Bava Batra 18a — the Talmud in English

Take note:

a proof, from what we learned

: We distance the grape refuse, the manure, the salt, and the lime, and the stones three handbreadths from the wall of one’s fellow, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio column")

and plaster

it

with lime.

And the Gemara deduces:

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

That is to say, from the language of the Mishna it is proven that the entire obligation to distance is only “from the wall of one’s fellow,” namely, when there is already a wall; but if there is no wall there, he may place it adjacent. And this is difficult for Rava.

And 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.

But what does he teach us by this,

if so, why did the tannai teach us “from the wall of one’s fellow”?

This teaches us that these are harmful to a wall.

The tannai comes to teach us why there is an obligation to distance grape refuse, manure, and so on: because they are harmful to a wall, damaging the wall; and for this reason Rava holds that it is forbidden to place them adjacent even when there is no wall, because the second person has the right to build a wall there.

Take note, a proof,

from what we learned:

We distance seeds, the plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall.

And the Gemara deduces:

The reason is that there is a wall.

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

And this is difficult from here for Rava.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

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

But what does he teach us by this?—

That moisture is harmful to a wall.

The tannai comes to teach us the reason for the obligation to distance these things: because they are harmful to a wall, on account of the moisture in them, namely, matuneta.

Take note

from what we learned:

And the millstones, three [handbreadths] from the lower stone, which are four from the upper stone.

And the Gemara deduces:

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

What the Mishna said, “And we distance the millstones,” and so on, refers to the wall of one’s fellow mentioned earlier. If so, it implies that only when there is a wall may he not place it adjacent.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No.

Even

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

But what does he teach us by this?

This teaches us that vibration is harmful to a wall.

The tannai teaches us the reason for the obligation to distance the millstones: because their shaking is harmful to a wall.

Take note

a proof, from what we learned:

And the oven, three [handbreadths] from the base, which are four from the rim.

And the Gemara deduces:

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 the oven,” also refers to the wall mentioned earlier.

And the Gemara rejects this:

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

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

Take note

a proof, from what we learned:

A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the storehouse of his fellow.

Bakery shops are a place where bread is baked and sold, because, since bread is baked there, a fire is constantly kindled there, and the smoke causes damage to the storehouse of his fellow situated above it. And similarly, a dye shop means that a fire is constantly kindled there in order to boil the dyer’s cauldron, and here too the smoke is harmful to the storehouse.

And not a cattle stable.

It is forbidden to make a cattle stable beneath the storehouse of one’s fellow, because the smell of the stable is harmful to the storehouse above it.

And the Gemara deduces:

The reason is that there is a storehouse; but if there is no storehouse, he may do it.

It implies that it is forbidden to do all these things only when there is a storehouse, but when there is no storehouse it is permitted. And this is difficult for Rava.

And the Gemara rejects this:

A dwelling is different.

Since these things are acts of dwelling—for a shop and a cattle stable are forms of a person’s dwelling, as sometimes a person does this in his dwelling—Rava concedes that one cannot forbid a person as long as the damage is not yet ready to occur.

It is also precise, as it was taught concerning it: If the cattle stable preceded the storehouse, it is permitted.

The Gemara brings proof for Rava from the fact that only here is it written that if the stable preceded the storehouse it is permitted, while this was not taught concerning the other forms of distancing. It is proven that only here, since it is a dwelling, is it permitted to place it adjacent; therefore, if he made a cattle stable first, having placed it adjacent permissibly, he need not distance it. But with regard to the other forms of distancing, it is forbidden to place them adjacent even when they do not yet cause damage.

Take note

a proof, from what we learned:

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

It is forbidden to plant a tree near the field of his fellow, because it is necessary to plow around the tree four cubits on every side; and at the time of the vintage, they harvest the tree with carts, and they require an open space of four cubits. Therefore, he must distance the tree four cubits from the field of his fellow, so that the plow and the carts will not enter the field of his fellow.

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

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

And “vineyard” is not specifically meant; rather, the same law applies to other trees.

And the Gemara deduces:

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

But if it is not for the labor of the vineyard, he may place it adjacent. And even though there are roots that cause damage.

For it was taught in the beraita that the entire reason it is necessary to distance is only because of the labor of the vineyard; and it implies that because the roots that are destined to spread into the field of his fellow and obstruct the plow there, and likewise, if his fellow wishes to dig a pit there, the roots will cause him damage, for this reason it is not necessary to distance. And this is in accordance with Abaye, who permits placing it adjacent, and it is difficult for Rava.

And the Gemara rejects this:

With what are we dealing here? With a hard rock intervening,

the Mishna is speaking when there is a strong rock lying between the tree and the field of his fellow, and the rock prevents the roots from spreading into the field of his fellow. Therefore, there is no obligation to distance because of the roots. But because of the labor of the vineyard he must distance it, for if he plows until the hard rock and wishes to turn the plow to the other side, the plow will enter the field of his fellow.

It is also precise, as it teaches:

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 the tree adjacent to the fence on this side, and that one too may place a tree adjacent to the fence on that side if he wishes, since there is no issue here of the labor of the tree, for there is a fence intervening between them, preventing the plow and the carts from entering the field of his fellow. And there is also no prohibition of kilayim if one plants a tree and a vineyard on this side of the fence, while the other sows seeds and vegetables on the other side, even though they draw nourishment from beneath the fence; nevertheless, the fence is effective in separating them so that it is not considered kilayim.

And it is explicitly clarified here in the Mishna that the entire reason it is necessary to distance is because of the labor of the vineyard, and not because of the roots, lest they spread.

If so, say the latter clause: If its roots were emerging within the property of his fellow, he deepens for them three handbreadths, so that they will not obstruct the plow.

If the roots spread within the field of his fellow, the owner of the field may cut the roots to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they will not obstruct the plow in his field.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And if a hard rock intervenes, what are they doing there!?

If it is said that the Mishna is speaking when there is a hard rock intervening, how is it possible that the roots entered the field of his fellow?

And the Gemara rejects this:

This is what it is saying: And if there is no hard rock, and its roots were emerging into the property of his fellow, he deepens three handbreadths, so that they will not obstruct the plow.

In fact, the first clause is speaking of a case in which a hard rock intervenes; and in the latter clause this is what it is saying: If there is no hard rock, and the roots entered the field of his fellow, the owner of the field may cut the roots to a depth of three handbreadths within his field.

Take note

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

We distance a tree from a pit twenty-five cubits.

A person who comes to plant a tree within his field must distance it twenty-five cubits from the pit of his fellow, because the roots of the tree spread and proceed, and damage the walls of the pit.

And the Gemara deduces:

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 is permitted to plant a tree and need not distance it; and this is difficult from here for Rava.

The Gemara answers:

No.

One may not deduce this from the Mishna. Rather,

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

And this teaches us

the tannai in the Mishna,

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

In fact, even when there is no pit it is forbidden to place it adjacent; rather, the Mishna teaches us the reason for the distancing: because the roots travel and spread as far as twenty-five cubits and damage the walls of the pit.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

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

And if he may not place it adjacent, how can you find this?

If it is said that it is forbidden to place a tree adjacent even when there is not yet a pit, how is it possible to say that if the tree preceded the pit he need not cut it down!? For at the time he planted it, he planted it in violation; and if so, what benefit is there in the tree having preceded the pit?

And the Gemara answers:

As Rav Pappa said, [we are dealing] with a purchaser,

as Rav Pappa said [below, on the next side], that we are dealing with a purchaser.

Here too, [we are dealing] with a purchaser.

Here too, we are dealing with a purchaser.

That is to say, 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 does not now have to cut down the tree, since at the time he planted it, he planted it permissibly.

Take note

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

A.

We distance the soaking-pit from vegetables,

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

B.

And

we distance

leeks

[a vegetable called karti]

from onions,

because leeks harm onions, as they diminish their flavor.

C.

And

we distance

mustard from bees.

Mustard has a sharp taste, and the bees come and eat from it. And since they have a sharp taste in their mouths, they afterward eat their honey. It follows that the owner of the honey is damaged by the proximity of the mustard to his hives. Therefore, the owner of the mustard must distance his mustard from the bees.

And the Gemara deduces:

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 only when there are vegetables must one distance the soaking-pit from the vegetables, but when there are no vegetables, he need not distance the soaking-pit from his fellow’s field. The same applies to leeks and mustard: he need distance them only when there are onions and bees. And 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 teaches us that these—

are harmful to one another.

The Mishna teaches us the reason that it is necessary to distance them: because these things damage those things.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

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 holds 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 them, so too I can say to you, “Distance your bees from my mustard,” because they too damage the mustard, as they come and eat the blossoms of the mustard.