MUST THE DAMAGER DISTANCE HIMSELF?
(Mishnah): A laundry ditch ...
Version #1 (Rav Nachman): Three Tefachim suffice only for the ditch in which the laundry is soaked. The ditch in which one rubs the clothes must be distanced four Amos.
Support (Beraisa): A laundry ditch must be distanced four Amos.
Contradiction (Mishnah): It must be distanced three Tefachim.
Answer: The Mishnah and Beraisa discuss different types of laundry ditches, like Rav Nachman taught.
Version #2 - Question: The Mishnah says that a laundry ditch must be distanced three Tefachim;
Contradiction (Beraisa): A laundry ditch must be distanced four Amos.
Answer (Rav Nachman): Three Tefachim suffices for the ditch in which the laundry is soaked. The ditch in which one rubs the clothes must be distanced four Amos. (end of Version #2)
(R. Chiya, son of Rav Avya): The text of the Mishnah explicitly says that he must distance the edge of the soaking ditch three Tefachim from the wall.
(Mishnah): V'Sad (and he plasters the wall of the pit).
Question: Does this mean 'and he plasters', or 'or he plasters'?
Answer #1: Clearly, it must be 'and'. If not, the Reisha (one who digs a pit, irrigation channel... must distance v'Sad) would have been taught together with the Seifa (one must distance the refuse of olives, manure... or apply plaster)! (Tosfos 17a - the text in both clauses must be v'Sad. If not, surely the Tana said v'Sad only in the Reisha, for only in the Reisha both (distance and plaster) are required! The Gemara knows that the damagers in the Seifa are not so potent to require both.)
Rejection: Even though also in the Reisha, either suffices, the Tana teaches separately damage from water, and damage from heat.
Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): In land in which the dirt is brittle, each neighbor may dig (a pit) in his own property, but must distance himself three Tefachim and plaster it.
Inference: He must distance and plaster only because the dirt is brittle!
Rejection: No. Even if the dirt is not brittle, he must distance and plaster.
The Beraisa taught the case of brittle dirt, for one might have thought that more than three Tefachim are required. It teaches that this is not so.
DAMAGE DUE TO HEAT
(Mishnah): One must distance the refuse of olives, manure, salt, lime, and rocks ...
(Mishnah): We may not do Hatmanah (wrap food to keep it warm on Shabbos) in refuse of olives, manure, salt, lime, or sand, whether they are wet or dry.
Question: Why does our Mishnah teach about rocks but not about sand, and the other Mishnah teaches about sand, but not about rocks?
Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): The Mishnah of Hatmanah does not teach about rocks, for people do not normally do Hatmanah in rocks.
Objection (Abaye): It is not normal to do Hatmanah in tufts of wool, or strips of purple wool, but a Beraisa teaches these!
(Beraisa): We may do Hatmanah in tufts of wool, or pieces of combed wool, or in strips of purple wool, and in soft wads, but we may not move them (on Shabbos).
Answer #2 (Abaye): The two Mishnayos reveal about each other.
Our Mishnah teaches about rocks. The same law applies to sand;
That Mishnah teaches about sand. The same law applies to rocks.
Objection (Rava): If so, why were the other things listed in both Mishnayos? Each should have been taught only in one, and we would know that it applies to the other, also!
Answer #3 (Rava): That Mishnah does not teach about rocks for they would make the pots rust or break (so they are never used for Hatmanah).
Sand is not taught in our Mishnah, for it heats only what is hot, but cools what is cold. (Therefore, it does not harm walls, which are cold.)
Objection: R. Oshiya taught that sand must be distanced from a wall!
Answer: That refers to wet sand.
Question: Our Tana should teach the case of wet sand!
Answer: He already taught the case of an irrigation channel (which damages like wet sand).
Question: He taught both an irrigation channel and a laundry ditch!
Answer: It was necessary to teach both of those.
Had he taught only an irrigation channel, one might have thought that this is because it is constantly used, but a laundry ditch need not be distanced!
If only a laundry ditch was taught one might have thought that this is because its water is stagnant (and damages more), but an irrigation channel need not be distanced!
DAMAGE DUE TO VEGETATION
(Mishnah): He cannot plant seeds or plow (unless he distances ...).
Question: The Mishnah obligates distancing plowing. Why must it also teach that he must distance his plants?
Answer: One can sow seeds by hand, without plowing.
Question: The Mishnah obligates distancing seeds. Why must it also teach that he must distance his plowing? (Things grow only where he seeds!)
Answer: He may want to plow to improve his trees (which were properly planted long ago).
Question: Why must the Mishnah teach that he must distance his plants? We know that he cannot bring water close to the wall!
Answer: The Tana is in Eretz Yisrael, where the rain suffices for the plants.
Suggestion: He must distance plants because roots do not grow straight down, rather to the sides.
Question (Mishnah): If one plants the top of a growing vine into the ground, if it is less than three Tefachim deep, he may not plants seeds on top of it (because the area is considered a vineyard);
(Beraisa): He may plant seeds to the sides.
Answer: (Really, the roots grow straight down.) Plants must be distanced because they cause the surrounding dirt to soften.
(Mishnah): He must distance urine three Tefachim from his neighbor's wall...
(Rabah bar bar Chanah): One may urinate near his neighbor's wall. It says "I will cut off (from the seed of Achav) one that urinates at the wall ..."
Question: Our Mishnah forbids urinating within three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall!
Answer: No, the Mishnah prohibits pouring out urine near the wall.
(Beraisa): One may not urinate within three Tefachim of his neighbor's wall, i.e. a brick wall;
Regarding a stone wall, it suffices to distance one Tefach, for this will not harm the wall;
If the stone wall is built on a rock, one need not distance himself at all.
Rabah bar bar Chanah is refuted.
Question: He brought a verse as support!
Answer: The prophecy was that there will not remain to Achav's house even what normally urinates at the wall, namely, a dog.
BARRIERS THAT SHIELD FROM TUM'AH
(We know that Tum'ah passes from one room to another if the wall between them has an opening of a square Tefach.)
(Shmuel): When measuring the size of the opening, if there is a thin wafer in the hole there, the space it occupies is considered part of the opening.
Question: Even a thick loaf does not diminish the gap!
Answer: He teaches a bigger Chidush.
A loaf does not diminish it, since he may want to eat it, so he is not Mevatel it (leave it to be part of the wall);
One might have thought that he is Mevatel a wafer (which gets ruined quickly, so it diminishes the gap). He teaches that this is not so.
Question: We already know that it cannot shield from Tum'ah, since it itself can become Tamei!
Answer: The wafer was kneaded with fruit juice (none of the seven liquids that enable food to receive Tum'ah ever touched the flour, so the wafer cannot become Tamei).
Question (Mishnah): If a box full of straw or a jug full of dried figs is in a window, and the straw or figs could stand there even if the box or jug was removed, the straw or figs block Tum'ah from passing through the opening. If they cannot stand by themselves, they do not block Tum'ah.
Even though straw is fit for an animal (to eat, so he will not be Mevatel it), it blocks Tum'ah!
Answer: The case is, the straw is spoiled.
Question: Still, it is fit for making mud!
Answer: The case is, there are thorns in it (so it is not fitting).
Question: It is fitting to burn!
Answer: The Mishnah discusses wet straw.
Question: It is fitting to burn in a big fire!
Answer: Big fires are uncommon (so he is Mevatel it).
Question: Even though dried figs are fit to eat, they block Tum'ah!
Answer (Shmuel and Rabah bar Avuha): The case is, they are wormy.