Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 9, 2017 | 讬状讙 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 18

Rava and Abaye debate whether one can dig a pit build right near the border of another if on the other side of the border, there is no pit right now – or need he be concerned that one may want to dig a pit there in聽the future. 聽Abaye says he is allowed to and Rava disagrees. 聽One question is raised against Abaye and resolved. 聽8 questions coming from our mishna and many of the upcoming mishnayot in the chapter are brought to question Rava’s opinion. 聽Each question is resolved (many of them in an identical manner).

Study Guide Bava Batra 18

讛诪诇讞 讜讗转 讛住讬讚 讜讗转 讛住诇注讬诐 诪讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 住讚 讘住讬讚 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住讜诪讱

salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or he can plaster the wall with lime. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall there belonging to his neighbor, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall there, one may place these substances close to the boundary of his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rava according to the first version of the dispute, which states that one may not place these substances close to a boundary even in the case of a field that is not designated for pits.

诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛谞讬 拽砖讜 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall one may also not place these substances close to the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does mentioning a wall here teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that all these substances are damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 诪专讞讬拽讬诐 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讗转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪转讜谞转讗 拽砖讛 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: One must distance seeds, and the plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall of another. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place these substances close to the boundary of the field. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place these substances close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that dampness [dimtunta] is damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 讛专讬讞讬诐 砖诇砖讛 诪谉 讛砖讻讘 砖讛谉 讗专讘注讛 诪谉 讛专讻讘 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讟讬专讬讬讗 拽砖讛 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And one must distance a mill from a wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place a mill close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his mill close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that vibrations are damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 讛转谞讜专 砖诇砖讛 诪谉 讛讻诇讬讗 砖讛谉 讗专讘注讛 诪谉 讛砖驻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讘诇讗 拽砖讛 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And the oven must be distanced three handbreadths from the base, which is four handbreadths from the upper rim of the oven. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place an oven close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his oven close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that heat is damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬驻转讞 讗讚诐 讞谞讜转 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 讜砖诇 爪讘注讬谉 转讞转 讗讜爪专讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 专驻转 讘拽专 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜爪专 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讜爪专 注讘讬讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (20b): A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the wine storeroom of another, nor may one open a cattle barn there. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The reason for this ruling is that there is a storeroom already in place, from which it may be inferred that if there is no storeroom one may do so. If this is the case, then with regard to a pit as well, one may dig next to a boundary if there is as yet no pit.

讚讬专讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诐 讛讬转讛 专驻转 讘拽专 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讜爪专 诪讜转专

The Gemara answers: The case of a residence is different, as in general one can use his domicile in any manner of his choosing unless he directly causes damage to another or his property. The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as an explicit baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: If the construction of the cattle barn preceded the storeroom, it is permitted. Nothing can be inferred from the case of the baraita with regard to the halakha of the mishna, which does not concern living quarters.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (26a): A person may not plant a tree close to another鈥檚 field unless he distances it four cubits from his neighbor. And it is taught with regard to this mishna: The four cubits of which the Sages spoke are to enable the work of the vineyard, i.e., a small space next to the trees is necessary to enable animals to plow between them.

讟注诪讗 讚诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐 住诪讬讱 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 砖专砖讬谉 讚拽讗 诪讝拽讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪驻住讬拽 爪讜谞诪讗

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason this distance is required is due to the work of the vineyard, from which it may be inferred that if not for the problem due to the work of the vineyard, it would be permitted for one to plant his tree close to the boundary, and apparently, this is the halakha even though there are roots of the tree that damage his neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where a hard rock [tzunema] interrupts between the two fields, preventing the roots from passing through to the other field.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讙讚专 讘讬谞转讬诐 讝讛 住讜诪讱 诇讙讚专 诪讻讗谉 讜讝讛 住讜诪讱 诇讙讚专 诪讻讗谉

The Gemara continues: The language of the mishna is also precise with regard to this point, as it teaches further on: If there was a fence between them, this one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here, and that one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here. If the baraita were referring to a case where the roots could travel across, how could it be permitted for both neighbors to plant their trees alongside each other? Consequently, it must be referring to a situation where a rock separates between the two fields below, and therefore the neighbors may plant their trees near the fence.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讜 砖专砖讬讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诪讬拽 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讗讬 讚诪驻住讬拽 爪讜谞诪讗 诪讗讬 讘注讜 讛转诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 爪讜谞诪讗 讜讛讬讜 砖专砖讬讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛

The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they do not impede the plow. The Gemara asks: But if a rock interrupts between the two fields and forms a barrier, what are these roots doing there, i.e., how did they get there? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: And if there is no rock, and the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths so that they do not impede the plow.

转讗 砖诪注 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谉 讛讘讜专 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讜专 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讘讜专 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讗讝诇讬 砖专砖讬诐 讜诪讝拽讬 诇讘讜专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: The reason for this ruling is that there is a cistern, from which it may be inferred that if there is no cistern, one may place, i.e., plant, his tree close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara answers: No, even when there is no cistern one may also not place it close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. And by mentioning a cistern, the tanna of the mishna teaches us this: That the roots of a tree extend and damage the cistern up to a distance of twenty-five cubits away.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讬讱 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诇讜拽讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘诇讜拽讞

The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: And if the tree preceded the cistern, one is not required to cut down the tree. But if one may not place the tree close to the boundary even if there is no cistern, how can you find a case where the tree preceded the cistern? Why would its owner not be required to cut it down? The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa says with regard to a similar matter, that it is referring to a buyer who purchases part of a field. So too here, it is referring to a buyer. In other words, a field contained a cistern and tree alongside each other, and the owner sold the part of the field containing the cistern.

转讗 砖诪注 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖专讛 诪谉 讛讬专拽 讜讗转 讛讻专讬砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讘爪诇讬谉 讜讗转 讛讞专讚诇 诪谉 讛讚讘讜专讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讬专拽 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讬专拽 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讬专拽 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛谞讬 拽砖讜 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara cites yet another source: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25a): One must distance the water in which flax is steeped from vegetables growing in a neighbor鈥檚 field, and one must distance leeks from onions growing in a neighbor鈥檚 field, and one must likewise distance mustard from bees that are in a neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason is that there are vegetables present, from which it may be inferred that if there are no vegetables, one may place the water close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, even if there are no vegetables one may also not place the water close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. And the tanna teaches us that these items mentioned in that mishna are harmful to each other.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讘讞专讚诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 注讚 砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讬 讛专讞拽 讞专讚诇讱 诪谉 讚讘讜专讗讬 讛专讞拽 讚讘讜专讱 诪谉 讞专讚诇讗讬 砖讘讗讜转 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 诇讙诇讜讙讬 讞专讚诇讗讬

The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei renders it permitted to plant near the neighbor鈥檚 bees in the case of mustard. As explained in a baraita, this is because he can say to the owner of the bees: Just as you say to me: Keep your mustard away from my bees, I can say to you: Keep your bees away from my mustard, as they come and eat my mustard plants. In other words, you are damaging my property as well.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讬讱 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诇讜拽讞

And if one may not place an item that might cause damage close to his neighbor鈥檚 boundary, how can you find a case where each neighbor is damaging the property of the other? Rav Pappa says: This is referring to a buyer who purchased part of his neighbor鈥檚 field, and it contains a substance or items that might cause damage, e.g., the water in which flax is steeped or mustard. In the other section of the field the neighbor retained an item or substance that could be damaged. In this manner, it is possible for the item that causes damage to be found near the boundary of the neighbor without one having violated the ruling of the mishna.

讗讬 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a buyer, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who say that the neighbor can demand that the buyer distance that which causes damage? After all, he has not acted improperly. And furthermore, what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei for disagreeing only in the case of the mustard and the bees? Even the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables is also subject to the same reasoning: Why should he have to distance his water, considering that he did not act improperly?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 拽讗 住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜

Ravina said that the explanation is as follows: The Rabbis hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself. The one who has the potential to cause damage must act to prevent the damage from occurring. This is the halakha even if his initial placement was done in accordance with halakha, as in the case where one bought part of a field.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗讬 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis, holds that that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself; i.e., to avoid being damaged? But if the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one whose property was damaged, even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables the owner should also not have to distance himself. Why does Rabbi Yosei distinguish between that situation and the case of bees and mustard?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讬 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘谞谉 转讬谞讞 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 讚讛谞讬 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讗诇讗 讞专讚诇 讜讚讘讜专讬诐 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝拽讬 讗讛讚讚讬

Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei also holds that the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one who causes damage, even if he did not act improperly. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to the Rabbis: Your explanation works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, where the one who causes damage must distance himself, as these damage those, but those do not damage these, i.e., the water in which flax is steeped damages the vegetables, but the vegetables do not damage the water. But in the case of mustard and bees, they both damage one another. In light of this factor, and since the initial planting of the mustard was permitted, the owner of the bees should distance them from the mustard.

讜专讘谞谉 讚讘讜专讬诐 诇讞专讚诇 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讘讬谞转讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讟专驻讗 讛讚专 驻讗专讬

And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that bees do not damage mustard. Their reasoning is that if it is referring to a seed, the bees will not find it. If it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back, and therefore no damage has been caused.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讘讜专 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 砖讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟注 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (25b) that Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the cistern preceded the tree, the owner need not cut down the tree, as this one digs a cistern in his property, and that one plants the tree in his property? Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself. And Rabbi Yosei spoke to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement.

诇讚讬讚讬 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 诇讗 讘注讬 专讞讜拽讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 转讬谞讞 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 讚讛谞讬 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讗诇讗 讞专讚诇 讜讚讘讜专讬诐 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝拽讬 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yosei was saying to the Rabbis: In my opinion, the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself, and therefore even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, the owner of the water need not distance himself. But according to your opinion, that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself, this works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, as these damage those and those do not damage these. But mustard and bees both damage one another, and if the mustard owner acted properly, the owner of the bees should be required to move his bees.

讜专讘谞谉 讚讘讜专讬诐 诇讞专讚诇 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讘讬谞转讗

The Gemara continues: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? They hold that bees do not damage mustard: If this is referring to a seed,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 18

讛诪诇讞 讜讗转 讛住讬讚 讜讗转 讛住诇注讬诐 诪讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 住讚 讘住讬讚 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住讜诪讱

salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or he can plaster the wall with lime. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall there belonging to his neighbor, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall there, one may place these substances close to the boundary of his neighbor鈥檚 courtyard. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rava according to the first version of the dispute, which states that one may not place these substances close to a boundary even in the case of a field that is not designated for pits.

诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛谞讬 拽砖讜 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall one may also not place these substances close to the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does mentioning a wall here teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that all these substances are damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 诪专讞讬拽讬诐 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讗转 诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪转讜谞转讗 拽砖讛 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: One must distance seeds, and the plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall of another. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place these substances close to the boundary of the field. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place these substances close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that dampness [dimtunta] is damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 讛专讬讞讬诐 砖诇砖讛 诪谉 讛砖讻讘 砖讛谉 讗专讘注讛 诪谉 讛专讻讘 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讟讬专讬讬讗 拽砖讛 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And one must distance a mill from a wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place a mill close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his mill close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that vibrations are damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讗转 讛转谞讜专 砖诇砖讛 诪谉 讛讻诇讬讗 砖讛谉 讗专讘注讛 诪谉 讛砖驻讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讻讜转诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛讘诇讗 拽砖讛 诇讻讜转诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And the oven must be distanced three handbreadths from the base, which is four handbreadths from the upper rim of the oven. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place an oven close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his oven close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that heat is damaging to a wall.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬驻转讞 讗讚诐 讞谞讜转 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 讜砖诇 爪讘注讬谉 转讞转 讗讜爪专讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 专驻转 讘拽专 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜爪专 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讜爪专 注讘讬讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (20b): A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the wine storeroom of another, nor may one open a cattle barn there. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The reason for this ruling is that there is a storeroom already in place, from which it may be inferred that if there is no storeroom one may do so. If this is the case, then with regard to a pit as well, one may dig next to a boundary if there is as yet no pit.

讚讬专讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚转谞讬 注诇讛 讗诐 讛讬转讛 专驻转 讘拽专 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讜爪专 诪讜转专

The Gemara answers: The case of a residence is different, as in general one can use his domicile in any manner of his choosing unless he directly causes damage to another or his property. The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as an explicit baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: If the construction of the cattle barn preceded the storeroom, it is permitted. Nothing can be inferred from the case of the baraita with regard to the halakha of the mishna, which does not concern living quarters.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (26a): A person may not plant a tree close to another鈥檚 field unless he distances it four cubits from his neighbor. And it is taught with regard to this mishna: The four cubits of which the Sages spoke are to enable the work of the vineyard, i.e., a small space next to the trees is necessary to enable animals to plow between them.

讟注诪讗 讚诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐 住诪讬讱 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 砖专砖讬谉 讚拽讗 诪讝拽讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪驻住讬拽 爪讜谞诪讗

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason this distance is required is due to the work of the vineyard, from which it may be inferred that if not for the problem due to the work of the vineyard, it would be permitted for one to plant his tree close to the boundary, and apparently, this is the halakha even though there are roots of the tree that damage his neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where a hard rock [tzunema] interrupts between the two fields, preventing the roots from passing through to the other field.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讙讚专 讘讬谞转讬诐 讝讛 住讜诪讱 诇讙讚专 诪讻讗谉 讜讝讛 住讜诪讱 诇讙讚专 诪讻讗谉

The Gemara continues: The language of the mishna is also precise with regard to this point, as it teaches further on: If there was a fence between them, this one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here, and that one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here. If the baraita were referring to a case where the roots could travel across, how could it be permitted for both neighbors to plant their trees alongside each other? Consequently, it must be referring to a situation where a rock separates between the two fields below, and therefore the neighbors may plant their trees near the fence.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讜 砖专砖讬讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诪讬拽 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讗讬 讚诪驻住讬拽 爪讜谞诪讗 诪讗讬 讘注讜 讛转诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 爪讜谞诪讗 讜讛讬讜 砖专砖讬讜 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛

The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they do not impede the plow. The Gemara asks: But if a rock interrupts between the two fields and forms a barrier, what are these roots doing there, i.e., how did they get there? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: And if there is no rock, and the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths so that they do not impede the plow.

转讗 砖诪注 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谉 讛讘讜专 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讜专 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讘讜专 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讘讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚注讚 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讗讝诇讬 砖专砖讬诐 讜诪讝拽讬 诇讘讜专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: The reason for this ruling is that there is a cistern, from which it may be inferred that if there is no cistern, one may place, i.e., plant, his tree close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara answers: No, even when there is no cistern one may also not place it close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. And by mentioning a cistern, the tanna of the mishna teaches us this: That the roots of a tree extend and damage the cistern up to a distance of twenty-five cubits away.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讬讱 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诇讜拽讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘诇讜拽讞

The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: And if the tree preceded the cistern, one is not required to cut down the tree. But if one may not place the tree close to the boundary even if there is no cistern, how can you find a case where the tree preceded the cistern? Why would its owner not be required to cut it down? The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa says with regard to a similar matter, that it is referring to a buyer who purchases part of a field. So too here, it is referring to a buyer. In other words, a field contained a cistern and tree alongside each other, and the owner sold the part of the field containing the cistern.

转讗 砖诪注 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛诪砖专讛 诪谉 讛讬专拽 讜讗转 讛讻专讬砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讘爪诇讬谉 讜讗转 讛讞专讚诇 诪谉 讛讚讘讜专讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讬专拽 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讬专拽 住诪讬讱 诇讗 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讬专拽 谞诪讬 诇讗 住诪讬讱 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛谞讬 拽砖讜 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara cites yet another source: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25a): One must distance the water in which flax is steeped from vegetables growing in a neighbor鈥檚 field, and one must distance leeks from onions growing in a neighbor鈥檚 field, and one must likewise distance mustard from bees that are in a neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason is that there are vegetables present, from which it may be inferred that if there are no vegetables, one may place the water close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, even if there are no vegetables one may also not place the water close to the neighbor鈥檚 field. And the tanna teaches us that these items mentioned in that mishna are harmful to each other.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讘讞专讚诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 注讚 砖讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讬 讛专讞拽 讞专讚诇讱 诪谉 讚讘讜专讗讬 讛专讞拽 讚讘讜专讱 诪谉 讞专讚诇讗讬 砖讘讗讜转 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 诇讙诇讜讙讬 讞专讚诇讗讬

The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei renders it permitted to plant near the neighbor鈥檚 bees in the case of mustard. As explained in a baraita, this is because he can say to the owner of the bees: Just as you say to me: Keep your mustard away from my bees, I can say to you: Keep your bees away from my mustard, as they come and eat my mustard plants. In other words, you are damaging my property as well.

讜讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讬讱 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诇讜拽讞

And if one may not place an item that might cause damage close to his neighbor鈥檚 boundary, how can you find a case where each neighbor is damaging the property of the other? Rav Pappa says: This is referring to a buyer who purchased part of his neighbor鈥檚 field, and it contains a substance or items that might cause damage, e.g., the water in which flax is steeped or mustard. In the other section of the field the neighbor retained an item or substance that could be damaged. In this manner, it is possible for the item that causes damage to be found near the boundary of the neighbor without one having violated the ruling of the mishna.

讗讬 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a buyer, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who say that the neighbor can demand that the buyer distance that which causes damage? After all, he has not acted improperly. And furthermore, what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei for disagreeing only in the case of the mustard and the bees? Even the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables is also subject to the same reasoning: Why should he have to distance his water, considering that he did not act improperly?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 拽讗 住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜

Ravina said that the explanation is as follows: The Rabbis hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself. The one who has the potential to cause damage must act to prevent the damage from occurring. This is the halakha even if his initial placement was done in accordance with halakha, as in the case where one bought part of a field.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讗讬 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis, holds that that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself; i.e., to avoid being damaged? But if the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one whose property was damaged, even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables the owner should also not have to distance himself. Why does Rabbi Yosei distinguish between that situation and the case of bees and mustard?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讬 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘谞谉 转讬谞讞 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 讚讛谞讬 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讗诇讗 讞专讚诇 讜讚讘讜专讬诐 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝拽讬 讗讛讚讚讬

Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei also holds that the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one who causes damage, even if he did not act improperly. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to the Rabbis: Your explanation works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, where the one who causes damage must distance himself, as these damage those, but those do not damage these, i.e., the water in which flax is steeped damages the vegetables, but the vegetables do not damage the water. But in the case of mustard and bees, they both damage one another. In light of this factor, and since the initial planting of the mustard was permitted, the owner of the bees should distance them from the mustard.

讜专讘谞谉 讚讘讜专讬诐 诇讞专讚诇 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讘讬谞转讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讟专驻讗 讛讚专 驻讗专讬

And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that bees do not damage mustard. Their reasoning is that if it is referring to a seed, the bees will not find it. If it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back, and therefore no damage has been caused.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讘讜专 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 砖讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟注 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (25b) that Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the cistern preceded the tree, the owner need not cut down the tree, as this one digs a cistern in his property, and that one plants the tree in his property? Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself. And Rabbi Yosei spoke to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement.

诇讚讬讚讬 注诇 讛谞讬讝拽 诇讛专讞讬拽 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 诇讗 讘注讬 专讞讜拽讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 注诇 讛诪讝讬拽 转讬谞讞 诪砖专讛 讜讬专拽讗 讚讛谞讬 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 讛谞讬 讗诇讗 讞专讚诇 讜讚讘讜专讬诐 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝拽讬 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yosei was saying to the Rabbis: In my opinion, the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself, and therefore even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, the owner of the water need not distance himself. But according to your opinion, that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself, this works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, as these damage those and those do not damage these. But mustard and bees both damage one another, and if the mustard owner acted properly, the owner of the bees should be required to move his bees.

讜专讘谞谉 讚讘讜专讬诐 诇讞专讚诇 诇讗 诪讝拽讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讘讬谞转讗

The Gemara continues: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? They hold that bees do not damage mustard: If this is referring to a seed,

Scroll To Top