GITIN 47 (26 Av) - Dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Aharon Tzvi ben Simcha Ha'Levy Fleck by his son, Avraham Fleck of Yerushalayim.


TOSFOS DH "Reish Lakish"

תוס' ד"ה "ריש לקיש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this incident happened before Reish Lakish repented.)

קודם שחזר למוטב דמסתמא לא היה מזלזל בעצמו כל כך.


Observation: Reish Lakish clearly did this before he repented, as he probably would not have denigrated himself to such an extent (after he had repented).


TOSFOS DH "Kreisi"

תוס' ד"ה "כריסי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that in those days it was normal for people to lie on their stomachs.)

דרכן היה לשכב על בטנם כדאמרי' בזבחים (דף ה.) ריש לקיש רמי אמעוהי ומקשה.


Observation: They would normally lie on their stomachs, as is stated in Zevachim (5a) that Reish Lakish was lying on his stomach and asked a question. (Note: See the Keren Orah in Zevachim (ibid.) who gives a deeper explanation to this Gemara.)


TOSFOS DH "Lokei'ach u'Meivi"

תוס' ד"ה "לוקח ומביא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of the Mishnah.)

זו גירסת הקונט' דקנסינן ליה לחזור וליקח ממנו אבל כולי האי לא קנסינן ליקח ממנו להפריש תרומות ומעשרות


Explanation: This is Rashi's text. We give him a fine that he has to go and buy fruits. However, we do not fine him to the extent that he has to buy from him in order to separate Terumos and Ma'aseros.

ומיהו קשה לר"ת דבגמ' מייתי ראיה מהא דיש קנין לעובד כוכבים דמפני תיקון העולם אין דאורייתא לא


Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. In our Gemara we bring proof from this law that a Nochri can acquire part of Eretz Yisrael. The Mishnah implies that this was only instituted because of "Tikun ha'Olam," not because he has an actual Torah obligation.

מנא ליה דילמא תיקון העולם קאי אהא דחייבוהו ליקח


How does he know this? Perhaps "Tikun ha'Olam" is referring to the fact that they obligated him to buy it (not the level of obligation the fruit of the field actually have regarding Bikurim)?

ואומר ר"ת דברוב ספרים לא גרסינן ומביא בוי"ו והכי קאמר כל אדם הלוקח ממנו מביא בכורים לא שנא מוכר לא שנא אחר


Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that in most Sefarim the text is not "And he brings" with a Vav ("And"). The Mishnah means that whoever buys from him must bring Bikurim, whether it is the person who sold him the land or someone else.

ורבינו חננאל גרס הלוקח מביא כו' וכן בירושלמי.


Rabeinu Chananel has the text, "The buyer brings." This is also the text of the Yerushalmi.


TOSFOS DH "Amar Rabah"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר רבה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses other sources that shed light on whether or not there is a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael for a Nochri.)

והא דתניא לעיל (דף מג:) אע"פ שעשה ישראל נימוסו פטורה מן המעשר אלמא יש קנין


Implied Question: The Beraisa earlier (43b) states that even though a Jew can take the field as collateral when the Nochri has not paid back by a certain date, it is exempt from Ma'aser. This clearly implies that a Nochri does have a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael to make the part he owns exempt from Terumos u'Ma'aseros. (Note: How can Rabah say otherwise?)

איכא לאוקמא בסוריא כדמשני לקמיה


Answer: It is possible to establish that this field mentioned earlier (43b) was in Surya, not Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara gives a similar answer (to a similar question) later (47a)

וההיא דהשואל (ב"מ דף קא.) דהמקבל שדה אבותיו מן העובד כוכבים דמעשר ונותן לו ודחי לה התם דלעולם יש קנין


Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (101a) states that if someone accepts to work a field that use to belong to his father, and now belongs to a Nochri, he takes off Ma'aser from all of the produce in the field, and gives the Nochri his portion. (Note: This means that even though the Nochri wants a full half of the produce from the field, and he only receives half, he must take off Ma'aser according to all of the produce, and absorb the "loss" of the Terumos and Ma'aseros from his half.) The Gemara there pushes this aside, and says that really a Nochri does have a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael (ibid. at length). (Note:

אע"פ שהדיחוי אמת כדדייק מדנקט מציק מ"מ ראיה גמורה ליכא ולעולם מצי למימר רבה דסבר אין קנין


Answer: Even though the Gemara's answer when it pushes this aside is in fact correct, as the Gemara there later deduces from a separate case where the Nochri takes the land by force, it is not a clear proof that this is the case of the Beraisa. Rabah can certainly say that the Beraisa holds that there is no Kinyan for a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael (which is my Terumos and Ma'aseros must be taken).

ומיהו אשכחן ר"מ דסבר יש קנין בספ"ק דע"ז (דף כא.) דאמר אין משכירין להן שדות משום דמפקע להו ממעשרות דכל זמן שהיא של ישראל כל מי שזורעה חייב במעשר וכי זבנה לעובד כוכבים הזורעה פטור דיש קנין דאי אין קנין אין זו הפקעה מה שאין עובד כוכבים מעשר קרקע החייבת


Observation: However, we find that Rebbi Meir in Avodah Zarah (21a) holds that a Nochri does have a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael. He says there that we do not rent fields to them because this causes them to be exempt from Ma'aseros. As long as it belongs to a Yisrael, anyone who plants the field is obligated to give Ma'aser. When he sells it to a Nochri, one who plants it is exempt from Terumos u'Ma'aseros, as a Nochri has a Kinyan etc. If he would not have a Kinyan, it would not be considered exempting the field from Terumos and Ma'aseros just because the Nochri himself does not take Terumos and Ma'aseros.

דהתם פריך בית נמי מפקיע ממזוזה ומשני מזוזה חובת הדר היא ואין זה הפקעה


(Note: This is apparent from the following question and answer in the Gemara (ibid.).) The Gemara there asks that selling a house to a Nochri (anywhere) takes it away from having the Mitzvah of Mezuzah on that house. The Gemara answers that a Mezuzah is an obligation of the one living in the house, and therefore this is not considered taking the house away from the Mitzvah of Mezuzah.

והא דאמר ר' מאיר בפרק רבי ישמעאל (מנחות דף סו:) תורמין משל עובד כוכבים על של ישראל


Implied Question: Rebbi Meir says in Menachos (66b) that one can take Terumah from a Nochri's produce to exempt the produce of a Yisrael. (Note: This implies that he holds that a Nochri does not have a Kinyan!)

התם איירי כשגדלו ביד ישראל ולהכי מוקי פלוגתייהו במירוח העובד כוכבים ולא ביש קנין


Answer: The case there is when the produce grew in the possession of a Jew. They therefore established their argument in a case where the Nochri gathered the produce together (a final step in making it obligated in Ma'aser) but not regarding whether or not a Nochri has a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael.

וכי פריך הכא לרבי אלעזר הוה מצי למימר אנא דאמרי כר"מ


Implied Question: When the Gemara here asks a question on Rebbi Elazar's opinion, he could have answered that he holds like Rebbi Meir. (Note: Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

אלא דמשני שפיר.


Answer: The Gemara gave a better answer.


TOSFOS DH "Mar Savar"

תוס' ד"ה "מר סבר"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding whether or not Rabah and Rebbi Elazar argue about a Nochri's Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael.)

מתוך פי' הקונטרס משמע דהא בהא תליא דלרבה דאמר אין קנין ודריש דיגונך ולא דיגון עובד כוכבים אית ליה מירוח העובד כוכבים פוטר ולר"א דאמר יש קנין ודריש דגנך ולא דגן עובד כוכבים אית ליה דמירוח העובד כוכבים אינו פוטר


Opinion: Rashi implies that one is dependent on the other. According to Rabah who says there is no Kinyan (for a Nochri) in Eretz Yisrael, and he derives "your gathering of grain - and not the gathering of Nochrim," the gathering of the produce by a Nochri exempts the produce from Ma'aser. Rebbi Elazar who holds there is a Kinyan (for a Nochri) in Eretz Yisrael, and he derives "your grain - and not the grain of Nochrim," the gathering of the produce by a Nochri does not exempt the produce from Ma'aser.

וקשה דכמה תנאים נחלקו במירוח העובד כוכבים ואם כן כל אותם תנאים נמי נחלקו ביש קנין ואין קנין וזהו דוחק דרבה ור' אלעזר נחלקו בפלוגתא דכל הנהו תנאי


Question#1: This is difficult. Many Tanaim argue regarding the gathering done by a Nochri. If so, all of those Tanaim also argue regarding whether or not there is a Kinyan for a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael. It is difficult to suggest that Rabah and Rebbi Elazar argue regarding an argument that is essentially a widespread argument among the Tanaim.

ועוד דמשמע במנחות בפרק רבי ישמעאל (דף סז.) דכולהו תנאי דרשי דיגונך ולא דיגון עובד כוכבים ואפילו מאן דמחייב מירוח העובד כוכבים אלא דדריש מיעוט אחר מיעוט דתרי דגנך כתיבי


Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara in Menachos (67a) implies that all of the Tanaim derive "your grain - and not the gathering of grain of Nochrim." Even one who obligates the gathering of Nochrim in Ma'aseros does so because he derives a Miut after another Miut of the word "Diganecha" -- "your grain" (read "Diguncha" in the Derasha, as explained above).

לכך נראה דרבה ורבי אלעזר אתו ככולי עלמא ודריש נמי ר' אלעזר דיגונך ולא דיגון עובד כוכבים מדכתיב דגנך ולא כתיב תבואתך דאי הוה כתיב תבואתך הוה דרשינן שפיר נמי תבואתך ולא תבואת עובד כוכבים ומ"מ דריש נמי דגנך ולא דגן עובד כוכבים מדלא כתיב דיגונך בהדיא


Answer: It therefore seems that Rabah and Rebbi Elazar can each hold like everyone. Rebbi Elazar also derives "Digunecha," and not the gathering of Nochrim. This is because the Torah states the word "Diguncha" instead of the normal word for produce, which is Tevuah. If it would say, "Tevuasecha," we would clearly derive that this is only applies to a Yisrael's produce, and not that of Nochrim. Even so, he still derives "Diguncha," and not the grain of Nochrim, as the Pasuk does not clearly state the word as "Digunecha."

וא"ת כי היכי דדרשי' גבי דיגונך למאן דמחייב מירוח העובד כוכבים אין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות הכי נמי נדרוש גבי דגנך


Question: Just as we derive "Digunecha" according to the opinion that the gathering of a Nochri makes the produce liable for the taking of Ma'aser, as (it says this twice and) an exclusive word after another exclusive word implies that we should include, why doesn't Rebbi Elazar similar derive this regarding grain of Nochrim? (Note: He should learn that while "Diguncha" would teach me that the grain of Nochrim is exempt, the fact that it says it twice indicates that we should include, and should teach that grain of Nochrim requires the taking of Ma'aseros.)

וי"ל דלא מיסתבר לאוקמי מיעוט אחר מיעוט לכל מילי.


Answer: It is not rational to say that this rule of two exclusions should apply to everything.


TOSFOS DH "Ada'ata"

תוס' ד"ה "אדעתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemaras does not contradict Rebbi Yochanan's opinion in the Yerushalmi.)

והא דפליגי ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש בירושלמי דפ"ו דמסכת פאה בהפקיר לישראל ולא לעובדי כוכבים דרבי יוחנן אמר הפקר


Implied Question: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue in the Yerushalmi in Pei'ah (ch. 6) regarding someone who declared something ownerless for Jews and not for Nochrim. Rebbi Yochanan said that it is indeed ownerless. (Note: Our Gemara implies that it is not really ownerless. How can we reconcile our Gemara with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan?)

הני מילי כי שקיל ליה ישראל אבל כי שקיל ליה עובד כוכבים הפקר בטעות הוא ואינו הפקר.


Answer: This (Rebbi Yochanan's statement) is only when a Jew takes it. However, (our Gemara which discusses) when a Nochri takes it, it is considered as having been made ownerless based on a mistaken assumption, and is not considered ownerless.




תוס' ד"ה "טבל"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the taking of Terumos and Ma'seros from this field.)

פי' בקונטרס אין לך כל חטה וחטה שאין חציה טבל וחציה חולין וצריך לעשר מיניה וביה ולא ממנו על טבל גמור ולא מטבל גמור עליו מפני שמפריש מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב


Opinion#1: Rashi says that there is no kernel of wheat that is not half Tevel and half Chulin. Ma'aser has to be taken from this produce alone on the rest of this produce, and cannot be taken to exempt regular Tevel. Similarly, Ma'aser cannot be taken from regular Tevel to exempt this produce. This is because he is separating from obligated grain on exempt grain, and from exempt grain on obligated grain.

אבל כי מפריש מיניה וביה מעשר מן החיוב שבו על החיוב שבו ומן הפטור שבו על הפטור שבו ואפילו חלקו בספקן הן עומדים דאין ברירה


However, when he separates Ma'aser from the produce itself, he is separating from the obligated half on the obligated half, and from the exempt half on the exempt half. Even if they divided the grains, they are still in a doubtful situation (after the division and the Jew also owns grains that are half Tevel and half exempt), as we do not hold of Breirah.

וקשה דאמר לקמן דאי קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי והאחים שחלקו לקוחות הן לא משכחת דמייתי בכורים אלא חד בר חד


Question#1: The Gemara says later that if acquiring the fruit is not considered acquiring the body (i.e. a tree or land), and brothers who divide an estate are considered like buyers, we would not find a case where one must bring Bikurim unless there is an only son who inherited the land from his father who was also an only son.

הא אפילו למ"ד אין ברירה יש לו בודאי חלק בו דמחייב בבכורים והמותר שהוא חולין מצי מקדיש ליה כדאמרינן בפרק הספינה (ב"ב דף פא:)


Even according to the opinion that holds one cannot retroactively determine a status, he definitely has a portion in the land and is obligated to bring Bikurim. The rest that is Chulin he can be Makdish, as stated in Bava Basra (81b). (Note: How can the Gemara ask that he would not bring Bikurim according to Rashi's explanation here that the grain remains half Tevel and half exempt?)

ודוחק לומר דלא משכחת דמייתי בכורים כהלכתן שלא יצטרך להקדיש קאמר דלישנא משמע דלא מייתי כלל קאמר


It is difficult to say that the Gemara means that we will not find anyone who can bring Bikurim without having to be Makdish fruit. The Gemara's question implies that nobody would be able to bring (besides the only son of an only son etc.) at all!

ועוד בפ' יש בכור (בכורות דף מח:) גבי חמש סלעים ולא חצי חמש


Question#2: Additionally, in Bechoros (48b) the Gemara says that one pays five Selaim and not five halves. (Note: The case is where the Kohen wants to collect money from a Pidyon ha'Ben when the father died after his firstborn sons (one was the firstborn, it is not clear who) became thirty days old. The father only left a total of five Sela'im.Rebbi Meir holds that the Kohen would collect all five Sela'im, while Rebbi Yehuda holds he would collect five halves, as the half that is considered purchased cannot be collected from (see Gemara there at length).)

קאמר דכו"ע אית להו דרב אסי דאמר האחין שחלקו מחצה יורשין ומחצה לקוחות משמע אבל אי לקוחות הן פטורין אפי' למ"ד חמש ואפילו חצי חמש דאפי' חצי חמש ליכא


The Gemara there says that everyone agrees to the opinion of Rav Asi that brothers who split the estate of their father are considered to be half inheritors and half purchasers. This implies that if they were purchasers, they would even be exempt according to the opinion that in this case he can collect all of the five Sela'im. He would not even collect half of five Sela'im in such a case! (Note: According to Rashi that even after the grain is divided it has a status of half Tevel and half exempt, the case in Bechoros should remain as an argument even if they are like buyers. However, the Gemara implies otherwise.)

לכך נראה דאין תקנה לטבל זה דכיון דאין ברירה שמא הגיע לו כל חלקו של עובד כוכבים או חציו ולא ידעי' כמה ואי מעשר מיניה וביה שמא מעשר מחלקו והשאר חלקו של עובד כוכבים או איפכא או מקצתו


Opinion#2: It therefore seems that there is no rectifying the status of Tevel of this grain. Being that there is no establishing of a status retroactively, perhaps the Jew received the entire portion of the Nochri's grain, or half of it. We really don't know how much he received. If he took off Ma'aser from these grains themselves on the rest of this grain, perhaps he is taking off grain from his portion, and the rest belongs to a Nochri (and is exempt). Or perhaps he is doing the opposite, or he is redeeming partial amounts. (Note: Being that it is impossible to know, it does not work.)

ומיהו יכול לתקנן שיפריש עליו ממקום אחר ויפריש גם עליו ממקום אחר ואחרון אחרון מקולקל עד שלא ישאר כי אם מעט וכל המעשרות והתרומות יתנם לכהן וללוי.


However, he can rectify the grain by separating Ma'aser on it from somewhere else, and he will separate Ma'aser on the Ma'aser from a third place. The last grain that he takes the Ma'aseros from have a forbidden status, and this continues until he only has a small amount. All of these Ma'aseros and Terumos should be given to the Kohen and Levi. (Note: See Maharam Shif who asks that the first Ma'aseros taken off should not have to go to the Kohen or Levi, as he can claim that they were not necessarily needed, as they might have been separated for a field that did not require the taking of Terumos and Ma'aseros.)


TOSFOS DH "u'li'Veisecha"

תוס' ד"ה "ולביתך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Torah took practical fact into consideration, even when those facts are not mandated by Torah law.)

וא"ת והא מן התורה אין לבעל פירות בנכסי אשתו אלא תקנתא דרבנן בעלמא היא א"כ ע"כ גזירת הכתוב הוא


Question: According to Torah law, a husband does not have any fruit from the possessions of his wife. It is merely a Rabbinical decree (that he may benefit from the fruit). If so, this must be a special Torah derivation regarding Bikurim (and not a general law)!

ויש לומר דרך נשים שנותנות פירות לבעליהן וכי האי גוונא איירי קרא


Answer: It is normal for women to give fruit to their husbands. The Pasuk is talking about such a scenario (not when the husband seizes his wife's fruit).

וכענין זה אמרינן בריש קידושין (דף ד.) אי כתב רחמנא מעשה ידיה לאביה דקא מיתזנא מיניה ואע"ג דמדאורייתא אינו חייב במזונות בתו אלא דאורחא דמילתא הוא שהוא זן אותה.


We say a similar thing in Kidushin (4a). The Gemara (ibid.) says that if the Torah had written that the benefit of her work (i.e. wages) goes to her father, we would have though that this is because he pays for her food. Even though according to Torah law one is not obligated to feed his daughter, it is normal that he feeds her. (Note: This is why the Torah will factor it into the law, even though it is not obligated by Torah law.)


TOSFOS DH "Meisah"

תוס' ד"ה "מתה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question and answer of our Gemara.)

וא"ת מאי קושיא דרבי יוחנן דאמר כתנא דלביתך דמה נפשך פליג


Question: What is the question? Rebbi Yochanan can say that he holds like the opinion of the Tana who derived that a person brings the Bikurim of his wife from the Pasuk of "u'li'Veisecha," as this Tana clearly argues on this Beraisa.

וי"ל דאיכא לאוקמה במתה כי הך


Answer: It is possible to say that the Beraisa of "u'li'Veisecha" also is talking about a wife who died, just as this Beraisa is talking about such a case. (Note: Rebbi Yochanan would therefore not have a Tana who clearly agrees with him.)

וא"ת ולישני דהך דמתה בשלא זכתה האשה פירות נכסיה לבעל


Question: Why don't we answer that the case of the Beraisa is when the woman died and did not previously give the fruit to the husband?

וי"ל דברייתא קתני אף בתר דתקון רבנן פירות לבעל


Answer#1: The Beraisa was stated even after the Rabbanan instituted that the husband could eat the fruit (of his wife's possessions).

ועוד דהוה ליה כקונה פירות בשוק ואח"כ קנה שדה דאינו קורא כדאמרי' במסכת בכורים (פ"א) אבל לריש לקיש שהיו לו פירות תחילה אתי שפיר דבמתה מביא וקורא כיון דמעיקרא אגיד בה לפירות.


Answer#2: Additionally, he is like someone who buys fruit in the marketplace and afterwards buys a field (when his wife died he acquired the field). He does not read the reading for when one brings Bikurim, as stated in Bikurim (the Maharav Mei'Ranshburg says this is referring to the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Bikurim). However, according to Reish Lakish that he had the fruit originally, it is understandable that when she dies he can bring Bikurim and read the reading of Bikurim, since he was originally tied to the fruit of the land.


TOSFOS DH "Batzran"

תוס' ד"ה "בצרן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and the Rashbam argue regarding the explanation of the Gemara in Bava Basra quoted here.)

פי' רבינו שמואל בהספינה (ב"ב פא:) בצרן הבעל ושגרן ביד שליח דאם בצרן שליח והביאן השליח בירושלים שליח ודאי אין יכול לקרות כדתנן במסכת בכורים (פ"א מ"ה) אבל הבעלים קורין דיכולין לומר הנה הבאתי דשלוחו של אדם כמותו


Explanation: Rabeinu Shmuel explains in Bava Basra (81b) that the case is where the husband harvested them and sent them with a messenger. If the messenger harvested them and brought them to Yerushalayim, the messenger certainly cannot read the reading of Bikurim, as stated in Bikurim (1:5). However, the owners can read, as they can say, "Behold I have brought etc." as a person's messenger is like himself.

וקשה לרבינו תם למאי דחשיב לבצירה לקיחה למה ליה למימר ומת שליח הוה ליה למתני בצרן הוא ושגרן ביד השליח או שבצרן שליח והביאן הוא


Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this explanation. If harvesting is equivalent to taking, why should the case be that the messenger died? It should have said either that he harvested and sent it with a messenger, or that his messenger harvested and he brought the Bikurim! (Note: The Maharam explains that Rabeinu Tam's question is in fact based on Rabeinu Shmuel's text in the Gemara in Bava Basra (81b) of "the husband harvested them and sent them with a messenger, or the messenger died." Rabeinu Shmuel seems to be saying that harvesting is deemed "taking" and sending them is called "bringing." The other case is that the messenger died on the road after harvesting them himself. If the main point is the "bringing," why involve a case where the messenger died?)

וי"ל דאשמועינן רבותא דאע"ג דמת שליח וגמרו הבעלים הבאה דאיכא לקיחה ומקצת הבאה בבעלים אפי' הכי אינו קורא דבעינן לקיחה וכל הבאה באחד


Answer: The Gemara is telling us an additional fact that even though the messenger died and the owners finished the bringing, meaning that there was a "taking" and partial "bringing" done by the owner, even so he cannot read the reading of Bikurim. This is because the entire taking and bringing must be done with one person. (Note: This is not an answer for the Rashbam, but rather saying that one could say a similar explanation to that of the Rashbam (see Maharam).)

ואי גרסינן או מת אתי נמי שפיר וזו אף זו קתני


Answer#2: If the text is "or he died" this is also understandable, as it would be saying, "not only in this case, but also in this case (he cannot read)."

ור"ת מפרש דבצירה לאו היינו לקיחה ובצרן אורחא דמילתא נקט שבעלים בוצרים כדי לעשות בעין יפה לפי שאין שיעור לבכורים ולקיחה היינו לקיחה מתוך הבית וחדא קתני בצרן ושגרן ביד השליח ומת שליח בדרך דאז הוא רגילות שמביאן אחר ולא הוי לקיחה והבאה באחד.


Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that harvesting is not "taking." Harvesting is only mentioned because it is normal for owners to harvest Bikurim in order to give a generous amount of Bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash, as there is no limit to how much Bikurim one can give. "Taking" means taking from the house. The Gemara in Bava Basra (81b) is actually saying one case. The case is that if the owner harvested (not called "taking") and sent them with a messenger and the messenger died on the road. It is normal that someone else will bring them the rest of the way, meaning that the taking and bringing will end up being done by two different people.



תוס' ד"ה "מביא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not say the fruit should rot, as is indeed stated in a similar case in Makos.)

וא"ת ונימא ירקבו כדאמרינן בפרק בתרא דמכות (דף יח:) הפריש בכורים קודם החג ועבר עליהן החג ירקבו משום דנראו לקריאה ונדחו וכל שאין ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו והכא נמי כשבצרן נראו לקריאה וכששיגרן נדחו


Question: Why don't we say they should rot? This would be similar to what we say in Makos (18b) that if someone separated Bikurim before Sukos and Sukos passed, they should be left to rot. This is because they were able to be brought and have the reading of Bikurim read, and now they cannot (as one does not read after Sukos). The rule is "Kol she'Aino Ra'uy l'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo." (Note: Loosely translated, this means that a Mitzvah that is not currently fit to have one of the steps of a Mitzvah done to it, even if that step is normally not required to fulfil the Mitzvah, it renders the performance of that Mitzvah invalid.) Applying this to our case, we should similarly say that being that when he harvested them they were able to have the reading of Bikurim said on them, and when he sent them they were pushed aside, he should no longer fulfil his Mitzvah with them at all, and he should leave them to rot!

ויש לומר דאמר בירושלמי דמסכת בכורים רבי אסי אמר ריש לקיש בשם רבי אושעיא כשליקטן לשלחן ביד אחר אבל אם לקטן להביאן הוא לא ישלחם ביד אחר שכל הבכורים שנראו לקריאה אין ניתרין אלא בקריאה


Answer: The Yerushalmi in Bikurim says that Rebbi Asi says in the name of Reish Lakish in the name of Rebbi Oshiya that the case is where he harvested the Bikurim with intent that he was going to send them with a messenger. However, if he harvested them in order to bring them himself, he indeed should not send them with a messenger. This is because any Bikurim that are supposed to have the reading of Bikurim read when they are brought are only permitted when the reading of Bikurim are read.

ואמרינן התם מתניתין פליגא הפריש בכורים ומכר שדהו מביא ואינו קורא קיימנוה כשנתן דעתו למכור משעה ראשונה


The Yerushalmi says there that our Mishnah in Bikurim (1:7) seems to argue on Rebbi Asi's principle. In a case where he separated Bikurim and then sold his field he brings the Bikurim, but does not read the reading of Bikurim. We can establish that the case (in the Mishna ibid.) is when he had in mind to sell the field originally.

ולפי זה אם הפריש בכורים קודם החג על מנת להביאן אחר החג לא ירקבו אלא אחר החג מביא ואינו קורא.


Accordingly, if he separated Bikurim before Sukos in order to bring them after Sukos, they should not rot. After Sukos, he brings them but does not read the reading of Bikurim.