Commentary for Shabbat 301:1

האי כל שאני זכאי באמירתו רשאי אני בחשיכתו כל שאיני זכאי באמירתו איני רשאי בחשיכתו מיבעי ליה אלא אסיפא קאי אבל מחשיך הוא לשמור ומביא פירות בידו האי כל שאני זכאי בחשיכתו רשאי אני באמירתו מיבעי ליה

then instead of WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE], I AM PERMITTED TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL, FOR IT, he should state, 'Whatever I have no right to instruct [that it be done]. I am not permitted to await nightfall for it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the principle is parallel to the clause upon which it is based. ');">¹</span> Whereas if he bases himself on the second clause, BUT ONE MAY DO SO IN ORDER TO WATCH OVER HIS FIELDS, AND [THEN] HE CAN BRING [HOME] PRODUCE WITH HIM, then he should state, 'Whatever I have a right to await nightfall [at the tehum], I am permitted to instruct [that it be done]'? — In truth he refers to the second clause, but Abba Saul bases himself on the following. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may say to his neighbour, 'Watch for me over the fruit in your tehum, and I will watch for you over the fruit in my tehum.' And thus Abba Saul argues with the first Tanna: Do you not admit that one may say to his neighbour, 'Watch for me over the fruit in your tehum and I will watch for you over the fruit in my tehum?' then say, WHATEVER I HAVE A RIGHT TO INSTRUCT [THAT IT BE DONE]. I AM PERMITTED TO AWAIT NIGHTFALL FOR IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that both accept Samuel's ruling, Hence the permission given by the first Tanna to go to the end of the tehum to watch over produce would be included in Abba Saul's principle, and all other permitted cases likewise, and there is no need for the first Tanna to give a specific instance. ');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Shabbat 301:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.