Save "Boundary Cases and R. Shimon ben Gamliel
"
Boundary Cases and R. Shimon ben Gamliel

אילן שמקצתו נטוע בארץ ומקצתו בחוצה לארץ הואיל ומקצתו נטוע בארץ כאילו כולו נטוע בארץ דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר [חצר] הנטוע בארץ ישראל הרי הוא כארץ ישראל [חצר] הנטועה בחוצה לארץ הרי הוא כחו"ל.

A tree that is partly planted in Eretz Yisrael and partly planted outside the Land -- because part is planted in the Land, it is as if all of it were planted in the land. These are the words of Rebbe [Yehudah ha-Nasi]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, that portion which is planted in Eretz Yisrael, is considered as [part of] Eretz Yisrael; that which is planted outside the Land, is considered as being outside the Land.

עָצִיץ נָקוּב, הֲרֵי זֶה כָּאָרֶץ. תָּרַם מֵהָאָרֶץ עַל עָצִיץ נָקוּב, מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב עַל הָאָרֶץ, תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב עַל הַנָּקוּב, תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְרֹם. מִן הַנָּקוּב עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב, תְּרוּמָה, וְלֹא תֵאָכֵל עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת:
A perforated pot is considered like land. If one gave terumah from [produce grown in] the soil for [produce grown in] a perforated pot, or from [produce grown in] a perforated pot for [produce grown in] the soil, his terumah is terumah. [If he gave terumah] from [produce grown in] a pot that was not perforated for [produce grown in] a pot that was perforated, [it is] terumah, but he must go back and give terumah again. [If he gave terumah] from [produce grown in] a perforated pot for [produce grown in] a pot which was not perforated, [it is] terumah, but it may not be eaten until he first gives terumah and tithes for it.
עָצִיץ נָקוּב מְקַדֵּשׁ בַּכֶּרֶם, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, זֶה וְזֶה אוֹסְרִין וְלֹא מְקַדְּשִׁין. הַמַּעֲבִיר עָצִיץ נָקוּב בַּכֶּרֶם, אִם הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם, אָסוּר:
[Seed sown in a] perforated flowerpot, prohibits [as kilayim] in a vineyard. [In] one not perforated, does not prohibit [as kilayim]. Rabbi Shimon says: both are forbidden but neither prohibits. One who carries a perforated flowerpot through a vineyard, if [that which is sown in it] grows a two-hundredth part, it is forbidden.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב — חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב — פָּטוּר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
MISHNA: One who severs a leaf or a fruit from a plant growing in a perforated flowerpot on Shabbat is liable, as a plant in a flowerpot with holes in it has the legal status of a plant connected to the ground. Picking from it is prohibited due to reaping. And one who picks from an imperforated pot is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. And Rabbi Shimon deems one who does so exempt in both this, the case of the perforated flowerpot, and that, the case of the imperforated flowerpot.

תא שמע אילן מקצתו בארץ ומקצתו בחו"ל טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הגדל בחיוב חייב הגדל בפטור פטור ע"כ.

לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר יש ברירה ומר סבר אין ברירה אבל גדל בפטור דברי הכל פטור.

הכא במאי עסקינן דמפסיק צונמא אי הכי מאי טעמיה דרבי דהדרי ערבי ובמאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר אוירא מבלבל ומר סבר האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי.

ושש עשרה אמה ותו לא והא תנן מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור כ"ה אמה אמר אביי מיזל טובא אזלי אכחושי לא מכחשי אלא עד שש עשרה אמה טפי לא מכחשי כי אתא רב דימי אמר בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מרבי יוחנן אילן הסמוך למיצר בתוך י"ו אמה מהו אמר ליה גזלן הוא ואין מביאין ממנו בכורים כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן אחד אילן הסמוך למיצר ואחד אילן הנוטה מביא וקורא שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ:

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’asrot 2:22): If there is a tree, part of which is in Eretz Yisrael and part of which is outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is considered as though untithed produce, i.e., produce that is subject to the halakhot of terumot and tithes, and non-sacred produce, i.e., produce that is exempt from the halakhot of terumot and tithes, are mixed together in each one of this tree’s fruits. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to the fruits in the part of the tree that is growing in a place where there is an obligation to separate tithes, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael, the owner is obligated to separate tithes. With regard to the fruits that are growing in a place where there is an exemption from separating tithes, i.e., outside of Eretz Yisrael, the owner is exempt. The Gemara comments:

They disagree only in that one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that there is retroactive designation, and therefore it is assumed that the nourishment drawn from Eretz Yisrael sustained the fruit that grew on that side of the tree, and the nourishment drawn from outside Eretz Yisrael sustained the fruit that grew there. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that there is no retroactive designation, and the fruit is considered mixed. But if the tree grew entirely in a place where there is an exemption from separating tithes, i.e., outside Eretz Yisrael, all agree that the owner is exempt, even though the tree might have roots within sixteen cubits of Eretz Yisrael and draw nourishment from there. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Ulla, as he claims that the place from where a tree draws its nourishment is decisive with regard to first fruits.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where a rock divides the roots up to the trunk, and therefore it is possible to distinguish between the parts of the tree that draw nutrients from Eretz Yisrael and the parts that draw nutrients from outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Why does he view the fruits as being a mixture? The Gemara answers: He holds that although there is a division between the roots, they cannot be distinguished from one another, as they then become mixed in the body of the tree. The Gemara asks: And with regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds: The air above the ground mixes the nutrients, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds: This part of the tree stands alone and this part of the tree stands alone. From the roots up to the branches, it is as if the tree were cut along the line of the border.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Ulla’s opinion from a different perspective: And do roots extend sixteen cubits and no more? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern? This indicates that tree roots reach more than sixteen cubits. Abaye said: The roots extend farther, but they weaken the ground only up to sixteen cubits; with regard to an area any more distant than that, they do not weaken the ground. Concerning this matter the Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to a tree that is within sixteen cubits of a boundary, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The owner is a robber, and one does not bring first fruits from it. By contrast, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he related that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Both in the case of a tree that is close to a boundary and a tree that leans into a neighbor’s yard, one brings first fruits and recites the verses, as it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people, i.e., that they would not be particular about such matters.

אם היו עלין שלהן שחורין אסורין הוריקו מותרין וכי שחורין אמאי אסורין לימא היתר שבהן להיכן הלך א"ל מי סברת על עיקר קתני אתוספת קתני אסורין אי הכי מאי אתא רשב"ג למימר דתניא רשב"ג אומר הגדל בחיוב חייב הגדל בפטור פטור תנא קמא נמי הכי אמר
if their leaves were black, the onions are forbidden. If their leaves turned green, the onions are permitted. And if the leaves are black, why are the onions forbidden? Let us say in this case too: The permitted part, the original onion, to where did it go? Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: Do you maintain that this halakha is taught about the primary, original onion, that it is prohibited? It is taught with regard to the additional growth that sprouted, and it is those leaves that are forbidden. The Gemara asks: If so, what is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who apparently disagrees with the tanna of the mishna, coming to say? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which grew during a period of liability is liable and is considered Sabbatical-Year produce, and that which grew during a period of exemption is exempt. According to Rav Ḥisda’s explanation, the first tanna, cited in the mishna, also said that.
ואכתי בדאשרוש לא פליגי והא תניא אילן מקצתו בארץ ומקצתו בחוצה לארץ טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה דברי רבי רשב"ג אומר הגדל בחיוב חייב והגדל בפטור פטור
The Gemara asks: But still, do they not disagree with regard to a case where the plant took root? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’asrot 2:22): If there is a tree, and part of it is in Eretz Yisrael and part of it is outside of Eretz Yisrael, then untithed produce and non-sacred produce are mixed together in each one of these tree’s fruits; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The fruits in the part of the tree that is growing in a place that has an obligation to separate tithes, in Eretz Yisrael, are obligated. And the fruits that are growing in a place that has an exemption from separating tithes, outside of Eretz Yisrael, are exempt.
תנא חדא המביא גט בספינה כמביא בא"י ותניא אידך כמביא בחו"ל א"ר ירמיה לא קשיא הא ר' יהודה הא רבנן דתנן עפר חו"ל הבא בספינה לארץ חייב במעשר ובשביעית א"ר יהודה אימתי בזמן שהספינה גוששת אבל אין הספינה גוששת פטור אביי אמר הא והא ר' יהודה היא ול"ק כאן בזמן שאין הספינה גוששת כאן בזמן שהספינה גוששת א"ר זירא עציץ נקוב המונח על גבי יתדות באנו למחלוקת רבי יהודה ורבנן
§ The Gemara presents a contradiction between two baraitot. It was taught in one baraita: One who brings a bill of divorce that was written on a boat in Eretz Yisrael is considered to be like one who brings it in Eretz Yisrael, and therefore he is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. And it is taught in another baraita (Tosefta 1:1) that one who brings a bill of divorce written on a boat in Eretz Yisrael is like one who brings a bill of divorce outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is not difficult, as one can say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 2:2): With regard to soil from outside of Eretz Yisrael that is brought on a boat to Eretz Yisrael, anything that grew in that soil is obligated in tithe and in the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year. According to this opinion, soil is considered part of Eretz Yisrael once it arrives there, which means that the plants growing in it are considered to be in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yehuda said: When did the Sages say this ruling? When the boat is skimming [gosheshet] the sea floor, as it is weighed down in the water. However, when the boat is not skimming the sea floor, the soil is exempt. The Sage who maintains that the boat is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael with regard to a bill of divorce holds in accordance with the Rabbis of this mishna, and the one who maintains that the boat is not like Eretz Yisrael for the purposes of a bill of divorce holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: It is possible to say that both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not difficult: Here, the baraita where the soil is considered outside of Eretz Yisrael, deals with a situation when the boat is not skimming the sea floor; and there, in the baraita that states that the soil is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael, it is referring to a case when the boat is skimming the sea floor. Rabbi Zeira says: In the case of a perforated pot that is resting on pegs, if something grew in it, we have arrived at the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerning the soil on the boat. Just as the Rabbis maintain that the soil is considered attached to Eretz Yisrael even if the boat does not actually touch the sea floor, the same applies to a perforated flowerpot on pegs, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that in both cases the soil must actually be in contact with the earth for it to be considered part of Eretz Yisrael.
ואיבעית אימא שותפות עובד כוכבים בתרומה רבנן חיובי מחייבי דתניא ישראל ועובד כוכבים שלקחו שדה בשותפות טבל וחולין מעורבים זה בזה דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר של ישראל חייב ושל עובד כוכבים פטור
The Gemara provides an alternative explanation as to why the Rabbis do not derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the case of teruma. If you wish, say instead that with regard to teruma, the Rabbis hold that one who owns produce in partnership with a gentile is in fact obligated, as it is taught in a baraita: If there were a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership, the produce grown in that field is considered to be untithed produce, which is subject to the halakhot of terumot and tithes, and non-sacred produce, which is exempt from the requirements of terumot and tithes, mixed together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The portion of the Jew is obligated in teruma and tithes, but the portion of the gentile is exempt.
ורבא אמר דוחין אותו ויש לו וסיפא אתאן לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל (דתניא) ילדה טומטום ואנדרוגינוס רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין קדושה חלה עליהן
And Rava says: They direct him to the females and he has a right to sustenance. And with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which grants the tumtum nothing at all, there we arrive at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a mishna (Temura 24b): If one consecrates a firstborn animal while it is still a fetus, stating that if it is male it shall be a burnt-offering and if it is female it shall be a peace-offering, and the mother gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite [androginos], Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is not imbued with sanctity, as it is neither male nor female. So too, in the case discussed in the mishna here, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the tumtum receives nothing, as he is considered to be a distinct entity of indeterminate sex, neither male nor female.