Bava Batra 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

ta shma

a proof, from what we learned:

One distances pomace, manure,

salt, lime, and stones three handbreadths from his fellow’s wall,

and coats it

with lime.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a wall. But if there is no wall, he may place it adjacent.

That is, from the wording of the Mishna it is clear that the entire obligation to distance applies only “from his fellow’s wall,” meaning when there is already a wall; but if there is no wall there, he may place it adjacent. This is difficult for Rava.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

when there is no wall, he likewise may not place it adjacent.

For in fact, even when there is not yet a wall, it is forbidden to place it adjacent.

If so, what does the tanna teach us

if that is the case, why did the tanna teach us “from his fellow’s wall”?

This teaches us that these substances are harmful to a wall.

The tanna comes to teach us why there is an obligation to distance pomace, manure, and so forth: because they are harmful to a wall and damage it. For this reason Rava maintains that it is also forbidden to place them adjacent when there is no wall, because the second party has the right to build a wall there.

ta shma, a proof,

from what we learned:

One distances seeds, a plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a wall.

But if there is no wall, he may place it adjacent.

This is difficult for Rava from here.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

when there is no wall, he likewise may not place it adjacent.

If so, what does it teach us? —

That moisture is harmful to a wall.

The tanna comes to teach us the reason for the obligation to distance these items: because they are harmful to a wall due to the moisture they contain, namely, metunata.

ta shma

from what we learned:

and one distances a mill three handbreadths from the lower millstone, which are four from the upper millstone,

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a wall; but if there is no wall, he may place it adjacent.

What the Mishna said, “and one distances a mill,” and so forth, refers to his fellow’s wall mentioned earlier. If so, it indicates that only when there is a wall may he not place it adjacent.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Even

when there is no wall, he likewise may not place it adjacent.

If so, what does it teach us?

This teaches us that the vibration is harmful to a wall.

The tanna teaches us the reason for the obligation to distance a mill: because its vibration is harmful to a wall.

ta shma

a proof, from what we learned:

and one distances an oven three handbreadths from the lower part of the oven, which are four from its rim.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a wall; but if there is no wall, he may place it adjacent,

because what the Mishna said, “and an oven,” also refers to the wall mentioned earlier.

The Gemara rejects this:

No. When there is no wall, he likewise may not place it adjacent. Rather, what does it teach us? This teaches us that heat is harmful to a wall.

The tanna teaches us that the reason for the obligation to distance an oven is that the vapor—that is, the heat—of the oven is harmful to a wall.

ta shma

a proof, from what we learned:

A person may not open a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop beneath his fellow’s storeroom.

A baker’s shop means a place where bread is baked and sold, because a fire is constantly stoked there for baking bread, and the smoke damages his fellow’s storeroom situated above it. Similarly, a dyer’s shop means that a fire is constantly stoked there in order to boil the dyer’s vat, and here too the smoke is harmful to the storeroom.

Nor may he establish a cattle pen.

It is forbidden to establish a cattle pen beneath his fellow’s storeroom, because the odor of the pen is harmful to the storeroom above it.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a storeroom; but if there is no storeroom, he may establish it.

This indicates that it is forbidden to establish all these only when there is a storeroom, but when there is no storeroom it is permitted. This is difficult for Rava.

The Gemara rejects this:

A dwelling is different.

Since these activities are normal activities of a dwelling—for a shop and a cattle pen are ways in which a person uses his dwelling, as a person sometimes does such things in his own dwelling—Rava concedes that one cannot forbid the person from doing so as long as the damage has not yet materialized.

This is also precise, as it was taught concerning it: If the cattle pen preceded the storeroom, it is permitted.

The Gemara brings proof for Rava from the fact that only here does it say that if the cattle pen preceded the storeroom it is permitted, while this was not taught concerning the other requirements of distancing. It follows that only here, because it is a dwelling, is placing something adjacent permitted. Therefore, if he established the cattle pen first, having done so permissibly, he need not distance it. In contrast, with regard to the other requirements of distancing, it is forbidden to place something adjacent even when it does not yet cause damage.

ta shma

a proof, from what we learned:

A person may not plant a tree adjacent to a field unless he distances it four cubits from the field.

It is forbidden to plant a tree adjacent to his fellow’s field, because it is necessary to plow around the tree for four cubits on every side, and at the time of harvesting, the tree is harvested using carts, for which a clear space of four cubits is required. Therefore, one must distance the tree four cubits from his fellow’s field, so that the plow and the carts will not enter his fellow’s field.

And it was taught concerning it: The four cubits that they stated are for the work of the vineyard.

The reason that four cubits are required is that the work of the vineyard occupies a space of four cubits on every side, whether because of the plow or because of the carts.

The reference to a vineyard is not exclusive; the same law applies to other trees.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that it is for the work of the vineyard.

If it is not for the work of the vineyard, he may place it adjacent, even though there are roots that will cause damage.

The beraita teaches that the sole reason one must distance the tree is because of the work of the vineyard. This indicates that because the roots will eventually spread into his fellow’s field and impede plowing there—and likewise, if his fellow wishes to dig a pit there, the roots will cause him damage—there is no need to distance the tree. This accords with Abaye, who permits placing it adjacent, and is difficult for Rava.

The Gemara rejects this:

With what are we dealing here? With a solid rock interrupting between them,

The Mishna is speaking of a case in which there is a strong rock situated between the tree and his fellow’s field, and the rock prevents the roots from spreading into his fellow’s field. Therefore, there is no obligation to distance the tree on account of the roots. However, because of the work of the vineyard, he must distance it: if he plows until reaching the rock and wishes to turn the plow in the other direction, the plow will enter his fellow’s field. [

This is also precise, as it was taught]:

If there was a fence between them, this one may place his tree adjacent to the fence on this side, and that one may place his tree adjacent to the fence on that side.

If there was a fence between the tree and the field, this one may place his tree adjacent to the fence on this side, and the other may likewise place a tree adjacent to the fence on that side if he wishes, since there is no concern here regarding the work required for the tree, as the fence between them prevents the plow and the carts from entering his fellow’s field. Nor is there a prohibition of kilayim if one plants a tree and a vineyard on his side of the fence, while the other sows seeds and vegetables on the other side. Although they draw nourishment from beneath the fence, nevertheless the fence serves as an interruption, so that this is not considered kilayim.

It is explicitly clear here in the Mishna that the entire reason one must distance the tree is because of the work of the vineyard, and not because of the roots, lest they spread.

If so, say the latter clause: If its roots extended into his fellow’s property, he cuts down into the ground three handbreadths around them, so that they will not impede the plow.

If the roots spread into his fellow’s field, the owner of the field may cut the roots down to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they will not impede the plow in his field.

And the Gemara asks:

But if a solid rock interrupts between them, what are they doing there!?

If we say that the Mishna is speaking of a case in which a solid rock interrupts between them, how could the roots have entered his fellow’s field?

The Gemara rejects this:

This is what it is saying: And if there is no solid rock, and its roots extended into his fellow’s property, he cuts down into the ground three handbreadths, so that they will not impede the plow.

In fact, the first clause is speaking of a case in which a solid rock interrupts between them, while the latter clause is saying as follows: If there is no solid rock and the roots entered his fellow’s field, the owner of the field may cut the roots down to a depth of three handbreadths within his field.

ta shma

a proof, from what we learned in the Mishna below [25b]:

One distances a tree from a pit twenty-five cubits.

A person who comes to plant a tree in his field must distance it twenty-five cubits from his fellow’s pit, because the roots of the tree spread and extend, damaging the walls of the pit.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there is a pit. But if there is no pit, he may place it adjacent.

The meaning of the Mishna is that only if there is already a pit must the owner of the tree distance his tree twenty-five cubits from the pit. But when there is no pit, he may plant the tree and need not distance it. This is difficult for Rava.

The Gemara answers:

No.

One cannot infer this from the Mishna. Rather,

when there is no pit, he likewise may not place it adjacent.

And this is what it teaches us:

the tanna in the Mishna,

that the roots extend as far as twenty-five cubits and damage the pit.

In fact, even when there is no pit it is forbidden to place the tree adjacent. The Mishna merely teaches us the reason for the distancing: the roots extend as far as twenty-five cubits and damage the walls of the pit.

And the Gemara asks:

If so, say the latter clause: But if the tree preceded the pit, he need not cut it down.

For so we learned at the end of this Mishna: If the tree existed before the pit was made, he need not cut down the tree when his fellow digs a pit on his own property, and the owner of the tree is permitted to continue maintaining it.

But if one may not place it adjacent, how can this case be found?

If we say that it is forbidden to place a tree adjacent even when there is not yet a pit, how can it be said that if the tree preceded the pit he need not cut it down? When he planted it, he planted it in violation. If so, what benefit is there in the fact that the tree preceded the pit?

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a purchaser,

as Rav Pappa said [below, on 18b], that it is referring to a purchaser.

Here too, it is referring to a purchaser.

It means that if a person planted a tree in the middle of his field and afterward sold half of his field to another person, and the purchaser came and dug a pit in the portion he bought, the seller need not now cut down the tree, since when he planted it, he planted it permissibly.

That is, if a person planted a tree in the middle of his field and then sold half of his field to another person, and the purchaser came and dug a pit in the portion he bought, the seller does not now have to cut down the tree, since when he planted it, he planted it with permission.

ta shma

a proof, from what we learned below [25a] in the Mishna:

A.

One distances a soaking pool from vegetables,

water in which flax is soaked becomes foul, and one must distance it from vegetables because it damages them.

B.

And

one distances

leeks [

a vegetable called karti ]

from onions,

because leeks damage onions by weakening their flavor.

C.

And

one distances

mustard from bees.

Mustard has a sharp flavor, and the bees come and eat from it. Since they acquire a sharp taste in their mouths, they subsequently eat their own honey. Consequently, the owner of the honey suffers damage from the proximity of the mustard to his beehives. Therefore, the owner of the mustard must distance his mustard from the bees.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that there are vegetables; but if there are no vegetables, he may place it adjacent.

The meaning of the Mishna is that one must distance the soaking pool from the vegetables only when there are vegetables. But when there are no vegetables, he need not distance the soaking pool from his fellow’s field. The same applies to leeks and mustard: he need distance them only when there are onions and bees. This is difficult for Rava.

The Gemara answers:

No. When there are no vegetables, he likewise may not place it adjacent.

Even when there are no vegetables, onions, or bees, it is forbidden for him to place it adjacent.

And this is what it teaches us: that these —

are harmful to one another.

The Mishna teaches us the reason one must distance them: because these things damage those things.

But the Gemara asks:

If so, say the latter clause:

Rabbi Yosei permits mustard, because he can say to him: Before you tell me, “Distance your mustard from my bees,” distance your bees from my mustard, for they come and eat the blossoms of my mustard.

Rabbi Yosei maintains that the owner of the mustard can say to the owner of the bees: Just as you say to me, “Distance your mustard from my bees,” because they damage the bees, so too I can say to you, “Distance your bees from my mustard,” because they likewise damage the mustard, as they come and eat the blossoms of the mustard.