Rava and Abaye debate whether one can dig a pit right near the border of another if, on the other side of the border, there is no pit right now – or does one need to be concerned that one may want to dig a pit there in the future. Abaye says he is allowed to and Rava disagrees. Eight questions from our Mishna and the upcoming mishnayot in the chapter are brought to question Rava’s opinion. Each question is resolved (many of them in an identical manner).
Bava Batra 18
07.12.2024 | ו׳ בתמוז תשפ״ד
Share this shiur:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Bava Batra 18
הַמֶּלַח, וְאֶת הַסִּיד, וְאֶת הַסְּלָעִים מִכּוֹתְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, אוֹ סָד בְּסִיד. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סוֹמֵךְ!
salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or he can plaster the wall with lime. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall there belonging to his neighbor, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall there, one may place these substances close to the boundary of his neighbor’s courtyard. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rava according to the first version of the dispute, which states that one may not place these substances close to a boundary even in the case of a field that is not designated for pits.
לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ לְכוֹתֶל.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall one may also not place these substances close to the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does mentioning a wall here teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that all these substances are damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִים אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, וְאֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה, וְאֶת מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דִּמְתוּנְתָּא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: One must distance seeds, and the plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall of another. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place these substances close to the boundary of the field. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place these substances close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that dampness [dimtunta] is damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאֶת הָרֵיחַיִם – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁכֶב שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הָרֶכֶב. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּטִירְיָיא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And one must distance a mill from a wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place a mill close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his mill close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that vibrations are damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאֶת הַתַּנּוּר – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַכִּלְיָא שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הַשָּׂפָה. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. אֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהַבְלָא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And the oven must be distanced three handbreadths from the base, which is four handbreadths from the upper rim of the oven. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place an oven close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his oven close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that heat is damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא אוֹצָר, הָא לֵיכָּא אוֹצָר – עָבֵיד!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (20b): A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the wine storeroom of another, nor may one open a cattle barn there. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The reason for this ruling is that there is a storeroom already in place, from which it may be inferred that if there is no storeroom one may do so. If this is the case, then with regard to a pit as well, one may dig next to a boundary if there is as yet no pit.
דִּירָה שָׁאנֵי. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אִם הָיְתָה רֶפֶת בָּקָר קוֹדֶמֶת לָאוֹצָר – מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answers: The case of a residence is different, as in general one can use his domicile in any manner of his choosing unless he directly causes damage to another or his property. The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as an explicit baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: If the construction of the cattle barn preceded the storeroom, it is permitted. Nothing can be inferred from the case of the baraita with regard to the halakha of the mishna, which does not concern living quarters.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִטַּע אָדָם אִילָן סָמוּךְ לַשָּׂדֶה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (26a): A person may not plant a tree close to another’s field unless he distances it four cubits from his neighbor. And it is taught with regard to this mishna: The four cubits of which the Sages spoke are to enable the work of the vineyard, i.e., a small space next to the trees is necessary to enable animals to plow between them.
טַעְמָא דְּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם, הָא לָאו מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם – סָמֵיךְ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא שׇׁרָשִׁין דְּקָא מַזְּקִי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא.
The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason this distance is required is due to the work of the vineyard, from which it may be inferred that if not for the problem due to the work of the vineyard, it would be permitted for one to plant his tree close to the boundary, and apparently, this is the halakha even though there are roots of the tree that damage his neighbor’s field. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where a hard rock [tzunema] interrupts between the two fields, preventing the roots from passing through to the other field.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: הָיָה גָּדֵר בֵּינָתַיִם – זֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן, וְזֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן.
The Gemara continues: The language of the mishna is also precise with regard to this point, as it teaches further on: If there was a fence between them, this one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here, and that one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here. If the baraita were referring to a case where the roots could travel across, how could it be permitted for both neighbors to plant their trees alongside each other? Consequently, it must be referring to a situation where a rock separates between the two fields below, and therefore the neighbors may plant their trees near the fence.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הָיוּ שׇׁרָשָׁיו יוֹצְאִין בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַעֲמִיק לָהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה. וְאִי דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא, מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְאִי לָאו צוּנְמָא, וְהָיוּ שׇׁרָשָׁיו יוֹצְאִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַעֲמִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה.
The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they do not impede the plow. The Gemara asks: But if a rock interrupts between the two fields and forms a barrier, what are these roots doing there, i.e., how did they get there? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: And if there is no rock, and the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths so that they do not impede the plow.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָאִילָן מִן הַבּוֹר עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹר, הָא לֵיכָּא בּוֹר – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא בּוֹר נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ, וְהָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּעַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה, אָזְלִי שׇׁרָשִׁים וּמַזְּקִי לְבוֹר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: The reason for this ruling is that there is a cistern, from which it may be inferred that if there is no cistern, one may place, i.e., plant, his tree close to the neighbor’s field. The Gemara answers: No, even when there is no cistern one may also not place it close to the neighbor’s field. And by mentioning a cistern, the tanna of the mishna teaches us this: That the roots of a tree extend and damage the cistern up to a distance of twenty-five cubits away.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְאִם אִילָן קָדַם – לֹא יָקוֹץ. וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ; הָכִי נָמֵי בְּלוֹקֵחַ.
The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: And if the tree preceded the cistern, one is not required to cut down the tree. But if one may not place the tree close to the boundary even if there is no cistern, how can you find a case where the tree preceded the cistern? Why would its owner not be required to cut it down? The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa says with regard to a similar matter, that it is referring to a buyer who purchases part of a field. So too here, it is referring to a buyer. In other words, a field contained a cistern and tree alongside each other, and the owner sold the part of the field containing the cistern.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַמִּשְׁרָה מִן הַיָּרָק, וְאֶת הַכְּרֵישִׁין מִן הַבְּצָלִין, וְאֶת הַחַרְדָּל מִן הַדְּבוֹרִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא יָרָק, הָא לֵיכָּא יָרָק – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא יָרָק נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ; וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ אַהֲדָדֵי.
The Gemara cites yet another source: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25a): One must distance the water in which flax is steeped from vegetables growing in a neighbor’s field, and one must distance leeks from onions growing in a neighbor’s field, and one must likewise distance mustard from bees that are in a neighbor’s field. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason is that there are vegetables present, from which it may be inferred that if there are no vegetables, one may place the water close to the neighbor’s field. The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, even if there are no vegetables one may also not place the water close to the neighbor’s field. And the tanna teaches us that these items mentioned in that mishna are harmful to each other.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בְּחַרְדָּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי הַרְחֵק חַרְדָּלֶךָ מִן דְּבוֹרַאי, הַרְחֵק דְּבוֹרֶךָ מִן חַרְדָּלַאי – שֶׁבָּאוֹת וְאוֹכְלוֹת לִגְלוּגַי חַרְדָּלַאי.
The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei renders it permitted to plant near the neighbor’s bees in the case of mustard. As explained in a baraita, this is because he can say to the owner of the bees: Just as you say to me: Keep your mustard away from my bees, I can say to you: Keep your bees away from my mustard, as they come and eat my mustard plants. In other words, you are damaging my property as well.
וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ.
And if one may not place an item that might cause damage close to his neighbor’s boundary, how can you find a case where each neighbor is damaging the property of the other? Rav Pappa says: This is referring to a buyer who purchased part of his neighbor’s field, and it contains a substance or items that might cause damage, e.g., the water in which flax is steeped or mustard. In the other section of the field the neighbor retained an item or substance that could be damaged. In this manner, it is possible for the item that causes damage to be found near the boundary of the neighbor without one having violated the ruling of the mishna.
אִי בְּלוֹקֵחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? וְעוֹד, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a buyer, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who say that the neighbor can demand that the buyer distance that which causes damage? After all, he has not acted improperly. And furthermore, what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei for disagreeing only in the case of the mustard and the bees? Even the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables is also subject to the same reasoning: Why should he have to distance his water, considering that he did not act improperly?
אָמַר רָבִינָא: קָא סָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ.
Ravina said that the explanation is as follows: The Rabbis hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself. The one who has the potential to cause damage must act to prevent the damage from occurring. This is the halakha even if his initial placement was done in accordance with halakha, as in the case where one bought part of a field.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: עַל הַנִּיזָּק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ?! אִי עַל הַנִּיזָּק, אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis, holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself; i.e., to avoid being damaged? But if the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one whose property was damaged, even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables the owner should also not have to distance himself. Why does Rabbi Yosei distinguish between that situation and the case of bees and mustard?
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי נָמֵי עַל הַמַּזִּיק סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּנַן: תִּינַח מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא – דְּהָנֵי מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, וְהָנֵי לָא מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל וּדְבוֹרִים – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַזְּקִי אַהֲדָדֵי!
Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei also holds that the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one who causes damage, even if he did not act improperly. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to the Rabbis: Your explanation works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, where the one who causes damage must distance himself, as these damage those, but those do not damage these, i.e., the water in which flax is steeped damages the vegetables, but the vegetables do not damage the water. But in the case of mustard and bees, they both damage one another. In light of this factor, and since the initial planting of the mustard was permitted, the owner of the bees should distance them from the mustard.
וְרַבָּנַן – דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ; אִי בְּבִינְתָא – לָא מַשְׁכְּחָא לֵיהּ, אִי בְּטַרְפָּא – הָדַר פָּארֵי.
And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that bees do not damage mustard. Their reasoning is that if it is referring to a seed, the bees will not find it. If it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back, and therefore no damage has been caused.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ?! וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבּוֹר קוֹדֶמֶת לְאִילָן – לֹא יָקוֹץ, שֶׁזֶּה חוֹפֵר בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה נוֹטֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – עַל הַנִּיזָּק סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּלְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ:
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b) that Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the cistern preceded the tree, the owner need not cut down the tree, as this one digs a cistern in his property, and that one plants the tree in his property? Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself. And Rabbi Yosei spoke to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement.
לְדִידִי, עַל הַנִּיזָּק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא לָא בָּעֵי רַחוֹקֵי; אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ, דְּאָמְרִיתוּ עַל הַמַּזִּיק; תִּינַח מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא – דְּהָנֵי מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, וְהָנֵי לָא מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל וּדְבוֹרִים – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַזְּקִי אַהֲדָדֵי!
The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yosei was saying to the Rabbis: In my opinion, the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself, and therefore even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, the owner of the water need not distance himself. But according to your opinion, that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself, this works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, as these damage those and those do not damage these. But mustard and bees both damage one another, and if the mustard owner acted properly, the owner of the bees should be required to move his bees.
וְרַבָּנַן – דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ; אִי בְּבִינְתָא –
The Gemara continues: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? They hold that bees do not damage mustard: If this is referring to a seed,
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
Bava Batra 18
הַמֶּלַח, וְאֶת הַסִּיד, וְאֶת הַסְּלָעִים מִכּוֹתְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, אוֹ סָד בְּסִיד. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סוֹמֵךְ!
salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or he can plaster the wall with lime. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall there belonging to his neighbor, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall there, one may place these substances close to the boundary of his neighbor’s courtyard. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rava according to the first version of the dispute, which states that one may not place these substances close to a boundary even in the case of a field that is not designated for pits.
לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ לְכוֹתֶל.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall one may also not place these substances close to the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does mentioning a wall here teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that all these substances are damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִים אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, וְאֶת הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה, וְאֶת מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַכּוֹתֶל שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דִּמְתוּנְתָּא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: One must distance seeds, and the plow, and urine three handbreadths from the wall of another. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place these substances close to the boundary of the field. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place these substances close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that dampness [dimtunta] is damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאֶת הָרֵיחַיִם – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁכֶב שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הָרֶכֶב. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּטִירְיָיא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And one must distance a mill from a wall by three handbreadths from the lower stone of the mill, which is four handbreadths from the upper stone. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place a mill close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his mill close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: But rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that vibrations are damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאֶת הַתַּנּוּר – שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַכִּלְיָא שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה מִן הַשָּׂפָה. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. אֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהַבְלָא קָשֶׁה לַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from the mishna: And the oven must be distanced three handbreadths from the base, which is four handbreadths from the upper rim of the oven. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall, one may place an oven close by the boundary. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, even if there is no wall, one may also not place his oven close by the boundary. The Gemara asks: Rather, what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that heat is damaging to a wall.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא אוֹצָר, הָא לֵיכָּא אוֹצָר – עָבֵיד!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (20b): A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the wine storeroom of another, nor may one open a cattle barn there. The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The reason for this ruling is that there is a storeroom already in place, from which it may be inferred that if there is no storeroom one may do so. If this is the case, then with regard to a pit as well, one may dig next to a boundary if there is as yet no pit.
דִּירָה שָׁאנֵי. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אִם הָיְתָה רֶפֶת בָּקָר קוֹדֶמֶת לָאוֹצָר – מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answers: The case of a residence is different, as in general one can use his domicile in any manner of his choosing unless he directly causes damage to another or his property. The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise, as an explicit baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: If the construction of the cattle barn preceded the storeroom, it is permitted. Nothing can be inferred from the case of the baraita with regard to the halakha of the mishna, which does not concern living quarters.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִטַּע אָדָם אִילָן סָמוּךְ לַשָּׂדֶה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (26a): A person may not plant a tree close to another’s field unless he distances it four cubits from his neighbor. And it is taught with regard to this mishna: The four cubits of which the Sages spoke are to enable the work of the vineyard, i.e., a small space next to the trees is necessary to enable animals to plow between them.
טַעְמָא דְּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם, הָא לָאו מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם – סָמֵיךְ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא שׇׁרָשִׁין דְּקָא מַזְּקִי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא.
The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The reason this distance is required is due to the work of the vineyard, from which it may be inferred that if not for the problem due to the work of the vineyard, it would be permitted for one to plant his tree close to the boundary, and apparently, this is the halakha even though there are roots of the tree that damage his neighbor’s field. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where a hard rock [tzunema] interrupts between the two fields, preventing the roots from passing through to the other field.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: הָיָה גָּדֵר בֵּינָתַיִם – זֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן, וְזֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן.
The Gemara continues: The language of the mishna is also precise with regard to this point, as it teaches further on: If there was a fence between them, this one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here, and that one places, i.e., plants a tree, close to the fence from here. If the baraita were referring to a case where the roots could travel across, how could it be permitted for both neighbors to plant their trees alongside each other? Consequently, it must be referring to a situation where a rock separates between the two fields below, and therefore the neighbors may plant their trees near the fence.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הָיוּ שׇׁרָשָׁיו יוֹצְאִין בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַעֲמִיק לָהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה. וְאִי דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא, מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְאִי לָאו צוּנְמָא, וְהָיוּ שׇׁרָשָׁיו יוֹצְאִין לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַעֲמִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְעַכֵּב הַמַּחֲרֵישָׁה.
The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: If the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they do not impede the plow. The Gemara asks: But if a rock interrupts between the two fields and forms a barrier, what are these roots doing there, i.e., how did they get there? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: And if there is no rock, and the roots of the tree extended into the field of another, the neighbor may cut them off to a depth of three handbreadths so that they do not impede the plow.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָאִילָן מִן הַבּוֹר עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹר, הָא לֵיכָּא בּוֹר – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא בּוֹר נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ, וְהָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּעַד עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה, אָזְלִי שׇׁרָשִׁים וּמַזְּקִי לְבוֹר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25b): One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from a cistern. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: The reason for this ruling is that there is a cistern, from which it may be inferred that if there is no cistern, one may place, i.e., plant, his tree close to the neighbor’s field. The Gemara answers: No, even when there is no cistern one may also not place it close to the neighbor’s field. And by mentioning a cistern, the tanna of the mishna teaches us this: That the roots of a tree extend and damage the cistern up to a distance of twenty-five cubits away.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְאִם אִילָן קָדַם – לֹא יָקוֹץ. וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ; הָכִי נָמֵי בְּלוֹקֵחַ.
The Gemara asks: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: And if the tree preceded the cistern, one is not required to cut down the tree. But if one may not place the tree close to the boundary even if there is no cistern, how can you find a case where the tree preceded the cistern? Why would its owner not be required to cut it down? The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Pappa says with regard to a similar matter, that it is referring to a buyer who purchases part of a field. So too here, it is referring to a buyer. In other words, a field contained a cistern and tree alongside each other, and the owner sold the part of the field containing the cistern.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַמִּשְׁרָה מִן הַיָּרָק, וְאֶת הַכְּרֵישִׁין מִן הַבְּצָלִין, וְאֶת הַחַרְדָּל מִן הַדְּבוֹרִים. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא יָרָק, הָא לֵיכָּא יָרָק – סָמֵיךְ! לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא יָרָק נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ; וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ אַהֲדָדֵי.
The Gemara cites yet another source: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (25a): One must distance the water in which flax is steeped from vegetables growing in a neighbor’s field, and one must distance leeks from onions growing in a neighbor’s field, and one must likewise distance mustard from bees that are in a neighbor’s field. The Gemara analyzes this statement: The reason is that there are vegetables present, from which it may be inferred that if there are no vegetables, one may place the water close to the neighbor’s field. The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, even if there are no vegetables one may also not place the water close to the neighbor’s field. And the tanna teaches us that these items mentioned in that mishna are harmful to each other.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בְּחַרְדָּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי הַרְחֵק חַרְדָּלֶךָ מִן דְּבוֹרַאי, הַרְחֵק דְּבוֹרֶךָ מִן חַרְדָּלַאי – שֶׁבָּאוֹת וְאוֹכְלוֹת לִגְלוּגַי חַרְדָּלַאי.
The Gemara responds: If so, say the last clause of that mishna: Rabbi Yosei renders it permitted to plant near the neighbor’s bees in the case of mustard. As explained in a baraita, this is because he can say to the owner of the bees: Just as you say to me: Keep your mustard away from my bees, I can say to you: Keep your bees away from my mustard, as they come and eat my mustard plants. In other words, you are damaging my property as well.
וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ.
And if one may not place an item that might cause damage close to his neighbor’s boundary, how can you find a case where each neighbor is damaging the property of the other? Rav Pappa says: This is referring to a buyer who purchased part of his neighbor’s field, and it contains a substance or items that might cause damage, e.g., the water in which flax is steeped or mustard. In the other section of the field the neighbor retained an item or substance that could be damaged. In this manner, it is possible for the item that causes damage to be found near the boundary of the neighbor without one having violated the ruling of the mishna.
אִי בְּלוֹקֵחַ, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? וְעוֹד, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: If this is referring to a buyer, what is the reason of the Rabbis, who say that the neighbor can demand that the buyer distance that which causes damage? After all, he has not acted improperly. And furthermore, what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei for disagreeing only in the case of the mustard and the bees? Even the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables is also subject to the same reasoning: Why should he have to distance his water, considering that he did not act improperly?
אָמַר רָבִינָא: קָא סָבְרִי רַבָּנַן: עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ.
Ravina said that the explanation is as follows: The Rabbis hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself. The one who has the potential to cause damage must act to prevent the damage from occurring. This is the halakha even if his initial placement was done in accordance with halakha, as in the case where one bought part of a field.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: עַל הַנִּיזָּק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ?! אִי עַל הַנִּיזָּק, אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with the ruling of the Rabbis, holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself; i.e., to avoid being damaged? But if the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one whose property was damaged, even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables the owner should also not have to distance himself. Why does Rabbi Yosei distinguish between that situation and the case of bees and mustard?
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי נָמֵי עַל הַמַּזִּיק סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבָּנַן: תִּינַח מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא – דְּהָנֵי מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, וְהָנֵי לָא מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל וּדְבוֹרִים – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַזְּקִי אַהֲדָדֵי!
Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei also holds that the responsibility to distance oneself falls on the one who causes damage, even if he did not act improperly. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to the Rabbis: Your explanation works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, where the one who causes damage must distance himself, as these damage those, but those do not damage these, i.e., the water in which flax is steeped damages the vegetables, but the vegetables do not damage the water. But in the case of mustard and bees, they both damage one another. In light of this factor, and since the initial planting of the mustard was permitted, the owner of the bees should distance them from the mustard.
וְרַבָּנַן – דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ; אִי בְּבִינְתָא – לָא מַשְׁכְּחָא לֵיהּ, אִי בְּטַרְפָּא – הָדַר פָּארֵי.
And as for the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim? They maintain that bees do not damage mustard. Their reasoning is that if it is referring to a seed, the bees will not find it. If it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back, and therefore no damage has been caused.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַל הַמַּזִּיק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ?! וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבּוֹר קוֹדֶמֶת לְאִילָן – לֹא יָקוֹץ, שֶׁזֶּה חוֹפֵר בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְזֶה נוֹטֵעַ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – עַל הַנִּיזָּק סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּלְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ:
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b) that Rabbi Yosei says: Even though the cistern preceded the tree, the owner need not cut down the tree, as this one digs a cistern in his property, and that one plants the tree in his property? Rather, actually Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself. And Rabbi Yosei spoke to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement.
לְדִידִי, עַל הַנִּיזָּק לְהַרְחִיק אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא לָא בָּעֵי רַחוֹקֵי; אֶלָּא לְדִידְכוּ, דְּאָמְרִיתוּ עַל הַמַּזִּיק; תִּינַח מִשְׁרָה וְיַרְקָא – דְּהָנֵי מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, וְהָנֵי לָא מַזְּקִי הָנֵי, אֶלָּא חַרְדָּל וּדְבוֹרִים – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַזְּקִי אַהֲדָדֵי!
The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yosei was saying to the Rabbis: In my opinion, the responsibility falls on the one whose property was damaged to distance himself, and therefore even in the case of water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, the owner of the water need not distance himself. But according to your opinion, that the responsibility falls on the one who causes damage to distance himself, this works out well with regard to water in which flax is steeped and vegetables, as these damage those and those do not damage these. But mustard and bees both damage one another, and if the mustard owner acted properly, the owner of the bees should be required to move his bees.
וְרַבָּנַן – דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ; אִי בְּבִינְתָא –
The Gemara continues: And how do the Rabbis respond to this claim? They hold that bees do not damage mustard: If this is referring to a seed,
Follow
