26aכ״ו א
כדנייד נכתמא אפומיה דחצבא It must shake enough that the lid [nakhtema] positioned at the mouth of a jug shakes if it is placed on a wall.
דבי בר מריון בריה דרבין כי הוה נפצי כיתנא הוה אזלא רקתא ומזקא אינשי אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו כי אמרינן מודה ר' יוסי בגירי דיליה הני מילי דקא אזלא מכחו הכא זיקא הוא דקא ממטי לה The Gemara relates: When the members of the household of bar Maryon, son of Ravin, would beat their flax, the chaff [rakta] would fly off and harm people. Those people came before Ravina to complain. Ravina said to them: When we say that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, this statement applies only when the damaging item moves by his direct force. Here, by contrast, it is the wind that carries the chaff.
מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי מאי שנא מזורה ורוח מסייעתו אמרוה קמיה דמרימר אמר להו היינו זורה ורוח מסייעתו Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: In what way is this case different from one who winnows on Shabbat by throwing the grain into the wind so that the chaff is blown away and the wind assists him? That is considered a primary category of labor on Shabbat despite the fact that the act is performed partly with the aid of the wind. The Gemara relates that the Sages stated this objection with regard to beating flax before Mareimar. Mareimar said to them: This case is the same as one who winnows and the wind assists him. Just as this is considered his direct force for the purposes of the halakhot of Shabbat, it is likewise considered his direct force with regard to the halakhot of damages.
ולרבינא מאי שנא מגץ היוצא מתחת הפטיש והזיק דחייב לשלם התם ניחא ליה דליזל הכא לא ניחא ליה דליזל: The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who rejects this comparison and claims that flying chaff is not considered one’s arrow, in what way is this situation different from that of a spark that flies from a hammer and causes damage, in which case all agree that the one wielding the hammer is liable to pay? The Gemara answers: There, it is preferable for him that the spark go as far as possible, rather than staying nearby. Here it is not preferable for him, i.e., it is immaterial to him, that the chaff go some distance.
מתני׳ לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו ארבע אמות אחד גפנים ואחד כל אילן היה גדר בינתים זה סומך לגדר מכאן וזה סומך לגדר מכאן MISHNA: A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. This is the case whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree. If there was a fence between them, this one may place, i.e., plant, his grapevines or trees close to the fence from here, and that one may place, i.e., plant, his produce close to the fence from there.
היו שרשים יוצאים לתוך של חבירו מעמיק ג' טפחים כדי שלא יעכב את המחרישה היה חופר בור שיח ומערה קוצץ ויורד והעצים שלו: If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow. If he was digging a cistern in that spot, or a ditch, or a cave, and he came upon the roots of his neighbor’s tree, he may cut downward normally, and the wood from the roots is his.
גמ׳ תנא ארבע אמות שאמרו כדי עבודת הכרם אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא בארץ ישראל אבל בבבל שתי אמות תניא נמי הכי לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו שתי אמות והא אנן תנן ארבע אמות אלא לאו כדשמואל שמע מינה GEMARA: A tanna taught: The four cubits that the Sages stated one must leave between a vineyard and a neighbor’s field are for the work of the vineyard, so that the owner of the vineyard does not take oxen and a plow into his neighbor’s field while working his vineyard. Shmuel says: They taught this halakha only with regard to Eretz Yisrael, but in Babylonia two cubits are sufficient, as their plows are shorter. This opinion is also taught in a baraita: A person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances the tree two cubits from the field. But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Four cubits? Rather, is it not correct that there is a difference between Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia in this regard, as stated by Shmuel? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.
ואיכא דרמי לה מירמא תנן לא יטע אדם אילן סמוך לשדה חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ממנו ארבע אמות והתניא שתי אמות אמר שמואל לא קשיא כאן בבבל כאן בארץ ישראל And there are those who raise this matter in the form of a contradiction. We learned in the mishna that a person may not plant a tree near the field of another unless he distances it four cubits from the field. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that two cubits are sufficient? Shmuel said that this is not difficult: Here it is referring to Babylonia, whereas there it is referring to Eretz Yisrael.
רבא בר רב חנן הוו ליה הנהו דיקלי אמיצרא דפרדיסא דרב יוסף הוו אתו צפורי יתבי בדיקלי ונחתי בפרדיסא ומפסדי ליה אמר ליה זיל קוץ אמר ליה והא ארחיקי לי אמר ליה הני מילי לאילנות אבל לגפנים בעינן טפי The Gemara relates: Rava bar Rav Ḥanan had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of Rav Yosef’s vineyard. Birds would come and roost on the palm trees and would subsequently descend to the vineyard and damage it. Rav Yosef said to Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: Go and cut down your palm trees. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to him: But I distanced them the required amount. Rav Yosef said to him: This matter, i.e., this specific distance, applies only to trees, but a greater distance is required for vines.
והא אנן תנן אחד גפנים ואחד כל אילן אמר ליה ה"מ אילן לאילן וגפנים לגפנים אבל אילן לגפנים בעינן טפי Rava bar Rav Ḥanan protested: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that this is the halakha whether he is planting grapevines or any kind of tree? Rav Yosef said to him: This matter applies only to the distance between one tree and another tree, or the distance between one vine and other vines. But with regard to the space between a tree and vines, one requires a greater distance.
אמר ליה אנא לא קייצנא דאמר רב האי דיקלא דטעין קבא אסור למקצייה ואמר ר' חנינא לא שכיב שכחת ברי אלא דקץ תאנתא בלא זימניה מר אי ניחא ליה ליקוץ Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to him: I myself will not cut them down, as Rav said: With regard to this palm tree that produces one kav of fruit, it is prohibited to cut it down, due to the verse: “You shall not destroy the trees” (Deuteronomy 20:19). And Rabbi Ḥanina says: My son Shikhḥat died only because he cut down a fig tree before its time. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan continued: If the Master is amenable to do so, he may cut them down, but I will not do it.
רב פפא הו"ל הנהו דיקלי אמיצרא דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אזל אשכחיה דהוה חפר וקא קאיץ שרשיו אמר ליה מאי האי אמר ליה תנן היו שרשים יוצאים לתוך של חבירו מעמיק שלשה כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה The Gemara further relates that Rav Pappa had these palm trees that stood adjacent to the boundary of the property of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He went and found Rav Huna digging and cutting his roots. Rav Pappa said to him: What is this? Rav Huna said to him that we learned in the mishna: If the roots were spreading into the field of another, the owner of the field may dig to a depth of three handbreadths even if he severs those roots, so that they do not impede his plow.
אמר ליה הני מילי שלשה מר קא חפר טפי אמר ליה אנא בורות שיחין ומערות קא חפרנא דתנן היה חופר בור שיח ומערה קוצץ ויורד והעצים שלו אמר רב פפא אמרי ליה כולהי ולא יכילי ליה Rav Pappa said to him: This statement applies only up to three handbreadths, whereas the Master is digging and cutting more than three. Rav Huna said to him: I am digging cisterns, ditches, and caves, as we learned in the mishna: If he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward normally and the wood from the roots is his. Rav Pappa said: I told him all the proofs I could find, but I was unable to convince him that I was correct,