Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 18a

SALT, LIME, AND FLINT STONES AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL OR PLASTER THEM OVER. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary?¹  — No; even if there is no wall, he still may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL' here tell us? — It tells us that these things are injurious to a Wall.

SEEDS, PLOUGH FURROWS AND URINE SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary? — No; even if there is no wall he may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL here tell us? — It tells us that moist things are bad for a wall.

Come and hear: MILL-STONES SHOULD BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE UPPER STONE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE LOWER STONE. The reason is that there is a wall, and if there is no wall he may bring them close up? — No; even if there is no wall, he may not bring them close up. What then does this tell us? — It tells us that the shaking [caused by turning the millstones] is bad for the wall.

Come and hear: AN OVEN SHOULD BE KEPT AWAY THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE FOOT OF THE BASE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE TOP OF THE BASE. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring it close Up? — No; even if there is no wall he may not bring it close up. What then does this tell us? — That the heat [from the oven] is bad for the wall.

Come and hear: A man may not open a bakery or a dyer's workshop under another person's storehouse²  nor make a cowshed there.³  The reason is that there is a storehouse there, but if there is no storehouse, he may, [may he not]?⁴  — A place where persons can live⁵  is different. This is indicated by the Baraitha taught in connection with this Mishnah: 'If the cowshed was there before the granary, he is permitted to keep it.'⁶

Come and hear: A man should not plant a tree nearer than four cubits to his neighbour's field. Now it has been taught in reference to this that the four cubits here mentioned are to allow space for the work of the vineyard.⁷  The reason then is that there should be space for the work of the vineyard. but were it not for this he would be allowed to plant close up, [would he not,] although the tree has roots which can injure the other's field?⁸  — We are dealing here with the case where there is a piece of hard rock between.⁹  This is further indicated by the fact that the passage goes on: 'If there is a fence between,¹⁰  each one can plant close up to the fence on his own side.'¹¹  If that is so,¹²  what do you make of the next clause: 'If the roots of his tree spread into his neighbour's field, he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they should not impede the plough'?¹¹  Now if there is hard rock between, how can the roots get there? — What the passage means is this: If there is no hard rock between and the roots spread into his neighbour's field, then he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so as not to impede the plough. Come and hear: A tree [in one man's field] must be kept twenty five cubits from a pit [in another man's field]. The reason is that there is a pit; if there is no pit, he may plant close up? — No; even if there is no pit he may not plant close up, and this statement teaches us that up to twenty-five cubits the roots are liable to spread and injure the pit. If that is so, what do you make of the next clause: 'If the tree was there already, he is not required to cut it down'? Now if he may not plant close up, how can you apply this statement?¹³  — As R. papa said in another connection, 'in the case of a purchase;'¹⁴  so here, in the case of a purchase.¹⁵

Come and hear: Water in which flax is steeped must be kept at a distance from vegetables. and leeks from onions, and mustard from a beehive.¹⁶  The reason is that there are vegetables there; otherwise he may bring them close up [to the boundary]? — No; even if there are no vegetables he may not bring them close up, and what this statement teaches us is that these things are bad for one another. If that is so, what of the next clause: R. Jose declares it permissible in the case of mustard; [and it has been taught in reference to this, that the reason is]¹⁷  because the sower can say to his neighbour. 'Just as you can tell me to remove my mustard from your bees, I can tell you to remove your bees from my mustard, because they come and eat the stalks of my mustard plants'?¹⁸

1. Tosaf, asks here, how can we argue from these things to a pit, seeing that they do not injure the soil, and Raba might well allow them to be brought close up while disallowing the pit? The answer given is (a) that they also make the soil on the other side less suitable for a pit; (b) that it may be inconvenient for the man who wants to dig the pit to wait till they have been removed. The same would apply to the next three difficulties raised by the Gemara, which are all addressed to Raba.
2. An upper storey for storing corn, wine and oil. The reason is that the heat from the bakery or the smoke from the workshop is bad for them.
3. Because the smell is bad for the things above, v. infra 25b.
4. Tosef. B.B. I. Notwithstanding that the owner of the upper storey might subsequently decide to turn it into a storehouse. Similarly in the case of the pit, we should think that it may be dug close up to the boundary so long as there is not a pit on the other side.
5. Because all these places can be used for human habitation; hence we do not forbid them on account of a problematical damage which may arise from them.
6. Whereas in the case of the lime, etc., it does not say that it is permitted to keep them there. This is taken by Raba as an indication that a cowshed, as well as similar places that can be used for human habitation (v. Tosaf.), is on a different footing from the lime, etc.
7. To plough round it or to stand the waggon at harvest time. This applies not only to a vine but to any tree, only the passage quoted happens to speak of vines.
8. Similarly the pit should be allowed to be dug close up to the boundary, although it may injure the land on the other side. The argument is again against Raba.
9. Which would prevent the roots from spreading. Hence there is no analogy between this case and that of the pit.
10. Which makes it impossible for the one working in his vineyard to trespass on the field of the other. According to another reading (which seems preferable), we should translate: 'Come and hear: If there is a fence … on his side.' — Here too we assume that there is hard rock between.
11. Infra 26a.
12. I.e., that there is hard rock between.
13. If, on the other hand, it was planted there illegally, why should it not be cut down?
14. V. infra.
15. I.e., if a man planted a tree in his field and then sold half of the field, not containing the tree, and the purchaser dug a pit within 25 cubits of the tree, the original owner is not required to cut it down.
16. Infra 25a. Rashi explains that the bees taste the mustard and then eat their honey to take away the sharpness.
17. The bracketed part is omitted in our printed texts.
18. And you are as liable to damage me as I am you.

Now if a man is not allowed to bring these things close up to the boundary, in what conditions could such a remark be made?¹  R. Papa answered: In the case of a purchaser.²  But if we are speaking of a purchaser, what reason have the Rabbis for prohibiting?³  Also, why does R. Jose permit only in the case of the mustard? Why not the water and the leeks also? — Rabina replied: The Rabbis hold that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself.⁴  We may infer from this that in the opinion of R. Jose it is incumbent on the one who suffers the damage to remove himself, and if that is so, then he should permit flax — water to be placed close to vegetables?⁵  — The truth is that R. Jose also holds that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself, and he argued with the Rabbis as follows: I grant you are right in the case of the flax water and the vegetables, because the former harms the latter but not vice versa, but the case is different with bees and mustard, because both are harmful to one another. What have the Rabbis to say to this? — That bees do no harm to mustard; the grains they cannot find, and, if they eat the leaves, they grow again.

But does R. Jose in fact hold that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself? Have we not learnt: 'R. Jose says: Even if the pit was there before the tree, the tree need not be cut down, because the one owner digs in his property and the other plants in his'?⁶  — The truth is that R. Jose holds it to be incumbent on the one who suffers the damage to remove himself, and here he was arguing with the Rabbis on their own premises. thus: 'In my view the one who suffers the damage has to remove himself, and therefore in this case it is not necessary to remove even the flax-water from the vegetables. But on your view that the one who inflicts the damage must remove himself, I grant you are right in the case of the flax-water and the vegetables, because the former injures the latter but not vice-versa. But this does not apply to bees and mustard, where both injure one another.' To which the Rabbis can reply that bees do not injure mustard; the grains

1. I.e., the man who says this virtually admits that the other had a perfect right to bring his bees close up to the boundary before he sowed his mustard.
2. I.e., after he placed flax — water or sowed mustard in his field, he sold the other half, and the purchaser sowed vegetables or put a beehive close to the boundary. But otherwise, according to Raba, the mustard and the bees would have to be removed from the boundary.
3. Why should the seller have to remove his bees or mustard, seeing that when he placed them there he was perfectly within his rights?
4. I.e. the article causing the damage. Hence, since the seller's property is causing the damage he must remove it, although he had a right to place it there at first. Rabbenu Tam here adopts the reading of R. Han. [H] '"The truth is." said Rabina…' Rabina's answer would then not be in support of Raba, but would involve the abandonment of all the defences made on behalf of Raba above, and an admission that, according to the Rabbis, such articles as lime, tree roots, etc. can be brought close up to the boundary so long as there is at the time nothing to injure on the other side, the only exception being the pit, because the digging of it injures the soil on the other side.
5. And the owner of the former can say to the owner of the latter, 'It is for you to remove them if they are being injured.'
6. Infra 25b.