Talmud - Bava Batra 19a בבא בתרא י״ט א׳

the bees will not find it; if it is referring to a leaf, it will grow back.

§ The mishna teaches: Nor may one set up a launderer’s pond near his neighbor’s wall unless he distances it three handbreadths from the wall. Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this only with regard to a soaking pond, in which soiled clothes are left to soak for several days. But in the case of a washing pond [hanadyan], where clothes are actively cleaned, four cubits are required. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: A launderer’s pond must be kept four cubits from one’s neighbor’s wall. But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one must keep a distance of only three handbreadths? Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that the statement of Rav Naḥman is correct?

And some raise this as a contradiction, and present the mishna and baraita as apparently conflicting sources. We learned in the mishna that a launderer’s pond must be kept three handbreadths from his neighbor’s property. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that four cubits are required? Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a soaking pond, which requires three handbreadths; there, the baraita is referring to a washing pond, in which case four cubits are necessary. Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, teaches the mishna explicitly as reading: Unless he distanced three handbreadths from the rim of the soaking pond and the wall.

§ The mishna teaches that one who digs a pit must distance it three handbreadths from another’s property and plaster it with lime. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Did we learn: And plasters with lime, meaning that the walls must be plastered with lime in addition to distancing the pit three handbreadths, or perhaps we learned: Or plasters with lime, i.e., one may plaster the walls with lime instead of digging the pit at a distance of three handbreadths.

The Gemara answers: It is obvious that we learned: And plasters with lime, as, if it enters your mind that we learned: Or plasters with lime, which is the same as what is stated in the clause of the mishna discussing olive refuse, if so, let the tanna combine them and teach them together. If the same halakha applied in all circumstances, all of the mishna’s cases could be taught together.

The Gemara answers: This is not proof, as perhaps these cases are taught separately because this type of damage is not similar to that type of damage. The first clause of the mishna addresses the issue of damage due to moisture, whereas the last clause addresses the issue of damage due to heat.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to rock that is so soft it crumbles in one’s hands, this one digs his pit from here, on his property, and that one digs his pit from there. This one distances his pit three handbreadths and plasters with lime, and that one distances his pit three handbreadths and plasters with lime. The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The specific reason one must also plaster with lime is that he is using rock that crumbles in one’s hands, from which it may be inferred that if it is rock that does not crumble in one’s hands, one would not be required to plaster with lime as well.

The Gemara answers: One could say that the same is true, i.e., that even though he is using rock that does not crumble in one’s hands, he must also plaster with lime. And it was necessary for the tanna to mention the case of rock that crumbles in one’s hands, as it might enter your mind to say that since it crumbles in one’s hands, let us require a greater distance. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that this is not the case.

§ The mishna teaches that one must distance the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, and animal manure, and salt, and lime, and rocks three handbreadths from the wall of another, or plaster its receptacle with lime. The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (Shabbat 47b): With what substances may one insulate a pot of cooked food on Shabbat eve, and with what substances may one not insulate it?

One may insulate the pot neither with the solid residue of produce that has been pressed free of its oil, nor with manure, nor with salt, nor with lime, nor with sand, whether those materials are moist or whether they are dry. All of these materials spontaneously generate heat when piled up for an extended period of time. Therefore, they add heat to the pot they insulate. The Gemara asks: What is different here that the mishna teaches the halakha in the case of rocks and it does not teach the halakha in the case of sand, and what is different there that it teaches the halakha in the case of sand and it does not teach the halakha in the case of rocks?

Rav Yosef says: There is a practical reason for this difference. Rocks are not mentioned there because it is not customary for people to insulate food with rocks. Abaye said to him: And is it customary for people to insulate food with wool fleece and tabs of purple wool? As it is taught in a baraita: One may insulate food with wool fleece; with combed wool clumps, which are unwoven; with tabs of purple wool; and with swatches of soft material; but one may not move them on Shabbat because they are set-aside [muktze].

Rather, Abaye said that the tanna follows the biblical aphorism in the verse that states: “Its neighbor tells about him” (Job 36:33), i.e., one example is mentioned and the same applies to the other case. He taught the halakha in the case of rocks here and the same is true of sand; he taught the halakha in the case of sand there and the same is true of rocks. Rava said to Abaye: If this is correct, that “its neighbor tells about him,” let him teach the halakha of all of these examples in one case, and let him teach the halakha of just one in the other case, and it can be said that the same is true with regard to the others.

Rather, Rava said: There, this is the reason that the tanna does not teach the halakha in the case of rocks: Because they break, i.e., scratch, the pot, and consequently people do not use them for insulating food at all. Here, this is the reason that the tanna does not teach the halakha in the case of sand: Because it heats hot items and cools cold items, and therefore it does not cause any damage to the wall.

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita that one must distance sand from his neighbor’s wall. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to damp sand, which must be kept at a distance due to its moisture. The Gemara challenges: Let the tanna of our mishna also teach the halakha in the case of sand and we will interpret it as referring to damp sand. The Gemara answers: This tanna already taught the case of a water channel, which is a source of dampness, and therefore there was no need to mention damp sand as well.

The Gemara rejects this answer: That is incorrect, as is that to say that the mishna includes only one example of a source of dampness? Doesn’t the mishna teach the case of a water channel? And yet it also teaches the example of a launderer’s pond. This demonstrates that the mishna teaches many cases, despite the similarity between them, and therefore it should have mentioned the halakha in the case of sand as well.

The Gemara answers: Both of those particular examples are necessary, as, had the tanna taught only the case of a water channel, one would have claimed that a distance must be kept because it is fixed, i.e., water constantly passes through it. But with regard to a launderer’s pond, which is not fixed, as it sometimes holds water and sometimes does not, one might say that one need not distance it from his neighbor’s property. And conversely, had the tanna taught only the case of a launderer’s pond, one might have said that this must be distanced because its water is fixed and standing in one location and therefore leaks out. But with regard to a water channel, one might say distancing it is not required. Consequently, it is necessary to state both examples. By contrast, including the halakha in the case of sand would not add any novel understanding.

§ The mishna teaches: One must distance seeds, i.e., one may not plant seeds, and one may not operate the plow, and one must eliminate urine, three handbreadths from the wall of another. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to mention seeds? Let him derive this requirement to distance the seeds due to the requirement to distance a plow, as in any event the ground must be plowed before it can be sown? The Gemara answers: This is referring to planting with a single hand motion, which is performed without plowing.

The Gemara further challenges: The mishna teaches that one must distance a plow; but let him derive this requirement to distance a plow due to the requirement to distance the seeds, as plowing is preparation for planting. The Gemara answers: This is referring to one who plows to prepare the ground for trees. The Gemara challenges: But if so, let him derive this requirement to distance a plow due to the requirement to distance the water. If there are trees, there must be a water channel to irrigate them, and arranging one’s field in such a manner should be prohibited for that reason. The Gemara answers: The tanna is referring to Eretz Yisrael, concerning which it is written: “And drinks water as the rain of heaven comes down” (Deuteronomy 11:11). In Eretz Yisrael, water channels were not needed.

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that seeds

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

BavaBatra 19a examines required distances for launderers' ponds near a neighbor's wall and clarifies whether lime plastering can replace distance for pits.