Commentary for Bava Batra 160:17

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בשאר מיני ארזים כדרבה בר רב הונא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא אמרי בי רב י' מיני ארזים הן שנאמר (ישעיהו מא, יט) אתן במדבר ארז שיטה והדס ועץ שמן אשים וגו' ארז ארזא שיטה תורניתא הדס אסא עץ שמן אפרסמא ברוש ברתי תדהר שאגא ותאשור שורבינא

if palm-tree has been mentioned, why mention [also] the cedar, and if cedar has been mentioned, why mention [also] palm-tree? If cedar [only], had been mentioned and not palm-tree, it might have been implied that as the cedar produces no [edible] fruit, so will the righteous produce no fruit, therefore palm-tree has been mentioned. And if palm-tree had been mentioned but not cedar, it would have been implied that as the stump of the palm-tree does not grow afresh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the main portion of the tree had been cut. ');">³¹</span> so the shoot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his seed, or if he falls he will not rise again (Rashb.). ');">³²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 160:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.