## Bava Batra Daf 18a

###### Bava Batra 18a:1
[Bava Batra 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:1)

הַמֶּלַח, וְאֶת הַסִּיד, וְאֶת הַסְּלָעִים מִכּוֹתְלוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, אוֹ סָד בְּסִיד. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹתֶל, הָא לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל – סוֹמֵךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:2
[Bava Batra 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:2)

לָא; כִּי לֵיכָּא כּוֹתֶל נָמֵי לָא סָמֵיךְ. וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּהָנֵי קָשׁוּ לְכוֹתֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 18a:3
[Bava Batra 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 18a:4
[Bava Batra 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 18a:5
[Bava Batra 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 18a:6
[Bava Batra 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא אוֹצָר, הָא לֵיכָּא אוֹצָר – עָבֵיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:7
[Bava Batra 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:7)

דִּירָה שָׁאנֵי. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אִם הָיְתָה רֶפֶת בָּקָר קוֹדֶמֶת לָאוֹצָר – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:8
[Bava Batra 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא יִטַּע אָדָם אִילָן סָמוּךְ לַשָּׂדֶה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִרְחִיק מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ – כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:9
[Bava Batra 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:9)

טַעְמָא דְּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם, הָא לָאו מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדַת הַכֶּרֶם – סָמֵיךְ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא שׇׁרָשִׁין דְּקָא מַזְּקִי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּמַפְסֵיק צוּנְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:10
[Bava Batra 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:10)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: הָיָה גָּדֵר בֵּינָתַיִם – זֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן, וְזֶה סוֹמֵךְ לַגָּדֵר מִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:11
[Bava Batra 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:11)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 18a:12
[Bava Batra 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:13
[Bava Batra 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:13)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְאִם אִילָן קָדַם – לֹא יָקוֹץ. וְאִי דְּלָא סָמֵיךְ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּלוֹקֵחַ; הָכִי נָמֵי בְּלוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 18a:14
[Bava Batra 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:14)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 18a:15
[Bava Batra 18a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/18a:15)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.