כְּסִיתָא אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי עֲרוֹנִים עַרְמוֹנִים אַלְמוּגִּים עֲרוֹנִים עָרֵי עַרְמוֹנִים דּוּלְבֵי אַלְמוּגִּים כְּסִיתָא: refers to coral trees [kasita]. There are those who say that the other three are as follows: Aronim, armonim, and almugim. Aronim refers to laurel trees [arei], armonim to plane trees [dulevei], and almugim to coral trees [kasita].
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא קָנָה קַרְקַע רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר קָנָה קַרְקַע הִגְדִּילוּ לֹא יְשַׁפֶּה וְהָעוֹלֶה מִן הַגֶּזַע שֶׁלּוֹ וּמִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁים שֶׁל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע וְאִם מֵתוּ אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע MISHNA: With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, this one has not acquired any ground, but only the trees. Rabbi Meir says: He has acquired the ground under them. The mishna states a halakha in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna: If the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches, despite the fact that their shade damages his field. And that which grows out of the trunk is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. And if the trees died, their owner has no rights to the ground where the trees had stood.
קָנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה קָנָה קַרְקַע הִגְדִּילוּ יְשַׁפֶּה וְהָעוֹלֶה מִן הַגֶּזַע וּמִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין שֶׁלּוֹ וְאִם מֵתוּ יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע: If one bought three trees, he has acquired the ground along with them. If they grew, the owner of the field may cut down their branches, as he sold a specific piece of land along with the trees, not his entire field. And that which grows out of the trunk and out of the roots is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the trees. And if the trees died, the owner of the trees still has possession of the ground, as it was sold along with the trees.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם הַקּוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bikkurim 1:6): With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, he brings the first fruits but does not recite the passages of thanks to God that appear in the Torah (Deuteronomy 26:1–11), as the land does not belong to him and therefore he cannot state: “I have brought the first of the fruit of the land, which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10). Rabbi Meir says: He brings the first fruits and also recites the passage.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מְחַיֵּיב הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַף בְּלוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת מִן הַשּׁוּק מִמַּאי מִדְּקָתָנֵי מִשְׁנָה יַתִּירָא מִכְּדֵי תְּנָא לֵיהּ דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who buys fruit from the marketplace to bring first fruits, not only one who grew the fruits on his own tree. From where did he derive this halakha? From the fact that the tanna teaches an apparently superfluous mishna. Since Rabbi Meir already taught in the mishna here that the owner of two trees has possession of the ground, isn’t it obvious that he brings first fruits and recites the passage? What is added by his statement in the mishna in Bikkurim?
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מְחַיֵּיב הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַף בְּלוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת מִן הַשּׁוּק Rather, learn from the mishna in Bikkurim that Rabbi Meir would obligate even one who buys fruit from the marketplace to bring first fruits to the Temple. Rabbi Meir is saying that even if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one who buys two trees does not own the ground between them, he still must bring the first fruits and recite the passage of thanks.
וְהָא כְּתִיב אֲשֶׁר תָּבִיא מֵאַרְצְךָ הָהוּא לְמַעוֹטֵי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Which you shall bring in from your land” (Deuteronomy 26:2)? This verse indicates that the fruit must be the produce of your land, not land that belongs to another. The Gemara answers: That verse serves to exclude land that is outside of Eretz Yisrael, which is not the land of the Jewish people. It does not exclude land that does not belong to that specific individual.
וְהָא כְּתִיב אַדְמָתְךָ לְמַעוֹטֵי אַדְמַת גּוֹי וְהָכְתִיב אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לִי דִּיהַבְתְּ לִי זוּזֵי וּזְבַנִי בְּהוּ The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “The choicest first fruits of your land you shall bring” (Exodus 23:19)? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude fruit bought by a Jew that was grown on the land of a gentile in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “I have brought the first of the fruit of the land, which You, Lord, have given me” (Deuteronomy 26:10)? If he purchased the fruit, then the land on which it grew was not given to him by God. The Gemara answers that the phrase “which You have given me” can mean that You have given me money, and with that money I bought this fruit.
מֵתִיב רַבָּה הַקּוֹנֶה אִילָן אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה קַרְקַע דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר תְּיוּבְתָּא Rabba raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: One who buys one tree in the field of another brings first fruits but does not recite the passage, as he did not acquire any land; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This is a conclusive refutation of Shmuel’s opinion, as he said that according to Rabbi Meir even one who simply purchases fruit is obligated to bring first fruits to the Temple.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר Apropos the discussion of the obligation to bring first fruits of one who buys a tree in the field of another, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to Rabbi Elazar: