Commentary for Bava Metzia 174:10
וזית במה הצד אתי הוא גופיה כרם איקרי דכתיב (שופטים טו, ה) ויבער מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית אמר רב פפא כרם זית אקרי כרם סתמא לא אקרי
just as there, a kamah which is liable to <i>hallah</i> is meant, so here too.) [Hence, repeating the difficulty] one may refute [the analogy drawn from standing corn]: as for standing corn, that is because it is liable to <i>hallah</i>! — Then let the vineyard prove it. As for a vineyards that is because it is liable to [the law of] gleanings! — Let the standing corn prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the peculiarity of one is not that of the other, and vice versa. The feature common to both is, they grow from the soil, and the worker may [thus] eat of them when their labour is being finished; so also, everything which grows from the soil, when at the completion of its labour, the worker may eat of it. [No, this does not follow, as it might be argued that] their common feature is that both are used in connection with the altar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine for libations and meal for meal offerings. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 174:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.