Bava Batra 17

Bava Batra 17

מֵעֵין הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֵלּוּ הֵן: אַבְרָהָם, יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. אַבְרָהָם – דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״בַּכֹּל״. יִצְחָק – דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״מִכֹּל״. יַעֲקֹב – דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״כֹּל״.

a taste of the World-to-Come. They are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham, as it is written with regard to him: “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1). Isaac, as it is written with regard to him: “And I have eaten from everything” (Genesis 27:33). Jacob, as it is written with regard to him: “Because I have everything” (Genesis 33:11). This teaches that already in their lifetimes they merited everything, i.e., perfection.

שְׁלֹשָׁה לֹא שָׁלַט בָּהֶן יֵצֶר הָרָע, אֵלּוּ הֵן: אַבְרָהָם, יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב; דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״בַּכֹּל״, ״מִכֹּל״, ״כֹּל״. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף דָּוִד, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִבִּי חָלַל בְּקִרְבִּי״. וְאִידַּךְ – צַעֲרֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָא מַדְכַּר.

There were three people over whom the evil inclination had no sway. They are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything.” The completeness of their blessings means that they did not have to contend with their evil inclinations. And some say that even David was not subject to his evil inclination, as it is written: “And my heart has died within me” (Psalms 109:22), meaning that the evil inclination in his heart was nullified as if his heart had died. And how does the other authority, who does not include David in his list, explain this verse? He is mentioning his travails. David means to say that his heart died within him owing to all the suffering that he endured, but he says nothing about his evil inclination.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁשָּׁה לֹא שָׁלַט בָּהֶן מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אַבְרָהָם, יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב, מֹשֶׁה, אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם. אַבְרָהָם, יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב – דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״בַּכֹּל״, ״מִכֹּל״, ״כֹּל״; מֹשֶׁה, אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם – דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״עַל פִּי ה׳״.

The Sages taught: There were six people over whom the Angel of Death had no sway in their demise, and they are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything”; since they were blessed with everything they were certainly spared the anguish of the Angel of Death. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, as it is written with regard to them that they died “by the mouth of the Lord” (Numbers 33:38; Deuteronomy 34:5), which indicates that they died with a kiss, and not at the hand of the Angel of Death.

וְהָא מִרְיָם לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ: ״עַל פִּי ה׳״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִרְיָם נָמֵי בִּנְשִׁיקָה מֵתָה, דְּאָתְיָא ״שָׁם״–״שָׁם״ מִמֹּשֶׁה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָהּ ״עַל פִּי ה׳״ – שֶׁגְּנַאי הַדָּבָר לוֹמַר.

The Gemara asks: But with regard to Miriam it is not written: “By the mouth of the Lord.” Rabbi Elazar says: Miriam also died with a kiss, as this is learned through a verbal analogy between the word “there” mentioned in regard to Miriam: “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and the word “there” mentioned in regard to Moses: “And Moses died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5). And for what reason is “by the mouth of the Lord” not stated with regard to her? It is unseemly to mention death by a kiss with regard to a woman.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁבְעָה לֹא שָׁלַט בָּהֶן רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אַבְרָהָם, יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב, מֹשֶׁה, אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם, וּבִנְיָמִין בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. אַבְרָהָם, יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב – דִּכְתִיב [בְּהוּ]: ״בַּכֹּל״, ״מִכֹּל״, ״כֹּל״. מֹשֶׁה, אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם – דִּכְתִיב [בְּהוּ]: ״עַל פִּי ה׳״. בִּנְיָמִין בֶּן יַעֲקֹב – דִּכְתִיב: ״וּלְבִנְיָמִין אָמַר: יְדִיד ה׳, יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח עָלָיו״. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף דָּוִד, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַף בְּשָׂרִי יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח״. וְאִידַּךְ – הָהוּא רַחֲמֵי הוּא דְּקָא בָּעֵי.

The Sages taught: There were seven people over whom the worm and the maggot had no sway, and they are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and Benjamin, son of Jacob. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything.” Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, as it is written with regard to them: “By the mouth of the Lord”; Benjamin, son of Jacob, as it is written: “And to Benjamin he said: The beloved of the Lord, he shall dwell in safety by Him” (Deuteronomy 33:12). Even in death, he rests securely, unbothered by worms. And some say that even David is included, as it is written: “My flesh also dwells secure” (Psalms 16:9). The Gemara asks: And how does the other authority, who does not include David, explain this? The Gemara answers: He is asking for mercy, that his flesh should dwell secure and not be subject to worms and maggots, but his request was denied.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מֵתוּ בְּעֶטְיוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: בִּנְיָמִין בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְעַמְרָם אֲבִי מֹשֶׁה, וְיִשַׁי אֲבִי דָּוִד, וְכִלְאָב בֶּן דָּוִד. וְכוּלְּהוּ גְּמָרָא, לְבַר מִיִּשַׁי אֲבִי דָוִד דִּמְפָרַשׁ בֵּיהּ [קְרָא], דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת עֲמָשָׂא שָׂם אַבְשָׁלֹם תַּחַת יוֹאָב עַל הַצָּבָא, וַעֲמָשָׂא בֶן אִישׁ וּשְׁמוֹ יִתְרָא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי, אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל אֲבִיגַיִל בַּת נָחָשׁ אֲחוֹת צְרוּיָה אֵם יוֹאָב״ – וְכִי בַּת נָחָשׁ הִיא? וַהֲלֹא בַּת יִשַׁי הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַחְיֹתֵיהֶם צְרוּיָה וַאֲבִיגַיִל״! אֶלָּא בַּת מִי שֶׁמֵּת בְּעֶטְיוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There were four people who died only because of the counsel of the primordial snake, in the wake of which all of humanity became mortal, and not on account of any personal sin. And they are: Benjamin, son of Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Chileab, son of David. And all of these are known through tradition except for Yishai, father of David, with regard to whom it is written explicitly: “And Absalom placed Amasa over the army instead of Joab, and Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who engaged in intercourse with Abigail, daughter of Nahash, the sister of Zeruiah, mother of Joab” (II Samuel 17:25). But was Abigail the daughter of Nahash? Was she not the daughter of Yishai, as it is written: “And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail” (I Chronicles 2:16)? Rather, she was called “daughter of Nahash” to indicate that she was the daughter of one who died only because of the counsel of the snake.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוּתָּפִין

מַתְנִי׳ לֹא יַחְפּוֹר אָדָם בּוֹר סָמוּךְ לְבוֹרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירו,ֹ וְלֹא שִׁיח, וְלֹא מְעָרָה, וְלֹא אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְלֹא נִבְרֶכֶת כּוֹבְסִין – אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִכּוֹתֶל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, וְסָד בְּסִיד.

MISHNA: A person may not dig a pit close to the pit of another, in order to avoid damaging the latter’s pit. And similarly, one may not dig a ditch, nor a cave, i.e., a covered pit, nor a water channel, nor a launderer’s pond, which is a pit used for washing clothes, unless he distanced all of these three handbreadths from the wall of another and he plasters lime on the place where there is water.

וּמַרְחִיקִים אֶת הַגֶּפֶת, וְאֶת הַזֶּבֶל, וְאֶת הַמֶּלַח, וְאֶת הַסִּיד, וְאֶת הַסְּלָעִים, מִכּוֹתְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים; אוֹ סָד בְּסִיד. מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, וְאֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה, וְאֶת מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַכּוֹתֶל – שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.

And one must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, e.g., the refuse of olives from which oil has been squeezed, and animal manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, as all these items produce heat and can damage the wall. Or, alternatively, he may plaster the wall with lime to prevent damage. One must likewise distance seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds, and one may not operate the plow, and one must eliminate urine, three handbreadths from the wall of another.

וּמַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָרֵיחַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁכֶב, שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הָרֶכֶב; וְאֶת הַתַּנּוּר – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַכִּלְיָא, שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הַשָּׂפָה.

The mishna continues: And one must distance a mill from a neighbor’s wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the smaller upper stone of the mill. And there must be a distance of three handbreadths from the protruding base [hakalya] of an oven until the wall, which is four handbreadths from the narrow upper rim [hassafa] of the oven.

גְּמָ׳ פָּתַח בְּבוֹר – וּמְסַיֵּים בְּכוֹתֶל; לִיתְנֵי: אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִבּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים!

GEMARA: The tanna of the mishna opens by speaking of a pit: A person may not dig a pit close to the pit of another, and yet he ends with a reference to a wall: Unless he distances it from the wall of another. Let the tanna teach: Unless he distanced his pit or ditch three handbreadths from the pit of another, just as he begins his statement by referring to a pit. Why does the mishna suddenly mention a wall here?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְהוּדָה: ״מִכּוֹתֶל בּוֹרוֹ״ שָׁנִינוּ.

Abaye said, and some say it was Rav Yehuda who said: We learned that the mishna means: From the wall of his pit. In other words, one should read the mishna as follows: Unless he distanced his pit or ditch three handbreadths from the wall of another’s pit. The neighbor also built his pit close to the border between the two properties, and the mishna is teaching that the one digging a pit must distance it three handbreadths from the wall of the pit of the other.

וְלִיתְנֵי: אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִבּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּכוֹתֶל בּוֹר שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים; נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר – כִּדְתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״בּוֹר וְכוֹתְלֶיהָ אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״ – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.

The Gemara challenges: But even so, let it teach: Unless he distanced his excavations three handbreadths from the pit of another, and one would understand that the term pit is referring to the wall of the other’s pit. The Gemara responds: By using the phrase: From the wall of another, this teaches us incidentally that the wall of a pit must be at least three handbreadths thick, as the wall of the other’s pit occupied the full three handbreadths between the cavity of his pit and the property of his neighbor. The practical difference of this observation is with regard to buying and selling, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you a pit and its walls, the wall of the pit must be at least three handbreadths thick.

אִיתְּמַר: הַבָּא לִסְמוֹךְ בְּצַד הַמֶּצֶר – אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: סוֹמֵךְ, וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ. בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת.

§ It was stated: With regard to one who comes to dig any of these excavations or place any of the items listed in the mishna close to the boundary of his field, where his neighbor currently has no pit, Abaye says: He may dig or place them close to the boundary; and Rava says: He may not dig or place them close to the boundary. The Gemara explains: All agree that he may not dig or place them close to a field of his neighbor if that field is designated for digging pits, as he will thereby restrict his neighbor from using his field in the manner it is expected to be used. When they disagree it is with regard to a field that is not designated for digging pits.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: סוֹמֵךְ – דְּהָא אֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאַתְּ אִימְּלַכְתְּ וַחֲפַרְתְּ, אֲנָא נָמֵי מִמְּלַכְנָא וְחָפַרְנָא.

The Gemara elaborates: Abaye says: He may dig these excavations or place these items close to the boundary, as the neighbor’s field is not designated for pits, so he is not causing any damage by doing so. Rava says: He may not dig these excavations or place these items close to the boundary, as the neighbor can say to him: Just as you changed your mind and dug a pit, I too might change my mind and dig a pit, and I will no longer be able to dig near my border if you dig your pit close to the boundary.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סוֹמֵךְ, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: סוֹמֵךְ – אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, דְאָמְרִי: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָאִילָן מִן הַבּוֹר עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה – הָתָם הוּא דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּקָא נָטַע, אִיתָא לְבוֹר; אֲבָל הָכָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא חָפַר – לֵיתָא לְבוֹר.

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: All agree that one may dig these excavations or place these items close to the boundary of a field that is not designated for digging pits. When they disagree it is with regard to a field that is designated for digging pits. Abaye says: One may dig these excavations or place these items close to the boundary; and this is the halakha even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say in the mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern, lest the roots of the tree grow and damage a neighbor’s cistern in his field. The difference is that there it is prohibited, as when he plants the tree there is already a cistern. But here, at the time when he digs his cistern, there is as yet no cistern in his neighbor’s field.

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר: זֶה חוֹפֵר בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה נוֹטֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הָתָם, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּקָא נָטַע – לֵיתַנְהוּ לְשׇׁרָשָׁיו דְּמַזְּקִי לַהּ לְבוֹר; אֲבָל הָכָא – אָמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל מָרָא וּמָרָא דְּקָא מָחֲיֵית, קָא מְרַפֵּית לַהּ לְאַרְעַאי.

And Rava says: One may not dig these excavations or place these items close to the boundary; and this is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says in that same mishna: This one may dig in his field and that one may plant in his field, i.e., one need not distance his tree for fear of damaging his neighbor’s field through expanding roots. The reason that Rava maintains that his ruling is correct even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is that this matter applies only there, as when he plants the tree, its roots, which might damage the cistern, are not yet present. Consequently, when he plants he does not cause any damage. But here, the neighbor can say to him: Each and every strike of yours with the hoe loosens my earth, and therefore you are already causing damage as you dig your cistern.

תְּנַן: לֹא יַחְפּוֹר אָדָם בּוֹר סָמוּךְ לְבוֹרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹר, הָא לֵיכָּא בּוֹר – סוֹמֵךְ; בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סוֹמֵךְ, מַתְנִיתִין בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת.

The Gemara suggests a proof: We learned in the mishna that a person may not dig a pit close to the pit of another, unless he does so at a distance of three handbreadths from his neighbor’s wall. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Apparently, the reason he may not dig close to the boundary of his neighbor’s field is that there is a pit there, from which it may be inferred that if there is no pit he may dig his pit close to his neighbor’s wall. Granted, according to that second version of the dispute, in which you said: All agree that one may dig these excavations or place these items close to the boundary of a field that is not designated for digging pits, one can explain that the mishna is referring to a field that is not designated for digging pits.

אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: בְּשָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת פְּלִיגִי – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא!

But according to that first version of the dispute, in which you said that they disagree with regard to a field that is not designated for digging pits, there is a difficulty. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who says that one may dig one’s pit near the boundary when the neighbor has no pit. But according to the opinion of Rava, who maintains that it is prohibited to dig a pit near the boundary under any circumstances, the ruling of this mishna is difficult.

אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְהוּדָה: מִכּוֹתֶל בּוֹרוֹ שָׁנִינוּ.

The Gemara explains: Rava could have said to you: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Abaye says, and some say it was Rav Yehuda who says: We learned that the mishna means: From the wall of his pit? This indicates that the neighbor must distance the edge of his pit from the boundary by the thickness of his wall, which is three handbreadths. Therefore, even according to the ruling of the mishna, one may not dig his pit directly adjacent to the boundary.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וְאִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְהוּדָה: מִכּוֹתֶל בּוֹרוֹ שָׁנִינוּ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, מַתְנִיתִין בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת.

There are those who say this discussion in the form of a challenge to the opinion of Abaye. The mishna teaches that one must distance his pit from that of his neighbor, and it was stated with regard to that ruling that Abaye says, and some say it was Rav Yehuda who says: We learned that it means: From the wall of his pit. In other words, the edge of the neighbor’s pit must be three handbreadths away from the boundary. Granted, according to that first version of the dispute, in which you said: All agree that he may not dig or place them close to a field of his neighbor if that field is designated for digging pits, one can explain that the mishna is referring to a field that is designated for digging pits.

אֶלָּא לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: בְּשָׂדֶה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְבוֹרוֹת פְּלִיגִי – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי קַשְׁיָא!

But according to that second version of the dispute, in which you said that they disagree with regard to a field that is designated for digging pits, there is a difficulty. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who says that it is prohibited to dig a pit near the boundary in this case. But according to the opinion of Abaye, the ruling of this mishna is difficult, as if the mishna is referring to the wall of the neighbor’s pit, this indicates that the first pit was dug close to the boundary.

אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי: מַתְנִיתִין שֶׁבָּאוּ לַחְפּוֹר בְּבַת אַחַת.

The Gemara explains: Abaye could have said to you: The mishna is referring to the specific case where both neighbors came to dig their pits at the same time. Consequently, they must both distance their pits from one another. If there is no pit as yet next to the boundary, and the neighbor is not digging at that point, one may dig his pit alongside the boundary.

תָּא שְׁמַע: סֶלַע הַבָּא בְּיָדַיִם – זֶה חוֹפֵר בּוֹרוֹ מִכָּאן, וְזֶה חוֹפֵר בּוֹרוֹ מִכָּאן; זֶה מַרְחִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים וְסָד בְּסִיד, וָזֶה מַרְחִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים וְסָד בְּסִיד! בָּא בְּיָדַיִם שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of rock that is so soft that it crumbles in one’s hands, and no tool is needed, this one may dig his pit from here, and that one may dig his pit from there. This one distances his pit three handbreadths and plasters with lime, and that one distances his pit three handbreadths and plasters with lime. This indicates that the first one who digs a pit must distance his pit even when the second one does not yet have a pit. The Gemara rejects this proof: Rock that crumbles in one’s hands is different. In this case, one must maintain a distance from the boundary due to the softness of the ground.

וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? בָּא בְּיָדַיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דְּבָא בְּיָדַיִם, לִיבְעֵי נָמֵי רַוְוחָא טְפֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara is puzzled by this exchange: And he who asked it, why did he ask it? The baraita is explicitly referring to rock that crumbles in one’s hands, so this is clearly a unique case. The Gemara answers that the Sage who asked the question assumed that the halakha of the baraita includes all types of soil, and he thought that it was necessary for the tanna to mention the specific example of rock that crumbles in one’s hands, as it could enter your mind to say that since this substance crumbles in one’s hands he is required to keep his pit at an even greater distance. To counter this, the baraita teaches us that a distance of three handbreadths is sufficient.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַגֶּפֶת, וְאֶת הַזֶּבֶל, וְאֶת

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: One must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, and animal manure, and