with a few dates in it, as opposed to fruit that has been gathered. If the owner has gathered the fruit and placed it in the drying area—the place where dates are dried—then it does not fall under this ruling.

His statement, “and there is no wall around it”: a wall is well known; it is the barrier surrounding the orchard that prevents entry except through the gate.

His statement, “and no guard present, he may eat from it free of charge”: that is, no watchman. Thus, if there is a guard over it, even if there is no wall around it, one may not eat from it. The author therefore stipulates three conditions:

First: the fruit must be on the tree or have fallen from it, not have been picked.

Second: there must be no wall around it.

Third: there must be no guard over it.

If there is a wall around it, then he may not eat from it, because the owner’s enclosing it with a wall indicates that he does not consent to anyone eating from it. It is therefore evidence that its owner does not approve of anyone eating from it, and a person’s property is not lawful except with his willing consent.

Likewise, if there is a guard over it, this indicates that its owner does not consent to anyone eating from it. For had he consented to people eating from it, he would not have appointed a guard to watch over it. It is thus evidence that its owner does not approve of anyone eating from it.

If he has put up wire mesh around it, does it carry the same ruling, or is this mesh intended to keep out livestock?

The answer is that the apparent view is that mesh containing thorny barriers is intended to keep out—