Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section begins interpreting the Mishnah s prohibition of selling non-Jews anything attached to the ground.

 

אין מוכרין להן וכו’: ת"ר מוכרין להן אילן על מנת לקוץ וקוצץ דברי ר’ יהודה. רבי מאיר אומר אין מוכרין להן אלא קצוצה.

שחת על מנת לגזוז וגוזז דברי רבי יהודה.

ר"מ אומר אין מוכרין להן אלא גזוזה.

קמה על מנת לקצור וקוצר דברי רבי יהודה.

ר’ מאיר אומר אין מוכרין אלא קצורה

 

One should not sell them anything attached to the soil. Our Rabbis taught: One may sell them a tree with the stipulation that it be felled and he then he felles it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may sell them only a tree that has already been felled.

Low-growth, with the stipulation that it be cut and he then cuts it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may sell them only when it has already been cut.

Standing grain, with the stipulation that it be reaped and he thens reap it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may sell them only when it is reaped.

 

In all three of these disputes R. Judah allows a Jew to sell a non-Jew various plants attached to the soil (in the land of Israel) as long as he stipulates that the non-Jew will cut the plant down and not take possession of the land. But R. Meir is stricter and rules that the Jew may sell only the cut down product.

 

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן אילן בהא קאמר רבי מאיר כיון דלא פסיד משהי ליה אבל האי דכי משהי לה פסיד אימא מודי ליה לר’ יהודה

 

And all three disputes are necessary; for were we told of the case of a tree only [we might think that] in that case R. Meir states his rule, for, since the non-Jew will not lose by letting it remain in the ground, he might leave it there, but in the other case, where he would lose by letting it remain in the soil, we might think that R. Meir would agree with R. Judah.

 

The Talmud now asks the question that we should anticipate why do we need to know that they disagree in all three cases? Why couldn t we have learned one case from the other?

The first point they make is that if we knew only of the first dispute we might have thought that R. Meir prohibits selling the tree before it is felled, because the non-Jew would not lose out by leaving the tree in the ground. But when it comes to the grain, if the grain is ripe, it must be harvested immediately. Therefore, R. Meir might agree that the Jew can sell it unharvested. The baraita teaches us that R. Meir still disagrees.

 

ואי אשמעינן בהני תרתי משום דלא ידיע שבחייהו אבל שחת דידיע שבחייהו אימא מודי ליה לר’ מאיר.

 

And if we were we told about the tree and the grain only [we might have thought that] it is because it is not obvious that he benefits by leaving them in the soil [that R. Judah permits], but in the case of low-growth where he obviously benefits by leaving it to grow on, we might think that he agrees with R. Meir.

 

This is basically the opposite reasoning as above. Low growth obviously benefits by remaining the soil. So in that case, R. Judah might agree with R. Meir that he shouldn t sell it unharvested to the non-Jew, for the non-Jew will hold on to the land for a long time. That is why the baraita tells us that R. Judah still allows one to leave it in the soil.

 

ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר ר’ מאיר אבל בהנך אימא מודי ליה לרבי יהודה צריכא

 

And were we told of the case of [low-growth] only, we might have thought that it is only in that case that R. Meir states his rule, but in the other two cases, he agrees with R. Judah; hence all these are necessary.

 

If we had learned only the case of the low growth, we might have thought that R. Meir rules strictly there because it pays for the non-Jew not to cut the low growth down. Thus he will hold on to the land. But in the case of the tree or the grain, there is no definite benefit to letting it grow, therefore R. Meir might agree with R. Judah. Thus we need to know that the tannaim disagree about all three cases.