Implied question: Below (20b) we retract from the reason of making the ground shake, and explain that rather, it is due to noise!

Answer #1: In any case, here we mention making the ground shake, because initially we wanted to explain that it is due to making the ground shake.

Answer #2: According to the texts there that do not say "Ela" (which denotes retraction), this is fine here. According to those texts, making the ground shake and noise are one reason.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because smoke harms a storehouse.

Objection (R. Tam): Below, we say that regarding wine they permitted, for it improves it. Surely, smoke harms wine, for smoked wine is Pasul for Nesachim!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): There is no harm due to smoke. Since there is a ceiling and plaster, the smoke does not enter there (the storehouse above);

Rather, the reason is because the heat harms a storehouse, but it improves wine;

The text below says "Rav Yosef said, our [wine], even a lamp harms it", i.e. the heat of a lamp. The text does not say "smoke of a lamp."

Observation: We could have answered that the same applies when there is no storehouse; one may not be Somech. The Chidush is that heat harms a storehouse.

Explanation: In all the distances one must leave, this was not taught (that if the damager was there first, it is permitted). It should have taught about the others, and all the more so regarding Dirah! (Rather, surely this Heter is only for Dirah.)

Question: Really, [perhaps] also in all the distances, it is permitted to be Somech. It mentioned it here to teach a Chidush. Even though it is Giri Dilei, if it preceded the storehouse, it is permitted!

Strengthening of question: Now it would be a Chidush even according to R. Yosi. Had it taught about others, it would be a Chidush only according to Rabanan, but according to R. Yosi, who holds that the victim must distance himself, this is no Chidush!

Explanation: According to Abaye, this is not difficult. He holds that the Chidush in other matters is no greater than in Dirah.

Observation: The same applies to a baker's or dyer's store. The Beraisa mentioned one of them.

Implied question: It should have said "in order to work around the tree"! (We were not discussing vines.)

Answer: It mentioned Avodas ha'Kerem, because this expression is mentioned in Maseches Kil'ayim regarding a vineyard, which requires a distance of four Amos [from other crops].

Implied question: Without this inference, we could have asked simply, that it suffices to distance four Amos;

If it is forbidden to be Somech, he would have to distance 25 Amos, like the Mishnah below (25b) that we distance [a tree 25 Amos from a Bor]!

Answer: He prefers to infer that one may be Somech even within four Amos.

Question: Why do we need four Amos? Obviously, he will not plow past the rocky land, for it will not help the tree at all!

Answer: When he plows until the rocky land, and he wants to turn the plow to the other side, the plow will enter his neighbor's field.

Question: How was he Somech?

If he was not allowed to, he should cut [his tree]!

Answer #1: We must establish it regarding one who bought [half the field, with a tree on it].

Objection (Ritzva): It is unreasonable to establish it to discuss a buyer, since the Gemara did not say so, the way it says below!

Answer #2: Rather, we discuss one who was Somech without permission. He need not cut the tree. Rather, he pays money. [The Tana] did not want to elaborate about this to teach it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The seller owns the tree.

Objection (Rivam): If so, it should have said "one who sells"!

Explanation #2 (Rivam): The buyer owns the tree.

Question: According to both explanations, why must we say that the tree preceded the Bor?

Even if the Bor was there first, e.g. one man made the Bor, and afterwards planted the tree and sold the Bor according to Rashi, or sold the tree according to Rivam, he may not cut it, for it was planted b'Heter!

Answer: Such a case is called that the tree was there first, since it was planted before the owner of the Bor protested;

The protest came only through sale of the Bor or the tree.

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel): "We discuss a buyer" means that a man bought the tree, and we claim for a buyer (that the seller had bought rights to be Somech the tree - Tosfos 18b DH v'Savar).

Objection #1 (Ri): If so, why must we say that the tree was there first? Even if the Bor was first [we can claim]!

Objection #2: Since we discuss when he was Machazik in the tree for three years, for through Chazakah of three years we claim for a buyer, we should establish it even without a buyer, and when he has a Chazakah with a claim!

Explanations #1,2: Rashi explained that these are flowers. The Aruch explained that they are seeds.

Note: A marginal note says that this Dibur pertains to Amud A. The Bach (3) says that it belongs at the bottom of this Daf.

Objection (to both - Ri): Rabanan say that bees do not harm mustard. If [you will say that they harm] the seeds... If [you will say that they harm] the flowers...

Inference: R. Yosi did not explain in his words what [the bees] damage. Therefore, Chachamim were unsure if he refers to the seeds...

Explanation #3 (Ri): Liglugei are branches. R. Yosi did not explain what they damage. Therefore, Chachamim said "if [you refer to] the seeds..."

Question: In any case, they harm the mustard, for they eat the flowers!

Answer: The flowers are only for a short time, and in the one or two days that they stand, [the bees] cannot damage.

Explanation (Ri): Granted, according to Abaye, who says that one may be Somech, this is fine. The case is, the owner of the bees was Somech first.

Implied question: Now we are thinking that also bees harm mustard according to everyone!

Answer: In any case, Rabanan hold that the latter Mazik, i.e. the owner of the mustard, must leave the entire distance;

This is like regarding a Bor. If the first was Somech to the border, the latter distances the entire six Tefachim;

R. Yosi holds that since bees harm mustard, and it was slightly improper to be Somech, where [his neighbor] will later plant mustard...

Even though in law, he cannot stop him from being Somech, in any case he did slightly improperly, so also the owner of the mustard may be Somech.

Implied question: Why is this different than a Bor? (If one was Somech, his neighbor may not be Somech.)

Answer: There, every shovel softens the land. The latter overtly damages the wall of the Bor of the first. Therefore, the latter must leave the entire distance. Here, this is not true (the owner of the mustard does not overtly harm the bees).

Explanation (cont.): However, according to Rava, who says that he may not be Somech, how do we find that the owner of the mustard must leave the entire distance according to Rabanan, and according to R. Yosi he need not distance at all?

Since both of them harm each other, each should distance half the required distance!

Even if the owner of the bees was Somech first, he must remove them, since he did improperly!

Explanation (cont.): Rav Papa answered that we discuss a buyer. He planted mustard and sold half his field, and the buyer set up bees;

Rabanan hold like we conclude, that bees do not harm mustard, and the damager must distance himself, even if he was Somech b'Heter.

Implied question: Regarding a tree, if he was Somech b'Heter, we say that he need not cut it!

Answer: That is only regarding a tree, which normally stands for many years. There is a great loss [to cut it];

However, a soaking pit, leeks or mustard do not [entail a great loss to move them].

Support: We say so also about a tree. If the Bor was first, he cuts the tree and pays its value, even though he was Somech b'Isur;

Regarding other things that one was Somech b'Isur, it seems that [his neighbor] need not pay. This shows that [Chachamim] were concerned for a great loss.

Explanation (cont.): R. Yosi holds that bees harm mustard, and the owner of the bees must leave the entire distance, since the owner of the mustard did not do anything improper.

Implied question: Why didn't he (Rav Papa) want to establish it when the owner of the bees was Somech first, and a buyer (planted mustard)?

He would not need to say a difficult Perush, that Rabanan hold that the damager must distance himself, even though he was Somech b'Heter, unlike a tree and Bor!

Also, he would not need to say that Rabanan hold that bees do not harm mustard, and they argue with R. Yosi!

Answer: If so, since the owner of the bees was Somech b'Heter and did not do improperly, R. Yosi would not permit the owner of the mustard to be Somech.

Question: We should establish their argument without a buyer!

According to Rabanan, who hold that bees do not harm mustard, the owner of the mustard must remove it and distance the entire distance, even though he was Somech first;

According to R. Yosi, who hold that both harm each other, the owner of the mustard need not distance the entire distance, rather, only half.

Answer: "He permits with mustard" connotes that he permits to be Somech.

Question: If so, what is Rabanan's reason? Since the soaking pit and leeks were put close b'Heter, why must he distance them when his neighbor puts vegetables or onions?

All the more so regarding mustard, why must he distance when bees come near, since also they (bees) harm [the mustard]?

We are thinking that all agree that also bees harm mustard.

Strengthening of question: Further, what is R. Yosi's reason, that he argues only regarding mustard, because also bees harm mustard?

Even soaking and vegetables, since the soaking pit was made b'Heter, he should not need to distance it, just like regarding a tree and Bor!

Explanation (cont.): Ravina answers that really, we discuss a buyer. Rabanan hold that the damager must distance himself, even though he acted b'Heter. Therefore, the owner of the mustard must distance, for he damages.

Explanation (cont.): We ask that since we learn from Ravina's teaching that bees do not harm mustard, therefore Rabanan imposed the distancing on the owner of the mustard;

Inference: R. Yosi holds that the victim must distance himself, since he permits Semichah of mustard, even though it harms and it is not damaged. If so, [he should permit] also soaking and vegetables!

Implied question: We could have asked that the Beraisa explicitly connotes that also the bees harm mustard, for it says "they eat Liglugei Chardeli"!

Answer: Rather, he prefers to ask that even regarding soaking and vegetables [the victim should need to distance himself], because he began to ask this.

Explanation #1: According to this Perush, we must say that this is not the same Makshan who asked initially "if he was not Somech, how do we find this?"

Note: It seems that "this Perush" is Explanation #3 in the Dibur after this (DH v'Savar), which really precedes this Dibur. The Bach (3) says that really, all three of these (DH v'Iy, DH v'Savar and DH Michlal), are one big Dibur.

According to him (that Makshan), it is fine for Abaye, who says that one may be Somech. It was not difficult for him at all "does R. Yosi hold that the victim [must distance himself]?!"

Consequence: We must say that the first Makshan knew the conclusion, that bees do not harm mustard according to Rabanan, but this Makshan did not know this. Therefore, he asked "this implies that R. Yosi holds [that the victim must distance himself]!"

He asked that since according to Rabanan, the owner of the bees is considered a victim and not a damager, that they require the owner of the mustard to distance, even though they (the bees) harm the mustard...

In any case, since he was Somech b'Heter, he is not considered a damager, and the owner of the mustard must distance;

If so, also according to R. Yosi he is considered a victim, and even so the owner of the mustard is allowed to be Somech;

If so, R. Yosi holds that the victim must distance himself. If so, also regarding soaking and vegetables [the victim should distance himself]!

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yosi considers the owner of the bees to be a damager, even though he was Somech b'Heter, just because he did slightly improperly, and Rabanan disagree with this reasoning.

Rebuttal: It is totally unreasonable that they argue about this.

Explanation #1 (cont.): We answer that really, R. Yosi holds that the damager must [distance himself]. He considers the owner of the bees to be a damager, even though he was Somech b'Heter, since it was slightly improper to be Somech;

Also Rabanan would agree to this reasoning, if they held that bees harm mustard. However, they hold that bees do not harm mustard. Therefore, the owner of the mustard must distance.

We can explain like this conclusion the beginning of the Sugya, according to the Makshan, who asked about "if he may not be Somech, how do we find this?"

Granted, if he may be Somech, they argue like we conclude now.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi, who explained that they argue as follows. According to Rabanan, bees are like vegetables. Since he was Somech b'Heter, even though also they harm mustard when it comes [nearby, the owner of the mustard must distance himself];

R. Yosi permits to be Somech mustard, because the owner of the bees did slightly improperly.

Implied question: We should have asked this below, in its place (the Mishnah 25a)!

Answer: Rather, because we needed to explain here that R. Yosi holds that the damager must distance himself, we resolved the entire matter here.

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): "A buyer" means one who bought a soaking pit, and we claim for a buyer (that the seller had bought rights to be Somech it).

Rejection: We cannot says so here, for if so, why must he distance when vegetables come [nearby]? We claim for him that the seller had bought rights to be Somech!

Explanation #2: Rather, we must explain a buyer like Rashi or Rivam (one man made the Bor and planted the tree, and sold the Bor or tree). The Ri explained the entire Sugya like this, according to Rashi.

Question #1 (Ri): Why did we need to made a difficult distinction between one who buys a tree, and one who buys a soaking ditch?

Question #2: Why did we wait to bring this Mishnah of soaking and vegetables last? It is earlier in our Mishnah [25a, than the Mishnayos of distancing trees (25b, 26a)], which we asked from above!

Question #3: The Tosefta (1:9) teaches "R. Yosi permits regarding mustard. He says to him "just like you did in your property, I do in mine";

This connotes that the owner of the bees was Somech first!

Explanation #3 (R. Tam and R. Chananel): The text says "rather, Ravina said 'Rabanan hold that the damager must distance himself'";

Now we retract from all of the answers above. Surely, in all of them Rava agrees that when there is no wall or vegetables, he may be Somech;

This is because Rabanan hold that the damager must distance himself, i.e. when there is something that will be damaged;

When nothing will be damaged, one who is Somech is not called a damager, and Rava does not forbid to be Somech, even according to Rabanan;

The only exception is Bor, for the reason that every pounding insertion of the shovel softens my land. Therefore, one who is Somech is considered a damager, even if [his neighbor] has no Bor.

Consequence: Since also Rabanan permit to be Somech, we understand their argument, like I explained above according to Abaye. Therefore, he retracted and does not explain that we discuss a buyer, and the owner of the bees was Somech first;

This is because if so, R. Yosi would not permit the owner of the mustard to be Somech, since the owner of the bees did not do improperly at all;

Only when he was Somech not in the case of a buyer, when the owner of the bees did somewhat improperly, R. Yosi permits the owner of the mustard to be Somech, like I explained above.

Support #1: According to this, it is fine that in this conclusion, we need not distinguish between one who bought a tree or soaking ditch.

Support #2: Therefore, [the Makshan] waited to bring the Mishnah of soaking, because due to it, it was necessary to retract from all of the answers above.

Support #3: It is fine that we discuss also when the owner of the bees was Somech first, like is proven in the Tosefta.