Bava Batra 35

המלח ואת הסיד ואת הסלעים מכותלו של חבירו ג' טפחים או סד בסיד טעמא דאיכא כותל הא ליכא כותל סומך

SALT, LIME, AND FLINT STONES AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL OR PLASTER THEM OVER. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf, asks here, how can we argue from these things to a pit, seeing that they do not injure the soil, and Raba might well allow them to be brought close up while disallowing the pit? The answer given is (a) that they also make the soil on the other side less suitable for a pit; (b) that it may be inconvenient for the man who wants to dig the pit to wait till they have been removed. The same would apply to the next three difficulties raised by the Gemara, which are all addressed to Raba. ');">¹</span>

לא כי ליכא כותל נמי לא סמיך ואלא מאי קא משמע לן הא קא משמע לן דהני קשו לכותל

— No; even if there is no wall, he still may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL' here tell us? — It tells us that these things are injurious to a Wall.

תא שמע מרחיקים את הזרעים ואת המחרישה ואת מי רגלים מן הכותל שלשה טפחים טעמא דאיכא כותל הא ליכא כותל סמיך לא כי ליכא כותל נמי לא סמיך ואלא מאי קמ"ל הא קא משמע לן דמתונתא קשה לכותל

SEEDS, PLOUGH FURROWS AND URINE SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary? — No; even if there is no wall he may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL here tell us? — It tells us that moist things are bad for a wall.

תא שמע ואת הריחים ג' מן השכב שהן ד' מן הרכב טעמא דאיכא כותל הא ליכא כותל סמיך לא כי ליכא כותל נמי לא סמיך ואלא מאי קא משמע לן הא קא משמע לן דטירייא קשה לכותל

Come and hear: MILL-STONES SHOULD BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE UPPER STONE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE LOWER STONE. The reason is that there is a wall, and if there is no wall he may bring them close up? — No; even if there is no wall, he may not bring them close up. What then does this tell us? — It tells us that the shaking [caused by turning the millstones] is bad for the wall.

תא שמע ואת התנור שלשה מן הכליא שהן ד' מן השפה טעמא דאיכא כותל הא ליכא כותל סמיך לא כי ליכא כותל נמי לא סמיך אלא מאי קא משמע לן הא קא משמע לן דהבלא קשה לכותל

Come and hear: AN OVEN SHOULD BE KEPT AWAY THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE FOOT OF THE BASE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE TOP OF THE BASE. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring it close Up? — No; even if there is no wall he may not bring it close up. What then does this tell us? — That the heat [from the oven] is bad for the wall.

תא שמע לא יפתח אדם חנות של נחתומין ושל צבעין תחת אוצרו של חבירו ולא רפת בקר טעמא דאיכא אוצר הא ליכא אוצר עביד

Come and hear: A man may not open a bakery or a dyer's workshop under another person's storehouse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An upper storey for storing corn, wine and oil. The reason is that the heat from the bakery or the smoke from the workshop is bad for them. ');">²</span>

דירה שאני דיקא נמי דתני עלה אם היתה רפת בקר קודמת לאוצר מותר

nor make a cowshed there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the smell is bad for the things above, v. infra 25b. ');">³</span>

תא שמע לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו ד' אמות ותני עלה ד' אמות שאמרו כדי עבודת הכרם

The reason is that there is a storehouse there, but if there is no storehouse, he may, [may he not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.B. I. Notwithstanding that the owner of the upper storey might subsequently decide to turn it into a storehouse. Similarly in the case of the pit, we should think that it may be dug close up to the boundary so long as there is not a pit on the other side. ');">⁴</span>

טעמא דמשום כדי עבודת הכרם הא לאו משום כדי עבודת הכרם סמיך ואע"ג דאיכא שרשין דקא מזקי הכא במאי עסקינן דמפסיק צונמא

— A place where persons can live<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because all these places can be used for human habitation; hence we do not forbid them on account of a problematical damage which may arise from them. ');">⁵</span>

(דיקא נמי דקתני) היה גדר בינתים זה סומך לגדר מכאן וזה סומך לגדר מכאן

is different. This is indicated by the Baraitha taught in connection with this Mishnah: 'If the cowshed was there before the granary, he is permitted to keep it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case of the lime, etc., it does not say that it is permitted to keep them there. This is taken by Raba as an indication that a cowshed, as well as similar places that can be used for human habitation (v. Tosaf.), is on a different footing from the lime, etc. ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא היו שרשיו יוצאין בתוך של חבירו מעמיק להן שלשה טפחים כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה ואי דמפסיק צונמא מאי בעו התם הכי קאמר ואי לאו צונמא והיו שרשיו יוצאין לתוך של חבירו מעמיק שלשה טפחים כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה

Come and hear: A man should not plant a tree nearer than four cubits to his neighbour's field. Now it has been taught in reference to this that the four cubits here mentioned are to allow space for the work of the vineyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To plough round it or to stand the waggon at harvest time. This applies not only to a vine but to any tree, only the passage quoted happens to speak of vines. ');">⁷</span>

תא שמע מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור עשרים וחמש אמה טעמא דאיכא בור הא ליכא בור סמיך לא כי ליכא בור נמי לא סמיך והא קמ"ל דעד כ"ה אמה אזלי שרשים ומזקי לבור

The reason then is that there should be space for the work of the vineyard. but were it not for this he would be allowed to plant close up, [would he not,] although the tree has roots which can injure the other's field?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly the pit should be allowed to be dug close up to the boundary, although it may injure the land on the other side. The argument is again against Raba. ');">⁸</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא ואם אילן קדם לא יקוץ ואי דלא סמיך היכי משכחת לה כדא"ר פפא בלוקח ה"נ בלוקח

— We are dealing here with the case where there is a piece of hard rock between.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would prevent the roots from spreading. Hence there is no analogy between this case and that of the pit. ');">⁹</span>

תא שמע מרחיקין את המשרה מן הירק ואת הכרישין מן הבצלין ואת החרדל מן הדבורים טעמא דאיכא ירק הא ליכא ירק סמיך לא כי ליכא ירק נמי לא סמיך והא קמ"ל דהני קשו אהדדי

This is further indicated by the fact that the passage goes on: 'If there is a fence between,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which makes it impossible for the one working in his vineyard to trespass on the field of the other. According to another reading (which seems preferable), we should translate: 'Come and hear: If there is a fence&nbsp;… on his side.' — Here too we assume that there is hard rock between. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא רבי יוסי מתיר בחרדל מפני שיכול לומר לו עד שאתה אומר לי הרחק חרדלך מן דבוראי הרחק דבורך מן חרדלאי שבאות ואוכלות לגלוגי וחרדלאי

each one can plant close up to the fence on his own side.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 26a. ');">¹¹</span> If that is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that there is hard rock between. ');">¹²</span> what do you make of the next clause: 'If the roots of his tree spread into his neighbour's field, he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they should not impede the plough'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 26a. ');">¹¹</span> Now if there is hard rock between, how can the roots get there? — What the passage means is this: If there is no hard rock between and the roots spread into his neighbour's field, then he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so as not to impede the plough. Come and hear: A tree [in one man's field] must be kept twenty five cubits from a pit [in another man's field]. The reason is that there is a pit; if there is no pit, he may plant close up? — No; even if there is no pit he may not plant close up, and this statement teaches us that up to twenty-five cubits the roots are liable to spread and injure the pit. If that is so, what do you make of the next clause: 'If the tree was there already, he is not required to cut it down'? Now if he may not plant close up, how can you apply this statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, on the other hand, it was planted there illegally, why should it not be cut down? ');">¹³</span> — As R. papa said in another connection, 'in the case of a purchase;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">¹⁴</span> so here, in the case of a purchase.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man planted a tree in his field and then sold half of the field, not containing the tree, and the purchaser dug a pit within 25 cubits of the tree, the original owner is not required to cut it down. ');">¹⁵</span> Come and hear: Water in which flax is steeped must be kept at a distance from vegetables. and leeks from onions, and mustard from a beehive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a. Rashi explains that the bees taste the mustard and then eat their honey to take away the sharpness. ');">¹⁶</span> The reason is that there are vegetables there; otherwise he may bring them close up [to the boundary]? — No; even if there are no vegetables he may not bring them close up, and what this statement teaches us is that these things are bad for one another. If that is so, what of the next clause: R. Jose declares it permissible in the case of mustard; [and it has been taught in reference to this, that the reason is]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed part is omitted in our printed texts. ');">¹⁷</span> because the sower can say to his neighbour. 'Just as you can tell me to remove my mustard from your bees, I can tell you to remove your bees from my mustard, because they come and eat the stalks of my mustard plants'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And you are as liable to damage me as I am you. ');">¹⁸</span>