מרחיקין את האילן [מן העיר] כ"ה אמה—We distance the tree [from the city] twenty-five cubits

OVERVIEW The משנה taught that we are not permitted to plant a tree within twenty five אמות of the city. The question is what is the ruling regarding planting other types of plants, like grains or vegetables.

But one must distance other crops up to one thousand אמות from the city, for it is not permitted to make the מגרש into a field.

SUMMARY No crops may be planted within one thousand אמות of the city.

THINKING IT OVER Why did not the משנה teach us the rule regarding זרעים as it did regarding an אילן?!

footnotes: ¹ The תורה writes regarding the cities given to the לויים that there needs to be a vacant space (a מגרש) of one thousand אמות around the entire city (to beautify the city). Nothing is permitted to be planted there (except trees). The same rule applies to all cities.

מאי שנא מבור דקוצץ ונותן דמים אמר רב כהנא¹ קידרא דבי שותפי כולי—Why is this different from a pit, where he chops it down and pays money? Rav Kahana said, a pot of partners, etc. Overview² The משנה ruled that if a tree was planted within twenty-five אמות of an established city, the tree may be chopped down without any compensation to the owner. The גמרא asked why is this different from the case where one planted his tree within twenty-five אמות of a pit (which he is [also] not permitted to do), where the rule is that the owner of the pit may chop down the tree but he must compensate him for the value of the tree. רב כהנא responded (with a folk-saying) that a pot which belongs to partners is not hot and not cold.³ Therefore, if we would obligate all the people of the city to pay him for his tree, no one will step forward to do so and the tree will remain blighting the city.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם אם כן כשהאילן קדם נמי אמאי נותן דמים מהאי טעמא⁴ – It is astounding to the רשב"א, if indeed it is so (that a קידרא דבי שותפי כו'), so for the same reason, even when the tree preceded the city**, why do we give money** for the tree in order to chop it off – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דכשהאילן קדם כיון דסמך בהיתר אין לחוש⁵ אם יתעצלו וישאר האילן עומד – And one can say; if the tree preceded the city, since he was permitted to plant near the future city, there is no concern if the people will be lazy and the tree will remain standing – תוספות asks: אבל עוד קשה לו דמאי שייך הכא קידרא דבי שותפי והלא קוצץ תחלה קודם שיתנו דמים⁶ – However, the רשב"א has another difficulty; how does the concept of קידרא דבי שותפי apply here; for do they not chop down the tree first, before they give money?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהכי פירושו דמשום קידרא דבי שותפי לא חיימא ולא קרירא – And the ר"י says that this is the explanation; that since the communal pot is not hot and not cold – לא רצו לתקן שיתנו דמים דאף על גב דקוצץ תחלה – The חכמים did not want to institute that they should be required to pay money, for even though they can first chop down the tree, nevertheless – פעמים שלא ישמע להם לקוץ תחלה אם לא ידע מי יתן לו הדמים⁷ – Occasionally the tree owner will not listen to them and allow them to first chop down his tree, unless he knows who will pay him the money – וכל אחד ואחד יתרשל ולא יקוץ כדי שלא ליתן דמים כי בעל האילן ידרוש מעמו: And each one will be reluctant to commit himself, and he will not chop it down, in order that he should not be required to pay the money, since he knows that the tree owner will demand payment from him.

SUMMARY We are not concerned for קידרי דבי שותפי, when he was סומך בהיתר; since he did nothing wrong, we are not concerned that they will leave the tree. If there would be a requirement to pay (even if סמך באיסור), they would not chop down the tree because the owner would demand to know who is paying him.

THINKING IT OVER Can we explain what is the pivotal difference between the ריצב"א (who asks the question) and the ר"י (who answers it)?

footnotes: ¹ See הגהות הב"ח אות ג' who amends the גמרא to read כהנא היינו דאמרי אינשי קידרא (instead of כהנא קידרא). ² See ‘Overview’ to previous תוספות ד"ה מרחיקין. ³ Today we would say, ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’. ⁴ The קידרא דבי שותפי will hold them back from giving money to chop down the tree, so the tree will remain and blight the city. Therefore, just as by העיר קדם (even though he should be paid, however) on account of קידרי דבי שותפא he does not get paid, the same should be if אילן קדם. ⁵ In the case of סמך באיסור (where it was העיר קדם), we cannot allow the tree to remain standing, since he violated the איסור; however, we cannot make them pay on account of קידרי דבי שותפי; however, if he was סמך בהיתר (the אילן was קדם), we cannot have them chop down the tree without paying him; he did nothing wrong. If it turns out that (on account of קידרי דבי שותפי) they will not pay him, it is their issue if their city is blighted. ⁶ In the case where קוצץ ונותן דמים, the order of things are first the tree is chopped down and then he is compensated for the tree. Why do we therefore say in a case of העיר קדם that we do not pay, because if we would be required to pay, there would be the issue of קידרי דבי שותפי, but why should that be an issue. Let the ruling be that even if העיר קדם they have to pay (just as it is by בור). They will first chop down the tree; there should be no problem with that, and then let the tree owner claim compensation from the city in a בי"ד. Let it be his problem; the rule should be קוצץ (first, and then( ונותן דמים (later)! ⁷ We are now assuming that the rule is קצץ ונותן דמים. The tree owner will argue, since you are obligated to pay me, you have no permission to chop down my tree unless I know who takes upon himself the obligation to pay me.

ולימא להו הבו לי ברישא והדר איקוץ—And let him say to them, pay me first and I will chop it down afterwards

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that the statement of רב כהנא (that קידרי דבי שותפי) applies to the case where the tree was planted before there was a city, and the rule is that קוצץ (first) and then ונותן דמים. Seemingly the tree owner should be able to claim, pay me first and then I will chop down the tree, in reply to this, רב כהנא stated קידרי דבי שותפי וכו', so it will never be done. Initially the גמרא compared our case with the case of one who planted a tree within twenty-five אמות of a בור, where the rule is also קוצץ ונותן דמים. Our תוספות explains why in that case the tree owner cannot claim, ‘pay me first and then I will chop it down’. -----------------------------------

Regarding a pit it is not appropriate to ask this; for there it is understood that he must chop down the tree first, since he planted it close to**** the pit illegally.

SUMMARY The claim, ‘pay me first’, is valid if there was no transgression of the law.

THINKING IT OVER How are we to understand the difference whether קדם בהיתר or סמך באיסור, if he is entitled to the money, then in either case, he should be allowed to claim, ‘pay me first’⁴ (or in either case he cannot claim ‘pay me first’)?

footnotes: ¹ The tree owner should say the בעל הבור, ‘since you need to pay me, so pay me first and then I will take down my tree’ (the same claim as the tree owner here is making to the city). By the pit we do not have the response of רב כהנא that קידרי דבי שותפי וכו', since we are discussing one individual only, namely the בעל הבור. ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read ניחא ליה כיון (instead of ניחא כיון). ³ However here where he planted his tree legally (אילן קדם לעיר); it is understood why he can claim, ‘pay me first’! ⁴ There may even be more reason why by the בור he should pay him first (as opposed to the city), since at the time of the planting (even though it was באיסור, nevertheless) there is no damage to the בור now, the damage will happen much later (therefore the בעל הבור should pay first), however by the city (even though he was סמך בהיתר [for האילן קדם לעיר], nevertheless) that damage is immediate (when the city was built), since it detracts from the beauty of the city right away.

קשיא לאביי—There is a difficulty according to Abayey

OVERVIEW Our משנה stated, ‘a person should not make a permanent threshing floor (גורן) on his own property, unless he has fifty cubits in all directions. A person should distance his גורן from another person’s plantings or plowings in order not to damage him’. The גמרא understood that the second ruling calls for a different amount of distancing (כדי שלא יזיק) than the first ruling (fifty אמות).¹ אביי resolved this apparent contradiction, saying that fifty אמות is required for a permanent גורן (a גורן קבוע), however for a גורן which is not קבוע one must distance it only כדי שלא יזיק, but not fifty אמות. The גמרא then cited a ברייתא which stated that one must distance his גורן קבוע fifty אמות from his neighbor’s plantings.² This, says the גמרא, contradicts אביי. Our תוספות explains the challenge to אביי from this ברייתא.

תוספות asks: תימה מאי קשיא ליה הא ברייתא איירי בגורן קבוע³ ומתניתין בגורן שאינו קבוע⁴ – It is astounding! What is the difficulty here?! Since the ברייתא is discussing a גורן קבוע and our משנה (which אביי explained) is discussing a גורן שאינו קבוע! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאביי גופיה הוה משני דמה טעם קאמר⁵ – And one can say that even אביי himself would have answered the seeming contradiction in the משנה,⁶ by saying that the סיפא is telling us what is the reason for the ruling of נ' אמה, like רב אשי answered, אביי would have given this same answer – אי לאו משום דקשיא ליה מה צריך לפרש טעמא כדי שלא יזיק⁷ – Were it not that אביי had a difficulty with this answer; namely, why is it necessary to explain that the reason we distance נ' אמה is order שלא יזיק – והשתא דבברייתא מפרש טעמא כדי שלא יזיק מתניתין נמי⁸ איכא לפרושי הכי: But now that we see that in the ברייתא he does explain that the reason for distancing is שלא יזיק, we can also explain the משנה in the same manner as the ברייתא, so the difficulty is why did not אביי explain it in this manner (as רב אשי did).

SUMMARY The question on אביי is why did he assume that כדי של יזיק cannot be a reason, when in the ברייתא it clearly uses כדי שלא יזיק as a reason.

THINKING IT OVER Why indeed do the משנה and the ברייתא give the reason for the הרחקה that it is כדי שלא יזיק; is it not obvious, why the need to state the reason?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ The first ruling states that he must distance fifty אמות, while the second ruling states he must distance (his גורן) so he should not damage his friend’s plantings; which can be a lesser amount than fifty אמות. See (also) footnote # 5. ² The ברייתא concludes he must distance fifty אמות in order not to damage his friend’s plantings. ³ The ברייתא clearly states מרחיקין גורן קבוע מן העיר. ⁴ אביי explained that when the משנה requires distancing כדי שלא יזיק (and not נ' אמה), it is (only) by a גורן שאינו קבוע. How can this ברייתא make a difficulty for אביי?! ⁵ רב אשי reconciles the seeming contradiction in the משנה (see footnote # 1), saying that the סיפא which stated כדי שלא יזיק was not giving us a different measure for distancing, rather it was explaining the reason why we must distance נ' אמה. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ It is so obvious that the reason for הרחקה is כדי שלא יזיק that the משנה would have no need to state it. Therefore, concluded אביי that כדי שלא יזיק is not an explanation (which is superfluous) but rather a different measure for distancing. ⁸ The question on אביי is not from the ruling of the ברייתא per se (for there is no contradiction [see footnote # 4]), rather the question on אביי is his assumption that כדי שלא יזיק cannot be a reason why we are מרחיק נ' אמה, but rather it must be a new and different distance. However, we see that the ברייתא does state כדי שלא יזיק as a reason for הרחקת נ' אמה, so why did not אביי understand the משנה in the same way that the כדי שלא יזיק is only an explanation for הרחקת נ' אמה, but it is not a different שיעור. ⁹ See נחלת משה on the גמרא ד"ה רב אשי.