פתח בבור וסיים בכותל—He began with a pit an ended with a wall

OVERVIEW The משנה states that one should not dig a pit near his friend’s בור, unless he distances his pit from his friends wall three טפחים. The גמרא asked why does he begin by mentioning בור and concluding by saying a wall. אביי answered that the משנה means from the wall of the בור. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to what the גמרא says next.

בקונטרס גרס¹ בתר דשני מכותל בורו שנינו וליתני אלא אם כן הרחיק מבורו – After the גמרא answered, מכותל בורו שנינו, in פרש"י the text of the גמרא continues and asks, so let the משנה state ‘unless he distances from his בור’ – ואינו נראה כמו שאפרש² – And this does not appear to be correct, as I will explain – ואי גרס לה³ הכי גרס לה פתח בבור וסיים בכותל וליתני אלא אם כן הרחיק מבורו⁴ – And if there is such a גירסא, this is how it should be read; he begins with בור and ends with כותל, but her should have taught, ‘unless he distanced himself from his בור’ – וכן משמע מתוך פירוש רבינו חננאל⁵ – And so it seems from the פי' of the ר"ח – תוספות anticipates a difficulty with his (and the sר"ח') proposed גירסא: ואף על גב דבריש המניח⁶ (בבא קמא דף כז,א) כי פריך פתח בכד וסיים בחבית – And even though that in the beginning of פרק המניח, when the גמרא asks a similar question; ‘he began with a jug and concluded with a barrel’; the גמרא there – לא קא מסיים וליתני ואם הוזק בעל הכד כולי⁷ – Does not conclude, ‘but it should have taught ‘and if he was damaged the owner of the jug’, etc. is liable’ – תוספות responds:

The language of the גמרא is not the same everywhere, but rather sometimes he elaborates, and sometimes he abbreviates.

SUMMARY The question of 'וליתני מבורו', according to רש"י is asked after the answer of 'מכותל בורו שנינו'; while according to תוספות, if anything, it is asked in conjunction and as an elaboration of the initial question פתח בבור וסיים בכותל (but not as an independent question after the answer of 'מכותל בור שנינו').

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks why here the גמרא adds the suggestion (of וליתני מבורו), while in המניח, the גמרא does not add וליתני וכו' בעל הכד חייב.⁹ Seemingly we can differentiate, that there the גמרא cannot say (with surety) וליתני בעל הכד, for perhaps the וליתני should be וליתני המניח את החבית (instead of המניח את הכד); however here the גמרא is sure that it should state מבורו (instead of מכותל חבירו). What is תוספות question?

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה וליתני. The גמרא is asking (according to this גירסא), why does the משנה state 'מכותל' and we interpret it to mean מכותל בורו, when it can state explicitly 'מבורו'. ² בתוס' ד"ה מכותל. ³ תוספות is saying if such a question (וליתני מכותל בורו) does appear in the גמרא, it should appear in the following manner. ⁴ It should be one long question; first stating the problem (why פתח בבור וסיים בכותל) and then offering a suggestion what the משנה should have said. But not like פרש"י that after we asked פתח בבור וכו' and answered that מכותל בורו שנינו, we go and ask (again) וליתני אא"כ הרחיק מבורו. ⁵ Presumably תוס' means that the ר"ח agrees with the ואי גרס לה הכי גרס לה, that the question of וליתני מבורו is written in conjunction with the question of פתח בבור וכו', but not after the answer of מכותל בורו שנינו (as רש"י is גורס). ⁶ The משנה there states; המניח את הכד ברה"ר ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה פטור ואם הוזק בה בעל החבית חייב. ⁷ We see from there that the syntax of the גמרא is to merely pose the question and not offer the suggestion how it should be written (since that is obvious from the question), so why here does תוספות ‘condone’ (as well as the ר"ח) writing the suggestion after the question (since this suggestion is obvious)?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ Therefore we cannot ask this type of question. ⁹ See footnote # 7.

מכותל בורו שנינו—We learned; from the wall of his pit

OVERVIEW The משנה states that one should not dig a pit near his friend’s בור, unless he distances his pit from his friends wall three טפחים. The גמרא asked why does he begin by mentioning בור and concluding by saying a wall. אביי (or ר' יהודה) answered that the משנה means from the wall of the בור. Our תוספות explains the meaning of this answer.

כלומר לא מחלל בורו קאמר אלא מכותל שיש לבור שהראשון הניח כשחפר בורו¹ – This מכותל בורו means that the second person must distance himself not from the cavity (the interior) of his friend’s בור, but rather from the wall which the בור has, which the first person allowed space for when he dug his בור – ומהך מילתא דרב יהודה דייקא לקמן² דאסור לסמוך מדהוזקק הראשון להניח כותל – And from this statement of ר"י (that מכותל בורו שנינו) the גמרא later infers that it is forbidden to dig a pit adjacent to the border, since the first one was required to leave space for a wall – ופריך מינה לאביי³ – And the גמרא challenges אביי from this inference – והשתא⁴ לא אפשר למיגרס וליתני אלא אם כן הרחיק מבורו⁶ דאם כן הוה משמע מחלל בורו – So now (after we answered מכותל בורו שנינו)**** the text cannot read 'וליתני אא"כ הרחיק מבורו', for then it would mean that he has to distance himself from the חלל בורו, when in truth he needs to distance himself from כותל בורו –**** תוספות addresses sרש"י' rejoinder to תוספות question: ומה שפירש הקונטרס⁷ דאי הוה תני מבורו הוה ידעינא דמכותל בורו קאמר – And this which רש"י explained that if the משנה would teach מבורו, ‘I would have known that it means מכותל בורו, but not חלל בורו – דאי מחלל בורו קאמר אין [זה] כונס לתוך שלו כלום⁸ כולי גרסת ספרו דחקתו⁹ – For if by מבורו the משנה means חלל בורו, it would turn out that the second person need not recess into his property at all, etc.’; the reading of his text forced רש"י**** to say so – אבל אין נראה דודאי אי תני מבורו הוה אמינא מחלל בורו קאמר ושרי לסמוך¹⁰ – However sרש"י' explanation does not appear to be correct, for if the משנה would have taught מבורו, we would have assumed that it means מחלל בורו, and it is permitted to be סומך to the border – ואם הראשון הרחיק מאיליו מן המיצר ג' טפחים או יותר – And additionally if the first one distanced his בור, on his own, three טפחים or more from the boundary – הוה אמינא דהשני יכול לסמוך עד המיצר¹¹ – We would have assumed that the second one can be סומך up to the border – ואם כן צריך לשנות מכותלו לאשמועינן דאסור לסמוך¹² לרבא – So therefore it is necessary for the משנה to teach 'מכותלו', according to רבא, in order to inform us that it is forbidden לסמוך – ולאביי¹³ צריך הרחקה בין שני הבורות ששה טפחים¹⁴ – And according to אביי it is necessary to state מכותל בורו to teach us that a distance of six טפחים is required between the two בורות – תוספות reconsiders (somewhat): ומיהו יש ליישב הגירסא ופריך אליבא דאביי – However we can justify the גירסא of רש"י, and the גמרא asks 'וליתני וכו' מבורו', according to אביי (who maintains מותר לסמוך) –

For we are discussing his view, so therefore the גמרא can ask דליתני אא"כ הרחיק six טפחים from his friend’s בור.

SUMMARY Once we interpret מכותל to mean מכותל בורו and it teaches us that אסור לסמוך, it is understood that the גמרא cannot ask וליתני מבורו, since we would not know that אסור לסמוך. However according to אביי it may be possible to ask וליתני וכו' (but six טפחים).

THINKING IT OVER When תוספות writes אא"כ הרחיק מבורו ששה טפחים, does he mean that the משנה should state ו' טפחים (in which case it is not at all like גירסת רש"י), or does תוספות mean something different?¹⁸

footnotes: ¹ The second person obviously cannot dig on his neighbor’s property. We are saying that he cannot have the perimeter of his בור within three טפחים of his neighbor’s property. The space between the boundary line separating these two people and the outside perimeter of the first person’s בור, that space is called 'כותל בורו'. If the משנה would have said אא"כ הרחיק מבורו, we would assume that it means the cavity of בור # 1, so if the perimeter of בור # 1 is three טפחים from the boundary, the second person would be permitted to have the perimeter of בור #2 right by the border. Therefore the משנה states מכותל בורו that he must distance himself three טפחים from the border (regardless how far away בור # 1 is). כותל בורו is understood to mean the area between the perimeter of בור # 1 and the property line. ² See later on this עמוד. ³ אביי maintains (shortly) that one may dig his בור as close as possible to his boundary line (סומך). The גמרא challenges אביי, since (אביי and) ר' יהודה explain the משנה to mean מכותל בורו, indicating that (even) the first person was not סומך his בור to the border, but rather he had a כותל (a space between the outer perimeter of his בור and the border), this proves that even the first person who digs a pit, cannot be סומך, but rather must leave over some space for כותל בורו. ⁴ We are now saying according to תוספות that מבורו would mean from the cavity of the בור, and מכותל בורו means from the wall of the בור (the boundary, see footnote # 1). ⁶ This is how רש"י בד"ה וליתני is גורס. See previous תוספות ד"ה פתח (TIE footnote # 2). תוספות is saying that once we answered that מכותל בורו שנינו, we can no longer ask וליתני וכו' מבורו, for that would be misleading, as תוספות goes on to explain. ⁷ בד"ה וליתני. ⁸ If בור # 1 was removed three טפחים from the border, בור # 2 can be at the border, so he is not כונס לתוך שלו. The expression אא"כ הרחיק indicates that בור # 2 cannot be on the property line. ⁹ In sרש"י' text the question of וליתני was written after the answer מכותל בורו שנינו, therefore he needs to explain that even if the משנה would have said מבורו we would know that it means מכותל בורו. ¹⁰ See footnote # 3 that we derive from the משנה which states מכותל בורו that even the first person must leave space (a כותל) between his בור and the property line. If it would not have stated מכותל בורו , but rather מבורו, we would assume that it means מחלל בורו, and we would not know that even the first person is אסור לסמוך. ¹¹ He is still three טפחים distant from the חלל הבור. ¹² This means that even the first person is אסור לסמוך (see footnote # 9) according to רבא (see shortly in our גמרא). ¹³ אביי maintains that it is מותר לסמוך (under certain conditions); why does it state מכותל בורו, why not מבורו. ¹⁴ Even if the first person was סומך (which is permitted according to אביי), the second person must distance the חלל בורו from the חלל בור # 1 a distance of six טפחים (so each בור has a כותל of three טפחים). ¹⁵ אביי is the one who answered (according to one לשון) that מכותל בורו שנינו, and אביי maintains that מותר לסמוך, so we do not need the מכותל בורו to teach us that אסור לסמוך (for according to אביי it is מותר לסמוך); the גמרא therefore rightfully asks let it state that he has to distance six טפחים מבורו.. ¹⁶ This means מחלל הבור. ¹⁷ This is not like גירסת רש"י in the משנה; of three טפחים. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁸ See מהר"ם ומהרש"א.

למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר—How is this relevant; for buying and selling

OVERVIEW The משנה, by stating מכותל is teaching us that a בור requires a wall of three טפחים, and this is relevant to מו"מ, that when one sells a בור and its wall, the wall must be at least three טפחים. Our תוספות points out that there is an additional relevance to this rule that כותל בור is three טפחים.

הך נפקותא לא איצטריך¹ לרבא² דהא קא משמע לן דאסור לסמוך³ – According to רבא it is not necessary to mention this relevance of מו"מ, because the קמ"ל of כותל בור שלשה teaches us that it is forbidden לסמוך (within three טפחים) – אלא לאביי דקא סבר מותר לסמוך – Rather this question of למאי נפק"מ was according to אביי who maintains that it is מותר לסמוך – וקאמר למאי נפקא מינה – So on this**** the גמרא asks, what is the relevance that a כותל בור is three טפחים (that the משנה chose to write מכותל) –

If it is to teach us that we require a distancing of six טפחים between two בורות; the משנה could have written, he should not place his בור next to his friend’s בור, unless he distanced himself from his friend’s בור six טפחים. Why write מכותל?!⁵

SUMMARY The question of למאי נפק"מ is only according to אביי, however according to רבא it teaches us that אסור לסמוך.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוס' that we are not גורס the question of 'וליתני וכו''; how do we understand the words הא קמ"ל, etc.?⁶

footnotes: ¹ According to רבא there cannot be even a question למאי נפק"מ, since it teaches us that אסור לסמוך. ² See the גמרא shortly (and the previous תוס' ד"ה מכותל [TIE footnote # 11]). ³ One may not dig his pit immediately adjacent to the property line, even if the neighbor (on the other side) has no pit there. See TIE previous תוס' ד"ה מכותל footnote # 3. ⁴ This is in a case where there is already a בור in one רשות, or if both sides want to dig a בור simultaneously. ⁵ The משנה began with בור, so it should conclude with בור (not כותל). ⁶ See מהר"ם.

אביי אמר סומך דהא אינה עשויה לבורות—Abayay said; he may place it near since it is not designated for pits

OVERVIEW אביי maintains (in opposition to רבא) that one may dig his pit adjacent to his boundary line if the other field is not designated for digging pits. תוספות discusses this ruling.

והואיל וכן אינו מזיק לו אם הוא סומך – And since this is so (that the adjacent field is not עשויה לבורות), he is not damaging his neighbor, if he is סומך, since the neighbor will not be digging any pits in his domain – תוספות asks: וקשה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דהא מפסיד הוא – And the רשב"א has a difficulty; but his neighbor is losing, by his placing his בור adjacent to the property line – שאם יטע אילן יצטרך להרחיקו יותר מחמת שסומך זה עד המיצר – For if his neighbor will want to plant a tree, he will need to distance it further back on his property, because of this one who dug his pit adjacent to the border – דמרחיקין¹ האילן מן הבור חמש ועשרים אמה² – For the rule is one must distance, when planting a tree, twenty five אמות from an existing בור – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמכל מקום אינו עושה לו היזק – And one can say; that nonetheless the בעל הבור is not damaging the בעל האילן – דהא דמרחיק יותר לא מפני שלא יזיקנו הבור אלא מפני שלא יזיק הוא לבור³ – For the reason the בעל האילן distances himself more (from the boundary) is not in order so that the בור should not damage him, but rather because the בעל האילן should not damage the בור – ולהכי אין לזה להניח מלסמוך בשביל כך דאם לא כן ירחיק⁴ כל כ"ה אמה⁵ את בורו: So therefore the בעל הבור is not required to give up his right לסמוך on account of the requirement for the בעל האילן to distance himself, for if this is not so, but the בעל הבור has distance himself on account of the אילן, he should be required to distance his בור from the boundary the entire twenty-five אמות (if it is a שדה העשויה לאילנות)!

SUMMARY The חיוב of distancing is only if one is directly מזיק his neighbor, but if he is causing that the neighbor needs to take precautions not be מזיק him, there is no הרחקת נזיקין.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does not תוספות ask the same question on רבא (that you cannot be סומך); but nevertheless he is causing the בעל האילן to be מרחיק כ"ה אמה?⁶
2. Why does not תוספות also ask the question on אביי ורבא according to the opinion that כ"ע בשדה שאינו עשויה לבורות סומך, and also on אביי if he maintains סומך even by a שדה העשויה לבורות?⁷

footnotes: ¹ This is the view of the ת"ק in the משנה on דף כה,ב. ² The בעל האילן is losing this extra space, since he could have planted his tree closer to his boundary, if not for the בור. See מהרש"א that תוספות question seems to be that if the בעל הבור would be מרחיק three טפחים, the בעל האילן would only need to be מרחיק twenty five אמה, so his roots will not penetrate the כותל הבור. However now that the בעל הבור was סומך, he needs to move back an additional three טפחים (besides the כ"ה אמה) on his own property. We can no longer say that והואיל ואין מזיק לו, since he is מזיק him three טפחים (of his property). See סוכת דוד אות לח and ביאורים והערות (להרי"מ קנובלוביץ) אות ט. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ תוספות is distinguishing between one causing (direct) damage to his neighbor, where there is an obligation to distance oneself, and where one is causing that his neighbor needs to distance in order that the neighbor should not damage him (as in the case of the בור ואילן); in which case there is no need for the one who will be damaged to distance himself. ⁴ תוספות proves that in this case the בעל הבור is not required להרחיק (even though he inconveniences the בעל האילן), for if he were required להרחיק, he would need to be מרחיק כ"ה אמה, and we do not find such a requirement anywhere. ⁵ See נחלת משה that תוספות means that the בעל הבור ובעל האילן would need to share equally that distance of כ"ה אמה; meaning that each one would need to distance himself twelve and a half אמות from the boundary. ⁶ See נחלת משה. ⁷ See the ספרים in footnote # 2.

אביי אמר סומך—Abayay says, he can dig adjacent to the border

OVERVIEW אביי rules that if there is no other בור in the other רשות, he can dig a בור adjacent to the property line; according to one view (only) if the other field is אינה עשויה לבורות and according to the איכא דאמרי even if it is עשויה לבורות.

אומר רבינו יצחק דלשתי הלשונות¹ לאביי דאמר סומך – The ר"י says that according to both versions of אביי, who maintains סומך – אם בא אחד לחפור בור לאחר מכאן צריך הוא להרחיק כל ששה² טפחים: If the neighbor comes to dig a בור afterwards he is required to distance his בור the entire six טפחים from the original בור.

SUMMARY The second party must distance himself the entire six טפחים (according to אביי).

THINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות assume that the second party must distance himself six טפחים,³ perhaps he should only distance himself three טפחים to allow a כותל for the first בור, but no more?⁴

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’. Presumably תוספות is saying that even according to the א"ד that he may be סומך (according to אביי) even to a שדה העשויה לבורות, the same rule applies that the second party must distance himself six טפחים, and he cannot claim that his field is עשויה לבורות so therefore we should split the distance. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See footnote # 2. ⁴ See נתיבות המשפט סי' קנ"ה ס"ק יב and נחלת משה.

לאביי ניחא—According to Abayay it is understood

OVERVIEW The גמרא inferred from the משנה that if there is no בור in the adjacent field there is no need to distance his בור from the property line. This (seemingly) supports the view of אביי that even in a שדה העשויה לבורות, one may dig his בור at the boundary (as long as there is no other בור in the adjoining property). תוספות qualifies this proof.

Now (when we support אביי from the inference of the משנה) we assume that when the משנה stated that he needs to distance his בור from כותל בורו, that means from the cavity of his בור, so he was not precise in his language.

SUMMARY The גמרא assumes now that מכותל בורו means מחלל בורו.

THINKING IT OVER According to this ס"ד, how much must the second person distance his בור from חלל בורו של חבירו?³

footnotes: ¹ The משנה stated אא"כ הרחיק מכותל חבירו, and we (אביי, ר' יהודה) interpreted it to mean מכותל בורו; that one does not merely distance from the cavity of the בור but rather from the כותל of the בור, which is three טפחים. See תוס' ד"ה מכותל [TIE footnote # 1 & 3] that we derive from מכותל בורו that even the first person must distance himself, so how can our משנה support the view of אביי. ² Therefore we must say that at this point in the גמרא when it said הניחא לאביי it assumed that מכותל meant from the cavity of the בור and it assumed that the משנה was not precise when writing מכותל, for it did not mean actually מכותל but rather the cavity (which is adjacent to the inner part of the כותל). ³ See חידושי הרשב"א (perhaps this is (also) included in the ולא דקדק בלשון which תוס' states).

הכי גרסינן בספרים ישנים סלע הבא בידים כולי וזה מרחיק ג' טפחים וסד בסיד—This is how it is written in older texts…

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a ברייתא but does not specifically state which view is rejected by this ברייתא. There are also differing texts how the גמרא responded to this question and how it elaborated on this ברייתא. Our תוספות offers two גירסאות.

וקשה¹ לאביי² – And this ברייתא presents a difficulty according to אביי – תוספות continues with the גירסא of the sגמרא' answer according the ספרים ישנים: הכא³ נמי שבאו לחפור שניהם בבת אחת⁴ ובא בידים איצטריך ליה⁵ – The גמרא answered; here too it is a case where they both came to dig simultaneously. The גמרא continues, and it was necessary to mention that it was earth which crumbles easily in one’s hand. תוספות continues with the גירסא of the ספרים ישנים – סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דבא בידים ליבעי רווחא טפי קא משמע לן – For I may have thought that since it is בא בידים, it should required a greater spacing (more than three טפחים), the ברייתא therefore informs us that three טפחים is sufficient. This concludes the גירסא of the ספרים ישנים – והשתא לא היה צריך לאסוקי ובא בידים איצטריך ליה שהרי לא הקשה כלום מבא בידים⁶ – And now, according to this גירסא, it was not necessary to conclude with the clarification that 'בא בידים איצטריך ליה', for there was no question on אביי, based on בא בידים, which the ברייתא stated – אלא אגב דאייתי ברייתא מפרש לה – Rather since the גמרא cited the ברייתא, it chose to explain it; why mention בא בידים. תוספות present an alternate גירסא: ויש ספרים דגרסי טעמא דבא בידים הא לא בא בידים לא ופריך לרבא – And there are some texts that read; the reason we require distancing is since it is בא בידים (crumbling earth) but if it would not be בא בידים there is no need for distancing (for the first person); and the גמרא is challenging רבא according to this גירסא – ומשני הוא הדין אפילו לא בא בידים ובא בידים איצטריך ליה⁷ וכולי – And the גמרא answers on behalf of רבא, ‘the same rule of distancing would apply even if it was לא בא בידים, but it was necessary for the ברייתא to teach בא בידים, etc.’ that even by בא בידים three טפחים are sufficient. תוספות offers conflicting views regarding differentiating between בא בידים and לא בא בידים: ואין נראה לרבינו תם לחלק לענין היתר לסמוך בין בא בידים ובין לא בא בידים⁸ – And the ר"ת does not see any difference regarding permission to be סומך, whether it is בא בידים or whether it is not בא בידים – ולרבינו יצחק נראה לחלק שפיר⁹ – However the ר"י sees sufficient reason to properly distinguish between the two:** דאף על גב דלא בא בידים שרי לסמוך בבא בידים אסור לסמוך – That even though that by לא בא בידים it is permitted לסמוך,** nevertheless by בא בידים it is אסור לסמוך – לפי שהקרקע מתבקעת ונופלת קרקע של שדה חבירו: Because as soon as you start digging the earth cracks and his friend’s land caves in.

SUMMARY According to the ספרים ישנים the question is on אביי and the discussion why mention בא בידים is ancillary. According to the יש ספרים the question is on רבא and the discussion of בא בידים is central. The ר"ת ור"י dispute whether there is a difference regarding לסמוך between בא בידים and לא בא בידים.

THINKING IT OVER

1. The ר"ת writes that אין נראה לחלק וכו' בין בא בידים ובין לא בא בידים; however in the גמרא we see clearly that there is a סברא to differentiate between לא בא בידים, where three טפחים are sufficient, and בא בידים where I may have assumed that more than three טפחים are required. How can we reconcile the ר"ת with our גמרא.¹⁰
2. Should we assume that the ר"ת agrees with the ספרים ישנים and the ר"י agrees with the יש ספרים?
3. The גמרא offers two reasons why רבא maintains אסור לסמוך, either because כי היכי דאת אימלכת וכו' אנא נמי וכו', or כל מרא וכו' מרפית לה לארעאי. Can we apply these two reasons respectively to the שיטות of the ר"ת and the ר"י?

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read פירוש וקשה לאביי (instead of וקשה לאביי). תוספות learns that the question is on אביי. ² The ברייתא clearly states that each one (even the first one) is required to distance himself three טפחים from the property line, while according to אביי the first one may dig adjacent to the property line without distancing.. The גמרא assumed that this law of distancing three טפחים is universally true whether it is בא בידים or not. ³ This is not like our גירסא in the גמרא and רש"י, where the answer is that בא בידים שאני, only then is a הרחקה required for the first person. See רש"י how he explains the question of ודקארי וכו' and בא בידים איצטריך. ⁴ This answers the question on אביי, and there is no need to elaborate further (as far as the question on אביי is concerned). Nevertheless (as תוספות will point out shortly), the גמרא, since it cited this ברייתא, finds it necessary to explain it. ⁵ Seemingly this rule that each one must distance three טפחים (if באו לחפור בב"א) is applicable in all situations, why does the ברייתא mention סלע הבא בידים?! ⁶ See end of footnote # 2. ⁷ According to this גירסא it was necessary for the גמרא to explain the בא בידים; otherwise there would be a question on רבא. ⁸ The ר"ת is negating the previous גירסא which inferred that by לא בא בידים it is מותר לסמוך. According to the ר"ת if it is מותר לסמוך (like אביי) it is always מותך לסמוך (even if it is בא בידים) and if it is not מותר לסמוך it is never מותר לסמוך (even if it is לא בא בידים). Therefore since the ברייתא states מרחיק (by בא בידים), it inevitably means that it is always אסור לסמוך. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁹ The ר"י (seemingly) supports the גירסא of the יש ספרים. ¹⁰ See מהרש"א.

מרחיקין את הגפת¹ כולי טעמא דאיכא כותל כולי—One distances the Gefes, etc.; the reason is because there is a wall, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא derived from our משנה (which stated that we distance the גפת from the wall) that if there is no wall in the other domain one may place the גפת adjacent to the boundary, this seems to contradict רבא who maintains אסור לסמוך. Our תוספות clarifies this question on רבא.

פירוש² וקשה לרבא – The explanation of this inference is that there is a difficulty with רבא who maintains אסור לסמוך (even if there is nothing being damaged on the other property) –**** תוספות asks: ותימה מאי קושיא הכא ודאי מותר לסמוך בשאין כותל שאין מזיק כלום – And it is astounding! what is the question?! Here by גפת וכו' it is certainly permitted to be סומך when there is no wall since he is not damaging anything – וכשיחפוץ זה לעשות כותל יסיר את הגפת³ – And when this other person will want to make a wall he will remove the גפת – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהני נמי⁴ מקלקלין את הקרקע ויזיק לכותל לכשיבנה אפילו שוב יסיר – And one can say that these items (גפת וכו') also ruin the ground and will cause damage to the wall when it will be built, even if he will remove them before building the wall – תוספות offers an alternate answer: ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דבכל אלו יש טורח בסילוקן – And furthermore says the ר"י that by all these items (גפת וכו') there is a bother to remove them; it is not that simple and easy – ולכך מעתה יכול לעכב עליו כי יש לחוש שמא לא ימהר לסלקו כשירצה לעשות כותל – So therefore the neighbor can prevent him as of now from placing his גפת there, since there is the concern that he will not remove it promptly when the neighbor wishes to build a wall – תוספות has an additional question: ואם תאמר⁵ אכתי מאי פריך לרבא – And if you will say; but still what is the challenge to רבא – הא מפרש טעמא לעיל משום דכל מרא ומרא דקא מחית מרפית לארעאי⁶ – Since he previously explained the reason why one cannot be סומך a בור; since every shovel full that you bang you loosen my earth – תוספות answers:

And one can say that this answer (of כל מרא ומרא וכו') was only said to satisfy the view of רבא even according to ר"י.⁸ However here the challenge to רבא was only according to the רבנן.⁹

SUMMARY One may not place גפת וכו' on the property line (according to רבא) either because it ruins the ground (for building a wall), or because he may not remove it promptly (ר"י). רבא does not necessarily employ the reasoning of כל מרא ומרא (according to the רבנן).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes in his first answer¹⁰ that the גפת ruins the ground and ultimately the wall. Seemingly when one builds a wall, he first digs out a foundation, so seemingly any ground which was ruined will be excavated and removed, so why cannot he be סומך the גפת to the property line.¹¹

footnotes: ¹ גפת is the residue of pressed olives in the process of making olive oil. גפת and the other items associated with it exude heat (הבל) which damages the wall. See רש"י יז,א ד"ה גפת וד"ה הסלעים. ² תוספות uses the word פירוש here to indicate that even though this is not understood so well, how this presents a difficulty for רבא (as תוספות will soon explain), nevertheless we must say that the question is on רבא! ³ רבא ruled אסור לסמוך by a pit, for if he places his pit adjacent to the boundary, the other person will have to distance himself the full six טפחים in his רשות (instead of the ‘required’ three טפחים, since the ground will be wet from the water in the first בור). The problem is only when the other person wants to dig a pit and the first person will not want to stuff up and close his pit. However here (by גפת), initially there is certainly no problem (since there is no wall), and ultimately there will also be no problem, since he can (easily) remove the גפת. ⁴ The נמי may mean that not only do they damage the wall (if there is one), they also damage the ground (which will ultimately harm the wall). Alternately (preferably) it means that just like digging a בור and filling it with water makes the earth moist (thus damaging the other property), similarly here placing the גפת at the boundary ruins the ground. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ This question seems to be (only) according to the ועוד אומר ר"י. ⁶ However here when he is placing the גפת on the border he is doing no damage at all (see footnote # 5). ⁷ There is a dispute later in the משנה on כה,ב in a case where there is a בור in the neighbor’s property, the חכמים maintain that the other neighbor cannot plant a tree in his own property unless his distances the tree twenty-five אמות from the בור, while ר"י maintains there is no need to distance since he is planting the tree in his own property. ⁸ רבא argues that even ר"י agrees with him, since the case of בור is worse than the case of the tree, for by the בור the neighbor can say כל מרא ומרא וכו'. ⁹ According to the רבנן (who prohibit planting a tree within twenty-five אמות of a בור) the reason why it is אסור to be סומך a בור to the border, because the neighbor can say, I also intend to dig a בור (and the water in your בור will prevent me from digging my בור). This reasoning applies to גפת as well. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4. ¹¹ See סוכת דוד אות מח.