Bava Batra 18b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara continues to explain their words, and raises an objection from here against Rava:

And if he may not establish [it] adjacent, how can you find it!?

If it is said in accordance with Rava, that it is forbidden to establish a damaging thing adjacent to the boundary even when the thing being damaged is not yet present, then how can the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis be possible? For the Rabbis [the first tanna] hold that the owner of the mustard alone must make the entire distancing, as is implied by their wording: “They distance, and so on, the mustard from the bees”; that is, only the owner of the mustard must distance himself, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds that the owner of the mustard does not need to distance himself at all.

Granted, according to Abaye, who holds that it is permitted for him to establish [it] adjacent, their dispute is well understood. It is speaking of a case in which the owner of the bees established [them] adjacent first, and afterward the owner of the mustard came to establish his mustard adjacent. In that case, even though according to the initial assumption, according to everyone, both of them damage one another, nevertheless, the owner of the bees, who established [them] adjacent first, established [them] with permission, since it is permitted to establish [it] adjacent; therefore, he does not need to distance himself. Whereas the owner of the mustard, who came afterward to establish [it] adjacent, must make the entire distancing so that he not damage the owner of the bees!

And Rabbi Yosei holds: even though it was permitted for the first one to establish [it] adjacent, nevertheless, since the bees damage the mustard when the second one comes to place mustard there, therefore, although it is permitted for him to establish [it] adjacent, nevertheless he acted improperly. And since he acted improperly, if the second one wishes to establish his mustard adjacent to the boundary, he does not need to distance himself, because he can say to the second one: Is it not enough for you that you did not distance your bees at all, but you come to obligate me to distance myself?! You have no right to do so!

This is the explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s reason, and it is understood according to Abaye’s words.

But according to Rava, who holds that it is forbidden to establish [it] adjacent: if the owner of the bees preceded and established [them] adjacent, he did this unlawfully, and the second one can compel him to make half the distancing. And when the second one comes to establish mustard [there], he must likewise make half the distancing, for this is like both of them coming to establish [their respective things] adjacent at one time, in which case each one makes half the distancing.

And it is difficult: why does the first tanna hold that the owner of the mustard makes the entire distancing, and likewise, why according to Rabbi Yosei does he not need to distance himself at all?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: [It is] with a purchaser.

It is speaking here of a case in which one person had a field, and made a soaking place, or leeks, or mustard within his field, and sold the second person half of his field, from the place adjacent to the soaking place, or to the leeks, or to the mustard, until the end of his field. And it turns out that the soaking place, the leeks, and the mustard are standing adjacent to the boundary. And when he established them adjacent, this was with complete permission, since at that time they were still not adjacent to his fellow’s boundary. Therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that the owner of the mustard does not need to distance himself.

And the Gemara raises two difficulties against establishing the Mishna as referring to a purchaser:

If [it is speaking] with a purchaser, what is the reason of the Rabbis!?

If it is speaking of a purchaser who bought the field after there was already mustard adjacent to the boundary, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who say that the mustard must be distanced? After all, he established it adjacent with permission!

And furthermore, what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei? Even a soaking place and vegetables as well.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees only concerning mustard? For just as he holds that he does not need to distance the mustard because he established it adjacent with permission, the same law should apply to a soaking place and vegetables, and to leeks and onions as well!?

And the Gemara answers:

Ravina said: They hold that it is upon the damager to distance himself.

The Rabbis hold that it is the damager who must distance himself, even though he established [it] adjacent with complete permission. Therefore, the owner of the mustard must distance himself. And as the Gemara explains afterward, the Rabbis hold that only the mustard damages the bees, whereas the bees do not damage the mustard. Therefore, the obligation of distancing rests only upon the owner of the mustard. And likewise with a soaking place and leeks, only they damage the second one, and therefore the obligation of distancing rests only upon them. The Gemara examines Ravina’s words:

From the general implication

of Ravina’s words, you learn:

that Rabbi Yosei holds: it is upon the one being damaged to distance himself.

Since Ravina said, “They hold,” referring to the Rabbis, it follows that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with this. And he holds that the one being damaged must distance himself, at least when the damager established [it] adjacent with permission.

But the Gemara argues:

If [it is upon] the one being damaged

to distance himself, then

even a soaking place and vegetables as well!?

If Rabbi Yosei holds that the one being damaged must distance himself, and therefore the owner of the mustard does not need to distance himself, then the same should also be said concerning a soaking place and vegetables; why does Rabbi Yosei not disagree with the first tanna in this matter as well!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, in truth, Rabbi Yosei too holds that it is upon the damager

to distance himself, even when he established [it] adjacent with permission.

And this is what Rabbi Yosei says to the Rabbis: This is satisfactory concerning a soaking place and vegetables, for these damage those, and those do not damage these.

But mustard and bees—both of them damage one another!

That is, Rabbi Yosei argues with the Rabbis: Granted, concerning a soaking place and vegetables, where only the soaking place damages the vegetables, and the vegetables do not damage the soaking place, it is understandable that the owner of the soaking place must distance himself, even when he established [it] adjacent with permission, since only he is the damager. But concerning mustard and bees, where both of them damage one another, why should the law be that only the owner of the mustard must distance himself? On the contrary, the law should be that the owner of the mustard, who established [it] adjacent with permission, does not need to distance himself, whereas the owner of the bees, who came to establish [them] adjacent afterward, should make the entire distancing.

And now the Gemara continues to explain the reasoning of the Rabbis who disagree with him:

And the Rabbis [hold] that bees do not damage the mustard.

The Rabbis hold that bees do not damage the mustard.

For

if [the damage is] in the seed

they do not find it.

If we are discussing the mustard seeds, which the bees eat, it is not so, for the bees do not find the seeds because of their smallness; therefore, it is impossible for them to eat them.

If [the damage is] in the leaf

it grows back.

If we are discussing the leaves, which they eat, this is not considered damage, since the leaves grow again after the bees have eaten the earlier 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 himself, even though he established [it] adjacent with permission.

And the Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

And does Rabbi Yosei hold that it is upon the damager to distance himself!?

Can it be said that Rabbi Yosei holds that the damager must distance himself?!

But we learned: Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the pit preceded the tree, he need not cut it down. This one digs within his own property, and that one plants within his own property.

Afterward, in the Mishna, we learned that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no need to distance the tree from the pit, even though the pit preceded the tree. And there he disagrees with the first tanna, who holds that if the pit preceded the tree, the owner of the tree must cut down his tree, because the roots of the tree damage the pit. And Rabbi Yosei explains his reason: this one digs within his own property, and that one plants within his own property. That is, since the damage does not come immediately, but rather he merely causes the roots to spread after some time and cause damage, the owner of the tree is not considered, at the time that he plants his tree, to be entering the domain of the other one at that moment; rather, each one acts within his own domain. Therefore, he does not need to distance himself.

It is explained here that Rabbi Yosei holds that if the damage does not come immediately, but only after some time through an indirect cause, the damager does not need to distance himself. And this is difficult for what was explained previously, that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is upon the damager to distance himself.

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, in truth, Rabbi Yosei holds that it is upon the one being damaged. And he says this to them according to the words of the Rabbis:

According to my view, it is upon the one being damaged to distance himself, and even a soaking place and vegetables do not require distancing.

But according to your view, that you say that it is upon the damager, this is satisfactory concerning a soaking place and vegetables, for these damage those, and those do not damage these.

But mustard and bees—both of them damage one another!

Rabbi Yosei himself holds that it is upon the one being damaged to distance himself; therefore, even concerning a soaking place and vegetables he does not need to distance himself, and the same law applies to leeks and onions, and to mustard and bees.

Rather, Rabbi Yosei raises a difficulty against the first tanna: according to your method, that you hold that it is upon the damager to distance himself, and therefore the soaking place is distanced from the vegetables and the leeks from the onions, granted in these cases, where only the soaking place and the leeks are the damagers, and the vegetables and onions are not damagers, the Rabbis properly hold that it is upon the damager to distance himself. But concerning mustard and bees, where each one damages the other, why should the owner of the mustard have to distance himself, while the owner of the bees does not need to distance himself? On the contrary, the owner of the mustard, who established [it] adjacent with permission, does not need to distance himself, and the owner of the bees, who came afterward, must distance himself.

And the Gemara explains:

And the Rabbis

hold that

bees do not damage the mustard.