Bava Batra 24b — the Talmud in English

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

The Gemara answers:

It is different there, for the majority! ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

of those who pour, are Israelites.

That case is different, because in that country the majority of those who poured wine from barrels into skins in order to sell them to wayfarers were Jews.

And this applies only to large ones, but small ones—say they fell from wayfarers.

This ruling applies specifically to large skins, for wayfarers do not ordinarily carry them, and therefore certainly they belong to those who pour, who pour into large skins and afterward pour them into the small skins of the purchasers; and the majority of those who pour are Israelites. But small skins may have fallen from wayfarers, whose practice is to carry them, and the majority of wayfarers are non-Jews; therefore they are forbidden as yayin nesekh.

And if there are large ones together with them,

if they found large skins together with small skins,

say they were placed for balancing.

All of them are permitted, for the large ones demonstrate that they belong to Jews. As for the fact that small ones are also there, which the sellers who pour do not ordinarily bring, we attribute this to their having brought them in order to balance the load of the donkey: if there are two skins on the donkey, one on this side and one on the other side, and one is slightly larger than the other and makes the load heavier on one side, they place a small skin beside the other one to balance the load.

Mishna:

One distances a tree from the city twenty-five cubits.

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

And for a carob tree and a sycamore tree,

whose branches are numerous, one must distance it

fifty cubits,

more than an ordinary tree.

Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree

is distanced from the city

fifty cubits.

For it is a disgrace to the city that there is a barren tree there.

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

If the city preceded it, it turns out that he planted the tree without permission; therefore he cuts it down, and the people of the city need not give him money.

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

If the tree preceded it, it turns out that he planted it with permission, and therefore he cuts it down so that there will not be a disgrace to the city, and the people of the city must give him money, according to what he loses through cutting down the tree.

If it is uncertain whether this preceded and it is uncertain whether that preceded, he cuts it down and does not pay money.

When it is uncertain who preceded, he must cut it down in any event, for even if the tree preceded, he must cut it down; and he does not pay money, as the Gemara explains, for the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the proof.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

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

Ulla said: On account of the beautification of the city.

It is a beautification for the city that there is an open area before it.

The Gemara asks:

But let him derive it from the fact that one does not make a field into an open area, nor an open area into a field.

Why is it necessary to resort to the reason of the beautification of the city, which applies only up to twenty-five cubits? But even without this, one must distance it one thousand cubits, because it is explained in the verses in the portion of Massei that one must leave two thousand cubits outside the city. The inner thousand are for the open area, an empty area without fields. And the outer thousand are for fields. And it is forbidden to change, to make an open area into a field or a field into an open area. The Gemara understood that a field is considered so whether there are seeds in it or whether there are trees in it; and if so, one must distance the tree one thousand cubits.

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary,

the reason of Ulla is not necessary, but

according to Rabbi Elazar, who says: One makes a field into an open area, and an open area into a field,

because he holds that the prohibition was stated specifically concerning the cities of the Levites, but in the cities of Israelites it is permitted to change.

Here, on account of the beautification of the city, we do not do so.

Here, on account of the beautification of the city, one must distance it twenty-five cubits.

And according to the Rabbis as well, who say that one does not make a field into an open area nor an open area into a field, this applies to seeds, but as for trees, we do so.

Even according to the Rabbis, who hold that it is forbidden to change and transform an open area into a field, and a field into an open area, nevertheless it is necessary to resort to the reason of Ulla, because now the Gemara introduces that a field is considered so only when there are seeds in it, but not when it is planted with trees; therefore it is permitted to plant a tree in an open area.

And here, on account of the beautification of the city, we do not.

Here, on account of the beautification of the city, one must distance it twenty-five cubits. [

And 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 the control of Israelites, but outside the Land of Israel, and likewise in the Land of Israel when it is not under the control of Israelites, this entire law does not apply].

And from where do you say that there is a difference between seeds and trees,

what is the source for distinguishing between seeds and trees?

For it was taught,

we learned in a beraita concerning carrying in a karpef on Shabbat:

A “karpef” is an open place that is not made for dwelling [living in it]; therefore the Sages decreed that it is forbidden to carry in it on Shabbat, just as it is forbidden to carry on Shabbat in a karmelit.

But if it was enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, then even if its area is more than a beit seah [the measure of two seah is one hundred cubits by fifty cubits, like the courtyard of the Tabernacle], it is permitted to carry throughout it, since it is considered a complete private domain.

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

And if there was a karpef that was enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, and afterward it was sown, the seeds nullified the designation of “dwelling” that applied to it by virtue of its having been enclosed for dwelling, because people do not dwell in a place of seeds. Therefore, if the majority of the karpef was sown and it is larger than a beit seah, even if it was not all sown, it is considered a karmelit. The details of this law are explained in Eruvin [23b].

A karpef larger than a beit seah that was enclosed for dwelling, and the majority of it was sown—behold, it is like a garden, and it is forbidden.

If the majority of it was planted, behold, it is like a courtyard, and it is permitted:

If it was planted with trees, the trees do not nullify its designation as a dwelling, and it is considered a courtyard, since it was enclosed for dwelling, and it is permitted to carry throughout it, as in every private domain.

And it is demonstrated from here that seeds nullify the designation of the courtyard that it has, whereas trees do not nullify it. And if so, the same applies concerning the designation of an “open area”: seeds nullify the designation of an open area, whereas trees do not nullify it.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

The Gemara asks:

What is different concerning a pit, where it teaches, “he cuts it down and pays money,” and what is different here, where it teaches, “he cuts it down and does not pay money”?

What is the difference between the Mishna below, concerning the requirement to distance the tree from the pit twenty-five cubits, which says that if the pit preceded, he cuts it down and the owner of the pit gives him money, whereas here, when the city preceded the tree, he cuts it down and they need not give him money?

The Gemara answers:

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

It is a parable: a pot belonging to two partners is neither hot nor cold, because each one relies on the other that he will heat it; nevertheless, in the end they heat it somewhat, and therefore it is neither hot nor cold.

The analogous matter is this: a matter imposed upon the public to perform—each one relies on his fellow and evades performing it. Therefore, here, since the Sages wanted him to cut down the tree so that it would not disgrace the city, and sometimes he is negligent in cutting it down and the people of the city must cut it down, if they had to pay money, each one would wish to evade paying until the others paid. Consequently, they would not wish to cut it down, lest the owner of the tree later sue them; and through this the tree would remain there. And since he planted it unlawfully, for the city preceded the tree, the Sages wanted the tree not to remain there; therefore they enacted that he need not pay money.

The Gemara asks:

And what is the difficulty

at all from the Mishna below, that Rav Kahana had to answer with 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 when he damages the public and when he damages an individual. Therefore, here, where he damages the public, they need not pay money, whereas below, where he damages an individual, they must give him money. If so, why did Rav Kahana not answer this?

Rather, if Rav Kahana’s statement was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause,

if we stated Rav Kahana’s statement, it necessarily refers to the latter clause of the Mishna, which teaches:

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

And seemingly there was room to raise an objection:

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 first cuts it down and afterward the people of the city give him money, and why should he not say to them, “Bring 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 people of the city are many, and each one will wait until the other begins to give, if they wait until they bring him the money, the tree will remain in the meantime for a long time. Therefore the Sages enacted that he first cuts it down, and afterward collects the money from the people of the city in court.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it is uncertain whether this preceded and it is uncertain whether that preceded, he cuts it down and does not pay money:

The Gemara asks:

What is different from a pit, concerning which you said: He may not cut it down!?

Why is the law here different from the law of the Mishna below concerning a pit and a tree? Here, because of the uncertainty, he cuts it down and does not pay money; it follows that the law of uncertainty is like a certainty that the city preceded. Whereas there, concerning a pit and a tree, when it is uncertain which preceded, he need not cut it down. It follows that uncertainty is treated like a certainty that the tree preceded the pit.

The Gemara answers:

There, since when it is certain he is not standing to be made to cut it down, in its uncertainty as well we do not say to him, “Cut it down.”

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

here, since when it is certain he is standing to be made to cut it down,

here, where even when the tree certainly preceded, he must cut it down,

we say to him, “Cut it down,”

we say to him to cut it down in any event, for even according to the possibility that the tree preceded, he must cut it down.

And as for the money, we say to him: “Bring proof, and take it!”

And when he comes to claim the money, they say to him, “Bring proof that they owe you, and take it,” for the law is that the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the proof.

Mishna:

One distances a permanent threshing floor from the city fifty cubits.

A permanent threshing floor, as the Gemara explains what a permanent threshing floor is, must be distanced from the city fifty cubits, because when he winnows the grain, the chaff is scattered up to fifty cubits and harms the people who walk there, and it also dries out the seeds that are 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 plantings and the plowed field in his fellow’s field adjoining it, unless he has fifty cubits in every direction.

And he distances it from his fellow’s plantings and from his plowed field by an amount such that it will not cause damage.

He must distance it from his fellow’s plantings and from his plowing by an amount such that it will not cause damage. And it implies that less than fifty cubits is also sufficient.

Gemara:

What is different in the first clause and what is different in 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 less, enough that it will not cause damage.

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: The latter clause comes to the case of a threshing floor that is not permanent.

The latter clause is speaking of a threshing floor that is not permanent, and therefore it is sufficient to distance it by less than fifty cubits.

But the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances of a threshing floor that is not permanent,

what is considered a threshing floor that is not permanent?

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: Any one that does not winnow with a shovel,

which is a utensil with which grain is winnowed: he raises the grain with the shovel and throws 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 not necessary to winnow with a shovel; rather, the wind blows upon the pile and the chaff falls by itself, and then it does not travel far. Therefore, it is not necessary to distance it fifty cubits.

Rav Ashi said

another answer to the question, “What is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause”:

He said, “What is the reason?”

What is the reason that one distances a permanent threshing floor from the city fifty cubits? —

So that it will not cause damage.

The latter clause is not speaking of a different situation; rather, the latter clause is the reason for the first clause: why is it written in the first clause that one must distance it? Because it should not cause damage.

Meitiví

an objection from the beraita:

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

from the place where the squashes and cucumbers grow,

and from his fellow’s plantings and his plowed field fifty cubits, so that it will not cause damage.

Granted, according to Rav Ashi, it is satisfactory,

for a measure of fifty cubits is written for all the matters, and the reason “so that it will not cause damage” is written.

But according to Abaye, it is difficult,

for it is demonstrated in the beraita that for all the matters one must distance it fifty cubits.

And although it is possible to answer that it is speaking specifically of a permanent threshing floor, whereas the latter clause of the Mishna is speaking of a threshing floor that is not permanent, nevertheless it is difficult, since it is demonstrated in the beraita that even though in the latter clause of the beraita as well one must distance it fifty cubits, nevertheless it writes “so that it will not cause damage” to explain the reason why one distances it, and not to give another measure. If so, let us say the same in the Mishna as well.

And the Gemara says:

It is difficult.

The difficulty remains against Abaye.

Now the Gemara explains the beraita itself:

Granted, concerning his squashes and his cucumbers

it is understood why one must distance it,

for the dust goes and comes into its flower and is found upon it.

For the dust of the grain—that is, the chaff—travels and falls upon the flower of the cucumbers and squashes, and dries it.

But from his plowed field, why?

Why must he distance it from his plowed field? In what way does the chaff harm it!?