Bava Batra

SALT, LIME, AND FLINT STONES AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL OR PLASTER THEM OVER. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary?  — No; even if there is no wall, he still may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL' here tell us? — It tells us that these things are injurious to a Wall. SEEDS, PLOUGH FURROWS AND URINE SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary? — No; even if there is no wall he may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL here tell us? — It tells us that moist things are bad for a wall. Come and hear: MILL-STONES SHOULD BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE UPPER STONE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE LOWER STONE. The reason is that there is a wall, and if there is no wall he may bring them close up? — No; even if there is no wall, he may not bring them close up. What then does this tell us? — It tells us that the shaking [caused by turning the millstones] is bad for the wall. Come and hear: AN OVEN SHOULD BE KEPT AWAY THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE FOOT OF THE BASE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE TOP OF THE BASE. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring it close Up? — No; even if there is no wall he may not bring it close up. What then does this tell us? — That the heat [from the oven] is bad for the wall. Come and hear: A man may not open a bakery or a dyer's workshop under another person's storehouse  nor make a cowshed there.  The reason is that there is a storehouse there, but if there is no storehouse, he may, [may he not]?  — A place where persons can live  is different. This is indicated by the Baraitha taught in connection with this Mishnah: 'If the cowshed was there before the granary, he is permitted to keep it.' Come and hear: A man should not plant a tree nearer than four cubits to his neighbour's field. Now it has been taught in reference to this that the four cubits here mentioned are to allow space for the work of the vineyard.  The reason then is that there should be space for the work of the vineyard. but were it not for this he would be allowed to plant close up, [would he not,] although the tree has roots which can injure the other's field?  — We are dealing here with the case where there is a piece of hard rock between.  This is further indicated by the fact that the passage goes on: 'If there is a fence between,  each one can plant close up to the fence on his own side.'  If that is so,  what do you make of the next clause: 'If the roots of his tree spread into his neighbour's field, he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they should not impede the plough'?  Now if there is hard rock between, how can the roots get there? — What the passage means is this: If there is no hard rock between and the roots spread into his neighbour's field, then he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so as not to impede the plough. Come and hear: A tree [in one man's field] must be kept twenty five cubits from a pit [in another man's field]. The reason is that there is a pit; if there is no pit, he may plant close up? — No; even if there is no pit he may not plant close up, and this statement teaches us that up to twenty-five cubits the roots are liable to spread and injure the pit. If that is so, what do you make of the next clause: 'If the tree was there already, he is not required to cut it down'? Now if he may not plant close up, how can you apply this statement?  — As R. papa said in another connection, 'in the case of a purchase;'  so here, in the case of a purchase. Come and hear: Water in which flax is steeped must be kept at a distance from vegetables. and leeks from onions, and mustard from a beehive.  The reason is that there are vegetables there; otherwise he may bring them close up [to the boundary]? — No; even if there are no vegetables he may not bring them close up, and what this statement teaches us is that these things are bad for one another. If that is so, what of the next clause: R. Jose declares it permissible in the case of mustard; [and it has been taught in reference to this, that the reason is]  because the sower can say to his neighbour. 'Just as you can tell me to remove my mustard from your bees, I can tell you to remove your bees from my mustard, because they come and eat the stalks of my mustard plants'?