(The coming nine questions are against Rava in the first version.) Question #1: This implies that if his neighbor did not have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!

Answer: No, even if there is no wall there, he must distance himself.

Question: If so, why did the Mishnah teach these cases?

Answer: It teaches that these things damage walls.

(Mishnah): He may not plant seeds, plow, or urinate within three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall.

Question #2: This implies that if his neighbor did not have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!

Answer: No, even if there is no wall there, he must distance himself.

Question: If so, why did the Mishnah teach these cases?

Answer: It teaches that moisture damages walls.

(Mishnah): The lower stone of a millstone must be distanced three Tefachim. The upper stone will be four Tefachim away.

Question #3: This implies that if his neighbor did not have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!

Answer: No, even if there is no wall there, he must distance himself.

Question: If so, what does the Mishnah teach?

Answer: It teaches that making the ground shake damages walls.

(Mishnah): The bottom of an oven must be distanced three Tefachim. The top will be four Tefachim away.

Question #4: This implies that if his neighbor did not have a wall there, he would not have to distance himself!

Answer: No, even if there is no wall there, he must distance himself.

Question: If so, what does the Mishnah teach?

Answer: It teaches that heat damage walls.

(Mishnah): One may not open a bakery or dyer's store or cattle pen under someone else's storehouse.

Question #5: This implies that if there was not a storehouse there, he would be allowed!

Answer: We are more lenient for necessities of living.

Support (Seifa): If the cattle pen preceded the storehouse, he may keep it there.

(Mishnah): One may not plant a tree within four Amos of his neighbor's field.

(Beraisa): Four Amos is the amount needed for upkeep of a vineyard.

Question #6: This implies that if not for the field, he would not have to distance himself, even though the roots will damage!

Answer: No, the case is, a deep rock (below ground) separates the fields. (The roots will not penetrate.)

(Mishnah): If there is a wall between the fields, each may plant close to the wall.

Question #7: He need not distance himself, even though the roots will damage!

Answer: Here also, a deep rock separates the fields.

Question: From the Seifa, we may infer that no rock separates the fields!

(Seifa): If the roots entered his neighbor's field, the neighbor may cut them up to three Tefachim below the ground, so it should not impede his plow.

Answer: The Mishnah means that if no rock separates the fields, and the roots entered his neighbor's field, the neighbor may cut them up to three Tefachim below the ground, so it should not impede his plow.

(Mishnah): One may not plant a tree within 25 Amos of his neighbor's pit.

Question #8: This implies that if his neighbor did not have a pit there, he would not have to distance himself!

Answer: No, even if there is no pit there, he must distance himself.

The Mishnah teaches that roots can damage a pit up to 25 Amos away.

Question: The Seifa teaches that if the tree preceded the pit, it may not be cut down. If one must distance himself even when there is no pit there, how was he allowed to have the tree close?

Answer: We answer like Rav Papa said (elsewhere), that when Reuven planted the tree, he owned the nearby field. Later, he sold it.

(Mishnah): We distance soaking water (of flax) from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard from bees.

Question #9: This implies that if his neighbor did not have vegetables there, he would not have to distance himself!

Answer: No, even if there are no vegetables there, he must distance himself.

The Mishnah teaches that these things damage one another.

Question: The Seifa teaches otherwise!

(Mishnah and Beraisa - R. Yosi): One may plant mustard near his neighbor's bees. He can say 'rather than tell me to distance my mustard, distance your bees, for they eat the stems of my mustard plants!'

If one must distance damagers from the border (even when there is no pit there), both of them must distance themselves!

Answer (Rav Papa): When Reuven set up the soaking pit, leeks or mustard, he owned the adjacent field. Later, he sold it.

Question: If so, why do Chachamim say that he must distance himself?

This question also applies to R. Yosi, who agrees in the first two cases.

Answer #1 (Ravina): Chachamim hold that the potential damager must distance himself.

Inference: R. Yosi holds that the victim must distance himself!

Objection: If so, in all three cases R. Yosi should not require him to distance himself!

Answer #2: Really, R. Yosi agrees that the damager must distance himself.

He agrees about water and leeks, since these damage (vegetables and onions) but are not damaged.

Bees also damage mustard, therefore one need not distance his mustard from the bees.

Chachamim hold that bees do not damage mustard.

They do not find the seeds;

Even though they eat the leaves, they grow back.

Objection: R. Yosi does not hold that the damager must distance himself!

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): Even though the pit preceded the tree, we do not cut down the tree. The owner of the pit digs in his field, and the owner of the tree plants in his field!

(Defense of Answer #1): Really, R. Yosi holds that the victim must distance himself. He addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning;

R. Yosi: I hold that the victim must distance himself, even regarding soaking water and vegetables;

Granted, in such a case, you hold that the damager must distance himself, since he damages but is not damaged;

You should admit about bees and mustard, that neither must distance himself, for each damages the other!

Chachamim hold that bees do not damage mustard, for they do not find the seeds. Even though they eat the leaves, they grow back.