Bava Batra 19a — the Talmud in English

For if it is in a crack, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

you will not find it; but if it is in a clod, it grows again!

We learned in the Mishna:

and not a washing pool, etc.:

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: They taught

in our Mishna that one must distance a washing pool three handbreadths,

only from the maḥmetzan.

The manner of washing in their time was as follows: At first they soaked the garments for one or two days in a pit of water containing dog excrement, until the water fermented and became foul-smelling, and this was called a maḥmetzan. Afterwards they placed the garments into another pit containing water, and washed and scrubbed them there to remove all the dirt. That pit is called a nadyan."

And from the maḥmetzan it is sufficient to distance three handbreadths, since the water remains there and does not splash from there a great distance.

But from the nadyan—

four cubits.

Since the garments are scrubbed there, the water splashes from there a great distance; therefore one must distance four cubits from them.

The Gemara now brings proof for Rav Naḥman:

It was taught likewise: A washing pool—four cubits.

We learned in a beraita that one must distance the washing pool four cubits.

But the Gemara raises an objection:

But we learned in the Mishna three handbreadths!

For we learned in the Mishna that it is sufficient to distance three handbreadths.

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

For in order to answer this difficulty, we must say in accordance with Rav Naḥman that the Mishna is speaking of a maḥmetzan, and therefore distancing three handbreadths is sufficient, whereas the beraita is speaking of a nadyan, and therefore four cubits are required.

And there are those who cast them as an objection,

There were members of the academy who learned that at first they raised in the beit-midrash the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita:

We learned: A washing pool—three handbreadths.

But it was taught: four cubits!?

And in order to resolve the contradiction,

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: It is not difficult. Here, it is from the maḥmetzan; here, it is from the nadyan.

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

He would teach a beraita containing an addition to the law of the Mishna, saying that one must distance three handbreadths from a washing pool,

unless he distanced three handbreadths from the edge of the maḥmetzan and from the wall.

It is explicit in the beraita that it is speaking of a maḥmetzan, and not of a nadyan.

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

and coats it with lime.

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

The members of the academy were uncertain: Is the intention of the Mishna to say that one must distance three handbreadths and also coat with lime, or is one of the two sufficient—either to distance three handbreadths or to coat with lime?

The Gemara resolves it:

It is obvious,

the matter is clear,

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

The intention of the first clause of the Mishna is to say that one must distance it and also coat it with lime.

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

If it were said that either distancing or coating with lime is sufficient, then in the second clause of the Mishna, “one distances pomace, etc.,” where “and coats with lime” is also stated, it would have been obvious to the Gemara that the intention is “or coats with lime,” since the damage is not so great that both distancing and coating with lime would be required. And if it were said that in the first clause as well the intention is “or coats with lime,” then why did the Mishna divide them into two clauses, when the law of both is identical? Rather, it must be that in the first clause both distancing and coating with lime are required, while in the latter clause either distancing or coating with lime is required; and therefore the Mishna divided them into two clauses.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps it is because this damage is not similar to that damage.

Actually, both in the first clause and in the latter clause we learned, “or coats with lime”; and the reason the Mishna divided them into two clauses is that the type of damage in the first clause is not similar to that in the latter clause:

In the first clause, damage of moisture; in the latter clause, damage

of heat.

In the first clause the damage results from the dampness and wetness present in the pit and in the other items, while in the latter clause the damage results from the heat present in pomace and manure and in the other items. Therefore the tanna did not combine them together.

Come and hear

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a rock that comes by hand, this one digs his pit here, and that one digs his pit here. This one distances three handbreadths and coats with lime, and that one distances three handbreadths and coats with lime.

When there is a rock separating two fields, and the rock is “one that comes by hand,” meaning that it is soft enough to be crushed by hand alone without a tool, then if each one wishes to dig a pit in his domain, each one must distance three handbreadths from the boundary and coat with lime.

The Gemara infers:

The reason is that it “comes by hand.” But if it does not “come by hand,” no.

From the fact that “comes by hand” is written, it follows that if the rock is hard, so that it cannot be crushed by hand, the law is different. Necessarily, this means that it is not necessary to distance it and also coat it with lime. If so, one can resolve from here that the meaning in our Mishna is “or coats with lime,” since the Mishna is not speaking of a rock that comes by hand, but of a rock without specification.

The Gemara rejects this:

The same law applies: even though it does not come by hand, he also coats with lime,

for in fact, even when it does not come by hand, the same law applies, that he must distance it and coat with lime.

And

as for what it teaches,

“comes by hand,”

because

it was necessary for it

to say this, since

it might enter your mind to say: Since it comes by hand, let it require greater space; it teaches us this.

The beraita comes to teach that even though the rock is soft, “comes by hand,” nevertheless it is sufficient to distance three handbreadths and coat with lime, because I might have thought that since it comes by hand, one must distance more than three handbreadths. Therefore the beraita teaches us that one that comes by hand has the same law as one that does not come by hand: he distances three handbreadths and coats with lime.

We learned in the Mishna:

One distances pomace, manure, salt, and [

lime and]

rocks, etc.

We learned there,

we learned there, in tractate Shabbat, at the beginning of the fourth chapter:

With what may one insulate, and with what may one not insulate?

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 we permit him to insulate it in something that adds heat [such as hot air], perhaps he will also come to insulate it in hot ashes. And if he insulates it in hot ashes, some glowing coals that are about to go out may remain there, and by insulating in them he will stir the coals, and it will emerge that he kindles a fire on Shabbat. Therefore they decreed not to insulate at all in anything that adds heat.

The Mishna comes to explain what are the things that do not add heat, in which it is permitted to insulate, and what are the things that add heat, in which it is forbidden to insulate.

One may not insulate, neither in pomace, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether moist or dry.

All these things add heat, and therefore it is forbidden to insulate in them.

The Gemara discusses:

What is different here, that it teaches

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

in tractate Shabbat,

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

In our Mishna we learned that one distances pomace and the like, because they are things that add heat [warmth], and because of this they damage the wall; and the Mishna lists here pomace, manure, salt, lime, and “rocks.” But in the Mishna in tractate Shabbat, where as well the subject is what things add heat, the Mishna there lists pomace, manure, salt, and lime, and omits “rocks”; yet, on the other hand, it adds “sand.”

It follows that there are two differences between our Mishna and the Mishna in Shabbat: here the tanna taught rocks and did not teach sand, while there the tanna taught sand and did not teach rocks?

Rav Yosef said: Because it is not the practice of people to insulate in rocks.

Therefore, regarding insulation, the tanna does not speak of 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 they sheared from the animal before processing it, and in strips of purple wool, which is wool dyed red, after which they smoothed it again with a comb and made it into strips.

Nevertheless, the tanna in tractate Shabbat speaks of insulating in this manner!

For it was taught: One may insulate in fleeces of wool [

wool after its shearing, when it is unprocessed],

and in woolen fibers [

wool after combing and beating with a comb],

and in strips of purple wool [

wool after dyeing, which they smoothed again with a comb and made into elongated groups of wool resembling a tongue],

and in soft wool ["

“soft wool” is what is worn away from old woolen garments when they are combed with a special comb to smooth them from the “spikes” of the wool, which protrude because of the age of the garments].

But one may not move them.

It is forbidden to move all the things listed here because of muktzeh. Nevertheless, it is permitted to insulate in them before Shabbat; and on Shabbat he removes the pot and moves them by indirect handling.

It is apparent from here that even though it is not the practice of people to insulate in them, nevertheless the tanna spoke of such a case, and this is difficult against Rav Yosef.

Therefore Abaye gives another answer:

Rather, Abaye said: “Its companion will declare concerning it”!

This is a proverb [and it is a verse in the Book of Job, chapter 36], and it is used to say that a matter stated in one place can reveal [“declare”] something concerning another place resembling it [“its companion”].

The tanna taught rocks here; the same law applies to sand.

The tanna taught sand there; the same law applies to rocks.

Since the two Mishnayot here and in tractate Shabbat speak about the same subject—what things add heat—then when rocks are written here and sand is written there, each reveals concerning its companion, that is, concerning the other Mishna, that this too is included among the things that add heat. Therefore, when rocks are written here, the same law applies to sand; and when sand is written there, the same law applies to rocks.

Rava said to him: If

you rely on

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

For if each Mishna relies on the other, then it would suffice to teach in only one Mishna all the things that add heat, either here or in tractate Shabbat, and in the second Mishna to teach only one thing that adds heat, while the rest would be learned from the other Mishna, that the same law applies to the other things that add heat.

Rather, Rava said: There,

in tractate Shabbat,

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

In fact, one Mishna does not reveal concerning the other. Rather, the reason that rocks are not written there is that rocks break the pot, and it is not at all the practice to insulate in them; therefore the tanna does not teach this case. In contrast, with fleeces of wool and strips of purple wool, although it is not the practice to insulate in them, nevertheless sometimes people do insulate in them; therefore the tanna teaches this case.

Whereas

here, the reason that it does not teach “sand” is that it warms the warm and cools the cool.

Here the tanna does not teach “sand” because if one places a hot thing into sand, it adds heat, but if one places a cold thing into sand, it does not add heat; rather, on the contrary, it preserves its coolness.

Therefore there, where the subject is insulating a pot, and the practice is to insulate a hot pot, it is forbidden to insulate in sand, since for a hot thing it adds heat. But here, where the subject is placing sand adjacent to the boundary, and there is nothing that heats the sand, the sand does not add heat and does not damage the wall.

But the Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Oshaya taught sand!?

For Rabbi Oshaya, in his Tosefta, counted sand among the things mentioned in our Mishna from which one must distance oneself, whereas according to Rava one need not distance sand!?

The Gemara answers:

There, it is with moisture.

Rabbi Oshaya counted sand among the things mentioned in the first clause of our Mishna from which one must distance oneself because of dampness, and he is speaking of moist sand. But one need not distance dry sand because it adds heat.

But the Gemara asks:

Our tanna too should teach it and establish it as referring to moist sand!?

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

The Gemara answers:

He has already taught it with a water channel.

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

The Gemara asks:

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

also

a washing pool!?

Did he not teach a water channel and in addition also teach a washing pool, even though this resembles a water channel, since in all of them the subject is damage from the moisture of the water? If so, it is again difficult: why did he not also teach moist sand?

The Gemara answers:

Those are necessary,

A water channel and a washing pool both need to be stated, because one cannot be learned from the other.

For if he taught

only

a water channel,

I would say that only it must be distanced,

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

If the tanna had taught only a water channel, I would say that because it is fixed and always stands in the field, it must be distanced, since it damages the wall through the moisture of the water that seeps from it to the wall. But a washing pool, which is not always fixed, perhaps need not be distanced, since it does not damage the wall so much; therefore it is necessary to teach also a washing pool.

And if he had taught a washing pool, I would say that because the waters collect and remain there; but a water channel, no—this is necessary.

If the tanna had taught only a washing pool, I would say that because the waters gather in one place and remain there all the time, they damage the wall. But a water channel, in which the water flows and does not remain in one place, since it is flowing spring water, perhaps it does not damage the wall so much and need not be distanced. Therefore the tanna had to mention both a water channel and a washing pool.

We learned in the Mishna:

One distances seeds and the plow, etc.:

The Gemara raises an objection: "

“Seeds”!? Let it derive it for him because of the plow!

Why does the Mishna need to say that one must distance seeds from the wall? Before sowing, one always plows first; if so, he must distance himself from the wall even before sowing, because of the damage caused by the plow.

The Gemara answers:

With hand-sowing.

There is a manner of sowing in which one plows a little, without making it as deep as the plow, and afterwards 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 objection: "

“The plow”!? And let it derive it for him because of the seeds,

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

The Gemara answers:

It is plowing for trees.

It is speaking of plowing around trees that were there, for the benefit of the trees and not in order to sow.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And let it derive it for him because of the water,

Why was it necessary to say seeds? When one sows, he must afterwards water them; if so, he must distance himself because of the water poured there, as with a water channel and the like.

The Gemara answers:

The tanna is situated in the Land of Israel. For it is written: “It drinks water from the rain of the heavens.”

The tanna who taught the Mishna was situated in the Land of Israel, and there it is unnecessary to water the seeds, because rain falls and waters the seeds. Therefore it was necessary to say that one must distance oneself because of the seeds.