Bava Metzia 175

עד שיראה פני הבית שנאמר (דברים כו, יג) בערתי הקדש מן הבית

until it sees the front of the house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unless it is taken into the house through the front door, not through the roof or backyard. ');">¹</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו חצר קובעת שנאמר (דברים כו, יב) ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו

for it is written, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVI, 13: the deduction presumably is thus: as it is openly brought out of the house through the front, so it must have been taken in, in order to become 'hallowed', i.e., tithed. ');">²</span>

ורבי יוחנן נמי הא כתיב מן הבית אמר לך חצר דומיא דבית מה בית המשתמר אף חצר המשתמרת

R. Johanan said: Even a courtyard establishes liability to tithes, for it is written, that they may eat at thy gates and be filled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 22: 'they' refers to the Levite etc., who eat the tithes 'at thy gates', which implies that the crops had not entered the house but remained at 'thy gate', i.e., in the courtyard. ');">³</span>

ורבי ינאי נמי הכתיב בשעריך ההוא מיבעי ליה דמעייל ליה דרך שער לאפוקי דרך גגות וקרפיפות דלא

But according to R. Johanan, is it not written, out of mine house? — He can answer you: [It teaches that] the court yard must be similar to the house [in order to impose liability]: just as a house is guarded, so also must the courtyard be guarded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if free and open to all, it establishes no liability. ');">⁴</span>

מתיב רב חנינא חוזאה כנפשך כך נפשו של פועל מה נפשך אוכל ופטור אף נפשו של פועל אוכל ופטור

But R. Jannai! Is it not written, 'in thy gates'? — That is required [to shew] that it must be brought into [the house] through the gates, but not over the roof or through [back] enclosures, when no liability is established.

הא לוקח חייב מאי לאו בשדה

R. Hanina of Be-Hozae<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The Modern Khuzistan, province S. W. Persia, Obermeyer, op. cit. pp. 204ff.] ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב פפא הכא בתאנה העומדת בגינה ונופה נוטה לחצר עסקינן ולמאן דאמר לבית לבית

raised an objection: As thine own person: as the person of the employer, so the person of the employee; just as thou thyself mayest eat [thereof] and art exempt [from tithes], so also the employee may eat, and is exempt. This thus implies that a purchaser is liable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. P. 507, n. 3. ');">⁶</span>

א"ה בעל הבית נמי ניחייב בעל הבית עיניו בתאנתו ולוקח עיניו במקחו

and does it not mean even in the field?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For just as the employee eats it on the field, by implication, if a purchaser desires to eat thereof on the field, he is liable, though it has not yet seen the front of the house or the courtyard. ');">⁷</span>

ולוקח מדאורייתא מי מחייב והתניא מפני מה חרבו חנויות של בית הינו שלש שנים קודם ירושלים מפני שהעמידו דבריהם על דברי תורה שהיו אומרין

— R. Papa said: This refers to a fig tree growing in a garden, but with its branches inclining to the court-yard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that immediately the fruit is plucked it sees the front thereof. ');">⁸</span> or, to the house, on the view that [it must see the front of] the house. If so, even the [first] owner should be liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For immediately it is plucked it fulfils the conditions of liability by seeing the front of the house or court. ');">⁹</span> — The owner's eyes are upon the [whole] fig-tree, whereas the buyer has eyes only for his purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner does not regard a single branch; therefore, since the whole tree does not face the house, he is exempt. But the purchaser is interested only in his purchase; hence, if the branch from which his figs are gathered faces the house or courtyard, he is liable. ');">¹⁰</span> But is a purchaser at all liable by Biblical law? Has it not been taught: Why were the bazaars of Beth Hini<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bethania, a place near Jerusalem; Jast. [The parallel passage in J. Pe'ah I, has the bazaars of Beth Hanan, v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 267, n. 4. These were stores set up on the Mount of Olives for the supply of pigeons and other commodities required for sacrifices, and owned by the powerful priestly family, to whom they proved a source of wealth. They were destroyed three years before the fall of Jerusalem; v. Derenbourg, Essai, p. 468, and Buchler, Priester und Cultus, p. 189.] ');">¹¹</span> destroyed? Because they based their actions upon Scripture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disregarding Rabbinical law. ');">¹²</span> They used to say,