Commentary for Eruvin 56:9

אי הכי בהא לימא רבי יהודה פטורות מן המעשר והתניא אמר רבי יהודה לא הוזכרו פגי ביתיוני אלא לענין מעשר בלבד פגי ביתיוני ואהיני דטובינא חייבין במעשר

would R'Judah in this case rule, 'they are exempt from second tithe'? Was it not in fact taught: R'Judah sand: The [stunted] figs of Bethania were mentioned only in connection with [second] tithe alone; the [stunted] figs of Bethania and the unripe dates of Tobina<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are stunted like the dates spoken of in the previous Baraitha.');">¹⁵</span> are subject to the obligation of the second tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sheb. VII, v. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 257 notes.');">¹⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 56:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.