Bava Batra 54

ונקנין עמה נכסים שאין להם אחריות הכא במאי עסקינן בחיטי

can be made out on the strength of it, and movables can be acquired by means of it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the same act which confers ownership of the land can confer ownership of the movables also (Pe'ah III, 6). ');">¹</span>

דיקא נמי דקתני כל שהוא ש"מ

— Here we are speaking of [the first-fruits of] wheat. This is indicated also by the expression in the Mishnah 'the very smallest'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which could not be applied to land on which a tree was planted. ');">²</span>

תא שמע אילן מקצתו בארץ ומקצתו בחו"ל טבל וחולין מעורבין זה בזה דברי רבי

Come and hear: If a tree is partly in Eretz Yisrael and partly outside of Eretz Yisrael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., right on the border. ');">³</span>

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הגדל בחיוב חייב הגדל בפטור פטור

fruit subject to tithe and fruit not subject to tithe are mixed up in it. This is the opinion of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that that which grows where the obligation extends [i.e., in Eretz Yisrael] is liable and that which grows where the obligation does not extend [i.e.. outside Eretz Yisrael] is not liable.' The difference of opinion between them only consists in this, does it not, that the latter holds that we can decide retrospectively [which fruit belongs to which root] and the former holds that we cannot, but both agree that anything which grows where the obligation does not extend is not liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even within 16 cubits of the boundary, and we do not say that it sucks from Eretz Yisrael. ');">⁴</span>

ע"כ לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר יש ברירה ומר סבר אין ברירה

— No. We here deal with the case where the roots are divided by a hard rock. If so, what is the reason of Rabbi [for declaring the two kinds to be mixed together]? Because they mix again higher up. Wherein then lies the ground of the difference between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon? — The former holds that the air mixes the saps [though coming from separate roots], and the latter holds that each remains separate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this one stands by itself and this one stands by itself.' ');">⁵</span>

אבל גדל בפטור דברי הכל פטור

And must the tree be kept sixteen cubits from the boundary and no more? Have we not learnt that 'a tree must be kept a distance of twenty-five cubits from a pit'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 25b. ');">⁶</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דמפסיק צונמא אי הכי מאי טעמיה דרבי דהדרי ערבי

— Abaye replied: Though the roots spread much further, they only exhaust the soil up to a distance of sixteen cubits, no more. When R. Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine. ');">⁷</span>

ובמאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר אוירא מבלבל ומר סבר האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי

he reported that Resh Lakish had asked R. Johanan what the ruling was regarding a tree situated within sixteen cubits of the boundary, and he had answered: It is a robber, and first-fruits should not be brought from it. When Rabin came he said in the name of R. Johanan: The rule both for a tree close to the boundary of a neighbour's field, and for one which overhangs [another's field], is that the owner brings first-fruits and makes the declaration, since it was on that condition that Joshua gave Israel possession of the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that they should not begrudge one another this liberty. ');">⁸</span>

ושש עשרה אמה ותו לא והא תנן מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור כ"ה אמה אמר אביי מיזל טובא אזלי אכחושי לא מכחשי אלא עד שש עשרה אמה טפי לא מכחשי

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN'S TREE OVERHANGS HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD. THE LATTER MAY CUT AWAY THE BRANCHES TO A HEIGHT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW HIM TO USE THE OXGOAD OVER THE PLOUGH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to allow him to raise his hand to the full height over the plough while holding the whip; or, 'as far as the handle protrudes over the plough' (Jast.). ');">⁹</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מרבי יוחנן אילן הסמוך למיצר בתוך י"ו אמה מהו אמר ליה גזלן הוא ואין מביאין ממנו בכורים

IF THE TREE IS A CAROB OR SYCAMORE, HE CAN CUT DOWN [ALL THE BRANCHES] PLUMB [WITH THE BOUNDARY].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they throw an excessive shade. ');">¹⁰</span>

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן אחד אילן הסמוך למיצר ואחד אילן הנוטה מביא וקורא שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ:

IF THE FIELD IS AN IRRIGATED ONE. [THE BRANCHES OF ALL] TREES MAY BE CUT DOWN PLUMB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the shade is injurious to such a field. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אילן שהוא נוטה לשדה חבירו קוצץ מלא המרדע על גבי המחרישה ובחרוב ובשקמה כנגד המשקולת בית השלחין כל האילן כנגד המשקולת אבא שאול אומר כל אילן סרק כנגד המשקולת:

ABBA SAUL SAYS THAT THE BRANCHES OF ANY WILD FRUIT-BEARING TREE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 121, n. 2. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו אבא שאול ארישא קאי או אסיפא קאי

CAN BE CUT DOWN PLUMB.

תא שמע דתניא בית השלחין אבא שאול אומר כל האילן כנגד המשקולת מפני שהצל רע לבית השלחין שמע מינה ארישא קאי שמע מינה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The question was raised: Does Abba Saul's statement refer to the first clause in the Mishnah or the second?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does he mean that the branches of wild fruit-bearing trees can be cut down plumb in any fields, or that in an irrigated field only the branches of such trees may be cut down plumb, but not of other trees? ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני כל אילן סרק אי אמרת בשלמא ארישא קאי היינו דקתני כל אילן אלא אי אמרת אסיפא קאי אילן סרק מיבעי ליה אלא לאו שמע מינה ארישא קאי שמע מינה:

— Come and hear: Abba Saul says, If the field is an irrigated one, the branches of all trees may be cut down plumb, because the shade is injurious to an irrigated field. This shows that his statement refers to the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he means that the branches of wild fruit-bearing trees can be cut down plumb anywhere. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אילן שהוא נוטה לרה"ר קוצץ כדי שיהא גמל עובר ורוכבו רבי יהודה אומר גמל טעון פשתן או חבילי זמורות רבי שמעון אומר כל האילן כנגד המשקולת מפני הטומאה:

R. Ashi said: The language of [his statement as recorded in] our Mishnah also indicates this, since it states ANY WILD FRUIT-BEARING TREE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., besides the sycamore and carob. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן תנא דבנזקין בתר אומדנא דהשתא אזלינן

If this refers to the first clause, the word ANY … [TREE] is in place, but if it refers to the second clause, it should say simply 'wild fruit-bearing trees'. This shows that it refers to the first clause.

אמר ר"ל במחלוקת שנויה ורבי אליעזר היא דתנן אין עושין חלל תחת רשות הרבים בורות שיחין ומערות רבי אליעזר מתיר בכדי שתהא עגלה מהלכת וטעונה אבנים

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A TREE OVERHANGS A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE THE BRANCHES SHOULD BE CUT AWAY TO A HEIGHT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW A CAMEL TO PASS UNDERNEATH WITH ITS RIDER. R. JUDAH SAYS, SUFFICIENT FOR A CAMEL LADEN WITH FLAX OR BUNDLES OF VINE-RODS. R. SIMEON SAYS THAT [THE BRANCHES OF] ALL TREES SHOULD BE CUT AWAY PLUMB [WITH THE STREET] TO GUARD AGAINST UNCLEANNESS.

רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן התם זימנין דמפחית ולאו אדעתיה אבל הכא קמא קמא קא קייץ ליה:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is the Tanna [of the Mishnah] who rules that in [making regulations to prevent] damage we consider only conditions as they are at present [and not as they are likely to become in the future]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., seeing that the branches will grow again, why not have the whole tree cut down? ');">¹⁶</span>

ר' יהודה אומר גמל טעון פשתן או חבילי זמורות: איבעיא להו שיעורא דרבי יהודה נפיש או דלמא שיעורא דרבנן נפיש

— Resh Lakish replied: This ruling is not a unanimous one, and it follows the opinion of R. Eliezer. For we learnt: 'A cavity must not be made under a public thoroughfare, nor pits, ditches, or caves. R. Eliezer says it is permissible if the covering is sufficient to bear a moving cart laden with stones.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that the covering will in course of time wear out (v. infra 60a). ');">¹⁷</span>

פשיטא דשיעורא דרבנן נפיש דאי ס"ד שיעורא דרבי יהודה נפיש רבנן בשיעורא דרבי יהודה היכי עבדי ואלא מאי שיעורא דרבנן נפיש רבי יהודה בשיעורא דרבנן מאי עביד אפשר דגחין וחליף תותיה:

R. Johanan said: You may even say that the Rabbis [of that Mishnah] also concur [with the ruling here]. For there they prohibit because the cover may give way unexpectedly, but here every branch can be cut down as it grows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'first, first.' ');">¹⁸</span>

רבי שמעון אומר כל האילן כנגד המשקולת מפני הטומאה: תנא מפני אהל הטומאה פשיטא מפני הטומאה תנן

R. JUDAH SAYS: A CAMEL LADEN WITH FLAX OR BUNDLES OF VINE-RODS. The question was asked: Which is the higher limit, that of R. Judah or that of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the anonymous opinion cited first in the Mishnah. ');">¹⁹</span>

אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא דלמא מייתי עורב טומאה ושדי התם וסגיא בדחלולי בעלמא קא משמע לן:

— There can be no doubt that the limit of the Rabbis is higher, for if the limit of R. Judah is higher, how do the Rabbis manage with anything that [still] comes within the limit of R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that according to the Rabbis the boughs are to he cut away only enough to allow a camel with its rider to pass under, if a load of flax is higher. how will it go under? ');">²⁰</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך לא יחפור</strong></big><br><br>

You say then that the limit of the Rabbis is higher. How then will R. Judah manage with something which [still] comes within the limit of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a camel with its rider. ');">²¹</span> — He [i.e. the rider] can bend down and pass underneath. RABBAN SIMEON SAYS: [THE BRANCHES OF] ALL TREES SHOULD BE CUT AWAY PLUMB TO GUARD AGAINST UNCLEANNESS. A Tanna taught [in connection therewith]: 'Because [they can form] a tent over uncleanness.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any part of a dead body is under the tree, the branches form a tent over it, and all who pass under become unclean. ');">²²</span> This is self-evident, since we learnt, TO GUARD AGAINST UNCLEANNESS? — If I only had our Mishnah to go by I might say that [what it means is that] a raven may bring uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any part of a dead body, which communicates defilement to all who pass beneath it. ');">²³</span> and throw it on the branches, and therefore It is sufficient to thin out the branches.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that nothing can rest on them. According to another interpretation 'to put scarecrows on the branches' (Jast.). ');">²⁴</span> Now I know [that this is not sufficient].