Commentary for Bava Metzia 107:8

מדאמר נראין דברי רבי אליעזר בשבת מכלל דפליגי אפילו בחול מדאמר נראין דברי רבי יהושע בחול מכלל דפליגי אפילו בשבת

Shall we say that this is disputed by Tannaim? [It has been taught:] If one gave the principal but not the fifth: R. Eliezer ruled: It [the redeemed tithe] may be eaten [outside Jerusalem]; R. Joshua said: It may not be eaten. Said Rabbi: I approve of R. Eliezer's view for the Sabbath, and R. Joshua's view for week-days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath the redeemed tithe may be eaten, for otherwise the cheerfulness of the Sabbath might be destroyed, as one might not have anything else to eat. But on week-days it may not be eaten unless the necessary fifth has been added. ');">¹³</span> Now, since he said 'I approve of R. Eliezer's view for the Sabbath,' it follows that their dispute applies even to week-days; and since he said, 'I approve of R. Joshua's view for week-days,' it follows that their dispute applies even to the Sabbath. Surely then, they differ in this reasoning, viz., R. Eliezer holds that the fifth is no bar, whilst R. Joshua holds that it is! — Said R. papa: That is not so. All agree that the fifth is no bar, but here they differ as to whether we fear culpable omission. One Master holds that we fear culpable omission;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If we permit eating the tithe even before the fifth has been added, one may intentionally omit his addition. ');">¹⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 107:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.