## Tosafot on Bava Batra Daf 23a

###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:1:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:1:1)

אתו אומני ויתבי תותייהו. בקרקע שלהן היו יושבין ולא בקרקע של רב יוסף מדפריך בתר הכי והא גרמא הוא:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**אתו אומני ויתבי תותייהו—The blood drawers came and sat underneath them**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא relates that רב יוסף owned date palms and the אומנים (those who draw blood) would sit under these trees and do their work there. Ravens would come there, on account of the blood and the ravens would then settle on the trees and ruin the dates. רב יוסף wanted to chase the אומנים away, so אביי asked him, ‘the אומנים are merely a גרמא’,¹ so why should they be required to leave. תוספות clarifies the situation
----------------------------
**בקרקע שלהן היו יושבין² ולא בקרקע של רב יוסף מדפריך בתר הכי והא³ גרמא הוא:**
These אומנים **were sitting on their own land, and not on sרב יוסף' land,** since אביי **subsequently challenged** רב יוסף saying, ‘**but it is** merely **a גרמא’** so how can you be justified in sending them away.

SUMMARY
The אומנים did their work on their own land.

THINKING IT OVER
The גמרא later argues that the אומנים should have a right to continue there since, והא אחזיק להו'; meaning they have a חזקה. Why therefore is it necessary to say that it was their land, we can say it was sרב יוסף' land, and nevertheless he could not remove them since והא אחזיק להו?!⁴

footnotes:
¹ They are only an indirect cause of the damage which was done by the ravens not by the אומנים.
² The trees were certainly on sרב יוסף' land. However immediately adjacent to the trees (perhaps even under the extended branches) the land belonged to the אומנים. Therefore רב יוסף could not send them away for they were not on his property.
³ If however they were sitting on sרב יוסף' land, obviously he has the right to chase them away, therefore we must conclude that the אומנים were practicing their craft on their own land.
⁴ See נחלת משה.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:2:1)

והא אחזיקו להו. פי' ר"י ב"ר מרדכי כיון שלא בא להחזיק בקרקע של חבירו ולומר שלו הוא אלא לתשמיש בעלמא שנהנה ממנה מועלת חזקה שלא בטענה דמסתמא לא היו אומרים שמכר להם רב יוסף תשמיש זה והוו כי הנהו דלעיל (בבא בתרא דף ו.) דאחזוק להורדי דמועלת חזקה שלא בטענה דמדלא מיחה ג' שנים מחל לו ואין נראה דאם לא הקנה לו כי החזיק להורדי אמאי החזיק לכשורי אלא על כרחך התם שטוען שהקנה לו ולהכי אחזיק לכשורי דאין אדם עושה קנין למחצה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**והא אחזיקו¹ להו—But they established themselves** there
Overview**²**
The גמרא asked even if we maintain גרמא בנזקין אסור, nevertheless רב יוסף would have no right to evict the אומנים, since they already have a חזקה to ply their craft there. תוספות discusses the nature of this חזקה.
------------------------------
**פירש רבי יצחק בן רבי מרדכי כיון שלא בא להחזיק בקרקע של חבירו³ ולומר שלו הוא –
The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי explained, since** the אומנים **did not come to take possession of someone else’s property and say that it belongs to him –
אלא לתשמיש בעלמא שנהנה ממנה מועלת חזקה שלא בטענה⁴ –
Rather** the חזקה **was merely for general usage that** the אומנים **are deriving benefit** from the land, in that case **a חזקה without a claim is effective –**
The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי proves this distinction:
**דמסתמא לא היו אומרים שמכר⁵ להם רב יוסף תשמיש זה –
For presumably the** אומנים **were not claiming that רב יוסף sold them the** rights to **this usage,** rather their claim seems to be that since he did not protest in the past, he implicitly conceded to them this right.
The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי supports his view:
**והוו כי הנהו דלעיל (דף ו,א) דאחזוק להורדי⁶ דמועלת חזקה שלא בטענה –
And** the case here **is like the** cases **previously where one made a חזקה for הורדי,** that we assume **that the חזקה is effective without a claim,** for we assume **–
דמדלא מיחה ג' שנים מחל לו –
That since** the owner of the wall **did not protest for three years, he conceded to him** that right to place his beams on his wall. Similarly here, the fact the רב יוסף did not protest (for three years) indicates that he was מוחל the אומנים the right to practice there.
תוספות disagrees that חזקת תשמשין does not require a טענה:
**ואין נראה דאם לא הקנה לו כי החזיק להורדי אמאי החזיק לכשורי⁷ –
And** this **does not appear** to be correct, **for if** (in the case of הורדי) **the** owner of the wall **did not transfer** the rights **to him, so if he established** the rights **for the small beams why did he establish** the rights **for large beams –
אלא על כרחך התם שטוען שהקנה לו ולהכי אחזיק לכשורי דאין⁸ אדם עושה קנין למחצה:⁹**
**Rather perforce you must say** in that case **there** regarding the הורדי **that he claims that** the owner of the wall **was מקנה** to him the rights to place beams on the wall, **so therefore** even though he was only החזיק להורדי nevertheless he is also **אחזיק לכשורי, for a person does not make half-a-transaction [and** similarly **here too it is a case where** the אומנים **claim that he was מקנה to them** the rights to practice their trade there, **so it is a חזקה שיש עמה טענה].**

SUMMARY
There is a dispute whether חזקת תשמישין requires a חזקה שיש עמה טענה.

THINKING IT OVER
Does this תוספות agree with the previous תוספות that the אומנים were working on their own¹⁰ property?¹¹

footnotes:
¹ In our גמרות the text reads אחזיק (not אחזיקו).
² See ‘Overview’ to the previous תוספות ד"ה אתו.
³ See ‘Thinking it over’.
⁴ In general if ראובן is the known owner of a property and שמעון made a חזקה in this property for three years and claims that ראובן sold it to him, the חזקה is effective and the property remains in the possession of שמעון. However if שמעון claims that he lived on this property for three years and no one protested, this is referred to as a חזקה שאין עמה טענה (there is no claim as to how שמעון owns this property) and this חזקה is not effective and the property reverts back to ראובן. The ר"י ב"ר מרדכי distinguishes between a חזקה which claims ownership (for which a טענה is required, as mentioned above), and a חזקה for usage rights (where no ownership is claimed), in which case no טענה is required. The mere fact that the owner did not protest (over a certain period of time) indicates that the owner conceded this usage to the user.
⁵ Firstly, there is no mention of such a claim. Additionally, if this was their claim (and presumably they were not lying), why would רב יוסף want to evict them, he would certainly have remembered that he sold them this right. Rather it makes more sense that nothing happened, but the אומנים inferred from the lack of protest that רב יוסף was מוחל, when in fact this מחילה is debatable as the גמרא continues to explain.
⁶ הורדי are (small) beams. The case there is where שמעון built a wall between his property and sראובן' property. ראובן placed small beams on the wall and שמעון did not protest. The rule is that ראובן has the right to keep his beams on that wall.
⁷ רב יוסף there maintained (in opposition to רב נחמן) that if he made a חזקה for הורדי, that חזקה is effective even for כשורי. If we assume that ראובן claims that he bought the rights from שמעון to place (all types of) beams on his wall, it is understood that even though until now he placed only הורדי but since he claims that he bought the rights for all beams, the fact the שמעון did not protest the הורדי indicates that sראובן' claim is valid (see shortly in this תוספות that דאין אדם עושה קנין למחצה). However if the only reason why ראובן has a חזקה in the הורדי is because שמעון did not protest (but ראובן does not claim that he bought the rights from שמעון), how can רב יוסף say that a חזקה for הורדי is a חזקה for כשורי, perhaps שמעון did not mind small beams, but he certainly would mind large beams.
⁸ ראובן claims that שמעון gave him the right to place all types of beams [even heavy ones] on the wall. We know that he made a חזקה for the הורדי, which proves that שמעון certainly agreed to the הורדי, however since a person does not make a half-transaction, we can be sure that he purchased the rights to place all types of beams on sשמעון' wall.
⁹ The הגהות הב"ח adds; והכא נמי מיירי שהיו טוענים שהקנה להם והוי חזקה שיש עמה טענה.
¹⁰ See footnote # 3.
¹¹ See TIE there ‘Thinking it over’. See אמתחת בנימין (לר' בנימין חשין).


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:2
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:2:2)

אין חזקה לנזקין. אומר ר"ת דאפי' הקנה יכול לחזור בו דקנין בטעות הוא דסבור היה שיכול לקבל ועכשיו אין יכול לקבל ואין נראה דמדקאמר אין חזקה לנזקין איכא למידק הא ראיה יש כדדייקינן בחזקת הבתים (לקמן בבא בתרא דף מט:) גבי הא דתנן ולא (לאשה חזקה בנכסי בעלה):

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**אין חזקה לנזקין—There is no established presumption regarding damages**
Overview¹
רב נחמן derived from the fact the רב יוסף wished to evict the אומנים, even though they had a חזקה to practice their craft there, that אין חזקה לנזקין. תוספות discusses what type of חזקה they had.
------------------------------
**אומר רבינו תם דאפילו הקנה² יכול לחזור בו דקנין בטעות הוא³ –
The ר"ת states that even** if the owner **transferred** the rights of the נזקין **[to him in** the presence **of witnesses]** nevertheless **the** owner **is able to retract** this קנין, **for it is a קנין** which was made **mistakenly –
דסבור היה שיכול לקבל ועכשיו אין יכול לקבל –
For** the owner **assumed that he is able to bear it, but now he is not able to bear it;** therefore, the קנין is void.
תוספות disagrees with the ר"ת:
**ואין נראה דמדקאמר אין חזקה לנזקין⁴ איכא למידק הא ראיה יש –
And** this **does not appear** to be correct, **for since** רב נחמן **stated there is no חזקה for נזקין; we can infer that** if **there is however proof** that would allow a חזקת נזקין **–**
תוספות proves that we make such an inference of אין חזקה הא ראיה יש:
**כדדייקינן בחזקת הבתים (לקמן דף מט,ב) גבי הא דתנן⁵ ולא (לאשה⁶ חזקה בנכסי בעלה):**
**As** the גמרא **infers in** פרק **חזקת הבתים, regarding the משנה which taught, ‘**there **is no חזקה** (for a woman in her husband’s assets) **[for a man in his wife’s assets’].⁷**

SUMMARY
There is a dispute whether there is a ראיה בנזקין (the view of תוס') or not (ר"ת).

THINKING IT OVER
Why indeed is it that regarding נזקין, we accept a ראיה but not a חזקה?⁸ Seemingly a חזקה supports the claim of the מוחזק that he granted them the right, otherwise why did he not protest the נזק?!⁹

footnotes:
¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous two תוס' ד"ה אתו וד"ה והא.
² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read הקנה לו בעדים יכול (instead of הקנה יכול).
³ This means (according to the הגהות הב"ח) that not only if there were no witnesses to the קנין, there was only the חזקה (of three years) to bolster the claim of the מחזיק, that we say אין חזקה לנזקין (where the owner can perhaps claim, ‘I was never מקנה them this right, and I was not מוחה because I thought I could bear it’), but furthermore even if there are witnesses that the owner was מקנה to them this חזקה, nevertheless the קנין is void since it is a קנין בטעות. Alternately תוספות may mean that not only if the owner was merely מוחל by being quiet (for three years), can he retract, but even if he explicitly was מקנה to them this right, nevertheless he can retract because it is a קנין בטעות.
⁴ A חזקה generally proves something; in our case that the owner was מקנה the right for this usage. For if he was not מקנה, why did he not protest. However, it is not a definite proof like if witnesses would testify that he was מקנה. If as the ר"ת maintains that even if there were witnesses to the קנין (as the הגהות הב"ח explains our תוס') he can still retract, רב נחמן should have said אין ראיה לנזקין that even if one brings definite proof such as עדים, nevertheless the owner can retract, so we will definitely know that a חזקה without עדים is certainly insufficient to have them retain this right. The fact that ר"נ merely stated אין חזקה לנזקין, indicates that a חזקה is insufficient, however if there are עדים then the קנין would be valid and they would retain the rights for this usage even though it is נזקין. See ‘Thinking it over’.
⁵ שם מב,א.
⁶ A marginal gloss amends this to read לאיש חזקה בנסי אשתו (instead of לאשה חזקה בנכסי בעלה).
⁷ The גמרא there infers that the משנה only means that if a man lived for three years in his wife’s property, it is not considered a חזקה and proof that he bought the house from her. However, we can infer that if he has a שטר or עדים that she sold him the property that is sufficient and it belongs to him (the גמרא there questions this ruling). In any event we see that when the term אין לו חזקה is used it only means that a חזקה is insufficient proof in these cases, but a valid proof such as עדים or שטר are effective. Therefore, here too if the אומנים would bring עדים that רב יוסף granted them this (damaging) usage, ר"י would not be able to recant even though it may be a קנין בטעות.
⁸ See footnote # 4.
⁹ See רא"ש and נחלת משה.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:3
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:2:3)

בקוטרא. נראה לר"י דדוקא בקוטרא דכבשן שהוא גדול ומזיק ביותר אין חזקה כדאמר במרובה (ב"ק דף פב:) אין עושין כבשונות בירושלים מ"ט משום קוטרא ודוקא נמי בית הכסא שלהן שהיה למעלה מן הקרקע והיה מסריח ביותר אבל בשלנו שהוא מכוסה יש חזקה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**בקוטרא—By smoke**
Overview¹
The גמרא previously asked, how did רב יוסף expect to evict the אומנים, since they had a חזקה, to which the גמרא responded אין חזקה לנזקין. The גמרא then asked that this ruling of אין חזקה לנזקין is limited to the damages caused by smoke (קוטרא) or an outhouse (בית הכסא). Our תוספות qualifies these two נזקין of קוטרא ובית הכסא.
--------------------------------------
**נראה לרבינו יצחק דדוקא בקוטרא דכבשן² שהוא גדול ומזיק ביותר אין חזקה³ –
It appears to the ר"י that** it is only **specifically the smoke of a furnace** that we say **there is no חזקה since** that smoke is **extensive and it damages excessively –
כדאמר במרובה (בבא קמא דף פב,ב) אין עושין כבשונות בירושלים מאי טעמא משום קוטרא⁴ –
As** the גמרא **states in** פרק **מרובה, ‘we do not allow furnaces in ירושלים’; what is the reason** for this prohibition; ‘**because of the smoke’ –
ודוקא נמי בית הכסא שלהן⁵ שהיה למעלה מן הקרקע והיה מסריח ביותר –
And also it is specifically** regarding **their outhouses** (that there is no חזקה), **since they were aboveground and it reeked excessively –
אבל בשלנו שהוא מכוסה יש חזקה:**
**However** regarding **our** outhouses **which are covered up, there is a חזקה.**

SUMMARY
קוטרא ובית הכסא (where there is no חזקה לנזקין) is only by furnaces and above ground uncovered outhouses, which cause excessive damage.

THINKING IT OVER
Was the ר"י more certain that only by עשן הכבשן there is no חזקה, or was he more certain that only ביהכ"ס שלהן there is no חזקה, or is there no difference.⁶

footnotes:
¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous three תוס'.
² This may be referring to a furnace in which metals are smelted or a kiln to make pottery where the heat is very high and there is excessive smoke.
³ However regarding smoke from an oven or an open fire which is not that excessive, there is a חזקה.
⁴ If all type of smoke cause damage, why prohibit only כבשונות בירושלים, we should prohibit all smoke. See ‘Thinking it over’.
⁵ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שלהן שהיו למעלה (instead of שלהן שהיה למעלה).
⁶ See footnote # 4.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:4
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:2:4)

לדידי דאנינא דעתאי. פי' שהיה איסטניס כדאמרינן בערבי פסחים (פסחים דף קיג: ושם) שלשה חייהם אינן חיים הרחמנים והרתחנים ואניני הדעת אמר רב יוסף וכולהו איתנהו בי:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**לדידי דאנינא דעתאי—As for me that I am of a sensitive mindset**
Overview¹
In response to the challenge that the rule of אין חזקה לנזקין applies only to קוטרא וביה"כ, but not to נזקין in general, רב יוסף stated that since he was from the אניני הדעת, therefore this נזק is considered for him as a קוטרא וביה"כ.
---------------------------------
**פירוש שהיה איסטניס² כדאמרינן בערבי פסחים (פסחים דף קיג,ב ושם) –
The explanation** of אנינא דעתאי is **that he was delicate, as** the גמרא **states in** פרק **ערבי פסחים –
שלשה חייהם אינן חיים הרחמנים והרתחנים ואניני הדעת אמר רב יוסף וכולהו³ איתנהו בי:**
**Three** types of people, **their lives are not lives; those who are merciful, irritable, and overly sensitive. רב יוסף commented, ‘and I have all these’** three traits.****

SUMMARY
רב יוסף was known to be an איסטניס (or אנין הדעת).

THINKING IT OVER
It would seem that תוספות is citing the גמרא in ע"פ to prove his פירוש that אנין הדעת means איסטניס (and not something else).⁴ However how does the גמרא in ע"פ prove this?! What else can אנין הדעת mean besides איסטניס that we require proof?

footnotes:
¹ See ‘Overview’ to the previous תוספות on this עמוד.
² Perhaps תוספות means to say (with the term 'פירוש') that it was known that רב יוסף was an איסטניס. It was not that he merely said it now (for his personal benefit) when he was disturbed by the אומנים; rather it was a well-known fact. This is why תוספות cites the גמרא in ע"פ to prove that ר"י always maintained that he was an איסטניס. See footnote # 3.
³ Additionally (see footnote # 2) he stated it even though it was not complimentary that one is a רתחן (angers quickly and heatedly), indicating that this was the truth.
⁴ See (however) footnote # 2 for a different approach to the proof from ע"פ.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:5
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:2:5)

כקוטרא ובית הכסא דמו. והא דקאמר אפיקו קורקור מהכא משמע דמשום עורבים היה אומר ודאי אם לא היו עורבים היה סובל אף על גב דאנינא דעתיה אי נמי העורבים היו אוכלים הדם ופורחים ומקנחים בפירות:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**כקוטרא ובית הכסא דמו—It is similar to smoke and an outhouse**
Overview¹
In response to the challenge that the rule of אין חזקה לנזקין applies only to קוטרא וביה"כ, but not to נזקין in general, רב יוסף stated that since he was from the אניני הדעת, therefore this נזק is considered for him as a קוטרא וביה"כ.
-------------------------------
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
**והא דקאמר אפיקו קורקור מהכא² משמע דמשום עורבים היה אומר³ –
And this which** רב יוסף **said, ‘remove the crowing** ravens **from here;** this **indicates that it was on account of the ravens that he said** to remove them, but not because of the blood of the אומנים –
תוספות replies:
**ודאי אם לא היו עורבים היה סובל אף על גב דאנינא דעתיה⁴ –**
רב יוסף **would certainly be able to bear** the blood from the אומנים (alone), **if there were no עורבים, even though that** רב יוסף **was an איסטניס;** however the combination of the two (אומנים and עורבים) made it unbearable –****
תוספות offers an alternate solution:
**אי נמי העורבים היו אוכלים הדם ופורחים ומקנחים בפירות:**
**Or** you may **also** say; **the עורבים would eat the blood** (from the bloodletting) **and would fly** on the date palms **and would wipe** their beaks **on the dates** and leave them covered with blood which was unbearable to רב יוסף who was an איסטניס.

SUMMARY
רב יוסף, being an איסטניס could not bear the combination of bloodletting and the monetary loss of the dates, or he could not bear the dates being drenched in blood.

THINKING IT OVER
1. It appears from תוספות (according to both answers) that רב יוסף was able to bear the sight of the bloodletting, but was not able to bear the bloodied dates. How can we explain that?
2. Why can’t we say that when רב יוסף said אפיקו קורקור he meant that since he was an איסטניס he could not bear the continued crowing of the ravens?⁵

footnotes:
¹ See ‘Overview to the previous תוס' on this עמוד.
² The understanding of the גמרא is that רב יוסף was concerned for the monetary loss which the ravens cost him on account that they destroyed his dates (by eating them). Therefore he said, ‘remove the ravens’. He, however, did not seem that concerned about the bloodletting from the אומנים, for then he would have said, remove the אומנים from here (because the blood disturbs me). The concern for the ravens eating the dates is a monetary one and has no connection to איסטניס (it is only the blood from the אומנים that makes it uncomfortable for an איסטניס). How did רב יוסף justify removing the ravens (which represents a monetary loss) to his status as an איסטניס.
³ He actually meant to remove the אומנים (for how else can they remove the ravens); nevertheless, since he stated אפיקו קורקור, this indicates that his main concern was the monetary loss.
⁴ Therefore, he said אפיקו קורקור because they were the tipping point that made the bloodletting of the אומנים unbearable.
⁵ See נחלת משה.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:3:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:3:1)

מרחיקין השובך מן העיר חמשים אמה. מפני התבואה הנשטחת בגגות העיר כדי לייבש אבל לתבואה שבשדות ליכא למיחש בקרוב לעיר לפי שהשדות רחוקין מן העיר אלף אמה כדתנן (ערכין דף לג:) אין עושין מגרש שדה ולא שדה מגרש:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**מרחיקין השובך מן העיר חמשים אמה—We distance the dovecote fifty cubits from the city**

OVERVIEW
The משנה did not explain why we distance the שובך fifty אמות from the city. תוספות gives his reason¹ and explains why it is not relevant in other cases.
---------------------------------------
**מפני התבואה הנשטחת בגגות העיר כדי לייבש² –**
We distance the שובך fifty אמות from the city, **on account of the grain which is spread out to dry on the roofs of the city –**
תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:³
**אבל לתבואה שבשדות ליכא למיחש בקרוב לעיר לפי שהשדות רחוקין מן העיר אלף אמה⁴ –
But there is no concern for the grain in the fields which are close to the city** (within חמישים אמה of the שובך), **since the fields are a thousand אמות away from the city –
כדתנן (ערכין דף לג,ה) אין עושין מגרש שדה⁵ ולא שדה מגרש:**
**As the משנה taught, ‘we do not make the open area (מגרש) into a field** (for growing crops) **and** we do not make **the field into a מגרש.**

SUMMARY
If the שובך is placed fifty אמות from the city it will not eat the grain that is spread out to dry on the roofs, and not the grain in the fields which are a thousand אמות distance from the city.

THINKING IT OVER
Why did not תוספות accept פרש"י?⁶

footnotes:
¹ See רש"י ד"ה מרחיקין who writes שלא יפסדו זרעוני גינה. However, תוספות offers a different explanation.
² We are concerned that the doves will reach the roofs and consume the grain.
³ Seemingly, if we will place the שובך outside the city (where the fields are), the birds will eat the grain in the fields (within fifty אמות of the שובך).
⁴ If the שובך is placed fifty אמות from the city it will still be nine-hundred-fifty אמות away from the fields.
⁵ The תורה writes (במדבר [מסעי] לה,ד) regarding the ערי הלויים that a space of one thousand אמות around the city should be left vacant from plowing etc. This open space is intended to beautify the city. Presumably this applies to all cities.
⁶ See footnote # 1. See נחלת משה. See following תוס' ד"ה ולא (TIE footnote # 3).


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:3:2
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:3:2)

ולא יעשה שובך תוך שלו. ברחוק מן העיר בין השדות ואצטריך למיתני תרוייהו דאי תנא רישא להרחיק מן העיר התם דוקא מרחיק מפני שתבואות העיר מגולות הן בחצר הן בגג אבל תבואה הנזרעת בשדה ומכוסה אין צריך להרחיק ואי תנא סיפא משום דבשדות שכיחא תבואה אבל בעיר דלא שכיח כולי האי אימא לא:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**ולא יעשה שובך תוך שלו—And a person should not make a dovecote within his own** property****

OVERVIEW
The משנה first taught us that one needs to distance a שובך fifty אמות from the city, and secondly that one should not make a שובך within his own property unless he distances it fifty אמות from all sides. תוספות clarifies the second ruling and explains why both rulings are necessary.
---------------------------------
**ברחוק מן העיר¹ בין השדות² –**
This ruling not to make a dovecote בתוך שלו unless there are fifty אמות clearances in all direction is referring to a שובך **which is far from the city among the fields.**
**ואצטריך למיתני תרוייהו –
And it is necessary to teach both** rulings (near the city and out in the fields) –
**דאי תנא רישא להרחיק מן העיר התם דוקא מרחיק –
For if** the משנה would only **teach the first** ruling, which is the requirement **to distance** the שובך **from the city,** we might assume that it is **only** necessary **to distance** from the city –
**מפני שתבואות העיר מגולות הן בחצר הן בגג³ –
Since the produce** which is found in **the city is open** and revealed, **whether** it is found **in the courtyard or on the roof,** therefore the birds will find them easily –
**אבל תבואה הנזרעת בשדה ומכוסה אין צריך להרחיק –
However** regarding **the grain** **which is planted in the field and is covered up, it is not necessary to distance** the שובך; since the grain is not that accessible, presumably the birds will not eat them, therefore it was necessary to teach the סיפא, that distancing is necessary even in the field –
**ואי תנא סיפא משום דבשדות שכיחא תבואה אבל בעיר דלא שכיח כולי האי אימא לא:**
**And if** the משנה **would** just **teach the סיפא** (regarding a שובך in the field) we would think the reason a שובך is prohibited in the field **is because grain is common in the field** (therefore the birds will surely find (some of) the grain, **however in the city where** תבואה **is not that common, I would say** that **no** distancing is required, therefore the משנה taught us both cases.

SUMMARY
There is a need to teach us distancing both from the city (where תבואה is not common) and in the field (where it is covered).

THINKING IT OVER
Why was it necessary for תוספות to explain that בתוך שלו refers to a שובך in the fields outside the city; why could not תוספות say that if a person wants to make a שובך on his property within the city he may do so provided the שובך is distanced fifty אמות from his neighbors?

footnotes:
¹ In the city it is always prohibited from having a שובך (that is the first rule in the משנה).
² See previous תוס' ד"ה מרחיקין that the fields were (at least) one thousand אמות distance from the city. The שובך needs to be distanced fifty אמות on all sides from his neighbors’ properties. A fifty אמה radius from the שובך cannot include his neighbors’ properties.
³ This צריכותא is valid according to תוספות who explains the reason for distancing the שובך from the city is on account of the תבואה which is spread out on the roofs (see previous תוס' ד"ה מרחיקין [TIE footnote # 1]). However according to פרש"י (see there TIE footnote # 1) that the reason is that they should not eat the זרעוני גנות (which are also covered) so why the need for the סיפא.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:3:3
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:3:3)

בית ארבעת כורין כמלא שגר היונה. ור' יהודה ורבנן לא פליגי בשגר היונה כמה הוי דמודו רבנן דבית ארבעה כורין הוי שגר היונה אלא רבנן סברי כיון דבחמשים אמה מליא כריסייהו כדאמרינן בגמ' תו לא מזקי טפי ור' יהודה סבר דכמלא שגר מזקי:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**בית ארבעת כורין כמלא שגר היונה—An area of four *Koor*, as is the full flight of a dove**

OVERVIEW
The רבנן maintain that one may make a dovecote in his property if there is a radius of (at least) fifty אמות in all directions that are still within his property. However, רבי יהודה disagrees and requires that there be four בית כור of his property¹ surrounding the שובך. Our תוספות explains the dispute.
------------------------------
**ורבי יהודה ורבנן לא פליגי בשגר היונה כמה הוי –
And ר"י and the רבנן do not argue how much the flight of a dove is –
דמודו רבנן דבית ארבעה כורין הוי שגר היונה –
For** even **the רבנן agree that the שגר היונה is the area of four כורין** (on all sides) –
**אלא רבנן סברי כיון דבחמשים אמה מליא כריסייהו כדאמרינן בגמרא תו לא מזקי טפי –
Rather the רבנן maintains that since** the doves **fill up their stomachs** with food **within fifty אמות as the גמרא states, therefore they will not damage anymore** outside the fifty אמות, even though they do fly further than fifty אמות –
**ורבי יהודה סבר דכמלא שגר מזקי:**
**However, ר"י maintains that they damage as far as they fly,** for they eat even beyond the fifty אמות.

SUMMARY
All agree that the doves fly more than fifty אמות, however ר"י ורבנן argue whether they eat their fill within fifty אמות (the רבנן), or not (ר"י).

THINKING IT OVER
Seemingly the reason תוספות assumes that there is no dispute regarding מלא שגר היונה, is because this is an observable fact, so it is not probable that they argue over a fact. However, if this is the reason, so similarly whether the birds eat their fill within fifty אמות (or not) is also a fact, so what have we gained, by exchanging one argument of fact for another?!²

footnotes:
¹ A בית כור means the area in which a כור of grain can be planted. A בית סאה is an area in which a סאה of grain can be planted and it is fifty אמות by fifty אמות square or an area of 2,500 square אמות. A כור is thirty סאה, which means that the area of a בית כור is (2500x30 or) 75,000 square אמות. The width or length of a 75000 square אמות area is slightly less than 274 אמות. Meaning that according to ר"י the שובך must be surrounded by 274 אמות of his property. We assume that four בית כור means a בית כור on each of the four sides of the שובך.
² See נחלת משה.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:4:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:4:1)

אלא אם כן הרחיק שלשים ריס. היינו ד' מיל דהמיל ז' ריס ומחצה ופעמים שהגמרא נותן שיעור בריסין ופעמים במילין ופעמים בפרסה:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**אלא אם כן הרחיק שלשים ריס—Unless he distanced** himself **thirty *Ris***

OVERVIEW
The גמרא cited a משנה which states¹ that one may not set out traps for doves unless he distanced them thirty ריס from a settled area. תוספות discusses the various measurements used for distance.
-----------------------------
**היינו ד' מיל דהמיל ז' ריס ומחצה² –**
Thirty**** ריס **is** the equivalent of **four מיל,³ for a מיל is seven and a half ריס –
ופעמים שהגמרא נותן שיעור בריסין ופעמים במילין ופעמים בפרסה:**
**And sometimes the גמרא expresses the distance in ריסין** (30 in our case), **and sometimes in מילין** (four) **and sometimes in a פרסה** (1).****

SUMMARY
Thirty ריס is four מיל (or one פרסה). The גמרא uses various modes of measuring distances.

THINKING IT OVER
Is there any reason why the משנה there chose to measure it in ריסין instead of in מילין or a פרסה?

footnotes:
¹ ב"ק עט,ב.
² A מיל is two thousand אמות. A ריס would be 266 (and 2/3) אמות. [See תוס' ב"מ לג,א ד"ה וזהו. (According to the גירסא of רוס it is בגימטריא 266! If we use the number 266 2/3 the גימטריא in תוספות there is (almost) exact) This number is also quite close the שגר היונה (of 274); see previous תוס' ד"ה בית TIE Footnote # 1 ]
³ Four מיל is a פרסה or 8,000 אמות (266.6…7 x 30 = 8,000).


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:5:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:5:1)

והתניא ביישוב אפילו מאה מיל. תימה דמאי ס"ד דהוי פי' וביישוב אי קרי העיר יישוב א"כ אפילו מאה מיל לאו דוקא כמו שמשמע אלא אפילו אלף מיל או יותר א"כ בשום מקום לא יפרוס אפילו במדבר ורחוק לאין סוף מן העיר ואפילו אם נאמר דמאה מיל דוקא מכל מקום היאך יפרש את הברייתא דהכי תניא בתוספתא דמרובה אין פורסין נשבין ליונים אא"כ הרחיק מן היישוב שלשים ריס בד"א במדבר אבל ביישוב אפי' מאה מיל לא יפרוס כיון דעיר קרי יישוב ואי ס"ד דהכי פירושו בד"א במדבר פי' שאין זרעים אבל ביישוב פי' ביישוב זרעים אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוס אם כן מאי קשיא ליה ואומר ריצב"א דודאי ס"ד דאיירי ביישוב זרעים ולהכי פריך ומישט שייטי שלשים ריס ותו לא אפי' ביישוב זרעים והא מוכח דביישוב זרעים שייטי טובא ואין זה אלא משום אכילה אלמא דלא מליא כריסייהו בחמשים אמה ומשני דלא איירי ביישוב זרעים אלא ביישוב שובכין ויישוב כרמים וקרי מדבר היכא דליכא שובכים וכרמים:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**והתניא ביישוב אפילו מאה מיל¹—But the *Braysoh*** **taught that in a settled
place [he should not spread out** the nets] **even for a hundred *Mil***

OVERVIEW
The גמרא cited a משנה that one may not set up traps for doves within thirty ריס of the ישוב.² The גמרא asked that we learnt in a ברייתא that in a ישוב one should not set up traps for doves even for one hundred מיל. This (seemingly) contradicts the cited משנה which places a limit of (only) thirty ריס, not מאה מיל. Our תוספות discusses this question, considering that this ברייתא may be internally inconsistent.
--------------------------------
תוספות asks:
**תימה³ דמאי סלקא דעתין דהוי פירוש וביישוב –
It is astounding! For what did we assume** (in this question) **is the meaning of** the word **'וביישוב'** in the ברייתא –
**אי קרי העיר יישוב אם כן⁴ אפילו מאה מיל לאו דוקא כמו שמשמע⁵ –
If the city is called a יישוב** (and we are not permitted to put up traps אפילו מאה מיל from a city), **so then if** we assume that when the ברייתא stated **אפילו מאה מיל, it was not definitive, for it seems** that the number, ‘a hundred מיל’, is לאו דוקא –
**אלא אפילו אלף מיל או יותר –
But rather** the ברייתא when it said not to make traps within מאה מיל, it meant **even a thousand מיל or more** is also prohibited. If we make these assumptions –
**אם כן בשום מקום לא יפרוס אפילו במדבר ורחוק לאין סוף מן העיר⁶ –
So therefore, one cannot spread out** traps **even in the desert and extremely far from the city;** this seems incomprehensible **–**
תוספות offers an alternate reading of the ברייתא that is more comprehensible:
**ואפילו⁷ אם נאמר דמאה מיל דוקא⁸ מכל מקום היאך יפרש את הברייתא –
And even if we say that מאה מיל is exact, nevertheless how can we explain the ברייתא –
דהכי תניא בתוספתא דמרובה⁹ אין פורסין נשבין ליונים –
For this is what the ברייתא, in the תוספתא of** פרק **מרובה, states; ‘we do not set out traps for doves –
אלא אם כן הרחיק מן היישוב שלשים ריס¹⁰ –
Unless he distanced them thirty ריס from the יישוב’.** The ברייתא continues **–
במה דברים אמורים במדבר אבל ביישוב אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוס כיון דעיר קרי יישוב¹¹ –
‘When were these words said, in the desert, but in the יישוב one should not spread out** his traps **even** for a distance **of מאה מיל’,** how can we reconcile the סיפא with the רישא **if עיר is referred to as יישוב?!**
תוספות offers a third approach which would remove the contradiction in the ברייתא:
**ואי סלקא דעתין דהכי פירושו במה דברים אמורים במדבר פירוש שאין זרעים¹² –
And if we assumed that this is the explanation** of the סיפא; ‘**when are these words said (**that thirty ריס is a sufficient distance from the city) if those thirty ריס which separated the traps from the city **were in a desert’, meaning that there were no seeds** to be found between the city and the traps –
**אבל ביישוב פירוש ביישוב זרעים אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוס אם כן מאי קשיא ליה¹³ –
‘However, ביישוב’, meaning that** if the space in between the שובך and the city **is ‘settled’ with seeds,** then the ברייתא maintains **that even if it is a hundred מיל** (from the city) **לא יפרוס;** since the birds have food along the way, there is no limit how far they can travel. We have now properly explained the ברייתא. However, if this is what the ברייתא means, **so what therefore is the difficulty** between the משנה and the ברייתא?!
תוספות answers:¹⁴
**ואומר רבינו יצחק בן אברהם דודאי סלקא דעתין דאיירי ביישוב זרעים¹⁵ –
And the ריצב"א says that we certainly assumed that** (in the [סיפא of the] ברייתא) **we are discussing a יישוב זרעים –
ולהכי פריך ומישט שייטי שלשים ריס ותו לא אפילו ביישוב זרעים¹⁶ –
So therefore** the גמרא asks (on אביי); ‘**and indeed do they fly only thirty ריס and no more’, even by a יישוב זרעים –
והא מוכח דביישוב זרעים שייטי טובא ואין זה אלא משום אכילה –
But it is evident** from the (סיפא of the) ברייתא **that by יישוב זרעים they fly** much **more** than thirty ריס, since the ברייתא prohibits up to a hundred מיל, **and the only** reason for this extension **is because of the food –
אלמא דלא מליא כריסייהו בחמשים אמה –
It is** therefore **evident that they do not fill up their stomachs in fifty אמה,** like אביי maintained but rather they keep on eating as they continue to fly!
תוספות cites the sגמרא' answer:
**ומשני דלא איירי ביישוב זרעים אלא ביישוב שובכין ויישוב כרמים¹⁷ –
And** the גמרא **answers that** the ברייתא **is not discussing יישוב זרעים** (for even with the זרעים they can travel at most thirty ריס), **rather** the ברייתא is discussing **יישוב שובכין (dovecotes) or יישוב כרמים (vineyards) –**
תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:¹⁸
**וקרי מדבר היכא דליכא שובכים¹⁹ וכרמים:**
**And** the ברייתא **calls מדבר** (where the limit is thirty ריס) a place **where there is no שובכים וכרמים** (even though there is זרעים, since the birds eat their fill in the first fifty אמות, and there is no שובכים וכרמים they cannot fly further).

SUMMARY
The גמרא is asking on אביי that since we see that birds can fly even a hundred מיל even though elsewhere it states they can fly only thirty ריס, this seemingly indicates that the reason for this difference is that when there is food on the way (יישוב זרעים) they continue to eat (beyond חמישים אמה) and to fly (beyond שלשים ריס).

THINKING IT OVER
According to the מסקנא of the גמרא is the term 'מאה מיל' in the ברייתא precise, or is it לאו דוקא and it is אסור even more than מאה מיל by יישוב כרמים ושובכים?²⁰

footnotes:
¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read מיל לא יפרוס.
² אביי explained that this משנה does not contradict our משנה which requires distancing only fifty אמות; because even though doves can fly שלשים ריס they eat their fill within fifty אמות.
³ תוספות will ask that either the ברייתא is not self-consistent (so instead of asking from the ברייתא on the משנה, the גמרא should first clarify the contradiction in the ברייתא), or if we can justify the ברייתא, there will automatically not be any contradiction from the ברייתא to the משנה. Why ask a contradiction from the ברייתא on the משנה?!
⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read כן אם אפילו (instead of כן אפילו).
⁵ The simple reading of the ברייתא when it states אפילו מאה מיל לא יפרוס means to tell us an exaggerated amount, but it is not limited to hundred, rather any distance is prohibited.
⁶ This would then mean that one can never place traps to capture birds. This cannot be what the ברייתא means!
⁷ תוספות writes 'ואפילו', since the simple reading of the ברייתא is that any distance is prohibited; even more than מאה מיל.
⁸ This means that more than מאה מיל one may place the traps, which is much more reasonable.
⁹ ב"ק פ"ח ה"ד.
¹⁰ This רישא of the ברייתא is exactly the same ruling as the משנה in ב"ק עט,ב, cited in our גמרא
¹¹ The רישא requires distancing of only thirty ריס from the יישוב (which means the city) and the סיפא requires distancing a hundred מיל from the יישוב (the city). This is self-contradictory. Instead of asking from the סיפא of the ברייתא on the משנה, the גמרא should have asked from the סיפא of the ברייתא on the רישא (which states the exact same ruling as the משנה)!!
¹² Therefore, no birds will fly more than thirty ריס without food in between.
¹³ The same answer we used to reconcile the רישא with the סיפא of the ברייתא, applies to the משנה and ברייתא as well. The משנה (which limits it to thirty ריס, is discussing a מדבר (without זרעים) and the סיפא of the ברייתא is where it is a יישוב זרעים. Either the ברייתא is self-contradictory; and if it is not, then there is no question from the ברייתא to the משנה. Why is the גמרא concerned about the contradiction the ברייתא and the משנה, and not the contradiction in the ברייתא itself?!
¹⁴ The thrust of the sריצב"א' answer is that the גמרא is not (necessarily) posing a contradiction from the ברייתא to the משנה, but rather the גמרא is challenging the answer of אביי, who stated that birds can fly even thirty ריס, but they eat only in the first fifty אמות.
¹⁵ This means that there are זרעים between the שובך and the city, so the birds have sufficient food to travel long distances.
¹⁶ אביי answered that they are filled after fifty אמות, but they will fly thirty ריס without eating any more. This indicates that even if there is food (יישוב זרעים) they will only eat by the first fifty אמות and fly thirty ריס and no more. But the ברייתא stated that they fly מאה מיל. If not for אביי we could interpret the ברייתא that without food they fly thirty ריס, but with food they fly מאה אמה. The reason for this difference must be that when there is food (יישוב זרעים) they continue to eat even past the first fifty אמות. This disproves אביי who maintains they do not eat past the first fifty אמות.
¹⁷ They are able to rest in the שובכין וכרמים and be renewed for continued flight.
¹⁸ We are now saying that by יישוב זרעים they can only fly thirty ריס; why does the ברייתא call a יישוב זרעים, a מדבר?!
¹⁹ From the perspective of birds, an area which does not have שובכים וכרמים (to enable them to continue flying) is called a מדבר (even though it has a יישוב זרעים).
²⁰ See נחלת משה.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:8:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:8:1)

יורש תנינא. וס"ד המקשה דמתני' אשמעינן ביורש וה"ה בלוקח ומיהו רב זביד דנקט נמי יורש אמתני' דלקמן סמיך אבל מתני' דהכא לא שמעינן מינה יורש מדאיצטריך מתני' דלקמן:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**יורש תנינא—We** already **learnt** regarding **an heir**

OVERVIEW
רב פפא (or רב זביד) inferred from our משנה, which stated that if one bought a dovecote he may keep it there, that we (the בית דין) claim on behalf of a buyer or an heir. The גמרא asked, we already learnt this rule regarding a יורש in a משנה (so what is ר"פ (or ר"ז) teaching us?¹ תוספות clarifies the sגמרא' question.
----------------------------------------
תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:²
**וסלקא דעתיה המקשה דמתניתין אשמעינן ביורש והוא הדין בלוקח³ –
And the questioner assumed that** even though **that the** cited **משנה is discussing a יורש,** but presumably **the same ruling** applies **to a לוקח** (that he does not require a claim) –
**ומיהו⁴ רב זביד דנקט נמי יורש אמתניתין דלקמן סמיך –
However, ר"ז who also mentioned יורש** (which does not appear in our משנה), **he was depending on the משנה later,** which the מקשן cited –
**אבל מתניתין דהכא לא שמעינן מינה יורש⁵ מדאיצטריך מתניתין⁶ דלקמן:**
**However, from our משנה here we would not know** that טוענין ל**יורש, since there is a necessity for the later משנה** (regarding a יורש).

SUMMARY
The מקשן assumed that יורש ולוקח are similar however the תרצן (ור"ז) disagree.

THINKING IT OVER
Why indeed cannot we derive יורש from לוקח and vice versa?⁷

footnotes:
¹ The גמרא answered that ר"ז wanted (mainly) to teach us regarding a לוקח (which is what our משנה is discussing).
² What is the גמרא asking, יורש תנינא; however ר"ז is teaching us that we argue for a לוקח also, not only for a יורש?! In fact, this is what the גמרא answers (see footnote # 1); but why is there even a question?!
³ The מקשן assumed that the same logic that tells us טענינן ליורש, that same logic applies to a לוקח as well, so what is ר"ז teaching us regarding a לוקח, since we have a משנה that טענינן ליורש, the same applies to a לוקח.
⁴ The answer of the תרצן (see footnote # 1) must be that לוקח and יורש are two separate issues; the fact that טוענין ליורש, does not necessarily indicate that טוענין ללוקח, therefore ר"ז wanted to infer that we are טוענין ללוקח as well. The question is that now that we are saying that יורש ולוקח are different and cannot be derived from each other, why did ר"ז infer from our משנה that טוענין ללוקח וטוענין ליורש, since our משנה is only discussing a לוקח and not a יורש.
⁵ תוספות may be rejecting the notion that perhaps ר"ז maintains (not like the מקשן [see footnote # 3]) that we cannot derive טוענין ללוקח from the fact that טוענין ליורש, but the reverse is true that once we know טוענין ללוקח, we certainly know that טוענין ליורש (see ‘Thinking it over’), and not like תוס' stated that ר"ז knows טוענין ליורש from the other משנה.
⁶ If (as we wanted to maintain in footnote # 5) that we can derive טוענין ליורש from טוענין ללוקח, why was there a need to write the משנה later that טוענין ליורש. This proves the neither can be derived from the other (see ‘Thinking it over’).
⁷ See נחלת משה.


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:9:1
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:9:1)

וצריכי. וא"ת ביורש נמי ליתני תרתי וי"ל דאשמעינן בלוקח וה"ה ביורש:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**וצריכי—And they are** (both) **needed**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא explained that it was necessary for the משניות to teach us the rule of טוענין (ליורש וללוקח) both here in our משנה (regarding הלוקח שובך from an individual) and also in the other משנה (by לקח חצר regarding a רבים), because we could not derive one from the other. Our תוספות explains why there were not two משניות regarding טוענין ליורש, just as there are two משניות regarding טוענין ללוקח
--------------------------------
תוספות asks:
**ואם תאמר ביורש נמי ליתני תרתי¹ –
And if you will say; let there also be two משניות regarding an heir?**
תוספות answers:
**ויש לומר דאשמעינן בלוקח והוא הדין² ביורש:**
**And one can say; that we were** already **informed regarding a לוקח** that there is no difference between a יחיד and a רבים, **so** it is self-understood **that the same ruling applies to a יורש** that there is no difference between a יחיד and a רבים.

SUMMARY
We cannot derive the rules (of יורש ולוקח) one from the other, but once we know the rule exists by both, we can derive the details one from the other.

THINKING IT OVER
How can we understand the difference between the question in תוספות (that יורש should require two teachings [and we cannot derive it from לוקח]), and the answer of תוספות that we can derive it from לוקח so there is no need for two teachings by יורש also?

footnotes:
¹ It was necessary for the משניות to teach us two types of טוענין ללוקח, one regarding a יחיד and the other regarding a רבים (see ‘Overview’), the same should be regarding טוענין ליורש that the משנה should teach us this rule specifically regarding a יחיד and a רבים, since we cannot derive one from the other. [See previous תוס' ד"ה יורש (TIE footnote # 6) that we cannot derive יורש and לוקח from each other. Therefore it is seemingly not sufficient that the ruling was taught by לוקח; it should be taught by יורש as well.]
² Granted that we could not derive יורש from לוקח (see footnote # 1); however that is if the rule of טוענין would be taught only by לוקח and not by יורש. However once טוענין is taught both by יורש and לוקח (indicating that the same rule applies by both of them), so once we know that by לוקח there is no difference between יחיד ורבים, the same will apply by יורש as well. [We cannot derive the rule one from the other, but once we know the rule we can derive the details one from the other.]


###### Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:9:2
[Tosafot on Bava Batra 23a:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Batra/r/23a:9:2)

אחולי אחילו גביה. פי' ז' טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר שהרשות בידם כדאמר פרק בתרא דמגילה (דף כו.) וכיון דליכא לכל חד בדרך אלא פורתא מחלי טפי מיחיד:

**Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski:**
**אחולי אחילו¹ גביה—They surely relinquished** their claim **against him**

OVERVIEW
The גמרא explains that if the rule of טוענין ללוקח was taught only regarding the case of זיזין which extend into the רה"ר, I would say that only in that case do we say טוענין ללוקח for we assume that the בני רה"ר forgave him this trespass and allowed him to extend his זיזין into the רה"ר,² however by a שובך which belonged to an individual perhaps we are not טוענין ללוקח. Our תוספות explains what is meant that the בני רה"ר are מוחל; who are these בני רה"ר that have the right to be מוחל?
---------------------------------------
**פירוש ז' טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר שהרשות בידם כדאמר פרק בתרא דמגילה (דף כו,א) –
The explanation** that the בני רה"ר were מוחל is that we are referring to **the ז' טובי העיר,³ in the presence of** all **the people of the city,⁴** who were מוחל this person to extend his זיזים, **for they have permission to do so, as** the גמרא **states in the last פרק of** מסכת **מגילה –**
תוספות explains why we assume מחילה here more than by שובך:
**וכיון דליכא לכל חד בדרך אלא פורתא⁵ מחלי טפי מיחיד:**
**And since each individual only owns a minute portion of the road, they are quicker to be מוחל** their small share **than one individual** who is prone to a greater damage.

SUMMARY
The מחילה is done by all the people who, since they each have a minimal share, are willing to be מוחל, easier than one individual who carries the entire loss.

THINKING IT OVER
Why does תוספות not accept פרש"י as to the reason⁶ why by a רבים there is more reason to assume that they were מוחל?⁷

footnotes:
¹ The גמרא in our texts reads אחולי אחול בני רשות הרבים גביה (instead of אחולי אחילו גביה).
² Otherwise, if they were not מוחל, how was he able to extend them into the רה"ר? The people (who are many) would certainly not allow him to keep it there. This proves that they came to a certain arrangement. This explanation is according to פרש"י (see ד"ה אימא). However see later in this תוספות that according to תוספות there is a different reason to differentiate. See ‘Thinking it over’.
³ The ז' טובי העיר are the appointed representatives of the people of the city, to deal with all the needs of the city (like the city councilmen today). They are permitted, on their own, to do a limited number of dealings on behalf of the city; however, their power is greatly extended if they make their decision במעמד אנשי העיר.
⁴ This presumably means that (a majority of) the people agree to take this action. We will assume that תוספות maintains that the זט"ה alone cannot be מוחל this person to extend his זיזים לרה"ר; however, במעמד אנשי העיר they can be מוחל (since all/most of the city agrees).
⁵ Since we are discussing במעמד אנשי העיר, so each one has a very small interest in the street (it is a shared ‘ownership’ with all the other people), therefore we can assume that they are willing to forgo this small interest which they have in the street. However, by a שובך where the neighbor may bear the entire loss from these birds, we cannot assume that he was מוחל. [This all is in the הו"א, according to the מסקנא we say טוענין and he retains the right to the שובך.]
⁶ See footnote # 2.
⁷ See נחלת משה.