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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 23, 2017 | 讻状讛 讘讟讘转 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 Metzia 118

A contradiction is brought between our mishna and a braita about whether or not an employer can insist that the worker takes his wages in the items he is working with rather than in money. 聽Rav Nachman brings 3 different explanations (as the first two are rejected) to explain the contradiction. 聽From this the gemara discusses whether or not one can acquire items from hefker by watching them (without lifting them). 聽If one puts items in the public domain, how long can they be left there? 聽 Even if one is allowed to leave them there by law, if they damage another is the person wh left them responsible to pay for damages? 聽If a group of people work together – each doing a different part of the work – to build something and after it is built, it breaks and damages someone, which one is responsible to pay? 聽If one field is higher than another and something grows from the side of raised area that borders the two fields, to whom does it belong? 聽In many ways the end of the masachet mirrors the beginning.


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

讛讙讬注讜讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 讗转 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讱 讜讗谞讬 讗讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讬 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

They are yours, as I hereby declare them ownerless, and you can take them for yourself; the court does not listen to him, since he cannot force the other to acquire the stones. If after the owner of the garden voluntarily accepted ownership of the stones upon himself, the owner of the wall said to him: Here you are, take your expenditures for the removal of the stones, and I will take the stones that are mine; the court does not listen to him, as they had already been acquired by the owner of the garden.

讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘转讘谉 讜讘拽砖 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 砖讻专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 诪讛 砖注砖讬转 讘砖讻专讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 砖讻专讱 讜讗谞讬 讗讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讬 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The mishna continues: In the case of one who hires a laborer to do work with him with hay or with straw, and after he finished the task, the laborer said to the employer: Give me my wages, and the employer said to him: Take what you have worked with as your wages, i.e., take some of the hay or straw as payment, the court does not listen to him. Although debts can be paid with any item of value, even hay or straw, the wages of a laborer must be paid in accordance with the initial agreement between the laborer and the employer. But if after the laborer accepted upon himself to keep the hay or straw as payment, the employer changed his mind and said to him: Here you are, take your wages and I will take what is mine; the court does not listen to him, since the laborer had already acquired the hay.

讙诪壮 谞驻讞转讛 专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注 专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讗讘诇 讘讗专讘注 讗讚诐 讝讜专注 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讝讜专注 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the roof of the olive press that was broken, the Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the amount that collapsed: Rav says: Most of it must have collapsed, and Shmuel says: Even a hole of four cubits is sufficient for the ruling of the mishna to apply. Rav says: Most of it must have collapsed, but if it is only a hole of four cubits, there is no basis for a claim, since a person can sow partially on a level below, and partially on a level above. And Shmuel says: It is enough if it is a hole of four cubits, as a person cannot sow partially on a level below, and partially on a level above.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讬专讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讚讬讬专讬 驻讜专转讗 讛讻讗 讜驻讜专转讗 讛讻讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讝专讬注讛 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讝专注讬 讛讻讗 驻讜专转讗 讜讛讻讗 驻讜专转讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the dispute between Rav and Shmuel to be stated both here and with regard to the case of an upper story of a house that collapsed (116b). As had the Gemara taught us only that they disagree with regard to a residence, one would have said: It is only in this case that Shmuel is saying his ruling, because people do not tend to live a little here and a little there, but with regard to sowing, people do tend to sow a little here and a little there. Therefore, one might say that he concedes to Rav in the case of the olive press. And if this dispute was stated only with regard to this case of the olive press, one would have said that it is only with regard to this case that Rav is saying his opinion, but with regard to that case involving the house, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel. Therefore, it is necessary to state that their dispute applies to both cases.

谞转谞讜 诇讜 讝诪谉 讜讻诪讛 讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If the court saw that the wall was shaky, or that the tree was tilting, and they gave him time to cut down the tree or to dismantle the wall, and then they fell down, if this occurred during the allotted time, he is exempt, but if they collapsed after the time given to him had elapsed, he is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: And how much time will a court usually allot for this purpose? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The standard period is thirty days.

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讻讜转诇讜 讻讜壮 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讬诇讱 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讟注诪讗 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 诇讗 驻谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one whose wall was located next to his friend鈥檚 garden and it fell, if the owner of the wall told the owner of the garden to keep the stones, he cannot retract. The Gemara comments: But from the fact that the last clause of the mishna teaches that if the owner of the fallen wall says: Here you are, take your expenditures, the court does not listen to him, it can be understood by inference that we are dealing with a case where the owner of the garden cleared away the stones. It can therefore be deduced that the reason the owner of the fallen wall cannot retract his offer is that the owner of the garden cleared them away, but if he did not clear them away, the stones are not considered his, and they remain in the possession of the owner of the wall.

讗诪讗讬 讜转拽谞讛 诇讬讛 砖讚讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽讜谞讛 诇讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜

The Gemara asks: Why do they remain in the possession of the owner of the wall? But shouldn鈥檛 the owner of the garden鈥檚 field effect acquisition of the stones on his behalf? As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The courtyard of a person effects acquisition for him of those items that enter it, even without his knowledge.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This statement applies only in a case where the giver intends to transfer them to him, in which case the field can effect acquisition of the stones for the receiver without an additional act of acquisition, but here, the owner of the fallen wall is seeking only to evade the owner of the garden. He wants the owner of the garden to take care of the stones, at which point he can collect them from him without much effort on his part, and he does not intend to give the stones to him.

讛砖讜讻专 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘转讘谉 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one who hires a laborer to do work with him with hay, the employer cannot force him to accept his wages in the form of some of the hay. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to mention this halakha with regard to both cases.

讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诇讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讙讬注讜讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪诪专讬 专砖讜转讬讱 驻讗专讬 讗驻专注

As had it taught us only with regard to this first case of the stones that fell that when the owner of the fallen wall says to the owner of the garden: They are yours, the court does not listen to him, one would have said that this is the halakha because he does not have a wage owed by him, as they had no prior business dealings together, and the owner of the stones does not owe the owner of the garden anything. But here, in the case of a laborer working with hay, in which the laborer does have a wage owed by the employer, one might say that the court listens to him, as people say the following proverb: When collecting a debt from your debtor, allow yourself to be repaid even in bran [parei], i.e., take whatever you can as payment of a loan.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讛讻讗 砖诪砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 爪专讬讻讗

And had it taught us only over here with regard to the hay, one would have said that it is only here that after the laborer has already accepted ownership upon himself, the court does not listen to the employer who desires to retract, because the laborer has a wage owed by him, and therefore there is reason to say that he receives the hay. But here, with regard to the stones, where the owner of the garden does not have a wage owed by the owner of the fallen wall, one might say that the court listens to him and he can retract. It is therefore necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讜 讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if an employer seeks to pay his laborer with straw, the court does not listen to him. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the court does listen to him? The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. The ruling of the mishna here, that the court does not listen to him, is stated with regard to a case of work done with the employer鈥檚 own property. And the ruling of the baraita there, that the court does listen to him, is stated with regard to work done with the property of another, and there the employer鈥檚 request is accepted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 注诇讱 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞诪讬 砖讻专讜 注诇讬讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 讘砖诇讜 讜讛专讗讛讜 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讛谞讛 讗讜转讜

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: In a case where he is working with his own property, what is the reason that the court does not listen to him? As the laborer can say to the employer: The responsibility of paying my wage is on you. But if he was working with the property of his friend, the responsibility of paying his earnings is also on the employer, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer to perform work in his own field, and the employer inadvertently showed the laborer the field belonging to another in which he should work, the employer must give the laborer his full wages, and in addition, the employer goes back and takes from the owner of the field in which he worked the value of the benefit that owner received from the laborer. The payment of the wages is incumbent upon the employer, not the owner of the field.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讜 讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讛驻拽专

Rather, Rav Na岣an said a different explanation: It is not difficult. The ruling of the mishna here, that the court does not listen to him, is stated with regard to work done with the employer鈥檚 own property. And the ruling of the baraita there, that the court does listen to him, is stated with regard to work done with ownerless property, e.g., the employer hired him to gather ownerless hay, and later told him to keep some of the hay as his wages. In that case, he can force the laborer to accept the hay as payment.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪爪讬讗转 驻讜注诇 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讻砖 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐 讗讜 注讚讜专 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 注诪讬 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬讜诐 诪爪讬讗转讜 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an: It was taught in a baraita: The found item of a salaried laborer belongs to himself. When is this so? When the employer told him to perform a specific task, for example if he said: Weed with me today, or if he said: Hoe with me today. If the laborer finds lost property while performing that task, then the item belongs to him. But if the employer says to the laborer: Work with me today, without specifying what labor he wants him to perform, his found item belongs to the employer, as acquiring found items can be considered part of his terms of employment. In the case of Rav Na岣an, since the employer instructed the laborer to gather ownerless hay, the acquisition of the hay is certainly part of the terms of his employment, and belongs to the employer. Since it is the employer鈥檚 property, he is not able to force the laborer to accept the hay as payment.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讻讗谉 讘讛讘讟讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an said: Both the ruling of the mishna and the ruling of the baraita are stated with regard to a laborer hired to work with ownerless property, but it is not difficult. The ruling of the mishna here, that the court does not listen to him, is stated with regard to a case where the laborer鈥檚 task was to lift up the hay and gather it, and he is therefore considered the employer鈥檚 agent and acquires the hay for him. Since the hay then belongs to the employer, he cannot force the laborer to accept it as payment. And the ruling of the baraita there, that the court does listen to him, is stated with regard to a case where his work merely consisted of viewing, e.g., he hired him to make sure that no one takes the ownerless hay. In that case, even the employer does not acquire the straw, and it remains ownerless. Consequently, the employer can tell the laborer to take some hay as payment.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖讜诪专讬 住驻讬讞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专谉 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛专讜爪讛 诪转谞讚讘 讛讜讗 讜砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

Rabba says: The issue of whether, in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition of it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 9b): The watchmen of the sefi岣m, grain that grew without being purposely planted, of the Sabbatical Year ensured that people did not take this ownerless grain, so that it remained available to be used for the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat. These watchmen take their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, as they are employed by the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires can volunteer his services and safeguard the grain, and he has the status of an unpaid bailee. The Rabbis said to him: Do you say so? But according to your view, the omer and the two loaves do not come from communal funds as required, since in reality they come from a private individual, i.e., the bailee.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讬讛讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讻讬 讗讝诇讬 爪讘讜专 讜诪讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讝讻讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not with regard to this that they disagree: The first tanna holds that in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition of it, and so the watchman, although he did not lift up the grain, acquires the grain by viewing it. And therefore, if he is given a wage from communal funds, then yes, he is safeguarding it on behalf of the community, and he acquires it for them. But if he is not paid, he has not acquired it for the community, but for himself. And, conversely, Rabbi Yosei holds that in the case of ownerless property, viewing does not effect acquisition of it, and when the community goes and brings the grain for the omer offering and the two loaves, it is only now, at this stage, that they acquire it.

讜诪讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专讬讱 诇讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 诇讞诐 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

And what, according to this explanation, is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were saying to him: If the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee is applied to our statement that in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition, the result is that the omer offering and the two loaves do not come from communal funds as required.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 拽谞讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛

Rava said: No; the dispute can be explained differently. It can be explained that everyone agrees that in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition, and here they disagree with regard to the question of whether we are concerned that perhaps he will not give the grain over wholeheartedly to the community. As the Rabbis hold that we give the watchman a wage, and if we do not pay him, but allow him to act as a volunteer, we are concerned that perhaps he will not give the grain over wholeheartedly to the community, as deep down he might feel that the grain really belongs to him and that he is offering it from his own pocket, which means that the omer offering and two loaves are not properly offered by the community.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专讬讱 诇讚讘专讬谞讜 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讗讬谉 注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 诇讞诐 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

Conversely, Rabbi Yosei holds that we are not concerned that perhaps he will not hand the grain over wholeheartedly to the community. And what is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were saying to him: If the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee is applied to our statement that we are concerned that perhaps he will not give the grain over wholeheartedly, the result is that the omer offering and the two loaves do not come from communal funds as required.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖诪注讬 讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 讜诇讬驻专砖讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜

There are those who say that there is a different version of this discussion: Rava said: It can be explained that everyone agrees that in the case of ownerless property, viewing does not effect acquisition of it, and here, concerning the omer offering, they disagree with regard to the question of whether we are concerned about violent people that may come and seize the grain for themselves. As the first tanna holds that the Sages instituted a directive to give him four dinars, or whatever payment is appropriate for his services as a watchman, so that violent people should hear of this and keep away from the grain, since when they hear that the Temple is paying the watchmen, they will certainly not take the grain. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the Sages did not institute this directive, since there is no concern about violent people.

讜诪讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专讬讱 诇讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And what is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were saying to him: If we apply the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee, to our statement that the Sages instituted a directive to give him four dinars, the result is that communal offerings do not come from communal funds as required. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The question of whether or not we are concerned about violent people is the difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that is the crux of their dispute.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讝讘诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讜讛诪讝讘诇 诪讝讘诇 讗讬谉 砖讜专讬谉 讟讬讟 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讜讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讙讜讘诇讬谉 讟讬讟 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes manure out to the public domain, in order for it to be transported to fertilize a field, he who takes it out from his property takes it out, and immediately, he who takes it to fertilize the field takes it to fertilize the field. They must relocate the manure immediately without allowing it to sit around in the public domain. Similarly, one may not soak clay in the public domain before it is kneaded, and one may not mold bricks in the public domain since this takes a long time and inhibits use of the public domain by others. But one may knead clay in the public domain, as this process does not take long, but not bricks.

讛讘讜谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗 讜讛讘讜谞讛 讘讜谞讛 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讗转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇驻谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

With regard to one who builds a structure, keeping the building materials in the public domain, he who brings the stones brings them, and immediately, he who builds the structure builds with them, and may not leave them there. And if the stones cause damage before he had a chance to build them into the structure, he must pay for what he damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even prepare his work thirty days beforehand; he may keep the building materials in the public domain for that duration.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖注转 讛讜爪讗转 讝讘诇讬诐 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讝讘诇讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜爪讜讘专讜 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 谞讬砖讜祝 讘专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜讘专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛谞讞讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛讗专抓

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:8): Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is the time for the manure to be taken out, a person may take his manure out into the public domain and may pile it up for all thirty days, so that it will be trodden on by the feet of people and by the feet of animals, to prepare it for use as fertilizer, since it was on this condition that Joshua bequeathed Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. In other words, it is universally accepted that some will relinquish certain rights for the sake of others, and although it may be a nuisance for certain people, this practice is allowed.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讜讛转谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专砖讜转 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 专砖讜转 讚诪爪讜讛

The Gemara responds: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda concedes that although he acted within his rights, if the manure caused damage, the one who placed it there is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Kamma 62b): Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to a Hanukkah lamp placed in the public domain that ignited a fire and caused damage that he is exempt, because he acts with permission? What, is the reason he is exempt not that he acted with the permission of the court to use the public domain in this manner, which indicates that one who acts with court permission is exempt from liability for damage? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it means that he has the permission of a mitzva. Since it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp outside, he is exempt from paying for the damage it caused. The mere right to place the item in the public domain does not exempt the owner from liability.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽诇拽诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诐 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to all these cases in which the Sages said that it is permitted for people to place obstacles in the public domain, if they caused damage, these people are liable to pay, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts them? Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one has the permission of the court to put an item in the public domain, he is exempt from paying damages. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 专砖讜转 讜讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讗转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇驻谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon all hold that wherever the Sages gave someone permission to perform an action, and in performing this action he causes damage, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara cites the sources for this assertion: It is clear that Rabbi Yehuda is of that opinion based on that which we just said. It is clear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of that opinion, as we learned in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even prepare his work thirty days beforehand.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 诪注诪讬讚讜 讘注诇讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 转讞转讬讜 诪注讝讬讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讘讻讬专讛 讟驻讞 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

It is clear that Rabbi Shimon is of that opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 20b): If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick. And if he causes damage after having taken the necessary precautions, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: The Sages said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞爪讘 砖诪住专 诇住转转 讛住转转 讞讬讬讘 讛住转转 砖诪住专 诇讞诪专 讛讞诪专 讞讬讬讘 讛讞诪专 砖诪住专 诇讻转祝 讛讻转祝 讞讬讬讘 讛讻转祝 砖诪住专 诇讘谞讗讬 讛讘谞讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讛讘谞讗讬 砖诪住专 诇讗讚专讬讻诇 讗讚专讬讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛谞讬讞 讗讘谉 注诇 讛讚讬诪讜住 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

The Sages taught: Once the stonecutter has delivered the stones to the chiseler, from that point on, the chiseler is liable for any damage caused by them. Once the chiseler has delivered the stones to the donkey driver to transport them, the donkey driver is liable. Once the donkey driver has delivered the stones to a porter to carry them to the building site, the porter is liable. Once the porter has delivered the stones to the builder, the builder is liable. Once the builder has delivered them to the master builder [adrikhal], who places and straightens the stones on the structure, the master builder is liable. And if he placed a stone upon the row [dimos] of stones and the stone fell off and caused damage, then they are all liable to pay.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讻讬专讜转 讻讗谉 讘拽讘诇谞讜转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita, that only the last one, the master builder, is liable, and all of them are exempt? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the ruling here, in this baraita, is stated with regard to a case of hiring, and therefore only the last one is liable, whereas the ruling there, in that baraita, is stated with regard to a case of contracting, in which they all agreed to perform the work together, and therefore they are all liable to pay.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 讙谞讜转 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讜讛讬专拽 讘讬谞转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诇 注诇讬讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 转讞转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讬拽讞 讗转 注驻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛转讞转讜谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讗转 讙谞转讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽

MISHNA: In the case of two gardens that were located one above the other, i.e., a garden on a plateau that borders another garden below, and vegetables grew in-between, out of the wall of soil resulting from the difference in height between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden. Rabbi Yehuda says: They belong to the owner of the lower one. Rabbi Meir said in explanation of his ruling: If the owner of the upper garden would want to dig and take his dirt and does so, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him. In response, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the owner of the lower garden would want to fill his garden with dirt and does so, thereby raising its level, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讞专 砖砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 专讜讗讬谉 诪讛讬讻谉 讬专拽 讝讛 讞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 砖讛注诇讬讜谉 讬讻讜诇 诇驻砖讜讟 讗转 讬讚讜 讜诇讬讟讜诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇讜 讜讛砖讗专 砖诇 转讞转讜谉

Rabbi Meir said: Since the two of them can object to each other, as they each have the ability to prevent the vegetable growth, nothing can be decided based on such considerations. Instead, the court considers from where this vegetable lives and derives nourishment, whether from above or from below. Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the owner of the upper garden can stretch out his hand and take, those vegetables are his, and the rest belong to the owner of the lower garden.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘注讬拽专讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚注诇讬讜谉 讛讜讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讜驻讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜

GEMARA: Rava says: With regard to the root of the vegetable growing out of the wall of soil, everyone agrees that it is the property of the owner of the upper garden, since the ground belongs to him. When they disagree, it is with regard to its leaves, which grow above the airspace of the lower garden. Rabbi Meir holds: Cast its leaves after its root, and consider that they too belong to the owner of the upper garden. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not say: Cast its leaves after its root.

讜讗讝讚讗 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙讝注 讜诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讙讝注 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讗讬诇谉 讜诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛拽专拽注

The Gemara comments: And they follow their line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a tree belonging to one individual that grew on land owned by another: That which sprouts from the trunk and from the roots, these belong to the owner of the land. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: That which sprouts from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, and anything that grows from the roots belongs to the owner of the land. This statement demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, ownership of the sprouts is not determined exclusively based on the ownership of the roots.

  • 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 Metzia 118

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 118

讛讙讬注讜讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 讗转 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讱 讜讗谞讬 讗讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讬 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

They are yours, as I hereby declare them ownerless, and you can take them for yourself; the court does not listen to him, since he cannot force the other to acquire the stones. If after the owner of the garden voluntarily accepted ownership of the stones upon himself, the owner of the wall said to him: Here you are, take your expenditures for the removal of the stones, and I will take the stones that are mine; the court does not listen to him, as they had already been acquired by the owner of the garden.

讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘转讘谉 讜讘拽砖 讜讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 砖讻专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 诪讛 砖注砖讬转 讘砖讻专讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 砖讻专讱 讜讗谞讬 讗讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讬 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The mishna continues: In the case of one who hires a laborer to do work with him with hay or with straw, and after he finished the task, the laborer said to the employer: Give me my wages, and the employer said to him: Take what you have worked with as your wages, i.e., take some of the hay or straw as payment, the court does not listen to him. Although debts can be paid with any item of value, even hay or straw, the wages of a laborer must be paid in accordance with the initial agreement between the laborer and the employer. But if after the laborer accepted upon himself to keep the hay or straw as payment, the employer changed his mind and said to him: Here you are, take your wages and I will take what is mine; the court does not listen to him, since the laborer had already acquired the hay.

讙诪壮 谞驻讞转讛 专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注 专讘 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讛 讗讘诇 讘讗专讘注 讗讚诐 讝讜专注 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讝讜专注 讞爪讬讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇诪注诇讛

GEMARA: With regard to the case of the roof of the olive press that was broken, the Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the amount that collapsed: Rav says: Most of it must have collapsed, and Shmuel says: Even a hole of four cubits is sufficient for the ruling of the mishna to apply. Rav says: Most of it must have collapsed, but if it is only a hole of four cubits, there is no basis for a claim, since a person can sow partially on a level below, and partially on a level above. And Shmuel says: It is enough if it is a hole of four cubits, as a person cannot sow partially on a level below, and partially on a level above.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讬专讛 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讚讬讬专讬 驻讜专转讗 讛讻讗 讜驻讜专转讗 讛讻讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讝专讬注讛 注讘讬讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讚讝专注讬 讛讻讗 驻讜专转讗 讜讛讻讗 驻讜专转讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 讘讛讱 拽讗诪专 专讘 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the dispute between Rav and Shmuel to be stated both here and with regard to the case of an upper story of a house that collapsed (116b). As had the Gemara taught us only that they disagree with regard to a residence, one would have said: It is only in this case that Shmuel is saying his ruling, because people do not tend to live a little here and a little there, but with regard to sowing, people do tend to sow a little here and a little there. Therefore, one might say that he concedes to Rav in the case of the olive press. And if this dispute was stated only with regard to this case of the olive press, one would have said that it is only with regard to this case that Rav is saying his opinion, but with regard to that case involving the house, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel. Therefore, it is necessary to state that their dispute applies to both cases.

谞转谞讜 诇讜 讝诪谉 讜讻诪讛 讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If the court saw that the wall was shaky, or that the tree was tilting, and they gave him time to cut down the tree or to dismantle the wall, and then they fell down, if this occurred during the allotted time, he is exempt, but if they collapsed after the time given to him had elapsed, he is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: And how much time will a court usually allot for this purpose? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The standard period is thirty days.

诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讻讜转诇讜 讻讜壮 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讬诇讱 讬爪讬讗讜转讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讟注诪讗 讚驻谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 诇讗 驻谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one whose wall was located next to his friend鈥檚 garden and it fell, if the owner of the wall told the owner of the garden to keep the stones, he cannot retract. The Gemara comments: But from the fact that the last clause of the mishna teaches that if the owner of the fallen wall says: Here you are, take your expenditures, the court does not listen to him, it can be understood by inference that we are dealing with a case where the owner of the garden cleared away the stones. It can therefore be deduced that the reason the owner of the fallen wall cannot retract his offer is that the owner of the garden cleared them away, but if he did not clear them away, the stones are not considered his, and they remain in the possession of the owner of the wall.

讗诪讗讬 讜转拽谞讛 诇讬讛 砖讚讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽讜谞讛 诇讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜

The Gemara asks: Why do they remain in the possession of the owner of the wall? But shouldn鈥檛 the owner of the garden鈥檚 field effect acquisition of the stones on his behalf? As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The courtyard of a person effects acquisition for him of those items that enter it, even without his knowledge.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讗拽谞讜讬讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This statement applies only in a case where the giver intends to transfer them to him, in which case the field can effect acquisition of the stones for the receiver without an additional act of acquisition, but here, the owner of the fallen wall is seeking only to evade the owner of the garden. He wants the owner of the garden to take care of the stones, at which point he can collect them from him without much effort on his part, and he does not intend to give the stones to him.

讛砖讜讻专 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘转讘谉 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one who hires a laborer to do work with him with hay, the employer cannot force him to accept his wages in the form of some of the hay. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to mention this halakha with regard to both cases.

讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诇讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讙讬注讜讱 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪诪专讬 专砖讜转讬讱 驻讗专讬 讗驻专注

As had it taught us only with regard to this first case of the stones that fell that when the owner of the fallen wall says to the owner of the garden: They are yours, the court does not listen to him, one would have said that this is the halakha because he does not have a wage owed by him, as they had no prior business dealings together, and the owner of the stones does not owe the owner of the garden anything. But here, in the case of a laborer working with hay, in which the laborer does have a wage owed by the employer, one might say that the court listens to him, as people say the following proverb: When collecting a debt from your debtor, allow yourself to be repaid even in bran [parei], i.e., take whatever you can as payment of a loan.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讛讻讗 砖诪砖拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 爪专讬讻讗

And had it taught us only over here with regard to the hay, one would have said that it is only here that after the laborer has already accepted ownership upon himself, the court does not listen to the employer who desires to retract, because the laborer has a wage owed by him, and therefore there is reason to say that he receives the hay. But here, with regard to the stones, where the owner of the garden does not have a wage owed by the owner of the fallen wall, one might say that the court listens to him and he can retract. It is therefore necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讜 讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if an employer seeks to pay his laborer with straw, the court does not listen to him. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the court does listen to him? The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an said: This is not difficult. The ruling of the mishna here, that the court does not listen to him, is stated with regard to a case of work done with the employer鈥檚 own property. And the ruling of the baraita there, that the court does listen to him, is stated with regard to work done with the property of another, and there the employer鈥檚 request is accepted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 注诇讱 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞诪讬 砖讻专讜 注诇讬讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 诇注砖讜转 讘砖诇讜 讜讛专讗讛讜 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻专讜 诪砖诇诐 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讛 砖讛讛谞讛 讗讜转讜

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: In a case where he is working with his own property, what is the reason that the court does not listen to him? As the laborer can say to the employer: The responsibility of paying my wage is on you. But if he was working with the property of his friend, the responsibility of paying his earnings is also on the employer, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer to perform work in his own field, and the employer inadvertently showed the laborer the field belonging to another in which he should work, the employer must give the laborer his full wages, and in addition, the employer goes back and takes from the owner of the field in which he worked the value of the benefit that owner received from the laborer. The payment of the wages is incumbent upon the employer, not the owner of the field.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讜 讻讗谉 讘砖诇 讛驻拽专

Rather, Rav Na岣an said a different explanation: It is not difficult. The ruling of the mishna here, that the court does not listen to him, is stated with regard to work done with the employer鈥檚 own property. And the ruling of the baraita there, that the court does listen to him, is stated with regard to work done with ownerless property, e.g., the employer hired him to gather ownerless hay, and later told him to keep some of the hay as his wages. In that case, he can force the laborer to accept the hay as payment.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪爪讬讗转 驻讜注诇 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讻砖 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐 讗讜 注讚讜专 注诪讬 讛讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 注诪讬 诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬讜诐 诪爪讬讗转讜 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an: It was taught in a baraita: The found item of a salaried laborer belongs to himself. When is this so? When the employer told him to perform a specific task, for example if he said: Weed with me today, or if he said: Hoe with me today. If the laborer finds lost property while performing that task, then the item belongs to him. But if the employer says to the laborer: Work with me today, without specifying what labor he wants him to perform, his found item belongs to the employer, as acquiring found items can be considered part of his terms of employment. In the case of Rav Na岣an, since the employer instructed the laborer to gather ownerless hay, the acquisition of the hay is certainly part of the terms of his employment, and belongs to the employer. Since it is the employer鈥檚 property, he is not able to force the laborer to accept the hay as payment.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讛讙讘讛讛 讻讗谉 讘讛讘讟讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an said: Both the ruling of the mishna and the ruling of the baraita are stated with regard to a laborer hired to work with ownerless property, but it is not difficult. The ruling of the mishna here, that the court does not listen to him, is stated with regard to a case where the laborer鈥檚 task was to lift up the hay and gather it, and he is therefore considered the employer鈥檚 agent and acquires the hay for him. Since the hay then belongs to the employer, he cannot force the laborer to accept it as payment. And the ruling of the baraita there, that the court does listen to him, is stated with regard to a case where his work merely consisted of viewing, e.g., he hired him to make sure that no one takes the ownerless hay. In that case, even the employer does not acquire the straw, and it remains ownerless. Consequently, the employer can tell the laborer to take some hay as payment.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 砖讜诪专讬 住驻讬讞讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专谉 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛专讜爪讛 诪转谞讚讘 讛讜讗 讜砖讜诪专 讞谞诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

Rabba says: The issue of whether, in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition of it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 9b): The watchmen of the sefi岣m, grain that grew without being purposely planted, of the Sabbatical Year ensured that people did not take this ownerless grain, so that it remained available to be used for the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat. These watchmen take their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, as they are employed by the Temple treasury. Rabbi Yosei says: One who so desires can volunteer his services and safeguard the grain, and he has the status of an unpaid bailee. The Rabbis said to him: Do you say so? But according to your view, the omer and the two loaves do not come from communal funds as required, since in reality they come from a private individual, i.e., the bailee.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 拽谞讬 讜讗讬 讬讛讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讻讬 讗讝诇讬 爪讘讜专 讜诪讬讬转讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讝讻讬 讘讬讛

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not with regard to this that they disagree: The first tanna holds that in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition of it, and so the watchman, although he did not lift up the grain, acquires the grain by viewing it. And therefore, if he is given a wage from communal funds, then yes, he is safeguarding it on behalf of the community, and he acquires it for them. But if he is not paid, he has not acquired it for the community, but for himself. And, conversely, Rabbi Yosei holds that in the case of ownerless property, viewing does not effect acquisition of it, and when the community goes and brings the grain for the omer offering and the two loaves, it is only now, at this stage, that they acquire it.

讜诪讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专讬讱 诇讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 诇讞诐 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

And what, according to this explanation, is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were saying to him: If the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee is applied to our statement that in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition, the result is that the omer offering and the two loaves do not come from communal funds as required.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 拽谞讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛

Rava said: No; the dispute can be explained differently. It can be explained that everyone agrees that in the case of ownerless property, viewing effects acquisition, and here they disagree with regard to the question of whether we are concerned that perhaps he will not give the grain over wholeheartedly to the community. As the Rabbis hold that we give the watchman a wage, and if we do not pay him, but allow him to act as a volunteer, we are concerned that perhaps he will not give the grain over wholeheartedly to the community, as deep down he might feel that the grain really belongs to him and that he is offering it from his own pocket, which means that the omer offering and two loaves are not properly offered by the community.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专讬讱 诇讚讘专讬谞讜 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬诪住专诐 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讗讬谉 注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 诇讞诐 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专

Conversely, Rabbi Yosei holds that we are not concerned that perhaps he will not hand the grain over wholeheartedly to the community. And what is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were saying to him: If the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee is applied to our statement that we are concerned that perhaps he will not give the grain over wholeheartedly, the result is that the omer offering and the two loaves do not come from communal funds as required.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讘讟讛 讘讛驻拽专 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖诪注讬 讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 讜诇讬驻专砖讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜

There are those who say that there is a different version of this discussion: Rava said: It can be explained that everyone agrees that in the case of ownerless property, viewing does not effect acquisition of it, and here, concerning the omer offering, they disagree with regard to the question of whether we are concerned about violent people that may come and seize the grain for themselves. As the first tanna holds that the Sages instituted a directive to give him four dinars, or whatever payment is appropriate for his services as a watchman, so that violent people should hear of this and keep away from the grain, since when they hear that the Temple is paying the watchmen, they will certainly not take the grain. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the Sages did not institute this directive, since there is no concern about violent people.

讜诪讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讘专讬讱 诇讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讘注诇讬 讝专讜注讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And what is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were saying to him: If we apply the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee, to our statement that the Sages instituted a directive to give him four dinars, the result is that communal offerings do not come from communal funds as required. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The question of whether or not we are concerned about violent people is the difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that is the crux of their dispute.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讝讘诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讜爪讬讗 讜讛诪讝讘诇 诪讝讘诇 讗讬谉 砖讜专讬谉 讟讬讟 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讜讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讙讜讘诇讬谉 讟讬讟 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes manure out to the public domain, in order for it to be transported to fertilize a field, he who takes it out from his property takes it out, and immediately, he who takes it to fertilize the field takes it to fertilize the field. They must relocate the manure immediately without allowing it to sit around in the public domain. Similarly, one may not soak clay in the public domain before it is kneaded, and one may not mold bricks in the public domain since this takes a long time and inhibits use of the public domain by others. But one may knead clay in the public domain, as this process does not take long, but not bricks.

讛讘讜谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗 讜讛讘讜谞讛 讘讜谞讛 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讗转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇驻谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

With regard to one who builds a structure, keeping the building materials in the public domain, he who brings the stones brings them, and immediately, he who builds the structure builds with them, and may not leave them there. And if the stones cause damage before he had a chance to build them into the structure, he must pay for what he damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even prepare his work thirty days beforehand; he may keep the building materials in the public domain for that duration.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖注转 讛讜爪讗转 讝讘诇讬诐 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讝讘诇讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜爪讜讘专讜 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 谞讬砖讜祝 讘专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜讘专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛谞讞讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛讗专抓

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:8): Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is the time for the manure to be taken out, a person may take his manure out into the public domain and may pile it up for all thirty days, so that it will be trodden on by the feet of people and by the feet of animals, to prepare it for use as fertilizer, since it was on this condition that Joshua bequeathed Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. In other words, it is universally accepted that some will relinquish certain rights for the sake of others, and although it may be a nuisance for certain people, this practice is allowed.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讜讛转谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专砖讜转 讚讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 专砖讜转 讚诪爪讜讛

The Gemara responds: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda concedes that although he acted within his rights, if the manure caused damage, the one who placed it there is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Kamma 62b): Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to a Hanukkah lamp placed in the public domain that ignited a fire and caused damage that he is exempt, because he acts with permission? What, is the reason he is exempt not that he acted with the permission of the court to use the public domain in this manner, which indicates that one who acts with court permission is exempt from liability for damage? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it means that he has the permission of a mitzva. Since it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp outside, he is exempt from paying for the damage it caused. The mere right to place the item in the public domain does not exempt the owner from liability.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽诇拽诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诐 讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 诇砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to all these cases in which the Sages said that it is permitted for people to place obstacles in the public domain, if they caused damage, these people are liable to pay, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts them? Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one has the permission of the court to put an item in the public domain, he is exempt from paying damages. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 专砖讜转 讜讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讗转 诪诇讗讻转讜 诇驻谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon all hold that wherever the Sages gave someone permission to perform an action, and in performing this action he causes damage, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara cites the sources for this assertion: It is clear that Rabbi Yehuda is of that opinion based on that which we just said. It is clear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of that opinion, as we learned in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even prepare his work thirty days beforehand.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 诪注诪讬讚讜 讘注诇讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 转讞转讬讜 诪注讝讬讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讘讻讬专讛 讟驻讞 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐

It is clear that Rabbi Shimon is of that opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 20b): If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick. And if he causes damage after having taken the necessary precautions, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: The Sages said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞爪讘 砖诪住专 诇住转转 讛住转转 讞讬讬讘 讛住转转 砖诪住专 诇讞诪专 讛讞诪专 讞讬讬讘 讛讞诪专 砖诪住专 诇讻转祝 讛讻转祝 讞讬讬讘 讛讻转祝 砖诪住专 诇讘谞讗讬 讛讘谞讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讛讘谞讗讬 砖诪住专 诇讗讚专讬讻诇 讗讚专讬讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讛谞讬讞 讗讘谉 注诇 讛讚讬诪讜住 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讻讜诇谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

The Sages taught: Once the stonecutter has delivered the stones to the chiseler, from that point on, the chiseler is liable for any damage caused by them. Once the chiseler has delivered the stones to the donkey driver to transport them, the donkey driver is liable. Once the donkey driver has delivered the stones to a porter to carry them to the building site, the porter is liable. Once the porter has delivered the stones to the builder, the builder is liable. Once the builder has delivered them to the master builder [adrikhal], who places and straightens the stones on the structure, the master builder is liable. And if he placed a stone upon the row [dimos] of stones and the stone fell off and caused damage, then they are all liable to pay.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜诇谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讻讬专讜转 讻讗谉 讘拽讘诇谞讜转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita, that only the last one, the master builder, is liable, and all of them are exempt? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the ruling here, in this baraita, is stated with regard to a case of hiring, and therefore only the last one is liable, whereas the ruling there, in that baraita, is stated with regard to a case of contracting, in which they all agreed to perform the work together, and therefore they are all liable to pay.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 讙谞讜转 讝讜 注诇 讙讘 讝讜 讜讛讬专拽 讘讬谞转讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诇 注诇讬讜谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 转讞转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇讬拽讞 讗转 注驻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛转讞转讜谉 诇诪诇讗讜转 讗转 讙谞转讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讬专拽

MISHNA: In the case of two gardens that were located one above the other, i.e., a garden on a plateau that borders another garden below, and vegetables grew in-between, out of the wall of soil resulting from the difference in height between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden. Rabbi Yehuda says: They belong to the owner of the lower one. Rabbi Meir said in explanation of his ruling: If the owner of the upper garden would want to dig and take his dirt and does so, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him. In response, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the owner of the lower garden would want to fill his garden with dirt and does so, thereby raising its level, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讞专 砖砖谞讬讛谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇诪讞讜转 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 专讜讗讬谉 诪讛讬讻谉 讬专拽 讝讛 讞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 砖讛注诇讬讜谉 讬讻讜诇 诇驻砖讜讟 讗转 讬讚讜 讜诇讬讟讜诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇讜 讜讛砖讗专 砖诇 转讞转讜谉

Rabbi Meir said: Since the two of them can object to each other, as they each have the ability to prevent the vegetable growth, nothing can be decided based on such considerations. Instead, the court considers from where this vegetable lives and derives nourishment, whether from above or from below. Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the owner of the upper garden can stretch out his hand and take, those vegetables are his, and the rest belong to the owner of the lower garden.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘注讬拽专讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚注诇讬讜谉 讛讜讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讜驻讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讚讬 谞讜驻讜 讘转专 注讬拽专讜

GEMARA: Rava says: With regard to the root of the vegetable growing out of the wall of soil, everyone agrees that it is the property of the owner of the upper garden, since the ground belongs to him. When they disagree, it is with regard to its leaves, which grow above the airspace of the lower garden. Rabbi Meir holds: Cast its leaves after its root, and consider that they too belong to the owner of the upper garden. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not say: Cast its leaves after its root.

讜讗讝讚讗 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讙讝注 讜诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讙讝注 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讗讬诇谉 讜诪谉 讛砖专砖讬谉 砖诇 讘注诇 讛拽专拽注

The Gemara comments: And they follow their line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a tree belonging to one individual that grew on land owned by another: That which sprouts from the trunk and from the roots, these belong to the owner of the land. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: That which sprouts from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, and anything that grows from the roots belongs to the owner of the land. This statement demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, ownership of the sprouts is not determined exclusively based on the ownership of the roots.

Scroll To Top