Bava Batra 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

When the cover of the jug moves at its mouth.

When the cover of the jug placed over the mouth of the jug moves, while the jug is positioned on the wall.

In the house of bar Marion, son of Ravin, when they beat flax,

when they beat the flax,

the chaff would go and damage people,

the flax chaff would be carried along and injure people.

They came before Ravina

to have him rule the matter for them.

He said to them: When we say that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, this applies only when it is carried along by his force. Here, it is the wind that carries it.

He said to them: When we said that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, that applies specifically when the damage comes by his force, in which case it is considered as though he shot arrows into another person’s domain. Here, however, it is the wind that carries the chaff, and it is not considered to have come by his force.

Mar bar Rav Ashi challenged this:

How is this different from winnowing, where the wind assists him,

how does this differ from the labor of winnowing on Shabbat? Although the wind assists him, since the labor is accomplished by the wind separating the chaff from the grain, nevertheless the Torah considers the person to have performed the labor and holds him liable for it. This proves that what the wind does through his agency is considered his action.

They stated this challenge before Marimar.

They presented this objection to Marimar.

He said to them: This is indeed like winnowing

where the wind assists him.

Here, too, it is indeed comparable to winnowing where the wind assists him, and what the wind does in pushing the flax chaff is considered his force.

The Gemara discusses his statement:

And according to Ravina, how is this different from a spark that emerges from beneath a hammer and causes damage, for which one is liable to pay?

How does this differ from what we learned: If a spark emerges from beneath a hammer when one strikes another piece of iron, and this spark damages another person’s property, he is liable to pay. There, too, the wind carried the spark; why is this considered his action, rendering him liable to pay for it?

[The reason the Gemara does not ask what Ravina would answer regarding the objection from winnowing where the wind assists him is that one could answer that the law of Shabbat differs from the laws of damages. With regard to Shabbat, the Torah prohibited a deliberate labor; therefore, whenever one intends for a labor to be performed, even if it does not come by his force but through the wind, the Torah holds him liable for it. This is not so with regard to damages, where the action must actually come by his force. But regarding a spark that emerges from beneath a hammer, which concerns damages, the Gemara raises its objection.]

The Gemara answers:

There, he is pleased that it should go,

in the case of the spark, he wants it to travel far away so that it will not burn his house, but

here, he is not pleased that it should go.

Here, he does not want the chaff to travel far away; rather, he wants it to fall onto the ground.

Mishna:

A person may not plant a tree near his fellow’s field unless he distances it four cubits from it; both grapevines and every other tree.

Whether grapevines or other trees, and the reason is explained in the Gemara.

If there was a fence between them, this one may rely on the fence from here, and that one may rely on the fence from there.

He need not distance it four cubits, since the fence intervenes.

If roots extended into

the field

of his fellow, he digs down three handbreadths so that they will not obstruct the plow.

The owner of the field may cut the roots to a depth of three handbreadths in the ground, so that the roots will not obstruct his plowing.

If he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward, and the wood is his.

If he wishes to dig a cistern, ditch, or cave, he may cut even deeper than three handbreadths, according to the requirements of the cistern, ditch, or cave. And the statement that the wood is “his” is explained in the Gemara: Is it the owner of the tree’s, or the owner of the field into which the roots extended?

Gemara:

It was taught: The four cubits that they stated are for the work of the vineyard.

The reason one must distance it four cubits is so that he will not bring his plow into his fellow’s field. Therefore, he must distance it four cubits, so that there will be room for the plow and for him to stand there as well.

Shmuel said: They taught

that one must distance it four cubits

only in Eretz Yisrael; but in Babylonia, two cubits.

Because their plows were shorter than those in Eretz Yisrael.

It was taught likewise in a beraita,

we learned the same in a beraita:

A person may not plant a tree near his fellow’s field unless he distances it two cubits from it.

The Gemara infers:

But we learned in the Mishna four cubits,

for we learned in the Mishna four cubits, not two cubits,

rather, is it not in accordance with Shmuel? Conclude from it.

Rather, it is necessarily to be resolved in accordance with Shmuel.

And there is another version in which they posed it as a direct contradiction,

there were those who learned that they first raised the following difficulty in the beit-midrash:

We learned,

we learned in our Mishna

that a person may not plant a tree near his fellow’s field unless he distances it four cubits from it. But was it not taught in a beraita that two cubits suffice?

For we learned in the beraita that two cubits suffice?

And concerning this, he answers:

Shmuel said: It is not difficult; here it is in Babylonia, and there it is in Eretz Yisrael.

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan had these palm trees

along the boundary of Rav Yosef’s orchard,

he had palm trees near the boundary of Rav Yosef’s orchard, that is, his vineyard,

and birds would come, sit in the palm trees, then descend into the orchard and damage it,

birds would come and sit in the palm trees, and afterward descend into Rav Yosef’s orchard and damage it, either by eating from it or by fouling it.

He said to him: Go cut them down,

Rav Yosef told Rava to cut down the palm trees,

He said to him,

Rava replied:

But I distanced them from you,

I distanced them four cubits, as the measure stated in the Mishna.

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to him:

That applies to trees, but with regard to grapevines, we require more.

Four cubits suffice only for ordinary trees, but with regard to grapevines one must distance them farther, because the palm trees are taller than grapevines, and it is easier for birds to fly from the taller trees to the lower grapevines.

Rava asked him:

But we learned in the Mishna: Both grapevines and every other tree,

and if so, how can one say that grapevines require a measure greater than four cubits?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to him:

That applies to a tree beside a tree, and grapevines beside grapevines. But for a tree beside grapevines, we require more.

Specifically, when one plants a tree beside a tree, or grapevines beside grapevines, it suffices to distance them four cubits. But if one plants a tree beside grapevines, he must distance it farther, because the tree is taller than the grapevines, and birds come from the tree to the grapevines.

He said to him,

Rava said to him:

I will not cut it down,

I will not cut it down because

Rav said: A palm tree that produces a kav is forbidden to cut down.

A palm tree that produces a kav of dates, meaning that a kav of dates grows on it, is forbidden to cut down because of the prohibition of “Do not destroy.”

And Rabbi Ḥanina said

that he himself was punished because he violated the prohibition of “Do not destroy”:

My son Shakḥat did not die,

my son, whose name was “Shakḥat,” did not die

except

because

he cut down a fig tree before its time.

He cut down a fig tree before its time, meaning that it was still producing fruit. Therefore, there is also danger in cutting it down, and so

Master, if it is agreeable to him, let him cut it down.

My master, if it is agreeable to him that he cut it down, let him do so.

Rav Pappa had these palm trees along the boundary of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

Rav Pappa had palm trees near the boundary of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.

He went and found him digging and cutting their roots.

Rav Pappa went and found Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, digging and cutting the roots of the tree that had spread into his field.

He said to him: What is this?

Rav Pappa asked Rav Huna why he was doing this.

He said to him,

Rav Huna replied to Rav Pappa:

We learned: If

roots extend into another’s field, he digs down three handbreadths so that they will not obstruct the plow.

That is why he was cutting the roots.

He said to him: That applies to three,

Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: It is written that he may dig down three handbreadths, but no farther, whereas

you are digging deeper.

My master, you are digging more than three handbreadths and cutting there.

He said to him: I am digging cisterns, ditches, and caves,

Rav Huna answered that he was digging cisterns, ditches, and caves, and in such a case it is permitted to cut even deeper than three handbreadths, according to the requirements of the excavation.

As we learned: If he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward, and the wood is his.

It does not state specifically three handbreadths, implying that even more than three handbreadths is permitted.

Rav Pappa said: I presented all the arguments to him, but I could not overcome him!

Rav Pappa said: I argued and brought all the proofs against Rav Huna so that he would not cut the roots, but I could not defeat him, because Rav Huna kept refuting the proofs.