Commentary for Bava Kamma 182:21

וכי מאחר שסופו לרבות כל דבר מה ת"ל כי לא עץ מאכל להקדים סרק למאכל

has to cover it; but it once happened that a certain person performed the slaughter and another anticipated him and covered [the blood], and R. Gamaliel condemned the latter to pay ten gold coins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 87a. ');">²⁰</span> Rab said: A palm tree producing even one <i>kab</i> of fruit may not be cut down. An objection was raised [from the following]: What quantity should be on an olive tree so that it should not be permitted to cut it down? A quarter of a <i>kab</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. IV, 10. [Why then should the palm tree require a bigger quantity?] ');">²¹</span> — Olives are different as they are more important. R. Hanina said: Shibhath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 26a. There he is called 'Shikhath'. ');">²²</span> my son did not pass away except for having cut down a fig tree before its time. Rabina, however, said: If its value [for other purposes] exceeds that for fruit, it is permitted [to cut it down]. It was also taught to the same effect: 'Only the trees of which thou knowest'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XX, 20. ');">²³</span> implies even fruit-bearing trees;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That is where it is known that they no longer produce any fruits, v. Malbim, a.l.] ');">²⁴</span> That they be not trees for meat, means a wild tree. But since we ultimately include all things, why then was it stated, That they are not trees for food? To give priority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be cut down. ');">²⁵</span> to a wild tree over one bearing edible fruits.

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 182:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.