Bava Batra 26

כדנייד נכתמא אפומיה דחצבא

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

דבי בר מריון בריה דרבין כי הוה נפצי כיתנא הוה אזלא רקתא ומזקא אינשי אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו כי אמרינן מודה רבי יוסי בגירי דיליה הני מילי דקא אזלא מכחו הכא זיקא הוא דקא ממטי לה

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.

מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי מאי שנא מזורה ורוח מסייעתו אמרוה קמיה דמרימר אמר להו היינו זורה ורוח מסייעתו

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.

ולרבינא מאי שנא מגץ היוצא מתחת הפטיש והזיק דחייב לשלם התם ניחא ליה דליזל הכא לא ניחא ליה דליזל:

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who rejects this comparison and claims that flying chaff is not considered one’s 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.

מתני׳ לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו ארבע אמות אחד גפנים ואחד כל אילן היה גדר בינתים זה סומך לגדר מכאן וזה סומך לגדר מכאן

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.

היו שרשים יוצאים לתוך של חבירו מעמיק שלשה טפחים כדי שלא יעכב את המחרישה היה חופר בור שיח ומערה קוצץ ויורד והעצים שלו:

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’s tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots is his.

גמ׳ תנא ארבע אמות שאמרו כדי עבודת הכרם אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא בארץ ישראל אבל בבבל שתי אמות תניא נמי הכי לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו שתי אמות והא אנן תנן ארבע אמות אלא לאו כדשמואל שמע מינה

GEMARA: A tanna taught: The four cubits that the Sages stated one must leave between a vineyard and a neighbor’s 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’s 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’t 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.

ואיכא דרמי לה מירמא תנן לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו ארבע אמות והתניא שתי אמות אמר שמואל לא קשיא כאן בבבל כאן בארץ ישראל

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’t 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.

רבא בר רב חנן הוו ליה הנהו דיקלי אמיצרא דפרדיסא דרב יוסף הוו אתו צפורי יתבי בדיקלי ונחתי בפרדיסא ומפסדי ליה אמר ליה זיל קוץ אמר ליה והא ארחיקי לי אמר ליה הני מילי לאילנות אבל לגפנים בעינן טפי

The Gemara relates: Rava bar Rav Ḥanan had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of Rav Yosef’s 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 Ḥanan: Go and cut down your palm trees. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan 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.

והא אנן תנן אחד גפנים ואחד כל אילן אמר ליה הני מילי אילן לאילן וגפנים לגפנים אבל אילן לגפנים בעינן טפי

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan protested: But didn’t 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.

אמר ליה אנא לא קייצנא דאמר רב האי דיקלא דטעין קבא אסור למקצייה ואמר רבי חנינא לא שכיב שכחת ברי אלא דקץ תאנתא בלא זימניה מר אי ניחא ליה ליקוץ

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan 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: “You shall not destroy the trees” (Deuteronomy 20:19). And Rabbi Ḥanina says: My son Shikhḥat died only because he cut down a fig tree before its time. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan continued: If the Master is amenable to do so, he may cut them down, but I will not do it.

רב פפא הוו ליה הנהו דיקלי אמיצרא דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אזל אשכחיה דהוה חפר וקא קאיץ שרשיו אמר ליה מאי האי אמר ליה תנן היו שרשים יוצאים לתוך של חבירו מעמיק שלשה כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה

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.

אמר ליה הני מילי שלשה מר קא חפר טפי אמר ליה אנא בורות שיחין ומערות קא חפרנא דתנן היה חופר בור שיח ומערה קוצץ ויורד והעצים שלו אמר רב פפא אמרי ליה כולהי ולא יכילי ליה

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,

עד דאמרי ליה הא דאמר רב יהודה מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו לבתר דנפק אמר אמאי לא אמרי ליה כאן בתוך שש עשרה אמה כאן חוץ לשש עשרה אמה:

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.

היה חופר בור שיח ומערה קוצץ ויורד והעצים שלו (וכו׳): בעא מיניה יעקב הדייבא מרב חסדא עצים של מי

§ 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’akov of Hadeyyav raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: 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.

אמר ליה תניתוה שרשי אילן של הדיוט הבאין בשל הקדש לא נהנין ולא מועלין

Rav Ḥisda said to him: You learned the answer in a mishna in tractate Me’ila (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.

אי אמרת בשלמא בתר אילן אזלינן משום הכי לא מועלין אלא אי אמרת בתר קרקע אזלינן אמאי לא מועלין

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’s owner, why is he not liable for misuse of consecrated property?

אלא מאי בתר אילן אזלינן אימא סיפא של הקדש הבאים בשל הדיוט לא נהנין ולא מועלין ואי בתר אילן אזלינן אמאי לא מועלין

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?

מידי איריא בגידולין הבאין לאחר מכאן עסקינן וקא סבר אין מעילה בגידולין

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.

רבינא אמר לא קשיא כאן בתוך שש עשרה אמה כאן חוץ לשש עשרה אמה:

Ravina said that it is not difficult: Here, in the first clause of the mishna in Me’ila, 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.

אמר עולא אילן הסמוך למצר בתוך שש עשרה אמה גזלן הוא ואין מביאין ממנו בכורים

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’s land, and one does not bring first fruits from it, since that would be a mitzva that is fulfilled by means of a transgression.

מנא ליה לעולא הא אילימא מדתנן עשר נטיעות המפוזרות בתוך בית סאה חורשין כל בית סאה בשבילן עד ראש השנה

The Gemara asks: From where does Ulla derive that measurement? If we say it is from that which we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 1:6), this is problematic. That mishna teaches: If there were ten saplings scattered in a beit se’a, one may plow the entire beit se’a 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.

כמה הוו להו תרי אלפין וחמש מאה גרמידי לכל חד וחד כמה מטי ליה מאתן וחמשין הא לא הוי דעולא

The Gemara calculates: How much is the area of a beit se’a? 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.

ואלא מדתנן שלשה אילנות של שלשה בני אדם הרי אלו מצטרפין וחורשין כל

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