Honeybees
From Halachipedia
Honeybees play a key role in Jewish life- the traditional food accompanying Rosh Hashana is apples dipped in honey.
Honeybees are frequently mentioned in the mishna and the Gemara and many famous principles of Halacha are derived from halachos relating to bees.
Relevant Halachos for Bees
Often times, bees will leave their hive and swarm in a nearby area in order to construct a new hive. During the time that bees are swarming, they are very docile and easy to collect.
- Bees are only considered owned by their beekeeper on a rabbinic level. [1]
- When bee swarms fly into the property of a different person, the original owner of the bees is allowed to trespass in order to return the bees.
- The owner of the property where the bees have swarmed in prohibited on a rabbinic level from taking the bees. The owner of the property is required to allow the original owner to enter in order to pick up the bees.
- There is a dispute whether the original owner of the bees is permitted to cut a branch in order to take off the bees. Some say that the original owner cannot cut the branch. Others say that the original owner is allowed is permitted to cut a branch to remove the bees, but he must compensate the branch owner for the value of the branch
- The original bee owner must have a witness that the bees flew from his property into the property of a neighbor
- The original bee owner is allowed to use witnesses not normally believed in other realms of halacha, according to the principle of mesiach lefi tuma- "he testifies according to his simplicity"
- Children and women are believed to testify where the bees flew from because of mesiach lefi tumo. Some say that this is only true if they testified in the moment. If the witnesses only testified later, we suspect that they were coached into testifying and thus invalidate their testimony. Others say that the witnesses are always believed
- The Gemara explains that we are lenient for the testimony in permitting mesiah lefi tumo for bees because bees are only owned on a rabbinic level.
- ↑ Bava Kama 114b. Tosfos(ibid) immediately asks why the beekeeper does not acquire ownership of the bees via his lifting of the beehive. The Talmud declares that someone can acquire something by virtue of the item being in a utensil or a courtyard owned by an individual. Why does the Torah not grant ownership to bees via the beehives? Rav Moshe Zacuto, in the Kol Ramaz (on mishnayot Bava Kama) , sidesteps the question, insisting that Tosfos is completely correct. However, when the gemara says that bee ownership is only on a rabbinic level, it is merely stated with respect to bees not placed in beehives. However, the Torah does recognize ownership of bees placed in bee hives. In a Tosaft Shantz (shita mekubezet ibid), they record an answer to the Tosafetic question of why bees are not acquired. They argue that since the bees always retain freedom of movement, the beehive and the wider property of the beekeeper never establish acquisition over the bee, since the bees “fly and are able to flee.” The Rogachover (Tzafnat Paneach Hilchot Schita 13.3) argues that two other answers to Tosfos’ question can be found among the Rishonim. The gemara in chullin (139a) explains that chickens lose ownership, when they revolt against their owner and run away. Tosafos on this gemara (ibid) expands this doctrine to say that all birds that run away become ownerless. The Rogachover argued that this bird case is exactly analogous to our bee-swarming cases. Bees swarm when they no longer desire to maintain residence in their former hives. The Rogachver also explores an intriguing formulation in the Rambam’s Mishnah Torah (Hilchot Gzeila and Aveida 6.14). The Rambam declares “bees are not in the realm (rishut) of man, like chickens and ducks, and even so there is rabbinic ownership in them.” The Rogachover argues that the Rambam’s formulation should be understood as going farther than all aforementioned answers. The Rambam rejects private property; at least over bees. All the previous answers assumed that bees can be acquired, and argued that the reason that they are not acquired is because of technical faults in the methods of acquisition. Practically speaking, it is not possible to find a method by which bees can be acquired, but bees are theoretically, “acquireable.” In contrast to these views, the Rambam seems to assert that bees are not “theoretically acquireable,” that even when bees are based in someone’s estate, they are only superficially associated with him, since bees are not in the realm of their owner. Usually, the term “realm” is used in reference to property that is lost, in different possession. The Rambam expands the meaning of the term to encompass property which is physically around, but still separated from its human owners. As we mentioned, this term is perfect with respect to the bees as the owner cannot even touch his acquisitions. The owner cannot limit his hive; they function autonomously, and the beekeeper profits off their hard work. The Rogachover (ibid) quotes an amoraic dispute in Sanhedrin (15b) whether it is permissible to kill lions and wolves. Everyone agrees that animals which have killed people can be killed. However Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan dispute whether it is permissible to kill not-murderous, or perhaps not-yet murderous animals. Rabbi Yochanan says it is permissible to kill said animals, and explains that these animals are killed because they cannot be owned, they lack “domestication (tarbut).” The Rogochover argues that we can see the source for the Maimonidean opinion in this debate. The Rambam seems to take a wider perspective on lack of domestication, insisting that not only can one not possess dangerous beasts, but rather anything which cannot be possessed by men and domesticated.
