Bava Batra 19b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks:

Is it to say that the roots ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

spread out to the sides?

Is it to be said that it is explained in the Mishna that the roots of the seeds spread out to the sides up to three handbreadths, and therefore one must distance them three handbreadths?

But we learned

in tractate Kilayim [7a]:

One who bends a vine into the ground,

when there is a single vine tree, and he takes one shoot while it is attached to the vine, bends it, and buries it in the ground, and brings out its end so that it will produce fruit at the place where its end emerges, this is called bending a vine into the ground.

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

When there is not earth three handbreadths above the shoot buried in the earth, it is forbidden to sow upon it, because the roots of the seed spread out up to three handbreadths, penetrate, and enter the vine, and it is like grafting seeds into a vine, which is forbidden. But when there are three handbreadths of earth above it, the roots do not enter the vine that is in the ground beneath them.

And it was taught concerning it: But he may sow the sides, this way and that way.

It is permitted to sow at the sides of the shoot, even though he does not distance three handbreadths.

And it is proved from here that the roots of the seeds do not spread out to the sides, for if they spread out to the sides, how is it permitted to sow at the sides of the shoot? For it would be like grafting seeds into a vine, and just as when he sows upon it, it is forbidden. Rather, necessarily, the roots do not spread out to the sides. And if so, this is difficult from here against the Mishna, which required distancing the seeds three handbreadths.

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Haga said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Because they hollow out the ground and raise loose earth.

The reason the Mishna required distancing the seeds is not that the roots themselves spread out, but because the seeds draw the strength of the ground from the sides, and thereby they loosen the ground and raise loose earth—that is, the clods of earth crumble and become loose earth like sand, in which they are not attached to one another; and because of this, 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 Hana said: It is permitted for a person to urinate beside his fellow’s wall,

and he does not need to distance himself three handbreadths,

for it is written [I Kings 21]:

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

And this is what the Holy One, blessed is He, said to Elijah the prophet to tell Ahab: in the future, God will cut off all the males from the house of Ahab, until there will not remain “one who urinates against a wall,” which is an expression referring to males, because that is their practice. And “one who is restrained” is the wealth gathered into the house, and “one who is forsaken” is the livestock left in the field; God will cut off everything from the house of Ahab.

And it is proved from here that this is the practice: to urinate against a wall, and this is not considered an act of damage that it is forbidden to perform.

But the Gemara is astonished:

But did we not learn

here in our Mishna:

and

“And

distance

urine from the wall

three handbreadths.

And since one must distance oneself three handbreadths from the wall, how is it permitted to urinate close to the wall?!

And the Gemara answers:

There—

with waste-water.

The Mishna is speaking of a case where he pours a full chamber pot of urine beside the wall, for such an amount of urine dissolves the wall. But merely urinating is permitted, because it is a small amount. [

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned:

A

person may not pour

water beside his fellow’s wall unless he distances it from him three handbreadths.

It is thus explained that it is forbidden to urinate close to his fellow’s wall.

And the Gemara answers:

There too, it is with waste-water.

There too, it is speaking of one who pours 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 distances it from him three handbreadths.

When are these words said,

that he must distance himself three handbreadths?

With a brick wall,

which is made from clay that dried in the sun, and this melts because of water; therefore he must distance himself from it.

But with a stone wall,

it is sufficient that he distances himself from it

by an amount sufficient not to cause damage.

And what is the measure that does not cause damage?

A handbreadth.

For up to a handbreadth, it muddies the ground adjacent to the foundation of the wall.

And with hard rock, it is permitted.

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

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

A refutation of Rabba bar bar Hana; a refutation.

Indeed, the difficulty from the beraita against Rabba bar bar Hana remains a difficulty.

But the Gemara asks about the refutation:

But Rabba bar bar Hana cited a verse!

After all, he brings proof from the verse that this is the practice!

And the Gemara answers:

There, this is what it says: Even a thing whose practice is to urinate against a wall, we shall not leave him. And what is it?—

a dog.

The meaning of the verse is that even one whose practice is to urinate against a wall, namely a dog, even it will not remain from the house of Ahab. But a person does not have this practice.

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

A wall separating two adjacent houses, or two rooms adjoining one another, has an open window in that wall; and 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 suitable for a “window.”

And Shmuel said that if a “thin cake” was placed in the window—that is, a thin and soft cake intended to seal part of the window—and through this small measure the window was diminished below the measure suitable for transmitting impurity, this cake is not considered a diminution of the measure of the window; rather, the impurity continues to pass through it.

And the Gemara discusses:

Why specifically a thin cake? Even a thick one also!

From the fact that Shmuel said “a thin cake,” it follows that he meant specifically a thin cake, which does not seal well because it is soft and liable to fall; therefore it is not a sealing. But if he placed a thick baked item, it would serve as a sealing.

And the Gemara objects: After all, even if it is thick, it does not diminish the window, since the person who placed it there does not nullify it there forever, but is destined to remove it from there.

For the rule is that in order to diminish the window so that impurity will not pass through it, two conditions are required: (a) the thing sealing it must not be susceptible to impurity; (b) the person placing it there must nullify it in such a manner that he leaves it there forever.

And the Gemara answers:

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

Shmuel mentioned a thin cake in order to teach us a novelty:

It is not necessary to say a thick one, since it is suitable for him, he does not nullify it.

There is no need to say this regarding a thick one, since even after he placed it in the window it is still fit to be eaten, and therefore he does not nullify it there.

But a thin cake, since it becomes repulsive,

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

one might say that he nullifies it,

I might say that he nullifies it there forever.

It teaches us this:

Shmuel teaches us that since it does not become completely repulsive, but is still fit to be eaten by dogs or chickens, we do not say that he presumably nullified it forever, until he explicitly nullifies it forever.

The Gemara asks:

And let him derive it from the fact that it is a “thing that is susceptible to impurity,” and anything that is susceptible to impurity does not interpose before impurity!

Why is it necessary to resort to the reason that he does not nullify it there? After all, even if he nullifies it, it still does not interpose, because it is susceptible to impurity like all foods that are susceptible to impurity, and we have a rule that anything susceptible to impurity does not interpose before impurity.

And the Gemara answers: Here it is speaking of a case in which the thin cake

was kneaded with fruit juice,

which is not among the seven liquids that prepare food to become susceptible to impurity.

He raises an objection,

the Gemara now objects to the law that Shmuel innovated—that anything does not diminish a window as long as he has not nullified it there forever—from the Mishna in tractate Ohalot [6b], in which we learned:

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

[dried figs],

which are placed in the window, we see: Anything such that, if they were taken away

the basket or the barrel,

and

nevertheless

the straw and the dried figs could stand

there

on their own,

they

interpose. And if not, they do not interpose.

The basket and the barrel do not interpose, as will be explained below, because they are vessels that are susceptible to vessel impurity. But the straw and the dried figs are not susceptible to impurity. The straw is not susceptible because it is not human food. And the dried figs are speaking of a case where they were not prepared to become susceptible to impurity through one of the seven liquids. Therefore the straw and the dried figs 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,

for straw is fit for animal consumption, and if so, ordinarily he does not nullify it there; why does it interpose?

The Gemara answers:

With rotten straw.

It is speaking of a case where the straw rotted and is not fit for animal consumption.

But the Gemara continues to ask:

It is fit for clay,

for it is fit to knead with clay for construction?

And it answers:

There are thorns in it.

It is speaking of a case where there are thorns there. Their practice was to knead the clay with their feet, and when there are thorns it is impossible to knead it, because they scratch the foot.

And the Gemara objects:

It is fit for kindling,

for the straw is fit to kindle beneath one’s cooking or for another purpose? We answer:

With damp straw.

It is speaking of damp straw, which is not fit for kindling.

And the Gemara objects:

It is fit for great kindling.

After all, it is still fit for great kindling: when there is already a large fire, even damp straw can be placed there and it will continue to burn.

And the Gemara answers:

Great kindling is not common.

Great kindling is not common; therefore we do not say ordinarily that he does not nullify it because it is fit for great kindling.

The Gemara continues to object:

But dried figs are fit for him.

After all, dried figs are fit for him, and if so, he does not nullify them; why do they interpose? And the Gemara answers:

Shmuel said: When they became wormy,

it is speaking of a case where they became wormy and are not fit for eating.

And Rabba bar Avuha likewise taught: When they became wormy,

when they became wormy.

The Gemara continues to ask about the substance of the Mishna’s words:

This barrel—what are its circumstances?

How is it speaking of a barrel of dried figs, when an ordinary barrel was made of earthenware, and earthenware is not susceptible to impurity from its back but from its interior, that is, from the side of its opening, when it is not sealed with a tight seal.

If its opening is outward,

if it is speaking of a case where the opening of the barrel is toward the outside, meaning that it is not toward the house in which the corpse is located, then the side facing the house in which the corpse is located is the back of the barrel,