Bava Batra 17b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A person may not dig [in his own property] adjacent to his fellow’s pit, unless he distances himself from his fellow’s wall.

And the Gemara asks:

The tanna opened

his words

with a pit,

when he said, “A person may not dig [in his own property] adjacent to his fellow’s pit,”

and concludes with a wall,

when he says, “unless he distances himself from his fellow’s wall”!?

Let him teach: Unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his fellow’s pit

For the tanna should have said: “Unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his fellow’s pit.”

Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda: We learned [the Mishna] as referring to the wall of his pit.

When the Mishna says, “unless he distances himself from his fellow’s wall,” it does not refer to a wall built upon the ground. Rather, it refers to the wall of a pit, that is, to the ground surrounding the pit, which is called “the wall of the pit.”

And the intention of the Mishna is to say that if he comes to dig a pit adjacent to his fellow’s pit, he must distance himself six handbreadths from the hollow of his fellow’s pit, which are three handbreadths from the “wall” of the pit [three handbreadths of ground surrounding the pit are called “the wall of the pit”]. That is, he must distance himself three handbreadths from the “wall” of the pit.

But the Gemara asks:

And let him teach: “Unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his fellow’s pit”!

And the Gemara answers:

This comes to teach us that

the thickness of the

wall of a pit

is

three handbreadths.

The Mishna teaches us, by saying that a person must distance his pit three handbreadths “from his fellow’s wall,” that the three handbreadths of ground adjacent to the pit are considered the wall of the pit. For it was explained in the Mishna that one must distance himself three handbreadths beyond the three handbreadths by which the first one distanced himself, and it is proven that the Mishna calls the three handbreadths adjacent to the pit “the wall of the pit.” This is proof that the measure of the wall of a pit is three handbreadths.

And

the practical difference

in this measure

is for buying and selling.

As it was taught in a beraita: One who says to his fellow, “I sell you a pit and its walls,” the wall must be

of the pit

three handbreadths

in the ground surrounding it. That is, our Mishna comes to hint at this law of the beraita.

It was stated: One who comes to place

his pit

beside the boundary

of his courtyard or field—

Abaye said: He may place it. And Rava said: He may not place it.

That is, Abaye and Rava disagreed as to whether the obligation of distancing explained in the Mishna applies only after there is already a pit in his fellow’s field, on the other side of the boundary, in which case he damages his fellow’s pit by digging, or whether the rule is that even if he comes to dig first, before his fellow has a pit in his property, he must distance himself from the boundary, since his fellow has the right to dig a pit in his own property without being harmed by him.

And the Gemara explains:

With regard to a field intended for pits,

in which the practice is to dig pits,

everyone agrees that he may not place it.

Since it is intended for pits, certainly the second one has the right to dig pits in his field, and if so, it is forbidden for the first one to dig adjacent to the boundary.

They disagree with regard to a field not intended for pits,

Abaye said: He may place it, for it is not intended for pits.

Since it is not intended for pits, he is not considered to be damaging the second one, for he is not diminishing his use of the field, since the field is not designated for this, and consequently digging pits is not included among the uses of the field.

Rava said: He may not place it,

since

he says to him

the owner of the field adjacent to him:

Just as you took counsel with yourself and dug, I too will take counsel with myself and dig.

That is, Rava holds that digging a pit adjacent to the boundary is considered to diminish his fellow’s uses, because although his fellow’s field is not intended for pits, nevertheless, just as the first one has the right that, if he wishes, he can take counsel with himself and dig a pit in his field, despite the fact that initially his field was not designated for digging pits in it, so too the second one has the right that, if he takes counsel with himself and wishes to dig a pit in his field, he too can dig a pit in his field. Therefore digging pits is considered included among the uses of the field. And it follows that by placing the first one’s pit adjacent to the boundary of the field, he diminishes his fellow’s uses of his field.

There are those who say: With regard to a field not intended for pits, everyone agrees that he may place it.

According to everyone, the matter is not considered to diminish his fellow’s uses, since the field is not designated for this type of use.

They disagree —

with regard to a field intended for pits.

Abaye said: He may place it,

because

even according to the Rabbis, who say, “One distances the tree from the pit twenty-five cubits.”

That is, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree below [in the Mishna 25b] regarding one who comes to plant a tree within his field: whether he is obligated to distance the tree from his fellow’s field so that the roots of his tree do not spread into the pit in his fellow’s field and damage it, or not.

The Rabbis [the first tanna, there] maintain that one distances the tree from the pit twenty-five cubits, because the roots of the tree spread as far as twenty-five cubits and damage his fellow’s pit. But Rabbi Yosei holds: This one digs within his own property, and that one plants within his own property, because Rabbi Yosei holds that the injured party must distance himself. That is, since the damage does not come immediately upon planting the tree, but only after time, when the roots spread, the planter is considered as one who acts within his own property, and he does nothing at all within his fellow’s area. Therefore he need not prevent himself from his use of his field; rather, the injured party must distance himself.

And Abaye holds that specifically

there,

when one plants a tree within his field while there is a pit beside his fellow’s field,

it is

that the Rabbis said that the planter must distance himself twenty-five cubits, since

at the time that he was planting, the pit was present.

Since at the time of planting his fellow’s pit already existed, he must therefore distance his tree from it.

But here,

in the dispute between Abaye and Rava,

at the time that he was digging, the pit was not present!

And therefore, there in the Mishna, since when he comes to plant, the pit of the other is already present, the Rabbis hold that the damager must distance himself. But here, when the first comes to dig his pit, the second has not yet dug a pit, so even though by digging his pit he interferes with his fellow’s future use, since his fellow will be unable to dig a pit in his field except at a distance of six handbreadths from his pit, we are not concerned, for now he is acting within his own domain, in accordance with the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, that the one who may be damaged must distance himself. And everything over which the Sages disputed him is only when his fellow’s pit is already present, for then the Sages hold: since he came to plant at that time, and the roots are destined to spread and damage the pit, the planting is considered an act of damage; therefore, it is not considered that the one acting is acting only within his own domain. But when his fellow’s pit is not yet present, it is impossible to consider his planting an act of damage, for he is presently damaging nothing. Therefore, the planting that he performs then is considered only as one who acts within his own domain, and the fact that this causes the other in the future to have to distance his own pit so that it will not be harmed by the roots of his tree does not concern us.

And Rava said: He may not place it close. And even according to Rabbi Yosei, who says: This one digs within his own domain and this one plants within his own domain—this applies there, for at the time that he plants, its roots, which damage the pit, are not present. But here, he can say to him: With every blow and blow that you strike, you loosen my soil.

And this means that Rava holds the opposite of Abaye. And in his view, even Rabbi Yosei, who holds there that the one who may be damaged must distance himself, because the planter acts within his own domain, says this specifically there, since he himself does not damage the pit by planting the tree now; rather, only the roots of the tree, which are destined to grow, will spread and damage the pit in the future. And since at the time of the planting the roots are not yet present, it is impossible to consider the act of planting an act of damage; therefore, he is considered to be acting within his own domain, and he is permitted to plant.

But here, when one digs his pit close to his fellow’s field, the second can say to the one who comes to dig a pit close to his field: With every blow that you strike the ground with the hoe, you loosen my soil, which trembles and shifts because of the blow to the ground. And therefore, the act of digging the pit is considered as though he is acting within his fellow’s domain. Therefore, even though a pit is not yet present within his fellow’s domain, nevertheless the first must distance himself.

And the Gemara comes to discuss the statements of the two formulations:

We learned:

We learned in our Mishna:

A person may not dig a pit close to his fellow’s pit.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a pit

in his fellow’s field; therefore, a person may not dig a pit in his field close to his fellow’s pit.

But if there is no pit,

but if there is no pit in his fellow’s adjacent field,

he may place

a pit close to it, without distancing himself, and he is not concerned about preventing his fellow’s use, so that he will be unable to dig a pit in his field except at a distance of six handbreadths, because of the pit that he is now digging.

Granted, according to that formulation, where you say: In a field not suited for pits, everyone agrees that he may place it close,

that is, according to the second formulation, they dispute only in a field suited for pits, but in a field not suited for pits everyone agrees that he may place it close, this is satisfactory, for it is possible to establish the

Mishna in a field not suited for pits,

and therefore the entire prohibition against placing it close applies only where there is already a pit in his fellow’s field.

But according to that formulation,

according to the first formulation,

where you say

specifically,

in a field suited for pits

they dispute,

this is difficult:

Granted, according to Abaye, this is satisfactory. But according to Rava, it is difficult!

According to Abaye, this is satisfactory, since he holds that it is permitted to place it close. But according to Rava, who holds that it is prohibited to place it close, the inference from the Mishna is difficult, for it implies that there is a prohibition against digging only if there is already a pit in his fellow’s field.

The Gemara answers:

It was stated concerning it:

Behold, a statement was taught concerning what is said in our Mishna, that one must distance the pit from the entirety of his fellow’s [pit]:

Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda: “From the wall of his pit

of his fellow,”

we learned

in our Mishna!

Thus, the intention of the Mishna is not to say that one must distance himself three handbreadths from the hollow of the pit, but rather that he must distance himself three handbreadths from the wall of his fellow’s pit; that is, the three handbreadths of ground adjacent to the pit are considered the “walls of the pit,” and one must distance himself three handbreadths from them. It follows that it is proven from the Mishna that the first digger must distance himself three handbreadths from the boundary, the measure of the walls of the pit. Therefore, the second, who comes to dig, need distance himself from the boundary by only three handbreadths, and together there are six handbreadths from the hollow of this pit to the hollow of that pit.

And now the Gemara brings a third formulation: how the statements of Abaye and Rava, and the give-and-take concerning their statements, are to be taught:

There are those who say:

We learned: A person may not dig a pit close to his fellow’s pit.

The gloss of the Bach

And it was stated concerning it: Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda: “From the wall of his pit we learned.”

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, according to that formulation, where you say: “In a field suited for pits, everyone agrees that he may not place it close”—the Mishna is in a field suited for pits.

That is, according to this formulation, the Gemara infers the opposite from the Mishna: that it is prohibited to place it close beside the boundary. For since Abaye said, “From the wall of his pit we learned,” that it is prohibited to place it close to the walls of the pit, it follows that the first was required to distance himself three handbreadths. And it is proven from this that it is prohibited to place it close.

According to the first formulation, that they dispute in a field not suited for pits, while in a field suited for pits everyone agrees that he may not place it close, this is satisfactory, for our Mishna speaks of a field suited for pits; therefore, the first must also distance himself.

But according to that formulation, where you say: In a field suited for pits they dispute,

this is difficult:

Granted, according to Rava, this is satisfactory, but according to Abaye, it is difficult.

According to the formulation that they dispute in a field suited for pits, this is satisfactory according to Rava, who holds that it is prohibited to place it close. But according to Abaye it is difficult, since he holds that it is permitted to place it close in every case.

Abaye can say to you: The Mishna

speaks of a situation

in which they came to dig at the same time.

And in such a situation, according to everyone, both must distance themselves; each distances himself by half the prescribed measure of distancing. And since the prescribed measure of distancing is six handbreadths, each therefore distances himself three handbreadths.

Come and hear,

the Gemara now wishes to bring proof for Rava, that the first must distance himself, from what we learned in the Tosefta:

For it was taught:

A rock that can be crushed by hand: This one digs his pit from here, and this one digs his pit from here; this one distances himself three handbreadths and plasters with plaster, and this one distances himself three handbreadths and plasters with plaster. “A rock that can be crushed by hand” is ground, except that it can be crushed by hand. And it teaches: “This one distances himself three handbreadths,” and so on. It is explained from here that even the first must distance himself. And this is difficult according to Abaye.

And it was initially assumed that “can be crushed by hand” is not specifically stated, but the same law applies when it cannot be crushed by hand; and the Gemara also understood that this refers to a case in which they came to dig one after the other, and not to one in which both came to dig at the same time.

This is according to Rashi’s version.

And the Gemara answers:

When it can be crushed by hand, it is different.

When it can be crushed by hand, since it is soft, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to place it close beside the boundary, for he damages the other’s soil.

But the Gemara raises an objection:

And the one who raised it—what did he raise it for!?

How did it occur to the questioner who challenged Abaye from here to raise such a challenge? For the beraita teaches, “can be crushed by hand,” implying that specifically when it can be crushed by hand, but when it cannot be crushed by hand, the first need not distance himself, since where the soil is not soft, he does not damage his fellow’s soil.

The Gemara answers:

It was needed to state that it can be crushed by hand.

It might have entered your mind to say: Since it can be crushed by hand, it should also require a greater space; it teaches us

The questioner had thought to say that what is taught, “it can be crushed by hand,” was not stated in order to infer that this law applies specifically when it can be crushed by hand. Rather, the law applies in every case, and it teaches a novelty: even when it can be crushed by hand, it is sufficient for each one to distance himself three handbreadths, and more is not required. For it might have been thought that since the soil is soft, one must distance himself more; it teaches us that this is not required.

The questioner intended to say that the phrase “when it can be crushed by hand” is not stated in order to infer that this law applies specifically when the ground can be crushed by hand. Rather, the law applies in every circumstance, and the phrase teaches a novel point: even when the ground can be crushed by hand, it is sufficient for each person to distance himself by three handbreadths, and more is not required. One might have thought that since the ground is soft, they must distance themselves farther; therefore, it teaches us that this is not required.