Study Bava Metzia folio 119A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
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 also learned a case like this in a baraita (Tosefta, Orla 1:4), with regard to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first 3 years after its planting [orla]: In the case of a tree that sprouts from the trunk and from the roots of an old tree, its owner is obligated in orla, since it is considered like a new tree, and the orla years must be counted anew. This is the statement of R' Meir. R' Yehuda says: If it sprouts from the trunk, the owner is exempt, since it is considered like a branch of the old tree, but if it grows from the roots, the owner is obligated.
וצריכי, דאי אשמועינן קמייתא: בהא קאמר רבי יהודה משום דממונא, אבל גבי ערלה דאיסורא – אימא מודי ליה לרבי מאיר. ואי איתמר בהא: בהא קאמר רבי מאיר, אבל בההיא – אימא מודי ליה לרבי יהודה, צריכי.
The Talmud comments: And both cases are necessary to be stated although they are both based on the same principle. As had it taught us only the first halakha, that of ownership, one could say that it is only with regard to this case that R' Yehuda said his ruling, due to the fact that it pertains to monetary matters, but with regard to orla, which is a matter of a prohibition, one could say that he concedes to R' Meir. And if it was stated only with regard to this case of orla, one could say that it is only with regard to this case that R' Meir said his stringent ruling, but with regard to that case, one could say that he concedes to R' Yehuda. It is therefore necessary to state both disputes.