Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Reuven must move his laundry-pit three Tefachim from the wall of Shimon's pit (i.e. three Tefachim from the border). Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies this - by confining it to the pit called 'Mechamtzan' (in which the laundry is first soaked for a day or two), but the pit called 'Nadyan' (in which the washing is actually washed, causing the water to splash long distances, must be placed at least four Amos away from Shimon's pit.

(b) We substantiate Rav Nachman's distinction - by citing a Beraisa which gives the Shiur of a laundry-pit as four Amos, which can only be reconciled with our Mishnah by explaining it like Rav Nachman.

(c) According to Rav Chiya B'rei de'Rav Ivya's text in our Mishnah, the matter is clearer still - since his version of our Mishnah reads 'Ela-im-Kein Hirchik mi'Sefas *Mechamtzan* Sheloshah Tefachim'.

(a) We conclude the first group of prohibitions listed in our Mishnah ('Bor Samuch le'Boro ... ') with 've'Sad be'Sid', and we ask whether it should not perhaps read 'O Sad be'Sid'. And we attempt to resolve the She'eilah, based on the second group of prohibitions ('es ha'Geffes ... '), which concludes 'O Sad be'Sid'. Now if the Reisha also reads 'O Sad be'Sid', then why did the Tana not combine the two sets?

(b) We refute this proof however, on the grounds - that the Tana might state 'O Sad be'Sid', and still list them as two sets - because their reasons differ (since the first set is because of wetness, and the second set, because of foul air.

(c) We cite the Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah requires both neighbors to dig their pits in 'Sela ha'Ba be'Yadayim' three Tefachim from the border and to cement them with lime - implying that a pit dug in ordinary earth does not require both steps (in which case, the text in the Reisha of our Mishnah must read 'O Sad be'Sid').

(d) We refute this proof too, however - by equating the Din by any other ground with that of a 'Sela ha'Ba be'Yadayim', and the Tana only mentions 'Sela ha'Ba be'Yadayim' to teach us that even there, three Tefachim distance plus cementing the pit with lime will suffice.

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Shabbos 'Ein Tomnin Lo be'Geffes, ve'Lo be'Zevel, ve'Lo be'Melach, ve'Lo be'Sid, ve'Lo be'Chol'. The glaring discrepancy between that Mishnah and ours is - that the Tana there omits rocks, whereas our Tana omits sand.

(b) Abaye cites the Beraisa 'Tomnin be'Gizei Tzemer ... u'vi'Leshonos shel Argaman', posing a Kashya on Rav Yosef's explanation - that the Tana there omits rocks because it is unusual to use rocks for keeping hot pots warm (though that only answers half the Kashya anyway), since it is no more common to use shearings of wool and 'tongues of wool' for that purpose, yet the Tana mentions them.

(c) Abaye therefore answers 'Yagid Alav Re'o' - by which he means that the Tana mentions rocks once and sand once, and it is understood that what is written in one place applies to the other.

(d) Rava refute Abaye's answer however - because then the Tana should have listed one of the things in one place and all the rest in the other.

(a) Rava finally answers - that the Tana ...

1. ... there omits rocks - because, seeing as they would break the pot (or cause it to rust) a person would avoid using them for Hatmanah.
2. ... here omits sand - since, although on the one hand, sand keeps warm things warm, on the other, it keeps cold things cold (in which case, Reuven's sand will pose no threat to Shimon's wall).

(b) Nevertheless, Rebbi Oshaya, who forbids Reuven to place his sand within three Tefachim of Shimon's wall - by establishing his ruling by wet sand.

(c) Our Tana does not find it necessary to insert wet sand however, since he has already included a stream of water. Nevertheless, he finds it necessary to insert a a laundry-pit (despite his already having mentioned a stream of water) - because we would not know one from the other, as we will now explain.

(d) We would not have known ...

1. ... a laundry-pit from a stream of water - because its use is not constant like the latter.
2. ... a stream of water from a laundry-pit - because it is not static like the latter.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Reuven must distance his seeds and his plow at least three Tefachim from Shimon's wall. The Tana needs to insert ...

1. ... seeds - by someone who hand-seeds and then uses a spade to cover the seeds rather than a plow.
2. ... plowing - because he is speaking about when Reuven intends to plant *trees* and not seeds.

(b) Granted, we have already learned that watering is harmful to a wall, and trees require watering - but our Tana is speaking in Eretz Yisrael, about which the Torah writes "li'Metar ha'Shamayim Tishteh Mayim", and which does not therefore need to be manually watered.

6)

(a) The Mishnah in Kil'ayim forbids seeding the area directly above a replanted branch of an attached vine. The Tana of a Beraisa comments - that one may seed immediately beside the vine.

(b) The Tana must be speaking about a solitary vine (or even up to four vines) - because five vines constitute a vineyard, in which case it would be forbidden to seed even at the side, because of 'Irbuv' (mixing seeds with a vineyard).

(c) Clearly then, seeds grow upwards and not sideways. To resolve this with our Mishnah, which requires a distance of three Tefachim between Reuven's seeds and Shimon's wall, Rebbi Chaga quoting Rebbi Yossi explains - that it is (not because they directly harm Shimon's wall, but) because they sap the strength from the earth around them, causing the earth underneath the wall to become soft.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk in Melachim "ve'Hichrati le'Achav Mashtin ba'Kir ... " - that one is allowed to urinate next to someone else's wall.

(b) He establishes our Mishnah 've'es Mei Raglayim min ha'Kosel Sheloshah Tefachim' - by 'Shofchin', pouring out a relatively large quantity of urine there, and not to urinating.

(c) Rabah bar Rav Huna is proved wrong however - on the basis of a Beraisa, which specifically forbids urinating within three Tefachim of a wall ...

(d) ... of bricks - but not one of stones, which only requires a distance of one Tefach.

(e) Consequently, the Pasuk in Melachim, "Mashtin ba'Kir" refers (not to human-beings, but) to dogs (meaning that not even a dog, who tends to urinate against walls, will remain).

(a) When Rav Tuvi bar Kisna Amar Shmuel says 'Rakik Eino Mema'et ba'Chalon', he means - that a thin loaf of bread (like a Pitah) which fills a window between a room where a corpse is lying and another room, leaving a gap of less than a Tefach, will not prevent the Tum'ah from passing through to the next room.

(b) The reason that he mentions a thin loaf is (not to preclude a thick loaf from this Din, but) - to teach us that even a thin loaf, which becomes more dirty than a thick one, retains its identity and does not become Batel to the wall.

(c) Although anything that is subject to Tum'ah does not prevent Tum'ah from passing through - Shmuel is talking about a loaf which was kneaded with fruit-juice, and which is therefore not subject to Tum'ah.

(a) We ask on Shmuel from a Beraisa. The Tana rules that a box full of straw or a barrel full of dried-figs is lying on a window-sill that divides between a room in which there is a corpse and another room will prevent the Tum'ah from passing into the second room - provided the straw or the figs would remain there if one were to removed their respective containers.

(b) The straw will prevent the Tum'ah from passing through under those circumstances, due to the fact that it is unfit ...

1. ... to be fed to his animals - because it has turned moldy.
2. ... for making cement - because it contains thorns.
3. ... for fuel - because it is wet.

(c) And we do not contend with the fact that it is fit to fuel a big fire - because that is uncommon.

(d) Neither are the figs fit to eat - because the Tana speaks when they have become wormy.

(a) The barrel itself (that contains the figs) does not prevent the Tum'ah from passing through, despite the fact that the outside of an earthenware barrel is not subject to Tum'ah and is therefore Chotzetz before Tum'ah - because the Tana speaks when it is the front of the barrel that is facing the corpse.

(b) Alternatively - he is speaking about a metal barrel, in which case it makes no difference which end of the barrel faces the corpse.