Question (Rashba): Why doesn't it count also Iyov? It says above (15b) that [the cattle were plowing, and] the donkeys were grazing Al Yedeihem (the fodder grew instantly). This teaches that Hash-m gave Iyov a taste of the world to come!

Answer: Iyov had only one matter [like the world to come]. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov benefited like the world to come in everything.

Question (Rashba): The same applies to all Tzadikim, for it says in Shabbos (152b) "v'Rekev Atzamos Kin'ah" - one who has jealousy in his heart, his bones decay. One who does not have jealousy in his heart, his bones do not decay!

Answer: It can be that he will not decay, and worms will consume him, like it says in the episode of R. Elazar ben Shimon in Bava Metzi'a (84b), that a worm came out of his ear.

Suggestion: The Yetzer ha'Ra did not rule over them at all.

Rejection: If so, how did they receive reward?!

Explanation: Rather, it is like it says in Yoma (38b) what do we learn from "Raglei Chasidav Yishmor"? Once one passed the majority of his years and did not sin, after this he will not sin;

Also here, once Hash-m saw that they were pushing themselves so much to distance from sin, Hash-m helped them from now and onwards that the Yetzer ha'Ra did not rule over them.

Explanation: All of these discuss when there is water. The reason [one must distance] is due to moisture, like the Gemara says.

Question (Ri): We say in the Gemara that every shovel [of dirt excavated softens the neighboring land. One should distance even if there is no moisture!]

Answer (Ri): We say only that from that time (that he began digging), the damage begins. Since at the beginning of the damage it is Giri Dilei (his arrows), R. Yosi admits [that he must distance];

However, if not for water, he would not need to distance three Tefachim.

Explanation: The same applies to uncovered square ditches, and ditches that are narrow below and wide above.

Implied question: [If so, why did the Mishnah] mention only these?

Answer: Everywhere, Si'ach (a long pit) and Ma'arah (a square covered pit) are taught along with Bor.

Implied question: Why did the Mishnah mention an irrigation channel and laundry ditch? These are not normally taught along with Bor!

Answer: The Gemara explains why both of them are needed.

Implied question: The Gemara did not explain why we do not learn [both of] them from Bor!

Answer: We could say that Bor and Si'ach are deeper, so they must be distanced three [Tefachim], but these (an irrigation channel and laundry ditch) are not so deep, so one might have thought that they need not be distanced three;

Had it taught these, one might have thought that Bor and Si'ach, which are deeper, must be distanced more than three.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (50b), a Mishnah says "one who digs a Bor, Si'ach or Ma'arah", and the Gemara explains why it needed to teach all of them!

Answer: There it is fine, for the Tana should not have taught them along with Bor, since Bor is written in the verse. Rather, it should have taught Bor alone.

Explanation: These are rocks from which fire exudes. They are not copper Sela'im (coins), for it is not normal to put them near walls.

Implied question: The Yerushalmi says that one Tana teaches permits Hatmanah (wrapping food to keep it warm on Shabbos) in Sela'im, and one Tana forbids. It answers that we distinguish between silver Sela'im from copper (i.e. coins. The former are forbidden, for they add heat.)

We could have distinguished between Sela'im that are rocks, and silver Sela'im!

Answer: It prefers to answer that all (i.e. both) of them are of metal.

Assertion (Ri): Also in the Seifa, the text says v'Sad b'Sid. It does not say Oh [Sad b'Sid].

Proof: If the text in the Seifa, were Oh Sad b'Sid, we should resolve that the Reisha means that he also plasters, since it did not teach Oh Sad, like in the Seifa!

Conclusion: Surely, also in the Seifa the text is Oh Sad.

Implied question: Why is it clear to the Gemara that in the Seifa, it means or he plasters? (The text says v'Sad, just like in the Reisha!)

Answer: There is not so much damage [from refuse of olives, manure...] that plastering alone would not suffice.

Explanation: R. Chananel explains that this is a stomach. An oven is narrow below and in the middle gets wider and sticks out about a Tefach [more than at the bottom]. From its middle, it gets narrower towards the top.

Version #1 (Rashi): In Rashi's text, after it answers "[the Mishnah teaches three Tefachim] from the wall of his Bor", it asks "it should teach 'unless he distanced from his Bor'!"

Rebuttal: This is wrong, like I will explain (in the coming Dibur).

Version #2: If this is in the text, it is as follows. "The Mishnah began with Bor, and concluded with 'wall'. It should teach [Bor also at the end, i.e.] 'unless he distanced from his Bor'!" Perush R. Chananel connotes like this.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (27a), when we ask "the Mishnah began with 'Kad', and concluded with 'Chavis'!" (these are kinds of barrels), it does not conclude "it should teach 'if the owner of the Kad was damaged'!"...

Answer: The Gemara is not uniform. Sometimes it elaborates, and sometimes it is concise.

Explanation: The Mishnah does not discuss the distance from the interior of the pit, rather, from the wall of the Bor, that the first one left [between the cavity and the border] when he dug his Bor;

From this teaching of Rav Yehudah, we infer below that one may not be Somech (put a damager close to the border), since the first one needed to leave a wall. We challenge Abaye from this.

Consequence: Now, the text cannot say "it should teach 'unless he distanced from his Bor'!", for if so, this would connote from the interior of the Bor!

Implied question: Rashi explained that had it taught 'from his Bor', we would know that it is from the wall, for if it were from the interior, he does not recess into his property at all...! (The border of his property is three Tefachim from the interior of his neighbor's Bor.)

Answer: Rashi's text forced him to say so. This is not correct;

Surely, had it taught 'from his Bor', we would have thought that it is from the interior, and one may be Somech, and if the first distanced by himself (i.e. even though he was not obligated) three Tefachim or more, one might have thought that the latter may be Somech to the border;

If so, it needed to teach "from his wall", to teach that one may not be Somech, according to Rava;

According to Abaye, [it teaches that] we need a distance between of six Tefachim between [the interiors of] the two pits.

Disclaimer: One can resolve the text. We ask according to Abaye, for we were discussing his opinion, that it should teach "unless he distanced from his Bor (i.e. the interior) six Tefachim."

Explanation: According to Rava, we do not need this application, for it teaches [that the wall is three Tefachim regarding] the Isur to be Somech;

Rather, according to Abaye, who holds that one may be Somech, we ask what is the Nafka Minah (practical difference);

If it is to teach that he must distance six Tefachim, it should teach "unless he distanced from his Bor six Tefachim"!

Explanation: Therefore, he does not damage him if he is Somech.

Question (Rashba): He loses, for if he plants a tree, he must distance more because the other was Somech to the border, for one must distance a tree 25 Amos from a Bor!

Answer: In any case, he does not damage him, for this that he must distance more is not lest the Bor damage [his tree], rather, lest he damage the Bor;

Therefore, he (the one who digs a Bor) need not refrain from being Somech due to this.

Proof: If you would not say so, he should distance his Bor all 25 Amos (so his neighbor may plant a tree right at the border! Obviously, he need not do so.)

Explanation (Rashi): According to both versions, according to Abaye, who says that he may be Somech, if [his neighbor] comes to dig a pit afterwards, he must distance all six Tefachim.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that "from the wall of his Bor" means from the interior, and the Tana was not precise with his words.

Explanation: This is difficult for Abaye. The Gemara answers that also here, both came to dig at once;

The Tana needed to teach about loose earth. One might have thought that since it is loose, we require more distance. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

Assertion: Now, we did not need to conclude that he needed to teach about loose earth, for he did not ask at all from [the fact that it taught] loose earth;

Rather, since he brought the Beraisa, he explains it.

Alternate text: Some texts say "this is because it is loose earth. If it were not loose earth, not (he need not distance). We ask against Rava;

We answer that also the same applies even if it is not loose earth. We needed to teach [about loose earth, that it does not require more distance].

Rebuttal (R. Tam): It is unreasonable to distinguish regarding the Heter to be Somech between loose earth and earth that is not loose.

Defense (Ri): It is reasonable to distinguish! Even though when it is not loose, one may be Somech, one may not be Somech when it is loose, because the land cleaves, and the land of his neighbor's field will fall.

Explanation: This is difficult for Rava.

Question: What is difficult? Here surely one may be Somech when there is no wall, for it does not harm at all, and when [his neighbor] wants to make a wall, he will remove the Gefes (olive refuse)!

Answer #1: Also these ruin the ground and damage the wall when it will be built, even if later (before building the wall), he will remove them.

Answer #2 (Ri): In all of these, there is toil to remove them. Therefore, he can prevent [his neighbor] now, for there is concern lest later [his neighbor] will not remove it promptly when he wants to make a wall.

Question: Still, what is difficult for Rava? Above, he explains the reason (one may not be Somech a Bor) is because "every shovel of dirt you excavate softens my land"!

Answer: We said that reason only according to R. Yosi. Here we ask only according to Rabanan.