Bava Batra 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks:

Does this mean that the roots of the seeds

spread out to the sides?

That is, should we say that the Mishna teaches that the roots of the seeds spread sideways as far as three handbreadths, and therefore one must distance them three handbreadths?

But we learned

in tractate Kilayim [7a]:

If one bends a vine into the ground,

when there is a single grapevine, that is, he takes one branch while it is still attached to the vine, bends it down, and buries it in the ground, leaving its end exposed so that it will produce fruit where its end emerges; this is called havrakha.

If there is not three handbreadths of earth above it, he may not sow seed upon it.

When there are not three handbreadths of earth above the branch buried in the ground, it is forbidden to sow upon it, because the roots of the seed spread as far as three handbreadths and penetrate and enter the vine, and this is like grafting seeds onto a vine, which is forbidden. But when there are three handbreadths of earth above it, the roots do not enter the vine beneath them in the ground.

And it was taught concerning it: But one may sow on either side of it, in either direction.

It is permitted to sow on the sides of the branch, even though one does not distance the seeds three handbreadths.

This proves that the roots of seeds do not spread sideways. For if they spread sideways, how would it be permitted to sow on the sides of the branch? It would be like grafting seeds onto a vine, just as when one sows upon it, which is forbidden. Rather, it is necessarily the case that the roots do not spread sideways. If so, this presents a difficulty from the Mishna, which required distancing the seeds three handbreadths.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Haga said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Because they loosen the soil and raise loose earth.

The reason the Mishna required distancing the seeds is not that the roots themselves spread out, but that the seeds draw nourishment from the soil at the sides, thereby loosening the soil and raising loose earth. That is, the clods of earth crumble and become loose earth like sand, in which the particles are not attached to one another; consequently, the foundation of the wall collapses and it falls.

We learned in the Mishna:

And urine from the wall three handbreadths, etc.:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is permitted for a person to urinate beside his fellow’s wall,

and he need not distance himself three handbreadths,

as it is written

in I Kings 21:

“And I will cut off from Ahab: one who urinates against a wall, and him who is restrained, and him who is forsaken in Israel.”

That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, told Elijah the Prophet to say to Ahab that God would eventually cut off all the males from the house of Ahab, until there would not remain even “one who urinates against a wall,” which is an expression referring to males, since it is their practice. “Him who is restrained” refers to the wealth stored in the house, and “him who is forsaken” refers to the livestock left in the field. God would cut off all of these from the house of Ahab.

This proves that it is customary to urinate against a wall, and this is not considered a harmful act that one is forbidden to perform.

But the Gemara is astonished:

But we learned

here in our Mishna:

and

one distances

urine from the wall

three handbreadths.

And since one must distance himself three handbreadths from the wall, how is it permitted to urinate near a wall?!

The Gemara answers:

There,

it is referring to spillage.

The Mishna is speaking of one who pours a full chamber pot of urine beside the wall, for such an amount of urine dissolves the wall. But merely urinating is permitted, since it is a small quantity. [

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned:

A person may

not pour

water beside his fellow’s wall unless he has distanced it three handbreadths from it.

It is thus explicitly stated that it is forbidden to urinate near his fellow’s wall.

The Gemara answers:

There too, it is referring to spillage.

There as well, it is speaking of one who pours out a full chamber pot.]

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned:

A person may not urinate beside his fellow’s wall unless he has distanced himself three handbreadths from it.

When are these words said,

that one must distance himself three handbreadths?

In the case of a brick wall,

which is made of mortar that has dried in the sun and is dissolved by water; therefore, one must distance himself from it.

But in the case of a stone wall,

it is sufficient to distance himself from it

so as not to cause damage.

And what is the measure at which he will not cause damage?

One handbreadth.

For up to one handbreadth, the ground adjacent to the foundation of the wall becomes muddied.

And in the case of hard rock, it is permitted.

If the wall is made of stones and is built upon bedrock rather than upon soil, it is permitted to urinate close to it, because the water cannot damage the wall’s foundations, since it is built upon hard rock.

In any event, it is evident here that it is forbidden to urinate near his fellow’s wall.

This is a refutation of Rabba bar bar Ḥana; this is a refutation.

Indeed, the difficulty from the beraita against Rabba bar bar Ḥana remains an unresolved difficulty.

But the Gemara asks concerning this refutation:

But Rabba bar bar Ḥana cited a verse!

He brings proof from the verse that this is the customary practice!

The Gemara answers:

There, this is what the verse is saying: Even something whose way is to urinate against a wall, I will not leave him. And what is that? —

A dog.

The meaning of the verse is that even one whose way is to urinate against a wall, namely, a dog, will not remain from the house of Ahab. But a person is not accustomed to do so.

Rav Tovi bar Kisna said in the name of Shmuel: A thin wafer does not diminish the size of a window.

A wall separates two adjacent houses, or two adjoining rooms, and there is an open window in that wall. If there is a corpse in one of the houses or rooms, the corpse’s ritual impurity spreads, by means of the impurity of a tent, to all the houses or rooms.

The impurity spreads and passes from house to house and from room to room through the window in the wall between them only when the window has the measure that qualifies as a “window.”

And Shmuel said that if a “thin wafer” was placed in the window—that is, a thin and soft pastry intended to seal part of the window—and by this small amount the window was reduced below the measure required to transmit impurity, this wafer is not considered a reduction in the measure of the window. Rather, the impurity continues to pass through it.

The Gemara discusses this:

Why specifically mention a thin wafer? Even a thick one should likewise not diminish it!

From Shmuel’s statement that he said “a thin wafer,” it follows that he meant specifically a thin wafer, which does not seal well because it is soft and liable to fall, and therefore it is not considered a seal. But if one placed a thick baked item there, it would indeed serve as a seal.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Even if it is thick, it should not diminish the window, since the person who placed it there does not designate it to remain there permanently, but will eventually remove it.

The general rule is that in order to diminish a window so that impurity will not pass through it, two conditions are required: (a) the object sealing it must not be susceptible to ritual impurity; and (b) the person who places it there must designate it to remain there permanently.

The Gemara answers:

He stated the matter in the form of: It is not necessary.

Shmuel mentioned a thin wafer in order to teach us a novel point:

It is not necessary to state this with regard to a thick one, since it remains suitable for him, he does not designate it to remain there permanently.

There is no need to state this with regard to a thick item, since even after he places it in the window it remains fit to eat, and therefore he does not designate it to remain there.

But with regard to a thin wafer, which becomes repulsive,

as it becomes repulsive from the dampness of the wall because it is thin,

one might say that he designates it to remain there permanently;

one might say that he designates it to remain there forever.

He teaches us

that since it does not become entirely repulsive, but remains fit to be eaten by dogs or chickens, we do not assume that he designated it to remain there permanently, unless he explicitly designates it to remain there permanently.

The Gemara asks:

But let it be derived from the fact that it is an “object that is susceptible to ritual impurity”; and anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity does not interpose before impurity!

Why is it necessary to resort to the reason that he did not designate it to remain there? Even if he did designate it to remain there, it still would not interpose, because it is susceptible to ritual impurity like all foods that are susceptible to ritual impurity, and we have a principle that anything susceptible to ritual impurity does not interpose before impurity.

The Gemara answers: Here, it is speaking of a wafer that was

kneaded with fruit juice,

which is not one of the seven liquids that render food fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The Gemara now challenges the law taught by Shmuel, that an object does not diminish a window as long as he has not designated it to remain there permanently, from the Mishna in tractate Oholot [6b], in which we learned:

A basket full of straw, and a barrel full of dried figs

[dried figs],

placed in a window, are judged as follows: Any case in which, if they were removed

the basket or the barrel,

and

even so

the straw and dried figs could stand

there

on their own,

they

interpose. But if not, they do not interpose.

The basket and the barrel do not interpose, as will be explained, because they are vessels susceptible to the ritual impurity of vessels. But the straw and dried figs are not susceptible to ritual impurity. The straw is not susceptible because it is not human food. As for the dried figs, the case is one in which they had not been rendered fit to become susceptible to ritual impurity through one of the seven liquids. Therefore, the straw and dried figs do interpose. However, there is a condition: They must be able to stand on their own even without the basket and the barrel. But if they cannot stand without the basket and the barrel, they do not interpose.

The Gemara asks:

But straw is fit for his animal,

as straw is suitable for animal feed, and if so, ordinarily he does not designate it to remain there; why, then, does it interpose?

The Gemara answers:

It is rotten.

The case is one in which the straw has rotted and is no longer fit for animal feed.

But the Gemara continues to ask:

It is fit for plaster,

as it is suitable to mix with mud for construction.

The Gemara answers:

It contains thorns.

The case is one in which there are thorns in it. It was customary to mix mud by treading it with one’s feet, and when there are thorns it is impossible to mix it, because they scratch the feet.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

It is fit for kindling,

as the straw is suitable for burning beneath one’s food or for another purpose? They answer:

It is damp.

The case is one of damp straw that is not fit for kindling.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

It is fit for a large fire,

as it is still suitable for a large fire: When there is already a large fire, even damp straw can be placed in it and will continue to burn.

The Gemara answers:

A large fire is uncommon.

A large fire is not common; therefore, we do not ordinarily say that he does not designate it to remain there because it is suitable for use in a large fire.

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

But dried figs are certainly fit for him.

They are fit for him, and if so, he does not designate them to remain there; why, then, do they interpose? The Gemara answers:

Shmuel said: The case is where they became wormy,

meaning that worms infested them and they are no longer fit to eat.

And Rabba bar Avuha likewise taught: The case is where they became wormy,

meaning that worms infested them.

The Gemara continues to challenge the substance of the Mishna’s statement:

What is the nature of this barrel?

How is the barrel of dried figs described? Ordinarily, a barrel is made of earthenware, and earthenware is susceptible to ritual impurity from its reverse side only from its interior, namely, through its opening, when it is not sealed with a tightly fitting cover.

If its opening faces outward,

if the case is one in which the opening of the barrel faces outward, meaning that it does not face the house in which the corpse is located, then the side facing the house in which the corpse is located is the reverse side of the barrel,