Bava Batra 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

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

The Gemara asks:

The tannai began

his statement

with a pit,

saying, “A person may not dig [in his own property] near his fellow's pit,”

but concludes with a wall,

saying, “unless he distances himself from his fellow's wall”!? [

Let him teach instead: Unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his fellow's pit ]

The tannai should have said: “Unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his fellow's pit.”

Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda: We learned this with regard 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, meaning the ground surrounding the pit, which is called “the wall of the pit.”

The intention of the Mishna is to say that if one comes to dig a pit near his fellow's pit, he must distance himself six handbreadths from the cavity of his fellow's pit, consisting of three handbreadths corresponding to the “wall” of the pit [the three handbreadths of ground surrounding the pit, which are called “the wall of the pit”]. That is, he must distance himself three handbreadths from the “wall” of the pit.

But the Gemara challenges this:

Let it teach: “Unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his fellow's pit”!

The Gemara answers:

This teaches 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 person distanced himself. It is evident that the Mishna calls the three handbreadths adjacent to the pit “the wall of the pit,” and this proves that the measure of a pit's wall is three handbreadths.

And

a practical difference

with regard to this measure is

in a sale.

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

of the pit

be three handbreadths

of ground surrounding it. Thus, our Mishna comes to allude to 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 there. And Rava said: He may not place it there.

That is, Abaye and Rava disagreed as to whether the distancing obligation stated 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 his digging damages his fellow's pit; 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.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to a field designated for pits,

where it is customary to dig pits,

all agree that he may not place it there.

Since it is designated for pits, the second person certainly has the right to dig pits in his field; therefore, the first person may not dig near the boundary.

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

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

Since it is not designated for pits, he is not considered to be damaging the second person, because he is not diminishing his use of the field, as the field is not intended for this purpose; consequently, digging pits is not included among the ordinary uses of the field.

Rava said: He may not place it there,

since

he can say to him

the owner of the adjoining field:

Just as you reconsidered and dug, so too I may reconsider and dig.

That is, Rava maintains that digging a pit near the boundary is considered to diminish the uses available to his fellow, because although his fellow's field is not designated for pits, just as the first person has the right, if he wishes, to reconsider and dig a pit in his field, even though his field was not initially intended for digging pits, so too the second person has the right, if he reconsiders and wishes to dig a pit in his field, to dig one there. Therefore, digging pits is considered one of the uses of the field. It follows that by placing his pit beside the boundary of the field, the first person diminishes his fellow's uses of his field.

Some say: With regard to a field not designated for pits, all agree that he may place it there.

According to everyone, this is not considered to diminish his fellow's uses of the field, since the field is not intended for such a use.

They disagree —

with regard to a field designated for pits.

Abaye said: He may place it there,

because

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

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

The Rabbis [the first tanna, there] maintain that one distances a tree twenty-five cubits from a pit, because the roots of a tree spread as far as twenty-five cubits and damage his fellow's pit. Rabbi Yosei, by contrast, maintains: “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 occur immediately when the tree is planted, but only later, when the roots spread, the planter is considered to be acting within his own property and doing nothing in his fellow's area. Therefore, he need not refrain from using his field; rather, the injured party must distance himself.

Abaye maintains that only

there,

in the case of one who plants a tree in his field when there is a pit beside his fellow's field,

is it

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

at the time he planted, the pit already existed.

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

But here,

in the dispute between Abaye and Rava,

at the time he dug, the pit did not exist!

Therefore, there, in the Mishna, since when he came to plant, the other person’s pit was already present, the Rabbis maintain that the one causing the damage must distance himself. But here, when the first person came to dig his pit, the second person had not yet dug a pit. Thus, even though by digging his pit he interferes with his fellow’s future use of his property, 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 with this, as he is now acting within his own property, in accordance with the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, that the one who may be harmed must distance himself. And the entire subject of the dispute with the Rabbis is only when his fellow’s pit is already present. In that case, the Rabbis maintain that since he came to plant at that point, and the roots are destined to spread and damage the pit, the planting is considered an act of damage; therefore, it is not considered as though he is acting only within his own property. But when his fellow’s pit is not yet present, it is impossible to regard his planting as an act of damage, since he is not currently causing any damage. Consequently, the planting that he performs at that time is considered merely an act within his own property, and the fact that it will cause the second person in the future to have to distance his own pit so that it will not be harmed by the roots of his tree is not a concern for us.

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

That is, Rava maintains the opposite of Abaye. In his view, even Rabbi Yosei, who maintains there that the one who may be harmed must distance himself, because the planter is acting within his own property, says so specifically there, since the planter himself does not currently damage the pit by planting the tree. Rather, only the roots of the tree, which will grow, will spread and damage the pit in the future. Since the roots are not yet present at the time of planting, it is impossible to regard the act of planting as an act of damage. Therefore, he is considered to be acting within his own property, and he is permitted to plant.

But here, when one digs his pit adjacent to his fellow’s field, the second person can say to the one who has come to dig a pit adjacent to his field: With every blow that you strike the ground with your hoe, you loosen my soil, causing it to tremble and shift as a result of the blow to the ground. Therefore, the act of digging the pit is considered as though he is acting within his fellow’s domain. Consequently, even though there is not yet a pit in his fellow’s domain, nevertheless the first person must distance himself.

And the Gemara proceeds to analyze the statements of the two versions:

We learned,

we learned in our Mishna:

A person may not dig a pit adjacent 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 own field adjacent to his fellow’s pit.

But if there is no pit,

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

he may bring his pit close

to it without distancing himself, and he need not be concerned about preventing his fellow from using his property, such 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 version, where you said: In a field that is not designated for pits, everyone agrees that he may bring it close,

that is, according to the second version, they dispute only with regard to a field designated for pits, whereas with regard to a field not designated for pits, everyone agrees that he may bring it close; this works out, since it is possible to establish the

Mishna as referring to a field that is not designated for pits,

and therefore the prohibition against bringing it close applies only where a pit already exists in his fellow’s field.

But according to that version,

according to the first version,

where you said

specifically

in a field that is not designated for pits

they dispute,

the following difficulty arises:

Granted, according to Abaye, it works out. But according to Rava, it is difficult!

According to Abaye, it works out, since he maintains that it is permitted to bring the pit close. But according to Rava, who maintains that it is prohibited to bring it close, the inference from the Mishna is difficult, since it implies that digging is prohibited only when there is already a pit in his fellow’s field.

The Gemara answers:

It was stated concerning it:

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

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

of his fellow,”

we learned

in our Mishna!

Thus, the Mishna does not mean that one must distance himself three handbreadths from the hollow of the pit. Rather, 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 the Mishna proves that the first person who digs must distance himself three handbreadths from the boundary, corresponding to the thickness of the pit’s walls. Therefore, the second person who comes to dig need distance himself from the boundary by only three handbreadths, and together there are six handbreadths from the hollow of one pit to the hollow of the other.

The Gemara now presents a third version, concerning how Abaye’s and Rava’s statements, and the give-and-take concerning them, are to be read:

There are those who say:

We learned: A person may not dig a pit adjacent to his fellow’s pit. [Bach’s emendation]

Bach’s emendation

And it was stated concerning it: Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda: We learned this with regard to the wall of his pit.

And the Gemara discusses this:

Granted, according to that version, where you said: “In a field designated for pits, everyone agrees that he may not bring it close,” the Mishna is referring to a field designated for pits.

That is, according to this version, the Gemara infers the opposite from the Mishna: It is prohibited to bring a pit close to the boundary. Since Abaye said, “We learned this as referring to bringing it close to the wall of his pit,” and it is prohibited to bring it close to the walls of the pit, it follows that the first person had to distance himself three handbreadths. This proves that it is prohibited to bring it close.

According to the first version, which says that they dispute with regard to a field not designated for pits, whereas in a field designated for pits everyone agrees that he may not bring it close, this works out, since our Mishna is speaking about a field designated for pits; therefore, even the first person must distance himself.

But according to that version, where you said: In a field designated for pits they dispute,

the following difficulty arises:

Granted, according to Rava, it works out; but according to Abaye, it is difficult.

According to the version that they dispute with regard to a field designated for pits, it works out according to Rava, who maintains that it is prohibited to bring the pit close. But according to Abaye, it is difficult, since he maintains that it is permitted to bring it close in every circumstance.

Abaye could have said to you: The Mishna

is speaking of a situation

where they came to dig at the same time.

In such a case, according to everyone, both must distance themselves; each one distances himself by half the required distance. Since the required distance is six handbreadths, each one therefore distances himself three handbreadths.

Come and hear,

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

as it was taught:

If it is rock that can be worked by hand, this one digs his pit from here, and that one digs his pit from there; this one distances himself three handbreadths and plasters with lime, and that one distances himself three handbreadths and plasters with lime. “Rock that can be worked by hand” means ground that can nevertheless be crushed by hand. And it teaches that this one distances himself three handbreadths, and so on. It is evident from here that even the first person must distance himself. This is difficult according to Abaye.

“Rock that can be worked by hand” means ground that can nevertheless be crushed by hand. And it teaches that this one distances himself three handbreadths, and so on. It is evident from here that even the first person must distance himself. This is difficult according to Abaye.

And the initial assumption was that “can be worked by hand” is not meant literally, but that the same law applies when it cannot be worked by hand. The Gemara also understood that the case concerns people who came to dig one after the other, and not that they both came to dig at the same time.

This is the reading according to Rashi.

And the Gemara answers:

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

When it can be worked by hand, as it is soft, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to bring the pit close to the boundary, since he damages the other person’s ground.

But the Gemara raises an objection:

And the one who raised this objection, what did he raise it for!?

How did the questioner who challenged Abaye from this source come to raise such a challenge? After all, the beraita teaches “can be worked by hand,” implying that this applies specifically when it can be worked by hand, but when it cannot be worked by hand, the first person need not distance himself, since where the ground is not soft, he does not damage his fellow’s ground.

The Gemara answers:

The phrase “can be worked by hand” was necessary for it.

You might have thought that since it can be worked by hand, a greater distance is also required; therefore, it teaches us otherwise.

The questioner thought that the phrase “can be worked by hand” was not stated in order to infer that this law applies specifically when it can be worked by hand. Rather, the law applies in every circumstance, and the phrase conveys a novel point: Even when it can be worked by hand, it is sufficient for each one to distance himself three handbreadths, and no greater distance is required. One might have thought that since the ground is soft, a greater distance is required; therefore, it teaches us that this is unnecessary.