Bava Metzia 119a (קיט.) — the Talmud in English

And we learned The text should read: “And it was taught,” in the Tosefta of orlah ]

also concerning orlah, similarly:

A tree that emerges from the trunk or from the roots is subject to the laws of orlah.

Since it is a tree in its own right, and even though it does not actually draw nourishment from the ground, its branches are treated as subordinate to its principal part.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If it emerges from the trunk, it is exempt; if it emerges from the roots, it is subject to the laws of orlah.

For we do not say that its branches are treated as subordinate to its principal part.

And it is necessary to state both teachings!

There is a novel legal point in each of the Mishnayot.

For had it taught us

only the

first Mishna [

the case of two gardens, one above the other, and the Mishna in Bava Batra concerning one who purchases a tree within another’s field ], we would have said that only

in this case did Rabbi Yehuda say

that we do not treat its branches as subordinate to its principal part,

because it is a monetary matter

and depends on people’s understanding. And according to people’s understanding, we do not treat its branches as subordinate to its principal part.

But with regard to orlah, which involves a prohibition, one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Meir.

And if it was stated only in this case,

and if only the Tosefta concerning orlah had been taught, we would have said that only

in this case did Rabbi Meir say

that we treat its branches as subordinate to its principal part,

but in that case,

with regard to monetary law,

one might say that he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda,

that we follow people’s understanding.

Therefore,

it is necessary to state both teachings,

to teach all the Mishnayot mentioned above.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: Whatever the upper one can reach by extending

his hand and take belongs to him.

The academy of Rabbi Yannai said: Provided that he does not endanger himself.

He may not bend over into his fellow’s courtyard in a manner that endangers him in order to pick the vegetables. Rather, he may pick only those vegetables that he can reach easily.

Rav Anan raised a dilemma [

was uncertain ]

and some say Rabbi Yirmeya:

What is the law if the upper one was

able to reach the branches

of the vegetable

but was unable to reach its principal part,

or conversely, if he was

able to reach its principal part but unable to reach its branches

—what is the law?

And the matter remains

unresolved (teiku).

Ephraim the Scribe, a student of Reish Lakish, said in the name of Reish Lakish: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

They stated this before King Shapur [

they stated this matter before the Persian king, who was well versed in law ], and he praised it, and

he said to them: “A pavilion”

“should be granted to Rabbi Shimon” [

Give praise to Rabbi Shimon, for he spoke well ].

We have completed Chapter “The House and the Upper Story,” and the tractate Bava Metzia is concluded.