Bava Batra 37

לא משכחת ליה אי בטרפא הדר פארי:

they cannot find, and the leaves grow again.

ולא נברכת הכובסין וכו': אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא מן המחמצן אבל מן הנדיין ד' אמות תניא נמי הכי נברכת הכובסין ד' אמות והא אנן תנן ג' טפחים אלא לאו ש"מ כדרב נחמן

NOR A FULLER'S POOL. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabba b. Abbuha: The three handbreadths mentioned here apply only to the soaking pool,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A pool in which the dirty linen was soaked two or three days before washing. ');">¹</span>

ואיכא דרמי להו מירמי תנן נברכת הכובסין ג' טפחים והתניא ארבע אמות אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא קשיא כאן מן המחמצן כאן מן הנדיין רב חייא בריה דרב אויא מתני לה בהדיא אלא אם כן הרחיק משפת מחמצן ולכותל ג' טפחים:

but the washing pool must be kept four cubits from the wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of the splashing. ');">²</span>

וסד בסיד: איבעיא להו וסד בסיד תנן או דילמא או סד בסיד תנן

We find this also taught [in a Baraitha]: The fuller's pool must be kept four cubits away. But did we not learn, THREE HANDBREADTHS? — This shows [that the Mishnah must be understood] as R. Nahman has explained. Some put this statement in the form of a contradiction [which is afterwards reconciled,] thus: We learnt A FULLER'S POOL MUST BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS AWAY. But does not a Baraitha say four cubits? — Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: There is no contradiction. The Mishnah speaks of the soaking pool and the Baraitha of the washing pool. R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia added a gloss to this effect to the Mishnah itself: 'Unless he removes the edge of the soaking pool three handbreadths from the wall.'

פשיטא דוסד בסיד תנן דאי סלקא דעתך דאו סד בסיד תנן אם כן ליערבינהו וליתנינהו

AND PLASTER THE SIDES. The question was raised: Is the proper reading of the Mishnah 'and plaster' or 'or plaster'? — Obviously 'and plaster' is the proper reading, for if the Mishnah meant to say 'or', then the first two clauses could have been run into one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the clause about the pit. etc., and the clause about the olive refuse, etc., where we have 'or cement', the damage there being too slight to require both plastering and removal to a distance, v. Tosaf. 17a. [H] ');">³</span>

דילמא משום דלא דמי האי היזיקא להאי היזיקא רישא היזיקא דמתונא סיפא היזיקא דהבלא

But possibly ['or' is after all the right reading, and the reason why the two clauses are not combined is because] they are not in the same category. the damage in one case arising from moisture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the water in the pit. etc. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש רבי יהודה אומר סלע הבא בידים זה חופר בורו מכאן וזה חופר בורו מכאן זה מרחיק ג' טפחים וסד בסיד וזה מרחיק ג' טפחים וסד בסיד טעמא דבא בידים הא לא בא בידים לא

and in the other from steam?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the olive refuse, etc. ');">⁵</span>

ה"ה דאף על גב דלא בא בידים נמי סד בסיד ובא בידים איצטריכא ליה סד"א כיון דבא בידים ליבעי רווחא טפי קמ"ל:

— Come and hear: R. Judah says. If there is crumbling rock between the two properties, each owner can dig a pit on his own side and each must keep away from the boundary three handbreadths and plaster his pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 17b. ');">⁶</span>

מרחיקין את הגפת ואת הזבל ואת המלח ואת הסלעים וכו': תנן התם במה טומנין ובמה אין טומנין

The reason is [is it not,] that the soil between is crumbling, but otherwise there is no need to plaster?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we therefore read in the Mishnah, 'or plaster'. ');">⁷</span>

אין טומנין לא בגפת ולא בזבל ולא במלח ולא בסיד ולא בחול בין לחין בין יבשין מאי שנא הכא דקתני סלעים ולא קתני חול ומאי שנא התם דקתני חול ולא קתני סלעים

— No. This is the rule even if the soil is not crumbling; he still has to plaster.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we therefore read, 'and plaster'. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב יוסף לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם להטמין בסלעים אמר ליה אביי וכי דרכן של בני אדם להטמין בגיזי צמר ולשונות של ארגמן דתניא טומנין בגיזי צמר ובציפי צמר ובלשונות של ארגמן ובמוכין ואין מטלטלין אותן

The case of crumbling soil, however, is specified, because otherwise I might have thought that with crumbling soil a greater distance still was required. Now he teaches us [that this is not so].

אלא אמר אביי (איוב לו, לג) יגיד עליו ריעו תנא הכא סלעים וה"ה לחול תנא התם חול והוא הדין לסלעים א"ל רבא אי יגיד עליו ריעו ליתנינהו לכולהו בחדא וליתני חדא מנייהו באידך וה"ה לאידך

OLIVE REFUSE, DUNG, SALT, LIME AND FLINT STONES SHOULD BE KEPT, etc. We have learnt in another place:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 47b. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבא התם היינו טעמא דלא קתני סלעים משום דמשתכי לה לקדרה הכא היינו טעמא דלא קתני חול משום דמחמימי חיים ומקרירי קריר

In what materials may food be kept warm [for the Sabbath] and in what may it not be kept warm? It may not be kept warm in olive refuse or in dung or in salt or in lime or in sand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All things which give of a steam. ');">¹⁰</span>

והא תני רבי אושעיא חול התם במתונא תנא דידן נמי ליתני ולוקמיה במתונא הא תנא ליה אמת המים

whether moist or dry. Why is it that here flint stones are included in the list and not sand, and there sand is included and not flint stones? — R. Joseph answered: Because it is not usual to keep food warm in flint stones. Said Abaye to him: And is it usual to keep food warm in woollen fleeces and strips of purple wool? And yet [these are mentioned in] a Baraitha which says: 'Food may be kept warm in woollen fleeces and strips of purple wool and fluff, but these things must not be carried on Sabbath.' No, said Abaye. The truth is that, his neighbour telleth concerning him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XXXVI 33; [H] E. V. 'noise' is rendered here 'friend', companion'; i.e. one passage elucidates the other. ');">¹¹</span>

אטו מי לא קתני אמת המים וקתני נברכת הכובסין

The Mishnah here mentions flint stones, and the same rule applies to sand, and there it mentions sand and the same rule applies to flint stones. Said Raba to him: If his neighbour telleth concerning him, should not the Mishnah mention the whole list in one place and only one item in the other, allowing us to understand that the same rule applies to the rest? No, said Raba. The reason why flint stones are not mentioned in connection with Sabbath is because they are liable to crack the pot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'make rusty'. They are therefore not used at all, whereas purple wool is used sometimes. ');">¹²</span>

הנהו צריכי דאי תנא אמת המים משום דקביעא אבל נברכת הכובסין דלא קביעא אימא לא ואי תנא נברכת הכובסין משום דקוו וקיימי אבל אמת המים לא צריכא:

and the reason why sand is not mentioned here is because while it makes hot things hotter, it makes cold things colder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore does not injure a wall. ');">¹³</span>

מרחיקין את הזרעים ואת המחרישה וכו': זרעים תיפוק ליה משום מחרישה במפולת יד

But R. Oshiah included sand in his Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tosefta of R. Oshiah. ');">¹⁴</span>

מחרישה ותיפוק ליה משום זרעים בחורש לאילנות ותיפוק ליה משום מיא תנא בארץ ישראל קאי דכתיב (דברים יא, יא) למטר השמים תשתה מים

[in the list of things that have to be kept away from the boundary]? — He was speaking of things which produce moisture. Then why should our Tanna also not include it on the ground of its producing moisture? — He has mentioned specifically A DITCH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this can include all things that give off moisture. ');">¹⁵</span>

למימרא דזרעים

Yet in spite of mentioning a ditch he also mentions A FULLER'S POOL?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he should specify (moist) sand as well. ');">¹⁶</span> — Both of these required to be specified. For if he had mentioned only a ditch. I should have said that this was because it was a fixture, but I should not have included a fuller's pool which is not a fixture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the fuller may abandon it after a time. ');">¹⁷</span> And if he had mentioned a fuller's pool. I should have said that this was because its waters are stagnant. but I should not have included a ditch [which has running water]. Hence both were necessary. SEEDS AND PLOUGH FURROWS ARE KEPT AWAY etc. Cannot seeds be inferred from plough furrows? — Seeds can be dropped without ploughing. Cannot plough furrows be inferred from seeds?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because ploughing is only for the sake of sowing. ');">¹⁸</span> Ploughing can be done for trees.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ploughing the ground under trees was supposed to improve them. ');">¹⁹</span> Cannot both be inferred from water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Trees and seeds require watering; hence their prohibition could have been inferred from that of moisture. ');">²⁰</span> — The Tanna is speaking of Eretz Yisrael, of which it is written, it drinketh water of the rain of heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XI, 21. And therefore seeds are sown and trees planted in fields where there is no irrigation; hence their prohibition had to be mentioned separately. ');">²¹</span> Our Mishnah would imply that seeds