Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 106:4

והאמר רבא מחיצה לאכול דאורייתא מחיצות לקלוט דרבנן וכי גזרו רבנן כי איתנהו למחיצות כי ליתנהו למחיצות לא גזרו רבנן לא פלוג רבנן בין איתנהו למחיצות בין ליתנהו למחיצות

— This agrees with R. Judah, who ruled: It must be buried. If so, why particularly if it has gone forth [again]: the same applies even if it has not gone forth? — But after all, this refers to undefiled [tithe]: and what is meant by 'gone forth'? That the walls [of Jerusalem] had fallen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the second tithe was taken into Jerusalem. Now, the second tithe cannot be eaten there when the walls have fallen; on the other hand, having been brought there whilst the walls were standing, it is 'retained', i.e.,it cannot be redeemed. ');">⁷</span> But did not Raba say: The law of the walls [of Jerusalem], in that it [the second tithe] must be eaten within them, is Biblical; but that they have retaining power<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note. ');">⁸</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Metzia 106:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.