בחטה—By wheat

OVERVIEW The גמרא resolved the contradiction on עולא (who maintains that we do not bring בכורים unless the tree has sixteen אמות radius in his own property) from the משנה (which states קרקע כ"ש is חייב in ביכורים), by establishing the משנה that he is bringing ביכורים from wheat (which does not require sixteen אמות) since it is יונק only from its immediate place. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא חטה יניקתה ג' טפחים – And if you will say; but wheat nourishes in a radius of three טפחים; so how can a קרקע כ"ש be מחויב in ביכורים even by wheat – כדמוכח בשבת פרק אמר רבי עקיבא בשמעתין דערוגה¹ (דף פה,א) – As is evident in מסכת שבת in פרק אמר ר"ע in the סוגיא of ערוגה – תוספות anticipates (and rejects) a possible answer to his question: ואין לומר דכל שהוא דהכא לאו דוקא² – And one cannot say that when the משנה here states כ"ש, it is not precise; it means ג' טפחים**;** this would seemingly answer the question. תוספות rejects this approach: דהא בפרק קמא דקדושין (דף כו,א) קא מייתי לה³ בשמעתא⁴ דאי בעי צבורין בה או לאו – For in the first פרק of מסכת קדושין, the גמרא cites this משנה, in the discussion whether we require they be piled up in it, or not – וקאמר כל שהוא למאי חזי ומשני כגון שנעץ בה מחט וקאמר איכפל תנא לאשמועינן מחט⁵ – And the גמרא there said, (if צבורין is required) a land which is כל שהוא for what is it fit (how can you put the מטלטלין on the land, there is no space since it is a כ"ש), and the גמרא answered, ‘for instance he stuck a needle in the ground’ (to acquire it בקנין אגב), so the גמרא asked, ‘did the תנא trouble himself to inform us about a needle’ – מי לא עסקינן דתלי ביה מרגניתא⁶ משמע דכל שהוא דוקא⁷ – And the גמרא there answered; it is not just a needle; cannot we be discussing where he hung a pearl on the needle. In any event it seems from that גמרא that the term **כ"ש is precise (**and not three טפחים). The question remains why is a קרקע כ"ש sufficient for ביכורים (even) by a חטה, since it requires three טפחים for יניקה?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דנהי דיניקתה ג' מכל מקום עיקר יניקתה אינו אלא כנגדה⁸ – And one can say; that even though it nourishes from three טפחים, nevertheless its main nourishment is only directly underneath it – תוספות supports his contention that we are concerned only for עיקר יניקה:

And by a tree as well, (even though) it nourishes up to twenty-five אמה, nevertheless the main יניקה is sixteen אמה –

SUMMARY The main nourishment of the wheat is from the ground directly underneath it, even though it receives additional nourishment up to three טפחים distance.

THINKING IT OVER Why does not תוספות prove that כל שהוא here mean precisely a כ"ש,¹¹ from our גמרא, which states, 'דיקא נמי דקתני כ"ש'; why does תוספות need to prove it from קדושין?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ We derive it there from the משנה on פד,ב that in an ערוגה (row/square) which is an אמה by an אמה (six טפחים on each side), we may plant there five different types of seeds and it is not כלאים. In any event, the זרעים there are not within three טפחים of each other, therefore there is no יניקה. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ Specifically, the rule that we can acquire מטלטלין with this קרקע כ"ש through קנין אגב. ⁴ This is concerning קנין אגב where one who wishes to buy מטלטלין and קרקע from the seller, he needs only to make a קנין in the קרקע, and he automatically is קונה the מטלטלין via (אגב) the קרקע (see רש"י here ד"ה ונקנין). The גמרא there posed a query whether it is necessary for the מטלטלין to be on the field in order to acquire the מטלטלין with קנין אגב, or it is not necessary; the מטלטלין can be anywhere and nevertheless he is קונה the מטלטלין as well. ⁵ If the only application of קנין אגב by a קרקע כ"ש is by a needle (if we require צבורין), it is unlikely that the תנא would go to the trouble to teach us such a case, since a needle is so insignificant. ⁶ There is much reason to discuss this case since it is a valuable item and we need to know if he acquires it or not. ⁷ For if it means three טפחים what is the discussion; on an area with a radius of three טפחים, many objects can be placed there. ⁸ Therefore, since the עיקר יניקה is כנגדה, therefore (even though it receives additional יניקה up to three טפחים), it is considered מארצך וכו'. ⁹ See the גמרא later on this עמוד, regarding מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור כ"ה אמה. ¹⁰ That is how עולא can reconcile why he requires only a sixteen אמה radius. ¹¹ See footnote # 2. ¹² See מהר"ם and נחלת משה.

ואחד אילן הנוטה¹ מביא וקורא—Or whether it is a leaning tree, he brings and proclaims

OVERVIEW ר' יוחנן ruled that a tree which is leaning over a neighbor’s property, one is required to bring ביכורים from it. Our תוספות compares this ruling and a similar one

בפרק המקבל (בבא מציעא דף קז,א ושם) פליגי רב ושמואל באילן הנוטה על המיצר – In פרק המקבל there is a dispute between רב and שמואל regarding a tree which leans over the boundary, to whom do the fruits belong – רב אמר הנוטה לכאן לכאן והנוטה לכאן לכאן ושמואל אמר חולקין – רב rules that those who lean to one side belong to that owner and those that lean to the other side belong to the other owner, and שמואל rules that they divide all the fruits – ופירש בקונטרס התם דבנטיית שרשים איירי ולפיכך שמעתין דהכא כרב² דאזיל בתר שרשין – And רש"י explained there³ that we are discussing the leaning of the roots, so therefore the ruling of ר' יוחנן here is according to רב who follows the roots⁴ – ורבינו שמשון בן אברהם פירש שם⁵ בענין אחר: However, the רשב"א there explained it in a different manner.

SUMMARY Our גמרא follows the ruling of רב, according to פרש"י in ב"מ.

THINKING IT OVER How will we reconcile the case of⁶ אילן הסמוך למיצר according to רב, since the roots extend to the neighbor’s property?! Why is he מביא וקורא since the fruits are not his?!⁷

footnotes: ¹ This (seemingly) means that the roots are all in the property of the tree owner, it is only the branches that extend into the neighbor’s property. The first case of אילן הסמוך למיצר is where (all?) the roots extend to the other property. ² According to שמואל who rules חולקין, he would not be able to be מביא וקורא, since the fruits are not all his. ³ בד"ה ונהגו. It seems from פרש"י there that if all the roots of sראובן' tree were in sשמעון' property, and vice versa, the rule (according to רב) will be that sראובן' fruits belong to שמעון, and sשמעון' fruits belong to ראובן. However, שמואל maintains יחלוקו, since the tree is in one רשות and the roots in another. ⁴ See footnote # 1 that the case of אילן הנוטה is where the roots were all in the field of the בעל האילן so even though the branches are in his neighbor’s property we follow the roots according to sרב' view. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See there תוס' ד"ה אילן that אילן העומד על המיצר means that the tree straddles the property line; it has nothing to do with the roots. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ See נחלת משה.

*שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע וכולי—For it was on this condition that Yehoshuahapportioned, etc.*

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that when יהושע divided ארץ ישראל to all the שבטים he stipulated that they should not mind if someone’s tree is nourishing from their land, etc.

In פרק מרובה the גמרא asks why do we not count this stipulation among the ten stipulations of יהושע, and the גמרא there answers this question.

SUMMARY This תנאי is not included in the ten תנאים mentioned in מרובה, as there is a disagreement as to which תנאים were actually made by יהושע.

THINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות mention this question, especially since he does not give us the answer?!³

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there on (the very bottom of) פ,ב states ת"ר עשרה תנאין התנה יהושע, and it does not mention this תנאי. ² The גמרא there answers that this statement of עשרה תנאין וכו' is not a ברייתא, rather it is a מימרא from ר' יהושע בן לוי who was an אמורא, so ר' יוחנן (who includes this תנאי) can disagree with him and maintains that this too was one of the תנאים of יהושע. ³ Perhaps this מחלוקת can help us understand the two opposing views attributed to ר' יוחנן

בדחלולי¹ סגי—It is sufficient to make it sparse²

OVERVIEW ר' שמעון ruled in our משנה that if the branches of a (privately owned) tree hang over the רה"ר, the owner is required to chop off all the overhanging branches along the plumb line, out of concern for טומאה. The גמרא cites a ברייתא that ר"ש meant that we are concerned for אוהל הטומאה.³ The גמרא explains that without this ברייתא we may have assumed that ר"ש was concerned thar perhaps ravens will come and throw the טומאה on the tree;⁴ however, if that would be the concern it would be sufficient בדחלולי, and we would not require him to chop down all the branches.⁵ There is a dispute between רש"י and the ר"ח as to the meaning of 'בדחלולי'.

פירש רבינו חננאל דחלולי לשון יראה⁶ – The ר"ח explains that דחלולי means fear in Aramaic, meaning – שעושים צורה של עץ ונראין כבני אדם ואין העוף רשאי לישאר שם⁷ – That they make a form out of wood, which looks like a person (a scarecrow), so a bird is not permitted (frightened) to remain there, therefore – קא משמע לן דאף על פי שברח העוף – The ברייתא informs us that even though the bird flees on account of the scarecrow, nevertheless that is insufficient, for – פעמים שמשאיר שם בשר המת שמביא בפיו ונשאר שם בענף – Occasionally it leaves over there the flesh of the corpse which the bird brings with its beak and it remains there on the branch⁸ – הלכך אין לו תקנה אלא בקציצת ענפים כולם:⁹ Therefore, there is no solution unless all the branches [along the plumb line] are chopped off.

SUMMARY Based on our משנה one would think that by merely placing a scarecrow would prevent the טומאה.

THINKING IT OVER How can the גמרא say that without the ברייתא, we could have thought that the concern is for עורבים, and בדחלולי would be sufficient, when the משנה clearly states כל האילן כנגד המשקולת?!

הדרן עלך לא יחפור We shall return to you פרק לא יחפור

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרות the text reads, וסגיא בדחלולי [or according to the הגהות הב"ח, it reads ובדחלולי בעלמא סגיא]. ² This seems to be פרש"י בד"ה ושדי. ³ See רש"י ד"ה מפני that we are concerned that perhaps there is a מת under the tree and whoever passes under the tree will become טמא, since the tree is מאהיל on the מת and on the passerby. ⁴ See the פי' רבינו גרשום who writes, that sometimes the עורב will throw the מת on the tree and it will not fall down on the ground, so therefore it is necessary to chop down the tree that the עורב should not place it there. And רש"י similarly states the same. Seemingly this means that the person who will walk under the branch where the מת is lying will become טמא (either because the branch does not have a פותח טפח, or the מת extends beyond the branch, וצ"ע. ⁵ See רש"י and פי' ר"ג that the tree should trimmed to such an extent that if the עורב will throw the מת on the tree the branches will be so sparse that it will fall to the ground and there will hardly be any branches left to become an אוהל over the מת and the passerby. ⁶ We are perhaps familiar with the term דחילו ורחימו which in לשון קודש is יראה ואהבה. According to the ר"ח the 'ד' of בדחלילו is part of the root of the word (as opposed to the 'ב'). However according to פרש"י the root seems to be חלולי (hollow or sparse). See רשב"א. ⁷ By placing a scarecrow by the tree there is no longer a concern that an עורב will place (see רש"ש) a מת on the tree, since the עורב is afraid to approach the tree. Therefore, this should seemingly be sufficient If we would only have the משנה). ⁸ Presumably תוספות means that after a while this בשר המת will fall to the ground and the tree will be מאהיל on the מת and the passerby, causing him to become טמא. ⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read כולם כנגד המשקולת: (instead of [just] כולם:).