Previous Folio / Baba Mezi'a Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Mezi'a

Baba Mezi'a 119a

And we learnt1  similarly in the case of 'orlah:2  A tree which issues from the trunk or from the roots is subject to 'orlah: this is the opinion of R. Meir.3  R. Judah said: That which grows out of the trunk is not subject thereto;4  but out of the roots, is subject. And both are necessary. For if the first were taught, [I would argue,] only there does R. Judah rule so, because it is [a question of] civil law.5  But with respect to 'orlah, which is a ritual prohibition6  I might think that he agrees with R. Meir. And if the latter were taught, I might argue, only here does R. Meir rule so, but in the former case he agrees with R. Judah. Hence both are necessary.

R. SIMEON SAID: AS FAR AS THE OWNER OF THE UPPER GARDEN CAN STRETCH OUT HIS HAND, etc. The disciples of R. Jannai said: providing, however, that he does not strain himself. R. 'Anan — or according to others, R. Jeremiah — propounded: What if he can reach its leaves but not the roots, or he can reach the roots but not the leaves?7  The problem remains unsolved.

Ephraim the Scribe, a disciple of Resh Lakish, said on the authority of the latter: The halachah agrees with R. Simeon. When this was told to King Shapur.8  he observed, 'Let a palanquin be put up for R. Simeon.'9

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. [Var. lec.: 'It has been taught.' the citation that follows not being from a Mishnah but from Tosef. 'Orl.]
  2. V. Glos.
  3. In both cases he regards it as a new growth from the earth.
  4. It being regarded as part of the old tree.
  5. Lit., 'money'.
  6. And where such is in doubt, the more stringent ruling is adopted.
  7. [Omitted in some texts, there being no question that in this case it is considered to be within his reach; v. Wilna Gaon, Glosses.]
  8. King Shapur I, a contemporary of Samuel and a close friend of his. Rashi argues that he is actually meant, as he was well versed in Jewish civil law, and dismisses the theory of other commentators that this is an allusion to Samuel, who was frequently so designated. [On the interest of King Shapur I in Jewish customs and practices, prompted probably by his desire to win Jewish support in his struggle with the Romans, cf. Suk. 53a and A.Z. 76b; v. Funk, op. cit., p. 72.]
  9. He deserves a triumphal procession for his acuteness in civil law.