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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 15, 2017 | 讬状讟 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 24

Abaye brings a proof from blood found in the cervix for Rabbi Chanina’s statement that if there is a majority against proximity, majority wins (majority of blood comes from the uterus which is impure blood but there is a closer chamber which would not be impure blood). 聽Rava disagrees with Abaye’s comparison because he says the majority of uterine blood is different from a regular majority because of the frequency. 聽In the end, though, Rava changes his mind and agrees that this case would support Rabbi Chanina. 聽Various other cases regarding a situation with a safek (doubt) are brought as relating to Rabbi Chanina’s opnion but they are all rejected (for various reasons each one has other factors that led to the determination of the halacha – not having to do with majority vs. proximity. 聽A tree must be distanced from the city a certain amount of space for aesthetic reasons. 聽The law is different depending on whether the city was there when the tree was planted to vice-versa or if it was unknown which came first. 聽The gemara compares the law here to the law in the case in a different mishna regarding a tree planted near a neighbor’s pit and explains the differences between the cases. 聽A threshing floor must be distanced 50 cubits from a city and from neighboring fields. 聽The last line in the mishna is unclear and two epxlanations are brought to explain whether it is a new law or explaining the reason for the law already stated in the mishna.


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

讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪注诇诪讗 讗转讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讚讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗转讬 讚讻诇 讚诪讬讚讚讬 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讬讛 诪讬讚讚讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讬讚讚讬

We are dealing with a path that passes between vineyards, and these two dovecotes are situated there. As, if it is so that you claim the chick came from anywhere else in the world, since it only hops, it could not have come there. The reason is that any bird that hops and turns and sees its nest will continue to hop; but if it does not see its nest because it has gone too far, it will not hop farther. Consequently, this found chick that hops must have come from one of these two dovecotes.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讚诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘驻专讜讝讚讜专 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转讜 诪谉 讛诪拽讜专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讬讛 讚诪拽专讘讗

Abaye said: We learn in a mishna (Nidda 17b) as well that one follows the majority rather than proximity: With regard to blood that is found in the corridor [baperozdor], i.e., the cervical canal, and it is uncertain whether or not it is menstrual blood, it is ritually impure as menstrual blood, as there is a presumption that it came from the uterus, which is the source of menstrual blood. And this is the halakha even though there is an upper chamber, which empties into the canal, which is closer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 专讜讘 讜诪爪讜讬 拽讗 讗诪专转 专讜讘 讜诪爪讜讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专

Rava said to Abaye, in response to this claim: You state a proof from a case where the factors of majority and frequency are both present. When there is majority and frequency, there is no one who says that one ignores the majority and follows proximity. Here, not only is the blood from the uterus greater in quantity, it also passes through the canal more frequently, as blood generally does not come from the upper chamber.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚诐 讛谞诪爪讗 讘驻专讜讝讚讜专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

Rava cites a proof for his statement. As Rabbi 岣yya teaches: Blood that is found in the corridor is considered definite menstrual blood, and therefore if she engages in sexual intercourse, both she and her partner would be liable as a result of it to receive karet for entering the Temple intentionally when ritually impure or to bring an offering for entering unwittingly. And one burns teruma due to it, if the woman touches such produce. Evidently, the status of this blood is not considered uncertain.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讜讘 讜拽专讜讘 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讜讘讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

And Rava says: Learn from that which Rabbi 岣yya said three conclusions: Learn from his statement that when the relevant factors are majority and proximity, follow the majority; and learn from his statement that the halakha that one follows the majority applies by Torah law, as teruma is burned in this case on account of the blood and she is liable to receive karet if she enters the Temple in this state; and learn from his statement that there is a source for that which Rabbi Zeira said.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转

This statement of Rabbi Zeira was issued in reference to a case discussed in tractate Ketubot (15a). If there are ten stores in a city, nine of which sell kosher meat and one of which sells non-kosher meat, and one found meat outside the stores and he does not know from which store it came, one follows the majority. The Gemara there suggests that perhaps one follows the majority only in a case where the gates of the city are unlocked, when the meat could have come to the city from the majority of kosher meat outside in a circumstance where the majority of the meat sold in the surrounding area was kosher. In this case there are two majorities, the majority of kosher meat stores inside the city, and the majority from outside. The Gemara there explains that Rabbi Zeira says that even if the city gates are locked one follows the majority, and the meat is kosher, as there is a no need for a double majority.

讚讛讗 讗砖讛 讚讻讬 讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转 讚诪讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗

The Gemara elaborates: The two cases are analogous, as the woman here is considered like the locked gates of the city, i.e., there is only a single majority, and even so we follow the majority.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讜讘 讜诪爪讜讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But Rava is the one who says with regard to the case of the blood that when there is majority and frequency, there is no one who says that one ignores the majority and follows the proximity. In other words, Rava rejected this case as proof of the principle that one follows the majority even when it is not frequent. Here, by contrast, Rava claims that one can learn from the ruling of Rabbi 岣yya that one follows the majority by Torah law. The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that claim in favor of the opinion that one follows the majority in all cases.

讗讬转诪专 讞讘讬转 砖爪驻讛 讘谞讛专 讗诪专 专讘 谞诪爪讗转 讻谞讙讚 注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专 讻谞讙讚 注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 谞讻专讬诐 讗住讬专讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞诪爪讗转 讻谞讙讚 注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讬专讗 讗讬诪讜专 诪讛讗讬 讚拽专讗 讗转讗讬

It was stated: In the case of a barrel of wine that was found floating in a river, and the status of the wine was unknown, Rav says: If it was found opposite a town of which the majority of residents are Jews, the wine is permitted, as it can be assumed that the wine belongs to a Jew. If it was found opposite a town of which the majority are gentiles, it is forbidden, as it presumably belongs to a gentile. And Shmuel says: It is forbidden even if it was found opposite a town of which the majority are Jews. Why? Regardless of where it was found, one can say that it came from that place called Dekira, where the majority of people are gentiles. In other words, there is a distinct possibility that a floating barrel came from far away.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, in that one Sage, Shmuel, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, and he rules based on the majority, which in this case includes even distant locales, and one Sage, Rav, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, which is why he rules based on proximity.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪讛讗讬 讚拽专讗 讗转讗讬 注拽讜诇讬 讜驻砖讜专讬 讛讜讛 诪讟讘注讬 诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讞专讬驻讗 讚谞讛专讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; everyone agrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, and here they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rav, holds that if it is so, that the barrel came from that place called Dekira, this cannot be, as the currents and bays of the river, where the river flow is weak, would have sunk it. Therefore, it is logical that the barrel came from a nearby town. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that perhaps the force of the river caught the barrel and brought it, as it is evident that the flow of a river can bring items from far away.

讛讛讜讗 讞爪讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讚注专诇讛 砖专讬讗 专讘讬谞讗 诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara relates that Ravina deemed permitted a certain barrel of wine that was found hidden in a vineyard where there were orla grapes, and he was not concerned that the wine might be from the grapes of that vineyard. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina that one follows the majority of vineyards, which are not orla, rather than proximity?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬 诪讬讙谞讬讘 诪讬谞讛 讗爪谞讜注讬 讘讙讜讬讛 诇讗 诪爪谞注讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞诪专讗 讗讘诇 注讬谞讘讬 诪爪谞注讬

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, if thieves had stolen the barrel from that very vineyard they would not have hidden it there. Since the barrel was hidden there, it is reasonable to assume that it was stolen from somewhere else. The Gemara comments: And this matter, that thieves would not hide a stolen barrel in the same vineyard from which they stole it, applies only to wine; but they would hide grapes there, as grapes are not readily identifiable by the owner. Consequently, there is a concern that grapes found hidden there might be from that same vineyard.

讛谞讛讜 讝讬拽讬 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗砖转讻讞谉 讘讬 拽讜驻讗讬 砖专谞讛讜 专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诇讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讜讘讗

The Gemara further relates that there were these jugs of wine that were found between vines [bei kofa鈥檈i] of a Jew. Rava deemed the contents permitted and was unconcerned that they might be wine owned by a gentile. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rava does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, who says that one follows the majority, in this case gentiles? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the majority

讚砖驻讜讻讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讘专讘讬 讗讘诇 讝讜讟专讬 讗讬诪讜专 诪注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 谞驻讜诇 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 专讘专讘讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讜专 讘讗讘专讜专讬 讛讜讛 诪谞讞讬

of those who pour wine from barrels into jugs are Jews, and therefore it is reasonable that the wine belongs to a Jew. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to large jugs. But if they were small jugs, one can say that they were dropped by travelers, most of whom are gentiles, and therefore the jugs of wine are forbidden. And if there are large jugs among the found jugs, say that they all belong to Jews, as travelers do not usually carry large jugs; it can be assumed that the small ones were placed to balance the donkey鈥檚 load, and the jugs all fell together.

诪转谞讬壮 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谉 讛注讬专 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讜讘讞专讜讘 讜讘砖拽诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗讬诇谉 住专拽 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗诐 讛注讬专 拽讚诪讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 讜住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐

MISHNA: One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city, and in the cases of a carob tree and of a sycamore tree, which have a great many branches, they must be distanced fifty cubits. Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree must be distanced fifty cubits. And if the city preceded the tree, as one later planted the tree alongside the city, he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money to the tree鈥檚 owner in compensation. And if the tree preceded the city, which expanded after one planted the tree until it reached the tree, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讬讬 讛注讬专 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one must distance a tree from a city? Ulla says: It is due to the beauty of the city, as it is unattractive for a city鈥檚 walls to be obscured by tree branches. The Gemara suggests: And let him derive this halakha from the statement in tractate Arakhin (33b) that one may neither convert a field of a city into an open area surrounding the city, nor may one convert an open area into a field, as these have fixed places and measurements (see Numbers 35:1鈥8). If one plants trees in a city鈥檚 open area, he thereby turns the open area into a field.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讬讬 讛注讬专 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to supply the reason given by Ulla according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: One may convert a field into an open area, and an open area into a field. Here, we do not plant trees, due to the beauty of the city.

讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讝专注讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谞讜转 注讘讚讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讬讬 讛注讬专 诇讗

And according to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, who say that one may not convert a field into an open area, nor convert an open area into a field, one can say that this matter applies only to seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds in a city鈥檚 open area and thereby turn it into a field. But with regard to trees, we do plant them in an open area. But here we do not plant trees, due to the beauty of the city.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讝专注讬谉 诇讗讬诇谞讜转 讚转谞讬讗 拽专驻祝 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛

And from where do you say, i.e., on what basis do you maintain, that there is a difference between seeds and trees? As it is taught in a baraita that discusses the halakhot of Shabbat: With regard to an enclosure [karpef ] whose area is greater than two beit se鈥檃 but that was enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, it is permitted to carry within it on Shabbat regardless of its size, as it is considered a private domain.

谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讬谞讛 讜讗住讜专 谞讬讟注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞爪专 讜诪讜转专

If subsequently the greater part of it was sown with seed crops, it is considered like a garden, which is not a place of residence, and it is prohibited to carry anything within it on Shabbat. If the greater part of it was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, which is a place of dwelling, and it is permitted to carry there on Shabbat. This shows that planting trees in an enclosure does not transform the area into a field, as is the case when seeds are planted.

讜讗诐 讛注讬专 拽讚诪讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讚拽转谞讬 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And if the city preceded the tree he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a cistern, that the tanna of another mishna (25b) teaches that if one plants a tree next to a neighbor鈥檚 existing cistern, the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the owner of the cistern gives money; and what is different here that the mishna teaches that the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the city does not give money?

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽讬讚专讗 讚讘讬 砖讜转驻讬 诇讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讬专讗

Rav Kahana said, citing a popular aphorism: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold, i.e., no one takes responsibility for an item that belongs to several people, as opposed to a single individual. Here too, there is no specific person who will pay for the tree.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讝讬拽讗 讚专讘讬诐 诪讛讝讬拽讗 讚讬讞讬讚

The Gemara asks: And what is the difficulty to begin with? Perhaps damage caused to public property is different from damage caused to the property of an individual. Consequently, when one鈥檚 tree causes damage to the public he is not compensated for having to cut it down, whereas he does receive payment when his tree damages a private cistern.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诐 讛讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 讘专讬砖讗 讚诪讬 讜讛讚专 讗讬拽讜抓 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽讬讚专讗 讚讘讬 砖讜转驻讬 诇讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讬专讗

Rather, if Rav Kahana鈥檚 comment was stated in this context, it was stated about the latter clause: If the tree preceded the city, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. Concerning this halakha one could ask: And let the tree owner say to the city residents: Give me money first and then I will cut down the tree. In this context, Rav Kahana said: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold. If the owner of the tree is entitled to wait until he had first collects money, a good deal of time would pass before the tree would be cut down. Therefore, a community need not collect money and pay immediately, unlike an individual.

住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 讜住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讘讜专 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讬拽讜抓

搂 The mishna teaches that if it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of a tree alongside a cistern, concerning which you said in the mishna (25b) that in a case of uncertainty the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree?

讛转诐 讚讜讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪讬拽抓 拽讗讬 住驻讬拽讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讜抓 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 诇诪讬拽抓 拽讗讬 住驻讬拽讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讜抓 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜砖拽讜诇

The Gemara answers: There, if it were a case of certainty the tree would not be subject to being cut down; therefore, in a case of uncertainty too, we do not say to the owner of the tree: Cut it down. In that case, if the tree preceded the cistern, the owner of the tree would not be required to cut it down. Here, if it were a case of certainty, the tree would be subject to being cut down even if it preceded the city, and the only uncertainty is whether or not the owner of the tree would need to be compensated. Consequently, in a case of uncertainty too, we say to the owner of the tree: Cut it down. And if the owner of the tree lodges a claim due to the value of the tree, as he wants compensation for it, we say to him: Bring proof that your tree came first, and take your money. Since he has no proof, he does not receive any money.

诪转谞讬壮 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜诪专讞讬拽 诪谞讟讬注讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪谞讬专讜 讘讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽

MISHNA: One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city, so that the chaff will not harm the city鈥檚 residents. Furthermore, a person should not establish a permanent threshing floor even on his own property unless he has fifty cubits of open space in every direction. And one must distance a threshing floor from the plantings of another and from another鈥檚 plowed field far enough that it does not cause damage.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讙讜专谉 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, which states a fixed measurement for the distance of a threshing floor from a city, and what is different in the latter clause, which does not provide a measurement but simply states in general terms: Enough that it does not cause damage? Abaye said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a threshing floor that is not permanent. This threshing floor must be far enough from a neighbor that it does not cause damage to his property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讙讜专谉 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讜专讛 讘专讞转

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a threshing floor that is not permanent? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: It refers to any threshing floor where one processes such a small quantity of grain that he does not winnow with a winnowing shovel, but employs some other method that does not scatter the chaff as far. This is one resolution of the contradiction.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽

Rav Ashi said that the phrase: Enough that it does not cause damage, is not referring to a distance but provides an explanation. In other words, the tanna is saying: What is the reason for the ruling of the first clause, as follows: What is the reason that one must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city? It must be far enough away that it does not cause damage.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讻砖诐 砖诪专讞讬拽讬谉 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讻讱 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 诪讚诇讜注讬讜 讜诪拽砖讜讗讬讜 讜诪谞讟讬注讜转讬讜 讜诪谞讬专讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Abaye from a baraita: One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city; and just as one distances it fifty cubits from the city, so too does one distance it fifty cubits from the gourds, cucumbers, plantings, and plowed field of another, enough that it does not cause damage. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, as he claims that in both clauses the same distance is required: One must move a threshing floor fifty cubits from a plowed field and from those plantings. But according to the explanation of Abaye, it is difficult. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪诪拽砖讜讗讬讜 讜诪讚诇讜注讬讜 讚讗讝讬诇 讗讘拽讗 讜讗转讬 讘诇讬讘讬讛 讜诪爪讜讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讬专讜 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 诪驻谞讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: Granted, one must distance his threshing floor from his neighbor鈥檚 cucumbers and gourds, as the chaff from the threshing floor goes and penetrates into the heart of the flower and dries it out. But why must one distance the threshing floor from another鈥檚 plowed field? Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said, and some say it was Rabbi Abba bar Zutra: It is because

  • 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 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 24

讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪注诇诪讗 讗转讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬讚讚讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗转讬 讚讻诇 讚诪讬讚讚讬 讜讛讚专 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇拽讬谞讬讛 诪讬讚讚讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讬讚讚讬

We are dealing with a path that passes between vineyards, and these two dovecotes are situated there. As, if it is so that you claim the chick came from anywhere else in the world, since it only hops, it could not have come there. The reason is that any bird that hops and turns and sees its nest will continue to hop; but if it does not see its nest because it has gone too far, it will not hop farther. Consequently, this found chick that hops must have come from one of these two dovecotes.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讚诐 砖谞诪爪讗 讘驻专讜讝讚讜专 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转讜 诪谉 讛诪拽讜专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讬讛 讚诪拽专讘讗

Abaye said: We learn in a mishna (Nidda 17b) as well that one follows the majority rather than proximity: With regard to blood that is found in the corridor [baperozdor], i.e., the cervical canal, and it is uncertain whether or not it is menstrual blood, it is ritually impure as menstrual blood, as there is a presumption that it came from the uterus, which is the source of menstrual blood. And this is the halakha even though there is an upper chamber, which empties into the canal, which is closer.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 专讜讘 讜诪爪讜讬 拽讗 讗诪专转 专讜讘 讜诪爪讜讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专

Rava said to Abaye, in response to this claim: You state a proof from a case where the factors of majority and frequency are both present. When there is majority and frequency, there is no one who says that one ignores the majority and follows proximity. Here, not only is the blood from the uterus greater in quantity, it also passes through the canal more frequently, as blood generally does not come from the upper chamber.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚诐 讛谞诪爪讗 讘驻专讜讝讚讜专 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转专讜诪讛

Rava cites a proof for his statement. As Rabbi 岣yya teaches: Blood that is found in the corridor is considered definite menstrual blood, and therefore if she engages in sexual intercourse, both she and her partner would be liable as a result of it to receive karet for entering the Temple intentionally when ritually impure or to bring an offering for entering unwittingly. And one burns teruma due to it, if the woman touches such produce. Evidently, the status of this blood is not considered uncertain.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讜讘 讜拽专讜讘 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讜讘讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

And Rava says: Learn from that which Rabbi 岣yya said three conclusions: Learn from his statement that when the relevant factors are majority and proximity, follow the majority; and learn from his statement that the halakha that one follows the majority applies by Torah law, as teruma is burned in this case on account of the blood and she is liable to receive karet if she enters the Temple in this state; and learn from his statement that there is a source for that which Rabbi Zeira said.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转

This statement of Rabbi Zeira was issued in reference to a case discussed in tractate Ketubot (15a). If there are ten stores in a city, nine of which sell kosher meat and one of which sells non-kosher meat, and one found meat outside the stores and he does not know from which store it came, one follows the majority. The Gemara there suggests that perhaps one follows the majority only in a case where the gates of the city are unlocked, when the meat could have come to the city from the majority of kosher meat outside in a circumstance where the majority of the meat sold in the surrounding area was kosher. In this case there are two majorities, the majority of kosher meat stores inside the city, and the majority from outside. The Gemara there explains that Rabbi Zeira says that even if the city gates are locked one follows the majority, and the meat is kosher, as there is a no need for a double majority.

讚讛讗 讗砖讛 讚讻讬 讚诇转讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 谞注讜诇讜转 讚诪讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗

The Gemara elaborates: The two cases are analogous, as the woman here is considered like the locked gates of the city, i.e., there is only a single majority, and even so we follow the majority.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讜讘 讜诪爪讜讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But Rava is the one who says with regard to the case of the blood that when there is majority and frequency, there is no one who says that one ignores the majority and follows the proximity. In other words, Rava rejected this case as proof of the principle that one follows the majority even when it is not frequent. Here, by contrast, Rava claims that one can learn from the ruling of Rabbi 岣yya that one follows the majority by Torah law. The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that claim in favor of the opinion that one follows the majority in all cases.

讗讬转诪专 讞讘讬转 砖爪驻讛 讘谞讛专 讗诪专 专讘 谞诪爪讗转 讻谞讙讚 注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专 讻谞讙讚 注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 谞讻专讬诐 讗住讬专讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞诪爪讗转 讻谞讙讚 注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讬专讗 讗讬诪讜专 诪讛讗讬 讚拽专讗 讗转讗讬

It was stated: In the case of a barrel of wine that was found floating in a river, and the status of the wine was unknown, Rav says: If it was found opposite a town of which the majority of residents are Jews, the wine is permitted, as it can be assumed that the wine belongs to a Jew. If it was found opposite a town of which the majority are gentiles, it is forbidden, as it presumably belongs to a gentile. And Shmuel says: It is forbidden even if it was found opposite a town of which the majority are Jews. Why? Regardless of where it was found, one can say that it came from that place called Dekira, where the majority of people are gentiles. In other words, there is a distinct possibility that a floating barrel came from far away.

诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, in that one Sage, Shmuel, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, and he rules based on the majority, which in this case includes even distant locales, and one Sage, Rav, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, which is why he rules based on proximity.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪讛讗讬 讚拽专讗 讗转讗讬 注拽讜诇讬 讜驻砖讜专讬 讛讜讛 诪讟讘注讬 诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讞专讬驻讗 讚谞讛专讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; everyone agrees with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, and here they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rav, holds that if it is so, that the barrel came from that place called Dekira, this cannot be, as the currents and bays of the river, where the river flow is weak, would have sunk it. Therefore, it is logical that the barrel came from a nearby town. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that perhaps the force of the river caught the barrel and brought it, as it is evident that the flow of a river can bring items from far away.

讛讛讜讗 讞爪讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讚注专诇讛 砖专讬讗 专讘讬谞讗 诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara relates that Ravina deemed permitted a certain barrel of wine that was found hidden in a vineyard where there were orla grapes, and he was not concerned that the wine might be from the grapes of that vineyard. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina that one follows the majority of vineyards, which are not orla, rather than proximity?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬 诪讬讙谞讬讘 诪讬谞讛 讗爪谞讜注讬 讘讙讜讬讛 诇讗 诪爪谞注讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞诪专讗 讗讘诇 注讬谞讘讬 诪爪谞注讬

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, if thieves had stolen the barrel from that very vineyard they would not have hidden it there. Since the barrel was hidden there, it is reasonable to assume that it was stolen from somewhere else. The Gemara comments: And this matter, that thieves would not hide a stolen barrel in the same vineyard from which they stole it, applies only to wine; but they would hide grapes there, as grapes are not readily identifiable by the owner. Consequently, there is a concern that grapes found hidden there might be from that same vineyard.

讛谞讛讜 讝讬拽讬 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗砖转讻讞谉 讘讬 拽讜驻讗讬 砖专谞讛讜 专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诇讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专讜讘讗

The Gemara further relates that there were these jugs of wine that were found between vines [bei kofa鈥檈i] of a Jew. Rava deemed the contents permitted and was unconcerned that they might be wine owned by a gentile. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rava does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, who says that one follows the majority, in this case gentiles? The Gemara answers: There it is different, as the majority

讚砖驻讜讻讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讘专讘讬 讗讘诇 讝讜讟专讬 讗讬诪讜专 诪注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 谞驻讜诇 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 专讘专讘讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讜专 讘讗讘专讜专讬 讛讜讛 诪谞讞讬

of those who pour wine from barrels into jugs are Jews, and therefore it is reasonable that the wine belongs to a Jew. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to large jugs. But if they were small jugs, one can say that they were dropped by travelers, most of whom are gentiles, and therefore the jugs of wine are forbidden. And if there are large jugs among the found jugs, say that they all belong to Jews, as travelers do not usually carry large jugs; it can be assumed that the small ones were placed to balance the donkey鈥檚 load, and the jugs all fell together.

诪转谞讬壮 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谉 讛注讬专 注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖 讗诪讛 讜讘讞专讜讘 讜讘砖拽诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗讬诇谉 住专拽 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗诐 讛注讬专 拽讚诪讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 讜住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐

MISHNA: One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city, and in the cases of a carob tree and of a sycamore tree, which have a great many branches, they must be distanced fifty cubits. Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree must be distanced fifty cubits. And if the city preceded the tree, as one later planted the tree alongside the city, he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money to the tree鈥檚 owner in compensation. And if the tree preceded the city, which expanded after one planted the tree until it reached the tree, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讬讬 讛注讬专 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one must distance a tree from a city? Ulla says: It is due to the beauty of the city, as it is unattractive for a city鈥檚 walls to be obscured by tree branches. The Gemara suggests: And let him derive this halakha from the statement in tractate Arakhin (33b) that one may neither convert a field of a city into an open area surrounding the city, nor may one convert an open area into a field, as these have fixed places and measurements (see Numbers 35:1鈥8). If one plants trees in a city鈥檚 open area, he thereby turns the open area into a field.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讬讬 讛注讬专 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to supply the reason given by Ulla according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: One may convert a field into an open area, and an open area into a field. Here, we do not plant trees, due to the beauty of the city.

讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讝专注讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谞讜转 注讘讚讬谞谉 讜讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 谞讜讬讬 讛注讬专 诇讗

And according to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, who say that one may not convert a field into an open area, nor convert an open area into a field, one can say that this matter applies only to seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds in a city鈥檚 open area and thereby turn it into a field. But with regard to trees, we do plant them in an open area. But here we do not plant trees, due to the beauty of the city.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讝专注讬谉 诇讗讬诇谞讜转 讚转谞讬讗 拽专驻祝 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛

And from where do you say, i.e., on what basis do you maintain, that there is a difference between seeds and trees? As it is taught in a baraita that discusses the halakhot of Shabbat: With regard to an enclosure [karpef ] whose area is greater than two beit se鈥檃 but that was enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, it is permitted to carry within it on Shabbat regardless of its size, as it is considered a private domain.

谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讬谞讛 讜讗住讜专 谞讬讟注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞爪专 讜诪讜转专

If subsequently the greater part of it was sown with seed crops, it is considered like a garden, which is not a place of residence, and it is prohibited to carry anything within it on Shabbat. If the greater part of it was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, which is a place of dwelling, and it is permitted to carry there on Shabbat. This shows that planting trees in an enclosure does not transform the area into a field, as is the case when seeds are planted.

讜讗诐 讛注讬专 拽讚诪讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讘讜专 讚拽转谞讬 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽转谞讬 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And if the city preceded the tree he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a cistern, that the tanna of another mishna (25b) teaches that if one plants a tree next to a neighbor鈥檚 existing cistern, the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the owner of the cistern gives money; and what is different here that the mishna teaches that the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the city does not give money?

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽讬讚专讗 讚讘讬 砖讜转驻讬 诇讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讬专讗

Rav Kahana said, citing a popular aphorism: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold, i.e., no one takes responsibility for an item that belongs to several people, as opposed to a single individual. Here too, there is no specific person who will pay for the tree.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讝讬拽讗 讚专讘讬诐 诪讛讝讬拽讗 讚讬讞讬讚

The Gemara asks: And what is the difficulty to begin with? Perhaps damage caused to public property is different from damage caused to the property of an individual. Consequently, when one鈥檚 tree causes damage to the public he is not compensated for having to cut it down, whereas he does receive payment when his tree damages a private cistern.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诐 讛讗讬诇谉 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 讘专讬砖讗 讚诪讬 讜讛讚专 讗讬拽讜抓 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽讬讚专讗 讚讘讬 砖讜转驻讬 诇讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讜诇讗 拽专讬专讗

Rather, if Rav Kahana鈥檚 comment was stated in this context, it was stated about the latter clause: If the tree preceded the city, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. Concerning this halakha one could ask: And let the tree owner say to the city residents: Give me money first and then I will cut down the tree. In this context, Rav Kahana said: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold. If the owner of the tree is entitled to wait until he had first collects money, a good deal of time would pass before the tree would be cut down. Therefore, a community need not collect money and pay immediately, unlike an individual.

住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 讜住驻拽 讝讛 拽讚诐 拽讜爪抓 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讘讜专 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讬拽讜抓

搂 The mishna teaches that if it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of a tree alongside a cistern, concerning which you said in the mishna (25b) that in a case of uncertainty the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree?

讛转诐 讚讜讚讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪讬拽抓 拽讗讬 住驻讬拽讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讜抓 讛讻讗 讚讜讚讗讬 诇诪讬拽抓 拽讗讬 住驻讬拽讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讜抓 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜砖拽讜诇

The Gemara answers: There, if it were a case of certainty the tree would not be subject to being cut down; therefore, in a case of uncertainty too, we do not say to the owner of the tree: Cut it down. In that case, if the tree preceded the cistern, the owner of the tree would not be required to cut it down. Here, if it were a case of certainty, the tree would be subject to being cut down even if it preceded the city, and the only uncertainty is whether or not the owner of the tree would need to be compensated. Consequently, in a case of uncertainty too, we say to the owner of the tree: Cut it down. And if the owner of the tree lodges a claim due to the value of the tree, as he wants compensation for it, we say to him: Bring proof that your tree came first, and take your money. Since he has no proof, he does not receive any money.

诪转谞讬壮 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜诪专讞讬拽 诪谞讟讬注讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪谞讬专讜 讘讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽

MISHNA: One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city, so that the chaff will not harm the city鈥檚 residents. Furthermore, a person should not establish a permanent threshing floor even on his own property unless he has fifty cubits of open space in every direction. And one must distance a threshing floor from the plantings of another and from another鈥檚 plowed field far enough that it does not cause damage.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讙讜专谉 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, which states a fixed measurement for the distance of a threshing floor from a city, and what is different in the latter clause, which does not provide a measurement but simply states in general terms: Enough that it does not cause damage? Abaye said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a threshing floor that is not permanent. This threshing floor must be far enough from a neighbor that it does not cause damage to his property.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讙讜专谉 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讝讜专讛 讘专讞转

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a threshing floor that is not permanent? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: It refers to any threshing floor where one processes such a small quantity of grain that he does not winnow with a winnowing shovel, but employs some other method that does not scatter the chaff as far. This is one resolution of the contradiction.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽

Rav Ashi said that the phrase: Enough that it does not cause damage, is not referring to a distance but provides an explanation. In other words, the tanna is saying: What is the reason for the ruling of the first clause, as follows: What is the reason that one must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city? It must be far enough away that it does not cause damage.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讙讜专谉 拽讘讜注 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讻砖诐 砖诪专讞讬拽讬谉 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讻讱 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 诪讚诇讜注讬讜 讜诪拽砖讜讗讬讜 讜诪谞讟讬注讜转讬讜 讜诪谞讬专讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讬拽 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Abaye from a baraita: One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city; and just as one distances it fifty cubits from the city, so too does one distance it fifty cubits from the gourds, cucumbers, plantings, and plowed field of another, enough that it does not cause damage. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, as he claims that in both clauses the same distance is required: One must move a threshing floor fifty cubits from a plowed field and from those plantings. But according to the explanation of Abaye, it is difficult. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪诪拽砖讜讗讬讜 讜诪讚诇讜注讬讜 讚讗讝讬诇 讗讘拽讗 讜讗转讬 讘诇讬讘讬讛 讜诪爪讜讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讬专讜 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 诪驻谞讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: Granted, one must distance his threshing floor from his neighbor鈥檚 cucumbers and gourds, as the chaff from the threshing floor goes and penetrates into the heart of the flower and dries it out. But why must one distance the threshing floor from another鈥檚 plowed field? Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said, and some say it was Rabbi Abba bar Zutra: It is because

Scroll To Top