Today’s daf continues the discussion of whether one must distance potentially damaging fixtures or substances from the boundary of their neighbor’s field even if the neighbor doesn’t currently have a structure that will be harmed. On yesterday’s daf, we saw that according to one version of the dispute, Rava believes a person must distance these damaging things from the boundary not only when there isn’t yet a structure on the neighbor’s property, but even if the neighbor’s property isn’t designated for such structures. Abaye, according to this version of their argument, believes one must distance the potentially damaging thing only if the neighbor’s field is designated for such structures (but if it isn’t, one can dig a pit or heap substances right at the border).
The Gemara brings a challenge to Rava’s stringent opinion from the latter part of our mishnah:
Come and hear a proof from the mishnah: One must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, animal manure, salt, lime and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or he can plaster the wall with lime. The reason for this ruling is that there is a wall there belonging to his neighbor, from which it may be inferred that if there is no wall there, one may place these substances close to the boundary of his neighbor’s courtyard.
Abaye can explain away the inference by saying our mishnah refers to a case where the neighbor’s field is not designated for building walls. But according to Rava, who says one can’t put damaging materials on the border regardless of the neighboring field’s character, what is there to say?
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
The Gemara dismisses the challenge, suggesting a different inference from this clause of the mishnah:
No, even if there is no wall one may not place these substances close to the boundary. Rather, what does mentioning a wall here teach us? This teaches us that all these substances are damaging to a wall.
Having dismissed this challenge, the Gemara proceeds with an extensive ta shma (“come and hear”) section, bringing numerous challenges — primarily from the mishnah — that seem to imply one need not distance materials or fixtures from the border unless there is already a structure in the neighbor’s field that will be harmed. In each case, the Gemara dismisses the challenge similarly to this first one: These clauses come not to teach that one must not distance in the absence of a wall, but that dampness from urine and vibrations from a mill and heat from an oven are harmful to a wall.
All these examples were brought from our mishnah on 17a, but the following challenge comes from a mishnah several pages later:
Come and hear a proof from the mishnah (20b): A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop beneath the wine storeroom of another, nor may one open a cattle barn there. The reason for this ruling is that there is a storeroom already in place, from which it may be inferred that if there is no storeroom one may do so. If this is the case, then one may dig next to a boundary if there is as yet no pit.
This is yet another text apparently implying that one is only prohibited from setting up a certain potentially damaging fixture if the thing that will be damaged is already extant. Here, too, it is overruled:
The case of a residence is different, as in general one can use his domicile in any manner of his choosing unless he directly causes damage to another or his property.
Here, we apparently agree with the implication! It’s true that if there’s not yet a wine storeroom, one can open a bakery or dye shop or cattle barn, despite the fact that these would prevent one’s neighbor from turning their space into a wine storeroom.
Nonetheless, this isn’t a challenge to Rava’s position on what we can place along the borders of our land, because the Gemara says these two cases aren’t comparable: One is referring to land, another is referring to a person’s home. When it comes to limiting the actions one can take on their own land, we’re more extensive, requiring distancing even when there isn’t yet a structure that would be harmed. But we don’t want to impose excessive limits on what a person can do with their own home, their own personal space. Within one’s own house, we can prevent people from causing damage to their neighbor’s existing property, but we don’t go so far as to limit usage based on what a neighbor might eventually do.
Read all of Bava Batra 18 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 13, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
