Bava Batra 36

ואי דלא סמיך היכי משכחת לה אמר רב פפא בלוקח

Now if a man is not allowed to bring these things close up to the boundary, in what conditions could such a remark be made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the man who says this virtually admits that the other had a perfect right to bring his bees close up to the boundary before he sowed his mustard. ');">¹</span>

אי בלוקח מאי טעמא דרבנן ועוד מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי אפילו משרה וירקא נמי

R. Papa answered: In the case of a purchaser.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after he placed flax — water or sowed mustard in his field, he sold the other half, and the purchaser sowed vegetables or put a beehive close to the boundary. But otherwise, according to Raba, the mustard and the bees would have to be removed from the boundary. ');">²</span>

אמר רבינא קא סברי רבנן על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו

But if we are speaking of a purchaser, what reason have the Rabbis for prohibiting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the seller have to remove his bees or mustard, seeing that when he placed them there he was perfectly within his rights? ');">³</span>

מכלל דר' יוסי סבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו אי על הניזק אפי' משדה וירקא נמי

Also, why does R. Jose permit only in the case of the mustard? Why not the water and the leeks also? — Rabina replied: The Rabbis hold that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the article causing the damage. Hence, since the seller's property is causing the damage he must remove it, although he had a right to place it there at first. Rabbenu Tam here adopts the reading of R. Han. [H] '" the="" truth="" is."="" said="" rabina…'="" rabina's="" answer="" would="" then="" not="" be="" in="" support="" of="" raba,="" but="" involve="" abandonment="" all="" defences="" made="" on="" behalf="" raba="" above,="" and="" an="" admission="" that,="" according="" to="" rabbis,="" such="" articles="" as="" lime,="" tree="" roots,="" etc.="" can="" brought="" close="" up="" boundary="" so="" long="" there="" is="" at="" time="" nothing="" injure="" other="" side,="" only="" exception="" being="" pit,="" because="" digging="" it="" injures="" soil="" side.="" ');"="">⁴</span>

אלא לעולם ר' יוסי נמי על המזיק סבירא ליה והכי קאמר להו רבי יוסי לרבנן תינח משרה וירקא דהני מזקי הני והני לא מזקי הני אלא חרדל ודבורים תרוייהו מזקי אהדדי

We may infer from this that in the opinion of R. Jose it is incumbent on the one who suffers the damage to remove himself, and if that is so, then he should permit flax — water to be placed close to vegetables?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the owner of the former can say to the owner of the latter, 'It is for you to remove them if they are being injured.' ');">⁵</span>

ורבנן דבורים לחרדל לא מזקי ליה אי בבינתא לא משכחא ליה אי בטרפא הדר פארי

— The truth is that R. Jose also holds that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself, and he argued with the Rabbis as follows: I grant you are right in the case of the flax water and the vegetables, because the former harms the latter but not vice versa, but the case is different with bees and mustard, because both are harmful to one another. What have the Rabbis to say to this? — That bees do no harm to mustard; the grains they cannot find, and, if they eat the leaves, they grow again.

וסבר ר' יוסי על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו והתנן רבי יוסי אומר אע"פ שהבור קודמת לאילן לא יקוץ שזה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו אלא לעולם ר' יוסי על הניזק ס"ל ולדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו

But does R. Jose in fact hold that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself? Have we not learnt: 'R. Jose says: Even if the pit was there before the tree, the tree need not be cut down, because the one owner digs in his property and the other plants in his'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25b. ');">⁶</span>

לדידי על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ואפי' משרה וירקא לא בעי רחוקי אלא לדידכו דאמריתו על המזיק תינח משרה וירקא דהני מזקי הני והני לא מזקי הני אלא חרדל ודבורים תרוייהו מזקי אהדדי

— The truth is that R. Jose holds it to be incumbent on the one who suffers the damage to remove himself, and here he was arguing with the Rabbis on their own premises. thus: 'In my view the one who suffers the damage has to remove himself, and therefore in this case it is not necessary to remove even the flax-water from the vegetables. But on your view that the one who inflicts the damage must remove himself, I grant you are right in the case of the flax-water and the vegetables, because the former injures the latter but not vice-versa. But this does not apply to bees and mustard, where both injure one another.' To which the Rabbis can reply that bees do not injure mustard; the grains

ורבנן דבורים לחרדל לא מזקי ליה אי בבינתא