Bava Batra 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

For

there was an incident

there was an incident]

in Dura de-Ra'ata

a town of shepherds: one person sold three trees to another, and there were not eight cubits between one tree and the next.

And they came before Rav Yehuda, and he said to him

Rav Yehuda said to the seller:

Go and give him

give the buyer the land, if there is between one tree and the next

enough room for an ox and its implements

the width of the space through which an ox with its implements can pass.

Rav Yosef added

and

said:

I did not know how much “enough room for an ox and its implements” was.

Once I heard that which we learned: A person may not plant a tree adjacent to his fellow’s field unless he distances it from it,

from the field,

four cubits.

And it was taught concerning it

in a beraita:

The four cubits that they stated

for distancing the tree from the field are so that when the owner of the tree plows around his tree, his plow will not pass through his fellow’s field. Therefore, the Sages stated that he must distance it by four cubits, which are

the space required for working a vineyard.

And from this beraita I learned to understand Rav Yehuda’s statement, and

I said: Infer from it: “enough room for an ox and its implements”

the ox together with the plow,

is four cubits

in size.

And from Rav Yehuda’s ruling one can learn that even when there are fewer than eight cubits between them, the three trees are not considered excessively close and destined to be uprooted, as Rav Naḥman said. Rather, there is a “field of trees” here, and therefore the buyer acquired land.

And just as the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Naḥman with regard to fewer than eight cubits, so too is the halakha not in accordance with him in what he said, “up to sixteen cubits.” Rather, how far apart may they be? From four cubits up to eight.

And we raise an objection:

A

ccording to

Rav Yosef, did we not also learn this?

But didn’t we learn

in the latter clause of that same Mishna cited above:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: One who plants his vineyard eight cubits by eight

does not have a vineyard, and

it is permitted to sow seed there,

in accordance with Rav Yosef’s opinion.

If so, why did Abaye say to Rav Yosef: Do not disagree with Rav Naḥman, since the Mishna states in accordance with his opinion, when that same Mishna contains a second opinion in accordance with Rav Yosef’s opinion?!

And we answer:

Although we find a tanna in the Mishna who holds in accordance with Rav Yosef,

even so

it is reasonable to rule in accordance with the first tanna, who holds in accordance with Rav Naḥman, since

an actual incident is preferable.

One should rely on the ruling that was issued in practice in accordance with the first tanna, as Rabbi Yehuda related that an incident came before the Sages and they permitted the actions of that man from Zalmon.

Therefore Abaye challenged Rav Yosef from this Mishna, even though Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon hold in accordance with him.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, according to Rav Yosef,

who says: From four cubits up to eight, and he holds

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon; we learn from him

from Rabbi Shimon

“scattered”

when the trees do not combine with one another because of their distance,

and we learn from him “crowded”

when the trees are excessively close to one another and are considered a forest destined to be uprooted.

“Scattered”

we learn in Rabbi Shimon’s Mishna from

that which we said

above: One who plants his vineyard eight cubits by eight cubits may sow seed there.

And

“crowded”

we learn in Rabbi Shimon’s Mishna from that

which we learned

(Kilayim 5:2):

A vineyard planted less

than

four cubits apart,

that contains many vines, but there are not four cubits between one vine and the next.

These are “crowded” and destined to be uprooted. Therefore this

is not a vineyard

with regard to the prohibition of kilayim; rather, it is considered a “forest” —

the words of Rabbi

Shimon.

And the Sages

disagree and

say:

Not all the vines are destined to be uprooted, but only the middle ones. Once the middle ones are uprooted, there will be four cubits between each vine and the next. Therefore, this is

a vineyard, and we view

the

the

vines

in the middle as though

they had already been uprooted and

are not

before us.

We have therefore found that the required distance between the trees is four cubits, and it is not necessary for there to be eight cubits between this vine and the next.

But according to Rav Naḥman,

who says: From eight cubits up to sixteen, and he holds

in accordance with the Sages,

granted that

we learn from him “scattered”

as we learned: One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits by sixteen cubits may sow seed there.

But

do we learn from him “crowded”

to say that when there are fewer than eight cubits between them, they are like a forest destined to be uprooted? From where does Rav Naḥman derive this measure?!

And we answer: Rav Naḥman stated this on his own basis, for

it is a logical inference: Since according to Rabbi Shimon it is half,

just as according to Rabbi Shimon “crowded” is four cubits, half of “scattered,” which is eight cubits,

so too

according to the Sages “crowded” is eight cubits,

half

of “scattered,” which is sixteen cubits.

Rava said: The halakha is from four cubits up to sixteen,

four cubits, in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s ruling in Dura de-Ra'ata, and sixteen cubits, in accordance with the actual incident that occurred in Zalmon.

According to Rava, the Sages and Rabbi Shimon disagree only with regard to “scattered”: the Sages say sixteen, and Rabbi Shimon says eight, and the halakha is in accordance with the Sages.

But with regard to “crowded,” everyone agrees that their measure is four cubits. We do not say: Since according to Rabbi Shimon it is half, according to the Sages too it is half.

And we conclude:

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with Rava’s opinion: How

close may they be? Four cubits.

And how far apart may they be? Sixteen.

And if they were from four cubits up to sixteen

he acquires land,

beneath them and between them, etc.,

and

also

the trees

that are small

between them.

Therefore,

even if

the tree dried up or was cut down —

he has land.

But if there was between one tree and the next

less than this,

four cubits,

or

if there was between one tree and the next

more than this

sixteen cubits,

or if he purchased them,

the three trees,

one after the other, he did not acquire either the land or the trees between them.

In the case of “crowded” trees, he did not acquire the land, since the trees are destined to be uprooted, and there is no “field of trees” here.

In the case of “scattered” trees, and likewise if he purchased them one after the other, he did not acquire the land, since the trees do not combine with one another, and each tree is considered independently; one who purchases a single tree does not acquire land.

Therefore,

if

the tree dried up or

was

cut down, he has no land

to plant another tree in its place. But as long as the tree exists, the seller cannot remove it from there, because the land is subordinated to all the tree’s needs until it dies or is cut down there.

He raised a dilemma,

asked and was uncertain,

, Rabbi Yirmeya: When he measures

the distance between the trees, in order to determine whether they are not “crowded” or “scattered,” from where does he measure?

Does he measure

from the narrow place

where it is—the height of the tree’s trunk,

does he measure,

or

from the wide place

where it is—near the ground,

does he measure?

Rav Geḥaya of Bei Katil

a place-name

said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

from a Mishna in Kilayim [chapter 7, Mishna 1]:

The trunk of a vine is wide near the ground, and as the trunk rises, it gradually becomes narrower. The trunk of a vine has protuberances called “knobs.”

The knee-like bend in a vine

a young vine that was grafted onto an old vine, when one measures the distance between the vines in order to determine whether the vines have the status of a vineyard

when they are properly distanced from one another, or the status of individual vines—when they are “close together” or “scattered”—

one measures only from the base

of the second knob

;

not from the first base, which is wider, nor from the third, which is much narrower, but from the intermediate one.

Just as, when measuring the distance between vines, one measures an intermediate measurement, so too, with regard to all trees, one does not measure from the widest part of the trunk or from its narrowest part, but from the intermediate part.

He inquired,

he raised the following uncertainty,

Rabbi Yirmeya: If he sold him

one tree that had

three “branches of a tree”

branches four cubits distant from one another; the soil had accumulated silt that covered the branches, and they took root in the ground, and at the time of the sale they appeared to be three separate trees,

what is the halakha?

Is it the case that since the body of the tree is one, and all three grew from it, this is like one who purchased only one tree, and he does not acquire land?

Or perhaps, since the branches took root in the ground, each one is like a complete tree, and he acquires land?

Rav Geḥaya of Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

from a Mishna in Kilayim [there, Mishna 2], which indicates that each branch of a tree is considered independently, and therefore he acquires land:

It is customary among vine-growers to “layer” vines: one bends the middle of the vine into the ground and covers its middle with soil; and when the branch takes root in the ground, one cuts and separates it from the original vine, and two vines result.

As we learned in a Mishna: One who layers three vines, and their bases are visible

the layered branch has taken root in the ground they are considered six vines.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the distance between them is

no less than

four cubits and up to eight

cubits at most, they

join together

with one another, and the six vines have the status of a vineyard, even though every two vines draw nourishment from a single root.

And if not,

if the distance between them was less than four cubits or greater than eight cubits,

they do not join together

to be considered a vineyard; rather, they are considered individual vines.

And just as, with regard to the status of a vineyard, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, considers them two vines even though their root is one, so too, with regard to buying and selling: if he sold him three branches of a tree, it is like one who sells three trees, and the purchaser acquires land.

He inquired,

he raised the following uncertainty

, Rav Pappa: If he sold him

three trees,

two

of them

within his field and one

of them

on the boundary

of the field,

what is the halakha?

Do they join together and he acquires land, or perhaps the tree standing on the boundary is considered to stand independently, and since the three trees do not stand together, this is not analogous to “a field of trees,” and he does not acquire land?

Rav Pappa further raised an uncertainty: If you should say that two trees within his field and one on the boundary join together because all three derive from his property,

what is the law when the trees were

two within his property

at the edge of his field,

and

another tree

one,

adjacent to his trees,

within his fellow’s property,

which the seller had acquired together with the land surrounding it ,

what is the halakha?

Do they join together with one another, and does the purchaser acquire the land together with the three trees, or perhaps, since the third does not stand on his land, they do not join together?

And we conclude: These two uncertainties were not resolved, and they remain at

teiku.