Bava Batra 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara continues to explain their statements and raises an objection from here against Rava:

And if one may not establish it nearby, how can you find this case!?

If we accept Rava’s view, that it is prohibited to establish a damaging entity next to the boundary even when the entity liable to be damaged is not yet there, how can the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis be understood? For the Rabbis, the tanna kamma, maintain that the owner of the mustard alone must maintain the entire required distance, as implied by their wording: “They distance ... the mustard from the bees.” This means that only the owner of the mustard must distance it, whereas Rabbi Yosei maintains that the owner of the mustard need not distance it at all.

Granted, according to Abaye, who maintains that one may establish it nearby, their dispute is well understood. The case is one in which the owner of the bees established them nearby first, and afterward the owner of the mustard came to establish his mustard nearby. In that case, although according to the initial assumption everyone agrees that the two cause damage to one another, nevertheless, the owner of the bees, who established them first, did so permissibly, since one is permitted to establish it nearby; therefore, he need not distance them. The owner of the mustard, however, who came afterward to establish his mustard nearby, must maintain the entire required distance so as not to damage the owner of the bees.

Rabbi Yosei maintains that although it was permitted for the first one to establish his item nearby, nevertheless, since the bees damage the mustard when the second person comes to place mustard there, even though he was permitted to establish them nearby, he nevertheless acted improperly. And since he acted improperly, if the second person wishes to establish his mustard next to the boundary, he need not distance it, because he can say to the first: “Is it not enough that you did not distance your bees at all, but you are coming to obligate me to distance mine?! You have no right to do so!”

This is the explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning, and it is understandable according to Abaye’s statement.

But according to Rava, who maintains that it is prohibited to establish it nearby, if the owner of the bees went first and established them nearby, he did so unlawfully, and the second person can compel him to maintain half the required distance. And when the second person comes to establish mustard nearby, he must likewise maintain half the required distance, as this is comparable to a case in which both come to establish their items nearby simultaneously, in which case each maintains half the distance.

And this is difficult: Why does the tanna kamma maintain that the owner of the mustard must maintain the entire required distance, and likewise, why according to Rabbi Yosei need he distance it not at all?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a purchaser.

The case is one in which a person had a field, and within his field he made a retting pool, planted leeks, or planted mustard, and then sold another person half of his field, from the area adjacent to the retting pool, leeks, or mustard until the end of the field. Consequently, the retting pool, leeks, and mustard stood next to the boundary. When he established them nearby, he did so with complete permission, since at that time they were not yet next to his fellow’s boundary. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei maintains that the owner of the mustard need not distance it.

The Gemara raises two difficulties concerning the interpretation of the Mishna as referring to a purchaser:

If it is referring to a purchaser, what is the reason for the Rabbis!?

If the case is one of a purchaser who bought the field after there was already mustard next to the boundary, what is the reason for the Rabbis, who say that the mustard must be distanced? After all, it was established nearby permissibly!

And furthermore, what is the reason for Rabbi Yosei? The same should apply even to a retting pool and vegetables.

What is the reason that Rabbi Yosei disputes only the case of mustard? Just as he maintains that the mustard need not be distanced because it was established nearby permissibly, the same law should apply to a retting pool and vegetables, and to leeks and onions!?

The Gemara answers:

Ravina said: They hold that it is incumbent upon the one causing the damage to distance himself.

The Rabbis maintain that the one causing the damage is the one who must distance himself, even though he established his item nearby with complete permission. Therefore, the owner of the mustard must distance it. And, as the Gemara will explain subsequently, the Rabbis maintain that only the mustard damages the bees, while the bees do not damage the mustard. Therefore, the obligation to distance falls only upon the owner of the mustard. Similarly, in the cases of a retting pool and leeks, only they damage the other party, and therefore only they are subject to the obligation of distancing. The Gemara examines Ravina’s statement:

By inference,

you learn from Ravina’s words,

that Rabbi Yosei holds: It is incumbent upon the one liable to be damaged to distance himself.

Since Ravina said, “They hold,” referring to the Rabbis, it is implied that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with this. He maintains that the one liable to be damaged must distance himself, at least when the one causing the damage established his item nearby permissibly.

But the Gemara argues:

If it is incumbent upon the one liable to be damaged

to distance himself, then

the same should apply even to a retting pool and vegetables!?

If Rabbi Yosei maintains that the one liable to be damaged must distance himself, and therefore the owner of the mustard need not distance it, then the same should be said with regard to a retting pool and vegetables. Why, then, does Rabbi Yosei not dispute the tanna kamma in that case as well!?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, actually, Rabbi Yosei too holds that it is incumbent upon the one causing the damage

to distance himself, even when he established his item nearby permissibly.

And this is what Rabbi Yosei says to the Rabbis: That works well with regard to a retting pool and vegetables, for these damage those, and those do not damage these.

But with regard to mustard and bees, both of them damage one another!

Rabbi Yosei is arguing to the Rabbis as follows: Granted, with regard to a retting pool and vegetables, where only the retting pool damages the vegetables, and the vegetables do not damage the retting pool, it is understandable that the owner of the retting pool must distance it, even when he established it nearby permissibly, since he alone is causing the damage. But with regard to mustard and bees, where each damages the other, why should the law be that only the owner of the mustard must distance it? On the contrary, the law should be that the owner of the mustard, who established it nearby permissibly, need not distance it, whereas the owner of the bees, who came to establish them nearby afterward, must maintain the entire required distance.

The Gemara now continues to explain the reasoning of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei:

And the Rabbis maintain that bees do not damage the mustard.

The Rabbis maintain that bees do not damage the mustard.

Because

if it is referring to the seeds

—they do not find them.

If we are discussing the mustard seeds, which the bees might eat, this is not so, because the bees cannot find the seeds due to their small size. Therefore, it is impossible for the bees to eat them.

If it is referring to the leaves

—they grow back.

If we are discussing the leaves that the bees eat, this is not considered damage, since the leaves grow again after the bees have eaten the previous leaves.

It follows that only the mustard damages the bees, whereas the bees do not damage the mustard. Therefore, only the owner of the mustard must distance it, even though he established it nearby permissibly.

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

And does Rabbi Yosei hold that it is incumbent upon the one causing the damage to distance himself!?

Can it really be said that Rabbi Yosei maintains that the one causing the damage must distance himself?!

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the pit preceded the tree, he need not cut it down, for this one digs within his own property, and that one plants within his own property.

We learned in a Mishna below that Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is unnecessary to distance the tree from the pit, even though the pit preceded the tree. There he disagrees with the tanna kamma, who maintains that if the pit preceded the tree, the owner of the tree must cut down his tree, because the tree’s roots damage the pit. Rabbi Yosei explains his reasoning: “This one digs within his own property, and that one plants within his own property.” That is, since the damage does not occur immediately, but rather the roots spread after some time and then cause damage, the owner of the tree is not considered, at the time he plants his tree, to be entering the other person’s domain. Rather, each one is acting within his own domain. Therefore, he need not distance himself.

It is evident here that Rabbi Yosei maintains that when the damage does not occur immediately, but only later through an indirect cause, the one causing the damage need not distance himself. This is difficult in light of what was explained earlier, that Rabbi Yosei maintains that it is incumbent upon the one causing the damage to distance himself.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, actually, Rabbi Yosei holds that it is incumbent upon the one liable to be damaged to distance himself. And he said this to them according to the view of the Rabbis:

According to my view, it is incumbent upon the one liable to be damaged to distance himself, and even in the case of a retting pool and vegetables, no distancing is required.

But according to your view, that you say that it is incumbent upon the one causing the damage, that works well with regard to a retting pool and vegetables, for these damage those, and those do not damage these.

But with regard to mustard and bees, both of them damage one another!

Rabbi Yosei himself maintains that it is incumbent upon the one liable to be damaged to distance himself. Therefore, even in the case of a retting pool and vegetables, he need not distance himself; and the same law applies to leeks and onions, and to mustard and bees.

Rather, Rabbi Yosei is challenging the tanna kamma: According to your view, that it is incumbent upon the one causing the damage to distance himself, and therefore the retting pool must be distanced from the vegetables and the leeks from the onions, granted that in these cases only the retting pool and the leeks cause damage, while the vegetables and onions do not cause damage; it is properly understandable that the Rabbis maintain that the one causing the damage must distance himself. But with regard to mustard and bees, where each damages the other, why must the owner of the mustard distance it while the owner of the bees need not distance them? On the contrary, the owner of the mustard, who established it nearby permissibly, need not distance it, whereas the owner of the bees, who came afterward, must distance them.

The Gemara explains:

And the Rabbis

maintain that

the bees do not damage the mustard.