Commentary for Bava Metzia 236:14

ואזדא לטעמייהו דתניא היוצא מן הגזע ומן השרשין הרי אלו של בעל הקרקע דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר מן הגזע של בעל האילן ומן השרשין של בעל הקרקע

the foreman is liable. But if after he had [exactly]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The text is uncertain (v. D.S.), but this seems to be the correct interpretation according to the reading in cur. edd.; on variants in the parallel passages. V. Krauss, TA. I, 302.] ');">²⁵</span> laid the stone upon the row, it caused damage, <i>all</i> are responsible. But has it not been taught: Only the last is responsible, whilst <i>all</i> the others are exempt? — There is no difficulty: the latter refers to time-work;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hiring'. i.e., men engaged by the week, day or hour. In that case, each is quit of responsibility as soon as it leaves his hand, and so the final responsibility is left with the last. ');">²⁶</span> the former, to contracting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they jointly contracted for the building. In that case, each is severally responsible whilst the stone is in his hand; but when it is laid, the joint responsibility is reassumed. ');">²⁷</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF TWO GARDENS ARE SITUATED ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, AND VEGETABLES GROW BETWEEN THEM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are contiguous, but one is on a higher level than the other, and vegetables grow on the connecting bank. ');">²⁸</span> R. MEIR SAID: THEY BELONG TO THE UPPER GARDEN; R. JUDAH MAINTAINED, TO THE LOWER GARDEN. SAID R. MEIR: SHOULD THE OWNER OF THE UPPER GARDEN WISH TO REMOVE HIS GARDEN [I.E., TAKE AWAY THE EARTH], THERE WOULD BE NO VEGETABLES. SAID R. JUDAH: SHOULD THE LOWER ONE WISH TO FILL UP HIS GARDEN [WITH SOIL],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make it level with the higher one. ');">²⁹</span> THERE WOULD BE NO VEGETABLES. THEN, SAID R. MEIR, SINCE BOTH CAN PREVENT EACH OTHER [FROM HAVING VEGETABLES AT <i>ALL</i>], WE CONSIDER WHENCE THE VEGETABLES DRAW THEIR SUSTENANCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this determines their ownership. ');">³⁰</span> R. SIMEON SAID: AS FAR AS [THE OWNER OF] THE UPPER GARDEN CAN STRETCH OUT HIS HAND AND TAKE BELONGS TO HIM, WHILST THE REST BELONGS TO [THE OWNER OF] THE LOWER GARDEN. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba said: As for the roots, <i>all</i> agree that they belong to the upper owner. They disagree only with respect to the leaves:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are suspended in the air-space above the lower garden. ');">³¹</span> R. Meir maintains: The leaves are counted with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thrown after'. ');">³²</span> the roots; whilst R. Judah holds that they are not. Now, they follow their views [expressed elsewhere]. For it has been taught: That which issues from the trunk and the roots belongs to the landowner: this is R. Meir's opinion. R. Judah said: [That which grows] out of the trunk belongs to the tree-owner; out of the roots, to the land-owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the offshoots of a tree which does not belong to the same owner as the field in which it is situated, v. B.B. 81a. ');">³³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 236:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.