Commentary for Bava Metzia 175:9

ולוקח מדאורייתא מי מחייב והתניא מפני מה חרבו חנויות של בית הינו שלש שנים קודם ירושלים מפני שהעמידו דבריהם על דברי תורה שהיו אומרין

— R. Papa said: This refers to a fig tree growing in a garden, but with its branches inclining to the court-yard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that immediately the fruit is plucked it sees the front thereof. ');">⁸</span> or, to the house, on the view that [it must see the front of] the house. If so, even the [first] owner should be liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For immediately it is plucked it fulfils the conditions of liability by seeing the front of the house or court. ');">⁹</span> — The owner's eyes are upon the [whole] fig-tree, whereas the buyer has eyes only for his purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner does not regard a single branch; therefore, since the whole tree does not face the house, he is exempt. But the purchaser is interested only in his purchase; hence, if the branch from which his figs are gathered faces the house or courtyard, he is liable. ');">¹⁰</span> But is a purchaser at all liable by Biblical law? Has it not been taught: Why were the bazaars of Beth Hini<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bethania, a place near Jerusalem; Jast. [The parallel passage in J. Pe'ah I, has the bazaars of Beth Hanan, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 267, n. 4. These were stores set up on the Mount of Olives for the supply of pigeons and other commodities required for sacrifices, and owned by the powerful priestly family, to whom they proved a source of wealth. They were destroyed three years before the fall of Jerusalem; v. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 468, and Buchler, Priester und Cultus, p. 189.] ');">¹¹</span> destroyed? Because they based their actions upon Scripture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disregarding Rabbinical law. ');">¹²</span> They used to say,

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 175:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.