Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 13, scan section 72

a right to step on it at that time) ? And he answered : This we have learned in the Mishna farther on, that the outsider may sow the path which leads to the inside field. Rejoined Abayi: What comparison is this ? There the buyer of the inner field does not suffer any damage when he steps on the sown path to his field ; but here, if the owner of the ground should sow it, there is a damage to the buyer of the trees in not having the products of the ground belonging to him. Therefore if this case should be compared to the one in the cited Mishna, it is only to the latter part, which states that neither of them has a right to sow. There is a Boraitha in accordance with Abayi, which states plainly that neither of them has a right to sow. How much space is to be left between the trees in question, that it should be considered the buyer's ? R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: From four to eight i8o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. ells. And Rabha in the name of R. Na'hman, quoting Samuel, said: From eight to sixteen. Said Abayi to R. Joseph: Do not quarrel with R. Na'hman, as there is a Mishna (Kilaim, IV. 9) in accordance with him: If one has planted his vineyard sixteen ells square, he may sow other seeds between the rows. And R. Jehudah said : It happened in the city of Zalmon that one had planted his vineyard sixteen ells square. One year he trained the branches of every two rows in one direction, and sowed in the opposite direction ; and the next year he trained the branches in another direction, and sowed on the ground that had lain fallow. And when the matter was brought before the sages, they sanctioned it [his manner of proceeding]. And he answered: I took my theory from such a case as happened in the village of the shepherds, which was brought before R. Jehu- dah, and he decided to give them space for a yoke of oxen with the harness thereof; but. I did not know the measure of such a space, and after I had given my attention to a Mishna stated above, as follows: " One must not plant a tree near his neigh- bor's field unless he leaves four ells space," and a Boraitha in addition to this states the four ells mentioned are for the pur- pose of working up a vineyard (as explained above, p. 78), I inferred from this that the measure of a yoke with the harness is four ells. But is there not a Mishna (Kilaim, IV. 9) in accord- ance with R. Joseph: Beth R. Meir and R. Simeon say: If one plants his vineyard eight ells square, he is permitted to sow other seeds therein ? Yea; nevertheless, a practised act is more important for evidence. It is correct in accordance with R. Joseph, which is accord- ing to R. Simeon's theory, as we have heard that R. Simeon's theory equals both cases, when the vines are scattered and also when they are growing together — " scattered," from the Mishna just cited, and " growing together," from the following Mishna: A vineyard which is planted in less than four ells is not to be considered a vineyard at all. So is the decree of R. Simeon, etc. But according to R. Na'hman, who is in accord with the rabbis' theory, we have heard their opinion concerning scattered ones (as said above in the case of Zalmon); but have you also heard their opinion about growing together ? This is common sense. As R. Simeon considers the half space in his theory of growing together, the same is the case with the rabbis: they also consider the half space in their theory of growing together. Said Rabha: The Halakha prevails — from four to sixteen TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE). i8i ells; and there is a Boraitha which supports him as follows: What is meant by being near one to another ? Four ells. And what is meant by being far ? Sixteen ells. In the latter case, if one bought the trees he bought also the ground, and also the shrubs between; and, therefore, if it happens that a tree withers or is cut off, the ground remains his. If, however, it were less or more than the above space, or he bought the trees not at one time, but one after another, the ground and the shrubs between do not belong to him ; and, therefore, if a tree becomes withered or is cut off, he has no right to the ground (to plant another in-stead). R. Jeremiah questioned: How should the ground belonging to the buyer be measured — from the end of the branches or from the trunk (so that he would have more space than by measuring from the branches) ? And R. Gibiahh from the city of Khthil said to R. Ashi : Come and hear the following Mishna [Kilaim, VII. i]: If a vine has been bent in such a manner that the main stem is out of sight [underground], the measure [as to legal distance] must be calculated from the second stem — i.e., the place where it rises from the ground and again becomes visi- ble. R. Jeremiah questioned again: How is the law if one has sold a tree of which the branches are separated by four ells from one another: And the above R. Gibiahh said to R. Ashi: Come and hear the second Mishna [ibid., ibid.]: If three vines are bent [and partly covered with mould] and their stems remain visible, R. Elazar ben Zadok said : If there remain between them not less than four and not exceeding five ells in width, they [the vines] must be looked upon as connected; otherwise, they are not to be so considered. R. Papa questioned: If one has sold two trees situated in his field and one on the boundary, are they to be counted together, or not ? The same question arises when one has sold two situated on his own ground and one on his neighbor's, and both questions remain undecided. R. Ashi questioned : (If in the above questions it were decided that they should be counted together,) how is the law if there were a well, or a channel, or intervention by a public ground or a row of young trees ? This question also remains undecided. Hillel questioned Rabbi: If a cedar tree intervened, how is the law ? And he answered : Then title is given to him in the trees, as well as in the cedar. How should the trees be situated so that the sixteen ells in question should be measured ? Ac- i82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. cording to Rabh in a row (...) and according to Samuel diag- onally ( • . • ) ; and the difference is, that according to him who said " in a row " the ground belongs to the buyer, so much the more when they are situated diagonally; while according to him who says " diagonally," if they are in a row the ground does not belong to the buyer, as if in a row the ground between is fit for sowing. R. Hamnuna opposed: According to the theory that if they were placed diagonally the ground belongs to the buyer only for the reason that such a ground is not fit for sow- ing, how would it be if one should sell three thorns which are