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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 10, 2017 | 讬状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 19

The gemara delves into each of the sections of the mishna – questioning things that are listed, items that seem unnecessary (as they can be derived from other ones), and clarifies what is the reason for the halacha in many of the cases. 聽In addition they try to figure out whether the first section in the mishna requires distancing and plastering or just one or the other.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讟专驻讗 讛讚专 驻讗专讬

the bees will not find it; if it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back.

讜诇讗 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讞诪爪谉 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛谞讚讬讬谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Nor may one set up a launderer鈥檚 pond near his neighbor鈥檚 wall unless he distances it three handbreadths from the wall. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this only with regard to a soaking pond, in which soiled clothes are left to soak for several days. But in the case of a washing pond [hanadyan], where clothes are actively cleaned, four cubits are required. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: A launderer鈥檚 pond must be kept four cubits from one鈥檚 neighbor鈥檚 wall. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one must keep a distance of only three handbreadths? Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that the statement of Rav Na岣an is correct?

讜讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛讜 诪讬专诪讬 转谞谉 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛诪讞诪爪谉 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛谞讚讬讬谉 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪砖驻转 诪讞诪爪谉 讜诇讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

And some raise this as a contradiction, and present the mishna and baraita as apparently conflicting sources. We learned in the mishna that a launderer鈥檚 pond must be kept three handbreadths from his neighbor鈥檚 property. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that four cubits are required? Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a soaking pond, which requires three handbreadths; there, the baraita is referring to a washing pond, in which case four cubits are necessary. Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Avya, teaches the mishna explicitly as reading: Unless he distanced three handbreadths from the rim of the soaking pond and the wall.

讜住讚 讘住讬讚 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讜住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讜 住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that one who digs a pit must distance it three handbreadths from another鈥檚 property and plaster it with lime. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Did we learn: And plasters with lime, meaning that the walls must be plastered with lime in addition to distancing the pit three handbreadths, or perhaps we learned: Or plasters with lime, i.e., one may plaster the walls with lime instead of digging the pit at a distance of three handbreadths.

驻砖讬讟讗 讚讜住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜 住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: It is obvious that we learned: And plasters with lime, as, if it enters your mind that we learned: Or plasters with lime, which is the same as what is stated in the clause of the mishna discussing olive refuse, if so, let the tanna combine them and teach them together. If the same halakha applied in all circumstances, all of the mishna鈥檚 cases could be taught together.

讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 讛讬讝讬拽讗 诇讛讗讬 讛讬讝讬拽讗 专讬砖讗 讛讬讝讬拽讗 讚诪转讜谞讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讝讬拽讗 讚讛讘诇讗

The Gemara answers: This is not proof, as perhaps these cases are taught separately because this type of damage is not similar to that type of damage. The first clause of the mishna addresses the issue of damage due to moisture, whereas the last clause addresses the issue of damage due to heat.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住诇注 讛讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜 诪讻讗谉 讝讛 诪专讞讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜住讚 讘住讬讚 讜讝讛 诪专讞讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜住讚 讘住讬讚 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to rock that is so soft it crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, this one digs his pit from here, on his property, and that one digs 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. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The specific reason one must also plaster with lime is that he is using rock that crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, from which it may be inferred that if it is rock that does not crumble in one鈥檚 hands, one would not be required to plaster with lime as well.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 谞诪讬 住讚 讘住讬讚 讜讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讬讘注讬 专讜讜讞讗 讟驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: One could say that the same is true, i.e., that even though he is using rock that does not crumble in one鈥檚 hands, he must also plaster with lime. And it was necessary for the tanna to mention the case of rock that crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, as it might enter your mind to say that since it crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, let us require a greater distance. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not the case.

诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讙驻转 讜讗转 讛讝讘诇 讜讗转 讛诪诇讞 讜讗转 讛住诇注讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that one must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, and animal manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or plaster its receptacle with lime. The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (Shabbat 47b): With what substances may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and with what substances may one not insulate it?

讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讘讙驻转 讜诇讗 讘讝讘诇 讜诇讗 讘诪诇讞 讜诇讗 讘住讬讚 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚拽转谞讬 讞讜诇 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 住诇注讬诐

One may insulate the pot neither with the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, nor with manure, nor with salt, nor with lime, nor with sand, whether those materials are moist or whether they are dry. All of these materials spontaneously generate heat when piled up for an extended period of time. Therefore, they add heat to the pot they insulate. The Gemara asks: What is different here that the mishna teaches the halakha in the case of rocks and it does not teach the halakha in the case of sand, and what is different there that it teaches the halakha in the case of sand and it does not teach the halakha in the case of rocks?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘住诇注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讘爪讬驻讬 爪诪专 讜讘诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讜讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

Rav Yosef says: There is a practical reason for this difference. Rocks are not mentioned there because it is not customary for people to insulate food with rocks. Abaye said to him: And is it customary for people to insulate food with wool fleece and tabs of purple wool? As it is taught in a baraita: One may insulate food with wool fleece; with combed wool clumps, which are unwoven; with tabs of purple wool; and with swatches of soft material; but one may not move them on Shabbat because they are set-aside [muktze].

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讙讬讚 注诇讬讜 专注讜 转谞讗 讛讻讗 住诇注讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞讜诇 转谞讗 讛转诐 讞讜诇 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住诇注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讬讙讬讚 注诇讬讜 专注讜 诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讘讗讬讚讱 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讬讚讱

Rather, Abaye said that the tanna follows the biblical aphorism in the verse that states: 鈥淚ts neighbor tells about him鈥 (Job 36:33), i.e., one example is mentioned and the same applies to the other case. He taught the halakha in the case of rocks here and the same is true of sand; he taught the halakha in the case of sand there and the same is true of rocks. Rava said to Abaye: If this is correct, that 鈥渋ts neighbor tells about him,鈥 let him teach the halakha of all of these examples in one case, and let him teach the halakha of just one in the other case, and it can be said that the same is true with regard to the others.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 住诇注讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转讻讬 诇讛 诇拽讚专讛 讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞诪讬诪讬 讞讬讬诐 讜诪拽专讬专讬 拽专讬专

Rather, Rava said: There, this is the reason that the tanna does not teach the halakha in the case of rocks: Because they break, i.e., scratch, the pot, and consequently people do not use them for insulating food at all. Here, this is the reason that the tanna does not teach the halakha in the case of sand: Because it heats hot items and cools cold items, and therefore it does not cause any damage to the wall.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞讜诇 讛转诐 讘诪转讜谞讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 诇讬转谞讬 讜诇讜拽诪讬讛 讘诪转讜谞讗 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita that one must distance sand from his neighbor鈥檚 wall. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to damp sand, which must be kept at a distance due to its moisture. The Gemara challenges: Let the tanna of our mishna also teach the halakha in the case of sand and we will interpret it as referring to damp sand. The Gemara answers: This tanna already taught the case of a water channel, which is a source of dampness, and therefore there was no need to mention damp sand as well.

讗讟讜 诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉

The Gemara rejects this answer: That is incorrect, as is that to say that the mishna includes only one example of a source of dampness? Doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach the case of a water channel? And yet it also teaches the example of a launderer鈥檚 pond. This demonstrates that the mishna teaches many cases, despite the similarity between them, and therefore it should have mentioned the halakha in the case of sand as well.

讛谞讛讜 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘讬注讗 讗讘诇 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 转谞讗 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讜讜 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讗讘诇 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: Both of those particular examples are necessary, as, had the tanna taught only the case of a water channel, one would have claimed that a distance must be kept because it is fixed, i.e., water constantly passes through it. But with regard to a launderer鈥檚 pond, which is not fixed, as it sometimes holds water and sometimes does not, one might say that one need not distance it from his neighbor鈥檚 property. And conversely, had the tanna taught only the case of a launderer鈥檚 pond, one might have said that this must be distanced because its water is fixed and standing in one location and therefore leaks out. But with regard to a water channel, one might say distancing it is not required. Consequently, it is necessary to state both examples. By contrast, including the halakha in the case of sand would not add any novel understanding.

诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讻讜壮 讝专注讬诐 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讞专讬砖讛 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚

搂 The mishna teaches: One must 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. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to mention seeds? Let him derive this requirement to distance the seeds due to the requirement to distance a plow, as in any event the ground must be plowed before it can be sown? The Gemara answers: This is referring to planting with a single hand motion, which is performed without plowing.

诪讞专讬砖讛 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讝专注讬诐 讘讞讜专砖 诇讗讬诇谞讜转 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讬讗 转谞讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讟专 讛砖诪讬诐 转砖转讛 诪讬诐

The Gemara further challenges: The mishna teaches that one must distance a plow; but let him derive this requirement to distance a plow due to the requirement to distance the seeds, as plowing is preparation for planting. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who plows to prepare the ground for trees. The Gemara challenges: But if so, let him derive this requirement to distance a plow due to the requirement to distance the water. If there are trees, there must be a water channel to irrigate them, and arranging one鈥檚 field in such a manner should be prohibited for that reason. The Gemara answers: The tanna is referring to Eretz Yisrael, concerning which it is written: 鈥淎nd drinks water as the rain of heaven comes down鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:11). In Eretz Yisrael, water channels were not needed.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讝专注讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that seeds

诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛诪讘专讬讱 讗转 讛讙驻谉 讘讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讛 注驻专 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 注诇讬讛

take root to the sides, i.e., the growing roots spread sideways and cause damage to walls? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 7:1): With regard to one who bends a branch of a grapevine into the ground so that it strikes roots and produces a new vine, if it does not have three handbreadths of earth over it he may not plant a seed above it, as he would thereby transgress the prohibition of diverse kinds?

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗讘诇 讝讜专注 讗转 讛爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讙讗 讘砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇讬讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讜诪注诇讬谉 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞

And it is taught with regard to this mishna: But one may plant on either side of that bent branch. This indicates that there is no concern that the roots of the seeds will spread out sideways. Rabbi 岣gga says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The issue here is not that the roots will spread out sideways and reach the wall. Rather, it is prohibited to plant seeds near one鈥檚 neighbor鈥檚 property because they break up the ground and cause loose soil to rise up, which damages the foundation of the wall.

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 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讛砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘爪讚 讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讻专转讬 诇讗讞讗讘 诪砖转讬谉 讘拽讬专 讜注爪讜专 讜注讝讜讘 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 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 讛转诐 讘砖讜驻讻讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And urine must be kept at a distance of three handbreadths from the wall of one鈥檚 neighbor. Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is permitted for a person to urinate alongside the wall of another, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will cut off from Ahab those who urinate against the wall, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel鈥 (I聽Kings 21:21). As the verse employs the term 鈥渢hose who urinate against the wall鈥 to mean males, it seems that urinating against a wall was a common practice. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that urine must be kept a distance of three handbreadths from the wall? The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot, as opposed to urine that is passed from the body.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 讗讚诐 诪讬诐 讘爪讚 讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘砖讜驻讻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: A person may not pour water at the side of the wall of another unless he distances the water three handbreadths from it. If pouring water is prohibited, then all the more so should urination be prohibited. The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬砖转讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讬诐 讘爪讚 讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诇讘讬谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讘讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽 讜讻诪讛 讟驻讞 讜砖诇 爪讜谞诪讗 诪讜转专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: A person may not urinate alongside the wall of another unless he distances himself three handbreadths from it. In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a brick wall. But in the case of a stone wall, one must distance himself enough so that it does not cause damage. And how far must he distance himself? One handbreadth. And if there is hard rock present, it is permitted to urinate there. The Gemara comments: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba bar bar 岣na is a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected.

讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 讛转诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讚专讻讬讛 诇讗讬砖转讜谞讬 讘拽讬专 诇讗 砖讘讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讻诇讘讗

The Gemara asks: But Rabba bar bar 岣na stated a verse in support of his opinion; how can the baraita rule counter to what is written in a verse? The Gemara answers: This is what it is saying there, i.e., this is the meaning of that verse: I will not even leave Ahab something whose manner is to urinate against a wall. And what is that? A dog. According to this interpretation, the verse is not referring to people at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专拽讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讘讞诇讜谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专拽讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讛 谞诪讬

Rabbi Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: A wafer does not reduce the dimensions of a window. When a corpse, or a significant part thereof, is in one room, its impurity can spread to a room adjacent to it if there is a window of a certain size between the rooms. Shmuel states that when one puts a wafer in a window, the wafer is not considered an obstruction, so the size of the opening as relevant to this halakha remains the same. The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically this case? Why does Shmuel teach this halakha with regard to a wafer? Even a thick chunk of bread also does not reduce the dimensions of a window.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 注讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 专拽讬拽 讚诪诪讗讬住 讗讬诪讗 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Shmuel is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha with regard to thick bread. Since it is fit for him to consume, he does not nullify it, i.e., he does not plan to leave it in the window for an extended amount of time. But in the case of a wafer, which becomes disgusting when placed in a window, I might say that he does nullify it and it becomes part of the house, thereby reducing the size of the window. To counter this, Shmuel teaches us that even a wafer is not nullified, as it can be used to feed animals, as one is not particular about their food. Therefore, the wafer does not become part of the window in which it is placed.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖谞讬诇砖 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara challenges: And let him derive this halakha from the fact that a wafer is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and any item that is susceptible to impurity does not serve as a barrier against the spread of impurity. The Gemara explains: This is referring to a wafer that was kneaded in fruit juice, which is not one of the liquids that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore the wafer is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Consequently, one might have thought that it serves as a barrier before ritual impurity and reduces the dimensions of the window.

诪讬转讬讘讬 拽讜驻讛 诪诇讗讛 转讘谉 讜讞讘讬转 诪诇讗讛 讙专讜讙专讜转 讛诪讜谞讞讬诐 讘讞诇讜谉 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬谞讟诇讜 讜讬讻讜诇讬谉 转讘谉 讜讙专讜讙专讜转 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讜讛讗 转讘谉 讞讝讬 诇讘讛诪转讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Oholot 6:2): With regard to a basket that is full of straw, or an earthenware barrel full of dried figs, which are placed in a window, one considers: If the straw or dried figs would stand on their own were the basket or barrel removed, then they would serve as a barrier against the spread of impurity. But if they would not stand on their own they would not serve as a barrier. The Gemara explains the objection: But why should the straw or dried figs serve as a barrier? Even straw that can stand on its own is fit for feeding to one鈥檚 animal and will likely be removed from the opening, which means it should not be considered part of the window.

讘住专讬讗 讞讝讬 诇讟讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讜爪讬 讞讝讬 诇讛住拽讛 讘诪转讜谞讗 讞讝讬 诇讛住拽 讙讚讜诇 讛住拽 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to rotted straw, which is unfit for animal consumption. The Gemara asks: But it is fit for use in the making of clay for bricks. The Gemara answers: This is referring to straw that has thorns in it and therefore is not fit for making bricks. The Gemara challenges: Even so, it is fit for kindling a fire. The Gemara answers that this is referring to wet straw. The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, it is fit for kindling a large fire. If one builds a large fire, wet straw will dry and become ignitable. The Gemara answers: A large fire is not common, and therefore, in all likelihood, the straw will remain in the window.

讙专讜讙专讜转 讛讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖讛转专讬驻讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘砖讛转专讬驻讜

The Gemara further asks: But dried figs are fit for him to consume, and he will certainly remove them. Consequently, they should not be considered fixed in their place. Shmuel says: This is referring to a case where the figs became worm infested [beshehitrifu]. And so Rabba bar Avuh teaches: This is referring to a case where the figs became worm infested.

讛讗讬 讞讘讬转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讬 讚驻讜诪讗 诇讘专

The Gemara clarifies: What are the exact circumstances of this barrel that held the dried figs? If this is referring to a case where its opening faced outward, i.e., not toward the source of the ritual impurity,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 19

诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讟专驻讗 讛讚专 驻讗专讬

the bees will not find it; if it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back.

讜诇讗 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讞诪爪谉 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛谞讚讬讬谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Nor may one set up a launderer鈥檚 pond near his neighbor鈥檚 wall unless he distances it three handbreadths from the wall. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this only with regard to a soaking pond, in which soiled clothes are left to soak for several days. But in the case of a washing pond [hanadyan], where clothes are actively cleaned, four cubits are required. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: A launderer鈥檚 pond must be kept four cubits from one鈥檚 neighbor鈥檚 wall. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that one must keep a distance of only three handbreadths? Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that the statement of Rav Na岣an is correct?

讜讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛讜 诪讬专诪讬 转谞谉 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛诪讞诪爪谉 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛谞讚讬讬谉 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪砖驻转 诪讞诪爪谉 讜诇讻讜转诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

And some raise this as a contradiction, and present the mishna and baraita as apparently conflicting sources. We learned in the mishna that a launderer鈥檚 pond must be kept three handbreadths from his neighbor鈥檚 property. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that four cubits are required? Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a soaking pond, which requires three handbreadths; there, the baraita is referring to a washing pond, in which case four cubits are necessary. Rav 岣yya, son of Rav Avya, teaches the mishna explicitly as reading: Unless he distanced three handbreadths from the rim of the soaking pond and the wall.

讜住讚 讘住讬讚 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讜住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讜 住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that one who digs a pit must distance it three handbreadths from another鈥檚 property and plaster it with lime. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Did we learn: And plasters with lime, meaning that the walls must be plastered with lime in addition to distancing the pit three handbreadths, or perhaps we learned: Or plasters with lime, i.e., one may plaster the walls with lime instead of digging the pit at a distance of three handbreadths.

驻砖讬讟讗 讚讜住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜 住讚 讘住讬讚 转谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: It is obvious that we learned: And plasters with lime, as, if it enters your mind that we learned: Or plasters with lime, which is the same as what is stated in the clause of the mishna discussing olive refuse, if so, let the tanna combine them and teach them together. If the same halakha applied in all circumstances, all of the mishna鈥檚 cases could be taught together.

讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 讛讬讝讬拽讗 诇讛讗讬 讛讬讝讬拽讗 专讬砖讗 讛讬讝讬拽讗 讚诪转讜谞讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讝讬拽讗 讚讛讘诇讗

The Gemara answers: This is not proof, as perhaps these cases are taught separately because this type of damage is not similar to that type of damage. The first clause of the mishna addresses the issue of damage due to moisture, whereas the last clause addresses the issue of damage due to heat.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住诇注 讛讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讝讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专讜 诪讻讗谉 讝讛 诪专讞讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜住讚 讘住讬讚 讜讝讛 诪专讞讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜住讚 讘住讬讚 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to rock that is so soft it crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, this one digs his pit from here, on his property, and that one digs 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. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The specific reason one must also plaster with lime is that he is using rock that crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, from which it may be inferred that if it is rock that does not crumble in one鈥檚 hands, one would not be required to plaster with lime as well.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 谞诪讬 住讚 讘住讬讚 讜讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讗 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讬讘注讬 专讜讜讞讗 讟驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: One could say that the same is true, i.e., that even though he is using rock that does not crumble in one鈥檚 hands, he must also plaster with lime. And it was necessary for the tanna to mention the case of rock that crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, as it might enter your mind to say that since it crumbles in one鈥檚 hands, let us require a greater distance. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not the case.

诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讙驻转 讜讗转 讛讝讘诇 讜讗转 讛诪诇讞 讜讗转 讛住诇注讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讘诪讛 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讜讘诪讛 讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that one must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, and animal manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or plaster its receptacle with lime. The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (Shabbat 47b): With what substances may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and with what substances may one not insulate it?

讗讬谉 讟讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗 讘讙驻转 讜诇讗 讘讝讘诇 讜诇讗 讘诪诇讞 讜诇讗 讘住讬讚 讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚拽转谞讬 讞讜诇 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 住诇注讬诐

One may insulate the pot neither with the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, nor with manure, nor with salt, nor with lime, nor with sand, whether those materials are moist or whether they are dry. All of these materials spontaneously generate heat when piled up for an extended period of time. Therefore, they add heat to the pot they insulate. The Gemara asks: What is different here that the mishna teaches the halakha in the case of rocks and it does not teach the halakha in the case of sand, and what is different there that it teaches the halakha in the case of sand and it does not teach the halakha in the case of rocks?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘住诇注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诪谞讬谉 讘讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讜讘爪讬驻讬 爪诪专 讜讘诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诇 讗专讙诪谉 讜讘诪讜讻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

Rav Yosef says: There is a practical reason for this difference. Rocks are not mentioned there because it is not customary for people to insulate food with rocks. Abaye said to him: And is it customary for people to insulate food with wool fleece and tabs of purple wool? As it is taught in a baraita: One may insulate food with wool fleece; with combed wool clumps, which are unwoven; with tabs of purple wool; and with swatches of soft material; but one may not move them on Shabbat because they are set-aside [muktze].

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讙讬讚 注诇讬讜 专注讜 转谞讗 讛讻讗 住诇注讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞讜诇 转谞讗 讛转诐 讞讜诇 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住诇注讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讬讙讬讚 注诇讬讜 专注讜 诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 讜诇讬转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讘讗讬讚讱 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讗讬讚讱

Rather, Abaye said that the tanna follows the biblical aphorism in the verse that states: 鈥淚ts neighbor tells about him鈥 (Job 36:33), i.e., one example is mentioned and the same applies to the other case. He taught the halakha in the case of rocks here and the same is true of sand; he taught the halakha in the case of sand there and the same is true of rocks. Rava said to Abaye: If this is correct, that 鈥渋ts neighbor tells about him,鈥 let him teach the halakha of all of these examples in one case, and let him teach the halakha of just one in the other case, and it can be said that the same is true with regard to the others.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 住诇注讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖转讻讬 诇讛 诇拽讚专讛 讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞诪讬诪讬 讞讬讬诐 讜诪拽专讬专讬 拽专讬专

Rather, Rava said: There, this is the reason that the tanna does not teach the halakha in the case of rocks: Because they break, i.e., scratch, the pot, and consequently people do not use them for insulating food at all. Here, this is the reason that the tanna does not teach the halakha in the case of sand: Because it heats hot items and cools cold items, and therefore it does not cause any damage to the wall.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞讜诇 讛转诐 讘诪转讜谞讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 诇讬转谞讬 讜诇讜拽诪讬讛 讘诪转讜谞讗 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita that one must distance sand from his neighbor鈥檚 wall. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to damp sand, which must be kept at a distance due to its moisture. The Gemara challenges: Let the tanna of our mishna also teach the halakha in the case of sand and we will interpret it as referring to damp sand. The Gemara answers: This tanna already taught the case of a water channel, which is a source of dampness, and therefore there was no need to mention damp sand as well.

讗讟讜 诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉

The Gemara rejects this answer: That is incorrect, as is that to say that the mishna includes only one example of a source of dampness? Doesn鈥檛 the mishna teach the case of a water channel? And yet it also teaches the example of a launderer鈥檚 pond. This demonstrates that the mishna teaches many cases, despite the similarity between them, and therefore it should have mentioned the halakha in the case of sand as well.

讛谞讛讜 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘讬注讗 讗讘诇 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 转谞讗 谞讘专讻转 讛讻讜讘住讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讜讜 讜拽讬讬诪讬 讗讘诇 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: Both of those particular examples are necessary, as, had the tanna taught only the case of a water channel, one would have claimed that a distance must be kept because it is fixed, i.e., water constantly passes through it. But with regard to a launderer鈥檚 pond, which is not fixed, as it sometimes holds water and sometimes does not, one might say that one need not distance it from his neighbor鈥檚 property. And conversely, had the tanna taught only the case of a launderer鈥檚 pond, one might have said that this must be distanced because its water is fixed and standing in one location and therefore leaks out. But with regard to a water channel, one might say distancing it is not required. Consequently, it is necessary to state both examples. By contrast, including the halakha in the case of sand would not add any novel understanding.

诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐 讜讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讜讻讜壮 讝专注讬诐 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讞专讬砖讛 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚

搂 The mishna teaches: One must 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. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to mention seeds? Let him derive this requirement to distance the seeds due to the requirement to distance a plow, as in any event the ground must be plowed before it can be sown? The Gemara answers: This is referring to planting with a single hand motion, which is performed without plowing.

诪讞专讬砖讛 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讝专注讬诐 讘讞讜专砖 诇讗讬诇谞讜转 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讬讗 转谞讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讟专 讛砖诪讬诐 转砖转讛 诪讬诐

The Gemara further challenges: The mishna teaches that one must distance a plow; but let him derive this requirement to distance a plow due to the requirement to distance the seeds, as plowing is preparation for planting. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who plows to prepare the ground for trees. The Gemara challenges: But if so, let him derive this requirement to distance a plow due to the requirement to distance the water. If there are trees, there must be a water channel to irrigate them, and arranging one鈥檚 field in such a manner should be prohibited for that reason. The Gemara answers: The tanna is referring to Eretz Yisrael, concerning which it is written: 鈥淎nd drinks water as the rain of heaven comes down鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:11). In Eretz Yisrael, water channels were not needed.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讝专注讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that seeds

诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛诪讘专讬讱 讗转 讛讙驻谉 讘讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讛 注驻专 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 注诇讬讛

take root to the sides, i.e., the growing roots spread sideways and cause damage to walls? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 7:1): With regard to one who bends a branch of a grapevine into the ground so that it strikes roots and produces a new vine, if it does not have three handbreadths of earth over it he may not plant a seed above it, as he would thereby transgress the prohibition of diverse kinds?

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讗讘诇 讝讜专注 讗转 讛爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讙讗 讘砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇讬讚讬谉 讗转 讛拽专拽注 讜诪注诇讬谉 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞

And it is taught with regard to this mishna: But one may plant on either side of that bent branch. This indicates that there is no concern that the roots of the seeds will spread out sideways. Rabbi 岣gga says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The issue here is not that the roots will spread out sideways and reach the wall. Rather, it is prohibited to plant seeds near one鈥檚 neighbor鈥檚 property because they break up the ground and cause loose soil to rise up, which damages the foundation of the wall.

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 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讛砖转讬谉 诪讬诐 讘爪讚 讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讻专转讬 诇讗讞讗讘 诪砖转讬谉 讘拽讬专 讜注爪讜专 讜注讝讜讘 讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 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 讛转诐 讘砖讜驻讻讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And urine must be kept at a distance of three handbreadths from the wall of one鈥檚 neighbor. Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is permitted for a person to urinate alongside the wall of another, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will cut off from Ahab those who urinate against the wall, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel鈥 (I聽Kings 21:21). As the verse employs the term 鈥渢hose who urinate against the wall鈥 to mean males, it seems that urinating against a wall was a common practice. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that urine must be kept a distance of three handbreadths from the wall? The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot, as opposed to urine that is passed from the body.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 讗讚诐 诪讬诐 讘爪讚 讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘砖讜驻讻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: A person may not pour water at the side of the wall of another unless he distances the water three handbreadths from it. If pouring water is prohibited, then all the more so should urination be prohibited. The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讬砖转讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讬诐 讘爪讚 讻讜转诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诇讘讬谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讘讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽 讜讻诪讛 讟驻讞 讜砖诇 爪讜谞诪讗 诪讜转专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: A person may not urinate alongside the wall of another unless he distances himself three handbreadths from it. In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a brick wall. But in the case of a stone wall, one must distance himself enough so that it does not cause damage. And how far must he distance himself? One handbreadth. And if there is hard rock present, it is permitted to urinate there. The Gemara comments: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba bar bar 岣na is a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected.

讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 讛转诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讚专讻讬讛 诇讗讬砖转讜谞讬 讘拽讬专 诇讗 砖讘讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讻诇讘讗

The Gemara asks: But Rabba bar bar 岣na stated a verse in support of his opinion; how can the baraita rule counter to what is written in a verse? The Gemara answers: This is what it is saying there, i.e., this is the meaning of that verse: I will not even leave Ahab something whose manner is to urinate against a wall. And what is that? A dog. According to this interpretation, the verse is not referring to people at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讟讜讘讬 讘专 拽讬住谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专拽讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讘讞诇讜谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专拽讬拽 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讛 谞诪讬

Rabbi Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: A wafer does not reduce the dimensions of a window. When a corpse, or a significant part thereof, is in one room, its impurity can spread to a room adjacent to it if there is a window of a certain size between the rooms. Shmuel states that when one puts a wafer in a window, the wafer is not considered an obstruction, so the size of the opening as relevant to this halakha remains the same. The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically this case? Why does Shmuel teach this halakha with regard to a wafer? Even a thick chunk of bread also does not reduce the dimensions of a window.

诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 注讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 专拽讬拽 讚诪诪讗讬住 讗讬诪讗 讘讟讜诇讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Shmuel is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha with regard to thick bread. Since it is fit for him to consume, he does not nullify it, i.e., he does not plan to leave it in the window for an extended amount of time. But in the case of a wafer, which becomes disgusting when placed in a window, I might say that he does nullify it and it becomes part of the house, thereby reducing the size of the window. To counter this, Shmuel teaches us that even a wafer is not nullified, as it can be used to feed animals, as one is not particular about their food. Therefore, the wafer does not become part of the window in which it is placed.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛 砖谞讬诇砖 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara challenges: And let him derive this halakha from the fact that a wafer is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and any item that is susceptible to impurity does not serve as a barrier against the spread of impurity. The Gemara explains: This is referring to a wafer that was kneaded in fruit juice, which is not one of the liquids that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore the wafer is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Consequently, one might have thought that it serves as a barrier before ritual impurity and reduces the dimensions of the window.

诪讬转讬讘讬 拽讜驻讛 诪诇讗讛 转讘谉 讜讞讘讬转 诪诇讗讛 讙专讜讙专讜转 讛诪讜谞讞讬诐 讘讞诇讜谉 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬谞讟诇讜 讜讬讻讜诇讬谉 转讘谉 讜讙专讜讙专讜转 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 讜讛讗 转讘谉 讞讝讬 诇讘讛诪转讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Oholot 6:2): With regard to a basket that is full of straw, or an earthenware barrel full of dried figs, which are placed in a window, one considers: If the straw or dried figs would stand on their own were the basket or barrel removed, then they would serve as a barrier against the spread of impurity. But if they would not stand on their own they would not serve as a barrier. The Gemara explains the objection: But why should the straw or dried figs serve as a barrier? Even straw that can stand on its own is fit for feeding to one鈥檚 animal and will likely be removed from the opening, which means it should not be considered part of the window.

讘住专讬讗 讞讝讬 诇讟讬谞讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 拽讜爪讬 讞讝讬 诇讛住拽讛 讘诪转讜谞讗 讞讝讬 诇讛住拽 讙讚讜诇 讛住拽 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to rotted straw, which is unfit for animal consumption. The Gemara asks: But it is fit for use in the making of clay for bricks. The Gemara answers: This is referring to straw that has thorns in it and therefore is not fit for making bricks. The Gemara challenges: Even so, it is fit for kindling a fire. The Gemara answers that this is referring to wet straw. The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, it is fit for kindling a large fire. If one builds a large fire, wet straw will dry and become ignitable. The Gemara answers: A large fire is not common, and therefore, in all likelihood, the straw will remain in the window.

讙专讜讙专讜转 讛讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖讛转专讬驻讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘砖讛转专讬驻讜

The Gemara further asks: But dried figs are fit for him to consume, and he will certainly remove them. Consequently, they should not be considered fixed in their place. Shmuel says: This is referring to a case where the figs became worm infested [beshehitrifu]. And so Rabba bar Avuh teaches: This is referring to a case where the figs became worm infested.

讛讗讬 讞讘讬转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讬 讚驻讜诪讗 诇讘专

The Gemara clarifies: What are the exact circumstances of this barrel that held the dried figs? If this is referring to a case where its opening faced outward, i.e., not toward the source of the ritual impurity,

Scroll To Top