טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי; רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב.

the produce grown in that field is considered to be untithed produce and non-sacred produce mixed together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The portion of the gentile is exempt from terumot and tithes, and the portion of the Jew is obligated.

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵין בְּרֵירָה, אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִיַּד מַעֲשֵׂר!

The Gemara explains the inference: They disagree only with regard to the following issue: That one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that there is retroactive clarification, i.e., when they divide the produce, it will be clarified who owned what produce from the outset. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and therefore, since it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. However, everyone agrees that a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce, as the gentile’s portion is considered to be non-sacred produce.

הָכָא נַמִי בְּסוּרְיָא, וְקָסָבַר: כִּיבּוּשׁ יָחִיד לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּשׁ.

The Gemara answers: Here, also, it is referring to a case in Syria, and he holds that the conquest of an individual is not called a conquest, and a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Syria to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land.

אֲמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְגוֹי – לוֹקֵחַ וּמֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם; מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם אִין, מִדְּאוֹרַיְיתָא – לָא!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: One who sells his field to a gentile must purchase and bring the first fruits from the field that he sold, for the betterment of the world. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin infers: For the betterment of the world, yes, he must bring the first fruits; however, by Torah law, no, he is not required. This teaches that the acquisition of a gentile causes the abrogation of the sanctity of the land.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: שְׁתֵּי תַּקָּנוֹת הָווּ; מֵעִיקָּרָא הָווּ מָיְיתֵי מִדְּאוֹרַיְיתָא. כֵּיוָן דְּחָזוּ דְּקָא מַקְרֵי וּמְזַבְּנֵי, דְּסָבְרֵי בִּקְדוּשַׁתַּיְיהוּ קַיְּימָן – תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ דְּלָא לֵיתוּ.

Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances concerning this issue. Initially, those who sold their fields to gentiles would bring first fruits by Torah law, as they held that the acquisition of a gentile does not abrogate the sanctity of the land. Once the Sages saw that the Jews would sell their land to gentiles when they had the opportunity, because these Jews thought that the fact that the Jew would still have to bring the first fruits indicates that the land retains its sanctity, and therefore there is no reason not to sell the land to gentiles, they instituted for those who sell land to gentiles that they should not bring the first fruits, to emphasize that the land should not be sold to gentiles. This was the first ordinance.

כֵּיוָן דְּחָזוּ דְּמַאן דְּלָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ מְזַבַּן וְקָא מִשְׁתַּקְעָן בְּיַד גּוֹיִם – הֲדַר תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ דְּלֵיתוּ.

Once the Sages saw that those who were not able to subsist would sell their land despite this ordinance, and the fields would remain in the possession of the gentiles and would not be redeemed, they went back and instituted that they should bring the first fruits in order to penalize the seller, to encourage him to repurchase the field. This was the second ordinance. Therefore, one cannot prove from the mishna whether or not the acquisition of a gentile abrogates the sanctity of the land.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ לְפֵירוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא.

§ It was stated: With regard to one who sells his field for just its produce, meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser brings first fruits from this field to the Temple and recites the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: “The land which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Reish Lakish says: Although the buyer brings the first fruits, he does not recite the verses, since it is not his field.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי; רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא – קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he brings the first fruits and recites the verses because he maintains that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself. Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. Reish Lakish says that he brings the first fruits and does not recite the verses because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְקוֹרֵא!

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita concerning the bringing of first fruits, as the verse states: “And you shall rejoice in all of the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house” (Deuteronomy 26:11). The phrase “your house” often refers to a wife. Therefore, the Sages said: This teaches that a man brings his wife’s first fruits, and he recites the relevant verses. This is true despite the fact that a husband acquires the field of his wife only for the produce. It seems from this baraita that the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״.

Reish Lakish said to him: It is different there, as it is written explicitly: “And to your house,” which teaches that with regard to first fruits, there is a scriptural decree that a field belonging to one’s wife is also included in the mitzva. This does not prove that in general the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְקוֹרֵא; הָתָם הוּא דִּכְתִיב ״וּלְבֵיתֶךָ״, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי נַמִי מֵהָכָא קָאָמִינָא.

And there are those who say that they had a different exchange: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan from that baraita : It is written: “And to your house,” which teaches that a man brings his wife’s first fruits, and he recites the relevant verses. Reish Lakish infers from this: There, it is that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses despite having acquired only the rights to the produce from his wife’s field, as it is written explicitly: “And to your house”; but generally, no, one who acquired only a field’s produce would not recite the verses. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I also state my reason from here, as I see the halakha of a man bringing the produce from his wife’s field not as an exception, but as the source for the general principle that the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבִיכּוּרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ – מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא; מֵתָה אִין, לָא מֵתָה – לָא!

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan based on a baraita : If he was traveling on the road to Jerusalem and the first fruits of his wife’s field were in his possession, and he heard that his wife died, then he brings the first fruits and recites the verses. One can infer: If she died, yes, he brings the fruits and recites the verses, as he has now inherited the field itself; but if she did not die, then no, he does not recite the verses, because acquisition of a field’s produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מֵתָה, וּמֵתָה אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא לִיגְזוֹר מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא,

The Gemara answers: The same is true in that case, that even though she did not die he also brings the fruits and recites the verses, but it was necessary for the baraita to mention the possibility that she died, because it might enter your mind to say that there should be a rabbinic decree in this case due to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina concerning a similar halakha .

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּצָרָן וְשִׁגְּרָן בְּיַד שָׁלִיחַ, וּמֵת שָׁלִיחַ בַּדֶּרֶךְ – מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ…וְהֵבֵאתָּ״, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה וַהֲבָאָה בְּאֶחָד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: If one harvested his first fruits and sent them in the possession of an agent, and the agent died on the way, then someone else brings the fruits but does not recite the verses, as it is stated: “And you shall take…and you shall bring” (see Deuteronomy 26:2–3), until the taking and bringing will be accomplished by one person. One might have said that since the husband took the fruits as the owner of the fruits alone and not the field, as the field was owned by his wife, and then he became the owner of the field as well and is bringing the fruits as the full owner, he should not recite the verses. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that he is considered to be the full owner before his wife’s death, because the acquisition of a field’s produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the field itself.

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעֲמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish follow their standard line of reasoning with regard to the issue of the acquisition of a field’s produce. As it was stated that they had a dispute in the following case as well: One who sells his field