Commentary for Bava Metzia 237:6

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הבית והעלייה וסליקא לה מסכת בבא מציעא</strong></big><br><br>

But with respect to <i>'orlah</i>, which is a ritual prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where such is in doubt, the more stringent ruling is adopted. ');">⁶</span> I might think that he agrees with R. Meir. And if the latter were taught, I might argue, only here does R. Meir rule so, but in the former case he agrees with R. Judah. Hence both are necessary. R. SIMEON SAID: AS FAR AS THE OWNER OF THE UPPER GARDEN CAN STRETCH OUT HIS HAND, etc. The disciples of R. Jannai said: providing, however, that he does not strain himself. R. 'Anan — or according to others, R. Jeremiah — propounded: What if he can reach its leaves but not the roots, or he can reach the roots but not the leaves?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Omitted in some texts, there being no question that in this case it is considered to be within his reach; v. Wilna Gaon, Glosses.] ');">⁷</span> The problem remains unsolved. Ephraim the Scribe, a disciple of Resh Lakish, said on the authority of the latter: The <i>halachah</i> agrees with R. Simeon. When this was told to King Shapur.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' King Shapur I, a contemporary of Samuel and a close friend of his. Rashi argues that he is actually meant, as he was well versed in Jewish civil law, and dismisses the theory of other commentators that this is an allusion to Samuel, who was frequently so designated. [On the interest of King Shapur I in Jewish customs and practices, prompted probably by his desire to win Jewish support in his struggle with the Romans, cf. Suk. 53a and A.Z. 76b; v. Funk, op. cit., p. 72.] ');">⁸</span> he observed, 'Let a palanquin be put up for R. Simeon.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He deserves a triumphal procession for his acuteness in civil law. ');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 237:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.