ואי לא סמיך היכי משכחת לה—And if one cannot come close, how did it happen

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a משנה which stated that one must distance his mustard plants (חרדל) from the beehive (דבורים).¹ However ר' יוסי permits leaving the חרדל in its place, 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’. The גמרא asked according to רבא that one is not permitted to be סומך (even if the item to be damaged is not there yet), how is it possible that the חרדל and דבורים were in close proximity, since it is אסור לסמוך?!²

פירש³ רבינו יצחק בשלמא לאביי דאמר סמיך אתי שפיר דמיירי שסמך בעל דבורים תחילה – The ר"י explained; granted, according to אביי, who maintains that one may be סומך, the משנה is properly understood, for we are discussing a case where the beekeeper was סמיך first (his bees were near the property line where later his neighbor planted mustard) – ואף על גב דהשתא קא סלקא דעתין דדבורים נמי מזקי לחרדל לכולי עלמא⁴ – So even though that now (in this הו"א) we assume that all agree that the bees also damage the חרדל, so why can the beekeeper allow his bees to remain when the other is planting mustard⁵ – מכל מקום סברי רבנן דעל המזיק שני דהיינו בעל חרדל להרחיק את⁶ כל ההרחקה – Nevertheless the רבנן maintain that the second damager, meaning the בעל החרדל is required to distance himself the entire amount of distancing that is required – כמו גבי בור דאם סמך הראשון⁷ על המיצר השני מרחיק כל ששה טפחים⁸ – Just as by a pit that if one was סומך by the boundary, the second one who wishes to dig a בור is required to distance the entire six טפחים. This explains how we can understand the רבנן according to אביי. Now תוספות will explain ר' יוסי according to אביי – ורבי יוסי סבר כיון דדבורים מזקי חרדל ועשה קצת שלא כהוגן – And ר"י maintains that since the bees damage the mustard and he acted somewhat improperly – שסמך על המיצר שזה עתיד לסוף לזרוע חרדל⁹ – For he was סומך at the boundary where his neighbor will eventually plant חרדל later, so – אף על פי שבדין אינו יכול למונעו שלא יסמוך מכל מקום קצת שלא כהוגן עושה – Even though legally the future בעל החרדל cannot prevent the בעל הדבורים from being סומך (for we are now following the view of אביי), nevertheless the בעל הדבורים acted somewhat improperly, therefore – וגם¹⁰ בעל חרדל יכול לסמוך¹¹ – The בעל החרדל can also be סומך – ולא דמי לבור דהתם משום דמרפי ליה לארעיה ומזיק השני בידים לכותל בורו של ראשון – And this case here is not similar to a בור (where the second מזיק [which here would be the בעל החרדל] needs to move the entire distance), for there the second בעל הבור is loosening the ground (by his digging) so that the second בעל הבור is directly damaging with his hands the wall of the first בור – לכך על השני להרחיק כל ההרחקה אבל הכא לא – Therefore (since there is direct damage from the שני) the second בעל הבור is required to move the entire distance, but here where the בעל החרדל is not damaging the bees directly,¹² the בעל החרדל is not required to move. This is how we can understand the views of the רבנן ור"י according to אביי. In summation; according to אביי the מחלוקת between ר"י ורבנן is where the בעל הדברים was סומך first (and everyone agrees that the דבורים and the חרדל damage each other). The dispute hinges on whether this case is similar to two בורות where the second בור needs to make the entire הרחקה (the view of the רבנן) or that this is not similar to בור, where the second בור is מזיק בידים (therefore he makes the entire הרחקה) however here the בעל החרדל is not מזיק בידים [and the בעל הדבורים acted¹³ שלא כהוגן], therefore the בעל החרדל need not move any more than the בעל הדבורים (the view of ר' יוסי). תוספות goes on to explain why according to רבא there is a difficulty: אלא לרבא דאמר לא סמיך היכי משכחת לה דבעל החרדל ירחיק כל ההרחקה לרבנן – However according to רבא, who maintains לא סמיך, how is it possible that according to the רבנן the בעל החרדל has to move the entire distance – ולרבי יוסי לא ירחיק כלל – And according to ר"י the בעל החרדל does not distance at all – דכיון דתרוייהו מזקי אהדדי על כל אחד ואחד להרחיק חצי ההרחקה – For since that both of them are damaging each other, each one should be required to move half the distance – ואפילו סמך בעל דבורים תחלה יש לו לסלקם הואיל ושלא כדין סמכם – And even if the בעל הדבורים was סומך first, he should remove his bees since he was סומך illegally (according to רבא). This is the explanation of the sגמרא' question on רבא.**** In summation; the question on רבא is that since we are assuming now that the דבורים and חרדל damage each other, and neither had permission to be סומך; the rule should be that both should be מרחיק (each one) a half, so why do the רבנן maintain that only the חרדל should be מרחיק, and ר"י maintains neither are required to be מרחיק?! תוספות continues with the explanation of the answer of רב פפא: אמר רב פפא בלוקח¹⁴ שזרע חרדל ומכר חצי שדהו והלוקח העמיד דבורים – רב פפא answered we are discussing a buyer, meaning that the owner of the field planted mustard and afterwards he sold half his field (which did not have any mustard plants) and the buyer set up bees in his part of the field – וסברי רבנן כדמסיק¹⁵ דדבורים לא מזקי לחרדל ועל המזיק להרחיק את עצמו – And the רבנן maintain (now in this answer of ר"פ) as the גמרא will conclude (later according to רבינא) that the bees do not damage the mustard, so therefore it is incumbent that the damager (the בעל החרדל) should distance himself from the bees – אף על פי שסמך בהיתר – Even though he was permitted initially to be סומך (since then it was all his field) – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דגבי אילן כשסמכו בהיתר אמרי דלא יקוץ – Even though that by the tree (and the בור) when he was סומך the tree legally (before there was a בור),**** the משנה states that it is not chopped off, so why here is the בעל החרדל required to move his plants (he was סומך בהיתר)?! תוספות replies: הני מילי אילן שעשוי לעמוד שנים רבות ואיכא הפסד מרובה – When were these words said (that if it was בהיתר the rule is לא יקוץ) by a tree, which is planted to remain for many years and there is a great loss if we chop down the tree – אבל משרה כרישין וחרדל לא – However regarding a soaking pit, leeks or mustard, this rule does not apply, since there is not that much difficulty in removing them and there is no great loss, therefore we say that since he is the (only) מזיק, the בעל החרדל is required to move – תוספות proves that אילן is different from other cases: דהכי נמי אמרינן¹⁶ גבי אילן אם הבור קדם קוצץ ונותן דמים אף על גב דסמך אילנו באיסור – For this is also what we say regarding a tree that ‘if the בור preceded the tree (and he planted the tree within twenty-five אמות of the בור) the rule is that the בעל הבור may chop down the tree and pay the tree owner the value of the tree, even though the בעל האילן was סומך the tree illegally (since there was a בור within twenty-five אמות of the tree) – ובשאר דברים הנסמכים באיסור אינו נראה שיתנו דמים – However by other cases where he was סומך illegally it does not seem that the neighbor (the potential ניזק) is required to pay money for the removal of the מזיק. Why is there this difference – אלא טעמא דלהפסד מרובה חששו¹⁷ – Rather the reason for this distinction is that the רבנן were concerned for a large loss (by a tree), but not for a minor loss. This concludes the view of the רבנן (according to רב פפא) – ורבי יוסי סבר דדבורים מזקי לחרדל וצריך בעל דבורים להרחיק כל ההרחקה – However ר"י maintains that the bees harm the mustard plant, so the beekeeper must move away the entire distance – כיון דבעל חרדל לא עשה כלל שלא כהוגן¹⁸ – Since the בעל החרדל did not do anything improper; only the בעל הדבורים acted improperly by placing his bees near the חרדל where they would damage the חרדל – In summation; the answer of ר"פ is that initially the whole field belonged to the בעל החרדל and then he sold part of his field (which did not have חרדל) to the person that later placed דבורים there. The רבנן maintain that since the דבורים do not damage the חרדל (so there is no need for him to distance himself), it is incumbent upon the בעל החרדל to distance (even though he planted בהיתר), since there is no great loss nor much bother to distance the חרדל. However ר"י maintains that the דבורים damage the חרדל (and the חרדל was planted בהיתר גמור), therefore the דבורים need to make the entire הרחקה.¹⁹ תוספות reacts to an anticipated difficulty:²⁰ ומשום הכי²¹ נמי לא בעי לאוקמי כשסמך בעל דבורים תחלה ובלוקח – And because of this reason we can also understand why the גמרא did not want to establish the case of חרדל where the beekeeper was סומך first and another person bought part of his field and planted חרדל there – תוספות first explains what advantage there would be in this case: ולא היה צריך לדחוק ולומר דלרבנן על המזיק להרחיק אף על פי שעשה בהיתר²² – For it would not have necessary to cumbersomely explain that according to the רבנן, the מזיק is required to distance himself even if he did it permissibly – מה שאינו גבי אילן ובור²³ – Which will be different from the case of a tree and a pit – An additional advantage in establishing the בעל הדבורים as the initial owner: וגם לא יצטרך לומר דלרבנן דבורים לא מזקי לחרדל ופליגי ארבי יוסי – And it will also not be necessary to say that according to the רבנן the דבורים do not damage²⁴ the חרדל and argue with ר"י, who maintains that they indeed damage the חרדל. ²⁵ The question is why indeed did we not establish that the דבורים came first?! תוספות replies: דאם כן כיון דבעל דבורים סמך בהיתר ולא עשה שלא כהוגן – For if that would indeed be the case that the בעל הדבורים was first, so since the בעל הדבורים was סומך בהיתר and did nothing improper – לא היה מתיר רבי יוסי לבעל חרדל לסמוך²⁶ – ר"י would not permit the בעל החרדל to be סומך, since the בעל הדבורים acted properly and the בעל החרדל did not. In summation; we cannot say that the case of לוקח is where the בעל הדבורים owned the field first and then sold it to the (eventual) בעל החרדל for (even though we would gain in our understanding of the רבנן)²⁷ the position of ר"י would be not acceptable. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר נוקי פלוגתייהו בלא לוקח²⁸ – And if you will say, let us establish their argument without a buyer and the בעל החרדל was סומך first (as in the case with a לוקח) – דלרבנן דדבורים לא מזקי לחרדל צריך בעל חרדל להסיר ולהרחיק כל ההרחקה – So according to the רבנן that the bees do not damage the mustard, the בעל החרדל is required to remove the חרדל and to distance the חרדל the entire distance, so as not to damage the בעל הדבורים; he needs to do so אף על פי שסמך תחלה²⁹ – Even if he was סומך first, since his סמיכה was not בהיתר – ולרבי יוסי כיון דתרוייהו מזקי אהדדי אין לבעל החרדל להרחיק כל ההרחקה אלא החצי³⁰ – And according to ר"י, since both of them damage each other, the בעל החרדל is only required to distance himself, half the הרחקה, not the entire הרחקה. The בעל הדבורים will distance himself the other half; why the need for a לוקח?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמתיר בחרדל משמע דמתיר לגמרי לסמוך³¹ – And one can say that the expression, ר' יוסי ‘permits by חרדל’, indicates that ר"י completely permits the בעל החרדל to be סומך without any הרחקה at all – In summation; the reason we cannot say that the case is without a לוקח, and the חרדל was סומך first, therefore according to the רבנן that the דבורים are not מזיק the חרדל, the חרדל must be מרחיק and according to ר"י that the דבורים are also מזיק, they both need to be מרחיק, is because when the ברייתא states ר"י מתיר בחרדל, it means he does not distance himself at all. תוספות explained the question of the גמרא and sר"פ' answer. תוספות explains now the continuation of the גמרא: The גמרא asks: אי הכי מאי טעמא דרבנן כיון דבהיתר נסמכו – ‘If indeed this is so (that we are discussing a לוקח, so the first one [the מזיק] was סומך בהיתר [since it was his field exclusively]), what is the reasoning of the רבנן’, since they were נסמך בהיתר – משרה³² וכרישין למה צריך להרחיקן כשבאו ירק ובצלים Why is it necessary to distance the משרה and the leeks when the neighbor brought later vegetables and onions on his property – וכל שכן חרדל למה ירחיקוהו כשבאו דבורים – and it is certainly not understood why it is necessary to distance the mustard (which was planted בהיתר) when the bees came later. The reason why the case of חרדל is more difficult to understand (according to the רבנן) than משרה וירק, is that – כיון שגם הם מזקי³³ דסלקא דעתין דדבורים נמי מזקי לחרדל לכולי עלמא – Since the bees also damage the mustard, for the one who asked this question assumed³⁴ that all agree (even the רבנן) that the bees also damage the mustard – תוספות continues to explain the sגמרא' next question: ועוד מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי דלא פליג אלא בחרדל משום דדבורים נמי מזקי לחרדל – ‘And additionally, what is the reasoning of ר"י’ that he argues with the רבנן (who maintain that the בעל החרדל needs to distance himself) only by חרדל, since the bees damage the חרדל; he should argue with the רבנן – אפילו משרה וירק כיון שנעשה המשרה בהיתר לא יצטרך להרחיקה כמו גבי אילן ובור³⁵ – ‘Even by משרה וירק’ (where only the משרה damages the ירק but not the other way), for since the משרה was done בהיתר, it should not be necessary to distance it, just as the ruling is by a tree and a pit (that if the tree was planted בהיתר all agree even the רבנן that it is not chopped down, so the same should apply to משרה וירק [especially according to ר"י]) – תוספות continues with explaining the following answer of רבינא ומשני רבינא לעולם בלוקח וקא סברי רבנן על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו – And רבינא answered that we are really discussing a buyer, but the רבנן maintain that the מזיק must always distance himself – אף על פי שעשה בהיתר ולהכי על בעל החרדל להרחיק שהוא הזיק – Even though he did it בהיתר, so therefore the בעל החרדל must distance himself (even though the he was סומך בהיתר), since he is damaging the דבורים, and the דבורים are not damaging the חרדל (as the גמרא will shortly state explicitly) – תוספות continues with the explanation of the challenge to רבינא: ופריך כיון דשמעינן ממילתא דרבינא שהדבורים אינם מזיקים לחרדל – And the גמרא asked, since we can infer from the answer of רבינא that the bees do not damage the mustard; we can infer it – דלכך³⁶ נתנו רבנן הרחקה על בעל החרדל – For that explains why the רבנן required the בעל החרדל to distance himself – מכלל דרבי יוסי סבר על הניזק להרחיק עצמו – We can therefore infer that ר"י maintains that the ניזק must distance himself; we infer this since ר"י – מדשרי סמיכת חרדל אף על פי שהוא מזיק ולא ניזק³⁷ – Permits the חרדל to remain even though he is the מזיק and not the ניזק – אם כן אפילו משרה וירק נמי³⁸ – Therefore even by משרה וירק the rule should also be that the ניזק (the בעל הירק) should distance himself, not the מזיק (the בעל המשרה), as it is by חרדל ודבורים – תוספות comments: והוא הדין דהוי מצי לאקשויי דברייתא³⁹ בהדיא משמע שהדבורים מזקי נמי לחרדל – And the truth is that the גמרא could have asked (on רבינא), that in the ברייתא it is explicitly implied that the bees damage the mustard – דקתני ואוכלות לגלוגי⁴⁰ חרדלי – For it states, and they eat לגלוגי חרדלי, so how can רבינא maintain that the דבורים do not damage the חרדל. The גמרא could have asked this –

However the גמרא preferred to mention the challenge that even משרה וירק should also not require הרחקה, since the גמרא initially asked this question on the answer of ר"פ. In summation; רבינא answers that we discussing a לוקח and the bees do not damage the חרדל, and even though the בעל החרדל was סומך בהיתר he must distance himself, for the רבנן maintain that the מזיק must always distance himself. The גמרא asked that this implies that according to ר"י the ניזק must distance himself (by חרדל), so why by משרה וירק the בעל הירק (the ניזק) is not required to distance? תוספות will continue to explain the rest of the סוגיא in the following תוספות.

SUMMARY תוספות explained why the question is not on⁴² אביי (only on רבא),⁴³ the answer of ר"פ,⁴⁴ the questions on ר"פ,⁴⁵ the answer of רבינא and the question on רבינא.⁴⁶

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות writes (in explaining ר"י according to ר"פ) that since the דבורים are מזיק the חרדל and the חרדל did nothing wrong therefore only the בעל הדבורים is required to distance.⁴⁷ However by משרה וירק (even though the משרה was סומך בהיתר), only the בעל המשרה distances since the ירק is not מזיק the משרה. Seemingly if the בעל החרדל would not be סומך בהיתר, the rule would be that they both need to distance equally,⁴⁸ but since he was סומך בהיתר he need not distance at all. Why therefore does the משרה make the entire הרחקה, since he was סומך בהיתר (so he and the ירק are equal), at most they should both make חצי הרחקה?!
2. תוספות writes⁴⁹ in explaining the question on רב פפא that ר' יוסי should argue even by משרה וירק since they were נסמך בהיתר, just as we say by אילן ובור. Seemingly by אילן ובור there is no יקוץ of the אילן according to ר' יוסי even if the בור was there first and the אילן was not נסמך בהיתר, so why does תוספות write, 'כיון שנעשה המשרה בהיתר וכו' כמו באילן ובור'?!

footnotes: ¹ 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. ² Seemingly the ‘real’ question is that if it is אסור לסמוך then (even) if the בעל הדבורים was סומך first, but since it was באיסור, why are we obligating the בעל החרדל to do the complete distancing; the בעל הדבורים is also guilty. ³ The need for this 'פירש' is that seemingly even according to אביי the מחלוקת between ר"י ורבנן is not understood. For ממ"נ, if the בעל החרדל was סומך first בהיתר, why do the חכמים require the בעל החרדל to distance himself, and if the בעל הדבורים was סומך first בהיתר, why does ר"י maintain that the בעל החרדל does not need to be מרחיק; he was סומך באיסור! ⁴ It is only later in the גמרא that רבינא states that according to the רבנן the bees are not מזיק the חרדל. However now where the ברייתא states that the בעל החרדל complains to the בעל הדבורים that אכלי לגלוגי חרדלאי and the רבנן did not respond to that, it would seem that all agree that the דבורים are מזיק the חרדל. See footnote # 25. ⁵ Presumably תוספות means they should both distance themselves equally, since they are both מזיקים. At this point (when saying this אע"ג), תוספות thinks that this case may not similar to the case of two בורות where the second מזיק is required to make the entire הרחקה, for we can argue (perhaps) that חרדל ודבורים is different from שני בורות (see shortly in this תוספות, that this indeed is the סברא of רב יוסי). ⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read את עצמו כל ההרחקות כמו (instead of את כל ההרחקה כמו). ⁷ According to אביי by a שדה שאינה עשויה לבורות, one may certainly be סומך, and according to one version he may be סומך (according to אביי) even by a שדה העשויה לבורות. ⁸ See תוס' יז,ב ד"ה אביי (הב'). We do not require the first one to fill up his בור and distance his (new) בור three טפחים from the boundary. Rather he remains in place and the second בור (which is also a מזיק [to the first בור]) must distance the entire six טפחים. The applies to the בעל הדבורים; since he was סומך בהיתר, the בעל החרדל must move the entire distance. ⁹ We are somehow assuming that the בעל הדבורים was aware that his neighbor may be planning on planting חרדל. ¹⁰ The רש"ש amends this to read גם (instead of וגם). ¹¹ He can tell the בעל הדבורים; you can distance from me if you so choose, however I am not moving from here. ¹² He is merely causing him damage indirectly (גרמא), since the bees eat the mustard and consume the honey. ¹³ If not for this סברא that the בעל הדבורים acted קצת שלא כהוגן (so even though it is still not similar to ב' בורות), nevertheless the חרדל would need to be מרחיק, since the בעל הדבורים acted בהיתר גמור, so why should he be מרחיק. ¹⁴ According to the ריב"ם in the תוס' יח,א ד"ה הכא it seemingly should have said במוכר. עיי"ש. ¹⁵ See footnote # 34. ¹⁶ משנה כה,ב. ¹⁷ Therefore just as regarding the payment of money for the removal of a מזיק; it is only required by a tree but not for other מזיקים, the same applies for the requirement to remove the מזיק that we are lenient only by a tree, but not by other מזיקים (such as חרדל), and they need to be removed even though they were סומך בהיתר. ¹⁸ When he planted the חרדל the entire field was his and he could plant wherever he pleases. This is a much greater היתר than according to אביי that one may be סומך to his neighbor’s field, for here the entire field is his; there is no issue of סמיכה at all. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁹ The מחלוקת then is simply whether the דבורים are מזיק the חרדל or not, there seems to be no other issue here. ²⁰ It is evident (from the sגמרא' question אי בלוקח מ"ט דרבנן) that the בעל החרדל owned the original field and he sold it to the (ultimate) בעל הדבורים, the question תוספות is anticipating is why did not the גמרא establish the case, where the בעל הדבורים was the original owner and sold part of the field to the (ultimate) בעל החרדל? ²¹ This is referring to תוספות explanation (of ר"י) that the בעל החרדל is not required to distance himself, since לא עשה כלל שלא כהוגן; he did not act improperly at all (see footnote # 18). ²² The way ר"פ is explaining it that the field belonged initially to the בעל החרדל, it is difficult to understand why the בעל החרדל (who planted the חרדל בהיתר) is required to distance himself from the דבורים which came later; why is this different from אילן ובור (see footnote # 23). ²³ By אילן ובור, if the אילן was first, he is not required to distance himself; why is it different by חרדל ודבורים. The answer which תוספות gave that by אילן ובור there is a הפסד מרובה is considered to be (somewhat of) a דוחק! ²⁴ If the דבורים (which came later) are מזיק the חרדל (which was planted ברשות), the רבנן would certainly agree with ר"י (see footnote # 19). Therefore the רבנן must maintain that the דבורים are not מזיק the חרדל. However if the דבורים would be the initial owner (and they were there ברשות) so even if the דבורים are מזיק the חרדל, it would be understood why the בעל החרדל has to distance (and not the בעל הדבורים), since the דבורים were there ברשות and the בעל החרדל (who is מזיק the דבורים) came later שלא ברשות. ²⁵ It is generally accepted that we try to avoid a מחלוקת in a fact (whether the bees are or are not מזיק the חרדל); it is either one way or the other. If we would establish that the דבורים came first, this difficulty would be avoided. ²⁶ Therefore even though it would be advantageous, in order to better understand the view of the רבנן, if the case was that the בעל הדבורים was first, nevertheless since in that case the position of ר"י would be untenable, it was necessary to justify the view of ר"י (by saying the חרדל was first) even though there is some difficulty in understanding the view of the רבנן. ²⁷ We would not need to distinguish between אילן ובור and חרדל ודבורים and there would be no מחלוקת in מציאות. ²⁸ The ברייתא makes no mention of a לוקח, so why complicate the case. ²⁹ We are discussing this case according to the view of רבא that it is אסור לסמוך. ³⁰ It will be basically the same מחלוקת as according to ר"פ, however by ר"פ (who establishes the מחלוקת by a לוקח), since the בעל החרדל was totally in his right, therefore ר"י maintains that only the בעל הדבורים (who is מזיק the חרדל) needs to distance, however here where there is no לוקח and the בעל החרדל had no right to be סומך (just like the בעל הדבורים), therefore they will both be מרחיק. According to the רבנן there will be no difference. ³¹ The (only) way to justify that is if the בעל החרדל was סומך ברשות and did nothing שלא כהוגן כלל (and that can be only by a לוקח). ³² משרה is water in which flax is being soaked. ³³ In the case of משרה וירק or כרישין ובצלים, since it is only the משרה וכרישים that damage but not the ירק ובצלים, it is somewhat tolerable to assume that the מזיק must distance himself even though he was סומך בהיתר. However by חרדל ודבורים where they are both מזיק each other and the חרדל was סומך בהיתר, it is totally astounding to say that (only) the בעל החרדל is required to distance himself. ³⁴ תוספות taught previously (see footnote # 15) that according to the answer of ר"פ the רבנן maintain that the bees do not damage the mustard (as רבינא concluded). However ר"פ did not say so explicitly. Therefore this מקשן assumed that the רבנן also agree with ר' יוסי that the bees do damage the mustard. ³⁵ תוספות here assumes that this מקשן rejects what תוספות previously said (see footnote # 17) that we can distinguish between אילן ובור (where there is a הפסד מרובה) and משרה וירק (where there is no הפסד and no great טרחה). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³⁶ If the דבורים are also מזיק the חרדל it would be untenable to require the בעל החרדל to distance since he was סומך בהיתר. ³⁷ תוספות is now assuming that this מקשן maintains that ר"י agrees to the רבנן that the דבורים do not damage the חרדל (see footnote # 25). ³⁸ According to this מקשן the case of חרדל ודבורים is the same a משרה וירק there is only one מזיק (the חרדל or the משרה), but not the דבורים, so the same rule that applies by חרדל ודבורים should apply by משרה וירק. Why does ר"י agree that by משרה וירק the בעל המשרה has to move?! ³⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דבברייתא (instead of דברייתא). ⁴⁰ See תוס' ד"ה לגלוגי on this עמוד for various translations of לגלוגי. ⁴¹ See הגהות הב"ח that after the תוס' ד"ה ואי it should be followed by תוס' ד"ה וסבר and then by תוד"ה מכלל and these three תוספות are really one תוספות and it should be followed by תוד"ה לגלוגי. ⁴² Footnotes 3 -13. ⁴³ Between footnotes 13-14. ⁴⁴ Footnotes 14-31. ⁴⁵ Footnotes 32-35. ⁴⁶ See footnotes 36-38. ⁴⁷ See footnote # 18. ⁴⁸ See תוספות (between footnote 13-14 who writes, דכיון דתרוייהו מזקי אהדדי על כל אחד ואחד להרחיק חצי ההרחקה. ⁴⁹ See footnote # 35.

מכלל¹ דסבר רבי יוסי על הניזק להרחיק וכולי—It can be inferred that Rabi Yosee maintains that the one damaged needs to distance, etc.

OVERVIEW The ר"ת ור"ח explained that according to רבינא the only dispute between אביי ורבא is by a בור, but in all other cases they agree that the מזיק may be סומך if there is no ניזק. תוספות continues to explain the גמרא according to this interpretation. צריכים לומר לפירוש זה דזה המקשה אינו אותו שהקשה בתחלה – It is necessary to say according to this explanation (of the ר"ת ור"ח) that this questioner (who is asking מכלל דר"י סבר וכו' אפי' משרה וירקא נמי) is not the same questioner who asked initially – ואי לא סמיך היכי משכחת לה – ‘And if (according to רבא) one may not be סומך, how can we have such a case’ – דהא לדידיה הוה ניחא ליה לאביי דאמר סמיך² – For according to that original מקשן, the משנה of חרדל was understood according to אביי – ולא הוה קשה ליה מידי וסבר רבי יוסי על הניזק כולי – And he had no difficulty at all to ask, ‘and does ר"י maintain על הניזק, etc.’ – תוספות will now explain why the first מקשן had no issue, however the second מקשן had a question: וצריך לומר שהמקשה הראשון הוה ידע שפיר המסקנא דדבורים לחרדל לא מזקי לרבנן³ – So it is necessary to say that the first מקשן (who asked [on רבא], היכי משכחת לה, but had no difficulty with ר"י) he properly knew the conclusion that according to the רבנן, the bees do not damage the mustard – אבל המקשה הזה לא ידע להכי פריך מכלל דסבר רבי יוסי כולי – However this מקשה (who inferred that ר"י maintains על הניזק להרחיק) he did not know this (he assumed that the חרדל ודבורים damage each other), therefore he asked, ‘we can infer that ר"י maintains, etc. that על הניזק להרחיק. תוספות explains – והקשה כיון דלרבנן חשיב בעל דבורים ניזק ולא מזיק שמצריכין לבעל חרדל להרחיק⁴ – And he is asking, since according to the רבנן the beekeeper is considered a ניזק, but not a מזיק, we know this since we require the בעל החרדל to distance – אף על גב שהם מזיקין לחרדל – Even though that the bees are מזיק the חרדל – מכל מקום כיון דסמך בהיתר לא חשיב מזיק ועל בעל חרדל להרחיק – Nevertheless, since the beekeeper was סמך בהיתר he is not considered a מזיק, so the בעל החרדל is required to distance – אם כן גם לרבי יוסי חשיב ניזק⁵ ואפילו הכי מותר לסמוך לבעל החרדל – Therefore this מקשה assumes that also according to ר"י the bees are considered the ניזק (just as according to the רבנן), and nevertheless the בעל החרדל (who is the מזיק) is permitted to be סומך (to the bees who are the ניזק) – אם כן סבר דעל הניזק להרחיק את עצמו אי הכי אפילו משרה וירק נמי כן – So it turns out that the ניזק must distance himself, if that is so, even by משרה וירק it should also be so that על הניזק להרחיק! תוספות rejects am alternate explanation of the מחלוקת between ר"י ורבנן:⁶** דאין סברא דלרבי יוסי חשיב בעל דבורים מזיק אף על פי שסמך בהיתר – For it is not logical** to assume that according to ר"י the בעל הדבורים is considered a מזיק, even though he was סומך בהיתר (first), but nevertheless he is considered a מזיק – משום שעשה קצת שלא כהוגן – Because he acted somewhat improperly, ולרבנן לית להו האי סברא – And the רבנן do not agree to this concept; we cannot assume this – דאין סברא כלל דלפלוגינהו בהכי⁷ – for it is not logical at all that this is their argument, therefore we need to conclude that their argument is whether על המזיק להרחיק (the רבנן) or על הניזק להרחיק (ר"י), and if that is so, why does ר"י maintain that by משרה וירק על המזיק להרחיק?! תוספות continues to explain the גמרא: ומשני לעולם רבי יוסי על המזיק סבירא ליה וחשיב בעל דבורים מזיק – And the גמרא answers that indeed ר"י maintains על המזיק להרחיק, but he considers the בעל הדבורים also as a מזיק – אף על גב שסמך בהיתר כיון שעשה קצת שלא כהוגן בסמיכתו – Even though he was סומך בהיתר (for he was first), nevertheless the דבורים are a מזיק, since he acted somewhat improperly by being סומך – ורבנן נמי הוו מודו ליה בהך סברא אי הוו סברי דדבורים מזקי לחרדל – And the רבנן would also have agreed to this logic (to consider the דבורים a מזיק, because עשו קצת שלא כהוגן), if they would presume that the דבורים damage the חרדל (as ר"י assumes) – אלא דסבירא להו דדבורים לא מזקי לחרדל⁸ ולכך מרחיק בעל החרדל – However since they maintain that the דבורים are not מזיק the חרדל, therefore the בעל החרדל (only) has to distance – תוספות goes back to explain the first מקשן (who asked ואי לא סמיך היכא משכחת לה): וכמסקנא זו יש לפרש תחלת הסוגיא לדברי המקשה דפריך ואי לא סמיך היכי משכחת לה – And we can explain the beginning of our סוגיא referring to the מקשה who asked, ‘and if you cannot be סומך, how can this be; that the דבורים was סומך’; we can explain that question as we concluded here, meaning – דבשלמא אי סמיך⁹ כדמסקינן השתא¹⁰ – That it is understandable if we rule like אביי that סמיך, so they argue as we concluded here – ולא כמו שפירשתי לפירוש הקונטרס שיחלקו¹¹ דלרבנן הוו דבורים כמו ירק – And not the way I previously explained¹² according to פרש"י that they argue this issue**; that according to the רבנן the דבורים are like ירק** (meaning they are not required to distance) – כיון שנסמכו בהיתר אף על גב שגם הם מזיקין לחרדל כשיבא – Since they were נסמך בהיתר (first), even though that they too are מזיק the חרדל when it will come and be planted there –

And ר"י permits the חרדל to be סומך since the בעל הדבורים acted somewhat improperly. We do not need to learn this way; rather we can learn as תוספות just said previously.¹³

SUMMARY The מקשן who asked 'ואי לא סמיך היכי משכחת לה', was aware that the רבנן maintain that the דבורים לא מזקי לחרדל, while the מקשן who asked מכלל דסבר ר"י וכו' was not aware. Therefore in the בשלמא the argument between ר"י ורבנן was whether the דבורים are מזיק, but not as תוס' explained it according to רש"י that their argument is whether סמיכה בהיתר makes you a ניזק but not a מזיק.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות concludes that the מקשן ראשון who is asking היכי משכת לה according to רבא (and is satisfied according to אביי) understands that the רבנן ור"י argue whether the דבורים are מזיק the חרדל or not.¹⁴ If that is the case what is the question היכי משכחת לה, since the דבורים are not מזיק the חרדל, the בעל הדבורים has the right to by סומך?!¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ See the הגהות הב"ח (ג) at the conclusion of the previous תוס' ד"ה ואי that this תוס' ד"ה מכלל should follow after the following תוס' ד"ה וסבר and that all three ד"ה ואי, וסבר, מכלל are one תוספות (followed by ד"ה לגלוגי). ² See the beginning of תוס' ד"ה ואי (TIE ‘In summation’ by footnote # 13) where he explains in detail the מחלוקת between ר"י ורבנן regarding חרדל, according to אביי. In that explanation there was no question or inference that ר"י maintains על הניזק להרחיק. Now that we say that in all cases (except for בור) רבא agrees with אביי that מותר לסמוך, so just as there is no difficulty according to אביי, there should be no difficulty according to רבא. See also תוס' ד"ה וסבר [TIE footnote # 13]. Why therefore is there now a question where there was not before. Therefore we must conclude that there are two מקשים. Evidently one knew something that the other did not, as תוס' continues to explain. ³ [This is not as תוס' explained (according to רש"י) in the beginning of תוס' ד"ה ואי.] Therefore we can understand their מחלוקת that both agree על המזיק להרחיק, except that according to the רבנן, the bees are not מזיק therefore the חרדל must distance, however according to ר' יוסי that they are both מזיקים, so even though the דבורים were סומך בהיתר, but they did קצת שלא כהוגן and the חרדל is not damaging the bees directly, so they are both equal, and no one can demand that the other should make the entire הרחקה. ⁴ Obviously this shows that the בעל החרדל is the מזיק and the דבורים are the ניזק even though they too are מזיק the חרדל. ⁵ The מקשה did not see any reason why to differentiate regarding the status of the bees (whether they are a מזיק or a ניזק), between the רבנן ור"י. If the רבנן consider them a ניזק (which they obviously do) even though they are מזיק the חרדל, nevertheless since they were סומך בהיתר they are considered the ניזק, then presumably ר"י also considers them the ניזק. ⁶ We can perhaps say that they argue whether the דבורים (who damage the חרדל) are considered a מזיק (ר"י), or not (the רבנן). ⁷ According to the רבנן it would turn out that they consider the דבורים exclusively as a ניזק (since they require only the חרדל to distance), even though he עשה קצת שלא כהוגן; on the other hand ר"י considers the דבורים exclusively as a מזיק (since the חרדל is not required to distance at all), even though he was סומך בהיתר. These positions are too extreme from each other; it would be more palatable if one of them should consider the דבורים as a מזיק and a ניזק so they both should distance equally. Therefore it is difficult to accept that they are so far apart. ⁸ See footnote # 7. Previously when we assumed that both ר"י ורבנן agree that the דבורים damage the חרדל, it was not logical to say that they argue whether the בעל הדבורים who did something improper is considered a מזיק or not; they should seemingly agree one way or the other. However now we can say that by עשו שלא כהוגן, all will agree that it is considered a מזיק; however here according to the רבנן, the דבורים are not מזיק the חרדל at all. ⁹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, סמיך פליגי כדמסקינן (instead of סמיך כדמסקינן). ¹⁰ This means that the רבנן ור"י argue whether the דבורים are מזיק the חרדל (see [text by] footnote # 3), and the בעל הדבורים was סומך בהיתר (for we are following אביי), therefore according to the רבנן the בעל החרדל needs to distance since he is the only מזיק, and according to ר"י no one is מרחיק since the בעל הדבורים (even though he was סומך בהיתר, nevertheless) he was עושה קצת שלא כהוגן and now he is directly מזיק the חרדל (as opposed to the חרדל who is מזיק the דבורים indirectly). Therefore neither has to be מרחיק the entire distance. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שיחלקו בזה דלרבנן (instead of שיחלקו דלרבנן).. ¹² See the beginning of תוס' ד"ה ואי. However now תוספות rejects this distinction; see footnote # 7. ¹³ See footnote # 10. ¹⁴ See footnote # 10. ¹⁵ See נחלת משה.

**(לעיל)¹* וסבר רבי יוסי על המזיק כולי—And does Rabi Yoseemaintain that the damager is required, etc.*

OVERVIEW The גמרא came to a conclusion that ר"י (also) maintains על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו, but asked that we find elsewhere that he maintains על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. Our תוספות initially discusses why the question is asked here. Subsequently תוספות will offer an entirely different explanation of our entire סוגיא.

תוספות replies to an anticipated difficulty: לקמן על מקומה² הוה ליה לאקשויי – The גמרא should have asked this question later in its proper place – אלא משום דאיצטריך ליה לפרש הכא דסבר רבי יוסי דעל המזיק להרחיק את עצמו³ – However, since it was necessary for the גמרא to explain here that ר"י maintains that the מזיק must distance himself, therefore – אסקוה לכולה מילתא הכא – The גמרא concluded the entire matter here – תוספות addresses the meaning of 'לוקח': ובלוקח דהכא אי אפשר לפרשו כפירוש רבינו חננאל⁴ – And regarding the 'לוקח' here, it is impossible to explain it according to the פר"ח (in the case of אילן ובור) – דפירש באדם שלוקח משרה וטוענין ללוקח⁵ – Who explained there (by משרה) that we are discussing a person who bought a משרה (which was near the boundary), and we argue ‘on behalf of a buyer’. The reason this cannot be the meaning of 'לוקח' here – דאם כן למה ירחיק המשרה כשיבא שם ירק כיון שטוענין לו שהמוכר קנה סמיכה זו – For if indeed it is so (that he bought the משרה close to the boundary), why should he be required to distance the משרה when his neighbor will plant there ירק, for ‘we will argue on his behalf’ that the seller acquired this right of סמיכה from the neighbor – אלא צריך לפרש בלוקח כמו שפירש בקונטרס או כרבי יצחק ברבי מרדכי⁶ – Rather it is necessary to explain that 'לוקח' means either as רש"י explained it or the ריב"ם – כך פירש רבינו יצחק כל הסוגיא⁷ לפי שיטת רש"י – This is how the ר"י explained the entire סוגיא according to sרש"י' approach – תוספות asks: וקשה לו מה הוצרך⁸ לחלק בדוחק בין לוקח דאילן ללוקח דמשרה⁹ – And the ר"י has a difficulty with פרש"י; why was it necessary to awkwardly differentiate between the buyer of a tree and the buyer of the משרה – Another question on פרש"י: ועוד דלמה המתין להביא משנה זו דמשרה וירק באחרונה המוקדמין במשנתנו¹⁰ – And furthermore why did the גמרא wait till the end to cite this משנה of משרה וירק, which precedes in the order of our משניות the משניות of אילן ושדה and אילן ובור – A final question on פרש"י: ועוד דקתני בתוספתא (פרק א' [ה"ז]) רבי יוסי מתיר בחרדל – And additionally, the תוספתא states; ‘ר"י permits by חרדל (that he does not distance) – שאומר לו כדרך שעשית בתוך שלך כך אני עושה בתוך שלי – For the בעל החרדל says to the בעל הדבורים) just as you do in your property, so I will do in my property’ – משמע דבעל דבורים סמך תחלה¹¹ – Indicating that the בעל הדבורים was סומך first not like פרש"י that the בעל החרדל was סומך first (בהיתר גמור)! תוספות offers his interpretation of sרבינא' answer: ומפרש רבינו תם ורבינו חננאל דהכי גרסינן – And the ר"ת an the ר"ח explain that this is how the text reads – אלא אמר רבינא קסברי רבנן על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו – ‘Rather רבינא said, the רבנן maintain the מזיק is required to distance himself’ – והשתא הדר ביה מכל שינויי דלעיל – So now (by saying 'אלא'), the גמרא retracts from all the previous answers that were given on behalf of רבא – דודאי בכולהו מודה רבא דכי ליכא כותל או ירק דסמיך – For it is certain that in all those cases, רבא agrees that if there is no wall or vegetable that one may be סומך – משום דקא סברי רבנן דדוקא על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו דהיינו כי איכא דבר הניזוק – Since the רבנן maintain that it is specifically incumbent on the מזיק to distance himself; meaning when there is something that is being damaged; only then can one be considered a מזיק – אבל כי ליכא דבר הניזוק לא מקרי הסומך מזיק – However when there is nothing being damaged, the סומך cannot be called a מזיק – ולא אסר רבא לסמוך אפילו לרבנן אלא דוקא בור – And רבא did not forbid to be סומך anything, even according to the רבנן, only a בור specifically was prohibited – משום טעמא דכל¹² מרא ומרא דקא מחית מרפית לארעאי – On account of the reason that with every pounding of your shovel you soften up my land – ולהכי חשוב הסומך מזיק אפילו כי ליכא בור – So therefore in that case only, the סומך is considered a מזיק even if there is no בור in his neighbor’s רשות – וכיון דלרבנן נמי סמיך אתי שפיר פלוגתייהו כדפרישית לעיל¹³ אליבא דאביי – And since he can be סומך even according to the רבנן, the argument between the רבנן and ר' יוסי will be well understood as I explained previously according to אביי – ולכך הדר ביה ולא מוקי בלוקח וכגון¹⁴ שסמך בעל דבורים תחלה – And it is for this following reason that רבינא retracted from the answer of רב פפא and he did not establish the מחלוקת between the רבנן ור"י by a buyer, and in a case where the בעל הדבורים was סומך first – משום דאם כן לא היה מתיר רבי יוסי לסמוך לבעל החרדל – For if that were the case ר"י would not permit the בעל החרדל to be סומך – כיון דבעל הדבורים לא עשה כלל שלא כהוגן – Since the בעל הדבורים did not act improper at all (it was completely בהיתר in a case of לוקח) – ודוקא בדסמיך בלא לוקח שעשה קצת שלא כהוגן בעל הדבורים – And it is only if the בעל הדבורים was סומך, not by a לוקח, where the בעל הדבורים acted somewhat improperly that – מתיר רבי יוסי לבעל החרדל לסמוך כדפרישית לעיל¹⁵ – ר"י permits the בעל החרדל to be סומך as I explained previously – תוספות will now show that all the difficulties mentioned before on פרש"י, will not apply to פי' ר"ת ור"ח: ולפי זה אתי שפיר דלמסקנא זו לא נצטרך לחלק בין לוקח האילן ללוקח משרה¹⁶ – And according to this it will all work out that in the conclusion we are not required to differentiate between a buyer of a tree (where he can keep the tree) to a buyer of a משרה (where he is required to move it); in both cases he is not required to move it if he was a לוקח – ולהכי המתין נמי¹⁷ כדי להביא מתניתין דמשרה משום דמינה צריך לחזור מכל שינויי דלעיל – And therefore we also understand why**** the גמרא waited to cite the משנה of משרה (even though it was taught before some of the other משניות), because on account of this משנה it became necessary to retract from all the previous answers – ואתי נמי שפיר דמיירי שסמך נמי בעל דבורים תחלה¹⁸ כמו שמוכח בתוספתא: And it also works out well that we are discussing a case where the בעל הדבורים was סומך first as is evident in the תוספתא.

SUMMARY רבינא is retracting what was previously assumed, and concludes that according to רבא it is only by a בור that it is אסור לסמוך even if there is no other בור (because of כל מרא דמחית מרפית לארעי), but in all other cases since there is no ניזק, the סומך cannot be considered a מזיק. The מחלוקת between ר"י ורבנן is where the דבורים were סומך (and not by a לוקח).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that (even) according to רבא, it is only by בור that it is אסור לסמוך since כל מרא דקא מחית מרפית לארעי,¹⁹ however by the other 'מזיקים' there is no need for הרחקה, since he is not מזיק now. Previously²⁰ תוס' wrote (in the first answer) regarding גפת וכו' that 'הני נמי מקלקלין את הקרקע ויזיק לכותל לכשיבנה'. This seems to contradict our תוספות!²¹ [Additionally תוספות there writes (at the very end of תוספות) that the reason רבא gives of כל מרא וכו' is only אליבא דר"י but not אליבא דרבנן. However, from our תוספות it is evident that this reason applies even according to the רבנן?!]

footnotes: ¹ This indicates that this תוספות should precede תוס' ד"ה מכלל. ² The משנה of משרה וירק is on כה,א. The משנה of אילן ובור is on כה,ב, The גמרא should have pointed out the contradiction between these two משניות in the גמרא there. Why mention it here? ³ The גמרא just proved from משרה וירקא that (even) ר"י maintains that על המזיק להרחיק, therefore the גמרא felt it necessary to resolve the contradiction from אילן ובור where it is evident that ר"י maintains על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. ⁴ See תוס' יח,א ד"ה הכא where תוספות brings down this view from the ר"ת (however see רש"ש there [and TIE there footnote # 5] that it should read ר' חננאל [not ר"ת]). ⁵ 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. Therefore it is possible that the משרה can be סומך (even according to רבא), since we will claim on his behalf that this is the way it was when he bought it, and presumably the seller reached an agreement with the neighbor to be סומך the משרה. ⁶ See the תוס' on יח,א ד"ה הכא. That (regarding the אילן) it means (according to רש"י) that the initial owner still owns the אילן and the buyer made a בור, or (according to the ריב"ם) that the buyer has the אילן and the initial owner makes the בור. The same would be here wither the seller owns the משרה (according to רש"י), or the buyer owns it (the ריב"ם). In either case it was made בהיתר. ⁷ This is referring to the explanation given in the previous תוס' ד"ה ואי. ⁸ The חתם סופר amends this to read שהוצרך (instead of הוצרך). ⁹ תוספות here is referencing this which תוספות stated in ד"ה ואי that the way ר"פ is explaining the case of חרדל that the field belonged initially to the בעל החרדל, it is difficult to understand why (according to the רבנן) the בעל החרדל (who planted the חרדל בהיתר) is required to distance himself from the דבורים which came later; why is this different from אילן ובור? By אילן ובור, if the אילן was first, he is not required to distance himself; why is it different by חרדל ודבורים? The answer which תוספות gave that by אילן ובור there is a הפסד מרובה is considered to be somewhat of a דוחק! See there TIE footnote # 22 & 23. ¹⁰ The גמרא first cites the משנה of אילן ושדה (on כו,א), the משנה of אילן ובור (on כה,ב) and lastly the משנה of משרה וירק (on כה,א). Why is this משנה cited last at the very end of this סוגיא?! ¹¹ The בעל החרדל is saying to the בעל הדבורים, ‘I can do whatever you do’; indicating that the בעל הדבורים was סומך first. ¹² See the גמרא on יז,ב and תוס' יז,א ד"ה לא יחפור. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹³ בתוד"ה ואי in the very beginning. In summation; according to אביי the מחלוקת between ר"י ורבנן is where the בעל הדברים was סומך first (and everyone agrees that the דבורים and the חרדל damage each other). The dispute hinges on whether this case is similar to two בורות where the second בור needs to make the entire הרחקה (the view of the רבנן) or that this is not similar to בור where the second בור is מזיק בידים (therefore he makes the entire הרחקה), however here the בעל החרדל is not מזיק בידים [and the בעל הדבורים acted קצת שלא כהוגן], therefore the בעל החרדל need not move any more than the בעל הדבורים (the view of ר' יוסי). ¹⁴ This is not like ר"פ who established the מחלוקת by a לוקח where the בעל החרדל was סומך first. תוספות already explained (see footnote # 9) why it is difficult to learn that the חרדל was first, so now תוספות explains why we cannot say the מחלוקת is by a לוקח where the דבורים were first. ¹⁵ See footnote # 13. ¹⁶ See footnote # 9 ¹⁷ See footnote # 10. ¹⁸ See footnote # 11. ¹⁹ See footnote # 12. ²⁰ יז,ב ד"ה מרחיקין. ²¹ See נחלת משה.