In this daf, we are zocheh to delve deeper into the halachos of a perforated pot (an atzitz nakuv) and how the Torah views its connection to the ground. We begin by concluding the sugya of writing a get on a leaf inside a potted plant, exploring the Rabbinic decrees instituted to prevent a husband from invalidating the get by detaching it before delivery. From there, the Gemara transitions into the complex halachos of kinyanim (acts of acquisition), analyzing how one acquires a pot and its plants when they belong to different owners, and how the halachic status of the plants as "attached to the ground" affects the kinyan of the pot itself.
דְּשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ.
The Gemara explains that the first Tanna permits writing a get on a leaf inside a perforated pot as he can take it, meaning the pot with the leaf inside it, and give it to her, and this constitutes a valid delivery of the get.
רָבָא אָמַר פָּסוּל – גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְטוֹם.
Rava says that such a get is invalid, because of a Rabbinic decree lest he detach the leaf from the pot before giving it to her, in which case the get would have been written while attached to the ground, which is invalid.
עָצִיץ שֶׁל אֶחָד וּזְרָעִים שֶׁל אַחֵר; מָכַר בַּעַל עָצִיץ לְבַעַל זְרָעִים – כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ, קָנָה.
If there is a perforated pot belonging to one person and plants growing in it belonging to another person; if the owner of the pot sold the pot to the owner of the plants, once the buyer pulled the pot, he has acquired it, since the pot is movable property.
מָכַר בַּעַל זְרָעִים לְבַעַל עָצִיץ – לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים.
But if the owner of the plants sold the plants to the owner of the pot, he has not acquired them until he takes possession of the plants through an act of chazakah, because the plants are considered attached to the ground and cannot be acquired by pulling.
עָצִיץ וּזְרָעִים שֶׁל אֶחָד, וּמְכָרָן לְאַחֵר; הֶחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים – קָנָה עָצִיץ.
If the pot and the plants belong to one person, and he sold them both to another person; if the buyer took possession of the plants, he has also acquired the pot.
וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת – בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה.
And this is an application of that which we learned in a Mishnah: Property that does not serve as security, which is movable property, can be acquired along with property that has security, which is land, through money, through a document, or through taking possession.
הֶחְזִיק בְּעָצִיץ – אַף עָצִיץ לֹא קָנָה, עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים.
However, if the buyer merely took possession of the pot, he has not even acquired the pot, until he takes possession of the plants, because movable property cannot be acquired through an act of chazakah.
נִקְבּוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹפוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?
If a perforated pot was on the border, and its perforation was in the Land of Israel and its foliage was outside of the Land of Israel, what is the halachic status of its produce?
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בָּתַר נִקְבּוֹ אָזְלִינַן.
Abaye said: We follow its perforation, and it is considered as growing in Eretz Yisrael.
רָבָא אָמַר: בָּתַר נוֹפוֹ אָזְלִינַן.
Rava said: We follow its foliage, and it is considered as growing outside of Eretz Yisrael.
בִּדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי.
The Gemara notes: In a case where the plant took root in the ground through the perforation, everyone agrees that we follow the place of the roots.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בִּדְלָא אַשְׁרוּשׁ.
When they disagree, it is in a case where it did not take root in the ground.
וּבִדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ לָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָתְנַן:
The Gemara asks: And in a case where it took root, do they not disagree? But didn't we learn in a Mishnah:
שְׁתֵּי גִּינּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, וְיָרָק בֵּינְתַיִם,
If there are two gardens, one on top of the other on a hillside, and vegetables are growing between them on the vertical wall of earth,
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן!
Rabbi Meir says the vegetables belong to the upper owner, because they draw nourishment from his soil, and Rabbi Yehuda says they belong to the lower owner, because they grow in his airspace. This shows they dispute a case where the roots are in one place and the foliage in another!
הָתָם, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא – אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מָה אִם יִרְצֶה עֶלְיוֹן לִיטּוֹל אֶת עֲפָרוֹ, אֵין כָּאן יָרָק!
The Gemara answers: There, the dispute is based on a different reason, as the reason is taught in that Mishnah: Rabbi Meir said, what if the upper owner wants to take away his soil? There would be no vegetables here at all, so they must belong to him.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מָה אִם יִרְצֶה הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַלּאוֹת אֶת גִּנָּתוֹ עָפָר, אֵין כָּאן יָרָק!
And Rabbi Yehuda said, what if the lower owner wants to fill his garden with soil? There would be no vegetables here because they would be buried, so they must belong to him. Thus, their dispute is about ownership rights, not botanical definition.
וְאַכַּתִּי, בִּדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ לָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא:
The Gemara asks: And still, in a case where it took root, do they not disagree? But isn't it taught in a Braisa:
אִילָן – מִקְצָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ; טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
If there is a tree, part of which is in the Land of Israel and part of which is outside of the Land of Israel; the tevel, which is untithed produce, and chullin, which is non-sacred exempt produce, are mixed together in every single fruit, these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַגָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, וְהַגָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר.
But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: That which grows in the area of obligation, in Eretz Yisrael, is obligated in tithes, and that which grows in the area of exemption, outside the Land, is exempt.
מַאי לָאו, מִקְצָת נוֹפוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָת נוֹפוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?
Is it not referring to a case where part of its foliage is in the Land and part of its foliage is outside of the Land, while the roots are in one place, showing they dispute a case where it took root?
לֹא; מִקְצָת שׇׁרָשִׁין בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָת שׇׁרָשִׁין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
The Gemara answers: No, it is a case where part of the roots are in the Land and part of the roots are outside of the Land.
וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל?
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says we can separate the fruits?
דְּמַפְסִיק צוּנְמָא.
The Gemara answers: It is a case where a hard rock divides the roots all the way up the trunk, so they do not mix.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי?
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi, who says they are mixed?
דְּהָדְרִי עׇרְבִי.
The Gemara answers: He holds that they return and mix inside the trunk.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara asks: In what principle do they disagree?
מָר סָבַר: אַוֵּירָא מְבַלְבֵּל, וּמָר סָבַר: הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי.
One Master, Rabbi, holds that the air and sap inside the tree mixes the nourishment, and one Master, Rabban Shimon, holds that this side stands on its own and that side stands on its own.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳:
The Gemara returns to the Mishnah's statement: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says etc., that a get may not be written on paper from which writing has been erased.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַסִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹרוֹת הֵן: מַצָּה, חִיפָּה וְדִיפְתְּרָא.
Rabbi Chiyya bar Assi said in the name of Ulla: There are three stages of processed hides: matzah, chipah, and diftera.
מַצָּה – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, דְּלָא מְלִיחַ וּדְלָא קְמִיחַ וּדְלָא אֲפִיץ.
Matzah is as its name implies, like unleavened bread that has not been worked, namely a hide that is not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts.
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת.
For what halachic purpose is this definition relevant? For the laws of carrying out on Shabbos.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ?
And how much is its minimum measure to be liable for carrying it out on Shabbos?
כִּדְקָתָנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: כְּדֵי לָצוּר מִשְׁקָל קְטַנָּה.
It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught: Enough to wrap a small weight.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי רִיבְעָא דְרִיבְעָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.
And how much is that? Abaye said: Like a quarter of a quarter of a weight of Pumbedita.
חִיפָּה – דִּמְלִיחַ, וְלָא קְמִיחַ וְלָא אֲפִיץ.
Chipah is a hide that is salted, but not treated with flour and not treated with gallnuts.
לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת.
For what halachic purpose is this relevant? For carrying out on Shabbos.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? כְּדִתְנַן: עוֹר – כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵיעַ.
And how much is its measure? As we learned in a Mishnah: For processed hide, enough to make an amulet.
דִּיפְתְּרָא – דִּמְלִיחַ וּקְמִיחַ, וְלָא אֲפִיץ.
Diftera is a hide that is salted and treated with flour, but not treated with gallnuts.
לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת.
For what halachic purpose is this relevant? For carrying out on Shabbos.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב עָלָיו אֶת הַגֵּט.
And how much is its measure? Enough to write a get upon it.
וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין: מַאן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר:
The Mishnah stated: And the Sages declare it valid to write on erased paper. The Gemara asks: Who are the Sages? Rabbi Eleazar said:
The Gemara then moves to a fascinating discussion regarding a perforated pot situated on the border of Eretz Yisrael, where the perforation is on one side of the border and the branches are on the other. We learn of the machlokes between Abaye and Rava over whether we follow the location of the perforation or the branches to determine if the produce is obligated in terumos and ma'asros. The Gemara clarifies that this dispute applies when the plant has not taken root in the ground, and goes on to analyze adjacent cases of ownership disputes over plants growing on terrace walls, as well as a tree that spans the border of Eretz Yisrael, to understand how the roots and branches define the halachic status of the fruit.
Our daf discusses a perforated pot, where the plant inside is physically separate from the earth but still draws its life and halachic status from the ground beneath it through that small opening. Even when a plant seems to stand on its own, its true identity and growth depend entirely on where it is rooted.
This is a profound lesson for our own avodah. A Yid can sometimes feel like a self-contained pot, moving through the world and managing life on his own strength. But the truth is, we only thrive when we keep our connection to our source open. If we close up that spiritual perforation—our daily learning, our heartfelt tefillah, our attachment to Torah scholars—we cut ourselves off from the very ground that feeds our neshama.
Today, make sure your connection to your Source is wide open. Before you begin your daily learning or daven Mincha, pause for ten seconds to consciously realize that you are drawing your life, your strength, and your success directly from the Aibershter.