Talmud - Bava Batra 80b בבא בתרא פ׳ ב׳

As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 10:7): Concerning a beehive, Rabbi Eliezer says: It is considered like land with regard to the manner in which one purchases it and with regard to other matters, and therefore one writes a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from canceling an outstanding debt [prosbol] based on it, as a prosbol can be written only if the debtor possesses land of some sort.

And a beehive is not susceptible to ritual impurity, provided that it is in its place and attached to the ground, as it is considered equivalent to the ground itself, which is not susceptible to impurity. And one who takes honey out of it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, like one who uproots something from the ground. According to this opinion, honey in a beehive is not considered to have the status of either food or liquid with regard to ritual impurity, as it is attached to the ground.

The mishna continues: And the Rabbis say: A beehive has the status of movable property; one may not write a prosbol based on it, and it is not considered like land with regard to its sale but is instead sold in the manner of movable property. And it is susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is in its place, and one who takes honey out of it on Shabbat is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. According to this opinion, the honey contained within the beehive is considered detached from the ground and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity, as stated by Rav Kahana.

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written with regard to Jonathan: “He put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in the honeycomb [ya’arat hadevash]” (I Samuel 14:27). Now, what does a forest [ya’ar] have to do with honey [devash]? Why is the honeycomb called a forest of honey [ya’arat hadevash]? Rather, this serves to tell you: Just as with regard to a forest, one who picks fruit from a tree on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, with regard to honey, one who removes honey from a beehive on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Honey that flows from one’s beehive is not considered either food or liquid. Granted, according to the reasoning of Abaye this works out well, since he would explain here, as in the previous case, that this is referring to the two combs in the beehive designated for the sustenance of the bees, and is not intended for human consumption.

But according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the baraita is in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer, this presents a difficulty, as even according to Rabbi Eliezer the honey is not considered attached to the ground once it leaves the beehive. Rav Zevid said: The baraita is referring to a case where the honey flowed onto a repulsive vessel and therefore is unfit for human consumption. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: It is referring to a case where it flowed onto straw [kashkashin] and weeds, which renders it inedible.

The Gemara raises another objection from a baraita: Honey in one’s beehive is not considered either food or liquid. If one intended to use it as food, it is susceptible to ritual impurity as food, and if one intended to use it as liquid, it is susceptible to ritual impurity as liquid. Granted, according to the reasoning of Abaye, this works out well, as he can explain that this too is referring to the two combs of honey left for the bees, and that if one reconsidered and decided to eat the honey, it is once again considered fit for human consumption.

But according to Rava, who said that the ruling of the baraita that honey in a beehive does not have the status of food or liquid is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, this poses a difficulty. This baraita does not accord with the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, as he maintains that one’s intention is not enough for honey attached to the ground to be considered as though it were detached. Therefore, the baraita must be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and yet it contradicts Rav Kahana’s statement that intention is not required for honey to be susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you that the baraita is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and you should resolve the difficulty and answer like this: If one intended to use the honey as food, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity as food, and if one intended to use it as liquid, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity as liquid. The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana: Honey in one’s beehive is susceptible to ritual impurity as food even if there was no intention to use it as food, as it has an innate status of food.

§ The mishna teaches: If one buys olive trees for felling, he must leave two shoots from the tree. The Sages taught: One who buys a tree from another for felling must cut the tree one handbreadth above the ground, to allow the tree to grow again. In the case of an untrimmed sycamore, he must cut the tree a minimum of three handbreadths above the ground, and with regard to a large sycamore, which has strong roots because the sycamore has been cut down once already, he must cut the tree a minimum of two handbreadths above the ground. In the case of reeds or of vines, he may cut only from the knot and above, so that they will grow back. In the cases of palm and of cedar trees, he may dig down and uproot them, because their trunks do not replenish themselves after they are cut down, and therefore there is no reason to leave anything behind.

The Gemara asks: And do we require an untrimmed sycamore to be cut a minimum of three handbreadths above the ground for it to grow back? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi’it 4:5): One may not fell an untrimmed sycamore during the Sabbatical Year because it is considered work, as it promotes the growth of the tree.

The mishna continues. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is prohibited for one to fell the tree during the Sabbatical Year in its usual manner; rather, he must cut the tree ten handbreadths above the ground, or raze the tree until it is even with the ground. Neither of these methods promote the growth of the tree; in fact, they damage it. It can be inferred from here that it is only cutting the sycamore until it is even with the ground that is harmful for it, and it does not grow again. Cutting in another manner is beneficial for it, even if it is cut less than three handbreadths from the ground.

Abaye said that the mishna should be understood as follows: Cutting down a sycamore from a height of three handbreadths is beneficial for it, whereas cutting it so that it is even with the ground is certainly harmful for it and is permitted during the Sabbatical Year. Cutting it down from this point onward, i.e., between the ground and three handbreadths, is neither very harmful for it nor particularly beneficial for it. With regard to the Sabbatical Year, we perform only a matter that is certainly harmful to it, so as to avoid enhancing it. With regard to buying and selling, we perform only a matter that is certainly beneficial for it, as the seller intended to sell the sycamore in such a manner that the tree would grow again.

The baraita teaches: In the case of palm and cedar trees, a buyer may dig down and uproot them, because their trunks do not replenish themselves after being cut down. The Gemara asks: And is it correct with regard to a cedar that its trunk does not replenish itself? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Lulyani teach: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon” (Psalms 92:13)? If “palm tree” is stated, why is “cedar” stated? And if “cedar” is stated, why is “palm tree” stated? What is added by this double comparison?

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Lulyani explains: Had the verse stated only “cedar” and had not stated “palm tree,” I would have said that just as a cedar does not produce fruit, so too, a righteous person does not produce fruit, i.e., he will have no reward in the World-to-Come. Therefore, it is stated: “Palm tree,” which is a fruit-bearing tree.

And had the verse stated only “palm tree” and had not stated “cedar,” I would have said that just as with regard to a palm tree its trunk does not replenish itself after being cut down, so too, in the case of a righteous person, his trunk does not replenish itself, i.e., he will be unable to recover from misfortune. Therefore, it is stated: “Cedar,” to indicate that just as the trunk of the cedar replenishes itself, so too, the righteous will thrive again. This demonstrates that the trunk of a cedar does grow again.

The Gemara answers: Rather, with what are we are dealing here? We are dealing with other types of cedars, as the trunks of certain species do not grow back after the tree is felled. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. As Rabba bar Rav Huna says that they say in the school of Rav: There are ten types of cedars; as it is stated: “I will place in the wilderness the cedar [erez], the acacia tree [shitta], and the myrtle [hadas] and the pine tree [etz shemen]; I will set in the desert the juniper [berosh], the teak [tidhar], and the cypress [te’ashur] all together” (Isaiah 41:19). The Gemara elaborates: Erez means cedar; shitta means acacia tree [tornita]; hadas is the myrtle; etz shemen is the balsam tree; berosh means juniper [berati]; tidhar is the teak [shaga]; and te’ashur is the cypress [shurbina].

The Gemara asks: But these are seven species of cedar, not ten. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They added to the list of cedars allonim, almonim, and almugim. Allonim refers to pistachio trees [butnei], almonim are oaks [balutei], and almugim

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Batra 80b explores whether a beehive counts as land or movable property, affecting prosbol validity, ritual impurity, and Shabbat liability.