Bava Batra 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

For if it is in the seed,

he will not find it; and if it is in the stalk, the fruit will return!

We learned in the Mishna:

“Nor a laundry pool, etc.”

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

in our Mishna that one must distance himself three handbreadths from a laundry pool

only from the fermenting pool.

The method of laundering in their time was as follows: First, they soaked the garments for a day or two in a pit of water containing dog excrement, until the water fermented and gave off a foul odor; this was called the “fermenting pool.” Afterwards, they placed the garments in another pit containing water, and washed and scrubbed them there to remove all the dirt. That pit was called the “laundry pool.”

From the fermenting pool it is sufficient to distance oneself three handbreadths, since the water remains there and does not splash far from it.

But from the laundry pool—

four cubits.

Since the garments are scrubbed there, the water splashes far from it; therefore, one must distance himself four cubits from it.

The Gemara now brings a proof for Rav Naḥman:

It was taught likewise in a baraita: A laundry pool, four cubits.

We learned in the baraita that one must distance a laundry pool four cubits.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna three handbreadths?

The Mishna teaches that it is sufficient to distance oneself three handbreadths.

Rather, is it not to be inferred from here that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Naḥman?

To resolve this difficulty, one must say as Rav Naḥman did: The Mishna is speaking of the fermenting pool, and therefore a distance of three handbreadths is sufficient, whereas the baraita is speaking of the laundry pool, and therefore four cubits are required.

And there are those who present the matter differently,

as some members of the academy learned that the contradiction between the Mishna and the baraita was first raised in the beit-midrash:

We learned: A laundry pool, three handbreadths.

But it was taught in a baraita: Four cubits!?

To resolve the contradiction,

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: It is not difficult. Here, it is referring to the fermenting pool; there, it is referring to the laundry pool.

Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, taught it explicitly:

He taught a baraita that adds a qualification to the law of the Mishna, stating that one must distance himself three handbreadths from a laundry pool,

unless he distanced himself three handbreadths from the edge of the fermenting pool and from the wall.

It is explicit in the baraita that it is speaking of the fermenting pool and not the laundry pool.

We learned in the Mishna: “One may not dig, etc., unless he distances himself three handbreadths from his neighbor’s wall,”

and coats it with plaster.

They raised a dilemma before them: Did we learn, “and coats it with plaster,” or perhaps did we learn, “or coats it with plaster”?

The members of the academy were uncertain whether the Mishna means that one must both distance himself three handbreadths and coat it with plaster, or whether one of the two is sufficient: either distancing oneself three handbreadths or coating it with plaster.

The Gemara resolves the dilemma:

It is obvious,

that the matter is simple,

that we learned, “and coats it with plaster.”

The intention of the first clause of the Mishna is that one must both distance himself and coat it with plaster.

For if it enters your mind that we learned, “or coats it with plaster,” then let us combine them and teach them together!

If it is sufficient either to distance oneself or to coat it with plaster, then in the second clause of the Mishna—“One distances the refuse of olives, etc.”—where it also says “and coats it with plaster,” it would have been obvious to the Gemara that the meaning is “or coats it with plaster,” since the damage is not so great that both distancing and plastering would be required. And if the intention in the first clause is also “or coats it with plaster,” why did the Mishna divide them into two clauses, when the law in both cases is the same? Rather, it must be that in the first clause both distancing and plastering are required, whereas in the latter clause either distancing or plastering is required; and that is why the Mishna divided them into two clauses.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps this damage is not comparable to that damage.

Actually, both in the first clause and in the latter clause we learned “or coats it with plaster.” The reason the Mishna divided them into two clauses is that the type of damage in the first clause is not comparable to that in the latter clause:

In the first clause, the damage is that of moisture. In the latter clause, the damage is

that of heat.

In the first clause, the damage results from the moisture and dampness present in the pit and the other substances; in the latter clause, the damage results from the heat present in the refuse of olives, manure, and the other substances. Therefore, the tanna did not combine them.

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in a baraita [above, 17b]:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is a rock that can be broken by hand, this one digs his pit on one side, and that one digs his pit on the other side. This one distances himself three handbreadths and coats it with plaster, and that one distances himself three handbreadths and coats it with plaster.

When a rock divides two fields, and the rock is one that can be broken by hand—that is, it is sufficiently soft that it can be crushed by hand without a tool—then, if each person wishes to dig a pit in his own domain, each must distance himself three handbreadths from the boundary and coat it with plaster.

The Gemara infers:

The reason is that it “can be broken by hand.” But if it cannot be broken by hand, no.

From the fact that the baraita specifies “can be broken by hand,” it follows that if the rock is so hard that it cannot be crushed by hand, the law is different. Necessarily, this means that he need not both distance himself and coat it with plaster. If so, this would resolve the question in favor of the interpretation of our Mishna as “or coats it with plaster,” since the Mishna is not speaking specifically of a rock that can be broken by hand, but of a rock in general.

The Gemara rejects this:

The same law applies: Even though it cannot be broken by hand, he must also coat it with plaster,

as in any event, even when the rock cannot be broken by hand, the law is that he must distance himself and coat it with plaster.

And

the reason that it teaches

“can be broken by hand”

is that

it was necessary

to state this, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it can be broken by hand, he should be required to leave a greater space; therefore, it teaches us

that although the rock can be broken by hand, three handbreadths and plastering are sufficient. I might have thought that since it can be broken by hand, he must distance himself more than three handbreadths. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a rock that can be broken by hand has the same law as one that cannot: he distances himself three handbreadths and coats it with plaster.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One distances the refuse of olives, the manure, the salt, and the

lime, and the

stones, etc.”

We learned there,

in tractate Shabbat, at the beginning of the fourth chapter:

“With what may one insulate a pot, and with what may one not insulate it?”

If a person wishes to insulate a pot on the eve of Shabbat in order to preserve the heat of the pot until the Shabbat meal, he may insulate it only in something that preserves the existing heat, but not in something that adds heat. The reason is that the Sages decreed that if one were permitted to insulate it in something that adds heat, he might come to insulate it even in hot ashes. If he insulated it in hot ashes, some glowing coals that were on the verge of going out might remain there, and by insulating the pot among them he might stir the coals, thereby kindling a fire on Shabbat. Therefore, they decreed that one may not insulate at all in anything that adds heat.

The Mishna came to clarify which substances do not add heat, in which it is permitted to insulate, and which substances add heat, in which it is prohibited to insulate.

One may not insulate, neither in the refuse of olives, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether they are moist or dry.

All these substances add heat, and therefore it is prohibited to insulate in them.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is different here, that it teaches

“stones” and does not teach “sand,” and what is different there,

in tractate Shabbat,

that it teaches “sand” and does not teach “stones”!?

Our Mishna teaches that one distances the refuse of olives and similar substances because they add heat, and for this reason damage the wall; here the Mishna lists the refuse of olives, manure, salt, lime, and “stones.” In contrast, the Mishna in tractate Shabbat, which likewise discusses substances that add heat, lists the refuse of olives, manure, salt, and lime, omitting “stones,” but adds “sand.”

Thus, there are two differences between our Mishna and the Mishna in Shabbat: here the tanna taught stones and did not teach sand, whereas there the tanna taught sand and did not teach stones?

Rav Yosef said: Because it is not the practice of people to insulate [a pot] in stones.

Therefore, when discussing insulation, the tanna does not address such a case.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

But is it the practice of people to insulate in fleeces of wool and strips of purple wool!?

That is, in wool that has been shorn from an animal before it has been processed, and in strips of purple wool, which is wool dyed red that was then smoothed again with a comb and made into strips.

Nevertheless, the tanna in tractate Shabbat discusses insulation in this manner!

As it was taught: One may insulate in fleeces of wool

—wool after shearing, when it is unprocessed—,

in combed wool

—wool after combing and carding—,

in strips of purple wool

—wool after dyeing, which was smoothed again with a comb and made into elongated bundles resembling a tongue—,

and in tufts

—“tuft” refers to what is worn away from old woolen garments when they are combed with a special comb to smooth away the “thorns” of the wool that protrude because the garments are old—.

But one may not move them.

It is prohibited to move all the substances listed here because they are muktzeh. Nevertheless, one may insulate in them on the eve of Shabbat; on Shabbat, he removes the pot and moves them by moving them indirectly.

It follows from here that although it is not the practice of people to insulate in these substances, the tanna nevertheless spoke of such a case, presenting a difficulty to Rav Yosef.

Therefore, Abaye gives another answer:

Rather, Abaye said: “Its companion explains it”!

This is a proverb [and is a verse in the Book of Job, chapter 36], used to say that a matter stated in one place can reveal [“explain”] what applies in another, similar place [“its companion”].

Here, the tanna taught stones, and the same law applies to sand.

There, the tanna taught sand, and the same law applies to stones.

Since the two Mishnayot, here and in tractate Shabbat, address the same subject—what substances add heat—when stones are written here and sand is written there, each one reveals the inclusion of the other, meaning the other Mishna also includes that substance among those that add heat. Therefore, when stones are written here, the same law applies to sand; and when sand is written there, the same law applies to stones.

Rava said to him: If

you rely on

“its companion explains it,” then let him teach all of them in one [Mishna], and let him teach one of them in the other, and the same law will apply to the other substances.

For if each Mishna relies on the other, it would suffice for one Mishna alone to list all the substances that add heat—either this one or the Mishna in Shabbat—and for the second Mishna to teach only one substance that adds heat, while the rest would be learned from the other Mishna, that the same law applies to the other substances that add heat.

Rather, Rava said: There,

in tractate Shabbat,

the reason it does not teach “stones” is that they break the pot.

Actually, neither Mishna explains the other. Rather, the reason stones are not mentioned there is that stones break the pot, and people do not insulate in them at all; therefore, the tanna does not teach this case. Wool fleeces and strips of purple wool, by contrast, although people do not generally insulate in them, are sometimes used for insulation, and therefore the tanna teaches this case.

But

here, the reason it does not teach “sand” is that it heats what is hot and cools what is cold.

Here the tanna did not teach “sand” because if a hot object is placed in sand, the sand adds heat, but if a cold object is placed in sand, it does not add heat; on the contrary, it preserves its coldness.

Therefore, there, where the subject is insulating a pot, and the usual practice is to insulate a hot pot, it is prohibited to insulate in sand, since sand adds heat to a hot object. Here, however, where the case is placing sand adjacent to the boundary, and nothing is heating the sand, the sand does not add heat and does not damage the wall.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But Rabbi Oshaya taught “sand”!?

Rabbi Oshaya, in his Tosefta, listed sand among the substances mentioned in our Mishna from which one must distance himself. Yet according to Rava, there is no need to distance oneself from sand!?

The Gemara answers:

There, it is referring to moisture.

Rabbi Oshaya listed sand among the substances mentioned in the first clause of our Mishna from which one must distance himself because of moisture, and he is speaking of moist sand. But there is no need to distance oneself from dry sand because it adds heat.

But the Gemara asks:

The tanna of our Mishna should also teach it and establish it as referring to moist sand!?

Why did the tanna of our Mishna not also teach moist sand among the substances from which one must distance oneself in the first clause?

The Gemara answers:

He already taught it with regard to a water channel.

The first clause already taught a water channel, and the same law applies to moist sand.

The Gemara asks:

Is that so? Did he not teach a water channel, and also teach

also

a laundry pool!?

Did he not teach a water channel and, in addition, teach a laundry pool, even though the latter is similar to a water channel, since both involve damage caused by the moisture of water? If so, it remains difficult: Why did he not also teach moist sand?

The Gemara answers:

Those cases are necessary,

as both a water channel and a laundry pool must be stated, since one cannot be derived from the other.

For had he taught

only

a water channel,

I would have said that only it must be distanced,

because it is fixed. But as for a laundry pool, which is not fixed, I would say that it need not be distanced.

Had the tanna taught only a water channel, I would have said that because it is fixed and always remains in the field, it must be distanced, since it damages the wall through the moisture of the water that seeps from it toward the wall. But a laundry pool, which is not always present, might not need to be distanced, since it does not damage the wall as much. Therefore, the tanna must also teach a laundry pool.

And had he taught a laundry pool, I would have said that because its waters collect and remain, but a water channel need not be distanced; it is necessary to state both.

Had the tanna taught only a laundry pool, I would have said that because its water gathers in one place and remains there constantly, it damages the wall. But in a water channel, whose water flows and does not remain in one place, since it is flowing spring water, it might not damage the wall as much and need not be distanced. Therefore, the tanna had to mention both a water channel and a laundry pool.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One distances seeds and the plow, etc.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

“Seeds”!? Let it be derived from the plow!

Why must the Mishna say that one must distance seeds from the wall? Before sowing, one always plows first, and therefore he must distance himself from the wall even before sowing, because of the damage caused by the plow.

The Gemara answers:

With hand-scattered sowing.

There is a method of sowing in which one plows somewhat, but not as deeply as the plow, and then drops the seeds there by hand. In such a case, he need not distance himself because of the plow, but only because of the damage caused by the seeds.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

“The plow”!? Let it be derived from seeds,

why did the tanna need to say that one distances the plow? One plows in order to sow there, and therefore he must distance himself from the wall because of the seeds.

The Gemara answers:

It is referring to one who plows for trees.

He is plowing around trees that were already there, for the sake of the trees and not in order to sow.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Let it be derived from water;

why did it need to mention seeds? When one sows, he must subsequently water them, and therefore he should have to distance himself because of the water poured there, as with a water channel and the like.

The Gemara answers:

The tanna was situated in Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: “It drinks water from the rain of heaven.”

The tanna who taught the Mishna was in Eretz Yisrael, where it is unnecessary to water seeds, because rain falls and waters them. Therefore, he had to state that one must distance himself because of the seeds.