Gittin

tebel and hullin  are inextricably mixed up in it.  This is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that the part belonging to the heathen is exempt [from tithe], and the part belonging to the Israelite is subject to it'.  Now [are we not to say that] the extent of their difference consists in this, that the one authority [R. Simeon] holds that a distinction can be made retrospectively,  while the other holds that no distinction can be made retrospectively, but both are agreed that a heathen can own land in the land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe?  — Here too we are dealing with land in Syria, and [R. Simeon] took the view that the annexation of an individual is not legally regarded as annexation. R. Hiyya b. Abin said: Come and hear. IF ONE SELLS HIS FIELD TO A HEATHEN, HE MUST BUY FROM HIM THE FIRSTFRUITS AND TAKE THEM TO JERUSALEM, TO PREVENT ABUSES. That is to say, the reason is to prevent abuses, but the Torah itself does not prescribe this?  — R. Ashi replied: There were two regulations. At first they [the sellers of the fields] used to bring the firstfruits as enjoined in the Torah. When [the Sages] saw that they made the recital [over them]  and still sold [fields], being under the impression that the fields still retained their holiness, they ordained that [the firstfruits] should not be brought. When they saw that those who were short of money still sold and the fields remained in the hands of the heathen, they ordained that they should be brought. It has been stated: If a man sells his field in respect of the produce only,  R. Johanan says that [the purchaser] brings the firstfruits and makes the recital [over them],  while Resh Lakish says that he brings them but makes no recital.  R. Johanan who says that he brings and recites is of the opinion that the possession of the increment is equivalent to possession of the [parent] body, while Resh Lakish who says that he brings without reciting is of opinion that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish [from the following]: [And thou shalt rejoice in all the good which the Lord hath given to thee] and to thy house:  this teaches that a man brings the firstfruits of his wife  and makes the recital! — Resh Lakish rejoined: There is a special reason there,  because the text says 'his house'.  According to another report, Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan [by quoting to him]: 'And to thy house:' this shows that a man brings the firstfruits of his wife and makes the recital. This, [continued Resh Lakish,] is the rule in the case of the wife, because the text says and to thy house, but in other cases not! — R. Johanan replied: I derive my reason also from the same verse.  He [then] raised an objection [from the following]: 'If while he was on the road bringing the firstfruits of his wife he heard that his wife had died, he brings them and makes the recital,' which means, [I take it], that if she did not die he does not make the recital?  — No, [he replied]; the rule is the same even if she did not die, but it had to be stated also in regard to the case of her dying, [for this reason]. It might have occurred to us that [in this case] we should as a precaution prohibit [the husband from reciting] on account of the ruling of R. Jose b. Hanina who laid down that if a man gathered his grapes and commissioned another man to bring them [to Jerusalem] and the person commissioned died on the way, he [himself] brings them but does not make the recital, because it says, and thou shalt take …  and thou shalt bring,  which implies that the taking and the bringing must be performed by the same person.  We are therefore told [that we do not take this precaution]. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish are herein true to their own principles, as stated elsewhere: If a man sells his field