Bava Batra 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

And this is difficult, for earlier Rava proved in accordance with Rabbi Ḥanina.

The Gemara answers:

There it is different, since the majority

of those who pour are Jews.

That case is different because, in that country, most of those who poured wine from barrels into leather flasks in order to sell it to travelers were Jews.

And this applies only to large flasks; but with regard to small ones, say that they fell from travelers.

This ruling applies specifically to large flasks, which travelers do not ordinarily carry. Therefore, they certainly belonged to those who poured the wine, who poured it into large flasks and afterward transferred it into the small flasks of the purchasers; and most of those who poured wine were Jews. But with regard to small flasks, it is possible that they fell from travelers, who ordinarily carry them; and most travelers are gentiles. Therefore, the flasks are forbidden as yayin nesekh.

And if there are large ones together with them,

if large flasks were found together with small flasks,

say that they were placed for balancing.

All of them are permitted, since the large flasks demonstrate that they belonged to Jews. As for the small ones that the merchants who poured the wine would not ordinarily bring, we attribute their presence to the need to balance the load on the donkey. If there are two flasks on a donkey, one on each side, and one is slightly larger than the other and makes the load heavier on one side, they place a small flask next to the other one to balance the load.

Mishna:

One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city.

The reason is the beautification of the city, since it is an adornment for a city when there is open space before it.

And in the case of a carob tree or a sycamore tree,

whose branches are numerous, one must distance it

fifty cubits,

more than an ordinary tree.

Abba Shaul says: In the case of every non-fruit-bearing tree,

one must distance it from the city

fifty cubits.

This is because it is a disgrace to the city for there to be a non-fruit-bearing tree there.

And if the city preceded the tree, he cuts it down and does not pay compensation.

If the city preceded the tree, it turns out that he planted the tree without authorization. Therefore, he cuts it down, and the residents of the city do not have to pay him compensation.

And if the tree preceded the city, he cuts it down and pays compensation.

If the tree preceded the city, it turns out that he planted it with authorization, and therefore he cuts it down so that it will not be a disgrace to the city, while the residents of the city must pay him the amount that he loses through cutting down the tree.

If it is uncertain which preceded the other, he cuts it down and does not pay compensation.

When it is uncertain which came first, he must cut it down under either possibility, since even if the tree preceded the city, he must cut it down. He does not pay compensation, as the Gemara explains, because the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason?

What is the reason that one must distance the tree from the city?

Ulla said: Because of the beautification of the city.

It is an adornment for the city to have open space before it.

The Gemara asks:

Why not derive it from the fact that one may not convert a migrash into a field, nor a field into a migrash?

Why is it necessary to resort to the reason of beautification of the city, which applies only up to twenty-five cubits? After all, even without this reason, one should have to distance the tree one thousand cubits, because it is explained in the verses in the portion of Masaei that one must leave two thousand cubits outside the city. The inner thousand cubits are designated as the migrash, open space without fields, while the outer thousand are for fields. It is forbidden to change a migrash into a field or a field into a migrash. The Gemara understood that a field is considered such whether it contains crops or trees; therefore, one should have to distance the tree one thousand cubits.

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary,

the reason of Ulla is not necessary, but rather

according to Rabbi Elazar, who said: One may convert a field into a migrash, and a migrash into a field,

because he maintains that the prohibition was stated specifically with regard to the cities of the Levites, whereas in the cities of Israel it is permitted to change them.

Here, however, because of the beautification of the city, we do not do so.

Here, because of the beautification of the city, one must distance the tree twenty-five cubits.

And according to the Rabbis as well, who say that one may not convert a field into a migrash, nor a migrash into a field, this applies only to crops; but with regard to trees, we do so.

Even according to the Rabbis, who maintain that it is forbidden to change a migrash into a field or a field into a migrash, one must nevertheless resort to Ulla’s reason, because the Gemara is now introducing the distinction that a field is considered such only when it contains crops, but not when it is planted with trees. Therefore, it is permitted to plant a tree in a migrash.

But here, because of the beautification of the city, we do not.

Here, because of the beautification of the city, one must distance the tree twenty-five cubits.

[The early authorities wrote that the entire law of the beautification of the city applies only in the Land of Israel and when it is under Jewish control, but outside the Land of Israel, and likewise in the Land of Israel when it is not under Jewish control, this entire law does not apply.]

And from where do you say that there is a distinction between crops and trees,

what is the source for distinguishing between crops and trees?

As it is taught in a beraita,

we learned with regard to carrying on Shabbat in a karpef:

A karpef is an open area not intended for residence, and therefore the Sages decreed that it is forbidden to carry within it on Shabbat, just as it is forbidden to carry on Shabbat in a karmelit.

However, if it was enclosed for the purpose of residence, then even if its area is larger than a beit se’a—the measure of two se’a being one hundred cubits by fifty cubits, like the courtyard of the Tabernacle—it is permitted to carry throughout it, since it is considered a completely private domain.

But if the karpef was enclosed not for the purpose of residence, then if its area is larger than a beit se’a, its status is that of a karmelit, in which it is rabbinically forbidden to carry throughout the area except within four cubits.

And if there was a karpef that had been enclosed for the purpose of residence and was subsequently sown, the crops negate the status of “residence” that had applied to it by virtue of its having been enclosed for residence, because people do not reside in a place containing crops. Therefore, if most of the karpef, which is larger than a beit se’a, was sown—even if it was not sown in its entirety—it is considered a karmelit. The details of this law are explained in Eruvin [23b].

A karpef larger than a beit se’a that was enclosed for the purpose of residence, and most of it was sown, has the status of a garden, and it is forbidden.

If most of it was planted with trees, it has the status of a courtyard, and it is permitted:

If it was planted with trees, the trees do not negate its status as a place of residence. It is therefore considered a courtyard, since it was enclosed for residence, and it is permitted to carry throughout it, as in any private domain.

It is evident from here that crops negate the status of a courtyard that it had, whereas trees do not negate it. Accordingly, the same applies with regard to the status of a migrash: crops negate the status of a migrash, whereas trees do not negate it.

We learned in our Mishna:

And if the city preceded the tree, he cuts it down and does not pay compensation, etc.:

The Gemara asks:

What is different with regard to a pit, where it teaches: “He cuts it down and pays compensation,” and what is different here, where it teaches: “He cuts it down and does not pay compensation”?

What is the distinction between the Mishna below, concerning the requirement to distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a pit, which says that if the pit preceded the tree, he cuts it down and the owner of the pit pays him compensation, and here, where if the city preceded the tree, he cuts it down and no one has to pay him compensation?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Kahana said: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold.

This is a proverb: A pot belonging to two partners is neither hot nor cold, since each one relies on the other to heat it. Nevertheless, in the end they heat it somewhat, and therefore it is neither hot nor cold.

The analogy is as follows: When something is incumbent upon the public to do, each person relies on his fellow and evades doing it. Here, the Sages wanted the tree to be cut down so that it would not disgrace the city. Sometimes the owner is negligent about cutting it down, and the residents of the city must cut it down themselves. If they had to pay compensation, each one would try to evade paying until the others paid. Consequently, they would not want to cut it down, lest the owner of the tree later sue them; and as a result, the tree would remain there. Since it had been planted unlawfully, as the city preceded the tree, the Sages wanted the tree not to remain there. Therefore, they enacted that no compensation need be paid.

The Gemara asks:

But what difficulty is there?

What is the difficulty from the Mishna below, such that Rav Kahana had to offer this answer?

Perhaps damage caused to the public is different from damage caused to an individual.

It is possible that there is a distinction between harming the public and harming an individual. Therefore, here, where the tree harms the public, no compensation need be paid, whereas below, where it harms an individual, compensation must be paid to him. If so, why did Rav Kahana not answer this way?

Rather, if Rav Kahana’s statement was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause,

if we recited Rav Kahana’s statement, it must have referred to the latter clause of the Mishna, which teaches:

If the tree preceded the city, he cuts it down and pays compensation.

And apparently one could raise the following difficulty:

Let him say to them,

“Give me the money first, and afterward I will cut it down!”

That is, why is it stated that he cuts it down first and afterward the residents pay him compensation? Why should he not say to them, “Give me the money first, and afterward I will cut down the tree”?

Concerning this,

Rav Kahana said: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold.

Since the residents of the city are numerous, each one will wait until the other begins to pay. If they wait until they bring him the money, the tree will remain standing for a long time in the interim. Therefore, the Sages enacted that he should cut it down first and afterward collect the money from the residents in court.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it is uncertain which preceded the other, he cuts it down and does not pay compensation:

The Gemara asks:

What is different from a pit, where you said that he may not cut it down?!

Why is the law here different from the law in the Mishna below, concerning a pit and a tree? Here, in a case of uncertainty, he cuts it down and does not pay compensation; thus, the uncertain case has the same status as a definite case in which the city preceded the tree. Whereas there, with regard to a pit and a tree, when it is uncertain which preceded the other, he need not cut it down. Thus, the uncertain case has the same status as a definite case in which the tree preceded the pit.

The Gemara answers:

There, where in a definite case he is not required to cut it down, in an uncertain case as well we do not say to him: Cut it down.

There, if the tree definitely preceded the pit, he need not cut it down; therefore, even in a case of uncertainty we do not tell him to cut it down, since it is incumbent upon the injured party to bring proof in order to compel the one causing the damage to cut it down. But

here, where in a definite case he is required to cut it down,

here, even if the tree definitely preceded the city, he must cut it down,

we say to him: Cut it down,

we tell him to cut it down under either possibility, since even according to the possibility that the tree preceded the city, he must cut it down.

And with regard to the compensation, we say to him: “Bring proof, and take it!”

When he comes to claim the compensation, we tell him, “Bring proof that they owe you, and take it,” since the law is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

Mishna:

One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city.

A permanent threshing floor, as the Gemara explains what constitutes a permanent threshing floor, must be distanced fifty cubits from the city, because when one winnows the grain, the chaff is scattered as far as fifty cubits, harming people who walk there and also drying out seeds located there.

A person may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own property unless he has fifty cubits in every direction.

He may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own land, even though it is not in a place where it will harm people, so that he will not harm the saplings and the fallow land in his neighbor’s adjoining field, unless he has fifty cubits in every direction.

And he must distance it from his neighbor’s saplings and his fallow land by an amount sufficient that it will not cause damage.

He must distance it from his neighbor’s saplings and plowed field by an amount sufficient to prevent damage. This implies that less than fifty cubits may also suffice.

Gemara:

What is the difference between the first clause and the latter clause?

The Gemara asks what the distinction is between the first clause and the latter clause: In the first clause, one must distance it fifty cubits, whereas in the latter clause it is sufficient to distance it by an amount sufficient to prevent damage.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: The latter clause comes to discuss a nonpermanent threshing floor.

The latter clause is referring to a nonpermanent threshing floor, and therefore it is sufficient to distance it less than fifty cubits.

But the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances of a nonpermanent threshing floor?

What is considered a nonpermanent threshing floor?

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Any one at which he does not winnow with a winnowing shovel,

which is a tool used for winnowing grain: He lifts the grain with the shovel and tosses it upward, and the wind blows and pushes the chaff far away. When there is a large pile, it is necessary to winnow with a shovel. But when the pile is not large, it is unnecessary to winnow with a shovel; rather, the wind blows through the pile and the chaff falls away by itself. In that case it does not travel far, and therefore it is unnecessary to distance it fifty cubits.

Rav Ashi said

another answer to the question, “What is the difference between the first clause and the latter clause”:

He stated it as a reason:

Why must one distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city? —

So that it will not cause damage.

The latter clause is not speaking of a different type of threshing floor. Rather, the latter clause gives the reason for the first clause: Why does the first clause state that one must distance it? Because it should not cause damage.

Meytivi

an objection from the beraita:

One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city; and just as one distances it fifty cubits from the city, so must one distance it from his gourds and cucumbers,

from the place where the gourds and cucumbers grow,

and from his neighbor’s saplings and fallow land, fifty cubits, so that it will not cause damage.

Granted, according to Rav Ashi, it is well,

since the measure of fifty cubits is stated with regard to all the matters, and the reason “so that it will not cause damage” is also stated.

But according to Abaye, it is difficult,

for it is evident from the beraita that in all the cases one must distance it fifty cubits.

And although it is possible to answer that the beraita is referring specifically to a permanent threshing floor, whereas the latter clause of the Mishna is speaking of a nonpermanent threshing floor, it is nevertheless difficult. Since it is evident from the beraita that even in its latter clause one must distance it fifty cubits, and nevertheless it states “so that it will not cause damage” in order to explain why one distances it rather than to give a different measure, the same should have been stated in the Mishna.

And the Gemara says:

It is difficult.

The difficulty remains against Abaye.

Now the Gemara explains the substance of the beraita:

Granted, with regard to his cucumbers and gourds,

it is understandable why one must distance it,

as the dust goes and enters their blossoms and withers them.

The dust of the grain, meaning the chaff, travels and falls upon the flower of the cucumbers and gourds and dries it out.

But from his fallow land, why?

Why must he distance it from his fallow land? How does the chaff harm it?!