Bava Metzia 118b — the Talmud in English

And

if you say so, then

what

did the Sages say to him in the wording

“You say,”

which implies as though they challenged the position of Rabbi Yosei, that they do not come from the community’s funds; but he too held that looking at ownerless property does not acquire it, and if so, the guards did not acquire them, and it turns out that they do come from the community’s funds? Your answer is:

This is what they said to him: From your words

it is difficult

for our words,

since according to our position, if they guard them for free,

they do not come from the community’s funds. Since according to our position the Sages instituted that they be paid wages, and this one guarded them for free, it turns out that he donated his wage to the Temple treasury, and the community has no share in this wage; so how could public offerings be acquired with it?

Since according to our position the Sages instituted that they be paid wages, and this person guarded them without payment, it follows that he donated his wages to the Temple treasury. The community has no share in these wages, so how can communal offerings be purchased with them?

And likewise, when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: “Concern for strong-armed people” is the difference between them:

Mishna:

One who takes out manure into the public domain: the one taking it out takes it out, and the one fertilizing fertilizes.

That is to say: he has no permission to leave his manure in the public domain; rather, as soon as he takes it into the public domain, someone must already be ready there to take the manure to the field in order to fertilize it.

One may not soak clay in the public domain, and one may not mold bricks.

One may not place the bricks there so that they will dry in the sun in the public domain.

But one may knead clay

in order to build with it immediately,

in the public domain, but not

in order to make

bricks,

since he leaves them in the public domain until they dry. And.

The builder

of a house, who needs to use the public domain for his wood and stones,

in the public domain: the one bringing stones brings them, and the builder

receives them from his hand, and

builds

immediately. But he may not leave the stones in the public domain.

And if he caused damage, he pays for whatever damage he caused.

As explained in tractate Bava Kamma, for everyone who causes damage in the public domain, even though they are acting with the authorization of the court, is liable to pay.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: He may even prepare his work,

the one building in the public domain may prepare and arrange the needs of his work

for thirty days in advance.

And he is not liable for damages.

Gemara:

It was explained in the Mishna that a person may not leave his manure in the public domain.

And we raised the following difficulty:

Let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi

Yehuda .

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: During the time of taking out manure, a person may take out his manure into the public domain and pile it up for the entire thirty days

, so that it will be trampled by the feet of people and by the feet of animals. For on this condition Joshua apportioned the land to Israel,

so that they would not be strict about this.

And this is not in accordance with our Mishna, which forbids leaving his manure in the public domain.

And we reject this:

You may even say

even if you say that our Mishna is in accordance with

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if he caused damage, he is liable to pay.

And the Mishna gave him good advice not to leave his manure in the public domain, so that he would not become liable for its damages.

And we challenge this:

But did we not learn: Rabbi Yehuda agrees concerning a Hanukkah lamp

that one placed in the public domain and it caused damage,

that he is exempt, because he is acting with authorization.

And the Gemara infers:

What, is it not the authorization of the court?

And it is thereby established that wherever one acts with the authorization of the court, he is exempt from his damages. And this is not like our earlier statement!? We reject this:

No! It is the authorization of a mitzva.

But one who acts with the authorization of the court is liable for his damages.

And we challenge this:

But

indeed,

it was taught: All those whom they said are permitted to cause damage in the public domain, if they caused damage they are liable to pay. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts.

And it is explicitly established that Rabbi Yehuda’s position is that one who acts with the authorization of the court is exempt from his damages.

Rather, it is clear

[it is clear] that

our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, and Rabbi Shimon—all of them hold that wherever the Sages gave him permission

to leave his objects,

and he caused damage, he is exempt.

The Gemara specifies:

Rabbi Yehuda: that which we said

[mentioned above: “All those whom they said, and so forth, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts.”

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel

as we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: He may even prepare his work for thirty days in advance.

And this refers to the words of the first tanna, who said, “And if he caused damage, he pays,” and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said that not only does he not pay, but he may even prepare his work there for thirty days.

Rabbi Shimon

as we learned

in tractate Bava Batra: A person may not set up an oven inside a house unless there is an empty space above it of four cubits, from the oven to the upper story.

If he set it up in an upper story, there must be beneath it a plastered floor three handbreadths thick. And for a stove

one handbreadth.

And if it caused damage, he pays for whatever damage it caused.

Rabbi Shimon says: They stated all these measures only so that if it caused damage, he would be exempt from paying.

The Sages taught: The stonecutter

[one who hews a stone from the mountain]

who handed

the stone

to the stone-dresser

[the one who squares and smooths it], and the stone caused damage or broke,

the stone-dresser is liable

for its damages.

And likewise,

when the stone-dresser hands it to the porter

[the one who carries it to the place of construction],

the porter is liable. When the porter hands it to the shoulder-bearer,

[the porter who presents the stone to the builder],

the shoulder-bearer is liable. When the shoulder-bearer hands it to the builder, the builder is liable. When the builder hands it to the architect

[the master of the craftsmen, who directs each stone to its place],

, the architect is liable.

And even though they are all partners in this work, as will be explained—for they accepted it as contractors—in any event only the one to whom it was entrusted is liable, since it is his power; the damage rests upon him in every manner in which it occurs. For a person is always forewarned.

And if he placed a stone on the course of masonry

[the row of the building]

and it caused damage, all of them are liable to pay.

Since they are all partners in the work and jointly accepted responsibility for it.

And we challenge this:

But

indeed,

it was taught

that if he placed the stone and it caused damage,

the last one is liable and all the others are exempt?

And we answer:

This is not difficult; here

[in the beraita, where we say that the last one is liable] it is speaking

of hired labor.

And then each craftsman stands on his own. And as soon as he finishes his work, his responsibility expires.

But

here

[in the Mishna] it is speaking when they accepted responsibility

as contractors.

And they are all partners in the work, and therefore they are all responsible for its damages.

Mishna:

Two gardens, one above the other,

and there is a slope separating the two gardens,

and the vegetation

grows

in between

on that slope.

Rabbi Meir says:

The vegetation

belongs to

the

upper one.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The vegetation

belongs to

the

lower one.

Rabbi Meir said:

Behold,

if the upper one wishes to take his soil, there is no vegetation here.

And therefore he takes the vegetation.

Rabbi Yehuda said: If the lower one wishes to fill his garden, there is no vegetation here.

And therefore he takes the vegetation.

Rabbi Meir said: Since each of them can protest against the other, we see from where this vegetation draws its life,

and from the place where it grows, to the upper one it shall be given.

Rabbi Shimon said: Whatever the upper one can stretch out his hand and take is his.

And like Rabbi Meir, since it draws its life from his soil.

And the remainder belongs to the lower one.

Since the upper one renders it ownerless for the lower one, because it is disgraceful for him to request permission to enter his fellow’s domain and take it.

Gemara:

Rava said: With regard to its root

[the roots of the vegetation],

everyone agrees that it belongs to the upper one.

When they disagree

is with regard to its foliage.

The branches of the vegetation, which are nourished by the air of the lower one.

Rabbi Meir holds: “Cast”

[cast]

its foliage after its root.

And since its root belongs to the upper one, its foliage also belongs to the upper one.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not say, “Cast its foliage after its root.”

And it was likewise taught concerning buying and selling, in a similar case,

we find a dispute of this kind also concerning buying and selling:

as it was taught,

one who purchases a single tree within his fellow’s courtyard—the ground belongs to his fellow, and the tree belongs to him. Therefore, if there is another small tree

emerging from the trunk,

three handbreadths near the ground, or

from the roots, these belong to the owner of the ground. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir holds, “Cast its foliage after its root.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: That which emerges from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree; and that which emerges from the roots belongs to the owner of the ground.

For we do not say, “Cast its foliage after its root.”