Commentary for Bava Metzia 106:6

ונפרקיה האמר רבא מחיצה לאכול דאורייתא מחיצה לקלוט דרבנן וכי גזרו רבנן כי איתנהו למחיצות כי ליתנהו למחיצות לא גזרו רבנן לא פלוג רבנן

R. Huna b. Judah said in R. Shesheth's name: A single clause is taught, [viz.,] Second tithe [produce] worth less than a <i>perutah</i> which has entered Jerusalem and gone forth [again].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This answers the objection against Hezekiah from the cited Baraitha (q.v. supra), the reason no resort can be had to Hezekiah's device being that the tithe has been 'retained' by the barriers, when redemption is no longer possible. — The Talmud proceeds to raise the same objections against this answer as against the previous explanation. ');">¹¹</span> But why so? Let it be taken back and eaten! — It means that the walls had fallen. Then let it be redeemed, for Raba said: The law of the walls [of Jerusalem], in that it [the second tithe] must be eaten within them, is Biblical; but that they have retaining power is merely Rabbinical; and [consequently, ought we not to say] when would the Rabbis enact thus: only as long as the walls were standing, but not when they no longer existed [having fallen]! — The Rabbis drew no distinction. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason of non-redemption is the 'retaining' power of the walls of Jerusalem. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 106:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.