דְּשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ רָבָא אָמַר פָּסוּל גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְטוֹם as he can take the pot with the leaf inside it and give it to her. Rava says that it is invalid. Although it should be valid if he gave her the leaf together with the potted plant, the Sages instituted a decree that it is invalid, lest one detach the leaf and give it to her. In that case, all agree that a bill of divorce that is fully written while attached is invalid.
עָצִיץ שֶׁל אֶחָד וּזְרָעִים שֶׁל אַחֵר מָכַר בַּעַל עָצִיץ לְבַעַל זְרָעִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ קָנָה מָכַר בַּעַל זְרָעִים לְבַעַל עָצִיץ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים § The Gemara has another discussion with regard to a perforated pot: In the case of a pot that belongs to one person and the plants in it belong to another person, if the owner of the pot sold it to the owner of the plants, then once the owner of the plants pulled the pot, he has acquired the pot, as it is a movable object, which can be acquired via pulling. However, if the owner of the plants sold the plants to the owner of the pot, then the owner of the pot does not acquire the plants until he takes possession of the plants themselves, e.g., by raking or weeding the dirt surrounding them. Since the plants are considered to be attached to the ground, as they are in a perforated pot, they are considered to be part of the ground, which cannot be acquired by pulling.
עָצִיץ וּזְרָעִים שֶׁל אֶחָד וּמְכָרָן לְאַחֵר הֶחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים קָנָה עָצִיץ וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה If the pot and plants belong to one person, and he sold them to another person, then once the buyer took possession of the plants and acquired them, he acquired the pot as well. And this is an example of the principle that we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, through the giving of money, or with a document, or by taking possession. Therefore, once one takes possession of the plants, which are considered to be like land, he also acquires the pot, which is a movable object.
הֶחְזִיק בְּעָצִיץ אַף עָצִיץ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים However, if the buyer took possession of just the pot, then he does not even acquire the pot, as movable property cannot be acquired through taking possession, until he takes possession of the plants. To acquire the pot, one must either perform an act of acquisition specific to movable items, such as pulling, or acquire the plants through taking possession of them, resulting in the acquisition of the pot, as stated earlier.
נִקְבּוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹפוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אַבָּיֵי אָמַר בָּתַר נִקְבּוֹ אָזְלִינַן רָבָא אָמַר בָּתַר נוֹפוֹ אָזְלִינַן The Gemara discusses another issue with regard to perforated pots: If a perforated pot was on the border of Eretz Yisrael, and its perforation was in Eretz Yisrael but its branches were outside of Eretz Yisrael, then what is the halakha with regard to mitzvot that apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, such as terumot and tithes? Abaye said: We follow its perforation, and it is considered to be growing in Eretz Yisrael. Rava said: We follow its branches, and it is considered to be growing outside of Eretz Yisrael.
בִּדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּדְלָא אַשְׁרוּשׁ The Gemara notes: In a case where the plant in the pot took root in the ground, everyone agrees that it has the status of a plant that grows in the place where its roots are. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where it did not take root. Since its roots are contained within the pot, there is a disagreement whether we follow the perforation or the branches in determining its status.
וּבִדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ לָא פְּלִיגִי וְהָתְנַן שְׁתֵּי גִּינּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ וְיָרָק בֵּינְתַיִם רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן The Gemara challenges: And do they not disagree with regard to a case where it took root? Do all agree that its status is determined by where the roots are? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bava Metzia 118b): In a case of two gardens that belong to two different people that are on adjacent terraces one above the other, and leafy vegetables are growing between them on the wall of the step between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These leafy vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden, and Rabbi Yehuda says: These leafy vegetables belong to the owner of the lower garden. In this case, the roots emerge from the upper garden, but the vegetables grow into the airspace of the lower garden. This seems to be analogous to the case where the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and the branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, or vice versa, and there is a dispute as to who is the owner of the vegetables.
הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר מָה אִם יִרְצֶה עֶלְיוֹן לִיטּוֹל אֶת עֲפָרוֹ אֵין כָּאן יָרָק The Gemara makes a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case cited in the mishna in Bava Metzia, the reason for that halakha is as is taught in the mishna, that Rabbi Meir said: What if the owner of the upper garden would wish to take his earth? This would result in a situation where there are no more vegetables, as the vegetables would not have earth from which to draw nutrients. The fact that the owner of the upper garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מָה אִם יִרְצֶה הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַלּאוֹת אֶת גִּנָּתוֹ עָפָר אֵין כָּאן יָרָק Rabbi Yehuda said: What if the owner of the lower garden would wish to fill the airspace above his garden with earth? This would result in a situation where there are no more vegetables, as they would be covered in the earth added by the owner of the lower garden. The fact that the owner of the lower garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner. Their dispute is not with regard to how to define where the vegetables are growing; rather, they disagree with regard to who has control over the continued existence of these plants. Therefore, this dispute is not related to the issue of the plant that is growing on the border.
וְאַכַּתִּי בִּדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ לָא פְּלִיגִי וְהָא תַּנְיָא אִילָן מִקְצָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הַגָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב חַיָּיב וְהַגָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר פָּטוּר 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.
מַאי לָאו מִקְצָת נוֹפוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָת נוֹפוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ What, is it not discussing a case where some of its branches are in Eretz Yisrael and some of its branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, although its roots are in one of the two locations, and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that the place of the roots does not define the status of the tree?
לֹא מִקְצָת שׇׁרָשִׁין בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָת שׇׁרָשִׁין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּמַפְסִיק צוּנְמָא The Gemara rejects this: No, it discusses a case where some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some of the roots are outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? It is not possible to determine which fruits drew nutrients from which roots, so how can he rule that some of the fruits are obligated in tithes and some are not? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement is referring to 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי דְּהָדְרִי עׇרְבִי The Gemara asks: If it is so that the roots are clearly distinguishable, 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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי מָר סָבַר אַוֵּירָא מְבַלְבֵּל וּמָר סָבַר הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי The Gemara asks: 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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַסִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹרוֹת הֵן מַצָּה חִיפָּה וְדִיפְתְּרָא § The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that one may not write a bill of divorce on a material that enables forgery. Consequently, one may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara now clarifies what is defined as unfinished leather. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides, i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides. At each stage, the hide has a different name: Matza, ḥifa, and diftera.
מַצָּה כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ דְּלָא מְלִיחַ וּדְלָא קְמִיחַ וּדְלָא אֲפִיץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ כִּדְקָתָנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה כְּדֵי לָצוּר מִשְׁקָל קְטַנָּה וְכַמָּה אָמַר אַבָּיֵי כִּי רִיבְעָא דְרִיבְעָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא Matza, as per its plain meaning, with no additives. It is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. The Gemara clarifies: For what halakha is this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches: It is equivalent to that which is used to wrap around a small weight. And how big is this small weight? Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of a litra in the system of weights in use in Pumbedita.
חִיפָּה דִּמְלִיחַ וְלָא קְמִיחַ וְלָא אֲפִיץ לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ כְּדִתְנַן עוֹר כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵיעַ Ḥifa is hide that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what halakha was this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 78b): The measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide is equivalent to that which is used to make an amulet.
דִּיפְתְּרָא דִּמְלִיחַ וּקְמִיחַ וְלָא אֲפִיץ לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב עָלָיו אֶת הַגֵּט Diftera is hide that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what halakha was this type of leather mentioned? There is a halakha that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather for which one is liable if he carries it out from one domain to another on Shabbat. And how much is the measure that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is equivalent to the amount on which a bill of divorce is written.
וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין מַאן חֲכָמִים אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר The mishna taught that the Rabbis deem valid bills of divorce that were written on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara asks: Who are these Rabbis? The amora Rabbi Elazar said: