בבא בתרא יח

בבא בתרא יח

הַמֶּלַח, וְאֶת הַסִּיד, וְאֶת הַסְּלָעִים מִכּוֹתְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, אוֹ סָד בְּסִיד. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סוֹמֵךְ!

salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or he can plaster the wall with lime. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall there belonging to his neighbor, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall there, one may place these substances close to the boundary of his neighbor’s courtyard. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rava according to the first version of the dispute, which states that one may not place these substances close to a boundary even in the case of a field that is not designated for pits.

לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ לְכוֹתֶל.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall one may also not place these substances close to the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does mentioning a wall here teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that all these substances are damaging to a wall.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִים אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, וְאֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה, וְאֶת מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דִּמְתוּנְתָּא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: One must distance seeds, and the plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall of another. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place these substances close to the boundary of the field. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place these substances close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that dampness [dimtunta] is damaging to a wall.

תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאֶת הָרֵיחַיִם – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁכֶב שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הָרֶכֶב. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּטִירְיָיא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And one must distance a mill from a wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place a mill close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his mill close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that vibrations are damaging to a wall.

תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאֶת הַתַּנּוּר – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַכִּלְיָא שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הַשָּׂפָה. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. אֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהַבְלָא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And the oven must be distanced three handbreadths from the base, which is four handbreadths from the upper rim of the oven. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place an oven close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his oven close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that heat is damaging to a wall.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא אוֹצָר, הָא לֵיכָּא אוֹצָר – עָבֵיד!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (20b): A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the wine storeroom of another, nor may one open a cattle barn there. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The reason for this ruling is that there is a storeroom already in place, from which it may be inferred that if there is no storeroom one may do so. If this is the case, then with regard to a pit as well, one may dig next to a boundary if there is as yet no pit.

דִּירָה שָׁאנֵי. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אִם הָיְתָה רֶפֶת בָּקָר קוֹדֶמֶת לָאוֹצָר – מוּתָּר.

The Gemara answers: The case of a residence is different, as in general one can use his domicile in any manner of his choosing unless he directly causes damage to another or his property. The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as an explicit baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: If the construction of the cattle barn preceded the storeroom, it is permitted. Nothing can be inferred from the case of the baraita with regard to the halakha of the mishna, which does not concern living quarters.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִטַּע אָדָם אִילָן סָמוּךְ לַשָּׂדֶה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (26a): A person may not plant a tree close to another’s field unless he distances it four cubits from his neighbor. And it is taught with regard to this mishna: The four cubits of which the Sages spoke are to enable the work of the vineyard, i.e., a small space next to the trees is necessary to enable animals to plow between them.

טַעְמָא דְּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם, הָא לָאו מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם – סָמֵיךְ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא שׇׁרָשִׁין דְּקָא מַזְּקִי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא.

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason this distance is required is due to the work of the vineyard, from which it may be inferred that if not for the problem due to the work of the vineyard, it would be permitted for one to plant his tree close to the boundary, and apparently, this is the halakha even though there are roots of the tree that damage his neighbor’s field. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where a hard rock [tzunema] interrupts between the two fields, preventing the roots from passing through to the other field.

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: הָיָה גָּדֵר בֵּינָתַיִם – זֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן, וְזֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן.

The Gemara continues: The language of the mishna is also precise with regard to this point, as it teaches further on: If there was a fence between them, this one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here, and that one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here. If the baraita were referring to a case where the roots could travel across, how could it be permitted for both neighbors to plant their trees alongside each other? Consequently, it must be referring to a situation where a rock separates between the two fields below, and therefore the neighbors may plant their trees near the fence.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הָיוּ שׇׁרָשָׁיו יוֹצְאִין בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַעֲמִיק לָהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה. וְאִי דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא, מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְאִי לָאו צוּנְמָא, וְהָיוּ שׇׁרָשָׁיו יוֹצְאִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַעֲמִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה.

The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they do not impede the plow. The Gemara asks: But if a rock interrupts between the two fields and forms a barrier, what are these roots doing there, i.e., how did they get there? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: And if there is no rock, and the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths so that they do not impede the plow.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָאִילָן מִן הַבּוֹר עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹר, הָא לֵיכָּא בּוֹר – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא בּוֹר נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ, וְהָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּעַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה, אָזְלִי שׇׁרָשִׁים וּמַזְּקִי לְבוֹר.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: The reason for this ruling is that there is a cistern, from which it may be inferred that if there is no cistern, one may place, i.e., plant, his tree close to the neighbor’s field. The Gemara answers: No, even when there is no cistern one may also not place it close to the neighbor’s field. And by mentioning a cistern, the tanna of the mishna teaches us this: That the roots of a tree extend and damage the cistern up to a distance of twenty-five cubits away.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְאִם אִילָן קָדַם – לֹא יָקוֹץ. וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ; הָכִי נָמֵי בְּלוֹקֵחַ.

The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: And if the tree preceded the cistern, one is not required to cut down the tree. But if one may not place the tree close to the boundary even if there is no cistern, how can you find a case where the tree preceded the cistern? Why would its owner not be required to cut it down? The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa says with regard to a similar matter, that it is referring to a buyer who purchases part of a field. So too here, it is referring to a buyer. In other words, a field contained a cistern and tree alongside each other, and the owner sold the part of the field containing the cistern.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַמִּשְׁרָה מִן הַיָּרָק, וְאֶת הַכְּרֵישִׁין מִן הַבְּצָלִין, וְאֶת הַחַרְדָּל מִן הַדְּבוֹרִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא יָרָק, הָא לֵיכָּא יָרָק – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא יָרָק נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ; וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ אַהֲדָדֵי.

The Gemara cites yet another source: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25a): One must distance the water in which flax is steeped from vegetables growing in a neighbor’s field, and one must distance leeks from onions growing in a neighbor’s field, and one must likewise distance mustard from bees that are in a neighbor’s field. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason is that there are vegetables present, from which it may be inferred that if there are no vegetables, one may place the water close to the neighbor’s field. The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, even if there are no vegetables one may also not place the water close to the neighbor’s field. And the tanna teaches us that these items mentioned in that mishna are harmful to each other.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בְּחַרְדָּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי הַרְחֵק חַרְדָּלֶךָ מִן דְּבוֹרַאי, הַרְחֵק דְּבוֹרֶךָ מִן חַרְדָּלַאי – שֶׁבָּאוֹת וְאוֹכְלוֹת לִגְלוּגַי חַרְדָּלַאי.

The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei renders it permitted to plant near the neighbor’s bees in the case of mustard. As explained in a baraita, this is because he can say to the owner of the bees: Just as you say to me: Keep your mustard away from my bees, I can say to you: Keep your bees away from my mustard, as they come and eat my mustard plants. In other words, you are damaging my property as well.

וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ.

And if one may not place an item that might cause damage close to his neighbor’s boundary, how can you find a case where each neighbor is damaging the property of the other? Rav Pappa says: This is referring to a buyer who purchased part of his neighbor’s field, and it contains a substance or items that might cause damage, e.g., the water in which flax is steeped or mustard. In the other section of the field the neighbor retained an item or substance that could be damaged. In this manner, it is possible for the item that causes damage to be found near the boundary of the neighbor without one having violated the ruling of the mishna.

אִי בְּלוֹקֵחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? וְעוֹד, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא נָמֵי!

The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a buyer, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who say that the neighbor can demand that the buyer distance that which causes damage? After all, he has not acted improperly. And furthermore, what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei for disagreeing only in the case of the mustard and the bees? Even the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables is also subject to the same reasoning: Why should he have to distance his water, considering that he did not act improperly?

אָמַר רָבִינָא: קָא סָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ.

Ravina said that the explanation is as follows: The Rabbis hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself. The one who has the potential to cause damage must act to prevent the damage from occurring. This is the halakha even if his initial placement was done in accordance with halakha, as in the case where one bought part of a field.

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: עַל הַנִּיזָּק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ?! אִי עַל הַנִּיזָּק, אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא נָמֵי!

The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis, holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself; i.e., to avoid being damaged? But if the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one whose property was damaged, even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables the owner should also not have to distance himself. Why does Rabbi Yosei distinguish between that situation and the case of bees and mustard?

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי נָמֵי עַל הַמַּזִּיק סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּנַן: תִּינַח מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא – דְּהָנֵי מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, וְהָנֵי לָא מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל וּדְבוֹרִים – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַזְּקִי אַהֲדָדֵי!

Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei also holds that the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one who causes damage, even if he did not act improperly. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to the Rabbis: Your explanation works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, where the one who causes damage must distance himself, as these damage those, but those do not damage these, i.e., the water in which flax is steeped damages the vegetables, but the vegetables do not damage the water. But in the case of mustard and bees, they both damage one another. In light of this factor, and since the initial planting of the mustard was permitted, the owner of the bees should distance them from the mustard.

וְרַבָּנַן – דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ; אִי בְּבִינְתָא – לָא מַשְׁכְּחָא לֵיהּ, אִי בְּטַרְפָּא – הָדַר פָּארֵי.

And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that bees do not damage mustard. Their reasoning is that if it is referring to a seed, the bees will not find it. If it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back, and therefore no damage has been caused.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ?! וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבּוֹר קוֹדֶמֶת לְאִילָן – לֹא יָקוֹץ, שֶׁזֶּה חוֹפֵר בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה נוֹטֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – עַל הַנִּיזָּק סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּלְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ:

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b) that Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the cistern preceded the tree, the owner need not cut down the tree, as this one digs a cistern in his property, and that one plants the tree in his property? Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself. And Rabbi Yosei spoke to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement.

לְדִידִי, עַל הַנִּיזָּק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא לָא בָּעֵי רַחוֹקֵי; אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ, דְּאָמְרִיתוּ עַל הַמַּזִּיק; תִּינַח מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא – דְּהָנֵי מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, וְהָנֵי לָא מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל וּדְבוֹרִים – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַזְּקִי אַהֲדָדֵי!

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yosei was saying to the Rabbis: In my opinion, the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself, and therefore even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, the owner of the water need not distance himself. But according to your opinion, that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself, this works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, as these damage those and those do not damage these. But mustard and bees both damage one another, and if the mustard owner acted properly, the owner of the bees should be required to move his bees.

וְרַבָּנַן – דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ; אִי בְּבִינְתָא –

The Gemara continues: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? They hold that bees do not damage mustard: If this is referring to a seed,