דטירייא קשה לכותל—That vibrations are damaging for a wall

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the reason one must distance a mill from the property line is because of the vibrations (טירייא) which damage the wall. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דלקמן¹ (דף כ,ב) הדר ביה מטעמא דטירייא ומפרש אלא משום קלא – Even though later the גמרא retracted from the reason of טירייא (as the cause why we need to distance a mill three טפחים) and the גמרא there explains, rather the reason for distancing is noise, so why does the גמרא here state that the reason is טירייא?! תוספות responds: מכל מקום נקט ליה הכא משום דמעיקרא² הוה בעי לפרושי טעמא משום טירייא – Nevertheless he mentions here the reason of טירייא, since initially the גמרא there wanted to explain the reason for distancing is because of טירייא – תוספות offers an alternate resolution:

And according to these text which do not read 'אלא', it works out well here. For according to that text טירייא and קלא are the same reason.

SUMMARY The גמרא mentions the reason of טירייא here (even though later the גמרא offers קלא as the reason) either because it was the initial reason, or because טירייא וקלא are the same reason.

THINKING IT OVER Why can’t we say that when the גמרא there stated 'אלא משום קלא' it meant that regarding the חמור mill it is משום קלא,⁴ but not regarding the regular mill?

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there cited a ברייתא which required distancing not only from a hand mill (which vibrates and causes the earth to tremble) but also for a donkey driven mill (which is small and does not casue vibrations [see רש"י there ד"ה מאי]). Rather, says the גמרא, the reason is because both mills make noise (see רש"י there ד"ה משום). ² The גמרא there first cited our משנה and explained that the reason is because of טירייא. Then the גמרא cited the ברייתא (see footnote # 1) where (seemingly) the reason of טירייא is inappropriate and concluded the reason is קלא. Nevertheless since the initial reason is טירייא and it is (seemingly) appropriate for a hand mill, therefore the גמרא here which is dealing only with a hand mill stated טירייא as the reason. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ In our text the גמרא asks (regarding the חמור); 'התם מאי טירייא איכא' and answers אלא משום קלא. However in other texts the word אלא is omitted. The answer then is that even by חמור there is טירייא, but it is caused (not by the shaking of the mill but rather) by the noise it makes which [also] causes vibrations. (See נחלת משה for a different interpretation). ⁴ See footnote # 2.

לא יפתח אדם חנות של נחתומין—A person should not open up a bakery

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה which states that one should not open up a bakery under a storehouse. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the reason for this prohibition.

פירוש הקונטרס¹ משום שהעשן קשה לאוצר – רש"י explained because the smoke from the bakery ruins whatever foodstuffs are in the storehouse – תוספות disagrees with פרש"י: וקשה לרבינו תם דלקמן² אמר ביין התירו שמשביחו – And the ר"ת has a difficulty with פרש"י for later the משנה stated if the אוצר contained only wine, they permitted to open a bakery underneath it, since the bakery improves the wine – ועשן ודאי מזיק ליין דהא יין מעושן פסול לנסכים³ – However smoke certainly ruins the wine, for smoked wine is unfit for נסכים on the מזבח, since it is of an inferior quality – תוספות offers his interpretation: אלא נראה לרבינו תם דהיזק עשן ליכא כיון דאיכא שם תקרה ומעזיבה לא יכנס שם העשן – Rather the view of the ר"ת is that there is no smoke damage since there is a ceiling and plastering above the bakery, the smoke will not enter the storehouse above the bakery – אלא טעמא שההבל מזיק את האוצר אבל את היין משביח – However the reason why not to open a bakery underneath a storehouse is because the heat of the baking harms the אוצר, but heat improves the wine – תוספות deals with an anticipated difficulty: וגרסינן לקמן⁴ אמר רב יוסף והאי דידן אפילו שרגא קשיא ליה כלומר הבלא דשרגא – And the text there should read; ‘ר"י said but our wine, even a candle ruins it’; he meant the heat⁵ of the candle – ולא גרסינן⁶ קוטרא דשרגא: And the text does not read; ‘the smoke of a candle’; for smoke always⁷ damaged wine.

SUMMARY The problem with a bakery under a storehouse is the smoke, according to רש"י; and the heat according to תוספות. Smoked wine is פסול לנסכים.

THINKING IT OVER How can we explain why רש"י (בד"ה חנות) mentions יין, since the next משנה states ביין התירו?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה חנות. ² כ,ב in the (first) משנה. ³ See משנה in מנחות פו,ב (see פרש"י there ד"ה מעושן). How can רש"י state that the reason why we cannot open a bakery is on account of the smoke; if that is the case why would we be permitted to open the bakery underneath the אוצר of wine, since the smoke will ruin the wine; not make it any better as the משנה states. ⁴ כ,ב. In our text it reads אפילו קוטרא דשרגא (even the smoke of a candle). ⁵ ר"י was commenting that in the days bygone (in the time of the משנה, where it states משביחו) heat improved the wine, but nowadays even the heat of one candle spoils the wine. This is in accordance with תוספות explanation that we are dealing with heat, but not with smoke. ⁶ See footnote # 4. Our גירסא there seems to support רש"י that the issue is smoke. ⁷ See footnote # 3. מעושן was פסול לנסכים even בזמן המשנה and before. ⁸ See רש"ש and סוכת דוד אות ג.

הא ליכא אוצר עביד—But if there is no storehouse he may make it

OVERVIEW The גמרא inferred from the משנה that if there is no storehouse above, one may make a bakery, etc. (indicating that it is מותר לסמוך [not like רבא]). Our תוספות suggests an (alternate) answer.

The גמרא could have also answered; the same rule will apply even if there is no storehouse above, and nevertheless one cannot be סומך, and the reason he mentions the אוצר is to inform us that the heat produced by these (the bakery, dye store, etc.) damage the אוצר.

SUMMARY The גמרא could have answered (as it did previously); the משנה is merely teaching us that these items can damage the אוצר.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that the גמרא could have answered that indeed even if there is no אוצר he is not permitted to be סומך, etc. How could the גמרא have said that, when in the ברייתא it clearly states 'אם היה רפת בקר קודמת לאוצר מותר', so it is obvious that if there is no אוצר one may be סומך (not like רבא)?!³

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דהני קשה לאוצר (instead of דהבלא קשיא לאוצר). ² This is the same (type of) answer the גמרא gave on the previous (four) challenges to רבא. ³ See מהר"ם and פני שלמה.

דיקא נמי דקתני אם היתה רפת בקר קודמת כולי—This can also be inferred; for it was taught if the cattle stable preceded, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that we can infer that דירה שאני (in a דירה, one may be סומך initially [even according to רבא], as opposed to other situations), since regarding a דירה, the ברייתא ruled that if the רפת בקר was there first, it is permitted. תוספות discusses and challenges this inference.

ובכולהו¹ הרחקות דמתניתין לא תני הכי והוה ליה לאשמועינן בשאר וכל שכן בדירה² – And regarding all the required distancing of our משנה, it was not taught that if he came first he may be סומך, only here by דירה, so if the permission to be סומך applies to all the other cases (not like רבא), the ברייתא should have informed us that מותר לסמוך by the other cases (which are not a דירה), and we would know that certainly by a דירה one may be סומך – תוספות challenges the דיקא נמי: ותימה דלעולם בשאר הרחקות נמי מותר לסמוך והא דנקטיה הכא לאשמועינן רבותא – And it is astounding! for really we can maintain that by the rest of the הרחקות (even not by a דירה) it is also permitted לסמוך, and the reason the ברייתא mentioned this היתר here by חנות של נחתומין וכו', is to inform us of a novelty – דאף על גב דהוי גירי דיליה³ אם היתה קודמת לאוצר מותר – That even though it is ‘his arrows’, nevertheless if the רפת בקר preceded the אוצר it is permitted – דהשתא הוי חידוש אפילו⁴ לרבי יוסי⁵ – For now it is a novelty even according to ר"י – ואי אשמועינן בשאר לא הוי חידוש אלא לרבנן⁶ – But if he would have let us know this ruling that מותר לסמוך by the other cases (where it is not גירי דיליה), it would have been a novelty only according to the רבנן – אבל לרבי יוסי דקסבר על הניזק להרחיק לא הוי שום⁷ חידוש: However according to ר"י, who maintains that the one who is being damaged needs to distance himself, there would be no novelty. תוספות does not answer his question.

SUMMARY תוספות asks that the reason he mentions the היתר לסמוך here, is because it is מותר even though it is גירי דיליה.

THINKING IT OVER It appears from תוספות that only this case of אוצר is considered גירי דיליה, but not the other cases in the previous משנה.⁸ However in the first תוספות in this פרק,⁹ תוספות writes that לא יחפור וכו' is considered גירי דיליה. How can we resolve this contradiction?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ The words ובכולהו וכו' הכי are to be found in רש"י ד"ה דקתני. ² The answer of the גמרא that דירה שאני assumes a priori that by a דירה there should be less restrictions on his use of the דירה than in other cases (see רש"י ד"ה דירה).. Therefore since the ברייתא makes the exception only by דירה, it is understood that in the other cases it is אסור לסמוך. ³ גירי דיליה means that he is causing the damage directly like one who shoots at someone with his arrows. The heat of the bakery directly damages the foodstuff in the אוצר. It seems from here that תוספות maintains that by the other הרחקות it is not considered גירי דיליה. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ In the משנה on כה,ב there is a dispute; the ת"ק maintains that one must distance his tree twenty five אמות from his neighbors בור. However ר"י maintains that there is no need to distance since זה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו. In this case it is not גירי דיליה, since the tree is not directly damaging the בור; the damage will only happen later. However, if it is a case of גירי דיליה even ר"י agrees that it is אסור. ⁵ The bakery damages the אוצר directly; it is גירי דיליה so even ר"י agrees that if the אוצר was first, one cannot open a bakery underneath it. The חידוש is that even though it is גירי דיליה, but since there is no אוצר yet; one may open up a bakery, and keep it open, even if later the one above opens an אוצר. ⁶ The רבנן maintain that even when it is not גירי דיליה the מזיק must distance himself (see footnote # 4). However if there was no ניזק the מזיק can be סומך. ⁷ In a case where it is not גירי דיליה even if there is a ניזק, the מזיק (according to ר יוסי) may do what he wants in his רשות (see footnote # 4), so what novelty is there that when the ניזק is not there, the מזיק can be סומך; it is obvious! ⁸ See footnote # 3. ⁹ יז,א ד"ה לא. See also תוס' כב,ב ד"ה לימא. ¹⁰ See מהרש"א and נחלת משה.

דיקא נמי דקתני כולי—This can also be inferred, for it was taught, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that we can infer that דירה שאני (in a דירה, one may be סומך initially [even according to רבא], as opposed to other situations), since regarding a דירה, the ברייתא ruled that if the רפת בקר was there first, it is permitted.¹

And this inference does not present a difficulty for אביי, for to him it does not seems to be a greater novelty by the other cases that it is מותר לסמוך any more than by דירה.

SUMMARY According to אביי if one may be סומך by דירה, he may be סומך anywhere else.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why did not תוספות say that there is no difficulty for אביי, for he can maintain the reason the ברייתא spoke about אוצר is (not because דירה שאני, but rather) because there is a greater חידוש by אוצר, that even though it is גירי דיליה, it is still מותר לסמוך (as תוספות argued previously³)?!
2. According to אביי that it is מותר לסמוך in all cases, why indeed did the ברייתא only mention אוצר?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ The answer of the גמרא that דירה שאני assumes a priori that by a דירה there should be less restrictions on his use of the דירה than in other cases (see רש"י ד"ה דירה).. Therefore since the ברייתא makes the exception only by דירה, it is understood that in the other cases it is אסור לסמוך. This seemingly presents a difficulty for אביי who maintains מותר לסמוך; why does the ברייתא state this rule only by a דירה if (according to אביי) it applies in all cases.. ² אביי disagrees with the a priori assumption (in footnote # 1) that there is more reason to allow לסמוך by דירה than in other cases; rather אביי maintains if you are permitted by דירה you are permitted just the same in other cases. ³ בד"ה דיקא (הא'). ⁴ See נחלת משה.

ואם היתה רפת בקר כולי—And if the cattle stable was, etc.

OVERVIEW The ברייתא commented on the משנה of אוצר that if the רפת בקר was made before the אוצר, it is permitted to remain there. The משנה there mentioned other restriction under an אוצר including a bakery and dye store; what about them if they preceded the אוצר can they remain. תוספות deals with this issue.

And the same ruling applies to a bakery and a dye shop, and the ברייתא mentioned one of them (the רפת בקר), but it includes the others as well.

SUMMARY All three prohibitions (including a bakery, a dye store and a רפת בקר) are lifted if they preceded the אוצר.

THINKING IT OVER Can we find a חידוש that even by רפת בקר it is מותר if it came first, and certainly by חנות של נחתומין ושל צבעין, which would explain why the ברייתא mentions רפת בקר?¹

footnotes: ¹ See סוכת דוד סוף אות י'.

ותני עלה ד' אמות שאמרו כדי עבודת הכרם—And we learnt regarding this; the four Amos which they said is in order to work the vineyard

OVERVIEW The גמרא first cited a משנה that one should not plant a tree near his neighbor’s field unless his distances it four אמות. The גמרא then cited a ברייתא explaining the משנה that the reason one needs to distance four אמות is in order to work the vineyard. תוספות explains why the ברייתא changes from a tree (in the משנה) to a vineyard (in the ברייתא).

תוספות responds to the anticipated question:¹ הוה ליה למינקט כדי עבודת האילן – The ברייתא should have mentioned in order to work the tree (not the vineyard), as it states in the משנה that מרחיקין את האילן –

Rather the reason he mentions עבודת כרם is because this expression is mentioned in מסכת כלאים regarding a vineyard that it requires distancing of four אמות.

SUMMARY The term עבודת הכרם is used elsewhere therefor he uses it here (even) by אילן.

THINKING IT OVER Seemingly by כרם we are distancing ד' אמות to avoid the איסור of כלאים, so why mention it here where we are discussing (not כלאים, but) הרחקת נזיקין?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’. ² פ"ו מ"א and פ"ז מ"ג. The term 'עבודת הכרם' does not actually appear there (in our משניות).

טעמא משום עבודת הכרם כולי—The reason is because of working the vineyard, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא challenged רבא (who maintains that it is אסור לסמוך [even if the היזק is not present now]) from a משנה later which states that one may not plant a tree within four אמות of his neighbor’s field, and the ברייתא explained the reason for distancing four אמות is because of עבודת הכרם. The גמרא infers from this that it is only because of עבודת הכרם that it is necessary to distance; otherwise it would not be necessary, which is in opposition to רבא who maintains אסור לסמוך. Our תוספות questions the need for this inference.

בלאו האי דיוקא מצי למפרך בפשיטות דסגי בהרחקת ארבע אמות – The גמרא could have asked simply, without this inference, the משנה states that distancing four אמות is sufficient – ואי אסור לסמוך¹ היה צריך להרחיק כ"ה אמות – But if, as רבא rules that it is forbidden לסמוך, he would need to distance from his neighbor’s field twenty-five אמות – כדתנן לקמן (דף כה,ב) שמרחיקין את האילן מן הבור – As the משנה taught later, that we distance the tree from the בור twenty - five אמות; the reason the גמרא did not ask in this manner-

For he rather preferred to infer from the ברייתא that one may be סומך even within four אמות, not only within twenty five אמות.

SUMMARY From the משנה we can derive that one can be סומך a tree within twenty-five אמות; from the דיוק of the ברייתא we can infer that one may be סומך even within ד' אמות.

THINKING IT OVER If we were to prove from the משנה that it is מותר לסמוך within כ"ה אמות (as תוספות suggested) we would be faced with the question why do we need to be מרחיק even ד' אמות, therefore it was necessary to cite the ברייתא in order to explain why even though it is מותר לסמוך within כ"ה אמות, nevertheless it is אסור לסמוך within ד' אמות, because of עבודת הכרם.

footnotes: ¹ According to רבא one may not plant a tree in his property within twenty-five אמות of the property line, for perhaps his neighbor will decide to dig a בור there (and the roots of his tree will damage the בור).

דמפסיק צונמא—That a rock separates

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains the reason he does not need to distance (if not for עבודת הכרם) is because a rock separates the two fields therefore the roots of his tree will not penetrate into his neighbor’s field. תוספות explains why the need to distance (even) on account of עבודת הכרם.¹

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אמאי צריך ד' אמות פשיטא שחוץ לצונמא לא יחרוש שלא יועיל² כלום לאילן – And if you will say; why is it necessary to distance the tree ד' אמות (even if we are concerned for עבודת הכרם); for it is obvious that he will not plow past the rock (which is on the border between the fields) for that will not help the tree at all – תוספות answers: ויש לומר³ כשיחרוש עד הצונמא וירצה להפוך המחרישה לצד אחר – And one can say that when he will plow up to the rock and will want to turn the plow around to the other side (to plow there) –

the plow will enter his neighbor’s field.⁴

SUMMARY There is a need to distance ד' אמות even if מפסיק צונמא in order that he does not enter his neighbor’s property when he is turning the plow around.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות understanding that the ד' אמות is to prevent the turning around of the plow,⁵ why is this called עבודת הכרם (since there is no עבודת הכרם in these ד' אמות)?!

footnotes: ¹ עבודת הכרם here means that he will plow the area of ד' אמות around the tree, therefore if he will plant the tree within ד' אמות, when he will be plowing around his tree, his plow will inevitable enter into his neighbor’s property. ² We only plow the soft earth around the tree, so it receives more nourishment, no one plows on a rock! The question is if it is מפסיק צונמא there is no need to distance the tree at all since he will not plow by the rock! ³ See רש"י ד"ה אלא for an alternate answer (where he writes; וכן בשעת הבציר). See נחלת משה.. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 3.

היו שרשיו יוצאין כולי—Its roots extended, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked how can we answer that we are discussing a case of מפסיק צונמא (there is a rock in between) for how does the משנה state that if its roots extend to the other property, he may chop them off; how can they extend since it is מפסיק צונמא. The גמרא answered that the משנה meant if there was no הפסק צונמא, and his roots extended into his neighbor’s field he may cut off the roots. Our תוספות is concerned how it came to be that he was so close that his roots extended into his neighbor’s field.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר היאך סמך אי שלא ברשות¹ אם כן יקוץ² – And if you ill say; how did he plant the tree so close; if it was without permission from the neighbor, then the neighbor should be permitted to chop down the entire tree (and not just to chop off the roots) – תוספות responds: וצריך לאוקמי בלוקח³ – And it will be necessary to establish this משנה by a buyer – תוספות presents an alternate approach: ולרבינו יצחק בן אברהם אין נראה להעמיד בלוקח מדלא מסיק לה כדבסמוך – However the ריצב"א does not agree that this משנה is to be established by a לוקח, since the גמרא did not conclude here that we are discussing a לוקח, as the גמרא concluded shortly regarding another case; this proves that in this case we are not discussing a לוקח – אלא נראה דמיירי בסמך שלא ברשות דאינו קוצץ האילן אלא בנתינת דמים⁴ – Rather it is the view of the ריצב"א that we are discussing a case where he was סמך without permission where the rule is that he may not chop down the tree, unless he pays its value to the owner –

And regarding this rule (of קוצץ ונותן דמים) the משנה did not wish to elaborate and inform us of this rule (since it was taught already elsewhere).⁶

SUMMARY This משנה is either discussing a לוקח, or it was planted שלא ברשות, however the משנה did not wish to elaborate that he is קוצץ ונותן דמים.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that the משנה taught the rule of קוצץ ונותן דמים by an אילן ובור, but not in the case of אילן ושדה?

footnotes: ¹ If he planted the tree with his neighbor’s permission, obviously the neighbor cannot chop off the roots (see however נחלת משה). ² See the משנה later on כה,ב that if the tree was planted שלא ברשות, the neighbor may chop it down. Presumably תוספות means that he may chop it down, provided he pays the owner the value of the tree as the משנה states there קוצץ ונותן דמים. See later in this תוספות (footnote # 4). ³ A person owned a field and he planted a tree in the middle of the field, and then he sold half the field (which was adjacent to the tree [but not the part which had the tree]) to a buyer. The tree is now adjacent to his neighbor’s (the buyer’s) field. The buyer may chop of the roots, but may not chop down the tree (since it was planted ברשות). See the גמרא shortly that other cases were established in a case of a לוקח (see רש"י ד"ה הכא נמי). ⁴ See footnote # 2. ⁵ Instead the משנה stated the simpler rule that he may chop off the roots (without any payment). ⁶ See משנה כה,ב. See ‘Thinking it over’.

הכא נמי בלוקח—Here too; by a buyer

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the משנה which stated ואם אילן קדם לא יקוץ is in a case of a buyer (לוקח); for otherwise how could he be סומך (to the בור). There is a three way dispute how to interpret 'בלוקח'.

פירש הקונטרס¹ שהאילן ביד מוכר – רש"י explained that the tree is now in the possession of the seller – תוספות disagrees: ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק ברבי מרדכי דאם כן הוי ליה למימר במוכר² – And the ריב"ם disagrees, for in that case (that the tree is by the seller), the גמרא should have answered that the tree is by the seller (and not by the buyer) – אלא נראה לו לפרש שהאילן ביד לוקח³ – Rather the ריב"ם prefers to explain that the tree is by the buyer – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ולשני הפירושים אלו אין להקשות מאי איריא שהאילן קדם אפילו קדם בור נמי – And one cannot ask according to these two interpretations (of רש"י and the ריב"ם), why does the משנה teach us the ruling of לא יקוץ in a case where the tree preceded the pit, the rule of לא יקוץ should also apply even if the pit preceded the tree; תוספות gives an example – כגון שאדם אחד עשה הבור ואחר כך נטע האילן ומכר הבור לפירוש הקונטרס – For instance where one person dug a pit in his property and afterwards planted a tree in his property, and then he either sold the pit according to פרש"י that the אילן remains ברשות המוכר – או אילן לפירוש רבינו יצחק ברבי מרדכי לא יקוץ שהרי בהיתר עשאן – Or he sold the tree according to the פי' ריב"ם; in either case there is no requirement to chop down the tree (even though it will damage the pit which was dug before the planting of the tree) since it was done permissibly. Why was it therefore necessary for the משנה to state that we do not chop off the tree if it was planted before the pit, it will not be chopped off even if it was planted after the בור as long as it was planted בהיתר – תוספות responds that in this example given, it is not considered בור קדם: דבכהאי גוונא אילן קדם קרינא ביה שקדמה נטיעת האילן לערעור בעל הבור⁴ – For in such a case we consider it that the tree preceded the pit**,** for the planting of the tree preceded the complaint of the בור owner – דערעור אינו בא אלא על ידי מכירת בור או מכירת האילן – Since the ערעור did not take place previously (when it belonged to the same owner), only later through the selling of pit (לפירש"י) or the selling of the tree (לפי' ריב"ם) – תוספות asks: אבל לפירוש רבינו תם⁵ שפירש בלוקח שלקח מאדם אחד את אילן וטוענין⁶ ללוקח⁷ – However according to the explanation of the ר"ת, who explain that 'בלוקח' means that the בעל האילן bought the tree from another person and the reason why לא יקוץ is because we (the בי"ד) argue on behalf of the לוקח – קשה לרבינו יצחק מאי איריא אילן קדם אפילו קדם בור נמי – The ר"י has a difficulty with this פר"ת, for why does the משנה teach that if the tree preceded the בור, the rule is לא יקוץ, when according to the פר"ת even if the בור preceded the tree, the rule should also be לא יקוץ (since the seller had a right to maintain the tree and this right is transferred to the buyer)?! תוספות has an additional difficulty on פר"ת: ועוד כיון דהחזיק באילן ג' שנים איירי דבחזקת ג' שנים טוענין ללוקח⁸ – And furthermore since we are discussing a case where the seller had a three year חזקה for this tree, for it is only by a חזקת ג' שנים that we argue on behalf of the buyer; why is it necessary to establish the משנה by a לוקח –

Let us establish it even without a לוקח, but with a חזקה of three years, where the בעל האילן has a claim⁹ that he may keep his tree?!¹⁰

SUMMARY בלוקח can mean either he sold the בור and retained the tree (רש"י), he sold the tree (ריב"ם), or he bought the tree from a third party (ר"ת; and טענינן ללוקח). The קדימה of the בור or אילן is determined by its status when there was an ערעור (complaint). According to the ר"ת it would seemingly make no difference what was קדים.

THINKING IT OVER According to whom is there a greater חידוש (by a לוקח) that לא יקוץ; according to רש"י or the ריב"ם?¹¹

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה הכא who writes; אדם שנטע אילן בתוך שדהו ואח"כ מכר חצי שדהו לאיש אחר ובא הלוקח וחפר בור אין זה צריך לקוץ אילן שנטעו ברשותו. The tree is in the sellers field, where he had a right to plant it, so he need not chop it down when his neighbor (the buyer) digs a pit in his field. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² We are continually discussing the בעל האילן, so it should have said that the אילן is still by the מוכר ³ The case is basically the same as according to פרש"י, except that he sold the field and the tree, so if the seller decides to dig a pit in his field, we cannot chop down the tree of the buyer since it was planted ברשוח.. ⁴ בור קדם means that when he wants to plant the tree there is an ערעור from the בעל הבור (regardless whether he dug the pit it or not). However here since the owner is making both the בור and the אילן, there is no ערעור by the planting of the tree since it is the same owner. The ערעור takes place only after there are two owners, the בעל הבור and the בעל האילן but at that time the אילן was planted בהיתר; it was אילן קדם. ⁵ The רש"ש amends this to read רבינו חננאל (instead of רבינו תם). See תוס' on the עמוד ב' ד"ה וסבר. ⁶ We say that perhaps the seller of the tree (to the current owner) came to an arrangement with the בעל הבור to allow him to plant (or keep) the tree there (or some other claim that allows him to plant and maintain the tree). The seller transfers this right to the buyer, therefore לא יקוץ. ⁷ There is a general rule that if a buyer (or an heir) gets into a dispute with a third party, בי"ד claims on behalf of the buyer (or heir) any claim which the seller (or the מוריש) could have claimed. ⁸ This rule that טוענין ללקוח (or ליורש) is only if the seller had a חזקת ג' שנים in the property (the tree), for then we assume that it is his property, therefore we transfer his rights to the buyer. however if the seller did not have חזקת ג' שנים, we are not certain that it even belonged to the seller and therefore we are not טוענין ללוקח. ⁹ The claim of the בעל האילן is the same as in footnote # 6. He will claim that he bought this right from the בעל הבור, or something similar. It will be valid for him as it was valid in the case of a seller. ¹⁰ תוספות does not answer. See פני שלמה (brought also in נחלת משה) who answers these two questions. ¹¹ See סוכת דוד אות כא (עד"ז).

לגלוגי¹ חרדל—Mustard plants²

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה which stated that one must distance his mustard plants (חרדל) from the beehive (דבורים).³ However ר' יוסי permits leaving the חרדל by the דבורים since the בעל החרדל can say to the בעל הדבורים; ‘instead of me distancing myself from the דבורים you should distance your דבורים from my חרדל, since they eat up לגלוגי חרדלאי’. There are differing opinions as to the meaning of לגלוגי.

פירש הקונטרס⁴ פרחים ובערוך פירש גרעין – רש"י explained that לגלוגי are the flowers of the mustard plant, and in the ערוך he explained that it refers to the mustard seed – תוספות disagrees: ותרוייהו אין נראה לרבינו יצחק דהא קאמרי⁵ רבנן⁶ דבורים לחרדל לא מזקי – And the ר"י does not subscribe to both of these interpretations, since the רבנן reply to ר' יוסי; ‘the bees do not damage the mustard’, and the רבנן continue to explain – אי בבינתא כולי⁷ אי בטרפא כולי⁸ משמע דלא פירש רבי יוסי בדבריו מה הן מזיקין – ‘If you mean that the bees damage the seed, etc. it is not so, and if you mean the leaves, etc. it is not so’. It is evident from this equivocal response of the רבנן, that ר"י was not explicit in his words as to what exactly the bees are damaging – ולכך היו מסתפקין אי בבינתא כולי⁹ – So therefore the רבנן were in doubt whether ר"י meant the seed etc. – תוספות offers his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דלגלוגי הם ענפים והשתא לא פירש רבי יוסי מה הם מזיקות – And it is the view of the ר"י that לגלוגי are the branches of the mustard plant (on which there are both seeds and flowers); so now ר"י was not specific what they are damaging on the branches (whether it is the seed or the flowers) – לכך אמרו ליה רבנן אי בבינתא כולי¹⁰ – So therefore the רבנן said to ר"י if you mean the seed, etc. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מכל מקום הרי הן מזיקין לחרדל¹¹ שיאכלו הפרחים¹² – And if you will say; regardless**** that there no damage regarding the seeds (because they can’t find them) and the leaves (because they grow back), nevertheless the bees are damaging the mustard for they will eat the flowers – תוספות answers:

And one can say; that the flowers are only there for a short time, and in the day or two that the flowers stand, the bees cannot harm them.

SUMMARY לגלוגי can mean either flower (רש"י), seed (ערוך), or branches (ר"ת). Eating the (short term) flowers will not cause damage to the plant

THINKING IT OVER According to רש"י that לגלוגי means flowers, why did the רבנן only discuss the seeds and the leaves, but not the flowers?!

footnotes: ¹ The marginal note indicates that this תוספות is referencing the גמרא on the עמוד א'. See however הגהות הב"ח at the end of תוד"ה ואי that this תוספות should follow and be after the three תוספות on this עמוד. ² תוספות will cite various interpretation of the word 'לגלוגי'. ³ See רש"י on the עמוד א' ד"ה ואת החרדל that the bees eat the sharp mustard and it makes them consume their honey causing a loss to the beekeeper. ⁴ לקמן כה,ב בד"ה לגלוגי. ⁵ Later on this עמוד. ⁶ The רבנן maintain that the mustard must be distanced from the bees because they cause a loss to the beekeeper, but the bees cause no damage to the mustard (in opposition to the view of ר' יוסי) ⁷ The bees cannot find the seed because it is encased in its pod. ⁸ It does not matter that the bees will eat the leaves for it will grow back, so no damage is done. ⁹ How then can רש"י and the ערוך be specific as to the meaning of לגלוגי (either seed or flower), when even the רבנן were not sure what ר"י meant with לגלוגי?! ¹⁰ See previously footnote # 7 and 8. ¹¹ This question seems to be directed to the answer of the רבנן, but it does not seem connected to the previous discussion as to the meaning of לגלוגי. See (however) ‘Thinking it over’. ¹² The flowers are revealed (not like the seed) and do not grow back (not like the leaves). They are necessary for the growth of the plant. ¹³ The חתם סופר amends this to read מעט זמן וביום (instead of מעט וביום). ¹⁴ The function of the flowers is for a short time (a day or two); afterwards they fall off and are not necessary. In this short time the bees cannot consume enough of the flowers to cause any harm to the mustard plant. See סוכת דוד יט,א אות א'.