Bava Metzia 237

ותנן נמי גבי ערלה כי האי גוונא אילן היוצא מן הגזע ומן השרשין חייב בערלה דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר מן הגזע פטור מן השרשין חייב

And we learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec.: 'It has been taught.' the citation that follows not being from a Mishnah but from Tosef. 'Orl.] ');">¹</span>

וצריכי דאי אשמועינן קמייתא בהא קאמר רבי יהודה משום דממונא אבל גבי ערלה דאיסורא אימא מודי ליה לר' מאיר ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ר' מאיר אבל בההיא אימא מודי ליה לר' יהודה צריכי:

similarly in the case of <i>'orlah</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²</span>

אמר ר"ש אומר כל שהעליון יכול לפשוט [וכו']: אמרי דבי רבי ינאי ובלבד שלא יאנס

A tree which issues from the trunk or from the roots is subject to <i>'orlah</i>: this is the opinion of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both cases he regards it as a new growth from the earth. ');">³</span>

בעי רב ענן ואיתימא רבי ירמיה מגיע לנופו ואין מגיע לעיקרו מגיע לעיקרו ואין מגיע לנופו מאי תיקו:

R. Judah said: That which grows out of the trunk is not subject thereto;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being regarded as part of the old tree. ');">⁴</span>

אמר אפרים ספרא תלמידו של ריש לקיש משום ריש לקיש הלכה כר"ש אמרוה קמיה דשבור מלכא אמר להו אפריון נמטייה לרבי שמעון:

but out of the roots, is subject. And both are necessary. For if the first were taught, [I would argue,] only there does R. Judah rule so, because it is [a question of] civil law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'money'. ');">⁵</span>

<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>