The Eddie D. Sit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Today’s daf is being studied l’iluy nishmat Avraham ben Esther ben Moshe ben Nun, ruach Hashem tenicheinu began eden amen. We also study l’iluy nishmat Sarah bat Latife, ruach Hashem tenicheina began eden amen. We begin today’s daf on Samech Tet Amud Bet, at the bottom of the daf with the last line, d'ibaya lehu. The discussion at hand revolves around the topic of ma’aser.
In this sugia, we explore a case where something has been planted and then replanted. Thus, we have the ikar, the original planting, and the tosefet, the additional growth. The Gemara seeks to clarify whether, for the purpose of taking ma’aser, one should consider the ikar or the tosefet. The question is articulated: what is the case? The Gemara illustrates a scenario where one has shibolim, stalks in the field. After estimating the quantity, one takes ma’aser without threshing them, as typically required. Instead, the stalks are replanted, and they grow more. The inquiry then arises: do we take ma’aser on the new tosefet that has grown, or do we also consider the ikar, which has already been subject to ma’aser?
The Gemara presents a dilemma: if one does not follow the ikar, does that mean that the new growth requires its own ma’aser? Conversely, if we do follow the ikar, what about the additional growth? The Gemara explains that the case involves a situation where the stalks were cut, estimated, and then replanted. The question becomes whether the new growth is considered separate or if it is still part of the original stalk.
Rashi elaborates on the specifics, emphasizing that the estimation was made without threshing, meaning that the kernels were not separated. The question posed is whether the new growth must also be subject to ma’aser, considering that the ikar had already been assessed. Abaye poses a significant question: why is this case any different from any other grain, such as wheat or barley? Typically, when grain is planted, it is harvested, and ma’aser is taken from the kernels. In this case, however, the stalk remains intact and simply continues to grow.
The Gemara responds by clarifying that we are not dealing with typical seeds that disintegrate upon planting. In our case, the original stalk does not disintegrate; it merely continues to develop. Thus, the question remains whether one must take ma’aser again for the original stalk or only for the new growth. Rashi reiterates the distinction, noting that if the original stalk continues to grow without disintegration, it may not necessitate a second ma’aser.
To illustrate the point, the Gemara presents a comparison to onions. If one takes a litra of onion bulbs, and then replants them, one must take ma’aser from the entire bulb again, despite the fact that it does not disintegrate. This suggests that the original item is still subject to ma’aser even after replanting. However, the Gemara counters that the case of onions is different since it is the standard practice to plant them in such a manner.
Next, the Gemara introduces a new question regarding an atzitz she'eino nakuv, a flower pot without a hole. Here, the discussion centers on whether produce grown in such a pot is subject to ma’aser. The Gemara notes that while the Torah exempts such produce from ma’aser, rabbinically, it remains obligated. The inquiry then becomes whether one can transfer ma’aser from one pot to another if both pots are at the same level of obligation.
The Gemara raises the possibility that if one has two pots, both exempt from Torah obligations, one can transfer ma’aser from one to the other. However, the question remains whether the produce from the first pot can cover the obligation of the second pot. The Gemara seeks to clarify this by exploring the implications of a pot that has been punctured after the produce has grown. If the pot was initially exempt but then has a hole made, does the produce now become obligated?
The Gemara continues to navigate these complexities, illustrating how the halachic distinctions affect the obligations of ma’aser. The discussion reveals the nuances of how different cases are treated, emphasizing that the obligation to take ma’aser is not merely a matter of growth but also of the conditions under which the growth occurs.
As the discussion progresses, the Gemara addresses various scenarios related to the planting and growth of grains, focusing on the laws of chadash and the implications of cutting grains before the omer. The dialogue illustrates the intricate nature of halachic rulings, where each detail can significantly alter the obligations of the individual.
In conclusion, the exploration of these cases invites us to consider the broader implications of our actions and the responsibilities that come with them. The Gemara’s analysis serves as a reminder of the importance of precision in halachic rulings, as well as the value of understanding the underlying principles that guide our observance.