סקר
האם אתה לומד עם גמרא מפורשת/מבוארת?






 

Steinsaltz

of those who pour wine from barrels into jugs are Jews, and therefore it is reasonable that the wine belongs to a Jew. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to large jugs. But if they were small jugs, one can say that they were dropped by travelers, most of whom are gentiles, and therefore the jugs of wine are forbidden. And if there are large jugs among the found jugs, say that they all belong to Jews, as travelers do not usually carry large jugs; it can be assumed that the small ones were placed to balance the donkey’s load, and the jugs all fell together.

MISHNA: One must distance a tree twenty-five cubits from the city, and in the cases of a carob tree and of a sycamore tree, which have a great many branches, they must be distanced fifty cubits. Abba Shaul says: Every barren tree must be distanced fifty cubits. And if the city preceded the tree, as one later planted the tree alongside the city, he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money to the tree’s owner in compensation. And if the tree preceded the city, which expanded after one planted the tree until it reached the tree, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. If it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one must distance a tree from a city? Ulla says: It is due to the beauty of the city, as it is unattractive for a city’s walls to be obscured by tree branches. The Gemara suggests: And let him derive this halakha from the statement in tractate Arakhin (33b) that one may neither convert a field of a city into an open area surrounding the city, nor may one convert an open area into a field, as these have fixed places and measurements (see Numbers 35:1–8). If one plants trees in a city’s open area, he thereby turns the open area into a field.

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to supply the reason given by Ulla according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: One may convert a field into an open area, and an open area into a field. Here, we do not plant trees, due to the beauty of the city.

And according to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, who say that one may not convert a field into an open area, nor convert an open area into a field, one can say that this matter applies only to seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds in a city’s open area and thereby turn it into a field. But with regard to trees, we do plant them in an open area. But here we do not plant trees, due to the beauty of the city.

And from where do you say, i.e., on what basis do you maintain, that there is a difference between seeds and trees? As it is taught in a baraita that discusses the halakhot of Shabbat: With regard to an enclosure [karpef ] whose area is greater than two beit se’a but that was enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, it is permitted to carry within it on Shabbat regardless of its size, as it is considered a private domain.

If subsequently the greater part of it was sown with seed crops, it is considered like a garden, which is not a place of residence, and it is prohibited to carry anything within it on Shabbat. If the greater part of it was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, which is a place of dwelling, and it is permitted to carry there on Shabbat. This shows that planting trees in an enclosure does not transform the area into a field, as is the case when seeds are planted.

§ The mishna teaches: And if the city preceded the tree he cuts down the tree, and the city does not give money. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a cistern, that the tanna of another mishna (25b) teaches that if one plants a tree next to a neighbor’s existing cistern, the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the owner of the cistern gives money; and what is different here that the mishna teaches that the owner of the tree cuts down the tree and the city does not give money?

Rav Kahana said, citing a popular aphorism: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold, i.e., no one takes responsibility for an item that belongs to several people, as opposed to a single individual. Here too, there is no specific person who will pay for the tree.

The Gemara asks: And what is the difficulty to begin with? Perhaps damage caused to public property is different from damage caused to the property of an individual. Consequently, when one’s tree causes damage to the public he is not compensated for having to cut it down, whereas he does receive payment when his tree damages a private cistern.

Rather, if Rav Kahana’s comment was stated in this context, it was stated about the latter clause: If the tree preceded the city, he cuts down the tree and the city gives money to its owner. Concerning this halakha one could ask: And let the tree owner say to the city residents: Give me money first and then I will cut down the tree. In this context, Rav Kahana said: A pot belonging to partners is neither hot nor cold. If the owner of the tree is entitled to wait until he had first collects money, a good deal of time would pass before the tree would be cut down. Therefore, a community need not collect money and pay immediately, unlike an individual.

§ The mishna teaches that if it is uncertain whether this one was first or that one was first, he cuts down the tree and the city does not give money. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of a tree alongside a cistern, concerning which you said in the mishna (25b) that in a case of uncertainty the owner of the tree need not cut down the tree?

The Gemara answers: There, if it were a case of certainty the tree would not be subject to being cut down; therefore, in a case of uncertainty too, we do not say to the owner of the tree: Cut it down. In that case, if the tree preceded the cistern, the owner of the tree would not be required to cut it down. Here, if it were a case of certainty, the tree would be subject to being cut down even if it preceded the city, and the only uncertainty is whether or not the owner of the tree would need to be compensated. Consequently, in a case of uncertainty too, we say to the owner of the tree: Cut it down. And if the owner of the tree lodges a claim due to the value of the tree, as he wants compensation for it, we say to him: Bring proof that your tree came first, and take your money. Since he has no proof, he does not receive any money.

MISHNA: One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city, so that the chaff will not harm the city’s residents. Furthermore, a person should not establish a permanent threshing floor even on his own property unless he has fifty cubits of open space in every direction. And one must distance a threshing floor from the plantings of another and from another’s plowed field far enough that it does not cause damage.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, which states a fixed measurement for the distance of a threshing floor from a city, and what is different in the latter clause, which does not provide a measurement but simply states in general terms: Enough that it does not cause damage? Abaye said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of a threshing floor that is not permanent. This threshing floor must be far enough from a neighbor that it does not cause damage to his property.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a threshing floor that is not permanent? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: It refers to any threshing floor where one processes such a small quantity of grain that he does not winnow with a winnowing shovel, but employs some other method that does not scatter the chaff as far. This is one resolution of the contradiction.

Rav Ashi said that the phrase: Enough that it does not cause damage, is not referring to a distance but provides an explanation. In other words, the tanna is saying: What is the reason for the ruling of the first clause, as follows: What is the reason that one must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city? It must be far enough away that it does not cause damage.

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Abaye from a baraita: One must distance a permanent threshing floor fifty cubits from the city; and just as one distances it fifty cubits from the city, so too does one distance it fifty cubits from the gourds, cucumbers, plantings, and plowed field of another, enough that it does not cause damage. Granted, this works out well according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, as he claims that in both clauses the same distance is required: One must move a threshing floor fifty cubits from a plowed field and from those plantings. But according to the explanation of Abaye, it is difficult. The Gemara comments: Indeed, it is difficult.

The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: Granted, one must distance his threshing floor from his neighbor’s cucumbers and gourds, as the chaff from the threshing floor goes and penetrates into the heart of the flower and dries it out. But why must one distance the threshing floor from another’s plowed field? Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said, and some say it was Rabbi Abba bar Zutra: It is because

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר