Bava Batra 83a — the Talmud in English

For there was

an incident [a deed occurred]

there was an incident]

in Dura of the shepherds [a city of shepherds], in which one sold three trees to another, and there were not eight cubits between one tree and the other.

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, give him,

give the buyer the land if there is between one tree and the other

the measure of an ox and its implements [as wide as the place through which an ox with its implements passes].

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 “the measure of an ox and its implements” was.

When I heard that which we learned: A person may not plant a tree near 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 said,

to distance 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 said that he must distance it four cubits, which are

the measure required for working a vineyard.

And from this beraita I learned to understand the words of Rav Yehuda, and

I said: Infer from it: “the measure of an ox and its implements,”

the ox with the plow,

is four cubits

they are.

And from Rav Yehuda’s ruling one may learn that even at less than eight cubits, 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 consequently he acquired land.

And just as the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Naḥman regarding less than eight cubits, so the halakha is not in accordance with him regarding what he said, “up to sixteen cubits”; rather: How much may there be between them? From four cubits up to eight.

And we raise an objection:

But

if it is

according to Rav Yosef, did we not learn it!?

But did we not learn

in the latter clause of that Mishna brought above:

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

this is not a vineyard, and

it is permitted to bring seed there,

as Rav Yosef said.

If so, why did Abaye say to Rav Yosef: Do not dispute Rav Naḥman, since in the Mishna it was stated according to his words, when in that same Mishna a second opinion was taught according to the words of Rav Yosef

!? And we answer:

Indeed, we find in the Mishna a tanna who holds like Rav Yosef, but

even so

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

an incident is preferable: one should rely on what they ruled in practice according to the words of the first tanna, as Rabbi Yehuda related that an incident came before the Sages and they permitted the actions of that man from Tzalmon.

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 like him.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, according to Rav Yosef,

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

according to Rabbi Shimon, we hear from him

from Rabbi Shimon

“scattered”—

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

and we hear from him “closely planted”—

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

“Scattered”

we hear in Rabbi Shimon’s Mishna from

that which we said above: One who plants his vineyard eight cubits by eight is permitted to bring seed there.

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

And

“closely planted”

we hear in Rabbi Shimon’s Mishna from

that which we learned [Kilayim, chapter 5, Mishna 2]:

(Kilayim 5:2):

A vineyard planted at less than

less than

four cubits,

in which there are many vines, but there are not four cubits between one vine and its fellow.

These are “closely planted,” destined to be uprooted. Therefore this “vineyard”

is not a vineyard

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

the words of Rabbi

Shimon.

And the Sages

dispute and

say:

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

a vineyard, and we regard

we

the

vines

the middle ones as though

they have already been uprooted and

are not

before us.

We have found, then, that the measure of the distance between the trees is four cubits, and it is not necessary that there be eight cubits between this vine and its fellow.

But according to Rav Naḥman,

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

according to the Sages.

Granted,

we hear “scattered” from him, as we learned: One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits by sixteen cubits is permitted to bring seed there.

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

But

do we hear “closely planted” from him,

to say that at less than eight cubits they are like a forest destined to be uprooted? And from where does Rav Naḥman have this measure to say?

And we answer: Rav Naḥman said this on his own reasoning, for

it is logical: since for Rabbi Shimon it is half,

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

so

for the Sages as well, “closely planted” is eight cubits,

«посаженные слишком тесно» означают расстояние в восемь амот,

half of “scattered,” which is sixteen cubits.

of “scattered,” which is sixteen cubits.

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

four cubits, as in the words of Rav Yehuda in Dura of the shepherds, and sixteen cubits, as in the incident that occurred in Tzalmon.

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

But regarding “closely planted,” everyone agrees that their measure is four cubits, and we do not say: Since for Rabbi Shimon it is half, for the Sages as well it is half.

And we conclude:

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with Rava: How much

may they be close? Four cubits.

And how much may they be distant? Sixteen.

And if they were from four cubits up to sixteen—

he has acquired land,

beneath them and between them, etc.,

and

also

the trees

the small ones

that are between them.

Therefore,

even if

the tree dried up or was cut down —

he has land.

But if there was between one tree and another

less than this,

than four cubits,

or

there was between one tree and another

more than this

than sixteen cubits.

Or if he purchased them,

the three trees,

one after the other, he has acquired neither the land nor the trees that are between them.

With “closely planted,” he did not acquire the land, since the trees are destined to be uprooted, and there is no “field of trees” here

. With “scattered,” and likewise if he purchased them one after the other, he did not acquire the land, since the trees do not join one another, and each tree is considered separately; and one who purchases a single tree does not acquire land.

Therefore,

if

the tree dried up or

it

was cut down, he has no land

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

He raised a question,

he asked and was uncertain,

Rabbi Jeremiah: When he measures

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

Does he measure

from the narrow place,

which is the height of the tree’s trunk,

does he measure,

or

from the wide place,

which is near the ground,

does he measure?

Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil said

a place-name

to Rav Ashi: ta shma

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

The trunk of a vine near the ground is broad, and as the trunk rises, it becomes progressively narrower. On the trunk of a vine there are protuberances called “stoppers”.

The knee-joint of a vine

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

when they are properly distant from one another, or the status of a “single vine”—when they are “contiguous” or “scattered”,

he measures only from the base

from the second stopper

;

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

And just as when they measure among vines their distance from one another, they make an intermediate measurement, so too with all trees—they do not measure from the place where the trunk is broad, nor from its narrow place, but from the intermediate place.

He inquired,

he was uncertain,

Rabbi Yirmeya: He sold him

one tree that has

three “branches of a tree”

branches, four cubits distant from one another; the ground raised silt that covered the branches, and they took root in the ground, and at the time of the sale they appear as three separate trees,

what is the law?

Is it that since the body of the tree is one, and all three grew from it, it is therefore like one who purchases only one tree, and he does not have land?

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

Rav Gavihah of Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: ta shma

from a Mishna in Kilayim [there, Mishna 2], that each branch of a tree is considered separately, and this one acquired land:

It is the practice of owners of vines to “layer” them: one bends the middle of the vine into the ground and covers it with earth at its midpoint, and when the branch takes root in the ground, they cut it and separate it from the first one, and two vines are made.

As we learned: One who layers three vines and their bases are visible

the branch that was layered took root in the ground they are considered as six vines.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok says: If there is between them

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 one root.

And if not,

if there were less than four cubits or more than eight cubits between them,

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 as 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 he acquired land.

He inquired,

he was uncertain

, Rav Pappa: He sold him

three trees,

two

of them

within his field and one

of them

on the boundary

of the field,

what is the law?

Do they join together and he acquired land, or perhaps the tree that is on the boundary is considered to stand by itself, and since the three trees do not stand together, this is not comparable to a “field of trees,” and he did not acquire land?

And Rav Pappa further inquired: If you should say that two trees within his field and one on the boundary join together, since all three come from his property.

What will the law be 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 acquired together with the land surrounding it ,

what is the law?

Do they join one another, and the purchaser acquired the land together with the three trees, or perhaps, since the third is not standing on his land, they do not join together?

And we conclude: These two uncertainties were not resolved and remained in

teyku.