Commentary for Bava Batra 92:7

לא קשיא הא דאיכא פירא בארעא והא דליכא פירא בארעא

or not. R. Joseph was sitting before him, and said to him: Samuel has definitely laid down that a metayer may so testify. But it has been taught that he may not testify? — There is no conflict of opinion. In the one case [we suppose] that there is produce on the land, in the other that there is no produce on the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there is produce on the land, then if the land is assigned to the claimant the metayer will lose his share in it; hence he is an interested party and must not give evidence on behalf of his employer. If, however, there is no produce on the land, it is a matter of indifference to him to whom the land is assigned, as he will always be able to find employment. ');">¹²</span> (Mnemonic 'AMaLeK)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ='Areb (surety); M = Malveh (lender); L = Loveh (borrower); K = Kablan (go-between). ');">¹³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 92:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.