמו – And the ר"ת explains that ר"ה was cutting the roots and taking** them for himself – ואמר ליה רב פפא מאי האי כלומר למה אתה לוקח השרשים לעצמך – So ר"פ said to ר"ה, ‘what is this’; meaning, why are you taking the roots for yourself? אמר ליה דתנן²⁰ קוצץ ויורד וכיון שבדין אני קוצץ כמו כן יהו העצים שלי – ר"ה replied to ר"פ, the משנה taught, ‘he may cut and dig downwards’, so since I may legally cut the roots, similarly the wood of the roots should be mine – ואמרי ליה מכולהי היינו הנהו דמייתי הכא²¹ – So I (ר"פ) said to ר"ה all of these, meaning these that he mentions here – וההיא דמייתי לקמן²² שרשי אילן הדיוט הבאים כולי²³ – And those proofs, which the גמרא cites later, from a משנה**** i.e. the roots of commoner’s tree which entered, etc. into הקדש property – דמינה מוכח לקמן דהעצים שלו דקתני במתניתין היינו של בעל האילן²⁴ – Which from that משנה we prove later that when our משנה stated, ‘and the wood of the roots belong to him’, the משנה meant it belongs to the tree owner – ולא יכלי ליה שדחה לו כדדחי ליה לקמן²⁵ עד דאמרי ליה מרב יהודה כולי – But nevertheless, I could not convince him, for he deflected this proof as the גמרא deflects it later, until I told him of the ruling of ר"י, etc. – תוספות explains what proof is there from the ruling of ר"י:²⁶ דנהי שלא תועיל חזקתי כחזקת רבים לענין שלא תהא רשאי לקוצצו – For granted that the חזקה of ר"פ is not effective as the חזקה of the many, regarding that ר"ה should not be permitted to chop off the roots – לענין זה מיהא תועיל שיהו העצים שלי – Nevertheless, regarding the ownership of the roots, the חזקה of ר"פ should be effective that the wood of the roots should belong to ר"פ – ומסיק אמאי לא אמרי ליה חוץ לשש עשרה יש להיות העצים שלי – And the גמרא concluded that ר"ה said, why did I not tell him (ר"פ) that past sixteen אמות the wood should belong to me – כדאמר רבינא לקמן²⁷ כאן תוך שש עשרה כולי: As רבינא differentiated later, ‘here it is within sixteen אמה, etc.

SUMMARY The claim of ר"פ was based on the fact that it was a מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים (the view of ר"ח וריב"ם) and the sixteen אמות refers to the width of a רה"ר, or (according to the ר"ת) the dispute was regarding the ownership of the roots.

THINKING IT OVER ה"ר מנחם explained that 'דמכולהו' refers to the משנה on כה,ב regarding אם האילן קדם לא יקוץ.²⁸ However this is seemingly no proof, for perforce we must say that לא יקוץ refers to the tree but not to the roots (as ר"ה actually responded according to ה"ר מנחם), for regarding the roots our משנה (on כו,א) states clearly קוצץ ויורד!²⁹

footnotes: ¹ Alternately; a strip of land or a pathway. ² כב,ב. How can the well digger chop of the roots of the tree since the tree owner was החזיק (since we are now assuming that the ruling of ר"י applies to the situation with roots). The obvious answer is that this rule of ר"י regarding החזיק is only if it was a רבים, but not if it was a יחיד. The question remains how did ר"פ bring proof from the ruling of ר"י?! ³ The border (on the side) of ר"ה was used as a pathway for the public. Underneath this pathway were the roots of sר"פ' trees. ר"פ challenged ר"ה that he cannot dig there since it is a מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים. ⁴ The רש"ש amend this to חזקתן (instead of חזקתו). ⁵ The גמרא there cites this ruling of ר"י that a מצר וכו' אסור לקלקלו, regarding a case where there was a right of way in someone’s field, עיי"ש. It appears that this rule applies only if the right of way was provided with the consent of the owner, otherwise he can chase them away. ⁶ See footnote # 3. ⁷ Presumably when the גמרא stated initially that ר"פ אמירי ליה כולהו ולא יכילי ליה, he was trying to convince ר"ה that he has no right to cut his roots; however, since לא יכילי ליה, so he took another tact based on the fact that it was a מיצר שהחזיקו בו רבים. ⁸ ר"ה was not permitted to dig (not because he was cutting the roots of ר"פ, but rather) because it was a public road. ⁹ See פרש"י ד"ה בתוך that ר"ה could have claimed that your חזקה on the tree (and its roots) extends only sixteen אמות and I am digging past the sixteen אמות. This גמרא is understood if we assume that the claim of ר"פ was based on his חזקה of the tree (not like פר"ח וריב"ם). ¹⁰ What connection is there between the rule of sixteen אמות for the nourishment of the tree, since the basis of sר"פ' claim was that it was a מיצר שהחזיקו בו רבים?! ¹¹ A מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים requires a pathway that is sixteen אמות wide. ר"ה dug outside those sixteen אמות (which may have also been used as a pathway, but he was not obligated to give them such a wide pathway; only up to sixteen אמות). ¹² A רה"ר is considered a valid רה"ר (regarding הוצאה בשבת) if it is sixteen אמות wide. ¹³ The case there is where a person (who had the right to build up to the property line with the רה"ר) decided to build his wall not on the property line (which he had the right to), but he recessed the wall and built it on his property some distance away from the רה"ר. Now he wishes to return this wall and rebuild it on the property line with the רה"ר. According to ר"י it is forbidden (since the empty space became a מיצר שהחזיקו בו רבים; people used the space on his property between the wall and the רה"ר), while ר"ל maintains it is permitted since there is רווחא (enough space). ¹⁴ The רש"ש amends this to כדמשני התם (instead of כדמשמע התם). ¹⁵ The גמרא there explained that ר"ל is not concerned for the ruling of ר"י (see footnote # 13), since ר' יהודה is discussing about destroying the pathway which is prohibited, however here even if he puts back the walls there is still the entire רה"ר (of sixteen אמות), which the people can use. It is apparent from the גמרא that ר' יוחנן prohibits returning the walls even though there is רווחא. The question why is this different from our גמרא where ר"ה claimed that he can dig and ruin the pathway as long as they have ט"ז אמה remaining. ¹⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read התם היינו שאינו (instead of התם שאינו). ¹⁷ The רה"ר there was not wide ט"ז אמה (for whatever reason). ¹⁸ כה,ב. ¹⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’. ²⁰ כו,א. ²¹ See רש"ש who asks, what are these הנהו דמייתי הכא? ²² On this עמוד. ²³ The rule is that מדרבנן one may not derive benefit from them, however there is no חיוב מעילה מה"ת if one benefited from them; indicating that the שרשים are not הקדש since they belong to the בעל האילן. ²⁴ See previous footnote # 23. ²⁵ The גמרא later rejected the original proof (in footnote # 23) from the סיפא of that משנה. ²⁶ According to the ר"ת the argument between ר"פ ור"ה was regarding the ownership of the roots; how is the ruling of ר"י concerning a מיצר שהחזיקו בו רבים relevant to their argument? ²⁷ רבינא reconciled that the רישא of that משנה in מעילה (where it seems that the roots belong to the בעל האילן) is when the roots were within sixteen אמות, and the סיפא (where the roots belong to the בעל הקרקע) is where the roots are חוץ לט"ז אמה. ²⁸ See footnote # 19. ²⁹ See מהרש"א and נחלת משה .

אלא הכא¹ בגידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן—Rather here it is by growths that came afterwards

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a query from ר' יעקב regarding the roots that may be cut down; do they belong to the tree owner or to the land owner. The גמרא cites a משנה which ruled regarding roots that came from a commoner’s field into a הקדש field or roots from a הקדש field to a הדיוט field that in both cases the rule is לא נהנין (מדרבנן) ולא מועלין (מה"ת).² The גמרא stated that we cannot resolve our query from this משנה, since the משנה is discussing growth which the tree grew after it became הקדש and this תנא maintains that there is no מעילה by גידולין.

ויש ספרים דגרסי³ מידי איריא הא בגידולין וכל זה מדברי המקשה – And there are texts which read, ‘מידי איריא (can anything be derived), here we are discussing growths’, and this is all from the words of the מקשה [the one who refuted] the proof of רב חסדא (by citing the סיפא) – כלומר על כרחך לא תוכל לפשוט מכאן דבגידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן איירי – Meaning to say, perforce you cannot resolve the query of ר' יעקב from here, since the משנה is discussing growths that came afterwards. תוספות now explains the reconciliation of the רישא with the סיפא: ואי בתר אילן אזלינן רישא אשמועינן דאין נהנין⁴ וסיפא אשמועינן דאין מועלין⁵ – For if we assume that we follow the tree (meaning that the roots belong to the בעל האילן); the רישא (where it was an אילן של הדיוט לשל הקדש) informs us that even though the שרשים are חולין (for בתר אילן אזלינן), nevertheless we are not permitted to derive benefit (מדרבנן), and the סיפא (where it was של הקדש לשל הדיוט) informs us that even though בתר אילן אזלינן (which is הקדש), nevertheless there is no מעילה (מה"ת), since אין מעילה בגידולין – ואי בתר קרקע אזלינן רישא אשמועינן דאין מועלין⁶ וסיפא דאין נהנין בגידולין⁷ – And if we follow the ground, the רישא (של הדיוט) informs us that even though it is in a הקדש field, nevertheless אין מועלין, since אין מעילה בגידולין, and the סיפא (של הקדש) teaches us that even though it is בשל הדיוט, nevertheless אין נהנין בגידולין (מדרבנן). תוספות asks:** ואם תאמר ההיא בבא דאשמועינן דאין מעילה בגידולין⁸ – And if you will say; that clause which informs us that אין מעילה בגידולין;** why does the משנה teach it to us in a case of הדיוט לתוך הקדש or הקדש לתוך הדיוט – לשמעינן של הקדש הבאין בשל הקדש דהוי רבותא טפי⁹ – The משנה should teach it to us in a case of של הקדש הבאין בשל הקדש, which will be a greater novelty, that even in this case, there is no מעילה – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דנקט הכי משום אידך בבא דאשמועינן דאין נהנין – And one can say that he presents it in this manner (הדיוט לתוך הקדש or הקדש לתוך הדיוט) for the other clause which teaches us that אין נהנין – דהוי רבותא טפי שאין הכל של הקדש¹⁰ – Which is a greater novelty when not everything is הקדש, but rather one is הקדש and the other is הדיוט. תוספות offers an alternate explanation of the גמרא: ורבינו חננאל לא גריס אלא¹¹ והמתרץ¹² הוא דקאמר הכי דמוקי סיפא דאין מעילה בגידולין – And the ר"ח is not גורס the word 'אלא', rather it is the מתרץ who is saying this, for he is establishing the סיפא which states that there is no מעילה, so the תרצן explains that the סיפא (only¹³) is in a case of גידולין, which grew after he was מקדיש the tree – תוספות an¬ticipates a difficulty according to the פר"ח: והא דלא נקט דשל הקדש בשל הקדש¹⁴ – And the reason the משנה did not present the סיפא in a case of הקדש בשל הקדש, instead of הקדש לתוך הדיוט –**** תוספות replies that the משנה would rather teach הקדש לתוך הדיוט: משום דבעי למינקט דומיא דרישא¹⁵ דאין הכל דהקדש אלא חד דהקדש וחד דהדיוט – Since the משנה wishes to present the סיפא in a case which is similar to the רישא, where not everything is הקדש, but rather one is הקדש and one is הדיוט – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:¹⁶ אבל אי בתר קרקע אזלינן ורישא אשמועינן דאין מעילה בגידולין¹⁷ – However, if we would derive from the סיפא that בתר קרקע אזלינן and the רישא teaches us that אין מעילה בגידולין, in that case the difficulty will be – ליתני רישא של הקדש בשל הקדש – Let the רישא state של הקדש בשל הקדש, for this is the greater חידוש, for even though בתר קרקע אזלינן and the initial tree as well as the roots are all בשל הקדש, nevertheless there is no מעילה since אין מעילה בגידולין, why does the משנה give a case of הדיוט לשל הקדש, where the חידוש is minimal? תוספות explains that on this question we cannot give the same answer as previously:¹⁸

For it is not that satisfactory to say that the משנה taught in the רישא הדיוט לתוך) הקדש) on account of the סיפא (where it states הקדש לתוך הדיוט), as it (more proper to say) that he taught in the סיפא (הקדש לתוך הדיוט) on account of the רישא (הדיוט לתוך הקדש).

SUMMARY We do not resolve the query; however, we do resolve the apparent contradiction between the רישא and the סיפא according to both sides of the query; if בתר אילן אזלינן the רישא teaches אין נהנין and the סיפא teaches אין מעילה בגידולין and the opposite applies if we maintain בתר קרקע אזלינן. The ר"ח maintains that the query is resolved and the סיפא only, is discussing גידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן.

THINKING IT OVER How can we explain according to the ר"ח that only the סיפא is in a case of גידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן, but not the רישא;²⁰ how is it that the cases in the משנה are not addressing the same situation?!

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרות (and רש"י) the גירסא is מידי אריא בגידולין (instead of אלא הכא בגידולין). See in this תוספות. ² From the first case (הדיוט לשל הקדש) we can (seemingly) infer that the שרשים belong to the בעל האילן (therefore לא מועלין), and from the second case (הקדש לשל הדיוט) we can infer that it belongs to the בעל הקרקע. There is a difficulty in resolving the conflicting inferences. The גמרא resolves this conflict by stating אלא הכא וכו' that since it is גידולין there can never be מעילה (but we cannot resolve whether it belongs to the בעל האילן or the בעל הקרקע). ³ This is the גירסא in our גמרא and in פרש"י. According to this גירסא after the גמרא refuted the proof of רב חסדא (from the רישא that it belongs to the בעל האילן), by citing the סיפא (which indicates that it belongs to the בעל הקרקע), the same refuter continues to reconcile the רישא and the סיפא of the משנה by stating that we are discussing גידולים. According to both גירסאות there is no proof from the משנה; the difference is only whether there are three statements (רב חסדא, the refuter, and the reconciler), if we גורס אלא, or there are two statements (רב חסדא and the refuter who is also the reconciler), if we are גורס מידי אריא. ⁴ There is no חידוש in the רישא that אין מועלין, since we now assume בתר אילן אזלינן and the אילן was של הדיוט. ⁵ There is not such a חידוש in the סיפא that אין נהנין, since we now assume בתר אילן and the אילן is של הקדש. ⁶ There is no חידוש in the רישא that אין נהנין since בתר קרקע אזלינן and the קרקע is הקדש. ⁷ There is no חידוש in the סיפא that אין מועלין, since בתר קרקע אזלינן and the and the קרקע is הדיוט. ⁸ This can be either the סיפא (of של הקדש לתוך של הדיוט) if we assume בתר אילן אזלינן, or the רישא (of של הדיוט לתוך של הקדש) if we assume בתר קרקע אזלינן. Either of these two clauses teach us respectively that אין מעילה בגידולין. ⁹ Either in the רישא or the סיפא (depending on whether we maintain בתר אילן or בתר קרקע) where the חידוש was אין מועלין, the משנה should have substituted that clause (הדיוט לתוך הקדש or הקדש לתוך הדיוט) with the clause of הקדש לתוך הקדש (לא נהנין) ולא מועלין. It is obviously a greater חידוש that even הקדש לתוך הקדש (where there is no הדיוט at all, and nevertheless) the rule is אין מועלין. ¹⁰ To clarify; let us assume that בתר אילן אזלינן, therefore the חידוש of אין מועלין is in the סיפא (where it is הקדש לתוך הדיוט). תוספות question was that instead of saying הקדש לתוך הדיוט there is no מעילה, say rather that even הקדש לתוך הקדש there is no מעילה. The answer is that even though it would be a greater חידוש regarding אין מועלין, however it would be a lesser חידוש regarding אין נהנין as opposed to הקדש לתוך הדיוט. Therefore, the משנה chose the case of הקדש לתוך הדיוט לא נהנין ולא מועלין to emphasize the חידוש of אין נהנין (even though it minimizes the חידוש of אין מועלין). Alternately, since in the רישא it needed to state הדיוט לתוך הקדש to teach the חידוש of אין נהנין, therefore in the סיפא he also teaches הקדש and הדיוט. [However, this same answer is given later by the שיטת הר"ח and there (see footnote # 15) תוספות expresses it clearly that he wants to write the סיפא דומיא דרישא; וצ"ע.] ¹¹ The word 'אלא' indicates that we are completely rejecting the initial proof of רב חסדא that בתר אילן אזלינן. ¹² The מתרץ is the one who is reinstituting the resolution of רב חסדא from the רישא that בתר אילן אזלינן, and the מתרץ is answering the question posed by the מקשן who asked from the סיפא where it appears that בתר קרקע אזלינן. ¹³ In the רישא where it was של הדיוט the concept of גידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן doesn’t apply that easily (except perhaps by the שרשים [see later footnote # 16]) since it is an אילן של הדיוט; however, in the סיפא where it is של הקדש, it is fitting to establish it by גידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן (after the tree was הקדש, the שרשים extended to the הדיוט field) and therefore אין מועלין. See ‘Thinking it over’ ¹⁴ תוספות cannot offer the same answer which he said previously (see footnote # 10), since according to the ר"ח we maintain that בתר אילן אזלינן, so therefore the חידוש of אין נהנין is practically the same whether הקדש לתוך הדיוט or הקדש לתוך הקדש, the real חידוש of the סיפא is that אין מועלין and that would seemingly be greater by הקדש לתוך הקדש. ועצ"ע. ¹⁵ In the רישא it was necessary to teach הדיוט לתוך הקדש, since the משנה intends to teach us that בתר אילן אזלינן, and we would not know that if it would have stated הקדש לתוך הקדש. Once the רישא was ‘split’ to הקדש והדיוט, the משנה decided for the sake of symmetry that in the סיפא it should also be one of הקדש and one of הדיוט, even though the חידוש is less. ¹⁶ The ר"ח assumes that the רישא is teaching us that בתר אילן אזלינן and the סיפא (only) is in a case of גידולין (this means that he was first מקדיש the tree and later the שרשים entered a שדה הדיוט). Perhaps we should learn the משנה in the opposite manner. The סיפא is teaching us that בתר קרקע אזלינן (which means that when he was מקדיש the tree the roots were already in the שדה הדיוט) and nevertheless אין מועלין, since בתר קרקע אזלינן (and it is קרקע של הדיוט), and the רישא is discussing a case of גידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן (it is a case where the roots entered the שדה הקדש after the field was הוקדש), so even though בתר קרקע אזלינן (and the roots are now in קרקע הקדש, nevertheless אין מועלין since אין מעילה בגידולין. Our תוספות explains why we cannot learn this way. ¹⁷ See footnote # 16. ¹⁸ See footnote # 15. ¹⁹ It is more reasonable to say that we adjust the סיפא to fit with the רישא, than it is to say that we adjust the רישא to fit with the סיפא. Therefore, the ר"ח is correct in saying that the רישא teaches us בתר אילן אזלינן and the סיפא teaches us that אין מעילה בגידולין, and the reason the סיפא does not state הקדש לתוך הקדש (which is a greater חידוש) is because תנא סיפא אגב רישא. ²⁰ See footnote # 13.

רבינא אמר לא קשיא כאן תוך ט"ז כולי—Rahveenoh said, there is no difficulty; here it is within sixteen, etc. Overview¹ רבינא reconciles the רישא (which indicates thar we follow the tree) and the סיפא (which indicates that we follow the ground), that one is where the roots are within sixteen אמות from the tree and the other is where the roots are beyond sixteen אמות from the tree. תוספות explains and discusses this answer

**רישא בתוך ט"ז אמה דבתר אילן אזלינן² וסיפא חוץ לט"ז אמה דבתר קרקע אזלינן³ – The רישא (**which is discussing של הדיוט בתוך של הקדש) is in a case where the roots are within sixteen אמות of the tree, so in that case we follow the tree, and the סיפא (which is discussing של הקדש לתוך של הדיוט) is where the roots are outside the sixteen אמות of the tree, so therefore we follow the land – תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וליתני אידי ואידי תוך ט"ז⁴ וליתני סיפא מועלין⁵ – And if you will say, but let the משנה teach both cases (הדיוט לתוך הקדש and הקדש לתוך הדיוט) where the roots are within sixteen אמות of the tree, and in the סיפא the rule will be that מועלין – אי נמי אידי ואידי אחר ט"ז וליתני ברישא מועלין⁶ – Or the משנה could also choose the other option that both cases are outside the sixteen אמות (where בתר קרקע אזלינן) and the ruling in the רישא (of הדיוט לתוך הקדש) will be מועלין since the roots entered לתוך הקדש – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דתנא הכי לאשמועינן דבתרוייהו בין בתוך ט"ז אמה בין חוץ לט"ז אמה – And one can say, that the משנה taught it in this manner to inform us that by both of them (whether הדיוט לתוך הקדש or הקדש לתוך הדיוט), whether it is within the sixteen אמות or outside the sixteen אמות the rule always is – לא⁷ נהנין ולא מועלין:⁸ You may not derive benefit, however there is no חיוב מעילה.

SUMMARY Within ט"ז אמה we go בתר אילן (and nevertheless by הדיוט לתוך הקדש לא נהנין) and לא מועלין, and חוץ לט"ז we go בתר קרקע (and nevertheless by הקדש לתוך הדיוט לא נהנין), which we would not have known if both cases were either תוך ט"ז or חוץ לט"ז.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explained that if both cases would be either תוך ט"ז or חוץ לט"ז we would not know what the rule would be in the other cases (חוץ לט"ז or תוך ט"ז respectively); we might think that נהנין.⁹ However how is it better now that the רישא and סיפא are discussing תוך ט"ז and חוץ לט"ז respectively, there is still the problem that we do not know what the rules would be in the other cases (where הדיוט לתוך הקדש is חוץ לט"ז, and הקדש לתוך הדיוט is תוך ט"ז) where the rule should be מועלין; how do we know that?! Why is one choice better than the other?!

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous תוס' ד"ה אלא. ² Therefore, the rule is אין מועלין since the tree is של הדיוט, but nevertheless מדרבנן the rule is לא נהנין since the roots entered לתוך הקדש. ³ The roots are בשל הדיוט and since they are more than sixteen אמות from the tree we are אזלינן בתר קרקע and there is no מעילה, however מדרבנן since the tree is של הקדש, therefore אין נהנין. ⁴ In this case we say בתר אילן אזלינן, therefore the ruling of the רישא (which is הדיוט לתוך הקדש) remains as is that לא נהנין ולא מועלין (see footnote # 2). ⁵ The roots are within sixteen אמות where בתר אילן אזלינן, therefore there is מעילה even though the roots are בשל הדיוט. ⁶ The advantage in either of these two scenarios is that both the רישא and the סיפא are discussing the same case (either תוך ט"ז אמה or חוץ לט"ז אמה). However according to the way רבינא explained it, there is the difficulty that the רישא and the סיפא are discussing two different cases, which is highly unusual. ⁷ תוספות obviously does not mean that in all cases (whether הדיוט לתוך הקדש or whether הקדש לתוך הדיוט) whether it is תוך ט"ז or חוץ לט"ז there is לא נהנין ולא מועלין, for that is obviously not true; rather תוספות means that there are certain cases both by הדיוט לתוך הקדש and הקדש לתוך הדיוט (depending on whether it is תוך ט"ז or חוץ לט"ז) that the rule is לא נהנין ואין מועלין, as explained in the beginning of this תוספות (see footnote # 2 & 3). ⁸ Had the משנה just stated the case of אידי ואידי בתוך ט"ז אמה, we would not know that חוץ לט"ז אמה by הקדש לתוך הדיוט the rule is לא נהנין ולא מועלין (we may have thought that נהנין). Similarly, if the משנה stated the case of חוץ לט"ז אמה, we would not know that בתוך ט"ז אמה the rule is אין נהנין ולא מועלין by הדיוט לתוך תקדש (we may have though that נהנין). ⁹ See footnote # 8.

גזלן הוא ואין מביאין ממנו בכורים—He is a robber and we do not bringBeekurimfrom it

OVERVIEW עולא stated that whoever owns a tree which is growing within sixteen אמות of a neighbors field, is considered a robber,¹ and we do not bring ביכורים from that tree. תוספות offers two interpretations for this ruling.

פירוש רבינו חננאל משום דאין מביאין גזל² על גבי המזבח – The ר"ח explained the reason we do not bring ביכורים from this tree is because we do not offer anything which is stolen, to be brought on top of the מזבח – שנאמר אני ה' שונא גזל בעולה (ישעיה סא³) וכתיב והבאתם גזול וגומר (מלאכי א⁴) – As it says; ‘I, ה', hate a קרבן עולה which is stolen’, and it is written, ‘and you bring that which is stolen’, etc. – ולית לן דעולא דהא בהדיא פסקינן כרבי יוסי⁵ דאמר זה נוטע בתוך שלו כולי – However, we do not accept this ruling of עולא, for we explicitly rule like ר"י, who maintains, ‘this one plants within his property’, etc. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר לפירושו עולא כמאן סבר – And if you will say; according to the explanation of the ר"ח**, whose** ruling does עלא follow; he cannot follow ר"י as we just explained – דכרבנן נמי לא הוי דרבנן לא בעו הרחקה אלא ד' אמות⁶ ולעולא שש עשרה אמה – For he is also not in accord with the רבנן, since the רבנן require a distancing of only four אמות and עולא requires sixteen אמות! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דעולא הוי מוקי מתניתין בצונמא – And one can say that עולא will establish our משנה (which requires only four אמות distancing) by a rock (between the properties) – כדמוקי לה בריש פירקין⁷ ולהכי לא בעי אלא ד' אמות – Just as we established this משנה by a צונמא in the beginning of our פרק, so therefore only four אמות are required, since there is no nourishment from the neighbor’s field (the rock prevents it), however by regular fields one would be required (according to עולא) to distance his trees sixteen אמות from his neighbor’s field. תוספות asks on the פר"ח: ומיהו קשיא לרבי יצחק דפריך לקמן⁸ לעולא מהקונה אילן וקרקעו מביא וקורא – However, the ר"י has a difficulty with the פר"ח, for later the גמרא challenges עולא from a משנה which states, one who buys a tree with its land, he brings ביכורים and reads the פרשה of ביכורים, the גמרא continues – מאי לאו כל שהוא – Is it not so that this rule of מביא וקורא applies even if he bought a miniscule amount of land; this would contradict the ruling of עולא that a tree requires sixteen אמות of land. This concludes the citation from the גמרא. תוספות continues with his question on the פר"ח, ומאי קושיא שאני התם שקנאו ולא הוה גזלן⁹ – but what is the sגמרא' question on עולא, there it is different for he bought the tree so he is not a גזלן – תוספות prefers רש"י interpretation: ונראה כפירוש הקונטרס¹⁰ דאף על גב דמותר לסמוך אין מביאין ממנו בכורים – And it would appear like sרש"י' interpretation, that even though it is permitted to plant a tree close to the neighbor’s boundary, nevertheless one cannot bring ביכורים from such a tree (even though he is not a גזלן) – דבעינן אשר תביא מארצך¹¹ – Since we require, regarding מצות ביכורים, that it be, as the פסוק states אשר תביא מארצך (which you will bring from your land)¹² – תוספות clarifies a possible misunderstanding: ולקמן¹³ דאמר אילן הסמוך מביא וקורא¹⁴ שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע את הארץ – And later where the גמרא states, ‘a tree which is close to the boundary, one may bring ביכורים and read the פרשת ביכורים, for it was with this stipulation that יהושע granted the land’ of א"י to the בנ"י – לא קאמר שעל מנת כן הנחיל שיהא מותר לסמוך דבלאו הכי שרי – It does not mean that he granted the land with this stipulation that it is permitted to plant close to the border, for even without this stipulation of יהושע it is permitted לסמוך (since the הלכה is like ר' יוסי) –

Rather the גמרא meant to say that it is with this stipulation that יהושע granted the בנ"י the land that when a tree is planted near the border, the fruit growing on these trees should be considered just like they grew from your land, so he will be able to proclaim ‘[from the land] which You (ה') gave me’.

SUMMARY עולא maintains (according to פר"ח) that one is not permitted to be סומך within sixteen אמות therefore if was סומך he is a גזלן and cannot bring ביכורים. While רש"י explains that even though it is מותר לסמוך, nevertheless he cannot bring ביכורים (according to עולא), since it is not מארצך.

THINKING IT OVER According to פרש"י that one is מותר לסמוך and the issue here is 'מארצך';¹⁶ why did עולא say, 'גזלן הוא';¹⁷ why is he a גזלן if it is מותר לסמוך?!¹⁸

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה גזלן that the owner is considered a גזלן because his tree is receiving nourishment from his neighbor’s field. ² The fruits of this tree are considered גזל because they grew and were nourished by his neighbor’s property without his consent. ³ פסוק ח'. ⁴ פסוק יג. The פסוק concludes, הַאֶרְצֶה אוֹתָהּ מִיֶּדְכֶם אָמַר ה'. ⁵ כה,ב. The גמרא there states אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי. A person may plant his tree on his property wherever he chooses, even if it is close to his neighbor’s field; therefore, he is not considered a גזלן, and may bring ביכורים. ⁶ See our משנה on כו,א. ⁷ יח,א. ⁸ כז,א. ⁹ It is obvious that when he bought the tree it was understood that he has the rights of his tree being nourished by the surrounding land (even though he does not own it), so there is no issue of גזילה therefore he is מביא וקורא. What is the question on עולא according to the פר"ח?! ¹⁰ בד"ה ואין. ¹¹ The פסוק in דברים (תבוא) כו,ב regarding הבאת ביכורים reads אשר תביא מארצך meaning that the fruit must grow and be nourished from your land; however in this case it is growing from the nourishment it received from the neighbor’s land. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹² According to פרש"י the sגמרא' question (see footnote # 9) on עולא is understood, for even though he bought the tree and it is understood that his tree may receive nourishment from his neighbor, nevertheless it is not his land! ¹³ כז,ב. ¹⁴ The גמרא disagrees with the ruling of עולא and maintains that one brings ביכורים וקורא even from a tree which is סמוך למיצר. ¹⁵ The הגהות הב"ח amends tis to read לומר מן האדמה אשר (instead of לומר אשר). ¹⁶ See footnote # 11. ¹⁷ See footnote # 1. ¹⁸ See מהר"ם.

עשר נטיעות המפוזרות כולי—Ten saplings which are spread out, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה that if there are ten saplings planted in a בית סאה (equidistant from each other),¹ one may plow it on the year before שמיטה right up to before ר"ה of שמיטה.² Our תוספות clarifies some of the rulings regarding עשר נטיעות.

בסוכה (דף לד,א) אמר עשר נטיעות וערבה³ וניסוך המים⁴ הלכה למשה מסיני – In מסכת סוכה, the גמרא states that the rules of עשר נטיעות, ערבה and the pouring of the water, are derived from a הלכה למשה מסיני – ודוקא עשר לתוך בית סאה אבל פחות אין צריכין חרישה כל כך⁵ – And it is specifically ten נטיעות in a בית סאה where one may plow up to ר"ה, however if it is less than ten, the saplings do not require that much plowing – וכן נמי אם היו בבית סאה יותר מעשר נטיעות אין חורשין לפי שעומדין⁶ ליעקר: And the same is also true if there were more than ten saplings in a בית סאה, we do not plow them up to ר"ה, since some of them are destined to be uprooted.

SUMMARY The rule of עשר נטיעות (as well as ערבה וניסוך המים) is a הלל"מ. It is applicable only if there are exactly ten saplings for a בית סאה, no more and no less.

THINKING IT OVER What is the ruling if there are five saplings in half a בית סאה, are we permitted to plow the entire half בית סאה?

footnotes: ¹ A בית סאה is a square which is fifty אמות by fifty אמות (or any area of 2500 square אמות). This means that each sapling has an area of 250 square אמות around it. ² Normally one must refrain from plowing the tree a month before ר"ה, however by saplings it is permitted. ³ In the ביהמ"ק they would bring one ערבה besides the ערבות that are together with the לולב. ⁴ This refers to the pouring of water on the מזבח during סוכות in addition to the usual pouring of the wine by the קרבן תמיד. ⁵ Since they have more space to nourish from, they do not require that much plowing, so we do not plow the entire בית סאה, only how much the saplings need (which is underneath the tree and around the tree כמלא אורה וסלו). ⁶ There is not sufficient land to support more than ten נטיעות, therefore some of the plantings will need to be uprooted (and we are not sure which ones, therefore we cannot plow this (entire) בית סאה).