Bava Batra 34

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פתח בבור ומסיים בכותל (ליתני אלא אם כן הרחיק מבורו של חבירו ג"ט)

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The Mishnah [in the first sentence] begins by speaking of the neighbour's PIT and finishes by speaking of his WALL. [How is this]? — Said Abaye [or according to others Rab Judah]: The word WALL must here be understood to mean the wall [i.e. side] of his pit. But still why does not the Mishnah say, 'but he should keep them at least three handbreadths from his neighbour's pit'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We suppose the neighbour's pit to commence three handbreadths from the boundary on his side. Hence if we were to understand the word 'pit' here to mean the hollow of the pit, the other would still be able to dig right up to the boundary. We should therefore have to understand 'pit' to mean 'the side of the pit', and so there is no need to substitute the word 'wall'. ');">¹</span>

אמר אביי ואיתימא רב יהודה מכותל בורו שנינו

— The use of the word WALL teaches us that the wall of the pit must itself be three handbreadths thick.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we understand the Mishnah to mean, 'he must keep the hollow of his pit three handbreadths from the side of the other's pit', i.e., three from the boundary, which are filled by the side of his own pit. This is the explanation of Rashi, and is apparently forced. Tosaf, greatly simplifies the passage by omitting the sentence, 'But still why&nbsp;… neighbour's pit' (or, alternatively, by inserting it after 'speaking of his wall'). The explanation would then be as follows: Abaye says that he must keep his pit three handbreadths from the side of his neighbour's pit (which presumably comes up to the boundary), and we infer from this that the neighbour also must not dig his pit close up to the boundary; whereas if the word 'pit' had been used, we should not have been able to infer this. ');">²</span>

וליתני אא"כ הרחיק מבורו של חבירו ג' טפחים הא קמ"ל דכותל בור שלשה טפחים נפקא מינה למקח וממכר כדתניא האומר לחבירו בור וכותליה אני מוכר לך צריך שיהא הכותל שלשה טפחים

This ruling has a practical bearing on cases of sale, as it was taught: If a man says to another, 'I will sell you a pit and its walls,' the wall must be not less than three handbreadths thick.

איתמר הבא לסמוך בצד המצר אביי אמר סומך ורבא אמר אינו סומך בשדה העשויה לבורות דברי הכל אינו סומך כי פליגי בשדה שאינה עשויה לבורות

It has been stated: If a man desires to dig a pit close up to the boundary [between his field and his neighbour's]. Abaye says he may do so and Raba says he may not do so. Now in a field where pits would naturally be dug,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a field requiring irrigation. ');">³</span>

אביי אמר סומך דהא אינה עשויה לבורות רבא אמר אינו סומך דאמר ליה כי היכי דאת אימלכת וחפרת אנא נמי ממלכנא וחפרנא

both agree that he may not dig close up. Where they differ is in the case of a field where pits would not naturally be dug; Abaye says he may dig, because it is not naturally a field for digging pits [and therefore his neighbour is not likely to want to dig one on the other side]. while Raba says he may not dig; because his neighbour can say to him, 'Just as you have altered your mind and want to dig, so I may alter my mind and want to dig.' Others report [this argument as follows]: In the case of a field where pits would not naturally be dug, both [Abaye and Raba] agree that he may dig close up to the boundary. Where they differ is in the case of a field where pits would naturally be dug. Abaye says that in such a field the owner may dig, and would be allowed to dig even by the Rabbis who lay down that a tree must not be planted within twenty-five cubits of a pit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest the roots spread and injure the pit, v. infra 25a. ');">⁴</span>

איכא דאמרי בשדה שאינה עשויה לבורות דברי הכל סומך כי פליגי בשדה העשויה לבורות אביי אמר סומך אפילו לרבנן דאמרי מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור עשרים וחמש אמה התם הוא דבעידנא דקא נטע איתא לבור אבל הכא בעידנא דקא חפר ליתא לבור

for they only rule this because at the time of planting the pit already exists, but here when the man comes to dig the pit there is no pit on the other side. Raba on the other hand says that he may not dig, and would not be allowed to dig even by R. Jose. who laid down that [in all circumstances] the one owner can plant within his property and the other dig within his;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest the roots spread and injure the pit, v. infra 25a. ');">⁴</span>

ורבא אמר אינו סומך ואפילו לרבי יוסי דאמר זה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו הני מילי התם דבעידנא דקא נטע ליתנהו לשרשיו דמזקי לה לבור אבל הכא אמר ליה כל מרא ומרא דקא מחיית קא מרפית לה לארעאי

for he only rules thus because at the time when the former plants there are as yet no roots which could damage the pit, but in this case the owner of the other field can say to the man who wants to dig the pit, 'Every stroke with the spade which you make injures my ground.'

תנן לא יחפור אדם בור סמוך לבורו של חבירו טעמא דאיכא בור הא ליכא בור סומך בשלמא להך לישנא דאמרת בשדה שאינה עשויה לבורות דברי הכל סומך מתניתין בשדה שאינה עשויה לבורות

We learnt: A MAN SHOULD NOT DIG A PIT CLOSE TO THE PIT OF HIS NEIGHBOUR. [From this it appears that] the reason [why he must not dig] is because there is another pit in existence, but if there is not, then he may dig. Now this would be in order if we accept the version [of the argument reported above] according to which Abaye and Raba agree that in a field where pits would not naturally be dug the owner may dig close up to the boundary; we may then interpret the Mishnah to speak of a field where pits would not naturally be dug.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is no contradiction between the Mishnah and Abaye and Raba. ');">⁵</span>

אלא להך לישנא דאמרת בשדה שאינה עשויה לבורות פליגי בשלמא לאביי ניחא אלא לרבא קשיא

If, however, we accept the version according to which Abaye and Raba differ in regard to a field where pits would not naturally be dug, then, while the Mishnah is in order according to the ruling of Abaye,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who said he may dig so long as there is no pit on the other side. ');">⁶</span>

אמר לך רבא הא איתמר עלה אמר אביי ואיתימא רב יהודה מכותל בורו שנינו

it presents a difficulty [does it not], according to that of Raba? — Raba could reply to you: It has already been reported in this connection that Abaye [or it may be Rab Judah] said that the word WALL in the Mishnah means 'the wall of his pit'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that, even if there is no pit on the other side, the pit itself must be kept three handbreadths from the boundary to allow space for the wall (i.e. side). ');">⁷</span>

איכא דאמרי ואיתמר עלה אמר אביי ואיתימא רב יהודה מכותל בורו שנינו בשלמא להך לישנא דאמרת בשדה העשויה לבורות דברי הכל אינו סומך מתניתין בשדה העשויה לבורות

Others report this discussion as follows. [The Mishnah says that a man should not dig a pit close to the pit of his neighbour,] and it has been reported in this connection that Abaye [or it may be Rab Judah] said that WALL here must be explained to mean the wall [side] of his neighbour's pit. Now all will be in order if we accept the version of Abaye and Raba's argument according to which in a field where pits would naturally be dug both agree that he should not dig close to the boundary; for in this case we explain the Mishnah [also] to refer to a field where pits would naturally be dug.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 3 n. 2. ');">⁸</span>

אלא להך לישנא דאמרת בשדה העשויה לבורות פליגי בשלמא לרבא ניחא אלא לאביי קשיא

If, however, we take the version according to which Abaye and Raba differ in regard to a field where pits would naturally be dug, while the Mishnah is in order according to the ruling of Raba, it presents a difficulty [does it not], according to that of Abaye? — Abaye might reply that the Mishnah speaks of the case where both owners want to dig at the same time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then certainly each would have to keep three handbreadths away. ');">⁹</span>

אמר לך אביי מתניתין שבאו לחפור בבת אחת

Come and hear: If the soil at the boundary is of crumbling rock<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'a rock that comes (to pieces) in the hands.' ');">¹⁰</span>

תא שמע סלע הבא בידים זה חופר בורו מכאן וזה חופר בורו מכאן זה מרחיק שלשה טפחים וסד בסיד וזה מרחיק שלשה טפחים וסד בסיד בא בידים שאני

and the one owner wants to dig a pit on his side and the other owner on his side, the one keeps three handbreadths away from the boundary and plasters the sides of his pit, and the other does likewise?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.B. I. From this I infer that even if there is no pit on the other side, the first pit has to be kept three handbreadths away, which is contrary to the opinion of Abaye. ');">¹¹</span>

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה בא בידים איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא כיון דבא בידים ליבעי נמי רווחא טפי קא משמע לן

Crumbling rock is different. But how could the questioner have raised the question at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the answer being so obvious, what was his idea in asking such a question? ');">¹²</span>

תא שמע מרחיקין את הגפת ואת הזבל ואת

The questioner thought that the same law would apply to ordinary soil, but that it was necessary to specify the rule about crumbling rock, as otherwise I might think that, since it is crumbling [i.e. soft] rock, an even greater space was required for it. Now the Baraitha tells us [that it is not so]. Come and hear: A MAN SHOULD KEEP OLIVE REFUSE, DUNG,