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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2017 | 讻状讗 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 26

How much does one need to distance his tree from another’s property? 聽One reason for the distance is to leave room for the neighbor to plow. 聽If one’s roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain distance depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for). 聽Various cases are brought discussing these halachot. 聽The mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor’s tree, the wood from the roots goes to “him.” 聽The gemara tries to figure out whether the “him” refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field. 聽Ulla says that since roots of a tree will get nourishment from a neighboring field if it is within 16 cubits, one does not bring Bikurim from such a tree. 聽The gemara tries to bring sources to see where he gets to that number from.


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

讻讚谞讬讬讚 谞讻转诪讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚讞爪讘讗

It must shake enough that the lid [nakhtema] positioned at the mouth of a jug shakes if it is placed on a wall.

讚讘讬 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞驻爪讬 讻讬转谞讗 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讗 专拽转讗 讜诪讝拽讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讙讬专讬 讚讬诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽讗 讗讝诇讗 诪讻讞讜 讛讻讗 讝讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讛

The Gemara relates: When the members of the household of bar Maryon, son of Ravin, would beat their flax, the chaff [rakta] would fly off and harm people. Those people came before Ravina to complain. Ravina said to them: When we say that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, this statement applies only when the damaging item moves by his direct force. Here, by contrast, it is the wind that carries the chaff.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜 讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: In what way is this case different from one who winnows on Shabbat by throwing the grain into the wind so that the chaff is blown away and the wind assists him? That is considered a primary category of labor on Shabbat despite the fact that the act is performed partly with the aid of the wind. The Gemara relates that the Sages stated this objection with regard to beating flax before Mareimar. Mareimar said to them: This case is the same as one who winnows and the wind assists him. Just as this is considered his direct force for the purposes of the halakhot of Shabbat, it is likewise considered his direct force with regard to the halakhot of damages.

讜诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讙抓 讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讛驻讟讬砖 讜讛讝讬拽 讚讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讛转诐 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讝诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讝诇

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who rejects this comparison and claims that flying chaff is not considered one鈥檚 arrow, in what way is this situation different from that of a spark that flies from a hammer and causes damage, in which case all agree that the one wielding the hammer is liable to pay? The Gemara answers: There, it is preferable for him that the spark go as far as possible, rather than staying nearby. Here it is not preferable for him, i.e., it is immaterial to him, that the chaff go some distance.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讞讚 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讗讬诇谉 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

MISHNA: A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. This is the case whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree. If there was a fence between them, this one may place, i.e., plant, his grapevines or trees close to the fence from here, and that one may place, i.e., plant, his produce close to the fence from there.

讛讬讜 砖专砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬诐 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 讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讛注爪讬诐 砖诇讜

If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow. If he was digging a cistern in that spot, or a ditch, or a cave, and he came upon the roots of his neighbor鈥檚 tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots is his.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 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 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讘讘诇 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: A tanna taught: The four cubits that the Sages stated one must leave between a vineyard and a neighbor鈥檚 field are for the work of the vineyard, so that the owner of the vineyard does not take oxen and a plow into his neighbor鈥檚 field while working his vineyard. Shmuel says: They taught this halakha only with regard to Eretz Yisrael, but in Babylonia two cubits are sufficient, as their plows are shorter. This opinion is also taught in a baraita: A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances the tree two cubits from the field. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Four cubits? Rather, is it not correct that there is a difference between Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia in this regard, as stated by Shmuel? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘讘诇 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

And there are those who raise this matter in the form of a contradiction. We learned in the mishna that a person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that two cubits are sufficient? Shmuel said that this is not difficult: Here it is referring to Babylonia, whereas there it is referring to Eretz Yisrael.

专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪讬爪专讗 讚驻专讚讬住讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讜 讗转讜 爪驻讜专讬 讬转讘讬 讘讚讬拽诇讬 讜谞讞转讬 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗专讞讬拽讬 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗讬诇谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讙驻谞讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬

The Gemara relates: Rava bar Rav 岣nan had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of Rav Yosef鈥檚 vineyard. Birds would come and roost on the palm trees and would subsequently descend to the vineyard and damage it. Rav Yosef said to Rava bar Rav 岣nan: Go and cut down your palm trees. Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to him: But I distanced them the required amount. Rav Yosef said to him: This matter, i.e., this specific distance, applies only to trees, but a greater distance is required for vines.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讞讚 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讗讬诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讙驻谞讬诐 诇讙驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谉 诇讙驻谞讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬

Rava bar Rav 岣nan protested: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that this is the halakha whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree? Rav Yosef said to him: This matter applies only to the distance between one tree and another tree, or the distance between one vine and other vines. But with regard to the space between a tree and vines, one requires a greater distance.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 拽讬讬爪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讚讟注讬谉 拽讘讗 讗住讜专 诇诪拽爪讬讬讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讘 砖讻讞转 讘专讬 讗诇讗 讚拽抓 转讗谞转讗 讘诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬讛 诪专 讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讬拽讜抓

Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to him: I myself will not cut them down, as Rav said: With regard to this palm tree that produces one kav of fruit, it is prohibited to cut it down, due to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not destroy the trees鈥 (Deuteronomy 20:19). And Rabbi 岣nina says: My son Shikh岣t died only because he cut down a fig tree before its time. Rava bar Rav 岣nan continued: If the Master is amenable to do so, he may cut them down, but I will not do it.

专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪讬爪专讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讝诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 讞驻专 讜拽讗 拽讗讬抓 砖专砖讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞谉 讛讬讜 砖专砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛

The Gemara further relates that Rav Pappa had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of the property of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He went and found Rav Huna digging and cutting his roots. Rav Pappa said to him: What is this? Rav Huna said to him that we learned in the mishna: If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖诇砖讛 诪专 拽讗 讞驻专 讟驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 拽讗 讞驻专谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讛注爪讬诐 砖诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讬 讜诇讗 讬讻讬诇讬 诇讬讛

Rav Pappa said to him: This statement applies only up to three handbreadths, whereas the Master is digging and cutting more than three. Rav Huna said to him: I am digging cisterns, ditches, and caves, as we learned in the mishna: If he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward normally and the wood from the roots is his. Rav Pappa said: I told him all the proofs I could find, but I was unable to convince him that I was correct,

注讚 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪专 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽诇拽诇讜 诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讗谉 讘转讜讱 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛

until I told him that which Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a strip of land over which the public has an acquired privilege of use, one may not destroy it. Here too, since I have an acquired privilege of use of this land, you are not permitted to destroy that which I possess. After Rav Pappa left, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Why did I not say to him that there, an acquired privilege of use is effective when it is within sixteen cubits, as within that area the roots are considered part of the tree, whereas here I cut the roots of the palm trees beyond sixteen cubits.

讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讛注爪讬诐 砖诇讜 (讜讻讜壮) 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讬注拽讘 讛讚讬讬讘讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 注爪讬诐 砖诇 诪讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward and the wood is his. The Sage Ya鈥檃kov of Hadeyyav raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: To whom does the wood belong? The mishna says that the wood is his, without specifying to which of the two individuals this refers, the owner of the tree or the owner of the land.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖专砖讬 讗讬诇谉 砖诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讘讗讬谉 讘砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

Rav 岣sda said to him: You learned the answer in a mishna in tractate Me鈥檌la (13b). If roots of a tree belonging to an ordinary person [hedyot] extend into a field belonging to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from them, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. That is, even if one does transgress the prohibition and benefit from them, it is not considered misuse and he is not liable to bring an offering.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘转专 讗讬诇谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘转专 拽专拽注 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

Granted, if you say that we follow the tree, and the roots are considered part of it, it is due to that reason that one is not liable for misuse, as the tree is not consecrated. But if you say we follow the land, i.e., the roots belong to the land鈥檚 owner, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘转专 讗讬诇谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讘讗讬诐 讘砖诇 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讜讗讬 讘转专 讗讬诇谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say, that we follow the tree? If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If roots of a tree belonging to the Temple treasury extend into a field of an ordinary person, one may not derive benefit from them, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. But if we follow the tree, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉

The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? In both clauses of the mishna we are dealing with growths that came thereafter, i.e., after the tree was consecrated, and the tanna of that mishna holds that with regard to growths that grew from a consecrated plant or tree, they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Only the original plant is. Consequently, there is no connection between that mishna and the question of whether roots are considered part of the tree or part of the land.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转讜讱 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛

Ravina said that it is not difficult: Here, in the first clause of the mishna in Me鈥檌la, it is referring to within sixteen cubits of the tree. In this case the roots are considered part of the tree. There, in the second clause, it is referring to roots beyond sixteen cubits, in which case the roots are considered part of the ground where they are found.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇诪爪专 讘转讜讱 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐

Ulla said: An individual who maintains a tree that is within sixteen cubits of a boundary is a robber, as it draws nourishment from the neighbor鈥檚 land, and one does not bring first fruits from it, since that would be a mitzva that is fulfilled by means of a transgression.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚转谞谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 讛诪驻讜讝专讜转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转 住讗讛 讞讜专砖讬谉 讻诇 讘讬转 住讗讛 讘砖讘讬诇谉 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: From where does Ulla derive that measurement? If we say it is from that which we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 1:6), this is problematic. That mishna teaches: If there were ten saplings scattered in a beit se鈥檃, one may plow the entire beit se鈥檃 for their sake until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Although it is prohibited to plow other land in the time leading into the Sabbatical Year, to avoid the appearance of preparing to work the ground in that year, it is permitted to do so for the purpose of sustaining these young trees.

讻诪讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 转专讬 讗诇驻讬谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讙专诪讬讚讬 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻诪讛 诪讟讬 诇讬讛 诪讗转谉 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚注讜诇讗

The Gemara calculates: How much is the area of a beit se鈥檃? It is 2,500 square cubits. And how much area is allocated for each and every one of the ten trees? It is 250 square cubits. This is not the distance that Ulla taught. An area of sixteen cubits to each side of the tree is a square of thirty-two by thirty-two cubits, or 1,024 square cubits, which is much larger than 250.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讞讜专砖讬谉 讻诇

But rather, Ulla derived this measurement from that which we learned in the following mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 1:5): If there were three large trees belonging to three different people in one beit se鈥檃, these trees combine, and one may plow the entire

  • 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 Shlemah 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 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 26

讻讚谞讬讬讚 谞讻转诪讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚讞爪讘讗

It must shake enough that the lid [nakhtema] positioned at the mouth of a jug shakes if it is placed on a wall.

讚讘讬 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞驻爪讬 讻讬转谞讗 讛讜讛 讗讝诇讗 专拽转讗 讜诪讝拽讗 讗讬谞砖讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讙讬专讬 讚讬诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽讗 讗讝诇讗 诪讻讞讜 讛讻讗 讝讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讛

The Gemara relates: When the members of the household of bar Maryon, son of Ravin, would beat their flax, the chaff [rakta] would fly off and harm people. Those people came before Ravina to complain. Ravina said to them: When we say that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, this statement applies only when the damaging item moves by his direct force. Here, by contrast, it is the wind that carries the chaff.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜 讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚诪专讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讝讜专讛 讜专讜讞 诪住讬讬注转讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: In what way is this case different from one who winnows on Shabbat by throwing the grain into the wind so that the chaff is blown away and the wind assists him? That is considered a primary category of labor on Shabbat despite the fact that the act is performed partly with the aid of the wind. The Gemara relates that the Sages stated this objection with regard to beating flax before Mareimar. Mareimar said to them: This case is the same as one who winnows and the wind assists him. Just as this is considered his direct force for the purposes of the halakhot of Shabbat, it is likewise considered his direct force with regard to the halakhot of damages.

讜诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讙抓 讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讛驻讟讬砖 讜讛讝讬拽 讚讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讛转诐 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讝诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬讝诇

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who rejects this comparison and claims that flying chaff is not considered one鈥檚 arrow, in what way is this situation different from that of a spark that flies from a hammer and causes damage, in which case all agree that the one wielding the hammer is liable to pay? The Gemara answers: There, it is preferable for him that the spark go as far as possible, rather than staying nearby. Here it is not preferable for him, i.e., it is immaterial to him, that the chaff go some distance.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讞讚 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讗讬诇谉 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

MISHNA: A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. This is the case whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree. If there was a fence between them, this one may place, i.e., plant, his grapevines or trees close to the fence from here, and that one may place, i.e., plant, his produce close to the fence from there.

讛讬讜 砖专砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬诐 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 讗转 讛诪讞专讬砖讛 讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讛注爪讬诐 砖诇讜

If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow. If he was digging a cistern in that spot, or a ditch, or a cave, and he came upon the roots of his neighbor鈥檚 tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots is his.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 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 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讘讘诇 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: A tanna taught: The four cubits that the Sages stated one must leave between a vineyard and a neighbor鈥檚 field are for the work of the vineyard, so that the owner of the vineyard does not take oxen and a plow into his neighbor鈥檚 field while working his vineyard. Shmuel says: They taught this halakha only with regard to Eretz Yisrael, but in Babylonia two cubits are sufficient, as their plows are shorter. This opinion is also taught in a baraita: A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances the tree two cubits from the field. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Four cubits? Rather, is it not correct that there is a difference between Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia in this regard, as stated by Shmuel? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 诇讗 讬讟注 讗讚诐 讗讬诇谉 住诪讜讱 诇砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛专讞讬拽 诪诪谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘讘诇 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

And there are those who raise this matter in the form of a contradiction. We learned in the mishna that a person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that two cubits are sufficient? Shmuel said that this is not difficult: Here it is referring to Babylonia, whereas there it is referring to Eretz Yisrael.

专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪讬爪专讗 讚驻专讚讬住讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讜 讗转讜 爪驻讜专讬 讬转讘讬 讘讚讬拽诇讬 讜谞讞转讬 讘驻专讚讬住讗 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗专讞讬拽讬 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗讬诇谞讜转 讗讘诇 诇讙驻谞讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬

The Gemara relates: Rava bar Rav 岣nan had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of Rav Yosef鈥檚 vineyard. Birds would come and roost on the palm trees and would subsequently descend to the vineyard and damage it. Rav Yosef said to Rava bar Rav 岣nan: Go and cut down your palm trees. Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to him: But I distanced them the required amount. Rav Yosef said to him: This matter, i.e., this specific distance, applies only to trees, but a greater distance is required for vines.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讞讚 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讗讬诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讙驻谞讬诐 诇讙驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谉 诇讙驻谞讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬

Rava bar Rav 岣nan protested: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that this is the halakha whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree? Rav Yosef said to him: This matter applies only to the distance between one tree and another tree, or the distance between one vine and other vines. But with regard to the space between a tree and vines, one requires a greater distance.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 拽讬讬爪谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讚讟注讬谉 拽讘讗 讗住讜专 诇诪拽爪讬讬讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讘 砖讻讞转 讘专讬 讗诇讗 讚拽抓 转讗谞转讗 讘诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬讛 诪专 讗讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讬拽讜抓

Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to him: I myself will not cut them down, as Rav said: With regard to this palm tree that produces one kav of fruit, it is prohibited to cut it down, due to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not destroy the trees鈥 (Deuteronomy 20:19). And Rabbi 岣nina says: My son Shikh岣t died only because he cut down a fig tree before its time. Rava bar Rav 岣nan continued: If the Master is amenable to do so, he may cut them down, but I will not do it.

专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讛谞讛讜 讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪讬爪专讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讝诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 讞驻专 讜拽讗 拽讗讬抓 砖专砖讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞谉 讛讬讜 砖专砖讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛

The Gemara further relates that Rav Pappa had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of the property of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He went and found Rav Huna digging and cutting his roots. Rav Pappa said to him: What is this? Rav Huna said to him that we learned in the mishna: If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖诇砖讛 诪专 拽讗 讞驻专 讟驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 拽讗 讞驻专谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讛注爪讬诐 砖诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讬 讜诇讗 讬讻讬诇讬 诇讬讛

Rav Pappa said to him: This statement applies only up to three handbreadths, whereas the Master is digging and cutting more than three. Rav Huna said to him: I am digging cisterns, ditches, and caves, as we learned in the mishna: If he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward normally and the wood from the roots is his. Rav Pappa said: I told him all the proofs I could find, but I was unable to convince him that I was correct,

注讚 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪专 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽诇拽诇讜 诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讗谉 讘转讜讱 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛

until I told him that which Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a strip of land over which the public has an acquired privilege of use, one may not destroy it. Here too, since I have an acquired privilege of use of this land, you are not permitted to destroy that which I possess. After Rav Pappa left, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Why did I not say to him that there, an acquired privilege of use is effective when it is within sixteen cubits, as within that area the roots are considered part of the tree, whereas here I cut the roots of the palm trees beyond sixteen cubits.

讛讬讛 讞讜驻专 讘讜专 砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讛注爪讬诐 砖诇讜 (讜讻讜壮) 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讬注拽讘 讛讚讬讬讘讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 注爪讬诐 砖诇 诪讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward and the wood is his. The Sage Ya鈥檃kov of Hadeyyav raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: To whom does the wood belong? The mishna says that the wood is his, without specifying to which of the two individuals this refers, the owner of the tree or the owner of the land.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖专砖讬 讗讬诇谉 砖诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讛讘讗讬谉 讘砖诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

Rav 岣sda said to him: You learned the answer in a mishna in tractate Me鈥檌la (13b). If roots of a tree belonging to an ordinary person [hedyot] extend into a field belonging to the Temple treasury, one may not derive benefit from them, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. That is, even if one does transgress the prohibition and benefit from them, it is not considered misuse and he is not liable to bring an offering.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘转专 讗讬诇谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘转专 拽专拽注 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

Granted, if you say that we follow the tree, and the roots are considered part of it, it is due to that reason that one is not liable for misuse, as the tree is not consecrated. But if you say we follow the land, i.e., the roots belong to the land鈥檚 owner, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘转专 讗讬诇谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讘讗讬诐 讘砖诇 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讜讗讬 讘转专 讗讬诇谉 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say, that we follow the tree? If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If roots of a tree belonging to the Temple treasury extend into a field of an ordinary person, one may not derive benefit from them, but if one derived benefit from them he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. But if we follow the tree, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讬诇讛 讘讙讬讚讜诇讬谉

The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? In both clauses of the mishna we are dealing with growths that came thereafter, i.e., after the tree was consecrated, and the tanna of that mishna holds that with regard to growths that grew from a consecrated plant or tree, they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Only the original plant is. Consequently, there is no connection between that mishna and the question of whether roots are considered part of the tree or part of the land.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转讜讱 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛

Ravina said that it is not difficult: Here, in the first clause of the mishna in Me鈥檌la, it is referring to within sixteen cubits of the tree. In this case the roots are considered part of the tree. There, in the second clause, it is referring to roots beyond sixteen cubits, in which case the roots are considered part of the ground where they are found.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬诇谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇诪爪专 讘转讜讱 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐

Ulla said: An individual who maintains a tree that is within sixteen cubits of a boundary is a robber, as it draws nourishment from the neighbor鈥檚 land, and one does not bring first fruits from it, since that would be a mitzva that is fulfilled by means of a transgression.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚转谞谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 讛诪驻讜讝专讜转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转 住讗讛 讞讜专砖讬谉 讻诇 讘讬转 住讗讛 讘砖讘讬诇谉 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: From where does Ulla derive that measurement? If we say it is from that which we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 1:6), this is problematic. That mishna teaches: If there were ten saplings scattered in a beit se鈥檃, one may plow the entire beit se鈥檃 for their sake until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. Although it is prohibited to plow other land in the time leading into the Sabbatical Year, to avoid the appearance of preparing to work the ground in that year, it is permitted to do so for the purpose of sustaining these young trees.

讻诪讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 转专讬 讗诇驻讬谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讗讛 讙专诪讬讚讬 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻诪讛 诪讟讬 诇讬讛 诪讗转谉 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚注讜诇讗

The Gemara calculates: How much is the area of a beit se鈥檃? It is 2,500 square cubits. And how much area is allocated for each and every one of the ten trees? It is 250 square cubits. This is not the distance that Ulla taught. An area of sixteen cubits to each side of the tree is a square of thirty-two by thirty-two cubits, or 1,024 square cubits, which is much larger than 250.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讬诇谞讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讞讜专砖讬谉 讻诇

But rather, Ulla derived this measurement from that which we learned in the following mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 1:5): If there were three large trees belonging to three different people in one beit se鈥檃, these trees combine, and one may plow the entire

Scroll To Top