Bava Metzia 118b (קיח:) — the Talmud in English

And

if you say, then

what

did the Sages say to him in the expression

“You say,”

which implies that they challenged the position of Rabbi Yosei, who says that they do not come from communal funds? But he too held that looking at an ownerless object does not effect acquisition; if so, the watchmen did not acquire them, and it turns out that they do come from communal 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 communal funds.

Since according to our position the Sages enacted that they be paid a wage, and this one guarded them for free, it follows that he donated his wage to the Temple treasury; and the community has no share in this wage. How, then, could they acquire public offerings with it?

And similarly, when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The concern about powerful individuals is the difference between them:

Mishna:

One who brings manure into the public domain: The one who brings it brings it, and the one who fertilizes fertilizes.

That is, he has no permission to leave his manure in the public domain. Rather, as soon as he brings it into the public domain, he must have someone ready there to convey the manure to the field for fertilizing it.

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

One may not leave 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.

One who builds

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

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

receives them from his hand, and

builds

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

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

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

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

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

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 a difficulty:

Shall we say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi

Yehuda ?

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: During the time when manure is brought out, a person may take his manure into the public domain and pile it up for thirty days

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

so that people would not be particular about this.

This is not in accordance with our Mishna, which prohibits 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 causes damage, he is liable to pay.

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

And we raise an objection:

But didn’t we learn: Rabbi Yehuda agrees with regard to a Hanukkah lamp

that one placed in the public domain and that caused damage

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

And the Gemara infers:

What, is this not authorization of the court?

It is thus indicated that wherever one acts with the authorization of the court, he is exempt from damages. This is not as we said above. And we reject this:

No; it is authorization due to a mitzva.

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

And we raise another objection:

But

isn’t it

it was taught in a baraita: In all these cases in which they said that one is permitted to cause damage in the public domain, if he causes damage, he must pay; and Rabbi Yehuda exempts him.

It is explicitly indicated that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who acts with the authorization of the court is exempt from 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 Gamliel, and Rabbi Shimon all hold that wherever the Sages granted him permission

to leave his possessions,

and they caused damage, he is exempt.

The Gemara specifies:

Rabbi Yehuda: This is the statement we cited

[mentioned above: “In all these cases in which they said, etc., and Rabbi Yehuda exempts him”].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

as we learned

in our Mishna:

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

This refers to the statement of the first tanna, who said, “And if he causes damage, he pays,” and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says 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 place an oven inside a house unless there is an empty space four cubits high above it, between the oven and the upper story.

If he places it in the upper story, there must be plasterwork three handbreadths thick beneath it. And for a small oven—

one handbreadth.

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

Rabbi Shimon says: They stated all these measurements only so that, if it causes damage, he is exempt from paying.

The Sages taught: The stonecutter

[one who hews a stone from the mountain]

who hands

the stone

to the stone dresser

[who squares and smooths it], and the stone causes damage or breaks,

the stone dresser is liable

for its damage.

And likewise,

when the stone dresser hands it to the carrier

[who transports it to the building site]

, the carrier is liable. When the carrier hands it to the shoulder-carrier

[the porter who brings the stone to the builder]

, the shoulder-carrier is liable. When the shoulder-carrier 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.

Although they all participate in this work, as will be explained, since they accepted it as contractors, nevertheless only the one to whom it was entrusted is liable. Since the damage is within his power, liability for it rests upon him regardless of how it occurs, for a person is always forewarned.

And if he placed a stone upon the course of the building

[the row of stones in the building]

and it caused damage, they are all liable to pay.

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

And we raise an objection:

But

isn’t it

it was taught in a baraita

that if he placed the stone and it caused damage,

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

And we answer:

It is not difficult; here

[in the baraita, where we say that the last one is liable,] it is referring

to hired labor.

In that case, each craftsman stands on his own, and as soon as he completes his work, his responsibility ends.

But

here

[in the Mishna] it is referring to a case in which they accepted the work

as contractors.

They all participate in the work, and therefore they are all responsible for its damages.

Mishna:

Two gardens, one above the other,

with a slope separating the two gardens,

and the vegetables

grow

in between

on that slope.

Rabbi Meir says: The vegetables

The vegetable

belong to

the

upper

one.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The vegetables

belong to

the

lower

one.

Rabbi Meir said:

If the upper owner wishes to take away his soil, there will be no vegetables here.

Therefore, he takes the vegetables.

Rabbi Yehuda said: If the lower owner wishes to fill in his garden, there will be no vegetables here.

Therefore, he should take the vegetables.

Rabbi Meir said: Since each of them can protest against the other, we see from where these vegetables draw their nourishment,

and they are given to the upper owner, from whose soil they grow.

Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the upper owner can reach out his hand and take belong to him.

This is like Rabbi Meir, since they draw nourishment from his soil.

And the rest belongs to the lower owner.

Since the upper owner relinquishes it to the lower owner because it is degrading for him to ask permission to enter his fellow’s property and take it.

Gemara:

Rava said: With regard to the roots

[of the vegetables],

everyone agrees that they belong to the upper owner.

When they disagree—

with regard to the foliage.

The branches of the vegetables, which are nourished by the lower owner’s airspace.

Rabbi Meir holds: Cast

[throw]

the foliage after the roots.

Since the roots belong to the upper owner, the foliage likewise belongs to the upper owner.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not say, Cast the foliage after the roots.

And it was likewise taught with regard to buying and selling, in a similar case,

a dispute of this kind is also found with regard to buying and selling:

as it was taught:

One who purchases a single tree situated within his fellow’s courtyard—the land belongs to his fellow, while the tree belongs to him—then, if another small tree

emerges from the trunk

within three handbreadths of the ground,

or from the roots, these belong to the owner of the land. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir holds: “Cast the foliage after the roots.”

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 land.

For we do not say, “Cast the foliage after the roots.”