Talmud - Bava Batra 19b בבא בתרא י״ט ב׳

take root to the sides, i.e., the growing roots spread sideways and cause damage to walls? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kilayim 7:1): With regard to one who bends a branch of a grapevine into the ground so that it strikes roots and produces a new vine, if it does not have three handbreadths of earth over it he may not plant a seed above it, as he would thereby transgress the prohibition of diverse kinds?

And it is taught with regard to this mishna: But one may plant on either side of that bent branch. This indicates that there is no concern that the roots of the seeds will spread out sideways. Rabbi Ḥagga says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The issue here is not that the roots will spread out sideways and reach the wall. Rather, it is prohibited to plant seeds near one’s neighbor’s property because they break up the ground and cause loose soil to rise up, which damages the foundation of the wall.

§ The mishna teaches: And urine must be kept at a distance of three handbreadths from the wall of one’s neighbor. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: It is permitted for a person to urinate alongside the wall of another, as it is written: “And I will cut off from Ahab those who urinate against the wall, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel” (I Kings 21:21). As the verse employs the term “those who urinate against the wall” to mean males, it seems that urinating against a wall was a common practice. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that urine must be kept a distance of three handbreadths from the wall? The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot, as opposed to urine that is passed from the body.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: A person may not pour water at the side of the wall of another unless he distances the water three handbreadths from it. If pouring water is prohibited, then all the more so should urination be prohibited. The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: A person may not urinate alongside the wall of another unless he distances himself three handbreadths from it. In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a brick wall. But in the case of a stone wall, one must distance himself enough so that it does not cause damage. And how far must he distance himself? One handbreadth. And if there is hard rock present, it is permitted to urinate there. The Gemara comments: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana is a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected.

The Gemara asks: But Rabba bar bar Ḥana stated a verse in support of his opinion; how can the baraita rule counter to what is written in a verse? The Gemara answers: This is what it is saying there, i.e., this is the meaning of that verse: I will not even leave Ahab something whose manner is to urinate against a wall. And what is that? A dog. According to this interpretation, the verse is not referring to people at all.

§ Rabbi Tovi bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: A wafer does not reduce the dimensions of a window. When a corpse, or a significant part thereof, is in one room, its impurity can spread to a room adjacent to it if there is a window of a certain size between the rooms. Shmuel states that when one puts a wafer in a window, the wafer is not considered an obstruction, so the size of the opening as relevant to this halakha remains the same. The Gemara asks: Why discuss specifically this case? Why does Shmuel teach this halakha with regard to a wafer? Even a thick chunk of bread also does not reduce the dimensions of a window.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha with regard to thick bread. Since it is fit for him to consume, he does not nullify it, i.e., he does not plan to leave it in the window for an extended amount of time. But in the case of a wafer, which becomes disgusting when placed in a window, I might say that he does nullify it and it becomes part of the house, thereby reducing the size of the window. To counter this, Shmuel teaches us that even a wafer is not nullified, as it can be used to feed animals, as one is not particular about their food. Therefore, the wafer does not become part of the window in which it is placed.

The Gemara challenges: And let him derive this halakha from the fact that a wafer is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity, and any item that is susceptible to impurity does not serve as a barrier against the spread of impurity. The Gemara explains: This is referring to a wafer that was kneaded in fruit juice, which is not one of the liquids that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore the wafer is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Consequently, one might have thought that it serves as a barrier before ritual impurity and reduces the dimensions of the window.

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuel’s opinion from a mishna (Oholot 6:2): With regard to a basket that is full of straw, or an earthenware barrel full of dried figs, which are placed in a window, one considers: If the straw or dried figs would stand on their own were the basket or barrel removed, then they would serve as a barrier against the spread of impurity. But if they would not stand on their own they would not serve as a barrier. The Gemara explains the objection: But why should the straw or dried figs serve as a barrier? Even straw that can stand on its own is fit for feeding to one’s animal and will likely be removed from the opening, which means it should not be considered part of the window.

The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to rotted straw, which is unfit for animal consumption. The Gemara asks: But it is fit for use in the making of clay for bricks. The Gemara answers: This is referring to straw that has thorns in it and therefore is not fit for making bricks. The Gemara challenges: Even so, it is fit for kindling a fire. The Gemara answers that this is referring to wet straw. The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, it is fit for kindling a large fire. If one builds a large fire, wet straw will dry and become ignitable. The Gemara answers: A large fire is not common, and therefore, in all likelihood, the straw will remain in the window.

The Gemara further asks: But dried figs are fit for him to consume, and he will certainly remove them. Consequently, they should not be considered fixed in their place. Shmuel says: This is referring to a case where the figs became worm infested [beshehitrifu]. And so Rabba bar Avuh teaches: This is referring to a case where the figs became worm infested.

The Gemara clarifies: What are the exact circumstances of this barrel that held the dried figs? If this is referring to a case where its opening faced outward, i.e., not toward the source of the ritual impurity,

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

BavaBatra 19b examines root damage from grapevines and seedlings near property walls, and debates the permitted distance for urine and water disposal.