The Eri B. Sitt Edition, an audio series on the Talmud Bavli, is now studying Baba Batra, the longest tractate in Shas by page count. This tractate has been dedicated by our good friend and pioneering student in the Daf Yomi class, Adam Azra, for the success of his dear children: that they should grow up to bring him satisfaction, possess wisdom and understanding, and be a source of respect and pride to him, his wife, and his entire family. Amen.
We begin at the top of the page, with a new Mishnah.
The Mishnah says that if a person buys the produce of a dovecote from his fellow, he must allow the first brood to fly away. A person has purchased the birds produced by the dovecote, but he has not purchased the dovecote itself. The question is therefore what is included in the purchase of the dovecote’s produce.
The first brood is not included. The first group of birds must be sent away, while everything produced afterward belongs to the buyer.
What is the basic understanding of this law? Since the buyer did not purchase the dovecote itself, he may not destroy its ability to continue functioning. This does not mean that the structure must remain physically intact. It means that enough birds must remain so that the dovecote will continue to produce birds. There is a mother bird, and that mother bird has offspring. The Mishnah is saying that the mother bird and its first offspring must remain, because the mother needs company. If the mother has no company, she will fly away, and the dovecote will effectively be finished.
Therefore, when a person sells someone the produce of a dovecote, the buyer must leave a certain number of birds in the dovecote so that it can continue to function. Everything produced after that belongs to the buyer. That is the basic structure of the case.
Now look at the Rashbam, who gives us some very interesting information about birds. He explains that the case is one in which the seller said, “I am selling you all the birds that will be produced during this year.” The buyer does not acquire the mother birds; he acquires only the offspring.
The normal practice of doves is to produce two offspring each month, one male and one female. After two months, those offspring also begin producing two offspring each month. Each pair of birds is called a brood.
According to the Rashbam, the first brood that is born remains with the seller. This means that the mother bird and its two offspring are not sold. That is the seller’s practice, so that the offspring will remain with the mother and provide her with company. If these birds were not kept together, the dovecote would be destroyed, because the mother would leave.
Accordingly, the first brood of this year also remains with the seller. Let us say that Nisan is the first month of the year. The birds born in Nisan remain in the dovecote with the mother. At this point, there are the mother bird and the two offspring—three birds that remain in the dovecote.
The Gemara explains that the grandchildren also remain. We have the mother bird and her two offspring. Since those offspring are a male and a female, they themselves produce offspring, and those offspring also remain. In effect, three generations remain in the dovecote: the mother, her two offspring, and the offspring of those birds.
Why is this necessary? If the grandchildren were removed, the mother would have no company from the next generation and would leave. Once she left, the earlier generation would also leave, because it would no longer have company. One might continue this argument indefinitely: if every generation requires the next generation for company, then everyone will eventually leave. We will analyze this point.
That is the first case in the Mishnah.
The next case concerns a beehive. If a person sells the produce of a beehive, how many swarms does the buyer receive? The Mishnah says that the buyer receives three swarms of bees. After that, the owner may sterilize the remaining bees.
The explanation is that the seller said, “I am giving you one year’s produce from the beehive.” The produce of the beehive consists of the things that are produced by the bees. The buyer receives three swarms, which are produced at three different times.
The Rashbam explains how the beehive functions. At the beginning of the summer, a swarm leaves the beehive. The queen bees produce offspring, and a swarm emerges from the original hive. Because the original hive has become too crowded, the bees fly out and settle on the branch of a tree. The owner then prepares another beehive, and the bees enter that new hive.
The bees reproduce again. The next swarm then emerges, settles on a branch, and is placed into another empty beehive. The process repeats itself. Usually, it takes the bees nine or ten days to produce the next swarm. The owner brings another empty hive, places it near the bees, and the bees enter it. This process is called swarming.
In Greece, the process is carried out seven or eight times, with the bees continuing to produce more swarms. The Rashbam’s practice, however, was generally to receive three rounds. Perhaps after the third round the bees become inferior, smaller, or weaker. Whatever the reason, when a person sells the produce of the beehive, the buyer receives the first three swarms. After that, the owner may sterilize the remaining bees.
The buyer cannot say, “I purchased the produce. I should receive everything that continues to be produced.” The seller can respond, “I gave you the first three swarms. From this point onward, I am returning to the honey business.” When bees are multiplying, they are not producing honey; they either reproduce or produce honey. Therefore, after giving the buyer three swarms, the seller may sterilize the remaining bees and resume producing honey.
We will see how the bees are sterilized. The honey belongs to the seller, because the seller did not sell the honey. He sold the bees. The seller may then extract the honey in various ways: he may kill the honey-producing bees, kill the bees themselves, or transfer the bees into another beehive. There are different ways to remove the honey from the hive.
The third case concerns honeycombs. If a person sells someone the honeycombs—the wax structures inside the hive that contain the honey—he must leave two honeycombs for the seller. He may take all the others, but two must remain.
The reason is that the seller does not want to preserve the entire beehive for the following year. During the season, the bees are taken out so that they can continue producing more hives. The bees that remain need food for the winter. Therefore, when the honeycombs are sold, the buyer receives all the honeycombs except two. Those two are left for storage, so that when the seller puts the beehive away for the winter and stores it for the next season, the remaining bees will have food. That is the minimum that must remain.
The final case concerns olive trees. If a person sells someone olive trees for their wood, he must leave at least two branches on the tree so that it can regenerate. The buyer purchased the wood, but he did not purchase the tree itself. Therefore, at least two branches must remain.
The Rashbam explains that these branches are called branches of the olive tree, and that they enable the tree to grow again.
Let us return to the case of the dovecote. The person sold the produce of the dovecote, but not the dovecote itself. We said that not everything is included in the sale. The mother bird and the offspring of the first month—the first brood—remain with the seller.
The Gemara raises a difficulty. A beraita says that both the first and second broods remain. This would mean that the mother, her children, and her grandchildren all remain with the seller. Rav Kahana answers that there is no contradiction: one statement refers to the mother, while the other refers to the offspring.
The question is as follows. The beraita says that the first and second broods remain. Suppose the birds born in Nisan constitute the first brood, and the birds born in Iyar constitute the second brood. The Mishnah, however, appears to say that only the Nisan birds must remain. Rav Kahana answers that the Nisan birds and the Iyar birds must remain, but they are both offspring of the same mother.
The Rashbam explains the answer in greater detail. The first brood born from the first generation must also remain. In other words, we leave the mother, her offspring, and the offspring of those offspring. The second generation remains to provide company for the mother.
Let us clarify the relationships. There is a mother bird, her daughter, and the daughter’s offspring. The mother has a mate, but the discussion is focusing on the female birds. The mother’s mate provides her with company. The daughter also has a mate. The question is why the daughter’s offspring must remain if the daughter already has company from both her mother and her mate.
The answer is that a mother enjoys the company of her daughter, because a mother has compassion for her children. The daughter, however, does not regard her mother as providing her with the same kind of company. Therefore, the mother has two sources of company: her mate and her daughter. The daughter has only her mate as a source of company, because the mother does not count as company for her in the same way. Consequently, the daughter’s offspring must remain to provide the daughter with company.
We are therefore left with three generations: the mother, the daughter, and the granddaughter. The mother is comfortable because she has her mate and her daughter. The daughter is comfortable because she has her mate and her own daughter. The granddaughter is also not going to leave, because she has the company of her mother and grandmother. Once three generations remain, everyone is comfortable, and no one will leave the dovecote.
There is no need to leave a fourth generation. The third generation will remain because it has company from the generations above it. That is the basic point.
There is a diagram in the material that charts these relationships. It is not very complicated once the lines of company are understood. The first generation is represented by the father and mother. The black lines represent the mother’s sources of company. One source is her mate, and the other is her daughter. Those two lines represent the company of the mother.
The second-generation female also has two sources of company: her mate and her daughter. That is the structure of the discussion.
We now return to the sale of the bees. The buyer receives three swarms, and after the first three swarms the owner may sterilize the remaining bees. The Gemara asks how the bees are sterilized.
Rav Yehuda says that mustard is used. The bees are fed mustard, and they become sterile. It is not the mustard itself that sterilizes them. Rather, the sharp taste of the mustard causes the bees to consume excessive amounts of honey in order to remove the unpleasant taste from their mouths. When they consume excessive honey, they do not engage in reproduction.
That is the explanation of the first interpretation.
Rabbi Hanan offers a different interpretation. He says that the buyer receives three swarms in alternating order. The buyer does not receive the first three swarms consecutively. Instead, the buyer receives the first, third, and fifth swarms, while the seller receives the second, fourth, and sixth swarms.
The reason is that one does not want to give either the seller or the buyer all three of the first swarms, because those are the strongest ones. They should be divided between them. According to this interpretation, none of the bees are sterilized. The swarms are divided alternately: the buyer receives the first, third, and fifth, while the seller receives the second, fourth, and sixth.
The first interpretation was that the buyer receives the first three swarms and the remaining bees are then sterilized. Rabbi Hanan’s interpretation is that the bees are not sterilized at all; the swarms are divided alternately.
The beraita provides a third explanation. The buyer receives three swarms consecutively—one, two, and three. From the fourth swarm onward, the swarms are divided alternately. According to this view, the buyer receives the first three swarms, and after that the seller and buyer alternate if additional swarms are produced.
This interpretation disagrees with the simple reading of the Mishnah regarding how many swarms the buyer receives. The beraita says that the buyer receives as many swarms as are produced, but the first three are given consecutively. After that, the swarms alternate.
The Rashbam explains that the reason for the mustard is to give the bees an unpleasant taste, causing them to consume honey in order to remove that taste. As a result, they stop producing offspring. The bees are either producing offspring or producing honey. By keeping them occupied with honey production, the owner stops them from reproducing.
The Gemara then asks which interpretation is authoritative. Do we follow the simple reading of the Mishnah, that the buyer receives only the first three swarms and the owner may then sterilize the rest? Or do we follow the beraita, which says that the buyer receives as many swarms as are produced, with the first three coming consecutively and the later swarms divided alternately?
The answer is that the beraita is authoritative. The Rashbam follows the beraita, and other authorities do as well. The buyer receives the first three swarms in order, and from that point onward the swarms alternate between the buyer and the seller. Even though we learned the Mishnah, the Mishnah can be interpreted in accordance with the beraita. The buyer receives as many swarms as the beehive produces; the first three are simply received consecutively.
We now return to the case of the honeycombs. When a person purchases the honeycombs, two honeycombs must remain with the seller. The seller wants to place the remaining bees into storage for the winter, allowing them to eat the honey that remains in those two combs. The process can then begin again during the following summer. Therefore, the buyer receives every honeycomb except those two.
The Gemara now introduces a fundamental question. Anything that is considered food is susceptible to the ritual impurity of foods. Something that is not considered food is not susceptible to that impurity. How should we classify honey in the honeycomb? Is it considered food, or is it not considered food?
The answer may depend on its intended use. If the honey is designated for human consumption, it is considered food. But if it is designated as food for the bees, then it is not considered food for human beings and would not have the status of food with respect to ritual impurity. This is the subject of the discussion: the ritual-impurity status of honey in the hive.
Rav Kahana says that honey in the beehive never leaves the status of food. The Rashbam explains that honey in the hive is considered food even though, at a certain point, it is being consumed only by the bees. The fact that it is intended for the bees does not necessarily remove its status as food.
Another way of understanding the matter is that while the honey remains in the beehive, it is considered food, but once it begins to ooze out, it becomes a liquid. Foods and liquids have different laws with regard to ritual impurity. In either formulation, the basic principle is that honey in the hive has a status that makes it susceptible to the impurity of food or liquid. Even if there is a stage at which the bees alone are consuming it, that does not necessarily change its status as food—unless one maintains that the ruling applies only when it is intended for the bees.
The Gemara understands Rav Kahana’s statement to mean that no special intention is required to give the honey the status of food. It is automatically considered food. Some authorities might say that one must have a specific intention to designate it for human consumption, but Rav Kahana does not follow that approach.
The Gemara raises a difficulty from a beraita. The beraita discusses food itself, which has the ability to transmit impurity to other objects, and liquids, which also have the ability to transmit impurity. Yet the beraita says that honey in the hive is neither food nor liquid. How can that be reconciled with Rav Kahana’s statement that honey in the hive is food?
The answer is that the beraita is referring to the two honeycombs that must be left for the seller. Those two combs are specifically designated to remain in storage for the winter so that the bees can consume their honey. Since they are intended exclusively for bee consumption, the honey in those two combs is not considered food in the ordinary sense.
All the other honey, however, is considered food. The beraita is discussing only the two honeycombs that are left behind for the bees.
Another answer is based on the view of Rabbi Eliezer. We previously learned that Rabbi Eliezer treats a beehive as having the status of land. Since the hive is attached to a tree, it is viewed as attached to the ground. This has several practical consequences.
First, a beehive is acquired in the same manner as land: through money, a document, or an act of possession. Second, a promissory document can be written with respect to it. Normally, a promissory document is written when a lender transfers his loans to the court so that the court can collect them, allowing the lender to collect the debt even after the Sabbatical year, which otherwise cancels loans. Such a document is generally written only for someone who owns land, because the lender is willing to lend money on the assumption that the borrower owns land that can serve as security. If the borrower has no land, the document is not ordinarily written. Since a beehive is considered land according to Rabbi Eliezer, a promissory document may be written with respect to its owner.
Third, land is not susceptible to ritual impurity. As long as the honey and the bees remain inside the hive, the entire object has the status of land and does not become impure in the ordinary way.
Similarly, someone who removes honey from the hive on Shabbat is liable, because this is considered detaching something from the ground, like picking fruit from a tree. Since the beehive has the status of land, extracting the honey is considered an act of detachment.
Rabbi Elazar derives this from the verse that compares honey to a forest of honey. Just as fruit is detached from a tree, honey is detached from the beehive. This comparison indicates that Rabbi Eliezer considers the beehive to have the status of land.
We can now return to the beraita that said that honey in the beehive is not food and is not susceptible to ritual impurity. That beraita can be understood according to Rabbi Eliezer. Since the beehive is considered land, the honey inside it is regarded as attached to the ground and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
Rav Kahana, however, said that the honey is considered food. The Gemara challenges him with another beraita, which says that honey oozing out of the hive is neither food nor liquid.
According to Abaye, this difficulty can be answered by saying that the beraita is referring to honey from the two honeycombs that were left for the bees. We already explained that those two combs are designated for bee consumption during the winter. Therefore, even when honey from those combs oozes out, it is not automatically considered food or liquid for human purposes.
According to Rava, however, the explanation is more difficult. Rava’s reasoning was that the beehive is considered land according to Rabbi Eliezer. But once the honey oozes out of the hive, it is no longer attached to the land. Why, then, should it still be considered neither food nor liquid?
Rav Zevid answers that the case is one in which the honey oozed onto an unsuitable vessel. It fell onto a dirty or otherwise unacceptable receptacle, so it never became fit for human consumption. If it had flowed properly into a suitable vessel, it would have acquired the status of food or liquid. The case described by the beraita is one in which the honey immediately fell onto an inappropriate object and therefore never became fit.
The same would apply if the honey fell onto the ground or onto twigs and branches. If it becomes mixed into those objects, it may no longer be considered fit for consumption. If it remains attached and extractable, however, the analysis may be different.
The Gemara raises another difficulty. A beraita says that honey in the hive is neither food nor liquid, but if one has the intention to eat it, it becomes susceptible to the impurity of food. If one intends it for drinking, it becomes susceptible to the impurity of liquids.
According to Abaye, this is understandable. The honey being discussed is from the two combs left for the bees. Those combs initially have no status as food for human consumption, but a person’s intention can change that status and designate the honey for human use.
According to Rava, however, there is a difficulty. If the beehive has the status of land, then it should remain land regardless of a person’s intention. A person may decide that he wants to eat the honey, but an intention should not change the status of something that is still attached to the ground.
The Gemara answers that the beraita should be read differently. It does not mean that the honey becomes susceptible to impurity through a person’s intention. Rather, the correct reading is that even after a person has the intention to eat it, it does not become susceptible to impurity while it remains attached to the hive. That is an easy way to answer according to Rava.
Another beraita supports Rav Kahana’s original statement. It says that honey in the hive is susceptible to the impurity of food even without a person’s intention. This supports the view that honey in the hive is automatically considered food.
The difficulty from the earlier beraita is answered by explaining that the earlier beraita was referring specifically to the two honeycombs that are left for the bees. Those two are designated for bee consumption. All the other honey in the hive is considered food even without a special intention.
We now return to the final case of the Mishnah, concerning a person who sells an olive tree for its wood. The seller retains the trunk together with two branches, called branches of regeneration, so that the tree can grow again.
If a person purchases a tree from his fellow in order to cut it down and use the wood, he must leave a handbreadth of the trunk above the ground. The seller sold the wood, not the entire tree. Therefore, the buyer must leave the minimum amount necessary for the tree to regenerate.
In the case of a young sycamore tree that has never been cut before, the buyer must leave three handbreadths. In the case of a sycamore tree that has already been pruned, the buyer must leave two handbreadths from the trunk. The amount depends on the type and condition of the tree.
With reeds and vines, the buyer may cut from the first knot and above. Vines have knots along their length. Everything above the first knot belongs to the buyer, while the portion below the first knot must be left for the seller.
With palm trees and cedars, however, the buyer may take the entire tree, including the roots. These trees will not regenerate after being cut. Once the top of such a tree is cut, it does not grow back, so there is no reason to leave anything for the seller.
The Gemara raises a question about the sycamore tree. Does a sycamore really need three handbreadths in order to regenerate? A beraita says that one may not prune a young sycamore tree during the Sabbatical year, because pruning improves the tree. During the Sabbatical year, one may not perform work that enhances the growth of a tree.
Rabbi Yehuda says that one may not prune the tree in the ordinary manner. One may, however, cut above ten handbreadths, because cutting at that height does not improve the tree. Alternatively, one may cut it close to the ground. Cutting it either very high or very low damages the tree rather than enhancing it.
The Gemara derives that cutting at ground level is permitted because it is damaging to the tree. What about cutting higher than ground level? Even one handbreadth above the ground might be considered an enhancement, since the tree can potentially grow back from that point. If so, why does the Mishnah say that in the case of a previously pruned sycamore, the buyer must leave three handbreadths? It would seem that even less than three handbreadths should be enough for regeneration.
Abaye answers that leaving three handbreadths certainly benefits the tree. Everyone agrees that cutting at ground level is damaging to the tree. The area between ground level and three handbreadths is uncertain: it may or may not benefit the tree.
When discussing the laws of the Sabbatical year, one may perform only an act that is certainly damaging. That is why one is permitted to cut at ground level, but not in the uncertain area between the ground and three handbreadths.
When discussing a sale, however, the rule is different. The seller wants to retain a portion of the tree that will certainly regenerate. He does not need to retain an area whose ability to regenerate is uncertain. Therefore, the seller keeps three handbreadths, because that amount is certainly beneficial to the tree. The uncertain area is left to the buyer.
The Rashbam explains that a person who sells the tree wants to retain only the part that will certainly allow it to grow again. If he kept two handbreadths, he would be taking a risk. If he kept one handbreadth, he would also be taking a risk. To protect himself, the seller retains three handbreadths, the minimum amount that will certainly enable the tree to regenerate.
We said that with palm trees and cedars, the buyer may cut down the entire tree and remove the roots because such trees do not regenerate. The Gemara challenges this from a verse that compares a righteous person to both a date palm and a cedar.
What is the significance of the two comparisons? If the righteous person were compared only to a cedar, one might say that just as a cedar does not produce fruit, the righteous person receives no reward in the World to Come. If the righteous person were compared only to a date palm, one might say that just as a date palm does not regenerate once it is cut, a righteous person does not regenerate after death, leaving no descendants, or after falling from his spiritual level.
The Gemara answers that the comparison to the cedar is specifically significant because a cedar can regenerate. The discussion is referring to other kinds of cedars, some of which do regenerate and some of which do not. There are different types of cedar trees, and the ruling depends on which type is involved.
The Gemara lists ten types of cedar trees, giving various names for them. The essential point is that some species regenerate and some do not. The trees that regenerate must be left with the appropriate amount of trunk or branches, while those that do not regenerate may be cut down entirely.